6487 Thursday, 26 August 2010
[The accused entered court]
--- Upon commencing at 2.30 p.m.
JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone after a long recess period. Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
THE REGISTER: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-03-69-T. The Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. Before we continue to hear the evidence, I'd like to raise a few matters, procedural matters, which came up, most of them recently. First of all, the Chamber has received the last medical report about Mr. Stanisic which was taken the 24th of August, just to put that on the record.
The second very practical issue is the following: Usually we are not sitting during one week in autumn, just as we would not sit one week in spring, the Chamber is at this moment exploring the possibility not to sit in the week starting the 18th of August, that would be the week of the 18th until the 22nd of August -- of October. I am, sorry, I'm living in the past more or less. 18 to the 22nd of October. If this would meet any major concerns with the parties, the Chamber would like to know, and otherwise the Chamber invites the parties already to keep this in the back of their minds in scheduling their work in this autumn. Yesterday, the 25th of August, 2010, a motion was filed by the 6488 Republic of Serbia. In view of the urgency of the matter raised in that motion, it would be about testimony to be heard anywhere beginning 6th of September, the Chamber wonders whether the parties would be in a position to respond if they wish to do so on very short notice.
MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, perhaps I should indicate at this stage that I was -- I -- we intended to approach the Prosecution to ask them to delay those witnesses in any event, and if the Prosecution are not minded to do so, we were going to seek relief.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. That would at least remove the urgency of the matter. Mr. Groome, wouldn't it be wise for us to wait and see what the result of the first communication is, and that if you would change your programme, and I must admit that I haven't learned by heart the latest submission on the scheduling of witness, so I don't know to what extent the possibility of the 6th is still there, but if you would perhaps hear from you and Mr. Jordash and Mr. Bakrac as soon as there has been some communication, by let's say either today or tomorrow.
MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. I will discuss with my colleagues their request over the first break. And I can say for the Court that we could have our response or our position before the Chamber on rather short notice.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And if finally you cannot agree on postponement, then I would at least invite the Defence teams also to consider a response on very short -- on a very short term. We will then hear from you later today.
Then the next matter is that we may be a bit in trouble with the 6489 witness scheduled for tomorrow. Mr. Groome, the OTP has asked for some Court time to make proposals on how to minimise the loss of court time in the future. I don't know whether that directly relates to tomorrow or?
MR. GROOME: It does not directly relate to tomorrow, Your Honour. I was going to ask if I could make those proposals tomorrow. I've been focusing on my preparation for Mr. Donia. I would say, Your Honour, that the Prosecution, when it had concluded the portion of the witness's testimony, we had asked to be able to question -- put additional questions to the witness on direct. I've informed my colleagues and now I inform the Chamber that after considering that and after studying the transcript the Prosecution will not be asking any additional questions of the witness and we can proceed directly to cross-examination.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we are talking about today's witness. Is there any news already -- or is it -- no, tomorrow's witness?
MR. GROOME: I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to B-215.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, B-215. You were talking about B-215.
MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: Because additional questions were in issue also with today's witness, further examination-in-chief.
MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: Additional questions in addition to what we find already in the 92 ter transcript.
MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. I didn't believe that was an issue, but I did have some questions. 6490
JUDGE ORIE: So it's clear to me that your reference was to B-215. Will witness B-215 be available tomorrow as far as matters stand now?
MR. GROOME: Your Honour, may I suggest that we get the latest information from VWS. My last information was that he will be travelling. I'm not sure whether he is already in The Hague or not.
JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that information. Any comments or observations in relation to what we have discussed until now? If not, then the final issue I would like to raise is in relation to the next witness to be called. The expert witness. On the 25th of July, the Stanisic Defence has informed the Trial Chamber that it did not object to the 7th of July motion that was sent by an e-mail. Then on the 24th of August, the Stanisic Defence informed the Trial Chamber that it intends to request for 30 minutes on the 26th of August to make submissions on the Donia report. Which came a bit as a surprise to the Chamber in view of the history of this motion. It was only the day before yesterday that suddenly a matter which has been pending for quite a long time now seems to be in need of further submissions.
Mr. Jordash, you would request 30 minutes. The Chamber would like to invite you to first summarily inform the Chamber about what you wanted to raise because there's not much in the procedural history of this motion which would explain 30 minutes explanation. The response in 2008 was fairly short, that was April 2008. The July of this year motion apparently no objection, that therefore comes a bit as a surprise. So if you would please be so kind to explain in 3 to 5 minutes what exactly it 6491 is you wanted to raise at this very moment.
MR. JORDASH: In short, two reply to exclude most of the expert report and the -- it's probably easier to say what we wouldn't seek exclusion of which is the section of the report entitled "Strategic Goals" at page 17 to 32, and the basis upon which we would seek to exclude the report in summary again is that the report does not meet the minimum standard of reliability, and secondly, parts of the report, the parts I've indicated we want to exclude either are not relevant or, as to be testified to by this witness, not of probative value. And finally, that the content of the report does not fall within the accepted expertise of the witness.
The reason that we did not object to the motion which was to add the evidence from the direct examination from the Karadzic trial was that it relates almost wholly to the section of the report which we do not seek to exclude, the strategic goals and the direct examination of Karadzic relates to an explanation of those strategic goals. That's the summary of our position. In effect, what we are saying is, this is a historical or historian, we accept that on the jurisprudence he is right to be classified as an expert as a historian, but his report is not the result of that expertise. His report is the result of simply reading Republika Srpska Assembly minutes, putting them into broad themes, and then calling it an expert report, and what we fear, and this is what our submissions will relate to, is that his real expertise, his historical knowledge, is going to be used during his oral testimony to supplement his report, and that oral evidence we have not 6492 had notice of.
And I can take Your Honours -- I won't expand on that to except to say this: That in the Karadzic trial during the direct examination of the witness, the witness said, perhaps it's a good idea to turn it up very quickly. He said in relation to this report, the excerpts, that the minutes, the excerpts, had been "richly cross-checked with other sources." I'm looking at page 22528 of the Karadzic direct -- sorry, the Donia examination-in-chief. "Richly cross-checked with other sources," and although the report relies upon a single source, it had been effectively corroborated by the expert by cross-referencing. That is in what is Mr. Donia's head, we submit it should in a report. That's the summary of the submission we want to make.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Your quote is from a part of the examination which is not part of the transcript offered by the --
MR. JORDASH: I think it should be, Your Honour, because I'm looking at the motion and it's --
JUDGE ORIE: I see we started 3067.
MR. JORDASH: 30 -- yes, and it's, sorry, I was --
JUDGE ORIE: And you are in 2200 --
MR. JORDASH: I was looking at the number in the right-hand top right corner.
JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes, yes.
MR. JORDASH: But if one looks at the number at the bottom it's page 3070, line 24.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and even that, I am afraid is -- let me just 6493 have a look --
MR. JORDASH: Should I read it out, Your Honour?
JUDGE ORIE: I think you read it, but I just -- I was just wondering whether you are reading from part of the evidence which was tendered by the Prosecution or not.
MR. JORDASH: It is, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: And it seems --
MR. JORDASH: I can also -- page 3072 is also relevant in that.
JUDGE ORIE: Let's just have a look. Oh yes, let me just have a look. One second. Yes, could you assist me again, the part that you just read comes from?
MR. JORDASH: Page 3070 at line 24 going over the page to line 7, and then there is page 3071, line 22, again over the page to line 10, and then finally at the same page, 3072 at line 18.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see now the "richly cross-checked" part you read.
MR. JORDASH: Yes.
JUDGE ORIE: I didn't give you the full 30 minute yet, of course some of this could have been raised at earlier stages.
MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, Your Honour is right.
JUDGE ORIE: I hope that's clear to you. Therefore, I wanted to limit you. I do see that part of it, you say, is not reliable or has little or no probative value, part of it you do not -- you do not oppose, you do not object to, that's the strategic goals, but you have some concerns that the Prosecution would elicit evidence which is alluded to 6494 in the transcript or at least sources which is alluded to, and that's an additional reason why you would exclude that evidence.
MR. JORDASH: May I just add one thing, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
MR. JORDASH: If my learned friend for the Prosecution's approach is to be simply to say to the witness, well, did you -- what was your methodology, did you pick out these minutes, were these minutes in your mind representative of these broad themes, then if Your Honours come to the conclusion the report has probative value overall, I think our objection would be somewhat weak.
But my guess is that the Prosecution in the same way that the witness was led in the Karadzic trial, want this witness to go up and down dale to show his vast knowledge as to what underpins this report, and I would question in any event if it is the former approach, i.e., just to take the witness through the minutes and the methodology, whether we need a witness for that. The Prosecution can bar table this evidence, we can do the same in response [overlapping speakers] --
JUDGE ORIE: You say take out the introduction, take out the remarks, the observations made by Dr. Donia, and accept it as a relevant selection of --
MR. JORDASH: And we'll do the same.
JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, you've heard the objections to some extent based on expectations. You are the one who can help us out there or not.
MR. GROOME: I certainly wasn't planning to take him up and down 6495 the dale, and I thought my examination was going to be relatively brief. I had come prepared today, I thought the application was going to be to exclude the entire report. And based on a decision rendered in the Perisic case in which this specific report was disallowed, I'm prepared to discuss, and I think the two cases -- or the same report can be distinguished in the two cases. I'm not sure if the Chamber is interested in me addressing that point.
JUDGE ORIE: What I would first of all like you to do is to respond to the concerns expressed by Mr. Jordash, and I -- whether the report is reliable, whether it falls within the scope of the expertise. But I think that one of the key issues seems to be that Mr. Jordash fears that you would ask the witness questions about what, as Mr. Jordash just read to us, to what he said that he cross-checked with other sources, other sources which are totally unknown to us, and one of the -- I would say one of the requirements for accepting an expert report, that it's fully transparent in not only the method used - and there apparently Mr. Jordash has no major problems - but also in the source material that was used. And if you would ask him this and this selection, that and that, did you cross-check that to other sources and what are they, then it would be for the first time for Mr. Jordash to see what those sources are, and he would find himself in a difficult position to cross-examine the witness not being prepared for all kind of additional sources, the witness may come up during the examination.
That seems, Mr. Jordash, if I understood you well, one of your major concerns apart from no probative value, not reliable, but this is 6496 what really troubles you.
MR. JORDASH: Yes, that's main argument.
JUDGE ORIE: Then, I'd like to hear specifically your response on that.
MR. GROOME: Well, with respect to that, Your Honour, it is not my intention to have Dr. Donia refer to the sources that have not been mentioned beforehand. I will confine my examination of him to the report and simply ask him to clarify and contextualise some of the passages in the report which may not be clear. For example, there's a portion of the report where he reports, I believe it's Dr. Karadzic saying, we now have Dusan's empire. Well, that was not clear to me what that reference was to, he as a historian will explain to us that it's a tsar who lived in the 1300s who had a large amount of territory under Serbian control. So it's things like that, things that are not immediately apparent because of -- we are not historians, but he will help us understand some of the things that are said in the report. So again I'm not going to be drawing out any additional sources, but I will be asking him to explain things. For example, as he will say, some of -- a accurate understanding of what is being said really depends upon what's happening, what peace negotiations are going, on, what's the state of the conflict, so to the extent that he can assist us in understanding what Mr. Krajisnik means when he says something, to the extent that that's connected or is the result of or happens immediately after a particular negotiation, Dr. Donia can assist us in understanding his report. I just want to turn now to one other argument that Mr. Jordash 6497 led off with was he was moving for the exclusion of large amounts of this report as being irrelevant. One of the sections, and I haven't had chance to really look at it carefully, but one of the sections he is proposing to exclude has in it paragraph 148, and if Your Honours look at paragraph 148 and 146 they are both direct references to Mr. Stanisic being discussed in the Assembly session, so I think just on its face it's very clear that these are directly relevant to the Chamber's consideration of issues in this trial.
And again, I'm -- well, the other issue now that I heard, Your Honour, was with respect to whether there's expertise required in making the selection. That was something that was raised by the Perisic Chamber as a concern of theirs, and again I've prepared to address the Chamber on whether the expertise in identifying excerpts is the expertise that's envisaged in 94 bis.
JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
MR. JORDASH: If I may just briefly respond. Firstly, in relation to the approach my learned friend is going to take, he is going to take an approach which is going to open up the expert's background knowledge, none of which appears in the report. This isn't simply about clarifying obscure historical references. This is about providing evidence of events which were occurring outside of the Assembly walls or, according to this witness, occurring outside of the Assembly walls. And this witness gets that knowledge from where? He wasn't there. He is not a fact witness, he is an expert witness, if he is any kind of witness, and he ought to have produced his sources nonetheless. 6498 I wouldn't object to clarification of obscure historical terms or such type of clarification, but what's objectionable -- and perhaps not even references to European peace negotiations and so on. It's when we get beyond that into a theory put forward by this witness which is damaging to the accused but which has not been sourced by the witness, and that's the first point.
The second point is the point my learned friend made about relevance and our application to exclude the parts of the report other than the strategic goals. We seek -- I didn't develop the argument and I won't unless I'm invited to, but it's a combination of what is relevant. Of course references to Mr. Stanisic will be relevant, but it's a combination of what is, we say, not relevant and what is on the other hand also not probative evidence as given through this intended examination.
JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just briefly, I'm not sure that I'll live up to Mr. Jordash's fears. It seems that he anticipates that some of my questions with respect to peace negotiations and historical references would not be improper but there may be some other ones that are. Given that position, may I suggest that we just proceed with the examination and it seems that if a particular question does cross a boundary that Mr. Jordash feels that shouldn't be crossed that we deal with it on a question-by-question basis.
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE ORIE: In the argument raised in the admission of the 6499 report and the admission of the transcript, there is some interaction between the two and there's also some concern expressed by Mr. Jordash, that certain questions might shed a totally different light on the matter which is not found in the report. To some extent it is speculative, I take it and I think Mr. Jordash already admitted to some extent that a certain type of questions, for example, if reference is made, well, let's say in December 1995 to negotiations that if you would ask the witness were there any talks held, and do you know where that was, and if he would say Dayton, you might not be that much concerned about such information, but there's other information which you think should be clearly sourced.
And the Chamber has great difficulties in deciding this matter on an abstract basis, and therefore the Chamber want to proceed and give you an opportunity that if the questions come to a certain point where you think that it's the knowledge of the witness which is not very transparent as far as sources are concerned, that you raise that matter. This is not an invitation to raise it every single question but you understand that the Chamber is -- understands your concerns and also is of the opinion that to what extent the concerns materialise very much depends on the questions put by Mr. Groome to the witness. You apparently have no major concerns with the transcript -- the subject matter of the transcript in the Karadzic case, so therefore that's not a reason to stop at this moment. So we will proceed but very cautiously and the decision on the admission of the expert report will be postponed until the end of the testimony. 6500 Any further questions in this respect? The matter has been raised by Mr. Jordash, Mr. Bakrac, anything you would like to add?
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have nothing to add other than fully support the position put forward by Mr. Jordash. Thank you.
JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic. Then I would ask the usher to bring the witness into the courtroom.
[The witness enters court]
JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Donia.
THE WITNESS: Good afternoon, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require that you make a solemn declaration that you speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.
THE WITNESS: Yes. I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Donia, please be seated. Mr. Donia, you'll first be examined by Mr. Groome. Mr. Groome is counsel for the Prosecution, as you may be well aware of. Mr. Groome, please proceed.
MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
WITNESS: ROBERT DONIA Examination by Mr. Groome:
Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Donia, can I ask you to begin by telling us your full name? 6501
A. Yes, Robert J Donia.
Q. Could I ask the court usher to please bring up 65 ter 5399. Dr. Donia, when this -- it may take a few minutes to bring this to the screen, it is a copy of your resume. While we are waiting for that, did you have a chance to review this document earlier today?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And are there any important developments in your professional biography that are not reflected in this version of your resume?
Q. It is now on the screen before us. Is this the copy of your resume that you have reviewed earlier today?
MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution at this time tenders 65 ter 5399, and Dr. Donia is of course available to answer additional questions should the Chamber or Defence have questions about his qualifications.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I suggest that the relevance of the curriculum depends -- is so closely associated with the admission of the expert report that we keep it for the time being marked for identification. Madam Registrar, the number of the curriculum would be?
THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P938, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: And will be marked for identification. Please proceed.
Q. Dr. Donia, you have given evidence as an expert on a number of 6502 occasions before Trial Chambers of this Tribunal, is that not correct?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. For the purposes of these following questions, I would like you to focus on your most recent testimony, that being the evidence you gave in the case of Prosecutor v Radovan Karadzic beginning on the 31st of May, 2010 and ending on the 10th of June, 2010. Do you recall that testimony?
A. Yes, I do.
MR. GROOME: Could I ask that 65 ter 5397 be brought to our screens.
Q. Dr. Donia, while we are waiting for that exhibit to appear, may I ask you whether in preparation for your testimony in this case, did I make available to you the complete written transcript of your evidence in the Karadzic case?
A. Yes, you did.
Q. Did I also explain to you that it was the Prosecution's intention in this case to tender only your direct examination in the Karadzic case given on the 31st of May, 2010 and the 1st of June, 2010?
Q. Did I ask you to carefully review and verify the accuracy of your answers on direct examination found on pages 3067 to 3147 of the Karadzic trial transcript?
A. Yes, I did.
MR. GROOME: Your Honour, before I ask Dr. Donia to comment on the document on our screens, I want to advise the Court regarding two 6503 points with respect to what's on the screens. First, the trial transcript page number and the number I will refer to throughout my examination of Dr. Donia is a number appearing in the bottom right-hand corner of each page, the first number being 3067 and the last being 3147. There are other numbers on the page so that's why I bring that to your attention.
Secondly, the Karadzic Prosecution team tendered not only the report Dr. Donia prepared for this case, but two other reports. To avoid confusion and to assist the Chamber and the Defence to identify and disregard those portions of Dr. Donia's testimony unrelated to this case, the Prosecution has prepared and will use a copy of his direct examination in the Karadzic case in which these irrelevant portions are struck through. This has been done in a way that permits the text to still be read but makes clear that this evidence, the Prosecution does not seek to rely on. Should the Chamber over the course of today come to the belief that some of this evidence is relevant for its purposes, the Prosecution will of course prepare a copy of the testimony without such excerpts struck through.
Q. Now, Dr. Donia, did you earlier this week and prior to today review the transcript of your sworn testimony during your direct examination in the Karadzic case?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Pursuant to my instructions, did you also review the portions of the transcript in which the text was struck through?
A. Yes. 6504
Q. When you reviewed the transcript, did you identify any portions you believed to be an inaccurate recording of your evidence or perhaps a mistake on your part?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Can I ask that we go through them. How many errors did you identify?
A. I identified five small errors in the -- in the transcript.
Q. Are you able to tell us them from memory, or?
A. I know -- I have noted them on a small card, if Your Honours would permit me to cite that small note, can I give them to you fairly quickly.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You may consult your notes and inform the Court where you found the errors.
Q. Let's proceed then one at a time. What is the first error that you found.
A. On page 3072, line 8, there is simply one letter wrong in line 8 and that is the word "then" should be the word "them."
Q. What was the second error that you found?
A. Page 3107, line 1, the word "counsel" should be "council."
Q. Could you just for the record spell how it should be spelled?
A. Yes, "c-o-u-n-c-i-l."
Q. What was the third error that you found?
JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat the page number. You said it was 30 and then? 6505
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. The first one was --
JUDGE ORIE: No, second one I need.
THE WITNESS: The second one is page 3107, line 1, and the word "counsel" should be "c-o-u-n-c-i-l."
THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please make a pause between question and answer for the benefit of the interpreters. Thank you.
JUDGE ORIE: You've heard the invitation, Mr. Donia, I take it.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
Q. What was the third error that you found?
A. On page 3115, line 7, there is a simple misspelling. "P-l-e-u-r-l-r-a-l" should be "P-l-e-u-r-a-l."
Q. Were there other errors that you found?
A. There are two more. Page 3121, line 14. There's a word missing in this, it's a transcript of a telephone intercept, and in line 14 after the word "to," the word "tell" should appear.
Q. What is the last error that you found?
A. The last error is on page 3135, line 2, the error arises from the introduction of a comma that should not be there. I'm -- was attempting to identify two Muslim, largely Muslim settlements here. The first one is called Sokolovic Kolonija; that is, it's two words but no comma between them. And the second community I was identifying is Sokolje which is S-o-k-o-l-j-e.
Q. Is that all the errors that you found when you reviewed your 6506 direct testimony?
A. Yes, those are the errors I found.
Q. If I were to now ask you the same questions as Ms. Edgerton did, would you give the same answers in substance?
Q. Now, that you have taken the solemn declaration in this case, do you affirm the accuracy and truthfulness of your evidence in the Karadzic case?
A. Yes, I do.
MR. GROOME: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders the prior testimony of this witness given on direct examination in the Karadzic case on the 31st of May and the 1st of June, 2010, transcript pages 3067 to 3147.
JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, did I understand that you did not oppose against admission of the transcript?
MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Bakrac, Mr. Petrovic?
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Neither, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could you please assign a number?
THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P939, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: And P939 is admitted into evidence. And this also causes me to come back to my previous observation as to the -- whether or not we should already admit the curriculum. I suggested that we would have it marked for identification, at the same time overseeing the battlefield, Mr. Jordash, I see that you do not oppose against admission 6507 of parts of the expert report, especially the six strategic goals, and this testimony, which means that only for that portion of the expert report we would need already the curriculum vitae, so therefore, I suggest that P938, the curriculum vitae of Mr. Donia, would change its status in being admitted and P939 is admitted.
We then postpone our decision on the entirety or the relevant -- the other portions of the expert report. Mr. Groome.
MR. GROOME: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders some of the 92 ter related exhibits for this witness. For the convenience of the Court, I have prepared a document which enumerates those which the Prosecution seeks to tender and I'd ask that that be distributed now. I've provided it to the Defence prior to court today. The documents that were used during Dr. Donia's Karadzic testimony fall into three categories for our purposes: One, those that were admitted by the Karadzic Chamber in which the Prosecution seeks similar admission in this case as a related exhibit; two, those exhibits that were used in the examination of Dr. Donia but currently remain only marked for identification in that case; and three, those documents used with Dr. Donia in the Karadzic case which the Prosecution does not seek admission of at this time.
The first group, there are three 92 ter related exhibits admitted by the Karadzic Chamber and reflected on the list that has just been handed to the Court. Their 65 ter numbers are 1630, 1771, and 2203. The Prosecution seeks admission of these three documents as related exhibits admitted in conjunction with the witness's prior testimony. I want to 6508 note the following point with respect to one of these Exhibits. 65 ter 1630 is a video, and we tender only the clip from 7 minutes and 56 seconds, 7 minutes 56 seconds, to 10 minutes 44 seconds, which is the portion that was admitted in the Karadzic case.
Now, with respect to one of the documents, and this is 65 ter 837, it is an intercept that was not admitted by the Karadzic Trial Chamber but only marked for identification pending the expected testimony of an authenticating witness. That witness has already provided testimony in this case under the pseudonym JF-002. Unfortunately, by our oversight, we neglected to have JF-002 authenticate this particular intercept from the same collection of intercepts he provided authentication evidence before you.
My request is at this time is that 65 ter 837 be marked for identification and that when Your Honours deliberate on the admissibility of the remainder of the collection, that the Chamber will consider with respect to this evidence, that the Chamber also consider whether there is sufficient evidence before it to find that the threshold of admissibility has been met with respect to 65 ter 837.
Now, with respect to the documents that we are not seeking admission of at this time, there are three exhibits introduced in the Karadzic case through Dr. Donia, all of which are stenographic notes of the Assembly sessions. These are 65 ter 586, which was admitted as P961 in the Karadzic case. 65 ter 2867, which was admitted as P956 in the Karadzic case. And 65 ter 1363, which was admitted as P970 in the Karadzic case. 6509 The Prosecution's position with respect to these three exhibits is the same as its position with respect to the other stenographic minutes underlying Dr. Donia's report. Dr. Donia's report contains verbatim extracts of these Assembly sessions in their original language and their translation into English. The Prosecution is content to rely on the report itself if it is ultimately admitted and not seek the admission or marking for identification of the underlying minutes. If the Defence agree to this approach, then we avoid having other evidence that neither the Prosecution nor the Defence will rely on in the corpus of the trial evidence, and I would ask that we discuss that approach at this time. And, of course, should the Defence at any time wish to introduce other excerpts of the Assembly session minutes, the Prosecution would not oppose that.
And finally, Your Honours, so that the record is clear of what I'm requesting, the Prosecution does not seek admission in this trial of the following 65 ter numbers: 1169, which was P977 in Karadzic case; 1855, which was P978 in the Karadzic case; and 1737, which was P986 in the Karadzic case.
JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome. Before I give an opportunity to the Defence to give their views on your suggestion, I'm a bit puzzled -- I see some of the documents you specifically talked about 586, 2867, and 1363. They are under heading "Exhibit MFI'd in Karadzic and Tendered in This Case as Related Exhibits." Now, you give us the numbers under which they were admitted in Karadzic which confuses me a bit.
MR. GROOME: I apologise, Your Honour. I think just the heading. 6510 There is a subheading that appears in the very last line of the first page, so Assembly session may not be tendered pending Trial Chamber ruling. So if the Chamber were to decide not to admit the report or decide that it wanted to have the underlying documents, then of course we would tender them, but the Prosecution is content to simply rely on the excerpts identified by Dr. Donia.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's clear now. I missed the last line, a bit of a confusing layout. Then could I have the view of the Defence? And could I also specifically ask about 65 ter 837, which is the not authenticated intercepted conversation, or whether we really have to recall the witness or whether we could do with a written statement or, I'm just wondering whether that can be resolved in an efficient way or whether there are any specific concerns in relation to 837.
MR. JORDASH: When I read the transcript I didn't have any immediate concerns. If the Prosecution would take a brief statement detailing where it came from and so on, I think we could resolve it quite easily.
MR. GROOME: I will do that, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and perhaps that could even be done if that witness still has to appear in Karadzic that -- it's not an urgent matter, I take it, Mr. Jordash, so that you don't have to go [indiscernible]. Just wait until the witness is there and take that statement, that seems to be a practical way to proceed.
MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, any -- 6511
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, this would be the most useful procedure to adopt.
JUDGE ORIE: So what we have now is three exhibits admitted in the Karadzic case and that is 1630, 1771, and 2203, for the first one only a limited portion. Any objections against admission of those?
MR. JORDASH: No, thank you.
JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, thank you.
JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Registrar, 1630 would be?
THE REGISTRAR: 1630 would be Exhibit P940, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: P940 is admitted into evidence. 1771?
THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P941, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: P941 is admitted into evidence. 2203?
THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P942, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: P942 is admitted into evidence. Then [overlapping speakers] --
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour --
JUDGE ORIE: -- the intercepted conversation marked for identification.
THE REGISTRAR: I would like just to add that 65 ter 1630, since it's just part of the exhibit, I was just informed by the OTP that this will be actually 65 ter 1630.1 admitted as Exhibit P940, Your Honours. Thank you.
JUDGE ORIE: It is clear that we are talking about the time code 7:56 up till 10:44. Then for the intercepted conversation 837, could you 6512 already assign a number to that?
THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 837 becomes Exhibit P943, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: P943 is marked for identification awaiting the authentication. Then the others do not -- are not in need yet of a number to be assigned, that depends on our decision on the admission to evidence of the report.
Then please proceed. I'm looking at the clock, we had a bit of a late start, I suggest -- how much time all together would you need, Mr. Groome.
MR. GROOME: Your Honour, we had asked for three hours, I think it's going to be substantially less than that. If I could be given the break to maybe finalise my estimate, I'm bad at doing this.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
[Trial Chamber confers]
MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if it pleases the court, I had two brief questions and a witness summary, if that would be a convenient spot to break after the witness summary, I don't know if you want to break -- [overlapping speakers].
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you -- that's fine if that would take not more than five minutes.
MR. GROOME: It won't, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll hear those questions and the answers.
Q. Dr. Donia, to assist the Chamber in understanding your evidence 6513 in the Karadzic case, can I ask you to define a term that both you and Ms. Edgerton referred to repeatedly, that term is the term "excerpts report." What you were referring to in your direct examination when you refer to the excerpts report?
A. I was referring, with the term "excerpts report," to the report that is currently before the Chamber, the 333 excerpts from the Bosnian Serb Assembly minutes and transcripts that I prepared for this case.
Q. And one last preliminary point necessary for a better understanding regarding how the -- how your report is organised, can you please explain what the B/C/S text that we see in the footnotes accompanying each paragraph?
A. Yes. The text of each footnote is the Latin version of the text as it appears in the actual minutes or transcripts of the Bosnian Serb Assembly. It corresponds by footnote number to the paragraph number of the English excerpts that are in the report itself.
Q. So that those of us working in B/C/S, if you refer to paragraph 2, footnote 2 will have the corresponding B/C/S of the excerpt; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this time --
JUDGE ORIE: This is what we find already in the format section already of the introduction, isn't it?
MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So therefore, yes, it was clear to the Chamber already. Yes. 6514
MR. GROOME: So Your Honour, if I can summarise the witness's evidence, Dr. Robert Donia is a visiting Professor of history at the University of Michigan specialising in the political and social history of the 19th and 20th sentries in south-eastern Europe, particularly in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the former Yugoslavia. In his testimony in the Karadzic case, Dr. Donia explained the approach he uses as a professional historian in preparing narratives. He also explained the basis upon which he selects and cross-checks his sources. Dr. Donia testified that he prepared his report for the Stanisic and Simatovic case, which is entitled "Thematic Excerpts From the Assembly of Republika Srpska," by selecting the most revealing and helpful excerpts from the Assembly session records and organising them into eight topical areas. He testified that the Assembly sessions are an extremely rich source and that the Assembly session transcripts were richly cross-checked with other sources for the periods of time concerned.
Dr. Donia gave evidence regarding the six strategic goals or objectives that were approved at the Bosnian Serb Assembly session on the 12th of May, 1992. He testified that the ideas underlying these goals were expressed in many speeches as well prior to 12th of May, 1992, and that the goals were referenced repeatedly and consistently as a foundation for decision-making within the Assembly from November 1993 until the end of the war.
Dr. Donia discussed these strategic goals. He testified that the first goal included the territorial, physical, organisational, and human separation of the three national communities and that this goal would 6515 have attached human residents to territoriality in a way that was radically different from the actual situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina up to 1991. He testified that this first goal was a general principle and governed in principle goals 2 through 6 which were territorially defined.
Dr. Donia discussed the rough geographical boundaries defined by goals 2 through 6. He testified that statements made by military leaders including Ratko Mladic before the Bosnian Serb Assembly demonstrate that the six objectives guided military operations during the war. Dr. Donia discussed the development of municipalities as administrative units throughout the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the mixed ethnic character of many municipalities in Bosnia. He discussed the creation of associations of municipalities in which Serbs had an absolute or relative majority and subsequent attempts to alter municipal boundaries. Dr. Donia also discussed steps taken by the SDS leadership after Bosnia's declaration of sovereignty on the 15th of October 1991. Including the establishment of a separate Bosnian Serb Assembly, the decision to hold a plebiscite, and the proclamation of a separate Serb republic in Bosnia-Herzegovina. He also discussed the steps that were to be taken in the municipalities pursuant to the Variant A B instructions provided to municipal SDS leadership.
Finally, Dr. Donia gave evidence regarding the arrest of Milan Martic in the village of Otoka and the resulting political crisis as well as its resolution.
That concludes my summary of his evidence, Your Honour. Thank 6516 you.
JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome. We'll take a break and we'll resume at five minutes past 4.00.
--- Recess taken at 3.34 p.m.
--- On resuming at 4.10 p.m.
JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, are you ready to proceed?
MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, thank you. Could I ask that 65 ter 5396 be brought to the screen. Your Honours, at this time I want to introduce Dr. Donia's report to the trial proceedings. It is my plan to use his report as well as a number of other documents. It occurred to me that it may be more efficient it we all had hard copies of the report before us, so that we can look at any portion as we wish and so we do not lose court time asking the Court Officer to continually load, remove, and reload the report in e-court.
Dr. Donia is prepared to work from the hard copy -- from a hard copy and place each passage that we may refer to on the ELMO, thereby enabling the public to see those portions of the report I will be working with. Earlier we have some copies -- extra copies of the report here if people did not bring their hard copies, and I've provided the usher with a blank copy which both Defence counsel have reviewed and do not object to Dr. Donia having before him. We have about six blank-- six hard copies if anyone in the courtroom needs them.
JUDGE ORIE: The bench would appreciate to receive two.
MR. GROOME: If I could ask that the ELMO be activated and Dr. Donia, if he is going to read from the report or indicate something 6517 in the report, he will put that on the ELMO.
Q. Dr. Donia, I'll give you a few seconds, a few moment now to get yourself organised. You can just give that to the usher. Dr. Donia, were you engaged by the Office of the Prosecutor to write a report for submission to the Trial Chamber in this case?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. When did you submit that report?
A. In March of 2008.
Q. And what was your understanding of your task?
A. I was asked to review the minutes and transcripts of the Bosnian Serb Assembly sessions from the first session in October of 1991 until the, I believe it was 63rd session in August of 1996 with a view toward identifying those passages that were relevant and revelatory regarding events alleged in the indictment.
THE INTERPRETER: The speakers are kindly requested to pause between questions and answers. Thank you.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and the non-speakers are requested to switch off their mobile phones.
MR. JORDASH: Apologies. I think that was me. I do apologise.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you know, Mr. Jordash, that it's an inherent power of the presiding judge to seise any, but it happened to me once as well, so. Please proceed.
Q. Dr. Donia, on transcript pages 3071 to 3072 of your Karadzic testimony, you describe your methodology and sources for this report so I 6518 will not ask you to repeat that information here. Was the report that we are now speaking about, was it written specifically for this case?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Can I ask you now to look on your screen this once, at the copy of the report, 65 ter 5396, on the screen before you.
A. Yes. I see it.
Q. And is this the report you prepared for this case?
A. It's the cover sheet of the report that I prepared for this case, yes.
Q. Now, Dr. Donia, I want to clarify something which appears incongruous in your report. You make several references to the 12th and 13th Assembly session, yet in these references, you note that they occurred on the same day, that being the 24th of March, 1992. Can you explain this, please?
A. Yes, the two sessions were in fact held on the same day. The first session, the 12th session, was devoted to several topics including the election of the first prime minister of the Serb Republic Bosnia-Herzegovina. The first session was then adjourned at about 4.00 p.m. in the afternoon and after a brief break, the session -- or the Assembly met again in a second session for the purpose of additional business including the appointment of two key cabinet -- two officers or two ministers to the council of ministers. So there were indeed two sessions on the same day numbered 12 and 13 separated by only a few minutes of time.
Q. Now, Dr. Donia, prior to taking you to specific portions of your 6519 report, I'm going to ask you to in the briefest of terms set the historical context in which the crimes in this indictment were charged. Of course the essential facts of the dissolution of Yugoslavia are well known at this stage, I will confine myself to a few specific questions. May I draw your attention to the period prior to the conflict. When was the last general election prior to the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
A. The last general election which was a multi-party election was held on November 18th, 1990. And that election was held for the seven members of the collective Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, for the 240 members of the Assembly -- or, I'm sorry, the parliament of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the roughly 6.000 delegates to a total of 109 different Municipal Assemblies in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Q. Now, if I could draw your attention to the 15th of October, 1991. What, if anything, of significance occurred on that day?
A. On that day, actually the 14th and 15th of October, a decisive session of the Bosnian parliament took place in which the delegates of the Bosnian Muslim and Croat parties, the SDA and the HDZ, approved a platform and memorandum of sovereignty which moved Bosnia-Herzegovina closer to put it on the road to independence. That resolution -- those resolutions were strongly opposed by the SDS, the Serb Democratic Party, and on that occasion Dr. Karadzic, Radovan Karadzic, who was president of the party gave a very strong speech opposing the two resolutions and expressing his concerns about the possibility of war.
MR. GROOME: And I would just note for the Chamber that the video of that speech was a -- is now an exhibit, tendered related exhibit from 6520 the Karadzic case.
Q. Now, are you familiar with a referendum held in Bosnia?
A. Yes. Subsequent to the events I've just described, the European community acting through the Badinter Commission determined that it would require a referendum on independence before deciding whether to recognise Bosnia-Herzegovina as an independent state. That referendum was then held on February 28th -- 29th and March 1 of 1992.
Q. Can you characterise in general terms the results of that referendum?
A. The Serb Democratic Party urged Serbs to boycott it, most Serbs did boycott, and the result was that the voters who were overwhelmingly Bosnian Muslims and Croats voted yes for independence at a very high percentage level. Well over 90 per cent.
Q. When did Croatia first declare its independence from Yugoslavia?
A. Croatia first declared independence on the 25th of June, 1991.
Q. When was Croatia first recognised as an independent nation?
A. It was recognised by the European community again through the Badinter Commission on the 11th of January, 1992.
Q. When did Bosnia first declare its independence of what remained of Yugoslavia after Slovenia and Croatia declared their independence?
A. Bosnia did not declare independence.
Q. When was Bosnia first recognised as an independent state?
A. Bosnia won recognition as an independent state on April 7th, 1992, that recognition being given first by the European community and then by the United States. 6521
MR. GROOME: Could I ask that 65 ter 714 be brought to our screens. It is a document dated 16th of July, 1993, entitled "arbitration commission opinion number 11."
Q. Now, Dr. Donia, you have referred to the Badinter Commission. Can I ask you to describe what was the function of the Badinter Commission?
A. The -- what became known as the Badinter Commission was in fact the arbitration commission of the European community headed by a French jurist, Robert Badinter.
Q. And did it issue reports regarding its work and its findings?
A. Yes, it did. In response to requests from the European community, it issued a series of opinions recommending the recognition of various republics of the former Yugoslavia as independent states and also issuing this summary opinion outlining when and under what conditions those republics were recognised as independent.
Q. Now, looking at the screen before you, do you recognise 65 ter 714?
A. Yes, this is a copy of the opinion number 11 on the left-hand side a copy in B/C/S and on the right-hand side the English.
MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution tenders 65 ter 714 into evidence.
JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections.
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we don't have any objections to this document being admitted; however, my learned friend has already embarked on the area that goes beyond the contents of the 6522 expert report. The expert has been explaining to us the process of the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia; whereas, the title of his expert report and why he is here is excerpts from the minutes of the Assembly session of the Republika Srpska. I'm not saying that what he is saying is not relevant, I'm just saying that it has nothing whatsoever to do with what he should be testifying about as announced by the Prosecutor.
JUDGE ORIE: Let's first deal with the exhibit. In the absence of any objections, Madam Registrar, the number?
THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit P944, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: P944 is admitted into evidence. Mr. Groome, Mr. Petrovic raised a matter. Apparently we are still in the field of uncontested facts. If I, for example, the existence of the Badinter Commission is, may I take it, uncontested, but apparently we are close to the point where Mr. Petrovic is raising objections perhaps to questions as well.
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Precisely so, Your Honours. There's no dispute about that. It's common knowledge, however, according to Rule 94, there has to be some sense because that rule has its raison d'etre. The rule is being ignored here and the rule says that there should be an expert report and that that's what should be discussed. What the expert is now saying is relevant, as I've already stated, but is beyond the boundaries of the report and contrary to the rules.
JUDGE ORIE: It was announced by Mr. Groome that he would put some questions to the witness contextualising the report. Where we leave the area of context and where we enter into the area of new terrains to 6523 be explored is still to be seen. For the time being, Mr. Groome, you may proceed.
MR. GROOME: Your Honours, at this time could I ask that 65 ter 1958, it's a document dated 28th of February, 1992 entitled "Decision on Proclaiming the Constitution of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina."
Q. Now, Dr. Donia, while this exhibit is being retrieved, I draw your attention to paragraph 4 of your report in which you include an excerpt from the second Assembly session held on the 21st of November 1991. During this session, Momcilo Krajisnik advocates for the creation of a Bosnian Serb constitution as the best way to express the will of the Bosnian Serbs. Do you know if in fact such a constitution was promulgated?
A. Yes. The promulgation process followed pretty much as Mr. Krajisnik specified here. It was drafted by a commission. It was approved by the Bosnian Serb Assembly on February 28th, 1992, and promulgated formally on March 27th of 1992.
Q. Can I ask that you look at the screen before you at 65 ter 1958. Do you recognise this document?
A. Yes. This is an excerpt from the "Official Gazette" of the Serbian people of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in B/C/S on the left and English on the right, announcing the decision to which I just referred on February 28th, 1992. That is, it is not the promulgation of the constitution, but the decision to proclaim it which was adopted one month prior to the actual promulgation of the constitution. And it there follows then the 6524 constitution in its entirety as it was adopted by the Bosnian Serb Assembly on that date.
MR. GROOME: Your Honours, as this is a document the Chamber can read for itself, I will not draw Dr. Donia's attention to any portion. I do tender 65 ter 1958 as a Prosecution exhibit.
JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections. Madam Registrar.
THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P945 [realtime transcript read in error "D945"], Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: P945 is admitted into evidence. It may be a mistake on the transcript that it's introduced as D945. Madam Registrar meant P945. Please proceed.
Q. Dr. Donia, do the articles of the constitution set out the responsibilities and the authority of the Assembly session, the Assembly which you whose records or stenographic notes you examined for your report?
A. Yes. The appropriate provisions are contained Articles 70 to 79 of the constitution that's before us.
Q. Was this constitution ever amended?
A. Yes. The constitution as adopted in February and March of 1992 was in fact amended a number of times with individual changes. In some cases, they removed provisions of the constitution as we are looking at it, in other cases they added provisions or articles, and in some cases they replaced existing articles with new ones. And I think the most consequential of those amendments took place in September of 1992 when 6525 the Assembly which was empowered to do so removed the existing Article 2 and replaced it with a substitute or new Article 2 of the constitution.
Q. I won't ask you, not that you might be able to recite the change verbatim, but can you describe for us what was the fundamental change that you feel is of consequence?
A. There were two fundamental changes. In the first, and if I could I'm referring to the paragraph 25 in my report which is actually on page 13 of the English version. There were two fundamental changes. One was that the reference to autonomous Serb regions and municipalities and Serbian ethnic entities was superseded by a simple reference to Serbian ethnic areas. And second, the territory was defined as including -- or the territory was defined as including any area in which genocide had been committed against the Serbian people but required that the territory be determined and any changes be approved by a plebiscite requiring a two-thirds vote of the voters.
Q. And the voters being the entire population of Bosnia?
A. The voters would be the voters of the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Donia, in your report I read "three-quarter" instead of "two-thirds."
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I meant three-quarters, yes.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
MR. GROOME: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders 65 ter 1958. I've been informed by the Defence that neither Defence will 6526 object to the admission of the constitution.
JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be.
THE REGISTRAR: This 1958 becomes Exhibit P945, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: P945 is admitted into evidence. Please proceed.
MR. GROOME: Your Honours, in your deliberations in this case, you may need to refer to the constitutions of Yugoslavia as well as the constitution of the republic of Srpska Krajina. Again, I've spoken with both Defence teams and they do not object to the admission of them, so at this point the Prosecution would tender the 1992 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia constitution at 65 ter 2865.
JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, that would receive number?
THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P946, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: P946 is admitted into evidence.
MR. GROOME: And then 65 ter 2863, the constitution of the Republika Srpska Krajina proclaimed on the 7th of January, 1992.
JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit P947, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: P947 is admitted into evidence.
Q. Dr. Donia, in your Karadzic testimony you were questioned in detail on what is commonly referred to as the six strategic objectives or goals. We can all read your evidence on transcript pages 3073 to 3097 of your Karadzic testimony. I have just a few specific questions. Can I draw your attention to paragraph 61 of your report, and my first question is: Are there indications in the Assembly notes that these goals were 6527 more than simply aspirational?
A. Yes, there are many tens of references to the strategic goals in the transcripts of the Assembly over the period of time from 1991 -- or 1992 until 1996. And most of them indicate that the goals are more than aspirational. That they are considered binding and obligatory for the Bosnian Serbs to follow. And the most extensive explicit statement of that is indeed found in paragraph 61 in which Radovan Karadzic repeats the six strategic goals that he had described and had been adopted on the 12th of May, and indicates that they are, in the words of the first paragraph here, which have become in a certain way our tasks, our obligations to realise -- our obligation to realise them.
Q. In your examination of the stenographic notes of the Assembly, the Bosnian Serb Assembly, are there indications of concrete applications of the principles underlying these goals with respect to practical decisions or actions taken by Bosnian Serb officials?
A. Yes, there are. There are many such references. I would point to one that actually took place immediately after the end of the war in which Mr. Krajisnik, and this is in paragraph 73 of my report --
Q. Dr. Donia, sorry to interrupt, but could I ask you to put it on the ELMO, this way the public can also see the paragraph that you are referring to.
JUDGE ORIE: Could the usher assist. Perhaps if Mr. Donia mentions the paragraph number then the usher can put it on the ELMO. Well, that gives a rather funny picture on the screen. That seems to be better. 6528
MR. GROOME: I think the problem is the top end of the page is covering the camera. If we could just work one page at a time. If you would just pull down that -- thank you.
Q. Okay. And Dr. Donia, please continue with your answer.
A. I think this requires a brief explanation of the situation. This statement by Mr. Krajisnik was made right about the time that the parties were signing the so-called Dayton Agreement, the general framework agreement for peace in Paris, and that agreement had awarded substantial parts of Serb-occupied Sarajevo to the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina consisting of its Bosnian Muslim and Croat government. And in this deliberation a delegate speaking before Mr. Krajisnik had advocated leaving those Serbs who would be -- come under the jurisdiction of the Federation where they were and moving certain governing institutions into the Federation to act as kind of a protector of the Serbs in that area. And Mr. Krajisnik strongly opposed that solution with his words here in which he repeats:
"The task of this republic and the first strategic goal is that we separate from the Muslims and Croats, and no one has the right to base the strategy of Serbian Sarajevo, Srpsko Sarajevo" -- Your Honour, may I just try to --
JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we have to use the second page.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
JUDGE ORIE: It's now clearly now on the screen.
THE WITNESS: Okay. "... on remaining in a joint country. Therefore any danger and solution of Sarajevo in which we will stay with 6529 Muslims and Croats is out of the question."
Moving down to the second paragraph: "There is only one problem now - where shall we move these people to?"
So Mr. Krajisnik in this passage, clearly uses the first strategic goal as the basis for a government policy decision to actively -- supports actively moving the Serbs out of the Federation portion of Sarajevo.
Q. So when he uses the term or suggests that the only issue is where we will move these people to, he is actually referring to the Serbs that are in the Serbian part of Sarajevo?
A. There are Serbs that were in the Serb-occupied part of Sarajevo, but under the terms of the agreement or the Dayton Agreement would fall under Federation rule.
MR. GROOME: Now, could I ask that 65 ter 1663 be brought to the screens. It is a document dated the 17th of April, 1992, and it is entitled "Decision," and it bears the reference number 01-1/92.
Q. Dr. Donia, when you can see this document on your screen, would you please tell us whether you recognise the document?
A. Yes, I do. This is a decision to withdraw from the city government of Sarajevo those persons who were appointed to their posts by the Serbian Democratic Party. This decision is signed by Dr. Radovan Karadzic. The context in which this took place was as the --
MR. JORDASH: Well, can I object to this in the way it's 6530 progressing. We've had, I think, over the last five minutes, wholly new evidence. This goes way beyond -- well, one could call it context, but one could also call it evidence which should have been in the report. I'm sitting here thinking how do I deal with this without asking for an adjournment, which I don't want to do.
JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'm simply asking him whether he recognises this document. He hasn't given an opinion about it. The documents that were going to be used with Dr. Donia, I don't know the precise date of the notice, but I believe it's over a month or over six weeks. Now at this stage --
JUDGE ORIE: So then you would be happy with the answer "yes, I do." And then you put the next question to the witness, then you remain in control because you said, I simply asked him whether he recognises the document. His answer to that question, yes, I do. And then the witness starts describing the content of the document which is clear by reading it, and then he starts explaining about the context, although you didn't ask him. I don't know whether you wanted to ask him that. Perhaps do that in such a way that the objections by Mr. Jordash are not there anymore.
MR. GROOME: I'll be satisfied with the answer of yes, Your Honour. I won't explore it any deeper.
JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution tenders 65 ter 1663. 6531
JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections. Madam Registrar, the number would be?
THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P948, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: P948 is admitted into evidence. Please proceed.
Q. Dr. Donia, in your evidence in the Karadzic case and paragraph 48 of your report, you refer to Dr. Karadzic's statement of the -- of one of the goals of one of the strategic objectives in the 16th Assembly session held on the 12th of May, 1992, in which he stresses the strategic importance of the Drina corridor. What was not discussed in your Karadzic testimony was Karadzic's further explanation of this goal in the 20th Assembly session head on the 14th to 15th of September, 1992. Can I draw your attention to paragraph 55 of your report, and would you please place it on the ELMO when you get to that paragraph, where you would -- in paragraph 55 where you include Karadzic's statement in this regard. Karadzic says:
"Namely the Drina is of great strategic importance, it is of vital strategic importance, if the green transversal is cut off at the Drina, Muslim Bosnian will lose in importance. In that case, Europe will definitely walk away from Alija."
Are you familiar with the term "green transversal"?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Can you please explain that concept to us?
A. The notion of a green transversal was a belief or stated belief by leaders of the Bosnian Serbs that there existed a corridor of Muslim 6532 population running from Bosnia to the south-east through the Sandjak area of Serbian Montenegro on into Kosovo and Albania and further on into the Middle East, and that this corridor of Muslim population served as a conduit for ideas, communications, supplies to support the Bosnian Muslim cause. Now, that probably was, in fact, not the case, but that was the notion that Karadzic and others espoused. And --
Q. Now, the last sentence of this excerpt reads in reference to successfully realising this particular goal, and it says: "This way we will link up with the Eastern Bosnia Corps." Can you explain what this is a reference to?
A. In this sentence he is explaining that this green transversal is interrupting a strategic objective that he has and the Bosnian Serbs have, namely, of linking up the various forces under Bosnian Serb command.
MR. GROOME: Now, could I ask that 65 ter 5395 be brought to our screens.
Q. Now, Dr. Donia, to facilitate our understanding of the strategic goals, did I ask you to make -- to guide a person familiar with map making to help us identify some of the key features identified in the six strategic goals?
A. Yes, you did.
Q. And are those geographical features primarily rivers?
Q. And did you guide a member of the OTP staff in marking those rivers in a way that we all can see them clearly? 6533
A. Yes. We marked only those rivers which are referenced in the six strategic goals.
Q. Now, can I ask you to look at the screen before you. Is this the map that you assisted an OTP staff member to label?
Q. So that it is clear, the Neretva river or the label for it seems to appear in the middle of three rivers. Which, in fact, is the Neretva river?
A. The Neretva river is below and to the left of the label on the map, so it is the river that begins in Gacko municipality and ends up in the Adriatic sea.
MR. GROOME: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders 65 ter 5395, this map of Bosnia overlaid with the significant rivers labelled.
JUDGE ORIE: In the absence of any objections, Madam Registrar.
THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit P949, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: P949 is admitted into evidence.
Q. Now, Dr. Donia, are you aware of any maps which were created by Bosnian Serbs and were published representing what they saw as the realisation of these strategic goals?
A. Yes. The Bosnian Serb did indeed prepare at least one map that I know of and in order to illustrate where the strategic objectives began and ended.
MR. GROOME: I will ask that Mr. Laugel and the Court Officer 6534 prepare to play 65 ter 4506, a videotape. The excerpt that I will ask be played and ultimately admitted as evidence is at 1 hour 50 minutes 36 seconds to 1 hour 53 minutes and 14 seconds of the entire original tape. When it's ready, I'd ask that it be played.
MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we pause. Transcripts have been provided to the booths, I just query whether they've been able to find those. Perhaps we can try again.
JUDGE ORIE: Let's restart then and see whether we have English translation and French translation in the usual way, one of the interpreters following the text if it goes too quickly, then the other interpreter translating on the basis of the written version of the transcript.
THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "We are standing in front of the ethnic map of the former Bosnia and Herzegovina with marked borders of the territory that is presently under the control of the Bosnian Serb Army. I can only say that what was being said, that we are in control of the territories ethnically populated by other ethnic communities, that is not true, which can be seen on the ethnic map of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Once we cover it with a transparency sheet on which the territories are exactly marked, which are under the control of our army, you can see that those are in fact the areas that belong to our people. "A map, similar to this one, as far as I am informed, was offered in Geneva, and it was made clear that the Serbs want this to be the 6535 border of our future state, that is the Neretva river valley, and this is mostly the territory of the Bosnian Serb republic. Knowing that we allow that there are certain enclaves on our territory that may be populated by the other ethnic community. Sarajevo is a separate problem. At the moment it is marked as the area of city proper -- or, rather, the area of city proper is marked as Muslim territory, but we shall plead for the demilitarisation and separation of the two ethnic communities, primarily Serbian and Muslim, and maybe a municipality for -- I mean, municipality populated by the Croatian community.
"The territory of the Bosnian Serb republic represents, in fact, the border along the Una river, the Sava river, with a smaller area that is not yet under the control of our forces and it's not liberated yet, that is Orasje. This is the border, the territory of Semberija, the territory of Ozren, and that of the eastern Bosnia-Herzegovina. We presented as our territory to the Croatian community in Graze that our border should be between our two national communities, that would be the Neretva river.
"In any case, this continuity of our territory, it is in one piece, if I may say so, and we will do our best for there to be one constituent unit of Bosnian Serb republic, and we shall allow for the possibility of several constituent units of Croatian and Muslim people. Simply that is not a condition. What is a condition is that our republic be integral and not divided into several parts.
Q. Dr. Donia, is this one of the maps created by Bosnian Serbs which 6536 reflect their strategic goals?
Q. Now, Dr. Donia, because of the delay in translation, it may not be clear exactly which portion Mr. Krajisnik was referring to. The map that we saw appeared to have two -- Bosnia divided primarily into two irregularly-shaped areas. A larger one and a smaller one. Which one of those irregular areas is the territory that represents the objectives of the strategic goals?
A. I'm sorry, are you asking -- are you asking about the map that is in front of me, anyway, on the --
Q. No, not the map -- the map that Mr. Krajisnik was pointing to, would you agree with me that Bosnia was divided up into roughly two irregularly-shaped areas?
Q. Because of the delay in translation, it may not be clear --
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I have an objection to the fact that what Krajisnik said back in 1993 was misinterpreted. First of all, Mr. Krajisnik referred to two maps, not one. One had the ethnic makeup from, I suppose, 1991, and the other map depicted the front lines. In other words, these were not -- this was not one map. There was the underlying map on which another map was superimposed, but I don't think that there is any relevance in discussing this, the other map containing front lines with this witness. 6537
JUDGE ORIE: Well, first of all was it front lines or was it suggested division of the territory?
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] My understanding of what Krajisnik said was that the transparency sheet depicted the front lines, and below this map there was a map with the ethnic makeup dating back to a year that I didn't hear which it was. What I heard him say was that the transparency sheet depicted the front lines, i.e., the territories under the control of the Army of Republika Srpska.
JUDGE ORIE: Let's ask -- first of all, of course, we could check what Mr. Krajisnik said at the time, but we could also ask Mr. Donia to see how he understood what was said. I must admit that it has been translated to us as, let me just have a look.
Mr. Donia, perhaps you could help me unless Mr. -- I don't know whether this would create any problems.
MR. JORDASH: I would object on a different basis which is this evidence being led through this witness. We've gone from a position where we have a report with excerpts to now an expert giving evidence upon how the Bosnian Serb authorities divided up the territory.
JUDGE ORIE: Well, as a matter of fact, I'm now rereading it, apparently what Mr. Krajisnik said is this depicts the territory under our control. That's therefore most likely would depict the -- would depict the confrontation lines at the time. Mr. Petrovic, at least from the language used by Mr. Krajisnik, it seems that you are right. And now the last question was -- let me just have a look. The question was: "The map that Mr. Krajisnik was pointing to, would you agree with 6538 me that Bosnia was divided up?"
I take that to be a reference to the actual situation at that time, that is area under control of one force or another.
MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I meant it simply as a reference to what we were seeing on the map.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, into roughly two irregular-shaped areas. I could almost answer that question, that they are irregularly-shaped seems to be visible for everyone, not being blind, and that it's two parts -- well, that roughly I would say seems to be visible for everyone as well. Mr. Jordash, the question was limited to what you see on the map two areas irregularly shaped.
MR. JORDASH: I'm with Mr. Petrovic then, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
Q. Now, my question to you, Dr. Donia, is which of these two irregularly-shaped areas, if either of them, reflects the objectives articulated in the six strategic objectives?
A. I think they both reflect the strategic objectives, the fact that the military conquest and holding of those areas corresponded, in fact, to the rivers that are designated in particularly the -- I believe it's the fourth strategic goal.
MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this time I would tender this excerpt from 65 ter 4506.
JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Madam Registrar. 6539
THE REGISTRAR: The excerpt from 65 ter 5406 becomes Exhibit P950, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: P950 is admitted into evidence. Please proceed.
Q. Now, can I draw your attention to paragraph 64 of your report. If would you place that on the ELMO. In this paragraph, you include a quote of Dr. Karadzic excerpted from the 37th Assembly session on 10 January 1994. I'm going to read the first two sentences and ask if you can explain a reference that Karadzic makes.
"We can consider ourselves as winners after occupying this land since the land is 100 per cent Serbian now. Therefore, even if we come down to around 50 per cent, we should be more than happy and satisfied, it is Dusan's empire."
Can you assist us in understanding what the reference to Dusan's empire is?
A. Yes. Dusan's empire refers to a period of the Serbian empire in the 1300s in which the medieval Serbian state reached its apogee, it covered the most territory at any time during the existence of the medieval state. Dusan was in fact crowned emperor, his full name was Stefan Uros the IV, in 1345 and was succeeded by one other emperor, and it was during that time that the Serb land was really at its greatest.
Q. Now, as based on your --
JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, of course I am -- I've constantly in the back of my mind the concerns expressed by Mr. Jordash. Now, here this seems to be a very clear example of that. The suggestion is that 6540 Mr. Karadzic expresses by using the reference to Dusan's empire to a historical moment. Now, if you would have asked is that a reference to Dusan's empire, what century was that, 14th century, that's fine. But now additional information is added, Karadzic is happy because that was the empire which was the largest ever in history occupied by Serbs. That requires a comparison between what happened before that and what happened after that, how size of the Serbian empire developed. There's no source for that anyway, is there? How could Mr. Jordash check whether Dusan's empire was really presenting the largest format ever of the Serbian empire? No sources are given for that.
Now, that, I take it, Mr. Jordash, is one of your concerns. If you want just a clarification, Dusan's empire, what's that? That's a reference to an emperor in the 14th century. But slowly, coloured information slips in, that is that Karadzic was not happy with the smallest Serbian empire ever in history, but he was happy with what they had now with the reference to an empire of which the expert says that was the largest but without any sources for that. If, for example, somewhere in the report it would have said, footnote: Dusan's empire is the biggest empire 14th century, compare historical development of the size of the Serbian empire over the 12th to the 17th century, it may well be that the witness and the expert has good reason to state what he states, but the transparency of the source material, the factual material which underlies this, I would say this -- at least call it explanation, I'm not saying wrong, but almost impossible to verify on the basis of the sources used. Mr. Jordash, did I take a right example of what you feared would 6541 happen.
MR. JORDASH: That's precisely the point. Thank you.
JUDGE ORIE: Would you, Mr. Groome, refrain from or stop the witness if he starts making references to additional information for which the sources given provide no basis.
MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I must confess to being a little bit confused. When I read his answer, I don't see where he has given an opinion that Karadzic was happy or that he is given any opinion other than to state what he knows to be a historical fact as a historical expert. I mean, I think if any of us could be considered experts in our field, we are experts because we have a broad base of knowledge from a multitude of exhibits or from a multitude of sources. I don't see that as unfair --
JUDGE ORIE: If I read this: "Therefore, if we come down to around 50 per cent, we should be more than happy and satisfied. It is Dusan's empire." Now, is Mr. Karadzic happy with the smallest Serbian empire in history or is he happy with the largest Serbian empire in history?
MR. GROOME: But that's not his words. He's just explaining that Karadzic makes a reference to Dusan's empire --
JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
MR. GROOME: -- and he is simply stating a historical fact who Dusan's empire -- what Dusan's empire refers to, and it's at the time when Serb territory was at its largest amount. So --
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and how -- we have no sources for that, do we? 6542 Do we have any sources for that? That it was the largest or the smallest? If Mr. -- if the witness would have said Dusan's empire was the smallest ever, Mr. Jordash would have no reference to verify whether that would be true. And of course, the suggestive -- the suggestion included is that where Mr. Karadzic says let's be happy, it's Dusan's empire, he is happy with the biggest and not with the smallest. And then, of course, there is a suggestion in that. And again, if Mr. Donia would have said it would have been the smallest, we would have no opportunity to verify that, is it?
MR. GROOME: I'm not sure there's no opportunity. I mean, if -- we have two Serb attorneys that I'm sure are very well versed in the history of their country as well. I guess --
JUDGE ORIE: Let me then take you -- one second, please.
MR. GROOME: If I may, while you were looking for that, Your Honour. It seems to me that one of the reasons an expert is considered able to assist the Chamber is to have this breath of knowledge. If the Prosecution simply wanted to establish that Dusan's empire --
JUDGE ORIE: Let me --
MR. GROOME: In fact, we can do that another way.
JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, your reference to the knowledge of, let me just say, your reference to the knowledge of two Serb attorneys would leave Mr. Stanisic without remedy, isn't it, because Mr. Jordash is, as far as I am aware, not Serb, neither is Mr. Knoops. And then to say that because there is an inherent suggestion that they then should rely on their colleagues, counsel for Mr. Simatovic, who may have a different 6543 interest, let me tell you the following: A minimum degree of transparency in the sources in an expert report is required at the stage of admission. The sources and the methodology used in support of any proposed expert's opinion must be clearly indicated and accessible. Now, I'm not saying I took this example because I would say it's a relatively harmless one, I take it that it would be easy to establish whether it was the largest or the smallest. But on the basis of the sources given, it's impossible to verify whether Mr. Donia is right or wrong, and I have no doubts most likely you will be right, Mr. Donia, is right or wrong in his assessment that Karadzic stating that he was happy with the land they gained because it was Dusan's empire, that he was referring to the largest Serbian empire in history. You understand my observations which are very close to what Mr. Jordash feared would happen?
MR. GROOME: I agree that it's not sourced. I do respectfully disagree and in my view the reason why we have an expert, historical expert here, is in part to explain the historical references. But I take the Chamber's point --
JUDGE ORIE: But of course, by giving the sources because I do not know what the sources are. By giving the sources, he gives access to every party to verify and to check whether this is -- whether the opinion expressed that this was the largest one is right or wrong. You say, for example, the methodology I used, I used maps every 50 years in history and there was a problem in the 14th century because the maps are not very precise, but this is the way to interpret those maps, and then I compared 6544 seven or ten or fifteen maps, and I established that comparing these maps, that the -- Dusan's empire was the largest, and then we know what maps are used, we know what the expert opinion is based, we make the sources accessible and verifiable for the parties. And that's again in a matter which seems not to be of major importance as a matter of fact, but what is not done. That's my concern.
MR. GROOME: I accept the direction of the Court.
JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed and keep this in the back of your mind.
MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
Q. Dr. Donia, in Karadzic's view, was there a critical moment when he believed that Alija Izetbegovic, the then elected president of Bosnia and Herzegovina, made a mistake that was fatal to Izetbegovic's cause?
A. Yes. Karadzic frequently turned to the agreement in principle that was reached on the 18th of March, 1992, as a critical moment which was a victory for the Bosnian Serb side and his own side, and a grave mistake by Izetbegovic.
Q. You've referred to a plan, I believe. What are you referring to?
A. The --
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise for interrupting again. What is the source for the previous answer? What did Karadzic believe? What was the 18th March plan? We have encountered the same problem again.
JUDGE ORIE: Well, first of all, we'll hear what happened on the 18th of March which was mentioned by the witness as -- in answer to a 6545 question about a critical moment, was an agreement in principle, and --
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
JUDGE ORIE: And the next question now is what are you referring to, and the Chamber would like to know what exactly was there on the 18th of March.
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I agree. However, I don't understand why the Prosecutor has not shown more ambition. How come that a person who can and has drafted so many books didn't do that in his report? Why does this report have 399 footnotes and all of them concern the transcript? Why doesn't it contain what you have just mentioned? A report of this kind and a discussion based on such a report does not amount to much, does not lead anywhere as far as I can see it.
JUDGE ORIE: Not having heard the answer of the expert, it is still unclear to the Chamber what is the link between the report and the excerpts presented in the report and what happened apparently on the 18th of March as a critical moment.
You said it was a principle agreement, you said it was a plan, Mr. Groome in your next question, but perhaps we hear from the witness whether it was a plan or what it was.
THE WITNESS: Yes. I don't have the specific paragraph in front of me to reference, but this is explained in the paragraph that I have excerpted from the -- from the Bosnian Assembly minutes.
JUDGE ORIE: It's perhaps -- do you have a paragraph in your mind. 6546
MR. GROOME: I was going to refer him in my next question to paragraph 69 of his report.
JUDGE ORIE: Then let's -- paragraph 69 refers to the 18th of March --
THE WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGE ORIE: Is that what you had on your mind? Perhaps you read it again.
THE WITNESS: Yes, the plan or agreement in principle was that of the Portuguese foreign minister Jose Cutileiro who was mediating --
MR. JORDASH: Sorry, could I --
JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
MR. JORDASH: This would have been almost certainly wholly unobjectionable if we'd had notice of it, and my learned friend's approach was to ask an open ended question which doesn't reference the report. The witness has a huge amount of knowledge and will talk then eventually we get to the excerpt.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's -- Mr. Groome, I do understand from the answer of the witness that the reference in the 42nd session to the 18th of March is a reference to the Cutileiro Plan. Now, for whatever reason, and I have not checked that in all detail, but if you want to ask further questions about Cutileiro Plan, because we now know that that's what is referred to, then please indicate how the Defence could know that you wanted to ask questions about Cutileiro Plan to this expert witness.
MR. GROOME: My only question was to tell us the significance of the 18th of March to identify -- 6547
JUDGE ORIE: Well, your question was a different one. You started in the other way, you started what was a critical moment, and then the witness came with the 18th of March. Okay. And he now answered the question by saying that he referred to the -- that one of the excerpts refers to the 18th of March and that's a reference to the Cutileiro Plan.
MR. GROOME: With respect to the rest of it, I rely on the excerpt itself. I'm not going to ask him to interpret it.
JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at the Defence, we are not exploring areas in detail where no notice has been given as far as you are concerned.
Mr. Jordash, if we would proceed leaving it to this, would that meet your concerns?
MR. JORDASH: Yes, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
Q. Dr. Donia, if I could draw your attention to paragraph 78 of your report. It includes a statement of Dr. Karadzic from the 9th session delegate club meeting. Can you please tell us what was a delegate club meeting?
A. Prior to a scheduled session of the Bosnian Serb Assembly, the delegates from a single party, in this case the SDS, would meet to discuss the plans for the formal session to be held immediately thereafter. That preliminary session was known as the delegate club.
Q. Now, in preparation for your evidence today, did I provide you 6548 with a copy of the indictment in this case and ask that you familiarise yourself with it?
A. Yes, you did.
Q. Paragraph 12 of the indictment names 16 individuals who along with the two accused here in court and other unnamed individuals were part of a joint criminal enterprise. In your review, did you come upon any statements which indicated interaction between members of the alleged joint criminal enterprise?
A. Yes, I came across a number. I came across a few which referred to interaction between Ms. Plavsic and other members of the alleged joint criminal enterprise, and I am sorry, I don't have the number in my head, but the -- there is a paragraph or two in the report which refers to that.
MR. GROOME: Can I draw the Chamber's attention to paragraphs 82 and 106.
Q. Now, Dr. Donia, can I ask you to look at paragraph 100 of the report, and can you please explain this paragraph to us.
A. Yes. This is a statement by Mr. Momcilo Mandic affirming that the -- that Mr. Mico Stanisic was both the advisor to the president of the Serb republic and in charge of co-operation between the minister of Internal Affairs of the Serb republic and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Yugoslavia.
MR. GROOME: It will also be of assistance to the Chamber to recall the testimony of JF-038 found at P420, transcript page 3023.
Q. Now, Dr. Donia, two members of the joint criminal enterprise as 6549 alleged in paragraph 12 of the instant indictment are identified as Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic, and I want to spend some measure of time seeking your assistance in understanding the relationship between these two men who feature prominently in the events surrounding the dissolution of Yugoslavia?
JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, since you are announcing that some measure of time be needed, perhaps you should do it after the break.
MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a break and we resume at five minutes to 6.00.
--- Recess taken at 5.25 p.m.
--- On resuming at 6.02 p.m.
JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Donia, if you ever face any technical problems on what you have in your screen or not on your screen, please address me so that we can fix it.
THE WITNESS: I will, Your Honour. Thank you.
JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Mr. Groome.
MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
Q. Now, Dr. Donia, I want to ask you to explain from your examination of the minutes of the Assembly session, what evidence there is about the nature of the relationship between Slobodan Milosevic and Dr. Karadzic. And my first question to you is would you describe the relationship as a static one or one that evolved over time?
A. Yes, there's a great deal of evidence in the report and in the 6550 transcripts about that relationship, and I would describe it as one that changed substantially over time from the time that the Assembly first met and even earlier by retrospective reports, through the end of the war.
Q. Can you mark for us at this stage what would be the significant signposts in the evolution of their relationship?
A. Well, the first period began when the two met in 1990 and continued until the serious discussion --
MR. JORDASH: Sorry.
THE WITNESS: -- of the peace plan began.
JUDGE ORIE: One second. Mr. Jordash.
MR. JORDASH: I think we -- it's an objection because we are going to drift into, if the signposts are some things said in the Assembly, I don't object to the witness pointing that out. If the signposts are, as we've just began to explore, when they first met in 1990 which has nothing to do with this Assembly, then I object.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps, Mr. Donia, I explain to you a bit of what has been discussed before you came into court. The report which is before us is essentially is an excerpt, you have chosen them, you have put them in a certain context, but the only source we have are these excerpts, and now and then we have a little bit of explanation from you; for example, where you just summarise what people are saying. Any other historical event is not sourced in any way. Now, it is a basic principle of -- perhaps of law of procedure that if we hear evidence from an expert that it's 6551 transparent not only what methodology he used, but also what sources are he has used, and as we've seen in your Karadzic testimony, you say, well, I've cross-checked it with many other sources. But the problem the Defence has is that they are not familiar with what those sources are. Now, often a short explanation on relatively neutral matters such as we discussed before the break, that is, that Dusan's empire was in the 14th century, the Defence apparently has no major problems in accepting these kind of simple explanations. But if you start explaining when people met for the first time, well, of course, the Defence is not in the position to verify of what sources you stated it's the first meeting, could it have been the second one or the third one or did it place at all -- did it take place at all. These are the problems the Defence is facing at this moment and that's explains, and I hope you will understand, this explains some of the objections and some of the discussions that have been taking place. And that, of course, is to some extent result of the type of report you were asked to produce. So I'm not blaming you in any way, but you are invited, apparently, to select the most relevant portions of the Assembly sessions. Now, again, simple neutral explanations, fine. But if you start explaining the whole of the history of the relationship of two people where the only source we know is what we find in the Assembly excerpts, then the Defence considers that they have not been put on notice on the sources.
Now, that is what Mr. Jordash is objecting to and I'm inviting Mr. Groome to very much focus on the known source and the known source is 6552 here, as far as your report is concerned, are the transcripts of the Assembly sessions.
Mr. Groome, would you please keep that in mind when you formulate your questions.
MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
Q. So, Dr. Donia, just confining your analysis to your examination of the Assembly session minutes, are you able to demarcate significant events that establish or demonstrate changes in the relationship between Mr. Milosevic and Dr. Karadzic?
Q. Okay. Can you first tell us how many -- or how many or maybe just enumerate them first, and then I'll ask you to reference specific Assembly sessions.
A. Yes. First there is a specific reference to the first meeting between Karadzic and Milosevic in the report dated September of 1990.
Q. What paragraph will we find that at, please?
A. Well, I believe it is in 149. I again regret that I -- yes, it's in 149. Now, that is a specific date calling upon this, what I've characterised as a very rich source standing on its own for this kind of information.
Q. And can you summarise what's in 149, what -- paragraph 149? How is Dr. Karadzic characterising his relationship with Milosevic?
A. He is at great pains in this speech to characterise their relationship as one in which he was not inferior, and brings into this account two other Bosnian Serbs who were with him to essentially verify 6553 that he did not consider himself inferior and that Milosevic was treating them as peers at this meeting.
Q. Can I direct your attention to paragraph 137 of your report, and ask you what does this paragraph tell us about the relationship between the two men? And if I might draw your attention to the last line: "However, if we form a joint, not a single but a joint delegation, where Milosevic will, of course, formally or informally be the head and he was also the head each time in Geneva, it's clear that he was the head."
What does that tell us about the relationship?
MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honour, it tells us, if I may object, that Karadzic considered at this time for this purpose Milosevic to be the head. I don't think this expert has provided a report which details anything more than that.
JUDGE ORIE: Let me just find first of all exactly what the quote is.
MR. GROOME: It's at the bottom of page 55, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see it. Well, Mr. Jordash, I do not fully understand your objection. What Mr. Groome is asking the expert is look at 137, then he reads a certain portion of that, and he says what does that tell us about the relationship.
MR. JORDASH: Yes.
JUDGE ORIE: So what Mr. Groome is doing, he is asking the witness to elaborate on what we read here, and if he starts saying it's clear from this text that Mr. Milosevic, his favourite colour was red, 6554 Mr. Karadzic's favourite colour was blue, then of course we'll ask him how that can be concluded from this passage because it doesn't say anything about colours. So the question has been phrased relatively neutrally, and I'd first like to hear the answer of the witness. Yes, what does this tell us about their relationship, that was Mr. Groome's question.
THE WITNESS: Yes. This tells us their relationship was not one of equals. That indeed, in Karadzic's own perception, when they sat down at Geneva, that Milosevic was implicitly the head of the delegation and Karadzic was one of the members of it. So I think this speaks to the change of a relationship between the time in 1990 that they first met and this particular description of their relationship in Geneva.
Q. Can I ask you, what is the reference to Geneva?
A. Geneva is the location -- was the location of all major negotiations for a peace accord between about September of 1992 and 1994.
Q. Now, this statement is made on the 28th of August, 1995, does that mean that Karadzic is speaking retrospectively?
Q. Now, did there come a time when their relationship was marked by a disagreement on a rather significant matter?
Q. Can you please explain?
A. They disagreed sharply, and I'll show you a number of instances of this in the source we are looking at, upon the question of whether the 6555 Vance-Owen Peace Plan should be accepted by the Bosnian Serbs.
Q. So that those of us less familiar with the history of the former Yugoslavia, can you summarise for us what was -- in brief terms, what was the Vance-Owen Peace Plan?
A. The Vance-Owen Peace Plan was presented in January of 1993. It consisted of four elements: A cease-fire, constitutional provisions, a -- transitional provisions, and a map.
Q. And is it different from what is commonly referred to as the Vance Plan of 1991?
A. Yes, it is distinct from that plan.
Q. What was the general position of the different parties to the conflict with respect to the Vance-Owen Plan?
A. Mate Boban on behalf of the Bosnian Croats accepted the plan as soon as it was presented on the 3rd of January. The Bosnian Muslims led by President Izetbegovic very reluctantly and slowly agreed to it in late March of 1993. And the Bosnian Serbs declined to approve it.
Q. Did there come a time when Slobodan Milosevic personally attended the Bosnian Serb Assembly and spoke about the Vance-Owen Peace Plan?
A. Yes, he attended the 30th session on March -- I am sorry, May 5th and 6th of 1993. And spoke to that Assembly twice expressing his views on the plan.
Q. I believe you addressed this in paragraph 88 of your report. Before I ask you to describe what was said, can I ask you, was the 30th session a public session or a private session?
A. The first part of it was public, and the second part was a 6556 private session.
Q. Now, the portion that you've excerpted here in paragraph 88, which portion did that occur in?
A. This occurred in the second section, the private session.
Q. Now, your report includes an extended excerpt of Milosevic's statement to the Bosnian Serb Assembly. I want to seek your comment on a few portions. Let me read the first excerpt I seek your comment on. "The question was asked, which I really find unacceptable, whether we give up our goal. I shall tell you no! We do not give up on our goal. The question then, if we look at the plan is not whether the plan represents completion of the goal, of course it does not. The question is, though, whether the plan represents a way towards the final goal."
Can you place into context what is the goal that Milosevic is referring to in this passage?
A. In other portions of his address, he makes clear that the goal is the establishment of a separate Bosnian Serb state.
Q. And can you summarise the other portions in the Assembly session, the 30th Assembly session, which lead you to this interpretation of the word "goal"?
A. Well, part of it is below in the second paragraph which I can put on the ELMO, if it please the Court. Speaking of the characteristics of a state that have been supported by the Serb government, a united system of money transfer, introduce the same money, intend to have every possible link and transaction between the economies, as we'll as we are 6557 going to stabilise the entire unified area of economy. In other passages he speaks of the police, the Serb police which under terms of a modification of the plan that was agreed on in Athens a few days earlier, were given permission to be the authority in Serb inhabited areas of those provinces belonging to other ethnic groups. Now, these were all characteristics of a state which he describes as part of the goal here.
Q. Now, when Milosevic refers to a plan and says a plan represents a way towards the goal, what's that a reference to?
A. He speaks of the consolidation of what the Bosnian Serbs have accomplished to that point and the use of the Vance Owen agreement, or the situation established by it, as a platform from which to continue these activities to build a Bosnian Serb state.
Q. And did Dr. Karadzic agree with him on this point?
A. He did not.
Q. And are you able after reading or examining the interchanges at the 30th Assembly session, are you able to characterise the strength of the disagreement?
A. Yes. Dr. Karadzic in fact spoke of the strength of the disagreement in one of the excerpts from a later session. And I don't have that number at hand, but I suspect you do.
Q. Can I draw your attention to paragraph 111. And ask you, is that what you were referring to?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And what does -- can you summarise what Dr. Karadzic says about the nature of that disagreement? 6558
A. He characterises that disagreement as there were some misunderstandings and they are obvious. He refers specifically the Vance-Owen Plan as the source of that misunderstanding and asserts that it was not a kind of game but that it was better that people in general believed that it was a game.
Q. Now, can I ask you to describe based solely on your examination of the Assembly session minutes, the relationship between Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Milosevic after this disagreement in 1993?
A. The two remained in disagreement over issues of peace plans from this point on, and in fact we see from some of the passages here that Serbia imposed a blockade upon the Republika Srpska at the border crossings but that considerable materiel, aid continued to flow from Serbia into the Republika Srpska in support of the Bosnian Serb project.
Q. Can I draw your attention to paragraph 136 in your report and ask you to place this in context and explain what, if anything, it does to inform us about the nature of their relationship?
A. Yes, again a retrospective comment by Karadzic about a communication or conversation with Milosevic in which Milosevic told him that Zimmerman had requested he, Milosevic, to crush the Bosnian Serbs, but that he had declined to do that saying that the border would in fact remain open to at least some commerce.
Q. I'm about to move on to a different topic. Are there any other observations you have with respect to the relationship between the two men?
A. No. 6559
Q. Now, in your examination of the Assembly session minutes, did you ever come across references to Jovica Stanisic?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Can I draw your attention to paragraph 146. And this is from the 55th session held on the 22nd and 23rd of October, 1995. Who is speaking in this excerpt contained in 146?
A. Milovan Milanovic.
Q. And can you place -- you've only given us a small excerpt here. Based on your examination of the rest of the Assembly session, can you give us the background of this statement by Milanovic?
A. This statement is one of several made at the 55th session by Bosnian Serb representatives who had attended a meeting in Belgrade with Mr. Milosevic and other officials of Yugoslavia and Serbia immediately prior to the commencement of the negotiations in Dayton. And at that meeting the two sides discussed what their stance would be in the Dayton talks, and in particular the Bosnian Serb representatives shared with Milosevic what they were hoping he would do on their behalf in Dayton.
Q. Is there another reference in this same session to Mr. Stanisic with respect to events in Bihac?
A. Yes, there is. The meeting -- what -- Mr. Stanisic was one of the people attending the meeting on behalf of Yugoslavia, and one of the delegates at the Bosnian Serb Assembly referred to a statement that Mr. Jovica Stanisic had made.
Q. Do you recall a paragraph in your report, or may I direct you to a particular paragraph? 6560
A. I recall very clearly that it's paragraph 148 because it's right in front of me.
Q. Can you tell us who is speaking and tell us what position that speaker held?
A. Mr. Rasula was a member of the Bosnian Serb Assembly. He was from Sanski Most and had previously been president of the Crisis Staff in Sanski Most.
Q. And what is he saying in this passage?
A. In this passage he is indicating that Mr. Jovica Stanisic spoke and confirmed information that Rasula and other Bosnian Serbs already had -- about who had prevented the taking of Bihac.
Q. Now, in this excerpt you simply refer to -- I'm sorry, Rasula simply refers to a person with a family name of Stanisic, you indicate brackets that you believe that the person he is referring to is Jovica Stanisic. Can you tell us, confined to the Assembly session minutes, how you reached that conclusion?
A. Yes. On page 11 of the English translation of the Assembly session, the delegates from the Bosnian Serb Assembly are named. There were 22 of them. Mr. Mico Stanisic is not among them. At the same time at the beginning of the session, the participants in the meeting from the Yugoslav side are named, and Mr. Jovica Stanisic is among the participants from the Yugoslav side.
MR. GROOME: Could I ask that page 11 of the Assembly session be brought up. It's 65 ter 1373. If that could be placed on the screens before us. And if we could focus on the paragraph beginning "as for our 6561 demand ... "
Q. Now, I'm going to ask you to read the paragraph that makes an additional reference to Mr. Stanisic.
While we're waiting for it to come to our screens, can I ask you to place in context what's happening, one of the events that are happening contextually that will help the Chamber in understanding this passage?
A. Let me look at it first, if I may.
Q. Yes, I am sorry.
A. A major topic at this discussion in Belgrade was the concerns of the Bosnian Serb representatives about the blockade on the Drina river that the government of Serbia was -- widely believed to be and said it was imposing. And the delegates asked about that blockade, and in this passage the speaker, who I believe is Mr. Bijelic, says that they received an answer that indeed things were passing through --
Q. If I might interrupt you there. Could I ask you to actually read the paragraph --
Q. -- that refers to Mr. Stanisic.
A. "As for our demand for the blockade on the Drina to be lifted, I must say that we were not given an answer. Several colleagues insisted on it and asked, but we did not get an answer other than that things were going regardless, passing through, that goods were going in both directions, and that the fact that there were lesser quantities should be blamed on our government, which, I recall Mr. Stanisic saying, insisted 6562 on the private sector, and it seemed to me that every answer frequently pointed in that direction in order to sew the seeds of dissent so that we would squabble and fight among ourselves."
Q. Now, over the course of your study of Assembly session minutes, do you recall seeing the name Franko Simatovic or Frenki?
A. No, I do not.
THE INTERPRETER: Please make pauses between questions and answers. Thank you.
Q. Apart from mentions of Mr. Stanisic himself, in paragraph 199 of your report you included an excerpt from the 32nd session held in May of 1993, which includes a reference to the Serbian MUP. In that particular passage, Ratko Adzic says:
"Certain services and individuals have been present that work outside the official MUP channels for the needs of the MUP of Serbia." My question to you is, who is Ratko Adzic?
A. Ratko -- pause a minute here. Ratko Adzic was the president of one of the municipalities in western Sarajevo who became the minister of Internal Affairs in the government of the RS.
Q. Are you able to tell us at the time he is speaking here what position he held?
A. He was then minister of Internal Affairs of the RS.
Q. And can you help us understand what this passage is referring to?
A. It refers to a -- Tajfun, the name of an intelligence service about which very little additional information is available in the 6563 transcripts other than it was active in the Banja Luka area and, in particular, played a role in the subsequent uprising there known as September 1993.
Q. And am I correct that the typhoon and is spelled as T-a-j-f-u-n in the Assembly session?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Now, if I could draw your attention to paragraph 233 of your report. In your study of the Assembly session transcripts, did you come across a reference to a paramilitary group commonly referred to as the Red Berets?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Before I ask you to comment on the statements that were made, could you please tell us the context from the Assembly session minutes in which a discussion of the Red Berets took place?
A. Prior to this statement by Dr. Vojinovic [phoen], who was the delegate from Brcko, several delegates to the Assembly reported the murder of a policeman in Brcko and questioned Mr. Vojinovic about exactly what had happened and why this murder had taken place.
Q. And is it said who was believed to have murdered this policeman?
A. Mr. Vojinovic reported that the members of the RS army were wearing different markings, that the Red Beret were responsible for the murder.
Q. And do the Assembly session minutes indicate the ethnicity of the policeman in Brcko that was murdered?
A. They indicate that he was a Serb. 6564
Q. Who does Vojinovic believe the Red Berets are affiliated with?
A. He believes them to have been a part of the RS army.
Q. Now, we can read for ourselves that Vojinovic recounts a conversation he had with the brigade commander of the Republika Srpska. As a result of that conversation, what is Vojinovic's understanding of the purpose of the Red Berets?
A. His understanding was that they were -- their mission was special offensive operations.
Q. Now, Dr. Donia, this discussion of the Red Berets killing a policeman in Brcko occurs at the end of 1993 in the 36th session. How many Assembly sessions were there in all?
Q. And did you examine all of them?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. In any of those sessions after this initial discussion about the Red Berets murdering this policeman, is there any mention of an investigation into that murder of the policeman?
A. I did not see any.
Q. Now, Dr. Donia, paragraphs 55 to 57 of the indictment allege that Arkan was responsible for serious crimes in Sanski Most in September of 1995, crimes which became well known. Is there any reference in the Assembly session with respect to Arkan around this time-period?
Q. Can I draw your attention to paragraph 143.
A. Yes. 6565
Q. And can I ask you to summarise the discussion that is held in the Assembly session regarding Arkan?
A. Mr. Djuric, who is a delegate, said that he believed Arkan to be in the service of Belgrade and that he was sent by someone in Belgrade to help the Bosnian Serbs.
Q. Did Vojo Kupresanin also make comments regarding Arkan in this Assembly session?
A. Yes, did he.
Q. And I direct your attention to paragraph 141 of your report, and can you describe Mr. Kupresanin's position with respect to Arkan?
A. In paragraph 141, Mr. Kupresanin who was a delegate from the Bosnian Krajina area noted that -- his own dissatisfaction with the many commanders that had existed or had been in position in Banja Luka and proposed that Arkan should be invited to -- should be appointed commander of Banja Luka. And praising what he did in Eastern Slavonia as achieving practical results.
MR. GROOME: Your Honour, these are all the questions I have for Dr. Donia. I know that you will defer your decision on admissibility of the report, but so that I'm not remiss in my duties, I do formally tender it at this stage, and that's 65 ter 5396.
JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome. Before we continue, Mr. Donia, I hope you'll forgive me but you -- I didn't follow you. You were asked how you concluded that where the family name of Mr. Stanisic was used only by Mr. Rasula, you referred to page 11 of the English translation of the Assembly session. Which 6566 Assembly session were you specifically referring to there?
THE WITNESS: Your Honour, that was the 55th Assembly session.
JUDGE ORIE: Okay. And that the 55th Assembly session, let me just check, you say page 11 of the English.
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. There are two excerpts. One of which is in the report --
JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
THE WITNESS: -- which -- and one of which is not which we simply -- which I simply cited from the transcript of the 55th session.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you referred for those present to page 11 of that English -- page 11 of the 55th session, is that --
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: Could we have -- as far as I can see that is -- let me just see --
THE WITNESS: It's toward the bottom of the page, the last full paragraph on that page. He is cited in line 5.
JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. I have page 11 which starts at the top with the words "what my colleague Djuric had said before me..." Is that the page you are referring to?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, that's the page.
JUDGE ORIE: And now you said --
THE WITNESS: Down further in the --
JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
THE WITNESS: -- last full paragraph of that page.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes. 6567
THE WITNESS: In line -- the fifth line of that paragraph, you see Mr. Stanisic in upper case letters.
JUDGE ORIE: Well, there apparently seems to be a problem.
MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I believe there is some confusion. I believe Dr. Donia believes you are asking about Mr. Stanisic, and I believe you are asking about the list of attendees --
JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
MR. GROOME: -- of the delegation, and that's found on page 7 of the Assembly session minutes.
JUDGE ORIE: That's page 7, because I understood your testimony to be that it was on page 11. But you say it's to be found on page 7. Let's have a look at page 7.
MR. GROOME: Perhaps if that could be called up so Dr. Donia could read that page.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, there I see it. Yes. I was a bit confused by not finding it on page 11, but I do see that on page 7 it says our delegation consisted of and then --
MR. GROOME: Please ask the court usher to scroll to page 7 so Dr. Donia can see what we are referring to.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then the presence of Mr. Jovica Stanisic as a member of the --
THE WITNESS: Your Honour --
JUDGE ORIE: -- delegation, you said that it's to be found at the beginning of the transcript; is that correct?
THE WITNESS: At the beginning of the transcript of this session, 6568 yes. I forget whether it's page 1 or 2, but it is --
JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I found this now on page 7, so I was able to follow that. And you say at the beginning of the -- because I had --
MR. GROOME: Your Honour, it's page 4 about the middle of the page.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No wonder that I had some difficulties in finding it because the beginning is a relative concept. Yes, now I see it on page 4 approximately in the middle.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I apologise, Your Honour. I wasn't clear on where that appeared.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's where Mr. Milanovic explains the presence of 22 members of the Republika Srpska Assembly and names those who were in the serving delegation. Yes.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGE ORIE: It's clear to me now. I found the sources. You see how important it is, Mr. Donia, to verify the sources.
MR. GROOME: Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
MR. GROOME: I hadn't intended on tendering that session, I thought maybe him reading the paragraph would suffice, but now that we have spoken about different portions of it, I would tender 1373, 65 ter number, the 55th session.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I found most important that we find on page 7 what was said to be found at page 11, and that we found on page 4 what is said to be found at the very beginning of the session. 6569 Any objections against tendering this document? Madam Registrar, the number would be.
THE REGISTRAR: 1373 becomes Exhibit P951, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: P951 is admitted into evidence. We still have ten minutes left.
Mr. Jordash, you are the first to -- you know that there's always a risk in letting someone else going first. Please.
MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
JUDGE ORIE: Please start your cross-examination. Mr. Donia, you'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Jordash. Mr. Jordash is counsel for Mr. Jovica Stanisic.
Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash:
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Donia.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. You've testified in, I haven't actually counted them, but probably six or seven cases before this Tribunal?
A. By my count I've testified in 12.
Q. And this is the first time that you've compiled a report such as in this way?
Q. No? What other report have you compiled in this way?
A. I compiled a report from a limited number of these Assembly sessions for the case of the Prosecutor v Slobodan Milosevic.
Q. Okay. Let me put it differently. This is the first time that you've compiled a report in this way and this being the sole report 6570 before the Court?
A. No. I believe that it was the sole report in the Milosevic case as I recall. I'm subject to being corrected on that.
Q. There was a supplement to that expert report?
A. That supplement was simply a few other excerpts that were added to the original when an additional session became available to me.
Q. Okay. So ten out of the cases you've testified in, you've had a different type of report before the Court?
A. There has been at least one additional type of report, and I believe this report or the Milosevic report was submitted in four or five cases as well.
Q. Right. And the -- those other types of reports have been of a more, how can I say, traditional kind of expert report with opinions stated with footnotes sourcing material; is that correct?
Q. Offering a global opinion with sub-opinions with footnoted material?
A. Well, they offered a narrative and I would not want to reduce that narrative to opinion. It was a narrative based on the sources that I did reference in footnotes which went to the origins, development, and outcome of the events pertaining to the indictment.
Q. Right. So a typical report would be the one you filed or compiled in the Brdjanin case entitled "Bosnian Krajina in the History of Bosnia-Herzegovina, History and Developments Leading to the Outbreak of Armed Conflicts 1992"? 6571
Q. Now, I want to understand why it was or the process by which you were asked to compile this different type of report in this case and also the Milosevic case. What was the -- before I start on that, was the report in the Milosevic case similar to this report or the same as this report?
A. It was similar in format or it was similar, let's say, in style. It was based, as I indicated, on a more limited set of the Bosnian Serb Assembly sessions, and it was presented in chronological form by Assembly session rather than topically with the eight topics as this report has been.
Q. Right. Just dealing with the other type of reports, just generally how did it come to pass that you wrote those reports? How were you first of all approached by the Prosecution?
A. In each case I was approached by a member of the Prosecution to prepare a report and as they approached me, they indicated the type of report that they would like to have.
Q. In what sense did they indicate that? Did they come with a question or was it they came with a theme? How was it?
A. It depended on the particular case. In a couple of the early reports, I was asked to provide a very broad background historical canvass at a time when many people at the Tribunal were very unfamiliar with the history of the region. Those requests in subsequent cases became more refined, more specific, more limited in geography and chronology, and of a much more pertinent directly to the events in the -- 6572 alleged in the indictment.
Q. And was it a process -- was the final questions or question asked in the reports the result of a collaborative exchange of ideas between you and the Prosecution?
A. To a limited degree, yes. For example, in the Stakic case, I was asked specifically to limit the scope to events after the election of 1990, and I myself suggested some further limitations on that report which made it much more specifically targeted at the -- as a background to the events alleged in the indictment.
Q. When you were approached to write a report in this case, what was the first request made of you?
A. The request was simply that I expand the report that I had prepared for the Milosevic case to include additional sessions because the Milosevic case had started with the 16th session, did not include sessions 1 to 14.
Q. Right. Okay. Let's go back then to the approach that was made of you in the Milosevic case. What was the approach made in the first instance?
A. Well, that actually came out of some discussions that I had when I was preparing the report for the Krajisnik case. I had requested Assembly sessions going into the summer and fall of 1992 which I had not previously seen. I requested those of the Prosecution. And perceived that this was an extraordinary source which illuminated more than just the few months prior to the beginning of the conflict, but in fact represented a major source for events throughout the war and even 6573 afterwards, as well as the retrospective observations that were being made in some of the comments. In other words, I recognised that unlike a lot of sources, this source really described changes over time in people's attitude, actions, and descriptions of events.
JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I'm looking at the clock. I would like to spend one or two minutes on how we will proceed tomorrow. If this would be a suitable moment.
MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes, that's fine. Thank you.
JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Donia, I'll discuss with the parties how to proceed. Before I ask the usher to escort you out of the courtroom, I'd like to instruct you that you should not speak with anyone about your testimony, whether that is testimony given already or still to be given tomorrow, because we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.00 in this same courtroom.
Madam usher, could you please escort the witness out of the courtroom.
[The witness stands down]
JUDGE ORIE: Could I receive indication as the time the parties would need for cross-examination of this witness?
MR. JORDASH: Two hours, if I could, please.
JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, up to an hour. Thank you.
JUDGE ORIE: That makes three hours. Now, the next question is, I do understand that the witness to be cross-examined has arrived, is in 6574 The Hague. How much time do you think you would need for the next witness to be cross-examined?
MR. JORDASH: I'm hesitating. I don't want to be too conservative. I would ask for three hours, please.
JUDGE ORIE: Which means that in no way we could finish both witnesses tomorrow. That seems to be very clear. I mean, it's of no use to urge you to shortcut a bit because that wouldn't help us out.
MR. JORDASH: No, the next witness covers a range of subjects in a number of localities.
JUDGE ORIE: Which means that we would hear the remainder of that witness's testimony on Wednesday, the 1st of September.
MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the only thing that I would raise, I would ask the Chamber just to have Victim Witness inquire from both witnesses the impact of staying over the weekend. I know that this witness just came out of the hospital, I don't know whether he has a follow-up appointment Monday, I know nothing about that.
JUDGE ORIE: Would we then consider to hear the -- whether of course there are various options to see whether we could have a double session tomorrow, that is one of the issues that -- one of the possibilities that could be explored, but I'm not aware whether this causes problems as far as the Chamber is concerned because judges have their own agendas as well.
MR. JORDASH: I should say I think it would cause problems for Mr. Stanisic. When I spoke to him earlier today, I think he was struggling somewhat. 6575
JUDGE ORIE: And then if we do not want the witness to stay here during the weekend, would we then ask Mr. Donia to stay over the weekend and then to start cross-examination with the next witness tomorrow. What are the suggestions?
MR. GROOME: My suggestion was, Your Honour, that Victim Witness be asked to inquire from both witnesses what the impact of having to stay over the weekend, and then the court to make a decision about which one, whether we interrupt and Mr. --
JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
MR. GROOM: If this -- 215 has a medical appointment, that may take precedence over Dr. Donia's convenience.
JUDGE ORIE: Now it's 2 minutes past 7.00. I inquire into the matter. We are supposed to start tomorrow morning at 9.00, so we would have to make a major effort to find out. I don't know whether the Victims and Witness Section is still able to provide us with the information. And then, of course, for the witnesses both to come tomorrow morning at 9.00 and then to hear which one of the two is the lucky one or the unlucky one is ... I am available to receive whatever information there is, and I would invite the parties to remain on standby to be reached if need be. Do I understand that I didn't hear anything in that respect, that both parties are ready to start cross-examination of the next witness who was scheduled for tomorrow, so I would expect you to be ready.
MR. JORDASH: Well, I would strongly prefer to continue with Mr. Donia. [Overlapping speakers] 6576
JUDGE ORIE: I do see the point but there are other interests involved as well. But I do understand that both Defence teams are ready to start to cross-examine the next witness who has a medical history at this moment. Mr. Bakrac?
MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: Then I ask Madam Registrar to inform the Victims and Witness Section about what we discussed over the last four, five minutes and to report if possible this evening, even informally, to Chamber staff, and then for the other parties to -- well, mobile phones are in the possession of everyone so that we could communicate if need be. We adjourn and we'll resume tomorrow, Friday the 27th of August, 9.00. Courtroom II.
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m. to be reconvened on Friday, the 27th day of
August, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.