Karadzic: One Fighter in Boxing Ring

“In the defence’s point of view, you have omitted the second fighter in the ring. Viewers can see one fighter only. It is not clear to them what he is doing, as the other fighter is not visible,” Karadzic said, commenting expert witness Patrick Treanor’s findings.

Presenting his analysis of the policy of the Serbian Democratic Party, SDS, and the indictee’s dealings, the expert witness mentioned that the Serbs’ policy was to have all Serbs live in one state, originally in Yugoslavia and then in the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

He said the indictee was “an active leader” of his Party, adding that, by law, in his capacity as president, he was Commander-in-Chief of the Army.

Karadzic, the former President of Republika Srpska, is on trial before the Hague Tribunal for genocide, crimes against humanity and violation of the laws and customs of war committed from 1992 to 1995.

The indictee asked Treanor why he failed to include, in his report, a statement given by Alija Izetbegovic, the then Chairman of the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, RBiH, at an Assembly session in February 1991, when he said that he would “sacrifice peace for Bosnia’s sovereignty, but he would not sacrifice sovereignty for anything”.

“Yes, it could have been included, but I think I mentioned his subsequent statement from March 1991,” the expert witness said, confirming that Izetbegovic said in Split that the declaration of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s sovereignty would be adopted with or without Serb delegates.

In an effort to prove that the referendum decision about independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina was illegal, Karadzic quoted provisions from the Constitution and laws of the former RBiH and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, SFRJ, which stipulate that “SFRJ borders cannot be changed unless all republics and provinces agree with it” and the referendum voting by Bosnia’s citizens must have “been supported by at least two thirds of delegates”.

Treanor confirmed that the indictee correctly quoted the constitutional provisions, but he mainly refrained from giving comments, because, as he said he was neither a lawyer not an expert in constitutional issues.

The expert witness agreed with the indictee when he said that those who advocated for the idea of staying in Yugoslavia did not need forces, because “they had the law on their side”, but he mentioned that the former “Yugoslav National Army, JNA, used force in order to prevent those who did not want to stay in Yugoslavia from using force”.

The expert witness said that, on the eve of the plebiscite of the Serb people in November 1991, the indictee called on SDS local officials to get rid of managers deemed unsuitable, and appoint reliable people instead.

In response to that, the indictee asked Treanor if he thought that the division of Yugoslavia set the scene for conflict or if the preservation of municipal borders was far more important than that. The expert witness agreed that the division of Yugoslavia prepared the scene for conflict.

Cross-examination is due to continue on Friday, June 2.

M.T.