1 Thursday, 12 March, 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The accused Miletic not present]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Madam Registrar. If you could call
7 the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-05-88-T, The Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, General Miletic is not present today. We have
11 a waiver already. The other accused are present. Prosecution today, we
12 have Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Vanderpuye, Ms. Soljan.
13 Defence teams, I notice the absence of Mr. Nikolic in the Beara
14 Defence team; Mr. Bourgon in the Nikolic Defence team; Mr. Lazarevic in
15 the Borovcanin Defence team, and that's it.
16 Any preliminaries? No. Mr. McCloskey, the Borovcanin Defence
17 team has filed, as promised, the motion relating to a particular
18 document. Do you think you are in a position to respond orally today?
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, good morning. Mr. Thayer had that
20 in his hands last night, and we discussed it briefly. If I can check
21 with Mr. Thayer about that, I can get back to you.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. If it is not possible for a
23 response today, perhaps you could discuss, also, with Mr. Thayer the
24 earliest you could come back to us with a response. Thank you. I'm
25 talking of P4104.
1 All right. Witness.
2 [The witness entered court]
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you, Mr. Marojevic.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I should have addressed you as Professor Marojevic.
6 My apologies. Before you start giving evidence, we require from you a
7 solemn declaration that you will be speaking the truth. Please read out
8 the text that is being shown to you now, and that will be your solemn
9 undertaking with us.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
11 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Please make yourself comfortable.
13 Mr. Haynes who is lead counsel for General Pandurevic will be putting
14 some questions to you, and then he will be followed by others on
15 cross-examination. Thank you.
16 WITNESS: RADMILO MAROJEVIC
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 Examination by Mr. Haynes:
19 Q. Good morning, Professor Marojevic, and good morning to everyone
20 else. You know who I am because we met yesterday. I'm counsel for
21 General Pandurevic. Can we start, please, by establishing what your full
22 name is?
23 A. My name is Radmilo Marojevic.
24 Q. And for the first time, you're going to have to look at the
1 MR. HAYNES: I'm going to ask that we put 7D778 into e-court,
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
4 MR. HAYNES:
5 Q. And can you look through that, please, and confirm that that is
6 an accurate summary of your professional life and experience?
7 A. The birth place is not Markovac but Morokovo. And the same goes
8 for primary education; Morokovo, not Markovac.
9 Q. But after that, can you look at what you've been doing
10 principally since 1973?
11 A. And after that, philological faculty and the faculty of political
12 science and MA degree, all right, and PhD degree, all right. Now, in the
13 work experience, right. The information is correct.
14 Q. Thank you. And how do you currently spend your time?
15 A. I'm a professor at the Belgrade
16 universities in Banja Luka and Nis
17 especially the textology of verse and other literary works of
18 Petar Petrovic Njegos, a great Serb poet.
19 Q. Do you know or have you ever met Vinko Pandurevic?
20 A. Never.
21 Q. In this case, we know from a report you've written that you came
22 to analyse two documents that have concerned us. How did you come to be
23 involved in that?
24 A. Mr. Drago Cupic telephoned me and asked me to receive
25 Mr. Djordje Sarapa in connection with a textological analysis of a
1 document, and since this is my primary area of expertise, I accepted
2 Mr. Sarapa, and that was around new year 2006, explained the matter to
3 me. And since I accepted in principle to do it, sometime later in
4 February 2006 I received a text of the combat report dated 15 July, and I
5 looked for another text that may have been written in the same genre
6 signed by the same person. And later, that must have been in the summer
7 of 2006, I received another report of the 16 July, so that I thought over
8 these text and as it usually happens in such cases, each element of the
9 texts required a lot of thinking, and I started writing in September
10 2006. And sometime in the beginning of 2008, my work was complete.
11 Q. In addition to the two documents you've spoken about, did you
12 meet Mr. Sarapa on occasion?
13 A. Very seldom because Mr. Sarapa did not visit Belgrade often at
14 the time when I was there because I spend around five months a year in
16 text itself was quite sufficient for analysis.
17 The only thing I never received and I never even expected to
18 receive is a different interpretation of that text. I could only suppose
19 which parts of the text could give rise to some different interpretations
20 than those which were authentic. Of course, I knew what it was all
21 about. In fact, I knew how the Tribunal was established and in what
22 languages it worked, so I could suppose that the text would not be
23 interpreted only by native Serbian speakers, which means Serbs of
24 Orthodox, Catholic, or Islamic faith, which use the language regardless
25 of various renamings of the language; but it would be interpreted also by
1 people who speak English or other languages. And it is well known that
2 foreigners who have a superficial knowledge of Serbian or read texts only
3 in translation can sometimes have a different understanding. That is why
4 I looked at it -- I looked at the text from that perspective and tried to
5 imagine what other broader interpretations are possible.
6 Q. Did you require and get any information from Mr. Sarapa about the
8 A. A scholar who wants to identify a text would act in a
9 methodologically proper manner only if he disregards completely any
10 outside suggestions. Of course, I had to ask Mr. Sarapa about the
11 provenance of the texts; namely, I had to ask him to explain to me the
12 abbreviations and acronyms at the beginning of the text. Perhaps I could
13 have found out in some other way, but that was not necessary. Namely, ZV
14 stood for Zvornik, but I could make out myself that BR is brigade,
15 et cetera. I did not need anything else and Mr. Sarapa did not volunteer
16 anything else. He only asked me to provide an authentic interpretation
17 of the text, and I was well aware that scientific truth like any other
18 truth is the best contribution for the Tribunal to enable them to make
19 the right decision.
20 Q. And is that an exercise that you had performed in the past?
21 A. Well, I performed similar analyses, some of them published. For
22 instance, on an authentic critical interpretation of any dark, unclear
23 spot in The Mountain Wreath by Njegos, I also interpreted a famous
24 Serbian ballad The Mournful Letters of Hasanaginica, and I did the same
25 thing for the Russian epic of The Igor Regiment as well as other Russian
1 epics and Slavic texts. I also made interpretations of Slavonic texts,
2 and none of these interpretations have ever been disputed.
3 In my work I use, of course, all past interpretations of the
4 texts and I quote past interpretations so that all the arguments could be
5 exposed to comparison. And whenever I quote an argument, I also cite
6 whether it has been proven or not, and if it's a controversial argument,
7 I point out where the controversy lies.
8 Now, this text is relatively easy to interpret because it is
9 written in a clear and concise way. It belongs to the official legal
10 genre of combat reports, and there was practically nothing in it that
11 would give rise to differing interpretations. Everything is clear and
12 unambiguous based on the methods normally used to authenticate texts,
13 primarily the text in its entirety.
14 Q. Just to clear up a couple of things with you. Do you speak
15 English at all?
16 A. At the philological faculty of our university, I sat two English
17 exam, English 1 and English 2. I got top marks on both exams, but I had
18 no opportunity to use the English language because in my field there was
19 practically nothing to read in English. However, since it is not so
20 necessary in my field, I have no emotional link to the language;
21 therefore, I would appreciate if you would address me in Serbian, in
22 Russian, or some other such language.
23 Q. I'm not even going to try. And in what language did you write
24 your original report?
25 A. In Serbian. And I did not check, although I could actually check
1 the translation into English.
2 Q. And similarly, what knowledge do you have of the events in and
3 around Zvornik of the 15th and 16th of July of 1995?
4 A. Well, I did not know anything about the specific events, and the
5 first I heard of the surname Pandurevic -- in fact, no. Some of my
6 students in Banja Luka have the surname of Pandurevic, but the first I
7 heard of Lieutenant-Colonel, later General Pandurevic was when I was
8 asked to write this report. I know very little about the events
9 concerned, only as much as one can know based on available published
10 material. What I know very well and what is not the subject of this
11 analysis is the new world order. I know very well the scenario developed
12 in Srebrenica. I know very well that the envoy of the new world order
14 Serbs and entrap them into genocide. I know very well and I explained
15 that in my book "The Cyrillic Script At the Crossroads of Centuries" in
16 1999. I maintain that, and that has scientifically proven that in
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina there is only one people living there, and the new
18 world order made up a nation called Bosniaks. There is only one single
19 nation or people there who speak a group of very similar dialects, all of
20 them being Serbian.
21 So in Bosnia-Herzegovina there are Serbs of Orthodox faith, Serbs
22 of Islamic faith, and Serbs of Catholic faith. However, to prove a
23 genocide it was necessary to invent a pseudo-nation; first of all,
24 Muslims with a capital M, and later, Bosniaks, although Bosniaks has no
25 meaning at all. Bosniaks are in fact Bosnians, an archaic prototype. I
1 knew all that, and I anticipated all that in my study of 1991 when I
2 spoke about who the Serbs were, which names are used to denominate Serbs,
3 et cetera. And the details of the implementation of that scenario around
4 Srebrenica were totally unknown to me because in that period I spent most
5 of my time in Russia
6 Banja Luka occasionally, but I was not so interested in the details. I
7 knew that this scenario of the new world order was being implemented in
8 Srebrenica, not only by Serbs of Islamic faith and foreign mercenaries,
9 but there must have been, also, Serbs of the Orthodox faith involved, so
10 I could not suppose either of these things. I had to see what this text
11 means, whether there are any hidden meanings or not.
12 Unfortunately, I see that in this Tribunal of ours, if it is ours
13 at all, there is no Mr. Clinton. You see, when somebody is responsible
14 for an entrapment into genocide, then we don't have the person
15 responsible. We don't see the Dutch Battalion here. The only accused
16 are some of the possible perpetrators or some of those who fell into the
17 trap of that scenario. Therefore, in Srebrenica and in the entire
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina, the war was ignited from outside and the objectives
19 are completely different. The objective is to accuse the Serb people of
20 genocide, although there could have been no genocide because there is no
21 other people. All of them are Serbs: On one side, Orthodox Serbs; on
22 another side, Serbs of Islamic faith; and on the third side, Serbs of
23 Catholic faith.
24 Of course, in the earlier times, there had been Serbs of the
25 Moses faith, but they have joined the Serbs of the Orthodox faith in the
1 death camp of Jasenovac. Wiesenthal has said enough about -- Wiesenthal
2 does not even mention them.
3 Q. Thank you for that.
4 MR. HAYNES: Can we have 7D917 in e-court, please.
5 Q. And can you identify that this is the linguistic analysis you
6 wrote of the reports of 15th and 16th of July, 1995?
7 A. Yes, I can confirm this because I have a version which is part of
8 your material and another one that I downloaded from my computer, and
9 they are identical. Of course, what I consider authentic is only the
10 text in the Serbian language.
11 Q. Thank you. And can you explain to us what it was you understood
12 your task to be in preparing this report?
13 A. I understood that my task was to carry out a linguistic analysis
14 of the text, i.e., to carry out the textology of the combat reports,
15 which means that all those places that might be in dispute or are
16 interesting from the point of view of a linguistic analysis should be
17 explained by me. In any case, the objective of the analysis has been
18 presented in the paper. The objective is to show the basic meaning of
19 the passages where prisoners of war are mentioned. I believe that it was
20 of some significance for the analysis of the text and also to put that
21 passage in context of other passages speaking of the situation on the
22 ground and the basic tasks of the Zvornik Infantry Brigade.
23 My third task was to present the textual and contextual
24 relationship between the interim combat report of the command of the
25 Zvornik Brigade dated 15 July 1995
1 of the command of the Zvornik Infantry Brigade dated 16 July 1995 at 1810
2 hours. So these were the frameworks within which I was to carry out my
4 Q. I want to go directly to the report of the 16th of July. I'm not
5 going to take you all the way through your report, but just to clarify a
6 few remarks in it.
7 MR. HAYNES: So can we go to page 12 in the English, please.
8 That's section 8. I think the page is the same in the B/C/S. Thank you.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you please tell me what B/C/S
10 is? What is B/C/S? Please could you use Serbian instead of B/C/S, and I
11 don't care whether that Serbian is going to be the Ijekavian or Ekavian
12 variation, and to show you that I really don't care, I used my Ijekavian
13 variant in my report, but in the courtroom I will use the Ijekavian
14 because that's how people speak in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This will
15 facilitate my analysis. An exception were the combat reports because in
16 the Yugoslavia
17 written in the Latinic script but to be spoken in the Ekavian variant of
18 the language.
19 Q. Well, you've probably answered my next question, which is that in
20 relation to the report of the 16th of July, you have said at the foot of
21 the report that it was written in one dialect but typed as the appendix
22 to your report in another, and I was going to ask you to explain that.
23 If there's anything that you've left out, would you do so now?
24 A. I just wanted to say that this report was written in Ekavian
25 because -- what I meant is that the linguistic analysis was written in
1 Ekavian because the report which was analysed was also written in
2 Ekavian. It was written in the Cyrillic script, and that's why the
3 linguistic analysis was also in the Cyrillic, although it is not
4 obligatory, but it is, of course, desirable.
5 The second text which is brought in connection with the first one
6 by intertextual analysis was written in Ekavian with certain elements of
7 Ijekavian. I established, which was not at all difficult, that this was
8 under the typist who probably was Ijekavian and who obviously had not
9 served in the army for any longer time because if he had served in the
10 Yugoslav People's Army, he would have had to be well versed in writing,
11 typing, and speaking Ekavian because that was the language of command in
12 the JNA. Obviously, I took into account the fact that such errors may
13 have been made by somebody who was Ijekavian but not the person who
14 dictated the text. In addition to that, the errors and mistakes are
15 completely understandable because where there is a two-syllable reflex of
16 "jat" involved, there are no mistakes there. For example, look at the
17 words "cele", "linija fronta". In the Ekavian, it would be "cijele."
18 The difference is between "cela" and "cijele." The mistakes appear where
19 the differences are not in the number of syllables, so for example when
20 somebody dictates an interim combat report, an Ijekavian will use the
21 word "isvijesta" [phoen] with a J as it has been done here. So there is
22 a combination of Serbian literally language, but this did not have a
23 bearing on the commander or did not originate from the commander but,
24 rather, from the incorrect spelling on the part of the typist in the
25 second text, whereas the typist of the first text noted the text exactly
1 as it had been dictated to him.
2 Q. And how much difference does it make, the two dialects?
3 A. These are not dialects at all. These are two literary
4 expressions. The first one was established by Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic,
5 and at first it was the only literary pronunciation or expression of the
6 new literary Serbian language. And then in the 19th century, some 20
7 years or 25 years after Vuk's death, the Ekavian literary expression or
8 pronunciation was introduced, but it was identical with the Ijekavian,
9 the only difference between that the reflection of "jat" were replaced
10 with the Ekavian expression, which means that the fundaments of both of
11 these speeches were taken from the Niksic of the eastern
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Serbia
14 dialects or speeches but, rather, on the Ijekavian speeches. This is one
15 and the same literary pronunciation with two variations. In spontaneous
16 speech, these two variations are so minutely differentiated, and if you
17 don't pay much attention you will not even know whether the person is
18 speaking Ijekavian or Ekavian. These two are so close that they
19 constitute one in the same Serbian literary pronunciation or language.
20 Q. Thank you. Now, just two other observations --
21 A. You're welcome.
22 MR. HAYNES: Can we go to section 5 of the report, which is page
23 5 in the English, and I think 6 in the Serbian.
24 Q. You've said a little about this already, Professor Marojevic, but
25 you've characterized the interim combat report of the 15th of July as an
1 official legal text, and I'd like to you to help us as to what the
2 characteristics of such a text are.
3 A. Well, an official legal functional style is one of the five
4 functional styles which exists -- which exist in the Serbian and other
5 Slav languages. What are the other functional styles? There is a
6 scientific functional style which is used in science papers. Then there
7 is conversational functional style. Further on, journalistic or
8 publicistic style, and of course the literary or artistic functional
9 style in writing. And like all the other styles, this particular style,
10 the official legal style has the strictest structure, which means that it
11 does not tolerate elements which are typical of a jargon or a
12 conversational language. This is a style in which one needs to formulate
13 one's thoughts very clearly. It is a style in which you do not omit
14 anything that shouldn't be omitted according to the linguistic rules.
15 And finally, this is such a functional style in which one strives
16 for a complete lack of ambiguity, which means that it has the same -- the
17 same meaning for the person who writes the text as well as for the person
18 who is going to read it, and in our case, for those who will be
19 interpreting it or use it to charge a person or defend a person charged
20 with certain acts.
21 Q. If you stay with that paragraph for a little while, you go on to
22 talk about each paragraph in the report being a semantically meaningful
23 unit. Would you expand upon that just a little bit, please?
24 A. At the beginning of this paragraph number V entitled the
25 "Structure of the Interim Combat Report 15 July 1995," which was the
1 subject of my linguistic analysis, when it says in this paragraph that
2 every paragraph represents a meaningful whole, it says further on that
3 this meaningful whole is composed of one, two, or several sentences. If
4 every paragraph were to represent or constitute or consist of just one
5 sentence, then meaningful wholes would not exist because every sentence
6 would be a paragraph. This is one criterion that helps us to establish
7 that one paragraph is one whole and that the text is very regularly
8 divided into passages.
9 The second criterion is as follows: Where there are two or
10 several sentences, these two or several sentences could be divided by
11 full stops or commas, and they could be condensated into complex
12 sentences. And a third criterion that could be proven here very easily
13 is this: There is no way for the text to be connected from one passage
14 to another unless the whole text was completely changed. In other words,
15 all the arguments presented here point to the fact that the paragraphs
16 are independent wholes and that whoever dictated the text and whoever
17 typed it did not make a single mistake of connecting two paragraphs into
18 one or breaking one meaningful paragraph in an artificial way into two
19 different wholes.
20 In other words, all the paragraphs function as a totally
21 independent logical and semantic wholes. They could also be syntactic
22 wholes if the genre itself did not warrant for the text to be as precise
23 and possible. What makes a text precise is to put full stops everywhere
24 where a semantic units ends, and this provides for a completely
25 transparent and clear meaning of the text.
1 Q. You have alluded to it in your answer, but were you aware of the
2 process by which the two documents you looked at were created, namely by
4 A. In this sense, it may be concluded that the text was dictated and
5 that whoever typed it did so based on the dictation. It can be assumed
6 that the person who dictated the text and, as it is customary in the
7 Serbian pedagogical discourse, also spelled out the word full stop where
8 the sentence ended and that preceded every new paragraph with the words
9 "new paragraph."
10 The second possibility that exists, and that would result in a
11 text of this kind, was that the person who dictated the text had already
12 prepared a draft, a concept, a structure of the report and that he knew
13 exactly where the paragraphs would be because he had already prepared an
14 outline, and that made it easier for that person who dictated the text to
15 draft this text which functions as a whole and looking at its part, it
16 represents a very well structured composition.
17 MR. HAYNES: Can we go to page 7 of the report in the English,
18 please, which I think is page 8 in the Serbian.
19 Q. In chapter VI of your report, "Linguistic Analysis Of the Text,"
20 you pose yourself four questions. I'm not going to read them out. I'm
21 sure you're familiar with them. Why did you pose yourself those four
22 questions in that chapter?
23 MR. HAYNES: And I think we need to go back one page in the
24 Serbian version.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In paragraph entitled "Linguistic
1 Analysis of the Text," which is the central part of this linguistic
2 analysis, I posed those questions which I deemed to be of some interest
3 for the understanding of the meaning of this text. The first question is
4 this: "This command cannot take care of these problems any longer..."
5 This has been singled out as a particular paragraph. I had to show in
6 contextual terms what are the problems referred to within this text in
7 order to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation especially if the
8 reader's language is not Serbian. I wanted to show that this refers to
9 the previous paragraph, and I provided arguments to show that this does
10 not refer to the previous or, rather, not the immediately preceding
11 paragraph but, rather, to the first five key paragraphs. The sixth
12 paragraph was just a remark in passing, and if this had been a different
13 genre of a text, if this hadn't been an official legal document, and if
14 this hadn't been an interim combat report, then the preceding paragraph
15 could be construed as a footnote. It could have been taken out from the
16 text and included at the end of the text because it is just an additional
17 burden on the text. This had to be said. This had to be explained.
18 My next question was whether -- or, rather, what is the function
19 of the word "security" and the "asnacija" of the terrain. If the
20 punctuation is correct, and we don't have any reason to doubt that,
21 security could not stand on its own if it was not separated by a
22 linguistic mark. We had to explain what is the nature of that security.
23 Was it something that was independent, and what was its meaning, or was
24 it this providing security for the terrain, meaning "asnacija"? And then
25 we had to explain the link between "release" and the rest of the text,
1 and whether the word "release" can have the meaning of setting free from
2 the prison.
3 I had to explain the context in which "release" can be used in
4 one or the other meaning because there are words which have their own
5 independent meaning when they are used independently and have a different
6 meaning which can be used only in a colocation. There is this word
7 "release" or "let go," so you can use it as, Did you let them go, and to
8 let go or release from the prison in a conversational language can be
9 construed as release of prison only if the word "prison" is used. In an
10 official document, this does not mean to be released from prison. You
11 cannot let go from prison in a legal text without using the word
12 "prison." One can only free prisoners. He cannot just let them go. And
13 given the possibilities that the Serbian language inambiguously
14 demonstrates, and I have used the best six volume dictionary, the
15 Serbo-Croatian dictionary, as the Serbian language was known at the time;
16 the authors of that dictionary worked on a huge database, and they could
17 not know at the time, they could not even assume that somebody would try
18 to give the verb "release" or "let go" a meaning that would be
19 misinterpreted here in this Tribunal. The lexicographers had provided
20 the structure of the word "release" a long time ago, and if this confirms
21 what the linguistic practice showed to them, which can be verified by
22 experiments without any exceptions, then one really needed to explain the
23 relationship with the word "release" or "let go" with the next paragraph
24 in which it says "let everybody go through," or -- and whether this "let
25 go" can have any connection with the prisoners which were referred to in
1 the immediately preceding paragraph or footnote as I have just called it,
2 and the analysis of course will show very clearly without any dilemma
3 whatsoever, and what I'm using for the analysis of the meaning of this
4 verb and I'm using not one but all sorts of methods in order to establish
5 its meaning, although only one method suffice. However, I used all the
6 four methods because the four methods absolutely clearly show that the
7 analysis is correct.
8 If this was not about the Tribunal, if this was not about an
9 expert report, if this was merely a linguistic analysis, then it would
10 suffice for me to say or use just one sentence in a footnote. "Let go"
11 cannot mean "liberate" unless it is further expanded by saying, Let go
12 somebody who had been captured. There is an anecdote about a person who
13 had captured an enemy, and then he calls his friend and says, I captured
14 him; and the answer is, If you had captured him, bring him over. And
15 then the first one says, He doesn't want to go. The second says, If he
16 doesn't want to go, then let him go. And then the first says, I would
17 let him go but he doesn't want to let me go, which means if you capture
18 somebody, you tie his hands or restrain him in another way. You can then
19 let him go. But you cannot use the verb "let go" in reference to a
20 prisoner. There's no indicator to show that this verb can have this
21 meaning. There is no single example for that. Obviously, I have taken
22 into account only the things that may be of relevance for the Tribunal.
23 There is a dictionary of the Croatian or Serbian language, but it is a
24 historical dictionary. I didn't want to have this taken against me. I
25 did not quote from the historical dictionary, but it would prove exactly
1 what I'm saying. It is impossible. There is not a single example to
2 show that verb "let go" can be used with this meaning.
3 I have also used a large database of the dictionaries of the
4 Serbian and Croatian literary and languages of the Serbian academy of
5 arts and sciences; however, that dictionary did not reach the letter P,
6 which would stand for the Serbian "let go." However, everything in the
7 database, and there are a lot of examples, that illustrate my claim that
8 the verb "let go" cannot independently stand for "release" or "set free"
9 from prison on the one hand; and on the other hand, in any case it can
10 mean let somebody go out, in, or through. So that this analysis was
11 obviously indispensable for the text to gain its full meaning, not only
12 for a linguistic expert and not only for the native speaker of the
13 Serbian but for all the others, as well, for those who learn the Serbian
14 language, for those who interpret into English, and for those who use the
15 English text in order to understand the Serbian language and charge the
16 Serbian language with what it is not and what it shouldn't be blamed for.
17 There is no word "let go," which would also mean release from
18 imprisonment. So it is in vain to accuse the Serbian language of that
19 attempt, and I'm here to defend the Serbian language in a scientific
21 MR. HAYNES: Can we have a look, please, at page 16 of your
22 report in English, 18 in Serbian. Maybe 17 in Serbian.
23 Q. This is paragraph 3 we are looking at, Professor Marojevic, of
24 the interim combat report of the 16th of July, and I want to look with
25 you, please, at the penultimate sentence, which reads in English:
1 "I requested that a captured policeman and my missing soldiers be
3 What verb is used by the author in that sentence?
4 A. Well, first, a clarification: It's not the penultimate; it's the
5 third from the end. It's not for me. It's for the opposite side; maybe
6 they will say that it's not in the penultimate sentence. We have to be
7 clear for the sake of the structure of the text itself.
8 The word used is "oslobodjenje," to be released. It's a verb
9 noun. It's a gerund. In Serbian, you could say, I asked that the
10 captured policeman be released. But instead it was said, I asked for the
11 release of the captured policeman. It's perfectly clear. The verb is
12 "osloboditi"; the verb noun is "oslobodjenje." It is used in the proper
13 style, and, of course, it is not replaced by the "let go" verb,
14 "pustiti," "pustanje"; the proper word is used. That is the proper word
15 to be used to denote that meaning. "Osloboditi," "oslobodjenje," meaning
16 release from imprisonment. In the old language, it was not "sloboda" for
17 freedom; it was "svobode," but that's the only difference.
18 Q. What significance do you ascribe to the fact that the same author
19 used that same in this context in this report but "pustiti" not once but
20 twice in the report of the 15th of July?
21 A. That's just the sign that in the previous report the word was not
22 used in that meaning. That meaning was not present, and since there was
23 no such meaning, the word corresponding to that meaning was not used.
24 What was said there was that everybody should be let through, let pass,
25 let all of them go because we see from the prior passages that the
1 commander was willing to let all the civilians go, and then later let
2 everybody go, including those who were armed. Let all of them get out.
3 That's why I asked for this post-dated text, which sheds light on the
4 previous text from the semantic and from the lexical point of view.
5 Q. Thank you. I just want to move on to a couple of other things.
6 MR. HAYNES: Can we have a look, please, at 7D109.
7 Q. And it's a fairly straightforward question. You talk at length
8 in your report about the conceptual link between the word "oslobodjenje"
9 and the word "terena" in one of the paragraphs of the combat report. In
10 this document, the second and third words of the text we see are
11 "oslobodjenje teritorija." Is there any difference in meaning between
12 the words "terena" and "teritorija" in your opinion?
13 A. Well, these are synonyms. Practically in every context you can
14 use to secure territory and to secure terrain as mutually interchangeable
15 words. Territory and terrain are not 100 per cent synonyms. They are
16 not always used in exactly the same meaning, but to secure territory and
17 to secure terrain are complete synonyms. These colocations are absolute
18 synonyms. The only thing I could say here as a textologist is that in
19 this right-hand text, it's written "for the purposes of securing
20 territory" because what it says in the original is "teritorij" instead of
21 "teritorija," and "teritorij" is the Zagreb variant, and the proper
23 and securing terrain is one in the same meaning, and they are always
25 Q. Staying with that for a minute, can you help us as to the
1 etymological derivation of the word "obezbedjenje"?
2 A. "Obezbedjenje," or in the Ekavian variant "besbijadjenje"
3 [phoen], is a Serbian word, but it was taken over originally from the
4 Russian word "abispecinja," [phoen] and the Russian politicians often put
5 the accent in the wrong place and say "abispecinja." It can be used in
6 all sorts of meanings. It can mean securing terrain from landslides;
7 when rain starts and rock and soil give way, the terrain needs to be
8 secured. But in this meaning, it's always a transitive word. You cannot
9 say secure; you have to say, Secure what?
10 It is a feature of the Serbian language but not the Russian
11 language, which is the source, that "obezbedjenje" has another use which
12 is independent, not transitive. In our days we have the security
13 service, and by abbreviating the colocation we can just say security or
14 meeting service. However, the origin of "obezbedjenje" is the Russian
15 word "bezopasnost", and Security Council in Russian would be
16 "Sovjet Bezopasnosti," and our language developed in many ways under the
17 influence of the Serbian literary language but also the Czech language.
18 Both of these are Slavic languages, one of them eastern Slavic, another
19 Western Slavic, and they impacted both the variant used in Zagreb
20 basic variants, Ekavian and Ijekavian used in Belgrade, Podgorica, and
21 other Serbian lands. So the conclusion here would be that
22 "obezbedjenje teritorija": Is the same thing as "obezbedjenje terena,"
23 securing the terrain. But with regard to "asnacija," in combination with
24 security, the rule is strict and the whole sentence would read "to secure
25 and clear up terrain": "Obezbedjenje I Asanacija Teritorija." I
1 can interpret this text by saying that "obezbedjenje teritorija,"
2 securing the territory, is one meaning; and if I had another text, I
3 could have used it to establish intertextual connections because
4 intertextual connections cannot -- are not necessarily between two texts
5 made by the same persons, but two texts in the same language.
6 Q. Thank you. Just one final thing on that issue. You said earlier
7 that "obezbedjenje" is always a transitive word. "You cannot say secure;
8 you have to say, Secure what?" What do you mean by a transitive word?
9 A. Well, a transitive verb is defined as a verb used with an
10 addition in the accusatory case, but there are verbs that can be used
11 without that addition or with. They are also transitive verbs. However,
12 purely transitive verbs cannot exist without that addition. What is the
13 difference? The difference is very important. To read and to read a
14 book: "To read" is a transitive verb. It may and does not have to have
15 an object. If I say I'm reading a book, then "to read" is one part of
16 the sentence and the book is the object. "To secure the territory" are
17 not two elements of the sentence; it's one because "I secure" means
18 nothing unless I add "territory." In this case, syntactic analysis shows
19 clearly that I'm securing territory or securing terrain. All of this is
20 the subject of the sentence. If the linguistic analysis cannot separate
21 the two, the law cannot do it either. If you separate these two words,
22 then the meaning is lost. It's not only a transitive verb. It's a
23 transitive verb that requires an object, a noun in the accusatory case so
24 that it's called a paraphrastic element. This is not idiosyncratic; it
25 exists also in English, but it's not the English language that's in the
1 dock here. It's not only the Serbian people who are in the dock, but the
2 Serbian language is accused, as well, of having to carry the meanings
3 that somebody wants to impose on it. I guarantee that it has no such
4 meanings. I have defended the Serbian language before, and I
5 successfully defended it from attempts to expel the Ijekavian variant
6 from the Serbian language in Bosnia-Herzegovina whereby it was attempted
7 to prove that Serbs were the aggressors there, and I also successfully
8 defended the Ijekavian dialect as an integral part of the Serbian
9 language. I successfully defended Njegos from fallacious
10 interpretations, and I hope that ultimately I'll be able to defend the
11 Serbian language here from erroneous analysis.
12 Securing terrain is one syntagm, securing territory and securing
13 terrain. Everything is clear and logical here.
14 MR. HAYNES: I think I'm done, but can we take a break so that I
15 can check that?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that's a good idea, Mr. Haynes. 25
17 minutes. Thank you.
18 --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.
19 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes?
21 MR. HAYNES: No, thank you.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Mr. Zivanovic?
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. I have no questions
24 for this witness, thank you.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Zivanovic. Mr. Ostojic?
1 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, Your
2 Honours. I do have --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead.
4 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic:
6 Q. Good morning, Mr. Marojevic. My name is John Ostojic, and I
7 represent Ljubisa Beara in this case. I have a couple of questions for
8 you. And sir, at the outset, although I'd like you to know that we do
9 not agree on the many things that you have said, especially the political
10 rhetoric and the philosophy that you've shared with us today, but I'll
11 try to move away from that and focus on your report.
12 Sir, with respect to the experience that you have, can you tell
13 us how many cases you have testified in in court as an expert?
14 A. I've never been in this Tribunal before. This is my first time,
15 and this is the first linguistic analysis I've ever performed for this
17 Q. What about outside this Tribunal, any other courts anywhere in
19 lectured or studied?
20 A. Well, no. I've never appeared before any other court, and I have
21 never provided any linguistic expert analysis for any other courts.
22 Q. Okay. How about the topic of the linguistic report that you
23 conducted here, and I understand from your proofing note that was
24 conducted yesterday, you state that you analysed many things, something
25 other than poetry and literature. Now, I'm familiar or I've looked up
1 some of the analysis you've done with respect to poetry and literature,
2 but have you ever analysed an official text, as you call it, official
3 fundamental style as one of the five fundamental styles that you discuss
4 in your direct? Have you ever done that before, or is this your first
5 time as well?
6 A. Of course I've analysed Russian Pravda Dusan's Code of Law, the
7 letters that were sent to poet Njegos by the ruler of Montenegro. There
8 were no limitations in genre, but official legal texts are not of such an
9 importance for the history or culture such as literary texts.
10 Q. So you have really no experience whatsoever in analysing official
11 legal texts, correct, with the exception of this case here that you've
12 given us, this report; and really, your emphasis or concentration, if you
13 will, is strictly in the poetry and literature arts; correct?
14 A. Nothing of what you have just put to me is true. I have
15 performed analysis of the constitution, the law on associated labour, and
16 these analyses are part of my bibliography. Second of all, there's no
17 other linguist, and I am aware of that, has ever performed such analysis.
18 I have been the only one to do them. For somebody to carry out such
19 analysis, that person has to have some knowledge in philology but also in
20 the subject topic of the area to which such an official legal document
21 belongs. If you have studied my bibliography, then you must have seen
22 that I graduated from the school of political sciences, and at that
23 school one has to study all the relevant legal subjects, and I completed
24 those studies together with the study of philology at the same time,
25 which means I have all the necessary qualifications to perform a
1 linguistic analysis of legal texts, and I've done that. Legal text in
2 legal terms because of the genre that I've already explained are not such
3 to mandate scientific discussions. You can also read my very first
4 papers that were published in the students' paper in Belgrade where I
5 analysed the constitution and its amendments from the linguistic point of
6 view. None of those analyses were ever challenged.
7 Your question, however, is not good, is not properly formulated.
8 What you are trying to say, actually, is if something didn't do something
9 in the area but in an associated area, an area which is 28.000 times
10 harder than a legal text. If one is to analyse a literary text, they
11 have to be aware of the essence of the literary text. For somebody to
12 analyse a legal text, they have to be familiar with law. When I studied
13 political sciences, I passed all the exams within the legal area with the
14 highest degrees, and I would like to add, if I may, and I think I may,
15 your first question and my first answer to that question was whether any
16 other linguist has every analysed any text of this type. The answer is
17 no. Why not? Because a linguist has also to be an expert in economy and
18 law to the extent of being able to understand the essence of the text.
19 I've done that, although this was not exactly the narrow scope of my
21 Q. Okay. Well, let's narrow it further, then. How many cases have
22 you been retained or that you've analysed that focus specifically on an
23 official military combat report such as the one that you've done here?
24 How many other instances? If you can be brief, that may help me out with
25 the time constraints that I have. Many? None?
1 A. Well, you can't lead me in answering your questions. I defended
2 two doctoral theses about a scientific functional style, which also
3 comprised texts that are of interest to you and to all of us here, and
4 those dissertations were about the syntax of a scientific style in the
5 Russian and Serbian style by candidate Andrej Stojanovic and the
6 stylistics of the verb by Professor Tosovic at the University of
8 Q. I'm sorry to interrupt you, and I'm sorry to the panel of Judges
9 and Mr. President. I just want to know how many times you've analysed an
10 official military combat report other than this one time? Just give me a
11 number, whatever it is. How many, sir?
12 A. Your question has no deeper meaning because nobody has ever
13 analysed them.
14 Q. Excuse me. I'll move on because I think we know the answer to
15 that question. Let me talk about your political affiliation, sir.
16 Presently, are you affiliated with any political party?
17 A. At one point I was a member of the Serbian Radical Party when I
18 was appointed as the dean of the school of philology. At that time, Mr.
19 Seselj expressed his wish for me to become a member of the Serbian
20 Radical Party, but this was just a formality. I never participated in
21 the work of the party. I participated in three scientific symposia to
22 defend Mr. Seselj. The symposia were held in Belgrade. I also published
23 two articles in the paper The Greater Serbia, and I also published
24 several studies mostly about Njegos in the magazine, The Serb Freedom
1 Q. We'll get to your appointment as dean in 1998 and 1999 at the
2 University of Belgrade
3 presently are you a member of any political party? And you can answer
4 yes or no, or you don't know, maybe.
5 A. Well, I suppose if I were a member of the party, I would be able
6 to answer you, sir. I never withdrew from the Serbian Radical Party;
7 however, if they don't invite me to their meetings or don't offer me any
8 jobs to do, I would say that I'm not an active member of the party.
9 Q. Fair enough. Now, you said you analysed some constitutional laws
10 and all this. In May of 1998, are you familiar with a law that was
11 passed in Belgrade
12 faculty of philology in Belgrade
13 familiar with that act or enactment?
14 A. That was not its name, but it was about that area, that's the law
15 that came into effect. I studied it immediately as a philologist, as a
16 politologist as well.
17 Q. Thank you. Here is what many people have said in the press about
18 that specific act. They said that:
19 "It's seriously undermines academic freedom and the autonomy of
20 Serbian universities."
21 I can get you the exhibit. We have about five of them that
22 discuss you in particular as being the extreme linguist who adopted and
23 promoted that type of philosophy. Do you agree with that, that that
24 University Act that was enacted in May of 1998 actually undermines
25 academic freedom?
1 A. I totally disagree. This law did not undermine academic or any
2 other freedoms. It only prescribed that all university professors and
3 other members of staff had to sign a work contract, and that work
4 contract was an incentive for those who worked for the others. And it is
5 well known that opposition parties were all on the payroll of foreign
6 intelligence services at the time.
7 On the other hand, you mixed some things. You say that I'm an
8 extreme linguist and so on and so forth. My linguistic activity has
9 nothing whatsoever to do with the work I performed as the dean of the
10 school of philology. This is not correct. May it be seen that the new
11 administration that was instituted in Belgrade in 2000 have retained the
12 same law and university, and that law was in effect for a long time, and
13 those new parties came as a result of Puc. And these new authorities,
14 the new administration which were instituted in Serbia -- I apologise,
15 I'm not finished. The new authorities, when they were evaluating the law
16 in university, they stated that the only person who fully implemented the
17 law was Dean Radmilo Marojevic. I was at the time duty-bound to
18 implement the law of my state, and my maxim was "dura lex, sed lex," and
19 that means that even a law may be bad, one has to implement it. I was
20 also trying very hard to pin-point its weaknesses and if possible amend
21 them. In addition to that, those who were duty-bound to sign the
22 contract under the law, I said I would be the one who would not sign it.
23 You have to because you are duty-bound. If I don't sign it, your
24 obligations will not come into effect. Your information is wrong, and if
25 it is correct, then you have to tell me how were the academic freedoms
1 threatened? The Belgrade
2 such a legal procedure imposing the signing of the work contract. What
3 was restricted by the work contract? No freedoms or liberties were
4 restricted by the work contract. All the other states and I'm sure you
5 belong to one and that your state and its universities have similar laws
6 that prescribe that a member of the faculty has to sign a contract on
7 rights and obligations when joining that faculty.
8 Q. Okay. Thank you. I don't want to spend too much time on that,
9 but you're familiar with who Professor Ranko Bugarski is, are you not?
10 Because when you talk about contracts, that's one name that should come
11 right up to shed some light for you, doesn't it?
12 A. Ranko Bugarski is a sociolinguist in Belgrade. He graduated in
13 English at the moment when I was appointed the dean of the school of
14 philology. He met all the criteria to be retired, and the previous dean
15 had extended his work contract by two years, and when I became dean, I
16 issued a decision that this contract would be valid until the
17 30th September 1998
18 longer lectured at the school of philosophy in Belgrade.
19 Q. But he was fired, sir, despite of the fact immediately prior to
20 May of 1998 he had a two-year extended contract, and you fired him in
21 essence because of his opposition to the nationalistic policies or
22 politics that were prevalent in Serbia
23 that accurate?
24 A. Sir, none of what you have just said is true. I can give you
25 evidence that there were others who criticized then government of Serbia
1 and its policies, and I never fired them. It was just about the
2 implementation of the law on universities. Since Mr. Ranko Bugarski was
3 a sociolinguist who did not meet any criteria to call himself that, for
4 somebody to be a sociolinguist they have to be familiar with the methods
5 of both linguistics that he is not familiar with and sociology, which he
6 also isn't familiar with. And as for the work of Ranko Bugarski, if you
7 are not informed about that, I criticized him already in 1991 in a book
8 of mine. His work was just the rephrasing of some fashionable works from
9 the western literature and had no significance whatsoever for his
10 teaching of English language. As the dean of the school of philology, it
11 was my duty to protect science and profession, and I know at the
12 extension of his contract, I had realised that he should no longer be
13 allowed to institute harm to science and the professionalism at the
14 school of philology.
15 Q. Let's just quickly look at 2D649, please, and it's in English,
16 but I could read the paragraph that relates to Professor Bugarski for you
17 unless you would like to read it for yourself. It's going to come up on
18 your screen, and it comes up on the second page on the top of this. This
19 is a publication, sir, that I found from the AAAS Science and Human
20 Rights Programme, which discusses in September of 1998 this academic
21 freedom and the new law that was enacted in Belgrade at that time, upon
22 which you became the dean of the faculty. And as it's coming up, I think
23 I can just begin by reading from my text if no one objects. It says --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please go ahead.
25 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
1 Q. It says on the top here, it says:
2 "The appointment of Radmilo Marojevic as the new dean of the
3 faculty of philology, also a member of the SRS ..." which is the Serbian
4 Radical Party, "... and the junior professor of Russian, Mr. Marojevic
5 determined that a prominent linguists Professor, Ranko Bugarski, who is a
6 critic of nationalistic policies, was no longer eligible to work at the
7 university, even though he had signed a new two-year contract in May
8 1998. Although Professor Bugarski has the support of other faculty
9 member, under the new law, Marojevic has the authority to nullify his
10 contract. While the consequences of Marojevic's efforts are not yet
11 clear, such arbitrary actions have a significantly negative impact on the
12 academic climate."
13 Are you familiar that's what people were writing about you, sir,
14 when you became dean of the faculty in 1998?
15 A. Sir, at the time a lot more was written about Dean Marojevic than
16 about Milosevic and Seselj together, which means that the new world order
17 and its servants were bothered by the scientific and constructive
18 position that I advocated at the time. And as far as Professor Bugarski
19 is concerned, there had been changes in all postgraduate studies in
21 post-graduate studies were derobed of the totally unnecessary subject,
22 general linguistics, that is part of graduate studies. So the services
23 of Bugarski were no longer needed. For scientific reasons, therefore,
24 Ranko Bugarski had to have his contract modified - not nullified, but
25 modified - and was made to be valid until the 30th September, 1998
1 It was completely legitimate. Mr. Bugarski never filed an appeal
2 against that decision, and there was no other possibility to contest a
3 decision or challenge the decision which was based on a profession,
4 science, and moral, and the decision that was made by myself as dean.
5 Q. Okay. Let me show you another publication, which is 2D647, which
6 is from a source called Times Higher Education, which is THE, is the
7 acronym. And on that one, again, 2D647, it says the following, and I'll
8 wait a minute just so it can come up on the screen for you, and that's
9 the middle of the paragraph. It talks about your conflict that you had
10 with the students' federation and with another student organisation
11 called Otpor. You recall those organisations, do you not, sir?
12 A. Of course I remember. The leader of that organisation Otpor was
13 a former student of the school of Germanistics
14 until this very day. And that former student or maybe even current
15 student participated in the occupation of Serbian television on the 5th
16 of October. This organisation Otpor was a militant fascist organisation
17 who was in charge of demolishing everything and preparing the occupation
18 of Serbia
19 me try and convince you or the Trial Chamber by saying that of those
20 students, only a dozen of them remained, and finally, I negotiated with
21 those students to see what their problems were. And their problems were
22 the fact that they did not like some of the provisions of the law. And
23 then I told them, Okay, we have to implement the law that is in effect,
24 but we have every right to ask for the amendments to the law. And all of
25 those students -- and I swear to you once again that this is the truth,
1 and everything that I have said so far has been the truth. In Serbia
2 you give your word, your word is your bond. This is a part of the
3 concept of the Serbian culture, let me just tell you in passing. All the
4 students agreed with that meeting to end that students' strike, to ask
5 for the amendments to the law. I enjoyed a lot of respect in the
6 government at that time, and I could do that. However, unfortunately,
7 those students must have had some other ties, and overnight they had been
8 consulted by their partners and, you know, sir, that the international
9 organisations bribe our politicians and our students, as well, and
10 unfortunately those young people who had promised to me that they would
11 talk to me and everybody else, finally they didn't.
12 And just for your information, all these students when they come
13 across me in the street, they speak to me with reverence, and also, the
14 professors had obligation, and in order -- instead of quoting what you
15 have, I refer to Allen Dulles from 1945 who says that is every possible
16 means would be used to destroy the Soviet union; in this case, the
17 supplies to the Serb countries. Please find the doctrine of Allen Dulles
18 who subsequently was the director of CIA, and according to his doctrine,
19 the Soviet union would be destroyed together with all the other free
20 countries, and he tells exactly how this would be done. One of the
21 things would be to bribe all those who are prone to bribe. Those who
22 could be blackmailed should be blackmailed, and if anybody remains who
23 understands their plans - I didn't say yours, I said theirs; I hope they
24 are not yours as well - then we would proclaim them insane. As the dean
25 of the school of philology, I was the first one to introduce into a
1 Serbian university the so-called Serbistics as a science of Serbian
2 language and culture which had not existed before or since. For your
3 information, there are Russian studies, there are Slovak studies, English
4 studies everywhere. That's what the names of those subjects are. The
5 only that cannot exist in Serbia
6 culture, and science. That's the only thing that is not to allowed to
7 exist in Serbia
8 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Ostojic, and my apologies to you
9 for interrupting you.
10 Professor Marojevic, you are being asked very simple questions,
11 which in our mind could be answered very simply, too, in a couple of
12 sentences. As it is, you are giving very lengthy answers which are not
13 helping anyone. So I would suggest that you keep your answers as short
14 as possible, and try not to deviate from the substance of the questions
15 that are being put to you by Mr. Ostojic. Thank you.
16 MR. OSTOJIC: May I proceed, Mr. President?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
18 MR. OSTOJIC:
19 Q. Sir, we were talking briefly about the student federation and the
20 organisation Otpor, and you mentioned the student's name. Do you
21 remember his name? I think the first name was Branko. It's in the
22 Article that I pulled, which is in front of you, 2D647. Do you remember
23 his last name?
24 A. No.
25 Q. You mentioned someone in your response to my question just
1 moments ago, although it was quite lengthy, where you said there's a
2 student there who was organising it, and he didn't even get his degree,
3 and then even to this day he probably didn't get his degree, but you
4 weren't that sure. What student were you talking about? You must know
5 who it is since you know he didn't get his degree.
6 A. I know, but I forgot his name and surname, but I saw him after
7 the 5th of October participating in the occupation of one Serbian TV
8 station. In addition, he --
9 Q. Thank you for that. We don't need all that information, but
10 thank you, and I apologise for cutting you off. Let's look at this
11 exhibit 2D647, which is the Times Higher Education where they mention you
12 among others who are the new deans that were appointed to universities at
14 young student Branko having joined an organisation wanting to express
15 some of his freedoms as a student and -- both political and academic
16 freedoms that he was looking at, and it says about you here:
17 "Initially he ..." meaning Branko, "... joined the students'
18 federation, which was independent of the state, but the dean of philology
19 faculty Radmilo Marojevic, a member of the extreme Serbian Radical Party
20 of former para-military leader Vojislav Seselj, tried to shut the
22 Then it goes on to say that this young student joined another
23 organisation, Otpor. Did you, sir, ever try to shut down that student
25 A. God forbid. I didn't try to shut it down. On the contrary, I
1 supported it. It was the students union that first proposed me as a
2 student vice-dean back in my student days.
3 Q. It talks -- sorry about overlapping. It talks in this article
4 about a protest, in essence, that was held with approximately 80 students
5 and that 15 thugs were hired, they claimed by you, sir, to beat up those
6 students in order to prevent them from protesting or expressing their
7 free speech or any academic rights that they have may have. It says
8 here, if you read down, that the organisation Otpor blamed the dean for
9 the violence, meaning you, but Professor Marojevic denied he was
10 responsible for hiring the thugs. It guess on to say: According to the
12 of the thugs, had come "from the top." And then it goes on to say:
13 Nevertheless, he was forced, meaning you, to quit his job under a hail of
14 press and public criticism.
15 And now I want to ask you two questions about that, if I may.
16 First of all, sir, when they use -- or quote you from the top, who made
17 the order -- and I will.
18 THE INTERPRETER: One by one, please.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Please let him the question first. When you
20 interrupt, you are creating a lot of problems for the interpreters that
21 have to interpret what he is saying into your language and into French.
22 Plus, it is not allowed here to interrupt anyone.
23 So Mr. Ostojic, my apologies to you. Please go ahead.
24 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, and I'm sorry. I did overlap, and I'll
25 try not to, sir.
1 Q. They're quoting you -- Blic is quoting you, although it's
2 published in the Times Higher Education publication, as saying that the
3 orders to beat up these students who were holding demonstrations or
4 protests, and they quote you, sir, by saying that the orders came from
5 the top. I'd like to know exactly from whom do you know that those
6 orders came from to beat up these young men and young women, actually.
7 Three were injured -- women, three women were seriously injured in that
8 altercation. Who gave that order?
9 A. Just after this clash occurred between two groups of students, I
10 submitted my resignation to the post of dean of the philological faculty.
11 Who organised that group of students that tried to force another group of
12 students out of the hallway, outside of teaching hours, I cannot tell. I
13 can only suppose it was ordered by the CIA. Nobody in the authorities
14 knew about it, and I myself was not aware that any of the students are
15 being moved by force, let alone beaten up. It was not our style, never
16 has been. Even before that, there had been many student protests. These
17 protests were rather innocuous. They were almost over, and just a small
18 group of students remained that didn't create any disorder. They just
19 didn't want to leave the premises, and then somebody put in another group
20 of students, and a clash occurred. And since I was completely unable to
21 find out who was responsible for that, and now I can only suppose that it
22 was the CIA
23 unable to find out, I had to resign because I could see that I couldn't
24 do anything else.
25 Q. Okay. Now, sir, I wanted to change topics, if I may, with you
1 briefly. I want to talk about the contacts that you've had with the
2 Pandurevic Defence team. You've told us that there were few or several
3 of them. Can you be more precise for me? Can you tell me exactly how
4 many times you met with the Pandurevic Defence team, whether their
5 lawyers or investigators or assistants, in total?
6 A. Well, first of all, investigators, assistants, I never met, and I
7 never met Mr. Pandurevic himself. If I could make a request of the
8 court, I would request that General Pandurevic get to his feet so that I
9 can meet him for the first time. I only had contact with attorney
10 Djordje Sarapa, and the first contact was at the suggestion of
11 Dr. Drago Cupic, former director of the institute of the Serbian Academy
12 of Art and Science after the new year, or translated from Serbian into
13 Serbian; it was either before the new year or after the new year
14 according to the Julian or the Gregorian calendar, sometime around new
15 year 2006. And soon afterwards I first saw the text that I was supposed
16 to analyse. And the next time was in the summer when I received the
17 second text. So the total of encounters with attorney Djordje Sarapa
18 were several, and to translate it again from Serbian into Serbian, it is
19 not several, which would mean seven or eight or more. I said it in a
20 form that would mean three, four, or five, not more than five.
21 Q. Thank you for that. Who was present at those three to four
22 meetings with Mr. Sarapa, other than yourself and Mr. Sarapa, obviously?
23 A. Nobody was present, just Sarapa and Radmilo Marojevic. No one
25 Q. How long did these meetings last, to the best of your
2 A. Well, these encounters were very brief because I didn't have much
3 time. Everything was pretty clear to me, so these meetings took 10 to 20
5 Q. Now, you mentioned that the combat report of the 15th of July,
6 1995, is clear and concise; correct?
7 A. I can say that it's concise, as well, but I used actually another
8 word, which means easy to grasp.
9 Q. Okay. Well, I can go with that, too, easy to grasp. Well, if
10 it's clear and easy to grasp or even concise, why would we need someone
11 to interpret something that's plain and obvious to us? I mean, typically
12 - don't you agree with me, Professor - it's the ambiguous sentences or
13 words or thoughts that we would need assistance on, but if something is
14 clear as you say this July 15th, 1995
15 would we or the Court or anyone, for that matter, including the lawyers
16 of Mr. Pandurevic need someone to explain it?
17 A. No, sir. Absolutely any and every text that is explained in a
18 scholarly way in an attempt to give a textological interpretation
19 requires a textology. There is no text that doesn't have a textology.
20 So this text, too, is very interesting for a textological analysis, and
21 when an analysis is done, how would I know whether a text is clear and
22 lucid as opposed to textologically ambiguous if I hadn't done an
23 analysis? Please don't think that I first wrote that it was clear and
24 lucid and then performed my analysis. The fact that I wrote something in
25 the introduction does not mean that I came with it as a preconceived
1 idea. It is the result of my work.
2 Q. Now, you've told us in your report and in some of your testimony
3 that you've done this textual analysis using four different supposed
4 methodologies; correct?
5 A. I didn't say different. I said all the four methods that can be
6 applied in establishing the authentic meaning. All these four methods
7 were applied in this text analysis.
8 Q. Let's go through some of them in better detail so I can get a
9 fair appreciation. One of them is what you call lexicographic
10 description, and that's basically even as you define it as looking up
11 words in the dictionary and observing and perhaps even digesting their
12 common meaning. Would that be fair? That's one of the methods that you
14 A. The method of lexicographic description is not exactly as you put
15 it. If a lexicographic analysis is correct, it is an indicator of a
16 general meaning of every lexic unit. In addition, to analyse a text that
17 was created after that lexicographic source, the analysis can also show
18 whether the new text is completely in conformity with the analysis made
19 on prior texts, and this is quoted here as the fourth argument, which
20 means that before that, all the other standards had to be met to see if
21 the fourth one conforms and whether it's correct. If the three other
22 methods gave the same result, that means that the fourth is also correct,
23 which doesn't mean that in some other dictionaries, for some other lexic
24 units, especially older ones, then they not be some erroneous
25 interpretations, but this particular interpretation is correct.
1 Q. We are going to go through each of the four. I just thought I'd
2 start with lexicographic because I want to ask you a follow-up question
3 regarding the separate units and the opinion that you claim that each
4 paragraph is a separate unit. My specific question to you with respect
5 to that, sir, is what's the basis of your opinion that each paragraph in
6 the 15th July, 1995
7 A. I arrived at that conclusion based on three arguments. First of
8 all, one paragraph does not consist of just one sentence, so that the
9 formal syntactic whole is not the whole of the paragraph. And whenever
10 we have two or three sentences in a paragraph in another style, such as
11 the scholarly style, they can be combined into one complex sentence. And
12 a third argument is, you cannot combine into one single sentence any of
13 the segments of the previous paragraph with any segment of the following
14 paragraph. That leads us to the conclusion that according to a semantic
15 procedure, these elements of content are correctly divided into
16 paragraphs. When we perform a much more complex analysis of another
17 text, we would be able to establish by the same method whether this is a
18 verse, a rhyme, or not.
19 Q. I'm not going to get into the poetry with you, sir, but I want to
20 know specifically, when you used this lexicographic analysis that you
21 did, what really goes into it if it's not simply the process of
22 physically finding a dictionary and looking up the words to see if you
23 have the proper definition or meaning of them? What else is involved in
24 this analysis or methodology that you utilised, the fourth one that we're
25 looking at, this lexicographic analysis. What else other than simply
1 looking up the word in the dictionary?
2 A. Well, it's not just looking up words in the dictionary. First of
3 all, you have to identify the optimal dictionary or dictionaries that
4 could be taken as an indicator of the word's value. Second, in
5 linguistics, a lexicographic analysis is an integral part. This analysis
6 is required from me because we are not dealing with linguists. The
7 analysis refers to the whole article. Page 298, 299, the complete
8 analysis is quoted, including all the phraseologyisms, which include the
9 said verb, and it shows us how it, combination with other words, the verb
10 takes on different meanings. And what is also analysed is the return
11 form of the verb, such as let oneself go. Since we are not dealing with
12 that, I didn't analyse it, and I showed that it is used here, "let go,"
13 in the second meaning, meaning be, to allow someone to do or go where
14 they want.
15 Q. Mr. Marojevic, really, all I'm looking for now, if you could be
16 as brief as possible, how long did it take you to do this lexicographic
17 description or analysis as your fourth methodology for your report? Just
18 give me a time estimate. Was it more or less than 15 minutes?
19 A. To provide an analysis of a lexicographic source such as this
20 one, that doesn't mean at all that other dictionaries were not checked.
21 Some checks were not necessary, but I did them nevertheless out of
22 academic curiosity. I checked the etymology of the word in very
23 different dictionaries. It is an old Slavonic word, and then you use the
24 old meanings, the examples that illustrate that meaning, and you provide
25 a scholarly implicit critique of the scientific article. That means
1 whether the shades of meaning are set out correctly just as the meanings
3 For every example, you state whether that shade of meaning has
4 anything to do with the example from the text, and only then you find the
5 right place of your own example in that dictionary. That is where it
6 would it be if it were used in the dictionary. However, I didn't measure
8 Q. Let's look at the other three textual analyses that you've
9 performed. The first one which you call textual analyses, you also
10 mention these linguistics units, and we talked about who determines these
11 units, and I want to know from you whether this was arbitrary and
12 selective, who made a determination of these units, or was that something
13 that is just done from a linguistical expertise, that you would say, for
14 example, and what I'm getting at, Mr. Marojevic, is in the
15 15th July, 1995, combat report, you talk about how specifically paragraph
16 6 doesn't relate to either the foregoing paragraphs or the subsequent
17 paragraphs of that report. Who makes that arbitrary decision, you as a
18 linguist, or did the lawyers for Mr. Pandurevic?
19 A. Well, the decision to identify a certain meaning in a text is not
20 taken by vote or any such procedure. It is taken on the basis of
21 scientific authority. Scientific authority in this case shows which
22 methods may be used in the first place to identify a meaning. Therefore,
23 somebody could attempt to question that only if they were a qualified
24 linguist. This is a matter of linguistic analysis, which meaning it is.
25 If it were not so, then all this would be pointless. Linguists are
1 supposed to identify a meaning, and the lawyers can then go on to
2 establish the relationship of that text with whatever is the subject of
3 their work.
4 Q. Okay. And the second methodology that you are using, which you
5 call contextual analysis for reaching your opinions, all you're doing is
6 looking at the one text and trying to take certain words and putting them
7 in context with what was written within that document, like we know of 15
8 July, 1995; correct? That's basically the process in a nutshell?
9 A. Here we actually have two methods. I didn't understand whether
10 you were talking about the first or the second one. Have you finished
11 with the first one --
12 Q. Okay. I appreciate that.
13 A. -- and moved on to the second, or are you still on the first one.
14 Q. That's a good point, but I'll clarify it for you. I am still on
15 the first one. I'll preface my question when I move on to the
16 intercontextual analysis, which is your second methodology that you used,
17 but sticking with contextual analysis as a methodology, and I've just in
18 a nutshell tried to summarise it for the sake of being brief here. All
19 you're doing is taking certain words or paragraphs, and within that
20 document you're comparing them in the whole context of what that writer
21 is trying to convey; is that fair?
22 A. You didn't do the best job, but you are trying to understand.
23 Q. Sir --
24 A. The point is if this verb "to let" were outside of any context,
25 then we couldn't establish anything else without etymology. To identify
1 any meaning of any word, unless it's a very simple one-meaning word, we
2 need a context. For all multi-meaning words, we need a context to
3 establish what the meaning is in a particular case. And since I dealt,
4 also, with the theory of translation, and in translation you obviously
5 need to establish in which meaning the word is used, quite independently
6 of this particular analysis dealing with translation as a method of
7 semanticising a foreign text, I used context again. Words can sometimes
8 be used without it being clear which of the two or three meanings they
9 are used in. In this particular case, the context is quite sufficient to
10 understand which of the meanings the word is used in. It is not
11 something that is used here only. It is the first and foremost method
12 for identifying a meaning. If a word has multiple meanings, never has it
13 been possible to establish the particular meaning without context. If it
14 is a simple one-meaning word, nobody bothers to analyse because the
15 meaning is clear without any analysis. Are you happy with the answer?
16 Q. Is it's not a question of whether I'm happy, sir. I just want to
17 make sure you give us a complete answer.
18 Let me ask you about one word in that report: "liquidation."
19 Did anybody ask you to analyse that word, standing alone in the first
20 paragraph where they talk about liquidating the enemy forces? Did you do
21 any analysis on that?
22 A. I did not analyse it because the word is quite clear. First of
23 all, nobody asked me. As I said at the beginning - and don't you think
24 that I gave that oath lightly - when I said I analysed this text
25 independently, I really did it independently as a linguist, but also a
1 linguist who understands the gist of the matter.
2 Q. But keeping in mind --
3 A. Because I'm not only a linguist. With liquidation, do you want
4 me to give you an oral interpretation of that word, or is it clear to
5 you? Well, if it's clear to you and it's clear to me, there is no need
6 to clarify it.
7 Q. I have two follow-up questions staying with this first
8 methodology, contextual analysis. Who chose the words for you to analyse
9 in this interim combat report of 15 July?
10 A. The words were chosen by Radmilo Marojevic, which means myself.
11 How did I make this selection? I took the text; then I applied the
12 method of elimination. First, I started with a broad list of the words
13 to be analysed; and then when I eliminated straightforward words which
14 were not in dispute even in translated into a different language, then I
15 came up with a structure of the words which would be of some significance
16 in scientific and professional term, which commanded explanation. And I
17 believe that I've done my job very successfully because even you are not
18 adding any other word to the list of those that I've analysed, and you
19 are not saying that the words that I've analysed are clear without any
20 further analysis, which I understand as your praise for my job well done.
21 We didn't even have to explain the word "liquidation" because it's clear
22 to everybody.
23 Q. You may be misunderstanding me, sir, but I'm not going to get
24 into it. I'm talking about just your methodology first; then I'd like to
25 go into your analysis. The second method that you purportedly use in
1 your analysis was the intertextual analysis, and what you did basically
2 and in essence was you took one report, the 15th of July interim combat
3 report, with the report of July 16th, 1995
4 A. Absolutely correct.
5 Q. Okay. Would you agree with me, sir, that that's a rather limited
6 way of doing things, if you're going to do an intertextual analysis that
7 you should analyse more than one document? For example, you could have
8 looked at reports prior to July 15th, 1995
9 You could have looked at the report from July 18th, 1995, as well, in
10 order to be more complete, thorough, and comprehensive. Do you agree
11 with that as well?
12 A. I can't agree with you at all for the following reason: I have
13 just said that in order to analyse the meaning of a word, you don't just
14 need context. You need the context to be sufficient, and sufficient
15 context can be the context of just one sentence, one paragraph, or a
17 On the other hand, when it comes to an intertextual analysis,
18 depending on the complexity of the text, and you agreed with me when I
19 mentioned that, when I said that this text is very articulate and clear
20 and straightforward, you have to take a sufficient intertextual corpus in
21 order to understand the meaning of the text.
22 In view of what is written in a text since nothing that happened
23 before was in dispute, the only thing that may be in dispute is what
24 follows because this interim report, there's nothing in dispute when it
25 talks about things past but, rather, about things that will happen in the
1 future. In few of the intertextual analysis, I needed the subsequent
2 combat report. I received it, and it was enough. I did not ask for
3 anything else. Whether or not there were other combat reports was not of
4 any consequence for the scientific analysis. You're trying to interrupt
5 me, although I have not finished. I did not have to expanded the number
6 of text. I did not go to go further or prior to this text. This was
7 quite enough. The text that I analysed was enough. And no other author
8 contested my findings, which means that the body of the analysed text was
9 enough, the context was sufficient, and that's the end of that.
10 Q. All right. And I didn't mean to interrupt you, sir.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic, I'm leaving it in your good judgement,
12 of which we are very aware, to distinguish the wheat from the chaff and
13 concentrate on what is essential, please.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Because otherwise, we are not going to finish this
17 MR. OSTOJIC: I realise that.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye, are you still sticking to your hour
19 and a half, or is it considerably less now?
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, Mr. President. It will be considerably
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you. Yes.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
24 Q. I'll move on to the next topic, and I won't debate it with you.
25 Sir, I just want to cover this non-linguistic situation, which is the
1 third of four methodologies that you utilise in your analysis. Just so
2 that I'm clear, who provided that information to you, the non-linguistic
4 A. When it comes to the non-linguistic situation, this
5 non-linguistic situation in some linguistic works appears under the term
6 and concept of context. I have separated from the context that concerns
7 the words in the text from the non-linguistic situation or information
8 that the text points to. When it comes to a non-linguistic situation, it
9 is not a special knowledge that one has. It is just the knowledge about
10 the linguistic reality that the text itself initiates. You have the
11 date, so it can't be the 19th century or the 11th century; then the name,
12 the Zvornik Brigade is given, so this could not have happened in Siberia
13 or elsewhere. This is what the text initiates, and then the genre,
14 combat report. You can't talk about psalms or some other text because
15 the text itself points to the non-linguistic situation rather than
16 anything else. So this is not something that I could know as the author
17 of the linguistic analysis. This is a non-linguistic situation that
18 every native speaker or foreigner who understands Serbian will completely
19 understand based on the text and the insight into the text.
20 Q. Thank you. Now, let's focus specifically, although I don't know
21 that I got an answer, but on P329, which is the 15 July 1995 interim
22 combat report, so I'd just like to direct your attention. You spent a
23 lot of time, obviously, reviewing it and analysing it. The sentence
24 we're going to look at it the one that you analysed. It says:
25 "An additional burden for us is the large number of prisoners
1 placed in schools in the brigade zone as well as obligations of security
2 and sanitation of the terrain."
3 Now, in your report it says sanitation. In the actual P329, the
4 document that was translated, it says "restoration." So forgive me if
5 there's a little difference there, but I think we can clarify that. I
6 don't think it's that major for our purposes and our discussions. I want
7 to look at -- I'm sorry.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Sorry.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Hold it. Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: If I can interrupt. That translation has been
11 the official CLSS translation for many, many years through many cases.
12 It's very important, and so I wish we can keep that the way it is. Thank
14 MR. OSTOJIC: And I don't object to that. I just don't want to
15 necessarily engage in a discussion as to which is proper. I'm going to
16 stick with P329 --
17 MR. HAYNES: I think I should say that --
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Let him finish. Mr. Ostojic.
19 MR. HAYNES: This report was translated by the Tribunal as well.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
21 MR. OSTOJIC: That wasn't the purpose of me asking him that. I
22 just wanted to point it out to the court in case anyone has a question or
23 concern about it, and I don't want to -- if he's used it a different way,
24 that's his analysis, and we can go through it. I want to focus on other
25 parts of the document, but we're sticking with P329 as the official one
1 if that's what my learned friend suggested it is. We don't have a
2 dispute about that.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
4 MR. OSTOJIC: I just don't want to get the witness more confused.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, try to simplify matters because the situation
6 may get out of hand.
7 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Q. Sir, in this sentence that we're referencing here, the noun, do
9 you recognise the word "prisoners" as being a noun?
10 A. The question is so self-explanatory, and I don't need to answer
11 that. Of course it's a noun. Why should I confirm that? If I did,
12 somebody may say later, Well, there was Professor Marojevic claiming that
13 "prisoners" is a noun. I can give you the origin of the noun. It's a
14 non-substantive -- that would be a question for me, not whether
15 "prisoners" is a noun. Of course it is.
16 Q. Well, I'm sorry. Sometimes we just don't want to take too many
17 chances with witnesses. Now, when it talks here about security or
18 obligations of security, it has nothing to do, obligations of security,
19 with respect to this noun "prisoners," and you're saying -- and is it
20 your testimony that the security they're talking about in this case is
21 security to be provided for the restoration of the terrain, which is a
22 separate and independent thought, I would suggest to you, from the
23 discussion that is being highlighted here, which is that there's
24 prisoners in the schools? Do you agree with me?
25 A. I wouldn't at all, no.
1 Q. Your entire analysis hinges on if after the word "security"
2 someone of would have placed a comma or the words "as well as," then you
3 would think that those are two independent thoughts. But I suggest to
4 you, sir, that, the words or phrase "as well as" appears prior to
5 "security," which really indicates that it's the prisoners that the
6 security concern is for, and then the use of the word "and" is a separate
7 independent thought, so it's a compound sentence. Perhaps a period
8 should have been right after the word "security," and then the next
9 thought would have been "restoration of the terrain," which would then
10 make this paragraph having more than one sentence in it. Wouldn't you
11 agree with that?
12 A. I wouldn't agree with you at all.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. And you never allowed me to say why I don't agree. First of all,
15 with regard to your previous question, whether "prisoners" is a noun, one
16 should say that this is just one form of that particular noun. But in
17 this particular case, it could be out of the context. It is a genitive
18 singular or a genitive plural. It could be both, but let me tell you the
19 meaning of the context here. There's a multiple meaning, and it points
20 to the fact that in this case genitive is a plural. The second thing
21 that I don't agree on and you're not allowing me to say why, I didn't say
22 that security is tied to the restoration. But rather, that both security
23 and restoration are tied to the form terrain. And one additional
24 evidence that this analysis is completely accurate is your completely
25 objective translator who has translated the text who has translated the
1 sentence absolutely correctly. Security and restoration of the terrain
2 is a whole in which case security is one attribute of the terrain as well
3 as restoration. So this is the structure comprising both security and
4 restoration of the terrain. I don't know how else I could translate or
5 utter this. I'm absolutely sure that from the expert of monolinguistic
6 analysis or the feeling for the Serbian language, it is absolutely
7 correct and true. Of course, one can translate from the Serbian into
8 English correctly or subjectively or incorrectly. I did not analyse the
9 translation, mind you.
10 Q. Let me ask you about the first phrase in that paragraph number 6,
11 I believe, which says "an additional burden," and it goes on, obviously.
12 We got a proofing note yesterday after your meeting with counsel for
13 Mr. Pandurevic, and it states as follows:
14 "He ..." meaning you, Mr. Marojevic, "... looked at and
15 further explained section 6 of the report. He said that the 'additional
16 burden' in paragraph 6 was not at the same level as the responsibilities
17 described in the first five paragraphs, as it was a worry rather than a
18 responsibility. It was a secondary rather than a primary consideration."
19 Is that what you told them yesterday or whenever?
20 A. Well, I said that and that is indeed the case, and you can
21 conclude that from at least two things, and one would suffice. The only
22 -- this passage contains the word "additionally." "Additionally" is --
23 is part of a different style, something that would be appropriate for a
24 footnote. This could have been under the text as a footnote. And the
25 second word is "burden." One meaning of burden comes from physics.
1 However, this burden is concern more than anything else. "Additional
2 burden" generates concern about what might happen. So this is an
3 additional concern. What concern is that a large number of prisoners
4 deployed or billeted in schools --
5 Q. Sir, if you objectively look at the prior paragraph, they are
6 discussing in the prior -- five paragraphs, but in the fifth paragraph
7 they're discussing an attack by the enemy, and in fact he writes in this
8 report that they repelled or repulsed that attack successfully, so what
9 was the worry with the attack of the Bosnian Muslims? If you've defeated
10 them militarily, wouldn't the worry be more primarily to be with respect
11 to the POWs that were in the schools? Isn't that the only burden that
12 was left for them at that time? Because if you look at paragraph 5, in
13 the middle of it, it talks about repelling. It's in your report, but in
14 the P329 it uses the word "repulsed successfully so far."
15 A. Well, if we followed your route and analysed from the end to the
16 beginning of the document, I hope that we will come to the relationship
17 between the 8th and the 7th. Now we are analysing the relationship
18 between the 6th, 5th, and the 4th paragraphs. Please pay attention. All
19 the brigade forces are fully engaged. This is five, and you have
20 confused the passages. All the brigade forces are completely or fully
21 engaged. What does it mean, fully engaged? It means that it's not just
22 one unit that is engaged, but fully engaged. And we have no reserves,
23 you know, that reserves are not on the front-line. They should be a bit
24 further from the front-line. This means that the back is not protected.
25 There are no reserves, and all the forces are fully engaged. This is
1 your fifth paragraph that you have confused with passage 4. And in the
2 fourth paragraph again, there is this additional burden, and it's very
3 clear from the linguistic point of view. Look at the fourth -- actually,
4 the fifth -- no, the fourth. With all available forces -- you know the
5 meaning of "all," so with all available forces we have sealed off. If
6 the enemy forces had not been strong, they would not have used all
7 available forces, and they say that they sealed off the wider area of
8 Crni Vrh and Planinica and partially the area of Kamenica. The weight of
9 the previous paragraphs is completely understandable and is not matched
10 by the subsequent passage, which just increases the argument when he asks
11 for additional equipment and personnel because he doesn't have anybody in
12 reserve. Have you ever served an army? Do you know what reserves means?
13 Do you know what logistics means, what the meaning of the reserve is?
14 Can I ask you? I believe that this is clear. It does not warn any
15 further explanation, does it?
16 Q. I did say paragraph 5, but really, when I talked about repelling
17 the enemy combatants, it appears in paragraph 3, you're right to say that
18 there was a block or, as they put it on P329, they sealed off the wider
19 area. My point is, sir, once they repelled the enemy combatants, once
20 they completely and totally, as you say, blocked the area, really, the
21 only concern left was the concern of the prisoners in the schools;
23 A. Again, you are not right because you are taking one part of the
24 paragraph out of its context. In future, could you please read the whole
25 paragraph? You said that a paragraph is one whole. Nobody contested
1 that. That's why I'm asking you to read the whole paragraph, which would
2 show you that so far the attacks had been repelled. But what will happen
3 in the future, nobody knows. Please read from the beginning, in the text
4 were regularly supported by all calibres of artillery and tanks, which
5 means all calibres and tanks. I hope that you understand, that you
6 appreciate what I'm saying, that acts of varying intensity followed one
7 other, which means varying intensity. I suppose that I as a linguist
8 should know that and you as a lawyer, of course, you're my opponent here,
9 but you should know that. And then it says the attack on [indiscernible]
10 is still in progress. Do you know the meaning of the term "in progress"?
11 They have been repelled, but they have not been neutralised because they
12 are still in progress. If you take something out of the context, one
13 sentence or something else, and the paragraph is a whole, you cannot look
14 at anything without a whole, then what you're doing is you're trying to
15 misinterpret or you are trying to make me misinterpret a text. Please
16 take a paragraph as a whole, and then you will be given an answer. The
17 paragraph in itself will give you an answer.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Your answers are becoming longer and longer and
19 longer, and you are engaging in arguments with the Defence counsel, who
20 has got a right to put any question to you that is allowed by the Court.
21 So you either conclude here, Mr. Ostojic, because --
22 MR. OSTOJIC: A few more questions. Just a few more,
23 Mr. President, please.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right.
25 MR. OSTOJIC: Just quickly.
1 Q. And I know, sir, I'm not going to read out the entire paragraph.
2 We're familiar with it. I just wanted to point out certain things for
3 you. If you look, the interim combat report of the 15th July, 1995, was
4 that written, sir, in the past, present, or future tense?
5 A. I could take things in turn one by one, but I don't think that
6 the Trial Chamber has the time for it. I would be able to tell you which
7 verbs are in present, which in past, and which in future tense.
8 Q. If you look at the paragraph that you spent sometime analysing,
9 paragraph 6, and it's just that one sentence. I know it's a little long
10 and maybe compound, but that one sentence, you think that was written in
11 past, present, or future tense when it references prisoners distributed
12 throughout the schools. And actually, it says:
13 An additional burden for us is the large number of prisoners
14 distributed throughout schools in the brigade area."
15 Do you see that?
16 A. It says "they represent." The future tense would be "will
17 represent." This is a present, but it is not a temporarily well defined.
18 It is, rather, something that started in the past, continues, and will
19 probably continue being a fact. So this is an extratemporal present
21 Q. So at the time of the writing of this report, the prisoners are
22 alive and distributed throughout the schools. That's the plain and
23 obvious read of this, is it not?
24 A. In any case, one could read it a bit differently. The person
25 writing this report speaks about them as living. There's no background
1 information. He doesn't have any contact with the fact. He starts from
2 the fact that the prisoners are there, that they are distributed in
3 various schools, and that they represent or that they constituted a bad
4 end for the brigade.
5 Q. The past tense usage of that sentence in essence would have been
6 that an additional burden was the prisoners who were at the school,
7 et cetera, right? You would just use that word instead of the
8 present-tense use of the word "is." You told us about the future, so now
9 we're just talking about the past, right? Or you could have said it by
10 using the word "were": An additional burden for us were the prisoners at
11 the school. Then would know he's talking about a past tense, an event
12 that happened before; correct?
13 A. Yes, that would be the past tense, but here we have a present.
14 The sentence is "the additional burden are..." but the word "now" is
15 missing. If there was word "now," then the present would be narrowed
16 down. This verb "are" does not pin-point the present time, but in any
17 case it does comprise present as well.
18 Q. Two or three more questions, I think, and I'm done. If we could
19 just quickly look at P330, and thank you, Mr. President. P330, which is
20 the 16th of July, 1995, report that you looked at when you did this
21 intratextual analysis as one of your methods of your report. And I think
22 when you looked at this, you were trying to compare it, and you -- and
23 obviously, and especially from your report, it certainly seems you spent
24 sometime reading it and digesting it, but if you look on and if you look
25 -- doing a contextual analysis of this report, you look that the author
1 mentions 7.000 combatants, civilians, and soldiers in the first
2 paragraph; that's identified with the number 1, and then if you look at
3 the third paragraph, they talk about - and I know you spent a significant
4 amount of time - of letting go or releasing of 5.000 enemy combatants.
5 Do you, sir, from reading this get the idea of what happened to the
6 difference between the 7 and the 5, the 7.000 that were present and the
7 5.000 that were let go? Where are the 2.000 remaining soldiers and
9 A. Could you please jog my memory. Where do they refer to the
11 Q. I'm not sure if you are looking at the correct one. I'm looking
12 at the 16th July report.
13 A. I'm looking at that, yes.
14 Q. Okay.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In the first paragraph numbered 1, it talks about: "Using their
17 numerical advantage, they surrounded the 4th Battalion counting soldiers
18 and civilians armed and unarmed altogether about 7.000."
19 And then in the third paragraph, when they are discussing opening
20 the corridor, it says "opening the corridor along the line of the three
21 lost trenches for the civilian population, about 5.000 of them." And
22 just I wanted to get -- draw from you based on your methodology of work
23 contextually and even intratexturally, you know they mentioned on the
24 15th of July 3.000 people who were coming from behind. Now they're
25 talking about 7.000 and 5.000. What happened to the -- contextually
1 speaking, to the 2.000 remaining soldiers and civilians?
2 A. Before I answer your question, I have to say that you did not
3 take these figures out of the context. We have to see what they refer
4 to. An elementary analysis shows that under item 1, when it says using
5 the numerical advantage they surrounded soldiers and civilians, armed and
6 unarmed, altogether about 7.000. So they're talking about soldiers and
7 civilians, 7.000 of them altogether. And then in order to justify his
8 case before his command, having let them go through, he says that three
9 trenches had been lost, that the corridor was open to the civilian
10 population, and there were about 5.000 civilians. He points to the fact
11 that there were about 5.000 civilians, and this is his justification for
12 letting them through. This mean that is there were 2.000 soldiers. But
13 it doesn't say here that he never let the soldiers go through. He
14 doesn't specify the soldiers. He says that he let the civilians go
15 through, and the soldiers went with them unless some of them were killed.
16 The context is very clear.
17 If that had been the subject of my analysis, if I had had this
18 document, I would have paid attention to that, I would have established
19 my facts, and then you would never have to ask me the question. The
20 difference in the figures is completely clear. The first figure speaks
21 about soldiers as the most important ones; then about civilians, some of
22 them armed, the others unarmed; and then the second figure speaks about
23 the opening of the corridor for the civilian population and the fact that
24 some soldiers also passed through is not his fault, and there are 5.000
25 civilians. He did not say that there were 5.000 civilians and soldiers
1 to contradict himself. He said there were 5.000 civilians. He may have
2 arrived at the information subsequently. He could not have known how
3 many --
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we had a clear answer straightaway in the
5 beginning, and he has repeated it three times.
6 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you. I have no further questions, Your
7 Honour. Sorry.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Will you finish today,
9 Mr. Vanderpuye?
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: I hope so, Mr. President. I'm going to
11 discussion that with my co-counsel.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Will you please try to make a humongous effort and
13 finish today, please.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'll make that effort, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. We'll have a 25-minute break. Thank
17 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 12.58 p.m.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon to
21 you, Your Honours. Good afternoon to my colleagues.
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:
23 Q. And good afternoon to you, Professor Marojevic. I only have a
24 few questions. First, let me introduce myself is as is the custom. My
25 name is Kweku Vanderpuye. On behalf of the Prosecution, I'll put some
1 questions to you in respect of your report, in respect of your testimony.
2 A. Thank you.
3 Q. If there's anything that I ask you that's unclear to you, let me
4 know, and I'll try to rephrase it in a way that you can better understand
6 Prior to testifying here today, sir, did you follow the testimony
7 of General Pandurevic in this trial?
8 A. No, not at all. I rarely watch television except for sports
9 programs, but I certainly don't watch trials.
10 Q. In the preparation of your report, it's fair to say that you did
11 not consider the testimony of General Krstic regarding his views --
12 regarding his views of the 15 July interim report that was the subject of
13 your report?
14 A. I not only did not take it into account, but I'm not familiar
15 with his views. I analysed only these two reports, and I knew only them.
16 Q. You didn't take into consideration the testimony of
17 General Radovan Radinovic in respect of his views concerning the same
18 report; that's true, right?
19 A. Correct, and I don't know of his views.
20 Q. Thank you very much, Professor.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, the Prosecution opposes the
22 testimony of Mr. Marojevic as an expert in this case. We have full faith
23 that the Court will accord the appropriate weight to the testimony as has
24 been entered in the record in this case. We have no further
25 cross-examination, as we don't feel that it will be fruitful.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Is there re-examination, Mr. Haynes?
4 MR. HAYNES: No, thank you.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: And you don't wish to comment on Mr. Vanderpuye's
7 MR. HAYNES: I understand his position.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Do you have questions, Judge
10 Professor, we don't have any further questions for you, which
11 basically means that your testimony ends here. On behalf of the Trial
12 Chamber, I wish to thank you for having come over to give testimony, and
13 I wish you a safe journey back home.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Now, Mr. McCloskey.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. I -- in thinking about the
17 motion of -- that Mr. Gosnell referred to and the document associated
18 with the MUP, the dog document, as we call it, I realise that when --
19 it's 4104. When Mr. Momir Nikolic testifies, he will testify at length
20 about the units, the forces at Potocari, along the road, and it would be
21 our intention to use that document in our questioning of him. Therefore,
22 I think it would be best to save any ruling on that document until after
23 the testimony of Momir Nikolic.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. McCloskey. Do you wish to comment,
1 Mr. Gosnell?
2 MR. GOSNELL: Thank you, Mr. President. Well, first of all, we
3 don't concede necessarily that the document would be admissible through
4 any future witness, and it's premature, of course, to comment on that.
5 But given what the Prosecution has just said, I think what they are
6 saying is that they are content with the document being in e-court, being
7 marked for identification, and not being an exhibit. In that case, I
8 would be content for that to be the situation. But in a sense, I think
9 that what that means is that you should sustain our objection and that
10 the document should not be considered admitted and that it does remain,
11 of course, in e-court as with any other document that's uploaded.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Maybe we are all tired, but I didn't think --
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: I must be tired because that sounded like a bunch
14 of legal gobbledy-gook to me. We don't need to enter it into evidence.
15 It just stays where it is. We'll deal with it at the end of that other
16 testimony, and we can argue about it then. Why argue about it now?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Having heard what you had to say, the
20 document will remain MFI
22 Documents, Mr. Haynes?
23 MR. HAYNES: Yes. In relation to the last witness, I don't know
24 if an e-mail has yet gone out, but there are only two.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I haven't seen any e-mails.
1 MR. HAYNES: That's 7D778, the curriculum vitae of
2 Professor Marojevic, and 7D917, the report with attachments. The only
3 reason we called him at all was in response to Judge Prost's question.
4 The report and attachment was translated by the translation service of
5 this Tribunal. I would invite her attention to attachment number 1,
6 paragraph 6.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Haynes. Any objections from
8 any of the other Defence teams?
9 MR. HAYNES: I'm very sorry. I apparently used another document,
10 7D775, the mobilisation order.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. You did, in fact. Any objection?
12 Objections from Prosecution?
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I have the same objection as I
14 made with respect to the testimony.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. But he has given evidence in any case
16 now, so I think the documents have to -- yes, exactly. So the documents
17 are admitted.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you have any documents that you wish to tender,
20 Mr. Ostojic?
21 MR. OSTOJIC: I think we've seen the articles. I don't think it
22 would be necessary. But thank you very much.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Mr. Vanderpuye?
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President. I'm sorry, I hope we've
25 completed the tendering process. There was one issue I wanted to bring
1 to the attention of the Court and also to my colleagues. But I don't
2 want to interrupt you.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please, go ahead.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: We have been discussing with the Miletic team
5 the possibly of reaching a stipulation with respect to convoy-related
6 documents that we think are important for the Court to have in terms of
7 assessing the convoy approval process, the players that are involved,
8 et cetera. I just wanted to let you know that we are currently trying to
9 sort that out. We expect that we will arrive at something relatively
10 soon. But I just didn't want to take you by surprise when we are
11 completed -- when we've completed the process. We're also talking to the
12 Gvero team with respect to those documents as well.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye. Incidentally,
14 Mr. McCloskey, before we proceed with the next thing we have in mind, is
15 yesterday Ms. Nikolic made some submissions in relation to 3D556 after
16 having withdrawn her request in relation to 3D555. You were supposed to
17 think about it and come back to us in a final way. Have you done -- are
18 you in a position to give us your final position?
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, we've just reached an agreement. We don't
20 have any objection to the material she would like from -- the short
21 material from the testimony of General Hadzihasanovic. No problem.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So having heard that, we are going to
23 dispose now of the various other issues relating to various documents.
24 We start with documents 2D639, 2D644, 2D645, all being documents tendered
25 by the Beara Defence team to which the Prosecution objected.
1 After deliberations, we have come to the conclusion not to admit
2 any of these three documents on the following grounds: 2D639, this is,
3 as you will recall, the interview of Milos Tomovic. The Beara Defense
4 team, Mr. Ostojic actually read a limited part of this interview into the
5 record, as you recall. The Trial Chamber then disallowed further use of
6 the interview upon objection by the Prosecution and the Pandurevic
7 Defence team. To the extent that limited use of the document was
8 permitted, that portion of the interview was read directly into the
9 record, and we see no need for having the interview admitted into the
10 record, and that is the reason for dismissing the Beara Defence team's
11 request. Second document is 2D644, which is a statement on information
12 of Bruce Bursik regarding an interview with the person I mentioned
13 before, Milos Tomovic; and 2D645, which is another statement of Milos
14 Tomovic. Having gone through this transcript, we come the conclusion
15 that neither of these two documents were put to the witness, and
16 circumstances being what they are, we do not see a reason why they should
17 be admitted into the records as exhibits.
18 The Nikolic issue has now been agreed upon, so we don't need to
19 decide upon it. And 3D556 is therefore being admitted into the records.
20 We have a last document, which is a Prosecution document, P4402, to which
21 the Gvero Defence team objected and submitted that if admitted, the
22 documents used should be limited to matters of the credibility of the
24 As you will recall, P4402 is an extract from Karadzic's
25 handwritten notes of a meeting held in 1992 which show that Pandurevic
1 was present. The document was shown to witness Pandurevic who did not
2 deny that he was present at the meeting. Although the notes also appear
3 to suggest the presence of General Gvero at the meeting, the Trial
4 Chamber finds that admitting the document without any restrictions is not
5 unfairly prejudicial to Gvero, especially considering what General
6 Pandurevic himself testified on this issue.
7 So that disposes of the pending issues relating to documents,
8 leaving the one raised by Mr. Gosnell in deep freeze for the time being
9 as we explained earlier on.
10 Now, tomorrow, as we had intimated to you, we are not sitting. I
11 take it, Mr. Haynes, you don't have any further witnesses?
12 MR. HAYNES: No, but I would like to trouble you for a minute or
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, of course.
15 MR. HAYNES: Shall I do that now?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I suppose so.
17 MR. HAYNES: My focus has been elsewhere for the last ten days,
18 and the Prosecution's motion for rebuttal and re-opening actually impacts
19 upon my client's case probably rather more than anybody else's, and I've
20 seen and heard your remarks from yesterday. I will do my very best in
21 the next 24 hours to file something, but I'm not making any promises that
22 it will come before the weekend.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I thank you, Mr. Haynes. That's fair
24 enough. I measured my words yesterday. I did not tell that you needed
25 to, only that it would be preferable if you did. But of course, we did
1 not shorten the time-limit, and the time-limit therefore remains.
2 However, any filings before that date will be helpful.
3 All right. And I take it, because you haven't answered my
4 question, you don't have further --
5 MR. HAYNES: No. I need to attend to some technical difficulties
6 with some 92 bis statements, but other than that and subject to any
7 remarkable departure in my instructions, that's all the evidence I'm
8 going to present other than, as I say, some 92 bis statements and a bar
9 table motion.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. There is no way we can hear your
11 remaining witness on the re-opening any time soon? I think you indicated
12 that you would want that in the week starting on the 23rd, Mr. McCloskey;
13 is that correct?
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: We can go into private session on that briefly.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go into private session for awhile. Thank
17 [Private session]
7 [Open session]
8 JUDGE AGIUS: So for the time being, there are no sittings
9 scheduled for next week, as I see it, unless there are matters, urgent
10 matters that arise that need to be addressed. We will be working on the
11 rebuttal motion, of course, and we hope to be in a position to come down
12 with our decision as early as possible. But we necessarily and you have
13 necessarily got to earmark the following week for any further business to
14 transact depending, of course, on our decision on rebuttal.
15 We stand adjourned. Thank you.
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.19 p.m.