1 Wednesday, 24 April 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good afternoon, everybody. Please call the
6 case. We start in open session.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is Case Number
8 IT-97-24-T, the Prosecutor versus Milomir Stakic.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. And the appearances, please.
10 MR. CAYLEY: Yes. Good afternoon, Your Honours. Andrew Cayley
11 and Nicholas Koumjian appearing for the Office of the Prosecutor. Case
12 manager, Ruth Karper.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: For the Defence.
15 MR. LUKIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Branko Lukic and Mr.
16 John Ostojic for the Defence.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Before we continue with Dr. Donia,
18 please allow me to touch upon some more or less technical issues.
19 Yesterday, the decision on the request of the Office of the Prosecutor was
20 read out but was read out in closed session. As I understood correctly,
21 you want to make use of this, and therefore it's better if there are no
22 objections to have this part of the transcript treated as read out in open
23 session. Do you agree?
24 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No objections. Then therefore may it be the
1 part of the transcript of the hearing yesterday shall be treated as read
2 out in open session.
3 Then, not to forget, what about the two videocassettes, one went
4 to the Office of the Prosecutor and one not yet available for the Bench.
5 Is it available, the other -- the first videoclip we saw yesterday, is it
6 available for the Defence as well?
7 MR. LUKIC: I'm not sure about the first one, which has been
8 shown. I think that the Prosecution has better data, but I think the
9 first one hasn't been given to us yet.
10 MR. KOUMJIAN: It was disclosed. I believe one had an exhibit
11 number and one did not. It was the --
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The first one didn't have an exhibit number
13 under 65 ter.
14 MR. KOUMJIAN: It was disclosed, is my understanding, on the 10th
15 of April.
16 MR. LUKIC: Maybe that's why we couldn't check. We'll check
18 MR. KOUMJIAN: And we will have copies at the break.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then for our proceedings, the following --
20 hopefully you will agree -- that whenever it's possible, it's better for
21 all of us, and of course the witnesses if we can have the hearings
22 conducted in the morning session. Therefore, on this Friday, I was
23 informed that in all likelihood, Trial Chamber 3 will not sit in this
24 courtroom. And therefore my suggestion is if possible, we should start at
25 9.00 and close at 1.45. Any objections? We'll come back to this when we
1 have found out whether or not it's possible from the registry.
2 And the same is true next week, from 1 May to May 3. There will
3 be no hearing in Trial Chamber III, and therefore, my intention is to
4 proceed on the three days from 9.00 to 12.30, and from 2.00 to 4.30. I
5 can't see any objections. Over here --
6 MR. KOUMJIAN: I just point out we scheduled our witnesses travel
7 on the presumption of having slightly less time, although generally we
8 have found the witnesses take longer than we anticipated.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Quite clear about -- just in case. We never
10 know. We have had this experience with Witness A, that indeed it took us
11 one day longer. So we have time enough. And the last question is until
12 now, it was scheduled that on Friday, 31 May, there should be no trial.
13 The intention is to exchange this so-called day without trial against
14 Monday, the 3rd of June, to have the hearing -- this would be the result
15 on Friday, in the morning, but not on Monday in the afternoon. I can't
16 see any objections.
17 I have to come back to this when we have the confirmation of the
18 registry. Thank you.
19 Then we can, I believe, proceed with Dr. Donia, and we could then
20 come immediately to the cross-examinations, if there aren't any other
21 points to be discussed. Then Dr. Donia will be brought in.
22 MR. KOUMJIAN: I apologise, Your Honour, for not mentioning it
23 earlier. But Your Honour last week asked about a current status of the
24 witness list. One is prepared. I don't know if Your Honour wants that
25 formally filed or just a copy of the latest list given to Your Honours'
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I appreciate the most informal way, because it's
3 the most direct and effective way. And if also the Defence is informed at
4 the same time, no problem. But -- sorry, this brings me to the question,
5 what about the list of 92 bis and the motion on 92 bis witnesses?
6 MR. KOUMJIAN: This list includes that information.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This list includes --
8 MR. KOUMJIAN: The list that will be provided indicates which
9 witnesses are going to request 92 bis.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So that therefore should already be regarded as
11 your request to take the testimony from these witnesses on the basis of 92
12 bis. Right?
13 MR. KOUMJIAN: Correct. Perhaps I could get together with the
14 Defence counsel and see if there's any objections, and if there is, we can
15 file more formal motions regarding that. If they don't have an objection,
16 then perhaps we can just do it orally.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. And of course we are prepared, especially
18 during the next week, when probably we have some additional time to go
19 through witness by witness and then discuss the appropriate decision.
20 MR. KOUMJIAN: And, just for Your Honours information, we did give
21 the list this afternoon to the Defence, so they have a copy already of the
22 latest order of witnesses.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for that. And I don't, additionally
24 not forget, because probably you need the assistance of Dr. Donia for
25 this, that we want to go through at the end of the day the entire
1 so-called SK list, whether or not, it should be admitted into evidence.
2 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, Your Honour. My understanding at the time was
3 that you were concerned about the amount of translation in particular that
4 had to be done of the newspaper articles. And in the interim, I have
5 instructed Dr. Donia to go through all of those newspaper articles and
6 highlight the sections in each that need translation. So we will ask for
7 all of these documents to be admitted into evidence, but only portions of
8 the newspaper articles will be translated into the English language unless
9 my learned friends opposite have any additional requirements for
10 translation. All of the minutes, the sort of voluminous book of minutes,
11 all of that has already been translated and we would want all of that
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, then my suggestion that is we don't excuse
14 Dr. Donia before we went through these portions with his assistance in
15 order to avoid translation. Let's do it here in courtroom with his
17 MR. CAYLEY: As you wish, Your Honour. I think that may take some
18 considerable time. I have to be honest with you. If he were to, at the
19 end of the proceedings, present you with his marked copy, you would see
20 that actually it drastically reduces amount the translation. I mean,
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let's find out. Let's go through at the end of
23 the day in the presence of Dr. Donia. Thank you.
24 [The witness entered court]
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good afternoon, Dr. Donia. You already have
1 some experience with cross-examination.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone please, Your
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: [No microphone]
5 WITNESS: ROBERT DONIA [Resumed].
6 MR. OSTOJIC: Good afternoon, Dr. Donia.
7 Cross-examined by Mr. Ostojic:
8 Q. I'm going to be asking you a series of questions on the report you
9 authorized and submitted, namely Exhibit 42 as it's been
10 commonly referred to here. Sir, can you tell me first perhaps to clean up
11 some items that I missed or I didn't understand the testimony that you
12 gave. When did you complete your report, Exhibit 42?
13 A. I can't give you an exact date. It was about four weeks ago.
14 Q. So approximately March 22nd, 24th?
15 A. Perhaps a little bit earlier, yes.
16 Q. You also submitted a report it was tendered as evidence in another
17 case called the "OTP against Brdjanin and Talic," and it's an exhibit to
18 some of the materials that you provided us here. And it has, for
19 Your Honours, the Exhibit Number 43. Within that exhibit, you have your
20 curriculum vitae, correct, attached?
21 A. Yes.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry to interrupt you, already in the
23 beginning. We decided the last time in your absence that it would be
24 preferable in order to -- to have a good readability of the document, when
25 you are quoting, then please quote page of the transcript precisely. So
1 when you, for example, make reference to the CV of Dr. Donia, if you could
2 at the same time indicate on the page of the transcript. This would
3 facilitate for later readings. I don't hope in the appeal.
4 MR. OSTOJIC: Perhaps I can start again, Doctor.
5 Q. Exhibit 43 that is attached to the volumes that I believe everyone
6 has from item number 1 through 50 as far as I can tell, that exhibit 43 is
7 a report that you prepared in the Brdjanin-Talic case. Correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And as part of that exhibit, although there's no page number,
10 included in that or attached thereto is your curriculum vitae. Correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. It's towards the end of that document, Exhibit 43. Correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And that document, your curriculum vitae is approximately -- or it
15 is actually three and a half pages in length. Correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour if I may address you on this issue, there
18 no page number on this curriculum vitae, so I'll just go forward if it'
20 Q. You had testified in the Brdjanin Talic case. Correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can you list for us the other cases in which you were a witness
23 for the office of the prosecution.
24 A. I was a witness in the Prosecutor -- the Blaskic in 1997. The
25 Prosecutor v Kordic in I think 1999. Perhaps 1998 or 1999. And also in
1 the Bosanski Samac which I believe was in 2001.
2 Q. Was that the Simic case?
3 A. Yes, Blagoje Simic.
4 Q. Any others?
5 A. I rendered a submission in Prosecutor v Kvocka, the Omarska case,
6 but did not testify.
7 Q. Kvocka?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Any others?
10 A. I think that's -- I'm sorry. I rendered a submission and also
11 testified in the Prosecutor v Stanislav Galic.
12 Q. Can you tell me what the -- if I may ask you what the ethnic
13 makeup is of the defendants in the Blaskic case that you testified in July
14 of 1997?
15 A. The defendant is a Croat.
16 Q. How about the Kordic case? Is it Kordic?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. In July of 1999.
19 A. Yes, and those defendants are both Croats.
20 Q. And how about Kvocka?
21 A. In that, and I think all the other cases, the defendants are
23 Q. So in Kvocka, Simic, Brdjanin-Talic, and obviously in this case,
24 the ethnic makeup of the defendants are Serbian. Is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Were you ever asked by the office of the Prosecutor to give
2 testimony or to review in connection with a defendant of Muslim
4 A. No, I have not.
5 Q. Do you know why?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Your profession, if I understand it, is that of a historian.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you received your PhD. in history, correct?
11 A. Yes, in 1976.
12 Q. And your work history since your PhD. in history from 1976 to
13 1998 I believe was primarily with Merrill Lynch. Correct?
14 A. From 1981 to 1998, yes.
15 Q. In your CV, it says that in the year 2000, that you were still
16 working with Merrill Lynch. So is it in 1998 that you quit Merrill Lynch
17 or 2000?
18 A. I continued to receive deferred compensation for a period of about
19 two years. So I was technically in the employ of Merrill Lynch, until I
20 believe, August of the year 2000.
21 Q. And you were employed where, in La Jolla, California during that
22 time period?
23 A. Yes, I was employed in La Jolla, California from July of 1995
24 until 2000.
25 Q. You just told me that from 1981, you started at Merrill Lynch.
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. And you didn't work for Merrill Lynch in the capacity of a
4 historian, did you?
5 A. Far from it, as could be imaginable.
6 Q. Just want to make sure. From 1981 through 1998 or 2000, whichever
7 date you prefer, is it true that, in fact, primarily your employment
8 involved with Merrill Lynch had nothing to do with the history in any
9 region of the world?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And you were a full-time employee during that entire period.
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. Other than being a historian and --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please slow down.
16 A. I was resident vice-president, which meant branch office manager.
17 MR. OSTOJIC:
18 Q. That dealt with what, purchase and sales of securities?
19 A. My job was the management of offices in which other individuals
20 did purchases and sales of securities for clients.
21 Q. Now, sir, during the time that you spent --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. --
23 Q. During the history -- pardon me. There's a request. I guess I
25 MR. OSTOJIC: Sorry, Judge.
1 Q. Thank you, Dr. Donia. I'm sorry.
2 Going back to the fact that you testified, sir, in cases against
3 Croats and Serbs and not against Muslims, is it fair to state that you are
4 not rendering an opinion, and have not never rendered an opinion, that
5 there was no atrocities committed by Muslims against the Serbs or Muslims
6 against the Croats during the period of your studies, namely 1991 through
8 A. I'm sorry. The question had a negative there. I'm not sure I'm
9 clear on exactly what the question was.
10 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I'm going to object here. It's an
11 extremely convoluted question and actually has a double negative in it.
12 You have not never rendered an opinion. Can you simplify the question so
13 the answer is given actually reflects what is in a simple question.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sustained.
15 MR. OSTOJIC: Fair enough. I'll withdraw the question and ask it
17 Q. Is it fair to state that you are not rendering an opinion that
18 there were no atrocities committed by Muslims against the Serbs during the
19 time period in which you performed your studies in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
20 A. No. I believe I have rendered in at least one of these, probably
21 two or three of these submissions, the view that atrocities against Serbs
22 were committed by Muslims.
23 Q. Can you help us in defining the time period that that may have
24 occurred based upon your review and your opinion?
25 A. Well, the events to which I referred were in the first months of
1 the war in Sarajevo. I believe May and June.
2 Q. Of what year, sir?
3 A. Of 1992.
4 Q. And similarly, do you have an opinion as to whether there have
5 been any atrocities committed by the Muslims against the Croatians during
6 that time period that you just referenced, namely 1991 through 1995, if
7 you will?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. What is that opinion?
10 A. That there were such atrocities committed in central Bosnia during
11 the period 1993 inter alia.
12 Q. What about prior to 1993?
13 A. I don't believe I have asserted in any report that such atrocities
14 were committed by Muslims prior to 1993 in the period 1991 to 1995.
15 Q. By recognising that you haven't asserted it in your report, but
16 based on your review of the materials and your visit to the area or
17 region, and all the work that you've done to compile these reports that we
18 have before us, have you come to any conclusion?
19 A. As far as Muslim atrocities committed by Muslims against Croats, I
20 would say that those were principally in the period 1993 to 1994.
21 Q. We know that you're a historian. Correct?
22 A. Thank you, yes.
23 Q. But I'd like to spend a couple minutes trying to distinguish a
24 historian from other practices and studies. Is it true, sir, that you are
25 not a political scientist?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And is it true, sir, that you are not a military expert?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And is it true, sir, that you are not a governmental affairs
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And is it true, sir, that you are not a constitutional lawyer?
8 A. That's correct, yes.
9 Q. During the time in which you were asked to give this addendum
10 report in the OTP versus Stakic matter, did you review any statements from
11 witnesses or prospective or potential witnesses that is the Office of the
12 Prosecution would call?
13 A. No, I did not.
14 Q. Did you ask to review any such statements?
15 A. No, I did not. I made a general request of relevant documentation
16 that would be helpful in discharging the task I was asked to undertake.
17 But I did not make a specific request for witness summaries, nor for
18 testimony in prior cases regarding the area.
19 Q. Now, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where I believe you've written about
20 obviously, is there an area called Donja and Gornji Vakuf?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. That's an area in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
23 A. Well I think at least Donja Vakuf is the name of a municipality,
24 and Donja Vakuf is also the name of a town, and Gornji Vakuf is also a
25 name of a town.
1 Q. All within the Vakuf municipality. Correct?
2 A. No. Donja Vakuf is a municipality. I just don't recall if
3 there's a Gornji Vakuf municipality, but there's no Vakuf municipality.
4 Q. The municipalities you're talking about in Bosnia-Herzegovina,
5 there were 109 such municipalities. Correct?
6 A. In the period 1990, 1991, yes.
7 Q. Thank you, yes. And in the period of 1990, 1991, the Donja Vakuf
8 municipality existed did it not?
9 A. Yes, it did.
10 Q. Was it predominantly a Muslim municipality?
11 A. I don't know without looking at the population figures.
12 Q. How do you spell that for me, if you don't mind, Vakuf?
13 A. The Vakuf is spelled V-A-K-U-F.
14 Q. And that's actually an Arabic or Turkish word. Is that correct?
15 A. The word as I understand is a Serbo-Croatian word that is an
16 adaptation of an originally Arabic word which is spelled W-A-Q-A-F, I
18 Q. Now, you state or you set forth in your curriculum vitae on page
19 4, the last page of your CV, that you're affiliated with a foundation
20 called "Donja Vakuf foundation." Are you familiar with that foundation?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In fact, you're the president of the foundation. Correct?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. And the first name, Donja, that would be you, Dr. Donia, correct?
25 A. Right.
1 Q. Is there a Mr. Vakuf?
2 A. There is to my knowledge no Mr. Vakuf.
3 Q. How is it, sir, that as you sit here, not having testified in any
4 cases against any Muslims, having formed a foundation with the name Vakuf
5 in it, how did this come about?
6 A. Well, it was a pun on the name of the municipality, Donja Vakuf.
7 We had to add the word "foundation" to be clear what it was. But that's
8 the origin of the name that was given to the foundation.
9 Q. You say pun, you weren't making fun of that municipality, were
10 you, in any way?
11 A. No.
12 Q. What do you mean when you say pun?
13 A. The word similarity was very close between the name of that
14 municipality and my name.
15 Q. Now, what does this foundation do, sir?
16 A. It is a family foundation. And under U.S. Tax law, that means
17 that monies can be donated to the foundation as tax deductible, but the
18 distributions can only go to other 501 C3 organisations. That is, charity
19 at charitably qualified organisations such as universities, churches, Red
20 Cross, any such qualified charitable foundations.
21 Q. And from time to time -- strike that. When was this foundation
22 first started?
23 A. I believe in 1997.
24 Q. Is that right about the time that you first got involved as a
25 witness testifying for the Office of the Prosecution?
1 A. I think it was a bit before that.
2 Q. Now, sir, on your CV, after having reviewed it, is it fair to say
3 that you are not a tenured professor at any of the two universities in
4 which you state you are currently employed by?
5 A. That's correct. It's fair to say, and I am not a tenured
6 professor at either place.
7 Q. Is it fair to say that you are not really employed by those two
8 universities, is that correct?
9 A. I have nominal appointments from them. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. You're not employed by them?
11 A. That's correct. I don't get paid by them.
12 Q. Have you ever been a full tenured professor?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Are you currently an assistant professor anywhere?
15 A. No.
16 Q. In the last ten years, have you been an assistant professor
18 A. No.
19 Q. Dr. Donia, have you ever reviewed the indictment filed by the
20 Office of the Prosecution against Dr. Stakic?
21 A. Yes, I did review it before I began the investigation.
22 Q. When did you review it, sir?
23 A. January of this year.
24 Q. January 2002, correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, did you review the first, second, third, fourth, or which
2 indictment did you review?
3 A. I reviewed the most recent one.
4 Q. In January of 2002, which one was it?
5 A. I don't know which number it was.
6 Q. Do you know if it has been amended since?
7 A. I don't know.
8 Q. What part of the indictment did you rely on in preparing your
9 addendum for the Prijedor area, namely as reflected on Exhibit S42?
10 A. S42 is my report, is that correct?
11 Q. I represent that it is. It is the annex to the report.
12 A. I did not rely at all on the indictment in preparing that report.
13 Q. Did the -- strike that. So it's fair to state that despite the
14 fact that in January 2002, you reviewed the indictment against Dr. Stakic,
15 you did not rely at all on the indictment in preparing your report?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. Now, if I may, let's talk a little bit about history. And so that
18 I can have the same understanding, you being a historian and I not being
19 one, is the field of history, it's actually a study of activities of
20 groups of people in a certain place, in a certain time. Correct?
21 A. That would be one relatively narrow definition of what historians
22 do. I think it can be the study of individuals. It also can be the study
23 of groups compared across time and place and can entail the study of
24 entire regions or parts of the world, as well as very specific places.
25 Q. I'll accept your broader definition. Working with that, the
1 method of such studies is to review sources of reliable information.
2 Could you agree with that?
3 A. Yes, and sometimes not so reliable information.
4 Q. Can you tell me in what circumstances, sir, you would rely on
5 unreliable information as a historian?
6 A. Well, not all sources are worthless because they may contain false
7 information. They may illuminate the understanding of a particular
8 individual or group about other events and may, in fact, provide, let's
9 say, kind of an image of that group or person's perception of the world at
10 that time.
11 Q. Despite the fact that it may be unreliable, historians would rely
12 on such information to stereotype a group of people or individuals. Is
13 that what you're saying?
14 A. No, that's not what I'm saying.
15 Q. As a historian, sir, is it fair to state that in order to get
16 thoroughness and completeness in the study of history in a particular
17 region such as Bosnia and Herzegovina in the period of time of 1991
18 through 1995, that the more reliable sources and reliable information you
19 rely on, the more thorough and complete your report would be?
20 A. I think in general, that's true, yes.
21 Q. The study of history, the two methods that historians I believe,
22 respectfully, such as yourself, analyse material comes from what's known
23 as a primary source and a secondary source. Correct?
24 A. I would say that distinction has become very fuzzy, to the point
25 of almost being inconsequential over the last several decades of
1 historical inquiry.
2 Q. So, sir, do you distinguish at all the sources from which you
3 review documents and materials and examine and analyse those items, do you
4 distinguish them from being primary and secondary sources?
5 A. As I say, it's sometimes -- it's not really possible to put every
6 source in one category or another. There's something more of a continuum
7 depending on the -- let's say the closeness of the source to its point of
9 Q. When we speak of the primary source, if you will, are we also
10 indicating that a primary source is the source which must be information
11 that is both reliable and identifiable?
12 A. In general, that's the case. But there are totally fabricated
13 primary sources. And so reliability is a contingent variable in assessing
14 the validity of a source.
15 Q. When you say that, what is it we're looking for in those primary
16 sources of documents? What would constitute a reliable document?
17 A. Well, an original letter penned by -- authored by a person, that
18 is verifiably in the hand of that person and done by that person is
19 probably the most ideal primary source. I say its contents may be
20 totally false or they may be extremely reliable, but that's the kind of
21 concept of a primary source.
22 Q. And those documents from the individual that you were speaking of
23 in his handwriting, those are reliable if further -- further reliable if
24 they are signed by the individual. Correct?
25 A. I don't think that the signature relates to the reliability of the
1 information, no.
2 Q. Secondary sources are less reliable and less identifiable,
4 A. No, not necessarily.
5 Q. Give me an example of one that a primary source would not be
6 better than a secondary source?
7 A. Well, as I have indicated, I don't really accept this dichotomy as
8 particularly meaningful. There are collections of documents which are
9 published which may be produced from archival sources, the reliability of
10 which is much more proven and established than that of a primary source
11 which turns out to be a fabrication of facts.
12 Q. So no example. Correct?
13 A. I gave you an example of a collection of published documents which
14 might come from an archive. I would give you multiple examples in the
15 case of Bosnia-Herzegovina of documents that were published from the
16 administrators of Bosnia-Herzegovina in the early 20th century, which I
17 regard as highly reliable, based on having seen many thousands of them,
18 and established their value vis-a-vis, say, press reports, memoirs, and
19 other documents which attest to their reliability.
20 Q. I notice, sir, in your addendum report or annex to the report,
21 Exhibit S42, it doesn't set forth, at least from my reading, that you
22 actually reviewed the indictment against Dr. Stakic. Was that an
24 A. No. It was not an oversight. No.
25 Q. Are there any other materials other than that which you identify
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 in your report, Exhibit S42, and that which you share with us today, are
2 there any other documents or materials or data that you relied upon in
3 preparing this report?
4 A. There are a whole host of documents which I would view as general
5 background reports or information which I've probably gathered, read, and
6 assimilated over the past 25 years. I think that the notations that I
7 have provided in the report give the source for the specific information
8 that I've included in the report. But it's almost impossible to give you
9 a list of all the things that I would use to approximately judge the,
10 let's say, plausibility, of a certain patterns or observations made in the
12 Q. Now, you have a binder in front of you that has materials,
13 Exhibits. I believe they are marked SK 1 through SK 41 near you. Correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. With respect to your analysis and review of documents, would this
16 binder -- and I also would add, the materials that were provided by
17 counsel during your direct examination, including those -- is that the
18 totality of the documents that you reviewed in preparation of your report
19 dated approximately March 20th, 2002, including the indictment?
20 A. No.
21 Q. What else did you review?
22 A. There's a very limited selection of the pages of Kozarski Vjesnik,
23 for example, in this collection. I looked at many other pages and
24 articles from Kozarski Vjesnik, from Glas and really, a number of other
25 publications in investigating the election results, the brief section on
1 World War II. There would be, again, a considerable number of additional
2 items that I looked at but did not cite as sources.
3 Q. Share with us, if you will, other than these daily newspaper
4 articles or weekly journals that you may have reviewed, or that you did
5 review, excuse me, that you just mentioned, what other documents did you
6 review in preparation for your report?
7 A. I looked at a number of historical works on World War II in
8 pursuit of specifically what could be attributed to the Prijedor area. I
9 looked at a large number of -- I can't say that I looked at these
10 specifically in preparation for the Prijedor report. But I looked at a
11 large number of interviews and articles and analyses in various magazines
12 from the period.
13 Q. From 1991 through what?
14 A. Well, 1991 through really 1999 or 2000.
15 Q. Sir, do you have Exhibit S50 in front of you there? I think it's
16 the very last exhibit in that binder.
17 MR. OSTOJIC: For the record, Your Honour, this is an exhibit that
18 was tendered and accepted by the Prosecutor. And briefly I'll just
19 identify it for the Court. It's a letter, dated 15 February, 2002.
20 THE WITNESS: I have it.
21 THE REGISTRAR: For the record, the witness's report is SK 42.
22 And this would be SK50 only it hasn't been filed officially, so we'll need
23 a copy from the Prosecution.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We will decide to make all the decisions on the
25 admissability only at the end of the day.
1 MR. OSTOJIC: Just for clarification, I did mention the letter S
2 with the exhibit number, but it was my understanding that it would be, as
3 I stated, S as opposed to SK. Did that change, Your Honour?
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We have to come back to this question.
5 MR. OSTOJIC: Fair enough. I just don't want to confuse the record
6 or Your Honour.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We know what you are discussing.
8 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
9 Q. Do you recall, sir, with respect to Exhibit Number SK 50, that
10 during your direct examination, you were asked: "When was the first time
11 that you were asked to review or analyse the area within
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina identified as Prijedor?" And I believe your response,
13 and this exhibits indicates that the very first time you were asked, sir,
14 to review any materials in connection with Prijedor would have been
15 February 15th, 2002. Correct?
16 MR. CAYLEY: Excuse me, Your Honour. If Mr. Ostojic going to cite
17 to what I asked in direct examination, can he give me the page number in
18 the transcript. I've found in the past extremely important to make sure
19 that he accurately characterises what I've asked. If he could point in the
20 transcript to where I asked that question, I'd be grateful. Thank you.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You have been faster than me. Of course, please
22 take care and make reference to the transcript. It's available for you,
23 or --
24 MR. OSTOJIC: It's not. But I would reply with all due respect to
25 the objection if I may.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, of course.
2 MR. OSTOJIC: I personally believe that it's an improper objection.
3 I think that the testimony that was offered on this very limited issue was
4 clear not only to the panel of Judges, I believe, but also to the witness
5 and all the participants. There is no doubt if we changed one word from
6 the Office of the Prosecutor's sentence, all we're trying to do is to
7 expedite this and move forward to see the timetable in which Dr. Donia
8 claims he started to review these materials.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I fully understand your point. Here, it is more
10 or less a technical question. We all suffer from the TMI -- too much
11 information syndrome. And therefore, when you make reference to the
12 examination-in-chief, please be so kind and quote the page in order that
13 later, we have the possibility to come back to this and really can compare
14 what was said there. Thank you.
15 MR. CAYLEY: To be frank, Your Honour, my learned friend is
16 vigorously objecting because he knows that I never actually asked that
17 question. In fact, the letter was offered as a means of demonstrating to
18 the Court what we had asked Dr. Donia to do. And he knows that very well.
19 So that is why I'm asking him to exercise extreme caution when he suggests
20 that I have asked certain questions, the witness has answered certain
21 questions. And quite frankly, the dates in these particular letters are
22 not as material as he is suggesting. But he's welcome to go on asking
23 questions about these matters. Thank you.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Once again, it shows that the old Romans were
25 right in saying: What is in the file is in the world. And therefore,
1 it's not only technical but also a substantive question, and I invite once
2 again both parties whenever making reference to a former transcript page,
3 please quote this page, and then it's for the evaluation of the Judges
4 whether or not this was correctly quoted. Thank you.
5 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 MR. OSTOJIC: Perhaps I can state the question a different way, if
8 Q. Dr. Donia, do you remember -- strike that. Dr. Donia, am I
9 incorrect if I state that last week during your testimony on direct
10 examination, you stated, sir, according to my notes that the first time
11 you were asked to review and examine and analyse any documents in
12 connection with the Prijedor matter, namely the OTP versus Dr. Stakic was
13 on February 15th, 2002?
14 A. I don't recall making that statement in direct testimony.
15 Q. So prior to Exhibit SK50, is it fair to state that prior to
16 February 15th, 2002, you had met with and commenced your review of
17 documents and materials in connection with the Prijedor matter, namely,
18 OTP versus Dr. Stakic?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And on how many occasions prior to February 15th, 2002, did you
21 meet with the Office of the Prosecutor to discuss Prijedor?
22 A. I believe only once. Now, I must say that the -- Prijedor within
23 the context of the developments in the Bosnian Krajina was a part of my
24 prior report. And consequently, came up, you know, in a number of
25 discussions in terms of preparing that report.
1 Q. Is it fair to say that the OTP formally retained you as an expert
2 historian on or about February 15th, 2002, or at a subsequent or prior
4 A. Well, I think they formally engaged me on 15 February. But as I
5 say, we talked, had one conversation in January. And I spent about two
6 days looking at documentation in the possession of the OTP in January in
7 the expectation that this letter, this offer, would be formalized.
8 Q. Were you given the documents, sir, to review, or did you ask the
9 Office of the Prosecution for certain documents in order to make your
10 review and analysis?
11 A. I asked them what they had, and particularly I asked if there were
12 any transcripts or minutes of either party meetings or assembly minutes
13 that might be in the possession of the OTP.
14 Q. And isn't it true, sir, that the OTP responded to your request for
15 minutes of either party meetings or assembly minutes, correct? They
16 complied with your request?
17 A. They did, yes.
18 Q. And they gave that to you. Did they, sir, give you the party
19 meeting minutes from the party of the HDZ?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Having testified in two prior Croatian cases, do you know, sir, if
22 they're in the possession of the OTP?
23 A. I don't know.
24 Q. Did you ask?
25 A. No.
1 Q. So your question to the Office of the Prosecutor was broad, from
2 what I can tell. "I want the party meeting minutes for that period in
3 that region" and the Office of the Prosecutor gives you the SDS party
4 minutes and meeting. Correct?
5 A. I asked for party minutes, and this was on the spur of the moment
6 response, was told we have SDS minutes. And those I then examined over
7 the next 48 hours.
8 Q. Dr. Donia, forgive me, but you are painting a picture of the
9 region in Bosnia-Herzegovina called Prijedor of the situation as it
10 existed approximately ten years ago. Correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you're trying to enlighten us, to tell us and inform us,
13 essentially to educate us, as to what was going on in that time period at
14 that place. Correct?
15 A. Yes. I would only add that it had to be sufficiently economical,
16 that it could not be a comprehensive examination.
17 Q. So is it fair to state that your report and your review of these
18 materials is not comprehensive?
19 A. Oh, it certainly is not comprehensive.
20 Q. And it's not thoroughly complete, is it?
21 A. No.
22 Q. What's missing, in your view, of this report, since we now have
23 learned that it's not thoroughly complete?
24 A. Well, I think the testimony or account of individuals who were
25 there, witnessed or participated in events. Of this alone, there would be
1 tens of thousands of pages that would fill out this story substantially.
2 I'm sure there are memoirs or personal accounts, diaries. There certainly
3 are the minutes or transcripts of the city -- or the municipal assembly,
4 And minutes or transcripts of not only the HDZ and the SDA, but the
5 reformist party, the SDP, probably the -- if there are such minutes, the
6 short-lived homeland front. All these things would be, I think, required
7 to give a comprehensive picture.
8 Q. Sir, let me understand this: Does the Office of the Prosecutor
9 ask you to review and analyse documents and give a historical background
10 of only the Serbs in the Prijedor area from 1991 to 1993?
11 A. No. As you see, the charge was to identify factors which may have
12 contributed to events in the municipality from April to December 1992.
13 Q. And at the very least, the three parties that were in existence in
14 1990, the SDA, the Muslim majority party; the SDS, the Serbian majority
15 party; and the HDZ, the Croatian majority party, at least those documents
16 would help us to see the entire picture of the area in Prijedor from the
17 period that you're referencing, namely, April 1992 through September 1992?
18 A. I think that more important than those would be probably the
19 documents which actually record the events in the municipal assembly, and
20 the minutes of the non-nationalist parties, which had a totally different
21 role and perspective on events.
22 Q. And in fact, those documents would further help us analyse and
23 determine which if any party was reactive or proactive. Correct?
24 A. Certainly, yes.
25 Q. When you say municipal assembly, you're talking about the
1 municipal assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina where, after the elections of
2 1990, Mr. Izetbegovic was elected. Correct?
3 A. The municipal assembly to which I'm referring is the Prijedor
4 municipal assembly for which elections were held in November 1990 and
5 which was constituted in the first days of January 1991.
6 Q. How many documents or how many meetings from those municipal
7 assembly meetings from Prijedor have you reviewed?
8 A. Well, I think I've indicated I don't know if they exist. I have
9 not reviewed any of them. I've reviewed the press reports of Kozarski
10 Vjesnik and Glas, which pertain to those meetings as far as I can
11 identify them.
12 Q. So you reviewed no such minutes of such an assembly. Correct?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. And sir, also you never reviewed any of the minutes from the party
15 of the SDA from January 1991 through December 1992. Correct?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. Again, I'm referencing the party of the SDA, although it spanned
18 the entirety of Bosnia-Herzegovina. You didn't review those documents of
19 its governing board, did you?
20 A. No.
21 Q. And you didn't review the documents of the local SDA in the
22 Prijedor municipality, did you?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Did you review any such documents from any other party that had
25 officials or candidates running for office in the Prijedor area?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Would it be fair to state, sir, that in order to obtain a complete
3 and thorough picture of the area in Prijedor from 1991 through December
4 1992, one would have to examine those documents?
5 A. And many others.
6 Q. What others would you recommend, sir?
7 A. I think I've just enumerated them.
8 Q. Those others --
9 A. The -- any diaries or journals that may have been maintained by
10 individuals, any minutes or transcripts of the party of the SP, of the
11 reformist party. And additionally, I think information that might be
12 available from the religious communities, Muslim, Serbian Orthodox,
13 Catholic, and any reports that might be available from outside observers
14 who visited or travelled through the municipality, among others.
15 Q. Turning again to Exhibit SK50, the February 15th, 2002 letter, if
16 I may, and I ask that you follow along with me, the second full paragraph
17 starts: "Specifically, it is requested that you examine documents in the
18 possession of the Office of the Prosecutor which are relevant to the
19 history of the Prijedor municipality."
20 Do you see that sentence?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, who determined what documents were relevant to the history of
23 the Prijedor municipality?
24 A. Well, I think the Office of the Prosecutor representatives and I
25 each rendered judgments on that. I obviously did not get all that I would
1 have liked to have received, but did not know what is in the possession of
2 the Office of the Prosecutor regarding some of the other sources. I would
3 add, however, that the substantial bulk of the report is not based at all
4 on documents in the possession of the OTP. It addresses demography; it
5 addresses factors which simply are not of interest to OTP.
6 Q. Is that something that they shared with you, that they are not
7 interested in the demographics?
8 A. No.
9 Q. It's just an opinion that you have based on your conversations and
10 discussions with them, that they are not interested in the demographics of
11 that region?
12 A. No. I think the statement I made was that I examined documents
13 that were not particularly of interest to them in regard to these other
14 issues, and that includes the documents pertaining to demography going
15 back to the 19th century and the other information about -- that I
16 attempted to provide about the revolutionary legacy in Prijedor, and the
17 general environment that existed there in the late socialist period.
18 Q. Moments ago, on line 22 of the transcript, you're quoted as
19 saying: "I obviously did not get all that I would have liked to have
20 received," et cetera. Can you tell us, sir, what is it that you would
21 have liked to have receive that you didn't receive?
22 A. Well, I'm a -- I think every historian is probably a lover of
23 information and documentation. And I would have loved to have had much
24 more information, but probably could not have included the review of much
25 more for this report.
1 Q. Did you ask the Office of the Prosecutor for any documents
2 involving the JNA for this time period?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Do you think that may or may not be relevant in analyzing the
5 situation since you mention and give a history about and reference the
6 JNA, in my opinion, somewhat extensively in your report. Do you think
7 that would assist you in any way in analysing what the role of the JNA was
8 actually in 1991 through 1992 in Prijedor?
9 A. Well, I wouldn't share your characterisation of it as extensive.
10 I think it's very brief. And yes, certainly, a great deal of information
11 about the JNA, whether from the archives in Serbia, or the records of the
12 JNA itself, or information from various officers, would have been indeed
13 helpful in providing a more comprehensive picture.
14 Q. Don't you think it's more than just helpful, Doctor? Don't you
15 think it's critical in giving and drawing a picture of the events as they
16 existed from 1991 through December 1992 in Prijedor?
17 A. Well, I think it's -- it would be important to incorporate it if
18 one could, yes.
19 Q. Not critical, but important. Correct?
20 A. Important.
21 Q. How important, do you think?
22 A. I think it would depend on the extent to which one wanted to delve
23 into the specific role of the JNA in the municipality.
24 Q. With respect to any police records, or as it has been called, the
25 CZ, Civil Defence, have you reviewed any such documents in connection with
1 the time period that we're discussing here?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Did you ask for such documents?
4 A. Not specifically, no.
5 Q. How about generally, did you ask for such documents?
6 A. Well, as I indicated, the general question: "What do you have?"
7 And didn't ask anything more specific than that other than, as I
8 indicated, the request for municipal assembly minutes or SDS party
10 Q. So it's true, in fact, that you did not get invited to the OTP
11 offices and were shown a library of materials and they invited you to go
12 through whatever you deemed relevant. Correct?
13 A. That's correct. I was not given the key to Fort Knox and invited
15 Q. In fact, they gave you documents that they wanted you to review
16 and to formulate your report. Correct?
17 A. Well, I'm not sure that that was the way their intention was. It
18 was -- specifically, I made a request. They had this body of information
19 and gave it to me. I didn't pursue further information, nor did they say,
20 "Gosh, we found a whole stack of things that we want you to review."
21 Q. When you say "intention," how would you know someone's intention,
22 whether it be that they wanted to give you the documents or didn't want to
23 give you the documents? How do you make that assessment on someone's
25 A. I can't make that assessment.
1 Q. Why not?
2 A. Our conversation about this was, in fact, very brief, a matter of
3 a minute or two, and went no further.
4 Q. The Territorial Defence documents, do you know whether any such TO
5 documents exist?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Have you ever in any case reviewed any TO documents?
8 A. No.
9 Q. How about the SUP? Do you know if documents exist with respect to
10 SUP, which is the police, correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you know if any such documents exist relating to the SUP?
13 A. No, I don't.
14 Q. Did you inquire of them?
15 A. I did not inquire specifically for those documents, no.
16 Q. In some portions of your report, perhaps not extensively but you
17 do touch on it, you reference Territorial Defence and you make comments of
18 the movements of the various Territorial Defence groups, if you will. Did
19 you ever ask the Office of the Prosecutor if they were in possession of
20 any documents that may relate to the Territorial Defence, TO?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Why not?
23 A. Well, I made the general request, got a body of information which
24 I found, together with the press, to be quite -- both substantial and
25 illuminating. I did not press further for any specific set of records or
1 body of information.
2 Q. Would you agree with me, sir, that in order to discuss, analyse
3 and obtain a complete picture of the events that transpired in Prijedor,
4 from April 1991 -- from April 1992 through December 1992, one must review,
5 examine, analyse, and at the very least be familiar with the very
6 documents that we were previously discussing that you had not reviewed?
7 A. To provide a comprehensive account of those developments, I think
8 it's an absolutely essential and an immense task.
9 Q. Would you agree with me, sir, that it's necessary to have a
10 comprehensive account of those developments if someone is charged serious
11 international crimes by virtue of actions taken by either the individual
12 or in his capacity allegedly as an aider and abettor during that time
14 A. Yes, it is.
15 Q. And your report is not such a report, is it?
16 A. It's not such a report, no.
17 Q. Sir, during your testimony in one of the cases where there were
18 defendants of Croatian ethnicity --
19 A. Nationality.
20 Q. Nationality, thank you. Thank you.
21 Did it involve, in fact, a municipality where a town was called
23 A. I don't believe so, no.
24 Q. Are you familiar with Celebici?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Where is that town located?
2 A. I don't know what municipality it's in. I think it's in Konjic.
3 Q. Konjic municipality. Correct?
4 A. Konjic, yes.
5 Q. And you testified in connection with the events that occurred on
6 or about April of 1992, or March of 1992, in the Konjic municipality
7 particularly in Celebici. Correct?
8 A. No.
9 Q. You did not testify in that regard?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Are you familiar with the events that transpired at that time?
12 A. With some, some events, but I can't say I'm intimately familiar
13 with developments.
14 Q. Is it your testimony, sir, that in the Blaskic case, it did or did
15 not involve the municipality and the town that we were just discussing?
16 A. I don't recall having made reference in my testimony in Blaskic to
17 Konjic municipality.
18 Q. Do you, sir, remember, as you sit here making reference to the
19 Konjic municipality and the Celebici town in the testimony you gave in
20 January of 2002 in the Brdjanin-Talic matter?
21 A. I don't recall a reference to Konjic municipality in that matter,
23 Q. Are you familiar that in March or April of 1992, time period we're
24 referencing here, that the Muslim forces in that municipality overtook a
25 military factory?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Where in your report, the addendum you provided to us
3 approximately a month ago, where in that report does it set the stage for
4 us to understand what's going on in Prijedor by telling us that there were
5 these other Muslim forces attacking and seizing military ammunitions
6 factories? Where is it mentioned in your report?
7 A. Well, as you know, that was not a part of either the Bosnian
8 Krajina or Prijedor, and my efforts to describe the general situation were
9 extremely brief, both in terms of time and in terms of geographic scope. I
10 believe that no reference is made in either the Krajina or Prijedor report
11 to Konjic municipality or to those events.
12 Q. Do you think that's an --
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm sorry.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We're coming to the well-deserved break,
16 especially for the translators. I would strongly ask both parties to make
17 reference only to the events forming part of the indictment. Of course,
18 it's interesting and, to a certain extent, it may be important to hear
19 other relevant issues from other municipalities, and in other points of
20 time. We have seen the limited request from the side of the Office of the
21 Prosecutor, and we have to be aware that we only should discuss really
22 relevant material here, relevant in the sense also of the substantive
23 criminal law. And that means that already here, we should not start to
24 touch upon the issue of tuquoque.
25 We may now have a break until precisely 4.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 3.40 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 4.05 p.m.
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If you allow me, first of all, some remarks.
4 When it comes to a question I was asked, and it's only fair from the side
5 of the booth, please wait with the next question until the answer is
6 translated and the other way around. Please pause in between. And the
7 more serious question is, of course, all the parties may all the time be
8 aware that you have a Bench of three professional Judges, and you
9 shouldn't overdo. We immediately can evaluate your points. And then the
10 more technical points are, of course, it's now confirmed by the registry,
11 we'll sit on Friday in the morning. We'll sit as it was said the next --
12 the days from 1 to 3 May, the entire day. And we will sit the 31st of
13 May, but therefore not on June 3.
14 And not to forget, also right now to have any -- to avoid any kind
15 of misunderstandings, when it is to request 92 bis statements admitted
16 into evidence, one prerequisite is, of course, that, witness by witness,
17 the OTP indicates which statement in the exhibit or in transcript, in
18 which transcript they wanted to tender and request us to admit into
20 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thank you, Your Honour. First, may I just
21 apologise for being a few moments late. Another judge asked to see me on
22 another matter unrelated to this case.
23 As for the 92 bis statements, they actually are being copied and
24 will be filed today with the Court and counsel will get a copy of the
25 requested 92 bis statements. One other brief matter: I had asked the
1 victim witness unit to have the next witness available at 4.00, in case we
2 could get to him. I don't think we're likely to finish before about 6 --
3 because we have to go through the documents, I don't think we're likely to
4 finish until very late today, if at all. Hopefully we'll finish today but
5 I think it will be late. Does the Court want the witness to standby or
6 shall we excuse him for the day?
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it's only fair to excuse the witness for
8 the day in order that he, she, has not unnecessary waiting time.
9 MR. KOUMJIAN: Okay. Can that be communicated some way to the
10 outside, to the hall, wherever the witness is, I'm not sure. Or should I
11 walk out and tell him.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this assistance.
13 May, in the meantime, Dr. Donia be brought in.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, before I continue with your leave to
15 cross-examine Dr. Donia, I have a question and would request some
16 clarification on the guidance you were sharing with me and us prior to the
17 last break. And if I may ask that question to the Court.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please.
19 MR. OSTOJIC: Namely, Your Honour, I would like to confine the
20 questions to the dates in the fourth amended indictment from April 30th,
21 1992, through September of 1992. However, other witnesses, and in
22 particular Dr. Donia respectfully in his report, has gone beyond those
23 areas. I believe for the Defence in order to show the situation and the
24 tensions that we believe were existing and we believe Dr. Donia concurs
25 were existing at that time in Prijedor, prior to April of 1992, and
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 through September 1992, is relevant and imperative to obtain both a fair
2 trial for Dr. Stakic and a complete understanding of the situation in that
3 region. And I say this most respectfully, and I'm just looking for
4 guidance. I can limit my questions, but just would like to know if that
5 was the intent of the Court.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: To be very frank on this, I don't know whether
7 counsel, you are aware of the fact that the Trial Chamber already in the
8 beginning asked the Office of the Prosecutor to show us some
9 self-restraint as regards the time covered by this expert witness. And
10 it's not only the time, also the region. Please be aware that we
11 professional Judges regard this as part of, let's say, public domain, that
12 there were overall tensions between the ethnic groups in the former
13 Yugoslavia, and therefore, we really should -- all the parties should try
14 to restrict comments and questions on the alleged time, April 1992,
15 September 1992, and of course Prijedor and immediate surrounding areas.
16 This was my point when you came to Celebici, for example. Thank you.
17 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, very briefly on this matter that you
18 have been referring to and the guidance that my learned friend is looking
19 for, the rules of this institution support you absolutely in what you're
20 saying, and the cross-examination of any witness is to be limited to the
21 subject matter of the evidence in chief and matters affecting the
22 credibility of the witness. And that is what you have said. To this
23 moment, I suspect we could, perhaps, broadly interpret Mr. Ostojic's
24 cross-examination as attempting to go to the credibility of the witness,
25 but absolutely no questions have been asked in the last couple of hours on
1 the actual subject matter of what the witness was testifying about.
2 There's nothing been -- there has been nothing directly on the point. And
3 I think equally earlier, you raised the matter of tuquoque, we could of
4 course spend hours cross-examining the witness on what the Muslims were
5 doing, what the Croats were doing, but that's not actually directly
6 relevant to what was happening in Prijedor. So I would only reinforce,
7 Your Honour, what you have already said, that both parties should show
8 some restraint in the manner in which witnesses are examined so that
9 things can be done in a timely and efficient manner. That's all I would
10 add. Thank you.
11 MR. OSTOJIC: I am compelled to reply, if I may, Your Honour. I
12 take great exception to counsel suggesting that other portions of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina should not and could not be included, since this
14 expert, this witness, has covered that exhaustively in his report. And I
15 underscore that word particularly because it is our position from the
16 Defence, and I hesitate out of respect for Dr. Donia to say this, but I'm
17 compelled to say it, we believe, and we think we can establish, that it is
18 clearly one-sided. And for us to get to the end gain, if you will, when
19 we start discussing these minutes, unlike what my learned friend said that
20 there is only relevance as it relates to the SDS meetings, for example,
21 which is what he is alluding to, we totally disagree, completely disagree
22 and think that if this witness is going to share with us the events as was
23 requested by the OTP, as he has knowledge and information of, I believe
24 those items in other municipalities are not only relevant, but likewise
25 important for the Defence of Dr. Stakic.
1 If the Court examines the section on the municipalities of Bosnia
2 and Herzegovina, and if you look at his prior exhibit which discusses
3 conversations that Mr. Izetbegovic had with Mr. Milosevic, all that has
4 been accepted at least preliminarily as evidence. All of that, in our
5 view, has to at least be reviewed and analysed to see if it is, again
6 respectfully, distorted or overstated at the very least.
7 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, could I respond, please. Again, my
8 learned friend has some difficulty in recall what I stated, and I did not
9 state at any time that there is only relevance as it relates to SDS
10 meetings as he well knows. Whilst I accept that questioning cannot be
11 done exclusively on the SDS minutes, there has been some limitation to the
12 scope of cross-examination. And I am simply relying on the rules. The
13 rules of this institution, Rule 90 [H] (i) state cross-examination shall
14 be limited to the subject matter of evidence-in-chief and matters
15 affecting the credibility of the witness. My learned friend can be
16 allowed to broadly go across every region of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the
17 re-examination will be extensive if that is allowed, Your Honour. I also
18 think, as you've reminded Mr. Ostojic already, he is not pleading to a
19 jury. There are three professional Judges sitting on the Bench, and that
20 I think is an important consideration in all of this, in the manner in
21 which this cross-examination is conducted. Thank you.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: To conclude, I think I was quite clear in saying
23 we have only a limited time of responsibility at stake here in our case.
24 You know this time, and you know the region. Of course, you can go to the
25 surrounding areas. This is of some importance. But it was on purpose
1 that I asked both parties in the beginning not to start history with the
2 tribes in the 5th and 6th century. It doesn't make sense at all. And I
3 said it quite clearly to the Office of the Prosecutor and the same is of
4 course true for the Defence. And therefore, I have to ask you,
5 concentrate yourselves first of all on this limited time and the limited
6 area. And please, allow me one additional remark: As this is not a jury,
7 I, as a Defence counsel, have always learned that it's more convincing to
8 make some points and leave the evaluation to the Judges. Thank you. I
9 think it's enough, and we should continue with the cross-examination now.
10 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Dr. Donia, would you agree with me that the tensions in
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina, particularly the Prijedor municipality, were
13 accelerating as the months went on from 1991 to September 1992?
14 A. Certainly from 1991 into the summer of 1992, yes.
15 Q. And do you, sir, have an opinion as to what the causes of the
16 acceleration of those tensions were?
17 A. Well, I would say there were multiple causes, and I think I tried
18 to identify some of the, I would say, chain of causation in the background
19 report. The increasing failure of the interparty agreement to mediate or
20 to serve as a mechanism for mediation between the political parties was a
21 major cause of those rising tensions. The war in Croatia, which had a
22 polarising influence on the parties in Bosnia, and of course in Croatia,
23 was a major contributor to that. The movements for independence in
24 Slovenia and Croatia and also Macedonia contributed to that. Certainly
25 the arming of -- acquisition of arms by nationalist formations was also a
1 major contributing factor. These, in my view, coincided with some longer
2 term causal factors which in a sense were brought to a point of
3 confrontation, particularly the taking of the census in April 1991 and the
4 multi-party elections that produced such a decisive victory in most places
5 for the nationalist parties.
6 Q. And are you complete with your answer?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. The causes that you've stated here, you obtained those and were
9 able to formulate an opinion that those were the causes by the review of
10 the binder that you have in front of you. Correct?
11 A. I believe your question was related to the tensions throughout
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Prijedor municipality in particular. So the
13 documents that are here would form only a very small part of what I have
14 reviewed over some years to identify those factors.
15 Q. Just so that I understand, as one, I believe the third, but one of
16 the causes of this increased tension from 1991 through the summer of 1992
17 was the movement of independence, as you say, of Slovenia, Croatia, and
18 Macedonia. Correct?
19 A. Yes. These movements echoed in Bosnia in such a way that it
20 increased tensions among the nationalities.
21 Q. Even though it was outside the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. They still had an enormous trickling effect within the entire
25 region, and particularly in the Prijedor municipality. Correct?
1 A. I wouldn't identify the Prijedor municipality as being especially
2 or extraordinarily influenced by those events, but would say they were
3 influential in the increasing negative relations between the nationalist
4 parties, in particular, throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina.
5 Q. Sir, in your report, you try to set for us a sort of timetable of
6 when these certain events that were causing these tensions inside the
7 Prijedor municipality, when they first started, when they ended. Is that
9 A. Well, I would agree with part of your statement. I think I did
10 try to establish some points in time when they were -- when relations
11 deteriorated. I don't know if I identified a single starting point or a
12 terminal point.
13 Q. Would it be fair to say that there were other causes that may have
14 contributed to the ever-increasing tensions in the Prijedor municipality
15 that you haven't listed or is your list of causes exhaustive?
16 A. There were certainly other causes.
17 Q. Sir, you know what a mujahedin fighter from Afghanistan is.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And is it true, sir, that from your research analysis of the
21 periodicals and newspaper articles that these fighters were actually in
22 the region in 1991/1992?
23 A. I know of no such fighters in the region in 1991. I would
24 certainly note there were some in the region, the broad region,
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and northwest Bosnia, in 1992.
1 Q. Sir, where did you obtain that information that there were such
2 fighters in the broad region Bosnia-Herzegovina?
3 A. I can't give you a specific --
4 Q. In 1992?
5 A. -- Source. It is a matter of record that has been attested to in
6 probably hundreds of interviews and press reports from the time, some of
7 which have, you know, appeared very recently, some of which appeared as
8 early as 1992/1993.
9 Q. Can you name one of those sources for us?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did you at any time examine or study the number of mujahedin
12 fighters who were in Bosnia-Herzegovina in, as you say, 1992?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Do you know who invited these fighters to come into
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry. I really -- once again I have to
17 interrupt you. As I mentioned before, we are not interested in any other
18 crimes probably committed, prepared, or whatsoever in the region. I can't
19 see the relevance for our concrete case.
20 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may respectfully reply, Mr. President, we
21 believe that the introduction -- and I was getting to it -- to the precise
22 in 1992 may have affected the tensions between the ethnic groups, thereby
23 forcing, we believe, some to act in a certain manner that has been highly
24 criticised by my learned friends at the Office of the Prosecution by
25 acting in such a manner when in fact they were reactive measures that were
1 taken to protect the sovereignty of what they believed was their country
2 and portions thereof.
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Counsel, do you really want to make the point
4 that the accused in this case, Dr. Milomir Stakic, acted in defence
5 against fighters from Afghanistan at that point in time?
6 MR. OSTOJIC: No, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
8 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may have leave to ask one more question on this
9 issue, or I can move on.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please move on.
11 MR. OSTOJIC:
12 Q. Sir, do you know, and in your report, do you not identify an
13 entity known as the Bosnian Muslim Green Berets?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And sir, who are or who was the entity known as the Bosnian Muslim
16 Green Berets?
17 A. The Green Berets were one of two paramilitary groups founded by
18 the SDA in 1991.
19 Q. When you say founded by the SDA, how do you reach such a
21 A. The SDA held a meeting in June of 1991, a meeting which was
22 reported in the press, and formed a national defence council. Subsequent
23 to that, they also formed the -- or sponsored the formation of the Green
24 Berets and the Patriotic League. The existence of both of those
25 organisations and their gradual growth are chronicled in a number of
1 memoirs by Bosnian Muslim or Bosniak military leaders. They are reported
2 by -- in papers or presentations by Bosniak political leaders and are the
3 subject of numerous interviews and press articles that have appeared in
4 the period since 1995.
5 Q. Now, you mentioned that in June of 1991, the political party SDA
6 formed a national defence council, correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. At that time, was the SDA the party which held the Presidency of
9 the municipality of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
10 A. Your question is not clear.
11 Q. At the republic level.
12 A. Well, the Presidency of the socialist republic of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina at that time had seven members; two members were from
14 the SDS, two were from the HDZ, and three were members of the SDA. The
15 president of the Presidency was Alija Izetbegovic of the SDA.
16 Q. Just so that I'm correct, it wasn't the Presidency of the
17 socialist republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina that voted and founded and formed
18 this national defence council; it was the political party of the president
19 of that Presidency. Correct?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. At that time, sir, June of 1991, did the SDS form any such
22 national defence council?
23 A. Not to my knowledge.
24 Q. Sir, isn't it true after reviewing the minutes of the SDS
25 municipal board that, in fact, no such entity was founded by the SDS at
1 the time of June 1991?
2 A. I find no reference to the creation of a party-controlled
3 paramilitary group in the Prijedor SDS minutes. There is substantial
4 discussion in those minutes about the arming of Serbs, the need for the
5 JNA to support that process. But no formation of that group under the
6 jurisdiction or aegis of the SDS.
7 Q. Was the national defence council a paramilitary group?
8 A. It was a party organ. I don't think it was a paramilitary
10 Q. In fact, the paramilitary organisations within the SDA subsequent
11 to June of 1991 consisted of two entities; namely, the Bosnian Muslim
12 Green Berets, and secondly the Patriotic League. Correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you obtained this information from your review of various
15 newspaper accounts, articles, and journals for that time period. Correct?
16 A. As I've indicated, I have seen -- learned of this from numerous
17 newspaper articles that appeared after 1995. Several memoirs which speak
18 of the creation and gradual growth of these organisations, and interviews,
19 press interviews, that have, again, taken place principally since 1995.
20 Q. Did the HDZ, in June of 1991, establish a comparable entity such
21 as the SDA's national defence council?
22 A. The HDZ in Croatia did, indeed, have a body which would be, I
23 think, comparable. The Croatian national guard, yet, operated principally
24 in Croatia, but also on occasion operated in Bosnia.
25 Q. Did the entity known as the national defence council which was
1 formed by the SDA, did it have any active members?
2 A. I'm not too sure what you mean -- what the question means.
3 Q. I'll rephrase it if you allow. Did, in June of 1991, the entity
4 formed by the SDA called the national defence council, did it have any
6 A. I think it had a substantial number of members.
7 Q. What was, if you know, the goal of this entity in June of 1991?
8 A. I don't recall what their stated goal was. They, in fact, issued
9 a statement stating what their goal was, and I don't recall specifically
10 how it was formulated.
11 Q. Do you know if that goal, from the national defence council,
12 changed or evolved from its formation in June of 1991 through September of
14 A. No.
15 Q. Do you know, at the height of that organisation, what was its
17 A. No.
18 Q. Do you know, sir, when the entity identified as the national
19 defence council ceased, if at all, to exist?
20 A. No.
21 Q. So, as you sit here, you don't know whether or not it was even in
22 existence in 1992, or do you?
23 A. Well, I don't know specifically when it ceased to exist. I find
24 no record of it operating after about April of 1992, but it may have
1 Q. Did the Bosnian Muslim Green Berets, the entity also formed by the
2 SDA, do you know the length of time that it existed and operated in the
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina and Prijedor municipality?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Do you know if it existed beyond the time period of April 1992
6 through September 1992?
7 A. Let me just -- you've asked about Bosnia-Herzegovina and the
8 Prijedor municipality. I can affirm that it existed in Bosnia-Herzegovina
9 until at least April 1992. And I just don't know if it existed at all in
10 Prijedor municipality.
11 Q. And you don't know because we don't have or you haven't reviewed
12 the minutes from the SDA executive board. Correct?
13 A. Well, I don't know. I just don't know, and I'm sure there are
14 many documents that could enlighten us about that. Principally would be
15 the records of the military organisation of the parties Republican level
17 Q. Did you ask, sir, to review such records; namely, the records of
18 the military organisation of the party's republic level offices?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Would you consider that those materials may shed some light on the
21 Prijedor municipality, dependent upon whether or not the national defence
22 council or the Bosnian Muslim Green Berets participated in any way in that
24 A. They might.
25 Q. How would they, sir?
1 A. They might, if they exist and if there are either a record of
2 specific activity or no record.
3 Q. Now, you also mention one other entity called the Patriotic
4 League. That was also formed by the SDA. Correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And that was also in mid -- I believe you said -- 1991, if I'm not
8 A. I think the date can be assigned to May of 1991.
9 Q. And do you know how long that entity, the Patriotic League,
10 existed from the time of its inception, May of 1991?
11 A. The Patriotic League ceased to exist as a distinct organisation on
12 15 April, 1992 when it was brought under the unified command of the
13 Territorial Defence of the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Probably can
14 identify elements of it fighting as specific units, and I speak not of
15 Prijedor here but particularly the Sarajevo area for the next couple of
16 months anyway.
17 Q. The unified command of the Territorial Defence, did that
18 membership consist of only one ethnic group in April of 1992?
19 A. No. The unified command of the Territorial Defence force
20 consisted of a commander, who was a Bosnian Muslim, a deputy commander,
21 who was a Bosnian Serb, another deputy commander, who was a Bosnian Croat,
22 and the membership of the Territorial Defence force-at-large was, I would
23 say, substantially a majority Muslims but included substantial numbers
24 also of Serbs and Croats.
25 Q. Did the Territorial Defence in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
1 did that also encompass activities within the Prijedor municipality?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. So it, in fact, it being the Territorial Defence, encompassed all
4 one 109 municipalities. Correct?
5 A. I don't know that it took place in every municipality, but in
6 certainly the vast majority of municipalities, there were Territorial
7 Defence forces which were activated and played some role in the events of
8 1991 and 1992.
9 Q. Can you tell us who the commander was of the Territorial Defence
10 in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina in April of 1992?
11 A. I can't recall, no.
12 Q. Was Sefer Halilovic in any way a member of, or participant in the
13 Territorial Defence in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
14 A. He was its commander at some point close to the 15th of April. I
15 am not certain he was the first, but was its commander into, I think,
17 Q. Sir, isn't it true that this Mr. Halilovic was also the leader of
18 the Patriotic League that we were just previously discussing?
19 A. From about October 1991 onward, yes.
20 Q. Do you know who Mr. Sefer Halilovic is, correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Is he still alive?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you know that he claimed, or perhaps you don't but you'll let
25 me know, that he claimed having in excess of 100.000 soldiers in his
1 command when he was the leader of the patriotic league in 1991? Were you
2 aware of that?
3 A. I'm not aware of that claim, no.
4 Q. Are you aware of a claim that he had more or less, or you just
5 don't know the number?
6 A. Well, he wrote a book of memoirs and I think gave a number for
7 1992 of 60 or 70.000. I'm not aware of any claim anywhere near that size
8 for 1991 but would not rule that out. I'm sorry.
9 Q. Dr. Donia, did you review in any detail, or in any fashion, Sefer
10 Halilovic's memoirs?
11 A. Yes, I read his memoirs maybe two years ago.
12 Q. Do you recall whether or not Mr. Halilovic states that in 1992, he
13 had in his command, in excess of 250.000 Bosnian Muslim soldiers?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Do you know, sir, that Mr. Sefer Halilovic is under indictment
16 here at this Tribunal?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. How did you come to learn that?
19 A. I follow the periodical press, both in the U.S. And former
20 Yugoslavia, and came to that information at the time that he was -- the
21 indictment was made public and he turned himself in to the Tribunal.
22 Q. Okay. Have you been able to -- or did you request any documents
23 from the Office of the Prosecutor in connection with the indictment and
24 Mr. Halilovic as it may relate to the Bosnia-Herzegovina and Prijedor
1 A. No.
2 Q. Do you, sir, think that examining the documents that may exist
3 from the patriotic league and the Bosnian Muslim Green Berets and the
4 national defence council may, indeed, be relevant to have a complete and
5 thorough picture of the situation in the Prijedor municipality in 1992?
6 A. It might be.
7 Q. Do you have any reason to think that it wouldn't be?
8 A. Prior to examining them, I couldn't make that determination.
9 Q. Now, we briefly discussed the Presidency of the Republic of
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina, where you mentioned that Mr. Izetbegovic was the
11 president, and then you proceeded to discuss that the Territorial Defence
12 consisted of a commander who was Muslim, a deputy who was Serbian, and
13 then you also mentioned a Croatian in that spot. Do you remember that
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, the Muslims, Serbs, and Croatians at that time period,
17 namely, June of 1991, operated under what I think you've identified as an
18 inter- or intra-party agreement?
19 A. I think you've inaccurately characterised my earlier testimony. I
20 identified the tri-party command structure of the unified Territorial
21 Defence in April of 1992. In 1991, the defence -- the Territorial Defence
22 structure was completely different.
23 Q. In 1991, was it true that the commander of the Territorial Defence
24 was a Bosnian Muslim?
25 A. I don't know.
1 Q. Did you hear or do you know of any information which has led you
2 to believe that the SDA party also or that the SDA party had their own
3 Territorial Defence structure set up?
4 A. I think that's not the case. I believe I attempted to describe
5 this relationship in my direct testimony and noted that the Territorial
6 Defence force, as it existed at the end of the socialist period and into
7 1991, reported to the national defence organisation of the republic. But
8 as 1991 went along, the Territorial Defence forces in each municipality
9 often fell under the control of the nationalist party that was predominant
10 in that municipality, or in some cases, remained loyal to the -- whatever,
11 two parties together constituted a majority. So the influence of the
12 let's say republic-level command diminished substantially in the course of
13 1991 as this trifurcation of the TO took place.
14 Q. You're familiar, because you obviously set forth some examples of
15 the inter-party agreement. Correct, you're familiar with that agreement?
16 A. I wish I were more familiar with it. It's a series of verbal
17 agreements as far as I am able to determine among the leaders of the three
18 nationalist parties dating from the time of the election campaign into
19 early 1991.
20 Q. I'm going to spend some time or at least have a better
21 understanding and ask you some questions on the inter-party agreement but
22 I forgot just one area that goes back to the other subject matter. So if
23 I may, isn't it true, sir, that the SDS party in June of 1991 did not have
24 the entity such as the equivalent in the SDA party, namely, the national
25 defence council, the Bosnian Muslim Green Berets, and the Patriotic
2 A. I don't know of any.
3 Q. And the minutes that you reviewed from the SDS party at no time
4 indicated that they were adopting or calling or founding, as you put it,
5 entities such as those three that we've just previously identified, the
6 national council -- national defence council, Bosnian Muslim Green Berets,
7 and the Patriotic League?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. Now, this intra-party agreement that you discussed --
10 A. Excuse me. May I just respond to that question. You said at no
11 time, and I would want to correct my answer, please, if I could, to say
12 not in the time period that you are asking about, to be 1991.
13 Q. In what time period did they exist?
14 A. The military organisation of the SDS took place in the spring of
16 Q. Can you give me a month, sir?
17 A. Well, we see evidence of it in -- let's see, April and May.
18 Q. Is there any concrete evidence, sir, that the SDS party formed an
19 entity such as the Bosnian Muslim Green Berets, a paramilitary unit, in
20 the Prijedor municipality?
21 A. Yes, I believe there is.
22 Q. Could you show that to us which are in the minutes under Tab 12 in
23 the documents that you have in front of you.
24 A. Okay. It's going to take a few minutes.
25 Q. With the Court's permission, I would ask...
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I suggest in order to save time that we come
2 back to this question after the next break.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone, please.
4 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes.
5 Q. Dr. Donia, within the materials that you've provided to us
6 indicating that you reviewed the -- some of the minutes of the SDS
7 municipal board or assembly, can you tell us whether or not this is a
8 complete category of all such SDS municipal board meetings?
9 A. The volume principally in question, which makes up Exhibit 12, Tab
10 12, is a sequentially numbered bound volume. So there are -- presumably
11 all minutes that were taken in this period are incorporated in this volume
12 for minutes of 1991 as the volume is labelled. There may be other minutes
13 of other sessions. As I indicated earlier, certain bodies which were not
14 specifically the SDS municipal board were also included in the minutes in
15 this volume, just two or three of them. So it's certainly feasible that
16 other such bodies may have met, or that the SDS municipal board may have
17 met and minutes taken in some other document or not taken at all.
18 Q. Do any of the minutes that you reviewed on Tab Number 12 indicate
19 that there was a vote on any particular issues from the minutes starting
20 with March 20th, 1991 through those in June -- of February 1992?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can you identify those for us. If it will take awhile, we can
23 come back to it at the break, if I may suggest that to the witness.
24 A. I would point to two that are immediately identifiable. One is
25 the 17th of September, 1991, on -- this is on -- the ERN is in English
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 00916407, about -- well, the fourth paragraph on this page. "With regard
2 to the functioning of the assembly, two distinctive options have been
3 brought up: One, not to take part in the assembly, one vote in favour.
4 And two, take part in the assembly, obstruct its work, and keep the
5 discussion aligned with the arguments we stated and with our press
6 release. Others are in favour, 27."
7 Then at the meeting on the 11th of September, 1991 at ERN
8 00916399, and 00916400, there are two votes, one for the president of the
9 Prijedor municipal board of the SDS at the bottom of that first page, and
10 votes for the vice-president continuing at the bottom of that page and on
11 to the next page.
12 Q. Any others that you can find?
13 A. I'm sure there are others. I would be very hard pressed to lay my
14 hands on them in the course of the time that is available to us.
15 Q. In view that there are approximately 30 or so entries or minutes,
16 if you will, of these various assemblies including the deputies' club.
17 The one that you referenced most recently, September 11th, 1991, and when
18 I say "most recently," I mean most recently in your testimony, that was
19 the meeting Dr. Stakic was elected vice-president?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Isn't it true that at that meeting the SDA party president, I
22 believe it's the late Muhamed Cehajic was also present, correct?
23 A. Yes. As I indicated, this was a public meeting. There were press
24 representatives present and representatives of other political parties,
25 including Mr. Cehajic and a representative of the social democratic party.
1 Q. In fact, Mr. Cehajic spoke at that September 11th, 1991 meeting
2 and congratulated the parties for their concept of unity and openness,
4 A. I think he congratulated the party and said he was impressed with
5 the degree of organisation. That's available on -- he also praised the
6 very well-chosen entertainment on page 00916400.
7 Q. 6400, can you point to me where Mr. Cehajic says that he is
8 impressed with the degree of organisation?
9 A. Well, let's look at his statement. Professor Muhamed Cehajic,
10 president of the municipal assembly also wished to speak. He noted with
11 pleasure the fine organisation of the assembly session and the very
12 well-chosen entertainment.
13 Q. Other than that sentence, is there anywhere else in any of the
14 documents that would support that Mr. Cehajic stated that he was
15 "impressed" with this fine organisation?
16 A. I submit to you that the statement here is a good -- I mean it
17 seems to be a good representation of his pleasure with the fine
19 Q. And you take that to mean when he says "fine organisation" that
20 he's impressed with their organisation. Correct?
21 A. He noted it with pleasure, yes.
22 Q. Let me ask you, sir, when you reviewed these documents on Tab 12,
23 did you note at which meetings Dr. Stakic was not present?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Can you tell from any of these exhibits on Tab 12 when Dr. Stakic
1 may have been present and when he was not present?
2 A. On most of them, one can make that determination. He was largely
3 not present at these meetings from what I can see in the notes prior to
4 late August of 1991.
5 Q. So when you say he was largely not present, is it fair to say that
6 in the majority of the meetings, that at least you've reviewed, these 30
7 or so, Dr. Stakic was not even present. Correct?
8 A. Until late August at which point his presence is apparent at most
10 Q. Late August of 1991?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. If we can direct your attention to the September 17th, 1991,
13 minutes of the SDS Prijedor municipal board meeting, that, sir, I believe
14 was approximately one week after the election of Dr. Stakic's as
15 vice-president, is it not?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And at that time, if you could give us an understanding, was there
18 tension and friction between the various multiethnic parties, meaning
19 between the SDA, the SDS, and the HDZ?
20 A. There was disagreement on fundamental issues between the
21 nationalist parties. And I don't know that I would want to characterise
22 that as friction or tension at that point. I probably am not able, on the
23 basis of what I see, to so characterise it. But there was difference on
24 fundamental issues that came to expression in the meetings of the
25 municipal assembly.
1 Q. Would it be fair to state that if we even reviewed the September
2 17th, 1991, SDS minutes the late Dr. Milan Kovacevic states that "the SDA
3 is, after all, a party partner of ours." Do you recall reading that
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. So would you think, sir, that there was no tension between the SDS
7 and the SDA at that time, given what the SDS membership was voicing at
8 their meetings?
9 A. Well, I would say that he -- this was the same time, within one
10 day, in which Dr. Stakic and Mr. Kovacevic led the walkout from the
11 meeting of the executive committee of the Prijedor municipality. So one
12 certainly would not say there was no disagreement at this time, and
13 furthermore, that walkout clearly heightened the tension among the
14 nationalist parties in September 1991.
15 Q. When in September 1991 did this walkout occur?
16 A. I would have to check, but either the 17th or 18th of September.
17 Q. And the reason for the walkout, sir, are you familiar with the
18 basis --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Ostojic, would you please make a pause.
20 A. Yes, they are referred to somewhat obliquely here, and more
21 expressly in the press coverage of the event. The SDS leadership accused
22 the SDA of failing to honour the inter-party agreement and to protest this
23 failure, walked out of the municipal session. We, I think, then see the
24 statement by Mr. Kovacevic and for that matter, Mr. Milan Pilipovic on
25 page 00916405, that it was the SDS's desire to keep dialogue going even
1 while they accused the SDA of having not honoured the inter-party
2 agreement. So their determination to remain in the assembly and at the
3 same time obstruct its work was consistent with their understanding of the
4 SDA's failure to honour the inter-party agreement.
5 MR. OSTOJIC:
6 Q. Did you, sir, at any time analyse whether or not. As you put it,
7 the SDS leadership's accusation that the SDA failed to honour the
8 intra-party agreement, did you ever determine if the SDS was correct in
9 making that allegation or incorrect?
10 A. On the basis of the -- examining the earlier decisions, I believe
11 that accusation was partly true and partly not true.
12 Q. Can you tell us which part was true and which was not true?
13 A. The part that was true was that the SDA had filled on, an
14 allegedly temporary basis, the position of the chief of the police station
15 in Prijedor with a man who won denunciation in fact by Mr. Kovacevic on
16 this very page. That interim appointment, however, was not yielded up to
17 the SDS, as the SDS believed it ought to have. And at the same time,
18 several of the appointments, or at least one of the appointments, to which
19 the SDS referred -- SDS leaders referred to at this time was agreed upon
20 by the party's prior leadership in January of 1991.
21 Q. Sir, you're familiar with the inter-party agreement, are you not?
22 A. As I indicated, yes.
23 Q. And also you set forth in your annex or addendum to your report,
24 you have a discussion on the inter-party agreement. Correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Inter-party agreement, sir, worked at both the republic level as
2 well as the municipal level. Correct?
3 A. Well, it didn't work at either level. It worked at, let us say,
4 the highest levels of government to divide the major governing portfolios.
5 But when it came to discussions about mid-level governing appointments,
6 appointments in educational institutions, various institutes, enterprises,
7 the terms of the inter-party agreement were sufficiently unclear and, in
8 many cases, subject to other considerations that the failure to fulfill
9 this agreement on the part of all nationalist parties was uniformly
10 difficult at these lower levels of government.
11 Q. Sir, can you point to any material that you have reviewed which
12 shows that the SDA complained that the SDS failed to fulfill this
13 agreement at any level?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Do you have that with you?
16 A. I believe there is reference -- I'm not going to be able to find
17 it in the next four hours, so...
18 Q. Then we'll move on.
19 A. But there were many, many such complaints at the republic level
20 and numerous complaints at the level of Prijedor municipality.
21 Q. Isn't it true, sir, that in the Prijedor municipality, the chief
22 complaint that commenced the exacerbation of tensions was the breach by
23 the SDA of the inter-party agreement by failing to give, as previously
24 agreed, the position of commander of police station in Prijedor to a
25 person of Serb ethnicity?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Who, can you tell us, in the municipality of Prijedor, of the top
3 functions, as you call them or offices, can you tell us how the
4 inter-party agreement worked? Who got which positions and start with the
6 A. You're going to test my memory sorely unless I can refer to the
7 report. The president of the Prijedor municipal assembly was designated
8 by the SDA, and that was Mr. Cehajic.
9 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, can I make an objection at this point.
10 Is an area which one is in the report, two is covered in the
11 examination-in-chief, and all the witness is now doing is simply
12 rehearsing for the third time in front of you the contents of a report of
13 which you're already aware. It is, in my respectful submission, wasting
14 time, and I would suggest that counsel be asked to move on and actually
15 simply cross-examine him on this rather simply asking him to repeat as I
16 say for the third time evidence that is already available to Your Honours.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sustained. And before coming to the break,
18 whenever, and it's true for both parties, until now I showed a lot of
19 patience. Whenever you want to make reference to former statements, and
20 you are aware that this issue was already addressed by the witness, please
21 be so kind and quote to the record the page you're referring to, and only
22 then it will be possible to identify, if you want to do so, discrepancies.
23 But I will not allow to repeat and repeat the same issues already
24 discussed in the past. Of course, as I said, it's for you, if you
25 regard -- if you believe that there are discrepancies, then you can come
1 back. But only by quoting the former statement in full.
2 Let's have a break now until 5.35.
3 --- Recess taken at 5.16 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 5.41 p.m.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Before we continue with the cross-examination,
6 is it correct that the 92 bis project is finalized and the OTP is prepared
7 to present the entire documents to the record?
8 MR. KOUMJIAN: For the record, the documents are before the
9 Prosecutor's table, and we are prepared to hand them over.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then it's -- there is a general possibility to
11 read these documents and then we have now the seven days's time limit.
12 This brings us to the 1st of May. The 1st of May, we will discuss and
13 take into account the objections by the Defence on this issue.
14 Before we ask Dr. Donia to come in, the Trial Chamber has decided
15 the following, taking into account the already formally stated limited
16 probative value of an expert witness when it's on the individual criminal
17 responsibility, taking into account that the Defence counsel has already
18 on several occasions been warned to concentrate on the major and important
19 issues, there is only time until 7.00 sharp for the finalisation of the
21 May the expert witness be brought in.
22 MR. OSTOJIC: May I proceed, Your Honour?
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes.
24 MR. OSTOJIC:
25 Q. Doctor, a couple questions to follow up on this issue of
1 disagreement between the SDA and the SDS, it involved, among others, as
2 you've stated, the appointment of commander of the police station in
3 Prijedor. Correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Who, ultimately, sir, can make such an appointment as the
6 appointment of commander of the police station in Prijedor?
7 A. I'm not certain who has that. The ultimate authority would have,
8 certainly in socialist times, lay with the Ministry of the Interior of
10 Q. In socialist times, the Minister of Interior? In 1991 or 1992,
11 you don't know which body. Correct?
12 A. It's not clear.
13 Q. If I may, just a couple more questions on the minutes that are
14 reflected in tab Number 12 of the volume before you. Generally speaking,
15 the minutes that you've reviewed were unsigned. Correct?
16 A. I think that some of them were signed.
17 Q. That's why I said generally speaking. Some were signed, some were
18 not. Correct?
19 A. Yes, as I recall.
20 Q. Are you familiar with, what in the United States of America
21 governing bodies rely on, as the Robert's rules of order. Are you
22 familiar with that?
23 A. I'm not familiar with that but have not mastered them.
24 Q. Are you familiar with conducting meetings that Robert's rules of
25 record requires that the next meeting, that the minutes of the prior
1 meeting be read and accepted?
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry, counsel.
3 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Do you really believe that the Robert's rules of
5 record are accepted in former Yugoslavia?
6 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm trying to make my point and I'll go further, I'm
7 trying to just show the lack of -- I don't want to give an argument on it.
8 If you want, I can move on.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please, move on.
10 MR. OSTOJIC:
11 Q. Sir, do you know if at any time the minutes of these meetings were
12 reviewed by any of the members who were participants in those meetings?
13 A. No, I don't.
14 Q. Can you tell us what the accuracy is of the secretary or the
15 individual who was keeping the minutes of those meetings were?
16 A. Well, I generally assess it as good but not precise. The minutes
17 are filled with incomplete sentences, summaries of statements, occasional
18 quotes, and then a general characterisation often of a presentation in one
19 or two sentences of a speech or presentation that may have lasted several
21 Q. And is it fair to say that some of the minutes that you reviewed
22 actually identify the time the meeting started and the time in which the
23 meeting ended? Correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And in some instances, those meetings that you've reviewed on Tab
1 12 lasted several hours?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And out of those several-hour discussions, if you will, at this
4 SDS meeting, the person who was recording them couldn't have possibly
5 recorded verbatim what each individual said. Isn't that fair to say?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Let me direct your attention to another topic, if you will,
8 although strictly confined to the Prijedor municipality, are you familiar,
9 sir, with what functions or posts were placed within Prijedor of four
10 different municipalities in the surrounding area of Prijedor?
11 A. I know that there were several, and one of them was, for example,
12 the medical services in the area. And there were a couple of others that
13 were there, and I can't recall exactly what they were.
14 Q. This director of medical services, who appointed that individual?
15 A. I don't know.
16 Q. Who had the authority to appoint that individual, do you know?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Do you know when that individual was appointed?
19 A. Well, there was an incumbent at the time of the elections, and I
20 don't know at what point that incumbent was replaced, if at all, during
21 this period.
22 Q. If I mention some other posts or functions that were placed in
23 Prijedor by these four municipalities, and you would be kind enough just
24 to tell me if you believe they were included in this or not: Commander of
25 the traffic police, or police of traffic?
1 A. I don't know.
2 Q. The director of public health?
3 A. I think we're speaking of the same position of the director of
4 medical services.
5 Q. So is it, sir, your understanding the director of medical services
6 and director of public health is one and the same position?
7 A. I'm not positive. No, I'm not sure that's the case.
8 Q. How about the director of the public accounting services? Is that
9 one of the posts that were filled in Prijedor by these four municipalities
10 immediately after the election?
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. How about the director of elektroprenos?
13 A. I don't know.
14 Q. Do you know if the position of the director of the PTT, which is
15 the post, telegram, and telephone, I believe, whether that position falls
16 within the area of Prijedor which was governed by four different
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So for the director of medical services and the director of the
20 PTT, you're sure of those two. Correct?
21 A. I'm confident that those were positions based in Prijedor that
22 were -- that operated by agreement among these -- the Prijedor and
23 neighbouring municipalities.
24 Q. What were those neighbouring municipalities?
25 A. Again, I think I'd have to refer to my report.
1 Q. If I may, maybe if I give you the name, you can disagree or agree
2 with it. How about Bosanka Dubica?
3 A. Dubica, yes.
4 Q. How about Bosanski Novi?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. How about Sanski Most?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And obviously the municipality of Prijedor. Correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So the Prijedor municipality at that time was divided and its
11 president was a member of the SDA. Correct?
12 A. What time?
13 Q. At the time when these posts were being filled after the election
14 in 1991.
15 A. I can't agree with your characterisation that the Prijedor
16 municipality at that time was divided.
17 Q. Was the Prijedor municipality at that time which consisted of the
18 majority of three multi-ethnic parties, were they unified?
19 A. In some matters, they were.
20 Q. And in others, they were not?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Were they unified, sir, in agreeing between the other three
23 municipalities that we've listed, Bosanska Dubica, Bosanski Novi and
24 Sanski Most to have the seat of the posts that I have read, although
25 admittedly two of which you're confident, that they have agreed with these
1 other municipalities? Is that true?
2 A. No, I don't believe that's true.
3 Q. So the Prijedor municipality objected to these posts being in
5 A. No.
6 Q. Who disagreed, then? The other municipalities?
7 A. As I understand it, from the evidence I've looked at, there was
8 disagreement among the municipalities and among the parties in the various
9 municipalities. So, this subject of filling these posts was a topic of
10 complex negotiations.
11 Q. Isn't it true, it was ultimately resolved?
12 A. I don't think it was resolved until June of 1992 when the SDS took
13 all the positions.
14 Q. We discussed September 1991. We examined some minutes, and we
15 discussed other items, the inter-party agreement as it related to various
16 positions in that time period. In 1991, September, was it also a period
17 where the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina ordered the mobilisation of its
19 A. Of its what?
20 Q. Men.
21 A. No, I don't believe so.
22 Q. Was there a mobilisation in September of 1991?
23 A. Yes, there was.
24 Q. Who ordered it?
25 A. The Territorial Defence force in Prijedor ordered a mobilisation.
1 Q. And who was on this Territorial Defence force in Prijedor who
2 ordered this mobilisation?
3 A. Well, the commander was named Javoric and was essentially the
4 person in charge of that mobilisation.
5 Q. And did the men respond to that mobilisation?
6 A. There was a substantial response, yes.
7 Q. In fact, wasn't this mobilisation a deployment to western
9 A. Preparation for a deployment to western Slavonia, yes.
10 Q. In fact, when you say that there was substantial response, there
11 was substantial response from all three multi-ethnic entities. Correct?
12 A. There was the greatest response came from those of Serbian
13 nationality, but there was substantial response from all three groups.
14 Q. As a per cent of a whole, did you ever quantify what percentage
15 was Serbian, Muslim, or Croatian?
16 A. There are a number of references to those divisions, and I'm not
17 too sure that either one of them or any of them are quite the mobilisation
18 unit concerned. It also was the case that the person who subsequently
19 reported the casualties from this mobilisation showed that there was a --
20 there were members of the three ethnicities who perished in that battle or
21 on that battle front.
22 Q. Did the Prijedor municipal assembly which had as its president
23 Muhamed Cehajic, did they address this mobilisation issue at any of its
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Did they merely have discussions regarding this mobilisation, or
2 did it have to be authorised and voted upon?
3 A. Well this, what I've called the first mobilisation, was in fact
4 kicked over to the National Defence Council of the municipality. And a
5 meeting was held of the National Defence Council. And at that meeting,
6 the SDA representatives indicated that the mobilisation was authorised by
7 the republic.
8 Q. Did they, sir, or did they not at the Prijedor municipal assembly
9 in September of 1991 unanimously vote in agreement in an approval of the
10 mobilisation call?
11 A. I don't recall that they did, no.
12 Q. Now, you mentioned this was the first mobilisation, and obviously
13 there was another one in November of 1991. Correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The second mobilisation, if you will, was it also a request for
16 all multi-ethnic parties to join for this mobilisation and deployment?
17 A. As I indicated in the paper, it was a compromise resolution that
18 passed unanimously in the municipal assembly on the 7th of November. That
19 resolution, which was subsequently echoed in the mobilisation call,
20 required that all persons subject to mobilisation report to the local
21 base, that those who wished to deploy back to Croatia could do so, and
22 that those who did not wish to deploy were required to turn in their
23 weapons and allowed to return to their homes.
24 Q. And isn't it true as a result of this compromise resolution that
25 was passed unanimously in the Prijedor municipal assembly that, in fact,
1 the majority of Muslim and Croats did not become mobilised and did not
2 join forces with the Serbs?
3 A. This statement of fact is true, I agree. It was a result of this
4 resolution and other factors that had in the meantime alienated the vast
5 majority of Muslims and Croats from the idea of fighting with the JNA in
7 Q. You mentioned briefly who appointed the chief of the police
8 station in Prijedor. Do you know, sir, who appointed or appoints the
9 deputy of the chief of police -- of police station in Prijedor?
10 A. I'm not clear what that position is. The idea is that the chief
11 of police was an appointment that would be nominated by the leading party.
12 The chief of the police station, which was sometimes also referred to as
13 the "deputy" was appointed by the second ranking nationalist party. Does
14 that answer your question?
15 Q. It doesn't, but that's fine. If I may proceed. Is there a
16 subordinate to the chief of the police station that has a function?
17 A. I'm not sure what you mean by that.
18 Q. The fact this inter-party agreement, the parties had agreed prior
19 to the election that the party who wins, has the majority, will select or
20 nominate chief of police, and the second-place party will be given the
21 position of the chief of the police station. Correct? Among others, of
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Focussing just on those two, and if we can just focus on that, did
25 the SDA object to the nominee that the SDS had for chief of the police
1 station following the elections and having the understanding of the
2 inter-party agreements?
3 A. No.
4 Q. The SDA did not object to the SDS's nominee for that position?
5 A. The objection came from the Ministry of the Interior of
7 Q. And who was the Minister of Interior of Bosnia-Herzegovina at that
8 time? Was he a member of the SDS party?
9 A. I don't recall just offhand who was -- I do recall that two
10 representatives of the Ministry of the Interior came up to Prijedor at
11 that time. One was, I believe, Montila Mandic [phoen], and the other I
12 can't recall without referring to the report.
13 Q. Do you think, sir, that the party of the SDA held the position of
14 Minister of the Interior at that time?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So we know clearly that it wasn't the SDS representative at that
17 post of Minister of Interior; it was an SDA representative from the
18 Minister of Interior who objected to the nominee by the SDS for that
19 position, chief of police station?
20 A. That is not clear from the record that I examined.
21 Q. Who was Alija Delimustafic?
22 A. He was a leader of the SDA party.
23 Q. Do you know, as a leader of the SDA party, what position or post
24 he held at the time we're discussing?
25 A. I'm not certain, no.
1 Q. Would you -- strike that. Do you know that, in fact, Mr.
2 Delimustafic was the Minister of Interior during this time?
3 A. I just don't recall specifically, but I would accept your
4 representation if that's what you're representing.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 Moving to another issue, if you can please have Exhibit Number
7 SK46A in front of you. I have just a couple questions on this. And if I
8 can just, for the record, state that it has a date stamp number 01107302.
9 A. You said 46A? Am I correct?
10 Q. That's what I have, yes. You have that?
11 A. I have that document, yes.
12 MR. OSTOJIC: May I proceed, Your Honour?
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: Just to clear so -- so we're clear we're talking of
15 the same document, does it not have next to the word "translation" the
16 date stamp 01107302?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can you tell us what this document is?
19 A. This is a precis or summary of minutes of the SDS municipal board
20 meeting of 9 May, 1992.
21 Q. And I believe you briefly mentioned in your direct that Dr. Stakic
22 was present at that meeting. Correct? If I can direct your attention to
23 speed it up, second page, halfway down. See his name mentioned there?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. In fact, sir, the person who took these minutes and writes under
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Dr. Stakic's name that "as of May 9th, 1992, Dr. Stakic advocated peace
2 instead of war for the region," and he states that "peace must be
3 maintained at all costs." Do you see that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You relied on this document as well, did you not, sir, in
6 formulating your report that we previously marked as SK43?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Is there any reason, sir, that we should doubt the veracity of the
9 person recording these notes as they being attributed to Dr. Stakic?
10 A. No.
11 Q. We accept them as being true -- strike that. Do you accept them
12 as being true, sir?
13 A. Within the confines of the general reservations I expressed
14 earlier about the character of these documents.
15 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may just have a moment, Your Honour, to
17 [Defence counsel confer]
18 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Dr. Donia. Your Honour, we have no
19 further questions.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. May we now come to the
21 re-examination first.
22 Re-examined by Mr. Cayley:
23 Q. Dr. Donia, during your cross-examination you were asked during a
24 considerable period about the completeness of your report and your
25 evidence to this Trial Chamber. Do you recall that cross-examination?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. Did you know that the Office of the Prosecutor does not have any
3 minutes from the reformist party? Did you know that, the reformist party
4 in Prijedor?
5 MR. OSTOJIC: I object, Your Honour, because the question assumes
6 facts not in evidence. If my learned friend is going to testify, that's
7 fine. It's just inappropriate to ask that question.
8 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, if I may --
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please, reformulate your question.
10 MR. CAYLEY:
11 Q. Are you aware, Dr. Donia, as to whether or not the Office of the
12 Prosecutor has the reform party minutes in its possession?
13 A. I am not aware, no.
14 Q. Have you ever seen the reform party minutes from the Prijedor
16 A. No.
17 Q. Are you aware whether or not the Office of the Prosecutor has
18 within its possession the SDS -- the SDA minutes from the municipality of
20 A. No, I'm not.
21 Q. Have they ever been offered to you?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Are you aware as to whether or not the Office of the Prosecutor
24 has within its possession the HDZ minutes, the HDZ party minutes, from the
25 Prijedor municipality?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Now, again, speaking of the completeness of your report, have you
3 ever put together a report where you have had at your disposal every
4 single piece of material that could be possibly relevant to that
5 particular report that you're putting together? Any piece of work you've
6 ever done?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Can you cite to any example of any piece of historical work that
9 you know of, by any historian where that historian has had at his disposal
10 every piece of material that could be relevant to the piece of work that
11 he is writing?
12 A. No, I can't.
13 Q. It's a reality, isn't it, Dr. Donia, that in historical research,
14 not every piece of material that could be relevant to that report is
15 available to the person putting that report together, isn't it? It's a
16 fact of life.
17 A. That's always true.
18 Q. And bearing in mind in the report, what you've just said, the
19 report that you produced in respect to the municipality of Prijedor,
20 bearing in mind it is always true that you never have all of the material
21 that you would want at your disposal, do you still maintain that your
22 report that you produced is an accurate opinion on the material that you
23 had available to you at the time?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Dr. Donia, you were asked a number of questions about the
1 Patriotic League and the Green Berets. What was the military force of the
2 Bosnian Serbs in Bosnia? What was that called?
3 MR. OSTOJIC: I object, Your Honour. I don't have a time frame,
4 so I'm not sure what time frame possibly this witness could answer since
5 he didn't give us a time frame.
6 MR. CAYLEY: In --
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please repeat, taking into account this
9 MR. CAYLEY:
10 Q. In May of 1992, what was the military force of the Bosnian Serbs?
11 A. On May 12th, 1992, the military force of the Bosnian Serbs became
12 the Bosnian Serb army.
13 Q. From what military units was the VRS composed?
14 A. It was made up of units of the Yugoslav national army, the JNA,
15 that were in Bosnia at that time. And that included its vast majority of
16 its personnel and the vast majority of its weaponry.
17 Q. And if you were to make a basic qualitative judgment of the JNA,
18 as opposed to the Green Berets and the Patriotic League, who was the most
19 powerful military force in Bosnia in May of 1992?
20 MR. OSTOJIC: I object to the form of the question, Your Honour,
21 on two bases. As I mentioned form also, it's not set forth. Is it a new
22 opinion, I'm asking counsel, we'd like to know the basis of it is. And
23 again, I would ask with the prior question that there's no time frame put
24 on this. Two questions prior, my learned friend did put May of 1992,
25 although he was discussing purportedly my cross-examination questions
1 dealing with the Bosnian Muslim Green Berets and the Patriotic League,
2 which were clearly defined in each of my questions as 1991. But I
3 certainly on these three bases would object.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Dismissed.
5 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Q. If we could go back to the question that I asked you, could you
7 please make a basic qualitative judgment of who was the most powerful
8 military force when comparing the VRS and the Green Berets and Patriotic
9 League in May of 1992?
10 A. By far the most powerful military force in Bosnia in May 1992 was
11 the JNA, which then on 12 May transformed itself into the Bosnian Serb
12 army. This was particularly true of the relative weight of weaponry.
13 Q. I'm going to read very briefly from a section of your original
14 report, Prosecutor's Exhibit 43. And I don't wish you to refer to it so
15 we can move through this quickly, but it is on page 56 of your original
16 report in the Brdjanin/Talic case. And it is a part of the report that is
17 referring to the role of the JNA. And I will read the final paragraph on
18 page 56: "In the transfer of armed forces into nationalist hands, the
19 decisive role was played by the JNA. In summer 1991, the JNA distributed
20 weapons, mostly small arms and mobile weapons, to TO units in
21 Serb-majority municipalities and to local committees of the SDS."
22 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm sorry, Your Honour. My learned friend could
23 just direct me to the page number again. I had trouble following it,
25 MR. CAYLEY: Page 56, at the bottom of the page.
1 MR. OSTOJIC: Starts with ARK assembly accorded itself the right?
2 MR. CAYLEY: Prosecutor's Exhibit 43.
3 MR. OSTOJIC: That's what I'm looking at.
4 MR. CAYLEY: If we can deal with this -- do you want me to give
5 you the page? If you could give counsel the page.
6 MR. OSTOJIC: I have Prosecutor's Exhibit SK 43, Your Honour. I'm
7 looking at it here.
8 MR. CAYLEY: This is the report from Brdjanin/Talic, not the
9 Prijedor report.
10 MR. OSTOJIC: I have SK 43. I have page 56, Your Honour, the
11 amended Prijedor report was much thinner. So it's just not on my page. I
12 don't know if it is on the --
13 MR. CAYLEY: I'll give you my copy, and you can read it.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: Again, my problem with, that Your Honour, is I'm not
15 sure if the Court has the report, and why don't we have it if I'm looking
16 at page 56 and that's the report that's the exhibit --
17 MR. CAYLEY: Could you hand to me the report, and I'll find it for
19 MR. OSTOJIC: Here's page 56.
20 MR. CAYLEY: The summaries my learned friend has is a version that
21 has been paginated differently. In his version, it's on page 59.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I thank both parties for their cooperation.
23 MR. CAYLEY: I apologise for that. I don't know how that
24 happened. But we will find out. I don't know how you have a version that
25 has been paginated differently from this version.
1 Q. Anyway, if I could ask you the question, Dr. Donia: Is it right
2 that the JNA played a decisive role in the transfer of armed forces in
3 nationalist hands?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did the JNA distribute arms for Muslims and Croats in Bosnia in
7 A. No.
8 Q. Is it your view that the formation of the Green Berets and the
9 Patriotic League was a response to the distribution of arms by the JNA, to
10 the Serb population?
11 A. In part, yes.
12 Q. Now, in your cross-examination, you referred to the minutes of the
13 17th of September of 1991 as an example of where voting took place. Do
14 you recall that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Could you look very briefly at those minutes again.
17 MR. CAYLEY: And this, Your Honours, is on page 00916407.
18 A. Yes, I have that.
19 Q. And it is the section which you quoted in response to the question
20 where Slavko Safic is stating with regard to the functioning of the
21 assembly, two distinctive options have been brought up.
22 Can you explain to the Judges the two options that were brought
23 up, the significant of those options, and explain why the second was, in
24 fact, adopted, in your opinion?
25 A. This debate within the SDS about whether to participate in the
1 legislative bodies at the Republican level and the municipal level was an
2 ongoing discussion. And in this case, the party in Prijedor is following
3 the lead of the SDS organisation in Bosnia-Herzegovina more generally to
4 continue to participate even with occasional walkouts and to, thereby,
5 have a -- let's say both an ear and a voice in those representative
6 bodies. But essentially to obstruct where possible their decision-making
7 capability. My view of this decision at this time, goes along with the
8 walkout of the executive committee on approximately the same day and the
9 determination to become much more critical, confrontational, with the SDA
10 regarding the inter-party agreement. So from this point on, the
11 participation of the SDS in the assembly sessions became much more
12 contingent, less designed to produce a fruitful outcome of the ongoing
14 Q. The word "obstruct" is recorded in the minutes, is it not?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Would it be correct to characterise this as essentially the SDS
17 stating "We'll appear to participate, but in reality, we want our way and
18 our arguments, and we'll obstruct where necessary" would that be a
19 characterisation you would agree with it?
20 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, I object to this mischaracterisation.
21 My learned friend is taking a simple statement and completely distorting
22 it. And if we just look several paragraphs down when M. Kovacevic speaks,
23 there's a different view. So I'm not sure why, with respect to the
24 Court's prior comments on time -- I didn't discuss this issue, he has
25 given it in cross, he has discussed it ad nauseum. I believe that they
1 are trying to make it greater than it is. We'll discuss that at a later
2 time. But I don't think there's a need for this questioning on this and
3 this distortion, based upon what one individual said purportedly, written
4 by another party.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think your contribution is only fair, and
6 please proceed. I don't think it's really relevant.
7 MR. CAYLEY: You don't wish me to ask any more questions on this,
8 Mr. President?
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Not on this special question, as you put it on
10 the record.
11 MR. CAYLEY:
12 Q. Dr. Donia, based on what Mr. Safic here states, do you believe
13 that the SDS had a genuine desire to cooperate on a bona fides basis in
14 the work of the municipal assembly?
15 MR. OSTOJIC: Same objection, Your Honour.
16 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, if I may, my learned friend has gone
17 through these minutes and asked a number of questions in similar fashion,
18 and now all I'm asking from the witness, since this is a matter that my
19 learned friend actually raised with the witness himself, whether or not
20 this particular statement by this individual represents a genuine desire
21 on behalf of the SDS to cooperate in the municipal assembly. It's a
22 reasonable question, I believe.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Indeed, I agree with your view.
24 A. My feeling is it did not represent at this point a genuine desire
25 to cooperate. And that's not simply the vote and statement taken here
1 regarding obstruction, but also the press release that was issued on the
2 18th, which is discussed in these minutes. And the concurrent -- roughly
3 concurrent -- walkout from the executive committee and these events are
4 all discussed in the minutes of this meeting and, in the context at
5 looking at all of them, I think becomes clear that this was not a genuine
6 desire to continue the process of seeking a cooperative solution to the
7 issues facing the assembly.
8 MR. CAYLEY:
9 Q. Dr. Donia, you were asked a number of questions at the
10 commencement of your cross-examination about the cases that you've
11 testified in before the Tribunal. You stated that you testified in a case
12 where the accused was a Bosnian Croat; you stated that you testified in a
13 case where the accused was a Bosnian Serb. You also stated that you had
14 not testified in any case where there was a Bosnian Muslim accused. If
15 you were requested to give evidence in such a case, in a case with a
16 Bosnian Muslim accused, would you consider giving expert evidence in that
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Towards the end of your testimony, you were asked about your
20 opinion on the accuracy of these minutes. Were you able to corroborate
21 the accuracy of these minutes from your knowledge of events in
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina and Krajina generally during the period of these
24 A. Yes. I think that's the best method to validate any given source,
25 is to do so in light of information that occurs in other sources,
1 reflecting the same events or dealing with the same time. And that is, I
2 think, the basis on which I assessed these minutes and the various press
3 reports and other documents pertaining to events that are discussed in the
5 Q. And on that basis, on your knowledge of events within Prijedor,
6 within the Krajina, within Bosnia-Herzegovina, during the period of these
7 minutes, how accurate would you say these minutes are as to how they
8 reflect contemporary events at the time?
9 A. I think they are generally accurate. Obviously not as complete as
10 one would like to have them, such as might be derived from a transcript.
11 But their general references or the references to events here are in many,
12 many cases reflected in other documents referring to the same events. So
13 I would view this as -- these minutes as accurate to a reasonably high
14 level of ability to verify them.
15 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I've finished my re-examination. Thank
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. There are some additional questions.
18 In order that it is not regarded as unfair from the side of the Defence, I
19 want to come back explicitly at 16.53.36. There was still one question
20 open. I asked you, Dr. Donia, to come back to this question after the
21 break. And there was a question from the Defence: "Is there any concrete
22 evidence, sir, that the SDS party formed an entity such as the Bosnian
23 Muslim Green Berets, a paramilitary unit, in the Prijedor municipality?"
24 Did you take the opportunity of the break to come back to this?
25 THE WITNESS: I'm afraid I did not have the documents to make
1 reference to. I am simply not able to give you what I'm looking for in a
2 brief period of time. I would, I guess -- let me not say any more than
3 that. I think the declarations that I'm looking for, I can't put my hands
4 on in a very -- in a very brief period of time.
5 But I would, perhaps, clarify that if the question goes to the
6 formation of a paramilitary organisation on the level of
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina, I don't believe that such a decision was undertaken by
8 the SDS at any time up until May 12th, 1992. But there were numerous
9 decisions to mobilise local units, gather volunteers, and recruit
10 volunteers or reservists for police units which functioned in a capacity
11 that I would say is very parallel to the operation of the two units of
12 the -- organised by the SDA.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
14 Questioned by the Court:
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Another question. The basis for this question
16 is first of all to avoid the admission of unnecessary additional evidence
17 from your former statements. The question was raised whether or not you
18 had enough time for the preparation of your separate opinion on the
19 situation in Prijedor. Did you, in the preparation of former statements,
20 especially in the case of OTP versus Brdjanin/Talic, touch upon the
21 municipality of Prijedor?
22 A. Yes, I did.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you take this into account when preparing
24 the part we have before us?
25 A. Yes, I did.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: When were you asked to prepare your
2 representation for Brdjanin/Talic?
3 A. Sometime in the fall of last year, 2001.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: One other question: When have you been the last
5 time in former Yugoslavia?
6 A. February of this year.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: When have you been the last time in Prijedor?
8 A. February of this year.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you have access to documents there?
10 A. I did not seek access and did not have any, no.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Not in the past, not before?
12 A. No.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Try to get access to archives, be it in
14 Prijedor, or be it in Banja Luka?
15 A. I've never worked in any of the regional archives of
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and so I have not sought documents nor been given them
17 in the regional archive in Banja Luka, nor any of the smaller towns.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Thank you for this assistance.
19 JUDGE FASSI FIHRI: [Interpretation] Would you please be a little
20 more explicit, elaborate, on the association that you created, this
21 foundation, yes.
22 A. Yes.
23 JUDGE FASSI FIHRI: [Interpretation] What is its purpose?
24 A. The foundation was established for the purpose of using the
25 limited charitable donations of myself and my family to support
1 educational and development activities in the former Yugoslavia, or
2 relating to the former Yugoslavia, principally Bosnia. Since these
3 donations all must go through another charitable organisation, there's a
4 very limited ability to do projects. The vast majority of the funds have
5 gone to the University of Michigan, which has an ongoing series of
6 projects relating to the former Yugoslavia; the St. Lawrence University,
7 which has a solidarity project, devoted to the supporting publication of
8 scholarly works and support for young professionals in Bosnia; and a group
9 called the Business Development Initiative, which organised a programme to
10 bring young business professors from Banja Luka, Mostar, and Sarajevo, to
11 a programme of entrepreneurship in Silicon Valley.
12 JUDGE FASSI FIHRI: [Interpretation] So it's by pure chance that
13 you choose that particular name for your foundation?
14 A. Well, at the time I liked the pun on the name of the
15 municipality. I've since grown to like it less. But yes, it was a whim
16 to choose that name.
17 JUDGE FASSI FIHRI: [Interpretation] Because apparently, the name
18 means "religious donation" or "foundation"?
19 A. The term means "support for a religious or educational
20 institution" of some Islamic nature, yes.
21 JUDGE FASSI FIHRI: [Interpretation] Precisely. Thank you very
23 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Dr. Donia, as a historian, a scholar, can you
24 clarify whether Muslim population in Bosnia-Herzegovina is ethnic or
25 religious group?
1 A. It is a ethnonational community, nationality. And by that I mean
2 an ethnic group. It is distinguished -- let me pause and ask if you have
3 further questions.
4 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: In this regard, what are the native or mother
5 languages of the Muslim and Serbs living in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
6 A. There has historically been no real distinction among the
7 languages. However, in the last, let's say, 15 years, there has been
8 attempt by intellectual elites to define these languages as increasingly
9 separate, Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian.
10 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Do you speak those languages?
11 A. Yes.
12 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: And what is Bosnian language for "country"?
13 A. "Zemlja".
14 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: And Serbian?
15 A. I guess "Zemlja".
16 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Not "Krajina"?
17 A. "Krajina" means "border land" or "boundary area".
18 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Thank you. I have no further questions.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And probably my last question is the following:
20 Do you actually exercise any other profession?
21 A. No.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: To be quite clear, because we had these
23 questions but without a very precise solution, until when -- or better,
24 since when would you say do you exercise the profession as historian
1 A. Since September of 1998, I have not been actively committed to
2 working for Merrill Lynch, actively engaged in day-to-day work for Merrill
3 Lynch since then. And that would be the time I would say I have been
4 fully engaged as an historian.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Before that, more or less, as on a good
6 background, of course, as a hobby historian?
7 A. Well, I, I think, had a brief but good career until 1981. And
8 when I joined Merrill Lynch, I devoted less and less time to either
9 following literature and certainly to writing. It's true that
10 publications of mine continued to come out for another six years. And in
11 1993, I was able to take enough time away from work to begin writing
12 historical work again. But really, not time to do extensive research. So
13 really, only since September of 1998 have I been working full time as a
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for that.
16 Could we, then, please try to proceed on the first documents we
17 have only available in B/C/S in order to demonstrate or to give the OTP a
18 chance to demonstrate whether or not it's really necessary to tender this
20 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, as I indicated to you, I believe that
21 all of the newspaper articles which Dr. Donia has marked are relevant in
22 terms of a record of the evidence in this case, because he relies upon
23 them in his report. He has identified in each of those newspaper articles
24 the portion relevant for translation. So where you have a newspaper
25 article with five or six articles in it, he has basically highlighted
1 with a yellow highlighter, the particular section. In a sense, because I
2 can't read the language, it's probably better if you actually ask him why
3 the particular document is relevant. And equally, as I know you made the
4 point in terms of public money last time and the time it takes to
5 translate this, I think we have abbreviated the translation process by
6 going through all of the documents and marking the yellow part.
7 The only thing we haven't got is the agreement from the Defence to
8 whether or not they wish to have additional parts translated, because they
9 were unable to meet with us on Tuesday. So I don't know if you would wish
10 to hear representations from them on that issue, as to whether they want
11 additional parts translated.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let's just have one example: SK1, if the usher
13 could please put this on the ELMO. SK1.
14 Would you please, so that we have an idea, read out the portions
15 you marked in yellow.
16 A. Yes, Mr. President. This, if I may just identify it, is an
17 article reporting on a speech by a member of the Partisan Veterans'
18 Association recalling in his version the events of 1941. And I guess I'll
19 have to -- this is an exercise in micro-history as well by virtue of the
20 size of this document.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's a document from 6 September, 1991. Right?
22 A. Yes.
23 [Interpretation] "The anniversary of the Karan battalion
24 celebrated with a magnificent gathering of people attended by several
25 thousand citizens of Prijedor, Bosanska Dubica, and Bosanski Novi
1 municipalities on Sunday celebrating the 90th anniversary of the
2 establishment of the Karan battalion. 'We must never forget', continued
3 Baskut, 'that in the Karan battalion as well as in other places, in the
4 first days of insurgency, together with Serbs, numerous sons of the
5 Muslims, Croat, and Jewish people fought back to back, and these fighters
6 of the national liberation struggle were joined by Muslims in ever-greater
7 numbers.' 'We must also not forget,' Baskut emphasised, 'that the
8 fighters of the NOB, the national liberation struggle, had to fight
9 beginning with 1942 the Chetniks of Draza Mihajlovic as well because of
10 their collaboration with the occupator and the Ustashas.'"
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for providing us with this example.
12 And I think it's now for the next hearing that we go on discussing page by
13 page whether this excerpt from a newspaper as such is really relevant and
14 whether it's really necessary to have the document as such, and not only
15 the report, including this material. But I really believe it would not be
16 possible to do this today, and therefore I would say we should proceed
17 tomorrow. But I don't regard it as necessary to have the assistance of
18 the Dr. Donia on all the documents. Do the parties agree?
19 MR. CAYLEY: The problem is, Your Honour, is in actually
20 justifying the relevance of the particular article. The reason that these
21 are offered in evidence is because they are the newspaper reports referred
22 to in the foot notes. So for example, this one that he has just read out,
23 it is a newspaper report that is cited to in his report and supports an
24 assertion that he is making. I think we do need him here, particularly if
25 you are asking questions about whether or not it's relevant. Because I
1 cannot read the language. I can read it a little bit in Latin script, but
2 certainly not in Cyrillic script, so I think the quickest way to do this
3 is to have Dr. Donia here, with respect, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I have the view of the Defence on this,
6 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, briefly looking through these documents,
7 I saw that the Defence would mark completely different parts of the
8 document. And I can read it to you loudly. So I don't think that we need
9 Dr. Donia. I don't think that he should bother with us if we want to
10 translate something or not. Maybe we should work it together with the
11 Bench or the Prosecutor.
12 So I think that marked portions of this text do not depict the
13 real message from the speech of this speaker. If you want, I can read the
14 other portions which will depict the real message.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let's revisit this issue tomorrow. And if the
16 parties so agree -- please.
17 MR. CAYLEY: Well, Mr. President, this was the whole purpose of
18 the meeting yesterday, was to achieve exactly what Mr. Lukic is saying,
19 that we would have sat down together. We mark the portions that we wanted
20 translated. He could mark the portions that he wanted translated, and
21 then we wouldn't now be in the position of having to do it in the
22 courtroom. But that meeting, for whatever reason, I don't know why, was
23 not possible. And it's my view that the quickest way to do this is in
24 essence for Your Honours to admit all of these documents and for the
25 relevant portions marked by Dr. Donia and the relevant portions marked by
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Mr. Lukic and Mr. Ostojic as being required to be translated into English
2 and French, for Your Honours to review. Otherwise, I think we are going
3 to be here literally for hours and hours and hours going through these
4 documents with Dr. Donia present. I mean, I think it's going to take the
5 best part of a session to go through it. And Mr. Koumjian is whispering
6 in my ear that there are two witnesses that are waiting that he doesn't
7 want to send back to Bosnia. I mean, I could -- sorry, if I might just
8 finish. I could get together with Mr. Lukic, with the copy that Dr. Donia
9 has which he's marked, and Mr. Lukic can mark up that copy, the parts that
10 he wants to be translated into English and French, and then we can simply
11 offer the documents to the Court and have them admitted.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would it be possible for the parties to meet
13 tomorrow in the morning, that we can decide on this in the afternoon?
14 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, Your Honour. I'm available.
15 MR. LUKIC: I'm available as well. But as you know, Your Honour,
16 I have to mention that we were sitting in the trial yesterday, so that's
17 why I couldn't show up in that meeting.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. I think here it's not necessary to
19 apologise for this. I really appreciate your spirit of cooperation. And
20 I expect that we hear the results of your meeting tomorrow very brief in
21 the beginning in order to continue with the next witness.
22 MR. CAYLEY: I think it would be wise if Dr. Donia was present at
23 that meeting with the parties. Then, he can confirm the parts that he
24 wants translated, and I think hopefully we'll be able to return to you
25 tomorrow, Your Honours, with agreed documents that I will apply for
1 admission into evidence and hopefully we will deal with any potential
2 objections they may have over any documents. We can also deal with that
3 at the meeting and come to some kind of agreement
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Is this agreed in order not to have a contract,
5 yes, against you? You're also prepared to participate in this meeting?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then let's proceed this way, and it shouldn't
8 take more than 20, maximum 30 minutes to continue this discussion, and
9 then we can proceed with our witness. The trial stays adjourned. We
10 resume tomorrow afternoon.
11 [The witness withdrew]
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
13 7.05 p.m., to be reconvened on
14 Thursday, the 25th day of April, 2002,
15 at 2.15 p.m.