1 Tuesday, 11 December 2007

2 [Open session]

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

4 [The accused entered court]

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, kindly call the case,

6 please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, and good morning, Your Honours. This

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

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

10 Today, we are Tuesday, the 11th of December -- the 11th of

11 December, 2007. I'd like to greet all the people present in the

12 courtroom, Mrs. Dahl, Mr. Seselj, as well as all the people in this

13 courtroom and those people assisting us in our job.

14 Today we have a witness who is due to testify for two days. Today

15 it will be the turn of the Prosecutor for her examination-in-chief, and

16 tomorrow it will be the turn of Mr. Seselj for his cross-examination.

17 Let me remind you that initially the Prosecution had filed a

18 motion for this witness to be considered as an expert witness. The Trial

19 Chamber handed down a decision on the matter recently and decided that

20 this witness would be heard as a mere witness and not as any other

21 witness, pursuant to Rule 94 bis, and in light of our decision, the

22 Prosecution has disclosed additional information to us, thereby

23 substantiating the fact that this witness has enough knowledge to qualify

24 as an expert witness.

25 The Trial Chamber, after hearing the witness's testimony, will

1 decide on what decision to take vis-a-vis the report of this witness and

2 what probative value should be granted to this witness and his report

3 after having heard all questions and answers.

4 I would like the usher to introduce the witness now, please.

5 Mr. Seselj, you have the floor.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please. Before you bring this

7 witness in, may I inform you that I have never received your decision to

8 the effect that this witness will be heard as an ordinary witness, rather

9 than as an expert witness.

10 For two years now I've been preparing for this witness as an

11 expert witness for the Prosecution, and it is only on that basis that it

12 makes sense for this witness to testify.

13 This witness was not present during any one of my crimes or

14 anything that other people did under my influence allegedly. He has

15 nothing to testify unless he is an expert. He cannot testify about my

16 books. He hasn't read them. He's only been shown fragments of my book.

17 I think this is a very important question, and it has to be dealt

18 with before the witness appears in court.

19 I am prepared to hear this witness as an expert. If you want to

20 take me by surprise now that he was some kind of an eyewitness of some

21 crimes of mine, then I'm not prepared for that, because I don't know what

22 crimes we're talking about, what it is that he could testify about here.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I discover now that

24 you have not had the decision handed down by the Chamber on the 30th of

25 November, 2007. I'm very surprised by this, because we did give an

1 instruction to that effect.

2 Let me then just read out part of this decision, as well as its

3 disposition, so that you are able to understand what was stipulated in

4 this decision.

5 The Trial Chamber in its decision recalls that the Trial Chamber,

6 in light of its discretion, can, namely, refer to the resume,

7 publications, and any other information relating to the witness when this

8 witness qualifies as an expert.

9 The Trial Chamber has referred to the expert report entitled

10 "Nationalist Propaganda of Vojislav Seselj, Technical Contact, Impact,"

11 and the Table of Contents, which provides an explanation as to what kind

12 of methodology has been used. Considered that the subject addressed in

13 this report, the Trial Chamber feels that the field of expertise of

14 Mr. Oberschall should be as follows: Mass media propaganda in general;

15 and more specifically, in Serbia, nationalist propaganda of the accused.

16 Given that in a number of articles written by Anthony Oberschall, some

17 relate to the former Yugoslavia and violence in the Balkans, but these

18 articles are of a general nature. They do not seem to tie into the

19 expertise of the witness in question.

20 Given that Anthony Oberschall does not seem to have any technical

21 experience of the former Yugoslavia or that he has any knowledge of the

22 social and cultural background of the region; quite the contrary. The

23 presence of an interpreter or translator demonstrates that Mr. Oberschall

24 worked on an English text where each word has been translated, and it's

25 important to put this in the right context.

1 The Trial Chamber therefore feels that Mr. Oberschall cannot

2 testify as an expert witness pursuant to 94 bis relating to those issues

3 addressed.

4 However, this Trial Chamber feels this testimony should not be

5 disregarded, in light of the indictment, and decides to hear

6 Mr. Oberschall as a Prosecution witness, given that the Prosecution

7 nonetheless has identified prior to its examination the field or the

8 questions put to the witness. Therefore, the expert report, in addition

9 to both addenda, be tendered into evidence wholly or in part, follow the

10 same criteria as those applied to any other exhibit. Therefore, the Trial

11 Chamber orders Mr. Oberschall to be heard before the Chamber as a

12 Prosecution witness, to be examined by the parties and the Bench.

13 The Prosecution has identified clearly its series of questions by

14 disclosing to the Chamber and to the accused before the 7th of December a

15 list of topics on which Mr. Oberschall will testify by stipulating the

16 number of pages -- pages, reference number, and excerpts which will be

17 referred to and that have been studied by Mr. Oberschall as part of the

18 examination-in-chief. This disposition was rendered on the 30th of

19 November, 2007. The examination-in-chief should be no longer than three

20 hours and 45 minutes.

21 The accused will have the same time. After that, the Trial

22 Chamber has sent to the Prosecution - you should have received this

23 document too - which clearly indicated which topics would be addressed by

24 the Prosecution. This was a request put in by the Bench. The Bench

25 wished to have reference numbers and document numbers. This is something

1 which has certainly been translated and disclosed to you.

2 Mrs. Dahl, have you sent Mr. Seselj the document which you sent to

3 the Chamber?

4 MS. DAHL: Yes, Your Honour, we made special arrangements at the

5 Detention Unit to have the material presented to Mr. Seselj.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So if I've

7 understood you correctly, on the basis of this document, you are going to

8 address issues of methodology, terminology, collective violence, the

9 former Yugoslavia, effects of propaganda on the masses, and so on and so

10 forth. All these items listed in this document. Is that right?

11 MS. DAHL: Yes, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

13 Mr. Seselj, so have you had this document or haven't you?

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. Judge, I have not received this

15 document. The Prosecution submitted to me only comments and replies of

16 Anthony Oberschall to my opening statement that I made on the 8th of

17 November before this Trial Chamber. And in view of my first official

18 notification concerning the Prosecution witness on the 23rd of August,

19 2006. I had no idea about the status of this expert being changed. I had

20 the right to request certification for -- to appeal, but I have been

21 denied this right because I have not received this decision.

22 In a word, I am astonished. I wanted to challenge this expert

23 precisely through similar words, as the Trial Chamber challenged him, what

24 you read out now from the decision of the Trial Chamber, a few of my own

25 arguments. You see? Now I have to question this man about different

1 matters, and he cannot be a witness to anything. Perhaps he is a reader

2 of fragments of my books. He has not read a single book of mine. He's

3 only read fragments that somebody else has prepared for him.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are making a mistake. You

5 are prepared to hear him on the basis of the report that has been prepared

6 by the witness. The Prosecution, pursuant to the decision rendered by the

7 Trial Chamber, has prepared its examination-in-chief on the basis of the

8 report of the expert. But just to make quite sure that everybody

9 understands, the Trial Chamber has asked the Prosecution to map its

10 examination-in-chief out in order to highlight a number of issues which

11 are already contained in his report. It's the order in which these topics

12 which will be addressed. It's just a way of understanding in which order

13 this will unfold.

14 Therefore, your preparation stands as is. Nothing has been

15 changed. The only issue which the Chamber at the end of the day will have

16 to determine is to know whether, because you did challenge the quality of

17 this expert. You challenged the content of his report. And therefore,

18 the only matter to determine is whether what the expert is going to tell

19 us is true or not, whether it is useful in light of the indictment, and

20 whether it seems that what the expert is telling us when he answers the

21 questions put to him by the Prosecution and the questions that will be put

22 by you, whether any of this has a probative value. And this can only be

23 determined right at the end, after these two days. It is impossible right

24 now to say whether the man who is going to testify today is a real expert

25 or whether what he is about to say or will say is of any interest and

1 whether this fits in with the definition of the term.

2 Therefore, we will now bring in the witness.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I want to say something else before

4 you bring the witness in. As for this last thing you said, I completely

5 agree with that, Judge. However, there is one thing that I do oppose:

6 If this witness fails as an expert in the courtroom, his testimony cannot

7 be treated as testimony by an ordinary witness. He failed as an expert,

8 and he -- and he leaves the courtroom shamed because he did not manage to

9 prove anything as an expert. If he manages to prove something as an

10 expert, then I failed. However, for you to re-qualify him as an ordinary

11 witness if he fails as an expert witness, that would be totally wrong. I

12 do not mind having him heard today as a Prosecution witness in chief, and

13 I will cross-examine him tomorrow as a Prosecution expert. And finally

14 you will rule whether you accept him as an expert or not. However, if you

15 do not accept him as an expert, then he amounts to zero. You cannot turn

16 him into something else. He cannot be turned into an ordinary witness in

17 any way.

18 Another thing, Judge: I would like to draw your attention to the

19 fact that there are enormous problems with the translation service. I

20 made two submissions to you, and my associates analysed the translations

21 into English and French. Both are disastrous and both are incorrect

22 tendentiously. If you do not change this translation service, if you do

23 not get rid of incompetent translators, then your transcripts will be no

24 good. I make an enormous effort to engage good translators, proper

25 translators, so that they will translate the transcripts of these

1 proceedings to me subsequently. I mentioned all of that to you in two

2 submissions.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The second item you have

4 addressed, we will look into it; namely, the quality of the translation.

5 I would like to ask the Registrar why the documents provided by

6 the Prosecution have not been addressed to Mr. Seselj. And secondly, why

7 the decision of the Trial Chamber relating to the quality of

8 Mr. Oberschall's report on the 30th of November, 2007 - that's more than

9 ten days ago - has not been translated and addressed to Mr. Seselj.

10 Mr. Seselj, now, as far as the expert is concerned, let me remind

11 you that initially the Prosecution filed a motion to -- with a view to

12 asking Mr. Oberschall's report to be considered as an expert report,

13 pursuant to Rule 94 bis of our Rules of Procedure and Evidence. You

14 challenged the entire report as well as the quality of expert of the

15 person in question pursuant to the procedure which you are entitled to

16 apply.

17 Paragraph (B) of 94(B)(iii). And let me read it out to you. You

18 know it as well as I do. If you are to challenge the quality of a expert

19 witness or the relevance of the report or the statements wholly or in

20 part, you must then indicate which are the challenged parts.

21 So according to Rule 94 bis, you are entitled to challenge this,

22 in light of the motion, in light of the report, in light of your

23 submissions, the Trial Chamber has decided that as things stand, it cannot

24 say that this gentleman could be deemed to be an expert witness, in the

25 general sense of the term. But the Trial Chamber, when it rendered its

1 decision, stayed its decision on the issue of admitting the report. And

2 if you don't know anything about this, let me indicate this to you.

3 When an expert is brought in, this expert is heard, and at the end

4 of the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination the Trial Chamber

5 then decides whether the report should be admitted or not. And in certain

6 cases, some Trial Chambers have not admitted the reports. It depends on

7 the questions and answers, and sometimes it may happen that during the

8 hearing, the so-called expert witness was in fact not an expert witness.

9 And in that case, the Trial Chamber decides not to admit the report,

10 which, of course, cuts down on the time or cuts down on the testimony of

11 the expert.

12 Perhaps the Trial Chamber will admit this report or perhaps it

13 won't admit the report. Much will depend on how the questions are put by

14 the Prosecution and how you are going to put your questions. It is only

15 then that the Trial Chamber will decide whether to admit this report or

16 not.

17 Mr. Seselj.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I fully agree, Judge. All of that

19 is fine. However, there is one thing I do oppose: If you decide in the

20 end that the report of this expert is not admitted and if he turns into an

21 ordinary witness, I think that is impossible. If the report is not

22 admitted as an expert report, then it failed. That is a victory of mine

23 then in this specific case.

24 After that, his testimony cannot be treated in any way whatsoever.

25 He leaves the courtroom defeated and that's it. He cannot be an ordinary

1 witness.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are quite right when you say

3 that if he has failed. Those are your own words. In that case, the Trial

4 Chamber will not take this into consideration. In that case, the Trial

5 Chamber will not refer to the testimony in any way. However, if the

6 report is admitted, then the Trial Chamber will refer to it.

7 So there is no contradiction here between what the Trial Chamber

8 holds and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

9 Mrs. Dahl, you'd like to respond to what Mr. Seselj has just said?

10 MS. DAHL: Yes, Your Honour. At this point, I consider the matter

11 an academic matter. The test under Rule 89(C) is that the Chamber may

12 admit any evidence it deems to have relevance and probative value.

13 There's no higher or different threshold for testimony provided by expert

14 witnesses. This is the standard articulated in the decision of 30

15 November, and we will present the Chamber with information on which it can

16 determine whether Dr. Oberschall has the -- met the criteria under Rule 94

17 bis; namely, whether he has specialised skill or training that can aid the

18 Chamber in trying the facts of this case to understand or determine

19 disputed issues.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So let us bring in

21 the witness now, please.

22 Madam Usher.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one more thing, by your leave.

24 By your leave, just one more thing, Judge.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

1 continues] ...

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am not against the Trial Chamber

3 assessing the probative value of any testimony, but please tell me about

4 this alleged expert. If he fails as an expert here, how can he be treated

5 as an ordinary witness? That is inconceivable. That is absolutely

6 impossible. That is the essence of my objection. Otherwise, I've

7 prepared for his expert report. No stone will remain unturned. But how

8 can he be treated as an ordinary witness once he fails as an expert?

9 That's the only thing that I consider to be in dispute. That is

10 impossible for the Trial Chamber to do. Everything else is quite

11 possible. I don't mind having this alleged expert brought in and the

12 cross-examination in chief started; however, what is absolutely impossible

13 is to treat him as an ordinary witness once he fails as an expert.

14 According to Rule 89(F), a Chamber may receive the evidence of witness

15 orally or where interests of justice allow, written form, but it has to be

16 probative value. It's not somebody reading fragments from my books and

17 then making his own comments with regard to these fragments. That has no

18 probative value.

19 Everyone knows what probative value is. There has to be authentic

20 evidence so that it could have probative value.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We have noted what

22 you have said, and the Trial Chamber will assess all of this in light of

23 the questions and answers and in light of the cross-examination.

24 [The witness entered court]

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good morning, sir. I just want

1 to check that you can hear in your own language the translation of what

2 I'm saying. If that is the case, please tell me.

3 THE WITNESS: Yes, I can. I can hear.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Sir, to take the

5 solemn declaration, I would like you to stand, please.

6 First of all, for the transcript, please give me your first name,

7 last name, and date of birth, please.

8 THE WITNESS: Anthony Oberschall. December 4, 1936.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is your current occupation?

10 THE WITNESS: I am retired, emeritus professor.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Which unit?

12 THE WITNESS: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, have you already testified

14 before a court on the events that unfolded in the former Yugoslavia, or is

15 it the first time you testify?

16 THE WITNESS: The first time.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please read the solemn

18 declaration.

19 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

20 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. You may sit down.

22 WITNESS: ANTHONY OBERSCHALL

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I give the floor to the

24 Prosecution, I would just like to share with you some information.

25 The Prosecution has asked you to come and testify, to testify on a

1 number of issues which could help the Chamber to better understand this

2 case. The Trial Chamber has been seized of this case, as you know.

3 As we are in an adversarial system, as you know, you will first be

4 asked to answer the questions that will be put to you by Mrs. Dahl in the

5 course of this morning's hearing, and she will also show you a number of

6 documents. After this, Mr. Seselj, the accused, who is sitting on your

7 left, will spend tomorrow's hearing cross-examining you.

8 Before you, the members of the Bench can step in at any time if

9 they wish to put questions to you relating to the documents or relating to

10 any questions you may have provided to one or other party.

11 We have 20-minute breaks every hour and a half, and as we started

12 as 9.00, we shall have a break at 10.30, have a 20-minute break, and then

13 resume until quarter to 2.00.

14 If at any point in time you wish to interrupt the hearing, do not

15 hesitate to do so. And we will then, of course, interrupt the hearing if

16 you feel uncomfortable about something.

17 So this is how this hearing will unfold. Please try to provide

18 brief and accurate answers. If you do not understand a question, please

19 do not hesitate to turn to the person who has put the question to you to

20 rephrase it.

21 Mrs. Dahl, you have the floor.

22 Examination by Ms. Dahl:

23 Q. Good morning, Dr. Oberschall?

24 A. Good morning, Madam Prosecutor.

25 Q. First, I would like to address some questions to you concerning

1 your qualifications as an expert about the manipulation of public opinion

2 through propaganda and the propaganda methods used by Serbian political

3 leaders, in particular Dr. Oberschall -- I mean, excuse me, Dr. Seselj.

4 What is your professional training?

5 A. I'm a Ph.D. in sociology, and I've been a university professor for

6 40 years.

7 Q. What area do you teach?

8 A. I teach political sociology, social movements, war and peace

9 studies, in particular areas such as the -- Eastern Europe and the

10 Balkans.

11 Q. Have you published books or articles concerning conflict and peace

12 building?

13 A. Yes. In March of this year, I had a book published, which is

14 called "Conflict and Peacebuilding in Divided Societies. Responses to

15 Ethnic Violence." And of the seven chapters, there's a whole chapter

16 devoted to the break-up of Yugoslavia and especially the Bosnian war and

17 the Dayton Peace Agreement and its following events.

18 Q. What work did you conduct to write that book?

19 A. Well, that took really about -- it's the culmination of about 15

20 years of work on not just the Bosnian and the Yugoslav case but certainly

21 that was a very central part of it. I took three field trips. In

22 addition to the archival work, documents, historical research, looking at

23 all the United Nations papers and results, I took three field trips to

24 former Yugoslavia. The first one in 1998, and I did interviews with a

25 number of people from political leaders, media, personnel, refugees,

1 actually in Belgrade, Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Bihac, Zagreb, and probably

2 some other places I don't quite remember and this took about three weeks.

3 Then I had another field trip in 2001, in the area. And just last year I

4 had another two-week research trip with some Balkan graduate students in

5 Bosnia to study the reconstruction after the war and this was a project

6 run out of Trento University, I mean, Trento University invited me to try

7 to get a grant for this research which I was successful in obtaining. And

8 so I have a continued interest, actually, more now on the peace-building

9 side than on the conflict side, but I started --

10 [Technical Difficulty]

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: Just a minute. We have a problem. We don't

12 have a transcript anymore. The registrar needs to bring in a technician.

13 Mrs. Dahl, please put your question again because it hasn't been recorded

14 on the transcript.

15 No, we don't have it. So let's try again.

16 THE WITNESS: Should I go ahead?

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Seemingly it's working again.

18 MS. DAHL: Well, let me return to the topic of my last question.

19 I wanted to present to the Chamber information about the research and

20 field studies that you have conducted in the former Yugoslavia.

21 Q. What university gave you -- or what -- with what university were

22 you doing work for Balkan reconstruction and redevelopment in 2006?

23 A. Well, in 2006 the University of Trento has a -- a programme in the

24 Balkans on development and -- and reconstruction, and they -- they needed,

25 so to say, an outsider to come in and organise the -- the intellectual and

1 the research part of it, which I did.

2 We obtained a grant from the Erasmus fund of the European Union,

3 went to Trento, and ended up with about two weeks of -- of field work

4 to -- to get the students started in -- in Bosnia. I myself did

5 interviews in -- in Sarajevo and Bihac. Actually, these are people I

6 interviewed already in 1998 and then in -- and some of them in 2001. And

7 I get some information on them, on what the changes are. And this -- this

8 research project has then continued. I mean, I was there just to get it

9 started for them. And I'm retired now and I do other things. But I

10 thought it was very -- it was something that I -- because of what I know,

11 I'm very happy to do, even though I'm retired.

12 Q. Where is University of Trento?

13 A. University of Trento is in Northern Italy. It is a very

14 well-known university.

15 Q. Have you published articles in professional journals on the

16 manipulation of ethnicity with regard to violence and war in Yugoslavia?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. When?

19 A. Well, the major one that I published was -- I think it was 2000,

20 the year 2000, and it was in the journal called "Racial and ethnic

21 studies," which, by the way, is the -- is internationally known for --

22 where is my vitae here? Oh, here.

23 This is really the premier international journal on the topic of

24 ethnic relations, ethnic studies. And it has been reprinted and referred

25 to a number of times. And the title of it is "From ethnic cooperation to

1 violence and war" in -- no, it's called -- that is another one. It's "The

2 manipulation of ethnicity from cooperation to violence and war in

3 Yugoslavia." And it was published in 2000, November 2000.

4 Q. When you're doing your original research in the region of the

5 former Yugoslavia, how do you talk with people? What languages do you

6 use, and do you use translators?

7 A. Oh, yes, I always have a -- usually a university student,

8 sometimes a -- a high school -- you know, late high school student. But

9 it turns out, for instance, that -- I happen to speak French and German

10 fluently, and actually I learned those languages before I learned English,

11 because my family immigrated to the United States when I was 15. So in

12 Belgrade the intellectuals and academics actually speak French, so we were

13 able to -- to speak French with one another.

14 In Bosnia and Croatia, the -- not just the intellectuals but some

15 of the, I should say, average, ordinary people often speak German, because

16 they were labour migrants in Germany, so in that case sometimes I could

17 speak German with them. They would understand it and they would answer

18 in, you know, Serbo-Croatian and then that would be translated to me, but

19 sometimes I could just speak with them in German. And some of the younger

20 people actually speak English pretty well. And when I didn't have any

21 common language I could speak with them, I used my interpreters. And

22 that -- to me, that worked very well, actually.

23 Q. What were you asked to do in connection with the case against

24 Dr. Seselj?

25 A. I was asked to content analyse his -- well, what was in these --

1 this collection of volumes that -- that he himself, I think, edited or

2 somebody in Belgrade edited, which contained not just writings but

3 transcripts of TV interviews, radio interviews, speeches he made in the

4 Serb Assembly, and, you know, other such material, for the period

5 1991-1994, and especially looking at the discourse that he had on

6 Serb/non-Serb political relations, which is the, if you wish, nationalist

7 discourse that -- that he conducted during this time of 1991-1994, and

8 making sure that we captured both the TV, radio, as well as the -- the

9 written material and speeches to the Assembly so that we wouldn't miss a

10 particular audience that he was addressing.

11 Q. Now, before we talk about the methodology of content analysis --

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. -- I would like to ask you some questions about the nature of the

14 texts you were reading and the degree of difficulty in interpreting or

15 understanding the material with the use of translated material.

16 Were you able to understand what Mr. Seselj was saying in his

17 political discourse?

18 A. Well, I had a Miss Bela Maric, who is a native Serbo-Croat

19 speaker, who was at that time a graduate student in Slavic languages and

20 also a candidate for Ph.D. in linguistics, which is a very nice

21 combination to have somebody in the language literature and the

22 linguistics field. And she is the one who actually translated for me the

23 text that I content analysed.

24 Now, these texts were extremely straightforward. There's nothing

25 very subtle about nationalist discourse. You know, we're not translating

1 the poetry of Baudelaire or anything like that. And things like "amputate

2 Croatia" is really what it says. I mean, it's very vivid, it's clear.

3 There's no subtle double meanings to it. So the only thing that Ms. Bela

4 Maric did is she sometimes told me some details about the -- the context

5 and the history which would explain better the actual -- you know, the

6 actual text and -- and -- and what was referred to. And it went very

7 smoothly. I had no problem whatsoever.

8 Q. I'm going to leave a pause between my question and your answer

9 now, because I want to make sure the interpreters are able to follow us.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. When I reviewed your report, I noticed that you cited scholars and

12 politicians who wrote about the conflict and conducted their own research

13 in the region. Is that -- did I understand that correctly?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Why did you --

16 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have an objection, Your Honour.

18 Mr. President. Do you allow me?

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor must not ask leading

21 questions of the witness, like with any other witness in chief

22 examination. The Prosecutor cannot note something or make a statement and

23 then say "am I right?" Questions must be: How, where, when. Questions

24 must be direct, not leading.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mrs. Dahl. In

1 examination-in-chief, Mrs. Dahl, you know that there can be no leading

2 questions. And where you're saying "do I understand you right," this is

3 calling for a specific answer, and he does answer "yes." That's on line

4 22, page 19. So could you please rephrase your question.

5 MS. DAHL:

6 Q. What scholars and politicians did you consult in educating

7 yourself and preparing your research analysis with regard to the former

8 Yugoslavia?

9 A. Well, they are in the citations to my expert report. These are

10 the -- the main sources and the main authorities that have discussed the

11 whole Yugoslav break-up and the Yugoslav question and the history of

12 Yugoslavia, and so on.

13 During this decade, I went to many conferences, at which I met

14 some of them. Some of them I know personally and referred to their --

15 their work. And if I can just explain a little bit that social science --

16 I mean, what we know about both the case of the break-up of Yugoslavia and

17 what we know about mass communications and propaganda and persuasion,

18 persuasion techniques, and so on, is a -- is not something that I

19 invented. It's a -- it's a huge edifice made up of many different bricks

20 that have been built into a pretty impressive building that I call

21 "knowledge," and what I'm doing is I'm referring to the main building

22 blocks, just the way Your Honours, the Judges, would look at particular

23 precedents in the law that have been made over a number of years and maybe

24 in different countries on a certain topic and you base your judgement on

25 this particular edifice made up of many bricks, and social science is

1 exactly the same way. So that is what I have done by referring to these

2 sources in the citations.

3 Plus, there was some research going on in -- actually, in -- in

4 Serbia on content analysis of the media, on commentaries, on -- on the

5 very same topics that I am covering, and I felt that I should -- you

6 should cite them. In most cases, they -- they agree and I agree with

7 them, and they agree with my conclusions.

8 Q. Can you give me a summary of the conclusions that you reached

9 after reviewing the writings and speeches of Mr. Seselj.

10 A. If -- I think it's maybe appropriate at this point if I give you

11 some -- some idea, some concrete idea of the -- the kind of nationalist

12 discourse that Dr. Seselj engaged in, which is based on the -- on the

13 content analysis. And I'm trying to locate this here.

14 Well, okay, let me just -- I can't find the exact passage, so I'm

15 just going to paraphrase myself. But in terms of looking at the speeches

16 and other pronouncements of -- of Dr. Seselj on Serb/non-Serb relations,

17 political relations, the content of it, both in terms of the themes that

18 he covers and in terms of the techniques that he uses, is an extreme --

19 it's extreme nationalism. I call it "xenophobic nationalism." It's

20 repeated over and over again. It doesn't really change over the years

21 that I've looked at or over the -- the particular audience or the media

22 that I've -- that I examined.

23 It consists of several elements that I've -- that I've coded for,

24 that I hope we get into the details of. But essentially the speech,

25 typical Seselj's discourse, will start with a glorification of the Serbs,

1 that they're -- they're sort of a great people, they have been victimised.

2 There's a victimisation component to this speech. They have been

3 victimised. They have all these external enemies. They are, in fact,

4 internal enemies to the Serbs. They have been wronged in past history and

5 in the present. Furthermore, they are threatened, again, by a combination

6 of external enemies and internal -- internal enemies; and that the

7 reaction to these threats is to take action and eliminate the source of

8 the threat by aggressive and -- and violent means.

9 The -- the solutions he proposes to the -- to Serb/non-Serb

10 relations broke -- admit of no compromise, and even though he says that

11 it's better to have a non-violent kind of an outcome, the outcome that he

12 suggests to the adversary is one that -- that he advocates without any

13 kind of a compromise solution to it. And absent and -- some kind of a

14 total submission of the adversary to this notion of the Greater Serbia and

15 as a successor to the -- to the Yugoslav state why aggressive violent

16 means are -- are appropriate and should be undertaken. And those means

17 involve not just armed conflict but ethnic cleansing and annexation of

18 major parts of Croatia and perhaps other parts of -- of ex-Yugoslavia

19 to -- to Serbia.

20 And essentially that gives you an idea of the -- the content that

21 I derived from this examination of his -- of some 400 different texts of

22 Seselj discourse from 1991 to 1994.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, please, just a

24 question, a follow-up question after what you just said, which seems to

25 sum up your entire report. Listening to you closely, you told us how

1 exacerbated nationalism could manifest itself, through glorification of

2 the Serbs as a great people, the fact that they were victims, enemies,

3 internal enemies, external enemies, and that action was absolutely

4 required, without accepting any kind of compromise, and that in terms of

5 action, you determined the two kinds of actions that were envisaged;

6 notably, ethnic cleansing.

7 Very well. This is the way you see things. But as a Judge, this

8 is the question that comes to my mind: What exactly is the difference

9 with the traditional political discourse that is heard everywhere. And

10 I'm not going to quote anyone, but everyone will have somebody in mind.

11 So what exactly is the difference between a traditional political

12 discourse that an everyday politician will give and what you have just

13 mentioned?

14 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm glad you asked the question. The -- in

15 political science, there is -- and in fact, in public speaking, there's a

16 discourse called "deliberative discourse." And deliberative discourse is

17 what takes place in legislatures, such as the British Parliament and any

18 kind of public debate in -- in Western democracies that, in fact, has been

19 studied with content analysis, and there's a whole literature on this.

20 And if you look at the coding categories that I use by my

21 colleagues who studied this deliberative discourse and if you look at, as

22 I have done, in textbooks on public speaking -- for instance, at my

23 university, we teach public speaking and textbooks are used. And if you

24 look at the Table of Content, you don't -- you find no entry for threat,

25 for fear, for revenge and retribution. And -- and a number of these

1 categories that in a nationalist, especially the xenophobic nationalist

2 discourse and propaganda analysis that has been done during and after

3 World War II on both the Nazi and allied propaganda, for instance. These

4 are very different themes in these two kinds of discourse. And the

5 difference between propaganda and this deliberative discourse, if I can

6 just read a definition of "propaganda": "Propaganda is an endeavour to

7 spread ideas without regard to truth and accuracy."

8 And, in fact, full of threats and other rhetorical and other

9 devices that would make people anxious, afraid, and hostile and

10 mistrustful of -- of one another.

11 So the difference between what I examined in Dr. Seselj's

12 discourse and what my colleague Jurg Steiner, who does the analysis of the

13 discourse in European Parliaments, is that we're sort of living in

14 somewhat two different worlds of discourse.

15 Now, there are some politicians who are using a kind of

16 in-between, Hugo Chavez, for instance. Right now, you know, there are

17 people who are political leaders who are closer to the -- Dr. Seselj's

18 nationalist xenophobic than they are to the deliberative discourse that

19 Europeans practice in their Parliaments.

20 And I guess that's the main thing I want to tell you in answer.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22 Mrs. Dahl.

23 MS. DAHL:

24 Q. What happens when politicians issue threat messages to the public?

25 A. Well, the -- the findings of people in psychology, social

1 psychology, and political psychology who studied the effects of -- of --

2 of discourse and -- and messages in the -- in the mass media on people's

3 behaviours and beliefs and attitudes finds that the most important

4 stimulus is a threat stimulus. And this will have a -- this will raise

5 the fears of the -- of the audience. And if repeated enough, the people

6 who listen to these messages will back action to remove the threat.

7 Now, a threat can be moved by avoidance, but we're no longer in

8 the age of hunters and gatherers where we can just go, you know, to the

9 next valley. So in effect, what -- what a threat message produces is a --

10 a public willing to back political leaders and -- who use violent means,

11 if necessary, or aggressive means, if necessary, to remove the threat.

12 And in all the research on the impact of propaganda, the strongest

13 stimulus has always been threat. Now, in this case, threat to the entire

14 group or nation, rather than to an individual.

15 And by the way, this threat doesn't necessarily have to be only

16 physical threat. It could be demographic threat, like there is this other

17 group and their numbers are increasing and our numbers are shrinking. It

18 could be a cultural threat in the sense that we are losing our -- our

19 traditions, our values, our way of life because we are assimilating to

20 this -- to this other group. Or it could be economic threat; they are the

21 ones who are successful and we are becoming impoverished. And, of course,

22 it could be physical threat; they want to kill us or expulse us from our

23 country.

24 And usually it's a combination of all of these. And in fact in

25 the case of the material that I've looked at, at one time or another

1 Dr. Seselj really goes into all of these in some way.

2 Q. Now, before we review some of the records and examples of

3 Mr. Seselj's speech, I want to ask you some questions about content

4 analysis.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. What is it?

7 A. Well, I mean, content analysis has been done ever since there has

8 been debate, as in -- in ancient Athens. What's -- what's new in content

9 analysis is a more systematic quantitative content analysis that was

10 developed really as a way of analysing propaganda in World War II. And

11 when -- I actually studied content analysis with Bernard Berelson, who

12 wrote the basic textbook on content analysis in the 19 -- late 1950s. At

13 that time, there weren't any computers yet and the use of software to

14 identify text with certain themes has been developed since that time,

15 let's say, in the last 15 years or so.

16 But what content analysis is you -- instead of just looking at

17 text and picking out whatever suits you from somebody's discourse, a

18 phrase here and a phrase there, and, you know, putting it together, what

19 you do is you identify a large number of such texts on a particular theme

20 and you actually analyse all of them by a uniform -- on a uniform code.

21 You're looking always for the same things.

22 And now, the code that I used is really at the bottom of every

23 record, and it consists of really two items. I have identified themes

24 from the nationalist literature and I've identified techniques from the

25 propaganda analysis. Now -- and I've actually coded every one of the

1 texts that we selected for both the themes and the technique. Of course,

2 actually the -- the effect is produced by a combination of the theme with

3 the -- with the technique.

4 Now, the themes were, as I said, glorification of the -- of the

5 in-group, negative labeling or stereotyping of the adversary, internal

6 threats to Serbs, a threat being so important in all of this, as I've

7 explained before. Dr. Seselj threatens others also in -- in many of these

8 texts that I've looked at; advocates or expects violence; no compromise;

9 omits nonviolence as a -- as a possibility to conflict management;

10 external threats to Serbs. That's, again, the threats theme. Then

11 expulsion, exchange of population; revenge retribution is another one.

12 And denies responsibility or -- we call it plays the blame game. We

13 didn't do it. They started it. It's not our fault, and so on. That's --

14 those are the themes that are in the nationalist literature, not just in

15 Dr. Seselj's nationalist discourse. This is sort of standard nationalist

16 discourse.

17 Q. Now, what do you mean by "persuasion techniques"?

18 A. Persuasion techniques are what I coded for next: Stereotyping and

19 labeling is one. Generalisation; falsehood and misinformation. Again,

20 threat discourse appears actually both in technique and in -- and in

21 themes. Very important parts of -- the "Serbs threaten" discourse in

22 Dr. Seselj, I broke out past atrocities committed against Serbs, which he

23 mentions often. I thought that was an important thing to distinguish,

24 break-out within the larger "Serbs threaten" category. And then

25 victimhood. And these are known techniques of -- of really propaganda

1 techniques, although we call them by the nicer word of

2 "persuasion techniques."

3 The only other one I didn't code for is repetition, because

4 actually I was measuring repetition through doing the counts of how many

5 times these negative stereotypes or the -- or the victimhood theme was --

6 was -- appeared in these -- in these texts.

7 Q. How did you select the records to review?

8 A. Well, we had these 40-some volumes available. Some of them --

9 Q. Whose volumes? I'm sorry.

10 A. Dr. Seselj's publications of his speeches, his appearances on

11 television, I think issued by a publication house that his political party

12 edited. It's not our compilation; it's his. It's his compilation.

13 Certain volumes did not apply because they were not -- they didn't

14 cover the 1991-1994 period. So we didn't look at them. Then instead

15 of --

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Witness --

17 THE WITNESS: Yes.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] -- you just drew my attention to

19 something. You're saying that you did not take a number of texts into

20 account because they were not in the relevant period between 1991 and

21 1994; they didn't cover that period. Is that a deliberate choice that you

22 made? Whereas, maybe in the texts that were not in this period, there

23 would still be a logic. So why discard a period of time? Why?

24 THE WITNESS: Well, actually, most of it starts in 1989/1990. And

25 we actually included some from 1990. You know, that was my decision,

1 although I was asked to do it for 1991-1994, because the indictment of

2 Dr. Seselj covers the years 1991-1994, as far as I understand.

3 Is that true, Madam Prosecutor?

4 MS. DAHL:

5 Q. Generally.

6 A. Yes. So that's what I did.

7 I would also point out that we looked to see whether there were --

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour. The

9 Prosecutor is misleading the witness by confirming his assumption that my

10 indictment relates to 1991 to 1994. That's not true. My indictment

11 covers the period of mid -- from mid-1991 until September 1993. And the

12 expert witness must have laboured under that misconception all the time,

13 and Ms -- Madam Prosecutor is only deepening that misconception.

14 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, we considered the records from --

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.

16 MS. DAHL: -- 1994 relevant to the extent they are describing or

17 explaining Mr. Seselj's intentions or casting light on his motivations

18 during the period covered by the indictment.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Following

20 Mr. Seselj's words, you said, Mr. Witness, that you dealt with 1991 to

21 1994, and the indictment stops in September 1993. So you went a bit

22 beyond that date.

23 THE WITNESS: I said that I started a little bit before that date

24 and I went a little bit after that date. And that's just to be --

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Fine. Well, this was the

1 reason behind my question. I do not know what Mr. Seselj wrote in the

2 1980s or in the 1970s. I have no idea. But imagine that in the 1970s and

3 the 1980s he wrote the same thing that he wrote in -- from 1991 to 1994,

4 because there was a specific political situation that existed in -- in

5 1991 to 1994, the collapse of the former Yugoslavia. But if he had

6 written the same thing beforehand, what would you have made of this?

7 THE WITNESS: Well, what -- what he would have written about a

8 hypothetical situation while he was in prison, I -- it doesn't make -- I

9 don't fully understand what -- what that really means.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, you said that he was in

11 gaol. It's true that at one point of time Mr. Seselj was in gaol. But if

12 before 1991 he dealt with -- he had dealt with Greater Serbia, Serbian

13 people, history, the London Treaty, and so on, would that have changed

14 your conclusions?

15 THE WITNESS: Well, what -- whatever he wrote before the period

16 that I looked at wouldn't make any difference to my conclusions

17 whatsoever. I mean, he -- that's on -- what he wrote, what he thought

18 during this period of -- of crisis and impending civil war and then war is

19 what I looked at. It's on the record. What he thought of -- as a young

20 man about some of these questions, I don't see -- he -- what we were

21 looking at is not just Dr. Seselj's personal views, what he wrote in

22 correspondence to his mother or said to his wife. What we looked at is

23 the political discourse that he carried on at a time when he had a

24 following. And he was a political leader. He founded a political party.

25 He formed volunteers. When what he said was said over TV, over

1 newspapers, in press conferences, and that is really what matters in this

2 case and not what his personal, private views were before he had this

3 political impact and audience.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

5 Mrs. Dahl.

6 MS. DAHL:

7 Q. How many records did you review in total?

8 A. We reviewed two sets. The first set was 240-some. And then we

9 reviewed 180, I think, or something like that, 160. I don't have the

10 exact -- I could look it up, but ...

11 So --

12 Q. Did you have a preset or predetermined figure in mind regarding

13 the total number of records to review?

14 A. Not -- not really. As long as it covered these years and as long

15 as we had sufficient instances from the television, radio, newspaper, and

16 other media. And basically Dr. Seselj's discourse was very much the same

17 during this time, and he said pretty much the same thing to -- in all

18 these different settings, with -- you know, with variations. So I

19 actually told the -- your -- your predecessor, who actually hired me to do

20 this content analysis, that I didn't think there was any necessity to have

21 some additional done after the first set of 240-some, but, you know -- but

22 a lot of people feel uncomfortable with numbers. I don't, because I've

23 done this repeatedly. And I said, "Okay, if you want to do it, I'll do

24 it." But we found basically the same pattern of discourse. There was

25 nothing unusual or different in the additional material that -- that I

1 examined. So -- but since we've done it, we've put it into the record.

2 Q. What happened when you found repetition in the messages you were

3 coding in the records?

4 A. Well, we said, Enough is enough. How often do you want the same

5 Seselj solution to the Albanian problem in Kosovo as he saw it, repeated

6 over and over and over again, with -- with minor variations, he said

7 pretty much the same thing. So instead of, you know, spending more time

8 and spending more money of the -- of the Court's money, I said, you know,

9 That's enough. We don't need it.

10 Q. Would repetition or the frequency of appearance of a particular

11 threat add to or change your analysis?

12 A. No. I mean, Dr. Seselj was using a -- one of the major techniques

13 of propaganda is repetition; you keep repeating the same thing over and

14 over and over and over again. And it does have, you know -- depending on

15 whether there are other people who keep contradicting you, it does have an

16 impact. It's a -- it's a well-known technique of -- of propaganda, and

17 it -- and it works if there are no other contradictory messages in -- by,

18 you know, other political leaders using the same media of communication.

19 So basically that's what he was doing.

20 Q. Let me ask you to turn to your report.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Page 4.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. At the top of the page, you have a distribution by year. It's,

25 for the record, 65 ter number 2797.

1 A. Mm-hm. Excuse me, we turned to what?

2 Q. Page 4.

3 A. Yes, I have it.

4 Q. I'm understanding that people are also turning to that page. And

5 it's page 4 in e-court in the English version.

6 I wanted to ask you: Of the first group of records that you

7 coded, what was the distribution by year?

8 A. Let me see. We have 1990, 12 per cent; 1991, 29 per cent; 1992,

9 20 per cent; 1993, 22 per cent; and 1994, 17 per cent.

10 Q. I want to now turn to reviewing some of the records that you

11 coded. And in the first category, I want to show an example from May

12 1991, and it's a video-clip. So we'll get that cued up. This is example

13 number 31.

14 [Videotape played]

15 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] The Serbian people in Serbia is

16 above all endangered by this economic crisis, of course, which would not

17 be cured. And the new Ustasha government in Croatia have again put the

18 Kama knife under its throat. Should they attempt the new genocide against

19 the Serbian people, we say to them again we shall take revenge for each

20 Serbian life and we shall also ask to pay up for past crimes, also for

21 crimes in recent history. And it is our duty to protect them, that it is

22 primarily by their courage and their heroism that they show they are ready

23 to sacrifice themselves for the defence of the Serbian land and Serbian

24 borders to the great pride of all Serbs.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, you may proceed, Mrs. Dahl.

1 MS. DAHL: When I show a video-clip, I will wait until the Bench

2 looks up to ensure that I have allowed adequate time for the French

3 interpretation. Thank you for letting me know.

4 Q. This is example number 31 from the second set of materials that

5 you coded. Can you explain what you coded for this interview and why.

6 It's 65 ter number 2875, with the evidence registry vision number 0602895.

7 A. Well, here you have several threat messages. And, of course, I --

8 "Serbs threaten" is what I quoted mostly. For -- like: "It is the

9 obligation of all Serbs to help defend from the crazed Ustasha beast."

10 This is not just a threat, but I also coded it as a negative label, or

11 negative -- negative stereotype.

12 Q. Let me interrupt -- let me interrupt for just a moment. This is

13 e-court page number 49. I'm sorry.

14 So the external threat that you were discussing, please continue.

15 A. Well, there are several mentions of threats. First, it says:

16 "The Serbian people are existentially endangered. Then the new Ustasha

17 leader and Tito General, Tudjman, has unsheathed an Ustasha Kama and put

18 it under the Serbian people's throat."

19 This is again a threat message.

20 "Serbian men and women over there are trying to save their bare

21 lives," and so on.

22 So it's basically a very heavy dose of the threat message.

23 I'd like to point out to the Court that even though dehumanisation

24 is a category under "Persuasion techniques," I didn't -- whenever

25 Dr. Seselj used such terminology as "the Croats are a poisoned snake" or

1 "the Ustasha beasts," and so on, I didn't actually code it as

2 "dehumanisation." Although, technically speaking, you could say, well,

3 that's an example of dehumanisation if you compare negatively an entire

4 people with a -- a beast, an animal, you know, especially a dangerous -- a

5 dangerous -- a dangerous animal.

6 But in my coding, I gave Dr. Seselj the benefit of the doubt. He

7 has a very colourful way of speaking. He tends to be boisterous and do

8 some exaggerations. And I decided that I would code those instances as

9 negative stereotype, rather than dehumanisation. Because he used these

10 phrases without going into a long paragraph of explaining, you know,

11 and -- it's not like racist talk on the part of the Nazis or anything like

12 that. But he uses these colourful little phrases, which compare the

13 Croats and others to animals in a negative way. And I said, This is not

14 really dehumanisation in the sense of the classic propaganda analysis

15 of -- of, you know, Nazi Germany. So I just said, It's a negative

16 stereotype.

17 So in many ways, I was kind of erring on the side of giving

18 Dr. Seselj the benefit of the doubt.

19 You will also notice, if I can add this, that on several of the

20 examples and records I actually coded nothing, because our search method

21 produced text in which Dr. Seselj was talking about Serb/non-Serb

22 relations. Well, if in that context he didn't use any, what I call,

23 propaganda techniques and he didn't refer to "victimhood" or -- there

24 wasn't any false information or misinformation in it, but it was, as Your

25 Honour pointed out, just a kind of political discourse that you would

1 expect a -- a politician to make in an adversary situation, then I coded

2 nothing.

3 So we -- we didn't just select the texts of Dr. Seselj that had

4 propaganda content. Our method was to identify all the texts in which he

5 talked on Serb/non-Serb relations, and then we coded them. And if there

6 wasn't any propaganda content, I didn't code anything.

7 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, I see that we are at the point in time for

8 the scheduled break. If I may bring that to your attention.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Absolutely. We will now break

10 for 20 minutes and resume in 20 minutes.

11 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

12 --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have resumed our hearing. I

14 would like to ask the Prosecution when it adduces a piece of evidence,

15 when it's a video, to ask for the tendering into evidence of this document

16 at the same time, please.

17 MS. DAHL: Thank you, Your Honour. I would like to mark for

18 identification 65 ter exhibit number 2797, which is the expert report of

19 Dr. Oberschall, including Appendix 2. I will move for admission of

20 evidence at the conclusion of my direct examination with him. With

21 that --

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] An objection.

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

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, when tendering any piece of

25 evidence, the Prosecutor is duty-bound to explain what that piece of

1 evidence means. We have seen a part of my interview, for instance, but

2 the Prosecutor must say what it is about, when the interview was given,

3 where, to whom. Without that, it cannot be tendered or admitted. Without

4 all that, maybe we can assume that I told all that to my wife, sitting in

5 my apartment. Everything that is tender must be completely clear,

6 documented, and presented.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. For the time being, the

8 Trial Chamber is seized of a request relating to the video, which is

9 Exhibit number ...?

10 MS. DAHL: Your Honours, that is exhibit number 65 ter 6015.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So that is exhibit number 6015.

12 This video, when is it dated? Do you have the date of the video or don't

13 you?

14 MS. DAHL: May 1991. It's a broadcast television programme

15 entitled "Without a cut and an anaesthesia," by Studio TV NS. This is

16 included in the description on our 65 ter list.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Please proceed.

18 MS. DAHL: Let me next mark for identification exhibit -- 65 ter

19 exhibit number 7000, which is translation corrections to the appendix

20 marked for identification as number 1.

21 Next I want to mark for identification 65 ter exhibit number 2875,

22 which is the addendum to Dr. Oberschall's report, in which he coded 156

23 additional examples.

24 And last, I would move into evidence 65 ter exhibit number 6015,

25 which is the video-clip played before the break, concerning example number

1 31.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So the video-clip number 6015 is

3 admitted and the other documents you have mentioned are marked for

4 identification.

5 MS. DAHL: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the video-clip with 65 ter number

9 6014 will be Exhibit P1. The video-clip with 65 ter number 6015 will be

10 Exhibit number P2. The document with 65 ter number P02875 will be marked

11 for identification as MFI P3. And document with 65 ter number 7000 will

12 be marked for identification as MFI P4. Thank you.

13 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

14 MS. DAHL: I thought I started with 65 ter exhibit number 2797,

15 which is the expert report with its appendix.

16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be MFI P5.

17 [Prosecution counsel confer]

18 MS. DAHL:

19 Q. Let me turn to the answer to the Yugoslavian constitutional crisis

20 proposed by Dr. Seselj. And I'm going to play a series of clips.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] To avoid objections, when there

22 is a video-clip please give us a date, place, and origin.

23 MS. DAHL: This is 65 ter exhibit number 6021. The date is July

24 25, 1991. And it is a television interview aired on TV Politika.

25 This corresponds with example number 51.

1 [Videotape played]

2 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] Look, under Tito, Yugoslavia was an

3 artificial state. It was a grotesque and imposed construct. It will

4 never exist like that again. It could be like that only under the

5 communist dictatorship. In actual conditions, those who are bigger and

6 stronger will dominate. That is the way it is in the whole world. The

7 next Yugoslavia is only possible under a Serb domination.

8 MS. DAHL: I would like to tender that for admission into

9 evidence.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, please.

11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit number P6.

12 MS. DAHL:

13 Q. Now, let's turn to example number 51. It's Marked For

14 Identification Exhibit 3, e-court page 78. Have you found the record?

15 How did you code that utterance by Dr. Seselj?

16 A. Well, I -- I coded it under -- of course, it was "nations and

17 nationalities" discourse. I mean, his theory of state formation and state

18 and nation.

19 I also coded it as generalisation -- sorry, "glorification of the

20 in-group," when he says that "The next Yugoslavia is only possible under

21 Serb domination." And he also says that the Serbs are the bigger and

22 stronger and they will -- will dominate. And I think that's a -- a

23 glorification of Serbs and Serbia.

24 I also coded it as "generalisation." I think that was the most

25 important part because he says "Yugoslavia was an artificial state. It

1 was a grotesque and imposed construct" and "only possible under a

2 communist dictatorship."

3 Now, what he's referring to is the fact that Yugoslavia was

4 composed of these different people. And there are many other examples in

5 the world, actually, of perfectly viable states on all continents of what

6 we call multinational or multi-ethnic states. There's Canada, in North

7 America. There's Tanzania. There's South Africa, was actually -- became

8 a -- a democratic state with a, you could say, even a more difficult,

9 complex mixture of peoples and races than -- than Yugoslavia. Certainly

10 India.

11 Actually, I refer to studies that show that a -- a state that is

12 composed of only one people or -- or nation with, you know, less than 10

13 per cent minority is actually the exception. There are very few of them.

14 Japan is one of the -- one of the big ones. But actually most states

15 are -- have substantial numbers of minorities or ethnic linguistic

16 differences within them. So there's nothing artificial about them. At

17 least, they don't think they're artificial. And this is part of

18 Dr. Seselj's philosophy about the impossibility of bringing together into

19 one state peoples of different culture, nationality, language, religion,

20 and so on. And that's a -- I consider that a generalisation. I mean, a

21 false generalisation, as a matter of fact.

22 Q. Let's now turn to example number 54, which is at e-court page 82.

23 And I'm going to show video-clip C.

24 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters need the 65 ter number for the

25 video; otherwise, they can't interpret.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you please give the date

2 of the video, the place, and so on and so forth, please.

3 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, this is from the same television

4 interview. It is part of P6. And the 65 ter number was 6021. And it's

5 clip C within that group.

6 [Videotape played]

7 THE INTERPRETER: Thank you, Mrs. Dahl, from the interpreters.

8 The demarcation between --

9 [FRENCH INTERPRETATION ON THE ENGLISH CHANNEL]

10 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] [Previous translation continues] ...

11 Live together in one state, provided that this state is democratic. And I

12 believe that finally all the Serbs have come to realize that. As for our

13 western borders, they stretch along the line

14 Karlobag-Ogulin-Karlovac-Vitrovica, and I think there should be no

15 concessions there.

16 MS. DAHL: I'd like to tender that clip into evidence. That's

17 example number 54, clip C, from 65 ter number 6015.

18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P7.

19 MS. DAHL:

20 Q. With regard to example number 54, Dr. Oberschall, how did you code

21 this political discourse by Dr. Seselj?

22 A. Well, I coded it as "no compromise" because Dr. Seselj says: "As

23 for our western borders, they stretch along the line between Karlobag, et

24 cetera, Virovitica. And I think there should be no concessions there."

25 And we're not talking about an internationally recognized border.

1 We're not only talking about an internal border of Yugoslavia as it

2 existed. We're talking about a border that Dr. Seselj is drawing in

3 Croatia itself and he thinks there should be no concessions, that should

4 be the western border of Serbia and -- and Croatia.

5 Q. Now, let's go to example number 55. And we'll play -- which is at

6 page 84 in e-court. And we'll play clip D of 65 ter number 6021.

7 [Videotape played]

8 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] Good evening. We have lost the

9 line. Let us go back to what you said that we shall amputate Croatia.

10 What does that mean?

11 Seselj: That means once the army has withdrawn from Slovenia.

12 You see, the Croats keep escalating the situation. Tudjman's throne is

13 shaking. He has become nervous. They're going to make further wrong

14 moves. They are making more and more mistakes, going from one mistake to

15 another. They are now demanding that all the troops in the territory of

16 today's Croatia should return to the barracks. Obviously, that cannot be

17 allowed to happen. When the army withdraws from Slovenia, the troops

18 should simply be ordered to withdraw from the territory of Zagreb, Rijeka,

19 Istria, Kvarner, etc., up to the line Karlobag-Ogulin-Karlovac-Vitrovica

20 does in effect amputate the Croats. It is much more convenient for us to

21 have a border with friendly Italy, rather than with hostile Croatia.

22 Italians in the Second World War frequently rescued Serb people from the

23 Ustasha knife. Everybody knows that.

24 MS. DAHL: I would move that into evidence.

25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P8.

1 MS. DAHL:

2 Q. How did you code example number 55?

3 A. Well, I coded it as "advocates or expects violence" on the basis

4 of the statement: "This in effect amputates the Croats." Amputation is

5 coercive, violent, bloody, painful, and it certainly conveys the image of

6 a violent event, traumatic event.

7 Q. Let's move now to example number 56, which is at the next e-court

8 page, 86. The video-clip is clip E from the same news programme at 65 ter

9 exhibit number 6021.

10 [Videotape played]

11 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] The news has been in circulation

12 these days in Belgrade that Tudjman recently complained to the JNA

13 generals that he had lost control over the situation in Slovenia. How can

14 that be resolved then?

15 Seselj: Well, of course he has lost control over all Serbian

16 areas. The Serbian people cannot and will not ever recognize the Ustasha

17 government. Tudjman's reign of terror. The Serbian people have liberated

18 nearly all their areas. They have practically established a Serbian

19 government there. A Serbian government has been established in Serbian

20 Krajina. Serbs have their own government, their own ministries, army,

21 police. Serbian government has been established in the territory of

22 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem too. Serbian government has been

23 established there as well.

24 MS. DAHL: I would move the video-clip into evidence.

25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P9.

1 MS. DAHL:

2 Q. Turning to your coding sheet, for example number 56, how did you

3 code that discourse?

4 A. Well, I coded it as an example of "external threat to Serbs,"

5 that's the reference to the Tudjman reign of terror and the Ustasha

6 government. And then I coded it as "no compromise" again, like the last

7 one, in the sense that -- the question is: How that can be resolved,

8 then? Asked the interviewer. And Dr. Seselj says, Well, it's a fait

9 accompli. You know, we've -- Serbs are in control of the Serbian Krajina

10 and that's that, and the Croats have to accept it.

11 So I coded that as "no compromise."

12 Q. Let's turn to example number 57 and clip F from 65 ter number

13 6021. It's another short segment from the same television programme.

14 [Videotape played]

15 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] TV Politika. The Politika daily

16 tomorrow will publish an interesting piece of news that a ship from

17 Lebanon carrying 30 tonnes of weapons has been stopped at the town of Bar

18 in Montenegro. For the time being, we don't know who these weapons were

19 intended for. What is your comment?

20 Seselj: The weapons are probably destined to Croatia. Croats are

21 procuring weapons on all sides of the world. This embargo by the European

22 Union is not effective enough. However, the Croats do not know how to use

23 those weapons. That's they're main problem in the military sense.

24 Militarily speaking, when armed Serbs show up, Croats run like a headless

25 chicken. Even when they have a fantastic superiority in numbers, they are

1 not able to win.

2 TV Politika: "Such thinking is interesting for the simple reason

3 that for many years or many decades we have lived with some completely

4 different convictions, beliefs in brotherhood and unity.

5 Seselj: "We lived under Communist indoctrination. We are

6 liberating ourselves today and the Serbs have become aware of their

7 strength again, of their former glory. Not a single Serb has fled from

8 the battlefield of Slavonia and the Serbian Krajina in particular. You

9 know when the battle starts, if there is someone fleeing, it is only

10 Croats. That is the case everywhere.

11 TV Politika: "You mean in these most recent events.

12 Seselj: "In these events.

13 TV Politika: "So you believe that there will be no large-scale

14 conflict.

15 Seselj: "There will be no large-scale conflict, but more blood

16 will be shed. Blood will be shed. Many more victims will fall. There

17 will be no war in the real sense of the word. Either if the army is able

18 to counter those activities by the Croatian representatives in the federal

19 government, if the army manages to keep its units and its weapons under

20 control, then there will be no real civil war. Croats are not capable of

21 entering into such a civil war."

22 MS. DAHL: I move that video-clip into evidence.

23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P10.

24 MS. DAHL:

25 Q. Looking at your coding sheet for example number 57, how did you

1 code that political discourse by Dr. Seselj?

2 A. Well, there's, first of all, the glorification of the in-group,

3 that is, the Serbs, who -- becoming aware of their strength of their

4 former glory. You know, they're terrific fighters. None of them flees a

5 battlefield, and so on. Then there's the negative labeling and stereotype

6 of the -- of the Croats. They don't even know how to use weapons when

7 they get them, and they're cowards. Then I also labeled it as,

8 furthermore, as "stereotypes and labeling" in terms of techniques of

9 persuasion, not only the theme or the content but as a -- as a way of

10 talking about an entire people. It's not that some Croats are cowards and

11 some don't know how to use weapons; they're all cowards; they're all

12 obviously misfits.

13 And then on -- I also coded it as "expects," in this case not

14 advocates but "expects violence," because in the statement, although he

15 says "there will be no large-scale conflict," he says "but more blood will

16 be shed. Blood will be shed." Many more will fall. In other words, the

17 course of action that he foresees and advocates will be bloody. And

18 that's what this category stands for.

19 Q. Now, I want to turn to 65 ter exhibit number 6019, which

20 corresponds with record number 210, which is one of the records attached

21 to your first report. For the record, that's 65 ter number 02797, e-court

22 page number 251.

23 Turning now to the video. We'll play exhibit 65 ter number 6019.

24 It is dated June 1, 1991. It's a television appearance with Mr. Seselj as

25 the guest, with questions and answers, questions coming from the audience.

1 It was broadcast on TV NS, the programme title "The other side of the

2 face."

3 [Videotape played]

4 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] Vesna Radovanovic: How do you see

5 Yugoslavia in the future and what is your attitude towards the peoples

6 that comprise Serbia?

7 I do not see any future for Yugoslavia. I think that there are

8 two options in that regard. However, I am deeply convinced that in either

9 case Yugoslavia will disappear. According to the first option, it is

10 possible that Yugoslavia will fall apart into three states: Greater

11 Serbia, small Slovenia, and an even smaller Croatia. According to the

12 second option, should the Croats not like the first one, we the Serbs will

13 reach an agreement with the Italians and in turn establish a Serb-Italian

14 border along the Karlobag-Ogulin-Karlovac-Vitrovica line, as it is just to

15 return to the Italians what is theirs.

16 We can also talk to the Hungarians and Austrians as well. Austria

17 would like to have access to the Adriatic Sea for Austria Germany and it

18 would be right to afford Austria that. And especially with Hungarians

19 because Hungarians have certain historical rights. There was a time when

20 the Croats themselves handed over their state to the Hungarians who built

21 a big port on the Adriatic coast in the last century called Rijeka. So

22 perhaps it would be fair to return Rijeka to the Hungarians. It all

23 depends on how these neighbouring states of ours behave. So far they

24 haven't behaved well at all. You see the Austrians support our enemies.

25 The Hungarians helped Croatia to arm itself. Their governments are

1 short-sighted, not to use a worse expression. Serbs are their natural

2 allies, if they want to attain certain objections. Hungarians will never

3 be able to get a part of Vojvodina. That is something they've got to

4 understand. The only territory they could get is in the West. Rijeka,

5 which is beyond the Croatian Zagorje. Only Serbs can be serious allies in

6 this case, and that is why the Austrians should think about their policy.

7 If Hungarians and Austrians do not change their attitude, we will come to

8 an agreement with Italy. Let them regret it later on."

9 Q. Looking at your --

10 MS. DAHL: I move that into evidence, Your Honour.

11 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number P11.

12 MS. DAHL:

13 Q. Looking at --

14 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Prosecutor, could you kindly wait

15 for the interpretation in French to finish. Thank you.

16 MS. DAHL:

17 Q. Looking at record number 210. Can you tell me how you coded

18 Mr. Seselj's answer to that question.

19 A. Well, as you will see, I actually did not code this as propaganda

20 at all. The only thing I did is I -- the theme is nations/nationalities.

21 And it's the kind of political discourse that the Presiding Judge was

22 actually referring to, where there's negotiations between states in a

23 peaceful way. There's no advocacy of violence or no mention of threat at

24 all. And Dr. Seselj is in fact suggesting some pretty complicated but

25 still, you know, diplomatic moves on international negotiations. And this

1 is not -- this is his view. I happen to think it's kind of unrealistic,

2 but there's nothing propagandistic about it.

3 And some of the facts that he mentions there, like the Hungarians

4 passing weapons to the Croats, was in fact -- did occur at this time. So

5 it's not a misinformation at all.

6 So I -- this is one of those items that we picked up in our

7 search, and it was what I consider normal political discourse by political

8 leaders.

9 Q. Let's turn to the next video-clip, clip B of 65 ter number 6019.

10 That corresponds with record number 211, which is the next page in

11 e-court.

12 This clip is from the same Novi Sad Television programme.

13 [Videotape played]

14 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] I still haven't answered the other

15 question, how I see the peoples that comprise today's Serbia. Serbia

16 today is comprised of the Serbian peoples, and national minorities also

17 live in Serbia. In my opinion, they need to enjoy all civil rights and

18 full freedom, full civil equality on the condition that they do nothing to

19 bring into question the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the

20 Serbian state; that is to say, provided that they act as loyal citizens of

21 the country in which they live. Those who bring into question the

22 sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Serb state, like the majority

23 of Siptars do, will not have a place within the borders of present-day

24 Serbia.

25 MS. DAHL:

1 Q. Dr. Oberschall, how -- I'm sorry. Let me first move the

2 video-clip into evidence.

3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P12.

4 MS. DAHL:

5 Q. And, Dr. Oberschall, what do you make of Dr. Seselj's discourse

6 that extends civil rights to citizens provided they are loyal to the

7 country in which they live?

8 A. I -- you have to understand one thing about propaganda talk, which

9 we haven't had a chance to go into yet, but words don't have the same

10 meaning that you and I would use in ordinary conversation or, in fact, is

11 used in deliberative discourse.

12 When you kill somebody, you say he committed suicide or he was

13 shot while trying to escape. When you commit an aggression, it's called

14 self-defence. If you're on a -- pretty much a dictatorial regime, you

15 call it people's democracy.

16 I mean, you use these words in a very different way in this kind

17 of nationalist extreme discourse than -- than we do ordinarily, and --

18 than is the case in deliberative discourse.

19 So when Dr. Seselj says: "Provided -- you know, people have all

20 these rights provided they act as loyal citizens of the country in which

21 they live," that makes a lot of sense if we interpret the word "loyal" as

22 including the opportunity to form a peaceful political opposition, voice

23 dissenting views, what is standard practice in -- in democratic states.

24 But that is not the way he uses the word "loyal citizen."

25 And the reason for that is the next line, which -- where he says:

1 "Those who bring into question the sovereignty and territorial integrity

2 of the Serb state, like the majority of Siptars," meaning the Albanians in

3 Kosovo, "will not have a place within the borders of present-day Serbia."

4 Now, that I coded -- coded as a threat to the -- to the

5 Kosovars -- I mean, the Albanians in Kosovo. And you have to understand

6 that the context that the Albanian population was engaged in a general

7 strike against the Serb authorities, who in fact had suspended their

8 Assembly, taken away their political autonomy, and essentially were

9 engaged in a non-violent opposition movement which we would consider the

10 right of citizens in -- in any democratic country to -- to do. So that's

11 the -- the context that -- where you have to sort of read this statement

12 by Dr. Seselj.

13 Q. Let's turn now to record number 215, which is at e-court page 256.

14 And the video-clip from the same television programme, clip D, at 65 ter

15 number 6019.

16 [Videotape played]

17 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] That was on the radio today at 3.00.

18 I don't know if you heard that. How do you react to that decision? What

19 do you say?

20 Well, I personally, honestly speaking, can't wait for that Croat

21 attack. It seems that the lesson of Borovo Selo was not sufficient. They

22 need to get a much harder lesson.

23 What about Bijeli Manastir? Has a Chetnik detachment already been

24 formed in Bijeli Manastir? When will it be ready?

25 Yes. Yes. There is also the Committee of the Serb Chetnik

1 Movement and the Serb -- for Baranja.

2 How do you -- Dusan Jandric from Futog has the following

3 question: I will arrest Tudjman. That is what you say. And what kind of

4 rifles are those that can hit the letter "U" at a 1.500-metre distance?

5 I said that I would arrest Tudjman, Ante Markovic. I'm a wanted

6 person in Croatia. That doesn't really bother me. I only move in Serbian

7 lands, Serbian Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem. Not in Croatia. Serb

8 Chetniks today have very good rifles. In all fairness, they're very old,

9 obsolete, manufactured in '42, but they've proven to be very efficient.

10 You know when a Chetnik is a good marksman and when he hits a Croat in the

11 forehead, then both of the Croats eyes pop out. Or if he hits him in the

12 neck, then it cuts off his neck. These are very good rifles. Of course,

13 we are only targeting those Croats who are attacking Serbian villages with

14 weapons. We haven't targeted a single unarmed one until now.

15 THE WITNESS: What -- what record are we referring to?

16 MS. DAHL: I'd like to move the video-clip into evidence.

17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P13.

18 MS. DAHL:

19 Q. Let's turn to record 215. That's at e-court 256.

20 [Prosecution counsel confer]

21 MS. DAHL: That corresponds with the video we just saw.

22 Q. How did you code that discourse by Mr. Seselj?

23 A. I still don't know which record --

24 MS. DAHL: Record number 215.

25 A. 215. I coded it as "advocates or expects violence and denies

1 responsibility."

2 Q. Why?

3 A. Let me just see. To the news that ...

4 Well, he refers to the -- the Chetniks who have good guns and

5 Thompsons manufactured in '42, shooting the heads off Croats with their

6 eyes popping out, machine-guns that cut across people's neck. I mean,

7 that's -- it's a very violent image, definitely advocates and expects

8 violence.

9 And then when he says, "We are only aiming for those Croats who --

10 with guns in hands attack Serb villages. We have not aimed for a single

11 unarmed Croat," it means that he denies responsibility for any kind of an

12 offensive -- everything's in self-defence. It's not our responsibility

13 that there is this conflict. They started it. That's pretty standard

14 discourse on denial of responsibility.

15 Q. Let's turn now to 65 ter number 6014, which is a video-clip. And

16 also let's turn to record number 112. That's at e-court page number 156.

17 MS. DAHL: And we'll play the video-clip. This is a speech from

18 Mr. Seselj in April of 1991, and it's amateur photography.

19 [Videotape played]

20 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] The new Ustasha chief and the

21 Josip Broz's general Franjo Tudjman and the new Ustasha government in

22 Croatia --

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you please play it from the

24 beginning. You couldn't hear it right at all.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mrs. Dahl, please.

1 [Videotape played]

2 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] The new Ustasha chief and

3 Josip Broz's general Franjo Tudjman and the new Ustasha government in

4 Croatia have again put the criminal Kama under the throat of the Serbian

5 people. However, we will never allow a genocide to take place again.

6 Should they attempt a new genocide against the Serbian people, we say to

7 them that we shall take revenge for each Serb life and we shall also ask

8 them to pay up for past crimes.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. Just a minute.

10 We need to start from the beginning again. We need to hear what

11 Mr. Seselj was saying during his discourse. Otherwise, we can't

12 understand anything.

13 So let's start again.

14 [Videotape played]

15 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] Again, the criminal knife has been

16 put under the throat of the Serb people, but we will never allow a new

17 genocide to take place again. Should they attempt a new genocide against

18 the Serbian people, we say to them: We shall take revenge for each Serb

19 life and we shall also ask them to pay up for past crimes. Also for

20 crimes in recent history. No deed will go unpunished, and we will not

21 allow the consequences of the occupation over Serb lands and Serb people

22 be sanctioned.

23 MS. DAHL: I'd like to move that video-clip into evidence.

24 THE REGISTRAR: [Microphone not activated]

25 MS. DAHL: I ask the court officer to repeat the exhibit number

1 with his microphone on.

2 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number P14.

3 MS. DAHL: The next clip is --

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Aren't you asking the witness to

5 comment on the video and the classification, the coding?

6 MS. DAHL: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I was going to put the two

7 pieces together. But I'll ask Dr. Oberschall before we move away from

8 this.

9 Q. Based on what you heard of Dr. Seselj's speech, how do you

10 classify his discourse there?

11 A. This was not part of a record; right?

12 Q. That's correct.

13 A. It was just -- well, very definitely there was a strong threat to

14 Serbs, just with the mention of genocide, past victimhood. Furthermore,

15 there is a revenge and retribution discourse about how the Serbs should

16 respond to -- you know, another renewal of this conflict. That's what I

17 was able to -- to pick out just listening at -- without, you know, looking

18 at it again.

19 I might add that this is pretty standard discourse on the part of

20 Dr. Seselj. This comes up again and again and again, in 1991, in 1992, in

21 1993, in -- on TV in all kinds of contexts. So it's -- it's almost

22 predictable as to -- as to what he will say in these kinds of things. The

23 past, the Serbs were victims, there was genocide. It's going to come

24 again. The Croats are doing it. We didn't start it, and we have a right

25 to take revenge and retribution against it. So this is very standard

1 discourse.

2 Q. Now, based on your study of political sociology, is there other

3 ways to remove a threat than through violent aggression?

4 A. Well, yes. And actually in one of the previous records,

5 Dr. Seselj actually talked about diplomacy between states and negotiations

6 with states. He does it seldom in the -- what we -- what we looked at,

7 but it's not that -- first of all, he has a Ph.D. in -- in political

8 science, so he obviously knows about this, that that's the usual way of

9 dealing with interstate conflict and within states there are political

10 ways of conflict management that do not involve violence and threats, and

11 so on.

12 So yes, I -- I say there very definitely are alternatives, and --

13 and in fact most states most of the time use those alternatives.

14 Q. Well, let's look at another similar video. This is clip B from 65

15 ter exhibit number 6014.

16 A. Excuse me, exhibit number?

17 Q. It's 6014. It's record number 112, I believe.

18 A. Okay.

19 Q. Or, I'm sorry, it's content similar to what you coded in record

20 number 112, but I don't believe you coded this particular clip.

21 A. Okay.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. As for the previous

23 video-clip, the Prosecutor did not say where the speech had been made.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Mrs. Dahl, this speech

25 where I noted that Mr. Seselj was applauded at length by the people

1 listening to the speech, where did this speech occur and when was it

2 delivered?

3 MS. DAHL: The speech was delivered in Jagodnjak in 1991, April.

4 And now I'm going to play clip B from the same 65 ter number,

5 which is been marked already as P1.

6 [Videotape played]

7 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] The Croats, as far as we are

8 concerned, can leave Yugoslavia as they please, whenever they want to, but

9 we are openly letting them know that they will not take away a single foot

10 of Serbian territory, not one piece of land where there are Serbian

11 villages, destroyed Serbian churches, Serbian mass graves, Serbian camps,

12 Serbian Jasenovacs. If we allowed that, we would be unworthy of our

13 glorious ancestors and we would have to be ashamed in front of our

14 descendants. The Croats can create their new state, but only west of the

15 Karlobag-Ogulin-Karlovac-Vitrovica line. Everything east of that line is

16 Serbian. We are not going to allow the Croats to manipulate the Bunjevci

17 Serbs and the Sokci Serbs. They are Catholic Serbs who, we hope, will

18 soon realize what kind of role the Vatican and the Ustasha leadership has

19 in store for them against the Serbian people.

20 MS. DAHL: [Microphone not activated]

21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

22 MS. DAHL: Based on what you heard from the video, how would you

23 code that?

24 A. I would like to point out to the Court that the so-called K-O-K-V

25 line that Dr. Seselj advocates as the border between a Croatia as an

1 independent state and the rest of Yugoslavia and the Greater Serbia,

2 actually, leaves large numbers of Croats and other people on the Serb side

3 of the border. In fact, in most of Slavonia there's a majority of -- of

4 Croats and of -- of other non-Serb people. And drawing the line that he

5 suggests would simply create large additional minorities on the Serb side

6 of the border and in no way would resolve the question of majorities and

7 minorities in this -- in this conflict.

8 By re-drawing a line, you just create minorities where majorities

9 existed and majorities where minorities existed. And moreover, the

10 principle of drawing this line, as opposed to some other line, which in

11 any case is not a negotiated line between two governments or, you know,

12 sovereign political entities but depends on his particular preference for

13 the boundaries of a Greater Serbia, I mean, is sort of no solution at all

14 to the whole problem of how do you have people living together in one or

15 two or several states in -- in a peaceful fashion. Sort of -- sort of --

16 that's sort of the basic thing that again and again comes up when

17 Dr. Seselj proposes some kind of a resolution of the conflict between

18 Croatia and Serbia by drawing lines and essentially not negotiating in

19 a -- in a diplomatic or a political sense some kind of a re-thinking of

20 what kind of a political structure to impose on these mixed region. It

21 could be autonomous regions in a federation and there are many other

22 constitutional ways of handling it.

23 Canada did it in one way. The -- India does it some other way.

24 And drawing just arbitrary boundaries based on force, essentially, to my

25 mind is just no resolution at all of this whole question of multi-ethnic

1 multinational states.

2 And this again is very typical of -- Dr. Seselj talks again and

3 again and again about this K-O-K-V line and the fact that he basically

4 gives an ultimatum to the Croats, you either accept it or we will take it

5 by force.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. I do have one thing to ask

7 you, an additional detail. In this speech, Mr. Seselj is talking about

8 this K-O-K-V line. It's not the first time he mentions it. He mentions

9 it on several occasions. And this is his point of view, and he probably

10 thinks that it would solve many problems. But this is not my question,

11 but you draw conclusions which surprise me, because let's assume that this

12 K-O-K-V line would be set up in the framework of an international

13 agreement with international consensus. Then there would be Croatian

14 minorities on the Serbian side. That's what you said. And you draw the

15 conclusion that this would lead to problems. And while I was listening to

16 you, I was thinking about a previous speech where he said that when there

17 are minorities, these minorities are entitled to their rights.

18 So when I connect these two speeches, when I combine them, I see

19 no incoherence, but you draw different conclusions. Could you explain

20 why, on the one hand, in one speech he's saying that when minorities

21 exist, these minorities have the same rights as those who are in the

22 majority. And if we assume that there is a Croatian minority because of

23 the K-O-K-V line, your conclusion, the conclusion that you draw, is that

24 this minority would be in an unfavourable situation. So why do you draw

25 this conclusion?

1 THE WITNESS: Why do I draw the conclusion that -- if you start

2 with a basically nationalist premise that there is one favoured nation in

3 a state -- and, of course, the minorities have rights, but they do not

4 really have the same political and cultural standing as the -- as the

5 favoured nation. What you end up with --

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Professor, you're saying

7 minorities have rights, but you're drawing conclusions that they don't

8 have the same political and cultural status. But why do you say that?

9 You are making statements. These statements might be true, but you have

10 to demonstrate that they're true. You're starting from the assumption

11 that these minorities have rights, but you say, Yes, but they don't have

12 the same political and cultural status. How can you draw this conclusion?

13 THE WITNESS: If you -- if you look at -- in my expert report, I

14 actually have a whole section that deals with the question of states,

15 nationalities, minority rights, and how sort of their different ways of

16 dealing with these -- with these complicated questions in -- in states

17 like Yugoslavia or India or Canada and -- and the like.

18 Now, for the Yugoslav case, I cite an article written by a

19 professor, Tibor Varadi, who is a law professor. He happens to be a Serb

20 citizen. He also was the Minister of Justice, I think, in the first

21 government after Communism in -- in Serbia. He just defended Serbia in an

22 International Court here when it was being sued by Bosnia for reparations.

23 And he wrote a very -- I thought a very deep and penetrating article about

24 the kind of constitutional structure minority rights, group rights, and

25 individual citizens' rights that would be appropriate to this kind of a

1 complex situation, as is -- that -- you know, that we're considering now.

2 So I don't know for how long I should really talk about this very

3 complicated and involved topic, but I do refer in my expert report to the

4 debate and also to a major Serb constitutional lawyer and the way he sees

5 a resolution or the management of these kinds of conflicts through

6 constitutional changes, boundary changes, and all I can say is that this

7 kind of statement that Dr. Seselj makes about drawing arbitrary boundaries

8 or shifting boundaries from one place to another, is simply not the way to

9 go about doing this without getting into major trouble and conflict.

10 MS. DAHL: If I may, Your Honour, I'd like to turn to examples of

11 Dr. Seselj's advocacy of expulsion and population exchange, because I

12 think that answers your question regarding his solution for minorities in

13 his newly-draw state lines.

14 Q. Dr. Oberschall, if I may, let's -- may I ask you to turn to record

15 number 3.

16 [FRENCH INTERPRETATION ON THE ENGLISH CHANNEL]

17 MS. DAHL:

18 Q. Did you get --

19 A. I heard record number 3?

20 Q. Yes, please.

21 A. Okay.

22 MS. DAHL: This is page 57 in e-court. And for the record, this

23 is an extract from Dr. Seselj's book, Volume 17, entitled "Destruction of

24 the Serbian national identity." He reprints an interview with Dragan

25 Ciric [phoen] and the date attributed by Dr. Seselj is April 15, 1990.

1 Q. In the context, Dr. Oberschall, of the Albanian question, so to

2 speak, what does Dr. Seselj propose to do with people he considers

3 minorities within the Greater Serbia?

4 A. Well, in this case, we're talking about the Albanians in Kosovo

5 and --

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Judges, why would the

7 Albanian issue be relevant to my indictment? I have a completely

8 different discourse on Albanians than I have towards Croats and Muslims.

9 And I am not indicted for Albanians.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mrs. Dahl.

11 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, Dr. Seselj's advocacy is population

12 exchange, and it's directed at Croats, Bosniaks, Albanians, anyone who is

13 left inside a border that he draws and whom is not -- who does not

14 consider himself to be an enlightened Serb or an awakened Serb.

15 I will demonstrate by going through a number of written examples

16 that Dr. Seselj's discourse consistently calls for expulsion of minority

17 ethnic groups, and even majority ethnic groups to make room for ethnic

18 Serbs he thinks should live within the borders of a Greater Serbia. Then

19 we will discuss what he considers to be a civilised population exchange,

20 which is his euphemism for ethnic cleansing.

21 So I'd like to put the question --

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Then continue.

23 MS. DAHL: -- back to Dr. Oberschall.

24 Q. What does Dr. Seselj suggest should be done with people once the

25 border is re-drawn?

1 A. Well, in -- in this particular case, in record number 3, he

2 suggests that a belt of about 50 kilometres along the Albanian border, all

3 the Albanian population has to be moved -- moved out or into other parts

4 of Yugoslavia. He says they should get monetary compensation. This most

5 fertile land, he says should be given to the -- to the army and that it

6 should be settled, systematically inhabited by a Slavic population and

7 that all 360.000 Albanian -- he calls them emigrants, but they're actually

8 inhabitants, who moved from Albania to Yugoslavia from April 6, 1941 to

9 the -- to this date -- that's actually a fictitious number that's not

10 substantiated by any historical records -- as well as members of their

11 families be handed over to the UN High Committee -- I guess he means high

12 commissioner for refugees, since there are so many rich, specious and

13 under-populated countries that can be -- that can take them and prove

14 their -- and prove their humanity. That is -- well, it's -- he's very

15 sarcastic here, but he essentially wants to get rid of the Albanians and

16 have them settle wherever they can.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Professor, I allowed you to

18 answer the question, despite the objection raised by Mr. Seselj, for the

19 following reason: In your report, I did read about this question of the

20 360.000 Albanians who supposedly -- who came to Kosovo, and you're

21 contesting, you're challenging this. You are saying that the figure is

22 not right. Well, while I was reading your report, I was wondering what

23 you were basing all this on. Why do you say that 360.000 Albanians did

24 not emigrate from -- starting in the 1940s, emigrate to Kosovo?

25 THE WITNESS: Well, this -- you know, this -- this figure is used

1 by Serb nationalists, and so on, but the -- the standard history of Kosovo

2 written by Noel Malcolm and also by Tim Judah is what I quote to challenge

3 this figure.

4 And if you will look at the actual --

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So what are the official

6 figures, please? What would they be?

7 THE WITNESS: The official figures, I -- I would have to look at

8 what I had written. I mean, I don't remember all these -- these figures,

9 but they're -- they're very small. They are -- they are -- they're in the

10 few thousands, certainly not in the 360.000. But if you would like to, I

11 can check to see what the actual historians of this period say about these

12 figures.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm listening to you. But if

14 this figure is so controversial and if I refer to the traditional example,

15 you know, between Mexico and the United States, where Mexicans cross the

16 border every day to go to the United States, did you envisage the

17 possibility that as of the 1940s there might have been migration flows for

18 different reasons, for political, economic, or social reasons which -- and

19 because of that -- and it wouldn't be just a few thousands that would have

20 emigrated but hundreds of thousands.

21 THE WITNESS: As I said, Noel Malcolm and Tim Judah look at all

22 the estimates, all the figures, all the population flows, and they come to

23 certain conclusions. And I'm not going to dispute that. I'm not an -- an

24 expert on the demography of Kosovo in the 1940s, so I rely on those who

25 are.

1 My -- I could say another thing about numbers, Your Honour, if I

2 may. The -- a part of propaganda is actually to inflate or deflate

3 figures by, you know, not a factor of 2 but sometimes a factor of 10 or

4 even more.

5 Now, for instance, Dr. Seselj uses certain figures about the

6 Ustasha killings of Serbs in World War II and how many Serbs died in the

7 various camps, and so on. And what I'm doing is I'm quoting the actual

8 researchers and the historians who looked at those figures and I provide

9 the best figures that these objective researchers have looked at, and they

10 are much lower than the -- the victims claimed by Dr. Seselj and in fact

11 other Serb nationalists.

12 I would also like to point out that in his testimony for -- on

13 the -- in the Milosevic trial, Doctor -- Dr. Seselj himself said that he

14 uses figures for propaganda purposes. He went around claiming, I believe

15 it was 30.000 volunteers that he -- that he organised. And under --

16 testifying under oath at the Milosevic trial he said that that was only

17 10.000, as a more accurate number. And I think when the Prosecutor, Dr.

18 Nice, asked him about this discrepancy, Dr. Seselj said, Well, you know,

19 we're politicians. We use figures. Whatever suits us. It's part of our

20 profession to make propaganda and to give -- and to actually tell lies.

21 So my approach to Dr. Seselj's figures --

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.

23 THE WITNESS: -- to be very cautious --

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Objection raised by

25 Mr. Seselj.

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, it is completely

2 inappropriate for the expert witness to interpret off the cuff my alleged

3 testimony in the Milosevic trial. In order for him to be able to

4 interpret that, the expert witness would have to have the proper quotation

5 in front of him, rather than making things up and saying what he believes

6 that I said at that time, because I certainly didn't say it the way the

7 witness is representing it. It is inappropriate for an expert witness.

8 It is perhaps excusable if we are talking about a half-literate ordinary

9 witness, a villager from God knows where. But an expert witness should

10 give an appropriate quotation from such-and-such a trial.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Seselj raised an

12 objection, but I was going to ask you the same question, a similar nature.

13 You said that you looked at the answers given in the Milosevic case by

14 Mr. Seselj. Did you do this out of intellectual curiosity? Because this

15 was not exactly what you had been asked to do. So why did you check what

16 had been said in the Milosevic case?

17 THE WITNESS: I -- I actually checked to see what was going on at

18 this Tribunal not just in the Milosevic case but in a number of other

19 cases. For instance, General Galic's trial, a lot of the Prijedor

20 prosecutions, and some of the others. I mean, it's very important for me

21 to keep abreast of, you know, new information that this Court is producing

22 just on a weekly basis on the events and the -- and the people and the

23 organisations that I -- I write about and that I -- I have to know about

24 in order to be an expert. So I have the quotes --

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I understood you well. Thank

1 you. But are you absolutely sure of the words spoken? Because obviously

2 there is -- the words spoken are challenged here.

3 THE WITNESS: I have actually written them down. And I have them

4 in front of me here.

5 Mr. Nice -- let me see. Dr. Seselj was a witness on behalf of his

6 former rival, President Milosevic, and he was asked by the Prosecutor

7 Mr. Nice about incriminating statements he had made against Milosevic in

8 the --

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Mr. Oberschall should

10 say from which page he's reading. I suppose that's his addendum report

11 that I received a few days ago, two or three days ago. That's where you

12 mentioned it. You must tell me which page it is.

13 THE WITNESS: Page 4 of --

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Do you have the reference,

15 please? Do you have the reference of the page, please.

16 THE WITNESS: Page --

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Judges can always check anyway.

18 THE WITNESS: Okay. It's -- it's -- it's page 4 of my addendum,

19 but the number printed by the court is 06148632.

20 MS. DAHL: The 65 ter number is 7001. And it's at the back of the

21 appendix. And I will give you the e-court number in a minute, if you'd

22 like. Page 4.

23 Mr. Seselj's testimony in the Milosevic case has been admitted in

24 this case as an exhibit. It hasn't been assigned a number, however, but

25 it's in a prior Trial Chamber session.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. We have the text on

2 screen and we see in English: "[In English] Yes, political discourse is

3 full of lies."

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, my objection related to the

5 specific quotation by Mr. Oberschall, just one sentence that he tried to

6 interpret is correct, that in propaganda -- for propaganda purposes I

7 claimed there were 30.000 volunteers, but the real number was in fact

8 closer to 10.000. Everything that Mr. Oberschall added to that is an

9 arbitrary fabrication. In order to prove it now, he refers to other parts

10 of the transcript. The two were not directly related. In the specific

11 case, speaking of the number of volunteers, it is recorded in the

12 transcript what I said exactly.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Your objection has been

14 noted down and the Judges will sort all this out.

15 Now, we'll continue. So, Mrs. Dahl, please continue.

16 MS. DAHL: The court officer has indicated that we're taking a

17 break?

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Absolutely. It's 12.20, and

19 we'll break for 20 minutes.

20 --- Recess taken at 12.20 p.m.

21 --- On resuming at 12.48 p.m.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing is resumed.

23 And before giving the floor to Mrs. Dahl, I have an information --

24 a logistic information. Tomorrow the Milosevic Chamber will render

25 judgement at 9.00 a.m. in this courtroom. We will have, therefore, to

1 move to Courtroom II, and after the first break, we will come back to

2 Courtroom I.

3 So, Mr. Seselj, tomorrow at 9.00 we will first sit in Courtroom

4 II, and at 10.30 we'll move back to courtroom -- Courtroom I, because

5 room -- Courtroom I is going to be occupied by the Milosevic judgement.

6 Mrs. Dahl, you have the floor.

7 MS. DAHL: Thank you, Your Honour.

8 Q. Just before the break, Mr. Seselj raised an objection to a

9 quotation Dr. Oberschall had in his report from Mr. Seselj's testimony in

10 the Milosevic case. I want the record in this case to be absolutely clear

11 and, to the best of my ability, free from any incorrect statements.

12 I found the quote that Dr. Oberschall referred to from

13 Mr. Seselj's testimony on 7 September 2005, pages 4323, line 23 -- excuse

14 me, 43923, line 23 to 43925, line 3.

15 Question from Mr. Nice: "The next question is a very simple one,

16 Mr. Seselj: And was it your intention at the time to say something that

17 was untrue; yes?

18 Answer from Mr. Seselj: "Yes. Within the propaganda efforts of

19 the SRS against the authorities of Mr. Milosevic and him personally, this

20 is the mildest kind of thing I said then. There are things that are far

21 more vigorous than that.

22 Question: "It was a lie?

23 Answer: "No, Mr. Nice. If you were an educated person, then you

24 would have read Hannah Arendt's book "Truth and Lies in Politics." Oh,

25 fine. So that's the best thing to do, to turn off the witness's

1 microphone because you don't like the answer."

2 MS. DAHL: I'd like now to return to Dr. Seselj's theme of

3 expulsion and ethnic cleansing in his political discourse.

4 First I'd like to tender for identification 65 ter exhibit number

5 7001, in which a portion of the Milosevic transcript is quoted.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Judges, Ms. Dahl just

7 confirmed what I objected to in relation to what Mr. Oberschall was

8 saying. What I uttered in the Slobodan Milosevic trial - and I was

9 interrupted, because that Trial Chamber did not like my answer - has

10 nothing to do with my cited statement about the number of volunteers of

11 the Serb Radical Party. In one context, my statement cannot artificially

12 be grafted onto another one. Every statement is made in a particular

13 context. The main thesis is that if there is political squabbling and

14 when you say something that you know is not true, and everybody else knows

15 it's not true, then you're trying to challenge, hurt, provoke, insult, and

16 so on. But you do not have a feeling that you're saying an untruth and

17 other people do not take it as an untruth. It can be a witticism, it can

18 be a political provocation, but I am supposed to teach the ABCs of

19 politics here to Mr. Oberschall and Ms. Dahl. I think that doesn't make

20 sense.

21 Mr. Oberschall should provide information accurately and

22 precisely. That's the only thing I'm asking for. It is not for him to

23 try to remember things based on his own memory that are wrong at that.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, Mrs. Dahl quoted an

25 answer you made to Mr. Nice, and you said earlier that the Chamber had cut

1 off your microphone at the time. So you're telling me that the answer you

2 gave was not complete? Is that it?

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, certainly it was not complete,

4 like many other answers, but it doesn't really matter in this case,

5 because so far I did not see you switching off my microphone, so you're

6 not selecting my answers according to a nonjudicial criterion. And that's

7 what happened then. Whenever I was saying something that they didn't

8 like, they would switch off my microphone.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. My position is very

10 simple: I do not see why I would shut off your microphone. As long, of

11 course, as this -- everything you say is within what is allowed in the

12 controversial -- adversarial procedure.

13 So we will see -- we will see later on whether this quote should

14 be in the record or not, given what has been said.

15 Mrs. Dahl, you can resume.

16 MS. DAHL: Yes, Your Honour.

17 Mr. Seselj's status as a self-represented accused gives him the

18 opportunity to speak, particularly in making objections, which is, of

19 course, perfectly consistent with his status of representing himself. I

20 would like, however, the Court to warn him that what he says will be used

21 by the Prosecution against him. So --

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, you've said this -- you've

23 said this over and over again. He knows this very well. He knows that

24 everything he is saying can be used. He knows this.

25 MS. DAHL: Thank you, Your Honour. I'm -- the length of his

1 speaking objections add to the evidence that we will argue at the close of

2 the case.

3 Now I'd like to mark for identification 65 ter exhibit number

4 7001.

5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours that, will be MFI P15.

6 MS. DAHL:

7 Q. Now, let's turn to 65 ter number 6011. It's a video-clip from

8 Croatian TV reporting Mr. Seselj's activities at a press conference.

9 [Prosecution counsel confer]

10 MS. DAHL: And the format is called picture-on-picture.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What's the date, please?

12 MS. DAHL: My record here indicates 1991.

13 [Videotape played]

14 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] Again, Seselj asked to speak, the

15 briefest gist of his discussion, this time could be described as a

16 suggestion that if the Croats were expelling Serbs from Zagreb then what

17 were the Croats waiting for in Belgrade? According to him, this

18 represents a retaliation. Mahmut Memic and Antun Skenderovic reacted to

19 that saying the Seselj's viewpoints have already been known but this

20 could -- that this time he said it from the Assembly floor and thus marked

21 the Croats in Serbia as hostages. Further in his report, Seselj

22 maintained that this regime was too lenient towards Croats and that after

23 this, all the Croats will be expelled and that those who live in Serbia

24 will not sleep peacefully until they are moved out. By the same right

25 Tudjman used to expel Serbs, we will expel Croats, said Seselj. Adding

1 that he wanted to disperse another illusion about the loyal behaviour of

2 Croats in Serbia since he maintained they were aiding the Ustashas.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The interpreters drew the

4 attention of the Judges on two -- on two problems. The English text,

5 which is sometimes -- has been given, does not really reflect what was

6 said by Mr. Seselj. And also because Mr. Seselj speaks extremely fast,

7 it's very hard to translate the videos. Maybe if it's very important, we

8 need to replay this sequence in order to correct whatever may be

9 corrected.

10 MS. DAHL: Let me replay the sequence and let me correct my

11 description of it, because it is actually clip G in my exhibit list that

12 I've given out.

13 There is also a transcript from the Serbian Parliament session of

14 Mr. Seselj. The correct date is April 1, 1992. And I apologise for the

15 confusion.

16 So why don't we at this point replay the video-clip.

17 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note that the speech is too

18 fast to render itself for interpretation in the courtroom and it is not

19 even directly Mr. Seselj's speech. It is a journalist.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]

21 ... We have to play it again, because we did not get a translation. It

22 was too fast and we don't know what Mr. Seselj exactly told to Parliament.

23 So please play it again.

24 [Videotape played]

25 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] Seselj asked for the floor again and

1 this time his -- the briefest gist of his discussion could be the

2 following suggestion: What were the Croats waiting for in Serbia?

3 Looking at what happened in --

4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's Note: The speaker is too fast for

5 proper interpretation.

6 MS. DAHL: Separately, Your Honour --

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.

8 MS. DAHL: Separately, Your Honour, we will file a detailed

9 transcript that slows down the speech so that it can be properly assessed

10 by the Chamber. I'm sorry for the speed at which these videos are played.

11 We move --

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I agree that the detailed transcript

13 should be admitted into evidence, but I am against having this footage

14 admitted, because these are not my words. These are a journalist's

15 interpretation. Ms. Dahl said that this was from Croatian TV from a

16 Croatian TV show "Slikom na Sliku"; however, I hear that this is a Serbian

17 journalist speaking ekavian. They could have obtained this from Belgrade

18 television or from the national parliament. They could have gotten the

19 original. Journalist's interpretations cannot be admitted into evidence.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Seemingly we have

21 two issues here. One is what the journalist is saying; and two, the words

22 spoken by Mr. Seselj in parliament. What you are interested in are the

23 words of Mr. Seselj, not the journalist. Is that right?

24 MS. DAHL: In part, Your Honour, I agree with that. There are two

25 issues here: One is what Mr. Seselj said; and the second is what effect

1 it had or what was understood by the audience, what it motivated people to

2 do. And I will present the transcripts of the television programme as

3 well as the transcript from the Serbian Parliament session so that there

4 is a complete record and no question of misunderstanding.

5 I'd like at this point, however, to move into evidence 65 ter

6 number 6011, clip G.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours --

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber has decided to

10 give an MFI number, pending the translation.

11 So, Registrar, could we have an MFI number, please.

12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, MFI P16.

13 MS. DAHL:

14 Q. Dr. Oberschall, were you able to listen to the broadcast of

15 Mr. Seselj's speech with sufficient detail to comment on what categories

16 it falls in?

17 A. Well, it definitely falls into the expulsion/exchange of

18 population category.

19 Q. Well, let me ask you to turn to --

20 [FRENCH INTERPRETATION ON THE ENGLISH CHANNEL]?

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.

22 [FRENCH INTERPRETATION ON THE ENGLISH CHANNEL].

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...

24 In a position to characterise the journalist's interpretation and to speak

25 about me. This is not a question of my words verbatim. When he is an

1 expert witness at a trial for this journalist, then he can make such

2 comments. Now he is giving his comments regarding the journalist,

3 believing that he is making a comment with regard to me. Ms. Dahl should

4 have brought him the stenogramme, the stenographic notes, not somebody

5 else's speeches.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Witness, in the

7 video-clip we have just heard, we could hear the journalist and we could

8 hear Mr. Seselj, as well as an MP who takes the floor. So please only

9 comment on Mr. Seselj's words, please.

10 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, if I can repeat my question. It was

11 whether he could hear --

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

13 MS. DAHL: -- the official's speech.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So please repeat your question.

15 Mr. Seselj.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, not a single one of my words

17 is here. You can only see my picture here. I was 16 years younger then,

18 and that's the only thing you can establish. It is only the journalist

19 who's speaking there. There is not a single live word from me there. The

20 expert cannot give his comments on that. He has to have the stenographic

21 notes put to him, and then he can comment on that, unless he's already

22 dealt with it through some of my books and put that into his expert

23 report. He cannot characterise a journalist's interpretation as my own.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]

25 ... Just a minute, Mr. Seselj. The way I understood things: When one

1 can see you speaking, the translation is a translation of your own words.

2 And now you're telling us that we have heard the translation of what the

3 journalist has said.

4 Mrs. Dahl, what are we to make of this, please?

5 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, I -- I have to say that there are so many

6 examples of Mr. Seselj calling for the expulsion of Croats, calling for

7 the exchange of populations, that to quibble about this really is a waste

8 of time. I can bring the parliamentary transcript if Mr. Seselj is at

9 this point walking away from his own words.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Dahl, I think there are two

11 issues here. We see Mr. Seselj taking the floor in parliament in

12 Belgrade, and Mr. Seselj is saying that on the tape he cannot hear his own

13 words, so -- which is a problem. So what did he actually say? We all

14 have a translation of what has been said about Serbs and Croats. You talk

15 about expulsion. I did not hear the word "expulsion." I heard that the

16 Serbs were going to live in flats that belong to Croats, and vice versa.

17 So that's how things stand.

18 This is a hearing before a criminal court. You need to be

19 extremely concise and weigh your words, because this can have

20 consequences, and you cannot attribute to Mr. Seselj on the basis of this

21 video-clip what you wish to attribute to him.

22 So please give us a video which spells this out more clearly,

23 because we do not have those words spoken by Mr. Seselj. It seems like we

24 have the comments here of a journalist.

25 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, I'm in agreement that words matter

1 particularly in this case. I appreciate that we have this video marked

2 for identification, and I have offered and will provide a detailed

3 transcript that allows proper interpretation, as well as the transcript

4 from the Serbian Parliament session in question.

5 I think the news broadcast itself does have relevance to this

6 case. Dr. Oberschall's expert analysis is the use of mass media and

7 Mr. Seselj's persuasion techniques. The news coverage that he had

8 saturated the region with his brand of political discourse, and so I

9 believe that there are two aspects of this video that make it relevant,

10 not just what Mr. Seselj said but what was understood by people reporting

11 on what he said.

12 I will leave that exhibit marked for identification and supplement

13 the record so that you have the information that you need to make a

14 decision on it. I would like to turn now to example number 84. This is a

15 record in the Exhibit Marked for Identification P3. You can find it in

16 e-court searching record 65 ter number 02875. It appears at page 128.

17 Q. This is published in Politika, April 4, 1992.

18 Dr. Oberschall, would you review the record and your coding and

19 please read out the portions that you found significant regarding

20 Mr. Seselj's discourse.

21 A. Could you give me the record number again.

22 Q. It's example number 84, which would be for you in your binder

23 printed page number 127 of your addendum.

24 A. Example 84?

25 Q. Yes, please.

1 A. Okay. And I should read it.

2 Q. Yeah, please familiarise yourself with it, and then we can discuss

3 what you coded and why.

4 A. Well, the -- the way I coded it is, again, the topic is the

5 "expulsion and exchange of population" and, furthermore, there's a threat

6 to Serbs. In other words, the threat is Tudjman expelled several thousand

7 Serbs from Croatia, and we have to expel all Croats from Serbia. The

8 Croats have no business staying in Serbia.

9 So that involves both a threat and also what Dr. Seselj refers to

10 as "the exchange of population."

11 But as you say here, it really means "expel." I mean, he says

12 that, "expel all Croats from Serbia. The Croats have no business staying

13 in Serbia." And moreover, he looks at them as kind of a fifth column who

14 will be disloyal to the state and help the adversary in some fashion, but

15 there's no real evidence on this particular point. So that's how I coded

16 it.

17 Q. Does the record indicate how Mr. Seselj proposed people should be

18 removed? And let me give you a moment to read it.

19 A. It says that "We will simply put them on buses and escort them to

20 the border."

21 Q. In your review of Mr. Seselj's discourse on population exchange,

22 did you find a large number of records on that issue?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Can you describe --

25 A. And I --

1 Q. -- their characteristic.

2 A. Well, the characteristic is what I refer to as a euphemistic

3 language about voluntary or population exchange, is how he routinely

4 refers to it. But in -- in propaganda language, that generally means that

5 it's coercive. You force people out against their will, whether they like

6 it or not. You make no distinction about what they did and who they are,

7 as long as they belong to a certain category. And essentially you ask

8 them to pack a suitcase, put them on a bus, and you dump them at the

9 border. And that's supposed to be, you know, a voluntary population

10 exchange. I mean, I -- I can only say it's not the right word to describe

11 what is happening on the ground to people when they are treated this way.

12 Q. Based on your research in the former --

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge.

14 MS. DAHL:

15 Q. -- Yugoslavia --

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge. Objection. Before the next

17 question, I ask you to order the expert to throw that chewing gum out of

18 his mouth, because in this way he is offending the Trial Chamber and me

19 too. He is still chewing his gum.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, the witness is

21 answering a question. You might not like his answer and it could be

22 questioned, but please listen to what he's saying. And tomorrow during

23 your cross-examination you can put questions. And hopefully this will

24 reveal the truth. But for the time being, we are just at the initial

25 stages of a process and we are talking about exchanges and expulsion. You

1 are giving us your view, and we shall see what we make of this.

2 So please proceed, Mrs. Dahl.

3 MS. DAHL: Let me return to the --

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, may I say something else?

5 May I say something else?

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, please do.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, I like Mr. Oberschall's

8 answers very much. I have been nodding to everything that he's said until

9 now today, as if he came as a Defence expert, but I don't think it is

10 appropriate for him to go on chewing his gum. If you think it is

11 appropriate, then I'm not going to object to that being done by any

12 witness ever.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, expert witness, I

14 didn't know that you had chewing gum in your mouth. Now, you've done away

15 with that. That's fine.

16 Please proceed, Mrs. Dahl.

17 MS. DAHL: Thank you, Your Honour.

18 Q. I want to turn your attention to the phrase from Mr. Seselj saying

19 that - and I'm back at example number 84 - "They are saying that the

20 expelling of the Croats would not be a democratic solution; however, that

21 method has already been applied in the world and it proved to be good in

22 the situation where people cannot live together."

23 Can you help analyse the content of those two sentences.

24 A. Certainly. There's a standard historian volume on population

25 exchanges, population expulsions, ethnic cleansing, and the historian's

1 name is Najmark and the book's title is "Fires of hatred." Actually, I

2 refer to it. And it has really the best documentation on what actually

3 happens when there are exchanges of population, expulsions of population,

4 whatever you want to call them.

5 Now, at various times Dr. Seselj gives examples of what he

6 considers voluntary exchanges of population that took place and resolved

7 questions of minority/majority conflict, one that he likes to cite is the

8 India-Pakistan break-up and the -- you know, creating a border between

9 India and -- and Pakistan, and so on. And if you actually look at the

10 historical record, this was one of the greatest mass tragedies in

11 twentieth century history. There was about more than a million people

12 were expulsed or fled from what is now India to what is now Pakistan and

13 there was also a flow in the opposite direction. A lot of these people

14 were killed or starved during this transit. They practically took only

15 what they could carry on themselves. And it definitely is looked upon by

16 the Indians and the Pakistanis as -- and, of course, everybody else, as a

17 great -- as a great tragedy.

18 There's another example that he cites in a critique of my content

19 analysis, his 156-page rejoinder to me, he cites the Greek-Turkish

20 population -- he calls them exchanges, but they're actually expulsions and

21 ethnic cleansing at the end of the Greco-Turkish War in 1922/1923. And I

22 actually went back to Najmark to look at actually, you know, what happened

23 and his descriptions of it, which I do give in my addendum of about 15

24 pages. I actually quote what Professor Najmark writes about this

25 so-called voluntary population exchange, which, again, ended up in a -- a

1 great tragedy, deaths, starvations, and -- and very difficult relocation

2 experience of the people who survived all these population exchanges.

3 If you look at the Najmark book, which starts with the Armenians

4 and the Turks, then the Greeks and the Turks, the -- and goes through

5 World War I and all the population expulsions and ethnic cleansing after

6 the Versailles Treaty, through the World War II and the aftermath of World

7 War II, plus the Stalinist expulsions of people from their customary

8 territory in the Soviet Union, and so on, down to the -- the present, the

9 Yugoslav situation, you will find out that no matter what somebody calls

10 it and what beautiful title you give, what it amounts to is a lot of

11 people are forcefully removed from their homes, quite a few of them die

12 during this process. They are deprived of their property. They end up as

13 refugees, permanent refugees in some other country. And pretty much

14 that's the story of twentieth century population exchanges.

15 There is no single example, unless it's on a very small, limited

16 scale and a very small -- and a very small district, of major population

17 exchanges in -- in twentieth century history. This is European history,

18 but it's true also for other parts of the world.

19 Q. Would you consider that Mr. Seselj's characterisation of

20 historical population exchanges is accurate, then?

21 A. No, of course not.

22 Q. Let me turn your attention to a record you coded concerning what

23 Mr. Seselj thought about the exchange of population between India and

24 Pakistan. I'm referring to Prosecution Exhibit Marked for Identification

25 5, e-court page number 231 in English, 247 in B/C/S. And, I'm sorry,

1 Dr. Oberschall, for all of these numbers.

2 For yours --

3 A. Yeah.

4 Q. -- it's record number 192.

5 A. Record 192.

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. Okay.

8 Q. I'd like to read this into the record. This was re-published by

9 Mr. Seselj himself in Volume 22 of his publication called "Television

10 battles."

11 The document date is 8 April 1992, and it was an interview at the

12 television station Studio B. Mr. Seselj reprints himself as having said,

13 secondly, as Mr. Lilic has said: "Yes, there are some good Croats. I

14 could agree with him in principle. There are probably some good ones

15 somewhere, but I have never met one in my life. So I don't know where

16 those are. It was made clear to us that those who act the best, who look

17 the best to us, are in fact the most dangerous. They are our worst

18 enemies. They are the greatest criminals, like, for example,

19 Ante Markovic. You know how heartily Serbia welcomed Ante Markovic, how

20 much it supported him and how hard it was to get rid of him once it became

21 clear that he did much more damage than Tudjman. Tudjman is an outspoken

22 Ustasha, and he was useful to the Serbs. He awoke the Serb national

23 consciousness and united the Serbs in the Croat federal unit."

24 I'm skipping ahead: "But those that pretend that they are good,

25 that they are our friends, they always bring the worst destruction upon

1 us, starting from Tito onwards.

2 "Concerning the question of exile of the Croats from Serbia, I

3 believe that it is not contradicting any of the elementary democratic

4 rights. Because if we look at the international experiences in that

5 respect, we shall see that there is nothing new in this idea. The Germans

6 were expelled from Poland; the Germans were expelled from Czechoslovakia,

7 from the area of the Sudet. The Germans were expelled from Yugoslavia.

8 Why not the Croats then? If this is now a crime against the Croats, then

9 it had also been a crime against the Germans. Either we will expel the

10 Croats now or bring back those Germans. A dilemma of principle is posed

11 here. After all, there was an exchange of populations during a

12 demarcation between India and Pakistan. It happens in other places in the

13 world as well. Why? If so much hate appears between two peoples that it

14 renders their normal cohabitation possible [sic], if a life together is

15 impossible (which is so obvious in this case) then the populations should

16 be nicely exchanged. And what does that mean? It is unbearable to the

17 Serbs to live in Croatia, but Croats can live in Serbia? Why and for what?

18 And where are those 200 to 300 thousand Serbs going to go when they

19 arrive from Croatia? Those that stay on the territory of the Serb Krajina

20 and that will potentially inhabit here, but the accommodation capacity of

21 the area is limited. The rest shall come to this shrunken Serbia. Where

22 to put them? Where will they live? Where will they work? We cannot.

23 Serbia has no money to build houses for them, to build buildings, to

24 employ them, and so on. The most elegant solution: Nicely to -- Croats

25 to Croatia, Serbs to Serbia. Every bird to its own flock. And let it be

1 settled forever. Why would we leave here someone who is going to

2 destabilise us constantly, who is openly cooperating with Ustashas and

3 their actions, like when those Ustasha were transported to the Hungarian

4 border. After all, do not forget that a significant number of today's

5 Croats in Serbia were sent here by Pavelic during the Second World War to

6 the area of Srem and especially in the area of Slankamen; they are the

7 worst Ustasha from Western Herzegovina. And how many Ustasha are in the

8 municipality of Zemun? What to do with them?"

9 How did you code that, Dr. Oberschall?

10 A. Well, there was a lot there. And, of course, it's mainly about

11 the expulsion and exchange of population, but it's -- he's also

12 stereotyping the Croats here, essentially saying they're all the same and

13 even the good ones are dangerous, things of this nature, which are

14 negative stereotypes.

15 He's also talking about an internal threat to the Serbs if these

16 Croats were to remain in -- in Serbia. Of course, he gives a lot of

17 reasons why he advocates this, what he calls, the exchange of population.

18 And maybe I can talk to that point --

19 Q. Yes, please.

20 A. -- a little.

21 First I would like to say I see a contradiction here. On the one

22 hand, we've --

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [No interpretation]

24 THE WITNESS: You remember a previous record where Dr. Seselj says

25 that as long as citizens are loyal, they will have the same human rights,

1 citizen rights. And now he says here that even the good Croats should

2 really not stay in Serbia, because in fact they're the most dangerous,

3 which I -- it really is -- it's a total contradiction to me.

4 Secondly, he -- he maintains -- you know, he gives reasons that

5 amount to saying that just because people can -- perpetrated horrors and

6 atrocities and ethnic cleansing in the past and in recent European

7 history, it's okay to do the same thing, which is a total non sequitur as

8 far as I'm concerned. I would never plead not guilty killing somebody by

9 saying other people are -- have also, you know, committed murder.

10 A housing shortage? I mean, that's not a reason for kicking out

11 an entire -- you know, the Croats from Serbia. And he gives these other

12 sort of reasons.

13 I -- I would also like to point out something important. He keeps

14 maintaining that Serbs and Croats had been "hating each other" from time

15 immemorial or for a long time and therefore they would never be able to

16 live together in a -- in a peaceful way and manage their conflicts in a --

17 in a -- a non-violent manner.

18 I've actually looked at the history of Serb-Croat relations, and I

19 have a whole section from a history book that actually Dr. Seselj quotes

20 from a lot, John Lampe. And I've taken something like half a dozen

21 concrete examples in the history of the -- of that region where the -- the

22 Serbs and the Croats actually cooperated militarily, politically,

23 culturally, and in substantial numbers, not just as a -- as a peculiarity

24 or as an idiosyncratic incident.

25 I would also like to point out to the Court that after the Dayton

1 Peace Treaty there -- there was a settlement between Serbia and Croatia on

2 what was going to happen to Vukovar, Osijek, and essentially Eastern

3 Slavonia. Eastern Slavonia was going back from Serb military occupation

4 to -- to be part of Croatia. But in this agreement -- it was an

5 international treaty backed by the European Union and the NATO military.

6 It was made very clear that there was not going to be -- that NATO and the

7 European Union was not going to stand for any kind of an ethnic cleansing

8 by the Croats of the Serbs who were in Vukovar at the end of the war and

9 that the Croats who were coming back were going to be able to recover

10 their homes and properties or, you know, get some compensation for them.

11 And what in fact happened since 1997 is that at first a small

12 number, but then a substantial number of the Croats who had been expelled

13 or fled from Vukovar during the war have actually gone back, and the Serbs

14 who were there during the war have stayed. And there was a major study

15 done by the University of California by the law faculty and anthropology

16 in 2001, I believe, and a major book was written about this experience of

17 the Croats coming back and living together with the Serbs in Vukovar,

18 which was, as you well know, the site of the most horrible war and

19 civilian casualties, and so on. And I'm not saying that the findings are

20 that people are embracing each other in the street, and so on, but they

21 have worked out, the Croats and the Serbs, these people who allegedly have

22 been hating each other all the time and have just recently killed each

23 other, they are living in Vukovar. Vukovar is being rebuilt. It's a

24 functioning community. There's municipal government and services that

25 both the Croats and the Serbs participate in and enjoy. And it's just

1 another example that the kind of conceptions and political philosophy of

2 Dr. Seselj, plus his use of history in a -- really a mistaken way -- and I

3 give him -- and, you know, he's an -- he's an educated person. He should

4 know what happened between India and Pakistan when there was a partition.

5 I mean, it's common knowledge. It's in the history books everywhere.

6 Well, in any case, what -- this particular record -- and I

7 apologise for speaking for so long -- does indicate that the solution

8 tried in many countries -- and I'm not saying that there are no problems

9 between ethnic groups and religious groups and no conflicts exist, but in

10 many countries these things are worked out politically, culturally, and --

11 and they -- and they work. And his conception that it doesn't work and

12 therefore you have to kick people out from one place to another, draw

13 borders, and so on, is -- is -- simply does not agree with what we know in

14 social science and in history.

15 MS. DAHL: I'd like to turn now to record number 191. This is

16 e-court page number, in English, 230; B/C/S page number 246. And in the

17 interests of time, let me publish what's in this record. This is an

18 interview republished by Mr. Seselj. The date of the interview is May 7,

19 1993. It was published in Mr. Seselj's collective works, Volume 28,

20 "Current political challenges."

21 Q. Interviewer: "According to the plans, the Serbs in Bosnia are

22 entitled to 43 per cent of territories, and they won over 70 per cent.

23 They have to return a portion of the territories.

24 Seselj: "Nothing will be returned here, because the Serb refugees

25 from that area -- from the area that is now controlled by Croats and

1 Muslims inhabited those areas. Zvornik is now filled with Serbs. At one

2 time, many Muslims used to live there. There has been a spontaneous

3 exchange of population.

4 Interviewer: "Spontaneous? You're playing a cruel joke.

5 Seselj: "I'm not joking. The Muslims didn't want to stay and

6 live under Serb control, and the Serbs did not want to stay under Muslim

7 or Croat control. The Muslims were -- the Croats were expelling Serbs

8 from the territory of West Herzegovina. The Muslims are hindering the

9 exiting of Serbs from Sarajevo, Tuzla, and a few other places under their

10 control, holding those Serbs hostages; that's their argument for insisting

11 on a unitary state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The West will insist that

12 people return to the houses they left, but only a few people will return

13 because they feel unsafe. How could a family return when in their house

14 there's already a family whose house was burned down. Those are very

15 complicated things, which is good for the Americans, because they need a

16 reason for a military presence."

17 How did you code that record?

18 A. Well, I coded it as, again, "expulsion and exchange of

19 population." And also "external threats to Serbs." But could I make a

20 commentary on this particular --

21 Q. Yes.

22 A. -- record? And this, again, is Dr. Seselj's thinking about the

23 impossibility of actually restoring to their domiciles and properties of

24 people who have been expelled or fled during warfare, as happened in -- in

25 Bosnia. But actually what did take place after the Dayton Accords? An

1 international commission was appointed which received applications for the

2 restoration of properties of -- of people who had been expelled from

3 wherever they -- or fled from wherever they had lived and -- and been

4 kicked out of, and they were given an option -- well, this was a

5 complicated process, because we're talking about seven, eight hundred

6 thousand families in -- in that particular case, and it took a lot of time

7 to -- to get a -- get a procedure and a quasi-judicial process working,

8 but the commission essentially settled something, you know, like 95, 98

9 per cent of these cases. And a substantial minority of the displaced

10 person and refugees decided to return to places where they are now a

11 minority and eventually they got back their property and -- so the -- the

12 process of restoring -- of giving people the option of returning, of

13 having the populations that kicked them out having to accept them, to live

14 with them again, and their properties being returned to them, has been

15 rather successful. And I'd say is one of the positive achievements of the

16 Dayton Accord.

17 So it is -- you know, it is -- it is perfectly possible to do

18 this. I mean, you can't really go back to exactly where you were at the

19 start of these conflicts, but, you know, it can be done. And when

20 Dr. Seselj says, "How could a family return when in their house there's

21 already a family whose house was burnt down," well, in practice what

22 happens is that the family whose house was burnt down and is now in a --

23 in a property also has a claim to being able to live in temporary

24 quarters, get compensation, rebuild that house, vacate the property --

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm going to stop you here. I'm

1 going to stop you here, because it's now a quarter to 2.00 and there is

2 another hearing after this one.

3 Mrs. Dahl, according to my calculations, you have had something

4 like two hours and 40 minutes. Therefore, tomorrow you will have one hour

5 left. Is that enough time for you tomorrow, or would you need less than

6 that?

7 MS. DAHL: I think that's a trick question to ask any lawyer if

8 they'll take less time than they're given. Your Honour, I'm going to try

9 to avoid the redundancy of these records and I will finish as

10 expeditiously as I can.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Just a piece of

12 advice: You could gain some time by avoiding reading out the entire

13 document. You could just give us the reference number of the document and

14 then base your question on the document and take it from there.

15 As you know, tomorrow we shall resume at 9.00 tomorrow morning in

16 Courtroom II.

17 The court stands adjourned.

18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,

19 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 12th day of

20 December, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.

21

22

23

24

25