1 Monday, 23 October 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning, everybody. Unfortunately, Judge
6 Hoepfel is not available today due to other ICTY business that he has to
7 attend to. And it is proposed that today's session be conducted in terms
8 of section -- I beg your pardon, Rule 15 bis of the Rules of Procedure and
9 Evidence. Is that okay? Thank you very much.
10 Unless anybody has a housekeeping issue to raise, the witness may
11 come in.
12 [The witness entered court]
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning, sir.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Once again - you may remember this, but it is the
16 duty of the Court to remind you - that you are still bound by the
17 declaration that you made at the beginning of your testimony to tell the
18 truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the truth.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
21 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 WITNESS: BORISLAV DJUKIC [Resumed]
23 [Witness answered through interpreter]
24 Cross-examination by Mr. Whiting: [Continued]
25 Q. Good morning, sir.
1 A. Good morning.
2 Q. I just have a few more questions to ask you, and I want to ask you
3 some questions about the Vance Plan.
4 You testified on Thursday that "it says literally in the plan that
5 the Republic of Serbian Krajina may hold its own police and military."
6 Now, just to be clear, the Vance Plan in fact makes -- never makes
7 any reference whatsoever to the Republic of Serbian Krajina, correct, it
8 speaks only of the UN protected areas?
9 A. The Republic of Serbian Krajina and parts of Croatian territory
10 outside the RSK constituted the United Nations protected areas.
11 Q. But the words "Republic of Serbian Krajina" do not appear in the
12 Vance Plan; correct?
13 A. I'm telling you that the area --
14 Q. Sir, please --
15 A. -- where the RSK was --
16 Q. Please, just listen to the question. You agree with me that the
17 words, the following words, "Republic of Serbian Krajina," do not appear
18 in the Vance Plan; correct?
19 A. The Vance Plan did not prejudge the political settlement. Whether
20 it dealt with -- or it did, actually, deal with the introduction of peace
21 in the area, in the war-torn area.
22 Q. Sir, did you not understand my question?
23 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I believe I fully understood your question. The
24 Vance Plan did not prejudge --
25 Q. Let me repeat it then and see if I can get an answer to it,
1 please. The words "Republic of Serbian Krajina," that term does not
2 appear in the Vance Plan, yes or no?
3 A. The Vance Plan implied that there would be the introduction of
4 peace to the war-torn area, that is to say the RSK, and parts of territory
5 of the Republic of Croatia.
6 Q. Could you answer my question now, please.
7 A. I've answered it.
8 Q. You said that the Vance Plan spoke literally about things in the
9 Republic of Serbian Krajina, but those words do not actually appear in the
10 plan, right? There's no reference to Republic of Serbian Krajina, because
11 that entity was not recognised. Right?
12 A. The Vance Plan did not provide for a political settlement. It did
13 not stipulate whether there was going to be an RSK or an SAO Krajina or
14 whichever other solution. It dealt with the fact that first peace would
15 be introduced to the area, whereupon a permanent political solution would
16 be found.
17 Q. Sir, I'm going to move on, though I'm going to submit that you
18 have not answered the question. But the Vance Plan is in evidence in our
19 case, it's Exhibit 115, so it's -- the Court can make its own
21 Now, with respect about the military, just so we're clear, the
22 Vance Plan says that the military is to be disbanded and demobilised. And
23 it specifically says its personnel shall not wear weapons -- I mean shall
24 not wear uniforms or carry weapons; correct?
25 MR. WHITING: I think the accused has a note.
1 Q. Isn't that what it says in the Vance Plan, the military is to be
2 disbanded and demobilised, no uniforms and no weapons; correct?
3 A. That's quite correct.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 A. And that's the way it was acted upon.
6 Q. Okay. And in fact what happened then in response to that
7 provision is that the authorities in the RSK simply shifted all the
8 personnel and weapons from the TO, from the Territorial Defence, over
9 to -- and from the JNA into the police as a way of circumventing the Vance
10 Plan. Isn't that correct? In other words, you turned the police into a
12 A. Mr. Prosecutor, that's not true at all. All heavy weaponry was
13 placed in depots under a double-key system, where one key was held by the
14 TO staffs and the other by the UN forces.
15 The TO did not wear uniforms; it was disbanded. The logistics
16 bases of the TO still existed, but they were manned by people in civilian
17 clothes, as was provided by the Vance Plan. Under all the regulations and
18 international standard procedures, the police was able to carry
19 12-millimetre calibre rifles and pistols. And in addition to that, they
20 had other equipment for repelling different sorts of demonstrations and so
21 on and so forth.
22 Q. Actually, sir, the Vance Plan specifically said that the police
23 could only carry side-arms, no long weapons; correct?
24 A. Mr. Prosecutor, side-arms means pistols and automatic rifles,
25 short barrels.
1 Q. Is that what the United Nations thought? Did they interpret the
2 provision that way, to your knowledge?
3 A. Yes, they did.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. And we were not in any way criticised by the United Nations forces
6 in that regard.
7 Q. Okay. Well, following on that answer --
8 MR. WHITING: If we could look at Exhibit 00593994. And this
9 is --
10 Q. Sir, this is a report of the Secretary-General pursuant to
11 Security Council Resolution 762 and it's dated the 27th of July, 1992.
12 MR. WHITING: I believe we only have this in the English, if I'm
13 not mistaken, but there's just one relevant paragraph. If we could go to
14 the second page and zoom in on paragraph 7, please.
15 Q. This is what the --
16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Sir, can you just tell us the
17 number of the report because it is written very small print on the cover
18 page. It always bears the mark S in the upper right-hand corner.
19 MR. WHITING: Yes. It's S/24353, 27 July 1992.
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, and I
21 apologise for interrupting you.
22 MR. WHITING: No, that's fine. I expected Mr. Perovic, but I'm
23 always happy to see you, Mr. Milovancevic.
24 Q. Okay. So paragraph 7 reads this -- this is what the United
25 Nations is saying on the 27th of July, 1992: "However, the process of
1 demobilisation of the TDF in the sectors has been complicated by the
2 parallel emergence of strengthened police and militia organisations.
3 These groups, designated as 'Special Police,' 'border police,' and so on,
4 are equipped with automatic rifles and, in some cases, with machine-guns,
5 in violation of the provisions of the plan which require that the police
6 be equipped only with side-arms. In many cases these groups have taken
7 over from the JNA or Serb TDF responsibility for manning the front lines.
8 They will have to be withdrawn and disbanded. These matters have been
9 repeatedly taken up with the local authorities, but so far without
10 satisfactory results."
11 Now, having heard that, sir, do you want to change the answer you
12 just gave us that the United Nations never complained about the fact that
13 the police was being turned into a military force and that it was being
14 armed with long weapons, in violation of the plan? Do you want to change
15 your answer, sir?
16 A. Mr. Prosecutor, combat vehicles owned by the police had
17 12.7-millimetre machine-guns mounted on them, and I told you that these
18 are accepted standards. We spoke to Mr. Kirudja about these matters and
19 we agreed that we should reduce the headcount of special police units
20 through a two-phase process. And I stand by my statement that these were
21 police units and not military units. Their internal organisation tasks
22 and uniforms were not those of the military. Their structure was that of
23 a police, and they took up the role of UN forces along the borders. We
24 even agreed that they should be withdrawn further deep into the territory.
25 I don't know whether the Security Council dealt with that particular
2 Q. Well, sir, in this report dated the 27th of July, 1992, the
3 Secretary-General is saying that these newly strengthened police and
4 militia organisations had to be withdrawn and disbanded. So the view of
5 the Secretary-General in July 1992 was that the police was -- that the
6 strengthened police was in violation of the Vance Plan. And you agree
7 with that, correct, that that was the view of the United Nations?
8 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I'm quite familiar with this report. It said that
9 the TO was withdrawn and demobilised --
10 Q. Can I interrupt you for a moment, sir? You were familiar with
11 this report at the time; correct? You were aware of this report in July
12 of 1992; correct?
13 A. I was very familiar with the report. We acted upon it --
14 Q. Well --
15 A. -- and again I'm telling you that Mr. Martic and I had this
16 meeting with Mr. Kirudja, where we agreed that these units would be
17 disbanded through a two-phase process.
18 Now, why did this not take place so quickly? That's because we
19 had the Miljevac plateau, we had 600 members --
20 MR. WHITING: Could this document be admitted into evidence,
22 Q. I interrupted you because you gave this evidence before.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
24 please be given an exhibit number.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will become Exhibit 985.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
2 Yes, Mr. Whiting.
3 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. Are you aware, sir, on the 18th of September, 1992, there was
5 another report of the Secretary-General. It's in evidence in our case as
6 Exhibit 75, and I'm not going to -- I'm not going to pull it up unless
7 it's necessary.
8 But are you aware that in September of 1992 the Secretary-General
9 submitted another report in which he said that the Vance Plan was
10 continuing to be violated by the creation of new Serb militia forces
11 designated as special police, border police, and so forth. In other
12 words, the violations were continuing, and that he said that in reality
13 these new forces were "paramilitary forces." Were you aware of that
14 report in September of 1992?
15 A. I was aware of this report as well. But this report says, among
16 other things, that there were violations on the Croatian side.
17 Q. Sir, the report is in evidence, so the Court will have an
18 opportunity to read the report. My only question was whether you were
19 aware of it. Do you recall or are you aware of the paragraph, it's
20 paragraph 6, in which the Secretary-General said that the -- these
21 paramilitary units, the police, was engaging in ethnic cleansing. Were
22 you aware of that paragraph in the report in September of 1992?
23 A. As far as I remember, the report did not use the
24 term "paramilitary forces," "parapolice," "paramilitaries." I can't
25 remember there being a mention of these parties taking -- of these forces
1 taking part in ethnic cleansing, but I would ask you kindly to show me
2 that portion to refresh my memory because it's been a long time ago. It's
3 been -- it was back in 1992 and we're in 2006 now.
4 Q. It's fine. The report's in evidence, and it's -- I don't really
5 have any more questions about it. It's in evidence, and if you don't
6 remember it then that's fine.
7 I want to ask you now some questions about the police units. You
8 testified -- you were shown a document, which is now Exhibit 978, which
9 was an order from the Federal Secretary of National Defence, dated the
10 28th of April, 1992, which established police units in the TO. Do you
11 remember seeing that document in your direct examination and talking about
12 it? April 28th, 1992.
13 A. Yes, I remember, and I'm quite familiar with the document.
14 Q. Now, you must remember, then, that Milan Martic opposed this order
15 and acted to keep the police units within the Ministry of the Interior,
17 A. No. Mr. Martic didn't oppose such an order at all --
18 Q. Okay, well --
19 A. Please allow me.
20 Q. But briefly, please.
21 A. The federal state provided guarantees to the political leadership
22 of the RSK, with a view to allowing the deployment of the United Nations
23 forces. The guarantees meant that the police units should be established
24 and that the JNA should withdraw to the borders of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
25 Since the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina grew complicated, back
1 in that area only the RSK forces, namely TO and the police force, stayed
2 there. For this reason, the federal state, through the JNA, agreed to
3 establish special police units in order for them -- for those to be common
4 to the Yugoslav state. The political leadership in the RSK found this
5 satisfactory and so did the Minister of the Interior, Mr. Milan Martic.
6 Q. Okay. Well, let's look at what really happened.
7 MR. WHITING: If we could look at Exhibit Number 68, please.
8 Q. And as it's coming up, I can tell you that this is a document
9 which is dated the 19th of May, 1992, so it's a few weeks after that order
10 of the 28th of April, 1992, and it's from Milan Martic, and it's about the
11 restructuring of the RSK -- it should be on your screen. It's about the
12 restructuring of the RSK MUP units, overview of the state of affairs and
13 the problems encountered. And he says -- he talks about a meeting in the
14 first paragraph and then he says: "In order to overcome the registered
15 shortcomings, we hereby propose the following." And in paragraph 1 he
16 says: "To cancel the order of the third SSNO administration which set the
17 numerical insignia of the MUP brigade and the HE escadrille, as well as
18 the unequivocal view that these forces are under the command of the RSK
19 national defence, both in peacetimes and in war."
20 And then he makes a new proposal, that the MUP brigade -- this is
21 under 1(a): "The MUP brigades are under the command of the RSK MUP in
22 peacetimes, and in times of war they are to be within the composition of
23 the Serbian army of the RSK and that the special purpose battalion be
24 taken from the Knin MUP brigade, remain under the MUP RSK command in times
25 of war and peace."
1 So he is proposing that that order that you talked about in your
2 direct examination of the 28th of April, 1992, be cancelled and that, in
3 effect, the MUP units -- the special police units come under the authority
4 of the RSK Ministry of the Interior, as he explains here, right? So he
5 did propose the order and he proposed a different arrangement. Isn't that
7 A. It transpires from this document that the then-Minister Martic
8 gave a proposal of his own. He was able to propose other variants as
9 well; however, none of those were accepted.
10 Mr. Prosecutor, the units remained under these numerical codes in
11 existence until they were disbanded on the 30th of November, 1992. Not
12 even the battalion that's mentioned here -- and it bears an incorrect
13 title, it wasn't the special battalion, it was the battalion of the
14 special purpose police units -- because Mr. Martic set up this special
15 brigade which was within the MUP and which stayed in existence until
16 Operation Storm, the month of August.
17 Let me tell you this as well --
18 Q. No, sir, I want to focus, if I may. The reality is that in fact
19 the special police units stayed within the Ministry of the Interior, they
20 were under the command of the Ministry of the Interior, and you, as
21 commander of the special police units, were a deputy minister of the
22 interior of the RSK; correct?
23 A. The units that were set up as they were, according to the latest
24 instructions I drafted, they carried out tasks from within the police
25 force and were linked to the minister of the interior. And I, as the
1 chief of MUP, would occasionally stand in for the minister of the interior
2 because I was also his deputy. And for a while I in fact stood in for
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. WHITING: And if we could just look --
6 Q. There are a number of documents which pertain to this issue,
7 Exhibit 66, 71 --
8 MR. WHITING: But I'm going to ask that we look only at
9 Exhibit 72. And this is --
10 Q. This is an order from you, from the 1st of October, 1992, from the
11 Republic of Serbian Krajina Ministry of the Interior special police units
13 MR. WHITING: That's at the top, if we could just scroll back to
14 the top, please.
15 Q. And it's about the solemn oath for the police cadets.
16 MR. WHITING: And if we could go to the end, please. I mean the
17 last page.
18 Q. It's from you as the deputy minister of the Ministry of the
19 Interior, and that's your name and your signature; correct?
20 A. Yes, this is an authentic document, let me tell you right away,
21 and it is true that in this period of time I held the duty of deputy
22 minister. I think it was for a period of two months.
23 If you need an explanation with regard to these cadets, this was
24 recruitment and training of special police units.
25 Q. And just so we're clear, the special police units at this time, at
1 the time of this order, were under the authority of the Ministry of the
2 Interior in the RSK; correct?
3 A. This order has to do with the training of police cadets --
4 Q. Sir, sir --
5 A. -- and that is why the deputy minister signed the document.
6 Q. The special police units at the time of this order were under the
7 authority of the Ministry of the Interior in the RSK; correct?
8 A. Not of the special police but of the special purpose units of the
9 police. They were directly under the minister of the interior at the
10 time --
11 Q. Thank you, that's fine. That's fine. Thank you, sir. I'm going
12 to move on. By the way, in October of 1992 do you know who the minister
13 of the defence was in the RSK?
14 A. The minister of defence, as far as I can recall, was Mr. Stojan
15 Spanovic, a former JNA member by the rank of colonel.
16 Q. Now, I'm going to move on to another topic. You -- you testified
17 about Franjo Tudjman's speech, where he said that the war wouldn't have
18 happened had we not wanted it. Do you remember testifying about that
19 speech? I think it was on Thursday.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. We've had a lot of evidence about that speech in our case, and
22 Defence counsel talked about it in its opening statement in this case.
23 That is a speech that took place on the 24th of May, 1992, in Zagreb in
24 front of a big rally at Ban Jelacic Square, correct, and Tudjman spoke to
25 the crowd on that day, and that's when you say he said those words.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. I want to show you what Franjo Tudjman actually said on that
5 MR. WHITING: And we actually have the video-clip now of the
6 relevant portion of this speech and if we could play it, please. It's
7 V0006993, and if we could switch to the Sanction, please.
8 [Videotape played]
9 MR. WHITING:
10 Q. Do you see that in fact he does not say, as you claimed, that the
11 war wouldn't have happened had we didn't want it. He does not say that.
12 In fact, what he says, sir, is that they wanted -- they wanted to achieve
13 their goals through peace but that they were ready for war and that they
14 would not give up their goals for an independent Croatia. But he does not
15 say that: "The war would not have happened had we not wanted it."
16 Correct, sir?
17 A. Sir, there are some other Tudjman speeches in which he literally
18 said what I, too, tried to convey as literally --
19 Q. Sir, you told us --
20 A. -- but if you wish --
21 Q. Sir, you told us that the speech was on the 24th of May, 1992, and
22 I just played for you what he says in that speech on the 24th of May,
23 1992. Are you now going to tell me that it's a different -- you were
24 talking about a different speech after all?
25 A. There were other speeches, but it is clear here as well. He said
1 we had -- we led a war and we won. That was in the last sentence.
2 Perhaps we can put it back on the screen and analyse it a bit.
3 He could have resolved the situation by peaceful means following
4 the constitution of SFRY from 1974, but he didn't want to implement the
5 procedure and the constitutional law because there were some other issues
6 at stake, such as the issue of territory. That's why he headed for a war
7 and an armed rebellion in the then-Yugoslavia.
8 Q. Sir, in your testimony you told us that Croatia was provoking
9 incidents, was provoking conflict, and you said that the corroboration for
10 this claim was the fact that Mr. Tudjman said in his speech in May of 1992
11 that we would -- there would not have been a war if he had not want it.
12 Now, will you agree with me that that's not in fact what he said, right?
13 Will you agree with me about that?
14 A. By far, more important is the fact that he led a war, that he
15 carried out an armed rebellion in the territory of the SFRY, ignoring the
16 constitution and the law.
17 Q. Sir, sir, you told us that the corroboration for your claim was
18 this speech that he made. Will you agree with me that you were wrong
19 about that corroboration, that he did not say that?
20 A. I simply corroborated the fact that a war was waged by Croatia, or
21 rather, Croatia carried out an armed rebellion in the former Yugoslavia.
22 Q. But Mr. Tudjman did not say what you claimed he said, did he? He
23 said something very different; in fact, quite the opposite of what you
24 said he said. He said that the aim was to achieve the goals through
25 peace. That's what he said, isn't it, sir?
1 A. He did say that, I can't deny that. But he also said: We waged a
2 war and we won.
3 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, could this --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is even more horrific what he
5 said in true fact.
6 MR. WHITING:
7 Q. Oh, really? You're -- you think that what you just saw was more
8 horrific than what you claimed he said? That's your view now?
9 A. Among the documents in existence I believe you will also find a
10 sentence that I will quote now --
11 Q. No, sir, please, no, I don't want another quote. I want to focus
12 on what you just said. You just said: "What he said was more horrific
13 than -- what he said, in fact, was more horrific than what you had claimed
14 he had said." Is that what you're trying to tell us? Did I understand
15 you correctly, that what we saw in that clip is more horrific than what
16 you claimed he said in that speech?
17 A. You didn't understand me well. I will repeat. Compared to the
18 speech in which he says: "We waged a war and won," this was worse than
19 what one could say for the speech itself, because what we had on our hands
20 was an armed rebellion by the Croatian leadership and the
21 then-paramilitary units within the territory of a legitimate state, this
22 being the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
23 Tudjman could have gained independence by peaceful means according
24 to the constitution from 1974; that did not prevent him. As to why he
25 chose to go another way and to choose war and armed rebellion, this was up
1 to their leadership and that was the truth.
2 Q. Sir -- okay, I'm not going to get into a discussion about those
3 issues now.
4 MR. WHITING: Could this video-clip be admitted into evidence,
5 please, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: The video-clip is admitted into evidence. May it
7 please be given an exhibit number.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit Number 986.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
10 Yes, Mr. Whiting.
11 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. I want to ask you a few questions about the Posavina corridor.
13 You testified in your direct examination about the goals of the Posavina
14 corridor operation and that the corridor had become blocked in the spring
15 of 1992. But in fact, it was long a goal of leaders of the RSK, leaders
16 in the Serbian areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and leaders in Belgrade to
17 establish a land link between the Serb areas within the former Yugoslavia;
18 correct? That was a long-time goal of Serb leaders, dating back to 1991.
19 A. Prosecutor, sir, there was no obstacle, be it physical or
20 political, between the territories to the west of the Drina and
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia and the RSK on the one hand, and the
22 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on the other, this being -- comprising
23 Serbia and Montenegro. There was always a link.
24 Q. But -- and the goal was to control that link and to control and to
25 be able to link together the Serb areas to create one Greater Serbia;
2 A. No, not in a single document or in a single speech did I ever hear
3 about that.
4 Q. So then you did not --
5 A. Nothing needed to be established because there was a free
7 Q. So you didn't hear the minister of information of the SAO Krajina
8 state in August of 1991 - and we have this in evidence as Exhibit 944 -
9 that "a territorial corridor stretching from Krajina across Bosnia and
10 Herzegovina to Serbia is the obvious solution to uniting the two Serb
12 You didn't hear him say that in August of 1991?
13 A. A corridor is a legal term for a passage through enemy territory.
14 It wasn't a corridor. This was a single territory in that area. There
15 were 400.000 people who lived there, and no one had an absolute majority.
16 There were 45 per cent Serbs, 26 per cent Croatians, 26 per cent Muslims,
17 as well as some others. It was part of Bosnia and Herzegovina's
18 territory. In May when Bosnia and Herzegovina was divided, it became part
19 of the Republika Srpska territory.
20 Q. Precisely. That's precisely the point. The -- it was -- and it
21 was part of the Bosnia and Herzegovina territory, it was mixed territory,
22 and it was the goal of Serb leaders to control that territory so that the
23 Serb areas would be linked, right?
24 A. The goals of all of the opposing forces differed. The goal of
25 Croatia --
1 Q. I'm interested in --
2 A. -- was to take Posavina under its own control.
3 Q. My question is about the goal of the Serb leaders. And would you
4 agree with me dating back from 1991 the goal of the Serb leaders was to
5 control the territory that would link together the Serbian -- the RSK --
6 what was later known as the RSK to Serbia and connecting it with Serb
7 areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That was long a goal of the Serb
8 leaders; correct?
9 A. No, I'm not familiar with such a goal --
10 Q. Well, sir, sir, you've answered the question.
11 A. -- but I wanted to say this on the --
12 Q. Do you not recall that at that Assembly session on the 12th of
13 May, 1992, in Banja Luka, the one that at first you couldn't remember
14 being there but then we later established you were in fact there, and
15 Ratko Mladic gave the speech. Do you remember that Radovan Karadzic gave
16 a speech at that session and he -- it's a famous speech. He outlined the
17 strategic goals of the Bosnian Serb leadership, of the Serbian leadership.
18 And the first goal, I'm sure you recall, was separation of -- separation
19 of Serbs from the other ethnic populations. And the second strategic
20 goal -- and this is in Exhibit 45, it's at page 13 in the English. The
21 second strategic goal was to link together geographically the RSK with the
22 Serbian parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia. Do you remember him
23 saying that, that that was the second strategic goal of the Serb people,
24 May 1992? And the purpose was to achieve an alliance of Serbian states.
25 Do you remember him saying that, sir? You were there.
1 A. I confirmed earlier that I was there, and I still stand by the
2 fact that as far as I can remember that session was held in Prijedor.
3 That was an issue at dispute there --
4 Q. Do you remember, Mr. --
5 A. -- we voted on the strategic goals, and one of the goals was the
6 one you mentioned.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 A. If I may, one goal was to establish a link and to carry out a
9 deblocking process. And no one is disputing that.
10 Q. I'll move on. There -- you testified about orders on crimes from
11 the JNA, that the JNA issued orders not to loot or destroy and that these
12 orders were followed. But that's not true, is it, sir? These orders were
13 regularly violated by the JNA, the TO, and by Martic's police. Correct?
14 A. I said that there were orders in place, that we were controlling.
15 I also did not confirm that there were no negative cases or incidents, but
16 all of them were a process by the military prosecutors and the judiciary.
17 In any society, including that, there is also a portion of the population
18 which is prone to criminal acts. Even today we have prisons and
19 courtrooms full of criminals, even in democratic countries, let alone some
20 other countries.
21 Q. The truth is -- sir, the truth is that there was looting and
22 destruction and in some areas murder that occurred. And the truth is that
23 nothing was done to prevent this and nothing was done to punish it?
24 A. It is not as you say. I'm telling you that there was arson,
25 looting, individual murders, but also I can say this in full
1 responsibility here that we undertook all possible measures to prevent
2 such incidents. I made an analysis of the military judiciary within the
3 9th Corps --
4 Q. We're going to talk about that, sir --
5 A. -- out of 337 reports --
6 Q. We're going to talk about that in just a moment. But following on
7 from what you just said, I want to look at Exhibit 26, please, and this is
8 one of the orders you cited to show that the JNA was instructing soldiers
9 not to commit crimes. And this is -- it's dated the 12th of October,
10 1991 -- is it on your screen? Okay.
11 Now -- and Defence counsel had you read from the end of the
12 document, but let's look at the beginning of the document. In the second
13 paragraph -- this is from Blago Adzic, the chief of the General Staff of
14 the JNA. In the second paragraph, he talks about: "The army continues to
15 perform its main task of preventing the spread of inter-ethnic conflicts
16 and the recurrence of genocide against the Serbian people of Croatia."
17 In the second paragraph, he talks about: "The behaviour of the
18 Ustasha forces towards units blocked in the barracks and that this is
19 typical genocidal behaviour meant to destroy them and ethnically cleanse
20 Croatia" --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Whiting, I'm probably slow on the
22 uptake. I'm not keeping pace with you.
23 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry, Your Honour. It's -- I was reading
24 from -- the first quote was from the second paragraph about the recurrence
25 of genocide, and the next quote was from the next paragraph.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, just so that I'm with you, does the second
2 paragraph starts with the words: "Events have taken a different course,"
3 or are you looking at: "In keeping with its constitutional obligations"?
4 MR. WHITING: Oh, I'm sorry, yes. Yes, I see the confusion. I
5 was talking -- the second paragraph for me was: "In keeping with its
6 constitutional obligations."
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Now let's read that. What should we look
9 MR. WHITING: It says that the army -- at the end there, it
10 says: "The army continues to perform its main task of preventing the
11 spread of inter-ethnic conflicts and the recurrence of genocide against
12 the Serbian people in Croatia."
13 And then the next paragraph --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Recurrence of genocide against the Serbian people
15 in -- okay, yes.
16 MR. WHITING: And then in the next paragraphs it talks about the
17 army performing its duties. And in the first sentence it says: "But the
18 behaviour of the Ustasha forces towards units blockaded in barracks and
19 the Serbian population in Croatia and captured members of JNA and their
20 families represents typical genocidal behaviour meant to destroy them and
21 ethnically cleanse Croatia."
22 And then finally -- just the next paragraph, separated paragraph,
23 that begins: "It is obvious that the war which has been imposed upon the
24 Serbian people in Croatia and JNA by the Ustasha forces and their
25 leadership is not about the conquests of Croatian territory as some
1 peacemakers falsely insinuate and pretend."
2 This is the sentence I'm focussing on: "It is rather from
3 defending parts of the Serbian people from genocide and biological
4 extermination with which they are threatened by resurrected fascism in
6 Q. Now, at the end of this statement by the chief of the General
7 Staff of the JNA he says: Oh, yeah, by the way, don't go and commit any
8 crimes. But isn't the message that is being sent in this first part that
9 the Serb people are imminently threatened with genocide and that the Croat
10 Ustashas are going to wipe them out and commit genocide against them, and
11 isn't that -- first of all, isn't that false; and secondly, isn't that
12 likely to whip up hysteria and fear and anxiety among the Serb people?
13 A. Prosecutor, sir, you put at least 10 to 15 questions to me here,
14 but I'll do my best to reply as far as I can remember --
15 Q. Sir, there are just two --
16 A. -- First of all --
17 Q. There were just two questions. The first is --
18 A. Let me see --
19 Q. -- isn't this an exaggeration that is false; and secondly, isn't
20 this likely to whip up hysteria and fear of the enemy among the Serb-pure
21 people and lead to the commission of crimes? Just two questions.
22 A. Everything you read out that was stated by the Chief of Staff is
23 completely correct. There is nothing for me to add or take away. What he
24 was trying to alert people to in this information was the measures that
25 were needed to be taken in the field to protect the Serbian people because
1 there was an imminent threat of genocide by the neo-fascist policy of the
2 new Croatian leadership. And the best proof of that is the conclusion of
3 the Storm offensive in 1995 when the area was ethnically cleansed of the
4 Serbs. Over 400.000 Serbs were driven away. They were stripped of their
5 citizenship, property, savings, their houses were destroyed, and the
6 damage was assessed at 17.5 billion euro in -- at the RSK alone.
7 These are the true facts which testify to the genocidal intent of
8 the Croatian leadership. Nobody could have whipped up the situation.
9 Everything that can be done was to try and warn the people to try and
10 preserve them because their memory of the Second World War was a heavy one
11 when over 650.000 Serbs had been killed by the Ustashas.
12 Q. Now, sir, I do now want to ask you about those criminal
13 complaints. You testified that there were 337 criminal complaints within
14 the JNA. Now, you would agree with me, would you not, that that included
15 all manner of crimes, desertion, fighting, that included all kinds of
16 crimes; correct?
17 A. It is correct, Prosecutor. I mentioned the figure from an
18 analysis pertaining to --
19 Q. Thank you, sir --
20 A. -- the period up until the 23rd of October and there were 337
21 criminal reports. I haven't finished yet.
22 Q. Sir, sir -- well, you've answered my question, that it included
23 all manners of crimes.
24 I want to go back to something about the Posavina corridor. You
25 testified about 12 babies dying, and this, I take it, was in May or -- May
1 or June of 1992 --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I just interrupt you a little bit, Mr. Whiting.
3 You say he -- the witness has answered you to -- and accepted that
4 it included all manner of crimes. Where is that mentioned?
5 MR. WHITING: He said, "It is correct, Prosecutor." I took that
6 to mean --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
8 MR. WHITING: That's how I understood his answer.
9 If we could -- and the witness has just nodded his head.
10 Q. If we could go back to the 12 babies. You testified that in
11 relation to those 12 babies that: "All flights had been forbidden by the
12 UN Security Council." That's at 9778.
13 In fact, there was no ban on flights imposed until the 9th of
14 October, 1992, long after the Posavina corridor operation; correct? And
15 that was by UN Security Council Resolution 781.
16 A. The flights within the Krajina had been forbidden before that,
17 before the 15th of May -- well, perhaps we can discuss the developments at
18 the Udbina airport and the air force in general. As regards the 12
19 babies, that was June 1992.
20 Q. But, sir, the UN, the United Nations, did not impose a ban on
21 flights until the 9th of October, 1992, after that event had that
22 occurred. And in addition, there was an exception for humanitarian
23 flights, right?
24 A. Mr. Prosecutor, nobody dared to fly in an area or above an area
25 where there were combat activities, and there were no flights --
1 Q. No, sir --
2 A. -- and the fact is that 12 babies died because of lack of oxygen
4 Q. Sir, you told us -- I'm just quoting what you told us in
5 connection with these 12 babies. You said that: "All flights had been
6 forbidden by the UN Security Council."
7 And that is false, right, that's just not true?
8 A. We received such a request from the local UN forces down in the
9 field, and we dared not fly and we didn't.
10 Q. Okay. So now your testimony is that it wasn't forbidden by the UN
11 Security Council; it was requested by local UN forces. That's now your
12 new testimony?
13 A. I know that we did not fly. I know that the Security Council
14 adopted a resolution banning flights, but whether this was the first or
15 the second half of 1992, I don't know. I only know that we -- that the
16 air was off-limits to us.
17 Q. Sir, you started your testimony by telling us that your memory of
18 dates from this period was very good. You can't remember that the ban on
19 flights occurred on the 9th of October, 1992?
20 MR. WHITING: The accused has a note. I'm sorry, I didn't know
21 you had seen it.
22 Q. Now you can't remember whether it was the first half of 1992 or
23 the second half of 1992?
24 A. According to my memory, this was in the first half of the year.
25 But of course you are free to provide arguments that it was later.
1 Q. Well, it's -- it's not argument, it's evidence. It's UN Security
2 Council Resolution 781 from the 9th of October, 1992. It's in evidence in
3 our case, I believe. In any event, I'll move on.
4 Now, I just want to be clear about one thing. You did not -- you
5 do not originate from the Krajina region in the RS -- in Croatia. Your
6 origins are in Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. So it would not be true to say that only JNA officers who were
9 from the Krajina remained there after the JNA withdrew, because you were
10 not from the Krajina and you remained there; correct?
11 A. Mr. Prosecutor, my ancestors came from the RSK, from Lika,
12 specifically from the village of Bruvno. They moved to Bosnia in the 19th
13 century. I was born in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. My brothers
14 live in the Republic of Serbian Krajina. I am on the very border. It is
15 only the Una River that divides me from Croatia. My village is on the Una
16 River which is the official border between Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
17 The RSK and Bosnia-Herzegovina were closely connected at the time, and we
18 are today still closely linked to the people living in the territory of
19 the Republic of Croatia.
20 Q. During the years that you remained in the RSK, you were still a
21 member of the VJ, which is how the JNA became known after May of 1992.
22 It's name changed from the JNA to the VJ. And you -- you -- during 1992,
23 1993, 1994, you remained a member of the VJ; correct?
24 A. That's correct. I was a member of the VJ up until 1994, and I was
25 retired on the 30th of September, 1994, and ever since I was in
1 retirement. But I have to tell you that all of us who temporarily stayed
2 in the RSK, we constituted a 30th personnel centre. And all of our
3 pensionable rights, social welfare rights, health care, schooling of our
4 children, all of these matters we resolved in the FRY through the
5 personnel centre, which constituted a sort of a link between the Main
6 Staff of the Army of the Serbian Krajina and the General Staff of the FRY
7 army or the VJ. This personnel centre had several departments or, rather,
8 several officers there who dealt with these matters.
9 Q. Okay. Thank you. That's perhaps a little more detail than we
10 needed. But you were paid by the VJ, correct, through the personnel
12 A. Mr. Prosecutor, as regards the Army of the Republic of Serbian
13 Krajina, the salaries were provided by the government. As far as I
14 know -- but please let me explain and this -- you might find this
15 helpful --
16 Q. Well, what would be helpful if you could tell me which government.
17 A. Of the Republic of the Serbian Krajina.
18 Q. So you were paid --
19 A. And I will tell you how.
20 Q. So you were paid by the Republic of Serbian Krajina, not by the
21 personnel centre or by the VJ?
22 A. Please. The government took care of equipping and financing the
23 Army of the RSK. Now, what sort of an agreement was in place between the
24 RSK government and the FRY government is quite a different matter. Most
25 likely the FRY did provide salaries for the active servicemen of the VJ,
1 but it was done on the basis of barter. The RSK is an -- was an affluent
2 country and provided the FRY with agricultural products. There was a
3 large fuel crisis in FRY due to sanctions imposed on them. And the RSK
4 had oil supplies in Djeletovci. It was on this barter system that the
5 economic relations functioned in the area.
6 Q. Thank you, sir. I have no further questions.
7 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Whiting.
9 Mr. Perovic, any re-examination.
10 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] I have only several questions, Your
12 Re-examination by Mr. Perovic:
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Djukic, during cross-examination you also
14 spoke of the illegal arming in the former Yugoslavia in the course of
15 1990. In connection with this, you also mentioned the SFRY Presidency
16 decision dated 9 January 1991, concerning the disbanding and disarming of
17 paramilitary formations. You said that the Croatian leadership
18 circumvented the decision, worked around it. Do you recall that?
19 A. Yes, I do. And I said and mentioned, described, the way in which
20 this was done.
21 Q. That's why I'm not asking you this. I'm interested in something
22 else. Thereafter, in March 1991, what did the then-federal secretary for
23 national defence, Veljko Kadijevic, ask from the SFRY Presidency; do you
25 A. Yes, I do, very well. The then-defence minister General Veljko
1 Kadijevic, who was a Croat by ethnicity, asked that an emergency situation
2 be declared, that the state of an emergency be declared, or rather, a
3 state of war.
4 Q. Did the SFRY Presidency in fact take a decision declaring a state
5 of emergency or a state of war?
6 A. The SFRY Presidency did not declare a state of war.
7 Q. Do you recall why this was the case?
8 A. There was no consensus in the Presidency, or rather, they lacked
9 the requisite of members for such a decision. The member from the BH did
10 not vote for such an option, as was also the case with the Macedonian
11 Presidency member, which is why the decision wasn't carried, and of course
12 this was also the position of the Presidency members from Slovenia and
14 Q. Thank you. What we've just discussed, was this shortly before the
15 resignation of the president of the SFRY Presidency, Borislav Jovic?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. The event we just spoke about, did it also happen shortly before
18 the address by Slobodan Milosevic, the video of which we were able to see?
19 A. Yes, and he presented the powerful and truthful arguments in his
20 speech which were presented in OTP documentation, as far as I remember.
21 Q. In the course of your cross-examination you explained that in June
22 of 1991 -- or, rather, the Prosecutor reminded you of this, Stjepan Mesic
23 took up the position of the president of the Presidency of the SFRY as a
24 Croatian representative?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. He held this position until autumn 1991. Is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Whereupon he returned to Zagreb --
4 MR. WHITING: The entire re-direct has been leading. And some of
5 it is in the guise of reminding him about what he testified about before
6 but then it just slides into new questions which continue to be leading,
7 and these last several questions have been leading.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Perovic.
9 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] I believe my learned friend is
10 contradictory. If I'm reminding the witness of his earlier evidence, then
11 I cannot be leading him in any way. I believe that the objection doesn't
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Whiting, if you could just point us to a
14 specific question that is leading.
15 MR. WHITING: Yes, I can, sure.
16 I mean, you see that every answer is: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
17 And at page 30, line 10, you explain that he took up the Presidency, yes;
18 he held this position until autumn 1991, is that correct, yes; whereupon
19 he returned -- it's just every single question is: This happened? Yes.
20 That happened? Yes. Except for the one question: Do you recall why this
21 was the case?
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Right, Mr. Perovic, obviously when you say: "He
23 held this position until autumn 1991. Is this correct?" We don't know if
24 you're reminding him of what he said or not because you are not prefacing
25 it by something that he had said earlier, and on the face of it it is
2 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it was the witness
3 himself who spoke of these matters in response to the answers put to him
4 by my learned friend. These serve merely as reminders of his answers.
5 Now, as for the answers themselves, because they are to the point this
6 doesn't mean that I'm leading him in any way, and I'm in fact trying to
7 elicit to-the-point answers from the witness.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just want to get confirmation from you,
9 Mr. Whiting, before I rule, did you ask these things in cross-examination?
10 I may not necessarily remember.
11 MR. WHITING: Well, some of them I did, yes, for sure. And I
12 just -- maybe -- I mean, there's no reason to re-hash it then, to remind
13 him. Just put the question to him. It hasn't been that long a
14 cross-examination. Maybe the way is -- to solve the problem would be if
15 he just put -- rather than remind him of everything, just if he puts the
16 question to him in a non-leading way that he wants to get.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: I guess that would solve the problem, Mr. Perovic,
18 if you just put questions to him. He knows what he testified about. He
19 knows what he said in chief and he knows what he said in
21 But if we resolve that situation on that basis, this would then be
22 well beyond the time convenient?
23 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] I agree.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. We'll come back at quarter
25 to 11.00.
1 Court adjourned.
2 --- Recess taken at 10.17 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 10.45 a.m.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Perovic.
5 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Mr. Djukic, do you know in the summer of 1991 and in the autumn of
7 1991 who was at the helm of the SFRY Presidency?
8 A. In that period of time Mr. Stjepan Mesic was at the helm of the
9 SFRY Presidency, Mr. Stjepan Mesic, whereas he is also known Stipe.
10 Q. Do you recall mentioning this in your cross-examination after
11 leaving Belgrade and the duty of the president of the SFRY Presidency, did
12 he address the Croatian parliament; and if so, what did he say?
13 A. I know very well that Mr. Stipe Mesic, in taking the position of
14 the president of the SFRY Presidency, took an oath that he would respect
15 the constitutional order and the constitution of the country, preserve the
16 integrity and defend the sovereignty of the country in the event of an
17 attack from abroad. He violated the oath he took because he did
18 everything in his power to bring about the break-up of Yugoslavia.
19 Upon returning to Croatia at the session of the parliament which
20 was supposed to declare the end of the moratorium on the declaration of
21 Croatia's independence, he said the following: "I accomplished my
22 mission; Yugoslavia is no more."
23 Q. Thank you. Can we therefore conclude that the words - and I'm
24 referring to the words spoken in the Croatian parliament - are the words
25 uttered by a man who pledged his loyalty to the SFRY, stating that he
1 would preserve its integrity and sovereignty?
2 A. Yes, he trampled on that oath and did everything to break
3 Yugoslavia up.
4 Q. Thank you. We'll move on to a different topic.
5 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry, if I may, I may be wrong about this but
6 my memory is that the witness testified about these matters not in
7 cross-examination but in direct examination. But I'm sure Mr. Perovic has
8 a cite and could clear it up.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Perovic.
10 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Before I respond, I just wish to
11 caution the interpreters that it wasn't Judge Bonomy stating these words
12 but Judge Moloto.
13 As for my learned friend's objection I will say the following. It
14 was precisely during cross-examination that the witness spoke of
15 Mr. Mesic's address to the Croatian parliament, and in that context he
16 quoted his words. I don't have the page reference here, but I'm quite
17 certain of this.
18 MR. WHITING: I just found it. He's right. Yes. I apologise.
19 Thank you.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Perovic. You may proceed.
21 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. We'll move on to a different topic. In cross-examination there
23 was mention of demonstrations, protests, and later on blockades and
24 attacks on JNA military barracks and installations. I have several
25 questions for you, Mr. Djukic, on this subject. In the course of the
1 summer of 1991, which internationally recognised state existed in the area
2 of the then-Yugoslavia?
3 A. Do you mean the summer of 1991?
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. In the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the only
6 internationally recognised state was the Socialist Federative Republic of
8 Q. Thank you. Did this state have its regular armed forces and what
9 were they called?
10 A. The regular armed forces included the Yugoslav People's Army and
11 the Territorial Defence.
12 Q. Thank you. In view of these facts and circumstances, what do the
13 orders of the then-president of Croatia, Mr. Tudjman, one dated 5 May
14 1991, and the other one 15th September 1991, the latter one relating to
15 blockades and attacks, mean with a view, or rather, in -- with regard to
16 the then-existing legislation?
17 A. Within the meaning of the then-existing legislation, it meant that
18 the Croatian leadership effected an armed rebellion in a legal and
19 internationally recognised Republic of Yugoslavia.
20 Q. Thank you. In answering Prosecution's questions, you spoke of the
21 deblocking of the military installations in Kijevo and then later on in
22 Drnis, Sibenik, and so on. In view of the fact you've just mentioned,
23 which was that at the time the JNA and TO constituted the only regular
24 armed forces, did all these situations involve a conflict between regular
25 armed forces and irregular armed formations?
1 A. Constitutionally and legally speaking, this was a conflict between
2 legal, legitimate armed forces of the SFRY and paramilitary and parapolice
3 forces of the Republic of Croatia.
4 Q. Thank you. In reference to the questions put to you by the
5 Prosecutor concerning the Vance Plan, as it was called, do you recall, or
6 rather, do you know whether the then-RSK leadership was asked its consent
7 of the deployment of the UN forces to the area? Do you know or are you
8 familiar with that?
9 A. I'm very much aware of this. It was at that point that Mr. Milan
10 Babic was removed from his position because he was opposed to the
11 deployment of the international forces. A new leadership was elected, and
12 that leadership, together with the guarantees provided by the SFRY, or
13 rather, with the FRY agreed to the deployment of the international forces
14 to the area.
15 Q. Therefore, the then-RSK leadership was asked to give its consent
16 to the deployment of the international forces?
17 A. Yes. A number of meetings were held to that effect, and one of
18 the meetings was held in the territory of the RSK.
19 Q. Thank you. Now on the subject of humanitarian flights, you were
20 asked about that by the Prosecutor in the context of the Posavina
21 corridor. Do you know who controlled the air, or rather, where the air
22 control was situated shortly before and during Operation Corridor?
23 A. It was within the competence of the JNA to carry out air control
24 throughout the territory of Yugoslavia, and I mean the regular units of
25 the JNA. There was the unified system of air control.
1 Q. Do you know prior to Operation Corridor who provided flight
3 A. It was the command of the peacekeeping forces which issued flight
4 permissions for humanitarian flights.
5 Q. Who were you referred to at the time?
6 A. We applied our requests to sector commands, and they were all
7 forwarded to Mr. Satish Nambiar, to the headquarters in Zagreb, I
9 Q. You were therefore referred to the air control in Zagreb?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Was this the reason why you did not seek permission for -- from
12 the air control?
13 A. We could not ask for one and we didn't get one.
14 MR. WHITING: I'm going to object.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Whiting.
16 MR. WHITING: Sorry, this strikes me as off the topic which was
17 about whether there was a UN Security Council Resolution on this issue,
18 and it's really new evidence now that's being elicited.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Perovic.
20 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't think my
21 learned friend is right. My question doesn't have to do about any -- with
22 any resolution. The Prosecutor asked about the possibility to organise
23 humanitarian flights. My question for the witness was what, realistically
24 speaking, these possibilities were and who could they obtain permission
25 for such flights from.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Whiting.
2 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, the -- the fact that Defence counsel
3 says: "My question doesn't have to do with the resolution is in my view a
4 concession that it doesn't pertain to what was asked either on direct or
5 on cross.
6 On direct the witness testified that there was a Security Council
7 Resolution prohibiting flights, and I can give the reference to that.
8 It's at 9778. I asked him about the date of that and that it in fact was
9 in October of 1992 and not at the time of the Posavina corridor operation.
10 We had an exchange about that and that was it.
11 So to now elicit new evidence about other restrictions and other
12 problems with flights seems to me beyond what was the issue on direct and
13 on cross-examination, which was really the UN Security Council prohibiting
14 the flight.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Counsel --
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Whiting, my recollection is that you had
18 further cross-examined the witness on this area as to why he had shifted
19 from his position in chief and was now saying that it wasn't due to the
20 Security Council Resolution, but it was in fact due to the conditions and
21 the fact that because of what was taking place in the air-space they were
22 not allowed or it wasn't prudent to proceed with the humanitarian aid
23 because of the danger impliedly, and I believe this area might arise that
24 counsel is seeking to go into now in relation to that perspective, or am I
25 not comprehending how the evidence was revealed?
1 MR. WHITING: No, I think that's right, Your Honour, and I won't
2 press it further.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: In that event, you may proceed then, Mr. Perovic.
4 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Djukic, my last question to you was the fact that you had to
6 apply to the air control in Zagreb on the matter of humanitarian flights
7 was the one that actually made it impossible for you to have any such
9 A. Yes. And as a result, we were unable to have any humanitarian
11 Q. And the last thing I'd ask you, you spoke of the aggression by
12 Croatia on the UNPAs, you spoke about Miljevac plateau and other such
14 My question to you is as follows: Did the UN Security Council on
15 the occasion and in the aftermath of such attacks pass any decisions and
16 did Croatia adhere to them?
17 A. After each aggression against the Miljevac plateau, the hinterland
18 at Zagreb and the Flash offensive as well as the Storm, the leadership of
19 the RSK protested and reports were forwarded to the Secretary-General and
20 the Security Council of the UN. For some such acts, Croatia would receive
21 non-binding presidential notice, whereas on other occasions there were
22 forwarded concrete measures which they never implemented.
23 Q. Thank you, Mr. Djukic, I have no more questions?
24 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this completes my
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Perovic.
3 Questioned by the Court:
4 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: My first question is: When you speak of the
5 FRY, which republics or territories do you speak of?
6 A. I talk about the state units of the FRY, these being its
7 constituent parts. And the socialist republics were as follows:
8 Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia.
9 The only republic of the SFRY which had provinces was Serbia, and the
10 provinces were Kosovo and Metohija in the south and Vojvodina in the
12 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I had asked you about the FRY, not the SFRY.
13 A. I apologise. I may have misunderstood your question.
14 The FRY comprised the Republic of Serbia with the two
15 aforementioned provinces, and the Republic of Montenegro.
16 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Now, they were essentially Serbian?
17 A. Both these republics are multi-national. Serbia was a state of
18 its citizens, according to its constitution, because in the Republic of
19 Serbia Serbs form the majority, but there are also national minorities
20 such as Albanians, Hungarians, Russians, Ruthenians, Slovaks, and so on
21 and so forth.
22 As for Montenegro, they had their own composition where
23 Montenegrins formed the majority, but Montenegrins are both Orthodox and
24 Catholic Christians. It also included other minorities such as Muslims,
1 What I forgot to mention about the Serbs -- Serbia is that the
2 Muslim population is quite significant there, particularly in a part
3 called Sandzak, which is predominantly Muslim.
4 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you very much. You have given us the
5 ethnic composition, but in terms of political goals would the goals
6 essentially have been that of the Serbian people? Or let me put it this
7 way: Essentially Serbia was the largest and strongest of those entities;
8 would you agree? Do you agree, yes or no?
9 A. In terms of its size and the number of population, Serbia was the
10 greatest republic in the SFRY and of course within the FRY because it was
11 bigger than Montenegro.
12 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: And isn't it fair to say that in essence was the
13 prior entity, that was the SFRY, broke down, it was the unifying force for
14 those that were left in the FRY. Is that not true?
15 A. As a federal unit of the SFRY, Serbia was one of the proponents or
16 the link of continuity after the SFRY. The Serb constitution mentions a
17 unified Yugoslavia, within which all goals of various ethnicities were to
18 be met.
19 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: But --
20 A. It was the principle of equality based on the old Tito's idea of
21 fraternity and unity. In turn, that means that the Serbs only in that
22 part of the then-Yugoslavia could exercise their statehood rights, but
23 they could do that in Croatia as well and in Bosnia-Herzegovina because
24 they were one of the constituent peoples.
25 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: All right. But not only for the Serbs in
1 Serbia, but for the Serbs in the other territories, then Serbia would have
2 been the unifying force. That's correct or am I not correct? No?
3 A. I don't think you are. First of all, I'm not completely certain I
4 understand you fully, but things were supposed to be done as first seen by
5 the constitution. It is quite normal that members of one ethnicity in
6 various parts of the world have a home unit, a home state. For example,
7 Hungarians who nowadays live in the province of Vojvodina are partially
8 taken care of by Hungary, and this involves the issues of territorial
9 integrity, sovereignty and so on and so forth.
10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Are you saying for a Serb in the RSK, then he
11 would have regarded Serbia as the home, as his root?
12 A. If that particular Serb in the RSK was part of the constituent
13 people there, then he had a right to decide on his fate. He had the full
14 right to say, I want to leave Croatia and I want to be in
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina as part of the Republika Srpska. That was his right.
16 As to whether that was put into practice or not, well that largely
17 depended on the situation during the civil war in the area.
18 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Or that he wanted to be in Serbia itself, no?
19 A. Serbia never accepted such a position.
20 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: [Previous translation continues]...
21 A. But then the leadership of the RSK --
22 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you. All right. I'm going to speak to
23 you about lifting the siege at Kijevo. The prosecuting counsel had put to
24 you that there was a plan, and you said that, in essence, there was no
25 plan. But what you said is that we agreed with the police and the JNA to
1 secure buses. And what I -- and you went on to say what took place. I
2 understood that to have meant that there was some agreement between the
3 police and the JNA.
4 Now, what was the understanding that those two entities would do
5 in order to effect the siege, the lifting of the siege, and what part was
6 played by each?
7 A. I believe there are several questions there.
8 First of all, I said there was no plan in existence. By your
9 leave I want to say this: In the combat rules there are such situations
10 foreseen in which plans are made ad hoc. For example, during the march of
11 a unit or an imminent attack. In UNPA zones we had no indications which
12 would warrant such an activity beforehand.
13 As regards your question, to reduce the tension in the area of
14 Kijevo, the Croatian leadership, through its representatives in the Split
15 police administration, and the command of the military navy sector, on the
16 other hand, reached an agreement that buses will be secured to transport
17 MUP members from Kijevo to Vrlika. We had to go through two buffer zones
18 and cross a check-point at Cviljani where they Serb population organised
19 itself. They put their trucks with their women and children on the road
20 and this was not implemented.
21 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: [Previous translation continues] ... Are you
22 saying that in respect to the lifting of the siege everything just fell
23 into place without any understanding of how each entity, the police and
24 the JNA, would comport itself or how it -- they would act strategically in
25 their joint efforts? It just happened or there was no understanding, if
1 even implicitly or tacitly, as to how the organs should operate?
2 You have told Mr. Whiting that there was no plan; this is why I
3 ask you.
4 A. I believe we are talking at cross-purposes. The talks and the
5 negotiation lasted for one month prior to the event in Kijevo on the
6 26th of August, 1991. The police forces did not follow through the
7 agreement that was made because there was a change of orders overnight.
8 Then what followed was Martic ultimatum. That was not implemented because
9 we wouldn't allow anyone go through our buffer zones.
10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: [Previous translation continues] ... What were
11 the orders that you had that weren't followed by the police, the ones were
12 not followed that were changed overnight, what were those initially?
13 A. What police force do you have in mind?
14 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'm sorry, I thought the evidence says at
15 line 43, 7, the police forces did not follow through the agreement that
16 was made because there was a change of orders overnight. Then what
17 followed was Martic ultimatum. That was not implemented. So I'm really
18 asking based upon your evidence -- I'm sorry, I'll repeat that. I'm
19 asking based on the evidence that you give.
20 A. Well, let me clarify. There was an agreement in place that the
21 forces be taken out of the -- out of Kijevo by peaceful means and that one
22 unit of the JNA was to assist in the process. The agreement that was
23 reached, when it was supposed to be implemented, was not implemented by
24 the Kijevo police station. The commander, Ivica Bucic, said that they
25 received another order for them to stay in Kijevo and so they did. Then
1 they made use of that window of opportunity to strengthen the forces and
2 to cause an incident by attacking a unit of the JNA that I mentioned.
3 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: But you've still not really given me what I was
4 asking for, because I was trying to ask you from -- and discover from you
5 from a subjective perspective of the -- the entity that you were a part of
6 from your knowledge what it was that took place and what the understanding
7 was as to what would take place in order to lift the siege. And you don't
8 seem to be able to advise me as to what the understanding was, which is
9 what I wanted to get from you. By peaceful means, yes, but what was it
10 that should have been done or should not have been done, according to what
11 was understood? And what would be the part played by the police as
12 against the JNA or was it combined without any definition or how was it?
13 That is really what I had hoped to understand. Am I not making myself
14 clear to you because you're not responding?
15 A. If this pertains to the Croatian police in Kijevo, the agreement
16 was that they will be taken out of the village and to Vrlika. If we are
17 talking about the police of the RSK, we had no agreement in place on the
18 lifting of the siege in Kijevo. We didn't allow the RSK police to violate
19 our buffer zones. We wouldn't let them go to Kijevo. That is why
20 Minister Martic could not have executed the ultimatum he set. Eight days
21 passed by. There was an incident caused by the Croatian forces in the
22 area. You can see that from my evidence, and if you make an analysis, a
23 temporal analysis of events at the time.
24 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'm going to move on. I want to thank you for
25 the moment. And I'm going to go to the Golubic training centre and the
1 special purpose units. Now, you said you knew what was going on and how
2 many persons were trained. And I think you were asked if members of --
3 persons who were trained at Golubic ended up becoming members of the
4 special police units. And you said: No, as a matter of generality they
5 would not. But you said it was possible that groups of trainees could
6 enter those units. By what process and how would these groups of trainees
7 enter those units, could you please tell me?
8 A. I'll be happy to. In March 1991 the training ground began
9 operating. It was headed by Captain Dragan, or Dragan Vasiljkovic. The
10 training lasted until June and several groups had been trained. They
11 would spend 20 or 21 days there training each. This included men who were
12 neither in the JNA nor in the TO or the police. Those were the people who
13 were at the check-points, which were set up on various roads between towns
14 and villages and between different ethnic groups.
15 Later on from among those people, part of them were sent to the
16 TO, part of them to the Krajina police. And when the special police units
17 of the -- were formed, some of the trainees were joined to those units.
18 Those groups had 80 to 100 men each at training. Simultaneously, in the
19 territory of Croatia there was training organised for such people as well,
20 for their people, and the first group included 1.832 men from western
22 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: [Previous translation continues] ...
23 A. These were people from western Bosnia-Herzegovina of Croatian
24 ethnicity. I believe you are in possession of such documents. In the
25 questionnaires they had to fill out, they stated they were always against
1 the SFRY and that they were desecrating and destroying the monuments of
2 the -- of the national liberation struggle in the Second World War.
3 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: About what percentage of persons trained at
4 Golubic would have ended up in the special purpose units by the root which
5 you spoke of?
6 A. I do not have such information. I cannot be precise. But this
7 was largely on an individual basis. For example, if there were 300 people
8 who had completed training and 20 or 30 per cent -- and you can do your
9 own math in terms of actual numbers, 20 to 30 per cent would go to the
10 units of the police, the regular police that was strengthened in this way.
11 The regular police of the RSK, to my knowledge, in 1994 had less
12 than 4.000 members, 2.000 regular policemen, then some 700 of those who
13 were mobilised, and the rest were civilians. There was also a brigade of
14 theirs which was 500 to 600 men strong and some 200 inspectors or
15 detectives. Therefore, a small percentage of the trainees entered either
16 the regular police, or the TO, or the special police units.
17 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you very much.
18 Judge, I have no further questions of this witness. Thank you.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Judge.
20 Sir, I'm going to ask you to please listen very carefully to my
21 questions and to please answer to my question and to my question only,
22 okay? Don't create your own questions and answer them because otherwise
23 we will not finish.
24 I'm going to ask you what might, perhaps, be very basic and --
25 sound very silly question, but I don't remember it being mentioned and you
1 may very well have mentioned this. Of what ethnic origin are you?
2 A. My ethnic origin is Serbian.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
4 A. You're welcome.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: You testified on the first day of your testimony
6 that in August 1991 the municipality of Sinj was excluded from the zone of
7 the 9th Corps and replaced by Gracac and Lika. Do you remember that
9 A. Yes.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues]...
11 A. The municipality of Sinj was excluded --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... Yes, that's
13 fine, you've answered me. Why was it replaced by Gracac and Lika?
14 A. In Sinj there was a garrison, I've already described that, which
15 was part of the 9th Corps. There was a -- the 316th Motorised Brigade
16 there. Its command was there as well as its depots and a part of the
17 soldiers who acted as couriers to mobilise members of the unit. This
18 composition or this unit was blocked by illegal Croatian forces. Sinj is
19 predominantly Croatian. No mobilisation could have been carried out, but
20 after the deblocking some of the materiel was pulled out, whereas the rest
21 was supplied by the General Staff of the JNA. We were given another zone,
22 or a modified zone, which included an additional municipality, the
23 municipality of Gracac, and this all became the zone of the 9th Corps of
24 the JNA and its command was in Knin.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, you also testified, sir, that the training
1 centre at Golubic that was run by Captain Dragan was used to train the
2 people there in the use of weapons in order to set up barricades and
3 protect Serb population from any attacks by Croatian police. That's what
4 you said sometime on the 20th of October, and you've just said now when
5 you were being asked questions by Judge Nosworthy that people who were
6 there worked on the check-points. Do you remember that? Do you
7 remember --
8 A. Yes, I said that correctly.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: So was that the specific objective of the training
10 of these men so that they could man the barricades?
11 A. Those people were pulled out from the place of barricades,
12 trained, and then returned. The barricades were put up spontaneously in
13 1991, and there were barricades put up by both the Serbs and the Croats.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just listen to my questions. My question simply
15 was: Was that a specific objective of the training of those men that they
16 go and man the barricades? Now you're saying they were pulled out of the
17 barricades themselves to go and be trained and sent back. So it can be
18 inferred that in fact that was the purpose?
19 A. Yes, that was the principle used.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. And the training centre at Golubic at the
21 time was under which -- under the control of which ministry?
22 A. I believe the training centre fell under the competence of
23 Mr. Milan Babic. I think he was head of the ministry. He took over all
24 the duties, and he approved for Captain Dragan's arrival. Later on he
25 removed Captain Dragan in June after an argument between the two of them.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: What ministry is this? If you say Mr. Babic, I
2 don't know. Mr. Babic is a person, not a ministry. What ministry did
3 these people belong to?
4 A. I believe they were part of the Ministry of the Interior, but I
5 don't know who was the then-minister of the interior because they rotated
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. I have not asked you who was the
8 minister. I've just said -- asked you: Under which ministry did they
9 fall. And I'm asking you once again, listen very carefully to my question
10 and answer just my question. Don't make any additions. Now --
11 A. Very well.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it not so, sir, that at that time the Ministry
13 of the Interior was under the control of Mr. Martic?
14 A. I don't know --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, thank you, thank you --
16 A. -- if he was there throughout the period or if there was
17 Mr. Vjestica as well.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, you don't know.
19 Now, you also testified - and I think it was on the 20th - talking
20 about the members of your corps who were looting in Drnis. You said: "I
21 wrote notes to the commander of the corps, seeking that measures be taken
22 against perpetrators of that activity."
23 Do you remember that question -- that statement? And by "that
24 activity," you meant the looting of Drnis.
25 A. I stated, and I stand by that now, that there were individual
1 instance of looting, arson, and that I took measures against the
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... listening to
4 my question. I'm just asking you if you remember the testimony. Okay.
5 What measures were taken against these people?
6 A. Depending on the degree of the criminal offence involved, measures
7 were taken whereupon reports, criminal reports, were filed, investigating
8 magistrates were involved, indictments issued, and proceedings instituted.
9 For instance, Lieutenant Pero Baljak was one of the persons involved. I
10 can mention others.
11 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter isn't certain about the family
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Involved in what?
14 A. Involved in unlawful activities or criminal offences provided for
15 in the criminal code.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. What became of him --
17 A. Those who were members of the armed forces of the SFRY.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: What became of this Lieutenant Pero Baljak?
19 A. As far as I know, he was sentenced to two and a half years in
20 prison by the military court in Banja Luka.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Why the military court in Banja Luka?
22 A. Your Honour, the military court which had jurisdiction over the
23 9th Corps was located in Split. Split, as well as the court there, was
24 blocked; it couldn't function. For this reason, the 9th Corps relied on
25 the military court of the 2nd Military District in Banja Luka, and in
1 December of 1991 the 9th Corps became part of the 2nd Military District
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: What measures were taken against the others who
5 A. I know for some of them, as far as I can remember, they were
6 sentenced to prison. You see, the corps commander had the power to punish
7 soldiers and sentence them to three months in prison or a subordinate
8 commander could sentence them to one month in prison. And we applied
9 those measures wherever we could. This was for stealing vehicles and such
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Where can the records of these proceedings be
13 A. The entire records of the JNA was packed up and shipped to the
14 General Staff of the JNA before the 19th of May, 1992. Unless it was
15 damaged in the NATO bombing of 1999, that's where you'll still find them
16 in the files of the former JNA.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Will I find them there after they've been bombed in
19 A. I can't say that. I don't know where they are stored and if they
20 exist, but I assume that they are there and can be found there by the
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: But you say they were bombed in 1999, so I would
23 imagine that they went up in flames.
24 A. Your Honour, the buildings were not destroyed, but they were
25 damaged. But they were -- but they were damaged in the bombing. They
1 were not repaired because they stand there as witness of the bombing, and
2 I'm speaking of the buildings of the General Staff, of the federal
3 ministry, of the republican Ministry of the Interior.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Let me take you back to the lifting of
5 the siege of Kijevo. You were asked questions by Judge Nosworthy about
6 the plan. I didn't hear you to really say whether there was or there was
7 no plan. Now, the truth of the matter, sir, is that no such action of
8 that magnitude is taken without a plan. There is a plan, isn't it? There
9 was a plan?
10 A. When the JNA forces --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are not answering --
12 A. -- are deployed, of course there are different scenarios according
13 to which the army can act. But there was no plan at the time. The plan
14 was designed at the moment the Croatian forces attacked the UNPAs.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: What do you understand a plan to mean, the
16 word "plan"?
17 A. I believe that you had in mind that there was a written order,
18 command, or a mission to the effect that the siege should be lifted and
19 that such a document was produced by a higher-level command and then sent
20 down to the lower-level commands, but there was no such decision. At the
21 point we came under attack, and there are quite a few such situations in
22 the army, we made the decision as to what to do next. And of course this
23 is a process that has to be carefully thought out, and I told you how it
24 was carried out without human casualties, very swiftly. The road was
25 deblocked and a buffer zone introduced. And I told you that I was proud
1 of the fact that neither side suffered casualties.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that what you understand the word "plan" to
4 A. In our military terminology that I was taught in the military
5 schools, and I completed the highest military schools, this is what the
6 plan is understood to mean. You have to have a mission, you have to have
7 a disposition of forces in time and in space. There was no such plan.
8 There isn't even a written document, a decision, stating: I hereby order,
9 I have decided, go ahead, charge.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: But you had a disposition, if I may borrow your
11 words, of forces in time and place by virtue of having your forces in time
12 and place in buses travelling to what -- to where you were going to uplift
13 the siege. Isn't it so?
14 A. I didn't say that. I said that there were forces in time and in
15 place as buffer zones separating two ethnic areas, and there was six such
16 zones --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just listen to my question. You did say when you
18 were asked questions by Judge Nosworthy that some of your forces were
19 transported in buses. Didn't you say that?
20 A. I didn't say that, not at all. Please. I said that the 9th Corps
21 of the JNA was given the assignment to assist in the pulling out of the
22 MUP forces from the Kijevo police station which were to be taken out on
23 buses. But I told you that they didn't accept this, and this took place
24 one month before the siege of Kijevo was lifted.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, let me -- okay. Maybe you are correct. Let
1 me -- as I read what you said. You said: "As records your question to
2 reduce the tension in the area of Kijevo, the Croatian leadership, through
3 its representatives in the Split police administration and the command of
4 the military navy sector, on the other hand, reached an agreement that
5 buses will be secured to transport MUP members from Kijevo to Vrlika."
6 A. Yes, yes, because in Civljani we had people there --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just stop. Listen to my question. I've just read
8 you what you said to Judge Nosworthy, and I wanted you to confirm. And
9 you've confirmed, you said "da."
10 My question to you is: The agreement that buses be secured to
11 transport the MUP members from Kijevo, Vrlika would constitute the plan of
12 executing the lifting of the siege, is it not, sir? That's part of the
13 plan. Part of the plan is that the MUP is going to be transported by bus
14 to Vrlika. Isn't it so?
15 A. Yes --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
17 A. It wasn't the part of the plan. That was the --
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
19 A. -- short-term task, a task which should not have taken longer than
20 an hour.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: And how many other tasks were there? How many
22 other short-term tasks were there?
23 A. This was one task, and when this did not materialise the other
24 task was to send 9th Corps representatives to the police station and that
25 they should deal with all the matters between the 9th Corps and the Kijevo
1 police staff.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... listen to my
3 question. My question is: How many other short-term tasks were there? I
4 expect your answer to give me a number. One, two, three, a million, a
5 billion, something like that. Or I don't know --
6 A. I am utterly at a loss. I don't understand your question at all,
7 and I don't see what you mean by these tasks. Every day the unit's main
8 task was to prevent inter-ethnic conflicts; that was the main task. And
9 all the other tasks stemmed from the main one. The task was to introduce
10 peace and prevent inter-ethnic conflicts.
11 There were other tasks. At the time we provided escorts to -- to
12 ensure that medical supplies came from Split, Vrlika, to Kijevo. Our task
13 was to provide the people in Kijevo with humanitarian aid. We were being
14 referred to by the local Serbs as traitors.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm going to try again to see if I can't get you to
16 understand what I'm trying to say. You also said in your -- in answer to
17 questions by Judge Nosworthy that the police forces did not follow through
18 the agreement that was made because there was a change of orders
19 overnight. Now, two things I would like you to tell me: What was the
20 agreement and what were the orders that were changed overnight and how --
21 what -- how were they changed, those orders overnight, and what were those
23 A. My answer to your first question, to your first question, is as
24 follows. The task --
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, no, no --
1 A. -- which the 9th Corps had --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: No. My question was: What was the agreement, not
3 the task? Listen to my question. What was the -- what was the
4 agreement. The police forces did not follow through the agreement. What
5 was that agreement?
6 A. The agreement was that the 9th Corps should provide buses and
7 ensure safe passage for MUP members, not people themselves, but for MUP
8 members, and there were 50 of them in order for them to be evacuated to
9 Vrlika or to Split. And this order, or rather, this agreement --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Between whom and whom was this agreement? Who were
11 the parties to this agreement?
12 A. The agreement was reached by the command of the navy district and
13 the representatives of the Split MUP, and this was probably done with the
14 consent of the top Croatian leadership on the one hand and the JNA
15 leadership on the other.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: And --
17 A. And if I may.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Wait a minute, just -- you did. Don't worry. And
19 what orders were these that were changed overnight?
20 A. Our orders didn't change; rather, the Kijevo police station issued
21 an order whereby they were not to comply with that.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Listen to my question. I'm quoting your evidence.
23 You said: The agreement that was made did not follow through because
24 there was a change of orders overnight. Now, I'm asking you very simply:
25 What orders are these that were changed overnight? Don't say to me: Our
1 orders didn't change. I'm asking you -- I don't know whose orders these
2 are. Tell me the orders that changed irrespective of who they belonged
4 A. I was quite specific and clear in saying that the Croatian
5 leadership changed the agreement and ordered MUP members not to move out
6 but to remain on the premises of the Kijevo police station until further
7 notice. When we showed up with our buses they told us, Sorry, we have
8 orders telling us that we should not move out. We introduced peace and we
9 tried to maintain contact with them by sending negotiators who were
10 representing us until tensions escalated and the JNA buffer zones came
11 under attack. Therefore, during that night our orders were to put the
12 conditions in place for them to safely pull out and to make sure that no
13 harm came their way.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: You know, what I find very interesting in your
15 evidence is that you say that you were going to lift the siege by peaceful
16 means and you didn't attack until you were attacked. If you are going to
17 lift the siege by peaceful means, why do you have the JNA there? Why
18 don't you have politicians there to say: Guys, please, move off. Here
19 are buses, go to Vrlika. Why is the JNA -- are the JNA forces there to be
20 attacked in the first place if you are coming peacefully? You maintain
21 peace through use of force?
22 A. It is true that we were in the buffer zone and maintaining peace
23 and, to a large extent, we managed to maintain peace. We prevented
24 large-scale incidents.
25 Now, as to your question why were we involved, behind our backs
1 and towards Sinj there were three villages, Gornji and Donji Civljani, and
2 Cetina, where people tended to gather and there were provocations,
3 incidents. We pleaded with them. The corps commander went there to
4 personally remove the barricade that they had erected.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: You either have an answer to my question or you
6 don't. Are you able to answer my question?
7 A. Your Honour, I gave you my answer. We had the task of preventing
8 ethnic conflicts in the area. Pursuant to the agreement, we tried to
9 merely assist the forces in safely pulling out of the area.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that your answer? Is that your answer?
11 A. That is my answer and that was the case, yes.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. So you are not able to answer me why
13 you lift a siege peacefully by using armed forces and not sending
14 politicians? Because you answered the question that you put to yourself;
15 you are not answering my question.
16 A. Had politicians wanted peace, they would not have engaged the
17 Yugoslav People's Army to play a role in the settlement of the Yugoslav
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... my question.
20 My last question to you is: You said today as you were being
21 asked questions, again by Judge Nosworthy, as part of your answer at
22 page 39 today, lines 1 to 5: "Croatia would receive non-binding
23 presidential notice, whereas on other occasions they were forwarded
24 concrete measures which they never implemented."
25 What did you mean by that? I don't understand what are
1 presidential -- non-binding presidential notice.
2 A. In these -- in the presidential notice, Croatia was alerted to
3 some actions which were not in keeping with the resolutions. It was
4 criticised, but this did not prevent them from further engaging in such
5 activities; namely, three or four aggressions on the UN protected areas,
6 after the deployment of the international forces there. If ethnic
7 cleansing of UNPAs was acceptable, as was the aggression of the Croatian
8 forces, then what sort of system was really put in place in.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me put clarity into my question in case you
10 didn't understand. This presidential notice came -- where did it come
11 from, the president of what who gave the notice?
12 A. It was Secretary-General who issued such presidential notice,
13 whereas the Security Council passed resolutions. I can give you several
14 examples. When Croatia allowed Muslims to be mobilised --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... just a second.
16 Just listen to my questions. I just want to know of what institution this
17 president is who is issuing presidential notice. Now you say it is the
18 Secretary-General. The Secretary-General of what?
19 A. I'm speaking of the Security Council of the United Nations and the
20 UN Secretary-General.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Now, is this the president of
22 the United Nations who is sending this or is it the Secretary-General of
23 the United Nations who is sending these notices, these presidential
25 A. After resolutions of the United Nations were passed, then there
1 would be such presidential notices. We'd hear over the radio, for
2 instance, that Croatia was given such a presidential notice not to engage
3 in such conduct anymore. After the aggression on the Zadar hinterland,
4 the Croatian forces were supposed to pull out of the area, which they
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, why were these -- why do you mean they were
7 non-binding, these presidential notices?
8 A. Because the frequency of such aggressions on the United Nations
9 protected areas was evident. You had the Miljevac plateau, Medak pocket,
10 Western Slavonia through Operation Flash, and then the final operation,
11 which was Operation Storm.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
13 I guess it's a convenient time to take a break. We'll come back
14 at half past 12.00.
15 Court adjourned.
16 --- Recess taken at 12.01 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 12.29 p.m.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Djukic.
19 Mr. Perovic, any questions arising from the questions from the
21 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Just two, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
23 Further examination by Mr. Perovic:
24 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Djukic, His Honour Judge Moloto asked you
25 something about the barricades. My question concerning that is as
1 follows. Based on your knowledge and experience as a professional soldier
2 and from the aspect of the military doctrine, what barricades mean, what
3 can be their sole nature in principle?
4 A. Barricades are obstacles on roads, bridges, in a street, which
5 prevent communication.
6 Q. To be precise, barricades, by their nature, can they be offensive
7 or defensive only?
8 A. They are exclusively defensive.
9 Q. Thank you. A question concerning the events of removing the
10 obstacles for communication and flow of traffic through Kijevo. You were
11 asked about this by His Honour and you explained that between the Croatian
12 side and the JNA there was an agreement that had been reached. Did I
13 understand you correctly - and please correct me if I didn't - that the
14 Croatian side changed its attitude towards the agreement overnight and
15 that they gave up on the pulling out of the MUP personnel from the police
16 station in Kijevo?
17 A. I have been trying to explain that all along. This is correct.
18 They gave up on the agreement.
19 Q. Compared to that point in time, the lifting of the siege in
20 Kijevo, when did that occur, after how much time?
21 A. As far as I remember, a month elapsed from the initial agreement.
22 Q. Thank you. So the giving up of the Croatian side on the agreement
23 was not the reason for your action on Kijevo?
24 A. No.
25 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions, Your
1 Honour. Thank you.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Perovic.
3 Mr. Whiting.
4 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour, just a couple of questions.
5 Further cross-examination by Mr. Whiting:
6 Q. Just to follow on with respect to the agreement, the so-called
7 agreement. As I -- I understand the goal of the agreement was to -- that
8 the MUP station in Kijevo would essentially be dismantled and the MUP
9 policemen would -- the 50 or so MUP policemen would leave Kijevo. That
10 was what was being sought in this so-called agreement, right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And, sir --
13 A. That was the cause of tension and that was supposed to have been
14 resolved by peaceful means.
15 Q. And that was exactly what Milan Martic demanded occur in his
16 ultimatum of the 18th of August, 1991, that the MUP station be dismantled;
18 A. No, not at that time. There had been an agreement previously in
19 June --
20 Q. I'm sorry --
21 A. -- for the station to be emptied.
22 Q. But the ultimatum of the 18th of August demands the same thing,
23 that the MUP station be dismantled in Kijevo; correct? Or do you not
24 remember what it says?
25 A. I remember very well. After the agreement, several incidents
1 occurred. I mentioned them here. And the then-Minister Martic --
2 Q. Sir, the -- are you able to answer yes or no does the ultimatum
3 demand the same thing, yes or no, that the MUP station be dismantled? If
4 you can't answer, we'll move on.
5 A. Because of the incidents, yes.
6 Q. Okay. You were asked about proceedings against members of the JNA
7 in Banja Luka who engaged in looting and destruction. In fact --
8 MR. WHITING: And, Your Honours, this is a reference, I'm
9 referring to Exhibit 972.
10 Q. In fact, there was a very small number of individuals in the JNA
11 who were prosecuted for crimes committed against Croat persons or property
12 in 1991, very small number. Isn't that, in fact, true, sir?
13 A. It is correct, because we had undertaken measures for its
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. WHITING: Those are all my questions.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Whiting.
18 Mr. Djukic, this brings us to the end of your testimony. The
19 Chamber would like to thank you for taking the time off to come and
20 testify at the Tribunal. You are now excused. You may stand down. Once
21 again, thank you so much for your time.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.
23 [The witness withdrew]
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Before the Defence calls the next witness, we would like to hear
2 your guidance or position as regards our motion concerning 92 ter. We
3 filed it urgently today, and in that motion we expressed our position and
4 interpreted the Rules in a way that the Defence be made able to introduce
5 statements with some witnesses who can be examined in chief and the OTP
6 would have the opportunity to re-examine those witnesses. This is all in
7 keeping with the Rules. Could we please receive your guidance on that?
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Trial Chamber a couple of days ago ruled that
9 it's not going to be discussing motions. You -- it's going to deal the
10 motions in terms of written decisions and filings must be in writing. You
11 say yourself that you filed this today. The Prosecution has to respond to
12 it and then you'll get a written decision.
13 Can you call the next witness.
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence tried
15 to avoid any possible misunderstanding. It is a fairly simple question,
16 albeit of legal importance. And we wanted to know whether it is possible
17 for the Defence to ask this witness in chief as well, to examine this
18 witness in chief.
19 [The witness entered court]
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not quite sure -- you see, I haven't read your
21 motion, Mr. Milovancevic, and I think I've just tried to explain to you
22 that a written decision would be handed down once we have heard the
23 opposition's response. Now, you're asking me --
24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
25 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I don't want to interrupt. If it's
1 helpful, the Prosecution is prepared to respond orally now, and in fact I
2 can just say that we don't oppose that with this witness. I can give a
3 more general position or more details if you want, but if that helps,
4 that's our position.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Black, this -- during the proceedings of this
6 case the Chamber has given certain rulings, and rulings, together with
7 Rules of Procedure, has to be respected. And irrespective of the position
8 of the Prosecution, I think those Rules must be respected.
9 Now, I'm not quite sure whether we're talking about the same
10 witness that is now standing in court and whether is it appropriate that
11 we talk while he's here. Can I get guidance from you, Mr. Milovancevic?
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, exactly. That was
13 the only reason why we initiated this discussion orally. We received your
14 decision you referred to, and we know this should all be done in writing,
15 through written motions of the OTP and the Defence. But we have a new
16 situation in the proceedings which is urgent, in view of the Defence. The
17 Defence should know in advance before we start with this witness what we
18 should or should not do as regards the Rules. That is why I asked this
19 question now. This relates to the witness before you.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: The point, Mr. Milovancevic, is that don't you
21 think that this submission of yours is on short notice? Surely the
22 Prosecution has a right to respond to it in writing, as the Court has
23 indicated earlier, that all these issues -- rather than us talking like we
24 are talking now and wasting time, we should have gotten the written
25 response of the Prosecution and you would get a written decision from the
1 Bench and we would get on with the job.
2 Now, how are we to deal with a filing that comes today? You knew
3 all the time that this witness was coming, then you should have filed your
4 filing, number one; number two, to look at it, I would have to read it. I
5 haven't read it before, and I see that you're asking that the Defence
6 wants -- intends to perform a short additional direct examination on
7 three topics.
8 Now, again during the Prosecution case this Chamber handed down a
9 ruling to say that in order to obviate the cross-examiner from going at
10 large and arguing that he's cross-examining on issues that were raised in
11 direct examination of a 92 bis witness or a witness who has tendered a
12 statement in writing, the Court is not going to allow any leading of a
13 witness who comes on a written statement, that the witness comes in and he
14 goes straight into cross-examination. That is mentioned not only on the
15 standards governing the presentation of evidence understood, but it was
16 also a specific order when you, Mr. Milovancevic, were cross-examining a
17 witness of the -- of the Prosecution and the question arose: Are you
18 cross-examining on what the witness had said or are you just
19 cross-examining at large, and we -- and you said: No, it was because --
20 you're cross-examining on issues that were raised when the witness was
22 Now, when -- if this witness takes the stand, I don't see why he
23 should be led. He has written what he has written; he must just be
24 cross-examined based on that order. Now -- and I think we should stick by
25 that order.
1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is my
2 impression - and forgive me if I am wrong - that it is not good to discuss
3 these matters before the witness. Perhaps he should be led out as regards
4 the continuation of this argument. Since this does not concern him
5 personally, he could be given a wrong impression. This is a matter of
6 principle, and that is why I would like to have the witness taken out, by
7 your leave.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, I asked you for this guidance a little
9 earlier and you didn't respond to it; this is why I can't understand.
10 May the witness please be excused for a moment.
11 [The witness stands down]
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] With your leave, Your Honour,
13 before us we have a 92 ter witness. Last Friday the issue of possibility
14 came before the witness, the issue of the possibility of interpreting that
15 rule in a way which would not make it able for the Defence to examine in
16 chief as regards certain topics. We needn't go through everything
17 mentioned in his statement. Since this was last Friday, we couldn't have
18 filed our motion then; instead, we filed it urgently this morning.
19 It is our position, put briefly, that within the -- within
20 Rule 92 ter there is no clear provision precluding examination-in-chief;
21 that is one thing. Another thing is that the Statute of the Tribunal in
22 its Article 21 guarantees a fair trial for the accused, inter alia,
23 providing opportunity to the Defence to examine witnesses on an equal
24 footing with the Prosecution. The Prosecution had their own 89 witnesses,
25 Rule 89 witnesses, and they were also examined on certain topics. We
1 pointed to such instances in our written filing. We believe that a
2 different interpretation of 92 ter would be contrary to the Rules of
3 Procedure themselves because the Rules foresee examination-in-chief,
4 cross-examination, and re-direct. When it comes to Rule 92 ter, of course
5 this only concerns the topics that have been given prior notice of, and we
6 have given notice of the three topics that we intended to deal with.
7 That is why we initiated this question in such a way. I am sorry
8 to have to do it orally, but the interests of justice cannot only be
9 viewed in -- or discussed in written form due to the lack of time, and I
10 would kindly ask for your understanding on this.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, Mr. Milovancevic, you're raising a lot
12 of issues. I think the Chamber is going to rule the following: That the
13 Prosecution is going to respond to this motion and the Chamber will hand
14 down its decision, because you're raising a lot of issues here which I
15 don't think I would like to go into orally right now. Okay. That's the
16 ruling, and it is a ruling that is consistent with the rulings that were
17 made earlier, that motions must come in in writing. The motions will be
18 answered in writing to obviate this waste of time. The guidelines are
19 there and the rules are there. So it will be dealt with in terms of the
21 You can call the next witness.
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ...
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] -- I have a proposal to make --
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... because I've
1 ruled now.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] No, no, you handed down your
3 ruling. I had a proposal to make concerning your ruling that the
4 testimony of this witness commence on Wednesday so that our learned
5 friends from the OTP would in the meantime have a possibility to forward
6 their filing so that the Chamber could rule.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, call the witness then. If you want to skip
8 this one, call the next witness, the one after.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we haven't
10 foreseen such situation. We don't have a next witness ready; he hasn't
11 travelled to The Hague yet.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated].
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Call the witness that's available. Let's carry on,
15 Mr. Milovancevic.
16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] It seems that the learned
17 friend from the registry is waiting; therefore, I believe your instruction
18 was to bring in the witness.
19 How should I understand this, Your Honour? Can we examine in
20 chief this witness as regards the three topics or not? Because the OTP
21 did not challenge our proposal.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, you may not.
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in that case, we
25 would like to withdraw this witness and we will not examine him according
1 to Rule 92 ter and no other witness will be examined according to the
2 provisions of that rule without a possibility to examine them in chief.
3 This is contrary to the rights of the accused, and we have no right to do
5 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Sorry, Mr. Milovancevic, I don't understand you.
6 You had elected to proceed by 92 ter, and that comes with a specific
7 procedure that is laid down in the relevant rule; and then you have, more
8 recently and urgently, changed your position in respect of this witness.
9 How would it affect your other witnesses that are to come that are 92 ter
10 witnesses? What could possibly make you say what you have just said?
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we only asked that
12 our OTP friends be given a possibility to express their views on this
13 delicate issue, whether the Defence can examine in chief any witness
14 brought here under Rule 92 ter. We believe that according to the Rules
15 this is not excluded; quite the contrary, it is in keeping with the Rules
16 and the Statute.
17 Given the situation of us being denied that possibility, without
18 having heard a decision on our filing and we haven't heard the OTP
19 response, particularly having in mind that they consented to such an
20 approach of ours, it would be to the detriment of the interest of our
21 client with this witness and we simply cannot do that, Your Honour.
22 If the Defence is not given the possibility to put questions to
23 this witness according to certain topics, as was the practice with the
24 OTP, then we will hear this witness viva voce and in full. Because it is
25 the Defence's interpretation of this rule that this would be contrary to
1 the interests of our client.
2 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: But you not only said that, you went on to say
3 that in respect to your other 92 ter witnesses you would also adopt a
4 course where you would withdraw their status, their current status, and
5 you would adopt a status that would permit you -- for them to give
6 viva voce evidence. Is that what you're saying? I thought that was what
7 you had placed on the record. I'm asking in all good grace what would be
8 the reason in respect of those witnesses. I'm not saying I think it is
9 the correct course that you have adopted, but I could understand what
10 could provoke you to say what you did in respect of this witness. But in
11 respect of the others that are to come, now the position is entirely
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I wanted to stress
14 the position of this Defence. We would like to hear the Chamber's ruling
15 on this issue, and in case that we have to proceed without a prior written
16 decision by the Chamber, and if in case we have to go on with this
17 witness, we do not wish to pursue such a course because if there is a
18 written ruling we can appeal it, and we believe this is a key issue
19 concerning the principles of both the Statute and the Rules of Procedure
20 and Evidence as regards the right to examine in chief.
21 It would seem that we had a complete misinterpretation of
22 Rule 92 ter, and this would apply to the other witnesses that we had
23 foreseen to testify under that rule.
24 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: [Previous translation continues] ...
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] We thought it was our right to
1 examine on very specific topics that had been notified or communicated to
2 the other party.
3 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Let me say something else to you. Now, you, and
4 you alone, the Defence counsel alone, either you yourself as a leader or
5 in consultation with the rest of the Defence team, you would determine how
6 the Defence is conducted subject to any order coming from the Trial
7 Chamber, mm-hmm? At this present time, the Trial Chamber having ruled,
8 as it has done, what is there to stop you from putting the witness up as a
9 92 ter witness, proper and simpliciter, and permitting him to be
10 cross-examined in the absence of the three areas that is subject to the
11 application pending the decision of this Trial Chamber, in which event you
12 would then know whether or not you could proceed in respect of those areas
13 or not.
14 Us proceeding today with this witness will not avoid or deny you
15 of the opportunity in the future for the Bench to consider your motion
16 properly and to determine whether or not you may, in exercise of the Trial
17 Chamber's discretion, have the opportunity to examine on those areas. And
18 then no time would have been lost. We can proceed and then, I believe, on
19 Wednesday, or sometime during the course of next week you would have that
20 which you are anticipating, or you would have the decision. But I don't
21 think that we should waste today. So my own view is that you could
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I agree with your position,
24 Judge Nosworthy; I believe it to be a fair one. Thank you. From our
25 point of view, this enables us to continue our work. I didn't think of
1 that possibility. I didn't know whether things can go that way, and I
2 would like to accept your proposal and we may continue.
3 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: You know, sometimes we take a decision a little
4 bit rashly from that side of the bar. So, Mr. Milovancevic, I crave
5 everyone's indulgence.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic. The OTP
8 will have no difficulty with that, I take it?
9 MR. BLACK: None, Your Honour, that's -- we accept that solution.
10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you very much.
11 Thank you, Judge.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the witness please make the declaration.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
14 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, sir. You may be seated.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, the witness's cross-examination.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your
19 permission, what I intended to do at this stage was not to put questions.
20 I hope that my learned friend will agree with this. I wanted the Trial
21 Chamber to have the personal background information of this witness
22 because this is something that you cannot see from the summary, and we
23 simply wanted to present this to the Bench.
24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
25 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: You wanted the background for the position of
1 the -- the actual rule itself to be satisfied? You wanted to lay the
2 foundation in relation to the Rule itself?
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: But there's no need for that. I'm sure the
4 foundation is in the 92 ter statement. Doesn't it give his particulars in
5 the 92 ter statement?
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we didn't include
7 the witness's personal background information in the statement. We
8 believed we would be able to do this viva voce with the witness. I simply
9 wanted to go through the personal particulars of this witness and then
10 hand over to my learned friend opposite. And I hope you are agreeable.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sure the cross-examiner can elicit that
12 information quite easily. What's your name, what's your address, where do
13 you come from, when were you born, where were you born.
14 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, this is the first 92 ter witness by the
15 Defence. As I understand it, what does have to happen is he has to be
16 presented with the 92 ter statement and adopt that as what he would say if
17 he were to testify orally, to comply with the Rule, and then I can begin
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Where is the 92 ter statement? Let's give the
20 witness the 92 ter statement.
21 I would imagine, then, Mr. Milovancevic you would deal with
22 paragraph A3 of Rule 92 ter and that's about it.
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Her Honour Madam
24 Nosworthy asked me whether I was laying the foundation, and that's
25 precisely what I was doing. I'm presenting you the witness. And I'd like
1 the usher to hand down the statement to the parties to the proceeding and
2 the Bench. I will ask the witness whether this is his statement, and with
3 your permission I can just ask him his particulars and that will be the
4 end of my address at this stage.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
6 Mr. Milovancevic, I don't know whether the witness -- apparently
7 he sort of had some notes of his own. If you can just also warn him about
8 those notes, that he's not supposed to use them.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will
10 do so.
11 WITNESS: MILE DAKIC
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 Examination by Mr. Milovancevic:
14 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, good afternoon.
15 A. Good afternoon.
16 Q. The Rules of Procedure are such that do not allow you to use your
17 personal notes during your testimony here. I have just given you the text
18 of your statement that has been -- the copies of which have been given to
19 the OTP and the Bench.
20 Before stating whether this is indeed your statement, tell us,
21 please, your full name.
22 A. Mile Dakic.
23 Q. Can you give us the place and date of birth and your ethnicity.
24 A. I'm a Serb by ethnicity. I was born in Croatia, municipality of
25 Vojnic, currently municipality of Karlovac. I lived in that area until
1 Operation Storm --
2 Q. Sorry, when were you born?
3 A. I was born on the 9th of May, 1931.
4 Q. Can you give us your educational background and your occupation.
5 A. I graduated from the associate degree pedagogical academy for
6 teacher and then the faculty of philosophy in Sarajevo, and I had been the
7 manager of a memorial site called Petrova Gora. I'm a historian and
9 Q. Can you tell us whether you held any political positions and do
10 you hold one today?
11 A. Yes, I was the founder of the Yugoslav Autonomous Democratic Party
12 in Croatia in 1990. I was vice-president of the Serbian National Council
13 in Krajina in 1990 and 1991. And as of 1992, I was the president of the
14 state commission for crimes and genocide in -- as it was called at the
15 time with the government of Krajina. Now I am the president of the
16 Association of Refugees from Croatia. I have been holding this position
17 for eight years, and the association is based in Belgrade.
18 Q. You have the text of a statement before you that was also
19 delivered to the learned friends from the OTP and the Honourable Trial
20 Chamber. Can you tell us, did you give this statement, who you gave it
21 to, and did you sign it?
22 A. Yes, I gave this statement and I signed each and every page. I
23 gave the statement to lawyer Nikolic, who spoke to me on several
24 occasions, made notes, and that's how the material before me came into
25 existence. I then signed it.
1 Q. Can we therefore say that this is your statement?
2 A. This is indeed my statement.
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have completed
4 my part.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as we are
7 proceeding under the rule for the first time, would it be the right time
8 for me to tender the statement into evidence as a Defence exhibit at this
9 time? Of course this will be up to the Bench to decide upon that.
10 In that case, I wish to tender the statement into evidence. Thank
12 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'm sorry, we -- do we have a date on which the
13 statement was given? That would be part of the foundation.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was giving the statement on
15 several occasions. As far as I remember, it was early this year. And
16 later on in the course of the year I spoke with lawyer Nikolic. That is
17 how we arrived at the text we have here.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours, or
19 Your Honour Nosworthy, if I may put the following question to the witness.
20 Q. Since the statement itself does not bear the date of signature,
21 can you tell us in relation to your arrival here when it was that you
22 signed the statement?
23 A. I remember signing something for Nikolic as well, but I signed the
24 statement upon my arrival here.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: And when was your arrival here?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I arrived on Saturday in The Hague.
3 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Was it on the date of your arrival that you
4 signed the statement or on another date?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was on the following day.
6 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Would that date be Sunday, the 22nd of October,
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe so, yes.
9 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
11 MR. BLACK: I apologise, Your Honour. I just -- this may seem
12 like a technicality, but I think there's one final tiny hoop to jump
13 through before this can come in.
14 Under Rule 92 ter (A)(iii), before the 92 ter statement can come
15 in the witness has to attest that the statement accurately reflects his
16 reflection, which is what I think he has done, and what the witness would
17 say if examined. I think we should have the record clear on that before
18 the statement is admitted, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would you like to clear that, Mr. Milovancevic?
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I
21 thank my learned friend.
22 Q. Have you heard what the Prosecutor said, Witness? Can you confirm
23 that the statement is correct and that you would state that which is
24 contained in the statement?
25 A. I skimmed through the statement. I can see that there is my
1 signature on each and every page. I wasn't able to read through carefully
2 at this point, but seeing that it bears my signature it is my statement.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: There's a question I wish to ask upon looking at
5 the statement.
6 Does the statement bear a declaration? And what is the effect of
7 that fact?
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by your leave, can
9 I answer that question?
10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes.
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Rule 92 ter was interpreted by
12 the Defence on the basis of its wording. We, therefore, presume that it
13 isn't necessary that there be a declaration in order for the statement to
14 be tendered into evidence, because the purpose of this rule is the case
15 law before this Tribunal concerning 89(F) and 92 bis. In our view, what
16 92 ter explicitly asks for is sufficient, and that is for the witness to
17 appear before the Tribunal, state that this is his statement, and this is
18 what his evidence would amount to. And in our view, this is in lieu of
19 the 92 bis declaration.
20 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Black.
21 MR. BLACK: I think the way that Mr. Milovancevic has just stated
22 it is correct. The fact that he's here to orally adopt it is sufficient.
23 I would note that -- maybe it's not worth insisting on. But
24 again, he said: Yes, this is my statement, but I don't believe the record
25 shows that he has said that this is -- this -- what is contained in the
1 statement is what when he would say if he were to testify.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated].
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I beg your pardon.
5 Even before that, I'm just concerned about the fact that the
6 witness says he just cursorily looked at the statement and he assumes it
7 is his statement because of the signature.
8 Now, Witness, I would like you -- you are expected here to say
9 unequivocally - am I right, unequivocally - that this is your statement,
10 this is the statement you would say if you were examined orally in court.
11 You understand that? It's not sufficient to say: I looked at it briefly,
12 I skimmed through it, and I see my signature, therefore it must be my
13 statement. You've got to be able to confirm definitively because you are
14 going to be bound to this statement, you cannot deviate from it any
15 longer, once you have said this is your statement. Do you understand
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this is my statement, by all
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: And if you didn't write it on paper and you were
20 asked orally, you would say exactly what you have said in the statement?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: And you stand by the statement?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
25 Does this suffice?
1 MR. BLACK: It does, Your Honour. Thank you.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. You may proceed.
3 MR. BLACK: And I believe the -- it needs to become an exhibit and
4 get a number, Your Honour, just before I --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I did think -- yeah, this is the time for it to get
6 an exhibit number.
7 The statement is admitted into evidence, and may it please be
8 given an exhibit number.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit Number 987.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
11 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Black:
13 Q. Mr. Dakic. Good afternoon, at this point. We're just into the
15 A. Good afternoon.
16 Q. Thanks for your patience as we'll dealt with a couple of
17 procedural issues.
18 You have just adopted the written statement which you see before
19 you as the evidence which you would have given had you testified orally,
20 and so consequently I'm going to ask you several questions about that
21 statement, beginning with a few questions about how it was created, which
22 you've just discussed a little bit.
23 MR. BLACK: And actually, in the meantime could I ask the usher to
24 lower the ELMO or move the ELMO a little bit because it's just hard for
25 the witness and I to make eye contact. Thank you.
1 I'm grateful. Thank you.
2 Q. Mr. Dakic, you just told us that you actually signed this
3 statement yesterday here in The Hague. Do I understand correctly that
4 you, yourself, didn't draft this but this was drafted by someone else and
5 then you signed it. Is that correct?
6 A. Yes, that's correct.
7 Q. Did you have a chance to read through the entire statement
8 carefully before you signed it?
9 A. I have.
10 Q. And you did that, did you? You went through it --
11 A. I read it yesterday.
12 Q. When did you first provide this information to the Defence? Do
13 you remember when you were first interviewed or first contacted by
14 Mr. Nikolic or someone else from the Defence?
15 A. It was only Mr. Nikolic who spoke with me and made notes as I
16 spoke. Some of it was drafted back in 2005. I think it was in the autumn
17 of 2005. Later on we met in my office of the Association of Refugees from
18 Croatia. I also recall having been at his home once. He'd always put
19 questions to me and I'd answer them, and definitely I stand by my
21 Q. Okay. Thanks for that explanation. One thing I notice is that
22 the statement has a lot of specific dates and specific numbers in it. Are
23 those dates and numbers that you remember sort of off the top of your
24 head, or did you consult documents or other sources as you and Mr. Nikolic
25 were drafting this statement?
1 A. Well, see, I was an active participant in all these events, and my
2 position was such that I was personally involved in some of these events.
3 Throughout the war, I kept a war diary with all the dates. The diary
4 hasn't been published yet, but I do hope to publish it soon.
5 In addition to that, I authored two books, one of which was
6 published in Knin in 1994, "The Serbian Krajina," and the other which was
7 published in 2002 in Belgrade, "Krajina Through Centuries." The books
8 also contain the chronology of events unfolding themselves in those parts.
9 Therefore, I have to say that I used the information contained in my books
10 and I also recall many of the dates, even though much time has passed
12 Q. Okay. And your statement doesn't appear to identify when
13 something is something that you personally experienced and when it's
14 something that you -- that you've based on information from some other
15 source, from your books or from your research for your books. Am I
16 correct about that?
17 A. Absolutely. As I said, I combined the information that was
18 written down with some of my memories, and that's how my statement was
19 produced. I was an eye-witness of many events, especially those taking
20 place in 1990. I spoke with President Tudjman and others because as the
21 president of my party I had frequent contacts with Zagreb. We'd spend
22 time together, and these memories are still fresh in my mind.
23 Q. You mentioned 1990. Where were you in 1991, if you recall? Were
24 you living in Vojnic and did you spend a significant amount of time in any
25 other place during 1991?
1 A. In 1991 I lived in Belgrade for three months. I was exposed to
2 the intimidation from the JNA because the JNA said that they could not
3 save Krajina. And it was on the proposal of a colonel that I went to
4 Belgrade and spent three months there. That is why I was mostly there in
5 1991 -- oh, I'm sorry actually. That was a slip.
6 I had to flee to Belgrade in 1992, whereas I spent the entire 1991
7 there. I was the president of the Serbian National Council and an active
8 participant in all the events in 1991.
9 Q. Sir, thank you for that. Let me try to focus and I'd ask you to
10 pay as close attention as possible to my questions because I'm really
11 after just specific information.
12 In this -- for this question, where were you in 1991? You
13 say: "I was" -- "I spent the entire 1991 there."
14 Can you just give us some more details as to where you mean?
15 A. I constantly resided in Vojnic, where I was domiciled. Up until
16 autumn 1991 I was the manager of the memorial site Petrova Gora, and I
17 would go to Knin only to attend the meetings of the Serbian National
18 Council, or else I would go to Srb, Korenica. Oftentimes I would go to
19 Knin for meetings and consultations. But my place of permanent residence
20 was in Vojnic in 1991.
21 Q. Thank you. Were there any other places besides Knin which you
22 went frequently or spent a significant amount of time during 1991, other
23 than Vojnic where you've explained you resided?
24 A. I'd go to Belgrade in 1991. In that year I was invited by
25 Milosevic to come and meet him in Belgrade. Babic was too. I was the
1 president of this Serb National Council and he was the vice-president, and
2 I recall this meeting taking place in January 1991.
3 Q. I think perhaps we may have had a translation error or there's a
4 misstatement or you can clarify. But what were your position and the
5 position of Mr. Babic on the Serbian National Council in 1991?
6 A. Well, the Serb National Council intent -- was working intensely in
7 1990 --
8 Q. I'm sorry, sir --
9 A. -- in 1991 its activities subsided.
10 Q. I apologise for the interruption. I was just focussed on what was
11 your position on the council and what was Milan Babic's position on the
12 Serb National Council.
13 A. Milan Babic was the president of the Serb National Council and I
14 was the vice-president. There were two vice-presidents of the Serbian
15 National Council. There was David Rastovic and myself.
16 I wanted to say the following. Already in 1991 the raison d'etre
17 and the significance of the Serbian National Council subsided, especially
18 when in Korenica Milan Babic suggested that Krajina should be annexed to
19 Serbia, and when the referendum was called I was opposed to the idea and
20 we simply parted ways. We were no longer along the same political lines.
21 That was the 12th of May referendum.
22 Q. Thank you, sir. You've addressed that in your statement so we
23 don't need to repeat it here.
24 Let me now direct your attention to the statement which I think
25 you have in front of you, and I'm going to ask you about specific
1 paragraphs of the statement, okay? Starting, in fact, with the first
2 paragraph, although it's something that comes up in other paragraphs. You
3 refer repeatedly in your statement to Ustashas and the independent state
4 of Croatia, and you compare the independent state of Croatia to the
5 Croatia of the 1990s in your statement.
6 And my question, sir, is: That was a technique which was used by
7 Serb leaders at the time to create fear in the Serb population, wasn't it,
8 comparing the 1990s Croatian authorities with the fascist authorities of
9 World War II?
10 A. Mr. Prosecutor, you weren't there and you don't know what the
11 situation was like. It was quite rightly that a comparison was drawn with
12 the -- between the independent state of Croatia and the Republic of
13 Croatia. I will tell you what the parallel consists of.
14 Let me just make an aside. It was at a meeting that I said to
15 President Tudjman --
16 Q. I apologise for interrupting you. I don't want to repeat the
17 things that are in your statement; I just want to ask you specific
18 questions. And in this one you've answered, and you said you disagreed
19 with me, so I'm going to move on and ask you specific questions. I don't
20 want to get into too many asides because we have a limited amount of time.
21 Do you understand that, sir?
22 A. Yes, I understood your question, and if you wish I will explain to
23 you why it was that we drew a parallel between the independent state of
24 Croatia and the Republic of Croatia. If you want me to, I can explain
25 this. I can explain you where these ties lie, and I can even tell you why
1 there aren't any significant differences between the two.
2 Q. Well, actually go ahead and tell me --
3 A. Can I?
4 Q. -- why there are no significant differences between these two
5 governments which existed 50 years separated from one another, if you can
6 do so briefly, please.
7 A. There are no differences. I hoped when the elections were called
8 back in 1990 in Croatia that as President Tudjman promised me personally
9 we would go back to the authentic origins of Croatia. I told him that in
10 his speeches he should not speak positively about the independent state of
11 Croatia. He told me that after the elections his address would be
12 different; however, after the elections he only became more extreme.
13 I have to say that both the NDH and Croatia outlawed Serbs in many
14 different aspects. Both states banned the use of Cyrillic script. Both
15 states persecuted Serbs and expelled Serbs from Slavonia. This was done
16 both by the NDH in 1941 and by the Republic of Croatia in 1991. Both
17 states adopted a very rigid Croato-centric centralism. The Republic of
18 Croatia adopted the state symbols used by the NDH. We, Serbs, as an equal
19 peoples in Croatia opposed --
20 Q. Sir, I apologise for the interruption. And we need to keep
21 focussed. And just so you understand the way the procedure works here is
22 that I'll try to ask you questions and if you can respond sort of as
23 focussed as you can on those questions, things will go much quicker. And
24 I'll try to put more focussed questions maybe than that first one. And
25 let me ask you specifically, then, about symbols.
1 In paragraphs 1 and 5, and 17 and I think others of your
2 statement, you talk about symbols. And you -- for one in particular you
3 connect the chequer-board symbol exclusively with the Ustasha movement and
4 the NDH government of World War II. But let me ask you, sir, it's true,
5 isn't it, that that chequer-board symbol was a historical symbol of
6 Croatia and it had been used before World War II in the coat of arms of
7 Kingdom of Yugoslavia; it was used after World War II in the coat of arms
8 of the Socialist Republic of Croatia within the SFRY. It was used by
9 other governments and other regimes besides just the Ustasha regime.
11 A. What you said is partially correct. The truth is that the
12 chequer-board existed before. It existed also with some Serb rulers as
13 back as the 14th century. But the thing is -- well, do you know the
14 fields of the board it starts white/red, white/red. With the Socialist
15 Republic of Croatia, the order was different. I can't recall exactly
16 whether the first field was white or red.
17 In any case, the fields in the Ustasha coat of arms were copied
18 with the new Croatia, and we found that unacceptable because our children
19 had been slaughtered in World War II by the regime using that coat of
21 Q. Well, let me ask you about another symbol. You talk about the
22 U symbol, which is maybe the symbol most closely associated with the
23 Ustashas. Sir, while that symbol may have been used by individuals,
24 extremists during 1990 and even after that, the U symbol was never used in
25 any official capacity, neither by the HDZ nor by the Croatian government.
1 Isn't that correct?
2 A. That is not correct.
3 Q. Can you -- excuse me, sir. I just want -- can you name me any
4 specific examples of where the HDZ or the Croatian authorities officially
5 used the U symbol?
6 A. I'm not saying they used it officially --
7 Q. Sir, that would --
8 A. -- but you could see it everywhere on the walls in Croatia and the
9 authorities never reacted to that. Tacitly, implicitly, they supported
10 such symbols --
11 Q. Sir, let me stop you --
12 A. -- and these were largely re-introduced by the Croatian diaspora.
13 Q. Please focus carefully on my questions because in my question I
14 said: While they may have been used by individuals, they weren't used in
15 an official capacity. That's really the narrow issue I was focussed on
16 and you've now answered that, so let me go on to the next -- the next
18 In paragraph 5 you describe HDZ pre-election conventions where you
19 say there were these Ustasha symbols. Would you agree with me, sir, that
20 there were also extremists who used extremist imagery on the Serb side in
21 political rallies during the first half of 1990?
22 A. I cannot deny that. There were individuals on the Serbian side as
23 well, but such symbols on our side were not supported publicly and openly,
24 especially not by the JNA or by our --
25 Q. Thank you, sir, you've answered the question.
1 A. -- Krajina authorities.
2 Q. Also in paragraph 5 you refer to a specific incident where you say
3 that a Serb was falsely accused of trying to assassinate Franjo Tudjman
4 during a pre-election rally in Benkovac in March 1990. Just so we're
5 clear, in fact what happened on that occasion was that Tudjman was
6 speaking at a podium at a rally, and a Serb tried to attack him with a
7 pistol. And then later on it was determined that that was a plastic
8 pistol and it couldn't actually have killed him. That's the incident that
9 you're referring to; correct?
10 A. It was a well-known event, very exploited by the Croatian media --
11 Q. Sir, sir --
12 A. -- irrespective of the fact that this was a plastic gun.
13 Q. Okay. So am I correct that it was a plastic gun; that's what you
14 were talking about?
15 A. Yes, yes. Later on they established that it was plastic.
16 Q. Right.
17 A. And then later there were rumours that this had been orchestrated,
18 done on purpose, this was pre-electoral campaign used to -- contributed to
19 Tudjman's cause --
20 Q. Sir, I'm asking you about specific questions; I'm not inviting you
21 to go in and talk about other topics. Okay? We have a lot of ground to
22 cover in a limited amount of time. So please -- you're obviously able to
23 answer my questions and you're doing so, but then you go into other
24 matters. So please focus with on me.
25 Let me move your attention to paragraph 15 of your statement.
1 There you describe a meeting on the 5th of July, 1990, in Knin and you
2 suggest that Croatian MUP authorities went to Knin to force the police
3 into adopting or agreeing to accept the chequer-board symbol, but that's a
4 misleading, isn't it, sir. In fact, the Croatian authorities went there
5 to discuss the issue. They didn't go there to use force. They went there
6 to talk about this issue, right?
7 A. I don't know what information you have on that. In any case, when
8 the police, armed to their teeth, comes to a Serbian area, well, everyone
9 assumed that the -- what will ensue was to be an act of violence and that
10 will resort to the use of force, and that's how it was interpreted.
11 Q. Are you saying, sir, that on the 5th of July the Croatian police
12 arrived armed to the teeth, or wasn't it in fact the case that -- I
13 believe it was the deputy minister of the interior and other officials of
14 the Croatian MUP came, political people, not -- not armed police but
15 representatives came to discuss things in Knin on the 5th of July, 1990,
17 A. Well, I wasn't in Knin on those days. What I learned was that
18 they came and that people assembled around the police station and nothing
19 could be done.
20 Q. Okay. So you weren't there and you don't know first-hand what
21 happened on this occasion. Is that right?
22 A. No, I have no first-hand information.
23 Q. Okay. After this 5 July 1990 meeting --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I just interrupt?
25 MR. BLACK: Please do.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would you then accept, sir, that it was the
2 politicians and not the army or police who came to Knin to discuss the
3 issue, rather than to force it?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I recall, the information
5 was that the police were arriving as well as some others with them. But
6 the people were anxious. What I need to say is that nothing of it can be
7 made sense unless you draw parallels between the criminal independent
8 state of Croatia in World War II and the newly formed Croatia that was
9 being formed at the time using the same symbols. The people were afraid
10 that World War II would repeat itself.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I -- I think you're going far beyond my
12 question. I understand that you say that's what you were told, that's the
13 information you got at the time. But following on questions by the
14 Prosecution, you have said you were not there, you don't have any
15 first-hand information about the point. Now, I'm trying to find out that
16 if you now say you were not there, you don't have first-hand information,
17 would you be prepared to accept the proposition by the Prosecution that in
18 fact, contrary to what you heard, it was the politicians who came there to
19 discuss the issue; it was not the police or the army coming to use force.
20 And you can either say: Yes, I accept the proposition; or no, I don't
21 accept the proposition.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I accept for such a possibility.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
24 Yes, Mr. Black.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But this didn't change things in its
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: You have answered my question, sir. Thank you so
4 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. I have just a couple more
5 questions on this exact same topic. Maybe I should press ahead and take
6 advantage of the last 20 seconds.
7 Q. Witness, Mr. Dakic, after this meeting on the 5th of July, 1990,
8 the Croatian authorities continued to work with the Serb policemen in Knin
9 and elsewhere in Krajina, didn't they?
10 In fact, I'll give you two specific examples and tell me if you
11 can confirm them or deny them or if you just don't know. Shortly after
12 that meeting the Croatian authorities appointed a Serb named Slobodan
13 Vujko to be the chief of the Knin public security station, and another
14 Serb, Dusan Latas, was made chief of the new Plaski police station; again,
15 appointed by the Croatian authorities. Now, do you know anything about
16 those two incidents? Can you confirm or deny them?
17 A. I cannot confirm that since I don't know it.
18 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I think now it's a convenient time.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
20 Mr. Dakic, we've come to the end of the day for today. The matter
21 is now going to be postponed to Wednesday, the 25th, at 9.00, in this same
22 Courtroom II. Thank you very much.
23 Court adjourned.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m.,
25 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 25th day of
1 October, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.