140902ED

Page 10780

1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. I'm going to put a question to you or, rather, I'm going to read

3 out a question to you, that a question that was put to you by Judge Hall.

4 This was on the 23rd of July, page 10.157 and 10.158. I'm going to read

5 out your answer too. So after that I'm going to put a few questions to

6 you in relation to your answer.

7 [In English] "My question is: When did you learn that Arkan was

8 a criminal, that he was wanted by Interpol?"

9 "The Witness: You understood me very well. In 2002, I told

10 Mr. Dzuro that I knew that when I was talking to him as for the time when

11 I learned that, I can't remember exactly when that was but certainly it

12 became known when Arkan became a media personality. When foreign

13 journalists came, the Australian consul came to visit him as well as, and

14 there was a lot of controversy surrounded him. He was portrayed as a

15 colonel in the army, as a criminal, as somebody who killed people all

16 over Europe and then I also heard that he robbed banks in the Netherlands

17 and in Sweden. I'm not sure where.

18 After 1991, I heard a lot of rumours. I heard very controversial

19 stories but I never heard that a judgement was passed against him.

20 Nobody ever told me that officially. I never received that from Interpol

21 or any other police organisation in the world."

22 [Interpretation] You remember that I'm sure?

23 A. I remember.

24 Q. First of all, let us clarify one thing. I think this your answer

25 that is recorded in the transcript, you already said that namely that

Page 10781

1 this is not a visit of the Australian consul, that this was actually a

2 member of parliament, of the Australian parliament.

3 So when I put a question about the Australian consul, we don't

4 have to correct that now.

5 Actually, what I'm interested in is the following: What is the

6 context in which you mentioned this visit of the Australian consul in

7 view of the question that was put to? Was this in the context of Arkan

8 having become a media star, or is the context your knowledge of him being

9 a criminal?

10 In other words, at the time of the visit of the Australian

11 visitor, or -- the Australian consul or member of parliament, had you

12 heard by then that Arkan was a criminal or did you find out only later?

13 A. I cannot be very precise but can I tell you what my understanding

14 of it was. I said that there were a lot of controversies and I saw that

15 he was being visited by a visitor from Australia, although it is not in

16 the west. Australia, for me, is part of the west.

17 Then I thought that he was not a criminal. I mean, I didn't have

18 any document corroborating the stories that were being bandied about.

19 And there were journalists there, journalists of the world media. I

20 mean, rich media, if can I put it that way. At world level. They talked

21 to him.

22 And I thought if what people were saying were true, these

23 journalists would not be talking to him. I didn't really deal with

24 Arkan. I had problems of my own. But in 1991, I couldn't have known

25 anything about him, whether he was a criminal, whether he was not a

Page 10782

1 criminal -- or, rather, these activities of his, and I did not know that

2 he had been in prison in the west because of his crimes. I mean, if he

3 serves his sentence, then he becomes an innocent man.

4 And if he is a host of an Australian MP, and if he acts host to

5 the mayor of Belgrade, if one says that he is a colonel of state security

6 of the SFRY, I could not discern myself what was true and what was not

7 true.

8 Q. All right. When you answered the question, when did you hear

9 that Arkan was a criminal and that he was a wanted man by Interpol, what

10 did you think this meant, "heard," when it says "heard"?

11 A. Ah, the media, whether I had read about that in the Croatian

12 newspapers, to be more specific, and that didn't have to be correct

13 because the Croatian media were saying that everybody were criminals,

14 everybody on the other side, on our side, that is, so I could not believe

15 them.

16 Q. Does this mean that practically the source of your information

17 about this, namely that Arkan was a criminal, actually is something that

18 you first read about in the Croatian media and then you realised that he

19 was a wanted man by Interpol?

20 A. Yes.

21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Sorry, Mr. Stringer. I don't think you --

22 MR. STRINGER: Well, I jumped up quickly before -- in an attempt

23 to get an objection before the answer came. But it's a leading question.

24 That's our objection, Mr. President.

25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: As far as I see, Mr. Hadzic already answered

Page 10783

1 about the sources of his knowledge about how he learned, how he heard

2 about Arkan being --

3 JUDGE DELVOIE: You mean he answered now or you mean he answered

4 in the past?

5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: He -- he answered before my question.

6 JUDGE DELVOIE: He answered before your question. Well, by all

7 means --

8 MR. STRINGER: I --

9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, Mr. Stringer.

10 MR. STRINGER: Well, we're just going -- it doesn't make this

11 question any less leading, if I can put it that way, Mr. President.

12 JUDGE DELVOIE: That's right, Mr. Zivanovic. So pay attention,

13 please.

14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Just a moment, Your Honours.

15 I see -- I see his answer in -- at the page 12, line 3. "The

16 media, whether I had read about that in Croatian newspapers, to be more

17 specific ..."

18 MR. STRINGER: Well, then the objection is that the last

19 question, the leading one, is also already asked and answered.

20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Indeed, Mr. Stringer. It's one or the other.

21 But, by all means, you may continue, Mr. Zivanovic.

22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you, Mr. President.

23 Q. [Interpretation] Just like to go go back to that question of mine

24 that I put to you in the beginning. It has to do with your answer when

25 you mentioned the visit of the Australian MP.

Page 10784

1 Did you mention that in the context of Arkan becoming a media

2 star, or did you mention it in the context that you knew at that time

3 that he was a criminal or, rather, that he was a wanted man by Interpol?

4 A. No, no, I did not know then that he was wanted by Interpol

5 because of that visit. This ambassador, or, rather, this member of

6 parliament came to see him as if he were a media star and I was confused

7 by that. When I heard that he was a criminal, I started wondering, how

8 could the representative of a serious country come and visit a criminal?

9 I said that in that context.

10 Q. Perhaps my question was unclear. Perhaps you misunderstood or

11 perhaps it was misinterpreted.

12 You said, I am reading line 21 [In English] "... know then that

13 he was wanted by Interpol because of that visit."

14 [Interpretation] I did not ask you whether he was a wanted man by

15 Interpol because of the visit. But at the time of the visit, did you

16 know?

17 A. I think that I gave a proper answer and that it was

18 misinterpreted. I said at that time of the visit, I did not that he was

19 a wanted man by Interpol. And I was particularly confused when I heard

20 about this and I thought these were rumours. A man, a serious man from

21 the European Union, would not come and visit him then. I think that

22 Serbia or Yugoslavia as a member of Interpol should arrest anyone who was

23 wanted by Interpol.

24 Q. So when did you hear that? Can you assess that? Can you assess

25 when it was that you -- I mean, well, taking into account that visit by

Page 10785

1 the Croatian ambassador -- or, I'm sorry, the Australian ambassador?

2 A. Not ambassador. Member of parliament.

3 Q. Member of parliament.

4 A. I do not know. During 1992. I cannot be very specific.

5 Q. Thank you. The Prosecutor showed you P1956 during the

6 cross-examination. I'm going to remind you, this is an interview. It

7 was shown on television. Actually, several members of the Serbian

8 National Council spoke.

9 A. TV Novi Sad, is that it?

10 Q. Yes, TV Novi Sad.

11 Can we move on to page 17. Actually, I'm going to reading is out

12 to you. The Prosecutor cited a portion of what Ilija Koncarevic said.

13 I'm going to read out from the transcript. It is 10.173 to 10.174.

14 "[In English] Serbian people as it seems would have to take a

15 very firm position in that moment and commence unification into one joint

16 state which I have been calling Serbian country for about half a year

17 now. Serbian country singular, not Serbian countries, as some might say,

18 because then every territory that would join this new Serbian state at

19 some point would have a possibility of saying, I'm out of here now as I'm

20 one of the territories of the state, once the worst is over. Therefore,

21 a clear definition of Serbian state borders should be defined right from

22 the beginning."

23 [Interpretation] In the same interview he also said that a

24 proposal would be sent that the decision had been adopted to send a

25 proposal to the Serbian Presidency to suspend all the authority of the

Page 10786

1 Republic of Croatia in the territories that were uncontested or that he

2 designated as such. I would like to get some answers about this from

3 you.

4 First of all, please tell me how realistic was this proposal at

5 that time, namely that the SFRY Presidency should decide about whether

6 the Croatian authorities would be able to exercise their authorities in

7 certain territories within the Republic of Croatia?

8 A. In line 15 or, rather, line 16 on page 15, you said the Serbian

9 Presidency. I think that he said the Presidency of SFRY, though I'm not

10 sure.

11 Q. I think that I never mentioned the Serbian Presidency and I'm not

12 sure whether it existed at the time. But in any case, what I meant was

13 the SFRY Presidency.

14 A. Yes, that's logical. Well, first of all, I have to say a few

15 things about Koncarevic and Petrovic, something that is substantial.

16 They belonged to the part of the Serbian public that was prone to

17 polemics. They engaged in that type of politics where they would enter

18 polemics and state their positions. Everything that Koncarevic and

19 Petrovic said were only their own positions from those polemics.

20 And what you asked me about, I think that the Presidency could

21 not have imposed anything on Croatia if Croatia did not want to accept

22 it. Except, if possible, by force. But just to have Croatia accept

23 anything, I don't think that would have worked, though this is only my

24 opinion.

25 Q. Can you remember -- or, rather, do you remember how it worked at

Page 10787

1 the time before the fighting started? How did the SFRY Presidency

2 operate? Or, more specifically, can you tell us how many members did it

3 have? Who were those member? How were they elected? Who delegated them

4 to the Presidency?

5 A. I can explain that as a layman. I think I know the essence and I

6 think the Trial Chamber will understand. The Presidency consisted of

7 eight members, six from the republics, and two from the autonomous

8 provinces, that is to say, Kosovo and Vojvodina. They voted by majority

9 and they had to have more than half votes, so at least five had to vote

10 in favour of something or perhaps they adopted decisions by consensus.

11 Perhaps that's unimportant but I know that republics delegated

12 their members for the Presidency. They elected them. Croatia elected

13 Mesic, Serbia elected Jovic, Macedonia Mr. Tupurkovski, and I think that

14 was the selection. I think that each republic elected its member of the

15 Presidency. I'm not sure whether that was correct because I didn't

16 really inquire much about about that, but I think that's how it worked.

17 And I think there were eight of them, and I think if votes were four

18 against four, that then one side would be outvoted. They couldn't vote

19 in favour of anything, as far as I remember.

20 Q. And judging by the composition as it was at the time, was there

21 any realistic possibility for the Presidency to pass a majority of votes

22 or any other way whatsoever should adopt in a legal manner such a

23 decision, namely, ,that it would divest one of the republics from its

24 ability to exercise power in its own territory?

25 A. Well, judging by the way the events turned out, eventually I

Page 10788

1 think it was impossible. This was a utopian idea of Ilija Koncarevic.

2 Q. I would ask you another thing regarding Ilija Koncarevic's

3 statement given to the media house in this TV show. He said that

4 unification should begin in order to form a joint state. Can you tell us

5 in which country were the Serbs living at the time?

6 A. Yes, Serbs were living in Yugoslavia formally and also in

7 practice without any secret, we wanted to remain in Yugoslavia, but I

8 would comment on Koncarevic's ideas to help the Trial Chamber understand.

9 Those of us who were from Slavonia and Baranja, the Serbs.

10 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues] ...

11 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, my colleague, Ms. Clanton, has just

12 informed me if we look at the actual exhibit P1956 at page 12 this is

13 Ilija Petrovic talking, not Ilija Koncarevic. So it might be useful just

14 to clarify the record on this.

15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic.

16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: It might be my error. I saw at the page 17.

17 Maybe -- maybe -- maybe I -- I made -- made the error and I'll check it,

18 double-check it during the break.

19 JUDGE DELVOIE: On my screen, we are at page 18 right now.

20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes, it is -- it was referred by the Prosecution

21 when -- during the cross-examination, but I spoke about -- maybe I -- I

22 did not refer the right pages of this transcript --

23 JUDGE DELVOIE: And it's 17 you wanted to have on the screen?

24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: 17 -- yes.

25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.

Page 10789

1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: 17 --

2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Let's try to have 17.

3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: However, I cited -- I cited some parts of -- from

4 the transcript. These are page -- pages 10 -- 10.173 through 10.174.

5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. It's obviously not 17 because that's even

6 someone else.

7 Yes, Mr. Stringer.

8 MR. STRINGER: It might be that it begins at page 12 of the

9 English.

10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Let's try to look at -- at page 12.

11 That's Koncarevic, indeed.

12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Koncarevic --

13 JUDGE DELVOIE: And then --

14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: And that --

15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Small part of Koncarevic and then it's Petrovic

16 again.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that Petrovic is the one

18 who said this.

19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Microphone not activated] [Previous translation

20 continues] ... I made the error. It was not the words from

21 Ilija Koncarevic but Ilija Petrovic.

22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Please proceed.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I just finish my answer.

24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Yes, yes, please.

Page 10790

1 A. I felt it was the same when I said Ilija Petrovic or Koncarevic.

2 They were both in Novi Sad in any case. Those of us Serbs who from the

3 territory where the war was going on, said that it was easy for them to

4 discuss because they would discuss and then they would go back to Novi

5 Sad. And we and our families remained there and were supposed to perish.

6 So these were political views that we didn't really mind much, especially

7 Petrovic. He was a Montenegrin so he just spoke what he thought, and I

8 was not authorised to shut him up.

9 Q. He says, inter alia, that the Serbian people should start

10 unifying into a joint state. What I'd like to know is this: In how many

11 states was the Serbian people living at the time?

12 A. Only in one. It was the Socialist Federal Republic of

13 Yugoslavia. And as His Excellency Ambassador Zimmermann told me, it

14 should have stayed like that at that time, more or less.

15 Q. And please tell me how did you understand his words that the

16 people living in one single state should start unifying, and to unify

17 again so as to be in a joint state? How did you understand that?

18 A. Well, I tried to say decently that he belonged to those from the

19 Serbian political scene who liked to debate and polemicise - how did I

20 understand it - as a lot of nonsense. I didn't really understand why

21 that would be so when we were already in Yugoslavia, but that was his

22 private position. I didn't even really understand it, to be frank.

23 Q. During the cross-examination, the Prosecutor mentioned the

24 adoption of decisions on the resignation of the head of MUP. That's from

25 page 10.192.

Page 10791

1 Do you know what were the reasons why it was decided in the first

2 place that the MUP be established and that the chief of the MUP be

3 appointed?

4 A. Perhaps I may not be precise, but, in essence, I remember why.

5 It was because a part of the Serbian police, the employees, moved to this

6 side and did not want to stay within the Croatian police and it was

7 necessary to control them in some way because they couldn't stay without

8 a formally appointed head for a long while.

9 It was Ilija Kojic's proposal that they should do it because he

10 said that they would otherwise try to make problems each on his own side

11 and that they were used to having a boss.

12 Q. And at that time, before the MUP was established, was there any

13 other organ that would maintain public law and order?

14 A. That was perhaps the initial problem or one parallel with this.

15 There were problems on the ground. Someone ought to have prevented

16 looting, drunken behaviour and so on. Because the situation was

17 unresolved for a long time. It was neither Yugoslavia nor Croatia, in

18 fact. There was still -- there was no longer any SFRY law that would be

19 implemented, and they had left Croatia. So somebody was needed in the

20 territory to keep and maintain the public law and order. I think it was

21 the main reason, actually, and what I remembered was the secondary reason

22 though it was also important.

23 Q. The Prosecutor, during the cross-examination, showed you the

24 document P3217. It's tab 763 from the Prosecution list. It deals with

25 the proclamation on general mobilisation. I will ask you to look at --

Page 10792

1 if we could please zoom in so as to enlarge the original text.

2 If can you please just look at the heading and tell us what

3 number this is, within the heading?

4 A. The number is 1/91. That means it was the first decision of the

5 government, the first document dated the 23rd of August.

6 Q. It reads here prime minister, if I see it well.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. But never mind. I want to show something else from this.

9 The Prosecutor also showed you the document P194.140. It's

10 tab 231 from the Prosecution list. It was on pages 9946 and 9947 of the

11 transcript. I'm sure you remember this document.

12 A. Yes, I do.

13 Q. Can you please look at the number in the heading of this

14 document.

15 A. It's the same as a second ago, 1/91. But here the date is the

16 21st of September.

17 Q. As far as you remember, the documents that were issued by the

18 government or the secretariat or anyone else, did they have the same

19 numbers, various documents with the same numbers?

20 A. No. All the documents which you were issued on behalf of the

21 president or the government had their own number, including the year when

22 they were issued. So the year would be the same and the document would

23 have a number that increased over time.

24 Q. Thank you.

25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please look at

Page 10793

1 Exhibit 1939.24. And the tab number is 763.

2 THE REGISTRAR: Mr. Zivanovic, could you kindly repeat the

3 number.

4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes. It is Exhibit 1939.24, tab 763.

5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

6 JUDGE DELVOIE: We can't -- can't find the -- the -- the exhibit,

7 Mr. Zivanovic. Is it 1939.24? Exhibit number?

8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I -- I read from the transcript. It is

9 transcript from 23rd of July, page 10.197, line 11.

10 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I believe this is a 65 ter number

11 and not a P number.

12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes, it's 65 ter number.

13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Then it's not an exhibit number. It's a

14 65 ter number.

15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Tab -- tab 763.

16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Is this the one, Mr. Zivanovic?

17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: The original is here, but I don't see the

18 translation.

19 JUDGE DELVOIE: There's not much of a translation yet. It's

20 probably just the cover page. There it is.

21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: That's it.

22 Q. [Interpretation] I'm sure you will remember this text. It was

23 published in Ilija Petrovic's book. This is "The Last Call to Battle."

24 I'm interested in the signature or, rather, the text under Ilija Kojic's

25 text. Could you please have a look. It says here the -- commander of

Page 10794

1 the defence of the Autonomous Province of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western

2 Srem. Tell me, please, can you explain, why does it say the commander of

3 defence, why not the commander of Territorial Defence?

4 A. Because the Territorial Defence did not exist at that time. All

5 the commanders of the villages were known as defence commanders of those

6 villages. Ilija tried to unite them, in a way, as the overall commander.

7 The Territorial Defence was set up only when Badza arrived and he became

8 the commander of the Territorial Defence.

9 Q. I'm going to ask you something else.

10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... original

11 text, please.

12 Q. [Interpretation] It says here "Sunday, 22nd September, 1991,

13 page 2." Would you say that this is the original text from the newspaper

14 where it was first published or was that added subsequently to the

15 proclamation? The text reads: "Sunday, 22nd September 1991, page 2."

16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I -- I don't see it in English translation.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can the page be scrolled down? I'd

18 like to see the heading, as a matter of fact. I'd like to look at the

19 date in the heading, if there's one.

20 I don't know. That could be the date of the publication of the

21 newspaper and the decision itself was probably passed a day later.

22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Let's clarify your last answer. What do you mean when you say

24 that the decision was passed a day later? Do you mean that the decision

25 was made a day later or that it was proclaimed a day later?

Page 10795

1 A. I was referring to the document that we saw previously. I

2 believe that the official announcement was signed one day later than

3 Kojic and Petrovic actually made it known publicly but I'm not sure.

4 Q. I may not have been clear. My question may have been ambiguous.

5 Let me remind you. This document was published in Petrovic's book.

6 That's one thing. And the document itself is what you see here. That's

7 why I asked you about the date that you had just seen.

8 Is that the date when the appeal was drafted or when it was

9 published? I don't know whether it was published at all, where this was

10 taken from. Was from a newspaper or some -- something else? This ask

11 what I've asked you.

12 A. Well, I'm looking at the same thing as you are. That's the only

13 thing I see. But I know that the -- on the document that we previously

14 saw, the date was the 23rd August and now it's the 22nd August. I can

15 tell you what I think but I can't be sure of the facts.

16 Q. I don't remember the 22nd August. I believe that at the bottom

17 of the page, the date was 23rd September.

18 Can we scroll down a little? The original I mean.

19 A. Yes, you are right.

20 Q. Let's go back to the top, please.

21 I can see that it's -- that the heading is: The appeal of the

22 defence commander of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem. How would you

23 understand the term "appeal"? IT doesn't say decision or order or

24 something of the kind. What was the force of this legal document?

25 A. Well, if I were to be allowed to interpret freely. In my view,

Page 10796

1 it was a desperate attempt, a desperate request for help. An appeal

2 cannot be binding on anybody. The term is self-explanatory in itself.

3 An appeal is not an order.

4 This is a sequel of our decision which was made on 23rd of

5 August and the invitation to those who had not responded. This is just a

6 reminder. There was mobilisation going on. We couldn't do it in Serbia

7 because we're not -- we didn't have any authorities there. We did not

8 have any capabilities to carry out a mobilisation in Serbia. We could

9 only do it in Croatia.

10 Q. And can we now look at P329, which is at tab 1502, on transcript

11 page 10.269.

12 You will remember that the Prosecutor showed you this document

13 during the examination-in-chief.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. This is from a meeting which was held on the 12th of February,

16 1992 in Principovac or, rather, on the premises of the local commune of

17 the village of Bapska. Could you just briefly jog our memory and tell us

18 where Bapska is?

19 A. Bapska is Western Srem bordering on Serbia very close to Lovas at

20 the very beginning of Western Srem or, rather, at the beginning of

21 Croatia as you arrive from Serbia.

22 Q. In the document itself, there is a reference to the attendees at

23 the meeting. The MZ president, the TO commander, the director of the

24 agricultural company. Did the government appoint any of them to those

25 positions which are mentioned here?

Page 10797

1 A. No. They were never appointed by us. We never discussed those

2 things. We did not have any authority there. They were appointed by the

3 military, all of them.

4 Q. And did that also apply to the president of the commission for

5 settlement and resettlement who is also mentioned in the document?

6 A. Yes, it applied across the board and included him as well.

7 Another term, commission for settlement and resettlement, is what the

8 military administration and the military used.

9 [Defence counsel confer]

10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Would you scroll down the English translation,

11 please. Or move to the next page. I -- yeah, that's okay.

12 Q. [Interpretation] Now you can see the agenda of the meeting as

13 well. The meeting was held on the 13th of February, 1992. You will see

14 that the first item on the agenda was the establishment and functioning

15 of the local civilian authorities.

16 My question is this: When the local civilian authorities were

17 being established in Bapska, did anybody from the JNA or from any other

18 body consult the government? Did they make any inquiries with the

19 government about that?

20 A. No. This was all copied from Ilok, but this happened later. The

21 government was not consulted at all. And I've never come across this

22 term "resettlement." We never discussed that. We never heard of that

23 term. I only knew about the settling of vacated houses. Now as to what

24 the term "resettlement" means, I don't know.

25 Q. The second item on the agenda of this meeting was the formation

Page 10798

1 of a TO unit.

2 Was the government consulted with regard to the formation of the

3 Territorial Defence in Bapska or in the general area as such?

4 A. No, there were no consultations. Although all those who have

5 carefully followed the trial so far, you can -- that -- they can tell

6 that this is the process that started with Mrksic and Jaksic and was

7 carried out in the entire territory.

8 Q. The third item of the agenda is settlement and resettlement of

9 the population and the organisation of life in the village.

10 Before the 13th of February, 1991, was the government consulted

11 about that topic?

12 A. No, no. No questions were asked of us. The JNA did never

13 address us on any of those issues.

14 Q. I believe that on the following page, we will find the

15 conclusions of that meeting.

16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we go to the following page,

17 please.

18 Q. There is a reference to the engagement of competent political

19 structures and the municipal authorities. The government of Slavonia,

20 Baranja, and Western Srem is nowhere expressly mentioned. Was the

21 government at all informed that a meeting had been held and that, as a

22 result, there was some conclusions?

23 A. No, this was under military administration.

24 Q. A bit further up in the document, there is a reference to the

25 work of the commission for settlement and resettlement, and it says that

Page 10799

1 a new census of people and households had could be carried out in order

2 to reach conclusions and make decisions. Was the government informed

3 about that? According to what you know, was the government in any way

4 engaged in the census of households and population in Bapska?

5 A. No, we were not engaged. The first time I saw those lists were

6 here for the village of Marinci. I'm very close to that village, both in

7 geographic terms and emotionally, and that's why I remember those names.

8 And the JNA was the body which did all that.

9 Q. Could you please read the position under number 2 which concerns

10 the organisation of life in the village and dealing with various issues.

11 A sociological map of the population is mentioned.

12 A. Yes, but that was supposed to be done by the newly appointed

13 government bodies that -- the bodies of authorities that they had set up.

14 Q. And the last paragraph, the third one, it says: "Establish as

15 soon as possible units of the Territorial Defence and police units and

16 build the security of the village on that basis as well as the safety of

17 individuals and the implementation of legal decisions ..."

18 My last question in relation to this document: The government of

19 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, was it invited to take part in the

20 establishment of Territorial Defence units, the police, as mentioned

21 here?

22 A. No, as I've already said. They didn't even inform us about this,

23 let alone consult us.

24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at document --

25 this is actually a Prosecution document. Sorry. This is the document

Page 10805

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 [Open session]

8 THE REGISTRAR: We're now in open session, Your Honours.

9 JUDGE DELVOIE: That's why we go back into open session. We were

10 in private session.

11 Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Mr. Hadzic, during the cross-examination you had the opportunity

14 to see this document. This is what I'd like to ask you now about the

15 content of this document.

16 In actual fact, this refers to an increase in crime in June 1992

17 and it says here that top people from the economic sector and the people

18 have joined forces in accusing UNPROFOR that they are discriminating

19 against them because they're Serbs and they're not being protected from

20 the fateful consequences of sanctions --

21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We could not find the

22 reference in the original.

23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. My question is: Were you aware of these protests of people from

25 the business community and the people in general as stated here?

Page 10806

1 A. I'm aware of complaints and I heard about these protests too, and

2 I heard these complaints from people from the business community when we

3 had meetings and so on.

4 Q. Can you remember roughly what this pertained to, these

5 complaints, and these protests, what was being stated? What kind of

6 complaints did people have against the work of UNPROFOR at the time?

7 A. The main complaint was that UNPROFOR was not objective. And also

8 since we were an UN protected area, that we were not given the

9 possibility to have proper movement of goods and people. That is what I

10 seem to remember.

11 Q. There's a reference to sanctions here. Can you tell us what

12 sanctions are actually being referred to?

13 A. Serbia was under sanctions and we thought that we were a

14 territory under the protection of the UN and that we were not supposed to

15 be included in these sanctions.

16 Q. Do you remember whether there was a document on the basis of

17 which sanctions were declared in respect of this territory of the

18 Republic of Croatia that we call the Republic of Serb Krajina?

19 A. I don't remember very well, but I don't think that there was a

20 document declaring sanctions against the RSK by anyone. I cannot

21 remember exactly.

22 Q. So people who protested, did they complain, believing that

23 UNPROFOR was applying this although there were no proper documents

24 supporting that?

25 A. Yes, they were saying that they were doing this on their own,

Page 10807

1 that there were double standards involved, and that this conduct caused

2 the opposite effect. I often said that at meetings with UNPROFOR. When

3 the economic issue is resolved when people start living better, then this

4 is going to be a secondary issue. As I said then, when people's stomachs

5 are full and when their wallets are full.

6 Q. Tell me, this is a document from June 1992. According to the

7 legal relations of the then-Yugoslavia, the territory of the the Republic

8 of Serbian Krajina, was it within it or not?

9 A. The territory of the Republic of the Serb Krajina was within the

10 SFRY until the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was established. I think

11 that this was until the spring of 1992. I think that it was in April or

12 May. And I think that from a formal and legal point of view as far as

13 Yugoslavia was concerned, we were not a part of Yugoslavia. We were an

14 undefined territory under the protection of the UN, and UN came in

15 accordance with its own mandate to Croatia.

16 Q. Are you aware of this case that is referred to in this document

17 about the closing down of factories in the area of Beli Manastir and that

18 400 people would remain jobless because of that? Were you aware of that

19 problem?

20 A. This is a well-known problem although this was the job of the

21 government, but I was informed about this indirectly.

22 Q. There's a reference here to the director of the medical centre

23 and the members of this community, I assume, and it says that he had

24 requested a meeting with UNPROFOR and that this meeting was scheduled.

25 Do you know about this? People who worked in the field of

Page 10808

1 health, those -- these hospital, these medical centres? Did they have

2 any problems in relation to these sanctions that were being applied?

3 A. Well, I know, of course, that they had problems. That was

4 supposed to to be a humanitarian issue. Unfortunately, it was not.

5 Q. I see an explanation here that was provided by the

6 representatives of UNPROFOR that they had held a meeting with a group of

7 protesters and that they explained the functioning of UNPROFOR and that

8 they said that they were there to help and not to punish or work against

9 their best interest, against the best interest of the people in the area

10 so I'm interested in how people accepted this explanation. How did they

11 take it?

12 A. They did not take it seriously. They just thought that these

13 were mere declarations.

14 Q. Can you tell me whether you, when you talked to the

15 representatives of UNPROFOR, received any detailed explanations, for

16 example, on why such sanctions were being applied in an UN protected

17 areas, so the sanctions enforced against Yugoslavia. Why were they being

18 applied in an area outside Yugoslavia? And as a matter of fact, even in

19 an area that was under UN protection?

20 A. Well, I don't remember if I received a valid explanation. All of

21 it was well, we'll see, we'll ask, we'll check. I never got a concrete

22 answer.

23 Q. This document seems to show that in this period that is referred

24 to here, there were some demonstrations of 500 Serbs in Ilok against

25 UNPROFOR.

Page 10809

1 A. Yes, I remember that.

2 Q. And it says here that they were involved only in the protection

3 of --

4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Stringer.

5 MR. STRINGER: I apologise to counsel for the interruption,

6 Mr. President. I raised this yesterday and I'll raise it just once today

7 so that I don't sound like a broken record.

8 What's happening here, really, is just another shot at direct

9 examination. It's not focussed in the way that a proper re-direct should

10 be. All of these documents that are being put to the witness were

11 available during the direct. And the fact that the Prosecution put a

12 document to Mr. Hadzic during the cross, in our submission, doesn't mean

13 that on re-direct, the point is to go back to the document and just sort

14 of use it as a springboard to talk about really all sorts of other things

15 that could have been raised earlier.

16 And so I'm just going to raise this once. Maybe the Chamber

17 disagrees. But it just seems to us that this is not proper use of direct

18 examination. What it really is is just now extending the direct for

19 another eight hours so that they're going to be up over 40. That's how

20 we see it, and -- and so I just wanted to say that for the record, and to

21 object.

22 Thank you.

23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic.

24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: First of all, this document was used by the

25 Prosecution during the cross-examination, and in my understanding, I have

Page 10810

1 full right to explore this document and ask -- put questions to the

2 witness as to this document and ask him to explain some parts of this

3 document and put in the context of his questions -- or his answer, sorry,

4 on the Prosecution's questions.

5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Stringer.

6 MR. STRINGER: And if I would just -- my response would be that a

7 proper re-direct, counsel, would have the record references and he would

8 direct Mr. Hadzic to the part of the document that he was asked about on

9 cross-examination. And if there are parts that need clarification,

10 things that Mr. Hadzic didn't get a chance to answer fully, et cetera,

11 then that would be the focus of the re-direct.

12 It's our position that simply having shown the document to

13 Mr. Hadzic on cross-examination doesn't mean that they can use the

14 document to go talk about all sorts of other things that could have been

15 raised with Mr. Hadzic with the document on his direct. This is just

16 another re-direct. It's not focussed. It's not linked to the points

17 raised with this document on the cross.

18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I disagree. Namely, the Prosecution, during its

19 cross-examination, as we illustrated both yesterday and today, used just

20 parts of these documents, taken from the context. And we used the same

21 document just to put, and we'll do it, we really intend to do it with the

22 other documents too, that illustrate what was the proper answers, for

23 example, Mr. Hadzic would give if he has entirety of this document before

24 him.

25 MR. STRINGER: If I could just -- one concrete example,

Page 10811

1 Mr. President, and then I won't respond anymore.

2 Just looking at page 37, line 18: "Can you tell me whether you,

3 when you talked to the -- I'm not sure what that is ... received any

4 details explanations, for example, on why such sanctions were being

5 applied to an UN protected area. So the sanctions enforced against

6 Yugoslavia, why were they being applied in an area outside Yugoslavia

7 and, as a matter of fact, even in an area that was under UN protection?"

8 I could be wrong, but I'm quite confident that the issue of

9 sanctions was never raised in the cross-examination with this or for any

10 other purpose, and it's really not an issue in the case. And so, again,

11 I think that the document is being used as -- as an excuse just to raise

12 all sorts of other things that weren't dealt with previously.

13 JUDGE DELVOIE: One last response, Mr. Zivanovic.

14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: That's true, that -- that the Prosecution did not

15 rise the issue of sanctions in his cross-examination, but it's shown --

16 this document was shown to the witness and this document mostly -- mostly

17 addressed the issue of dissatisfaction of the population in the SBWS in

18 Beli Manastir, in Ilok, et cetera, and mentioned the sanctions of the --

19 sanctions. It doesn't explain what kind of sanctions they were but it

20 is -- but obviously these sanctions are closely related to this

21 dissatisfaction of population in SBWS that was subject of -- of this

22 document. And --

23 JUDGE DELVOIE: And is this -- is this a new issue -- issue to

24 the Defence? Coming out of cross-examination?

25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: This document is --

Page 10812

1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Coming out of this document?

2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes. Yes, I -- namely --

3 JUDGE DELVOIE: So the Defence didn't -- didn't know about this

4 sanction issue before they saw this document?

5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Of course. But we didn't -- didn't move the

6 issue of the sanctions because we didn't see that -- that as necessary.

7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Well, neither did the Prosecution.

8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry -- sorry, no. But the Prosecution showed

9 this -- showed this document to the witness, put his questions related to

10 this document. I'd like to explore this document in its entirety.

11 [Trial Chamber confers]

12 JUDGE DELVOIE: The Chamber is of the view that it is some kind

13 of a grey zone where, on the one hand, the Defence can, of course,

14 explore to a certain extent a document used in cross-examination but,

15 nevertheless should focus on -- should focus its re-direct on what is --

16 what was the issue in cross-examination. But, on the other hand, you

17 can -- the Defence can, of course, explore the document further without,

18 nevertheless, using it as a springboard to go to issues that have not

19 been raised so far. I hope this is helpful for the parties.

20 Please proceed, Mr. Zivanovic.

21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you, Mr. President. I will leave the grey

22 zone.

23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Hadzic, can we now please look at P144,

24 tab 215. This is from the cross-examination, pages 9635 to 9639 of the

25 transcript.

Page 10813

1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours, I have a hard copy of this article.

2 Q. [Interpretation] You will remember this text certainly as well as

3 the questions that the Prosecutor asked you.

4 A. I do.

5 Q. I will remind you of the question that the Prosecutor asked you.

6 I shall actually read it out to you. And this question has to do with

7 this text and another one that I will also show to you. But just to

8 refresh your memory about the question.

9 [In English] "But the fact is a person reading this, particularly

10 in the very insecure and ethnically charged environment in which these

11 statements were being made at the time, someone reading this could indeed

12 conclude that their soon-to-be prime minister is telling them, it's okay

13 to drive away people who were descendants of those Herzegovian Croats who

14 arrived after 1941. Isn't quite likely someone could conclude that it's

15 okay to do that?"

16 [Interpretation] I will ask you to look at this text closely.

17 It's in the first column in the original. Just to find where that is in

18 the English text, it's near the bottom of the page in the English

19 translation. Or, rather, on page 2 in English.

20 What I'm interested in is this part that says: "It is is good

21 for Baranja that the Hungarian population returned their arms given to

22 them by Ustashas. They do not help us much in our fight but they do not

23 hinder us either, as they recognise our sovereignty. The Croats, the

24 native one, the so-called Sokci, are also passive. The Croats from

25 Herzegovina, Dalmatia, even Zagorije men, all of them who settled after

Page 10814

1 1941, are very dangerous as they now that one of our goals, once we gain

2 the power, is that all Pavelic's volunteers who have come here be

3 returned or sent back. That is in case they do not resist us with

4 weapons. In case they do, then it is self-explanatory what will happen

5 to them."

6 I wanted, first of all, to check this. Judging by the date, this

7 interview, and that's at the very bottom of the text in the original, the

8 interview was published on 4th of September, 1991.

9 Would you please tell me, at the time of the publication, which

10 state still existed in this territory?

11 A. At the time, only the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

12 existed as an internationally recognised state. The one and only.

13 Q. And another thing: Going back of Pavelic's volunteers, as they

14 are called, is discussed here, it's noted that they had come from

15 Herzegovina and so on, from Dalmatia. Could you now tell us, at the time

16 was it possible for you to decide that some people from that area would

17 move away to a different area? Were there any other -- any authorities

18 that could have decided something like that? You or your government,

19 which was about to be formed?

20 A. I couldn't have done that then or later, and I didn't even want

21 to do it as a part of my activities. I couldn't even establish who would

22 be included in that. This was stated in a quite different context.

23 As a layman, I said that, that the genocide is a crime that

24 cannot become obsolete. And that in 1941, I have to explain this to the

25 Trial Chamber, a genocide was committed against the Serbian people in

Page 10815

1 Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem. The Serbs were not

2 expelled, they were killed. And then deliberately the Fascist army

3 brought these people to those areas in 1941.

4 I never established who they were, nor could I have done that. I

5 just gave a statement so that this would be taken into account and that

6 it would be known that they were populated there by the Fascists. I

7 think that it's uncontested that Hitler was a Fascist and that Pavelic

8 was a Fascist. If there's anything that is not contested, I think that

9 that's it. It's uncontested.

10 And I never believed that anybody should be considered guilty

11 because of something that his father or grandfather may have done.

12 Q. Please tell me in view of the Prosecutor's question in which he

13 mentioned this sentence of the Herzegovina Croats, did you mention the

14 descendants of the Herzegovina Croats in this interview?

15 A. No, I didn't.

16 MR. STRINGER: Just to correct the record, Mr. President. This

17 exhibit, P144, counsel referred to transcript page 9635 to 9639 as being

18 the place that I raised this. Actually, the quote that he read from the

19 cross-examination is not found there. It's found at transcript page

20 10.311 when I was asking Mr. Hadzic about a different document.

21 So the exhibit that we have on the screen has been linked to a

22 different -- to a question that I put to Mr. Hadzic, actually, in regard

23 to a different document, the different document being P2955.2913, and so

24 I just wish to point that out for the record.

25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: That's correct. And I said that I showed to

Page 10816

1 Mr. Hadzic two documents related to this issue about Pavelic's

2 volunteers --

3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay --

4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: -- and I'll show him the document that the

5 Prosecutor mentioned right now.

6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Please proceed.

7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Mr. Hadzic, I will show you that specific document, P2955.2913.

9 I also have it in hard copy.

10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: And with the permission of the Chamber, I would

11 provide Mr. Hadzic with --

12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Please do --

13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: -- hard copy of this document.

14 Q. [Interpretation] Yes. I will ask you to focus on the first

15 column in this text -- or, actually, the next one after your answers

16 concerning the journalists from TASS where it says: "To whom is

17 addressed the invitation to return to these areas? Who will populate

18 them once the borders are fixed and what will be the status of the

19 Croats?"

20 "Hadzic specified that the invitation is open to all those are

21 native to the area, including Croats who, as he put it, do not belong to

22 any extremist Fascist forces and who will enjoy the same status as the

23 Serbs?"

24 And then it goes on to say that by contrast: "Those who were

25 colonised in our areas by Pavelic during the war from Herzegovina, the

Page 10817

1 Imotski Krajina and Zagorje will receive from us a return ticket."

2 I see that the news are from September --

3 THE INTERPRETER: Can the counsel please repeat the date.

4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] -- dated the 20th of September.

5 The text is dated the 20th of September.

6 Q. So a fortnight after the previous text which I showed to you.

7 Please tell me, first, did the situation change with regard to

8 the possibilities that the government of SBWS could order any people from

9 the area to return to areas where they had been living earlier, for

10 example, to Bosnia-Herzegovina specifically?

11 A. No, that didn't change. The government was never involved in

12 that, nor me personally. Just the opposite is true. There's an example

13 in my village that things like that were never done.

14 Q. You have already answered that question. I don't wish you to

15 repeat it. I just seek clarification. Would you please tell me, in the

16 text, did you mention the descendants of those Croats from Herzegovina

17 and the region of Imotski.

18 A. No, I didn't mention any descendants.

19 Q. One more thing. The words "authentic population" is mentioned

20 here. What did you men when you said that? For somebody to be a native

21 of the region or native population, how many years need to lapse? 50,

22 100 or centuries?

23 A. I primarily have in mind those who hailed from the area, who were

24 born there, or who had been there before the Second World War. In any

25 case, those who were born in the area. In my mind, those were natives.

Page 10818

1 Whereas settlers were those who had arrived from somewhere else. A

2 settler is somebody who came from somewhere and settled there and a

3 native is someone simply who was born there and had lived there for some

4 time.

5 Q. The Prosecutor showed you two pages in the transcript, 10.316 and

6 10.317. He showed you document P37. He read something to you and I will

7 remind you of what it was. I will repeat the question put to you by the

8 Prosecutor. It was recorded on page 10.317. It reads like this:

9 "[In English] So, again, Dr. Karadzic is observing or saying:

10 'But who is goig to make the Croats from Vojvodina to move to Krajina.

11 These are nebulous ideas seen as abhorrent by the rest of the world

12 though, though Indian and Pakistan did exactly the same thing.' He goes

13 on to say, 'It is rather questionable if anything like that would be

14 feasible in Europe at the moment. I mentions this only to make you

15 cognizant of their way of thinking and of their hopes. Their greatest

16 hopes are invested in your gradual migration as you will not be organised

17 enough and thus unable to hold hold on down there. And this is where you

18 say there is nothing nebulous in it. The Serbs from Zagreb should

19 resettle as well as those from Belgrade and it is out of the question

20 now."

21 [Interpretation] In view of the fact that your answer to that

22 question was very brief, I would like to say that the Prosecutor failed

23 to give you the entire quote of the words uttered by Karadzic at the

24 time. I would like to repeat that -- correct that mistake. We will find

25 that in document P37. It's English 66 through 68. In Serbian, it's 88

Page 10819

1 through 92. However, the part that I'm going to read from, since the

2 rest are too long, can be found on English 66.

3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Stringer.

4 MR. STRINGER: Just before the next question comes,

5 Mr. President. Just to point out that it was on counsel's direct

6 examination when the passage on this nebulous statement from Mr. Karadzic

7 was read to Mr. Hadzic by his counsel.

8 Mr. Hadzic was asked and invited to comment on that part of the

9 transcript. This is at pages 9796, 9797 of the transcript, from the 15th

10 of July. So this was already covered in direct, and counsel evidently

11 doesn't feel that it was covered sufficiently enough by him on direct so

12 he is now going for another bite at the apple.

13 We did come back to it in cross, but I would like to point out

14 that it was already raised by counsel once in direct.

15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Is -- is this an objection, Mr. Stringer?

16 MR. STRINGER: Yes. The question's asked and answered. Thank

17 you.

18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: No. This particular question was not either

19 asked or answered. Namely, I asked just for -- to -- I asked Mr. Hadzic

20 just to clarify his response whether he say that -- to -- to -- we just

21 wanted to clarify his response. I didn't mention the question of

22 Mr. Karadzic -- not the question, but the words of Mr. Karadzic.

23 During the cross-examination, however, the Prosecution took from

24 the context just a part of Mr. Karadzic's statement and put it as the

25 question to the witness. I -- I'd like now to cite whole statement of

Page 10820

1 Mr. Karadzic on which the witness answered. And I didn't -- I could not

2 foresee that during my direct examination that the Prosecution will take

3 from the context in his cross-examination just one part and, in a way,

4 mislead the witness to respond.

5 MR. STRINGER: Just to respond to that, Mr. President.

6 What we did was go to the passage that was raised by counsel on

7 the direct.

8 Thank you.

9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: No. As I -- as I said in my question, in my

10 words, I quoted the question of Mr. Stringer. I quoted his question

11 during his cross-examination, and I say -- and you -- you may conclude

12 after I read this particular -- these two sentences from Mr. Karadzic's

13 statement, that this -- this was taken out from the context.

14 JUDGE DELVOIE: If that -- that will stay -- if that is your

15 focus, Mr. Zivanovic --

16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes --

17 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- you may proceed.

18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] We can go to page 91 in the

19 English text -- or, rather, the original, and page 68 in English.

20 Q. I have read out what the Prosecutor chose to quote from

21 Karadzic's words. And now I'm going to read the entire paragraph. The

22 three sentences that preceded the quote chosen by the Prosecutor in his

23 question.

24 Dr. Karadzic says: "Friendly persuasion will not do and

25 patriotism is funny commodity if it is not accompanied with something

Page 10821

1 else. That is why I think that the investment programmes should be made

2 urgently. The programmes which shall be based on cheap labour,

3 favourable taxation system and long and persistent work with the Serbs.

4 First of all, the Serbs from Krajinas must not be favoured here.

5 On the contrary, they have to be stimulated to go back there, of course,

6 if it is in our best interest. If it is not, then we should pass the

7 initiative over to the Croats who say they were prepared to swap the

8 150.000 plots of their best land in Vojvodina for 150.000 Serbs from

9 Krajina. But who is going to force the Croats from Vojvodina to move to

10 Krajina?"

11 What follows is what the Prosecutor read out to you. And then

12 your answer:

13 "There is nothing nebulous in this," and so on and so forth.

14 When you said "there's nothing nebulous in this," what did you

15 have in mind? Did you have in mind the Prosecutor's words and this is

16 who's going going to force --

17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Stringer.

18 MR. STRINGER: I object to this, Mr. President. I'm looking at

19 the transcript, page 96 -- sorry, 9796 to 9797. Counsel read to

20 Mr. Hadzic from this. He said is: "And then you said Serbs from Zagreb

21 should resettle as well as those from Belgrade and now from this area

22 it's out of the question." Mr. Zivanovic says: "So just allow me to

23 clarify two matters here. Even though that -- what you said was very

24 brief, could you please tell us what you meant when you said it was not a

25 nebulous matter. There is nothing nebulous in it. This refers to the

Page 10822

1 settlement of the population?"

2 Mr. Hadzic answers: "Well, it was not nebulous. It already

3 happened." And it continues on to page 99 -- 9797. Hadzic, page --

4 sorry, line 18, says: "Well, let me first explain this. When I said

5 'this is not anything nebulous,' these are my words. And he goes on to

6 explain. And now what's just happened is that counsel has, again, asked

7 Mr. Hadzic to basically, again, say, what his explanation is for having

8 said this.

9 So maybe I'm just being too dogmatic, but it seems like counsel

10 is not satisfied with how it came out the first time on his own direct

11 examination and now he's trying to get it fixed, if I may put it like

12 that. But this has all been asked and answered on the direct,

13 Mr. President.

14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic.

15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: If I may explain my -- my questions put to

16 Mr. Hadzic at the time.

17 I quote his answer, and this answer literally had no -- no sense.

18 I asked him to -- to say what he said actually. And I -- I asked even

19 from the Serbian authority tape records from this session, because I

20 think that it is different, but it does not matter.

21 Actually, I'd just like to ask Mr. Hadzic whether, when he said

22 "it is not nebulous," et cetera, et cetera, whether he had on mind

23 everything that I now read from -- as the statement of Mr. Karadzic or

24 not, or just the part that the Prosecution read to him.

25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic, it's a little bit odd that you

Page 10823

1 want to put this quote "there's nothing nebulous in it," in the context

2 of OTP's question. But it's -- is the answer in the document? Is the

3 answer given at -- at -- at the meeting?

4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes, that's correct, Your Honour. But this

5 answer followed the -- the statement of Mr. Karadzic. It was the answer

6 on the -- on something that Mr. Karadzic just said. It is -- that's it.

7 That's this -- this meeting.

8 JUDGE DELVOIE: And that's -- and that's what -- and that's

9 what -- what was asked and answered, Mr. Stringer says, on direct.

10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Mr. Stringer, in direct, just quoted one part.

11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Stringer, in cross, quoted one part; right?

12 Are you talking about direct or cross? Mr. Stringer ... I'm perhaps a

13 little bit confused so help me.

14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I said that Mr. Stringer, in cross, quoted just

15 one portion of this statement. He --

16 JUDGE DELVOIE: After you already asked Mr. Hadzic in direct.

17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: About the answer. About the answer. Not about

18 the question. I -- I didn't -- not the question, sorry, but about the

19 statement. I didn't quote the statement, whole statement, or part of

20 statement of Mr. -- Mr. Karadzic. I didn't do it at all.

21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. I -- I'll allow one question, Mr. --

22 Mr. Zivanovic, and we'll see.

23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Mr. Hadzic, this is my question: When you said what you said -

25 and I'm not going to repeat your words - did you have in mind everything

Page 10824

1 that Mr. Karadzic said or just one part of his words?

2 A. I had in mind his entire intervention. But I was interrupted and

3 I could not go on. I couldn't say everything that I wanted to say at

4 that meeting.

5 Yes, I was interrupted at the meeting in Belgrade, not over here.

6 [Defence counsel confer]

7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry, my question was not recorded because I

8 turned off my microphone.

9 Q. [Interpretation] I had asked you whether you had been interrupted

10 here or in Belgrade. So just for the transcript --

11 A. I was interrupted in Belgrade. And I think that this last part,

12 this end, makes no sense whatsoever. The last five words, perhaps -- in

13 Belgrade, that is.

14 Q. The Prosecutor put several questions to you about the work of the

15 judiciary in Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem and the Republic of Serb

16 Krajina. Now this is what I'm interested in: Among other things, it was

17 stated that you had been passive towards the crimes that were being

18 committed. That is page 10.279.

19 Can you just say whether -- well, within the scope of the

20 authority that you had as prime minister of Slavonia, Baranja, and

21 Western Srem and, later on, president of the Republic of Serbian Krajina,

22 what kind of powers did you have vis-à-vis the judiciary? Could you

23 influence their work in any way?

24 A. I had no powers whatsoever, and I could not influence their work

25 in any way. They were completely independent of me.

Page 10825

1 Q. I would now like us to take a look at an answer from page 10.340,

2 line 16. I'm going to quote this back to you now. I'm going to tell you

3 what it was that you said. The questions had to do with Mr. Milan Ilic,

4 if you remember, and your answer was [In English] [Previous translation

5 continues] ... "... the end of 1991, president of the municipality of

6 Dalj and only in the spring of 1992 that he was elected president of

7 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem."

8 [Interpretation] You said here that he was elected president of

9 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem. Does this faithfully correspond to

10 what you said or, rather, is that it?

11 A. This was not faithfully conveyed. I believe that it is my

12 mistake because I spoke too fast. He could not have been president of

13 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem. This post did not even exist. He

14 was elected president of the regional government of Slavonia, Baranja,

15 and Western Srem.

16 Q. Now I'd like to ask you to look at P1707. This was shown to you

17 on transcript page 10.344.

18 First of all, can you tell me whether this document was called an

19 order anywhere?

20 A. It was not called an order. At least not in the text that I can

21 see. I cannot see the text further up. Perhaps it can be scrolled down.

22 No, no, it was not called an order.

23 Q. The Prosecutor showed you this document, and this document has to

24 do with resolving -- well, it says that problems should be resolved in

25 co-operation with the representative of the government of Slavonia,

Page 10826

1 Baranja, and Western Srem. There is a reference to Town Commands as

2 well. However, I would like us to take a look at the next page,

3 paragraphs 4, 5, and 6.

4 Could you please take a look at this. I would particularly like

5 to draw your attention to paragraph 6 that says: "Local commands shall

6 honour possible decisions of the municipal assembly, Executive Council

7 and those made by the government of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem,"

8 and so on.

9 Could you please tell me whether you were given any authority to

10 resolve these claims related to property in any way, or did this remain

11 in the hands of the military? And if they wanted to, perhaps they could

12 have taken into account your requests.

13 A. We never received this. You asked whether it was an order. I

14 wouldn't call an order. It was an instruction for their internal

15 communication. Here where it says "possible decisions," that means that

16 they don't respect us at all. It means that they can and cannot and need

17 not honour that, and they didn't make us aware of any decisions and we

18 could not make any decisions in respect of them. We did not have any

19 authority over the military.

20 Q. If you look at paragraphs 4 and 5, they say what will be done

21 with this documentation that has to do with the use of property. I'm

22 asking you whether this documentation was ever handed over to the

23 government of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem?

24 A. No, never. No documents of the JNA; these included. They state

25 quite clearly that they should keep this and that it is only for them to

Page 10827

1 decide on this.

2 Q. I would also like to ask you to clarify before the break another

3 answer that you provided on page 10.347. I'm going to quote it back to

4 you [In English]:

5 "A. I don't know. It was the president of the Executive Board

6 that made those appointments but I have to respond to what you said at

7 first if I said something that was not correct. No, I'm speaking under

8 oath and everything I said was correct. When I said that they didn't

9 want to talk to us, I meant in practical terms. I mean they did speak to

10 us formally but to return cars to us -- but it to return cars to us.

11 They didn't even want to talk about it or, rather, they didn't want to

12 return them but they could have formally discussed this for 100 years but

13 they didn't want to do anything that we proposed. And it is that sense

14 that I said that they didn't want to talk or discuss things because they

15 didn't want to do anything for us, and that is why I said that. They

16 just kept on talk and talking but meaninglessly and that's what I -- what

17 I meant. Everything I said is correct."

18 [Interpretation] This pertains to your communication with the

19 army, the military authorities. So I'd just like us to -- actually, I

20 remember that when providing an answer, you said that people were

21 speaking "uprazno", in vain. What did you mean by that? Could you

22 explain this a bit, this communication with the representatives of the

23 JNA.

24 A. First of all, perhaps I should explain a word that caused

25 confusion here and that's when I said this was not discussed at all. In

Page 10828

1 my language, that means that this was not brought into question at all,

2 that this could not be carried through.

3 So when I say this was not discussed at all, that means that they

4 didn't want to do it. That's what it means in my language. And that is

5 why the Prosecutor said "how come?" when this was discussed, and I said

6 well, yes, of course, they said, yes, we will check, we will take a look

7 at this. But all of that was in vain. It was just talk. That is what

8 uprazno means. That is to say without the possibility of a solution.

9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I see, Your Honour, that it is time for the

10 break.

11 JUDGE DELVOIE: If this is appropriate, yes.

12 Thirty-minute breaks -- break. Court adjourned.

13 --- Recess taken at 12.13 p.m.

14 --- On resuming at 12.47 p.m.

15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Please proceed, Mr. Zivanovic.

16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you, Mr. President.

17 First of all, I would indicate on one error in translation

18 concerning this last document, the document that's in -- at the screen.

19 It is in paragraph 6. Because, in the English translation, it is stated

20 "local commands shall honour municipal assembly decisions ..."

21 However, I'll read it from original, paragraph 6 reads:

22 "[Interpretation] The commands of places will honour possible decisions

23 of municipal assemblies, that is to say, their Executive Councils."

24 The word "eventually" was omitted from the translation, and we

25 indicate it right now, but we'll ask the correction of this translation.

Page 10829

1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you.

2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Mr. Hadzic, the Prosecutor showed you 1D3460, transcript page

4 10.429. It's a document dating from May 1994. I think we will soon be

5 able to see it on the screen.

6 The document mentions, inter alia, Djordje Celosovic who is

7 described as your escort. You answered this question to the Prosecutor

8 but as this is taking place in 1994, when you were no longer the

9 president of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, I would like to know

10 whether you could tell me at the time you had some permanent escorts or

11 anyone who was your escort?

12 A. I didn't have anyone. I used to ride my Vespa around for a while

13 and a journalist noted that in a text it's no wonder that nobody noticed

14 it here. When Martic took away my licenses plates, then I used a Vespa

15 as a means of transportation. I even rode it along the first line, and

16 nobody shot at me from the Croatian side, even though they were able to

17 recognise me.

18 Q. Also during the cross-examination, a video-clip was shown to you.

19 You said yourself that it dated from October or November 1991. The

20 document number is 14873.2 from Prosecution list. It's on page 10.442.

21 I will read out to you a section from the surrogate sheet for

22 this video and I will have you to -- well, I just want to ask you some

23 questions linked to your previous answers during the re-direct. It's on

24 page 10.444.

25 "[In English] Do you think that Serbs and Croats can live

Page 10830

1 together.

2 "Goran Hadzic: Not the brotherhood and unity type of

3 co-existence introduced 50 years ago. But knowing my people, I'm sure

4 Serb also not harm anyone who is not harming them. So all Croats who

5 stay in our region, all Croats living here for years, like us, will be

6 able to stay with us in the Serb region, have the same rights as everyone

7 else, as Serb people, other nations, and nationalities. And the Croats

8 who have blood on their hands and are wallowing in it will surely be held

9 responsible for what they did. We will have no mercy with them, and I

10 say this for the third time this evening."

11 [Interpretation] You have already provided an answer to this

12 question. I would just like to you clarify something when you said

13 that -- that there can be no co-existence of the brotherhood and unity

14 type introduced 50 years ago.

15 You explained here what your position is. But what I'm

16 interested is this: In that interview and generally at the time, was

17 there any distinction between the Croats judging by the place they were

18 coming from and the like?

19 A. No, that never existed.

20 Q. Did you, at the time -- I mean, it was a month or two after your

21 interviews which I have shown you, so it's war already, the war was

22 raging, one could say. Did you give such statements relating to Croats

23 hailing from Herzegovina or some other area?

24 A. Not at all, nor did anyone ever try to establish this on the

25 ground. My statements that were quite sharp in September, I didn't even

Page 10831

1 have a telephone at the time. I said that because Stipe Mesic and that

2 side were pointing their fingers at us.

3 Q. Perhaps I should be somewhat more specific in my questions. Did

4 you ever mention in this interview that anyone should be held accountable

5 except for those who had blood on their hands?

6 A. I didn't do it then nor do I think that now. And whoever has

7 blood and their hand, perhaps I may have been wrong that I didn't also

8 say the Serbs who had blood on their hands should also be held

9 responsible, but that was implied because we did prosecute Serbs who had

10 bloodied their hands later on. But this was a war and I was talking

11 about the other side. But it is implied that this encompassed all the

12 people who had blood on their hands.

13 Q. And another thing, in this interview, you mentioned Croats who

14 had been living alongside you for years. Was the expression precise "for

15 years," when you said that in the interview?

16 A. Perhaps I did. I meant those who had been born there, just like

17 myself.

18 Q. Yes, I have understood you. I'm asking that you because it seems

19 that even though I didn't find it in the interview, but on page 10.451,

20 line 18, I'm not sure if this was an error in interpretation or something

21 else, but at one point, centuries were mentioned rather than years. This

22 is why I asked you why you mentioned centuries or years?

23 A. No, no, I mentioned years. Well, there were many Serbs who had

24 arrived 40 or 50 years earlier to the area and that would relate to them

25 then. But, no, I had years on my mind.

Page 10832

1 Q. Please tell me now, at the time when you gave this interview, was

2 there a sentiment among people living in SBWS regarding the

3 responsibility of those who had committed crimes? I mean, that they

4 should be prosecuted or that that should be resolved in some other

5 manner. Do you remember that?

6 A. When you said "at the time," could I just see when I gave that

7 interview, what year and what month, because I've lost the thread

8 somewhat.

9 Q. I think that perhaps we don't have the exact date. But when the

10 Prosecutor showed you the video-clip, you said that it may have been --

11 or that it must have been before the fall of Vukovar because, before

12 that, he asked you about the military situation --

13 A. I remember, I remember.

14 Q. And you said that it may have been October or November 1991.

15 A. Yes. That was the general view held by everyone that all the

16 criminals and murderers ought to be prosecuted.

17 Q. If you could please clarify another segment for us. I will read

18 out to you the Prosecutor's question and your answer from page 10.362 of

19 the transcript. It reads [In English]:

20 "Q. And then you say, we would appreciate at least being

21 informed about the criteria according to which it was done with the

22 possible remark that our approval does not go without saying. And then

23 after that you say: This all the more in view of your request which

24 represents a novelty as conveyed by Mr. Susa that the reason must be

25 stated and approval even for temporary settlement of refugees in

Page 10833

1 settlements around Ilok.

2 Now I'm going suggest to you, Mr. Hadzic, that among the reasons

3 why the JNA wanted to retain some level of control over this was because

4 you, your government, and its representatives, were intent on placing

5 Serbs through these territories without regard to their own safety and in

6 areas that were still in the conflict zone as was indicated in the

7 previous exhibit we looked at.

8 "A. That's not true. I said in my answer before the break,

9 maybe I don't have the right to ask and it's not -- but from what -- what

10 did you get -- but -- but from what did you get this conclusion? I

11 didn't know that and I couldn't even suppose. It's not written

12 anywhere."

13 [Interpretation] As this letter that was quoted dates from

14 December 1991, I'm interested in the following. Please tell me whether

15 at the time, as far as you knew, any combat was an ongoing in the area

16 that would indicate that people were settling there, regardless of their

17 own personal safety. That is to say that they could be in danger because

18 of the ongoing combat operations.

19 A. There was no combat as far as I know. The combat lasted very

20 short even when there was any combat and that was in October or November.

21 So this claim is completely fabricated that anyone wanted to send the

22 Serbs there? We couldn't have done it even if we had wanted to. No one

23 ever consulted us and there was no combat going on there at the time. So

24 that's the answer to your question.

25 Q. When it says here that the JNA wanted to keep a level of control

Page 10834

1 over a territory, what level of control did the JNA have at the time?

2 What did it try to maintain? Did it share that control with somebody?

3 A. The word used here was "level" but there were no levels. It was

4 100 per cent control. It didn't share its responsibility with anybody.

5 It did not co-operate with anybody. The JNA had 100 per cent control

6 over the territory.

7 Q. The Prosecutor also showed you P3227. That was on page 10.504

8 through 10.512 of the transcript. P3227 is the document number.

9 This document concerns an order issued by the commander of the

10 Territorial Defence of Vojvodina about the resubordination of some units

11 from the TO Vojvodina.

12 Could you please read the first paragraph after the title: Order.

13 A. Yes, I can do that.

14 Q. And could you then tell the Trial Chamber whether that order was

15 issued pursuant to some other order or was it an isolated order issued by

16 the commander of the TO Vojvodina?

17 A. Even a layperson like me can see that the person who issued that

18 order did not have the right to -- to order anything directly because in

19 the title, it says "excerpt from the order" which means that he draws his

20 right from another order and you told me to read --

21 THE INTERPRETER: Could, please, the appropriate page in English

22 be returned to the screen.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Pursuant to order strictly

24 confidential order number 5-110 of 27 September 1991 of the 1st Army

25 Direct Command on the engagement of manoeuvring units of the AP Vojvodina

Page 10835

1 TO, I hereby issue the following..." which means that this person could

2 not issue orders independently but had to follow instructions from a

3 higher-ranking institution. This the way I see things and understand

4 things the way I understand things as a layperson.

5 Q. And what about the wording "pursuant to order strictly

6 confidential" and so on and so forth. Does that mean that the commander

7 in question acted on that order?

8 A. Yes, this is very clear. He only conveys a previous order issued

9 by the 1st Army District Command.

10 Q. In view of the fact that you were in communication with General

11 Mandaric, could you please tell us how much time lapsed between you were

12 in contact with him and the moment when this order was issued?

13 A. To the best of my recollection, it must have been a whole of two

14 months.

15 Q. Thank you. Could we now please look at --

16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just a moment,please. And this is an excerpt ...

17 Mr. Zivanovic, before you move to another document, could we see the last

18 page in English.

19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Oh, sorry. We should see one-but-last, I think.

20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Probably, yes.

21 Mr. Hadzic, on the first page, it is said that this is an order

22 from the commander of the TO -- excerpt on an order of the commander of

23 the TO. Is Major-General Nikola Mandaric the commander of the TO?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to what I know, yes, he

25 was. But he was the commander of the Vojvodina Territorial Defence.

Page 10836

1 That was a level below the TO of Serbia.

2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can we have the first page again, please. Yeah,

3 that -- that's exactly what is said -- what is said on the first page.

4 Now, do I understand you well that despite the fact that it is

5 said in the -- on the first page, that it is an order from the commander

6 of the TO and it is signed by the commander of the TO, Mr. Mandaric, that

7 in spite of that, the fact that it said that it is an excerpt means that

8 it is not an order from this man who signed it and whose function is

9 given here in the -- in the heading and in the -- and on the last page?

10 Is that your evidence?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's what I can see, that this is

12 a -- an order of the commander of the 1st Army District which this one

13 conveys and he hedges -- makes -- hedges that order by saying that this

14 is it an excerpt from another order.

15 JUDGE DELVOIE: I'm just trying to understand. What -- what

16 allows you to say that it is an order from the commander of the 1st Army

17 District and that it is -- how do you -- how do you put?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.

19 JUDGE DELVOIE: And this is an excerpt so why -- what -- what is

20 it that allows you to say that this is an order from the commander of the

21 1st Army and this is an excerpt from that other order? That's what

22 you're telling us; right?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But this is what it says here.

24 This the first time I ever see this type of indirect order. I never saw

25 that before. Because the main title reads: "Excerpt from order." And

Page 10837

1 above the word "order" it says: "Pursuant to the order strictly

2 confidential," and so and so, issued by the 1st Army District commander,

3 which he only conveys. The last few words are my addition.

4 The way I saw it was that he did not have the right to issue any

5 direct orders. All he could do was to convey orders previously issued by

6 the commander of the 1st Army District.

7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you.

8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Perhaps we should elaborate a bit further. May I have a hastily

10 omitted the requirement to read the entire paragraph consisting of three

11 lines where it sayings: "Pursuant to order, strictly confidential number

12 5-110 of 27 September 1991 issued by the 1st Army District Command on the

13 engagement of manoeuvre units of the AP Vojvodina TO ..."

14 Can you tell us what the order of the command of the 1st Army

15 District refers to?

16 A. It is clear that it refers to those units which were part of the

17 TO of Vojvodina Autonomous Province. And you can see that they were

18 under the command of the JNA, i.e., of the 51st Motorised Brigade. You

19 can see that from further text.

20 Q. The Prosecutor asked you and he showed you a document, P112.111.

21 The transcript page is 10.525. I'm not going to ask you anything about

22 this document. I'm sure you will remember the document and you will

23 remember the one issued on the 21st of September. What I do want to ask

24 you --

25 [In English] Sorry, may we move into private session for the