1. 1 Monday, 6th July, 1998

    2 --- Upon commencing at 9.40 a.m.

    3 JUDGE MAY: Let the Registrar call the case.

    4 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours,

    5 case number IT-97-24. The Prosecutor versus Milan

    6 Kovacevic.

    7 JUDGE MAY: The appearances, please.

    8 MS. HOLLIS: Good morning, Your Honours.

    9 Brenda Hollis, Michael Keegan and Ann Sutherland appear

    10 on behalf of the Prosecutor.

    11 MR. VUCICEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours.

    12 For the accused, Dusan Vucicevic, Anthony D'Amato,

    13 George Vann. With us at Defence counsel table is also

    14 Mr. Momir Milinovich, the investigator.

    15 JUDGE MAY: Can the accused hear the

    16 proceedings in the language which he understands?

    17 A. Yes.

    18 JUDGE MAY: Now, the first matter which is

    19 listed is the further appearance of the accused. As we

    20 came in this morning, we were handed a document

    21 requesting leave to appeal our decision of Friday in

    22 relation to the confirmed indictment. We have not, of

    23 course, had a chance to consider that, and it is a

    24 document addressed to the Appeals Chamber, but we have

    25 to consider what to do next. That document is entirely

  2. 1 for them to decide. It's nothing to do with us.

    2 Now, is there any objection, while the

    3 Appeals Chamber is considering this matter - I don't

    4 know how long they will take - to our beginning the

    5 trial? If a decision is made, of course in relation to

    6 that, if leave is granted, or, more particularly, of

    7 course, if the appeal is granted, then, clearly, these

    8 proceedings would have to be abandoned. But it seems

    9 to us sensible to go on, since everybody is here and we

    10 are ready for trial.

    11 Mr. Vucicevic, does that seem a sensible

    12 course?

    13 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, indeed, that is

    14 a sensible course. The only -- I have to make a remark

    15 here that we believe and demand a speedy trial, and in

    16 order to -- if the leave or appeal is granted on our

    17 request that we have submitted this morning, then we

    18 would respectively suggest that the trial wouldn't have

    19 to be abandoned, but only -- the motion and the hearing

    20 on probable cause on the amended indictment would have

    21 to be considered. However, we see a somewhat

    22 difficulty here, on one hand and, on the other hand,

    23 it's not so much of practical difficulties, because

    24 you, as the Court of learned Judges, but not a jury,

    25 are going to be hearing the evidence. And I hope that

  3. 1 this appeal is going to be indeed decided very

    2 expeditiously.

    3 But, as I see it in the first two weeks of

    4 trial, most of the witnesses that the Prosecution has

    5 suggested that they call, they will testify mainly to

    6 the first indictment, to the element, and the only

    7 count to the first indictment. I would ask you that

    8 from the very beginning, that if there is going to be

    9 any testimony which is -- which might have any

    10 relevance to the amended, to the counts of the amended

    11 indictment, to be taken under advisement and with

    12 reserve, just in case the appeal is granted.

    13 In that fashion, Your Honour, we wouldn't

    14 have to abandon a speedy trial, and we can proceed

    15 today, and follow the process in due course.

    16 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Mr. Vucicevic, while

    17 you are on your feet, the next stage will be the

    18 further appearance.

    19 Now, has your client had a copy of the

    20 indictment in a language which he understands?

    21 MR. VUCICEVIC: I believe so.

    22 JUDGE MAY: And you've had the opportunity of

    23 going through it with him?

    24 MR. VUCICEVIC: In all honesty, Your Honour,

    25 I have not.

  4. 1 JUDGE MAY: Well, is he in a position to

    2 plead to the indictment today?

    3 MR. VUCICEVIC: However -- Your Honour, I

    4 haven't gotten a chance to go, count by count, over the

    5 amended indictment. However, in not only general

    6 terms, but in the specifics, we have discussed the

    7 elements of the amended indictment and the facts which,

    8 if existed, would be necessary for the Prosecutor to

    9 prove the allegations of the amended indictment. And

    10 he is fully cognisant what is the essence of the

    11 amended indictment.

    12 JUDGE MAY: And he is in a position to plead

    13 to the indictment now?

    14 MR. VUCICEVIC: Yes, Your Honour.

    15 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, let the accused

    16 stand, please.

    17 Dr. Kovacevic, you've heard what your counsel

    18 says, that you've discussed the indictment with him,

    19 and you understand it, and that you are in a position

    20 to enter a plea. Is that right?

    21 THE ACCUSED: Yes, Your Honour.

    22 JUDGE MAY: Very well. I will put the

    23 amended indictment to you for you to enter a plea of

    24 guilty or not guilty to each count. Confine your

    25 answers, please, to guilty or not guilty.

  5. 1 You stand indicted on 15 counts. On the

    2 first count you stand charged with genocide, punishable

    3 under Article 4 of the Statute of the Tribunal. How do

    4 you plead to that count, guilty or not guilty?

    5 THE ACCUSED: Not guilty, Your Honour. Not

    6 guilty, Your Honour.

    7 JUDGE MAY: Count 2, complicity to commit

    8 genocide, punishable under Articles 4 and 7 of the

    9 Statute, how do you plead to that count?

    10 THE ACCUSED: No, not guilty, Your Honour.

    11 JUDGE MAY: Count 3, a crime against

    12 humanity, extermination, punishable under Articles 5

    13 and 7 of the Statute, how do you plead to that count?

    14 THE ACCUSED: No, not guilty, Your Honour.

    15 JUDGE MAY: Count 4, a violation of the laws

    16 or customs of war, namely, murder, punishable under

    17 Articles 3 and 7 of the Statute, how do you plead to

    18 that count?

    19 THE ACCUSED: Not guilty, Your Honour. No,

    20 not guilty, Your Honour.

    21 JUDGE MAY: Count 5, a grave breach of the

    22 Geneva Conventions of 1949, punishable under Articles

    23 2, that is wilful killing, and 7 of the Statute. How

    24 do you plead to that count?

    25 THE ACCUSED: Not guilty, Your Honour.

  6. 1 JUDGE MAY: Count 6, a crime against humanity

    2 punishable under Article 5(h) of the Statute, namely,

    3 persecution on political, racial or religious grounds.

    4 How do you plead to that count?

    5 THE ACCUSED: No, not guilty, Your Honour.

    6 JUDGE MAY: Count 7, a crime against humanity

    7 punishable under Article 5(f), namely, torture. How do

    8 you plead to that count?

    9 THE ACCUSED: No, not guilty, Your Honour.

    10 JUDGE MAY: Count 8, a violation of the laws

    11 or customs of war, namely, cruel treatment, punishable

    12 under Article 3 of the Statute. How do you plead to

    13 that count?

    14 THE ACCUSED: Not guilty, Your Honour.

    15 JUDGE MAY: Count 9, a violation of the laws

    16 or customs of war, namely, torture, punishable under

    17 Article 3 of the Statute. How do you plead to that

    18 count?

    19 THE ACCUSED: No, not guilty, Your Honour.

    20 JUDGE MAY: Count 10, a grave breach of the

    21 Geneva Conventions of 1949 punishable under Article

    22 2(b), namely, torture. How do you plead to that

    23 count?

    24 THE ACCUSED: Not guilty, Your Honour.

    25 JUDGE MAY: Count 11, a grave breach of the

  7. 1 Geneva Conventions of 1949 punishable under Article

    2 2(c), namely, wilfully causing great suffering. How do

    3 you plead to that count?

    4 THE ACCUSED: No, not guilty, Your Honour.

    5 JUDGE MAY: Count 12, a crime against

    6 humanity punishable under Article 5(d), namely

    7 deportation. How do you plead to that count?

    8 THE ACCUSED: No, not guilty, Your Honour.

    9 JUDGE MAY: Count 13, a grave breach of the

    10 Geneva Conventions of 1949, punishable under Article

    11 2(g), namely, unlawful deportation or transfer. How do

    12 you plead to that count?

    13 THE ACCUSED: No, not guilty, Your Honour.

    14 JUDGE MAY: Count 14, a violation of the laws

    15 or customs of war punishable under Article 3(b),

    16 namely, wanton destruction of cities, towns or

    17 villages, or devastation not justified by military

    18 necessity. How do you plead to that count?

    19 THE ACCUSED: No, not guilty, Your Honour.

    20 JUDGE MAY: Count 15, a grave breach of the

    21 Geneva Conventions of 1949 punishable under Article

    22 2(d), namely, extensive destruction of property and

    23 appropriation of property not justified by military

    24 necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. How

    25 do you plead to that count?

  8. 1 THE ACCUSED: No, not guilty, Your Honour.

    2 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Let the accused sit

    3 down.

    4 I turn next to the preliminary motions, and

    5 it seems that all the motions have been dealt with by

    6 the Trial Chamber, apart from one which has not been

    7 dealt with, that is to be dealt with in open session,

    8 and that's the Defence motion of the 29th of June to

    9 strike certain of the counts.

    10 We've read that motion. We've also read the

    11 Prosecution response of the 3rd of July. Who is going

    12 to deal with that? Mr. D'Amato.

    13 MR. D'AMATO: Good morning, Your Honours.

    14 The response of the Prosecution to the motion that you

    15 read on both the grave breaches and on the war crimes

    16 seems to miss or side-step the arguments that were

    17 made.

    18 The Defence is uncomfortable with a Tadic

    19 result. The Defence's main point is that it's a mixed

    20 question of law and fact, and therefore should be for

    21 this Tribunal to determine whether Article 2 applies.

    22 My answer to that is, yes, it's a mixed

    23 question of law and fact, but the law's exactly the

    24 same, and the facts are exactly the same. We are

    25 talking about the same victims, we are talking about

  9. 1 the same camps, we are talking about the same time

    2 period. And, therefore, unless this Trial Chamber

    3 wants to disagree with the first Trial Chamber that

    4 looked into this matter extensively, it would appear

    5 that a determination has already been made and that

    6 consistency and fairness requires that that

    7 determination be honoured by any other Trial Chamber

    8 simply for terms of fairness.

    9 But, apart from that, the Trial Chamber in

    10 the Tadic case was clearly right, that the -- for the

    11 reasons given in my motion, which I believe were not

    12 answered by the Prosecution, it is quite clear that the

    13 Statute which requires in its application that there be

    14 protected persons, use that term of art for a reason.

    15 And the defendant is entitled to rely on that term of

    16 art. And if these were not protected persons under

    17 international definition, then Article 2 simply doesn't

    18 apply.

    19 As in the Tadic case, all the Article 2

    20 counts were thrown out, and we are asking for the same,

    21 exact treatment for the same, exact reasons in this

    22 case.

    23 Moving quickly to war crimes. Again, the

    24 Prosecution appears uncomfortable with the language of

    25 the Appeals Chamber, but the Appeals Chamber, which I

  10. 1 quote in my paragraph 11, has stated, as clear as can

    2 be, that the Article 3 lists other crimes, crimes that

    3 were not listed already in Article 2 or 4 and 5. It

    4 says, and I quote: "The only limitation is that such

    5 additional infringements that might be applicable under

    6 Article 3 must not already be covered by Article 2,

    7 lest this latter provision should become superfluous.

    8 Article 3 may be taken to cover all violations of

    9 international, humanitarian law, other than the grave

    10 breaches of the four Geneva Conventions falling under

    11 Article 2, or, for that matter, the violations covered

    12 by Articles 4 and 5 to the extent that Articles 3, 4

    13 and 5 overlap."

    14 Indeed, this is ordinary statutory

    15 construction. Just looking at the Statute, if the

    16 framers of the Statute saw no reason to include murder,

    17 torture, and other serious violations of the law of war

    18 in Article 3, because they were already covered in all

    19 the other articles, they did so for a reason. And we

    20 can't just go, in a criminal case, we can't read into

    21 Article 3 something that's not there. That would be --

    22 it would be most unfair to the defendant, and the

    23 Prosecution simply doesn't have an Article 3 count

    24 against our client.

    25 So, for that reason, too, which I think was

  11. 1 not controverted by the Prosecution's response, we move

    2 that Articles 4, 8 and 9, but not the last war crimes

    3 count which does fall under Article 3, but the first

    4 three of them also be dismissed. Thank you.

    5 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, Ms. Hollis.

    6 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour. Very

    7 briefly, Your Honour. Defence Counsel argues that the

    8 Trial Chamber in the Tadic case was right. We suggest

    9 to you that the appellate Chamber has yet to determine

    10 if the Trial Chamber, the majority of the Trial Chamber

    11 was right in their conclusion as to Article 2 offences

    12 in that case. Therefore, there is no binding precedent

    13 upon this Trial Chamber.

    14 Certainly, this Trial Chamber cannot decide

    15 whether the facts to be produced in this case prove

    16 beyond a reasonable doubt that the grave breach

    17 provisions apply until, in fact, the evidence has been

    18 put before this Trial Chamber, and this Trial Chamber

    19 has the opportunity to apply the law, as they determine

    20 it to be, to the facts as they are adduced at this

    21 trial. That has not occurred. It would be premature

    22 to determine at this point, with no evidence before the

    23 Chamber, that the Prosecution has a failure of proof in

    24 this regard.

    25 As to the Article 3 charges, we suggest that

  12. 1 on their face it is clear that Article 3 was not meant

    2 to put forth only minor or insignificant charges.

    3 Indeed, The Hague Convention charges are there, and

    4 they include very serious charges.

    5 The law concerning the common Article 3 of

    6 the Geneva Conventions has been developed in various

    7 cases at the Tribunal, and as we noted in our response

    8 to the Defence pleading, the law is very clear that we

    9 may charge Article 3 offences in conjunction with other

    10 articles of the Statute.

    11 As we noted in our brief, there are arguments

    12 to be made that these articles can be charged

    13 separately and can be considered separately, even if

    14 the same underlying misconduct is the context in which

    15 they are charged. For example, the articles require

    16 different elements of proof. Therefore, it certainly

    17 can be argued, and in many jurisdictions is argued, that

    18 where you have different elements of proof, you have

    19 different crimes.

    20 Secondly, as we look at the various articles

    21 that are the -- if you will, the prohibited conduct

    22 over which this Tribunal has jurisdiction, it is clear

    23 that these articles speak to different, though related,

    24 societal norms. And it is protection against violation

    25 of these different societal norms that is encompassed

  13. 1 within all the various punitive articles over which the

    2 Tribunal has jurisdiction.

    3 These are matters that, to the extent the same

    4 underlying misconduct is involved, these are matters

    5 that are to be taken up and decided in the sentencing

    6 portion of any trial. There are additional matters

    7 which would allow the Prosecutor to charge these

    8 articles together in the same indictment, even if it

    9 were to be determined that the charging would be

    10 cumulative. For example, exigencies of proof at

    11 trial. It is for you, the Judges, to determine what is

    12 proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Since there are

    13 various elements of the different articles that do not

    14 exist in all articles, then it is possible that you, as

    15 the fact finder, could determine that as to one article

    16 an element has not been proven beyond a reasonable

    17 doubt; as to another article not requiring that

    18 element, proof exists beyond a reasonable doubt.

    19 So for exigencies of proof reasons, even if

    20 you were to determine this to be cumulative charging,

    21 we would be allowed to charge these offences.

    22 In addition to that, of course the Trial

    23 Chamber is the first Court to determine the matter, but

    24 there is an appellate Chamber. So that even if a Trial

    25 Chamber were to determine that the charging was

  14. 1 cumulative, it would be in the best interests of justice

    2 to not dismiss any of those charges even at the

    3 sentencing phase. Because that could lead to a

    4 situation where the only charges that could have been

    5 upheld on appeal had been dismissed by the Trial

    6 Chamber.

    7 So, for purposes of the appeal itself, it is

    8 also appropriate that these charges be allowed and that

    9 any determination concerning an overlap or cumulative

    10 nature of these charges be disposed of on sentencing

    11 and ultimately on the appeal of the decision of the

    12 Trial Chamber.

    13 We suggest, Your Honours, that the charging

    14 in this case was appropriate, that it is not violative

    15 of any norms of fundamental fairness, and we ask that

    16 you deny the motion. Thank you.

    17 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Anything else you

    18 want to say, Mr. D'Amato?

    19 MR. D'AMATO: Just one sentence, perhaps.

    20 That when the Prosecutor said that we don't know what

    21 the evidence will be until we hear it, we do know,

    22 because it was proffered in the indictment. And if you

    23 look at what the indictment charges, those facts are

    24 the same facts as the facts in the Tadic case. So

    25 there is no need to wait for a surprise here. The

  15. 1 facts are the same and the law is the same. Thank you.

    2 JUDGE MAY: We shall give a ruling on this

    3 matter after the adjournment, which we will take when

    4 we've heard any other motions.

    5 I think, Ms. Hollis, there is certainly one,

    6 there may be other matters, can be dealt with. There

    7 is one motion in relation to the pre-trial admission of

    8 evidence, your motion, which has not yet been ruled

    9 upon finally. We made an order to the effect that only

    10 such documents as have been agreed between the parties

    11 would be admitted at this stage. Is there anything

    12 further that you want to address us upon that?

    13 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, there has been a

    14 meeting between the Defence and the Prosecution on that

    15 matter. Mr. Keegan is representing the Prosecution on

    16 this motion. He will speak to that with your

    17 permission.

    18 But, in addition to that, Your Honour, we do

    19 have two motions requesting protective measures that we

    20 would need to deal with in closed session if there is

    21 to be any arguments on those.

    22 JUDGE MAY: Yes, I have that in mind. We'll

    23 deal with that in due course.

    24 MS. HOLLIS: I'll turn it over to Mr. Keegan

    25 then.

  16. 1 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

    2 MR. KEEGAN: Good morning, Your Honour.

    3 There was, in keeping with the Trial Chamber order of

    4 30 June, the Prosecution and the Defence did, in fact,

    5 have a meeting yesterday, here at the tribunal, and

    6 reached agreement on the admission of some of the

    7 documents submitted to the Trial Chamber on the 20th of

    8 April, 1998. The document which we've reached

    9 agreement on thus far relates to Sections 2, dealing

    10 with Autonomous Region of Krajina. And Section 6,

    11 dealing with the executive committee documents.

    12 And I am referring to now the index of

    13 documentary material, which was submitted with the

    14 motion. I will go to the specific documents in a

    15 moment, Your Honour, but I would like to say that the

    16 Prosecution and the Defence have agreed to meet later

    17 this week, probably after Wednesday or after the trial

    18 is adjourned at whatever point that is, this week, to

    19 continue our discussions on the documents. We were

    20 limited yesterday only by other meetings which we had

    21 requirements for. So we are moving forward and

    22 proceeding on an agreeable basis.

    23 JUDGE MAY: Perhaps, Mr. Keegan, you can let

    24 us, in due course, have the list of agreed documents.

    25 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour. With respect

  17. 1 to that, we've then discussed the issue of how we're

    2 going to number the Prosecution exhibits in the case.

    3 And for efficiency and clarity, we would suggest that

    4 for purposes of numbering the exhibits, we follow the

    5 numbering scheme given to the documents on the

    6 Prosecution index which was submitted with the motion.

    7 And, in that way, it will be clear to everyone at all

    8 times exactly what documents are being referred to in

    9 evidence because we can refer back both to the index,

    10 as well as to the document in the courtroom.

    11 JUDGE MAY: That seems an efficient way of

    12 dealing with it. It may need a prefix "Prosecution" in

    13 each case --

    14 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour.

    15 JUDGE MAY: To distinguish it from Defence

    16 exhibits. I'll inquire from the Registry if there is

    17 any difficulty about that.

    18 THE REGISTRAR: I don't think so. I'll talk

    19 to the Office of the Prosecutor and I am sure that

    20 will be possible.

    21 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

    22 MR. KEEGAN: It would be our submission, Your

    23 Honour, that any future documents, and I am sure the

    24 Trial Chamber is aware and the Defence are aware, that

    25 we're still going through the documents which were

  18. 1 collected on our various missions. As those documents

    2 are translated and available, we would then propose to,

    3 as we categorise them, simply give them the next number

    4 in order within a particular section. So, for example,

    5 the next document for Autonomous Region of Krajina

    6 would be 2.27. Any other documents, which we do not

    7 see as fitting directly into one of the labelled

    8 categories, or other exhibits not falling within that

    9 type of evidence, would then simply be numbered

    10 individually beginning with No. 8. And thereafter,

    11 you'd have Exhibits 8, 9 and 10 and so on, if that's

    12 agreeable to the parties and to the Trial Chamber.

    13 JUDGE MAY: Yes, well, if is there any

    14 agreement, that should be encouraged. Any other

    15 matters, of course, we'll have to deal with. If there

    16 are objections to exhibits, we'll deal with them when

    17 they come to be admitted in evidence, rather than

    18 attempting to do it at the beginning.

    19 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour. The final

    20 point is while the Defence and Prosecution have reached

    21 agreement on admission, the Prosecution would note, of

    22 course, that we believe that the admission of the

    23 documents is still subject to the submission of the

    24 final translation, as many of the documents submitted,

    25 of course, are still in draught. But the Defence has

  19. 1 agreed, in principle, to the content and to their

    2 admission. We would, of course, submit the final

    3 translation as that is prepared for us by the

    4 translation section.

    5 JUDGE MAY: Is there anything the Defence

    6 want to say about that?

    7 MR. VUCICEVIC: Yes, Your Honour, indeed, you

    8 know, I would concur with the gist and the essence of

    9 the agreement that Mr. Keegan has heretofore presented

    10 to you. But with some exceptions that I would like to

    11 take, I'll start, you know, from his last.

    12 Indeed, there are quite a few documents that

    13 have been submitted to us, either -- have been

    14 illegible because of the copying problems which are of

    15 the objective nature. And I have agreed on a general

    16 objection, which Mr. Keegan has agreed upon, that all

    17 of those originals will be tendered to the Court and,

    18 you know, copies given to us. So they would be legible

    19 in their original Serbo-Croat.

    20 And also, another standing objection would be

    21 that we will have to read the translation and see

    22 whether it reflects the real usage of the official

    23 language that is contained therein.

    24 So those are two kind of standard objections

    25 that we'll have to review all of those documents. They

  20. 1 do not have a final version of the translation.

    2 We have a little bit of a difficulties

    3 because there is a substantial number of documents.

    4 And I have talked to Mr. Keegan about this yesterday

    5 and I apologise, Michael, but you know -- but this is

    6 only my --

    7 JUDGE MAY: No, don't refer to counsel across

    8 the --

    9 MR. VUCICEVIC: I apologise because I didn't

    10 get to address this point to Mr. Keegan yesterday.

    11 But, in getting all the documents which are going to be

    12 introduced in evidence, if you do not get them by

    13 sometime in August, which I understand there will be no

    14 proceedings in August, we might be at a disadvantage

    15 because if some of those documents, which at present

    16 time we do not know what they might contain, we will

    17 not be in a position to use them to cross-examine any

    18 of the witnesses you've heard so far testified. And I

    19 hope we'll not have to ask to recall any of the

    20 Prosecution witnesses to cross-examine them or any

    21 particular documents. But, if a case which is, indeed,

    22 so real and so pertinent to the Defence of my client,

    23 we would like to ask you to think about this

    24 possibility. Thank you.

    25 JUDGE MAY: Yes, thank you. Very well, we'll

  21. 1 leave the matter of exhibits in that way, that clearly

    2 the parties should as soon as possible have an agreed

    3 list of documents and exhibits and any others will have

    4 to be dealt with by the Trial Chamber as they arise and

    5 are produced.

    6 Now, are there any other matters before we go

    7 into closed session? Are there any other matters that

    8 anybody wants to raise?

    9 MS. HOLLIS: No, Your Honour.

    10 JUDGE MAY: Very well, we'll go into closed

    11 session to consider the two motions from the

    12 Prosecution. It would be our intention after that

    13 immediately to adjourn and take a break and we'll be

    14 back, I hope, within half an hour or so.

    15 Yes, Mr. Vucicevic?

    16 MR. VUCICEVIC: If I may, Your Honour. I

    17 have not gotten a chance to read those two motions.

    18 And, with all due respect, I believe they might be

    19 similar motions to which we stipulated before. But,

    20 indeed, without reading, it will be difficult for me to

    21 stipulate. And I know from the cover page, that those

    22 are the first two witnesses whose identity has been

    23 disclosed to us and, you know, whose statements,

    24 proffered statements, have been disclosed to us --

    25 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Vucicevic, let me interrupt.

  22. 1 We do not need to consider these immediately. Unless

    2 Ms. Hollis has got any objection to doing it in this

    3 way, we can, at an appropriate moment in the next three

    4 days, deal with them.

    5 MS. HOLLIS: We, have no objection to that,

    6 Your Honour.

    7 JUDGE MAY: We'll deal with them when you've

    8 had a chance to read the motions, Mr. Vucicevic.

    9 MR. VUCICEVIC: Thank you so much, Your

    10 Honour.

    11 JUDGE MAY: We'll adjourn now for twenty

    12 minutes and consider the motion.

    13 --- Recess taken at 10.15 a.m.

    --- On resuming at 10.45 a.m.


    16 JUDGE MAY: We'll give our ruling in relation

    17 to the Defence motion to strike certain counts. That

    18 motion is refused. We will, in due course, give our

    19 full reasons in writing. Meanwhile, I would say this,

    20 that in relation to the counts based on Articles 2 and

    21 3, they all, in our judgement, relate to the merits of

    22 the case. The fact that a Trial Chamber ruled in Tadic

    23 does not, in our view, bind us, and we must rule in

    24 relation to the offences under Article 2 on the

    25 evidence which we hear in this case.

  23. 1 As for the offences under Article 3, it will

    2 be for this Trial Chamber at the close of the evidence

    3 to decide upon its interpretation, and, in due course,

    4 we will do that.

    5 We will hear the motions in relation to the

    6 protection of witnesses tomorrow morning at half past

    7 nine, at the outset of proceedings.

    8 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, perhaps, if I

    9 may address the court. I have reviewed the motions and

    10 Defence has no objections to them and we would like to

    11 stipulate to the measures requested.

    12 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Very well, we'll make

    13 the orders, as requested.

    14 Now, we are going to turn next to the opening

    15 statement of the Prosecution. But before we do so, so

    16 that we can timetable matters, we will adjourn at half

    17 past 12. That will be the normal adjournment time for

    18 the lunch adjournment. It may be of assistance to the

    19 parties if I mention the hours of sitting during the

    20 case.

    21 We will commence each day during this trial

    22 at half past 9. There will be a 20-minute break at

    23 about 11 o'clock. The luncheon adjournment, as I have

    24 said, will be at 12.30 p.m., and we will resume sitting at

    25 2 p.m. At 3.30 p.m. there will be a quarter of an hour

  24. 1 break, and we will finish for the day at 5 p.m., and that

    2 will be the daily timetable. And this week we'll be

    3 sitting for three days, and we will be sitting for five

    4 days next week.

    5 Mr. Vucicevic, could you help us as far as

    6 the timetable today is concerned about a Defence

    7 opening statement. And if you would tell us if you

    8 wish to open your case before the Prosecution have

    9 given their evidence, call their evidence, or whether

    10 you wish to do it after. Under the Rules you can do

    11 either.

    12 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, our general

    13 request is that we would like to open our case after

    14 the Prosecution is -- has rested in their case in

    15 chief. However, if this Trial Chamber would permit us

    16 to make a short -- to reserve a short part of our time

    17 in the opening just to point out the weaknesses of the

    18 Prosecution case in chief. And, Your Honours, I, with

    19 the greatest of responsibility, ask of you for this --

    20 to grant this permission. Because in the opening

    21 statement a party would comment on their evidence,

    22 their theory of the case, and on the Prosecutor's

    23 weaknesses of the case, however, because of the reasons

    24 that we have stated formally in writing to this Trial

    25 Chamber, our wish to proceed as expeditiously as

  25. 1 possible, we could not at this time present full

    2 opening statements. That's why we are reserving it for

    3 just before the beginning of our case.

    4 But if you would grant us, perhaps, 15

    5 minutes, that would, I sincerely believe, help this

    6 Trial Chamber in understanding to a great deal our

    7 cross-examinations and our probing of the Prosecutor's

    8 case.

    9 JUDGE MAY: So you would like to make a short

    10 statement after the Prosecution this morning?

    11 MR. VUCICEVIC: Yes, Your Honour.

    12 JUDGE MAY: But reserve the right to make the

    13 remainder of the statement at the close of the

    14 Prosecution evidence? Is that the position?

    15 MR. VUCICEVIC: That's our position, Your

    16 Honour.

    17 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will allow that.

    18 Ms. Hollis, I think it is now for you to

    19 begin. Before you do, there is just one matter that I

    20 mention. That concerns the evidence of Dr. Greve. I

    21 understand that she is available to give evidence, but

    22 before she does, the Trial Chamber would wish to

    23 discuss the status of her evidence with counsel. So,

    24 at a convenient moment, just before she gives evidence,

    25 we will do that.

  26. 1 MS. HOLLIS: In that regard, Your Honour, she

    2 is certainly here in The Hague and prepared to give

    3 evidence. Based on the last scheduling order that we

    4 received, we had prepared her to begin her evidence

    5 tomorrow. We can certainly present that evidence this

    6 afternoon, but we may need a bit of a longer break in

    7 order to work out some of the logistics of her

    8 testimony itself.

    9 JUDGE MAY: Very well. If need be, you can

    10 have it.

    11 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour.

    12 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

    13 MS. HOLLIS: May it please the Court. The

    14 evidence in this case will prove the following: The

    15 accused, Milan Kovacevic, acting as part of the Bosnian

    16 Serb leadership in the Prijedor Municipality, played a

    17 key role in putting in place and carrying out a series

    18 of acts to achieve what has been termed ethnic

    19 cleansing in Prijedor. In order to achieve that goal,

    20 the accused, as one of, and acting with other Bosnian

    21 Serb leaders in Prijedor, subjected the non-Serb

    22 population to a wide range of criminal acts, including

    23 the destruction of a thriving Muslim and Croat

    24 population, the targeting, in particular, of Muslims

    25 and Croats, based on their ethnic, religious or

  27. 1 political identity, the killing, beating, torture and

    2 rape of non-Serbs, their detention in grossly inhumane

    3 conditions, the forcible transfer and deportation of

    4 non-Serbs, particularly Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian

    5 Croats, and the looting of their property.

    6 These crimes resulted in the near

    7 destruction, if not the actual destruction, of the

    8 Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats as viable groups

    9 within the Prijedor Municipality.

    10 The accused in this case was, and is, a

    11 medical doctor. History has shown us, as will the

    12 evidence in this case, that his profession did not

    13 prevent this accused from participating fully and

    14 knowingly in the crimes that took place in Opstina

    15 Prijedor during the period 29 April 1992 to 31 December

    16 1992.

    17 The accused and other Serb leaders in

    18 Prijedor Municipality set in place the conditions which

    19 led to genocide, grave breaches of the Geneva

    20 Conventions, crimes against humanity, and violations of

    21 the laws and customs of war, the crimes with which this

    22 accused is charged.

    23 The evidence will prove that this accused

    24 gave assistance, support, encouragement to, and

    25 otherwise aided and abetted Serbs who killed, tortured,

  28. 1 raped, beat and forcibly displaced the majority of the

    2 non-Serb population of Prijedor, predominantly the

    3 Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, forcing those who

    4 survived the atrocities committed there to flee

    5 intolerable conditions of life. Those allowed to

    6 leave, had to sign away their property and state they

    7 were leaving Prijedor voluntarily.

    8 The evidence will prove that this accused

    9 acted with the intent to commit genocide against

    10 Muslims and Croats in Opstina Prijedor. The evidence

    11 will reveal the open and notorious nature of the

    12 offences committed in Prijedor during the period

    13 29 April 1992 to 31 December 1992. Entire villages and

    14 hamlets and entire sections of Prijedor town were

    15 cleansed of non-Serbs, and then those areas were

    16 destroyed. Thousands of people were taken to camps.

    17 Thousands were forcibly expelled from the Opstina.

    18 Beatings and other maltreatment of non-Serbs

    19 were open and notorious at the police station in

    20 Prijedor town itself, which was located across the

    21 street from the Municipal Assembly building in which

    22 the accused had offices. The area in front of the

    23 police station came to earn the title "the street of

    24 hell."

    25 Such evidence, among other proof, will show

  29. 1 that the accused acted either with the knowledge that

    2 the likely consequence of his conduct would be the

    3 Commission of genocide, or, with a conscious desire to

    4 bring about the genocide of the Bosnian Muslim and

    5 Bosnian Croat population of Opstina Prijedor on

    6 national, religious or ethnical grounds.

    7 The evidence will reveal that through his

    8 acts and failures to act, the accused directed,

    9 assisted, supported, or otherwise aided and abetted,

    10 the charged crimes of genocide, grave breaches of the

    11 1949 Geneva Conventions, crimes against humanity, and

    12 violations of Article 3 which were committed against

    13 the non-Serb population of Prijedor.

    14 The accused did this in his capacity as a

    15 member of the ruling Serb elite in Prijedor, a leading

    16 member of the SDS, president of the executive committee

    17 of the Municipal Assembly, and as de facto

    18 vice-president of the Crisis Staff, which was the

    19 highest decision-making body in the Opstina during the

    20 time period charged. In these capacities, the accused

    21 assisted, supported, directed, encouraged and otherwise

    22 aided and abetted the offences of which he is charged.

    23 The evidence will also prove the accused

    24 criminally responsible for the charged crimes by virtue

    25 of his position of superior authority over others who

  30. 1 assisted or, more directly, perpetrated the charges of

    2 genocide, grave breaches, crimes against humanity, and

    3 violations of the laws and customs of war.

    4 As a member of the bodies that controlled,

    5 directed, assisted and supported the atrocities in

    6 Prijedor, the accused was in a position of superior

    7 authority to those Serbs who assisted in or actually

    8 carried out killings, beatings, torture, rape, forced

    9 detention in grossly inhumane conditions and the forced

    10 transfer and deportation of non-Serb inhabitants of

    11 Opstina Prijedor. He knew or had reason to know of the

    12 atrocities being committed and failed to take

    13 reasonable and necessary action to prevent the crimes

    14 or to punish the perpetrators of those crimes.

    15 What was the setting from which the charged

    16 offences arose, and in which they took place? The

    17 evidence in this case will prove that in the spring of

    18 1992 conditions in Opstina Prijedor were in place for

    19 the crimes that were to follow in the late spring,

    20 summer, and fall, of that year. As the Socialist

    21 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or the SFRY was

    22 dissolving into independent states in 1990, in 1991,

    23 political parties had emerged. Three of these parties

    24 came to be associated with particular ethnic groups.

    25 The SDS, the Serb Democratic Party, came

  31. 1 to be identified with Serbs.

    2 The SDA, the Party for Democratic Action,

    3 identified with Muslims.

    4 And the HDZ, the Croatian Democratic Union,

    5 came to be identified with Croats.

    6 In Prijedor, the results of the November,

    7 1990, elections reflected the ethnic identity

    8 associated with the three main parties, with the SDA

    9 winning a slight majority to match the slight

    10 population majority, of Muslims over the Serbs in that

    11 municipality.

    12 During this period Serb nationalism was

    13 enjoying revitalised existence. The Bosnian SDS party

    14 was committed to keeping Bosnia as a part of the

    15 current Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or

    16 connected with Serbia as a part of a Greater Serbia,

    17 an historic concept that encompassed all areas in which

    18 Serbs presided.

    19 Bosnian SDS leaders, including the accused,

    20 were strong supporters of this concept of a Greater

    21 Serbia. Prijedor was critical to this scheme for a

    22 Greater Serbia because of its location in the strategic

    23 corridor linking Serb areas in Croatia to Serbia

    24 proper.

    25 Throughout this period symbols of Serb

  32. 1 nationalism reappeared, including Serb nationalistic

    2 songs, flags and emblems. The media was taken over by

    3 Serbs and used to promote propaganda that instilled

    4 nationalistic spirit in Serbs and made them fear and

    5 mistrust non-Serbs, especially Muslims.

    6 By the spring of 1992, the SDS had conducted

    7 a plebiscite showing that the majority of Bosnian Serbs

    8 wanted to remain united with fellow Serbs in Serbia.

    9 As a result of that plebiscite, Bosnian Serbs had

    10 created the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

    11 The Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina had held a

    12 referendum on independence from the Socialist Federal

    13 Republic of Yugoslavia, which the Serbs boycotted. The

    14 result of that referendum was a majority vote for

    15 independence.

    16 The SDS, and other nationalistic Serbs

    17 vehemently opposed to an independent Bosnia and

    18 Herzegovina, determined to keep Serbs together with

    19 Serbia no matter what it took to do so.

    20 When Bosnia-Herzegovina became independent in

    21 April of 1992, Bosnian Serbs determined to take strong

    22 action to prevent separation from Serbia.

    23 The Yugoslav People's Army, the JNA, had been

    24 fortified in the Municipality of Prijedor and in the

    25 region with a large number of soldiers, artillery,

  33. 1 armoured units and large stocks of weapon and

    2 ammunition redeployed from Croatia. High level JNA

    3 commanders, who were sympathetic to the SDS cause, were

    4 in place. This reinforced army was to play a

    5 significant role in the upcoming crimes committed

    6 against non-Serb civilians in Opstina Prijedor.

    7 The Serbs in Prijedor had also created a

    8 strong police force of their own. Simo Drljaca, who

    9 was to figure prominently in the future Serb government

    10 of Prijedor, acknowledged in an annual report, a

    11 newspaper article, that the SDS had created illegal

    12 Serb police stations and an illegal Serb police force

    13 of almost 2.000 men prior to the Serb take-over of power

    14 in the Opstina on 30 April 1992.

    15 During the spring of 1992, non-Serbs were

    16 being forced to turn in all weapons they had, leaving

    17 the great majority of non-Serbs unarmed, with only a

    18 relatively small number of persons having a small

    19 number of mostly older, defective smaller arms and

    20 limited ammunition --

    21 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please

    22 slow down for the benefit of interpreters.

    23 JUDGE MAY: Ms. Hollis, there is a request

    24 from the interpreters for you to slow down, please.

    25 MS. HOLLIS: I will attempt to do that, Your

  34. 1 Honour.

    2 At first, the arming of the Serbs in Opstina

    3 Prijedor was carried out somewhat secretly. There came

    4 a time in that spring, however, when the arming became

    5 an open matter. The SDS and the Banja Luka region had

    6 created a regional Serb parallel government, the

    7 Autonomous Region of Krajina. Municipalities where the

    8 Serbs held a clear majority had openly joined the

    9 autonomous region through a vote in the Municipal

    10 Assembly of those opstinas. Serbs in Prijedor, who did

    11 not have a political majority, were unable to join the

    12 Autonomous Region in Krajina by this means. Therefore,

    13 the SDS in Prijedor had created a shadow government in

    14 preparation for a take-over of power by force.

    15 Those in positions of authority in the shadow

    16 government had to be totally loyal to SDS principles

    17 and goals. Bosnian SDS principles and goals were

    18 strongly nationalistic, incorporating the idea of a

    19 Greater Serbia.

    20 The accused, an avowed nationalist, who had

    21 been present during the foundation of the SDS in

    22 Prijedor, held a key position in this shadow

    23 government, President of the executive committee of

    24 the Municipal Assembly, the same position he was to

    25 hold after the Serbs forcibly took over from the


  35. 1 elected non-Serb officials of Prijedor on 30 April

    2 1992.

    3 Also, by the spring of 1992, the SDS and

    4 other Serb nationalists had resurrected historic

    5 schemes to ensure Serbs would be in the overwhelming

    6 majority in this Greater Serbia, with just a small

    7 percentage of loyal non-Serbs remaining, perhaps as low

    8 as two percent. These schemes included plans by which

    9 to achieve that objective:

    10 First, to impose conditions of life that

    11 would force non-Serbs to leave the Serb areas.

    12 Secondly, deportations and forced expulsions and,

    13 thirdly, liquidation, that is the killing of non-Serbs.

    14 The evidence will prove that the Serb drive

    15 to rid Opstina Prijedor of the great majority of its

    16 non-Serb inhabitants, in particular those of Bosnian

    17 Muslim ethnicity, reflected this three-tiered approach

    18 to ethnic cleansing.

    19 On 30 April, in a well planned action, the

    20 SDS took power in Prijedor. The accused was present

    21 with other top Serb leaders at the military barracks in

    22 Prijedor when they made the decision that the moment

    23 had come to seize power.

    24 A Serb Crisis Staff immediately went into

    25 action, taking control over all functions of the

  36. 1 municipality. The Crisis Staff became the highest

    2 authority in the Opstina, to which all other bodies in

    3 the Opstina were subordinate and with which all other

    4 bodies cooperated. The Crisis Staff, later transformed

    5 into the War Presidency, was the body that gave the

    6 direction, support, and leadership to the crimes which

    7 are the subject of this indictment.

    8 The Crisis Staff immediately began to use the

    9 radio, television, and newspaper to give orders and

    10 ultimatums to non-Serb members of the Opstina.

    11 Movement and association of non-Serbs was restricted.

    12 Non-Serbs were removed from their jobs and replaced

    13 with Serbs.

    14 Again, only those totally loyal to the SDS

    15 and its goal of a united Serb peoples were allowed

    16 positions of leadership in this Crisis Staff.

    17 The accused held an important position in the

    18 Crisis Staff. When that body transformed into the War

    19 Presidency, the accused was a member of that as well.

    20 During this time, the accused was

    21 participating in the functioning of the Crisis Staff

    22 and was actively carrying out his duties as President

    23 of the executive committee. The evidence will prove

    24 that his activities in that position included removing

    25 non-Serb officials from the government, and appointing

  37. 1 Serb replacements, separating Prijedor branches of

    2 non-Serb businesses from the parent company, allocating

    3 funds, and providing logistical support for the army

    4 and the police. The stage was set.

    5 On 22 May an incident occurred at a

    6 checkpoint at the village of Hambarine, a predominantly

    7 Muslim village near the town of Prijedor. Shortly

    8 after, the Prijedor Crisis Staff issued an ultimatum to

    9 inhabitants of that village to surrender any weapons

    10 they had and to surrender a Muslim policeman alleged to

    11 have killed two Serb police -- excuse me, two Serb

    12 soldiers at the checkpoint.

    13 Thereafter, when neither the weapons nor the

    14 policemen were turned over, the Serbs attacked

    15 Hambarine with heavy artillery bombardment followed by

    16 a ground assault. During the artillery attack, there

    17 was no return artillery or small arms fire from the

    18 village. Houses were set on fire. Occupants who did

    19 not flee were rounded up and detained. Some of those

    20 rounded up were beaten.

    21 On 24 May Kozarac, a town that was

    22 predominantly Muslim, met a similar fate. After an

    23 ultimatum for surrender of weapons had passed, the

    24 Serbs directed a heavy artillery attack on the town

    25 which lasted for about two days, followed by a ground

  38. 1 assault. Many thousands of inhabitants who did not

    2 flee were rounded up, sorted out, and sent to camps

    3 that were set up and waiting for them, Omarska,

    4 Keraterm and Trnopolje.

    5 On 30 May, after a thwarted attempt by a

    6 small number of Muslims and Croats to regain control of

    7 key buildings in the centre of the town of Prijedor,

    8 Muslim areas of the town were attacked, the majority of

    9 the Muslim inhabitants were rounded up and taken to the

    10 camps that had already been established.

    11 Some non-Serbs were taken to the Prijedor

    12 police station and the military barracks before

    13 transfer to the camps. Beatings and other atrocities

    14 were committed at both locations. The area outside the

    15 police station, which was across the street from the

    16 Municipal Assembly building, was described by one

    17 witness as the "the street of hell." Notorious crimes

    18 were committed there. The scene was often chaotic,

    19 with shouting, non-Serb prisoners beaten, both inside

    20 and outside the police station, buses arriving and

    21 departing to take non-Serbs to one of the camps,

    22 usually to Omarska or Keraterm.

    23 The SDS and Crisis Staff members were present

    24 at the police station on some of the occasions when

    25 prisoners were brought there. One female witness will

  39. 1 testify that the accused was present in the police

    2 station when she was taken there. She will testify she

    3 was held there and raped before she was allowed to

    4 return to her apartment.

    5 The evidence will show that throughout the

    6 following weeks other Muslim communities suffered the

    7 same fate as Hambarine, Kozarac and Stari Grad, or the

    8 old town section of Prijedor. Attacks supported by

    9 heavy weapons were followed by ground attacks and the

    10 round up of most of the inhabitants, including those

    11 who had been driven out of their homes and other

    12 villages or hamlets. Men and women were then taken to

    13 the camps. As in Kozarac and Hambarine, non-Serb males

    14 were taken out of the columns and killed or beaten as

    15 they were rounded up.

    16 Women, children, and elderly men left behind

    17 in these villages or hamlets, were eventually forced to

    18 leave their homes or places of shelter and sent to

    19 Trnopolje to await deportation from the Opstina.

    20 These attacks, roundups, and forced removals

    21 to camps were directed by, supported, assisted, or

    22 otherwise aided and abetted by the Crisis Staff of

    23 Prijedor and occurred with the knowledge of the Crisis

    24 Staff.

    25 The evidence will prove that those non-Serbs

  40. 1 left behind, who were not actually later ordered to

    2 leave the villages or hamlets, were nonetheless forced

    3 to go to Trnopolje because they believed the places

    4 that had once been their homes were now more dangerous

    5 than the camp at Trnopolje.

    6 Killings, beatings, destruction of hamlets

    7 and villages, harassment, threats, looting, lack of

    8 protection, lack of income, lack of health care and

    9 food, all gave them no choice but to leave.

    10 When towns and villages were attacked and

    11 cleansed, buses would typically be waiting to take the

    12 non-Serb prisoners to camps. Most of these were

    13 commercial buses, very often of the auto transport

    14 company in Prijedor. Police cars, "Black Marias", and

    15 conscripted private autos were also used to transport

    16 prisoners to the camps.

    17 The guards were waiting for the prisoners to

    18 arrive, standing in place. If either Omarska or

    19 Keraterm was momentarily full, the prisoners would be

    20 sent to another of the camps, which would take them

    21 in. Prisoners saw lists being used to place people and

    22 to call people out. Interrogators came daily to

    23 Omarska and Keraterm from Prijedor and Banja Luka.

    24 Interrogations were accompanied by beatings and other

    25 abuse.

  41. 1 The guards at Omarska would often form

    2 cordons as the prisoners arrived, beating them as they

    3 passed through. Ethnic slurs were common in all the

    4 camps, with words such as "Balijas", "Turks", "Ustashas", and

    5 cursing of prisoners, "balijas mothers". Omarska and

    6 Keraterm were camps where death was frequent and

    7 violent day and night. The guards and others allowed

    8 into the camp were free to kill, beat, torture and

    9 rape.

    10 The commanders and other senior staff in

    11 charge of the camps did not prevent the crimes. They

    12 were often participants in the crimes.

    13 Keraterm camp was located immediately

    14 adjacent to the main road into Prijedor. What was

    15 happening to prisoners in that camp could be plainly

    16 seen by all who passed by. The evidence will show that

    17 the conditions in the camps were such that prisoners

    18 would perish if kept there over an extended period.

    19 Overcrowding and shut up rooms during the very hot

    20 summer months of 1992, lack of functioning toilets, one

    21 meal a day, consisting of a small piece of bread and a

    22 minuscule amount of some watery soup that often caused

    23 diarrhoea. Water that was not fit for drinking,

    24 causing people’s urine to turn orange. Daily beatings

    25 also caused urine to change colour, that is to red. No

  42. 1 medical care existed, except that provided by other

    2 prisoners, such as Dr. Sadikovic in the Omarska camp.

    3 The evidence will show that Omarska -- in

    4 Omarska prisoners saw corpses every day lying in wait

    5 for the small truck that normally picked them up.

    6 Killings were routine in Keraterm as well. And in both

    7 camps incidents of large scale massacres took place.

    8 The bodies of prisoners killed in the camps were

    9 routinely taken from the camps to be disposed of

    10 elsewhere.

    11 On at least two occasions there were so many

    12 bodies to be picked up that large trucks had to be used

    13 to take the corpses away. Indeed, even in Prijedor,

    14 one witness will tell you about observing a truck with

    15 parts of bodies visible, being driven through the town

    16 for all to see.

    17 The evidence will prove that the conditions

    18 in Trnopolje were better only in the sense that the

    19 conditions in the other two camps were beyond

    20 description. At Trnopolje, killings and beatings were

    21 less frequent, but did occur. Women were taken out to

    22 be raped. There was no medical care, except for that

    23 provided by the prisoners themselves, and medical

    24 supplies were minimal. It was through this camp that

    25 most forcible expulsions were effected.

  43. 1 Witnesses will testify that the accused was

    2 present at both the Trnopolje and Keraterm camps.

    3 The evidence will show that successful,

    4 educated, influential non-Serbs, especially Muslims,

    5 those who had held positions of leadership in the

    6 Muslim or Croat community, were selected for especially

    7 severe treatment in the camps. Many of these leaders

    8 were killed or taken away and not seen or heard from

    9 since that time. Non-Serb businesses were confiscated,

    10 depriving the owners of their entire life's work.

    11 In August of 1992, Radovan Karadzic,

    12 President of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and

    13 Herzegovina, gave permission for an outside team of

    14 journalists to visit Omarska camp. Instructions were

    15 sent down from higher level Serb leaders in an attempt

    16 to cover up the atrocities that had been committed in

    17 Keraterm and Omarska.

    18 The municipal Serb authorities ensured

    19 Omarska was cleared of most prisoners, bloody halls

    20 and floors were cleaned, beds were brought in, and the

    21 remaining prisoners were cleaned up for viewing. These

    22 remaining prisoners were also given instructions as to

    23 what to say to the journalists, including that they had

    24 been in this camp only two weeks.

    25 Keraterm was also cleared of most, if not

  44. 1 all, the prisoners. After being delayed for days in

    2 Belgrade and Pale, the team of journalists arrived to

    3 speak with the leaders of the Serb government in

    4 Prijedor. The evidence will make clear that the

    5 accused played a vital role during these discussions.

    6 After unsuccessfully attempting to persuade the

    7 journalists not to visit Omarska, the commander of the

    8 43rd Motorised Brigade, Colonel Arsic, informed the

    9 journalists that if they indeed wanted to go to Omarska,

    10 he had no authority there. It was the civilian

    11 authorities that ran that camp.

    12 The evidence will show the accused was the

    13 dominant spokesman for those civilian authorities.

    14 One of the journalists will testify that it was made

    15 clear to him that the accused and Simo Drljaca were the

    16 men responsible for the day-to-day running of Omarska

    17 camp, the journalists visit to the camp and then to

    18 Trnopolje, proved to be stark evidence of the crimes

    19 that had occurred and were occurring in Opstina

    20 Prijedor. The evidence will reveal that the Serb

    21 leaders of Prijedor required those who were forced to

    22 leave the municipality, either directly or by the

    23 directions of life inflicted on them, to sign over

    24 their property and sign statements that they were

    25 leaving voluntarily. Many of them were required to pay

  45. 1 to be allowed to leave.

    2 The forced transfer and deportations of

    3 non-Serbs, predominantly Muslims, continued on a large

    4 scale through the late summer and fall of 1992, with

    5 thousands of non-Serbs being forced to leave. One such

    6 forced deportation occurred on about 21 August, some

    7 two weeks after the world's attention had been drawn to

    8 Prijedor and to Omarska. This large group of deportees

    9 was being escorted by Prijedor police. Some 250

    10 military-aged men were taken off the buses and

    11 massacred at a site along the route to the town of

    12 Travnik. When word of the massacre began to spread,

    13 the regional police authorities ordered the Prijedor

    14 chief of police, Simo Drljaca, a member of the War

    15 Presidency, to investigate and take appropriate

    16 action. The Prijedor police chief's reply was that he

    17 could not, because the police involved had been sent to

    18 the front.

    19 The evidence in this case will not only prove

    20 the particular acts committed in Prijedor were

    21 committed with genocidal intent, the evidence will also

    22 establish the widespread or systemic nature of the

    23 attacks against the non-Serb civilian population of

    24 Prijedor. Throughout the Opstina the same scenario

    25 unfolded: villages and hamlets were cleansed of

  46. 1 non-Serbs. The inhabitants were either killed, taken

    2 to camps immediately, or forced to leave through

    3 imposition of intolerable conditions of life. Muslims

    4 and Croats were persecuted based on their religious,

    5 racial or political identity. The evidence will

    6 further prove these crimes were committed against

    7 protected persons in the midst of an armed conflict

    8 that included forces from the Socialist Federal

    9 Republic of Yugoslavia, and then, later, from the Federal

    10 Republic of Yugoslavia, the FRY.

    11 The evidence will reveal that in November

    12 1991, Serb inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

    13 including those in the Prijedor Municipality, had

    14 expressed their commitment to remain nationals of an

    15 entity in which Serbia was a member. They were

    16 prepared to use force to do this if necessary.

    17 In the spring of 1992, the JNA assisted Serbs

    18 in the Prijedor Municipality to arm and to make plans

    19 to take over that municipality. In May of 1992 and

    20 onward, the army was an active participant in the

    21 attacks on non-Serbs, rounding up of non-Serbs for

    22 forcible detention in camps and the forcible expulsion

    23 from the municipality.

    24 In addition to providing weapons, ammunition

    25 and logistical and financial support throughout the

  47. 1 charged period, Serbia continued to provide troops who

    2 continued to participate in the conflict in Prijedor

    3 and other parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In May of

    4 1992, the JNA allegedly withdrew from Bosnia and

    5 Herzegovina and allegedly split into two armies: the VRS

    6 of Serb Bosnia and Herzegovina and the VJ of the

    7 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The evidence will

    8 prove that the withdrawal and split were, however,

    9 nothing more than a redesignation for political

    10 expediency. The evidence will show that after the

    11 announced withdrawal and split, it was business as

    12 usual for the army in the Prijedor area and elsewhere.

    13 Virtually all the Serb commanders in the Banja Luka

    14 area who were from Serbia or Montenegro remained in

    15 place. The officers were paid by Belgrade. Their

    16 retirements were paid by Belgrade. Weapons and

    17 ammunition and other supplies were those of the JNA and

    18 continued to be replenished from Serbia. Unlike the

    19 JNA withdrawals in other areas, such as Slovenia and

    20 Croatia, when the JNA allegedly withdrew from the Banja

    21 Luka area, it left behind all its weaponry, ammunition,

    22 supplies, even aircraft. The totality of the evidence

    23 will show that the conflict in Prijedor was part of a

    24 conflict that was international in scope, and the

    25 victims were protected under the provisions of the 1949

  48. 1 Geneva Conventions.

    2 The evidence you will receive will include

    3 expert testimony, the testimony of survivors of the

    4 atrocities in Prijedor, documents that establish the

    5 accused’s authority and that reflect the words, actions,

    6 directives and intent of the accused and other Serb

    7 leaders. It also will include audio and videotape

    8 submissions. This evidence in its totality and the

    9 reasonable inferences to be drawn from this evidence

    10 will prove the accused's guilt beyond any reasonable

    11 doubt. Thank you.

    12 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Vucicevic, if you wish to

    13 reply.

    14 MR. VUCICEVIC: Yes, Your Honour. Your

    15 Honours, in a criminal case, when the Prosecutor wants

    16 to put my client in prison for the rest of his natural

    17 life, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable

    18 doubt. And such a high burden of proof cannot sustain

    19 the factual elements that are reasonable. And in

    20 almost each and every one of the allegations, which

    21 directly reflect on my client, Dr. Kovacevic, there is

    22 a reasonable explanation.

    23 Prosecutors' evidence, as disclosed to the

    24 Defence, does not establish, even by preponderance of

    25 the evidence, a plan on the first count of the

  49. 1 initially confirmed indictment. The elements of the

    2 plan, that the authorities of Republika Srpska

    3 planned to commit genocide. In fact, the statements

    4 clearly reveal there was no such a plan, the

    5 Prosecutors' witnesses.

    6 The next element would be a mens rea to

    7 implement such a plan and we have not heard much in the

    8 opening argument on that element. However, we did hear

    9 that Dr. Kovacevic, being a member of the medical

    10 profession, could not hold himself back, but allegedly

    11 commit these acts. We haven't heard that he was

    12 healing Muslim patients each and every day for the

    13 period in question, which is 2 months and 10 days, as

    14 stated by one of the detainees in Omarska, in a film

    15 which the Prosecution will introduce in the evidence.

    16 The first count of the indictment, besides

    17 the mens rea, demands that the act, an overt act be

    18 proven in commission of the complicity of genocide.

    19 Complicity to genocide cannot be found under the

    20 present laws by virtue of somebody not acting because

    21 the very nature of the charge is that an overt act

    22 should have a known standard is sufficient as a matter

    23 of law. But we respectfully add then that there is no

    24 evidence to that at all. As a matter of fact, evidence

    25 is to the contrary. Prosecutors' witnesses are going

  50. 1 to prove that to you.

    2 On most of the counts of the amended

    3 indictment, the essential element is a command

    4 authority. We don't have conclusive evidence from the

    5 Prosecutor, and you will see at the end of the

    6 Prosecutors' case in chief, that my client was a

    7 civilian. A man who was never elected, but appointed

    8 by the first coalition government, non-communist

    9 government in Prijedor, dedicated upon the principle to

    10 promote democracy, to give all people of Prijedor a

    11 chance to elect their representatives, to practice

    12 their religion, and to have a better life. And such a

    13 political coalition drafted my client to serve as the

    14 president of the municipal board. Non-elected, but an

    15 appointed position. And there is a lot of submission

    16 that SDS made it plain. We have not heard at all when

    17 indeed Dr. Kovacevic became a member of the SDS party.

    18 His confirmation as the president of the municipal

    19 board was unanimous by all ordermen of Muslim and

    20 Serb party. If my client had known while having

    21 lived in that community for 50 years of harbouring

    22 bigotry or ill-feelings against his fellow citizens who

    23 pray to a different lord or practice different

    24 religion, they would have known there was a closely

    25 knit community. Before the final communism was

  51. 1 overturned, communist system was overturned in

    2 Prijedor, the principles of brotherhood and unity

    3 existed, so these people were very close. So, to find

    4 our client guilty on the evidence that is being

    5 proffered here, it is, indeed, very high proposition.

    6 And we respectfully submit there is going to be, by

    7 using our common sense, indeed impossible.

    8 There is going to be evidence from the

    9 Prosecutors' witnesses that military had a chain of

    10 command; the police had a chain of command. And

    11 immediately, after all those facts were committed, the

    12 people in those chains of command affirm that they had

    13 authority and denied before this body was even

    14 conceived that, indeed, that was their authority and

    15 the civilians could not influence them.

    16 An exhibit which my learned colleague has

    17 presented to you, Your Honours, speaks of that. We

    18 paint with a broad brush in a criminal court and use in

    19 very essence, one exhibit, which Prosecutor is going to

    20 tend that it was SDS. And my client, that commanded

    21 the police, but omits another paragraph, which says it

    22 explicitly it didn't. And the third paragraph is going

    23 to be indeed a symptom of a disease that has a

    24 permeated Prosecution in this case. Not because of

    25 their willingness, but of the impossibilities and

  52. 1 difficulties that we are all facing in this type of

    2 trial. It's translation that suits somebody's, not

    3 consciously, but subconsciously, somebody's needs.

    4 That document will explain to you, that illegality

    5 term, which my learned counsel introduced, is not a

    6 correct translation at all. Whether something is legal

    7 or not will be something decided by, Your Honours, and

    8 cannot be put in a document based on the mistake in

    9 translations. So if we are going to use the document

    10 to tie up my client into the chain of command based on

    11 the mistaken translation and put him in the chain of

    12 command, then they're going to have 15 counts of the

    13 amended indictment.

    14 A lot has been said about Serb population

    15 of Prijedor wanted to live in one state with their

    16 brethren to the east living in Serbia proper. And

    17 their desire has been named a dream of greater Serbia,

    18 reawakening of Serbia nationalism. In the latest

    19 standard, I looked in the encyclopaedia on nationalism,

    20 has not been considered a negative or pejorative type

    21 term. The kind that you are going to see that my

    22 client didn't commit, are not the result of the

    23 nationalism or good nationalism. And if he, indeed,

    24 has any feelings of nationalism, they were not those to

    25 hurt the others. But, yet, I do not know how to defend

  53. 1 against this charge of Greater Serbia. My client is

    2 not guilty of that. And if he is guilty, maybe the

    3 people of Great Britain might be guilty of that because

    4 they live in Great Britain. And people of Italy are

    5 guilty of that because in the 19th century, they formed

    6 the Italy as we know it from Piedmont. And maybe we

    7 don't have to look too far in history, but maybe

    8 sometimes we do because we, as a Defence, we are forced

    9 to, Your Honours, and we would have to present you

    10 this.

    11 Again, touching on the concept of legality.

    12 The Prosecutor is sometimes -- they're using a

    13 concept. And that's based on the data, we're

    14 questioning underlying evidence that they have

    15 presented and might somehow -- they somehow, they've

    16 skewed them. Is that Serbs, have had a referendum

    17 whether or not to be a part of Bosnian Unitarian

    18 State. And that is considered a proper legal, when at

    19 that time Bosnian was a federal state within

    20 Yugoslavia. And according to existing constitutions, a

    21 session could only take place with two-thirds majority

    22 vote. And according to the laws existing at that time,

    23 majority has not -- two-thirds majority has not been

    24 obtained. And yet, the thrust of the Prosecution case

    25 is being relied on that, "legal, proper" decision.

  54. 1 However, while the civil war is raging in

    2 Bosnia, while over a 100 members of the Yugoslavia

    3 National Army that is pulling out in middle of May in

    4 Sarajevo are being ambushed on the streets and

    5 slaughtered, including several medical officers. On

    6 another occasion when two members of the International

    7 Red Cross are killed before the Prijedor ever erupted,

    8 when in Tuzla, the war is raging. The Yugoslav

    9 National Army's soldiers are being killed by pulling

    10 out, the Prosecutor is painting a picture of aces of

    11 peacefulness and quiet of Prijedor. So, therefore, a

    12 peaceful take-over in one municipality, by one party

    13 combatant in civil war, is upheld to a crime that about

    14 -- on which you are about to decide in the months to

    15 come. We have to use the equal measure for all parties

    16 in that civil war.

    17 At the same time, the Prosecutor is saying

    18 that Mr. Simo Drljaca, late chief of police in

    19 Prijedor, is giving an interview to the western media

    20 and he is basically stated in Omarska, there are three

    21 categories of the prisoners. He has said those are the

    22 detention camps and some of the prisoners of war. And

    23 there is a first category of the prisoners. We haven't

    24 heard it from the Prosecutor, but that's material that

    25 the Prosecutor has. The first category of the

  55. 1 prisoners are those the ones that organised and

    2 prepared, as they call it, the armed actions against

    3 the Serbs. And where is the armed actions when these

    4 camps got instituted? They were not instituted after

    5 the peaceful take-over, while the whole region in

    6 Krajina is encirclement without communication with the

    7 outside world, without electricity, without telephone,

    8 without food supply. And yet, not a single Muslim has

    9 been heard. Some were, from the leading positions,

    10 were fired. But as I know in my new adopted land, when

    11 one party comes to the power, the key position, they

    12 appoint their political appointees, that has been the

    13 same practice in Yugoslavia. Especially, you know,

    14 when it's reasonable to conclude within the condition

    15 of a civil war that is the most likely solution. And

    16 if it's reasonable, it cannot be convicted on that

    17 point.

    18 We are, it seems, somehow forgetting a

    19 psychology of war. We are somehow forgetting that

    20 Prijedor had a peaceful time while in all the other

    21 parts of Bosnia there is a shooting war. And Serbs are

    22 blamed and Serb military is blamed for commencing the

    23 armed activities in Prijedor and somehow being overall

    24 commanding officer, or whatever you might term, Dr.

    25 Kovacevic. He had no ranks. He had nothing. He is

  56. 1 not responsible for military activities. But, yet,

    2 military guns starting fire after two soldiers of the

    3 Yugoslav army or Bosnian army, what you shall determine

    4 what is proper, were killed. So that's military

    5 action. We somehow tend to minimise -- the Prosecutor

    6 somehow tends to minimise that there was a counter

    7 attack by the Muslim extremists on the Town of Prijedor

    8 who were determined to take, retake the power in

    9 Prijedor. Some small group, 100 to 150 armed men.

    10 However, we have -- we'll hear the evidence that 150

    11 men came from hiding from the various places in the

    12 town itself. And the major movements of the population

    13 was in a few days after the Muslims extremist launched

    14 that attack on the population, on the Prijedor town

    15 itself.

    16 These facts, Your Honour, negate the plan.

    17 These facts negate any coordination. These facts

    18 negate that my client had any authority. The

    19 Prosecutor has introduced the fact that commanding

    20 officer of the local garrison said civilians are

    21 responsible for Omarska. But Prosecutor is not saying

    22 who was responsible for the other detention centre,

    23 Keraterm. Perhaps, if the source was inquisitive

    24 enough, that question could have been asked, but

    25 certainly we will present that question.

  57. 1 It is important to say that when we use the

    2 term "genocide" and judge somebody of a most heinous

    3 crime that the world has known, we are not going to

    4 somehow take away from importance of this crime and we

    5 always have to compare it with an historical context

    6 where this crime had come into consideration; namely,

    7 with concentration camps in Nazi Germany in World War

    8 II. The train transport brought women, children and

    9 men of all ages, who were gassed immediately upon

    10 arrival. Not a single meal was served. Not even a

    11 single interrogation was taken place. No signs of

    12 loyalty were asked for. There were no Jewish

    13 formations, military formations, who fought on the

    14 German's or the Nazi's side. And all those are facts

    15 of civil war in Bosnia. The crimes, the charge of

    16 genocide is improper. And you will see that it shall

    17 not be proven beyond mere reasonable doubt.

    18 But as to the command and control, where the

    19 rest of the charges hinges upon, you will also find

    20 that first, the state of law is not as such at the

    21 present time that my client could be convicted of. But

    22 once you hear all the evidence, you will see the facts

    23 fall far, far short for you to exercise your

    24 historically given duty to extend this. You will say

    25 our dignity, our professional careers, are not going to

  58. 1 allow us to get to bring this Court within the

    2 political realm, but to keep it high where it's

    3 supposed to be, where all of us lawyers do stand when

    4 we have taken oath to uphold the justice. Thank you,

    5 Your Honours.

    6 JUDGE MAY: There is one matter, Mr.

    7 Vucicevic. You mentioned in your opening that there is

    8 some question of disputing the translation of some of

    9 these documents as I understand it; is that right?

    10 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, I did mention

    11 that. And what I am saying is that one of the

    12 documents clearly that Prosecutor mentioned, it does

    13 not reflect the usage. And based on the usage is

    14 prejudice, the Prosecutor and is going to prejudice the

    15 Court. But whenever the document comes in, because it

    16 has been used, we will point it to the Court.

    17 JUDGE MAY: The point is that we have a

    18 procedure here to deal with cases in which there are

    19 arguments and disputes about translation. I shall be

    20 reminded if I have it wrong, but as I understand the

    21 procedure, those documents should be submitted to the

    22 Tribunal where they will be submitted to a team of

    23 interpreters who will make a judgement as to the

    24 accuracy or otherwise of the translations which have

    25 been produced. Let me just check that that's correct.

  59. 1 MR. VUCICEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

    2 JUDGE MAY: Well, I understand that

    3 procedure, in fact, hasn't been used because there

    4 haven't been any disputes so far. But it has been used

    5 in relation to disputes about interpretation of

    6 witnesses' evidence and there is no reason why it

    7 shouldn't be adapted if there is a dispute about the

    8 translation of a document. But what I was coming to is

    9 this, that if there is some dispute, the best course

    10 would be to submit the document as early as possible,

    11 so that we can have an authoritative view about it.

    12 MR. VUCICEVIC: Yes, Your Honour. Your

    13 Honour, I will have a conference with the Prosecution

    14 on any inaccuracies that we do come across. But, Your

    15 Honour, with respect to the panels, since it hasn't

    16 been heretofore used, we would like to ask you to in a

    17 final authority over any document that is submitted to

    18 you is, Your Honours, this Trial Chamber, which would

    19 give us a right to present the argument if the last

    20 argument or last objection if it so exists.

    21 JUDGE MAY: There is a limit to what we can

    22 do about this sort of thing.

    23 It may be convenient to deal with one other

    24 matter before the adjournment, and that concerns the

    25 evidence of Judge Greve. The Trial Chamber has

  60. 1 considered the status of this evidence, and it may be

    2 helpful if I were to outline our present conclusions

    3 about that witness's evidence, and we'll, of course,

    4 hear any submissions that anybody wants to make.

    5 Because, clearly, it's important to establish how we

    6 are going to approach that evidence.

    7 We have, first of all, read the report of the

    8 Commission of Experts for which the witness was, it

    9 seems, responsible. We have also read the transcript

    10 of the witness's evidence in the Tadic trial. It

    11 therefore follows that there will not be a need for the

    12 Prosecution to go over all that material again. Of

    13 course, it's a matter for the Prosecution how they

    14 present the case, but they should have in mind that we

    15 read those documents. And we don't need to go over a

    16 great deal of material more than once. So I would be

    17 grateful if any examination in chief could be tailored

    18 to take account of those facts.

    19 The report says that it is an analysis of

    20 events in Prijedor based on the statements of some 400

    21 witnesses. Those statements were not taken by this

    22 witness, it seems, but by others, and the report is

    23 also based on media reports and statements to foreign

    24 visitors. And it's accepted in the report that it is

    25 an analysis based on allegations. And as the reports

  61. 1 say, the judgement is for the court, meaning this Trial

    2 Chamber in these circumstances.

    3 Well, as I say, we have considered our

    4 approach to this evidence and we've come to this

    5 conclusion, subject to what anybody wants to say about

    6 it, but our preliminary conclusion is that this witness

    7 should be treated as an expert, but only to this

    8 extent, and in this sense: That she's made a study of

    9 the material concerning these events, and, therefore,

    10 on that basis is qualified to give evidence about it.

    11 The position being analogous to that of a historian who

    12 gives evidence about some period using the source

    13 material. What probative value we give to that

    14 evidence, and what weight we give it, of course is

    15 entirely for the Trial Chamber to determine. But we

    16 will have in mind that it's all hearsay, and most of

    17 it's second-hand hearsay at that.

    18 We shall, of course, I should add, take no

    19 notice of any conclusions as to the law which appear in

    20 the report. There are conclusions in various places,

    21 because they are entirely matters for the Trial Chamber

    22 to decide.

    23 Finally, we have in mind that this case is

    24 concerned with events in the Prijedor district in

    25 1992. We've heard what the parties say about other

  62. 1 events, but the Rules which we propose to apply, the

    2 Rules of relevance, are these: That only evidence

    3 which relates to those events or has a direct bearing

    4 on the events is, in our judgement, relevant and

    5 admissible. And we would be grateful if the parties

    6 would have that in mind.

    7 Finally, on one purely housekeeping matter.

    8 We propose that all exhibits will be admitted when they

    9 are produced, and they will be admitted unless there's

    10 an objection. So if anybody wants to object to an

    11 exhibit, let them make the objection at the time it's

    12 produced, or otherwise it will be numbered and

    13 admitted.

    14 Now, unless anybody wants to say anything

    15 about that, I propose that we adjourn.

    16 Ms. Hollis, when would you be ready with the

    17 witness?

    18 MR. VANN: Your Honour, I would like to make

    19 a statement.

    20 JUDGE MAY: Yes, of course, Mr. Vann.

    21 MR. VANN: Yes, Your Honour, with reference

    22 to an attempt to restrict the admissibility of

    23 evidence, as Your Honour suggested to the events that

    24 only occurred in Prijedor, I think that would be

    25 prejudicial to the defendant in this case.

  63. 1 One of the issues and arguments that the

    2 Prosecutor will make with reference to the events that

    3 took place in Prijedor, is that the troops seized the

    4 only avenues of communication in that town of paper and

    5 the radio station. And, therefore, by virtue of their

    6 take-over of the radio station, they incited the

    7 population of that area to the dangers existing in hand

    8 in that particular area, and try to incite them to act

    8 violently.

    10 It is necessary in the Prosecution of this

    11 case, especially to protect our defendant's rights, to

    12 show that if there is such an incitement, they were

    13 incited by events and language from other areas of

    14 Yugoslavia. And we intend to prove that.

    15 So in order to -- I just wanted to present

    16 that matter to the Court. So when we attempt to do

    17 that, Your Honour will consider whether or not it is

    18 relevant to the point made by the defendant. So in

    19 that respect I wanted to put that question to you at

    20 this time and perhaps we could discuss it later. Thank

    21 you very much.

    22 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Vann, we've got that in

    23 mind. In fact, I did add, relevant evidence and any

    24 evidence which has a direct bearing on events in

    25 Prijedor.

  64. 1 MR. VANN: So if we could show that it's

    2 relevant to the issue posed at that time --

    3 JUDGE MAY: Of course. What we want to avoid

    4 is a wide-ranging commission which goes over all

    5 Yugoslavia over a number of years.

    6 MR. VANN: I understand. Thank you.

    7 JUDGE MAY: Ms. Hollis, it's now 12 noon. How

    8 long do you want? Of course we normally have an hour

    9 and a half anyway. If you want more time, you shall

    10 have it. 2 p.m.? Would that be a possibility?

    11 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, if possible, we

    12 would ask until 2.30 and then go until 5.30.

    13 JUDGE MAY: Very well.

    14 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour.












  65. 1 --- Luncheon recess taken at 11.55 a.m.

    2 --- On resuming at 2.32 p.m.

    3 JUDGE MAY: Yes, let the witness make the

    4 solemn declaration.

    5 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will

    6 speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the

    7 truth.

    8 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, Ms. Hollis.

    9 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour. For the

    10 record, we would note that our first witness, Hanne

    11 Sophie Greve has just been sworn.

    12 Your Honours, for your ease in going through

    13 her testimony, we have provided a chart that shows the

    14 order in which exhibits will be presented to her

    15 today. And then another column indicates the

    16 exhibit number of that exhibit in her prior testimony,

    17 because the Judges and the Defence have her prior

    18 testimony, we thought, perhaps, that would be helpful

    19 for the Judges and the Defence to have.

    20 JUDGE MAY: Yes, if you'll hand that up,

    21 please.

    22 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, we previously

    23 provided a similar list to the Defence. However, for

    24 them, we have added another column that gives them the

    25 number of previously disclosed evidence to them where

  66. 1 it corresponds to these exhibits.


    3 Examined by Ms. Hollis

    4 Q. Will you please state your profession?

    5 A. I am a lawyer and, at the moment, I am a

    6 judge.

    7 Q. And how long have you held your current

    8 position?

    9 A. I have been the President of the Court of

    10 Appeals, which in my system also includes functions of

    11 a high court for Western Norway for the two last

    12 years. And I have been a judge in the same court for

    13 the eight previous years.

    14 Q. And you have been chosen for what position in

    15 the future?

    16 A. I was selected in January of this year as a

    17 Judge to the European Court for Human Rights.

    18 Q. And when will you assume those duties?

    19 A. 1st of November, this year.

    20 Q. Judge Greve, at this time, I would like to

    21 provide you Prosecution Exhibit 8. This is a

    22 curriculum vitae that has been previously provided to

    23 the Defence and to the Judges. Is that your curriculum

    24 vitae?

    25 A. This is my curriculum vitae, yes.

  67. 1 Q. Your Honours, at this time, we would offer

    2 that into evidence as Prosecution Exhibit 8.

    3 MR. VANN: No objection.

    4 MS. HOLLIS:

    5 Q. Judge Greve, were you appointed to a United

    6 Nations Commission of Experts concerning the former

    7 Yugoslavia?

    8 A. Yes, I was.

    9 Q. And when was that?

    10 A. It was back in October of 1993.

    11 Q. And did you subsequently write a report on

    12 the events in Prijedor in 1992?

    13 A. Yes, I wrote that report in 1994 and made a

    14 final version in 1995.

    15 Q. And by what mandate or resolution were you

    16 appointed to the Commission of Experts?

    17 A. I came in as my predecessor died. But the

    18 resolution that was the basis for the Commission, was a

    19 Security Council resolution, which was made in 1992.

    20 Q. At this time, I would like to show the

    21 witness what has been marked as Prosecution Exhibit 9

    22 for identification. It's a copy of resolution 780.

    23 And what is that resolution?

    24 A. This is the Security Council resolution of

    25 the United Nations which establishes or mandates the

  68. 1 Secretary-General to establish a Commission of

    2 Experts.

    3 Q. And looking at that resolution, what is the

    4 mandate given this Commission of Experts?

    5 A. It's listed under Roman Number II, "Requests

    6 the Secretary-General to establish as a matter of

    7 emergency, an impartial Commission of Experts to

    8 examine and analyse the information submitted pursuant

    9 to a resolution 771, 1992, and a present resolution,

    10 together with such further information as the

    11 Commission of Experts may obtain to return

    12 investigations or efforts of all the persons or bodies

    13 pursuant to resolution 771, 1992, with a view to

    14 providing the Secretary-General with its conclusions and

    15 the evidence of grave breaches of the Geneva

    16 Conventions and other violations of other humanitarian

    17 law committed in the territory of the former

    18 Yugoslavia."

    19 Q. Thank you. Your Honour, we would offer

    20 Prosecution Exhibit 9 for identification.

    21 MR. VANN: No objection.

    22 JUDGE MAY: We take it there is no objection

    23 unless you say so.

    24 MS. HOLLIS:

    25 Q. Judge Greve, when did you complete your

  69. 1 report?

    2 A. It was completed with names in it, actually

    3 in June 1994. But for publication purposes, we took

    4 out names and the final version was made, Easter 1995.

    5 Q. I would like to provide you with what's been

    6 marked as Prosecution Exhibit 10 for identification.

    7 And I would note, Your Honours, that the Judges and the

    8 Defence counsel have previously been provided with a

    9 copy of this exhibit.

    10 JUDGE MAY: Yes, there is no need to provide

    11 another one.

    12 MS. HOLLIS: If you would just show that to

    13 the Defence counsel, please.

    14 MR. VANN: We object to the exhibit.

    15 JUDGE MAY: You object?

    16 MR. VANN: Yes, sir.

    17 JUDGE MAY: What's the ground of the

    18 objection, Mr. Vann?

    19 MR. VANN: Your Honour, the grounds of the

    20 objection is twofold. The most important of which is,

    21 as Your Honour stated earlier, I think this is an

    22 exhibit that Your Honour said that contains multiple

    23 hearsay and otherwise inadmissible evidence. Primary

    24 objection to this exhibit, that it constitutes the very

    25 foundation of the Prosecution's case. We've all had a

  70. 1 copy of that exhibit. It is filled in drips with

    2 ideological venom that's now been spread by virtue of

    3 the opening statement throughout the world.

    4 There is no way that we can cross-examine

    5 these statements. There is no way. There is no way

    6 that we can cross-examine the judge here. Because she

    7 has no personal knowledge of any of the statements in

    8 this exhibit. In essence, we are being denied the

    9 fundamental right that's recognised in any court under

    10 principles of international jurisprudence of the right

    11 to cross-examination and the right to confront

    12 witnesses in open court to determine the credibility

    13 that these witnesses, when they are present, to be

    14 subject to cross-examination. It is a very, very

    15 difficult task, indeed, for a lawyer to cross-examine

    16 the foundation of the State's or Prosecutor's case

    17 without being capable of doing so. We have been

    18 effectively cut off to cross-examine anything in this

    19 case.

    20 Your Honour knows, all of you know, that the

    21 honourable Judge with her excellent credentials, there

    22 is no way we can cross-examine because she's merely a

    23 conduit. And, as the prosecuting attorney has said,

    24 she has summarised, analysed and collated information

    25 from 400 witnesses. This constitutes the very heart

  71. 1 and soul of the prosecuting attorney's case. That is

    2 totally unfair and in any court, in any civilised

    3 society, to have a man's life depend on multiple

    4 hearsay where the defendant is being denied the

    5 essential right that any accused has in any trial to

    6 have him convicted on the type of evidence that they're

    7 trying to introduce at this time, which gratuitously

    8 contains slanders against the people, the Serb

    9 people. Contains slanders against one of their most

    10 revered generals in history, Drazan Mihajlovic.

    11 This type of poison inserted in the record is

    12 going to incite others who have listened to this and

    13 will listen to it over the Internet and anywhere else

    14 in the press. We're here to temper that type of

    15 action. Hopefully to try this case on the merit. To

    16 keep the attacks based on hearsay to a small level and

    17 to have a judgement based on impartial evidence without

    18 inflaming anybody. Your Honour knows the character and

    19 the type of witness that's in this document. It

    20 violates the fundamental rights of cross-examination

    21 and the right to confront witnesses.

    22 Further, Your Honour, with reference to an

    23 expert witness, they cannot merely summarise evidence

    24 and introduce it under the guise of being an expert.

    25 And for those two essential reasons, we object.

  72. 1 JUDGE MAY: Ms. Hollis, what basis are you

    2 seeking to put this report before us?

    3 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, we're seeking to

    4 put it before you on the basis that we set forth when

    5 we responded to the only Defence motion that has been

    6 raised until now regarding this witness. And that had

    7 to do with wanting the notes of the 400 witnesses, so

    8 that they had the right to confront them or to confront

    9 this witness about those notes. Until today, the

    10 Defence has made no objection to this report itself.

    11 Rather, has simply requested that they be allowed to be

    12 provided notes that this witness took contemporaneous

    13 with her interviews of witnesses. The Trial Chamber

    14 disposed of that motion earlier and denied that

    15 motion. So we're somewhat surprised by this objection

    16 to the report. As we stated in our earlier response,

    17 the report is submitted as a part of the expert

    18 statement that this Trial Chamber requested at an

    19 earlier status conference, that both sides would provide

    20 such a statement to the Trial Chamber and then the

    21 opposing party had a certain period of time to object

    22 to the statement.

    23 We would suggest that in regard to the

    24 substance of the report itself, that it is very clear

    25 on its face, she does not purport to give exact details

  73. 1 from specific witnesses. What she purports to do in

    2 that report is to analyse a great body of evidence.

    3 And, based on that analysis, reach certain

    4 conclusions. It's in a summary form, such as a

    5 contemporary historian may provide when reviewing

    6 evidence that occurred very recently.

    7 The Trial Chamber earlier today has noted

    8 that it fully understands the nature of this report and

    9 the nature of her testimony. And that the nature of

    10 the report and testimony would go to the weight of that

    11 testimony. And that is how it was presented before we

    12 adjourned for lunch.

    13 In regard to the objection concerning

    14 hearsay, first of all, we would point out, and as the

    15 Court well knows and as the Defence well knows, there

    16 is no rule in this Tribunal which prohibits the

    17 admission of hearsay evidence. The rule is rather,

    18 what is the relevance of the evidence? What is the

    19 probative value? If it is hearsay, it may be of such a

    20 nature that the Court would ultimately conclude there

    21 are not sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to

    22 allow that particular piece of evidence in. But it

    23 would not be based upon a general prohibition against

    24 hearsay that does not exist in this Tribunal. Again,

    25 we would suggest it goes to the weight of the testimony

  74. 1 to be afforded with this witness.

    2 Therefore, Your Honours, we provided it as a

    3 summary based on an extensive analysis of documents,

    4 performed in her capacity as an expert appointed by the

    5 United Nations to review the events in this area.

    6 JUDGE MAY: Do you want to add anything, Mr.

    7 Vann?

    8 MR. VANN: Yes, I do.

    9 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

    10 MR. VANN: Your Honour, what we're doing here

    11 and what we're --

    12 JUDGE MAY: Would you mind being on your

    13 feet?

    14 MR. VANN: I'm sorry. The Prosecution hasn't

    15 answered our question and that is, our objection is

    16 mainly viewed on the general principle of general

    17 jurisprudence that we cannot cross-examine any

    18 witness. Those witnesses are not here. We're not

    19 talking about simply hearsay that an expert may use to

    20 fortify their expert opinion. We're talking about

    21 being denied the right to cross-examine a paper

    22 witness. We cannot cross-examine a piece of paper, 600

    23 or whatever amount of pages in this record or this

    24 tendered exhibit, is nothing more than a paper

    25 witness. It's not this witness that is testifying.

  75. 1 She has no knowledge of any fact contained in the

    2 document.

    3 JUDGE MAY: I repeat what I said earlier when

    4 dealing with this witness' evidence and commenting on

    5 it. It is our view that the witness should be treated

    6 as an expert in this sense, an expert who has made a

    7 study of material and is therefore qualified to give

    8 evidence about it. The position being analogous to

    9 that of the historian. We take entirely the point made

    10 by the Defence, that they cannot cross-examine the 400

    11 witnesses on whose statements this evidence will be

    12 based. We understand that. But in this Tribunal we

    13 admit all types of evidence. The hearsay rule does not

    14 apply, but the issue of how much weight is given to

    15 this evidence is very much a matter for the Tribunal.

    16 And, in that connection, we shall, of course, bear in

    17 mind that it is hearsay. And, as I said earlier,

    18 sometimes hearsay upon hearsay.

    19 With those considerations in mind, we shall

    20 admit this report. But, I should make it quite plain,

    21 there is no question of this defendant being convicted

    22 on any count on the basis of this evidence. And we

    23 shall require other evidence before we consider taking

    24 any such course.

    25 MR. VANN: Thank you, Your Honour.

  76. 1 MS. HOLLIS:

    2 Q. Could I ask you, Dr. Greve, how it was that

    3 you were chosen to act as a rapporteur?

    4 A. Excuse me, is your question related to how

    5 within the Commission I was asked to act as

    6 rapporteur?

    7 Q. How you personally were chosen, if you know?

    8 A. I came into the Commission rather late for

    9 the reason my predecessor died. And when I joined the

    10 Commission, there were already a number of studies

    11 being made. A lot of information was being gathered.

    12 I thought, having lived in areas, conflict areas

    13 before, that if I could be of any help to the

    14 Commission, at what time it was not yet sure whether we

    15 would continue to work for two and a half months, half

    16 a year or nine months and we only worked half time for

    17 the Commission, I should try to look at a limited area

    18 to see if there was any basis for a number of

    19 allegations at that time made. Having lived in

    20 conflict areas, I know very well that rumours feed very

    21 well in such circumstances. And I thought that in

    22 order to be able to distinguish between what merely

    23 would be rumours and what, perhaps, would be

    24 substantial, I needed to limit my study.

    25 I asked the Commission at first if I could

  77. 1 make a study of a small area that had been attacked by

    2 the Croats. What then happened was that was at the end

    3 of one of our sessions. We had a fortnight when we

    4 were working in our home countries. Before we were

    5 meeting the next time, I was called by the Russian

    6 secretary to the Commission and he told me that in

    7 Sweden, and the Swedish and Norwegian languages are

    8 quite similar, there had been made a number of

    9 interviews with refugees from the former Yugoslavia.

    10 And as I would be able to read through this, would I be

    11 kind enough to go via Sweden and read those interviews?

    12 Which I did. Then I did see that a number of the

    13 people who had been interviewed in Sweden were from the

    14 Prijedor area. And they were coming up with strong

    15 allegations of much violence.

    16 Coming back to the Commission, I thought as

    17 we were short of time, perhaps it would be valuable if

    18 I could focus on the area of Prijedor, so that we

    19 didn't have to wait for all these statements to be

    20 translated into English. It was approximately, or

    21 close to 30 statements that related to Prijedor. And I

    22 asked the Commission if I could be mandated to try to

    23 make a study of the area of Prijedor and that was

    24 accepted.

    25 Q. And how long did you work on that project?

  78. 1 A. I did work on it from late November. We

    2 submitted our first summary analysis the 1st of May,

    3 2nd of May, the next year. And then the final version

    4 was ready by mid-summer, 16th of June.

    5 Q. And of what year was that?

    6 A. That was 1994.

    7 Q. Did you testify before a Trial Chamber of

    8 this Tribunal in the case of the Prosecutor vs. Dusko

    9 Tadic?

    10 A. Yes, I did.

    11 Q. At this time I would like to provide you with

    12 what has been marked as Prosecution Exhibit 11. Your

    13 Honours, this has previously been provided to the Trial

    14 Chamber and to the Defence. Would you please show that

    15 to the Defence?

    16 Dr. Greve, have you had the opportunity to

    17 review that prior to coming in here to testify?

    18 A. Yes, I have.

    19 Q. And is that your testimony in the case of the

    20 Prosecutor vs. Dusko Tadic?

    21 A. Yes, it is.

    22 Q. Prosecution would offer that as Prosecution

    23 Exhibit 11.

    24 Dr. Greve, once you were chosen to be a

    25 member of the Commission of Experts, what did you do to

  79. 1 give yourself some background of the task before you?

    2 A. I tried to read whatever general statements

    3 had been made by international agencies. And I tried

    4 to start reading information that had been gathered

    5 already by the Commission, which had been working then

    6 for a little more than one year.

    7 Q. And what types of sources did you review in

    8 carrying out your task?

    9 A. Well, initially, I started with some of the

    10 main agencies, UN reports, the International Committee

    11 of the Red Cross, the Conference then on Security and

    12 Cooperation in Europe. And a variety of sources that

    13 had been gathered by the Commission as such. But I did

    14 not specify on any particular area. I tried to get a

    15 view of the overall situation. I should add that at

    16 the time when this was happening, I lived in Cambodia,

    17 working for the United Nation Transitional Authority in

    18 Cambodia. I came to Cambodia in August, 1992, and I

    19 only returned early spring 1993.

    20 Q. At this time I would like to show you a

    21 document we would ask be marked Prosecution Exhibit 12

    22 for identification. Could you tell us what is this

    23 document?

    24 A. This is a statement made of the President of

    25 the International Committee of the Red Cross, Mr.

  80. 1 Cornelis Sommaruga. It is a statement which he

    2 gave in Geneva on 29th of July, 1993. It was a

    3 conference which was convened by the High Commission for

    4 Refugees, the United Nations High Commission for

    5 Refugees.

    6 Q. And is that one of the documents that you

    7 reviewed?

    8 A. Yes, it is.

    9 Q. And if you could turn to page 2 of that

    10 document, please. Looking at the 4th paragraph,

    11 beginning with the word "behind", what does that

    12 document indicate about the term "ethnic cleansing"?

    13 A. It's indicating that so-called ethnic

    14 cleansing is going on, on a large scale and that with

    15 horrifying consequences for the people.

    16 Q. And if you could look at the next paragraph

    17 of that document. What does the document indicate

    18 concerning the status of victims?

    19 A. It is suggesting that numerous victims are

    20 civilians who take no part in the hostilities. And,

    21 therefore, are especially vulnerable.

    22 Q. And if you could, please, also look at page

    23 4, the second paragraph of that document, which begins

    24 "more generally". What is the indication there of the

    25 frequency of breaches of International Humanitarian

  81. 1 Law?

    2 A. It's suggesting that the breaches are very,

    3 very frequent.

    4 Q. And Dr. Greve, these portions to which you

    5 have been referred, are those consistent with your

    6 analysis that you undertook?

    7 A. Yes, they are.

    8 Q. We would offer the document as Prosecution

    9 Exhibit 12.

    10 MS. HOLLIS: Sorry for the pause. In our

    11 system we would be listening to whether the Defence

    12 objects or not. I'll get better with the procedure as

    13 we go by.

    14 JUDGE MAY: I imagine you will hear from them

    15 if they do.

    16 MS. HOLLIS: At this time we would like to

    17 provide the witness what we would ask be marked as

    18 Prosecution Exhibit 13 for identification.

    19 Q. Dr. Greve, what is this document?

    20 A. This is an appeal made by the International

    21 Committee of the Red Cross to all parties in the

    22 conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina to abide by basic

    23 standards and the Geneva Conventions.

    24 Q. If you would look at the first paragraph of

    25 the document. What does it indicate concerning the

  82. 1 treatment of civilians?

    2 A. It is suggesting that innocent civilians are

    3 being arrested and subjected to inhumane treatment.

    4 Moreover, the detention of such persons is part of a

    5 policy of forced population transfer carried out on a

    6 massive scale, and marked by the systemic use of

    7 brutality. Among the long list of matters used are

    8 harassment, murder, confiscation of property,

    9 deportation, and the taking of hostages, which would

    10 use individuals to the level of bargaining counters,

    11 all in violation of international humanitarian law.

    12 Q. And considering that statement, in light of

    13 your analysis and conclusions, is that consistent with

    14 your analysis?

    15 A. It is consistent.

    16 MS. HOLLIS: We would offer the document as

    17 Prosecution Exhibit 13.

    18 Q. Dr. Greve, I would now like to show you what

    19 we would ask be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 14 for

    20 identification. What is that document?

    21 A. This is a document from the then CSO

    22 conference, Organisation on Security and Cooperation in

    23 Europe. It's a committee of senior officials.

    24 Q. And did you review that document in the

    25 course of your preparations?

  83. 1 A. Yes, I did.

    2 Q. And if you could look at paragraph 2 of that

    3 document, please, near the bottom of the paragraph.

    4 What is the reference there to the Yugoslav National

    5 Army or JNA?

    6 A. It's stated that despite a new agreement on a

    7 cease fire, there has been a continuous extension of

    8 the conflict on an unprecedented scale, including two

    9 other parts of the territory of the former Yugoslavia,

    10 and involving different parties. In particular, there

    11 has been a relentless attack on Sarajevo and continuous

    12 fighting elsewhere, with use of air force and heavy

    13 weaponry by the Yugoslav National Army, JNA.

    14 Q. And in paragraph 4 of that document, what is

    15 the reference there to the involvement of Belgrade and

    16 the JNA?

    17 A. It's suggesting strong involvement. The

    18 pattern of clear, gross and uncorrected violations of

    19 OSCE commitments by the authorities in Belgrade and by

    20 the JNA is now unmistakably established. Those leaders

    21 have driven themselves into isolation. It is they who

    22 bear the prime responsibility for the escalation of

    23 bloodshed and destruction.

    24 Q. And regarding the involvement of the JNA, is

    25 that consistent with your analysis based upon your

  84. 1 study?

    2 A. Yes, it is. The only thing that differs is

    3 that in the Prijedor area there were no such use of

    4 the air force in the main attacks.

    5 MS. HOLLIS: We would offer that as

    6 Prosecution Exhibit 14.

    7 MR. VUCICEVIC: Objection, Your Honour, as

    8 to the foundation of this document. It doesn't

    9 indicate --

    10 JUDGE MAY: If you've got an objection, on

    11 your feet, please.

    12 MR. VUCICEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour. The

    13 Defence objects to introduction of the CSO declaration

    14 of Bosnia-Herzegovina because we don't have a

    15 foundation here propounded what CSO is, what were the

    16 duties at the time in Bosnia-Herzegovina? Were those

    17 duties overlapping with the duties of some other

    18 international bodies? Was it a political mission? Was

    19 it a military mission? What methods did they use to

    20 study? They are concentrating basically on Sarajevo

    21 and other areas?

    22 The objection is also tied in conjunction to

    23 testimony of Judge Greve when she noted in her report

    24 to the Secretary-General that the military observers of

    25 the United Nations were withdrawn from Banja Luka area

  85. 1 on April 28, 1992, because it was too dangerous. So we

    2 would like to know, is this an office report or any

    3 report that's worth considering. Thank you.

    4 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honours, it's our position,

    5 that sufficient foundation has been established for

    6 this report. The witness has indicated that she did

    7 use it in her review and preparation for her tasking.

    8 We had provided a description of the exhibits

    9 indicating that this particular exhibit was taken from

    10 "Yugoslavia through Documents, from its Creation to its

    11 Dissolution". Therefore, we feel that an adequate

    12 foundation has been laid for this document and the

    13 Defence's objection would basically go to the weight of

    14 this document.

    15 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, in addition, I

    16 have additional -- Your Honour, I have additional

    17 objection to this document. Because this document on

    18 its face indicates it's a document for a CSO, an

    19 international organisation which Prosecution is using

    20 to prove their case-in-chief.

    21 Just recently this Trial Chamber has decided

    22 that it does not have power to issue subpoena and that

    23 Defence Counsel are deemed as individual members of

    24 the public general, I think, and therefore access to

    25 CSO documents have been denied to them. To admit this

  86. 1 document or any reference in this would obviously be a

    2 violative principle of the quality of arms.

    3 And, moreover, Your Honour, if indeed this

    4 document is admitted, I would like you to reconsider

    5 your previous decisions in relating to Defence access

    6 to this -- to the documents of this organisation.

    7 JUDGE MAY: We'll admit this document. It's

    8 the views of diplomats, apparently, but what weight we

    9 give it, of course, is entirely for us to decide. And

    10 we'll have that in mind when we come to consider it.

    11 Ms. Hollis, it may be that someone should

    12 find out exactly who CSO is. We think it's the

    13 Committee of Senior Officials of that organisation.

    14 Perhaps the judge can help us.

    15 A. Forgive me if I didn't state that clearly.

    16 That is the interpretation, yes.

    17 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, we'll admit

    18 that.

    19 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour.

    20 Q. Judge Greve, you indicated that you were

    21 chosen to work on the events in the Opstina or

    22 Municipality of Prijedor. At this time, we'd like to

    23 show you what we would ask be marked as Prosecution

    24 Exhibit 15 for Identification. Could you tell us what

    25 that is, please.

  87. 1 A. This is a map of the former Yugoslavia where

    2 also the municipality or the town of Prijedor, in

    3 particular, is marked.

    4 Q. And in what part of Bosnia-Herzegovina is

    5 Prijedor located?

    6 A. Prijedor is located in the north-western part

    7 of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

    8 MS. HOLLIS: I would offer Prosecution

    9 Exhibit 15 for identification.

    10 Q. Judge Greve, in your report at paragraph 43

    11 you discuss the importance of Prijedor in terms of its

    12 location in a corridor. Could you tell us what the

    13 significance of that corridor is?

    14 A. At this time, if I may make reference to the

    15 map which has just been handed out. Vojvodina, Serbia,

    16 Montenegro, Kosovo, is all almost functioning as one

    17 entity. And in Croatia there are four areas at this

    18 time which have been so-called ethnically cleansed:

    19 Eastern Slavonia, Western Slavonia, and an area in

    20 Knin. Save for the area in Eastern Slavonia, and there

    21 will be another map to show it exactly, the areas in

    22 Knin and in Western Slavonia are not linked to the area

    23 of Serbia and the republics together with Serbia. So

    24 in order to connect the two, there had to be a

    25 corridor, or a linkage. And that could best be made

  88. 1 through the northern part of Bosnia.

    2 So in any understanding of a corridor linking

    3 the areas in the Croatian part of Krajina, I should say

    4 Prijedor is the Bosnian part of Krajina, and also the

    5 Western Slavonian area in Croatia with Serbia,

    6 Montenegro, Vojvodina and Kosovo, there had to be a

    7 corridor.

    8 MS. HOLLIS:

    9 Q. Unfortunately, we do not have a map that

    10 shows the lines of communication, but perhaps you could

    11 tell us, what is the significance of Prijedor in this

    12 corridor concerning lines of communication?

    13 A. Prijedor may be described as an

    14 intersection. There is a main road going from Banja

    15 Luka, which is not on this map either, but which is not

    16 so far from Prijedor. It's a bit to the east and south

    17 of Prijedor, which runs the whole way to the Croatian

    18 border. And there is also another main road which

    19 links Prijedor with a border town north of Prijedor, on

    20 the border of Croatia, and runs through Prijedor to the

    21 south, to the Sanski Most area.

    22 And there is a railroad which connects Banja

    23 Luka-Prijedor and runs all the way to Zagreb. It was

    24 not necessary for the corridor to have it all the way

    25 to Zagreb, but it is a very important quality of

  89. 1 Prijedor, that it's traffic, it's an intersection for

    2 traffic.

    3 MS. HOLLIS: We would offer Prosecution

    4 Exhibit 16 for identification.

    5 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, we object.

    6 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. We are on 15.

    7 MS. HOLLIS: 15 for identification.

    8 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Vucicevic.

    9 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, this witness has

    10 testified, and the Prosecution has stated in response

    11 to our motion, that Judge Greve doesn't have any

    12 personal knowledge of events in Prijedor, that she has

    13 not travelled there, that, to the best of my

    14 recollection, that she has not travelled to former

    15 Yugoslavia. And this Court, this Tribunal, this Trial

    16 Chamber, has given us instruction at the beginning that

    17 Judge Greve is going to merely testify as a

    18 contemporary historian. However, now she's testified

    19 not only outside the geographical area that she has

    20 interviewed, basically which she stated the only narrow

    21 area of Prijedor. She has testified that there was

    22 ethnic cleansing, the area others were ethnically

    23 cleansed, Western Slavonia, Eastern Slavonia, and

    24 Croatian --

    25 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Vucicevic, let me interrupt

  90. 1 you. We are not concerned with that evidence. She

    2 could give evidence, it seems to me, the witness, if

    3 you'll give -- the witness can give evidence about the

    4 geography. If you dispute it, you can cross-examine

    5 her. That seems to me it's probably fairly undisputed.

    6 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, what I am

    7 addressing is extremely prejudicial to our client to

    8 allow the witness to submit the evidence of which she

    9 doesn't have any personal knowledge, or she has not

    10 investigated, and has nothing to substantiate this.

    11 JUDGE MAY: She has got sufficient knowledge

    12 to give some evidence about the geography. Yes.

    13 MS. HOLLIS: At this time I would like to

    14 show the witness what we would ask be marked as

    15 Prosecution Exhibit 16 for identification.

    16 Q. Dr. Greve, could you tell us first what that

    17 is a map of?

    18 A. This is a map which is indicating the

    19 military situation at one time, but that is not the

    20 reason why I have asked to have this marked. The

    21 reason why this map is being presented is that it was

    22 the only map I could find where the outlines of the

    23 four United Nation protection forces zones were clearly

    24 marked: Eastern Slavonia, Western Slavonia, North and

    25 South and Krajina.

  91. 1 Q. And in terms of the corridor, what is the

    2 significance of those zones to you?

    3 A. The reason why this has been also marked,

    4 it was only the marker at hand, was yellow. No

    5 significance to the colour. I have tried to mark

    6 the --

    7 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, perhaps at this

    8 time we could fold the map and put it on the overhead

    9 projector to aid the witness as she testifies.

    10 A. What may be seen here is Eastern Slavonia,

    11 which borders Vojvodina and Serbia proper, and it comes

    12 further down, and all this eastern part is coloured

    13 yellow. It means it's all related to Serbia.

    14 What will be seen then is that Western

    15 Slavonia is sort of without linkage to Eastern

    16 Slavonia. And also the two other areas north and south

    17 of Krajina has no linkage. And I think this is the

    18 best I can do to see both sides at the same time.

    19 There has to be -- if there is to be physical contact

    20 between the two areas, there has to be some kind of a

    21 corridor that connects them. Of course they could be

    22 connected only by air or something like that. But if

    23 there is to be a geographical linkage, it has to be

    24 somehow through Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    25 Q. The areas that are marked in yellow, are

  92. 1 these the Serb areas you referred to earlier?

    2 A. These are the Serb areas I referred to

    3 earlier, yes.

    4 Q. And if you could, while you have the map on

    5 the overhead, if you could in general show the Trial

    6 Chamber where this corridor that you have talked about

    7 would run.

    8 A. Actually, the corridor will run in the very

    9 northern part of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and here in the

    10 western part it would be wider. But you will see here,

    11 where we see Prijedor, it's quite clear here that it

    12 functions like an intersection with some main roads,

    13 one going east-west, one going, more or less,

    14 north-south. And this is Banja Luka.

    15 MS. HOLLIS: I would offer that as

    16 Prosecution Exhibit 16.

    17 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honours, we object on

    18 this one. With all due respect to Judge Greve, but the

    19 map is rather detailed. It shows the certain areas

    20 where the United Nations forces were stationed or were

    21 about to be stationed at the time that this map was

    22 made. However, the Prosecution has not presented Judge

    23 Greve neither as an expert in military affairs, nor

    24 expert in political affairs. And the concept

    25 "corridor" has been introduced. There is absolutely

  93. 1 no foundation what is a corridor all about. That's

    2 number one.

    3 But, most importantly, objection to the very

    4 -- to the very map, the exhibit. There is no corridor

    5 that's being, you know, introduced here. I mean, there

    6 was some conjecture, what a corridor should be, or it

    7 was, and perhaps the corridor related occurred, but

    8 much later as a result of the military activities.

    9 However, we have to tie it up geographically, and in

    10 time in order for this exhibit to be admitted.

    11 I do not object to this map being re-drawn

    12 and corrected, but we cannot cross-examine based on

    13 this, Your Honour.

    14 JUDGE MAY: One aspect of this map,

    15 Ms. Hollis, which does appear to be objectionable, the

    16 notes at the bottom, assessment notes, legend, and all

    17 the rest of it. Now, I haven't read those in any

    18 detail, and I don't propose to, and that we would rule

    19 inadmissible. But as for the rest of the map, I think

    20 we will admit it on this basis: That it's purely a

    21 map. Whether there's a corridor attached or not will

    22 depend upon the evidence that we hear. We'll have to

    23 make a judgement whether that assertion is justified or

    24 not. At the moment it can be no more than an

    25 assertion.

  94. 1 So we admit the map as a map. We disregard

    2 entirely everything on the bottom.

    3 MS. HOLLIS: With the Trial Chamber's

    4 permission, we will redact the material that you have

    5 mentioned, and provide a substituted map with that

    6 material taken off.

    7 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll return these maps

    8 meanwhile.

    9 MS. HOLLIS: I would like to provide the

    10 witness with what we would ask be marked as Prosecution

    11 Exhibit 17 for identification.

    12 Q. Can you tell us what this is, please?

    13 A. This is a newspaper article. It has been

    14 translated from the Serb language. It's from a

    15 newspaper called Kozarski Vjesnik. It's the daily

    16 newspaper or the main newspaper in Prijedor, and it's

    17 an article written 1st of July, 1994. It's headlined

    18 "The glory of all Serb glories."

    19 Q. If you could turn to page 2 of that article,

    20 please. And if you could look at the section entitled

    21 "Survival on native soil made possible." In that part

    22 of the article whom are they quoting?

    23 A. They are quoting Colonel Radmilo Zeljaja.

    24 Oh, sorry. This is from the telegram of the commander

    25 of the general staff of the Army of Republika Srpska,

  95. 1 General Ratko Mladic.

    2 Q. And on that page what is the reference to a

    3 unified Serb state? If you will look at the bottom

    4 of that section beginning with "congratulating you."

    5 A. "I recognise the results achieved up to now

    6 and invite you to persist in achieving your freedom and

    7 the creation of a unified Serb state by maintaining

    8 a high level of combat readiness of our units, and

    9 safeguarding our front lines, and through strong morale

    10 and unity of the people and army and I wish St. Vitus

    11 Day to be celebrated in peace in the years to come."

    12 Q. If you could look below that under "loyal

    13 followers of Serb heroes" --

    14 A. We are quoting another person, and the

    15 article is quoting another person, commander of the

    16 First Krajina Corps, General Momir Talic.

    17 Q. And if you could look at the last paragraph

    18 on that page. What is indicated there about a

    19 corridor, in quotes?

    20 A. "In just two years, after successful battles

    21 in Western Slavonia, Kordun, Banija and Lika, the units

    22 of the First Krajina Corps began battle and an

    23 operation in the region of north-western Bosnia in order

    24 to protect the Serb population, liberate the

    25 territory from the enemy and provide conditions for the

  96. 1 creation of a Serb state in this region. In the

    2 operation to open the so-called corridor, that natural

    3 and genetic artery of the Serbs in all three Serb

    4 states, the fighters from the Corps supported," et

    5 cetera.

    6 Q. And in regard to "the fighters from our

    7 corps", who does General Talic indicate supports those

    8 fighters of the corps?

    9 A. He is suggesting that institutions of civil

    10 authority and the Serb people are supporting them.

    11 Q. And if you could please look at the last page

    12 of that document. And what is said there about a road

    13 of life?

    14 A. "By making the road of life real, linking us

    15 again with our parent state and the native country of

    16 the Serb people, the Republic of Serbia and the

    17 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with a strong

    18 demonstration of the Serb pride." Then it's stated

    19 that they have created conditions for re-creation of

    20 the Serb state in these regions.

    21 Q. Now, you indicated earlier that this was an

    22 article in Kozarski Vjesnik, and that was, I believe

    23 you indicated, that was a newspaper. That was a

    24 newspaper where?

    25 A. In Opstina Prijedor. It was the main

  97. 1 newspaper in Opstina Prijedor.

    2 MS. HOLLIS: We would offer this as

    3 Prosecution Exhibit 17.

    4 JUDGE MAY: Well, according to the list that

    5 we have already, 17 should be a current situation map.

    6 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour. Because we

    7 were unable to get the map for the lines of

    8 communication, we are one behind the order that we gave

    9 you.

    10 JUDGE MAY: Well, would it not be more

    11 sensible to stick to the original pagination and make

    12 this 18?

    13 MS. HOLLIS: And then, Your Honour it would

    14 be --

    15 JUDGE MAY: Seventeen can be left blank for

    16 the time being.

    17 MS. HOLLIS: It would be Prosecution Exhibit

    18 16, would be not offered, that is a map showing lines

    19 of communication in northern Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    20 JUDGE MAY: Very well.

    21 MS. HOLLIS: All right, Your Honour.

    22 JUDGE MAY: So this will be 18; is that

    23 right?

    24 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour.

    25 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Very well.

  98. 1 MR. VANN: Are they offering it in evidence,

    2 Your Honour?

    3 JUDGE MAY: Is there an objection to this?

    4 MR. VANN: Yes. Relevancy to the matters

    5 that the Court has considered in this case about the

    6 unified Serb state, the defendant here is being

    7 tried with matters that are completely not germane. I

    8 don't know what the injection of this -- unless counsel

    9 deems it's inappropriate and wrong to have the Serbs to

    10 have their own nation and everybody else can have it

    11 but the Serbs. But I don't know what the relevancy --

    12 JUDGE MAY: I don't think that's the point at

    13 all. I think the point that's being made is to do with

    14 the corridor.

    15 MR. VANN: Okay. Thank you.

    16 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

    17 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour. At this

    18 time we would ask the witness be shown Prosecution

    19 Exhibit 19.

    20 Q. Dr. Greve, what is that?

    21 A. This is again a newspaper article from the

    22 same newspaper from Opstina Prijedor, the paper

    23 Kozarski Vjesnik dated 15 July 1994. It's headlined

    24 "Faithful to the homeland and its ideals." It's a

    25 speech which is given on the occasion of the ceremony

  99. 1 commemorating the birth of the Serb Democratic

    2 Party.

    3 Q. If you will please look at page 1, the second

    4 full paragraph. In that paragraph it is indicated that

    5 the SDS was created how many years earlier?

    6 A. Excuse me. It's founded in Sarajevo four

    7 years earlier. 15 July 1990 that would be, on the day

    8 of the holy apostle.

    9 Q. If you could please look at page 3 of that

    10 document, the first full paragraph toward the end of

    11 that paragraph. What is said about a corridor?

    12 A. Excuse me. Which paragraph?

    13 Q. We are talking about page 3.

    14 A. Yes.

    15 Q. The first full paragraph beginning "having

    16 decided". If you could look at the end of that

    17 paragraph.

    18 A. It's stated that, "'The word corridor is too

    19 weak to describe that bond. The neck is not a corridor

    20 between the head and the body. It is all one being,

    21 the being of the Serb nation,' said the top man of

    22 the Prijedor SDS categorically."

    23 Q. And if you could please look at that same

    24 page, page 3, the second line of that paragraph with

    25 the word "Turkish state." If you know, to what group

  100. 1 would that term "Turkish" refer?

    2 A. I have been told that that is being used for

    3 the Muslims, and that is how it comes through in written

    4 reports as well --

    5 JUDGE MAY: Well, just a moment. Does that

    6 appear in the document, "Turkish is derogatory for

    7 Muslim among Serbs." Is that in the document?

    8 MS. HOLLIS: That, Your Honour, we believe is

    9 not.

    10 JUDGE MAY: Well, it shouldn't be here.

    11 We'll cross it out. We require that documents are

    12 translated as they appear, without any form of

    13 comment.

    14 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour.

    15 Q. Judge Greve, based upon your analysis of that

    16 area and the events of that area, what, if anything,

    17 did your analysis disclose was the nature of Turkish,

    18 when being referred to Muslims?

    19 A. Well, Turkish was used on several

    20 occasions --

    21 MR. VUCICEVIC: Objection, Your Honour, this

    22 is not in the document.

    23 JUDGE MAY: The witness can give evidence

    24 about this.

    25 THE WITNESS: If, I may, Your Honours, take

  101. 1 your attention to the 4th line, before what is not in

    2 the document, it's stated, "A new Turkish State, began

    3 to create a state entity", et cetera, so the word

    4 "Turkish State" is used in the document, but not the

    5 explanation which has been included in the translation

    6 here. And Turkish is frequently used with a reference

    7 to the Muslims, but they are also South Slav, people of

    8 the South Slav ethnic group.

    9 MS. HOLLIS:

    10 Q. Now, if you would please turn back to page 2

    11 of that document. And if you would look at -- under

    12 the section "For the Good of the People". The second

    13 paragraph under that section, beginning from the very

    14 start. Do you notice the reference to the Krajina SDS?

    15 A. Yes. There is -- there is a special

    16 reference. This is, therefore, the occasion to remind

    17 ourselves of the visionary programme of the Krajina.

    18 That is, in this case, the Croat Krajina, SDS, and

    19 its leader Jovan Raskovic. That's also a Croat

    20 leader, Croat Serb leader.

    21 Q. And if you will look at the next paragraph,

    22 please. What is the indication of the association

    23 between the SDS and the JNA?

    24 A. It's suggesting there are strong ties between

    25 the two and they are working in tandem.

  102. 1 Q. We would offer the document into evidence,

    2 Your Honour, as Prosecution Exhibit 19.

    3 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, if I may ask for

    4 an explanation only for the last statement that Judge

    5 Greve has said. Because in this document I couldn't

    6 see that strong affiliation with the SDS and the JNA.

    7 I might have just missed. Please, if you could...

    8 THE WITNESS: Maybe I should have been more

    9 explicit in stating that, at this point, I didn't quote

    10 the whole of it, but I am pleased to do so. "We have

    11 also supported the struggle of the patriotically

    12 committed members of the JNA in a war in which it was

    13 being deserted by its members, soldiers and officers up

    14 to the highest rank who had forgotten a whole list of

    15 all the duties of a patriot and a soldier to defend

    16 one's country. The SDS sent some of its best members

    17 to the battle field of Slovenia and Krajina. The party

    18 participated in mobilising and forming many battalion

    19 because the Serb people's patriotism obliged it.

    20 This is, therefore, the occasion to remind ourselves of

    21 the heroes of the Slovenian and other battle fields who

    22 sacrificed their lives for the survival of their

    23 nation." Said the chairman of the municipal SDS board,

    24 Ratko Mladic. I was summarising saying they were

    25 working together.

  103. 1 MR. VUCICEVIC: You were reading it from what

    2 page?

    3 JUDGE MAY: The paragraph is on page 2 and it

    4 is the 4th paragraph. And if you've got it in

    5 cross-examination, you can cross-examine in due course.

    6 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, I apologise, but

    7 I left my glasses in the locker room.

    8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel,

    9 please.

    10 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, is the document

    11 then admitted?

    12 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

    13 MS. HOLLIS:

    14 Q. Dr. Greve, in your report at paragraphs 83

    15 and 113, you discuss the creation of parallel or

    16 separate Serb administrative and political bodies.

    17 In that context, I would like to show you what we would

    18 ask be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 20 for

    19 identification.

    20 Could you tell us what that is, please?

    21 A. This is a decision made by a parallel

    22 structure, the Serb People's Assembly in the

    23 Municipality of Prijedor. It's dated 17th of January,

    24 1992. And it's a decision to unite with the Autonomous

    25 Region of the Bosanska Krajina.

  104. 1 Q. And, Dr. Greve, in your preparation for

    2 writing your report, can you tell us what you learned

    3 of the Autonomous Region of Bosanska Krajina, what was

    4 that?

    5 A. Initially, only from people, we learned that

    6 there were parallel structures that were being created,

    7 which were purely Serb and they were created inside

    8 of Prijedor. Very soon we also got information about

    9 official documents indicating the same. There was a

    10 special people's assembly of the Serb people in the

    11 whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina, who decided in early 1992

    12 to have a separate Serb republic, which would be a

    13 part of Yugoslavia, remain a part of Yugoslavia. And

    14 we also, little by little, learned there were other

    15 parallel structures, one of which was the Autonomous

    16 Region of Bosanska Krajina region, which started to

    17 work as an independent entity which would take orders

    18 and work together with other Serb authorities, but

    19 not the elected authorities in Sarajevo.

    20 Q. Now, this document, indicating a decision of

    21 the Serb People's Assembly of Prijedor to join this

    22 autonomous region of Bosanska Krajina, is that

    23 consistent with your analysis?

    24 A. Yes, it is.

    25 MS. HOLLIS: We would offer this document.

  105. 1 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, we would

    2 object. We would object to admission of this

    3 document. And we would object to this line of

    4 presentation of the Prosecutor's evidence.

    5 First, Your Honour, we have not heard this,

    6 the foundation of this document, whether Judge Greve

    7 has reviewed this document at the time when preparing

    8 the report, or before, while in the process of

    9 preparing a report. If she has not, that means she's

    10 not familiar with the document and the document should

    11 not be admitted.

    12 Secondly, if she had heard from the witnesses

    13 that the parallel government has been set up in

    14 Prijedor, she could also testify. But not to piggyback

    15 it on a document which is questionable.

    16 JUDGE MAY: Is there any dispute, Mr.

    17 Vucicevic, about that aspect of the case that there

    18 were parallel structures? Is that matter in dispute or

    19 not? Are you arguing about it?

    20 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, in dispute is

    21 what were the parallel structures that were

    22 established, who established them and whether the

    23 defendant was part thereof. And because the burden of

    24 proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, not be proven with

    25 specificity. What we're hearing here, a broad brush, I

  106. 1 mean, what is objectionable to us is a statement on

    2 which, indeed, a learned jurist, it seems, but I

    3 would like to hear whether she has seen this document

    4 at the time, introduce the document, and she could

    5 testify on the document if that could be corroborated

    6 by other statements. But I think we are falling beyond

    7 the standards -- below the standards which we should be

    8 in this type of presentation.

    9 JUDGE MAY: Well, Ms. Hollis, perhaps the

    10 witness could deal with her knowledge of this document

    11 and the background of her knowledge of these matters.

    12 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour. Your Honour

    13 we would point out two things, however.

    14 First of all, the witness was asked whether

    15 this document was consistent with her analysis, not if

    16 she has used the document when preparing her report.

    17 And we believe as an expert, she can testify as to

    18 whether other evidence is consistent with her analysis

    19 and report. That's the first point.

    20 Secondly, Your Honour, we would ask if the

    21 Defence is questioning the authenticity of this

    22 document as a separate ground. Otherwise, it appears

    23 that the Defence is simply repeating arguments that

    24 have previously been overruled.

    25 JUDGE MAY: Well, let's hear from the witness

  107. 1 as to what she knows about this particular document.

    2 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour.

    3 JUDGE MAY: And the background of her

    4 knowledge of these events could be dealt with briefly.

    5 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you.

    6 Q. Consistent with the presiding Judge's

    7 request, would you please tell us, first of all, the

    8 document that you have before you, did you have this

    9 document at the time that you prepared your report?

    10 A. No, I did not have it at that time.

    11 Q. And, in that regard, I might ask you, what if

    12 any efforts you made in the preparation of your report

    13 to visit the area of Opstina Prijedor and to receive

    14 documents from the Serb officials there?

    15 A. We did, the Commission of Experts, that is,

    16 did approach also the authorities in Belgrade, in Pale,

    17 everywhere, to see if we could have access to the area

    18 and if we could have access to documents. And the

    19 answer was, with one exception, always "no". The one

    20 exception that was made was that we were given the

    21 first draught of the constitution of what later became

    22 the Republika of Srpska. At that earlier time, it was

    23 the Republic of the Serbian People in Bosnia and

    24 Herzegovina. So, save for that, we were not able to

    25 go -- I was not able to go to Prijedor. I was not

  108. 1 able, although we made requests, to receive papers

    2 straight from the authorities.

    3 The official documents I got were, on

    4 occasional, small pieces, bits and pieces of

    5 information that some of the people who had left the

    6 area had with them. It was information which was

    7 reprinted in the local newspaper. There was

    8 information which was to be obtained from all sources,

    9 media reports, TV, radio. I should say that I do not

    10 speak the Serbo-Croat language, nor do I understand

    11 it. The occasional word, but nothing else. But I did

    12 actually receive a number of documents on the day when

    13 I was giving in my final version of the report about

    14 Prijedor. I had it faxed to me from an unknown source

    15 actually at that time. But it came out later these

    16 were authentic documents. And that was numerous

    17 documents coming from Banja Luka, from the Autonomous

    18 Region, that is.

    19 But, essentially, I was not able to get, sort

    20 of proper documents, step by step, to follow all that

    21 had happened. I had to get it by listening to, or

    22 rather, reading statements, asking people who had been

    23 to the area, looking at media sources and every

    24 available source.

    25 JUDGE MAY: We shall admit this document. It

  109. 1 will be a matter for us in due course to decide what

    2 weight we give these documents. We shall be inclined

    3 to admit them and then decide whether they are of

    4 considerable or no probative value. It is the practice

    5 of the Tribunal to admit all evidence, as I have said

    6 earlier, and to determine what probative value it has.

    7 We are not a jury. We are a Tribunal of professional

    8 judges and, on that basis, we tend to admit evidence

    9 and then weigh it. So, unless there are objections on

    10 different grounds, we shall be inclined to admit this

    11 sort of evidence.

    12 MR. VUCICEVIC: Yes, Your Honour. The

    13 objections, basically, I do not object or ask you for a

    14 consideration or a ruling. I am just asking for a

    15 certain clearance here, Your Honour. Because these

    16 documents were obtained pursuant to this Court order, a

    17 warrant in search on the authorities in Banja Luka and

    18 Prijedor in December of the last year. And if such

    19 documents are obtained at that time, it should be so

    20 disclosed at the time they are being admitted. Then

    21 the proper inferences, even though professional judges,

    22 but if you do not receive timely, all the information,

    23 you are likely, indeed, with very slight probability,

    24 but you're likely sometimes to draw inferences which

    25 would be a more properly drawn, more timely connected

  110. 1 if this information is given to you in the form of

    2 foundation. And I am not speaking -- I understand that

    3 elements of foundations are indeed very broad here, not

    4 as in the United States system where I practice. But,

    5 indeed, a certain foundation to these documents, we

    6 cannot sit here and allow the Prosecution to create the

    7 impression as if Judge Greve is testifying, having seen

    8 documents before.

    9 That is basically the import on our

    10 objections. We do not object as to whether or not if

    11 an officer sees this material all the time had come and

    12 testified. I have seized 1200 documents, here they

    13 are. These are originals. We don't mind, they can all

    14 be admitted. But the manner in what they're admitted

    15 now, that is creating the possibility for inferences

    16 that are not going to be proper. Thank you.

    17 JUDGE MAY: I am not sure that I take that

    18 point. But the Prosecution could make clear when and

    19 where documents were obtained if they know, it may make

    20 matters easier.

    21 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour. In regard to

    22 this document, Your Honour, it was used in the Tadic

    23 case. It was obtained by an investigator from the

    24 Office of the Prosecutor from the officials in Banja

    25 Luka.

  111. 1 JUDGE MAY: Yes, it will be admitted.

    2 MS. HOLLIS:

    3 Q. Dr. Greve, in paragraphs 45 to 54 of your

    4 report, you discuss a population profile of Prijedor.

    5 And, in that discussion, you speak of the ethnic

    6 composition of the ethnic population of Prijedor. I

    7 would like to show you what is presently or what we

    8 would asked be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 21-A for

    9 identification.

    10 Can you tell us what that is?

    11 A. Yes, this is the official results of the

    12 census for 1991. From then, the whole of Yugoslavia.

    13 But this is Bosnia and Herzegovina as a republic within

    14 that state.

    15 Q. Now, in your report, you have a listing of

    16 information and numbers about numbers of people in

    17 ethnic groups, what source did you use to arrive at

    18 that listing?

    19 A. At that time, I had approached the diplomatic

    20 mission of Bosnia-Herzegovina in Geneva to provide me

    21 with this paper. They promised to give it to me, but I

    22 never got it in time. I did approach then the Croatian

    23 officials in Zagreb and asked for the same

    24 information. And I got a paper, which I thought would

    25 be exactly the same whether I had obtained it from the

  112. 1 Croatian officials or from the Bosnia-Herzegovina

    2 officials. But, as it comes out, there may be small

    3 differences between the two documents. The one

    4 document I used, which originated from Zagreb, from

    5 Croatia, and this one document. But it's not even --

    6 it's not large differences. But that goes to explain

    7 the difference between the figures you will find here

    8 and the figures that you will find in my report.

    9 Q. When you talk about it, it's not a large

    10 difference. Could you give the Trial Chamber some

    11 indication of the numbers that you're speaking of in

    12 terms of the difference, for example, in the overall

    13 population?

    14 A. I am only speaking about very, very few. We

    15 are speaking in the overall numbers less than a hundred

    16 or approximately a hundred.

    17 Q. And if you could please turn to the portion

    18 of Prosecution Exhibit 21-A for identification that

    19 deals with the Prijedor area, beginning on page, at the

    20 bottom would indicate the last two digits, 21?

    21 A. Yes, the total number will be 112,543.

    22 JUDGE MAY: I'm sorry, I haven't got this.

    23 Which page are we on?

    24 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, if you would look

    25 at the English translation, at the bottom, the last two

  113. 1 digits should be page 21, 22, 23.

    2 JUDGE MAY: Yes, I have that.

    3 MS. HOLLIS:

    4 Q. And you noted a total population figure of

    5 what?

    6 A. 112,543, which was then subdivided with the

    7 majority being 49,351 Muslims, approximately 44 per

    8 cent of the population; Serbs 47,581, approximately

    9 42.5 per cent of the population; Croats, I am afraid I

    10 have difficulty in reading the figures, but it's 6,000,

    11 perhaps 500 something.

    12 Q. What was the proportion of the population

    13 that Croats made up?

    14 A. Approximately 5.6 per cent, Your Honours.

    15 And then there is the group called "Yugoslavs." And

    16 any other ethnic or religious group might declare

    17 themselves as Yugoslavs. It could be because they had

    18 mixed descent. It could be because they wanted to

    19 state commitment to the Federation of Yugoslavia. So

    20 this may include people of different ethnic

    21 background. It's approximately the same size of that

    22 group as the one of Croats, it's 5.7 per cent of the

    23 population, approximately.

    24 And, finally, there would be a group called

    25 "others." Essentially, aliens. It would be Russians,

  114. 1 Ukrainians, Italians, a few Poles. And that would be

    2 approximately 2.2 per cent of the population or 2,836

    3 as listed in this paper.

    4 Q. Now, you've indicated that the figures you've

    5 given were somewhat different in that the overall

    6 amount was less than a hundred as far as the total

    7 population. The information that you were given,

    8 however, is this the same format in which it was given

    9 to you?

    10 A. Yes, it is.

    11 Q. Is it the same type of breakdown that this

    12 was given to you?

    13 A. Yes, it is.

    14 Q. Your Honour, we would offer this as

    15 Prosecution Exhibit 21-A?

    16 JUDGE MAY: We will adjourn now. Is there

    17 any objection to this one?

    18 MR. VUCICEVIC: No, Your Honour.

    19 JUDGE MAY: Very well, we will adjourn for a

    20 quarter of an hour.

    21 --- Recess taken at 4.04 p.m.

    22 --- On resuming at 4.25 p.m.

    23 MS. HOLLIS:

    24 Q. Dr. Greve, before the recess we were talking

    25 about the population of Prijedor and the ethnic

  115. 1 composition of that population, and you had reviewed a

    2 document 21A. I'd now ask that you look at a document

    3 we would ask be marked as 21B for Identification. Can

    4 you tell us what that is, please?

    5 A. This is a continuation or another part of

    6 censuses. It's comparative censuses for several

    7 different years. It has also been provided by the

    8 Bosnian authorities. So I did not have them at the

    9 time I did my study, but I had similar information from

    10 the Croatian authorities at that time.

    11 An opstina, which is translated as a

    12 municipality or a district, is subdivided in Mjesna

    13 Zajednica, which is the next administrative unit. And

    14 what we have here is a breakdown within the Opstina,

    15 within the district or the municipality into the

    16 different, smaller administrative units, the Mjesna

    17 Zajednica for Prijedor area.

    18 Q. Now, for ease of review of these documents,

    19 if we turn to page -- the last three digits being 201,

    20 or page 196 is the other page designation. The

    21 indication there is "Prijedor." Is that where the

    22 breakdown of the Prijedor municipality begins?

    23 A. Yes, it is.

    24 Q. Again, for ease of understanding this

    25 document, would it be correct to say that in reviewing

  116. 1 the document we would take pages 201 and 202 and

    2 actually put them together as a longer sheet in

    3 reviewing the information?

    4 A. Yes. They will be printed in a book, a

    5 booklet, so that you can read them at the same time.

    6 Q. And the same would be true for pages 198 and

    7 199, that is to say 203 and 204? You would also read

    8 those by putting them together?

    9 A. That is correct.

    10 Q. And do those pages continue with the

    11 breakdown of Opstina Prijedor?

    12 A. Yes, they do.

    13 Q. And, finally, with pages 205 and 206, would

    14 you also read those in conjunction?

    15 A. Yes, but I should add that starting a little

    16 below the middle of the page, on page 200, or 205, it

    17 starts with another opstina called Prnjavor.

    18 Q. Now, looking at the numbers for 1991 census,

    19 if you will, going back to the pages about Prijedor

    20 beginning on 201 and 202. What are the various

    21 categories that are listed under there, if you know?

    22 A. Again, it is the total, the Croats, the

    23 Muslims, the Serbs, those who call themselves

    24 Yugoslavs, and a category of others.

    25 Q. And as we look at the headings above where we

  117. 1 have Hrvati, Muslimani, Srbi, what are those

    2 categories, if you know?

    3 A. This is the breakdown for each of the Mjesna

    4 Zajednica of the population composition as divided by

    5 these groups.

    6 Q. And if you go down those columns where they

    7 list the various groups reviewing that, could you tell

    8 us how frequently there would exist a village that

    9 would be totally one group or another?

    10 A. That's almost non-existent. People are

    11 living in mixed hamlets, essentially, and villages in

    12 the town of Prijedor.

    13 Q. And that mixture of people in virtually all

    14 the hamlets and villages and towns in Opstina Prijedor,

    15 is that consistent with your analysis of the population

    16 and the ethnic distribution of Prijedor?

    17 A. Yes, it is.

    18 MS. HOLLIS: I would offer the exhibit as

    19 Prosecution Exhibit 21B.

    20 At this time I would like to have the witness

    21 be shown what we would ask be marked as Prosecution

    22 Exhibit 22 for Identification.

    23 Q. And what is that, please?

    24 A. This is a map which shows the Municipality of

    25 Prijedor, and almost in the heart of that is the town

  118. 1 of Prijedor. It shows a simplification of the main

    2 group populating the different areas. But it's a

    3 simplification, as most areas will have mixed

    4 populations.

    5 Q. So that when it shows an area in a colour --

    6 and could you tell us what the colour scheme is on the

    7 map, please?

    8 A. On the map the Serbs will be indicated with

    9 purple, the Muslims by green, and the Croats by yellow.

    10 Q. So then the respective colour for the group

    11 in an area is an indication of the predominant group in

    12 that area?

    13 A. That is correct.

    14 MS. HOLLIS: We would offer that as

    15 Prosecution Exhibit 22.

    16 Q. At this time I would like to show you what is

    17 marked on the exhibit list as Prosecution Exhibit 24

    18 for Identification. And what is this, please?

    19 A. This is a map. It's of Bosnia and

    20 Herzegovina with its subdivision and opstinas in

    21 district or municipalities, and some of the main towns

    22 are indicated as well.

    23 Q. And there's a colour scheme of green and pink

    24 on this map. Who prepared that colour scheme?

    25 A. I did. I did last night, actually. It is

  119. 1 intended to visualise, again using green for the

    2 Muslims. Where there are opstinas which are

    3 predominantly Muslim, but far from only Muslim, it's

    4 Prijedor, it's Sanski Most and Kotor Varos. And there

    5 are a number of nearby opstinas which are marked with

    6 pink or red. And that, in this case, indicates a

    7 majority of Serbs, but again there were many non-Serbs

    8 in these areas as well.

    9 Q. And the greater area in which you have

    10 coloured these pink and green, is there any

    11 significance to that greater area?

    12 A. That greater area was what was to become the

    13 Autonomous Region of Krajina.

    14 MS. HOLLIS: I would offer this exhibit as

    15 Prosecution Exhibit 24.

    16 MR. VUCICEVIC: We object to this exhibit,

    17 Your Honours. And the objection is that it would take

    18 a statistical expert to determine from the census

    19 reports which municipality had predominance over a

    20 population, because in the previous years, starting

    21 from '48 and going to '41, the group of citizens of

    22 Prijedor that we have seen have been changing, because

    23 a number of Muslims have been increasing and the number

    24 of Yugoslavs was decreasing, and then in certain

    25 census.

  120. 1 So basically this conclusion could be not

    2 ethnic, but this was declaration of belonging to one or

    3 the other ethnic group, and also Yugoslavs was

    4 political declaration.

    5 So to admit this map -- a map without

    6 coloration we don't object, but map with coloration we

    7 do, because this witness is not qualified to make

    8 statistical analysis, nor political statements, that

    9 are basically that this map depicts. And that would be

    10 prejudicial to our client.

    11 JUDGE MAY: Those are all matters which you

    12 can raise in cross-examination of the witness. Yes,

    13 we'll admit that.

    14 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, based upon that

    15 objection, we would ask at this time that the witness

    16 be provided with an exhibit we had determined not to

    17 use, but now we'll ask to use. That is what we would

    18 ask to be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 23 for

    19 Identification.

    20 Q. Dr. Greve, can you tell us what this map

    21 depicts?

    22 A. This is an ethnic map of the Republics of

    23 Croatia and of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    24 Q. And if you could perhaps fold that map so

    25 that we are viewing the area in which Prijedor, Kotor

  121. 1 Varos, the area that you were just referring to in the

    2 prior exhibit.

    3 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

    4 MR. VUCICEVIC: I need a copy of this

    5 exhibit. I didn't get it.

    6 JUDGE MAY: You haven't got a copy?

    7 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, we've previously

    8 provided the Defence with a copy of the map. If they

    9 don't have it with them in the courtroom, we'll provide

    10 them a copy, but they had been provided with a copy of

    11 it. We do have --

    12 MR. VUCICEVIC: Indeed, this beautiful

    13 colouring I would have noted. So if we can get a copy,

    14 I would appreciate it.

    15 JUDGE MAY: Have we got a spare copy?

    16 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour. If we could

    17 ask to get this back after the examination. We will

    18 have another copy to replace it. But this is our

    19 remaining copy.

    20 JUDGE MAY: Very well.

    21 MS. HOLLIS: If you could provide that to

    22 Defence Counsel, please.

    23 Q. Dr. Greve, perhaps we would need to have the

    24 overhead brought in closer into the area of Banja Luka,

    25 Prijedor, Kotor Varos, the area you were just

  122. 1 discussing. And is it possible to come in a little

    2 closer to that area?

    3 Dr. Greve, what do the various colours on

    4 that map depict?

    5 A. I should, perhaps, explain a bit, because, as

    6 the Defence rightly pointed out, I have used, when I

    7 speak about Serbs, Muslims or Croats, or Yugoslavs, the

    8 way people have declared themselves in the census. I

    9 have not gone beyond it to ask what does it really mean

    10 to be a Serb or a Croat or a Muslim when they declare

    11 them that way. Meaning that I have not checked on the

    12 -- on what are the criteria. I have just noted that

    13 when people have declared themselves as belonging to

    14 one of these groups, that has been the basis for

    15 official statistics, and I have related to that

    16 official statistic. So that is the basis on which I

    17 have made a statement.

    18 This is actually Prijedor, and the circle and

    19 its subdivision reflects the different ethnic groups.

    20 We have the green for the Muslims, the purple for the

    21 Serbs, and the brownish colour is for the Yugoslavs,

    22 and the blue for the Croats, and the white one for the

    23 group of others. And as the previous map also was

    24 made, it's based on the same kind of official papers

    25 where I've not gone beyond what is the true nature of

  123. 1 being Serb or Muslim. But again this is Sanski Most,

    2 and it's indicated that here that this is the

    3 population that's declared as Muslim, declared as Serb,

    4 aliens, and declared as -- or others, and declared as

    5 Croats.

    6 And we also have, when we come over to these

    7 areas, the Kotor Varos is there.

    8 Q. Dr. Greve, the ethnic breakdown that relates

    9 to Prijedor that is shown on this map, is that

    10 consistent with your analysis of that area?

    11 A. Yes, it is, but it's only one digit, like

    12 2.2, et cetera. It's not exact. But it's close to it.

    13 MS. HOLLIS: We would offer Prosecution

    14 Exhibit 23 for Identification.

    15 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

    16 MS. HOLLIS:

    17 Q. Judge Greve, in your report you also discuss

    18 a plebiscite that was held by the Bosnian Serbs in

    19 November of 1991. And I believe you discussed that at

    20 paragraphs 98 to 102 of your report. Now, in that

    21 report you discuss different ballots that were used at

    22 that plebiscite. Could you tell us where you got your

    23 information for that discussion?

    24 A. That was information I got from speaking to

    25 people who had actually voted in that plebiscite, and

  124. 1 they told me that there were different colouring of two

    2 different ballot papers, one used for those who

    3 declared themselves as Serbs, and one used for others.

    4 Q. Now, I'd like you to be provided with what we

    5 would ask to be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 25 for

    6 Identification.

    7 And while that is being done, I would ask

    8 you, Dr. Greve, did you, at any time in preparing your

    9 report, actually see a copy of different ballots used

    10 in the plebiscite?

    11 A. No, I did not see the papers, but the wording

    12 was given to me. I had the wording and I wrote it

    13 down. It's in the report. But it was verbal

    14 transmission, oral transmission. I did not have it in

    15 writing. I did not see a ballot paper itself.

    16 Q. If you would look at that exhibit, please,

    17 and if you would tell us what it purports to be.

    18 A. This is actually, I believe, to save space,

    19 it's two different ballot papers that's been assembled

    20 on the same page, the first page. And there is then --

    21 the first one is provided for people who declared

    22 themselves as Serbs, and the second half of the page

    23 below the dotted line was provided for those who were

    24 non-Serbs, and wanted to participate in the

    25 plebiscite. It was for everyone to participate in

  125. 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina if they so wished, whether or not

    2 declared Serb or not.

    3 Q. Now, looking at the portion of the exhibit

    4 that is entitled "Instructions for conducting the

    5 plebiscite," if you could please look at the third page

    6 where it discusses voting. And if you could look at

    7 the second paragraph of that page. What is indicated

    8 there about the use of special ballots?

    9 A. It's indicated that the non-Serbs, those who

    10 do not declare themselves as Serbs, will have yellow

    11 ballot papers to be distinguished from the other ballot

    12 papers.

    13 Q. And how were they making this distinction

    14 according to the instructions? Upon what type of

    15 documentation?

    16 A. Well, it's said that citizens shall vote at

    17 the polls where they are registered, and the excerpts

    18 from the general electoral register. Citizens who have

    19 not been registered in the electoral register shall be

    20 allowed to vote after having displayed their identity

    21 cards.

    22 Q. And if you would please look at the ballot

    23 paper and the wording at the top and ballot paper, and

    24 the wording at the bottom. I would ask if this exhibit

    25 is consistent with the information you received and the

  126. 1 analysis that you performed as part of your report?

    2 A. Yes, it is.

    3 MS. HOLLIS: We would offer Prosecution

    4 Exhibit 25 for Identification.

    5 Q. Dr. Greve, in your report at paragraphs 131

    6 to 132, you discuss the events in Prijedor and you

    7 discuss the role of propaganda in the events in

    8 Prijedor. And in that regard I would like to provide

    9 the witness with what has been marked Prosecution

    10 Exhibit 26 for Identification, noting that this exhibit

    11 is part of the report, but for ease of discussion it

    12 has been re-produced as an exhibit.

    13 Dr. Greve, is this a quote that appears in

    14 your report?

    15 A. This is a quote that appears in my report.

    16 It's taken from the British historian, Noel Malcolm,

    17 and his book, "Bosnia, A Short History." And it gives

    18 in a very small format the essence of my findings for

    19 the area of Prijedor.

    20 Q. And if you could very succinctly summarise

    21 for the Trial Chamber what you believe to be the

    22 significance of this quotation mark or this quotation.

    23 A. I think it has --

    24 MR. VANN: I object, Your Honour --

    25 JUDGE MAY: Well, I think on your feet,

  127. 1 please, Mr. Vann, if you want to object.

    2 MR. VANN: I object, Your Honour. The exhibit

    3 speaks for itself, and it would be improper to have the

    4 witness comment on the significance thereof.

    5 JUDGE MAY: I rather agree. Yes. Let's move

    6 on.

    7 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour. We

    8 would offer that into evidence, Your Honour.

    9 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

    10 MS. HOLLIS: At this time we would ask that

    11 the witness be provided -- what we would ask be marked

    12 as Prosecution Exhibit 27 for Identification.

    13 Q. Dr. Greve, could you tell us what this

    14 exhibit is?

    15 A. This is the United Nations document. It's

    16 circulated by the Secretary-General of the United

    17 Nations, and distributed to and through the General

    18 Assembly and the Security Council. It is attached to

    19 the covering letter. There is a report made by

    20 Mr. Tadeusz Mazowiecki, who was the Special Rapporteur

    21 of the Commission on Human Rights, and he was

    22 particularly looking at the situation in

    23 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

    24 Q. If you will turn to page 10, as those pages

    25 are numbered on the top of the document, paragraphs 38

  128. 1 to 43, beginning on page 10. And that section deals

    2 with what?

    3 A. It deals with media in areas controlled by de

    4 facto Bosnian Serbs authorities.

    5 Q. And if you look at paragraph 40 of that

    6 section, what is indicated there about --

    7 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, the same

    8 objection. We don't object to this document being

    9 admitted, but the document is so comprehensive and

    10 deals with a report on all media in

    11 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

    12 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Are there any other

    13 paragraphs you wish to draw to our attention,

    14 Ms. Hollis?

    15 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour, that would be

    16 paragraph 41, as it deals with television from

    17 Belgrade. And as to paragraph 40, involving television

    18 in Pale and Banja Luka, and ethnic terminology.

    19 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

    20 MS. HOLLIS: We would offer the exhibit, Your

    21 Honour.

    22 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Very well.

    23 MS. HOLLIS: I would next ask that the

    24 witness be provided with what has been marked -- what

    25 we would ask to be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 28 for

  129. 1 Identification.

    2 Q. Can you tell us what this exhibit is, please?

    3 A. This is a translation of an article in the

    4 newspaper, Kozarski Vjesnik. It's dated June 17, 1994,

    5 and it's headlined, "The Green Berets 'Attack'".

    6 Q. If you look at pages 23 and 24, what is the

    7 significance of the discussion on those pages,

    8 beginning with "I concluded," in relation to propaganda

    9 in the area?

    10 A. It is indicated in these paragraphs that the

    11 so-called Green Berets, or those who are referred to in

    12 the headline as Green Berets, the Muslims, have

    13 attacked, which is in quotation marks. It is the Serb

    14 in charge of the SDS in Ljubija, which is a town in

    15 Opstina Prijedor, in the Municipality of Prijedor. He

    16 is explaining how he is disarming the Territorial

    17 Defence unit, "resorted to cunning," as he is saying,

    18 it has not been an attack or a battle. He is

    19 suggesting there is an attack, and that way he is

    20 calling upon everyone of the non-Serbs to come to

    21 defend Ljubija. And as they do not come to defend

    22 Ljubija, all weapons are confiscated or taken under his

    23 control and his people's control.

    24 MS. HOLLIS: We offer that into evidence as

    25 Prosecution Exhibit 28.

  130. 1 Q. Dr. Greve, I would now like to turn to a

    2 general topic dealing with cooperation between civilian

    3 authorities, police, and the army in the area which you

    4 reviewed and analysed for purposes of your report. And

    5 in that regard I would like to provide you with what I

    6 would ask be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 29 for

    7 Identification.

    8 Q. And can you tell us what that is, please?

    9 A. This is yet another newspaper article, again

    10 Kozarski Vjesnik, dated 30th of July, 1993, headlined

    11 under, "Loot of public property." It's a report by a

    12 man named Bogdan Delic, who is the new head of the

    13 public security station, the police station, in short,

    14 not exactly. The precise translation --

    15 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honours, we stipulate to

    16 admission of this document.

    17 JUDGE MAY: Very well, if you would just

    18 describe it very briefly.

    19 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour. And there are

    20 just two or three areas I would like to emphasise with

    21 the witness.

    22 Q. Judge Greve, if you would look to the bottom

    23 -- to the bottom of the first page, just above the

    24 caption, "Keraterm, emptied overnight." And if you

    25 could indicate there the suggestion about the strong

  131. 1 bond between the various bodies?

    2 A. Here it is suggested that the main political

    3 bodies, police and the army, all are working closely to

    4 together.

    5 Q. And at the bottom of that page, the last

    6 sentence, carrying over --

    7 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honours, I don't see

    8 this text here where this inference is being drawn.

    9 And if Dr. Greve would kindly point it out, please.

    10 THE WITNESS: I apologise for not having done

    11 that. It's the last sentence before the new headline,

    12 subhead line, "Keraterm emptied overnight." And it

    13 reads, "All of this suggests the existence of a strong

    14 body between parts of the known political bodies,

    15 police, armies, Serb Democratic Party and local

    16 authorities." End of quote.

    17 MS. HOLLIS:

    18 Q. Then looking at "Keraterm emptied overnight,"

    19 there is an -- what is the indication there about the

    20 cooperation of various bodies?

    21 A. Again, it's suggested that the police, the

    22 army, the authorities are working closely together. I

    23 should, perhaps, say that as the name "Keraterm" will

    24 be used within another context. Also, "Keraterm" here

    25 is used as a storage room.

  132. 1 Q. And going back a bit to when you were

    2 discussing the population in the various ethnic groups

    3 in the Prijedor Municipality, the first sentence there

    4 indicates how many people used to live within the

    5 territory of the municipality.

    6 A. Including then the first sentence starting,

    7 "After Keraterm emptied overnight, about 50,000 people

    8 of other ethnic origins used to live within the

    9 territory of this municipality."

    10 Q. And the commentator goes on to indicate what

    11 is the total value of their property estimated as?

    12 A. Yes, again, it's the report of the head of

    13 the Public Security Station quoted, and his same line

    14 as I stopped the previous quote, "The total of their

    15 property has been unofficially estimated at several

    16 billion Deutschmarks. A smaller proportion of that

    17 property was destroyed during the military operations,

    18 but most of it was saved."

    19 Q. Thank you. I would offer that into evidence

    20 as Prosecution Exhibit 29.

    21 In that regard, that is, dealing with

    22 cooperation, I would ask that the witness be shown what

    23 has been marked Prosecution Exhibit 30 for

    24 identification.

    25 And what is that document?

  133. 1 A. This is also a newspaper article from

    2 Kozarski Vjesnik, dated 20th of May, 1994, headline,

    3 "We know our goal." It's an interview with Colonel

    4 Radmilo Zeljaja, commander of the 43rd Prijedor

    5 motorised brigade.

    6 Q. And if you would please look at the second

    7 full paragraph, beginning with "Colonel Radmilo

    8 Zeljaja." And if you would look about halfway down

    9 that paragraph, where you see the sentence beginning

    10 "Yugo crisis." The line under that, what does Colonel

    11 Zeljaja indicate concerning the action regarding

    12 Territorial Defence weapons or units?

    13 A. He is suggesting or he is informing that the

    14 weaponry that used to belong, the weaponry and

    15 technical equipment that were at the disposal of the

    16 Territorial Defence, was actually taken under the

    17 control of the Serb leadership and the Serb

    18 military. He is stating and I am moving -- it's

    19 actually the end of a sentence, "Yugo Crisis." But I

    20 am one, two, three, four -- five lines further down.

    21 And the final part of the sentence reads, "And place

    22 them under our control in our depots."

    23 Q. Now, if we could turn to the third page of

    24 that exhibit, with the paragraph beginning, "Colonel

    25 Radmilo Zeljaja," what does the colonel say about the

  134. 1 linkage with the SDS?

    2 A. He is suggesting that it's immediately linked

    3 to the leadership of the SDS, the Serb democratic

    4 party, giving them important support --


    6 --- (Kindly be advised microphone is not

    7 activated)

    8 JUDGE MAY: I must insist that if you're

    9 going to object, you must do so formerly. Don't,

    10 please, conduct an informal conversation with the

    11 witness. Now, what is it --

    12 MR. VUCICEVIC: I apologise, Your Honour. It

    13 was just so that the Defence could follow the

    14 presentation of the evidence.

    15 Dr. Greve, would you mind pointing to the

    16 text that you're referring to.

    17 JUDGE MAY: I must insist, you must do it

    18 through the bench if you have a point to raise.

    19 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, the Defence

    20 could not follow the presentation of the evidence in

    21 the reading. Could you kindly instruct the witness to

    22 point out to the Defence.

    23 JUDGE MAY: Yes, let us find out precisely.

    24 I haven't followed it either. Start again on this

    25 point, would you, Ms. Hollis.

  135. 1 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour, I apologise

    2 for the confusion.

    3 Q. Again, if we would turn to the third page of

    4 the document, and the first full paragraph beginning,

    5 "Colonel Radmilo Zeljaja, it is true." And then, if

    6 you would look at, please, at the next few lines that

    7 follow, what does Colonel Zeljaja indicate about the

    8 linkage with the SDS?

    9 A. He is suggesting that they are closely

    10 linked. And starting in the middle of that line, he is

    11 saying, the brigade command was, because of that,

    12 immediately linked to the leadership of the SDS, Serb

    13 Democratic Party, giving them important support as they

    14 do for all decent Serbs to organise themselves for

    15 self-defence in case of an attack by the Muslim

    16 forces.

    17 Q. And again, if we could turn to the fourth

    18 page. And if we could look again in the first full

    19 paragraph, beginning, "Colonel Radmilo Zeljaja."

    20 Looking at the language that is four lines up from the

    21 bottom of that paragraph, with the line that begins,

    22 "Region." Could you tell us what is indicated there

    23 about cooperation between various units?

    24 A. Starting almost in the middle of that line,

    25 he is saying, "Everyone knows the very close

  136. 1 cooperation between the army and the police." And it's

    2 also suggesting -- it was stating, I continue where I

    3 stopped, "Such cooperation was also established with

    4 the leaders of the party, the people in power, the

    5 crisis staff and all decent Serbs who were and still

    6 are of importance for this town."

    7 Q. Now, if I may direct you back to the third

    8 page, beginning at the very bottom of that page, the

    9 second line up, with the words, "Our command started

    10 work." Could you tell us what is said about setting up

    11 two different headquarters?

    12 A. It's stated, in short, that the Muslims and

    13 the Croats were also present in the headquarters. And

    14 therefore, I am quoting from mid -- last line.

    15 "Therefore, I was forced to set up two headquarters in

    16 that command." "One" -- I am continuing the quotation

    17 on the next page -- "One was small and more senior,

    18 where most of the decisions were made and the other was

    19 more fictitious."

    20 Q. I would offer that into evidence as

    21 Prosecution Exhibit 30.

    22 I would ask at this time that the witness be

    23 provided what we would ask be marked as Prosecution

    24 Exhibit 31 for identification.

    25 Dr. Greve, in the exhibit that was just

  137. 1 admitted, there was discussion about the Territorial

    2 Defence and the fact that that was taken over. And,

    3 now, in this exhibit, could you please tell us what

    4 this exhibit is?

    5 A. This is also a newspaper article taken from

    6 Kozarski Vjesnik, 13th of May, 1994. Staff changes in

    7 RPC, the information and business centre, Kozarski

    8 Vjesnik, manager Slobodan Kuruzovic.

    9 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, the Defence

    10 would stipulate to the submission of this exhibit.

    11 MS. HOLLIS: Then we would simply, Your

    12 Honour, move to the bottom of the exhibit, with the

    13 paragraph beginning, "Kuruzovic was one." And if you

    14 would look at the last sentence, what does it indicate

    15 concerning positions that Slobodan Kuruzovic had held?

    16 A. It stated that he was also the commander of

    17 the Serb Territorial Defence headquarters in

    18 Prijedor and one of the organisers of defence in power

    19 in Prijedor on the night between 29th and 30th of

    20 April, 1992.

    21 Q. We would offer that into evidence as

    22 Prosecution Exhibit 31.

    23 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, I would like to

    24 object based on your previous orders when scheduling

    25 this trial. You have indicated that the expert witness

  138. 1 shall testify through his or her report. And exactly

    2 the content of this has been mentioned on the various

    3 points in the report to Dr. Greve. And unless we are

    4 going to go and be testifying on direct, basically in

    5 the process of introducing the documents, we are going

    6 to allow expert witness to testify again in direct, I

    7 don't object. But if there is going to be available to

    8 the Prosecution, I hope that you are going to accord

    9 the same latitude to the Defence.

    10 JUDGE MAY: The witness can point out the

    11 significance of the document. There can be no

    12 objection to that. And, of course, the Defence can

    13 cross-examine on them. Again, there can be no

    14 objection to that. You may want to cross-examine, I

    15 notice, on this document.

    16 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, I do not

    17 think -- I don't think that you, basically, you know,

    18 perceived the import of my point. Where I am going, I

    19 am going back to your order that was made in March,

    20 that you ordered that the expert witnesses shall

    21 testify on the case in chief for the party that is

    22 calling them in writing in their report. And we have

    23 heard that Judge Greve, an expert for the Prosecution,

    24 shall briefly testify to introduce certain documents.

    25 And if the Defence stipulates to the documents being

  139. 1 admitted and documents having been discussed in the

    2 report, this presents either violation of your orders

    3 or second bites to the apple. And if it's a second

    4 bite to the apple, we merely suggest that we would like

    5 to receive the same privilege when we present our case

    6 in chief, if that becomes necessary. Thank you, Your

    7 Honour.

    8 JUDGE MAY: We'll consider it, yes.

    9 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour.

    10 JUDGE MAY: Ms. Hollis, I see it's ten past

    11 five. Can we get through this witness in chief now?

    12 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, I don't believe

    13 so. We have several additional exhibits.

    14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

    15 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, I don't believe

    16 so. We have several additional exhibits for the

    17 witness.

    18 JUDGE MAY: Let's see if we can.

    19 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour, we will

    20 endeavour to do so.

    21 Q. If the witness could be provided, what we

    22 would ask be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 32 for

    23 identification.

    24 Dr. Greve what is this exhibit?

    25 A. This is also a newspaper article from

  140. 1 Kozarski Vjesnik, 19th November 1993. It is headlined,

    2 "21st November, the day of the Security Services of

    3 Republika of Srpska. The Joy and the Sorrow of the

    4 Blue Angels." The "Blue Angles" refers to the --

    5 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, I would

    6 stipulate to admission of this document.

    7 MS. HOLLIS:

    8 Q. Dr. Greve, if you would look at the first

    9 page of the document, the third paragraph of that

    10 beginning, "In the preparations undertaken." And if

    11 you would look at the next sentence, please. What type

    12 of cooperation is being discussed there?

    13 A. It is in close cooperation between the

    14 Serb army and the Serb police station. And

    15 quoting the sentence starting on the third line, "All

    16 the preparations had been carried out in an exemplary

    17 cooperation with the Serb army and in very short

    18 time, 13 illegal Serb police stations with 1,600

    19 officers had been formed, while the SDA was still in

    20 power in Prijedor."

    21 Q. And if you would go down, please, two lines,

    22 beginning with the language, "it was decided" to the end

    23 of that paragraph.

    24 What type of cooperation and coordination is

    25 being discussed there?

  141. 1 A. At that point --

    2 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honours, I have to get

    3 to the feet on this document. Just, in all due

    4 respect, to Judge Greve because there was discussion in

    5 the opening statements about the translation. And the

    6 word "illegal" here has just been used with the -- out

    7 of context, completely prejudicial. The original

    8 document does not have that meaning.

    9 JUDGE MAY: Well, we'll have that checked.

    10 We will mark that. And, in due course, we can have it

    11 checked as to the exact meaning. Yes.

    12 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour.

    13 Q. Now, if we look -- would you please, because

    14 I am lost, I confess. Could you please repeat your

    15 answer to my question about what type of cooperation is

    16 being dealt with in those last few lines of that

    17 paragraph?

    18 A. Yes, it's paragraph 3 and it's the last few

    19 lines, which is referring to agreement and cooperation

    20 between the Serb army, the Serb Democratic Party

    21 and the Executive Committee of the Municipality of

    22 Prijedor to seize power from the Muslim extremists.

    23 Q. And in the next paragraph, what is indicated

    24 about the Prijedor seizure of power? By whom is it

    25 indicated that that was done?

  142. 1 A. It's stated that due to outstanding

    2 organisation and discipline, the Serb police in

    3 Prijedor seized power without a shot being fired.

    4 Q. If you will look to the bottom of that

    5 document, what is indicated there about reception

    6 centres being set up? That would be two lines from the

    7 top, beginning with "Following."

    8 A. Yes, it's stated that following the old

    9 uprising, reception centres were set up in Keraterm,

    10 Omarska and Trnopolje. The offices of the SJB police

    11 station, it's stated in brackets, we're taking people

    12 in for questioning and carrying out operative

    13 processing and security operation.

    14 Q. Now we're on the second page of that

    15 document. And what is indicated in that next

    16 paragraph, the first line about cooperation between

    17 police in various locations?

    18 A. It's suggested that or stated that the police

    19 in the nearby districts or municipalities are working

    20 together with the police from Prijedor to take care of

    21 non-Serb groups labelled as extremist groups.

    22 Q. We would offer that document into evidence,

    23 Your Honour.

    24 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, we object to the

    25 term "cleansed" in quotation marks in the last

  143. 1 paragraph of that document because quotation marks, to

    2 the best of my recollection, and I can't see the

    3 original that well. It's not very legible. I can't

    4 see them there. So it seems that quotation marks are

    5 not -- cleansing here is a term that is questionable.

    6 It's not an original document.

    7 JUDGE MAY: Very well, we will have that

    8 checked.

    9 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour.

    10 Q. In that document that you were just

    11 discussing, they indicated the take-over of power in

    12 Prijedor and also indicated about the camps. In your

    13 report at paragraphs 157 to 204 and paragraphs 337 to

    14 505, you discuss the take-over of Prijedor and the camps

    15 that were established. I would ask at this time that

    16 the witness be provided with what we would ask be

    17 marked as Prosecution Exhibit 33 for identification.

    18 Could you tell us what that is, please?

    19 A. This is, again, a newspaper article from

    20 Kozarski Vjesnik, dated 9th April 1993. It is an

    21 interview with the late Simo Drljaca, Deputy Minister

    22 of the Interior of the Serb Republic.

    23 Q. And could you please look at the first

    24 paragraph of that document, beginning "The man who was

    25 selected." And look at the second sentence and what is

  144. 1 indicated there about illegal work and armed men in

    2 police stations?

    3 A. Again, without, perhaps putting significance

    4 to the word "illegal," I don't know if it's correctly

    5 translated, I have related to the translation as is.

    6 But he is stating that as a parallel structure, at

    7 least, a force of 1.775 well-armed men in 13 police

    8 stations were ready to carry out the difficult tasks in

    9 the times ahead. That is, to take over power in

    10 Prijedor.

    11 Q. And concerning the take-over of power, what is

    12 indicated there about that take-over?

    13 A. It stated that it was successfully executed

    14 in half an hour without, again, a single bullet fired.

    15 It's the second time that's stated.

    16 Q. And if you would look at the paragraph

    17 directly above, "A great task was executed." What is

    18 indicated there about informative talks?

    19 A. It's stated that more than 6.000 informative

    20 talks were held at the gathering centres of Omarska

    21 Keraterm and Trnopolje.

    22 Q. And regarding the information concerning the

    23 parallel structure, the take-over and the informative

    24 talks, is this consistent with your analysis?

    25 A. It is. And this document was also available

  145. 1 to me prior to making my report.

    2 Q. You've reviewed this document?

    3 A. Yes.

    4 Q. We would offer Prosecution Exhibit 33.

    5 At this time, I would ask that the witness be

    6 shown what we would ask be marked as Prosecution

    7 Exhibit 34, for identification.

    8 And can you tell us what this is, please?

    9 A. This is also a newspaper article from

    10 Kozarski Vjesnik, 6th of August, 1993, it relates to

    11 the third anniversary of the Serb Democratic Party

    12 of Prijedor. And it's headlined, "Preventing a

    13 Repetition of the Serb Massacre of 1941."

    14 Q. And who is the person who is the subject of

    15 this article?

    16 A. It is Mr. Miskovic.

    17 Q. And how is he introduced in the article?

    18 A. Chairman of the SDS District Committee.

    19 Q. And if you will look at the next paragraph,

    20 could you tell us what he indicates about the SDS

    21 arming of people in Prijedor? And if you would look at

    22 the last sentence of that paragraph.

    23 A. He is stating that it was needed for the

    24 Serbs to continue to arm themselves. Excuse me, it's

    25 stated in the last sentence in this paragraph that the

  146. 1 SDS leadership saw what they, meaning the Muslims and

    2 the Croats were planning, and started to arm their own

    3 people in order to prevent a tragedy of 1941.

    4 Q. And in the next paragraph, what does Mr.

    5 Miskovic say about the take-over of power in Prijedor?

    6 A. He is again stating, confirming the date and

    7 stating there was not a single shot fired.

    8 Q. And what does he indicate about forming the

    9 army and police?

    10 A. He is stating that they quickly, "they"

    11 meaning the Serbs in this context, quickly formed their

    12 army and their police force.

    13 Q. Again, is this information consistent with

    14 your analysis?

    15 A. It is.

    16 Q. And we will offer Prosecution Exhibit 34.

    17 Dr. Greve, in your report you discuss camps, and among

    18 those, you discuss the camp at Trnopolje. At this

    19 time, I would ask that you be shown what we have marked

    20 as Prosecution Exhibit 35 for identification.

    21 And I would ask that first you tell us what

    22 the general area that is depicted by this map is?

    23 A. This map is the map of the Municipality of

    24 Prijedor. Not all of it, but the central part of it.

    25 Q. And if you could put that map on the

  147. 1 overhead, please. If you could, perhaps, point to

    2 where the Trnopolje area is.

    3 A. The Trnopolje area is close to what looks

    4 like a lake. It's an artificial fish farm or fish

    5 pond. It's actually listed on the map as the station

    6 of Kozarac. It's not stated Trnopolje, but it's

    7 Trnopolje station or the station of Kozarac.

    8 Q. And based on your information and analysis,

    9 is this the area where the Trnopolje camp was located?

    10 A. Yes, this is the area, yes.

    11 Q. And is there any significance to that area in

    12 terms of lines of communication?

    13 A. Yes, it's located next to the railway

    14 station.

    15 Q. And the railway station goes where?

    16 A. The railway station comes from up here, from

    17 Prijedor. It crosses through the Trnopolje or the

    18 station of Kozarac. It continues then to Omarska and

    19 goes all the way to Banja Luka-Duboj. It goes

    20 further. So it's actually the railroad linking Zagreb

    21 and Sarajevo.

    22 Q. And for reference on the map, this is a

    23 larger fish pond, that's in blue there. And in about

    24 the top third of that is where you find Kozarac, that

    25 is marked as Kozarac, the rail station?

  148. 1 A. I tried to point at it on the --

    2 Q. And for points of reference, you mentioned

    3 earlier that it goes, the railway line goes to

    4 Prijedor, could you show us on the map where the

    5 Prijedor town is located?

    6 A. We may just follow the railroad going west,

    7 north-west and we come to the town of Prijedor.

    8 MS. HOLLIS: We would offer that as

    9 Prosecution Exhibit 35.

    10 Q. In your report you also discuss the

    11 deportations or the transfer of people from Prijedor

    12 outside the municipality. In that regard I would like

    13 to ask the witness to review what we would ask be

    14 marked as Prosecution Exhibit 36 for Identification.

    15 JUDGE MAY: Ms. Hollis, it's coming onto half

    16 past five, so it may be convenient, after we've dealt

    17 with this exhibit, to adjourn.

    18 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour.

    19 Q. Could you tell us what that is?

    20 A. This is a communication to the press, which

    21 is submitted by the International Committee of the Red

    22 Cross. It is from their headquarters in Geneva. And it

    23 is headlined, "ICRC --", the International Committee of

    24 the Red Cross, "-- evacuates 1,560 people from

    25 Trnopolje Camp," it's dated 2nd of October, 1992.

  149. 1 Q. If you will look at the second line of the

    2 substance of that article. When does it indicate that

    3 this evacuation occurred?

    4 A. It occurred a day before the 1st of October

    5 that same year.

    6 Q. If you will look at the second paragraph of

    7 that article. What does it indicate about the first

    8 time the ICRC was able to enter Trnopolje Camp?

    9 A. It's stating that they only were able to

    10 enter this camp for the first time on the 10th of

    11 August, that very year, 1992.

    12 Q. And in the next paragraph, what do they

    13 indicate about an agreement concerning this evacuation

    14 of people?

    15 A. It is stated that the evacuation is under the

    16 terms of the agreement reached already the year before

    17 in London.

    18 MS. HOLLIS: We offer this as Prosecution

    19 Exhibit 36.

    20 JUDGE MAY: Well, that will be a convenient

    21 moment.

    22 We'll adjourn now until half past nine

    23 tomorrow morning.

    24 --- Whereupon proceedings adjourned at

    25 5.30 p.m., to be reconvened on

  150. 1 Tuesday, the 7th day

    2 of July, 1998, at 9.30 a.m.