1 Friday, 13 October 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the witness please make the declaration.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

8 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

9 WITNESS: WITNESS MM-117

10 [Witness answered through interpreter]

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You may be seated, sir.

12 Mr. Milovancevic?

13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

14 Examination by Mr. Milovancevic:

15 Q. Good morning, sir. At the very outset, I will inform you briefly

16 of the proceedings we will implement during your testimony. You asked for

17 protective measures, which were approved by the Trial Chamber: image

18 distortion, voice distortion and a pseudonym. During these proceedings, I

19 will address you as Mr. MM-117 or Witness. Is that all right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Thank you. Sir, I will now show you a document containing your

22 personal details, your pseudonym and the fact that you are a witness.

23 Please read it silently to yourself and just tell us whether the details

24 on this document correspond to your personal details. Don't read it out

25 loud. Thank you.

1 A. Yes.

2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] We have a copy for our learned

3 friends and I do apologise for not providing it immediately.

4 Your Honours, I tender this document with the witness's pseudonym

5 under seal. Thank you.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic. The

7 document is admitted under seal. May it please be given an exhibit

8 number.

9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number 964,

10 under seal.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13 Q. Witness, please, please let us both bear in mind that we have to

14 make a pause between my question and your answer so that the interpreters

15 can do their job, and I would also like to ask you to give me direct

16 answers to my questions. If there is any need to explain things, I will

17 put another question to you. Also, please speak slowly and bear in mind

18 that when you mention the offices you held or the jobs you held, not to

19 describe this in detail, just mention, "My job" for example without

20 specifying it. If there is any need to specify any of these details which

21 might identify you, the Defence will ask for us to pass into private

22 session and then we will be able to talk about this. Do you understand

23 this?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Thank you very much. Did you go to primary and secondary school

1 in your place of birth?

2 A. Yes, I did.

3 Q. Can you tell us where you went to university and what you studied?

4 A. The faculty of political sciences in Zagreb.

5 Q. After graduating from the faculty of political sciences, what job

6 did you do? You don't have to mention the institution where you worked.

7 A. I was an assistant lecturer in a school and at the university.

8 Q. It seems my microphone was not switched on. I don't know if my

9 question was heard. Oh, yes. It's all right. Thank you.

10 What year did you graduate in?

11 A. 1979.

12 Q. So from the time you graduated from university to 1991, you were a

13 lecturer, is this correct, a university lecturer and a lecturer at

14 institutions of higher education?

15 A. Yes.

16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think we should

17 move into private session to avoid identifying the witness.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session?

19 [Private session]

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 9321-9323 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 [Open session]

7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Mr. Milovancevic?

9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

10 Q. At one point you said that in 1991 you left Zagreb. Did you have

11 problems? What was the main reason you left Zagreb? Can we clarify that?

12 A. The main reason was my feeling of being physically imperilled and

13 my inability to find work.

14 Q. Thank you. When you say you felt physically under threat, are you

15 speaking of personal danger?

16 A. Yes, precisely so.

17 Q. Thank you. Can you explain to us how this feeling of personal

18 danger arose?

19 A. Well, I would have to explain at length by your leave.

20 Q. Go ahead.

21 A. After the elections held in May 1990 in the former Yugoslavia,

22 there was change of government in most republics and the political climate

23 in Croatia and in Zagreb where I was living changed. My predominant

24 feeling was the following. I had been living in Zagreb for a full 15

25 years up to that point. I had lived well. I was a citizen like every

1 other citizen in Zagreb and Croatia.

2 Q. Witness, please excuse me for interrupting you but I will ask

3 you -- I'm sorry for interrupting your natural rhythm. If you can slow

4 down for the sake of the interpreters, they haven't complained, but if you

5 can speak a little slower it will be easier for them.

6 A. I will try. I do tend to speak fast and I too apologise.

7 Up to 1990, when elections were held in Croatia, I was a citizen

8 like any other, but a little before that date, and after that date, during

9 the pre-election campaign, the situation changed, and I no longer felt as

10 simply a citizen but I felt that society and the new state were

11 identifying me as a Serb not simply a citizen. So that although up to

12 that point, I hardly was aware that I was a Serb because of the way I was

13 raised in my family, I came to understand through the attitude of the

14 Croatian government that I was a Serb. These are hard words but they are

15 true. I still have many friends in Zagreb and Croatia but the state

16 system was carrying out repression in politics and in the media and for

17 this reason, most of the people accepted this logic. Specifically, in

18 mid-1991 or rather in early 1991, in February or March, I was approached

19 by a man in Frankopanska street in Zagreb. I was just about to board a

20 tram. And he told me that my neck was good for hanging from a lamp post.

21 Q. I apologise, Witness. Did you know this person?

22 A. No, I didn't. I don't know the reason for which he established

23 that I was a Serb but he approached me and that's what he said and then he

24 entered the tram with me. I was going to the republic square which is now

25 called the Ban Jelacic square. There were a lot of passengers in the

1 tram. He wouldn't stop shouting at me. No one paid any attention or no

2 one had the strength to say anything against him.

3 Q. That was in the morning, in the afternoon, in the evening? When

4 was it?

5 A. It was in the afternoon, I would say.

6 Q. This was taking place in the centre of the town?

7 A. Yes, in the very centre.

8 Q. You said that after what he had said in the street, this man

9 entered the tram with you and he shouted at you. What was it that he was

10 saying to you when you said no one opposed him?

11 A. Well, he said I was a member of the military, that Zagreb wasn't a

12 place for me to live in, I should move, I'd be swallowed up by the night.

13 I would just disappear. I can't remember everything else he said but it

14 went on.

15 Q. How did this meeting end in the tram?

16 A. At the next stop, I got out, at trg Republika, at the public

17 square. But that was just one event among many such events in that

18 nightmare situation.

19 Q. Witness are you saying there were similar events? You said that

20 was just one event. What does that mean?

21 A. Well, I had other unpleasant experiences. I was threatened on

22 other occasions in this way. In my flat in Zagreb, I have two-room flat

23 in Zagreb, fully furnished. Eggs were thrown at the door on a number of

24 occasions. I received messages saying that I had to move out, and

25 similarly, on two occasions, sometime in August or September, 1991, my

1 wheel, my car wheel was unscrewed. This was done to Serbs quite

2 frequently at the time. I tried to check this every morning. And this

3 was a sign telling me that I had to leave Zagreb, although at that time I

4 was in an organisation with other prominent individuals and we tried to

5 resolve the Serbian issue in Croatia in a peaceful way but I wouldn't

6 speak about this now.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we just

9 briefly move into private session, into closed session, so that the

10 witness can tell us which organisation he was a member of?

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session?

12 [Private session]

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 [Open session]

13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Yes, Mr. Milovancevic?

15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

16 Q. Witness, you mentioned those unpleasant experiences that you had

17 had. You said that there were a number of such experiences that you had

18 and you described them. Do you know who the perpetrators were, who was

19 throwing these eggs at your door, who unscrewed your car wheel? Do you

20 know these people? Personally, did you ever find out about their

21 identity?

22 A. No, I didn't. I couldn't carry out such an investigation either

23 but as an analyst, what I did know was that the system was behind all of

24 this and I can confirm this claim by providing you with the following

25 examples. The well known poet and philosopher Goethe said on one occasion

1 that if you treat the people as if they were stupid, they really will act

2 stupidly. He said that stupidity is a disease against which one has to

3 fight. The authorities in Croatia treated the people as if they were

4 stupid and this was a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'll provide you with two

5 or three obvious examples. Mr. Sime Djodan, deputy of Mr. Tudjman's, a

6 deputy of the president of Croatia, at the Alka in Sinj, the games in Sinj

7 in August 1991 said in public and on television, and he was addressing the

8 Serbs in a threatening manner, he said that the Serbs should take care

9 because on average they were 15 centimetres shorter than the Croats and

10 they had cone-like heads. He also said that their brains were probably

11 smaller than Croatian brains. This was said on television. This was at a

12 public meeting, at an assembly. And naturally, this involved racial

13 discrimination.

14 This also confirms the scenario that as early as 1990 at a meeting

15 of the HDZ, the president of the HDZ, Mr. Tudjman, later to become the

16 president, said that NDH, the Independent State of Croatia which was based

17 on a fascist ideology, was the historical objective of the Croatian

18 people. Then there are these personal experiences of mine. Well you've

19 asked me whether I knew the identities of the individuals who created

20 certain acts. I'm saying the system was behind it and this is also

21 obvious because on the 2nd of May 1991, in Zadar, over 120 Serbian

22 catering establishments were damaged and in a period of about a month

23 about a thousand buildings were destroyed in that area. This was

24 called -- so-called crystal night.

25 Q. When these unpleasant events happened, were you involved in

1 politics or were you publicly engaged? Were you a well known individual

2 for the public?

3 A. No. I wasn't involved in politics apart from the fact that I was

4 a member of the organisation that I have already mentioned.

5 Q. Was there a reason for anyone to treat you in this way, to

6 persecute you in this way?

7 A. I'm certain that given that I was brought up to believe in the

8 idea of Yugoslavia, given the way I acted, there was no one who would want

9 to harm me, but I was someone from a people who was treated by the

10 Croatian authorities as a negative element. And that's why I was treated

11 the way I was treated.

12 Q. Witness, you mentioned your experiences. Those are the

13 experiences of one individual. Were there other individuals of Serbian

14 nationality in Croatia who had similar experiences at the time? Do you

15 know anything about that?

16 A. Well, it's a well known fact, and naturally I'm familiar with

17 quite a few examples. I should point out that in 1993, Mr. Akashi stated

18 in one of his documents that in 1990 and 1991, over 250.000 inhabitants

19 had been driven out of towns in Croatia. That number of individuals

20 couldn't have had enemies, or rather, they were treated as enemies only by

21 the system.

22 Q. I apologise for interrupting you. You said 250.000 people were

23 expelled from towns or urban areas in Croatia. What was their

24 nationality?

25 A. Serbs. I'm talking about Serbs alone.

1 Q. Thank you. You've been explaining your position in Zagreb, the

2 position that others were in, and you said, to paraphrase you, that the

3 Croatian state was behind this. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

4 What was happening in 1990 and 1991? What led you to believe that this

5 was the case? What led you to this conclusion? What sort of political

6 processes were involved? That's what I'm asking you about.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Hasn't he answered that question, Mr. Milovancevic?

8 I thought he said to us that he concluded that because of what was said by

9 some Croatian leader in -- on television on a public platform, that Serbs

10 have on average 15 centimetres shorter than Croats and that they've got

11 smaller brains. That's how he explained that. Or do you want something

12 more?

13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think the

14 witness mentioned an example that is perhaps an extreme example. I'm

15 interested in the policies and the general situation.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: But he was answering specifically that question,

17 how do you conclude that the state of Croatia was behind the personal

18 experiences that you went through? And that's how he explained it. I'm

19 trying to get us moving so that we don't repeat the same thing over and

20 over again.

21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm bearing that in mind.

24 Q. You mentioned your personal experience and your own attitude. You

25 told us about what these acts meant to you. What sort of conclusions

1 could the Serbian population draw on the basis of political meetings,

2 pre-electoral campaigns and on the basis of acts committed after the

3 elections? Could you provide us with some brief explanations?

4 A. Well, one would want to provide very lengthy explanations about

5 these things. I'll say that given the Croatian constitution, at the end

6 of 1990, the position of the Serbian people changed. They were no longer

7 a constituent people, they were a national minority, and if you have a

8 look at this within the historical context of the Second World War, this

9 was a sort of warning issued to the Serbs. Representatives of political

10 power adopted such a position. If representatives of a political power is

11 speaking that means the state is speaking. I listened to what the state

12 said. I tried to remain in Zagreb and I remained there until September of

13 1991. But as my security really was at risk I decided to leave Zagreb.

14 That became obvious.

15 And there is one other issue that is of great importance. I

16 believe the Chamber will be interested in this too. It was the end of

17 1991, Croatia passed a law on distributing flats abandoned by Serbs.

18 These flats were distributed to members of Croatian military formations.

19 I think they were even distributed to the Ministry of Defence. This

20 decision was taken not because there were very few flats but because many

21 Serbs had previously left the area and thus it was necessary for the

22 Croatian state to regulate the issue in their own way. And they wanted to

23 distribute the flats abandoned by Serbs, including myself, to others. A

24 tragical consequence of that law is that certain processes had been

25 rendered legal. Many people were allowed to exert pressure on other Serbs

1 so that they could enter into their flats in this way because if you pass

2 a law that makes it possible to temporarily distribute flats, well, that

3 means that you're issuing a signal for others to exert pressure on other

4 Serbs so that they could move into their flats.

5 Q. Thank you. Witness, you said that you had a fully furnished flat

6 and that you had to leave Zagreb because your life was at threat. What

7 happened to your flat?

8 A. It is still in Croatia. I don't know what happened to it. I

9 never had the possibility of getting it back because the Croatian state

10 passed a law according to which over 20.000 socially-owned flats couldn't

11 be returned to those who had lived in them. So I could not get my flat

12 back.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 JUDGE HOEPFEL: May I get to that question. You said you had a

15 fully-furnished flat. You said, Mr. Witness, you also said, I had -- or I

16 have - it says in the transcript - "two rooms flat in Zagreb." What do

17 you mean by "have"? Is this private ownership or is it a rented flat?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was the property of the company

19 that I worked for. It was given to me and my family and although we were

20 not de facto the owners of the flat, the flat in a certain sense belonged

21 to the person it had been allocated to. That's how things functioned in a

22 socialist society. I don't know how necessary it is to go into

23 explanations. I had furnished the flat. I don't believe it's necessary

24 to give you a list of the furniture. The property was my own property

25 or -- in the flat, when I left Zagreb, in September I drove through

1 Hungary and I was only able to take my personal affairs with me, the bed,

2 the television, the fridge and other items remained in the flat.

3 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. And you didn't get any compensation

4 for what you left there?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, never.

6 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. You may proceed, please.

7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

8 Q. In connection with the rally mentioned by His Honour Judge

9 Hoepfel, could you explain this in a different way? How were the housing

10 problems of citizens in the Republic of Croatia resolved before 1991? I'm

11 speaking of all citizens, and was the situation the same in all republics,

12 when it comes to ownership of flats? Can you tell us this? Were citizens

13 owners of their flats? Was there another way this was done?

14 A. Citizens were not owners of flats in the land registers but every

15 citizen was allocated a flat and it was considered to be that person's

16 flat until the end of his life and his family had the right to inherit the

17 flat. So de facto, legally, it wasn't one won proper ownership but the

18 flats in fact belonged to the people living in them. The reason for this

19 was that all the citizens of the former Yugoslavia, not Croatia,

20 contributed the money for the building of those flats. They were not

21 bought by individuals, they were bought by society. But de facto a flat

22 belonged to the person it was allocated to and no one could confiscate it,

23 neither the company nor the state that had given the person the flat.

24 Q. You said you left Zagreb because you felt physically at threat,

25 and that you went to Knin. Where did you live in Knin? You don't have to

1 tell us the address. Where did you live before you got the job there?

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you want to go into private session?

3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that the

4 witness could answer this question without identifying his identity very

5 briefly, thank you.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I returned to Knin because I was

7 born in Knin. My parents were there. We had property there. And that

8 was the only reason I returned to Knin. I engaged in farming activities

9 and tried to find a place for myself in my new environment.

10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Thank you.

12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we now move

13 into private session so key can be more specific?

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session?

15 [Private session]

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 9336-9339 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 [Open session]

8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

10 Yes, Mr. Milovancevic?

11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

12 Q. Witness, you explained that you accepted this new job. Can you

13 tell us briefly what your task was? You don't have to mention the name of

14 the institution, if possible, of course. If you need to mention it, we

15 will move back into private session.

16 A. In the first period, as is normal, I tried to gain an insight into

17 the situation in the organisation I was now working in, and then I took

18 measures to improve the personnel structure of the organisation I was in.

19 This was done in the following way. I tried to get as many professionals

20 who had been properly trained in internal affairs in the former Yugoslavia

21 and in Croatia to take over responsible positions. My primary motive was

22 to have professionals doing these jobs, and to remove those who had been

23 appointed to their jobs for "their merit", which wasn't really

24 professional. That was why people in Knin referred to me as an HDZ staff

25 member who was working not in the interests of the Serb people but in the

1 interests of the Croatian state. For this reason, some groups planned my

2 liquidation. However, I saw in this confirmation that the policy of

3 creating an efficient organisation, which I was trying to create with the

4 support of Minister Martic, was something I should adhere to and insist

5 on.

6 Q. Do you want to tell us that carrying out what you had agreed with

7 Mr. Martic came up against resistance? Did I understand you correctly?

8 A. Yes. There was a lot of resistance.

9 Q. While doing that job, did you have the support of Mr. Martic?

10 A. Absolutely. I had his absolute support in being persistent in

11 cleansing the personnel within the organisation.

12 Q. Can you tell us briefly how the organisation of the Secretariat of

13 the Interior on the territory of the Republic of Krajina was organised?

14 There was the SUP in Knin?

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry to do this to you but can I just ask a

16 question before he deals with this one? Related to what he has just

17 said. I just want to find out from whom you experienced this resistance.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] History shows that in all turbulent

19 times - just one minute, please, Your Honours, one sentence - in all times

20 of upheaval, very often people of poor moral quality come to the surface,

21 people protecting a certain nation, in this case the Serb nation, and they

22 are not recognised as such at the outset, and yet they feel they have

23 certain rights. It was very difficult to get rid of these bad people who

24 thought they had an eternal right to remain where they were, so that in

25 the initial phase, and even later, it's difficult to recognise who is good

1 and who is bad. I recognised certain people as not being able to carry

2 out their jobs professionally, in a professional manner, but they

3 interpreted it as my protecting the interests of Croatia rather than the

4 interests of the Serbian Krajina.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, you have told us about people who were

6 not professional. I just want to know, when I say from whom, was it from

7 the general public in Knin, was it from the people -- the staff that was

8 working under you? Was it a trade union? That's all I want to know. Who

9 resisted you?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand the question, Your

11 Honours. I only worked in that organisation, and I'm referring to people

12 who worked in that organisation, people who were below me and who felt

13 their positions were at threat and that's why certain actions were taken.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: These were people of Serb extraction?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, exclusively Serb.

16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

17 Q. Witness, in addition to the Knin SUP, Secretariat of the Interior,

18 which other organisational units were in existence, where and where, which

19 were covered by the Knin SUP?

20 A. The SUP was responsible for southern Dalmatia. They had public

21 security stations or police stations in Benkovac, Drnis, in Knin, that's

22 where the headquarters of the SUP were located, but there was a particular

23 public security station Benkovac, Drnis, Knin and Obrovac, as I have said.

24 Q. Do you know who the commander of the police station in Benkovac

25 was and were any changes made there?

1 A. Yes. But perhaps we should deal with this in private session.

2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you for saying that.

3 Your Honours, could we move into private session, please?

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session?

5 [Private session]

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 [Open session]

14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

16 Yes, Mr. Milovancevic?

17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Please continue, Witness.

19 A. In the Benkovac area, there were certain negative phenomena, some

20 groups appeared, and they wanted to decide about how people were to live

21 in that area. There were some groups of people who wanted to spread fear

22 and insecurity for all citizens who lived in that area. The leaders of

23 the public security station in existence at the time couldn't resolve the

24 problem, which is why it was necessary to appoint an individual who would

25 be able to deal with the matter. At that time, the Croatian population

1 was also maltreated to a certain extent and since an order had been issued

2 according to which any violations of public law and order, and in

3 particular, putting members of others ethnic groups at threat, had to be

4 punished, measures were taken to prevent such acts.

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have to move

8 back into private session. Or perhaps the beginning of my sentence could

9 be redacted and I will rephrase the question. We can remain in open

10 session but I suggest this be redacted.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, may the sentence -- is that the sentence at

12 page 28, line 7 to 8, that you want to redact?

13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, that's

14 correct. The beginning of my question.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. May that sentence then be redacted and may

16 the Chamber please move into private session?

17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise. If

18 we redact the beginning of this sentence, it's not necessary to move into

19 private session. We can remain in open session. By redacting the

20 sentence I have referred to we will protect the witness and when

21 rephrasing my question I will make sure that I don't reveal the witness's

22 identity, if you agree to such a procedure.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm in your hands, sir. Thank you very much.

24 Well, we don't have to -- may we stay in open session. Thank you very

25 much, Mr. Milovancevic. You may proceed.

1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

2 Q. Do you know whether Mr. Vujko understood the task he had and the

3 problems that existed, such as you described them?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. With regard to the objections to Mr. Vujko and dealing with those

6 problems, do you know whether Mr. Martic was aware of those problems and

7 what was his attitude towards the situation?

8 A. Mr. Martic wanted to be in control of everything that was taking

9 place in the field, and as a result, he knew what the specific tasks of

10 Mr. Vujko were.

11 Q. Can you tell us what your opinion is? Did Mr. Martic support the

12 steps taken by Mr. Vujko?

13 A. Yes. Mr. Martic really insisted that all citizens in Krajina

14 should be treated on an equal basis. I have said this on a number of

15 occasions. I'll have to repeat this in the future because that is what I

16 believe was the case. In 1992 there was the family Cengic. This happened

17 in the vicinity of Knin. They were victims and everything was done to

18 discover who the perpetrators of the crime were and they wanted to issue a

19 sign to show that such acts could not be committed. The perpetrators were

20 discovered, and criminal reports were filed against them. This is the

21 best example as to how one should proceed if such situations occur.

22 Q. To avoid any confusion, I just have one brief question. You said

23 that the Cengic family was killed. There were four members of that

24 family. What was their nationality, and who were the perpetrators, who

25 discovered them?

1 A. Well, they were Croats, the perpetrators were identified. They

2 were discovered. They were handed over to the district Prosecutor's

3 Office and they were processed by the Knin authorities.

4 Q. Thank you. I think it's a good time for a break now, Your

5 Honours.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic, you are

7 correct.

8 Court will adjourn and come back at quarter to 11.00. Court

9 adjourned.

10 --- Recess taken at 10.14 a.m.

11 --- On resuming at 10.46 a.m.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Milovancevic?

13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

14 Q. Witness, before the break you mentioned the Cengic family, the

15 Croatian family, there were four family members. They were killed and the

16 perpetrators were identified by the Knin SUP. I want to know whether

17 there was a public reaction to that event, to the discovery of the

18 murderers. How did the public react?

19 A. Well, first of all, I should say that before that event, the

20 Ministry of the Interior made an announcement and said that the Croats had

21 probably committed the act. Their intention was to accuse the Serbian

22 authorities of treating the Croats in Krajina in a certain way. This was

23 the Ministry of Interior's initial approach because such information came

24 from the field. However, having carried out certain investigations,

25 having tried to discover the identity of the perpetrators, they proved

1 that this was not the case, that the initial hypothesis was not valid.

2 They discovered the Serbian perpetrators of the crime, they were arrested,

3 the SUP filed a criminal report, they were handed over to the district

4 court. I think they went to the military court, they were sent to the

5 military court in Banja Luka. As to what happened after that, I don't

6 know.

7 The public was revolted by this murder, and they were relieved

8 when the perpetrators were discovered. As far as I can remember, the main

9 reason for killing the members of that family was looting, they wanted to

10 steal their property, appropriate their property, and as a result they

11 were probably killed. The crime was detected and this demonstrates that

12 the authorities in Krajina acted on the basis of principles and treated

13 all citizens in Krajina in an equal way.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Was there any reason why they were sent to a

15 military court?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what the justice system

17 was like at the time. The Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia was

18 still in existence then. What's important to me was that the crime was

19 detected, we took all the necessary steps. And I'll emphasise this once

20 more, an announcement was initially made according to which the Croats

21 were the perpetrators, but when we discovered that this was not the case,

22 we --

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: You told us that. I thought you knew the reason

24 for sending them to a military court. I didn't -- these were not

25 prisoners of war, were they?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Yes, Mr. Milovancevic?

3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Q. In 1992, while you occupied the position you held, as far as you

5 know, were the Secretariats of the Interior -- did the Secretariats of the

6 Interior compile reports? I apologise, my microphone was not on. I'm not

7 sure whether what I said was heard.

8 A. I heard what you said.

9 Q. The interpreters have heard me. I'm grateful. Were reports filed

10 on their work?

11 A. Well, the rules were such that reports had to be sent on a daily

12 basis, public security stations had to issue reports on crime to higher

13 level bodies, and they -- and the Secretariats of the Interior would send

14 reports to the Ministry of the Interior, reports that concerned all issues

15 from the field.

16 Q. Given the position you held from 1992 to 1994, do you have any

17 information according to which the Ministry of the Interior of Republika

18 Srpska and Krajina assessed the security situation, the criminal

19 situation, the situation as far as law and order was concerned? Was this

20 common practice? Did it take any steps with regard to the situation it

21 came across?

22 A. Well, that's an integral part of the work. At the beginning of

23 each year the Ministry of the Interior would draft a working plan for that

24 year, and at the end of the year, they would draft annual reports. This

25 was not just the case for the Ministry of the Interior. All the

1 Secretariats and all public security stations acted in this way.

2 Q. Thank you.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I ask you to please ask questions, Mr.

4 Milovancevic, don't suggest the answer. That last question suggested the

5 answer.

6 JUDGE HOEPFEL: For clarification, please, may I ask you, the

7 witness mentioned reports to the Ministry of the Interior. Of what state

8 do you mean? What Ministry of the Interior was it?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of the Republic of Serb Krajina.

10 I'm talking about the period after the Republic of Serb Krajina was

11 established.

12 JUDGE HOEPFEL: When you told us about killing of the Cengic

13 family, you mentioned some announcement of the Ministry of the Interior

14 that it were probably Croat perpetrators. You remember? What Ministry of

15 the Interior was that? Who gave the announcement?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Ministry of the Interior of the

17 Republic of Serb Krajina, because the first operative information

18 indicated that, but after this information was checked, this was proved to

19 be false, and then the right information was given out and detection

20 proceeded, and this indicates the principled work of the ministry, because

21 they denied the first false information that it was Croats who had

22 perpetrated the crime.

23 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. And now, just sorry for the long

24 interruption now, but I got a little lost when you then said their

25 intention was to accuse the Serbian authority of treating the Croats in

1 Krajina in a certain way. Who is "they, their intention was to accuse the

2 Serbian authorities of treating the Croats in Krajina in a certain way"?

3 Whose intention?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The communique -- this referred to

5 the Croatian authorities, because the first information was that the

6 Croatian authorities had infiltrated a group on to the territory of the

7 Krajina which had perpetrated this crime.

8 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Okay. That was part of the announcement, not

9 intention of the author of the announcement? Thank you. Then I

10 understand. And you may continue, please.

11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

12 Q. In connection with this last answer, it might be interesting to

13 ask you the following: You said that the Cengic family was killed. These

14 were Croats. Do you remember how many people were killed?

15 A. This was a horrific crime, so I remember it. It was a husband, a

16 wife and two children.

17 Q. In connection with the solving of this crime, do you know what Mr.

18 Martic's attitude was?

19 A. Mr. Martic was the first or among the first to doubt the reality

20 of the report that this could have been done by Croatian forces, because

21 the area where this happened is deep in the territory near Knin, and for

22 this reason, he insisted that everything be done, that no stone be left

23 unturned, to arrive at the information as to who could have perpetrated

24 this crime. And this was the duty of the Secretariat. The job was

25 completed in a truly professional manner. And the case was solved.

1 Q. Thank you. In the period between 1992 and 1994, and also later

2 on, up to Operation Storm, can you tell us whether you can assess what the

3 circumstances were in which the MUP was active? I'm referring to the

4 policemen tasked with maintaining law and order, traffic control and all

5 other regular police work.

6 A. The situation was extremely difficult because there was a war

7 going on throughout this time. There were quite a large number of Serb

8 members killed. And during the aggression on the Krajina, there was

9 pressure from the general public who wanted the police to make

10 distinctions between crimes perpetrated by Serbs and crimes perpetrated

11 against Serbs. For this reason, it was really difficult for a policeman

12 to do his job, and it was also made more difficult by the fact that people

13 who had military assignments thought that the police was privileged

14 because they didn't have to go to the trenches. This was additional

15 pressure on policemen but they managed to withstand all this pressure.

16 Another problem was the insufficient number of professional staff.

17 This is something we constantly came up against. And for this reason,

18 special plans were drawn up to strengthen the MUP with properly trained

19 professional staff. Assistance was sought from neighbouring countries,

20 from Serbia, but unfortunately, the information was not forthcoming. Some

21 of our staff, however, were trained in Banja Luka, some in Golubic, in the

22 training centre there, and some citizens from the Krajina who had been

23 trained in Belgrade were sought. They were asked to return to the Krajina

24 and work there. So there were many problems which had to be withstood and

25 it was very difficult to work in those circumstances.

1 Q. Thank you very much for your response. In 1992, the UN became

2 involved in solving the Yugoslav crisis. Do you know anything about this?

3 A. Of course, because it also impacted on the work of the

4 organisation I belonged to. The Vance Plan was drawn up in early 1992.

5 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us, Witness, very briefly, what the main

6 provisions of the Vance-Owen plan were with reference to the Republic of

7 Serb Krajina? What had to be done?

8 A. Well, the main thing was that the JNA was to withdraw from the

9 territory of Croatia and Krajina, and four sectors were to be set up,

10 north, south, east and west, and on the territory of the Republic of Serb

11 Krajina, public law and order was to be maintained by the local organs,

12 whereas the CIVPOL forces, which were part of UNPROFOR, would have a

13 monitoring role. They would monitor the work of the local police

14 stations.

15 Q. Thank you. May I interrupt you here? As the question referred to

16 the territory of the Republic of Serb Krajina, can you tell us what was to

17 happen to the Territorial Defence according to the provisions of the

18 Vance-Owen plan, of the Republic of Serb Krajina?

19 A. The units were --

20 MR. BLACK: Objection. I apologise for the interruption. I've

21 been sort of debating on this as we go along. This is one topic that's as

22 far as I can see and unless I've missed something, is clearly not in the

23 65 ter summary. As I understand the Rules as of yesterday, I feel

24 obligated to object. Thank you.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Milovancevic, any response?

1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I accept the

2 objection. I was only trying to get an answer to the whole issue, but we

3 have dealt with it sufficiently here, and I will withdraw my question if

4 the Chamber so rules.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, you have offered to withdraw. There is no

6 need for a ruling. It stays withdrawn. Thank you very much, Mr.

7 Milovancevic.

8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you, Your

9 Honours.

10 Q. You mentioned the civilian police. Do you know what the attitude

11 of the ministry, or rather, the relationship was between the Ministry of

12 the Interior of the Republic of Serb Krajina and the United Nations?

13 A. I think that in May or June - I'm not sure of the exact date, but

14 in mid-1992 - the Ministry of the Interior issued written instructions on

15 the relationship between the organs of the Interior of the Republic of

16 Serb Krajina and the CIVPOL.

17 Q. Thank you. Thank you. And what was the most important part of

18 those instructions?

19 A. That the organs of the Interior should do their job independently

20 and fully, that CIVPOL had a monitoring role, that the organs of the

21 Interior should offer their full cooperation to the CIVPOL forces, that

22 the CIVPOL forces had the right to be in the public security stations and

23 monitor the work of the organs, that they had the right to receive

24 complaints from citizens, and that any complaints passed on by the CIVPOL

25 should be received and acted upon, and that cooperation should be as good

1 as possible, and that the work of CIVPOL should not be hindered in any

2 way.

3 Q. Thank you. From the view point of the post you held until the end

4 of the existence of the Republic of Serb Krajina, to the best of your

5 knowledge, were these instructions implemented as regards the attitude

6 towards UNCIVPOL?

7 A. From my point of view, objectively, the instructions were

8 implemented as much as possible. Specifically, once a month we held

9 meetings at sector level attended by the secretaries of the Interior, all

10 the chiefs of the public security stations. These were on the side of the

11 Republic of Serb Krajina. As well as the chief of the civilian police for

12 that sector and all the heads of the monitoring offices. The meetings

13 were held once a month in different locations and at these meetings

14 specific problems were raised which had occurred on the ground. The

15 meetings had two aims. One was mutual respect and the other was to

16 discuss specific issues. And the cooperation was truly successful.

17 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us whether you had occasion to attend any

18 of those meetings?

19 A. I attended all of these meetings.

20 Q. Judging from what was said, or rather, let me put another question

21 first. What representatives of the UNCIVPOL did you personally have

22 occasion to meet at these meetings?

23 A. It's hard to remember all their names. Alo Alfie [phoen], I

24 think, was the first head of CIVPOL for Sector South. After that, we had

25 very cordial relations with Mr. Bob Munroe [phoen] from Canada, who was at

1 the head of the civilian police. The relations were not only

2 professional, but in many cases we became very friendly, truly friendly.

3 I feel that this was possible only because they were satisfied with what

4 we were doing.

5 Q. You said that you felt they were satisfied with what you were

6 doing. What did they tell you about what you were doing?

7 A. Well, of course, at these meetings, they gave us their views and

8 observations. They said that there had been certain attacks on citizens

9 of the Krajina. And what bothered us a little bit was that it was always

10 Croats they mentioned, and they did not mention crimes against Serbs,

11 which were far more numerous. They drew attention to omissions and

12 failures, and asked that these be corrected in our work, but they also

13 said that they were very satisfied with our work in these difficult

14 circumstances and with the kind of personnel we had at our disposal.

15 Q. Based on the content of these meetings with the high

16 representatives of the UNCIVPOL, can you tell us, were any objections

17 raised at these meetings with respect to discrimination or criminal

18 attitude toward the Croatian population, for example, intentional neglect

19 to solve these cases?

20 A. Well, there is a saying among our people that each person has a

21 different personality and view point. We tried to tell them that every

22 crime was the same, as far as we were concerned, regardless of whether it

23 had been perpetrated against the Serbs or Croats, and that they should

24 view these crimes in the same way, and that if there were failures in the

25 work of the Ministry of the Interior, these were not due to discrimination

1 against the Croatian population but were simply a result of the lack of

2 resources which would enable the immediate detection of the perpetrators

3 of a crime.

4 Q. With respect to the issues you discussed with the representatives

5 of the UNCIVPOL, what do you know about the efforts to solve these crimes

6 and misdemeanours? Did the police do its job properly? Did it try to do

7 its job properly?

8 A. Well, that's what I've been trying to say all this time. I am

9 proud to say that the police did its very best to do its job properly and

10 correctly, and I can say that we were quite efficient in crime prevention.

11 This is also evident from the number of criminal reports and misdemeanour

12 reports issued by the ministry in the course of a year. I know, for

13 example, with regard to 1992, the Ministry of Justice received over 7.000

14 criminal reports from the Ministry of the Interior, and many more

15 misdemeanour reports. This indicates the professional work of the police.

16 But whether it's possible to discover all perpetrators, well, I think

17 that's an illusion. It's impossible even today. Here, every day, I hear

18 sirens in The Hague, and in wartime circumstances, everybody tried to go

19 their own way.

20 JUDGE HOEPFEL: May I just --

21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I just apologise, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE HOEPFEL: This was a little foggy comment on crime

23 prevention and on criminal justice, on criminal police having problems in

24 every country and so on. But were you speaking here of partly very

25 serious incidents, like murder, murder being one of the crimes in general

1 in the world, which is -- which often has a high rate of investigation,

2 finding the perpetrators. So maybe you can give a more specific answer to

3 that.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I assume that this is

5 what you have in mind. The police in the Republic of Serbian Krajina

6 treated all crimes as crimes. They tried to discover the perpetrators of

7 the crimes, to solve these crimes. What is disputed and often before this

8 Tribunal is the assessment of some individuals that members of one ethnic

9 group were discriminated against. However, that was not the case.

10 Let me be specific. From the 1st of January 1992 up until about

11 the end of August 1994, I will try to provide a concrete answer to your

12 question. During this period, in the area of Krajina, according to

13 reports from the organs of the Interior, about 570 murders were recorded.

14 That was from the 1st of January 1992 until the end of August 1994. So we

15 are talking about a three-year period. So over 500 murders, of which 60

16 per cent of those murders were Serbs. The others were members of other

17 peoples, most of whom were Croats. In fact, there were some of them who

18 had remained in the area of Eastern Slavonia. Most of those crimes were

19 solved. When the crimes, when the murders were committed, well, at that

20 time, we knew who the perpetrators were to a significant extent, that

21 about 70 or 80 murders or 60 murders, the perpetrators of which were not

22 known. About 30 per cent of them were discovered when Serbs had been

23 killed and about 30 per cent when Croats were killed. This should

24 demonstrate that the Krajina Police treated all murders in an equal

25 manner, and they acted professionally.

1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Could we have a look at a document on the screen? It's an

3 UNCIVPOL document. 726 is the Exhibit number. Before it appears on the

4 screen, and to save time, I'll say that this is a document from the

5 civilian police of the UN. It concerns a certain period of time. You'll

6 see which period is concerned when you see the document.

7 You have before you a document, it says the United Nations, John

8 McElligott is the sender, the commissioner's deputy. It was drafted on

9 the 27th of July, 1993. The subject crimes committed against Croats in

10 Sector South. Can you see this document?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. In the first paragraph of the document, it says that they are

13 attaching a report received from UNCIVPOL, Sector South, in which the type

14 and number of crimes committed against the Croats living in Sector South

15 are listed during the period August 1992 until the 31st of May 1993. Men

16 in military or police uniforms are suspected of having committed 120 out

17 of 497 crimes. Can you see the text?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. When you held the position you occupied, did you ever have the

20 opportunity of examining such a document, of seeing such a document?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Did UNCIVPOL have the duty of informing the Ministry of the

23 Interior of the situation in the ground -- on the ground and was it their

24 duty to request that certain steps be taken?

25 A. That's why we had meetings. That was their function. So the

1 answer is yes. But I have never seen such a report. If I can comment on

2 it, I would be glad to do so.

3 Q. What did you want to say? Is there anything you could say on the

4 basis of such report?

5 A. As far as I can see, this is a report that concerns alleged crimes

6 committed against Croats, against one ethnic group. I'm not sure which

7 number is concerned. But from 1992 to 1994, as I have said, over 7.000

8 criminal reports were filed, and here they have referred to 497 crimes

9 that were committed. I don't know what they had in mind, what sort of

10 crimes they were concerned with. So this doesn't even represent one per

11 cent of what the MUP in Krajina processed.

12 Q. Thank you. In the second paragraph of this page, it says -- I

13 apologise.

14 JUDGE HOEPFEL: He said MUP in Krajina but this document refers to

15 Sector South. Yeah? Is that the same region? You're speaking of Sector

16 South only? Where the 7.000 criminal proceedings or criminal reports.

17 You were comparing two different things, aren't you?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what you have said is

19 quite correct. About 7.000 criminal reports were filed at the level of

20 the MUP, but I think about 2.000 criminal reports were filed in Sector

21 South, but even when we compare this number to the number in the report,

22 well, we can see that that only includes some of the crimes, but I don't

23 know what that's crimes here refer to, whether it concerns looted property

24 or something else.

25 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Okay.

1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] May I continue, Your Honour?

2 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Please.

3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

4 Q. The second sentence says -- second paragraph says, "The report

5 might help to demonstrate the fear that exists of how the Knin authorities

6 might act. The contents of the report might also be of interest to the

7 commission for human rights." Given this sentence, what sort of fear is

8 at stake? Why was there fear of what the Knin authorities might do?

9 A. Well, it's difficult to know why such a report was drafted. It's

10 difficult to know the reasons. But given the title, "crimes committed

11 against Croats in Sector South", I assume that the gentleman who is

12 sending the report, the deputy commissioner, was making an allusion to the

13 fact that the Knin authorities weren't doing everything they could to

14 protect the Croatian population.

15 Q. Witness, given that this report concerns the period August 1992 to

16 May 1993, given the position you held, perhaps you could answer question

17 as to whether such an illusion is correct?

18 A. From my view point, from the viewpoint of the position I held,

19 this illusion is not correct. It's not correct in terms of politics

20 either but I will leave this for others to judge. But given the work that

21 I was involved in, these allegations are not correct. Crimes were

22 detected or solved, perpetrators were identified regardless of whether

23 they were Croats or Serbs. Far more crimes committed by Serbs were in

24 fact detected. And I'd also like to point out something else that is of

25 importance. In fact that's quite enough. Please go ahead.

1 Q. Thank you. This is a report from the civilian police of the UN,

2 and you don't agree with it. You're saying that it's incorrect. Did you

3 ever have the opportunity of examining other reports, public reports or

4 UNPROFOR reports, which also alluded to problems on the Serbian side or,

5 rather, accused the Serbian side of having acted in this way?

6 A. In the contact that we had, yes, reference was made to the

7 problems that Croats encountered, and on our side we would mention the

8 steps we took. So that was quite sufficient, when it comes to this

9 problem. We have to see which criminal reports were filed and see that

10 the organs of the Interior carried out their duties to the extent that

11 that was possible.

12 Q. Thank you. In August 1992 to May 1993, when this report was

13 compiled, Mr. Martic was the Minister of the Interior of the Republic of

14 Serbian Krajina; is that correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Do you know whether UNCIVPOL representatives had any contact with

17 Mr. Martic and were such issues raised with him?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Do you know what the discussions were about, what was Mr. Martic's

20 position when it came to resolving crime, whatever the nature of the crime

21 was? And I'm referring to the contact he had with UNCIVPOL.

22 A. Well, I do know what was discussed. I do know what his position

23 was because Mr. Martic addressed the issue at meetings and when he

24 addressed the public. But I also know this from the contact I had with

25 UNCIVPOL representatives. They said that Mr. Martic insisted on resolving

1 all crimes, especially crimes committed against Croats, and I also know

2 that at one meeting with Mr. Thornberry in 1993, in May or June, this

3 issue was also discussed and Mr. Martic said that everything was being

4 done to resolve all crimes, and in particular, crimes committed against

5 Croats. Many citizens in Krajina were disturbed by this because they

6 said, you're interested in crimes committed against Croats and not crimes

7 committed against Serbs, who were in the majority.

8 Q. You've provided us with two important pieces of information.

9 Firstly, you said that UNCIVPOL representatives informed you personally of

10 Mr. Martic's position; is that correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And the second important piece of information is that the local

13 Serbian population even objected to the fact that he was more interested

14 in solving crimes committed against Croats, whereas there were Serbs who

15 were victims too?

16 A. Yes. They didn't just object to him. They objected to us when we

17 performed our duties, too.

18 Q. And these objections raised by the civilian population, did they

19 obstruct you? Did they make you cease your activities?

20 A. No.

21 Q. We no longer need this document on the screen. Could the usher

22 please distribute a document to my colleagues from the Prosecution and to

23 the Chamber as well as to the witness? We have a sufficient number of

24 copies.

25 MR. BLACK: If I might inquire, Your Honours, if this was on the

1 list of documents that we received from Defence counsel or if it -- if it

2 has a 65 ter number or an exhibit number or some other thing or is this

3 the first time right now that I see this document?

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?

5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this document

6 isn't on the Prosecution's list, it doesn't have a 65 ter number. This

7 document -- well, this is the first time the document has been seen in the

8 proceedings. This is a Defence document.

9 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, we got no notice that this was going to

10 be used. It's the first time I lay eyes on this document. Until I have a

11 chance to review it, I guess I don't know if I object to it but I object

12 to the procedure by which during the course of examination I receive a

13 document for the first time.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]

15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am sorry that I

16 have just heard this. I informed my Defence team that they should inform

17 my colleagues from the Prosecution about the document. They should

18 provide them with the document. We translated it or had it translated and

19 we've made a certain number of copies, not to hide the document. But to

20 be able to district copies to everyone. I'm surprised by the fact that my

21 colleagues haven't been provided with copies. Perhaps I can check and see

22 what has actually happened at the next session, but I really don't have

23 all the information right now.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: We understand that but then what do we do at this

25 stage? Obviously you can't use the document if you didn't give an advance

1 copy to your opposite number. That's the problem. You can check during

2 the break, but what do we do now?

3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in that case, we

4 won't use the document right now. I'm taken by surprise too. I have to

5 check and see what happened. There was some sort of misunderstanding in

6 the Defence team, I assume.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I wouldn't want to cause any

9 problems.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic. Then we may

11 proceed on the next point.

12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Witness, a minute ago you said that you had direct contact with

14 UNCIVPOL representatives, and they even told you about Mr. Martic's

15 position to how one should act. Do you remember that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Could one say, given your experience, given the knowledge that you

18 have, that in the territory of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, the

19 authorities, and that includes the MUP of the Republic of Serbian Krajina,

20 systematically and deliberately terrorised and persecuted the Croatian

21 population because they were Croatian. Was there such a systematic

22 campaign of terror in the Republic of Serbian Krajina, given the

23 experience you had and the position you held, can you answer that

24 question?

25 A. That certainly is not the case. Had that been the case, I

1 wouldn't have performed the duties that I performed. And what was done in

2 the field confirms what I am saying, what was done in the field during

3 that period of time. What is important to underline is the fact that most

4 of the murders, and there were more Serbs who were murdered than Croats,

5 but most of the murders of Croats took place at the demarcation line,

6 which in 1992 was under the JNA. That's an area where the organs of the

7 Interior were not able to perform their duties. We are talking about

8 villages at the very demarcation line, and for certain reasons, or rather,

9 because of the wartime situation, such situations did occur. It's

10 important to establish that in the interior of Krajina, where I worked,

11 apart from the murder that I have mentioned in 1992, in Knin, there was no

12 other murder of Croats. And this should also demonstrate how all the

13 citizens of the Republic of Serbian Krajina were treated.

14 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us, from the standpoint of your work

15 experience, who was part of the MUP of the Republic of Serb Krajina? I'm

16 referring to the kinds of -- I'm trying to avoid putting a leading

17 question so let me stop there. Who made up the MUP? What forces

18 conditionally speaking? What people? What employees made up the MUP?

19 A. If you're talking about 1992 --

20 Q. Yes, I am.

21 A. In 1992, in accordance with the Vance Plan, from early 1992 and in

22 mid-1992, the MUP of the Republic of Serb Krajina was composed of the

23 public security administration and the state security administration, as

24 well as special purpose police units.

25 Q. Thank you. With respect to these special purpose police units

1 that were mentioned, do you know when and where they were established?

2 A. The special purpose police units were established in accordance

3 with Vance Plan, because according to that plan, the JNA was to withdraw

4 and the separation lines or the demarcation lines with Croatia were to be

5 secured by the police. Pursuant to, I think, a decision issued by the

6 Federal Secretariat of National Defence of the Yugoslav Secretariat,

7 special purpose units were established in the Krajina.

8 Q. Did I understand you correctly, if I say that according to you,

9 the special purpose units were in fact the border police?

10 A. Yes. They had the competence to secure the borders, and make sure

11 there were no terrorist incursions, and therefore, they were armed

12 pursuant to the Vance-Owen plan. I'm not a military expert but I think it

13 was up to 12.7 calibre, other weapons, heavy weapons, were stored in

14 depots under the double control of the UN, the UNPROFOR and the local

15 forces.

16 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us or did I understand you correctly,

17 which organ issued the decision on establishing these special purpose

18 units? Did you mention that a while ago? I missed it, I'm sorry.

19 A. I'm certain that the decision was made pursuant to a decision of

20 the Federal Secretariat of National Defence of the Socialist Republic of

21 Yugoslavia, with the purpose of filling the void created by the departure

22 of the JNA and for purposes of implementing the Vance Plan.

23 Q. In accordance with what you said I'm interested in another thing.

24 Do you know whether according to the Vance Plan, UNPROFOR had the duty of

25 securing the demarcation line between the Republic of Croatia and the

1 Krajina?

2 A. No. It didn't.

3 JUDGE HOEPFEL: I think the question before was not answered.

4 Wasn't it a question, Mr. Milovancevic, by whom the decision was made to

5 establish the special purpose units?

6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it seemed to me

7 that I understood the answer, but I will put the question to the witness.

8 Thank you.

9 Q. Once again, Witness, please, do you know who or what organ, what

10 institution, issued the decision on establishing the special purpose

11 police units?

12 A. What I know for certain is that the Socialist Federal Republic of

13 Yugoslavia was a signatory and guarantor of the Vance Plan, and that

14 pursuant to the withdrawal of the forces of the JNA, which according to

15 that plan were to withdraw from the Croatian Krajina, it issued a

16 decision. I don't know what organ exactly issued this decision, but these

17 decisions were then to be deployed within the Ministry of the Interior of

18 the Krajina.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm getting confused now when the witness says he

20 doesn't know who issued the decision because he told us at page 50, lines

21 22 to 25, that I'm certain that the decision was made pursuant to a

22 decision of the Federal Secretariat of National Defence of the Socialist

23 Republic of Yugoslavia with the purpose of filling the void created by the

24 departure of the JNA and for purposes of implementing the Vance Plan.

25 JUDGE HOEPFEL: So it wasn't said by whom but just pursuant to a

1 federal decision, but then we would like to know how it happened, what was

2 going on then, in the Krajina itself, and here you don't know.

3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I continue

4 with my questions and I believe that Your Honours will get the answer. We

5 will take a look at a document and things will become much clearer.

6 Your Honour, are you -- do you agree with what I have just

7 suggested?

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.

9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

10 Could we please take a look at document -- the 65 ter document

11 1334? It's dated the 28th of April 1992.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. -- oh, --

13 MR. BLACK: I apologise, Your Honour. Unless I'm getting my

14 signals crossed with Defence counsel, this also is not on the list of

15 documents that I was provided. It's 65 ter number 1334? Am I correct? I

16 don't want to make a mistake about this and press an issue that's not

17 actually there, but otherwise yet again it's a document that I wasn't

18 notified about.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?

20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it should be,

21 because there are two or three documents which are very important to us.

22 I even know the number off by heart, 1334 and 1367. These are documents

23 we must have informed our learned friends about. These are documents that

24 have already been used.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Check if you have proof of delivery to them because

1 it doesn't help to say "we must have." Just say we did on such and such a

2 date. Here is proof.

3 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Maybe the number is just wrong.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: And while you're dealing with that, may I just

5 remind you, Mr. Milovancevic, when you check the previous document, you

6 will find that the English translation of the previous document is only

7 three pages, whereas the Serb document is nine pages, and has a conclusion

8 by way of date and signature. And the English translation seems to be

9 just stopping in the middle. In addition, the English translation seems

10 to be having things that are skipped because you keep getting three dots

11 in a bracket which you don't get in the Serb, B/C/S original. Just check

12 all those things so that when you do come back to that document, if you

13 intend to do so, you give -- you make sure that you give us a complete

14 document.

15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in connection with

16 the document that, the translation of which you mentioned last, the

17 document has nine pages. We don't need all nine pages. We only need the

18 parts we translated and marked. And this will be adduced in evidence when

19 the time comes. That's why only part of the document was translated. But

20 of course, the entire nine-page document in B/C/S was provided. If our

21 learned friends need to use the whole document of course they can do that,

22 but we are using only parts of it.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: They may very well want to use that, Mr.

24 Milovancevic, for them to get the context of the three pages maybe they

25 need to get the nine pages. If you can just give a full document, please,

1 without skipping some paragraphs. But that's not for discussion now.

2 I've asked you what to do with that. Let's deal with this one. This one

3 on the screen, again, there is an objection that the Prosecution haven't

4 received it. Are you finding your proof of delivery to the Prosecution?

5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if this document

6 on the monitor is marked 1334, then I mistook the number. It's not the

7 document I was intending to show. This is something entirely different

8 and my learned friend is quite right. I must have made a mistake in the

9 number. It's the SSNO order.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just get the correct one, Mr. Milovancevic. That's

11 fine. Thank you. Let's go to the correct document.

12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just one more

13 question for the Registry. Is this document 1334, the one on the screen?

14 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes, this seems so.

15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will deal with

16 this document after the break, the document I was intending to show. And

17 now I will ask to see another document, in order not to waste time. It's

18 1367 from the Prosecutor's list.

19 Q. Do you see before you on the monitor this document, witness?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Would you read the heading to us and what it says in the corner?

22 A. "Republic of Serbian Krajina, Main Staff of the Serb army, date

23 and number 947, 23/1, the title is the reforming of the Territorial

24 Defence and the special purpose units of the police into the Serb army of

25 the Republic of Serb Krajina."

1 Q. Thank you. Before we proceed, I'll ask you the following: Do you

2 know what forces made up the special police units? You said that they

3 were established pursuant to a decision made by the authorities in

4 Belgrade. We'll look at that document later. But what was the strength

5 of these units?

6 A. To the best of my knowledge, there were supposed to be eight

7 brigades and about 16.000 men, but I also know that not all these brigades

8 were formed, and that about four units received flags, but the units for

9 Eastern Slavonia, Western Slavonia and I don't know what others were not

10 actually established. So only four came into existence. The others were

11 formed only when the Serb army of the Republic of Serb Krajina was formed,

12 and I also know that these special police units were under the

13 administration of the Ministry of the Interior.

14 Q. Can you tell us in what period the special police units existed?

15 A. As of April 1992, until this date, the 27th of November 1992,

16 when, pursuant to agreement with international community, they were

17 reformed to make up the Serb army of the Republic of Serb Krajina.

18 Q. Go ahead.

19 A. If I may only add, as regards dates, I ask Their Honours to bear

20 in mind that it's very hard to remember some things. It's very hard to be

21 like a robot and simply remember things that happened so long ago.

22 Q. Of course, Witness. I didn't mean you would be able to provide us

23 with precise dates. I was referring to time periods, months, seasons of

24 the year and so on.

25 Could we please look at points 10 and 11 of this document? That

1 should be on page 4 in B/C/S.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: And in English?

3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just a moment.

4 Let me find the page. This would -- has numbers. Could we look at pages

5 7 and 8, please?

6 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Actually, there is no number 10 and 11, as to my

7 impression.

8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I wasn't referring to pages but

9 to points, Your Honours.

10 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes. I also was referring to points.

11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you for your assistance,

12 Your Honours. We have before us the last page of this document.

13 Q. Do you see who signed it? Do you see who the person is who issued

14 this document?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Would you read his first and last name?

17 A. Major General Mile Novakovic.

18 Q. Please let's look at points 5 and 6 or items 5 and 6 on this page.

19 Could we scroll up a little bit? Will you read the provisions of items 5

20 and 6, please?

21 A. Item 5: "The Serb army of the Republic of Serb Krajina, during a

22 truce, is organised -- shall be organised, function and carry out tasks as

23 the regional police, in brackets, United Nations plan for the peacekeeping

24 operation in Yugoslavia, the Vance Plan, of the 23rd of November 1991,

25 item 19, second paragraph."

1 6, the Serb army of the Republic of Serb Krajina shall keep and

2 maintain its weapons and equipment in warehouses or depots with the

3 presence of representatives of UNPROFOR, in brackets UN plan for the peace

4 keeping operation in Yugoslavia, Vance Plan, of the 23rd of November 1991,

5 item 15(C) in the alternative."

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, all that you are reading, I don't see at

7 item 5. Can you direct us in the English, please?

8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, as it is time for

9 a break, can we deal with the translation after the break and I will be

10 more precise? Thank you.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. We will take a break and come

12 back at half past 12.00. As we do so, Mr. Milovancevic, may I just

13 mention that this witness is scheduled for six hours, and we are going

14 into the third hour when we come back.

15 --- Recess taken at 11.59 a.m.

16 --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Milovancevic, are we now at item 5 and are

18 we at the correct item 5?

19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you. The

20 document we've been looking at, which is on the screen now, is Exhibit

21 576. The title is, "Transforming the Territorial Defence and the special

22 police units into the army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina." A minute

23 ago I wasn't able to tell you the page number in the English version. I

24 apologise for that misunderstanding. The English page number is 13 and

25 14, items 2 and 3 are included on those pages. Items 5 and 6 are on page

1 14. If you have found the sections, I will now go on to put my question

2 to the witness.

3 Q. We saw items 5 and 6 on the transformation of the Territorial

4 Defence and the special police units into the army of the Republic of

5 Serbian Krajina. You read out the provisions that in peacetime the army

6 of the Republic of Serbian Krajina should be treated as the regular

7 police. Do you remember that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. In this order --

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, wait a minute. You say we saw

11 items 5 and 6. When we went for the break I said I'm lost, I'm not -- my

12 item 5 didn't say what you were saying. So I would like to see that

13 before you go to --

14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour. I

15 didn't realise that that was in fact a problem. I'll repeat this. On

16 page 17 in the B/C/S version, in fact pages 61 and 62, it's on the screen,

17 it's page 14 in the English version and we should see items 5 and 6 there.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm with you. Not 1 and 2.

19 JUDGE HOEPFEL: It's not Roman five and Roman six, is it?

20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] 5 and 6, Arabic numerals, Your

21 Honour.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: It says, "during the truce". It starts, "during

23 the truth".

24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, that's correct.

25 Q. To avoid any confusion, we'll have a look at these two paragraphs

1 again. The Serbian army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, in peacetime

2 shall be organised and perform its duties as a regular police force, in

3 brackets, in accordance with the Vance Plan." Can you see that, Witness?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Did the Serbian army -- did the army of the Republic of Serbian

6 Krajina act in this way?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Did the Serbian army --

9 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Should that have been regional or regular police

10 force?

11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, under item 5 in

12 this order it says in capital letters, the regional police force.

13 Regional police. That's what it says in this order. In brackets it then

14 says, the plan, the UN plan for peace time operations, et cetera.

15 Q. According to your information, did the Serbian army keep its heavy

16 weapons under UN protection? Was it locked up by the UN?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Let's have a look at page 16 of the document, in B/C/S, it's -- we

19 can see the number 62, 60. In the English version, it's page 13, Roman 2.

20 Let's have a look at the last sentence. Could we scroll down? That's

21 enough. Thank you. Under Roman 2, it reads as follows: "The formations

22 of all -- the formations of staffs in the units of the Territorial Defence

23 shall be disbanded as well as the special police units of the Republic of

24 Serbian Krajina." Can you see that?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. As far as you know, were the staffs and special police units

2 transformed, or rather, disbanded after this?

3 A. Yes, absolutely.

4 Q. Thank you. We no longer need this document on the screen. In one

5 of your answers you mentioned agreement with the UN on resolving the

6 problem of the special police units. Do you remember that, Witness?

7 A. You probably have in mind the fact that the Vance Plan included

8 the idea that the JNA forces should withdraw and CIVPOL didn't have the

9 mandate to separate the warring factions, and as a result, there was an

10 agreement to establish special police units. This was to be in accordance

11 with the implementation of the Vance-Owen plan.

12 Q. Thank you. Do you know whether Mr. Goulding was one of those

13 involved in the issue of special police units? Was he acting on behalf of

14 the UN Secretary-General?

15 A. Yes. I think so. And he had an agreement with Minister Martic

16 that concerned those issues, but I'm sure that he was involved in those

17 matters and that an agreement had been reached, according to which units

18 should be founded. Their primary task was to provide security along the

19 demarcation line and it was on that basis that the units were armed. They

20 only had side arms.

21 Q. Thank you.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: I need clarification. I'm sorry to do this to you,

23 Mr. Milovancevic. The witness just says you probably have in mind the

24 fact that the Vance Plan included the idea that the JNA forces should

25 withdraw and CIVPOL didn't have the mandate to separate the warring

1 factions, and as a result, there was an agreement to establish special

2 police units. I thought you -- we have just seen on this Exhibit 576 that

3 the special police units were being disbanded. Now, if it was being

4 disbanded, unless I'm missing something, I don't understand how we now

5 form them so as to do the task for which CIVPOL has no mandate. Or am I

6 reading with a jaundiced eye?

7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] You have understood everything

8 correctly, Your Honour. With your leave, I'll deal with the issue with

9 the witness or through the witness.

10 Q. Can you tell us what the UN approach was, the approach of the

11 civilian police and of UNPROFOR with regard to the special police units?

12 A. Well, it was correct because they didn't obstruct their work.

13 That's why I draw this conclusion.

14 Q. Have you heard of a UN report in which those units were given a

15 negative assessment?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Can you tell us why these special police units were disbanded? I

18 minute ago you saw the document. On the 27th of November 1992, these

19 units were disbanded. What is the reason for this, as far as you know?

20 A. I didn't go into the details. This was a matter of an agreement

21 between the leadership in Krajina and representatives of the international

22 community.

23 Q. Could you please tell me whether you know whether Mr. Martic

24 personally ordered that special police units be founded or not?

25 A. No, he didn't issue an order to found special police units.

1 Q. Thank you.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, you -- I'm not quite sure whether you attended

3 to my confusion. Now, what I do want to establish is whether -- what I do

4 want to establish, Mr. Milovancevic, is whether, is it the evidence

5 therefore of the witness that notwithstanding Exhibit 576, disbanding the

6 special police units, they continued to exist in order to separate the

7 warring factions because CIVPOL didn't have that mandate? Is that the

8 evidence of the Defence?

9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the following

10 document that I'll be showing will be an answer, or one of the answers to

11 that question. I just asked the witness whether Mr. Martic had ordered

12 that special police units be established. We'll now have a look at the

13 next document and that will perhaps clarify the situation for you.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: But -- just a second. But I asked -- I raised a

15 few minutes earlier my confusion. You asked a number of questions. I

16 didn't see how they addressed my question and I'm getting concerned, and

17 my concentration on the next document is going to be very low because my

18 mind is going bang, bang, bang, what's happening to that question that I

19 raised? I would like that to be addressed.

20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Witness, you've heard the issue raised by Judge Moloto. Can you

22 provide any explanations?

23 A. Your Honours, I believe that it's just a matter of the dates that

24 are not quite correct. The document we are referring to was issued in

25 November 1992, and these units were formed at the beginning of 1992. When

1 I referred to the establishing units on the basis of the Vance-Owen plan,

2 I was referring to the period February March 1992. And when I spoke about

3 their disbanding, that was on the basis of other agreements and that was

4 in November 1992. There is no contradiction. One event --

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: There may be no contradiction, but if you see if

6 you tell your story starting from the end going backwards you confuse us.

7 We expect you to start from the beginning and go to the end. You can't

8 start with November and then go to February. You've got to start with

9 February and go to November.

10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE HOEPFEL: I have the same problem being confused and one

12 thing about the confusion is you're also speaking about the Vance-Owen

13 plan; is that right? Did you say that? Didn't the Vance-Owen plan refer

14 to Bosnia and Herzegovina?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Your Honour, I don't

16 remember mentioning the Vance-Owen plan. I just mentioned the Vance Plan.

17 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Okay.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's page 63, line 6.

19 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter apologises. He misheard the

20 witness.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

22 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Okay. This is what Judge Moloto raised already.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any way, I hope you're going to clear this because

24 otherwise it stands here that the evidence of the Defence is that after

25 the 27th of November 1992, when the special purpose units were disbanded,

1 they continued to separate the warring factions because CIVPOL didn't have

2 that mandate. In other words, the order says disband, but the disbanding

3 didn't take place.

4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you for that

5 explanation. It's only now that I have understood your concern. I

6 apologise. I wasn't sufficiently focused on what you were saying.

7 Q. Witness, you said that at the beginning of 1992, special police

8 units were formed. Do you remember that?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. What was the reason for establishing these special police units?

11 Could you repeat your answer once again very briefly?

12 A. It was necessary to secure the demarcation line separating the

13 Republic of Serbian Krajina and Croatia. The regular forces of the

14 Interior that were involved in public law and order were not to be engaged

15 in that -- in those duties. As a result, there was an agreement according

16 to which special police units should be established. Their main task and

17 this was part of MUP's duties, was to prevent terrorist groups from being

18 infiltrated.

19 Q. Thank you. I'll interrupt you there. You mentioned how many

20 brigades were formed. And for how long did those special police units

21 exist and for how long did they secure the demarcation line?

22 A. Well, they were involved in performing those duties until the 29th

23 of November when the Serbian army of the Serbian Republic of Krajina was

24 established. As of that date, they ceased to exist. They couldn't have

25 carried out tasks of any kind because they had been disbanded at that

1 time.

2 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Now I'm getting lost. You're saying the Serbian

3 army of the Serbian Republic of Krajina was established on 29th of

4 November. That can be related to the document we saw, but before we heard

5 that these -- that the Vance Plan didn't allow that, and that it was

6 organised the other way around, into the police, so that the army didn't

7 exist any more, formally at least.

8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave,

9 if I may continue examining the witness, we will address that issue. I

10 understand your question. Yes, thank you. Right now we have been dealing

11 with the time at which the special police units were established, and the

12 time at which they ceased to exist. The witness said that this was from

13 April 1992 to the end of November 1992.

14 Q. Witness, have I understood your testimony correctly?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. A minute ago you said in that decision dated the end of November

17 1992, the Serbian army of Krajina was established; is that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. The question then is why was the Serbian army of Krajina

20 established, in view of the existence of the Vance Plan? You said the

21 Vance Plan provided for demobilisation of the Territorial Defence and for

22 the withdrawal of the JNA. It provided for the existence of the local

23 police alone. Do you know the main reason for which the army was

24 established?

25 A. Well, the main reason is -- well, there were decisions taken by

1 the authorities in the Republic of Serbian Krajina but the actual reason,

2 well, I really don't know what I could say about that. But what I am

3 certain about is that the army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina wouldn't

4 have been established had this not been done in agreement with UNPROFOR

5 representatives, but I wasn't competent for that area so there is nothing

6 I could say about it.

7 Q. Thank you. With regard to what I have just asked you about, does

8 the Miljevac plateau mean anything to you?

9 A. Yes, it does.

10 Q. What do you associate with that location?

11 A. Well, the Miljevac plateau is an area where the Croatian forces

12 launched an aggression in June. It was under UNPROFOR protection. And

13 this was contrary to the provisions of the Vance Plan, and 40 or 42

14 Serbian soldiers, members of the Territorial Defence, were killed on that

15 occasion. They were elderly people. I think they were all thrown into

16 the Mratovac pit. Later, 20 or 25 individuals were identified. The

17 others couldn't be identified and given the wounds they had sustained or

18 they had also been wounded with blunt objects, some of them were buried in

19 Knin and then they had names, but others were buried in a common grave.

20 Q. Thank you. I'm interested in the attitude of the authorities in

21 the Republic of Serbian Krajina at that time. Did UNPROFOR have the duty

22 to protect the territory of the Republic of Serbian Krajina from such

23 attacks? What was the attitude of the authorities in the Republic of

24 Serbian Krajina?

25 A. Well, their attitude, not just of the authorities but of the

1 people too, was that they were really revolted by UNPROFOR members. They

2 hadn't performed their duties. They were to keep the warring factions

3 apart and implement the agreement in a peaceful way. Croatia violated all

4 of these agreements and launched an attack and carried out such a

5 revolting act and that is certainly one of the reasons for which the

6 Serbian people felt the need of having a more efficient defence system in

7 their territory.

8 Q. Thank you. When referring to the activity of the Ministry of the

9 Interior and the special police units, you drew a distinction between the

10 jobs done by the regular police and those done by the special police. So

11 I will put a specific question to you. While the special units of the

12 police still existed, were they in charge of maintaining law and order?

13 A. No.

14 Q. With reference to maintaining law and order, public law and order,

15 could you tell us briefly once again what was the attitude of UNCIVPOL and

16 UNPROFOR officials in contacts with the Ministry of the Interior

17 concerning these issues? Were they satisfied or not?

18 A. According to what they said in our contacts for the most part they

19 were satisfied.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, at the last

22 session, we provided some minutes to the Defence [as interpreted] for the

23 first time. These are minutes from a meeting of the Ministry of the

24 Interior of the Republic of Serb Krajina, with Mr. Cedric Thornberry, the

25 deputy UN commander. We informed our learned friends during the break

1 that there had been a misunderstanding in communication between the

2 different members of the Defence team and this is the only reason why we

3 did not supply this document before. Would my learned friend please tell

4 us now whether he agrees to our using the document today? We can also use

5 it later, but as we have this witness here now, I think it would be in the

6 interests of the proceedings to look at this document today. If my

7 learned friend opposes this, we will leave the document for another

8 occasion.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Black?

10 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. I don't do this just to be

11 obstructive. I accept that perhaps this was a miscommunication, but I

12 still have the problem that Your Honour referred to earlier. I can't read

13 the original language document. I can only see what -- and I have tried

14 to look at during the last break what's been translated into English. But

15 our position would be that this should not be used today. If the witness

16 is still here on Monday and the examination is continuing by that time

17 I'll have had a chance to review it but not today.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're referring to the issues that were raised by

19 the Chamber. You don't seem to include them as part of the cure for you

20 to be able to read that and be ready by Monday. One of the issues that

21 the Bench raised is that the translation seems incomplete. And it may

22 very well be that either the Prosecution or even the Bench want to ask

23 questions on the parts that are not mentioned in the translation. Now, do

24 you have the fully translated document?

25 MR. BLACK: I don't, Your Honour. And I agree with you. My plan

1 was to try to find someone who could sit down with me and help me and read

2 through it, but I think a better solution is that we have a full

3 translation before we proceed with the document. I agree.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think you can help us with that, Mr.

5 Milovancevic, can't you? It's not a very long document.

6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I agree with

7 this. We will have the document translated today, and we will submit the

8 translation to our learned friends so that we have the document ready for

9 Monday, both for the Trial Chamber and for the Prosecution. Hitherto when

10 we were dealing with long documents, we did not translate the entire

11 documents, but we do not object, of course, to having the entire document

12 translated. We were only trying to gain time, but we promise and

13 undertake to have this document translated and we will submit copies to

14 our learned friends and to Your Honours. In this case, we will not use

15 the document today.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic. And as I

17 say, I don't think -- I think this one is an exception from -- I beg your

18 pardon, exception to long documents. I think it is short enough to be

19 translated entirely. Thank you very much. You may proceed with the rest

20 of the examination, noting, however, that your three hours are over.

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Counsel mentioned the

25 office held by the witness which should be redacted from the recording.

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Milovancevic. The interpreters note

2 that you mentioned the office held by the witness which may have to be

3 redacted.

4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I mentioned

5 offices. I tried to be vague. I didn't say what offices. If you think

6 it should be redacted, I agree. Perhaps it should be redacted, Your

7 Honours.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: You've got to decide. Where is that? What line?

9 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not interpret this so it is

10 not in the transcript.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: It was not interpreted, so it's not in the

12 transcript, so there is nothing to redact?

13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14 JUDGE HOEPFEL: But in the film, the transmission in B/C/S will

15 contain it.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: The transmission in B/C/S must be redacted. Thank

17 you very much. Sorry, we don't know these things. So can we redact that

18 part in the B/C/S where it refers to the office of the witness, please,

19 before 30 minutes are over?

20 You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.

21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

22 Q. Witness, did you have occasion to participate in some

23 international negotiations conducted in the presence of representatives of

24 the UN with representatives of the Republic of Serb Krajina?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. To the best of your knowledge, can you tell us what the attitude

2 of the representatives of the Republic of Serb Krajina was in these

3 negotiations? What was their standpoint? Were they in favour of war or

4 peace?

5 A. They were always in favour of peace, and settling the dispute in a

6 peaceful manner. They were in favour of the international community

7 carrying out its obligations and really protected the protected areas.

8 Q. When you say that the representatives of the Republic of Serb

9 Krajina wanted UNPROFOR to carry out its obligations, was there a reason

10 why this request was made and what facts did you have in mind then?

11 A. Many times Croatia perpetrated aggression on the territory of the

12 Republic of Serb Krajina, not just the Miljevac plateau but also the Medak

13 pocket which in 1992, where several villages, Citluk, Medak, Pocitelj, not

14 Citluk, but Medak and Pocitelj were burned and the people killed and then

15 in 1993, in January, the 23rd of January, an attack or an aggression by

16 Croatia was carried out in the areas of Islam Grcki, Kasici, Benkovac and

17 Dalmatia and it spread to some other areas.

18 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us whether these areas which came under

19 attack were under UN protection at the time when they were attacked by the

20 Croatian forces?

21 A. Yes. They were under UNPROFOR protection. They were protected

22 areas.

23 Q. Thank you. What was the behaviour of the population of Serb

24 ethnicity in these imperilled areas? What was their attitude toward their

25 compatriots? I'm referring to people of Croatian ethnicity. People, for

1 example, from the Maslenica area?

2 A. To the best of my knowledge, as everywhere, most people lived

3 normally with their neighbours, although of course, there were extremists

4 among them, among people, but coexistence was possible. I can give you a

5 personal example, if need be, from the standpoint of the duty I was

6 performing.

7 Q. If you think that example would be important, tell us briefly.

8 A. But could we do that in private session, please?

9 Q. Thank you.

10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may we go into

11 private session, please?

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session?

13 [Private session]

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 9390-9391 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 [Open session]

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, we are in open session.

9 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed.

11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

12 Q. Witness, if people coming from the Serb population suffered due to

13 attacks by Croatian armed forces, could this have caused the population to

14 have feelings of vengefulness and to seek revenge against the Croatian

15 population?

16 A. Yes, in 1993, many Serbs suffered. I can give you a personal

17 example. A father from Strmica lost his son, who had been a soldier, and

18 in view of my job, he threatened me, saying that it was my fault because I

19 was defending all citizens, including Croats, and I should be defending

20 only Serbs. It was a wartime situation. It was extremely difficult to do

21 our job, but we did it honourably.

22 Q. What does it mean in this specific instance when you say that you

23 carried out your job in an honourable manner?

24 A. Well, that means in compliance with the law, and under the law,

25 all citizens were fully equal. After the aggression on the Krajina in

1 1991, President Hadzic, as far as I can remember, because of an attempt in

2 February to maltreat the Croatian population, issued an order -- I can't

3 remember the exact wording of the order, but it was to the effect that we

4 should persist in protecting the entire population, especially Croats, and

5 this was simply to confirm our practice up to that point.

6 Q. Thank you. Any troubles there might have been, or even any

7 victimisation of the Croatian population, can the authorities and the MUP

8 of the Republic of Serb Krajina be blamed for any of that? Can it be said

9 that they instigated or participated in any way or even failed to act?

10 A. No. They were trying to protect the entire population, doing

11 their best, and because of this they even had problems with the Serb

12 population. In 1993, after the Croatian aggression on the area of

13 Benkovac, there were several incidents, even murders, which may have been

14 motivated by revenge because of the suffering of the Serbs, and the organs

15 of the Ministry of the Interior responded. We identified several

16 perpetrators and handed them over. We wrote criminal reports against them

17 and handed them over to the judicial authorities for further proceedings.

18 Q. Thank you. We have now completed this topic and we will move on

19 to another topic. We will now move to the year 1995?

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we close this topic, are you able to tell us

21 about the incidents in which the Serb people revenged their suffering?

22 The ones that you have just referred to, in which the Ministry of the

23 Interior responded -- to which the Minister of the Interior responded?

24 Can you tell us the victims, who were the victims, where it took place,

25 what happened?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Given all the time that's passed

2 it's difficult to remember all the events. What I know for certain is

3 that in the area of Benkovac, I'm not sure which villages were concerned,

4 but in that area, five or six murders had been committed. The result

5 of --

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: What was the ethnicity of the murdered people --

7 victims?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm now talking about Croats. The

9 Croats were victims. I can't say that the Serbian people committed these

10 acts. I can't say that they didn't. They were individuals who were

11 responsible for these acts, and since their family members had been killed

12 or for some other reason this is why they acted in this way.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: These were individual Serb people?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. We are talking about

15 individual Serbs.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any other incident?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In relation to that incident, we

18 identified two or three perpetrators, I don't know the exact number, and

19 they were processed and put on trial.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you give the date, if you remember, of this

21 incident, the one in the area of Benkovac?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that was in January or

23 February 1993. That was the period concerned. February.

24 I know there were someone called Grga Sante who survived one such

25 incident. He had been taken to the hospital in Knin for treatment. We

1 processed him and at our request, he identified some of the possible

2 perpetrators of the crime and it was on the basis of his testimony that

3 criminal reports were filed against those individuals. After that event,

4 he was exchanged and went to Croatia.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that the only incident you can remember?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At this point in time, yes.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Yes, Mr. Milovancevic, I'm

8 sorry I interrupted you.

9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

10 Perhaps we could briefly have a look at a document from the Prosecution

11 list. It's a 65 ter document, 347. It's a -- it's dated the 22nd of

12 February 1993, UNCIVPOL Sector South.

13 JUDGE HOEPFEL: While we wait to get this document on the screen,

14 may we clarify the last sentence of the last answer of the witness

15 mentioning something like "this Croat who had survived this attack having

16 then after that event been exchanged and gone to Croatia"? What does that

17 mean? Was he a prisoner or a prisoner of war or what do you mean by that?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Your Honours, quite the

19 reverse. He was someone the Serbian authorities took care of. They

20 treated him. They called him as a witness. And then at his request and

21 with UNPROFOR's agreement, he went to the territory of Zadar, I think, but

22 in any event, he wasn't a prisoner of war.

23 JUDGE HOEPFEL: No. The transcript says after that event he was

24 exchanged and went to Croatia. Did you say that or not?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I made a mistake. It was a slip of

1 the tongue. He wasn't exchanged. He went to the territory of Croatia at

2 his request. I think that CIVPOL also made such a request, but in any

3 event, he wasn't a prisoner of war. Quite the contrary. He was a victim.

4 And the Serbian authorities treated him in this way.

5 JUDGE HOEPFEL: That made me wonder why you said he was exchanged.

6 You understand?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. I do apologise.

8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Could

9 we have a look at the top of the document, scroll up a bit? It's an

10 UNCIVPOL document. We've gone too far now.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Your learned friend is on his feet.

12 MR. BLACK: Again, I apologise for the interruption. This is a

13 document that I'm familiar with but yet again it's not on the list that I

14 was provided with. And the way it works is we have a good system. I get

15 an e-mail with the document that is counsel intends to use, and this I

16 believe is Exhibit 729 in evidence and it's not on the list as either an

17 admitted evidence -- admitted Exhibit nor a 65 ter exhibit, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?

19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my learned

20 colleague is quite right. Your questions made me have a look at this

21 document, but I'll withdraw that suggestion. The document has already

22 been admitted into evidence and it has been dealt with on a number of

23 occasions and, as a result, I just wanted to use it to refresh the

24 Chamber's memory.

25 Q. Witness, do you know that at the time of the Maslenica

1 operation --

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Wait a minute, wait a minute. We haven't sort of

3 agreed that you can use the document because there is an objection

4 standing. Now I'm not quite sure whether you want to refresh the

5 Chamber's memory or you want to refresh the witness's memory. Which

6 memory do you want to really refresh? The Chamber hasn't asked -- hasn't

7 indicated that it's lost its memory and that it needs to be refreshed on

8 this document -- by this document.

9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I won't use this

10 document. I withdraw that suggestion. I apologise. I didn't inform my

11 colleagues that I'd be using it. I regret having called it up on the

12 screen. I have wasted sometime now.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you withdraw it, in all fairness to the

14 Defence, I want to ask a question. If this document is indeed already in

15 evidence, why can it not be used?

16 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I was just about to stand up. If this is

17 something that actually arose during the course of the examination, I

18 actually don't object to him raising it. It would seem to me to be a

19 courtesy that counsel might mention this is something that has come up and

20 explain why he is using a document that wasn't on the list, but since it's

21 in evidence, I don't object to him using it.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You may proceed, Mr.

23 Milovancevic, and use the document. You may use the document.

24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise to my colleague

25 once again. He's quite right. I didn't inform him of the fact that I was

1 going to use the document. Thank you, Your Honours. Here we can see that

2 it's an UNCIVPOL document dated the 22nd of February, 1993.

3 Q. Can you see that?

4 A. I can't see the heading. Oh, yes, I can. The 22nd of February,

5 1993, yes.

6 Q. Can we now scroll up a bit, please? Thank you. Under the title

7 general situation, it says that the situation continues to be tense, since

8 there are continuing skirmishes along the line. In most of the areas

9 inside the sector, the movement of troops has been noticed. Can you see

10 that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Can this situation referred to in the document be linked to the

13 time of the Maslenica operation, as far as you know?

14 A. Yes, it can.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's not how to ask questions, Mr. Milovancevic.

16 You should say, "Can you link this document to any incident that you

17 know?" And then he must tell us the Maslenica incident. You don't give

18 the answer in your question. And let me tell you, I warn you again, you

19 are yourself diminishing the probative value of your own witness's

20 testimony if you keep on putting words into their mouths.

21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I agree. But I'd

22 like to point out that the witness did mention the Maslenica operation and

23 an individual who was wounded during that period.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... not in relation

25 to this document.

1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I agree. Thank you.

2 Q. Have you heard about a school in Vrpolje and about part of the

3 Croatian population being put up in that building during the Maslenica

4 operation?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Do you know whether the Croatian population were taken there by

7 force, by the Krajina Police or did this happen under other circumstances?

8 A. Well, this was the desire of the authorities of Republika Srpska,

9 and it was at the request of the Croats. They wanted them to be protected

10 from possible attacks launched by the Serbs who had suffered an extremely

11 violent attack at the -- in the Benkovac hinterland.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Once again, Mr. Milovancevic, I'm not trying to be

13 obstructionist here, but again, you say, "Do you know whether the Croatian

14 population were taken there by force by the Krajina Police or did this

15 happen under other circumstances?" The question should be, "How did the

16 Croatian population get to that school?" Don't suggest the answer. It

17 just so happens that the answer differs from what you were suggesting but

18 it's still a leading question. Try to -- please, I'm asking you.

19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I'll do my best, Your Honours.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. What did the MUP of the Republic of Serbian Krajina do in such a

23 situation when the Croatian population asked them for protection?

24 A. Well, it wasn't just the Croatian population. Your Honours, thank

25 you for your words. Usually I don't allow anyone to influence me. I

1 stand by what I know. And that was the case when I was in office in the

2 HDZ, et cetera.

3 It's not just that the Krajina MUP wanted to protect the Croats.

4 Representatives of the -- of UNPROFOR civilian police asked us to do this.

5 They wanted our police to go to villages and appoint as many men as was

6 necessary to protect the population from attempts to take revenge. We

7 said we didn't have enough police for that work, and it would be best for

8 them to be temporarily accommodated in certain buildings. There were

9 two -- there was one or two buildings, one of which was in Vrpolje. They

10 were there for a day or two, and this was just for their protection. I

11 remember this very well. It was at the request of CIVPOL.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: I hope you do understand that the Bench is not

13 suggesting that you don't stand on your own feet and you're easily

14 affected by people, by suggestions from other people. Indeed I did say

15 that your answer was given different from what was being suggested, but

16 note that it is procedure in this kind of forum that the questions be put

17 the way I suggested to your counsel. Irrespective of whether the witness

18 is vulnerable or easily influenced or not. Okay? You may proceed, Mr.

19 Milovancevic.

20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Thank you for that answer, Witness. The Honourable Judge is quite

22 right.

23 Let's look at item 5 of the report. It's on the next page.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Roman numeral 5?

25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Roman 5.

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 A. Yes.

7 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter would like --

8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have to redact

9 what I have just said, I mentioned the witness's name.

10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The interpreter did not

11 interpret the name.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the witness's name please be redacted. I

13 suppose that will be on the B/C/S version.

14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what I said.

16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] We will no longer deal with

17 this document. I thank the Chamber for allowing me to use this document.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.

19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Does the name "operation lightning" mean anything to you?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. "Operation Flash".

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Can you tell me what "Operation Flash" means?

25 A. Well, I don't like using the terms flash or storm because they

1 have certain negative connotations, they are insulting. You can't talk

2 about something called flash if there are lots of victims and if a lot of

3 people are killed. This is what I am persuaded of, and I have to express

4 this publicly here. That Croatian army operation was directed at the

5 territory of Western Slavonia, territory under the protection of the UN,

6 territory in the west was attacked, and in the course of several days,

7 almost the entire Serbian population was expelled and fled and according

8 to the information that I have, about 2.000 Serbs were killed on that

9 occasion. I don't know whether that information is fully reliable but as

10 far as I know that would be the figure.

11 Q. Thank you. Do you know the date of the operation?

12 A. The operation started on the 1st of May 1995.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE HOEPFEL: The witness answered only it started on the first

16 of May. How long did it last, please?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it lasted for a lengthy period

18 of time. That's certain. But it should have ended when an agreement on

19 the cessation of facilities was concluded, which was signed in the evening

20 on the 3rd of May, but that's the date on which this agreement was

21 signed. But the actions carried out by the Croatian army and police

22 continued and combat activity continued for another 15 or 20 days for

23 sure. And after the agreement had been signed, under the auspices of the

24 UN, or rather, the UNPROFOR, or UNCRO, I don't know what the term was, but

25 during that period of time, the other remaining Serbs in the area were

1 expelled. It's important to point out that when Mr. Akashi spoke to Mr.

2 Martic --

3 JUDGE HOEPFEL: You may continue.

4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

5 Q. You said there was some talks. With whom did Mr. Akashi hold

6 talks and when?

7 A. The talks with Mr. Akashi were held both before the operation and

8 in the course of the operation. It was around the 5th of May, I think,

9 that one of the meetings was held. Before the operation itself, there

10 were talks with Mr. Akashi and Mr. Stoltenberg, and other UN envoys, where

11 there was discussion of how to solve the problem in a peaceful manner,

12 primarily about economic issues.

13 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us -- you say a cease-fire agreement was

14 signed on the 3rd of May 1995. When did the negotiations begin and did

15 you participate in them?

16 A. On the 1st of May, in the early morning hours, the Croatian

17 aggression began. At the request of the UNPROFOR representative, the Serb

18 delegation, comprising the Prime Minister, Mikelic, General Loncar and

19 myself, as a representative from Mr. Martic's office, we went to Pleso

20 airport in Zagreb for talks with the Croatian delegation. This was on the

21 1st and we arrived at Pleso at 1600 hours.

22 Q. What was the topic discussed? Can you tell us?

23 A. It was the international community that initiated the talks, and

24 the topic was a cease-fire, cessation of hostilities, and after that the

25 solution of other problems.

1 Q. And was a cessation of hostilities agreed at that point?

2 A. No.

3 Q. What happened after that, on the 2nd of May, 1995? Did the

4 fighting go on?

5 A. Yes, the fighting continued, but learned counsel, let me say that

6 on the 1st of May, no agreement was reached on the cessation of

7 hostilities, although both Mr. Mikelic on our side, and Mr. Akashi

8 proposed a specific agreement on the cessation of hostilities. This was

9 not accepted by the Croatian side, and their negotiator was Mr. Sarinic.

10 Q. Thank you. What happened on the 2nd of May, 1995?

11 A. The Croatian aggression on the Krajina continued, that is, on

12 Western Slavonia. There were reports that a large numbers of Serb

13 civilians had been killed. There was also verified information that a

14 column of Serb refugees had been killed on the road and that tankers had

15 been brought to wash the blood away.

16 Q. Thank you. What civilians were killed on the highway and who

17 killed them?

18 A. It was Serbs who were killed by the Croatian army, or the Croatian

19 forces.

20 Q. And when did you receive this information? When did all this take

21 place? What time of day was it?

22 A. It was in the morning.

23 Q. Can you tell us whether, on that day, the 2nd of May --

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that the morning of the 2nd of May?

25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The morning

1 of the 2nd of May, 1995.

2 Q. On that day, the 2nd of May, 1995, were there negotiations again?

3 A. There were contacts. Prime Minister Mikelic had contacts, and as

4 far as I know -- well, I know precisely, in fact, at 1900 hours, in the

5 late afternoon, a proposal on the cessation of hostilities was forwarded

6 to us, either by Mr. Stoltenberg or Mr. Akashi. I think it was Mr.

7 Stoltenberg, but that's immaterial. It arrived in Knin at 1900 hours on

8 the 2nd of May, this proposal.

9 Q. Can you tell us, you said it was signed on the 3rd. Where was it

10 signed and by whom and what were its provisions?

11 A. On the 3rd, representatives of the international community arrived

12 in Knin for talks, Colonel Peters and I don't know who else. Mr. Mikelic

13 attended the meeting. The agreement was accepted by the Serb side. It

14 was signed separately by the Serb side, and after that it was also signed

15 by the Croatian side. And as for the second part of your question, the

16 main characteristic of this agreement was that there would be an instant

17 cessation of hostilities and that the Croatian forces would withdraw to

18 their starting positions and that the Serb population of the territory of

19 Western Slavonia would be guaranteed protection, that their lives would

20 not be in danger.

21 Q. Tell us again, what was the date when that agreement was signed?

22 Excuse me, Your Honours. Tell us once more the date.

23 A. The 3rd, in the afternoon. Separately by first the Serb side and

24 then the Croatian side.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I just ask a question? Earlier the witness

1 indicated that or gave -- I got the impression that the witness was saying

2 the negotiations took place at the Pleso airport in Zagreb. Now I'm

3 hearing him talk of Knin. Did the negotiations move from Zagreb to Knin?

4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

5 Q. Witness, you said on the 1st of May there were negotiations at

6 Pleso airport in Zagreb; is that correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. When were they interrupted and when did you return to Knin and

9 when did the negotiations resume and where?

10 A. The Serb delegation asked for a cessation of hostilities to become

11 effective immediately at midnight on the 1st of May, but the Croatian side

12 rejected this. Then --

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: When -- did the negotiations move to Knin and if

14 so, when?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the negotiations were

16 continued in Knin. There were contacts in the meantime with premier

17 Mikelic but I wasn't there so I don't know where. On the 3rd of May the

18 negotiations moved to Knin without the Croatian side.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: How did the negotiations go on without the other

20 side?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the representatives of the

22 international community should be asked that question.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: But, no, no, no. I'm just asking -- okay.

24 JUDGE HOEPFEL: He spoke of a draft having been concluded on the

25 2nd at 19.00, and then on the third it was apparently the signature

1 question, not so much the negotiations themselves any more. So can you

2 help us.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that's how it was. The

4 draft reached us through the representatives of the international

5 community, as you said, Your Honour. On the 3rd, we signed it and later

6 on it was signed by the Croatian side.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I go back to my question? My question was,

8 okay, why did the Serb delegation move back to Knin on the 3rd if the

9 negotiations were still going on? Now, I don't have to ask the

10 representatives of the international community about that. You told us

11 that the negotiations were taking place at the Pleso airport and when you

12 suddenly mentioned Knin, and you don't give us a proper transition, we've

13 got to ask you questions. And can you explain that, please?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I do apologise. I was

15 not specific enough.

16 On the 1st, the negotiations were at Pleso airport. The arbiters

17 were representatives of the international community. These negotiations

18 yielded no result. We had agreed with the international community that

19 there should be an immediate cessation of hostilities at 2300 hours, but

20 these negotiations were interrupted and the UNPROFOR forces took us back

21 to Knin early in the morning of the 2nd by helicopter.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: So you went to Knin early in the morning on the

23 2nd. It's not on the 3rd, as you said earlier.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't think I said

25 we left on the 3rd. I don't think I said that. I apologise, if I did.

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: You did. I'll show you. At page 90, line 4, on

2 3rd of May the negotiations moved to Knin without the Croatian side.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I said that on the

4 3rd, the negotiations continued, and that the representatives of the

5 international community arrived, but it was on the 2nd that we returned to

6 Knin in the early morning hours because the negotiations were interrupted

7 on the 1st. Mr. Akashi was chairing but as no agreement was reached on

8 cessation of hostilities because the Croatian side did not accept that --

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I stop you? I'm trying to clear what appears

10 to be a confusion. Are you saying that it is a mistake what I see on the

11 screen in the English version that it is alleged that you said on the 3rd

12 of May, the negotiations moved to Knin without the Croatian side? Is that

13 statement wrong? It should be, you left Zagreb on the early morning of

14 the 2nd by helicopter. Is that how you want it to --

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you. So no negotiations took place in

17 Knin. It's just the Serb delegation returned to Knin on the 2nd of May.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Mr. Milovancevic, you may

20 proceed.

21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have already

22 overstepped our time but, by your leave, as we are now dealing with this,

23 I would like to put one more question.

24 Q. On the 2nd you returned to Knin and you said that you received a

25 new offer; is that correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Who brought this offer to Knin? Did someone bring it or how did

3 you receive it?

4 A. I'm not aware of the details but it arrived in Knin at 1900 hours

5 in the evening.

6 Q. On what date?

7 A. On the 2nd of May, 1995. So that was at 1900 hours. It was sent

8 to the Serb side for consideration and members of the international

9 community were to arrive in Knin on the 3rd to agree on the text of the

10 agreement.

11 Q. And did the representatives of the international community arrive

12 on the 3rd and was a text agreed on?

13 A. Yes, they did arrive and the text was agreed on and signed.

14 Q. Where was this?

15 A. It was in Knin. Mr. Mikelic was the person who actually conducted

16 the negotiations, and in the afternoon of the 3rd, the Serb side certainly

17 accepted the agreement.

18 Q. Did the Croatian side accept the agreement on that day?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Can you tell us, if you know, why the Croats agreed on the 3rd

21 when they had refused on the 1st?

22 A. Well, it's a simple reason. They wanted to complete their

23 military incursion. They were trying to complete their successful

24 incursion, which is why they did not agree to that proposal.

25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there is no point

1 in continuing today. We have only a few questions left and I think we can

2 continue on the next working day.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. The matter stands adjourned to Monday

4 the 16th of October at quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon, in this

5 courtroom. Court adjourned.

6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.51 p.m.,

7 to be reconvened on Monday, the 16th day of

8 October, 2006, at 2.15 p.m.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25