1 Tuesday, 5 February 2008

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, please call the

6 case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, and good afternoon, Your Honours. This

8 is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

10 Today is Tuesday, 5th of February, 2008. Good afternoon to all

11 the OTP representatives, to Mr. Seselj and to all the people assisting us

12 in our work.

13 Before moving to some specific items, I'd like the Prosecution to

14 introduce themselves.

15 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon, Your

16 Honours. Representing the Prosecution today is Daryl Mundis, myself; and

17 Lisa Biersay, our trial attorney; and Jasmina Bosnjakovic, our case

18 manager.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Welcome to this

20 courtroom.

21 Mr. Mundis, we are very familiar with you. I've known you since

22 you were an attorney in many cases, and I believe my colleagues also have

23 to deal with you in the Delic case, so welcome.

24 I have several items to deal with before the witness is brought

25 in.

1 First of all, Mr. Seselj, we were informed that three of your

2 associates and the case manager will come to the Tribunal this week. I

3 believe your associates are going to participate in at least one of the

4 hearings, maybe tomorrow's or the day after tomorrow. So please can you

5 confirm this?

6 Secondly, in case your associates come to one or two hearings, I

7 was told that the courtroom --

8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, the room.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] -- where you can have a rest

10 during the breaks can only, besides you, contain another two people so

11 that the four associates you have cannot be in the same room as you during

12 breaks, since the room can contain three people. Can you confirm that

13 your associates are going to participate in one or two of the hearings

14 after today's?

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. My legal

16 advisors: Zoran Krasic; Aleksandar Vucic; Slavko Jerkovic; and the case

17 manager, Marina Ragus are arriving tomorrow. The plan was that they

18 attend on Thursday. They won't make it tomorrow because they have some

19 business to attend to in the Registry. And I'll add they'll be able to

20 come not more than once a month unless the issue of financing of their

21 work is regulated. They, first and foremost, have to do the jobs, and

22 they're living in Belgrade and only in the second place can help me.

23 I'm surprised to hear that this room, the rest room that we can

24 use during the break can accommodate only two persons because I remember

25 the times of the Milosevic trial when more people could be there, plus

1 they used the two adjacent rooms. He placed his legal advisors there and

2 also a group of students who volunteered to assist his defence, Dutch

3 students who volunteered and participated in preparing his defence. I saw

4 them with my own eyes, and I was able to observe a lot during the 14 days

5 I testified. I'm therefore surprised that I'm faced with new

6 restrictions.

7 The same restrictions apply in the Detention Unit. I am still

8 unable to use the fax machine. Faxes are just handed to me at the

9 Detention Unit. I have no confirmation and no proof that they were not

10 copied and given to the Prosecution or somebody else before being given to

11 me. But I'm not an eye-witness. If I were an eye-witness, I could speak

12 about it differently. I am still short of many things in the preparation

13 of my defence, but I am doing it successfully, as you can see,

14 nevertheless.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm going to try and shed some

16 light on this. You are telling me that Slobodan Milosevic was able to

17 have more than two people in that room, and you fail to understand why

18 this is being imposed on you. I'm going to check that, but I can't give

19 you an answer straight away. At first sight, if this could be done

20 before, there's no reason why you couldn't enjoy those facilities.

21 With regard to your associates, they will come in, they will sit

22 in the first row, and I'll ask them to introduce themselves because I

23 don't know them, so I'll ask them to introduce themselves in order to get

24 to know them. You told us that they were going to come on Thursday.

25 The second problem we have to deal with, that's the issue of the

1 report of Theunens, an expert witness. The Prosecution planned that the

2 witness would start testifying next week, but beforehand the Trial Chamber

3 would like to seek some information from you.

4 As a reminder, because this is a very complex matter, let me

5 remind the fundamentals thereof. On the 31st of March, 2006, the

6 Prosecution filed a confidential motion, ex parte confidential motion,

7 containing the Theunens report in its totality as annex 1 and in its

8 redacted version as annex 2; and this was filed with the Trial Chamber.

9 It was disclosed.

10 On the 2nd October, 2006, the then-Trial Chamber had ordered the

11 report to be disclosed, and in its entirety, to the Defence. It had also

12 ordered that the sensitive parts of the report not be disclosed to the

13 public. But at the time, due to the litigation opposing you to the Trial

14 Chamber with regard to an appointment of a stand-by counsel and due to the

15 fact that you had started a hunger strike, apparently the report was not

16 disclosed to you.

17 Later on, on the 17th or the 18th of May, 2007 - we're not sure as

18 to the date - the said report was disclosed to you in its redacted

19 version, so on the 17th or the 18th of May. From that date onwards

20 apparently you have had the report in its redacted version.

21 On the 14th of June, 2007, the Trial Chamber issued a decision

22 following a reconsideration of the 2 October 2006 decision. The Trial

23 Chamber had ordered that the entire report be disclosed, at the latest 30

24 days before the trial began, was to be -- that is, before November 11th,

25 2007. The Prosecution disclosed the report on the 3rd of October, 2007,

1 so it had been complied with.

2 In the 14 June 2007 decision, we also said that, at the latest 14

3 days after the 14 June 2007 decision had been disclosed in B/C/S, the

4 accused was to complement his oral objection formulated on the 5th of

5 June, 2007. I remind you that you raised an objection in court on the 5th

6 of June, so you had been required to file an answer. Apparently you

7 didn't within the time period prescribed. And we've just received an

8 answer which bears the date of the 3rd of January, 2008, and at first

9 sight this answer has been filed outside the deadline.

10 Our problem is as follows: You know that this Trial Chamber

11 operates in total transparency, so I tell you everything you need to know.

12 Our question now is whether your associate who worked on the reply, when

13 he was working on it, had the complete version or the redacted one.

14 Why do we need to know this? If he had the complete version,

15 there's no problem. The submissions he wrote took all the elements into

16 account, and we could, therefore, start as of next week with the

17 testimony. However, if he only had the redacted version, it may be that

18 some information is missing. So I suppose you know exactly, Mr. Seselj,

19 whether your associate worked on the complete version or whether he did on

20 the redacted one.

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you answer already? I

23 have other questions, additional questions, for you later on.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm also a little bit

25 confused concerning this supplemental report and the passages that were

1 redacted. I got updates on two occasions, the last time a few days ago.

2 The Prosecution is probably able to tell you the exact date when I was

3 updated on the report of Mr. Theunens. I hope I'm pronouncing this

4 correctly. My associate who drafted the reply is not a legal advisor.

5 He's not a lawyer. He's a military expert. It's Bozidar Delic, one of

6 the best Serbian military experts alive. And in his study he mainly

7 contested the theoretical part of the Prosecution expert, Mr. Theunens.

8 As for practical circumstances, I'll deal with that in cross-examination.

9 At any rate the response I submitted on the 3rd of January that

10 was written by my team member, General Bozidar Delic, is my comprehensive

11 response to the Theunens response, regardless of the fact that Mr. Delic

12 did not have available to him the redacted passage. As for the

13 examination of Mr. Theunens, I believe it would be a good idea to have it

14 as soon as possible because even for you, as the Trial Chamber, the

15 situation would be much clearer; and it's better probably to do that

16 before we bring a large number of crime-base witnesses.

17 Second, I was informed on Friday by the Prosecution that they are

18 planning to examine Theunens for eight hours. I think that's good. I

19 would also like to have eight hours. If you remember, I have already

20 asked once for you to increase my time from four to five hours. Eight

21 hours is an ideal solution, and I believe it should stay that way. The

22 Prosecution were probably able to inform you what I received a week or ten

23 days ago. I didn't expect this matter to be discussed today, and I didn't

24 take the file with me; and I didn't refresh my memory. But they have

25 proper electronic records, I suppose, and they would be able to tell you.

1 At any rate, although they probably gave me the redacted passages

2 only then, I do not require any delay of the testimony of the Prosecution

3 expert. I believe on the contrary, it is in the interests of the Trial

4 Chamber and even my interest to have it as soon as possible. And I'm

5 ready.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, if I understood

7 properly, General Bozidar Delic, who assisted you in preparing the

8 submissions filed in January 2008, only had the redacted version to work

9 on. It was indeed impossible for him to have the entire version because

10 there were confidential elements that could not be made known to you. So

11 you can confirm -- you did confirm that it was the redacted version, but

12 you added that was no problem, that you could start as early as Monday.

13 That's good news.

14 With regard to the time you're going to have, the Prosecution had

15 indeed asked for eight hours and you, for five. The Trial Chamber

16 discussed this matter and is of the view that the Prosecutor could, within

17 five hours, submit the report of expert Theunens because we have a

18 comprehensive report, there will be documents that will be submitted to

19 the expert witness, and five hours is more than enough to do so. The

20 Trial Chamber therefore decided - this is in order to inform Mr. Mundis -

21 that the Prosecution will have five hours and the accused Seselj will also

22 have five hours.

23 But in addition to this, we have a related problem. It is this:

24 The Prosecution did on the 24th of December, 2007, filed a confidential

25 motion to add 59 pieces of evidence or exhibits to the 55 ter list -- 65

1 ter. I was told, Mr. Seselj, that you received the translation in your

2 own language of the Prosecution motion. The Prosecution would wish to add

3 59 exhibits to the 65 ter list because they intend to submit the documents

4 to Mr. Theunens. So we're talking about 59 documents, but I suppose you

5 have received the list all ready. The fact that you learn of this only

6 one week before the testimony, because we are due to start his testimony

7 next week, is that an obstacle for you, an impediment, or not? Would you

8 be able to start with the cross-examination next week or so with the 59

9 documents?

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I received that

11 material last night after 1700 hours, and I had no time to look through it

12 because I spent all last night and the morning of today preparing for the

13 continuation of Mr. Tomic's testimony. I cannot tell you what I think of

14 these documents. I can only strenuously condemn this manner used by the

15 Prosecution, who had five years to prepare the evidence in their case, and

16 only when the trial began they began producing an avalanche of exhibits.

17 All the exhibits of the Prosecution generally suffer from one

18 weakness: Irrelevance and an overabundance of documents that prove

19 nothing. You have already had occasion to hear two experts and one

20 witness. Sometimes the Prosecution provides three binders for each, but

21 they don't use all the material inside and they don't even tender all the

22 documents. So they seem to be intentionally burdening me with this sea of

23 unnecessary documents.

24 Furthermore, this latest shipment of 67 documents will not

25 considerably impede my cross-examination of the expert Theunens, but I

1 believe that nevertheless you should stand in the way of this practice of

2 the Prosecution.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is no fault of yours.

4 Please be reassured about that. I'm not at all criticising you. This

5 report by Theunens, the expert witness, has 689 footnotes --

6 THE INTERPRETER: Or 699, interpreter's correction.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In other words, the expert

8 looked into hundreds of documents.

9 Now, the 59 new documents are mentioned in the footnotes so that

10 General Bozidar Delic was apprised of them because they were mentioned in

11 the footnotes. As a result this doesn't harm the accused directly, but on

12 the substance, how is it that the Seselj file, which has been in abeyance

13 for years, with regard to it the Prosecution at the last minute realises

14 that there were 59 documents that were not in the 65 ter list? You may

15 not have an answer. I would understand that. But it is frustrating,

16 isn't it, to be faced with this sort of problem. You don't have to answer

17 because you're just new to this case, but you might have something to say.

18 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Perhaps once all of the

19 issues concerning the expert report of Mr. Theunens have been raised,

20 perhaps later this afternoon I can consult with my trial team and even

21 bring in the trial attorney who will be dealing with that witness who, as

22 the Presiding Judge correctly indicates, would be in a much better

23 position than myself in order to address these specific issues. I can

24 assure you that he's following the transcript from his office and if there

25 are any -- in addition to the issues already raised, any further issues

1 either coming from Professor Seselj or from the Trial Chamber, then we

2 will endeavour to provide a slightly more comprehensive answer, perhaps as

3 early as later this afternoon or this evening, before we adjourn.

4 So I respectfully ask for a little bit of time to deal with my

5 team and with the lawyer who's assigned to that witness. Thank you.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. All the questions

7 regarding the report have now been put. You, therefore, have all the

8 information you need.

9 Let me now read in private session two very short oral rulings.

10 Mr. Registrar, can we move to private session.

11 [Private session]

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 3096 redacted. Private session

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 [Open session]

3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now back in open session.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, you wanted to say

5 something, to give a number, I believe?

6 Mr. Mundis, did you want to say something?

7 MR. MUNDIS: Nothing further, Your Honours. The next witness will

8 simply be led by my colleague, Ms. Biersay, when we get to that stage.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Ms. Biersay, you're

10 going to finish the examination-in-chief. You still had 35 minutes.

11 MS. BIERSAY: Thank you, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That's what you're going to do.

13 Very well.

14 MS. BIERSAY: Before beginning, Your Honour, I believe you had a

15 question with respect to designation of exhibits. I've been advised that

16 what has been marked as Exhibit 155 will now be remarked or recategorised

17 as Exhibit P34, just for the record.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Therefore, 155

19 becomes P34.

20 Let's have the Witness brought in.

21 [The witness entered court]

22 WITNESS: YVES TOMIC [Resumed]

23 [Witness answered through interpreter]

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You may sit down.

25 Mr. Tomic, the examination-in-chief is now going to resume.

1 Ms. Biersay, who is with us, has 35 minutes to finish this

2 examination-in-chief, and then Mr. Seselj will take over and start the

3 cross-examination.

4 I now give the floor to Ms. Biersay.

5 MS. BIERSAY: Thank you, Your Honours.

6 Examination by Ms. Biersay: [Continued]

7 Q. Mr. Tomic, I'd like to direct your attention to the final section

8 of your expert report, specifically page 93. Do you have that report

9 available to you?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Now, generally speaking, this section deals with the election

12 results from approximately 1990 to 2000; is that correct?

13 A. Yes, absolutely.

14 Q. Could you describe for the Court what was your primary resource

15 for that section of your report?

16 A. Well, I used work published by Serbian politician --

17 politiologists, who was a specialist who worked on political parties in

18 Serbia and Yugoslavia and on elections.

19 MS. BIERSAY: And, Your Honours, that is -- that book is described

20 as -- is identified as 65 ter number 2568.

21 Q. Mr. Tomic, in the course of your research into this area of

22 elections from that time period that we just discussed, could you tell us

23 what you learned about Mr. Seselj's participation in the 1990 presidential

24 elections?

25 A. Well, as I said previously, at first Vojislav Seselj headed a

1 party that was not recognised by authorities, so he is running as an

2 independent, representing a group of citizens, according to the law at the

3 time, and obtained about 90.000 votes, which was not much at the time.

4 Q. Approximately what percentage was that?

5 A. Well, I can't really remember, but the Socialist Party obtained

6 2.3 million votes and the main opposition party, which was the Serbian

7 Renewal Party, obtained more than 790.000 votes. So you see that the

8 score of Mr. Seselj was quite low. The Chetnik Serbian Movement was at

9 the time still a very marginal movement.

10 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a question. I'm sorry to

11 interrupt.

12 Witness, please, could you please remind me, these were elections

13 that he didn't have much time to prepare for; is that it?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely.

15 MS. BIERSAY:

16 Q. And why is it that he did not have time to prepare for those

17 elections?

18 A. Well, because in October 1990, when he was in the center of

19 Belgrade to have petitions signed asking for the tomb of former

20 President Tito to be removed, he was also trying to recruit volunteers at

21 the time to send them to Croatia. So he was arrested with a list that had

22 more than 100 names, and I think that he was sentenced to about 15 days in

23 jail. But he was also sentenced in -- earlier for having organised

24 demonstrations that had been banned by the authorities. So he had 15 days

25 for jail when altogether he had about 90 days in jail to be enforced.

1 MS. BIERSAY: Mr. Registrar, with respect to 65 ter number 2568,

2 could we please see the English ERN page, which is 03599-966. And, for

3 the record, this is the page number corresponding to Vladimir Goati's

4 book "Elections in FRY from 1990 to 1998."

5 That page number in e-court is page 103. And if we could please

6 zoom in on the table 3.

7 Q. And, Mr. Tomic, does this reflect the information on which you

8 relied for your report as far as the results of the presidential elections

9 of 1990 in Serbia?

10 A. Yes, this is one of the books I used. This table gives the

11 official tables that had been disclosed by the electoral committee of the

12 country at the time.

13 MS. BIERSAY: Your Honour, the Prosecution would request that this

14 be marked for identification. I would seek some guidance from the Court

15 about whether the Court would prefer to have the entire book admitted into

16 evidence or if you would prefer that the Prosecution select the pages that

17 are most relevant.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, do you have any

19 objections to tend to admit the entire book, or not?

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [Microphone not activated]

21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will deal with that book in my

23 cross-examination a bit. This is an author who was always expressly

24 active against the Serb Radical Party. But as for the statistical data he

25 provides, they are correct. All the statistical information is correct.

1 His interpretation, however, is subjective, partial, and tendentious, and

2 I will be referring to this in my cross-examination.

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Trial Chamber

5 has decided to give a final number only to this table that we have on page

6 2 of 6 of this book. So this is what we admit, the table giving us the

7 result of the presidential elections.

8 Mr. Registrar, could we have a number?

9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the table will be Exhibit P155.

10 Thank you.

11 MS. BIERSAY:

12 Q. Mr. Tomic, who won the December 1990 presidential elections?

13 A. Slobodan Milosevic.

14 Q. Do you know --

15 A. At the time he was head of the Serbian Socialist Party.

16 Q. Do you know whether or not after his victory in that elections, do

17 you know whether or not Mr. Seselj sent him a letter?

18 A. I don't recall this.

19 Q. Could you describe for the members of the Court whether or not

20 there were any public expression of mutual support between Milosevic and

21 Mr. Seselj?

22 A. Well, at the time it can't be said. Mr. Seselj was heading a

23 party that was not recognised at the time. He had just been sentenced,

24 convicted and sentenced, in October 1990; so at the time you can't say

25 that there is mutual support or collaboration between the two entities,

1 between the Serbian Socialist Party and the Chetnik Serbian Movement.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, please, I'm listening

3 to you, but I was also looking at the other candidates at the time and

4 right now there are presidential elections going on so the topic is quite

5 interesting. Mr. Seselj is representing a citizens group and has 96.277

6 votes, but I also note that candidate 9 and 10, who've very little votes,

7 22.000 for one and 17.000 for another, are also citizens groups, also

8 representing citizens groups. So we have three citizens groups, but what

9 are they representing? Did they have an electoral platform? Did they

10 have any project? What exactly is the difference between Mr. Guzic and

11 Mr. Seselj? Between Mr. Aleksov and Mr. Guzic?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't really talk about these

13 candidates, but at the time in order to run for president, if you didn't

14 represent a recognised political party, you had to collect a certain

15 amount of signatures in order to run. And at the time in Serbia a great

16 number of political parties just sprung up and were created. Tens or

17 hundreds of parties were actually created. So they were -- several

18 political parties who ran for different elections, including the

19 presidential elections, but they represented absolutely nothing. They had

20 no support in society. Those were marginal candidates and represented

21 nothing in Serbia.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But according to you

23 a candidate that has less than 2 per cent of the votes, does he represent

24 anything or does he represent nothing?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, for example,

1 Sulejman Ugljanin, the SDA, representing the Muslims, Serbian Muslims, had

2 about 2.18 per cent of votes and did obtain quite a number of Muslim

3 votes. So according to the size of the community he was representing,

4 it's a good score, but it is quite marginal nationally, of course.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, and what about the

6 candidate number five, Mr. Seselj? With 1.9 per cent of votes, what did

7 he represent?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, at the time what you see is

9 that the SPS is the dominant party. Slobodan Milosevic was elected right

10 away so the others, Mr. Seselj's party, was very marginal and didn't have

11 a great echo in Serbian society.

12 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Interpretation] Excuse me.

13 MS. BIERSAY:

14 Q. Mr. --

15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Excuse me. Just for clarification, what is shown

16 in column C and D, I believe, is that -- in column C is the deputies,

17 number of deputies, and only in column D do we find the percentages; is

18 that correct?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, regarding the presidential

20 election, you have the number of votes first expressed during the

21 election, then the percentage according to the entire constituency in the

22 country. 65 per cent of the constituency voted for -- no, 65 per cent of

23 voters voted for Milosevic, representing only 46 per cent of the total

24 constituency.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, column D represents the

1 total voters -- the percentage in relation to the total voters.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. According to all people

4 who voted or all people who had the right to vote?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Column C is the votes expressed,

6 people who went to vote, and column D corresponds only to the percentage

7 in relation to the entire constituency, 46 per cent of the entire

8 constituency, which was quite a good score at the time for Mr. Milosevic.

9 MS. BIERSAY:

10 Q. Moving forward to 1992, were there elections held on May 31st of

11 1992?

12 A. There were federal elections at the end of May 1992. The Federal

13 Republic of Yugoslavia, with Serbia -- bringing together Serbia and

14 Montenegro was actually created, and the members of the federal parliament

15 had to be elected at the time.

16 Q. Could you describe the backdrop against which that election was

17 held?

18 A. Well, at the time - this is the spring of 1992 - as I just said

19 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was set up. A constitution was set up

20 also and drafted, but without the opposing political parties taking part

21 to it, to this drafting. So these opposing parties boycotted the

22 elections of May 31st, 1992.

23 Furthermore, there was a war going on in BiH. The war started in

24 April or May 1992.

25 Q. Around that period did Milosevic call Mr. Seselj his favourite

1 opposition politician?

2 A. Yes. There were a few statements in early March 1992 where

3 Slobodan Milosevic said that among all the opposing -- all his opponents,

4 his favourite was Vojislav Seselj.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What you're saying, was it an

6 ideological presence or did that mean that it was a man he would

7 challenge?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe at the time there was a

9 convergence between the two parties. Both parties defended the Serbian

10 national ideas in Serbia as well as in BiH. So ideologically, they were

11 very close, coming closer. And in May 1992 it seems that it was the first

12 time that Slobodan Milosevic met with Vojislav Seselj officially, you

13 know, and asked him officially to intensify his efforts to send volunteers

14 to BiH, and this is May 1992.

15 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] There's an ideological

16 convergence, this is what you answered to the Presiding Judge; but you

17 also answered and added that it had something to do with the conflict

18 going on. So there was also convergence regarding the means to be used in

19 the conflict?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in one of Vojislav Seselj's

21 books, this meeting of May 1992 is mentioned, a meeting between the

22 Serbian president and Mr. Seselj. Slobodan Milosevic explicitly asked for

23 more volunteers to be sent from the Serbian Radical Party, to be sent to

24 the BiH. Slobodan Milosevic promised all logistical support required to

25 help send these volunteers and Vojislav Seselj mentions that this help

1 continued -- was very effective and continued until September 1993.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, please, there's

3 something I don't understand and maybe you can help me. According to what

4 you're saying in your report, it seems that Slobodan Milosevic asked for

5 Mr. Seselj's help to send volunteers. The country is in war, is at war;

6 the country was in a situation of conflict. So why can't all soldiers be

7 drafted? Why do you have to ask for Mr. Seselj's support? How do you

8 explain this?

9 Let me give you an example. During World War I, you know, in

10 1914, France, UK, drafted, you know, sent mobilisation orders. They

11 didn't call on political parties to send volunteers. So why is it that

12 Mr. Milosevic would suddenly ask for Mr. Seselj's support to send

13 volunteers?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, when the Croatian war started,

15 during the military operations in 1991, there was a mobilisation of all

16 reservists in Serbia and all soldiers in Serbia, and they were

17 incorporated into the JNA at the time. But this mobilisation or this

18 draft wasn't very positive, wasn't really welcomed. There were a lot of

19 desertions and the population just didn't want to join, and this led to

20 problems, recruiting problems. And so at the time the power just -- was

21 in a difficult situation. Many just did not heed the call, if I could say

22 so.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So that would be why

24 Slobodan Milosevic made this request to Mr. Seselj?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, this could be one of the

1 reasons. Slobodan Milosevic also had something in mind. He wanted to

2 withdraw the JNA from BiH while leaving the infrastructure in place for

3 the Serbian army and BiH. So the idea was to mobilise the Serbs in BiH,

4 but we also know that there were some special troops that were sent from

5 Serbia to Bosnia during the war.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Mr. President, I waited

7 for the members of the Trial Chamber to complete their questions. My

8 objection is to the manner in which the expert answered your previous

9 question. If the expert says that Slobodan Milosevic made several

10 statements in which he said that among the opposition leaders he liked me

11 best - those are the words of the expert - the expert has to tell you very

12 precisely where and when Milosevic said this. This is not just an

13 ordinary witness who heard something somewhere. It's a witness who

14 studied things. He must have evidence for what he says. You should

15 insist that he provide it.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. On this specific

17 item, when did Slobodan Milosevic was his favourite opponent -- when did

18 he say that and where?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe it was in early March 1992

20 during a meeting with officers of the Yugoslav Army. I was in Belgrade at

21 the time and I read that in the paper, "Borba" or in the "Vreme" magazine.

22 It's well known. Anyone interested in political life in Serbia knows

23 this. And I know that Robert Thomas, which is a British researcher on the

24 political life in Serbia in the 1990s, reaffirms that this was actually

25 said.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You said that you yourself were

2 in Belgrade in 1992.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, at the time I was in Belgrade.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

5 You may resume.

6 MS. BIERSAY: Mr. Registrar, with respect to 65 ter number 2568,

7 may we now see e-court page 104, please, specifically table 5. For the

8 record, the heading reads:

9 "Votes and Mandates Won in Chamber of Citizens of Federal Assembly

10 of FRY."

11 And may that page also be marked for identification, please.

12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour that will be MFI P156.

13 MS. BIERSAY: [Microphone not activated]

14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

15 Q. Mr. Tomic, looking at table 5, could you quickly summarize the

16 outcome in the number of votes between the SRS and the SPS?

17 A. You note that the Serbian Radical Party obtains a great number of

18 votes of the first -- compared to December 1990. 96.000 in the first one

19 and now more than a million, so there was a jump ahead of the Radical

20 Serbian Party. But there's an erosion of the socialist party. Earlier

21 the other one had 200, 300.000 voters and now there's only 1.600.000 some

22 left. So the SRS seem to have attracted a good number of voters from the

23 SPS at the time.

24 And DZVM, which is the party representing the Hungarian minority,

25 obtained a very little amount of votes, but quite important in relation to

1 the Hungarian community living in Serbia. But you see that most

2 opposition parties at the time boycotted this vote.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, I'm interested in these

4 results of 1992. I note that there were -- there's 12 per cent of the

5 ballots that are deemed to be invalid. Is there a reason for this?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, maybe rather than boycotting,

7 some people just said that they oppose the election by just scratching the

8 bulletins. I don't know what they did.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm sorry if my

10 continued interruptions bother you, but you should not permit this evident

11 falsification of statistical data. The number of votes from presidential

12 elections in December 1990 cannot be measured against those of the

13 parliamentary elections in May 1992. The expert should have offered you

14 the number of votes at the parliamentary elections in 1990 in order to

15 compare them with the parliamentary elections in May, because in 1990

16 Slobodan Milosevic received many more votes than his party did.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. In terms of

18 elections, this table is not a table that compares one election to

19 another. This table deals with one single election, election to the

20 Federal Assembly of FRY. He see that there's a proportional system with a

21 majority rule and this is why you aggregate the number of deputies. SPS

22 has 57 and the others have 30 -- 43 and 30. So this is not a presidential

23 election. Does this change anything?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We have no element to compare

25 anything because the Chetnik Serbian did not run for the 1990 elections,

1 so it would be more logical to compare one presidential election to

2 another presidential election. But was the only order of magnitude I had.

3 This was the two only tables I could compare. Of course, during a

4 presidential election a candidate coming from a party may obtain a great

5 more votes than the party would for a federal election, a parliamentary

6 election.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But the fact that the SPS here

8 obtained 1.665.000 votes, does this prove that Slobodan Milosevic was

9 eroding and that the SRS was actually booming or climbing?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Slobodan Milosevic will run

11 for presidential election later on in December 1992 and there will be less

12 of an erosion than we have here in this table. But if you add the number

13 of votes for both parties, you have the two parties that are champions of

14 the Serbian national -- of Serbian nationalism.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj, you'll have the

17 cross-examination to go back to all these topics, unless what you have to

18 say is essential now.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think it is of vital importance.

20 The Prosecution could easily give you the outcome of the parliamentary

21 elections of 1990 so you can see the total number of votes of the

22 Socialist Party, and then in that light look at the statement of this

23 witness that the electorate of the Socialist Party became scattered. The

24 socialists had 1.664.485 votes in May 1992, and then the Prosecution can

25 tell you how many votes they had in December 1990, and then you will be

1 able to decide for themselves whether the electorate of the Socialist

2 Party was lost, whether the Radical Party got their votes, or maybe some

3 other party profited from that as well.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We took good note of what you

5 said. Indeed, when you compare elections, it is better to compare

6 presidential elections or legislative elections.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand. I do agree.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you agree. The witness is in

9 agreement with you.

10 Please proceed.

11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: At the end of this

12 previous sentence by the accused was "or maybe the radicals won over the

13 votes of some other parties."

14 MS. BIERSAY: Also in e-court page 104, Mr. Registrar, if we could

15 focus on table 6. And also in the same 65 ter Exhibit 2568 if we could

16 also show Mr. Tomic e-court page 105 as well. And we would request that

17 this be marked for identification as well.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Maybe a final number. No need

19 to have it marked for identification. There's no challenge to this.

20 We're going to have final numbers.

21 Please, Mr. Registrar.

22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, table number 5 will be Prosecution

23 Exhibit P156; table number 6 will be Prosecution Exhibit P157; and table

24 number 8 will be Prosecution Exhibit P158.

25 MS. BIERSAY: And just to expedite things, we will also move for

1 the admission of e-court page 106 as well, tables 9 and 10.

2 THE REGISTRAR: Table 9 will be Exhibit P159 and table 10 Exhibit

3 P160.

4 MS. BIERSAY:

5 Q. Mr. Tomic, if you could focus your attention on table 6, which is

6 P157, could you summarize the results encapsulated in that table?

7 A. There, again, these are elections to the Federal Assembly and the

8 opposition parties participated in these elections.

9 Q. In what year?

10 A. In December 1992. The first elections were in May so these were a

11 few months later. And we can see that the Socialist Party of Serbia and

12 the Radical Party get less votes, less votes than a few months earlier,

13 but there is a greater participation of other political parties. So the

14 array of parties is greater. No major changes between the two main

15 parties coming to the first positions ahead of the other parties compared

16 to the May elections.

17 Q. And now I'll direct your attention to P159, which is table --

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment.

19 Witness, before we move to this exhibit, I was looking at the

20 number of voters, close to 7 million, and we see "turn-out" in English or

21 that's the participation rate. We have a rate of 67.4 per cent, so there

22 was quite a major participation turn-out.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, at the time because the

24 opposition parties were participating, which was not the case in 1990. We

25 have a larger turn-out here.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Because there was a presidential

2 election last Sunday and the turn-out was over 60 per cent, I think it was

3 61 per cent. And here we have 67 per cent. So was it a record rate, a

4 record turn-out at the time?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's quite a strong turn-out,

6 but with regard to the Serbian presidential elections, there were several

7 elections in Serbia after the year 2000 where the rate was under -- the

8 turn-out rate was under 50 per cent, and you could not be elected if you

9 had above -- not above 50 per cent. The law was changed. You can now be

10 elected president of Serbia if there are under 50 per cent. That's why

11 they insisted on the turn-out rate when there are presidential elections.

12 For many years they failed in Serbia.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14 MS. BIERSAY:

15 Q. Directing your attention to table 9, which is P159.

16 MS. BIERSAY: If we could have that for Mr. Tomic.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Nine.

18 MS. BIERSAY: I believe that's 11. Thank you.

19 Q. Could you describe for us what, if any, impact the SRS had in the

20 victory of the -- of Milosevic in conjunction with the SPS in those

21 elections of 1992, December?

22 A. We realised here that the Serbian Radical Party did not run any

23 candidate to the presidential election in December 1992 in Serbia. It

24 called for support to Milosevic at the time because the latter appeared to

25 champion the same national orientation as the Serbian Radical Party. So

1 basically you have an opposition between two candidates; on the one hand

2 Milosevic heading the SPS, he was the then president of Serbia; and

3 Milan Panic, who was the head of the federal government prior to these

4 elections.

5 MS. BIERSAY: And now, Mr. Registrar, if we could go to P160,

6 which is table 10. For the record votes, the title is: "Votes and

7 Mandates Won in National Assembly of Serbia (December 13th 1993)."

8 Q. Mr. Tomic, could you describe for the Court what happened in late

9 1993 with respect to the no-confidence vote.

10 A. After the parliament elections of 1992 in Serbia, the Socialist

11 Party did not have the majority in the National Assembly. It then formed

12 a minority government that was supported, depending on the questions they

13 dealt with, by the -- in parliament by the SRS. So confidence to the

14 government was withdrawn by the SRS, but there was no such vote as such in

15 the assembly because Milosevic decided to dissolve the assembly in autumn

16 1993. Therefore, at the time there was lack of understanding between

17 the -- fallout between the SPS and the SRS with regard to the events of

18 the Vance-Owen Plan. That's when difference started to appear, when the

19 plan was proposed in spring 1993. And at the time of autumn 1993, you

20 have a major opposition between the two political formations and a

21 campaign is initiated by the Socialist Party in Serbia against the SRS.

22 It was a major media campaign and the SRS saw a drop of half the votes it

23 had gained during these elections.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In a word you mentioned the

25 Vance-Owen Plan. Could you tell us why or how the SRS was in favour of

1 the plan and the SPS was against it? Was that the political stake?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In spring 1993, Slobodan Milosevic

3 organised -- took a new turn to his policy. He agreed with the peace plan

4 as proposed by Vance and Owen. He was of the view that the FRY and Serbia

5 were under economic embargo since June 1992 and that after all the Serbian

6 national interests were more or less satisfied in Croatia and Bosnia and

7 Herzegovina. But this position was not adopted by other parties,

8 including the SRS, and some say that as of spring 1993 Milosevic moved

9 from a so-called nationalist policy to a more pacifist and had more

10 support from the major powers.

11 MS. BIERSAY: Mr. Registrar, if we could now have 65 ter number

12 1764, please. And, for the record, that's the Vance-Owen Peace Plan dated

13 2 January 1993. And we'd seek the admission of that map.

14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that will be Exhibit number P161.

15 MS. BIERSAY:

16 Q. I'm now showing you, Mr. Tomic, P161. Mr. Tomic, is this the

17 Vance-Owen Peace Plan that you just discussed with the Bench?

18 A. Yes, indeed, it is the peace plan that was going to divide Bosnia

19 into ten regions.

20 MS. BIERSAY: Mr. President, if I could inquire how many minutes I

21 have left.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Are we going to know straight

23 away? I mean time applies, doesn't it.

24 MS. BIERSAY: It does.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have used 3 hours and 45

1 minutes. You have another 15 minutes left, 1-5.

2 MS. BIERSAY: Thank you, Your Honour. And just for planning

3 purposes, when will be take the break?

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, we could have the break

5 now. Fine. Let's have a 20-minute break.

6 --- Recess taken at 3.31 p.m.

7 --- On resuming at 3.54 p.m.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You have 15 minutes

9 left. Please go ahead.

10 MS. BIERSAY: Thank you, Your Honour.

11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

12 MS. BIERSAY:

13 Q. Mr. Tomic, have you heard of the phrase "Red Vojvoda" or "Bloody

14 Vojvoda"?

15 A. "Red Vojvoda", yes, but not the "Bloody Vojvoda."

16 Q. And in what context have you heard the "Red Vojvoda"?

17 A. It's when Vojislav Seselj started being seen as a true ally of

18 the -- of Milosevic's party, when the radicals supported the power in

19 Serbia. This was when this phrase was coined and circulated among

20 political leaders in the opposing parties mainly. But not just in the

21 opposing parties. Also in people who were faithful to the Ravna Gora

22 Movement.

23 MS. BIERSAY: Mr. Registrar, if we could now see 65 ter number

24 1811, please. For the record, that's the "Programme Orientation of the

25 Serbian Radical Party of the Republika Srpska published in Western Serbia,

1 number 2, July 1993."

2 Q. Mr. Tomic, could you describe what we're looking at? What is

3 the "Programme of the Serbian Radical Party of Republika Srpska"?

4 A. Well this is the platform of the Serbian Radical Party of

5 Republika Srpska, which was one of the branches of the Serbian Radical

6 Party. This programme dates back to 1993.

7 MS. BIERSAY: Mr. Registrar, if you could indeed enlarge paragraph

8 1.

9 Q. Mr. Tomic, could you --

10 MS. BIERSAY: Before we do that, could I have this marked as

11 identification, please.

12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be MFI P162.

13 MS. BIERSAY:

14 Q. Mr. Tomic, could you read paragraph 1, please.

15 A. "The Serbian Radical Party proposes as its primary objective

16 complete national, spiritual, cultural, economic and political unity of

17 the Serbian people. The Republika Srpska and the Serbian Radical Party

18 will strive to establish a free, independent and, above all, democratic

19 Serbian state comprising all of Serbian lands on the territory of the

20 former Yugoslavia."

21 Q. And now to draw your attention, if we could go to page 2 of the

22 B/C/S version, Mr. Registrar, to paragraph 5.

23 Mr. Tomic, could you now please read paragraph 5 for us?

24 A. "The RS SRS believes that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

25 should be supported as an intermediate solution which could ensure that

1 requesting international recognition of sovereignty be avoided, and with

2 that, the calculated conditioning and blackmailing by other foreign

3 countries. We consider that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as one of

4 the options for speeding up the process of uniting Serbs and Serbian lands

5 into one common Serbian state by retaining the international and legal

6 continuity of the Yugoslav state."

7 Q. And could you explain to us how the political objectives stated in

8 this programme compares with the one stated in the programme for the SRS

9 in Serbia?

10 A. The objectives are the same but the formulation is different. In

11 item 1 where there's a unification principle for all Serbian land, there

12 is no mention of all the territories that should be incorporated into this

13 single Serbia, whereas in the SRS platform we have all the regions that

14 are detailed and that are mentioned and all the regions that should be

15 included in this Serbian state. And here there -- actually, the political

16 reality is taken into account, the reality of the moment, of what was

17 happening at the time in 1993. The Chetnik Movement was not really

18 attached to a united Yugoslavia, but they had to accept the FRY as long as

19 the Serbian Republic of Krajina in Croatia or the Republika Srpska be

20 attached to this state. And there were a few statements going in that

21 direction, actually, from all state entities set up in Croatia and in BiH,

22 but Serbia never gave a positive answer to these statements. So the

23 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia seemed to be the vehicle that could be used

24 to recognise a state, bringing together all Serbs, given it was very

25 difficult to have recognition as a single state, as an independent state.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have three questions.

2 First, you've just read us paragraph 5 of a text. Could you tell

3 us what is the date of this document?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1993, but I don't remember the

5 month.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. 1993. At the time BiH

7 had been recognised as an independent state.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] At paragraph 5, on the last

10 sentence it is said, "continuity of the Yugoslav state." It seems that

11 it's their project, so it seems that they want a Serbian territory which

12 would be the continuity of the Yugoslav state. Is this how this sentence

13 should be interpreted?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the FRY believed that it was

15 the continuity of the former Yugoslav state. Of course there were some

16 republics that had separated from it. But for the Serbian Radical Party

17 this was a way, a legal vehicle, a legal way, to have recognition of a

18 state that would bring together all, what they called, Serbian lands.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So according to you this

20 paragraph should be interpreted or construed as such. The ones who

21 drafted this wanted a legal recognition of a Serbian state.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A Serbian state, yes, but that would

23 be provisionally called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This was one of

24 the possibilities that was envisaged, one of the possible scenarios.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, this seems to be one of the

1 options. And what are the other options?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, there were a few options that

3 were looked into for, number 1, unifying the republic -- Serbian Republic

4 of Krajina and the Republika Srpska, so unifying the western Serbian

5 countries in the first step, in so-called western Serbia, for example, and

6 then in the second step they would be unification between that western

7 Serbian state with Serbia per se or a Serbia Montenegro.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And this in a democratic and

9 legal way?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, this was -- all these states

11 were set up during war, the Republic of Krajina and Republika Srpska. But

12 at the time there had been a number of proclamations of independence but

13 in Belgrade the authorities did not approve this. It seemed that this

14 embarrassed them more than anything, this bothered them more than

15 anything.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You've just added something very

17 important. This option to have unification of Krajina and Republika

18 Srpska didn't really please Belgrade.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, nothing -- no positive answer

20 was given to this. For example, the Serbian Republic of Krajina said that

21 it was part of Serbia and that it would apply the laws of Serbia on its

22 territory and that it would be de facto attached to Serbia and it would

23 detach itself from Croatia, but Serbia did not heed that call, positively

24 anyway.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When you're talking about

1 Serbia, who are you talking about?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What about Slobodan Milosevic?

4 What was his point of view? Yes, if you could please speak slower.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The objective was to set up a single

6 Serbian state, but this raised practical problems, because if you had

7 enlarged Serbian states, there was a problem with international

8 recognition. So caution had to be exerted and caution was exerted from

9 Belgrade regarding this. But the policy of the support of the Serbs was

10 towards the creation of a single Serbian state.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But at the time there was the

12 Vance-Owen Plan that was going on, wasn't it? Was all this compatible

13 with the Vance-Owen Plan?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Vance-Owen Plan created a

15 problem to the partisans of the Serbian national cause because there was

16 no territorial continuity between the different regions that would be set

17 up within Bosnia-Herzegovina. The main problem was the corridor, the

18 Brcko corridor in the north of Bosnia, because there, there was

19 discontinuity.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could we please have the map on

21 the screen, the Vance-Owen map.

22 MS. BIERSAY: And that was P161, or 65 ter number 1764.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We have it on screen

24 and we see -- could you tell us where this corridor would be?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This corresponds to region number 3

1 in the very north of the country. Here there was a strategic access that

2 was absolutely essential for the Serbian leaders of the time, and it was

3 totally inconceivable for the political parties supporting

4 Republika Srpska to recognise the Vance-Owen Plan, because here you've got

5 Bosanska Krajina that would have been completely isolated and that would

6 not be connected to Serbia through this corridor. And this was a main

7 challenge. This was at stake during combat in 1991 and 1992.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] 4 to 3, is that it.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Number 4 would have to be linked to

10 region number 2.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And there it was not.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely, it was not. It was

13 separated.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And this is one of the reasons

15 why there was opposition from Serbs in Serbia?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Some in Serbia and also in the

17 Serbian Republic of BiH because the Serbs of Bosnia-Herzegovina did not

18 want this peace plan and rejected the peace plan.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

20 Ms. Biersay, I'm sorry I interrupted your questions, but I wanted

21 to understand what was at stake here, and I wanted to take advantage of

22 the presence of the witness. So you may resume.

23 MS. BIERSAY: Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Leaving the events of 1993, if I could ask Mr. Registrar to bring

25 up 65 ter number 264. For the record, that's described as "Seselj's

1 Interview with Pogledi, Published in One Politics as a Challenge to the

2 Conscience" and specifically this exhibit includes pages 66 to 72.

3 Q. Mr. Tomic, do you recognise that exhibit?

4 A. This is one of the books I studied, indeed, and I quoted on

5 several occasions of my report.

6 Q. Specifically it's in footnote 183 on page 88 of your report; is

7 that correct?

8 A. Which footnote is it, please?

9 Q. I believe it is footnote 183. Forgive me, 193.

10 A. Well, this is not the right footnote in my document.

11 Q. But do you recognise this document as being one on which your

12 report was based?

13 A. Yes, absolutely. I took quite a few good quotations from this

14 piece of work.

15 MS. BIERSAY: Your Honour, we'd seek the admission of 65 ter

16 number 264.

17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit number P163.

18 MS. BIERSAY:

19 Q. In this interview does Mr. Seselj discuss the presence of the SRS

20 in Croatia and BiH?

21 A. Yes, he does.

22 Q. And could you summarize for us what that presence was in BiH?

23 A. I can't remember the document in every detail. I don't remember

24 its contents. But he does allude to his trips through Bosnia, Krajina,

25 Slavonia, but these themes are recurrent ones in each of his works. So I

1 did not memorise each of the interviews.

2 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Do we have the date of this

3 interview?

4 MS. BIERSAY: The date, Your Honour, I believe, is 31st of May,

5 1991.

6 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

7 MS. BIERSAY: And it's found on the last page of the exhibit.

8 If I could ask Mr. Registrar to go to page 3 in the -- in e-court,

9 in the B/C/S, for Mr. Tomic, and similarly page 3 in the English version.

10 Q. Directing your attention to the page that's before us, on that

11 page it does describe Mr. Seselj's involvement in Bosnia, the Krajina,

12 Slavonia; is that correct?

13 A. Yes. In fact, he's being asked about his trip going to

14 Bosnia-Herzegovina because in a previous document we had seen that he had

15 set up a command, a Chetnik command, in the area of Romanija and here,

16 which he was supposed to take part in a broadcast in Sarajevo, there was a

17 protest that was organised in Sarajevo against the said broadcast to which

18 he was invited.

19 MS. BIERSAY: Your Honours, I have no further question for

20 Mr. Tomic. With respect to what has been marked as MFI P162, which is 65

21 ter number 1811, I would move for its admission.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, it will be admitted.

23 THE REGISTRAR: That will become Exhibit number P162.

24 MS. BIERSAY: And before I sit down, Your Honour, just to make the

25 cross-examination perhaps a bit more smooth, we would request any

1 documents that Mr. Seselj intends to show the witness that is not readily

2 available on the e-court system.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Ms. Biersay.

4 Mr. Seselj, the Prosecution are asking whether you have documents

5 that you seek to submit to the witness in your cross-examination? If you

6 have some, please tell us what they're about.

7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I do have several

9 documents, some of which I will show because it's important for them to be

10 seen visually by the witness, whereas I will provide some others tomorrow,

11 asking for them to be copied for the Prosecution. I received a certain

12 number of documents today by fax. It's up to me to offer them and it's up

13 to you to accept them or not. I don't have the same resources at my

14 disposal that the Prosecution has and as you have seen, in spite of all

15 their resources, they give themselves a lot of leeway in the presentation

16 of documents.

17 I will therefore begin my cross-examination and it's for you to

18 intervene if something is not correct in my cross-examination.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Go ahead.

20 Cross-examination by Mr. Seselj:

21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tomic, in what year were you born?

22 A. 1968.

23 Q. Where were you born?

24 A. In Novi Sad, in Vojvodina, in the Republic of Serbia.

25 Q. What is your father by ethnicity or nationality?

1 A. He was a Serb.

2 Q. What is your religion?

3 A. I don't have any.

4 Q. You're an atheist, then? Is that correct?

5 A. I was not christened. It doesn't mean that I'm an atheist. This

6 is the way I've lived so far, and it's fine by me.

7 Q. I don't object. It's up to you. But I have to know everything

8 about you and these are things that I have not been ascertain in any other

9 way. I hope you don't mind.

10 What university did you graduate from?

11 A. I studied in the National Institute of Oriental Languages and

12 Civilisation.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Where?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Paris. It is "Ecole Superiore."

15 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

16 Q. What is the precise title of your university diploma?

17 A. Diplome d'Etudes Appliquees, third cycle studies in France.

18 Usually called DEA in French, advanced study diploma or degree.

19 Q. Mr. Tomic, let's be very precise?

20 A. As soon as you graduated, did you acquire the title of master of

21 arts or did you have to go to a post-graduate course, take exams, defend

22 an MA thesis? That's what I would like to know.

23 A. In order to get this degree I've just mentioned I had to write a

24 dissertation of some hundred pages.

25 Q. I think you're avoiding answering my question. How long is the

1 regular course of studies?

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, you do not answer the

3 question.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The problem is that it's difficult

5 for me to hear, to understand, because Mr. Seselj speaks very loudly and I

6 hear both French and what he says, so I'm a bit confused in my earphones.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] DEA is a third cycle degree.

8 Before the third cycle there's a first and a second cycle.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So did you get a masters degree?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In that same institute and in order

14 to get this masters degree I wrote a dissertation of some hundred pages.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So this advanced study degree,

16 is that prior to a Ph.D.?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So after DEA you have a third

19 cycle Ph.D.?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you start research. You may

21 complete it or not as part of your Ph.D. studies.

22 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

23 Q. It seems I'm the only one who doesn't understand anything here.

24 This diploma of yours, does it correspond to a four-year course of studies

25 in Belgrade at the university? Is that the maitrise diploma?

1 A. Well, at the institute where I studied, the first cycle was three

2 years instead of two years in other French universities. Thereafter, you

3 would have two years that would correspond to licence and masters degree.

4 So that DEA, that advanced study degree, was after -- at the end of this

5 sixth year of study. That means that the programme, the curriculum, is

6 somewhat different at that institute compared to curricula in other French

7 universities.

8 Q. Very well. It's clearer to me now. When you completed those

9 three years, the first cycle, what was your title then?

10 A. Well, we don't have a title as such. You just have a degree, a

11 first-cycle degree. I'm not aware of any title in France for that level

12 of studies.

13 Q. I'll rephrase my question to make it simpler. When you obtained

14 the first cycle diploma, you finished this three-year course of studies,

15 what job are you qualified to perform? Can you teach languages in primary

16 or secondary school? Can you be a translator somewhere? What job are you

17 qualified for after those first three years of study?

18 A. I didn't hear everything, I'm sorry.

19 Q. I hope, as I have to repeat the question, it will be deducted from

20 my time. When you completed this first course of three-year studies you

21 became qualified to perform a job. What specific job did you become

22 qualified to perform after completing the three-year course of studies?

23 To teach languages in a school, to be a journalist, to be a translator?

24 A. After three years of study you get a degree, but it's not enough.

25 You need to have at least an additional year of study in order to apply

1 for a specific exams, admission exams or tests, to become a teacher, for

2 instance, or something equivalent.

3 Q. Does this mean that with the first cycle of three years, you have

4 no professional qualification?

5 A. No. Some degree of knowledge is acknowledged. That's precisely

6 the purpose of this degree, to validate the knowledge you have acquired.

7 And then later, depending on your field of interest, based on that degree

8 you can find a job. That's already enough in and of itself, but later on

9 it depends on the positions. If you want to become a teacher, that's

10 something -- part of public, you're a civil servant, so you have to meet

11 specific criteria to be entitled to apply. And say if you want to be a

12 cadre, a higher position, you must have at least what is called a licence

13 in France.

14 Q. You still haven't explained anything to me, but what I understand

15 is after the first three years of studies you are not able to perform any

16 kind of job, and had you not undertaken the second cycle, you would not

17 have a profession.

18 A. No. When you study there where you studied at this Institute of

19 Oriental Languages and Civilisation, you're not planning to get a job

20 after three years only. My idea was to have -- to study in the long term.

21 I was not thinking of getting a job. I was still a student then.

22 Q. Very well. We've lost a lot of time. You're avoiding answering

23 my question.

24 You studied languages --

25 A. I think that we have different university study systems, you see.

1 Q. Yes, I understand that, but you're avoiding answering my question.

2 Well, then, you undertook this second two-year course of study and

3 received a title of master of arts?

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Prosecution.

5 MS. BIERSAY: I would object to the characterisation of the

6 witness' testimony. He has, in fact, answered the question, and Mr.

7 Seselj continues to ask him the same question despite his answers.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. I'm going to intervene

9 because apparently Mr. Seselj does not understand how studying is carried

10 out in that institute.

11 Its purpose is the teaching of oriental or eastern languages.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And also if you decide,

14 civilisation, history, and geography.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And when you graduate, what do

16 you become? Is it to become an interpreter, a teacher, a journalist?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are all sorts of profiles

18 depending on your interest. I can't generalise.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And you, what was your profile?

20 What kind of job did you want?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was interested in history. I

22 wanted to teach at university initially.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The history of Balkans?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the history of the Balkans.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.

1 Please proceed, Mr. Seselj.

2 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

3 Q. So this second degree, the maitrise diploma you acquired,

4 corresponds to the title of master of arts; is that right?

5 A. What corresponds to the masters degree is the fifth year of study.

6 I mean, there's -- the first cycle is three years long and corresponds to

7 the licence is four years, and the masters is five years. The final

8 diploma for post-graduate corresponds to the sixth year of study. So I

9 specialised in history as of the fifth year of my studies, corresponding

10 to the masters degree.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But your dissertation, your

12 masters dissertation, was on which topic and your DEA dissertation was

13 which?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I studied the student's movement in

15 Yugoslavia between 1968 and 1971. It was the same topic for the two

16 dissertations, but the DEA study was just the continuation of the work

17 that I had already started for my masters thesis.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.

19 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Would you be kind enough as to tell me the precise title of that

21 research, not the -- what it's about but the topic of your dissertation?

22 A. "The student movement in Yugoslavia between 1968 and 1971 and the

23 authoritarian turn of the Yugoslav regime in 1972," I think that was more

24 or less the way it was called.

25 Q. So it's a topic from modern history. From your bibliography, I

1 see that you never dealt with ancient Serb history or older Serbian

2 history.

3 A. I read books on later history, but the history of Middle Ages is

4 either specialisation which requires knowing a certain number of languages

5 and you can't be -- you can't just work on the Middle Ages and at the same

6 time also work on modern history. You can't do both.

7 Q. Well, I know what you can and can't do, but I want to establish

8 what you did and what you did not do. When you say that you read books

9 from older history, it's like me telling you that I read all the works by

10 Balzac, Emile Zola, Viktor Goh [phoen] and Standal. So who has read what

11 doesn't mean anything, but you don't have a single reference showing that

12 you're an expert for older Serbian history.

13 A. I followed classes on the Middle Ages and on the following period,

14 on the Ottoman Empire. However, my research was not on this period. I

15 believe that to do that it would be best to know ancient Greek, ancient

16 Latin, in order to be able to study all possible sources available for

17 that period of time. I believe that there were a number of competencies

18 that were required that I did not have, and I decided not to specialise on

19 the Middle Ages. As a rule historians tend to specialise themselves from

20 a given period. You hardly ever have a historian that will cover an

21 entire period, all eras. Historians always specialised in one period, one

22 century, a couple centuries, but ...

23 Q. As an alleged specialist or expert for recent history and modern

24 history, you were recruited to write an expert report on the ideology of

25 Serbia in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. That's what matters to

1 me. And we see from your references that you are not an expert on that;

2 is that correct?

3 A. From two years, from 1999 to 2001, I taught on southern Slavs --

4 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not catch the period.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And I also taught on the Yugoslav

6 period at the time.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you please repeat the

8 period of time.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Between 1999 and 2001 I lectured at

10 University Paris for the Sabon.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And you were lecturing what?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The history of Yugoslav countries in

13 the nineteenth century.

14 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Mr. Tomic, if I, for example, were a professor at a French

16 university and had a Ph.D., and if I was being tried in France before a

17 French court because of my ideology and its practical repercussions, would

18 a single French court, in your opinion, ask you with the status of master

19 of arts to be an expert witness to evaluate the ideology of a person with

20 a Ph.D. who is a full-time university professor?

21 A. I don't know what criteria they use in the French legal systems to

22 call on experts. Their expertise are required in several areas,

23 psychology, and so on; I don't know what criteria are used. I don't know

24 the French legal system, at least in this respect.

25 Q. But you are aware of elementary logic and some academic ways. You

1 said that as of 1999 you are an associate, you cooperate with the French

2 Ministry of Defence for strategic issues.

3 A. I drafted some research for the French ministry of -- French

4 Ministry of Defence, notably for the Strategic Institute.

5 Q. Wait before the interpretation is finished.

6 A. I wrote three reports.

7 Q. What month in 1999?

8 A. It was in 1999. I remember that, but I can't tell you the month

9 exactly.

10 Q. Unlike you, Mr. Tomic, I remember everything I did 30 years ago

11 when I was a young assistant. But well, you don't remember.

12 A. This was not essential for me --

13 MS. BIERSAY: I object.

14 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

15 Q. It doesn't matter for you.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.

17 MS. BIERSAY: What Mr. Seselj remembers or doesn't remember is not

18 pertinent for the questions posed to this witness.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely. What's

20 important is what the witness knows or what the witness does not know,

21 what the witness recalls and what the witness does not recall.

22 Please continue, Mr. Seselj.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This question is very important to

24 me because I'm challenging the credibility of this expert witness. To the

25 best of my knowledge he worked for the French Ministry of Defence when

1 there were airstrikes against Serbia and the FRY.

2 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Is that correct, Mr. Tomic?

4 A. This is work that I did afterwards. I was not employed by the

5 Ministry of Defence as a salaried worker. I was just part of a project.

6 And for these projects, there are tenders that are launched and then the

7 different -- there's call for tenders and then I tendered to see if I

8 could get my research paper done, and it was the international

9 protectorate in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time. It was not dealing with

10 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at the time.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But you said that you made three

12 study papers for the Ministry of Defence. Could you tell us exactly what

13 topics they were on? You just told us one, could you give us the two

14 others?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The second one was on the national

16 Serbian question after the fall of Slobodan Milosevic and the outlook.

17 Secondly -- thirdly, the democratic transition in the Federal

18 Republic of Yugoslavia after 2000, and the research question here was the

19 security aspects.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And what was the purpose of

21 these research papers?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the Ministry of Defence has

23 teams that follow what's going on in the Balkans, notably in the former

24 Yugoslavia. They collect information through the ordinary channels,

25 through embassies, through their representatives in the area also, and

1 they also call on outside people to make research in order to cross the --

2 these different analyses, in order to have a debate between all the people

3 working in the ministry and the researchers that are outside the ministry

4 and specialised.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

6 Mr. Seselj.

7 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Mr. Tomic, at that time the French defence ministry was headed by

9 a socialist, Alain Richard.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Alain Richard is a self-declared Atlantist and very committed to

12 close cooperation with the USA; is that correct?

13 A. I can't answer positively. I never really wondered about this.

14 Q. All right. Alain Richard is a close associate of Michel Rocard;

15 right?

16 A. Yes, he is.

17 Q. Do you know that Michel Rocard is one of four French

18 representatives of the otherwise Anglo-Saxon International Crisis Group?

19 A. Maybe. I do not know the exact makeup of this organisation.

20 Q. Are you aware that the International Crisis Group was set up by

21 Morton Abramowitz, former US ambassador to Ankara and otherwise the main

22 arms supplier to Afghanistani Mujahedins at the time of the Mujahedin

23 insurgency against the Soviet army in Afghanistan? Just say yes or no.

24 A. No, no.

25 Q. You don't know. I won't insist, then. Do you know that

1 Morton Abramowitz was a special advisor to the separatist terrorist

2 Albanian delegation, to the Rambouillet negotiations, where Serbs were

3 faced with an ultimatum?

4 A. Possible but I don't know this exactly.

5 Q. Do you know that the remaining three French members of the

6 International Crisis Group Simone Weill, Jacques Delors and

7 Christine Ockrent?

8 A. I heard about the fact that Christine Ockrent belonged to this

9 organisation, but for the two others, I don't know.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The names are not on the

11 transcript. Could you please repeat the names, Mr. Seselj. The names are

12 not on the transcript yet.

13 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] Simone Weill, Jacques Delors and

14 Christine Ockrent.

15 Q. Christine Ockrent is the wife of Bernard Kouchner, the current

16 foreign minister of France.

17 A. Absolutely.

18 Q. Bernard Kouchner is the leader of a fierce anti-Serb campaign

19 going on in France for the past 17 years; is that correct?

20 A. I would not give an opinion on this. This is your appreciation.

21 Q. But you are an expert, Mr. Tomic. You should have an opinion on

22 that as well. But never mind.

23 A. Bernard Kouchner is the minister of foreign affairs and as a civil

24 servant, I think I'm not allowed to have an opinion on anything regarding

25 him.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The accused is asking a

2 question. He's saying allegedly -- that allegedly there would have been

3 an anti-Serb campaign launched and that Bernard Kouchner would have been

4 the leader of that campaign. Have you heard about it? Is it true? Is it

5 wrong?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Bernard Kouchner is known to be

7 favourable to a kind of diplomacy that requires intervention from foreign

8 states, from outside states, in order to help the people that are in the

9 midst of a conflict. It is true that this is his leaning.

10 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

11 Q. What's more important to me is that you confirmed that you were a

12 public servant and as such you cannot say anything about Bernard Kouchner.

13 It's much more important than the opinion you stated. You as a public

14 servant, you're also unable to be unbiased in this so-called expert

15 report.

16 A. This is different.

17 Q. Otherwise you're a member of the board of directors of Le Courrier

18 des Balkans. I'm sorry for my pronunciation.

19 A. I was member of the board of directors, but I am no longer part of

20 this board of directors for two years.

21 Q. What matters to me is that you were. You also published a

22 publication on the internet. And the president of that board of directors

23 was Prince Njegos, wasn't he?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. He lives in Paris as an emigre. This board of directors of yours

1 was very committed and advocated fiercely the separation of Montenegro

2 from Yugoslavia.

3 A. Le Courrier des Balkans is a site that translates papers and

4 articles from the papers in former Yugoslavia. It does not take position.

5 It is not -- doesn't make any recommendations on foreign policy. Its main

6 goal is to translate articles from the press in former Yugoslavia.

7 Q. The way in which you selected articles was extremely tendentious

8 and supported Montenegrin separatist inclinations?

9 A. I'm not responsible for the editorial line. We have an

10 editor-in-chief who is in charge of the editorial line. I was associated

11 to this organisation or association as an outside researcher to see what

12 kind of bridge could be set up between Le Courrier des Balkans and the

13 academic world.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, regarding this question of

15 Le Courrier des Balkans, you worked in this institution and within this

16 institution. Is everybody perfectly neutral or do some people take sides

17 or, as Mr. Seselj is saying, are there really editorial choices on

18 Montenegro, for example?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Personally I translated a few

20 articles either on request or articles that I selected myself, but my

21 contribution was very small. I did not attend the regular meetings. The

22 board of directors only met once or twice a year to run the internet site.

23 But in daily activities I was not associated. This site appeared in the

24 second half of the 1990s and its aim was to defend the independent media

25 in the former republics of Yugoslavia.

1 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Mr. Tomic, I have here a heap of your writings. First of all,

3 reviewing your bibliography, I see you wrote very little academic works.

4 You wrote mainly articles in the press genre, I would say. I have a large

5 number of your texts. All of them are ideologically committed.

6 A. That's what you think. I mainly published articles in academic

7 journals. I also wrote a few op eds for daily papers. But this is not my

8 essential intellectual activity.

9 Q. Which you call intellectual activity are political pamphlets, and

10 in your texts, whenever you mention the Serbian Radical Party, you say

11 that it's extreme or ultra-nationalist; is that correct?

12 A. Well, if you use such adjectives it is in order to categorise. To

13 identify parties, you have to qualify them depending on their programme,

14 their ideology. My words, the words I used, were not at all

15 inappropriate. It was not about casting a value judgement. It's not at

16 all in the same way as the Socialist Party in Serbia who started a

17 campaign in 1993 against radicals, saying that they were fascists, that

18 they were primitive, and stressed crimes allegedly committed by volunteer

19 units. That's not at all at the same level as I did. When I mentioned

20 nationalism or ultra-right nationalist, I used categories as they're used

21 in social sciences in order to identify political parties, to determine

22 their identity. And even today with regard to the presidential elections,

23 the recent elections in Serbia, all the press agencies spoke of

24 Tomislav Nikolic as an ultra-nationalist. I myself was asked, interviewed

25 by a Belgian radio some two weeks ago, and I criticised the use of such an

1 adjective or noun because I thought that the candidate did not stress the

2 national issue but mainly stressed economic and social issues.

3 Q. From what you just said it is evident that you operate with

4 ideological categories rather than scientific and theoretical ones. You

5 are engaged in day-to-day politics and you assume current ideological

6 positions. There is no scientific apparatus in this. You want to see

7 your text? They're all in French.

8 A. Well, you take a certain text that are basically editorials, that

9 cannot be compared to scientific papers published in academic journals

10 which have a scientific character. You know, in daily newspapers you have

11 op eds, editorials, and there are debates between people who may not be

12 like-minded and when you write such texts you do not have any footnotes or

13 any references to books, no bibliography. You can't put those texts on

14 the same footing as academic papers published in academic journals where

15 there is a committee selecting articles after careful, critical review.

16 Q. Mr. Tomic, you only confirmed my belief that you are a daily press

17 writer, not an academic, which we can see from your texts. You give

18 answers that are too eloquent, wasting my precious time, as if you were

19 coached by the Prosecution. What --

20 MS. BIERSAY: Objection, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment. He first has to

22 answer.

23 Yes, your objection, please?

24 MS. BIERSAY: What is the question? Mr. Seselj has made a series

25 of statements. What is his question?

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj, you must ask

2 questions. The question that was contained but was not really properly

3 expressed is this: The accused seems to say that you are a journalist

4 rather than an academic, a scientific person. What is your answer?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj stresses four or five

6 texts which were editorials published in the media, and they are but a

7 minute portion of what I may have published. You know, these are totally

8 different ball games, as it were. I never really cast any value judgement

9 as to the accused or his party.

10 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Your works are full of value judgements. I asked you a question.

12 What, in your opinion, does the word "extremist" mean, when I was

13 interrupted by the Prosecutor. I'm sorry I didn't yet remember her name.

14 A. Well, in France if you want to define political parties, some are

15 said to be left wing, right wing, extreme droite, extreme gauche, far

16 right, far left, and most interested in Serbia qualify the SRS as being

17 from the extreme right. Why so? Because the party shows intolerance

18 towards opinions that are not theirs, so the register, the tone, is in

19 black and white, friend or enemy, friend or foe. If you're not a friend

20 of their party, you are a traitor of the nation. And this is one of the

21 reasons why the term is used.

22 Now, as to extremists, parties that are called extremists may not

23 necessarily resort to violence. Some may. Some may not.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You see, Mr. President, how much

25 time has passed and I still haven't got an answer to my question, what the

1 word "extremist" means or "extreme." This is a story for little children,

2 what the witness is telling us. I want an answer to the question, what

3 the word "extreme" means. And please take that into account. He is

4 wasting at least 30 per cent of my time.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This term is used: "Can you

6 define the word extremist"?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's not clearly defined by

8 research either. It's in a position to moderates. There are political

9 parties that have specific objectives and in order to implement them they

10 use their means. Depending on the means and the objectives, the parties

11 are qualified as moderate parties or less moderate. The latter are

12 sometimes called extremist parties. But it is an expression, a term, used

13 by most politologists, by historians. I did not invent it.

14 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] In my personal view, the answer

15 that had been provided by the witness before, comparing extreme right and

16 extreme left, lack intolerance, friend or foe, that was an answer given to

17 the question about the definition of the term.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I note that this witness does not

19 know what the term "extreme" means and he said himself that he didn't

20 invent the term, and he is unable to explain it. What he has been telling

21 is some sort of application of the term in political jargon. He is using

22 a term, the meaning of which he doesn't know. But I'm moving on with my

23 question.

24 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

25 Q. What does the term "ultra" mean in the political sense? You

1 said "ultra-nationalist," "ultra-nationalist person"? What does it mean

2 politically?

3 A. I did not say that I used it. I said that press agencies use the

4 term, but I did not think it was adequate, for instance, with regard to

5 the latest presidential election in Serbia. So this is ultra or

6 hyper-nationalist, that puts the nation above all. It can have various

7 meanings depending on the reality of a given country.

8 Q. Mr. Tomic, in your text concerning the Serbian Radical Party you

9 used the term "ultra-nationalist" and now suddenly you can't remember

10 having used it. Are you going to say that you didn't use the term in your

11 writings?

12 A. I can't remember exactly, but if you have in mind certain texts,

13 when were they published?

14 Q. What I first want to know is whether you know the meaning of that

15 term, "ultra." I see that you don't. Don't you ask me questions.

16 A. It's certainly taken as an equivalent to "extreme" or "extremist."

17 Q. I am asking you what the term "ultra" means in the political

18 sense. Just honestly say you don't know, if you don't know.

19 A. Well, I'm trying to answer the question.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Did you use the

21 term "ultra-nationalist" in your report?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't think so. I did not use

23 the term, and as a rule in most of my work, I mean I'm known to be a

24 serious researcher, I don't use that sort of terms.

25 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

1 Q. Did you use the term "ultra" and "ultra-nationalist" in your

2 less-serious or not-serious texts?

3 A. Now you speak about certain texts, but maybe you should tell me

4 what year you're interested in.

5 Q. I'll tell you when I want to. Do you know what the term "radical"

6 means?

7 A. Well, many definitions are possible. It can be a way of

8 qualifying a policy defending principles in a strong way, in a vehement

9 way, so defending that sort of principle, being very attached to them.

10 There's also a radical political tradition.

11 Q. So you don't know what the term "radical" means. Did you ever

12 study Latin?

13 A. No, I did not study Latin.

14 Q. You wouldn't be able to tell us what the term "radics" means in

15 Latin?

16 A. Since I didn't read Latin, I can't answer that question.

17 Q. Very nice. Then you don't know what that term means and you are

18 dealing with Greater Serbia and its ideological concept.

19 When was the first time anybody presented the project of

20 unification of all Serb lands? Do you know that?

21 A. I know that there was a project of Serbs living at the end of the

22 seventeenth century, those who lived in the Austrian Empire, but I can't

23 remember the name. It didn't have a major impact after, later.

24 Q. Do you know who came forward with that project, the name of the

25 man?

1 A. I just told you that I didn't remember the name. He was a Serb in

2 the Austrian Empire, and he had a political project going along the line

3 of Greater Serbia; and it had been submitted to the authorities of the

4 empire, so around 1697. I can't remember exactly. But this initiative

5 did not leave a major imprint later on.

6 Q. Don't make things up, Mr. Tomic. Do you know when was the last

7 Turkish siege of Vienna?

8 MS. BIERSAY: Objection, Your Honour.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1683.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Biersay.

11 MS. BIERSAY: I'd object to the constant commentary on the

12 witness' answers. Either he poses a question and he moves on, but to do

13 that, I think, is inappropriate.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj, you do exactly

15 what Mr. Milosevic used to do: You add commentaries to your questions.

16 You must ask a question, he answers, and then you move on to another

17 question and so on. If you want to make any comments, if you are clever,

18 you put it into a question you want to put to the witness.

19 For instance, now you said "You're inventing dates." He

20 said "around 1697" so he doesn't know. He's not inventing.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that's what I'm doing. I'm

22 noting that the witness knows nothing, Mr. President. But he did know

23 when the last Ottoman siege of Vienna and I congratulate him. But he

24 doesn't know about Count Djordje Brankovic and his memo to the Austrian

25 Emperor. And he's presenting his expert report in my trial. You don't

1 know this, so we're moving on.

2 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

3 Q. When in history was the next time the term "Greater Serbia" was

4 used? I see that you quoted in your bibliography the book of

5 Mihailo Stanisic. That means you read the book. When was the next time?

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'll take up the question. You

7 were asked to write an expert report on the concept of the Greater Serbia.

8 As a historian you should try to know who may have written on the topic

9 and here you confess that you did not know that Count Djordje Brankovic -

10 sorry if I misspell or mispronounce the name - that he had done some work

11 on this topic at the time.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The book just mentioned references

13 made to this individual, but without any further detail, I don't know of

14 any systematic study on this. As a rule, when this ideology is mentioned,

15 one starts of the nineteenth century, as of the time when the national

16 ideology is more clearly formulated. It may be that it had been expressed

17 prior to that, but they're rarely taken into account in relation to the

18 Greater Serbian project.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

20 Please go on, Mr. Seselj.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And it's important to me for the

22 Serbian public that all this be said here so that Serb historians could

23 crack up laughing. Count Djordje Brankovic is the lighthouse of the

24 entire Serbian concept.

25 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

1 Q. My question was not about the nineteenth century. That comes

2 next. Who, in the beginning of the nineteenth century, mentioned the idea

3 of Greater Serbia and the unification of Serbian lands?

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Wait a minute. The Prosecutor

5 is on her feet.

6 MS. BIERSAY: I again have an objection to the running commentary

7 by Mr. Seselj.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. This was again a

9 commentary. Rather than do that, just take up the question again. You've

10 just said that this concept was only studied in the nineteenth century,

11 whilst there were others who studied this topic, for instance,

12 Count Brankovic, and he can answer yes or no. That avoids the running

13 commentary and also in this way the Prosecution will not object.

14 Please continue.

15 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

16 Q. I repeated my question twice: Who was the first in the nineteenth

17 century who mentioned that term and referred to the unification of all

18 Serb lands? The question couldn't have been more direct.

19 A. At the time, as of 1804, as the time of the first Serbian

20 uprising, this idea is starting to take roots and together all the Serbs

21 living around the Pasaluk, the Belgrade Pasaluk. Indeed, this idea may

22 have been formulated by important people, leaders at the time,

23 intellectuals. Later on the term was used by the Austrians. But now do

24 we speak about Greater Serbia or the idea of unifying the Serbian people?

25 Q. Mr. Tomic, thus you don't know that Arsenije Gagovic, the

1 archbishop of Piva the monastery, in 1803, in Petrograd presented to the

2 official representatives of the Russian government a plan about creating a

3 Greater Serbia that would unify all Serb lands.

4 A. I did not know it, but I didn't see any works on the Serbia

5 mentioned at this initiative.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So before answering, you

7 understand the language of the accused and so you answer too quickly, too

8 promptly, and the interpreters do not have time to interpret. So please

9 wait a little before answering.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Shall I continue?

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.

12 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation].

13 Q. Who is the next after Arsenije Gagovic who mentioned in writing

14 the term "Greater Serbia" do you know? In writing.

15 A. I did not make a historical list of when the word "Greater Serbia"

16 had been used. I looked at the -- what was done in the nineteenth century

17 and this is in all books that deal with the history of the nineteenth

18 century. I didn't go into details regarding all and looked into all

19 possible projects that may have been devised. I just focused on the main

20 projects. I did not write a detailed history of Serbia. I wrote a

21 report, a hundred-page report. I wanted to be very clear and

22 straightforward.

23 Q. You, Mr. Tomic, do not know therefore that there were three very

24 serious projects of Greater Serbia and the unification of Serb lands

25 before Garasanin's Nacertanije, and you know that -- you don't know that

1 the third project in 1804 was presented by the Serb metropolit Stevan

2 Stratimirevic in his memorandum to the Russian emperor?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not receiving interpretation.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please repeat because you were

5 too fast in answering, and the interpreters couldn't follow. Mr. Seselj,

6 please repeat your question you're too fast. You speak much too fast and

7 the interpreters couldn't follow.

8 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

9 Q. You have never heard that in 1804, the Serb metropolit

10 Stevan Stratimirevic, in his memorandum to the Russian emperor presented a

11 plan for creating a Greater Serbia by uniting all Serb lands, right?

12 A. I don't remember.

13 Q. Very well. When was the first time that a journal or a newspaper

14 called "Greater Serbia" was started?

15 A. I believe it was at the end of 1880s.

16 Q. Do you know who started it?

17 A. I did not keep the name of this person in mind.

18 Q. It was started by an institution. What was the name of that

19 institution?

20 A. Must have been a society or Drustvo Velika Srbija, probably.

21 Q. The Greater Serbia Society, but you don't know that it was started

22 by a great Serbian poet, Stevan Kacanski.

23 Have you ever held this book in your hands?

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the usher please take it to

25 the witness.

1 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Would you read the title? We're only interested in the title,

3 nothing else.

4 A. "The Print of All Issues of Greater Serbia - Journal from 1888

5 Until 1903."

6 Q. You've never held it in your hands?

7 A. I knew that this journal existed.

8 Q. What about this reprint? Have you ever held that?

9 A. No, I did not use it.

10 Q. Do you know who, in 1903, started a second edition of Greater

11 Serbia?

12 A. I believe it was one of the persons who was associated with this

13 first publication, but I don't remember the name.

14 Q. So you don't know that it was Dragutin Ilic, brother of a great

15 Serbian poet Vojislav Ilic?

16 A. No. These elements did not seem important to me. And when you

17 talk about national Serbian ideas, you did not -- these journals are not

18 mentioned. Of course you were interested when you published this

19 magazine, Velika Srbija, to take a look at all -- everything that had been

20 printed with this title since the beginning, but I'm not sure, I don't

21 think that these publications were that important in the formulation of

22 the national Serbian ideology.

23 Q. Please don't waste my time with such explanations that have no

24 importance whatsoever --

25 MS. BIERSAY: Objection.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, objection. Of course the

2 objection is sustained. Don't criticise, Mr. Seselj. Move onto something

3 else. Don't criticise if you don't like the answer. I mean, you can ask

4 questions that call for an answer of yes, no, I don't know. It's up to

5 you to lead in a proper way and give the right questions in order to get

6 the answers you want.

7 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Do you know, Mr. Tomic, when Greater Serbia was published as a

9 daily?

10 A. During first -- during World War I.

11 Q. Where?

12 A. In Salonika.

13 Q. Have you ever seen this book?

14 A. This is the reprint of this paper. I have it in my office.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay, do you want to see

16 the book? Is that it.

17 MS. BIERSAY: No, Your Honour, to have them marked for

18 identification.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You'll be handed

20 these books.

21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] But before this I have a question

22 for Mr. Seselj. Why is this journal -- why is the subtitle of this

23 journal in Italian?

24 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not catch it.

25 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Since you know absolutely

1 everything about Greater Serbia, you must know why the subtitle is in

2 Italian.

3 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] A counter-question. Is it also in

4 French, "La Grande Serbie"? Is that also given in French, the subtitle?

5 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] It's in Italian, and it means

6 Serbia will be alone.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Because the idea of Greater Serbia

8 follows the Italian great idea, "risorgimento," because the idea of

9 Greater Serbia coincides with the idea of unification and liberation of

10 Italy. Great men of the Italian national movement had a great influence

11 on Serb intellectuals, Garibaldi and others.

12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Mr. Tomic, since you were aware of the Salonika version of Greater

15 Serbia, would you please have a look at one of the cover pages, any one of

16 them. What is above the heading "Greater Serbia"?

17 A. Greater Serbia.

18 Q. In French? It says "Le Grande Serbie" in French. Maybe my

19 pronunciation is not great. Do you know why?

20 A. Because the Serb soldiers were fighting with the French soldiers

21 around Thessaloniki in the eastern army with the French soldiers who were

22 fighting in the eastern front.

23 Q. Am I right when I say that the heading in French is there because

24 we Serbs loved France at the time, almost as much as we loved Serbia

25 itself?

1 A. There is a friendship that emerged between the two peoples during

2 World War I, in as much that France welcomed a good number of Serbian

3 refugees, notably children, and also because the two armies fought

4 together from Saloniki in order to free territories that would later

5 become part of Yugoslavia.

6 Q. Mr. Tomic, do you know what -- where the other publications of the

7 great Serbian newspaper? So we have this publication of Stevan Kacanski

8 then we have this edition of Dragutin Ilic from 1903, then we have the

9 Saloniki, one from 1916 to 1918. What others are there?

10 A. After the war there may have been another series but I don't know

11 it. I believe that these are documents that may be entitled "Greater

12 Serbia" but they don't help us historians because there is no mention of

13 the project of Serb unification in this, all these publications. I'm not

14 the only one not to mention them. Most historians who worked on the

15 Serbian ideology never mentioned these journals.

16 Q. Mr. Tomic, I'm drawing the conclusion that with regard to

17 something you haven't read, you assume you know in advance what it

18 contains. You know about two pre-war series of the Greater Serbia, the

19 Voljeva [phoen] and the Nis one?

20 A. I don't know.

21 Q. You don't know that in the 20s in the Kingdom of Serbs and

22 Slovenes, there was another two series between 1920 and 1926, one

23 published by the Serbian party and another published by a group of

24 intellectuals. You don't know that either, do you?

25 A. This party must have had a very marginal position. It was so

1 marginal that it was never mentioned. I never saw it mentioned in the

2 history of Yugoslavia between the two world wars. Serbia Stranka doesn't

3 mean anything to me.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Would you be so kind as to show this

5 book as well to Mr. Tomic.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Biersay.

7 MS. BIERSAY: I'm wondering if we could mark for identification

8 the now three books that Mr. Seselj is showing the witness.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. If we give an MFI

10 number -- well, that's one thing. We could always give an MFI number, but

11 we need to know whether Mr. Seselj will eventually tender the entire book

12 or only an excerpt of the book or the cover of the book or what exactly he

13 wants to tender.

14 Mr. Seselj, what's your purpose? If your purpose is to show that

15 Greater Serbia is a notion that dates back to -- immemorial times, at

16 least in the early nineteenth century as you are trying to prove in this

17 journal, this collection of prints, where we see that there is a

18 collection of several texts. I note that earlier there was a mention in

19 Italian, and I know that in the second book it's in French, "Grande

20 Serbie" in French. If this is your point, we can give an MFI number or a

21 final number. If it's the entire content you're interested in, then we

22 have a problem. The translation -- the CLSS will not translate this

23 entire book.

24 So, Mr. Seselj, what exactly is your point? These are exhibits

25 coming from the Defence, so what do you want to do with them.

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I will be very

2 precise. My ultimate goal is to fully discredit this expert report and

3 these three large volumes are volumes I'm tendering as exhibits because of

4 their visual impression, as an exhibit showing what this expert did not

5 consult. So none of the texts in these books has to be translated. The

6 size of the books is impressive as testimony to everything that the expert

7 did not consult, as if you were to introduce into evidence a pistol or a

8 knife that had been used to commit a crime. So they are not being

9 tendered as documents but as objects. I hope you understand me. So there

10 is no need to translate anything, but I want the books to be exhibited so

11 that when the evidence is evaluated it can clearly be seen what this

12 expert, who wrote an expert report, did not consult.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

14 What's the position of the Prosecution? Mr. Seselj is saying that

15 he has three books. He wants to create a visual impression and he is not

16 asking for the content to be translated. He's not interested in the

17 substance; he just wants to show that Greater Serbia was a concept that

18 had been used, that had already been used by others, and that the expert

19 witness did not consult at least these three books.

20 Before answering I believe that the witness would like to say

21 something.

22 Mr. Tomic, you have the floor.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. This

24 term "Greater Serbia" may have been used, including by a French historian,

25 Ernest Denis, who published a World War I book called "Greater Serbia."

1 This could also be used by Vladimir Corovic, a Serbian historian who wrote

2 a book in 1924 titled "Greater Serbia." Without these books being a

3 research into the project of unification of the Serbian people. I looked

4 at the book by Ernest Denis, and it described the historical and political

5 life of Serbian nineteenth century, talking about the Yugoslav unification

6 project rather than the Serbian unification project. Similarly, Djovic,

7 in his book that was reprinted not as "Greater Serbia" but

8 as "Unification," mentions the contribution of the Serbs to the Yugoslav

9 unification process. So these are huge books and they do look big because

10 these are a collection of journals, so these are reprints of papers.

11 I have looked through the journal that was printed in Solaniki and

12 I must say they are not necessarily essential to study Serbian

13 nationalism.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 What about the Prosecution?

16 MS. BIERSAY: I think there are two issues, Your Honour. One is

17 with respect to identifying the books just for the record. I'm not sure

18 what the best way is to do that, whether it's through MFI or some other

19 system, with the title, et cetera.

20 The second thing is if we could have an opportunity to inspect

21 these books, it's possible that even though Mr. Tomic did not consult

22 these specific volumes, that he in fact did consult articles included in

23 these volumes. So if we could just have an opportunity to review them.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If you want to review them,

25 you'll have the whole night because you may have redirect, so you have the

1 whole night. Mr. Mundis is helping you out and you have your language

2 assistant. So I've answered one of your questions.

3 We're going to give an MFI number.

4 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I must say that the MFI number as

5 such, well, that's a provisional identification, a marking, to see whether

6 the exhibit is going to be finally admitted as an exhibit. This is not to

7 be ruled out. But look, this one is in B/C/S, so the Trial Chamber will

8 never be able to review them. I would be opposed to this idea. I think

9 that the transcript is enough for the purpose of the accused.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj, the Trial

11 Chamber is of this view: If nobody plans to go to the substance of these

12 three volumes and you just want to say, Look, there are three books, three

13 collections of dailies published at the time or journals in which the

14 topic of Greater Serbia can be found, that may be enough. Now, if the

15 Prosecution wants to spend the whole night reviewing them, it's their own

16 decision. Now, Mr. Seselj, is this it? You just want the Trial Chamber

17 to be aware, to be made aware of the fact that there are collections of

18 daily publications of the nineteenth century, late 1890s, that mention

19 Greater Serbia? Is that all you wanted, Mr. Seselj? Let me add this:

20 And you wanted to demonstrate that the witness did not know them or had

21 not looked into them.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, sir, I would like not to be

23 interrupted by the witness.

24 Mr. President, I think that the Prosecution has demonstrated so

25 far incredible persistence in tendering the most irrelevant materials,

1 including textbooks of military academies, command staff academies, and

2 JNA war schools, 500 pages each, and all of it translated into English.

3 Why am I insisting on having these books admitted into evidence, even if

4 no one ever looks at them? I'm counting on the huge historical and legal

5 significance of these trials and the future researchers who will look at

6 the files. Not a single text has to be read. Nothing has to be

7 translated. But this is impressive evidence that the witness did not know

8 anything about this. That's what I insist on.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. We're going to have

10 numbers for the three books.

11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the three books will be marked MFI

12 D10, D11, and D12, respectively.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] D10, D11, D12. Very well. So

14 these books will be kept by the Registry. As you said, when we're gone,

15 if there are ever researchers interested in what was said, they can look

16 at them.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just wanted to say that the Velika

18 Srbija volume from 1916, I've got that one.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is also in the transcript.

20 It has been recorded.

21 Please proceed, Mr. Seselj.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The registrar is telling me that

23 now we have to have a break. We're going to have a 20-minute break.

24 --- Recess taken at 5.34 p.m.

25 --- On resuming at 5.55 p.m.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We're going to

2 continue with the cross-examination.

3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

4 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Mr. Tomic, do you know when, after World War II, the

6 periodical "Greater Serbia" came out?

7 A. The first issue was published in July 1990.

8 Q. Was there an illegal publication before that?

9 A. I'm not aware of any prior issue.

10 Q. So you're not aware that there was an illegal issue in the 1940s

11 and early 1950s comprising 17 mimeographed issues.

12 A. If you have in mind something that was published in the 1950s,

13 after the Second World War and that was just circulated hand to hand

14 because such publications could not be endorsed by the governing powers,

15 no, I'm not aware of that document. Are they in the national library of

16 Serbia today? I don't think so.

17 Q. No, they are not in the national library of Serbia. There's an

18 edition in the possession of the people who published it. One of them is

19 Miodrag Jovicic, the late academician.

20 A. Yes, I'm aware. He's a lawyer.

21 Q. Yes, a member of the academy. But you don't know that he was one

22 of the initiators of the illegal Xeroxed edition of "Greater Serbia" after

23 World War II? You don't know that, did you?

24 A. I don't know and I can explain you why. It was an underground

25 publication so it was not in academic or university libraries not even in

1 the national libraries, so it was very hard for me to consult that

2 document.

3 Q. But true scholarly researchers find ways of finding such things.

4 But you're not a real scholarly researcher, are you?

5 A. I can only research into things I know and things that exist. And

6 that was only circulated hand to hand. It was a kind of Samizdat. So

7 these are publications that it's very hard to locate, to find at all.

8 Q. Do you know the name of the philosophical magazine, a periodical

9 for philosophy, social sciences, and the social critique published by the

10 Serbian Radical Party?

11 A. I know that there is a quarterly review or journal, I believe. Is

12 it "Velika Srbija"? I can't remember the title exactly.

13 Q. This means that you have never held that scholarly periodical in

14 your hands.

15 A. Well, it all depends on the date, the year, in which the first

16 issue was published.

17 Q. I can see from your response that you never held it in your hands.

18 The first issue was published in the year 2000, and so far 70 volumes have

19 been published.

20 A. That's only normal that I focused on the documents that were

21 published before the war broke out in the former Yugoslavia. I focused on

22 statements and texts for the period from 1991 to 1995, and for the time

23 beyond that, I thought this was outside my mission statement. As far as I

24 could see it was only logical for me not to inspect this publication.

25 Q. It's logical for you not to deal with a well-established scholarly

1 periodical which published a large number of papers by renowned Serbian

2 historian inter alia?

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Would you be kind enough to hand

4 Mr. Tomic an issue of this periodical.

5 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

6 Q. There are 70 volumes like this one that have been published,

7 Mr. Tomic. Please be kind enough to read out loud the name of the

8 periodical.

9 A. "Serbian Free Thought."

10 Q. That's volume 13, is it not?

11 A. Yes, it is.

12 Q. Would you be kind enough to turn to page 25, please. It can be

13 put on the ELMO, too. What do you see on page 25, Mr. Tomic?

14 A. This is the book written by Denis called "The Greater Serbia."

15 Q. Would you be kind enough to turn to page 161. You have a part of

16 the text here which has been marked. Would you be kind enough to read it,

17 as you speak Serbian and read Serbian? Just what has been marked, the

18 last paragraph and then it continues on the next page for a bit.

19 A. "The pan-Serbian programme is not the product of the imagination

20 of a handful of dreamers. History and ethnography have imposed it on

21 politicians."

22 Q. Go on.

23 A. I'm waiting for the interpreters.

24 "It follows from the consciousness of the people who, for several

25 centuries, have aspired by continual and unanimous effort to join together

1 the fate of its members. It follows from this clearly without violating

2 the principles of international justice and without impinging upon the

3 deepest and most natural feelings of the southern people."

4 Q. Turn to the next page, please.

5 A. "Bosnia-Herzegovina and the tri-unitary Kingdom of Croatia,

6 Slavonia and Dalmatia must without doubt be the part of the new Serbian

7 kingdom."

8 Q. Do you know when the book by Ernest Denis was first published in

9 Serbian?

10 A. I don't know, but it was published in French in 1915, during the

11 First World War.

12 Q. No wonder you don't know because never before was it published in

13 Serbian. This is its first edition in the Serbian language.

14 Mr. Tomic, have you read the whole of Ernest Denis's book or have

15 you just leafed through it or have you just found its title in a

16 bibliography?

17 A. No, I have read it. Maybe you have to check the translation.

18 Q. Is it clear to you, Mr. Tomic, as you have read the book, that

19 Ernest Denis included in the territory of Greater Serbia all the southern

20 Slav territories with the exception of a Bulgaria, all the territories

21 inhabited by Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes?

22 A. He, first and foremost, speaks to the Yugoslav unification project

23 and he does indeed include all those territories into the project defended

24 by the government, the Soviet government at the time.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have a question for you. I

1 did not know who Ernest Denis was. I discovered this during the

2 examination-in-chief led by Milosevic together with Seselj when he was a

3 witness and this name appeared as part of the questions. You knew that

4 you were to testify. You didn't look into his work, knowing that he

5 might -- had written about Greater Serbia?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was a Sabon professor specialised

7 in the Czech and Slovak worlds, and he was supposed to have been paid by

8 the Soviet government at the time in order to champion the interests of

9 Serbia to France.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] How do you know this?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I forgot the exact source, but at

12 the time it was common practice in the "Journal Illustre des Temps." It

13 was frequent for journalists to be paid by outside governments in order

14 for their opinions to be promoted to the French public opinion.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Is it different today?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that things have evolved and

17 developed since then.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, please continue.

19 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

20 Q. So you are now trying to discredit the renowned

21 Professor Ernest Denis and his good intentions. You say that he was paid

22 by the Serbian government but you don't know the source of this

23 information. Can a true scholar present things in this way?

24 A. Of course this should be verified, but this is something that I

25 saw in books that I had in my hands. But this being said, this book

1 mainly mentions the Yugoslav unification project. It may have beared the

2 title of "Greater Serbia" but it is not a book in which the project of

3 unifying Serbs is stated and set out clearly or in a systematic way.

4 Q. Mr. Tomic, you evidently haven't read the book because had you

5 read it you would have seen that Ernest Denis considers that all Croats

6 are in fact Serbs; is that correct? But as you haven't read the book, you

7 don't know that. Am I right?

8 A. He certainly mentions close peoples, mentioning Serbs and Croats,

9 and among the political and intellectual elites of the time there was a

10 view that Serbs and Croats were one and the same nation. It was a common

11 thing at the time in educated circles.

12 Q. But he sees the unification of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in the

13 Kingdom of Greater Serbia. Isn't that what he says explicitly in his

14 book?

15 A. Well, the title says "Greater Serbia" but in fact at the time that

16 was the name given to Yugoslavia.

17 Q. At that time, Mr. Tomic, there was no Yugoslavia in existence. It

18 should be clear to you that the first common state was called the Kingdom

19 of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes; isn't that right?

20 A. That was, indeed, the official name.

21 Q. Yes. Mr. Tomic, in your expert report you include the false

22 information that Professor Ernest Denis was being paid by the Serbian

23 government to write such a book and now you say that you don't know from

24 what source you got this information; is that correct?

25 A. I think I found this information in Velika Srbija, Stanisic's book

1 that deals with Greater Serbian projects.

2 Q. Now you think --

3 A. Stanisic, sorry.

4 Q. You were able to read in Stanisic's book on all the predecessors

5 of Vuk Karadzic as regards the ideology of Greater Serbia, but we see that

6 you don't remember it. And now you are not sure you found it in

7 Stanisic. You don't know where you found it, and yet you include it in

8 your expert report. And there's no footnote giving us your source. So

9 you have included a serious unverified accusation against the renowned

10 Professor Denis; is that correct?

11 A. Well, I read history and in classes and courses this phenomena was

12 mentioned, for instance, regarding this daily called Le Temps, some Slav

13 studying professors had been paid to defend the causes -- professors had

14 been paid to defend the causes of Serb people. So when I read this piece

15 of information, it did not seem to be unfounded. Because this work is

16 mentioned but another one as well of the same tenet.

17 Q. And where is your foundation? You have very suspect thesis

18 because you're no kind of intellectual or scholar. Isn't that right,

19 Mr. Tomic?

20 MS. BIERSAY: Objection, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You should have put the question

22 in a better way. You should have asked this: Are you an intellectual?

23 You can answer yes, no. Are you a scientist? You can answer yes or no.

24 So what do you say? Because Mr. Seselj is challenging you, so what do you

25 have to say?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My position, my job, is regarded as

2 an intellectual job, and I also conducted research that was validated by

3 university, academic institutions, scientific work. Now, maybe I should

4 have been more curious maybe in this particular respect and checked this

5 point further, but in my view this work on Greater Serbia was not

6 essential. I was mainly interested in knowing how intellectuals or

7 Serbian political leaders formulated the ideology themselves, and I was

8 not so much interested in finding out other external academics, such as

9 French academics, might have thought of the question, people that were not

10 from there. Indeed, this book is not essential.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed, Mr. Seselj.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, Mr. President, let me

13 remind you that I do have the right to put leading questions during

14 cross-examination. Therefore, my question was proper. I made a statement

15 and asked if it was correct.

16 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Secondly, Mr. Tomic --

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are right but that's not the

19 problem. The problem is that Ms. Dahl made an objection. She was saying

20 that you are proceeding with a different confirmations and statements and

21 you're supposed to ask questions. And I'm sorry, it's not Ms. Dahl, I

22 always have Ms. Dahl in mind. It's Ms. Biersay. I was an entire year

23 with her, and her name is in my mind.

24 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] And I have already forgotten about

25 Ms. Dahl.

1 Q. Mr. Tomic, you say that you were not primarily interested in what

2 foreigners wrote about the project of Greater Serbia, but you stated what

3 Ernest Denis wrote in your expert report and you put in the unfounded

4 claim that he was a mercenary of the Serbian government, that he was on

5 their payroll. In every Serbian university such a scholar would be thrown

6 out immediately. How is that possible? If you have nothing to say in

7 reply, I am moving on to my next question.

8 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, he did not directly

9 assess Professor Ernest Denis. He just repeated what he had seen that had

10 been written on this person and on other French academics at the time.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But, Madam Judge, that's precisely

12 the problem, that he doesn't say who wrote -- that Ernest Denis was on the

13 payroll of the Serbian government. Maybe a French intellectual was indeed

14 on the payroll of the Serbian government. I don't know. I never dealt

15 with this. I know that Ernest Denis was not. Ernest Denis is a great

16 name, a luminary, especially for the history of Slav peoples, not only

17 Serbs. And here a great scholar is slandered without a shred of evidence.

18 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

19 Q. So, Mr. Tomic, let's move on. Please turn to page 173, if the

20 usher would be so kind as to put it on the ELMO. Page 173 of this

21 magazine of the Serbian Radical Party.

22 This book by Milan Jevtic is something you have never seen; is

23 that correct?

24 A. That is the case.

25 Q. That book is in the Serbian language and was published in New York

1 in 19 -- it's a book that was published in Serbian, I was saying, in

2 New York in 1919. Since you have never seen it before I am not going to

3 dwell on it. I cannot examine you on a book you haven't read, right?

4 Could you please turn to page 287. That is the front page of the

5 book by Vladimir Corovic, "Greater Serbia," that you were aware of,

6 published in 1924.

7 A. Absolutely.

8 Q. Have you read that book?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Based on the reading of that book, was it clear to you that

11 Vladimir Corovic believed that Greater Serbia had been realised by the

12 relation of the Kingdom of Croats, Serbs, and Slovenes. Isn't that the

13 main thought of this book?

14 A. In this book Vladimir Corovic systematically presented the Serbian

15 unification project, and Rados Lucic, who is a well-known historian in

16 Serbia, in the -- something written in this book in the post phase as well

17 as something written on Serbia, this person says that when he wrote

18 "Velika Srbija," this book "Velika Srbija," he was not thinking of the

19 Serbian unification project but the Yugoslav unification project. As I

20 said earlier the reprint of this book was no longer "Velika Srbija"

21 because it seemed that it created a problem but [French spoken]. So the

22 author changed the title in order to have a title that would really

23 correspond to the substance of the book, because in this book "Velika

24 Srbija" the point was not to define the Serbian unification project.

25 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Witness, please, there's

1 something I don't understand. You keep repeating this word "Yugoslav,"

2 but for a period where Yugoslavia did not exist. Do you mean southern

3 Slavs?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, the term had already been coined

5 in early -- early in the second part of the nineteenth century. The

6 Yugoslav project was already existing and there were people who defined

7 themselves as such, Yugoslavs.

8 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes. But in other languages,

9 like in French, because the French was very interested in all this, so

10 were they talking about Yugoslavia or were they talking about a territory

11 that would bring together all Slavs from the south, or southern Slavs?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that we were talking not

13 of Yugoslavia but Yugoslavs.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] First, so everybody can

15 understand, can you make a difference between Greater Serbia and this

16 concept of Yugoslavs? Is there a difference? If so, please tell us

17 where.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in Ernest Denis's book he's

19 mixing Greater Serbia and the Yugoslav unification project. When he's

20 talking about Greater Serbia, when he's talking about this the process by

21 which southern Slavs can be unified, minus the Bulgarians. At the time

22 the main idea was the Croats and the Serbs were the one and only nation.

23 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] They are Slavs from the south.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Slavs from the south. And in

25 the elite circles and -- the idea was that Serbs and Croats and also the

1 Slovenes were part and parcel of what -- one unique nation.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So if I understand, this concept

3 of Yugoslavs deals with Slavs from the south.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Slavs from the south. But this

5 project of unification did not include the Bulgarians. They are also

6 Slavs from the south but they were not included. So it was mainly

7 Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs.

8 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Because -- I'm asking you the

9 etymology of it. "Yugoslav" means Slavs of the south. "Yugo" is "south."

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please continue.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just have to note one thing to

13 avoid misunderstanding among the Judges. We see precisely from this that

14 Croats are considered to be Serbs of Catholic faith because they speak

15 Serbian, and that's why the concept of Greater Serbia encompasses all

16 Croats because there are very few Croats who did not speak original

17 Serbian, who speak the Cakavian dialect, or the Cakavian dialect. But the

18 witness doesn't understand this. I just want to show you that this

19 witness has not read the book of Vladimir Corovic. Look at the last

20 passage in the book that I marked. Could you put it on the ELMO, please.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]

22 "All the great things that we have today achieved by superhuman

23 effort remains as a legacy to the younger generations for them to develop

24 it and make it more complete. Raising above us, they should naturally

25 rise higher than we did. We can with a clear conscience say that few

1 generations left to their heirs more than we are leaving to ours. To

2 estimate the contribution of individuals or individual regions to this is

3 difficult. But one thing is doubtless: The role of Serbia in this sense

4 was the hardest and the greatest, the noblest. If a man is allowed to

5 express wishes for the future, then we have only one."

6 Q. "In the souls of the new generation there should always be an

7 understanding --"

8 A. That is a quote, you know, from a book that is more than a hundred

9 pages long and I'm talking about the substance of the book, so we don't

10 have the same approach at all.

11 Q. But I am pointing to the conclusion, the last passage, the last

12 sentence.

13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The transcript does not

14 contain all of this, including one question and one answer that we missed

15 because it's going too fast.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I wish to tender this

17 entire issue of the magazine. Of course it contains relevant passages,

18 but the magazine itself, this issue, is evidence to all the witness does

19 not know and what matters has been read into the transcript.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could we have a

21 number for this book?

22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that will be MFI D13.

23 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

24 Q. You spoke in the examination-in-chief at length about the London

25 Agreement and then you spoke about certain repercussions that the London

1 Agreement should have had in Serbia after the First World War, and here in

2 your own hand, you drew what the map of Serbia should have looked like

3 according to the London Agreement.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Put it on the ELMO, please, to

5 remind the Trial Chamber and the new very likeable representative of the

6 Prosecution.

7 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

8 Q. That's what drew yourself, isn't it, Mr. Tomic?

9 A. I said that it was quite a crude line, rough line, because I did

10 it very quickly. But it corresponds to the [indiscernible] that was next

11 to Cape Blanca, under Cape Blanca, to the border with Montenegro.

12 Q. I'm interested in this northern border. It is approximately along

13 the Sava River, isn't it? Isn't it?

14 A. Well, I mean, I did not have any geographical landmarks so this is

15 really a rough line. You can't regard this as something done by a

16 geographer or cartographer. I had no space at all. I was not sitting

17 properly. I mean that was the idea I wanted to convey, that basically de

18 facto, since part of the littoral of the Adriatic Sea was given to Serbia,

19 the forces of the Entente tried to give Bosnia and Herzegovina to Serbia.

20 And I tried to illustrate this. I'm not claiming that these borders,

21 including the northern one, would be accurate.

22 Q. Very well, Mr. Tomic. I wouldn't have been able to draw this

23 precisely myself. But we agree that only after the conclusion of the

24 London Agreement were there additional negotiations between the Kingdom of

25 Serbia and western powers. Do we agree on that point? And these

1 negotiations took place from time to time on several occasions.

2 A. There were negotiations between the countries of the Entente as to

3 the territorial compensations to be given to Serbia because Banija had to

4 be given to Romania and a good part of Macedonia to Bulgaria. So during

5 the summer in July and August, more specifically in 1915, there were

6 exchanges between the various foreign ministries of the Entente countries

7 and the territories given to Serbia during that summer were extended

8 indeed to Slavonia and the Srem region.

9 Q. Mr. Tomic, you did not encompass Slavonia in this map?

10 A. That's only normal because I was speaking about the Treaty of

11 London signed on the 26th of April, so I drew those nine as of a specific

12 date, 26th of April, 1915.

13 Q. Mr. Tomic, with the Treaty of London itself, Bosnia-Herzegovina

14 was not an issue.

15 A. As I said, this was a consequence of the treaty. How could part

16 of the coastline be given to Serbia if the hinterland is not Serbian?

17 It's one of the consequences of the treaty. Already at the time, Bulgaria

18 had made territorial claims in Macedonia against the interests of Serbia.

19 As early as the autumn of 1914 there was this will to give

20 Bosnia-Herzegovina as a kind of compensation. That was the consequence of

21 the Bulgarian claims regarding Macedonia.

22 Q. Mr. Tomic, you keep avoiding an answer. Why? The Treaty of

23 London was trying to resolve the issue of Italian ambitions on the

24 Adriatic coast. Serbia had a marginal role. Only after the conclusion of

25 the Treaty of London, allies negotiate with the Serbian government

1 territorial compensations to Serbia. Is that correct? Do you agree?

2 A. That's what I wrote clearly in my report. I did write that the

3 Treaty of London defined how the coastline was divided into several

4 countries and did not deal with the issues of the territories on

5 hinterland. Only in the ensuing months in July and August, for instance,

6 only then were the new proposal -- and these are territorial

7 compensations, but Serbia itself was not involved in the negotiations. It

8 may have known of them, but it was not taking part directly in the

9 negotiations since Russia, France, UK, the Entente countries, and Italy in

10 part were involved in negotiations. At the time Italy --

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's shed some light on this.

12 If I understood properly, the purpose of the Treaty of London was to give

13 Italy parts of territory on the Adriatic coastline. We see a map here

14 which is very telling in this respect, because in the shaded parts we can

15 see Italian demands of 4th of March, 1915, so we have the impression that

16 actually Italy is in the driving seat, that it was to reclaim some

17 territory. So that's -- Bosnia and Herzegovina, there, you said that will

18 come later or that came later as part of some compensation; is that right?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As early as the autumn of 1914 the

20 Entente countries tried to push Bulgaria to start war against the central

21 powers, but the Bulgarians had some claims on Macedonia, and it was then

22 envisaged to give some territorial compensation. Part of Macedonia would

23 be taken from Serbia. It was regarded as an important territory for

24 Serbia. One thought that it would be fair to compensate that by giving

25 Bosnia-Herzegovina to Serbia. But that's not the essential part in the

1 treaty. The treaty basically defines the boundaries.

2 But these are two parallel developments. On the one hand, the

3 coastline is being divided and defined, but parallel to this you have the

4 issue of territorial compensations given to Serbia.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] My intellectual curiosity is

6 aroused. I see a shaded area in the south of Valena. Why did Italy want

7 to have this small piece of land?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To have and control the access to

9 the Adriatic Sea. It was a strategic part. They did everything they

10 could to set up Italian soldiers there. Also by initiating trouble in

11 that area in order to justify the Italian's intervention. But that is the

12 access to the Adriatic Sea, and they wanted to occupy this piece of land

13 at all cost.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, please go on, Mr. Seselj.

15 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Mr. Tomic, you keep confusing things, confusing events from 1915

17 and the involvement of Bulgaria in the war with the repercussions of the

18 Treaty of London on the attitude of the powers of the Entente of Serbia

19 towards 1916. It's true that the allies wanted to take away territories

20 of Serbia and give them to Bulgaria in order to involve Bulgaria in the

21 war on the side of the Entente, but Bulgaria eventually did join the war

22 on the side of the central powers. That issue was resolved. In 1916 the

23 Entente negotiates with Serbia about territorial compensations because of

24 huge suffering from the war and great casualties of Serbia.

25 I have a book here by an important Croatian author, a very

1 renowned one. Could you please show the front page of this book.

2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Mr. Seselj is speaking too

3 fast.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Italy, Allies, and the Yugoslav

5 Issue."

6 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Do you see the name of the author?

8 A. Dragovan Jepic.

9 Q. A renowned Croatian historian. Do you see where the book was

10 published?

11 A. In Zagreb in 1970.

12 Q. Please be so kind as to put the map on the ELMO.

13 THE INTERPRETER: The speakers overlap all the time.

14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Both for the witness and for Mr. Seselj, we are

15 told by the interpreters that you're overlapping and both of you are

16 speaking too fast. Please respect once again the pause and not to speak

17 too fast. Remember, there are persons trying to interpret what you are

18 saying.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will try, Judge.

20 Could you show on the ELMO, please, this map. I don't see it.

21 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

22 Q. What is written in the key?

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.

24 MS. BIERSAY: Just a point of clarification, Your Honour.

25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

1 MS. BIERSAY: Excuse me. A point of clarification. What is the

2 provenance of this map that Mr. Seselj is showing the witness?

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. What is the provenance?

4 Does it come from Stjepic's book? Where does it come from?

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The map is from Stjepic's book. You

6 see even the logo of the book. I didn't bring the whole book. One cannot

7 fax such a large one.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed.

9 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Look at the title of the key. Could you please read it out.

11 A. "Territorial Promises of the Powers of the Entente to Serbia, 16

12 August 1915."

13 Q. Do you see that there is no mention of any compensation to

14 Bulgaria anymore? Is that clear from this map?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Do you see that it was envisaged to give half of Dalmatia to

17 Serbia, the entire coastline of Dubrovnik?

18 A. It was indeed the intention of the Entente countries.

19 Q. Do you see that northern Albania was also planned to become part

20 of Serbia, together with the Skadar lake?

21 A. Yes, indeed, during the war there was this idea of splitting of

22 Banija into too, and part of it to Greece, the other to Serbia.

23 Q. And Italy.

24 A. And the small area around Verona to Italy.

25 Q. Do you see here that the entire Slavonia and Srem were supposed to

1 become part of Serbia?

2 A. These are territories promised to Serbia in 1915, so we're not

3 talking about the Treaty of London. That was if Banat was given to

4 Romania and Serbia wanted Banat to be part of the future state of the

5 southern Slavs because they thought that it was an area just adjacent to

6 Belgrade, and Belgrade had to be made secure. So the capital needed some

7 hinterland, they thought. You can see that if Banat goes to Romania, the

8 Romanian border is basically on the doorstep of Belgrade. So by way of

9 compensation, the Entente countries gave Slavonia, Srem, and the Dutch

10 region. That has nothing to do with the London Treaty because I was

11 talking about the one of the 26th of April, 1915, and here we're talking

12 about later negotiations held during the summer of that year. So indeed

13 this map matches the will of the Entente countries as expressed in August

14 1915. And I must note that in many books this map is presented as being

15 the map of the Treaty of London of 1915. So there is confusion, including

16 in Serbia, because they mix them up. And it's true that in a matter of

17 weeks the Serbian borders changed. It changed from day to day. I myself

18 looked in archives in the Quai d'Orsay in the foreign ministry premises on

19 the Treaty of London. I reviewed dispatches by Delcasi [phoen], the

20 foreign minister, to all the ambassadors concerned. The answers from the

21 Great Britain, Russia and Italy. So indeed this map corresponds to the

22 will of the Entente countries as expressed in August 1915 and not on the

23 26th of April, 1915, which is the date the Treaty of London was signed.

24 Q. Mr. Tomic, you quite arbitrarily put Bosnia-Herzegovina into the

25 text of the Treaty of London. The Treaty of London deals exclusively with

1 the territorial ambitions of Italy and the Serbian coast on the Adriatic

2 Sea. All the rest are repercussions of the Treaty of London in further

3 negotiations. You don't understand the Treaty of London as a beginning of

4 a process, do you?

5 A. That is to be seen as part of a process that started in autumn

6 1914 redefining the Balkan space, essentially. And it's hard to imagine

7 that if part of the coastline were given to Serbia, it's hard to imagine

8 that the hinterland, therefore, Bosnia and Herzegovina, would not be part

9 of Serbia.

10 Q. Mr. Tomic, so that map of yours was a product of your imagination

11 because it was difficult for you to imagine it differently. Did I

12 understand this correctly?

13 A. Well, it's not my map anyway. This comes from work done on Italy

14 and only was concerned with the Treaty of London as such.

15 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] During examination-in-chief, we

16 also dwelled on this aspect of the issue and you clarified that this was

17 only a consequence, as the witness saw it, of the Treaty of London.

18 That's how I understood things.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But, Madam Judge, I'm trying to

20 prove that the witness is an ignoramus. The consequence is the entire

21 Slavonia, not that border on the Sava. That map he drew in his own hand,

22 I guarantee to you that he had never seen it. Such a map doesn't exist

23 anywhere. The only map that exists is this one. I'm trying to show you

24 that the witness is an ignoramus. That's the point, if you allow this

25 intervention.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We're talking about two different

2 moments in time. I have looked at the diplomatic cables at the time and

3 borders were changing all the time. At one point in time people were even

4 wondering whether Croatia should be handed over to Serbia. Italy was

5 against that very strongly. So there are negotiations dealing with --

6 giving satisfaction to the Italians what they wanted on the Dalmatian

7 coast, and that ended up with the Treaty of London; and then we have on

8 the other hand also negotiations that dealt with the compensations to be

9 given to Serbia. So this map that we have here on the screen corresponds

10 to this later negotiations dealing with the territorial compensations.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So if I understand, because

12 we've seen several maps, one of which you drew yourself, but the one we

13 have here on your screen which comes from Mr. Stjepic's book, this is the

14 outcome of negotiations that were held after the Treaty of London, since

15 it was August 16, 1915.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So this comes after the Treaty

18 of London.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, after the Treaty of London and

20 after a great number of negotiations on the Entente countries regarding

21 what kind of territorial compensations should be given to Serbia.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And the first map we saw with

23 the Dalmatian coast and so on, that was the map that dealt exactly with

24 the Treaty of London, April 16, 1915, at that moment in time.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. But when you, in your own

2 hand, drew the border, was that for April or was that for August?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it was a consequence of the

4 Treaty of London.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So it was April.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time

7 was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So when you drew that border, in

9 your mind you were thinking, Treaty of London, April 1915.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, everything is very clear

12 now. I hope everything is clear for Mr. Seselj. If not, I'm sure he will

13 continue asking questions.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, everything has been

15 clear to me for a long time. I'm trying to show to you that the expert

16 drew the border ad hoc. The Treaty of London is a fundamental agreement

17 and it was developed over the following few years. The map that the

18 witness created didn't exist anywhere. He drew it arbitrarily, and he

19 said something else here. He said that from this map here one can see

20 that Banat is divided between Serbia and Romania, but this is not true.

21 All of Banat here is envisaged as belonging to Romania. It was only later

22 that Serbia got part of Banat. You can see that Banat was supposed to be

23 part of Romania and yet the witness said that the division of Banat

24 between Serbia and Romania had been agreed on. You can see that he knows

25 nothing.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I think I understand the problem

2 now.

3 When you're drawing the map yourself and when you're drawing the

4 border yourself, at that point in time you are not drawing the borders of

5 the Treaty of London.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, we had a discussion on the

7 Treaty of London and we were talking about the consequences of such

8 treaty. So since part of the coastline was given to Serbia, then in the

9 minds of the countries of the Entente, Bosnia-Herzegovina had to be given

10 to Serbia and this is why I drew the map, to illustrate these

11 consequences.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but you say that this was

13 in the mind of the negotiators. But in April 1915, when the treat was

14 actually signed between all parties, this hadn't been planned yet, this

15 hadn't been envisaged, at least on paper?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the map drawn illustrates the

17 consequences of the treaty. I don't think it's an official map that was

18 drawn.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but with our indictment,

20 you know, and the problem of Greater Serbia, that's the crux of the

21 problem. When I see this map drawn in August 1915, the powers, you know,

22 that are involved in the Treaty of London agree, they will give Bosnia,

23 Herzegovina and Slavonia to Serbia.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. And everybody agrees.

1 Italy, France, and the two other ones involved.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Italy is very cautious, much

3 more than the others. France was ready to hand over Croatia to Serbia

4 during the summer of 1915, but Italy was against it because it believed

5 that this territory had to be kept as a bait for the Austrians in order to

6 bring the Austrians in war against the Hungarians.

7 THE INTERPRETER: Hungarians against Austria.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was the ministry of foreign

9 affairs had in mind at the time. But the Serbian government at the time

10 had a much broader objective. What they wanted was the unification of

11 Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, and so the borders that you have that were

12 envisaged here by the Entente countries did not correspond to what the

13 Serbian government at the time had in mind because what they had in mind

14 would have much more greater territorial consequences.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

16 Mr. Seselj, you have ten minutes left before we adjourn.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, you see that I agree with the

18 Entente because the western border here is almost identical to mine.

19 That's what I wanted to show. But as we have little time left, I only

20 wish to draw attention -- the witness' attention, who said that in his

21 text he did not use expressions such as "extreme Serbian Radical

22 Party," "the extreme right of Vojislav Seselj," "ultra-rightest," and so

23 on. I want to remind him --

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. Before we move

25 to this topic, we must give a number to these two documents, for the map

1 and for the book title.

2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the map will be marked for

3 identification as D14, and the title of the book, D15.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

5 Please resume.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wish to remind the witness that on

7 the 5th of October, 2000, in the magazine "Le Courrier des Balkans," I may

8 have mispronounced it because I do not speak French. He published a

9 text: "Serbia Finally a Democratic Revolution."

10 Q. Is that right, Mr. Tomic? Do you remember that text of yours?

11 A. Maybe I'm not the one who came up with the title.

12 Q. Well, it doesn't matter. Somebody else may have given it its

13 title. Do you remember the text in?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. In a sentence in the fifth paragraph you wrote:

16 "The political scene has really been cleaned up. The Serbian

17 Radical Party, an ultra-rightest formation of Vojislav Seselj, has been

18 almost destroyed."

19 A. I'm not sure I used these terms. I would like to have the text in

20 French to compare. It's very hard to discuss a text if I don't have the

21 original version under my eyes.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I believe Mr. Seselj has the

23 document and we will put it on the ELMO.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Here it is in French. I have it

25 all, Judge. Only what has been marked for now. You also have it in

1 French.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have the entire text. I

3 will only give my opinion when I have the full text.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj, this is only an

5 excerpt.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, if he doesn't remember, let

7 him give me back this piece of paper. I can't carry all the texts around

8 with me in French. I have a vast quantity of texts, but I don't speak

9 French so it's hard for me to find my way about the text. If I had an

10 assistant, I might be able to do it.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Did you write in a quote:

12 "The political scene has been cleaned? The Serbian Radical Party,

13 ultra-nationalist Serbian formation was swamped." Did you write that? If

14 this is in quotes, it's probably because it was a passage that was quoted

15 from your article. You don't remember?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember. I can only give

17 you my opinion if I have the entire text. This is something I wrote in

18 2000.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, please ask a

20 question. The witness has reservations about the content, but maybe you

21 have a question to ask.

22 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Well, let's go to example number 1. That was example number 3.

24 Let's look at example number 1. Do you remember this text of yours?

25 A. Yes. This is the yearly situation in "Etude du Monde" in 1998

1 where I take stalk of what happened in the country economically and

2 politically. And I qualify the Serbian Radical Party as far right,

3 extreme far right, but I'm not the only one to do this. This is an

4 expression that is used to characterise a party in order for the French

5 people to know exactly what we're talking about.

6 Q. That's correct, Mr. Tomic, but a little while ago you were unable

7 to explain what the expression "extreme" means. That's what the problem

8 is.

9 Look at example number 2.

10 A. This is similar.

11 Q. All right. Let's look at example number 4.

12 A. "The far right" in France, the Serbian Radical Party, for

13 researchers and for social scientists as well as for reporters, is a party

14 that is on the far right of the political spectrum.

15 Q. But one can assume that other researchers know what the

16 expression "extreme" means and you don't know.

17 Look at example number 4. Would you look at that, please. Is

18 this from a text of yours?

19 A. Yes, here I remember this better. I put this under -- in quotes

20 because there was supposedly a democratic side and a nationalist side, the

21 nationalist side being extremist and authoritarian. But this is not a

22 judgement of value. This is a characterisation of the two political sides

23 that were head on in Serbia.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When you're saying "confronted

25 with the extremist danger of the SRS," what do you mean exactly?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I'm talking about the

2 possibility of the Serbian Radical Party winning the elections.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And why would that be a danger?

4 A danger for democracy? If we read the sentence that's above, I would see

5 that is-- what you mean, the democrats on the one side and the others.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, there's a danger. For the

7 Serbian Radical Party, the Greater Serbia is still something that's

8 topical and that's the problem -- and that's crux of the problem again.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I think we have to

10 call it a day.

11 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Look at number 6. Please let's just deal with this because this

13 would round off this set of questions. Just example 6. Could you just

14 look at example 6. Is this from a text of yours?

15 A. I can't seem to identify this.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In French you're saying: "The

17 result, the outcome, of this is a very strong frustration which is

18 reflected by the ultra-nationalist vote for Vojislav Seselj's SRS."

19 So what did you mean there?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't even identify this text.

21 These are -- Recontre de Balkans, national identities in the Balkans.

22 This is probably some colloquialism that was held up and a summary must

23 have been made. But I don't know if this was something I wrote myself.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

25 He doesn't know. Please finish with your question.

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Tomic participated in this

2 discussion and his participation can be found on the internet. The entire

3 discussion can be seen on the internet. My investigators found it there.

4 If he doesn't remember it, then give me back my examples and we're

5 finished with that. I only put this forward to show to you that he uses

6 the expressions "ultra" and "extremist" without knowing their meaning. He

7 was unable to explain what these terms mean. That's the crux of the

8 matter. If he doesn't remember this, all the better for him.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

10 Now, for tomorrow, Mr. Seselj, let me tell you that you've already

11 spent 1 hour and 35 minutes. You had 4 hours, so you've already used 1

12 hour and 35 minutes so you can compute what's left for you.

13 I'll come back to one question because the legal officer reminded

14 me of one thing. When your associates will come, they are coming as

15 civilians. They won't be wearing a robe, right? They don't have a black

16 robe; they're in plain clothes.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. They will speak in

19 their own name but they cannot take the floor, they cannot ask questions.

20 You're the only one to ask questions and to lead the witness.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If necessary they will pass a piece

22 of paper to me or help me with a document. Only in that case would they

23 be active; otherwise they will not participate. And of course they will

24 introduce themselves to the Trial Chamber.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Everything is

1 crystal clear.

2 Witness, you will be back in this courtroom tomorrow at 2.15

3 because we're sitting in the afternoon. So we'll all meet tomorrow at

4 2.15.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may say, the Trial Chamber can

6 have all my publications. My newspapers -- my reviews, my articles,

7 everything that I have ever written, the Trial Chamber can have it, if it

8 needs it.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.03 p.m.,

11 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 6th day of

12 February, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25