1 Thursday, 26 August 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.30 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone after a long recess
6 period. Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTER: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
8 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-03-69-T.
9 The Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Before we continue to hear the evidence, I'd like to raise a few
12 matters, procedural matters, which came up, most of them recently. First
13 of all, the Chamber has received the last medical report about
14 Mr. Stanisic which was taken the 24th of August, just to put that on the
16 The second very practical issue is the following: Usually we are
17 not sitting during one week in autumn, just as we would not sit one week
18 in spring, the Chamber is at this moment exploring the possibility not to
19 sit in the week starting the 18th of August, that would be the week of
20 the 18th until the 22nd of August -- of October. I am, sorry, I'm living
21 in the past more or less. 18 to the 22nd of October. If this would meet
22 any major concerns with the parties, the Chamber would like to know, and
23 otherwise the Chamber invites the parties already to keep this in the
24 back of their minds in scheduling their work in this autumn.
25 Yesterday, the 25th of August, 2010, a motion was filed by the
1 Republic of Serbia
2 motion, it would be about testimony to be heard anywhere beginning 6th of
3 September, the Chamber wonders whether the parties would be in a position
4 to respond if they wish to do so on very short notice.
5 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, perhaps I should indicate at this
6 stage that I was -- I -- we intended to approach the Prosecution to ask
7 them to delay those witnesses in any event, and if the Prosecution are
8 not minded to do so, we were going to seek relief.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. That would at least remove the
10 urgency of the matter. Mr. Groome, wouldn't it be wise for us to wait
11 and see what the result of the first communication is, and that if you
12 would change your programme, and I must admit that I haven't learned by
13 heart the latest submission on the scheduling of witness, so I don't know
14 to what extent the possibility of the 6th is still there, but if you
15 would perhaps hear from you and Mr. Jordash and Mr. Bakrac as soon as
16 there has been some communication, by let's say either today or tomorrow.
17 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. I will discuss with my colleagues
18 their request over the first break. And I can say for the Court that we
19 could have our response or our position before the Chamber on rather
20 short notice.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And if finally you cannot agree on
22 postponement, then I would at least invite the Defence teams also to
23 consider a response on very short -- on a very short term. We will then
24 hear from you later today.
25 Then the next matter is that we may be a bit in trouble with the
1 witness scheduled for tomorrow. Mr. Groome, the OTP has asked for some
2 Court time to make proposals on how to minimise the loss of court time in
3 the future. I don't know whether that directly relates to tomorrow or?
4 MR. GROOME: It does not directly relate to tomorrow,
5 Your Honour. I was going to ask if I could make those proposals
6 tomorrow. I've been focusing on my preparation for Mr. Donia. I would
7 say, Your Honour, that the Prosecution, when it had concluded the portion
8 of the witness's testimony, we had asked to be able to question -- put
9 additional questions to the witness on direct. I've informed my
10 colleagues and now I inform the Chamber that after considering that and
11 after studying the transcript the Prosecution will not be asking any
12 additional questions of the witness and we can proceed directly to
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we are talking about today's witness. Is there
15 any news already -- or is it -- no, tomorrow's witness?
16 MR. GROOME: I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to B-215.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, B-215. You were talking about B-215.
18 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Because additional questions were in issue also with
20 today's witness, further examination-in-chief.
21 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Additional questions in addition to what we find
23 already in the 92 ter transcript.
24 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. I didn't believe that was an
25 issue, but I did have some questions.
1 JUDGE ORIE: So it's clear to me that your reference was to
2 B-215. Will witness B-215 be available tomorrow as far as matters stand
4 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, may I suggest that we get the latest
5 information from VWS. My last information was that he will be
6 travelling. I'm not sure whether he is already in The Hague or not.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that information. Any comments or
8 observations in relation to what we have discussed until now? If not,
9 then the final issue I would like to raise is in relation to the next
10 witness to be called. The expert witness. On the 25th of July, the
11 Stanisic Defence has informed the Trial Chamber that it did not object to
12 the 7th of July motion that was sent by an e-mail. Then on the 24th of
13 August, the Stanisic Defence informed the Trial Chamber that it intends
14 to request for 30 minutes on the 26th of August to make submissions on
15 the Donia report. Which came a bit as a surprise to the Chamber in view
16 of the history of this motion. It was only the day before yesterday that
17 suddenly a matter which has been pending for quite a long time now seems
18 to be in need of further submissions.
19 Mr. Jordash, you would request 30 minutes. The Chamber would
20 like to invite you to first summarily inform the Chamber about what you
21 wanted to raise because there's not much in the procedural history of
22 this motion which would explain 30 minutes explanation. The response in
23 2008 was fairly short, that was April 2008. The July of this year motion
24 apparently no objection, that therefore comes a bit as a surprise. So if
25 you would please be so kind to explain in 3 to 5 minutes what exactly it
1 is you wanted to raise at this very moment.
2 MR. JORDASH: In short, two reply to exclude most of the expert
3 report and the -- it's probably easier to say what we wouldn't seek
4 exclusion of which is the section of the report entitled "Strategic
5 Goals" at page 17 to 32, and the basis upon which we would seek to
6 exclude the report in summary again is that the report does not meet the
7 minimum standard of reliability, and secondly, parts of the report, the
8 parts I've indicated we want to exclude either are not relevant or, as to
9 be testified to by this witness, not of probative value. And finally,
10 that the content of the report does not fall within the accepted
11 expertise of the witness.
12 The reason that we did not object to the motion which was to add
13 the evidence from the direct examination from the Karadzic trial was that
14 it relates almost wholly to the section of the report which we do not
15 seek to exclude, the strategic goals and the direct examination of
16 Karadzic relates to an explanation of those strategic goals.
17 That's the summary of our position. In effect, what we are
18 saying is, this is a historical or historian, we accept that on the
19 jurisprudence he is right to be classified as an expert as a historian,
20 but his report is not the result of that expertise. His report is the
21 result of simply reading Republika Srpska Assembly minutes, putting them
22 into broad themes, and then calling it an expert report, and what we
23 fear, and this is what our submissions will relate to, is that his real
24 expertise, his historical knowledge, is going to be used during his oral
25 testimony to supplement his report, and that oral evidence we have not
1 had notice of.
2 And I can take Your Honours -- I won't expand on that to except
3 to say this: That in the Karadzic trial during the direct examination of
4 the witness, the witness said, perhaps it's a good idea to turn it up
5 very quickly. He said in relation to this report, the excerpts, that the
6 minutes, the excerpts, had been "richly cross-checked with other
7 sources." I'm looking at page 22528 of the Karadzic direct -- sorry, the
8 Donia examination-in-chief. "Richly cross-checked with other sources,"
9 and although the report relies upon a single source, it had been
10 effectively corroborated by the expert by cross-referencing. That is in
11 what is Mr. Donia's head, we submit it should in a report. That's the
12 summary of the submission we want to make.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Your quote is from a part of the examination
14 which is not part of the transcript offered by the --
15 MR. JORDASH: I think it should be, Your Honour, because I'm
16 looking at the motion and it's --
17 JUDGE ORIE: I see we started 3067.
18 MR. JORDASH: 30 -- yes, and it's, sorry, I was --
19 JUDGE ORIE: And you are in 2200 --
20 MR. JORDASH: I was looking at the number in the right-hand top
21 right corner.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes, yes.
23 MR. JORDASH: But if one looks at the number at the bottom it's
24 page 3070, line 24.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and even that, I am afraid is -- let me just
1 have a look --
2 MR. JORDASH: Should I read it out, Your Honour?
3 JUDGE ORIE: I think you read it, but I just -- I was just
4 wondering whether you are reading from part of the evidence which was
5 tendered by the Prosecution or not.
6 MR. JORDASH: It is, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And it seems --
8 MR. JORDASH: I can also -- page 3072 is also relevant in that.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just have a look. Oh yes, let me just have a
10 look. One second. Yes, could you assist me again, the part that you
11 just read comes from?
12 MR. JORDASH: Page 3070 at line 24 going over the page to line 7,
13 and then there is page 3071, line 22, again over the page to line 10, and
14 then finally at the same page, 3072 at line 18.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see now the "richly cross-checked" part you
17 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: I didn't give you the full 30 minute yet, of course
19 some of this could have been raised at earlier stages.
20 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, Your Honour is right.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I hope that's clear to you. Therefore, I wanted to
22 limit you. I do see that part of it, you say, is not reliable or has
23 little or no probative value, part of it you do not -- you do not oppose,
24 you do not object to, that's the strategic goals, but you have some
25 concerns that the Prosecution would elicit evidence which is alluded to
1 in the transcript or at least sources which is alluded to, and that's an
2 additional reason why you would exclude that evidence.
3 MR. JORDASH: May I just add one thing, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. JORDASH: If my learned friend for the Prosecution's approach
6 is to be simply to say to the witness, well, did you -- what was your
7 methodology, did you pick out these minutes, were these minutes in your
8 mind representative of these broad themes, then if Your Honours come to
9 the conclusion the report has probative value overall, I think our
10 objection would be somewhat weak.
11 But my guess is that the Prosecution in the same way that the
12 witness was led in the Karadzic trial, want this witness to go up and
13 down dale to show his vast knowledge as to what underpins this report,
14 and I would question in any event if it is the former approach, i.e.,
15 just to take the witness through the minutes and the methodology, whether
16 we need a witness for that. The Prosecution can bar table this evidence,
17 we can do the same in response [overlapping speakers] --
18 JUDGE ORIE: You say take out the introduction, take out the
19 remarks, the observations made by Dr. Donia, and accept it as a relevant
20 selection of --
21 MR. JORDASH: And we'll do the same.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, you've heard the objections to some
23 extent based on expectations. You are the one who can help us out there
24 or not.
25 MR. GROOME: I certainly wasn't planning to take him up and down
1 the dale, and I thought my examination was going to be relatively brief.
2 I had come prepared today, I thought the application was going to be to
3 exclude the entire report. And based on a decision rendered in the
4 Perisic case in which this specific report was disallowed, I'm prepared
5 to discuss, and I think the two cases -- or the same report can be
6 distinguished in the two cases. I'm not sure if the Chamber is
7 interested in me addressing that point.
8 JUDGE ORIE: What I would first of all like you to do is to
9 respond to the concerns expressed by Mr. Jordash, and I -- whether the
10 report is reliable, whether it falls within the scope of the expertise.
11 But I think that one of the key issues seems to be that Mr. Jordash fears
12 that you would ask the witness questions about what, as Mr. Jordash just
13 read to us, to what he said that he cross-checked with other sources,
14 other sources which are totally unknown to us, and one of the -- I would
15 say one of the requirements for accepting an expert report, that it's
16 fully transparent in not only the method used - and there apparently
17 Mr. Jordash has no major problems - but also in the source material that
18 was used. And if you would ask him this and this selection, that and
19 that, did you cross-check that to other sources and what are they, then
20 it would be for the first time for Mr. Jordash to see what those sources
21 are, and he would find himself in a difficult position to cross-examine
22 the witness not being prepared for all kind of additional sources, the
23 witness may come up during the examination.
24 That seems, Mr. Jordash, if I understood you well, one of your
25 major concerns apart from no probative value, not reliable, but this is
1 what really troubles you.
2 MR. JORDASH: Yes, that's main argument.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then, I'd like to hear specifically your response on
5 MR. GROOME: Well, with respect to that, Your Honour, it is not
6 my intention to have Dr. Donia refer to the sources that have not been
7 mentioned beforehand. I will confine my examination of him to the report
8 and simply ask him to clarify and contextualise some of the passages in
9 the report which may not be clear. For example, there's a portion of the
10 report where he reports, I believe it's Dr. Karadzic saying, we now have
11 Dusan's empire. Well, that was not clear to me what that reference was
12 to, he as a historian will explain to us that it's a tsar who lived in
13 the 1300s who had a large amount of territory under Serbian control.
14 So it's things like that, things that are not immediately
15 apparent because of -- we are not historians, but he will help us
16 understand some of the things that are said in the report. So again I'm
17 not going to be drawing out any additional sources, but I will be asking
18 him to explain things. For example, as he will say, some of -- a
19 accurate understanding of what is being said really depends upon what's
20 happening, what peace negotiations are going, on, what's the state of the
21 conflict, so to the extent that he can assist us in understanding what
22 Mr. Krajisnik means when he says something, to the extent that that's
23 connected or is the result of or happens immediately after a particular
24 negotiation, Dr. Donia can assist us in understanding his report.
25 I just want to turn now to one other argument that Mr. Jordash
1 led off with was he was moving for the exclusion of large amounts of this
2 report as being irrelevant. One of the sections, and I haven't had
3 chance to really look at it carefully, but one of the sections he is
4 proposing to exclude has in it paragraph 148, and if Your Honours look at
5 paragraph 148 and 146 they are both direct references to Mr. Stanisic
6 being discussed in the Assembly session, so I think just on its face it's
7 very clear that these are directly relevant to the Chamber's
8 consideration of issues in this trial.
9 And again, I'm -- well, the other issue now that I heard, Your
10 Honour, was with respect to whether there's expertise required in making
11 the selection. That was something that was raised by the Perisic Chamber
12 as a concern of theirs, and again I've prepared to address the Chamber on
13 whether the expertise in identifying excerpts is the expertise that's
14 envisaged in 94 bis.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
16 MR. JORDASH: If I may just briefly respond. Firstly, in
17 relation to the approach my learned friend is going to take, he is going
18 to take an approach which is going to open up the expert's background
19 knowledge, none of which appears in the report. This isn't simply about
20 clarifying obscure historical references. This is about providing
21 evidence of events which were occurring outside of the Assembly walls or,
22 according to this witness, occurring outside of the Assembly walls. And
23 this witness gets that knowledge from where? He wasn't there. He is not
24 a fact witness, he is an expert witness, if he is any kind of witness,
25 and he ought to have produced his sources nonetheless.
1 I wouldn't object to clarification of obscure historical terms or
2 such type of clarification, but what's objectionable -- and perhaps not
3 even references to European peace negotiations and so on. It's when we
4 get beyond that into a theory put forward by this witness which is
5 damaging to the accused but which has not been sourced by the witness,
6 and that's the first point.
7 The second point is the point my learned friend made about
8 relevance and our application to exclude the parts of the report other
9 than the strategic goals. We seek -- I didn't develop the argument and I
10 won't unless I'm invited to, but it's a combination of what is relevant.
11 Of course references to Mr. Stanisic will be relevant, but it's a
12 combination of what is, we say, not relevant and what is on the other
13 hand also not probative evidence as given through this intended
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
16 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just briefly, I'm not sure that I'll
17 live up to Mr. Jordash's fears. It seems that he anticipates that some
18 of my questions with respect to peace negotiations and historical
19 references would not be improper but there may be some other ones that
20 are. Given that position, may I suggest that we just proceed with the
21 examination and it seems that if a particular question does cross a
22 boundary that Mr. Jordash feels that shouldn't be crossed that we deal
23 with it on a question-by-question basis.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: In the argument raised in the admission of the
1 report and the admission of the transcript, there is some interaction
2 between the two and there's also some concern expressed by Mr. Jordash,
3 that certain questions might shed a totally different light on the matter
4 which is not found in the report. To some extent it is speculative, I
5 take it and I think Mr. Jordash already admitted to some extent that a
6 certain type of questions, for example, if reference is made, well, let's
7 say in December 1995 to negotiations that if you would ask the witness
8 were there any talks held, and do you know where that was, and if he
9 would say Dayton
10 information, but there's other information which you think should be
11 clearly sourced.
12 And the Chamber has great difficulties in deciding this matter on
13 an abstract basis, and therefore the Chamber want to proceed and give you
14 an opportunity that if the questions come to a certain point where you
15 think that it's the knowledge of the witness which is not very
16 transparent as far as sources are concerned, that you raise that matter.
17 This is not an invitation to raise it every single question but you
18 understand that the Chamber is -- understands your concerns and also is
19 of the opinion that to what extent the concerns materialise very much
20 depends on the questions put by Mr. Groome to the witness.
21 You apparently have no major concerns with the transcript -- the
22 subject matter of the transcript in the Karadzic case, so therefore
23 that's not a reason to stop at this moment. So we will proceed but very
24 cautiously and the decision on the admission of the expert report will be
25 postponed until the end of the testimony.
1 Any further questions in this respect? The matter has been
2 raised by Mr. Jordash, Mr. Bakrac, anything you would like to add?
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have nothing to
4 add other than fully support the position put forward by Mr. Jordash.
5 Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic. Then I would ask the usher
7 to bring the witness into the courtroom.
8 [The witness enters court]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Donia.
10 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence, the Rules of Procedure and
12 Evidence require that you make a solemn declaration that you speak the
13 truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. May I invite you to
14 make that solemn declaration.
15 THE WITNESS: Yes. I solemnly declare that I will speak the
16 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Donia, please be seated.
18 Mr. Donia, you'll first be examined by Mr. Groome. Mr. Groome is
19 counsel for the Prosecution, as you may be well aware of.
20 Mr. Groome, please proceed.
21 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 WITNESS: ROBERT DONIA
23 Examination by Mr. Groome:
24 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Donia, can I ask you to begin by telling us
25 your full name?
1 A. Yes, Robert J Donia.
2 Q. Could I ask the court usher to please bring up 65 ter 5399.
3 Dr. Donia, when this -- it may take a few minutes to bring this to the
4 screen, it is a copy of your resume. While we are waiting for that, did
5 you have a chance to review this document earlier today?
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 Q. And are there any important developments in your professional
8 biography that are not reflected in this version of your resume?
9 A. No.
10 Q. It is now on the screen before us. Is this the copy of your
11 resume that you have reviewed earlier today?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution at this time tenders 65
14 ter 5399, and Dr. Donia is of course available to answer additional
15 questions should the Chamber or Defence have questions about his
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I suggest that the relevance of the curriculum
18 depends -- is so closely associated with the admission of the expert
19 report that we keep it for the time being marked for identification.
20 Madam Registrar, the number of the curriculum would be?
21 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P938, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And will be marked for identification. Please
24 MR. GROOME:
25 Q. Dr. Donia, you have given evidence as an expert on a number of
1 occasions before Trial Chambers of this Tribunal, is that not correct?
2 A. Yes, that's correct.
3 Q. For the purposes of these following questions, I would like you
4 to focus on your most recent testimony, that being the evidence you gave
5 in the case of Prosecutor v Radovan Karadzic beginning on the 31st of
6 May, 2010 and ending on the 10th of June, 2010. Do you recall that
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that 65 ter 5397 be brought to our
11 Q. Dr. Donia, while we are waiting for that exhibit to appear, may I
12 ask you whether in preparation for your testimony in this case, did I
13 make available to you the complete written transcript of your evidence in
14 the Karadzic case?
15 A. Yes, you did.
16 Q. Did I also explain to you that it was the Prosecution's intention
17 in this case to tender only your direct examination in the Karadzic case
18 given on the 31st of May, 2010 and the 1st of June, 2010?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Did I ask you to carefully review and verify the accuracy of your
21 answers on direct examination found on pages 3067 to 3147 of the Karadzic
22 trial transcript?
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, before I ask Dr. Donia to comment on
25 the document on our screens, I want to advise the Court regarding two
1 points with respect to what's on the screens. First, the trial
2 transcript page number and the number I will refer to throughout my
3 examination of Dr. Donia is a number appearing in the bottom right-hand
4 corner of each page, the first number being 3067 and the last being 3147.
5 There are other numbers on the page so that's why I bring that to your
7 Secondly, the Karadzic Prosecution team tendered not only the
8 report Dr. Donia prepared for this case, but two other reports. To avoid
9 confusion and to assist the Chamber and the Defence to identify and
10 disregard those portions of Dr. Donia's testimony unrelated to this case,
11 the Prosecution has prepared and will use a copy of his direct
12 examination in the Karadzic case in which these irrelevant portions are
13 struck through. This has been done in a way that permits the text to
14 still be read but makes clear that this evidence, the Prosecution does
15 not seek to rely on. Should the Chamber over the course of today come to
16 the belief that some of this evidence is relevant for its purposes, the
17 Prosecution will of course prepare a copy of the testimony without such
18 excerpts struck through.
19 Q. Now, Dr. Donia, did you earlier this week and prior to today
20 review the transcript of your sworn testimony during your direct
21 examination in the Karadzic case?
22 A. Yes, I did.
23 Q. Pursuant to my instructions, did you also review the portions of
24 the transcript in which the text was struck through?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. When you reviewed the transcript, did you identify any portions
2 you believed to be an inaccurate recording of your evidence or perhaps a
3 mistake on your part?
4 A. Yes, I did.
5 Q. Can I ask that we go through them. How many errors did you
7 A. I identified five small errors in the -- in the transcript.
8 Q. Are you able to tell us them from memory, or?
9 A. I know -- I have noted them on a small card, if Your Honours
10 would permit me to cite that small note, can I give them to you fairly
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You may consult your notes and inform the
13 Court where you found the errors.
14 MR. GROOME:
15 Q. Let's proceed then one at a time. What is the first error that
16 you found.
17 A. On page 3072, line 8, there is simply one letter wrong in line 8
18 and that is the word "then" should be the word "them."
19 Q. What was the second error that you found?
20 A. Page 3107, line 1, the word "counsel" should be "council."
21 Q. Could you just for the record spell how it should be spelled?
22 A. Yes, "c-o-u-n-c-i-l."
23 Q. What was the third error that you found?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat the page number. You said
25 it was 30 and then?
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. The first one was --
2 JUDGE ORIE: No, second one I need.
3 THE WITNESS: The second one is page 3107, line 1, and the word
4 "counsel" should be "c-o-u-n-c-i-l."
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please make a pause between
6 question and answer for the benefit of the interpreters. Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: You've heard the invitation, Mr. Donia, I take it.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
10 MR. GROOME:
11 Q. What was the third error that you found?
12 A. On page 3115, line 7, there is a simple misspelling.
13 "P-l-e-u-r-l-r-a-l" should be "P-l-e-u-r-a-l."
14 Q. Were there other errors that you found?
15 A. There are two more. Page 3121, line 14. There's a word missing
16 in this, it's a transcript of a telephone intercept, and in line 14 after
17 the word "to," the word "tell" should appear.
18 Q. What is the last error that you found?
19 A. The last error is on page 3135, line 2, the error arises from the
20 introduction of a comma that should not be there. I'm -- was attempting
21 to identify two Muslim, largely Muslim settlements here. The first one
22 is called Sokolovic Kolonija; that is, it's two words but no comma
23 between them. And the second community I was identifying is Sokolje
24 which is S-o-k-o-l-j-e.
25 Q. Is that all the errors that you found when you reviewed your
1 direct testimony?
2 A. Yes, those are the errors I found.
3 Q. If I were to now ask you the same questions as Ms. Edgerton did,
4 would you give the same answers in substance?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, that you have taken the solemn declaration in this case, do
7 you affirm the accuracy and truthfulness of your evidence in the Karadzic
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders
11 the prior testimony of this witness given on direct examination in the
12 Karadzic case on the 31st of May and the 1st of June, 2010, transcript
13 pages 3067 to 3147.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, did I understand that you did not
15 oppose against admission of the transcript?
16 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Bakrac, Mr. Petrovic?
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Neither, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could you please assign a number?
20 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P939, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And P939 is admitted into evidence. And this also
22 causes me to come back to my previous observation as to the -- whether or
23 not we should already admit the curriculum. I suggested that we would
24 have it marked for identification, at the same time overseeing the
25 battlefield, Mr. Jordash, I see that you do not oppose against admission
1 of parts of the expert report, especially the six strategic goals, and
2 this testimony, which means that only for that portion of the expert
3 report we would need already the curriculum vitae, so therefore, I
4 suggest that P938, the curriculum vitae of Mr. Donia, would change its
5 status in being admitted and P939 is admitted.
6 We then postpone our decision on the entirety or the relevant --
7 the other portions of the expert report. Mr. Groome.
8 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders
9 some of the 92 ter related exhibits for this witness. For the
10 convenience of the Court, I have prepared a document which enumerates
11 those which the Prosecution seeks to tender and I'd ask that that be
12 distributed now. I've provided it to the Defence prior to court today.
13 The documents that were used during Dr. Donia's Karadzic
14 testimony fall into three categories for our purposes: One, those that
15 were admitted by the Karadzic Chamber in which the Prosecution seeks
16 similar admission in this case as a related exhibit; two, those exhibits
17 that were used in the examination of Dr. Donia but currently remain only
18 marked for identification in that case; and three, those documents used
19 with Dr. Donia in the Karadzic case which the Prosecution does not seek
20 admission of at this time.
21 The first group, there are three 92 ter related exhibits admitted
22 by the Karadzic Chamber and reflected on the list that has just been
23 handed to the Court. Their 65 ter numbers are 1630, 1771, and 2203. The
24 Prosecution seeks admission of these three documents as related exhibits
25 admitted in conjunction with the witness's prior testimony. I want to
1 note the following point with respect to one of these Exhibits. 65 ter
2 1630 is a video, and we tender only the clip from 7 minutes and 56
3 seconds, 7 minutes 56 seconds, to 10 minutes 44 seconds, which is the
4 portion that was admitted in the Karadzic case.
5 Now, with respect to one of the documents, and this is 65 ter
6 837, it is an intercept that was not admitted by the Karadzic Trial
7 Chamber but only marked for identification pending the expected testimony
8 of an authenticating witness. That witness has already provided
9 testimony in this case under the pseudonym JF-002. Unfortunately, by our
10 oversight, we neglected to have JF-002 authenticate this particular
11 intercept from the same collection of intercepts he provided
12 authentication evidence before you.
13 My request is at this time is that 65 ter 837 be marked for
14 identification and that when Your Honours deliberate on the admissibility
15 of the remainder of the collection, that the Chamber will consider with
16 respect to this evidence, that the Chamber also consider whether there is
17 sufficient evidence before it to find that the threshold of admissibility
18 has been met with respect to 65 ter 837.
19 Now, with respect to the documents that we are not seeking
20 admission of at this time, there are three exhibits introduced in the
21 Karadzic case through Dr. Donia, all of which are stenographic notes of
22 the Assembly sessions. These are 65 ter 586, which was admitted as P961
23 in the Karadzic case. 65 ter 2867, which was admitted as P956 in the
24 Karadzic case. And 65 ter 1363, which was admitted as P970 in the
25 Karadzic case.
1 The Prosecution's position with respect to these three exhibits
2 is the same as its position with respect to the other stenographic
3 minutes underlying Dr. Donia's report. Dr. Donia's report contains
4 verbatim extracts of these Assembly sessions in their original language
5 and their translation into English. The Prosecution is content to rely
6 on the report itself if it is ultimately admitted and not seek the
7 admission or marking for identification of the underlying minutes. If
8 the Defence agree to this approach, then we avoid having other evidence
9 that neither the Prosecution nor the Defence will rely on in the corpus
10 of the trial evidence, and I would ask that we discuss that approach at
11 this time. And, of course, should the Defence at any time wish to
12 introduce other excerpts of the Assembly session minutes, the Prosecution
13 would not oppose that.
14 And finally, Your Honours, so that the record is clear of what
15 I'm requesting, the Prosecution does not seek admission in this trial of
16 the following 65 ter numbers: 1169, which was P977 in Karadzic case;
17 1855, which was P978 in the Karadzic case; and 1737, which was P986 in
18 the Karadzic case.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome. Before I give an opportunity
20 to the Defence to give their views on your suggestion, I'm a bit
21 puzzled -- I see some of the documents you specifically talked about 586,
22 2867, and 1363. They are under heading "Exhibit MFI'd in Karadzic and
23 Tendered in This Case as Related Exhibits." Now, you give us the numbers
24 under which they were admitted in Karadzic which confuses me a bit.
25 MR. GROOME: I apologise, Your Honour. I think just the heading.
1 There is a subheading that appears in the very last line of the first
2 page, so Assembly session may not be tendered pending Trial Chamber
3 ruling. So if the Chamber were to decide not to admit the report or
4 decide that it wanted to have the underlying documents, then of course we
5 would tender them, but the Prosecution is content to simply rely on the
6 excerpts identified by Dr. Donia.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's clear now. I missed the last line, a bit
8 of a confusing layout. Then could I have the view of the Defence? And
9 could I also specifically ask about 65 ter 837, which is the not
10 authenticated intercepted conversation, or whether we really have to
11 recall the witness or whether we could do with a written statement or,
12 I'm just wondering whether that can be resolved in an efficient way or
13 whether there are any specific concerns in relation to 837.
14 MR. JORDASH: When I read the transcript I didn't have any
15 immediate concerns. If the Prosecution would take a brief statement
16 detailing where it came from and so on, I think we could resolve it quite
18 MR. GROOME: I will do that, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and perhaps that could even be done if that
20 witness still has to appear in Karadzic that -- it's not an urgent
21 matter, I take it, Mr. Jordash, so that you don't have to go
22 [indiscernible]. Just wait until the witness is there and take that
23 statement, that seems to be a practical way to proceed.
24 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, any --
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, this would be
2 the most useful procedure to adopt.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So what we have now is three exhibits admitted in
4 the Karadzic case and that is 1630, 1771, and 2203, for the first one
5 only a limited portion. Any objections against admission of those?
6 MR. JORDASH: No, thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Registrar, 1630 would be?
10 THE REGISTRAR: 1630 would be Exhibit P940, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: P940 is admitted into evidence. 1771?
12 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P941, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: P941 is admitted into evidence. 2203?
14 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P942, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: P942 is admitted into evidence. Then [overlapping
16 speakers] --
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour --
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- the intercepted conversation marked for
20 THE REGISTRAR: I would like just to add that 65 ter 1630, since
21 it's just part of the exhibit, I was just informed by the OTP that this
22 will be actually 65 ter 1630.1 admitted as Exhibit P940, Your Honours.
23 Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: It is clear that we are talking about the time code
1 already assign a number to that?
2 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 837 becomes Exhibit P943, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: P943 is marked for identification awaiting the
4 authentication. Then the others do not -- are not in need yet of a
5 number to be assigned, that depends on our decision on the admission to
6 evidence of the report.
7 Then please proceed. I'm looking at the clock, we had a bit of a
8 late start, I suggest -- how much time all together would you need,
9 Mr. Groome.
10 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, we had asked for three hours, I think
11 it's going to be substantially less than that. If I could be given the
12 break to maybe finalise my estimate, I'm bad at doing this.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if it pleases the court, I had two
16 brief questions and a witness summary, if that would be a convenient spot
17 to break after the witness summary, I don't know if you want to break --
18 [overlapping speakers].
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you -- that's fine if that would take not
20 more than five minutes.
21 MR. GROOME: It won't, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll hear those questions and the
24 MR. GROOME:
25 Q. Dr. Donia, to assist the Chamber in understanding your evidence
1 in the Karadzic case, can I ask you to define a term that both you and
2 Ms. Edgerton referred to repeatedly, that term is the term "excerpts
3 report." What you were referring to in your direct examination when you
4 refer to the excerpts report?
5 A. I was referring, with the term "excerpts report," to the report
6 that is currently before the Chamber, the 333 excerpts from the Bosnian
7 Serb Assembly minutes and transcripts that I prepared for this case.
8 Q. And one last preliminary point necessary for a better
9 understanding regarding how the -- how your report is organised, can you
10 please explain what the B/C/S text that we see in the footnotes
11 accompanying each paragraph?
12 A. Yes. The text of each footnote is the Latin version of the text
13 as it appears in the actual minutes or transcripts of the Bosnian Serb
14 Assembly. It corresponds by footnote number to the paragraph number of
15 the English excerpts that are in the report itself.
16 Q. So that those of us working in B/C/S, if you refer to paragraph
17 2, footnote 2 will have the corresponding B/C/S of the excerpt; is that
19 A. That's correct.
20 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this time --
21 JUDGE ORIE: This is what we find already in the format section
22 already of the introduction, isn't it?
23 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So therefore, yes, it was clear to the Chamber
25 already. Yes.
1 MR. GROOME: So Your Honour, if I can summarise the witness's
2 evidence, Dr. Robert Donia is a visiting Professor of history at the
3 University of Michigan
4 of the 19th and 20th sentries in south-eastern Europe, particularly in
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina and the former Yugoslavia
6 Karadzic case, Dr. Donia explained the approach he uses as a professional
7 historian in preparing narratives. He also explained the basis upon
8 which he selects and cross-checks his sources. Dr. Donia testified that
9 he prepared his report for the Stanisic and Simatovic case, which is
10 entitled "Thematic Excerpts From the Assembly of Republika Srpska," by
11 selecting the most revealing and helpful excerpts from the Assembly
12 session records and organising them into eight topical areas. He
13 testified that the Assembly sessions are an extremely rich source and
14 that the Assembly session transcripts were richly cross-checked with
15 other sources for the periods of time concerned.
16 Dr. Donia gave evidence regarding the six strategic goals or
17 objectives that were approved at the Bosnian Serb Assembly session on the
18 12th of May, 1992. He testified that the ideas underlying these goals
19 were expressed in many speeches as well prior to 12th of May, 1992, and
20 that the goals were referenced repeatedly and consistently as a
21 foundation for decision-making within the Assembly from November 1993
22 until the end of the war.
23 Dr. Donia discussed these strategic goals. He testified that the
24 first goal included the territorial, physical, organisational, and human
25 separation of the three national communities and that this goal would
1 have attached human residents to territoriality in a way that was
2 radically different from the actual situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina
3 up to 1991. He testified that this first goal was a general principle
4 and governed in principle goals 2 through 6 which were territorially
6 Dr. Donia discussed the rough geographical boundaries defined by
7 goals 2 through 6. He testified that statements made by military leaders
8 including Ratko Mladic before the Bosnian Serb Assembly demonstrate that
9 the six objectives guided military operations during the war. Dr. Donia
10 discussed the development of municipalities as administrative units
11 throughout the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the mixed ethnic
12 character of many municipalities in Bosnia. He discussed the creation of
13 associations of municipalities in which Serbs had an absolute or relative
14 majority and subsequent attempts to alter municipal boundaries.
15 Dr. Donia also discussed steps taken by the SDS leadership after Bosnia
16 declaration of sovereignty on the 15th of October 1991. Including the
17 establishment of a separate Bosnian Serb Assembly, the decision to hold a
18 plebiscite, and the proclamation of a separate Serb republic in
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina. He also discussed the steps that were to be taken in
20 the municipalities pursuant to the Variant A B instructions provided to
21 municipal SDS
22 Finally, Dr. Donia gave evidence regarding the arrest of
23 Milan Martic in the village of Otoka
24 as well as its resolution.
25 That concludes my summary of his evidence, Your Honour. Thank
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
3 We'll take a break and we'll resume at five minutes past 4.00.
4 --- Recess taken at 3.34 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 4.10 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, are you ready to proceed?
7 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, thank you. Could I ask that 65
8 ter 5396 be brought to the screen. Your Honours, at this time I want to
9 introduce Dr. Donia's report to the trial proceedings. It is my plan to
10 use his report as well as a number of other documents. It occurred to me
11 that it may be more efficient it we all had hard copies of the report
12 before us, so that we can look at any portion as we wish and so we do not
13 lose court time asking the Court Officer to continually load, remove, and
14 reload the report in e-court.
15 Dr. Donia is prepared to work from the hard copy -- from a hard
16 copy and place each passage that we may refer to on the ELMO, thereby
17 enabling the public to see those portions of the report I will be working
18 with. Earlier we have some copies -- extra copies of the report here if
19 people did not bring their hard copies, and I've provided the usher with
20 a blank copy which both Defence counsel have reviewed and do not object
21 to Dr. Donia having before him. We have about six blank-- six hard
22 copies if anyone in the courtroom needs them.
23 JUDGE ORIE: The bench would appreciate to receive two.
24 MR. GROOME: If I could ask that the ELMO be activated and
25 Dr. Donia, if he is going to read from the report or indicate something
1 in the report, he will put that on the ELMO.
2 Q. Dr. Donia, I'll give you a few seconds, a few moment now to get
3 yourself organised. You can just give that to the usher. Dr. Donia,
4 were you engaged by the Office of the Prosecutor to write a report for
5 submission to the Trial Chamber in this case?
6 A. Yes, I was.
7 Q. When did you submit that report?
8 A. In March of 2008.
9 Q. And what was your understanding of your task?
10 A. I was asked to review the minutes and transcripts of the Bosnian
11 Serb Assembly sessions from the first session in October of 1991 until
12 the, I believe it was 63rd session in August of 1996 with a view toward
13 identifying those passages that were relevant and revelatory regarding
14 events alleged in the indictment.
15 THE INTERPRETER: The speakers are kindly requested to pause
16 between questions and answers. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and the non-speakers are requested to switch
18 off their mobile phones.
19 MR. JORDASH: Apologies. I think that was me. I do apologise.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you know, Mr. Jordash, that it's an inherent
21 power of the presiding judge to seise any, but it happened to me once as
22 well, so. Please proceed.
23 MR. GROOME:
24 Q. Dr. Donia, on transcript pages 3071 to 3072 of your Karadzic
25 testimony, you describe your methodology and sources for this report so I
1 will not ask you to repeat that information here. Was the report that we
2 are now speaking about, was it written specifically for this case?
3 A. Yes, it was.
4 Q. Can I ask you now to look on your screen this once, at the copy
5 of the report, 65 ter 5396, on the screen before you.
6 A. Yes. I see it.
7 Q. And is this the report you prepared for this case?
8 A. It's the cover sheet of the report that I prepared for this case,
10 Q. Now, Dr. Donia, I want to clarify something which appears
11 incongruous in your report. You make several references to the 12th and
12 13th Assembly session, yet in these references, you note that they
13 occurred on the same day, that being the 24th of March, 1992. Can you
14 explain this, please?
15 A. Yes, the two sessions were in fact held on the same day. The
16 first session, the 12th session, was devoted to several topics including
17 the election of the first prime minister of the Serb Republic
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina. The first session was then adjourned at about 4.00
19 p.m. in the afternoon and after a brief break, the session -- or the
20 Assembly met again in a second session for the purpose of additional
21 business including the appointment of two key cabinet -- two officers or
22 two ministers to the council of ministers. So there were indeed two
23 sessions on the same day numbered 12 and 13 separated by only a few
24 minutes of time.
25 Q. Now, Dr. Donia, prior to taking you to specific portions of your
1 report, I'm going to ask you to in the briefest of terms set the
2 historical context in which the crimes in this indictment were charged.
3 Of course the essential facts of the dissolution of Yugoslavia are well
4 known at this stage, I will confine myself to a few specific questions.
5 May I draw your attention to the period prior to the conflict. When was
6 the last general election prior to the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
7 A. The last general election which was a multi-party election was
8 held on November 18th, 1990. And that election was held for the seven
9 members of the collective Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, for the 240
10 members of the Assembly -- or, I'm sorry, the parliament of
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the roughly 6.000 delegates to a total of 109
12 different Municipal Assemblies in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
13 Q. Now, if I could draw your attention to the 15th of October, 1991
14 What, if anything, of significance occurred on that day?
15 A. On that day, actually the 14th and 15th of October, a decisive
16 session of the Bosnian parliament took place in which the delegates of
17 the Bosnian Muslim and Croat parties, the SDA and the HDZ, approved a
18 platform and memorandum of sovereignty which moved Bosnia-Herzegovina
19 closer to put it on the road to independence. That resolution -- those
20 resolutions were strongly opposed by the SDS, the Serb Democratic Party,
21 and on that occasion Dr. Karadzic, Radovan Karadzic, who was president of
22 the party gave a very strong speech opposing the two resolutions and
23 expressing his concerns about the possibility of war.
24 MR. GROOME: And I would just note for the Chamber that the video
25 of that speech was a -- is now an exhibit, tendered related exhibit from
1 the Karadzic case.
2 Q. Now, are you familiar with a referendum held in Bosnia
3 A. Yes. Subsequent to the events I've just described, the European
4 community acting through the Badinter Commission determined that it would
5 require a referendum on independence before deciding whether to recognise
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina as an independent state. That referendum was then
7 held on February 28th -- 29th and March 1 of 1992.
8 Q. Can you characterise in general terms the results of that
10 A. The Serb Democratic Party urged Serbs to boycott it, most Serbs
11 did boycott, and the result was that the voters who were overwhelmingly
12 Bosnian Muslims and Croats voted yes for independence at a very high
13 percentage level. Well over 90 per cent.
14 Q. When did Croatia
15 A. Croatia
16 Q. When was Croatia
17 A. It was recognised by the European community again through the
18 Badinter Commission on the 11th of January, 1992.
19 Q. When did Bosnia
20 of Yugoslavia
21 A. Bosnia
22 Q. When was Bosnia
23 A. Bosnia
24 1992, that recognition being given first by the European community and
25 then by the United States.
1 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that 65 ter 714 be brought to our
2 screens. It is a document dated 16th of July, 1993, entitled
3 "arbitration commission opinion number 11."
4 Q. Now, Dr. Donia, you have referred to the Badinter Commission.
5 Can I ask you to describe what was the function of the Badinter
7 A. The -- what became known as the Badinter Commission was in fact
8 the arbitration commission of the European community headed by a French
9 jurist, Robert Badinter.
10 Q. And did it issue reports regarding its work and its findings?
11 A. Yes, it did. In response to requests from the European
12 community, it issued a series of opinions recommending the recognition of
13 various republics of the former Yugoslavia
14 issuing this summary opinion outlining when and under what conditions
15 those republics were recognised as independent.
16 Q. Now, looking at the screen before you, do you recognise 65 ter
18 A. Yes, this is a copy of the opinion number 11 on the left-hand
19 side a copy in B/C/S and on the right-hand side the English.
20 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution tenders 65
21 ter 714 into evidence.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we don't have any
24 objections to this document being admitted; however, my learned friend
25 has already embarked on the area that goes beyond the contents of the
1 expert report. The expert has been explaining to us the process of the
2 dissolution of the former Yugoslavia
3 report and why he is here is excerpts from the minutes of the Assembly
4 session of the Republika Srpska. I'm not saying that what he is saying
5 is not relevant, I'm just saying that it has nothing whatsoever to do
6 with what he should be testifying about as announced by the Prosecutor.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first deal with the exhibit. In the absence
8 of any objections, Madam Registrar, the number?
9 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit P944, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: P944 is admitted into evidence.
11 Mr. Groome, Mr. Petrovic raised a matter. Apparently we are
12 still in the field of uncontested facts. If I, for example, the
13 existence of the Badinter Commission is, may I take it, uncontested, but
14 apparently we are close to the point where Mr. Petrovic is raising
15 objections perhaps to questions as well.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Precisely so, Your Honours.
17 There's no dispute about that. It's common knowledge, however, according
18 to Rule 94, there has to be some sense because that rule has its raison
19 d'etre. The rule is being ignored here and the rule says that there
20 should be an expert report and that that's what should be discussed.
21 What the expert is now saying is relevant, as I've already stated, but is
22 beyond the boundaries of the report and contrary to the rules.
23 JUDGE ORIE: It was announced by Mr. Groome that he would put
24 some questions to the witness contextualising the report. Where we leave
25 the area of context and where we enter into the area of new terrains to
1 be explored is still to be seen. For the time being, Mr. Groome, you may
3 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, at this time could I ask that 65 ter
4 1958, it's a document dated 28th of February, 1992 entitled "Decision on
5 Proclaiming the Constitution of the Serb Republic
7 Q. Now, Dr. Donia, while this exhibit is being retrieved, I draw
8 your attention to paragraph 4 of your report in which you include an
9 excerpt from the second Assembly session held on the 21st of November
10 1991. During this session, Momcilo Krajisnik advocates for the creation
11 of a Bosnian Serb constitution as the best way to express the will of the
12 Bosnian Serbs. Do you know if in fact such a constitution was
14 A. Yes. The promulgation process followed pretty much as
15 Mr. Krajisnik specified here. It was drafted by a commission. It was
16 approved by the Bosnian Serb Assembly on February 28th, 1992, and
17 promulgated formally on March 27th of 1992.
18 Q. Can I ask that you look at the screen before you at 65 ter 1958.
19 Do you recognise this document?
20 A. Yes. This is an excerpt from the "Official Gazette" of the
21 Serbian people of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in B/C/S on the left and English on
22 the right, announcing the decision to which I just referred on February
23 28th, 1992. That is, it is not the promulgation of the constitution, but
24 the decision to proclaim it which was adopted one month prior to the
25 actual promulgation of the constitution. And it there follows then the
1 constitution in its entirety as it was adopted by the Bosnian Serb
2 Assembly on that date.
3 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, as this is a document the Chamber can
4 read for itself, I will not draw Dr. Donia's attention to any portion. I
5 do tender 65 ter 1958 as a Prosecution exhibit.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections. Madam Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P945 [realtime transcript
8 read in error "D945"], Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: P945 is admitted into evidence. It may be a mistake
10 on the transcript that it's introduced as D945. Madam Registrar meant
11 P945. Please proceed.
12 MR. GROOME:
13 Q. Dr. Donia, do the articles of the constitution set out the
14 responsibilities and the authority of the Assembly session, the Assembly
15 which you whose records or stenographic notes you examined for your
17 A. Yes. The appropriate provisions are contained Articles 70 to 79
18 of the constitution that's before us.
19 Q. Was this constitution ever amended?
20 A. Yes. The constitution as adopted in February and March of 1992
21 was in fact amended a number of times with individual changes. In some
22 cases, they removed provisions of the constitution as we are looking at
23 it, in other cases they added provisions or articles, and in some cases
24 they replaced existing articles with new ones. And I think the most
25 consequential of those amendments took place in September of 1992 when
1 the Assembly which was empowered to do so removed the existing Article 2
2 and replaced it with a substitute or new Article 2 of the constitution.
3 Q. I won't ask you, not that you might be able to recite the change
4 verbatim, but can you describe for us what was the fundamental change
5 that you feel is of consequence?
6 A. There were two fundamental changes. In the first, and if I could
7 I'm referring to the paragraph 25 in my report which is actually on page
8 13 of the English version. There were two fundamental changes. One was
9 that the reference to autonomous Serb regions and municipalities and
10 Serbian ethnic entities was superseded by a simple reference to Serbian
11 ethnic areas. And second, the territory was defined as including -- or
12 the territory was defined as including any area in which genocide had
13 been committed against the Serbian people but required that the territory
14 be determined and any changes be approved by a plebiscite requiring a
15 two-thirds vote of the voters.
16 Q. And the voters being the entire population of Bosnia?
17 A. The voters would be the voters of the Serb Republic
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Donia, in your report I read "three-quarter"
20 instead of "two-thirds."
21 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I meant three-quarters,
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
24 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders
25 65 ter 1958. I've been informed by the Defence that neither Defence will
1 object to the admission of the constitution.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be.
3 THE REGISTRAR: This 1958 becomes Exhibit P945, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: P945 is admitted into evidence. Please proceed.
5 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, in your deliberations in this case,
6 you may need to refer to the constitutions of Yugoslavia as well as the
7 constitution of the republic of Srpska Krajina. Again, I've spoken with
8 both Defence teams and they do not object to the admission of them, so at
9 this point the Prosecution would tender the 1992 Federal Republic
11 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, that would receive number?
12 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P946, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: P946 is admitted into evidence.
14 MR. GROOME: And then 65 ter 2863, the constitution of the
15 Republika Srpska Krajina proclaimed on the 7th of January, 1992.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
17 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit P947, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: P947 is admitted into evidence.
19 MR. GROOME:
20 Q. Dr. Donia, in your Karadzic testimony you were questioned in
21 detail on what is commonly referred to as the six strategic objectives or
22 goals. We can all read your evidence on transcript pages 3073 to 3097 of
23 your Karadzic testimony. I have just a few specific questions. Can I
24 draw your attention to paragraph 61 of your report, and my first question
25 is: Are there indications in the Assembly notes that these goals were
1 more than simply aspirational?
2 A. Yes, there are many tens of references to the strategic goals in
3 the transcripts of the Assembly over the period of time from 1991 -- or
4 1992 until 1996. And most of them indicate that the goals are more than
5 aspirational. That they are considered binding and obligatory for the
6 Bosnian Serbs to follow. And the most extensive explicit statement of
7 that is indeed found in paragraph 61 in which Radovan Karadzic repeats
8 the six strategic goals that he had described and had been adopted on the
9 12th of May, and indicates that they are, in the words of the first
10 paragraph here, which have become in a certain way our tasks, our
11 obligations to realise -- our obligation to realise them.
12 Q. In your examination of the stenographic notes of the Assembly,
13 the Bosnian Serb Assembly, are there indications of concrete applications
14 of the principles underlying these goals with respect to practical
15 decisions or actions taken by Bosnian Serb officials?
16 A. Yes, there are. There are many such references. I would point
17 to one that actually took place immediately after the end of the war in
18 which Mr. Krajisnik, and this is in paragraph 73 of my report --
19 Q. Dr. Donia, sorry to interrupt, but could I ask you to put it on
20 the ELMO, this way the public can also see the paragraph that you are
21 referring to.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Could the usher assist. Perhaps if Mr. Donia
23 mentions the paragraph number then the usher can put it on the ELMO.
24 Well, that gives a rather funny picture on the screen. That seems to be
1 MR. GROOME: I think the problem is the top end of the page is
2 covering the camera. If we could just work one page at a time. If you
3 would just pull down that -- thank you.
4 Q. Okay. And Dr. Donia, please continue with your answer.
5 A. I think this requires a brief explanation of the situation. This
6 statement by Mr. Krajisnik was made right about the time that the parties
7 were signing the so-called Dayton Agreement, the general framework
8 agreement for peace in Paris
9 parts of Serb-occupied Sarajevo
10 consisting of its Bosnian Muslim and Croat government. And in this
11 deliberation a delegate speaking before Mr. Krajisnik had advocated
12 leaving those Serbs who would be -- come under the jurisdiction of the
13 Federation where they were and moving certain governing institutions into
14 the Federation to act as kind of a protector of the Serbs in that area.
15 And Mr. Krajisnik strongly opposed that solution with his words here in
16 which he repeats:
17 "The task of this republic and the first strategic goal is that
18 we separate from the Muslims and Croats, and no one has the right to base
19 the strategy of Serbian Sarajevo, Srpsko Sarajevo" -- Your Honour, may I
20 just try to --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we have to use the second page.
22 THE WITNESS: Okay.
23 JUDGE ORIE: It's now clearly now on the screen.
24 THE WITNESS: Okay. "... on remaining in a joint country.
25 Therefore any danger and solution of Sarajevo in which we will stay with
1 Muslims and Croats is out of the question."
2 Moving down to the second paragraph:
3 "There is only one problem now - where shall we move these
4 people to?"
5 So Mr. Krajisnik in this passage, clearly uses the first
6 strategic goal as the basis for a government policy decision to
7 actively -- supports actively moving the Serbs out of the Federation
8 portion of Sarajevo
9 MR. GROOME:
10 Q. So when he uses the term or suggests that the only issue is where
11 we will move these people to, he is actually referring to the Serbs that
12 are in the Serbian part of Sarajevo
13 A. There are Serbs that were in the Serb-occupied part of Sarajevo
14 but under the terms of the agreement or the Dayton Agreement would fall
15 under Federation rule.
16 MR. GROOME: Now, could I ask that 65 ter 1663 be brought to the
17 screens. It is a document dated the 17th of April, 1992, and it is
18 entitled "Decision," and it bears the reference number 01-1/92.
19 Q. Dr. Donia, when you can see this document on your screen, would
20 you please tell us whether you recognise the document?
21 A. Yes, I do. This is a decision to withdraw from the city
22 government of Sarajevo
23 the Serbian Democratic Party. This decision is signed by
24 Dr. Radovan Karadzic. The context in which this took place was as the --
25 MR. JORDASH: Well, can I object to this in the way it's
1 progressing. We've had, I think, over the last five minutes, wholly new
2 evidence. This goes way beyond -- well, one could call it context, but
3 one could also call it evidence which should have been in the report.
4 I'm sitting here thinking how do I deal with this without asking for an
5 adjournment, which I don't want to do.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
7 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'm simply asking him whether he
8 recognises this document. He hasn't given an opinion about it. The
9 documents that were going to be used with Dr. Donia, I don't know the
10 precise date of the notice, but I believe it's over a month or over six
11 weeks. Now at this stage --
12 JUDGE ORIE: So then you would be happy with the answer "yes, I
13 do." And then you put the next question to the witness, then you remain
14 in control because you said, I simply asked him whether he recognises the
15 document. His answer to that question, yes, I do. And then the witness
16 starts describing the content of the document which is clear by reading
17 it, and then he starts explaining about the context, although you didn't
18 ask him. I don't know whether you wanted to ask him that. Perhaps do
19 that in such a way that the objections by Mr. Jordash are not there
21 MR. GROOME: I'll be satisfied with the answer of yes, Your
22 Honour. I won't explore it any deeper.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
24 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution tenders 65
25 ter 1663.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections. Madam Registrar, the
2 number would be?
3 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P948, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: P948 is admitted into evidence. Please proceed.
5 MR. GROOME:
6 Q. Dr. Donia, in your evidence in the Karadzic case and paragraph 48
7 of your report, you refer to Dr. Karadzic's statement of the -- of one of
8 the goals of one of the strategic objectives in the 16th Assembly session
9 held on the 12th of May, 1992, in which he stresses the strategic
10 importance of the Drina
11 Karadzic testimony was Karadzic's further explanation of this goal in the
12 20th Assembly session head on the 14th to 15th of September, 1992.
13 Can I draw your attention to paragraph 55 of your report, and
14 would you please place it on the ELMO when you get to that paragraph,
15 where you would -- in paragraph 55 where you include Karadzic's statement
16 in this regard. Karadzic says:
17 "Namely the Drina
18 vital strategic importance, if the green transversal is cut off at the
20 definitely walk away from Alija."
21 Are you familiar with the term "green transversal"?
22 A. Yes, I am.
23 Q. Can you please explain that concept to us?
24 A. The notion of a green transversal was a belief or stated belief
25 by leaders of the Bosnian Serbs that there existed a corridor of Muslim
1 population running from Bosnia
2 of Serbian Montenegro on into Kosovo and Albania and further on into the
3 Middle East, and that this corridor of Muslim population served as a
4 conduit for ideas, communications, supplies to support the Bosnian Muslim
5 cause. Now, that probably was, in fact, not the case, but that was the
6 notion that Karadzic and others espoused. And --
7 Q. Now, the last sentence of this excerpt reads in reference to
8 successfully realising this particular goal, and it says:
9 "This way we will link up with the Eastern Bosnia Corps." Can
10 you explain what this is a reference to?
11 A. In this sentence he is explaining that this green transversal is
12 interrupting a strategic objective that he has and the Bosnian Serbs
13 have, namely, of linking up the various forces under Bosnian Serb
15 MR. GROOME: Now, could I ask that 65 ter 5395 be brought to our
17 Q. Now, Dr. Donia, to facilitate our understanding of the strategic
18 goals, did I ask you to make -- to guide a person familiar with map
19 making to help us identify some of the key features identified in the six
20 strategic goals?
21 A. Yes, you did.
22 Q. And are those geographical features primarily rivers?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And did you guide a member of the OTP staff in marking those
25 rivers in a way that we all can see them clearly?
1 A. Yes. We marked only those rivers which are referenced in the six
2 strategic goals.
3 Q. Now, can I ask you to look at the screen before you. Is this the
4 map that you assisted an OTP staff member to label?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. So that it is clear, the Neretva river or the label for it seems
7 to appear in the middle of three rivers. Which, in fact, is the Neretva
9 A. The Neretva river is below and to the left of the label on the
10 map, so it is the river that begins in Gacko municipality and ends up in
11 the Adriatic sea.
12 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders
13 65 ter 5395, this map of Bosnia
15 JUDGE ORIE: In the absence of any objections, Madam Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit P949, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: P949 is admitted into evidence.
18 MR. GROOME:
19 Q. Now, Dr. Donia, are you aware of any maps which were created by
20 Bosnian Serbs and were published representing what they saw as the
21 realisation of these strategic goals?
22 A. Yes. The Bosnian Serb did indeed prepare at least one map that I
23 know of and in order to illustrate where the strategic objectives began
24 and ended.
25 MR. GROOME: I will ask that Mr. Laugel and the Court Officer
1 prepare to play 65 ter 4506, a videotape. The excerpt that I will ask be
2 played and ultimately admitted as evidence is at 1 hour 50 minutes 36
3 seconds to 1 hour 53 minutes and 14 seconds of the entire original tape.
4 When it's ready, I'd ask that it be played.
5 [Video-clip played]
6 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we pause. Transcripts have been
7 provided to the booths, I just query whether they've been able to find
8 those. Perhaps we can try again.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Let's restart then and see whether we have English
10 translation and French translation in the usual way, one of the
11 interpreters following the text if it goes too quickly, then the other
12 interpreter translating on the basis of the written version of the
14 [Video-clip played]
15 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "We are standing in front of the
16 ethnic map of the former Bosnia
17 the territory that is presently under the control of the Bosnian Serb
18 Army. I can only say that what was being said, that we are in control of
19 the territories ethnically populated by other ethnic communities, that is
20 not true, which can be seen on the ethnic map of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
21 Once we cover it with a transparency sheet on which the territories are
22 exactly marked, which are under the control of our army, you can see that
23 those are in fact the areas that belong to our people.
24 "A map, similar to this one, as far as I am informed, was offered
25 in Geneva
1 border of our future state, that is the Neretva river valley, and this is
2 mostly the territory of the Bosnian Serb republic. Knowing that we allow
3 that there are certain enclaves on our territory that may be populated by
4 the other ethnic community. Sarajevo
5 moment it is marked as the area of city proper -- or, rather, the area of
6 city proper is marked as Muslim territory, but we shall plead for the
7 demilitarisation and separation of the two ethnic communities, primarily
8 Serbian and Muslim, and maybe a municipality for -- I mean, municipality
9 populated by the Croatian community.
10 "The territory of the Bosnian Serb republic represents, in fact,
11 the border along the Una river, the Sava river, with a smaller area that
12 is not yet under the control of our forces and it's not liberated yet,
13 that is Orasje. This is the border, the territory of Semberija
14 territory of Ozren, and that of the eastern Bosnia-Herzegovina. We
15 presented as our territory to the Croatian community in Graze that our
16 border should be between our two national communities, that would be the
17 Neretva river.
18 "In any case, this continuity of our territory, it is in one
19 piece, if I may say so, and we will do our best for there to be one
20 constituent unit of Bosnian Serb republic, and we shall allow for the
21 possibility of several constituent units of Croatian and Muslim people.
22 Simply that is not a condition. What is a condition is that our republic
23 be integral and not divided into several parts.
24 MR. GROOME:
25 Q. Dr. Donia, is this one of the maps created by Bosnian Serbs which
1 reflect their strategic goals?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now, Dr. Donia, because of the delay in translation, it may not
4 be clear exactly which portion Mr. Krajisnik was referring to. The map
5 that we saw appeared to have two -- Bosnia
6 irregularly-shaped areas. A larger one and a smaller one. Which one of
7 those irregular areas is the territory that represents the objectives of
8 the strategic goals?
9 A. I'm sorry, are you asking -- are you asking about the map that is
10 in front of me, anyway, on the --
11 Q. No, not the map -- the map that Mr. Krajisnik was pointing to,
12 would you agree with me that Bosnia
13 irregularly-shaped areas?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Because of the delay in translation, it may not be clear --
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I have an objection to the fact
19 that what Krajisnik said back in 1993 was misinterpreted. First of all,
20 Mr. Krajisnik referred to two maps, not one. One had the ethnic makeup
21 from, I suppose, 1991, and the other map depicted the front lines. In
22 other words, these were not -- this was not one map. There was the
23 underlying map on which another map was superimposed, but I don't think
24 that there is any relevance in discussing this, the other map containing
25 front lines with this witness.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, first of all was it front lines or was it
2 suggested division of the territory?
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] My understanding of what Krajisnik
4 said was that the transparency sheet depicted the front lines, and below
5 this map there was a map with the ethnic makeup dating back to a year
6 that I didn't hear which it was. What I heard him say was that the
7 transparency sheet depicted the front lines, i.e., the territories under
8 the control of the Army of Republika Srpska.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Let's ask -- first of all, of course, we could check
10 what Mr. Krajisnik said at the time, but we could also ask Mr. Donia to
11 see how he understood what was said. I must admit that it has been
12 translated to us as, let me just have a look.
13 Mr. Donia, perhaps you could help me unless Mr. -- I don't know
14 whether this would create any problems.
15 MR. JORDASH: I would object on a different basis which is this
16 evidence being led through this witness. We've gone from a position
17 where we have a report with excerpts to now an expert giving evidence
18 upon how the Bosnian Serb authorities divided up the territory.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, as a matter of fact, I'm now rereading it,
20 apparently what Mr. Krajisnik said is this depicts the territory under
21 our control. That's therefore most likely would depict the -- would
22 depict the confrontation lines at the time. Mr. Petrovic, at least from
23 the language used by Mr. Krajisnik, it seems that you are right. And now
24 the last question was -- let me just have a look. The question was:
25 "The map that Mr. Krajisnik was pointing to, would you agree with
1 me that Bosnia
2 I take that to be a reference to the actual situation at that
3 time, that is area under control of one force or another.
4 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I meant it
5 simply as a reference to what we were seeing on the map.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, into roughly two irregular-shaped areas. I
7 could almost answer that question, that they are irregularly-shaped seems
8 to be visible for everyone, not being blind, and that it's two parts --
9 well, that roughly I would say seems to be visible for everyone as well.
10 Mr. Jordash, the question was limited to what you see on the map two
11 areas irregularly shaped.
12 MR. JORDASH: I'm with Mr. Petrovic then, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
14 MR. GROOME:
15 Q. Now, my question to you, Dr. Donia, is which of these two
16 irregularly-shaped areas, if either of them, reflects the objectives
17 articulated in the six strategic objectives?
18 A. I think they both reflect the strategic objectives, the fact that
19 the military conquest and holding of those areas corresponded, in fact,
20 to the rivers that are designated in particularly the -- I believe it's
21 the fourth strategic goal.
22 Q. Okay.
23 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this time I would tender this
24 excerpt from 65 ter 4506.
25 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Madam Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: The excerpt from 65 ter 5406 becomes
2 Exhibit P950, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: P950 is admitted into evidence. Please proceed.
4 MR. GROOME:
5 Q. Now, can I draw your attention to paragraph 64 of your report.
6 If would you place that on the ELMO. In this paragraph, you include a
7 quote of Dr. Karadzic excerpted from the 37th Assembly session on 10
8 January 1994. I'm going to read the first two sentences and ask if you
9 can explain a reference that Karadzic makes.
10 "We can consider ourselves as winners after occupying this land
11 since the land is 100 per cent Serbian now. Therefore, even if we come
12 down to around 50 per cent, we should be more than happy and satisfied,
13 it is Dusan's empire."
14 Can you assist us in understanding what the reference to Dusan's
15 empire is?
16 A. Yes. Dusan's empire refers to a period of the Serbian empire in
17 the 1300s in which the medieval Serbian state reached its apogee, it
18 covered the most territory at any time during the existence of the
19 medieval state. Dusan was in fact crowned emperor, his full name was
20 Stefan Uros the IV, in 1345 and was succeeded by one other emperor, and
21 it was during that time that the Serb land was really at its greatest.
22 Q. Now, as based on your --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, of course I am -- I've constantly in the
24 back of my mind the concerns expressed by Mr. Jordash. Now, here this
25 seems to be a very clear example of that. The suggestion is that
1 Mr. Karadzic expresses by using the reference to Dusan's empire to a
2 historical moment. Now, if you would have asked is that a reference to
3 Dusan's empire, what century was that, 14th century, that's fine. But
4 now additional information is added, Karadzic is happy because that was
5 the empire which was the largest ever in history occupied by Serbs. That
6 requires a comparison between what happened before that and what happened
7 after that, how size of the Serbian empire developed. There's no source
8 for that anyway, is there? How could Mr. Jordash check whether Dusan's
9 empire was really presenting the largest format ever of the Serbian
10 empire? No sources are given for that.
11 Now, that, I take it, Mr. Jordash, is one of your concerns. If
12 you want just a clarification, Dusan's empire, what's that? That's a
13 reference to an emperor in the 14th century. But slowly, coloured
14 information slips in, that is that Karadzic was not happy with the
15 smallest Serbian empire ever in history, but he was happy with what they
16 had now with the reference to an empire of which the expert says that was
17 the largest but without any sources for that. If, for example, somewhere
18 in the report it would have said, footnote: Dusan's empire is the
19 biggest empire 14th century, compare historical development of the size
20 of the Serbian empire over the 12th to the 17th century, it may well be
21 that the witness and the expert has good reason to state what he states,
22 but the transparency of the source material, the factual material which
23 underlies this, I would say this -- at least call it explanation, I'm not
24 saying wrong, but almost impossible to verify on the basis of the sources
25 used. Mr. Jordash, did I take a right example of what you feared would
2 MR. JORDASH: That's precisely the point. Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Would you, Mr. Groome, refrain from or stop the
4 witness if he starts making references to additional information for
5 which the sources given provide no basis.
6 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I must confess to being a little bit
7 confused. When I read his answer, I don't see where he has given an
8 opinion that Karadzic was happy or that he is given any opinion other
9 than to state what he knows to be a historical fact as a historical
10 expert. I mean, I think if any of us could be considered experts in our
11 field, we are experts because we have a broad base of knowledge from a
12 multitude of exhibits or from a multitude of sources. I don't see that
13 as unfair --
14 JUDGE ORIE: If I read this:
15 "Therefore, if we come down to around 50 per cent, we should be
16 more than happy and satisfied. It is Dusan's empire."
17 Now, is Mr. Karadzic happy with the smallest Serbian empire in
18 history or is he happy with the largest Serbian empire in history?
19 MR. GROOME: But that's not his words. He's just explaining that
20 Karadzic makes a reference to Dusan's empire --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. GROOME: -- and he is simply stating a historical fact who
23 Dusan's empire -- what Dusan's empire refers to, and it's at the time
24 when Serb territory was at its largest amount. So --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and how -- we have no sources for that, do we?
1 Do we have any sources for that? That it was the largest or the
2 smallest? If Mr. -- if the witness would have said Dusan's empire was
3 the smallest ever, Mr. Jordash would have no reference to verify whether
4 that would be true. And of course, the suggestive -- the suggestion
5 included is that where Mr. Karadzic says let's be happy, it's Dusan's
6 empire, he is happy with the biggest and not with the smallest. And
7 then, of course, there is a suggestion in that. And again, if Mr. Donia
8 would have said it would have been the smallest, we would have no
9 opportunity to verify that, is it?
10 MR. GROOME: I'm not sure there's no opportunity. I mean, if --
11 we have two Serb attorneys that I'm sure are very well versed in the
12 history of their country as well. I guess --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let me then take you -- one second, please.
14 MR. GROOME: If I may, while you were looking for that, Your
15 Honour. It seems to me that one of the reasons an expert is considered
16 able to assist the Chamber is to have this breath of knowledge. If the
17 Prosecution simply wanted to establish that Dusan's empire --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Let me --
19 MR. GROOME: In fact, we can do that another way.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, your reference to the knowledge of, let
21 me just say, your reference to the knowledge of two Serb attorneys would
22 leave Mr. Stanisic without remedy, isn't it, because Mr. Jordash is, as
23 far as I am aware, not Serb, neither is Mr. Knoops. And then to say that
24 because there is an inherent suggestion that they then should rely on
25 their colleagues, counsel for Mr. Simatovic, who may have a different
1 interest, let me tell you the following: A minimum degree of
2 transparency in the sources in an expert report is required at the stage
3 of admission. The sources and the methodology used in support of any
4 proposed expert's opinion must be clearly indicated and accessible.
5 Now, I'm not saying I took this example because I would say it's
6 a relatively harmless one, I take it that it would be easy to establish
7 whether it was the largest or the smallest. But on the basis of the
8 sources given, it's impossible to verify whether Mr. Donia is right or
9 wrong, and I have no doubts most likely you will be right, Mr. Donia, is
10 right or wrong in his assessment that Karadzic stating that he was happy
11 with the land they gained because it was Dusan's empire, that he was
12 referring to the largest Serbian empire in history. You understand my
13 observations which are very close to what Mr. Jordash feared would
15 MR. GROOME: I agree that it's not sourced. I do respectfully
16 disagree and in my view the reason why we have an expert, historical
17 expert here, is in part to explain the historical references. But I take
18 the Chamber's point --
19 JUDGE ORIE: But of course, by giving the sources because I do
20 not know what the sources are. By giving the sources, he gives access to
21 every party to verify and to check whether this is -- whether the opinion
22 expressed that this was the largest one is right or wrong. You say, for
23 example, the methodology I used, I used maps every 50 years in history
24 and there was a problem in the 14th century because the maps are not very
25 precise, but this is the way to interpret those maps, and then I compared
1 seven or ten or fifteen maps, and I established that comparing these
2 maps, that the -- Dusan's empire was the largest, and then we know what
3 maps are used, we know what the expert opinion is based, we make the
4 sources accessible and verifiable for the parties. And that's again in a
5 matter which seems not to be of major importance as a matter of fact, but
6 what is not done. That's my concern.
7 MR. GROOME: I accept the direction of the Court.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed and keep this in the back of
9 your mind.
10 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
11 Q. Dr. Donia, in Karadzic's view, was there a critical moment when
12 he believed that Alija Izetbegovic, the then elected president of Bosnia
13 and Herzegovina
14 A. Yes. Karadzic frequently turned to the agreement in principle
15 that was reached on the 18th of March, 1992, as a critical moment which
16 was a victory for the Bosnian Serb side and his own side, and a grave
17 mistake by Izetbegovic.
18 Q. You've referred to a plan, I believe. What are you referring to?
19 A. The --
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise for
21 interrupting again. What is the source for the previous answer? What
22 did Karadzic believe? What was the 18th March plan? We have encountered
23 the same problem again.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, first of all, we'll hear what happened on the
25 18th of March which was mentioned by the witness as -- in answer to a
1 question about a critical moment, was an agreement in principle, and --
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
3 JUDGE ORIE: And the next question now is what are you referring
4 to, and the Chamber would like to know what exactly was there on the 18th
5 of March.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I agree. However, I
7 don't understand why the Prosecutor has not shown more ambition. How
8 come that a person who can and has drafted so many books didn't do that
9 in his report? Why does this report have 399 footnotes and all of them
10 concern the transcript? Why doesn't it contain what you have just
11 mentioned? A report of this kind and a discussion based on such a report
12 does not amount to much, does not lead anywhere as far as I can see it.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Not having heard the answer of the expert, it is
14 still unclear to the Chamber what is the link between the report and the
15 excerpts presented in the report and what happened apparently on the 18th
16 of March as a critical moment.
17 You said it was a principle agreement, you said it was a plan,
18 Mr. Groome in your next question, but perhaps we hear from the witness
19 whether it was a plan or what it was.
20 Mr. Donia.
21 THE WITNESS: Yes. I don't have the specific paragraph in front
22 of me to reference, but this is explained in the paragraph that I have
23 excerpted from the -- from the Bosnian Assembly minutes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: It's perhaps -- do you have a paragraph in your
1 MR. GROOME: I was going to refer him in my next question to
2 paragraph 69 of his report.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then let's -- paragraph 69 refers to the 18th of
4 March --
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Is that what you had on your mind? Perhaps you read
7 it again.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, the plan or agreement in principle was that of
9 the Portuguese foreign minister Jose Cutileiro who was mediating --
10 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, could I --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. JORDASH: This would have been almost certainly wholly
13 unobjectionable if we'd had notice of it, and my learned friend's
14 approach was to ask an open ended question which doesn't reference the
15 report. The witness has a huge amount of knowledge and will talk then
16 eventually we get to the excerpt.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's -- Mr. Groome, I do understand from the
18 answer of the witness that the reference in the 42nd session to the 18th
19 of March is a reference to the Cutileiro Plan. Now, for whatever reason,
20 and I have not checked that in all detail, but if you want to ask further
21 questions about Cutileiro Plan, because we now know that that's what is
22 referred to, then please indicate how the Defence could know that you
23 wanted to ask questions about Cutileiro Plan to this expert witness.
24 MR. GROOME: My only question was to tell us the significance of
25 the 18th of March to identify --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, your question was a different one. You
2 started in the other way, you started what was a critical moment, and
3 then the witness came with the 18th of March. Okay. And he now answered
4 the question by saying that he referred to the -- that one of the
5 excerpts refers to the 18th of March and that's a reference to the
6 Cutileiro Plan.
7 MR. GROOME: With respect to the rest of it, I rely on the
8 excerpt itself. I'm not going to ask him to interpret it.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at the Defence, we are not exploring
10 areas in detail where no notice has been given as far as you are
12 Mr. Jordash, if we would proceed leaving it to this, would that
13 meet your concerns?
14 MR. JORDASH: Yes, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
16 MR. GROOME:
17 Q. Dr. Donia, if I could draw your attention to paragraph 78 of your
18 report. It includes a statement of Dr. Karadzic from the 9th session
19 delegate club meeting. Can you please tell us what was a delegate club
21 A. Prior to a scheduled session of the Bosnian Serb Assembly, the
22 delegates from a single party, in this case the SDS, would meet to
23 discuss the plans for the formal session to be held immediately
24 thereafter. That preliminary session was known as the delegate club.
25 Q. Now, in preparation for your evidence today, did I provide you
1 with a copy of the indictment in this case and ask that you familiarise
2 yourself with it?
3 A. Yes, you did.
4 Q. Paragraph 12 of the indictment names 16 individuals who along
5 with the two accused here in court and other unnamed individuals were
6 part of a joint criminal enterprise. In your review, did you come upon
7 any statements which indicated interaction between members of the alleged
8 joint criminal enterprise?
9 A. Yes, I came across a number. I came across a few which referred
10 to interaction between Ms. Plavsic and other members of the alleged joint
11 criminal enterprise, and I am sorry, I don't have the number in my head,
12 but the -- there is a paragraph or two in the report which refers to
14 MR. GROOME: Can I draw the Chamber's attention to paragraphs 82
15 and 106.
16 Q. Now, Dr. Donia, can I ask you to look at paragraph 100 of the
17 report, and can you please explain this paragraph to us.
18 A. Yes. This is a statement by Mr. Momcilo Mandic affirming that
19 the -- that Mr. Mico Stanisic was both the advisor to the president of
20 the Serb republic and in charge of co-operation between the minister of
21 Internal Affairs of the Serb republic and the Ministry of Internal
22 Affairs of Yugoslavia
23 MR. GROOME: It will also be of assistance to the Chamber to
24 recall the testimony of JF-038 found at P420, transcript page 3023.
25 Q. Now, Dr. Donia, two members of the joint criminal enterprise as
1 alleged in paragraph 12 of the instant indictment are identified as
2 Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic, and I want to spend some measure
3 of time seeking your assistance in understanding the relationship between
4 these two men who feature prominently in the events surrounding the
5 dissolution of Yugoslavia
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, since you are announcing that some
7 measure of time be needed, perhaps you should do it after the break.
8 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a break and we resume at five minutes to
11 --- Recess taken at 5.25 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 6.02 p.m.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Donia, if you ever face any technical problems
14 on what you have in your screen or not on your screen, please address me
15 so that we can fix it.
16 THE WITNESS: I will, Your Honour. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
18 Mr. Groome.
19 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Now, Dr. Donia, I want to ask you to explain from your
21 examination of the minutes of the Assembly session, what evidence there
22 is about the nature of the relationship between Slobodan Milosevic and
23 Dr. Karadzic. And my first question to you is would you describe the
24 relationship as a static one or one that evolved over time?
25 A. Yes, there's a great deal of evidence in the report and in the
1 transcripts about that relationship, and I would describe it as one that
2 changed substantially over time from the time that the Assembly first met
3 and even earlier by retrospective reports, through the end of the war.
4 Q. Can you mark for us at this stage what would be the significant
5 signposts in the evolution of their relationship?
6 A. Well, the first period began when the two met in 1990 and
7 continued until the serious discussion --
8 MR. JORDASH: Sorry.
9 THE WITNESS: -- of the peace plan began.
10 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
11 Mr. Jordash.
12 MR. JORDASH: I think we -- it's an objection because we are
13 going to drift into, if the signposts are some things said in the
14 Assembly, I don't object to the witness pointing that out. If the
15 signposts are, as we've just began to explore, when they first met in
16 1990 which has nothing to do with this Assembly, then I object.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 Perhaps, Mr. Donia, I explain to you a bit of what has been
19 discussed before you came into court. The report which is before us is
20 essentially is an excerpt, you have chosen them, you have put them in a
21 certain context, but the only source we have are these excerpts, and now
22 and then we have a little bit of explanation from you; for example, where
23 you just summarise what people are saying. Any other historical event is
24 not sourced in any way. Now, it is a basic principle of -- perhaps of
25 law of procedure that if we hear evidence from an expert that it's
1 transparent not only what methodology he used, but also what sources are
2 he has used, and as we've seen in your Karadzic testimony, you say, well,
3 I've cross-checked it with many other sources. But the problem the
4 Defence has is that they are not familiar with what those sources are.
5 Now, often a short explanation on relatively neutral matters such
6 as we discussed before the break, that is, that Dusan's empire was in the
7 14th century, the Defence apparently has no major problems in accepting
8 these kind of simple explanations. But if you start explaining when
9 people met for the first time, well, of course, the Defence is not in the
10 position to verify of what sources you stated it's the first meeting,
11 could it have been the second one or the third one or did it place at
12 all -- did it take place at all. These are the problems the Defence is
13 facing at this moment and that's explains, and I hope you will
14 understand, this explains some of the objections and some of the
15 discussions that have been taking place. And that, of course, is to some
16 extent result of the type of report you were asked to produce. So I'm
17 not blaming you in any way, but you are invited, apparently, to select
18 the most relevant portions of the Assembly sessions.
19 Now, again, simple neutral explanations, fine. But if you start
20 explaining the whole of the history of the relationship of two people
21 where the only source we know is what we find in the Assembly excerpts,
22 then the Defence considers that they have not been put on notice on the
24 Now, that is what Mr. Jordash is objecting to and I'm inviting
25 Mr. Groome to very much focus on the known source and the known source is
1 here, as far as your report is concerned, are the transcripts of the
2 Assembly sessions.
3 Mr. Groome, would you please keep that in mind when you formulate
4 your questions.
5 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
6 Q. So, Dr. Donia, just confining your analysis to your examination
7 of the Assembly session minutes, are you able to demarcate significant
8 events that establish or demonstrate changes in the relationship between
9 Mr. Milosevic and Dr. Karadzic?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. Can you first tell us how many -- or how many or maybe
12 just enumerate them first, and then I'll ask you to reference specific
13 Assembly sessions.
14 A. Yes. First there is a specific reference to the first meeting
15 between Karadzic and Milosevic in the report dated September of 1990.
16 Q. What paragraph will we find that at, please?
17 A. Well, I believe it is in 149. I again regret that I -- yes, it's
18 in 149. Now, that is a specific date calling upon this, what I've
19 characterised as a very rich source standing on its own for this kind of
21 Q. And can you summarise what's in 149, what -- paragraph 149? How
22 is Dr. Karadzic characterising his relationship with Milosevic?
23 A. He is at great pains in this speech to characterise their
24 relationship as one in which he was not inferior, and brings into this
25 account two other Bosnian Serbs who were with him to essentially verify
1 that he did not consider himself inferior and that Milosevic was treating
2 them as peers at this meeting.
3 Q. Can I direct your attention to paragraph 137 of your report, and
4 ask you what does this paragraph tell us about the relationship between
5 the two men? And if I might draw your attention to the last line:
6 "However, if we form a joint, not a single but a joint
7 delegation, where Milosevic will, of course, formally or informally be
8 the head and he was also the head each time in Geneva, it's clear that he
9 was the head."
10 What does that tell us about the relationship?
11 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honour, it tells us, if I may object,
12 that Karadzic considered at this time for this purpose Milosevic to be
13 the head. I don't think this expert has provided a report which details
14 anything more than that.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just find first of all exactly what the quote
17 MR. GROOME: It's at the bottom of page 55, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see it. Well, Mr. Jordash, I do not fully
19 understand your objection. What Mr. Groome is asking the expert is look
20 at 137, then he reads a certain portion of that, and he says what does
21 that tell us about the relationship.
22 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: So what Mr. Groome is doing, he is asking the
24 witness to elaborate on what we read here, and if he starts saying it's
25 clear from this text that Mr. Milosevic, his favourite colour was red,
1 Mr. Karadzic's favourite colour was blue, then of course we'll ask him
2 how that can be concluded from this passage because it doesn't say
3 anything about colours. So the question has been phrased relatively
4 neutrally, and I'd first like to hear the answer of the witness.
5 Yes, what does this tell us about their relationship, that was
6 Mr. Groome's question.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes. This tells us their relationship was not one
8 of equals. That indeed, in Karadzic's own perception, when they sat down
9 at Geneva
10 Karadzic was one of the members of it. So I think this speaks to the
11 change of a relationship between the time in 1990 that they first met and
12 this particular description of their relationship in Geneva.
13 MR. GROOME:
14 Q. Can I ask you, what is the reference to Geneva?
15 A. Geneva
16 negotiations for a peace accord between about September of 1992 and 1994.
17 Q. Now, this statement is made on the 28th of August, 1995, does
18 that mean that Karadzic is speaking retrospectively?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, did there come a time when their relationship was marked by
21 a disagreement on a rather significant matter?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Can you please explain?
24 A. They disagreed sharply, and I'll show you a number of instances
25 of this in the source we are looking at, upon the question of whether the
1 Vance-Owen Peace Plan should be accepted by the Bosnian Serbs.
2 Q. So that those of us less familiar with the history of the former
4 the Vance-Owen Peace Plan?
5 A. The Vance-Owen Peace Plan was presented in January of 1993. It
6 consisted of four elements: A cease-fire, constitutional provisions,
7 a -- transitional provisions, and a map.
8 Q. And is it different from what is commonly referred to as the
9 Vance Plan of 1991?
10 A. Yes, it is distinct from that plan.
11 Q. What was the general position of the different parties to the
12 conflict with respect to the Vance-Owen Plan?
13 A. Mate Boban on behalf of the Bosnian Croats accepted the plan as
14 soon as it was presented on the 3rd of January. The Bosnian Muslims led
15 by President Izetbegovic very reluctantly and slowly agreed to it in late
16 March of 1993. And the Bosnian Serbs declined to approve it.
17 Q. Did there come a time when Slobodan Milosevic personally attended
18 the Bosnian Serb Assembly and spoke about the Vance-Owen Peace Plan?
19 A. Yes, he attended the 30th session on March -- I am sorry, May 5th
20 and 6th of 1993. And spoke to that Assembly twice expressing his views
21 on the plan.
22 Q. I believe you addressed this in paragraph 88 of your report.
23 Before I ask you to describe what was said, can I ask you, was the 30th
24 session a public session or a private session?
25 A. The first part of it was public, and the second part was a
1 private session.
2 Q. Now, the portion that you've excerpted here in paragraph 88,
3 which portion did that occur in?
4 A. This occurred in the second section, the private session.
5 Q. Now, your report includes an extended excerpt of Milosevic's
6 statement to the Bosnian Serb Assembly. I want to seek your comment on a
7 few portions. Let me read the first excerpt I seek your comment on.
8 "The question was asked, which I really find unacceptable,
9 whether we give up our goal. I shall tell you no! We do not give up on
10 our goal. The question then, if we look at the plan is not whether the
11 plan represents completion of the goal, of course it does not. The
12 question is, though, whether the plan represents a way towards the final
14 Can you place into context what is the goal that Milosevic is
15 referring to in this passage?
16 A. In other portions of his address, he makes clear that the goal is
17 the establishment of a separate Bosnian Serb state.
18 Q. And can you summarise the other portions in the Assembly session,
19 the 30th Assembly session, which lead you to this interpretation of the
20 word "goal"?
21 A. Well, part of it is below in the second paragraph which I can put
22 on the ELMO, if it please the Court. Speaking of the characteristics of
23 a state that have been supported by the Serb government, a united system
24 of money transfer, introduce the same money, intend to have every
25 possible link and transaction between the economies, as we'll as we are
1 going to stabilise the entire unified area of economy. In other passages
2 he speaks of the police, the Serb police which under terms of a
3 modification of the plan that was agreed on in Athens a few days earlier,
4 were given permission to be the authority in Serb inhabited areas of
5 those provinces belonging to other ethnic groups. Now, these were all
6 characteristics of a state which he describes as part of the goal here.
7 Q. Now, when Milosevic refers to a plan and says a plan represents a
8 way towards the goal, what's that a reference to?
9 A. He speaks of the consolidation of what the Bosnian Serbs have
10 accomplished to that point and the use of the Vance Owen agreement, or
11 the situation established by it, as a platform from which to continue
12 these activities to build a Bosnian Serb state.
13 Q. And did Dr. Karadzic agree with him on this point?
14 A. He did not.
15 Q. And are you able after reading or examining the interchanges at
16 the 30th Assembly session, are you able to characterise the strength of
17 the disagreement?
18 A. Yes. Dr. Karadzic in fact spoke of the strength of the
19 disagreement in one of the excerpts from a later session. And I don't
20 have that number at hand, but I suspect you do.
21 Q. Can I draw your attention to paragraph 111. And ask you, is that
22 what you were referring to?
23 A. Yes, it is.
24 Q. And what does -- can you summarise what Dr. Karadzic says about
25 the nature of that disagreement?
1 A. He characterises that disagreement as there were some
2 misunderstandings and they are obvious. He refers specifically the
3 Vance-Owen Plan as the source of that misunderstanding and asserts that
4 it was not a kind of game but that it was better that people in general
5 believed that it was a game.
6 Q. Now, can I ask you to describe based solely on your examination
7 of the Assembly session minutes, the relationship between Dr. Karadzic
8 and Mr. Milosevic after this disagreement in 1993?
9 A. The two remained in disagreement over issues of peace plans from
10 this point on, and in fact we see from some of the passages here that
12 crossings but that considerable materiel, aid continued to flow from
14 Q. Can I draw your attention to paragraph 136 in your report and ask
15 you to place this in context and explain what, if anything, it does to
16 inform us about the nature of their relationship?
17 A. Yes, again a retrospective comment by Karadzic about a
18 communication or conversation with Milosevic in which Milosevic told him
19 that Zimmerman had requested he, Milosevic, to crush the Bosnian Serbs,
20 but that he had declined to do that saying that the border would in fact
21 remain open to at least some commerce.
22 Q. I'm about to move on to a different topic. Are there any other
23 observations you have with respect to the relationship between the two
25 A. No.
1 Q. Now, in your examination of the Assembly session minutes, did you
2 ever come across references to Jovica Stanisic?
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 Q. Can I draw your attention to paragraph 146. And this is from the
5 55th session held on the 22nd and 23rd of October, 1995. Who is speaking
6 in this excerpt contained in 146?
7 A. Milovan Milanovic.
8 Q. And can you place -- you've only given us a small excerpt here.
9 Based on your examination of the rest of the Assembly session, can you
10 give us the background of this statement by Milanovic?
11 A. This statement is one of several made at the 55th session by
12 Bosnian Serb representatives who had attended a meeting in Belgrade with
13 Mr. Milosevic and other officials of Yugoslavia and Serbia
14 prior to the commencement of the negotiations in Dayton. And at that
15 meeting the two sides discussed what their stance would be in the Dayton
16 talks, and in particular the Bosnian Serb representatives shared with
17 Milosevic what they were hoping he would do on their behalf in Dayton
18 Q. Is there another reference in this same session to Mr. Stanisic
19 with respect to events in Bihac?
20 A. Yes, there is. The meeting -- what -- Mr. Stanisic was one of
21 the people attending the meeting on behalf of Yugoslavia, and one of the
22 delegates at the Bosnian Serb Assembly referred to a statement that
23 Mr. Jovica Stanisic had made.
24 Q. Do you recall a paragraph in your report, or may I direct you to
25 a particular paragraph?
1 A. I recall very clearly that it's paragraph 148 because it's right
2 in front of me.
3 Q. Can you tell us who is speaking and tell us what position that
4 speaker held?
5 A. Mr. Rasula was a member of the Bosnian Serb Assembly. He was
6 from Sanski Most and had previously been president of the Crisis Staff in
7 Sanski Most.
8 Q. And what is he saying in this passage?
9 A. In this passage he is indicating that Mr. Jovica Stanisic spoke
10 and confirmed information that Rasula and other Bosnian Serbs already
11 had -- about who had prevented the taking of Bihac.
12 Q. Now, in this excerpt you simply refer to -- I'm sorry, Rasula
13 simply refers to a person with a family name of Stanisic, you indicate
14 brackets that you believe that the person he is referring to is
15 Jovica Stanisic. Can you tell us, confined to the Assembly session
16 minutes, how you reached that conclusion?
17 A. Yes. On page 11 of the English translation of the Assembly
18 session, the delegates from the Bosnian Serb Assembly are named. There
19 were 22 of them. Mr. Mico Stanisic is not among them. At the same time
20 at the beginning of the session, the participants in the meeting from the
21 Yugoslav side are named, and Mr. Jovica Stanisic is among the
22 participants from the Yugoslav side.
23 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that page 11 of the Assembly session be
24 brought up. It's 65 ter 1373. If that could be placed on the screens
25 before us. And if we could focus on the paragraph beginning "as for our
1 demand ... "
2 Q. Now, I'm going to ask you to read the paragraph that makes an
3 additional reference to Mr. Stanisic.
4 While we're waiting for it to come to our screens, can I ask you
5 to place in context what's happening, one of the events that are
6 happening contextually that will help the Chamber in understanding this
8 A. Let me look at it first, if I may.
9 Q. Yes, I am sorry.
10 A. A major topic at this discussion in Belgrade was the concerns of
11 the Bosnian Serb representatives about the blockade on the Drina
12 that the government of Serbia
13 was imposing. And the delegates asked about that blockade, and in this
14 passage the speaker, who I believe is Mr. Bijelic, says that they
15 received an answer that indeed things were passing through --
16 Q. If I might interrupt you there. Could I ask you to actually read
17 the paragraph --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- that refers to Mr. Stanisic.
20 A. "As for our demand for the blockade on the Drina to be lifted, I
21 must say that we were not given an answer. Several colleagues insisted
22 on it and asked, but we did not get an answer other than that things were
23 going regardless, passing through, that goods were going in both
24 directions, and that the fact that there were lesser quantities should be
25 blamed on our government, which, I recall Mr. Stanisic saying, insisted
1 on the private sector, and it seemed to me that every answer frequently
2 pointed in that direction in order to sew the seeds of dissent so that we
3 would squabble and fight among ourselves."
4 Q. Now, over the course of your study of Assembly session minutes,
5 do you recall seeing the name Franko Simatovic or Frenki?
6 A. No, I do not.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Please make pauses between questions and
8 answers. Thank you.
9 MR. GROOME:
10 Q. Apart from mentions of Mr. Stanisic himself, in paragraph 199 of
11 your report you included an excerpt from the 32nd session held in May of
12 1993, which includes a reference to the Serbian MUP. In that particular
13 passage, Ratko Adzic says:
14 "Certain services and individuals have been present that work
15 outside the official MUP channels for the needs of the MUP of Serbia."
16 My question to you is, who is Ratko Adzic?
17 A. Ratko -- pause a minute here. Ratko Adzic was the president of
18 one of the municipalities in western Sarajevo
19 Internal Affairs in the government of the RS.
20 Q. Are you able to tell us at the time he is speaking here what
21 position he held?
22 A. He was then minister of Internal Affairs of the RS.
23 Q. And can you help us understand what this passage is referring to?
24 A. It refers to a -- Tajfun, the name of an intelligence service
25 about which very little additional information is available in the
1 transcripts other than it was active in the Banja Luka area and, in
2 particular, played a role in the subsequent uprising there known as
3 September 1993.
4 Q. And am I correct that the typhoon and is spelled as T-a-j-f-u-n
5 in the Assembly session?
6 A. Yes, it is.
7 Q. Now, if I could draw your attention to paragraph 233 of your
8 report. In your study of the Assembly session transcripts, did you come
9 across a reference to a paramilitary group commonly referred to as the
10 Red Berets?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. Before I ask you to comment on the statements that were made,
13 could you please tell us the context from the Assembly session minutes in
14 which a discussion of the Red Berets took place?
15 A. Prior to this statement by Dr. Vojinovic [phoen], who was the
16 delegate from Brcko, several delegates to the Assembly reported the
17 murder of a policeman in Brcko and questioned Mr. Vojinovic about exactly
18 what had happened and why this murder had taken place.
19 Q. And is it said who was believed to have murdered this policeman?
20 A. Mr. Vojinovic reported that the members of the RS army were
21 wearing different markings, that the Red Beret were responsible for the
23 Q. And do the Assembly session minutes indicate the ethnicity of the
24 policeman in Brcko that was murdered?
25 A. They indicate that he was a Serb.
1 Q. Who does Vojinovic believe the Red Berets are affiliated with?
2 A. He believes them to have been a part of the RS army.
3 Q. Now, we can read for ourselves that Vojinovic recounts a
4 conversation he had with the brigade commander of the Republika Srpska.
5 As a result of that conversation, what is Vojinovic's understanding of
6 the purpose of the Red Berets?
7 A. His understanding was that they were -- their mission was special
8 offensive operations.
9 Q. Now, Dr. Donia, this discussion of the Red Berets killing a
10 policeman in Brcko occurs at the end of 1993 in the 36th session. How
11 many Assembly sessions were there in all?
12 A. 63.
13 Q. And did you examine all of them?
14 A. Yes, I did.
15 Q. In any of those sessions after this initial discussion about the
16 Red Berets murdering this policeman, is there any mention of an
17 investigation into that murder of the policeman?
18 A. I did not see any.
19 Q. Now, Dr. Donia, paragraphs 55 to 57 of the indictment allege that
20 Arkan was responsible for serious crimes in Sanski Most in September of
21 1995, crimes which became well known. Is there any reference in the
22 Assembly session with respect to Arkan around this time-period?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Can I draw your attention to paragraph 143.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And can I ask you to summarise the discussion that is held in the
2 Assembly session regarding Arkan?
3 A. Mr. Djuric, who is a delegate, said that he believed Arkan to be
4 in the service of Belgrade
5 help the Bosnian Serbs.
6 Q. Did Vojo Kupresanin also make comments regarding Arkan in this
7 Assembly session?
8 A. Yes, did he.
9 Q. And I direct your attention to paragraph 141 of your report, and
10 can you describe Mr. Kupresanin's position with respect to Arkan?
11 A. In paragraph 141, Mr. Kupresanin who was a delegate from the
12 Bosnian Krajina area noted that -- his own dissatisfaction with the many
13 commanders that had existed or had been in position in Banja Luka and
14 proposed that Arkan should be invited to -- should be appointed commander
15 of Banja Luka. And praising what he did in Eastern Slavonia as achieving
16 practical results.
17 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, these are all the questions I have for
18 Dr. Donia. I know that you will defer your decision on admissibility of
19 the report, but so that I'm not remiss in my duties, I do formally tender
20 it at this stage, and that's 65 ter 5396.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
22 Before we continue, Mr. Donia, I hope you'll forgive me but
23 you -- I didn't follow you. You were asked how you concluded that where
24 the family name of Mr. Stanisic was used only by Mr. Rasula, you referred
25 to page 11 of the English translation of the Assembly session. Which
1 Assembly session were you specifically referring to there?
2 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, that was the 55th Assembly session.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. And that the 55th Assembly session, let me
4 just check, you say page 11 of the English.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. There are two excerpts. One of
6 which is in the report --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 THE WITNESS: -- which -- and one of which is not which we
9 simply -- which I simply cited from the transcript of the 55th session.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you referred for those present to page 11
11 of that English -- page 11 of the 55th session, is that --
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have -- as far as I can see that is -- let
14 me just see --
15 THE WITNESS: It's toward the bottom of the page, the last full
16 paragraph on that page. He is cited in line 5.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. I have page 11 which starts at the top
18 with the words "what my colleague Djuric had said before me..." Is that
19 the page you are referring to?
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, that's the page.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And now you said --
22 THE WITNESS: Down further in the --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 THE WITNESS: -- last full paragraph of that page.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 THE WITNESS: In line -- the fifth line of that paragraph, you
2 see Mr. Stanisic in upper case letters.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, there apparently seems to be a problem.
4 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I believe there is some confusion. I
5 believe Dr. Donia believes you are asking about Mr. Stanisic, and I
6 believe you are asking about the list of attendees --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. GROOME: -- of the delegation, and that's found on page 7 of
9 the Assembly session minutes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: That's page 7, because I understood your testimony
11 to be that it was on page 11. But you say it's to be found on page 7.
12 Let's have a look at page 7.
13 MR. GROOME: Perhaps if that could be called up so Dr. Donia
14 could read that page.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, there I see it. Yes. I was a bit confused by
16 not finding it on page 11, but I do see that on page 7 it says our
17 delegation consisted of and then --
18 MR. GROOME: Please ask the court usher to scroll to page 7 so
19 Dr. Donia can see what we are referring to.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then the presence of Mr. Jovica Stanisic
21 as a member of the --
22 THE WITNESS: Your Honour --
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- delegation, you said that it's to be found at the
24 beginning of the transcript; is that correct?
25 THE WITNESS: At the beginning of the transcript of this session,
1 yes. I forget whether it's page 1 or 2, but it is --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I found this now on page 7, so I was able to
3 follow that. And you say at the beginning of the -- because I had --
4 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, it's page 4 about the middle of the
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No wonder that I had some difficulties in
7 finding it because the beginning is a relative concept. Yes, now I see
8 it on page 4 approximately in the middle.
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, I apologise, Your Honour. I wasn't clear on
10 where that appeared.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's where Mr. Milanovic explains the
12 presence of 22 members of the Republika Srpska Assembly and names those
13 who were in the serving delegation. Yes.
14 THE WITNESS: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: It's clear to me now. I found the sources. You see
16 how important it is, Mr. Donia, to verify the sources.
17 MR. GROOME: Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. GROOME: I hadn't intended on tendering that session, I
20 thought maybe him reading the paragraph would suffice, but now that we
21 have spoken about different portions of it, I would tender 1373, 65 ter
22 number, the 55th session.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I found most important that we find on page 7
24 what was said to be found at page 11, and that we found on page 4 what is
25 said to be found at the very beginning of the session.
1 Any objections against tendering this document? Madam Registrar,
2 the number would be.
3 THE REGISTRAR: 1373 becomes Exhibit P951, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: P951 is admitted into evidence. We still have ten
5 minutes left.
6 Mr. Jordash, you are the first to -- you know that there's always
7 a risk in letting someone else going first. Please.
8 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please start your cross-examination.
10 Mr. Donia, you'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Jordash.
11 Mr. Jordash is counsel for Mr. Jovica Stanisic.
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash:
13 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Donia.
14 A. Good afternoon.
15 Q. You've testified in, I haven't actually counted them, but
16 probably six or seven cases before this Tribunal?
17 A. By my count I've testified in 12.
18 Q. And this is the first time that you've compiled a report such as
19 in this way?
20 A. No.
21 Q. No? What other report have you compiled in this way?
22 A. I compiled a report from a limited number of these Assembly
23 sessions for the case of the Prosecutor v Slobodan Milosevic.
24 Q. Okay. Let me put it differently. This is the first time that
25 you've compiled a report in this way and this being the sole report
1 before the Court?
2 A. No. I believe that it was the sole report in the Milosevic case
3 as I recall. I'm subject to being corrected on that.
4 Q. There was a supplement to that expert report?
5 A. That supplement was simply a few other excerpts that were added
6 to the original when an additional session became available to me.
7 Q. Okay. So ten out of the cases you've testified in, you've had a
8 different type of report before the Court?
9 A. There has been at least one additional type of report, and I
10 believe this report or the Milosevic report was submitted in four or five
11 cases as well.
12 Q. Right. And the -- those other types of reports have been of a
13 more, how can I say, traditional kind of expert report with opinions
14 stated with footnotes sourcing material; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Offering a global opinion with sub-opinions with footnoted
18 A. Well, they offered a narrative and I would not want to reduce
19 that narrative to opinion. It was a narrative based on the sources that
20 I did reference in footnotes which went to the origins, development, and
21 outcome of the events pertaining to the indictment.
22 Q. Right. So a typical report would be the one you filed or
23 compiled in the Brdjanin case entitled "Bosnian Krajina in the History of
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina, History and Developments Leading to the Outbreak of
25 Armed Conflicts 1992"?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, I want to understand why it was or the process by which you
3 were asked to compile this different type of report in this case and also
4 the Milosevic case. What was the -- before I start on that, was the
5 report in the Milosevic case similar to this report or the same as this
7 A. It was similar in format or it was similar, let's say, in style.
8 It was based, as I indicated, on a more limited set of the Bosnian Serb
9 Assembly sessions, and it was presented in chronological form by Assembly
10 session rather than topically with the eight topics as this report has
12 Q. Right. Just dealing with the other type of reports, just
13 generally how did it come to pass that you wrote those reports? How were
14 you first of all approached by the Prosecution?
15 A. In each case I was approached by a member of the Prosecution to
16 prepare a report and as they approached me, they indicated the type of
17 report that they would like to have.
18 Q. In what sense did they indicate that? Did they come with a
19 question or was it they came with a theme? How was it?
20 A. It depended on the particular case. In a couple of the early
21 reports, I was asked to provide a very broad background historical
22 canvass at a time when many people at the Tribunal were very unfamiliar
23 with the history of the region. Those requests in subsequent cases
24 became more refined, more specific, more limited in geography and
25 chronology, and of a much more pertinent directly to the events in the --
1 alleged in the indictment.
2 Q. And was it a process -- was the final questions or question asked
3 in the reports the result of a collaborative exchange of ideas between
4 you and the Prosecution?
5 A. To a limited degree, yes. For example, in the Stakic case, I was
6 asked specifically to limit the scope to events after the election of
7 1990, and I myself suggested some further limitations on that report
8 which made it much more specifically targeted at the -- as a background
9 to the events alleged in the indictment.
10 Q. When you were approached to write a report in this case, what was
11 the first request made of you?
12 A. The request was simply that I expand the report that I had
13 prepared for the Milosevic case to include additional sessions because
14 the Milosevic case had started with the 16th session, did not include
15 sessions 1 to 14.
16 Q. Right. Okay. Let's go back then to the approach that was made
17 of you in the Milosevic case. What was the approach made in the first
19 A. Well, that actually came out of some discussions that I had when
20 I was preparing the report for the Krajisnik case. I had requested
21 Assembly sessions going into the summer and fall of 1992 which I had not
22 previously seen. I requested those of the Prosecution. And perceived
23 that this was an extraordinary source which illuminated more than just
24 the few months prior to the beginning of the conflict, but in fact
25 represented a major source for events throughout the war and even
1 afterwards, as well as the retrospective observations that were being
2 made in some of the comments. In other words, I recognised that unlike a
3 lot of sources, this source really described changes over time in
4 people's attitude, actions, and descriptions of events.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I'm looking at the clock. I would like
6 to spend one or two minutes on how we will proceed tomorrow. If this
7 would be a suitable moment.
8 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes, that's fine. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Donia, I'll discuss with the parties how to
10 proceed. Before I ask the usher to escort you out of the courtroom, I'd
11 like to instruct you that you should not speak with anyone about your
12 testimony, whether that is testimony given already or still to be given
13 tomorrow, because we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.00 in
14 this same courtroom.
15 Madam usher, could you please escort the witness out of the
17 [The witness stands down]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could I receive indication as the time the parties
19 would need for cross-examination of this witness?
20 MR. JORDASH: Two hours, if I could, please.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, up to an hour.
23 Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: That makes three hours. Now, the next question is,
25 I do understand that the witness to be cross-examined has arrived, is in
1 The Hague
2 witness to be cross-examined?
3 MR. JORDASH: I'm hesitating. I don't want to be too
4 conservative. I would ask for three hours, please.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Which means that in no way we could finish both
6 witnesses tomorrow. That seems to be very clear. I mean, it's of no use
7 to urge you to shortcut a bit because that wouldn't help us out.
8 MR. JORDASH: No, the next witness covers a range of subjects in
9 a number of localities.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Which means that we would hear the remainder of that
11 witness's testimony on Wednesday, the 1st of September.
12 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the only thing that I would raise, I
13 would ask the Chamber just to have Victim Witness inquire from both
14 witnesses the impact of staying over the weekend. I know that this
15 witness just came out of the hospital, I don't know whether he has a
16 follow-up appointment Monday, I know nothing about that.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Would we then consider to hear the -- whether of
18 course there are various options to see whether we could have a double
19 session tomorrow, that is one of the issues that -- one of the
20 possibilities that could be explored, but I'm not aware whether this
21 causes problems as far as the Chamber is concerned because judges have
22 their own agendas as well.
23 MR. JORDASH: I should say I think it would cause problems for
24 Mr. Stanisic. When I spoke to him earlier today, I think he was
25 struggling somewhat.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And then if we do not want the witness to stay here
2 during the weekend, would we then ask Mr. Donia to stay over the weekend
3 and then to start cross-examination with the next witness tomorrow. What
4 are the suggestions?
5 MR. GROOME: My suggestion was, Your Honour, that Victim Witness
6 be asked to inquire from both witnesses what the impact of having to stay
7 over the weekend, and then the court to make a decision about which one,
8 whether we interrupt and Mr. --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. GROOM: If this -- 215 has a medical appointment, that may
11 take precedence over Dr. Donia's convenience.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Now it's 2 minutes past 7.00. I inquire into the
13 matter. We are supposed to start tomorrow morning at 9.00, so we would
14 have to make a major effort to find out. I don't know whether the
15 Victims and Witness Section is still able to provide us with the
16 information. And then, of course, for the witnesses both to come
17 tomorrow morning at 9.00 and then to hear which one of the two is the
18 lucky one or the unlucky one is ... I am available to receive whatever
19 information there is, and I would invite the parties to remain on standby
20 to be reached if need be. Do I understand that I didn't hear anything in
21 that respect, that both parties are ready to start cross-examination of
22 the next witness who was scheduled for tomorrow, so I would expect you to
23 be ready.
24 MR. JORDASH: Well, I would strongly prefer to continue with
25 Mr. Donia. [Overlapping speakers]
1 JUDGE ORIE: I do see the point but there are other interests
2 involved as well. But I do understand that both Defence teams are ready
3 to start to cross-examine the next witness who has a medical history at
4 this moment. Mr. Bakrac?
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then I ask Madam Registrar to inform the Victims and
7 Witness Section about what we discussed over the last four, five minutes
8 and to report if possible this evening, even informally, to Chamber
9 staff, and then for the other parties to -- well, mobile phones are in
10 the possession of everyone so that we could communicate if need be.
11 We adjourn and we'll resume tomorrow, Friday the 27th of August,
12 9.00. Courtroom II.
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.
14 to be reconvened on Friday, the 27th day of
15 August, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.