1 Wednesday, 7 July 2010
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, can you call the
6 case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you and good afternoon, Your Honours. This
8 is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Registrar, today is
10 7 July 2010
11 see on the screen, Mr. Marcussen, Ms. Biersay, as well as their
12 associates. I would like to greet Mr. Seselj and all those helping us in
13 this courtroom.
14 For a few minutes I would like to talk to the witness who is in
16 that an interpreter had mentioned "scums" Seselj's men, the Registry
17 checked the audio recording and did not acknowledge that the term "scum"
18 had been mentioned or translated from B/C/S.
19 Witness, you may have misunderstood, which might explain why you
20 mentioned this. Actually, yesterday when you were telling us about this,
21 I was looking at Mr. Seselj very closely to try and understand whether he
22 had heard that as well. Mr. Seselj would have undoubtedly raised an
23 objection. Since he wasn't saying anything, I concluded in the meantime
24 that he may not have heard that since he was busy doing other things, or
25 maybe he hadn't heard it at all.
1 So I have been told that the audio recording has been officially
2 checked and that you have mentioned is not on it.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But I couldn't believe my own ears.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I haven't finished. I would
5 like to add that the interpreters are working in very difficult
6 conditions. These are professionals who have been doing their job for a
7 great number of years. There might be a mistake in the translation from
8 time to time. That can happen to anyone. In this case it would have
9 been a serious matter had it been the case. The material evidence, of
10 course, is audio recording, which we have.
11 Witness, do you have anything to say, a comment?
12 WITNESS: NENAD JOVIC [Resumed]
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 [Witness testified via videolink]
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I heard, or perhaps -- well, I
16 can't say for sure. Perhaps it was a similar word, and since my hearing
17 is impaired 45 per cent on both ears, it is possible that I heard wrong,
18 but I didn't react vehemently. I just mentioned the fact and said that
19 it was impermissible to speak like that.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you wanted to say
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, no, I didn't. I just made a
23 bit of a joke when you mentioned my name, I said I might have heard it,
24 but I couldn't believe my own ears. That was just a pleasantry. I
25 didn't hear anything, that's true, but I do have a lot of criticisms with
1 respect to the work of the interpretation service, and I've already said
2 that before. But no, I really didn't hear that word.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So thank you very much. This
4 matter has been settled.
5 Mr. Marcussen, you have the floor.
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Marcussen: [Continued]
7 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Jovic.
8 A. Good afternoon.
9 Q. Mr. Jovic, yesterday you testified the following:
10 "I was brought an invitation without a signature requesting me to
11 attend an interview in such and such a place at such, at such a time."
12 That is for Your Honours' reference, page 16185, lines 3 and 4.
13 Mr. Jovic, when was that?
14 A. That was -- that was -- let me see. I don't know the exact date,
15 but to the best of my recollections, if that means anything to you, when
16 the Croatian embassy was stoned after some water polo match, although you
17 don't know about that, but anyway, that's a rough estimate of the time.
18 I can't give you an exact date.
19 Q. Could you give us a year?
20 A. I did receive it. 1993. 2003. I apologise. 2003.
21 Q. Who brought you the invitation?
22 A. Two men who didn't introduce themselves or show any ID cards. It
23 was difficult to reach my house because the road was being reconstructed,
24 so they parked 200 metres away, and they came by as I described it, and
25 they handed me this invitation without a signature or stamp, just with
1 the Tribunal letterhead in the upper right-hand corner or something like
3 Q. And where were you supposed to go? It was an invitation to go
5 A. To the office of The Hague Tribunal in Jevremova Street,
7 Q. And did you go?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. When? How long after you received the invitation?
10 A. Well, perhaps -- I really can't remember. I don't know. I can't
11 remember the date.
12 Q. Was it -- was it within in a month of the invitation, two months,
13 half a year, a year? What? How long?
14 A. I really can't remember. I just can't remember. It might have
15 been a shorter period.
16 Q. How did you get from your home to Belgrade?
17 A. By bus, the morning coach, which starts out at 3.30 from
18 Mali Zvornik, 3.30 a.m.
19 Q. Did you travel alone or was someone with you?
20 A. Well, the bus was full of workers, but I was on my own. As far
21 as my family's concerned, they stayed at home. But that's where the bus
23 Q. And from the bus station in Sarajevo, how did you -- I'm sorry,
24 from the bus-stop where you got off in Belgrade to the field office, how
25 did you get there?
1 A. Well, I don't know Belgrade
2 for a long time, and Sarajevo
3 I went -- well, I lost my way, and I was walking past an embassy that had
4 been destroyed and asked a policeman there, and he said that it was in
5 the Dedinje area by the Dragisa Miscevic Hospital
7 Q. And when you came to the field office, who did you meet with?
8 A. I met with the interpreter and the lady investigator.
9 Q. Did they know that you were coming? Had you called to say what
10 day you would come, or how had that come about, or did they not expect
11 you to arrive --
12 A. Of course, they knew.
13 Q. How did they know?
14 A. Well, I assume they knew. When I rang the bell at the entrance
15 at the gate, not me but the policeman, they came to get me. They came
16 down the stairs to the front entrance to collect me.
17 Q. And now that we have talked a bit more about the details, maybe
18 your memory has come back as to when this might have been.
19 A. It might have been June, July. The weather was nice. I was just
20 wearing a T-shirt and sandals, so it must have been June or July
22 Q. Of 2002 or of 2003, or what year?
23 A. 2003.
24 Q. So it was quite a long time after you had received the invitation
25 that you actually came to the field office?
1 A. I'm not receiving any interpretation, sir.
2 Q. So you had received the invitation to tell you to come to the
3 field office in 2002, so you received the invitation at least half a year
4 before you actually went to Belgrade
5 A. Did I mention 2002 anywhere? Who said 2002?
6 Q. You did.
7 A. When?
8 Q. Just a minute ago when I asked you about it, when this might have
9 taken place. But let's -- let's move to something else.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, unless I'm
11 mistaken, at line 23, page 5, he said 2003.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know what I said, but there we
13 go. You can have a look and see.
14 MR. MARCUSSEN: I apologise if I have mixed up the year.
15 Q. If I can refer you to something else you testified about
16 yesterday, and I'm --
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, the Judges do
18 not understand fully why you are putting all these questions. You must
19 have your own reasons. You have something like 40 minutes left, I
21 MR. MARCUSSEN: Yes. I think I had 50 minutes left when I
22 started, so that might be right.
23 Q. I'd like to ask you about some other things you testified about
25 And for Your Honours' reference, I'm referring to page 16177.
1 Mr. Jovic, you testified yesterday that you were threatened,
2 blackmailed, and a number of other things. I'd like to talk a bit about
3 that. You said that your family was threatened. When was that?
4 A. That was -- just a moment. Let me try and remember. 2000 and --
5 and -- and well I'm not very good with dates, to be honest, but bear with
6 me. It was after I had given my statement to the Defence team and when
7 I -- when I clashed with Janko Lakic, and that was in 2003, the end of
8 June perhaps. Janko Lakic. Please don't hold it against me. I just
9 can't remember. I'm a sick man. My centre for equilibrium has been
10 affected. I really can't remember.
11 Q. But -- so it was -- you described the incident, I believe,
12 yesterday about Janko Lakic. So it was after you had given your
13 statements to the OTP.
14 You said -- you also testified that you were threatened with
15 prison. When was that threat made?
16 A. Who threatened me with prison? You mentioned Janko Lakic, and
17 then you went on to ask about threatening with prison. He didn't
18 threaten me, it was Rita Pradham that threatened me with the central
19 prison in Belgrade
20 and that I would sing like a canary.
21 Q. [Overlapping speakers]
22 A. And then she said we'll see what you're going to do to you --
23 you'll see what we're doing to do to you.
24 Q. When was that?
25 A. That was in the office up above, on the floor above.
1 Q. When was that?
2 A. That was in 2003. That's when the threats started. But they
3 weren't uttered every day -- on one day. Every day was dramatic and
4 different. When I signed my statement, for instance. It was mostly on
5 that date, and I pushed the statement to her side of the table. She
6 pushed it back. I didn't want to sign it.
7 So I'd like to ask the Honourable Judges to confront this matter.
8 Q. You -- you said that you would -- that at -- a statement had been
9 written up for you. When were you shown -- were you shown a statement?
10 A. Yes, precisely.
11 Q. And when was that?
12 A. It was on the table. When? When I was supposed to sign it, on
13 that day. I can't give you an exact date. I can't remember. It was in
14 2003, perhaps -- well, I don't know. I'm really not good with dates.
15 Q. Okay. So -- but you're saying that this was at the time that you
16 were asked to sign your statement in 2003; right?
17 A. Yes, that's right. I don't know whether it was 2003. Yes, it
18 was. And -- and -- and -- well, I don't know. There's no point. I just
19 can't remember the date. I really can't remember.
20 Q. You also said that you had been blackmailed. What were you
21 blackmailed with?
22 A. Well, don't misunderstand me. I don't want to have any trouble
23 with you, but would this be a threat to you: "Sign or else." And think
24 of your family. Think of your children. What could -- what could I
25 deduce from that? I was in Belgrade
1 What would happen to them? So that's how they threatened me, with an
2 indictment for Zvornik as well.
3 Now, you have a computer in your head and you don't want to ask,
4 but some policemen have already given their statements, and you could
5 tell us the truth, that people -- that you killed people in Drinjaca.
6 Then in Drinjaca they would take you to court. But I said that I would
7 cut off my own right hand if anybody touched my children.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat what he said. The
9 interpreter didn't understand him.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It lasted 14 hours. The interview
11 lasted 14 hours.
12 MR. MARCUSSEN:
13 Q. Was that -- was that the interview when you signed your
15 A. That was when I signed the statement. There were threats then,
16 and there were threats before if I didn't want to co-operate, if I didn't
17 want to talk, if I didn't want to be a witness against Vojislav Seselj,
18 not only him but against others too. Franko Simatovic, for instance.
19 Q. Who made those threats?
20 A. Mrs. Rita Pradham. I don't know how you pronounce her name, that
21 H in the middle of her surname, but anyway, Pradham. I assume you know
22 who that is.
23 Q. So you say she repeated these threats to you later. When was
25 A. I said that she would dose out her threats every time I went in
1 for an interview. Sometimes they went on for four days, if I remember
2 correctly. So when I came for the interview, there would always be
3 something when I stopped talking and didn't want to say what didn't
4 happened, she would say, Well, either you're going to say it or you're
5 going to -- well, you can walk out freely, but I'll tell your MUP to
6 arrest you and take you to the central prison and then you'll have to
7 wait there for me to come and get you out and you have to pray to God
8 that I come soon, who knows when I come.
9 Q. So every time you met with the investigator that is what she told
10 you or similar things. Is that what you're saying?
11 A. Not straight away. There would be a nice story first of all, all
12 wrapped up in foil, but then when she got to the nitty-gritty and wanted
13 to make me own up and say that the police had killed in Drinjaca some 100
14 Muslims, that's when it started. And I didn't want to. I know that that
15 didn't happen. I would have heard about it if it had, from my
16 colleagues. And when I didn't want to own up to that and say that the
17 police did that because I know it never did then the threats would start
18 and she would say, If you don't say it then we'll raise an indictment
19 against you for such and such. I didn't know that she couldn't do that
20 that you couldn't raise indictments any more, and whether she had the
21 right to raise the indictment without instructions from the Tribunal, I
22 didn't know any of that. All I did was attend a policeman's course so
23 I'm not well versed in other matters of law. I'm not an educated
25 Q. And you were --
1 A. For me to be able to defend myself with those allegations.
2 Q. And you testified --
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a follow-up
4 question. I have listened to Mr. Marcussen's questions as well as your
5 answers and you have said that you are a policeman and you know how all
6 this works. So more than anyone you know that police, sometimes, when
7 conducting investigations, use this kind of method and say to someone,
8 It's in your best interest to talk about things. The Judges will bear
9 this in mind. Think of your family, and so on.
10 Very often this is how things happen, and this didn't mean
11 necessarily that it is blackmail. What do you have to say?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I say is this: I didn't say
13 that I was just a policeman for me to know the system according to which
14 the police worked. All I said was that I attended a short training
15 course and that I was no match for an investigator who studied things
16 like that. That's what I just said, if that's what you're referring to,
17 what I just said here.
18 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a question. Witness, I'd
19 like you to tell me, please, the following: This so-called blackmail
20 purportedly led you to giving false statements; is that right?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course. And everybody would do
22 the same if their family and children's lives were at stake. When it
23 comes to your home and children and their life, everybody would behave
24 like that, any normal man.
25 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] So you are saying that you gave
1 false statements to save your children's lives.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. I said what
3 Janko Lakic dictated in order to save my family from misery, poverty.
4 And they threatened to kill me too. They threatened to beat me to death,
5 not to kill me with firearms. So with a should I have done? I had an
6 underaged child.
7 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. Perhaps there's
8 something I've misunderstood. Who was actually threatening you? You
9 mentioned somebody's name. I haven't quite understood who it was. I
10 need to check the transcript.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you started asking me who
12 threatened --
13 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] This was Janko Lakic who
14 supposedly threatened you.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, to give a false statement that
16 the Seselj Defence team maltreated us in the offices of the Serbian
17 Radical Party. I thought you were asking me about that. If not, if
18 we're talking about Rita, we can move on to that subject then.
19 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I thought maybe I'm mistaken,
20 but I thought that on the basis of the questions put to you by the
21 Prosecutor, you were answering about blackmail that would have been done
22 by the OTP. Maybe I'm wrong.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can talk about that, too, but I
24 thought you asked me about who blackmailed me in order to give a false
25 statement. I think that is how you phrased your question.
1 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Let's set aside what we've been
2 talking about. I'll check that later.
3 Now, I'd like to know the following: When you were interviewed
4 by the member -- members of the OTP, you were intimidated --
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Interviewed me in 2003.
6 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Very well. Yes. And then was
7 there blackmail at that moment? Were you intimidated? Was any pressure
8 exerted against you?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. There was intimidation,
10 blackmail, threats were made, pressure was put upon me.
11 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] You will answer to the
12 Prosecutor regarding this matter, but I have very specific detail to get
13 from you. In 2003, you made false statements. Is that what you're
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In 2003, I gave a statement, but a
16 statement was drafted for me. I was given a statement that I was to
17 learn by heart. It was this thick, more or less, and then I was told --
18 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Does not reflect the truth?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Rita drafted it, so it didn't
20 correspond to anything. I was to learn it by heart. Why would I have to
21 learn something that is true by heart? If you ask me a question, in ten
22 years' time I will repeat what I said.
23 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, you have the
1 MR. MARCUSSEN:
2 Q. So just so we understand your last answer to the Judge correctly,
3 what you're saying is that you were put under pressure to give false
4 information, to sign a statement which is not true. That's what you're
5 saying, isn't it?
6 A. I'm telling you that I was put under pressure to admit something
7 that I didn't do and something that I didn't see. There were threats,
8 there was blackmail. Bribes were offered and so on and so forth. The
9 statement isn't false, but some of her arguments, some of her
10 philosophical thoughts, were inserted in the statement, but I can say
11 this is what I said and this is what Rita said.
12 Q. And --
13 A. That's why I wanted to come to The Hague.
14 Q. And --
15 A. To clarify this.
16 Q. And when was it that you were offered to stay in a hotel with
17 girls for six months at the Tribunal's expense?
18 A. Well, I don't know. Rita Pradham said that I would have six
19 months in a hotel. She said I would stay in a hotel for six months in
21 this Predrag Momcilovic, I really don't know his exact surname, who was a
22 member of her team and he added, "You'll be able to avail yourself of
23 their services at the expense of the Tribunal," and Rita added that she
24 would take me to court to see how witnesses testify against Seselj fared
25 so I could get over my nervousness because he --
1 Q. My question is: When did this happen?
2 A. I told you quite clearly. This wasn't told to me on one sole
3 occasion. Such offers were made when I had to sign this very lengthy
5 Q. So it was said during the time that your statements were
6 prepared. So that means it was said at the time when the investigator,
7 language assistants, and other people were present; right? You say this
8 was during the interview itself.
9 A. Naturally.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 A. There was Predrag who was present and Jasmina, the interpreter.
12 Q. Right. The front page of your statements record all those who
13 were present. Thanks for that.
14 Now I'd like to move to something else. Let me just say one
15 thing to you or ask you about something. Yesterday you testified in
16 response to Judge Lattanzi. You said, and this is at page 16214, at the
17 bottom and following on the next page:
18 "Madam Judge, let me just explain something to you. The
19 interpretation I received was -- I received was 'How were you forced?
20 How did they force you?' That is why, with all due respect, I have to
21 say, and I apologise for that, but nobody can force me to do anything."
22 Yet you are telling us that you as a trained policeman --
23 A. I don't understand your question.
24 Q. My question's coming now. So nobody -- you're somebody who
25 cannot be forced to do anything, yet you say that the Prosecution forced
1 you to sign statements which are false. That's what you're telling the
2 Court today, isn't it?
3 A. Wait for my answer. Wait for my answer, please. I want the
4 truth to come out. When my children are at stake, when my family is at
5 stake --
6 Q. That was not my question.
7 A. When the lives of my children are at stake then I am at my most
8 vulnerable. Well, I want the truth to be known. That's the truth. I
9 can't tell you what you want to hear. I can only tell you how things
10 actually were. And that's the truth. No one can deny that. I'm saying
11 this under oath. I can take the solemn declaration again. I can do that
12 every morning.
13 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] There's one thing I don't
14 understand, Witness. You said that Mr. Lakic threatened you, that you
15 were afraid for your lives, you were afraid for your family, and you
16 mentioned other reasons for blackmail, the hotel, the beautiful women, so
17 forth and so on. That's when it comes to the members of the OTP. So
18 please don't confuse the issue. We have two situations, and don't mix
19 them up.
20 So what exactly is -- what exactly does your family have to do
21 with this other kind of blackmail?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course. At an interview in
24 said, Think about your family, about your children. How do I know who's
25 in my house at the time? I couldn't trust her. I couldn't believe
1 anything she said. She had power. I didn't. I didn't have a lawyer. I
2 wasn't allowed anything. I didn't even know how to ask for certain
4 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] So the members of the OTP
5 mentioned your own family and your own children. Are you absolutely
6 sure? Thank you.
7 MR. MARCUSSEN:
8 Q. Mr. Jovic, this morning I asked you the same question and you
9 told me that it was Lakic who had threatened you. When did anybody from
10 the OTP threaten your family?
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, just a minute. All
12 these questions will probably be dealt with by another person who will be
13 in charge of investigating these allegations. However, the Prosecutor is
14 entitled to put questions to you to check your credibility, but just one
15 detail in passing. You're talking about your children, and of course
16 everyone's interested. I'm looking at the document. You were married in
17 1983, and a child was born in 1984. In 2003, this child is 19 years old.
18 It's not a baby. It's no longer a baby. So why are you so worried about
19 a 19-year-old? It's an adult.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have a son who was
21 born in 1998. How old was he at the time? I had this son with my second
22 wife. My first wife died. His name is Radomir.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But in your
24 statement in 2003, you don't mention this second son of yours, and you
25 even mention your second marriage.
1 Very well. Mr. Marcussen.
2 MR. MARCUSSEN:
3 Q. Mr. Jovic, when did anybody from OTP threaten your family?
4 A. Well, isn't it a threat when you say, Admit that you killed that
5 person in Drinjaca, think about your children. What was I to think? If
6 I didn't say certain things, someone would go and take my child away or
7 do something to my family. I live in a forest. My house is surrounded
8 by a forest. I have no neighbours there. My wife is alone with the
9 children. On one occasion for that reason I fled. I didn't want to
11 Q. Thank you.
12 A. I ran home. In the morning they phoned me, called me, and asked
13 me, What are you doing at home?
14 Q. Mr. Jovic, isn't it true that actually you voluntarily came to
15 the Belgrade
17 A. That's not true that I went there voluntarily. I received a
18 summons, and then I went then. Naturally it's not that I had to, but it
19 wasn't really of my own accord. How should I put it? I received a
21 Q. And --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, I have one small
23 question for you. There might be an error in the transcript. You say
24 this morning I put the same question to you. Have you met this witness?
25 Did you meet the witness this morning? Did you say this morning?
1 MR. MARCUSSEN: I might have said this morning. That is due
2 to -- what I meant was it was my first questions during the session.
3 Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'm reassured.
5 Thank you. It would have been a time-bomb.
6 MR. MARCUSSEN:
7 Q. And actually when you came to the field office you brought with
8 you 26 documents that you handed over to the investigator at the Office
9 of the Prosecutor, didn't you?
10 A. Yes. On the first occasion I wasn't asked to do that, but on the
11 second occasion I was asked to bring all the documents I had. I brought
12 everything I had.
13 Q. And --
14 A. From my wartime experience in Darda and elsewhere, Tenja.
15 Q. And when you came to the field office, you said you were prepared
16 to be a witness but that you needed protective measures.
17 A. They offered me protective measures of their own accord. I asked
18 them why I needed protective measures, why should I need a glass
19 partition. Then they mentioned a third country, and I spoke to the VWU
20 and filled in a form of some kind.
21 Q. [Overlapping speakers]
22 A. The VWU is a very decent department, one of the most decent ones.
23 Q. I certainly agree with that. The first investigator you met at
24 the field office, that was not the investigator Rita, was it?
25 A. The investigator was Rita.
1 Q. Now, after you had met, you had went to the Office of the
2 Prosecutor in -- on the 17th of June, 2003. You went back, and on the
3 10th, 11th, 14th and 15th of July, 2003, you were interviewed by a number
4 of members of the Office of the Prosecutor; isn't that true?
5 A. Yes. They took turns when interviewing me.
6 Q. And it was different interviewers during the different days.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And the first day you met Rita, but the next day she wasn't
9 there, was she?
10 A. I think Rita was always present.
11 Q. And --
12 A. But I went to a room. May I finish my answer?
13 Q. No. You have answered. You say she was always present.
14 And then a statement was drawn up, but it was not signed. Isn't
15 that correct?
16 A. Perhaps I can't remember, but I'm not saying that that wasn't the
18 MR. MARCUSSEN: And for Your Honours' reference, that statement
19 that was drawn up is in Your Honours' binder number 2, the one called
20 "Notice of compliance with Trial Chamber order 8 December 2009," and it's
21 under tab number 2. The 65 ter number is 04626479, 04626500.
22 Q. And then in -- on the 28th of September, 2003, you went back to
23 the field office again, and there you actually signed the statement
24 that --
25 A. I was asked --
1 Q. -- had been prepared in July.
2 A. Yes, but in what way did I sign this? I told you how this came
4 Q. Yes, but what I'm saying is you went back to the Office of the
5 Prosecutor in September, on the 28th of 2003, and you signed the
7 A. Again without summons. Did I appear there without having been
8 summoned? You're claiming that on the first occasion I went there
9 without having been summoned? Is that what you're saying, that I hadn't
10 been summoned? Try and be a lit bit more courteous. You're doing your
11 work very well, but --
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a technical
13 question, and I'm sure that the person who will be in charge of
14 investigates will probably put this question to you also.
15 When you signed this document that I have, a document that is 24
16 pages long, you signed it on September 28, 2003. We have the date. I
17 would like to know whether the -- before you signed the document, the
18 interpreter actually read over the entire statement in your own language,
19 all paragraphs of this statement, the 142 statements in this -- 142
20 paragraphs in the declaration.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Read it out from a laptop, read out
22 the statement while it was being drafted, and later they brought me the
23 statement so that I could sign it.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is important. When you
25 signed the statement, the interpreter read over the 142 paragraphs in
1 your own language and you signed after having heard all these paragraphs.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The interpreter didn't read
3 anything out.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That's what I wanted to know.
5 They didn't read anything out. They just gave you the document and asked
6 you to sign all the pages.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, the interpreter will
9 probably be interviewed by the investigator. We'll see.
10 MR. MARCUSSEN: And the statement we have just been discussing
11 has 65 ter number 07327.
12 Q. In October 2005, you contacted the Office of the Prosecutor, did
13 you not?
14 A. I never contacted them. They would always contact me. They had
15 my phone number at home, and they would phone me when it was necessary
16 for me to appear then tell me when to come, but in October, Rita issued a
17 wanted notice for me because I was in Montenegro.
18 Q. On the -- on the 24th of October, 2005, you called the Office of
19 the Prosecutor. You actually spoke to Rita, and you reported security
20 concerns, and the next day one of her colleagues spoke to you about the
21 concerns, didn't he? So you called because you were afraid you'd been at
22 a conference. Isn't that true?
23 A. That's not the reason I phoned. You're right, I remember that
24 now. You are quite right.
25 Q. So you did call the Office of the Prosecutor.
1 A. I phoned her quite simply because -- just a minute. Let me
2 complete my answer. I have to explain this. It's the truth. I want to
3 tell you the truth. It's not that simple. You can't just say, I phoned
4 them and that's it. This is an act of aggression against a witness who
5 is trying to tell you the truth. Would you allow me to explain to you
6 the reason for which I phoned them. If not, say so and that's not a
8 Q. My question was whether you had contacted the Office of the
9 Prosecutor. You had. You spoke to Rita, you confirmed that you had
10 called her.
11 Now, you reported -- you called because you were concerned about
12 your security. Isn't that true?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. MARCUSSEN: Now, Your Honours, we have a document which is --
15 has 65 ter number 07329, which is in the binder that you have.
16 Q. What was the security concern that you had, that you called Rita
18 A. I wasn't worried about my own safety. I tried to find out where
19 the protection I was being offered actually was, and on another occasion
20 I said my best friend was threatening me. What did they do about that?
21 Nothing. Nobody did anything. Then I saw that they were just telling me
22 lies. It was just a matter of deception. I was supposed to put my head
23 in a bag, go abroad and live on the street there, beg. That's what Rita
24 promised me. That's why I phoned her to, see what sort of possibilities
25 she had.
1 Your Honours, do you understood me? I phoned her but she wanted
2 to take my family into the unknown. I wanted to see whether everything
3 that was said was true, but I realised it was just a matter of deception.
4 I -- I'm quite sure that you're not involved in this, but it was Rita.
5 Q. And then you were contacted again by the Office of the Prosecutor
6 on the 13th of October, 2006, and you were asked to meet with the Office
7 of the Prosecutor again with a view to take a statement. And you did
8 actually meet with the Office of the Prosecutor --
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you are under oath.
10 You took an oath, and you said that you would tell the truth, and you
11 said that you want to say everything and say the truth, which is why you
12 are testifying opening, and I congratulate you on being frank, but in our
13 file we have a declaration made by you on October 21st of 2005 to the OTP
14 -- on the 25th of October, 2005, in the OTP, you say that you're a radio
15 ham, et cetera, et cetera, that you heard a number of information,
16 various things, that you heard a person called Zlatko Peric talking over
17 the radio about atrocities that had happened in Zvornik during the war,
18 and you were afraid, afraid that you could be destroyed as a Prosecution
19 witness. This is what you said in this statement. Have you forgotten
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're right. I forgot about that.
22 You're right. That is what I said.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Who were you afraid of at the
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was only afraid of going abroad.
1 I was afraid of how I would be received there. I was worried about
2 whether I would have appropriate living conditions there, about whether
3 I'd be able to feed my children. Perhaps it would no longer be possible
4 to return. So that's why I wanted to check out the possibilities that
5 Rita had. Or sometimes I tried to check things with Christine Dalj. I
6 said Novak Savic is threatening me. He's my best friend. He has
7 diabetes, he's 70 plus year old. She said, Do you have a passport? I
8 said, Yes. She said, The VWU from Sarajevo will contact you. Then
9 Mr. Mike, I respect him, well, he carries out the Tribunal's orders.
10 Well, I don't really know what those Tribunal structure's like. Please
11 let me complete my answer. Be patient. This was on Thursday, and he
12 said, Next week I won't be here. When I return, we'll deal with the
13 matter. So what would have happened if Novak Savic had really threatened
14 me? By the time Mike appeared next week, I would have spent seven days
15 in my grave. Then I saw that this was all just a matter of deception and
16 nothing else.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, a professional person
18 like myself reading this statement can draw the following conclusion, but
19 I'm talking under your control because you said all this to the
20 Prosecutor. You heard on the radio, on the radio ham, a person called
21 Peric talking about what might have happened in Zvornik. You say that
22 this Peric was -- that this Peric was a member of a paramilitary group,
23 that you might be blamed for the atrocities that happened in Zvornik, and
24 that's when you become so frightened. You say that you're frightened
25 that families will want to take revenge on you. Is that what you're
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that Peric -- well, this --
3 a Muslim friend of mine told me about this from Zvornik, that
4 Zlatko Peric, and Zlatko Peric is one of our radio hams, and he said that
5 they were -- they had a party with the Muslims, and he said that I had
6 committed evil deeds around Zvornik and that I was frightened of revenge,
7 people taking revenge on me, Muslims. But they're my neighbours. They
8 come to my house now because I didn't do any of that, of course. So
9 Zlatko and I forgot about that later on. We were able to move on.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Did you also tell the
11 Prosecutor, "I was waiting for the right moment to tell you this?" Did
12 you also tell the Prosecutor that you were afraid of the radicals or
13 members of the Serbian Radical Party?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't say that I was afraid
15 of the Serbian Radical Party. What I said was somebody might kill me who
16 lost their family in the war, an ordinary man who didn't belong to any
17 party, because I live in the border belt where people were killed.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All of this is extremely
19 complex. A professional investigator and a very experienced person is
20 the only person who can look into all of this. This may take a lot of
21 time. The Judges do not have the material capability to deal with all of
23 Mr. Marcussen.
24 MR. MARCUSSEN:
25 Q. You met again with Rita, a lawyer, and interpreters on the 18th
1 and 19th of October, 2006, and that's when you signed the statement that
2 we talked about yesterday. We already went over that yesterday.
3 Now, then you called Rita again on the 9th of January, 2007, and
4 the reason you called was that you had been contacted by the accused's
5 Defence team. Isn't that true?
6 A. I didn't call Rita -- what date did you say, the 19th?
7 Q. The 9th of January, the 9th of January, 2007. You called because
8 you had been contacted by the Defence team who wanted to speak to you.
9 A. Well, on the 19th of January, 2007, I was -- I might have called
10 Christine Dahl. Might that not be a mistake?
11 Q. I don't think so.
12 A. She called me a number of times, and I called --
13 Q. We will get to this in a minute, I believe. You called Rita.
14 You told that the Defence team wanted to speak to you, and what you were
15 told was that you could speak to them and that you should tell the truth.
16 Isn't that right?
17 A. I didn't call Rita. I don't remember calling Rita, and I do
18 believe that I did not.
19 Q. Just -- okay. Then in September -- on the 5th of September,
20 2007, you were contacted by the Office of the Prosecutor who wanted to
21 meet you, and you agreed to meet representatives of the Office of the
22 Prosecutor. Isn't that true?
23 A. Of course. Since they called me, I had to go.
24 Q. And you met with them on the 21st of September, 2007, and that's
25 when you told them about the statements that you had given to the Defence
1 team of the accused in January 2007. Isn't that true?
2 A. Probably. Probably it was like that. Yes, you could say that.
3 Q. And you brought with you -- you spoke about a number of
4 documents, and on the 1st of October you met with some people at the
5 field office and there was a video-conference and you signed a statement
6 about what you said were threats and falsification of the statements you
7 had given in January. Isn't that true?
8 A. I spoke about that.
9 Q. That's correct.
10 A. But --
11 Q. And --
12 A. -- I explained why --
13 Q. I know what you said. I just wanted to be clear that we agree
14 that you did give a statement on the 1st of October. And when you met
15 with the Office of the Prosecutor on the 1st of October, you came with a
16 number of documents. You brought a statement dated the 29th of January,
17 2007, which is your Defence statement which had been certified before the
18 Belgrade court -- one of the courts in Belgrade. You also brought a
19 letter that you had written to the accused, and you brought a statement
20 that you had made yourself retracting the 29th January 2007 statement.
21 Isn't that true?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, while we're waiting
23 to be connected again, I could raise two issues, administrative ones, and
24 so that we just have one left for the end.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment. I think all of a
1 sudden he's there on the screen again. We shall keep these housekeeping
2 matters for the end of the hearing.
3 Mr. Marcussen, our witness is back.
4 MR. MARCUSSEN:
5 Q. Mr. Jovic, do you remember my question?
6 A. No, I don't.
7 Q. When you came on the 1st of October to the field office, you
8 brought three documents with you. You brought a copy of one of the
9 versions of the statement you had given to the Defence, dated the 29th of
10 January, 2007. That's correct, right?
11 A. Yes, that's right.
12 Q. And you also brought with you a letter, a handwritten letter,
13 that you told the Prosecution you had sent to the accused, Mr. Seselj.
14 Is that true? Isn't that true?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. And you brought a statement that you had gone to have certified
17 yourself in which you retract your 29 January statement. Isn't that
18 true? You gave that to the Office of the Prosecutor that day.
19 A. The 20th of January? I can't remember the date, but I did bring
20 them that, and I can explain why.
21 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, the documents in question are
22 65 ter numbers 07331, 07332, 07334, and 07335. In light of time I can't
23 show these documents to the witness, but I also believe in light of his
24 answers there's no dispute that these documents were given. He already
25 talked about this yesterday.
1 Q. Mr. Jovic, then after this --
2 A. Am I going to have a chance to explain why I brought them?
3 Q. You --
4 A. Are you going to give me the opportunity of explaining why I
5 brought those documents?
6 Q. Let's just go through my questions. On the 16th of November,
7 2007, you contacted a member of the Victims and Witnesses Unit because
8 you wanted to get in touch with the Office of the Prosecutor, and you
9 wanted the Office of the Prosecutor to know that you were afraid
10 because --
11 A. I was invited to go to the premises.
12 Q. And you contacted -- well, actually let's --
13 A. I'm not getting any interpretation.
14 Q. Can you hear me now? Is it better?
15 A. I can hear you now. I can hear you very well, but I can't hear
16 the interpreter. Yes, I've just heard him. I can hear the interpreter
18 Q. Actually, let me go back just a little bit, just a few days back.
19 On the 5th of November, 2007, you contacted a member of the Victims and
20 Witnesses Unit because you wanted to speak to the OTP, to the Office of
21 the Prosecutor, and you wanted to clarify some details about when you had
22 had a visa for Russia issued. Isn't that true?
23 A. How come the Victims and Witnesses Unit sent it to Russia and
24 that I knew the telephone number? I contacted Christine Dahl concerning
25 all these questions of migration and so on.
1 Q. And you also wanted to give another statement to the Office of
2 the Prosecutor because there was another version of the statement that
3 you had signed on the 29th of January, 2007, to the Defence team. Isn't
4 that true?
5 A. Possible.
6 Q. Because isn't it a fact, as you explain in your letter to Seselj,
7 that you initially gave a statement to the Defence team on the 29th of
8 January, which was recorded by the Defence team? Isn't that true?
9 A. How do you mean? I don't understand. Could you repeat that
10 question, please.
11 Q. On the 29th of January, 2007, when you gave your statements to
12 the Defence team, the Defence team record -- had a tape recorder and
13 recorded part of your -- of what you said.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And then they drafted up a statement for you to sign.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You weren't really given a proper opportunity to read it through,
18 and you were taken off to the 4th District Court where your signature was
19 certified. Isn't that true?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And so you had a signed statement now given to the Defence, but
22 then you read through the statement and you weren't satisfied with it,
23 and you complained to members of the accused's Defence team about the
24 statement. Isn't that true?
25 A. I was satisfied with my statement, but under pressure from
1 Janko Lakic, and I described those pressures, from Janko Lakic, and
2 that's how the statement came to be brought, within that context.
3 Q. No, because the truth is, as you explained in your letter to the
4 accused, that because you were not satisfied with the statement, another
5 version of the statement was drafted up. Isn't that true? So your first
6 statement that was signed on the 21st of -- or drafted on the 29th of
7 January, 2007, was certified on the 31st of January, 2007; right?
8 A. Yes, but --
9 Q. But then you make another -- but then you --
10 A. I have to explain that.
11 Q. And then there is another version of the same statement which is
12 a new version of the statement, and that is actually certified in March.
13 Isn't that true?
14 A. Possibly.
15 Q. And that is because you were not happy with the first version of
16 the statement, so you went back and another version was made of the
17 statement. Isn't that true?
18 A. It wasn't because of that.
19 Q. And then --
20 A. It was because it was recorded on a Dictaphone and needed to be
21 retyped, and when it was retyped, I was called to court to certify it. I
22 read it and it was correct.
23 Q. And then some time passed and you received a call from Lakic, who
24 also had given a statement, who realised that things had been inserted
25 into the statement. Isn't that true?
1 A. It might have been true for him, but mine was correct, 100 per
3 Q. And you went to the office -- when the Office of the Prosecutor
4 contacted you, you explained in detail what parts of the statement were
5 incorrect and in what way, which parts were not true, which parts were
6 partially true, and that's what you explained in detail to the Office of
7 the Prosecutor on the 1st of October, 2007. Isn't that right?
8 A. I had to talk because of the threats. So I had to say it the way
9 they told me to. And the young woman sitting next to me, she -- she
10 circled some paragraphs more than me, and I had to behave properly just
11 so that I could get out of there.
12 Q. Who --
13 A. You know that I was between suicide and coming here. That was
14 the situation. A rock and a hard place. You don't understand all the
15 problems you've inflicted upon me.
16 Q. And so you're claiming that Lakic threatened you and then
17 somebody from the Office of the Prosecutor --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Mr. Marcussen.
19 Your time is up. Please try to conclude now.
20 MR. MARCUSSEN:
21 Q. So you're claiming that Lakic threatened you and then the Office
22 of the Prosecutor manipulated your hand to encircle a number of parts in
23 your statement. Is that what you're saying?
24 A. It's the statement that you mentioned and said where we circled
25 the paragraphs, what I said, what Verice Radeta said. Is that the
1 statement you're referring to?
2 Q. That is the statement I'm referring to.
3 A. You said -- so it's that one. And that's what I had -- why I had
4 to do what I knew would be -- that you would be satisfied with it,
5 because goodness knows what I would have experienced otherwise. I was
6 afraid of you.
7 Q. Isn't it --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat what he said.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not you. I don't mean you
10 personally. I mean the investigators. I don't blame or accuse the
11 Judges or you. To be quite frank, I respect you, and I apologise for my
12 temperament and for raising my voice, but those people who threatened me
13 and made problems for me, when I came there I was afraid of them. When
14 I -- when I came here, I was afraid of them. But otherwise, everybody
15 was nice to me and deserve every respect, and I can say that publicly so
16 that the whole world can hear, as far as my treatment here today and
18 Q. And isn't it true --
19 A. But before that --
20 Q. Isn't it true that then -- isn't it true that in November when it
21 became known in the public that you were going to be a witness in this
22 case, you became very worried, and then you retracted the statement you
23 had given on the 1st of October because you were afraid of the
24 consequences of being a witness here? Isn't that true?
25 A. I sent a statement before that to the Defence team, before
2 Q. You retracted your statement that you gave to the Defence team in
3 a statement to the OTP, and then you retracted the statement you had
4 given to the OTP retracting your Defence team's statement because you
5 were afraid when it became known you were a witness. Isn't that true?
6 A. It is not true about November.
7 Q. And isn't it true --
8 A. In November I --
9 Q. Mr. Jovic, investigator Rita Pradham never threatened you, and
10 the --
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Witness. Let
12 Mr. Marcussen put --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am on oath here, and I will take
14 the oath again.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are under oath. As
16 Mr. Marcussen is going to finish putting his questions to you, listen
17 carefully to what he tells you and then you may state your position, but
18 you are overlapping all the time and it is difficult to follow. I would
19 like to listen carefully to what Mr. Marcussen is saying and then listen
20 carefully to what you have to say.
21 Mr. Marcussen, start again, because there has been a lot of
23 MR. MARCUSSEN:
24 Q. Mr. Jovic, I'm putting to you that you are not telling the truth
25 when you are alleging that investigator Rita Pradham, of the Office of
1 the Prosecutor, ever threatened you. That is not true, is it, Mr. Jovic?
2 A. I can take the oath again on pain of being criminally prosecuted
3 and on my moral responsibility that everything is as I have told it.
4 It's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but.
5 Q. And --
6 A. Now, as far as the threats are concerned from Rita Pradham, I --
7 Q. And it is not true --
8 A. I have taken the solemn declaration here so I am speaking on
10 Q. [Overlapping speakers]
11 A. I didn't understand what you said. What are you asking me?
12 Q. And it is not true that a person called Predrag from the Office
13 of the Prosecutor promised you dancing girls at a hotel in The Hague
14 six months. That is just not true, is it, Mr. Jovic?
15 A. No, that's not true. I said -- I said for the first question
16 it's true. It's not that it's not true. It's true that Rita threatened
17 me and (redacted), or whatever, said that I would have dancing
18 girls and could use their services at the expense of the Tribunal. So I
19 can take the solemn declaration again and I swear on my child, the child
20 that I have.
21 Q. And --
22 A. I'm telling the truth here, sir, with all due respect.
23 Q. Mr. Jovic, you want this Court to believe that Rita Pradham who
24 had threatened you is the very person you called on two occasions when
25 you felt threatened. That is the person you called and reached out to.
1 You really want this Court to believe that?
2 A. Because I wanted to check out her capabilities, whether she could
3 and would protect me or not, but she didn't have the possibility to do
4 that. She couldn't protect herself, let alone me, and she threw me into
5 this abyss, and as I'm still on oath, I can swear that that is so.
6 Q. So you did call here because you wanted protection. Now, I do
7 believe that you have been in a difficult situation, but you have not
8 been threatened by the Office of the Prosecutor. There have been other
9 forces that have been influencing you. The statements you have given to
10 the Office of the Prosecutor are a true reflection of what you have been
11 seeing and hearing, and for very unfortunate reasons you are now trying
12 to backtrack from what you had earlier told the Office of the Prosecutor.
13 Isn't that true, Mr. Jovic?
14 A. You've turned everything upsidedown, topsy-turvy. Nobody
15 threatened me. Well, somebody that you consider to be someone. I was
16 threatened by the investigator, Rita Pradham, and I am repeating this for
17 the tenth time, and I swear that that is so and I will take the solemn
18 declaration once again, and I want legal proceedings to be taken against
19 her, because as a person in a position of responsibility, she must be
20 held responsible. If I was born in a village, I'm not a village goat.
21 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honour, this concludes my examination. I
22 would like to tender a number of documents at this point. Your Honours,
23 it is my submission that the witness, as I have just put to him, gave
24 correct statements to the Office of the Prosecutor in 2003 and 2006.
25 Those statements reflect his true evidence. He is -- has not been
1 testifying according to his statements and according to the truth on a
2 number of occasions during his testimony and has retracted key parts of
3 his evidence, such as whether or not Seselj's men participated in the
4 attack on Zvornik, such as whether he ever had a meeting with the accused
5 after he had been in Tenja, and a number of other things which I can go
6 into if Your Honours want more detail, but in the interest of time, maybe
7 I should move on.
8 The --
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please give us the numbers of
10 the statements, please.
11 MR. MARCUSSEN: We're tendering the October 2006 statement which
12 has 65 ter 07330. I would also like to tender the unsigned version of
13 the witness's July statement from 2003, and that is the statement which
14 was in tab -- under tab number 2 in the binder that I mentioned earlier,
15 and the 65 ter number is 0462-6479, 0462-6500. The signed version of
16 that statement we also tender. It's dated the 28th of September, 2003
17 It has 65 ter number 07327. We also tender the October 1st statement
18 from 2007. The 65 ter number of that one is 07331. And the associated
19 documents with that are 65 ter numbers 07332, 07334, 07335. And the
20 version of the -- the statement to the Defence team which was later
21 provided to the Office of the Prosecutor we also tender. It is 65 ter
22 number 07333. We would also like to tender the statement from 2005 that
23 the President read significant portions from to the witness. That is 65
24 ter number 07322 -- sorry, correction. 07329. And we have an
25 investigator report about the witness's first meeting with the Office of
1 the Prosecutor. That has 65 ter number 07328. And yesterday the
2 President read out from a report prepared by Marie Costello of the Office
3 of the Prosecutor about the witness's contact with the Office of the
4 Prosecutor. It is the document in the blue binder or folder. That
5 document does not have a 65 ter number or an ERN number, so we will be
6 advising the Court of what 65 ter that declaration have as soon as
7 possible just so there's no -- at least I gave a date. The date of the
8 statement is the 7th of April, 2010.
9 That was a fair bit in one go. I think I got it all. Thank you,
10 Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. As you know -- one
12 moment. As you know, Mr. Marcussen, the Trial Chamber will rule on this
13 application after the cross-examination only. All of this is on the
15 Mr. Seselj will have an hour and a half after this to
16 cross-examine the witness. We shall have a break now.
17 Mr. Seselj?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could I have half a minute with
19 regard to what Mr. Marcussen said? First of all, I think I will need a
20 little more time. I thought I'd need at least an hour and 45 minutes.
21 That's the amount of time used by Mr. Marcussen. Secondly, what
22 Mr. Marcussen has requested has no legal foundation. However, in certain
23 cases, statements are directly tendered into evidence, but I'm
24 discriminated against with regard to the accused in those cases.
25 Judge Lattanzi's a member of a Chamber that's dealing with the Karadzic
1 case, so she has witnessed this. I follow this by watching the Bijeljina
2 television, and I can see that the Chamber takes witness statements into
3 evidence, admits it into evidence, but then the Prosecution has an hour
4 for its interrogation and the accused 10 or 12 hours. I am supposed to
5 have the same amount of time as the Prosecution. I was brought here
6 yesterday together with General Tolimir. He said that he usually had 10
7 or 12 hours to interview a witness. But what the witness said would be
8 admitted into evidence, and then the Prosecution would interview the
9 witness for an hour, an hour and a half. I'm just drawing your attention
10 to what is happening in other cases. So I'm being discriminated against
11 in comparison.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I do the same thing as you do.
13 You look at the television, you see what's going on and I always watch my
14 screen when I'm in my office, and I follow the Karadzic case, as well as
15 the Tolimir case, and others. And I note that in other cases, just like
16 here, it's always the same -- it's the same way of doing it. The
17 Prosecution has a number of hours for its examination-in-chief and then
18 we -- the Defence has the same time for the cross-examination. So the
19 Prosecutor has used a bit more than an hour and 30 minutes, and you will
20 also have a little bit more than an hour and 30 minutes. Of course, you
21 also have administrative matters that you want to discuss.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't think you are well
24 informed. Madam Lattanzi can confirm this. Mr. Karadzic gets 10 or 12
25 hours per witness. The Chamber must bear in mind that the Prosecution is
1 a lot more capable than an accused, as a rule, who is defending himself.
2 The Prosecution has means at its disposal. I am powerless. I have to
3 confront the Prosecution. I just wave my hand and --
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, don't talk
5 nonsense. You are talking about the Karadzic case. I follow it also,
6 just like you. There are open sessions, and I follow the open sessions.
7 Mr. Karadzic does have a lot of time to put questions to the witnesses,
8 but in the Karadzic case, the Prosecutor decided to switch to a 92 ter --
9 to Rule 92 ter. He's got statements, written statements, and then the
10 Defence, i.e., Mr. Karadzic has time to cross-examine the witness because
11 that's the 92 ter rule. We're not using this rule here in this case. We
12 are not using rule 92 ter. Here we were a viva voce -- we have a Chamber
13 witness and we gave everyone an hour and 30 minutes where we could have
14 used up all the time, you know, for the Judges and Trial Chamber, only
15 giving you five minutes to the Prosecution and five minutes to you. But
16 we were very fair and square with you, you know.
17 Witness, now, you've listened to all of this. Please rest for 20
18 minutes because after the break Mr. Seselj will be cross-examining you,
19 and you need to be in good shape. We'll meet again in 20 minutes.
20 --- Recess taken at 3.52 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 4.15 p.m.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen.
23 MR. MARCUSSEN: I'm just on my feet very briefly. I would like
24 the record to just reflect that during the break, maybe during the
25 towards the end of my examination of the witness, the accused provided us
1 with references to the two documents that you've been handed during the
2 break, and our case manager has printed these documents out and provided
3 them to the Court. Thank you.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
5 Mr. Seselj, you have the floor.
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Seselj:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Jovic, I would like most to deal with
8 questions that are important in relation to the indictment brought
9 against me. You allegedly in your statements, which the Prosecution has
10 provided me with, naturally I believe you when you say that the
11 Prosecution put suggestions to you with regard to the contents of the
12 statement, but I believe that some of the things in the statements are
13 some of the things you said, so I would now like to clarify this matter
14 and see what is true and what isn't true in your statements.
15 Here it says that you, in October 1991, set off with
16 Dragan Spasojevic, and perhaps with Janko Lakic to Baranja to act as
17 volunteers there with a large group of other men, I don't know how many
18 of them there were, in order to gain war experience there as well; is
19 that correct?
20 A. It's correct that we did set off through the MUP so that young
21 men who hadn't been in the battle-field would gain some wartime
22 experience because the war in Bosnia
23 Q. That was the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, was it?
24 A. The MUP of the Bosnian Serbs from Bosnia and Herzegovina
25 Zvornik MUP.
1 Q. But at the time the MUP hadn't been split up into a Serb and
2 Muslim component; is that right? Because that was in October 1991.
3 A. I think that it had already been divided, I'm not sure.
4 Q. As far as I know, it hadn't been divided by that time, but
5 Dragan Spasojevic was also an SDS
6 A. Yes. He was the president of the party, not the president, in
7 fact, the secretary, something like that.
8 Q. You set off there by bus; is that right? And in private cars.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you say that you were by -- near the village of Darda
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Very well. So now you say that over there you had contact with
13 Rade Kostic, who was a functionary of the police force of
14 Serbian Krajina; is that correct?
15 A. Yes. He was the deputy minister, Martic's deputy minister. He
16 was responsible for Slavonia
17 Q. The police there wore uniforms similar to the police force in
19 A. Yes, it is. There were very slight differences, however the
20 colour was different.
21 Q. So the colour of the uniforms was different. And there were
22 other insignia with the Serbian flag; is that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you were offered the possibility of working in the police,
25 but you were to remove the insignia with a two-headed eagle as it was
1 considered to be a Chetnik symbol; is that correct?
2 A. No, because we didn't have any insignia with the two-headed
3 eagle. We had police insignia, insignia worn by the police in the
4 Republic of Serbian
5 Q. I see. You then describe how you returned on the 27th of
6 November, you returned home, and after several days Dragan Spasojevic
7 called you again and asked you to report to him in the Zvornik SUP; is
8 that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. He was the police commander, whereas the chief of the secretariat
11 of internal affairs was a Muslim?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Do you remember the name of the Muslim?
14 A. I'm not sure.
15 Q. It's not important. It's not important. If I have understood
16 this correctly, he engaged you as his body-guard on that occasion?
17 A. That's quite right.
18 Q. And since he couldn't employ in the police where the Serbs and
19 Muslims were together, you received your salary from the Serbian
20 Democratic Party. That's what it says here.
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. The salary was paid to you in the form of social benefit; is that
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you, together with Dragan Spasojevic, went to Baranja again
1 from December 1991 until March 1992. You went to fetch weapons on three
2 occasions; is that correct?
3 A. Yes it's true.
4 Q. Baranja is in the Republic of Serbian Krajina; is that right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. There was a weapons warehouse there near Beli Manastir or Darda,
7 where would it be?
8 A. It was in Darda, a little outside the village.
9 Q. You usually went to fetch four or five lorries.
10 A. Yes, three or four.
11 Q. In your statement, it says that you loaded firewood onto the
12 lorries, firewood that was gathered as aid for the Serbs in Baranja
13 because they didn't have many forests there and they didn't have wood; is
14 that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. But when you would arrive there, your statement says,
17 Dragan Spasojevic apparently sold that firewood.
18 A. That's possible because the lorries would arrive empty in Darda.
19 Q. So you would set off with firewood?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In paragraph 56 on your statement from 2006, it says:
22 "The lorries would go from Zvornik to Mali Zvornik, and then we
23 would go to Croatia
24 the insignia from the lorries. Dragan Spasojevic would then take the
1 Is that what you said?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. I don't believe you said Croatia
4 of Serbian Krajina, but since your interpreter was a Croat, she probably
5 used a faulty version of the Serbian language and changed this, too, is
6 that right?
7 A. Absolutely.
8 Q. Because Baranja was never part of Croatia; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now it's under Croatian occupation?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Very well. You loaded weapons onto the lorries there and you
13 would cover the weapons with sugar and other goods, food; is that
14 correct? There were boxes and wine, and so on.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So you covered it with that because you had to go through Serbia
17 You couldn't go from Baranja to Zvornik unless you went through Serbia
18 is that correct?
19 A. Yes. First you have Zvezda and then Sombor.
20 Q. And you were afraid that the Serbian police might stop you
21 somewhere and in order to hide the weapons, you used flour, wine, sugar,
22 and certain other goods; is that correct?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. And that shows that as far as the authorities in Serbia are
25 concerned, what you were doing was illegal. The authorities in Serbia
1 wouldn't have allowed you to do this had they been aware of this?
2 A. No. If they had arrested us, we would have been accused of
4 Q. Of trafficking in weapons. And you would have been held to
5 account; is that correct?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. Very well. And then you say how things transpired when you
8 arrived in Zvornik with weapons, and you said how the weapons were
9 distributed in Serbian villages. Were some of the weapons delivered to
10 Muslims? Did they end up in hands of the Muslims? Were there Serbs who
11 would sell weapons to Muslims instead of giving them to Serbs?
12 A. Yes. I heard that from Muslims later on.
13 Q. And the Muslims were fairly well armed at the time; isn't that
15 A. Yes, they were well armed. But when the police would come to
16 look for rifles, well, they would ask for a thousand German marks because
17 a Serb sold them -- a weapon for a thousand marks. They said, Give me a
18 thousand marks, I'll give you the rifle.
19 Q. Very well. So now we come to the conflict around Zvornik between
20 the Serbian and the Muslim forces. You know that far before the conflict
21 the Muslims formed the Green Berets paramilitary formation?
22 A. Yes, and they moved around Zvornik quite freely. They weren't
23 armed, but they wore Green Berets.
24 Q. But is it correct to say that Muslim policemen, at the beginning
25 of April, took away a large amount of weapons from the police warehouse
1 and distributed them to the worst criminals in Zvornik?
2 A. Yes. Among them there were criminals from Mali Zvornik,
3 criminals who were Muslims.
4 Q. They went there, took the weapons and joined the paramilitary
5 formation; is that correct?
6 A. Yes, that's correct. They controlled the entrance over the
8 Q. At the time, did the Serbian civilians flee en masse? Most of
9 the Serbs fled from Zvornik; am I correct?
10 A. Yes, you are correct. I assisted them.
11 Q. And the policemen split up into Serbian and Muslim groups. The
12 Serbs moved to Karakaj, the Serbian police moved to Karakaj which is a
13 suburb of Zvornik.
14 A. Yes, that's correct.
15 Q. And where is Radalj?
16 A. Radalj is in Serbia
17 kilometres from the main road or from the Drina River
19 Q. How far is it in kilometres from Mali Zvornik?
20 A. It's about 8 kilometres away.
21 Q. Are you aware of the fact that in Zvornik, prior to this
22 conflict, both the Serbs and Muslims had their own Crisis Staffs?
23 A. Yes, that's quite normal.
24 Q. And both Crisis Staffs were preparing for confrontation and
25 sometimes they also tried to negotiate about how to divide the
1 municipality of Zvornik?
2 A. Yes, that's quite correct.
3 Q. Are you aware of the fact that at the beginning of April the
4 vice-president of Republika Srpska came to Zvornik, Biljana Plavsic, and
5 she attended a meeting of the Serbian Crisis Staff?
6 A. I really am not aware of that.
7 Q. At the beginning of April, were you always together with
8 Dragan Spasojevic?
9 A. Yes, but sometimes I would stay by the car while he attended a
11 Q. Do you know that under the influence of Biljana Plavsic the
12 Crisis Staff took a decision, according to which Arkan should be paid to
13 come to Zvornik and to participate in imminent fighting?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Do you know how much money was involved?
16 A. No, I don't, but there was this deal.
17 Q. According to the information presented here, the amount was about
18 300.000 German marks. Do you know that Dragan Spasojevic, the police
19 commander, was made responsible by the Crisis Staff to go to Arkan and to
20 hand over the money to him?
21 A. I know about that, and I -- I've heard about that from him too.
22 Q. Did you have any contact with him after the war too?
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 Q. He's a rich businessman in Serbian now, isn't he?
25 A. Yes. Yes. One of the richest ones.
1 Q. And before the war, was he rich?
2 A. No. He was a medical orderly.
3 Q. Our people would say he didn't have a penny.
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. But we're not talking about him here. We're interested in Arkan
6 above all. When Arkan arrived from Bijeljina, he went to
7 Radaljska Banja; is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. He arrived with very few men.
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. However, you know that a JNA unit had been deployed in Zvornik.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Was that the tank brigade that arrived from Jastrebarsko in
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Are you aware of the fact that the commander of the brigade was
17 Colonel Tacic?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Are you aware of the fact that a tank battalion from that brigade
20 was in Zvornik under the command of Dragan Obrenovic,
21 Captain Dragan Obrenovic?
22 A. Yes, I knew Dragan too. I saw him there. Dragan Obrenovic.
23 Q. And Dragan Obrenovic was included in the work of the Serbian
24 Crisis Staff in Zvornik for a certain period of time; is that correct?
25 A. Yes, it is.
1 Q. The Prosecution has provided me with some documents that show
2 that in addition to his officer's pay from the JNA, he would receive a
3 salary as a member of the Crisis Staff. Were you aware of that fact?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Well, the Prosecution provided me with this information. The
6 Prosecution knows about this.
7 When Arkan arrived in Zvornik, what day was it?
8 A. I can't answer. I can't remember the exact day.
9 Q. However, the Serbs had already fled from Zvornik, the Serbian
11 A. Yes. And many remained at the barricades. They couldn't flee.
12 Q. And most of them fled to Serbia
13 A. Yes, because prior to the operation for the liberation of
14 Zvornik, the bridge was open for everyone who wanted to cross the river,
15 for Muslims and Serbs.
16 Q. Do you know that the JNA also had an Operative Group called the
18 A. I heard about it.
19 Q. Do you know that the command of the Operative Group was at
21 A. I heard about that.
22 Q. What's Gucevo?
23 A. That's a mountain.
24 Q. Above Mali
25 A. Yes. The altitude is about 720 metres.
1 Q. And the commander of the Drina Operative Group was
2 Colonel Milosevic; is that correct? Have you ever heard of him?
3 A. Yes, I have.
4 Q. Very well. Here we have a document that the Muslims drafted and
5 a document that the Prosecution provided me with. It's dated the 31st of
6 August, 1996
7 exact source of the document is, but it's quite obvious that it was
8 drafted by the Muslims. Do you have that document before you? Have you
9 been provided with it?
10 A. Let me just change my glasses. I do apologise.
11 Q. Please, we'll deal with this will document at some length.
12 A. I have the document.
13 Q. In the title it says, "Chronology of events related to the
14 aggression against Zvornik." Naturally, the Muslims provide their own
15 version. They don't say how their police force aren't criminals, how
16 they made the civilians afraid and caused them to flee. They don't say
17 anything against themselves, naturally, but they are familiar with the
18 events on the Serbian side. Perhaps certain things are incorrect.
19 Perhaps certain things are correct, but I would like us to clarify a few
20 questions in relation to that document. I have certain doubts about
21 certain things here, but there are certain details that I'm interested
22 in. Have a look at the third date on the first page, the 4th of April,
23 1992. The Muslim source says it must be the Muslim intelligence service
24 or the AID. The Prosecution didn't really tell me who the body is that
25 drafted the document. It says secret mobilisation and distribution of
1 arms of the Territorial Defence forces in the municipalities in
2 Mali Zvornik, Loznica, and their deployment at the initial position in
3 preparation before an attack on Zvornik took place. Now was there any
4 need for there to be secret mobilisation at all?
5 A. No, no, need for it to be secret mobilisation because the
6 sovereignty of Yugoslavia
7 Q. Now, do you know that partial mobilisation took place in the area
8 of Mali Zvornik and Loznica at the time?
9 A. I know about Mali Zvornik and I do believe that it was done in
10 Loznica, too, although I didn't go down there at the time.
11 Q. Well I know, you see. I know that some members of the Serbian
12 Radical Party were mobilised too directly to the JNA. For example,
13 Zoran Subotic was mobilised, and later on the JNA appointed him commander
14 of the Territorial Defence in Zvornik. Did you hear that he was the
15 commander of the Territorial Defence for a short time?
16 A. Yes, and I saw him once or twice, I believe.
17 Q. He gave a statement to The Hague OTP where he describes the
18 situation in detail. However, the Prosecution did not wish to call him
19 as a witness because his statement doesn't suit them. Now, you see, I
20 know that the reserve force of the police was raised as well. In
21 Loznica, the reserve police force and several members of the Serbian
22 Radical Party was mobilised at the time, and at the head, as commander,
23 was Vojislav Jekic. Have you ever heard of him?
24 A. Yes, I've heard of him. He was a member of the state security,
25 as far as I know.
1 Q. As far as I know he was chief of the secretariat of internal
2 affairs, but never mind, perhaps I'm wrong. So partial mobilisation took
3 place. Now, if you think about it logically, why -- why was it
4 necessary? Because the tank brigade did not have any infantry; is that
6 A. Yes, that's right.
7 Q. Is it also right that Captain Obrenovic deployed his tanks to
8 protect the bridges on the Drina River
10 A. Yes, precisely.
11 Q. So his entire battalion was deployed in that manner; right?
12 A. Yes, precisely.
13 Q. So could the JNA allow it to be thrown out of the Zvornik area by
14 Muslim paramilitaries?
15 A. No, it could not allow that to happen.
16 Q. And that is why it is quite normal that the JNA was preparing to
17 settle accounts with those Muslim paramilitaries; am I right in saying
19 A. Yes, you are.
20 Q. Now, you see, towards the bottom of that page, the last date
21 there is the 5th of April, 1992, and prior to that, before that month of
22 April, the incident in Sapna took place where the Muslims stopped a
23 military column and killed Stanojevic there, and several of our soldiers
24 fled and people thought that they were killed first, so warrant
25 officer -- warrant officer was killed there. Have you heard of that
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And when the incident took place, that was a signal to the Serbs
4 to prepare to settle accounts; right?
5 A. Of course.
6 Q. "Now the Muslims," and towards the end of the page it says, "by
7 using the aforementioned incident, the prepared separation of the Serbian
8 police was undertaken and their police moved to the premises of the Alhos
9 company in Karakaj."
10 I assume that that is correct; right? That the Serb policemen
11 left, but not only because of the indent that took place, but also
12 because criminals in Zvornik had become armed?
13 A. Yes, because they were afraid for their lives.
14 Q. So several hundred people there were armed on that day; right?
15 A. Yes, that's right.
16 Q. All right. Fine. Now, it says here the Muslim sources say that
17 the roads were obstructed, the road between Zvornik and Karakaj,
18 Zvornik Sapota [phoen], Zvornik Sapna, and between Zvornik, Sepak, and
19 Pilica. Chetnik barricades were set up by members of Arkan's and
20 Seselj's forces. Now they call -- they refer to Arkan as a Chetnik as
21 well; isn't that right?
22 A. Yes. I was just having a bit of a laugh.
23 Q. Could you take care that that -- that you don't make that noise
24 with the documents waiving them in front of the microphone.
25 A. Yes, I'll do that.
1 Q. Now they say here where Arkan's forces were and where Seselj's
2 men were at their initial positions. Of course they say Seselj
3 formations which means the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party who
4 arrived from Belgrade
5 A. Yes. And they say that they had their bases in Radalj and
7 Radalj. And I personally know about the volunteers of the Serbian
8 Radical Party that they were stationed in Mali Zvornik.
9 Q. Do you know about that?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. Okay. Fine. And there were also members of the Serbian militia
12 there, they say the JNA, and as they also say, paramilitary forces of the
13 Serbian Democratic Party. Now, since we know that between Radalj and
14 Mali Zvornik there's a distance of 8 kilometres, let's see which location
15 would be -- would involve Arkan's men and where the volunteers of the
16 Serbian Radical Party could be deployed. Arkan's men might have been
17 along the Zvornik Karakaj road; would that be correct?
18 A. No. They were even further. They were in Radaljska Banja, the
19 spa, which is 16 or 15 kilometres aware from Zvornik because it's 8
20 kilometres from Radalj to Mali Zvornik, and then Radaljska Banja is 7
21 kilometres further off.
22 Q. So where could they set up these blockades along the roads?
23 A. Well, nobody. Nowhere. How could they set up blocks in Serbia
24 Q. Well, not in Serbia
1 A. Well, yes, they did move, but I just said that they were
2 stationed up there.
3 Q. So nowhere along those roads, Zvornik, Karakaj, Zvornik Sapa
4 [phoen], Zvornik Sapna, Pilica, it isn't possible that Arkan's men were
5 there at all; right?
6 A. No. No Arkan's men anywhere.
7 Q. But you could have had the volunteers of the Serbian Radical
8 Party and the JNA. And the volunteers of the Serbian Democratic Party
9 and the Serbian militia; right?
10 A. Yes, right.
11 Q. Very well. Thank you. Now we come to -- well, it goes on to
12 talk about certain other events viewed from the Muslim angle of vision
13 which isn't particularly interested as far as we're concerned. And we
14 come to the 8th of April. Is that when negotiations were underway
15 between the Serbian and Muslim Crisis Staff?
16 A. I think that's right, yes.
17 Q. And that was in the morning, was it?
18 A. Yes. They divided Zvornik -- well, there's the river Zlatica and
19 that was the border.
20 Q. Is that when Arkan stormed into the meeting and started to slap
21 the Serbian members of the Crisis Staff?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And did he slap Brano Grujic?
24 A. Yes, he did. He probably slapped them all because he told me to
25 go outside and there was a lot of shooting.
1 Q. It seems that he slapped Captain Dragan Obrenovic from the JNA,
2 just not Dragan Spasojevic, otherwise he slapped around everybody else?
3 A. Yes that's what I heard.
4 Q. Because Dragan Spasojevic brought him money; right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And the members of the Crisis Staff who took part in collecting
7 money for Arkan and in calling Arkan in, persuaded to do so by Biljana
8 Plavsic, they were slapped?
9 A. Yes, that's how it was.
10 Q. Well, they deserved it for having called Arkan in in the first
12 A. Of course, right.
13 Q. All right. Now, the Muslims go on to say and look at page 3 for
14 that, the third date there, the 8th of April. From the early morning
15 hours an attack by Arkan's men started at positions organised by
16 defenders in the area of Vratolomac, Debelo Brdo, and Kazanbasca. Do you
17 know which area that is because I don't know the region very well, where
18 is that?
19 A. Yes, I do. It's at the entrance to Karakaj in Zvornik.
20 Q. So it's between Karakaj and Zvornik; right?
21 A. Yes. You have Vratolomac is a hill on the right-hand side and
22 then you have Kazanbasca which is lower down. It's a settlement lower
24 Q. So what I said earlier on that Arkan's men were only along the
25 Karakaj-Zvornik access is corrects, and that they were at the Karakaj
1 barricades, but not many of them, just some 30 men right?
2 A. Yes, thereabouts, about 30, yes.
3 Q. And then Arkan's men attacked, and together with them, there were
4 some policemen, Serb policemen from Zvornik, and you were there, too, as
5 far as I can see from your statement; is that right, were you there?
6 A. Yes, I was.
7 Q. Now, the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party, were they there
8 with you?
9 A. I said yesterday, and I repeated today that they weren't. And I
10 said this on oath, but nobody seems to take -- taken any notice of that.
11 Q. Well, how come then in this alleged statement of yours, and it's
12 paragraph 92 from the 2006 statement, you say about 40 -- some 40 Arkan's
13 men, some 15 Serbian policemen from Bosnia-Herzegovina, and up to 50
14 Seselj's Chetniks attacked the town of Zvornik. There were between 100
15 and 120 people in total. I'm surprised to see that.
16 A. Well, once again, that's an interpretation made by the
17 investigator Rita Pradham, because I said that there were people there
18 with insignias and cockades, the locals of Karakaj and Zvornik whom I
19 knew personally, who did not belong -- they were in the SDS. Some of
20 them didn't belong to anybody. They had no uniforms. They had nothing,
21 but they set out anyway.
22 Q. Well, look at the last sentence in that paragraph. Do you have
23 your statement in front of you? Perhaps it will help you if you take a
24 look at the statement and perhaps the Tribunal Officer will help you
25 there. It says:
1 "Seselj's Chetniks wore civilian clothes, the sajkaca type of cap
2 and cockades on them?"
3 Now, how come Seselj's Chetniks were wearing civilian clothes I
4 ask you?
5 A. Well, that was -- seemed funny to me because your men, your
6 volunteers, all belonged to the army, and they were given uniforms.
7 Q. Only when you went as a volunteer in the summer of 1991, while
8 the JNA had not yet taken part in the war and when we sent men on our own
9 initiative, that's when we had a shortage of uniforms; right?
10 A. Yes, and that's what I said.
11 Q. Now, do you know that the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party
12 a little less than 100 of them, in -- came to Zvornik wearing new
13 camouflage JNA uniforms, brand new, directly supplied by the Bubanj Potok
14 people and came to Mali Zvornik; right?
15 A. I know they arrived in Mali Zvornik, and I know that they were
16 over there, but I wasn't able to distinguish between soldiers and Seselj
17 volunteers. I couldn't know who was who.
18 Q. First of all, you couldn't have differentiated Seselj's
19 volunteers from the other JNA soldiers; is that right? Let's get things
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Except by the cockades they wore on their caps.
23 A. Yes. They put -- everybody wore cockades, civilians, soldiers,
24 everybody liked the cockade.
25 Q. Yes, everybody liked the cockade, and you said yesterday very
1 clearly that the cockade is incorporated into the official Serbian flag
3 A. Yes, that's precisely what I said.
4 Q. All right. We're not challenging or debating that, but I seem to
5 have the impression from this statement of yours, alleged statement, I
6 don't know how far you took part in the writing of it, but it seems to me
7 that you depicted the fact as follows: That Arkan led the attack on
8 Zvornik. Did you?
9 A. No. That's not what I said. I said that Arkan led his own unit.
10 He was in command of his own unit in the operation to liberate Zvornik,
11 and maybe some of the locals who had joined in saw him on the road and
12 then joined him.
13 Q. But I gained the impression that yesterday you were saying that
14 it was the Crisis Staff of Zvornik who -- which commanded the Serb
15 forces. Is that possible?
16 A. Well, that's correct.
17 Q. Well, how can it be correct? Who of those members of the
18 Crisis Staff were capable of commanding, for instance? Is Dragan
19 Spasojevic capable of commanding a unit or anybody else, any other member
20 of the Crisis Staff, for example?
21 A. I don't know. I don't think Dragan Spasojevic could have been
22 capable of doing that. There was Obrenovic in the Crisis Staff.
23 Q. For us to make things clearer, we're going to refer to our
24 brethren the Muslims again, because they seem to know the situation
25 better than we do, and here is what they say: "On the 8th of April," and
1 you'll find that on page 3, the third date, "from the early morning hours
2 an attack was launched by Arkan's men across positions organised hastily
3 by the defenders in the area of Vratolomac, Debelo Brdo and Kazanbasca.
4 Although poorly armed and with minimum quantities of ammunition, the
5 defenders," that means the Muslim soldiers, "put up fierce resistance and
6 the attackers suffered significant casualties. So Arkan, himself, in the
7 early morning of the 8th of April set out to attack and was defeated."
8 That's what the Muslims say. Do you remember that? You were
9 with that unit of his. Arkan wasn't capable of commanding anything. Do
10 you remember that?
11 A. Well, I remember the attack first of all, they used mortars and
12 then they set out.
13 Q. Let's get one thing clear. Arkan had many courageous men in his
14 unit but no capable officers. So how could he lead a whole attack on
15 Zvornik and how could Zvornik be taken by only 120 Serbian soldiers?
16 Zvornik is not a small town. How many inhabitants does Zvornik have?
17 How many did it have in 1991, for example?
18 A. I don't know. I'm really not good with figures. I can't tell
20 Q. Fine. The Muslims go on to say that Arkan was defeated, that he
21 suffered considerable losses. Do you remember that some Serbs were
22 killed, that there were casualties on the Serb side?
23 A. Yes, there were casualties but not any of Arkan's men.
24 Q. But there were other casualties, right?
25 A. Yes, and I brought in a man who was wounded and he died of the
2 Q. But you couldn't have been a Seselj man, yourself, could you?
3 You weren't one of Arkan's men either, but you took part in the attack
4 with them; is that right?
5 A. Yes. I couldn't have been one of Seselj's men, and I told you
6 why. I didn't belong to any party.
7 Q. It says here that you went into the attack, that there were five
8 Arkan's men and then five of you and then another five Arkan's men and
9 about 24 groups with five men in each group. Now, where did Arkan gain
10 this military skill, that is to say, to send five people on the attack?
11 Did he go to the military academy in Russia [indiscernible]?
12 A. I don't know.
13 Q. Well, aren't you aware that you had a highly incapable set of
15 A. It was difficult to enter into town.
16 Q. However, the Muslims go on to say, and this is the fifth date:
17 "An all-out attack on Zvornik began at 1500 hours with artillery
18 fire of the JNA armoured mechanised battalion and fire coming from the
19 armed groups of the Territorial Defences of Serbia, Mali Zvornik, and
21 Right. So it's the JNA setting out at 3.00 in the afternoon now.
22 So Arkan launched an attack himself alone. He wants to show that he was
23 a brave man and deserved the money he was given, and he set out and
24 launched an attack without any co-ordination with the JNA, because there
25 was Colonel Tacic, a commander of the tank brigade on the JNA side, and
1 Commander Milosevic, Colonel Milosevic, of the Drina group; right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. So it was Colonel Tacic's group and Dragan Obrenovic with a tank
4 battalion; isn't that right?
5 A. Yes. I knew him.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm sorry to intervene,
7 Mr. Seselj. I was trying to understand why you were putting your
8 questions and for what purpose. I noticed, Witness, that in the
9 statement you gave in 2003, if the statement is true, which is
10 Mr. Marcussen's theory, if we assume that the statement is true, how is
11 it then, Witness, that in paragraph 86 of the statement - you don't need
12 to look at it, I have it before me - you say that the attack on Zvornik
13 was conducted by Arkan's men, a few policemen, 15 officers, and people
14 from the Territorial Defence, but at no point in time do you talk about
15 the JNA when we know that the artillery's there. How is that, Witness?
16 How did that come about?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, because Arkan's men started
18 attacking very early, and as Mr. Seselj said, they were defeated and they
19 returned. No one then asked me to explain the details.
20 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Jovic, what I'm interested in is the following: The
22 Muslims -- to helped us to show that there were two attacks, there was
23 the failed Arkan attack, and you also participated. There were Serbian
24 policemen who participated, and members -- Serb members of the
25 Territorial Defence, local inhabitants of Zvornik. You were defeated.
1 You suffered significant casualties. Your command structure wasn't
2 professional, and Arkan did not co-ordinate his efforts with the JNA.
3 That's what I'm interested in; am I correct?
4 A. Yes, you're quite correct.
5 Q. When the JNA launched its attack together with the volunteers
6 from the Serbian Radical Party, there was also the Beli Orlovi or the
7 White Eagles group. There was the reserve police force from Loznica,
8 there were members from the Territorial Defence from Loznica and
9 Mali Zvornik, but we're talking about members of the JUG Operative Group,
10 and of members of the tank brigade. When the JNA launched its attack
11 together with our volunteers, then the Muslim defence of Zvornik was
12 completely routed. The Muslim forces started fleeing, and by night
13 Zvornik was liberated; am I correct?
14 A. Yes, fully correct.
15 Q. And then Arkan entered Zvornik, too. Is that true?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. He entered with his 30 men, and he went to the Hrid settlement.
18 Have you heard about that place?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. The Prosecution has stated in its indictment that that is where
21 Arkan's men killed about 20 Muslim civilians. Have you heard about that
23 A. Yes, I have heard about it, and I followed the trial when you
24 were charged with this.
25 Q. You found out about this from the case against me; is that
1 correct? You didn't know about it before?
2 A. Yes, I knew about it earlier on too, but I also followed the
3 trial when there was a protected witness, a woman who testified.
4 Q. A Muslim woman testified here Arkan's men killed her husband and
5 two sons, and she quite clearly distinguished between Arkan's men and
6 Seselj's men. However, on one occasion she said, They are all the same
7 for us, but she quite clearly said that Arkan's men would shoot people,
8 whereas Seselj's men would give children sweets. Why am I insisting on
9 this? Because I want to get Arkan off my back and I want to demonstrate
10 for the benefit of the Trial Chamber that Arkan didn't participate in the
11 fight for Zvornik together with the same formations with which volunteers
12 from the Serbian Radical Party were fighting. The Serbian Radical Party
13 volunteers were with the JNA. As the Muslim source says, they launched
14 an attack on the 8th of April in the afternoon. In the morning, Arkan
15 led a failed attack. He was defeated. He returned to his initial
16 position. And when Zvornik was liberated, he entered the town and
17 started looting it and killing; is that true?
18 A. Yes, it's true.
19 Q. Since Arkan did manage to justify the amount of money that had
20 been paid to him by the Crisis Staff he tried to attack the town of Kula
21 as well; is that correct?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. He set off again with you, I don't know whether you were there
24 personally, but he set off with local inhabitants from -- you people from
25 Mali Zvornik, in the certain sense, inhabitants although there is the
2 police force and members of the Territorial Defence and when he entered
3 Kula, he was defeated again; is that correct?
4 A. Yes, it is.
5 Q. Is it also correct to say that at that time some important men of
6 his were killed.
7 A. Yes. Rambo and Zika.
8 Q. They were then killed in the attack on the town of Kula
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. When hearing another witness here I quoted a statement made by
11 Colonel Tacic. Colonel Tacic informed me of this statement and this
12 shows that he personally asked the General Staff in Belgrade to have
13 Arkan and his men driven out of Zvornik. Do you know that two or three
14 days later Arkan had to leave Zvornik?
15 A. Yes, I'm aware of that.
16 Q. Are you aware of the fact that JNA commanders immediately
17 launched an investigates into the crimes committed against Muslim
18 civilians in Zvornik?
19 A. I heard about that, yes.
20 Q. Are you aware of the fact that the then Colonel Stankovic from
21 the Military Medical Academy
22 a pathologist and he started doing autopsies of the killed civilians?
23 A. Yes, I think his name was Zoran Stankovic.
24 Q. Zoran Stankovic later became a general. He was the chief of the
25 Military Academy
1 period of time. He testified in open session in court and he testified
2 about the investigates that was launched. So the JNA's intention was to
3 launch an investigates into Arkan's activities; is that correct?
4 A. Naturally they wouldn't have called a pathologist if their
5 intention wasn't to launch an investigation.
6 Q. All the bodies were examined, the cause of death was established,
7 other forensic measures were taken. However is it true to say that there
8 were several hundred Muslims who had been killed there? That's what it
9 says in your statement.
10 A. Well that's not true for sure, because in peacetime you never see
11 anyone dead and then all of a sudden you see a lot of dead people, and so
12 our hair stood on end.
13 Q. Paragraph 101 of your statement, it says there between 200 and
14 300 dead bodies of Muslims who had been killed on the attack on Zvornik,
15 according to all the information that I have.
16 A. That wasn't possible.
17 Q. It couldn't have been such a number.
18 A. No. That wasn't possible.
19 Q. When Arkan's men left Zvornik, the Serbian forces massed around
20 the town of Kula
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. The JNA forces were there and the Serbian Radical Party
23 volunteers were there, as well as Serbian policemen, members of the
24 Territorial Defence, and so on and so forth. However, they didn't have a
25 capable commander who could have led the attack successfully.
1 A. That's correct, but I was on leave when there was this operation
2 to liberate Kula.
3 Q. Very well. I will, in that case, provide you with another piece
4 of information. Since the Serbian forces were not in a position to take
5 the town of Kula
6 you know there's a large fortress there, medieval one, it's very
7 difficult terrain, and the Muslims who were well armed were there and
8 managed to defend themselves successfully; is that correct?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. Then the command of the first army, as the Prosecution put it,
11 the commander of the 1st Army, Captain Dragan Obrenovic, who was on trial
12 here then struck a deal, and so on and so forth, but he said certain
13 things that are true. The command of the 1st Army ordered the special
14 forces to assist the Serbian forces in Zvornik and the then
15 Milorad Stupar, who subsequently became a colonel, arrived and his unit
16 was a protective regiment from the 1st Army. That's a special unit.
17 Have you heard about that? Have you heard about Stupar?
18 A. Yes, and I've seen him.
19 Q. Dragan Obrenovic told The Hague Prosecution that the attack on
20 Kula at the end of April was planned by Stupar from the JNA, the
21 Territorial Defence of Zvornik, and by certain Serbian paramilitary
22 formations that were there at the time. He mentions the White Eagles,
23 Zuci's men and Privaja [phoen] unit. Dragan Obrenovic doesn't mention
24 the Serbian radicals. He avoided mentioning my name too, for some
25 reason, but it's quite obvious that Colonel Stupar organised all the
1 Serbian forces. They weren't paramilitary formations. They were
2 volunteers who were part of the JNA and decisive attack was launched.
3 And it was carried out so well that the town of Kula was soon taken. The
4 Muslims were dispersed. They fled, and they didn't have significant
5 casualties. Perhaps three or four. No more than that?
6 A. Well, ten, three, or five casualties, I don't know exactly, but
7 they left their positions and went towards Lipje.
8 Q. We're talking about people so we won't say ten pieces, ten people
9 died in the course of the battle. We won't call our enemy a piece. Do
10 you agree with me?
11 A. Yes. I agree with you. A victim is a victim.
12 Q. In any event, they died in battle.
13 A. That's true.
14 Q. What I am now interested in is as follows: How is it that in
15 paragraph 120 of your statement it says that in the course of the attack
16 on Kula, well you say at the time you weren't there?
17 A. No, I wasn't. I wasn't there.
18 Q. But here it says you were. You say, allegedly, this is what the
19 statement says, our objectives were not to take any prisoners. That
20 means the objective was to kill as many people as possible or to force
21 them to go to the end of the village where other units were positioned
22 for shooting. Our goal was to frighten them. The population from
23 Kula Grad had nowhere to run to except towards Lipje, right into the
24 hands of the units that were waiting to shoot at them.
25 On page -- in paragraph 121, it says:
1 "My unit," although you weren't there, it says, "My unit was to
2 wait for the signal to shoot at the house in Kula. We were not allowed
3 to leave our positions."
4 A. That just proves the truth of what I was saying, but I was told
5 that I wasn't telling the truth. This is Rita Pradham's interpretation.
6 I know for sure, and this can be confirmed by ten witnesses that I was in
7 Novi Sad
8 Q. In paragraph 123 it says that after the attack on the town of
9 Kula you took leave for a week. You said you were going to visit your
10 sick child.
11 A. Before the attack.
12 Q. It says here "after the attack."
13 A. Before the attack on Kula. Before the operation to liberate the
14 town of Kula I went to Novi Sad
15 because I was exhausted.
16 Q. Here it says that you also participated in the attack on the town
17 of Kula, but that's not correct because you didn't.
18 A. No, that wasn't possible from Novi Sad.
19 Q. So how is it that this is in your statement?
20 A. Well, how can I explain it?
21 Q. Are you aware of a Muslim civilian being killed in the course of
22 the Serbian attack on Kula? We have concluded that perhaps ten Muslim
23 combatants were killed, but I doubt it was ten. It was probably fewer
24 than ten, according to the information I have. But are you aware of a
25 single civilian being killed on that occasion?
1 A. No, I haven't heard about that. I heard that they fled, the
2 civilians fled.
3 Q. When they saw how professionally this well-planned attack had
4 been carried out, they first fled. First the Muslim soldiers fled from
5 their positions and then they were followed by the civilians; is that
7 A. Yes. This is what my colleagues, other policemen, told me.
8 Q. So in the course of taking the town of Kula, no war crimes were
9 committed; is that correct?
10 A. That's a hundred per cent true.
11 Q. In the course of the month of April, up until the 26th of April,
12 are you aware of anyone else killing Muslim civilians or prisoners in
13 Zvornik, anyone apart from Arkan, in the settlement of Hrid?
14 A. No, I'm not aware of that.
15 Q. The Prosecution wasn't aware of that either so they couldn't
16 state any anything to that effect in my indictment. They only mentioned
17 Arkan's killings in the Hrid settlement. We had eyewitnesses with whom
18 we could check this detail at least.
19 Very well. Now, after the fall of the town of Kula, after that
20 significant Muslim fortification fell, do you know that JNA infantry
21 units withdrew to Serbia
22 that Serbian Radical Party volunteers withdrew?
23 A. Yes. The Serbian Radical Party volunteers withdrew after the
24 operation to liberate Kula. Stupar's men withdrew. I know that very
1 Q. And then a normal situation was to be established in Zvornik,
2 civilian authorities and a Territorial Defence was to be established.
3 The town was to function normally; is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Perhaps not call the Serbian Radical Party volunteers withdrew.
6 Perhaps a few decided to stay on. I am familiar with one example, a
7 certain Slavkovic who went on trial in Belgrade as a member of the
8 Pivarski unit or the Yellow Wasp unit. He said that he went there as a
9 member of the Serbian Radical Party volunteers, but after the 26th of
10 April he remained on -- he stayed on in Zvornik. Do you know that after
11 the 26th of April, a Territorial Defence was formed that was composed of
12 various volunteers and its name was Igor Markovic?
13 A. Yes, I know that.
14 Q. Do you know that on that occasion Vojin Vuckovic Zuco was
15 appointed pursuant to a decision of the Crisis Staff. He was appointed
16 as commander of that unit?
17 A. Yes. Of course the first time I saw him was when I came from
18 Novi Sad
19 Q. I have Vojin Vuckovic's statement, Vojin Vuckovic Zuco's
20 statement too in which he describes his arrival in Zvornik together with
21 Legija Miroslav Bogdanovic and his brother Dusan describes an arrest by
22 the Muslims, and so on. He wasn't in command of a unit of any kind prior
23 to the 26th of April; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So is it possible that he had command over Serbian Radical Party
1 volunteers then? Is that possible?
2 A. Well, how would that be possible since he wasn't a member of that
4 Q. Here you say that you saw how Zuco was giving a speech to the
5 Chetniks, but that could only have been after the 26th of April. Then he
6 could have given a speech to members of his own unit; is that correct?
7 A. Well, that was an interpretation, Zuco holding a speech. I never
8 said that.
9 Q. That's what it says in your statement.
10 A. But I didn't say that. There's lots -- there are lots of things
11 in my statement which I never said. I suppose they thought I was a
12 semi-literate and then they just wrote down whatever they felt like.
13 Q. Does that mean that none of the statements that you gave to
14 The Hague Tribunal can be treated as being true and correct?
15 A. Well, no, because I know what the truth is and what it wasn't the
16 truth, but it cannot be treated as being accurate, because some things
17 didn't happen and I know that they didn't happen.
18 Q. Now, what Mr. Marcussen, The Hague Prosecutor put to you at the
19 end of his examination when he said that the statements are a true
20 rendition of what you saw and heard, is that nonsense?
21 A. Of course it is it. I have a doctor behind me here and I had to
22 take some pills.
23 Q. Now, the Muslim sources have shown us that it's all nonsense,
24 because the facts, according to the Muslim sources, are different. So
25 the Muslims have helped us to clarify, once and for all, Arkan's role and
1 the role of the JNA and all the other formations led by the JNA and under
2 its command. They have clarified this in great detail very precisely and
3 I'm grateful to them for having done that. Now in the indictment raised
4 against me, I am being accused and charged of being responsible for
5 Arkan's executions in Hrid. Then the crimes committed in the Standard
6 factory are mentioned. Are you heard of those crimes?
7 A. I don't know. Well, your unit was never there. Your unit was
8 never in the Standard company. It was never stationed there. That's
9 what I know.
10 Q. So if crimes occurred there, they occurred in May 1992; right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And do you know about the crimes committed in Ciglana, that there
13 was a group of prisoners there, incarcerated there?
14 A. I heard about that. I never went down there, but I did hear
15 about it. As a policeman I never went down there.
16 Q. And what about the Ekonomija, the farm? Where is that?
17 A. It's to the right of Ciglana, and I went there only once.
18 Q. Who was in charge of the Ekonomija, the farm?
19 A. The police were there at the entrance. The blue civilian police.
20 Q. Is it possible that some volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party
21 committed crimes at the Ekonomija?
22 A. No, that's impossible. First of all, because the police provided
23 security there and the volunteers, the Serbian Radical Party volunteers
24 were --
25 Q. Then it says in the indictment that I was responsible for the
1 crimes in Drinjaca at the cultural centre there.
2 A. Well, I've heard of everything. I followed the trial and so on.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The English transcript there is
4 something missing. Line 10, page74, the witness said volunteers of the
5 Serbian Radical Party were disciplined, and it says were, and it says
6 "..." It will be corrected later on. Go ahead. Continue, Mr. Seselj.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I said they were disciplined.
8 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation].
9 Q. All right. Now, in the indictment -- in the indictment crimes in
10 Celopek are mentioned. Can they be brought into -- can they be connected
11 to me in any way?
12 A. No, because in Celopek there was a detention unit there, and
13 people were exchanged from there, Muslims. They were exchanged for
14 Serbs, for our people. So I don't know whether there were any crimes
15 there, but you couldn't ascribe those crimes to the Serbian Radical Party
16 because the police in blue, the civilian police force were there.
17 Q. All right. Fine. Now, you mentioned a number of times
18 Janko Lakic here.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you know that sometime in 2004 or 2005, I'm not quite sure
21 which year, in Mali Zvornik rumours went round that Janko Lakic had
22 become a witness of The Hague Tribunal and that he travelled abroad
23 because of that?
24 A. Yes, I did hear about that, and I read something like that in the
25 papers. There was an interview.
1 Q. Yes, he gave an extensive interview.
2 A. Yes, with a photograph of his.
3 Q. I provided a photocopy of that paper here. I'm not going to show
4 it now again. Janko Lakic, at one point in time, decided on his own
5 initiative to address the public and to say that he did not want to be a
6 witness, Carla's witness, he said, I don't want to be a safe slave of
7 Carla Del Ponte.
8 Now, do you know that members of the team helping out my Defence,
9 before 2007, never came into contact with anybody for whom we knew was a
10 witness of The Hague Tribunal? Do you know that?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. And do you also know, are you aware that in 2007, we collected
13 statements from people who were interviewed by The Hague Prosecutor and
14 who refused to come in and be witnesses like Jovo Ostojic, for example.
15 I'm sure you heard of him, Slavoljub Jovanovic, Srecko Radovanovic, and
16 many, many others.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And that we published their statements in my book called
19 "The Hague
20 that book of mine?
21 A. Yes, I have.
22 Q. And then we started to promote that book in all of Serbia's
23 municipalities; right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. There was a book promotion in Mali Zvornik?
1 A. Yes. Yes. That's what I was about to say.
2 Q. And you know what happened then? Many of those who were on the
3 list as Hague witnesses contacted my associates and said, yes, similar
4 things happened to us and we're not going to testify for the Prosecution.
5 Are you aware of that?
6 A. Yes, I am.
7 Q. Janko Lakic also contacted my associates. He used to be a member
8 of the Serbian Radical Party in 1990 when that brawl broke out at our
9 rally in Mali Zvornik. You remember that, I'm sure.
10 A. I apologise, but could --
11 Q. It was a promotional rally of the Serbian Chetnik Movement,
12 because the Serbian Radical Party hadn't been established yet.
13 A. Yes, that was in the first days of August. You said that it was
14 in May or June, but it was actually the beginning of August. We wore
15 short-sleeved shirts. I personally had a shirt with short sleeves and I
16 was wearing white jeans because I was a younger man so I could wear jeans
17 at the time. Yes. I was working as a waiter. I had black trousers and
18 a short-sleeved shirt, but I'm not good on dates.
19 Q. However when, the war broke out in Bosnia-Herzegovina there were
20 members of our party from Mali Zvornik who crossed over to Veliki Zvornik
21 and took part in the fighting there. Some of them became employed in the
22 police force, others in the municipality and so on; is that correct?
23 A. Yes. Some got married over there. Lots of things happened.
24 Q. And Janko Lakic was some sort of officer over there, I believe,
25 as well; is that right?
1 A. Yes, as far as I know, he was a security officer of some kind,
2 attached to some army.
3 Q. And when he addressed the public Janko Lakic came into contact
4 with members of my team and made a statement for them and described how
5 they allegedly mistreated him, The Hague Prosecutor and investigators,
6 and so on, but look what happened next. He expected us, I mean my team
7 and the Serbian Radical Party as well, which in a way provides logistical
8 support to my Defence team, some tangible benefit from that. Do you --
9 are you aware of that?
10 A. That was probably his aim in the first place.
11 Q. And when we told him quite clearly that he would have no material
12 gain from us and could expect none, he once again contacted The Hague
13 OTP. Do you know about that?
14 A. Yes, I am aware of that.
15 Q. However, it seems that the Prosecutor didn't believe him either
16 so we -- The Hague
17 lines, because we realised that he was lying and we rejected him. The
18 Prosecutor didn't want to become compromised through him, and I didn't
19 want to waste my time on witnesses like that because it's not my aim to
20 hear lies told here. And then Janko Lakic became a film star of the B92
21 television station in a programme with Natasa Kandic. He made various
22 statements, and so on and so on and so forth. Did you watch that
23 programme, the television programme?
24 A. Yes, I did.
25 Q. And that's what happened with Janko Lakic. Now, The Hague OTP,
1 under Rule 48.1, provided me with another Muslim document, and I have to
2 emphasise that it is a document from a Muslim source because it doesn't
3 say here who compiled this document whereas it should say that. It is
4 certificate 607 that I received from The Hague Prosecutor's office. It
5 just says a list of those responsible for war crimes in Zvornik -- in the
6 Zvornik region. We see that it comes from a Muslim source, but we have
7 nothing to indicate what source that is precisely.
8 Now, I'd like to ask you to take a look at page 1 of that
9 document where it says persons responsible for war crimes in the Zvornik
10 region, and then you have a list of names, only names, and under number 1
11 is Zeljko Raznjatovic Arkan; right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And Dusan Repic, that's Dusan Ruckovic [phoen], nicknamed Repic.
14 Then number 3 is Dragan Spasojevic, the police commander; right?
15 A. Right.
16 Q. Now, I don't want to mention the names of the other people, but
17 just take a look at the list yourself. I assume that the Judges have the
18 list in front of them and so does the Prosecutor. The list is from 1 to
19 23, although there are many more names, because several names are
20 mentioned under some of the numbers. Now, take a look at the list and
21 tell us whether there's anybody there who's a member of the Serbian
22 Radical Party, from 1 to 23.
23 A. I can't see any member of the Serbian Radical Party here, but I
24 do see under number 11 a man who is completely incapable. He wasn't even
25 capable of walking. I know him personally.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you mentioned some
2 life on this document. Look at number 18. A person called Milenko
3 Mijic, and it seems that is he's a judge, which is what drew my
4 attention. He's a judge from Zvornik. And he became head of the police
5 and organised the exodus of the population, et cetera, et cetera. Did
6 you know this person, this Milenko Mijic, judge?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For a time he was the chief of SUP
8 in Zvornik, in Republika Srpska, in Bosnia, I mean, in Veliki Zvornik, in
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Did you know that
12 he was a judge, that he had been a judge?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I really don't. I would say if
14 I did. I know the man above him, too, under number 17.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
16 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
17 Q. I intentionally did not want to read out all the names on that
18 list, because I assumed that were I to do so we were to call out people's
19 name publicly and some of them probably had nothing to do with any
20 crimes. You recognised Bozo Vidovic. I'm sure there are others, so
21 that's why I don't want to read out the whole list and abuse people that
22 way. All I'm interested in is to hear that you are certain that on that
23 entire list there is nobody there from the Serbian Radical Party; is that
25 A. No, nobody. Mostly there are Serbs from Republika Srpska, from
1 the present Republika Srpska. For example, the man I said was completely
2 incapable of doing anything.
3 Q. Arkan's mentioned here. He's not from Zvornik. Dusan Vuckovic
4 Repic who isn't and some others who aren't. They are generally known
5 personages. Dragan Obrenovic is even mentioned. Now, would you turn the
6 page --
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, listen to Mr. Seselj.
8 On one item he's absolutely right, saying there are names he does not
9 want to mention. In this document there are some people who are found
10 guilty and other where nothing is stated. So there's a presumption of
11 innocent -- of innocence, but they are on a list mentioned on a list of
12 people who were suppose -- allegedly responsible, but of course you could
13 be allegedly responsible and in the end be acquitted.
14 Mr. Witness, have you understood what I said?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All I said was number 17. I didn't
16 mention the name. I just said number 17.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you tell me how much more
19 time I have left?
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Not much, Mr. Seselj. The
21 Registrar will tell you. Twenty minutes ago the Registrar told me that
22 you had 40 minutes left. So I believe you have between 20 or 25 minutes
23 left, but go on and I will tell you exactly where we stand.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can you imagine, Mr. President, if
25 Mrs. Lattanzi was well disposed towards me as she is towards Mr. Karadzic
1 and give me 12 hours, all the magical things I could do here in this
2 courtroom, but what can I do, things are as they are. I have to come to
3 terms with my fate.
4 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Now could you look at page 3 of this document, please. It's the
6 only place in the whole document where Seselj's men are mentioned. Under
7 number 14 it says Drago Krstanovic and Matija Boskovic from Zvornik
8 joined Seselj's formations and served as informers, making lists with the
9 names of distinguished Bosniaks to be liquidated or forced to leave. So
10 joined and then no specifics whether they actually ratted on someone as
11 informers, whether someone was really liquidated or forced to leave. So
12 this is not very serious; right?
13 A. Not serious at all.
14 Q. Did you know Matija Boskovic?
15 A. Yes he's died since.
16 Q. Is he from Mali Zvornik or Zvornik?
17 A. He's from Zvornik, in Republika Srpska.
18 Q. He was later a member Serbian Radical Party; right?
19 A. Perhaps later on when I wasn't there any more when what happened
20 to me happened.
21 Q. I don't know him personally, but never mind, let's move on.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, we'll have the
23 break at a quarter to 6.00, so we'll still have 15 minutes to go. And
24 since the Prosecutor used an hour and 40 minutes, you will have an
25 additional 15 minutes for the witness. So you will have altogether an
1 hour and 40 minutes.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Judge. I reckon that I
3 will need at least 20 minutes for administrative issues so that -- please
4 bear that in mind. And warn me in time when we move closer to that
5 point. I would like to ask some questions to this witness, although the
6 essentials have already been discussed.
7 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Now, Mr. Jovic, we are going back to the part which is not
9 relevant for this indictment and where you describe your departure,
10 actually your only departure in the capacity of a volunteer of the SRS to
11 the front line; right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. In the summer of 1991?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. It says here that -- that you arrived at the staff of the Serbian
16 Chetnik Movement or the headquarters of the Serbian Radical Party at
17 Francuska Street and that you sat there with me. Is that possible?
18 A. First of all, I didn't know Belgrade at the time and I don't know
19 it well now either. I don't know. It wasn't Francuska Street. I don't
20 know what street it was and I didn't sit with you.
21 Q. The Serbian Radical Party had its seat in Francuska Street only
22 as of September 1993; correct?
23 A. Correct. As far as I know, it was later.
24 Q. And in the summer of 1991, our seat was in a rented apartment on
25 the ground floor in -- on the Milutina Bojica Street. Does this jog your
2 A. Yes, I remember the apartment.
3 Q. A bit down the road from the Federal Assembly?
4 A. Yes. And it was on the ground floor.
5 Q. And there were only two offices; correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. In one, the volunteers would gather if they were getting ready to
8 leave, and in the other there was my office where my secretary sat and
9 the vice-presidents of the party and other officials, and we had very
10 small premises, right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. In your alleged statement from 2006, we read that our volunteers
13 addressed each other as major, colonel, or using other ranks. Is that
15 A. I heard as much, but perhaps that -- those were not ranks. Maybe
16 they were joking.
17 Q. Only one had the rank of major, Milan Dosijevic, Oliver Denis,
18 from Baret, was captain, and there were some lieutenants who were
19 promoted personally by Vojvoda Momcilo Djuic, and his order was read out
20 publicly at the rally on Ravna Gora in 1991, in May, on the occasion of
21 the great victory of our volunteers at Borovo Selo on the 2nd of May,
22 1991. Nobody else had ranks; am I right?
23 A. Yes, you are 100 per cent right. Now I can see that -- that I
24 heard what is really true.
25 Q. In paragraph 19, we can read that there was talk of Greater
2 to Seselj and that he gave authorised Seselj to perform his duties from
3 then on. Is anything like that possible at all? He promoted me to the
4 rank of Vojvoda, but he didn't transfer his title to me. He died with
5 his title.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And some malicious people said that he took away that title from
8 me later on, although that's not true. Although pressurised by the
9 American authorities, he said that he would take away that title from me,
10 but he never did and he couldn't either.
11 A. I know that he didn't.
12 Q. You can -- you can promote somebody to the rank of Chetnik
13 Vojvoda in the homeland when there is no Chetnik Vojvoda there, but you
14 can't take that title away from anyone from California, is that so?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In paragraph 20, we read that I said that the SSCP would take
17 care of you, transport the wounded to hospitals, and that the SSCP was
18 going to take care of our medical and social insurance. This is
19 impossible in practical terms. How, at that time, in the summer of 1991,
20 when we had to hide from Milosevic's regime in Serbia, we crossed the
22 medical insurance to you?
23 A. But you were not a firm who could have done that. That's not
24 true. I didn't say that.
25 Q. You saw that there weren't even enough uniforms. The uniforms
1 that we were able to find were old and worn, and so on. And that was
2 like that until the 1st of October, 1991 when the state of imminent
3 threat of war was proclaimed and we joined the units of the JNA. Then
4 the JNA provided our fighters with the best uniforms and the best
5 infantry weapons, and it never happened anywhere that any volunteer of
6 the SRS
7 Republika Srpska or the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina or in Serbia
8 nowhere were they indicted of any particular war crime; am I right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And here's the million dollar question for the ICTY: Find one
11 single volunteer of the SRS
12 particular war crime. Of course, the OTP would like me to be a criminal.
13 I may be a criminal by character. I may be a criminal based on my
14 abilities to be better than the OTP, but anything more tangible than that
15 they are unable to find; am I right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. When you came to Belgrade
18 because you had to wait for three days to be transported over the Danube
19 is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. We were all facing huge problems at the time because Milosevic's
22 police tried to prevent us from crossing the Danube. So we crossed by
23 ferries at certain points and in various ways, but sometimes we couldn't
24 transport the volunteers over the Danube. They had come to Belgrade
25 we had to return them to their homes; right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Very well. So you did go to Tenja after all, and yesterday you
3 gave a description of what happened in Tenja, where you corrected many
4 things from your alleged statement. I don't really want to dwell on that
5 for a long time. Do you know that I came to Tenja in the summer of 1991
6 on several occasions?
7 A. I don't know that, but we had information that you would come to
8 see us.
9 Q. You may have not -- you may not have been there when I came. Is
10 the Tenja the closest Serb village to Osijek, actual think a suburb of
12 A. Yes. It is close to the Saponia factory. It's only a stone's
13 throw away.
14 Q. While you were in Tenja, did everybody live there peacefully
15 including Croats? Nobody bothered them and some Croats were members of
16 the Serb TO of Tenja. Is that true?
17 A. Yes, that's true, Mr. Seselj. And I claim with full
18 responsibility that in our unit there were Croats. I can mention their
19 names but maybe not because they might face problems with their own
20 people back there.
21 Q. No, don't state their names.
22 A. No, I won't. But why should anybody expel their daughters, or
23 children and women.
24 Q. You know what surprises me in paragraph 35? You allegedly say
25 that there were other units of the Serbian Chetnik movement in Tenja when
1 you -- when you arrive. One of the commanders of the Chetnik volunteers
2 in Tenja, I remember, was Drecun, whose full name I don't know. That's
3 probably Vukan Drecun.
4 A. I don't know. Possible, yes.
5 Q. If I were to put to you now that Vukan Drecun belonged to an
6 illegal organisation that called itself Black Hand, and which planned to
7 kill me in 1991, and they attacked me once in the Ruskica [phoen]
8 restaurant while I was giving an interview to a Muslim journalist from
10 And he describes the entire incident in that magazine. Three guys
11 attacked me, I hit two of them, the third one hit me with a chair from
12 behind but -- and then all three of them ran away. I was a young man
13 then and I was able to defend myself. How could Vukan Drecun have been a
14 commander of a volunteer unit of the Serbian Radical Party? That's
16 A. No, I only saw him. I didn't say that he belonged to the Serbian
17 Radical Party or anything. I just saw him. And somebody told me
18 something like, There are some Chetniks over there. They live in that
19 house up there, so we didn't have any contact at all.
20 Q. Yes. All right. So you're not sure that he may have been our
21 volunteer. Is it correct, though, that the Serb opponents -- that the
22 enemies of the Serbs called all Serb fighters Chetniks? Even Arkan was
23 called a Chetnik?
24 A. Yes, of course. Even my 11-year-old son may be called a Chetnik
25 any time soon. In every statement of mine you will find the word
1 "Chetnik" all over the place.
2 Q. So the term Chetnik would be a generic term here, including all
3 sorts of things, and the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party, the
4 volunteers that the Serbian Radical Party from Belgrade through its
5 War Staff sent to the front were -- were the ones; right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So even morally I would be responsible only for those who I sent
8 to war from Belgrade
9 there is not information that they did.
10 A. That's correct. And I'm glad there is no such information.
11 Q. So if you heard of any volunteers of the SRS having committed a
12 crime, please say so.
13 A. No, I didn't. But I did hear that in Zvornik they gave chocolate
14 to the children there.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What happened now? It's time for a
16 break anyway. Judges, I have basically finished this cross-examination.
17 Although I haven't used all my time. It is very important to me to deal
18 with administrative matters so I can now finish with this witness for
19 good, because all I could do would be a repetition -- would be more of
20 the same, but only slightly different.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We will have a
22 20-minute break, and after the break you'll have about 15 minutes if you
23 want to continue putting questions to the witness, and I'll ask
24 Mr. Marcussen if he has redirect, and then you can deal with the
25 administrative matters. We have a 20-minute break first.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If Mr. Marcussen has no additional
2 questions and I see him waving his head, then we can release the witness,
3 and then right after the break I can move on to administrative matters,
4 unless Mr. Marcussen has anything.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We can release the
6 witness, but I'll tell him later on. We have to thank him first before
7 releasing him. I hope that the connection with Belgrade will be up
8 again, but since many miracles have happened today, we'll just hope for a
9 new miracle.
10 --- Recess taken at 5.48 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 6.09 p.m.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court is back in session.
13 We can see the witness on the screen.
14 Mr. Seselj, you have no further questions to put to the witness,
15 I believe.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I have, in fact, completed my
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, any redirect?
19 MR. MARCUSSEN: No thank you, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In that case, Witness, on
21 behalf of my colleagues I would like to thank you for having come to
22 testify via videolink notwithstanding your state of health, and for two
23 days you have answered questions put to you by the Bench, by the
24 Prosecutor and by Mr. Seselj. So we would like to thank you for having
25 come as a court witness at the request of the Trial Chamber to establish
1 the truth.
2 I wish you all best. I hope your health will improve over the
3 next few days, and I hope all goes well in whatever you undertake in the
5 I shall ask the usher to escort you out of the room in which you
6 find yourself at the moment.
7 Mr. Marcussen.
8 MR. MARCUSSEN: Just very briefly, Your Honours.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you.
10 [Witness's testimony via videolink ended]
11 MR. MARCUSSEN: The two documents which did not have 65 ter
12 numbers when I tendered them have now been given 65 ter numbers thanks to
13 the kind assistance of our case manager and the court staff.
14 The unsigned version of the witness's 2003 statement from July
15 that I mentioned has been given 65 ter number 07544, and the declaration
16 by Prosecution investigator Marie Costello, dated 7th of April, 2010, has
17 been given 65 ter number 07545.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
19 Mr. Seselj, I will give you the floor to address housekeeping
21 One moment. Before you take the floor, Mr. Seselj, as far as
22 what you said yesterday is concerned, I have something to say about it.
23 When you mentioned Rule 98 bis, as you know, this an Anglo-Saxon
24 procedure, and the procedure is the following: It is the accused who
25 takes the floor first to say that the Prosecutor has not provided any
1 evidence for such and such a count, and you explain why. After that, the
2 Prosecutor states his or her position. It is not the other way around.
3 And I believe you thought that it was the other way round. It is first
4 you who states your position. You will have one day to do so. And after
5 that the Prosecutor will say why he or she believes that he or she has
6 provided the evidence which will enable any trier of fact beyond all
7 reasonable doubt on the basis of the evidence provided by the Prosecution
8 to -- to enter a finding of guilt. That's how it goes.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the only question is
10 whether I will have the right to take the floor after the Prosecution
11 again. That's what I'm most interested in.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm sure you may since the
13 Prosecutor always has the last word. As far as I'm concerned, it's not a
14 problem. I have no problem with you taking the floor again.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. That's what's most
16 important for me.
17 There are three things I would like to inform you of. Three
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Not the Prosecutor. Thank you.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Today I received a decision from
21 the Deputy Registrar, according to which my request for the financing of
22 my defence is rejected. There are two versions of this decision. One is
23 confidential and ex parte version. No question how this is possible, but
24 the Registrar can do things that not a single legal system can do
25 anywhere in the world, so it's no longer necessary to go into that, but
1 I'm tired of making these requests now and of quibbling with the
2 Registry. If the Tribunal refuses to finance my defence, then I won't
3 present a defence case, and that will be the end of the matter.
4 Secondly, and this is a far more important question for me --
5 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] One question. You don't wish to
6 present your case?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can't present my defence case if
8 it's not being financed. It hasn't been financed for seven and a half
9 years. My associates can no longer continue working with me. It's
10 difficult to co-operate with me, to work with me. It's easier for my
11 enemies and my adversaries to work with me than for my associates because
12 I exhaust people. First of all, I work a lot and then I burden everyone
13 else around me with work. So it's very difficult to work with me. So
14 why should they be tortured. They have done a lot of work. I haven't
15 paid them a penny. The Registry says that my defence will not be
16 financed, and, therefore, I will not present a defence case.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, as far as this
18 extremely delicate question is concerned, as I'm sure you understand, the
19 Trial Chamber has always done all it could for you to be able to have
20 associates that would be paid by the Tribunal. We have asked the Serbian
21 authorities to provide us with any document which would enable us to
22 assess your financial situation. The Serbian authorities have told us
23 that the Registrar had all this information at their disposal. I must
24 tell you that I was very surprised to discover that some documents, when
25 I was a Pre-Trial Judge, had not been disclosed to me. That is another
2 As things stand today from a legal point of view, the Registrar
3 has notified you and said that he would do no more than he has done so
4 far, because in his view you do not meet the legal requirements which
5 were to advise him of your exact situation. The Registrar has therefore
6 sent the document which we have received, which is a document that
7 presents itself as considering.
8 It is up to you to see what resources you have to challenge the
9 Registrar's position. You have a whole battery of resources available to
10 you, and if need be, you may also seize the Trial Chamber. You have --
11 you may appeal. You may appeal this, and you may seize the
12 Trial Chamber, and the Trial Chamber can rule on it.
13 Beyond this issue of the funding of your case, we are there to
14 act as custodians of the right to a fair trial. The statute is a legal
15 standard that goes beyond directive or any administrative assessment. As
16 Judges, we are bound to guarantee that the trial unfolds under fair
17 conditions. So you have this possibility. You may seize the
18 Trial Chamber to challenge this.
19 You have just provided with us a new piece of information which
20 is important. In other words, if you don't have the resources to present
21 your case, you will waive that right. That is what I have understood,
22 that you would not present your defence. In other words, you would waive
23 that right because the Registrar will not provide you with the adequate
25 If I have not understood you correctly, please let me know.
1 Based on that, in this particular situation the Trial Chamber
2 must say something, because we are here to render justice. There is a
3 Prosecutor that has issued an indictment. A judgement must be issued in
4 light of this indictment. The international community made up of victims
5 who are waiting for justice to be rendered, either to enter a finding of
6 guilt, either -- or to acquit you. That will be based on the evidence
7 provided. This is how things stand.
8 The Registrar, to sum up, has handed down a decision. You may
9 challenge this now, and things are now for you to react to.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, according to the
11 rules of the Tribunal, I could now file an appeal or complain to the
12 President of the court -- of the Tribunal, but I won't do that.
13 Recently I had a dental examination. That was at the beginning
14 of the year. They X-rayed a certain number of teeth, quite a few of my
15 teeth, as this hadn't been done for a long time. They noticed that at
16 the root of a tooth that supports a bridge, they noticed that there was a
17 bag or -- full of bacteria. I really don't really know what the term is.
18 This tooth has to be taken out. A new bridge has to be constructed or an
19 implant is needed. The doctor and the dentist have informed me of this.
20 I complained to the President of the court. They asked him for a report.
21 They told him I had gingivitis, and they said that they couldn't do that.
22 Why I had gingivitis? Gingivitis means an inflammation around the teeth.
23 When you have that, you can feel it. I don't feel anything. Gingivitis
24 is an inflammation of the gums, and I am saying that I don't have such an
25 inflammation, maybe if I had such and inflammation, even if I had
1 gingivitis, they could do this intervention. Because in a few days'
2 time, I might have a problem and I might not be able to appear at court.
3 This root has to be taken out and has to be replaced with something. I
4 don't want to come here with teeth missing. I need a dental implant or a
5 new bridge. An implant is more -- a more modern technique. This costs a
6 lot in the Netherlands
7 the Tribunal responded to me on the basis of that report, but the report
8 is based on erroneous information that was provided to the President.
9 I'm waiting to see whether I'll have such an inflammation now.
10 I don't want such an inflammation. I'm not trying to do anything
11 to cause such an inflammation, but you know when you have these bacteria
12 around a root, it's quite a problem. This is a time-bomb. Perhaps it
13 suits certain people -- the fact that I'm in such a situation perhaps
14 suits certain people. I said that I won't do anything about this
15 financing. I told you about that a few years ago, but I'd also like to
16 tell you that the Registry considers itself to be a body that is superior
17 to me. They're superior to me or above me only in one respect. They can
18 issue an order for security officers to escort me somewhere and to detain
19 me in a unit, that's all. It's only in that sense that they're above me.
20 Only in the sense of the constraints I'm subjected to. Most of the
21 detainees are subjected to such constraints but not everyone. They have
22 privileges. Some have privileges, but the Registry can't tell me what I
23 have to do. This is what they have learnt in other cases.
24 Sometimes if it suits them, they'll pay a lawyers immediately; if
25 not, they won't pay them immediately. There are various ways in which
1 you can manipulate lawyers.
2 So I've concluded with that matter. There will be no financing
3 of the Defence. There will be no Defence case. I'll move on to my
4 second subject.
5 Over ten days ago I arranged for a meeting for my main legal
6 advisor. I only have one legal advisor, since you have of removed
7 Zoran Krasic. Slavko Jerkovic has left me. Only Boris Aleksic remains.
8 I had arranged a meeting with him and a meeting with a legal advisor for
9 the other case for contempt of court. This was the lawyer Dejan Mirovic,
10 and I also agreed on a meeting with the case manager in that other case,
11 Nemanja Sarovic, a lawyer who is no longer acting as a lawyer but he has
12 a lot of experience and knowledge.
13 I still don't know when these meetings will take place.
14 Boris Aleksic keeps phoning a representative of the Tribunal, a
15 representative from OLAD. I haven't had a response. They're preventing
16 such a meeting from taking place. They can't prevent me from meeting
17 with my legal advisors. I have to meet with them. I have to agree on
18 how to prepare requests pursuant to Rule 98 bis. I have to exchange
19 documents with them, provide new documents to them. They have to return
20 old documents to me. They have to give me the results of certain
21 investigation teams, and so on and so forth.
22 These meeting were to take place on the 15th and 16th of July. I
23 asked for the trips to be paid. They have rejected this request. So
24 they are awaiting for this hearing to be concluded so that I can't draw
25 your attention to the problem and then they can do whatever they like
1 until the end of August or the beginning of September.
2 This meeting is essential for me. I have assigned them certain
3 tasks for both cases that are concerned, and they have to brief me as to
4 what they have done.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, please allow me to
6 say something. I and my colleagues have noted all these problems. It is
7 quite clear that if your associate Boris Aleksic does not assist you this
8 may have consequences. That is fairly obvious.
9 As you know, the Registrar, has the discretion vested in the
10 statute and the rules, and the statute to me is the highest standard of
11 law. The statute grants the Registrar the power to administer matters as
12 well as management of resources and the budget of the Tribunal, but the
13 Registrar does not have the discretion to interfere in a trial, and this
14 is what I fear.
15 In September now, given that time is running on, you may turn
16 round and say that you cannot continue with this trial under those
17 conditions. I shall stop everything. I am a responsible Judge. I have
18 a lot of experience. I know that sometimes a cog in the wheel can derail
19 a trial. This is what the situation looks like today and is a great
20 subject of concern. This is something we have discussed among ourselves
21 and we have done everything we could.
22 I would like to draw your attention on the existence of a
23 directive which has to do with the assignment of counsel. This is a
24 French version of this directive, but I'm sure you will be able to handle
1 In Article 13: Recourse against the decision taken by the
2 Registrar. The accused who understands that the assignment of counsel
3 has been rejected and this applies mutatis mutandis and who does not have
4 sufficient funds to pay a lawyer can 15 days after the decision of the
5 Registrar has been notified to him, which is the case since the Registrar
6 has notified the letter to you, may file a motion before the
7 Trial Chamber. He must appear before the Trial Chamber. May then, and
8 listen carefully, either confirm the decision of the Registrar or cancel
9 the Registrar's decision and decide that a counsel must be assigned or
10 give instructions to the Registrar to reassess the situation and see
11 whether the accused is in a position where he can pay a counsel.
12 These are the conditions under which you can seize the Trial
13 Chamber. We can cancel the decision of the Registry. We can assign a
14 counsel. And the Registry clearly states that this applies to your
15 situation. We can take a number of decisions if need be.
16 I shall ask the usher to hand this to you.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I certainty won't
18 give up everything that I can have recourse to, and I will certainly not
19 give up the possibility of making a closing statement. I will prepare
20 such a closing statement and present it here. As to whether I'll file a
21 motion pursuant to Rule 98 bis or not, I don't know. I'll see. If next
22 week the Registry prevents this meeting from taking place, well, we'll
23 see how perfidious they are. They still haven't taken an official
24 decision that I can contest. My legal advisor and case manager is
25 supposed to travel on Wednesday, and they, and I know this on the basis
1 of my experience, they are in a position to provide me with this decision
2 on Sunday evening. They say they can come, but their visit has to be
3 monitored. I don't want to have such a visit. Once I gave in and I
4 regretted it. When they took me to some sort of gas chamber where our
5 conversation was recorded. We didn't even manage to put up with it for
6 the entire day. We could only put up with it for a few hours and then we
8 If they violate this basic right of mine, the right to have my
9 legal advisor and case manager visit me, if they prevent me from
10 exchanging documents with them, assigning new tasks to them, if they
11 prevent me from receiving reports from them as to what they have done,
12 why should I file a motion pursuant to Rule 98 bis? I'll go directly to
13 my closing statement in such a case.
14 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, on these issues, the
15 Trial Chamber cannot step in. It is up to you to seize the President of
16 this Tribunal. He can check on the Registry's actions.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Madam Lattanzi, if the
18 Trial Chamber informs me next Wednesday that I can't have a meeting, my
19 associates will be in The Hague
20 Thursday, because they won't be able to meet me. Then I can complain to
21 the President of the Tribunal and if he approves of this meeting then my
22 advisors will be here in August again. So this is a ping-pong game. I
23 have gotten used to during these eight years here at The Hague Tribunal
24 but that's not important. I said I would certainly give a closing
25 statement in these proceedings. I have certain possibilities that I can
1 avail myself of, or I can not avail myself of those possibilities and
2 tell you why.
3 Let's move on to a third subject which is the most important one
4 for me. Perhaps it's not that important for you, but it's very important
5 for me.
6 A few days ago, one of the most wanted Serbian criminals and
7 gangsters, Milos Simovic, was arrested by the Serbian police while he was
8 trying to illegally cross the border between Croatia and Serbia
9 a letter of some kind to the someone, to the Prosecution, a policeman,
10 who knows to whom. This letter hasn't yet been disclosed. And
11 allegedly, he said in that letter that I ordered the murder of
12 Tomislav Nikolic from The Hague Tribunal.
13 The Prosecution doesn't have to rise right now. It's an
14 important matter.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen.
16 MR. MARCUSSEN: I appreciate why this is an important matter for
17 the accused but it is certainly not an administrative matter. It has
18 been addressed in the press to the accused and his representative have
19 addressed these issues in the press. And there is no reason for the
20 Court to have to spend resources on this, and I'm looking around and I
21 guess there's at least 15 or 20 people --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, there is a reason for the
23 Trial Chamber to look into this. So go ahead, Mr. Seselj.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We have to deal with this, because
25 on the 2nd of July, "Blic" published a two-page article stating that The
1 Hague Tribunal asked for information on Seselj's plan. The
2 Judge Jean-Claude Antonetti is mentioned here, and it says that the
3 letter was written to the Council for Co-operation with The Hague
4 Tribunal. Apparently information was requested. So this directly
5 relates to the work of the Chamber, and I have the right to say what I
6 wanted to say.
7 This criminal apparently said that I ordered the assassination of
8 Tomislav Nikolic. You're well aware of the affair with Tomislav Nikolic.
9 I don't have to repeat this. You probably remembered about two years ago
10 Tomislav Nikolic also appeared in public with false claims, according to
11 which I had ordered his assassination. That he mentioned certain unknown
12 people from Republika Srpska. At the time everything had been calculated
13 to make my position here in The Hague
14 certain restrictive measures were taken against me and to spread some
15 sort of propaganda in public, amongst the public.
16 I immediately told my Defence team to investigate the whole
17 matter. They found out that Aleksandar Vucic, Nikolic's deputy, my
18 former legal advisor and the lawyer Zelimir Cabrilo and the lawyer
19 Miodrag Rasic were both defending the criminal Miloslav Simovic and they
20 had agreed to instruct the gangster Miloslav Simovic to make false
21 charges against me; according to which I had ordered the assassination of
22 Nikolic. They wanted to spread this propaganda in public so that support
23 is provided for Tomislav Nikolic, whose party is disintegrating. They
24 wanted to make it seem as if Seselj wanted to kill Tomislav Nikolic
1 Three members of my Defence team, Vjerica Radeta,
2 Nemanja Sarovic, Jelena Bozic, Talija [phoen], filed a criminal report
3 against Aleksandar Vucic, Zelimir Cabrilo and Miodrag Rasic, and they
4 requested that the relevant state authorities launch an investigates into
5 the matter. I have a certified copy of this for you.
6 Then after this affair started, after it gone blown out of all
7 proportion in the media, Tomislav Nikolic appeared with the claim that I
8 had already previously, three years ago, used Aleksandar Vucic, who, at
9 the time, was my legal advisor, to order the assassination of someone.
10 He didn't want to say who was concerned. Aleksandar Vucic said that
11 perhaps he would say who it was, who was to be assassinated.
12 The members of my Defence team also filed a criminal report
13 against Tomislav Nikolic and insisted that the relevant state authorities
14 clarify the matter.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, rather than going into
16 details, go to the core of the matter. The Trial Chamber would not
17 want -- does not want you to use this hearing to make political speeches,
18 but I'll tell you later on why I stepped in and took the floor but go to
19 the core of the matter immediately.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the -- this isn't a
21 political speech. I'm just speaking about legally relevant facts and
22 criminal reports, and since you asked information from the Council for
23 Co-operation with The Hague Tribunal in Serbia, I assume you want -- want
24 to hear the other side and have an insight into the two criminal reports.
25 Now, what is the greatest problem for me now is this: It's that
1 Tomislav Nikolic and Aleksandar Vucic claim that through my wife,
2 Jadranka Seselj, I ordered the killing of Tomislav Nikolic. I put out a
3 contract to disqualify her and to have restrictive measures imposed upon
4 me by The Hague Tribunal with respect to her future visits to me. She
5 was once falsely accused in 2006 by the Prosecutor of having uttered the
6 names of protected witnesses at a time when I was not disclosed any of
7 the names of the protected witnesses by the Prosecution yet. And now I
8 come to the crux of the matter.
9 A man called Dejan Anastasijevic appears. He wasn't on the
10 witness list at all, and he claims that The Hague Tribunal, several years
11 ago, provided him with information whereby I had ordered his killing
12 through my wife and that of some other people.
13 Now, I wanted to tell you one thing. These are all lies and
14 libel. Now accusations are being raised again that I was involved in
15 Zoran Djindjic's, the Mafia prime minister's killing. I was never
16 involved in any killing, never in my life or in any dishonourable
17 criminal act. I was just charged for political crimes.
18 MR. MARCUSSEN: The accused should formulate some sort of request
19 or relief he is seeking from the Chamber. He has asked for nothing. He
20 has spoken now for ten minutes and he we haven't heard what he wants --
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I announced that it would last 20
23 minutes so we have enough time, as far as I can see, and I hope you will
24 have the patience to hear me out.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Seselj, I must register my objection against
1 this. I do not see how this, all of this, which may be disturbing to
2 you, can possibly affect this trial. So I think we should --
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] Well,
4 Mr. Harhoff, your colleague Judge Antonetti can inform you of this.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, let me step in
6 immediately because do I not agree with what my fellow Judge,
7 Judge Harhoff, just said. You said yourself that in 2006 already you had
8 been subject to a number of problems, restrictions who led to problems,
9 and I remember all the consequences you -- you were tapped. You could
10 not have access to your privileged associates, and so on, and there was
11 consequences on the trial. So when I read just like everybody else that
12 in the press there was something about an assassination attempt, I
13 immediately drew the connection between this and the possible
14 consequences that we could have here in this trial. And I wrote to the
15 ministry in charge of co-operation so that he would give me all necessary
16 information on the investigates underway at the moment. What is
17 important is investigates and not rumours or press clippings, and up
18 until now I have not received any news from the ministry.
19 The press seems to be challenging -- challenge you and saying
20 that you are party to a number of assassination attempts, but my -- what
21 I fear is that there might be consequences on this case, on this trial,
22 and I believe that this is the direct connection.
23 If there is evidence that could say or could prove or demonstrate
24 that through your wife you have been able from yourself to order
25 assassination attempts to be carried out, there will be -- there will be
1 consequences, of course, but we need an investigates to know exactly what
2 the facts are. I have full trust in the Serbian authorities and I'm sure
3 that they will immediately or very soon tell us whether these rumours are
4 founded or not, because the trial could be disturbed by this affair.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President --
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think, Mr. President, that the dispatch that
7 you sent to the Serbian authorities on this issue was sent in your name
8 personally and not in the name of the Chamber.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Judge Harhoff is right.
10 I believe that it was my duty to do so. I had offered -- I asked my
11 fellow Judges whether they wanted to sign the letter with me, but they
12 didn't -- they turned me down, so I believe that as the President of this
13 Chamber, as person in charge of the administration of this -- of the
14 smooth running of this trial I wanted to get to the source of the
15 information, and it's only the Serbian authorities who can tell us
16 whether these are rumours or whether there is any basis to this. But so
17 far I haven't heard anything from the Serbian authorities.
18 Continue, please.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, in these eight years I have
20 had some very bad experience with the Hague Tribunal. At the end of 2003
21 and throughout the first half of 2004, all visits to me were banned as
22 were all telephone conversations because my party had achieved
23 significant results at the parliamentary elections and to prevent me
24 having any influence and wielding any influence on the formation of the
25 new Serbian government. In 2005, for two months, I had no visits, no
1 telephone conversations. I wasn't even able to receive letters, even the
2 letters that are checked anyway or any documents from my associates,
3 because the Prosecution accused me of having disclosed the name of a
4 protected witness, whereas I didn't even know that he could have been on
5 the list of witnesses in my trial.
6 In 2006, one the main reasons for my hunger strike was that at
7 the initiative of the Prosecution, there were restriction with respect to
8 my wife visiting me. Later on, the President of the Tribunal revoked
9 that decision, but only after that had happened. Now I feel that there
10 is this danger looming that -- whereby the Registry or the Prosecutor
11 could apply the same measures, and that is why today I have supplied you
12 with a list of all the medicines I take on a daily basis, and I want to
13 tell you that if any restrictions are imposed with respect to my wife
14 visiting me, then I will stop taking these medicaments. And you're free
15 to consult any physicians and they'll tell you what that would mean.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, please refrain from
17 blackmail. The situation is very complex. I'm sure you understand this.
18 Some restrictive measures can be placed upon you ordered by the
19 Registrar, and then you can contest them and challenge them by seizing
20 the President. That's what you should do.
21 Now, what I'm worried about is the following: We are now
22 finished with the first phase of this trial. A few weeks from now we
23 will enter into Rule 98 bis. It's a short procedure, short stage of the
24 procedure, and then it will be up to you to present your case, and this
25 is possible, but everyone has to be fully aware of this.
1 Now, I'm talking about everyone. I believe everyone understood
2 who exactly is involved in this everyone.
3 My fellow Judges and Judge Lattanzi, I agree with her and I'm
4 sure Judge Harhoff also agrees with me, we were very impressed by the
5 list of medicine that you have to take -- or you have an impressive list
6 of medicine that you have to take. Of course there's medical
7 confidentiality. You don't have to tell us why you have to take all
8 these drugs, but you always said that you were very open.
9 What are these drugs for? Maybe if you don't take them they'll
10 jeopardise your health. I don't know.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There are no secrets. Every doctor
12 will be able to explain to you what those medicines are. I'm not an
13 expert in the field. They're blood pressure pills, heart arrhythmia
14 pills and pills against tachycardia.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So these are pills for your
16 heart conditions, so it's very important. What you have said is now on
17 the transcript. The Registrar will know about it, and he will see what
18 he can decide as to your wife and your associates, whether they can visit
19 you or not.
20 As far as I'm concerned I must say that I see no reason why you
21 shouldn't see your associates and your wife, as long as the investigation
22 underway in Belgrade
23 offence. You have a presumption of innocence right now, and I don't
24 think that we should draw any conclusions on what are rumours and only
25 rumours at the moment.
1 Mr. Marcussen.
2 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, at page 106, line 12 onward, 13,
3 Your Honour has now said that we have now finished the first phase of
4 this trial. I wish to put on record that the Prosecution is not in a
5 position to close its case at this stage. I don't know whether that was
6 what Your Honour intended to -- to indicate, that the Prosecution case is
8 There are a number of outstanding motions that are still pending
9 that relate to evidentiary issues. Some are confidential, so I can't
10 mention them in public session, and there are other reasons why I cannot
11 mention some of them, but I believe there are 14 outstanding motions that
12 need to be ruled on.
13 There is one of them which is a request for leave to supplement
14 the Prosecution's witness list to call two investigators. There's no
15 decision on that yet. So if that motion is granted, we obviously still
16 need to call witnesses or hear those witnesses.
17 From that arise a particular issue because of the Trial Chamber's
18 decision rendered on the 29th of June because of the status of those
19 investigators who are now maybe the subject of investigations. So the
20 position is unclear as to whether it would be possible to hear those
21 witnesses if the Prosecution's request is granted.
22 Moreover --
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In order for you not to waste
24 any time, Mr. Marcussen, you're absolutely right. There's still 14
25 pending motions, including one which is very important. It has to do
1 with the Mladic diaries. And of course the Prosecution case will be
2 closed only when we have rendered our decision on these 14 motions.
3 Now, on regarding this special request, this special motion
4 saying that you wanted to hear two investigators on possible allegations
5 of intimidation on Prosecution cases switched to being so-called Defence
7 Since as you sold we did render a decision on June 29, 2010,
8 asking the Registrar to appoint an amicus curiae. It's up to the
9 Registrar to do this now. This is my position. It's not up to us. It's
10 up to the Registrar. It's up to amicus curiae to hear these witnesses.
11 This is my position, but the Trial Chamber has not ruled on this yet.
12 Because it is the amicus curiae who will be competent to tell us whether
13 there is sufficient grounds, because we're at the very early phase of the
14 procedure. It's up to the amicus curiae to see whether there are
15 sufficient grounds to do this.
16 So regarding these two witnesses, I believe that it's important,
17 but it's up to the amicus curiae to rule on this. I'm not competent, as
18 far as this is concerned, given what was written in this June 29
19 decision, saying that it's up to the amicus curiae to tell the
20 Trial Chamber whether there is sufficient grounds to draw an indictment.
21 On the -- on the other hand we will rule on the other 13 pending
22 motions. They're not overly technical except for the motion on the
23 Mladic diaries, but we're waiting for your submissions on these ones,
24 written submissions.
25 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I'd like to add that as far as
1 some of these motions is concerned, we are still waiting for them to be
2 translated, we're waiting for them to be translated into B/C/S and we're
3 waiting for the answers by -- the reply by the accused. So this is why
4 we can't rule on them yet, because the translation isn't done.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And to finish off, this is why
6 I said that Rule 98 bis can only start as of September. This phase, the
7 Rule 98 bis, can only start in September because this is going to be a
8 lengthy process to get us there.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, if the Prosecutor continues
10 that way --
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'll give you the floor but I
12 don't know yet what Mr. Seselj had to say.
13 What did you have to say, Mr. Seselj or should I give the floor
14 to Mr. Marcussen?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If the Prosecutor continues that
16 way, this could last another ten years. Judges, the Prosecutor has said
17 everything he wanted to say during this case, and as far as his
18 investigators are concerned, that is a matter of other proceedings. They
19 can be interviewed and examined there, not here, because this trial is
20 not against the Prosecutor here or against me for contempt of court for
21 that matter so that their investigators can present things that might be
22 significant here.
23 All the evidence has been presented here in court, primary
24 evidence as testimony viva voce, and original source documents if they
25 were attached. Everything else is secondary evidence. And if the
1 Prosecutor thinks that presenting two of his investigators that he's
2 going to improve his very poor prosecuting positions here, it would be
3 better if he were to admit a fiasco straight away. The Hague Tribunal,
4 during this trial, has experienced a fiasco. You can, of course,
5 sentence me to a hundred years' imprisonment but in the transcript of
6 this trial and these proceedings you don't have the grounds to sentence
7 me for even one year, and it's high time that the Prosecutor realises
8 that. Do you want to start the trial all over again? Let him find
9 another hundred witnesses. He can change the locations of the alleged
10 crimes, perhaps he can accuse me of killing Kennedy or the civil war in
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, you had the
13 floor. You have it again.
14 MR. MARCUSSEN: Thank you. I thought to detect that
15 Judge Harhoff maybe was trying to intervene. It seemed he had something
16 to say. I don't know if I should go first.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, go ahead. We have five
19 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, the evidence of the witness today
20 reflect in the Prosecution's submission the very campaign of
21 intimidation, interference that we have raised throughout the case. This
22 witness is like other witnesses, in our submission, clearly fabricated
23 evidence and lied to this Court. The Prosecution want to put on record
24 that we have the right to seek to confront this.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Prosecution please slow down for the sake of
1 the interpretation. Thank you.
2 THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]
3 MR. MARCUSSEN: I am speaking, and I would like to finish what
4 I'm saying.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let Mr. Marcussen finish what
6 he has to say.
7 MR. MARCUSSEN: There have been other witnesses. They have in
8 our submission clearly fabricated evidence and lied to this Court. The
9 Prosecution want to put on record that it has the right to seek to
10 confront these fabrications of evidence.
11 The allegations against OTP investigators, especially
12 Ms. Pradham, is completely unfounded and the Prosecution wishes to
13 confront this and consider calling further evidence. We want to make
14 clear on the record that we reject the false allegations and the
15 fabricated evidence of the last witness, and unless the Court indicates
16 that it is not necessary because the witness evidence is blatantly false,
17 we wish to call evidence immediately if necessary to confront it.
18 And, Your Honours, these kind of allegations have been made by a
19 number of witnesses throughout the case and notably since the trial
20 restarted in January and a number of court witnesses were called. The
21 Chamber questioned these witnesses about the way their statements were
22 taken. The Trial Chamber's decision from the 29th of June is going to
23 lead to the -- has opened up the question of the reliability of
24 statements that the Trial Chamber has already admitted into evidence, and
25 it may, indeed, be necessary for the Prosecution also to call evidence
1 with respect to allegations made by other witnesses, because now what has
2 happened with the decision from the 29th of June seem to be that a whole
3 range of allegations have been in our submissions reopened subsequent
4 to -- subsequent to --
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, let me stop you.
6 You're an excellent trial attorney, one of the best senior trial
7 attorneys we have here. You know that this decision -- well, we have
8 been seized of a motion for contempt of court against three eminent
9 members of the OTP. What are we supposed to do, throw it out? This is
10 not what I think justice -- what I think of justice. The Trial Chamber,
11 who was presided by President Robinson, Judge Bonomy and myself did say
12 that this motion would be dealt with during the trial. It's not me who
13 said this. It's the President of this Tribunal. And that at the end of
14 the trial we would rule on this in light of the new elements that are
15 spelled out in the June 29 decision. We did say that we need to have an
16 amicus curiae to look into this now, which does not mean that we -- of
17 course, we don't necessarily believe what the witnesses said, but the
18 amicus curiae will be there to check the evidence. That's the truth. So
19 please don't say what you said, because this goes against the decision of
20 June 29, 2010
21 You asked for certification of appeal. Fine. We'll see how
22 things turn out.
23 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honour --
24 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, you also,
25 yourself, presented and the accused used it in open session, you
1 presented a statement made by an interpreter. You don't only have
2 evidence provided by witnesses.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, and to add something
4 because I wanted to put my own opinion in this decision. The interpreter
5 clearly stated how the whole -- how everything occurred. It's up to the
6 amicus curiae to look into this. We can no longer take -- rule on this.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, we need to
9 finish now.
10 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, I was not intending at all to go
11 into the merit of the 29 June decision. My point was that it raises a
12 number of issues which mean that we cannot -- the Prosecution cannot
13 close its case. That was the submission I was making.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, 15 seconds, because
15 we must leave now.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, with the speed of lightning.
17 Judges, you should have intervened, in my opinion, when Mr. Marcussen
18 called today's witness a false witness or, rather, when he claimed that
19 the witness had given false testimony. Now, intentionally during the
20 cross-examination I didn't want to deal with any pre-history when the
21 ping-pong ball was going, when the ball was in my court, then in the
22 Prosecutor's court and then back to me. I adhered to the Muslim sources,
23 Muslim document sources. I looked through them and you were able to see
24 on that basis than -- that the statement he gave to the Prosecutor was
25 not truthful. Now, the fact that the Prosecutor at the beginning rallied
1 a large number of witnesses and promising them third country sojourn and
2 apartments and fulfilled those promises to only some of them, but not to
3 most of them, and when the witnesses were disillusioned they started
4 scattering. You know when people live poorly, in poverty, some people
5 are ready to give false testimony, not everyone, but some are. Now do
6 you remember that witness whom the witness gave up on later on who
7 bartered with the Prosecution as to how he was going to testify before he
8 came into court --
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, I have mentioned the
10 Trial Chamber will hand down its decision and we will certainly meet
11 again in September.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.05 p.m.
13 sine die.