Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 6830

1 Wednesday, 14 May 2008

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.27 p.m.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, can you call

6 the case, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case

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

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

10 Today, we are the 14th of May, 2008. I would like to greet all

11 the people present in the courtroom. I would like to greet the

12 representatives of the Prosecution, Mr. Seselj, as well as all the people

13 assisting us.

14 Before we resume the witness's testimony, I would like to mention

15 that before coming to this hearing, I checked whether the website of the

16 Tribunal was working properly. Well, in fact, it is not working

17 properly. According to the Registry, the company, a Dutch company, that

18 transmits images has a technical problem at the moment. This is how

19 things stand.

20 Today, at two minutes -- 14 hours, 59 minutes and 47 seconds. I

21 hope that we will soon be able to identify what the problem is and find a

22 solution.

23 Are there any housekeeping matters which you would like to

24 address. The Prosecution? No. Mr. Seselj?

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have nothing, except to inform

Page 6831

1 you that yesterday I received from the Prosecution information about the

2 documents disclosed with respect to Witness Riedlmayer, but it doesn't

3 say there whether that's all the material that should be disclosed to me,

4 because they list what has been disclosed so far. I'm not sure that that

5 is the complete set, because Witness Riedlmayer testified in the

6 Milutinovic trial, Milosevic trial, the Krajisnik trial according to

7 information that I received, and I assume that he also testified in the

8 Martic trial, whereas I don't have those documents. If he did testify,

9 that's fine, but it doesn't say that the disclosure process has been

10 completed.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yesterday, we addressed this

12 issue, and I would like to ask the Prosecution to disclose to the accused

13 all the transcripts of the trials in which he has testified. You told us

14 that this had been done, but it hasn't been done, Mr. Mundis.

15 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.

16 Good afternoon to Your Honours and everyone in and around the

17 courtroom.

18 I believe that we have, in fact, disclosed all of the transcripts

19 from the prior testimony of Dr. Riedlmayer. I'm aware that there might

20 be a small amount of Rule 68 material that will be disclosed to

21 Dr. Seselj, but my understanding is that all transcripts of his prior

22 testimony have, in fact, been disclosed.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

24 Let's bring the witness in. I believe that the Prosecution has

25 five to ten minutes left. Mr. Mussemeyer, is that right?

Page 6832

1 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Depends a bit on the answers of the witness, but

2 I have only three questions left and one document which I intend to

3 introduce.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis, clearly the

5 following witness -- as far as the following witness is concerned, we

6 won't have time to finish this witness tomorrow, so he will have to stay

7 over the weekend and we will have to hear him next week.

8 MR. MUNDIS: If we're not able to finish him, then obviously,

9 yes, Mr. President, he would have to continue into next week.

10 [The witness entered court]

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon to everyone. Thank

13 you.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I shall give the floor back to

15 the Prosecution, who has a few questions to put to you.


17 [The witness answered through interpreter]

18 Examination by Mr. Mussemeyer: [Continued]

19 MR. MUSSEMEYER: First of all, Madam Registrar, I would like to

20 have 65 ter number 800 on the monitor, and I would ask the witness to

21 look at this document and if he can comment about this.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could we zoom in, please, so that

23 I can see it better? Can I see the rest of the page, please?

24 It's very hard to decipher. Could you just ...

25 Yes. This is a list of refugees from Vocin who came to Slatina

Page 6833

1 on the 14th and 15th of December, 1991, and who were put up with various

2 families in Slatina and the surrounding villages.

3 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Your Honours, I would like to have this document

4 moved into evidence. And for the complete information of your Judges,

5 this exhibit has been tendered in the Milosevic case as Exhibit

6 number 334, tab 9.

7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Prosecutor, what is the provenance of the

8 document?

9 MR. MUSSEMEYER: You mean the source where we got it from?

10 JUDGE HARHOFF: The source, the author.

11 MR. MUSSEMEYER: According to our documentation, it was submitted

12 by the US representative McCloskey, Frank. The submission date is

13 unknown, but the date of the document is the 15th of December, 1991.

14 This is what I can give you as information.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, can you confirm that

16 there were refugees from Vocin who went to Slatina? Can you confirm

17 that?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. I know some of them

19 personally, and the document was probably compiled by the Red Cross,

20 those people in the Red Cross who took over the refugees and put them up

21 with the families, as it says here.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the witness is

25 saying "probably" here. Now, if he says "probably," that doesn't mean a

Page 6834

1 thing. We received the document, and the Prosecutor subsequently told us

2 in the court that he received it from some American representative by the

3 name of McCloskey, which also means nothing. Perhaps the facts on this

4 document are completely in order and correct, but we cannot accept the

5 document because we don't know whose it is. It's got nothing official on

6 it, and you can barely read the title, either. We don't know who

7 compiled it, and nothing else is known about it either. So I think it is

8 impossible to admit that kind of document into evidence. And you can see

9 that somebody, in handwriting, put corrections to those names. We don't

10 know if the names are correct, either.

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

12 will deliberate on the matter.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mussemeyer, McCloskey, who

15 is a US representative, who is this gentleman?

16 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I cannot give you detailed information about

17 this. I only know the name, and I know that he was a representative from

18 the US, but I don't have further information.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber will give an

20 MFI number to this document.

21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P434, marked

22 for identification.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] One more thing that I'd like to

24 draw your attention to.

25 In the heading, it says: "Refugees from Vocin." You can discern

Page 6835

1 that, but the question remains whether I read it out correctly. Then you

2 can't read the next word, and then it says: "The 14th and 15th of

3 December," which is the time when Vocin was falling into Croatian hands,

4 when, in fact, the Serbs started fleeing from Western Slavonia en masse,

5 in their masses, and then the Croats were fleeing, but on the opposite

6 side. So what kind of refugees are these? Are these refugees that fled

7 from Serb forces or in the face of Croatian forces? This is so

8 tendentious and the whole thing is so suspect that you really can't make

9 head or tail. You see it says "14th and 15th of December," there.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is why this document has

11 an MFI number. So as things stand, this document has not been admitted.

12 Mr. Mussemeyer.


14 Q. Mr. Matovina, I come to the last issue. This deals with the

15 refugees from Vojvodina. Do you know if refugees from Serbs arrived from

16 Western Slavonia and when?

17 A. The refugees from Vojvodina started arriving into the area of the

18 former Slatina Municipality and the county, as it was later called, at

19 the end of 1991 and the beginning of 1992, and the process continued.

20 Several hundred families arrived in our area from the villages of Beska,

21 Slankamen, and villages around Ruma and Sid, and the reason for their

22 arrival was there was pressure exerted upon them over there to force them

23 to leave their homes, to have their houses exchanged, and, in fact, to

24 move out of Vojvodina.

25 Q. What was the ethnicity of these refugees?

Page 6836

1 A. They were exclusively Croats, ethnic Croats, and according to

2 their own statements, the pressures exerted upon them were done by

3 members of the Serbian Radical Party. What they did was to threaten them

4 by calling them up and demanding that they move out. Then they would

5 throw bombs into their gardens and yards. They applied all forms of

6 coercion to instill fear into them so that the process of exchanging

7 homes and their departure to Croatia should start and be a continuous

8 process.

9 Q. Where do you know this from? Did you talk to them?

10 A. Yes, we talked to them, and they even published a book about it,

11 about all those events and the traumas they went through, and how they

12 made due in their new environment.

13 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Your Honours, this was my last question. I have

14 additional information for you related to the documents from yesterday

15 and the videos. If you wanted to hear this from me, please let me know.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, please.

17 MR. MUSSEMEYER: We discussed yesterday about this video, the

18 destruction of the church in Vocin. We are now in a position -- we have

19 the same complete video clip, and we have subtitles, because

20 Judge Harhoff asked us to have the translation ready, and we have it

21 subtitled. We can play it in the courtroom, if you wish to hear this.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] How much time will this take?

23 MR. MUSSEMEYER: The tape is 18 seconds' long.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I think if it's 18 seconds, we

25 can listen to this. So, please, let's hear it.

Page 6837

1 [Videotape played]

2 [No interpretation]

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] 18 seconds go by very quickly.

4 Perhaps you should show it to us again.

5 [Videotape played]

6 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "I've been recording since 7.00.

7 You're nowhere to be found. Why don't you go in front, then record the

8 front then the back."

9 MR. MUSSEMEYER: This was a bit longer, and I think this is the

10 one which we wanted to show you. Mr. Seselj was opposing that we cut it

11 at the White Eagles, and now we have it complete here. We also have it

12 also in written. If you need this, I can, with the help of the usher,

13 give it to you.

14 The second information I can give you: There was a question

15 about monitoring people, because some of them were speaking French. I

16 checked this and found out that it was not the UN who made this

17 observation, it was the EU Monitoring -- it was people from the EU who

18 monitored this, and we are in the possession of reports, but these

19 reports are very general. If you need, I can give you the ERN numbers

20 for these.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. That won't be

22 necessary.

23 MR. MUSSEMEYER: So my last question will be to have these video

24 clips moved into evidence, and I must do one short correction for the

25 last video we saw about the destruction of the church. It is from 65 ter

Page 6838

1 number 6044, and the ERN number is V000-2916. Instead the other two

2 video are from 65 ter number 468.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could we have exhibit numbers

4 for the two video clips, please.

5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There are three video clips,

7 all in all?

8 MR. MUSSEMEYER: That's correct.

9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the first video will become

10 Exhibit P435. The second video will become P436, and the third video

11 that we saw today will become Exhibit P437.

12 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I finish my examination-in-chief.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, before I give the

14 floor to Mr. Seselj, I have a question for you.

15 I thought the Prosecution would have put you the question, but

16 they didn't.

17 I would like to come back to the attack on the village of

18 Cetekovac. This was on the 14th of September, 1991. You said that this

19 was done by paramilitaries who were headed by Boro Lukic, a former

20 captain from the JNA. You mentioned that an investigation had been

21 carried out and that the reports had been sent to the prosecutor who was

22 dealing with the matter.

23 As far as you know, do you know whether there was a trial after

24 that and that Boro Lukic was indicted? What happened to him; do you

25 know?

Page 6839

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said yesterday, the event

2 occurred on the 4th of September, 1991, with all the details that I

3 described, and it ended up in a criminal report being filed against

4 Boro Lukic and the rest who took part in that terrible massacre. The

5 criminal report was sent to the District Prosecutor's Office in Osijek,

6 and then it was passed over to Bjelovar. Investigations were undertaken,

7 and as far as I know, some of the perpetrators, who were identified

8 during the investigation later and confirmed to be the perpetrators, they

9 were tried in absentia.

10 Now, what happened to Boro Lukic, he left with his unit to Bosnia

11 first, and then later on, according to my information, he ended up in

12 Serbia, and I have no further knowledge of him after that.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Seemingly, there was a trial in

14 absentia. Mr. Prosecutor, did you know that a trial had been conducted

15 against the attackers of Cetekovac?

16 MR. MUSSEMEYER: No, I have no further information about this.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, this person called

18 "Boro Lukic ," did you never hear any more about him? You don't know

19 what's become of him?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know where he is or what

21 happened to him.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

23 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] You mentioned this trial, and

24 you said that some of the people were prosecuted in absentia. Among the

25 accused were those people were prosecuted, was there Boro Lukic as well?

Page 6840

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know exactly whether he was

2 found guilty in his absence or if the trial is still ongoing.

3 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you have two hours

5 for your cross-examination, so you may start.

6 Cross-examination by Mr. Seselj:

7 Q. Mr. Matovina, I hope that yesterday you understood what the main

8 problem in your testimony is, as far as I'm concerned, with respect to

9 the last remark I made to the Prosecutor. You said here yesterday that

10 the massacre of the civilians in Vocin was committed by the White Eagles

11 and Seselj's men, and you quoted a figure of about 80.

12 Now, in your statement, the one you gave to the Prosecutor in

13 2002, you state, and I'm going could quote that portion:

14 "In the night between the 12th and 13th of December, 1991, the

15 Serb forces, when they were withdrawing, massacred 43 civilians in Vocin.

16 The massacre was perpetrated by a paramilitary unit from Serbia called

17 the White Eagles."

18 There is no mention of Seselj's men there, just as there is no

19 mention of them in your statement as a whole. Who proposed that you

20 involve Seselj's men or, rather, the volunteers of the Serbian Radical

21 Party who some people called "Seselj's men" into this statement, who told

22 you to put it in?

23 A. Yes, it is a statement from -- my statement from 2002, where the

24 term or phrase "White Eagles" was used, and under that name, in the

25 territory of Vocin and further afield, there was the paramilitary unit of

Page 6841

1 volunteers from Serbia, and they were the White Eagles, members of the

2 Serbian Radical Party, Seselj's men, volunteers who perhaps were not in

3 some other unit, but they were in the same locations, under the same

4 command, and as I said yesterday, the perception of them, according to

5 the victims and refugees and population and witnesses who provided

6 testimony, they always used the term "White Eagles." That's the term

7 that was used. So these were people who had come from Serbia and who

8 took part in that crime.

9 Q. I don't question that. I'm not challenging that at all, because

10 I spoke about that in Serbia before I came to The Hague. But how come

11 suddenly, when we come to this specific crime, that you mention the

12 White Eagles and Seselj's men, because yesterday, when you referred to

13 volunteers from Serbia, you said that some of them were called "the

14 White Eagles," some of them were referred to as volunteers from Serbia,

15 and others were "Seselj's men," and in one place you say that the

16 White Eagles arrived with Colonel Trbojevic to Western Slavonia. I think

17 you made a mistake there, too, and I'll tell you what my information and

18 knowledge is about that. And this information has already been presented

19 in the court here, so you can tell me your position in the matter.

20 According to a statement made by Colonel Trbojevic, at his

21 initiative, a unit of volunteers arrived through the Territorial Defence

22 of Novi Sad, led by Captain Jovan Kulic. So those are the volunteers

23 from Serbia, in the narrow sense. There were so-called Seselj's men.

24 They were volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party. There were over 600

25 of them, and perhaps at one point there might have been 700 of them. I

Page 6842

1 don't challenge that at all. And then you had the White Eagles as well.

2 Perhaps this figure of 80 is exaggerated. To the best of my

3 knowledge, there are about 50 of them. So I'm not challenging any of

4 that, I'm not disputing that. All I am disputing or challenging is the

5 fact that you subsequently introduced, among the actors of the crime, the

6 perpetrators of the crime in Vocin, Seselj's men, Seseljevci. So do you

7 have any proof or evidence to show that even one volunteer of the Serbian

8 Radical Party took part in the crime in Vocin, a volunteer of the Serbian

9 Radical Party, and not going by what people's perceptions of them were

10 and who called them what, because I assume that victims could not have

11 specifically differentiated between one or another formation or unit, but

12 you, as a policeman, as a police inspector holding a high rank, were

13 probably able to make that distinction?

14 A. As I stated yesterday, there are numerous witness statements and

15 statements by victims, by refugees, those survived the crime. It is

16 precisely that information that was used in our crime investigation.

17 That night, during the night when this crime was committed, when

18 these 60 or so criminals were actually on rampage in Vocin and massacring

19 and killing people, the people saw that this was being done by these

20 volunteers from Serbia and by the locals whom they used to see all the

21 time throughout the months and days of the occupation. So this is

22 based -- the crime investigation data is based on the statements of

23 eyewitnesses who had gone through that massacre and all the atrocities in

24 Vocin.

25 Q. Yesterday --

Page 6843

1 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, please, could you

2 specify what part of the declaration you're referring to?

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

4 continues] ... when Mladen Kulic was testifying, Jovan Kulic was

5 mentioned at that time. The criminal report of the Banja Luka Court of

6 against Mladen Kulic and another number of volunteers from Novi Sad was

7 being shown at that time. I presented a statement of Jovan Trbojevic who

8 said how Jovan Kulic came to Western Slavonia. My thesis was that

9 Jovan Kulic was not a volunteer of the Serbian Radical Party, either.

10 If you remember, the OTP showed that criminal complaint on the

11 screen here.

12 Q. Mr. Matovina, we agree about a certain figure, namely, that there

13 were around 600 volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party there.

14 Yesterday, you stated that it was in that number that those volunteers

15 also left on buses. Do you remember having said that? And you also said

16 that a group remained -- you first said about 70 and then about 80 in

17 Vocin and that group perpetrated the massacre. Towards the end of your

18 testimony yesterday, you said that it was the White Eagles and the

19 Seselj's men. If there was 600 people who were volunteers of Seselj's

20 party -- I don't like this name, "Seselj's men," because these are not

21 just blind adherence to a personal policy of mine, but these are

22 volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party, so they are followers of party

23 ideas, not mine.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, there are a number

25 of problems with the translation. Could you please slow down, because

Page 6844

1 you are speaking so fast that understandably interpreters might make

2 mistakes. So please slow down, especially when you're dealing with the

3 issues which are of importance to you. So please speak slowly. That

4 way, the risk of mistakes is then null.

5 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I would also like to take this

6 opportunity to say that my contribution was misinterpreted. I speak

7 slowly, and there was a mistake.

8 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter apologises for that.

9 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Line 24, page 13, I did not ask

10 which section of the statement. I said, "What statement were you

11 referring to, Mr. Seselj?"

12 Thank you for correcting what I said.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please move on, Mr. Seselj.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The mistake was in the transcript

15 only because I heard it correctly. I heard your question correctly, and

16 I think that I directly answered your question, Judge Lattanzi.

17 I shall like to repeat my question to Mr. Matovina at this point,

18 and I shall try to speak much slower.

19 Q. Yesterday, here you stated that a group of volunteers had left

20 completely, all of them, a group of 600 men had left on buses, and there

21 remained a group of 80 men who, with the locals or with this special

22 platoon, as you called it, perpetrated the massacre. Well, if according

23 to my information there was 600 volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party

24 there, and if all the 600 of them left, the entire group, why would there

25 remain a group of volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party with a group of

Page 6845

1 men from the White Eagles if they -- the others had all left? Isn't that

2 a bit strange to you at this point?

3 A. Well, if you will allow me to shed some light on this, perhaps

4 you didn't quite understand me yesterday.

5 What I was saying was the majority of the volunteers from Serbia

6 had left a day earlier, and of these 600 who were there, and we agree

7 about that figure, of that 600, this group of 80 stayed on. Actually, in

8 that situation, no one was able to count the heads, whether of this 600,

9 520 or 530 or 531 had left, but according to witness statements, most of

10 them, the majority, had left prior to this event, and a group of 80 of

11 the total number of volunteers who were there stayed on and participated

12 in this crime.

13 Q. Okay. Why, then, in 2002, did you not say the White Eagles and

14 Seselj's men? Why didn't you associate in any place the volunteers of

15 the Serbian Radical Party or Seselj's men, as you called them, with this

16 particular crime? Yesterday, you never associated the volunteers of the

17 Serbian Radical Party with the crime at Vocin.

18 A. Well, in that debate, nobody actually went so deeply into

19 those -- in such a detailed way into these questions, but there is a list

20 of the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party and it was probably

21 considered that on the basis of that list and the statements, it was

22 quite clear who stayed there in the capacity of volunteers from Serbia.

23 Q. As you had lists of volunteers from the Serbian Radical Party

24 from Serbia and you had victims and witnesses' statements, eyewitnesses

25 to the massacre, perhaps you actually also had someone in custody who was

Page 6846

1 accused of having participated in the crime. Were you able to identify

2 at least a single one of the volunteers of the Radical Party and to say

3 he's on the list of the volunteers from the Serbian Radical Party?

4 A. Well, no, but we have this description that we discussed here

5 yesterday.

6 Q. But not -- you did not identify a single perpetrator of the crime

7 by name and can claim with certainty he was there and he is a volunteer

8 of the Serbian Radical Party; he was not a White Eagle, he was not from

9 the Novi Sad volunteer unit, but a volunteer from the Serbian Radical

10 Party or of the Serbian Radical Party. This you're not able to do;

11 right?

12 A. I've already said these were volunteers from Serbia. In what

13 capacity and on what basis, I don't know.

14 Q. But do you know that several volunteers of the Serbian Radical

15 Party were wounded, were captured in Masicka Sagovina?

16 A. I don't know that. That is not my province of interest, because

17 throughout the war I was in Slatina. Masicka Sagovina is I don't know

18 how many hundreds of kilometres away.

19 Q. Well, not hundreds of kilometres.

20 A. Well, yes, perhaps not, but it is not within the Osijek, Baranja,

21 Virovitica, Podravska Slatina department. It is in another one.

22 Q. So you do not have a shred of evidence that at least a single

23 volunteer of the Serbian Radical Party took part in the massacre of

24 civilians in Vocin?

25 A. [No verbal response]

Page 6847

1 Q. You have proved that volunteers were there. You have proved that

2 volunteers left. You have statements there the White Eagles did that,

3 and only later, subsequently, you remember that there might have been a

4 Seselj's man or two there as well?

5 A. No, no, that's not what I said. We use the term "members of the

6 Serbian Radical Party." You now just said yourself "Seselj's men." How

7 they were perceived in the eyes of the individual victims, that varied.

8 If someone was a member of the Serbian Radical Party, and you being the

9 leader of that party, I'm not quite sure, but perhaps the term "Seselj's

10 men" is correct.

11 Q. It is formally not --

12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

13 continues] ... in questions and answers, because the interpreters cannot

14 follow you.

15 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

16 Q. You know what, I'm not disassociating myself from that. If these

17 were volunteers from the Serbian Radical Party, at least I'm morally

18 responsible for everything which they have done, and I'm not at all

19 ashamed because other people called them "Seselj's men," or because

20 somebody introduced himself, his own self, as a "Seselj's man," but the

21 official designation was never "Seselj's men," it was always volunteers

22 of the Serbian Radical Party. But the people often did call them

23 "Seselj's men."

24 What I wish to clarify here are a few things. Given the fact

25 that they were strictly instructed not to interfere with other groups of

Page 6848

1 volunteers, not with Arkan's men, not with the White Eagles, nor with

2 Draskovic's Serbian Guard and many other formations, units. Of course

3 they could act in concert in combat occasionally, but there should have

4 never been any organic interference or amalgamation of them, and this was

5 the instruction they got on departure.

6 So when you say that something was done together by the

7 White Eagles and Seselj's men, that is absolutely unacceptable. Now, had

8 you stated in your first statement "White Eagles and Seselj's men," I

9 could hardly challenge it, because you are a police inspector, you were

10 the chief of the crime investigation department, you were in charge of

11 the investigation, and you did your best to diligently and

12 conscientiously conducted, and you would have known exactly and

13 identified the perpetrators of the crime. And you were younger and

14 fresher, but -- you were younger and fresher when you exclusively

15 referred to the White Eagles, and not a single reference is made there to

16 Seselj's men, whereas six years after that, last night, you said also

17 "Seselj's men."

18 Was it my absence that actually influenced you to remember that

19 Seselj's men were there, or did someone actually suggest to you that you

20 should insert them as well?

21 A. No, there was no suggestion of that kind at all. What it was is

22 that in that year, we used this designation to cover all volunteers from

23 Serbia who are in the area of Vocin and beyond, farther afield, and I

24 have already said that. So all the members of the different fractions

25 that you are also referring to, yourself, and mind you, yesterday on the

Page 6849

1 basis of the list of the units, both lists that we discussed yesterday,

2 we went into detail in order to clarify how the event had actually

3 transpired and who had taken part in it.

4 Q. Now you have given us an even more incredible statement; namely,

5 that you called all volunteers from Serbia "White Eagles." Nobody has

6 stated that as yet.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, I think we need to clarify

8 a mystery here.

9 In 2002, when you made a statement, you mentioned the

10 White Eagles. Apparently, you did not mention Seselj's men. You are a

11 professional. For years, you've worked in the police force, carrying out

12 investigation. In 2002, the indictment against Mr. Seselj was not made

13 public. At the time, it did not exist, because Mr. Seselj was only

14 indicted in 2003.

15 In 2002, when you met with the investigators of the OTP, during

16 the investigation on Vocin, was there formal confirmation of the fact

17 that the perpetrators of the crime were the White Eagles and Seselj's

18 men, why didn't you say so in 2002?

19 When you carry out an investigation as you did, you should say

20 who the perpetrators of the crime are and what their motivations are. So

21 in 2002, on the motivation or the authors, you were already in a position

22 to say they were Seselj's men and the White Eagles, and you didn't say

23 so. "Seselj's men" came about much later.

24 There's a mystery here. Do you have an explanation for that?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I used the term "the

Page 6850

1 White Eagles," as I've already said, to refer to all volunteers from

2 Serbia, I did so on the basis of witness statements. I looked into the

3 case file prior to my arrival here, and some of the witnesses referred to

4 Seselj's men, others to the White Eagles, the third to the Black Hand.

5 It depended on the actual perception of the individual witnesses and the

6 victims of the different -- members of the different units.

7 The term which was used then, one of the terms, "White Eagles,"

8 was recorded in the minutes, and then it was used from that point on for

9 all volunteers from Serbia who stayed in the territory of Vocin.

10 Right now, in the Vocin case file, you can find witness

11 statements featuring all these names that I have already described and

12 which I read also coming here to this debate here, to this courtroom.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You're saying today in Vocin's

14 trial. What trial are you referring to?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the case file, Vocin, which was

16 submitted to the state organs, the state prosecutorial office of Croatia.

17 This case file was completed, including the on-site investigation

18 findings, the autopsy findings, video footage, and the detailed

19 description of the event.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If you allow me, I'd like to

21 backtrack somewhat in your investigation.

22 We know that people were killed in Vocin. Unfortunately, you

23 were not able to get interviews from them, but did you get interviews

24 from witnesses who might have been spared and were able to see the

25 authors of the crimes? During your investigation, did you ever interview

Page 6851

1 people who were there when the White Eagles or the White Eagles and

2 Seselj's men perpetrated the crimes? Do you have witnesses who have

3 seen, for instance, "On this day, I was there, I saw such-and-such an

4 individual arrive there and do this or do that?" Did you hear that type

5 of witness, because the difficulty we have here in this type of

6 international trial, which should be totally exempt from any reproach,

7 the problem we have here is that we do not have all the elements. We're

8 hostages to the elements brought about by the OTP and by the Defence, so

9 we don't have all the elements, because the Judges here are in no

10 position to gather evidence. And because of that, we're penalized. That

11 is why I'm asking you all these questions, because I have no evidence

12 here allowing me to think that there were live witnesses who were

13 interviewed.

14 So did you hear any witnesses who were able to tell you what had

15 happened in Vocin?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree with you, Mr. President,

17 that every particular detail is of special importance, and we did

18 interview eyewitnesses who were in Vocin that night and who fled, and who

19 actually were spared death. I would really like it if some of those

20 witnesses wanted to take the stand here; not just one or two, but a

21 number of them to testify here, and to also give the statements which

22 they gave to the police during the crime investigation before this August

23 tribunal, because it is on their statements that we actually based our

24 findings in the crime investigation procedure.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This investigation only finding

Page 6852

1 out about, so obviously some witnesses made statements. And you

2 explained to us that you discovered lists of members belonging to the

3 so-called volunteer group, but your witnesses, did they say that the

4 aggressors were people wearing military uniforms or weapons, but they

5 weren't able to say they were Seselj's men, or the White Eagles, or X, Y

6 and Z? Were they very accurate on the identity of the perpetrators of

7 crimes?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, some of the witnesses stated

9 that the massacre had been committed by the most extremist local members

10 of the special platoon of the White Eagles. The others said that it was

11 with the Seselj men -- Seselj's men. Still others said it was the

12 volunteers of the so-called Black Hand. And then some said that in late

13 October, Mr. Seselj had visited his men in Vocin, and all these

14 statements exist in the form of official notes and records, and they were

15 the basis for the further forensic investigations, and it was in that way

16 that we obtained the information we're referring to now.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are confirming that several

18 witnesses indicated several possibilities; White Eagles, Seselj's men,

19 the Black Hand, all sorts of possibilities?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, move on.

22 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Mr. Matovina, you gave your statement to the Prosecution on the

24 11th of March, 2002, and then it was said that you would be called as a

25 witness in the trial against Mr. Milosevic; is that right?

Page 6853

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And then you testified in the case against Mr. Milosevic on the

3 7th of October, 2002; in other words, six or seven months after you gave

4 the statement; is that right?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. The Prosecution never told you that you were planned to be called

7 as a witness in my trial; is that right?

8 A. When I testified in the Milosevic case, I told them that I hoped

9 that my appearance before the Tribunal would end there. I was told at

10 that point that if ever they should need my assistance in a case relating

11 to Vocin, that I would be called. And that's what, in fact, happened.

12 Q. But no name -- my name, in fact, was not mentioned to you at the

13 time, was it?

14 A. No.

15 Q. That's a very important piece of information for me, and I want

16 to corroborate that by the fact that according to what Carla Del Ponte

17 said, it was in 2002 that the then-Minister Djindjic ordered that I be

18 arrested and extradited. Therefore, there was this gap of six years

19 during which you didn't have any contacts with the Tribunal, did you?

20 A. No.

21 Q. And when was it for the first time that you learned that you

22 would be a witness in this case?

23 A. A month or two ago.

24 Q. So it was only a month or two months ago?

25 A. Yes.

Page 6854

1 Q. Are you aware of the fact that it's been more than five years

2 that you were kept in the records of the Prosecution as a potential

3 witness before the Tribunal; were you aware of this?

4 A. I don't know. The statement I gave -- or, rather, the testimony

5 I gave in the earlier trial --

6 Q. Mr. Matovina, let us not waste time. I need your direct answer.

7 You said that it was a month and a half ago or two months ago that you

8 first learned that you were supposed to testify in this trial. I'm

9 telling you that the Prosecution put your name on a witness list more

10 than five years ago. Therefore, all the while, you were in their list as

11 a witness in my case without being aware of it.

12 Now, when they approached you a month or two ago, how did they go

13 about it?

14 A. I received a notice that I should testify about the crime that

15 was committed in Vocin, as well as on all the other crimes that took

16 place in a given timeline in the area of Slatina, all the way through to

17 the Vocin event, where a massacre was committed and which marked the

18 ending of the provisional occupation of the area.

19 Q. You were informed of this in writing, were you not?

20 A. Well, it doesn't matter. In writing.

21 Q. Well, Mr. Matovina, it is important. Tell me, how did they go

22 about it? Did they place a phone call, did they send you a letter; how

23 did they go about it? It's very important.

24 A. I was informed about this over the phone.

25 Q. Who called you?

Page 6855

1 A. I don't know. It was the Prosecution staff.

2 Q. Was the call placed out of The Hague or Zagreb?

3 A. Both from The Hague and Zagreb.

4 Q. And who called you from Zagreb, who was it?

5 A. A lady, a staff member. I don't know who.

6 Q. Was it the office representing the ICTY in Zagreb?

7 A. Well, I suppose so.

8 Q. Very well. So a month or two months ago, you received this piece

9 of information. What was the next contact that came about?

10 A. I was in touch with the staff of the ICTY and of the Prosecution,

11 and I told them that I was going to repeat everything I stated in my

12 earlier testimony, and that I would state the truth, the whole truth, and

13 nothing but the truth. And this is what we did, in fact, in the course

14 of my yesterday's testimony, when we referred to the early days, the

15 propaganda, the attack on the police station.

16 Q. You're repeating your testimony here. Please, don't waste my

17 time this way.

18 A. We're not wasting time. I said that I would stick to what I had

19 stated earlier, and I was invited by the Prosecution to appear before the

20 Tribunal, and I did.

21 Q. Please. A month and a half ago, you were contacted over the

22 phone, and between that and your yesterday's evidence is the period that

23 I'm interested in. I'd like to know all the contact that you had between

24 that first phone call and your yesterday's testimony, and you keep

25 evading that.

Page 6856

1 A. I'm not evading that. I went through the list and the case file

2 and the statement again with the Prosecution staff because I wanted to

3 make sure that all the data on which the criminal investigation and file

4 is based is correct.

5 Q. And when was that?

6 A. Well, it may have been 10 or 15 days ago.

7 Q. And where did that take place?

8 A. In Zagreb.

9 Q. As a police officer, you have to be more precise. I seem to come

10 across as a better policeman than you are, and I haven't even come to the

11 use of force in my investigation or in my examination. Can you tell me

12 when and where was that in Zagreb?

13 A. The ICTY has its premises there. Therefore, it is of no

14 importance now. Everybody knows what the address is. I don't know,

15 personally, and I don't think it's important to tell you where it was

16 that we met.

17 Q. I don't think you can be the one to judge what's important.

18 A. Well, I'm stating the facts, because the Trial Chamber finds

19 facts relevant.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mussemeyer.

21 MR. MUSSEMEYER: To let you know, I proofed the witness last week

22 in Zagreb. It was a normal proofing like as the witness comes to

23 The Hague and gets proofed here.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor cannot answer

25 instead of the witness, he cannot be testifying. I will not allow this.

Page 6857

1 I think this is the -- an effrontery of the Prosecution. I don't want to

2 engage in the examination in this way, because the Prosecutor is

3 testifying instead of the witness. The witness said it was 10 or 15 days

4 ago in Zagreb, and now the Prosecutor intervened and stated that it was a

5 week ago in The Hague, and I've just caught the witness lying.

6 What sort of an examination am I conducting here?

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, the question of the

8 proofing, as far as I know, this takes place in The Hague, and I'm

9 discovering now that this can take place elsewhere. The proofing session

10 was held in Zagreb, this may be an important point.

11 Please proceed, Mr. Seselj.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the witness did not

13 understand the point I was trying to make with my questions, and he kept

14 saying that these matters were not important. He would want to teach the

15 Trial Chamber about matters that are important. And then he went on to

16 say that the proofing session was held in Zagreb.

17 Now, when I tried to find out where it was, the address and so on

18 and so forth, Mr. Mussemeyer sprang to his feet and stated that it was a

19 week ago and that it was in The Hague. And I caught the witness lying,

20 and this was quite an innocuous lie, in fact, but I made my point in

21 showing that the witness is lying, and that's the gist of it.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, Mr. Seselj wanted to

23 establish something. Personally, I don't see the point of it, but maybe

24 we will discover what it is a little later.

25 Before coming here, you met with the OTP. As a rule, you arrive

Page 6858

1 the day before or a few days before your testimony, and the OTP meets

2 with the witness. In your case, this happened in Zagreb. Can you

3 confirm that you met with the OTP in Zagreb?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's true, that's what I said.

5 Mr. Seselj misunderstood that, whether it was a couple of days earlier I

6 was called and the Prosecutors of the ICTY were on other business in

7 Zagreb, and I attended the -- a short proofing session. I believe that

8 even Mr. Seselj understands that this is -- it doesn't pose a problem of

9 any sort.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So when did you meet the

11 representatives of the OTP? Theoretically, we should have heard another

12 witness today, so you are a replacement witness, because the witness who

13 was due to testify has not come. So last week already, we knew that

14 there was a likelihood that you would be coming to testify this week, and

15 this is why you're here today. This is why it is important to understand

16 at what point you met with the OTP in Zagreb.

17 Was this a week ago, ten days ago, two weeks ago, three weeks

18 ago; do you remember?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know it was a Wednesday. I don't

20 know whether it was the 5th, the 6th or the 7th. I'm not sure about the

21 date. It may have been the 7th, and today we're, what -- well, it was

22 eight to ten days ago. I didn't think it important as a piece of

23 information.

24 I am a criminal inspector, and I've taken part in so many

25 investigations, but I didn't think this was important. I think it was on

Page 6859

1 the 7th of May.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So this was on a Wednesday. At

3 some point, did you lie when you answered some of the questions or did

4 you always tell the truth about the contacts you had with the OTP?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I always spoke the truth. I always

6 responded to any calls that came from the Prosecution. This was the sort

7 of job I did. This is my day job, whenever I'm asked to produce reports

8 or to give accounts of the events that took place.

9 Yesterday, we spoke of the number of individuals who were able to

10 give witness statements. Of course, I always responded to their

11 invitations, and I believe my cooperation was correct.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I understood correctly, when

13 you testified in the Milosevic trial, the OTP told you at the time that

14 you might have to come back to testify again. But at that time were you

15 told that you would have to come to testify in Mr. Seselj's case or were

16 you given no information whatsoever?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Seselj was not mentioned at the

18 time. What I was told was that when and if there should be a case

19 related to Vocin, "it is quite possible we would invite you again."

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right. When exactly did

21 you learn that you would be coming to testify in Seselj's case? On

22 Wednesday, the 7th of May, when did you learn this?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said, it was during my

24 contacts one and a half or two months ago, when the Prosecution informed

25 me that I was to be called as a witness in the Seselj case. Since I'd

Page 6860

1 been following the case against Seselj, and since I was told at the end

2 of my testimony in the Milosevic case that I might be called, once I was

3 contacted, I knew that I would be a witness in the case, and I knew that

4 what they told me at the end of my earlier testimony would, in fact, come

5 true.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have just given us a piece

7 of information. You said you followed Seselj's case. Why did you follow

8 Seselj's case, and when did you start following Seselj's case?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You see, being a criminal

10 inspector, you know, once a policeman, always a policeman. I think

11 you'll agree with me. I had been following all the proceedings before

12 this Tribunal, and I also follow other proceedings before other courts,

13 and I likewise followed the exchanges between Mr. Seselj and

14 Judge Schomburg, if I'm correct about his name. I recall the

15 Judge asking him not to be so harsh and to work in favour of his own

16 interests. I found it all very interesting, and I always was interested

17 in reading such information from the press or hearing broadcasts, and it

18 was not just in the Seselj case but in all the others as well.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you have the floor.

20 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Mr. Matovina, did you feel the urge at that point to come before

22 the Tribunal and to assist Judge Schomburg and help him from my attacks?

23 A. Well, I saw the goodness in the Judge, who I believe disarmed you

24 with his goodness.

25 Q. Well, I have been disarmed by your goodness now here, and I have

Page 6861

1 to examine you. And you, the Croats, have been enchanted with the German

2 goodness for a thousand years, have you not?

3 A. Well, you see, goodness comes from the mercy of God. I should

4 suppose that you have that sort of goodness.

5 Q. Me, God forbid that I should have such goodness ever. But let us

6 go back to our examination.

7 You've had your proofing session with the Prosecution, and during

8 that session, let's set aside the fact that you contacted the Croatian

9 authorities, because you will not admit to that -- in the course of that

10 session, Mr. Mussemeyer -- or Mr. Mussemeyer, I may have been mistaken in

11 the name and perhaps the interpreter can help me, showed you the

12 statement of yours from back in 2002; is that correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Did you read through the statement, both of you, there and then?

15 A. I read the statement through, although I still had it fresh in my

16 memory, all of the details.

17 Q. And when you saw the portion of the statement toward the end,

18 where you speak of the Vocin incident - that's the headline - you were

19 able to see that your statement says that the massacre was committed by a

20 paramilitary unit from Serbia, the White Eagles. Did it not occur to you

21 at that time to tell Mr. Mussemeyer that it was not just the

22 White Eagles, but also the Seselj's men who were there, that somebody had

23 been mentioning during your investigation "Seselj's men" as well? Did

24 you mention that?

25 A. No, I did not. As I told you, I went through the Vocin case.

Page 6862

1 There were some statements there also which were obtained after I stopped

2 working on that case, and on the basis of that, I was able to see that

3 various witnesses used various titles when referring to Serb volunteers.

4 Q. Mr. Matovina, please answer my questions in a straightforward

5 manner. You're a policeman. Just as you asked your suspects to give you

6 straightforward answers and not to beat about the bush, I will do the

7 same thing and ask the same thing from you.

8 When you were having this proofing session, and looking at this

9 portion of your statement with Mr. Mussemeyer, did you draw his attention

10 to the fact that this portion should also include Seselj's men?

11 A. No, I did not. This is the statement that I stand by, that I

12 signed, and we merely wanted to see whether all of the details of the

13 statement still stand.

14 Q. Well, then, Mr. Matovina, you astounded Mr. Mussemeyer and myself

15 when you added the "Seselj's men" to the "White Eagles." I saw

16 Mr. Mussemeyer was astounded and taken aback about something, but I

17 understand what. I did see him taken aback. Did you notice that?

18 A. No, you're not right. I said I was saying this on the basis of

19 the knowledge I had from crime investigation. I was not up there, and I

20 didn't count a single member of the White Eagles or the other units. I'm

21 speaking about what the crime investigation showed.

22 Q. In 2002, were you still a policeman?

23 A. No.

24 Q. In 2002, you'd already seize ceased working on the police force?

25 A. Yes, I was retired.

Page 6863

1 Q. So that means from 2002 to 2008, you were not able to gain any

2 new knowledge from crime investigation; is that right?

3 A. Well, I couldn't, but it's in the files. I can look it up in the

4 proceedings.

5 Q. You're testifying here now, and then we never see each other

6 again. So the Prosecution doesn't have the time to bring you into court

7 five times. It's got other false witnesses that are going to take the

8 stand here.

9 But, Mr. Matovina, what were you doing in 2002?

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, don't say that they

11 have other false witnesses. First of all, you know nothing about it, and

12 this does make the witness sound suspicious. For the time being, he's

13 answered all your questions.

14 Witness, you are a specialist in investigation matters, so you

15 know how important the questions are and how important the answers are.

16 When the representatives of the OTP meet with you in Zagreb, you said,

17 "They show me the statement and I read over it again," and then you say

18 that at no point in time did Seselj's men -- were "Seselj's men"

19 mentioned. It seems that this came to you as a surprise when he heard

20 you talk about the White Eagles and Seselj's men. I assume that when he

21 met you, unless he speaks B/C/S, there must have been an interpreter.

22 Was there an interpreter there?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was an interpreter present,

24 and I think that in that whole incident, everything was clear, as far as

25 we were concerned, all those who were there. The concept of the

Page 6864

1 White Eagles, as far as we were concerned -- well, I've explained it,

2 I've explained what it means, and we just have to look at the statement.

3 We saw the tape, the footage about the injury of those two citizens who

4 were beaten up. We've already seen --

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So let's take it one step at a

6 time.

7 On Wednesday, the 7th of May, you met a representative of the

8 OTP, and you discussed with the OTP the content of your testimony today.

9 And on that day, you did not mention Seselj's men, and you talk about

10 Seselj's men when you came yesterday. How come, and how is it that

11 during -- for all those years, Seselj's men were never mentioned and they

12 now are mentioned out of the blue at the last minute? This is mentioned

13 at the last minute because your memory no longer fails you or because you

14 followed Seselj's case and you know that this is a key issue in this

15 case, or is it that you feel that the words "White Eagles" was a generic

16 term that encompassed Seselj's men, and at the time in 2002, when you

17 mentioned the White Eagles, to you, in your mind, these included Seselj's

18 men as well? So what is the reason? There could be several reasons.

19 You understand my question, don't you?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely that, Mr. President. The

21 concept of "White Eagles" implied all the volunteers from Serbia, and in

22 the witnesses' perception of the matter and how the victims saw it and in

23 coming here, I looked through the case, and I said I'd tell the truth,

24 and I came across several official notes and reports and witness

25 statements, and I'd like them to appear before this Tribunal. Some

Page 6865

1 mention Seselj's men, others mention the White Eagles, others again speak

2 of the Black Hand. Another set mentioned members of the Radical Party.

3 So this name, "White Eagles," was found by witness statements, and it is

4 through them that we arrived at this information. So that's all I'm

5 saying.

6 And when I looked at those official notes and statements, I'm

7 conveying to you what they said, and I'd like at least a few of them to

8 appear here before the Tribunal so you can see all three statements by

9 these witnesses and how we recorded what they said.

10 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

11 Q. I don't doubt that your services could produce a thousand false

12 witnesses, Mr. Matovina. That wouldn't surprise me at all. But tell me

13 this: When you retired, you liked -- at least out of hobby, that you

14 liked dwelling into police affairs, reading about them in the press,

15 following various trials, legal proceedings and things like that, as a

16 hobby?

17 A. Well, I think it's a free country, and you can read the papers

18 and watch television and follow what's happening; not only police

19 investigations and events, but other events too.

20 Q. What else have you been doing since you retired?

21 A. Well, all sorts of things. I did a bit of farming, and fruit

22 tree growing, I was a deputy in the county assembly and in the district

23 assembly for half a mandate, I was the deputy of the county head, the

24 Virovitica County.

25 Q. So you were quite active, politically, and well respected?

Page 6866

1 A. Well, to an extent, that was the level. And as deputy of the

2 county governor, you had quit a lot of public appearances. I found

3 testimony to that. Well, from my own area of activities, social

4 activities and so on.

5 Q. Now during that period, did anybody file any criminal reports

6 against you?

7 A. I don't think anybody did. I don't know that anybody did that.

8 Q. Never?

9 A. Well, nobody told me about it. This is the first I've hear about

10 it.

11 Q. Do you know about the Croatian Social liberal Party; have you

12 heard about that?

13 A. Of course. It's a police partner in the county assembly.

14 Q. You mean where you were the deputy?

15 A. Yes, in the coalition.

16 Q. So you were an expression of the power of the coalition in which

17 the Croatian Social Liberal Party took part; there was the Social

18 Democratic Party and the Socialist National Party?

19 A. No, the SDAP and the HNS was the opposition.

20 Q. What other party was with this Croatian Social Liberal Party and

21 the coalition?

22 A. The Croatian Party of Rights.

23 Q. Is that Dzapic's party?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Before that, it was Paraga's party; right?

Page 6867

1 A. Well, I don't know. Paraga was another faction.

2 Q. And to which of these parties do you belong?

3 A. I belonged and still belong to the Croatian Democratic Community.

4 Q. So that's the third party in the coalition?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And who is the president of the Croatian Democratic Union?

7 A. Dr. Ivo Sanader.

8 Q. So it's Tudjman's -- the person who inherited from Tudjman,

9 right, the present prime minister?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And what about the criminal report against you by the Social

12 Liberal Party, Croatian Liberal Party? May we have it on the screen, and

13 since it's not a secret document, may it be shown in public, in open

14 session, please.

15 Let's see what your former coalition party thinks, former and

16 present.

17 A. All the better.

18 Q. You've heard about Sinisa Kosutic, I assume.

19 A. Yes, he's the former director --

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Much has been said about

21 coalitions of late. Witness, I don't know what document is about to be

22 shown to you, but either you know that there is a criminal report, and

23 you are under oath, or you don't know. You said you don't know. Can you

24 confirm that you did not know about this?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this is the first

Page 6868

1 time that I hear that a criminal report has been raised against me.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, we'll take a look at it.

3 Q. You say you knew about Sinisa Kosutic. He was the manager of a

4 company called Duhan from Slatina?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. According to this document, the director of Uskok in Zagreb, the

7 organisation for crime and corruption prevention, raised a criminal

8 report against 17 individuals suspected that from 1993 to 2002, through

9 various legal -- illegal acts, deprived the company Duhan of many

10 millions, and we see the specific facts there.

11 In the second paragraph, it goes on to say -- or, rather, it

12 describes what was done; illegal appropriation of four million-odd German

13 marks at the time of the Belgrade Jugo bank in Slatina and so on, and

14 then in paragraph 3, it says on the list of suspects we have former

15 members of the board, Vinko Hmelik, Mato Dunkovic, Zlatomir Kramar,

16 Ivan Bajt, and Ante Jimara. And Kosutic claims that through their work,

17 they enabled these losses to be incurred in the Duhan company amounting

18 to more than 90 million kunars. The crime report reached the Uskok

19 organisation and actually was taken against Djuro Matovina,

20 Zvonimir Kasumovic, those were the suspects, and they are suspected of

21 enabling the former director, Zeljko Kolaric, to engage in business which

22 deprived the Duhan company of many millions.

23 Now, you know all these people there, you were a member of the

24 supervising board of the Duhan company, and you say you don't know about

25 this crime report?

Page 6869

1 A. No, this is the first time I see this criminal report, and many

2 times I had meetings with Sinisa Kosutic who for a time was a director of

3 the company called Duhan when I was a member of the supervisory board,

4 and he was replaced. Now, all these other men were members of the

5 supervisory committee, and this is tendentious and false. None of these

6 facts are true. Nobody ever contacted me, as far as this report is

7 concerned, no one informed me about it, neither does any of this here

8 stand, because the losses incurred by the company, as alleged here, they

9 cover a number of years from the war onwards, and they were the result of

10 other circumstances and not anything that Mr. Kostic stipulates here.

11 Q. Now, whether this is correct or not, I'm really not interested in

12 any of that.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a second, Mr. Seselj.

14 This criminal report that we've just seen, well, seemingly this was made

15 public, since this report says: "HSLS." So this was made public. This

16 criminal report, from what I understand, it's closely connected to a

17 financial scandal. I don't see how you are involved in this, but we are

18 not trying this particular case, rest assured. But what do you have to

19 say about this document?

20 The accused in these proceedings is entitled to test the

21 credibility of the witness, so while doing so, coming up with a document

22 like this enables him or us to have an understanding of your character

23 and to check what you are saying.

24 What do you have to say about this matter?

25 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. I would like to

Page 6870

1 know, first and foremost, Witness, because I don't understand this in

2 B/C/S, I would like to know whether we're dealing here with a copy of a

3 criminal report that's been filed. I don't understand if this is a mere

4 comment made about a criminal report that's been filed or complaint.

5 Could you specify this for me, please?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I see here it says:

7 "A branch of the Liberal Party of Slatina." That does no longer exist

8 anymore. It's not the Croatian Social Liberal Party which is in

9 coalition in the county assembly. This Liberal Party no longer exists.

10 At one time, the person who signed it, the self-appointed

11 president, he's not the president anymore, nor is he active in any way

12 anymore. So this isn't a criminal report. It's a pamphlet, that's all

13 it is. And here it says: "The 24th of May," but I don't see what year.

14 I don't see what year that was written.

15 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Last year, Mr. Matovina.

17 A. You can't see that. It says: "The 24th of May," up at the top,

18 but no year. We can't see any year there. It says: "The 24th of May."

19 "Vecernji List" is the paper. So I'd like to see exactly what year this

20 was written in. It was published, as you can see, on the internet, on a

21 website, and I don't know that this report exists in any of the official

22 organs or offices of the prosecutor, whatever.

23 Q. Was there an affair over this firm, the company called Duhan?

24 A. That was a company -- well, the situation was put to rights

25 there, and I said that due to a number of circumstances, the prices on

Page 6871

1 the world market and market trends generally, the company did suffer

2 losses, but the situation was resolved. I have nothing to do with that.

3 Q. Were you a member of the supervisory board of the company?

4 A. Yes, and we replaced three or four managing directors during that

5 time, precisely for the reason that they didn't work to consolidate the

6 firm and to deal with the difficulties the firm was going through, and

7 that your intimations are saying.

8 Q. Well, I'm not making any intimations. I just searched everything

9 on the internet everything with respect to Djuro Matovina, and I received

10 information what you did as the deputy prefect, what statements you made

11 to the press and so on and so forth. And I set aside this criminal

12 report against you, this of course is just information about the criminal

13 report that was filed. It is an interpretation, in fact, of the criminal

14 report. Whereas Mr. Matovina says that he doesn't know anything about

15 it.

16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you will agree that

17 anything can be found on the internet, even accusations or libel, but not

18 true criminal reports or proceedings started before a court. So I

19 believe that this document, personally, is not reliable at all.

20 THE INTERPRETER: [Previous translation continues] ... asked to

21 slow down, thank you.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

23 continues] ... which seems to be drafted by Dragutin Santosi. Your name

24 appears in the middle of the document, and then, strangely enough, your

25 name appears in bold type, as if it was meant on purpose for somebody to

Page 6872

1 spot your name. And you're part of the board of directors of the Duhan

2 company.

3 Are you someone so eminent in this company that your name should

4 be highlighted?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I'm not at all eminent. I can

6 see that it was written by a general who is called Dragutin Santosi. It

7 is published by Sinisa Kosutic and written by Santosi. I don't when he

8 wrote it on the basis of what, I didn't see the date of the filing of the

9 complaint. Well, you can see that it refers to 1993 to 2002 as the

10 period in question. I really don't know. Nobody ever informed me of

11 this, nor got in touch with me in connection with this. And this

12 gentleman who wrote this, well, I suppose someone will call me one day

13 and I will have a chance to say something on this.

14 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Do you know the person who signed this?

16 A. Of course I know Dragutin Santosi, and I find it very strange

17 that he didn't inform me of writing this, it is very strange, because I

18 do know him, and we are good friends.

19 Q. You will have something to discuss with him when you go back to

20 Slatina.

21 A. Thank you.

22 Q. Mr. Matovina, so we have established that it was for the first

23 time last night that you referred to Seselj's men --

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I'm sorry to

25 interrupt, but we've now come to a good time for a break, and we'll take

Page 6873

1 a break for 20 minutes. We'll resume in 20 minutes' time.

2 Thank you.

3 --- Recess taken at 3.56 p.m.

4 --- On resuming at 4.17 p.m.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll resume our hearing.

6 Mr. Seselj, you still have an hour and 18 minutes. This is what

7 the Registrar told me.

8 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Mr. Matovina, I'm going to ask you easier questions now than the

10 ones which I put to you before, so you will be able to have a bit of a

11 respite.

12 A. Thank you.

13 Q. Tell me -- I have completed it, I wrapped it up successfully, the

14 previous portion of my questions. You worked in the police force for 30

15 years; is that right?

16 A. Right.

17 Q. When did you stop working, what year was it?

18 A. On the 18th of June, 19 --

19 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not catch the year. Sorry.

20 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

21 Q. You --

22 JUDGE HARHOFF: When did the witness stop working? The

23 interpreter did not catch from you --

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The year 2000.

25 THE INTERPRETER: And if the witness and the accused would kindly

Page 6874

1 not overlap.

2 JUDGE HARHOFF: And I'm also asked by the interpreters to ask you

3 once again not to overlap. Thank you.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

5 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

6 Q. You remember that about the time you started working for the

7 police, he was the chief of the municipality TO staff; right?

8 A. I don't know for sure what positions he held. I know that he was

9 in the state administration. I'm not quite sure what positions he held.

10 I was not close to him.

11 Q. But do you remember when he barged into the police station in

12 Podravska Slatina with a pistol?

13 A. No.

14 Q. You do not remember? You were not in the station?

15 A. No, I don't remember that even.

16 Q. Do you know that an indictment had been filed against him before

17 the County Court in Slatina -- in Bjelovar, sorry, for the Vocin crime?

18 A. He's one of the people that I talked about in the list -- one of

19 the people on the list of the Papuk Detachment. How the process ended

20 before court, the investigation, I don't know.

21 Q. Please be brief.

22 A. I know that they were accused. I don't know in what stage the

23 trial is.

24 Q. Do you know that he was the commander of the so-called

25 Reconnaissance Platoon of the Territorial Defence?

Page 6875

1 A. Well, his role was in the list which we considered in some detail

2 yesterday, and you can exactly see what functions he had.

3 Q. Is that the position, commander or the leader of the

4 Reconnaissance Platoon?

5 A. I cannot tell you exactly on what list he was.

6 Q. We didn't see his position in the list yesterday.

7 A. It is on the list in the Cyrillic script, that list. He is

8 there.

9 Q. But here in the courtroom, he actually portrayed himself as a man

10 who provided humanitarian assistance, accommodation for refugees. Do you

11 know that he was a humanitarian worker or a combatant?

12 A. It was after the war that he worked with the UNHCR.

13 Q. We're not interested in what he did after the war.

14 A. I don't know that he provided aid to refugees during the period

15 when this area was under temporary occupation, and this occupation lasted

16 for four months, when the organs of the Croatian government did not

17 function there, so we did not have full insight into who was doing what.

18 So I don't know whether he did it or not.

19 Q. But he was accused for Vocin and for Cetekovac?

20 A. I don't think he was accused for Cetekovac.

21 Q. And for Vocin, he was?

22 A. He is in the criminal complaint in connection with Vocin.

23 Q. But do you know that the direct intervention of the US Embassy,

24 Zagreb, the proceedings against him were suspended, were dropped?

25 A. I don't know that.

Page 6876

1 Q. During the war and before the war, actually, you were the first

2 operative officer of the Slatina SUP; right?

3 A. Well, I was one of the assistants of the commander of the police

4 station, as I said yesterday.

5 Q. Okay. And at that time when you were high police official in

6 Podravska Slatina, murder of Serbian civilians started occurring; right?

7 A. Yes, that is true, there were several murders that took place in

8 war circumstances and which were investigated as a crime, and criminal

9 complaints were filed against unknown perpetrators. And we continued to

10 collect information. Some of the perpetrators were identified and put on

11 trial.

12 Q. Do you remember the killing of Savo Smajlic, who was burned in

13 his house?

14 A. Yes. This happened in Gornji Miholjac.

15 Q. Were his killers identified, detected?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Do you remember the murder of the old lady whose surname is

18 Potacek [phoen]? I could not learn the name, unfortunately.

19 A. Yes, this was also done by unknown perpetrators.

20 Q. Do you remember Milutin Gunjevic, a private entrepreneur?

21 A. Yes, I do.

22 Q. His killer were not found, either?

23 A. Yes, that's correct. This happened before the war, by unknown

24 perpetrators.

25 Q. Yes, but in Podravska Slatina, a territory under Croatian

Page 6877

1 control, and the victims were Serbs; right?

2 A. [No verbal response]

3 Q. Do you remember the murder of an old lady whose surname is Katic?

4 Unfortunately -- I could find her name, but I would have to consult my

5 papers.

6 A. No.

7 Q. And what about Zivko Bukarica, his killing? He was from

8 Aleksandrovac.

9 A. No, I don't remember.

10 Q. And the killing of Mile Komatetic [phoen] from Cojlug?

11 A. No.

12 Q. And do you remember that Gojko Olaca [phoen] had his throat slit

13 at the very beginning of the conflict?

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, please, Mr. Seselj is

15 probably going to draw up a list of victims, and of course as I already

16 said, unfortunately we Judges don't have all the evidence, and sometimes

17 we have to go fishing for information.

18 Yesterday, you told us that at some point in time at the police

19 station, a thousand people came, and you described the whole situation

20 very well. Now, I'm wondering whether the situation itself wasn't the

21 consequence of a previous situation, all the crimes that are being listed

22 by Mr. Seselj took place before the famous riot with the thousand people

23 who came.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These crimes took place after the

25 demonstrations and the attack on the police station in war circumstances

Page 6878

1 that obtained in Slatina. This Papuk platoon that we -- or rather

2 detachment that we discussed yesterday attacked Slatina with over 400

3 artillery attacks. We had over 10.000 refugees. The people who had --

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What I'm interested in for the

5 time being is these victims were Serbs, whose list has been provided, you

6 just said that those were victims after the demonstration. So in a city

7 or in a village, there are always people who are killed for reasons which

8 have to do with delinquency because they are being robbed or pick

9 pocketed or whatever. But those Serbs who were killed, why were they

10 killed?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is true that they were Serbs.

12 As I've already said this happened in war circumstances when we also have

13 another massacre. These killings occurred in 1991, when we also had

14 another massacre, the killing of Croatian soldiers, the arrival of

15 refugees, the shelling of Slatina. So it was a general -- a wholesale

16 nightmare against this setting these individual murders took place by

17 unknown perpetrators as revenge, and these Serbs were the victims of

18 individuals. And we acted in prevention, to prevent such things from

19 happening, and we processed every individual case and investigated the

20 individual crimes.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Those isolated individuals,

22 were any of them arrested?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Some were identified and processed.

24 Some are still unknown to this day.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And those who were recognised

Page 6879

1 as being the authors and then arrested, what argument did they present to

2 justify their action? What did they say?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They did what they did as a

4 consequence of hate. There was one instance which the gentleman perhaps

5 didn't mention here, enumerated a lot of them, which was motivated by

6 property motives. Some people killed a man, ransacked his house, looked

7 for money and valuables, so this kind of thing that happens in war.

8 Criminals of all ilk try to do their thing, as it were, so perhaps some

9 were killed out of hate, because they were Serbs, but also there were

10 property-motivated criminal offences because the perpetrators thereof

11 just wanted to get some valuables.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let us assume that in a period

13 of trouble, some authors of petty crime come here to rob or loot. Okay.

14 But whether they're Serbs, Croats, Muslims, it's not an issue; they

15 attack anybody. But did you feel that during the period the specific

16 target was Serbs?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, of course, and with the

18 police officers we had at the police station, namely, 70, we tried to

19 prevent further crimes. The police was the only armed force, because it

20 was only in the month of October of 1991 that the Croatian Army was

21 formed.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In 1990-1991, you were in the

23 state called "Yugoslavia." The army in charge in the period of trouble

24 was the JNA. If there was an insurgency of that type with individuals

25 attacking Serbs or possibly Croats, and should the police not be in a

Page 6880

1 position to protect the general population, would the police authorities

2 ask for the help of the JNA to bring back order?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time, the army did not want

4 to have any sort of cooperation with the police. The process of the

5 division started. The first multi-party parliament was constituted. The

6 JNA was proclaimed to be an enemy. I spoke about this in response to Her

7 Honour's question. The army was using its weapons to arm local Serbs.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You said that yesterday, that

9 the army distributed weapons, but maybe if the army could not restore

10 order, it felt that it should provide weapons to those in danger.

11 Couldn't that be a reason for the weapons distribution? What's your

12 opinion on that?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think that's the case,

14 since the army appropriated all the weaponry that previously belonged to

15 the Territorial Defence of the Republic of Croatia, and those weapons

16 were distributed among able-bodied men out of whose ranks the rebel units

17 were formed. The murders referred to by Mr. Seselj had only civilians as

18 their victims. These were not people who joined the ranks of army.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I understand correctly, the

20 JNA was supposed to be neutral or unbiased vis a vis Serbs or Croats,

21 since it was the Army for Yugoslavia, but you said they distributed

22 weapons to Serbs, not to Croats. In other words, the army was biased

23 towards one of the camps?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. Yesterday, we referred to

25 the 40-lorry convoy, about the distribution of automatic weapons and the

Page 6881

1 training of men in the Papuk area. They simply intervened and saw an

2 enemy in the Croatian police, which came to be true later on with the

3 attack on the police station, the aim of which was to destroy that

4 feature. The intention was for Slatina not to have any sort of police

5 force and for chaos to set in.

6 I said that we had tens of thousands of refugees passing through

7 the area. We had air raids on several occasions which were, in fact,

8 called for by the rebel forces. Besides that, we had artillery attacks,

9 shells landing on both Croat and Serb homes, and because of the danger of

10 further artillery attacks, there was a blackout in the town of Slatina.

11 In such circumstances of war, many things happened, and we tried to

12 maintain law and order as far as was possible.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One last question. You said

14 that there was an artillery attack. You're saying the attack was on --

15 or landed on Croat and Serb homes. Were shells landing on any type of

16 homes?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Indiscriminate shells landed on the

18 general area of the town, the industrial area, residential areas, whereas

19 the aircraft also targeted various vital institutions, sport

20 institutions, the police institution. But that was at the time when the

21 Croatians took control, and it was the rebel forces from Papuk who did

22 that. The Papuk area was under occupation for four months. There was a

23 line of separation, and in that area the Croatian authority did not have

24 control. So it was out of the area where the rebel forces were present.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. So the insurgency forces

Page 6882

1 in Papuk were shooting or shelling the town indiscriminately. They were

2 also shelling Serbs?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. They shelled the general area

4 of the town. In that period, most of the Serb inhabitants left, and many

5 of them tried to evacuate their families to Serbia or to the occupied

6 territory, out of harm's way, because they believed that the Podravska

7 main highway would soon be severed and that the entire area would soon be

8 captured. However, it was Pakrac that proved to be a bone of -- an

9 obstacle, and this prevented them from cutting off the entire area of

10 Slavonia, from cutting it off from the rest of the country, but they

11 failed in that.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Had all the Serbs left Slatina

13 or had some remained?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not all of them left. Many of them

15 stayed there throughout the war, and many of them returned. Members

16 of -- or, rather, the family members of those who were members of various

17 units had been evacuated, because they knew of the lurking danger coming

18 out of the presence of the rebel forces up there.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So if I understand correctly,

20 the Serbs who had remained in their houses for whatever reasons were also

21 shelled, just as their Croat neighbours who were shelled as well?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The town was shelled

23 indiscriminately in order to create a psychosis of fear. And if you

24 allow me to finish, in the morning hours, during the rush hour, when

25 people went to work, or at night, at 2.00, and all this in order to

Page 6883

1 create a psychosis of fear. The schools were closed for most of the

2 school year. They only opened when the danger ceased, and that was in

3 January. Those were war conditions. It was a nightmare, the backdrop

4 against which all of this happened.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] To your knowledge, were Serbs

6 shot or wounded by shots from Papuk?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that there were wounded.

8 I'm not sure about the dead. Whenever the shelling started, and one

9 already knew roughly the time when it would start, people knew where to

10 seek shelter, although when the shelling started, it would start in broad

11 daylight and it instilled fear. There were over 400 artillery attacks

12 against Slatina with very heavy artillery weaponry, and I'm referring to

13 Slatina and the general area.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.

15 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Mr. Matovina, these artillery positions at Papuk, how far away

17 from Podravska Slatina were they, the artillery positions you claim --

18 from where you claim the attacks came?

19 A. Well, this was in the area of Lipovac, so six kilometres away, is

20 Koralija, and then Bokan was another position some 300 kilometres away as

21 the crow flies. They used the multi-barrelled rocket-launchers and so on

22 and so forth.

23 Q. Which sort of unit was that which had long-range artillery

24 weapons that could reach the town?

25 A. Yes, that was the Papuk Detachment that had been armed by the JNA

Page 6884

1 as it was leaving the area. Part of the heavy weaponry was found by us

2 abandoned; cannons, mortars, even tanks, all of them were abandoned and

3 then later on taken by the Croatian Army.

4 Q. How many cannons -- how many guns did the Papuk Detachment have?

5 A. I don't know about that. It was the army who found the mortars,

6 cannons, and the two tanks. One of the tanks had even been captured

7 earlier. I didn't have that sort of information. The army did.

8 Q. So roughly there were two tanks, a lot of them were of the old

9 make, D-55s, were they not, and perhaps a couple of cannons as well; is

10 it not the case?

11 A. I don't know how many cannons there were. The attacks were

12 carried out by heavy mortars, 120-millimetre mortars, very destructive

13 rounds. The positions were some two kilometres above Slatina, just

14 opposite the line of separation.

15 Q. 400 artillery attacks, 400 cannon attacks, and not a single

16 casualty. Isn't that a bit ridiculous?

17 A. Yes, there were casualties. There were people killed and people

18 wounded and so on and so forth.

19 Q. Let us speak in more precise terms, shall we not. You were a

20 police officer of many a standing in Podravska Slatina. Then after the

21 war, for a while you were deputy -- what's it called? You were -- can

22 you help me there?

23 A. Deputy of the Virovitica Zupanija county Prefect, and that was

24 just for a half term of office.

25 Q. So then you should know how many Croats were killed in the

Page 6885

1 Slatina area in all during the war?

2 A. I don't want to speak from my memory.

3 Q. And I'm also referring to the Papuk area.

4 A. Since the Western Slavonia was not within my competence, and you

5 know the area that you're referring to, the area that you're referring

6 to, the area of Slatina is part of Western Slavonia, and I can't give you

7 the number of victims.

8 Q. There is information about the numbers of Croats killed in the

9 war in general; is that right?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. So then you should know, being a local of the area, how many

12 people were killed in Western Slavonia, how many police officers, how

13 many soldiers, how many civilians?

14 A. I said that I didn't want to make a mistake, to be inaccurate.

15 Q. Well, right. Can you then tell me how many civilian Croats were

16 killed in total? There were 73 in Vocin, 24 in Cetekovac. When we sum

17 that all up, what is the figure we arrive at?

18 A. Well, there were many more.

19 Q. I know, but you tell me.

20 A. 120 members of the army were killed, 24 policemen. There were

21 civilians killed. Had I known you would put this question to me and that

22 this would be the subject of my testimony, I would have obtained the

23 accurate data. However, on the basis of the information we have, 24

24 Cetekovac, and then Vocin, 22 policemen, such-and-such a number of

25 civilians. Well, there were many victims. Even one victim is one too

Page 6886

1 many.

2 Q. I agree with you that one victim is one too many, but the rough

3 numbers are also important in order for us to see the scale of the war

4 conflict and the scale of the killing of civilians. That would be a

5 relevant piece of information.

6 You mentioned 120 soldiers. Well, that's roughly the figure I

7 have. 24 to 25 policemen. We could take that there were twice as many

8 civilians. Could there have been twice as many?

9 A. Well, I don't know.

10 Q. If there were 150 soldiers and policemen killed in all, how many

11 civilians would you add to that? And I'm referring to the entire period

12 of the war.

13 A. Whatever I said would be inaccurate.

14 Q. Let us give an estimation. Would that be 200?

15 A. I don't know. I don't want to speculate. I don't want to make

16 any estimates.

17 Q. I can tell you that I know how many Serbs were killed.

18 Can a document be shown to the witness, please, and I believe it

19 was sent to both the Prosecution and the Trial Chamber.

20 You heard of the Serbian information centre called Veritas, I

21 suppose.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And you knew it's led by Mr. Strbac, do you not?

24 A. I heard that.

25 Q. Are you aware of the fact that he's got very close cooperation

Page 6887

1 and intense cooperation with the Prosecution?

2 A. Well, I don't know.

3 Q. According to the data he has, and that's from the 13th of May,

4 2008, that's the sort of information that the Prosecution would have, but

5 for probably well-known reasons they wouldn't disclose them to me, so I

6 had to contact Mr. Sabac myself. This is a list of all the Serbs killed

7 in the area of Western Slavonia, those killed and who went missing.

8 The list, and if you look at the last page, covers 1.086

9 individuals, and I made my calculations. We have the last name, first

10 name, father's name, place and date of birth, municipality, date of when

11 they went missing, municipality where they lived at the time when they

12 went missing, a member, then they say whether they are civilians and so

13 on and so forth, and the status, whether they went missing or were killed

14 or were buried, and then the gender. We've got 502 Serb civilians listed

15 here as those who were killed or went missing, and 584 soldiers and

16 policemen killed. And this is much more than the sum total of the Croat

17 victims.

18 Now, you'll say that every victim is equally bad, but the figures

19 do tell of the side which committed more atrocities. If we have 584

20 soldiers and policemen killed on the Serb side and 150 soldiers and

21 policemen killed on the Croat side, then you can see the scale of the --

22 of deaths on the Serb side. And we have 502 civilians killed on the Serb

23 side, and the Croats have not as yet opened the mass graves in Croatia.

24 And you know that from Grubisno Polje and beyond, there were not -- there

25 weren't any armed activities at all and we know how many people were

Page 6888

1 killed nevertheless. What do you have to say to that, Mr. Matovina?

2 A. You yourself stated that this refers to Western Slavonia, which

3 is not the area we operate out of Virovitica and Slatina. In Slatina,

4 where I was present, we had nothing to do with that area. You're drawing

5 a comparison between the victims among civilians, soldiers and policemen

6 on the -- of the Virovitica-Slatina area. You're talking about the

7 towns, themselves, not even about the area of the county, and you are

8 comparing those figures with the figures on the Serb side for the entire

9 Western Slavonia, where the situation in the general area was different.

10 We had the highway that was blocked, and without the Croatian Army

11 carrying out Operation Flash, the area could not have been reached at

12 all.

13 I cannot comment upon these figures that you present me with.

14 Q. So you're not aware of how many Serbs were killed or wounded

15 during the Croatian Operation Flash, do you?

16 A. No.

17 Q. How come?

18 A. Well, I don't even know how many civilians or soldiers were

19 killed on the Croat side there, either. I don't know any of the figures

20 relating to that. Why should we speak of that.

21 Q. All right, let's move on. Do you know who Milan Vukovic was?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And Savo Mackovic?

24 A. Yes, that rings a bell.

25 Q. Nikola Cevizovic, Milovan Ostojic, Vlajko Tomasevic?

Page 6889

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Are these names familiar?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. But when you testified in the Milosevic trial, you said over

5 there that you didn't know Milan Vukovic?

6 A. I heard of him, but I was never with him personally. I never

7 heard any comments. I heard he was a judge in Pozega-Orahovac, and that

8 he had an office and so on, but I never had any contact with him, nor did

9 I ever talk to him.

10 Q. But in the Milosevic trial, you said that you didn't know of him

11 at all?

12 A. Well, I don't really know him. I don't remember the detail. As

13 for Vukovic, well --

14 Q. Mr. Matovina, it's a good thing here, in 2002, you didn't know

15 about Seselj's men, and now they've just come to mind. In the Milosevic

16 trial, you hadn't heard of Milan Vukovic at all, and now suddenly you

17 know him. So there's this natural process whereby your memory is

18 improving little by little.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Wait for the person who has put

20 the question to end the question before you answer. Otherwise, you will

21 be overlapping.

22 Please answer the question now.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

25 Q. I'm now going to give you some information about Milan Vukovic,

Page 6890

1 and you can confirm or deny them. Milan Vukovic was a judge in Orahovac.

2 He was the president of the District Court in Slavonska Pozega, and after

3 that he worked as a lawyer. He had legal offices opposite the police

4 station in Podravska Slatina; is that right?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Several months before the war broke out, with some other Serbs,

7 he was arrested by civilians, armed civilians, or rather para-policemen,

8 armed civilians who acted as policemen. Did you hear of that case?

9 A. No.

10 Q. He was brought in, and these other people that I read out, and

11 you said you knew them, too. Anyway, they were escorted to the SUP yard

12 of Podravska Slatina, and then Vukovic was taken into one of the offices,

13 "the office of Djuro Matovina," it says. Is that correct?

14 A. Never.

15 Q. He wasn't brought to your office?

16 A. No.

17 Q. I knew you'd deny that. Anyway, the first operative in the

18 police station, where there was a certain man called Rostas? Do you know

19 this man, Rostas? He was a teacher, and he's now the head master of the

20 primary school in Podravska Slatina?

21 A. Yes, he was the commander of the Croatian national guards school

22 in Slatina, and he was indeed a teacher and the headmaster of a school.

23 But he was never in the police station during the war, and to the best of

24 my knowledge I never saw him there.

25 Q. When these people are brought into your office, you were passive

Page 6891

1 in your conduct, and Rostas had the main say?

2 A. That's not correct. They were never brought into my office,

3 never. I don't know Vukovic personally. I know Maskovic and the others,

4 the names are familiar.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, please stop. The

6 Prosecutor is on his feet, and I don't know why but he is about to tell

7 us why.

8 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I have a short remark. It would be helpful if

9 Mr. Seselj could tell us where the witness in the Milosevic trial said

10 that he did not know Milan Vukovic. I quickly checked in his transcript

11 of the Vukovic -- the Milosevic trial, and I see on page 11068 to the

12 question of Mr. Milosevic:

13 "All right, let's go and engage in a general debate. Tell me, do

14 you know a prominent citizen of Slatina a Serb, a lawyer by profession,

15 Milan Vukovic?"

16 The answer is of Mr. Matovina:

17 "I don't know the man personally. I believe he's from Orahovica,

18 if I pronounce it correctly, but I've never had any personal contact with

19 him. I don't know where he is nowadays."

20 So he did not deny completely that he did not know him at that

21 time. This is only what I could find on a quick search. Maybe

22 Mr. Seselj has a better source, but it would be helpful if he could tell

23 us before he is quoting these things.

24 Thanks.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, after the questions

Page 6892

1 are put, we understand that Milan Vukovic was a judge, he was a lawyer,

2 and it seems that his house was on the other side of the police station.

3 This is what we have learnt. And you said in the Milosevic trial that

4 you didn't know him personally, you didn't know him at all. You had seen

5 him by the by. Is that all?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know him personally.

7 He opened his offices just before the war and I never had any contacts

8 with him, and I am grateful to the Prosecutor for helping me out and

9 telling me exactly what I said in the Milosevic trial. And, actually,

10 what I said then is exactly what I said here today.

11 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Do you know where the premises of Elektroslavonija are located in

13 Slatina?

14 A. Of course, they are always in the same place.

15 Q. And what was there during the war and the conflicts?

16 A. Nothing.

17 Q. There was a torture house for Serbs over there, and you say

18 "nothing." That's not true, sir. In your presence, Rostas decided and

19 stated that Milan Vukovic and the other Serbs should be taken to the

20 premises of the Elektroslavonija company. They were seriously beaten up

21 there and afterwards returned to the yard of the SUP of Podravska Slatina

22 where the torture continued. You personally, Mr. Matovina, observed all

23 this and watched Milan Vukovic be tortured by having cigarette butts

24 extinguished on his back; isn't that right?

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute, Mr. Matovina.

Page 6893

1 The accused seems to be incriminating you. According to our Rules, you

2 do not have to answer.

3 If the Trial Chamber decides that you should answer the question,

4 then the Trial Chamber can grant you immunity for these facts. I must

5 inform you of this possibility, since the cross-examination is charging

6 you.

7 Please proceed, Mr. Seselj.

8 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

9 Q. You mentioned the demonstrations in front of the police station,

10 and in your statement you mentioned Rade Gajic; isn't that right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Who was Rade Gajic?

13 A. He was the president of the municipality at the time.

14 Q. What was his role in that -- at that meeting or rally?

15 A. He had been to the chief of the police station for talks,

16 Mr. Kresimir Libl, together with Milan Karadzic and Ilija Sasic. But

17 with your permission, Your Honours, may I be allowed to answer the

18 question a moment ago linked to --

19 Q. You can do that, but outside my time. If the Judge gives you

20 some extra time which isn't deducted from my time, I have nothing against

21 that. But if it takes up my time, then just answer what I am asking you.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you wanted to answer

23 Mr. Seselj's question or not? I haven't quite understood.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right, the question about

25 the fact that four people were allegedly tortured and that I observed

Page 6894

1 that, and that Mr. Rostas was there. I was never -- I never attended

2 that event, nor do I know about any event like that. So thank you for

3 giving me the opportunity of responding, and I am responding before the

4 whole world and in front of the cameras here and state that that is a

5 lie. It is tendentious -- tendentiously presented here to discredit me.

6 My conscience is not burdened by anything, and that is the

7 greatest thing I own and my greatest capital that I can say, my greatest

8 property during the war. Mr. Seselj, you don't know me at all.

9 Q. I don't know you, and I have no intention of getting to know you,

10 Mr. Matovina. You're a Prosecution witness, and I came across some data

11 which go towards discrediting you in a serious fashion. But otherwise,

12 I'm very doubtful that my time is calculated the same as the Prosecution

13 time, because I find something strange in those calculations, so please

14 don't deduct this from my time.

15 You said that the motive of the demonstrators in front of the

16 police station that their aim was to take control of the police station?

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, just a minute.

18 About the fact that you thought you did not have the same time allotted

19 to you as has been allotted to the Prosecution, the time is being checked

20 by the Registrar. It's she who tells us how much time you have had. And

21 according to what she tells me, I inform you. I have nothing to do with

22 that.

23 At this point in time, I cannot tell you how much time you have

24 left. It's Madam Registrar who will tell us. This is what I wanted to

25 clarify.

Page 6895

1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Mr. Seselj used one hour and three

2 minutes.

3 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

4 Q. You said that the main object of the demonstrators in front of

5 the police station was to take control of that same police station; is

6 that right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Now, those 1.000 demonstrators, of which many had arms, had they

9 wanted to take control of the police station, they could have done so at

10 any point in time; isn't that right?

11 A. Well, no, that is not right. The demonstrators, who were armed

12 and who had imbued alcohol, and who were doing some shooting, and turned

13 over a car and injured someone, well, anyway, the term yesterday was very

14 well used, the term that was used yesterday. Anyway, when they saw the

15 resolve of the policemen to defend the police station and when they saw

16 that they would come up against resistance and that this could spark a

17 war, they gave up on the idea. Of course, after talking to the chief of

18 the police station, chief of police, Mr. Kresimir Libl, when the leaders

19 of the SDS came out, they appealed to the people gathered there to

20 disperse, because they had been given assurance that the weapons of the

21 reserve police force would not be displaced from the police station. So

22 that was the reason, allegedly, why they intended to attack the police

23 station, whereas the real reasons were others; to establish control over

24 the police station, and this was already seen previously in Pakrac, in

25 Orahovac and so on.

Page 6896

1 Q. Let's leave that alone. You weren't over there so don't testify

2 about things you don't know about.

3 A. But they are facts, they are things that happened.

4 Q. Now you're provided us with the right answer, and that is that

5 the rumour went through Podravska Slatina, that the Croatian authorities

6 were preparing to take weapons away from the police station, as indeed

7 had happened in many other places, where the majority were the Serb

8 population, and all the demands by the mass of Serbs that had been

9 collected there concerned the weapons from the police station that they

10 thought would be taken away?

11 A. There was no need to take any weapons out of the police station.

12 Why would it, because it was necessary for the reserve police force. I

13 don't know where the logic there was, that anybody should take the

14 weapons away.

15 Q. But the rumour was that the Croatian authorities wanted to take

16 away the weapons as they had done in many municipalities populated by

17 Serbs. Rade Gajic, who was a Serb and president of the municipality,

18 entered among this mass of people to calm them down?

19 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers kindly slow down and speak

20 one at a time. It is impossible to translate at this high speed. Thank

21 you.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We discussed their appeal yesterday

23 on the masses --

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, please go more slowly.

25 The interpreters have difficulty, find it difficult to keep up the pace.

Page 6897

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you.

2 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Mr. Matovina, you described the case of Mato Mesaros in quite

4 false terms. 1.000 people gathered in front of the police station, and

5 Mato Mesaros was trying to make his way through that mass in a car; is

6 that correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And he managed to make his way through this crowd?

9 A. He did, but he ended up badly. He was driving his wife, who was

10 very ill. That's why.

11 Q. Let's leave that to one side, whether he was driving his wife. I

12 don't know about that. But, anyway, he managed to drive through this

13 mass of 1.000 people, although the police from all sides stopped the

14 traffic once this crowd had gathered there; is that correct? Did the

15 police indeed stop traffic in that street?

16 A. No. There were not many policemen, we didn't have many

17 policemen, and we found it hard to collect even that number of policemen

18 to defend the police station, let alone deal with traffic, because there

19 was the danger of the police station being taken over.

20 Q. Nobody actually wanted to take control of this police station,

21 did they? Now, Mato Mesaros drives through this crowd at low speed. He

22 manages to pass through the crowd; isn't that right?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And he manages to do that, he succeeds in driving through the

25 crowd and reach the medical centre at Podravska Slatina; isn't that

Page 6898

1 right?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And when he managed to reach his destination --

4 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, both Mr. Seselj and

5 the witness, you have not understood that after your question and your

6 answer, there is a translation. Therefore, you need to make a pause.

7 You're not -- you're talking to each other. You're not talking to the

8 Bench.

9 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

10 Q. When he finished what he was doing in the medical centre, whether

11 he was taking his wife or whatever, it's immaterial, he drove his wife to

12 the medical centre and left her there, he once again drove back through

13 the masses; isn't that right?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. Now, why did he have to pass through the crowd again when he was

16 no longer in a hurry?

17 A. He considered that on his way back, the crowd had dispersed and

18 that he would be able to get through, because there was no -- he didn't

19 choose another route. This was the shortest route, and it was the

20 main street, anyway, the main street.

21 Q. Now, think of this, Mr. Matovina: Can you imagine that in

22 Zagreb, you have 1.000 people demonstrating somewhere in Zagreb, and then

23 someone comes there and intentionally drives a car through the crowd, the

24 mass of people there are angry. There's a lot of shoving and pushing,

25 somebody is injured. And when this is all over, you have the same person

Page 6899

1 coming back and driving through the crowd again, and in fact he injured

2 ten people driving through the crowd. First of all, he had two

3 alternative routes, he didn't have to pass through the crowd again at

4 all; isn't that right?

5 A. Well, he had more than two alternative routes. There were more

6 alternative routes that he could have taken. But why would he, because

7 this was the main road, and there was no reason for the main road to be

8 blocked off, and that there were demonstrations and unrest going on on

9 that main road, and from there an attack should be launched on the police

10 station.

11 Q. First of all, there was no attack on the police station, and it

12 wasn't up to Mato Mesaros, that was the second point, whether the

13 demonstrations were legal or illegal. When he saw a mass of people

14 there, he should not have driven past the crowd. Imagine demonstrations

15 in France or Denmark or anything, and then suddenly somebody decides to

16 drive through the mass of people. Now how would the mass have reacted?

17 Mato Mesaros could have taken the northern route and bypassed

18 Brace Radica Street or, rather, the people gathered in front of the

19 police station, taking the market route and Strossmayer Street. He could

20 have avoided the mass, avoided the crowd.

21 A. Yes, that's correct, that is indeed a bypass, but it was his

22 choice why he decided to go through the crowd. He went legally through

23 the main road. There was no need to shut off the traffic, that unlawful.

24 Q. What is lawful, in your law in Croatia, when a drive sees a

25 pedestrian on the street, he has to stop the car, isn't that right, even

Page 6900

1 if the pedestrian is outside the pedestrian crossing; isn't that what the

2 law says?

3 A. Well, there is the principle of solidarity and mutuality in laws

4 governing traffic, and you have to give up on your right-of-way if you

5 run the risk of harming someone.

6 Q. So this driver sees thousands of people, and he's thinking are

7 they there legally or illegally, and having reached the conclusion that

8 it's illegal, he just hits the masses; is that right? So which mass of

9 people would it be that would not lynch him? Do you think that in

10 Zagreb, if there was a trade union rally and if a driver behaved that

11 way, that he wouldn't be beaten up by the crowd?

12 A. Well, I really don't know. We can only speculate and assume what

13 could happen or not. But that was his choice, he decided to go that way.

14 Q. I see, his choice. So because of that choice, he was beaten up.

15 He could have taken the southern route as well from Laze Tihomirovic

16 Street further on and then Milan Klein Street, he could have taken that

17 route, and then everything would have been fine; isn't that right?

18 A. Well, that's right, but I can see that you know the streets very

19 well. It's almost like you're a local of Slatina.

20 Q. Well, I might decide to live in Slatina, once Slatina is

21 liberated from Croatia occupation and when Serb authority is established

22 there as well, I might well choose Slatina to live there. I'm not going

23 to stay here for 100 years serving time, I might be here 30 or 40 years,

24 but I'll go and pass my final years and days in Slatina, perhaps.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, no statement on the

Page 6901

1 future is called for. What we want to know is what happened there at the

2 time.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Judge, you never intervened

4 when this witness made inappropriate comments in relation to my

5 questions, rather than answer them. What concern of his is it whether I

6 know Slatina or not? He should answer my questions and not comment.

7 Obviously, he's been instructed to just follow one line in his testimony,

8 and that is the line of the "Seselj's men." Everything else is

9 secondary, and those who instrumentalised him are not interested in

10 anything else.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, the witness has

12 carried out investigations. He must have realised that you mentioned the

13 name of a street, which means that you know the city inside out. You

14 might know it personally, or maybe some of your collaborators have shown

15 you a map to show you how that individual who went through the mob could

16 have chosen a different route. So I understood, personally, why the

17 witness said that.

18 Move on.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Fine. If you understand it, I'm

20 not at all surprised I have to say.

21 Q. He had at least two routes available to him to bypass this crowd

22 of people, did he not, and without anything happening to him; isn't that

23 right, Mr. Matovina?

24 A. I've already said not only two but more routes, but the man opted

25 for this main thoroughfare, and that was his choice. Why he made that

Page 6902

1 choice, I don't know.

2 Q. And this time the crowd that was already angry because of his

3 earlier penetration through the crowd, would not yield, and they took him

4 out of the car -- stopped the car, took him out of the car, and started

5 beating him; right?

6 A. Right.

7 JUDGE HARHOFF: We have spent a considerable time now discussing

8 why this gentleman might have taken one or the other route. To me, this

9 is mere speculation. You couldn't know why he took that route, nor could

10 the witness. I suggest unless you have a very strong point to make here,

11 that we move on to the next issue that you have to raise with the

12 witness.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You do encourage this witness, and

14 he can continue along this line that he's been instrumentalised to

15 follow, and that doesn't surprise me at all.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, no, I disagree with

17 what you've just said. My colleague, and rightly so, has just pointed

18 out to you that you've spent a lot of time trying to find out why this

19 individual chose to drive across the mob, with the consequences that

20 entailed. We'll never know why he chose that route. It's pure

21 speculation.

22 And my colleague, and rightly so, said you should move on, unless

23 you have a strong point to make, a decisive point to make. So we're not

24 preventing you from presenting defences.

25 You're saying we are encouraging the witness. No, we're not

Page 6903

1 encouraging anyone. We are trying to find out what happened. Yes, like

2 you, I wondered why this individual chose to drive through the angry mob.

3 I wondered about that, too. Was it provocation on his part or was he,

4 himself, extremely frantic because his wife was ill? It's all

5 understandable reasons, and that type of incident occurred in many

6 countries elsewhere, where people went through mobs and were abused or

7 beaten up by the crowd. We've all heard about those.

8 But if you're insisting on this, why are you insisting on it?

9 Are you trying to show that that person was trying to provoke the crowd?

10 We're willing to hear your assumptions, but so far we don't get your

11 point. If you have a point of substance, why don't you ask the question

12 to the witness so that we can understand what you're driving to?

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I tried to ask a question, and you

14 interrupted me. You never intervene in this way when the Prosecution

15 asks the most senseless of questions and loses us the most time, but that

16 is your criteria and I'm not interested in that.

17 Q. Mr. Matovina, you stated that when you saw that the crowd was

18 beating Mesaros, that you ran up to them with another two policemen

19 through the crowd in order to rescue him; is that true?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. So the crowd was so infuriated, so enraged, that you and another

22 two policemen could, without any injury to yourselves, intervene, passing

23 through a crowd of 1.000 people, and save this Mesaros, and then take him

24 to a cafe, to a restaurant, and then wait for an ambulance to come by the

25 back door and take him to an infirmary; is that right?

Page 6904

1 A. Well, the crowd was located along the street. It was not as if

2 all the 1.000 people were in one single spot. Where there was this

3 overturned car, when Mesaros was taken out, pulled out of it, this was in

4 the direction of the motel of the Skajtering [phoen] establishment. And

5 I intervened with these two policemen. I pulled the man out of the crowd

6 and I removed him. I placed him in the Skajtering establishment.

7 Q. You have said this, and this is quite true, I'm not denying it,

8 I'm not challenging it. You're just wasting my time. But this crowd

9 through which you passed to intervene knew you personally as one of the

10 principal policemen in Slatina; is that true?

11 A. Yes, they did know me.

12 Q. They knew that you were a Croat?

13 A. Yes, they did.

14 Q. And instead of lynching you, too, here is an isolated Croatian

15 and the chief policeman in Slatina, that not a single blow was delivered

16 to you, but they enabled you to rescue Mr. Mesaros that the masses were

17 rightly mad at; is that correct?

18 A. It is correct they didn't attack me. They didn't attack me and

19 the two policemen, but they did attack Mesaros and hurt him.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now I'm going to explain to the

21 Judges why I ask all these questions.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you're not letting

23 the witness answer. You're basically speaking over him, and the

24 interpreters get lost. I understand that you might be angry, but in

25 legal matters, when you are dealing with a substantive issue, you need to

Page 6905

1 remain calm so that the message gets across to those the information is

2 intended for. Otherwise, you get angrier and angrier, and we lose track

3 of the substance of the matter.

4 You said you were going to explain to us what your point was

5 going to be, so we're waiting for that.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First, I have to explain that I'm

7 absolutely not nervous. I'm using my capacity as an orator because this

8 is a public hearing, and I'm here confronted with the Prosecutor, the

9 witness and the Bench. I am demonstrating here that this witness is

10 falsely portraying these demonstrations outside the police station, that

11 it was an unruly crowd, that there were many drunken people, that they

12 opened fire, that they intended to take the police station. All of a

13 sudden, this very self-same witness, with another two policemen, passed

14 through that infuriated crowd without any danger to himself and the other

15 two policemen and rescues the man at which the mass was mad, without

16 sustaining any injury, and that man who he rescued had hit 10 people

17 passing through the crowd. And the fact that he mentioned that his

18 intestines were on the asphalt, that is a lie, because he wouldn't have

19 been able to save him. It is only true that that person was beaten and

20 with justification. That is true. I would have done so, myself, had he

21 tried to penetrate the crowd with an automobile.

22 And I should also like to say that I'm not at all nervous, I'm

23 not upset. I'm using my rhetoric faculties. I'm asking leading

24 questions because I can do that. I don't have Mr. Riedlmayer here and I

25 cannot follow his method. I have my own method, which is not at all in

Page 6906

1 contravention of the Rules of Procedure nor those of cross-examination.

2 So I fail to see why you're intervening. I've come to my point. This

3 was a false portrayal of the demonstrations in Podravska Slatina, which

4 I've just proven, and I've achieved what I strove to achieve.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, yesterday I myself

6 wondered about the way in which you described the crowd. Just looking at

7 the transcript, there's enough for that. And I wondered about the fact

8 that even though you were a Croat, you went into the crowd without being

9 injured, so this was also an observation that I made. And Mr. Seselj is

10 pointing to that. You described what happened to the individual

11 described above, and from your description the feeling was that he was

12 almost killed on the spot by the riotous crowd. So in retrospect, with

13 more calm, haven't you added details to the description of that crowd,

14 and haven't you forgotten something that might have happened to you in

15 the meantime, because you would have been an ideal target, given the

16 state of that crowd? So have you added any elements, have you forgotten

17 anything? What could you add?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, distinguished

19 Mr. President, I have told the truth, because I went through that event

20 personally from the very point the gathering started, which is sometime

21 around 1830, up to the culmination of this event at 2200 hours. So the

22 atmosphere, the emotions and the highly-charged climate was not the same

23 throughout the event as at the end, when there was shooting and the mass

24 dispersed.

25 Mr. Mesaros was badly hurt. He was operated on, and they saved

Page 6907

1 his life, but with difficulty. His intestines were really hurt, and

2 there is medical documentation in the hospital in which he was treated,

3 which can still can be submitted to the Tribunal.

4 Now, why didn't they do the same thing to me and these other two

5 persons? They were policemen, and most of the people knew us. How we

6 got through that without getting attacked, even though the catering

7 establishment was later attacked with tiles that were thrown at it, which

8 were there for the purpose of construction of a nearby building, some

9 people actually went to the other side because they thought we had hidden

10 him in the toilet. I still have the image vividly in my mind. It is

11 etched in my mind. It was something that was extremely stressful and one

12 of the most stressful moments from my career as a policeman.

13 I've told you the truth, word for word. I have no reason to add

14 or subtract anything from that.

15 Now, why Mr. Mesaros went through the crowd, and certainly by

16 passing through the crowd provoked the crowd to attack him, that is quite

17 clear, but such brutality and what happened then, that is what I have

18 described, and I have nothing to add to it or to take away from it.

19 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Witness, you and the other two

20 policemen, if I understand correctly, were armed, weren't you?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We were armed.

22 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj said earlier, among

24 other things, at one point in time, that the car driven by Mesaros had

25 injured people who were there. He said that very quickly, and it seems

Page 6908

1 to me that I didn't hear about that yesterday.

2 To your knowledge, even though this goes back a few years, when

3 he got back into his car, he drove over some people, which could account

4 for the violent reaction of the crowd, or is that an invention from

5 Mr. Seselj?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The people who were in front of the

7 car were probably the ones who got injured, and they hit the roof of the

8 car and the windows of the car. But whether they asked for medical

9 assistance after that, I don't know, because there didn't arrive at the

10 police any document to the effect that they had been hurt, they had been

11 hurt when the car passed through them, because such documentation would

12 have been part of the file on the incident.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I assume there was an

14 investigation after those incidents. Once Mesaros was operated on, he

15 must have been heard about the incident. If people were injured in the

16 crowd, I'm sure they were identified, unless it was general chaos and

17 there was no investigation.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We were unable to identify the

19 persons who directly attacked Mr. Mesaros, overturned his car and

20 inflicted injuries, grave bodily injuries on him. Nobody was held

21 accountable for that, because it was impossible to identify the

22 perpetrators. It was night, there was a huge crowd assembled, so that we

23 don't know to this day who it was.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I must thank you

Page 6909

1 most sincerely, first of all, for the statement that I'm inventing things

2 here. In all the hearings so far, witnesses have proven that I'm the

3 only one who is inventing things in this courtroom, but it is a fact that

4 the Prosecution witnesses are really faring very badly here, and that's

5 on account of the flights of my imagination.

6 Q. Let us go back to your statement. On the first --

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Wait a minute, Mr. Seselj.

8 You're not with the habit of thanking anyone, I'm really struck by your

9 thanks here.

10 When you said that people were injured, I felt that you must have

11 evidence of that, and you could have said to the witness, "Well, from

12 witnesses or my collaborators or myself know that person X was injured."

13 That's a very solid argument. It's undeniable. But if you say people

14 were injured, we don't know anything about that, and somebody might think

15 that you're inventing something. That's all I said.

16 So when you're making a statement, a judge, whoever that judge

17 is, will feel, "Okay, but what is that statement based on? Is he

18 inventing something? Is he adorning the truth? Is he speaking

19 nonsense?" But if you're saying things and basing what you're saying on

20 documents and evidence, then we'll feel that's a truthful statement, and

21 it's a much more valid point. Otherwise, all we can do is assume things.

22 This is why I asked the question again. I tried to check what you were

23 saying. I asked the witness, "Was an investigation carried out," and he

24 explained that the investigation did not lead to identifying the people.

25 And you see that when you're saying something, I'm trying to check. I'm

Page 6910

1 doing your work.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, Judge, I believe

3 we all agree on one point. I invented it, and the witness said that he

4 did not exclude the possibility that there might have been injured people

5 there. In other words, this figment of my imagination was something that

6 the witness may have concurred with, and I, for one, may sometimes thank

7 Their Honours, however strange that might seem.

8 Now I'd like to go back to the statement Mr. Matovina gave back

9 in 2002. There are some matters that the witness did not repeat in his

10 examination-in-chief which I find very important and which will reveal to

11 you which sort of witness is before you, if you'll allow me to go through

12 the exercise I have planned.

13 Q. Mr. Matovina, do you have the statement of yours? Can the

14 Prosecution hand you the statement so we can go through it together, so

15 that you're not compelled to give your answers off the top of your head?

16 A. Well, I don't think it's necessary. You have it. You can read

17 it, and I'll answer your questions.

18 Q. Well, I don't want to put you in an unequal position, me having

19 your statement and reading it to you. I might perchance deliberately

20 invent or make up some portions of your statement. I'd rather you have

21 your statement, since you are a Prosecution witness.

22 And while we're waiting -- or rather I should like the time

23 during which we're waiting for the statement to be handed to the witness

24 not be deducted from my examination time. I think it needs to be

25 provided in B/C/S language to the witness.

Page 6911

1 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I have it on my screen, but I don't know if my

2 computer is connected to any printer here. So I could print it. I don't

3 know, if the printer's working, I hope it is the correct one.

4 It's only the first page. We must wait.

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we turn to page 1 right away so

6 that we don't waste time, and then we'll see to the other parts later.

7 Q. Mr. Matovina, you have this headline in the middle of the page

8 which reads: "Situation before the conflict in the former Yugoslavia."

9 And then in the first sentence of the first paragraph, you state:

10 "According to the memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Arts and

11 Sciences, there was an imaginary line of borders for a Greater Serbia

12 that spread along the Karlobag-Karlovac-Virovitica axis, and this was an

13 unfortunate coincidence for the Croatian people who live in this area."

14 Is this what you stated for the Prosecution?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Did you ever read the memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Arts

17 and Sciences?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. So then why do you lie by saying that the Greater Serbia and the

20 Karlobag-Karlovac-Virovitica line is mentioned there at all?

21 A. I'm not lying. You mentioned these matters frequently in your

22 speeches.

23 Q. I did, but not the Serbian Academy, and you're referring to the

24 Serbian Academy here. Unfortunately for me, I was never even nominated

25 as a cabinet member of the academy because I'm not good enough. I will

Page 6912

1 be advocating a Greater Serbia for the rest of my life, and it is true

2 that I was saying that the western border of Serbia runs along the

3 Karlobag-Karlovac-Virovitica line, but why did you state here that this

4 was according to the memorandum of the Serbian Academy? Why did you lie?

5 A. Well, I didn't lie, really. The memorandum writes about the

6 efforts and the attempts to establish such a border.

7 Q. You're lying. You didn't read the memorandum, because nowhere in

8 the memorandum does that say what you just said. And the Prosecution

9 will have a copy of the memorandum of the Academy of Arts and Sciences.

10 This is a ruddy lie.

11 A. No, I believe you have to read into the memorandum more closely

12 and look into the general context.

13 Q. No. There is nothing of the sort envisaged in the memorandum.

14 It merely speaks of the future of the Serbian people, and you lied when

15 you said that you read it, and you lie when you say that this is what the

16 memorandum contains.

17 A. That's not true. I read it.

18 Q. Well, so you say, but I insist that you're lying and that you're

19 on a mission here to lie.

20 You go on to say the following:

21 "In order to make the idea of a Great Serbia real, the areas in

22 this line -- along this line were populated with rural Serbs from

23 Bosnia."

24 When was the memorandum of the Serbian Academy written; do you

25 know?

Page 6913

1 A. I stated this because ever since World War II, that area had been

2 populated by Serbs, wherever there was a home unoccupied. Therefore, in

3 Vocin, in Bokan [phoen], Macute, Ceralije, Croats used to be the majority

4 population. Along this imaginary line of Karlobag-Karlovac-Virovitica,

5 that should have been the western border of a Greater Serbia, toward

6 Vocin, the entire area, you know what sort of an ethnic makeup it had.

7 Q. That wasn't my question. My question was: When was the

8 memorandum of the Serbian Academy written?

9 A. I don't know the date. You're asking me about details on matters

10 that I only read in passing.

11 Q. I'll tell you, it was written in 1987, and you're telling us that

12 the rural Serb population from Bosnia populated this area in order for

13 this imaginary line, and the truth is that it was mostly the Serbs who

14 moved out of Vocin because they were in search of jobs. And where was it

15 in Western Slavonia that you say it was?

16 A. Gornji Gusani [phoen], Donje Gusani [phoen], Bijelijarac [phoen],

17 Lisicine, the villages in the area toward Pakrac and Okucani.

18 Q. This is something you're making up. The Serbs and Croats from

19 rural area of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Dalmatia, Lika, were moved in order to

20 populate the vacant homesteads previously populated by Germans who were

21 moved out of the area with the end of World War II. This was merely a

22 repopulation of the area?

23 A. Yes, you're referring to the general area. However, the area

24 which was the corridor of the imaginary border of Greater Serbia, this

25 was an area which was deliberately populated by Serbs. And if you look

Page 6914

1 at the ethnic makeup of the area, you'll know what I'm saying.

2 Q. First of all, the Serbs had been living there since the 16th

3 century. This was the border between Austria and Turkey. Serbs

4 populated the area, and Croats had never lived there. In fact, the

5 Croats you're referring to as living there are Serbs who were converted

6 to Catholicism. There was never a colonization of Serbs after World War

7 II, and it was in fact a rare occasion where Serbs from Bosnia moved over

8 to the territory of Western Slavonia. It was a rare phenomenon.

9 Now, as for the Serbs and Croats alike who were from Bosnia,

10 Dalmatia and Lika, they were deliberately resettled to colonize the area

11 that had previously been populated by Germans. The rest is something you

12 invented.

13 A. This is for the umpteenth time that I'm hearing that the Croats

14 currently populating the area used to be Serbs, in fact.

15 Q. Well, that is the truth, and you spoke the Chekovian language

16 too. Very well. Mr. Matovina, now you say that the populating of that

17 area by Serbs was a strategic plan and that they would support the idea

18 of a Greater Serbia. Was it Tito, then, who had plans for a Greater

19 Serbia, and as part of that, he caused the Serbs to resettle there?

20 A. These are history lessons you're giving us. What I'm -- what we

21 have before us here are the statements I made and the conclusions I

22 arrived at, and I believe I'm entitled to my own opinion.

23 Q. Well, so you gave your opinion to the Prosecution and ultimately

24 to the Trial Chamber, so these are opinions we have here. You should be

25 a fact witness. So why did you state, then, that this was something that

Page 6915

1 was contained in the memorandum of the Serbian Academy; is that an

2 opinion of yours as well?

3 A. I told you that I'm not lying, and I told you that these are

4 opinions and statements I made on the basis of facts.

5 Q. So, Mr. Matovina, why are you placing the two Prosecutors in such

6 an unpleasant situation, because both these Prosecutors read the

7 memorandum of the Serbian Academy and they know that it does not contain

8 what you say it does, so why are you doing this and why are you ruining

9 their --

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute, Mr. Seselj.

11 Witness, in your written statement, which I don't have before me,

12 it seems that you said that the Serbs had sent for strategic reasons to

13 go and occupy a number of villages and to go and work in those villages.

14 Mr. Seselj is putting these questions to you and saying, "Well, these

15 people, didn't they go there under Tito," which struck me, because if

16 what you are saying is true, if the Serbs went there under Tito, well,

17 then there was no plan with a view to establishing a Greater Serbia. So

18 when you say these Serbs went there, what time, what date, what period?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These were large-scale migrations.

20 Some of the areas I referred to had the majority Croatian population. In

21 the past couple of years, some of the villages in the area of Slatina

22 were populated by Serbs from the rural areas of Bosnia. I said that this

23 process had been going back 50 years and that it was demonstrated in the

24 armed rebellion that in these corridor areas --

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. One has to be very

Page 6916

1 attentive here. You said that this process was a 50-year-long process,

2 so these Serbian peasants who settled in these villages around Slatina

3 did not come seemingly because Mr. Seselj told them to go there as part

4 of his plan to establish a Greater Serbia; they went there decades ago

5 already. So in your written statement, on reading that, one has the

6 feeling that they have come at the request of the accused, so one has to

7 be very accurate here.

8 What did you want to say in your written statement?

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, Mr. President, I have to

10 intervene, and it will become quite clear to you why I keep saying that I

11 am in confrontations with the Trial Chamber.

12 Nowhere does Mr. Matovina, in his statement, speak of my ideas

13 concerning the borders of a Greater Serbia. He ascribed my ideas to the

14 memorandum of the Serbian Academy, and then he doesn't even know when it

15 was written, even though it was written in 1987. And he presented

16 everything that took place 40 or 50 years ago as a result, as a

17 consequence of the memorandum.

18 If you can stomach this, then it's up to you. I am not angry or

19 upset. I'm merely trying to use rhetoric to brandish -- to pinpoint his

20 lies.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What do you have to say to

22 that? You heard what I said, you heard what Mr. Seselj said. In this

23 memorandum of the Serbian Academy, which you are referring to and which

24 you have read, according to you, when you tie that into what you have

25 said in your written statement, one can conclude that this migration of

Page 6917

1 Serbs towards that area is the consequence of this Greater Serbia plan.

2 Thanks to you, we discover that these people arrive there 50 years ago.

3 Does this mean that 50 years ago -- 50 years is 2008 minus 50 is 1950,

4 and the memorandum was written in the 1980s. Does this mean that some

5 Serbian peasants came to this area in Slatina and this had nothing to do

6 with the Greater Serbia, with the memorandum, or Mr. Seselj's speeches,

7 or something else, for that matter? This is what I'm trying to clarify,

8 whatever Mr. Seselj might think. I'm trying to understand why these

9 people went to that area.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let us clarify this part of my

11 statement. I didn't say anywhere that Mr. Seselj encouraged the

12 migration of these people. I spoke of a strategic plan. It is not by

13 coincidence that it was in the very corridor where the armed rebellion

14 took place. Such migration processes had been taking part over 50 years,

15 and that the ethnic makeup of the population there changed. It was in

16 the corridor covering Vocin, Okucani and Pakrac, covering some 50 to 60

17 villages, that the population rebelled. The Croatian authorities had no

18 control there. The police force was among the ranks of the rebels.

19 Mr. Seselj, when speaking of a Greater Serbia, speaks of the

20 borders, and the borders pass precisely across that area where the

21 migration processes had taken place. I never stated anywhere that it was

22 Mr. Seselj who had encouraged this or incited this, and we never

23 discussed it before this moment. But I believed it necessary to indicate

24 this issue at the outset of my statement in order to see clearly the

25 further developments.

Page 6918

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

2 continues] ... plan, and this is what I remember, and my colleague

3 remembers this, that Mr. Seselj is charged with a joint criminal

4 enterprise, the purpose of which was to establish a Greater Serbia. This

5 is one of the purposes of the criminal enterprise. And on looking at the

6 way in which the events unfolded in Vocin, and you yourself have

7 mentioned a strategic plan, one may well wonder whether the strategic

8 plan is part of this Greater Serbia plan of the joint criminal enterprise

9 and whether at that time, in the 1990s, Serbian peasants came to settle

10 in the Slatina area. And you are telling us that you did not attribute

11 this to Mr. Seselj, but as far as you are concerned, there is a strategic

12 plan. So if there is a strategic plan, who, according to you, is the

13 author of this strategic plan? Who was it initiated by?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj said on several

15 occasions today where it is, across which area, that the borders ought to

16 pass, and he even said that he had plans of perhaps settling in Slatina

17 one day, if I wasn't mistaken. In saying so, he was referring to the

18 strategic plan of the creation of a Greater Serbia, a plan which he

19 hasn't given up on. All that we've been discussing for the past two

20 days, trying to piece together the mosaic of the developments, when we

21 looked at the axis along which the armed rebellion spread, I believe that

22 when one looks at all these matters, it isn't difficult to make

23 inferences.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will now have a short break,

25 a quarter-of-an-hour break, because my aim is to enable Mr. Seselj to

Page 6919

1 finish his cross-examination and allow a little time for redirect, so

2 that you don't have to come back tomorrow.

3 So we'll have a very short break. I said a quarter-of-an-hour

4 break.

5 --- Recess taken at 5.52 p.m.

6 --- On resuming at 6.10 p.m.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have resumed our hearing.

8 So that we do not address any housekeeping matter, at a few minutes

9 to 7.00, I would like to say straight away that the upcoming witness, the

10 Prosecution has asked to have two and a half hours to lead this witness.

11 Given the procedural issues, we know that the second witness to finish

12 tomorrow's witness, we cannot finish tomorrow. Therefore, we have to

13 carry on to next week. And tomorrow afternoon, we will finish at 7.00,

14 and not at 6.30. The witness we are hear tomorrow --

15 THE INTERPRETER: We will hear until 6.00. Interpreter's

16 correction.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The witness will be heard until

18 6.00, we shall stop at 6.00.

19 I believe Mr. Seselj still has 20 to 25 minutes left, and as soon

20 as Mr. Seselj's time is up, I would like the Registry to let me know, so

21 that I can put questions to the Prosecution and understand whether there

22 is any redirect.

23 Theoretically, we should finish at 7.00 today, finish the

24 cross-examination and finish the redirect today.

25 Mr. Seselj, you have the floor.

Page 6920

1 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Mr. Matovina, I'm grateful to you for finally ranking me with

3 Josip Broz Tito among the great Serbian joint criminal enterprise. Now

4 the fact that you've invented the fact that the Serbs settled after the

5 memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences does not merit my

6 attention anymore, but this is what I would like to ask you now: Do you

7 know that the Yugoslav communist regime, at the end of World War II,

8 expelled about half a million Germans, Fokstoiches [phoen], as they were

9 called, from the area of Slavonia and Vojvodina? Just briefly, please,

10 do you know or don't you know?

11 A. I don't know of this fact, the Germans left during World War II,

12 and at the beginning of the war itself, Kunta Bunt [phoen], from the area

13 of the former Yugoslavia. I think that the process was slowed down

14 afterwards and that those who wanted to leave did, in fact, leave during

15 World War II or just before it broke out. I don't think there was any of

16 that later on, but what you're telling me is the first time I hear about

17 it.

18 Q. Do you know that the Croatian communist authorities, after World

19 War II, expelled about 300.000 Italians from Istria and Dalmatia?

20 A. I don't know of that fact. This is the first time I hear it.

21 Q. And Croats came to reside -- Croats from Western Croatia and

22 Ninoska Krajina, Lika and so on came to take up residence in those

23 houses?

24 A. I don't think that that information is correct, because you don't

25 know the ethnic composition of Istria. And you can ask around and then

Page 6921

1 you'll see that you were wrong.

2 Q. Well, where are the 300.000 Italians, then?

3 A. Well, the fact is that World War II did lead to great migrations.

4 You know that full well yourself. And, generally speaking, every war

5 unfortunately resulted in processes like that, so it's little wonder that

6 this came about.

7 Q. You said here that the refugees, Croatian refugees from

8 Vojvodina, started to flow in at the end of 1991 and the beginning of

9 1992 from Beska, Slankamen, Ruma, and Hrtkovci, I assume, because

10 Hrtkovci is in Ruma municipality, right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Sid and some other places. You did not speak about that in the

13 year 2002. You did not tell the Prosecutor that then, but you this time

14 did say something like that. But it's the date that's important, and I'm

15 grateful to you for having told the truth there.

16 At the end of 1991 and the beginning of 1992 is what you say, and

17 my meeting -- my rally in Hrtkovci was on the 6th of May, 1992. So the

18 Croats started leaving Vojvodina six months before I, on behalf of the

19 Serbian Radical Party, began striving for the principle of retortion and

20 an exchange of population.

21 Now, do you know that we Radicals in May made that idea public

22 during the election campaign?

23 A. I don't know what you said at that rally. Those people, the

24 refugees who were in the process of exchanging their houses, did tell me

25 who was exerting pressure on them, and you said yourself, the Radicals,

Page 6922

1 and that this process of population exchanges was being initiated. And

2 you should read the book called "Srem: The Bloody Wing of Croatia."

3 I think that's what the title of the book is. Anyway, in that book, we

4 have descriptions of various destinies and fates and how that process

5 began. And if you read the book, then you know what it's about.

6 Q. I haven't read the book, and I'd be very grateful if you send me

7 the book once you return to Slatina. Would you be so kind as to send me

8 the book? Do you promise to do so?

9 A. Yes, I do.

10 Q. All right, fine. I'll see how you keep your promises. I hold

11 you to that. Mr. Matovina, now what's the essential point as far as I'm

12 concerned here that those Croats six months beforehand began to move out,

13 that is to say before the Prosecution established in the indictment my

14 involvement, my possible involvement in that matter. But these Croats

15 started moving out only once the large mass of Croatian -- of Serb

16 refugees from Croatia began arriving or arrived. Isn't that right?

17 [Technical difficulties]

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please. Because I

19 have nothing on my screen right now.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can see the transcript on one of

21 the screens there.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ask your question again,

23 Mr. Seselj. This hasn't been recorded on the transcript.

24 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

25 Q. It is clear to you, I assume, Mr. Matovina, that the exodus of

Page 6923

1 the Croats from Vojvodina only began when a large mass of Serb refugees

2 from Croatia arrived there; isn't that right?

3 A. Yes. The process began to be intensified after that.

4 Q. If there was any pressure on Croats, then that pressure

5 objectively was because of this large mass of Serb refugees; right?

6 A. Well, you said yourself that you strove for that process and that

7 you advocate it now as well, and certainly when those refugees arrived,

8 the pressure was greater, and that that's when an agreement began to be

9 made or agreements began to be made and contracts between the people,

10 those who came in and those who wanted to leave, with respect to the

11 exchange of property and houses and so on.

12 Q. I no longer advocate that, but I did advocate that in 1992, and

13 that's no secret. Everything that I stated publicly, I never went back

14 on, ever. I never denied having said something that I did, in fact, say.

15 But the process began six months earlier, and that's the essential point

16 as far as I'm concerned.

17 May we have document 3 here now, please, and I want to show you a

18 list of individuals who exchanged their property in Podravska Slatina;

19 that is to say, Serbs from Podravska Slatina who exchanged their property

20 with Croats from Hrtkovci. So take a look at that list now, and are any

21 names familiar either on the Serb side or the Croat side?

22 Can we have the whole list placed on the overhead projector,

23 please.

24 You see it says: "Bosko Zivkovic exchanged property with

25 Mirko Trkulja from Hrtkovci." And then we have "Jovica Srepulja

Page 6924

1 [phoen]." And you have no reason to doubt the authenticity of this

2 document; is that right?

3 A. No, I don't doubt it.

4 Q. My associates compiled this in Hrtkovci itself, talking to the

5 Serbs who came to settle there. So these are all the Serbs from

6 Podravska Slatina, just from Podravska Slatina? From Podravska Slatina

7 alone there are a lot from Grubisno Polje, where there was no war or any

8 combat; isn't that right?

9 A. Well, I don't know people from Grubisno Polje, but I think people

10 exchanged property there too.

11 Q. But you know that Grubisno Polje was emptied of the Serbs? I

12 assume you know that.

13 A. I don't know how many people exchanged houses and property in

14 that area. I know about Slatina and Virovitica, Podravina, that county.

15 Q. All right. Mr. Matovina, if you say you don't know, I won't

16 insist upon the fact. I don't want to extort confessions from you.

17 Now, I have a statement here which Bojo Radmilovic gave. He's a

18 Serb from Podravska Slatina, and he gave that statement to the Serbian

19 information centre of the Serb Sabor or Assembly. And this is a copy of

20 the statement. It's not the original. The original is in the archives

21 of the Document and Information Centre of the Serb Assembly. The OTP

22 cooperates with them. They probably have them. I had to find it

23 elsewhere.

24 But, anyway, have you heard of this man, Bojo Radmilovic?

25 A. I don't know who that is. Could you explain to me?

Page 6925

1 Q. He describes here how the mining of Serb houses started in

2 Podravska Slatina immediately after the withdrawal of the Serbs from

3 Papuk and Psunj and the mass exodus from Western Slavonia. Up until

4 then, there was no mining, and then he says that the mining started and

5 that Milan Lazic's house was mined.

6 A. Well, yes, there was mining, and I spoke about that earlier on

7 when we discussed the problem of the killing. There was looting, there

8 was mining, there was theft of property.

9 MR. MUSSEMEYER: A short remark.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute, Mr. Mussemeyer.

11 You're going to protest because you don't have the translation in

12 English?

13 MR. MUSSEMEYER: No, I don't want to protest. What I want for

14 the record is there is no signature and there is no stamp on this

15 statement which the accused gave us. This is all.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Please proceed.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I gave the source of this

18 statement. I don't want to tender it into evidence. All I want is the

19 witness's facts here. So it's an auxiliary instrument for me in my

20 cross-examination, not to be tendered into evidence, so it doesn't have

21 to have a stamp. I said that the original of this statement was in the

22 Information Centre of the Serbian Sabor archives. The OTP knows where it

23 can find it, and I believe it already has it in its possession.

24 Q. Do you know about the mining of Nikola Vejovic's house?

25 A. No, I don't know exactly for each of the locations and each of

Page 6926

1 the names and each of the buildings, but we did discuss that and we said

2 that such incidents did happen and such crimes were committed, and that

3 we energetically stood up to prevent it and prosecute it. There are

4 written documents about this, reports sent to the prosecutor's office,

5 investigations undertaken, and so on and so forth, and I think that we've

6 discussed that problem at length.

7 Q. Do you know who Gojko Oljaca is?

8 A. Yes, I do. We discussed that as well.

9 Q. All right. He was killed in January 1991; that's right, isn't

10 it?

11 A. I don't know exactly when he was killed.

12 Q. Well, anyway, the beginning of 1991. You should know that, at

13 least.

14 A. I don't think it was the beginning of 1991.

15 Q. When, then?

16 A. I don't know exactly. I don't know the exact date. There were

17 quite a number of cases, lots of crimes during the war, and, anyway,

18 there is a criminal report on the basis of which you can see the sequence

19 of events.

20 Q. This is a vivid example. Gojko Oljaca was the first person to be

21 killed in the Podravska Slatina area, whether Serbs or Croats. He was

22 the first victim that fell, and he was a Serb, and that's why his name

23 came to be known. Was anybody killed before him?

24 A. I don't know if he was the first victim and what date that was.

25 Q. Do you know that he was found dead by a wood where people did

Page 6927

1 their driving examinations and driving lessons; children found him in a

2 nylon bag?

3 A. Yes, that is right. He was killed and thrown in that location.

4 Q. And from that time on, many Serbs fled from Podravska Slatina

5 because they felt unsafe. Do you know about Milutin Gunjevic, he was

6 dealt in glass in Podravska Slatina?

7 A. Yes, I do.

8 Q. He was from Cikote?

9 A. That was another killing we discussed during the war.

10 Q. He was taken away after his house was searched, and two months

11 later found dead in a wood in Medinci, and you never learned who the

12 perpetrators were, who killed him?

13 A. The perpetrators weren't identified yet.

14 Q. And who searched his house; not the police, the para-police, the

15 national guards corps?

16 A. We don't know. If we knew then we would have apprehended and

17 identified the perpetrators.

18 THE INTERPRETER: Can the speakers kindly slow down. Thank you.

19 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Do you know who Nikola Kosic is? He was the director of

21 Jugobanka in Podravska Slatina?

22 A. He was one of the directors.

23 Q. He was found dead in Orahovica, in a ditch there?

24 A. Not by Orahovica, but by Cadjevica.

25 Q. He was 50 years old?

Page 6928

1 A. Roughly, thereabouts.

2 Q. A man called Petrovic who was the proprietor of a catering

3 establishment, he was taken away. Vito Petrovic, in fact?

4 A. No, I don't know about that.

5 Q. You don't know about that. All right, fine. They arrested

6 him by members of the -- or, rather, members of the Croatian Guards

7 Corps, the ZNG arrested him. Now, of this Bojo Radmilovic, the ZNGs

8 searched his house on the 1st of September, 1991, that is to say before

9 the first major armed conflicts took place?

10 A. I don't know about that event. Members of the ZNG were not in --

11 did not have the authority of the Ministry of the Interior. They had

12 their own command, their headquarters and their services, but I don't

13 know that they searched houses.

14 Q. On the 20th of June, 1992, Zdenko Barisic arrived from Hrtkovci

15 and suggested that he exchange his house. That's on page 2, and that's

16 an interesting piece of information as far as I'm concerned. It says

17 that he agreed to exchange his property, they drew up a contract, and he

18 says all the property and all the land was stipulated, "And I gave him my

19 house that was several storeys high and completely furnished and some

20 land with five construction sites in Bojanci [phoen], where there are

21 some vineyards, and in return I got an old house without any land and

22 some old property which I had to renovate and work in. It didn't even

23 have a concrete slab."

24 And you said the Serbs fared better in the exchanges than the

25 Croats, whereas the reality of it was quite the opposite. The Croats

Page 6929

1 always got more property, property of greater value, than the property

2 they left to the Serbs; isn't that right?

3 A. I don't know about this agreement and contract between these two

4 citizens, the ones that you mention, nor during my years of service and

5 duties did I deal with property at all and property exchanges, and the

6 proportion and ratio in which they were exchanged, and whether some

7 people fared better or worse than others, and whether you could always

8 strike the right kind of deal with properties of equal value, because you

9 know that when exchanges take place, somebody gets a better house, the

10 other person gets a worse house. Those people who want to leave, leave,

11 and probably fare worse. So I don't know how people fared, and it would

12 be speculation on my part.

13 Q. But you would like to say that all those Serbs left voluntarily,

14 whereas all the Croats left under pressure? You'd like to say that,

15 wouldn't you?

16 A. Well, no, not quite like that. I've already presented my views.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you please tell me how much

18 more time I have left, whether I should show another document or not?

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, please, how much

20 time is there left?

21 THE REGISTRAR: [Previous translation continues] ...

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ten minutes.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Document number 5, please, could

24 you put that on the overhead projector and show the witness? We're not

25 going to go through the entire document, but, anyway, this is a report

Page 6930

1 compiled on the 30th of October and sent to the president of the Federal

2 Republic of Yugoslavia, Dobrica Cosic. The date is 1992. It was sent by

3 the Serb Sabor or Assembly. It is a report by the Serb assembly on the

4 prosecution of Serbian people and ethnic cleansing in Western Slavonia by

5 the Croatian authorities. The author of this report are Academician

6 Pavle Ivic, the president of the Serbian Sabor, Academician Vasilije

7 Krestic, the president of the Information Centre Council of the Serbian

8 Assembly, and Vojin Dabic, the head of the Information Centre for Serbian

9 Sabor or Assembly.

10 May we have a look at page 24, I thought we'd have more time to

11 dwell on this document. But anyway, I just would just like to look at a

12 few conclusions made there.

13 So in 1992, this is much before the "Blesak," the Flash Operation

14 in Western Slavonia, namely, the territories of the municipalities of

15 Daruvar, Grubisa Polje, Nova Gradiska, Novska, Pakrac, Orahovica,

16 Podravska Slatina, Slavonska Pozega and Virovitica. The Croatian

17 authorities, around the beginning of July 1991, up until mid-August 1992,

18 ethnically completely cleansed 193 places, 183 rural settlements, and in

19 them, upon the cessation of the armed conflicts in the Republic of

20 Croatia, heavily damaged, demolished or burned the majority of the

21 Serbian houses. They partially ethnically-cleansed 87 villages, but that

22 is not a final number. Many of the ethnically partially-cleansed

23 settlements would soon be -- will soon be ethnically clean, ethnically

24 pure, if the International Community does not compel the authorities in

25 the Republic of Croatia to stop the ethnic cleansing of their territory

Page 6931

1 of the Serb population.

2 During the ethnic cleansing, according to the data that has been

3 compiled so far, 52.320 Serbs have been expelled from Western Slavonia.

4 By the ethnic cleansing, the ethnic map of the Republic of Croatia has

5 been changed, and thereby the project of an ethnically-pure Croatian

6 state has been accomplished in large measure, in which, as formulated in

7 the Croatian state programme at the end of the 19th century, there is no

8 room for the Serbian orthodox population.

9 You're a coalition partner with the Croatian Party of Rights, and

10 you should know its leader is Ante Starcevic; is that right.

11 A. That's right.

12 Q. Ante Starcevic was the greatest ideologue of anti-Serbian hate

13 throughout the history of the Croats; is that right?

14 A. No, that's not correct.

15 Q. Did you read his works?

16 A. Yes, I had.

17 Q. And you say that's not correct?

18 A. I say that's not correct.

19 Q. What terms does he use to describe the Serbs? Does he not say

20 that they are a dog's brew, the witches ripe for the axe?

21 A. No, I didn't read that.

22 Q. Because you did not read your ideologue. He says they're a dog's

23 brew which is ripe for the axe, and that is also what the Serbs are for

24 the Croatia of today, they are a dog's brewed ripe for the axe.

25 A. That is not true, Mr. Seselj.

Page 6932

1 Q. It is true.

2 A. No. All national rights are guaranteed under the constitution of

3 the Republic of Croatia and the legal prescriptions based on the

4 constitution for all the peoples, including the Serbian people who live

5 in Croatia.

6 Q. Yes. When you reduce the Serbs from 20 per cent to just a mere 4

7 to 5 per cent of the total population, now you guarantee their rights.

8 You talked about Serbian rebels here. Did not the Croatian

9 regime in Zagreb, Tudjman's regime, was not it an insurgent regime in

10 relation to the former Yugoslavia?

11 A. No, that's not correct.

12 Q. According to what provision of the constitution did this federal

13 union have the right to secede?

14 A. Federal units have the right to self-determination and secession

15 according to the 1974 constitution.

16 Q. You are making that up. That is not written anywhere in the

17 constitution.

18 A. It was a community of states, of republics that had the status of

19 states, and in the process of gaining independence, each of them was

20 entitled to actually exercise that right and achieve it in practice, and

21 this was true for all the peoples in all the republics in the former

22 Yugoslavia.

23 Q. You are making that up. Was Croatia constituted as a federal

24 unit after World War II? When was it constituted, when was the Croatian

25 federal unit constituted?

Page 6933

1 A. It was when Yugoslavia was.

2 Q. Yugoslavia was constituted in 1980, and then Croatia did not

3 exist at that time.

4 A. We are not talking about that Yugoslavia.

5 Q. So we're talking about the communist Yugoslavia. All right. Did

6 the Croatian -- was the Croatian unit, federal unit, constituted in

7 accordance with the will of the Croatian and Serbian people living in

8 Croatia?

9 A. It was always a federal unit in Yugoslavia.

10 Q. Was the Serb people a constituent people in Croatia?

11 A. It was equal with all the other peoples who lived there.

12 Q. Please don't say stupidities. First of all, in terms of

13 constituentness, the Serbian people was equal to the Croatian people; all

14 the other nationalities were national minorities, in fact?

15 MR. MUSSEMEYER: It is not up to the accused --

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.

17 MR. MUSSEMEYER: [Previous translation continues] ... and offend

18 him. He should put questions to fact and not comment on what the witness

19 said.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you put a question.

21 The witness answers. Do not make any comments on the answers provided by

22 the witness. If you don't like the answer, rephrase your questions.

23 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Was the Serb people a constituent people in Croatia, according to

25 all the constitutions from 1945 and on?

Page 6934

1 A. I've said so many times already, that it was equal.

2 Q. You are giving me an answer, and I'm not asking you that. I have

3 to intervene. What I'm asking you is: Was it a constituent people? Say

4 "yes" or "no."

5 A. Well, you have read the constitution.

6 Q. What does that mean, yes or no?

7 A. Of the Republic of Croatia and of the Federal Republic of

8 Yugoslavia, and you have seen what is written in it.

9 Q. Was the Serb people a constituent people in the Socialist Federal

10 Republic of Croatia?

11 A. I've told you already. It was an equal people with all other

12 people.

13 Q. But you are not answering my question. Please say yes or no.

14 There is not a third answer.

15 A. Well, I don't know. If you need an answer, I'll say, "Yes."

16 Q. So it was a constituent people. Does it mean that no one can

17 change the constitutional/legal status of Croatia without the consent of

18 Serbs living in Croatia?

19 A. Well, this formulation which was there was not initially well

20 phrased. Why it was entered in the constitution in such a way, I don't

21 know, but the majority Croatian people in the Croatian state is, I

22 believe, a constituent people with all the other peoples and minorities

23 which live in it, and on that basis they all are entitled to every right.

24 Q. And you abolished the status of a constituent people to the

25 Serbs, and you proceeded to secede, and those Serbs who wished to remain

Page 6935

1 in Yugoslavia were rebels to you, and who, who wanted to secede

2 unconstitutionally were not rebels; right?

3 A. We as a Croatian people have a right to create our own

4 independent and sovereign state, and that right was exercised and it was

5 internationally recognised. Had it not been created pursuant to the

6 constitution, the laws and the will of the Croatian people, 96 per cent

7 of which opted at the referendum for a Croatian independent state, then

8 it would not have been created.

9 Q. You were recognised by these same people who are now -- who have

10 recognised the independence of Kosovo and who have me on trial today.

11 However, what you recognised with your unlawful documents doesn't mean

12 that you were right. Where was it written? Where was this right

13 enshrined, the right of Croatia to become an independent state?

14 A. I've told you, in the 1974 constitution. That was, in fact, the

15 foundation upon which the Croatian state was able to proceed with -- to

16 embark upon the process of disassociation and that of gaining

17 independence.

18 Q. The moment Tudjman assumed power --

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, just so you're not

20 caught by surprise, I just wanted to inform you that you have one minute

21 left. If you have a last question to ask, do so. You have one minute.

22 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Was the dissatisfaction of the Serbian -- did a Serbian policeman

24 become dissatisfied when Tudjman's regime changed the markings on the

25 cockades, when it introduced the Ustasha checkered flag instead of the

Page 6936

1 earlier five-star-pointed flag?

2 A. That was one of the reasons, but it shouldn't have been that way,

3 because it is not a cockade, it is a historical coat of arms of Croatia

4 which was only established by the Croatian Assembly with certain changes

5 thereto. And why wouldn't that be a mark to be worn by the Croatian

6 police if we do have an independent and autonomous state of Croatia.

7 Q. Did Tudjman introduce the Ustasha currency called kuna? Was the

8 kuna ever in use as a currency -- as a monetary unit in Croatia before

9 the Ustasha regime of Ante Pavelic?

10 A. No, the kuna is not a Ustasha currency. It is the currency of

11 the independent Croatian state.

12 Q. It was the currency used in the Ustasha state during the Second

13 World War and then in Tudjman's date. Never in any other period in

14 history did such a currency exist in Croatia. Only during Ante Pavelic

15 and Tudjman's regimes; right?

16 A. That's not right.

17 Q. When did it exist, in what other period?

18 A. It is a historic Croatian currency.

19 Q. You are inventing things. The Croats never had that currency in

20 history. That was in Slavonia, just as the Slavonia Dinar, the so-called

21 Banovac in one period in history, and the Croatians never had any other

22 currency until Pavelic's time. You don't even know Croatian history. I

23 have to give you lessons?

24 A. Sir, of course I do. You're exaggerating.

25 Q. Is well, tell me, when was the kuna currency before Pavelic,

Page 6937

1 which ruler, in which period was that?

2 A. Let's not go into historical waters.

3 Q. But you contend that this was the case, but you don't know when,

4 and you are ready to affirm this fact. This is how much you care for the

5 truth.

6 As my minute is up, well --

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, your time is up.

8 Mr. Mussemeyer.

9 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I ask myself: Where is the relevance to this

10 case, it's monetary currency of Croat today, and former times where's the

11 relevance to this case? I don't know.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Shall I explain this to

13 Mr. Mussemeyer?

14 Questioned by the Court:

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Witness, before I give the

16 floor to the Prosecutor for the redirect, I wanted to ask you: The

17 independence of Croatia and its international recognition took place in

18 1992; you agree with that? Okay. In 1991, it was still former

19 Yugoslavia; you agree with that, don't you?

20 A. It did exist, but the Croatian Assembly adopted the constitution

21 and documents on this, disassociation, and the declaration on the

22 severance of all constitution and legal connections with the former

23 state, a declaration proclaiming the JNA an enemy army, and in that

24 process, at the request of the International Community, the process was

25 prolonged or postponed. And after its recognition on the 15th of

Page 6938

1 January, 1992, Croatia became an independent and sovereign state

2 recognised by the world. But these documents, all these constitution and

3 legal documents, had been adopted prior to that.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You said the same thing

5 yesterday, but I let you go on.

6 In 1991, what was the legal currency in Yugoslavia?

7 A. In Yugoslavia, the official currency was the dinar.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, it was the dinar.

9 In Croatia, at what point in time did the kuna appear, from your

10 recollection?

11 A. First, there was the Croatian dinar, and the kuna was introduced

12 later. I believe that was in the 1990s, after these war developments

13 were over. The Croatian dinar was the first currency introduced after

14 the dinar. I'm not quite sure of the exact date when the Croatian dinar

15 was actually substituted for the kuna. It was far after these events

16 that we've been talking about.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. So the Croatian dinar,

18 when did it occur; in 1992, 1991, 1990? When did it occur?

19 A. I believe that that happened already in 1991 or in early 1992.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And how did it happen? When

21 you had Yugoslav dinars, did you bring them to the bank and receive

22 Croatian dinars in exchange?

23 A. That's right. We had an exchange of currencies, and the Croatian

24 dinar was in circulation and was used in commerce and trade and in

25 various transactions.

Page 6939

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay.

2 Mr. Mussemeyer for redirect.

3 MR. MUSSEMEYER: There is no need for redirect. I have only two

4 issues on the record. For one, I need the witness. For the other one, I

5 don't need him.

6 The first one refers to page 44, line 7. I think there is a

7 mistake. Let me go there. The witness was asked by Judge Harhoff:

8 "When did the witness stop working?"

9 And then his answer was: "The year 2000."

10 And I think it was the witness said: "1971."

11 I would like to have the witness confirming this.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The question was when I started

13 working in the police, so I started working on the 18th of June, 1971,

14 and it ended on the 1st of January, 2000.

15 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Thank you, Mr. Witness.

16 I have no further questions where I need the presence of the

17 witness.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, then, Witness, I thank

19 you on behalf of my colleagues for coming to give your evidence for the

20 OTP here. So you can now go back to your country. I will ask the usher

21 to --

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, distinguished

23 Bench, everyone in the courtroom. Thank you very much. I wish you good

24 luck and good health. Thank you very much.

25 [The witness withdrew]

Page 6940

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I give you the floor,

2 Mr. Mussemeyer, I would like to thank the interpreters, who are doing

3 wonders to translate almost in realtime what the accused and the witness

4 are saying.

5 Today, as I'm speaking to you at 6.48 and 18 seconds, we have

6 almost 109 pages of transcript. That's a record, so our interpreters are

7 really doing wonders. I wanted to thank them, even though sometimes

8 there might be some mistakes. But given the speed, it's quite

9 understandable.

10 Mr. Mussemeyer, what would you like to say?

11 MR. MUSSEMEYER: My second issue refers to page 24, line 8. The

12 witness has been asked when the accused's name has been mentioned the

13 first time, and he answered: "No." Then the accused, Mr. Seselj, says:

14 "That's a very important piece of information for me, and I want

15 to corroborate that by the fact that according to what Carla Del Ponte

16 said, it was in 2002 that the prime minister, Djindjic, ordered that I be

17 arrested and extradited."

18 This is not correct. I checked the book of Madam Del Ponte,

19 where she is referring to her conversation with Mr. Djindjic, and it was

20 not in 2002. It was the 17th of February, 2003, a date when the

21 indictment against the accused has already been approved.

22 I mention this because it has to be on the record, that

23 Mr. Seselj cannot always insinuate a conspiracy. At least the dates

24 should be corrected.

25 Thank you.

Page 6941

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, wait a minute

2 before giving you the floor. I was forgetting somebody else, but it goes

3 without saying that court reporters are also doing wondering, and we have

4 a beautiful transcript in realtime as well. So, of course, it goes

5 without saying, so I forgot to say so. I forgot to thank him, but I want

6 to tell the Court reporter that he's also doing wondering, and thanks to

7 him we can follow all the statements in realtime.

8 Mr. Seselj, what did you want to say?

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know what it says in

10 your transcript, but I said that Zoran Djindjic ordered my arrest or

11 instructed that I be arrested, not ordered. These are two different

12 expressions in Serbian. How this is being interpreted, I don't know.

13 "Commissioned my arrest," if you like.

14 Now, Mrs. [Indiscernible] talks about Carla Del Ponte in her

15 facts, says that it wasn't 2002 but 2003. Anyway, it was before

16 Mr. Mussemeyer -- it was before I came to The Hague, and I'm happy that

17 you've read Carla Del Ponte's book. I still haven't, because I haven't

18 got it. I was just able to read the excerpts published in the Serbian

19 press, but I think that -- I hope that the Trial Chamber will state its

20 views with respect to what Carla Del Ponte says and the role of Zoran

21 Djindjic in my arrest and this whole rigged legal proceedings on me that

22 is falling flat through each subsequent witness. There is no expert on

23 whom the Prosecution could be satisfied with and who will bear out even a

24 single letter of the indictment, and that is there's a crash in the whole

25 proceedings because the whole trial was rigged and is rigged.

Page 6942

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mussemeyer.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Trumped up.

3 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Unfortunately, I don't have the time to read the

4 whole book, but I read the relevant part, and that is on page 187, where

5 Madam Del Ponte was referring to this, and the reason I mention this was

6 the date. The date should be corrected. It was the 17th of February,

7 2003, and not in 2002. It was a date after the indictment had already

8 been approved.

9 Mr. Seselj is right, he wasn't here at that time, but I wanted to

10 put this straight.

11 Thank you, Your Honours.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

13 Mr. Seselj.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is an invention that the

15 indictment was confirmed in 2002. The indictment was confirmed only in

16 2003, and I learnt that an indictment had been raised against me through

17 my man who's working for the Prosecution even to this day, before it was

18 disclosed. And when, on the 25th of January, I stated that there was an

19 indictment prepared against me, everybody denied it, until

20 Carla Del Ponte came to Belgrade and brought the indictment with her, and

21 she did that sometime in mid-February.

22 But, anyway, on the 25th of January, I bought a plane ticket for

23 The Hague, and the indictment was brought to Belgrade only in

24 mid-February. I had to reserve an airline flight, because you know

25 planes from Belgrade are full all the time, and I wanted to fly in a Serb

Page 6943

1 plane.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mussemeyer, the indictment

3 must have been confirmed in 2003 and not in 2002.

4 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I apologise if I should have mentioned the wrong

5 year. It's correct, it has been approved in January of 2003. This is my

6 recollection. I can't give you the exact date, but it was in January of

7 2003. So what Mr. Seselj says about the 25th of January may be true.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

9 Then, as I said, we'll have tomorrow's witness tomorrow. The

10 Prosecution planned two hours and a half. Given the many problems and

11 Judges' questions, we will not be able to finish by tomorrow. Mr. Seselj

12 will also have two hours and a half for cross-examination.

13 The hearing tomorrow will stop at 6.00, and we'll resume the

14 hearing of the witness Tuesday from 8.30 onwards.

15 That's it for the schedule. If there are no further questions, I

16 will adjourn the meeting, and we will resume tomorrow at 2.15.

17 Thank you.

18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.56 p.m.,

19 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 15th day of

20 May, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.