1 [Open session]

2 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

3 [The accused entered court]

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Call the case, please.

5 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, this is the case number

6 IT-99-36-T, the Prosecutor versus Radoslav Brdjanin and Momir Talic.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Mr. Brdjanin. Can you hear me in a

8 language that you can understand?

9 THE ACCUSED BRDJANIN: [Interpretation] Morning, Your Honour. Yes,

10 I can hear you and I understand you.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: I put the same question to you, General Talic: Can

12 you hear me in a language that you can understand?

13 THE ACCUSED TALIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. I

14 can hear you and I understand you.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Appearances for the Prosecution?

16 MS. KORNER: Joanna Korner and Nicholas Koumjian, assisted by

17 Denise Gustin, case manager.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. Appearances for Mr. Brdjanin?

19 MR. ACKERMAN: Good morning, Your Honours. I'm John Ackerman and

20 I appear with Tania Radosavljevic.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: And appearances for General Talic?

22 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning,

23 Mr. President and Your Honours. I am Natasha Fauveau-Ivanovic. I am

24 replacing Maitre Pitron and Maitre de Roux, and I'm assisted by Mr. Fabien

25 Masson. I would also like to apologise on behalf of Maitre de Roux and

1 Maitre Pitron and I would like to ask you to permit me to represent

2 General Talic and Mr. Brdjanin until next Tuesday.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you both. General Talic, Maitre de Roux

4 last Friday, or whenever it was -- when did we sit last? Last Wednesday.

5 Last Wednesday, stated in this Trial Chamber, in this courtroom, that you

6 had no objection in being represented today by Mademoiselle Fauveau. Do

7 you confirm that? And now since we have a statement being made by

8 Mademoiselle Fauveau to the effect that, until next Tuesday, in other

9 words until today week, none of your two appointed counsel will be

10 present. Do you still accept that you will be represented by Mademoiselle

11 Fauveau between now and then?

12 THE ACCUSED TALIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I still agree to

13 that and I accept being represented by Ms. Fauveau.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. Yes, Ms. Korner?

15 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, simply this, the -- tomorrow, as Your

16 Honour knows, it was intended to deal with the admissibility of the Banja

17 Luka documents. Now, it may be that as a result of the very productive

18 Status Conference that was held with your senior legal officer, that

19 things will be shortened. But nonetheless, it is a matter in which

20 counsel for General Talic have raised a number of objections and tomorrow

21 is the time when Your Honours will be asked to rule on the admissibility.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: We will rule, Ms. Korner.

23 MS. KORNER: Yes. The second matter is this: On Monday, the two

24 witnesses who are coming, one of them I know gives direct evidence - it

25 depends on the second - will be giving direct evidence of a meeting with

1 General Talic. Now, I don't know whether that was appreciated. If one

2 looked at the list, it should have been, but I merely raise that so that

3 General Talic is aware that it may be on Monday we will be reaching a

4 witness who will be giving direct evidence in respect of a meeting with

5 him.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Ms. Korner, and I can assure you that

7 this Trial Chamber - I don't even need to consult my two colleagues -

8 appreciates very much your sense of loyalty both to the Chamber and to

9 your colleagues on the other side. I'm sure that Ms. Fauveau has

10 understood perfectly well what you stated and the import of what you

11 stated and that she will refer back to Maitre de Roux and Maitre Pitron so

12 that they will decide what to do. I mean, it's up to them. This Trial

13 Chamber is definitely not -- what I must make clear is that the office and

14 the Registry in charge of the allocation of Defence counsel, et cetera,

15 are fully aware of what is taking place and there may well be -- come a

16 stage when the undesired might happen. We can't simply -- we can't go on

17 like this.

18 This is, again, not a reflection on you. You are perfectly

19 capable of handling the situation, but the two lawyers that have been

20 allocated at an expense to your client, to General Talic, are Maitre de

21 Roux and Maitre Pitron. And from Maitre Pitron, at least for the time

22 being, there has not been an explanation justifying his absence except

23 what Maitre de Roux said that he is somehow engaged in a case in a court

24 of Avignon or at Aix-en-Provence or something like that.

25 Yes, Mr. Ackerman?

1 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I have decided, after consultation

2 with a number of colleagues, that I need to place something on the record

3 regarding this issue that we are talking about.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead.

5 MR. ACKERMAN: I think it is far from clear in the jurisprudence

6 of this Tribunal that a waiver by an accused of the appearance of counsel

7 assigned to him would be seen as knowing, intelligent and effective, and I

8 therefore have serious concern that this issue could very well cause

9 significant delay at some point in this case, or even cause the case to

10 have to be completely restarted. With that in mind, I would just like to

11 preliminarily ask the Chamber to seriously consider, if that were to

12 occur, to sever my case from his so that we can go forward and not be

13 subjected to that delay, but I believe it is very inappropriate for

14 counsel assigned by the Registry to an accused in a genocide case of this

15 magnitude to not be appearing in court. And I would hope that it would

16 not affect the continuation of my client's case.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ackerman, I can assure you that it will not

18 affect the continuation of your client's case. I think the more I hear

19 about this matter, the more I'm convinced that it would benefit everyone

20 if it's brought to a head. If you would like to file an appropriate

21 motion, we will deal with it and I can assure you that this Trial Chamber

22 will bring it at a head and in the speediest manner and in the most

23 forceful manner. And then, of course, there will be a price to pay.

24 Now, yes, Ms. Fauveau?

25 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would only like to say

1 -- to provide you with an explanation, in order to avoid problems of this

2 kind in the future. In fact, our cabinet did not receive counsel at the

3 beginning of this case so we worked in an organisation, in a particular

4 organisation. In fact, there were three of us who were dealing with this

5 case. We were dealing with it as the principal, the main counsel. It was

6 only a few months ago that we were designated ex officio and we have only

7 had a few months to adapt to the procedure of this Tribunal. I would

8 assure you that this cabinet, that we are doing all we can to resolve this

9 question as soon as possible. And until that time, I would be grateful if

10 you could authorise me to represent General Talic because he doesn't

11 object to this.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: It's not a question of authorising you or not

13 authorising you. I said before, and I reiterate it, you are perfectly

14 capable of handling the situation and of representing General Talic.

15 That has never been the issue. That has never been doubted. That has

16 never been questioned by anyone. The whole point is this: The whole

17 point is that there are two lawyers that have been appointed by the

18 Registrar to represent General Talic. The moment they were appointed,

19 they assumed obligations and responsibilities not only with regard to

20 their client but also in relation to this Trial Chamber. I made a very

21 specific warning or I gave a very specific warning earlier on last week,

22 that if this, at any moment, threatens to bring this trial to a halt, even

23 temporarily, your Defence bench will not even know what would have

24 happened. I will hit hard before you even know it. And I'm telling you

25 also that the Registry, the Registrar, and the person responsible for the

1 office of appointing lawyers, is already fully aware of the situation.

2 There may come a time when there will be a price to pay and the

3 price will certainly not include having this trial halted, not even

4 temporarily, but we may come to that stage. This is intolerable. If, for

5 example - let me make it clear - if Maitre Pitron finding himself engaged

6 in a surprise trial or proceedings in Avignon or Aix-en-Provence, decided

7 that his place is there and not here, he has to justify in front of this

8 Trial Chamber why, in this particular case, where he is being paid by the

9 funds of the Tribunal itself, he has opted to have you, someone else, not

10 on the record as being one of counsel for General Talic, to represent

11 General Talic, and he hasn't opted to do the same in that urgent case that

12 he has in Avignon or in Aix-en-Provence. This is what I'm trying to make

13 clear. This is --

14 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, may I interrupt Your Honour? There is one

15 thing. In fact, to my knowledge, Maitre Pitron is not actually on the

16 list. They were originally both retained by General Talic privately.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: That's true, I know.

18 MS. KORNER: And the order, when it came out, assigning them

19 whatever the Tribunal equivalent of legal aid is, only mentions Mr. de

20 Roux. So it's fair to say Mr. Pitron is not registered as counsel.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: He's not even registered as counsel either.

22 MS. KORNER: I don't know how it's been worked out but on the

23 notification we got, it merely talked about Mr. de Roux.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: I will have that checked because the information I

25 was given was somehow different. That actually, when the private brief

1 that they had was terminated, I got the impression that both of them were

2 retained then by the Registry. I will have that checked. Obviously, if

3 it is as you say, it will change a little bit the picture as far as Maitre

4 Pitron is concerned, but certainly not as far as Maitre de Roux is

5 concerned. And the situation cannot be allowed to remain as it is. I

6 mean, definitely not. Because I have enough experience behind me to

7 realise that this could create a very, very awkward and embarrassing and

8 complicated situation for the Tribunal.

9 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, with respect, I agree.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: General Talic may stand up at some point in time and

11 say, "Listen, I was forced, I had no option."

12 So, yes.

13 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Ms. Korner is right.

14 Maitre Pitron has still not been officially designated as counsel, and

15 according to the proposals from our office, we are looking for a solution

16 to make sure everything is according to regulations by next week. My only

17 request at the moment is to know whether I'm authorised to represent

18 General Talic until next Tuesday, and I promise that after that date, the

19 matter will be ended.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. You can go ahead and you're being authorised

21 to represent General Talic simply because General Talic, upon being asked,

22 made the declaration that was put on record earlier on. Thank you.

23 Now, I understand there will be some issues with regard to

24 procedure and whatever that may have to be discussed. Incidentally,

25 yesterday, I went through the draft decision on the guidelines which will

1 govern the procedure in the course of this trial which I had delivered

2 orally earlier on. It should be -- very few corrections that had to be

3 made. It should be out and handed down to you later on today. So that

4 should settle the matter.

5 If there are other things that you would like to have discussed,

6 of course, they will be discussed. However, I was going to suggest to you

7 to finish first with the witness so that we make sure that he won't -- his

8 presence won't be required here in The Hague any further, and then

9 presumably we will have ample time or sufficient time to deal with the

10 rest, if that is agreeable to you. If there is something urgent that you

11 would like to have discussed first and foremost before everything else,

12 then please go ahead.

13 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, no. I was assuming that tomorrow would

14 be, as it were, a sort of mopping up day, if that's the right expression.

15 May I just, however, mention one thing? Your Honours will have seen in

16 the record, I hope, of the Status Conference that we discussed the legal

17 argument about the dead witness.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

19 MS. KORNER: And it was the view of Madam Fauveau that would be

20 better dealt with at a later stage as well, and that's satisfactory.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: I saw actually the minutes of the meeting that took

22 place which, as I anticipated, would be thoroughly positive one and I'm

23 positive future ones will even be more productive. Yes, I have taken note

24 of that and --

25 MS. KORNER: Your Honours are agreeable to that.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Oh, yes, of course. So yes, Mr. Ackerman?

2 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, just one, and this may have resulted

3 from total confusion on my part but I would like to inquire as a matter of

4 the record -- in the witness's statement of 10-14 December, 10, 12 and 14,

5 15 February, at page 20, the witness indicates that he's been shown an

6 English translation of his book, consisting of 160 pages, and I think we

7 have only been given 82 pages, unless I'm just totally confused and -- but

8 it was my understanding what we were given were 82 pages but I thought I

9 understood it until I started looking at it again this morning, and now

10 I'm not sure I do. So maybe the Prosecutor can fill us in on that but I

11 think we were given 82 pages when the witness says he had 160.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: I can't help you there but perhaps Mr. Koumjian

13 can.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: Was that the 95 statement? Which statement was

15 it?

16 MR. ACKERMAN: It's the ... [Microphone not activated]

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: We can check on that. In fact, I could ask and

18 send an e-mail and ask someone to print out that range, but as far as I

19 know, it's only 81 pages.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: It could well be that the witness will turn up with

21 a copy himself. I mean, was it given to him to keep or during the course

22 of his evidence? Because I think so.

23 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, it was given to him to keep, I think.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: I thought you were heading towards parity of arms

25 with Mr. Ackerman.

1 MR. KOUMJIAN: That's why I get along so well with him because I

2 understand the problems. I have them myself. As far as I know, I have

3 the range that we printed out.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Anyway, it's not something --

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: It's probably a matter of the print that was used.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. It also may be printed on both sides and that

7 explains because we are talking of 82 and 160, so it could well be that.

8 So can we call the witness? Please bring the witness in. Thank

9 you.

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: I've just been informed that the discrepancy is due

11 to one is a draft translation. That was the number referred to by the

12 witness, and the ERN range Mr. Ackerman has that begins 01901083 is the

13 final translation which comes to 82 pages, I believe.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

15 [The witness entered court]

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Mr. Krzic. You are now going to be

17 requested to make the same declaration, solemn declaration that you made

18 on earlier occasions. Please go ahead.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

20 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

21 WITNESS: MUHAREM KRZIC [Resumed]

22 [Witness answered through interpreter]

23 JUDGE AGIUS: You may sit down, thank you.

24 Mr. Ackerman will be continuing with his cross-examination. And

25 you are kindly invited to -- and you are kindly invited to keep your

1 answers as brief and as to the point as possible. I remind you of what I

2 told you last week, that just as you made a solemn declaration to say the

3 truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, in answering questions

4 or in giving testimony, basically, you should answer the question, the

5 whole question and nothing but the question. That would make the Trial

6 Chamber much happier and also Mr. Ackerman will have less opportunity of

7 firing further questions to you.

8 Mr. Ackerman, please.

9 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you, Your Honour. Could I ask that the

10 witness be again given copies of his various statements so that we can

11 refer to them during his testimony?

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Can you enlighten me on that? Is he in possession

13 of them or not?

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: We have them here.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: You have them, okay.

16 MR. KOUMJIAN: Perhaps -- we have labelled again the statements,

17 statement 1, 2, 3 and 4, starting with the 1995 and the last one, so it

18 might be easier to direct his attention by the number of the statement.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

20 Cross-examined by Mr. Ackerman: [Continued]

21 Q. Good morning, Mr. Krzic.

22 A. Good morning.

23 Q. How are you today? We are still on statement number 1, and I'd

24 ask you -- well, I'll get there in a moment. But I'll ask you to turn to

25 a certain page in just a moment. I want to talk about the referendum, and

1 you know what I'm referring to when I talk about the referendum, do you

2 not?

3 A. I think you're talking about the referendum for the independence

4 of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

5 Q. Yes. And that was a referendum that was conducted through voting

6 on secret ballots, was it not?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And, of course, secret ballot means that the name of the voter is

9 not on the ballot so you never can know who voted for or against that

10 proposition, can you?

11 A. I assume so, but I did not participate in practical terms in the

12 implementation of the referendum.

13 Q. Well, you don't know that there would be any records that would

14 let me find out how you voted in that referendum. There wouldn't be,

15 would there, if they are secret ballots?

16 A. Yes, absolutely so.

17 Q. The only way I'd know how you voted is if I asked you and you

18 decided you wanted to tell me, but you could also choose not to tell me,

19 right?

20 A. I assume so.

21 Q. And anyone who was any kind of an active politician during that

22 period of time would have understood what secret ballots were about and

23 how secret ballots worked, wouldn't they?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. So that -- let me refer you now to page 28 of your statement.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 A. The first English version?

2 Q. Yes, it is. Number 1, page 28, about two-thirds of the way

3 through the last paragraph on the page. You say, "Mr. Brdjanin announced

4 that those who voted for an independent BH would be dismissed from their

5 jobs." Do you see that?

6 A. Even if I don't see it, I agree with that, but as far as I

7 know --

8 Q. Well, that's --

9 A. Yes, I see it. Yes, yes, I see that.

10 Q. That's a pretty ridiculous statement, isn't it, because there

11 is no way he could have found out who voted for an independent BH if the

12 balloting was by secret ballot; correct?

13 A. Sir, I think that this refers to the Serbian plebiscite, at which

14 the SDS required that all Serbs take part, especially the leaders, and

15 those ballots were available and I think that this refers to that

16 plebiscite or referendum as you're calling it.

17 Q. Well, I'm actually referring to what you call the referendum and

18 that whole paragraph, if you start at the top of that paragraph, and read,

19 it begins with, "When the referendum was held in Banja Luka." It doesn't

20 speak of the plebiscite, it speaks of the referendum. Doesn't it?

21 A. I have to say that, to the best of my recollection, and I think I

22 refer to that referendum in this book, it is very easy for me to establish

23 what this is about, so that actually Mr. Brdjanin's statement refers to

24 the Serb referendum that they had held previously. Maybe in the

25 translation, this confusion may have been made so that the references to

1 the referendum for the independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina but in fact it

2 relates to the referendum of the Serbs.

3 Q. Well, if you start with the first sentence, "When the referendum

4 was held in Banja Luka, the result was that 45 per cent of the municipal

5 population wanted an independent Bosnia-Herzegovina." Now that refers to

6 the referendum, not the plebiscite, correct?

7 A. That refers to the referendum.

8 Q. The town of Banja Luka, the vote for an independent BH was 65 per

9 cent, meaning that the number of Serbs in the town, that a number of Serbs

10 in the town voted in favour of it. That refers to the referendum, doesn't

11 it?

12 A. I think that there must be something wrong here. Whether it is

13 due to the translation or not, I don't know. 45 per cent refers to the

14 city of Banja Luka. That is the percentage that voted in favour of

15 independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina. 65 per cent applies to the level of

16 the whole state of Bosnia-Herzegovina. And the actual percentage, I was

17 saying that 45 per cent of the total population of the municipality of

18 Banja Luka voted in favour, and out of the number that voted, I think 98

19 or 99 per cent also voted in favour of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

20 Q. Okay. I'll ask the question again and perhaps this time you can

21 answer it. In the town of Banja Luka, the vote for an independent BH was

22 65 per cent, meaning that a number of Serbs in the town voted in favour of

23 it. That refers, does it not, to the referendum?

24 A. The sentence here, there is one or two words that have been

25 inserted incorrectly, and I repeat, 45 per cent or maybe a couple of

1 figures higher than that, but you have the official numbers, in the town

2 of Banja Luka or rather the municipality of Banja Luka, voted in favour of

3 an independent Bosnia-Herzegovina, but you need to know that only the

4 non-Serbs took part in the vote and as part of the Serbs, so another

5 figure that is lacking is that about 98 per cent of the total number of

6 voters who voted, 98 or 99 per cent voted in favour of the independence of

7 Bosnia-Herzegovina and which in relation to the total population is 45 per

8 cent. If you take into account the fact that a certain number of people

9 did not vote at all, for various reasons, which is not relevant for you, I

10 repeat, 65 per cent applies to Bosnia-Herzegovina as the whole state, and

11 these are very well-known figures. There is no need to enter into a

12 polemics about that. There is nothing I can change about that. These are

13 figures that have been established by the official authorities.

14 Q. All right. Let me try a third time. I'm referring to the second

15 sentence which begins with the language, "In the town." Do you see that

16 sentence?

17 A. Yes, I do.

18 Q. My only question is this: Does that sentence refer to the

19 referendum?

20 A. It does, but the figure refers to the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina

21 and not to the town of Banja Luka, as far as I know.

22 Q. Now let's go to the next sentence. "I ran the referendum in

23 practically all of Bosanska Krajina as the authorised envoy of the BH

24 government." That sentence refers to the referendum, does it not?

25 A. I did not participate in the whole of Bosanska Krajina. I led the

1 referendum in the territory of the municipality of Banja Luka.

2 Q. So did you not say that?

3 A. Where is that sentence? Where have you got it?

4 Q. It's the very next sentence. It's the third sentence in that

5 paragraph.

6 A. I don't know how come that mistake was made. It is true that

7 there is my -- I don't know what you call it, not my signature but

8 whatever, that is true. But I cannot claim to have done something I

9 didn't do. There is no point in saying that I covered the whole territory

10 when that was not officially, or in practical terms, the case but I did

11 meet with the observers who covered the whole region and who were based in

12 Banja Luka.

13 Q. You do see at the bottom of that page what appears to be your

14 signature. It says, "signed," and then after that some writing appears to

15 be your signature?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Okay. Let's go to the next sentence: "The international

18 observers who came to Banja Luka were organised by me." Now, those were

19 observers of the referendum, were they not?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. I'll skip a sentence and go to the next one after that which

22 begins, "In this referendum, old differences were forgotten and even

23 members of family proscribed as nationalist Serbs voted in favour of an

24 independent BH. That sentence refers to the referendum, doesn't it?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And then the next sentence, "Mr. Brdjanin announced that those who

2 voted for an independent BH would be dismissed from their jobs." Are you

3 wanting to tell this Trial Chamber that at that point you started talking

4 about the plebiscite and not the referendum? Or doesn't that also refer

5 to the referendum?

6 A. No. That refers to the Serb plebiscite.

7 Q. And of course that would be clear to anybody reading it, wouldn't

8 it?

9 A. I wrote that very clearly in my book, and you can find that

10 statement on page 73 of the 21st of November, 1991, I think it is. Yes,

11 1991.

12 Q. And the Serb plebiscite that you talk about was also voting by

13 secret ballot, with no opportunity for anyone to know who voted for or

14 against it, correct?

15 A. In this case, it was a question of registering the voters, whether

16 they registered for the plebiscite, whether they took part in the vote.

17 So those lists were accessible to the authorities in power at the time, so

18 it was a locally covered plebiscite. That is what is referred to.

19 Q. What you're saying is that it was possible to determine whether

20 someone had voted but not possible to determine how they had voted,

21 right?

22 A. Yes, I assume so.

23 Q. And when you say that Mr. Brdjanin said those who voted in favour

24 of an independent BH would be dismissed from their jobs, there was no way

25 he could have known that because it was a secret ballot. He could only

1 have known who actually voted in the plebiscite if that's what we are

2 talking about, right?

3 A. Yes, but we had in mind that with the election results, one knew

4 that manipulation was possible, that those who had the right to have

5 access to the electoral lists, they also had the ability to influence the

6 results. That is how we believed. That is the conclusion that can be

7 made from this.

8 Q. Turn now, if you would, to your third statement, which is the

9 statement 10 and 14 December, which actually -- December of 2000 and

10 February of 2001.

11 A. Which page?

12 Q. We'll just start at the beginning and work our way through. Now,

13 by December 2000 and February 2001, you know, do you not, that

14 Mr. Brdjanin and Mr. Talic have now been indicted and arrested and are

15 detained in The Hague awaiting trial?

16 A. I really assume that is correct but I cannot remember such details

17 now.

18 Q. The investigators from the Prosecutor's office are specifically

19 interested in questioning you about these two individuals, are they not,

20 at this point?

21 A. I really cannot claim any such thing but that can best be seen

22 from the statements whether those things were focused on or not, but I

23 cannot now remember those statements in detail.

24 Q. Was it at this time that you asked the Prosecutor's office to

25 assist you in getting some property in Banja Luka returned to you?

1 A. No.

2 Q. When did you discuss that with the Prosecutors?

3 A. I just complained that my property was not being returned to me

4 because I was testifying, not just my property but that of my entire close

5 family members, and that, in fact, the legal rulings that exist in

6 Bosnia-Herzegovina were not being implemented with respect to my property

7 and the property of my closest relatives.

8 Q. Didn't the Prosecutor's office agree to assist you in getting that

9 property returned to you and your closest relatives?

10 A. The Prosecutor's office just said that they would have that in

11 mind. Whether they actually did anything, I don't know. Anyway, nothing

12 has been returned to me or my relatives.

13 Q. You say it was because you were testifying. How did anyone know

14 you were testifying?

15 A. Well, my book was sufficient in that respect, and secondly, it is

16 well known that my testimonies are -- I even mention them in this book,

17 that my attitude towards the Tribunal was fully transparent to the public.

18 Q. You've not testified in the Tribunal before, have you?

19 A. I'm talking about cooperation with the Tribunal.

20 Q. So you don't know that the fact that your property hasn't been

21 returned has anything to do with whether you're testifying in this

22 Tribunal or not, do you?

23 A. Testifying at this Tribunal is a matter of honour and of course it

24 has nothing to do with my property.

25 Q. What's the last you were told by the Prosecutor's Office about the

1 return of your property?

2 A. I can see in practice that no one has done anything in that

3 respect, and I assume it would have been very easy to do that in view of

4 the fact that I have highest level rulings, including those on human

5 rights in Bosnia-Herzegovina, a ruling by the ombudsman, and I have those

6 decisions in my possession for several years and nothing has been done.

7 Q. During this particular meeting with the investigators from the

8 Prosecutor's office, you were asked about the Crisis Staff, were you not?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And if you look at page 3, the third paragraph, what you told the

11 investigators was that when the Crisis Staff was initially set up, it

12 included members of the SDA, HDZ, SDP and the Reformist Party. You see

13 that?

14 A. I do.

15 Q. And you told them that the representative of the SDA on the Crisis

16 Staff was Emir Dzanic, correct?

17 A. Yes. But in the Council of National Defence, which later

18 developed into the Crisis Staff.

19 Q. Could you find for me where on page 3 you called it the Council of

20 National Defence?

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: I beg your pardon? Could you repeat your

23 objection?

24 MR. KOUMJIAN: He asked him to find where he says it's national

25 defence, and that's assuming that it does say that on the page, and I

1 think perhaps his question is, "Did you say that on there?"

2 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that Mr. Koumjian is right, Mr. Ackerman.

3 MR. ACKERMAN:

4 Q. Could you look at that page and tell me if on that page you ever

5 referred to the Council of National Defence? Are you looking?

6 A. I'm sorry, I didn't know you were speaking to me. I thought you

7 were talking to the Prosecution. I'm sorry. I see now there is no

8 mention of the Council of National Defence there and I'm sorry that this

9 has happened in the statement, but in the book, it is correct, and you

10 should know that the interviews I was exposed to happened subsequently and

11 it is quite possible that certain synonyms may have provoked a

12 certain discrepancy, as you call it, but it is quite clearly stated until

13 when Mr. Djanic and other members of other parties were members of the

14 Council of National Defence or rather when they ceased being members of

15 their own free will. You can find that in the book. You asked me about

16 information where various things could be found and you even photocopied

17 those pages and so I would appeal to you to use that information as I have

18 been using it.

19 Q. Well, this statement was made last -- in December of 2000 and

20 February of 2001. You acknowledged that it was true to the best of your

21 knowledge and recollection, and signed it, correct?

22 A. Sir, I didn't use my book then, which is the most -- the best

23 document. I thought these statements were more of a formal nature and --

24 when it comes to things like this, the Crisis Staff and Council of

25 National Defence, that both you and the Prosecution would have the precise

1 data as to when, what happened, and you can find that clearly stated in

2 the book. You can find the page where it is said why members of the other

3 parties left the Council of National Defence and when it became the Crisis

4 Staff.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please, Mr. Ackerman, and witness, please,

6 Mr. Krzic. Mr. Ackerman, may I refer you to the previous page, last

7 paragraph? The witness obviously had a full weekend in which he could

8 have re-read not only his book but also his statements.

9 "It is difficult to recall the exact date when I first heard the

10 expression 'Krizni Stab' (Crisis Staff). I believe the phrase Crisis

11 Staff was first used from a military standpoint, 'Savjet narodne obrane'

12 (National Defence Council) which was set up in Banja Luka in response to

13 the war in Croatia. This body was formed sometime in 1991 under the

14 normal 'parliamentary life in Banja Luka'. Around this Bosniaks and

15 Croats had already started to face difficulties in the municipal

16 assembly. In the assembly proceedings Bosniaks were openly referred to as

17 'Turks' and Croats as 'Ustashas'."

18 So basically the explanation the witness is giving as

19 to the confusion that might on the face of it appear is more or less

20 justified in the eyes of this Trial Chamber, so I would suggest that you

21 -- unless you have other reasons why you should continue questioning on

22 this point, I would suggest that you move to something different.

23 MR. ACKERMAN: I will, Your Honour. Thank you.

24 Q. The SDA representative on this group was a gentleman named

25 Emir Dzanic, right?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Now, there came a time, did there not, when this group, whether it

3 be called a Crisis Staff or a National Defence Council, decided to visit

4 the border areas, municipalities, bordering Croatia. Do you remember

5 that?

6 A. I do remember that decision, but as for the actual moment, I would

7 have to look it up in my notes.

8 Q. If you recall that, do you recall that there was a protest from

9 the SDA to that visit on the grounds that this Crisis Staff had no

10 jurisdiction outside of Banja Luka?

11 A. Yes, this protest and such a view, as far as I can remember, was

12 publicly stated by the SDA party on several occasions.

13 Q. And you believe that Predrag Radic was the initial president of

14 this Crisis Staff or whatever you want to call it, correct?

15 A. As far as I can remember, he was the president of the municipality

16 at the time, and at that time, he was responsible for the president of the

17 -- as president of the Council of National Defence. That was the first

18 thing. And as things developed later on in the Crisis Staff with regard

19 to authority, I described this to the extent that I had knowledge of this.

20 Q. And with regard to these meetings, these visits to the

21 municipalities bordering Croatia, you say that Mesud Islamovic, who

22 was then the president of the SDA, publicly denounced those visits. My

23 question is, is this the same Islamovic who later served in the BH

24 assembly?

25 A. Yes, but he denounced the proclamation of the state of emergency

1 in the municipality, for reasons which I can tell you about, if

2 necessary.

3 Q. I want to know if this is also the same Islamovic who you

4 mentioned with regard to the Vance-Owen meetings that you had?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. The person that you called a collaborator?

7 A. No.

8 Q. You didn't call him a collaborator?

9 A. No, I didn't.

10 Q. If you look at your first statement again, the one, number 1, at

11 page 15 --

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Under the heading "Meeting Vance and Owen," if you go down two

14 sentences, it says: "I prepared a small SDA delegation and went to see

15 them in the Hotel Bosna." Meaning Vance and Owen. "The Serbs had wanted

16 to prepare a great meal for them but Mr. Vance had declined. Mr.

17 Islamovic, a representative in the BH assembly, was already in the room

18 with Mr. Vance and Mr. Owen, and he did not agree with my delegation

19 coming as well. I call him a collaborator. He never said that something

20 wrong happened in Banja Luka. When he was given chances later, he never

21 said the truth."

22 Isn't that what you said?

23 A. I don't think I said that he was a collaborator. A cooperator,

24 to say. I don't know how my statement in B/C/S was translated into

25 English but I think that in my statement, it said that he risked being

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 such a person. I would like to be able to see that statement of mine. I

2 have to say that the English statements that I have initialed, I haven't

3 had the time to read through them. I didn't know that such precision was

4 going to be demanded.

5 Q. Well, you also have the B/C/S version of your statement and this

6 particular section begins on page 11 of that statement. And probably the

7 best thing for you to do is read that -- just read that out loud where it

8 starts with "Gospodin Islamovic." Just read that part out loud and let

9 the translators translate it properly so we will know exactly what it does

10 say.

11 A. What page is this on, the reference to Islamovic?

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Please do keep in mind that the Trial Chamber is not

13 do -- does not have before it the B/C/S version, to start with. But in

14 any case, I wanted to know what your objection was.

15 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour if the Court understands the procedure,

16 I think that this exercise would not be relevant, because the statement of

17 the witness is taken only in English. The witness is never given a

18 statement in B/C/S to read. The statement is then, for the purposes of

19 discovery, translated back in The Hague into B/C/S. So the words in B/C/S

20 that Mr. Krzic is going to read is something that a translator wrote from

21 the English translation.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: But was he interviewed in English or was he

23 interviewed in -- Ms. Korner was -- no, not Ms. Korner in this case.

24 MR. KOUMJIAN: She was present -- no, not on this one.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: No, not on this one.

1 MR. KOUMJIAN: What I can tell the Court is the --

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Keegan was there.

3 MR. KOUMJIAN: The procedure is, and I believe Mr. Krzic can

4 verify whether this occurred at the time, is that he's interviewed with an

5 interpreter. However, the statement is written by the investigator or

6 attorney there in English and then read back by the interpreter into

7 B/C/S, and the witness is asked to sign it. That's the normal procedure.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, that convinces me more and more to allow the

9 question to be put as it has been put and the witness to answer it the way

10 it has -- because if the interview took place in B/C/S and was translated

11 into English, and the witness made to sign a statement which is in the

12 English language, presumably, we all have experience of this. I don't

13 believe that this was read out to him word-for-word in the English

14 language. If it was read out word-for-word to him, it would have been in

15 his own language. So basically, I mean, if there is a B/C/S version of

16 what his statement was, I mean, we should let him read it and we should

17 have it translated. Basically, what it's going to change, I don't know.

18 If you ask me, I don't think it's going to change much. I mean, the

19 purpose of Mr. Ackerman's cross-examination at this point in time and for

20 the whole duration of the past hour, has been to try and show the Trial

21 Chamber that some of the things that the witness said in his statement are

22 such that he should not be held to be a reliable witness, or at least that

23 he falls into contradictions or he makes haphazard statements without --

24 anyway, I mean I think we could go ahead with that.

25 MR. KOUMJIAN: I just wanted the Trial Chamber to be aware that

1 this is not his original statement.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: That is very important for me to know, definitely,

3 but I think we need to go ahead with the question.

4 MR. ACKERMAN: Perhaps in light of that, I'd like to change it

5 just slightly, Your Honour. Let me try --

6 JUDGE AGIUS: No, stick to it now because the Trial Chamber wants

7 the witness to read himself what he has in front of him and the

8 interpreters to translate what he would be reading.

9 MR. ACKERMAN: Okay.

10 Q. Mr. Witness, it's on page 11 of the B/C/S version of the

11 statement, beginning with "Gospodin Islamovic." Can you find that?

12 A. You're talking about the English statement, but my lawyer warned

13 me that on page 10 or 11, this conversation is referred to on that page,

14 the conversation with the co-presidents, and this is in the Bosnian

15 version. In the Bosnian version, I can't find the statement that is

16 contained in the English version, if it is referring to the same thing.

17 Q. If you will look on page 11 of the B/C/S statement, it says, "Sobi

18 sa g. Vanceom i g. Owenon," if I can speak that language at all in an

19 understandable way. And then halfway through that paragraph, you will see

20 "Gospodin Islamovic." And I also see the word "kolaboracionistom," which

21 I guess probably means "collaborator," but I'd like to you read, beginning

22 where it says, "Gospodin Islamovic," down through where it begins

23 "Gospodin Rodic." Do you find that? You have to look at the last

24 paragraph on the page.

25 A. The page 11? Which page are you talking about?

1 Q. Page 11 in the B/C/S version.

2 A. You said the last paragraph.

3 Q. Just a moment. The part that I've highlighted in yellow.

4 A. But this is on page 10 and you mentioned page 11.

5 Q. Mine says page 10, I'm sorry.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Any lawyer embarking on a good cross-examination is

7 always one page ahead of the statement.

8 MR. ACKERMAN:

9 Q. Could you just read the part that I've outlined in yellow,

10 please, out loud?

11 A. "Mr. Islamovic, a representative in the BH assembly, was already

12 in the room with Mr. Vance and Mr. Owen, and he did not agree with my

13 delegation coming. I called him a collaborationist."

14 JUDGE AGIUS: In the present or in the past?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sorry, but I don't have this in my

16 text.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: What does the witness not have in his text?

18 MR. ACKERMAN: This is very curious. He has a different B/C/S

19 statement than I was given, apparently. I can't explain that, Your

20 Honour.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: I would also like the witness to explain whether --

22 could I again have that document shown on my monitor, please? Yes. The

23 words "nazvao sam ga kolaboracionistom." Is that in the present tense or

24 in the past tense? Because the translator, the interpretation, was, "I

25 called him." While the version in English that we have in the statement

1 is, "I call him." And it makes a difference.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the version that I have, it has

3 neither the one nor the other.

4 MR. ACKERMAN:

5 Q. So you don't have the same --

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ackerman, one moment.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this version, in the Bosnian

9 version that I have in front of me, I don't have that sentence. I'm

10 confused. Please check this up.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. The Trial Chamber would like to see the

12 version, the document, that you have in front of you which, according to

13 you, does not contain this part of the statement.

14 Is this document which you handed to him this morning or is it

15 something that he brought him, Mr. Koumjian?

16 MR. KOUMJIAN: It's something that we handed to him this morning

17 that was actually printed last week. If I could just ask the Court

18 perhaps we could check the ERN numbers to check to see if the documents

19 are the same. It's possible there are different translations.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, I would like the document to see --

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 JUDGE AGIUS: May I ask the interpreters to translate to me or to

23 us the word "redigovano."

24 THE INTERPRETER: "Revised," Your Honour.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Because I have a suspicion that the document that

1 the witness had in front of him, and to which he was referring, is a

2 draft, which may have been submitted to him before the final version was

3 presented for his signature, because all along, you have this

4 "/redigovano /redigovano /redigovano," and I would like some sort of

5 explanation... [Microphone not activated] It's unacceptable to have

6 supposedly the same document in two different versions. I mean, this

7 document that Mr. Ackerman provided the witness certainly does not have

8 these "/redigovano /redigovano," while the other one that the witness had

9 in front of him does certainly have this word recurring almost, not in

10 every line, but almost in every line.

11 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, it could mean "redacted" too.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: I wouldn't know but I certainly would require or

13 would ask for an explanation at this stage.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: I can give you my present state of mind explanation

15 and I can verify it at the break but, Your Honour, when translations are

16 done, they are usually done in draft and then the final version, the final

17 version is checked by a certified interpreter, certified by the Registry.

18 And apparently, from what Your Honour is saying, it appears that there is

19 two different versions. Mr. Ackerman probably has the final and the

20 witness was given apparently the draft. I think one of the ways we can

21 verify that is by the ERN number, and if the ERN begins with an "L," then

22 I believe it's a draft translation.

23 If they both have the same ERN number, it should be the same

24 document. If they have different ERN numbers, then it's different

25 translations but, again, both are translations from the original

1 and the witness never signs any document in B/C/S. He would not have seen

2 this before he came to the Hague in B/C/S because when he's interviewed

3 only in English, the statement is taken. That is read back to him by an

4 interpreter orally, who translates it into B/C/S, but the witness is never

5 given at the time of the interview a B/C/S version to sign.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Anyway, please do check on this because it is

7 important. In the first page of the document that the witness had in

8 front of him, at the bottom of the page, there is a "potpis/paraf

9 redigovano" between a slash and a slash, and then further on is

10 "osvjedoceno/potpisano/potpisano," if that could help you understand

11 better.

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: If Your Honour wants to take the break now, I'll

13 make sure we get the same document in front of the witness that

14 Mr. Ackerman has.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that's a very good idea, Mr. Koumjian. I'm

16 sure Mr. Ackerman agrees to that as well. I'm handing back these two

17 documents to the witness, and we will take it up from there after the

18 break. Please do come forward with some kind of explanation. Thank you.

19 --- Break taken at 10.22 a.m.

20 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Please be seated.

22 Could you bring the witness in again, please? Thank you.

23 Before we start, there is a short communication that I would like

24 to make on my behalf and also on behalf of the other two Judges. Towards

25 the end of today's sitting, there will be a ruling given with regard to

1 the representation of General Talic. It will be an important ruling which

2 will be followed up immediately the moment we have reason to take further

3 action.

4 I have checked with regard to Maitre Pitron. The information that

5 you gave to this Tribunal is more or less correct. However, Maitre Pitron

6 is not on record as co-counsel, because he has not yet furnished the

7 required information with regard to his qualifications that would make him

8 accepted as co-counsel. However, he is being paid to act as co-counsel

9 when he appears, when he makes an appearance, and he -- in other words,

10 there is an implicit and direct acknowledgement of his role as co-counsel.

11 And the Tribunal -- the Trial Chamber will certainly not allow any games

12 to take place. We are going to put our foot down starting from today.

13 There will be no further dilly-dallying in this matter. We are going to

14 give a ruling.

15 Ms. Fauveau, please do not take it as a reflection on you. You've

16 got nothing to do with this. The Trial Chamber has also been given the

17 advice not to give you permission to represent General Talic. For the

18 present moment, given the declaration that General Talic himself made this

19 morning, and not having any reason to doubt that General Talic is not

20 being forced to make such a declaration, you will be allowed to represent

21 him today, and after today, I don't know what the situation is going to be

22 but certainly we are going to put our foot down. And towards the end of

23 the sitting, we will come down with a ruling.

24 Yes, Ms. Fauveau?

25 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Your

1 Honours, in that situation, I think that I cannot continue to represent

2 him even today, because this is a rather difficult situation for me and I

3 am under obligation.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Fauveau, I have to interrupt you. You will not

5 be allowed to do that. You made -- you entered a declaration today.

6 Maitre de Roux entered a declaration last Wednesday, and I am repeating to

7 you now in open court, we will not tolerate any games. Please sit down

8 and let's go ahead. And then everybody will suffer the consequences later

9 on as we go along. But I prepared you from the very beginning: I will

10 not tolerate any games.

11 Yes, Ms. Korner?

12 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in that

13 case, may I ask for a 15-minute break to try to contact the lead counsel?

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Korner?

15 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm slightly concerned about what you

16 just said in relation to Madam Fauveau. If you say that she has not been

17 given permission to represent him, then effectively today he is

18 unrepresented, which -- it may be that none of Mr. Ackerman's

19 cross-examination touches upon that but nonetheless, it seems to me

20 that--

21 JUDGE AGIUS: I didn't say that she is not being given permission.

22 I said that I have been advised not to give her permission.

23 MS. KORNER: So Your Honour is content for today.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: For today, yes, but I also recall, and I'm sure that

25 Ms. Fauveau will remember Mr. De Roux's statement last Wednesday -- I

1 don't know if you were here or not. I suppose you were here, if my memory

2 doesn't fail me, but he specifically said that he will be absent for

3 medical reasons today, and today only. Now you come forward this morning

4 and you tell us that he is not going to be here, something that we knew

5 already; that you are going to ask to represent General Talic today,

6 something that we were prepared for already and to which General Talic had

7 given his consent way back even on last Wednesday. But now we are also

8 informed that he will not be here today -- tomorrow, that Mr. Pitron is

9 not here today and he will not be here tomorrow, that Monday, none of them

10 will be here. And then Tuesday, we will be honoured by the presence of

11 one or the other. We still don't even know whether they will be both here

12 or will only -- there will only be Maitre de Roux here. We will not

13 tolerate that situation to prevail. No way. You can rest assured that

14 when I say I mean business, I mean business. I will not tolerate any

15 games, any tactics. I will certainly not allow, if this is the intention

16 of the Defence - it's certainly not yours - but if it is even remotely the

17 intention of using this methodology as a stratagem for later on creating

18 problems for the Trial Chamber, forget it. I will never give you the

19 chance, even the slightest chance. And if you need 15 minutes, I will

20 give you even 30 minutes to consult with Maitre de Roux, but make it clear

21 that at the end of this -- today's sitting, we are coming down with a

22 ruling.

23 If the situation is the same tomorrow. There will be a further

24 ruling. If the situation is even worse on Monday, then I think Maitre de

25 Roux and Maitre Pitron should know what the final decision is going to be.

1 The sitting is suspended for a further half an hour -- 15

2 minutes.

3 --- Break taken at 11.04 a.m.

4 --- On resuming at 11.33 a.m.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Please be seated. Yes, Mademoiselle Fauveau. Wait

6 until the two accused are seated.

7 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Your

8 Honours, Mr. de Roux, the lead counsel for General Talic has informed me

9 that he has just made a request to the Registry, in accordance with

10 General Talic, that I be designated counsel for General Talic.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, I hope Maitre de Roux does not think that that

12 solves the whole problem. I hope Maitre de Roux knows that Maitre Michel

13 Pitron is not yet officially recognised as co-counsel, for the simple

14 reason that for six months, he has kept this office waiting for the

15 documentation that was required of him or requested of him. I'm fully

16 confident that you have ample qualifications and perhaps as qualified, if

17 not more, to be co-counsel yourself. But it doesn't mean to say that we

18 can go on like this. Just to make myself clear, or clearer, what I said

19 before is not to be intended as meaning that you do not have the right

20 here, once you belong to a defence team, to stand up and make

21 representations on behalf of General Talic or conduct cross-examination,

22 if necessary, or put some questions, if necessary. But this should be

23 the exception and not the rule.

24 The rule is that once this Tribunal has appointed one person, and

25 unofficially recognises a second person as being the defence team for

1 General Talic, that's the yardstick that we have to stick by. I am sorry,

2 I mean, I will -- I would have loved not to embarrass you. I have two

3 daughters. I don't like speaking to anyone the way I had to speak this

4 morning, especially being more or less very direct and somewhat rough. I

5 hope you understand that this is due to the frustration that this Trial

6 Chamber finds itself in. I mean, please do realise, and this is why we

7 are going to take action, that Maitre Pitron, in spite of the fact that he

8 has kept this -- the Registry of this Tribunal waiting for six months to

9 send over the documentation that was requested of him, and he hasn't sent

10 it, only had the decency to appear, show up, twice in 12 -- in the 12

11 sittings that we've had. And Maitre de Roux, the lead counsel, has showed

12 up 50 per cent, six times, while you are here every day and you have to --

13 I'm afraid you have to shoulder all the responsibility on your own, bear

14 with me, and also with the frustration of this Trial Chamber. It's not

15 fair on you, it's not fair on us, it's not fair on General Talic, and we

16 will not allow it to go on. Again, we believe, and obviously General

17 Talic agrees to it, that you are perfectly capable defend him and that

18 when you are defending him, he is in good hands, but he also has a right

19 to have the two lawyers that have been - one officially and the other one

20 semi-officially - assigned to him to be present, either one or the other

21 or both.

22 So I think that closes the chapter for the moment. We will hand

23 out the ruling just the same, later on. Please tell Maitre de Roux that I

24 do not accept half measures. Unfortunately, Maitre de Roux and myself

25 haven't had any previous occasions of working together. I hope he takes

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 the message.

2 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. And

3 Your Honours, he has received your message. Unfortunately, he is just

4 being admitted to hospital and I'm afraid he will not be discharged before

5 Monday. If he is discharged earlier, he will be here on Monday, but

6 certainly on Tuesday.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: But he must have known this last Wednesday. Last

8 Wednesday he specifically said, please allow me to absent myself on

9 Wednesday -- on Tuesday of next week. That was yesterday. And we were

10 very forthcoming. We said okay. But that was yesterday, and today is

11 today, and Monday will be Monday, and we go on and I have learned not to

12 take risks and to expect anything. So I will always be prepared. I was

13 in the Boy Scouts when I was a tiny tot and I have learned that maxim

14 first and foremost, "be prepared."

15 So let's go on. Mr. Ackerman will continue his cross-examination

16 after the witness is brought in, please.

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: During the break, perhaps while the witness is

18 coming in, the Court asked me to clear up the matter of the two different

19 translations. The witness will now have in front of him the same

20 translation Mr. Ackerman has. While I'm not 100 per cent sure, I believe

21 I figured out what the problem was. It appears that this statement from

22 1995 appeared as part of the supporting materials. When the accused are

23 brought in, these are translated, and they are normally redacted to omit

24 certain information that could identify the witness. Then apparently

25 the statement was translated again as part of a witness statement. So

1 there are two different translations in existence.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but I -- just one simple question. The

3 document that he had in front of him before, was it signed by him?

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: No.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: This is the answer that I wanted from you. I

6 couldn't make that comment myself when I had it in front of me. I just --

7 but the one he has now is signed.

8 MR. KOUMJIAN: No. No B/C/S translation is ever signed.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Is ever signed, but that's the one that's read out

10 to him, presumably.

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: No.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Not even?

13 MR. KOUMJIAN: The English is read out to him and translated

14 orally. There is an oral interpretation of the statement by whichever

15 person is with him.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So neither of the B/C/S versions is signed.

17 Which is not wise, I suppose.

18 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I've had slightly longer, not a lot

19 longer but slightly longer here than Mr. Koumjian. I think Your Honour

20 may have got slightly confused by the fact that the Rule 92 B/C/S version

21 is in fact signed but when statements were taken originally, and this has

22 been thought about very often, it was too complicated to transcribe it in

23 the original version because the investigator didn't know what was in it.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

25 MS. KORNER: But so, as Mr. Koumjian says, the statement is taken

1 by way of an interpreter, written down in English. At the end, it's read

2 back by either the same interpreter or sometimes a different. So one of

3 the major problems, and this has come up before in a number of trials, is

4 it is very difficult to say that this is a statement of the accused

5 for those reasons -- of the witness, I'm sorry.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Of the witness, not of the accused. Thanks for the

7 information, Ms. Korner.

8 Let's go ahead, Mr. Krzic. Mr. Ackerman will now continue with

9 his cross-examination. In the meantime, we have sort of, I am informed,

10 cleared the problem that we had before, that is the apparent discrepancy

11 between the document you had in front of you and the document that Mr.

12 Ackerman had in his possession. I don't know if you were following what

13 was being said by Mr. Koumjian and Ms. Korner just now. I suppose the

14 next thing is to look at the document, see if there is now that short

15 sentence in B/C/S or in Serbo-Croat, saying, "I call," or "I call him

16 collaborator," and perhaps furnish Mr. Ackerman with your reaction to it.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean my reaction to what you

18 have said or to the words that Mr. Ackerman mentioned?

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, exactly, your reaction to Mr. Ackerman's

20 question, that is explanation that he asked from you regarding that

21 particular sentence, where supposedly, you say that you call or called him

22 a collaborator while previously, during your testimony of about an hour

23 ago, you said that you never said that he was a collaborator.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is such a minute detail that it

25 is very difficult to respond. If I did say that, I may have said it under

1 emotional pressure, and I abide by the fact that Mr. Islamovic did not

2 agree for other SDA members to attend this important meeting, the

3 delegation to attend, and it may have been that my angry response could

4 have included such a term, because it was unacceptable for me for a deputy

5 of the SDA, a member of the executive board of the SDA, to refuse to

6 appear together with us at such an important assignment, whereas on the

7 other hand, he obeyed the president of the assembly or the municipality

8 who already then was on the side of the current authorities, which we

9 considered at the time to be usurpers. So as not to bind me by the words

10 I used, I used "usurper. " What I meant was "occupying authorities."

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ackerman?

12 MR. ACKERMAN: All right.

13 Q. Mr. Krzic, let me see if we can just sort of clear this issue in a

14 way that will make it possible for to us deal with it more easily in the

15 future. If you'll go back to the English version of your first statement

16 at page 15, please. This is the one between 27 December, 1994 and 23

17 August, 1995.

18 A. What page is that?

19 Q. Fifteen. This was a statement that was taken to you over quite a

20 long period of time, days in December of 1994, March, April, May and

21 August of 1995. At some point, there was a -- this written version that

22 we have in front of us was prepared, and at some point, at the bottom of

23 page 15, you affixed your signature, correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And did you read the English version before you signed it?

1 A. No. For careful reading, one needs time and those were

2 circumstances -- to tell you the truth, these statements that I made, I

3 didn't consider each and every bit of it to be raised in Court. If I

4 conveyed my intimate feelings, I never thought that that could be the

5 object of a trial. I thought that facts would be addressed at trial,

6 facts that influence, but let me stop there. Let me not elaborate. So

7 let me repeat once again, it is possible that in the heat of the moment, I

8 have -- I may have said that, because he put himself in that position. If

9 somebody wants to act alone, without his party colleagues being present,

10 then on the other hand, he's been invited to attend by the occupying

11 powers, you can make your own conclusions.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Koumjian, I'm sorry.

13 MR. KOUMJIAN: I was just going to ask the Chamber to ask

14 Mr. Krzic to limit his answer to the question. The question was whether

15 he read the statement before he signed it.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Which he had answered, too, earlier as well this

17 morning. He had already stated that he had.

18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I probably read it but the signing

21 and the reading of the statement took place very quickly. Yes,

22 absolutely, I did have a chance to read it. Now, how much attention I

23 devoted to it is another matter.

24 MR. ACKERMAN:

25 Q. So are you saying that you really weren't concerned about whether

1 or not the statement was accurate, that you thought that was

2 unimportant?

3 A. No. I thought that what I was saying was being literally

4 conveyed, or verbatim.

5 Q. You said that you might have called him a collaborator because you

6 were under pressure. At the time you were giving your statement to the

7 investigators from the OTP, who was putting you under pressure?

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Sorry, one moment. That's why I asked the witness

9 specifically at the point in time to tell me whether that statement in

10 B/C/S is in the past tense or in the present tense, because if it is in

11 the present tense, your question makes sense. If it's in the past tense,

12 as it was translated to us by the interpreters while he was reading it,

13 then your question doesn't make sense or doesn't follow, or should not be

14 tolerated.

15 Please, Mr. Krzic, look at the statement in your language, in

16 the Serbo-Croat language, that particular sentence, which was -- which you

17 were asked to read out earlier on. Could you please tell me, or tell us,

18 whether that is in the present tense or in the past tense? Do you mean to

19 sigh that then, on that occasion, you called Mr. Islamovic a collaborator

20 or that you now are telling the investigators or the persons interviewing

21 you that you consider him a collaborator?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I called him, at that point in time,

23 that as a reaction to his failure to respect relationships within a

24 political party. Instead, he respected a representative of a political

25 party which at the time was exerting oppression against the non-Serbs.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: So Mr. Ackerman, I suppose you should move to

2 something different.

3 MR. ACKERMAN: Apparently. Thank you, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: That explains it.

5 MR. ACKERMAN:

6 Q. Do you know -- in your -- we are back to your, I think it's your

7 third statement. It's the one of December 2000 and February 2001 and we

8 are back on page 4. Near the bottom of that statement, you said that you

9 didn't know if Banja Luka had two Crisis Staffs operating simultaneously.

10 My question is: Do you now know that there were in fact a municipal

11 Crisis Staff and a Regional Crisis Staff?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And do you now know that Mr. Brdjanin was never a member of the

14 municipal Crisis Staff but only the Regional Crisis Staff?

15 A. You're asking me whether I know. Logically, he should not have

16 been a member of the municipal Crisis Staff, but in those days, that does

17 not exclude his presence, and I'm not claiming that he was present.

18 Q. On page 6 of that statement, near the bottom, the short paragraph

19 right before the last paragraph, you were talking about reports you would

20 receive from people about things that were going on outside Banja Luka,

21 and you say that, on occasions, you were not able to double check the

22 information to see if it was accurate but had to rely on what one person

23 or so might have told you; correct?

24 A. Could you please -- I can't find that page. I don't know which

25 one -- which version you're talking about, the English or Bosnian version.

1 Q. In the English version, page 6 --

2 A. Which page?

3 Q. Page 6.

4 A. I think you said 5.

5 Q. I probably did. The paragraph at the bottom starts with, "Many

6 times Bosniaks living outside Banja Luka." Do you see that sentence? I

7 think you might be looking at a different statement than I am.

8 A. Obviously.

9 Q. Look at the full statement.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Follow me. It's the one before the last of your

11 statements. It's the statement which was the result of the interviews

12 that took place between the 10th and the 14th of December, 2000 and then

13 the 10th, the 12th, the 14th and the 15th of February of last year, of

14 2001. The part he -- Mr. Ackerman is referring to has got a short title,

15 a title, which is called "Valter." In the English version, it's --

16 MR. ACKERMAN:

17 Q. Find the 2001 statement. It has the date 2001 on the front. It's

18 probably number 3.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: It should be number 3, yeah. It should be statement

20 number 3. And if you have found it, the part with the title.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 6?

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Then it's the sixth paragraph from the title.

23 It starts, "Many times, Bosniaks living outside Banja Luka." Mr. Ackerman

24 wants to know whether what you allegedly state there is correct or not, or

25 whether you stand by it.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

2 MR. ACKERMAN:

3 Q. And you have since found out, have you not, that sometimes the

4 stories you were told turned out later not to have been true, correct?

5 A. Some not entirely.

6 Q. You mention on page 7 in the second paragraph, that begins, "In

7 1994," you are referring to members and a group, and I assume this was

8 your SDA group that was working together. Is that correct?

9 A. They weren't members of the SDA.

10 Q. But --

11 A. They weren't all members.

12 Q. What are you referring to when you refer to your group?

13 A. They were people whom I would see. I often spoke to them and

14 exchanged information with them, and after my departure from Banja Luka,

15 these people continued to see each other in various places and they

16 participated in the work of humanitarian organisations, too.

17 Q. And you said that there was a member of that group who had an axe

18 to grind against you, who provided some false information apparently; is

19 that true?

20 A. That's right.

21 Q. And who was that that had the axe to grind against you that

22 provided false information?

23 MR. KOUMJIAN: Could I just, Your Honour, object and ask what the

24 relevance of this would be? If there is some relevance, I can see going

25 into it but otherwise we are asking the witness in a public international

1 forum to get into matters that may cause him some personal problems.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ackerman, what is the relevance of this

3 question?

4 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, if he wants to say the name in closed

5 session, I have no problem with that but it would make it possible for us

6 to investigate the veracity of the statement.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: I think if you finish reading that same paragraph,

8 the one on page 7, starting, "In 1994," which I am not inviting you to

9 read out loud, there is the explanation there.

10 MR. ACKERMAN: I think you're right, Your Honour. I just saw it.

11 I think you're right.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Next question.

13 MR. ACKERMAN:

14 Q. Now going to page 10. With all these reports that were being

15 made to you by people from outside Banja Luka, you were getting the

16 impression, weren't you, that some bad things were happening to

17 Muslim people outside Banja Luka in the region of the ARK?

18 A. Sorry, what does the word "ARK" mean?

19 Q. Autonomous Region of Krajina.

20 A. Yes, the answer is yes.

21 Q. And many of these things that we were learning that were

22 apparently going on outside Banja Luka were things that you were reporting

23 to the media and to various governments outside the former Yugoslavia,

24 correct?

25 A. To the media. I provided information to the media.

1 Q. And -- but you tried to keep that information from the non-Serb

2 population in Banja Luka for fear that it would spread panic amongst them,

3 forcing them to flee the area, something that you didn't want to happen.

4 Is that a fair statement?

5 A. Confidential statements that might have a negative influence,

6 negative consequences, when we are talking about such statements, it is

7 obvious that they could not be made public, especially since the

8 dissemination of such information has certain consequences.

9 Q. Well, you could have shared it with your fellow Muslims in Banja

10 Luka, couldn't you, without having made it public. There was a way for

11 you to do that, correct?

12 A. That happened, too.

13 Q. If you look at page 10 of your statement, the next to the last

14 paragraph on the page begins with the language, "We never shared." Do you

15 see that?

16 A. Yes, I do.

17 Q. "We never shared our information with the local non-Serb

18 population in Banja Luka, especially we never told them about the killings

19 that had happened in the region. Giving such information would have

20 spread panic amongst them, forcing non-Serbs to flee, something we did not

21 wanted." It probably should be "want." Do you see that?

22 A. I think that the non-Serb locals, I think that a mistake has been

23 made and the translation, it is correct, the non-Serbian population of

24 Banja Luka.

25 Q. Yes. How did you arrive at the decision to try to keep from these

1 people what was really happening to keep them from leaving the area as

2 opposed to warning them that it might be best for them to leave the area

3 because of the danger that appeared to be approaching? In other words,

4 why didn't you start assisting them to try to get away from what appeared

5 to you to be a dangerous situation, instead of not giving the information,

6 and keeping them there?

7 A. The population was well aware of what was happening because they

8 would listen to foreign news, especially the Voice of America, Zagreb, and

9 even Sarajevo. Providing special information, the information that we

10 obtained, would have revealed the source and it would have also revealed

11 that we were those who provided that information, sending it on.

12 Q. So efforts you made to keep this information from the local

13 non-Serb population were not effective, is that what you're saying?

14 A. Partially.

15 Q. My question really is why would you decide to hide this kind of

16 information in an effort to keep people from fleeing if you believed that

17 serious danger was coming and that they were in great danger? You told

18 the reporter Veronique at about that time that you thought 200.000 people

19 would be killed if war came, didn't you?

20 A. First of all, I provided information to the entire population,

21 even to the non-Serbian population. I provided this information in some

22 of my numerous interviews. You can find this in my book, too. I

23 explained in detail what was happening in this information. This can be

24 confirmed by three journalists. It was confirmed by three journalists in

25 their books. In the Hotel Bosna, I publicly, not just myself but my

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 collaborators too, I spoke in public about the concentration camps before

2 about 50 people. I won't go into details. It concerns a lot of

3 material. So this is not true. But it was not possible to provide all

4 the information except at press conferences, and here in these cases it

5 was necessary to be cautious in case -- with regard to the crimes and the

6 pressure and everything that we have spoken about here, this was made

7 public and it is known.

8 Q. You remained in Banja Luka throughout the entire year 1992 and

9 into the year -- well into the year 1993, did you not?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And of course, you were asked the question about how it was that

12 someone so vocal about what was going on there could have possibly

13 survived in such an environment. If you look at page 15 of this statement

14 that we are looking at, it's the paragraph in the middle of the page right

15 before you change to a new ERN number, about halfway through, you indicate

16 that you can only speculate about how you managed to survive but that you

17 believe the Serb authorities on purpose refrained from getting

18 high-ranking Bosniak and Croat officials killed because such killings

19 would have drawn unnecessary attention in the media. Do you see that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. You said that, didn't you?

22 A. I did.

23 Q. And at the end of that paragraph, you also indicated your belief

24 that Karadzic or the Serb authorities in Banja Luka were put on notice

25 that no harm should come to you.

1 A. I was under this impression.

2 Q. Put on notice by whom? Who did you think had told them not to

3 harm you?

4 A. I can only speculate about that. This was something that I felt.

5 Q. Who was it you thought, though, had put pressure on them not to

6 harm you?

7 A. What I can confirm is Mr. Vance's statement with regard to the

8 event in question, to the effect that the people who spoke to him could

9 always contact him for protection through his secretary or through the

10 Security Council, so perhaps this is what made me think that -- that such

11 a thing was possible, that it was possible to make such a request.

12 Q. I suspect if he could have had that impact, Mr. Vance would have

13 requested that nobody be harmed, wouldn't you think?

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ackerman, don't answer this question, please ...

15 [Microphone not activated]

16 MR. ACKERMAN: I will, Your Honour. Thank you.

17 Q. On page 17, you speak in the second full paragraph that begins

18 with the words, "The SDA members." You speak of two Bosniaks from Banja

19 Luka who collaborated with Serbs in the municipal assembly, Adem Gunic

20 and Nedzad Kusmic?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And you indicate that you gave them orders to leave the government

23 and they refused to do so. In early 1992, you gave them such orders; is

24 that correct?

25 A. Yes, yes.

1 Q. How was it they were collaborating and what were they doing that

2 you believe was collaboration?

3 A. First of all, I must remind you that all of our deputies left the

4 municipal assembly and very soon HDZ deputies did so, too, on a permanent

5 basis. The reason for this was that we were not -- we could not allow

6 anyone to be present in such a structure, given that there were mass

7 crimes being committed around us and that such crimes were being committed

8 in Banja Luka. There was nothing we could do in the organs of the

9 authorities and being present in these government authorities could only

10 mean that support was being given for this. I'm talking about

11 explanations. These were members of the SDA party and it was their duty

12 to listen to the decision of the executive committee. This was not my

13 decision. If at the municipal assembly were such discriminatory decisions

14 were taken and the Vice-President, the former Vice-President of the

15 municipal assembly, says nothing, nothing at all, in our eyes, this

16 amounted to collaboration. It amounted to an unexpressed form of

17 collaboration.

18 Q. You told us long ago, on the first day you came here, that one of

19 the tenets of the SDA was to create and support democratic institutions,

20 to support democracy, correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Do you think it's democratic for members of a minority party in a

23 legislature who don't get their way to simply walk out of the

24 legislature?

25 MR. KOUMJIAN: Argumentative.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Please don't answer the question now. Your

2 objection, Mr. Koumjian?

3 MR. KOUMJIAN: Argumentative, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Your reaction to that?

5 MR. ACKERMAN: I don't think it's argumentative. It's just a

6 question as to whether he thinks that's democratic or not.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Why should he be asked to make a statement on this?

8 It was a political decision that was taken at that level, at his level at

9 the time and it's not a question -- it has got nothing to do with

10 democracy and --

11 MR. ACKERMAN: I won't insist on it, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: No. Don't answer the question. Your motion is

13 overruled, thank you. Go ahead, please.

14 MR. ACKERMAN:

15 Q. There was a time, was there not Mr. Krzic, when you gave a series

16 of interviews to Edina Kamenica of Oslobodjenje newspaper in 1994?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And you have described her as a very renowned journalist,

19 correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. She, in fact, was the assistant editor of that newspaper, was she

22 not?

23 A. I can't remember that.

24 Q. All right. Your stated purpose for granting an interview, these

25 interviews, was because in your words, you said you were being -- you were

1 wrongly being implicated in what had happened, correct?

2 A. No. I don't know what you are reading but if you want me to

3 provide you with the right interpretation of what you are reading, you

4 have to tell me where this can be found. If you want me to tell you what

5 my opinion of this is right now, and I think it differs, I will be glad to

6 reply to you.

7 Q. If you look at page 18 at the -- near the bottom of the page, the

8 paragraph begins, "At the time of these interviews." And it continues,

9 "The situation in Sarajevo was very confusing. There were many obscure

10 groups there. A lot of information about Banja Luka that was not true was

11 in circulation. I had got the impression that I was wrongly being

12 implicated in what had happened in Banja Luka." That's what you said,

13 right?

14 A. Yes, yes, that's right.

15 Q. And part of your reason for giving this interview was to clear

16 that up so that you would no longer be implicated in what had

17 happened in Banja Luka?

18 A. That was one of the reasons, and the other reason was, as I have

19 said, with regard to myself, this also concerned several other people who

20 were also at that time in the free territory.

21 Q. This interview was not well received by many Muslim people. You

22 were you criticised pretty heavily for this interview, were you not?

23 A. No, that's not true.

24 Q. You were not accused of doing great harm to the Muslim people by

25 this interview?

1 A. No.

2 Q. In the interview, if you look at this, your statement here

3 beginning on page 18, what you're doing, are you not, is describing some

4 of the things that you said in that interview and explaining them?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And, for instance, you said in the interview that during the

7 attack in Kozarac, that there were Muslim aggressors, correct? It's

8 paragraph 2.

9 A. Yes. That's the -- I received information that there were Muslims

10 in the Serbian army, too.

11 Q. And that was your explanation of what you meant when you said in

12 that interview that there were Muslim aggressors

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. With regard to the fighters of Vecici, you said in the interview

15 that you had a certain role to play in their escape to Travnik, did you

16 not?

17 A. I didn't say that.

18 Q. Paragraph 5. The quote is, "I had a certain role to play in their

19 escape to Travnik." And then you go on to explain that you didn't

20 physically help them but you provided them with good advice. Isn't that

21 true?

22 A. To avoid speculation, my advice was that it related to the

23 presence of the International Red Cross and to foreign journalists, which

24 that's not true, it can be seen here.

25 Q. In paragraph 6 of that, talking about the acquisition of weapons

1 by the Muslims, what you apparently said in your interview was, "Don't ask

2 how we managed it. We even got it from the Serbs." Correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Okay. On page 20, you begin talking about the book you wrote.

5 When did you write this book?

6 A. While I was in Norway, while I was staying there.

7 Q. Can you tell me the years that that was done?

8 A. I was there from the end of 1994, 1994, until the autumn of 1997.

9 Q. If you'll look at page 21 of your statement, referring to page

10 104, I guess it is, of the English translation of your book, and according

11 to what I'm looking at, you refer to a person by the name of Radovan

12 Brdjanin. Is that a mistake or did you not know his name at that point?

13 A. There is a very simple explanation. I often confused the name of

14 Vukic and the name of Brdjanin. So it wasn't really in my ear.

15 Q. But they are both named Radoslav, aren't they?

16 A. Yes. I said that to the investigators. I continued to call him

17 Radovan although the name was, in fact, Radoslav.

18 Q. You speak on page 22 of a meeting that you had in Prijedor with

19 SDA leaders from Sanski Most, Bosanska Krupa, Jajce and Kljuc. In your

20 book you apparently say that Mujagic, while describing the status of

21 preparations in Prijedor, stated that they had over 2.000 barrels and even

22 a small cannon, correct?

23 A. Yes, it is.

24 Q. 2.000 barrels, meaning long guns or rifles, correct?

25 A. And pistols and hunting rifles.

1 Q. These meetings, like this one, of the SDA leaders from these

2 various municipalities, were coordinated by the Bosanska Krajina SDA,

3 correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. If you look at page 23, you speak of a meeting that was held in

6 Zenica. About halfway down the page, it starts with -- the paragraph

7 starts with, "On page 18," "a meeting that was held in Zenica, attended by

8 all the regions to review the data on armaments. In that meeting the

9 military council of the Patriotic League was astounded by the data for

10 they were surprised at the reported numbers and assessed that the Bosnian

11 Krajina was in a better position than other regions for mounting a

12 resistance to the expected aggression."

13 Yes?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. When was that meeting?

16 A. I don't know, because I received this information from a man who

17 was a participant, but I didn't ask specifically.

18 Q. Do you know when you received the information?

19 A. In 1994 -- sorry, sorry. I beg your pardon. It could have been

20 1996. When I started writing my book, I started inquiring about some

21 other things, and so I asked this person about this. The person who

22 should have known, to what extent this person conveyed the information to

23 me correctly, I can't say.

24 Q. What was the Patriotic League?

25 A. I don't know the real definitions because I did not belong to the

1 Patriotic League, formally or informally. I can tell you what I learned

2 later on. During my stay in Banja Luka, I hardly heard about the

3 Patriotic League at all and at the meetings that we had, and you asked me

4 a moment ago about that meeting. I don't remember that there was any

5 reference to the Patriotic League. So that my statement as to what the

6 Patriotic League meant when I learnt about it in 1995 and 1996, I think

7 would be quite irrelevant.

8 Q. So you don't know what the Patriotic League was?

9 A. I'm saying that in those days that you're asking me about, I

10 didn't know exactly what the Patriotic League was.

11 Q. So you wouldn't know what the military council of the Patriotic

12 League was either?

13 A. No.

14 Q. In the fall of 1991, Sefer Halilovic came to Banja Luka, did he

15 not?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. And at that time, he was with the Patriotic League, the leader of

18 the Patriotic League?

19 A. I didn't know that. I didn't know him in person, nor did I know

20 what his name was.

21 Q. The topic of discussion at that meeting was how to protect

22 Bosniaks in Banja Luka in case war were to break out?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And you tell us in your statement that in that meeting about how

25 to protect Bosniaks in Banja Luka in case war were to break out, you never

1 discussed weapons?

2 A. Never, because as you will see, there were no activities that

3 ensued after that. Therefore, as far as I was concerned, it was a

4 completely -- or a fruitless meeting, as far as your question is

5 concerned.

6 Q. You knew that Sefer Halilovic was a former JNA officer, did you

7 not?

8 A. I learnt that later in Sarajevo, in 1994. Until then, I repeat, I

9 didn't even know the man's name. He probably introduced himself and gave

10 a name but I didn't know it.

11 Q. So Sefer Halilovic, who had been an officer in the JNA and

12 became the commanding general of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, came and

13 met with you in Banja Luka and never mentioned that he had any military

14 experience, is that what you're saying?

15 A. I don't remember him mentioning it.

16 Q. And the purpose of the meeting was how to protect Bosniaks in

17 Banja Luka in case of war?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. What is it you talk about when you talk about protecting people in

20 case of war, if you don't talk about weapons?

21 A. Well, a natural reflex was that in a state of war there would be

22 no medicines, it would not be possible to ensure food supplies, and that

23 efforts should be made to provide reserve supplies.

24 Q. At that time there was an expectation that there was going to be a

25 war, wasn't there?

1 A. Well, this was a rumour that even appeared in the press.

2 Q. What kind of ideas, other than what you've mentioned, did people

3 at that meeting come up with as ways to protect Bosniaks in case of war?

4 A. At that meeting, there were discussions about organising teams of

5 physicians, in particular, and I mentioned that Dr. Hadziagic was in

6 charge of the question of medicines, bandages. That was all that was

7 discussed. And I must say that at the time, and after that, and even

8 today, I was very disappointed by such an attitude.

9 Q. This meeting with General Halilovic was in the fall of 1991. In

10 February of 1992, you then go to Sarajevo for the purpose of obtaining

11 weapons, correct?

12 A. I was -- I think it was in March, but I would have to look it up

13 in my notes. I think it was in March that I was in Sarajevo at a public

14 meeting that reviewed the current situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina,

15 especially from the point of view of international relations.

16 Q. Mr. Krzic, let me interrupt you. It's my assumption that you

17 would like to finish your testimony and go home this week. Is that a fair

18 assumption?

19 A. Certainly.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Don't let yourself be carried away with that,

21 Mr. Krzic. What Mr. Ackerman means is what I told you earlier on:

22 Answer the question, the whole question and nothing but the question,

23 because otherwise you'll be asking for trouble.

24 MR. ACKERMAN:

25 Q. I think the question I asked you was fairly simple, and let me

1 help you. If you look at the bottom of page 23, you say, "My visit to

2 Sarajevo in February of 1992, the purpose was to obtain weapons." My only

3 question is: That's what you said, isn't it?

4 A. Yes, correct.

5 Q. And in fairness to you, what you then said was that you were only

6 able to obtain two weapons?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. You expected to obtain many more than that, did you not?

9 A. Not just then, but later. Of course, I personally could not have

10 carried such weapons.

11 Q. There was also during this period, April through December of 1992,

12 sometime during that period, there was a SDA Crisis Staff, wasn't there?

13 A. We had one. That was exclusively concerned with humanitarian

14 issues.

15 Q. And at the top of page 25, you say that at one meeting, you were

16 criticised by some young men for not advising the press that the Bosniaks

17 had been armed, correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. On that same page, you speak of a person named Salih as someone

20 who transported arms around Banja Luka in preparation for a possible

21 fight, and at the time you made the statement you had forgotten his last

22 name. Have you remembered who he was?

23 A. I still cannot remember the surname just now but I have to correct

24 you, by saying that I even gave my own weapon to him because weapons were

25 transported to the places where more intensive attacks were expected on

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 homes and families.

2 Q. You gave him the weapon that you had gotten in Sarajevo?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. So when you told the OTP investigator during this statement that

5 you threw it in the Vrbas River, that wasn't correct?

6 A. Yes. But I had another pistol, a number 9, which hadn't been

7 registered, and I had a registered Bereta, which I didn't throw away, but

8 the police seized it from me.

9 Q. You just told us that the weapon you got in Sarajevo, you gave to

10 Salih. Do you want to change that or do you stand by that?

11 A. It's very difficult for me to say now which of the two I gave to

12 him and which I threw away, but in any event, I got rid of both so that

13 they wouldn't be on me.

14 Q. It was easy for you two minutes ago to say that you gave it to

15 Salih. Now it's difficult for you to say what happened to it. Is that

16 because you had previously said and forgotten that you had said that you

17 threw it in the river?

18 A. Listen, the frequency and the danger was such that if you ask me

19 about such a detail, one would have to think it over and look back to that

20 period. One needs to refresh one's memory, and you're now skipping from

21 one subject to another and it is very difficult to concentrate.

22 Q. Mr. Krzic, I hope you understand that what's going on here is

23 important and serious, and I hope you would understand that you should not

24 answer questions if you're not certain that your answer is correct, and if

25 you need to reflect back, then do so. Is that fair?

1 A. I'm certain that one of the weapons -- I did give one of the

2 weapons to Salih, and I'm also certain that I threw one of the weapons

3 into the Vrbas River. On one occasion, I went to the Vrbas riverbank and

4 saw a barrel close by and some other people were digging, burying their

5 weapons and throwing them away, so...

6 Q. Let me take you to page 26. The Vecici fighters were receiving

7 weapons from Salih, were they not?

8 A. You see, Salih, you appear to imply that there was a warehouse of

9 weapons that was transported by trucks. It is quite possible that

10 Salih gave one or several weapons to someone. I really couldn't know

11 that, nor did I want to know it at the time, because knowledge of that

12 kind would not only expose you to danger but also those who were actually

13 doing it.

14 Q. Well, what you in fact said was you don't know the exact number of

15 weapons the fighters in Vecici received from Salih, and that's still

16 the case, isn't it? You still don't know, do you?

17 A. I truly don't know.

18 Q. And you also told us, or it's in your statement, that the Vecici

19 fighters destroyed a number of armoured vehicles and killed 70 Chetniks.

20 That would take some fairly sophisticated weaponry to do that, wouldn't

21 it?

22 A. It is the statement of the people of Vecici, and you can find out

23 to what extent it is true.

24 Q. But you don't destroy armoured vehicles with hunting rifles, do

25 you?

1 A. With hand-held rocket launchers or even with hand grenades, as far

2 as I know, or with mines, too.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ackerman, where do we stand with your

4 cross-examination? How much more do you think you have? How much more

5 time, I mean.

6 MR. ACKERMAN: The witness has --

7 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm telling you why. I'll tell you why. Because I

8 need a short break to finish the ruling that we have to give, to which I

9 referred to earlier. That would be the last act for today. Little time,

10 that means I need a quarter of an hour. We also need to break in any case

11 because I would imagine that the interpreters are waiting for that kind of

12 good news, and possibly I wouldn't like to stop you when you would prefer

13 to go on or when you still have a chapter to open. So if you could direct

14 me on that, give me an idea, then we can follow up.

15 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, it appears, it's very difficult. The

16 witness I think is starting to answer a little more quickly now so I think

17 we can move a little faster, but I would guess a couple of hours. I've

18 got -- you can see it there on the end of the table, a stack of exhibits.

19 I don't expect to have the witness discuss every one of those exhibits

20 but, most of them, I want to bring his attention to statements that are

21 contained within them. I think it can be wrapped up in a couple of

22 hours. I hope so. That's my intention.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: So, okay. So I'm giving you until quarter -- let me

24 ask the interpreters, first, whether they prefer to have a break now?

25 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: I expected that.

2 MR. ACKERMAN: Fairly direct.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: So we will break now. You will resume, that will

4 be -- you will have roughly 15 minutes to 20 minutes to wrap up this

5 particular part of your cross-examination, with the understanding that you

6 will of course continue tomorrow, and that would leave us with just about

7 five minutes to give the ruling. So we'll stop now and resume at quarter

8 past 1.00. Thank you.

9 --- Recess taken at 12.50 p.m.

10 --- On resuming at 1.35 p.m.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Please be seated. I apologise to everyone, having

12 taken longer than I had anticipated. Mr. Ackerman, I ask for your

13 indulgence. It's 1.35 now. Shall we adjourn your examination for

14 tomorrow?

15 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you for your cooperation. Perhaps we could

17 ask Mr. Krzic in so we explain to him because I think we owe him also kind

18 of an apology. Mr. Krzic, please.

19 Tomorrow, the understanding is that everyone will do his or her

20 best to conclude with Mr. Krzic. You have, I understand, about two

21 hours. Then there will be re-examination. Do you expect to have a long

22 re-examination?

23 MR. KOUMJIAN: Not long but some, a short re-examination.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

25 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I should say that the first hour this

1 morning covered what I believe was ten minutes worth of

2 cross-examination. I'm going to try really hard tomorrow and I think I

3 can.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Mr. Krzic, you may sit down. Good afternoon,

5 Mr. Krzic. The Trial Chamber has already said how sorry we all are that

6 it took us longer before we could reconvene. Unfortunately, as things

7 are and the hour being what it is, since we have to vacate this courtroom

8 by -- in a very short while, I think we owe an apology to you as well for

9 having kept you waiting outside, thinking that there would be a

10 continuation of the cross-examination this morning. That's not going to

11 happen. We are very sorry but we were kept away because we had to draft

12 an important ruling. I'm afraid, in any case, you were going to come

13 again tomorrow so we will finish with you tomorrow. Mr. Ackerman will

14 finish his cross-examination and then there will be a re-examination and

15 maybe one or two questions from the bench if that is necessary. And

16 again, once more, I'm sorry.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

18 [The witness stands down]

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Mademoiselle Fauveau, I would like to clear two

20 things with you before we proceed with the ruling. You stated earlier on

21 that on Tuesday of next week, Maitre de Roux will be showing up. Did you

22 also say, because we sort of are not exactly 100 per cent sure of this,

23 did you just mention Maitre de Roux or also Maitre Pitron?

24 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Maitre de Roux will be

25 here on Tuesday. Maitre Pitron will certainly be here on Wednesday and he

1 might be here on Tuesday. I don't know yet.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: The second question I wanted to ask was when you

3 mentioned that Monday next, there will be a -- some development in a sense

4 of a request to the Registry, to the Registrar, for the allocation of a

5 co-counsel, were you referring to yourself as being nominated or

6 something that has to do with Maitre Pitron to regularise his position?

7 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] It was a situation at the

8 beginning of the day, and it was a question of Maitre Pitron. I then

9 spoke to Maitre de Roux, who said that he had submitted a request,

10 according to which I should be appointed as co-counsel, so this is nothing

11 to do with Maitre Pitron.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So I thank you, Mademoiselle Fauveau. So

13 Madam Registrar, please, the Trial Chamber is going to give an oral

14 ruling. It will be reduced in written form later on, but if I show it to

15 you now, it looks like a Chagall.

16 The Trial Chamber notes that in the course of the sitting of

17 Wednesday, February 6, Maitre Xavier de Roux, counsellor for accused

18 General Momir Talic, informed the Trial Chamber that for personal, medical

19 reasons, he will be -- he will not be in a position to attend for today's

20 sitting during which co-counsel, Maitre Michel Pitron, will also be

21 absent. Note that in the course of today's sitting, Mademoiselle Natasha

22 Fauveau-Ivanovic informed the Trial Chamber that until next Tuesday,

23 February 19, 2002, the position will remain unchanged, and that as a

24 consequence, she prayed that this Trial Chamber authorises her to

25 represent General Momir Talic.

1 Notes further that in the sitting of Wednesday, February 6,

2 General Momir Talic, upon a prompt from Maitre de Roux, entered a

3 declaration to the effect that he accepted to be represented by

4 Mademoiselle Fauveau during the absence of Maitre Xavier de Roux, which,

5 however, as already pointed out, was meant to be restricted to yesterday's

6 sitting only.

7 Notes, the statement made earlier on in today's sitting by the

8 Prosecutor to the effect that on Monday, February 18, a witness is

9 expected to be brought forward and who will be testifying on a direct

10 encounter he or she had with accused General Momir Talic.

11 Notes that although Maitre Michel Pitron is not yet on record as

12 co-counsel, he is acknowledged by the Registrar to be acting in that

13 capacity temporarily and is further being paid for his appearances, and

14 that this also automatically entails responsibility vis-a-vis the accused

15 General Momir Talic as well as vis-a-vis this Tribunal.

16 Notes further that his official appointment as co-counsel has been

17 delayed pending his furnishing the Registrar of this Tribunal with the

18 documentation that was asked of him months ago.

19 Notes that Maitre Michel Pitron has been absent from this

20 courtroom for the past two weeks at least and has not provided this Trial

21 Chamber with an indication as to when his return is to be expected, save

22 what has just been stated by Mademoiselle Fauveau upon being questioned ad

23 hoc by this Trial Chamber.

24 Notes further that Maitre Xavier de Roux, during last Wednesday's,

25 February 6, sitting, stated that he will be unable to put an appearance

1 during today's sitting for personal medical reasons and it was for this

2 purpose only, for this reason only, that this Trial Chamber authorised him

3 to absent himself, and only for yesterday's sitting.

4 Notes further that the information given to the Trial Chamber in

5 the course of today's sitting assumes that this absence of Maitre de Roux

6 will, as stated earlier, extend until Tuesday, February 19.

7 Notes that since this trial started there have been, including

8 today's sitting, 12 sittings in all and Maitre de Roux failed to put in an

9 appearance at half of them while his co-counsel Maitre Pitron only showed

10 up for two sittings.

11 Notes that during the totality of the second week of this trial,

12 both Maitre de Roux and Maitre Pitron were absent without even furnishing

13 an explanation, let alone a justification for their absence.

14 Notes further that accused General Talic himself confirmed that,

15 as regards that particular week and the absence of his counsel during the

16 same, he had not been given any information by the same counsel, at not

17 being contacted by them.

18 Considering that this situation cannot be allowed to go on and it

19 is imperative for this Trial Chamber to ensure that the rights of accused

20 General Talic be protected while the obligations of counsel appointed to

21 defend him are fully met, more especially so in the circumstances

22 mentioned by the Prosecution earlier on in this sitting.

23 Considering further that the Trial Chamber is duty bound to

24 ensure that this trial proceeds regularly without any obstacles, directs

25 lead council Maitre Xavier de Roux and co-counsel Maitre Michel Pitron to

1 ensure their presence at this trial without further delay in accordance

2 with the obligations assumed vis-a-vis their client and this Tribunal.

3 The matter, at the moment, I am leaving. We are leaving this matter as it

4 is. We will take it up again more forcefully if the situation does not

5 improve, and when I say more forcefully, I am -- I might have easily used

6 the word "terminally." That is what the Trial Chamber has in mind.

7 So.

8 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, may I just correct one thing for the

9 purposes of clarity? Your Honour, on the LiveNote at page 66, line 13 and

10 14.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes one moment.

12 MS. KORNER: Your Honour referred to M de Roux's absence being

13 restricted to yesterday's sitting. It is in fact today's sitting.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, that was my mistake. [Microphone not

15 activated] Yes, you are right, Ms. Korner, that is what the Trial Chamber

16 meant to say. Definitely. You are 100 per cent right.

17 In fact, actually, we resumed today so that was what was meant.

18 I am sure, Mademoiselle Fauveau, you understand the situation and

19 that you will carry the message to your colleagues and that the situation

20 will improve, failing which please do remember and do take into

21 consideration that the fact that I have your assurance that Maitre de Roux

22 assured you that he has made a request for you to be taken on board does

23 not solve the position. It's not a question on whether General Talic can

24 ably and sufficiently well be defended by you. That has never been the

25 issue. The issue is something completely different. And the Trial

1 Chamber certainly cannot wait until the situation is clarified the way

2 Maitre de Roux is suggesting that it be clarified, in other words by your

3 addition to Pitron, Maitre Pitron, or to your replacement of Mr. Pitron.

4 That is -- that would not be a situation which we can tolerate.

5 Obviously, we will take it into consideration but taking it into

6 consideration does not mean that Maitre de Roux, as lead counsel, has

7 carte blanche to rely on you or on Maitre Pitron irrespective of whether

8 he's going to exert control on Maitre Pitron to be present here to fulfil

9 his obligations. I think I have made myself clear. Don't expect us to

10 relax on this.

11 So the message is very clear. We are going to move forward if

12 necessary and to proceed with the matter, if necessary. I'm sorry this

13 took up a substantial portion of today's sitting. I am sure that you as

14 lawyers understand that this constitutes a preoccupation in the minds of

15 the three judges composing this Trial Chamber. I wouldn't have been able

16 to sleep peacefully tonight if I had not brought it up, and what disturbed

17 me was actually your immediate first statement, first thing in the

18 morning, that we are not going to have Maitre de Roux until Tuesday next

19 at least.

20 Yes.

21 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I have understood what you

22 said. It was very clear. However, I think that I and my office, Maitre

23 de Roux and Maitre Pitron, will take what you have said very seriously and

24 I'm sure that this will be solved as of next Monday. However, I think I

25 might have a problem tomorrow because Maitre de Roux is in hospital. I'm

1 sure of that. And Maitre Pitron, I was unable to contact him so I'm not

2 sure that Maitre Pitron will be able to be here tomorrow. I will do all I

3 can to ensure that he is present but I cannot guarantee this.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Mademoiselle Fauveau, the Trial Chamber does

5 not hold you responsible for ensuring that either Maitre de Roux or Maitre

6 Pitron show up. It's definitely not your responsibility. It's their

7 responsibility to show up. So in other words, to us this problem does not

8 exist. I assume that you will be here tomorrow. It's no major harm in

9 view because more or less what's going to happen tomorrow is Mr. Ackerman

10 will finish his cross-examination. Then there will be a re-examination, I

11 understand a brief one, maybe a couple of questions, and then we will

12 review some of the points that were raised during the informal meeting

13 that my senior -- our senior legal officer had with you last week, just to

14 make sure that there is an understanding which we -- on several issues

15 which we will formalise here. Obviously, if you have difficulties at that

16 point in time, you will have the full understanding of the Trial Chamber,

17 but the more difficulties you will have, the more strengthened will be the

18 determination of the Trial Chamber to proceed with what it has in mind of

19 doing should a solution not be found.

20 Yes, I am being told by Madam Registrar that I have overstepped

21 all the limits that were expected of us. I thank you all. Again my

22 apologise for, not wasting but for whatever happened, and we will continue

23 tomorrow. We will resume at 9.00 sharp and hopefully we will

24 finish with the witness by the end of the morning. I thank you.

25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

1 1.55 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the 14th

2 day of February, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25