¹⁵¹ Tuesday, July 7th, 1998

--- Upon commencing at 9.36 a.m. (Open session).

JUDGE MAY: Yes, let the Registrar call the case.

THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours, Case No. IT-97-24, the Prosecutor versus Milan Kovacevic.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We shall dispense with the appearances during this case. We shall assume that lead counsel will be here for the case. There may, of course, be reasons why they can't be. If that's so, then, of course, the Chamber should be told at the beginning of the hearing, but otherwise we won't have the appearances every day.

Yes.

MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour.

WITNESS: SOPHIE HANNE GREVE Examination by Ms. Hollis:

Q. Dr. Greve, I would remind you that you are still under oath.

A. Yes.

Q. At the conclusion of yesterday's court session, we were discussing evacuations from Trnopolje by the ICRC. This morning, I would like to provide you ¹⁵² with a document we would asked to be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 37 for identification. I would note, Your Honours, that this is information which is contained in the report. It is provided as an exhibit simply for ease of discussion with the witness.

Dr. Greve, can you tell us what this document is?

A. This is one article taken from an agreement on the release and transfer of prisoners. It's dated 1st of October, 1992. It was an agreement which was initiated or the initiative for the agreement was taken by the International Committee of the Red Cross. And it is signed by all the parties to the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Q. And that article, what does it refer to?

A. It addresses the validity of documents. And it is declaring that any document, it's paragraph 1 of the article, any document, including a document renouncing or transferring property rights, assets or claims, signed by a prisoner who is to be released or transferred, has no legal validity and does not in any way affect that prisoner's rights or obligations. And in paragraph 2, it is stated that also such documents as signed by civilians to be transferred ¹⁵³ to an area other than their area of former residence will have no such validity.

Q. And, if you know, what was the reason that it was felt necessary to include this article in the agreement?

A. It is included because the ICRC, the International Committee of the Red Cross, experienced that almost everyone who left an area and was assisted out of an area by the International Committee of the Red Cross had to sign such documents, as a matter of being allowed to leave the area by the de facto Serb authorities in Prijedor.

Q. I would offer that as Prosecution Exhibit 37. I would ask at this time that the witness be shown what we asked be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 38A.

Dr. Greve, could you tell us what that document is?

A. This is also a paragraph that's taken from my report. It is giving the population change as by nationality. That is the way people had declared themselves in opstina Prijedor between 1991, which was the time of the official census and in 1993, population count by the then Serb authorities in opstina Prijedor. ¹⁵⁴ So, in 1991, the figures are just taken from the census, the census which I used at the time of my report, which has slightly different figures as had the census which Your Honours were provided with yesterday, which was originated from Bosnia and Herzegovina. And it has for 1993, the figures as given by the then Serb authorities. And it's my subtraction, addition, looking at the numbers, coming up with what this means in terms of reduction and new arrivals.

Q. I would offer that as Prosecution Exhibit 38A.

And I would ask that the witness be provided with what we would ask be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 38B. And as that document is being provided, I would ask you on the 1993 figures that you have, where did you get that information?

A. That is information which was published by the newspaper, Kozarski Vjesnik, in an article dated 2nd July 1993 and entitled, "Unofficial Census Results: Who Are We and How Many?"

Q. And, Dr. Greve, the exhibit that you have just been handed, is this the article of which you just spoke?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And looking at that article, if you look at ¹⁵⁵ the third line down, could you tell us from what source the information, the numbers, were received?

A. It's the Republika Srpska and it's the Republican Bureau of Statistics.

Q. And then the next line indicates?

A. The municipal census commission.

Q. And if you look at that article, could you highlight for us the number that is given as the total number of inhabitants living in the municipality as of this census?

A. It's listed as 65,551 inhabitants.

Q. And the next line down, could you tell us, what is the number given for Muslims?

A. The number of Muslims is stated as 6,124.

Q. And the number of Catholics?

A. Is 3,169.

Q. And, in general terms, if you know, could you tell us what ethnic group the Catholic religion was associated with in Prijedor opstina?

A. It was associated with the Croat population. And, in comparison, it's listed Orthodox figures as well and that's associated with the Serbs.

Q. And what does it give as the percentage of the Prijedor population, that is of Serbian citizenship, as at the time of this census? ¹⁵⁶

A. It's 96.3 per cent.

Q. I would offer Prosecution Exhibit 38B into evidence.

And I would ask that the witness be provided what we would ask be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 39 for identification.

Dr. Greve, can you tell us what that is, please?

A. This is a press release made by the International Committee of the Red Cross. It is dated 3rd October 1992 and headlined, "Saving Lives in Bosnia-Herzegovina."

Q. Who is making the statement?

A. It's the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross. It's Sommaruga.

Q. If you could please look at page 2 of that document. The third paragraph, what is indicated in that document about observance of the principles of international humanitarian law?

A. It's stated explicitly in the third line, starting almost at the end of the line, the most basic principles of international humanitarian law continue to be ignored in the field.

Q. And if you will look at the next paragraph down, beginning with "moreover," what is stated in that ¹⁵⁷ paragraph about what is termed "ethnic cleansing"?

A. It is given a description of what is termed "ethnic cleansing." And it's stated that under cover -- I am in the first line of that paragraph. "Under cover of a policy of ethnic cleansing in" -- quotation marks, "tens of thousands of members of minority groups in areas controlled by the parties are still at the mercy of repressive measures applied locally in accordance with a discriminatory ideology.

Q. And if you will please turn to the last page of that document, the third paragraph, what is said there that the ICRC was required to do?

A. ICRC sees itself as having a moral duty to save people lives, civilian lives, even if that implies that they will transfer them temporarily out of their own areas. This was a time, if I may add, that ICRC faced international criticism for participating in evacuating people.

Q. Dr. Greve, the document that you have before you and the statements therein, is that consistent with your analysis and your conclusions concerning the Prijedor area?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. We would offer this document as Prosecution Exhibit 39. ¹⁵⁸

MS. HOLLIS: We have no further questions, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Vucicevic. Cross-examined by Mr. Vucicevic:

Q. Good morning, Dr. Greve.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone for the counsel.

JUDGE MAY: Microphone.

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. Defence thanks you for coming to bring the light and add your opinion in these proceedings. At the beginning of your testimony, you, in an exhibit marked -- I mean the Prosecution Exhibit No. 8 has been introduced and that is your curriculum vitae. Could you explain to us, what are the particular assignments that you have in the international area that made you an expert to evaluate the Bosnia situation? Just briefly in summary.

A. My background and expertise relates to human rights violations and possible human rights violations and investigations of human rights violations. And that goes back to work I have done. It's listed that from 1979 to '81, I worked as an assistant protection officer for the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. I was assigned having a duty station in ¹⁵⁹ Bangkok. I was working initially with Burmese, Vietnamese refugees. It was a refugee population of about a million. I was later, when more people come to the area, assigned to work particularly with the Cambodian situation. I worked for that for about two years.

Q. If I may, was that your continuous assignment or at the same time you were working also on some other responsibilities in your native country?

A. No, this was a continuous assignment. And, if I dare say so, it was an emergency, so we worked almost day and night for two years. And having finished that, I thought I should write some of the basic things I had seen. I thought I could write it up quickly and easily. It turned out to be my doctoral thesis as I did further investigations into this. And I worked. But then I had other assignments as well. And I stayed in Norway and I worked for six years on what became my doctoral thesis, which relates to one modern refugee situation as compared to the International Convention on Refugees.

I have worked briefly, that is, in Ethiopia during the famine. It was in 1985. I was asked to look particularly at the situation for children on their own. I worked for Save the Children. I tried to ¹⁶⁰ assess the situation. I did so with the assistance of a local Ethiopian, who was working for Save the Children in Ethiopia. And we were asked to come up with recommendations on that basis.

Q. If I may ask, how long was your assignment in Ethiopia?

A. This was a brief assignment. I think the exact dates are listed in my curriculum vitae. If I may, I could, perhaps, have it in hand and it will give you the precise dates.

JUDGE MAY: Exhibit 8.

THE WITNESS: The exact dates are listed on page 3. It's 20th of August to 4th of September. It's a fortnight. And that was my fact finding parts. And then I worked for a few months on paperwork. I did some paperwork prior to going to Ethiopia and I continued when coming back again. And it did result in some policy changes and some recommendations for how Save the Children would go about their work for children on their own in that situation. I did work later on a fact finding mission, which was also short. It was to Angola. It was looking at refugee camps for people from Namibia under the leadership of SWAPO, Southwest African Peoples Organisation, which was, at the time, accused of having ¹⁶¹ possibly violated basic human rights against their own people. I did think that it was too short a visit to go to Ethiopia for the time I was assigned. Excuse me, Angola. It was only from the 30th of November to the 6th of December, 1987. So I said I am pleased to go to Angola, but my work will be essentially reviewing the legal platform, their constitution, and main documents, their criminal procedure, to see if it fits with general legal standards. And I did so and they made some changes.

The main change which was made was that criminal law was divided in two different laws. One was stating what was forbidden, prohibited, and the other listed the different kinds of punishment. But there were no linkage between them, that depended on the political connoisseur and the Court at every one turn. It was later changed and they had a maximum or even sometimes minimum penalty for different offences.

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. Do you have any other international assignments that you have to observe violation of the international humanitarian laws?

A. Yes.

Q. Besides, what I want to ask, that you went into the field and you observed it on the ground? You ¹⁶² have mentioned in the China, Ethiopia and Angola.

A. I also worked as -- I am just looking to find it. I was so-called mediator with the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia. On my suggestion, the U.N. appointed an ombudsman office in their work for the returnees to Cambodia. And there was some kind of an ombudsman's office that would end the civilian authority of UNTAC, United Nation Transitional Authorities in Cambodia. And I worked for them for half a year. It came within my responsibilities that all complaints against the authorities, for different authorities at the time in Cambodia, came to our office. So we looked at all kind of allegations of crimes and abuses and human rights violations. That was a continuous half year assignment and the U.N. changed, in part, on my recommendation, the wording, the Secretary-General, from, "no problem" to "atrocities."

Q. Dr. Greve, looking at your CV, what you're referring to on page 5 of your assignment, of your CV, is that the first paragraph that you just talked about; is that the one?

A. No, excuse me. I should have pointed out. It's on page 4 and it's listed 4th of August, 1992 to 3rd of February 1993. Each and every job I've had, ¹⁶³ it's listed the exact date for that specific assignment. There may have been paperwork that has continued beyond that. As I made my doctorial thesis, I was making the first prison profile for prisoners inside the People's Republic of Cambodia, and that was distributed. It was based on interviews with refugees. It was distributed to the High Commission for Refugees and to Amnesty International. I have done some human rights work for Amnesty International.

Q. And that was listed in the original paragraph of your CV?

A. This prison profile is not listed because that was something I did on my own initiative. I was not employed to do that.

Q. I'm just trying, quickly, to add the time that you have spent on your international assignments over your professional career, and it seems that it's all together about three to three and a half years?

A. Yes, or even a little less than three years in the field on assignment, yes.

Q. Besides being a professional lawyer at the beginning of your career, you were a judge at different levels in the court system of your native land, Norway; correct?

A. That is correct. ¹⁶⁴

Q. Isn't it fair to assume that you have carried your international law assignments in work aside and apart from your professional duties as a judge?

A. I would say that my career, or maybe it's not career, but my professional life has been three-fold. It has been as a judge; it has been as a professor of law; and it has been in international human rights issues.

Q. Where were you appointed or elected? I have yet to learn what is the system of selecting judges in your native land for the first time.

A. For the first time in my country, we don't have a separate career for judges. It depends on your marks, when you pass your exam. It depends on your previous practice, and you apply for a post. And it's actually our Ministry of Justice that will appoint us. We have also a special system in Norway. We become assistant district court judges as the first assignment, as a judge normally, and that will be for a time limited to two years. So you could not be a judge for more than two years at that level. So then there was several years when I was inactive, and I have been back in for ten years as a judge, but I've had a leave of absence when I've been on the U.N. missions.

Q. The question that I would like to propose is, ¹⁶⁵ while you were a judge at the Court of Appeal for the Western District of Norway, is it fair to say that it's a full-time job?

A. It's fair to say it's a full-time job.

Q. And you were deciding on the cases, general cases of law?

A. That is correct.

Q. Civil, criminal?

A. That is correct.

Q. Business and even, perhaps, violations of civil rights if those even existed in Norway. Has a case ever come up in your practice as a judge, in Norway?

A. All kinds of cases, yes.

Q. I'm asking, has a case like that ever come up that you can recall within the jurisprudence of Norway that was before you?

A. There have been claims that, yes, we have violated the European Convention on Human Rights, absolutely.

Q. Have you sat in judgment on that case?

A. It may be one of the arguments used in several cases, yes, particularly when it comes to testimonies taken by the police and then to be ready in the court, et cetera. ¹⁶⁶

Q. Isn't it fair to state that while you were working as a judge, you were not pursuing your international assignments? You were, indeed, very busy deciding the cases, the cases before you?

A. That is correct, although I should add that I have been working a lot in my spare time on these issues as well, out of interest. And I thought particularly when it comes to the assignment relating to Cambodia and to the former Yugoslavia, the nature and kind has been such that I have felt obliged also to use a lot of my free time to work on it.

Q. So you have used your after-hours to compile, correlate and examine all these statements; correct?

A. As well, yes.

Q. We have heard, I believe, in your statements yesterday, and if not I think it was a statement by the Prosecutor given to us earlier, that you have not travelled to the former Yugoslavia during the time that you studied this case and prepared your statement; is that correct?

A. No, it's not stated, neither yesterday nor in my report that I have not travelled to Yugoslavia. I have been to Slovenia and I have been to Croatia. And I had hoped to come into the area in Croatia which were protected by UNPROFOR at the time; that was rejected. ¹⁶⁷ I had hoped to come into Bosnia; that was rejected. But I have been once to Slovenia and Croatia with the hope that I would be able to proceed and come to the mentioned areas.

Q. But you have not been in Bosnia within the boundaries of the former state -- as a state of the former Yugoslavia at all, have you?

A. No, I have not. I should also add that I have later received some invitations to go, but not to go to the Prijedor area. And I had thought then I shouldn't go, but that has been in a private capacity.

Q. Was that your decision not to go to the Prijedor area or was that a prohibition by the authorities who offered you that trip?

A. I have never been offered to go to Prijedor. Conversely, it's always been denied me to go to Prijedor. I even suggested when the Office of the Prosecutor would go there at one time that I would be happy if I could go with them, but I was not entitled to go. But I have not formally applied to go to Prijedor after I finished working with the Commission of Experts.

Q. But you indicated earlier, we just want to clear up that statement, you said that you were invited to go to Bosnia but you did not get permission to go to ¹⁶⁸ Prijedor. Who invited you and was that the same person or entity who denied you access to Prijedor? Could you testify to that effect, please?

A. Yes, I have been asked on a few occasions to go to conferences, particularly in Sarajevo, and I have declined to go. But I have said that if they could arrange it so that I could go to Prijedor, I should be pleased to go, and the answer has been no. But I have made no formal application after working with the Commission. When working with the Commission, I asked to be allowed to go, and I was not allowed to go, but that was on a general basis. The Commission of Experts was generally not allowed to go.

Q. While doing your study on the Prijedor area, have you talked to any investigators or police authorities or diplomats who have furnished you with the reports which are the basis of your statement?

A. Yes, I have talked to a few of them.

Q. Could you name a few and describe the nature of your conversations?

A. Since I did not -- maybe I can give a general explanation of how I went about the Prijedor study, because that will, perhaps, put it in --

JUDGE MAY: Yes, deal with the question as you want. ¹⁶⁹

A. Thank you, Your Honour. When I wanted to study Prijedor, I initially looked at the statements from Sweden. And on that occasion, I did meet the one who had organised that such statements were taken in Sweden. The legal counsel of the Secretary-General of the UN, his name is Hans Corell, and he told me how and why he had arranged for such statements to be taken in Sweden. He had actually, himself, participated with the European Council Mission to the former Yugoslavia and encountered that there were many allegations of serious violations of basic law and customs of war, human rights violations, allegations of that. So he suggested to his ministry, he was with the Swedish Foreign Ministry when coming back, that everyone who had permission to stay in Sweden, refugees for humanitarian reasons, they could stay there. If they so wanted, they could come forward and explain whatever they wanted about what they saw as having been violations of their basic rights in the former Yugoslavia.

So he told me about this on the occasion when I went there and looked at the Swedish statements. So having that at the back of my head and learning --

Q. If I may just jog your memory on this one. Did Mr. Hans Corell give you any statements that he had ¹⁷⁰ collected, either personally or they were collected for his study?

A. No, but he gave me a general understanding of how he had gone about organising things in Sweden. And when I wanted to understand how I could try to understand the area of Prijedor, I had to work out some kind of methodology, and there was no such studies to my knowledge ever made in this world before. So there were no -- I could not go to some books to find out how I could do that.

So I decided that for two main reasons, one was security considerations for the witnesses, and one was to have as much correct information as possible, I would try to approach people who had left the former Yugoslavia, living somewhere else, preferably in very different countries, as many countries as possible, and at a distance from one another, so that no one could threaten just a handful of refugees, and by that I sort of end my study.

Also because I thought with the experience I had from interviewing refugees in Southeast Asia, it would be wise that people, and forgive me for saying that, but sometimes people sit together in the evening preparing for next morning's interview, not that they want to lie. They try to figure out, "Was it like this ¹⁷¹ or perhaps it was slightly different," and everyone is afraid of making the mistake. They try to come forward with the true information, but I did not want that to happen. I wanted the people to give as genuine information as possible. So I wanted the statements to be taken in as many different places and preferably simultaneously as possible.

For this reason, and as we heard with the Commission of Refugees, not one cent, not a penny. We did not have any money for the Prijedor study. So I went, hat in hand, to some different countries, including my own, and said "Well, we have a neighbouring country. Hans Corell has made an excellent approach to gather information. May I suggest my own country do it the same way?" And I did gather with some volunteers, judges, lawyers, military lawyers, investigating officers, and I told them, "I would like to look at and have interviewed people in Norway."

I should perhaps add that since I had been a staff member with UNHCR, I did approach UNHCR, and UNHCR did inform me that a lot of people with whom UNHCR had been in contact when they had come out of Bosnia to Karlovac, and UNHCR was entitled to be in charge of them or mandated to be in charge of them, UNHCR had ¹⁷² asked to see them resettled or evacuated to third countries. So UNHCR could give me a list to which countries people had been preceded, specifically also from the area of Prijedor, people who came from Prijedor.

Because as is listed in my report, on the 2nd of August, 1992, an American journalist with the name Roy Gutman wrote an article in the newspaper called --

MR. VUVICEVIC: Your Honour, I would object to this part of the statement, because the Prosecution would be free to call, and I was only asking about methodology. And we have gone far beyond the scope of cross.

JUDGE MAY: Well, perhaps you could go on and leave Mr. Gutman out.

A. I shall leave Mr. Gutman out, Your Honour. What I wanted to say is only this: That this was the time when UNHCR and ICRC, because the press focused on Prijedor, and Prijedor was the first large area from which large scale transfers with international assistance was taking place. For that reason, UNHCR had very exact information, because they had a huge group of people coming from Prijedor at about the same time in October, November, December 1992, and they had had to make special appeals to the world community to ¹⁷³ see if they could take care of these people, bringing them to other countries.

For that reason, they knew to what countries, otherwise, I wouldn't expect the High Commissioner, despite all his good work or her good work, to have exact information about where people came from and be able to easily find this information. But they had it concerning the people from Prijedor, and that was what gave me the idea of continuing the good work of Mr. Hans Corell, and to follow some of the procedures that had been used in Sweden. And I did meet personally with the people doing the interviews in Norway, but I met with them to explain the methodology prior to them doing the interviews.

I have also spoken with some of them afterwards, but I have not spoken with them about the interviewing process as such. They were all professionals, and I left it for them. I thought it would be wiser for me to be provided with information which I could look at and analyse than to, sort of, get mixed into the information gathering process itself.

Q. Judge Greve, if I may continue, what were the other countries that you got statements from, besides Norway and Sweden? Could you just enumerate the countries, please? ¹⁷⁴

A. Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, Malaysia, Germany, Croatia, on my initiative directly. Having happened without my knowledge and slightly on a different format, the UK, US, France, Italy, Switzerland and Denmark. I think I've mentioned them.

Q. Okay, thank you.

A. Excuse me. Yes, there were a few statements that came slightly different from Portugal. But my sort of 400 statements I referred to were those gathered by me in the first six countries, and then the other interviews came on top of that.

Q. So is it fair to conclude that you relied, in your report, only on 400 statements from the six countries, and I will read them for the record, Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, Malaysia, Germany and Croatia, and you have disregarded the other statements from the other countries?

A. That is not correct. I used it as my basic information, but I was asked to analyse the information I could gather and not to limit it to one or a few sources. I sought for every possible source. I approached every journalist whom I knew had been to the area. I approached every agency whom I knew had been to the area prior to or after what had happened. I even met with -- of course, as I read to you, I also ¹⁷⁵ met with Serb diplomats in Geneva. I tried to meet with everyone.

Q. If I may ask you? You said Serb diplomats, because at that time, there were two separate entities, one is the Republika Srpska, and the other is the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, and the Republic of Yugoslavia, as it may be. Who were those diplomats? Because there were diplomats at that time circulating in Europe from the Republika Srpska?

A. When I referred to the diplomats, I may like to add that Article 3 of the Constitution of the Republika Srpska, or the Republic of the Serb People in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was changed to the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the name again changed to Republika Srpska, Article 3 of the Constitution states that this entity is a part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. So it's not a separate state. It's in its constitution that the --

MR. VUVICEVIC: I object to this testimony because the witness is testifying to the ultimate question on this.

JUDGE MAY: Well, I think we will accept it for the moment. We'll bear in mind what you say. If you can go on, Judge Greve.

A. So I understood that because, as I mentioned ¹⁷⁶ yesterday, the only document we ever got from Serbian authorities in the wide sense, including all of them, was that particular constitution. As it was listed in the constitution, as provided to us, that they belong to the state, according to Article 3, we approached, yes, the federal authorities in Geneva. And I dare say also I tried to get hold of -- I read, of course, the Nordic languages, English, French, German. I tried to get hold of every source I could possibly find, including also newspaper articles. Kozarski Vjesnik, when we came across that, I tried to get as many of them as possible and to have them translated, so any source I could possibly think of.

I met with ICRC. For reasons of confidentiality, they could not share with me; UNHCR could not share with me information. But what people could do would be on a private basis to tell me if I was on a blind road.

MR. VUVICEVIC: With Your Honours permission, because we have heard this testimony about the constitution of the Republika Srpska, I would like to address a question or two to tidy up that matter.

Q. Dr. Greve, are you aware that Bosnia and Herzegovina were recognised as an independent state in April of 1992? ¹⁷⁷

A. Yes, I have been advised of that, yes.

Q. Are you aware that Bosnia and Herzegovina had a constitution of their own as an independent state?

A. Yes, I think I am aware of that. I've not read that constitution, but I assume that is correct.

Q. But you have read the constitution of the Republika Srpska; haven't you?

A. Yes, I have. The draft was provided for us. The final was only in August of the same year, I had read that later, but we were provided a draft which is dated back in -- I think we received -- it's one of the exhibits, and if I recollect it rightly, it's the one that was made in February.

Q. The constitution is supreme law of the land, supreme law of an independent land; isn't that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Based on your statement, it logically follows that Republika Srpska is an independent country; isn't it?

A. I shall not try to judge on legal issues. That --

JUDGE MAY: I think that is a matter for us.

MR. VUVICEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

Q. Therefore, when you talked to diplomats from the representing government in Belgrade, you were not ¹⁷⁸ sure whether they lawfully represented the Republika Srpska or not. It just follows from your previous statement; is that correct?

A. I did not approach them to ask them to have official information in the sense that it was important to know whether they were representing the legal authorities also for the Bosnian Serbs or not. I did approach them as a matter of courtesy, as we did not receive information, but I presented them with the progress of my study. I did not disclose my sources, because myself, even I don't know the name of my witnesses. But I explained to them the way I had approached the issue. I explained to them my conclusions, my findings, my assessments.

Q. At this level, Dr. Greve, we haven't gotten into your methodology yet. I just want to ascertain who denied you access to Bosnia, even though you received the constitution of the Republika Srpska. I'll give you an open question, but please if you can give me a brief answer.

A. I think this is, Your Honours, in evidence already, because I think the constitution -- is not the constitution -- well, I don't know if it can be included, but we, meaning the Commission of Experts, were given that draft constitution. And there is a ¹⁷⁹ letter with it saying that "Although we provided you with this," it's addressed to our senior legal secretary, we had three legal secretaries, Mr. Kotliar who was a Russian, it states that "Although we provided you with this, it does not mean that we want to cooperate with you or that this can be taken as or seen as cooperation." It was the general approach that they would not want to cooperate with us in terms of letting us have documents or having access. And it was Mr. Kotliar of the Commission of Experts who tried to facilitate, who wrote the official letters to seek cooperation.

Q. I will probe a little deeper on this point. You indicated that you did not receive permission to travel to Bosnia by the federal Yugoslav diplomats in Switzerland. At that time, did they represent that that was the official position of the government of Republika Srpska or that was their own position?

A. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I should emphasise that when I spoke with diplomats myself, I did not raise the issue of going to Prijedor. That was raised by the Commission as such, both with authorities from Republika Srpska and Belgrade, but that was raised on a formal basis by the Commission. Not by me personally, but by our legal secretary, and not in my ¹⁸⁰ meeting.

Q. Dr. Greve, you testified that you replaced a member of the Commission who passed away. Were those requests of the Commission made before or after your appointment as a member of the Commission?

A. Both before and after. It's my understanding, it was made several times prior to me coming, and it was definitely raised on several occasions later.

Q. When those questions were raised later, while you were officially a member of the Commission, have you seen any documents from either the government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or the Republika Srpska denying access to the commission?

A. No, I don't think I've seen the documents, save for the one I previously referred to sending us the constitution.

Q. Have you received any oral statements from any of the officers of the Commission or the United Nations to the effect that either the government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or the Republika Srpska have denied this? And if you did, who told you that and when and what was the substance of that conversation?

A. This was an issue which was raised on several ¹⁸¹ occasions or almost every meeting. The Commission of Experts would meet every two weeks. And it was raised on several occasions because every one of us had different projects, different missions, different undertakings. And we needed or we wanted to have and would have appreciated to have general access and to have documents in general.

So this was raised by the chairman, and it was raised by our senior secretary, legal secretary, who was the one who took care of paperwork in this sense.

Q. Did you insist to gain access to Republika Srpska or Prijedor at that time because that was your area of study?

A. Maybe my way of expressing myself is not insisting, but I did ask and state that I would find it most useful, yes.

Q. Why would you -- why would you have found it most useful at that time, could you explain us your reasons?

A. Maybe I think it's always important if you want to get as good a picture as possible to see the area which is spoken about. I find it easier, as a person, to relate to something I have seen than to something I read about. It takes more effort when I ¹⁸² only read about it. It's possible, but it would have been even better if I also could have seen the area of Prijedor.

Q. Would it be fair to say that your concern was that in order to get a representative sample, you might want to see all the units, all the sample that you're trying to picture in your report, meaning reports from one group from the second group and from the third ethnic group, in and out of Prijedor; would that be fair to state?

A. I would phrase it slightly differently. I think it would have been most useful, yes. I think that we had one very important source as of the views of the Serbs in the area and that was the official newspaper, which was controlled by the new authorities in Prijedor. So Kozarski Vjesnik, I read it very, very carefully, all the numbers I could come cross. I tried to have, but that was limited, but there were some reports and information as to the news on radio Prijedor. There was some television shows from radio Telivitsi and Banja Luka. But, otherwise, I thought it was possible to get a good understanding of the events in Prijedor without going inside, but it would have been very interesting. It would have facilitated my work and I would very much have appreciated to meet ¹⁸³ with the people locally, see the area, yes.

Q. So you would agree with me that even though being so remote, that certain parts of the articles printed in newspaper at that time was reliable, while the other parts printed, it might be a free speech or simply editorialising. In order to be more specific, when we have an article where the newspaper reporter is directly quoting an official, you would agree with me at that time, that statement would be reliable?

A. I wouldn't make such general conclusions, but I would find it most interesting if all available sources speak to the same. And what was most surprising to me, perhaps, about the 400 statements from witnesses, which were collected under my guidance, so to speak, was that it seemed as if the people, save for details, would speak with one voice. And that was so surprising that I thought I should look for all other sources to see how could it be?

Q. Judge, at this time, I would like the Court to admonish the witness, even though we are all learned lawyers, but it might be, perhaps, with a depth of study and the impressions that she has had, she's sometimes not answering the question as its put. She might be answering, perhaps second or third question that I might be asking. And if this particular ¹⁸⁴ statement, I would simply asking her to agree or disagree and then we're going back into her study. I don't want Your Honour to -- I just feel a little bit that, you know, I would like to have a latitude on cross to ask some questions that are going to probe.

JUDGE MAY: I am certainly not going to admonish this witness. Perhaps, we could stick a little more closely to the question.

THE WITNESS: I appreciate that, Your Honour.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour. And my apologies, Judge.

Q. You have testified yesterday when you have made statements on the exhibits that were introduced. And you have quoted a statement of a certain officials, and we'll go over those statements later. At least to those statements that you read into the record yesterday and they were statements of the officials of the various entities existing in the Republika Srpska at that time. Do you feel they were reliable?

A. Yes, I do feel that numerous of the quotes, numerous of the articles represented a view which was, which supported my findings, surprisingly so.

Q. So you're testifying today, even though you said you relied on Kozarski Vjesnik as one of the three sources of information that you had, one being a radio, ¹⁸⁵ Kozarski Vjesnik and I believe two sources that you said. On one hand, and on other hand, you say that you only used them to support your conclusions that you did earlier. If you can reconcile it, please, because, you know, the one thought that's coming to me, the chicken or the egg? Have you used it in your studies or you only reviewed them later on only after you made conclusions on those 400 statements or 600 statements, or whatever they were there? Place them, please, within the context of your studies.

A. Actually some of the newspaper articles were available to me prior to some of the statements. So --

Q. So did you doubt in the voracity of the statements of all the statements at that time or you thought that some of the statements were more true than the others?

A. No, that was not my impression. I see that some of the statements are short ones, as compared to some that are very extensive. And I think they also reflect the fact that people may experience different aspects of an overall situation. So, obviously what people are expressing in the statements, will be -- I have asked that they explain about what happened prior to them leaving Prijedor and also prior to any problems, if they've encountered problems, came up. ¹⁸⁶ But, if I may say so, I did not say that I was looking for specific statements to support what was stated in the witness statements. I was saying that I was surprised to see how witness statements were supported by a very outspoken, as I could see it, language.

Q. We are going beyond the question?

A. Okay.

Q. Because my point of interest --

MS. HOLLIS: I have an objection. I think that she's speaking directly to the question.

JUDGE MAY: If you'll leave it to us to decide. Yes, what's the next question?

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. When did you get the first few copies of Kozarski Vjesnik?

A. Possibly mid-February, 1992 -- 1994.

Q. And that was just the beginning of your study period?

A. It was actually not. Because I started working with the Commission back in October. I was approached by the Secretary-General's office, the 19th of October I was appointed by the Secretary-General on the 21st of October. And it was at that time not known whether the Commission of Experts would finish its work by the end of the year, Easter next year or next ¹⁸⁷ summer. So it was not just at the beginning, because we had to finish actually by Easter that year. So it was around the clock work, save for when I was a judge --

Q. Let me assist you a little bit with that question. When you received the first few copies of Kozarski Vjesnik, had you had on your desk at that time, any of the statements you received from the subjects from the various countries?

A. Yes, I had.

Q. And had you read those statements prior to receiving Kozarski Vjesnik?

A. Yes, I had because the entire study --

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness finish.

THE WITNESS: Because the entire study started with me reading statements from Sweden.

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. So could you tell approximately how many statements? And I won't ask you any numbers, one half of it? One third? Whatever percentage might come to your mind that you have read at the time before you got the first information from the Serbian side.

A. Maybe half, maybe less, I am really not able to recollect.

Q. That's absolutely, you know, proper, because ¹⁸⁸ so many years have past.

A. Excuse me, it's not a matter of years that have past. It's simply that I did not pay, perhaps, that much of an attention to at what time information was floating in because I was -- I had so much information coming at the same time. And I could even have had a pile of statements at hand prior to receiving it, some newspaper articles. And I could have read them in this order or that and I did not pay attention to in which order I read them, so that I am able to state that now.

Q. I realised that what I said that somehow could also mean that I was helping you testifying and it wasn't my intention at all. It was, you know, the first thing that could come in my mind.

You testified before where when asked about reliability of certain information statements that you read in Kozarski Vjesnik. So, basically, you have, after having read, about half of the statements that you have received, you could then look to Kozarski Vjesnik and sift through and say, these articles are reliable and these articles are unreliable; isn't that the case?

A. No, that's not the case. Because, for one, as you will see, a number of the articles from Kozarski ¹⁸⁹ Vjesnik are subsequent to me having finalised the study as well. So --

Q. Now here we are in a little bit, you know, time dispute. I am only asking to those ones that you received before you concluded your study. I am only asking the those ones where you had 50 per cent of your articles, 50 per cent of your statements before you, having read them, and then received them contemporaneously, they couldn't be after your study, there's something that you are looking, and you testified before that you used those sources. All I am asking you; how did you look at those sources, having said on various occasions yesterday that some of the articles were inconsistent with your findings or consistent with the overall study? Now the study is not finished. Now we are testifying, you only have half of statements and you have Kozarski Vjesnik. How did you look at the various quotations of the officials that were brought in that paper?

A. As one of many indications of what was to be the overall situation, as one of my sources for trying to understand how things had happened in Prijedor.

Q. Did you think that any of the statements made were patently false in Kozarski Vjesnik?

A. I did not think that statements were false, ¹⁹⁰ but I think that sometimes the language used was what I would not find in an ordinary newspaper article in a situation where there was no conflict.

Q. So you would, in other words, find out that within the context of the armed conflict, even the newspapers do change their stories; isn't that what you're saying now?

A. I am saying that the language used, such as some of the derogatives, et cetera, one would normally not find in a newspaper article.

Q. But, short of having derogatory statements or ethnic slurs as we may call them, if the language is neutral on its face, then it could be accepted as true?

A. It is one among several indications of what is the truth, yes. And I was open to that possibility.

Q. So that the statements that you -- I'm sorry, you can finish. I'm sorry?

A. I approached every source with that open mind. I want to see what can be concluded from this. I shall make no -- I shall close no doors, I shall be open-minded. I will read it and I will try to see how all of this, as I was mandated to, to try to conclude on this. ¹⁹¹

Q. I do thank you for the statements and I think we'll change the line of questioning. We'll leave Kozarski Vjesnik for some of the direct quotations later. You mentioned the name earlier Mr. Hans Corell. Are you familiar that he has presented a study to an international body in conjunction with another gentleman and if you could recall the other name and whether you talked to him?

A. I have not talked to the other gentleman and there was a woman as well and I have read their statement later, yes.

Q. If I am correct, I have read it several months ago, that study was submitted to an international body, and I believe that was to the Security Council of the United Nations before your study was admitted?

A. I think it was conducted by, or commissioned by the European Council. I think, I am not able to say that exactly. I will not also be surprised if it also has been submitted to the Security Council. But it was not commissioned by the Security Council.

Q. Did Mr. Corell tell you what motivated him to do that study because he was your first contact, kind of a predecessor on the job?

A. He may have told me, but as far as I ¹⁹² understand, he was sort of asked to do that on behalf of the organising entity, be it the European Council or whoever. It's not something that he did on his own initiative.

Q. Has he turned over to you any materials from his study?

A. No.

Q. Do you know whether the witnesses that you have, that came into your study were also the witnesses who were interviewed for his study, the same witnesses?

A. His study and his two colleague's study, they made a joint study, was based on a mission to the former Yugoslavia. If, by chance, they have interviewed anyone who later came to be witnesses in the Prijedor study among the 400, I cannot say. I do not know. They were not in the report I have read, they are not listed by name and, in a manner which makes it possible for me -- and I am not familiar, of course, with the names, even among my witnesses -- but I have not been able to read anything in that report as if it is a reprint which I am finding among the witness statements later.

Q. Use the word "report", so is it fair to conclude that you have read Mr. Corell's report? ¹⁹³

A. Yes, I have. It was provided for the Commission of Experts as such.

Q. Have you asked him about methodology that he had used in his study?

A. I have not because his study was based on going to the former Yugoslavia on a mission. His mandate was different. He was sent on some kind of a fact finding, to my understanding.

Q. Have you asked him whether he had access to the Republika of Srpska?

A. I have not asked him. The questions I asked him was essentially about how he had organised things in Sweden where I was called upon to read statements.

Q. You have testified before that it would have been most helpful in conducting a study to have had statements or interviews from the people in Prijedor. And yet, in starting your study, you have talked and gotten the first page, first information from the gentleman who was on the ground; haven't you?

A. Yes, I have. But I don't know if Mr. Corell, to what areas they were let in, under what conditions. With this, I am not fully familiar. Something can be read straight out of the report, but I don't have the full information. I didn't see it my -- to be needed for my study to have in-depth information about that ¹⁹⁴ particular mission.

Q. You said that you haven't talked to him about his methodology. Did you presume because he was on the ground and you are on the ground in Bosnia and you are not, that those methodologies must be different and therefore you didn't ask him about it?

A. I asked him about methodology in terms of how he had gone about things in Sweden, as I had been called upon to read things which he had, so to speak, created the methodology for receiving in Sweden. But I did not, at that time, I had not even yet, I think read his report. It had been provided to the Commission of Experts and I did read it at one time. But I have never spoken to him about methodology on that particular report.

Q. Judge Greve, would it be fair to say that the time was so short, the funds were scarce or hardly available as you testified, that your report had to be prepared because the Security Council ordered prepared by certain time, that even a learned professional in this field, sometimes couldn't have enough time or right opportunity to ask Mr. Corell, what did you do in Bosnia?

A. If I had thought it useful for my study to know the exact ways and means of that mission, I would ¹⁹⁵ not have hesitated to give Mr. Corell a telephone call and ask him directly. I see clearly that it would have been useful to have had more time, more sources, access to Prijedor. I believe, nonetheless, that, yes, we were asked to give a report. Of that reason we gave it within the time limit we were given. But I think, nonetheless, it outlines the basics.

JUDGE MAY: Are you going to move on to another topic now?

MR. VUCICEVIC: Pardon me.

JUDGE MAY: I am looking at the clock, it's five to eleven, we'll adjourn at eleven, so when you find a convenient moment, Mr. Vucicevic, we'll adjourn.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

Q. In indicating among the six countries that you have collated the statements, you indicate Malaysia, Germany and Croatia. How did you give instructions to the officers, your assistants, even though you might have not never met them, who interviewed the former citizens of Bosnia, in those countries?

A. This was done differently for different countries. That is to say, that I had, I was lucky to have my -- my predecessor had a personal assistant in the region, a gentleman called Bergsmo, Morten Bergsmo, ¹⁹⁶ and he was assigned to work with me as my predecessor had died. And he assisted when it came to the Prijedor study. His name is listed on the front page as well that he assisted in this.

I also had the advantage of my Dutch colleague, Christine Claron, who was able to be the coordinator informing the people taking interviews in this country. So I worked with my colleagues in this as well.

And as for the Malaysian situation, I only spoke with the diplomatic mission in Geneva to organise it all. I did not go to Malaysia. I visited Malaysia on several occasions, but not in this context.

Q. My question is, do you know what instructions were given to the investigators in the field who interviewed the subjects? How much did they know about your studies, about methodology, overall plan for your studies? Who communicate you to them and how they were controlled in a scientific way meant control, in order to give you the results for your study?

A. They had specific information that I wanted to study the area of Prijedor, the Municipality of Prijedor. They had been advised that I wanted not to limit the information I sought to possible human rights violations. I wanted to know what had happened prior ¹⁹⁷ to the Serbs taking power in Prijedor. And I wanted to know what had happened in the period before they left Prijedor. And I wanted to know under what circumstances they left Prijedor and

Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is to say, those who had come first to Travnik, a number was sent to Travnik to central Bosnian areas --

Q. Judge Greve, you know, we'll come to Travnik later on, you know --

A. I am just saying that they were asked about the situation.

JUDGE MAY: Go on, was there something else you wanted to add.

THE WITNESS: I just wanted to say, I didn't ask about the general situation in Travnik, I only asked about before leaving the Serb controlled areas and how they came to leave those areas. And everyone during the interviews, knew I wanted to have that broad basis of information. And I said I want to write down what they are saying, nothing else, nothing more. And I wanted there to be many different people taking the interviews. I did not want to be one format, this question or that question. I wanted the people to speak and tell them with their own words how they perceived all this period. And that was my ¹⁹⁸ instruction. So there were numerous people taking these interviews and my guarantee in terms of scientific control, as you worded it, would be that these were people who were used to take interviews. There would be investigation officers, immigration officials, judges, lawyers. I admit that I am sure their professional qualities may vary, but nonetheless, they were all professionals.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, thank you. It's eleven. We'll adjourn, to twenty past eleven.

--- Recess taken at 11.04 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.25 a.m.

(The accused entered court)

(The witness entered court)

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Vucicevic?

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. Dr. Greve, we left off with your data collection from Malaysia, Germany and Croatia. You said that you had given instruction to the diplomatic representatives of those countries to carry your instructions to their investigators who would be interviewing the subjects; is that correct?

A. That is not correct. I said as for Malaysia I spoke with the diplomatic representatives in Geneva.

Q. What about Germany and Croatia? ¹⁹⁹

A. That was not through diplomatic representatives.

Q. Can you explain how you relayed your instructions to the actual investigators in those two countries?

A. Yes, in the same general, broad sense as previously done and, in part, through my assistant Morton Bergsmo.

Q. Being your assistant, he certainly would know how to carry out your orders. What did he do about it?

A. He is a very good man in terms of carrying out instructions. I think he did a --

Q. And working with such a fine person, as you are.

A. I may say, perhaps, it's not your direct question, but all the statements were, of course, made available to the Security Council. And although they were never published, they were free for everyone to read within the Security Council as well. So they were made available to the Security Council, all of them.

Q. Dr. Greve, being a Ph.D., I'm referring to a little bit of a bias in conducting any study. Because you referred in your testimony in Tadic's case that your methodology was imprecise. And if you could reconcile the statement made in Tadic's case and my ²⁰⁰ question now. How did you guard against the bias directing your instructions to Germany and Croatia? And were you at all concerned about the bias in getting the statements from the officials of those two countries?

A. I did not get statements from officials. I got statements from witnesses, but they were interviewed through people who had professional backgrounds. I was concerned that, as for any statement, it could be biased, it could be everything and anything wrong with it. I was open-minded to see if there could be anything into the allegations that were made. So I wanted to compare the information, not to have it from one area, from one source. Yes, I foresaw that the Croats were, of course, involved in the conflict, so perhaps things could be biased. But what I have stated, I believe, previously also, definitely in the Tadic case, I was surprised to see that, on the average, people were speaking very much along the same lines. That was the most surprising part of this, and that was what made me think that the information I gathered could be imprecise, yes, but none the less as to basics, it was as if speaking with one voice.

I must say that I'm not able to recollect ²⁰¹ exactly the quotation you are making from my statement in the Tadic case. If you want my comment on that, I would appreciate it if I could possibly have it quoted to me or --

JUDGE MAY: Well, obviously if a quotation is going to be used from another case, the witness should be referred to the passage. If you don't have it, you can find it, Mr. Vucicevic, maybe during the adjournment or perhaps afterwards.

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. In your report, you have indicated that in April or at the end of April of 1992, the situation in Bosanska Krajina became so dangerous that two members of the United Nations military mission in Bosnia, I believe it was UNPROFOR at that time, who were stationed in Banja Luka were removed?

A. UNPROFOR has a special entity called Military Observers. And it is my understanding from visiting the UNPROFOR headquarters, all my information about UNPROFOR and the UNMO’s has been collected through that headquarters which I visited. It was then located in Zagreb.

It so happened that my senior superior in Cambodia, Yasushi Akashi was the head of relations at the time, and a number of his senior staff were my own ²⁰² friends from Cambodia. They had come straight from Cambodia to Yugoslavia. So I was greatly assisted by the Office of the Special Representative in terms of having access to UNPROFOR and to the military observers leadership.

I have tried to guide the Prosecutor's office as to where the exact source could be for the date mentioned in my report. Because I came or I handed over to this Tribunal a suitcase and several boxes of documents which was handed to Deputy Prosecutor Blewitt at the time, and it was taken into the documentation information unit in the Prosecutor's office at that time. They have not been able to find the specific document. I should say I have kept no document with me, and I don't have copies of documents. So I am unable to find the exact paper where it's stated that two UNMO’s, two military observers, left Banja Luka.

Q. I will supply that paragraph after the break to the Trial Chamber, but I vividly remember that in your statement, what I would like to follow up with: Have you talked to those two military officers, those military observers, that were pulled from Banja Luka on April 28th?

A. Unfortunately not. They were out of the office at the time, and they could not be identified according ²⁰³ to the UNMO’s leader in Zagreb at the time, because I specifically asked and wanted to meet with them, as I had wanted to meet with anyone and everyone who had been in. I asked if there were any specific reports related to this. I was told there was not, save for the date.

Q. So it seems that United Nations military mission in Yugoslavia at that time had made the evaluation that there was, indeed, so -- the conditions are so dangerous in Bosanska Krajina, and the two observers were ordered to leave the area for the reasons, obviously, of their personal safety. However, you were not being provided any documents about the decision of the appropriate United Nations office on making that particular finding, communications to the officers, nor could the officers could be located; is that correct?

A. Yes and no. Part of your statement is correct.

Q. Judge Greve, what I'm basically driving at, I'm driving at -- because you just said there were several suitcases and boxes of documents. To the best of your recollection, what is in those boxes so that you can help me later on ask the Trial Chamber to allow us access to those documents? ²⁰⁴

A. As stated, I believe the two were military observers. Military observers will normally be in an area if the U.N. thinks they can achieve something in particular with having them there. It would be ideal to have military observers out everywhere at every time. But in an armed conflict, they may have quite a low level for deciding when to withdraw staff, which has, in part, been the case in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I don't know what the reason was that made them decide to withdraw the two representatives from Banja Luka at that time.

Q. Dr. Greve, the statement that you just made, the answer to my previous question is two-fold. The first is a statement on the United Nations policy on the military observers; the second one is that you did not get to receive any information about it. Where is the source of your knowledge on military policy of the United Nations in this particular case? Where did you receive this information, when you were in Cambodia, Zagreb, later on in your office, telephone conversation? How did you get to know this?

A. I think I stated that my information on this is from the UNPROFOR headquarters and the special unit that has to deal with the military observers. I met both the leadership of the UNPROFOR and the leadership ²⁰⁵ of that specific unit in Zagreb in early 1993. And my information as to their presence in Bosnia and Herzegovina is obtained from there. I think I have the date, as I used it as a specific date in my report, that I have it in writing from that source. And I believe it to be -- it could be a situation report. It's called "SITREP" for short which is issued, I think, daily under circumstances like this. And it is giving main facts and it could be very, very brief. I mean, all that happens in one day could be, perhaps, in five lines. It could be "Military observers in Banja Luka taken out, dangerous conditions," like that. I'm not saying this was the wording. I'm saying this could possibly be the wording. I apologise. I have not been able to find that specific document, but there can be no question of the source of the information.

Q. The line of questioning is just going to that very last statement you made, the source of the information. When you read this information, whatever initial document it is that you read, you explained what it could have been, it kind of jogged your interest. You saw that it was very important, and you pursued the inquiry. You have talked with civilian authorities and military authorities. Do you remember ²⁰⁶ the names of the officers whom you particularly inquired about these two military observers who were removed, names of either the civilian or military officers, if you know, or if you have it written someplace?

A. I know it was the commander at the time, and I shall be pleased if I can use the lunch hour to try to help the people look for this particular document. I have --

JUDGE MAY: Well, let me interrupt for the moment. I think we must move on from this topic. If you can find it, Judge Greve, please bring it. Let's move on to another topic now.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, if I may suggest that it will not be necessary over this lunch break. We can pursue it tomorrow.

JUDGE MAY: Well, I hope you're not going to be too long with this witness, Mr. Vucicevic. Perhaps you would look over the lunch break and we might be able to finish more quickly.

THE WITNESS: Would it perhaps help you if I added that the reason I wrote this was also I had looked for military sources. There were none in Prijedor and there were none in Banja Luka at the actual time. So I specifically stated that. ²⁰⁷

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. Yesterday, you testified about the Prosecution Exhibit, I will get the number, but it's "CSO Declaration of Bosnia and Herzegovina." Could you tell us whether you received any information that you included in your study from the CSO, from the Organisation of Economic Cooperation in Europe?

A. If I may, the CSO is within the then CSCE, not OSCE, which is the known Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe. Yes, what they had of publications, and I dare to say this is a declaration which was made by them, and when the CSO, or the then CSCE, made declarations that were published. Those were published and made available. Among the sources I approached was every international and national and NGO agency I could possibly come across that possibly could have worked in the area. So it was natural for me to also try to find whatever I could from this agency.

Q. Again, my question was: Did you get any information on those 400 people that were examined through OSCE or you didn't, or from them you just got general information and background information?

A. From the CSO and from the agency, I got nothing about the 400. Those were separate sources, and I tried to get the overall understanding and to ²⁰⁸ compile the information and to see if information from other sources other than the witnesses would support or contradict their statements. So it was one of many sources. I did not obtain it through the witnesses, and the witnesses, I was not alerted to them through any of these sources.

Q. In testifying earlier about the particulars of your study, you testified that you gave instruction to the investigators in the field to look into Prijedor, to the conditions in Prijedor before the 1990 election and post-election, and subsequently what happened after the armed conflict erupted. In your background, you are an expert on humanitarian law and on refugees. However, the statement that was introduced, CSO Declaration Bosnia-Herzegovina, contains basically, most of it, military information, who the combatants were; is that correct?

A. Yes, it is sort of a general declaration that assesses the overall situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but within this declaration, it also addresses aspects of what I was studying.

Q. Dr. Greve, you are not an expert on military law or military activities. In reading the general papers, you had gotten information just like any other ²⁰⁹ citizen of the world would, that there was an armed conflict, and there are various participants in the armed conflict; isn't that true?

A. I'm not an expert on military issues. I am, I dare say, reasonably familiar with the law of war, but that's something different and I shall not testify to that. I read this as a contemporary historian would do as one of several pieces of information that should be considered to try to understand the overall situation.

Q. So that basically any view that you might have expressed on the relationship between JNA and the army of Republika Srpska are not being given as an expert, but just as a citizen of the world who has followed the press and reports; isn't that correct?

A. That is not correct. I did consider this, I think, as a contemporary historian would do, to try to look at all the different sources and assess the situation. But it is, of course, correct that I am not specialised in military issues.

Q. You have used the words "contemporary historian." Could you list all the courses in the subject of history --

JUDGE MAY: We don't need to go through that. The witness was using an expression, not meaning ²¹⁰ literally a contemporary historian.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

A. For your convenience, I may mention that it's listed on my curriculum vitae that I had one year of study related to old history, but there are some courses in history as well, Roman culture.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. Moving on to Prosecution Exhibit 18, that is a statement of several military officers of the army of Republika Srpska; isn't that correct?

A. Yes, I think it's particularly two people who are quoted and referred to, Colonel Radmilo Zeljaja and Pero Colic. Excuse me for my pronunciation.

Q. You have emphasised certain aspects of this article. I'm directing your attention to the full paragraph 2. You don't have to read it out loud, just read it for yourself and then we will have some questions.

A. I have read it.

Q. What is the meaning of Prince Lazar to the Serb people?

A. I think he is rightly venerated as one of their most noble, outstanding persons in history. He died at the battlefield of Kosovo Polje in 1389 when ²¹¹ the Turks were invading.

Q. You mentioned the battle of Kosovo Polje with Prince Lazar dying in battle. Do you know what happened to, and I would use the term, "Ottoman Empire," because Turkey is a nation today that is not a successor to the Ottoman empire, except in the historical sense. What happened to the commanding officer of the opposing army of the Ottoman Empire at Kosovo Polje?

A. Excuse me. What had happened?

Q. What happened to the Turkish sultan who opposed Prince Lazar at Kosovo Polje?

A. I believe I don't know that particular historical person, but as they came to power in the region, after that, I believe those who opposed Prince Lazar somehow invaded the area. Maybe I misunderstood your question.

Q. I will state it. The Ottoman Empire was coming on to the Balkans, and the decisive battle whether they would invade the Balkans or not at that time was on Kosovo Polje. I asked the name of the Turkish sultan and what happened to him because you brought it up. If I may jog your memory, his name was Sultan Murat. Do you know what happened to him at Kosovo Polje? ²¹²

A. I'm afraid I do not, Your Honours.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Vucicevic, we're now getting rather far away from the subject.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Okay.

A. I should, perhaps, apologise, but I have not taken the time to go into detail about the complex and, I'm sure, also a very interesting and important history of the Serb people.

Q. Indeed, there is a particular meaning in Serb history that is tied up to the Kosovo battle, and you have testified to the meaning of that day in Tadic's case. You're quite aware of that, aren't you?

A. I know that I have mentioned also the battle of Kosovo Polje in the Tadic case. I am not --

Q. St. Vitus's Day, as you said and Ragodsaj Vivodan, if that would help you?

A. Yes, St. Vitus is a saint and King Lazar died on the day of this saint. So in celebrating that day, one also celebrates the loss of the life of King Lazar at Kosovo Polje.

Q. This article has been printed on the day which basically the army of Republika Srpska took as their day of glory, and that day was what? Because you testified from this article, and the article --

A. The article is dated 1st of July, 1994. ²¹³

Q. I direct your attention in the second line of the first paragraph.

A. Yes, I have read that line.

Q. Is it fair to say that the statements made on the glory day of the Serb army, which was the same day as Vidovdan is traditionally a day of glory or day of martyrdom of Serb people?

A. This is how I read and understand the article and it would fit with the history, as far as I know it.

Q. Just to take these statements in the proper context, when two military commanders are talking to the troops, at least in the countries that do have a long, long span of history, they do refer to some of the glory days of their national past. That would be entirely proper?

A. I appreciate that.

Q. I'm directing your attention to the last two sentences on the paragraph on page 1 beginning with "Fate has decided"; can you read that out loud?

A. Excuse me, the last two --

Q. The last two paragraphs on the first page of Exhibit 18. That's "The Glory of all Serb Glories."

A. Does it start with "But our honourable"?

Q. It starts, "Fate has decided St. Vitus Day to be the day," the last paragraph on the first page, the ²¹⁴ bottom two sentences.

A. Excuse me, yes, I've found it now. "Fate has decided that St. Vitus Day is to be the day of the Serbian truth and because of that the Serbs will win this third World War, too, although it is being waged only against the Serbs. We will win because we have firmly decided not to live any longer in brotherhood with those who slaughter our children and with false brothers who have spat several times at Serbian goodness and decency." Did you want me to continue?

Q. No, no. So in making such a statement, a military officer could reasonably make the statement believing that it is true what he is saying? You, in other words --

A. I am not suggesting that he is not believing what he is saying.

Q. In other words, you're suggesting that what he is saying, that we have no reason to doubt that he is, that he is speaking what he believes to be the truth?

A. He is speaking the way he sees things and finds it suitable to present it to his troops, yes. I assume.

Q. I am asking you to read Paragraph No. 2, starting, "If that honourable Serb nobleman had done ²¹⁵ that."

A. "It's not only that that honourable Serb nobleman had done that, when you're saying to King Lazar, the Serbian men and people would have disappeared exactly 605 years ago, the world would have lacked the most tolerant and greatest people on the entire planet. In that case, freedom would look different and Europe would look different today."

Q. From a historical perspective, what is he relating to?

A. I think he is relating again to the decisive, as you explained it, battle at Kosovo Polje. And he is telling them that this was an achievement and that there are good causes for celebrating this.

Q. In making the statement, are you aware that the Ottoman Empire reigned Serbian people for 500 years?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. And that statement is, that historical fact is figured in his statement; is that correct?

A. This is correct. I believe it was together with Russian brothers and the peace settlement of 1888 that finally they were withdrawn from the area completely, Serbian area, that is.

Q. I am going to get a map here now. If I may ²¹⁶ have this map displayed.

JUDGE MAY: Which exhibit number is that, please, Mr. Vucicevic?

THE REGISTRAR: It's No. 17.

MR. VUCICEVIC: It's 17, I believe. Could we have it displayed on the overhead projector, so that the judges could see it. I mean, if it would be easier. If the Judges do have a map, we can look on the map.

THE WITNESS: They were collected yesterday, I believe.

JUDGE MAY: Judge Cassese points out quite rightly, this is the one that was withdrawn, in fact, for the Prosecution to do some redaction.

MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour, that is correct.

JUDGE MAY: We don't have copies of it. What is the point that you're seeking --

MR. VUCICEVIC: The point was that the term, Krajina, because I was under the misapprehension that it was admitted only to the fact that it was a map and all other statements were stricken. But it seems, you know, that it was withdrawn, I didn't get a point.

JUDGE MAY: What is the point about it now?

MR. VUCICEVIC: The point is if I could use ²¹⁷ only this to aid and assist the witness with the next question.

Q. This is your own drawing, Dr. Greve, right, these markings, in yellow, right?

A. The yellow is my marking, yes.

Q. And you have used statement, Krajina, Bosanska Krajina and Croatian Krajina?

A. That is correct.

Q. And do you know the meaning within a historical context of Krajina?

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Vucicevic, you must understand that this Trial Chamber now has some experience of these matters. And, of course, we're not going to stop you exploring things which are necessary, but these are matters which I think that we are familiar with. So there is no need to go over Krajina, unless there is some particular point that you want to make about it.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Indeed within the context of the statement of Colonel Colic is where he is using that in that case freedom would look different and Europe would look differently today. It's within that context that I am going to use -- to explain what he has meant.

JUDGE MAY: Let me interrupt. If you would ²¹⁸ move on from the history as soon as you could.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Absolutely, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, very well.

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. Are you aware of the fact -- I will go and I will try to assist with this very quickly to the witness if I may, Your Honour.

If you're aware that Krajina is a term translated as a military district. And that the -- after the Ottoman invasion of the Balkan peninsula, that over the centuries there were the constant clashes between Christian monarchies to the north and Ottoman muslims to the south. And the Serbian population being a Christian that were always sided and protected their co-faith neighbours to the north. And, in turn, the Hungarians, Austrians and Italians to the west have supplied and helped Serbia in their long resistance to the Turkish occupation. Therefore, that was all of those areas starting from Belgrade along river Sava into the northwestern Bosnia, that was all called Krajina, meaning military district. Do you agree with me on that?

A. I listened to your explanation and I have no reason to question it, but I have to admit, I did not know the Krajina as name used when the Ottoman Empire ²¹⁹ advanced after 1389, but I do know and I do appreciate and I think Europe is grateful for what the Serb people has done as being sort of guardian of the borders with the Ottoman Empire and has stopped the advance of the Ottoman Empire.

Q. And within that, since we have understanding on that point, I just wanted to say, is it reasonable to conclude that Colonel Colic was referring to that fact in that statement? A fact of which a Serb people are proud and you indicated that, perhaps, Europe is grateful?

A. I have no reason not to share Europe's feelings about what the Serbs have done for the European community in a historical perspective.

JUDGE MAY: The question was, is that what the general or the colonel was referring to? And it appears that it was.

So I think, Mr. Vucicevic, you -- just a moment. These are all matters which we will have to consider in due course. It will be for us to interpret the documents. All the witness can do is produce them. If you want to make any particular points, of course, you're free to do so, but perhaps we can move on.

MR. VUCICEVIC: ²²⁰

Q. There is in this article, for the first time, we come across the term "corridor". And that's on page 2, in the middle of the paragraph.

A. I am afraid that it was taken away from me, so maybe I could have it again. Forgive me for interrupting.

Q. And --

A. Could I ask you to repeat the reference?

Q. The second page of the Prosecutor's Exhibit No. 18, the last paragraph, which starts with, "In the operation to open the so-called corridor." And you can just read it for yourself and I'll ask you a question.

A. I have read it.

Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the fact that that corridor was closed, militarily, at the end of April or beginning of May of 1992?

A. I am not familiar with it as being closed. That is to say, I am familiar with it being a battlefield. So when war was waged, there may have been opening and closing. I did not specifically consider the entirety of the corridor at every different time.

Q. So, basically, you just referred in your testimony to corridor, but you're not familiar with the military significance or any other significance of the ²²¹ corridor?

A. I am familiar with the significance of it, but I am not familiar with day by day, the size of the corridor, it being fully open or open in part, being fought over. I know it was a battlefield.

Q. So, since you testified yesterday, the corridor was important to the Serbs. If I ask a hypothetical question, tell you, that corridor was closed militarily by Muslims and Croats and that Bosnian, that Bosnian Serbs were encircled, would that help you explain the statements that you have just read, there were military operations to break down the blockade? Could that make sense?

A. That could make sense, I suppose.

Q. Thank you. You, in the next exhibit, I mean the Prosecutor's Exhibit 19, you have made remarks to the JNA and the connection between SDS and JNA. At the time that war in Croatia was being waged, the Bosnia and Herzegovina were a state, a federal unit of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, wasn't it?

A. That's correct.

Q. And the authorities of any nation, sovereign nation, could issue a mobilisation orders, could they?

A. That's correct.

Q. And in all civilised countries, there are ²²² penalties for not responding to the mobilisation order, isn't that correct?

A. That's normal.

Q. And in the times of war, the civilian authorities and political authorities have to cooperate within the bounds of the laws of that country as a general proposition?

A. That is the normal situation, yes.

Q. Yes. And, at that time, the citizens of Prijedor, who responded to the mobilisation orders, they lawfully carried out their duties, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And the war in Croatia ended in December, roughly, December/November, end of November, beginning of December of 1992?

A. I believe there was a formal cease fire agreement beginning of January, 1992.

Q. And the old JNA troops after that time were being pulled out?

A. They were being withdrawn from Croatia. To what extent there were any left, I have not the full knowledge.

Q. So SDS was a party, one of the political parties in Bosnia at that time?

A. That is correct. ²²³

Q. And as the general proposition, the Serbs mostly responded to this mobilisation, correct?

A. That is all the information I have seen, yes. At least my information is limited to Prijedor and the information I have on that is yes.

Q. And the most of the population that didn't respond to this mobilisations, these mobilisation order were Croats and Muslims, isn't that correct?

A. These were people who declared themselves as Croats and Muslims, yes.

Q. And refused to carry out the orders of their, at that time, independent countries, the country of which they were citizens and subject to the laws?

A. That's correct.

Q. Is it fair to conclude that this caused a great discord among those two or three entities, at least, in Prijedor?

A. It may well have been a reason for that. I also think that the entire war in Croatia was reason for people disagreeing or looking differently at that war.

Q. In this article you also used a term being called a "Turk" is a derogatory for a Bosnian Muslim. Are you sure, absolutely sure about that?

A. My understanding from the Muslims is that ²²⁴ they prefer to be called Bosniaks, Muslims, Prijedorians, whatever, but not to be referred to with the name of an alien people.

Q. But is that was their preference as of the later date, perhaps with the modern history that you're testifying on, or we could look at just a little bigger expansion. Let's say from 1945 to '95, when the relationship among the citizens of Prijedor were normal. Perhaps that could be, hypothetical again, most of the Muslim population of Bosnia is Slav population that converted to Islam throughout Ottoman times, you would agree on that, would you?

A. Yes, I would.

Q. Okay. So for somebody who was an original faith, it perhaps, could be a compliment to be called, you are a Turk? If you know, and if you don't, you can say so.

A. As to my understanding as Defence counsel rightly pointed out, in the early days, it was the incoming Ottoman Empire and not a Turkish state. And it is my understanding that those who, and I have spoken to some people on this issue because it was not sort of -- I read it in the testimonies that they saw it as derogative. And I have spoken with people on a general basis on the issue later and they say that they ²²⁵ did not find it good. And it had not been common to speak about Muslims as Turks and it was not appreciated. That's my understanding. I have just not spoken to people just after World War II, which was, of course, prior to my time.

And also, if I may, Turkish history during World War II, possibly made it less pleasant for anyone to be referred to as Turkish considering that the Partisans took power and ruled Yugoslavia after 1945.

Q. Now I am a little bit at sea with that statement. If you would, I cannot see a connection between Partisans and--

JUDGE MAY: We're going quite away from the main point of this case. Can we move on?

MR. VUCICEVIC: Yes, yes, Your Honour.

Q. Dr. Greve, you might have been referring in your last statement, perhaps World War I, not World War II and activities of Turkey and independent nations and --

JUDGE MAY: It really doesn't matter.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour, I'll move on.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. In the same article, you are, the same ²²⁶ article contains in the, "For the good of the people." And if you could read that paragraph and I will have three or four questions because I think it's rather important.

A. Excuse me, would you advise me where I find it?

Q. On the page 2, Exhibit 19. Midsection titled, "For the good of the people." Second paragraph in that subheading, starting with, "From the very start."

A. I have read the paragraph.

Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the name Jovan Raskovic?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Could you tell the Court who was he?

A. I know that he was an SDS leader in Krajina. Krajina in this context being the Croat part of Krajina. And he was a Serb, who was, at the time, a Croat national, living in Croatia that was. And he was one of the people who early spoke up for the Serb cause in that region as a politician.

Q. Was he a nationalist, a Serb nationalist?

A. I am hesitant to use the word --

Q. That will be fine. Quite so, you know, I appreciate your hesitancy on this question. We can ²²⁷ define a nationalism as the good nationalism and bad nationalism. And I would say the good nationalism is somebody who appreciates his own culture, history, population, but at the same time doesn't want to hurt others living in their midst or the people who are willing to give him them the same civil rights, if reciprocity exists. You would agree with that?

A. I have no reason to doubt that he was all in favour of the good of his own people. If he was unprepared to hurt anyone else and give them full rights, I have no basis for ascertaining.

Q. But you don't know anything else besides what you just stated of the late Dr. Jovan Raskovic?

A. No, I have seen references to him in several articles. I believe I have read some of his early writings in articles. But as it did not concern aspects of what I then was addressing, I have not paid so strong attention to it that I would be able to repeat it or inform the Court about it.

Q. Within this section here, he is considered like the ideological father of SDS in Prijedor; isn't he?

A. I did not read the paragraph to make him the ideological father. I read him, I read the paragraph to praise him for having been visionary and having been ²²⁸ positive for the cause of the SDS.

Q. If I were to -- let's assume the fact that the late Dr. Jovan Raskovic was present when SDS was established in Prijedor. And if I were to tell you that fact that his wife is still living is a Croatian, would he have less base to assume that he was a vitriolic nationalist?

MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, if I may object on a technical point as to the statement that's being made. If it's a hypothetical that these are facts, then perhaps that's a further question. What he is stating as a fact is he is, in essence, testifying and I would object to that.

JUDGE MAY: Well, he can put matters -- and, counsel, I should say, I do deprecate the use of he. Mr. Vucicevic, if you're referring to him. Mr. Vucicevic, you can put the matter, but if you're putting it as a fact, you should do so or if it's a hypothesis. Again, I don't know that we're going to much assisted by this. This is going to be comments by the witness on matters which she really knows nothing about.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Okay, Your Honour, it's in the same paragraph, Dr. Greve, there are two terms mentioned. And one that prominently comes to mind of ²²⁹ anybody who is familiar with the history of Balkan is Jasenovac, what is Jasenovac?

A. Jasenovac is a concentration camp. One of the worst. Definitely the worst in World War II, located not so far from Prijedor on the border inside Croatia.

JUDGE MAY: I am going to interrupt you. We are familiar with these matters. In a case we have recently done, there was extensive evidence about Jasenovac, so there is no need to go over that again.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Thank you very much, Your Honour. As the legal principles and due processes we are applying here. And then I am asking, not some latitude, but the concern that I have.

JUDGE MAY: You can make any point that you want, but would you bear in mind that we have heard evidence in other matters about it.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, if this witness was not present there and when that evidence was introduced and this witness' testimony contains those statements and she has testified to --

JUDGE MAY: Let's not waste any more time about it. The only point I want you to have in mind is that the Trial Chamber is not ignorant of the history, is familiar with it, and so, therefore, what I am ²³⁰ concerned about is that we don't spend too much time going over matters which are not going to assist us in the long run in trying the case because we know about them.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, but --

JUDGE MAY: Let's move on.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Okay.

Q. Having heard this ruling, Dr. Greve, I have to point out in the Tadic's testimony, you have testified about the influence of the Serb press to the media, on to the state of mind of the Serb population in Prijedor area, have you?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. And and what was the influence of the Serb press on the state of mind of the citizens of Prijedor?

A. The understanding which is given from the witness statements from all of the sources is that opposed to previous years, one starts speaking about the Muslims as being people prepared as fanatics to start a religious war. And one refers to the Croats as being hands to the very, very bad Ustasha behavior.

Q. Could you, please, explain who were Ustashas?

A. Ustashas, to my knowledge, was first a minority party. Perhaps it was with past religion in ²³¹ Croatia. It was -- its leaders were more or less living in fascist Italy and raised by the fascists in Italy. And when the Germans started World War II, they came into power in then independent Croatia, which also covered Bosnia-Herzegovina. And they had an extreme, terrible, utterly ugly policy of treating all Serbs extremely bad. That is, I believe they had as part of their programme, that they wanted to convert one-third of the Serbs to the Roman Catholic faith, whilst to excise one-third of the Serbs. And, even worse, to exterminate the final third of the Serbs. That is all Serbs living within that area.

As it came out in Prijedor, if I may draw your attention to that, is an area that was early controlled by the Partisan and suffered tremendously in 1942. At that time, it is my information, that the Germans, the Austrians, at the time, of course, one time, met the Secretary-General of the United Nations who was number two in the command in Banja Luka. So this is an area that's been sort of investigated by a number of different, not so open sources, but it has been investigated. And this joint forces, Austrian, German, Ustasha and a fraction of the Chetnik movement, not all Chetniks, but also a fraction of the Chetniks, committed extreme atrocities in 1942, July of 1942, in ²³² the Prijedor area, which is why one of the main monuments, war monuments and memorials in former Yugoslavia, from World War II, was in Prijedor.

Q. And Jasenovac was just in the same area, wasn't it?

A. It's a bit further to the east and the North. It's on the other side of the Croatian border. Yes, well, I could point it out on a map, but it's further north and east. But it's in the same larger area, not within the opstina, not within Bosnia-Herzegovina, but, yes.

Q. About 30 kilometres away?

A. I would have guessed more, but...

Q. Okay.

A. Prijedor, if you think of it, the size of Prijedor, it's perhaps something like 25 by 30 kilometres, so somehow a rectangular shape. But this is approximate of course.

Q. You mentioned Ustasha and also mentioned the context of this paragraph is that they had a policy of exterminating at least one-third of the Serbian people. And that's what I understand in the history and tell me if you agree with me, that they were exterminating regardless, men, women and children?

A. That's my understanding, absolutely. And I ²³³ would not be surprised if they have actually also exterminated more than they had in their programme. Their policy was utterly inhumane.

Q. One minor point that you mentioned that the former Secretary General of the United Nations was a second in command in that area and that event was investigated, but not as openly as perhaps it should have been to give the picture to the world of what had happened, if you agree?

A. I don't know why the information about such investigations were not disclosed, but such investigations were carried out. And, in my opinion, it would have been fair to publish information also about what had happened during World War II. When I said he was number two within the intelligence unit, number two in command in Banja Luka. I have heard that that's number three in the overall command. I am not able to say yes or no.

Q. And you are aware there was some survivors from those Ustasha camps around surrounding Prijedor?

A. I am aware of that and also, very unfortunately, but people from Prijedor after the slaughter, after the horrors of July of 1942, was taken in part to Jasenovac, but some of them were actually also taken under the label "viking" to my country, ²³⁴ which is Norway as slave labour, taken to the Nazi minority government in Norway and treated extremely badly. I did gather from sources in Belgrade the exact lists of all the names of people who came to Norway from the Prijedor area after what had happened in 1942. The majority of those were Serbs, but there were also Croats and Muslims among them. Very unfortunately, but a number died in my country.

Q. And the ruling from those great sufferings of the former, of the internees in the Nazi camps, in Norway, subsequently, there was, you know, a friendship, associations formed between people of Norway and people in Yugoslavia and quite a few visits have taken place, if you followed anything there?

A. Yes, I am familiar; yes, I followed; yes, there is a strong friendship between the people of the former Yugoslavia and Norway.

JUDGE MAY: Very well, we'll adjourn now. How much longer do you anticipate being with this witness, Mr. Vucicevic?

MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, we are going to review the facts of the exhibits with this witness and maybe, perhaps, Mr. Vann will ask a few questions because in preparing for this witness, we have had the first statement. And we are thinking, you know, that ²³⁵ he was going to do a cross-examination. But, however, when the exhibits were introduced and Mr. Vann had come in just about ten, fifteen days ago, then I have to go over these statements because, you know, I have been on the case from the very beginning.

JUDGE MAY: We'll consider the matter. But as a matter of practice, only one cross-examination is going to be allowed. I'll consider an application if you want to make one. But the normal practice is one cross-examination per defendant.

I hope that matters can be speeded. Obviously this witness is here, having to stay here. And also, we have to think of the clock generally for the trial.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, I appreciate your kind words. Your Honour, this is the first witness testifying on issues and the ultimate issues of fact in historical terms, quite candid witness, and I believe her function to aid the Court to see that most objects the picture. That is our intent. And if it takes a little longer, Your Honour, I do apologise.

JUDGE MAY: Five past two.

--- Luncheon recess taken at 12.40 p.m. ²³⁶

--- On resuming at 2.10 p.m.

(Closed session)

(page redacted) ²³⁷

(page redacted) ²³⁸

(19 lines redacted)

(Open session)

MR. VUCICEVIC: While we have a short intermission, if I may answer the question on citations, I asked the witness about methodology earlier. That's at page 609 from the Tadic transcript and it's line 29. ²³⁹

(The witness entered court)

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Vucicevic?

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. We had left off with the statements about Serbian media and the reporting of the current events. In introducing Mr. Mazowiecki's report, you have testified that Serb media in Prijedor, as far as you were concerned, being your area of expertise, have been inflammatory, derogatory, and reports that were inciting people to genocide. Is that a fair conclusion of your testimony of yesterday?

A. That was inciting people to have a less good view on other people in the opstina, yes.

Q. So it was not your testimony that the press was inciting them to commit violations of international humanitarian law, but were contributing to a lack of goodwill towards the different ethnicities?

A. It was not directly suggesting that they should commit genocide, it was not putting words like that, but it was spoken of in a very hostile manner.

Q. We can take the general proposition that we all believe in free press; do you agree with that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Even if some events might be unpleasant and might present as offensive to the opposing ethnic ²⁴⁰ group, if they are reported, they are still subject to this interpretation of free press, as a general proposition?

A. In general, yes, if the press is free, one may print different issues in it. This is one element in an overall situation.

Q. Considering Yugoslavia from 1945 through 1990, to the best of your knowledge, did Yugoslavia have a free press?

A. I'm not fully familiar with the freedom of the press. I would think that it was not fully free, but I'm not able to evaluate that.

Q. But for the short period of democracy in Prijedor, we can say the press was free?

A. I think the press changed its approach because it was made, to the best of my understanding, a matter of urgency for the new authorities, that is, the Serb authorities, after taking power the night of the 30th of April, 1992, to have control over the media.

Q. However, you have testified only as to the Mazowiecki report, you have testified only as to bias in Serb media. Have you noticed anything in that report that addressed the possible bias in the media of the other ethnic groups?

A. It is referring to numerous concerns, yes. I ²⁴¹ was particularly evaluating the information that could relate to the problems I was addressing in the area of Prijedor.

Q. So if you look at the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina in that report, it would seem that press from all sides was biased?

A. It's indicated by Mazowiecki that there were problems, yes.

Q. Do you consider it a bias if the Serb press is referring to the events of Jasenovac that you earlier testified? Would that be a bias or would that be a reporting of the historical events?

A. If it's mainly reporting the historical events, there is no bias. It may be a bias if, without documentation, it is stated that a new Jasenovac is being considered.

Q. Have you found any statements that said that a new Jasenovac is being considered? You can answer that at some time later. We don't have to look now, but it would be interesting to find out. If I may proceed, we can put it off until later.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, we will deal with it later.

A. It is in paragraph -- as I read, if I may, on page 2 in what was given to me prior to the -- it's Exhibit 19, the Kozarski Vjesnik article "Faithful to ²⁴² the Homeland and its Ideals," page 2, second paragraph underneath the headline "For the Good of the People," and I quote from the second sentence: "We used all our resources to support the struggle of the Serb people against new and old ustashas, against the new genocide which was being prepared in places that are too well known to us, Jasenovac, Jadovna," et cetera, reference to the past is not biased, but it may be different when one suggests that there were plans to build or to continue in the way things were done during World War II.

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. So if the author of this paragraph or the gentleman that was quoted to have said such a paragraph, Mr. Ranko Gnjatovic, had veritable apprehension at the time that the camps like Jasenovac could occur, he didn't have a right to speak about it or didn't have a right to report about it; is that what you're referring to --

A. No.

Q. -- as incitement through the press?

A. If he had information to that extent, of course he would be not only free to speak about it, but he should speak about it.

Q. But you haven't talked, as you said before, ²⁴³ to any of the Serbs, so we really cannot conclude whether or not at this point there was such information. That is your opinion, that he had no information, without any data to substantiate that?

A. I have not seen in all the sources I've reviewed any concrete information as to that, no.

Q. Let's go to Mazowiecki's report. When it's dealing with the reporting of the Bosnian Muslim press, especially Radio Hajat, do you remember that section of Mazowiecki's report?

A. I'm afraid I do not because I did not attempt to, sort of, judge all of his statements on every issue. I believe that Mazowiecki has solid reason for saying many of the things that he was saying. I was testifying yesterday to what he had said about the media. It's dated after I finished my report, but it does support the conclusions to which I reached concerning media in Prijedor.

Q. I'm referring you to page 9 or date stamped 790 on the bottom of Mazowiecki's report.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness have the exhibit. It's Exhibit 27.

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. Paragraph 32, I'm directing your attention to the last sentence starting "On 1 April 1993." Could ²⁴⁴ you read that statement, please?

A. On 1 April 1993, the Tuzla journal Zmaj od Bosne published an article which stated, "Instinctively, every Muslim would wish to save his Serb neighbour instead of the reverse; however, every Muslim must name a Serb and take an oath to kill him."

Q. Looking at the plain language of that statement, does it sound to you as an incitement to break international humanitarian law?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. And it was published on?

A. 1st April, 1993.

Q. And Zmaj od Bosne is the print media published in Tuzla which was, at that time, under Bosnian government control, wasn't it?

A. I don't know, but if you stated this like this, I accept that information.

Q. Thank you. Paragraph 30, the same page, last sentence in that paragraph 30, "An example was Radio Hajat ..." Could you read that, please?

A. Would you like me to read it?

Q. Yes.

A. An example was Radio Hajat's call on 5th February, 1994 following the massacre at Markale marketplace for Muslims to retaliate against Sarajevo's ²⁴⁵ Serbs and Croats."

Q. Have you read this paragraph before you testified yesterday on it?

A. I have --

Q. The whole report?

A. I have read the whole report at a previous time, yes.

Q. All right. Are you familiar with Markale marketplace massacre?

A. I am familiar with the overall of that, yes. It was also included in the report of the Commission of Experts, although I was not the one who was particularly looking at it.

Q. Could you tell us about that massacre?

JUDGE MAY: Now, again --

MR. VUCICEVIC: I'll withdraw the question, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. The sentence that you just read, looking at the plain meaning of the language, to the best of your expertise, does it incite and invite the population of Sarajevo to commit violations of the international humanitarian laws against Serbs and Croats?

A. It's an invitation to retaliation, and I ²⁴⁶ would assume that means also to break the law, I'm afraid.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honours, if I may address on this specific point. We have an expert here on international humanitarian law, and I would like to ask her to clarify the term "retaliate" because of her stature. I really wouldn't want this to go on the record uncorrected for the learned benefit of all of us.

JUDGE MAY: Well, you can ask the question, but keep it brief.

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. Under international humanitarian law, is retaliation a measure even arguably permitted by a civilian population?

A. To my knowledge, retaliation, as such, is not a part of international law. One may not answer to a crime, I'm speaking in general terms without reference to Sarajevo or anywhere else, one may not answer a crime with a new crime. There may be occasions of provocation, but retaliation is not a concept that's included in international law and duly described. But since they are asked to retaliate in terms of a massacre, I'm afraid this could include new crimes.

Q. So is it or isn't it incitement to commit ²⁴⁷ violations of international humanitarian law?

A. As it's not stated explicitly that no crimes should be made, it may be read like you're stating, yes.

JUDGE MAY: I think that's sufficient on that topic.

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. In your previous testimony, you have said that the violation of international humanitarian law in the Prijedor area throughout World War II has been committed by Ustasha and supported by the government at that time, the independent government of Croatia. Were there any incidents that you know of where similar acts were committed by Serb nationals on Muslims or Croats?

A. I have read wartime history. I am aware that certain Chetnik groups, not all Chetniks, by far not, would target explicitly Muslim people in some areas. I am not able to point to, in detail, specific incidents from World War II.

JUDGE MAY: Well, Judge Greve, you are not here really to deal with World War II, and I'm not going to permit any more questions on it. Mr. Vucicevic, could you move on, please?

MR. VUCICEVIC: ²⁴⁸

Q. Judge Greve, you have testified in your statement about peacefulness and brotherhood between ethnicities in Prijedor. Could you explain the meaning of "brotherhood" and where it came into the modern historical terminology?

A. To my understanding, there were very friendly relations between the different groups in Prijedor. That is to say, it was not an area which was troubled by ethnic feuds or religious feuds. They were living together as people in any ordinary community or society which would not have much differences between them. It's my understanding that they themselves saw at least this century as having been a century of botherhood, which had been particularly strengthened during World War II, as this was an area where, as an example, the Muslim head of the community very early spoke up and against the Ustasha attacks on Serbs in World War II, and where the Partisans comprised of the local population which were Serbs, the majority were Serbs, Croats and Muslims.

For what reason they fought together during World War II, and some of the people that have testified had said that even upon entering Logor Omarska, Logor Keraterm, the camps, they did not really think those who were arrested, having not experienced ²⁴⁹ attacks on entire villages, that this would be something very difficult for them.

Even after the Serbs took power, the ousted Muslim mayor of the community spoke on the radio, Radio Prijedor, in early May saying "Remember the brotherhood, sisterhood," perhaps he didn't say that, but "... brotherhood, remember the good relations. There are people coming from outside. They have taken power. We have nothing to fear. This is essentially a peaceful community."

By this, I'm not suggesting that it didn't have the same kinds of problems that just any community would have.

Q. The concept brotherhood was imposed by the communists taking over power in 1945, isn't that true?

A. I know that the word "brotherhood" is used in my own country, which has never been --

Q. But I am referring directly to the concept of Bosnia, brotherhood is very broad term?

A. That is why I -- without knowing it for sure, cannot say that this was brought in by the communists, it's a very common concept. Perhaps, at least, I would assume it existed in the wartime.

Q. So, at least, you're not sure on this question? ²⁵⁰

A. No, I have not asked specifically when the concept brotherhood was started to be used.

Q. But yet in presenting statistics, did it raise some concerns of yours to realise that most of the villages were entirely Muslim, entirely Serb and entirely Croats?

A. If I --

Q. And how could you reconcile brotherhood and in unity with such segregation?

A. If I may draw your attention again back to the statistics from the census. I believe it can be read out of the figures, not so easily from the simplified map, but from the figures that in almost every village, you would find a mixed population --

Q. Let's go back to the tables, Dr. Greve, and then maybe we can explain this better to the Court. And I am directing your attention to -- okay, that's page 202 or that is Exhibit 21B. And then we go -- let's look at village called Bistrica. That is the third row from the bottom of the page. Date stamped 201. And it does have 1490 Serbs and 1 Muslim. And then if we go to a next village, Biscani, we have a little better ratio, 1150 Muslims and 2 Serbs. And let's look at some other, bigger villages. That would be at page 203 because it seems that this is a big ²⁵¹ spread which has been cut?

A. That's correct. It's two opposite pages.

Q. And if we take a look at the village Carakovo, where there is 2128 Muslims and 38 Serbs --

JUDGE MAY: Those figures, I think, are in 1981, in fact.

MR. VUCICEVIC: 1981. But they have been introduced and I believe, substantially, they have not changed, Your Honour. But we can go into the '91 census.

JUDGE MAY: I am not inviting you to.

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. But basically I am drawing your attention here and I want to find out the names of these villages.

A. The names are listed on the left-hand side.

Q. Here we go. And there is, for example, a village, Surkovac, which contains 647 Croats; no Muslims and 18 Serbs. This is not a statistically representative sample, however, it's just indication, there was no integration whatsoever of the population, in spite of that catch phrase "brotherhood," isn't that true?

A. As I read the entire statistics, I think it's much more mixed than the history samples suggested. ²⁵² But, yes, it's correct, there will be a lot of variations.

Q. And as I have a duty of fairness to the Court, I am going to point out to the town of Prijedor, which basically the population was about 50/50. Okay. That's on date stamp 205 and then it's '81. We're still looking at '81. But that is 10,000 Muslims at that time and 10,000 Serbs. '91 there was about 24,000 Serbs. However there is this category of Yugoslavs. Could you tell the Court a little bit more about that category?

A. That was a category which does not state which ethnic group or religion the person has. People may want to declare themselves as Yugoslavs belonging to any other group. Where they have the freedom of choice in that respect, many would choose the designation Yugoslav as a commitment to the Yugoslav state. Others have chosen that for the reason that they may have two grandparents in one group and one in each of the others, not feeling they belonged, perhaps, to any specific group. And some may have, for any other reason, found it good not to be identified with a group.

Q. Isn't it fair, also reasonable to conclude there might be one reason and one conclusion. But it ²⁵³ would be another reasonable conclusion that a census at that time provided for the people to declare how they feel and whom they belong. And what we see that most of those villages and hamlets are exclusively, overwhelmingly, either Serb, Muslim or Croat without any mix in municipality besides town of Prijedor?

A. As for the mix, I think the figures speak for themselves. I mean, it could be controlled village by village the exact numbers according to the figure. It is correct that people were free to come forward and declare themselves as belonging to a group, yes.

Q. Would it be also reasonable to conclude that mixing in the rural areas did not occur because of the memories on the atrocities of the World War II?

A. That is not to my opinion correct. It may not in full, it may be in part. That is, there are a number of people who have left Prijedor who have mixed family relationships, mixed parentage and, perhaps also, as we came across, decided to declare themselves when they married someone from a different group they could, as well, declare themselves as belonging with that group.

Q. So they have basically converted and declared themselves. And one of those famous, one of the most famous Yugoslavs who converted, if you know, was a ²⁵⁴ Yugoslav Nobel prize winner for the literature, Ivanovic. And he was born Croat, but declared himself Serb and one of the Serbs greatest literary giants. Are you familiar with that? So we agree that the people do convert for their own reason and, indeed, join the other ethnic group. But as we are looking in these papers here, their declarations are such that this is overwhelming segregation in all the areas or municipality of Prijedor, besides Prijedor itself?

A. I do not agree that it's overwhelming segregation in all the areas.

Q. I am going to modify that term. Segregation that is of some concern. Would you agree with that?

A. Yes.

Q. Considering that they had official policy of brotherhood?

A. I think that brotherhood could be understood in more than one sense. And I think a feeling of brotherhood may mean that people in an area with several villages, several different administrative units, do not feel alienated and hostile towards one another, but still they may keep their small hamlets, or whatever, which is -- and some of those which you have pointed out, are predominantly with people declaring themselves as belonging to one particular ²⁵⁵ group, yes.

Q. That reminds me of the old adage, that in the former communist system some people are more free than the others. And it seems here that distribution or ethnic distribution in Prijedor municipality is such that they trusted their own a little bit more than the others, so they had their houses in the same location, isn't that true?

A. I will not be able, as I have not asked people that particular question.

Q. Okay, thank you on that one. When you look to this answer to this one might become indeed obvious when you look at the map of Prijedor. This map of Prijedor. Sorry, I lost the marking on this one.

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 22.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Exhibit 22.

Q. So when you look at the colour distribution here, it's obvious to see that the Muslims were located in a south-western section of the Municipality of Prijedor and Serbs were located in southeastern municipality of Prijedor. And there is a great concentration of Muslim population in Kozarusa, Kozarac, Brdani, Babici area. Those are along the road. There is no road there, but you are familiar ²⁵⁶ with the maps along the road from Prijedor to Banja Luka. And there is a concentration of the Serbs again straight north from Prijedor.

A. Yes, that is the simplification and the predominant ethnic group.

Q. And yet on the next exhibit, which is your drawing, it's Exhibit 24, you have declared that Prijedor and municipalities in Prijedor and Sanski Most and Kotor Varos are the Muslim municipalities. What did you mean -- what is your intended purpose of this different colouration?

A. The different colouration refers to the fact that the opstinas, the municipalities that have been given a red colour had such a large Serb influence, not a total Serb population, but such a large Serb influence, that it was decided within the opstina to join the autonomous region of Krajina as referred to yesterday, as opposed to the three others opstinas, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Kotor Varos, while, yes, there were large populations that were Serbs. There were small populations, essentially Croat. And there were relatively large populations that were Muslim. And in these three opstinas, municipalities, the Serb influence was not that strong that a decision was made by the local authorities to join the autonomous region ²⁵⁷ of Krajina. That was the only reason for giving them different colours.

Q. I am going to take you back to time of election in 1990, December of 1990. And the result of that election was, as you have testified in Tadic's case and your report that was introduced in this case, that the SDA had obtained 30 electoral seats; that the SDS had 28; Croat party had 2 seats and the others, meaning the parties who were liberal parties or remnants and followers of the old communist left, obtained another 30 seats. Is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And that members of SDA and SDS formed a coalition municipal government in Prijedor; is that correct?

A. The municipal assembly, I think reflected the overall vote, yes.

Q. But there was an agreement between SDA and SDS to run the coalition campaign against the ruling communist party up to that time. Are you familiar with that?

A. I am not familiar with pre-1990 election campaigning. But I am familiar with the fact that, yes, the SDA and the SDS did cooperate, did win 30 and 28 seats respectfully and did divide the remaining ²⁵⁸ seats among them accordingly.

Q. You're not familiar with any pre-election agreements. Let's say no agreements existed as a hypothetical and the election takes place and this is an electoral composition, the government has to be formed. So each party had free choice. SDA could join the communist parties or reformist liberal SD socialist party and another party, or they could join the SDS in forming government. Likewise, SDS couldn't join parties of the left that were defeated in that election or let's say there was almost three way split. Why would you think that SDA and SDS would make such a coalition?

A. I would assume that also that naturally under the circumstances, if it was a reaction to the previous regimes, I am unable to say. But I would assume that under the new political situation, they saw that as useful and making sense, the way they have committed themselves with the veto voters.

Q. And those commitments in taking down to totalitarian government, which did not recognise a right to free religious expression, would be reasonable to assume that members of SDA wanted to have democratically elected officers and to practice their religion. At the same time, members or the people ²⁵⁹ having sympathies in voting for the representatives of the SDS would like to have democratically elected government and to practice their religion. And those would be including another underlining theme that democratically elected government would provide the bulwark for the economy so that the society would thrive. Based on those principles, is it reasonable to assume that they have formed coalition government?

A. Based on what we know in general about what happened in eastern Europe, when free elections started, there were to be close cooperation between political parties that were of the new political creed, so to speak and those parties who preferred the previous system. So I would assume in Prijedor, making a general statement, that is, and it's an assumption, I would think they would work together with those who believed in the new, free situation.

Q. So it's reasonable to assume that even those who are members of the party at that time did not harbour ill-feelings toward each other because they were cooperating? I am not asking the specifics, just, would it be reasonable to assume.

A. It is, of course, difficult to assess the feelings of people. But since the general understanding in Prijedor is that of brotherhood and ²⁶⁰ cooperation, I assume that was for the politicians as well. It may have changed over time, but I think so. But I think the main changes may have come when parallel structures started to come into being.

Q. Do you think that war in Croatia preceded those improvisations along the ethnic lines starting with the outbreak of war in Croatia?

A. I know that there were political discussions about, and I believe they are materialised in guidelines which I have seen later, only after having completed my study. There were discussions within the SDS, the Serb Democratic Party, already in August, 1991. That is just after the -- just before or just after the war in Croatia really started. And at that time, alternative structures were in question. I am in August 1991.

Q. You think -- do you have any information that an ethnic cleansing of Serb population took place in the war in Croatia?

A. I have information to the extent that when war started in Eastern Slavonia, group was against group, and yes, indeed, some of the victims were clearly Serb.

Q. Do you think that such an information could have had a real impact on the Serbs in Prijedor area? ²⁶¹

A. Yes, I think, actually, it did have an impact, particularly because it was highlighted in the media and it was used to generalise the feeling of fear and a need for Serbs to be particularly alert.

Q. And are you aware of any reports in the western press that have reported ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Croatia at that time?

A. I cannot point to any specific information, but I do believe that it was reported and I think it was transmitted, if not straight by journalists, so at least by the High Commission for Refugees, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, that numbers of people were being displaced in Eastern Slavonia, Serbs among them.

Q. And the United Nations international organisation of countries of Western Europe, that later on helped stop that war, hadn't done anything at that time, to the best of your knowledge?

A. To the best of my knowledge, at that time, the western community was concerned with negotiations, which had been going on for some time. It had been discussed in the European Community. It had been discussed in international agencies based in Europe, but I would say it was paperwork, conferences, discussions. I think everyone thought at that time that this war could be ²⁶² avoided by having peaceful settlement around a conference table.

Q. So it would be reasonable to assume, since ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Slavonia had occurred and some of the official organisations of the European ommunity had reports about that, but it was only expectation that a war should be short-lived. It was reasonable for Serb in Krajina to be apprehensive about it. I am not asking whether they were wrong or right, but was it just reasonable for them to be apprehensive?

A. I am just trying to focus my answer. I am not trying to make judgments on this, just to assess the situation and my observations. I didn't know if the word "ethnic cleansing" was used already in Eastern Slavonia in early August 1991. I do know that large groups of people, Serbs included, were actually displaced in the course of the fighting between Croats, essentially, and Serbs, essentially. I do know that at a later time, this was used, highlighted, emphasised and I think ordinary people were scared. But still I think that in Prijedor, people were relying on the past. They have had very, very different experience during World War II in terms of having been a Partisan area that was hard hit by non-Partisans. But at that ²⁶³ time -- and that has been confirmed by numerous sources. They felt they were standing together and that that togetherness in the past would bring them through whatever difficult times were to come.

Q. But that is your conclusion about that they felt they were in a Noah's Ark, so to speak, just because they had a partisan in the midst of World War II and without paying attention of the current events in the rest of their country?

A. Yes and no. I think, yes, they did pay attention to what was happening elsewhere. Yes, I think most people were very concerned about there being a war. Yes, I think they followed that very intensely. But, no, I don't think they were also afraid of being hunted -- they didn't feel as hunted by the past experiences of one group of people locally against another. They had a different background and experience which made it more easy for them to relate to their neighbours than for Serbs in Eastern Slavonia.

Q. Your Honours, at this time, I would like to introduce Defence Exhibit No. 1. And I know, Your Honours, that this is not being done to question the credibility of this witness, but just to contradict the validity of underlying data on which she is basing her ²⁶⁴ statements. This is the book by Samuel P. Huntington professor at Harvard University, that's dealing on page 283, he is dealing with this issue.

JUDGE MAY: Have you got photocopies for us so we can look at it?

MR. VUCICEVIC: I will make some photocopies, but I was thinking if you can put it on the overhead projector and say the sentences, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Well, we will need photocopies of it, but you can put it to the witness.

A. Excuse me for turning my head.

JUDGE MAY: What does it say?

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. If you could get a little bit clearer picture, just to the usher.

A. I'm just pointing to it so that, perhaps, they can zoom in on it. I think this will do.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, you've got it.

A. Would you like me to read it?

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. If you could read the first two sentences on the full paragraph that is in the full view here, starting with --

A. "Western support for Croatia also included overlooking the ethnic cleansing and the violation of ²⁶⁵ human rights and the laws of war for which the Serbs were regularly denounced. The West was silent when in 1995, the revamped Croat army launched an attack on the Serbs of Krajina, who had been there for centuries, and drove hundreds of thousands of them into exile in Bosnia and Serbia."

Q. That is enough. So it's reasonable to assume that your data that you looked at this problem and research that Professor Huntington has done are obviously differing. Because your conclusions and his conclusions are two different conclusions.

A. I think I shall disagree with him in his first sentence. The second is after.

Q. Dr. Greve, what I asked, I'm not questioning your opinion, nor putting his opinion against your opinion. What I'm asking is, is it reasonable for you to conclude that the data upon which he has relied on the same issue that you here testified about, it's different than yours?

A. You asked me previously if I was aware of reports in the western press concerning Eastern Slavonia, to which I testified that I could not recall any in particular, but I was aware that, for instance, the High Commission for Refugees had drawn attention to this. And since I have not studied this, in ²⁶⁶ particular, I am unable -- I don't think I can be seen as an expert on what the western press or those who may be included in the sentence "Western support for Croatia," whether or not it was like this or that. I think it's beyond me to be able to make assessments on this, Your Honour.

MR. VUCICEVIC: I will continue with the next line of questioning, Your Honour.

Q. So it would be more reasonable -- it would be reasonable to conclude that Serbs in Prijedor were apprehensive of what the future might bring to them, and their conclusions about brotherhood are, indeed, a little bit more proper looked at in hindsight than yours, because ethnic cleansing happened in Krajina in a large scale, and western experts in western states didn't respond at all.

A. The reference to Krajina and the Serbs of Krajina is dated 1995. That's three years -- it's August 1995, I tend to remember. That is three years after the events in Prijedor. Obviously what the people were feeling, I have made a general assessment, their feelings are the real thing.

Q. I'm directing your attention now to the Prosecutor's Exhibit 29. That newspaper account when read in its totality indicates that there was some ²⁶⁷ criticism, public criticism, that was rendered against the police and chief of police at that time, Delic, was answering to the criticism. Isn't that your import of the article?

A. That is absolutely so, and the criticism was that strongly against, essentially, all the authorities in Prijedor, that the High Commissioner’s Office for Refugees and ICRC were approached by people who wanted to leave the area.

Q. And what he is doing, he's basically blaming the police in Prijedor were in control of many, many items of property that were stored at Keraterm, because within the context of this article, they are not talking about human beings in prison there. They are talking about property stored at that facility?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that property somehow disappeared?

A. That is also correct. But it is stated explicitly that there is the cooperation between the police, the army and the authorities that still govern.

Q. Is it unreasonable to assume that a country at war, there is going to be some degree of cooperation between military police and civilian authorities?

A. I would assume that any country that is at war would try to unite forces. ²⁶⁸

Q. That's a reasonable assumption?

A. It is.

Q. To perform the functions that are actually overlapping to support the war effort?

A. To work together to a lesser or larger degree, yes.

Q. You mentioned in commenting on Exhibit 30 some statements that at that time Colonel Radmilo Zeljaja remained. Do you know what was his rank at the time when the conflict in Prijedor erupted?

A. I think he was the major. He was --

Q. A major?

A. A major, yes.

Q. When you made some comments earlier when you testified about Jasenovac, you brought up the name of Mr. Kurt Waldheim?

A. I did.

Q. In your readings of the paper that were not available to the public, do you recall what was his rank at that time, Mr. Waldheim's?

A. I don't recall his rank. I remember that he was described as the second in line in command within the intelligence unit in Banja Luka, and he was an Austrian, and he worked within the German/Austrian structure. ²⁶⁹

Q. So in that region, it seems that perhaps if he was a major at that time, it seems in that region, even not so high ranks of a major could command a great deal of military authority?

JUDGE MAY: Well, I think we are straying from the point to be dealing with Colonel Waldheim.

MR. VUCICEVIC: I will withdraw the question.

Q. Zeljaja was an officer of the JNA; wasn't he?

A. He was an officer of the JNA, and the JNA was transformed in 1992 to become the Bosnian Serb army.

Q. And Major Zeljaja at that time was commander of 34 --

A. The then 343rd --

Q. Motorised Brigade?

A. That's correct.

Q. And this was stationed in Prijedor?

A. That is correct.

Q. And that brigade has been ordered into military action in Slavonia sometime in the summer of '91?

A. They were mobilising for going to the Slavonian front, I think, in autumn 1991.

Q. The military reservist who came in to bring his units to full strength, they came from the Prijedor ²⁷⁰ area, didn't they?

A. That is my understanding, yes.

Q. And almost all Serbs responded and most of the Muslims did not, to that call-up?

A. That is correct. I also remember to have read that he was not able to fulfil his ranks completely, so they went to Croatia without having a complete setup.

Q. So going into the battle, as a military officer of the legal independent state at that time, he is forced to go with 50 per cent ranks unfilled or, let's say, a certain per cent of ranks unfilled, and all those ranks unfilled are members of a certain ethnic group, Muslims. Would it be reasonable to assume that through the battles, whether they were for better or worse, for whatever position we can look, but the bonding between military commander and his soldiers is going to happen in the battle; is that likely? Is that a reasonable conclusion?

A. I would think that his group, the people he commanded, and he himself had normal relations as for a commander and his people in a war field.

Q. If most of the members, just by the fact that the Muslims didn't respond to the callup, most of the members of the 343rd Brigade were Serbs, that was not ²⁷¹ an act of Major Zeljaja. That was just a fact of life.

A. That was a fact of the current situation there and not his choice.

Q. If a military commander is facing a situation where a certain ethnic group is not responding, do you think he can trust them later on?

A. He may find that, perhaps, difficult. It depends on if he understands their reasons for not turning up.

Q. I'm asking just is it reasonable to assume that a military man would do it. He's not a politician. He's a military man.

A. I think the answer can be, since I'm not a military commander or a military person, I think it could be based on the general human ability to trust one another. Sometimes we understand why people will refuse to do something, and still we think we can trust them. On other occasions, we may find that very difficult on that very basis.

Q. And he has proven himself to be, indeed, a very reasonable, tolerant man, just as you described; didn't he?

A. He is the --

Q. From this article? ²⁷²

A. Would you want me to --

Q. Just in general from this article, without going into anything specific. If you can't recall, I will continue.

A. This is an interview with him, yes.

Q. Okay. On the page date stamped 49 on the bottom, I'm referring your attention to the sentence starting "They were also told." "They were also told (and I think that my statement was made public through our news media) that this Command would not allow Prijedor to be Tuzla (where Army soldiers had previously been killed in a column) or Sarajevo; as Arsic and I are not Kukanjac." Do you know anything about the modern historical concept of which you're an expert; do you know anything about that?

A. Kukanjac.

Q. Yes.

A. I am not familiar with that.

Q. Are you familiar with the -- if I tell you hypothetically that Kukanjac was a JNA General who ordered the pull out of his troops in the middle of May from Sarajevo and that more than 120 soldiers of his unarmed were killed by Muslims who ambushed him on one of Sarajevo's streets, where more than a dozen of medical personnel also were killed, would you consider ²⁷³ that as a violation of international humanitarian law?

A. I understand your statement and if I can just build on the statement without making any judgment as to if it's a fair description, the way it's presented, it will sound as a breach of international law. But I don't think I should make judgments on these issues.

Q. I was asking you because being an expert, and I'm not quite sure whether -- I believe it's proper in this court that an expert could be asked a hypothetical?

JUDGE MAY: I think we're straying from the point again. Is there anything else on this document?

MR. VUCICEVIC: Yes, I will ask direct questions now.

Q. Dr. Greve, do you know anything about the attack of JNA in Sarajevo in mid May of 1992 when General Kukanjac, a commanding officer of the Yugoslav National Army was attacked and more than 100 of his soldiers were slaughtered?

A. I have read information about attacks. I have not paid that strong emphasis on this that I'm able to recollect in detail, but, yes, I have read information which was gathered by the Commission of Experts.

Q. But you haven't read that report? You have ²⁷⁴ not read that report?

A. Yes, I have read it, but I'm not able at this moment to --

Q. To recall it?

A. -- to recall it in detail.

Q. Thank you. Are you also familiar, just a brief comment, are you familiar with the attack of the Muslim armed civilians on the JNA pull out from Tuzla, just two or three days later, still talking about mid May 1992?

A. I'm familiar with fighting, yes.

Q. And yet Major Zeljaja did not open-fire on the Muslim villages without any provocation, did he?

A. I have not been able to establish that there were provocations that would justify that attack.

Q. If I tell you that in Tadic's trial -- strike that. Are you familiar with the name Dr. Mirza Mujadzic?

A. Yes.

Q. Who is that gentleman?

A. He was with the SDA, the Muslim party.

Q. Do you think that he would, under oath, give the --

JUDGE MAY: You can't ask the witness to comment on some evidence given by another witness, ²⁷⁵ Mr. Vucicevic.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Okay.

Q. I'm asking you based on this article here that was introduced, based on the statement by Major Zeljaja, that he said on May 22nd in the field below Hambarine, there was shooting at our soldiers.

JUDGE MAY: Where is this in the document?

MR. VUCICEVIC: That's on the page stamped on the bottom page 49, the long paragraph at the bottom, the second sentence from the top.

Q. I will read it, if you don't mind: "On May 22nd in the field below Hambarine, there was shooting at our soldiers or what was then the 5th Battalion and shot two of them dead but did not even allow an ambulance to come in, as there were three wounded soldiers." If we assume that to be true, that he believed this to be true, his response of his unit to fire back when the culprits for this were not turned over to the military, that would be considered a reprisal, a retaliation, wouldn't it?

A. That word may be used, but it does not, thereby, state that this is within international law to retaliate in that manner. If I may say so, you asked me about Kozarac, as far as I remember, in your previous question -- ²⁷⁶

Q. I was talking about this one --

MR. VUCICEVIC: If we are going to have cross-examination, I would kindly ask the court if we can go one question at a time.

JUDGE MAY: It's time for an adjournment. Are you going to finish these documents by the adjournment tonight?

MR. VUCICEVIC: There's two or three that are very, indeed, important. They go to the crux of the issues here, and I doubt it, Your Honours.

JUDGE MAY: Quarter of an hour.

--- Recess taken at 3.32 p.m.

--- On resuming at 3.55 p.m.

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. I am directing your attention to what's been marked as the Prosecutor Exhibit No. 32. The Prosecutor asked you to read the last sentence on this first page and that's page -- dated stamped 347. However, I am going to ask you to read the first sentence of that paragraph, so at least that we can complete that paragraph.

A. It reads, "At dawn, on the 30th of May, 'green berets' carried out an organised attack on Prijedor from several sides. After several hours of fighting, the attack was repulsed, the attackers routed ²⁷⁷ and partly destroyed. In these actions several soldiers of the Serb army and five policemen were killed."

Q. Thank you. The rest you read yesterday. Could you explain who were green berets?

A. Green berets is a reference to Muslims and those attacking may have been both Muslims and Croats. It's believed approximately 150 did attack this very morning.

Q. 150 men --

A. Yes.

Q. -- attacked? Okay. And in your written statement, you use the word "small attack." In describing attacking, there was a small attack by 150 men, armed men. Does it represent a small unit attacking a city on Sunday at dawn?

A. It's a comparative use of the world small, as compared to the forces engaged in the other activities. Yes, it's small in comparison. But it's stated also the number.

Q. But this small force of 150 resulted in a lot of casualties, a lot of people being killed; is that correct?

A. I think the number as given by the Serbs in a different source is 12 killed. That's 12 too many. ²⁷⁸

Q. Yes, I certainly agree. But when overwhelming force was used in a political coup at the time, Prijedor, not even a single shot was fired. Is that correct?

A. That is correct. The night of 30th of April, force was taken without a single shot -- power was taken without a single shot fired. But there were a number --

Q. So this lead us, or lends, this statement lends itself to a reasonable conclusion that there were armed Muslims who were willing to carry on military activities against Serbian forces in the area?

A. Following the events on 20th of May, which you alerted us to prior to the break, which resulted in an armed attack on Hambarine on the 23rd, which again was followed with the large scale attack on the Kozarac area, which was also before the 30th of May, yes. There were Muslims at this time and there may have been Croats among them. Or, numbers, I don't know Muslims/Croats, the proportions, who did gang up or gather on the west side of the River Sana in the Kozara forested area.

Q. So where did the green beret Muslim forces come from, do you know that? From what area?

A. They came, if I could have the local map, I ²⁷⁹ would be able to point it out. I was thinking of the geographical map and I can show it on the map for Your Honours. The big map, yes.

JUDGE MAY: Exhibit 35.

THE WITNESS: This area is the Hambarine area, which was attacked afternoon. That is, after twelve o'clock when those responsible for the shooting at --

THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to speak into the microphone? .

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Dr. Greve, I know it's difficult because you're talking towards looking at the map.

THE WITNESS: Forgive me.

JUDGE MAY: But the interpreters ask that you could also speak towards the microphone. So if you could start that again, please.

THE WITNESS: As we were speaking about previously today, there was a shooting incident on the 22nd of May, 1992. It was a checkpoint on the way to Hambarine, where two people were killed immediately, two Serbs, one Muslim, at a checkpoint. All Muslims living in this area were --

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. If I just might ask for a quick correction, ²⁸⁰ might have just slipped your tongue. Is that one Muslim was wounded or killed? It came across that one Muslim was killed.

A. One Muslim was wounded immediately and died from the wounds, to be precise. It was asked that those responsible at the checkpoint were handed over by the authorities in Hambarine, Hambarine being an administrative area. And there are a number of villages up here. It's next to a forested area further to the south. This being the River Sana, which flows south. When Hambarine was attacked, which is after noon, after twelve o'clock, on the 23rd, people are fleeing in several directions. Some are going in the direction of Rizvanovici, Rizvanovici, which is up here. Some are going to the Biscani area, which is even further up. And a number went to a forested area south of the road, which goes here. It goes from Prijedor and the whole way to Ljubija. A number went into the forested area here. After the shooting had ended, some went back, some remained in the forrest. Some of the forested areas were under, were hit by artillery shells as well. This was on the 23rd.

On the 24th, there was the main attack which starts on the Kozara area, which I may follow the map differently, but that's further up in this ²⁸¹ direction.

Q. If I may remind you, were there any ultimatums that were delivered either to Muslim authorities in Hambarine or any ultimatums that were given to Muslim authorities in Kozarac?

A. Yes, as mentioned, the ultimatum in Hambarine was to hand over, to my understanding, those who had manned the checkpoint and a policeman who lived in that area who had been -- it was so arranged that after the Serbs took power on the night of 30th of April, some from the police force were just asked to leave their jobs. Others were called forward and asked to abandon the authorities, their loyalty to the authorities in Sarajevo and pledge loyalty to the new Serbian rulers in Prijedor.

One policeman, who had belonged to the general police force, was known in this job, he lived in this district, and allegedly from the sources we had, it was asked as an ultimatum on Radio Prijedor, on the 22nd, after the shooting the same day, that this policeman, who was allegedly not involved in the shooting, and the people who had manned the checkpoint, it was allegedly a checkpoint where normal officials were asking people who passed on the road not to pass with arms. The ultimatum would ask that all these ²⁸² people were turned over to the authorities in Prijedor and that ultimatum was not met.

Following that ultimatum not having been met, the Hambarine area, as such, a larger area that is, was shelled.

Q. Let's just dwell on the point of the ultimatum and killings of two Serbian soldiers. So, at that time, there was already disrespect for the law in general in that area, a murderer could not be prosecuted for his act; is that correct? Whoever he might have been, either Serb, Croat or Muslim? So there was a complete paralysis of the legal system, in other words, there was a war.

A. There was not a situation as you described it. There was a disagreement as to who opened fire at a checkpoint. As you will see from my report, information as to the fact that even over Radio Prijedor, it was stated that fire was opened by Serbs. There was a dispute concerning the facts and it seems that the authorities in Hambarine did not feel that they were in a position to hand over anyone at this time, even if they had possibly committed murder to those who had taken power in Prijedor on the night of the 30th of April.

Q. Dr. Greve, I am glad you stated the point ²⁸³ that you made in your earlier report. But neither your report nor testimony that you have heretofore presented are being, it's being based on some facts uttered. Could you describe that checkpoint that you so eloquently testified about? What were the Serbs doing? I mean, how was it that Serbs, all of a sudden, found themselves at a Muslim checkpoint?

A. That, if I may, will bring me back a little in time because as it was stated in one of the documents yesterday and that is confirmed in a newspaper article by one of the Serb military, the weaponry and equipment which used to belong to the TO, Territorial Defence units, was essentially taken care of by Serb authorities prior to them taking power. When there was a cease-fire in Croatia, troops from Croatia, that is, JNA forces that had been to the war, particularly the Vukovar battlefield in Croatia and Western Slavonia, marked the directed back to the former Yugoslavia or to, I should say, to either Bosnia-Herzegovina or Serbia through the area of Prijedor. At that time, the then elected authorities in Prijedor, there was one assembly, which we have referred to as for the general elections and its composition. There was also a local committee for national defence. And this -- ²⁸⁴

Q. Dr. Greve, all I asked you was a simple question. Could you just describe the scene where the shooting happened. So that we can logically follow it from one to one. We can talk about, you know, how they were armed and who was armed, more or less, and just to see who happened to be on the checkpoint on the evening of 22nd in Hambarine, how did the shooting occur?

A. I think the previous question you asked me was, how the Serbs could find themselves in this situation? And that is what I wanted to explain in some detail. But I shall appreciate that you want me to answer in brief. The brief answer is, there was a roadblock. This had been ordered by the local authorities in Prijedor that there would be local roadblocks everywhere. This had been arranged prior to the takeover of power.

Subsequent to the Serbs taking power, not every roadblock was closed down immediately. The people, obviously, were not easy with the situation. They were appointed by, ultimately, the authorities based in Sarajevo. Now there were new people in charge in Prijedor, demand a roadblock, which they had been ordered to put up, according to instruction from their then authorities. So it was an ordinary roadblock with a few Muslims. There could have, I would not be able ²⁸⁵ to recount exactly if there were four who manned the roadblock, three, four or five is the number. And there were four or five Serbs coming in a car and they were, as far as I understand, military people and they were carrying arms. And they were asked to stop -- this is the way we've been able to re-establish or to establish the facts in retrospect from the statements and from other open sources. And they asked that they stop and hand over their arms and there was a fire exchange between them.

Q. In your description of the roadblock, you mentioned it was just an ordinary roadblock with a few Muslims. Were there any other roadblocks, that are not ordinary, that are heavily fortfied, or something like that, you know, could you explain? I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I can't help but note the qualification of a roadblock.

A. I think there were many roadblocks prior to the Serbs taking power on the 30th of April, the night of the 30th of April and it had been a disputed issue in the local National Defence Council, for the reason that the non-Serbs did not want to redeploy soldiers who had come back from the battlefield in Croatia. They would want weapons to be laid down and they would not, at that time, as it has been reported, want ²⁸⁶ roadblocks.

There are reports of two more roadblocks. The one in Hambarine. I am not suggesting there could not be any others. But in the open sources, there have been references, the Kozarski Vjesnik newspaper articles among them, there are references to three such roadblocks and these are also spoken about. The one in Hambarine I have, perhaps the most information about. There are two more.

Q. Which are the two more? Could you enlighten the Court, please?

A. If I may refold the map, I will take you to the area of Kozarac, and that is, one is in the Kozarac area, I think it's closer to the Kozarusa, but it's on this side. You have two roads, as you may see, that pass through Kozarac, and it is an old and a new road, but it runs between the two same cities. In west Prijedor, and further on to the east, it's not within the map, it will be Banja Luka.

But there was a kind of checkpoint in the Kozarac main area, and there has been mention made of another roadblock. I assume that was a smaller roadblock in the Jakupovici area. As you may see, Your Honours, again, this is an intersection, and Jakupovici is both north and higher up. And it's south and ²⁸⁷ further down, down near Minning, lower, Gornji Minning, upper, so it is somewhere in this area at the intersection. There has been also reference made to a roadblock.

But when it comes to the day since this --

Q. If I may ask you a little bit more about the roadblocks, and then we will go back to the day. You mentioned that there was a checkpoint established before the power takeover in Prijedor; correct?

A. Correct. Excuse me, not one, not "a," but some.

Q. Some, including the three that you testified about?

A. I'm not able to say that all of these --

Q. I'll retract the question. Let's just say on some, okay? Those roadblocks were ordered by the then existing authorities, either of the Prijedor municipality or the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that correct?

A. They were ordered by the Prijedor municipality which was part of the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Q. Do you know who was the officer of the municipality of Prijedor that ordered those roadblocks?

A. I believe it was General Arsic who was the ²⁸⁸ chief commander who was participating in the meeting in the national defence council, the local committee for national defence, which was a unit that existed in every opstina. And it was politicians normally who would participate in this defence council. There were several politicians, as named in my report as well, who participated in this local council. But there was a special situation when the issue of the roadblocks was debated in the defence council or committee. That is, the Muslims who were the majority did not want to have the roadblocks. They did not want to have soldiers returning from the battlefield, most of them being Serbs, redeployed in the area. But they were given what they understood as an ultimatum, told that at least if they wanted this, they could go on a guided tour, and some did, to one or two villages in Croatia, not so far away from Prijedor, but on the Croatian side of the border, which had been razed to the ground in military --

MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honours, if I may interrupt. This might be difficult to follow because Judge Greve, you know, has compiled all this information. If she can break it down into smaller segments, because I did do quite a bit of research on this matter too. And having been in Prijedor on ²⁸⁹ several occasions and walked all those grounds, I might be able to help you with questioning in smaller segments to see this. Because whatever the judge is saying, it's truthful information. However, we are missing certain bits and pieces of the narrative form.

JUDGE MAY: I think I would be assisted if this matter could be dealt with more expeditiously. I must ask the witness if you would shorten your answers so that we can follow, and just deal, if you would, with the relevant questions about roadblocks.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Absolutely, Your Honour.

Q. You said that the Council for National Defence of the Prijedor municipality where Colonel Arsic participated issued an order for the roadblocks; is that correct?

A. For redeployment and the erection of roadblocks, yes.

Q. At that time, the presiding officer of the Municipal Council for Defence was Mohamed Cehajic; correct? He was a mayor.

A. He was the mayor. If he was in the council for national defence, the committee, I don't know.

Q. Or do you know, perhaps, Colonel Arsic was president of that council, was he?

A. I'm not able to say that. I know he was in ²⁹⁰ this very discussion.

Q. So from the sources that you have gathered, is the very import of having Colonel Arsic at that committee, that means those were his wishes that controlled the issuance of the order for the checkpoints? That's according to your sources.

A. According to my sources, it was disputed between Serbs on the one side, those who had declared themselves as Serbs on the one side, and people who had not declared themselves as Serbs on the other side.

Q. Judge, if I may direct your attention, those three villages that you just testified about, if you look back in your report, those are 95 per cent Muslim villages, and members of these checkpoints, as you testified, the Serbs were killed, the Muslims shot at them. You also testified -- let me just finish. You also testified that from this meeting, while Cehajic was the president, and Arsic was present at the meeting, the orders came. The only thing, if you know, who issued the order?

A. The council issued the order. The people follow the order.

Q. So that was a lawful government of the Bosnia-Herzegovina through its municipality or from above, issued the orders for checkpoints? ²⁹¹

A. Correct.

Q. And those checkpoints, even after the Serb power takeover in Prijedor, were still manned in three major Muslim areas; isn't that correct? You just testified to that.

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. And even though on April 30th, the Serbs have taken a bloodless political coup, have replaced the officers of the municipality, but didn't go out there to attack Muslims of the checkpoints, which still were maintained by Muslims according to the order of the previous authority; isn't that correct?

A. That is also correct. They took power in the town of Prijedor initially.

Q. So as far as the most noxious things that the Serbs have done in the power takeover, they have played nationalistic songs, they have played the national flag on the municipal building, but they have not cleared the roads which were the obstacle for their free movement if they, indeed, have a power. So the power takeover was symbolic, wasn't it?

A. No. May I fill you in on what else happened after they took power? It was explained as if I limited it to nationalistic songs and flags on the building. There was a huge gap, which I shall be ²⁹² pleased, if Your Honours so wish, to explain in detail.

JUDGE MAY: Dr. Greve, matters have been put to you, so you should be able to answer --

A. Then I disagree. If the question is, whether nationalistic songs and flags only, no. They were much more than that.

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. Let's go back to the checkpoints and we're talking about Hambarine. So it was a military confrontation between the armed Muslim civilians or the members of the army of the Bosnia-Herzegovina? Do you know whether or not a government of Bosnia-Herzegovina in Sarajevo has called up their Territorial Defence shortly after their international recognition?

A. This is a disputed issue. As you will see in my report, there is a faxsimile or a reprint of a telefax which was published by certain medias --

Q. I know the item that you're referring to. You're referring to the order that was sent to the Ministry of police on April 29. I'm not referring to that one. I'm referring to the fact whether or not the Territorial Defence units, who were controlled under the state government, were called up to the active duty or by the authorities of the Bosnia-Herzegovina soon after the recognition of independence? ²⁹³

A. They were already working prior to that, yes, and they were inactive service continued to be.

Q. Inactive service, because at that time there was a Yugoslav military; did Yugoslav military control the Territorial Defence or government independence, now state of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Who controlled the Territorial Defence units? Those are plain facts from this -- in these proceedings.

A. The authorities in Bosnia-Herzegovina controlled the Territorial Defence as being local units within their country.

Q. So when you indicated they were already working, what do you mean? So they were called up and in service?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's a result of them being in service called the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, that they remain in these checkpoints?

A. To remain in place, yes. They had not received orders otherwise.

Q. So with reference that we talked about before, fire being opened at the JNA members in Sarajevo with the great loss in life, with fire opened on pulling units from Tuzla, and again in Hambarine, military units of government of Bosnia-Herzegovina are ²⁹⁴ opening fire on the units of the Serbian army. That seems like a provocation, a reasonable conclusion. It might be, but a reasonable conclusion?

A. That is your statement, yes.

Q. If the fact that we had in a previous exhibit, that is, a statement by Major Zeljaja, that the units of the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina did not allow access of the ambulance to take the wounded and sick to the hospital; that wouldn't be reasonable?

JUDGE MAY: You know, all this is a matter of comment, really, comment which you can make in submissions to us. It's not assisting us to go into this sort of detail, Mr. Vucicevic. It's not assisting us when you're inviting the witness to make comments on this sort of matter. Can we move on to the next document, please?

MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, if I may explain.

JUDGE MAY: No, would you move on, please?

MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, could I have a minute just to confer with my co-counsel in this, please?

JUDGE MAY: Yes, you can.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: But I want you to move on. ²⁹⁵

MR. VUCICEVIC: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Vucicevic, my permission to have a conference with your co-counsel did not include permission to leave the court, which in some areas would be regarded as discourteous. If you want to confer, would you kindly do that in future.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour, for this warning. This is not meant as a discourtesy, just a different understanding.

Q. Dr. Greve, I'm directing your attention now to Prosecutor's Exhibit 33. I'd like you to concentrate and read the last paragraph on the page stamped page 284.

A. Did you wish that I read it aloud?

Q. Yes, please.

A. "The cooperation between the civil authorities and the police station were satisfactory during the period of the seizure of authority. Everyone did his job. After the takeover of authority, however, the new people did not understand the real role of the police. The attempt to transform the police into a Council body which would execute orders given by the Council civil authorities was unacceptable and misunderstandings arose. A complete change of staff was demanded, and they were to be replaced by SDS ²⁹⁶ members, irrespective of education and expertise. I think it is best that I leave and the professionals remain untouched. They will always remain professionals in any system and still are even now that SDS is in power. If something was not done correctly, then I should be replaced and not they, because they executed my orders and those from the Chief of the Central Police Headquarters in Banja Luka and the Minister of Interior."

Q. So in plain language, the article from the Kozarski Vjesnik which was introduced through your testimony indicates that at that time the living Mr. Drljaca pointed out that him and the minister of police were in charge of police in Prijedor, and he did not allow any of the politicians from the SDS to influence him or control him; isn't that correct?

A. He is addressing the issue that the police are being criticised for some of their police activities, and, yes, he's answering in the police activities, yes, they are taking orders from him and from the central police headquarters in Banja Luka.

Q. What he is saying, you are basically editorialising this statement, and I think the language is clear.

A. Yes, it is. ²⁹⁷

Q. Thank you. At page 283, the late Mr. Drljaca was making a statement, as he called it, "6,000 informative talks were held at the gathering centres of Omarska, Keraterm and Trnopolje"?

A. That is correct.

Q. As brutal as they might have been, they were still police investigations of some kind; is that correct?

A. They were, in part, police investigations, yes.

Q. And a lot of people survived these detention centres, gathering centres, if you will?

A. There were absolutely -- his stating that "A group of 1,503 Muslims and Croats were taken to the camp of Manjaca."

Q. But also there was a statement introduced that the International Red Cross evacuated some -- and I'm remembering only, 2,000 inmates from Trnopolje at the end of October, if I'm not mistaken; is that correct?

A. That is correct, and the groups that had been taken to -- if I may say so, some people were taken straight from Omarska to Trnopolje. Some had been detained in Trnopolje all the time. And a few had come when released from Manjaca to Trnopolje. So it was ²⁹⁸ three different categories.

Q. So people even from Manjaca were released and they were coming to Trnopolje?

A. Not to stay in the camp, but on their way, so to speak.

Q. So international humanitarian agencies were accepting the refugees from Trnopolje and taking them, being that it was closer to the northwestern route?

A. That could have been the reason for it, yes, and sometimes maybe they just --

Q. So there were some prisoners that were taken from Omarska to Trnopolje, some that were taken to Manjaca, some prisoners were taken from Manjaca to Trnopolje; all of these are correct?

A. I believe that if they stayed for any period of time on their way from Manjaca, they were mainly taken to Karlovac. I won't be able to say, but they were sort of --

Q. So we cannot take as the simple arithmetic statement that 6,000 informative talks were held and only 1,503 were transferred to Manjaca. So this does not add that up, that approximately four and a half thousand people were killed; this is not the mathematics intended?

A. No, and I think this is elaborated on in my ²⁹⁹ report where I've tried to recollect the numbers taken straight from Omarska to Trnopolje. And the majority were moved from Omarska on the 5th and 6th of August; a limited few, perhaps 100, 150, were taken only on the 22nd, 23rd of August, and also then to Trnopolje. So you are right.

Q. Directing your attention to Prosecutor's Exhibit 34, you quoted only one sentence from this, maybe, perhaps, two. You read in the third paragraph from the top on the first page, and I'm asking you to read the whole paragraph out loud.

A. The first paragraph on the first page?

Q. The third paragraph on that page.

A. Excuse me, I will read it: "Two years ago, the Serb people sensed instinctively that once again they were faced with the danger from the same villains who in 1941 started the extermination process of the Serbian people and therefore formed their own party. On 2nd August 1991, we in the District of Prijedor have formed the SDS" --

THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down for the benefit of the interpreters.

A. "... said Miskovic. Prior to that we tried hard to reach an agreement with the Muslim and Croatian party" -- ³⁰⁰

JUDGE MAY: I'm sorry. Could you slow down, please? The interpreters are complaining.

A. Excuse me, Your Honour.

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. Okay, that would be enough. How would you understand this statement when Mr. Miskovic says "Serb people sensed instinctively"? Would you consider him to report based on what he heard from the people, from his own, or him making a political statement a year after the camps had been formed?

A. This is --

Q. By that time, the inmates of the detention centres had all been transferred. This was, time-wise, really unconnected. Would you see this to be a self-serving statement or he has objectively stated what he felt at the time?

A. He is stating what he finds reasonable to state, and he is using the words "sense instinctively."

Q. He is telling his feelings of what he -- he is expressing his views that he has correlated through being the people's representative?

A. That could well be the case, yes.

Q. Thank you. We are now on Exhibit 36 which deals with the international evacuation. You have testified on Prosecution Exhibit 39 that ICRC report ³⁰¹ dated October 3rd, 1992. Is there anything in this record that indicates that the Serbians are perpetrators of ethnic cleansing which you elaborated in the second paragraph from the bottom on the second page of the report?

A. Excuse me, the --

Q. The page that was stamped 987, right bottom corner.

A. Oh, I was just given another one. I was looking at the wrong one. Excuse me.

JUDGE MAY: Have you got Exhibit 39?

A. I have just received it. Thank you, Your Honour. And it's page 937?

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. Yes.

A. In the second last paragraph, the ICRC is making a general comment on how they conceive that under cover of a policy of ethnic cleansing, tens of thousands of members of minority groups, examples are not given, in areas controlled by "the parties," in the plural, examples not given, were still at the mercy of the repressive measures applied locally in accordance with a discriminatory ideology.

Q. So this report, on its face, is neutral. It doesn't blame Muslims, Serbs, or Croats; it just says ³⁰² these events are happening. Correct?

A. ICRC is reporting it this way, and what I testified to yesterday was that, as for the area of Prijedor, this is in harmony with how I have described the changes in Prijedor.

Q. There was another International Committee of the Red Cross report which I would like to call your attention to. That's the report of International Committee of the Red Cross issued by Cornelis Sommaruga on July 29, 1993, and this one --

JUDGE MAY: Exhibit 12.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Exhibit 12. I have looked over this end for on the second page and page numbering is on the top of the page, the fourth paragraph from the top, starting with, "Behind this nightmare situation."

THE WITNESS: I have found the paragraph, yes.

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. And there is a term "ethnic cleansing" further down the paragraph?

A. Correct.

Q. At that time, did the world know about the detention centres in Prijedor? This was July 2, 1992.

A. To my knowledge, there were representatives ³⁰³ of the international community that were aware of it. But the public, as such, were not made aware of it before on the 2nd August, when the newspaper article appeared in an American newspaper.

Q. Have you read any reports by the International Red Cross, any statements from the persons who had firsthand knowledge about it?

A. No, I have not read statements as ICRC as a matter of policy would not make such reports available. The ICRC will give press releases and public statements, but they will not give any outsider access to any of their files. It's a matter of their basic policy. They think that they cannot do their work if they start sharing information.

Q. But, yet, if the evaluation -- the violations of international criminal law by are against Kalor being committed by being silent, it really doesn't help anybody, at least the victim. So if I would assume that a responsible international officer of any organisation being faced with the atrocities of a grand scale as they are alleged that have happened in Prijedor, would react if they had known, just as the reporters reacted once they heard about it. But, yet, this is a neutral on its face. It does not indicate, it doesn't indicate where it's committed by any of the ³⁰⁴ groups, ethnic groups in Bosnia. However -- yes, is it neutral?

JUDGE MAY: I think all this is a comment.

MR. VUCICEVIC: I'll take that question back.

JUDGE MAY: If you'd like to move on.

MR. VUCICEVIC: The report on page 3, it's commenting that in Sarajevo, ICRC relief convoy came under deliberate attack. And Frederick Marice died of the injuries that resulted in suspension of ICRC relief efforts. Do you know anything of the circumstances how Mr. Marice was attacked and was injured?

A. No, I have read this, yes, and his name has just been made familiar to me. I have no further information. I may, however, add I think it's useful that the fact that the ICRC may not go public on every piece of information they have, may decide not to go public, does not mean that they do not work on something or react on something. ICRC have constant continuing contact with all parties in armed conflict. And I am perfectly sure they were asking access to each and every camp they knew of prior to any information coming out to the outside world.

Q. Within the context of the civil war, a relief ³⁰⁵ agency worker or officer is being killed right in the beginning of the war. Wouldn't it be appropriate, at least for the Commission of Experts to look who have committed this act?

A. I think that every person who was killed in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia deserved that the Commission of Experts to the extent possible should look at the situation. I think when it comes to the International Red Cross, that was an entity, an agency, international agency, present and able itself to handle this specific case. And as long as they did not explicitly ask us to assist them on that, I am not aware that that was given priority. But, yes, every life and every life was one to much lost in Bosnia-Herzegovina deserved attention.

Q. The reason I am inquiring into this, Judge Greve, is civil war is like a brush fire, the very first few shots are important and then later on nobody could even count who is shooting and sometimes very difficult for you to find who are the people that perished. But, yet, is that correct?

A. That may be correct. I don't think that it can be made as such a general statement. It may vary.

Q. So if a member of the first member of international organisation is being killed in a civil ³⁰⁶ war, it is indeed very important to find who did it and assign the blame. And I was just asking you whether you ever expressed interest to find it?

A. I worked wholeheartedly and devoted all my available time to look into the aspects I could of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia as long as I worked with the Commission. But I did try to focus primarily on the events in Prijedor to have some general understanding of the overall situation.

Q. I have another question or two to Dr. Greve. In your statement on page, base page 626, and that's Prosecutor's Exhibit No. 10, paragraph 56. And also in the Tadic's testimony on page 765, you have elaborately testified about historical events that impacted the Serbs in the Prijedor area. There you are discussing --

A. Excuse me, I was only now given the papers.

Q. I am very sorry, I apologise. And I will direct your attention again.

A. Thank you.

Q. That is page 17 on the top of Exhibit 10. That is your report. And you have paragraph 56. And you have page 765 in the Tadic's transcript, which is --

JUDGE MAY: Where is the 765 number, Mr. ³⁰⁷ Vucicevic, in the transcript?

MR. VUCICEVIC: 765 on Tadic's transcript.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, where is that? Wait a minute, I have it.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Starting from the line 1.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, I have it.

MR. VUCICEVIC: And going for the next two pages -- three pages as a matter of fact.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. You don't have to read it, Judge Greve, if you remember the content. I'll ask you some general question because here I have some question concerning the underlying data on which you made those statements and those are fair, subject to, I believe, Your Honour, fair subject to our examination.

Where did you get the information for those statements?

A. For my statements on Prijedor as such and limited to Prijedor and informations in Prijedor, I had --

Q. What I am referring here specifically, you are talking about Chetniks, you are talking about Dragisa Vasic you are talking about Moljevic, you are talking about Drazen Mihajlovic and those are all names ³⁰⁸ on the paragraph 57.

A. The quote in paragraph 57 is taken from the book of Noel Malcolm, who wrote, "Bosnia: A Short History." And that's a direct quote from him.

Q. Is Mr. Malcolm the only source that you got information on all of these historical figures?

A. No, but the, the specific quote which is in paragraph 57 is from that source. I have read general books about World War II. I have not made in depth studies of World War II. It occurred to me as confusing at one point that I got two very different opinions about the meaning of the word "Chetnik". Some thought it was honourable, good, signified something dignified. And others had the opposite point of view. So I thought I should try to understand why it was that so different approaches would be linked to the word "Chetnik".

Q. Okay. So you have resolved those questions that you had in your mind about this issue?

A. We resolved this, perhaps is not a good word. But I have had some broad understanding to come to appreciate there are good reasons for having good feelings, honourable remarks linked to some of the Chetnik movements. And I have come to understand that some other Chetnik movements have not given reason to ³⁰⁹ respect. And I have come to know that a number have been disputed. And I believe the role of Drazen Mihajlovic, General Drazen Mihajlovic is disputed. I know that in Jajce in 1943 the parties have decided to break away from him. Churchhill did the same quite later, so that the Americans, and he was executed after World War II, for his work during World War II, but it was disputed.

Q. Was there a trial of General Mihajlovic?

A. If it was a court marshal, I shall not say, I know that he was taken and it was definitely disputed.

Q. Your Honour, I am presenting the Defence Exhibit 2 and 3 that are going to controvert the underlying facts about which the witness has testified now.

JUDGE MAY: Is this about events fifteen and more years ago?

MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, they are going about the facts that she has just testified. And if the witness had introduced the facts in three pages of her, Tadic's testimony, which are part, which are now part of the evidence in this court, and the witness has in her statement has introduced a page of her statement and report, we are going to rebut the underlying statements upon which the opinion of this witness is ³¹⁰ being rendered.

JUDGE MAY: How is this going to assist us, Mr. Vucicevic? It may be that the witness has made these comments, but what assistance is it to us dealing with events in the early 1990s to know about events in the 1940s? How is it relevant to your case?

MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour --

JUDGE MAY: How are you going to connect it up? What's the point?

MR. VUCICEVIC: That goes as my assistant just, Judge, Vann has suggested it goes to the credibility of the Prosecutor case. They injected this testimony on this case. They have brought it in. They have testified about the role of Chetniks in extermination by Jasenovac. They were talking about the Serbs being involved with it. They are painting a war with a broad brush to make it even and that's basically what we are challenging. We are challenging the underlying premise, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: I am not going to stop you putting this evidence in because it's quite right that the Prosecution, as it were, started it by introducing this sort of evidence. Therefore, it's only fair that you have the opportunity to deal with it. But I must tell you that as far as the Trial Chamber is concerned, ³¹¹ we are anxious to preserve the rules of relevance and we shall apply them ourselves.

Now, if you would like as rapidly as possible to deal with this, we shall not be paying a great attention, as I said, to this sort of evidence as produced by the Prosecution.

MR. VUCICEVIC: This is Exhibit 2 and this is Exhibit 3.

Q. Dr. Greve, this is a reprint from Time magazine, are you familiar with this magazine?

A. In general, yes.

Q. Yes. And I am directing your attention to the date of publication of this magazine. May 25, 1942.

JUDGE MAY: Just one moment.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, if you'd like to go on.

MR. VUCICEVIC:

Q. And if you read it, I am going to ask you the question.

A. Excuse me, I did not read it just like that. But if you want me to do that before you ask me questions?

Q. I will direct you to -- will you just read on the page 23, the last paragraph there. ³¹²

A. The last paragraph --

Q. The Nazi press. Next to this long map.

A. The paragraph reads, "The Nazi press has revealed Mihajlovic's army as rebels, Jews and communists. Unquestionably, they are rebels. Unquestionably, some are Jews, some are Marxist, communists of one shade or another. Many more are probably are Balkan and communists which usually means Partisans of the country as against -- of the country as against the city. The farmer as against the businessman. These people in general have, Slavic, pro-Russian terrorist or Stalinist leanings. The United Nations press has often referred to Mihajlovic's forces as Chetniks. The name of a Serb patriotic body, which long fought humanists within the wars against Serbia's suppressors. Many are Chetniks or their descendants, but Mihajlovic's army is best described as the patriotic Balkan force with a majority of Serbs built around a large nucleus of trained Yugoslav troops."

Q. That will be enough. So if we are going to take into consideration articles in the press or the comments by the historians subsequently who were not witnessing the current events, it seems we can place at least the same, if not undoubtedly, much more reliability ³¹³ on the article published in the Time magazine at the time, at the height of the war. And Mihajlovic and his forces, Chetniks, were considered allies, fighters against Nazis by the Nazi press and by allied press. Is that fair to conclude from this article?

A. In 1942, that is correct.

Q. Yes. And then, now, I would like before I go here, I would like to ask you why was General Mihajlovic executed and who executed him? Which government and for what?

A. I am not able to tell you the precise whereabouts. It is my understanding that those who came to power after the war had ended quickly executed him.

Q. Okay. If I were to remind you that he was executed as collaborator with the Nazis, would it jog your memory?

A. Yes.

Q. So he was executed as a collaborator as the Nazis, would you agree with me?

A. Yes.

Q. I would like you now to take a look at the Defence Exhibit No. 3, entitled, "Truman's Statement." And you can read the whole article for yourself. When you get to the Backstein (phoen) statement, I would ³¹⁴ appreciate it if you can read it out loud.

A. I'll read this as a statement which is giving an honour to Drazen Mihajlovic, posthumous honour to him, expressed by a group of Balkan aviators whom he had rescued during the war. And in 1946 decided his disrecognition of his services to the allied course.

Q. And title of the article is?

A. The award Truman statement, the award of the Legion of Merit to General Dragn Jub Mihajlovic.

Q. And I hope that my learned counsel on the other side, being very much familiar with the military decorations will stipulate that this is the highest American decoration that could be given to a foreign officer, isn't that correct?

MS. HOLLIS: I would have to do research on that, I am afraid.

MR. VUCICEVIC: How about a hypothetical?

Q. Judge Greve, will you please read the statement, basically a statement for which General Mihajlovic has received the highest United States military decoration?

A. The citation accompanying the award signed by President Truman reads as follows: "General Dragoljub Mihajlovic distinguished himself in an outstanding manner as Commander in Chief of the Yugoslav Army ³¹⁵ Forces and later as Minister of War by organising and leading important resistance forces against the enemy which occupied Yugoslavia from December 1941 to December 1944. Through the undaunted efforts of his troops, many United States airmen were rescued and returned safely to friendly control. General Mihajlovic and his forces, although lacking adequate supplies and fighting under extreme hardships, contributed materially to the allied course and were instrumental in obtaining a final allied victory."

Q. Thank you. The date of this decoration was March 29, 1948; that's correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Thank you, Judge Greve. I have no more questions.

JUDGE MAY: Do you have any re-examination, Ms. Hollis, because I'm looking at the clock, and it's about time that we adjourn. But, no doubt, if you had a few minutes of re-examination, we could deal with it, otherwise we must sit again tomorrow.

MS. HOLLIS: I do have a few questions, Your Honour, but very few.

JUDGE MAY: Very well, if we can deal with it in five minutes, please.

MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour. ³¹⁶ Re-examined by Ms. Hollis:

Q. If we could ask that Prosecution Exhibit 34 be supplied again to the witness, that is an article of the third anniversary of the Serbian Democratic Party?

A. I have that.

Q. Defence counsel directed your attention to the third paragraph beginning, "Two years ago the Serbian people sensed instinctively," and it goes on from there. In that connection, Defence counsel asked you about the existence of camps. Now, if you would look at the date of that article, please, what is the date of the article?

A. It's 1993.

Q. And that is August of 1993?

A. That is correct.

Q. So two years prior would have been August of 1991?

A. That is correct.

Q. Had the Serbs taken over power in Prijedor at that time?

A. No, they had not.

Q. Had there been any of the incidents referred to at Hambarine, any of the checkpoints you discussed established at that point?

A. There had not. But if I may, I wonder if ³¹⁷ there is not some kind of a mistake written in this, because it's on the occasion of the third anniversary, and it's 1993. Then it's referring to the 2nd of August, 1991 when they had already participated in elections. So I assume it's mistaken for 1990.

Q. So in 1990 instead of 1991?

A. I think that is correct, since it's referring to the third anniversary, and they did participate in the election in 1990.

Q. So almost three years before the takeover of Prijedor and the subsequent events; is that your understanding?

MR. VUCICEVIC: Objection, Your Honour. Even if that version is correct, it only says "Two years ago."

JUDGE MAY: Yes, I agree.

MS. HOLLIS:

Q. If I could ask you to look at Prosecution Exhibit 30, please? When Defence counsel was questioning you about this article with now Colonel Radmilo Zeljaja, he asked you if Colonel Zeljaja had been the commander of the 343rd Motorised Brigade; do you recall that question?

A. I do.

Q. Would you please look at the third page of ³¹⁸ the article, and you see the caption "General Talic's wisdom"?

A. I do.

Q. Would you look at the paragraph above that, and if you look at the second line beginning with the words "Especially Colonel Arsic"?

A. Paragraph?

Q. Above "General Talic's wisdom" beginning with "I repeat"?

A. Yes.

Q. If you look at the second line of that paragraph beginning with the language "Especially Colonel Arsic"?

A. Yes.

Q. And what follows as to what Colonel Arsic's position was?

A. "At that time he was the Commander of the brigade and I was the Chief of Staff."

Q. So that we can be clear on it, at several times, Defence counsel asked you whether you had talked with Serbs in Republika Srpska or in the Prijedor area when you were in the course of writing your report and doing your analysis. You had indicated that you were denied access to the area. Were you allowed to receive any documents or have any interviews set up with Serbs ³¹⁹ in that area?

A. I did not specifically ask for a special structure to make interviews in Prijedor. I asked to be able to go there. I sought people from that area with whom I could speak, but that was not possible. That is to say, there are some mixed families with people, people who have been married or are married to Serbs and have left the area.

Q. So that you made unsuccessful efforts to obtain that type of information?

A. Yes.

Q. Concerning Mr. Raskovic, the Krajina SDS leader, Defence counsel asked you what you had knew about him, and you indicated you had done some reading in articles about him. Based on your reading, were you able to learn anything about the type of views that he espoused?

A. He espoused, to use the word of the Defence counsel, some of the biased nationalistic language.

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. I would say that he was using to divide between two different kinds of nationalistic views --

MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, I'm misquoted here. I was trying to basically, at that time, have the witness agree whether there was good nationalism ³²⁰ and bad nationalism, but that line of questioning was abandoned. We really have not qualified through this witness at all Mr. Raskovic, whom I know very well.

MS. HOLLIS: It's my recollection that, in fact, Defence counsel did ask what she knew about him or had read about him. I'm simply following up on that. I will continue, Your Honour.

Your Honour, at the break I asked that several pages of Defence Exhibit 1 be reproduced. Was that done? Thank you. If that book could be returned to the Defence, please, with my thanks for allowing me to review it.

Q. Dr. Greve, Defence counsel showed you Defence Exhibit 1 and asked you to read from a certain page, and that was page 283, where they were discussing the author's view about Western support for Croatia; do you recall that?

A. I recall that. I was asked to read that, yes.

Q. Defence counsel also posed to you several questions asking you whether certain events might lead the Prijedor Serbs to be apprehensive or worried about what would happen to them in the future?

A. I recall that.

Q. That was in the context of actions they may ³²¹ have taken during the time period of your analysis?

A. I recall that.

Q. If I could at this time, I would ask that Defence Exhibit 1 for identification be provided to the witness?

MR. VUCICEVIC: The book?

MS. HOLLIS: Please.

Q. I would ask that you please turn to page 281 of that book. On that page, if you would go approximately one-third of the way down that book where you see the line beginning "Croatia, the Croatian government and Croats"; do you see that line?

A. I do.

Q. Would you please go down and begin with the end of that line, the word "and," read down to the next line, and see "At the secondary level"; do you see that language?

A. "And in Bosnia-Herzegovina"?

Q. Just to yourself read to the end of that statement, it goes down to the next line, and then on the next line there is a sentence beginning, "At the secondary level"; do you see that?

MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, if I would be allowed to assist the witness, I could highlight it --

JUDGE MAY: Yes. ³²²

MS. HOLLIS: -- and then the Defence could be provided back their copy.

Q. If you would please look at the highlighted portion there, could you please read that highlighted portion?

A. "At the secondary level, the Serbian government promoted a greater Serbia by helping Bosnian and Croatian Serbs and the Croatian government aspire to greater Croatia and supported the Bosnian Croats."

Q. Thank you. During the Defence cross-examination, you were asked about various sources and whether you considered them reliable or not reliable. I would ask you, in the analysis and report that you did, were you trying to determine reliability or overall consistency or inconsistency?

A. I was trying to determine overall consistency.

MS. HOLLIS: No further questions, Your Honour. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Is there any objection to the witness being released?

MR. VUCICEVIC: No, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: I take it not. In fact, throughout this trial, we have assumed that the witnesses can be releaseed, unless there's objection ³²³ from either side.

Judge Greve, thank you for coming, indeed. You are released.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: We will adjourn now until tomorrow morning.

--- Whereupon hearing adjourned at 5.27 p.m. to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 8th day of July, 1998 at 9.30 a.m.