1 Monday, 6 June 2005

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.11 a.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.

6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is the case

8 IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10 Ms. Loukas, are you ready to continue your cross-examination of

11 Mr. Nielsen?

12 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Usher, could you please escort

14 Mr. Nielsen into the courtroom.

15 Ms. Loukas, have you got any idea on how much time you would

16 approximately need for the cross-examination of Mr. Nielsen?

17 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I would have thought I'd go most

18 of the day.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

20 [The witness entered court]

21 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Nielsen.

22 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Please be seated. I'd like to remind you that

24 you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning

25 of your testimony on last Thursday.

1 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, you may proceed.

3 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

4 WITNESS: CHRISTIAN NIELSEN [Resumed]

5 Cross-examined by Ms. Loukas: [Continued]

6 Q. Now, when we left off last Friday afternoon, Mr. Nielsen, we were

7 dealing with the 11th Assembly Session of the 18th of March, you'll

8 recall. And we were at -- up to that portion where Mr. Vjestica was

9 speaking. Do you recall that?

10 A. Yes, I do.

11 Q. Now, in respect of Mr. Vjestica's contribution, I take it you'd

12 agree with me he was expressing a negative view of the negotiations that

13 had taken thus far under the auspices of the Cutilheiro Plan.

14 A. I don't -- I wouldn't necessarily use the word "negative." I

15 think I would use the word "impatient."

16 Q. Impatient. Just in respect of that, of course, I take it you'd

17 take the view that his contribution was less than a positive view of

18 events. If one looks at, for example -- at the beginning of his

19 contribution -- there I think it's the second paragraph -- "I'm not

20 pleased with this document which is supposed to serve as the next stage in

21 the talks."

22 A. I'm somewhat limited in answering your question by the fact that

23 I don't have the minutes of the session in front of me.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Could they be provided to Mr. Nielsen.

25 And, Ms. Loukas, if you could tell us again at what page

1 approximately we are, then.

2 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. On my version, it's page 37.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

4 MS. LOUKAS: Which I think means it's on page 36 of Your Honours'

5 version.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Close to 37 at least.

7 MS. LOUKAS: Very close.

8 THE WITNESS: Could I please also have the B/C/S. Thank you.

9 MS. LOUKAS:

10 Q. Do you have them both before you now, Mr. Nielsen?

11 A. Yes, I do have them -- I've got them both in front of me.

12 Q. Have you found the reference I was referring to?

13 A. In the English, yes. Not in the B/C/S yet. But we can go ahead

14 with the question certainly.

15 Q. Well, just in respect of that, I got to the point where I said:

16 I take it you'd take the view that his contribution was less than a

17 positive view of the events. If one looks at, for example, at the

18 beginning of his contribution, it's the second paragraph: "I'm not

19 pleased with this document which is supposed to serve as the next stage in

20 the talks."

21 A. Yes. He is not pleased with the situation as it stands as of

22 that date.

23 Q. And it's quite clear that he, in contrast to Mr. Krajisnik's view

24 of the negotiations, is adopting an approach that is much less than

25 positive in relation to the negotiations; correct?

1 A. Again, as I stated earlier, my general impression, recalling the

2 11th Session and subsequent pre-April Assembly sessions, as I note in my

3 report, is that Mr. Vjestica was very keen to establish a Serbian police

4 force as soon as possible. And indeed at the following session, the 12th

5 Session on the 24th of March, Mr. Vjestica stated, as I state on page 30

6 of my report, that he thought there had been an understanding that a

7 Serbian police force should be established immediately, and he was not

8 happy that it looked as if he would have to wait a bit longer for that.

9 Q. Now, Mr. Nielsen, we'll come to the next session. But still

10 dealing with the 18th of March at this point, you've got Mr. Vjestica

11 saying things like -- and this is three paragraphs down -- "These talks

12 are used only to lull us to sleep." Do you see that portion? "To divert

13 our attention away from what they are doing and have already done."

14 A. Yes, I do see that passage in the English.

15 Q. So it's quite clear, is it not, that there is quite a -- a

16 fundamental difference of approach there in the Assembly sessions between

17 Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Vjestica?

18 A. Yes, I would agree with that in the sense that Mr. Krajisnik has

19 stated that there -- negotiations are ongoing and in the sense that

20 Mr. Vjestica does not seem particularly pleased by developments in these

21 negotiations.

22 Q. And -- and, in fact, right at the end of Mr. Vjestica's

23 contribution, he says: "Mr. President, I think you have to give us an

24 order that after the next Assembly you should order this, that we arrange

25 for areas where it has not been done and to implement this, that the Serbs

1 would occupy their territories so that no other forces could enter them.

2 Thank you," and he sits down to applause. Do you see that portion there?

3 A. Yes, I do see it.

4 Q. And, again, that's in contrast to the approach that's been

5 adopted by Mr. Krajisnik throughout his contributions to the debate on the

6 18th of March, where -- which were more in the lines of the negotiations

7 proceeding well and we are hopeful, in essence; correct?

8 A. Well, I note that on page 45 of the English version,

9 Mr. Krajisnik, who's presiding over the Assembly session, refers back to

10 Mr. Vjestica's comments. And at that point in the session, he

11 acknowledges that Mr. Vjestica is somewhat in a hurry. And, again, he

12 discusses the course of action as he sees that it should proceed. But

13 in -- clearly, again, as I stated, this is consistent with Mr. Vjestica's

14 impatience and his eagerness to get the ball rolling, so to speak.

15 Q. Yes. Well, looking at that contribution that you've just

16 referred to by Mr. Krajisnik, and that is at my page 46. That would be

17 page 45, I think, of Your Honours' copy. As Mr. Nielsen has referred to,

18 when you look at Mr. Krajisnik's comments there, where he's saying "one

19 explanation that has to do with what Mr. Vjestica has said about us being

20 in a hurry," it's -- it's quite clear at that point, is it not, that

21 Mr. Krajisnik's actually trying to calm him down, as Mr. Vjestica is

22 coming across as something of a hot head; correct?

23 A. One could take that interpretation. I do note that on the major

24 points, including the urgent establishment of a Ministry of Internal

25 Affairs for the Serbian Republic that there is no disagreement there

1 between Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Vjestica.

2 Q. But, of course, what Mr. Krajisnik says in regard to that

3 context, refers to responsible government and the negotiations in the

4 sense of the negotiators should maintain their positions, and it's quite

5 clear there that Mr. Krajisnik is referring to the ongoing negotiations;

6 correct?

7 A. I do believe he is referring to the ongoing negotiations, yes.

8 Q. Now, before we leave that session, there's also a reference, I

9 think, there to Mr. Zepinic on -- well, that would be page 47 of the

10 English version. There's a contribution by Mr. Rajko Kasagic and he's

11 asking that certain allegations of corruption in relation to Mr. Zepinic

12 be investigated.

13 A. I see the passage.

14 Q. Have you seen any other further documents in relation to this

15 particular question in your research?

16 A. Yes, I have. And indeed Vitomir Zepinic, deputy minister of

17 SRBiH MUP at the time, was one of at least three senior SRBiH MUP

18 officials against whom serious allegations of corruption had been made

19 during this period; that is to say, March 1992.

20 Q. Now, just before we leave the 18th of March session, towards the

21 end there, again - I think it would be page 44 on the English version -

22 where there's a response by Dr. Karadzic, and he refers to "doing whatever

23 is necessary on the ground to establish the de facto situation based on

24 justice and the law., to have good and complete control of our destinies

25 and areas with full respect for citizens of other nationalities. That is

1 what people will be judged by." Do you see that contribution there,

2 Mr. Nielsen?

3 A. I am looking for it. On page 44?

4 Q. Yes, I have it on the bottom of my page 45, so it may be at the

5 bottom of your page 44 or the top of your page 45.

6 A. Yes, I see the passage.

7 Q. Now, again, I think that Dr. Karadzic's contribution there is,

8 again, in the context of the continuing negotiations and what should

9 happen on the ground should be in accordance with law and justice;

10 correct?

11 A. So he says.

12 Q. And indeed he refers there at one point, again, in the context of

13 the Cutilheiro negotiations, and indicates that "There will probably be

14 all sorts of resettlements going on but none of it should occur under

15 pressure." Do you see that portion there?

16 A. Not immediately. Perhaps you could direct me to it.

17 Q. It's on my page 46, so I'm assuming that you will have it.

18 It's -- it's the third-last paragraph from the end of Mr. Karadzic's

19 response there.

20 A. Yes, I do see it now. He states that "We see that Serbs from

21 Livno are resettling," and so forth," which is all a natural part of such

22 a dangerous process of an intense process of reorganising a state."

23 Q. And, again, this is all in the context of the negotiations in

24 relation to the Cutilheiro Plan; correct?

25 A. The negotiations were ongoing at this point. That is correct.

1 Q. And this entire Assembly session is, of course, related to the

2 discussions in relation to these negotiations.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Now, just going back to the text of your report, Mr. Nielsen, and

5 that is in relation to paragraph 74 of your report, where you refer

6 specifically to the 18th of March, 1992 session. You have there

7 Mr. Krajisnik, the president of the Assembly, referring specifically to

8 the need for ethnic separation on the ground, and then you have -- your

9 next sentence begins: "Miroslav Vjestica, an SDS delegate from Bosanska

10 Krupa, referred to the need for the establishment of a Serbian police

11 force and a Serbian MUP so that Serbs could seize control of their

12 territories."

13 Now, the -- the way that you've written your report seems to

14 indicate there's a seamless approach there on the 18th of March, 1992

15 session from Mr. Krajisnik's contribution to Mr. Vjestica's contribution;

16 correct?

17 A. I wouldn't use the term "seamless approach." I think what I'm

18 indicating here and what is borne out by the Assembly minutes as we just

19 saw them, is that while there may be disagreements at this particular

20 stage about the methodology of establishing a Serbian police force, both

21 Krajisnik and Vjestica at this session agree that a Serbian police force

22 should be established in order to control territory that they view as

23 Serbian.

24 Q. But nevertheless, Mr. Nielsen, if someone were to read this

25 report without going to the footnote and without going through the

1 Assembly session, one might gain the impression that the views expressed

2 are identical.

3 A. On this particular narrow point, yes.

4 Q. So in the circumstances, Mr. Nielsen, you'd agree with me that

5 for the text to take in the complete context, in your assessment of

6 Mr. Krajisnik's contribution the bold reference to ethnic separation on

7 the ground, without reference to the context of the discussion on the

8 Cutilheiro Plan, could be quite misleading, could it not?

9 A. As I stated before, my brief was not to provide a full

10 explanation of what was going on with respect to international

11 negotiations at that time, and in fact I do believe that quite a lot of

12 the context for that was provided in the Bosnian Serb leadership report of

13 Mr. Treanor to which this report basically adds with specific respect to

14 the Ministry of Internal Affairs. My understanding in writing this report

15 was that the Trial Chamber would have at its disposal a full report on the

16 Bosnian Serb leadership which would include that context to which you just

17 referred.

18 Q. So you do concede it could be quite misleading taken in the way

19 you have written it there.

20 A. If someone were to read this report and nothing else, yes, one

21 could form the opinion that Krajisnik and Vjestica fully agreed about both

22 methodology and the goal; whereas, my intent in paragraph 74 was to

23 highlight the fact that they agreed on the goal of ethnic separation on

24 the ground and on the goal of the establishment of a Serbian police force.

25 Q. But nevertheless it's quite clear, is it not, Mr. Nielsen, that

1 Mr. Krajisnik's contribution and Mr. Vjestica's contribution are very

2 different in tone and content?

3 A. I find them to be different with respect to the methodology, but

4 to be consistent with respect to their shared goal.

5 Q. Okay. Now, methodology, of course, is --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas -- Ms. Loukas, I think the point you'd

7 like to make is very clear. Of course you could go on for another 15

8 minutes to see whether you can get any concessions out of Mr. Nielsen. I

9 think the point you made is -- is -- in the context that you at least

10 interpret the events in a quite different way and you put different

11 emphasis. You put it in a context in which the words of Mr. Krajisnik

12 would get a different meaning. Whereas, Mr. Nielsen has explained to us

13 that he -- for limited purposes, he has for that reason drawn the

14 attention to the words spoken by Mr. Krajisnik. I think the matter is

15 relatively clear. And whether finally Mr. Nielsen will say for 32 or for

16 52 or for 53 per cent right, is not something that would assist the

17 Chamber.

18 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. I'm happy to move on to another

19 topic.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do.

21 MS. LOUKAS:

22 Q. Now -- now, leaving behind the 18th of March session, let's move

23 on to the session of the 24th of March, the 12th Session of the Bosnian

24 Serb Assembly held on the 24th of March, 1992.

25 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honours should have that Assembly session

1 before you.

2 Perhaps if the witness might also be shown that particular

3 Assembly session.

4 Q. Do you have that -- I think you have both the B/C/S and the

5 English before you, Mr. Nielsen?

6 A. Yes, I do.

7 Q. Now, you refer in your report at paragraph 78 to "Earlier in the

8 day the president of the Assembly, Momcilo Krajisnik, had strongly hinted

9 that the establishment of a Bosnian Serb police force was imminent."

10 Mr. Nielsen, could you just inform the Trial Chamber as to which

11 specific reference you were alluding to there in the Assembly session.

12 A. Well, as with -- is the case with most of these Assembly

13 sessions, they are quite long. And having not examined this particular

14 Assembly session for quite some period of time, it would take me at least

15 a few minutes to find that passage.

16 Q. Well, I'm happy for you to take a few minutes. It shouldn't take

17 you too long just to identify where Mr. Krajisnik is identified as

18 speaking, and then indicating to the Trial Chamber which specific

19 reference you're dealing with there.

20 A. Perhaps while I'm still looking here, I can briefly note that I

21 do see that on the agenda at the outset of the session there is the second

22 item, the Law on Ministries, which referred specifically to the -- among

23 others, of course, to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Serbian

24 Republic, which had been already the subject of a separate law on the 28th

25 of February in the Assembly.

1 Q. Yes. I've noted that as well, Mr. Nielsen, but I'm particularly

2 interested in where this strong hint is from Mr. Krajisnik. Is that what

3 you're saying the strong hint is for Mr. Krajisnik?

4 A. No, that is not what I said.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, would it be a good idea to move on to

6 the next subject and ask the witness to review the -- this session during

7 the next break so that he's better in a position to -- to answer your

8 questions?

9 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, this was the topic I wanted to

10 deal with at this particular point. I think that Mr. Nielsen's almost

11 finished reviewing the document, it seems to me.

12 Is that right, Mr. Nielsen?

13 JUDGE ORIE: If it doesn't take too much time, we could have some

14 more patience.

15 THE WITNESS: Well, I have not been able to locate it yet, the

16 specific passage that I had in mind, so --

17 MS. LOUKAS:

18 Q. Well, in that instance --

19 A. I can examine it in more length in the pause, if you wish.

20 Q. In that case, I think we will take on board His Honour, the

21 Presiding Judge's session that during the next break you might review that

22 particular document and see if you can find the reference.

23 A. Certainly.

24 Q. Now, still on the topic of the 24th of March Assembly session,

25 you stated there in your report that "Miroslav Vjestica complained that

1 formation of the police force for the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and

2 Herzegovina had already been agreed for that day. He saw no reason why

3 this had to be postponed again." And then he goes on.

4 Now, going to Mr. Vjestica's contribution - that is, I think,

5 at -- just underneath a discussion about "proposed decision on the

6 establishment of the National Guard." Do you see the -- Mr. Vjestica's

7 contribution there?

8 A. I do see a contribution by Mr. Vjestica on pages 19 and 20 of the

9 English version.

10 Q. And what page is it on the B/C/S version?

11 A. There is a contribution on pages -- on page 33 of the -- of the

12 B/C/S, 33 and 34, which corresponds to page -- the intervention on pages

13 19 and 20 of the English.

14 Q. And that's an intervention that ends -- from Mr. Vjestica that

15 says "Why don't you deputies say it plainly here, that we have no police

16 in any municipality, no chiefs or commanders. We do not have anything

17 that belongs to us here, especially you who have authority on Serbian

18 municipalities."

19 A. I do see that passage.

20 Q. And, again, Mr. Vjestica seems very unhappy; correct?

21 A. That is correct. I would note that based on other documents that

22 I've had the opportunity to review, specifically relating to

23 Mr. Vjestica's municipality, Bosanska Krupa - and I referred to one such

24 document last week - Mr. Vjestica's comments here do not appear to

25 correspond to the situation on the ground in Bosanska Krupa because as of

1 the -- I believe it's the 22nd of March, 1992, two days before this

2 intervention in the Assembly, the Federal Secretariat for Internal Affairs

3 in Belgrade notes that there is a Serbian police force that exists in

4 Bosanska Krupa municipality.

5 Q. Yes. But of course the point that Mr. Vjestica is making

6 apparently in his contribution is that all the rest of the Serbian

7 municipalities have no authority but in Bosanska Krupa, we're okay, and

8 you guys don't know what you're doing and have no authority. That's

9 basically what his contribution is there, isn't it?

10 A. Again, that comment of his, that is the comment that he makes.

11 However, based on the documents of RS MUP, that again would be a comment

12 that would not be borne out - that is to say, that contemporary documents

13 demonstrate that the situation on the ground was different in

14 municipalities besides Krupa or Bosanska Krupa.

15 Q. Now, just in relation to Mr. Vjestica's comments, it's quite

16 clear that here again he's coming across as a -- a bit of a hot head;

17 correct?

18 A. I think that "hot head" is a colloquial term that I would not use

19 as an analyst. Again --

20 Q. I can imagine you wouldn't. I'll use another term. Perhaps we

21 could say that Mr. Vjestica is someone who appears to have more extreme

22 views than others who have made a contribution to the debate on the 24th

23 of March, 1992.

24 A. Again, the use of the word "extreme" presupposes, in my opinion,

25 some kind of understanding of what the average, as opposed to the extreme,

1 view would be. I would revert again to my previous assertion that I find

2 Mr. Vjestica to be very impatient, again with -- with respect to the

3 specific issue that I am dealing with in my report, that is to say, the

4 establishment of a Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs in Bosnia and

5 Herzegovina.

6 Q. Okay. Now, after Mr. Vjestica's contribution, of course, you

7 then have Mr. Krajisnik speaking. And it says: "Everything that Mr.

8 Vjestica said is correct. If you remember, we said at the beginning of

9 this session that pursuant to the Constitution, which we cannot violate.

10 We had to elect a premier designate. If you would like us to take a break

11 now and designate three ministers, that would not be a problem. We shall

12 express our opinions on that. At the end of the session it must be done

13 following some kind of order. Mrs. Plavsic has arrived. We shall take a

14 break, hold consultations, propose a premier designate, and adopt the

15 decision. And if he could then propose the necessary ministers, the

16 Minister of National Defence, Ministers of the Interior and foreign

17 affairs and Minister of Finance. As to the establishment of the National

18 Guard, I think that anything that is introduced without having first all

19 the necessary preparations completed is doomed to failure. There is no

20 reason why we would not establish it, but we must bring it into line with

21 the constitution of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Can we do

22 it the way I said, Mr. Vjestica?"

23 All right? Now, if you look at Mr. Krajisnik's contribution

24 there after Mr. Vjestica's contribution, it's quite clear, isn't it, that

25 again Mr. Krajisnik is trying to calm him down and bring some order to the

1 proceedings; correct?

2 A. I would -- I would not take that interpretation. In fact, it

3 seems to me, based on Mr. Krajisnik's intervention immediately following

4 Mr. Vjestica, that Mr. Krajisnik is to a significant degree adjusting his

5 position and indeed adjusting the work of the Assembly to approximate the

6 position of Mr. Vjestica; that is to say that he now states - Mr.

7 Krajisnik, that is - that "We shall take a break and essentially do much

8 of what Mr. Vjestica has just asked us to do. And indeed I would note

9 that - this is the 12th Assembly Session - that they do on the same day,

10 the 24th of March, 1992, take a break. They come back. And at the 13th

11 Session, which is the same day, they proceed to do exactly that and

12 appoint Mico Stanisic Minister of Internal Affairs.

13 Q. Now, just in relation to your answer, Mr. Nielsen, the

14 appointment of the Minister of Internal Affairs is -- that is quite a

15 different thing to what Mr. Vjestica is talking about at the end of his

16 contribution, is it not?

17 A. Well, I do -- with specific respect to the police, the

18 establishment of the Serbian police of the Serbian Republic of

19 Bosnia-Herzegovina is something that Mr. Vjestica seeks and most certainly

20 within the context of the Law on Internal Affairs passed by the Serbian

21 Assembly in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the appointment of a minister was an

22 important milestone on the road to the formal establishment and debut of

23 the ministry.

24 Q. Yes. But the appointment -- the formal appointment of a

25 minister, that's not all Mr. Vjestica wants, is it?

1 A. That is not all that he wants. That is correct.

2 Q. Okay. Now, just, again, looking at Mr. Krajisnik's contribution

3 there. He's basically, you'd agree with me, with Mr. Vjestica trying to

4 calm him down by saying, "Everything you say is correct," and then

5 sidelining the discussion by saying, you know, "Mrs. Plavsic is here, why

6 don't we listen to her." He's trying to cut him off, isn't he?

7 A. Well, if he were trying to cut him off, then I would find it odd

8 that -- that he then in essence yields the floor to Mr. Vjestica when he

9 says, "Can we do it the way I said, Mr. Vjestica?"

10 Q. Well, that's just -- that's not unusual in terms of trying to run

11 some sort of orderly proceeding, is it, Mr. Nielsen?

12 A. Well, I can only speculate here, but certainly it was within the

13 power of the chairperson of the Assembly to have moved directly on to the

14 next speaker had he wanted to completely sideline Mr. Vjestica rather than

15 giving him the opportunity to speak again. And indeed we note that

16 Mr. Vjestica uses his second opportunity to intervene here to, as it were,

17 push the envelope once again, with respect to the assumption of power and

18 the establishment of -- of the police.

19 Q. Now, just in relation to your last answer, Mr. Nielsen, "Well,

20 certainly it was within the power of the chairman of the Assembly to have

21 moved directly on to the next speaker," but there's a polite way of

22 sidelining someone, is there not? And that's part of the skill of a

23 speaker of the Assembly, is it not?

24 A. Well, if you're asking me to speculate on polite or rude ways of

25 sidelining speakers, I -- I do suppose there are two -- two ways of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 handling that particular situation.

2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Nielsen.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You're moving to another subject or --

4 MS. LOUKAS: I am moving on to another subject, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

6 MS. LOUKAS:

7 Q. Now, going on to another reference you've made to Mr. Krajisnik

8 in your report, and that is at paragraph 87 of your report. Now, have you

9 got that portion of your report that I'm referring to there, Mr. Nielsen?

10 A. Yes, I do.

11 Q. Now --

12 A. May I -- I'm sorry, may I hold onto this, since I was asked to

13 review it during the next break?

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is this the original version we have?

15 MS. LOUKAS: That's the exhibit, Your Honour, I think, yes.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I'd rather have a copy provided to

17 Mr. Nielsen so that the exhibit remains in the hands of Madam Registrar.

18 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.

19 MS. LOUKAS:

20 Q. Now, Mr. Nielsen, in terms of the documentation that you've used

21 as part of your research for your report, quite clearly the vast

22 percentage of the material you've used, of course, is documents relating

23 to Assembly sessions and various municipality documents and draft reports

24 of MUP, and generally they're that sort of document; correct?

25 A. I would phrase it more specifically.

1 Q. If you could do that.

2 A. The vast majority of -- or vast percentage, as you state, of the

3 material that I have used are documents that stem from the Ministry of

4 Internal Affairs of the RS and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the

5 Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is also the case that I

6 used to a lesser extent the materials to which you referred, including the

7 minutes of Assembly sessions, as we've seen, and various municipality

8 documents.

9 Q. And that's because of what the focus of -- and your terms of

10 reference were. In essence, the internal workings of the MUP. Correct?

11 A. That is correct.

12 Q. Now, in relation to paragraph 87, you're not using as your

13 reference point there the type of document we've just been discussing, are

14 you?

15 A. Well, if I'm looking at the same paragraph 87 --

16 Q. Yes, the one that begins: "A firsthand account of the collapse

17 of the SRBiH MUP was provided by Vitomir Zepinic."

18 A. Right. Well, in that paragraph --

19 Q. Is that your paragraph 87?

20 A. Yes, it is. Thank you. In that paragraph, I only footnote one

21 document, and that document is a document produced by RS MUP, so I do find

22 that to be consistent with the general type of documentation I focussed

23 on.

24 Q. Well, it's actually, of course, an interview with Mr. Zepinic, of

25 course.

1 A. No, it is not an interview with Mr. Zepinic. It is a statement

2 given to the National Security Service of the RS MUP at the end of August

3 1992, when Mr. Zepinic was being detained and questioned by that service.

4 And I might note that the document itself stems from the RS intelligence

5 and security service, which is the -- the source of the document.

6 Q. Now, Mr. Nielsen, and of course this statement given to the

7 National Security Service of the RS MUP at the end of August 1992 was the

8 result of an interview with Mr. Zepinic; correct?

9 A. The question here of whether it is an interview, to my point of

10 view of speaking as an analyst of RS MUP, this is a standard statement of

11 a type that results from what in B/C/S is known as an "informativni

12 razgovor," which is the standard B/C/S police term for an interrogation

13 conducted by a -- by the police of an individual who has information that

14 the police deemed to be relevant to the security situation. It is most

15 usually not -- and specifically not in this case an interview done on

16 voluntary terms.

17 Q. Well, whether you use the term "police interview"

18 or "interrogation," we are talking about somebody to produce a statement

19 would have to be answering questions, would they not, Mr. Nielsen?

20 A. Yes, that is correct.

21 Q. Now, in the context of what you've included there in paragraph

22 87, you've indicated that this is a firsthand account of the collapse of

23 the SRBiH MUP. And now, of course, as an analyst, you would approach the

24 account given by a person in those circumstances with some circumspection,

25 would you not?

1 A. As an analyst, I would approach such an account given by a person

2 in those circumstances with circumspection. However, I would also take

3 into account, as I did in this case for Vitomir Zepinic, the fact that

4 this person was at the time of the events that he was describing holding a

5 very senior position within the Ministry of Internal Affairs and was

6 therefore in a position to view events through his, of course, subjective

7 point of view that would -- were not public knowledge to others in the

8 country at the time.

9 Q. Nevertheless, Mr. Nielsen, obviously you can't vouch for the

10 truthfulness of the account, can you?

11 A. As an analyst, I again would read such an account and do my

12 utmost to compare the events described in such an account to other

13 documents. Those could be other statements given during interrogation.

14 They could be RS MUP or SRBiH MUP documents. And the -- on the specific

15 issue of the meeting with Krajisnik, as I stated, I believe, last week,

16 this is the only --

17 Q. Mr. Krajisnik.

18 A. -- perspective -- with Mr. Krajisnik, yes. This is the only

19 source that we have pertaining to that meeting.

20 Q. Yes. And again, of course, when you use an account such as the

21 account that you've used, it's very difficult to form conclusions, is it

22 not, as an analyst on the basis of one first-hand account given in the

23 circumstances in which it was given; correct?

24 A. That is correct.

25 Q. Now, of course, it does refer to a resignation there. Now, of

1 course, in the context of the -- the National Assembly, be it at the

2 Bosnia-Herzegovina level or at the Serb Republic Bosnia-Herzegovina level,

3 it's -- and perhaps you're not in a position to answer a question about

4 the Constitution in that regard, but it's the -- the National Assembly

5 that can elect and dismiss high-ranking officials in compliance with the

6 law; correct?

7 A. The National Assembly can elect and dismiss ministers in

8 compliance with the law. That specific type of high-ranking official,

9 yes.

10 Q. Yes. So in reality, the -- Zepinic's resignation would have to

11 go to the -- in relation to his position, would have to go to the

12 then-Bosnia-Herzegovina Minister for the Interior, which was

13 Mr. Delimustafic; correct?

14 A. It is the case that Mr. Zepinic's position as Deputy Minister of

15 Internal Affairs of SRBiH MUP would in the first instance normally require

16 him to resign to Minister Delimustafic and not to Mr. Krajisnik.

17 Q. Yes. Now, Mr. Nielsen, going on to another topic, and that's

18 back to your report specifically in relation to your discussion on the law

19 in relation to internal affairs. Now, if you go to paragraph 169 of your

20 report. Have you got that section of the report before you?

21 A. Yes, I do.

22 Q. Now, you indicate there that the 1992 law, like its 1990

23 antecedent provided "clear and comprehensible instructions on the use of

24 force and firearms. Citizens including suspected criminals and their

25 private property were accorded definite rights and privileges. And then

1 you say: "However, the 1992 RS law systematically removed all references

2 from the 1990 law that characterised engagement in inappropriate

3 activities as misconduct."

4 So we're both on the same page there?

5 A. Yes, we are.

6 Q. Now, you, of course, Mr. Nielsen, you're not a lawyer and you of

7 course don't put yourself forward as a legal expert.

8 A. That is correct.

9 Q. And when you referred to the 1992 law systematically removing all

10 references from the 1990 law that characterised "engagement in

11 inappropriate activities as misconduct," I take it you're referring to,

12 firstly -- and now we go to paragraph 146 -- you're referring in part to

13 this: "The 1992 law completely eliminated Article 102 of the 1990 law.

14 That article reads as follows: "Workers of the Republican Secretariat may

15 not engage in activities that are incompatible with their duty."

16 Do you see that portion?

17 A. Yes, I do.

18 Q. Yes. And who were the workers of the Republican Secretariat?

19 A. Well, in this case, I would like to check the -- the B/C/S

20 original to be absolutely sure, but generally I believe, if I've used the

21 term "workers" here, the B/C/S term should be in the -- in Article 102 of

22 the one -- 1990 law, it should be "radnici", workers, which is to say

23 employees in a more general English language sense.

24 Q. And if you could please tell the Trial Chamber who the employees

25 of the Republican Secretariat are.

1 A. The -- the workers of the Republican Secretariat would include

2 the police officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs - excuse me - as

3 well as all other legal employees of the Republican Secretariat. I remind

4 the Chamber that at this stage - that is to say, in 1990 - this was

5 earlier called the Secretariat for Internal Affairs, rather than the

6 Ministry of Internal Affairs.

7 Q. Thank you for that, Mr. Nielsen.

8 Now, if we go on to -- further on to your discussion, further in

9 paragraph 146, you indicate: "The deletion of this article as well as the

10 corresponding clause in Article 120 of the 1990 law removed any sanctions

11 against actions that would have been considered incompatible with policing

12 in the SRBiH MUP." So you've referred there to Article 20.

13 So when we go down to your discussion on Article 20, which is in

14 paragraph 154 of your report.

15 A. Article 120.

16 Q. Yes. And that's in paragraph 154 of your report. You indicate

17 there at the bottom of the paragraph, just before paragraph 155 starts

18 that "As mentioned above, clause 12 of this article of the 1990 law which

19 prohibits involvement incompatible with official duty is not present in

20 the corresponding article of the 1992 law."

21 So those portions that I've just indicated to you, Mr. Nielsen, I

22 take it they're the portions that you're referring to in relation to what

23 you say at paragraph 169: "However, the 1992 RS law systematically

24 removed all references from the 1990 law that characterised engagement in

25 inappropriate activities as misconduct." I take it that's what you're

1 referring to when you make that statement. Is that correct?

2 A. I do believe so.

3 Q. Now, this aspect of clause 12, prohibiting involvement in

4 activities incompatible with official duty, I take it on your reading of

5 it that what you're talking about is action or -- that undermines the

6 performance of duties; correct?

7 A. Well, the word here is "incompatible," which would suggest that

8 there were certain activities that would not be compatible with official

9 duty, and that is to say they would have a detrimentary effect on official

10 duty.

11 Q. Indeed. So that if something was incompatible with official

12 duty, it would undermine the performance of your duties, would it not?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, I know you're no lawyer, Mr. Nielsen, but if you look at

15 clause 7 in paragraph 154, you'll see that it already includes there "any

16 action or negligence which aggravates, thwarts, or undermines the

17 performance of duties."

18 A. Yes, I do see point 7 there.

19 Q. So that point, in relation to incompatible duty, is actually

20 already covered by clause 7. Do you see that?

21 A. Yes, I do see point 7.

22 Q. So your conclusion that "The RS law systematically removed all

23 references from 1990 law that characterised engagement in inappropriate

24 activities as misconduct," is rather overstating it, is it not?

25 A. Well, I certainly do see your point regarding point -- number 7

1 of Article 120 in the 1990 law. I would note that it is indeed the case

2 also, as we see in the operation of RS MUP and indeed in the minister,

3 Mico Stanisic's, interview that we looked at last week, that RS MUP did in

4 practice take actions with regard to actions that the ministry saw as

5 aggravating, thwarting, or undermining the performance of duties. And I

6 would specifically refer to the order given by Minister Stanisic to

7 transfer such persons who -- who did perform in such a negligent or

8 unsatisfactory manner to the Army of the RS.

9 Q. And indeed it's an unfortunate phenomenon worldwide, is it not,

10 Mr. Nielsen, that often individual police officers do things that are

11 against the basic tenor of what they should be doing as police officers?

12 A. To the best of my knowledge, all present-day police departments

13 or Ministries of Internal Affairs contain internal affairs bureaus within

14 the ministry or within the police department to investigate precisely that

15 type of misconduct or allegations thereof.

16 Q. Indeed. Thank you, Mr. Nielsen.

17 Now, just moving on to another topic, and that is -- I just need

18 to find the particular document that I need.

19 Now, going back to your report - and I'm now referring to page 11

20 of your report, and that is paragraph 10 - you indicate there that "In a

21 letter sent to the council of the SDS in Sarajevo in July 1991, Goran

22 Zecevic, a Bosnian Serb and former employee of SRBiH MUP presented a

23 litany of grievances."

24 Now, just in relation to that, the use of the term "a litany of

25 grievances" appears to be somewhat disparaging language, Mr. Nielsen.

1 A. Well, my use of the word "litany" here is meant to denote a

2 series of grievances or a group of grievances that are stated quite

3 vociferously. I am not, in using the word "litany" here, trying to give

4 any valued negative or positive connotation to the actual grievances

5 themselves.

6 Q. Because when one looks at the list of grievances, it's quite

7 clear on your reading of the documents, is it not, that some of these

8 grievances were legitimate or understandable in the context?

9 A. What I can state is that the grievances cited by Goran Zecevic in

10 this letter are numerous and that they are important on a wide variety of

11 matters regarding the operation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

12 However, I am not in a position to state in any exhaustive way how

13 legitimate or illegitimate those grievances are.

14 Q. Now, moving along to another portion of your report. You refer

15 at paragraph 20 to the war in Croatia and its impact on the Socialist

16 Republic of BiH MUP and relations between Serbian and Muslim police

17 officers in North-Western Bosnia. Now, and your -- you refer there to

18 July 1991, Zupljanin requesting urgently that the police be fully

19 mobilised. And, of course, that was in the context of the war that was

20 occurring in Croatia; correct?

21 A. Yes, that is correct.

22 Q. And so Zupljanin asserts that "It's necessary due to the

23 deteriorating security situation and the risk of spillover from the war in

24 Croatia."

25 Now, Delimustafic, of course -- Mr. Delimustafic, who you cite

1 as "Delimustafic" in your report "refused to approve Zupljanin's repeated

2 requests."

3 Now, in the context of what you've seen, Mr. Nielsen, the request

4 being made by Mr. Zupljanin there was reasonable, was it not?

5 A. I don't think that -- I can speculate, but I don't think I can

6 make an assertion of what is reasonable or unreasonable with respect to

7 that specific request.

8 Q. Well, fair enough, Mr. Nielsen. Can you assist the Trial Chamber

9 as to what the reasons were for the refusal by Mr. Delimustafic?

10 A. In this particular case, I would like to be able to refer to the

11 original document, if I'm going to be asked specific questions about its

12 content.

13 Q. So at this point you can't really assist with the reasons for the

14 refusal; correct?

15 A. I can state that as a general matter, based on my study of SRBiH

16 MUP documents and other sources, including intercepted telephone

17 conversations from this period of the summer and fall of 1991, I think it

18 is a fair observation to state that there was a fundamental difference of

19 opinion between Serbs in SRBiH MUP and Muslims in SRBiH MUP with respect

20 to the war in Croatia; whereas, the Serbs tended to see the conflict in

21 Croatia as a war that was being undertaken to preserve the Socialist

22 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and saw establishment of Serb autonomous

23 districts in -- on the territory of the Socialist Republic of Croatia in

24 that context, Muslims, and it should be stated also Croats, in MUP of

25 SRBiH tended to take quite an opposite view, which is to say that they

1 viewed the SAO, the Serb autonomous districts established on the territory

2 of Croatia, as secessionist or ethnically exclusive enclaves that were

3 detrimental to the security of Yugoslavia.

4 Q. Now, Mr. Nielsen, moving on to paragraph 24 of your report, you

5 indicate there - and that's at page 16 - "Increasingly individuals at all

6 levels of the ministry transferred their loyalty to specific parties and

7 even persons."

8 So, of course, this was occurring in relation to the Bosnian

9 Croats, the Bosnian Serbs, and the Bosniak Muslims; correct? All three

10 were, it seems clear, transferring their loyalty to specific parties,

11 whether it be the SDA, the SDZ -- sorry, the SDA, the SDS, or the HDZ.

12 A. Yes, that is correct.

13 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, that might be a suitable time, because

14 I'm just about to move on to a new topic.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, we'll adjourn until five minutes

16 to 11.00.

17 --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.

18 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Ms. Loukas - and that's also the

20 reason why we had a bit of a later start - the Chamber now received a

21 letter from Mr. Krajisnik which seems to be a response to our invitation

22 given last Friday to just write down a few points for talks he would like

23 to have. I don't know whether you're aware of the content of this letter

24 or not. Mr. Krajisnik --

25 MS. LOUKAS: At this stage, no, Your Honour. We're currently in

1 the process of translating it.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Krajisnik, I have a very practical point.

3 We now received two letters which you addressed directly to us. I was

4 informed, although I have not received the formal translation, that your

5 letter of last Friday did not contain a -- a list of subjects you'd like

6 to discuss. From what I understand from the letter we received today,

7 which is not yet formally translated but of which the content has been

8 informally revealed to us by a translator who is also working on the

9 translation, I'm wondering, would you like to have them filed, which would

10 be the -- I think the best course to do. Because from what I understand,

11 there are also some technical matters, how to get material from countries

12 involved, which is a matter that would certainly also be of importance for

13 the Prosecution to know that at least Mr. Krajisnik is struggling with it.

14 How would you like us to deal with the letter? If you'd say, "I'd like to

15 have it filed," then it's just -- it will be translated, it will be filed,

16 it's there -- it's -- it's on the record. If you'd say, "Since it also

17 pertains to my relation with my Defence counsel, I would rather have it

18 filed but then confidential," then whatever subject would be suitable for

19 open discussions could be discussed in this courtroom, whatever would be

20 strictly reserved for conversations with Defence counsel, whether or not

21 in the presence of Mr. Harhoff and the Registry, we would keep it for

22 that. I would like to know what your position is.

23 MS. LOUKAS: Just prior to that, Your Honour, if I might

24 intervene at this point just briefly. It seems to me that it -- it may be

25 a matter which Mr. Krajisnik may require some advice from his --

1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

2 MS. LOUKAS: -- counsel. And in the circumstances, perhaps

3 that -- once we've had the letter translated, that we're in a better

4 position to hopefully helpfully advise Mr. Krajisnik.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the question is there. I do not ask you to

6 answer it immediately. Please seek advice from counsel. Think it over,

7 Mr. Krajisnik.

8 Yes.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I know why my lawyer has reacted in

10 this way, and she's quite right. But I would like to thank you for having

11 pointed out that I sent this letter. I was just following your

12 instructions. The letter contains very short indications of the themes

13 that should be discussed. I accept the advice my lawyer has given. I

14 think it's the best advice in this courtroom.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's -- it's quite a mixture of subjects, some

16 of a rather technical nature. But we'll wait until it is translated, and

17 then we'll hear from the Defence, and that is accused and counsel, how to

18 deal with it.

19 If you, Mr. Tieger, would have any specific position in this

20 respect, I don't know to what extent Mr. Krajisnik would allow counsel to

21 briefly discuss the content of the matter with you, and if that would

22 raise any issue, we would like to hear from you. Then we'll hear, if not

23 today, then at least next Thursday, because we will not be sitting --

24 unless, Ms. Loukas, you will send us an informal notice in between. That

25 could be tomorrow or day after tomorrow.

1 MS. LOUKAS: Certainly, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then you may proceed with the

3 cross-examination of Mr. Nielsen.

4 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

5 Q. Now, Mr. Nielsen, just prior to the break, we were going through

6 specific portions of your report. And I think we just left paragraph 24.

7 I just want to take you now to paragraph 41 of your report. And you

8 indicate there some discussions that were occurring in the context of

9 removing Mr. Zepinic from his post. You've got the paragraph before you

10 that I'm referring to, Mr. Nielsen?

11 A. Yes, I do; although, I -- I do believe we were discussing

12 paragraph 20, rather than 24.

13 Q. No, I do think we were -- we'd just finished off with paragraph

14 24. I can check the transcript. Yes, it was paragraph 24 that we were

15 discussing, Mr. Nielsen. That's page 28 of the transcript for

16 Your Honours and the Prosecution, and that's page 28, line 19.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Nielsen, that's the line where questions

18 were put to you -- one question was put to you in relation to the

19 line "increasingly individuals at all levels of the ministry transferred

20 their loyalty to specific parties." You then asked whether that was true

21 for SDA, SDS, and HDZ, and you confirmed that, if my memory does not -- is

22 correct.

23 THE WITNESS: Yes. Thank you for -- for confirming that. I do

24 agree.

25 MS. LOUKAS:

1 Q. Okay. Now, moving on to paragraph 41, as I was indicating, there

2 were some discussions occurring there in the context of removing

3 Mr. Zepinic from his post. Correct?

4 A. That is correct.

5 Q. Yes. And you note in your report in the last sentence of that

6 particular paragraph that at that point Mr. Krajisnik, as president of the

7 Assembly, suggested that both Zepinic and Stanisic be appointed, that they

8 both be appointed. Now, that appears, of course, to be something of a

9 conciliatory approach on the part of Mr. Krajisnik; correct?

10 A. Yes, that is correct. Although, we should note here that this

11 specific paragraph refers to appointments to the SDS Council of Ministers

12 and should not be confused with the later debate surrounding whether

13 Zepinic should hold a position in RS MUP in April 1992.

14 Q. Yes, indeed, Mr. Nielsen. But nevertheless, in the context of --

15 of this particular discussion, Mr. Krajisnik is adopting an approach there

16 of -- a conciliatory approach of trying to incorporate both Mr. Zepinic

17 and Mr. Stanisic.

18 A. That is correct.

19 Q. Now, moving on to paragraph 47. And this is the report that was

20 produced by the SRBiH MUP, information on -- on "activities in the country

21 and abroad directed at violent change or endangerment of the

22 constitutionally confirmed order." Now, of course, this report identifies

23 ethnically based organisations as the main threats to law and order in

24 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Now, in relation to these ethnically based

25 organisations, clearly it was the case, Mr. Nielsen, that there were

1 ethnically based organisations as being the main threats to law and order.

2 That's reference, of course, to organisations involving Serbs, involving

3 Croats, and involving Bosniak Muslims; correct?

4 A. The report does talk about groups or formations of all three

5 groups. That is correct.

6 Q. Now, further in relation to this report, at paragraph 50, the

7 report indicates that "Only recent activities of Muslim extremists had

8 occurred in reaction to the proclamation of the SAOs and to the formation

9 of Serbian paramilitary formations."

10 Now, just in relation to that statement in the report, of course

11 the slant of the writer must be taken into account in assessing that

12 particular report in that regard; correct?

13 A. It is correct that insofar as the authorship of the reports

14 produced by SRBiH MUP at this point is known - it often isn't - that has

15 to be taken into -- into account.

16 Q. Now, moving on to paragraph 55 of your report, you indicate there

17 that "Allegations were made of Muslim involvement in the illegal arms

18 deals." Just in relation to that particular aspect, it was, of course,

19 the case that all three ethnic nations were at some level involved in

20 illegal arms deals; correct?

21 A. It is correct that during this period SRBiH MUP documents show

22 activities described as "illegal arming" among all three ethnicities.

23 Q. Now, moving on to paragraph 59 of your report. You deal there

24 with -- "On the 14th of February, Karadzic apparently gave the signal to

25 SDS members to initiate the second stage of preparations anticipated in

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 the 19th of December, 1991 instructions."

2 Now, of course, as an analyst and as somebody whose focus is the

3 internal workings of the Ministry of the Interior, you use the word

4 there "apparently" because it's not something of which you can make a hard

5 and fast claim; correct?

6 A. That is correct. And I would note that with respect to the

7 specific series of events described on the 14th of February, that I was

8 informed in writing that particular passage by the more expansive

9 discussion of the same process in the report by Mr. Treanor.

10 Q. Indeed. And -- and, of course, that's -- that's a matter on

11 which you would defer to Mr. Treanor and his expertise; correct?

12 A. That is correct.

13 Q. And, of course, that's a matter on which Mr. Treanor himself was

14 cross-examined upon in April of this year -- of last year. Sorry. I take

15 it you're aware of that. You indicated previously that you had observed

16 some of Mr. Treanor's evidence.

17 A. Yes, that is correct, I did observe some of his evidence.

18 Q. Now, just going on to the end of paragraph 75. You've got

19 there "Mr. Krajisnik asked the deputies to think seriously before the next

20 Assembly session about the best candidates in their regions for a Serbian

21 MUP."

22 Now, just in relation to that, just going back briefly to the

23 18th of March for this purpose.

24 MS. LOUKAS: And perhaps the document could be placed again

25 before Mr. Nielsen. I apologise, Your Honour, I should have forewarned

1 our usher about this.

2 Q. Now, if you go to -- on my version, it's page 48. It may be page

3 47 in your version, that is, the English version. And I think you've also

4 got access to the B/C/S there.

5 A. Yes, I do.

6 Q. Now, you'll note there that it's got "Hence, an analysis of the

7 record of the current officials along with nomination of new officials

8 stating the reasons why some can be reappointed and some cannot," and then

9 stated underneath there is: "The proposal by the president was

10 unanimously adopted."

11 Then it states: "At the same time, a proposal was adopted to

12 devote more attention to appointing new officials to having more persons

13 nominated, and even to look for the best candidates."

14 Now, specifically in relation to that portion, "at the same time

15 a proposal was adopted to devote more attention to appointing new

16 officials," the record itself does not indicate that that was specifically

17 a proposal from Mr. Krajisnik, does it?

18 A. No, it doesn't. It appears to be a -- a general proposal in

19 front of the Assembly.

20 Q. And -- but nevertheless you've put in your report: "Krajisnik

21 asked the deputies to think seriously before the next Assembly session

22 about the best candidates in their regions for a Serbian MUP."

23 A. In this case, what I believe was my intention was to state that

24 the -- the chairman in his capacity as chairman has the ability to put to

25 the deputies in the Assembly that a proposal, which can be a general

1 proposal, not coming from him personally, should be reflected upon by the

2 time the Assembly meets the next time; that is to say, to give them the

3 opportunity to formulate their views so that those can be presented at the

4 following session.

5 Q. But nevertheless, of course, the way it's dealt with there in

6 your text is actually not precise in accordance with what's contained

7 within the written record of the Assembly session; correct?

8 A. I suppose one could have added a -- introductory clause there

9 stating that Krajisnik asked the deputies to think or Krajisnik acting --

10 Mr. Krajisnik acting in his capacity as chairman of the Assembly asked the

11 deputy to think seriously about the best candidates in their regions for a

12 Serbian MUP. I do not believe that I state, nor was it my intention to

13 state, that Mr. Krajisnik had asked the deputies to think seriously about

14 a proposal that was exclusively his.

15 Q. Nevertheless, of course, anything that comes before the Assembly

16 has to be adopted, and that's just a matter of normal political democracy

17 in an Assembly; correct?

18 A. To the best of my knowledge, by asking the deputies to think

19 seriously before the next Assembly session about this particular issue,

20 Mr. Krajisnik is acting in accordance with his role as the speaker or

21 president of the Assembly.

22 Q. But just looking at the exact record here. All right? You've

23 got: "At the same time, a proposal was adopted to devoting more attention

24 to appointing new officials, to having more persons nominated, and even to

25 look for the best candidates." Do you see what's -- what I'm referring to

1 there, how it's specifically stated?

2 A. Yes, I do.

3 Q. All right. So it does appear to read as though at that same time

4 the previous proposal was adopted - that was the proposal, the previous

5 proposal by the president - a proposal - it doesn't indicate that that is

6 a proposal by the president - was adopted to devote more attention to

7 appointing new officials, to having more persons nominated, and even to

8 look for the best candidates.

9 A. Yes, I see the passage to which you're referring.

10 Q. Yes. So all I'm asking for, Mr. Nielsen, is an acknowledgment

11 that the text of your report there does not completely accurately reflect

12 what's contained in the written record.

13 A. The passage to which you refer is written in the passive voice;

14 that is to say, the second proposal referred to, there is no agency given

15 there. It was adopted and it is not stated explicitly who proposed it,

16 but it was adopted. And on the narrow point that if the -- if the point

17 of contention is that -- whether Mr. Krajisnik specifically proposed that

18 second proposal, then it is the case that it does not state here that he

19 specifically proposed it.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, you have successfully drawn the

21 attention of the Chamber to the --

22 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE ORIE: -- difference in text.

24 MS. LOUKAS:

25 Q. Now -- and of course, Mr. Nielsen, in and of itself there's

1 nothing wrong with people being asked to think seriously about best

2 candidates for positions, is there?

3 A. In the context of the establishment of new ministries, one would

4 expect that serious thought would have to be given about the best

5 candidates for positions in those ministries, yes.

6 Q. Yes. Now, just going on to paragraph 77 of your report. You

7 note there that at the end of his comments, Mr. Karadzic made one final

8 but crucial point: "The police must be under the control of the civilian

9 authority. It must obey it. There is no discussion about that. That is

10 the way it must be."

11 Now, just in relation to that point, that's a fairly correct and

12 obvious point, is it not, that the police are not a law unto themselves

13 and any police department anywhere in the world is ultimately responsible

14 to the relevant minister and that is a fairly uncontroversial proposition,

15 is it not?

16 A. Yes, in -- it is. In this case, I think it's instructive to

17 maybe explain a little bit more the context of this comment, and perhaps I

18 should have done so here. What the opposite of "civilian authority" here

19 would be -- in this specific context is military authority. So what --

20 the way I read Mr. Karadzic's comments at the 12th Session is that he is

21 saying that the police must be under the control of the civilian

22 authority, rather than military authority. This is, in fact, a demand on

23 the part of Mr. Karadzic that can be contextualised in a situation in

24 which the military authority in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time was

25 held by the Yugoslav People's Army, the JNA.

1 The Assembly, or more correctly speaking, many speakers in the

2 Assembly and on occasion Mr. Karadzic himself, did state in previous

3 Assembly sessions that they were not sure how the JNA was going to align

4 itself in the context of the events as they were evolving in Bosnia and

5 Herzegovina. They were therefore keen to make sure that the JNA would not

6 immediately have direct control over the police. Rather, here -- as in

7 this case here, Mr. Karadzic emphasises the need for the police to be

8 under the control of the civilian authority.

9 Q. Now, just going on to the very next paragraph, Mr. Nielsen. That

10 was something we were dealing with earlier today, and I think you had the

11 opportunity to take the relevant document away during the break. And I

12 was just asking you for the specific reference there in relation to the

13 strong hint.

14 A. Yes. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to return to that.

15 I did have the chance to review the minutes of the 12th Session again

16 during the break, and at this point I wish to state that based on a closer

17 reading of it during the break, I believe that I have erred in paragraph

18 78 by referring to "a strong hint from Momcilo Krajisnik." The strong

19 hint to which I referred was made by Radovan Karadzic and not by Momcilo

20 Krajisnik. It is the case that at the 12th Session of the Assembly there

21 is a discussion that is then brought to fruition with decisions in the

22 13th Session of the Assembly to move ahead with the formation of a Serbian

23 Ministry of Internal Affairs and to appoint, as it is done at the 13th

24 Session, Mico Stanisic as the minister of that ministry. And there is no

25 dissent from the general point, which is that all in the Assembly agree

1 that this needs to take place. As I've stated earlier, there is some

2 disagreement about the speed with which that needs to take place.

3 So, again, upon having reviewed it, I believe this is a comment

4 made by Radovan Karadzic, and I thank you for the opportunity to correct

5 that mistake.

6 Q. Thank you, Mr. Nielsen.

7 Now, just going on to paragraph 185 of your report. Now, just in

8 the -- the context of this particular aspect, I think you've already

9 conceded that you're not an expert on the internal workings of the SDS

10 party. That was at -- for the benefit of the Court, page 22 of the 2nd of

11 June transcript. Correct? You weren't -- you don't put yourself forward

12 as an expert on the internal workings of the SDS party.

13 A. That is correct.

14 Q. And -- nor do you put yourself forward as an expert on the

15 functioning of the Presidency. That's page 81 of the 2nd of June

16 transcript. Again, you don't put yourself forward as an expert on the

17 function of the Presidency and linkages thereof; correct?

18 A. That is correct.

19 Q. And -- nor do you put yourself forward as an expert on Crisis

20 Staffs. That's page 22 of the transcript, 3rd of June.

21 A. That is also correct.

22 Q. Now, you make this statement in paragraph 185: "Until the

23 establishment of the Army of Republika Srpska, VRS, on the 12th of May,

24 1992, the armed forces within RS MUP were the only armed forces

25 exclusively and directly controlled by the RS leadership."

1 Now, in relation to that statement, clearly, as someone who does

2 not put themselves forward as an expert on the RS leadership, that is

3 something that goes beyond your expertise and your terms of reference;

4 correct?

5 THE INTERPRETER: Could Ms. Loukas speak into the microphone,

6 please, for the interpreters.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, if you'd put on your earphone, then

8 you'd hear the request by the interpreters to speak in the microphone.

9 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Certainly, Your Honour.

10 A. To the degree that there is evidence brought forward by --

11 whether in Mr. Treanor's report or, for that matter, Mr. Brown's --

12 Mr. Brown's report on the functioning of the military, I would certainly

13 defer to them on this point.

14 In making this particular -- or in writing this particular

15 sentence, what I'm referring to are claims made by the RS Ministry of

16 Internal Affairs in which they were very keen in their reports, both their

17 quarterly reports and subsequently in their draft annual report, to

18 highlight the role of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and in particular

19 its armed police component, to which I have previously referred, as the

20 vanguard of the Armed Forces of the Republika Srpska. They wished to

21 contrast the period from the beginning of April to the 12th of May, 1992,

22 when the VRS was formally established, with the subsequent period. Again,

23 in the context to which I referred just a few moments ago - that is to

24 say, that the Bosnian Serb leadership and indeed senior Serbs in RS MUP

25 displayed doubts, distrust, and other open questions about the TOs and

1 about certain generals in the JNA - they regarded RS MUP as a fighting

2 force, an armed force, that could be relied upon consistently during the

3 period from the beginning of April until the 12th of May to implement the

4 decisions that needed to be implemented.

5 Q. Now, Mr. Nielsen, moving along to paragraph 186 of your report,

6 and I'm referring here specifically to your footnote 188, where you

7 referred to "Zupljanin contended in his letter of the 3rd of April, 1992

8 that everyone had the possibility to stay in their positions."

9 Now, just in relation to that particular document, that's a

10 document in which Mr. Zupljanin refers to -- and it's dated 3rd of April,

11 1992 -- Mr. Zupljanin refers to this aspect: "In line with the Sarajevo

12 agreement on the possible future of the state organisation of BH, the

13 provisions of which were also confirmed in the last Brussels agreement,

14 the collegium made a realistic appraisal of the security situation and

15 took the view that the transformation of the existing Security Services

16 Centre was being approached calmly and without excesses."

17 Do you recall that particular document, Mr. Nielsen?

18 A. Yes, I do. And I would point out immediately that

19 Mr. Zupljanin's language in that document dated 3rd April of 1992 closely

20 paraphrases the language used in the 31 March 1992 dispatch of Momcilo

21 Mandic, to which I referred last week as the document marking the birth of

22 RS MUP.

23 Q. Yes. And also in relation to this particular document, he

24 refers to the fact that "It was concluded that there was no mono-ethnic

25 aspect to the transformation of the Security Services Centre that had been

1 carried out and that we would not permit facilities and equipment to be

2 taken over on a mono-ethnic basis." You recall that portion of the

3 document as well?

4 A. Yes, I do.

5 Q. Just in relation to those two aspects, the reference to the

6 Cutilheiro Plan or the Sarajevo agreement and the reference to not

7 allowing facilities and equipment to be taken over on a mono-ethnic basis.

8 You, of course, don't go to those specific aspects in your coverage of the

9 document in footnote 188, do you?

10 A. No. In footnote 188, I state that "He" - that is to say, Stojan

11 Zupljanin - "contended that everyone had the possibility to state in

12 their -- stay in their positions."

13 Q. Now, going on to paragraph 191 of your report, you make this

14 claim here, in the second sentence: "The campaign to find 'illegal

15 weapons' and remove them from the possession of the non-Serbian population

16 evolved into the harassment, detention, and eventually expulsion of large

17 portions of that population from the RS. This policy was formulated by

18 the central Bosnian leadership for implementation by the police and

19 military."

20 Now, you, of course, firstly don't have any sort of footnote

21 there to that particular proposition; correct?

22 A. What I do have is the following sentence, where I refer to the

23 first such instance, which is the order from Bogdan Subotic, the RS

24 minister of national defence on the 16th of April declaring that a state

25 of imminent war existed and to form mobilisation. He also allowed the

1 authorities to take "all necessary measures appropriate to the

2 situation."

3 It is my contention, based on having examined RS MUP documents

4 and a smaller quantity of VRS documents, that that particular order

5 subsequently, as I show in the report, evolves into the aforementioned

6 disarming campaign, which leads to large-scale detentions and eventually

7 expulsions.

8 Q. Yes, I understand that, Mr. Nielsen, but nevertheless, again, as

9 somebody who is not an expert on the internal workings of the SDS party

10 nor an expert on the functioning of the Presidency nor an expert on Crisis

11 Staffs, that particular conclusion is beyond the purview of your report,

12 your terms of reference, and your expertise, is it not?

13 A. I believe that it is within the ambit of this report to state

14 what kind of order or orders were given by the Minister of National

15 Defence, Bogdan Subotic on the 16th of April and then to show how the

16 police in the RS Ministry of Internal Affairs proceeded to implement that

17 order on the ground.

18 Q. Yes. But that -- for that very general proposition, you've

19 basically cited Mr. Subotic's full mobilisation order there. Now, in the

20 context of the war having begun in early April, that was not a

21 particularly unusual move, was it?

22 A. The unusual move to mobilise?

23 Q. Indeed.

24 A. Well, I can't state what is usual or unusual, but the fact is

25 that that is the order that he issued on that date. And as I proceed to

1 then show, the -- his order was subsequently cited at the regional and the

2 municipal level in further, more specific orders that were implemented by

3 the police.

4 Q. Well, I think we'll leave that paragraph, Mr. Nielsen, and we

5 will move on to paragraph 194 of your report. Now, in the last two

6 sentences of paragraph 194, you indicate this: "The police cited attacks

7 on Serbs and the JNA, TO, and VRS as factors necessitating the disarmament

8 of non-Serbs."

9 The next sentence: "Yet these were largely small and isolated

10 incidents that stood in stark contrast to the military and police

11 operations undertaken against non-Serbs in the course of the disarmament

12 drive."

13 Now, in the context of that statement that you've made there

14 about"largely small and isolated incidents," Mr. Nielsen, you're not in a

15 position, are you, to put forward that opinion merely on the analysis of

16 the internal documents of the MUP, which is the focus of your report?

17 A. That particular sentence of the report is a sentence constructed

18 on the basis of the MUP reports filed at the municipal, regional, and

19 national levels in 1992. It is an aggregate statement. However, it is an

20 absolutely correct observation to state that in making that assertion, I

21 was also informed by military documents - for example, from the 1st

22 Krajina Corps, to which I've had access and which often mention joint

23 police and military operations, particularly in the Autonomous Region of

24 Krajina.

25 Q. Okay. So in essence you're basing that sentence, are you, you

1 indicate to the Trial Chamber, on the basis of your examination of

2 documents specifically relating to ARK? Correct?

3 A. In that particular case, yes, that is -- that is correct. It is

4 in fact the case, as the Trial Chamber may know, that the document

5 collections that we have at OTP with respect to the police are

6 quantitatively biassed in favour of ARK, which is to say that the quantity

7 of material that we have in from the RS in 1992 is to a very large extent

8 based on the police in the Autonomous Region of Krajina. One of the

9 things that I have tried to do as an analyst is to remedy that by

10 collecting additional document collections from the police from other

11 regions of the RS, such as the Sarajevo, Eastern Bosnia, and Herzegovina

12 regions.

13 Q. Now, Mr. Nielsen, just going on to paragraph 196 of your report.

14 You state there that "There is some evidence that some Crisis Staffs did

15 not control the military or police."

16 Now, again, you haven't put yourself forward as an expert on

17 Crisis Staffs, but there is, of course, is there not, significant evidence

18 that Crisis Staffs did not control the military or the police, as opposed

19 to putting it in this negative fashion, there is some evidence that some

20 Crisis Staffs did not control the military or the police.

21 A. As an aggregate observation based on my examination of hundreds

22 of thousands of pages of RS MUP documents, in 1992 it is generally the

23 case, especially during the first six months of the ministry's existence,

24 that the Crisis Staffs frequently issued orders or made at the very least

25 suggestions for work or actions to be taken by the police in

1 municipalities as well as at the regional level. The Law on Internal

2 Affairs from 1992, the RS Law on Internal Affairs, provided for such

3 suggestions or orders to be made and carried out by the police at the

4 municipal level as long as such actions demanded by the police did not

5 contradict the Law on Internal Affairs and did not require the police to

6 carry out actions that fell outside the purview of the Ministry of

7 Internal Affairs.

8 Q. Nevertheless, Mr. Nielsen, you don't put yourself forward as an

9 expert in relation to the functioning of Crisis Staffs and their

10 connections; correct?

11 MR. TIEGER: Excuse me, Your Honour. I'm not sure it's necessary

12 to continue re-asking that same question.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, it is part of the rituals, I would say.

14 MS. LOUKAS: Part of the ritual, Your Honour?

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

16 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I'm happy to move on from that

17 topic.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think it's quite clear in what respects

19 Mr. Nielsen presents himself as an expert.

20 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

22 MS. LOUKAS: If I might have a moment, Your Honour. I'm just

23 looking for a particular reference in a report.

24 JUDGE ORIE: If Mr. Nielsen needs some time, you may take some

25 time as well.

1 MS. LOUKAS:

2 Q. Now, Mr. Nielsen, just in relation to paragraph 278 of your

3 report, you refer there to, in the third sentence: "From Prijedor Drljaca

4 reported that there were no detention facilities except for Manjaca." Do

5 you see that reference there in paragraph 278?

6 A. Yes, I do.

7 Q. Yes. And there's a reference there to a document of the 28th of

8 August, 1992. It's quite clear, is it not, that Mr. Drljaca was not in

9 fact reporting up the line the correct situation in his municipality, was

10 he?

11 A. In this particular dispatch or as a matter of general practice?

12 Q. As a matter of general practice.

13 A. I disagree. I do believe, based on the materials that I've

14 examined from SJB Prijedor and CSB Banja Luka that Mr. Drljaca reported on

15 a regular and, to the best of my ability to ascertain this, accurate

16 manner to Stojan Zupljanin, his superior, at CSB Banja Luka.

17 Q. We'll come back to that at a later stage, Mr. Nielsen. Now, in

18 relation to paragraph 275 of your report, you indicate that "On the 19th

19 of August, 1992 Karadzic ordered the VRS and the MUP to treat all

20 prisoners in accordance with international norms and to cooperate with

21 international organisations."

22 And you also indicate: "This order was issued a reiteration of a

23 presidential order of the 6th of June, 1992."

24 Now, you're aware of a number of orders coming from Mr. Karadzic

25 in relation to the treatment of prisoners and treatment in accordance with

1 international norms; correct?

2 A. Yes. In fact, I believe I cite two of them right here.

3 Q. Indeed. And, in fact, there's more than two.

4 A. Yes, that is correct.

5 Q. Now, moving on to your page 293 -- sorry, page 84, paragraph 293.

6 You deal there with problems in policing and a complaint there from

7 Mr. Zupljanin and this question of prisoners arriving without any

8 supporting documentation or the reason for their arrest and there's

9 further aspects that are covered there. It's quite clear, is it not - and

10 as one might expect in wartime - that there was quite a state of chaos in

11 relation to what was occurring there? The matters that Mr. Zupljanin

12 refers to.

13 A. I do not agree that this is a state of chaos. What I do know,

14 based on the documents, is that there were mutual recriminations between

15 the VRS and the RS MUP in the late summer of 1992, July and August in

16 particular, in which both sides, the military and the police, accused each

17 other of rounding up large numbers of persons in the Autonomous Region of

18 Krajina and then -- I believe the word used in the documents themselves

19 is "dumping" those persons in detention facilities that would have to be

20 controlled and guarded and operated, et cetera, by the other side.

21 So, for example, RS MUP complains that the VRS and earlier the

22 TOs have rounded up thousands of people in Bosanski Novi and neighbouring

23 municipalities, like Sanski Most, and have not compiled any dossiers or

24 other records as to why these people have been detained and then have

25 given these detention facilities for MUP to operate. That is something

1 that we see, for example, at the 11 July meeting in Belgrade as a big

2 point of discontent among the police officers.

3 On the other hand, here we see the reverse process. In August,

4 when Simo Drljaca starts to shut down Omarska, Trnopolje, and Keraterm and

5 transfer a large number of prisoners to Manjaca, which is a VRS-controlled

6 facility, the VRS complain that the persons being transferred to Manjaca

7 are arriving without any form of supporting documentation.

8 I would not describe that situation as chaos because during the

9 very same period, as I note in my report, in particular in the section on

10 detention facilities and also in the section on the National Security

11 Service, the police demonstrated a capability to keep very accurate

12 numerical records on the number of detainees in those facilities and the

13 number of interrogations carried out of those detainees. And indeed they

14 also kept detailed records of the number of criminal complaints resulting

15 from these interrogations.

16 Q. Now, Mr. Nielsen, I note that you disagree with my description

17 of "chaos" or "chaotic," but you would agree, in light of what you've

18 indicated, that there certainly appeared to be a lack of coordination;

19 correct?

20 A. At this particular juncture, what we see in the police

21 documents - I cannot speak about the contents -- or I cannot speak

22 authoritatively on the contents of the military documents - is a rather

23 rapid rush, driven by external events, and in particular international

24 attention on the detention facilities in the Autonomous Region of Krajina,

25 to shut down these facilities or at a minimum greatly reduce the number of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 persons detained in such facilities. In fact, we see in at least one or

2 two documents during this period explicit references in ARK by police

3 chiefs of municipalities to the desire not to be embarrassed

4 internationally by these detention facilities.

5 So they seem in a great rush to hand these persons over either to

6 Manjaca or to shut down the facilities and get those persons out of those

7 facilities as rapidly as possible. That, it appears, based on the VRS's

8 complaints, led to a certain amount of disorder, but I do not agree with

9 an assertion that this is a situation of chaos.

10 Q. Okay. So you'd rather use the term "disorder" than chaos;

11 correct?

12 A. Well, I think, if I may use your word, a "lack of coordination"

13 is an acceptable interpretation, and indeed we note throughout the summer

14 of 1992 that the VRS and the MUP had rather heated discussions on a number

15 of topic, such as, for example, since you referred to paragraph 290, the

16 massacre of Muslims at Koricanske Stijene.

17 Q. Yes. Now, Mr. Nielsen, moving on to another aspect of your

18 report, and that is in relation to paragraph 337 and following, and that

19 is where you're dealing with the 1992 RS MUP draft draft annual report.

20 Now, of course, as an analyst, you would agree with me that it's

21 important in terms of analysing this sort of document to take into account

22 that often what is true must be distinguished from what is self-serving by

23 the writers and also what is propaganda; correct?

24 A. Well, without engaging in any epistemological debate, yes, I

25 would say that, generally speaking.

1 Q. And just in relation to paragraph 347, where you indicate

2 that "The president and the members of the Presidency had received more

3 than 80 documents in the course of the past eight months," of course

4 you've never seen any list produced by the Ministry of what exactly those

5 reports are; correct?

6 A. As I have already stated, I have never seen any exhaustive list

7 of either the 80 documents listed in that sentence or the 90 documents

8 listed in the earlier sentence. What can be said by process of logical

9 deduction is that the 17 July report that we saw last week in which the

10 MUP had produced a report that was in handwriting destined for the

11 president of the Presidency and the president of the government would

12 certainly have been one of those documents.

13 Q. Now, Mr. Nielsen, I note that as part of your CV you have spoken

14 on the topic of Western historians and the problem of objectivity in

15 historical research, and of course this issue is one that one takes into

16 consideration when -- when dealing with history and also in relation to

17 writing reports of the nature that you've written; correct?

18 A. I don't have my CV in front of me. I believe you're referring to

19 an article, rather than a speech. But, yes, I am, as a professional

20 historian, well aware of the debates and follow the debates on

21 epistemology and objectivity in historical research.

22 Q. And part of what you -- or it's in fact an abstract of your

23 lecture rather than an article. It says "Western historians and the

24 problem of objectivity in historical research."

25 A. Yes. Thank you for reminding me. That was a -- actually a talk

1 I gave in Belgrade at the -- at a higher education centre in Belgrade and

2 then subsequently developed for an article that was published in Croatia.

3 Q. And in relation to that article, that lecture, the -- the goal of

4 the lecture, of course, was to open a debate about the subjectivity of

5 research in Serbian and former Yugoslav historiography; correct?

6 A. It was introduce an audience both in Serbia and in Croatia to a

7 very vigorous debate about historical positivism and epistemology that had

8 been started in the 1980s and 1970s in North America and Western Europe.

9 Q. Now, of course, as we all know, every researcher has a subjective

10 frame of reference, and the question must always be asked: How is it

11 possible to write history or a report of the nature that you're writing

12 objectively? What do you consider to be the factors that must be taken

13 into account to ensure that what you write is as objective as possible?

14 A. I think the first and most important factor is that once the

15 ambit of a particular historical inquiry is set, that one tries to read as

16 widely and extensively as possible on the material -- or on the given

17 subject. In particular, as a historian, I differentiate between primary

18 and secondary sources. That is why I rely to a very extensive extent in

19 this report, as I did also in my dissertation and earlier work that I've

20 done, on primary sources; that is to say, sources produced

21 contemporaneously by the actors involved in the subject at hand.

22 Q. Yes. No further questions on -- or no, well, before I leave that

23 topic, what else do you need, in your opinion? It's not just that aspect,

24 is it?

25 A. Well, certainly what one is taught and what one practices as a

1 critical historian is critical comparison of documents produced by various

2 sides and in various languages. That is one of the reasons why in the

3 leadership research team everyone who has produced expert reports has read

4 the documents in the original source language, as there are often, as we

5 have seen during this testimony, discrepancies and particular terminology

6 that can be better understood if one speaks the language.

7 I also think that, as a general point, it is of course the case

8 that one has to remain open to documents that are showing evidence or

9 information that is not consistent with a hypothesis formulated at the

10 outset of inquiry. That's a standard axiom of proper historical research.

11 Q. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Nielsen.

12 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honours, if that's an appropriate juncture to

13 take a break. I have to go and get some documents at this point because

14 I've proceeded rather more quickly than I had anticipated at this point.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Just for scheduling purposes, Mr. Krajisnik,

16 would you meet -- need some time after Ms. Loukas has finished the

17 cross-examination? I, of course, do understand that once it has not yet

18 finished, that you never know for sure what one would need in addition to

19 it, but could you please give us an indication.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that it will be necessary

21 for me to put a couple of questions to this witness at the most, and it

22 shouldn't take much time.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, how much time do you think you

24 would need if we would take a break now? We would then have another 70

25 minutes. How much of that would you need?

1 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I don't think I'd need any more than 30

2 minutes.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So after the break - that would be until ten

4 minutes past 1.00 - and then perhaps Mr. Krajisnik has a couple of

5 questions.

6 Mr. Tieger, until now, how time-consuming would be your need to

7 put further questions to Mr. Nielsen.

8 MR. TIEGER: Given the estimates we've just heard, Your Honour,

9 we'll finish today without the need for an abbreviated break. I -- in

10 other words, whatever I have to ask will -- can be accomplished in --

11 within the time frame that we've just discussed.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then even the Judges might have some

13 questions as well.

14 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry about that.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

16 MR. TIEGER: I will be -- I will be brief at most.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll then have a break of 20 minutes now.

18 We'll adjourn until 25 minutes to 1.00.

19 --- Recess taken at 12.16 p.m.

20 --- On resuming at 12.45 p.m.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, you may proceed.

22 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

23 Q. Now, Mr. Nielsen, I just want to take you to paragraph 185 of

24 your report. You've indicated there that "As Biljana Plavsic had stated

25 in the Assembly of the Serbian People already on the 26th of January,

1 1992, these are the times until the referendum when the Serbian people

2 must make a state out of its own areas. It is known what the making of a

3 state means. First the Ministry of Internal Affairs will do whatever

4 necessary to have its own army."

5 Do you see the portion of your report that I'm dealing with

6 there?

7 A. Yes, I do.

8 Q. Now, you refer there specifically to the 26th of January, 1992

9 Assembly of the Serbian People. Now, I have a -- a copy here of where

10 you've referenced that. That's footnote 182.

11 MS. LOUKAS: If that might be given to the witness.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you, Madam Usher.

13 MS. LOUKAS: And I can indicate, Your Honours, I have copies for

14 the Bench and for the Prosecution.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could you please assign a

16 provisional exhibit number. Thank you.

17 Ms. Loukas, the sessions of the Assembly always raise in my mind

18 a question whether it is already in evidence through Treanor or -- at the

19 same time, I see it's tape recording, not -- sometimes it's -- minutes are

20 used. Is this in evidence already or ...

21 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I -- I'm assuming it is through --

22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

23 MS. LOUKAS: -- Treanor.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

25 MS. LOUKAS: But at this stage I wasn't able to confirm that

1 through the break.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If you -- then we'll not assign at this

3 moment an exhibit number yet. You check that first, and then we'll see

4 whether any number is needed.

5 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.

7 THE WITNESS: Do you have a B/C/S copy, please?

8 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, I do.

9 Q. Now, Mr. Nielsen, I think you have a copy of the English and the

10 B/C/S before you?

11 A. Yes, I do.

12 Q. If you could just point the Trial Chamber specifically to where

13 this quote appears, firstly in the English version.

14 A. Well, I see it in the B/C/S version. I don't see it in the

15 English version.

16 Q. In fact, the English version refers to -- it doesn't appear at

17 all, firstly, in the English version, does it?

18 A. No, it doesn't. I note that the -- page 6 of the English version

19 of the transcript, right after "tape number 2 follows" in parentheses

20 lists between forward slashes "four pages entirely illegible." And

21 the -- however, the B/C/S transcript, as far as I can tell, actually

22 continues and picks up significantly before the English transcript does.

23 Q. So do you -- on your examination of the documents have any idea

24 how "four pages entirely illegible" got into the English translation?

25 A. No, I don't. In fact, let me just state, if I haven't already,

1 that as is so often the case, this is the first time in my life that I

2 have the English version of this in front of me. I always worked

3 exclusively with B/C/S documents, and until my arrival here in court, I

4 only on very rare occasions, mostly in dealing with non-B/C/S colleagues,

5 had occasion to see translations of the originals.

6 Q. But, of course, as you're aware, the Trial Chamber has to deal

7 with the -- the text of your report and the footnotes in English.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Let's not -- if -- Ms. Loukas, the expert worked on

9 the basis of the B/C/S copy. If there's no proper English translation,

10 I've noticed that -- well, at least the -- the pages which seemed to be

11 the "four pages entirely illegible" might not be that clear, but -- could

12 we find a way of -- I'd like the expert to deal with the subject of his

13 report. If there's any reason why this English translation is not fully

14 there, it should be there.

15 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honours.

16 JUDGE ORIE: And of course we can have -- we can form ourselves

17 an opinion on whether this is legible or not legible at all or that it

18 might be difficult to read it, but usually one reads in the context of the

19 language one understands.

20 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. I'm happy to leave that

21 topic --

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

23 MS. LOUKAS: -- where it is.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Let's do that, and then let's check on whether the

25 English version that is either already in evidence, whether that's exactly

1 the same. If not, let's try to see how we get a -- an acceptable

2 translation.

3 Please proceed.

4 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

5 Q. Now, Mr. Nielsen, I just want to take you to footnotes 352 and

6 353 of your report. And here, Mr. Nielsen, I have copies of the footnoted

7 material for 353 and 352 in the B/C/S.

8 MS. LOUKAS: I can indicate, Your Honour, that my assistant was

9 not able to print out the English version, but as -- as Mr. Nielsen is

10 comfortable working in the B/C/S, I'm -- I'm sure that we'll be able to

11 deal with it.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although, at a certain moment we'd like, of

13 course, to have the English version.

14 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour, yes.

15 JUDGE ORIE: If there's more to distribute, Ms. Loukas, then

16 please give it already to Madam Usher so that we'll be --

17 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour. This is the last one.

18 JUDGE ORIE: This is the last one. I'm always too late.

19 And is it known whether these documents are already in evidence

20 or not, Ms. Loukas?

21 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: You don't know. So we'll wait until you have

23 verified that.

24 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour.

25 THE WITNESS: According to my version of the report, this is

1 actually the footnotes for 353 and 354, rather than 352 and 353.

2 MS. LOUKAS: Well, I think I will have to take appropriate

3 measures with my legal assistant. Thank you for that, Mr. Nielsen.

4 Q. In any event, do you have the report entitled "Reception centre

5 in the territory of the Prijedor municipality"?

6 A. Yes, I do.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Mr. Nielsen, just -- no, I thought I had a

8 question because 351 and 352 are exactly the same sources in your

9 footnote, without any further specification. But let's leave it aside for

10 a while.

11 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

12 Q. So 352 and 353, are they referring to the same document there?

13 A. In my report, as I have it in front of me, 352 and 353 are

14 referring to the same report; whereas, 354 is referring to a separate

15 report.

16 Q. Now, of course, there were, I think, two versions of your 13th of

17 August, 2004 report produced; correct?

18 A. Yes, there -- there were. But I do not believe the footnotes

19 changed.

20 Q. In any event, you'll recall that earlier today I was asking you

21 some questions about Simo Drljaca.

22 A. Yes, I do recall that.

23 Q. And, of course, he has signed the report; correct?

24 A. If you are referring to the report in footnote 354, yes, he has

25 signed that. And in the case of the report for footnotes 352 and 353,

1 looking at the final page of the B/C/S, someone has signed it for him.

2 His name is typed but someone has signed it for him.

3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Nielsen.

4 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, excuse me. For the Court's benefit,

5 this document can be found at tab 34 of binder 2.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Tab 34. And that's the document from footnote 354?

7 Yes. Yes, thank you for your assistance.

8 At the same time, Ms. Loukas, you're invited to verify, as far as

9 the previous exhibit is concerned of which we're not sure whether it was

10 in evidence, if you would look at P65, tab 84. I'm informed that there's

11 a fair chance that you'll find the same document there.

12 MS. LOUKAS: Excellent. Thank you, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

14 MS. LOUKAS:

15 Q. Now --

16 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry to interrupt, but just to avoid confusion,

17 tab 34 is the document to which the Court referred, I believe. That is,

18 just referred, in terms of the tab. It's the Prijedor report for the

19 first half of 1992, which I think is referenced in footnotes 352 and 353.

20 So I -- I didn't intend to -- to inadvertently mislead the Court into

21 thinking it was footnote 354.

22 MS. LOUKAS: I think we're dealing with too many footnotes, quite

23 frankly, Your Honours.

24 JUDGE ORIE: We try to reduce them, as you know, Ms. Loukas.

25 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed. Make sure that we're all -- I hate

2 the use of ERN numbers, but sometimes it helps.

3 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed. Now --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Just for the first page, perhaps.

5 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed.

6 Q. Now, Mr. Nielsen, we are dealing with the document

7 entitled "Report, reception centre in the territory of the Prijedor

8 municipality."

9 A. Yes. I have that document in front of me.

10 Q. And that is referenced in which footnote, so that we can ensure

11 that the transcript is accurate?

12 A. I referenced that in footnote 354 and in footnote 355, and I may

13 also -- and I reference it in footnote 358, and I may also reference it in

14 other footnotes.

15 Q. Now, just in relation to questions I was asking you previously in

16 relation to Mr. Drljaca. You'll note there -- and I think it's -- it's

17 on page 5 of the English version and I think page 5 of the B/C/S version.

18 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, what English version?

19 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, I'm dealing with the version I have in front of

20 me. I just referenced that to ensure that we had the proper reference for

21 the B/C/S.

22 MR. TIEGER: I only received a copy, I think, of the B/C/S.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So did we. You said there were no --

24 MS. LOUKAS: That's the case.

25 JUDGE ORIE: But if it's -- if it's footnote -- if it's tab 34,

1 then --

2 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, once again, Your Honour, this is footnote

3 354. That's not the tab to which I was referring.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

5 MR. TIEGER: 352 and 353 is that tab.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Let's proceed and see how far we come.

7 MS. LOUKAS: Yes.

8 Q. Now, where were we, Mr. Nielsen? In any event, you'll recall

9 that I was asking you some questions in relation to Mr. Drljaca? You

10 recall those questions earlier today, Mr. Nielsen?

11 A. Yes, I do.

12 Q. Yeah. And in relation to the document before you, do you have

13 the

14 portion that indicates "Facilities in Omarska are supplied with water.

15 They have the necessary number of sanitary facilities and the bathrooms,

16 dining hall, and the halls in which the prisoners slept over. They also

17 had sufficient number of the working areas where the processing took

18 place"? Do you see that portion on the --

19 A. Yes, I do see that portion.

20 Q. And -- and further it describes other aspects: "The primary

21 medical service is secured for the prisoners. The food was prepared in

22 the RZR and was distributed in the restaurant organised on the principle

23 of self-service to prisoners, official staff, and part of the RZR staff

24 who remained working there to maintain the premises."

25 Do you see the portion that I'm referring to there?

1 A. Yes, I do.

2 Q. Now, just in relation to that, Mr. Nielsen, it's quite clear, is

3 it not, that there's the distinct possibility that Mr. Drljaca is not

4 sharing accurate information; correct?

5 A. I don't want to speculate; however, I would note that the

6 conditions that he observes -- or that he believes obtain at that point in

7 Omarska, and for that matter in Trnopolje and the other detention

8 facilities that he discusses in this report, are in contrast to the kinds

9 of conditions that were observed for these types of facilities at the 11

10 July meeting in Belgrade, whereas Zupljanin was present and discussed this

11 matter with the minister, among others.

12 Q. Nevertheless --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Nielsen, I think, as a matter of fact, that that

14 was not the question. Perhaps it would assist you to know that in the

15 adjudicated facts there appears a quite different picture from these

16 circumstances. And I think what Ms. Loukas is trying to find out is where

17 you earlier said that Mr. Drljaca was a, well, reliable reporter, if

18 that's at least the issue, Ms. Loukas, how you could reconcile that part

19 of your testimony with this part of this report, where it appears that it

20 might well have been not such an accurate description of Omarska.

21 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, to answer the question, I certainly am

22 familiar with events at Omarska from a variety of sources, and in this

23 report I am trying to include only any information that I have based on

24 the documents of RS MUP themselves.

25 With respect to the specific question at hand, I would state that

1 this report, along with a series of reports that I cite in this specific

2 section, most particularly the report produced jointly by the Ministry of

3 Justice and the Ministry of Internal Affairs at the time, presented, I

4 think, one could safely say, a very rosy picture of the conditions

5 obtaining in those detention facilities at the time.

6 Now, I'm not in a position to state how Mr. Zupljanin or anyone

7 else in the ministry reconciled that picture that Drljaca is giving in

8 this report with earlier contrary information that they had clearly

9 received because they discussed that at the 11 July meeting in Belgrade.

10 JUDGE ORIE: I think the issue is how you reconcile your earlier

11 part of your testimony whereupon a question by Ms. Loukas - I don't

12 remember the exact words - but was Mr. Drljaca usually reliably reporting

13 it or something like that. I could find it. But you confirmed that. And

14 now Ms. Loukas confronts you with a report where you said, "Well, from

15 what I know, it's a very rosy report," where you seemed not to have

16 included that in your previous answer when asked about the reliability of

17 Mr. Drljaca's reporting.

18 THE WITNESS: Well, I maintain my position that Mr. Drljaca

19 reported on a regular basis throughout the summer of 1992. As to the

20 reliability of his reporting, certainly there are occasions, the

21 Koricanske Stijene episode is one of them, when Zupljanin, among other,

22 was not content with what Drljaca was reporting back up to Mr. Zupljanin.

23 However, I would note that there is no indication in the documents that

24 I've examined pursuant to this report that Zupljanin complained about the

25 contents of this report. In fact, this report is, as it says at the

1 outset, produced following a decision by CSB Banja Luka and it was

2 collated into larger reports for the detention facilities in ARK as a

3 whole that were then handed to the minister and were also passed on to

4 other government ministries. I do not see any indication that

5 Mr. Zupljanin subsequently complained about the unreliability of

6 Mr. Drljaca's reporting.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just, then -- you were asked: "It's quite

8 clear, is it not, that Mr. Drljaca was not in fact reporting up the line

9 the correct situation in his municipality, was he?"

10 And you said: "In this particular dispatch or as a matter of

11 general practice?"

12 Then Ms. Loukas said: "As a matter of general practice."

13 And then you said: "I disagree. I do believe, based on the

14 materials that I've examined from SJB Prijedor and CSB Banja Luka, that

15 Mr. Drljaca reported on a regular and to the best of my ability to

16 ascertain this accurate manner to Stojan Zupljanin, his superior at CSB

17 Banja Luka."

18 Ms. Loukas is now confronting you with at least this report,

19 which seems, also in your own view, not to be an accurate account of ...

20 THE WITNESS: I understand Your Honour's point, and I would

21 definitely state that I cannot explain the -- the discrepancy as -- as

22 Your Honour has explained it right here. What I can state is that I am

23 aware not from Mr. Drljaca but from other subordinates of Stojan Zupljanin

24 during this period that there was a great amount of concern - this is

25 voiced both in Sanski Most by the head of the SJB there, and in Kljuc by

1 the head of the SJB there - that this particular phase of intense

2 international scrutiny of the RS was not the appropriate moment to report

3 on any detrimental issues, in particular any potential information

4 regarding abuses of non-Serbs in the ARK region.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, you may proceed.

6 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE ORIE: I took it that this was the point. You would like

8 to directly confront the witness -- the expert with this matter. I took I

9 want that was the point.

10 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Your Honour. And the --

11 JUDGE ORIE: If you would choose a microphone, any of the three,

12 and use one of them at least.

13 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. I just need to go over to

14 where I have some transcript on the laptop.

15 Q. Now, Mr. Nielsen, you'll recall that just prior to the break I

16 was asking you some questions about subjective frames of reference and

17 writing of history and reports. That's page -- bottom of page 53,

18 beginning of page 54.

19 A. Yes, I do recall that.

20 Q. And just prior to the break, you indicated: "I also think that

21 as a general point it is of course the case that one has to remain open to

22 documents that are showing evidence or information that is not consistent

23 with a hypothesis formulated at the outset of inquiry. That's a standard

24 axiom of proper historical research."

25 Mr. Nielsen, in your subjective opinion, have you adhered to that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 standard?

2 A. I believe that I have.

3 MS. LOUKAS: No further questions, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Loukas.

5 Mr. Krajisnik, if you would have any additional questions for

6 Mr. Nielsen, you may put them to him now.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

8 Cross-examined by Mr. Krajisnik:

9 Q. [Interpretation] Since I'm looking at the time and I do know that

10 we must allow some time for the Judges' questions and possible additional

11 questions, I'm going to try and keep my question as brief as possible.

12 I would like to ask Dr. Nielsen to tell us whether he knows about

13 how many attempts at peace plans there had been in Bosnia and Herzegovina

14 prior to the Dayton Agreement.

15 A. I am not, as I have stated, an expert on international peace

16 plans in Bosnia and Herzegovina either before, during, or after the

17 conflict; however, I am aware that there were numerous such attempts at

18 peace plans.

19 Q. I would furthermore ask you to tell us whether in any one of

20 those peace plans there had been provisions for the police force to be a

21 single force at the Bosnia-Herzegovina level. Let me clarify this: Do

22 you agree that in all those plans the police force would be at the entity

23 level, in this case in the Republika Srpska?

24 A. I do know that the police figure prominently in all of these

25 discussions and that in many of the plans the police forces were to be at

1 the entity, cantonal or other sub-national level. I also know, however,

2 that with the exception of the Dayton Accords, that particular aspect of

3 police structuring in Bosnia and Herzegovina was never accepted by the

4 Muslims in particular.

5 Q. Doctor, I asked you whether in all plans there were provisions

6 for the police force to be within the area of competence of entities and

7 that none of the parties objected to that provision.

8 A. First of all, I am not familiar with the details of all of these

9 plans, of which I believe there are many; however, I do know that the, as

10 I stated, the Muslims were not willing on several occasions to accept for

11 the police to be steered at an entity level.

12 Q. I would like to state that in no peace plan or talks for that

13 peace plan the Muslim side never complained about this particular

14 provision. And let me just remind this gathering.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, I take it that you object to the

16 question as it was started by Mr. Krajisnik?

17 MR. TIEGER: That's correct, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, the question on whether -- the

19 witness two times said that: "The particular aspect of police structuring

20 in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the entity level was never accepted by the

21 Muslims." He said that two times. You are not allowed to now tell the

22 witness that it was different. Please proceed.

23 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]

24 Q. As to Cutilheiro's plan, was police supposed to be within the

25 area of competence of the entities and did all parties accept that

1 clause?

2 A. To the best of my knowledge - and again, I am not an expert on

3 the Cutilheiro Plan - it was in fact not a plan per se but there were

4 several agreements that were reached tentatively under the auspices of Mr.

5 Cutilheiro's directorship. I do know that Momcilo Mandic and Stojan

6 Zupljanin, as I explained earlier today, did make reference to

7 implementation of the Sarajevo agreement at the outset of April 1992;

8 however, the other side, specifically the Muslim side in SRBiH MUP, did

9 not at any point agree that such an agreement had been reached or should

10 be implemented through the establishment of separate ethnic Ministries of

11 Internal Affairs.

12 Q. I don't think that that is an answer to my question, but I can

13 move on to another question now.

14 I would like to ask you, since we don't have much time available,

15 to simply say whether you do or do not know something about this: Do you

16 know that in all plans there were provisions for the division of Sarajevo?

17 What I mean are the peace plans which were being put forward by the

18 international community and they were being put to all three parties.

19 Just say yes or no.

20 A. I cannot answer the question because I'm not familiar with those

21 plans.

22 Q. So you do not know.

23 A. That's correct. I cannot answer the question.

24 Q. I would just like to remind you: You said that on the 28th of

25 February, Constitution -- the Constitution of the Republika Srpska was

1 approved. You probably meant the 27th of March, 1992.

2 A. I would certainly defer on all points of dating, except -- I may

3 have been confusing the Law on Internal Affairs, which was adopted on the

4 28th of February, with the date on the Constitution. Again, on such

5 points of general political developments, I would defer to Mr. Treanor's

6 report.

7 Q. Are you familiar with Lord Owen's book "The Balkan Odyssey"?

8 A. Yes, I am. I've read the book.

9 Q. Do you know that on page 88 he quoted some attitudes of the

10 international community and what the international community had in mind

11 as a solution for Bosnia and Herzegovina? I'm just going to quote this

12 now. There were five proposals: "The international community suggested

13 either a centralised state or a centralised federal state within which

14 significant functions would be held by four to ten regions, a loose

15 federation of three ethnic units without geographical continuity, a loose

16 confederation of three ethnically clear republics with a considerable

17 degree of independence and perhaps even in such fields as security, and

18 the fifth proposal, a Muslim state with the proviso that the Serbs

19 would -- the Serb part would belong to the former Yugoslavia and the Croat

20 part would go with Croatia." You've probably read this in the book.

21 A. [Previous translation continues] ...

22 Q. Thank you. Do you know that Mr. Izetbegovic and I, myself, I

23 signed on behalf of the Serb side. Do you know that they signed a

24 declaration --

25 MS. LOUKAS: [Previous translation continues] ... it's just that

1 on the transcript I think Mr. Nielsen's answer does not appear. It's just

2 got "previous translation continues."

3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, again, if you speak closer to the

4 microphone, we can hear what you say.

5 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed. Your Honours will notice that on the

6 transcript the answer by Mr. Nielsen was not recorded before Mr. Krajisnik

7 proceeded to his next question.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. When you said -- when you were asked: "you've

9 probably read this in book," what was your answer, Mr. Nielsen.

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, I have read that answer in the book.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then we --

12 THE INTERPRETER: The reason is that Mr. Nielsen replied before

13 the interpretation was finished and so they were both speaking at the same

14 time.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm not blaming either the transcribers nor

16 the interpreters for it, but just to have it clear on the record.

17 Mr. Nielsen, you're invited not to answer the question before the

18 interpretation is ended because I do understand that you understand

19 Mr. Krajisnik in his own language. But nevertheless wait until

20 translation is finished.

21 Please proceed, Mr. Krajisnik.

22 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

23 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]

24 Q. In the course of your testimony, you declared that on the 15th of

25 May, 1992 the national security committee reached a decision about

1 immediate threat. You might have made a mistake. The decision was made

2 by two members of the Presidency. Do you agree with me that you might

3 have made a mistake there?

4 MR. TIEGER: First of all, Your Honour, it would be helpful if we

5 could have some reference to the portion of the transcript where that

6 response is assertedly contained.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, could you help him? Otherwise,

8 I'll try to find it on the transcript.

9 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. We'll make endeavours in that regard,

10 Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Perhaps it would be simpler to ask

13 the witness who took the decision.

14 THE WITNESS: In this particular case, I would, again, defer to

15 Mr. Treanor's report, which I believe provides an answer to that question.

16 It is not a point that I have examined in detail in my report.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have the record here and the

18 decision. If necessary, we could put it on the ELMO. I would make the

19 suggestion to the Trial Chamber.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is that in evidence in one way or the other

21 yet or not?

22 MR. TIEGER: Well, it's --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger?

24 MR. TIEGER: I believe it is, Your Honour, and I believe it was a

25 subject of Mr. Treanor's testimony. However, I think the question has

1 been answered. Mr. Krajisnik asked: "Do you agree with me that you might

2 have made a mistake there?" And Mr. Nielsen said, "I would refer to Mr.

3 Treanor on that particular point."

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you'd say whatever Mr. Treanor said about

5 it is -- should be the correct answer, and you did not deal with it

6 personally.

7 Perhaps just for -- to make it very practical, could -- could we

8 have the report on the ELMO for one second so that we can all convince

9 ourselves on -- on who seems to be the author of the decision.

10 Madam Usher, could you ...

11 And then we'll try to find out -- perhaps, Ms. Loukas, you could

12 assist Mr. Krajisnik to find out whether this is in evidence, yes or not,

13 the document. But I took it on your authority, Mr. Tieger, that it is.

14 Looking at the document, Mr. Nielsen.

15 THE WITNESS: Yes. I see at the top of the page that's currently

16 on the ELMO, point 3 up there states: "Decisions and conclusion -- or

17 decision and conclusions." It's a little bit vague. But it's -- then

18 goes on to state: "Regarding or with respect to the security situation in

19 the Serbian Republic in Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is evaluated that the

20 conditions have arisen that the Presidency of the republic should be

21 suggested to proclaim a situation of imminent danger of war."

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

23 THE WITNESS: That's the first paragraph.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Any further questions in this respect,

25 Mr. Krajisnik?

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.

2 And could we please place the decision on the ELMO. The decision

3 was published in the Official Gazette and it's attached to this document.

4 THE WITNESS: I see the decision. I'm going to have to remove it

5 from the ELMO very briefly; otherwise, I can't read it on the screen.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

7 THE WITNESS: The decision that I see here is -- states that "On

8 the basis of Article 81 of the Constitution of the Serbian Republic of

9 Bosnia and Herzegovina and on the suggestion of the government, the

10 Presidency of the Serb Republic Bosnia and Herzegovina makes a decision

11 regarding the proclamation of a state of imminent threat -- imminent

12 danger of war." And then the following and final point states

13 that "Mobilisation of the TO for the entire territory of Serbian Bosnia

14 and Herzegovina is ordered." It is signed by Plavsic and Koljevic and

15 dated the 15th of April, 1992.

16 And I do believe - although it is possible that I misspoke - that

17 when I very briefly dealt with this issue, that I said 15 of April and not

18 15 of May, as was earlier suggested.

19 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Is that decision -- is that decision based on the document that

21 you were reading a minute ago?

22 A. Well, the document I was reading a minute ago - I'll just put the

23 first page of it out on the ELMO - is a set of minutes from the joint

24 meeting of the Security Council and the government of the RS on the 15th

25 of April, 1992. And the decision in the gazette to which Mr. Krajisnik

1 refers not to the Security Council; it actually only refers to the

2 government. But I believe the two to be connected.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So I do understand that actually you -- you

4 referred earlier to the 15th of April as the date on which the threat of

5 war -- a threat of war was declared by the National Security Council;

6 whereas, Mr. Krajisnik has now drawn our attention to a publication of a

7 decision which is attributed to another organ and is published, as we just

8 saw it on the ELMO.

9 Ms. Loukas, would you please be so kind to verify whether both

10 the documents are in evidence at this moment.

11 MS. LOUKAS: As I understand it, both the documents are in

12 evidence with the evidence of Mr. Treanor.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

14 MS. LOUKAS: And I stand to be corrected by Mr. Tieger if that's

15 not correct, but that's my understanding of the relevant documents.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.

17 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I don't know if both documents are at

18 the same tab, but we would be looking at P64A, P65 binder 11, tab 120.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So there seems to be an initial agreement

20 that this is in evidence and the witness has now given the answers.

21 Mr. Krajisnik, please proceed.

22 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]

23 Q. I just have one more question to put to the witness. The letter

24 that was sent by Mr. Mandic, are you aware of the fact that it was sent

25 when the Brussels conference was being held. The entire delegation was in

1 Brussels at the time. Are you aware of that fact?

2 A. I do not -- I was not aware of that fact, no.

3 Q. And in relation to that question, did Mr. Mandic have the right

4 to send such a letter and was this right based on a law of any kind?

5 A. In the dispatch dated 31 of March, 1992, Momcilo Mandic finds a

6 legal foundation in sending that dispatch and in asking people to

7 implement it in the laws that have been brought in the Assembly of the

8 Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Certainly as an assistant

9 minister he had the power to send dispatches to everybody in the ministry

10 on a variety of questions; however, on this specific point, I would refer

11 to the -- the Court to the dispatch of the same day by Delimustafic in

12 which he, as Momcilo Mandic's boss, notes that there is -- that this act

13 was done without consultation with the rest of the ministry and that he

14 orders the persons who have received the dispatch not to proceed to

15 implement it. Therefore, there is, as far as I can tell, no legal basis

16 within SRBiH MUP regulations and laws to send a dispatch to form a

17 separate Ministry of Internal Affairs.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to thank the Trial

19 Chamber and the witness.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, any need to put further questions to the

21 witness?

22 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Judge Hanoteau as a question for you.

25 Questioned by the Court:

1 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] I simply wanted to understand a

2 certain issue. In your report, I can see in one of the footnotes, page

3 79, CBS Banja Luka report, page 83 - and I'm picking these footnotes at

4 random - footnote 119, dispatch of SJB -- from the SJB Prijedor; 425,

5 dispatch from the Kljuc SJB. Who were they addressed to? Were these

6 reports or dispatches always sent to the same bodies or people? I just

7 want to clarify this to make it easier for us to read your report. How

8 should these footnotes be interpreted and should one draw the conclusion

9 that these reports, these letters, were always addressed to the ministry

10 or on each occasions is it necessary to consult the report in question,

11 the document in order to know who the given document was in fact addressed

12 to?

13 A. In the case of the dispatches that originate at the SJB level,

14 unless I have noted otherwise, the recipient of the dispatch is the CSB to

15 which that SJB answers. So in the case of Kljuc and Prijedor that

16 Your Honour mentioned, those SJBs throughout 1992 report to CSB Banja

17 Luka, and unless otherwise noted, a dispatch from those SJBs would be

18 destined to Mr. Zupljanin in Banja Luka.

19 I was at the time that I wrote this report and also at the time

20 that I revised this report under the impression that all documents that

21 are cited in this report would be made available in B/C/S and in English

22 to the Chamber. I am aware that that has changed a bit, and I, as a

23 consequence, do apologise if there is any questions that are left open

24 about the destination of these dispatches. If it is something that is of

25 interest to the Chamber or to any of the parties, I am at your disposal in

1 creating a full list of the destinatories [sic] of these dispatches.

2 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you. And a second subject

3 that has nothing to do with what I've already asked you about: You have

4 spoken at length about the MUP, the police force that you have called the

5 MUP. In the course of this trial, we have often heard the SUP being

6 mentioned. Would it be possible for you today to tell us what the

7 difference between the SUP and MUP is? Perhaps you are not an expert in

8 the matter, but you might be able to clarify this for me.

9 A. Indeed I can, Your Honour. The SUP prior to 1990 referred to

10 both the Municipal Secretariat for Internal Affairs, which in B/C/S is

11 "Sekretarijat Unutrasnjih Poslova," as well as to the Republican

12 Secretariat of Internal Affairs, abbreviated R-S-U-P, or RSUP. Once the

13 1990 SRBiH Law on Internal Affairs was passed, the municipal organ for

14 internal affairs became known as the public security station, or SJB, in

15 full "Stanica Javne Bezbjednosti" in B/C/S. To this day in

16 Bosnia-Herzegovina, it is the case that the wider population will

17 colloquially refer to the SJB as the SUP. The reason for that, I believe,

18 is very simple: It is much easier to say "SUP" than S-U-B, which would be

19 the abbreviation in B/C/S.

20 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Microphone not activated]

21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Judge Hanoteau, please.

22 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] What sort of activities were

23 they involved in? Could you be precise?

24 A. The SUP prior to 1990 had much more extensive -- a much more

25 extensive ambit in interacting with municipal organs of -- such as the

1 Municipal Assembly than the SJB did later on. And indeed, if I may refer

2 the Court to the planning documents that we discussed at the very outset

3 of my testimony in tabs, I believe it was, either 2 and 3 or 3 and 4 from

4 October and September 1991. The Bosnian Serbs looked back with

5 considerable nostalgia to the pre-1990 period exactly for that reason,

6 because the Municipal Assemblies prior to 1990 had been in the position to

7 interact much more freely with the police instead of having to seek

8 constant approval from Sarajevo.

9 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Tieger. Would you like

10 to help me?

11 MR. TIEGER: Perhaps, Your Honour. I hope so.

12 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Please go ahead.

13 MR. TIEGER: As I understood His Honour's question, he was asking

14 about the difference or distinction between the MUP and the SUP. Is it

15 the case that the MUP is the whole thing and the SUP is part of that thing

16 at the municipal level? In a -- in a very crude nutshell.

17 THE WITNESS: Prior to 1990, the SUP at the municipal level is

18 part of the RSUP at the republican level, which is in turn part of the

19 SSUP, the Federal Secretariat for Internal Affairs at the federal level.

20 After 1990 --

21 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Just a minute. I apologise for

22 interfering, but before 1990, could you tell me what the role of this

23 institution was. What sort of activities was it involved in? What was

24 the purpose of this body?

25 A. Is Your Honour referring to the Republican Secretariat or the SUP

1 at the municipal level?

2 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Well, let's start with the

3 republican level and then let's deal with the municipal level. I'm

4 interested in both, because I would like to understand the structure that

5 existed. I would like to know what we are in fact discussing.

6 A. If we start at the republican level, the Republican Secretariat

7 for Internal Affairs had essentially the function of organising the broad

8 area of functions, including policing, known as internal affairs in

9 Bosnia-Herzegovina and coordinating those actions throughout the republic.

10 It was subordinate to the Federal Secretariat, which was located in

11 Belgrade, as were all of the other Republican Secretariats in the other

12 Yugoslav republics at that time. However, per the 1974 Constitution,

13 which gave significantly additional autonomy to the republics within

14 Yugoslavia, there were a great deal of day-to-day policing activities and

15 managing of public law and order in Bosnia and Herzegovina that could be

16 done by the Ministry -- by, excuse me, the Secretariat of Internal Affairs

17 at the republican level in coordination with the republican Presidency.

18 At the municipal level, the SUP at the municipal level would

19 receive its instructions and staffing directions from the centre; however,

20 again, until 1990, there was a quite wide avenue for input from the

21 Municipal Assemblies, in particular the Executive Councils of those

22 Municipal Assemblies, with regard to nominations of chief of police,

23 nomination for commander of police at the municipal level. And as I've

24 indicated, the Municipal Assemblies could and did in practice ask the

25 Secretariat of Internal Affairs at the municipal level to carry out tasks

1 that would involve the use of the police at the municipal level.

2 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] That was before 1990. And how

3 did this work after 1990?

4 A. After 1990 and until the war, the Secretariat for Internal

5 Affairs at the municipal level was replaced by the public security

6 station. According to the 1990 Law on Internal Affairs, the municipal

7 organs of internal affairs retained the possibility to coordinate on

8 certain questions with the Republican Secretariat for Internal Affairs,

9 which was now renamed the Republican Ministry for Internal Affairs.

10 However, any such action had to take place more explicitly with permission

11 from Sarajevo.

12 In addition, other questions, such as staffing of the ministry,

13 took place with a more centralised direction from Sarajevo. That is or

14 was the main difference. There was also a funding difference because

15 prior to 1990 the Municipal Assemblies had to a significant extent

16 financed the police at the municipal level. And as was indicated in one

17 of the documents on decentralising internal affairs, the police absorbed

18 such a huge percentage of the budget in Bosnia and Herzegovina that the

19 municipalities simply could not bear this financial burden.

20 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Were MUPs in existence before

21 1990?

22 A. No, they were called SUPs prior to 1990. 1990. Secretariats.

23 And the title of minister systematically replaced the title of secretary

24 in the 1990 and 1992 laws; although, Serbia proper retained the term

25 secretariat for quite some time thereafter.

1 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Just one question for you just to see whether I

3 understood it. Do I understand that at the republican level what used to

4 be the SUP became the MUP?

5 A. That is correct, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE ORIE: And that at the municipal level what was -- used to

7 be called the SUP, which now officially was renamed to the SJB, still was

8 called SUP by everyone because they were used to it?

9 A. That is correct, and that colloquial usage persists to this day

10 in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now that's -- it seems that, if I

12 understood ...

13 Have the questions by the Bench raised any -- they are more of an

14 informative character, I would say, than anything else.

15 MS. LOUKAS: No questions were raised on the part of the Defence,

16 Your Honour.

17 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour, no questions.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Nielsen, this concludes your evidence. We'd

19 like to thank you very much for coming and answering questions of the

20 parties, of the accused, and of the Bench. You are excused.

21 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: We have no time at this moment to deal any further

23 with any exhibits, apart from some questions still to be there.

24 [The witness withdrew]

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, in -- on the 17th of May, we gave some

1 guidelines as to exhibits. Part of it was that the Prosecution was

2 invited to tender documents referred to in the expert report which are

3 necessary to achieve the purpose of point 2. And point 2 was that the

4 Prosecution should limit its examination to matters of central importance

5 to the case which are likely to be controversial and which require further

6 explanation, clarification, or illustration in terms of how the opinion

7 was arrived at by the expert.

8 We are now confronted with the situation where, as far as I

9 understand, not all the documents in the three binders have been used.

10 Point 5 of our guidance was that all remaining documentation

11 underlying the expert report will not be admitted into evidence unless one

12 of the parties shows good cause in light of the above or the Chamber

13 itself specifically requests so.

14 This seems to go in the direction that those portions of the

15 binders that have been dealt with during the examination of the witness

16 are suitable for admission into evidence and for any of the others, that

17 we would need a further explanation on why we could not do without them.

18 MR. TIEGER: Well, Your Honour, thank you for --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Not necessarily to be done at this moment, looking

20 at the clock as well. But I just wanted to establish what the situation

21 was. And if we could hear from you at -- at the earliest opportunity from

22 now on.

23 MR. TIEGER: I'll be pleased to do that.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then are there any other issues to be raised

25 urgently at this moment?

1 MS. LOUKAS: Not on the part of the Defence, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll adjourn until next Thursday, and

3 courtroom, Madam Registrar, would be Courtroom III again. And I'd like to

4 thank, again, the interpreters and the technicians for their assistance,

5 going well beyond a quarter to 2.00. Thank you very much.

6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.54 p.m.,

7 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 9th day of

8 June, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25