Page 14092
1 Thursday, 2 June 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
6 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes, Dr. Karadzic, if you would like to
7 continue, please.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Excellency.
9 Good morning to everybody.
10 WITNESS: PATRICK TREANOR [Resumed]
11 Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic: [Continued]
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Good morning, Mr. Treanor.
14 A. Good morning, Dr. Karadzic.
15 THE ACCUSED: I think the translators wanted you to put on the
16 microphone.
17 THE INTERPRETER: The witness's microphone is not on.
18 It is on now.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. I would like to draw your attention to paragraph 82 in your
21 report, 592, on pages 56 and 57, where you say this:
22 [In English] "Beginning at the latest in September 1991, the SDS
23 followed a two-track approach, publicly. Its leaders advocated ethnic
24 tolerance, democratic dialogue and preservation of Serbian interest
25 within SRBiH and preservation of BH in Yugoslavia through peaceful
Page 14093
1 negotiations with the other national parties, the HDZ and the SDA. Yet
2 secretly its representatives continued to plot, to undermine the joint
3 republic from within -- and made preparations for conflict in collusion
4 with Serbs in Croatia ...," and so on and so on.
5 [Interpretation] I am not reading everything, obviously.
6 This thesis of yours, was it adopted from the pre-trial
7 proceedings or the other way around? The pre-trial proceedings,
8 paragraph 12, where it says:
9 [In English] "Working closely with Milosevic and other Serb
10 leaders, Karadzic pursued a two-pronged approach to ensure that Serbs
11 would remain in a common state, engaging in negotiations to secure a
12 common state, while simultaneously preparing the organs, entities and
13 conditions for the possible ethnic separation and creation of a Serb
14 state carved out from BH, similar to a process that had started in
15 Croatia."
16 [Interpretation] Do you see a striking similarity between your
17 paragraph 82 and the pre-trial proceedings, and can you tell us what was
18 here first? It is an old egg-and-chicken question, so what was the egg
19 and what was the chicken in this case?
20 I would like to correct. It is not pre-trial proceedings, but
21 pre-trial brief.
22 A. Yes, I think I see your concern.
23 Well, that portion of the pre-trial brief was, in fact, drafted
24 by my team. And as I indicated yesterday, we were engaged in ongoing
25 analysis of all the documentation at our disposal, and I can only suppose
Page 14094
1 at the request of the trial team, they wanted some material on these
2 issues. So we gave it to them for that purpose, and we also used it in
3 the report.
4 Q. Thank you. Also in the same report, on pages 57 through 64,
5 under the title "The Serbian Republic of BH and Ethnic Separation," you
6 dealt with this topic. And now I would like to show you what
7 paragraph 12 looks like, in the Defence's submission, and the indictment
8 should look in the following way.
9 Can I please call up 1D03503 in e-court. 1D03503. There is no
10 Serbian version.
11 I'm going to read:
12 [In English] "Tudjman, in respect of Izetbegovic, engaged in
13 negotiations to secure a common state, while simultaneously preparing the
14 organs, entities and conditions for the forcible ethnic separation and
15 creation of a Croat ..."
16 Respectively:
17 "... Muslim state carved out from Yugoslavia, similar to a
18 process that had started in Slovenia."
19 [Interpretation] Here, Dr. Treanor, only the names of the players
20 have been changed, and geographical terms. Is it really that they did
21 what it says here, according to what you knew?
22 A. I'm afraid I don't understand where this comes from.
23 Q. This is paragraph 12 of the pre-trial brief. However, some
24 changes have been made. It is no longer Karadzic and Milosevic, but
25 Tudjman and Izetbegovic. Did they negotiate in order to preserve
Page 14095
1 Yugoslavia? Actually, they did everything that was in their power to
2 carve out parts of the Yugoslav territory; right?
3 JUDGE MORRISON: Mr. Tieger.
4 MR. TIEGER: Yes.
5 It's not difficult to understand the witness's confusion. The
6 accused can certainly confront the witness with any propositions he wants
7 the witness to address. But done in this guise, extracting portions from
8 one document, then altering it, and not indicating where and how it's
9 altered, and presenting it as an exhibit, is clearly giving rise to
10 confusion. Why don't we just get to the proposition that the accused
11 wants to address and ask the witness to address it?
12 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, is that the position, that this is
13 a document that's simply been altered in order to make the point?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is paragraph 12 of the
15 pre-trial brief. There have been alterations made, and now that the
16 names have been changed, there is more foundation. It is more plausible
17 that Izetbegovic and Tudjman did against Yugoslavia what is ascribed to
18 me in paragraph 12 of the pre-trial brief and paragraph 82 of
19 Dr. Treanor's report.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Dr. Treanor, was it your impression that Izetbegovic and Tudjman
22 did what it says here that they did, and did it have anything to do with
23 what we were supposedly doing?
24 A. Well, the only negotiations that I know that Mr. Tudjman and
25 Mr. Izetbegovic were engaged in, regarding the creation of a common
Page 14096
1 state, were in 1994, when the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the
2 confederation between that federation and Croatia were agreed upon.
3 Q. Do you agree with me that from 1990 to 1992, there were permanent
4 negotiations going on involving the six presidents of the republics and
5 the Presidency of Yugoslavia about the preservation of Yugoslavia, and
6 simultaneously Tudjman and Izetbegovic were setting up their own
7 respective armies and laying down foundations for seceding from
8 Yugoslavia?
9 A. Yes, there were those ongoing negotiations among the presidents
10 of all the republics in 1991. I'm not familiar with the details of the
11 steps you're -- you have described that they were taking, but I think, in
12 broad terms, that that is correct.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 JUDGE BAIRD: Excuse me, Professor -- Dr. Treanor.
15 Right here, right here, right here.
16 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
17 JUDGE BAIRD: I am not quite following. What exactly are you
18 agreeing with?
19 THE WITNESS: The statement that simultaneously, Tudjman and
20 Izetbegovic were setting up their own respective armies and laying down
21 foundations for seceding from Yugoslavia, I mean, the trend of Croatian
22 policy at that time was, in fact, toward independence from Yugoslavia,
23 and Croatia was attempting to build up some sort of armed force for
24 itself. And as we've -- I mentioned in my testimony, and in the -- and
25 in my reports, in 1991 the -- there were ongoing attempts by the SDA,
Page 14097
1 that is, the Muslim party in Bosnia, in conjunction with the HDZ, which
2 was the Croatian party in Bosnia, which was, in fact, the Bosnian branch
3 of the ruling party in Croatia, toward independence for BH. And I am --
4 I understand, although, again, I don't know the details, that certain
5 Muslim groups were attempting to gain arms at that time as well.
6 JUDGE BAIRD: Thank you.
7 Dr. Karadzic.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 1D03505 is the next document I would like to call up. Let's just
10 look what paragraph 13 of the pre-trial brief would look in our variant.
11 Everybody can read.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. You can see that in the original pre-trial brief, it says
14 "Serbs." We are now changing the title of the actors, and we say:
15 [In English] "Earmarked territories considered Croat or Muslim
16 created separate Croat or Muslim institutions to resist Yugoslav
17 authority, declared independence, and forcibly took control of a large
18 part of Yugoslav territory."
19 [Interpretation] Is this correct, what you see on the screen?
20 Did they do that?
21 A. I don't believe you've read that into the record correctly, and
22 it doesn't make any sense to me.
23 Can I just clarify? Which pre-trial brief does this come from?
24 MR. TIEGER: I'm going to, again, underscore the problems with
25 this kind of approach, and I would like to object to the use of this kind
Page 14098
1 of manipulation of the underlying -- of any underlying documents related
2 to these proceedings.
3 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, if the documents were being, as it were,
4 secretly changed, it would be different, Mr. Tieger. But what
5 Dr. Karadzic is doing is making a point through extrapolating one set of
6 circumstances into another.
7 Dr. Treanor, you understand the point that Dr. Karadzic is trying
8 to make, I'm sure.
9 THE WITNESS: I think so, although he made reference in his
10 remarks that are in the record that the Yugoslav authority declared
11 independence forcibly and took control of a large part of Yugoslav
12 territory, which doesn't make sense.
13 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, Dr. Karadzic, I think we can all see the
14 road down which you're going with this approach, but it might be much
15 more simple to just simply put it directly to Dr. Treanor, rather than do
16 it through this illustrative but somewhat confusing way.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Excellency.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].
19 Q. Dr. Treanor, it says in the pre-trial brief that the Serbs did
20 what it says here, that the Serbs did that to Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the
21 Defence says, no, it was the Muslims and the Croats who did that to
22 Yugoslavia. Do you agree that Muslims and Croats earmarked territories
23 that they wanted to carve out from Yugoslavia, and that they did
24 everything in their power to carry out the unilateral secession?
25 A. Well, yes, as I indicated, Croatia was working toward
Page 14099
1 independence under the new government of the HDZ that came into power in
2 1990 as a result of elections in Croatia in 1990, and they, in fact,
3 declared independence on June, I believe, the 25th, 1991. They desired
4 to have their independent state consist of the entire territory of the
5 Republic of Croatia, as it had been within the Yugoslav Federation in
6 Bosnia. Certainly, the SDA was in favour of -- was in favour --
7 certainly after Croatia and Slovenia had seceded from Yugoslavia, was in
8 favour of having an independent Bosnia within the boundaries that the
9 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina had within the Yugoslav Federation.
10 Q. Thank you. You're a historian and UN expert. I would like to
11 shed light on the term of the constituency. When it comes to peoples or
12 nationalities, constituency means statehood; in other words, it means
13 that a people constitutes a certain entity? Do you agree with me?
14 A. I think in Yugoslav legal and constitutional parlance, that is
15 generally correct, although again I'm not a lawyer or a constitutional
16 scholar, but that's my understanding of the use of those terms in
17 Yugoslav legal and constitutional documents.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 1D03499 is the next document I would like to call up. 1D03499.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. This is from Oxford Dictionaries. Let's see what the Oxford
22 Dictionary definition is of the term "constituent."
23 It says here, amongst other things:
24 [In English] "Able to make or change a political constitution."
25 [Interpretation] Does this mean that a constituent people implies
Page 14100
1 that such a people has the power to change the political constitution of
2 the state?
3 A. [No verbal response]
4 Q. Let me help you. Do you agree that this is an Oxford definition?
5 A. Yes.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 Can this be admitted? Can the definition be admitted? Can the
8 document be admitted?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, I don't see any objection to that.
10 MR. TIEGER: I object as irrelevant.
11 THE WITNESS: It's not for me to object.
12 JUDGE MORRISON: Of course, we can admit it, Dr. Karadzic.
13 Dr. Treanor may prefer Yale as opposed to an Oxford definition, but
14 that's another matter.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D1259, Your Honours.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 Q. Dr. Treanor, we will benefit from the fact that you are a
18 historian, and we will show you a number -- a limited number of
19 historical documents and discuss them with you, for the benefit of the
20 Chamber. Those documents are of major significance for the creation and
21 disappearance of Yugoslavia, and the documents originate from a
22 collection compiled by Snjezana Trifunovska. Is it true that you rely on
23 the work of this scientist and that you quoted her in your work?
24 A. Well, I'm not sure -- I think there's a question there, and I'm
25 not sure who you're referring to.
Page 14101
1 Q. Snjezana Trifunovska. We can look at your report, 12125,
2 pages 26 and 27, footnotes 109, declaration on Yugoslavia, ICR Press.
3 Let's not call up the document. Everybody can remember. So this is your
4 report, 12125, and you're referring to the name Trifunovska. Let's look
5 at six documents without which nobody would be able to understand the
6 essence of the Yugoslav crisis.
7 Do you agree that on the eve of the First World War, the border
8 between the Austro-Hungarian empire and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia [as
9 interpreted] was on the Drina River?
10 [In English] Kingdom of Serbia.
11 A. Before the First World War, if I'm not mistaken, the boundary
12 between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Kingdom of Serbia was, well,
13 the Danube for quite some distance. The boundary on the side toward
14 Bosnia, I'm under the impression that it was then pretty much as it is
15 today, which would include the Drina for some of its course in the area
16 just south of where it flows into the Sava.
17 Q. Thank you. Your knowledge is valuable, but I don't have as much
18 time as I requested. So if you could just answer by yes or no whenever
19 possible.
20 Do you agree that Serbs and others lived in the Kingdom of
21 Serbia, whereas west of the Drina, in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, the
22 residents were Croats, Slovenians, and so on and so forth?
23 A. Yes, but especially so on and so forth.
24 Q. Thank you. Do you agree that the Austro-Hungarian Empire lost
25 the First World War, and that after the war, it fell into the state of
Page 14102
1 dissolution, it broke up?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Thank you. Do you agree that at the moment when the
4 Austro-Hungarian Empire broke up, the Slovenian and Croat peoples, who
5 had lived under the Austro-Hungarian Empire, set up the National Council
6 of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs?
7 A. Yes, I believe that's correct.
8 Q. Do you agree that on the 29th of October, 1918, in Zagreb, those
9 three peoples set up and proclaimed the state of Slovenes, Croats and
10 Serbs?
11 A. Well, representatives of those peoples did, yes. I believe
12 that's the correct date.
13 Q. Do you agree that the first session of this state, of the state
14 of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, decided that the government will be
15 based on the full equality of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs in that
16 state, and that state was west of the Drina River? We are still not
17 talking about the state of Serbia proper.
18 A. I believe that's correct.
19 Q. Thank you. Do you agree that in that way, the Slovenes, Croats
20 and the Serbs who resided in the territory of the then Austro-Hungarian
21 Empire, again, after the medieval times, finally won the right to call
22 their state their own? In other words, they became the constituent
23 people of that state?
24 A. Well, they certainly claimed that right and became the
25 constituent peoples of that state.
Page 14103
1 Q. Do you agree that on the 8th November 1918, in Geneva, the
2 Kingdom of Serbia recognised the National Council of Slovenes, Croats and
3 Serbs as the legal government representing those three peoples?
4 A. I believe that is correct, although I'm not sure about Geneva.
5 I'm willing to accept your word for that.
6 Q. Thank you. Do you agree that on the 1st of December, 1918, in
7 Belgrade, the National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs asked for
8 and informed King Aleksandar of the desire of this kingdom -- of the
9 state of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs to be independent and to join Serbia,
10 to unite with it in a joint state?
11 A. Well, the joint state was proclaimed on the 1st of December. I'm
12 not sure about the sequence of events on that day as you've described
13 them. But, again, I'm willing to accept your word for that.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 Can we glance at 1D1407. That's the proclamation of the Kingdom
16 of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. If we can call up this document in
17 e-court.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Do you agree that it's this Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs
20 that asked for and received, at their own request, unification with
21 Serbia?
22 A. No, we haven't seen the document, but I'm willing to accept what
23 the document says as something that the document says.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 85 in this document so that
25 Dr. Treanor can have a look, although he's already familiar with this
Page 14104
1 book.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. The right page, it's underlined:
4 "The Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, who have effected a revolution
5 on the territory of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, have
6 temporarily constituted themselves an independent national state."
7 A. Yes, that's what it says.
8 Q. Further down below:
9 [In English] "In order to realise this idea, the National
10 Council, at its sitting on November 29th, resolved to proclaim the union
11 of the state of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs with Serbia and Montenegro
12 in one single state, and elected a delegation ...," and so on.
13 [Interpretation] So we can agree that this was, indeed, so;
14 correct?
15 A. Yes. This is an expression of the long-standing desire among
16 certain circles among the southern Slavs in the Austro-Hungarian Empire
17 to form a joint state among all the Slavs.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 Can we see page 86, please.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. The last paragraph on page 86:
22 [In English] "With complete confidence, we cherish the hope that
23 Your Royal Highness, together with our whole nation, will strive that, in
24 the end, the frontiers of our state be drawn in such a manner as to agree
25 with our ethnographic boundaries, in accordance with principles of
Page 14105
1 national self-determination as proclaimed by President Wilson of the
2 United States of America and by all the Entente powers."
3 [Interpretation] Would you agree that this new nation, this
4 Yugoslav state, requests and declares the right to preserve ethnic
5 boundaries, invoking the 14 points from the proclamation of
6 President Wilson?
7 A. Well, yeah, the document says what you have indicated. I don't
8 think this is the time or place to get into discussions of what exactly
9 the 14 points said about the Austro-Hungarian Empire or what is exactly
10 meant by the Entente powers. Certainly, Italy had certain claims that
11 clashed with those of the south Slavs. But, certainly, in general terms,
12 the new Yugoslav state was looking for ethnic boundaries in the west,
13 certainly, that is, toward Austria, Hungary and Italy.
14 Q. May I ask you to look at the right-hand page, the first third or
15 the first half of it, where it says:
16 [In English] "In the name of His Majesty King Peter I, I
17 therefore now proclaim the union of Serbia with the lands of the
18 independent state of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs in the Kingdom of the
19 Serbs, Croats and Slovenes."
20 [Interpretation] Do you agree the Regent Aleksandar says "with
21 the lands of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes"? Serbia is uniting with the
22 lands of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes?
23 A. Well, yes, that's what it says. I would point out that this
24 statement indicates -- is one indication of the different conception that
25 any leaders in the Kingdom of Serbia had about the nature of the state.
Page 14106
1 They saw the state that was being proclaimed as simply an expansion of
2 the Kingdom of Serbia, and conceived that new state to be a centralised
3 state with its capital in Belgrade.
4 And the reference to "lands," I guess, is correct. I don't know
5 what it says in the original, I can't recall. It probably does say the
6 same thing. Of course, I think the "lands" under reference would most
7 properly refer to various provinces which the southern Slavs have been
8 divided among in the Austro-Hungarian Empire; that is, Bosnia, different
9 parts of Croatia, Dalmatia, et cetera.
10 Q. Thank you. This says, "the lands making up the state of
11 Slovenes, Croats and Serbs," but, all right, we can agree about that.
12 1D1407, pages 84 through 86. I'm now tendering it. It's part of
13 the common D number.
14 MR. TIEGER: I don't remember a reference to 84. But if that was
15 encompassed by the questioning, I have no objection.
16 JUDGE MORRISON: So be it.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, these pages will be added to the
18 existing Exhibit D244.
19 JUDGE MORRISON: Thank you.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 Q. Just one more brief point on this subject.
22 On page 88 of the same document, could we look at the Peace
23 Treaty of Saint Germain.
24 Do you agree that this peace treaty from St. Germain on the 10th
25 of September, 1919, the Great Powers recognised the fact that Serb, Croat
Page 14107
1 and Slovene peoples of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy united of
2 their own free will with Serbia, in a permanent union, under the title
3 "Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes"?
4 A. Yes, that's what it says.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 Could this be -- could this page be added to the same document as
7 exhibited?
8 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes, that's logical.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 Could we now see page 91, Article 12.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Do you agree that this article stipulates that pending the
13 conclusion of new treaties or conventions, all treaties, conventions,
14 agreements, and obligations between Serbia, on the one hand, and any of
15 the principal allied and associated powers, on the other hand, which were
16 in force on the 1st of August, 1914, or which have since been entered
17 into, shall, ipso facto, be binding upon the Serb-Croat-Slovene state?
18 Article 12 says so?
19 A. Yes, that's what it says.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 Can this be added as well?
22 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
23 JUDGE MORRISON: I'm advised that it's already been admitted
24 anyway, Dr. Karadzic.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
Page 14108
1 Q. In conclusion, with this picture about the origins of Yugoslavia,
2 could we agree that Yugoslavia came into being by virtue of the fact that
3 the state of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs united with Serbia, and they were
4 joined by Montenegro later, and that's how the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats
5 and Slovenes came into being?
6 A. Yes, I would agree with that, in general terms.
7 Q. Thank you. Would you agree that the Serbs never abandoned this
8 constituent status? I'm talking about Serbs west of the Drina. They
9 never gave up on their own constituent status in that joint state?
10 A. I'm not aware that they ever did, and I'm not sure how they would
11 have done that if they had wanted to.
12 Q. But do you agree that that is the basis why, in all the
13 constitutions of the Croatian Republic up to 1990, and in the
14 Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it was said explicitly that the
15 Serb people, among others, was a constituent people in both these states?
16 That was only changed with the Christmas Constitution of
17 President Tudjman?
18 A. Well, I don't know for certain that the reason why the Serbs were
19 mentioned as a constituent people in their Croatian constitutions, which
20 I believe was under discussion here, the postwar Croatian constitutions,
21 goes back to that. I can well see that it might. That gets into the
22 issue of what the nationality policy of the Yugoslav communists under
23 Tito was during World War II. They recognised the rights of other
24 nationalities which had not been recognised in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia,
25 so there were more general reasons -- political reasons for them wanting
Page 14109
1 to do that. But it is certainly true that that continued to be the case
2 until the new Croatian Constitution of 1990, which was something that
3 greatly disturbed Serbs not only in Croatia.
4 Q. Thank you. This is -- this was a historical aspect, rather than
5 a legal look at all these issues about the creation of Yugoslavia.
6 Speaking of the right of self-determination of peoples in the
7 internal Yugoslav law, do you agree that the Constitution of the
8 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in its introduction, in its
9 preamble, named, as principle 1, the following --
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D03506, please.
11 I said "the historical aspect, rather than a legal aspect of
12 these constitutional changes." It's missing from the transcript.
13 Page 3 in English; page 1 in Serbian. Could we zoom in on the
14 English.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Principle 1:
17 "The peoples of Yugoslavia, proceeding from the right of every
18 people to self-determination, including up to secession, and based on
19 their freely-expressed will in the joint struggle of all nations and
20 nationalities in the National Liberation War and Socialist Revolution,
21 with their historic aspirations, aware of the need to strengthen their
22 brotherhood and unity ...," et cetera, et cetera, " ... united in a
23 federal state of free and equal peoples and nationalities and created a
24 socialist federal union of working people, the SFRY."
25 Do you agree that the Constitution stipulates explicitly that
Page 14110
1 peoples united freely based on their right to self-determination?
2 A. Well, it says -- it says what it says.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 Can we see page 7 and English page 18.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Article 3 describes the nature of a republic. A socialist
7 republic is a state based on the sovereignty of a people and the
8 government and self-management of the working class and all working
9 people, and the socialist self-management democratic community of the
10 working people and citizens and peoples and nationalities on an equal
11 footing. Is that correct?
12 A. That seems to be what it says, yes.
13 Q. Thank you. Would you please look at Article 5:
14 "The territory of the Socialist Federal Republic of
15 Yugoslavia --"
16 In Serbian, we need, perhaps, page 7. No, it's here:
17 "The territory of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is
18 a single entity consisting of the territories of the socialist republic."
19 And a bit further down, next page in English:
20 "The frontiers of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
21 may not be altered without the consent of all republics and autonomous
22 provinces."
23 The translation of this document is not good. No, it's fine.
24 Do you agree that for any alteration -- any change in the borders
25 of the SFRY, the agreement of all the socialist republics and autonomous
Page 14111
1 provinces was required?
2 A. That's what it says here, yes. But I agree with you, there's a
3 problem at least with what you read:
4 "... the territory, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
5 is a single entity consisting of the territories of the socialist
6 republics," in the plural.
7 Q. And none of these republics or peoples had the right to
8 unilateral secession without the consent of others. That was stipulated
9 in the Constitution, wasn't it?
10 A. Well, I think that some people can infer that from that article.
11 That article, of course, could also refer to the fact that -- or the
12 situation where the federal government may deem it desirable to cede
13 certain territory from one republic to a neighbouring state, for
14 instance, cede some of the territory of the Republic of Serbia to
15 Bulgaria, and this article would give, basically, the Republic of Serbia
16 the right to veto that and that they would have to agree to that
17 themselves. The majority of republics and the government and so forth
18 couldn't force that on them. So there are different situations that this
19 could apply, and the people you're referring to, some people could
20 certainly interpret it that way.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 May this be received?
23 MR. TIEGER: No objection to the pages referenced, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE MORRISON: Those can be admitted.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D1260, Your Honours.
Page 14112
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let's take a look at what goes on
2 with the Republic of Croatia in this issue.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Karadzic please repeat the number.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D03507, page 2, the fundamental
5 principles.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. We can all read for ourselves, "Basic Provisions." Is it the
8 case that Article 1 says that the Serb people -- the Croatian people, and
9 the Serbian people, and other peoples established the state of Croatia,
10 the Socialist Republic of Croatia, and on the basis of a right to
11 self-determination, including the right to secede and unite with other
12 nations, through its freely-expressed will, et cetera, et cetera, and
13 based on that freedom to express their will, they all united into the
14 Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia? Do
15 you agree that this basic provision of the Croatian Constitution
16 recognises the right of the Serbs to self-determination because they
17 formed, together with others, the state of Croatia, based on their own
18 free will?
19 A. Well, yes, it says -- it says what it says. As in the previous
20 document that we saw, the analogous article in the Constitution of the
21 SFRY, I would just have to comment that I think a few people would
22 contest how freely-expressed the wills of these various people was at
23 that time, but that's certainly what this article says.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could you please go to
25 page 8.
Page 14113
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. These are general provisions, Article 1. In the second
3 paragraph, it says:
4 "The Socialist Republic of Croatia is a national state of the
5 Croatian people, a state of the Serbian people in Croatia, and a state of
6 nationalities residing therein."
7 Do you agree that this reflected on paragraph 27 in your report?
8 I will read it. I don't want to call it up. The second sentence reads:
9 [In English] "The constitution dropped the reference in Croatia's
10 1974 Constitution to the Serbs as one of the constituent people of the
11 republic, although it did guarantee national equality in Article 3."
12 [Interpretation] This is your document, 65 ter 12125,
13 paragraph 27, page 14. And further on, you say:
14 "The Republic of Croatia stays in Yugoslavia" - you quote from
15 Article 140 - "until a new agreement is reached by the Yugoslav Republics
16 or until the moment the Croatian Parliament issues a decision to do
17 differently."
18 Do you agree that was what the situation was like in Croatia
19 until the moment the Croatian Constitution was changed in 1991, when the
20 crisis broke out? The year is 1990, when the Constitution was changed.
21 A. Yes. If I understand you correctly, the situation is as I
22 described it in the report, in the leadership study.
23 Q. Do you agree that in 1990, changes were made, contrary to the
24 wishes and desires of one of the two constituent peoples in Croatia at
25 that moment?
Page 14114
1 A. Well, I think in general terms, I agree with that. It gets into
2 issues of who the representatives were and that sort of thing. Perhaps
3 it would help the Court for me to comment that the political position of
4 the Serbs and their political parties in Croatia was much different after
5 the 1990 elections than it was in Bosnia. In the elections in Croatia in
6 1990, multi-party elections, only a very small number of Serbian deputies
7 were elected, and I think only one or two from the SDS, whereas in
8 Bosnia, as we've seen, they had a very, very strong position, having
9 almost a third of the deputies in the Bosnian chambers. So their
10 opportunities to make their desires known were not as good as the Serbs
11 in Bosnia. But in general terms, I would certainly agree with that
12 comment that most Serbs in Croatia were probably dissatisfied with that.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 Can this be admitted, and then we will move on to Bosnia, because
15 you're right, we should return to Bosnia from Croatia and Yugoslavia.
16 MR. TIEGER: Those were the two pages referenced, I believe.
17 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes. The two pages referenced will be admitted.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D1261, Your Honours.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D03508 is the next document I
20 would like to call up. Let's keep page 1 in English, and can we look at
21 page 8 in the Serbian version of the document.
22 Before I put my question to you, I would like to draw your
23 attention to the three provisions of the Constitution of the Socialist
24 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Here, we see number 1, where it says
25 that the Serbs, Muslims, Croats, and members of other peoples and
Page 14115
1 nationalities, together with all the other peoples and nationalities of
2 Yugoslavia, established a revolutionary peoples democratic power within
3 the Federative Republic of Yugoslavia and that they created the
4 National Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
5 The following page in English.
6 I would like to ask all participants to look at paragraph 1,
7 where it says they created the People's Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
8 And then can we look at page 9 in Serbian and page 2 in English.
9 Or, rather, no, we can stay with this page in English. The English page
10 is good. The following page is Serbian.
11 Now, Article 2, where it says:
12 "The workers and citizens, the peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
13 Croats, Serbs and Muslims, as well as the members of other nations and
14 national minorities, will realise in the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and
15 Herzegovina, as a state and a community organised on the principles of
16 self-management, their sovereign rights, and the interests of their class
17 and nation," "of their class and nation."
18 And now can we go to page 27 in Serbian and page 15 in English.
19 Article 1 in the first part, the end of the article reads:
20 "The nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Muslims, Serbs and
21 Croats, members of other nations and nationalities living in it, is
22 founded on the authority and self-management of the working class, all
23 working people, and the sovereignty and equality of all the nations of
24 Bosnia and Herzegovina, and members of other nations and nationalities
25 living in it."
Page 14116
1 And then in Article 2, I would like to draw your attention to the
2 following:
3 "The working people and citizens, the nations of Bosnia and
4 Herzegovina, Serbs, Croats and Muslims, and members of other nations and
5 nationalities, shall realise their sovereign rights in the Socialist
6 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina ...," and so on and so forth.
7 Article 3, where it says:
8 "The equality of the nations and nationalities and their members
9 is guaranteed in the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Can we agree that there is no doubt that the three peoples that
12 constitute Bosnia and Herzegovina, Muslims, Serbs and Croats, are,
13 indeed, constituent peoples with absolutely equal rights?
14 A. Well, I agree that these articles say what they say. But getting
15 directly to your question, I would have to say yes. But the interesting
16 point is there's repeated reference to other nations and nationalities
17 having the same rights, and in all the controversies we've been
18 discussing in connection with my reports, the rights of those nations and
19 nationalities don't get a mention.
20 Q. Well, Dr. Treanor, do you remember the seven members of the
21 Presidency was supposed to represent those other peoples and
22 nationalities in the Presidency; two Croats, two Muslims and two Serbs,
23 and one representing everybody else; do you agree?
24 A. Yes, that's true, representing everybody else in that particular
25 institution.
Page 14117
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 Can these pages be admitted?
3 MR. TIEGER: No objection, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MORRISON: Those referenced articles, certainly.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D1262, Your Honours.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 65 ter 16278 is the next document I would like to call up.
8 16278.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. You, yourself, stated that the amendments to the Constitution
11 which were adopted on the 31st of July, 1990, somewhat altered the
12 Constitution. Let us now look at Amendment 60, which is on page 1 both
13 in the Serbian and English versions. Amendment 60 also confirms and
14 guarantees the constituent quality of the three peoples. It says here:
15 "The Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a
16 democratic, sovereign state of the equal citizens and peoples of Bosnia
17 and Herzegovina, Muslims, Serbs and Croats, and members of other nations
18 and nationalities that live there."
19 And now let's look at Amendment 49.
20 49, yes, we can see it.
21 Paragraph 2 says:
22 "Political organisation and activity directed at the following
23 shall be forbidden: forcibly changing the constitutionally-established
24 order; threatening the territorial integrity and independence of the
25 Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia or the sovereignty and
Page 14118
1 territorial integrity of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and
2 Herzegovina."
3 Do you agree that the constitutions of Yugoslavia, Croatia,
4 Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as new constitutional amendments to the
5 Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, guaranteed the rights of the
6 peoples, including Serbs who were constituent peoples, both in Bosnia and
7 Herzegovina and in Croatia?
8 A. Well, the articles you've read say what they say.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 Can this be admitted?
11 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D1263, Your Honours.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Do you agree that the provisions of the SFRY, as well as the
15 amendments to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, ban political
16 organisation and activity directed at threatening the territorial
17 integrity and independence of the Socialist Federative Republic of
18 Yugoslavia? Let me remind you that that amendment was adopted in 1990 on
19 the very eve of the elections. Do you agree?
20 A. Well, we've just see the amendment to the Constitution of Bosnia
21 and Herzegovina. I am familiar with the fact that there were packages of
22 amendments made to the SFRY Constitution as well. If there was an
23 analogous amendment there, I'm willing to take your word for it.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 And can we now look at 65 ter -- first of all, can this be
Page 14119
1 admitted? Has it been admitted? Yes.
2 Okay. 65 ter 16278, pages 2 and 3; 2 and 3 in Serbian, and 3 in
3 English.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. While we are waiting, let me ask you this: Do you remember,
6 since you said in your report that the Serbian Democratic Party, in July
7 1990, immediately after it was set up and before the constitutional
8 amendments were adopted, demanded for a two-tier parliament to be
9 introduced, or, in other words, that there should be a house of the
10 peoples in the government; however, their efforts were in vain, the
11 proposal was never adopted? Do you remember that?
12 A. Yes, yes. I believe I mentioned that in my testimony, yes.
13 Q. Could you please look at bullet point 10, where it says:
14 "A council shall be formed within the SRBH Assembly for the
15 matter of ensuring the equality of the nations and nationalities of
16 Bosnia and Herzegovina."
17 On behalf of our peoples and nationalities, I apologise for this
18 awkward language. Would this have been a replacement for the Council of
19 Peoples or National Council that we requested; in other words, that that
20 body would have had the same authorities that we asked for?
21 A. It certainly seems to be conceived in that spirit, but this
22 council does not have the same status as a chamber of the Assembly. A
23 chamber would have been immediately constituted with the other chambers.
24 Unfortunately, this council was never -- was never constituted. That was
25 an action that had to be taken by the Assembly, itself.
Page 14120
1 Q. Thank you. That was also an answer to the question I don't have
2 to put.
3 Can you look at the following:
4 "The council shall examine matters that relate to the equality of
5 languages and scripts; the organisation and activities of cultural
6 institutions ...," and so on and so forth:
7 "If at least 20 deputies consider that a proposed regulation or
8 other act within the competence of the SRBH Assembly violates the
9 equality of nations and nationalities, the draft to go before the SRBH
10 Assembly for identification shall be defined by the council.
11 "The SRBH Assembly shall render decisions on matters concerning
12 the fulfillment of the equality of the nations and nationalities of
13 Bosnia and Herzegovina, at the proposal of the council, through a special
14 procedure established by the SRBH Assembly Rules of Procedure ...," and
15 so on and so forth.
16 Do you agree, therefore, that when vital interests of a people
17 are at stake, it takes only 20 deputies to raise that issue, and that
18 that issue cannot be resolved before a recommendation is received from
19 the council with regard to that specific issue ?
20 A. Yes, that's what it seems to say. I think my testimony touched
21 on that a little bit. It is also discussed in the report or mentioned in
22 the report in connection with the attempt in February 1991 to pass a
23 declaration on the sovereignty of Bosnia.
24 Q. Thank you. Do you remember that on two occasions, that council
25 helped Avdo Campara explain that decisions could not be reached before an
Page 14121
1 opinion of the council was received, and that the same person, on the
2 15th of October, 1991, decided that things could be done differently
3 without that decision having been preceded by any new legal instruments?
4 A. You're referring to Mr. Campara, I believe. Yes, he did say that
5 in February. I believe there's reference in the report. What he exactly
6 said in October at that session, I don't know, but that's certainly what
7 they did.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 Can this be admitted? Can these pages be admitted?
10 MR. TIEGER: I think it was just page 2 was referenced.
11 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes, that seems to be the case. So page 2 can
12 be admitted.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 2 and 3 in Serbian and 2 in
14 English.
15 JUDGE MORRISON: All those referenced, yes.
16 THE REGISTRAR: It will be added to the existing Exhibit D1263,
17 Your Honours.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 Q. Do you agree with me that the decision on organising a referendum
20 in Bosnia and Herzegovina was adopted, according to the procedure
21 prescribed in bullet point 5, line 9, of Amendment 71 to the Constitution
22 of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which envisages that the Assembly of the SRBH
23 can organise a referendum at a joint session of its two councils?
24 I'm afraid I was speeding along, so it hasn't been recorded that
25 the referendum in question is the referendum on the independence of
Page 14122
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina.
2 Can we see 65 ter 6228 to make things easier for you. 6228,
3 page -- it's a decision, so there is just one page. No need to reference
4 the page. Can we look at the left-hand-side page in the Serbian version.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Do you agree that it says, in the preamble, that that referendum
7 can be called pursuant to Amendment 71, paragraph 5, line 2, of the
8 Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina? I just want us to identify the
9 amendment in question, and then we will actually look at the amendment,
10 itself.
11 Do we agree on the number of the amendment?
12 A. That seems to be what it says, yes.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 Can it be admitted?
15 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour, that page can be admitted.
16 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D1264, Your Honours.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 16278 is the next document I would
19 like to call up. 16278, page 4.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. I have just called up Amendment 71, paragraph 5 thereof,
22 paragraph 5, where it says -- let's look at line 9, where it says they
23 call republican referenda. Do you agree that it was up to the Assembly
24 of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina to call the referendum, and that
25 that right arose from the Constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Page 14123
1 Article 152? Do you agree or do you want me to call up the Constitution
2 for your perusal, and maybe that will help you to agree if you can't
3 agree with me now? Do you agree that this is Amendment 70
4 [as interpreted], paragraph 5, where it says that the Assembly has the
5 right to call up the republican referenda?
6 A. Yes, it seems to say that.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the page be admitted?
8 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, it can, Dr. Karadzic. But I'm thinking
9 that where the question encompasses the point you want to make, and the
10 witness agrees with it, it's already in the transcript, so quite often
11 we're admitting documents which do no more than reflect that which we
12 already have in the transcript. So this can be admitted, but bear that
13 in mind for the future, please.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, it will be added to
15 Exhibit D1263.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 I'll try not to burden the file. However, sometimes it seems to
18 be necessary.
19 Can we now look at 1D3508. Let's see what the nature was of that
20 republican referendum. 1D3508, page 89 in Serbian and 60 in English. 60
21 in English, Article 152.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. It says here:
24 "The assembly of the socio-political unit may declare a
25 referendum for the prior declaration of working people on particular
Page 14124
1 issues within the competence of the assembly, or for the confirmation of
2 laws, ordinances, or other general regulations. The decision reached by
3 such a referendum is binding."
4 Do we agree that it says here that this is a prior declaration of
5 opinion, an opinion that precedes the decision that will finally be made
6 by that socio-political unit? Do we agree on that?
7 It hasn't been recorded that this referendum may be declared only
8 in relation to an issue within the competence of that socio-political
9 unit, only within its own competence.
10 A. That's what it says, yes.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this page be added to 1262,
12 D1262?
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Dr. Treanor, did you have all those documents? Were they
15 accessible to you when you drafted your reports? Were they provided to
16 you by the OTP?
17 A. Well, they were certainly accessible to me, and they were
18 accessible to me because I had collected them myself or directed that
19 they be collected.
20 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, we'll break there until 11.00.
21 Thank you.
22 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 I believe the last page has not yet been admitted. If we could
Page 14125
1 check. I would like to tender it anyway.
2 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, we will admit it, but it actually falls
3 directly into the category of those items which I suggested are just as
4 valuable in the transcript. But we will admit it on this occasion.
5 THE REGISTRAR: It will be added to Exhibit D1262, Your Honours.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 We'll deal for a while longer for the basis for the referendum.
8 1D3519 is the next document I would like to call up. It's the
9 Law on Referendum, page 3, Article 3, to establish what the Law on
10 Referendum stipulates. Article 26, Article 26.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Do you agree that it says that the Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina
13 may call a referendum on matters from its own purview, matters in its
14 jurisdiction?
15 A. Yes, that's what it says here.
16 Q. Thank you. Do you agree that Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Assembly
17 of Bosnia-Herzegovina was not able to decide about the territorial
18 integrity of Yugoslavia, it was not within its competence?
19 A. Well, I think the issue there would be the relationship of the
20 republic to the rest of the federation. I'm not aware of what the
21 Constitution of the SRBH might say on that issue or be construed to say
22 on that issue.
23 Q. Then I will read the third and fourth paragraph of Article 5 of
24 the Constitution of Yugoslavia, which we've looked at before:
25 "The borders of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia may
Page 14126
1 not be altered without the consent of all the republics and autonomous
2 provinces, whereas the borders between republics may be altered only on
3 the basis of their mutual agreement."
4 So the issue of territorial integrity of Yugoslavia falls under
5 the purview of the Yugoslav Assembly and is stipulated in the Yugoslav
6 Constitution?
7 A. Again, I think we discussed that earlier. I said this could
8 simply refer to the drawing of particular lines. I think the issue of
9 independences or changing the relationship between the republic and the
10 federation is a different one. And as I say, I can't recall at this
11 point. I would have to refresh my memory, looking at the Constitution in
12 its entirety as to what exactly is there on that issue or could be
13 construed to be on that issue, bearing in mind that I'm not a legal
14 expert or a constitutional scholar.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Good, then we can move
16 on.
17 Can we see 1D3509.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].
19 Q. Do you agree that changing borders that the Assembly of Bosnia
20 and Herzegovina could decide about would be the changing of the borders
21 of Bosnia and Herzegovina with other republics, the so-called
22 administrative borders between federal units?
23 Page 2 in Serbian; page 3 in English.
24 Amendment 62, paragraph 1, line 2, says:
25 "The borders of republics -- the borders of the republic may be
Page 14127
1 changed by the Republic of BH, based on the freely-expressed will of the
2 people and a public referendum, with the two-third majority vote of the
3 entire electorate"?
4 A. Yes, that's what it says. That's what it seems to say.
5 Q. Thank you. So even a minimal change in the administrative
6 borders of Bosnia and Herzegovina within Yugoslavia required a positive
7 response of two-thirds of the entire electorate. Do you agree that
8 changing the status of a republic, in the context of Yugoslavia, is a
9 much bigger issue than changing administrative borders?
10 A. Well, by "changing the borders," I take it you mean in the sense
11 I was referring to before, simply changing the course of the line on the
12 map. And I can certainly agree that this article, at a minimum, relates
13 to that, in that the other issue of the relationship with the federation
14 or the rest of Yugoslavia would -- is in a different -- is more important
15 than that, certainly.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 May this page be added to the same exhibit number?
18 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D1265, Your Honours.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now see again 65 ter 16278,
21 page 3, to see how the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina governs the
22 issue of exercising equality among peoples. Page 3 in both Serbian and
23 English, Amendment 70, paragraph 10, the last paragraph of 10. I will
24 read it out.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters need a reference in English.
Page 14128
1 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, the interpreters need a reference
2 to this matter in English, please.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Item 10:
4 "A council shall ..."
5 The last line of item 11 [as interpreted]. Item 10 is long, so
6 it's the last part of 10:
7 "The SRBH Assembly shall render ..."
8 "The SRBH Assembly shall render decisions on matters concerning
9 the fulfillment of the equality of the nations and nationalities of
10 Bosnia and Herzegovina, at the proposal of the council, through a special
11 procedure established by the SRBH Assembly Rules of Procedure, with a
12 two-thirds majority of the total number of deputies."
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Do you agree that this is stipulated by this article?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you agree that even if two-thirds of the electorate turned out
17 for the referendum and voted for independence, that decision also had to
18 get a two-third majority in the Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
19 two-thirds of the total number of MPs, because a referendum is just a
20 pre-condition to make that decision?
21 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Mr. President.
22 I think it's clear the witness has said repeatedly that he
23 doesn't purport to be a legal or constitutional scholar. I've been
24 cautious about intervening because of trying to see if eventually this
25 would come around to the real thrust of the witness's reports, but
Page 14129
1 I think it becomes clear now the witness is being asked for
2 constitutional/legal opinions, which he's repeatedly stated is not the
3 focus of his expertise.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I respond?
5 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes, Dr. Karadzic.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Dr. Treanor, is it true that in your reports, you commented on
8 my --
9 JUDGE MORRISON: You're supposed to be responding to the
10 observation of Mr. Tieger, not asking another question.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I thought to save time,
12 because the witness will ultimately have to confirm this. I'm asking
13 these questions in the light of his comments and the fact that his report
14 deals with constitutional powers of various bodies in Bosnia and
15 Herzegovina, the deputies of the Serbian Democratic Party, later my
16 position in Bosnia and Herzegovina as president of the Republika Srpska.
17 These comments and his report refer to these matters all the time, and I
18 can't avoid putting these questions.
19 JUDGE MORRISON: There's a substantive difference between making
20 an observation as to what's in the reports and asking Dr. Treanor to
21 provide what is essentially a legal interpretation or opinion. It's the
22 same as when you read out an article or part of an article to the witness
23 and the best he can do is to say, Well, that's what it says. That's
24 something that we can all see for ourselves. You might be much better
25 placed, rather than seeking an interpretive comment upon something which
Page 14130
1 is pretty obvious from the wording, itself, to moving on to anything in
2 the nature of a challenge to the opinions that Dr. Treanor has set out in
3 his reports.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then I would only like to ask
5 Dr. Treanor this:
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Do you agree that 83 deputies, who walked out of the Assembly of
8 Bosnia and Herzegovina and joined the Assembly of the Serbian People,
9 make up more than one-third of 240 deputies in total?
10 A. Well, yes.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 May this page be admitted, added to the same exhibit number?
13 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes, it can be added.
14 THE WITNESS: Although I'm not sure, in fact, whether there were
15 only 230 [Realtime transcript read in error "240"] deputies in the
16 Assembly, but, in any case, it's more than a third.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Q. Now that we have the constitutional and historical and legal
19 framework of these events, I'll move to factual issues. And in the
20 context of the events in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I'll try to establish
21 all the things that your reports deal with. We need to see whether the
22 criterion of the broader context, which you named as your objective, is
23 met.
24 In 65 ter -- sorry, in document 12125, you said you tried to
25 enumerate all the important events in their chronology?
Page 14131
1 A. Yes. If I can go back to my previous answer, I said or I meant
2 to say only 230 deputies in the Assembly. The transcript says "240."
3 Q. If I may be of assistance, there were 240 deputies in the
4 Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There were 86 Serbs. Out of these
5 86, 84 were against secession, and 83 joined the Assembly of the Serbian
6 People.
7 On the premise that all the Serbs and Muslims and Croats and
8 Yugoslavs and Jews, et cetera, were in favour of secession, do you agree,
9 Dr. Treanor, that the remaining deputies in the Assembly could not, even
10 then, vote for -- they could not have a majority over those 83?
11 A. Well, yes, 83, irrespective of whether the total is 240 or 230,
12 is more than a third. Therefore, the remaining deputies were less than
13 two-thirds. I'm not sure what voting procedure we're talking about here.
14 There doesn't seem to be any special majority required, from what we've
15 seen of the Constitution, for passing a decision to hold a referendum, if
16 that's what's being referred to here.
17 Q. Well, we've just read that provision in the previous document,
18 saying that a two-third majority is required in all matters regarding
19 equality among peoples, and in all the constitutional matters everywhere
20 in the world, a two-third majority is required. But let's go back to the
21 chronology of events as presented in your reports.
22 It is the position of the Defence that although you've invested
23 great efforts to present the chronology of events, you left out the
24 second boxer in the ring, by which I mean to say that events were not
25 presented in a broader context. And to come back to the sports metaphor,
Page 14132
1 one reads your report as if watching just one boxer in a match flailing
2 his arms and not understanding why he's doing that.
3 JUDGE MORRISON: Mr. Tieger.
4 MR. TIEGER: First of all, if comments were permissible, then I'd
5 say it's commented on before by Dr. Karadzic and redundant. But comments
6 are not. The accused should move on to questions that are focused on the
7 reports.
8 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes. Dr. Karadzic, you cannot really complain
9 about the passing of time if you waste it.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellency.
11 I was trying to use vivid language and to save time, but it seems
12 I'm wasting it.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. I'm trying to say, Dr. Treanor, it is the position of the Defence
15 that your reports do not provide a full picture, do not provide context,
16 and the picture of events is distorted to our detriment. That's what I'm
17 putting to you.
18 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, that's a comment. If you want to
19 give a concrete example of what you say and put it to the witness, that's
20 another thing, but a broad comment like that really doesn't help.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The problem is in the transcript,
22 because I said, What do you say to that? Do you accept the position of
23 the Defence? And if Dr. Treanor does not accept it, then we'll do what
24 you suggest. If Dr. Treanor does not accept this proposition, we will
25 provide many examples of what I just said; namely, that Dr. Treanor's
Page 14133
1 reports do not provide context or a full picture of events.
2 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Treanor.
3 THE WITNESS: Well, I accept that your position is whatever you
4 say it is.
5 If I could go back to a question of context. I've been looking
6 at this issue of the number of deputies in my report, and you mentioned
7 the number of 83 deputies. As far as I can remember and as far as I can
8 tell from my report, which does have a list of the deputies that were in
9 the Assembly of the Serbian People, at this time there were only 78 of
10 them. Later, in later years, there got to be 83 or 84.
11 I think on this particular issue, it might be useful simply to
12 look at the transcript of the session of the SRBH Assembly on the 25th or
13 26th of January, 1992, when they adopted the resolution on the
14 referendum, to see what the vote was.
15 Q. Thank you. Perhaps I forgot to say that we have left that
16 subject. Although not all deputies are present at all times, 83
17 expressed their wish to join the Assembly of the Serbian People. But we
18 are now dealing with your report, and my objection -- my position was
19 that you did not provide context, and now we are trying to establish
20 this. Since we don't have much time, we won't be offering many
21 documents, unless we have to because you disagree.
22 Do you agree that changes to the Constitution of Croatia were
23 made before the elections in 1990, in February, through Amendments 64 to
24 75 and 54 to 63? 54 to 63 and 64 to 75, those were the first changes to
25 the Constitution, even before the elections, during socialist times?
Page 14134
1 A. You'd have to refresh my memory as to what those amendments were,
2 but I'll accept your word for the fact that there were amendments at that
3 time.
4 Q. Thank you. Did you know and do you agree that at the
5 General Assembly of the Croatian Democratic Union, held in February 1990
6 in Zagreb, in the Lisinski hall, the president of that party, the future
7 president of Croatia, Franjo Tudjman, said, among other things, the
8 independent state of Croatia was not just a quisling creation and a
9 fascist crime, but it was also an expression of the historic aspirations
10 of the Croatian people?
11 A. I'm familiar with this meeting, and I have seen the documents
12 published in that connection. I can't recall this specific comment, but
13 I'll take your word for it.
14 Q. Thank you. I would like to draw your attention to 25 July 1990,
15 and in your report, 12125, paragraph 16, you state:
16 "A mass rally of Serbs from all parts of Croatia ..."
17 Please look at that paragraph.
18 You say the Serb National Council was established by the Serbs at
19 that time, and then at the end you say:
20 "Serbian Assembly proclaimed to be invalid for the Serbs ..."
21 [In English] "The Serbian Assembly proclaimed to be invalid for
22 the Serbs all Croatian constitutional and legal changes which might
23 negate their - that means Serb - sovereignty as a people and reduce their
24 autonomous rights."
25 [Interpretation] Is that right, that was the declaration of the
Page 14135
1 independence and autonomy of the Serbian people in Croatia?
2 A. I think that's what the paragraph says.
3 Q. Paragraph 16, yes. Do you agree that on that same day, the 25th
4 of July, 1990, the Parliament of Croatia adopted, for the second time in
5 that year, amendments to the Constitution of Croatia and that the
6 attribute "socialist" was eliminated from it, and the previous flag of
7 Croatia was replaced by a chequer-board design?
8 A. Well, again, I'm aware that there were amendments made to the
9 Croatian Constitution. With the best will in the world, I can't remember
10 the exact date or the purpose, although I thought that the flag of the
11 Socialist Republic of Croatia also had a chequer-board design on it. But
12 they may have changed the details of that design, yeah.
13 Q. Thank you. Let me remind you that Lord Owen, in his book,
14 said -- on page 100 of the book, "The Balkan Odyssey," and I quote:
15 "For the Serbs in Croatia, it was a provocation. Even if we take
16 into account their historical ties, the fact that the government adopted
17 the same symbol for its flag that Pavelic used, and that was the
18 red-and-white chequer-board ..."
19 Do we agree that Pavelic was the president of the quisling
20 independent state of Croatia during the Second World War and that that
21 state proclaimed racist laws based upon which different peoples,
22 including Serbs, Jews and Roma, were killed?
23 A. Well, that's certainly generally correct, but I think what's in
24 question here is the exact layout of the chequer-board on the flag.
25 I think the Ustasha chequer-board is different than the Socialist
Page 14136
1 chequer-board, and that certainly would have been regarded -- I can well
2 say that the Serbs everywhere would have regarded that as being
3 provocative.
4 Q. Thank you. Do you believe that simultaneity of actions by the
5 Serbs in Knin and by the parliament in Croatia should be emphasised, that
6 the actions of the Serbs in Knin should not be regarded in isolation,
7 but, rather, that they should be put in the context of the developments
8 that were taking place in Zagreb at the same time? Do you agree that
9 that would be necessary and, indeed, opportune?
10 A. Well, I think there are many other facts than those adduced in
11 this report which would certainly be useful to consider in connection
12 with many of the issues raised. I tried to select the ones that I
13 thought were most important and relevant to the report, with a view to
14 keeping the length of the report within some reasonable bounds, but I
15 certainly think that that is a useful fact or set of facts to consider.
16 Q. Thank you. Yesterday, you confirmed for us that you knew that
17 Croatia had been establishing its own secret army under various names;
18 the Croatian National Guard, the Falcons Guards, the Volunteer Youth
19 Units of the Civilian Protection of Croatia, and finally the National
20 Corps Guard, the so-called ZNG, together with the MUP they constituted
21 the nucleus of the Croatian military, and all that during the time when
22 Croatia was still a republic of Yugoslavia?
23 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes, Mr. Tieger.
24 MR. TIEGER: We'll need a reference to the transcript. It's
25 certainly my recollection is that while there was reference to arming
Page 14137
1 made generally yesterday, this level of detail was not in any remote way
2 adduced.
3 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes. Do you have a reference for that,
4 Dr. Karadzic?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am afraid that the
6 misunderstanding stems from the transcript. I said that Dr. Treanor
7 confirmed that both Izetbegovic and Tudjman were in the process of
8 creating their own armies. He may have confirmed it even today. I
9 wanted to ask Dr. Treanor whether he's familiar with these particular
10 names, do these names ring any bells in addition to what already knows,
11 all the names that I've given you. And the last name was the National
12 Corps Guard, abbreviation being ZNG. They were established in May, and
13 that together with the MUP or the police, those forces constituted the
14 nucleus of the Croatian Army during the period when Croatia was still an
15 integral part of Yugoslavia. If Dr. Treanor is familiar with these names
16 and developments, then I don't need to call up any documents.
17 THE WITNESS: I'm generally familiar with those names and those
18 general developments.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 Q. Do you know that on the 17th of August, 1990, the Croatian
21 Special Police carried out an attack on the police station in Benkovac.
22 Benkovac is a Serbian municipality in Croatia. Do you know that they
23 arrived, they attacked, they seized their weapons, that they disarmed the
24 local Serbian police in Benkovac?
25 A. I'm familiar with that particular action. I wouldn't be able to
Page 14138
1 recall the exact date off the top of my head, and I couldn't confirm the
2 details as you have set them out, but generally there was an action of
3 that description around that time.
4 Q. Thank you. Do you remember that on the 27th of September of that
5 same year, the special units of the Croatian police stormed Petrinja in
6 Banja, also a Serbian region, and that they arrested over 300 Serbs and
7 that they confiscated weapons from the depots of the Territorial Defence
8 and the Reserve Police?
9 A. Well, the same answer generally holds true for -- or does hold
10 true for the -- for this question as for the previous question.
11 Q. Thank you. In your report, 12125, paragraph 18, you say that on
12 the 30th September 1990, the results of the referendum were published and
13 that they showed that of 567.317 votes, 567.127 or 99.97 per cent voted
14 in favour of staying within Yugoslavia, and only 144 were against. Do
15 you remember that paragraph? You're talking about the referendum of the
16 Serbian people in Croatia, and that referendum dealt with Serbian
17 autonomy.
18 A. Yes, I see that paragraph.
19 Q. Do you agree that the electoral body was almost 600.000 people
20 and that on top of that we have to add 25 persons [as interpreted] under
21 the age of 18, which means that there were far more than only 600.000
22 Serbs residing in Croatia at the time?
23 Let's leave that. Maybe you don't know that. But the fact is
24 that only persons who were of age could vote in that referendum, and not
25 the 25 per cent of the people who were minors; right?
Page 14139
1 A. Yes, only people who were of age can vote.
2 Q. Further on in your paragraphs 28 and 29 of the same document, you
3 say that on the 21st of December, 1990, the Croatian leadership passed a
4 resolution on the dissolution of Yugoslavia, and the Serbian leadership
5 in Knin adopted a statute of the SAO Krajina. Paragraph 29 says:
6 [In English] "The Croatian resolution foresaw the dissolution of
7 the SFRY into several sovereign independent states within the existing
8 republican boundaries."
9 [Interpretation] Whereas paragraph 28 says that a discussion on
10 the new constitution, the so-called Christmas Constitution, warned the
11 Serbian leaders:
12 [In English] "The public discussion on the Croatian Constitution
13 has already alerted Serbian leader to what were for them the document's
14 problematic features cited about. On 21st December 1990, the day before
15 its proclamation, the Provisional Presidency of the Community of
16 Municipalities of Northern Dalmatia and Lika declared a Serbian
17 Autonomous District (SAO) of Krajina and adopted a statute."
18 [Interpretation] Right?
19 A. Yes, I see those paragraphs.
20 Q. I'm grateful for you for having established a wider context in
21 this paragraph. So we can see that that was a synchronised course of
22 events. And in the same paragraph, you say that the Serbs demanded
23 territorial autonomy, and you say:
24 [In English] "In other words, at this point, the Serbian leaders
25 in Croatia were not claiming anything that the Belgrade leadership was
Page 14140
1 not willing to concede in Serbia."
2 [Interpretation] So you thought that what the Serbs were
3 requesting in Croatia was not something that Serbia proper did not allow
4 in its state?
5 A. Where does it say that?
6 Q. Paragraph 28, the end of paragraph 28, where you say that the
7 Serbs in Croatia called for territorial autonomy. In Article 6 of the
8 1990 Constitution, in the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, it says
9 that Vojvodina and Kosovo are also forms of territorial autonomy, and
10 that what Serbs are demanding in Croatia is nothing out of the ordinary,
11 and that it is nothing the Republic of Serbia proper would not have
12 allowed to happen in its own territory; right?
13 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes, Mr. Tieger.
14 THE WITNESS: Yes, the report points that out, yes. It was in
15 the footnote, footnote 39.
16 MR. TIEGER: Well, just to expedite things in future - I'm
17 grateful to the witness for pointing that out - in posing questions and
18 pointing to paragraphs in the report if, in fact, there's a reference to
19 a footnote, then that would assist.
20 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes, thank you.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'll do my best.
22 Let's look at 1D3523, and let us see how the Constitutional Court
23 of Yugoslavia evaluated the constitutionality of the Croatian Parliament
24 act on the dissolution of Yugoslavia.
25 This is a decision issued by the Constitutional Court of
Page 14141
1 Yugoslavia. This was issued at the initiative of the Federal
2 Executive Council, i.e., the Government of Yugoslavia and the Presidency
3 of Yugoslavia. They instituted proceedings before the Constitutional
4 Court on the assessment of the constitutionality of the resolution on
5 accepting proceedings for the disassociation of the SFRY and the possible
6 association of internal lands of sovereign republics, and so on and so
7 forth.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].
9 Q. This is a document that you highlighted as something that
10 provoked Knin to react? Isn't that the document?
11 A. I'm sorry, which document are you suggesting that was that
12 prompted Knin to react to the decision or the -- or the resolution? The
13 resolution, yes, the resolution, precisely, yes, prompted them to react.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 Now, since this document will be admitted, let's first look at
16 its third page, and let's see what the decision of the
17 Constitutional Court was. That's the last page of the document.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. The Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia annuls the part of item 1
20 of the resolution on accepting proceedings for the disassociation of
21 Yugoslavia, and so on and so forth. Are you familiar with this document
22 and this decision of the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia? Was it
23 available to you at the time when you drafted your report?
24 A. [Previous translation continues]... Yes, I think I've seen this.
25 I certainly can't remember the details.
Page 14142
1 Q. Please look at the composition of the Constitutional Court of
2 Yugoslavia. The president of the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia,
3 Milovan Buzadzic, who is a Montenegrin; Judges Hrvoje Bacic, Croat;
4 Slobodan Blagojevic, Serb; Krste Calovski, Macedonian; Omer Ibrahimagic,
5 Muslim from Bosnia, and so on and so forth. Pjeter Kolja is Albanian;
6 Dimce Kozarov, probably Macedonian; Ivan Kristan, Slovenian, and so on
7 and so forth.
8 Do you agree that was a representative composition of the
9 Constitutional Court?
10 A. Well, you seem to mean, by "representative," representative of
11 the national structure of Yugoslavia. If the membership is as you
12 described, it would certainly seem to be, and I think they strove for
13 that, in fact. I don't know the backgrounds to the -- the political
14 backgrounds of all these individuals or when they were appointed. I
15 would comment that the many members of the Yugoslav League of Communists
16 of whatever nationality were dedicated to the preservation of the
17 Yugoslav Federation, as well as simply Serbs.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 Can the document be admitted?
20 MR. TIEGER: If "the document" refers to those two or three
21 pages, no objection.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D1266, Your Honours.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The entire document is only three
24 pages' long. I think it should be admitted as a whole.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
Page 14143
1 Q. Furthermore, in late December 1990, the counter-intelligence of
2 the JNA took a photo of Martin Spegelj, the minister of defence of the
3 Republic of Croatia, when he was involved in the action of illegal arming
4 of Croatian illegal troops, and he even gave them instructions to shoot
5 JNA officers in the stomach in order to kill them.
6 Do you remember that? Were you aware of that?
7 A. I'm aware of this incident. I believe it was in the press and so
8 forth. But the details, I don't recall, and the exact circumstances of
9 all this, I think it was a little bit contentious at the time.
10 Q. However, you remember that there is no doubt that we can hear in
11 the clip that members of the JNA had to be killed, as well as their wives
12 and children, in their apartments by throwing bombs into apartments, by
13 killing them in the street. I don't think that there is any doubt about
14 that. Do you have any reason to doubt the authenticity of the video-clip
15 that even aired on television?
16 A. Well, I certainly can't remember all the words that were spoken
17 or even remember all the images. I have a vague recollection of all
18 that, and I also seem to recollect that there was some controversy about
19 whether the tape was authentic, or staged, or what, all that sort of
20 thing. It's not something that I looked into.
21 Q. Thank you. Spegelj, and later on Josip Boljkovac were secretly
22 recorded saying that the Serbian issue in Croatia would be forcibly
23 resolved. Spegelj even used the term that the Serbs in Croatia will be
24 butchered, and Boljkovac used the word "forcibly." Do you know that that
25 was happening and that all those developments created fear and terror
Page 14144
1 among the Serb population?
2 A. Well, I really can't recall these particular statements by
3 Spegelj and Boljkovac. But as far as I am aware, there was a great deal
4 of apprehension among Serbs in Croatia.
5 Q. Thank you. Do you agree -- and we are going back to Bosnia. Do
6 you agree that the Party of Democratic Action, up to mid-January 1991, up
7 to a time after the election, was in favour of preserving the Yugoslav
8 Federation, that that was their position?
9 A. Yes, as I recollect - I have a better recollection of that
10 document - their programme in 1990 favoured preservation of the
11 Yugoslav Federation in its present composition; that is, with all the
12 republics remaining within the Federation.
13 Q. Thank you. Do you agree that the Presidency of Yugoslavia, on
14 the 9th of January, 1991, reacted when they obtained evidence about the
15 legal import of arms into Croatia and Slovenia, and that they issued a
16 decision on the dissolution of all illegal armed forces?
17 A. Yes, I recollect something like that. Again, the date is
18 something that I couldn't confirm off-hand, but I'm sure that the
19 transcript of that Presidency session and the text of any decisions they
20 issued would be available.
21 Q. Thank you. In your report 12125, paragraph 31, you conclude
22 correctly that the separatist attempts had put the SDS of BiH on its
23 guard. That is in paragraph 31; is that correct?
24 A. Yes, I can see that.
25 Q. Thank you. On the 30th of January, 1991, and you will find it in
Page 14145
1 paragraph 30 of your document, there was a first attempt to adopt the
2 declaration on the sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and you
3 conclude that that proposal was hindered by the 20 SDS deputies, and
4 instead of adopting it, they sent that proposal -- they referred it for
5 consideration to the National Council?
6 A. Yes, paragraph 30 deals with those issues.
7 Q. Thank you. On the 21st of February -- I'm reading from
8 paragraph 29, which refers to that same thing. You again correctly
9 conclude that:
10 [In English] "Croatia took a further step toward loosening its
11 ties with the federation on 21 February 1991 when the Sabor adopted a
12 constitutional law on supplementing the constitutional law for the
13 implementation of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia ..."
14 [Interpretation] And so on and so forth. I don't want to go on
15 reading the entire paragraph.
16 Is that, indeed, what happened, what you recorded in your report?
17 Did the Serbs in Croatia suffer an additional blow from this and as a
18 result of this?
19 A. Well, yes, I would say there was a further blow to the Serbian
20 position in Croatia, the position of the Serbian people.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 To avoid wasting time, we would offer 29 decisions in a Bar Table
23 motion.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Do you know that all these decisions of the Croatian Assembly
Page 14146
1 were abolished by the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia as unlawful and
2 unconstitutional?
3 A. Well, I can't recall each specific decision. But along the lines
4 of the decision you just showed, I can well imagine that they took
5 decisions in regard to these actions as well. I think there's a whole
6 book or collection of these things; that is, the decisions.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 I would like to draw everyone's attention to your paragraph 35 in
9 this same document, where you say that the decisions of the Assembly on
10 the dissolution of the SFRY, you say that the Executive Board of SAO
11 Krajina reversed them and declared that laws of Croatia which were in
12 conflict with federal provisions and the provisions of the SAO would
13 henceforth not apply in SAO Krajina.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Is that what your paragraph 35 says?
16 A. Yes, that's generally what it says.
17 Q. At this same time on the 27th of February, 1991, in
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina, Avdo Campara, and that's paragraph 34 -- it says that
19 Avdo Campara, invoking Amendment 70 to the Constitution of
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina, once again prevented the enactment of the Declaration
21 of Independence and sent it back before the Assembly. That was the
22 second time the Serbian community, the Serbian side, tried to prevent the
23 enactment of this resolution; correct?
24 A. Well, I can see what the paragraph says, and that's what it says.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now see D256 briefly to see
Page 14147
1 what was said at the same Assembly session by Mr. Izetbegovic.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Do you recall Mr. Izetbegovic said at the same session that he
4 would sacrifice peace for a sovereign Bosnia, and he would not sacrifice
5 sovereign Bosnia for anything?
6 A. Yes, I certainly recall that, that remark by Mr. Izetbegovic.
7 Q. Page 101 in Serbian, and in English, page 4, but since you
8 remember that, we don't have to call up the document.
9 Do you agree that this statement by Izetbegovic should have found
10 a place in your reports?
11 A. Well, it certainly could have. I think I did mention the later
12 remark that he made in March along the same lines.
13 Q. Thank you. It's not just you, but everyone who worked for the
14 Prosecution included every joke I made, and this remark by Izetbegovic
15 was not a joke; it was a very dangerous statement to make. But never
16 mind.
17 Do you remember that in Split, on the 30th of March,
18 Izetbegovic --
19 JUDGE MORRISON: Mr. Tieger.
20 MR. TIEGER: Making comments -- and I'm sorry to rise, but if I
21 don't, then it's an invitation for Dr. Karadzic to acknowledge the
22 impropriety of making comments by saying, Never mind, and moving on,
23 while, nevertheless, interjecting them. So I object to that practice.
24 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, Dr. Karadzic, you will know the difference
25 between a question and a comment. Confine yourself to pertinent
Page 14148
1 questions, please.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 Q. Do you recall that on the 30th of March, 1991, at the same time,
4 therefore, at a very well-known meeting of the presidents of the six
5 republics in Split, said very publicly that the declaration on the
6 independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina would be adopted with or without
7 the consent of Serbian deputies, although at that time the declaration
8 was still before the council of national or international equality for
9 their consideration?
10 A. Yes, this is the remark I was referring to earlier. I thought
11 this was very important and indicative, since it ran directly counter to
12 what seems to have been agreed at the Assembly session in February. I'm
13 not aware that there ever was a council for national equality, in any
14 case, but Izetbegovic's remark seems to ignore that procedure entirely.
15 Q. Thank you. Were you aware of the fact that on the 31st of March,
16 1991, a decision was adopted to establish a military wing of the Party of
17 Democratic Action, SDA, to be known as the Patriotic League?
18 A. Well, I have not -- I can't recall having seen any documents to
19 that effect. It may well be true.
20 Q. Thank you. Did you know that on the 5th of May, 1991, during a
21 visit to the town of Trogir, Tudjman said to the representatives of the
22 Croatian Democratic Union that the people should be mobilised and at the
23 ready?
24 A. I would have the same answer to that question, which would be
25 that I can't recall having seen a document to that effect.
Page 14149
1 Q. Thank you. Do you recall that on the very next day, on the 6th
2 of May, 1991, in Split, there occurred forcible protests against the JNA,
3 and on that occasion one JNA soldier, Sasa Gersovski was killed, and
4 several others were wounded, and there's a very well-known video footage
5 of somebody strangling the young soldier in the turret of a tank? It's
6 been shown many times.
7 A. Well, yes, I've heard of that. But, again, the date I couldn't
8 testify to, I won't testify to.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 Can we then briefly see 65 ter 939. And for the parties, I can
11 say it's mentioned in the pre-trial brief as well, paragraph 159. I
12 mean, the document is mentioned in the pre-trial brief.
13 Unfortunately, the Prosecution translated only the portion that
14 was of interest to them, which I can understand, but in that case it
15 says -- the title is "Vasil too shot at Sasa." Sasa is the
16 Sasa Gersovski I just mentioned, a young soldier doing his compulsory
17 service in the JNA. And the subheading says:
18 "Through Spegelj's mouth, Croatia had long ago declared war to
19 the JNA. The Kalashnikov that killed the soldier in Split was maybe held
20 by a member of the MUP of Croatia, but at that moment Stipe Mesic,
21 Janez Drnovsek and Bogic Bogicevic also had their hands on that rifle."
22 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear Mr. Karadzic's
23 question because we were still doing the translation.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. The question is: Were you given this document about this
Page 14150
1 important and dramatic event by the OTP?
2 A. Well, if it's in our collection, it would have been available to
3 me. I can't recall having seen it.
4 Q. I would like to show you, Dr. Treanor, that it matters much more
5 to the Prosecution that a political organisation establishes some
6 autonomous region than a dramatic event of this kind, such as the one in
7 Split. Do you agree that it's a very dramatic event?
8 A. It seems to be a dramatic event, yes.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like the entire document to
10 be MFI'd, because only a portion has been admitted.
11 MR. TIEGER: No objection, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE MORRISON: So be it. That can be marked for
13 identification.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As MFI D1267, Your Honours.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. On 12th May 1990, after these harrowing scenes in Split, a
17 referendum was held in SAO Krajina about remaining within Yugoslavia, and
18 you deal with it in your paragraph 43 of this same document; right?
19 A. Yes, that's mentioned in paragraph 43.
20 Q. Do you have evidence that it was Milosevic who advised and
21 recommended this referendum or is it the case that the referendum was
22 organised without the knowledge or even contrary to the wishes of
23 Milosevic?
24 A. Well, I don't have any document that would indicate that
25 Milosevic specifically recommended this particular referendum. The
Page 14151
1 comment in the paragraph says "of the type advocated by Milosevic." He
2 had, I think in at least one of the speeches that was quoted earlier,
3 said that referendums should be held of the peoples to see their desires
4 about remaining or leaving Yugoslavia, so this is the type of referendum
5 that he was talking about.
6 Q. Thank you. On 19 May 1991, and that's in paragraph 44, a
7 referendum was held in all of Croatia, and the proposition was that the
8 Republic of Croatia be a sovereign and independent state that guarantees
9 cultural autonomy and civil rights to Serbs and members of other
10 nationalities in Croatia. Is that written in your paragraph 44?
11 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes, Mr. Tieger.
12 MR. TIEGER: Just to the interests of time, questions asking a
13 witness to confirm what's in front of us, there have been repeated
14 admonitions about that, and it's certainly unnecessary when presented to
15 the person who wrote it.
16 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes. Dr. Karadzic, stating the obvious is not
17 using your time efficiently.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. But I would really like
19 to make an introduction for the next document, 1D3538, where the
20 Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia overturns this decision that turns the
21 Serbian people in Croatia from a constituent people into a national
22 minority.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Here, on page 1, it says that:
25 "The Federal Executive Council instigated before the
Page 14152
1 Constitutional Court ..."
2 Do you agree that at that time, the president of the Federal
3 Executive Council, that is, the federal prime minister, was
4 Ante Markovic, a Croat?
5 A. Yes, I believe that's correct.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we then see the next page,
7 where the decision is.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. The whole decision says that the peoples made a union, and that
10 one republic cannot decide on their rights and relationships, and the
11 decision says:
12 "This decision of Croatia is hereby abolished."
13 This is to be published in the Official Gazette, et cetera.
14 You can see who was on this council -- sorry, the
15 Constitutional Court. It's the same composition, and those judges were
16 delegated by the republics, nobody elected them contrary to the will of
17 the republics.
18 Now, the question is: Dr. Treanor, did you have insight into
19 this decision of the Constitutional Court abolishing the decision to
20 which you referred in paragraph 44?
21 A. Yes. As I think I indicated earlier, we have all these decisions
22 available.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May this document be admitted, this
24 decision of the Constitutional Court?
25 MR. TIEGER: No objection to the decision, Your Honour.
Page 14153
1 JUDGE MORRISON: Insofar as the referenced parts are concerned,
2 yes.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D1268, Your Honours.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am tendering the whole document.
5 It's just three pages, and that includes the statement of reasons for
6 this decision of the Constitutional Court with all the arguments.
7 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, there has to be a limit, and the
8 limitation is basically that part of the document which has been put to
9 the witness and to which the witness can speak.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, then we'll have to offer more
11 documents through a Bar Table motion.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Now, please, Dr. Treanor, in paragraph 45 of your report, you
14 confirm that SAO Krajina's status was proclaimed, and the independent
15 autonomous region proclaimed it was staying in the federal state of
16 Yugoslavia?
17 A. Yes, that is correct. And I would observe, in this connection,
18 that the description as an autonomous political territorial region within
19 the FRY goes beyond the status that they had been claiming, as we
20 discussed earlier in connection with paragraph 28 and footnote 39.
21 Q. Thank you. But can you see that in the meantime, there happened
22 something that was reversed by the Constitutional Court, and that this
23 was a reaction to the developments?
24 A. Well, yes, I hope we can all see that from what's in the report,
25 although the Constitutional Court's decision is not mentioned, which --
Page 14154
1 what -- I didn't catch the date of that decision, but presumably it would
2 have taken some time for that to happen, and this reaction took place
3 rather quickly.
4 Q. Thank you. On 25 June 1991, paragraph 54, you state that
5 Slovenia and Croatia proclaimed their independence. Would you agree that
6 these decisions were contrary to the Constitution of Yugoslavia? In
7 fact, if you don't want to deal with legal issues: Do you know that the
8 Constitutional Court reversed this decision as well?
9 A. Yes, I can well imagine that would be the case.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 We will offer that decision of the Constitutional Court,
12 reversing the decision on the independence of Slovenia and Croatia,
13 through a Bar Table motion.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. You also state in paragraph 54 that the JNA took steps to protect
16 the borders of the SFRY. Do you agree that this action on the part of
17 the JNA was their constitutional duty?
18 A. Well, I've referenced particular documents there as a basis for
19 my knowledge of those particular events. I -- again, whether it was
20 their constitutional duty to do that, I couldn't comment on that beyond
21 what may be stated in the document, itself, which I can't recall at this
22 time by way of any sort of preamble or whatnot to what -- to those
23 particular documents. These types of decisions normally included at the
24 beginning references to the -- to their legal basis.
25 Q. Thank you. You were aware of the course of events and the
Page 14155
1 attempts of the Muslim and Serb communities to avoid this adverse course
2 of events, and that they were in the process of making a so-called
3 historic Serbian-Muslim agreement; correct?
4 A. Well, yes, there were negotiations going on, as indicated in the
5 report, between SDS leaders and various Muslim political leaders; in
6 particular, the leaders of the MBO, the Muslim Bosniak Organisation, as
7 well as the SDA, headed by Izetbegovic.
8 Q. Thank you. Along with that historic Serbian-Muslim agreement,
9 you were aware, as I can see, that Serbs also came up with a document
10 listing their proposals. Do you recall that in July, the same time when
11 this agreement was on the table, the Serbs presented their proposals?
12 A. Well, first let me say I don't think there ever was an agreement.
13 There was a discussion about having an agreement, about coming to an
14 agreement, and I think I did reference the -- both the Serbian, that is,
15 the SDS proposals and the MBO proposals, as they were made at that time,
16 as they were later published.
17 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, we'll take a break now until 1.00.
18 --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.
20 JUDGE MORRISON: Just before you recommence, Dr. Karadzic, I've
21 been reminded that I did not state in open court what is, in fact, I
22 suspect, blindingly obvious, that we are still sitting under Rule 15 bis,
23 in the absence of Judge Kwon. We did so yesterday, and we will do so
24 tomorrow.
25 Yes.
Page 14156
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 I would like to call up 1D0897 in e-court. This is a document
3 known under the title: "What is it that the Serbs propose?"
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Do you remember that in July, when this proposal appeared, and
6 throughout August, an agreement was -- between Serbs and Muslims had been
7 tabled? It was not accepted, but there were negotiations about that
8 agreement until the very end of August, when Izetbegovic finally decided
9 to opt out of it. Do you remember?
10 A. I remember this document. I believe it's mentioned in the
11 report -- in the -- perhaps in the report, but certainly in the
12 leadership study.
13 Q. In paragraph 48, you, indeed, mention this document. If I may
14 draw your attention, as well as the attention of all the others, you
15 mention, in the footnote, that this refers to what the Serbs propose, and
16 in paragraph 48 you say:
17 [In English] "There is no way, except brutal force, that the
18 Serbian people in BH might be separated from Yugoslavia."
19 [Interpretation] Do you agree that this quote suggests that the
20 Serbs -- or, rather, that the Serbian leadership were in favour of the
21 war option?
22 A. No, I wouldn't say that necessarily suggests that. It may
23 suggest that they were just in favour of remaining in Yugoslavia, and
24 that it would be better to do so peacefully.
25 MR. TIEGER: Sorry. Just so the record is clear, Your Honour,
Page 14157
1 with reference to paragraph 48, it's not the case that Mr. -- that
2 Dr. Treanor said there is no way, but he quotes the SDS thesis on that
3 point.
4 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes. I think that's plain, but it needs to be
5 on the record. Thank you, Mr. Tieger.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you. I did say that
7 that was a quote, but that I did not agree with the selectivity that was
8 applied, because the sentence out of the context may suggest that the
9 Serbs were in favour of the war.
10 And now can we look at page 6 in the Serbian and page 4 in the
11 English version of the same document, paragraph 11.
12 I will not read. I would kindly ask everybody to look at
13 paragraph 11, where the Serbs declare their political position with
14 regard to Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. It arises from this paragraph that the Serbian people were in
17 favour of a democratic resolution to the crisis, without any use of force
18 and without any solutions being imposed on them. Do you agree that that
19 was the position that was unambiguously highlighted in this paragraph?
20 A. Well, the paragraph says what it says.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 Can we now go to pages 3 and 4 in Serbian and pages 1 and 2 in
23 the English version of the same document.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Towards the end of the Serbian page is that the main idea, as the
Page 14158
1 starting point of the Serbian Democratic Party for Bosnia and
2 Herzegovina, is that:
3 "Primarily nobody has the right to impose any solutions on
4 anybody. Every attempt to cancel the right of those people who want to
5 live in a" - the following page in the Serbian, please, and in English as
6 well - "common state of Yugoslavia is unjust and absurd. On the other
7 hand, no one must be prevented from leaving Yugoslavia when such
8 agreements as do not jeopardise the rights of other nations living on the
9 same territory have been negotiated. If this is technically possible,
10 the Serbian side accepts the right of every people either to stay," which
11 was technically possible because that would have meant the status quo,
12 "or to leave Yugoslavia."
13 Now, Dr. Donia [as interpreted], may I ask you: Did those who
14 were in favour of the status quo need to use force, or is it the fact
15 that the force was needed by those who wanted to secede from Yugoslavia,
16 in other words, they were not in favour of a status quo?
17 A. Well, it was the position of the SDS at this time, as we
18 discussed a little bit yesterday in my testimony, that since Bosnia was
19 in Yugoslavia, and the Serbs in Bosnia were in Yugoslavia, then all they
20 had to do was just remain in Yugoslavia, maintain the status quo. And
21 they thought that that would be very easy and that would certainly -- if
22 that's what happened, that would maintain the peace, which I'm sure
23 everyone wanted to do, unless they wanted to leave. Then they had to
24 change the status quo. Then it becomes a question of how that gets done.
25 You referred to force. What do you mean by "force"? I mean, the
Page 14159
1 procedure that the SDA and the HDZ adopted at the session of the Assembly
2 on the 14th and 15th of October, passing the resolutions they did, the
3 so-called memorandum and letter, that that could broadly be described as
4 using force.
5 Q. Thank you. Do you remember that before the years of physical
6 force, we called that constitutional violence? All the decisions that
7 were taken in the Parliament imposing decisions on the other people, we
8 called it the constitutional violence; right?
9 A. I don't remember that particular term. I certainly remember
10 things being said about the Constitution having been violated, the
11 constitutional order having been destroyed, so it would seem that the SDS
12 leaders did regard that as a form of violence.
13 Q. Thank you. Let's go back to the 12th of July, 1991, and the
14 Assembly of the Serbian Democratic Party. And now I would like to draw
15 your attention to paragraph 59, in which you write about the so-called
16 Belgrade Initiative.
17 We will go back to the 12th of July and the Assembly later on.
18 This is what I said, and it was mis-recorded.
19 And now I want to draw your attention to paragraph 59, in which
20 you write about the so-called Belgrade initiative. The document number
21 is 65 ter 6586.
22 While we are waiting, let me ask you this: Do you remember that
23 we, the Serbs, and the Serbian Democratic Party and the other Serbian
24 party, gave up on regionalisation in favour of the Serb-Muslim agreement,
25 and that was publicised? We gave up on SAOs and autonomous if we were
Page 14160
1 able to reach an agreement between Muslims and Serbs which would result
2 in the preservation of Yugoslavia?
3 A. No, I'm not precisely aware of that, no. I know that
4 regionalisation continued to -- or seemed to continue to figure in
5 negotiations with Mr. Zulfikarpasic and Mr. Izetbegovic, and that
6 Mr. Zulfikarpasic in August, as I think it may be referenced in the
7 report, had a series of articles in the Sarajevo daily "Oslobodjenje,"
8 among other things, rejecting the idea of regionalisation.
9 Q. Thank you. We'll talk about regionalisation specifically.
10 However, since I've mentioned the Belgrade Initiative, I wanted to ask
11 you this: You mention it in paragraph 59. Let me ask you, do you agree
12 that that meeting took place in August, and that there was a debate based
13 on the historical Muslim and Serb agreement, that the initiative for this
14 was the historical Serb-Muslim agreement that was being negotiated at the
15 time?
16 A. Yes, according to the paragraph, the -- and my information, the
17 meeting took place on the 12th of August in Belgrade, and it was
18 connected with the so-called historic agreement.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 Can the previous document be admitted, the title "What do the
21 Serbs propose?", as well as the document entitled "The Belgrade
22 Initiative"?
23 MR. TIEGER: No objection, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes. The first document, I gather, is already
25 in evidence. The second one can be admitted.
Page 14161
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that was Exhibit D288 under
2 65 ter 942.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And has "The Belgrade Initiative"
4 been given a number?
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Is the document that we see on the screen the document that you
7 referred to in your paragraph 59, sir?
8 A. Yes, it seems to be. I can't see the ERN, but it looks familiar.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Has the initiative been admitted,
10 the one on the screen?
11 JUDGE MORRISON: Yeah, I think it has been.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, "The Belgrade Initiative" document
13 will be Exhibit D1269.
14 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Q. We don't have much time to talk about the developments in Croatia
17 in August. However, I would like to draw your attention to paragraph 61,
18 in which you write about a meeting of the Presidency of Yugoslavia and
19 other Yugoslav leaders. The meeting took place on the 21st and the 22nd
20 August. I'm asking all the participants in the proceedings to look at
21 paragraph 61.
22 What I would like to know is this: Do you agree that you noted
23 and highlighted here that the Serbian leaderships from Serbia and
24 Montenegro proposed that the right of all the people to
25 self-determination should be respected, that procedures by the
Page 14162
1 Federal Assembly should be adopted for the separation of those republics
2 who wished to do so, and that they shouldn't be imposing solutions on any
3 of the peoples?
4 A. Yes, that's what the paragraph says.
5 Q. Do you agree that the adoption of the laws on legal secession, a
6 process that had been underway, was largely ignored by Croatia and
7 Slovenia?
8 A. Well, I don't know the details of that process, but they
9 certainly seemed to me to have adopted their resolutions without
10 reference to any such process.
11 Q. Thank you. In paragraph 65, you say that Borisav Jovic defined
12 the role of the Yugoslav People's Army, and you say, amongst other
13 things:
14 [In English] "Our goal is using the institution of the JNA, as a
15 legitimate military force of Yugoslavia, to force the Republic of Croatia
16 to not realise its interests by force and to force the Republic of
17 Croatia that it must accept the political search for a solution that will
18 secure the right of the Serbian people to self-determination."
19 [No interpretation]
20 A. Well, the paragraph says --
21 MR. TIEGER: Excuse me. I didn't think -- I didn't hear a
22 translation. I think that was the problem that the --
23 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes, nor did I, so that wasn't translated,
24 Dr. Karadzic. You may have to repeat yourself.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Allow me to go on reading from the
Page 14163
1 second paragraph:
2 [In English] "It is not the aim of the JNA to topple Croatian
3 authority and to impose some authority on the Croatian people, rather to
4 make it impossible for Croatia to impose solutions by force on the
5 Serbian people in Croatia. This means the goal is very clear. The JNA
6 is for the purpose of the right of every people to self-determination,
7 and in practice for the purpose of the right to protection of the Serbian
8 people in Croatia."
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. My question is this: Is this an obviously well-defined role of
11 the JNA, to protect rights, and not to impose solutions on Croats?
12 A. Well, the paragraph says what it says. I notice there is -- in
13 the first line there, first and second line of the quote, we're having
14 the JNA forcing people not to use force. It sort of gets into the
15 chicken-and-egg argument you were referring to before. But the paragraph
16 does say what you've indicated.
17 Q. Well, if the JNA had to or could prevent Croatia from using
18 force, then everything would have fallen in its own place; right?
19 A. Well, I don't know. That's kind of a counter-factual question.
20 I don't know what would have happened.
21 Q. Thank you. On the 7th September 1991, you say, in paragraph 72,
22 efforts were launched by the European Union, headed by Lord Carrington,
23 to find a solution; right? Do you agree that that agreement also applied
24 to the outer borders of the federal state of the SFRY? To be more
25 precise, let me quote:
Page 14164
1 [In English] "We are determined never to recognise changes of any
2 borders which have not been brought about by peaceful means and
3 agreement."
4 [Interpretation] That is a part of the declaration which was read
5 at the ceremonial opening of the Conference on Yugoslavia. You mentioned
6 that in your paragraph 72. Does this also apply to honouring the
7 existing external or outer borders of the federal state of Yugoslavia?
8 A. Well, that's a very good question, and I don't know the answer to
9 that off-hand. I'd have to go back and look at those documents.
10 Q. Did you perhaps notice that in the indictment, even the borders
11 of the municipalities are codified even more than the external borders of
12 Yugoslavia, as an internationally-recognised state? It seems that a lot
13 more attention was paid to any changes made in the boundaries of the
14 municipalities than to the borders of the former state of Yugoslavia?
15 A. You make reference to the indictment. I don't really know what's
16 in the indictment.
17 Q. Thank you. On the 11th of September, do you agree that the
18 Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina, at the proposal of Mr. Izetbegovic,
19 passed a conclusion on not imposition of solutions for Bosnia and
20 Herzegovina?
21 A. On the 11th of September? I don't recall that resolution. If
22 you say so, I'll accept your word for it. I've read all the relevant
23 documents, but I don't happen to recall that. But I think that that idea
24 is expressed in the SDS Deputies Club meeting of the 30th of September
25 that we saw yesterday. I think I may have mentioned that in my
Page 14165
1 testimony, pointed it out. I think it's also mentioned in the report,
2 that -- where Dr. Karadzic is quoted as saying in that meeting that
3 Izetbegovic had agreed that force would -- that the will of one nation
4 would not be imposed on another, and had agreed to discuss
5 regionalisation.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 Let's look at D265 very briefly.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].
9 Q. Until then, Dr. Donia [as interpreted], let me remind you of the
10 sequence of events. July and August, the Serbian-Muslim agreement is on
11 the table. It was cancelled towards the end of August by Izetbegovic.
12 In September, the Autonomous Region of Krajina was proclaimed. And then
13 in the end of September, Izetbegovic accepted that no solutions would be
14 imposed on Bosnia-Herzegovina.
15 Now we are looking at the Official Gazette of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
16 Can the conclusions be blown up also in English for the benefit of all
17 the participants in the proceedings.
18 It says here that there is a danger that war might spill over
19 from Croatia to Bosnia, and so on and so forth. The Assembly is
20 committed to finding a political solution. What is highlighted here is
21 that all proposals should have an equal treatment, regionalisation,
22 division into three republics, that all of them are equal, and that no
23 solutions would be imposed on any of the peoples.
24 Do you agree that that was a fact, and did you have access to
25 these conclusions?
Page 14166
1 A. Yes, that seems to be what it says. I believe we have these
2 documents. I would only point out that Mr. Izetbegovic was not a member
3 of the Assembly. He was a member of the Presidency and was the head of
4 the SDA, so his position -- the fact that he took the same position
5 independently of this is also important, and which is what I discussed
6 earlier. This is certainly a very interesting document.
7 Q. Thank you. Do you agree that already at that time, the Party of
8 Democratic Action had a large number of regional military staffs of the
9 Patriotic League, that in Sarajevo there was a staff of the
10 Patriotic League, and there were also municipal staffs of the
11 Patriotic League? By September, they existed in all of 90
12 municipalities, and later in 103 municipalities?
13 A. No, I'm not really familiar with the details of their
14 organisational structure or the extent of that structure.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we then see D298. It's already
16 in evidence. I want to just remind Dr. Treanor. D298, page 2 in English
17 and Serbian.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. While we're waiting, let me ask you: In your view, was it
20 natural for the Serbian side to feel uneasy in a situation where the
21 other side is setting up an illegal army?
22 A. Well, again, that's sort of a chicken-and-egg question, and
23 I think it was not surprising that many people in -- not only in
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina, but throughout Yugoslavia, felt uneasy at the
25 development of events.
Page 14167
1 Q. May I ask you to look at paragraph 3:
2 [In English] "Immediately after involving myself ..."
3 [Interpretation] Well, let us note first this is a document from
4 Sefer Halilovic, who later became commander of the Main Staff of the Army
5 of Bosnia-Herzegovina. But before he was appointed to that position, he
6 secretly worked to establish the Patriotic League. As we can see, in
7 September -- that's paragraph 1. In September 1991, he put all of his
8 efforts into forming the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but then another
9 paragraph says:
10 "Immediately after involving myself in preparations ..."
11 Please read that paragraph.
12 A. I'm sorry, I'm not quite clear what paragraph you're referring
13 to. Maybe it would be better if you just read it. I don't think I've
14 ever seen this document before.
15 Q. [In English] "Immediately after involving myself in preparations
16 for the defence of RBH, in September 1991, together with the late
17 Safet Hadzic, who was appointed president of the Crisis Staff of the
18 Sarajevo region, and with the help of Mirsad Causevic, now in the
19 MIP/Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Senad Masovic, now at the Command of
20 the 3rd Corps, I drew up a proposal for organising the Patriotic League
21 for the Sarajevo region and reorganised the regional staff of the
22 Patriotic and the plan for the defence of the Sarajevo area."
23 A. That appears to be what it says. It does say "MIP," which is the
24 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, rather than Internal Affairs.
25 Q. That's correct. But now I'd like to remind you of paragraph 12,
Page 14168
1 where the Serbs were accused, in the pre-trial brief, of negotiating, on
2 the one hand, and preparing for conflict at the same time.
3 Dr. Donia [as interpreted] -- no, Dr. Treanor, do you know of a
4 single military organisation of the Serbs in September 1991?
5 A. I'm not familiar with the military structure and organisation
6 among Serbs at that time, either.
7 Q. Thank you. In paragraph 68, you state that Karadzic lost his
8 faith in Izetbegovic on the 15th October:
9 [In English] "Karadzic's faith in Izetbegovic was destroyed on
10 the 15th of October, 1991. The 8th Joint Session of the SRBH Assembly,
11 which was adopted on the 10th of October, and which convened for the
12 second time ..."
13 [Interpretation] The 14th of October.
14 Please, everyone, look at this paragraph. That's the critical
15 session of the Assembly where the Serbian deputies walked out. And after
16 two abortive attempts in the spring of 1991, the resolution on the
17 sovereignty of Bosnia-Herzegovina was finally adopted; correct?
18 A. That's what the paragraph says, yes.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now see 65 ter 11311.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. At that Assembly session, as you know, I made a speech that is
22 often quoted, usually against me. Do you remember that speech?
23 A. Yes.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see the next page. The
25 English page is 106. The Serbian page is 111. Because it's the whole
Page 14169
1 transcript of that session, the numbering is different. Serbian, 111;
2 5English, 106.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Do you recall that I said here:
5 "I'm saying for the hundredth time, the Serbian Democratic Party
6 is not creating the will of the Serbian people; it interprets it. We
7 would be lying if we told you that you are able to vote for this and do
8 something with it in Europe."
9 Do you remember that the Serbian Democratic Party held the
10 position that it was not pushing that programme; it was the Serbian
11 people who wished it?
12 Or let's move on with critical paragraphs. English page 108;
13 Serbian page 111 -- sorry, 12. Bottom of the page in Serbian. It says:
14 "We will thwart you, in the international and local public, in
15 committing constitutional violence which is followed by all other types
16 of violence. We don't control this situation anymore. It was said a
17 hundred times from this -- from this pulpit this is the road to which you
18 want to lead Bosnia and Herzegovina, the same path of suffering and hell
19 that Slovenia and Croatia had already walked."
20 Next page, please.
21 The same speech before, explaining the proposal - whether I will
22 explain it myself or leave it to someone else, I don't know - I have to
23 clear up one thing that comes from the interpretation of what we say at
24 this -- from this platform. That thing is related to the issue of war or
25 peace. "For the 100th time, I have to repeat that Serbs do not threaten
Page 14170
1 anyone with war. Serbs are only announcing that they will not be able to
2 reach any decision reached by out-voting and to the detriment of others,
3 and that Serbs could not be forced to live in the state in which they do
4 not wish to live. Serbs and Muslims understand each other at least on
5 that point, because Muslims are afraid that they would become a minority
6 in the inferior, shrunk Yugoslavia, even though they enjoy the protection
7 of their republic which will never become a constituent part of Serbia,
8 but which will be completely equal with Serbia."
9 So Serbs are afraid, by the same token, that in Bosnia and
10 Herzegovina they could be out-voted on this occasion or after several
11 years, it's completely the same.
12 Would it not have been important for you to include the positions
13 presented in this speech in your report?
14 A. Well, as I said earlier, there were any number of things I could
15 have included. The positions being taken here are perfectly consistent
16 with the positions that have been taken for the previous year, some of
17 which we discussed in testimony yesterday. I notice there seems to be an
18 implication here, going back to our previous discussion, an implication
19 that the Serbs would use force to prevent people from using force.
20 Q. Mr. Donia [as interpreted] -- sorry, Mr. Treanor, that's not
21 stated anywhere here. It says only that Serbs will not allow themselves
22 to be forced to live in a state in which they do not wish to live. Serbs
23 do not need to use force. We have every right, including constitutional
24 rights, to live in the state in which we were living.
25 Look at what it says further below. First of all, do you agree
Page 14171
1 that force was not needed to stay in Yugoslavia; force was needed by
2 those who wanted to secede?
3 A. Well, yes, I think we discussed this point before, that their
4 position was that they were in Yugoslavia and they just wanted to stay in
5 Yugoslavia. If the only way for that to change would be by force, I just
6 meant referring to the previous document, where we saw the JNA forcing
7 people not to use force. So if people are using force to make you do
8 something, that was obviously one of the options that the JNA was
9 pursuing, to prevent the use of force; that is, using force to prevent
10 force.
11 Q. Thank you. Let us continue on the same page 116 in English.
12 Karadzic says:
13 "Please, gentlemen, Muslim leaders have clearly stated that if a
14 catastrophe occurs, it would be, above all, a catastrophe for the Muslim
15 people. It would also be a catastrophe for Serbian and Croatian people,
16 especially the Serbian and Muslim people, since we are very mixed, while
17 Serbs and Croats in Serbia are rather distanced, from a geographical
18 point of view, except in the big cities, naturally. Dedijer presented
19 information on the suffering of all the peoples in Bosnia and
20 Herzegovina, especially Muslims, who could not be blamed for a mistake of
21 one leader, or a small number of Ustashas among Chetniks or in Partisans,
22 as Muslims were in all three parties. Decisions made by out-voting,
23 decisions reached by majority nations, the chaos that could occur, the
24 chaos that nobody will start, but has its own logic. The order is in
25 somebody's hands, but chaos is not in anybody's hands. The basic feature
Page 14172
1 of chaos is that nobody generates it, but it has its own logic and
2 generates itself. Chaos could be caused by wrong intentions; above all,
3 the intentions of the Muslim leadership to make something -- to do
4 something for the Muslims that could be good for Muslims only, but it
5 could not be good for Serbs at the same time. This could get us into
6 chaos, which nobody could manage anymore. Let us understand each other
7 well. The Serbian Democratic Party is not for chaos and, therefore, we
8 are trying so persistently to make sure that no decision is made by
9 out-voting others."
10 On page 123 in Serbian, which is 117 in English, it says:
11 "We can, therefore, send out a message that there will be no
12 war."
13 And above if, it says:
14 "If we find a solution, if we manage to transform Bosnia by
15 compromise ..."
16 And the conclusion says:
17 "We can send out a message that way, that there will be no war,
18 no chaos, because order is in our hands, unlike chaos, which is in
19 nobody's hands."
20 Were you aware, Doctor, of this persistent advocacy and even
21 begging and imploring of other sides to avoid descent into chaos?
22 A. Well, I'm certainly aware that there were persistent agreements
23 by the SDS leaders to -- at this time to negotiate to achieve their goal,
24 which was to remain within Yugoslavia, which would have precluded --
25 hopefully, would have precluded chaos and so forth.
Page 14173
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 130 in English and 137 in
2 Serbian.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Here, again, on behalf of the Serbian Democratic Party, I am
5 enumerating what the Serbian Democratic Party had submitted to the
6 Assembly:
7 "In Bosnia-Herzegovina, there is no consensus among the three
8 constituent peoples, Serbs, Muslims and Croats. There is no consensus on
9 remaining in Yugoslavia or seceding from it. We may talk about the
10 survival of the federal state of Yugoslavia, or about transforming it.
11 However, there is no joint position on the issue. Serbs are in favour of
12 the federal state, Croats were in favour of a confederation, and I don't
13 know what they are advocating at this point. The Croatian Democratic
14 Union was in favour of Bosnia-Herzegovina as an independent state, and
15 probably the Party of Democratic Action will not express its wish for the
16 independence of Bosnia at this moment. It is expressing its wish for
17 change in the position of Bosnia related to the independence of Croatia,
18 and that would make us also an independent republic against our will.
19 "Position 2. However, there is the agreement in Parliament that
20 the decision on the position of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Yugoslavia will
21 be made democratically, with no use of force and without imposing the
22 will of one group of people onto another.
23 "Let me make the same comments. This is also the position of the
24 Parliament" --
25 THE INTERPRETER: The speaker is kindly asked to read slowly.
Page 14174
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. -- "that there is no way that we impose --"
3 JUDGE MORRISON: Slow down a bit for the translators, please.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope the interpreters have this
5 before them:
6 "It's also the position of the Parliament that there is no way
7 that we impose our will onto each other, because we have already made the
8 Parliament conclusions that something like that will not be taking place.
9 It means that we cannot achieve that by any kind of voting, I mean,
10 imposing the will of one group of people onto another. Gentlemen, if we
11 try to do that, then we will prove that we are not in favour of equality,
12 that we do not comply with the decisions of the Parliament, that we do
13 not comply with the Constitution of Bosnia and other documents."
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Do you agree, Doctor, that this is advocacy for peace, not war?
16 A. Well, this is advocating reaching a decision by negotiation.
17 Q. Thank you. On the 17th of October, two days after this Assembly
18 session, the Serbian side, if you remember, sent an invitation to Muslims
19 and Croats to reverse their decision on the sovereignty of Bosnia and
20 Herzegovina; otherwise, the Serbian side would proclaim the Assembly of
21 the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina to include Serbian deputies
22 to the Bosnian Parliament?
23 A. I don't recall that particular document. I know there was a
24 public proclamation made by the SDS at that time, which I think is
25 referenced in my report.
Page 14175
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me ask you about the previous
2 document, which is part of the transcript of an Assembly session -- Joint
3 Assembly session. 65 ter 11311.
4 Can this -- has this transcript, as such, been admitted, or
5 should we tender just this speech? The Defence is not against admission
6 of the entire transcript.
7 JUDGE MORRISON: Mr. Tieger.
8 MR. TIEGER: No, we have no objection either way, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE MORRISON: Very well. We'll admit the entire transcript.
10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D1270, Your Honours.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see D295.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. While we're waiting: Do you agree, Dr. Treanor, that
14 international conventions on human rights guarantee to us, as a
15 constituent people, rights to self-determination, self-organisation, the
16 use of our natural resources, et cetera?
17 A. Well, I'm not familiar in detail with various international
18 covenants. I know they exist.
19 Q. Please look at this demand to reverse unlawful decisions, and it
20 says here that if this violation of our constitutional rights continues,
21 we would form our own assembly. Do you recall this, or if you are seeing
22 it for the first time, can you see that it was a public appeal made on
23 the 17th of October?
24 A. It appears to be from a newspaper. I can't see all the headings.
25 The translation date is the 25th of October.
Page 14176
1 Q. Yes, right, on the 25th, after the establishment of the Assembly.
2 But this is a reference to a news -- to a press conference that took
3 place earlier. Do you agree that after the SDA and HDZ refused to
4 reverse their unlawful decisions, on the 24th of October the Assembly of
5 the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina was established, stating the
6 following reasons?
7 May this be received? Oh, it's been exhibited already.
8 Can we see briefly P1343; page 7 in Serbian, page 9 in English.
9 This is a statement of reasons for the establishment of the Serbian
10 Assembly.
11 The second paragraph in Krajisnik's contribution, it says:
12 "In addition to all this, the present structure of the Parliament
13 of Bosnia and Herzegovina does not include a constitutional and legal
14 institution which would protect each of the three constituent peoples
15 from being out-voted. True, in the essential rights of the national
16 groups, an amendment to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina of
17 1990 introduced the Council for National Equality, which was to decide on
18 such issues by a consensus. However, this council has not been
19 established to this day."
20 So the president of the Constitutional Commission did not succeed
21 in establishing this Council for National Equality, due to all sorts of
22 obstruction. Do you recall that?
23 A. I recall the speech, yes. I think we referred to that council
24 before and the fact that it had not been established.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 8 in Serbian, page 10 in
Page 14177
1 English.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Where Krajisnik says that not only the deputies to the
4 Parliament, but also members of the Presidency from the Serbian Community
5 were side-lined, marginalised. They are not informed about all sorts of
6 activities that their president is taking. From the beginning, Serbian
7 deputies were marginalised. That was done in order to keep them in the
8 dark about all sorts of actions taken by the president of the Presidency.
9 That continues on the next page in English.
10 It says here on the same pages:
11 "I believe that in this brief contribution, I pointed to the real
12 reasons driving the Serbian Deputies Club when they decided to form the
13 Assembly of the Serbian People in Bosnia-Herzegovina."
14 These reasons, the stripping of legitimate Serbian
15 representatives of their rights, did you include that in your report as
16 the reasons why the Serbian Assembly was established in the first place?
17 A. No, this document is not quoted.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 Page 11 in Serbian, page 14 in English.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. But you did state that the Serbian deputies and representatives
22 in the government and the Presidency continued working in the joint
23 bodies; right?
24 A. I believe so, yes. I believe I stated that, and I believe that's
25 true.
Page 14178
1 Q. Thank you. Now let's see how Professor Najdanovic,
2 Milutin Najdanovic, a well-known surgeon and an SDS party member,
3 explained our position. This is in the third paragraph, where it says --
4 no, it is in the second paragraph in the Serbian language and also in the
5 English language:
6 "The Assembly of the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina
7 will consider and take decisions on issues related to the achieving of
8 the equality of the Serbian people in relation to the other peoples and
9 ethnic groups that reside in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and protecting the
10 interests of the Serbian people, should those interests be compromised by
11 the decision of the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Serbian
12 representatives will continue to work in the councils and working bodies
13 of the Parliament of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina for
14 which they were elected, until the ultimate solution to the crisis in
15 Bosnia and Yugoslavia is reached. In the cases when we estimate that the
16 acts of the parliamentary councils under consideration and adoption are
17 compromising the equality of the national interest of the Serbian people
18 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Assembly of the Serbian People in Bosnia
19 and Herzegovina shall work independently and take its own decisions."
20 Do you agree that the Assembly of the Serbian People was actually
21 a correction measure and a compensation for the non-functioning of the
22 council of the peoples that we wanted to have, but that we never got?
23 A. Well, I think the -- this assembly was similar to -- in that
24 respect to the Serbian National Council that had been formed the year
25 before; that is, as a body to express the will of the Serbian people and
Page 14179
1 to seek to prevent any decisions being made against their will.
2 By the way, I would point out that the institution of the
3 Assembly is dealt with extensively in the original report, and not only
4 in these paragraphs.
5 Q. Thank you. In paragraph 77 in your report, you list proposals by
6 the Serbian representative in the Presidency of the SFRY,
7 Mr. Boris Jovic. During the 154th session, he said that the key moment
8 for them, as you say:
9 [In English] "Whether they would continue to participate in
10 the dirty business of the dissolution of the state ..."
11 [Interpretation] And so on and so forth. And they said that they
12 will continue to participate in the negotiations only if the concept was
13 changed on the following basis:
14 [In English] "For peoples who, by a referendum with international
15 monitoring, wish to leave Yugoslavia. A constitutional/legal procedure
16 of the Yugoslav Assembly should be secured to realise this with
17 international monitoring."
18 [Interpretation] And so on and so forth. I shall not go on
19 reading the entire paragraph you wrote.
20 Do you agree that the constituent people had the right to
21 self-determination, according to all international laws that were in
22 force?
23 A. Well, I don't know about the international laws in force, but
24 that, in general terms, peoples have a certain right to
25 self-determination.
Page 14180
1 Q. Thank you. In your paragraph 76, you say that Jovic criticised
2 Carrington's draft because he recognised the right to unilateral
3 secession:
4 [In English] "... which undermine the existing and
5 internationally-recognised constitutional order of SFRY."
6 [Interpretation] Do you agree that documents of unilateral
7 secession were anti-constitutional and that they were also in violation
8 of the international laws that were in force at that time?
9 A. Well, again, I couldn't offer an opinion on those legal and
10 constitutional matters.
11 Q. Thank you. Were you aware of the Honourable Judge of this
12 Tribunal Antonio Cassese's position on this matter?
13 Can we now look at 1D1613.
14 A. No, I'm not aware of that.
15 Q. You worked here until you were retired, until you were pensioned
16 off, and he was the President of this Tribunal; right?
17 Can we now look at --
18 MR. TIEGER: This is -- sorry, Your Honour. I rose to object to
19 that. I thought Dr. Karadzic had moved on. The witness interjected an
20 answer. I don't think we should be returned to it, and if we do, my
21 objection stands.
22 JUDGE MORRISON: The objection is a good one.
23 Dr. Karadzic, this witness's views of the views of someone else,
24 even someone as eminent as Professor Antonio Cassese, are not relevant to
25 the workings of this trial.
Page 14181
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Excellency.
2 However, I'm afraid that Dr. Treanor often proffers comments
3 which imply that he accepts that unilateral secession is possible.
4 Will you allow me to quote just one of Judge Cassese's sentences.
5 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, if you want, in due course, to
6 make legal submissions and back it up with authorities, that's another
7 matter. But for the moment, please simply cross-examine.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Then we will stick to
9 the historic overview that this witness is familiar with.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. On the 9th of November, 1991 -- or, rather, on the 9th and 10th
12 of November that year, a plebiscite of the Serbian people in Bosnia and
13 Herzegovina was organised, and you write about that in your paragraph 81.
14 Do you agree -- you noted that. I suppose you do. Do you agree that
15 nearly 100 per cent of the voters were in favour of staying in
16 Yugoslavia?
17 A. Well, I know what the report on the results of the plebiscite
18 said, and it -- that report stated the results as given in that
19 paragraph 81.
20 Q. Thank you. Do you also agree that on the 11 December 1991, the
21 Assembly of the Serbian People adopted the proposal of the recommendation
22 on establishing the Serbian assemblies in the municipalities where
23 decisions were being imposed on the Serbs through the process of
24 over-voting, and that was only after that plebiscite was organised in
25 Bosnia and Herzegovina?
Page 14182
1 A. Yes, that's correct, I'm aware of that. Again, I think that
2 event is mentioned in the original report.
3 Q. Thank you. Do you agree that there was also a need for the
4 establishment of the Serbian assemblies in the municipalities, even where
5 Serbs were minorities, but that there was no obligation to do so?
6 A. Well, I know that's the view that was taken by the Bosnian Serb
7 Assembly.
8 Q. Thank you. On the 19th December 1991, in your document
9 65 ter 952, paragraph 63, you talk about that 19 December, which was a
10 very important day, and that was when the Main Board of the
11 Serbian Democratic Party, in quotations "the Crisis Staff" -- the
12 document number is 592, 65 ter 592. It is the first document, your first
13 report. I thought I gave the correct number. Yes, that's the one. I'm
14 talking about paragraph 63. Let me not read the entire paragraph. I
15 invite everybody to look at it. And this refers to the document known as
16 Variant A and B.
17 It says here:
18 [In English] "Alternatively, the party (SDS) rank in Serb
19 minority areas would constitute new Serbian municipal institutions on
20 parts of the municipal territories referred to as Variant B, thus
21 dividing the existing municipalities and invariably setting the stage for
22 conflict."
23 [Interpretation] Thus, in your view, that was a plan for breaking
24 up Bosnia and Herzegovina along ethnic lines and an instruction for
25 illegal actions and taking territories. I will not go into establishing
Page 14183
1 the fact whether the Crisis Staff, indeed, existed, and who drafted the
2 document. I would rather ask you whether, in your analysis, you
3 highlighted the other parts of those documents.
4 For example, page 2 -- I apologise. I believe the document
5 number is P5. P5; Serbian 2, English 1. P5; Serbian 2, English 1.
6 English page 1, where it says:
7 "Because there is reasonable ground for suspicion that certain
8 forces are working persistently, thoroughly, and in an organised way to
9 take Bosnia-Herzegovina, and hence also the Serbian people out of
10 Yugoslavia by force, we hereby issue ..."
11 And so on and so forth.
12 Do you agree that taking Bosnia-Herzegovina out of Yugoslavia,
13 which is referenced in this paragraph, is contrary to the will of the
14 Serbian people, which also makes it a violation of the Constitution?
15 A. Well, I think the paragraph you pointed to here sets out the
16 reasons for the formulation of these instructions very well. I don't
17 think, as we've discussed earlier, the Serbian people in Bosnia and
18 Herzegovina, through the SDS - and there were SDS representatives in the
19 Assembly, and I'll just remind the Court that almost all the Serbian
20 deputies in the SRBH Assembly were part of the SDS party - wanted to stay
21 in Yugoslavia. And you have referred earlier to constitutional violence
22 in relation to attempts to take Bosnia out of Yugoslavia, against the
23 will of those -- against the will of the Serbian people in Bosnia and
24 Herzegovina, so I think I can say that. Again, giving any legal or
25 constitutional qualification to the action is something I would want to
Page 14184
1 refrain from.
2 Q. Thank you. The Serbian page can stay. Can we go to English 2.
3 In paragraph 2, it says this was all done in order to enhance
4 mobility and readiness to protect the interests of the Serbian people.
5 Do you agree that the Serbian community was being motivated to prepare
6 for defence?
7 A. Well, I think in general terms, yes, this document is --
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 MR. TIEGER: It appeared to me the witness was in the middle of
10 getting an answer out and was overridden, so I think he just needs an
11 opportunity to complete it, if that's, indeed, what was happening.
12 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes. Let the witness complete his answers,
13 please, Dr. Karadzic.
14 THE WITNESS: Yes. I believe this is document is an effort to
15 get the SDS ready to defend what they regarded as their territories.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 I apologise. I thought that the witness had finished. That's
18 why I interrupted. I apologise. I am pressed by the time.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Do you agree that Variant A speaks about the activities in the
21 municipalities where Serbs constituted a majority, where Serbs were in
22 power, and in that part a reference is made to taking power, but not
23 taking over power from somebody?
24 A. Well, yes, Variant A municipalities are the ones in which the
25 Serbs constituted a majority. Almost invariably in that case, the SDS
Page 14185
1 was in power in those municipalities. However, that does not mean that
2 the SDS and its people even in those Variant A municipalities necessarily
3 controlled all the important institutions in those municipalities.
4 Dr. Karadzic, in his speech in connection with the upcoming
5 plebiscite speech, which he gave on the 31st of October/the 1st of
6 November, had enjoined SDS officials on the municipal level to
7 consolidate their power and get hold of all the institutions that they
8 were entitled to have control of in those municipalities. For instance,
9 getting rid of directors of this, that, or the other enterprise who was
10 not acting totally in conformity with their desires. In other words,
11 just having gained the majority and gaining control of the Assembly and
12 the high offices in the municipalities was not sufficient. It was
13 necessary to actually make sure that reliable people were in every
14 position, something which apparently had not happened by the end of
15 October 1991. And I see this as a continuation of that effort in the
16 Variant A municipalities.
17 Q. Thank you. A brief question now. Do you agree with me that the
18 elections in 1990 led not only to changes in power, but also to changes
19 in the system from the previous socialism to multi-party democracy, and
20 that the Serbian Democratic Party kept a lot of, as it were, older
21 politicians in their places because things just were not implemented as
22 they should have been, as you say?
23 A. Well, I'm not -- yes, there certainly was a change of power that
24 took place. Officials of the former League -- the League of Communists
25 and its allies would have been in most of the positions in the -- on the
Page 14186
1 municipal level. The extent to which they may all -- may not all have
2 been replaced, I don't know. But what you are referring to here,
3 I think, is the type of problem that I was referring to, that even though
4 the SDS had won the elections in various places, they didn't necessarily
5 control all the levers of power. And there was an effort, at the end of
6 1991, to make sure that this happened.
7 Q. Thank you for introducing a new term, and that was to consolidate
8 power, because in the indictment and the pre-trial brief, the term used
9 is "taking over," whereas our term in Parliament is closer to your term
10 "consolidation of power." Do you agree that this was not the case of
11 take-over because there was nobody to take power over from, because we
12 were already in power in those places? Do you agree?
13 JUDGE MORRISON: Mr. Tieger.
14 MR. TIEGER: Again, I'm sorry to rise.
15 There's a question posed now which, of course, the witness can
16 answer, but I object to comments and will continue to do so, and the
17 accused should be admonished to refrain from doing that.
18 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, Dr. Karadzic, it's becoming a persistent
19 habit. Apart from the fact that it's improper, you're acting as counsel
20 and you must behave like counsel. A comment is not for counsel to make,
21 but it also wastes your time.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I apologise. I just
23 wanted to be efficient. I didn't want to go there, but it seems that we
24 will have to deal with that tomorrow.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
Page 14187
1 Q. In your paragraph 63, Dr. Treanor, you say that in that way, by
2 the division of the existing municipalities into several
3 municipalities [In English] "... is invariably setting the stage for
4 conflict."
5 [Interpretation] Do you believe that the division of Yugoslavia
6 and unilateral secessions were not the case of setting stage for a
7 conflict, and that the preservation of municipalities' boundaries was
8 more important and more decisive than the preservation of the borders of
9 an internationally-recognised state, the former Yugoslavia?
10 A. Okay. If I understand your question correctly, I think I would
11 agree that the division of Yugoslavia in that the secession and attempted
12 secession of various republics did set the stage for conflict.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 Can we look at page 6 in Serbian and English, paragraph 8 in the
15 A/B variant document.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. It says here:
18 "Bear in mind that national and all the other rights of members
19 of all the peoples are respected, as well as their subsequent engagement
20 in the authorities that will be set up by the Serbian people in the
21 municipality."
22 Did you notice in your report that non-Serbs who lived in those
23 municipalities were to be treated as equals and that they were to be
24 given positions in the bodies of power?
25 A. I don't think that's mentioned in the report, no.
Page 14188
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 Can we now look at page 9, both in Serbian and in English. And
3 the paragraph I'm looking at is 6. I believe that we're now talking
4 about Variant B. That is about the settlements in the municipalities
5 where Serbs are a minority.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Where it says:
8 "Organise secret observation posts and a system of communication
9 to alert the Serbian population about any possible danger. In this
10 regard, plan protection measures and resettlement of a population, moving
11 personal effects to more secure and safer areas."
12 Would you not agree that this is a very clearly-defined defence
13 measure?
14 A. Well, as -- in this passage here, that certainly seems to be
15 what's being referenced, to defend Serbian areas. Talking about
16 protection measures and resettlement of population, that's a bit
17 ambiguous, I think.
18 Q. It says here:
19 "Organise covert observation and a system of reporting all
20 threats to the Serbian population."
21 We have to bear in mind that this applies to the municipalities
22 where Serbs are a minority. Does this not refer to protective measures
23 that have been put in place in case of attack from other sides?
24 A. Well, as I said, it seems to be in that context, yes.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
Page 14189
1 And can we now look at page 10 in English, and page 9 can stay.
2 Chapter III, paragraph 1. Roman III, paragraph 1, page 10 in English.
3 Very well.
4 "In order to carry out as effectively as possible its tasks,
5 measures, and other activities defined herein, and also other tasks,
6 measures and activities judged to be useful for the organisation of the
7 Serbian people for its best possible defence and protection, the
8 Crisis Staff must first undertake a comprehensive assessment ...," and so
9 on and so forth.
10 Is it clear and equally unambiguous that the reference which is
11 made here is a reference to defence measures?
12 A. Well, that seems to be being discussed, as we said at the
13 beginning of this argument -- this discussion, sorry. I described this
14 document as being one to get people organised and prepared to -- and
15 defend the territories that they regarded as belonging to them.
16 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, we're going to finish for today,
17 and we will reassemble at 9.00 a.m. tomorrow morning. Thank you.
18 [The witness stands down]
19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.30 p.m.,
20 to be reconvened on Friday, the 3rd day of June,
21 2011, at 9.00 a.m.
22
23
24
25