Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 12960

1 Tuesday, 19 November 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The witness entered court]

4 [The accused entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

6 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE MAY: Yes?

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] About this exhibit, when he

10 explained that it was signed by Martic, I believe that you cannot properly

11 introduce an exhibit like this through this witness for several reasons.

12 First of all, it's not his document. Second, he doesn't know. He only

13 thinks it was signed by Martic. Third, it does not bear the stamp that

14 belongs to the authority mentioned in the letterhead. It is the stamp of

15 the Knin municipality. And fourth, I believe such a stamp should be

16 procured from the competent authority.

17 Maybe the lady on the opposite side can introduce this through

18 another witness but not through this one.

19 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we have ruled often enough and told you

20 often enough before that as far as documents are concerned, we admit them

21 for what they're worth. Usually their value can be seen from what's

22 written on them. They speak for themselves. There is no hearsay rule, as

23 you've been told often enough, in this Tribunal.

24 Now, the points that you make as to the witness recognising the

25 signature of Martic, the letterhead and the stamp, these are all matters

Page 12961

1 of detail and you can ask the witness about them.

2 Yes.

3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 WITNESS: WITNESS C-061 [Resumed]

5 [Witness answered through interpreter]

6 Examined by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff: [Continued]

7 Q. Good morning, Witness.

8 A. Good morning.

9 Q. Witness, yesterday we spoke about this document Mr. Milosevic

10 referred to this morning, and it was a request by Milan Martic to Defence

11 Minister of Serbia, Mr. Simovic, from the 18th of September, 1991.

12 I would like to put to you now another document, and it is

13 Exhibit 352, tab 4. It is a document from the Ministry of Defence of

14 Serbia dated the 1st of November, 1991, and it refers to a report on

15 assisting Serbian areas in Croatia.

16 Looking at the letterhead and the stamp on this document, can you

17 comment on both? Are they what you knew they looked like?

18 A. Yes. Looking at the letterhead and the stamp, I can say they were

19 the letterhead and the stamp used in the administration of the Republic of

20 Serbia.

21 Q. And the person signing this letter, it says Deputy Minister Major

22 General Branislav Kuzmanovic. Do you know whether this person was at that

23 time in this position and do you know him?

24 A. He became deputy to the Minister Simovic, but I don't know his

25 exact name. That is the Deputy Minister I met in Simovic's office. I

Page 12962

1 don't know if it was Kuzmanovic at the time, but there was a person named

2 Kuzmanovic.

3 Q. In this letter, General Kuzmanovic requests that the following

4 items be put on the agenda of the government session of the Republic of

5 Serbia, and it's reporting on assisting the Serbian areas in Croatia. Are

6 you aware that at that time this was a point of discussion within the

7 Serbian government?

8 A. I am not sure whether it was a topic of discussion, but I have

9 already spoken about the way in which the competent ministers,

10 municipality presidents, and others, sought help for Krajina in Serbia.

11 Q. And in November 1991, did you ask for assistance, or in the month

12 before, did the government of the SAO ask for assistance from the Ministry

13 of Defence?

14 A. Beginning with September and October, yes, assistance was sought.

15 Q. Thank you. And now with the help of the usher, another document.

16 It is tab 5 of Exhibit 352, and it's again the Ministry of Defence of

17 Serbia, addressing, on the 1st of November, 1991, the government of the

18 Republic of Serbia, and reports on providing assistance to the Serbian

19 districts in Croatia. Did you have time to review this complex document

20 while you had your conversations with the Prosecutor in The Hague?

21 A. Yes, I did.

22 Q. At that time, in November 1991, and the time before, was

23 assistance provided in the way described in paragraph 1 of this report?

24 A. Assistance was extended. I don't know exactly in what amount.

25 Q. Would you please have a look at attachment 5 to this report,

Page 12963

1 attachment 5. Sorry, sir. Attachment 4. I made a mistake. Attachment

2 4. Attachment 4 is the overall assistance required for the Serb-populated

3 areas in Croatia, and it is here the total amount is 1,2 billion dinar.

4 Would you know how many Deutschmark that was at that time, in November

5 1991?

6 A. I can hardly remember the exchange rate that applied at the time.

7 I couldn't tell you the figure in Deutschmark.

8 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, Morten Torkildsen, the expert we

9 have in house, actually looked at the figures and found that the exchange

10 rate, the official exchange rate with Deutschmark at that time, according

11 to this official exchange rate, of 30 Deutschmarks -- it amounts to an

12 official Deutschmark value of about 92 million Deutschmarks, and on the

13 black market it was about 30 million Deutschmarks, almost 31 million

14 Deutschmarks.

15 Q. Would you now, please, look at attachment 5, and it refers to a

16 table of the number of personnel of the TO in the SAOs. And I would like

17 you to comment only on the figures for the SAO Krajina and not for the

18 other SAOs. And you see here the total amount of personnel for the Knin

19 Operational Zone with 12.000, the Lika Operational Zone with 5.800, and

20 the Kordun and Banija zone with 20.000 staff. Is that -- would that be

21 correct, according to your recollection?

22 A. They are correct, according to the plan that the main headquarters

23 of SAO Krajina made for these formations. But I have to add that at the

24 time, especially for the area of the Operational Zone Knin, this staff was

25 attached to the command of the Knin Corps. But the figures are accurate,

Page 12964

1 in light of the planning documents of the Main Staff of the SAO Krajina.

2 Q. Would you please now look at attachment 6 to this report, and I

3 would also like you to look at the columns related to the Knin Operation

4 Zone, the Lika Operation Zone, and the Kordun and Banija Operation Zone,

5 and here we have actually the amounts that were necessary to pay these

6 military staff. Can you comment on the figures for these three zones?

7 Would they be correct?

8 A. Yes. If you look at the calculations for the manpower in these

9 columns, the amounts should be correct.

10 Q. Looking at the attachment -- the attachments number 1 and number 2

11 with the list of equipment needed in communication and in other areas,

12 could you comment on these items? Were such items needed, would you

13 know?

14 A. Those were our planned requirements for the Territorial Defence

15 system of SAO Krajina.

16 Q. Do you know who made this plan for the requirements in the SAO

17 Krajina? Who put all this equipment together when needed and when?

18 A. As far as I know, beginning with October, these requirements were

19 planned by the Main Staff of the defence force of SAO Krajina and

20 especially the chief of the Main Staff, Colonel Kasun, Dusan Kasun.

21 Q. Returning to the letter -- the report, the body of the report

22 itself, it says actually on page 2, it makes a reference as follows:

23 "Since there are no legal grounds for this, that is providing for

24 assistance to meet these needs is not regulated by the law, we propose

25 that these issues be legally regulated by an appropriate decree especially

Page 12965

1 in view of the fact that these needs are great and can be expected to grow

2 and the fact that other ministries also face these problems within their

3 respective jurisdictions." And then there follows a list of ministries.

4 Do you know whether various ministries in the Serbian government

5 were approached in this way, and do you know of any decree?

6 A. I know that other Ministers in the government of Serbia were

7 approached to seek assistance for Krajina, but I don't know specifically

8 about this group that was supposed to discuss this within the government

9 of Serbia.

10 Q. Did you yourself in -- did someone from the Krajina actually have

11 a discussion with Mr. Simovic on these needs and these matters of

12 financing?

13 A. There were discussions with General Simovic. The Prime Minister

14 of SAO Krajina talked to him too.

15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, for one question I would like to

16 go into private session.

17 [Private session]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [redacted]

21 [redacted]

22 [redacted]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

Page 12966

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 12967

1 [redacted]

2 [Open session]

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

4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like to

5 now put to the witness, from Exhibit 352, the document tab 6, and it is a

6 letter from Milan Martic as the Minister of Interior of the SAO to the

7 Ministry of Interior -- to the Ministry of Interior of Serbia and to

8 Minister Sokolovic, dated the 10th of February, 1992.

9 Q. Looking at the letterhead, the stamp, and the signature, are

10 these -- is this a genuine document?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. In this letter, it actually refers to funds needed and that

13 Minister Sokolovic should exert his influence on Minister Zebic in order

14 to receive these amounts needed, and there is actually the amount of

15 38 million dinars.

16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And, Your Honour, according to

17 Mr. Torkildsen, the black market value of this amount is approximately

18 330.000 Deutschmarks.

19 Q. Can you comment on this letter? Is the contents correct?

20 A. Yes. This letter reflects the circumstances and the situation

21 that prevailed at the time.

22 Q. These were the documents I wanted to put to you in this context.

23 Were the police and the TO incorporated into the budget of the RSK

24 at some point in time? Yesterday you said that they were financed outside

25 of it. Were they put into the official budget at some point in time?

Page 12968

1 A. From 1992, a more stable budget began to be developed for the

2 Republic of Serbian Krajina. As for the SAO Krajina, it had a very poor

3 budget.

4 Q. When the budget of the RSK was in existence, were all the expenses

5 of the police covered in the budget or did this payment of cash outside of

6 the budget continue?

7 A. Yes. Payments were made in cash, and the budget of the Republic

8 of Serbian Krajina was also subsidised from the Federal Republic of

9 Yugoslavia.

10 Q. Were all the costs of the army covered in the RSK budget or was it

11 paid otherwise for the costs?

12 A. The budget of the Republic of Serbian Krajina only partly covered

13 the expenses of the army, and another part of the budget was subsidised by

14 the government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and yet for another

15 part materiel and equipment were procured outside of the budget. Also,

16 most of the officers in the army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina was

17 financed by the General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia directly.

18 Q. I would like to put to you as an example a budget, which makes it

19 easier for us to explain the proportions, and it is Exhibit 352, tab 7.

20 It's the budget of November 1994.

21 Did you have time to review this document while you had your

22 conversations with the Prosecutor in The Hague so that you are familiar

23 with it?

24 A. Yes. Yes, I did.

25 Q. Did you see budgets of this form and this one during the events?

Page 12969

1 A. Yes. There were reports made both to the government and the

2 Assembly about the status of the budget. I'm talking about the Assembly

3 and government of Krajina.

4 Q. I would like you to have a look at actually the figures in this

5 list stating the income of the RSK, and I would like you to comment from

6 your knowledge of the budget of the previous years. Would you please

7 compare the proportion of the income from taxes and from the FRY, as it is

8 stated here? Was the income deriving from taxes higher or lower or equal

9 in the previous years before 1994?

10 Witness, Witness, there is a statement of income and expenditure

11 as the second page. There is a sticker. There should be a yellow

12 sticker.

13 Witness --

14 A. Here I see expenditures.

15 Q. I would like you to use only the main sheet with all the

16 summarising figures, not the detailed lists. And you see here the amount

17 from taxes, and you also see here the additional funds from the FRY on

18 this list. And my question was regarding the previous budgets. What was

19 the proportion in the earlier years, comparing the taxes -- income from

20 taxes and the income from the FRY?

21 A. Major revenues came from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

22 Q. Does that mean in the earlier years it was the -- what was

23 financed by the FRY was even higher than in 1994?

24 A. Yes, certainly, much higher. That was the time of war and armed

25 conflicts, where the requirements for money were greater and revenues in

Page 12970

1 the Krajina were lower.

2 Q. And looking at the budget on this sheet, there is a position:

3 loans from the National Bank of RSK. The budget deficits, were they

4 financed through loans of the National Bank of the RSK?

5 A. Yes, that's right. That was one of the ways of financing the

6 budget. Based on my information, this was mostly covered from the primary

7 issue of the National Bank of Yugoslavia.

8 Q. Where did the National Bank of RSK receive its money from?

9 A. From the National Bank of Yugoslavia.

10 Q. And you said it was from -- it was financed from primary issues.

11 Does that mean it was newly printed money that they received from the

12 National Bank of Yugoslavia?

13 A. Yes, that's right. That was that kind of money.

14 Q. Was the National Bank of the RSK an independent institution?

15 A. Well, it practically operated as a branch office of the National

16 Bank of Yugoslavia.

17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, in relation to the figures in

18 dinars, Mr. Torkildsen could not find the proper figure to put into

19 Deutschmarks because the official exchange rate was 1 dinar to 1

20 Deutschmark, and he couldn't find any figures in relation to the black

21 market, so I cannot give you a proper amount in Deutschmarks. It would

22 actually be the same amount in Deutschmarks, but only officially.

23 Q. Witness, could the RSK or could the SAO have existed without the

24 support from Serbia or Yugoslavia?

25 A. No, under no circumstances it could exist. SAO Krajina and RSK

Page 12971

1 were completely economically and financially dependent on Serbia.

2 Q. And if you look at the -- actually, the next page following

3 this page listing the income, you have the page "means of production,"

4 actually, the expenditure for what it was used. And looking at especially

5 the figures for financing the army and financing the police, those two

6 together, is it almost two-thirds of the entire budget?

7 A. That's right.

8 Q. Is that also your recollection of the proportions?

9 A. Yes. I remember these proportions very well. The greater portion

10 was always spent on these requirements. Even at the time when there was

11 no real armed conflict, we still had a state of an imminent threat of war,

12 which required great expenses for payment of people who were in the units

13 but were not employed.

14 Q. You mentioned that a lot of money came from the National Bank of

15 Yugoslavia, and you said it's actually newly printed money. Who

16 controlled the National Bank of Yugoslavia? Do you know that?

17 A. Formally, legally speaking, the institution of the Federal

18 Republic of Yugoslavia. In reality, the president of Serbia.

19 Q. How do you know that?

20 A. Because people from Krajina always went to the president of Serbia

21 when it came to their needs, both financial and material needs, and that

22 he would send those orders to the governor, prime ministers, and so on.

23 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, can we go into private session

24 for one question?

25 [Private session]

Page 12972

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 12972 redacted private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 12973

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 12974

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 12974 redacted private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 12975

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 12975 redacted private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 12976

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 12976 redacted private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 12977

1 [redacted]

2 [Open session]

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

4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

5 Q. You just mentioned President Lilic. When did he make such remarks

6 that he was at the disposal of President Milosevic?

7 A. That was in 1994, early 1995. I saw him as he left the

8 presidential palace, Mr. Milosevic's office, and in front of me he greeted

9 Borislav Mikelic who was then Prime Minister of the Republic of Serbian

10 Krajina. I know that they were close, personally close. And then Mikelic

11 asked how he was, and then he said about himself, "Well, I'm somebody who

12 is at somebody's disposal. I'm a usable man."

13 Q. I would like to put a few more financial documents to you, and the

14 first one is in Exhibit 352, tab -- tab 13. Sorry, tab 15. It is the

15 request of the Minister of Finance of the RSK from the 19th of June, 1992,

16 to the Federal Executive Council and the Federal Secretariat of Finance

17 and the Yugoslav National Bank, and there is requested a sum of 12,900

18 billion dinars. And there is also mentioned that it has to go to the --

19 "Please pay the funds into the giro account of the budget of the Republic

20 of Serbian Krajina."

21 Is that the giro account in the SDK system or is it a bank

22 account?

23 A. That was the budget account.

24 Q. And is -- looking at the letterhead and the signature, can you

25 comment on the genuinity [sic] of this document?

Page 12978

1 A. Yes. This is a letter sent by the Minister of Finance, the then

2 Minister of Finance, Vojin Peuraca, who was Minister in the government of

3 the Republic of Serbian Krajina.

4 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Higgins.

5 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honours, just briefly. Perhaps it's wording

6 which is used by my learned friend. Of course the witness can comment as

7 to the stamp that he sees, but whether he can comment as to the

8 genuineness of the document, it's evidently a copy. But as I say, it's

9 probably just the wording that my learned friend has used.

10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

13 Q. Can you -- you mentioned the signature. Do you recognise the

14 signature?

15 A. I've seen this signature, yes.

16 Q. And according -- and in relation to the letterhead, is that a

17 letterhead used by the government of the RSK at that time, do you know?

18 A. This is a regular letterhead.

19 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, as a reference, Mr. Morten

20 Torkildsen has found out that the equivalent in the black market value for

21 D-mark is approximately elf million -- 11 million, sorry. Eleven

22 million.

23 Q. The next document is tab 13 in Exhibit 352. It's a letter of the

24 Minister of Defence of the RSK to the ministry of -- to the Ministry of

25 the Republic of Serbia, and it refers to a meeting held on the 12th of

Page 12979

1 November, 1992, with President Milosevic and various other persons.

2 They're all listed in paragraph 1 of this letter.

3 When you look at the participants, Goran Hadzic, Zdravko Zecevic,

4 Milan Martic, Stojan Spanovic, Vojin Peuraca, and Bosko Bozanic, did they

5 have these positions at the time that they are given here in this

6 document?

7 A. Yes. They were at the time, yes.

8 Q. Are you aware that such a meeting took place in November 1992?

9 A. No, it didn't.

10 Q. Did this meeting not take place or were you not aware of it?

11 A. I was not aware of it.

12 Q. And looking at the letterhead and the stamp and the signature, can

13 you comment on it?

14 A. Yes. There's a stamp here of the Republic of Serbian Krajina,

15 Belgrade office, and then Minister Spanovic here. I'm not sure about his

16 signature, but this stamp does correspond to the stamp used at that time.

17 Q. And did the government of the RSK actually have such an office in

18 Belgrade at the address given and is that the letterhead of the office?

19 A. Yes. What the stamp says does correspond to that. The government

20 did have a representative office in Belgrade, and this is the stamp used

21 by that office.

22 Q. In this letter, there is, in paragraph 2 on the first page, it

23 says:

24 "The president, Mr. Milosevic, agreed to the concept of creating a

25 defence system of the Krajina, which would be based on about 23.000 people

Page 12980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 12981

1 in the police, of whom 5.000 in the regular force and 18.000 in brigades,

2 which would make up the peacetime corps of the army and provide security

3 for the borders in the Krajina. The view is that this number should not

4 be reduced and that a manner and system of financing need not be found, as

5 this number of men should remain in the standing force as the professional

6 part of the army. It was accepted that the planning of funds for army and

7 police needs should begin immediately, as was done in 1992 via the RSK

8 Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of

9 Serbia."

10 Witness, was there such a defence concept, and was it paid in this

11 manner described in the letter?

12 A. Yes, there was such a concept of defence. This concept was

13 established in the fall of 1991 and it was financed in this way.

14 Q. And the letter continues:

15 "President Milosevic said that funds for maintaining equipment

16 should be planned via the army of Yugoslavia, that he would help in the

17 implementation of this, and that the army of Yugoslavia should finance the

18 active officers and civilians who stayed behind in the Krajina. All other

19 defence finance needs should be planned via the Ministry of Defence."

20 Was that done in this way?

21 A. Yes, it was.

22 Q. Do you know whether Mr. Milosevic actually agreed on this concept

23 and endorsed it?

24 A. This is how this system functioned. I know of some cases, for

25 example, the appointment of the army commander. For these matters they

Page 12982

1 went to see Milosevic personally. So the system did function in this way.

2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, to this letter point we come a

3 little bit later in the course of the testimony, when we go into army

4 matters.

5 The next document to be put to the witness is tab 17 in Exhibit

6 352, and it is a request from the RSK Minister of Finance to the FRY

7 National Bank for 5 million dinars.

8 Q. Can you comment on the letterhead and the stamp and the signature?

9 A. Yes. That is how the Minister of Finance communicated in those

10 days, that is, the Minister of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, Ratko

11 Veselinovic.

12 Q. Yes. Thank you. And the next document is tab 18. It's another

13 letter. It's the National Bank of RSK, Governor's Office, to the National

14 Bank of Yugoslavia, in relation to the request for cash grant of 10

15 billion dinars of the 24th of July, 1995. Can you again comment on the

16 letterhead, the stamp, and the signature?

17 A. Yes. That is the method of communication used by Pavo Marjanovic,

18 the governor of the National Bank of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. And

19 I also know specifically that there was this request that this letter

20 refers to at the time.

21 Q. And was the request granted? Was it done that way, then?

22 A. I don't know whether it was, because several days later the

23 National Bank of RSK was evacuated from Knin.

24 Q. The next document is tab 19 of Exhibit 352, and it's a letter of

25 the RSK Ministry of Interior of the 5th November 1993 to the MUP of

Page 12983

1 Serbia. Can you comment on the letterhead, the signature, and the stamp?

2 A. Yes. This is a document that could have been compiled by the

3 chief of police, that is, of public security, in the MUP of Krajina. He

4 was Nebojsa Pavkovic, according to the stamp, but I don't know his

5 signature. I'm not certain about it.

6 Q. And in relation to the contents of this letter, it's actually

7 referring to border crossing of MUP employees from Republika Srpska to the

8 Republic of Serbia, to escort the transport of money from Belgrade to

9 Knin. Was money transported in this manner that is indicated in this

10 letter? Do you know that?

11 A. Yes. Two types of cash: cash from the National Bank of Yugoslavia

12 and cash which people from the Ministry of Interior or of the army went to

13 fetch for themselves, to meet their own needs.

14 Q. When you say "for themselves, to meet their own needs," do you

15 mean the offices or do you mean the persons? Does that mean the offices

16 of the army and the MUP?

17 A. I'm referring to the institutions: the Ministry of the Interior

18 and the army.

19 Q. And this practice of bringing money in this manner from Serbia to

20 the Krajina, in which time period did this operate?

21 A. This was done from 1991 until 1995. In fact, in July 1995 I know

22 that the then commander Mrksic brought money in that way for officers of

23 the Serbian army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. He brought the money

24 from Belgrade.

25 Q. And the last document is tab 20 of that same exhibit, and it is

Page 12984

1 now a letter of Milan Martic, as the Minister of Interior in Knin, to the

2 offices of the President of the Republic of Serbia, Mr. Milosevic; the

3 Prime Minister of the Republic of Serbia, Sainovic; and the Minister of

4 Interior, Zoran Sokolovic, dated the 28th of April, 1993, and it's another

5 request for funding. Can you comment on this letter, first in relation to

6 the letterhead, the signature, and the stamp, and then in relation to the

7 contents.

8 A. Yes. The letterhead relates to the Ministry of the Interior of

9 the Republic of the Serbian Krajina, the stamp of the Ministry of the

10 Interior, and the signature, a signature that I have seen as being that of

11 Milan Martic.

12 Q. And are you aware that in April 1993 additional funds were needed

13 in this way, for the increase?

14 A. Yes. There was a state of armed conflict between Krajina and

15 Croatia.

16 Q. Yes. Thank you. Witness, we will leave now the section of

17 finance and speak about the SAO Krajina in December 1990.

18 JUDGE MAY: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, this I think is an area which we

19 really can take quite quickly. You may have had that in mind. And

20 certainly in relation to the foundation and the documents, we can go

21 through them with very short reference indeed.

22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

23 Q. The first document I would put to you in relation to the SAO

24 constitution and law is tab 26 in Exhibit 351, and you just need to give

25 yes or no answers. Is this a report dated the 30th April 1991 in relation

Page 12985

1 to the verification commission to verify the mandate of members of the

2 Assembly of the Serbian Autonomous Region of Krajina, dated on the 30th

3 of -- yes, I said already the date. Yes?

4 A. Yes, it is.

5 Q. And tab 29 of that same document, and we can actually also add tab

6 36. Tab 29, is it the edition dated on the 30th April 1991 on the

7 Assembly of the SAO Krajina, ratifying the election of the president of

8 the Executive Council of the SAO Krajina?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And the other document, is it the decision of the SAO Krajina,

11 dated the 29th of May, 1991, proclaiming the statute of the SAO as

12 constitutional law?

13 A. Yes.

14 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, in the translation is actually

15 an error. In the English translation, it says as the date the 29th of

16 June, 1991, but in the B/C/S it's May.

17 The next document is tab 37 of that same document, of that same

18 exhibit, 37.1 and 37.2. Are these the constitutional laws of the SAO

19 Krajina of the 29th of May, 1991, and the law amending the constitutional

20 law of the SAO Krajina?

21 A. Yes, it is.

22 Q. And the major changes, is it actually changing the name of the

23 Executive Council of the SAO Krajina into "government"?

24 A. That's right.

25 Q. And we have seen the other -- the original SAO statute, where

Page 12986

1 there were the references to the law of Croatia and the FRY. Is there a

2 change in this regard here? Is it now only the law of the FRY?

3 A. Yes. Yes. There are two major changes in relation to the

4 statute. In addition to the designation of the government of SAO Krajina,

5 there was the constitutional establishment of the Serbian Autonomous

6 Region of Krajina as part of the federal territory of the Socialist

7 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

8 Q. And the next document is tab 38 in that same binder. It's a law

9 on the government of the Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina; is that

10 correct?

11 A. Yes, it is.

12 Q. The next document is tab 40, and it's the law on the ministries of

13 the SAO Krajina.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. I just would like you to look at Article 6 in this document, in

16 relation to the Ministry of Defence. It says:

17 "The Ministry of Defence shall deal with administration matters

18 that relate to planning and organising of defence matters concerning

19 compulsory military service, organising and realising the civilian

20 protection, and other matters."

21 And in Article 7 there is the duties and the competencies of the

22 Ministry of Interior. Is that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. The next document is tab 42 in that same document, and it's the

25 law on the courts of the SAO Krajina, and it's all dated 29th May 1991.

Page 12987

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 12988

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And now the next three documents, it's tab 43, tab 52, and tab 53,

3 again of Exhibit 351. These three documents refer -- the first one to the

4 law on the application of regulations of the Republic of Serbia in the SAO

5 Krajina; the next one is a decision of the government of the SAO Krajina,

6 dated the 1st August 1991, on the application of the law on political

7 organisations of the Republic of Serbia; and the third one is decision of

8 the government of the SAO Krajina, dated the 1st August 1991, on the

9 application of the law on internal affairs of the Republic of Serbia.

10 Can you tell us why there was made a reference to the Serbian law

11 and not the FRY law?

12 A. Because there was no need to mention the law of the FRY. It was

13 applied continuously. It was never abolished. So the laws of the

14 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were implemented.

15 As for laws which ceased to apply in Krajina and were laws of the

16 former Socialist Republic of Croatia, and no other laws were introduced to

17 cover the same areas for SAO Krajina, for that reason for those kinds of

18 legislative acts it was necessary to apply the laws of the Republic of

19 Serbia.

20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, the next set of documents are

21 actually appointments of persons into positions, and I think we can even

22 not put it to the witness. I'll just admit it.

23 JUDGE MAY: We can read them for ourselves.

24 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And it's related to the tab 49.5, tab 49.14,

25 tab 49.3. It's the -- it's --

Page 12989

1 JUDGE MAY: The second binder.

2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's the second binder, and it's actually the

3 tab 49.5, 49.8, 49.9, 49.10, 49.14, tab -- yes, that's it.

4 I would like to ask the witness one question in private session

5 briefly to make it clear in relation to authentication.

6 [Private session]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 [Open session]

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

20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I would like to put to the witness the

21 exhibit tab 63 of Exhibit 351, and it is dated the 26th of October, 1991,

22 and it is a "Decision on moving on to work in the conditions of war."

23 Q. When did the war actually start in the SAO Krajina? Was that on

24 that date or earlier?

25 A. The armed conflicts were ongoing in Krajina from the middle of

Page 12990

1 1991. The real war started in August 1991 when the Yugoslav People's Army

2 was involved on a large scale in the combat operations.

3 Q. And the next document I would like to put to you is actually

4 tab 59 of that same exhibit, and -- no. We can just move on. We can just

5 move on. We don't need to discuss it.

6 But I have a question in relation to the next document I would

7 like to put to you, and it's tab 61 in that same document, and it is a

8 "Decision to appoint members of the commission to establish a platform

9 for a possible solution to the constitutional status of the Serbian

10 Autonomous District of Krajina in the future union of Yugoslav people,"

11 and it's dated the 21st of November, 1991.

12 Can you explain why a commission was formed and what it was

13 supposed to do?

14 A. This was a period of time that followed the holding of the main

15 sessions of the conference on the former Yugoslavia which was being held

16 in The Hague. At the time, already certain changes had come into effect

17 in the area of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and under

18 those conditions, the SAO Krajina needed to define its own position as

19 well.

20 Q. Yes. And there is actually another document going with this as

21 well. I would like to show to you the exhibit tab 62. And it's the law

22 on internal affairs. And I have one question in relation to Article 30.

23 Article 30 reads as follows: "The Ministry of the Interior

24 cooperates with the organs of internal affairs in the Federation and in

25 other republics -- and other republic and gives them help in executing

Page 12991

1 tasks from their jurisdiction.

2 "The relation and cooperation between the Ministry of Interior

3 and the interior organs in the Federation and other republic are based on

4 the rights and duties determined by the law..." and so on.

5 Which other republic is referred to in Article 30?

6 A. To the Republic of Serbia in the first place.

7 Q. Yes. This concludes the documents. I have just one question in

8 general in relation to all these documents.

9 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think it's really absurd for a

11 lawyer to ask who is meant in a general act which has the force of law and

12 in which it explicitly says "cooperation with other republics," and then

13 this poor witness answers "Republic of Serbia." Surely the law means what

14 it says and no explanation is required. This is the law of one republic

15 which says that its Ministry of the Interior will cooperate with other

16 republics. It really is absurd.

17 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you will have your chance to comment on

18 what you regard as absurdities. Let's try and get on with this evidence.

19 Yes.

20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

21 Q. Witness, just an additional question in relation to Article 30.

22 With which other republics did the RSK cooperate? The SAO and the RSK,

23 with which other republics did they cooperate?

24 A. In those days with Serbia and Montenegro. There were no other

25 republics that it could cooperate with within this context of this

Page 12992

1 provision of the law.

2 Q. And in relation to the decisions and laws that we just discussed,

3 who drafted these decisions and laws?

4 A. Boro Rasuo and Risto Matkovic.

5 Q. Witness, I would also like to also very briefly address the issue

6 of the defence law that prevailed in the SAO Krajina, and did you provide

7 such laws during your conversations with the Prosecutor in Belgrade and in

8 The Hague?

9 A. Yes. As far as the Law on Defence is concerned, I provided a text

10 which in content corresponds to the law that was applied on the 1st of

11 August, 1991, in SAO Krajina.

12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I don't think we have to put

13 these documents to the witness. I think just refer to them. It's a Law

14 on All People's Defence adopted by the SFRY of 1981. That's tab 21 of

15 Exhibit 352. Then the amending Law on People's Defence published in the

16 Official Gazette of the SFRY in 1991. That's tab 22. Then the Serbian

17 Law on Defence, July 1991. That's tab 24. And the next one is tab 23,

18 the decree to enforce the Law on Defence of the Republic of Serbia in the

19 territory of the RSK in August 1991.

20 Q. And tab 25 is an additional document which I would like to discuss

21 with you, actually, and it's tab 25.

22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Could that be briefly put to the witness.

23 Q. It's a letter to the -- a letter to the president of the Municipal

24 Assembly, informing them that the law -- in accordance with the law on the

25 application of legal regulations of the Republic of Serbia on the

Page 12993

1 territory of the SAO Krajina and who is the head of the TO, that is the

2 Prime Minister. Is that what you supplied to the Office of the

3 Prosecutor?

4 A. Yes, it is.

5 Q. Witness, how -- how did you -- you provided -- you had available

6 in the Krajina the Serbian Law on Defence of July 1991. How did you get

7 it?

8 A. You mean the Law on Defence of the Republic of Serbia?

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. We received it from the office of the president of the Republic of

11 Serbia, Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, by fax.

12 Q. Had you requested it by fax, or how did it arrive?

13 A. Yes. We requested the office to send it to us by fax.

14 Q. Did you actually request -- speak to Mr. Milosevic about it or did

15 you just approach the office?

16 A. We spoke to the secretary of Mr. Milosevic, asking her to ask the

17 president whether we could have a copy.

18 JUDGE KWON: Was it the only way to get the law of Serbia at that

19 time?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was a way to get it quickly,

21 without waiting for it to arrive by mail or through the Official Gazette.

22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

23 Q. Did you ask --

24 JUDGE MAY: Now, if it's another of your comments, I think we can

25 do without it, Mr. Milosevic.

Page 12994

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 12995

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wanted to assist the gentleman.

2 JUDGE MAY: No, no. You can assist later.

3 We will adjourn now. Twenty minutes.

4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I have just one question in

5 relation to this and then it will be finished.

6 Q. At that time when you requested the Serbian Law of Defence, was it

7 already adopted or was it in the process of being adopted?

8 A. The Assembly of the Republic of Serbia had adopted it, and it was

9 in the president's office for signature, so that it was in the signature

10 stage.

11 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will adjourn. Twenty minutes.

12 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

13 --- On resuming at 10.53 a.m.

14 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour.

16 Q. Witness, in the beginning of your testimony you already mentioned

17 the Serbian media and their relevance at that time. How did the Serbian

18 media report about the situation of the Serbs in Yugoslavia, in

19 particular, the Serbs in Croatia, in the years 1990, 1991?

20 A. These media not only followed the events involving Serbs in the

21 territory of the former Yugoslavia, especially in the territory of

22 Croatia, but they worked very intensively on creating public opinion, both

23 about the events and the general situation at the time. As political

24 tension grew in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, and particularly

25 the conflicts, political conflicts in Croatia in early and throughout

Page 12996

1 1990, the reporting of the media from Serbia, and especially Belgrade, was

2 very idiosyncratic. All reports on these events were accompanied by

3 reminiscing of events from more distant history, such as World War II,

4 when Croatian Nazis, or the Ustashas, committed pogroms and mass crimes in

5 the territory of the former independent state of Croatia. Generally

6 speaking, I can say that the spectre of reporting and these evocations of

7 historical events was led by Belgrade, in creating public opinion in the

8 sense that mistrust was fueled against the current government in Croatia

9 and animosity towards the new government in Croatia.

10 Q. How was the Croatian government described?

11 A. The Croatian government was described in various ways, depending

12 on the time period involved. It was described as neo-Ustasha government

13 at the beginning, and at the time of the armed conflict it was also

14 described as genocidal and Ustasha.

15 Q. Was anything said about the intention of the Croatian government

16 towards the Serbian population in Croatia?

17 A. Yes, especially in the beginning of 1990. It was said that the

18 intention of the Croatian government was to commit a new genocide and

19 massacres against Serbs, in Croatia especially.

20 Q. Was anything said --

21 THE INTERPRETER: Especially in Knin. Interpreter's correction.

22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

23 Q. Was anything said about the Croatian population and their

24 relationship with Serbs? Could they live together?

25 A. The emphasis was put more on separation.

Page 12997

1 Q. Did the Serbian media from Belgrade and Serbia report falsely

2 about events in Croatia?

3 A. One could say that they exaggerated events and made them more

4 dramatic than they really were.

5 Q. What effect, if any, did this reporting have on the Serb

6 population in Croatia?

7 A. Yes, it had a great impact, insofar as this reporting created

8 first mistrust and then hostility towards the Croatian government.

9 Q. And how about the Croatian population? You mentioned they had

10 distrust and even hostility towards the Croatian government. What about

11 the attitude towards the Croatian population?

12 A. The relationship was indirect. That is to say that it was

13 believed that anyone who supported such a government in Croatia was the

14 same as the government, could be identified with the government.

15 Q. Was there a particular media item that affected you personally?

16 A. Well, all articles that evoked the past impressed me a great

17 deal. There was even one interview I gave when I myself evoked that

18 past. The reporters in question specifically asked me to. And I was

19 particularly impressed by all the efforts to portray the intentions of the

20 Croatian government and Croatian ministers regarding Serbs in Croatia.

21 That is what impressed me most and inspired in me a hostility towards the

22 Croatian authorities.

23 Q. Did you view the so-called Spegelj tape, Spegelj's tape? Do you

24 know what that is?

25 A. Yes. It was a film broadcast on Television Belgrade about

Page 12998

1 Spegelj, Boljkovac, both ministers in the Croatian government, and their

2 intentions regarding Serbs in Croatia, the army, and Knin.

3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the Prosecution would like to

4 play a few sequences of the Spegelj's tape, and it's actually Exhibit 352,

5 tab 170. If you allow for this.

6 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: The AV director has the tape and knows what

8 he has to play. Thank you. You can start.

9 [Videotape played]

10 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] If it is needed, two or three men for

11 the liquidation of the leadership.

12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, you have the English translation

13 of what we hear in that same tab number. I actually thought that we would

14 hear the translation, because I thought they were supplied with that

15 document.

16 JUDGE MAY: I'm told there's a problem about the interpreters

17 following. I don't know whether they've got the translation or not.

18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: They did, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE MAY: Do you want to play some more, see how we get on?

20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, please.

21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note: The quality of sound is too

22 bad for interpreting, and we --

23 JUDGE MAY: Let's see how we get on with the next bit. If you

24 can't interpret, we'll have to abandon it.

25 Do you want to play another section? Yes.

Page 12999

1 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, please.

2 [Videotape played]

3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Is it still not possible?

4 JUDGE MAY: It seems impossible. We have the transcript of --

5 THE INTERPRETER: We have the transcript now. Interpreters now

6 have the transcript.

7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I think we can abandon it and --

8 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We've got it in English.

9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We have it in English, and that should be

10 enough. The only thing is that the witness, of course, doesn't have now

11 the text.

12 Q. Did you review this tape in the Office of the Prosecutor while you

13 were here in The Hague?

14 A. Yes. I saw part of that footage.

15 Q. And did Mr. Spegelj on this tape refer to killing members of the

16 JNA, and in particular, solving the problem in Knin by slaughtering? Did

17 he say that?

18 A. Yes, that's what he said.

19 Q. And who produced the video? Do you know that?

20 A. When the film was shown, it was announced that it was produced by

21 the information service of the Federal Secretariat for National Defence of

22 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Later, the media reported that the

23 footage was actually produced by the KOS, the counter-intelligence

24 service.

25 Q. Did Mr. Spegelj, General Spegelj at that time, did he deny to have

Page 13000

1 said such things like killing the JNA members and the people in Knin?

2 A. Through the media he denied -- he denied this.

3 Q. This tape, was it -- when was it -- was it broadcast once or on

4 several occasions and at what time?

5 A. I know that it was broadcast around the 25th of January, and I

6 know it was followed by articles in the press. It may have been broadcast

7 several times, but I didn't watch it more than once. I watched it only

8 the first time.

9 JUDGE MAY: Which year was it, please?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1991. Around the 25th of January,

11 1991.

12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

13 Q. Did this tape have an effect on the Serbian population in Croatia,

14 in particular in Knin?

15 A. Yes. After this film, there were mass rallies not only against

16 Spegelj but the entire Croatian government and in support of Yugoslavia

17 and the Yugoslav People's Army. It had such an effect that the Croatian

18 government and anyone who supported it was considered as an enemy of the

19 Serbian people. Great fear reigned, fear of Croatia, especially at that

20 time.

21 Q. You have already mentioned, actually, an interview you gave to the

22 media, but I would like to have some additional remarks on this, but I

23 think it should be in private session.

24 [Private session]

25 [redacted]

Page 13001

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 13002

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 13002 redacted private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 13003

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 13003 redacted private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 13004

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 13004 redacted private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 13005

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [Open session]

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

11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

12 Q. You mentioned that Mr. Milosevic -- let me ask you differently.

13 Who controlled the Serbian media?

14 A. The media in Serbia was controlled by President Milosevic.

15 Q. How did he do that? How did he control the media? In which way?

16 A. He had two options: either through the institutions of the

17 Republic of Serbia, which he controlled through his ruling SPS party; or

18 personally, through people which held posts of editors and media outlets.

19 I personally know about this second option, way.

20 Q. What do you know about this second option, that he controlled the

21 media through people who held posts?

22 A. I know that he appointed and removed from office directors of

23 radio/television; that he held, controlled, appointed, directors and

24 editors of the daily Politika --

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: To what extent was the media privately or

Page 13006

1 publicly owned?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was publicly owned. It was

3 public property, ownership.

4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

5 Q. You mentioned the daily Politika. Is that a leading paper? Was

6 it a leading paper at that time?

7 A. Yes. It was the leading daily, called Politika.

8 Q. How do you know that Mr. Milosevic appointed the editors and those

9 who held post in this leading paper? And if it's necessary, we can go

10 into private session. I'm not sure yourself, but you know.

11 A. I heard personally, from some directors, that they were under the

12 control of President Milosevic, and I heard personally from President

13 Milosevic that he had appointed certain directors.

14 Q. When did Mr. Milosevic tell you that he personally appointed

15 directors? And who did he appoint?

16 A. In March, he appointed the director of television of Belgrade,

17 Belgrade television, in March of 1991.

18 Q. And is that what he told you?

19 A. Yes, personally.

20 Q. In March 1991, or when?

21 A. In March of 1991.

22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I suggest we go briefly into a

23 private session so that the witness can speak more freely.

24 [Private session]

25 [redacted]

Page 13007

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 13007 redacted private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 13008

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 13009

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 13009 redacted private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 13010

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 13010 redacted private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 13011

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [Open session]

5 THE REGISTRAR: We're back into open session, Your Honours.

6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

7 Q. Did the media also report about Milan Martic, and if so, in which

8 way?

9 A. Yes. They did write about him, especially starting in April of

10 1991.

11 Q. How was he portrayed? Was he, as well, glorified, as you said in

12 relation to another person before?

13 A. Yes. His role was glorified in Krajina.

14 Q. Witness, when Yugoslavia started to disintegrate, was there a

15 major goal for the Serbs in Yugoslavia?

16 A. The discussion on future relations in Yugoslavia, as far as I can

17 remember, were quite intense in 1990, and there were two options there,

18 two approaches. One was a political approach of Serbia, which was that

19 Yugoslavia should be set up as a strong federation; and the second option

20 or approach was that adopted by Croatia and Slovenia, where they believed

21 that they should be independent states or that it should be set up as a

22 confederation. The Serbs opted for the political approach taken in

23 Belgrade, that of Yugoslavia as a firm federation. In the case of full

24 disintegration of Yugoslavia, they thought that Serbs had a right to

25 remain in one state, which is what President Milosevic used to say, that

Page 13012

1 Serbs cannot live in four states. Even a confederation -- and even a

2 confederation cannot be considered one state, and that Serbs shall live in

3 one state.

4 Q. You said that Mr. Milosevic said that. When did you hear him say

5 that?

6 A. In January of 1991.

7 Q. What was the occasion?

8 A. Personally, during personal meetings. And there was also a public

9 speech, or something that was publicly announced by the governing

10 structures of Belgrade.

11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like to

12 put to the witness, from Exhibit 352, tab 27.

13 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Witness, before that: Have you ever heard of or

14 are you familiar with the notion of Greater Serbia?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's a concept that clearly was

16 explained by Vojislav Seselj, president of the Serb Radical Party.

17 JUDGE KWON: Is it different from all Serbs living in one state,

18 which Milosevic is referred to say that? Is it the same notion or is it a

19 different one?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was a different notion; however,

21 the contents of both of them were quite similar.

22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

23 Q. In which way do you mean that? In which way were they similar?

24 A. Well, the concept of President Milosevic meant that Serbs, in

25 addition to Serbian Montenegro -- so in the state that he advocated, in

Page 13013

1 addition to Serbian Montenegro is a state where Serbs from Croatia and

2 Bosnia-Herzegovina should live as well.

3 Seselj formulated that in a different way, namely that the Greater

4 Serbia should have its boundaries in Karlobag, Ogulin, and Virovitica.

5 This is where its western boundaries should be, which is similar to this

6 option advocated by Mr. Milosevic.

7 Q. And to just follow up on this, I would like to show you the map

8 Exhibit 326, tab 3. This black line, what is it?

9 A. This is a line advocated by Vojislav Seselj and representing

10 western borders of Serbia.

11 Q. The western borders of the state that Mr. Milosevic had in mind,

12 where would that be? Would it be --

13 JUDGE MAY: Well, were there any borders? I think we need to be

14 careful about how this is formulated, because this is the first time that

15 any such suggestion has been made by the witness.

16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

17 Q. All Serbs in one state as you said --

18 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness deal with that. What, as you

19 understood it, did the notion of "all Serbs in one state" mean?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I saw it, that meant that Serbs

21 from Croatia, Serbs from Bosnia-Herzegovina, had a right to live in the

22 same state as Serbia.

23 JUDGE MAY: Was there any suggestion as to where the borders of

24 that state should be?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On television, Borisav Jovic,

Page 13014

1 sometime around the 10th of September of 1990, explained in which way this

2 could possibly be implemented, and he spoke of municipalities as

3 territorial units that would be included in that state which would be a

4 firm federation and would be created by restructuring the

5 then-Yugoslavia. Seselj was the only one who spoke about borders,

6 Karlovac, Karlobag, Ogulin, and Virovitica.

7 President Milosevic spoke of this principle as a proper principle,

8 that Serbs from Croatia or, rather, that Serbs from four republics have to

9 be in one state, have a right to that.

10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Can you put this map on the ELMO, please?

11 Q. Witness, I don't know whether this map can assist you or whether

12 we have to take another map, but where -- in which areas -- can you point

13 out with a pointer in which areas actually the Serbs in Croatia lived?

14 Was there -- could you point that out?

15 JUDGE MAY: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, we can save time. We know that

16 now. We've had evidence about it. Can we move on, please?

17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Okay.

18 Q. Witness, the usher was supposed to show you a document. It's a

19 proclamation of the working group for preparation of the plan for

20 unification of Republika Srpska Krajina and Republika Srpska, and on the

21 bottom there is --

22 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic, what's your point?

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Since I'm certain that this witness

24 could not confirm even under the circumstances that he's describing this

25 invented border, why won't you let him --

Page 13015

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 13016

1 JUDGE MAY: No. What's your point?

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Why won't you let him answer?

3 JUDGE MAY: What is your point? You can ask him. You can ask

4 him. You'll get your turn in a minute.

5 Yes. Let's move on.

6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

7 Q. This working group, are you familiar with this?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And on the first page there is a paragraph, and I will quote:

10 "The objective and clear commitment of Serbs was to live in a joint state

11 with the remaining Serbian nation, and they were aware that only that type

12 of state could protect them from new genocide and guarantee national

13 freedom and equality."

14 Can you comment on this quote from the working group?

15 A. That referred to the key reason why it was necessary to have all

16 Serb territories unite in one state.

17 Q. Does that mean -- what does it mean? It says here to "...protect

18 them from new genocide and guarantee national freedom and equality." Was

19 that necessary?

20 A. At the time, it was not necessary to mention genocide because

21 Republic of Serbian Krajina and Republika Srpska had already been

22 created.

23 Q. The objective and clear commitment of Serbs to live in the one

24 state, since when was this notion used and until when? This document of

25 the working group is actually from May 1995. Was it a thesis throughout?

Page 13017

1 A. From the beginning of 1991, this was a thesis that had been

2 accepted by President Milosevic, all Serbs in one state. As far as

3 Republika Srpska Krajina was concerned and Republika Srpska, this thesis

4 was an accepted one in 1995 as well.

5 Q. The quote continues, and I quote to you: "One-sided and

6 unconstitutional secession of Croats and Muslims from former Croatia and

7 former Bosnia and Herzegovina was carried out in order to destroy joint

8 Yugoslav state, to bring to an end its state-legal identity and

9 continuity, and to deprive Serbian people of the status of constitutive

10 nation, to get it to a position of humiliated minority deprived of its

11 right of self-determination."

12 Can you comment on this quote? In which way would the Serbian

13 people be deprived of its right of self-determination and be a humiliated

14 minority?

15 A. It was believed that if Serbs in Croatia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina

16 agreed to have Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina exist as independent states,

17 then in that case they would lose their status of constituent nation in

18 those republics, which is a status that they had according to previous

19 constitutions, and in that case, they would not have the right to unite

20 together with other Serbs in other republics where Serbs lived. This

21 pertains to the notion of minority and that of a constituent nation.

22 Q. Was there a notion that it would be humiliating for the Serbian

23 people to be a minority in a state?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Who created this notion?

Page 13018

1 A. At first this notion came from Belgrade that the Serbs are a

2 constituent nation not only in the republics in which they live but in

3 Yugoslavia as a whole, that as a nation that they have a right to

4 self-determination, to remain in one state and not to be reduced to a

5 national minority. This was a thesis supported by the political leaders

6 of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and it was widely accepted by

7 citizens of Serb ethnicity in both Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and

8 by Serbs in Serbia.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: The specific question related to the notion of

10 humiliation that would be experienced by the Serbs as a minority, I don't

11 think you have addressed that directly. The question you were asked was:

12 Who created that notion? How did it come about?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was considered that if the Serbs

14 as a nation would lose the status of a constituent nation in Croatia or

15 Bosnia-Herzegovina, they would be reduced to the status of a national

16 minority. These are two different concepts in the sense that a nation,

17 the concept of a nation or a people has the right to self-determination up

18 to secession, whereas a national minority does not enjoy that right.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: By whom? By the Serbs in Belgrade or by the

20 Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In both Belgrade and in Croatia and

22 in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

23 JUDGE KWON: I'm sorry. You accepted that notion at the time,

24 didn't you.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

Page 13019

1 JUDGE KWON: Do you think differently now?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Today I think differently because

3 such a notion was ethnoegoistic. It led up to interethnic confrontation,

4 conflict, and war and all the horrors that occurred in war. That thesis

5 was fatal for the peoples of Yugoslavia. That is my opinion today.

6 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

8 Q. Witness, you mentioned that the Serbs in Serbia and in Croatia

9 were of that opinion at that time. Does that include in Milosevic, and if

10 so, did he voice that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Did you answer? I didn't hear any translation.

13 A. Yes. Yes.

14 Q. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Milosevic the proposal that the

15 Croats had, the confederation, and what was his reaction to this?

16 A. During a discussion among the presidents of the Presidencies of

17 the republics of the former Yugoslavia that were held in April, May, and

18 the beginning of June in 1991, during an encounter with him, I asked him

19 whether Serbia and Croatia could be a confederation, and he said, "I don't

20 want that. Let them go. I will go it with Greece," meaning that he would

21 set up a state with Greece, a confederation, or something like that,

22 whatever.

23 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, to make it faster, we have

24 several documents related actually to the working group of the unification

25 of Republika Srpska and the RSK throughout the years 1995 and where this

Page 13020

1 unification of all Serbs in one state are also mentioned. I would suggest

2 you just accept it and read it yourself, because the documents speak for

3 themselves and wouldn't need any further authentication because it's

4 actually related to activities of the witness.

5 JUDGE MAY: Yes. If you'd like to refer --

6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.

7 JUDGE MAY: If you would like to refer to the tab numbers so we

8 have a record of them.

9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's tab 28 -- it's all in 352, Exhibit 352.

10 It's tab 28, tab 29, tab 30, and tab -- no, it's actually only the tabs

11 27, 28, 29, and the letter document refers to a convention of Yugoslavia,

12 also speaking about the right of self-determination and what the witness

13 just talked about.

14 And I have here a document which I would like to put to the

15 witness, and it's also referring to a similar issue, but I would like to

16 ask a question. It's tab 31. It's a letter to the -- it's a letter from

17 Andjelko Maslic, General Secretary of the SFRY Presidency, to Milan Martic

18 on the 21st of February, 1992, and it refers to an agenda item, "Report on

19 discussion of the proposal for the adoption of a law on the exercise of

20 the right of people's self-determination."

21 Q. Witness, is that -- according to the agenda item, was this

22 discussed at that time?

23 A. I don't know, but I do know that this law was discussed for a long

24 time, this draft law, this draft of a law, ever since August 1990; then at

25 the conference in Yugoslavia by the parties on the 4th of January, 1991;

Page 13021

1 at the second convention, I think it was in February 1992. On the 4th of

2 January, 1992 - I am not sure I gave the correct date - and again in

3 February 1992.

4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, there are two more documents,

5 and I would think we don't need to put it to the witness. It's tab 32 and

6 tab 33, dealing with that same issue of the unification of certain

7 territories into one state.

8 Q. During your conversation with the Prosecutor in The Hague, did you

9 have an opportunity to listen to intercepted conversations --

10 JUDGE MAY: You want to move on to the intercepts, do you?

11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. I would like -- because

12 it's actually referring now to that same issue, the joint Serbian state

13 and what it could be.

14 JUDGE MAY: Well, there are objections to the admission of the

15 intercepts. Would this be a convenient moment to deal with them?

16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I think --

17 JUDGE MAY: You or Mr. Nice --

18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Mr. Nice will deal with this legal question.

19 JUDGE MAY: It may be convenient if we deal with that now. Then

20 we can come back to it in due course.

21 We have the various objections. Just one moment. Yes. We're

22 short the appendix to your last filing. If we could have that.

23 MR. NICE: I'm sorry. I didn't know that that hadn't reached

24 you. Let me just check on what's happened. I think it may take some

25 minutes for the attachment to be available.

Page 13022

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 13023

1 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Let us continue while it is being made

2 available. We should obviously have it. May I just deal with those

3 submissions that we've had.

4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, maybe I can be of assistance in

5 relation to the appendix, because it's actually an exhibit, and the

6 exhibit number is Exhibit 353, tab 1. That is actually the declaration of

7 the witness and the intercepts that are in question. So you have that

8 appendix as an exhibit, which is supposed to be tendered a little bit

9 later.

10 JUDGE MAY: Yes. It's the declaration that we have. Very well.

11 Thank you. We have it.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: What I am looking for is -- in your reply to the

14 amici curiae's observations regarding the intercepted communications, you

15 said that you would be attaching the law authorising interception, and

16 that's not attached. That is what I would like to get.

17 MR. NICE: Very well. I'll see whether we can get a hold of

18 that. We were expecting this to come up, I think, in the third session,

19 and in the event, we've made better time than we had forecast. It's

20 coming, but it's not here immediately.

21 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, as I was saying, we've had -- in relation

22 to this, we've had some observations by the amici; we've had your original

23 submission, Prosecution original submission; observations by the amici,

24 including a schedule of tapes; we've had your reply, Prosecution reply.

25 We've been referred to the Kordic judgement in February 2000. We don't

Page 13024

1 need to go over what we already have by way of argument, but I propose to

2 give everybody the opportunity, shortly, to address these matters, and of

3 course to give the accused his opportunity to address us on it. But we'll

4 start with the amicus, we'll go on with the accused, and we'll allow the

5 Prosecution to respond.

6 Ms. Higgins, now, do you want to add anything to what is already

7 written, or anything in response to what the Prosecution have said?

8 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, I don't wish to repeat in detail what's

9 already been said, but I do want to raise a few issues which, in my

10 submission, have not been exhausted by the written submissions by the

11 Prosecution.

12 There are two issues at stake here. The first issue relates to

13 authenticity and reliability of the evidence, and the second issue

14 relating to legality. Can I just deal firstly and briefly with

15 authenticity and reliability?

16 THE INTERPRETER: Counsel, slow down, please.

17 MS. HIGGINS: [Previous translation continues] ...laid out in the

18 pleadings. For the evidence --

19 JUDGE KWON: You are asked to slow down.

20 MS. HIGGINS: I'm sorry, Your Honour.

21 For the evidence to be admissible before this Tribunal, it must be

22 both relevant and probative, and the thread that the amici has said runs

23 through both is, of course, reliability.

24 The question is whether or not the intercept material is reliable,

25 and the amici are of the view that the Prosecution have not laid the

Page 13025

1 foundation for the introduction of the intercepts at this stage. The

2 Trial Chamber still does not know how, when, where the intercepts came

3 from. There is no continuity evidence. We don't even know how the

4 intercepts have been dated or whether they came from a reliable source,

5 authenticity evidently being a key issue in relation to this material.

6 The fact that the Prosecution in their pleadings state that the

7 full picture regarding intercepts will be developed throughout the trial

8 does not assist the Trial Chamber at this stage in deciding whether the

9 material can be admitted at this point. Before the Trial Chamber has

10 heard evidence on how these intercepts were recorded, preserved,

11 transcribed, this material, in our view, should not be admitted.

12 JUDGE MAY: Your submission, not your view. You're making

13 submissions.

14 MS. HIGGINS: Of course, Your Honour. I excuse myself.

15 That the submission is that the material should not be admitted,

16 as all of these features go to the reliability of the evidence.

17 The Prosecution is right to say that there are many factors to

18 consider in evaluating the reliability, and one of those is evidently

19 voice recognition, which has already been raised. If this witness is

20 going to be used to introduce evidence, conversations which he did not

21 take part in, then evidently the Trial Chamber has to be sure that the

22 intercepts are genuine. The Prosecution have asserted that the witness

23 recognises the voices from a base of strong familiarity. They also

24 suggest that this witness is intimately familiar with the situations

25 referred to in the intercepts. However, one additional point that wasn't

Page 13026

1 raised in the pleadings is perhaps this: that just because a witness has a

2 strong familiarity with events reflected in the conversations, it doesn't

3 necessarily mean that the conversations are genuine or that the voices are

4 of those who they purport to be. Evidently, in time --

5 JUDGE MAY: He can give his evidence, and what he can say is: "I

6 know Mr. X and I recognise his voice." Now, it would then surely be for

7 us to weigh, having heard any evidence to the contrary that there may be,

8 if any, whether he's right about it or not, given also the context in

9 which the conversations take place. This is not a case, of course, of

10 identification by voice. This is a case of recognition. He says: "I

11 know these people and I can tell you this is his voice." It's a matter of

12 weight, isn't it?

13 MS. HIGGINS: Well, the only point we make in relation to that is

14 even if he recognises the voices, it may still be that the voices are not

15 genuine, are not the voices of those people; they are perhaps imitations.

16 That's the only point we raise in relation to that, Your Honour. Of

17 course the witness can say that he recognises the voices. Then it would

18 be for the Trial Chamber to determine.

19 Your Honour, can I just briefly deal with the issue of legality.

20 The accused, Mr. Milosevic, has stated -- has put, effectively, the

21 Prosecution to proof on this matter. His position is that they were not

22 legally obtained. The authorisations have now been put before Your

23 Honours in the confidential schedule by the Prosecution. However, in the

24 submission of the amici, it is perhaps still unclear as to whether the

25 Prosecution are in possession of the original authorisations and the

Page 13027

1 original notebooks of the intercepts. It's unclear as to what the Latas

2 and Zoran authorisations mean, and evidently this witness will not be able

3 to help us with the genuineness of those authorisations. We would also

4 ask where the legal provisions are and the law pursuant to which the

5 authorisations were purportedly made. Again, we would submit that no

6 basis has been laid in relation to the authenticity and reliability of the

7 material.

8 Finally, Your Honour, just to address one point in relation to

9 Rule 95. The Prosecution asked the Trial Chamber to make a ruling that

10 Rule 95 does not apply to communications intercepted during wartime. The

11 amici would submit that there should be no blanket ruling of this nature

12 and that each of the circumstances should be considered on a case-by-case

13 basis. Your Honour, you have the submissions of the amici, and I would

14 draw your attention to the factors raised in paragraph 13 of our

15 submission in relation to this issue. We would say that at this stage

16 they should not be admitted but perhaps more appropriately marked for

17 identification until the basis has been provided.

18 Your Honour, unless I can assist you any further.

19 JUDGE MAY: No. Thank you.

20 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very briefly, Mr. May. I have

22 already indicated that it is unacceptable to tender allegedly intercepted

23 conversations obtained in an illegal manner, because these are montages.

24 And I will add another material document in support of this, as I had

25 occasion to read those transcripts, and it can be seen that parts of

Page 13028

1 conversations were taken out of context and that the conversations are not

2 logical in the way a normal conversation is conducted. Therefore, I

3 cannot leaf through all those intercepts now, nor do I wish to do that, to

4 find an example, but it is obvious that these are montages.

5 Thirdly, with regard to authenticity, I think that this particular

6 witness can speak about the authenticity of his conversations with a

7 person he talked to. I see there are no conversations between me and him,

8 but allegedly there are transcripts of his conversations with a third

9 person. But I don't see how he can confirm the authenticity of

10 conversations between me and a third person, any third person.

11 So from the standpoint of authenticity and legality, and obvious

12 editing of elements of conversations that are obvious from the intercept,

13 I feel that, out of reasons of principle, it is unacceptable to accept

14 such evidence. As for the content itself, it doesn't bother me. I won't

15 enter into that now. I will if you rule in a different manner.

16 MR. NICE: Your Honour, there's little to add in the circumstances

17 of the brief submissions that have been made. Marking exhibits for

18 identification purposes only and deferring their formal adoption into

19 evidence is a course that's, in our respectful submission, not appropriate

20 and not one that should be used excessively, when an alternative and

21 proper course would be to admit all the exhibits now, recognising that the

22 weight to be accorded to any exhibit will inevitably be assessed later,

23 and recognising that with this category of evidence, it's going to be

24 particularly easy to mark indicia of weight later.

25 For example, when the evidence of provenance of these intercepts

Page 13029

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 13030

1 is available, or assuming it is available, then it will be possible to

2 mark beside any intercept what evidence of provenance has been given and

3 in due course for that itself to be weighed. Where there is evidence of

4 identification of voices that is either accepted or, alternatively, proved

5 satisfactorily, but certainly accepted by one of the other parties, why,

6 then, that would itself be a matter of weight. Where there is evidence of

7 understanding of and acceptance of the reality of the content of the

8 intercepts by this particular witness, that again would be an element that

9 could be easily tabulated so as to give weight to the intercept

10 concerned.

11 By far the preferable course, in our respectful submission, would

12 be to admit all these intercepts. I think there are 50 where this witness

13 recognises the voice, and two, I think, where he actually can, as it were,

14 identify the conversation. But to admit the intercepts now, doing what

15 the Chamber regularly does, which is to put off the final determination of

16 questions of weight until later, following argument, which will take

17 account of all the evidence. Of course, not only will be thereby in due

18 course evidence of provenance, but there will be an interaction of the

19 content of these intercepts with other evidence.

20 For example, if, as the accused would appear to be allowing as a

21 possibility, there should be a conflict between what he maintains are

22 montages and other evidence that may come in in one part of the case or

23 another, then that would be registered. If, on the other hand, the

24 evidence is all to the effect that the challenged intercept fits with

25 other evidence, and a large number of pieces of evidence, then there would

Page 13031

1 be every reason to give weight to that particular intercept.

2 I remember a problem that we encountered in Kordic where a piece

3 of evidence was excluded by the Appeals Chamber, over the ruling of this

4 Chamber, relating, in fact, to a different topic, a dead witness. And I

5 think it was well recognised in argument, in both Chambers, that a proper

6 way to proceed, although rejected by the Appeals Chamber in that

7 particular case, is to admit evidence, knowing that more evidence will be

8 forthcoming, by which that first piece of evidence can be properly weighed

9 and its admissibility and the value of its admissibility assessed. We, of

10 course, would have argued in that other case that that was the appropriate

11 course there, and this Chamber took that view, in line with our argument.

12 That was a particular, but quite a good graphic example of how to exclude

13 evidence at an early stage can limit the ability for that evidence ever

14 subsequently to be enhanced or given greater weight.

15 These intercepts should be admitted now, there being no reason the

16 alleged illegality is met in any event by the document now being made

17 available to you and, for reasons already argued, wouldn't exclude the

18 material. These intercepts should be admitted now, their weight assessed

19 later.

20 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. We'll adjourn now for 20 minutes, and any

21 additional time that's necessary for us to consider this submission.

22 --- Recess taken at 12.18 p.m.

23 --- On resuming at 12.45 p.m.

24 JUDGE MAY: The Trial Chamber has come to this conclusion: that we

25 find prima facie these tapes are admissible, but since we think that there

Page 13032

1 should be more details as to the provenance of how and when these

2 intercepts were taken that we shall at this stage simply mark them for

3 identification and order that they now be played.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'd just like to add, Mr. Nice, the reference to

5 the law on the basis of the system of state security, I'm fairly confident

6 that this is a law that authorises this kind of interception which would

7 normally be a derogation from the right to privacy, and it does so in the

8 interest of national security, which is a recognised exception under

9 international human rights law. But there's nothing in the document to

10 indicate that. In fact, it's not even clear to me whether the references

11 here are to regulations made under the law. So perhaps if you're able to

12 provide something in the law itself which I feel sure would give me the

13 information that I need that it is -- that the action taken is authorised

14 in the interest of national security.

15 MR. NICE: We'll pursue the matter.

16 JUDGE MAY: And if you would, too, have in mind, as I say, we will

17 need some more details as to the provenance. We've simply got the

18 authorisation at the moment.

19 MR. NICE: Certainly. Well, evidence as to provenance would have

20 been and will be forthcoming in any event. As to the law, we'll flesh out

21 the detail in due course.

22 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Did you wish to say something?

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I did. We've just received

24 this appendix, a response regarding intercepts, and that includes, as far

25 as I understand, what Mr. Robinson has said.

Page 13033

1 As far as I know under the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

2 the authorisation to make an exception in relation to the right to privacy

3 can be given only by the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and by no

4 means by the Minister of the Interior. I know that in Serbia, only the

5 Supreme Court had this right, this authority. In Bosnia and Herzegovina,

6 it was the Presidency. So this paper cannot be considered as a basis for

7 treating something as legal. And this is something from Savnik, a person,

8 Bojan Savnik.

9 And regarding what was said just before the break, data related to

10 the source do not confirm legality unless there is evidence of legality.

11 And third, Mr. Nice explained to us here that this witness is able to

12 recognise voices. Even if you were to accept these intercepts, to admit

13 them, then the witness would have to recognise all of these conversations

14 here in front of you. It is not enough for the opposite side to claim

15 that all of the 52 intercepted conversations are recognised by the

16 witness, because it may well be the case of an agreement between the

17 witness and the OTP to say that he recognised them. If evidence is

18 admitted, it has to be adduced here. You can't admit them without their

19 being produced.

20 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, let us not go on about this. You have

21 heard our ruling that it will be -- simply these tapes will be marked for

22 identification at this stage. They will be played. During the course of

23 that playing, the witness will explain to us how it is that he can -- if

24 he does, how he can recognise the particular voices in each case, if he

25 does.

Page 13034

1 Now, we'll hear the evidence, and in due course we will hear

2 further submissions on the law which you've heard Judge Robinson has

3 raised.

4 Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

5 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the intention is actually not to

6 play all the intercepts here in court. That would take at least

7 approximately two days. We will address -- we will hear a few, sequences

8 of a few, and we will discuss more where we have the transcript, and we

9 will discuss the transcript. And for some, we would simply put them in

10 without even a lengthy discussion on the contents. That is at least what

11 is planned.

12 JUDGE MAY: We have the transcripts of the various intercepts you

13 wish to refer to, as I understand it.

14 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE MAY: Now, what in each case you must do if you want us to

16 have these admitted in due course through this witness is to have the

17 witness identify the voices if he says he can and lay a foundation as to

18 how he can identify them.

19 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. But what we have

20 produced -- and I will ask the witness now first about the procedure that

21 we used while playing the intercepts.

22 Q. During the conversation with the Prosecutor in The Hague, did you

23 have opportunity to listen in to 50 intercepted telephone conversations?

24 A. Yes, I did.

25 JUDGE KWON: For two days?

Page 13035

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It lasted several days. Two days,

2 and on the third day I listened -- I reviewed it on four occasions. It

3 took a long time, if you added it all up. Two full days, I believe.

4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

5 Q. Did you actually listen to the total of -- did you hear them all

6 in the full -- the full scope of the intercept of each? Did you hear it

7 all, and did you follow it on the transcript?

8 A. Yes. I heard all of them, following the transcript for the

9 majority of them, and I did not have a transcript for a smaller number of

10 them. Some of them were played to me without the transcript, with the

11 transcript being provided later.

12 Q. Did you follow the transcript actually and compare it with what

13 you heard?

14 A. Yes. I listened and followed the transcript when I had one in

15 front of me.

16 Q. Did you comment on the correctness of the transcript? Did you

17 find mistakes and comment on them?

18 A. No. The transcripts were correct. My only comments were on the

19 voices: clarity, pitch, colour. I would recognise some of the voices.

20 Whenever something was unclear, I indicated that.

21 Q. While you listened to the conversations and when you heard the

22 voices, did you make comments on which voice you recognised, and were

23 these comments on the recognition put into a document?

24 A. Yes. I indicated the voices I could identify, and that was

25 recorded in a document that was later given to me to review, and which I

Page 13036

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 13037

1 signed, putting my initials on each page and my signature on the last

2 page.

3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Can the witness be shown tab 1 of Exhibit

4 353.

5 Q. Is this the document that was produced in your presence, referring

6 to the intercepts heard, and there's a reference to the voices that you

7 recognised?

8 A. Yes, that is the document.

9 Q. Did you adopt this document -- you said already that you signed

10 it. Did you actually compare it when you had it in front of you? Did you

11 check it?

12 A. Yes. All the 50 items were reviewed by me, and I would always

13 stop to think and remember a conversation that I had, because this was at

14 the end of all the intercepts, and I put my initials after that.

15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, we would like to enter this

16 declaration of the witness under seal.

17 JUDGE MAY: Yes. It's part of the binder.

18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: But it has to be under seal.

19 JUDGE MAY: Very well.

20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I would like now to ask the AV booth to play

21 one intercept in part, and it is --

22 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. We need to confer.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, we have been discussing the

25 methodology that apparently you propose to use. You would be relying, as

Page 13038

1 I understand it, on the written declaration by the witness as to his

2 recognition of voices in tapes that were played before the OTP, which he

3 heard over a period of two or three days.

4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour --

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: I recognise the difficulty that would be involved

6 in playing 50 tapes. It's a question of reliability and weight. We would

7 certainly need to know how he recognised the voices, at a minimum, and I

8 would imagine we should also hear one or two of the tapes.

9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, actually, most of the tapes have

10 the same persons talking, basically Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Milosevic.

11 Therefore, we didn't think it would be necessary, in relation to each and

12 every tape, to discuss it specifically in relation to recognition of the

13 voices. We will discuss each person the witness recognises with him

14 personally here during the testimony, and we will actually -- we address

15 almost -- we will address most of the intercepts with the help of the

16 transcripts. And about 13 will be played, partly. There is -- I think

17 there's only one that will be played in full, because the conversations

18 are often quite lengthy and have parts in it which are not of interest.

19 That is at least what we propose.

20 JUDGE MAY: The matter that you must, of course, satisfy us about

21 is that the witness is able to identify the particular voices. So how

22 does he know the person speaking, how long has he known him. All that

23 kind of thing we'll have to go into, from the point of view of weight.

24 Yes. Very well. If you'd like to go on.

25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. I would like to ask the AV booth to

Page 13039

1 play now the first intercept, and it is tab 42 in the intercept binders.

2 And we will only play a brief part.

3 JUDGE MAY: Now, just before that happens, I've got here this

4 index of intercepts to be played. Are we going to use that at all? It

5 would be helpful if we could. Or using some other document?

6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: In this list, you can actually see the tape

7 number. It's in the left-hand column. You have the --

8 JUDGE MAY: Yes, I've got it.

9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: You have the tab number.

10 JUDGE MAY: Well, which one are we starting with?

11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We are starting with tab 42.

12 JUDGE MAY: No, but where is it in these excerpts which I have?

13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It is tab 42 in the left -- when you follow

14 down the left-hand column --

15 JUDGE MAY: Look, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff. Let me show you what I

16 have.

17 I need assistance. Show that to counsel, please.

18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I thought you were referring to the

19 declaration. In the declaration, we have these tab numbers. This

20 document --

21 JUDGE MAY: No. Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, it's plain what I was

22 referring to if you would listen to what I say.

23 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. This is actually only those who are

24 played, and it's the order how they are played. This document is just an

25 assistance for you so that you can follow --

Page 13040

1 JUDGE MAY: That is all I needed to know. All right. Give it

2 back to me.

3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I didn't see to which document you referred.

4 JUDGE MAY: If you are going to give us these things to help us,

5 you must follow through, and when you prepare, you must say, "Right.

6 We're going to play whichever tab it is, and the excerpt can be found

7 in." It would be of great assistance to us. Now, let's go on.

8 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: So it's the first intercept in that small

9 binder that you just showed me. And we are playing only a sequence, and

10 it's in the transcript, it's in the English, the sequence page 5.

11 [Intercept played]

12 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover]

13 RADOVAN KARADZIC: Well, if they do that then the unrest will

14 start and they will be out. But here in Herzegovina near Dubrovnik, we'll

15 have to provide support.

16 SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: Factually speaking, Yugoslavia is defending

17 its territories, and it's a matter of view point, how you look at it.

18 RADOVAN KARADZIC: Well, we have to protect our people, the people

19 living on those territories. We don't want anything that doesn't belong

20 to us. That's the main thing.

21 SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: Yes. If they got bogged down down there, we

22 have our ways... tell those -- although these people said about the Sava

23 Centre tomorrow that they will not attack them. But if it is really

24 necessary, then they can be attacked as well.

25 RADOVAN KARADZIC: I don't know at all about the Sava centre.

Page 13041

1 SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: They are ... it's this Radoslav Petrovic

2 person.

3 RADOVAN KARADZIC: Listen, call me as we agreed, and we will

4 talk.

5 SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: All right. Sometime before 3.00. Agreed.

6 RADOVAN KARADZIC: All right.

7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you.

8 Q. Witness, which voices, if any, do you recognise? Who -- which are

9 the people talking?

10 A. I recognised first the voice of Radovan Karadzic, and the second

11 voice was Slobodan Milosevic. I must say there is more noise in the

12 headphones now than when I heard it for the first time in the OTP office.

13 The sound was clearer that first time. There is more interference in the

14 headphones now. I don't know why.

15 Q. Witness, how often did you meet Mr. Milosevic in the course of the

16 events approximately, and how familiar are you with his voice?

17 A. Well, I met him about 30 or more than 30 times. That's only our

18 meetings. And I had another five to ten telephone conversations with

19 him.

20 Q. And Mr. Karadzic, how often approximately did you meet him during

21 the course of the events, and did you also speak with him on the phone?

22 A. Yes, I did. I spoke to him on the phone many times. About ten or

23 more than ten. And I also spoke to him on the phone [as interpreted].

24 Q. Did you recognise the voices clearly or do you have any doubts?

25 A. Yes, I recognised the voices clearly.

Page 13042

1 Q. Witness, from the -- do you have the --

2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Does the witness have the transcript in front

3 of him, the B/C/S? Can he please be given the B/C/S transcript.

4 Q. Witness, in the conversation you heard, reference is made to

5 "...secure Herzegovina down there up to Dubrovnik." And it's also said:

6 "That's what we should go for, the de facto situation, Yugoslavia is

7 defending its territory, and then it depends on whatever deal we come up

8 with."

9 What does this sequence refer to? What are Mr. Milosevic and

10 Mr. Karadzic talking about?

11 A. They were talking about the fact that those territories will

12 remain in Yugoslavia, which after the disintegration will, as they put it

13 here, be factually in Yugoslavia, which means those that Yugoslavia will

14 hold as its own territory through the JNA.

15 JUDGE MAY: Witness C-061, let me clarify this. You were asked

16 how often you met Mr. Karadzic, and you said: "I spoke to him on the

17 phone many times. About ten or more than ten. And I also spoke to him on

18 the phone."

19 Now, that may be a mistake in transcription. Would you clarify

20 your answer? How many times did you speak to him on the phone, and how

21 many times did you meet him?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I met with him more than ten times,

23 and I spoke to him on the phone several times.

24 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

25 Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

Page 13043

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 13044

1 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.

2 Q. This reference to the de facto situation, and you make a reference

3 that this means the territories that -- that those Yugoslavia will hold,

4 you said, its own territory, through the JNA. What does that mean? What

5 does the de facto situation -- how does that relate to the JNA?

6 A. It relates to the JNA because the JNA was in control or was

7 deployed on territories which were supposed to be a part of the newly

8 reorganised or newly created federal state Yugoslavia. So that de facto

9 situation meant that that was the territory held by the JNA. Based on

10 Slobodan Milosevic's words, that territory was supposed to remain in

11 Yugoslavia and represent the territory that will be within the new

12 Yugoslavia.

13 Q. Did you have an indication from the context of the conversation

14 with references to a Sava Centre event, do you have an indication when

15 this telephone conversation took place? And you may even look at the

16 transcript, what else is mentioned there.

17 A. Yes. Would you please allow me to read the text first.

18 In the autumn of 1991.

19 Q. How do you know that?

20 A. Because there were negotiations about Yugoslavia, and it also

21 mentions the role of European countries and others regarding Yugoslavia.

22 There was also the conference on Yugoslavia.

23 Q. You refer to the Carrington negotiations, the Carrington Plan, or

24 which negotiations do you mean?

25 A. The Hague Conference.

Page 13045

1 Q. And when did it take place?

2 A. It was prepared in September of 1991, and plenary sessions - there

3 were three of them - were held in October of 1991 and in November of

4 1991. It operated practically up until that point, although it existed

5 for some time in 1992 as well.

6 Q. And when Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Karadzic spoke about the de facto

7 situation in relation to the JNA on the ground, in which territories in

8 October 1991 was the JNA in relation to Croatia?

9 A. It was in the territory of SAO Krajina, in Western Slavonia,

10 Eastern Slavonia, and in the area around Dubrovnik.

11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, this is what I have to discuss

12 in relation to this intercept with the witness. I would like now to

13 discuss only, and not play, the tab 28 in the intercept binder, and the

14 witness would need to have the transcript.

15 Q. Witness, did you have opportunity to listen to two more --

16 JUDGE MAY: Ms. Higgins, do you really have a point you want to

17 raise now? Because too much interruption is bad for the flow. What is

18 the point?

19 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, the very brief point is that if the

20 Prosecution do seek to rely on these intercepts, then perhaps an extract,

21 a short extract, should be played.

22 JUDGE MAY: No. We haven't the time to play 50 intercepts.

23 Yes.

24 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

25 Q. Did you have opportunity to listen to two intercepts in which

Page 13046

1 Milosevic and Karadzic speak about the first step to be taken for the

2 separation or disintegration of Yugoslavia, and is this one of the

3 conversations?

4 A. Yes, I listened to them, and this is one of those conversations.

5 Q. It refers here to -- on page 1, it refers to -- it says here

6 Mr. Milosevic says: "You see that they want to step out, and they are

7 carrying out these things exactly the way we planned it." Then

8 Mr. Karadzic says: "Yes, that is right." And Mr. Milosevic again:

9 "Exactly the way we planned it." And Karadzic again: "My only fear is

10 that he might get carte blanche from the army, that is, that the army

11 might support him."

12 What are they talking about? What was the plan, so to speak?

13 A. The plan was to force Slovenia and Croatia to leave Yugoslavia and

14 to have that part of Croatia which was occupied by the JNA and which was

15 under the control of Serbs to remain in Yugoslavia. They in fact talked

16 about a way, a method, a concept, in which the new restructured Yugoslavia

17 had to be created from the remnants of the former Yugoslavia, in a way in

18 which Slovenia and Croatia, and all others who didn't want to remain with

19 Serbs in Yugoslavia, to be forced to leave that country and to have those

20 parts which remained constitute this new Yugoslavia.

21 Q. And a little bit further down there is the reference --

22 Mr. Karadzic says: "There are, I suppose, some information from the head

23 of the General Staff that they will not let Croatia and Slovenia do it."

24 And then Mr. Milosevic says: "Well, that is why I'm preparing this

25 amendment, to enable them to do it."

Page 13047

1 What does that refer to? Do you know?

2 A. This pertains to Ante Markovic, Federal Prime Minister, and his

3 relations with the JNA Main Staff, in a sense that Mr. Markovic was not in

4 favour of Croatia and Slovenia seceding and leaving Yugoslavia.

5 Mr. Milosevic asked for and offered legal or legislative solutions that

6 would enable them to do so.

7 Q. And in this conversation, when you listened in to it, did you

8 recognise the voices of Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Karadzic?

9 A. Yes, I did.

10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And I would like now to have a look into the

11 tab 24, and it is again a conversation between Mr. Milosevic and

12 Mr. Karadzic, and again there is that issue of separation and who is doing

13 it first.

14 Your Honour, I would now briefly have to go into private session,

15 because a particular issue with the witness comes up. I'm sorry. I'm

16 also sorry. I had a wrong script. It's not -- it's Mr. Karadzic with a

17 female person. It's not Mr. Milosevic. I'm sorry. I had a wrong

18 document in front of me. I'm sorry.

19 [Private session]

20 [redacted]

21 [redacted]

22 [redacted]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

Page 13048

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 13048 redacted private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 13049

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 13049 redacted private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 13050

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 13051

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [Open session]

10 THE REGISTRAR: We're back into open session, Your Honours.

11 A. It was said that peoples were constituent elements of the Yugoslav

12 Federation and that they had a right to decide -- and stemming from that,

13 the Serb people had a right to decide on preserving the Yugoslav

14 Federation. These things were mentioned in public, in speeches, in 1991

15 and in 1992. However, in early 1991 this became very clear. It was said

16 that the Serbs had a right and that the Serbs want to remain in one

17 state.

18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

19 Q. But, Witness, my question was another one. I was asking you

20 whether Mr. Milosevic said something in reference to the non-Serbs living

21 on this territory. Did he say anything about them?

22 A. I don't remember him mentioning non-Serbs.

23 Q. We have before -- before we mentioned also Mr. Vojislav Seselj.

24 What did he say? Did he make any statements in relation to non-Serbs in

25 the territory that he actually put a western border to?

Page 13052

1 A. He used to say, and he actively advocated and took steps to have

2 Croats move out from those territories, Vojvodina in particular. He used

3 to say that that would be that -- that that future state, Greater Serbia,

4 would be exclusively a Serb state.

5 Q. Mr. Seselj, did he have his own party, and if so, what was the

6 name of this party?

7 JUDGE MAY: Well, we know this, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff. We don't need

8 to go over it.

9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Okay.

10 Q. Was Mr. Seselj's party competing with the SPS or were they

11 related?

12 A. They were most often in partner relations. There were times in

13 1993 when they were opposed, openly opposed, to each other in political

14 public scene in Serbia, and prior to that they were coalition parties, and

15 they were a party that supported the SPS, supported Slobodan Milosevic.

16 Q. Did Milosevic support Seselj or did the JNA support Seselj, and if

17 so, how do you know? What do you know about it?

18 A. As far as I know, Milosevic publicly commended Seselj as a

19 patriot.

20 Q. Did Seselj come to the Krajina and visit his volunteers in

21 Croatia?

22 A. Yes, he did.

23 Q. Did --

24 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't think that that was a proper

Page 13053

1 question, whether he used to visit his volunteers, because prior to that

2 we did not establish that Seselj indeed had volunteers in Krajina.

3 JUDGE MAY: We've heard about that from other witnesses, certainly

4 that he sent volunteers.

5 Yes.

6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

7 Q. Did Seselj come to --

8 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let's go on with the evidence. Let's

9 hear what the witness has to say about it, what he knows from his own

10 knowledge.

11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

12 Q. Did you see Seselj in the Krajina, and do you know how he got

13 there and who facilitated this?

14 A. Seselj used to come to Krajina. He came on several occasions. I

15 remember quite well his visits on the 2nd of May, 1991, and especially his

16 visit at the end of December, early January, either late December 1991 or

17 early January 1992, when he came to see the volunteers. And he told me

18 that personally. I don't know in which way he came. I know that he went

19 back in a helicopter of the JNA, which organised his transport from

20 Krajina to Serbia. In fact, it was organised by the Minister of Defence,

21 Marko Nejgovanovic.

22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we need to go for one question

23 into private session, because it's now very particular.

24 [Private session]

25 [redacted]

Page 13054

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [Open session]

10 THE REGISTRAR: We're back into open session.

11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

12 Q. Did Mr. Karadzic ever mention what he had in mind or what idea he

13 had in relation to the Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

14 A. Yes. I heard that in July of 1991. He said he would chase them

15 into the river valleys in order to link up all Serb territories in Bosnia

16 and Herzegovina.

17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, first of all, the reference is

18 now also to paragraph 161 of the proofing summary, and we also need to go

19 into private session because it's a very special conversation that the

20 witness had with several persons.

21 [Private session]

22 [redacted]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

Page 13055

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 13055 redacted private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 13056

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 13056 redacted private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 13057

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 13058

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 13058 redacted private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 13059

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [redacted]

21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,

22 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 20th day

23 of November, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.

24

25