Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 4447

 1                           Wednesday, 9 December 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning,

 6     everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is case number IT-08-91-T,

 7     the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  Good morning to all.  May we have the

 9     appearances, please.

10             MR. DOBBYN:  For the Office of the Prosecutor, Gerard Dobbyn with

11     Joanna Korner, and assisting us today as Case Manager is

12     Jasmina Bosnjakovic.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Slobodan Zecevic,

14     Eugene O'Sullivan and Ms. Paula Lynch appearing for Stanisic Defence

15     today.  Thank you.

16             MR. PANTELIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  For Zupljanin

17     Defence, Igor Pantelic and Dragan Krgovic.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  Would the usher please escort the

19     witness back to the stand.

20             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, while that's happening I'm not seeking

21     to delay matters now, but I do want to raise the question with you, and

22     this is a joint application by the Defence and Prosecution about the

23     procedures of the admission of documents particularly in light of

24     Your Honours ruling yesterday in respect to the Sanski Most documents.

25             JUDGE HALL:  You are alerting us that you are going to deal with

Page 4448

 1     that at some point or you are going to do it now?

 2             MS. KORNER:  Well, as Your Honours asked for the witness to come

 3     in, I thought I'll leave it to a later stage.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

 5                           [The witness takes the stand]

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 8                           WITNESS:  DOROTHEA HANSON [Resumed]

 9                           Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]

10        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Ms. Hanson.

11        A.   Good morning.

12        Q.   Mrs. Hanson, we discussed yesterday how your report came to be

13     written.  At one point you said you had prepared a memo for the

14     Prosecution team in the Krajisnik case.  Do you you remember?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   If I understand that well, that means you worked as part of the

17     Prosecution team in the Krajisnik case?

18        A.   That is correct.

19        Q.   And if I understood this right, when you submitted to them this

20     memo on Crisis Staff, they liked it and so they decided to instruct you

21     to write a report and represent that report as an expert; right?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   I'm sure that when they were giving you these instructions, they

24     suggested what form the report should take and what particularly to focus

25     on; correct?

Page 4449

 1        A.   As far as form, it was mostly a question of the formal

 2     presentation such as footnotes versus endnotes.  I don't recall much

 3     input on the topics to focus on.  At that point, I think they thought I

 4     had satisfied with the topics I had covered, but there was certainly some

 5     discussion of what it takes to change a memo to an expert report, more

 6     footnotes, footnotes in a certain form, table of contents, that sort of

 7     thing.

 8        Q.   You also told us yesterday, I think on page 4044, that you drew

 9     the attention of your Prosecution colleagues to documents that do not

10     support their case.  Do you remember that?

11        A.   Yes, that's part of my job.  I do it all the time.

12        Q.   Could you identify those documents, please, which do not support

13     the Prosecution's theory of the case in your report?

14        A.   I note in my report the differences in the pattern but -- trying

15     to recall if I found documents specifically from Crisis Staffs because I

16     review many different documents as a member the team.

17        Q.   Mrs. Hanson, if you say that there are documents that do not

18     support the Prosecution case and that you drew the Prosecutor's attention

19     to them when you were writing this expert report, I'm asking you, can you

20     tell me which are these documents reflected in your report.  Can you

21     specify them?

22        A.   They are not in my report, but I brought them to the attention of

23     the Prosecution team.

24        Q.   So those documents that do not support the Prosecution case are

25     not reflected in the report.  You did draw the attention of the

Page 4450

 1     Prosecution to them but you did not include them in your expert report.

 2     Don't you think that it is the duty of the expert in keeping with the

 3     rules of this court to assist the Court in gaining knowledge of facts

 4     that they are not aware of in an objective manner?

 5        A.   I feel that it is very much the duty of the expert to assist the

 6     Court by presenting facts in an objective manner.

 7        Q.   How, then, do you imagine facts can be presented in an objective

 8     manner if the facts that do not support the Prosecution case did not find

 9     a place in your report?  How does that make your report objective?

10        A.   I did not find any documents that significantly changed the

11     understanding of -- my understanding of the pattern of evidence as

12     explained in my report.  As I say, in the course of my review documents,

13     I know it is one of my duties to bring to the attention of the

14     Prosecution documents that appear potentially Rule 68.  I'm not a lawyer,

15     it's not my job to decide whether a document is or is not Rule 68, but I

16     did not find anything significant enough to change my understanding of

17     the documents I use.

18        Q.   You will agree with me that ultimately it is the Trial Chamber

19     that decides on the significance of these documents; correct?

20        A.   My understanding is the Trial Chamber can only decide on the

21     documents presented to it.  My job is to -- part of my job is to assist

22     the Prosecution team with identifying documents that should possibly be

23     disclosed as Rule 68.

24        Q.   The key issue is precisely this one, since it is the

25     Trial Chamber that decides on the basis of the evidence led here, do you

Page 4451

 1     believe it is not your duty to present to the Trial Chamber all the

 2     documentation, including the documents that do not support the

 3     Prosecution case?  In other words, do you believe it is sufficient for

 4     you to have informed the Prosecutor that some documents are potentially

 5     68?  That is the only issue.  What is your position?

 6        A.   I cannot possibly present to the Court all the documentation even

 7     relevant to Crisis Staffs.  It's my job as an expert to make a selection.

 8     It's my job as an expert to look at the -- all the documentation to

 9     determine a pattern, and if there was a consistent pattern that one area

10     of my conclusions was quite wrong on the basis of documents that

11     contradict it, of course I take it out -- I would rewrite my report, take

12     it out of it.

13             I found no such consistent body of evidence which contradicted

14     what I wrote.  On the contrary, looking at tens of thousands of documents

15     of which thousands came from Crisis Staffs, I made a selection that I

16     thought best represented the pattern I saw in the evidence.  I would --

17     I've based my report on the evidence I found, so it's not that I started

18     with conclusions and looked -- presented only those documents which

19     supported them.  Quite the opposite.

20        Q.   [No interpretation].  [Interpretation] We will now go through

21     certain documents that I believe you did consider but for some reason

22     they did not find their way into your report.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  Do we have the translation now?  [Interpretation]

24     Should I repeat?

25        Q.   Mrs. Hanson, thank you for this clarification.  I will now try to

Page 4452

 1     present to you certain documents that I believe you had access to, but

 2     for some reason, they did not find their way into your report, although I

 3     believe they have a considerable effect on the veracity of the claims in

 4     your report.

 5             I asked you yesterday whether you had shown your colleagues from

 6     the Prosecution the context in which the instructions of the

 7     19th December 1991 were issued.  That's P69.  Do you remember this

 8     question?

 9        A.   Yes, I remember the question.  Part of my job as an analyst in

10     the leadership research team is to explain historical context to the

11     Prosecution team and I did often.  My specific tasking on Crisis Staffs

12     was to present a report on the formation and operation of Bosnian Serb

13     Crisis Staffs.  But in other forms of my work, I do explain the

14     historical context.

15        Q.   Very well.  Would you agree with me -- and I would appreciate

16     brief answers such as yes or no.  I'll read out to you a couple of facts

17     and events which I believe to be important to the context in which these

18     instructions were given.  Do you believe it's important, in terms of the

19     context, that on the 19th December, the non-constitutional declaration of

20     sovereignty adopted by the Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina had a role to

21     play?

22             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, if I may, before you go into the

23     details of documents, there is -- Ms. Hanson, is there procedurally or

24     administratively a means of isolating your work as an expert from your

25     ordinary work in the Office of the Prosecution?

Page 4453

 1             THE WITNESS:  Once my report was identified as -- to be an expert

 2     report, then certainly in this case I was -- very concrete steps were

 3     taken that I not be part of team meetings, I not receive any team

 4     discussions on the case.  I would receive specific questions to answer,

 5     but I was not told why -- how they would pertain to the case, once I was

 6     identified as an expert.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

 8             Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

10        Q.   [Interpretation] In the light of the Judge's question, let me ask

11     you one more thing.  You said your first report was created on the basis

12     of a memorandum written by you as part of the Prosecution team in

13     Krajisnik, and then the Prosecutor's leading that case asked you to write

14     it in the form of a report, and that is your basic report, isn't it?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And then this basic report from Krajisnik was amended, adjusted,

17     updated for the requirements of this case, and then finally, the last --

18     the latest version was made for the Karadzic case; correct?

19        A.   After I -- my expert report was completed for Krajisnik, I

20     continued to update it according to materials, documents, that came to my

21     knowledge.  I was not -- this was an ongoing project and I was not yet

22     identified as -- I had not yet been informed by Stanisic/Zupljanin team

23     that they would want my report for an expert witness, but it was simply

24     one of my taskings, ongoing taskings to keep my report updated.  So it

25     was -- that was a matter of a couple of years, and then when the

Page 4454

 1     Stanisic/Zupljanin team said they wanted to use my report, then I had a

 2     more definite goal in the writing it, but it was an ongoing project

 3     updating it.  And then yes, there is another version which I have further

 4     updated for Karadzic.

 5        Q.   Ms. Hanson, isn't it true that you drafted one report for the

 6     Stanisic case and then subsequently updated it in April 2008?

 7        A.   As I say, this report for this case was based on my ongoing

 8     revision and updating of the report as written for Krajisnik.  So I don't

 9     quite understand --

10        Q.   Let me explain.  In 2006 or 2007, you drafted a report on

11     Crisis Staffs for the needs of the Mico Stanisic case.  That was the

12     first version.  The version we are discussing now is the version of

13     15 February 2008.  That's just over a year ago.

14        A.   I know that this version here is essentially what I drafted in, I

15     believe, February 2008.  I -- at this point, I do not recall whether

16     there was a version in 2006 or 2007.  As I say, the Krajisnik report, I

17     think, I originally wrote in 2002 and kept reworking it.  I don't

18     remember -- I don't recall giving -- drafting one in 2006 or 2007 for the

19     Stanisic Prosecution team.

20        Q.   To conclude whether you remember or not, are you saying to us

21     that there were no instructions and no suggestions made by the

22     Stanisic/Zupljanin Prosecution team in the sense of direction that you

23     should take in writing your report?

24        A.   I was -- received some oral instructions that it would be logical

25     to expand the police section because it was very brief in the original

Page 4455

 1     report, and I was given a list of the municipalities in the indictment

 2     with an indication that it would be preferable to draw my examples from

 3     those municipalities where possible.  I did not receive a written set of

 4     taskings as I did in the Karadzic case, but this was from conversations

 5     mostly with the former Prosecutor, Anna Richterova.

 6        Q.   You mean Richterova; correct?

 7        A.   Yes, that's what I said.

 8        Q.   So if I understood this correctly, you did not receive written

 9     instructions but you received verbal instructions, and on that basis, you

10     adjusted your report?

11        A.   On the basis of the oral discussions and suggestions, I looked at

12     the police, the issue of the police in more depth, looked at some more

13     police documents, and of the examples which I already had in my

14     footnotes, I gave more emphasis in the text to those examples from the

15     indictment municipalities.  I did not change my conclusions or my

16     assertions in any fundamental way.  It was simply the main change was

17     better organisation, but that I had already been working on myself and a

18     little more attention to the police section.

19        Q.   Isn't it true, madam, that essentially the conclusions you made

20     in the Krajisnik case, you just expanded to include the police by

21     interpreting the documents related to the police, including the Law on

22     the Interior, in keeping with the conclusions you had already made?

23        A.   The conclusions I had already made were based on the documents.

24     I looked at the documents one more time and wrote my conclusions.  But I

25     certainly did not look at the documents in the light of proving

Page 4456

 1     pre-existing conclusions.  I always draw my conclusions from the

 2     documentary evidence.

 3        Q.   All right.  Let's go back to the context of the document P69.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If we can call it up on the screen.

 5        Q.   Mrs. Hanson, we were discussing the context of events which led

 6     to this document on the 19th of December.  I asked you whether you

 7     believed that in the context of these instructions, the adoption of the

 8     unconstitutional proclamation of sovereignty on the 15th of October by

 9     the Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina is significant, yes or no?

10        A.   I cannot answer that question because I do not -- I'm not in a

11     position to judge the constitutionality or not of it.  As I understand,

12     it was not a direct proclamation [Realtime transcript read in error

13     "Prokuplje lamb maigs"] of sovereignty but a memorandum on sovereignty,

14     and it occurred two months before the issuance of this document.

15     However, it was one of the events and the interpretation of that

16     memorandum of sovereignty was one of the events which was, yes, part of

17     the lead-up to the conflict, part of the problems facing or the issues

18     facing Bosnia at the time.

19        Q.   Thank you.  In your view, did the signing of the plan on the

20     peaceful solution of the Yugoslav crisis on the 25th of November, 1991,

21     under the leadership of Lord Carrington also have an impact on the

22     context?

23        A.   It was certainly part of the general political context at the

24     time.

25        Q.   Do you know that on the 9th of December, 1991, the conference on

Page 4457

 1     Yugoslavia continued precisely here in The Hague --

 2             MR. PANTELIC:  I do apologise to interrupt my learned friend.  It

 3     is a problem with transcript.  This is page 10, line 9, the wording is:

 4     "As I understand, it not a direct Prokuplje lamb maigs of sovereignty..."

 5             It doesn't make sense to me so let's clarify that, please.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   I think Mrs. Hanson, you actually said it was not a direct --

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  Sorry, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I think that in LiveNote it came out correctly.

10             MS. KORNER:  No.  It's line 7, Your Honours.

11             MR. PANTELIC:  [Microphone not activated].

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Oh yes.  Sorry, sorry.

13             MR. PANTELIC:  Although maybe the topic is different.

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  Would you like me to clarify this, Your Honours?

15             THE WITNESS:  Proclamation.

16             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Yes.  You said it was not a direct proclamation, it was a

18     declaration on sovereignty, memorandum?

19        A.   A memorandum.  But the word in question here is "proclamation."

20        Q.   Thank you.  So the question I was trying to ask before this was:

21     Do you know that on the 9th December 1991, the conference on Yugoslavia

22     continued precisely here in The Hague?

23        A.   I don't know that exact date, but, yes, I certainly know that at

24     this time of year, in that month, it was ongoing.

25        Q.   Do you remember the statement made by the German government on

Page 4458

 1     the 14th of December, 1991, wherein they say, despite the warning of the

 2     UN Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar at the time, that they would not

 3     give up on the recognition of sovereignty of Slovenia and Croatia, which

 4     practically undermined the efforts of the conference here in The Hague?

 5        A.   I am not aware of that particular statement.  I am aware of the

 6     general policy of the German government at the time.  Whether that

 7     necessarily undermined peace efforts, I'm not -- I can't answer or I

 8     would not agree that it necessarily meant all peace efforts were -- would

 9     be undone.

10        Q.   Ms. Hanson, you know that on the 17th of December, 1991, the

11     council of ministers of the European Union adopted a new declaration on

12     Yugoslavia and decided on that occasion that they would recognise the

13     independence of all Yugoslav Republics that accept the declaration on the

14     criteria of recognition for all new states in Europe and the former USSR,

15     with a proviso that the application be made until 23rd December 1991, and

16     the promised date of recognition was the 15th of January, 1992.  Are you

17     aware of this?  Are you aware of this decision of the council of

18     ministers?

19        A.   I am aware in general terms, not of the specific dates and

20     dead-lines, nor the specific terms.

21        Q.   Are you aware, since you are a trained historian, that on the

22     same day, the 17th December, when this declaration was made by the

23     council of ministers, President Izetbegovic declared that

24     Bosnia-Herzegovina would definitely apply for recognition of its

25     independence?

Page 4459

 1        A.   Again, I'm not aware of the exact date but I am aware of his

 2     statement to that effect.

 3        Q.   Do you know that the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, as the

 4     highest body, indeed, despite the opposition of co-presidents from the

 5     Serbian people really made that decision on the 20th December 1991, and

 6     the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina formally applied for recognition of

 7     its independence.  Do you know that?

 8        A.   Once again, I'm not sure of the specific dates, but that

 9     generally accords with my knowledge, yes.

10        Q.   Do you know that this decision of the government of Bosnia and

11     Herzegovina to formally apply for recognition of its independence was

12     adopted by simple majority, 12 ministers for, and 8 against?

13        A.   No, I'm not aware of the procedural details of this decision.

14        Q.   And the last thing I believe to be important for the context of

15     the instruction that we are discussing is the fact that on the

16     23rd December 1991, the German government really and unilaterally,

17     without waiting for other states of the European Union, recognised the

18     independence of Slovenia and Croatia.  And again, this is a curiosity,

19     this came three weeks before the Vatican recognised the independence of

20     these republics.  Do you know that?

21        A.   Again, I don't know the specific date.  I am aware that about

22     that time the German government unilaterally recognised Slovenia and

23     Croatia.

24        Q.   Did you draw the attention of your colleagues from the

25     Prosecution to this context and the events surrounding the adoption of

Page 4460

 1     these instructions of 19 December, yes or no?

 2        A.   As part of the leadership research team, it's our job to make

 3     sure that the Prosecution is aware of the historical context.  I'm not --

 4     the international negotiations were not part of my particular area of

 5     expertise, but other members of my team certainly made the Prosecution

 6     team aware.

 7        Q.   All right.  Then let me ask you more specifically, you are a

 8     historian, a political analyst, you made this report, you say you have

 9     enough knowledge to provide an expert report on Crisis Staffs, you claim

10     that this document on Variants A and B is a fundamental document.  And

11     tell me, in your view was the adoption of these instructions influenced

12     by all these facts that we've just mentioned?

13        A.   It's conceivable, but the only larger historical context that

14     this document refers to is the Bosnian Serb plebiscite in November.  But

15     obviously the production of any document is going to be influenced by the

16     historical context in which it's produced.

17        Q.   But don't you think that it is precisely these facts and this

18     historical context were the key and basic reason for the adoption of

19     these instructions?

20        A.   The question that concerned me was not so much the reason for the

21     adoption, but the consequences of the adoption of it.

22        Q.   Well, you know, Ms. Hanson, when a document is issued, it is

23     necessary to know the intent behind it, and you are telling us that you

24     established the intent based on the consequences, not the intent per se?

25     Please answer briefly, yes or no.  There's no need to go into any deeper

Page 4461

 1     explanation.

 2        A.   Well, when the question has two parts and I agree with one but

 3     not the other, I have to -- I can't answer simply yes or no.

 4        Q.   Then go ahead.

 5        A.   Yes, it is necessary to know the intent behind a document if you

 6     are analysing it.  In this case, I was asked to look at the formation of

 7     Crisis Staffs, not the historical context of this one document.  I traced

 8     the formation of Bosnian Serb Crisis Staffs to this document.  That's why

 9     it's in my report.

10        Q.   But if a document came into being, you must know in which

11     historical context and why it came to be.  You cannot establish the

12     reasons for the production of a document based on the consequences that

13     followed, or am I wrong?

14        A.   You are not wrong.  I agree, you have to know the context, but

15     that doesn't mean that you put all of it in the report on the formation

16     and operation of Crisis Staffs.

17        Q.   So if I understand this well, on one hand, your report is limited

18     to the consequences that these Crisis Staffs produced in your opinion; on

19     another hand, it's limited insofar as there are documents you did not

20     include in the report, and it is also limited because you did not present

21     the real historical context that led to the production of a key document

22     for this report; correct?

23        A.   My document -- my report is limited to my tasking which is to

24     explain the formation and functioning of Bosnian Serb Crisis Staffs.  To

25     that end, I included all documents which I thought most representative,

Page 4462

 1     most helpful, and I did not try to introduce the entire context of Bosnia

 2     in late 1991.

 3        Q.   You will agree with me, Mrs. Hanson, to cut a long story short,

 4     that history is very important for understanding the conclusions and

 5     certain documents.  When I say history, I mean the historical context in

 6     which things are happening or documents are produced.

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Let us look at this document.  You claim, if I understand your

 9     report correctly, as well as the assertions you made in your testimony in

10     other cases, you claim that this is a fundamental document prescribing

11     the pattern according to which Crisis Staffs of the Serbian Democratic

12     Party were established in the whole territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina

13     in December 1991; correct?

14        A.   As I make clear in my report, they were not established

15     everywhere in December 1991, but, yes, I do see this document as the

16     founding document for the Bosnian Serb Crisis Staffs of December 1991 and

17     early 1992.

18        Q.   Mrs. Hanson, it seems to follow from paragraph 19 in your report

19     that you believe that this document is a binding instruction followed by

20     Municipal Boards of the SDS?  It's the first page of your paragraph 19.

21        A.   I believe that those who received the instructions regarded it as

22     binding upon them.

23        Q.   Do you have any reason to believe, then, that some Municipal

24     Boards of the SDS did not receive these instructions?  Did I understand

25     that correctly?

Page 4463

 1        A.   I'm unable to draw conclusions as to just how many did or did not

 2     receive them.  I know that they were received in many municipalities.  I

 3     am restricted obviously to the documentary evidence which shows which

 4     ones did.  There's not documentary evidence saying we didn't get these

 5     instructions.

 6             As I indicate in my report, not all municipalities did form

 7     Crisis Staffs in December 1991.  Some were quite later.  Whether that was

 8     because they hadn't received the instructions or did not regard them as

 9     applicable to their situation, I can't tell.

10        Q.   But you claim, if I understood you correctly, that all Municipal

11     Boards of the SDS formed Crisis Staffs?

12        A.   No, my sentence reads that SDS Municipal Boards received

13     instructions and formed Crisis Staffs.  I cannot claim, nor do I, that

14     they all did.  In fact, I make it clear in my report that some apparently

15     is it not until as late as March.

16        Q.   Madam, I'm not asking you about the time when they set them up,

17     whether it was January, February, or March.  I'm asking you:  Is your

18     claim that all Municipal Boards of the SDS whenever, never mind when,

19     from January to March, did set up such Crisis Staffs?

20        A.   No, I do not claim that because there are many municipalities

21     that did I not look at for which we have no documentary evidence.  There

22     are many municipalities which were not directly affected by the war or

23     contested territory and for which I have no evidence, so I can't claim

24     that.

25        Q.   If I understand you correctly, the territories that were not

Page 4464

 1     affected by the war and were not in contested areas, did not implement

 2     these instructions to form Crisis Staffs; correct?

 3        A.   I don't know because I'm limited to the documentary evidence in

 4     the possession of the OTP, and if the municipality was not one which was

 5     a focus of document collection, I can't know that.

 6        Q.   Wait a moment.  Are you telling us that as a Prosecution expert,

 7     you were looking only at the municipalities from the indictment or you

 8     were trying to establish whether there was a general approach to these

 9     instructions in the whole territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

10        A.   I was looking for a general approach to the entire territory.

11     However, my research is necessarily limited to the documents in the

12     possession of the OTP.  Therefore, I cannot claim with any certainty

13     about what happened in municipalities for which I have not seen

14     documentary evidence.

15        Q.   Well, you did not see any documents because it was your choice

16     not to look at them not because they are not accessible in the

17     Prosecution archives?

18        A.   I looked -- I searched for all potentially relevant documents in

19     the possession of the OTP.  I did not discard any municipalities which

20     were not in the indictment simply because they were not in the

21     indictment.  I used what I had available to me and, yes, I did do

22     extensive searches for several years on everything available.

23        Q.   Madam, I have to admit that I'm confused by your answers.  On the

24     one hand, you are very clear, only to turn around and then in your

25     attempt to clarify it and explain it, you actually go in a completely

Page 4465

 1     different direction, but because I don't really have too much time, I

 2     won't dwell on this any longer.

 3             Will you please take a look at the preamble of this document,

 4     P69, items 1 and 2 of the instructions.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] That's on page 2 in the e-court.

 6        Q.   Isn't it correct that items 1 and 2 actually describe the context

 7     and the intent of the Serbian Democratic Party and explains the reasons

 8     why these instructions are actually produced, yes or no?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Since you had occasion to analyse this, you can agree

11     with me, can't you, that when we analyse the language and the terminology

12     used in this document, specifically on pages 2 and 4 in e-court, that's

13     chapter 2, items 1 through 11, you will see that these terms for the most

14     part relate to, or rather, point to this being a preparatory document.

15     For instance, items 2, 5, 7, 9, and 11; correct?

16        A.   The first degree is the preparatory degree, yes.

17        Q.   Thank you.  The same is true of Variant B first level.  For

18     reference purposes these are items 2, 5, 8, 9 and 10; correct?

19        A.   Correct.

20        Q.   If I understood it correctly, and I'm sure that you've had

21     occasion to read through this document more times than I did, in fact the

22     binding character of these preparatory instructions applies only to the

23     instructions to establish the SDS Crisis Staff and to establish the

24     Assembly of the Serbian People in the territory of certain

25     municipalities; is that correct?

Page 4466

 1        A.   No, I don't see that qualification in the first degree.  Another

 2     element that they describe is the 24-hour duty watches, which we do see

 3     introduced in many places along with the Crisis Staff and the formation

 4     of the Serbian Assembly.  So I see all the steps of the first degree as

 5     being regarded as binding by those who received this.  I don't see that

 6     much distinction between or anything in the text or in the interpretation

 7     of the text as in the documents that they separated those -- those

 8     instructions from the rest of level 1.

 9        Q.   Obviously there was a misunderstanding due to the interpretation.

10     But you can agree with me, can't you, that for the most part, all the

11     instructions for the first level actually relate to preparatory steps;

12     correct?

13        A.   Correct.

14        Q.   In the -- at the second level, the only thing that is binding, in

15     fact, is - just bear with me for a moment, please - is the establishment

16     of Crisis Staffs and of the Assembly -- the Municipal Assembly; correct?

17        A.   No.  The formation of the Crisis Staff and the Assembly are part

18     of the first degree.

19        Q.   All right.  In any case, it is your position that this document

20     and everything that was done in connection with this document was

21     actually produced in strict confidentiality; correct?

22        A.   I'm trying to recall.  I know it was made public.  The

23     declarations of Serb Assemblies, Serbian Municipal Assemblies may not

24     have been done secretly.  It depended, I think, on the municipality.  So

25     I can't say that there was complete confidentiality on all moves.  At

Page 4467

 1     that -- again, it's a question of the time-period you're talking about.

 2     In December, more likely to be confidential; by March, more likely to be

 3     open.  It is certainly clear in the document that they intended this to

 4     be confidential, that there would be secret instructions given to the --

 5     for the next level.  And the front page says, you know, strictly

 6     confidential.

 7        Q.   Madam, I am not going to quote your work but there are at least

 8     15 occasions where you say this was done in strict confidentiality, and

 9     then in one place you say that this was not done publicly.  So tell me

10     this, and I am very clear, is it your position that these instructions

11     and what was done pursuant to those instructions was done in secrecy in

12     the course of January 1992, yes or no?

13        A.   These instructions were secret.  As I said, it may be that some

14     of the declarations of Serb Municipal Assemblies were not secret, but on

15     the whole it was regarded as secret.  The instructions were regarded as

16     confidential.  The actions were not made public, to the best of my

17     knowledge.

18        Q.   Are you trying to tell me that an Assembly, a Municipal Assembly,

19     an Assembly of a Serbian municipality was established in secret?  Is that

20     your claim?

21        A.   Again, I'm limited to the documents in my possession.  These

22     documents indicate that Assemblies were held and declared.  How widely --

23     widespread they were announced depended on the municipality to

24     municipality; but they were not, as far as I know, announced that they

25     were made on the basis -- not publicly announced that they were made on

Page 4468

 1     the basis of the instructions.  So the instructions were kept secret, but

 2     a Municipal Assembly could be declared, without reference to the secret

 3     instructions.

 4        Q.   Madam, it is quite clear to me, and you don't have to repeat

 5     this, you have used a certain number of documents that you had at your

 6     disposal, and that's quite clear.  And whenever I put the question to

 7     you, I too only referred to those documents that you actually had access

 8     to.  And I'm asking you again now:  Was there a single case where you can

 9     claim that the Municipal Assembly was actually established in secrecy?

10     Can you remember or recall any such specific instance, yes or no?  If you

11     cannot, just say "I can't remember."

12        A.   I have seen the documents declaring the formation of the

13     Assembly.  I cannot see from the documents themselves how widely

14     disseminated this announcement was, so I cannot draw the conclusion on

15     how public it was.

16             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please show the

17     witness P437.

18        Q.   That's under tab 4 in your binder.

19             Yesterday you commented on this document.

20             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] P437, please.

21        Q.   These are the minutes, or rather, the decision on the

22     establishment of the Serb municipality of Zvornik.  Do you recall

23     discussing this document yesterday with my learned friend?

24        A.   Yes, I do recall.

25        Q.   Very well.  And I believe that you read out the preamble of this

Page 4469

 1     document where, among other, it says pursuant to Article so and so of the

 2     constitution and then decisions on territories of municipalities, and

 3     Article 4 of the instructions regarding the organisation and actions of

 4     the bodies of the Serb people in BH in a state of emergency of

 5     December 1991, the Municipal Assembly of Zvornik at its session of so and

 6     so adopted the following decision.  Can you see here that they are

 7     actually referring here to what you call the secret instructions?  Can

 8     you see that?

 9        A.   I see that, yes.

10        Q.   Thank you.  In item 2, we see the areas of the existing

11     municipality of Zvornik are to be considered the Serb municipality of

12     Zvornik; correct?

13        A.   That's certain areas, not the entire municipality.  Certain areas

14     are separating themselves from the current municipality.

15        Q.   Very well.  And that is also stated in item 3, it says, local

16     communes and inhabited places and parts of the town local communes

17     mentioned in Article 2 of this decision are being parted from the

18     inclusion in the municipality of Zvornik.  That's what is stated in

19     item 3; correct?

20             So tell me, please, towards the end, the very end, in Article 9

21     of this decision, right above the signature.  That's on page 4 in

22     e-court.  I apologise.  Very well, thank you.

23             Can you see there under 9 it says:

24             "This decision shall come into effect on the 8th day from the day

25     of its publication in the bulletin of the Serbian people Javnost and in

Page 4470

 1     the bulletin of the Serbian municipality of Zvornik."

 2             In other words, not only was this decision on the establishment

 3     of the Serbian municipality of Zvornik absolutely public, but also since

 4     the instructions are mentioned in preamble and referred to, it's obvious

 5     that these instructions too were completely out in the open, that they

 6     were public; correct?

 7        A.   I'm not your sure when the bulletin of the Serbian municipality

 8     of Zvornik came out.  I wanted to raise that earlier because I believe it

 9     was not published until later in the spring, but certainly if it was

10     published in Javnost, yes, that's public, I agree.

11        Q.   Well, madam, if a decision on the establishment of an Assembly is

12     to come into effect and it's to come into effect on the 8th day of its

13     publication.  That's what is stated there.  In other words, it has to be

14     made public so that it can come into effect.  Do you understand?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Very well.  Thank you.  Would you now please comment briefly for

17     the benefit of the Trial Chamber the concept of Variant A and Variant B.

18     In other words, I will put it to you and I hope that you will agree with

19     me.  Variant A had to do -- referred to municipalities that had a Serb

20     majority, uncontested Serb majority, and Variant B referred to

21     municipalities where Serbs were a minority group; correct?

22        A.   I'm not quite sure what you mean by uncontested majority, but

23     yes, the general outline; Variant A, Serb majority; Variant B, Serb

24     minority.

25        Q.   Now, Variant A, I believe, is not is a contested concept, but

Page 4471

 1     Variant B implied that the territory of an existing municipality in which

 2     the Serbs were a minority, those parts where they lived alone were to be

 3     separated from the territory of the existing municipality and they were

 4     to become a Serb municipality, for instance, as we saw a few moments ago

 5     of Zvornik; correct?

 6        A.   Variant B says that the measures are to be applied in those

 7     territories where the Serbs -- where they lived.  But they never lived

 8     alone.

 9        Q.   Madam, could you please answer my question.  I'm trying to make

10     this clearer for the Trial Chamber and not actually make it even more

11     complicated.  So is it true, we saw a few moments ago and we still

12     actually have it before us on the screens - if we can just go back to

13     page 2 of e-court - you can see that item 2 relates to -- refers to the

14     areas of Zvornik municipality where this decision will be applicable, the

15     decision to establish the Serb municipality of Zvornik.  And I'm asking

16     you very specifically:  Does Variant B imply that those municipalities

17     that have a Serb minority in them, the Serb municipality will only be

18     established for those territories where Serbs lived; correct?  So just in

19     parts of those municipalities?

20        A.   I agree in essence with you, but I want to make something clear,

21     that Serbs lived -- that --

22        Q.   But, madam --

23             MR. DOBBYN:  Your Honours, I would just ask that the witness be

24     allowed to answer.  She's made it clear that although she agrees with

25     part of it, she wishes to qualify that and she should be given the

Page 4472

 1     opportunity to do so.

 2             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I do not wish to cut the witness at

 3     all.  I just want to stream-line the witness.  I will give her the

 4     opportunity to express herself and her views on the matter at any given

 5     moment, believe me.  But I just want to explain this concept.

 6        Q.   [Interpretation] In this case, madam, would you please -- I

 7     apologise for interrupting you, would you please go on and provide your

 8     full answer.

 9        A.   My understanding is Variant B is to be applied only in those

10     territories within the Variant B municipalities where the Serb population

11     lived in a majority.  But you said earlier alone, where the Serbs lived

12     alone, and wherever Serbs lived, and even a minority -- Serb minority

13     municipality would have Serbs in many parts of the territory.  There was

14     no part of the municipality that was purely Serb and no part that was

15     purely non-Serb.  But I agree, it is to be applied only in those parts of

16     the territories where the Serbs were the majority population within a

17     larger Serb minority municipality.

18        Q.   Madam, Mrs. Hanson, can we take another look at this document,

19     please.  That's document P437.  The last -- the last three lines of

20     paragraph 2 state, after mentioning the municipal communes -- the local

21     communes and settled places or inhabited places, it says "and also parts

22     of local communes in the town, in the towns of -- in the areas of Srpska

23     Varos, Zamlaza, Begusje or something like that, Versuje [phoen].  In

24     other words, only parts of some town local communes will enter and become

25     part of the Serb municipality of Zvornik; correct?

Page 4473

 1        A.   Correct.

 2        Q.   And these parts are parts of city local communes where Serbs

 3     lived; correct?

 4        A.   My problem is with the phrase "where Serbs lived."  Serbs lived

 5     throughout the municipality of Zvornik.  I imagine -- from my knowledge

 6     of -- general knowledge of that area and of such documents, these are

 7     local communes in which the Serbs represent a majority population, but I

 8     am not going to say that only Serbs lived there and that Serbs lived only

 9     there.

10        Q.   Madam, I'm grateful to you because you have now anticipated my

11     next question.  Thank you very much.  So in other words, these are parts

12     of local communes where Serbs lived as a majority group, and I'm not

13     saying that the Serbs alone lived there, but they were the majority

14     ethnic group; correct?

15        A.   Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to clarify earlier.

16        Q.   Very well.  Well, finally we have a common understanding of this.

17     Thank you.

18             Let us now go back to P69, that's document Variant A and B.  I

19     see in your report --

20             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If we could just please pull it up

21     on the screen -- or rather, Your Honour, I note the time, would this be a

22     good time for a break?

23             JUDGE HALL:  Well, if this is going to be a fairly lengthy

24     exchange we can break now.

25             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I am afraid so.  Thank you.

Page 4474

 1             JUDGE HALL:  20 minutes.

 2                           [The witness stands down]

 3                           --- Recess taken at 10.23 a.m.

 4                           --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.

 5                           [The witness takes the stand]

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  May I proceed, Your Honours?

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.

 9        Q.   [Interpretation] Mrs. Hanson, just before the break I wanted to

10     go back to P69 document about Variants A and B.  I noticed that in your

11     report, you did not consider or comment upon point 8 of the instructions.

12     It's on page 6 in e-court.  It's already up on the screen.  It's the

13     second degree of Variant A which reads:

14             "In taking all these measures, make sure that national and other

15     rights of members of all nations are respected and that they are later

16     engaged in government organs established or to be established by the

17     Assembly of the Serbian People in the municipality."

18             It is a fact that you did not comment upon this in your report?

19        A.   On the contrary, I comment on it in paragraph 16.

20        Q.   I'm sorry, you are right.  The thing that confused me was that in

21     paragraph 16, you say that Crisis Staffs were exclusively Serbian organs

22     established to defend the interests of the Serbian people.  I am sorry.

23             Are you maybe aware because you focused on these municipalities

24     in the indictment, are you aware that Fadil Topcagic, a Muslim from

25     Bosanski Samac, was a member of the Crisis Staff of the Samac

Page 4475

 1     municipality?  Do you know that?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Thank you.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can I have now page 10 of this

 5     document.  In item 2 -- I believe in English it's also the same page in

 6     e-court.

 7        Q.   Item 2 stipulated the obligation of these organs, or rather, all

 8     government bodies to comply with the federal constitution, federal laws,

 9     and other federal regulations, as well as republican regulations that do

10     not contravene federal ones.  Do you see that?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   I think in several passages in your report, you emphasised that

13     you had not succeeded in finding a legal ground for the establishment of

14     these Crisis Staffs; correct?

15        A.   I have not found the use of the term "Crisis Staff" itself.

16        Q.   Well, when this is written in this document, did you explore

17     perhaps what the author might have meant when he said compliance with

18     federal legislation and republican legislation that is not contrary to

19     federal laws?

20        A.   In my first section of the report, I indicate possible legal

21     origins of this kind of body, but as I say, I was not able to find the

22     use of the term "Crisis Staff" itself.  This phrase of observing federal

23     laws and Bosnian republic laws only so far as they do not contradict the

24     federal laws.  We see in many -- used a lot by various Serb organs and

25     bodies at this time.  This phrase I've seen in several places, so I'm

Page 4476

 1     familiar with it.  But as I say, I did not find -- I was looking at the

 2     federal legislation for the collective bodies that could possibly be

 3     Crisis Staffs.

 4        Q.   I hope you are not trying to say that this provision in number 2

 5     was placed in this instruction without any reason whatsoever?  I hope you

 6     are not trying to say that?

 7        A.   I'm not trying to say that.

 8        Q.   All right.  My mistake then.

 9             Since you did not manage to find the term "Crisis Staffs," I

10     believe in one of your testimonies you also said you did not find the

11     term "War Presidency" anywhere in literature.

12        A.   No, I don't believe I say that.  If I could go back to that

13     section of my report.  Okay, they do not say "War Presidency" but they

14     say "Presidency" in -- yes, so I did not find -- okay, those two

15     sentence, as I indicated yesterday, were written by a colleague.  I

16     checked his references, I did not see the term "War Presidency."  I did

17     see reference to a collective Presidency.

18        Q.   All right.  So the situation is like this:  You definitely did

19     not find the term "Crisis Staff" or the term "War Presidency" in

20     literature.  You found some similar terms but not these two; correct?

21        A.   Correct.

22        Q.   Thank you.  On that basis, you took the position that such

23     organs, namely Crisis Staffs, were designed and put into operation by the

24     Serbian Democratic Party in December 1991 precisely by virtue of this

25     document, Variants A and B?

Page 4477

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Very well.  You discussed the federal Law on the Basics of

 3     National Defence and Social Self-Protection which envisaged certain

 4     organs that call themselves commissions for national defence and social

 5     self-protection that were formed in municipalities under extraordinary

 6     circumstances, and that law, as well as another document that we will

 7     discuss in due course, explains their place and role, and I believe you

 8     described that in paragraph 7 and 8 of your report; correct?

 9        A.   Yes, in essence, but I don't cite the federal law, I cite the

10     republic law.

11        Q.   At any rate, the federal Law on National Defence and Social

12     Self-Protection is a systemic law adopted at the federal level in the

13     former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and then, all the

14     republics passed identical laws for the purposes of the republics at

15     republic level?

16        A.   Yes, that is my understanding.

17        Q.   Have you ever read the Law on the All People's Defence and Social

18     Self-Protection, be it the republican law of Bosnia-Herzegovina or the

19     federal law?

20        A.   I've read parts of it, specifically the parts referring to these

21     committees.

22        Q.   Would you tell me, Mrs. Hanson, have you heard about a document

23     called "The Strategy of All People's Defence and Social Self-Protection"?

24     Have you heard about it?

25        A.   I'm familiar with the concept of All People's Defence and social

Page 4478

 1     self-protection.  I have not read a specific document entitled that.

 2        Q.   Well, the strategy of All People's Defence and social

 3     self-protection, as it says in the preamble, is the fundamental doctrinal

 4     document and it was adopted by the Presidency on the 20th of May, 1987,

 5     by the Presidency of the SFRY, and that document explains the doctrine of

 6     All People's Defence, social self-protection, and stipulates in detail

 7     the provisions of the law.  Are you familiar with it or do you know

 8     anything about it?

 9        A.   As I said, I'm familiar with the general concept of All People's

10     Defence.  I'm not familiar with that specific book and the specific

11     provisions of it.

12        Q.   Very well.  Since you are not a lawyer, it is your colleague who

13     did the research into that documentation, and this document will

14     certainly be an exhibit in this case.  I will, therefore, not bore you or

15     the Trial Chamber with individual provisions.

16             Since, as you say, you are familiar with the concept of All

17     People's Defence and social self-protection, you know that this concept

18     envisaged compulsory establishment of commissions for All People's

19     Defence and social self-protection in extraordinary circumstances on the

20     territory of municipalities, be it in the republics or in the whole

21     territory of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; correct.

22        A.   As I say, I'm familiar with the legislation -- that these bodies

23     were foreseen.  The mandatory formation I'm not familiar with.  I can't

24     comment on it one way or another.

25        Q.   Do you know that every segment of society, beginning with

Page 4479

 1     schools, factories, health centres and such-like, let alone institutions

 2     of the state system, had the obligation to draft a plan of All People's

 3     Defence and social self-protection, the so-called Defence plan and to

 4     have a rapporteur for this subject and to nominate potential members of

 5     such commissions for All People's Defence and self-protection in the

 6     event of war.  Do you know that?

 7        A.   I certainly know they were required to draft a plan and had a

 8     referent for those matters.  The actual obligation to nominate members of

 9     committee I am not aware of, but it certainly seems a logical conclusion.

10        Q.   Tell me, isn't it true that these commissions for All People's

11     Defence and self-protection in terms of their composition, powers, and

12     role were very similar, if not identical, to the composition, powers and

13     role of the Crisis Staffs?

14        A.   Yes, I find great similarities.

15        Q.   Madam, didn't it seem logical to you that it is, in fact, these

16     bodies that are referred to when Crisis Staffs are mentioned, although

17     the name "commission" is avoided because that name was suggested or

18     invokes the communist heritage.  Whereas all these parties that

19     established these things called themselves democratic, the Serbian

20     Democratic Party, the Party of Democratic Action, the Croatian Democratic

21     Union, et cetera.  Didn't it seem logical to you that these parties

22     wanted to break away from the communist legacy and that is why they named

23     their bodies differently?

24        A.   I agree that there was an attempt separate from the communist

25     legacy.  I agree that the Crisis Staffs resemble these All People's

Page 4480

 1     Defence committees very much, but I've never seen it explicated -- and I

 2     rely on documents.  I've never seen it explicated that, These are the

 3     same things, we're changing the name.  And I simply go by what the

 4     Crisis Staffs called themselves and the way they operated, declaring

 5     themselves to be the municipal authorities.

 6        Q.   In one passage in your report or perhaps in your earlier

 7     evidence, I don't have the reference, I'm sorry, but you can confirm or

 8     deny what I'm going to say, you stated that it is not important how the

 9     bodies call themselves, whether it was a Crisis Staff or War Presidency

10     or a war commission because all that you said in your report concerning

11     Crisis Staff applies to all of them because they are basically identical

12     bodies.  I believe that's your paragraph 48.

13        A.   Yes, that's what I said.

14        Q.   All right.  Since you did say that, tell me why not apply the

15     same thinking, the same analogy to Crisis Staffs, or rather -- sorry,

16     strike that.

17             Explain to me why you did not apply the same analogy to the

18     relationship between commissions of All People's Defence and social

19     self-protection and Crisis Staffs?  I mean, that those were identical

20     bodies in terms of powers, role, and composition.

21        A.   I was tasked to look at the Crisis Staffs in the Bosnian Serb

22     municipalities.  I did not observe these All People's Defence committees

23     taking over in the place of Crisis Staffs, declaring themselves to be the

24     municipal authority as Crisis Staffs did.  I brought the Prosecution

25     team's attention to the parallels with this earlier committee in the

Page 4481

 1     legislation, but I was writing on what Crisis Staffs did.

 2        Q.   All right.  But after all this time and after your examination

 3     and your evidence, you can agree with me now that between this committee,

 4     these commissions for All People's Defence, and social self-protection,

 5     and Crisis Staffs, there is a considerable analogy.  They are practically

 6     identical in terms of role, powers and composition.

 7        A.   I have agreed that they are identical.  Even in my report I cite

 8     the example of Bosanski Novi where they say, We changed our

 9     self-defence -- our defence committee into a Crisis Staff.  So I make

10     that clear in my report.

11        Q.   Thank you.  In your report, Mrs. Hanson, you claim that the SDS

12     by virtue of this Variant A and B initiated the establishment of Crisis

13     Staffs of the SDS in December 1991; right?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   In your view, did Mr. Karadzic and the Serbian Democratic Party

16     have the same sort of influence on Alija Izetbegovic as the leader of the

17     SDA and the leaders of the HDZ, the Croatian Democratic Union?

18        A.   Did Karadzic have influence on Izetbegovic, no, not for ...

19        Q.   Well, then, how do you explain the existence of completely

20     identical bodies, in terms of name, powers, de facto action, on the

21     opposite sides, on the Muslim side and the Croatian side, and on the

22     territory of municipalities controlled by Muslims and Croats in

23     Bosnia-Herzegovina?  How do you explain that?

24        A.   I do not deny that there were Crisis Staffs on all sides.  I say

25     that in my report.  I'm discussing in my report the Bosnian Serb Crisis

Page 4482

 1     Staffs, but I am aware that there were other Crisis Staffs.

 2        Q.   Will you then agree with me that Crisis Staffs established on

 3     other sides, that is in other municipalities controlled by Bosnian

 4     Muslims and Croats, were completely identical bodies with the same

 5     powers, names, the same composition, and that they acted in exactly the

 6     same way as the Crisis Staffs of Bosnian Serbs in 1991 and 1992?

 7        A.   I have no basis to agree or disagree with you as I was tasked to

 8     look at Bosnian Serb Crisis Staffs.  And I did not look at the other

 9     Crisis Staffs' operations.

10        Q.   Well, Ms. Hanson, if you were aware that there were Crisis Staffs

11     on other sides too, and it is quite clear that the SDS and Mr. Karadzic

12     had no influence on Muslims and Croats, did you perhaps think that the

13     uniformity of this concept comes from the legislative text on the basis

14     of which they were formed, that is, the federal Law on All People's

15     Defence and Social Self-Protection that was in place both in

16     Bosnia-Herzegovina and in the Federation as a whole?

17        A.   No, because the Bosnian Serb Crisis Staffs that I saw formed at

18     this time, many of them clearly refer to Variant A and B as the basis for

19     their formation.  And of the ones that don't explicitly cite A and B, I

20     do not see reference to the legislation on All People's Defence

21     committees.

22        Q.   You know, as you confirmed in one of your previous testimonies,

23     that the Crisis Staff of Bratunac municipality was formed identically

24     with the same composition and all the other elements as all the others

25     but that happened before the 19 December 1991 instruction; correct?

Page 4483

 1        A.   It was the Crisis Staff of the SDS Municipal Board of Bratunac.

 2     Yes, it's the only one where I see a Crisis Staff formed previous to

 3     those instructions.  However, when they do form the one in December, they

 4     are clearly referring to instructions from the SDS leadership on the

 5     formation of their Crisis Staff.

 6        Q.   Therefore, if I understood correctly, for awhile, sometime before

 7     December, they already had a Crisis Staff, and then after the 19 December

 8     instruction, they established one again, this time in keeping with the

 9     instruction, but there is no essential difference between the two?

10        A.   In the October Crisis Staff it is clearly based on the

11     instructions of the Main Board of the SDS as well.  So it's not

12     spontaneously on their own initiative, it's on instructions from the

13     expanded session of the SDS Main Board, so that is the only reference I

14     find to that earlier Crisis Staff so I can't say with any certainty about

15     its functioning or even membership compared to the later one, whether

16     it's different or the same, I can't comment.  It's such a brief mention

17     in October, but I don't see any essential difference between them.

18        Q.   At any rate, it is your position that in both cases, the

19     establishment of such a body followed the instructions of the SDS?

20        A.   Yes, that is my position.

21        Q.   Let me show you one document dated 21st September 1991.

22             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Did we call up 1D00-5388.

23        Q.   Madam, this is a document which has in the heading "Presidency of

24     the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina," then we see the number,

25     Sarajevo, 21 September 1991.  These are minutes from the 35th Session of

Page 4484

 1     the Presidency of the Socialist Republic Bosnia-Herzegovina, and it says,

 2     among other people, there are president of the Presidency Alija

 3     Izetbegovic present, members of the Presidency, Biljana Plavsic,

 4     Stjepan Kljujic, Dr. Ejup Ganic, and some other people, in other words,

 5     all of the leadership of Bosnia-Herzegovina at that moment,

 6     21st September.  On page 2, did you see this document before?

 7        A.   I may have.  I don't recall specifically until I can see more of

 8     the subject.

 9        Q.   We see here under item 3 that it reads as follows:

10             "The government of BH is requested to ensure in these crisis

11     situation normal living conditions and so on and so forth, and then it

12     says that Presidency member Biljana Plavsic did not agree with items one

13     and two, and then it reads as follows.  The Presidency formed the Crisis

14     Staff composed of the following members:  Dr. Ejup Ganic, member of the

15     Presidency, staff coordinator, that's his function; then

16     Dr. Biljana Plavsic; then Franjo Boras, master of sciences; and then

17     Minister of the Interior, Alija Delimustafic; People's Defence minister,

18     Jerko Doko; and the BH Territorial Defence commander, Lieutenant-General

19     Drago Vukosavljevic.  And then it says the seat of the Crisis Staff shall

20     be on the premises of the Presidency and assisted by the services of the

21     Presidency, appropriate ministries and other organs and organisations in

22     the republic.  So you see this portion that I've just read out?

23        A.   Yes, I see.

24        Q.   In other words the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of

25     Bosnia-Herzegovina established a Crisis Staff of the Presidency as the

Page 4485

 1     highest organ of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina as early as

 2     September 1991, and its composition reflects absolutely the Crisis Staffs

 3     that are established pursuant to SDS instructions or, as we shall see

 4     later, Crisis Staffs established by the SDA and the HDZ.  Do you agree

 5     with me?

 6        A.   I agree that the composition is parallel to the other

 7     Crisis Staffs.  I don't see in this document that the Crisis Staff is

 8     established as the highest organ.

 9        Q.   Very well.  Thank you.  If you could now please look at the last

10     page of this document.  We see the signature of the president of the

11     Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

12     Mr. Alija Izetbegovic.  Can you see that?

13        A.   I see a signature, yes.  I assume it's Izetbegovic's.

14        Q.   Thank you.

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation] I would like to tender this

16     document into evidence, please.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D108, Your Honours.

19             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   I would now like to show you another document, but before I do

21     that, let me ask you this:  Do you know that before this day, the MUP of

22     the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina at the head of which was

23     Mr. Alija Delimustafic, a Muslim, had adopted a decision on the

24     establishment of a Crisis Staff whose specific task had to do with the

25     possible arrest of Mr. Martic on the 8th of September, 1991.  Are you

Page 4486

 1     aware of this, madam?

 2        A.   No, I am not.

 3        Q.   All right.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please pull up

 5     document 1D00-4569 on the screens.  This is a document that we found

 6     containing the earliest date of a Crisis Staff being established based on

 7     the documents that we had at our disposal and access to.  This is a

 8     document from the Municipal Assembly of Ljubuski.  For your information

 9     let me say that this is part of Bosnia-Herzegovina which was under the

10     control of Croat forces.  The document bears the date 26th of August,

11     1991, and it reads as follows:

12             "Decision to appoint members of Ljubuski municipality Crisis

13     Staff."  And then we see that there are 11 members appointed.  And under

14     item 2, it says the decision shall be published in the Official Gazette

15     of Ljubuski municipality.

16             Mrs. Hanson, reading this document, you can see under 3 that the

17     presidents of Ljubuski Municipal Assembly is a member of this.  Under 4

18     we see the chief of the public security station, it says public,

19     "Javne Sigurnosti," because this is a Croatian translation, and under 5

20     is the commander of the Ljubuski Municipal Territorial Defence staff and

21     then some other members.  Can you see that?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Ms. Hanson, judging by its composition, this crisis too mirrors

24     exactly the Crisis Staffs that were later to be established by, as you

25     said, instructions from the SDS; correct?

Page 4487

 1        A.   Not exactly, no.

 2        Q.   Well, tell me then who is missing here.  We see that we have the

 3     president of the Municipal Assembly.  We have the president of the

 4     Executive Board.  Under number 1, we have the municipal Secretary-General

 5     administrator.  Under 5, we have the commander of the Territorial

 6     Defence.  We also have certain party members.  So how does it differ from

 7     SDS Crisis Staffs?

 8        A.   I didn't say anyone was missing.  I think it has members beyond

 9     the scope of the SDS Crisis Staffs such as the -- probably the director

10     of the health centre, that's not unusual to see them on the later Crisis

11     Staffs, but specifically, the representatives of the SDA and HDZ and the

12     SDS -- HDS, sorry, were not members the SDS Crisis Staffs.

13        Q.   Well, madam, you just confirmed to me a little earlier that

14     Mr. Fadil Topcagic, a Muslim from Bosanski Samac, was a member of the

15     Crisis Staff in Bosanski Samac.  Are you saying that he was a member of

16     the SDS?

17        A.   No, but I don't know if he was on it as a member of the -- as a

18     representative of the SDA or as a representative of his particular

19     employment.  I am aware that I've seen his name on the Crisis Staff

20     minutes, but I'm just saying that I think it's a parallel to have

21     political representatives on the Crisis Staffs.  But that is the

22     difference I see between an SDS Crisis Staff and these ones, is which

23     parties are represented.

24        Q.   But wait a minute, the fact that it doesn't state what party the

25     president of the Municipal Assembly belongs to, the president of the

Page 4488

 1     Executive Board or chairman of the executive committee, the secretary of

 2     the Secretariat, the chief and the commander, that does not imply that

 3     they are not members of the HDZ; correct?

 4        A.   Correct.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Now, their positions were mentioned there and not

 6     their party membership because that is something that is understood by

 7     implication, because the HDZ in Ljubuski, as one of the municipalities in

 8     Bosnia-Herzegovina where the Croatian population was in the majority, was

 9     a party that was a dominant party, a majority party in that territory?

10        A.   This is a Municipal Crisis Staff which includes members of

11     different political parties.  The SDS Crisis Staffs as formed on the

12     A and B instructions included only SDS members and included members

13     purely for their function within the party and not in the municipality,

14     such as members of the SDS Main Board, deputies to the National Assembly.

15     This one includes different parties, that's the distinction I was trying

16     to make.

17        Q.   Ms. Hanson, let's go through this slowly, we will come to that.

18     It is an uncontested fact, and I believe you mention it in your report -

19     I assume it's uncontested - that the SDS Crisis Staffs were only in

20     existence in a very short limited period of time, and that at the point

21     where the Assemblies are formed in these municipalities, at the same time

22     different bodies, government bodies would be formed in the municipality

23     as well; correct?

24        A.   I don't see that in the -- that pattern in the documentary

25     evidence at all.  I see the Crisis Staffs --

Page 4489

 1        Q.   We will come back to that a little later, if that's not a problem

 2     with you.  I don't want to interrupt you.  If you wish to answer now,

 3     please provide it, but as I've already said, we will revisit this issue.

 4     But would you like to comment further?

 5        A.   I just would say that I see Assemblies declared in December in

 6     some places along with the Crisis Staffs, but I see the Crisis Staffs

 7     staying -- staying and becoming the municipal authorities and the

 8     Municipal Assemblies not taking over until the summer of 1992.  That's

 9     the pattern I generally see.

10        Q.   Madam, let us go back to this document.  If we look at it, it is

11     uncontested that the most significant members or representatives of the

12     authorities are present here and members of this staff in Ljubuski

13     municipality; correct?

14        A.   Correct.

15             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this

16     document into evidence, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D109, Your Honours.

19             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Bearing in mind your comment regarding this document, 1D109, the

21     Crisis Staff in Ljubuski municipality document, I would now like to put

22     to you a document from the Croatian Democratic Union of

23     Bosnia-Herzegovina, document number 002842.  1D00-2842.

24             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please pull it up on the

25     screens.

Page 4490

 1        Q.   Now, Ms. Hanson, this is a document from the Croatian Democratic

 2     Union of Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is the Croatian ethnic, as it were,

 3     party, which was au par with the Serbian Democratic Party and the Party

 4     of Democratic Action in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1990 and 1991, and all

 5     these three national parties had their own candidates in the elections in

 6     1990.  Now you can see in the heading that it says the Security Council

 7     of the BH HDZ strictly confidential.  The date we see is 18 September

 8     1991.  And it reads as follows, title:

 9             "Conclusions of the Security Council of the BH HDZ held on

10     18 September 1991."

11             And then it says under conclusions under item 1:

12             "The present Security Council shall be called the BH HDZ Crisis

13     Staff in the future.  Its members shall be," and then it lists,

14     Mr. Kljujic, Mr. Boban, Mr. Kvesic, Jerko Doko, he was the minister of

15     national defence in the socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina

16     government.  Then we see Dario Kordic, Kost roman, Bruno Stojic.  Can you

17     see that?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   These individuals whose names I just read out were the leaders,

20     doubtlessly, of the Croatian Democratic Union and of the Croatian people

21     in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time; correct?

22        A.   To the best of my understanding, yes.

23        Q.   Now, in the second paragraph it says:

24             "In addition to the executive and political Crisis Staff the

25     staff must form a specialist command body which shall be a specialist

Page 4491

 1     military body directly responsible for certain operations."  And then it

 2     says in paragraph 3:

 3             "The Crisis Staff shall begin its duties immediately and is to

 4     lead the entire defence system of the Croatian people in

 5     Bosnia-Herzegovina and ensure the acquisition of armaments."  And under

 6     paragraph 4:

 7             "The chairman of the Crisis Staff is Stjepan Kljujic and the

 8     deputy chairman is -- rather, his deputy is Mate Boban."  Can you see all

 9     that?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Please tell me, did you have occasion to see this document

12     earlier, while you were drafting your report?

13        A.   I can't be sure.  I probably would have seen it because it would

14     have come up on the hit for Crisis Staff, but I did not use it because

15     it's not a Bosnian Serb Crisis Staff.  It's not familiar to me, but I may

16     well have seen it just because it would have come up on the search.

17        Q.   Well, that's all very well, but the earlier document that I

18     presented to you, you felt the need to say that this was a Municipal

19     Crisis Staff, but here we see that a party is establishing a Crisis

20     Staff.  So I believe this is a very clear parallel to the positions that

21     you set forth when discussing Variant A and B documents and the role of

22     the SDS in establishing SDS Crisis Staffs; correct?

23        A.   Yes, it's parallel.

24        Q.   Thank you.

25             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Let us now take a look at page 2,

Page 4492

 1     please.

 2        Q.   Ms. Hanson, it says under item 2:

 3             "In the event of armed conflict in the territory where the

 4     Croatian people are in the majority, the Crisis Staffs shall take over

 5     all the duties of the authorities in the municipalities, and the work of

 6     the BH HDZ shall cease temporarily until the threat of war has passed,

 7     that is, until the Crisis Staff considers it to have passed."

 8             Can you see any difference between this and the instructions

 9     issued by the SDS?  Isn't it true that the SDS, too, says that the

10     Crisis Staffs shall take over all the duties in municipalities, all the

11     powers in municipalities, and that once the conflict broke out, all party

12     activities shall cease.  Can you recall that?

13        A.   It sounds to me more like the instructions issued by the

14     president of the government, Djeric, in April 1992, but it certainly

15     seems parallel to what I see -- how the SDS Crisis Staffs and then the RS

16     Crisis Staffs are operating.  I'd have to check A and B to see if -- I

17     don't recall that exact wording in A and B, but it is in the Djeric's

18     instructions.

19        Q.   In paragraph 4, in the last sentence, it says that the Crisis

20     Staffs have to understand the urgency of the serious situation and exert

21     or direct all their activities to the Defence of the Croatian people.

22     Isn't there a similar formulation in Variant A and B instructions and I'm

23     referring to the preamble itself where it says that all its activities

24     will be directed at the defence of the Serbian people and their interests

25     and their defence, the defence of the Serbian people; is that correct?

Page 4493

 1        A.   Yes, A and B says it's -- carry out the mobility in defence of

 2     the interests of Serbian people, so it's similar phrasing, yes.

 3        Q.   Very well.  Under 2 it says, in this document:

 4             "Crisis Staffs shall be formed urgently for three regional

 5     communities of the Croatian Democratic Union of Bosnia-Herzegovina," and

 6     then it mentions the regions of Travnik, Posavina, and --

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter did not hear the third region.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   And it says then that the --

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel please repeat the last

11     sentence.

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Zecevic.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  The interpreters are asking you to repeat your

15     last sentence because they didn't get the name of the municipalities.

16             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise to the Trial Chamber

17     and to the interpreters.

18        Q.   I've said the Sarajevo regional community of the HDZ of Bosnia

19     and Herzegovina shall be directly co-ordinated by the republican Crisis

20     Staff.  That's the reading in the document; correct?

21        A.   Correct.

22        Q.   You can see under item 3, that:

23             "Crisis Staffs must also be urgently established on the same

24     principles as those of the republican and regional Crisis Staffs," and

25     then it says it is advised that chairmen of Municipal Crisis Staffs be

Page 4494

 1     presidents of municipals if they were appointed by the BH HDZ, otherwise

 2     chairman of the Executive or Municipal Boards of the BH HDZ.  Can you see

 3     that, madam?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   So the distinction between this concept and the SDS concept is

 6     really non-existent; correct?

 7        A.   There are strong parallels.

 8        Q.   In item 4 it says:

 9             "The appointed persons representing the BH HDZ in governing

10     bodies have the duty to continue carrying out their tasks

11     conscientiously, giving priority to the interests of the Croatian

12     people."  And then under item 7, it says:

13             "All municipal authorities where the BH HDZ has an absolute or

14     relative majority is responsible to compile a list stating the state of

15     food, medical and sanitary supplies, state of weapons and ammunition

16     supplies, power plants, military locations, manpower, and programs of

17     Defence and civilian protection."

18             So, Ms. Hanson, aren't these obligations identical to the ones

19     that are envisaged in the Variant A and B instructions of the SDS?

20        A.   Yes, they are very similar.  Really quite parallel.

21        Q.   And one final point, in item 8, it says:

22             "Municipalities are recommended not to send recruits to the army

23     and to forbid any mobilisation of forces except for mobilisation

24     organised through our own Crisis Staffs."

25             In other words, here the Crisis Staffs of the Croatian Democratic

Page 4495

 1     Union even includes its regional Crisis Staffs in the work relating to

 2     the mobilisation; correct?

 3        A.   Correct.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please see the next

 5     page.

 6        Q.   Where there is a comment saying that this document is strictly

 7     confidential, and among other things, there is a chart provided of -- an

 8     organisational chart of Crisis Staffs which we can find on the next page.

 9     So as you can see, this document too is strictly confidential, although

10     we could see that on the first page as well; correct?

11        A.   Correct.

12        Q.   So I have shown you now some of the key documents, and I will now

13     also follow this up with documents that were produced in the field on the

14     basis of these.  Madam, this document is from September 1991.  We've also

15     seen the Presidency document also from September 1991, and the document

16     entitled "Variant A and B instructions" is dated December 1991.  All

17     these three documents absolutely speak to the establishment of

18     Crisis Staffs.  There is nothing else that they discuss.  They all

19     actually mention the establishment of Crisis Staffs.

20             So are you now trying to tell us here that a person who -- such

21     as you, who is interested and doing research into Crisis Staffs and has a

22     problem to determine where the term "Crisis Staff" comes from, how is it

23     possible that you did not review these documents as well, or at least

24     mention these documents in your report, saying there are documents coming

25     from the Presidency dated September 1991, and also HDZ documents as early

Page 4496

 1     as September 1991, as well as SDA documents from sometime in 1991, which

 2     also are used to establish Crisis Staffs, as the document that you

 3     discuss in your report, but which actually predate by two months the SDA

 4     instructions -- SDS instructions.

 5             So how is it that this did not find its way into your report, and

 6     how is it that you showed no interest in these documents while you were

 7     preparing your report?  Could you please tell us that.

 8        A.   I indicate in my report that there were Crisis Staffs on the

 9     Croatian and Bosnian side.  I say in my report that I have not found the

10     term "Crisis Staff" in the legislation.  I am aware that it was used in

11     popular terminology, but I say that I do not find the phrase in the

12     legislation.  These are instances of it -- certainly of Crisis Staffs

13     being formed, but not an indication of the legislative basis and this

14     last document, I don't believe I've seen.  I said it would have come up

15     in a search but I haven't seen such an explication of the Croatian Crisis

16     Staffs, so I cannot say that I've seen it.

17             Once again, my tasking was to explain to the Prosecution team

18     Bosnian Serb Crisis Staffs.  I don't deny the existence of other Crisis

19     Staffs.  Never have.

20        Q.   It seems to me that the wording that you are using in your report

21     and in your evidence was that Crisis Staffs on the other sides were

22     established in the course -- during the war, but nowhere in your report

23     do you explicitly say or even mention that Crisis Staffs had been

24     established by the Presidency, the HDZ, and the SDA, even before the SDS

25     instructions of 19 December were issued; correct?

Page 4497

 1        A.   Had I been tasked to look at HDZ Crisis Staffs, I certainly would

 2     find this document very interesting.  But I do not mention the Presidency

 3     Crisis Staff, correct, I do not mention it in my report.

 4        Q.   Madam, now we will go back to square one.  When I asked you

 5     whether you considered that the role of an expert witness is to present

 6     their knowledge in an objective manner that will assist the Trial Chamber

 7     in their decisions, you -- and whether you consider that these documents,

 8     or documents such as these, provide a more balanced picture of the

 9     situation which is something that you are discussing in your report?

10        A.   As I said before, there are many, many, many documents that

11     provide a balanced situation -- a balanced view of the situation.  My

12     report is devoted to Bosnian Serb Crisis Staffs and it could perhaps --

13     had people felt the need to learn more about whether this was a brand new

14     term and whether there were Crisis Staffs on other sides, yes, I could

15     have given more attention to that.  But that was not my tasking and that

16     was not an issue that emerged as something that needs explaining or

17     attention since it was -- since I was tasked to look at Bosnian Serb

18     Crisis Staffs.

19             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mrs. Hanson.  Since it

20     is our job here to establish the responsibility of our defendants, in

21     other words, we do not have to limit ourselves to certain segments as you

22     do, I propose that this document be admitted into admitted into evidence

23     as an exhibit in this case.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D110, Your Honours.

Page 4498

 1             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Now, Ms. Hanson, I would like to show you a document that relates

 3     to one of the municipalities that is scheduled in the indictment.

 4     Document 1D00-4000.  In other words, 1D00-4000.  This is a document that

 5     shows that the previous instruction of the Bosnia-Herzegovina HDZ, that

 6     this is actually the implementation of that decision.  This is the

 7     Municipal Board of Kotor Varos, the Municipal Board of the Croatian

 8     Democratic Union of Kotor Varos dated 16th March 1992, and it is stated

 9     there that a Crisis Staff is being established.  The decision is dated

10     the 8th of March, and we see the members of the Crisis Staff there, there

11     are five individuals, as well as a stamp of the Croatian Democratic Union

12     of Kotor Varos; correct?

13        A.   Correct.

14        Q.   Have you seen this document before?

15        A.   I can't say with certainty that I have but I know that I -- I can

16     see from its ERN that it's from a selection -- from an index I've

17     searched.

18        Q.   Thank you.

19             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  It's already Exhibit 1D23.

21             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Oh, thank you very much.  I

22     apologise.  Could we now please show the witness document 1D00-3109.

23     This is a document dated 7 April 1992.

24        Q.   It has a similar ERN number, so my question to you is:  Have you

25     seen this document?  This document also comes from the Municipal Board of

Page 4499

 1     the Kotor Varos Croatian Democratic Union confirming that a Crisis Staff

 2     consisting of five members was established in March, and then it mentions

 3     certain problems that they had, that there was another Crisis Staff

 4     established subsequently.  Can you see this document?

 5        A.   I can see it, yes.

 6        Q.   Do you remember or have you had occasion to review this document

 7     in the course of your work?

 8        A.   Once again, it's from an index I've searched, but once again, I

 9     was look at SDS and Serb municipality Crisis Staffs so I may well have

10     seen it, taken a look at it, identified it as an HDZ document and not

11     looked at it further.

12        Q.   Thank you.

13             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document into

14     evidence.

15             MR. DOBBYN:  Your Honours, if I could be heard on that.  I'm just

16     wondering where we are going with this.  We've had documents that are put

17     to her from other ethnic group Crisis Staffs, and they are addressing a

18     certain point about where the phrase "Crisis Staff" came from.  Now, it

19     seems we've gone beyond that, and is my learned colleague simply going to

20     put forward document after document of other ethnic group Crisis Staffs;

21     and if so, how is that really relevant to our case.  They are not part of

22     our case.  It sort of sounds like it's a -- a sort of a tu quoque defence

23     here.  If we can find out the relevance of where we are going with these

24     documents, I would ask that perhaps that could be explained.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Well, as I understand the thrust of Mr. Zecevic's

Page 4500

 1     line so far is that the quality of the expert report on which the

 2     Prosecution is relying is weakened by failure to have taken into

 3     consideration these other matters, but I take your point that there comes

 4     a point at which one must draw the line.

 5             Mr. Zecevic, hasn't your point been made sufficiently?

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, well, I'm ready to explain, but I

 7     think it would be proper that the witness is excused before -- before I

 8     can provide you with my explanation why am I pursuing this line and I

 9     don't know, maybe if you --

10             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Hanson, we are five minutes short of the break.

11     We would excuse you now and deal with this matter and ask you to return

12     for 12.25.  Thanks.

13                           [The witness stands down]

14             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is absolutely the

15     Defence position that the fact that a so-called expert did not feel it

16     necessary to, as far as we see it, consider these very important

17     documents which are important to understand the problem, the subject

18     matter in this case, and since this expert witness did not feel it even

19     necessary to mention these documents in her report, it is our position

20     that this absolutely weakens the value, if not the factual value of this

21     report, but in any case, not a single conclusion from this report can

22     actually stand based on these documents.

23             And especially, Your Honours, because from these documents --

24     from these documents we can see that Crisis Staffs, the roles of Crisis

25     Staffs, and all those things that Crisis Staffs actually did in

Page 4501

 1     territories which were under Serbian control were identical in every

 2     sense to what the other two communities did and how they proceeded and

 3     what their Crisis Staffs in territories under their control did.  And for

 4     these reasons, because the establishment of Crisis Staffs and their role

 5     is an important part of the Prosecutor's theory on the joint criminal

 6     enterprise, I believe that these facts and these documents are really a

 7     significant basis for the Defence to build their position that such a

 8     joint criminal enterprise was non-existent.

 9             And it is for this reason that I'm trying to tender these

10     documents and try and put them to the alleged expert witness of the

11     Prosecution who came here to provide her expertise on Crisis Staffs and

12     who is absolutely qualified, as least in that sense, to discuss these

13     documents, or to comment them and for these documents to be admitted

14     because if this witness is qualified to comment on documents of the

15     Serbian Crisis Staffs, then she is certainly qualified to also comment on

16     the documents of the other side because -- so that is our position and

17     this is where my line of questioning is leading.  Thank you.

18             MR. DOBBYN:  Your Honours, if I could be heard on that to respond

19     to my learned colleague's comments.  First of all, he's raised a couple

20     of issues and what I would like to say, first of all, is that Ms. Hanson

21     is not an alleged expert witness.  Your Honours have determined that she

22     is an expert witness, so I just wanted to put that on the record.

23     Secondly, my learned colleague has stated that the failure to include

24     these documents is a weakness in Ms. Hanson's report.  As she has said

25     repeatedly on the stand, she was tasked with preparing a report on

Page 4502

 1     Bosnian Serb Crisis Staffs.  She's also said that in that report, she

 2     acknowledges that the other ethnic communities did form Crisis Staffs.

 3     She didn't take that any further as she didn't feel it was particularly

 4     relevant to this report.  Beyond that.  Now, my learned colleague has

 5     raised that issue with her and has shown her documents, but to continue

 6     showing more and more documents, I don't believe it advances that

 7     particular issue any further, as to the weakness of her report.  She's

 8     already answered the -- the questions that have been put to her about

 9     that and why there aren't documents like these in there.

10             Beyond that, Your Honour, I still don't see the relevance to our

11     case of actions that were taken by Crisis Staffs of the other ethnic

12     groups.  The JCE in this case involves Bosnian Serb Crisis Staffs, and

13     the fact that Crisis Staffs from other ethnic groups may have been

14     forming, may have been taking actions, isn't relevant to our case here.

15             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Zecevic, I fully understand your point, but

16     my question would be that to the extent in which the Crisis Staffs formed

17     by the Bosnian Serb leadership in Bosnia and Herzegovina became an

18     instrument in the commission of the crimes for which your client stands

19     accused, then what is the Chamber supposed -- or rather, which conclusion

20     is the Chamber, in your view, supposed to draw from the fact that

21     Crisis Staffs were also formed by the Muslims and by the Croats, and that

22     indeed at some point the republican leadership formed joint Crisis

23     Staffs?  I see your point, but which conclusion are you getting at in

24     drawing our attention to this?

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, I don't know if I would be

Page 4503

 1     ready to fully answer that question at this point, but I can certainly do

 2     that after the break.  But as a first thing that crosses my mind is that

 3     I would expect that this line of examination -- cross-examination and the

 4     in the future in your Defence case and these documents will show to the

 5     Trial Chamber that there is no pattern which is exclusively linked to the

 6     SDS or the Serbian Crisis Staffs.  That the pattern, that the pattern

 7     basically derives out of the essence of these organs doesn't matter if

 8     they are Muslim, if they are Croatian, or Serbian.  The essence is that

 9     basically by this concept of All People's Defence, these small -- these

10     small Crisis Staffs were given immense, immense power in the territory

11     and that power by itself corrupted the performance of these Crisis

12     Staffs.  And they -- they themselves got involved into the crimes, into

13     whatever, expulsions.  This is the suggestion of the Prosecutor's case,

14     that this pattern is obviously a plan by the Serbs to forcibly expel,

15     murder and all that, commit crimes against humanity.

16             Now, when we see all these documents, you will see yourself that

17     it comes out of the essence of these organs.  It doesn't have anything to

18     do with any plan.  I'm not suggesting that the Muslims or Croats had any

19     plan, or Serbs.  So I'm saying that this will -- we tried to show to the

20     Trial Chamber that that is the problem, and that is the problem, and the

21     consequence of that problem is what happened in the territory,

22     unfortunately.  Unfortunately, yes.

23             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Do I understand you correctly if your point is

24     that the widespread commission of crimes committed with the assistance or

25     the participation somehow of the Crisis Staffs, that the commission of

Page 4504

 1     these crimes were not a result of any plan from the top, but was a result

 2     purely of the fact that they -- that these organs were established and

 3     were given too much power, and so it was -- it just happened.  Is that

 4     your point?

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Exactly, Your Honours, because if it was a plan,

 6     then this plan will apply to Croatian communities under the control of

 7     the HDZ, and to Muslim communities as well.  Therefore, if the Crisis

 8     Staffs and the units in these territories were committing the very same

 9     crimes, then I don't know.  You will have to decide whether the plan

10     which somebody like Karadzic or SDS created, was followed in Ljubuski,

11     was followed in the territory which was controlled by the SDA and HDZ,

12     and why is that?  I mean, that is my position.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thanks.

14             MR. DOBBYN:  Your Honour, our position is that there may well

15     have been Crisis Staffs formed in the other ethnic communities, they may

16     even have been part of the JCE or some sort of plan such as we are

17     alleging in regards to the Bosnian Serb Crisis Staffs, but that's not an

18     issue before this Trial Chamber.  It's not something which is --

19     Your Honours are really in a position to pass judgement on or to say

20     there's any relevance to what we are looking at here.  I still don't see

21     how this evidence coming in is going to advance the case any further.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23             JUDGE HALL:  We'll return in 20 minutes.

24                           --- Recess taken at 12.14 p.m.

25                           --- On resuming at 12.42 p.m.

Page 4505

 1             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, during the break, Mr. Zecevic and

 2     myself and also in the background, Mr. Pantelic, discussed the issue

 3     that's arisen.  To what extent should evidence of Crisis Staffs relating

 4     to the Croats and the Muslims be admissible in this case.  And of course,

 5     our position is that it is getting near to a tu quoque defence and it's

 6     impossible for Your Honours to evaluate the significance of these

 7     documents without hearing all the evidence that surrounds them; but we

 8     hope that we may be able to perhaps cut matters short if Your Honours

 9     give us an opportunity to consider that.  I know that we're not

10     sitting -- no Court is sitting tomorrow morning, because I understand

11     there's a plenary.  And therefore, we would like the -- to use the

12     opportunity to discuss the matter generally within the Office of the

13     Prosecutor, in particular, with those who are doing cases which, if you

14     like, are the other side.

15             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Prlic.

16             MS. KORNER:  Exactly, Prlic in particular.  To see whether we can

17     reach some kind of consensus which may obviate the need for Mr. Zecevic

18     to continue on this line.  I understand he is prepared to move to a

19     different topic on that basis and then come back to it if we can't reach

20     agreement.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  That is correct, Your Honours.  I mean, we hope

22     that that satisfied the requirement of the Trial Chamber to, well, not to

23     take the position on the objection that my colleague has made, and we are

24     trying to amicably sort this situation.  If it would be possible tomorrow

25     morning, and I will continue then with other matters in course of my

Page 4506

 1     cross-examination.  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

 3             MS. KORNER:  And I've asked Mr. Zecevic if he could be very kind

 4     and give us 15 minutes at the end to raise the matter of documents again,

 5     I am afraid, the admission thereof.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, while the witness is entering court,

 7     can I move the Trial Chamber to admit the last document that I commented

 8     with.

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  3109, is that it?

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  3109, that is correct.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honours.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D111, Your Honours.

14                           [The witness takes the stand]

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  May I proceed?

16             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honour.

18        Q.   [Interpretation] Ms. Hanson, over the break I hope we succeeded

19     in finding a modality of dealing with this issue, and in keeping with the

20     understanding we reached with our learned friends from the Prosecution, I

21     will continue with other topics.  You are probably aware, Ms. Hanson,

22     that the inter-party agreement between the SDA, SDS and the HDZ -- let me

23     first ask you this:  You know that these three ethnic-based parties came

24     out at the elections together in 1991, in the first multiparty elections,

25     with the common objective of defeating the communist party; correct?

Page 4507

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   These three parties had between them a certain inter-party

 3     agreement; right?

 4        A.   I am not familiar with the specific agreement to which you are

 5     referring.

 6        Q.   But I suppose you know from other facts that in keeping with that

 7     agreement, they adopted a principle whereby a party that got the majority

 8     of votes in a certain municipality would appoint the president of the

 9     municipality, and the second-ranking party would get the post of chairman

10     of the Executive Board and so on.  Do you know of that?

11        A.   Yes, that's my general understanding.

12        Q.   So if we take a municipality where the greatest number of votes

13     were won by the Serbian Democratic Party, then the SDS would provide the

14     president of the municipality; correct?

15        A.   That's the usual pattern.

16        Q.   At the same time, according to that logic of things or the usual

17     pattern, as you call it, the candidate for the president of the

18     municipality nominated by the Serbian Democratic Party or any other party

19     would usually be the president of the board of that party in a particular

20     town?

21        A.   Usually, but it's not always the rule.

22        Q.   We agree about that, yes, usually.

23             Then after the elections in 1990, we had a common situation

24     wherein the president of the board of the victorious party would be

25     elected president of that municipality, to sum up.

Page 4508

 1        A.   My knowledge here is restricted to the municipalities relevant to

 2     the SDS.  I can't speak to other municipalities.  But in general, that's

 3     my understanding, but it's -- as you say, it's not always the rule.

 4        Q.   We have quite enough evidence to demonstrate that.  I'm not

 5     asking you to confirm, I'm just discussing the general situation.  Thus,

 6     at the moment when these Crisis Staffs are established, under the

 7     instructions, and as we have seen it happened always everywhere, the

 8     president of the party board would become president of the Crisis Staff;

 9     correct?

10        A.   Not always everywhere, but generally, yes.

11        Q.   So in a certain way, we have a concurrence of functions in one

12     personality.  One person can be, or rather, is at the same time president

13     of the board of the party, president of the Crisis Staff of that party,

14     and president of the municipality; isn't that so?

15        A.   Generally, yes.

16        Q.   All right.  Since we have agreed on that, let us look at the

17     chronology of events.  In December 1991, these instructions are given to

18     establish SDS Crisis Staffs.  And one of the tasks of the Crisis Staffs

19     are to form Assemblies of the Serbian People in the territory of

20     Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?

21        A.   Assemblies of the Serbian People within the municipalities, yes,

22     yes.

23        Q.   Now, on 9 January 1992, the Assembly of the Serbian People issues

24     a declaration on the establishment of Republika Srpska; correct?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 4509

 1        Q.   That declaration on the establishment of Republika Srpska is

 2     followed by the adoption of the constitution of Republika Srpska on the

 3     28th of February?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   So at the moment when the constitution of Republika Srpska is

 6     adopted, towards the end of February 1992, the territory of

 7     Republika Srpska had already been designated, the constitutional order,

 8     the state system had already been identified, and the authorities are now

 9     to be established, on the republic level, the government, the Presidency,

10     the Assembly already exists, and the authorities on lower levels on the

11     ground; right?

12        A.   I believe the council of ministers was already formed before the

13     constitution was adopted, and as we see, the Municipal Assemblies are --

14     some of them formed the regions, formed all before the end of February,

15     but this is when the state was taking form at the highest level with the

16     decisions of the Assembly on the constitution.  That we see the organs

17     forming at the highest level.

18        Q.   Yes, but I'm trying to rely on what you've already said in your

19     evidence.  It is a fact that not all Assemblies of the Serbian People

20     were formed in the period from December through end February 1992 in the

21     territory?

22        A.   Correct, not all.

23        Q.   Some were formed in May and in June even 1992?

24        A.   Where I see an actual Serb municipality or Municipal Assembly

25     separating from an existing municipality, it was generally carried out

Page 4510

 1     much earlier than June.  What we see is those -- some municipalities

 2     where the Serbs had an overwhelming majority didn't feel as much need to

 3     rename or take some of the steps indicated in A and B simply because

 4     their authority was -- they controlled the municipal organs and didn't

 5     need to form parallel ones.  So in those cases you might not see

 6     something called a Serb municipality until later.  By later, I mean at

 7     the time you mention, May or June.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  I'm only trying to clarify one particular fact which

 9     I don't think is completely clear.  Those party-led Crisis Staffs formed

10     under these instructions.  At the moment when organs of Republika Srpska

11     at municipal level are formed, such as the Municipal Assembly and the

12     Executive Board, at that moment, the Crisis Staffs, because they are

13     party organs, not state organs, cease to have any influence on state

14     organs; do you agree with that?

15        A.   No, I don't.

16        Q.   Madam, Crisis Staffs, there must be a distinction between

17     Crisis Staffs of the SDS and Crisis Staffs of the municipality.  You've

18     said so yourself and you say so in the report.  Is that correct, is there

19     such a distinction?

20        A.   As I indicate in my report, there's a great deal of evidence to

21     see -- to show an overlap between those two, that when they are acting as

22     Municipal Crisis Staffs, that is Crisis Staffs of the Municipal Assembly,

23     they still use the party stamp, use the party head letter, don't make an

24     important distinction.  We saw in the report on the work of the Kljuc

25     Crisis Staff that they saw a perfect continuity between SDS Crisis Staff,

Page 4511

 1     Municipal Assembly Crisis Staff, Municipal Assembly War Presidency, I see

 2     the continuity in the evidence.  I see a difference in how it is

 3     presented, a difference in terminology, that they, as I've indicated by

 4     April we see them acting as declaring themselves to be the Municipal

 5     Assembly Crisis Staff, but I don't see discontinuity in the makeup, in

 6     the tasks, in how they viewed themselves.  And moreover, these are the

 7     Crisis Staffs of the Serbian municipalities, not of the pre-existing

 8     municipality -- municipal organs as established after the elections.

 9        Q.   Madam, I'm sorry, I didn't want to interrupt you to avoid

10     objections, but my question was really very simple and you are giving me

11     a half-page answer.  I'm kindly asking you to concentrate on the question

12     alone and give me a precise answer.  I'm not asking you about the

13     continuity or discontinuity.  That's not the issue.  We will come to that

14     perhaps later.  I'm just asking you, since you say that there is a

15     continuity, if there is a continuity, that means that there is a link

16     between two different organs, where one organ is the Crisis Staff of the

17     party and the other organ is the Crisis Staff of the municipality.  Just

18     tell me, is it the case that there were Crisis Staffs of the party and

19     Crisis Staffs of the municipality?

20        A.   The municipality -- the Serbian municipality was also a creation

21     of the SDS and I do not see a difference between the Crisis Staff of the

22     party and the Crisis Staff of the Serbian municipality.

23        Q.   Well, I suppose, madam, that the municipality is a creation of

24     the Serbian people, not of the party.  The party just expresses the will

25     of the people?

Page 4512

 1        A.   The municipality or the Serbian municipality.  We see the Serbian

 2     municipality being formed by -- on the directions of the SDS party.

 3        Q.   Well, madam, that's because 99 per cent of Serbian voters,

 4     99 per cent of Serbian electorate voted for the platform of the

 5     Serbian Democratic Party, voted for that party, just as Croats and

 6     Muslims voted for their own national parties.  Isn't that true?

 7        A.   99 per cent seems large to me because there were other parties

 8     beside the national party, so I'm not prepared to say it was 99 per cent

 9     of Serbian voters voted SDS.

10        Q.   But in any case, the majority of Serbian voters did vote SDS;

11     right?

12        A.   Correct.

13        Q.   Are you trying to say that the Serbian Democratic Party imposed

14     on the Serbian people against their will the establishment of Serbian

15     municipalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

16        A.   No.

17        Q.   Thank you, thank you, finally.  So the Serbs in their majority

18     placed their trust at the elections in the Serbian Democratic Party.  The

19     SDS has the majority in the parliament, the Assembly of the Serbian

20     People; correct?

21        A.   Those are two different things.  The elections were to the

22     Assembly of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina or to the -- if you are

23     talking about those elections, and that's different from the Assembly of

24     the Serbian People.

25        Q.   Madam, the elections in 1990 were for the joint Assembly.  Most

Page 4513

 1     Serbian votes were given to the SDS.  After that, in January 1992, the

 2     Serbian people formed the Assembly of the Serbian People -- sorry, it

 3     wasn't January.  The Assembly of the Serbian People that had been formed

 4     already adopts a declaration establishing Republika Srpska; correct?

 5        A.   Correct.

 6        Q.   That parliament that took the decision to establish Republika

 7     Srpska is the Assembly of the Serbian People where the SDS has the

 8     absolute majority; correct?

 9        A.   Correct.

10        Q.   Let's come back to the beginning of my question where we seem to

11     have gotten stuck.  On the 28th of February, the constitution of

12     Republika Srpska is passed and after that the organs of Republika Srpska

13     are beginning to be set up in keeping with the constitutional

14     arrangement.

15        A.   As I said before, you see some of them before the

16     28th of February, such as the council of ministers, such as the Serbian

17     Municipal Assemblies.

18        Q.   Madam, the council of ministers is a provisional advisory body

19     formed just before the government was appointed, and it lasted for

20     another month after the formation of the government of Republika Srpska

21     and then it ceased to exist; correct?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Madam, government bodies cannot be established before a

24     constitution is passed, a constitution of a country which sets down its

25     state and territorial functions; correct?

Page 4514

 1        A.   This Republika Srpska was a new creation and was to a large

 2     extent writing its own rules.  I don't see that there's a contradiction

 3     to first form organs and declare your territory and then write a

 4     constitution.

 5        Q.   Very well, but be it as it may, a vast majority of the government

 6     bodies in the territory of Republika Srpska were established in March,

 7     April, and May of 1991 [as interpreted]; correct?

 8        A.   If by government you mean at the republic level, yes.

 9             MR. PANTELIC:  Just correction to transcript, page 67, line 3,

10     witness -- question was May 1992, not 1991, I believe.

11             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Pantelic.

12        Q.   Madam, at the moment when in the territory where government

13     bodies have been established, and I mean the Assembly, the Executive

14     Board of a municipality, so when in such a territory a conflict breaks

15     out, at that point in time a Crisis Staff would be established in that

16     municipality; correct?

17        A.   That's not the pattern that I see.

18        Q.   Madam, yesterday you commented on and today as well, and a few

19     moments ago you mentioned quotas or the key, and we --

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Or Kljuc, the municipality of Kljuc,

21     interpreter correction.

22             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   And we saw here a report that was submitted to the Municipal

24     Assembly in Kljuc.  Do you recall that document?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 4515

 1             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Please bear with me.  I want to try

 2     and find that document.

 3        Q.   This is under tab 38 in your binder.

 4        A.   39, I believe.  Sorry.

 5        Q.   No, actually you are correct, it is 39.

 6        A.   That's the declaration.  41.  41.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I will provide the page reference

 8     in just a moment, I apologise.  That is 65 ter 813 and this document was

 9     assigned a P number yesterday, but I can't find it right now.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P451.

11             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] 431.

12        Q.   Madam, this is a report --

13             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please pull it up on the

14     screens.

15        Q.   This a report on the work of the Crisis Staff, and then in

16     parenthesis War Presidency, Municipal Assembly in Kljuc in the period

17     15th of May, 1992, up until the present.  And then at the bottom it says

18     July 1992.  Do you recall us discussing this document yesterday?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And when speaking about this document yesterday, you actually

21     used this document to show that there was continuity between the Crisis

22     Staff of the SDS which then became the Crisis Staff of the municipality

23     and then became the War Presidency.  Do you recall saying that?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Now, here at the very beginning of the document, on page 2, we

Page 4516

 1     see the following words:

 2             "The Crisis Staff which was set up at the Executive Board of the

 3     Kljuc Serbian Democratic Party on the 23rd of December, 1991, in

 4     mid-May," and here they mean 1999, "was expanded at the meeting to

 5     include a certain number of representatives of the local authority and

 6     was transformed into the Crisis Staff of the Kljuc Municipal Assembly at

 7     a meeting held on 14 May 1992 because there were no conditions and

 8     prerequisites to call a Municipal Assembly meeting to elect and endorse

 9     members of the Crisis Staff of the Municipal Assembly."

10             Ms. Hanson, from this, it is clear that there are two different

11     Crisis Staffs in existence; correct?

12        A.   They are not in existence at the same time.  The Crisis Staff of

13     the SDS becomes the Crisis Staff of the Municipal Assembly.

14        Q.   But, Ms. Hanson, it says that it is to be expanded, that the

15     current SDS staff is to be expanded and transformed.  That's what it says

16     in the document.

17        A.   Yes, that's what it says.

18        Q.   From which it follows that the Crisis Staff of the SDS with a

19     number of government representatives that were added now becomes the

20     municipal Crisis Staff; correct?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Now, tell me, isn't it true that on the 7th of May, 1992, and we

23     saw this document as well yesterday, the newly established Serbian

24     municipality of Kljuc was just established?

25        A.   Where did we see that?

Page 4517

 1        Q.   Well, I will show you that document as well.  You saw it

 2     yesterday.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, please bear with me.

 4     That's document 65 ter 795.  This document was assigned, I believe,

 5     number 438?

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  If I may be of assistance, this is Exhibit P450.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 8        Q.   Madam, do you see that?  You actually said that we can see in

 9     capital letters Autonomous Region of Bosanska Krajina because it was on

10     that day that the Kljuc municipality actually joined this autonomous

11     region?

12        A.   This is a document which says Crisis Staff of the municipality of

13     Kljuc, although the date is the 7th of May which indicates that even

14     before that date they gave in the report, the SDS Crisis Staff was

15     calling itself the Kljuc municipal Crisis Staff, but I don't see here

16     the -- I'm familiar with this document, I don't see that it states that

17     the Serbian municipality of Kljuc was just established here.  That's what

18     I'm looking for.

19        Q.   It is possible that I also had in mind some other documents or

20     exhibits that we had occasion to see here and which is why I recall this

21     date as the date when the Serbian municipality of Kljuc was established.

22     But I thought this was a fact that you were aware of.  If not, I will

23     find those documents and put them to you.

24             Madam, if we go back to the earlier -- the previous document,

25     where the SDS Crisis Staff was transformed to become the Municipal

Page 4518

 1     Assembly Crisis Staff and where it said, in the paragraph that I referred

 2     to earlier, that at a meeting held on the 14th of May of that year, the

 3     Crisis Staff of Kljuc municipality was established; in other words, on

 4     the 14th of May.  And it provides the reasons saying that there had been

 5     no preconditions and prerequisites that would allow this to be done

 6     earlier, to establish Crisis Staffs of Municipal Assemblies.

 7             So my question to you again is whether -- do you still maintain

 8     that even in this particular case, these were not two [Realtime

 9     transcript read in error "too"] different organs?

10        A.   Well, as I just pointed out, the previous document shows that

11     there was something calling itself the Crisis Staff of the municipality

12     before the 14th of May.  I agree that in abstract technical terms the

13     Crisis Staff of a party should be different from the Crisis Staff of a

14     Municipal Assembly.  As in practical terms as shown in the evidence which

15     I've looked at in the Serbian municipalities, I do not see a distinction

16     between the two.  I see a great deal of overlap, confusion of

17     terminology, confusion of the procedures and the emphasis on continuity

18     such as in the third paragraph which says the Crisis Staff met as an

19     organ of the SDS.

20        Q.   I'm glad that at least in this abstract and technical terms we

21     can agree.  My question to you is:  Isn't your misperception of this

22     being one and the same organ in continuity, doesn't that misconception

23     actually arise from the very fact that the same people were in fact

24     members of one and then the other organ?  Isn't that the key element of

25     continuity that you are referring to?

Page 4519

 1        A.   I'm referring to the continuity perceived by the members of the

 2     Crisis Staff.  Karadzic himself said, You remember A and B at the

 3     beginning of the war, we had our Crisis Staffs.  And he is referring to A

 4     and B, and they were the powers of the municipality.  He said, We held

 5     power firmly thanks to A and B, so that's the continuity I see from the

 6     documents themselves.

 7             MR. DOBBYN:  Sorry, Your Honours, just a quick correction to the

 8     transcript.  It's minor, but it does change the meaning somewhat.

 9     Page 70, line 25, the last word is "too," t-o-o, and I believe it should

10     be t-w-o.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Line 23.

12             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Madam, when you refer to the statement by Mr. Karadzic, do you

14     mean the statement before the Assembly in 1995 that was read out to you

15     yesterday?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   That's in tab 5, I believe, in your binder.  The document is

18     P438.

19             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have it on our

20     screens.

21        Q.   You have been shown this document and you commented on it, the

22     portion that you reiterated a few moments ago, where Karadzic was

23     bragging about Variant A and B producing results and so on and so forth,

24     and you said that this was an Assembly session where military issues were

25     discussed.  Now, madam, isn't it true that this was one of the most

Page 4520

 1     serious episodes in the history of Republika Srpska where the well-known

 2     rift between the then president of Republika Srpska, Mr. Karadzic, and

 3     the army of Republika Srpska, in other words, General Mladic, actually

 4     occurred; isn't that true?

 5        A.   The conflict was ongoing through the period from April through

 6     August 1995, but that was one of the issues at this Assembly, yes.

 7        Q.   Madam, and I put it to you that 98 per cent of this document

 8     actually refers to this conflict, the clash between Karadzic and Mladic.

 9     And I would now like to read out to you --

10             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter did not hear the page number.

11             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Page 184, where I will quote to you what President Karadzic said.

13             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] So page 184 of the Serbian text,

14     and I assume that it is on the same page in the English version.  184.

15     It's probably page 185 in e-court.

16        Q.   It begins with the words:  "The political show-down in

17     Bosnia ..."

18             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, I keep saying 184 and

19     not 83.  Page 83.  It says on top of the page 184.

20        Q.   In any case, in order to save time, I will read the document to

21     you.  Madam, you have it in front of you, that was under tab number 5.

22     It reads as follows:  This is Karadzic speaking and he is quoting the

23     last paragraph on this page.

24             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, that is the right page

25     in the Serbian version and I assume it's the same page in the English

Page 4521

 1     version.

 2        Q.   Karadzic is quoting the US news daily report of 20th April 1992,

 3     and he says that this report is entitled "Political Clashes In Bosnia,"

 4     and it says as follows.  So it's Karadzic quoting the US news daily

 5     report:

 6             "The current Muslim offensives [Realtime transcript read in error

 7     "offences"] against Serb positions in central Bosnia has resulted in a

 8     clash for power within the leadership of Bosnian Serbs.  Apparently

 9     Radovan Karadzic was defeated.  Serb observers who recently visited Pale

10     and representatives of Bosnian Serbs report that the military leadership,

11     headed by Ratko Mladic, actually managed to control the president because

12     they felt that his leadership was misleading them too frequently.  He may

13     give public pronouncements approved by the army, but no more than that,

14     the sources report.  He is politically dead."

15             Do you recall or did you have occasion to read that part of this

16     document?  These are Karadzic's words and you should have been able to

17     see it and read it.  Do you remember?

18             MR. PANTELIC:  Excuse me, before the witness is answer, I don't

19     think that on page 73, line 19, it's correct.  I think instead of

20     "offences," maybe it's "offensive" or maybe "military action."  Maybe

21     I'm ...

22             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Well, all right, in any case, we

23     can see the original quotation in the document.  I don't want to waste

24     any more of our time because we have to actually finish earlier.

25        Q.   So tell me, madam, have you read this part of Karadzic's remarks?

Page 4522

 1        A.   I've read it now.  I'm not sure whether I read it before or not.

 2        Q.   Well, I will tell you, or rather, I will read another portion

 3     from it.  We have a minute or two left.

 4             So on the next day, the session of the next day --

 5             MR. DOBBYN:  Sorry, Your Honours.  I'm very sorry to interrupt

 6     but I just want to point out that what we are seeing on the screens, the

 7     English page is not matching up to the B/C/S.  The English runs much

 8     later.  I only have the portion in front of me that I used with

 9     Ms. Hanson yesterday so I can't direct it to the right page, but I just

10     want to make it clear that what you are seeing does not match up.

11             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Very well.  Your Honours, since it

12     is time for us to wrap up because Ms. Korner had asked to be given an

13     opportunity to address you, I would like to finish now and I will provide

14     the pages, the corresponding English pages tomorrow.

15             Thank you, Ms. Hanson, that will be all for today.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Hanson, thank you.  We are -- you are now

17     excused as a witness to return to this Chamber at 2.15 tomorrow.  The

18     Chamber will not be sitting in the morning.  The usher will now escort

19     you from the courtroom while we deal with some other matters.  Thank you

20     very much.

21             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

22             JUDGE HALL:  And my usual warnings are repeated so to the extent

23     that it is redundant to say so.

24             THE WITNESS:  Of course, Your Honour.

25                           [The witness stands down]

Page 4523

 1             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I'm sorry to raise the ever-vexed

 2     question of the admission of documents.  It really -- it's two separate

 3     but related matters.  Your Honour, the first is this:  The list that

 4     Mr. Dobbyn gave the Court was only the list of documents he was

 5     specifically going to put to Ms. Hanson.  But additionally, of course,

 6     there are many documents which are on the 65 ter list submitted by the

 7     Prosecution which are footnoted in her report.  We went back to check

 8     whether there was a ruling on how we were supposed to have these

 9     documents admitted and I don't know whether Your Honours had printed out,

10     I am afraid the e-mail was sent this morning to the Court, to what

11     His Honour Judge Harhoff said in the 65 ter Conference on the

12     14th of October, 2009, where you set out a number of alternatives, but we

13     couldn't find a resolution anywhere of how this was to take place.  It

14     may be we've missed it but we don't think so.

15             Of course it's important not only in respect of this witness, but

16     in respect of the next, Christian Nielsen, where again only a small

17     selection of the documents have been made to actually ask the witness

18     about, but there are many others which are footnotes in his report but

19     are also on our 65 ter list.  So we are seeking the ruling or guidance

20     from the Trial Chamber as to how we are going to have these documents

21     admitted.

22             The allied matter is the one that was dealt with yesterday in a

23     written ruling.  Now, Your Honours, this arose through, if I can call it,

24     the Djeric mechanism of where you've got a large number of documents that

25     the witness can deal with but a limited amount of time, how are these

Page 4524

 1     documents are to be dealt with.  And we understood from Your Honours'

 2     ruling which is set out on the 26th of October that -- it's set out in

 3     the decision, the various steps that had to be taken.  And I am afraid to

 4     say that I had assumed that we had taken those steps, and so I was

 5     somewhat surprised to have the application rejected on the basis that on

 6     the 4th of November, it was said that if -- in cases where we are dealing

 7     with a complex situation such as the introduction of a very large number

 8     of documents, we will then require a motion.

 9             It's fair to say that I had completely forgotten about that

10     ruling in November, because it was in the middle of a long discussion

11     again about the submission of documents.  But in any event, Your Honours,

12     it begs the question of what is a very large number of documents?  And

13     with Djeric it was 100, but with the witness with whom I was making this

14     application it was nothing like that.

15             And the motion is then being refused on the basis that we failed

16     to file a motion and also that we failed to say how they relate to the

17     indictment.  Well, Your Honours, that may be our fault but we thought we

18     had set out that they fall into the various categories of Serb Crisis

19     Staff and whatever.  What I'm actually coming to, and I think this is --

20     I can say this is really a position also taken by the Defence, is that we

21     really would be most grateful for a time to be set aside to fully deal

22     with and have a written direction in writing.  It may be that we would

23     like some further discussion in front of Your Honours as to how we are to

24     deal with all the admission of these documents.

25             I mean, that really is our position at the moment.  But the

Page 4525

 1     urgency is, of course, how we now deal with the documents in Ms. Hanson's

 2     footnotes and Dr. Nielsen's footnotes, which are on our 65 ter list.

 3             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Does the Defence have any objection to the

 4     admission of further documents that are footnoted in the expert reports?

 5             JUDGE HALL:  And which one, the 65 ter list.

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  They are all on the 65 ter list.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yeah, the one which are on the 65 ter list, we

 8     don't have the objection.  Yes, that is correct.

 9             MR. PANTELIC:  Let me think a minute because I always must to

10     analyse position of OTP, you know, maybe something is around the bush,

11     but at this stage, no, I don't have any objection.

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  That's a wise man speaking, Mr. Pantelic, to

13     think before you speak.

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  I hope you are not suggesting anything,

15     Your Honour.

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Certainly not.  We are very well appraised of

17     your good thinking, sir.

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  I was put on note before that's why I gave my name.

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  In relation to the general aspect of admission of

21     documents through 92 ter witnesses and expert witnesses, the Chamber

22     agrees that it would be a good idea to have a discussion about this and

23     to provide you with clear guide-lines.  We thought that it was all clear

24     but apparently it's not, so that in itself is a good reason to have a

25     discussion about it.

Page 4526

 1             Maybe we should organise a 65 ter meeting for that purpose

 2     sometime early in the new year, or alternatively, the Chamber may just

 3     discuss it internally and then provide you with guide-lines.  But in the

 4     interest of efficiency, it might be useful to sit down all together and

 5     discuss it before we adopt any final guide-lines.

 6             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I think it would be of assistance if

 7     Your Honours perhaps were to issue - can we put it this way? - draft

 8     guide-lines and then we can make submissions on it.  I think that's

 9     probably the most efficient way of dealing with it.

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  That's exactly what we had in mind.

11             MR. ZECEVIC:  That is definitely what we would prefer also and to

12     have a 65 ter in the new year, yes.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  In respect of the second issue relating to the

14     additional documents to be admitted through Hanson and Nielsen, the

15     Chamber's view was that this could cause prejudice to the Defence not

16     having been put on notice that these extra documents would also be sought

17     admitted into evidence.  But since none of the Defence counsels have

18     taken an issue with it, we agree.  So they are all admitted.

19             MS. KORNER:  Thank you very much, Your Honours.

20             JUDGE HALL:  We rise until 2.15 tomorrow.

21                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.43 p.m.,

22                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 10th day of

23                           December, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.