1 Thursday, 22 June 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The witness entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.41 a.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.

6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

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

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

10 We had a few procedural matters pending since yesterday. Two were

11 pending, put perhaps it's better to first see whether we have now finished

12 the examination of Mr. Krajisnik. There were a few matters which are at

13 this moment verified, that is the verification of the translation of the

14 day before yesterday, where Mr. Krajisnik said: That's not what I said,

15 when he said: I didn't know the name, et cetera, et cetera. That is on

16 its way to being verified on the basis of the audio. I do not have the

17 results of that yet, but I'd like to consider Mr. Krajisnik still a

18 witness until that has been --

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I checked it.

20 JUDGE ORIE: You checked it. Well, if you have anything to say

21 about it, if you say: Well, I said this or I said that, of course, we'll

22 verify it as well. But if you have any results to report, then you're

23 free to do so, Mr. Krajisnik.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Last night I checked the video in

25 relation to Mr. Kozic, so I can tell you the whole truth that I

1 established, if you're interested.

2 JUDGE ORIE: No, I'm mainly interested in what you said at that

3 time, because I take it that you verified what you said in this court that

4 you didn't know the name, that the person was not identified. Was that --

5 was that different from what was put to you yesterday or what was put to

6 you in the questions -- and there were two references to whether you were

7 aware of the name of the person involved, were these correct quotes or is

8 there any problem with that?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for the quote, whether I said

10 whether I knew about Mr. Kozic, it is correct that I then said that I did

11 not know that it concerned Kozic. As for the second part of the quote,

12 that is not correct.

13 JUDGE ORIE: And the second part, I'm just looking whether I can

14 find it. I think it was your testimony of the 20th of June - is that

15 correct? - the day before yesterday? Or am I wrong?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yesterday.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Well -- yes -- no, but the first -- your answers to

18 the question of Judge Hanoteau were on the -- was not yesterday, was it?

19 MR. HARMON: The day before yesterday I believe.

20 JUDGE ORIE: The day before yesterday.

21 I'm trying to look at -- I'm searching for Kozic on the 20th of

22 June and it doesn't give any result, which surprises me. But perhaps

23 there's a wrong spelling.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 7th of June, that's when I was

25 answering the questions put by Judge Hanoteau, the 6th and the 7th. I

1 listened to that last night. That's what you said to me yesterday.

2 JUDGE ORIE: I'll have a look.

3 MR. HARMON: Your Honour.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

5 MR. HARMON: I may be able to assist.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you could.

7 MR. HARMON: I believe.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

9 MR. HARMON: I'll just look at my notes here for a minute. I

10 believe Judge Hanoteau's questions were on the 20th of June.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

12 MR. HARMON: And they started at 14:56:31, which was --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the problem is I've got pages in my LiveNote --

14 MR. HARMON: 15 was the page number, at least according to --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'll have to calculate because it starts at

16 26.000, so it should then be 44. Yes. I think I found that.

17 MR. HARMON: And the other reference is -- to Mr. Kozic occurred I

18 think on the 7th of June in questioning that I -- questions I put to

19 Mr. Krajisnik.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the 20th of June, well I didn't

22 watch that, I didn't watch that recording. I only watched the 7th and the

23 6th.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me just have a look.

25 Yes, I think on the 20th of June it was mainly about the procedure

1 that should have been followed, who was -- would have to report to whom.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't view that. I'll review it

3 this afternoon, but it was also part of the procedure on the 7th of June.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm now opening the 7th of June, and there --

5 could you give me one or two words that would help me searching because

6 perhaps Kozic is --

7 MR. HARMON: Kozic should be sufficient, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But I'm a bit concerned that the ...

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Immunity, immunity that was being

10 removed in the Assembly. That's what I said, and that the government

11 should take measures.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I'll try to find "immunity." There's

13 something with the search engine which is not -- yes. It was about

14 your -- yes. I yesterday said that approximately 10 per cent, it was on

15 the 7th. Yes. Then --

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have the text written out here,

17 what I said.

18 JUDGE ORIE: I've got it in front of me. You said, and that was

19 part of the question put to you by Judge Hanoteau. You said: "There was

20 no discussion about this, and this person was not identified as Kozic.

21 Now I see it's Kozic -- well, probably it was. I don't know about this."

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Right, that's what I said. That's

23 what I said. That is the way I put it.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And there was another reference that was -- let

25 me just have a look.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Before that there is some

2 references. The Judge or -- rather, no, the Prosecutor asked me.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes. And you said: "Well, I'm telling you we

4 had a session of the Assembly and then deputies in the corridors started

5 discussing this. You Serbs are arming yourselves, and I didn't hear of

6 any investigation or criminal charge or arrest or anything. I heard of

7 nothing, and I didn't even know it was Kozic."

8 That was the other reference to your knowledge on whether it

9 involved Mr. Kozic.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Before that, too. I can tell you

11 the sentence that I then uttered.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I have two now. If you want to add one about

13 your knowledge of Mr. Kozic, please feel free to do so.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Everything that you said now is

15 correct; however, the first reference was when I was asked by the

16 Prosecutor: Tell us what are the two cases that you know of? And I said

17 I didn't know anything about this -- oh, sorry, just a moment, please.

18 One case in Bileca was being mentioned, and I know that a deputy was being

19 mentioned. That's the first thing that I said. But really, after that I

20 said that at that time that person was not identified as Kozic. Yesterday

21 I said that it was only natural that I knew it was Kozic because I

22 thought -- well, I mean, those two things do not coincide. He showed me

23 that document from the newspapers, and as for the document I said that I

24 did not know whether I read it, I mean whether I read the newspaper

25 article because I was so resigned then. Maybe I read it. Maybe I read it

1 and I thought that it wasn't correct.

2 Also, what was said yesterday was not correct, that I had said

3 that one has to go to the Assembly and that then the Assembly should refer

4 this to the Office of the Prosecutor, as far as I understood it. I said

5 that one had to go to the Assembly in order to remove a deputy's immunity;

6 now that is correct. It's not for the Assembly to send this further on to

7 the prosecutor's office so that the prosecutor would bring charges. I

8 really do not recall the article that was shown to me yesterday, here,

9 Karadzic. I don't remember that and I don't remember any contact with

10 Kozic as far as this Bileca is concerned. Well, this is correct, that I

11 said that at that time Kozic had not been identified.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you are not contesting in this moment what

13 is in the transcript of the 7th of June, but you're contesting --

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not, I'm not contesting that I

15 said then that Kozic had not been identified then. Actually, that's what

16 I thought, but I did say that there was this case in Bileca and I

17 myself brought it up here.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you say whether the interview -- the

19 interview, as published, correctly reflects your words. That is something

20 you are contesting. Is that a correct understanding?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I'm not contesting it, but I

22 don't know. Now, did he perhaps interpret this? Did he ask me whether I

23 knew about Kozic and did I give this kind of answer? I don't know whether

24 it's correct. I cannot say it's incorrect, but my position regarding

25 paramilitary formations and the rest is exactly that way. I'm not

1 challenging Karadzic's interview either, but I cannot recall. I've

2 already said that, that I do not recall having read that.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Now yesterday you referred a couple of times

4 to material you gave us because I was wondering whether an Assembly -- BiH

5 Assembly meeting took place in late May 1991. Overnight I tried to find

6 it, but I didn't find it. Then I thought it might be in the material that

7 you've provided to us. Yes. Could you tell us -- most important for me

8 at this moment is what is the date of that Assembly meeting?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I found this yesterday. The

10 date is not the 24th, but rather the 21st and the 22nd of January -- no,

11 May. Now, why I linked it to that Assembly I really don't know. I just

12 linked it to the fact that I learned about it in relation to the Assembly,

13 but the Assembly was on the 21st and 22nd of May. Now, did somebody talk

14 about it later on, that can be checked, too.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Because your testimony was that you learned about

16 it --

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

18 JUDGE ORIE: -- when the Assemblymen were discussing rumours in

19 the corridors, so no official report. I see now that there was an

20 Assembly session at the 21st of May, which was prior to the incident, so

21 it could not have been then that they discussed these rumours. Then there

22 was one on the --

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It could have been later --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik -- Mr. Krajisnik, let's go one by one.

25 Then the next one was on the 22nd of May, and that was also prior to the

1 incident, so they could not have discussed that at that moment. And then

2 the next one was on the 12th of June, which was not only after the

3 incident but well after the interviews as well, isn't it?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you are right on everything. I

5 can just give an interpretation. I certainly learned that around the

6 Assembly or say after the Assembly, but I don't know. I had -- I know

7 that it had to do with the Assembly. It wasn't on the 24th. I see that

8 it was not then, but it had to do with the Assembly session.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So chronologically the event takes place, and

10 interview was published in which it is reported - right or wrong - that

11 you knew about the name, that you were reported to have said that you had

12 a personal -- personal conversation with Mr. Kozic. And only some two

13 weeks after that, the first Assembly session, which would have allowed for

14 the kind of rumours discussed in the corridors, as you described, could

15 have been at least in the context of an Assembly session. That having

16 been clarified --

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I said exactly that I

18 had heard during the course of the Assembly, in the corridors, about this

19 case. The Assembly was not held on the 24th. The only -- well, I said

20 that I heard about it from the Muslim deputies. The only explanation I

21 can give is that part of the deputies were there, later -- somebody must

22 have told me about it, but I know it was around the Assembly. It could

23 not have been apart from the Assembly. Perhaps that's the reason that

24 problem was not at the Assembly session itself. I don't know. I didn't

25 know when the Assembly was held -- I mean, I said indeed that it was

1 during the course of the Assembly. Because sometimes deputies would stay

2 on at some session of the other Chamber or some commission or whatever, I

3 don't know. I said that I heard about it from the Muslim deputies.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You clearly said not only that they discussed

5 it, but also that that was the moment you learned about it. I remind you

6 to your answer on the 7th of June, after we had some exchange on whether

7 it was an extra-parliamentary discussion. You said: "At that Assembly,

8 that is to say in this environment, I heard about this, that the MPs

9 amongst themselves were mentioning this case, and that is when I learned

10 of it."

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what I said.

12 JUDGE ORIE: At least there was no Assembly session between the

13 event itself and the interview that was published, and I think even

14 Mr. Karadzic's interview was prior to the 12th of June. Okay. This

15 matter has been sufficiently clarified, unless there is any questions the

16 parties would like to put to Mr. Krajisnik in this respect.

17 Then, Mr. Krajisnik, I promised you that you would have an

18 opportunity -- yes, Mr. Tieger.

19 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, as indicated yesterday, I had a few

20 matters to raise in connection with the Court's questions.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes.

22 MR. TIEGER: I didn't know if the Court was moving on.

23 JUDGE ORIE: I'm again ignoring -- that's -- Mr. Tieger,

24 apologies. Please proceed.

25 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

1 WITNESS: MOMCILO KRAJISNIK [Resumed]

2 [Witness answered through interpreter]

3 Further cross-examination by Mr. Tieger:

4 Q. Good morning, Mr. Krajisnik.

5 A. Good morning.

6 Q. I have a few matters to raise in connection with some of the

7 questions raised by the Bench. I expect that this will be brief. First

8 of all, Mr. Krajisnik, on Friday Judge Hanoteau asked you in connection

9 with the issue of international allegations and information generally

10 about prisoners and camps whether you, as president of the Assembly, could

11 have undertaken an initiative in connection with those matters. And in

12 that regard I'd like to turn to the Assembly Rules of Procedure which

13 were -- which are in evidence as P64, P65 Treanor 9, tab 97, and if those

14 could be distributed very quickly.

15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

16 MR. TIEGER:

17 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, I'm sure you're familiar with these Rules of

18 Procedure. Beginning at page 6 of the English and starting with article

19 55 of those rules, it provides for the establishment and operation of

20 certain committees of the Assembly. If we turn to article 66, that

21 reflects the committee for internal policy, the judiciary, and the

22 administration. And -- although it's a relatively lengthy article

23 compared to some of the others, it's not that long. And that committee

24 exists, according to the rules, to discuss issues, including the

25 organisation and work of the government, state administration and internal

1 affairs, organisation and work of the courts, penal policy, court

2 procedure, amnesty and pardon, further on down, attainment of equality of

3 peoples and nationalities, and the freedoms, rights, and duties of man and

4 citizens.

5 And in connection with that, if we could also turn quickly to

6 article 26, which provides that the president of the Assembly shall, among

7 other things, submit an initiative for the debate on certain issues under

8 the Assembly's jurisdiction, the president of the Assembly may also

9 initiate debate on certain issues in the working bodies of the Assembly.

10 Now, Mr. Krajisnik, in light of the breadth of the

11 responsibilities of the committee for internal policy, the judiciary, and

12 administration and the powers and responsibilities of the president of the

13 Assembly in connection with the working bodies of the Assembly, it appears

14 that the -- that you, as president of the Assembly, would have been in a

15 position to undertake an initiative in connection with the allegations,

16 information, charges, rumours about prisoners and camps. Is that correct,

17 sir?

18 A. In part, yes, but not in the sense that you mean. And this

19 commission is not in charge of the things that you understand it to be in

20 charge of. It only discusses material within the scope of its own work

21 and prepares material for sessions of the Assembly, although commissions

22 did not really work properly, they were established at a later date.

23 Q. Well, of course it's a little difficult for me to know exactly

24 what your understanding of the sense that I mean this. So let me clarify

25 it slightly. It -- this -- these provisions would place you -- would have

1 placed you in a position at that time to undertake an initiative within

2 the Assembly to determine whether the -- there was -- whether there was

3 any basis for the charges of the international community concerning the

4 arbitrary detention, maltreatment, and expulsion of non-Serbs and other

5 aspects related --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart.

7 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, the problem with this line of

8 questioning - and that explains to some extent the apparent difficulties

9 on Mr. Krajisnik's part in grappling specifically and precisely with the

10 question - is that there's been a leap from the -- simply the wording of

11 the rules containing an indication as to the circumstances in which the

12 president of the Assembly may initiate these steps and the scope of the

13 matters in question on which that might actually be done. And that's

14 buried in Mr. Tieger's question.

15 MR. TIEGER: It's not --

16 MR. STEWART: He needs -- with respect, he needs to deal

17 specifically with Mr. Krajisnik with those intermediate steps.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Are you referring to the second question or the first

19 one?

20 MR. STEWART: Well, the problem is the problem was buried there in

21 the first question but it hasn't been resolved. What's happening is that

22 difficulty with the first question -- and I waited to see whether that was

23 actually causing any difficulty for Mr. Krajisnik in grappling with it,

24 and in my submission it is apparent that it is, that leap which was made

25 in this first question of this line of questioning is causing problems and

1 it needs to be resolved.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.

3 MR. TIEGER: I -- Your Honour, with respect, I don't think there's

4 any confusion at all. I put to Mr. Krajisnik that these provisions would

5 have placed him in a position to undertake those steps. He said: Well,

6 not in the sense you meant. I said: Well, here's the sense that that was

7 meant, and he's in a position to answer that question.

8 JUDGE ORIE: The question then was whether article -- I take it

9 that you're referring to article 66? Whether article 66 would put you in

10 a position to undertake an initiative in connection with the allegations

11 Mr. Tieger mentioned. If you could please answer that question without

12 referring to anything else than the text of that question so that we are

13 not responding to a possible understanding of what Mr. Tieger meant.

14 Let's just focus on what he said.

15 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, is it not article 26 rather than

16 article 66? Otherwise I think we may fall into confusion.

17 MR. TIEGER: It's a combination, Your Honour. Article 66 is

18 the -- provides for the work of that particular committee; article 26

19 talks about the responsibilities and powers of the president in connection

20 with --

21 MR. STEWART: That's absolutely right, Your Honour, but the -- it

22 leads through -- article 26 is -- it's the -- if you like, it's the key

23 provision but tied in with 66 in relation to Mr. Krajisnik.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I should have been more precise and I should

25 have referred to both.

1 So whether on the basis of articles 26 considered also in relation

2 to article 66, whether you were put in a position to take initiatives in

3 connection with the allegations, information, charges, rumours, whatever

4 about prisoners and camps. Could you please answer that question without

5 interpreting what Mr. Tieger said else than what he literally said.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for article 26, I could have put

7 any question on the agenda and I could have started any initiative. Not

8 66, though, but only 26.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

10 Mr. Tieger, please proceed.

11 MR. TIEGER: Okay.

12 Q. Yesterday, Mr. Krajisnik, His Honour Judge Orie inquired

13 concerning Novi Privrednik and in that connection --

14 A. No, no, sorry, let me explain this. It's very dangerous if I say

15 that to you now and you say: All right, that's done.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik --

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mean the question is not fair

18 then.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, you may add whatever you think --

20 unless you say it's important now to add anything to what you said, you

21 said: I could have put any question on the agenda, I could have started

22 any initiative, that's a clear answer to that question. But if you think

23 you should add something to that -- without giving a long story --

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what I want.

25 JUDGE ORIE: -- about -- so if you want to add --

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please, Mr. President, you keep

2 giving me lectures every time. You've seen yesterday how difficult it is

3 to answer questions. You don't have to instruct me three times. I do

4 understand and I'm defending myself. That's not fair --

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, I'll instruct you whenever the

6 Chamber -- and I always discuss this with my colleagues. I instruct you

7 whenever the Chamber thinks it -- such instruction is needed.

8 Please proceed --

9 MR. STEWART: Your Honour.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

11 MR. STEWART: May I say, Your Honour --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

13 MR. STEWART: Straight away and --

14 JUDGE ORIE: And apart from that I would like to add one thing

15 first.

16 Mr. Krajisnik, the Chamber does understand that you are defending

17 yourself if you are an accused, but at the same time you are a witness in

18 which your duty to answer to questions is the primary duty, and of course

19 the Chamber is not blind and is not deaf for the situation that being an

20 accused -- that as a witness you would like to add matters, perhaps

21 beyond -- that's very tempting, beyond what is specifically asked of you.

22 But again, you'll have an opportunity to add anything to the last question

23 put to you.

24 Mr. Stewart -- one second --

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's what I would like to add.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But, Mr. Stewart intervened at that moment,

2 to -- so --

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The problem lies in the fact that --

4 please, forgive me. If I can have one minute, please --

5 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I would like Mr. Krajisnik -- I would

6 like to speak on Mr. Krajisnik's behalf for a moment and ask Mr.

7 Krajisnik's permission to take immediate precedence over him for a minute

8 or two to speak on his behalf. It's this, Your Honour, and we -- I want

9 Mr. Krajisnik to understand it, we appreciate that in the last two or

10 three minutes Your Honour has very properly and very helpfully been

11 seeking to protect Mr. Krajisnik and to be alert to his interests, and we

12 thank you for that, Your Honour. We understand that what you said a few

13 minutes ago was doing precisely that and I would like Mr. Krajisnik to

14 appreciate that his counsel consider and submit that that is precisely

15 what Your Honour was doing, which we naturally support.

16 In relation to this line of questioning, where we were left -- and

17 we slightly understand -- I hope we're not misreading Your Honour's mind.

18 It's part of our job to read Your Honour's mind. We slightly understand

19 what's happened is Mr. Krajisnik has confirmed at the end of that line of

20 questioning that jurisdictionally under the rules he had a very, very

21 wide --

22 JUDGE ORIE: Just --

23 MR. STEWART: May I finish, Your Honour?

24 JUDGE ORIE: I wanted as a matter of fact to give an opportunity -

25 I hope that's clear - to add whatever he would like to add to his

1 confirming answer that under Rule 26 he would have the power to do so, but

2 he wanted to add something. I was about to give him an opportunity to do

3 that. If that's what you are seeking, that I would do, then you know if

4 you would like to add anything --

5 MR. STEWART: I would, Your Honour, I'm a hundred per cent with

6 Your Honour. So I would like to finish, please, a simple thing very much

7 in support of what Your Honour is saying just to ensure there's no

8 confusion.

9 Mr. Krajisnik has confirmed that jurisdictionally under the rules,

10 basically, he said: Well, I could do pretty much anything I wanted. But

11 then it's been left in the air as Mr. Tieger moves on to another area of

12 questioning. What's been left in the air is the essential substance of

13 the question which is well, actually, in those circumstances, in practice,

14 that situation --

15 JUDGE ORIE: What you're doing now is suggesting what

16 Mr. Krajisnik could have added. He could have want to add that he always

17 confused article 26 with article 16 or he could -- whatever he could have

18 said. I wanted to give him an opportunity to add whatever he wanted to

19 add to that answer. It could be the things you are suggesting at this

20 moment but it could --

21 MR. STEWART: I'm not suggesting the answer, Your Honour. I

22 don't understand why Your Honour is adopting this attitude towards me,

23 Your Honour, since I've made it perfectly clear that we are at agreement

24 on this.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Because you're telling the Court what in your view is

1 incomplete in the answer what area is still not covered by the answer, and

2 it could be anything.

3 Mr. Krajisnik, you have an opportunity to add whatever you said

4 when you said: Under 26 I could have taken any initiative. What would

5 you like to add?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I launched hundreds

7 of initiatives wherever it was appropriate. This particular article has

8 been misinterpreted. Before that on the Presidency meetings where I was

9 present, dozens of times material was given to the government on prisons

10 and then it was forwarded to the parliament. A commission, which is only

11 in charge of discussing material that had already been prepared is not

12 well-placed or authorised to go out into the field to ascertain matters.

13 That's within the purview of the government, office of the prosecutor, and

14 other organs and the internal affairs. If there was a prison that was

15 established and this was found out and it was placed on the agenda, I

16 don't know what else I could have done.

17 On the 11th of August Marinko Kontic said: We want to discuss

18 prisons. I said - and this is something the Prosecution mentioned as

19 their charge, saying that Krajisnik did not allow a debate on that to go

20 on. I told them: We have a session the following day. Let's prepare

21 material. We don't want to talk without having any material. But they

22 didn't prepare the material before the 20th of August. You can't discuss

23 matters at a meeting without have the necessary material. How can I

24 discuss matters or launch an initiative if I don't have arguments in my

25 hand? And that's the gist of the problem, that's the heart of the

1 problem. I know exactly why this happened. Some matters were left

2 unfinished in order for others to refer to that as an example of me not

3 having done anything. And I did take steps to bring matters to a close,

4 to achieve the end we wanted to achieve.

5 There were other issues that I cannot possibly now talk about in

6 one day. I wanted to tell you the whole truth, even if I were not accused

7 I would be telling the truth. I launched an initiative, it was debated at

8 the Presidency meeting, it was debated at the Ministry of the Interior,

9 and what else could I have done? I mean, we could have had an initiative

10 before us within the parliament, but then what would we have done with it?

11 I would appeal to you to allow me to answer the questions fully to clear

12 up matters because it's otherwise not fair to leave it unfinished.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Krajisnik, of course we'll give you an

14 opportunity to answer the questions. We would not give you an opportunity

15 always to elaborate on whatever is, at least in your view, linked to the

16 question, even if it's just a remote link.

17 Judge Hanoteau has a question for you.

18 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. Krajisnik, I would not like

19 to delve on this subject much longer because we've talked about it in

20 length, but I would like to ask you a very, very simple question, and the

21 question is as follows. Since there is rule 26, since it exists, and

22 since you heard rumours, was it possible for you to tell the Assemblymen,

23 without having prepared a report or anything like that: I heard rumours

24 on arming, on detention camps, on what may happen inside those camps, and

25 I would like to discuss those rumours. Were you able to do this, yes or

1 no?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

3 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] That's it. Thank you. Thank you

4 very much.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Without material, no. Not a single

6 issue could have been discussed without material.

7 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.

9 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 Q. Yesterday, Mr. Krajisnik, His Honour Judge Orie asked you about

11 Novi Privrednik?

12 MR. TIEGER: In that regard if I could have distributed and marked

13 the next item.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 MR. TIEGER: Your Honours, this is a -- an article from Solobodna

16 Bosna dated 28 November 1998, and we'll need a number.

17 THE REGISTRAR: That will be, Your Honours, P1261.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

19 MR. JOSSE: If there's another one, could we have it over here,

20 please, if you've got another copy.

21 MR. TIEGER:

22 Q. At page 5 of the English at the bottom, that is the last question

23 and answer, and at page 00682616, the -- at the far left, the second

24 question entitled "how much money did you give to the SDS?" Mr. Dukic

25 stated the following, and I should indicate in addition that this is an

1 interview with Rajko Dukic that appeared in Slobodna Bosna.

2 And Mr. Dukic indicates that the giving money didn't work that

3 way. Boksit as a company did not pay even half a dinar through its

4 accounts to anybody. Our role was different. We had a representative

5 office in Sarajevo in the Holiday Inn. Mirko Krajisnik was the head of

6 that office. We had lots of business in Kakanj. Some of our machines

7 were left there, et cetera.

8 Then: "We formed two companies for the party at the time,

9 Privrednik and Javnost. I took part with Miroslav Dahoja [phoen] and

10 Dusko Kozic in founding Javnost. We acquired kiosks from donations and

11 also equipment. Through Privrednik we carried out activities in the line

12 with the firm's nature, such as in trade and fuel, and made a 3 per cent

13 margin from which we financed the party. The party did not need too much

14 money at that time."

15 And there in a retrospective account of the purposes and

16 activities of Privrednik, Mr. Dukic indicates its -- in part its

17 activities and role and some of the participants. Is that correct,

18 Mr. Krajisnik?

19 A. Can you tell me -- I've read that particular passage. Is that

20 what you're referring to? Are you asking me to comment on what you've

21 just read out?

22 Q. Yeah, is that an accurate assessment by Mr. Dukic about the

23 establishment of Privrednik and -- at least insofar as he describes it,

24 its activities and role and participants?

25 A. Mirko Krajisnik was, between November and March, a representative

1 of Boksit at Holiday Inn; that much is true. Before that he worked at

2 Unioninvest. The two of them arranged this on their own. It is also true

3 that Javnost existed and was established in the early says of the Serb

4 Democratic Party in 1990, but its business was to publish a paper and they

5 had kiosk. I'm not really privy to their business. Privrednik was not

6 involved in this business in the 3 per cent and all that. As far as I was

7 able to see that paper, Boksit signed and it was -- fuel was obtained

8 through Boksit because that's where the office was at Holiday Inn, and the

9 office there was shared by Privrednik and Boksit. Science Rajko Dukic was

10 president of the Executive Committee of the SDS, this may have gone

11 through some account, but I know that it was Boksit that was in charge of

12 the business and Boksit gave this small margin of 3 per cent to the SDS.

13 I may have been aware of that before, but it was recently that I

14 saw this contract between Boksit and Mr. Karadzic on the issue of petrol.

15 I think that the transactions went through Boksit and not through

16 Privrednik because Privrednik in fact was operational for a month or two,

17 I don't remember. It didn't even have its administration. I'm not even

18 sure that it had a manager, but they had a transfer account. I know that

19 much.

20 The purpose of Privrednik's existence was probably to assist the

21 SDS, but I don't think that Privrednik took any part in this.

22 Q. Yesterday, Mr. Krajisnik, there was discussion about the selection

23 of judges, and in particular the issue of the nomination of judges who

24 were non-Serb. You pointed to some remarks by Mr. Karadzic concerning a

25 certain percentage of nominees who were non-Serb and the awareness by

1 Mr. -- by Dr. Karadzic and yourself, among others, that it was politically

2 damaging in connection with relations with the international community to

3 have a completely mono-ethnic structure. Now, in connection with the

4 percentage -- and I should point out, too, that was a discussion that

5 appeared to focus in -- to a large extent on the 19th Session of the

6 Bosnian Serb Assembly, and you went through with Judge Orie a number of

7 portion -- a number of portions of that session.

8 In connection with the percentage non-Serb judges who were at

9 issue in that session, non-Serb judges who were to be considered for the

10 purposes we -- I just indicated, that percentage was 5 per cent, correct?

11 A. I don't know if it was 5 per cent or not, but some percentage was

12 discussed, that's true, and we always discussed it. And I can tell you

13 why we discussed percentages.

14 Q. Why?

15 A. In all negotiations there was discussion about the fact that once

16 the agreement is reached, the make-up in the authorities should reflect

17 the population make-up. Although there was a war on and although it was

18 not really popular to have a Muslim as a judge, this was due to the war.

19 That's why it was a problem. But we discussed that we had to have the

20 exact ethnic make-up because we can't have a democratic state with only

21 Serbs in it, and this had to do with the -- this was some -- this was part

22 of the commitments we took in all the negotiating agreements. I know that

23 there was 23 per cent of Muslims before the war on what is today the

24 Republika Srpska. It doesn't matter whether it was 23 or 25. So this was

25 the percentage that had to be reflected in the government and in all the

1 other structures. This had always been a rule in Bosnia. The only

2 difference would have been that the Serbs would have been in the majority,

3 but this sort of make-up should have been reflected in the authorities.

4 Q. If we could turn quickly to page 13 of the English of the 19th

5 Session and page 12 of the B/C/S, Mr. Krajisnik?

6 MR. TIEGER: If the Court doesn't have the -- I don't know if the

7 Court has the session handy, but I have copies to distribute, if that

8 would be helpful.

9 Q. This is Mr. Popovic talking immediately before the vote taken on

10 judges. I think this portion was looked at yesterday, the voting portion,

11 when you read out everyone's name, surname, father's name, and

12 nationality, but Mr. Popovic spoke immediately before that and he

13 indicated that there were talks with the republic, Ministry of Justice,

14 and an agreement that a per cent of judges of other nationalities proposed

15 for appointment would be 5 per cent.

16 A. I don't know, but if they discussed this, they probably thought

17 that this should be the case because the same was true for the other side.

18 This was more a political issue, but later on the percentage should have

19 reflected the population make-up. This was probably just a political

20 issue here, but not the final solution to the problem because in practice

21 5 per cent would not have worked. The percentage would have to increase.

22 Q. Now, in addition, Mr. Krajisnik, yesterday in connection with the

23 issue of selection of judges you said at one point that the situation had

24 not ripened or matured because the issue of citizenship was not resolved,

25 and I think that occurred at page 12, toward the bottom, at around line

1 23. I wanted to take a brief look at the handling of the citizenship

2 issue to see if we can glean any insights into attitudes or positions

3 toward potential Muslim judges or non-Serbs generally. At the 22nd

4 Session of the Bosnian Serb Assembly held in late November 1992, that

5 issue was raised.

6 MR. TIEGER: And, Your Honours, 22nd Session is contained in tab

7 345. It should have been made available to the Court, and I'll direct the

8 Court and Mr. Krajisnik to the appropriate pages. If we could turn to

9 page 77 of the English at the bottom.

10 Q. And page 9706 of the become, Mr. Krajisnik, quickly moving into

11 9707. And that's Mr. Milojevic speaking. I believe we met him earlier in

12 connection with the discussion of judges. And he's the first speaker as

13 the discussion moves on to item 10 of the agenda, the citizenship bill.

14 We can see that in the -- in your remarks just before Mr. Milojevic

15 speaks. And then turning to page 78 of the English - it should be the

16 bottom of page 9706 or the top of page 9707 - Mr. Milojevic raises two

17 concerns about the citizenship bill. First he notes that it's -- article

18 1 of the constitution stipulates that Republika Srpska is the state of the

19 Serbian people. And then in another place he notes and quotes, "citizens

20 of Republika Srpska shall be granted citizenship of Republika Srpska,

21 which means everybody. I think it should read 'Serbian. '"

22 You then note: "That's a mistake. Feel free to correct it,

23 Professor, so we can move on."

24 Then he goes on to his second point. Second -- and I'll

25 quote. "Second, the citizenship of Republika Srpska shall be acquired,

1 among other things, by birth in the territory of Republika Srpska. This

2 refers to all the Muslims and Croats we expelled. In reality, they are

3 also citizens of Republika Srpska."

4 So at this point -- unquote at the end of the words "Republika

5 Srpska." So Professor Milojevic raises two problems in connection with

6 the proposed citizenship bill. The first is the one stated about whether

7 or not it should read "Serbian," which you address quickly in your

8 comment; and the second is that it would have the contradictory and

9 paradoxical effect of granting citizenship to all those Muslims and Croats

10 who were expelled, and he raises both of those as problems. Correct?

11 A. Yes. He raised both these issues; that's correct.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Perhaps I

13 should have intervened earlier. As I said yesterday, and we are quite

14 limited in our time; we have to stop now. The parties are invited to

15 remain stand-by on from 12.00, and most likely we'll resume close to

16 12.30. Therefore, we'll have a break within these limits.

17 --- Luncheon recess taken at 10.45 a.m.

18 --- Luncheon recess taken at 10.45 a.m.

19 --- On resuming at 12.11 p.m.

20 JUDGE ORIE: We'll resume. The parties may have been wondering

21 why we were so vague about when to resume, et cetera. If I say that this

22 must be a wonderful day for dentists, in the plural, that could give a

23 clue.

24 Mr. Tieger, please proceed.

25 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

1 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, just before we briefly adjourned, I had directed

2 your attention to the remarks of Mr. Milojevic at the 22nd Session

3 concerning citizenship and the -- for your benefit and the benefit of the

4 Court that was -- those were found at page 78 of the English and page 9706

5 and 9707 of the B/C/S.

6 Mr. Krajisnik --

7 A. I've read it last time. Go ahead.

8 Q. As a result of the concerns expressed by Mr. Milojevic, the bill

9 was sent back to the committee for further review, along with the proposal

10 that Mr. Milojevic and Mr. Radovic, I believe, provide assistance in

11 improving the law. Is that correct? And I find that reflected on page 79

12 of the English and that's 9707 through 9708 of the B/C/S.

13 A. I put this in my bag and I can't find it. I'll try -- well, it's

14 not here. Never mind. I cannot find it, but never mind.

15 Q. I can certainly provide you with an additional ...

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. ...

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I found it.

18 MR. TIEGER:

19 Q. Okay. And my question was simply whether or not it's correct that

20 as a result of the concerns expressed by Mr. Milojevic the bill was sent

21 back for further review and improvement.

22 A. That wasn't the main reason. Citizenship of Republika Srpska is

23 something that I understood to be like before the war in Yugoslavia, that

24 is under B, whereas under A you would have what was the former Yugoslav

25 citizenship. That would have the citizenship of Bosnia-Herzegovina had a

1 political settlement been found. So lawyers should have looked into it

2 and found the best possible solution. Although his contribution certainly

3 led to it not being adopted as well as others who were against it.

4 Q. So in connection with the issue of -- or the possibility of Muslim

5 judges, one of the issues involved in that was that there was some

6 question about the conditions under which Muslims would be citizens at

7 all, and therefore qualified to serve as judges?

8 A. Citizenship of Republika Srpska or Serb citizenship was like any

9 republican citizenship, that is to say of a region perhaps, in Western

10 terms. There were different participation in the discussion here. People

11 disagreed, so then it had to go back in order to be brought in a court

12 with various conventions and what have you not, because discussing this

13 kind of thing with a man who's not a lawyer at the Assembly session would

14 certainly be a waste of time. Of course Muslims could be citizens, if I

15 can put it that way, of Republika Srpska if they are from Republika

16 Srpska. Of course. Later on they voted, too. So that is, no doubt,

17 correct. However, it was put differently here.

18 Q. All right --

19 A. You can find the final text that was adopted. Probably it exists

20 somewhere, the text as it was finally adopted.

21 Q. I'm -- in any event, irrespective of the final text that was

22 adopted, it's fair to say that during the time that the selection of -- or

23 the possibility of selecting Muslim judges was being discussed at, for

24 example, the 19th Session, specifically the 19th Session, there was still

25 a question about the conditions in which Muslims or non-Serbs might become

1 citizens of Republika Srpska, and therefore a question about their entitle

2 to serve as judges. I think that's reflected, in fact, in Mr. Milojevic's

3 remarks at the 19th Session at page 15 of the English.

4 A. It is correct that there was a discussion and that there was that

5 problem -- or rather, to resolve another problem. And there was this

6 discussion - how should I put it? - that made the political situation

7 impossible, one that made it impossible to resolve that problem, that is.

8 Although that was unfounded, it is nevertheless true because they were

9 against the Muslims being judges because there was a war going on, on the

10 other side there weren't any Serbs, and so on. That is why they refused

11 to vote.

12 Q. And one final issue I'd like to turn to, Mr. Krajisnik. You were

13 asked -- or during the course of the discussion you had with the Judges

14 about camps and prisoners and, in particular, the widespread dissemination

15 of information about the camps in Prijedor following the entry of the

16 international media into those camps in early August 1992, you made

17 reference to an allegation that the footage of the prison camps in Omarska

18 was in some manner -- I think your words were "stage-managed."

19 A. Yes. That is what I have. That's what it looks like, that people

20 are outside the barbed wire rather than inside. The Defence has it.

21 That's in Trnopolje. And there is a statement of a man who says: We are

22 here voluntarily, we can leave, we can go out, we can come back. All of

23 that is on that cassette. They were recording it, so it seemed that they

24 were behind a wire fence. The Defence should find it and show it to you.

25 That's what I saw here. I didn't see it before or afterwards and the thin

1 man is there, and he is making a statement. You've got it all here.

2 Q. You're making reference, Mr. Krajisnik, to the allegations by a

3 journal called "Living Marxism," and specifically by a journalist called

4 Thomas Deichmann. Correct?

5 A. I have to be quite honest. I do not remember who the journalist

6 was. The best thing would be to have a look at the video cassette, and

7 then you can see who filmed it -- and also there was this criticism

8 against the journalist who was given an award for this false information,

9 as they had put it. I'm telling you what I saw. You can have a look

10 yourself.

11 Q. Well, just three things, Mr. Krajisnik. First of all, those

12 allegations by Deichmann in "Living Marxism" weren't published until 1997,

13 so they had no impact an your consideration in camps in Prijedor or

14 elsewhere in 1992, did they?

15 A. Correct. I got information from people who had been there. I

16 didn't see that footage until I came here, to prison, that footage that

17 criticised this, rather. So I hadn't seen it before.

18 Q. Secondly, setting aside all other evidence relating to camps in

19 Prijedor, including the footage taken by numerous journalists and media

20 outlets, including the United Nations Commission of Experts' reports;

21 including the testimonies of hundreds of witnesses, detainees; including

22 the judgements in several cases that focussed specifically on those camps,

23 including the adjudicated facts. Setting all that aside, you're also

24 aware, aren't you, that the journalist who entered the camps filed a libel

25 suit against Living Marxism for the allegations that that footage was in

1 some manner stage-managed or doctored, and they won a judgement of several

2 hundred thousand dollars because the allegations that the footage was in

3 some manner doctored or stage-managed were found to be untrue and found to

4 be libel.

5 Let me distribute these documents. This is in English,

6 Mr. Krajisnik, but I'll read you the pertinent portions.

7 A. I can just say: Don't bother. I heard the same thing. I heard

8 the same thing, that journalists filed a suit, yes, that's true. I'm just

9 telling you what I saw. I can also tell you the rest that I know about

10 journalists. I haven't read this, but I know -- I heard that allegedly he

11 had been taken to court. The best thing would be to view the footage,

12 actually.

13 JUDGE ORIE: May I just ask at this very moment about Trnopolje

14 because we are talking about Trnopolje -- at least I understand the

15 footage was filmed at Trnopolje. Mr. Tieger, you said: Apart from the

16 hundreds of witnesses, et cetera, et cetera, the adjudicated facts. Would

17 it be of major use at this moment to go into great detail into a footage

18 of which true or false would not -- which, as far as I understand, a

19 footage which was not the main basis of the establishment of facts in

20 other cases where many, many witnesses have been heard. So would this

21 really have such an impact that we'd have to go through it now? Because

22 the Defence is fully aware that if you want to attack adjudicated facts,

23 it should be done thoroughly because it's the result of a -- of taking a

24 lot of evidence.

25 I can imagine that Mr. Krajisnik, being aware of allegations that

1 this footage was not -- was framed, more or less, that he wants to draw

2 our attention to it. But it would not be -- I would say he does this now

3 as a witness. Let's wait and see whether the Defence launches an attack

4 on this, adjudicated facts. I haven't heard anything about it until now.

5 Did -- this, most likely, would be an element in such an attack. It would

6 then have to overcome all the evidence that was taken into consideration

7 by the other Chambers. So I wonder whether it really assists us in going

8 into great detail, even telling us what the outcome is of other court

9 cases. Of course, I see that it's an English court, which of course would

10 be perhaps of importance.

11 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I take the Court's guidance and I have a

12 couple of additional questions related to this topic, but not on -- but

13 that won't implicate -- that won't run afoul of the Court's suggestions in

14 any way.

15 JUDGE ORIE: We've seen -- at least by putting these questions

16 you've drawn the attention of the Defence and the answers have drawn the

17 attention of the Defence to such allegations by the journalist,

18 Mr. Deichmann. Let's see what is done on it.

19 MR. TIEGER: And I'll defer on any -- if I'm seeking any number on

20 that, in light of the Court's guidance.

21 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I just confirm we've been listening

22 attentively to everything that has just said, on the Defence side.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'll retain it, Mr. ...

24 MR. TIEGER:

25 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, the fact is that everyone in the Assembly knew that

1 the treatment of prisoners in the camps in Prijedor and other Bosnian Serb

2 detention facilities was deplorable and that those who left detention did

3 so in a debilitated condition, which required a period of recovery and

4 recuperation after their release.

5 A. Could you just tell me when it is that you thought that the

6 deputies knew about this.

7 Q. Well, let's begin with the -- perhaps a more specific example. We

8 had an opportunity the other day to see the condition of the prisoners who

9 were shipped from Bratunac to Visoko through Pale. And as we could see in

10 the video, the prisoners were battered. Some could scarcely walk, and

11 others could barely sit up. Members of the Assembly by the summer --

12 within a few months of that, at any rate, knew that those prisoners, the

13 ones who had been transported via Pale from Bratunac required some period

14 of recovery, restoration, recuperation as a result of their treatment in

15 confinement.

16 A. No one knew. I didn't know either in what condition these

17 prisoners were in Pale -- if you're talking about Pale. You started

18 talking about Prijedor. You should have told me when you were talking

19 about Prijedor. As for Pale, I didn't know in what conditions they were

20 in and the MPs didn't know either. The MUP drove them off and finished

21 this job within two days. I didn't even know about it. I heard about it

22 then.

23 Q. We'll get back to Prijedor camps in just a moment, but I had

24 mentioned both the detention facilities in Prijedor and elsewhere. Let's

25 turn then, if we can, to the 20th Session of the Bosnian Serb Assembly and

1 look at remarks of Mr. Radic. That was the Assembly held on the 14th and

2 the 15th of September, 1992, found at page 45 of the English and page 47

3 of the B/C/S. Now, on page 45 of the English, Mr. Radic's remarks take up

4 the bottom half of the page, and in approximately the middle of those

5 comments you'll see a reference to 11.500 Serbs in Ilijas and 70.000

6 Muslims in Visoko and Breza and then a reference to 400.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And what Mr. Radic told the Assembly on that occasion was: "The

9 government ordered us to allow passage to 400 Balija to Visoko, where they

10 recuperated and they are now fighting against us."

11 "Where they recuperated," Mr. Krajisnik, wasn't that a reference

12 to their condition following their period of detention, the condition that

13 we had an opportunity to see on that video?

14 A. Well, maybe he said it but the point was that they were sent to

15 the front against them. Those who were that sick should have been taken

16 to hospital rather than to the front line. I do not remember this

17 contribution to the discussion, but I'm just interpreting it now. He was

18 criticising this. We are supposed to release them and then they're

19 sending these same people to fight against us. I don't know what this

20 recovery is supposed to mean. Psychologically? Physically? Were they

21 mistreated? The point is that somebody let them go and implicitly it is

22 being stated that the other would be released, too.

23 Q. It's not the only time that someone's speaking about prisoners who

24 were detained and held in Bosnian Serb detention facilities took for

25 granted that all the members of the Assembly would understand that a

1 period of recovery and recuperation was necessary. So why don't we look

2 next to the comments of Mr. Srdic at the 24th Session of the Assembly held

3 on the 8th of January, 1993.

4 MR. TIEGER: Your Honours, that will be found at page 29 of the

5 English and at page 22 of the B/C/S.

6 Q. There on page 29 Mr. Srdic's remarks take up the first

7 three-quarters of the page at approximately --

8 MR. TIEGER: And if the Court will look down about two-thirds of

9 the way through his remarks you'll see the number "5.000."

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

11 MR. TIEGER:

12 Q. And here again Mr. Srdic is registering the complaint that the

13 Bosnian Serbs shouldn't have let militarily age -- or militarily capable

14 people go. And he says: "Just three, four months ago we were absolute

15 masters in the war. What are we facing now? We are facing it because we

16 played a fair game and in the interests of peace in the house, hoping for

17 the well being of the Serb people. We let go 5.000 militarily capable

18 people from our collection centres who meanwhile recovered and were

19 trained in Karlovac and other places in Croatia and are now ready and

20 waiting to strike again at our Serb people." And he attributes this to

21 UNPROFOR and the international -- and the European Community.

22 That, Mr. Krajisnik, is another reference reflecting the

23 widespread understanding that the people who were confined in the camps in

24 Prijedor and the people who were confined in camps elsewhere were treated

25 in such a manner that it would be necessary for them to recover from the

1 effects of that treatment before they could do anything else.

2 A. Let me just explain something. You see this figure here, 5.000,

3 and the reception centre. I testified about that. They were released

4 from Trnopolje. That is why it was being said about Trnopolje all the

5 time. I mean, it is not my objective to challenge this, whether Trnopolje

6 is a reception centre or a prison; I'm just telling you what kind of

7 information I was receiving --

8 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. Krajisnik. No, Mr. Krajisnik. You're

9 supposed to answer the question. You're not supposed to elaborate on

10 whether Trnopolje -- the question simply was whether where it says: "Who

11 meanwhile recovered," whether that's a reference to their bad state of

12 health. That's the question. Nothing else. And --

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. How can he know what they

14 agreed on in Karlovac? He's just guessing. It was September and then

15 January 1993. No.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, how Mr. Srdic could know something

17 that happened elsewhere is not something to speculate on. If you know

18 that this is a reference to their bad state of health, tell us that it is

19 a reference, that you would agree with Mr. Tieger. If you said as you

20 said in your last answer: I have no idea whether they've got to recover

21 psychologically, physically, I have no idea, how could I know, then you

22 say: I cannot confirm that this is a reference to their bad state of

23 health. That's a simple question. So please consider it and don't

24 elaborate on matters which are not in the core of the question. At least

25 start with answering the question. Please, is it a reference -- "who

1 meanwhile recovered," is that a reference to the bad state of health of

2 these people, yes or no? Or whatever you could say about it.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. Possibly. I don't

6 know.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mean, it's not an answer.

9 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I --

10 JUDGE ORIE: It is an answer. Of course it is an answer.

11 MR. STEWART: Sorry --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is not an answer --

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, if I say it is an answer, then I

15 don't want any comment from you to say that it is an -- that it's not

16 an answer. Yes?

17 Mr. --

18 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I observe what the question

19 essentially is. The question is really whether there was a widespread

20 understanding, such as Mr. Tieger suggests. That's the nub of the

21 question. It isn't really the interpretation directly of the words.

22 That's what the question is and that's -- I suspect Mr. Tieger would

23 confirm that's essentially his question and that's what Mr. Krajisnik -- I

24 say nothing about answers, Your Honour, but that's the question that

25 Mr. Krajisnik is essentially being asked to deal with.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It could be -- I understood the question to

2 be -- but let's -- let's give Mr. Tieger --

3 MR. STEWART: Of course, Your Honour, yes.

4 JUDGE ORIE: -- full opportunity. I understood it to be in order

5 to establish whether this was well-known, yes or no. Let's first look at

6 the words that were spoken and let's see what these words mean and then in

7 order to -- if they -- if, for example, Mr. Krajisnik would have said:

8 Who meanwhile recovered, well what was just to say that it was only

9 psychologically, so therefore -- because nothing to do with diseases, it

10 had got nothing to do with malnutrition, et cetera, then at least we would

11 know how these words are understood and then, of course, we'd further hear

12 questions and answers about whether everyone heard that, how many people

13 were present. I mean, that's how I understood the question.

14 MR. STEWART: Well, with respect, Your Honour, the question --

15 JUDGE ORIE: The --

16 MR. STEWART: I do say the question is impossible to interpret

17 other than essentially in the way that I suggest because it makes -- it

18 makes an implicit assumption -- it's based on the assumption that there

19 was a widespread understanding, et cetera, and it is asking the witness

20 whether this statement reflects that widespread understanding. So it --

21 the essential point in this is to see, first of all, whether the witness

22 acknowledges that there was -- well, I won't go any further, Your Honour.

23 Your Honour will say I'm crossing from question to answer, so I will stop

24 there. But, Your Honour, it's clear that that is the nub of the point

25 that's being put.

1 JUDGE ORIE: I think if there was any assumption in your question,

2 Mr. Tieger, might be, and which is in my view, and apart from the leading

3 character, of course, allowed in -- well, it's now apart -- it's not

4 cross-examination, really, but --

5 MR. STEWART: It is, Your Honour, I accept that. I accept that.

6 I accept it's cross-examination and Mr. Tieger can lead in the usual way.

7 I don't dispute that at all.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but there is another matter, that as we have

9 adjudicated facts about the -- about the health condition of those in the

10 camps which has not been frontally attacked, has not thoroughly been

11 attacked. So if that is part of the question, say: This is a reference

12 to those facts, because that's where we might disagree, Mr. Stewart. You

13 say it's a reference to the wide-known -- that these facts were widely

14 known, whereas I understood it just as a reference to these facts to start

15 with.

16 Mr. Tieger, you've had a lot of interpretations of your questions.

17

18 MR. TIEGER: In any event, Your Honour, I think that the Court

19 asked a very direct and specific question, which was answered -- I -- from

20 as far as I can see that --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

22 MR. TIEGER: -- addresses the --

23 JUDGE ORIE: -- issue of the --

24 MR. TIEGER: -- the issue and I have -- let me just check very

25 quickly.

1 [Prosecution counsel confer]

2 MR. TIEGER: That's all I have, Your Honour. Thank you very much.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

4 Then, Mr. Stewart, whether you have any questions depended on

5 whether there were any questions from the Prosecution. Unfortunately

6 overnight I had no time to reconsider the question, whether who was first

7 to ask, but we are now in the situation as we are. Do you have any

8 questions?

9 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, it's academic right now,

10 Your Honour, because I don't. So there's no need for us to debate that

11 issue, on which, no doubt, we will reserve our position if and when it

12 ever comes up.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then I will have found the time to --

14 MR. STEWART: Your Honour -- if may I say, Your Honour, I had

15 Mr. Mandic's evidence here in court for obvious reasons yesterday, and the

16 way this situation was dealt with in relation to Mr. Mandic does give a

17 very clear pointer, the Defence suggests, as to the way in which it should

18 be dealt with. But, Your Honour, it may never arise.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

20 Then, Mr. Krajisnik, the Chamber promised you to give an

21 opportunity an add whatever you think is important to the answers you've

22 given already to the questions and also to draw our specific attention to

23 documents you presented and from which, until now, we have not heard from

24 the parties that they wanted to adopt them -- at least the few ones that

25 were not yet in evidence. I also note that this is a rather technical

1 problem that some of these documents, especially in the earlier stages,

2 were provided with provisional exhibit numbers. So we might -- when we go

3 through the list at a later stage, we might review whether they should be

4 on the list at all. Mr. Krajisnik, please proceed.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I'm quite

6 handicapped, actually, because I was looking for a quotation from the 6th

7 and 7th of June all night long, but at any rate I will try to explain

8 further some of my answers.

9 First of all, I wish to say that I stated here without any further

10 explaining that in the negotiations there were negotiators who were in

11 favour of an Islamic state. I was then asked whether I had stated that.

12 I provided one of the documents which shows that a study was being

13 produced. This is the document from Mr. Muhamed Filipovic's book. There

14 you have all the information. My explanation that not the -- it wasn't

15 the entire delegation that negotiated with us that was in favour of a

16 Muslim state; rather, this view was advocated by some individuals. And I

17 gave an example here. You can find the document among the paper I -- the

18 paperwork I gave here.

19 The second issue, which I don't know why it was overlooked,

20 Mr. Djokanovic --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just deal with the first matter. Is it in

22 dispute that among those negotiating that there have been -- or there may

23 have been individuals who favoured an Islamic or a Muslim state?

24 MR. TIEGER: Well, Your Honour, when you put it that way I suppose

25 there would not be a dispute that there may have been. I have not

1 personally seen a reflection in any documentation that a member of a

2 negotiating team took that position. I don't want to make a big

3 dispute --

4 JUDGE ORIE: No, no. At the same time we heard the witness,

5 Mr. Krajisnik, tell us that there was. I've heard no further questions on

6 the matter. Therefore, I thought that it was not contested that there may

7 have --

8 MR. TIEGER: Well, I --

9 JUDGE ORIE: We have a phrase. I don't know whether it exists. I

10 do not contest, although I have no knowledge on the matter. That means

11 that you would -- as the Germans do it in court, they call it

12 a "wahrunterstellung," which means that they just assume that it is true.

13 Whether it is true or not we make it -- it could be true, but we're not

14 making any issue out of it.

15 MR. TIEGER: I'm going to have to learn that expression.

16 JUDGE ORIE: That is "wahrunterstellung" which is an assumption of

17 truth and it avoids a lot of evidentiary exercises. So if one party

18 states something, the other says: I don't know, but I'm willing to accept

19 that it would be the truth and therefore we know -- we're taking no point

20 on it. Is that the case as far as individuals in the negotiation team in

21 favouring an Islamic state?

22 MR. TIEGER: It is certainly correct the state, Your Honour, that

23 we have taken no point on that and the evidence stands as it does.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps we should avoid that further efforts are

25 made to have documents translated, unless it's in English. I don't think

1 it -- it doesn't assist very much. But, Mr. Stewart, I'm also looking at

2 you, whether --

3 MR. STEWART: We --

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

5 continues] ... well.

6 MR. STEWART: [Previous translation continues] ...

7 "wahrunterstellung" interpolation to what Your Honour's just said. But

8 we don't disagree at all with what Your Honour has said.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, please continue.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The second issue. Mr. Djokanovic

11 presented an accusation here, rather, that he had familiarised the

12 leadership with the atrocities that had happened in Zvornik. I presented

13 here an excerpt from September 1993, which is an Assembly session,

14 containing his statement where he clearly stated that no genocide was

15 committed in Zvornik, and he said so clearly in front of the entire

16 Assembly and said that any such allegations were unfounded. I presented

17 this because I wanted to let you know that he had never informed anyone

18 about what had happened in Zvornik.

19 Let me just say in support of this, on the 10th of June, 1992, he

20 came to Pale; and on the 12th he went out in the field, from where he

21 returned on the 16th. On the 30th of June, he was in Zvornik with

22 Karadzic and Mladic attending a meeting. There were all presidents of

23 municipalities there, and he could have discussed the matter with all of

24 them and resolved the entire Zvornik issue. In 1993 he was a cabinet

25 minister and he could have raised all these issues there and take any and

1 all steps to investigate into these crimes.

2 Thirdly, the military Supreme Court was seated in Zvornik. If all

3 the ears were deaf to him, he could have knocked on that door there and

4 say: I am a commissioner for such-and-such issues and I wish to report

5 these crimes. I believe that he gave up the whole matter because he was

6 afraid that at the end he would be found guilty of that all. Please take

7 a look at this excerpt from the September 1993 Assembly session, and there

8 you will see what he stated in front of all the deputies. And he stated

9 what I have just said.

10 Can I now move on to the third issue?

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Just to find out. Is the September 1993

12 Assembly session, is that in evidence already? I haven't got the whole

13 of the lists here anymore, Mr. Registrar.

14 Yes, Mr. Tieger. I hope that you'll forgive me that not --

15 knowing from every single session, whether it's in evidence or not.

16 MR. TIEGER: No, I -- we're looking right now, but I think the

17 great likelihood, Your Honour, is that at most excerpts from that session

18 would be, to the best of my recollection at this point, Sessions 1 through

19 24 are fully in evidence.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

21 MR. TIEGER: And in respect to other -- with respect to other

22 sessions --

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that's not the session.

1 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. Krajisnik. Mr. Tieger doesn't say that

2 that's the session. Mr. Tieger is explaining what sessions are in their

3 totality in evidence, and then he says --

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.

5 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... that it's most

6 likely only an excerpt. And then, of course, the question is whether this

7 excerpt is in evidence.

8 MR. TIEGER: That's my best estimate at this point.

9 JUDGE ORIE: At least, Mr. Krajisnik, have you identified in

10 the -- do we know the exact date in September, which might make it more

11 easy to identify the document?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You have it there with other papers

13 because I annexed that particular page and highlighted the text, together

14 with all the other material I submitted to you.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. We'll try -- we'll ask Mr. Registrar to

16 see whether he can identify on this index as far as it has been prepared

17 now, whether there is any 1993 -- September 1993 Assembly session. So if

18 it's not translated yet, it would be -- at least contain the

19 word "Skupstina".

20 MR. STEWART: We may have some other information but -- sorry,

21 excuse me one moment.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

23 [Defence counsel confer]

24 MR. STEWART: Yes. Your Honour, this -- we're talking about

25 September 1993. The range of sessions that Mr. Tieger mentioned, Sessions

1 1 to 24, has being fully in evidence that only takes us up to January

2 1993.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I think --

4 MR. STEWART: So perhaps --

5 JUDGE ORIE: -- what Mr. Tieger said, in my view, for this period

6 of time we have the full in evidence -- the totality of the minutes, apart

7 from sometimes a few missing pages, we have everything in evidence. So if

8 it would be from another period, we might have only an excerpt, if at all,

9 in evidence.

10 MR. STEWART: Oh, I see. I understand. I see -- so, in a sense,

11 the mention of Sessions 1 to 24 was a bit extra information not directly

12 related to this.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

14 MR. STEWART: Yes. That's what threw me a bit.

15 MR. TIEGER: And it -- this particular session - and there may be

16 others in the post-1992/early-1993 period - was introduced in full as

17 P64A, tab 39 --

18 JUDGE ORIE: In full?

19 MR. TIEGER: Yes, that's the information I have.

20 JUDGE ORIE: So we have --

21 MR. TIEGER: And also, Your Honour, P65, tab 221.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I'll go to it -- yes, please go on,

23 Mr. Krajisnik. I'll try to find Mr. Djokanovic's statement in P64A, tab

24 39. Please proceed.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In response to your question that --

1 whether I proposed that the discussion about unifying military and

2 civilian judiciary be placed on the agenda, I would like to refer you to

3 two matters. The discussion held at that particular Assembly meeting

4 concerned the merging of civilian and military health services. This was

5 in return for further discussion. When it came for the matter to be

6 discussed that the civilian judiciary should be subordinated -- or rather,

7 the military should be subordinated to the civilian, it was said that this

8 was not in accordance with the constitution or with the law. You can see

9 that I said that this particular initiative would have to be returned for

10 further review. There's this first sentence where he says that it's not

11 either in accordance with the constitution or with law and that it had to

12 be further worked on, because as it stood then it would have required both

13 the constitution and the relevant law to be amended.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The discussion here was that on the

16 14th of May, 1992, a large attack was launched by the Serb armed forces on

17 Sarajevo. I didn't know at the time, but it was asked as to what

18 Krajisnik had done to prevent this. I myself didn't know where I was on

19 the 14th of May, but the other day you were able to see on the basis of

20 Mr. Zimmermann's book that on the 12th of May we were attending an

21 Assembly meeting at Banja Luka. On the 13th of May we attended the

22 festivities organised by their police. And on the 14th of May we were

23 flying on a plane and Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Koljevic attended a meeting

24 with Mr. Zimmermann. I was with my family waiting for them to come back

25 to the meeting in order for us to return to Pale. That is why the meeting

1 was chaired by Ms. Plavsic and Mr. Stanisic, which proves that I wasn't at

2 Pale at the time of the event.

3 May I proceed, sir?

4 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that on the 23rd of August,

6 1992, I could not have attended the Presidency session. And I also said

7 that a couple of days before that date and after that date I wasn't in

8 Pale. It was quite rightly that the Prosecution led the evidence that on

9 the 22nd of August I had received representatives of SRNA. I myself

10 located that piece of news, and I also included that together with the

11 report from the military medical academy of Belgrade, where it says

12 precisely that on the 20th Pale was bombed, that on the 21st I gave a

13 statement to the VMA concerning my wife, and that on the 23rd at 6.00 in

14 the morning she passed away. I can't explain the origin of that piece of

15 news, but how could I have been on the 21st in Belgrade and then return to

16 receive SRNA and then from there go back to Belgrade to look for a coffin

17 and then go through a shower of shells in order to have her buried?

18 On the 22nd, I was most definitely not in Pale; I was in Belgrade

19 all that time because she was in a coma for three or four days. I was

20 waiting to see whether she was going to die or live. And you have the

21 documentation -- I obtained the documentation from the VMA, and there you

22 have the chronology of events, what sort of statement I gave, and so on

23 and so forth. I'm really sorry to have to use these resources to show you

24 that I wasn't at that Presidency session on the 23rd of August. I have

25 all the material, and it is there for you to look at it. May I carry on,

1 sir?

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Krajisnik, but I'd like to add that I think,

3 from what I remember, that although -- of course your presence in --

4 outside Belgrade was put to you but not major follow-up was given to it in

5 further questioning, which the Chamber considered to be a wise thing to do

6 in view of the circumstances at that time.

7 Please proceed.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. I only wanted to say that

9 journalists can also make mistakes. That's what I wanted to say because I

10 could not have been in Pale on the 22nd.

11 There was Mr. Mazowiecki's report, and I took a negative view of

12 his report. I would like to state one thing. I assess the report to be

13 partial. He says that he was in Sarajevo and that he was unable to visit

14 prisons. I documented here that he was at Viktor Bubanj and he could have

15 gone to Silos, Hadzici. We insisted that he visited the area, and he did

16 not. There were people who had spent five years in prison there. I wish

17 to say that I don't think he did that deliberately, but he was planted

18 this by someone and he wrote his report accordingly. That is why my

19 assessment of his report was that it was not objective because he merely

20 went on to explain what was going on, on the Serb-held territory. I do

21 not wish to challenge that, but he should have stated in his report what

22 was going on, on the other side as well.

23 There was mention of the shelling of Sarajevo on the 28th of May.

24 I really didn't know that it was bombed or why. I can only tell the Trial

25 Chamber, if it will be helpful, that Pofalic is mentioned in the phone

1 call where Mladic said: "Fire upon Pofalici." You've heard that. I wish

2 to say that on the 15th of May Muslims committed a great pogrom of Serbs

3 at Pofalici where his family resided. They either killed or expelled

4 Serbs from that suburban area. And at that time, barracks were being

5 relocated. I'm not justifying this attack on Sarajevo at all. I condemn

6 it. But I'm merely trying to tell you that these may have been the

7 reasons why Sarajevo was bombed, although, of course, they cannot be

8 justified in any way.

9 The next issue --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Could I maybe just interrupt you for one second.

11 Mr. Tieger, I tried to verify the Assembly session in September

12 1993 Mr. Krajisnik was referring to. You said it would be P64A, tab 39.

13 I there find nine pages only Mr. Gvero speaking. Then you refer to P65,

14 tab 221. There I find 25 out of 466 pages -- at least on my screen, which

15 of course should be verified in the originals. So therefore a full

16 transcript is -- as far as I can see now under these numbers not

17 available.

18 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour, may I say that was -- in fact,

19 that was the exact same point that I was just discussing with Mr. Josse,

20 as Your Honours, but we have done the same check and come up happily --

21 well, happily or unhappily with exactly the same result as Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore, the evidence as such -- and certainly

23 also these 25 pages would not deal with any statement given by

24 Mr. Djokanovic at that session.

25 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry about the misinformation, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I take it that since the evidence says that

2 it's 25 out of 466 pages that they are somewhere, because otherwise you

3 couldn't say there are 466 --

4 MR. TIEGER: It's fully translated to the best of my knowledge.

5 We can introduce it -- I mean, at this point I'm at the Court's disposal,

6 but it's available for that purpose.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I take it it's in a text format as well, so it

8 might be an easy thing to find - I think it was Mr. Djokanovic speaking -

9 or even search for the words "genocide," because Mr. Krajisnik said there

10 was no genocide.

11 MR. STEWART: We have the ERN numbers of the -- well, this is the

12 B/C/S. The B/C/S pages.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I take it that with this help that -- the

14 parties -- and I'm calling upon both parties.

15 MR. STEWART: Of course.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Could easily find perhaps the -- the reference

17 Mr. Krajisnik made.

18 MR. TIEGER: Yeah, I have no doubt about that, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

20 MR. TIEGER: And the only remaining question is that the

21 Prosecution will also conduct a contextual review to see if additional

22 portions need to be included.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I would say that goes without saying. We would

24 allow that to the Defence, so we would allow that to the Prosecution as

25 well.

1 Mr. Krajisnik, please proceed. You see we are trying to give as

2 quickly follow-up to the matters you raise as we can.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Djeric's statement has been

4 quoted here where in an Assembly session at Zvornik -- or rather, that

5 Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Mandic, as ministers, were well-informed because they

6 were always in the office of the president of the parliament and president

7 of the republic. I'm asserting that this isn't true, but I understand why

8 he put it that way. The government was perhaps some 10 to 15 kilometres

9 away from our seat at Pale. When I checked the attendance by Mr. Mandic

10 and Mr. Stanisic - and I mean their attendance of government sessions - I

11 realised that they were absent from a large number of meetings. Mr.

12 Djeric probably thought that at that time they were with the president of

13 parliament or president of the republic or president of the Presidency,

14 that is.

15 I can't recall -- or rather, there were very few meetings where I

16 met them. There was no reason for them to inform the president of the

17 republic or president of the Assembly and not inform the Prime Minister on

18 some matters. The problem lay in the separation of the government from

19 the Assembly and the Presidency, and in several places in the minutes the

20 Prime Minister stated that they had to have a joint meeting with the

21 president of the Assembly and the president of the republic in order to be

22 better informed. I, on my part, believed that I should have been informed

23 by the government on many matters. Perhaps because of this lack of

24 information, he believed that we were in possession of some information

25 that he was not, although this wasn't true.

1 The fact that these two institutions were located at different

2 places he -- led him to the impression that we were informed of matters

3 that they were not. There was this commission that was set up, and this

4 led to resentment which escalated into a conflict that had grave

5 consequences, and I'm referring to the toppling of the government.

6 Mr. Tieger, as well as others --

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Krajisnik, I just want to try to focus you

8 on what kind of evidence this Chamber would very much like to hear. I do

9 understand -- although it's a long story, I do understand that you say:

10 The fact that we are in one building and the fact that Mr. Djeric was in a

11 totally different place might be relevant facts for creation of a

12 confusion that when he would see the one person in the one building that

13 he would also see the other one. I mean, you start giving a lot of

14 reasoning and you are telling us that the -- that this led him to the

15 impression. That's all -- well, let's say -- I do understand that you

16 want to draw our attention to that, but a lot of the reasoning is not of

17 great assistance to us; however, drawing our attention to facts which

18 could declare a confusion certainly is. Please proceed.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I said just now is what the two

20 of them said, Mandic and Stanisic, at the same session, both of them.

21 Perhaps I did not put it very well that this led him to, and so on and so

22 forth. That is what the two of them said at that session. That indicates

23 what their statements were at that particular session, where Djeric said

24 what he said -- I mean what I said a few minutes ago. But let me move on

25 then.

1 Mr. Treanor and other witnesses, too, said that a session of the

2 Assembly was held on the 11th of August, 1992, and that Marinko Kontic,

3 MP, supported by Nikola Erceg asked to have a debate on prisoners. That

4 was five days after the discussion that took place at the Presidency

5 meeting, when I attended that consultative meeting. The conclusion was

6 that Krajisnik did not allow a debate on prisoners. I would like to draw

7 your attention to the following lines at that session. There were several

8 proposals, and then I said: Let the government prepare this material for

9 tomorrow. Let's not discuss it without any material, and then we'll

10 continue the 19th Session.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Do you remember at what page we find that? It

12 was -- you said --

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I haven't got it in front of me,

14 but it's at the beginning of the session when the agenda was being set,

15 Marinko Kontic, and then later on I explained what happened to amendments

16 to the agenda. I said so very nicely: We can discuss it tomorrow, just

17 prepare the material for all the items that had not had prepared

18 materials. I can underline all of it and bring it in for you tomorrow. I

19 didn't know that today, well --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, tomorrow you are not a witness anymore, I take

21 it. But of course there's nothing wrong if tomorrow Defence counsel for

22 the defence of Mr. Krajisnik would inform us about what portion of -- of

23 the Assembly minutes were referred to in their view.

24 MR. STEWART: Absolutely, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

1 Please --

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The agenda, establishing the agenda,

3 that's where referred to that.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to remind you that the

6 government did not have this material on the 26th of August, that is to

7 say later. Prisoners were discussed at a closed session, I think it was

8 the 46th Session, in Banja Luka. At the same time, this is a response to

9 the Prosecutor. From the month of August, from the first indications

10 onwards, it was known that the conditions for the prisoners were improper,

11 August 1992 onwards. Constant attempts or efforts were being made to

12 improve their condition. I'm not denying that. Somebody was always in

13 charge of improving this. I wasn't contesting it. I just said: Give me

14 the time-frame. Then the Presidency issued an order to disband the

15 prisons, to improve conditions, the government passed a decision. All of

16 that is correct. That's why I said that before that we didn't know, but

17 from then onwards all measures were taken. I am not going to say anything

18 that was not true, but you just didn't let me explain. Whenever anyone

19 said anything, the task was to improve conditions. As Srdjo Srdic said:

20 Please, they were released in August 1992, these 5.000. And he says in

21 January they, having recovered, are now supposed to go back. That is what

22 I mentioned when Karadzic had let 5.000 prisoners go free after the London

23 Conference. He did it on his own, and then he said that the Muslims would

24 later release Serb prisoners, too, as he said from the reception centre.

25 Another thing that was constantly insisted upon here was that

1 there was an expanded Presidency. I said quite resolutely on several

2 occasions that there never was an expanded Presidency. I know it did not

3 exist. Secondly, I never would have agreed to be in an illegal body. I

4 would have asked the Assembly to adopt that. I provided a document to

5 you -- actually, it has to do with the 17th of December, 1992, when the

6 Assembly changed the constitution and annulled a decision on municipal

7 commissioners. That is to say that a decision was made on municipal

8 Presidencies and then it was abolished. A decision was made on municipal

9 commissioners, and it was abolished. No decision was ever passed on an

10 expanded Presidency in an immediate threat of war, which would have been

11 according to the constitution where I would have had certain powers and

12 responsibilities. And such a decision was never annulled. The

13 constitution was amended and there was only three members of the

14 Presidency. They got different functions. The Presidency and two

15 vice-presidents.

16 If I were that important, Karadzic should have said: Don't change

17 Krajisnik. Let him be the third member, whatever. I just stayed on as

18 the president of the Assembly, like before. I provided a document that

19 things cannot simply go without saying that I'm a member of the

20 Presidency. I have documents here as to how they worked in the Muslim

21 part. They passed a decision on the basis of the constitution of

22 Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was a yardstick for us, too. Where it says that

23 in case of immediate threat of war, the Presidency is expanded in order to

24 include the president of the Assembly, the Prime Minister, and the

25 commander of the Territorial Defence. I have it here. I can submit it to

1 you, and that is what is valid.

2 All rights and responsibilities are derived from that. In our

3 case, this was an attempt -- I was not aware of that decision. It was

4 published -- I mean, the government gave it directly to Mr. Karadzic. And

5 a state of war was never declared. That is why I draw your attention to

6 this decision on the annulment of municipal commissioners, in view of what

7 was stated here, along the lines of the non-existence of an expanded

8 Presidency. Now I would like to try --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just try -- first of all, on -- I let you go,

10 although a lot was repetitious, Mr. Krajisnik. But one thing you said --

11 you have drawn our attention to the decision of the annulment of municipal

12 commissioners. Is that in evidence? Do you have that? Could you be a

13 bit more specific about that decision?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, the 17th of December at the

15 Assembly.

16 JUDGE ORIE: At the Assembly. At the Assembly.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of Republika Srpska.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just see. The 17th of December we have --

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's part of the agenda, too.

20 JUDGE ORIE: We, we have a tape-recording of that ...

21 MR. TIEGER: I think the actual decision is in evidence,

22 Your Honours, as one of the Hanson tabs, but I can double-check on that.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So that we can verify exactly the -- the

24 importance of that decision.

25 Please proceed, Mr. Krajisnik.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was a discussion here about

2 the appointment of judges who were non-Serbs, Muslims, Yugoslavs, and

3 Montenegrins. Montenegrins and Yugoslavs were not that much of a problem,

4 but really the Muslims were. I tried to explain what the atmosphere was

5 then at this session on the 12th of September.

6 I just want to explain an additional thing to you, what

7 significantly contributed to my understanding that this simply could not

8 be carried through. All respectable judges, one of them was Marko

9 Arsovic. He was a judge on the Muslim side of the Supreme Court of

10 Bosnia-Herzegovina. He was detained and had great trouble to flee to our

11 territory, because on the other side people also did not allow members of

12 other ethnic communities to try them. I thought about it later, too,

13 whether I made a mistake, whether I made a mistake when I was thinking

14 about this conclusion and whether it was correct. Had one single Muslim

15 convicted one person for a crime, one Muslim judge, people would have said

16 that that would have been on ethnic grounds. Mr. Karadzic tried to do

17 this, appoint some people from Bijeljina, I have it here how many people

18 were appointed. None of them came to take the solemn declaration, and

19 quite simply this went down the drain. Ultimately, this was not a

20 successful effort. Later on we thought that the climate would change and

21 that perhaps the war would be brought to an end in due time. However,

22 unfortunately, the climate did not change and ultimately there weren't any

23 judges. But our position was that politically this was highly necessarily

24 and proper from a human point of view but, quite simply, it could not be

25 carried out.

1 I would like to say something else now.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have submitted some things to you

4 here indicating the partiality of two witnesses. One from a humanitarian

5 organisation and another one who is Mr. Okun. The first witness I

6 referred to is a protected witness. I have provided documents for you

7 here in terms of how they worked, how they changed their concepts. There

8 is a CD here as well, I gave it to you, where Mr. Zimmerman himself admits

9 that the Cutileiro Plan was a good one and that perhaps it could have been

10 implemented and that he brought strong pressure to bear on Secretary Baker

11 to recognise Bosnia-Herzegovina. I provided this CD to you and you can

12 see this statement of Mr. Zimmerman's there. Also this has to do with

13 Mr. Okun who was present when they changed their concept to abolish

14 Republika Srpska and to create regions.

15 May I proceed?

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, although may I remind you that you are adding to

17 the answers given as a witness and that this is not a time for argument.

18 There will be ample opportunity to tell us how important this CD is and

19 what we can see on it. I mean, I take it --

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, fine.

21 JUDGE ORIE: But it's not specifically -- I wouldn't say that it's

22 totally excluded from what a witness could tell us, but you as a witness,

23 you brought us the CD. The importance of that will certainly be argued by

24 counsel if they choose to do so.

25 Please proceed.

1 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I say, it's certainly easy, we

2 confess, to lose track of some of this material as we've all had this

3 problem this morning. We're not immediately clear whether this CD that

4 Mr. Krajisnik has just referred to is one of the ones that's in evidence

5 or what it is. This -- Your Honour is absolutely right on the general

6 point, but that supposes or presupposes that we can actually locate this

7 material as already being in evidence.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, first of all the -- Mr. Registrar has

9 done already a lot of work to see what is in evidence and what is not in

10 evidence. The Chamber, of course, is aware what problems this could cause

11 to the parties. At the same time, it is all material that is in the

12 possession, not only of this witness but of the accused as well, who

13 perhaps at a later stage could assist you in identifying what is the

14 importance of that material which was introduced through the witness. And

15 of course the Chamber will consider if at any later stage where none of

16 these documents have been adopted by one of the parties yet, if one of the

17 parties would be tempted to tender them as contextual exhibits, the

18 Chamber will certainly not have lost out of its mind at that moment the

19 problems the parties are facing at this moment. Of course, I can't speak

20 for my colleagues, but I know from the past experience that in these kind

21 of matters we did show some flexibility on it.

22 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour is understanding very well the

23 marker that I just wanted to put down there.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and I think you well understood my other

25 statement.

1 MR. STEWART: No further comment, Your Honour, understatement or

2 not.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I provided that first CD, that big

5 one -- actually, I gave two CDs. So I mean it's -- it was in the

6 beginning.

7 JUDGE ORIE: For me CDs are all of the same size, Mr. Krajisnik.

8 Let's proceed. We'll try and identify what you're referring to.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right.

10 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... to further

11 assist counsel in this matter. Please proceed.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were complaints here --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were complaints here, stating

15 that we paid no attention to the reporting of foreign media and that we

16 did not take into account what their reporting was. There is a document

17 that I provided - it is there - how much the Muslim and Croat side paid

18 various agencies, media, in order for them to report favourably about

19 them. Only Muslim and Croat information could come through, not Serb

20 information. You have that material. That's what I'm saying. There was

21 a lack of confidence, and there was a lot of information that was

22 obviously unfair and incorrect.

23 I stated here that Sarajevo would be Serb if it is united, and I

24 did not know the answer as to why I had stated that. I said exactly what

25 it says there. The Prosecutor was right on that, but I know that my

1 position was always that we should have part of Sarajevo rather than all

2 of Sarajevo. I have provided you other documents, too. This was in 1994

3 at the time of the plan of the contact group. There was a blockade

4 imposed by Serbia. At that time we were given the opportunity of

5 establishing confederal links with Serbia. That is what was stated to the

6 public by international mediators as well. International mediators came

7 and offered exchanges of territories; it wasn't the Serb side. The Muslim

8 side also asked for an exchange of territory: Muslim for Serb. Zepa,

9 Srebrenica, Vogosca, and I don't know what other municipality was

10 involved. I was against that, against us remaining without Sarajevo. I

11 provided documents to you. Mr. Owen's book. I gave you this other

12 gentleman: Cunning Strategies. Ah, Mr. Halilovic, yes. The third book

13 written by Mr. Alija Izetbegovic. So you have three documents.

14 At that time they were considering exchanges of territories. I

15 was against that, and their reason was to say that Sarajevo should be

16 united -- or rather Muslim, in actual fact. And that was supposed to be

17 their capital, the capital of their constituent unit. And then I said:

18 All right. Let it be united but let it be Serb. That was a response to

19 their aspiration. You will find that in Mr. Halilovic's book. They had a

20 discussion about establishing a Muslim state, that is to say to have

21 Bosnia divided. This was in 1994. So please, these are three documents

22 that were important to show what kind of atmosphere existed why I said:

23 "Well, if it's supposed to be united, let it be Serb," although that was

24 not my position. And what I advocated throughout the interview was that

25 the Serbs had a right to Sarajevo, too. Another thing I wish to indicate

1 here.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, before you continue, we see that Mr. Krajisnik

3 has some -- at least on the -- on the list I see, for example, already

4 some references to, for example, Mr. Owen's book, which is only one out of

5 the three mentioned by Mr. Krajisnik. Would the parties consider, since

6 Mr. Krajisnik has referred to specific pages, whether they would object

7 against those pages to be admitted into evidence more or less as

8 contextual exhibits? I'm a bit hesitant, but I would like to know what

9 the parties think about it. I'm hesitant for the following reason that

10 tomorrow we have eight books of different authors all presenting their own

11 views on the matter to be in evidence and for the Chamber not to deliver a

12 judgement but a book review on seven or eight books.

13 That's not, I think, the way we would go; at the same time, we

14 invited Mr. Krajisnik to draw our attention to certain documents he

15 considers to be important. So therefore, I'd like to have the view of the

16 parties on it, but I have expressed already what might be a problem the

17 Chamber would be facing, and therefore the parties are invited to include

18 that, their positions, especially when we have not had a specific

19 opportunity to deal with those portions of the book while examining the

20 witness.

21 Mr. Krajisnik, please proceed.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I submitted Mr. Karadzic's letter to

23 you. I don't insist on including the entire letter. I was just

24 interested in one particular segment. He is the only person who knows 100

25 per cent whether an expanded Presidency exists -- existed. I sent a

1 letter, through the investigator, and according to Rule 92 bis, as far as

2 inaccessible persons are concerned, there are ways and means of -- I mean,

3 it could be admitted in that way. I wanted to prove in that way --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, the statement or letter by

5 Mr. Karadzic to the investigator is an issue on which we'll hear from the

6 parties on whether it's admissible evidence, yes or no. I can assure you

7 that Rule 92 bis is a bit more complex. If it were only that 92 bis, Rule

8 92 bis does not allow any evidence to be presented under that rule on the

9 acts and conduct of the accused, the letter -- at least I could not

10 exclude for the possibility that the letter directly deals with your acts

11 and your conduct. Apart from that, Rule 92 bis requires some formalities

12 to be fulfilled. And I can imagine that the Prosecution would

13 cross-examine Mr. Karadzic on this statement, and I could not exclude for

14 the possibility that such a request, if admissible and if Mr. Karadzic

15 would be available, would be granted. So let's stay out of the 92 bis

16 discussion at this moment which is, from a legal point of view, complex

17 enough for the parties to deal with.

18 Please proceed.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right, all right. I was just

20 interested in that particular statement. I'm not interested in his entire

21 statement. I just wanted to indicate why it was that I had proposed this.

22 It's not about me; it's about the expanded Presidency. All right. I

23 would like to indicate a general assessment that is very important. A

24 countless number of questions were put to me: Did you learn of something?

25 Did you take any measures? What did you do about that? And so on and so

1 forth.

2 I would like to indicate to the Trial Chamber that I did not have

3 the right to punish anyone. I did not have the right to call anyone to be

4 held accountable. I didn't have the right to promote anyone or to confer

5 any decorations upon anyone. This has nothing to do with the subject

6 matter of the expanded Presidency. I never did that -- I mean, even if it

7 were to be understood that I was a member of some expanded Presidency, it

8 did not mean that I was supposed to take some measures, taking advantage

9 of that position. As much as I could as a person who took part in his own

10 work, I did my work but I could not call someone in and say: I'm

11 punishing you for this and that, I'm taking measures, and so on and so

12 forth, because that was not within my authority. I could not do that. I

13 could only take initiatives, support something, or complain if someone did

14 not do something. That's what I did throughout.

15 So when somebody says: What did you do about it? I could have

16 done whatever any other citizen could have done. Had somebody told me a

17 crime happened, I just could have made the government aware of this or the

18 judiciary or whoever had I received such information. Of course I would

19 have done that, had I known, but Djokanovic could have done it, too, and

20 any other person. I'm trying to explain that I never did such a thing

21 because it was not within my responsibilities. The Honourable Judge

22 Hanoteau asked me whether I had the right to put something on the agenda

23 of the Assembly, some initiative or something like that. As for our

24 Assembly, every agenda had to have appropriate material. It was only when

25 somebody was presenting some introductory remarks that that could be done

1 only orally. Karadzic did it sometimes. It's not that somebody could

2 say: Well, let's discuss a particular problem without any supporting

3 material. As for any initiative that the president of the Assembly had,

4 any MP or the government had the same right, but there was an exact

5 separation of powers between the legislative, the judiciary, and the

6 executive. Everybody did their own work. Now, the quality of their work

7 was a different matter. But I accept everything that was done at the

8 Assembly. If somebody were to ask me: Why did you do this? Why did you

9 do that? You're guilty of this. You're guilty of that. That's only

10 natural and I cannot explain what somebody did elsewhere and I cannot be

11 held accountable of that in terms of whether they did this properly or

12 whether the quality of their work was proper. I could just complain or

13 voice some objections and that's what I did.

14 There's been discussion here that I signed three documents about

15 commissioners, Mr. Miskin, Mr. Mijatovic, and Mr. Jovanovic. I wish to

16 indicate to the Trial Chamber that there were certificates, decisions, and

17 rulings. The certificates that I signed for Mr. Jovanovic were of an

18 earlier date -- or rather, before Mr. Koljevic was complaining about the

19 fact that he could not control commissioners. Now, why did I sign this

20 certificate for Karadzic? It was this. He had already been appointed,

21 but he needed some sort of a certificate to be able to use this paper for

22 whomever it may concern to certify that he was indeed a commissioner.

23 That was during the time Mr. Koljevic was in charge of commissioners. I

24 was probably there in the head office and he merely wanted this piece of

25 paper which would enable him to go somewhere. You can double-check this.

1 Mr. Miskin was the commissioner of the government. There are two

2 documents. There are the minutes of the government meeting. Since the

3 government seat was further away, he was asking for a certificate to be

4 written, a piece of paper, so that people on the ground would be

5 forthcoming in terms of providing him with fuel and other matters, and

6 that is why I signed that paper.

7 As far as Mr. Mijatovic is concerned, he substituted for

8 Mr. Radovanovic and that was for just one day and then he returned. He

9 was appointed by many Karadzic because the local commissioners didn't do

10 their job. I wasn't in charge of commissioners because their work --

11 well, I did have contacts with MPs who were commissioners because I talked

12 to them. This person that I talked to might have at the same time been

13 commissioner. However, with those who were not MPs, I had no links with

14 them whatsoever. I was not in charge of them, and I have now explained

15 why these three signatures were there.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, I'm looking at the clock. I think for

17 additional matters we had half an hour in mind. And sometimes what you

18 tell us is not exactly new and doesn't add very much, although sometimes

19 it does. How much time you would think you would still need?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will do my best to finish shortly.

21 I have three more items that I would like to discuss. There are more --

22 many more, but I would only talk about these three.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, I can look at the clock, you can't

25 from there. It's eight minutes to 2.00. Would you please finish at 2.00.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will. I will and I hope I will

2 finish even sooner than that.

3 Mr. Kozic, I'm really sorry. Even now when I've been analysing

4 these matters and I will be analysing the meeting held on the 20th of

5 June, it wasn't my intention or it wasn't within my interest to conceal

6 that Mr. Kozic was there. I have been trying to explain this, and I'm

7 really sorry. I wouldn't wish to cover up for Kozic. Whatever I have

8 stated about the matter reflected my memory of it. I'm really sorry that

9 things turned the way they did, and I assure you that I tried to convey

10 all my thoughts and my knowledge at the time.

11 There is one subject -- another subject, which is that when

12 ranking people in terms of their authority, it was always the order of

13 Mr. Karadzic and then Mr. Krajisnik. Honourable Judges, I worked a lot.

14 I had two roles that made me seem important to people. It's not that I

15 had powers. First of all, I was running an Assembly within which

16 everything was happening and the destiny of the people was people decided

17 upon, and I attended negotiations. I had also that legacy of my previous

18 work from the Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I had repeatedly heard

19 people say Karadzic and Krajisnik were important. And in fact, I never

20 denied that. I never stated that I didn't have any powers because I did

21 not want to disillusion people. But as I analysed my role, I had never

22 really had any powers or authority. But in the eyes of people, I can say

23 not that I wasn't important but the people placed their trust in me. But

24 I never abused that, and I never used the position in order to order this

25 or that and do that. And I never carried out other people's duties. I

1 promised that finish, that's why I will touch upon one other subject.

2 Davidovic. I don't want to repeat matters, but I would like to

3 say the following to the Trial Chamber and my Defence counsel. There are

4 statements concerning each of the matters that Mr. Davidovic mentioned

5 when he accused Mr. Djurkovic, Mr. Vucic -- Mr. Vukovic, Mr. Micic. And

6 there are statements of these people where they deny everything that

7 Mr. Davidovic said. I, myself, cannot account at all for the fact that he

8 stated these matters, save for one.

9 During the war there was quite a lot of disinformation around. I

10 read quite a few of them, and whatever was ideologically against me was

11 taken for granted as such by him. I had never issued a decision referring

12 to Mr. Djurkovic or I never -- or anything concerned Mr. Djurkovic, and

13 you yourselves could see that. Perhaps this should be put under Rule 92

14 bis to have these statements of these people admitted. I have been

15 mentioning this on several occasions, but there is no time for me to go

16 into this matter. But if I will have the time, I will try to clear my

17 face with regard to these accusations.

18 Your Honours, I have no more time, that's why I will finish here.

19 So I did finish one minute earlier than 2.00.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Krajisnik. From my point of view even two.

21 I think it's the right thing to do at this very moment, also because you

22 anticipated already in your last comments on your change of position,

23 which will be a change of position from now on, that is that you're again

24 the accused and not a witness anymore. Just for practical matters, would

25 the parties -- we need a break anyhow at this moment. One of the

1 important things we still have to do is deal with all of the exhibits. We

2 could try and do that in a rush immediately after the break. We could

3 also try and do it once we have sorted out a few matters such as these

4 provisionally assigned numbers, when the parties have had an opportunity

5 perhaps to view again at the -- at the CD what is on it. I'm wondering

6 whether we should continue today with these kind of matters or whether we

7 would leave them for a different --

8 MR. JOSSE: I've been working on the exhibits, and I'm certainly

9 going to object to a number. My rough estimate is my submission will take

10 15 minutes. That is a very rough estimate. Of course it -- well, let --

11 could I also mention that Mr. Stewart has some other procedural matters

12 that he would like to raise at some juncture today.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

14 MR. JOSSE: Speaking for him, if I may, I suspect they'll take

15 about 10 to 15 minutes as well.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.

17 MR. TIEGER: I can't speak to the timing or necessity of the

18 procedural matters, but insofar as the exhibits are concerned, Prosecution

19 takes the Court's point. If -- in particular it seems to me that if the

20 Defence has objections to a certain number of exhibits, particularly

21 objections that we haven't discussed previously, it would be of some

22 benefit in terms of the time spent in court to identify all of the

23 exhibits at issue, including provisional ones or those that otherwise

24 hadn't been brought to the parties' attention before, and insofar as

25 possible determine the extent to which some accord exists or the arguments

1 to the extent they may exist can be narrowed.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There is a suggestion now made by Mr. Tieger

3 that you would try and exchange views on the admissibility of some of the

4 evidence and to see whether matters can be resolved, yes or no.

5 Mr. Josse, would that be something that --

6 MR. JOSSE: I've got no objection to that. Indeed it's a --

7 JUDGE ORIE: But I take it that under the communication the

8 communication blockade would be not -- would be stopped from this moment.

9 I take it the issues you would like to discuss would be legal issues and

10 if you would be in a position to speak with Mr. Krajisnik it --

11 MR. JOSSE: It's right to say that -- yes, that is correct. In

12 fact, Your Honour has anticipated another issue which is we are anxious to

13 speak to Mr. Krajisnik as soon as possible. Indeed, I think before

14 Mr. Stewart raises his matters we would like to speak to Mr. Krajisnik.

15 As far as the exhibit issue is concerned, we don't really need to speak to

16 Mr. Krajisnik. It's simply the logistics of this because probably the

17 best thing to do would be for me to have a short meeting with my learned

18 friend, Mr. Tieger, a matter of finding the time to do that, frankly.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So if I do understand you well that there's no

20 objection against any evidentiary issue prior to making objections before

21 the Chamber. This would allow Mr. Registrar also perhaps to earmark some

22 of the exhibits which have been slipped in more or less in the earlier

23 days of Mr. Krajisnik's testimony where they were assigned exhibit

24 numbers, many of them perhaps already in evidence. So to have that all

25 sorted out before we finally come to raising objections that remain and

1 before deciding on the admission of this evidence. So that would be -- so

2 then we have -- then I do understand. Mr. Stewart, you have -- you wanted

3 to raise a few procedural issues of a different character, but you would

4 like to speak with Mr. Krajisnik before raising them. Is that a correct

5 understanding?

6 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, we wanted to be clear, as Mr. Josse

7 just indicated. Mr. Krajisnik has now officially finished as a witness,

8 has he, and we are -- normal communication is resumed. Then we would like

9 to go and see him in this imminent break, Your Honour, please.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I take it that is the position of the

11 Prosecution as well?

12 MR. TIEGER: Insofar as I understand the situation at the moment,

13 yes, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

15 Then -- because we are limited on our time Mr. Josse indicated

16 that you would need approximately ten minutes to raise the matter. I

17 don't know of course what the character of is it. I don't know whether

18 there would be any response or not. I would like to have a short break of

19 approximately 20 minutes, and I would like to finish for the day not later

20 than quarter to, ten minutes to 3.00. I know it's short, but it's a bit

21 of an unusual day for the Chamber, not only because of dentists. Then --

22 but I'd like now to turn into private session for one second before we

23 have that break.

24 [Private session]

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 26271-26272 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 [Open session]

6 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll have a break until 2.30.

8 --- Recess taken at 2.07 p.m.

9 --- On resuming at 2.34 p.m.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart.

11 MR. STEWART: Yes, it's just one area, Your Honour, the practical

12 matters, but it would require the Trial Chamber to go into private

13 session, please.

14 JUDGE ORIE: We'll turn into private session.

15 [Private session]

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 26274-26283 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 [Open session]

23 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Anything to be raised by the parties in open session?

25 MR. STEWART: Nothing else from the Defence today. Thank you,

1 Your Honour.

2 MR. TIEGER: And nothing more from the Prosecution, thank you.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll adjourn until Monday morning, 9.00, in a

4 courtroom still to be announced. We stand adjourned.

5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.58 p.m.,

6 to be reconvened on Monday, the 26th day of

7 June, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25