1 Thursday, 20 November 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 8.32 a.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, please call the
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
9 everyone in and around the courtroom.
10 This is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus
11 Vojislav Seselj.
12 Thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 Today is Thursday, November 20th, 2008. Good morning to the
15 witness. Good morning to the OTP representatives. Good morning to
16 Mr. Seselj, and good morning to everyone assisting us in this case.
17 Before I ask the witness to take the solemn declaration, I'm
18 going to refer to two decisions that will be filed in a few minutes. I'm
19 going to read out the operative part of these decisions, because the
20 decisions, as such, are quite long. So I'm not going to read them out in
21 their entirety. I'm just going to read out the operative part of these
23 The first ruling relates to the motion of the OTP to apply 92 ter
24 to VS-1035. The Trial Chamber dismisses the Prosecutor's motion and
25 decides, first of all, to hear Witness VS-1035 viva voce, and to grant
1 one hour and a half to the Prosecution and an hour and a half to the
2 accused for the purpose of the cross-examination. That's what I had to
3 say for Witness VS-1035.
4 Now, decision related to the Prosecution's motion to hear Witness
5 Sulejman Tihic pursuant to Rule 92 ter. The Trial Chamber has ruled as
7 The Trial Chamber dismisses the motion and decides, first of all,
8 to hear Witness Sulejman Tihic viva voce, and to give an hour to the
9 Prosecution and one hour to the accused. That's all.
10 These decisions will be translated in due course, but I wanted to
11 inform you all about these decisions immediately.
12 Witness, would you please stand.
13 Please state your last name, first name, and date of birth.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Anna-Maria Radic. I was born on
15 the 2nd of September, 1969, in Germany, Florsheim.
16 THE INTERPRETER: If the interpreter heard correctly.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is your current
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm head of the Administration for
20 Areas of Special State Concern in the Ministry of Regional Development
21 of Forestry and Water Management of the Republic of Croatia.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Witness, have you ever
23 testified before a court of law with respect to the events that took
24 place in the former Yugoslavia, or is it going to be the first time
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the first time today.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Please read the
3 solemn declaration.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
5 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
6 WITNESS: ANNA-MARIA RADIC
7 [The witness answered through interpreter]
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. You may be seated.
9 Let me give you some information about the way we are going to
10 proceed, because we don't want you to be surprised by what's going to
11 happen at any point in time.
12 First of all, you will have to answer questions put to you by the
13 representative of the OTP. You've probably met her before coming to
14 testify here. She will put a number of questions to you, based on your
15 report and based most probably on a number of documents that will be
16 shown to you. During that phase of the proceedings, it may very well
17 happen that the three Judges sitting before you ask you follow-up
18 questions in order to further explore some of the topics you examine in
19 your report.
20 As a rule, this first stage of the testimony runs extremely
21 smoothly for the witness. But when it comes to the second stage of the
22 testimony, to the cross-examination, it may be rather trying for the
23 witness, because the Defence cross-examining the Prosecution witness
24 inevitably asks questions related to the credibility of the witness and
25 to the substance of the statement of the witness or of the report of the
1 witness, when the witness is an expert witness. As a result, this part
2 of the testimony may be trying, but that's the way things have been
3 provided for by the Rules.
4 Since you are dealing here in your testimony with technical
5 matters, I'm going to ask you, Witness, to be as specific as possible in
6 your answers. If a question is not clear enough to you, please ask the
7 one asking the question to rephrase it.
8 We have breaks every 90 minutes. We'll have our first break of
9 20 minutes at 10.00 a.m., and then we'll have a second break later. We
10 have an hour and 20 minutes before the first break, and Ms. Biersay will
11 most probably be able to complete her examination-in-chief before the
13 I wanted to tell you all this for your testimony to run as
14 smoothly as possible.
15 Ms. Biersay, good morning again, and you have the floor.
16 MS. BIERSAY: Good morning, Your Honours. Thank you.
17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
18 Examination by Ms. Biersay:
19 Q. Could you please give the Court the full name of the organisation
20 for which you work currently?
21 A. Currently, I work for the Ministry of Regional Development.
22 Within that Ministry, there is the Department for Areas of Special State
23 Concern. It's recently changed as far as its name is concerned. It was
24 called the Administration for the Return of Displaced Persons, Returnees
25 and Refugees.
1 Q. Is that entity the successor entity to the Office for Displaced
2 Persons and Refugees?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And in abbreviated form, is it often referred to as the ODPR?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. So if I use that acronym, ODPR, can we agree that it would
7 include your current place of employment as well as all the predecessor
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You prepared a report for this case, the Seselj case; is that
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Was that a report that was limited to the Seselj case or was it
14 also prepared with consideration for another case?
15 A. It was prepared with another case in mind, Simatovic. It's
16 another case that has yet to start. So, in fact, I drafted one single
17 report, since according to the requests of the Prosecution in another
18 case, the subject I had to deal with overlapped. So it was easier and
19 better for me, in fact, to just draft one single report.
20 Q. Directing your attention to the binder I believe that you have
21 to -- it's marked -- it's 65 ter number 7415.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, could you speak closer
23 to the microphone. The interpreters have a hard time hearing your voice.
24 MS. BIERSAY:
25 Q. Do you recognise the document 65 ter number 7415?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What do you recognise it to be?
3 A. Well, it's this report of mine, if I'm not mistaken, if I can see
4 the numbers correctly.
5 Q. So it's in your binder, and it comes after the number 7415?
6 A. [In English] Yes, I got it, I got it. [Interpretation] Yes,
7 I can see the document. This is the report that I prepared.
8 Q. In your report, specifically in section 2, do you describe the
9 evolution of the directorate for areas outside areas of special state
10 concern, the evolution from that entity -- the evolution of the ODPR into
11 your current employers and organisation?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Was there, throughout the years and throughout the transitions
14 that you describe in section 2, was there continuity as far as the
15 transfer of records, data and archives from one entity to the next?
16 A. Yes. Well, in fact, that organisation, which was initially the
17 governmental Office for Displaced Persons and Refugees, fully took over
18 the database and the entire archives of the previous office. With those
19 archives and the database, it had competence for certain fields of
20 activity; and there's a department in one ministry and there's the
21 structure of the ministry's change would become part of another ministry,
22 that it continued to deal with those activities that concerned refugees.
23 And refugees is a subject dealt with in this report.
24 Q. Was there also continuity in personnel from one entity to the
1 A. Yes, there was continuity of personnel, naturally. Since we're
2 talking about a governmental body, some people left that system, that
3 body, but a significant number stayed on in that department from the very
5 Q. And for how long have you been with the department in the field
6 of displaced persons and refugees?
7 A. Since 1994.
8 Q. Directing your attention to page 1 of your report, does that
9 describe -- does that give us an overview of your responsibilities within
10 the ODPR over the years?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. When you were asked to prepare the joint report that you
13 submitted for the Seselj case and the Stanisic/Simatovic case, were you
14 asked to do that in your capacity as director?
15 A. No, no. I was asked to do that before. Or, rather, the
16 government designated me in accordance with the Prosecution request for
17 me to testify in this case, and in this way I was to prepare this report.
18 Q. What was the purpose of this report?
19 A. Well, the purpose of the report was to deal with the subject of
20 expelled persons from the area of Croatia that had been affected by the
21 war from 1991 until 1995.
22 Q. Does your report cover any other geographical area outside of the
23 Republic -- the former Republic of Croatia?
24 A. In part of the report, I address the issue of refugees from
25 Serbia. This was in accordance with the Prosecution request, since this
1 department or administration that I work in, the ODPR, among other things
2 took care of refugees from neighbouring countries as well for a certain
3 period of time.
4 Q. Could you define for the Trial Chamber, please, the term
5 "displaced persons," as compared to "refugees"?
6 A. When defining these terms, one took over the definitions used for
7 refugees in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. It has to do with
8 the status of refugees and with the relevant protocols. So there is a
9 difference that has to be made, a distinction. When you talk about
10 displaced persons, one is referring to internally-displaced persons who
11 remain within the borders of the state of which they are citizen, so in
12 fact they had to leave their place of residence and move to another
13 place. But when the term "refugees" is used, then we are talking about
14 people who, for the very same reasons, namely, threats to their lives,
15 left the state of which they are citizens. And when we talk about
16 refugees in Croatia, we are talking about people who have come from
17 Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, on the whole, at least when we're
18 talking about registered refugees.
19 According to our legal provisions, refugees are also considered
20 to be people who left Croatia and moved to other countries; for example,
21 they spent some time in Germany, and having returned -- they had some
22 kind of refugee status over there, but having returned, they had the
23 right to have the status of returnees, and that included expelled persons
24 when they returned to their homes. In such cases, they would gain the
25 status of returnees.
1 Q. I'd like to briefly go over the structure of the report.
2 Directing your attention to section 6 of the report, does that section
3 describe the data source used in your report?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And section 7 describes -- does that describe the data collection
6 methodology used in the report?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Sections 9 through 12, do those sections detail the data,
9 statistics and analysis on displaced persons within the former occupied
10 territories of the Republic of Croatia?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. I'd like to direct your attention to section 10 of your report.
13 I believe in meeting yesterday, you made a correction to a date that
14 appeared there.
15 A. Yes.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have an objection. Any
17 correction introduced from the preparation session, from the proofing,
18 should have been provided to me in written form. Nothing was done in
19 this respect.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay, was Mr. Seselj
21 notified that a date was going to be amended in the report?
22 MS. BIERSAY: Your Honour, it's less -- the date is correct in
23 another part of the report. The correction is with respect to one
24 section of the report. We finished proofing yesterday at around 5.00,
25 and it made sense to do it orally today in court, and it's not a
1 substantial change. The change is to be consistent with another part of
2 the report.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. If it's just a simple
4 typo, please tell us what it is. What page is it on?
5 MS. BIERSAY: In e-court, it will be page 27, and in your binder,
6 it will be marked page 26 of 47.
7 Q. So if I could direct your attention to the second paragraph of
8 section 10, specifically to the second sentence that begins: "On 1st
9 August 1994 ..." Is that date correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Should it read "1994"?
12 A. Yes, that sentence appears somewhere at the beginning of the
13 report, and it's quite clear that we're talking about the year 1991.
14 This is quite simply a typo.
15 Q. Okay, let me see if I can understand. The second sentence in the
16 second paragraph in section 10 currently reads, in English: "On 1st
17 August 1994 ..." Is that year correct?
18 A. No. It should say "1991."
19 Q. Now, if I could direct your attention, and for the Trial Chamber
20 it would read page 2 of 47 in your binder, in e-court it would be page 3
21 in the English version, the top of that page reads: "From 9.683 persons
22 on 1st August 1991 ..." Is that what you mean when you say in another
23 part of the report it appears correctly, the date?
24 A. Yes, yes.
25 Q. And the final section in your report, section 13, does that
1 section describe the data pertaining to refugees from Vojvodina?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. In your report, you refer to 11 tables; is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And those tables are attached and incorporated in your report; is
6 that correct?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. With respect -- setting aside table 1 for now, but for tables 2,
9 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, where did the data come from with respect
10 to those tables?
11 A. As far as tables 2, 3 and 4, these documents are original
12 documents. It also concerns 5 and 6. These are original documents of
13 the ODPR from the period referred to in the tables. So these are
14 original documents. As far as 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are concerned, well,
15 similarly these are tables that were made by extracting data from the
16 ODPR database. This was done on the basis of information or records that
17 are kept in an electronic form on refugees in the Republic of Croatia
18 from 1994.
19 Q. Now, going back to table 1, where did the data for that table
20 come from?
21 A. The main data was obtained from the State Institute for
22 Statistics in Croatia. It was in accordance or on the basis of the
23 census of 1991, but it was compiled in a way to reflect the current
24 territorial and administrative structure of the Republic of Croatia. So
25 it was done on the basis of the towns, municipalities and counties that
1 are now in the Republic of Croatia, and it relates exclusively to areas
2 that were occupied or directly affected by the war, up until 1995, or
3 1998 if we're talking about Croatian Podunavlje.
4 Q. Now, you described where the underlying data came from. Who
5 actually created the table, itself?
6 A. I created it.
7 Q. Were you independent in creating this report?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And you've previously described that the report details the
10 methodology that you used in its creation; is that correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. And the results are based on -- with respect to the tables 2
13 through 11 are based on the official records kept by your employer; is
14 that correct?
15 A. Correct.
16 MS. BIERSAY: At this time, the Prosecution moves for the
17 admission of 65 ter number 7415.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We shall determine the matter
19 at the end.
20 MS. BIERSAY: For ease of reference, would the Court like to
21 assign an MFI number?
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, that might be a good idea.
23 Mr. Registrar, an MFI number.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document shall be marked for
25 identification as Exhibit number P632. Thank you.
1 MS. BIERSAY:
2 Q. Now, your -- in section 1 of your report, you describe your
3 professional responsibilities. Could you briefly describe for the Trial
4 Chamber your educational background, please?
5 A. I finished primary and secondary school in Split, and received
6 university education in Zagreb at the School of Philosophy, majoring in
7 Sociology. So I'm, in fact, a sociologist. I am still at post-graduate
8 studies at the School of Political Science of the University of Zagreb.
9 According to the Bologna agreement, it's the equivalent of a Master
11 MS. BIERSAY: Now, Mr. Registrar, I will be asking for the
12 English page 51 and the B/C/S page 34 of MFI P632 in a moment.
13 Q. If we could now talk about tables 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in general
14 terms. The ODPR data depicted in those tables 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, from
15 what time period does that data come from?
16 A. These tables are from 1992. That is the time indicated on the
18 Q. I'm sorry, you said "1992"?
19 A. Yes, 1992.
20 Q. And in what months of 1992?
21 A. The first table and the second and the third tables are for March
23 Q. In March 1992, was there a formal registration of displaced
24 persons within the then Republic of Croatia?
25 A. Not yet. The first formal registration was done in April 1992.
1 At that time, people who were coming as displaced persons would report to
2 the competent regional offices, of which there had been 16 by that time
3 in the Republic of Croatia, and they reported to centres for social
4 welfare that exist in all large cities and municipalities in Croatia.
5 There were more than a hundred of them. They registered there, and they
6 received a special ID for displaced persons. And thus this data was
7 statistically collected through regional offices into the Zagreb office.
8 Q. And what you just described was the situation that existed before
9 April of 1992; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So if we now look at table 2, English page 51, B/C/S page 34,
12 could you tell us what that first table represents?
13 A. The first table represents the number of displaced persons as of
14 that date in the Republic of Croatia, broken down by the places where
15 they were accommodated in the Republic of Croatia. Of course, these are
16 only major urban centres.
17 Q. And could you give us the total number of those displaced
19 A. 335.792 persons.
20 Q. Now directing your attention to the second table of -- on that
21 same page, is there also an illustration of the numbers of refugees from
22 Croatia who were accommodated in other countries?
23 A. Yes, and the total number is 125.381. This information was
24 collected in contacts with other states and with the assistance of the
25 UNHCR. In fact, primarily the UNHCR and contacts with other states where
1 refugees from Croatia were received and accommodated.
2 Q. The formal registration process that you describe as beginning in
3 April of 1992, was that data put in an electronic database at that time
4 in April of 1992?
5 A. No.
6 Q. When was data pertaining to displaced persons and refugees put in
7 electronic format?
8 A. In 1994, after re-registration of both displaced persons and
9 refugees. This was another -- after this first attempt at registration,
10 we tried to put data into an electronic database, but it turned out to be
11 impossible because we had not enough equipment and inadequate technology
12 to do that job. It was necessary, first of all, to put information
13 collected in the field into the database. And in that first attempt some
14 of the data was put in electronic form, some was not, so it didn't work
15 the first time.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a few technical
17 questions for you.
18 The first chart or table, we have 326.012 individuals that were
19 expelled or displaced. Under that figure, we have a figure of 9.780
20 individuals that were not registered, and it said "Estimate" in the
21 chart. How could you estimate that, because these people were not
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So these 326.000 is the number of
24 persons registered, but at that time, unfortunately, there were people
25 who were not registered. And on the basis of information available at
1 that time from the field, it was estimated that the percentage of the
2 unregistered was at least 3 per cent, and that's the basis for this
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So 9.780 is a figure that was
5 just given as an estimate with the 3 per cent rule. In total, 335.782.
6 Second chart, it deals with refugees that found themselves in
7 Croatia and went to other countries. So I guess that in this overall
8 figure, we may find people who were, for instance, registered in
9 Dubrovnik and went to Germany. Do you agree with me?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time, no. Really not at
11 that time, because the Office for Displaced Persons that started issuing
12 displaced persons IDs was established only at the end of 1991. You have
13 to understand that at that time, displaced persons were flowing in by the
14 thousands per day, and it was impossible to register them all at the same
15 time at the end of 1991. The people reflected here were simply in one
16 place, somewhere else, and then went to foreign countries.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So we could add the figures
18 from chart 1 to chart 2 and we would have an overall figure of 460.000
19 persons. Do you agree with that figure?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] How is it that among the
22 countries, we do not find Serbia? Aren't there any refugees that went to
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In another report that we will come
25 to later, numbers 3 and 4, reference is made also to refugees who left
1 for Serbia.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One thing strikes me. We have
3 55.000 persons for Germany; in other words, the German Federal Republic
4 had opened its borders widely to refugees. Also in Hungary, because
5 there we find 45.000 of them.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that was precisely the case at
7 that time, and that number of refugees remained stable in Germany for
8 quite a long time. They gave those people temporary refugee status and
9 protection, and most of those people were in Germany until 1994, when an
10 agreement was signed between Croatia and Germany on the return of
12 And after that, systematically, people started to come back. And
13 the number of refugees even increased in Germany later with the arrival
14 of refugees from Bosnia and Croatia. The number reflected here are only
15 refugees from Croatia.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] How do you account for the fact
17 that Switzerland, which is the country with the status of refugees, we
18 only have 164 people there?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was the official figure at the
20 time. At the beginning, that's what Switzerland had. Of course, later
21 the number increased significantly, but the Swiss, obviously like other
22 states, did not want to put forward estimates. The numbers for other
23 states were mainly estimates, estimates either of the state's, such as
24 Switzerland, or of the UNHCR.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 MS. BIERSAY:
2 Q. You described the re-registration that occurred in 1994, which
3 was also put into an electronic database. Was there another registration
4 that followed the one in 1994?
5 A. In 1997, there was a re-registration, because in the meantime
6 some changes had occurred in the ranks of the refugees and displaced
7 persons, because some had returned.
8 MS. BIERSAY: And if I could now have table 9, which is the
9 English page 79 and the B/C/S page 65, please -- excuse me. Actually, if
10 we could have table 7, the English at page 77 and the B/C/S at page 60.
11 And it's quite a sprawling sheet. What I'd like to focus on is
12 the portion that says: "County, Vukovar-Srem," and then the portion that
13 says: "VS county, town of Vukovar." So it's on the left side.
14 Q. Do you have that in your binder? It might be easier for you to
15 see. It's in your binder?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And that one, it's called "Statistics of Expelled Persons," is
18 that correct, that table?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, after the re-registration process, was there another number
21 that was developed for total displaced persons?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. What was that number?
24 A. After those several registration drives, we reached the number of
25 refugees expressed in this table. That's 220.338 displaced persons, and
1 they were displaced from the then occupied areas in Croatia in 1995, and
2 displaced persons who came from areas adjacent to separation lines.
3 Q. According to your statistics and data, when were most of those
4 people displaced?
5 A. From the statistics, we see clearly that most of those people had
6 been displaced in that period up to the end of 1991; that is, from the
7 summer until the end of 1991. This number, reflecting the persons who
8 were displaced from 1991 to 1995. And if we're talking about Podunavlje,
9 then through 1998, that is the peaceful reintegration of the Podunavlje
10 region, those people were displaced for seven years. At the time that we
11 mentioned in earlier statistics dating back to 1992, the number of
12 displaced persons is much higher, because at that time the population
13 from major cities exposed to attacks also left their homes and left for
14 other areas of Croatia, seeking safety.
15 Q. Could you tell us, in looking at this chart, the number of
16 displaced persons in the Vukovar-Srem county?
17 A. The Vukovar-Srem county is divided into two spaces because of
18 different dates of displacement taken as criteria here. The total number
19 for the Vukovar-Srem county is 32.470, plus there is a number strictly
20 for Vukovar, 23.174.
21 In looking at these numbers, we have to bear in mind that in the
22 meantime, 1.357 children were born, if we're talking about Vukovar. And
23 if we are -- county -- if we're talking about Vukovar county, the number
24 of babies born was 2.250. And that's how we reached the total number of
25 displaced persons for the Vukovar-Srem county. That's 23.174 plus
2 Q. Based on your analysis of the data that you had at your disposal,
3 were you able to determine the predominant group that was displaced?
4 A. Well, the largest group of refugees or displaced persons were
5 expelled by that date. If we are talking about Vukovar town, that's the
6 18th November 1991. If we are talking about the rest of the Vukovar-Srem
7 county, that is, settlements around Vukovar, they were displaced by 20th
8 October 1991.
9 Q. Could you tell us if most of these people were -- what ethnicity
10 were they, the ones who were displaced?
11 A. The majority of displaced persons are Croats, as we can see from
12 table 9, with a proviso that in this total number, 25.215 -- that is,
13 205.215 Croats, and in Vukovar town and Vukovar county, we have 29.770
14 Croats plus 21.235 if we are talking about the town of Vukovar. There
15 are some Serbs among the displaced persons, that should not be forgotten,
16 a total of 500 -- I'll try to calculate it now, 578 persons who were
17 Serbs. The rest are members of other ethnic communities, ethnic
18 minorities who lived in that area of Croatia. And precisely in that area
19 of Croatia, there were a lot of ethnic minorities; Hungarians,
21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a general question
22 regarding these tables, especially their titles.
23 Indeed, they say "Expelled Persons," so that would -- or whose
24 departure or displacement would be motivated. Was it possible to
25 determine whether these people were displaced because they'd been
1 expelled or is it possible that somebody decided to leave voluntarily?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those were people who were
3 literally expelled. They left their homes because of bombing, shelling,
4 or direct entry of the military units of the JNA, or paramilitary units.
5 So these people had to leave their homes.
6 In some cases, like the notorious case of Vukovar, but also Ilok
7 and some other places, several localities found themselves under siege,
8 in complete encirclement, and these people were simply forced to leave.
9 The army put them on buses, at least some of them, and deported them from
10 their towns and villages; and in many cases people simply ran from the
11 military units that were entering their places, and they had to leave
12 their homes.
13 Now, these people referred to here are expelled persons who found
14 shelter and accommodation in other areas of Croatia that were not
15 occupied at the time, and they were under the control of the legitimate
16 authorities of the Republic of Croatia.
17 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Therefore, you would agree with
18 me in saying that in these tables, you are using a very broad concept of
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not think it is a very broad
21 definition of expulsion that I'm using, because the concept of expulsion
22 coincides with the very substance of refugee status, as defined in the
23 conventions. These are people who left their homes, fearing for their
24 lives, under direct threat.
25 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have one objection,
2 Mr. President.
3 I believe the Prosecution should, at least by the next break, get
4 us the definition of "refugees" and the definition of "deported persons"
5 from the Geneva Conventions, because through this report the Prosecution
6 is offering us definitions from the Croatian legislation, and that's why
7 we are confused between the terms "refugee" and "deported" or "expelled."
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This was the reason for
9 Judge Lattanzi's questions. Of course, if we ask questions, you must
10 understand that we have legal interrogations.
11 I don't think you have more than ten minutes left, so please come
12 to an end.
13 MS. BIERSAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. The figures that you have just described, in your opinion, do
15 they capture all the persons who would fall under the definition of
16 displaced persons, when we're talking about the former Republic of
18 A. These figures, since this is information contained in our
19 database, kept electronically from 1994 onwards, capture persons who were
20 expelled at that time and remained refugees for a long time, at least
21 from 1991 to 1995, or alternatively 1998.
22 However, this database does not contain persons who were refugees
23 from 1991 to 1994, April 1994, when this registration drive occurred, and
24 who in the meantime either left Croatia for third states and did not
25 return, but stayed in third countries, that is, they passed through
1 Croatia in transit, and there was a certain number of persons who, for
2 personal reasons best known to them, did not register.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you be more specific?
4 While these are impressive figures, we do not intend to dispute them as
5 to their volumes, but could you give a precise answer to this
6 hypothetical question? Let us imagine that we have a given village which
7 is the target of a military JNA offensive. Let us imagine that the
8 inhabitants of that village leave it because they're being shot at. The
9 people leaving the village, are they regarded by you as expelled people?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine, very well.
12 Let's assume that 40 kilometres away from that village, we have
13 another village, and in that village they find out that in the first
14 village, there was an attack by the JNA, and that in another village 30
15 kilometres away from there, people are leaving their homes. This second
16 group of people, would you consider them as expellees?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In 1991, these people were also
18 considered -- or, rather, such people were also considered to be
19 refugees. But our first decrees that precisely defined who could be
20 considered to be a refugee, well, these decrees were adopted in 1991 and
21 subsequently in 1992. In 1992, the definition was that people from
22 places such as Osijek, which had been shelled at the time -- we're not
23 talking about a neighbouring village, but a major town that was directly
24 shelled, and many people, especially women with their children, left that
25 place, well, at that time the definition was those people couldn't be
1 granted the status of refugees, since their homes had not been damaged
2 and it was possible for them to return there.
3 So in 1992, according to the rules in Croatia, only people who
4 could not return to their homes were considered to be refugees, because
5 their place of residence, their towns and villages, were totally occupied
6 and under the control of Serbian units or --
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, do not try to confuse
8 matters, my question was very specific. I gave you a very specific case,
9 and I'm not asking you to tell us about various decrees or laws. I'm
10 asking you whether -- if we have a village 40 kilometres away from the
11 first village, where people start leaving their home, although the JNA is
12 nowhere to be found, are the people that are leaving the second village
13 considered as refugees, according to you?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not just for that reason, not at
15 that point in time.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And what about the case in
17 which the JNA does not go to that second village because that village is
18 of no interest to the JNA? What about the village inhabitants who go and
19 have themselves registered in Zagreb; do you consider them as displaced
20 persons or as expellees?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They're not included in this figure
22 of 220.330 refugees.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So they can't be included
24 because they are able to return home?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay, thank you.
2 MS. BIERSAY: At this time, the Prosecution has no further
3 questions, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
5 Before we take the break and before the beginning of the
6 cross-examination by Mr. Seselj, I have a number of technical questions
7 to put to the witness.
8 Witness, I had a look at your CV, and I saw that you started your
9 professional life as a journalist. You were working for the Hina News
10 Agency. What was your area of specialty as a journalist? Did you cover
11 politics, sports, environmental matters?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Internal politics.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay, internal politics. But
14 could you be more specific?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time, I was a fairly young
16 journalist, just starting my career in Zagreb; and on the whole I covered
17 events in Zagreb in 1992 up until the end of 1993. That's when I worked
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When you say "events," do you
20 mean by that political events?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For example, various press
22 conferences, meetings, visits of foreign politicians coming to Zagreb.
23 Hina is an agency that covers a lot of events that occur in Zagreb. Some
24 other newspapers wouldn't cover such events, for example. So it's only
25 involved in news. It's not involved in writing other kinds of articles
1 and so on and so forth.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Was the Hina News Agency a news
3 agency that was completely independent from the political authorities or
4 was it under their control?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it was a state agency or it
6 is a state agency.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So it was under the control of
8 the state?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, because it's a state agency,
10 yes. But the question as to whether something is a state organisation or
11 not, well, I don't think that has anything to do with the independence of
12 the agency, as an agency involved in the media; but there's no doubt
13 about the fact that it's owned by the state.
14 Q. Fine. At the very beginning of your testimony, I asked you a
15 question about Serb displaced persons; in other words, Croatian nationals
16 belonging to the Serb ethnicity. In your view, how many people of that
17 category left their home?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, look, it's very difficult.
19 I'll give you my opinion here. I can tell you about things that I'm
20 familiar with. I can present some facts to you with regard to what I
21 know about refugees from Croatia, refugees of Serbian ethnicity who left
22 the Republic of Croatia. Well, unfortunately, we don't have precise
23 information or records on this matter, records on how many refugees there
24 are of Serbian ethnicity, and the majority of them in Serbia and a few of
25 them in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and even a lower number in Montenegro. But
1 with regard to this matter, we never had very precise information or
2 records. International organisations and part of the Serbian public, at
3 various periods of time, had certain assessments. Unfortunately, we
4 never exchanged information for refugees who were from Croatia, but fled
5 to Serbia; so we could never determine how many people were actually
7 What we do know is some people in the meantime returned to the
8 Republic of Croatia, and they were registered with us, and we have files
9 for them. This concerns almost 127.000 people at this point in time. So
10 the administration that I work in also deals with the return of Serbs to
11 the Republic of Croatia, among other things, and they keep records on
12 people who register with us as returnees.
13 As far as the information we currently have, in Serbia there are
14 currently about 70.000 refugees from Croatia. Assessments of
15 international organisations, the estimates of these organisations, are
16 more or less the same, the figure is more or less the same, but it's not
17 very precise. And I really can't say much about these figures, because
18 we're only talking about estimates here.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me now move on to another
20 topic, where you may help us understand a better what it's all about.
21 A number of witnesses came here to testify about exchanges of
22 apartments. At the time, some of them, Serbs, lived in Croatia, and they
23 were asked to go away and to exchange their apartments with Croats who at
24 the time were living in Serbian areas. So we had witnesses here tell us
25 about this, and they showed us contracts related to exchanges of
1 apartments. We have received a number of evidence in that respect.
2 You are dealing with statistics, with data, and I would like to
3 know whether, according to you, these people who exchanged their
4 apartments were recorded in the statistics, were they considered as
5 displaced persons or refugees?
6 But before you answer my question, another question. Were you
7 aware of such things going on?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm aware of the fact that such
9 things were done. However, many cases had to do with refugees who came
10 to Croatia from Serbia. To be more precise, many people from Vojvodina
11 came to Croatia in this manner. They exchanged their property for
12 property that belonged to people who had decided to leave Croatia, people
13 of Serbian ethnicity. The same thing occurred with refugees from Bosnia
14 and Herzegovina at a later date. Houses were exchanged not just with
15 people from Vojvodina but also with people from Bosnia and Herzegovina.
16 However, as far as people from Vojvodina themselves are
17 concerned, some of these people were registered in our offices as
18 refugees because they were from a different state, they came from a
19 different state to the Republic of Croatia. However, some of these
20 people who exchanged their houses didn't register as refugees with us.
21 They did not have the need, since they had managed to exchange their
22 property, they had a place to stay; and so some of these people didn't
23 feel the need to register as refugees in order to obtain certain benefits
24 and advantages; for example, accommodation, food, social security,
25 because they also obtained Croatian nationality very rapidly, because
1 we're talking about the Croats, the Croatian national minority that lived
2 in Serbia.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What you've said is extremely
4 relevant. I believe I understand that Croats from Vojvodina exchanged
5 their property with Serbs who were in Croatia, and that these people
6 decided that they did not need to register as refugees because they saw
7 themselves as being Croats; and they did not request any type of help or
8 benefits. Were there many such cases, to your knowledge?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were quite a few such people,
10 but I couldn't provide you with a precise figure with regard to the
11 number of people we have registered as refugees. Well, we can't say
12 whether this concerned everyone or just some of them, but we have
13 registered refugees from Vojvodina, we have 5.131 refugees from
14 Vojvodina. As far as 3.377 of these refugees are concerned, we have
15 information according to which they are of Croatian ethnicity.
16 However, we don't have any information for about 1.511
17 individuals who initially did not register as refugees; but as of 2002,
18 when Croatia made this possible, they asked for our assistance in finding
19 accommodation for them, so some of the people who arrived by exchanging
20 their property did not register as refugees because at the time they did
21 not need any assistance when it came to accommodation, but later on they
22 did report to us. Those who felt the immediate need at the time, on the
23 whole, registered as refugees.
24 I think we're dealing more with certain personal reasons and not
25 with other reasons for which someone decided to register as a refugee or
1 not to do that. This was thought to be humanitarian aid, a matter of
2 humanitarian aid if you registered as a refugee. It was only later that
3 things changed, when people understood that it also had a lot to do with
4 requests for renovating your home, when you returned to your home, if you
5 returned to your home, or if you had requests for accommodation if you
6 didn't have a home to return to.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One last question. You are a
8 high-ranking civil servant of the Republic of Croatia. As such, we can
9 consider that you are aware of what's going on now. To your knowledge,
10 are there any disputes between people who at the time exchanged their
11 property, but then later realised that the exchange was not fair because
12 the property they received in the exchange was worth less than the one
13 they had let go? So has your government been seized of such disputes?
14 Are there trials or proceedings going on in that respect, or is it
15 something that you have no information about?
16 I'm asking you the question, because we had witnesses here tell
17 us that when it came to the exchange, they did not receive what they
18 gave. So my question is very straightforward.
19 Are you aware of cases of people who exchanged their property at
20 the time and are now asking for damage or who have started legal
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We didn't keep records about such
23 cases. Recently, I haven't heard anything about any individual cases.
24 However, since this isn't the responsibility of my ministry, I don't have
25 to be aware of such cases; but I have to admit that recently I haven't
1 heard anything about such cases. But I have heard that legal proceedings
2 have been instituted for such reasons. I don't know what numbers we're
3 dealing with here, but I do know that there were such cases when it comes
4 to exchanges of property with Bosnia and Herzegovina. But if you're
5 asking me to provide you with figures, I really couldn't do that.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One very last question. Rest
7 assured, it is actually my very last question, and it relates to these
8 people who exchange their property and who came from Vojvodina to Zagreb
9 or the surrounding areas.
10 To your knowledge in the ensuing years or even today, do any of
11 these people go back to Vojvodina or is everybody very pleased with their
12 current situation? Has everybody decided to stay put? And if some
13 people decide to go back where they came from, do you have any idea how
14 many they are, do you have a percentage to give us?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not aware of any of these
16 people returning to their homes. As far as I know, these people did not
17 return to their homes. Quite the contrary. Some family members who came
18 to Croatia would later bring other family members who had perhaps
19 remained in Serbia to Croatia, so, in fact, most of the family members
20 remained in Croatia and live in Croatia. But as to how satisfied they
21 are or not, well, that's something you should ask them about. But what
22 everyone knows with regard to refugees and international investigations
23 has also demonstrated this, and this doesn't just concern Croatian
24 refugees in Croatia, but also Serbians in Serbia, after many years spent
25 abroad as a refugee, the family situation changes and then people decide
1 whether to return or not on that basis. It has nothing to do with how
2 happy they are or not. Parents, well, that's one matter. Children,
3 that's another matter. Elderly grandparents is another matter again.
4 We're talking about living individuals here.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
6 My fellow Judges may have some questions for you now.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
8 Madam Radic, the report that you have made, as I have understood it, mostly
9 deals with the registration of persons who moved from various areas to
10 other areas, but the question I have to you is if you have any information
11 about how this was organised in practical terms. And I'm asking because if
12 you have hundreds of thousands of people moving in one direction or in
13 several directions and almost as many people moving in the other direction,
14 that is, in and of itself, an enormous logistical task, and I would have
15 thought that it would require a very high degree of organisation.
16 And my question to you is: Do you know how this was organised in practical
17 terms? I mean, how would a family from one place, who felt compelled to
18 leave their home and go to -- let's say they would move from, just as an
19 example, from Vukovar to Zagreb. How would they be able to find a vacant
20 home there without being assisted by private organisations, or by
21 government bodies, or by somebody else? It would seem to be that there
22 would have to be some sort of organisation, either private or government-
23 sponsored, to put some degree of order and organisation into all of this.
24 Can you tell us something about that?
25 THE WITNESS: Absolutely. I think that this has been fairly well
1 explained in my report. In fact, at the time the organisation that first
2 started taking care of displaced persons and refugees was the Ministry of
3 Labour and Social Welfare. That ministry deals with such matters,
4 matters of social welfare, and in Croatia, in most towns and
5 municipalities, it has social welfare centres which were part of the
6 ministry at the time. So these were their field offices. They would
7 deal with family matters, with children who had special needs, with
8 disabled persons, people who were socially at risk, and they had their
9 principles. So at the time, there was the Croatian Red Cross. It still
10 exists. And in many towns, in many municipalities in the Republic of
11 Croatia, the Red Cross had its own offices and its own staff members.
12 When all these are taken together, the ministry, within which that
13 office for displaced persons and refugees was first established at the
14 very end of 1991, and the independent governmental body – the Office for
15 Displaced Persons and Refugees - they, in fact, organised the reception
16 of individuals in the free areas of the Republic of Croatia.
17 I don't want to present you with a false picture, but how did
18 things unfold? Well, in certain cases people simply fled from their
19 homes, carrying bags with them and nothing else. This happened on a
20 number of cases. People from Drnis became expelled persons in this way.
21 Many people from Lika became expelled persons in this way. This also
22 concerns areas around Slunja. Immediately prior to the entry of military
23 units after intense shelling had occurred, these people simply fled from
24 their homes. In many cases, people simply fled from their villages,
25 others -- some had transport, others had nothing. And there were people
1 who would receive them at certain places. It was quite complicated.
2 In the case of Vukovar or Ilok, people were transported out in
3 buses. They were bussed out in Vukovar, and the date concerned is the
4 18th of November. Well, that's the anniversary when the JNA and
5 paramilitary units entered Vukovar and captured the remaining population
6 there. They had been assembled at several points, and on the following
7 day the civilians, the women, children and the elderly, were put into
8 buses and transported through Novi Sad and Bosnia to Croatia, via
9 Slavonski Brod, Djakovo and Zagreb. People knew that the buses were
10 arriving, so some of these people were put up in sports halls at the
11 time. The Red Cross naturally provided these people with food. So there
12 was a civilian headquarters that organised the reception of such people.
13 These were the most difficult tasks, when such huge groups of people
14 arrived as was the case with Vukovar or Ilok.
15 So some people from Vukovar were received in Slavonski Brod, some
16 in Djakovo, and most of them in Zagreb. Most of them ended up in Zagreb.
17 On the first day, at around 9.00, about 3.000 people from Vukovar were
18 received in Zagreb, and they were provided with accommodation at the
19 premises -- on the premises of the fair. There were also hotels in
20 Zagreb, five-star or four-star hotels, that we used to provide these
21 people with accommodation, too. At the time, we didn't have any
22 settlements for refugees, so they were first provided with accommodation
23 at the seaside, on the coast. If they were refugees, they would be first
24 gathered in sports halls, in large buildings, schools. Usually they were
25 assembled in schools, and then they were sent on to other places.
1 Naturally, many people found accommodation with relatives of theirs, and
2 later they asked for the state to assist them and to provide them with
3 accommodation elsewhere. So they would assemble in these large centres,
4 and we would send them on.
5 At the time, all the hotels on the Adriatic coast were used to
6 provide these refugees with accommodation. That was the case for a long
7 time. So many of the well-known hotels we used for such purposes.
8 To present you with a vivid description, about 11.000 refugees
9 were provided with accommodation in Dubrovnik hotels, or, rather, let's
10 be more precise. 11.000 expelled persons were provided with
11 accommodations there.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much. We'll have to take the
13 break now, but my next question to you would be -- and I will give the
14 question to you now so you can consider your answer in the break. The --
15 from the point in time when the refugees had arrived and had been
16 accommodated in these hotels and schools and places, how then would the
17 authorities or the institutions who assisted these refugees know about
18 vacant homes, because there must have been then a registration of, say,
19 Serbs who left Zagreb to return to Serbia, so that the authorities knew
20 that the authorities in Croatia would know which houses would be
21 available for the refugees from Vojvodina or other parts. And my second
22 question to that is: Do you know if there was any cooperation between
23 Croatian authorities and Serbian authorities to organise this? These are
24 the two questions that I would like you to consider.
25 Let's have the break.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, let's have a 20-minute
3 --- Recess taken at 10.02 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 10.22 a.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have had a break, Witness.
6 Can you now answer the questions put by Judge Harhoff?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So in response to your first
8 question, where you asked, in fact, how the authorities were aware of
9 houses that were available to refugees from Vojvodina and other areas, to
10 displaced persons, I'll try to be a bit more precise.
11 As far as the ODPR is concerned, the office which was in charge
12 of accommodating displaced persons and refugees and expelled persons at
13 the time, the ODPR, as the competent agency of the Republic of Croatia,
14 did not have lists at that time. We're talking about 1991 to 1995. It
15 did not have a list of vacant houses and flats where they could put up
16 displaced persons. We used exclusively facilities for organised
17 accommodation. At that time, that included all the hotel-type
18 facilities, workers' prefab houses, and then we proceeded with building
19 dedicated accommodation.
20 Already in 1993 and 1994, we started building such accommodation
21 near Osijek, with the assistance of the German government, also near
22 Karlovac and Vinkovci, and each of these buildings had a capacity of
23 accommodating 3.000 persons. We did not put people up in private
24 accommodation. If displaced persons went to private accommodation, it
25 was usually with family, with friends, who would let them use a house or
1 a flat they had or would simply receive them as guests. Later on, it
2 turned out that some people could not go on staying in such private
3 accommodation and had to turn to something more organised.
4 As for houses and flats that were abandoned, one of the
5 competences of our agency is accommodating displaced persons from Serbia,
6 people who had tenants' rights to housing. I know that Croatian courts,
7 based on Croatian legislation, in regard to people who had tenants'
8 rights to housing, brought in verdicts that such housing rights were
9 annulled if it was established that somebody did not live in a certain
10 house or apartment for more than six months. Such flats and houses
11 existed. However, at that time it was municipalities and towns that had
12 the right to dispose of such housing, not the ODPR. So I cannot answer
13 the question in what way some of the displaced persons were accommodated
14 in such vacant housing.
15 It is a well-known fact that as time went on, some of these
16 people addressed themselves to us for assistance, and they received
17 decisions on accommodation; but that did not happen in 1991. It happened
18 in 1992 through 1995 that some displaced persons were accommodated in
19 some of the abandoned, vacant housing.
20 This thing that I'm describing, that we put up displaced persons
21 in an organised way in such housing, that was later, closer to the
22 Operation Storm. But in the period I was talking about, we could only
23 put up people in organised accommodation, and we did not have any flats
24 at our disposal.
25 As for your second question, whether at that time there was
1 cooperation between Croatia and Serbia, it simply did not exist at that
2 time. There was no cooperation whatsoever regarding the accommodation of
3 displaced people. The war was simply going on.
4 That's what I know.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
6 We have heard some of the witnesses in this trial, who came to
7 testify earlier, that there was, on the Serb side, a private organisation
8 called Lasta, and that they were able to provide some assistance, on the
9 Serbian side, to refugees who came to Serbia, I think. So what I was
10 curious to know was that if there were -- if you know of the existence of
11 any similar private organisations on the Croatian side who would be able
12 to assist in this exchange of property. Do you know that?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really don't know. That must
14 have been some private agency or agencies in the area concerning real
15 estate sale and purchase. That did not fall within the jurisdiction of
16 the ODPR. Everything that concerns trade and economy, that is within the
17 sphere of private business. We, as a state institution, did not deal
18 with that. People found each other in some private contacts. We don't
19 know anything about it. We don't know if there is an organisation who
20 was involved.
21 Today, we have a state agency that purchases real estate on
22 behalf of the state in Croatia, but it was established only in 1997,
23 during the peaceful reintegration of Croatian Podunavlje region.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you may begin with
25 the cross-examination. You were granted one hour and 30 minutes by the
1 Trial Chamber.
2 Cross-examination by Mr. Seselj:
3 Q. Ms. Radic, do you believe yourself to be an expert?
4 A. In this area that I'm dealing with, yes.
5 Q. Did you appear anywhere before as an expert in this area?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do others in Croatia believe you to be an expert?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Where did you appear as an expert?
10 A. At many international conferences, seminars.
11 Q. As an expert in the area of displaced persons and refugees?
12 A. Yes, for what happened in Croatia.
13 Q. All right. You said you were designated by the Croatian
14 government to make a report and testify in this case?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. And that means that the Prosecution did not contact you directly;
17 they contacted the Croatian government?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. The OTP asked the Croatian government, and the Croatian
20 government designated you, trusting that you will do that job the best?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you did it on the orders of your government, within your
23 working hours?
24 A. Whether it was within my working hours, I don't know, if you
25 believe working hours to be 10 or 12 hours a day.
1 Q. I sometimes worked 16 hours a day. Anyway, you may have done
2 overtime, but you did it in your workplace?
3 A. In part, yes.
4 Q. And you had to take some of it home?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you had to engage government officials to help you with the
8 A. To a smaller extent, yes.
9 Q. So you are an expert of the Croatian government, lent to the
10 Croatian -- to the OTP to testify in this case?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you are also to testify in the Simatovic and Stanisic case,
13 which is in preparation?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And did anyone explain to you what it means to be an expert
16 witness before a court? Did they give you some basic instructions in
17 principle, because you have never appeared in court before?
18 A. I have never.
19 Q. You were a government expert who appeared at international
20 conferences and defended the interests of your government on this issue
21 or, rather, represented the interests?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Did anyone instruct you what it means to be a forensic expert?
24 A. I was instructed by the OTP, who asked me to do certain things,
25 and I believe I wrote those things in my report.
1 Q. I have read your report, although I received it, together with
2 the background material, only last Friday. I read it very
3 conscientiously. Don't worry, we'll discuss it all. These are questions
4 in principle. I am interested in your status here.
5 Did anyone tell you that you are representing the interests of
6 the Croatian government here or that you have to testify in an unbiased
7 way, even at the detriment of the interests of the Croatian government?
8 Did anyone tell you that?
9 A. When we talk about the concept of expert or professional, that
10 implies precisely what you're saying; namely, that one must be impartial.
11 Q. Why, then, did you not take the trouble to prove that you are
12 impartial in your expert report?
13 A. I don't know what you mean.
14 Q. I'll show what I mean. Did anyone communicate to you that at
15 first the Prosecution planned to use Colonel Ivan Grujic as the expert
17 A. I don't know that.
18 Q. So they didn't tell you that at all?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Is in the official papers here, it is evident that the
21 Prosecution replaced Ivan Grujic because he was compromised, and two
22 other persons were used to replace him, Ms. Visnja Bilic and you?
23 A. I was not informed by the Prosecution of that, but I know that
24 Mr. Grujic covered this area in some other prior cases.
25 Q. But if they had told you that Ivan Grujic had been disqualified
1 for such-and-such a reason, and you are called to testify instead of him,
2 what would have been your response?
3 A. I was not designated to testify on this issue either by
4 Mr. Grujic or by the Prosecution, but --
5 Q. By the Croatian government?
6 A. -- by the Croatian government for which I work.
7 Q. Your answer is very satisfactory to me. But do you know
8 Mr. Ivan Grujic personally?
9 A. Yes, I met him.
10 Q. He is a brigadier general now, isn't he?
11 A. I don't know that.
12 Q. Do you know why he was disqualified?
13 A. No, I don't.
14 Q. Did anyone tell you that Ivan Grujic used to be the head of the
15 war branch office of the State Security Service in Osijek in 1990?
16 A. No, I don't.
17 Q. Do you know that in 2001, Ivan Grujic testified in the
18 investigation in the Glavas case concerning the killing of Serb civilians
19 in Osijek?
20 A. I did not follow the news that much, not sufficiently to know all
21 that happened there. It concerns no segment of my work.
22 Q. Ms. Radic, you are a high-ranking civil servant, an employee of
23 the government, if you wish. You are well educated. You have a
24 university degree. You majored in Sociology. You are doing
25 post-graduate studies. I suppose you watch television, listen to the
1 radio and read newspapers.
2 A. Certainly. Of course I watch television, of course I listen to
3 the radio and read newspapers, but believe me, there is so much
4 information and news in all the mass media that you can't know it all. I
5 did not know this particular thing. I may have missed it.
6 Q. Do you know who Branimir Glavas is?
7 A. I do.
8 Q. Croatian general, an MP in the Croatian Parliament, a prominent
9 politician. He even had his own party. He was an important man for the
10 regime at one point in time?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. He's now on trial; you know that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. He's on trial for war crimes against Serb civilians in Osijek?
15 A. That's the indictment against him.
16 Q. That's what he is being tried for. I'm not prejudging the
17 decision of the Court, because he had been acquitted for certain things
18 before. There is a certain [indiscernible] case also. You know about
20 A. Only from the media.
21 Q. Well, same here. My associates found certain material on the
22 internet concerning Ivan Grujic earlier, because I didn't have time to
23 prepare specially for you and I did not explore your CV; but I believe
24 there are no compromising things, as there are for Ivan Grujic.
25 A. I hope not.
1 Q. So I wouldn't have found any, would I? I have here the Nacional
2 Weekly and then I have the Feral tribune newspaper.
3 Ivan Grujic was a key witness in the Glavas case, and in 2001, in
4 the process, he incriminated Glavas very heavily. And then suddenly in
5 2006, he withdrew all his incriminations against Glavas as head of the
6 state security in Osijek. He knew about all of Glavas' crimes. Before
7 the Investigating Judge, he incriminated him seriously, and then he
8 withdrew all that because there turned out evidence that Ivan Grujic was
9 involved in the murder of Reihl Kir. And even though Grujic gave an
10 interview to Robert Bajrusi of the Nacional Weekly, he refused to talk
11 about all this.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Biersay.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I can only thank you for all
14 this information. I had no such details. I didn't know at all that
15 Mr. Grujic was involved in that case. I may have read something in the
16 Nacional Weekly, but I must say I didn't pay much attention to that
17 because --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay.
19 MS. BIERSAY: Your Honour, if I may respectfully request some
20 clarification from Mr. Seselj regarding the relevance of the information
21 about Mr. Grujic in the context of this witness's expert report.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Seselj, where is the
23 relevance? Why is it relevant to know that Mr. Grujic, who was supposed
24 to be a Prosecution expert, was withdrawn, to be replaced by another two
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm checking the
2 expert's credibility, first of all. I'm doing this with considerable
3 success. That would be my subjective assessment.
4 The Prosecution should explain to you why they did not ask for an
5 independent witness perhaps from the International Red Cross, who would
6 draft a report on the expelled and displaced persons in the territory of
7 the former Yugoslavia, and that would include the territory of Croatia.
8 Instead of doing this, the Prosecution contacted the Croatian government,
9 and the Croatian government designates Ms. Radic to draft an expert
10 report. I think this is an unheard-of scandal.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, in your country, as
12 in mine, this kind of situation would not happen, because experts are
13 independent persons appointed by judges. But this is a type of
14 Anglo-Saxon proceedings in which each party calls their own experts. The
15 case law established by the Appeals Chamber is that such experts can be
16 independent. Well, that's what the Appeals Chamber says. So you, when
17 you call your own experts, that will be the same. The Prosecutor could
18 say that your expert is not independent.
19 This is an endless topic for discussion. It would have been
20 better if the experts had been appointed by the Trial Chamber, following
21 motions by parties, and this sort of situation would not have cropped up.
22 But we have Rules establishing these proceedings, so the Prosecution can
23 choose their own expert, including their own staff members, and can ask a
24 government to send their representatives. That's it. You may have your
25 own view upon it, but that's allowed by the Rules.
1 Only following the testimony of the witness and following
2 cross-examination, the Trial Chamber will decide whether the report
3 should be admitted or not.
4 So please proceed.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, you are quite right.
6 However, something new cropped up here. We're not talking about a
7 Prosecution expert, but about an expert representing the Croatian
8 government, and the Prosecution and the Croatian government have joined
9 forces here against me.
10 So far, we have heard five experts that work for the Prosecution,
11 staff members of the Prosecution, and now we have experts sent by the
12 Croatian government. The Prosecution didn't find them and then assign
13 them tasks, but the Prosecution told the government in Croatia, "We need
14 such and stuff a thing," and then the Croatian government acted
15 accordingly. So this is something new with regard to the practice to
16 date. And I had to draw your attention to the fact.
17 Q. Ms. Radic, you probably know who Reihl Kir was.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. He was the head of the police in Osijek, of German nationality,
20 but a local German, so he was of German ethnic origin. And Reihl Kir
21 wanted the Serbs and the Croats to find a peaceful solution to the crisis
22 in Eastern Slavonia and Western Srem. He wanted to make sure that there
23 were no incidents, there was no killing, no shooting. Have I described
24 him correctly?
25 A. I don't know that much about Reihl Kir, so I really couldn't say
1 whether I agree with you or not. This isn't my area. All I know about
2 Reihl Kir is from the media.
3 Q. Very well. But you must know that as the head of the Osijek
4 police, Reihl Kir was killed by the Croats in 1991. You must be aware of
5 the fact.
6 A. I really am not aware of that.
7 Q. Very well, if you don't know.
8 A. I'm not here to discuss those events, because I really don't know
9 anything about that.
10 Q. No, you're here to answer my questions, and I'm not putting any
11 insulting questions to you; would you agree?
12 A. I do.
13 Q. Very well. And I'll continue in this way. But you must answer
14 all my questions, and if there's something you don't know, just say so,
15 and we'll move on.
16 Since you worked as a journalist in Zagreb in 1992 and you worked
17 for a state agency as a journalist, were you aware of the fact that the
18 Croatian government, from 1991 to 1995, used the premises of the Zagreb
19 Fair or Velesajam as a camp where they detained civilians, and several
20 thousand Zagrebian Serbs passed through that camp; are you aware of that?
21 A. No.
22 Q. As you're a sociology graduate, do you know who Professor
23 Zarko Puhovski is?
24 A. Yes. He was one of my professors at the university.
25 Q. He's a very distinguished professor; is that correct?
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 Q. And he was also the president of the Croatian Helsinki Committee?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. And he made a documentary film about the camp at the Zagreb Trade
5 Fair. You're not aware of that?
6 A. I'm not.
7 Q. Very well. We won't linger on that theme if you're not aware of
9 When you were drafting this report, did you consult literature on
10 expulsion and deportation of Serbs in Croatia from 1991 to 1995?
11 A. No, I didn't go into such documents for this report, because the
12 subject of my report was the expulsion of individuals from an area about
13 which I have clear information. With regard to the Serbs, we have
14 information about the return of Serbs.
15 Q. But not about the departure of Serbs?
16 A. Unfortunately, not about the departure of Serbs, because in this
17 area or these areas, areas in Croatia that were occupied, they were
18 called "Krajina" at the time, they were under the supervision of UNPROFOR
19 and they weren't part of the legal structure of the government in
20 Croatia, they weren't under the control of the government, so we weren't
21 aware of what was happening in those areas.
22 Later, when people started returning, and then they all started
23 recounting their stories, we found out that quite a lot of people left
24 those areas in the period from 1991 to 1995.
25 Q. I'm not asking you about that. I'm asking you about areas that
1 were under the control of the Croatian government in Zagreb all the time,
2 and from that area hundreds of thousands of Serbs were expelled. That's
3 what I'm asking you about. Did you have a look at the literature about
4 that subject, if you don't have any official information?
5 A. We don't have any official information about that.
6 Q. Very well. Do you know who Professor Svetozar Livada is?
7 A. I've heard that name, but I'm not sure who he is.
8 Q. A professor at the Zagreb University. He's currently retired, as
9 far as I know.
10 A. That's possible.
11 Q. He has published a lot of books containing detailed information
12 on the expulsion of Serbs from the territory of Croatia, territory that
13 was constantly or continually under the control of the Croatian
14 government. The Prosecution has his publications, his statements and so
15 on, but you have no knowledge about this?
16 A. Well, look --
17 Q. I'm looking.
18 A. There are a lot of books that have been published. They are
19 based on various assessments as to how many Serbs left Croatia. What
20 I can tell you about has to do with official information regarding how
21 many people were living in the area that was occupied or the areas that
22 were occupied at the time, how many people returned in the meantime.
23 Q. Who occupied the areas?
24 A. At the time, those areas were not part of the legal structure of
25 the Republic of Croatia, and in 1991 that area was occupied by the JNA
1 and by paramilitary units. And later on, they said their name was
3 Q. How can the JNA occupy parts of Yugoslavia, since the JNA was the
4 regular Yugoslav Army?
5 A. But the Republic of Croatia was an independent state at that
7 Q. When?
8 A. In 1991. The 8th of October, 1991, is when a decision was issued
9 by the Croatian Parliament according to which all legal links to the SFRY
10 were being discontinued.
11 Q. Who accepted this?
12 A. It's the decision of the Croatian Parliament.
13 Q. As a functionary of the Croatian Parliament, you always say that
14 those decisions are legal that I'm asking you. Who recognised this legal
15 act as a valid one? No one.
16 A. It was recognised to be valid subsequently.
17 Q. Subsequently. But previously, the territory of the Serbian
18 Krajina came under the protection of the United Nations, and then the
19 independence of Croatia was recognised?
20 A. Well, that's not quite correct. UNPROFOR was deployed up until
21 May 1992, in fact.
22 Q. They needed a little more time. But according to the Vance
23 Plan -- well, the Vance Plan was accepted before Germany, the Vatican,
24 and other European countries recognised the independence of Croatia;
25 isn't that correct? First of all, the Vance Plan was accepted and then
1 the independence of Croatia was recognised; am I correct?
2 A. I don't know when the Vance Plan was adopted. It's not my field
3 of expertise, so I cannot address the matter.
4 Q. Well, that's such an important thing that every intellectual
5 should know about it, especially you Croatian intellectuals should be
6 aware of the fact.
7 A. That's what you think, but as you can see, I don't know about it.
8 Q. Very well. So what can I do? There's nothing I can do for you.
9 There's some terminologically confusion in your report. You refer to the
10 Croatian law on the Status of Expelled Persons and Refugees. That's the
11 name of the law?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And you said that an expelled person is a person who left his
14 place of residence in order to avoid threats to his life as a result of
15 aggression, and this individual found a place of residence in another
16 part of Croatia?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And in terms of international law, is this an arbitrary
19 definition of what an expelled person is?
20 A. Well, look, as far as that definition is concerned, the
21 definition you find in the Geneva Conventions, well, I just want to say
22 something. I'm not a professional lawyer, so I cannot discuss this
23 subject as a lawyer, but I know certain things on the basis of
24 experience, because this is a subject that has been discussed at length.
25 Allow me to finish, please.
1 Q. Go ahead.
2 A. According to the Geneva Convention, the definition of a refugee
3 is quite broad. It refers to a real threat that an individual feels when
4 leaving his or her state of origin. One leaves because one fears for
5 one's life or one is being prosecuted, it's because of one's religious
6 beliefs, one's gender.
7 Q. I'm asking you about expelled persons.
8 A. They are internally-displaced persons, in fact, and the UNHCR, as
9 a UN organisation, has accepted this definition. This Geneva Convention
10 that defines the status of a refugee, in the 1950s of the last century,
11 well, given what happened -- has happened over the years, this definition
12 was adapted to include war refugees, people who are refugees because of
13 war, people who have crossed a border and they have left their country of
14 origin and are therefore refugees; or we are dealing with people who are
15 internally-displaced individuals, and they have remained in their states
16 of origin. This is the case in many states to this very day. You've
17 seen the news on the Congo.
18 Q. Refugees are people who are fleeing in the face of a real danger,
19 a real threat; do we agree?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. It could be a matter of war, a flood, an earthquake, political
22 terror; it could be anything. A refugee flees in the face of danger,
23 whereas an expelled person is a deported person, people who are ordered
24 to leave. Because one threatened to use force, an order was issued, they
25 were told:
1 "Either you leave or we'll arrest you. Either you leave or we'll
2 kill you. Either you leave voluntarily or we'll take you to the border
3 ourselves." So expelled persons are deported persons; do you agree with
5 A. Well, they are similarly described according to Croatian law.
6 Q. No, you said something else here. You said that an expelled
7 person is, in fact, a refugee within the territory of Croatia itself,
8 this move from Krajina to other parts of Croatia. That's what you said.
9 It doesn't really matter. So there's terminologically confusion here.
10 In your opinion, an expelled person is someone who, for various
11 reasons, left the territory of Serbian Krajina and moved to Croatia. Was
12 it a matter of danger, was it actually a deported person? Well, for you,
13 it doesn't matter, they are all expelled persons for you. And this gave
14 rise to the terminologically confusion that you are guilty of. Is that
16 A. I quite clearly stated what the definition was. I'll try and
17 repeat that. That's all I can do. That is how an expelled person is
18 defined according to Croatian law. These are individuals who have left
19 territory affected by war in Croatia, and they have left their place of
20 residence because they were fleeing in front -- in the face of danger,
21 and they found shelter in other places in the Republic of Croatia. So
22 they left these occupied areas, crisis-affected areas. But as for the
23 manner in which they were deported, well, every man was different. It
24 depended on the case. We're talking about a lot of people. They weren't
25 all bussed out on the same day and then moved somewhere else.
1 Q. People who were put onto buses and forcibly taken somewhere,
2 well, such people are expelled or deported people. The people who fled
3 from Knin because they felt that they were facing a real threat, well,
4 they are not expelled persons, they are refugees; isn't that correct?
5 A. Well, look --
6 Q. I'm looking.
7 A. We are dealing with a matter of linguistics that I believe may
8 not be entirely clear to somebody who is a native English speaker. The
9 word "prognanik" should properly be translated as "expellee." In
10 Croatian legislation, we used the word "prognanik," "expellee" and we
11 defined it --
12 Q. In such a way as to include refugees?
13 A. In such a way as to include all the things you're talking about.
14 Q. That's what I'm saying. You wanted to create a terminologically
15 confusion deliberately to muddle the substance. You are -- you are
16 confusing refugees with deported people, and the people who are
17 interpreting you into English really have a problem.
18 I, for one, do not use English, and that language is disgusting
19 to me, to be frank, but "refugee" is one thing and "expelled person" is
20 another thing.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, do not make such
22 attacks against various languages. It's completely irrelevant.
23 Witness, we are dealing with very complex legal definitions. You
24 are not a lawyer, so let's not waste any time. But the Croatian term you
25 use in your report, if I understand properly, excuse my pronunciation,
1 it's something that sounds like "prognanik." Is this the word used, as
2 Mr. Seselj seems to be saying, is it the word used to describe refugees
3 and displaced persons? Does the word "prognanik" cover all these
4 situations or not?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It covers persons who have fled
6 within the borders and remained within the borders of Croatia, on the
7 condition that they left home to avoid a direct threat to their lives.
8 That's what I said. But we have already defined it earlier. These are
9 people who fled from those occupied areas or crisis areas and could not
10 return to their homes for a long time. It's not for one day; it lasted
11 for a while.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. And in your language,
13 what word do you use to describe a refugee who went to Switzerland? You
14 know, these 164 people who went to Switzerland, what word would you use
15 in your language to describe those people?
16 A. "Izbjeglica," "refugee," and as such they have been defined by
17 the law. There is a legal provision --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you spell the word for
19 us, please?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I-Z-B-J-E-G-L-I-C-A.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So this word covers refugees
22 within the meaning of the Geneva Conventions; is that correct?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, correct, but the
24 definition applied by the law is, in fact, adjusted. This adjusted
25 definition speaks of war refugees. It refines the definition of war
2 You said it yourself, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not an
3 expert in international law dealing with refugees. I'm just saying what
4 I know, and I can define the term as it is defined in the Croatian law.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
6 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Witness, with respect to the
7 definition given by your Croatian legislation, all the "izbjeglica"
8 coming from the territories where there was fighting are considered to be
9 expelled persons, something that sounds like "prognanik," am I right, did
10 I understand you properly?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Ms. Radic, do you agree that you and I speak the same language?
15 A. The languages are similar. We understand each other very well.
16 Q. We understand each other. Well, what is different in our
17 languages is a new development, and you find it hard to find your way in
18 these new changes in the Croatian language. I notice -- first I notice
19 you said "izvjestaj" and then you said "izvjesce." Once, and we can hear
20 it on the tape-recording, you said "sistem," and then you said the new
21 Croatian "sustav." These are new differences.
22 A. I cannot say that with certainty. Both "izvjestaj" and
23 "izvjesce" are equally used in the Croatian language. I don't see the
25 Q. You Croats used words "izvjestaj" and "system," and a few years
1 ago somebody instructed you to change it, and now you are using
2 "izvjesce" and "sustav" in order to differentiate yourself from the
4 Here you gave a table -- an overview of population in areas of
5 the Republic of Croatia that were occupied in 1991. Tell me, which
6 international legal document or document of the Prosecution defines that
7 the area of Serbian Krajina, from 1991 to 1995, is in fact an occupied
8 Croatian area; do you know of any specific legal document?
9 A. I don't know all the international legal documents that define
10 it, but there were certain UN resolutions that talked about --
11 Q. Occupation?
12 A. And in addition, international forces of the UNPROFOR were
13 deployed in those areas, areas that were occupied and affected by the
14 war. The UNPROFOR was deployed there, so there was some kind of UN
15 resolution defining which areas those were.
16 Later on, so-called Pink zones were designated with demarcation
17 lines, and in this table you see all these places enumerated according to
18 the new administrative division of the Republic of Croatia, which is a
19 bit different from the previous one. And these were later defined by
20 Croatian law.
21 Q. Ms. Radic, the United Nations officially called these areas of
22 Serbian Krajina UNPAs, United Nations Protected Areas; is that true?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Why didn't you use at least this neutral term, if you don't want
25 to say "Serbian Krajina"? Why do you use the terms used by the Croatian
1 state propaganda, saying "occupied areas" as if Krajina Serbs could have
2 occupied it themselves?
3 A. I do not see there anything problematic, because I heard this
4 term, "occupied area," in statements of the Prosecution. We did consider
5 these areas to be occupied, because for fours years they were outside the
6 control of the officially, legally-elected authorities in Zagreb. And I
7 know some people who had been expelled from these areas, and I know that
8 we were not able to return them to their homes for these particular
10 Q. Ms. Radic, when the Republic of Croatia was internationally
11 recognised as an independent state, the area of the Republic of Serbian
12 Krajina or, rather, UNPA, was outside of the Zagreb government control;
13 is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And under international law, when a newly-created state is
16 recognised, it can only be recognised within the territory that its
17 central authorities control. Did anyone inform you of that? You are an
18 expert. An expert must know sociology, political science, economy,
19 psychology, international law. No, nobody told you?
20 A. Mr. Seselj, I have to give you this answer: I know a few things
21 on the topics you are mentioning. However, I'm not here to speak on
22 these subjects; and I was not brought here, as an expert, to speak on
23 topics of international law.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you're dealing with
25 very complex legal matters, and the witness is not an expert in that
2 I have a question for you; not a matter of substance, but at
3 page 57, line 23, you said that: "When the Republic of Croatia was
4 internationally recognised as an independent state," you seem to be
5 implying that this did not imply the UNPA. Is this what you meant to say
6 or did I misunderstand you?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Are you asking me? Under
8 international law, this could not have included territories under the
9 protection of the United Nations, because according to the Vance Plan,
10 those territories came under UN protection so that negotiations may be
11 held on their future status. That was the point of the Vance Plan.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. Okay, so that's your
14 Very well, please proceed.
15 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Ms. Radic, when you were making this first table on the ethnic
17 composition of the population from the territory of the Republic of
18 Serbia Krajina or, rather, UNPA, why didn't you use the Administrative
19 Division of Croatia from that time? Why didn't you indicate them as
20 municipalities that existed in 1991 or 1992, but used instead the latter
21 administrative division which increased the number of existing
22 municipalities by fragmenting them? As an expert, you should have used
23 the administrative division from the relevant time.
24 A. I could have used both. I chose to make this table to show the
25 status of -- the current status of things concerning particular places,
1 including Vukovar among others, because the current -- today's
2 administrative division delimits the area of Vukovar town, whereas the
3 previous administrative division was a much larger territory. You can
4 see that precisely because of that, we had to divide the Vukovar-Srem
5 county, and this was much more precise.
6 Q. Ms. Radic, you gave us here data on the number of registered
7 expelled persons, and displaced persons in Croatia. We have 27 March
8 1992 data and some other dates, later dates. But you provided us with
9 information in table 6, "Overview of Facilities in Organised
10 Accommodation and Number of Persons Accommodated in October 1992," and
11 then a list of those facilities and the number of people put up in them.
12 You have "B" category facilities, hotels; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Then you have a lower category, refugee centres, collective
15 accommodation, and then another category where displaced persons are
16 placed in private accommodation. When you look at the numbers, 73.898 in
17 "B" category, then in a lower category you have the total 15.033, in
18 refugee centres you have 21.020, and in facilities where only food is
19 provided, that's 16.401 --
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay, I suppose you're
21 looking for the table.
22 MS. BIERSAY: No, Your Honour. I just wanted to say that this is
23 at e-court -- the page number of the English is, I believe, 67, and the
24 B/C/S is 50, just for ease of reference.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay is only seeking to
2 interrupt me, that's all.
3 Q. 73.000, and if we add to that 15.033, that's 103.921. Then we
4 add 21.000, and that gives us -- let it be 130.000. Then we have 16.000
5 receiving only food. Let's say the total is 150.000, and I rounded it
6 off to your benefit, in your favour. And then we have the registered
7 number of displaced persons in Croatia as of the 27th March 1992, seven
8 months earlier, that is, 325.806. I suppose in October, there must have
9 been much more than 325.000.
10 So if 150.000 were put up in hotels, collective centres,
11 et cetera, what happened with the 200.000 who were not put up in that
12 way? They were placed in Serbian houses and flats, if there were 325.000
13 in the first place? Where else would they have been put up? Perhaps
14 somewhere with family, but not many could have been put up with family.
15 A. That is precisely where you are wrong. A large number of
16 expelled persons, and later displaced persons, were not accommodated in
17 an organised way. They were in private accommodation. To begin with,
18 with family. Some people later moved to organised accommodation when we
19 could provide more of it. But I mentioned that already in 1993, we
20 started building large settlements for displaced persons, with the help
21 of international donations and institutions, and 15 of such centres were
22 built in Croatia, accommodating a large number of persons. So the
23 accommodation facilities listed in this report were additionally
25 The largest number of people, whether we are talking about
1 expelled persons or refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina, who were the
2 largest number, remained in private accommodation, first with friends and
3 some found other ways later.
4 As for the numbers, the numbers were very high in the beginning,
5 because they had left their homes within the Republic of Croatia, and the
6 largest number of those left their homes in 1991 and the beginning of
7 1992, when a large number of people left not only these occupied areas
8 but also the areas of the Republic of Croatia that suffered from constant
9 shelling. Part of those people were put up within Croatia, and others
10 left the country.
11 Just after the Sarajevo truce and the deployment of the UNPROFOR
12 in UNPAs in the Republic of Croatia, a large number of these people
13 returned to their homes.
14 I also said that according to our legislation, we did not
15 recognise these people as expelled. In the registration drive in April
16 1994, we defined very precisely --
17 Q. You are starting to talk about things that are not in the scope
18 of my question. My time is precious, and I want to discuss many things
19 with you.
20 Croatian authorities, with regard to all Serbs who were expelled
21 or who fled from the area of Croatia controlled by the Zagreb government,
22 they annulled their housing rights, and even the international
23 authorities had to intervene; correct?
24 Are you going to answer the question?
25 A. The Croatian authorities didn't do this, but the courts acted in
1 this way in their judgements. There are court judgements.
2 Q. When I say "the Croatian government," well, I'm referring to the
3 legislative, executive and local authorities, when I say "the Croatian
5 Well, if these very bodies act differently, the Parliament, the
6 executive body, the legislative body, well, I'm not interested in that.
7 You represent the Croatian authorities, in my mind. You deprived the
8 Serbs of their housing rights. I don't mean you, personally, when I say
9 "you," but the Croatian authorities at various levels, and you allocated
10 their flats to Croats. And the Serbs, who fled or were expelled, could
11 no longer regain those housing rights; is that correct?
12 A. Mr. Seselj, in Croatia we have a programme. We have certain
13 rules in force that we implement, and we are implementing them to this
14 very day. According to these rules and regulations, people who lost
15 their housing rights in Croatia, well, they can be allocated flats if
16 they want to return to Croatia; and so in this way they can return to
17 Croatia. This programme is being implemented.
18 When it comes to large towns, well, in this manner we have
19 provided about 750 families with accommodation. In the areas that are
20 concerned by state social care, we've provided accommodation for about
21 5.000 families. They used to have housing rights. And in these areas of
22 special interest or special care, the areas that were occupied, such as
23 Knin, well, in those areas, in this manner, about 5.000 families have
24 returned to those areas; to Vukovar, too. For example, out of 70 --
25 70 per cent of them are Serbs. As far as these urban areas are
1 concerned, the large towns like Zagreb and Osijek, well, I said that
2 about 750 families had been provided with flats in this way, and this is
3 something we're working on today.
4 Q. Ms. Radic, these are insignificant numbers in comparison with the
5 hundreds of thousands expelled Serbs, but you should be aware that in the
6 former Yugoslavia, having housing rights amounted to having certain
7 property rights. A state would allocate a flat to you, or your company.
8 An institution would allocate a flat to you, and then you could use that
9 flat for life. No one could expel you. Your children could inherit it.
10 You could exchange the flat. The only thing you couldn't do was sell it.
11 So housing rights were different from property rights only in that you
12 could not sell it; am I correct?
13 A. No, you're not right, and I think that many lawyers would not
14 agree with what you have said. This is, in fact, a fairly significant
15 legal subject that could be discussed at length; but I think that
16 judgements could also be of assistance when it comes to this subject,
17 judgements that were handed down a few years ago by the Court for Human
18 Rights based in Strasbourg, in a very well-known case. Well, there was
19 Blecic versus Croatia, this was a very well-known case, and there was a
20 different interpretation of what you have said.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm rather surprised, because
22 earlier on you told us that you were not a lawyer, and now you're quoting
23 decisions of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. I'm rather taken
24 aback by all this.
25 But when it comes to social property now, I have the following
1 question: If we take the case of a Serbian family that was expelled,
2 that left Zagreb, and that had the use of a flat because they had been
3 assigned this apartment by their company, what measures were taken by the
4 Croatian government to restore the rights of these people, or is it the
5 case that the Croatian government did nothing?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my previous answer, I tried to
7 explain this. It wasn't the subject of my report. These are things that
8 we are working on at present.
9 We would provide flats for people returning to the Republic of
10 Croatia. We do this by allocating flats in areas of special interest to
11 the state, and this is how we would make it possible for these people to
12 return. Many of these people are in Serbia. They don't have any other
13 property, and whether they are allocated a flat depends on whether they
14 return to Croatia.
15 In response to Mr. Seselj's question, I also provided some
16 figures. About 5.000 families in the area of special state concern are
17 concerned, and about 750 families outside the area of special state
18 concern are concerned.
19 Q. But the flats that they had housing rights to are not returned to
21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I need some clarification from
22 the witness before you continue.
23 You are referring to Tribunal decisions or rulings. Were they
24 taken based on a new piece of legislation that changed the former act
25 regarding usufruct; is that right, or did I not understand properly?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, look, as I have already
2 pointed out, I'm not a lawyer; so I couldn't really make an assessment.
3 But I am familiar with those judgements.
4 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Witness, this was not my
5 question. I don't want you to go into legal details. I just wanted to
6 know whether you knew whether there was a new act that would have changed
7 the previous act removing the right of usufruct, and I wanted to know
8 whether there was a law that was applied retractively. That's the only
9 thing I want to know, if you know.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, no retractive law
11 was passed. But in 1996, the idea of housing rights came to an end; the
12 system came to an end. Then certain deadlines were established, and
13 deadlines by which one should try to sell the flat for which one had
14 housing rights. So nothing was done retroactively.
15 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I would seek another
16 clarification, if you don't mind.
17 You said that you had a programme aimed at helping Serbs who
18 wanted to return to Croatia, so to help them to be resettled or find
19 accommodation. I wanted to know whether that programme took on board
20 their will or their choice as to the village or town where they wanted to
21 return, or whether you had decided as to a special location where you
22 would put all these people.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We really took into account the
24 desires that people had, where they wanted to return to. The first rule
25 was that people would submit requests. Most people would submit a
1 request to return to the place of residence they had in 1991, and this
2 was something that we respect or this is something that we respect.
3 Naturally, in some places it's easier to find accommodation. In other
4 places, it's more difficult. But, in any event, we strive to respect
5 people's desires, and on the whole people want to live in places where
6 they lived in 1991.
7 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
9 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
10 Q. On the last payable, table 4, you provided information from the
11 High Commission of the Office for Refugees. I believe that this is a
12 reliable source. You provided information on the number of refugees
13 registered in other republics of the former Yugoslavia. It's the 27th of
14 March, 1992, in Serbia, 142.000; is that correct? Montenegro, Macedonia,
15 several thousand; in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 95.000; and the total number is
16 252.000. This includes the 7.600 registered in Slavonia; 252.000
17 refugees from Croatia, and other republics of the former Yugoslavia; is
18 that correct? On the whole, these people are Serbs; would you agree?
19 A. I cannot confirm that. That's probably the case.
20 Q. Perhaps there's a few Slovenians, a few Muslims?
21 A. We cannot make such claims, since the information from that
22 period -- well, we weren't the only ones to keep records. Other states
23 did too. So no one kept precise records so that we could know exactly
24 who is in question.
25 Q. The UNHCR also registered these individuals on the basis of their
1 ethnic origins, and the Serbian government did that. I can't say that
2 Montenegro, Macedonia and Slovenia acted in a similar way, but the UNHCR
3 did act in this way. There were naturally certain cases in which Croats
4 came to Croatia from Serbia. I know a well-known Croatian intellectual,
5 Goran Babic. Have you heard of him? He went to Serbia from Croatia --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, moved from Croatia to
8 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
9 Q. -- because he couldn't support Tudjman's regime, and when we
10 examine those numbers, well the number of Croats would be very low. On
11 the whole, we're dealing with some Serbs, perhaps some Muslims, but it's
12 not clearly stated here. Perhaps there were Slovenians who fled during
13 the war to Slovenia, and Macedonians who went to Macedonia, because 2.000
14 of them went to Macedonia. Out of 252.000, over 200.000 are Serbs.
15 There's no doubt about that. That would be the minimum number. Would
16 you agree with me?
17 A. That's quite possible.
18 Q. It's possible. Very well. And now we have the number of
19 refugees from Croatia and other states, 115.781. You said that this
20 information was gathered on the basis of the assessment of foreign
21 countries, mostly on the basis of Germany's assessments. Do you have any
22 information as to how many Serbs and how many Croats is included in this
24 A. What I know with regard to the information from that period of
25 time, well, in two cases you have precise information. It concerns
1 Switzerland and Czechoslovakia. But it was a problem at the time to
2 determine whether someone was a Croat or a Serb; or, rather, to determine
3 whether someone was a citizen of the Republic of Croatia or a citizen of
5 Q. They were all fleeing with the passport of the former Yugoslavia?
6 A. That's correct. So for a long time, statistics were kept in many
7 states according to which we were dealing with SFRY citizens. No
8 distinctions were made as to whether someone was from Croatia or Serbia.
9 Q. That's correct, but this is information for which you said that
10 the refugees were from Croatia, so 115.781 individuals. Well, these
11 individuals are from Croatia; that's what you've written down here?
12 A. These are estimates of the authorities of the UNHCR, but that
13 does not mean that there are no Serbs included in the figure. We can't
14 make that claim.
15 Q. Or the majority are Serbs?
16 A. Well, because we're dealing with people who are from Croatia.
17 Later on, when the process of returning from those foreign countries had
18 started, we then saw that among those people, well, there were both
19 Croats and Serbs. But we're talking about Croatian citizens. We can't
20 keep records in this way.
21 Q. Well, Croatian citizens, also that over 200.000 Serbs who fled
22 from Croatia, over 150.000 went to Serbia and over 50.000 to
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that correct? They are also Croatian citizens?
24 A. That's correct, they are Croatian citizens, Croatian nationals,
25 because among them there are people --
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I'm looking at the
2 time, because I want Mr. Seselj to be able to use his hour and a half. I
3 don't want to interrupt him.
4 I'm looking at the 164 individuals who went to Switzerland. Your
5 department, your office, could have asked the UNHCR or the Swiss
6 authorities to know how many of these 164 people would declare themselves
7 as Serb or Croat. It wasn't that complicated to do, and you would have a
8 fair estimation. Of course, you have 55.000 in Germany. It must be a
9 mixture of Serbs and Croats, more complicated. But when you have smaller
10 figures, it was easier to find out. There are 2.000 in Czechoslovakia,
11 2.117. It might have been interesting to look at the breakdown. Well,
12 it wasn't done. It will remain at that.
13 Continue, Mr. Seselj.
14 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Well, let's see about the following: You have table 11. It's an
16 overview of individuals who fled from Serbia from 1991 to 1995. For you,
17 all these people who moved from Serbia to Croatia are refugees? All
18 these people who moved from 1991 to 1995, they're refugees or expelled
19 persons; is that correct?
20 A. We're dealing with people who were registered in the Republic of
22 Q. Because Croatia provided certain financial benefits if one
23 registered, so why shouldn't they register; is that correct?
24 A. As I have already explained, Croatia did not provide financial
25 benefit, really.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Biersay.
2 MS. BIERSAY: For ease of reference, the e-court reference, I
3 believe, is English page 114, B/C/S page 99.
4 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
5 Q. You have cited here, broken down by municipalities in Serbia,
6 first of all you divided it into Serbia proper and Vojvodina and Kosovo;
7 and then you stated precisely, municipality by municipality, what you
8 registered, and I have no reason to doubt it in advance.
9 And now we have numbers. From Serbia property, for a long time
10 there is no movement towards Croatia almost at all; in 1991, 3; in 1992,
11 12; in 1993, 48; and then in 1996 it's 113. In total, we have 546 people
12 who moved from Serbia to Croatia, and you keep them on record as
13 refugees. There are 17 Serbs among them?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. In total, it's 546 people. Now, let's look at Vojvodina. We
16 have 5.131 persons there?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. In 1990, 7; in 1991, 61. I draw the attention of the Chamber to
19 this. It's very important. In all of 1990, 290 from Vojvodina; in 1993,
20 345; in 1994, 541; and in 1995, after Operations Flash and Storm, 1.868;
21 in 1996, 280. In total, 5.131 persons moved from Vojvodina, all of
22 Vojvodina, to Croatia. You registered them as refugees. Only 3.377 were
23 Croats. That's your number; right?
24 A. It's at least 3.377 Croats.
25 Q. All right. There are at least 61 Serbs who moved from Vojvodina
1 to Croatia. You register them -- you keep them on record as refugees.
2 There are also six Muslims, in the category of "Others," 144; 32 unknown.
3 But the total number is 5.131 persons from 1990 through 1996. And what
4 happens in 1997? In 1997, you say the Croatian government established a
5 state agency for the purchase of real estate. That state agency
6 purchases Serbian property for peanuts and assigns it to Croats who move
7 from anywhere to Croatia; is that correct? You can answer with a "yes"
8 or "no" so we can move on.
9 A. I cannot confirm this, because it is not a simple matter, and it
10 is not assigned only and exclusively to Croats.
11 Q. I don't like complicated matters, so let's move on. We have this
12 information from Vojvodina, but what will be of special interest to the
13 Judges, I suppose, because you showed considerable diligence and
14 conscientiousness in the substance of this report, you should remember
15 5.131 people moved from Vojvodina to Croatia, including 61 Serbs. And
16 now look what happens? From Kosovo and Metohija, the total is 6.924
17 persons who moved to Croatia. Out of them, 3.755 Croats, 7 Serbs, 91
18 Muslims, and others, 1.490. That must include the Gornji, Turks,
19 Albanians, et cetera. From whom or what did they flee from Kosovo?
20 The largest number, look at how they left. Before 1996, it says
21 "4.251," which means we don't know exactly when they left, and then year
22 by year, the figures are much smaller: 1990, 14; 1992, 27; 1993, 670.
23 They left certainly before 1996, but we don't know when, 4.251. In
24 total, it's 6.924. So it's 1.800 more than from Vojvodina. From what
25 did they flee from Kosovo?
1 A. As you could see from these numbers for yourself, concerning
2 these people from Kosovo, they are mainly Croats, but not exclusively
3 Croats. There were a lot of Albanians among them who left before 1995,
4 but also after 1995, and moved to Croatia. The largest number came to
5 Croatia in 1999, during the war in Kosovo, and among them there was a
6 large number of Albanians and -- Croats and Albanians. And people were
7 also leaving for the reasons we discussed before.
8 Q. Fleeing in the face of certain dangers?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Now, tell me this: Among these 5.131 people -- or let's reduce
11 it. Among 3.755 Croats, who according to your data fled from Vojvodina
12 to Croatia, how many left without having exchanged their property; that
13 is, abandoning their flats and houses in Serbia without exchanging them?
14 Do you have that information?
15 A. I don't have that information here. Some of the figures
16 reflecting in what housing they are is recorded with our agency, but I
17 did not include it in the report because I didn't search for numbers
18 according to that criterion. But we recorded the situation when they
19 registered. So I cannot tell you the number.
20 Q. Please, you have a total of 3.377 Croats that you say fled from
21 Serbia between 1991 and 1999, with a proviso that before 1992 -- that is,
22 until 1992, in 1991 and 1992 together, the number was 358? Did I do the
23 addition right?
24 A. I think so.
25 Q. 358 Croats who fled from Vojvodina to Croatia. What should be
1 the most important for us here, in your expert report, would have been if
2 you had found whether, among them, there was a single Croat who had to
3 flee from Serbia for any reason, leaving all their real estate behind,
4 all their immovable property. I say that it's not the case. All of them
5 either sold their property and left or exchanged their property and left.
6 Nobody had to run away in haste. I know that in some war-stricken areas,
7 people had literally to flee, to run away, carrying only a little bag,
8 but in Serbia it never happened. Nobody had to run with just a small
10 Now, can I please know how much time is left to me, because I'll
11 have to --
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You need to make it brief,
13 because we need to have at least ten minutes before the end of the
14 hearing for housekeeping matters.
15 Let me see. You have used one hour, so you must have 30 minutes
17 Witness, just one question, because these figures are extremely
18 relevant for us. They are indeed at the very centre of the indictment
19 regarding Vojvodina. I'm focusing on 1991 and 1992.
20 With regard to, well, first 1990, we have seven leaving. Well,
21 not much happened in 1990. We have 61 for 1991 and 290 for 1992. As
22 part of your survey, it would have been interesting to know how many
23 people had actually exchanged their flats or apartments out of these 350,
24 because if 350 exchanged apartments in complete freedom, that's different
25 as in a situation where you're forced to do so.
1 In 1993, we have 345, and then we can see that the situation is
2 deteriorating because the next year is 541, and then 1.800 the following
3 year. But we're focusing on 1991 and 1992, and it would have been
4 interesting to know, out of the 350, how many exchanged apartments. But
5 I don't suppose you have an answer. You don't have any doubt on that, do
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I have said, I have no numbers
8 showing how many people had exchanged their property. The numbers that
9 we have, but I did not derive them for this report in particular, are the
10 numbers showing reasons for leaving that people stated during
11 registration. In most cases, they mentioned expulsion and personal
12 threats or harassment as the reasons for leaving their homes.
13 There is another important proviso; namely, that a significant
14 number of these people did not register as refugees. Here I'm only
15 talking about people who registered as refugees and obviously had reasons
16 to do so.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
18 We have five minutes before the break, so you have time before
19 the break.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just want to draw your attention,
21 Mr. President, concerning these 350 from Vojvodina up to the end of 1992.
22 Information on their ethnic composition would have been interesting,
23 because not all of them were Croats. There could have been Serbs among
24 those 350, if there were 61 Serbs from this area motivated by something.
25 Q. You said that 127.000 Serbs, according to your files that you
1 opened returned to the area of -- to the territory of Croatia. A few
2 days ago, Serbian authorities informed the public that around 75.000
3 returned. How do you interpret this? How do you explain this difference
4 of 52.000 in Serb returnees?
5 A. I can only talk about the people who registered as returnees to
6 the Republic of Croatia, and this is an exact number, 127.000.
7 Q. All right. You gave us information about the age composition,
8 gender percentages, very detailed information broken down by
9 municipalities in Croatia, about Croats who fled from somewhere to
10 Croatia; but it would have been interesting to know the age composition
11 of the Serbs that you have on your files as having returned. Do you have
13 A. Our agency does have it.
14 Q. But you did not deem it necessary to include it in your report?
15 A. No, because I wasn't asked to.
16 Q. Because the Prosecution is not interested in the fate of Serbs.
17 You're right, they always represent your side.
18 MS. BIERSAY: [Previous translation continues]
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I withdraw my objection. That is
20 my comment. Let's move on, so Ms. Biersay shouldn't jump so.
21 Q. According to my information, it is mostly Serbs who are elderly,
22 who are simply unable to start a new life anywhere or get used to a new
23 place, or who came back to finally sell their property at any price and
24 then leave the area now under Croatian control, am I right that these are
25 mostly elderly people or people who are coming only in order to sell
1 their property?
2 A. You cannot talk about it in such an exclusive way. A large
3 number, higher than in other segments of population, are elderly people.
4 Why? Because elderly people are the first to come back. But that's no
5 longer the case. You have many more younger families with children
6 coming back to Croatia. This story that it's mainly elderly people
7 coming back or people who want to sell their property, that happened in
8 the beginning, because in all situations that results in refugees, among
9 all ethnic groups, Serbs, Croats, any others, elderly people are the
10 first to come back. Younger people come back later. So you can't be
11 that exclusive.
12 Of course, in this number there is a larger number of Serbs, and
13 some of them, of course, came to sell their property. That's true.
14 Q. Now, explain this miracle. In 1997, the Croatian government
15 established a state agency for the purchase of real estate. I know of no
16 other example in Europe where a state, a country, establishes an agency
17 to purchase the real estate of its own nationals who want to get rid of
18 it. That's what happened in Croatia in 1997. I would understand if it
19 was left to some special funds, or foundations, or local self-government,
20 but you have a special state agency dealing with purchase of Serbian
21 property for peanuts; and I know this for a fact, it's for peanuts. I
22 have reliable information about this. Can you explain that, as an
24 A. This agency, I didn't know you were going to ask this, so I
25 didn't take the papers with me.
1 Q. What did you expect me to ask?
2 A. I can tell you a few things about that agency. It was
3 established at the time of the peaceful reintegration of Croatian
4 Podunavlje when, among other things, an agreement was made on two-way
5 return from Croatian Podunavlje to other areas of Croatia, and
6 vice versa.
7 This agreement deals with the return of internally-displaced
8 persons. In that agreement, the possibility of selling property is
9 mentioned, and this agency is also mentioned. This agreement - I'm
10 sorry, I don't have it with me - was signed between the Croatian
11 government and the transitional administration. It provides the
12 possibility of people who remained in Croatian Podunavlje, of deciding
13 whether they want to stay, and if they want to go, whether they want to
14 sell their property. And that agency served the purpose of buying their
15 property, because in that area at the time there was no real estate
17 Q. But a large number of Serbs is not returning. You say that
18 certain areas of Croatia. You mean actually the Republic of Serbian
19 Krajina or UNPAs were liberated by Operation Storm in 1995?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. It was liberated from all the Serbian population, because all
22 Serbs were expelled. Those who were not expelled were killed. Those who
23 were foolish enough to stay were killed; is that correct?
24 A. I can't confirm that.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You can't. Very well, you can't.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We are going to break for 20
2 minutes and resume at 20 past 12.00.
3 --- Recess taken at 12.02 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 12.21 p.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court is back in session.
6 The Registrar has told me that Mr. Seselj has 22 minutes left.
7 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Ms. Radic, do you know that the majority of the refugees and
9 expelled Serbs, especially those who were expelled at the time of Flash
10 and Storm, simply don't want to return to their homes for as long as the
11 Republic of Serbian Krajina, in which they lived, is not liberated? Are
12 you aware of the fact?
13 A. I know that there are many Serbs who fled from Croatia and have
14 decided not to return to the Republic of Croatia, but I cannot speculate
15 as to the reasons for this. International investigations carried out by
16 the OSS, the UNHCR and other organisation show that there are various
17 reasons for which some decided to return and some decided not to.
18 Q. Very well. In the concluding parts of your report, you do not
19 attempt to use a scientific or specialist method in order to analyse
20 certain themes. You have recourse to journalist method, and you
21 described your view of the alleged expulsion of Serbs from the Republic
22 of Serbian Krajina.
23 As an example, I'll mention the case of Borovo Selo. You say
24 that Croatian policemen were killed and massacred there. One might draw
25 the conclusion that Serbian terrorists killed innocent Croatian
1 policemen; isn't that correct?
2 A. Here I'm only referring to an event that took place in that area,
3 an event the consequence of which was the departure of a certain number
4 of non-Serbs from that area.
5 Q. Ms. Radic, I read through that carefully. You said that they
6 were killed and massacres; isn't that correct?
7 A. That's quite correct.
8 Q. And I'll tell you what I know about the event, since volunteers
9 from the Serbian Radical Party participated in the fighting there, and
10 today they are proud of that victory, and so am I, who sent them there.
11 I'm proud of that Serbian victory. The Serbian villages in eastern part
12 of Slavonia and in Srem were under threat because various Croatian
13 military formation were attacking them. The Serbs were unlawfully
14 arrested and beaten up, and some of them were even killed. And as a
15 result, the Serbian villages set up blockades at access routes, and they
16 used weapons to prevent the Croatian police and paramilitary formations
17 from entering these places. Then there were negotiations to calm the
18 situation down. Reihl Kir participated in the negotiations --
19 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, please refrain from
20 testifying and put your question to the witness.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I can't put my question to
22 the witness until I inform the witness of what happened there, according
23 to the information I had. But, Ms. Lattanzi, you should have noticed
24 that many parts of this expert report amount to no more than a
25 journalistic view of the events. The Croats are always innocent and the
1 Serbs are guilty. And this wasn't the task assigned to the expert.
2 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] That's another matter,
3 Mr. Seselj. Your questions should refer to the various parts of your
4 description, because you start by referring to all sorts of events, you
5 describe a whole series of events, and then at the end we have no idea
6 what your question is about.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You're not interested in the event,
8 so I won't deal with it. History has recorded it.
9 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I am interested, indeed. You
10 cannot say that I'm not interested.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]
12 ... thanks. How did the Croatian policemen enter this Serbian village?
13 There were peace negotiations, an agreement was reached to calm things
14 down and to remove the blockades. The blockades were removed, and then
15 the Croatian policemen entered Borovo Selo, armed to the teeth, and they
16 were bussed in. As soon as they got out of the buses, they opened fire.
17 The Serbs responded and they won. And now one says in this expert report
18 that innocent Croatian policemen were killed. And this is an expert for
19 refugees and displaced persons.
20 That was the substance of my question, but I will abandon that
21 question. I don't have anymore time to deal with, so I will move on.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, Borovo Selo is a very
23 significant event, indeed. You mention that in your report. Mr. Seselj
24 has just given us his version of the events that took place there. What
25 do you have to say?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This event, and other similar
2 events in Croatia, well, regardless of the causes - I can't go into the
3 causes, I'm not such an expert - but I only mention these events here as
4 events that actually took place, and I describe them such as they were
5 described. I say that these people were killed not only in the course of
6 combat. I say that there was a massacre too. There are several such
7 events that took place in various parts of Croatia, and as a result of
8 these events, a certain number of the population fled from the area
10 In the case of Borovo Selo, the outskirts of the town of Vukovar,
11 the settlement of Borovo and Vukovar, strictly speaking, well, in those
12 cases the first refugees started appearing in certain areas of Croatia.
13 They came from areas where such events took place.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. President, while
15 combat was still ongoing, a tank unit from the JNA intervened and put an
16 end to the armed conflict. They helped the Croats to get out, to
17 withdraw, and to withdraw with their dead and with the wounded. That's
18 for your information, but it's not important.
19 Q. Why doesn't your report, Ms. Radic, cover the Serbs who, after
20 Storm and Flash, moved to Eastern Slavonia and Baranja, although there
21 were quite a few of them?
22 A. Because I wasn't requested to cover that.
23 Q. Very well. That satisfies me as an answer. Do you know that
24 between two censuses in Croatia in 1991 and 2001, a discrepancy of -- a
25 minority -- a loss of 38.000 Serbs was recorded? So even if we don't
1 take into account -- we shouldn't take into account the idea that the
2 birth rate was nil for the Serbs. Children must have been born. That
3 was the case for the Croats, that was the case for the Serbs. There's no
4 difference in the birth rate; there shouldn't be any difference.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. So 38.000 [as interpreted] Serbs were missing between these two
7 censuses; you're aware of that?
8 A. Yes.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please. There's a
10 mistake in the transcript. It's 380.000, and not 38.000.
11 Please proceed.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, everyone's against me here,
13 even the court reporter, but it doesn't matter. I'm used to that.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Judges are here to control
16 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Could you answer this question, Ms. Radic?
18 A. You're referring to the censuses, and that is correct, 380.000 --
19 380.000 and 32 between the two censuses. But the census was in 2001, and
20 after 2001 we, as a body, dealt with the return of refugees, registered
21 40.000 returnees. They had returned from abroad. So the figure is a
22 little different in relation to the one mentioned in the census. That's
23 one thing, but this is just a census.
24 Just allow me to say one more thing.
25 It would be important to compare the areas that were directly
1 affected by the war, areas where the entire non-Serbian population, on
2 the one side, started fleeing, and afterwards the Serbian population
3 started fleeing from such areas; so this is the sphere that this body
4 that I lead deals with.
5 As a result of the war and all the events, both segments of the
6 population emigrated. We don't have fewer Serbs; we also have fewer
8 Q. Let me just correct you. First the Serbs started fleeing as
9 early as 1990, after Tudjman's regime was established. There was the
10 return of Ustasha symbols. There were homeland certificates that were
11 introduced. That's when the Serbs started fleeing, first urban Serbs --
12 well, you should have consulted Svetozar Livada, who has information
13 about that.
14 A. I don't have such information.
15 Q. The Prosecution also has such information. Very well. In this
16 information that you have on Croatian refugees, well, there were lots of
17 Croats who fled from Bosnia and Herzegovina included in this information;
18 isn't that correct?
19 A. In the information I present in my report, apart from several
20 places where refugees are explicitly referred to, well, in this
21 information we're dealing with citizens of the Republic of Croatia.
22 We're not talking about Croats from Bosnia and Herzegovina. In several
23 places, Croats from Bosnia and Herzegovina are mentioned. Croats from
24 Bosnia and Herzegovina are not included in the figure of 220.000 expelled
1 Q. When Tudjman's regime was established, all the Croats obtained
2 the right to have Croatian nationality, and many Croats from Bosnia and
3 Herzegovina used their right; and they participated in all Croatian
4 elections on a massive scale in the previous 18 years; isn't that
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. So almost all of them. I don't know who didn't, but almost all
8 Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, at the same time citizens of Croatia;
9 is that correct?
10 A. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with you. That's not the case for
11 all of them.
12 Q. But almost all of them are. Whoever didn't want to be a citizen
13 of Croatia didn't become such a citizen. There were those who adhered to
14 the Muslim regime in Sarajevo; isn't that correct?
15 A. I can't confirm that.
16 Q. That's my claim, but it doesn't matter. Would it be correct to
17 say that in Bosnia and Herzegovina, before the war, the Croats
18 represented 17 per cent of the population, according to the official
20 A. If I remember correctly, I think that's correct.
21 Q. Would it be correct to say that as things stand today, they
22 represent less than 6 per cent, not even 6 per cent of the population;
23 you don't know?
24 A. I can't provide you with any precise figures. Bosnia and
25 Herzegovina didn't carry out a census. We're just talking about
1 estimates here.
2 Q. Very well. You know that the Croatian government filed charges
3 against Serbia for allegedly committing acts of genocide, they filed
4 these charges with ICJ?
5 A. I know about that.
6 Q. In order to put my following question to you, I'll tell you a
7 little historical anecdote.
8 Towards the end of 1941 or at the beginning of 1942, the American
9 President Roosevelt called the most prominent politicians from Serbian
10 Croatia to Washington. Jovan Ducic, one of the greatest Serbian poets,
11 attended. Juri Krnjevic was the most distinguished Croat, the
12 vice-president of the Croatian Peasant Party, and Macek's first deputy.
13 There was much discussion on the Ustasha crimes, crimes committed by the
14 Ustasha against the Serbian people, and terrible news about such crimes
15 had already arrived in America. The Croats who attended tried to deny
16 those crimes and to ascribe those crimes to Italian or German occupiers.
17 I'll conclude in a minute.
18 MS. BIERSAY: At this time, the Prosecution would object to
19 Mr. Seselj essentially testifying. If he has a question for the witness,
20 he should just pose it. The pretence that he's going through, giving a
21 speech and then asking a question at the end, is improper.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but before you put a
23 question, you have to lay the foundation. Mr. Seselj wants to put a
24 question to the witness about a meeting between Mr. Roosevelt, a Serb and
25 a Croat. That's what he's explaining.
1 Please proceed.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We also have to put slightly
3 complex questions to experts, not simple questions as is the case for
4 witnesses who have only completed primary school. Ms. Radic is an expert
6 Q. Given the attempts to conceal the Ustasha crimes and ascribe
7 guilt to Germans and Italians -- or when doing this, Jovan Ducic said the
8 following. He said:
9 "You Croats are the most courageous people in the world, but not
10 because you're not afraid of anyone. You Croats are the most courageous
11 people in the world because you're not ashamed of anything."
12 Ms. Radic, given the way the Croatian government acted, and given
13 the charges against Serbia, have Ducic's words just been emphasised, in
15 A. [No interpretation]
16 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter apologises. The microphone was
17 switched off.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have now concluded my
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, would you repeat your
21 answer. We had a slight technical hitch.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I was saying, I don't see any
23 relation between those words and that event or, rather, the proceedings
24 that are ongoing. I think that this is more a matter of someone's
25 opinion, not a matter of fact. I can only speak about facts.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a follow-up
2 question, following something Mr. Seselj asked you.
3 Questioned by the Court:
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are an educated witness, so
5 I can put a long or longer or more complex question to you than to a
6 less-educated person.
7 We had a number of witnesses who told us that a lot of Serbs
8 arrived in Vojvodina from Croatia. We were given a great deal of
9 detailed evidence about all this. We heard that apartments were
10 exchanged, but I'm not going to go into more detail about this.
11 Earlier on, Mr. Seselj talked about the census of 1991 and the
12 census of 2001. And according to him, and I suppose he's relying on very
13 reliable documents, we find a deficit of over 300.000 Serbs between the
14 two censuses, between the census of 1991 and between the census of 2001.
15 This is a very high figure indeed, 300.000 people who, in 2001, did not
16 register as Serbs.
17 This is your area of expertise. Could you tell us if these
18 figures are accurate? Do they reflect the truth or the reality?
19 A. These numbers that reflect the shortfall in population between
20 two censuses are correct. There has been a lot of debate about why.
21 There was a decrease not only in the number of Serbs in Croatia, if we
22 are speaking now about the ethnic composition of the population, there
23 was also a decrease in the number of Croats.
24 Between these two censuses, the methodology of census has also
25 changed considerably, and there has been a lot of debate and public
1 opinion about that.
2 The numbers are correct, but if we were to talk about the
3 reasons, then we would need special analysis, because we're talking
4 demographics here. You must know that at this time the birth rate should
5 also be taken into account, and in that period, the birth rate was
6 negative for all the ethnic communities. And between the two censuses,
7 not only because of the war, we had a large migration of the population
8 not only from Croatia, not only of Serbs and Croats, towards third
10 There was the phenomenon of "brain drain"; that is, the move of
11 young, educated people to the West. Some people also left as refugees.
12 Many people are still living in the Netherlands, for example, and are not
13 even planning to go back. It's not only Serbs; it's a lot of Croats as
14 well. That's how the population decreased.
15 Also, indubitably, the war had a large impact on the demographics
16 in Croatia, and not only in Croatia but specifically on the areas that
17 were stricken by the war and occupied, because from there almost the
18 entire non-Serb population fled, and after them the Serbs fled too. Our
19 demographers wrote a lot about it, and there are numerous papers dealing
20 with these events. These papers attempt to explain the reasons why it
21 all happened and in what period the Serbs left these areas.
22 It is difficult for me to speak about that, because there's four,
23 or in the case of a certain area, seven years, we have no way of knowing
24 how many people left the Republic of Croatia at the time because we had
25 no control over the border, and we don't know why these people were
1 leaving. All we know is that they did leave.
2 The fact, however, is that today, despite all the measures our
3 government is taking, enabling people to find new housing in those areas,
4 and to return, and to enable the return of the prewar population to those
5 areas, both Serbs and Croats, we still have a shortfall of 65 per cent
6 compared to the census. But since it's been seven years from the census,
7 if we add to this figure the number of returnees, we still have a
8 shortfall of at least 30 per cent.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One final question. What is
10 the population today in Croatia, how many inhabitants, and how many Serbs
11 in that population?
12 A. According to the census, four and a half million I believe is the
13 total population. According to that census, there were 4.5 per cent.
14 But as I said, the return of refugees continued even after the census.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But according to the 1991 census,
16 there were 12 per cent Serbs.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Precisely. That was the
18 question that I was about to ask. You were ahead of me. I was about to
19 ask the following: In 1991, how many inhabitants were there, and what
20 was the percentage of Serbs in that population?
21 A. 4.700.000, and the percentage of Serbs was 12.2.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So there is a drop in the
23 percentage with regard to the Serbs. There's no doubt about it.
24 A. That is correct.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay, do you have any
2 MS. BIERSAY: With the Court's permission, yes, please.
3 Re-examination by Ms. Biersay:
4 Q. I'd like to cover, very briefly, two areas, and the first area
5 that I'd like to discuss with you is the statistics and numbers with
6 respect to refugees from Vojvodina. And the second area - there will be
7 some overlap - has to do with the definitions that we have been
8 discussing, and hopefully we can clarify some issues and not muddle it
10 With respect to those individuals coming from Vojvodina, as
11 refugees, into Croatia, now, this table 11 to your report gives us some
12 figures; is that correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. And it's organised by dates. Do those years at the top of the
15 table represent the date of expulsion or something else?
16 A. They represent the date of expulsion, and concerning a number of
17 persons for whom we had no information of this date, we have the date of
18 registration; namely, dates of expulsion were taken from the personal
19 statements of people who stated that date.
20 Q. And that is what I'd like to ask you. Where does that
21 information come from, the expulsion date?
22 A. It comes from the registration of expelled persons in 1994, and
23 we keep these records electronically from that time onwards. During that
24 registration drive, everyone signed a certain form, signed it, and made a
25 statement indicating when they were expelled and the reasons of
1 expulsion. Of course, all the other information concerning their
2 accommodation was also included, and they received IDs.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. In all the
4 documentation here in the table, we see references to refugees, whereas
5 Ms. Biersay speaks of expelled persons, and the witness picks it up and
6 speaks of dates of expulsion. I have just seen this table. I can find
7 it again. The reference there is to refugees from the area of Serbia,
8 and a distinguishment is made between Serbia property, Vojvodina and
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's on the record. The Judges
11 keep all of this in mind, whatever the questions. There's no way you can
12 misdirect us.
13 MS. BIERSAY:
14 Q. Now, if an individual, say, from Vojvodina sought refuge in
15 Croatia, let's say, in 1992, and that person did register with one of the
16 local centres, if that person then left before the re-registration in
17 1994, would that person appear in the data that's contained in table 11?
18 A. That person would not appear there.
19 Q. And why is that?
20 A. Because the paper trail of approving somebody's status was
21 exclusively on the local level until 1994. It was kept in centres for
22 social security, that was a local organisation, and in regional offices.
23 They kept the archives, but only in hard copy. So the information on
24 persons who had the status in 1992 and 1993 were never collected in one
25 place that would give us a list of names. That is why in 1994, we
1 organised this re-registration so that we could have, in one place, a
2 list and all the information on all the persons who were then recorded as
4 Q. And then my final question pertains to the geographical coverage,
5 if you will, of some of these terms that we've been using; namely,
6 "refugees." Are refugees people who are displaced within the Republic of
7 Croatia or people who are coming from outside of Croatia?
8 A. Refugees are people who arrived from other states, other
9 countries; that is, either from Bosnia-Herzegovina or Serbia. They are
10 not the same as internally displaced within the borders of Croatia. If
11 we are talking about people who fled within the borders of the Republic
12 of Croatia, we speak of expelled persons.
13 The international term frequently used is a synonym, but that
14 could only cause confusion in the courtroom, is "internally displaced."
15 And in order to understand this better, the term in English is used
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one thing, please. These are
18 internally-displaced persons, as we say in Serbia, and tendentiously the
19 Croats introduced the term "expelled persons," whereas "expelled" means
20 people who were deported.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We've devoted a lot of time to
22 this issue.
23 MS. BIERSAY: I've completed the redirect, Your Honour. Thank
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
1 Thank you, Witness, for testifying on behalf of the Prosecution.
2 I wish you a safe return home, and I shall ask the usher to escort you
3 out of the courtroom.
4 I have a few administrative matters. Some will be in open
5 session, others in private session.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In open session, Mr. Seselj,
8 this is a question for you.
9 On the 21st of September, the Prosecutor filed a motion for
10 judicial notice of facts regarding Vukovar as mentioned in the Mrksic et
11 al judgement. The question was put to you, and you answered then.
12 However, it appears that when comparing the English transcript and the
13 French transcript, there is some ambiguity regarding your position.
14 Therefore, I shall put the question to you again. Are you going to file
15 a written response or not?
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have already made
17 myself clear, orally. I said that if that motion had been properly
18 filed, I would have made a written response, item by item, concerning the
19 facts in question. But since these facts were established in a non-final
20 decision, then it's out of place for the Prosecution to make this motion.
21 If it were a final judgement, then I would have found it purposeful to
22 make a written response and answer point by point. As it is, I reject it
23 because the Prosecution is making this motion based on the trial
24 judgement, which is not final.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The second question. I'm now
1 turning to the Prosecution, Ms. Biersay or Mr. Mundis.
2 Regarding Vukovar, does the Prosecution maintain its motion,
3 knowing that from the perspective of the Trial Chamber, we believe that
4 we have a lot of witnesses who came to testify about Vukovar, and we
5 wonder whether the motion is still necessary?
6 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Absolutely the motion is
7 still necessary, and the Prosecution stands by the motion.
8 To briefly respond to what the accused has said, of course, the
9 jurisprudence of the Tribunal is such that one Trial Chamber may take
10 judicial notice of adjudicated facts from the Trial Chamber's finding in
11 another case with respect to those matters which are not the subject of
12 an appeal from the first Trial Chamber's decision.
13 The material that we've put before Your Honours in our motion of
14 25 September 2008 was limited to those issues which were not under appeal
15 and which could, therefore, be considered to be final; and therefore
16 would be ripe for consideration by this Trial Chamber.
17 And so we do stand by our motion, and we do --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Trial Chamber
19 will look into each and every fact.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If Mr. Mundis were right, well,
23 then the Prosecution should first provide me with all the appeals to the
24 judgement so that I can convince myself that this wasn't appealed. But
25 this is just hot air. There's no evidence.
1 There are two brief administrative matters I'd like to deal with,
2 but it would be for open session.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please. Yes, you
4 will have your question in time for that, but let's move straight away
5 into private session, because what I have to say is important, and I need
6 time to announce that because we have to stop at 1.15 because we're going
7 to have the swearing in of a new Judge just after that.
8 Private session.
9 [Private session]
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honours, first of all, I'd
22 like to inform you that I was provided with a request from the
23 Prosecution according to which VS-1000 should be heard according to
24 Rule 92 ter. You've already rejected the request and decided that the
25 witness should appear viva voce. I've already presented arguments with
1 regard to this matter, and I don't want this witness to testify pursuant
2 to 92 ter. This witness is VS-1000.
3 On the 27th of October - this is the second matter - I received
4 information from the Prosecution concerning VS-18, dated the 19th of
5 October. A few days ago, I received a note from the Prosecution in which
6 they said they were withdrawing this submission. And then on two
7 occasions, detention guards came and asked me to submit this to them.
8 First of all, I couldn't find it. I thought it was an
9 unimportant decision, and I had mislaid it. Then a representative of the
10 Registry, yesterday or the day before, asked me for this document. I
11 found the document last night, and today I'm asking Mr. Mundis whether he
12 asked for this document to be returned to him. I asked him about that.
13 He didn't know what I was asking about. And then I was told by a
14 representative from the Registry that the Registry, in fact, wanted me to
15 return this document.
16 It's unheard of. How is it that the Registry has the right to
17 ask for me to return a document to them, a document that the Prosecution
18 decided not to file a submission? I won't return this to the Registry.
19 As soon as I return to my cell, I'll shred this. If the Registry is
20 defiant on this, they'll have to look through my cell.
21 What has the Registrar got to do with this document? It's a
22 public document, it has a confidential annex, so that I am very familiar
23 with --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, the accused said he
25 would conceal or hide the document in his cell.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is all this about,
2 Mr. Mundis, about VS-18? Apparently Mr. Seselj received a document and
3 then you told him that you wanted to withdraw it? I don't understand the
4 first thing about it.
5 MR. MUNDIS: To be honest, Mr. President, I have no idea what
6 Dr. Seselj is talking about. I have not filed any documents concerning
7 VS-18. I have absolutely no idea what the accused is talking about.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Seselj, so we have no
9 idea. Mr. Mundis is going to inquire about it.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The representative of the Registry
11 should inform you of this. Perhaps the representative of the Registry
12 could say something. He is present. He asked me to return this
13 document. It's a Prosecution document, and the Prosecution told me that
14 this document was being withdrawn.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, our legal officer is
16 going to take over the Registrar's work. We're going to look into this.
17 We're going to try and shed some light on this. You've got the document.
18 Keep it, do whatever you want to do with it. I don't know anything about
19 this document.
20 It was just about time to adjourn. I wish you all a good
21 weekend. We shall reconvene on Tuesday, Tuesday at 2.15.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.09 p.m.,
23 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 25th day of
24 November, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.