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

20 determination.

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

11 military.

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

1 provision.

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,

21 please.

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,

16 right?

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

6 right?

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

3 him.

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

12 command.

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.

1 Correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. I want to show you what Franjo Tudjman actually said on that

4 occasion.

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;

1 correct?

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

6 territory.

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

11 communities."

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

8 at?

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

5 Croatia."

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

3 supplies.

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

11 centre?

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

11 Honour.

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

24 recall?

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

13 Croatia.

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

12 stand.

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

1 leading.

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

20 cross-examination.

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

7 Yugoslavia.

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

2 permissions?

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

8 believe.

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

8 flights?

9 A. Yes. And as a result, we were unable to have any humanitarian

10 flights.

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

13 incidents.

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

25 re-direct.

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Perovic.

2 Judge.

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

11 north.

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,

25 Albanians.

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

21 Herzegovina.

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

8 testimony?

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

6 frequently.

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

2 perpetrators.

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

12 name.

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

2 anyway.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: What measures were taken against the others who

4 looted?

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

10 activities.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Where can the records of these proceedings be

12 found?

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

18 1999?

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

21 Tribunal.

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

3 mean?

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

22 orders?

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

3 to.

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

18 crisis.

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

24 notices?

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

5 didn't.

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

20 Bench?

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;

17 correct?

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

14 prevention.

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

21 introduced.

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

20 Rules.

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

4 that.

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

12 different.

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

22 proceed.

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

18 cross-examination.

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

8 writer.

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

11 you.

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,

7 2006?

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

16 that?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this is my statement, by all

18 means.

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

14 afternoon.

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

20 statement.

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

11 since.

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.

10 Correct?

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

20 arms.

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

17 point.

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,

16 right?

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

1 essence.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: You have answered my question, sir. Thank you so

3 much.

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.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25