1 Tuesday, 4 March 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.24 p.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus

7 Stanislav Galic.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

9 Before the Defence calls its next expert witness, the Chamber

10 would like to deal with the documents that have been tendered during

11 the -- through the expert witness Professor Vilicic.

12 Madam Registrar, could you assist us.

13 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit C5, Chamber exhibit, diagram drawn by

14 Dr. Vilicic; MFI 30, diagram drawn by Judge Orie; D1848, photo

15 documentation; Exhibit P3801, Sandia National Laboratories report; Exhibit

16 P3802, fragmentation of a mortar shell; Exhibit P3800, recording of the

17 burst of an HE projectile process; Exhibit P3799, marked photocopy of

18 portion of Exhibit C2; P3806, photo of fuses; P3803, P3804, and P3805,

19 maps of confrontation line.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could I please see those items that

21 were only recently provided with a number, that is, especially MFI 30.

22 Yes, that's MFI 30. And C5, yes. Thank you.

23 Since I hear no objections, these documents are either admitted

24 into evidence or, as far as marked for identification, are identified.

25 We'll deal with the videos later this week as soon as the copies

1 have been prepared, the -- I'm talking about the videos provided by --

2 parts, excerpts of the videos provided by Mr. Gray.

3 Is there any other procedural issue that would need immediate

4 attention? I am aware that last Friday, when you, Mr. Ierace, asked to

5 raise one or two issues, one of them being urgent, that I did not give you

6 the opportunity finally. And so if there's any issue that should be

7 raised, you have an opportunity now.

8 MR. STAMP: Before senior counsel proceeds, may I be allowed to

9 withdraw, Mr. President?

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

11 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much.

12 MR. IERACE: Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. President. As the

13 end of the Defence case draws near, there are two issues which may be

14 thought to be unresolved, not only now but regardless of whatever verdict

15 is handed down, perhaps ultimately by the Appeals Chamber, if ever this

16 matter should surface there.

17 The first concerns the application by the Defence for the issue of

18 subpoena in respect of certain witnesses. While I'm aware that some steps

19 have been taken to secure their attendance, if they do not attend or

20 indeed if any of them do not attend, that application stands on the record

21 apparently without a formal response.

22 The second issue concerns the oral decision of the Trial Chamber

23 of the 22nd of January, 2003, concerning the stage of the trial at which

24 the accused could give evidence. I note that the time indicated for the

25 accused to be called has passed and that the Defence case is likely to

1 conclude in the next week or so, unless some further UN witnesses of fact

2 are called. I also note that a witness of fact has already been called

3 during the expert testimony segment of the Defence case, namely

4 Richard Gray. The Defence may take the view that because of the terms of

5 the oral order and the decision of the Trial Chamber to not issue a

6 certificate for an appeal, that no aspect of the matter can be further

7 raised. I submit that the Defence should indicate in clear terms to the

8 Trial Chamber before the close of the Defence case what actual prejudice,

9 if any, has been caused to the accused by the Trial Chamber's decision as

10 to when the accused could have been called. By "actual prejudice" I do

11 not mean any infringement of the accused's right to silence as perceived

12 by the Defence but, rather, any substantive impact in an evidential sense

13 on what the accused might have said or what topics his evidence would have

14 concerned had he been called for the first time during or at the end of

15 the expert witness testimony and which he did not reasonably anticipate at

16 the beginning of the expert testimony. If this is done by the Defence,

17 then the Prosecution can consider its position and the Trial Chamber is

18 able to reconsider its oral decision, if it thinks it appropriate.

19 Mr. President, there is a third matter which arises from an

20 observation made last night right at the end of Mr. Vilicic's testimony in

21 relation to a document that Mr. Stamp sought to show to the witness. You,

22 Mr. President, said: "These statements are not in evidence and I think

23 it's quite clear that the Defence has presented material that was not in

24 evidence and the Chamber, I think, earlier has made clear that an expert

25 witness is not an instrument through which you introduce new evidence

1 which has not been subject to cross-examination by the other party."

2 Mr. President, in particular, in relation to the anticipated

3 evidence of Mr. Radinovic, there have been, I think now, hundreds of

4 documents provided by the Defence to the Prosecution; many of those are

5 attached to the expert's report. There will not be enough time for the

6 Prosecution to cross-examine Mr. Radinovic in relation to all of the

7 documents that the Prosecution may wish to rely upon in its closing

8 submission, in its closing brief. We had in mind that indeed many of

9 these documents did not require any comment by the witness since they

10 purported -- each document purported to speak for itself, subject to any

11 authenticity issue. Therefore, we intended that we would incorporate some

12 of that material or may incorporate some of that material in our closing

13 brief but not require the witness to comment on them. I would be

14 grateful, therefore, if we could have an indication before

15 cross-examination of Mr. Radinovic as to whether this is acceptable to the

16 Trial Chamber. It would assist us in structuring the cross-examination of

17 that witness. And to assist you, it relates to documents which have been

18 attached to the filed report, and therefore pursuant to the decision of

19 the Trial Chamber have, as I understand it, already been admitted into

20 evidence. Thank you.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, all of this is

23 a bit abstruse. First of all, one should be a little more clear because

24 one has to deal with everything Mr. Ierace said.

25 As far as the first issue is concerned, the Defence would

1 appreciate it if Mr. Ierace could tell us which legal provisions he is

2 basing himself on so that the Defence can avoid doing the exercise that he

3 wants the Defence to do. What is the text, what are the violations that

4 have are been resumed that the Prosecution is talking about?

5 JUDGE ORIE: You're referring to the second point. You said the

6 first --

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] There are so many points,

8 Mr. President, that I have difficulty in categorising them. But I'd like

9 to know what the violations are, given the order of the presentation of

10 the witnesses, et cetera. If this is the first or the eighteenth point, I

11 don't know. But as far as this is concerned, it's often that the Defence

12 cannot deal with this, since we're involved in preparation. To ask us to

13 do so is not quite right.

14 As far as the other issues are concerned, the matter of documents

15 tendered by Mr. Stamp, in a surprising manner I have no comment to make.

16 It's obvious that the Defence finds this unacceptable. It's not necessary

17 to emphasise this. And as far as the other issues are concerned, the

18 issues relating to the testimony of Mr. Radinovic --

19 JUDGE ORIE: You said the documents tendered by Mr. Stamp. Which

20 documents did you have in mind exactly?

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] There were these documents

22 which were tendered overnight. They were mentioned. I'm referring to

23 what Mr. Ierace said a minute ago, with regard to the examination or the

24 cross-examination of Mr. Vilicic. The Prosecution must know more about

25 this than I do because the Prosecution mentioned these documents a minute

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 ago, if I understood what the Prosecution was getting at.

2 And, Mr. President, finally as far as the problem of the documents

3 is concerned, the documents that concern Mr. Radinovic's expert report, we

4 would like to emphasise the following: These documents in the hands of

5 the Prosecution, they have been in their hands for a long time, with the

6 exception perhaps of a map that was made by General Radinovic -- by

7 Mr. Radinovic himself. But the basic documents are in their hands and

8 they have been in their hands for a long time. A minute ago the

9 Defence -- a while ago we suggested giving them a chronological plan of

10 these documents so that they could find their bearings. We were quite

11 happy to deal with this. But if the Prosecution has more time for

12 preparations than we do, then one should be logical. If that is the case,

13 we would require a break, each side would need to take advantage of a

14 break. That would be the best means of respecting the balance of forces.

15 These annexes, about 130 documents, these are documents which the

16 Prosecution has always been familiar with, because to a large extent they

17 were provided to us by the Prosecution itself. This is what we wanted to

18 say relatively briefly, Mr. President. Obviously if there are other

19 issues, we could examine them later on. But we don't think it's the right

20 time to do so now. Thank you.

21 JUDGE ORIE: You said the documents tendered by Mr. Stamp. What

22 Mr. Ierace said is that there was a matter "which arises from an

23 observation made last night at the end of Mr. Vilicic's testimony in

24 relation to a document that Mr. Stamp sought to show to the witness, and

25 that the Chamber commented that this document was not in evidence and that

1 the -- an expert witness was not the instrument through which one could

2 introduce new witness statements."

3 Your position in respect of that is not entirely clear to me,

4 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President. Let's say

6 that I'm following the way, the path of the Trial Chamber. And I'd like

7 to also say that the 130 documents which form the annex of the expert

8 report which are mentioned in this document - we're talking about

9 General Radinovic's expert report the Defence considers them to be part of

10 the expert report itself, and therefore that they should be provided as

11 exhibits, as evidence before your Trial Chamber.

12 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand your position in that respect.

13 I have not heard your position in respect to the first question

14 raised by the Prosecution. That was question of the motion for

15 subpoenaing certain witnesses.

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Before we

17 examine the possibility of a request for a subpoena, I would like to

18 literally exhaust all the possibilities that we have at our disposal, all

19 the possible manners of proceeding.

20 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... the motion to

21 subpoena certain witnesses. I think that was the question, not on the

22 possibility of a request, but on the outstanding request.

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. President, I

24 think that it's necessary to wait, if I may say so, in that we would like

25 to see, the Defence, and General Galic would like to see, what the

1 situation is now with regard to the documents that were already tendered

2 and the testimonies we have heard, and we'll be able to provide an answer

3 I think very soon. Thank you.

4 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber responds to this first issue at this very

5 moment. The others, we'll respond to that at a later moment, in due

6 course.

7 As far as the motion to subpoena certain witnesses are concerned,

8 the Chamber, as may have been experienced by the parties, the Chamber has

9 primarily oriented itself in assisting the Defence in getting these

10 witnesses into this courtroom without, technically speaking, going in much

11 detail in the merits of the motion as such, because the Chamber feels it

12 an obligation to assist the parties as good as it can to get the witnesses

13 into the courtroom, the witnesses the Defence seeks to examine. That

14 means that we were not successful in all respects. I think there are two

15 witnesses that did not appear that have not been withdrawn by the Defence.

16 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

18 MR. IERACE: I do apologise. Given what the Defence has just

19 said, might I respectfully make a suggestion before you give

20 your -- deliver your observations in that regard.

21 JUDGE ORIE: If you'd just let me finish for one second.

22 MR. IERACE: Yes.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, and if there would be any --

24 So that means that there are two witnesses that -- of which we do

25 not know yet whether you still intend to call them and -- or whether

1 you -- whether the Defence would withdraw its request then, in respect of

2 subpoenaing these witnesses. There are two possibilities: Either you

3 insist on the Chamber giving a decision. We'll then give a decision. And

4 I do understand that you need some time to consider your position. If you

5 insist on a decision, it will not be an outstanding motion without a

6 decision. So then a decision will be given. We'll then go into the

7 merits of the -- of the motion and we'll deliver a decision. If you

8 withdraw it, it goes without saying that no decision will be delivered.

9 The Chamber would like to hear within one or two days what your position

10 is in respect of these two witnesses, one of Canadian, one of Indian

11 nationality.

12 Mr. Ierace, is there any need to ...?

13 MR. IERACE: Yes, there is, Mr. President. To say this: It seems

14 to me that the comments of Mr. Piletta-Zanin really amount to a withdrawal

15 of the application.

16 JUDGE ORIE: As far as I see, that he first wanted to confer with

17 the accused and then --

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I thank the

21 Prosecution for making this hermeneutic effort and to try to interpret

22 myself, but I don't think that I'd managed to do that myself. Thank you.

23 JUDGE ORIE: The parties are always making great efforts in

24 assisting each other, which of course is highly appreciated by the

25 Chamber.

1 The other issues will be dealt with at a later stage.

2 Then is the Defence ready to call its next expert witness? I take

3 it that will be Mr. Terzic.

4 Yes. Mr. Usher, could you please escort the witness into the

5 courtroom.

6 [The witness entered court]

7 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Dr. Terzic, as far as I understand.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good day.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Before giving testimony in this court, the

10 Rules of Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration

11 that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

12 The text will be handed out to you, and may I invite you to make that

13 solemn declaration.

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

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

16 WITNESS: SLAVENKO TERZIC

17 [Witness answered through interpreter]

18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much. Please be seated.

19 Before you'll be examined by counsel for the Defence, I would like

20 to say to you that we are aware that you waited for a long time yesterday

21 and in vain, because finally we could not start with your examination. We

22 feel sorry for you that you had to wait such a long time and then had to

23 return without even entering this courtroom yesterday.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, on Friday too.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that -- I then have to underline this once

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 again. We really regret that this happened.

2 Ms. Pilipovic.

3 Examined by Ms. Pilipovic:

4 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Dr. Terzic.

5 A. Good day.

6 Q. Doctor, before I ask you some questions about the statement that

7 you have provided at the Defence's request, could you briefly tell us

8 about your background, regardless of the fact that we provided a detailed

9 curriculum vitae which was attached to your statement. Where were you

10 born and where do you work?

11 A. I was born in 1949, in Pandurica near Pljevlja in Montenegro. I

12 finished secondary school in Gorazde and Pljevlja, and I graduated from

13 university in Belgrade. I graduated in national and general history. I

14 obtained my masters and Ph.D. in Belgrade at the university. I am

15 involved in the history of the Serbs, and of the Yugoslav areas, the

16 Balkan area. I carried out research in big centres throughout the world,

17 in Greece, in Germany and Russia. I've researched many archives in the

18 former Yugoslavia and outside of the former Yugoslavia. And among other

19 things, I have also carried out research in the archives of

20 Bosnia-Herzegovina. I would like to say that I provided my curriculum

21 vitae, and it just contains extracts from my works, some of my works. I

22 have written about 150 studies, articles. I'd like to add that what I did

23 not include there is that I am the editor of a large book, "Bosnia and

24 Herzegovina from the Middle Ages up until the modern era." And I would be

25 happy to provide the Trial Chamber here with this book as a present. I am

1 also the editor of many other books, among which there is "The atlas of

2 the Ustasha genocide against the Serbs, from 1941 to 1945,", and I'm

3 also -- I'd like to underline this, a participant in an international

4 meeting of historians, 1955-1956 [as interpreted] in Germany. It was

5 organised by the German conference of bishops. This was a meeting of

6 historians of Serbian, Croatian, and Muslim -- and German historians. I

7 was also a member of the commission for South Slav history, the Pro

8 Oriente from Vienna. And I'm also at the moment the president --

9 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think there's a

10 mistake in the transcript. I think Dr. Terzic said 1995 to 1996 and not

11 1955 to 1956.

12 A. Yes, it's 1995 to 1996.

13 Q. Doctor, could you briefly tell us, because the Defence has only

14 ten minutes for your examination. Can you just tell us where you work

15 now.

16 A. I worked as a secondary school professor for two years.

17 Q. Where do you work now?

18 JUDGE ORIE: It's going a bit too fast for the interpreters.

19 Could you please make a short break before starting to answer the

20 question. The best way of keeping control of your own speed is to look at

21 the screen. As soon as it stops, the text stops moving, then the

22 interpreters have translated your words.

23 Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.

24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. So Dr. Terzic, can you just tell us where you are employed now.

1 A. I work in the historical institute in Belgrade. I've worked in

2 that institute for over 25 years. For a long time it was part of the

3 Serbian academy of science and arts. For six months now it hasn't been

4 part of that. I was the director of the historical institute of Serbian

5 science for 15 years.

6 Q. Thank you, Dr. Terzic. At the Defence's request you provided a

7 statement in which you dealt with the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

8 and you concentrated in particular on Sarajevo.

9 A. Yes, that's correct.

10 Q. Do you stand by everything that you stated in that report?

11 A. Yes, I stand by everything that I said. But there are three

12 things I would like to add, if I may: Number one, when this was being

13 typed out, there was a mistake, a minor mistake in the footnotes, in the

14 number of the pages. So I would like to ask that to be changed.

15 Q. Dr. Terzic, if you can be very brief. Can you tell us on which

16 pages these changes should be made.

17 A. It's footnote number 56. It should say "page 87" there, footnote

18 page 58 --

19 Q. To help my colleagues, it's page 24 in the English version.

20 A. I think it's possible to follow the footnotes too. So footnote

21 58, it should say "page 132." Footnote 59, "page 133." Footnote 62,

22 "page 65 up to page 76." Footnote 63, "page 72, 73." And footnote 64,

23 should be on page 135 to 137. That's one change, one correction.

24 And the second addition, the second change has to do with the

25 table on the structure of the population of Sarajevo according to the 1981

1 census.

2 Q. It's page 21 in the English version.

3 A. When it was being typed out, information of two municipalities

4 were left out. So in addition to the eight municipalities that are here,

5 information for the municipality of Hadzici and the municipality of Ilijas

6 was left out, and I would now like to add this.

7 THE INTERPRETER: Could the document be put on the ELMO, please,

8 because the interpreters do not have the text.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Could we -- although I, for the interpreters, I think

10 as a matter of fact that the expert witness is going to add parts that are

11 not contained in the document. But perhaps could we please have the

12 document on the ELMO. And could you please assist, Mr. Usher, that -- if

13 we put it on, to the right of you, we can all see it on the screen,

14 Dr. Terzic.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. So in addition to information

16 on eight Sarajevo municipalities, which are here, there was no information

17 for the municipality of Hadzici and for the municipality of Ilijas. The

18 information for the Hadzici municipality states the following.

19 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ...

20 Ms. Pilipovic. Would it not be a better idea to have a copy of these

21 corrections made during the break so that we do not ask the interpreters

22 to translate all these figures, with all the risks of mistakes.

23 And therefore, would you be willing to give a corrected copy of

24 that page to the registry, Dr. Terzic, so that it can be copied and we

25 don't have to read aloud all these numbers? Would you agree that to be a

1 more practical way of dealing with it?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, gladly.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Of course if you would like to comment on the new

4 figures, that's a different matter.

5 But Mr. Usher, perhaps then --

6 Unless you need it at this very moment, Dr. Terzic, or if you want

7 to add anything. Yes. Please do so.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to comment on the

9 information, demographic structure of the population and then later to

10 provide you with this document to be photocopied.

11 And I have a third addition. It's not a change but an addition.

12 Page 50, and I believe that in English it is also page 50, I said that in

13 Bosnia-Herzegovina during the 1992-1995 war, not less than 400 prisons and

14 camps were registered. Meanwhile, I have expanded my investigation and

15 concluded the number of camps and prisons for Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina

16 totalled 536. I have here -- I have a map with camps and I have the list

17 of all the camps and prisons which I can also give to be photocopied with

18 the leave of the President.

19 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Thank you. Dr. Terzic, as you were pointing out these misprints

21 in your written statement, and you told us otherwise that you stood by it

22 completely, my question would be: In view of the substance of your

23 statement, to tell us -- when it comes to the historical demography, what

24 is your conclusion about the basic features of the ethnic and religious

25 structure in Bosnia-Herzegovina with special reference to Sarajevo?

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. This is an important issue that I covered in detail. As a

2 historian, I believe that the historical context is very important if one

3 is to understand modern day political events. The historical experience,

4 the historical traumas, the historical -- the past frustrations largely

5 determined the political behaviour of individuals, groups, and nations as

6 such. With regard to Bosnia-Herzegovina, if we follow the processes for

7 the past 150 years, the population of Bosnia-Herzegovina, since

8 mid-nineteenth century - and it is to that period that Turkish censuses

9 date back to, until the end of the twentieth century - looked more like

10 this: Orthodox Serbs totalled about 47, 48 per cent in mid-century.

11 Muslims accounted for 30 -- for about 34 per cent. Of course I have

12 detailed information here, but this is an average figure. That is about

13 34 per cent. And the Catholics, the Roman Catholics in mid-nineteenth

14 century, that is, prior to the occupation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, for about

15 14 to 15 per cent.

16 During the Austro-Hungarian occupation, that is, between the 1878

17 to the First World War, it changed. There were 43, 44 per cent of the

18 Orthodox population; the number of Muslims dropped from 36 to 32, owing to

19 a part to the immigration of Muslims from Bosnia-Herzegovina following the

20 Austro-Hungarian occupation in '78. And the number of Catholics increased

21 and in 1910 was about 22 per cent. Between the two world wars, and there

22 were no major changes in the population structure of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

23 that is, Orthodox Serbs, totalled 43, 44 per cent; the Muslims around 32

24 per cent; and the Roman Catholics around 21, 22 per cent.

25 More substantive changes in the structure of the population of

1 Bosnia-Herzegovina started as of the 1970s, due largely to the political

2 developments in the former Yugoslavia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina itself.

3 As result of the disintegration of the Yugoslav state and as a result of

4 its accelerating disintegration in the '70s and '80s --

5 Q. Doctor, my apologies. In the '70s of the 20th century, it says

6 1970s, and it is 1970s. I'm sure that you can give us a detailed answer

7 to this question, but we have limited time. Can you tell us what the

8 situation is now?

9 A. It is very important. If one is to understand what happened

10 towards the end of the twentieth century, and so that is why. And I'm

11 talking about demographic losses. I'm talking about the demographic

12 losses of the Bosnian-Herzegovinan population, primarily of the Serb

13 population, because that decline was so drastic that it led to collective

14 traumas. According to the research of our historians, our scientists and

15 especially Professor Milorad Ekmecic, in the First World War, 19 per cent

16 of the Bosnian population perished in World War II, and -- World War I.

17 Such -- the first concentration camps were set up for Serbs in World War

18 I. 25 per cent of the population of Bosnia-Herzegovina perished in World

19 War II. So these are horrible data. These are losses -- these huge

20 demographic losses conduced to the fact that the Serbs in the struggle to

21 create their ethnic state, just like Germans and other European peoples,

22 and in the struggle to defend their own state, following all these

23 horrible, horrific experiences. The loss of the state that they lived in,

24 the former Yugoslavia, has resulted in terrible traumas and frustrations,

25 and that is why they wanted to continue living in that federal state of

1 Yugoslavia, fearing that in any other state they could experience once

2 again the horrendous crimes that they experienced in the First and Second

3 World War.

4 Q. Thank you, Dr. Terzic. Witness, from the contents of your answer

5 and the contents of your statement, one can conclude that you think that

6 the policy of the big powers affected fatefully the developments in the

7 Balkans and the establishment of national boundaries; is that correct?

8 A. Unfortunately it is correct, and I am the advocate of the

9 principle, and it is -- when it is frequently said that Balkanism is

10 synonymous for tribal strife. I think that Balkanism is -- epitomises

11 tribal strife in the world today but the chief culprit for this is the

12 policy of the big powers towards the Balkans because the big powers formed

13 national liberation movements in the Balkans, not on the basis of

14 principles that govern such movements in Germany, Italy, or perhaps other

15 parts of Europe, but depending on their own interest and therefore they

16 drew the boundaries of states in line with their strategic interest in the

17 Balkans.

18 Q. My apologies, witness, but I have just one short question: Such a

19 policy that as you deem it, did it also find it reflection in

20 Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is, in Sarajevo?

21 A. It found its reflection primarily in the territory of

22 Bosnia-Herzegovina. There is something ironic. There is a paradox. In

23 1907, the Bosnian-Herzegovinan Serbs and Muslims, there were 71

24 signatures, including three Muslim. In 1907, they sent a memorandum to

25 the international conference on peace in -- in the international peace

1 conference in The Hague in 1907 requesting that an end be put to the

2 Austro-Hungarian occupation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, because that occupation

3 had failed. And just one more sentence. There are some historians - and

4 I'm one of the partisans of such views - that the war in

5 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1992-1995 started in point of fact in 1878, when tens

6 of thousands of Austro-Hungarian soldiers occupied by force

7 Bosnia-Herzegovina, following the mandate of the Berlin Congress. And

8 right up to the 1918, that is, until the creation of the Yugoslav state,

9 Austria-Hungary manipulated ethnic, racial, religious hatreds and passions

10 and the hatred that we find dates back to the days of the Austro-Hungarian

11 policy in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

12 Q. Doctor, thank you.

13 A. Thank you.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Pilipovic.

15 Ms. Mahindaratne, is the Prosecution ready to cross-examine the

16 expert witness?

17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.

19 You'll now be examined by counsel for the Prosecution, Dr.

20 Terzic.

21 Cross-examined by Ms. Mahindaratne:

22 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Terzic.

23 A. Good afternoon.

24 Q. Sir, your report is titled "On the past of Bosnia-Herzegovina with

25 special emphasis on Sarajevo." The title doesn't make specific reference

1 to any of the ethnic communities which lived in Bosnia-Herzegovina,

2 including Sarajevo, at the beginning of the conflict. Did you intend your

3 report to be a review of the history of all of these ethnic communities?

4 A. Yes, of course. That was my duty. And I tried to supply the

5 information about the history of the Serb people and history of Muslims

6 and history of Croats, of course, depending on their number and their

7 share in the development of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Since the Serbs were the

8 most populous group and since they were the ones who made the biggest

9 contribution to the development of Bosnia-Herzegovina Sarajevo, and

10 especially the modernisation of the Sarajevo society, I paid more

11 attention to Serbs. But I also spoke about Muslims, perhaps a little less

12 about Catholic Croats because their share in the Bosnian population was

13 about 14, 15 per cent. But at any rate, I wanted to divide my attention

14 equitably between the Serb, Muslims, and Croats.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Terzic, your speed of speech is such that if you

16 will slow down, it will be easier for the interpreters, a bit of breath

17 now and then.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My apologies. My apologies.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Please continue.

20 MS. MAHINDARATNE:

21 Q. Sir, did you intend it to be an impartial and objective history in

22 respect of these communities?

23 A. Yes, of course. It is every historian's duty to speak sine ira et

24 studio, that is, without wrath or bias, as the Roman proverb says. So I

25 endeavoured, I tried hard not to be partial.

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 Q. I suggest to you that your report in fact reads as a sympathetic

2 history of the Bosnian Serb community in Bosnia and Herzegovina to the

3 almost total exclusion of other communities. What do you have to say to

4 that?

5 A. Well, I will not comment on your impression, but that is precisely

6 what I'm trying to say, that all European scientists in the nineteenth

7 century thought that Bosnia-Herzegovina was Serb land. I could quote

8 about ten eminent European historians, in the first place the most

9 prominent German historian of the nineteenth century, Leopold von Ranke.

10 In his work, "the Serb Revolution," published in 1829, and in his second

11 work, "Turkey and Serbia," Leopold von Ranke, considers that

12 Bosnia-Herzegovina are Serb lands. And this opinion is shared by many

13 other researchers such as Ami Boue, a Russian traveller and diplomat

14 Alexander Guilferding, and a number of British and other researchers. And

15 this fact is further corroborated, among other things, by the London Pact

16 of August 1915, when the big powers, that is, Great Britain, France, and

17 Italy, decided to, within the framework following World War I, in case of

18 the Allies victory, the whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina should be integrated

19 in the Serb national state. Sir Edward Gray pointed out in particular

20 that that principle would be governed by the principle of the equality of

21 nationalities. My view, or rather, the view that you have gained, can be

22 justified because the sciences and such, and I mentioned only some of the

23 names, considered Bosnia-Herzegovina as populated by the majority Serb

24 population and that the Muslim population living there was also in terms

25 of its origin of the Islamic, that is, of the Serb origin.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, as I'm not in

3 the English booth, but in the B/C/S booth, I have some difficulties

4 following the questions of my learned friend. But formally I think one

5 should be able to read it in the transcript, but one does not see this

6 text in the transcript.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There were some problems related to the speed

8 of speech, not only for the interpreters but also for the transcribers.

9 And where the transcript reads: Kindly slow down for the purposes of the

10 record," I think the question interrupted was that "I suggest to you that

11 the report in fact reads as a --

12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Sympathetic history, Mr. President.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Sympathetic history of the Bosnian-Herzegovinan

14 community in ...?

15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Bosnia and Herzegovina.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Bosnia and Herzegovina. I think that was the

17 question. This is just for the record.

18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, it's Bosnian Serb community.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Bosnian Serb community in Bosnia-Herzegovina, yes.

20 This was just for the record, Dr. Terzic, so you don't have to pay

21 attention -- you don't have to answer that question again.

22 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.

24 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask -- you have a very high speed of speech.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I say something?

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that historically speaking

3 it is more correct and in literature it is -- the term usually used is the

4 Serb people in Bosnia-Herzegovina, rather than the Bosnian Serb community.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for the clarification.

6 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.

8 Q. Dr. Terzic, under chapter 9 of the Table of Contents, there are

9 several sections under which you report on Bosnian Serb institutions,

10 areas of activity, and important historical events. For instance, the

11 first section deals with Serbs in the urban culture of Sarajevo and their

12 contribution to the multicultural environment. Now, where in your report

13 can one find a similar consideration by you of the achievements and

14 contribution of the Bosnian Croat community or those of the Muslim faith?

15 A. In parts concerning life under Austro-Hungarian occupation between

16 1878 to 1918, I also paid attention to institutions set up by Muslims and

17 Roman Catholics. And you will find in several places, find examples of

18 newspapers or institutions published or organised by Muslims. For

19 instance, magazines, journals. I indicated Bosansko-Hercegovacki Glasnik

20 edited by Omer Bey Sulejman-Pasic or Samouprava, by Osman Djikic, then an

21 organ of Muslim dissidence and so on and so forth, that this -- as far as

22 the written press is concerned. I also mentioned some Croat cultural

23 institutions and some of their business institutions. For instance, when

24 we talk about Bosansko-Hercegovacka Narodna Dionicka Banka founded in

25 1878, I indicated that of 17 founders, in addition to Muslims and Jews,

1 there were also seven Serbs. And I also, when it comes to political

2 circumstances following the elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1910, I

3 also indicated that in addition to Serb -- three Serb members of

4 parliament in Sarajevo, I also indicated four Muslims from Sarajevo who

5 were also members of parliament and one Croat who was elected by the Croat

6 cooperative, and so on and so forth.

7 Q. Sir, chapter 9 -- under chapter 9, you have several sections which

8 include Serb institutions, Serb activity, and important historical events

9 relating to the Serb community. Now, you have specifically dealt

10 with -- dealt under separate sections, under the titles of Serb

11 institutions or relating to Serb events and activity. Now, why is it that

12 you have focussed on the -- these aspects relating to the Serbian

13 community and excluded achievements and contributions and institutions

14 relating to the other two principal communities? Why have you focussed

15 only on the Serbian communities, activities, and institutions, if your

16 report was to be submitted in the context of impartiality and objectivity?

17 A. Needless to say, I studied in particular the role of the Serb

18 people in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in view of the nature of this case and this

19 hearing. But on no occasion did I want to ignore, to neglect, either

20 Muslims or Croats. However, the share of Muslims and Croats in the

21 development of Bosnia-Herzegovina was not the same as the role of the

22 Serbs, Orthodox Serbs in the first place, simply because in

23 Bosnia-Herzegovina there were 14 to 17 per cent of Croats and that there

24 were about 32 per cent of Muslims and that there were about 44 per cent of

25 Serbs. When we speak about the building of a modern European society,

1 that is, the creation of commercial institutions, banks, educational

2 establishments, literary magazines, cultural societies, then Serbs,

3 Orthodox Serbs have left a major mark in Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is

4 because that is how it was in the past. And I wanted to show that, trying

5 to avoid any false symmetry regarding the roles and parts of different

6 peoples in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I wanted to present things as they truly

7 were.

8 Q. Very well. Your report in the Serbian version is 44 pages in

9 length. Only approximately five pages --

10 A. Excuse me?

11 Q. Only approximately five pages, and mainly the last two pages, deal

12 with events concerning Sarajevo from 1981. Do you agree?

13 A. Yes, with regard to the overall history of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

14 that part, that is, the '90s, the modern part, is somewhat shorter than

15 the previous epochs, and I can explain why. If I may, Mr. President --

16 Q. If I may interrupt you, sir. In the interest of time, that won't

17 be necessary.

18 Drawing your attention to page 33 of your report - and I'm

19 referring to the English version --

20 JUDGE ORIE: But before you continue, the witness addressed me,

21 Ms. Mahindaratne.

22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I beg your pardon, Mr. President.

23 JUDGE ORIE: The question was whether you would agree that the

24 part of the recent Sarajevan history would be far shorter than the other

25 part. If you ask whether the witness agrees, it has some meaning. So if

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 witness wants to explain, he should be given at least a short

2 opportunity to do so, unless in your questions to come you'll ask for such

3 an explanation.

4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President, I don't intent to ask him

5 for any further explanations on that point.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But if a historian writes a report and if --

7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well --

8 JUDGE ORIE: -- Only A small part relates to the more recent

9 history of the area of Sarajevo, and if you ask him whether he agrees that

10 it's a very small portion, then he should be allowed to explain why it was

11 such a small portion.

12 So please explain why you wrote on the smaller portion of your

13 wrote on Sarajevo in the '90s, but please keep your explanation concise

14 because the parties are under some time constraint.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

16 Obviously, we approach this problem from different angles. I described

17 1990s in general outlines. As a historian, I think regardless of this

18 Tribunal's activity, that we still do not have - I mean, as

19 historians - relevant historical material which would allow us to

20 establish full historical truths. There is a major methodological problem

21 there, and we cannot establish the historical truth on the basis of

22 printed media or personal reminisces, because these are third-rate

23 sources. We lack crucial archival information, we lack the records of

24 secret negotiations, we have no access to special services, secret

25 services, we do not have access to the sittings of any governments or

1 deliberations of any governments, and this will become accessible only in

2 the future. Only then will historians be able to objectively consider the

3 events in Bosnia at that time, so that we can make our judgments on the

4 basis of what we have, and that is very little, because we lack crucial

5 documents. And I believe that some day, when my colleagues write the

6 history of these developments, their picture will be quite different.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I asked you to be concise. I do understand

8 your question to be that the sources for the recent history are not fully

9 accessible yet and that it would be difficult to write a full history of

10 the 1990s in Sarajevo.

11 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

12 MS. MAHINDARATNE:

13 Q. Sir, a substantial part of your report, some seven pages in the

14 B/C/S version and nine pages in English, deals with persecution in one

15 form or another of Sarajevo Serbs during World War I, and that is 1914 to

16 1918. How, if at all, do you think an understanding of the history of the

17 treatment of the Serbian community during World War I contributes to an

18 understanding of the events in Sarajevo between 1992 and 1994?

19 A. Madam, I think this is a very important question, and I'm sorry if

20 you are unable to understand the outstanding importance of this question.

21 The political conduct of people, their world is also made of historical

22 reminiscences and memories and experience and traumas. In the 1990s,

23 there were still a lot of people whose fathers had perished en masse in

24 the concentration camps in World War I. During World War I in

25 Bosnia-Herzegovina, over 100.000 children under the age of 14 died, and

1 this was a terrible ordeal which has left a deep imprint in the soul and

2 the tradition of the Serb people. Somebody may think it very remote, but

3 for a human life-span that is not remote, and it all happened in an even

4 worse way in World War II, it was even more horrendous, so that I think

5 that the fact about the ordeal of Serbs in World War I, via concentration

6 camps, mass exterminations, a large number of political processes -- in

7 Bosnia-Herzegovina during World War I there were dozens of political

8 processes trying Serbs only. The biggest one took place in Banja Luka in

9 1915-1916, when 156 Serbs were tried and sentenced. The entire Serb

10 intelligentsia of Bosnia-Herzegovina, teachers MPs, priests, peasants, and

11 the chief charge was an inspiration to create a greater Serbia. I,

12 therefore, think this is very important because that experience from the

13 first big war largely conduced to a major trauma of the Serb people.

14 Q. [Microphone not activated]

15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I beg your pardon.

17 Q. Do you think that this traumatic and powerful history was capable

18 of motivating some members of the Bosnian Serb community in 1992 and

19 thereafter to go to extreme lengths to secure their autonomous

20 independence?

21 A. That factor was of great importance, the factor from the First

22 World War, and particularly the experience of the Second World War. This

23 caused panic to appear, panic relating to the loss of one's own state,

24 because a crime in the First World War and a crime in the Second World

25 War -- in the First World War it was under the Austro-Hungarian

1 authorities, and in the Second World War they were carried out during the

2 Ustasha reign. The fear remained that in someone else's state such a

3 genocide could be committed, and this was the key reason for the

4 historical and psychological behaviour of the Serbs in the 1990s.

5 Mr. President, I would like to add that --

6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's addition: The witness mentioned

7 crimes being committed during the Second World War under the independent

8 state of Croatia.

9 JUDGE ORIE: You'd like to add something, and you waited for

10 Ms. Mahindaratne to, having terminated this -- her consultation. What

11 would you like to add?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My attention was drawn to the First

13 World War. I would like to draw your attention to the Second World War.

14 That was a terrible experience. I would like to quote German sources

15 here. Hitler's official for the south-eastern in autumn 1943,

16 Hermann Neubacher, in his diary, which was published in Gottingen in 1958,

17 he says that the crimes committed against the Serbs in the independent

18 state of Croatia, and I quote, "were the worst mass murders committed in

19 the course of history," and I'm quoting Neubacher. He considers that in

20 the course of the Second World War about 750.000 Serbs were killed in the

21 independent state of Croatia. Another German, Alexander von Lohr,

22 commander in the south-east, says that from April 1941 until the autumn of

23 1942 about 400.000 Serbs were killed in the independent state of Croatia.

24 The number of Serbs killed in the course of the Second World War in the

25 independent state of Croatia is between 800.000 and 1 million people.

1 This includes tens of thousands of children. After such a terrible

2 genocide, there is not a single family that was not marked by this and

3 traumatised by this. This was all fresh for many people. Many people

4 were born in camps. Many people were born when they were refugees and

5 they participated in the events at the end of the twentieth century. So

6 to have an objective understanding of the events that occurred in the

7 1990s, I think that is extremely important to bear in mind the general

8 historical and political and psychological contexts which motivated people

9 to act in certain ways. This is very important. So the Serbs were afraid

10 that in the 1990s and in someone else's states, in Bosnia and Herzegovina

11 or in Croatia, the genocide committed in the First and Second World War

12 would be repeated. This is what they were afraid of. And this was one of

13 the important political reasons for their activities. After the

14 disintegration of Yugoslavia, they wanted to live together with the other

15 Serbian population, that is to say, together with the Federal Republic of

16 Yugoslavia.

17 MS. MAHINDARATNE:

18 Q. Sir, moving on to a different area. I draw your attention to page

19 49 of your report, the English version. On the fourth line, you

20 state -- I will read it to you, "The clause stipulating that parts of

21 Bosnia and Herzegovina by self-determination of two-thirds of the

22 population at a referendum may secede and join the neighbouring republics

23 was deleted."

24 Now, what is the constitutional provision in the 1974

25 constitution, which you're referring to here, as having been deleted by an

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 amendment in 1990?

2 A. Madam, I'm referring to Article 5 of the constitution of 1974,

3 which states, and I quote: Article 5 of the constitution of Bosnia and

4 Herzegovina from 1974, and I quote: "The territory of the Socialist

5 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is comprised of the territory of

6 municipalities. The territory, that is to say, the borders of the

7 republics can be changed by a decision of the Assembly of the Socialist

8 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and only in accordance with the

9 expressed wish of the population of a certain area and in accordance with

10 the general interests of the republic and on the basis of an agreement

11 with the neighbouring republic." That is what Article 5 states.

12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I have copies of that particular

13 article. May I just distribute it for the purpose of cross-examination

14 from here on.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I have it in B/C/S, as well as in English.

17 JUDGE ORIE: You do not intend to tender it, but just for

18 reference during cross-examination.

19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

21 MS. MAHINDARATNE:

22 Q. Sir, is it your position that you interpret Article 5 as a

23 constitutional basis for secession by majority of two-thirds at a

24 referendum? Is that how you interpret that article?

25 A. I am not a lawyer, first of all, but I think I can interpret this

1 article and interpret what it says. And that means that the constitution

2 from 1974 allowed for the possibility, in the case of certain regions or

3 areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina, as it states here, it allowed for the

4 possibility that they should join a different republic with agreement of

5 that republic and with the agreement of the Assembly of

6 Bosnia-Herzegovina. I have read that article, and I don't think that it's

7 a matter of secession because they are discussing one state. You are

8 forgetting one thing, madam: One state is concerned here, which is called

9 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Republics are part of this federal

10 state. In the amendment 99, Article 7, from 1990, so after the

11 amendments to the constitution of 1974, it was forbidden there for -- to

12 politically get organised and to act in order to threaten the territorial

13 integrity of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. So this was in

14 agreement with the constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of

15 Yugoslavia. So it had to do with the fact that parts of the republic

16 could join another republic if this was what the population wanted and

17 those two republics desired this, and they could do this within the

18 framework of one state, the Federal State of Yugoslavia.

19 Q. Sir, on a plain reading of Article 5, isn't it clear that the

20 provision allows for the adjustment of the borders which is far from

21 secession [Realtime transcript read in error "cessation"] and joining the

22 border republics, which is what you have claimed in page 49 of your report

23 in line 4?

24 A. I apologise, but I am only saying what it states in Article 5, and

25 I would like to read it out again so that I don't interpret it. It also

1 says that the territory, or rather, "the borders of republics can be

2 changed by a decision of the assembly of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia

3 and Herzegovina, only in agreement with the expressed desire of the

4 population from the relevant area and in accordance with the general

5 interests of the republic and on the basis of an agreement with

6 neighbouring republics." So we are dealing with the possible changes to

7 the borders of a republic within the framework of an internationally

8 recognised state, and that is the Socialist Federal Republic of

9 Yugoslavia. And let me say this: The borders of republics are

10 administrative. They aren't internationally recognised, if the great

11 powers haven't recognised them. And I would also like to take advantage

12 of this opportunity to say --

13 Q. Sir --

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm just a

15 little confused. I wanted to verify whether we -- my learned friend is

16 talking about cessation or secession. This does not mean the same thing.

17 The question in English had to the with cessation, and I think that we are

18 discussing another issue here.

19 JUDGE ORIE: I think you meant secession.

20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And not cessation. Yes, as a not native

22 English speaker myself, I know how difficult it is to pronounce the word

23 in such a way that confusion is avoided.

24 I take it that there has been no misunderstanding, also for the

25 booth, that Ms. Mahindaratne was talking about secession, rather than

1 cessation.

2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: You're correct, Mr. President.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I note the time. Is this the

5 time for a break or --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I at the same time ask you how much time

7 you'd still approximately need, taking into account that you used

8 approximately some -- a little bit over 30 minutes until now.

9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Perhaps at the most another 15, 20 minutes,

10 Mr. President.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because the time scheduled was 45 minutes, if

12 I'm --

13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: One hour, Mr. President.

14 JUDGE ORIE: One hour, yes. I'm always trying to cut down,

15 Ms. Mahindaratne.

16 We'll adjourn until quarter past 4.00.

17 --- Recess taken at 3.46 p.m.

18 --- On resuming at 4.19 p.m.

19 JUDGE ORIE: May the witness be brought in the courtroom.

20 Ms. Mahindaratne, you may proceed.

21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.

22 Q. Sir, going back to the issue of that sentence on page 49, line 4,

23 you referred to an amendment adopted in 1990 as having deleted the clause

24 you referred to, that is, Article 5. Now, which amendment are you

25 referring to here?

1 A. I didn't carry out a legal analysis of this process. What was

2 important for me was the fact that the constitutional amendments from the

3 1990s introduced certain amendments with regard to the constitution of

4 1974. And what was especially important for me was the change in

5 Amendment 69, item 7 and 10. So the changes in the constitution of 1974,

6 in Amendment 69, item 7, from 1990, it states that "It is prohibited to

7 carry out political organisation and activities which threaten the

8 integrity of the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."

9 Q. If I may interrupt you. I'm referring to the amendment which

10 replaced Article 5, which you referred to in page 49, the English version

11 of the report. Was it Amendment number 62 that you were referring to?

12 A. No, it's 1772 in which Bosnia-Herzegovina -- well, the fact that

13 it is a sovereign and integral part of the Yugoslav community is

14 emphasised. This is in Amendment 1772. But I wanted to draw your

15 attention to item 10 of Amendment 69, which introduced significant changes

16 in relation to the constitution of 1974, and that is to say that in

17 Amendment 69, item 10, a council for issues of obtaining equality between

18 peoples and nationalities was formed, and it had 20 members from each

19 national group and not a single matter of importance for the destiny of

20 the republic, for the fate of the republic could be decided on without the

21 agreement of all the peoples, the Serbs, the Croats, and the Muslims, in

22 agreement with --

23 Q. Sir, if I may interrupt you. In the sentence I'm referring to,

24 you referred to a two-thirds majority vote at a referendum. Now, from

25 where in Article 5 did you derive that changes to the borders of the

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 territory could be made with a two-thirds majority obtained at a

2 referendum? Now, where in Article 5 did you obtain that aspect?

3 A. Madam, you're thinking of Article 5 of the constitution from 1974.

4 Q. That is correct.

5 A. In that article -- I didn't even claim that it mentioned a

6 two-thirds majority in that article. Please, listen to me carefully.

7 I'll read out Article 5 once more.

8 Q. If I may interrupt you. I'm going back to your report. I will

9 read line 4 of page 49, and this is your report. You state: "The clause

10 stipulating that parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, by self-determination of

11 two-thirds of population at a referendum may secede and join the

12 neighbouring republics --

13 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please slow down.

14 MS. MAHINDARATNE:

15 Q. And join the neighbouring republics was deleted."

16 Now, in referring to the word "clause," you're referring to a

17 provision in the 1974 constitution. And when I questioned you as to which

18 provision you were referring to, you said Article 5. Now, my question is:

19 From where in Article 5 did you derive the aspect of a two-thirds majority

20 and a referendum? It's your assertion that I'm putting back to you.

21 A. I'm sorry, madam. You're saying something I didn't state. I

22 didn't say that in Article 5 there was a provision on two-thirds majority.

23 I read the entire Article 5 out, and I would like to do so again.

24 JUDGE ORIE: No. Let me just interfere. There seems to be some

25 confusion. Ms. Mahindaratne is referring to a part of your report and she

1 has put some questions to you, but it seems that it is her problem now,

2 where does she find the two-third majority in a referendum that would be

3 needed for self-determination, because you, I think, on a question you

4 answered, it was in Article 5, but it seems to be not what you intend to

5 express. So where can she find the requirement of two-third majority?

6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, my position was that in line

7 4 --

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Well, she can find it in

9 Amendment number 69, the amendment of the constitution of 1974. It's from

10 1999, and it's item 10. And they mention the council of realising

11 equality between peoples and nationalities in which there will be 20

12 representatives for each people.

13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: [Previous interpretation continues] ...

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could I just finish, please. If at

15 least 20 deputies, 20 members of that council consider that a certain

16 people is not equal, in that case the Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina

17 shall follow a special procedure provided for in the rules and the

18 decision will be taken on the basis of a two-thirds majority. It's item

19 10, Amendment 69, and the year is 1999. So this means that a referendum

20 for the independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina should have been --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you. My only question was where

22 Ms. Mahindaratne could find the two-third majority, and I do understand

23 from her that that was not quite her question. But --

24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If I may rephrase my question.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so now.

1 MS. MAHINDARATNE:

2 Q. Sir, in page 49, I will read this to you. Please correct me as to

3 whether you've stated so in your report. You refer to the 1974

4 constitution and you go on to say: "The clause stipulating that parts of

5 Bosnia and Herzegovina, by self-determination of the two-third of

6 population at a referendum may secede and join the neighbouring republics,

7 was deleted." And from that I understand that you referred to a

8 constitutional provision in the 1974 constitution which provided for

9 secession by a two-thirds majority vote at a referendum was deleted by an

10 amendment in 1990. Now, was that what you intended to say, because that

11 is how it has been written in your report.

12 A. Yes. I stated that in Article 5 from the 1990s it was possible to

13 change the borders of the republics within the Socialist Federal Republic

14 of Yugoslavia if the population from certain regions expressed this wish

15 and with the agreement of the Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the

16 agreement of neighbouring republics.

17 Q. Right. Now, in that sentence, you referred to the possibility of

18 such changes being effected by means of a referendum whereby you have to

19 obtain a two-thirds majority vote. You mentioned that aspect in that

20 sentence. Is that correct?

21 A. Yes. I'm saying that in accordance with Article 5, in accordance

22 with the expressed desire of the population of a given area, this was

23 checked through a referendum or plebiscite, the desire, the wishes of the

24 population was checked in this way. This was the customary procedure.

25 Q. My question to you was: Where in Article 5 of the 1974

1 constitution, prior to amendment, was there a provision for border changes

2 to be effected by a two-thirds majority at a referendum? From where did

3 you derive that term "two-thirds majority" at a referendum from Article 5?

4 A. In Article 5, it does not explicitly say two-thirds majority, but

5 it says that the territory can be changed only in keeping with the will of

6 the people of a particular republic, and it is basically understood that

7 this will be established by referendum and it was customary to have a

8 two-thirds majority to make such a decision final.

9 Q. So --

10 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I'm sorry. I'm going to ask a question to the

11 witness. The same page, 49 of the English report. At the end of the same

12 paragraph, it says the following: "Yet the constitutional provision on

13 the status of Bosnia and Herzegovina was not respected, which prescribes

14 that the status can be changed only with the majority of two-thirds of

15 votes at a general people's referendum." You mention a constitutional

16 provision there, not a customary law but a constitutional provision. Which

17 is that constitutional provision?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm referring to the provision in

19 the Amendment 69, item 10, to the constitution -- adopted in 1990 to the

20 constitution of 1974. And I will repeat once again: It has to do with

21 the council for the equality of nations and nationalities which says that

22 if an ethnic community objects to a particular problem, the Assembly of

23 Bosnia-Herzegovina shall decide on the matter by two-thirds majority of

24 the total number of votes. So it is Article 69, item 10 of the amendments

25 of 1990. This meant, in other words, that in a referendum for

1 independence of the 29th of February and the 1st of March, to make its

2 decision final, 66.6 per cent of the overall electorate of

3 Bosnia-Herzegovina had to vote for it.

4 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: So it is an amendment made in 1990. It's not

5 in the constitution of 1974.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you are right. Amendment 69,

7 item 10 was adopted in 1990.

8 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you. Thank you.

9 MS. MAHINDARATNE:

10 Q. Sir, in the same page, in the same paragraph, fourth line from the

11 bottom of that paragraph, you state that "The referendum results were not

12 officially published." What was the basis for you to claim that

13 referendum results were not officially published?

14 A. First, I said it on the basis of a casual words with the president

15 of the party.

16 Democratic action, Alija Izetbegovic, who immediately following

17 the referendum said that almost 63 per cent of voters voted in the

18 referendum, and I said it on the basis of Noel Malcolm's book, "Bosnia, a

19 brief history," in which he says on page 231 that, and I quote, "About 64

20 per cent of --"

21 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the last word.

22 64 per cent of ... We could not hear what he said last.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please repeat where you said "about

24 64 per cent of" what? Because the interpreters could not hear you.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So Noel Malcolm, the author of the

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 book, "Bosnia, a brief history," speaks about the results of the

2 referendum for independence and says that this was, I quote, "An about 64

3 per cent victory." Page 231 in Noel Malcolm. For the referendum to

4 succeed, one needed 66.6 per cent of votes.

5 MS. MAHINDARATNE:

6 Q. Why does that lead you to conclude that the referendum results

7 were not officially published?

8 A. Because the author of the book says that, Noel Malcolm, he says

9 "about 64 per cent." If he says "about" or "approximately," it means that

10 this is not exact, that he does not have a reliable source. So that is

11 one thing. And secondly, that percentage which he quotes, 64 per cent

12 approximately, is not the same as 66.6, which is the only result which

13 could make the upshot of the referendum valid.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Terzic, may I ask you to listen very carefully to

15 the questions and answer specifically to the questions, because you were

16 asked: What does lead you to conclude that the referendum results were

17 not officially published? That was the question. Your answer was about

18 the results of the referendum but not specifically what made you conclude

19 that they were not officially published. So the question is: Is there an

20 official publication? If not, what makes you believe that there was no

21 official publication. Please proceed.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will repeat it once again. I was

23 driven to that conclusion by the conclusion of my colleague Noel Malcolm

24 in his book "Bosnian, a brief history," in which he says --

25 JUDGE ORIE: There's no need to repeat your answer. If you say

1 there is no official publication since the only source from which I can

2 learn the result is a book published by Mr. X, Y, or Z, that's an answer

3 to the question, I would take it, and you are not yet asked to comment on

4 the content of the book.

5 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May the witness be shown a document, if I may

7 have the assistance of --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: We have sufficient copies -- we have sufficient

10 copies.

11 THE INTERPRETER: Can the text be put on the ELMO, please.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you -- if there is one copy

13 available, could you please put it on the ELMO.

14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I thought there were sufficient copies

15 distributed to the interpreters. It was distributed yesterday.

16 THE REGISTRAR: If not, I have an extra copy available.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please take care that extra

18 copies are distributed for the booth.

19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: We have some more copies here.

20 Q. Sir, do you know what this document is? Could you please read the

21 title of the document.

22 A. Which page do you have in mind?

23 Q. At the top of the page - it is page 200 - you will see there's a

24 title to this page.

25 A. "The Official Gazette of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and

1 Herzegovina."

2 Q. What is the date?

3 A. 27th March 1992.

4 Q. Do you note on the second page, attached to this document, that

5 is, page number 201, there is an official announcement of the referendum

6 results published there?

7 A. Yes, I do. But I notice what I just said. And if I may, I will

8 quote it. Of the total number of voters, 3.253.847 --

9 Q. If I may interrupt you. Therefore, do you now concede that you

10 made a mistake with regard to your position that referendum results were

11 not officially published? It is incorrect, isn't it?

12 A. No. At that moment in time, I was not familiar with the official

13 results. But this is less important than the chief fact that I'm putting

14 to you, and that is --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Terzic, it's not for you at this moment to decide

16 what is of importance. Ms. Mahindaratne questions you about the part of

17 your report where it says that the results were never officially

18 published. That's the point she wants to deal with at this very moment.

19 And she now asks you whether you agree that this document indicates that

20 the results were officially published.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree that in this text I did not

22 use the results from the Official Gazette of Bosnia-Herzegovina, but I

23 used the results from Noel Malcolm's book.

24 JUDGE ORIE: You did write that they were never officially

25 published, isn't it? That's the issue, not on whether this is a correct

1 publication or whether someone else correctly published it. The issue

2 Ms. Mahindaratne raises is that you write that they were never officially

3 published, and I take it that she wants to establish that you made a

4 mistake in respect of the fact that they were officially published.

5 That's what she asks you. That's the issue at this moment.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. No. That is, I didn't

7 write that they were never officially published. I never wrote that they

8 had never been officially published, but that at that moment they were not

9 published yet. But as one sees from this Official Gazette, they were

10 published almost a month later. So I didn't say and my text doesn't say

11 they were never officially published.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

13 MS. MAHINDARATNE:

14 Q. Sir, when did you write your report?

15 A. I wrote the report in 2002.

16 Q. And this official publication is -- was in 1992.

17 A. Yes, of course. But I was explaining the situation related to the

18 referendum. I was explaining that in the wake of the referendum, there

19 were no official results but that they were published a month later.

20 Q. Moving on to another area.

21 JUDGE ORIE: If you want to deal with a whole area,

22 Ms. Mahindaratne --

23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President, just one question.

24 JUDGE ORIE: One question. Okay. Please proceed.

25 MS. MAHINDARATNE:

1 Q. On that same page in the second paragraph, line 6 -- I beg your

2 pardon, line 5, you go on to say: "The United States of America and the

3 European Community threatened by an ultimatum that the JNA should

4 withdraw." Now, what was the ultimatum that you referred to here? What

5 did the United States and the European Community threaten would happen if

6 the JNA did not withdraw?

7 A. These are common facts. We've all read about it many times. I

8 think that the US state secretary, Henry Kissinger was quite right when in

9 an interview to La Stampa of the 21st of February 1993 said, and I quote,

10 "the most irresponsible mistake which caused the tragedy was committed

11 when the Bosnian state under the Muslim government of Alija Izetbegovic

12 were internationally recognised." So after the international recognition

13 of Bosnia-Herzegovina --

14 JUDGE ORIE: I again have to remind you that a question is put to

15 you. You should listen to the question and you should give an answer to

16 the question. Whether it was a fatal mistake by whomever to do whatever

17 was not the question. The question was: What did the United States and

18 the European Community threaten would happen if the JNA did not withdraw?

19 That's the question. Would you please answer that question.

20 A. Of course. Well, they issued threats every day. And the pressure

21 was such that when --

22 JUDGE ORIE: The question is what did they threaten? If you say

23 it was a general threat, fine. Explain then. Or you will ask to explain.

24 Or if you say it was a repeated threat, fine. But the question is: What

25 did they threaten with? What would happen if there would be no

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 withdrawal?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sanctions would happen against the

3 remainder of Yugoslavia, that is, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. And

4 that finally did happen in 1992.

5 JUDGE ORIE: The question again -- your answer is now clear: They

6 threatened with sanctions. If Ms. Mahindaratne would like to know what

7 sanctions, she'll certainly ask you and she also whether it's true or not

8 and whether they put any sanctions is a different matter. Please listen

9 to the questions and answer to the questions. Yes? Yes.

10 So the answer is that they threatened with sanctions,

11 Ms. Mahindaratne. Please proceed.

12 MS. MAHINDARATNE:

13 Q. Sir, isn't it the case that it was the UN Security Council that

14 demanded for withdrawal and not the United States or the European

15 Community? The issue of sanctions come in the context of the demand for

16 withdrawal made by the UN Security Council; isn't it the case?

17 A. The Security Council was but a tool in the hands of the

18 politicians of the United States of America and the European Union.

19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That concludes cross-examination,

20 Mr. President.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Mahindaratne.

22 Is there any need to re-examine?

23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] No questions, Your Honour.

24 [Trial Chamber confers]

25 Questioned by the Court:

1 JUDGE ORIE: I have one question for you, since the other Judges

2 have no questions. I'm putting a question to you in relation to your last

3 answer. You said that the Security Council was the tool in the hands of

4 the politicians of the United States of America and the European Union.

5 Is it your view that the United Nations -- the United States and the

6 European Union could impose their will on the Security Council?

7 A. Yes, Mr. President. And I'm quite confident that that is so. The

8 course of events over the past 10, 20 years shows that unfortunately the

9 Security Council has become a tool in the -- a tool in the hands of the

10 United States and some European states, unfortunately. This secession and

11 the recognition of a secession in the Socialist Republic of the Republic

12 of Yugoslavia was a precedent in international law. We see that at the

13 end of the twentieth century, we found ourselves with a completely warped

14 system of international law because unfortunately the big powers have been

15 pursuing a completely irresponsible policy, which then resulted in a very

16 bloody tragedy in the Yugoslav lands. Speaking as a historian, bearing in

17 mind the nineteenth century, when on the European stage there were a

18 number of wise politicians, great men, and fantastic diplomats at the end

19 of the twentieth century, on the political stage of Europe and the world,

20 there were a number of mediocre people, people who were not up to the

21 task. They started problems, they opened problems without knowing how to

22 solve them. We now have a crisis which is lasting, and I'm not sure that

23 it will be resolved in the conceivable future, and that unfortunately is a

24 tragic fact.

25 Let us take for instance --

1 JUDGE ORIE: Would the use of right of veto by any of the other

2 permanent members of the Security Council, would that not have stopped the

3 United States and the European Union members? I mean, all the permanent

4 members can say no to resolutions; isn't that true?

5 A. Yes, you are right. And I am not a diplomat. But if I may make a

6 forecast, I believe that in apart from the Wiesner [phoen] principle, it

7 would have taken place. Unfortunately the untimely - untimely -

8 recognition of secession of Yugoslav republics before a political

9 understanding was reached within the Yugoslav state is what led to that

10 great tragedy.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That was not an answer to my question. My

12 question was that if there are three permanent members belonging to the

13 group you just mentioned, that there are two permanent members of the

14 Security Council not being part of the group of states you just mentioned.

15 And since it sounds as if you're blaming the United States and the

16 European Union, I wondered what your view was on the other states not

17 using their veto power.

18 A. Yes. Your question, Mr. President, is quite logical. I suppose

19 you mean China or Russia. But it was proven once again on that occasion

20 that big powers, in pursuit of their own interests, will often sacrifice

21 the interests of small peoples, and that is one of the tragic lessons of

22 history.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That certainly is an answer to my question.

24 Dr. Terzic, assuming that the questions of the Bench have not

25 raised any issue, that --

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, no, no. I merely wish to

2 make something precise. The witness has just said "if you mean China and

3 USSR," rather than China or USSR, as the transcript says. Thank you.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I don't think it would make a great

5 distinction, because voting you do alone and not together. The veto power

6 is on each of the permanent members.

7 Dr. Terzic, this then concludes your testimony in this court. You

8 have answered only a limited number of questions from the Defence, but

9 they have presented your report, which we have read carefully. You have

10 answered the questions put by both parties and by the Bench to you. I

11 thank you very much for coming, and I wish you a safe trip home again.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, would you please escort the witness out of

14 the courtroom.

15 About the book. Perhaps I should have responded. It's not usual,

16 Dr. Terzic, that a Chamber trying a case accepts presents. But I

17 am -- the Chamber, of course, highly appreciates that you want to provide

18 us with as much information as possible. And if I'm not misinformed, the

19 library of this Tribunal has accepted in the past presents from those who

20 want to contribute to the work of the Tribunal by giving books. That

21 would then, of course, not be the Trial Chamber but that is -- I don't

22 know whether a special regulation for accepting presents, but I think that

23 would be the appropriate place to address. And I can tell you that we

24 have many books. I don't know whether this one is already in there or

25 not. Thank you very much.

1 Mr. Usher, could you please escort Dr. Terzic out of the

2 courtroom.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what I meant. For the

4 library.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you -- if you take it and ask the Victims

6 and Witnesses Unit whether they can pave you the way to the library and

7 see whether any regulations in force for the acceptance of -- but we

8 highly appreciate your offer as such, but as a Trial Chamber of course we

9 cannot accept. It's the parties here who introduce material that is in

10 evidence and that the Chamber will consider. Thank you very much.

11 I don't know. You missed part of the explanation. I said it is

12 up to the parties to provide material to the Court, and sometimes they do

13 provide part of books as well. Yes? Thank you very much.

14 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.

15 [The witness withdrew]

16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I wish to raise an issue.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Mahindaratne. Please do so.

18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, there are several annexes to

19 this report.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Most of which are in B/C/S, B/C/S or Russian,

22 Mr. President. And we have made repeated requests to the Defence to

23 provide us with English translations of these annexes, which have not been

24 complied with to date. In view of that, Mr. President, the Prosecution

25 moves that those annexes be withdrawn from evidence for the reason,

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 Mr. President, the Prosecution has not had the opportunity to read

2 these -- peruse these documents.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- Ms. Pilipovic.

4 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. But my

5 impression is that my colleagues now make their request when it comes to

6 Dr. Slavenko Terzic's expert opinion. We had several meetings, and at one

7 of those meetings specifically, Ms. Mahindaratne was present, but the only

8 request made for Dr. Terzic's cv, rather than copies of annexes

9 accompanying the report.

10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, that is not the case. In fact,

11 at that very meeting the Prosecution requested for all annexes to both

12 reports of Dr. Terzic as well as annexes to Dr. Guskova, as well as there

13 is a motion in writing where we have requested for these documents,

14 English translations of these documents, which was filed a couple of weeks

15 ago.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I remember that. I also remember that when we

17 discussed the motion in this courtroom, I think that the parties did offer

18 each other assistance, in this case the Defence offered assistance in

19 order to receive translated copies of these documents. I haven't got all

20 the details in my mind, whether it was more in general terms or

21 specifically on the report of Dr. Terzic.

22 Ms. Pilipovic, the request of the Prosecution is that you

23 withdraw. I take it from your answer that you would rather not withdraw

24 these documents as annexes to the report.

25 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is the first

1 time that the Prosecution has made this request. At the meeting that we

2 had, I think a month and a half ago, a request was made for the

3 translation of the footnotes accompanying Mrs. Guskova's reports. We

4 provided the translation of the footnotes in time for the annexes, and in

5 particular for Dr. Terzic's report no such requests were made. I'll try

6 and find the request. I'll check. But I don't think that we have

7 received such requests for this report to date.

8 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, if I could say something.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.

10 MR. IERACE: I was present at the meeting, and sadly this is the

11 difficulty that arises when we have meetings off the record. It may

12 prompt the memory of my learned colleagues, it may not. The Prosecution

13 at that meeting requested translations into an official language of the

14 UN. Mr. Piletta-Zanin was present as well. He said he was going to

15 Geneva in the next few days and he would make some inquiries as to whether

16 he had the translation resources there to do it. We heard nothing further

17 from the Defence as to the translation of the annexes but we did then

18 receive a translation of the footnotes, and that was the last

19 communication with the Defence outside court on the issue.

20 In the meantime or earlier, we had formally raised it, and I think

21 there was an understanding that -- perhaps a suggestion from the Trial

22 Chamber that the parties should try and resolve it, when Mrs. Pilipovic

23 said in court that she was happy to talk to us. And that's as far as it

24 went.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Of course the Chamber is not present during such

1 meetings. Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if you would like to add, because we started

2 with Ms. Mahindaratne, Ms. Pilipovic. Mr. Ierace was during the meeting

3 present. And I now hear that you were present as well. So you're the

4 fourth in a row to inform us about it. And please, if you could briefly

5 explain your view.

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, gladly.

7 Mr. Ierace is absolutely right. He's right when he says that I was there,

8 and that's the extent to which he has right, because this meeting with

9 Mr. Ierace, what I said there is as follows: With regard to the Russian

10 expert that we are mentioning, the doctor that we heard, I told Mr. Ierace

11 in his mother tongue the following: It was at the end of the week. I

12 said I'm going to return to Geneva soon. I'm going to see if I can find

13 some translators there. And if that's the case, you'll be informed of

14 this immediately, next week. Naturally I didn't want to bother Mr. Ierace

15 to tell him that I hadn't found anyone. Mr. Ierace can understand quite

16 well that if a translation had been found, someone to translate from

17 Russian to English or from French, I would have -- I didn't provide him

18 with an answer about this immediately because I wasn't able to. If

19 Mr. Ierace can't understand this, well, on each occasion it will be

20 necessary for us to write this out, and we'll lose a lot of time. So yes,

21 I was there. My position was stated in relation to the expert Guskova and

22 that's all.

23 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... On details of

24 what has been said stands, details that are not without relevance for the

25 issue raised.

1 One thing is for sure: No member of this Chamber is able to read

2 any B/C/S document. So whatever is valid for the preparation of

3 cross-examination certainly we will not be able to read any document that

4 is not translated in either English or French.

5 I would suggest to the parties that they seek in whatever way a

6 compromise on this issue. If not, the Chamber will decide.

7 Then that was your issue you wanted to raise, Ms. Mahindaratne.

8 Is there any document one of the parties would want to tender?

9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. Those documents were just

10 merely used for the purpose of cross-examination.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Used for the purpose.

12 Then I should inform the parties that we dealt with the documents

13 tendered by the parties in respect of the testimony of Dr. Vilicic. The

14 Chamber would like to have some more documents in evidence as those

15 tendered by the parties. I think not all the tables are admitted,

16 especially not the tables produced by Professor Vilicic himself. We'll

17 deal with that tomorrow when we have a full list of what the Chamber would

18 like to have in evidence, and whether we call it then that the parties are

19 ordered to produce that or that is evidence which the Chamber calls.

20 We'll deal with that tomorrow. It would take too much time at this very

21 moment. I'm specifically referring to all kind of tables and sketches.

22 Having dealt with that, is the Defence ready to call its next

23 witness?

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If the usher could escort the next witness into

1 the courtroom.

2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Might I be excused, Mr. President?

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you are excused, Ms. Mahindaratne.

4 [The witness entered court]

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon. I take it that you are Dr. Kuljic?

6 Dr. Kuljic, before giving testimony in this court, the Rules of

7 Procedure and Evidence require that you make a solemn declaration that

8 you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The

9 text of this declaration will be handed out to you now by the usher. May

10 I invite you to make that solemn declaration.

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

12 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. First of all, good

13 day to everyone in the courtroom.

14 WITNESS: BLAGOJE KULJIC

15 [Witness answered through interpreter]

16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much, Dr. Kuljic. Please be seated.

17 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, is it you or is it Ms. Pilipovic who is going

18 to examine the witness?

19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I will start, Mr. President.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

22 Examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:

23 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Doctor.

24 A. Good day.

25 Q. First of all, could you briefly introduce yourself to the Trial

1 Chamber and can you tell us what your professional and scientific

2 background is, in a few words, please.

3 A. I am a doctor of medicine, a specialist in psychiatry, also a

4 master of science and a doctor of medical science. I work in the

5 institution for mental health and I work there as the clinic coordinator.

6 I'm involved in the work of a psychiatrist. As far as my scientific

7 experience, my scientific background is concerned to date, I've

8 participated in several articles which were presented at international

9 congresses and these articles have also been published in magazines. My

10 masters and Ph.D. degree dealt with the subject of stress.

11 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us what the title of your thesis, your

12 Ph.D. thesis is.

13 A. The title was "Risk factors in developing acute stress symptoms

14 after being wounded."

15 Q. Thank you. And Doctor, if you could just answer by saying yes or

16 no, I would appreciate that. In the course of your work and in relation

17 to your thesis, did you have the opportunity of elaborating scientific

18 questionnaires -- have you had the opportunity of taking samples,

19 population samples? Have you had the opportunity of carrying out such

20 work?

21 A. Yes, I have.

22 Q. Thank you. Professor, we are now going to turn to your work. On

23 the 14th of January, 2002 you provided an opinion expert, an expert report

24 that I have in front of me now.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, one of the usual questions in the

1 beginning of testimony of an expert witness is his name, date of birth, et

2 cetera, so that we know for certain that the person I called Dr. Kuljic

3 is -- perhaps we better do that at the beginning of the testimony, yes.

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I apologise.

5 Q. Doctor, I hope that you'll forgive me for this unforgivable error

6 on my part. Could you please tell me what your name is, your first name,

7 your last name, and your date of birth.

8 A. My first name is Blagoje, my last name is Kuljic. I was born on

9 the 24th of April, 1966.

10 Q. Where? I didn't hear.

11 A. I was born in Skopje.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think we have

14 solved that matter. May I continue?

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And don't be too pessimistic that it will be

16 unforgivable. I'm certain that it will be forgiven. Please proceed.

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18 Q. Doctor, on the 14th of January, 2003 you provided -- you submitted

19 this report that I have in front of me. My question is as follows: Do

20 you confirm the contents of the report? Do you stand by your statements?

21 Is there anything you would like to modify, something you would like to

22 add? I'm only referring to the document such as it is.

23 A. I stand by everything that I stated, and I'll be glad to provide

24 certain clarifications, if this is necessary.

25 Q. Thank you. Professor, I would now like to focus on questions of

1 methodology. And if I asked you -- if I addressed you as professor, I'm

2 only anticipating what will happen in the future. I apologise again.

3 Doctor, I would now like to focus on the issue of methodology. If

4 you have to conduct research work which involves a certain number of

5 people, if it's, in a certain manner, a statistical report, what are the

6 methodological bases that must absolutely be respected?

7 A. Well, when conducting research of any kind, first of all it's

8 necessary to know what we are researching, what we are investigating, what

9 the phenomenon among the population is. We have to inform what is known

10 about that in the available literature and on the basis of certain

11 personal experiences and then it is necessary to clearly specify the

12 elements we are investigating and the population involved, and then we

13 have to make an adequate plan. This means that we have to foresee the

14 possible errors. If we are investigating factor A, which has an effect on

15 factor -- or phenomenon B, we have to be certain to the extent that this

16 is possible whether this is the only factor that has an influence, has an

17 effect on this phenomena, because sometimes you get certain results that

18 could be ascribed to the phenomenon but aren't part of it. So you have to

19 be careful when compiling, when making such a plan. I'll just provide you

20 an example. The influence of sound and light was investigated, the

21 influence of this on the productivity of employees. This work was carried

22 out, but finally we concluded that there was no such influence on their

23 work but their work was influenced because of the investigation itself.

24 The people were aware of the fact that they were being investigated and

25 because of the influence of the investigators, the way in which they

1 worked was different from how they would have worked in other

2 circumstances.

3 Q. I'll stop you there. Thank you. You could perhaps speak a little

4 more slowly so that we can all follow you clearly. Thank you.

5 Doctor, you mentioned a plan. We'll focus on that a little later.

6 But could you provide us with some basic information about forming

7 samples, what we call samples.

8 A. Well, when we're investigating a phenomenon on the basis of a

9 certain sample, we have to be aware of the fact that in certain situations

10 when you are investigating a large number of the population, it's not

11 possible to take all those concerned into consideration. So we'll select

12 a certain number of people and consider them to be a representative

13 sample. There are two main rules: The sample must be sufficiently large,

14 and it has to be a random sample. If these rules are not respected,

15 errors result, or rather, the results that we obtained could be different

16 from the actual situation among the population being investigated. There

17 are certain forms that deal with the size of the basic population and deal

18 with certain factors that are being investigated on that basis, so you

19 determine the number of people who have to be included in the study, the

20 number of respondents. When I say this is customary, I'm just talk in an

21 approximate way. Don't take this as a rule. But it's between 1 and 5 per

22 cent when we conduct investigations of certain segments of the population.

23 It's necessary for that sample, for the sample used to be a random sample,

24 and that means that as an investigator I can't decide that I'll select

25 this respondent, this person or that person, because I want to do so. In

1 such cases, I might be biased. Very often the investigator, when writing

2 his report, might introduce something that might influence the final

3 result.

4 Q. Doctor, thank you for this answer. Could you now try to be -- to

5 provide us with more specific answers, to expand on this answer, in

6 relation to Sarajevo and in relation to problems related to the terror in

7 Sarajevo; that is to say, how would one have had to proceed as far as

8 methodology is concerned, at that level alone? Have you understood the

9 question?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. First of all, it's necessary to think about what we want to

12 investigate in Sarajevo, whether as Mr. Turner said, we want to

13 investigate the subject of terror in Sarajevo, among the population of

14 Sarajevo. So there are several methodological issues that arise here. As

15 far as obtaining this answer is concerned, we have to see which factors,

16 which circumstances could have an influence on the appearance of fear. We

17 have to carry out a cognitive process -- an analysis of the cognitive

18 process in which fear is felt, we have to consider how we are going to

19 know what level, what degree of fear is concerned; that is to say, we have

20 to make comparisons in order to have a sort of system of reference. We

21 have to take some other city where war is also being waged. We have to

22 measure the degree of fear there and compare it to the degree of fear felt

23 in Sarajevo. And only then can we come to the conclusion as to whether

24 the degree of fear was the same or different, whether there was greater

25 fear. In all investigations, when we come across factors that we are not

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 familiar with, when we come across things that we are not familiar with,

2 we first of all have to inform ourselves, we have to find some sort of

3 reference values because something that was perhaps fear in Sarajevo, in

4 wartime circumstances, someone might perceive this as a high degree of

5 fear and other people might perceive it as a low degree of fear. I'll

6 provide you with a vivid example.

7 If, for example, an extraterrestrial who is 3 metres tall appears

8 suddenly in this courtroom, we'll say, "Look how big this extraterrestrial

9 is." Ten minutes later five of his relatives appear who are between 5 and

10 6 metres tall, and at that point the first extraterrestrial will not seem

11 so tall to us. We'll think that he is short. So we have to be able -- we

12 have to be in a position to compare him with someone. We have to have a

13 system of reference. When selecting the people we are going to include in

14 the investigation, the people we're going to use to see how they

15 experienced fear, we have to take into consideration the size of these

16 respondents. We have to take into consideration the basic characteristics

17 that will also provide a picture of Sarajevo before the war, and this will

18 have to do with the territory that we are investigating, the territory

19 which -- where war is being waged, and we have to take into consideration

20 the age, the professional structure of these people from that area. We

21 also have to take into account the entire territory of Sarajevo, and we

22 have to take a certain number of subjects from all the areas in Sarajevo.

23 Q. Thank you. We'll now focus on this geographical subject. I must

24 admit that I am not familiar with extraterrestrials as you are, but I do

25 use bicycles and I'm going to use an example. If we represent Sarajevo as

1 a bicycle wheel, and you have the tire, which is the sort of frontal zone,

2 and the spikes, which converge on the centre, where there is not as much

3 fighting as on the front line - this is hypothesis - would the degree of

4 terror along one of those spikes or along several of those spikes,

5 according to the location of the population, what would the degree of fear

6 be with regard to the people at the front? Have you understood the

7 question?

8 A. Yes, I have. And this is what is at issue. That is why I said

9 that it was necessary to take into account the entire territory of

10 Sarajevo, because we're talking about all the citizens of Sarajevo. So

11 the rule has to be respected here. We also have to take into account

12 people who were closer to the front lines and we have to take into account

13 people who were further removed from the front lines, because as I said,

14 for the sample to be a representative one this is one of the conditions

15 that has to be respected.

16 Q. Thank you. This knowledge of principles that you have, could you

17 now apply it to the work of your colleague, Mr. Turner. My question is as

18 follows: Do you have a detailed knowledge of Mr. Turner's report? Did

19 you have the possibility of reading it from beginning to end with the

20 annexes, et cetera?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Thank you. Doctor, could you now answer my question: What can

23 you tell us about the methodology used in Mr. Turner's report and in

24 relation to the samples used and the respect of the principles that you

25 mentioned or failure to respect such principles?

1 A. In the written version of my report, I provided explanations of

2 this question. I'll try and be brief. The random nature of the sample

3 was not a principle that was accepted. The criteria of the Prosecution

4 were applied, and on the basis of those statements the expert arrived at

5 his conclusions. Similarly, the structure, the gender structure, the age

6 structure of the population, the educational background of the population,

7 these factors must also be taken into account and then when

8 interviewing -- when questioning witnesses at the court, at the Tribunal,

9 and then if a psychiatrist comes to conclusions on the basis of such

10 testimonies, the psychiatrist doesn't have adequate tools. It's like a

11 surgeon who doesn't have the necessary tools to carry out his work. So

12 psychiatric tests were not used, tests that would enable us to quantify

13 the level of fear in question. Likewise, there were no psychiatric

14 interviews which would have made it possible to establish with greater

15 precision what one tries to establish in tests. Although, I have already

16 said that an interview is more reliable, a psychiatrist interview - I

17 should emphasise that - whereas, tests are used, questionnaires are used

18 because it is useful, the expense is not so great. Similarly, no

19 comparisons were made with some other town where war was also being waged,

20 so one was not in a position to differentiate between these two matters.

21 May I now add something that isn't directly related to the

22 question? For example, as I said, if we're investigating one phenomenon

23 and we fail to take into account all the risk factors that lead up to

24 that -- to the appearance of that phenomenon -- for example, if you ask me

25 whether I am a basketball fan, whether I watch basketball matches, and I

1 say sometimes. You might say -- you might come to the conclusion, since

2 it is often said that in my country they are the world champions, you

3 might come to the conclusion that I like to watch basketball. That would

4 be one possible conclusion. But you didn't ask me about other matters,

5 whether there was something that I did earlier on too, and only then would

6 you find out, for example, that since my relative has started practicing

7 training basketball, I start watching basketball more and he always asks

8 me about basketball, so because of my relative I watch a little more

9 basketball than I used to do. So similarly in this investigation we have

10 to take into account all the factors that might be the cause of fear.

11 In my report, I said that it would be most objective if you had a

12 good investigation plan and you had a team of experts who worked on it and

13 who would carry out the necessary research and obtain valid results.

14 Q. Thank you. Simply, are you telling us that in Mr. Turner's

15 statement there were no tests conducted in order to measure the intensity

16 of terror, if there was terror, of course? In your practice, in the

17 psychiatric practice, is there a test, is there a procedure allowing to

18 properly quantify in some form - I wouldn't know which one it is - but to

19 quantify somehow what we call terror?

20 A. In psychiatry, there are tests which address fear itself, that is,

21 whether somebody has experienced certain events, the contents of which go

22 beyond everyday human experience, which cause fear and stress. And there

23 we can -- depending on the situation, one can put together a list to have

24 respondents answer whether they were afraid and how much. There are also

25 other questionnaires which tackle the effects of fear. In modern

1 psychiatry there is a lot said about acute stress disorders and

2 post-traumatic stress disorders, and there are some questionnaires too

3 which quantify also the effects of fear once experienced.

4 Q. Doctor, since I'm not an expert, can I then conclude that there

5 are tests which are quantifiable but the question which then follows up

6 is: What is the scale? If you have an experience in that. How can one

7 quantify it? If there is a scale -- for instance, one gives marks from, I

8 don't know, 1 to 10 or something? Is there such a system?

9 A. In medicine in general, in the methodology of medical research,

10 there are things which are measurable, that is, we can measure how much

11 somebody weighs, the number of electrocytes [as interpreted] one has in

12 his blood. That also is measurable. However, when it comes to some other

13 things which, depending on the observer may give rise to a certain

14 subjectivity and depending on the respondents, different scales are

15 developed, and therefore there are terms such as "sometimes," "at times"

16 "frequently", "always", "never." So scales are put together and we have

17 people declaring themselves on individual phenomena, and the same holds

18 true of the sensation of fear and questionnaires that I have already

19 mentioned.

20 Q. Thank you, Doctor.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if you could find a suitable

22 moment for a break within two or three minutes.

23 And I would have one small question for clarification of something

24 the witness told us before.

25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, if this

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 question takes two or three minutes, you are welcome.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

3 Dr. Kuljic, could you explain to us in not more than two or three

4 minutes what criteria you had in mind when you said that in the report of

5 Dr. Turner the criteria of the Prosecution were introduced. Could you

6 tell us which criteria exactly you meant.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, concerning the selection of

8 witnesses. Am I making myself clear? I mean, the selection of witnesses.

9 Is that what you are asking me about?

10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that might be. I'm not asking you. You said

11 the criteria of the Prosecution were introduced in the report of

12 Dr. Turner instead of, I would say, objective and general criteria. But

13 if your answer is that Dr. Turner made a selection on the basis of

14 Prosecution witnesses and only studied the statements of them, then that

15 is a clear answer. But I don't know whether you had that in mind. It was

16 just a selection of his sources of what the Prosecution considered to be

17 victims, or was there anything else when you had criteria in mind?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that too, the criteria. Which

19 people will be interviewed, that is, whom will the Prosecution interview

20 and how the Prosecutor will interview them. I apologise. I speak in the

21 first place as a physician, as somebody who is involved in scientific and

22 professional work. And we, therefore, must have an adequate interview or

23 a questionnaire on the basis of which we make our conclusions.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand your answer until now well when I say

25 it's the selection and the choice of subjects in the interviews or

1 statements used? Is there anything else?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is yet another thing, and that

3 is, for instance, that Dr. Turner also refers to some results which he

4 found in the literature accessible to him. In this accessible literature,

5 and the outstanding point must be that in a large number of cases we do

6 not have representative samples. We have ad hoc samples only. And I also

7 tried to find out as much as possible from medical literature, and I found

8 there findings which do not agree with the findings that Dr. Turner

9 indicates. I can say that that is the product of those random samples

10 which can be different, and the only representative planned sample is

11 something that is, shall we say, nearest the truth.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the third of the criteria is that he used

13 selective material, selective published material to support his opinion.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what he had at his

15 disposal, but I am saying that certain things in his report, there are

16 certain things which speak the opposite. If you wish me, I can give you

17 some examples.

18 JUDGE ORIE: You say he's not completely covering the literature

19 that he could have consulted.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me tell you, nobody can cover

21 the entire literature. But I'm saying what he quotes in his report, I can

22 also add that there are some other authorities which disagree with what he

23 says there.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This clarifies, as far as I'm concerned, your

25 criteria from the Prosecution. If there are any others, please tell us.

1 But perhaps we should first have a break.

2 We'll adjourn until five minutes past 6.00.

3 --- Recess taken at 5.44 p.m.

4 --- On resuming at 6.08 p.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please escort Dr. Kuljic into

6 the courtroom.

7 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

8 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Kuljic, your examination will be continued.

9 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, please proceed.

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

11 Q. Doctor, a while ago, following a question by the President, you

12 said that you were able to find in the literature some other elements

13 which added something to your conclusions. Can you tell us about that,

14 please.

15 A. Like this: I'd say as I said earlier there are different findings

16 in the available literature. Dr. Turner, in his report, mentions the work

17 of Prato and associates, I think Begovic who says that during the period

18 under consideration in Sarajevo there were 119 killed and wounded. I

19 found that work, and let me add that this was done on the basis of results

20 from the two biggest hospitals. I found another paper which relates to

21 the state hospital on the one hand and a paper which addresses the

22 clinical centre in Sarajevo on the other. And they are, as far as I know,

23 the two biggest hospitals in Sarajevo which was covered by the paper that

24 I have just mentioned, by Prato. However; if one analyses the number of

25 admissions, and they say that a number of these admissions meant wounded,

1 for one of the hospitals I found that if one divides it by the number of

2 days during which they were interviewed, it was 13 per day and in the

3 other hospital, 18 a day, which is a big discrepancy in relation to 119 a

4 day. We have 13 plus 18, is 31. So it's plus/minus one patient, because

5 statistically we cannot divide it into half patients. This is one of the

6 things which, for instance, was significant. I can quote other --

7 Q. Yes. Just a moment, Doctor, if you will be so kind. But will you

8 first tell us where did you find these results and how can you be sure

9 that it was done on the basis of original documents, original documents to

10 which your colleague Dr. Turner referred to?

11 A. Exactly. I also found one of those papers mentioned by Dr. Turner

12 and those two papers, I found them at the same source, or rather, the same

13 site, which I used -- which I or any of my colleagues used often. So it

14 is a site which in fact is of the United States department for health and

15 human resources - I think that's what it's called - and through that site

16 you can reach the database, that is Pubmed or Medline, that is a database

17 which collects the abstracts of papers from a large number --

18 MR. IERACE: I have an objection to make in the absence of the

19 witness, Mr. President.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Ierace.

21 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. I have an objection to

22 make in the absence of the witness. But perhaps before --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher --

24 MR. IERACE: Perhaps before the witness leaves, could it be

25 clarified, because it's relevant to the objection --

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

2 MR. IERACE: -- Whether the source was through the Internet.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Were you referring to a Internet site?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it is an Internet site which

5 presumes medical database. I can give you the address. If you like, you

6 can check it.

7 JUDGE ORIE: We know at least that it's an Internet site.

8 MR. IERACE: That's sufficient for the objection, Mr. President.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you would like raise the objection in the

10 absence of the witness.

11 MR. IERACE: Yes.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Then I have to ask you, Dr. Kuljic, to follow the

13 usher for one second and leave the courtroom.

14 [The witness stands down]

15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Should we wait until the witness has left the

17 courtroom? Yes.

18 Yes. Usually we'll first listen to the objection and then to the

19 response. But if there is any you consider to be proper to raise before

20 the objection is raised, if it would be something different that would

21 prevail, then please do so. Otherwise, I'd like to hear first the

22 objection.

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. What I

24 want to say is that I'm really surprised at the time needed to make this

25 objection. We heard all this answer. Why wasn't it made in the

1 beginning?

2 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know what the objection is about, so I don't

3 know whether it's in the beginning or at the end.

4 Mr. Ierace, please.

5 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, there was

6 another meeting between the Defence and Prosecution commencing at 12.30

7 today at which a number of issues were discussed and I invited the Defence

8 to raise any further issue which they wished to. And Mr. Piletta-Zanin

9 said cryptically that Mr. Kuljic had discovered some further material on

10 the Internet and that words to the effect it would be used. I asked him

11 what the material was, and he declined to indicate what it was. Now, I

12 don't know whether this material is the material that Mr. Piletta-Zanin

13 had in mind. We know that this material came to the attention of the

14 witness through the Internet.

15 Mr. President, if the Defence legal counsel is aware of material

16 in the mind of their expert before he enters the witness box, it being

17 material which is not in his report, and they intend to elicit that

18 material and where it is of a technical nature that requires research by

19 the other side, one might think it to be a fundamental principle that that

20 material should be disclosed -- should have been disclosed. In these

21 circumstances, it's my respectful submission that any such material which

22 has already been given by this witness be given no weight and it be made

23 clear to the Defence that they are not to elicit any further material from

24 this witness; in other words, they must rely on what is in his report. In

25 other words, in these circumstances, it was a knowing contravention of a

1 basic principle. Thank you.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Right. Mr. President, I think

4 that it has escaped the attention of the Prosecution that it was following

5 your question that I asked these questions. In effect, that this expert

6 witness was going very far. He told me, and moreover, I've found

7 confirmation, which is very good for the justice, I've found further

8 cooperation for this on the site. And as soon as I could do it loyally, I

9 informed the Prosecution about it. So you see how we are being treated.

10 We are treated like dust to whom anything can be thrown. This is not

11 based on a document but on a consultation.

12 In other words, Mr. President, and I will now -- yes, I've

13 finished.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, let's leave the strong words out

15 and let's just concentrate on the issue. The issue is that first of all,

16 do you intend to ask further questions about the source the witness just

17 mentioned?

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, on the subject of the

19 source.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] But yes, of course, about the

22 content, yes.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Then the next question would be: If you referred to

24 newly found Internet sources during a meeting with Mr. Ierace, is it true

25 that he asked you what these Internet sources were, as he tells us?

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] This again is completely

2 false. No, that is completely false.

3 JUDGE ORIE: So --

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] This is not the first time.

5 JUDGE ORIE: I heard that you said that his answer -- I do

6 understand that there is a contradictory picture of events, and we heard

7 earlier today that there was another occasion where you and Mr. Ierace

8 contradicted each other in the description of an event. Did you -- if not

9 asked, did you give the source to Mr. Ierace? Did you give the Internet

10 address --

11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President. No,

12 Mr. President.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Because when, as we were

15 meeting, discussing this morning, I did not necessarily have this

16 information, the information concerned, and that was not the question that

17 was asked by Mr. Ierace. Mr. Ierace asked me - because that is what I

18 remember about it - if this information were the object of regular

19 disclosures under the Rules, to which we're all subject. Mr. Ierace knew

20 that it was not the case and that there was something that the witness

21 intended to indicate to us. But I was not going to say that. And that

22 was the question of Mr. Ierace. It was a matter which had to do with the

23 communication of information, which I did orally as soon as I could.

24 JUDGE ORIE: You told Mr. Ierace that new sources were explored by

25 the expert. You were aware that these were Internet sources. Did you

1 know anything about the content of these sources?

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That's quite right.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President.

5 JUDGE ORIE: I'll ask you one question: If you would say I

6 am -- my expert witness has found new sources in a book and if you know,

7 since the expert witness told you what was the content of what we find in

8 that book, would you feel under an obligation to inform the other party of

9 the content of your new knowledge, on the basis of your disclosure

10 obligations.

11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Are you asking me,

12 Mr. President?

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I am.

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in principle,

15 yes, insofar as I have time to do it. If I find it out on the very day

16 when something happens, then I simply cannot do everything that is

17 necessary to inform somebody. To say simply this witness has found

18 certain things and we shall see what he says in his testimony, but he is

19 simply verifying finally some scientific articles to which Mr. Turner

20 referred to, and he found it on an Internet site. So he simply is

21 confirming that he has really done his work thoroughly. And for me this

22 is the evidence.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There are two issues, as far as I can see now:

24 First of all, whether there is any additional information on this Internet

25 site, or whether the Internet site should be regarded as a suspicious

1 Internet site because it comes from certain sources, the information comes

2 from certain sources, or the verification of the content of an article

3 mentioned by Dr. Turner. If Dr. Turner mentions a specific article, I

4 think it's irrelevant where you find that article if you want to verify

5 the content of that article and whether Dr. Turner used that correctly or

6 not. And even whether you found it in the book shop, on the Internet or

7 wherever, is hardly of any relevance. You're just verifying the sources

8 used by Dr. Turner. If there's anything else, if there's other

9 information on that Internet site that is relevant, then it might be

10 different.

11 Let me just confer within the Chamber to see what to do with this

12 situation.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE ORIE: There might be two issues. One is a more or less

15 occasional reference to an Internet site where the source used by

16 Dr. Turner has been found, which this witness verified in order to verify

17 the report of Dr. Turner. There's a -- might be another issue, that is,

18 that on this Internet site additional information has been gathered by

19 this expert witness and that he will testify about that. Until now there

20 was hardly anything more than that reference to an Internet site on which

21 he found an article, although he added something which seems to be the

22 start of a interpretation of the quality of that Internet site. But I'm

23 not -- I mean, whether it's -- where it comes from is not of any

24 importance. If any additional questions will be put which elicit any new

25 information, so going beyond the article being found on that Internet

1 site, but if there's any additional information or whatever on that

2 Internet site, it should have been disclosed and no questions are allowed

3 to that end, at least not at this very moment, since the -- since

4 disclosure obligations are a continuing obligation. This would mean that

5 if there's any relevant material which the Defence would like to deal with

6 during the examination, they should disclose it immediately after this at

7 7.00 so that we'll see then tomorrow whether any questions will be put to

8 the witness in that respect, and then at least the Prosecution has had

9 some opportunity to prepare, and if the time for preparation has been

10 sufficient, I don't expect any objection -- if there would be any other

11 reasons to object, we'll hear from them by tomorrow. So no specific new

12 information from the Internet site allowed at this very moment. That's

13 how we should deal with the matter.

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. Perhaps I

17 misunderstood you. I would only be half surprised by this. But this

18 witness didn't find an article by Dr. Turner, as I think that you said.

19 It doesn't appear in the transcript. There is a sign which indicates that

20 it wasn't recorded. But I think I heard you say that he had found an

21 article written by Dr. Turner, and this is not the case. This is not what

22 the witness said.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] If that changes your position

25 in any way, although I doubt it --

1 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: The page 69, line 16, it says, answering your

2 question on the sources, "I also found one of those papers mentioned by

3 Dr. Turner and those two papers. I found them at the same source, or

4 rather, the same site which I use," and then he explains that his

5 colleagues used the same site and so on.

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That's quite right,

7 Judge Nieto-Navia. But I think that Mr. President spoke about a written

8 article, an article written by Dr. Turner. I think that he spoke about

9 that a minute ago, and that's not what the witness said.

10 JUDGE ORIE: If I did so, that must then have been a mistake. I

11 don't know whether I said it. But I was -- I was referring to an Internet

12 site on which Dr. Kuljic had found an article which appears in the report

13 of Dr. Turner. So questions in respect of that article, being one of the

14 sources, one of the known sources - although now found on the

15 Internet - are permissible. Anything else at this moment is not

16 permissible to ask about.

17 If that is clear to the parties, I'll ask the usher to escort the

18 witness into the courtroom again.

19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. President, I

22 don't know if I have understood this correctly, but I'll move on to other

23 subjects and then tomorrow morning we will return to this issue, once we

24 have provided the Prosecution with everything that they have requested.

25 And they will be provided with this.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Usher, please escort the witness into the

2 courtroom.

3 [The witness entered court]

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps it would be very practical if you would ask

7 the witness - although, we'll not ask at this moment more questions about

8 the Internet site you mentioned - could you please give the address

9 already, the Internet address on which you found one of the articles

10 referred to by Dr. Turner. You said it was something of the US Ministry

11 of health or -- do you have the Internet address of that site or -- yes,

12 could you please give it. Could you tell us what it is. Yes.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I will.

14 JUDGE ORIE: I can imagine that you didn't learn them by heart.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And I'll be glad to explain the

16 technology and tell you how it all functions.

17 JUDGE ORIE: How what functions? Internet sites or ...?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

19 JUDGE ORIE: I think the -- and all the parties are -- I don't

20 know whether there's any specific technology involved, but ...

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 JUDGE ORIE: Is it about linking of one site to another site, the

23 technology you are talking about, or what did you specifically have in

24 mind?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just wanted to say that it's a

1 database, and there is a way of introducing a key term, a term that you

2 are interested in, and then you obtain a list of all the works, with

3 excerpts where this word appears. If you're interested in the word "heart

4 attack," you put that information in, and then you get all the works, a

5 list of the works relating to this subject. And then you find what you're

6 interested in.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

8 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

10 MR. IERACE: Might I make a suggestion.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

12 MR. IERACE: If the witness has with him the -- a print-off of the

13 relevant document, then perhaps that could be given to Madam Registrar,

14 photocopied overnight, and that might be the most confident way of

15 obtaining the material.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Is the paper that you've got in your hand at this

17 very moment is that correct a copy of the material you found or the search

18 results or what is it?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the first page -- this is

20 the home page. And here you have the search engine, as you said, and the

21 article itself, well, I have it here. I hope that the fact I have

22 underlined certain parts is not a problem. I can provide you with this.

23 JUDGE ORIE: It might not be a problem for those who read it, but

24 it might be a problem for you, apart from giving the text of a published

25 article also to reveal part of your own thinking, which is -- this is

1 important because most people underline what they deem to be important and

2 other parts not being underlined. But is this other -- are there any

3 other -- is there any other material you've found on that site that you

4 consider to be of relevance for your expertise in this court?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are some other results here.

6 This is not a secret. Anyone who finds this site can have access to this.

7 It's free of charge. Anyone can have a look at this. So my way of

8 thinking was -- my idea was that the entire problem should be addressed in

9 a methodologically correct way, and the literature itself should be able

10 to give opposing results. As I said in the periods that we investigated

11 in those three studies, we find information that does not agree.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand. If you would agree to give a

13 copy of your material to the registry, she'll be able to copy it so that

14 it's available for Prosecution and Defence, so that if there would be any

15 questions about it, that they can be put to you.

16 But therefore, my question was: You said that you had a home

17 page, you had a second page with, I take it, a search engine or something

18 like that on it. And then you had a copy of an article. Do you have more

19 articles printed out from this Internet site that you think to be

20 relevant? Yes. Would you be willing to give them to the registry so that

21 they can be copied, that they can be put at the -- that they can be given

22 to the parties so that whenever there would be a question, it can be put

23 to you tomorrow?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are articles here. There are

25 some articles. I don't know whether they'll be needed at all. I don't

1 know whether the hearing will head in that direction, because there's a

2 large number of articles. This is just a selection. But we can discuss

3 everything. I could bring a computer here and we could carry out searches

4 on the spot. It's up to you.

5 JUDGE ORIE: No. If you've found certain articles on this

6 Internet site, could you please give them to the registry. They will be

7 copied, the original wills be returned to you. But if the parties think

8 them of relevance, they could put questions to you about them.

9 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. President, and thank

11 you for your intervention. Can I ask the witness to provide us with all

12 the articles he recently found on this Internet site so that we can copy

13 them and provide the Prosecution with copies, since I think that the

14 witness carried out these searches quite recently.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I address you? May I address

16 the Chamber?

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are other articles -- as I

19 said, the number of articles is immense. When you type in the word

20 "Sarajevo," you get 577 articles that deal with Sarajevo. That's an

21 enormous number. I have some other articles here. I don't know whether

22 we will deal with them or not, but it's not a problem. I can provide you

23 with these articles, the ones you have asked me about.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I don't think it is of any use to provide us

25 with hundreds of articles. Did you discuss the content of some of the

1 articles with Defence counsel? There's nothing against that, but ...

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are some articles here which

3 are more interesting. And as you said, I worked on this recently. I was

4 looking for certain things which came out this month, last month.

5 Naturally I was getting prepared for my appearance here. We all want to

6 find the truth, determine what the truth is, so I wanted to have as much

7 information as possible. So they are here.

8 JUDGE ORIE: From a procedural point of view, it's of

9 importance -- no, no, no. Please listen to me for one -- from a

10 procedural point of view, it is of importance that whatever article you

11 discussed with Defence counsel should be known to the other party as well.

12 So you provided us now with the abstracts of three articles. They are not

13 full articles, but they are abstract, as far as I can see. Were there any

14 other abstracts or articles of which -- that you discussed or that you

15 brought to the attention of Defence counsel?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can provide you with the other

17 articles too. It's a summary. They're not excerpts.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that would be at least all the articles you

19 have brought to the attention of Defence counsel?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Some of the more interesting results

21 that I have here, I can provide them to you again.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Let me ask you one thing: How many of these articles

23 did you discuss, as far as the content is concerned, with Defence counsel?

24 Were there 10, were there 20, were there 100 or ...?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've printed out about 20 articles,

1 I think. As I said, I don't know. Perhaps I'll later on refer to some

2 article that hasn't even been printed out but I have in my head because I

3 wasn't able to include everything in the written report.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But of course you can't give any article that

5 you have not yet printed out to the registry at this very moment. But

6 again, how many articles did you discuss from the point of view of the

7 content with Defence counsel? Because this Chamber wants to be sure that

8 whatever you discussed as sources with Defence counsel, that you make it

9 available for the Prosecution as well. That's our major concern at this

10 moment.

11 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, may I ask the

13 witness to leave the courtroom for a minute just to clarify this matter,

14 because I think I understand what his problem is. It will only take me 30

15 seconds.

16 JUDGE ORIE: If that would help.

17 Mr. Usher, could you please escort the witness out of the

18 courtroom.

19 I'm sorry for you, Dr. Kuljic, that ...

20 [The witness stands down]

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I understand

23 the reasoning of the witness with regard to this issue, and I have to

24 explain what it is to the Chamber. First of all, the witness and I

25 discussed articles that are well known but haven't been published. I'm

1 thinking about -- I'm referring to the -- to works on Pavlov's dog, things

2 like that, well known to the public. I'm also thinking of the Stockholm

3 syndrome. We discussed these matters. But I think this is a matter of

4 common knowledge. We spoke in a purely abstract manner without referring

5 to any articles. And secondly, we spoke of several issues, Pavlov, et

6 cetera, about behaviourists, about other subjects. We discussed these

7 matters but in a purely abstract and almost intellectual manner. And this

8 had nothing to do with the articles.

9 And secondly, Mr. President, in the excerpts that the doctor is

10 going to speak to us about, he told me what his methodology was and he

11 said, for example, there are 386 articles here but out of these 386

12 articles, for reasons which he can explain, I made some cross-references

13 and there aren't any that address the issue that is we are interested in,

14 that is to say, Sarajevo and terror. So he spoke about 386 articles, more

15 or less - I don't know the titles of all these articles - but he said if I

16 carry out such a search, I get about 400 answers. He mentioned them, but

17 he wasn't more specific. This is something I can't provide to the

18 Prosecution.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Of these articles, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the content has

20 not been discussed with you. Just saying that I found 300 sources but

21 they are of no use is not discussing the content. I'm trying to find out

22 what of these documents have been -- well, the content of these documents

23 has been -- yes.

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. That's where I'm

25 heading. He said there are 300 articles, but these aren't to be taken

1 into account. But we spoke about, I think, six articles, and the doctor

2 said these articles exist, you should be aware of that. And also, I can

3 tell you when I found out about this - I worked with this doctor no later

4 than this morning - and he spoke to me about it this morning, and it's

5 this morning that I spoke about this to the Prosecution. So I think we're

6 splitting hairs here. Thank you.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please escort the witness into

8 the courtroom.

9 [The witness entered court]

10 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Kuljic, I do understand that there are numerous

11 sources to be consulted, but you discussed some of the articles you found

12 on the Internet site with Defence counsel, the content of these articles.

13 What would be approximately the number of -- or perhaps the precise number

14 of the articles to which you have drawn the attention of the Defence?

15 Would there be two, four, six, eight, ten, twenty, sixty?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my discussions with the Defence,

17 I mentioned research. I mentioned the fact that I had worked, and I

18 mentioned 577 articles about Sarajevo, and I went into greater detail

19 about five or six subjects which were of greater importance. And I said

20 that there were articles that confirmed this.

21 JUDGE ORIE: We'd like to have copies of these five or six. If

22 you have them in -- in an abstract form or -- would you have these five or

23 six articles? Could you provide them to the usher so that they can be

24 reproduced and that both parties have similar access to the sources you

25 used in forming your opinion.

1 I've got three here already. I think these are the first three.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said five or six subjects and

3 articles that confirmed this, so there will be a greater number of

4 articles.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But these articles will be stapled

7 together, the ones that are important and that deal with certain subjects.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I've got three here. If you would please

9 collect the others and ...

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Seven, to be more precise.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are seven articles that have

13 been joined, seven articles that have to do with certain subjects. For

14 one subject you can always find several articles.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Even lawyers are aware that Internet sources

16 are sometimes very large numbers.

17 If there would be any questions specifically on these subjects you

18 found on the Internet, that will not be today but perhaps tomorrow. We'll

19 see.

20 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, please proceed.

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Gladly, Mr. President. I will

22 ask a different question.

23 Q. Doctor, within the Yugoslav context, is there a problem that we

24 could call the problem of veterans in relation to Bosnia? For example,

25 one talks about Vietnam veterans. Is there such a problem in Bosnia?

1 A. Yes. The Vietnam syndrome is a syndrome -- is a synonym often

2 used for post-traumatic stress. So according to the diagnostic

3 classifications of the World Health Organization, ICD 10 and DSM 4 of the

4 American Association of psychiatrists, these are classifications,

5 categories that relate to stress, the post-traumatic stress disorder and

6 acute stress disorder.

7 Q. I have to stop you there. You mentioned ICD 10 and DSM 4. You

8 must understand that we are laymen, and could you explain what ICD 10 and

9 DSM 4 means.

10 A. That means International Classification of Diseases and Diagnostic

11 and Statistic Manual.

12 Q. Thank you very much. Did you have the opportunity of carrying out

13 work with regard to the post-traumatic stress syndrome. I think it's call

14 PTDS in English. Have you had the opportunity to work in this field in

15 the course of your professional experience?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Could you tell this Chamber what sort of experience you have in

18 this field of activity.

19 A. As far as my professional experience is concerned, that would

20 include my work with patients. As far as research is concerned, I have

21 participated in research carried out by a team. They were researching

22 risk factors for post-traumatic stress disorder in the case of Bosnian

23 combatants. This was presented at the European congress of psychiatrists

24 in Geneva. I worked on my Ph.D. thesis, and this included acute stress

25 disorder. It included this subject. And we could call this the initial

1 phase of post-traumatic stress disorder. And this was the subject of my

2 thesis. And I also studied the risk factor. So this involves researching

3 the reasons for which certain people develop such post-traumatic stress

4 disorder, whereas other people do not develop such a syndrome, although

5 their experiences were similar.

6 Q. Very well. Professor, at a certain point in your report you take

7 a fairly well-defined position with regard to the reasons for which

8 certain people do develop such a syndrome whereas others don't. Yet they

9 appear to be in the same situation. For example, in the city of Sarajevo.

10 Could you perhaps summarise your conclusions but at the same time expand

11 on them in order for us to understand them better.

12 A. There are certain risk factors which lead to the appearance of

13 post-traumatic stress and acute stress. These factors are related to the

14 character that people have; for example, whether someone has neurotic

15 personality. And this means that certain people will develop such a

16 syndrome with greater ease than other people. And then there are such

17 characteristics, characteristics such as trait anxiety and this has to do

18 with certain personality types, but this is measured by other tests. So

19 this was proven to be a significant risk factor in my research, a risk

20 factor which would enable us to say that in other populations this could

21 be a risk factor which might lead to such a syndrome. And I said that

22 it's possible to say this because my research was conducted on a sample

23 that I had available to me and it was on this basis that I arrived at

24 certain conclusions.

25 There are also factors such as marital status, educational

1 background, previous mental illness, personality traits such as

2 personality disorders. This also predisposes people to developing

3 post-traumatic stress disorder. So these are characteristics that can

4 influence the development of post-traumatic stress, and naturally the

5 trauma that one experiences is also an important factor, the intensity of

6 the experience, the frequency of the experience, and there are other

7 factors which are also involved. Much research has been carried out to

8 determine biological causes or biological correlations for these

9 disturbances. For example, the hormone status, neurotransmitter status,

10 the activities of the entire neural network.

11 Q. Thank you. We might return to the biological aspect, but for the

12 moment I would like you to answer this question: With regard to assessing

13 the terror in Sarajevo, did Dr. Turner's report take into account to a

14 sufficient degree the elements, the factors that you have just mentioned;

15 yes or no? Should he have taken them into account, why? Could you please

16 be a little more specific, please. Please develop this subject. Could

17 you please develop this subject.

18 A. In Dr. Turner's work, there was no information on these other risk

19 factors for the simple reason that he was provided with what had taken

20 place here in the courtroom, and obviously lawyers are not trained to

21 gather such information, so this wasn't included in his research. There

22 wasn't something that one would usually include in big research projects,

23 for example, certain questions are put, questions that in certain

24 psychiatric tests are called the lying scale, certain questions are put to

25 a patient which represent socially desirable answers, and the purpose of

1 this is to see how honest a person was in answering a question or to find

2 out whether he was answering because he thought it was socially desirable

3 to answer in a certain way. So these are questions put to find out what

4 the credibility of the patients are, the subjects are in a certain

5 research.

6 Q. Professor, I'm looking at the time. I think that we will have to

7 continue with this witness tomorrow.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Piletta-Zanin, how much time do you think

9 you would still need?

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I can't say

11 because that depends on you.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you know how much time has been granted, 45

13 minutes.

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. But I

15 don't know whether we will be allowed to ask questions with regard to

16 verifying Internet sources or not. So if you say I can do that, it will

17 take a little longer.

18 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... The parties

19 will be provided with the copies in a couple of minutes. Therefore, the

20 material is available overnight to read. What I've seen, it's not very

21 extensive. It's abstracts.

22 Not calculating the time the witness has spent, unfortunately for

23 him, outside this courtroom, you used 47 minutes until now. 45 minutes

24 were granted. Let's just assume that new issues came up during the

25 information in relation to Internet.

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 JUDGE ORIE: You'll be granted tomorrow another 20 minutes, and

3 you can then see whether the Internet issues are relevant.

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

6 Dr. Kuljic, we'll have to stop for today. We'll continue tomorrow

7 at quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon. May I instruct you to -- not to

8 speak with anyone, nor parties, nor Judges, nor people in your hotel,

9 about your testimony and the testimony still to be given. I think that if

10 you could wait for three or four minutes, that you'll have your originals

11 back, because they are copied at this very moment.

12 And if the parties would have the same patience, they'll be

13 provided with the copies.

14 We'll adjourn until tomorrow afternoon, quarter past 2.00, same

15 courtroom.

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

18 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Piletta-Zanin please repeat that as

19 the interpreter thought the session -- the hearing had been adjourned.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It had been. But if there is something that

21 would immediately ask our attention, then we'll have to reopen the session

22 right away. Otherwise, we'll wait until tomorrow.

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] As it wasn't translated, I'll

24 just do so. Just a minute, please.

25 [Defence counsel and accused confer]

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That's not a problem,

2 Mr. President. Thank you very much.

3 JUDGE ORIE: It can wait until tomorrow.

4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

5 at 7.03 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday,

6 the 5th day of March, 2003, at 2.15 p.m.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25