1 Tuesday, 29 January 2008

2 [Open session]

3 --- Upon commencing at 8.31 a.m.

4 [The accused entered court]

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

6 Mr. Registrar, kindly call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: And good morning, Your Honours. This is case

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

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

10 is Tuesday, the 29th of January, 2008. Good morning, Ms. Dahl; good

11 morning, Mr. Seselj; and my greetings to all the people helping us out.

12 We will in a few moments have the witness brought in; but before

13 he comes in, I'm going to ask the registrar to move into private session.

14 [Private session]

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 2848-2850 redacted. Private session

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 [Open session]

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

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, we are in open

20 session.

21 Mr. Seselj, I believe you wanted to speak to two topics. The

22 first topic has to do with quality of expert of the coming witness. The

23 Trial Chamber is very clear on this. In your submissions, you challenged

24 his quality as an expert. The Trial Chamber issued a decision stating in

25 paragraph 17. I'm going to read it out to you so that you be fully

1 appraised of it and to avoid wasting time.

2 "The Trial Chamber considers on the basis of the objections raised

3 by the accused that the witness is to appear before this Tribunal to

4 answer the questions by the Prosecution, the accused, and maybe the

5 Chamber. During cross-examination, the accused will have an opportunity

6 to challenge the probative value, the relevance, and the credibility of

7 the conclusions of the expert."

8 In paragraph 18, we conclude this: "In the light of the testimony

9 of the witness, the Trial Chamber will consider the relevance and

10 probative value of his report and will rule on the admission of the report

11 into evidence."

12 In other words, he will be put questions by the Prosecution,

13 you'll have the cross-examination to put your questions to him, the Judges

14 will do so as well; and, only after that, will there be a finite ruling on

15 this. So there's no need for a debate before, beforehand, since this

16 discussion will be settled upon his testimony after the cross-examination.

17 So this is the first topic I wanted to raise.

18 Personally speaking, let me add this. The Rules, which is a

19 binding document, is inspired by the common-law system in which you have

20 expert witnesses who come upon the request of parties without having the

21 Judges saying anything beforehand. It's true that in another civil -- law

22 system you would not have this waste of time. In another legal system

23 where Judges appoint independent expert witnesses who come to testify with

24 an adversarial discussion by the parties, after that only, we would save a

25 lot of time, but for reasons that escape me another system was preferred

1 in which the Prosecution has their experts and you, yourself, will have

2 yours.

3 The Trial Chamber will rule on the merits of the expert testimony

4 after that when the documents will be tendered into evidence. This is

5 what I want to say as to the expert issue which is a recurrent one. Each

6 time we have to intervene on this. We have a very well-defined type of

7 proceedings. The expert report will only be admitted after there has been

8 a discussion and adversarial debate. So that's the first topic.

9 As to the second topic, I believe you have some press cutting. I

10 can't translate it because it's in your language. So is -- with regard to

11 this second topic, what did you want to say, Mr. Seselj? I remind you,

12 however, that if you want to tackle a confidential issue, you have to ask

13 yourself for a private session since I don't know beforehand what you want

14 to say.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I will not be

16 referring to anything of a confidential nature. I have had four issues to

17 raise today; and regarding these two, I informed Mr. Doriswamy of them

18 because I asked that some documents be copied for the Trial Chamber and

19 for the Prosecutor.

20 First of all, as far as Yves Tomic is concerned, I have provided

21 you with five documents from which you can see that he cannot be an

22 impartial expert of the Prosecution in this case. And I draw your

23 attention to two decisions of the International Court for Rwanda; and in

24 its decision dated the 11th of November, 2003, the Trial Chamber notes,

25 and I quote: "An expert witness has to testify fully respecting

1 scientific objectivity."

2 And in the case of Prosecutor versus Akayesu, the request for the

3 Defence regarding a high-quality expert witness and the Trial Chamber

4 says, and I quote, that: "The expert witness authorised to testify must

5 not only be of repute in his profession, but must also be impartial in the

6 case."

7 Both these decisions were confirmed by the Appeals Chamber of the

8 Rwanda Tribunal in 2007 in the case Rugambarara, paragraph 199 of the

9 judgement. I have supplied you with five articles by Mr. Tomic, from

10 which it can be seen that he is an ideologically passionate opponent of

11 the Serbian Radical Party of which I'm still the president, and this was

12 confirmed at the party congress in 2006.

13 He uses political terms such as extremist, nationalist,

14 ultra-nationalist, and he's a member of a political organization which is

15 called, The French Association for Studies of the Balkans, which is

16 conducting an anti-Serbian campaign and is engaged in destructive

17 political activity and a member is the Montenegrin prince, Nikola

18 Petrovic-Njegos, who has pretensions to the Montenegrin throne.

19 This delegation was -- consistently advocated the break-up of the

20 association of Serbia and Montenegro, so that he's involved in the

21 break-up of Yugoslavia, in the break-up of Serbia, and I have provided you

22 and the members of the Trial Chamber with these documents to show that I

23 have evidence that he is not neutral and impartial. But it is up to you.

24 I am in your hands, and I am ready for the cross-examination. That is the

25 first point.

1 Regarding the second point, I think it is very important for you

2 to have in mind that Natasa Kandic has in public in the Serbian press

3 denied calling Witness Stoparic during his testimony, and she even stated

4 that this was a fabrication of the Serbian Radical Party. As we spoke

5 about this in a public session, I insist once again that I be provided

6 with a complete transcript of the message sent by Natasa Kandic to Goran

7 Stoparic during his testimony, and I request that the Trial Chamber

8 consider whether there are reasons to institute proceedings against Natasa

9 Kandic because as a close associate of The Hague Prosecutor's office, she

10 was well aware that she must not influence witnesses in any way and -- in

11 general, and especially not during their testimony. This is the other

12 problem that I wanted to raise.

13 Of course, I have provided you with the documents, but you can

14 decide whether to start contempt of court proceedings.

15 Another point I wish to raise is that you have issued four

16 subpoenas for Defence witnesses to be brought to testify in the

17 Prosecution case. Those witnesses have objected to the subpoenas; and

18 immediately after that, I don't know whether you ruled about these

19 objections, you issued instructions for free passage.

20 The key issue in the objections is the request for

21 re-consideration of the subpoenas, since they personally have informed you

22 that they are Defence witnesses. If you reject that objection, then you

23 can issue the instructions that you have already started to issue. Maybe

24 I'm not fully informed. All I know is about these instructions for free

25 passage. I'm not mentioning the name of the witness or his pseudonym.

1 I'm just raising the issue as a matter of principle, and I don't know how

2 to deal with it.

3 And the fourth problem, the Prosecution is again bombarding me

4 with the requests for various 92 bis and other forms of testimony.

5 Recently you provided me with your decision rejecting a large number of

6 Prosecution requests, but some of them you left to decide upon later,

7 after hearing my reactions to them. I think that I have stated my views

8 about all of these once and for all. I will never accept testimony of

9 witnesses under 92 bis, ter, et cetera. The way the Prosecution

10 interprets this rule applies to quite different cases.

11 This time I wish to underline that Witness Goran Stoparic, by his

12 public and direct testimony in the courtroom, absolutely disqualified the

13 practice of the Prosecution regarding the taking of statements. You can

14 read all his statements and the transcript of his testimony, and you will

15 see the enormous gap between them. From this we can conclude that the

16 Prosecution can never be trusted that any statement is trustworthy. To

17 come to the courtroom and say he signed it, but he has no idea what he

18 signed.

19 You saw that Mr. Stoparic, who is not a stupid man, who is quite

20 an intelligent man in view of his level of education, he could not recall

21 many of the things that he signed in the statement and then he denied

22 them. And I think this practice should be disqualified once and for all,

23 and that has only added to my conviction that I should not accept any

24 witnesses under 92 bis and ter. If you accept any such statements, I will

25 treat it as if it was non-existent.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very briefly on these four

2 topics. The first one, the expert witness, following what I said earlier

3 on, you now are saying that this expert is allegedly not impartial, as

4 expressed in two Rwanda Tribunal decisions, which were apparently

5 confirmed by the Appeals Chamber. I was not aware of these two decisions

6 by the Rwanda Tribunal, but I'm well aware of what the Appeals Chamber may

7 have said regarding expert witnesses.

8 This Tribunal is a Tribunal to which expert witnesses are called

9 upon request by the Prosecution. Sometimes they're even employees of the

10 OTP. So, as to impartiality, there can be a problem. But apparently this

11 situation did not upset anybody, has not upset anybody so far. Everybody

12 works that way, because these individuals are regarded as experts called

13 by the parties, except that experts make a solemn declaration and based on

14 that anything they may say is under oath. Therefore, they become

15 unbiased. The advantage of cross-examination is precisely that the

16 cross-examining party can challenge that impartiality.

17 Second topic you raised, that of Ms. Kandic. Let us move to

18 private session for a few moments because I'd like to mention something

19 that can only be mentioned in private session.

20 Yes, Ms. Dahl, did you want to say something about Ms. Kandic?

21 MS. DAHL: Yes, and I'll wait until we're in private session.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Private session, please.

23 [Private session]

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 2858-2859 redacted. Private session

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 [Open session]

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

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We're now in open

17 session.

18 Let me deal with the third topic now, which is the issue of the

19 subpoenas. Indeed, the Prosecutor expressed some requests which are now

20 being considered by the Trial Chamber. Decisions are about to be issued

21 very shortly. They have being finalised; therefore, I'm putting this

22 issue aside for the time being because the decisions have not yet been

23 filed.

24 Ms. Dahl.

25 MS. DAHL: If I may summarize our position on the issue of whether

1 a witness can avoid a subpoena by declaring himself to be a Defence

2 witness, I would state just briefly that witnesses are not competent to

3 determine or choose when they appear before the Trial Chamber. That is a

4 matter for the Trial Chamber's subpoena issued upon motion of the

5 Prosecution. The Prosecution bears the burden of proof, and it is

6 incumbent upon us to prove during our case in chief all relevant evidence

7 within the time allowed by the Chamber.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Trial Chamber

9 has listened to what the parties have to say about this matter; and in our

10 upcoming decisions, the Trial Chamber will deal with this matter and

11 express itself on the matter.

12 And, fourthly, very briefly, as far as 92 bis is concerned, 92

13 ter, and 92 quater, as you said, Mr. Seselj, we rendered a decision about

14 an entire series of requests and we have to rule on this pursuant to a

15 number of 92 bis requests. I think my colleagues are in the same frame of

16 mind as I am.

17 Before a 92 bis statement is accepted, this statement has to

18 complete or support elements that have already been received viva voce,

19 and it's only then that we can move on to the 92 bis or 92 -- the 92 bis

20 procedure. 92 ter, well, we don't have to go back to that. We've dealt

21 with it.

22 92 quater, I'll deal with that rapidly. This is a case when a

23 witness is unable to appear because he is deceased or because he's not in

24 a condition to or she is not in a condition to appear; and given the very

25 particular circumstances, the Trial Chamber can then decide to admit the

1 written statement pursuant to 92 quater, because we have also had other

2 situations. The Chamber heard witnesses, there was the

3 examination-in-chief, the cross-examination, and this testimony directly

4 concerns the case, but that's the other series of documents.

5 But 92 bis, as far as that is concerned, we are waiting to have

6 live witnesses to see whether 92 bis requests fulfil the conditions

7 provided for in 92 bis. That's what I wanted to say.

8 We'll now call the witness into the courtroom so that the witness

9 can take the solemn declaration and so that we can commence with the

10 examination-in-chief.

11 Yes, Ms. Dahl.

12 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, if I may, very briefly I wanted to reject

13 the argument of Mr. Seselj that the Prosecution could not be trusted with

14 witness statements. I draw a different inference from the difficulties of

15 Mr. Stoparic's presentation of his evidence. I note that he appeared very

16 distressed in the courtroom; and if you want further submissions on that

17 matter, we would need to go into private session. But we'd ask if the

18 Chamber is going to wait for further ruling -- further submissions in

19 writing by Mr. Seselj on the remaining applications, because we do wish to

20 put in a motion to certify the issue for appeal because we think it meets

21 both prongs for an interlocutory appeal during the trial itself.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] To certify for appeal, what

23 appeal, Ms. Dahl?

24 MS. DAHL: The decision to exclude our motions under 92 ter and 92

25 quater. The Chamber will recall that the Prosecution elected not to

1 proceed under 92 bis and indicated at the Pre-Trial Conference and at many

2 Status Conferences that we would bring all of our witnesses for

3 cross-examination and that we would not attempt with -- anyway with living

4 witnesses to have Mr. Seselj forego an opportunity to cross-examine the

5 witnesses.

6 Obviously, the 92 quater procedure presents a different matter;

7 but as a distinct legal issue, we think that one is worthy of appellate

8 review; and as of the 92 ter that have been finally rejected, we would

9 like to have that reviewed as well. We are preparing the motions to

10 re-visit those witnesses' statements identified in the decision where the

11 Prosecution was invited to resubmit.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] To prepare -- to prepare it,

13 yes. Very well. We'll call the witness into the courtroom.

14 Could the usher fetch the witness, please.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could I say something

16 first of all?

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I object to the Prosecution's

19 request for leave to certify for appeal because the deadline has expired

20 for such a request to be made. I don't think the Prosecution has any

21 reason to be granted additional time. The deadline is seven days. There

22 is a seven-day time-limit, and I would like to remind you of Rule 71,

23 which mentions taking statements outside of the courtroom. In 92 bis, 92

24 ter, and 92 quater, nothing is said about the manner in which witness

25 statements are taken, statements that would fall under those rules. But

1 in Rule 71, it says that: "Any statement taken out of court should be

2 taken according to a certain procedure."

3 I must allowed to attend the taking of such statement, and I must

4 be able to examine a witness giving such a statement, and an official from

5 the court must also be present. He must be appointed by the Chamber.

6 What Ms. Dahl is insisting on, the statement she is insisting on, was

7 never taken in accordance with this procedure. These statements were taken

8 by the Prosecution alone.

9 Mr. Stoparic informed you and myself about the way in which such

10 statements are taken. So it really makes no sense to continue listening

11 to these Prosecution requests because they can't find any evidence against

12 me that would be of any relevance, unless they themselves compile a

13 statement against me. Only something they draft can be relevant;

14 everything else just falls down like a pack of cards.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Trial Chamber

16 will rule on the matter in the light of the submissions or in the light of

17 what the parties have to say. The Trial Chamber will express its opinion,

18 and we have taken note of your position. Nevertheless, we are familiar

19 with that position. We have been for some time because you incessantly

20 re-affirm it.

21 Yes, Ms. Dahl.

22 MS. DAHL: Yes, Your Honour. Very briefly, in reply, it appears

23 that Mr. Seselj has not received in translation the motion for enlargement

24 of time that we filed to preserve the opportunity to seek certification

25 pending the Trial Chamber's final disposition of the remaining

1 applications.

2 [The witness entered court]

3 MS. DAHL: So, therefore, we are not out of time.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

5 Good day, sir. Could you please stand up. Could you give me your

6 name, first name, and your date of birth for the sake of your solemn

7 declaration.

8 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is your current profession.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I work at Paris X-Nanterre in the

11 library.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What does that mean, a study

13 engineer?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's a position that scientific or

15 technical personnel have in French universities.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Have you already testified

17 before a court with regard to what the events in the former Yugoslavia, or

18 is this the first time?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the first time.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you please read out the

21 solemn declaration.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

23 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

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

25 As this is the first time you'll be testifying, I would like to

1 provide you with some information about the procedure we will be

2 following. Initially, you'll have to answer the questions that Ms. Dahl

3 will put you. You've certainly met her already, and she will put

4 questions to you about the report you drafted. Ms. Dahl will also show

5 you some documents that were used for your report. All this must be

6 contained in a binder that you have and that you must have been provided

7 with -- that you have been provided with by the Prosecution.

8 Upon completing this stage, the accused, Mr. Seselj, who is to

9 your left, will cross-examine you. After the questions put to you on the

10 report, he will cross-examine you and there will be two stages. He'll ask

11 you about your credibility -- your credibility as an expert and about the

12 substance of your work as an expert witness.

13 The three Judges who are sitting before you will also put

14 questions to you, either while other questions are being put to you or

15 because we have a document that's important that we want to ask you about

16 or we'll ask questions in the course of Mr. Seselj's cross-examination.

17 But as a rule, it's best for us to put questions after both parties have

18 completed their examination or cross-examination. However, there are some

19 times when it's better for the Judges to intervene.

20 As a rule, we have a 20-minute break after one and a half hours of

21 hearing. If you want us to have a break at some other time, raise your

22 hand and ask us for a break. If you fail to understand the sense of a

23 question, ask the person or the party putting the question to you to

24 rephrase it. Try to be as concise as possible when answering questions

25 because the Judges will assess the relevance and the probative value of

1 your testimony, and this will depend on what you actually said.

2 There are monitors in front of -- there is a monitor in front of

3 you. You have the transcript in English, so everything I say in French

4 will appear in the transcript in English. And, similarly, when the

5 accused expresses himself, you will see the English translation of what he

6 says on the monitor.

7 The parties' submissions will be translated, as you can hear

8 through your headphones. If you have any questions to ask the Chamber,,

9 don't hesitate to do so. That's what I wanted to say by way of

10 introduction; and having done so, I will now give the floor to Ms. Dahl.

11 WITNESS: YVES TOMIC

12 [Witness answered through interpreter]

13 Examination by Ms. Dahl:

14 Q. Good morning, Mr. Tomic. Let me ask you to take the binder of

15 exhibits and turn to 65 ter number 167.

16 MS. DAHL: For the Chamber's reference, the tabs in the binders

17 today correspond to the 65 ter number.

18 Q. Do you speak the Serbian language?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And do you read and understand it as well?

21 A. Yes, yes, I do.

22 Q. Looking at 65 ter Exhibit Number 167, can you tell me what this

23 document is?

24 A. This is a proclamation to the Serbian people drafted by the

25 Homeland Central Administration of the Serbian Chetnik Movement.

1 Q. Looking at the bottom of the page, can you tell me the date and

2 the signatory to the proclamation?

3 A. The date is the 18th of February, signed by the president of the

4 Chetnik Movement, Dr. Vojislav Seselj. It's the 18th of February, 1991.

5 Q. In addition to his name, does Dr. Seselj's signature here include

6 a title?

7 A. Yes. The "Vojvoda" title is, in fact, used. So "Vojvoda"

8 precedes the title doctor, "Dr."

9 Q. What is the meaning of the word "Vojvoda"?

10 A. "Vojvoda" is a military leader.

11 Q. And can you read the first paragraph of the document?

12 A. Shall I read it out in Serbian?

13 Q. Yes. We are in a tri-lingual court, so the interpreter will be

14 able to move whatever language you use into the languages we can

15 understand.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute to avoid

17 interpretation problems in -- or translation problems.

18 You said, in French, that "Vojvoda" meant military leader. In

19 line 24, it says"military leader." So "leader" makes me think a bit,

20 because you can be a military leader without being a military head. What

21 do you mean by a military chief, chef?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in the course of the

23 centuries, in the course of the Ottoman Empire, there were armed units

24 consisting of Christians, of Serbs. They existed during this period of

25 time, and they were under the command of men who were called "Vojvodas."

1 They were military chiefs of irregular armed units; they weren't part of

2 the army of a state.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But these armed bands that had

4 been established against the Ottoman Empire, these Vojvods, were they

5 present in the field of military actions, were they there? This Vojvod,

6 as to be understood as Mr. Seselj, does that mean that he was present in

7 the military field or not?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was, indeed, present. This title

9 as a Vojvod was given to him by Momcilo Djujic in June 1989. Momcilo

10 Djujic was himself precisely a Vojvod, and had obtained this title during

11 World War II.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] My question was more specific.

13 I asked you whether a Vojvod is necessarily present when there is military

14 action, because under the Ottoman Empire, apparently they were there in

15 the field. Is a Vojvod present when there is fighting or can he be

16 somewhere else?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As a rule, he doesn't command from a

18 distance; he is together with his fighters.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] He doesn't command from a

20 distance; he is together with his fighters, you say. And in a situation,

21 when a Vojvod is not with his troops, does he remain a Vojvod or not?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As a rule, Vojvods are appointed for

23 their military bravery, therefore, always in a context of clashes or

24 fighting, of armed conflict, of small or major intensity. It is always

25 within a military context. It would be a paradox if somebody was

1 appointed a Vojvod precisely if there was no war situation. --

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. We'll see later.

3 Ms. Dahl, please proceed.

4 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a question in this

5 respect. You said that Mr. Seselj was apparently appointed a Vojvod by

6 Momcilo Djujic in June 1989. Was there a war already then in Yugoslavia,

7 in the former Yugoslavia?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The war had not broken out yet, but

9 there was political tension as to the future of what was then Yugoslavia.

10 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Now, how is it that somebody

11 would be appointed a Vojvod, a military leader, who's supposed to fight in

12 the field if there is no war as yet?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The idea in 1989, after all, the --

14 Yugoslavia is going through a serious political crisis. You can see that

15 everywhere. In Eastern Europe, the end of communism is coming. So for

16 the Chetniks who have left Yugoslavia or have left it after 1945 or at the

17 end of the Second World War, it's for them to re-activate their political

18 programme with a will, in fact, to create a unitary state of Serbs.

19 There is a will, and it can be seen in the very words expressed by

20 Momcilo Djujic at the time. They want to take possession of what they

21 call the Serbian lands, including in the territory of the Republic of

22 Croatia.

23 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] But is this an issue of a

24 political programme, then, or is it already a military programme?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is basically a political

1 programme. Indeed, Mr. Seselj went to the United States in 1989, but he

2 also -- basically, he went to North America but also to Australia. And he

3 held close to 100 conferences, in which he expounded his political

4 programme, which indeed mentioned the creation of the greater Serbia, so a

5 unitary land that would gather all the Serbs.

6 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Excuse me, one last thing. So

7 can 1989 and can his appointment be understood as a symbolic qualification

8 rather than a military one?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It may, indeed, have a symbolic

10 dimension; but this being said, for Momcilo Djujic, he has a project which

11 is to see the Chetniks take possession of the lands that are regarded as

12 Serbian, including in Croatia. So the military dimension is supported by

13 an idea expressed in a political programme.

14 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just to follow-up, so you give a

16 military dimension to a political discourse, but in the history of mankind

17 we have examples of people claiming territories based on political

18 discourses without their necessarily having military action.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In fact, the Chetnik movement is by

20 definition a military movement. Momcilo Djujic in the United States is

21 heading an organization of former fighters of World War II, former Chetnik

22 fighters. So it's basically, first and foremost, a military movement,

23 which may have a political programme, but the Chetnik phenomenon initially

24 is a military phenomenon primarily before being a political one.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We see more clearly as time goes

1 by.

2 Ms. Dahl, please proceed.

3 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, let me have this proclamation marked for

4 identification, please.

5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, MFI P140.

6 MS. DAHL:

7 Q. Can you tell me some more about Momcilo Djujic and his activities

8 in World War II?

9 A. He was born in the vicinity of Knin in 1907, beginning of the 20th

10 century. He's -- he did religious studies in Sremski Karlovci, and he

11 became a pope in 1933. In 1936, he would found a section of the Chetnik

12 Association for the Freedom and Honour of the Fatherland, so one of the

13 Chetnik associations that existed in the inter-war period. When the war

14 broke out, he got involved in a resistance movement against the

15 Independent Croat State --

16 Q. What --

17 A. -- and was the leader, the head, of a Chetnik unit of the Dinaric

18 region. In this period, indeed, his unit committed a number of crimes.

19 At the end of World War II, he was recognised as a war criminal, held

20 responsible for the death of 1800 men in Croatia.

21 Q. Did Mr. Djujic have a programme for the Dinara Division?

22 A. Yes. He had a political programme which, as was the case for most

23 Chetnik units in Croatia or Bosnia and Herzegovina, aimed at creating a

24 unitary Serb state, a state which would gather beyond Serbia, Bosnia and

25 Herzegovina, Dalmatia, and a fair part of Croatia.

1 Q. What was the basis for claiming those territories as Serbian?

2 A. In the Chetnik Movement's opinion, the idea is to create a state

3 that would put together all the Serbs, therefore a number of territories

4 where they believe that the Serbs are the majority population. So it's an

5 ethnic concept of the state, gathering all the territories populated or

6 deemed as populated in a majority by Serbs.

7 Q. Sometimes we hear the term "Ravna Gora Movement." Is that the

8 same thing as the Chetnik Movement?

9 A. Indeed. One speaks of the Chetnik Movement, but the more official

10 term was the Ravna Gora Movement based on the name of a mountain whenst

11 the Chetnik resistance was launched in May 1941. So, indeed, one speaks

12 of the Ravna Gora Movement, one also uses the word "Chetnik Movement," but

13 also one speaks of a Yugoslav Army in the fatherland, in that the Chetnik

14 units in World War II were units of the Yugoslav Army.

15 Draza Mihajlovic, who headed the army, was appointed Minister for

16 Defence in January 1942. He was a minister of the Yugoslav government

17 that was then in exile in London.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There's one thing that is not

19 very clear in your report. During World War II, this movement which

20 apparently fought the Germans, did they carry out a fight directed against

21 Hitler's troops or was it a fight that aimed at creating the Greater

22 Serbia, taking territories? What is their main objective in 1941 and

23 1942? Was it to resist the German invader or was it to pursue this idea

24 of a Serbian territory?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was primarily the idea of

1 resisting the German occupier because Draza Mihajlovic, he was then a

2 colonel, gathered a number of soldiers who would not accept the

3 capitulation by the Yugoslav Army on the 17th of April, 1941. So, indeed,

4 it is an idea of resisting the German occupier. But later on the specific

5 political context of the time, for instance, the fact that there was a

6 movement of communist resistance which was developing at the time, this

7 communist movement was aiming at taking power during the war.

8 So we're going to see a political rivalry between the two armies.

9 So from a war against the occupier, we move towards a civil war between

10 the communist movement and the Ravna Gora Movement, even if to start with

11 there was, for instance, in September 1941, there was a will to cooperate

12 between the new movements, but it was short-lived. And as of November

13 1941 until the end of the war, we have a fight between these two armies.

14 Now, Draza Mihajlovic's movement, the Ravna Gora Movement, is a

15 movement that never wanted to fight on a large scale the German occupier.

16 The German reprisals were very harsh. For one German soldier killed, 100

17 Serb civilians were killed; for one German soldier wounded, 50 were

18 killed. And, in 1941, several thousands of Serbs were thus killed in

19 various towns in Serbia. So Draza Mihajlovic provided to -- by time, and

20 it was like a policy of waiting until there might be the Allies that would

21 come to the Balkans before they started a large-scale action against the

22 occupier. So they waited for this coming of the Allies that never

23 happened.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And apart from the German

25 question, you said that there was a political rivalry with the communist

1 resistance which had other aims?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The Yugoslav communists - and

3 in that, they were not obeying Moscow rules or orders, which wanted the

4 cooperation between the two resistance movements, the Chetnik and the

5 communist one - so the Yugoslav communists wanted to use these events in

6 order to take power in Yugoslavia. They had another view of the Yugoslav

7 state, in that they wanted to create a Federation of at least six

8 republics. The communists did recognise the existence of a Macedonian, of

9 a Montenegrin nation, which was not admitted by a lot of Serbs including

10 the Chetnik Movement. So there were major divergences when it comes to

11 the national question between the two movements.

12 But to answer your previous question more fully, I would say that

13 the Chetnik Movement was initially a military one but it is going to

14 develop a political programme as early as August 1941. It created a

15 national central committee, which is, indeed, the political wing of the

16 Ravna Gora Movement. And its members are going to define the objectives

17 of the Ravna Gora Movement, the main objective being the creation of a

18 Greater Serbia in a Greater Yugoslavia.

19 So very early the Ravna Gora Movement, the Chetnik Movement,

20 defended this idea of a Greater Serbia in a Greater Yugoslavia.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

22 Ms. Dahl.

23 Thank you for your answer.

24 MS. DAHL:

25 Q. Let us turn to 65 ter Exhibit Number 4, and if you have enough

1 room on your desk to page 47 -- 46 and 47 of your report.

2 Further to the Presiding Judge's discussion about the political

3 programme of the Chetnik Movement, can you tell the Chamber the roots of

4 the programmatic document of the Chetnik Movement? And by "roots," I'm

5 referring to the antecedents or the philosophers who formulated the notion

6 of Greater Serbia that was then created in the programme of the Chetnik

7 Movement.

8 A. As a matter of fact, one of the first ideaologists, say, of the

9 Ravna Gora Movement is Stevan Moljevic, together with Dragica Vasic, who

10 was regarded as the number 2 of the Ravna Gora Movement. Together with

11 him, Moljevic is going to draft a document known as "Homogenous Serbia" in

12 June 1941. Then he was not really yet a member of the Ravna Gora

13 Movement. He was going to be member only in August. He is going to be

14 appointed to the National Central Committee, but the ideas expressed in

15 June 1941 fully tally with those of intellectuals who were part of that

16 movement.

17 Q. Looking at 65 ter Exhibit Number 4, can you tell me what is

18 reprinted in this text that you used -- well, tell me what the document is

19 first.

20 A. This is a political programme for Serbia, for the creation of a

21 Greater Serbia. In this document, all the territories that should be part

22 of this entity which is going to be called Greater Serbia are mentioned.

23 This document defines the means to achieve this goal, and, indeed, the

24 idea expressed in this programme is to create a Serbian entity without any

25 national minorities. That would be as homogenous as possible on the

1 national level; therefore, the idea of exchanges of populations between

2 Serbs on the one hand and Croats on the other hand, for example.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, looking at this

4 document, on page 5 in English, under the heading of Serbia, I see that

5 the idea of religion is mentioned here, where freedom of religion is

6 proclaimed. It is even said that political parties cannot be created on a

7 religious basis. What did this mean specifically?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since we are in a region where there

9 are various religions - there's mainly the Catholic and the Orthodox

10 religion, but there's also the Muslim religion - we know that the

11 religious factor is a dividing one. In order to avoid political divisions

12 in the country, the influence of religion in political life is thereby

13 limited.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So, if I understand well, this

15 movement did not present the Orthodox religion as the only or dominant

16 religion?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. There is, indeed, an

18 acknowledgement of other religions, provided the external influence is

19 limited, because it is true that the Orthodox religion has its centre in

20 Serbia or Yugoslavia; but for the Catholic church, the influence can come

21 from the Vatican, so from outside.

22 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] This brings me to this question:

23 Could you shed some light on the concept of Serb population? What does

24 that mean exactly?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Serbs, well, first, are the people

1 who identify themselves as Serbs. To a large part, they are Orthodox.

2 There are very few Catholics or Muslims among the Serbs.

3 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Now, Catholics and Muslims, in

4 what capacity? You say very few of them, but why were they regarded as

5 Serbs then?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Especially in southern Dalmatia, in

7 the Dubrovnik area, you had a small community of Serbs who were Catholics.

8 In Bosnia and Herzegovina until after the Second World War, you have some

9 Slav Muslims who also identify as Serbs, but some will equally identify

10 themselves as Croats. So the Muslim nation which was acknowledged in 1968

11 in Bosnia and Herzegovina indicates a national group which was then not

12 very well defined yet, because you have part of the Muslim Slavs who

13 identify themselves chiefly as Muslims, but part of them in the first

14 census after the Second World War will identify themselves as Croats or

15 Serbs for part of them.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I understand properly, this

17 Ravna Gora Movement, through its writings, sets out the principle that

18 this Greater Serbia or this Serbia can be made up of individuals with

19 various religious beliefs, but you explained that back then the majority

20 of them were Orthodox with the exception of Dalmatia, where there were

21 Catholics, and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where there were Muslims. Is

22 that the overall picture?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Bosnia and Herzegovina at the

24 time, you have a relative majority of Serbs, 42, 44 per cent; the second

25 national group is that of Muslims; the third is around 22 per cent, the

1 Croats.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So in this Greater Serbia, as

3 understood by the Ravna Gora Movement, empirically in percentage, how many

4 Orthodox, how many Muslims, how many Catholics?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Actually, if we look at different

6 programme documents of the Ravna Gora Movement, it recognises religious

7 freedom and it is endeavouring to create a state without national

8 minorities and without Muslims and without Croats and Muslims in that

9 state.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That is the idea that you are

11 telling us; but when you look at the document, we don't see this idea in

12 the documents, because, on the contrary, the documents we have in front of

13 us do not speak along those lines.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is the first document dated the

15 30th of June, 1941; then if we look at other documents of the Chetnik

16 Movement dating the end of 1941 or 1942, the political ideas are more

17 clearly defined and the idea of a Greater Serbia in which there would be

18 no national minorities and in which the Muslim issue would be regulated.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So we will see this more clearly

20 as we move on.

21 Madam Dahl.

22 Yes, Mr. Seselj.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think that there

24 has been some confusion intentionally. The Prosecution has not provided

25 the original of Stevan Moljevic's text from 1941. The Prosecution has

1 provided a collection of texts which the authors have called the United

2 Serb Lands, the Ravna Gora National Programme. The authors are Milan

3 Besovic and Kosta Nikolic, and this collection was published in Belgrade

4 in 1996.

5 I wish to remind you that the witness himself told you that when

6 this text was written, Stevan Moljevic did not belong to the Chetnik

7 Movement; he joined two months later. This is the personal text of Stevan

8 Moljevic published in a magazine and not the official programme. And had

9 the Prosecution provided you with a photocopy of the original text, you

10 would see from which publication it was taken and what the date is. The

11 Prosecution does this tendentiously, a brochure from 1996 --

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I understand what

13 you are telling us.

14 Mr. Witness, you have heard what Mr. Seselj said. The documents

15 in this binder have been drawn from publication dated 1996. So the

16 accused tells us that the original programme is not there. What would be

17 your comment?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Regarding the document itself, it is

19 a study of the national programme of the Ravna Gora Movement, carried out

20 by two Belgrade university academics. So it was a very serious study

21 which presented a compilation of documents relating to the national Serb

22 programme during the Second World War. As I noted a moment ago, this was

23 a document drafted at the time by Stevan Moljevic, who was still not

24 linked to the Ravna Gora Movement. He became in August 1941 as a member

25 of the Central National Committee; and he will become later on, as of

1 1943, number 2 of the Dragica Vasic movement who will withdraw; and he

2 will, in fact, become the main ideologue of the movement, who will be able

3 to promote his political ideas which were shared by a large number of

4 intellectuals, members of the Ravna Gora Movement.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, but you're not

6 answering the question nor the remark by Mr. Seselj. This Ravna Gora

7 Movement of which Stevan Moljevic became a member, and the document in

8 front of us is a document by Moljevic. Is there an official programme of

9 the Ravna Gora Movement in 1941 or the writings of Stevan Moljevic?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the summer of 1941, the

11 intellectual committee of politicians who supported the Draza Mihajlovic

12 movement in Belgrade will prepare a political programme which specified

13 that the objective was the creation of a united Serb state, in which there

14 would be no national minorities. And we will find elements of this

15 programme in the documents of the command of the Ravna Gora Movement a few

16 months later and in a directive dated December 1941 by the command of the

17 Ravna Gora Movement, and it is addressed to military leaders of

18 Montenegro, Djordje Lasic and Pavle Djurisic.

19 And, in that document, we find definitions of the principle

20 objectives of the movement; the creation of a Greater Serbia in a Greater

21 Yugoslavia. One cannot say that there's a single document which was

22 drafted to help understand the Ravna Gora Movement. We are obliged to

23 take into consideration the documents emanating from the Ravna Gora

24 command and the correspondence between members of the National Central

25 Committee of Intellectuals linked to the movement, and also we have to

1 take into account the press which was -- the press writings by this

2 movement.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So in -- I get the impression

4 that there were two important documents, the one in summer made by the

5 Ravna Gora committee, which is a political programme. And this text, does

6 it appear in the documents in front of us?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Which document?

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The political programme from the

9 summer of 1941 drafted by the Ravna Gora committee. Does this document

10 exist? Is it in our list?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the list that I have prepared?

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, which the Prosecutor has

13 included in its binder.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is mentioned in my report.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So it is a document that you

16 have seen. And a second, which according to you is important, is the

17 directive dated December 1941 addressed to military leaders. Is this

18 directive in the Prosecution binder or is it a document that you have seen

19 in preparing your report?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is a document that I have seen,

21 and it is a well-known document by historians. It is a classical document

22 when studying the history of the Ravna Gora Movement.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And this directive, is it in the

24 binder or not?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think not.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] How come that two documents that

2 are important are not included in the binder submitted to the Judges for

3 their appreciation?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But they appear in my report; they

5 are clearly mentioned there.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I see that is your answer;

7 however, the accused is challenging this. And, therefore, I would have

8 preferred to compare this political programme with document number 4, you

9 see.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

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

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have two other points to make

13 which are very important for these proceedings to be correct. The witness

14 himself said that a group of Belgrade intellectuals worked on a programme.

15 He said that they were close to the movement, but they were never members

16 of the movement. So a group of intellectuals sat down and put their

17 thoughts on paper. There's no official evidence of this.

18 The Witness also mentions a non-existent document. If that

19 document would have existed, he would have brought it, but he's referring

20 to a forgery prepared by the communists during the trial of Draza

21 Mihajlovic. It is an alleged directive of Mihajlovic to Djurisic.

22 There's another forgery, an order sent to Draza Mihajlovic on the

23 execution of Muslims in Foca. Both documents were forged by the

24 communists; they never existed. As they have not been produced, it is

25 clear that the Prosecution is avoiding a discussion of those documents.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is very difficult to follow

2 Mr. Seselj, who has encyclopedic knowledge and he has so many facts in

3 mind. So it is difficult for me to understand what he is saying. The

4 directive, if that is the one he is referring to, was apparently

5 fabricated by the communists and that was produced during a trial.

6 Do you have any information about that?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let us say that, during the 1990s,

8 there was an attempt to re-evaluate the Ravna Gora Movement, and certain

9 authors did say that a certain number of documents were seized by the

10 communists at the end of the war, and these documents were seized by the

11 communists, the Ravna Gora Movement documents.

12 In most of the studies devoted to this movement that I have read,

13 I never saw any discussions about the directive of the 20th of December,

14 1941. There was a debate concerning another document I mentioned produced

15 by the Belgrade group, but the real discussion that I am aware of concerns

16 this first document.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We'll certainly see

18 things more clearly as we move on, because this is all extremely

19 complicated.

20 Madam, you have the floor. I see the registrar, who is telling

21 me that it is 10.00, and we need to have a break, as we started at 8.30.

22 Yes, Madam Dahl, you have something to say before the break?

23 MS. DAHL: If I may very briefly simply have this document

24 mentioned by Mr. Moljevic marked for identification, so that we can

25 eliminate that housekeeping detail when we resume.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is the number, please?

2 THE REGISTRAR: [Previous translation continues]...

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We're going to have

4 a 20-minute break now.

5 One moment. The registrar must give us the number again because

6 it was not recorded in the transcript.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, MFI P141.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Now we see it in the

9 transcript.

10 We'll have a 20-minute break.

11 --- Recess taken at 10.01 a.m.

12 --- On resuming at 10.21 a.m.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing is resumed. For the

14 benefit of the interpreters, when using French, we must make pauses

15 between questions and answers; otherwise, there may be problems. So we

16 have to discipline ourselves.

17 Madam Dahl.

18 MS. DAHL: Thank you, Your Honour.

19 Before the break, the Presiding Judge put a question to the

20 witness regarding the evidence selected in the binder that we were

21 discussing with him. That was --

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I must ask the French booth to

23 put on their microphones because I can't hear them.

24 MS. DAHL: Would you like me to repeat my question, Your Honour?

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, I understood. Please

1 proceed.

2 MS. DAHL: We have not included on our exhibit list of the

3 documents selected and examined by Mr. Tomic in his historical analysis of

4 the Greater Serbia ideology. If there's a particular document that the

5 Chamber would like to examine in its original state, I'm happy to provide

6 it. Over the break, I counted the number of sources in Mr. Tomic's

7 bibliography at 114, and we would be happy to provide any further

8 information that the Chamber deems relevant.

9 There is a substantial amount of material quoted in Mr. Tomic's

10 report, and it was my considered judgement that that was sufficient to

11 bring the information to the Chamber, and I will confirm with Mr. Tomic

12 how he selected documents for inclusion in his study.

13 Q. Mr. Tomic, before the break, Mr. Seselj raised a position that

14 the -- some of the material regarding Draza Mihajlovic was not authentic.

15 Can you tell me how you selected documents to rely on in preparation of

16 your expert report?

17 A. I used archival documents during the communist period. There were

18 collections regarding the Ravna Gora Movement. I used works relating to

19 or studies regarding the national movement of Ravna -- the national

20 programme of the Ravna Gora Movement; also, and specifically, work

21 analysing the press of the Ravna Gora Movement; and here we find a

22 selection of articles coming from various Chetnik units at the time.

23 Q. Can you compare for me the difference between historical analysis

24 of an event and a political analysis?

25 A. Could you repeat your question, please? I didn't quite get it.

1 Q. Can you compare for me an analysis of an event or a set of

2 documents that has historical purpose in the analysis, as opposed to the

3 achievement of a political objective in the analysis of the event or set

4 of documents?

5 A. Regarding the Ravna Gora Movement, one must bear in mind it is not

6 a political party; it is a military movement that has a political

7 dimension. But in the first place, it is a military movement; and,

8 therefore, when one analyses this movement --

9 Q. Let me see if I can clarify. You said before that in the early

10 1990s, there were some studies that were questioning documents and that

11 you were familiar with them. Were those studies motivated by political

12 objectives?

13 A. What we can say is that the history of the Ravna Gora Movement

14 during the communist period was described by the victors, by the

15 communists; therefore, there was no objective treatment of the Ravna Gora

16 Movement. However, after 1990, when there was a change in Serbia, there

17 was a series of works which appeared, which are again not more objective.

18 There was a tendency to rehabilitate the Ravna Gora Movement. But

19 again, we don't have any guarantee of the objectivity of those studies to

20 the extent that authors wished to portray that movement in the best

21 possible light, and especially certain dimensions of that movement.

22 Therefore, when one is a historian, one cannot always be sure of

23 finding the truth because this is a subject which provokes passions, not

24 by the actual participants because they are less and less numerous, but by

25 historians who have different views on the issue.

1 Having said that, certain documents are false, as has been said,

2 but this does not affect the principle -- main principles of the Ravna

3 Gora Movement.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In this connection I looked at

5 your report and this directive of the 20th of December, 1941, addressed to

6 Major Lazic, commander of Chetnik units of the Yugoslav Army in

7 Montenegro, and Captain Djuric, commander of a Chetnik unit in Lim, again

8 in Montenegro.

9 The fourth objective is important, and I read it: "The cleansing

10 of the territory of the state of all national minorities and non-national

11 elements." This sentence in itself is terrible.

12 But at the bottom of the page, you see again a document by two

13 authors, Dedijer and Miletic. In the footnote, this document is referred

14 to. Did you ask yourself whether this is authentic? Because you yourself

15 said a moment ago that Ravna Gora Movement was analysed under the

16 communist regime and therefore anything is possible.

17 And when you saw this document, did you ask yourself: Was there

18 perhaps a manipulation? Is it true? Is it false? Because it appears as

19 such in your report. And I must add that in support of this document, you

20 add at the bottom that: "Similar objectives were also expressed in the

21 programme of the Dinaric division in March 1942."

22 When one reads this, one has the impression that the cleansing of

23 the territory of all national minorities is a very specific instruction.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's quite true that I didn't

25 investigate the authenticity of this document that is referred to in

1 numerous studies on Ravna Gora, and that is because the ideas expressed in

2 document are ideas that were shared by numerous intellectuals and

3 politicians from the 1930s onwards.

4 On an official level in Yugoslavia or in the Kingdom of

5 Yugoslavia, in the course of the 1930s, there was even the desire to

6 reduce the weight of national minorities in Yugoslavia. From the 1930s

7 onwards, the Yugoslav government wanted to conclude an agreement with

8 Turkey, an agreement on the departure of about 200.000 Muslims from

9 Yugoslavia to Turkey.

10 This agreement was concluded in 1938 after numerous years of

11 negotiation. It wasn't applied, given that it posed numerous practical

12 problems: How to move, for example, 200.000 individuals; who's to pay for

13 the train to Thessalonika; who would organize the transport. The Second

14 World War then broke out and this programme, this agreement, never came to

15 light, was never implemented.

16 But as of the 1930s, there was a predominant idea in Yugoslavia

17 according to which it was necessary to reduce the number of ethnic

18 minorities who represented 16, 17 per cent of the population in 1928. If

19 you have ethnic minorities within a state, other states could make use of

20 these ethnic minorities in order to destabilize the state in question.

21 So these are ideas that we can find at an official level, at a

22 political level, and these ideas are shared by a certain number of

23 intellectuals who gathered within an organization named the Serbian

24 Cultural Club.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So this idea of ethnic cleansing

1 goes back to the 1930s then?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that at the time there was

3 an exchange of population between Turkey and Greece after the First World

4 War; and in a certain number of European countries, this exchange was

5 regarded as a possible solution to deal with the problem of ethnic

6 minorities. So at the time, in certain circles, this idea of a population

7 exchange wasn't thought to be shocking.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj had something he

9 wanted to say.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have noticed that the

11 witness is expanding the scope of his expert report, of its contents, and

12 I insist that he bring the secret document tomorrow, the document that was

13 an agreement between the Government of Yugoslavia and Turkey, a document

14 on moving 200.000 Muslims to Turkey. He should bring this document

15 because I am claiming that this is fabricated.

16 The agreement was based on the desire of the Muslims and the

17 Albanians, and that was after the 1920s. After the war in Greece, they

18 wanted them to move to Turkey. The government helped those who wanted to

19 be helped, but they tried to persuade them to remain in Yugoslavia.

20 Nevertheless, this is being fabricated by the witness, and I insist on the

21 witness obtaining the document. He says it is secret, but this is a

22 non-existent document. He says this from the 1930s.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This agreement

24 between Turkey and Yugoslavia in the 1930s, the agreement on moving

25 200.000 Muslims to another country, to Turkey, do you have this document

1 since its objectives are being contested?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have the document itself,

3 but I do have an article, a study, carried out by a Belgrade historian, I

4 think, a Serbian historian in any event, and he's looked into the matter.

5 He looked into the movement of Muslims from Yugoslavia to Turkey at the

6 time.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And who is he?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] His name is Jovanovic. I would have

9 to check this, but it's a recent study that appeared in a collective work

10 that I have here with me in The Hague, and I can bring it here tomorrow.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Bring it here

12 tomorrow then.

13 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] In the 1930s, the Muslims, were

14 they perceived as a religious group, as a minority religious group perhaps

15 in Serbia, or were they perceived as an ethnic group, as was the case

16 later on? They now perceived as an ethnic group.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When we talk about Muslims in the

18 Kingdom of Yugoslavia, it's necessary to make a distinction between

19 several groups of populations. First of all, we have the Muslim Slavs.

20 They spoke Serbo-Croat at the time, that's what we called it; and then

21 there are the Muslims who come from ethnic minorities, Albanians for the

22 most part but there is also a Turkish Muslim minority which is quite

23 numerous in Macedonia in particular and also to a certain extent in

24 Kosovo.

25 Between the two world wars, the Muslim Slavs were represented by a

1 political party, the Muslim Organization of Yugoslavia, and this party

2 cooperated with most of the governments at the time. And one could,

3 generally speaking, say that these Muslim Slavs, or rather, the Muslims of

4 Bosnia and Herzegovina, were not concerned by this agreement between

5 Yugoslavia and Turkey. This agreement, this treaty concerned exclusively

6 the Kosovo and Macedonian Muslims.

7 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl.

9 MS. DAHL: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 Let me ask the registrar to bring up on the screen 65 ter number

11 4126.

12 Q. Mr. Tomic, let me ask you to turn to map 7 in your report. Can

13 you tell me what this map is?

14 A. Well, in fact, this is a map from the work that we referred to a

15 while ago. It's on the national programme of the Ravna Gora Movement, and

16 this map also comes from a study by Tomasevich on the Chetniks. It's the

17 history of the Ravna Gora Movement. It represents -- this map represents

18 a Greater Serbia within a Greater Yugoslavia, because, in fact, the Ravna

19 Gora Movement wanted to establish a Greater Serbia but it also wanted to

20 extend the territory of Yugoslavia at the expense of Bulgaria, Romania,

21 Hungary, Austria, and of Italy.

22 MS. DAHL: Can I have this map at 65 ter number 4126 marked for

23 identification.

24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, MFI P142.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour. Your Honour, I insist

1 on the witness stating his position clearly. He should say what this map

2 is. Is this a Ravna Gora Movement map or is it the personal map of Stevan

3 Moljevic? We should know where this map was published and when. It's

4 important for the witness to give us precise information. We don't just

5 want to hear stories without any connection from him.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could we have the map on the

7 screen again because it's disappeared now.

8 Very well. Witness, as for the origin of this map, does it come

9 from the Ravna Gora Movement, someone else? What could you tell us for

10 certain?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, this is a map, in fact, that

12 must have been based on the Stevan Moljevic document that -- what he puts

13 forward is something put forward in the Ravna Gora Movement. The idea of

14 a Greater Serbia isn't just his idea; it's an idea shared by most of the

15 leaders of this movement. And from the end of the 1930s, there are

16 intellectuals who want to create a Serbian entity within the Kingdom of

17 Yugoslavia, and these intellectuals include Stevan Moljevic and Dragica

18 Vasic, and we can find them as part of the political movement of the Ravna

19 Gora Movement.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When I have a look at this map,

21 if I have understood everything correctly, Greater Serbia, according to

22 the authors of the map, is the entity we see depicted here. There are

23 certain zones that are in shadow, but they are supposed to be part of

24 the -- of Greater Serbia. For example, if we have a look at Romania, I

25 can see Timisoara. Everybody has heard of Timisoara, so that would be

1 part of Greater Serbia?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That would be -- well, it would be

3 added. This is territory, contiguous. It would become part of Greater

4 Serbia.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Why?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, this is the Banat region and

7 there is a Serbian minority that lives there, so the idea was to attach,

8 to Serbian territory, Romanian or Bulgarian territory inhabited by Serbs,

9 where Serbs would be more or less in the majority.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Because they have a religion, a

11 culture; those Serbs they have a religion and a culture. What criteria is

12 being followed?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because they are Serbs, that's why

14 this territory would be attached. There's a national minority in the

15 Romanian Banat, and this is a geographic area divided between these two

16 countries, between Serbia and Romania.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you are saying they are Serbs

18 themselves. Can you tell me how one can identify a Serb? What are the

19 criteria that allows one to say someone is a Serb, a Croat, or something

20 else?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the Serbs are Orthodox but

22 they would also identify themselves as Serbs. Croats are Catholic. It's

23 true that religion is a very important factor that allows one to

24 distinguish them.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So we have religion. What else?

1 What other criteria?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, there's an idea of a common

3 national identity, the feeling of belonging to a historical community.

4 That's the case since the Middle Ages. Perhaps one has the feeling of

5 having certain experiences. The Serbs in those regions are Serbs who must

6 have fled from parts of southern Serbia, Kosovo, Macedonia, during the

7 Ottoman rule. They settled in south of Hungary and that later became part

8 of Romania.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As for the Italian element, why

10 would they be Serbs?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in this case, it's not a

12 matter of attaching this territory to Slovenia, in fact, or to Croatia.

13 This is territory inhabited either by Croats or Slovenes. So, in this

14 case, Serbian interests aren't being taken into consideration; the

15 interests of Slovenes or Croats are, however.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So even people who aren't Serbs

17 could be considered as belonging to a Greater Serbia?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in fact, as far as the

19 territory in Austria and Italy is concerned, it's a matter of attaching to

20 a Greater Yugoslavia these -- this territory inhabited by Slovenian

21 minorities. So, in the project of Greater Yugoslavia, one didn't only

22 take into consideration the interests of the Serbs, the national interests

23 of the Serbs, but also the national interests of the Slovenes.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I understood you correctly,

25 in the concept of a Greater Yugoslavia, we had a Greater Serbia that is

1 part of a Greater Yugoslavia?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It's a matter of establishing

3 a federal state with three entities, three federal units: A very large

4 federal unit which would be Serbia; a smaller unit, which would be

5 Croatia; and there would be a federal unit, a Slovenian unit that would be

6 extended to a large extent.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I have understood this

8 correctly, the map that I have before me represents a Greater Yugoslavia?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, within the Ravna Gora

10 Movement, the idea is to have a Greater Serbia and a Greater Yugoslavia.

11 One believed that a Greater Yugoslavia would be big and important state

12 within the Balkans, and each component entity, the Serbian entity, the

13 Croatian entity, and the Slovene entity, would thus be in a position to

14 oppose the so-called imperial aspirations of neighbouring states.

15 Similarly, there was the idea of having a state sufficiently

16 strong, that would be sufficiently strong in the region, because Stevan

17 Moljevic also speaks about the hegemony of a Greater Serbia and Greater

18 Yugoslavia in the Balkans.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I must yet again

20 insist on having the witness saying whether this is an official map from

21 the Ravna Gora Movement or is it a private map based on Stevan Moljevic's

22 ideas, a map that was perhaps supported by some other intellectuals whose

23 identity we do not know. This is something the witness should inform us

24 about; otherwise, everything will be confusing.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, no. There's no confusion.

1 I think he's already provided an answer.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can be more specific. In January

3 1944, there was a congress in the village of Ba in Serbia, which gathered

4 not only the Ravna Gora Movement but also some representatives of

5 political parties. During that congress, this idea of a Greater Serbia in

6 a Greater Yugoslavia was taken up. We have the resolutions, the decisions

7 of that congress, which to a large extent come from the Ravna Gora

8 Movement.

9 So this idea started in the late 1930s, basically since the

10 creation of an autonomous Croatian area in 1939. The Kingdom of

11 Yugoslavia, during the inter-war period, was basically confronted with the

12 Croatian national questions, because the Croats demanded autonomy within

13 Yugoslavia.

14 In 1939, in August 1939, there was an agreement between the

15 government and the main Croatian political leaders creating an entity

16 called Banovina of Croatia within Yugoslavia. So, as of the moment, when

17 a Croatian entity was created, the Serbs, too, demanded that a Serbian

18 entity be created, which they would name as they wanted to call Serbian

19 lands. As to the Slovenes, they're going to present the same demands; and

20 Muslim Slavs, too, are going to demand autonomy for Bosnia and

21 Herzegovina.

22 So you can see that at the time in 1939, a process has been

23 started of a reorganization of Yugoslavia on a federal basis. Before, it

24 was a very centralised state. One nation alone was acknowledged; that's

25 the Yugoslav nation. But this restructuring started as a process in 1939;

1 however, it did not -- it was not completely done because we had the war

2 in 1941.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is your argument to explain

4 the map, but the question was very precise. This map, does it come from

5 Stevan Moljevic or from the Ravna Gora Movement? Can't you answer the

6 question?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that it was based on

8 documents that we saw earlier on of the documents written by Stevan

9 Moljevic --

10 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Established by whom?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By Stevan Moljevic.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have a map in front of us.

13 Who made it?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it was accompanying the text

15 we saw before, because it was published in a journal in 1941. So I think

16 it goes together with that text. But this being said --

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You don't have an exact answer

18 as to the author, the one who made this map?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I don't have any specific

20 answer on that -- in that respect.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Dahl.

22 MS. DAHL:

23 Q. Mr. Tomic, could you read the caption on the upper left-hand side

24 of the map.

25 A. "The Chetnik map of Yugoslavia published in a brochure, Nasput, in

1 1941. The author was Dr. Stevan Moljevic, a close associate of General

2 Draza Mihajlovic. In addition to the internal borders of Serbia towards

3 Croatia, this map implied correcting the Yugoslav borders with all the

4 neighbouring states who were on the side of the occupiers, partly as war

5 damages that were reckoned with and partly because of the unjust

6 delineations in 1918.

7 "At the end of the war, the greatest benefit from the correction

8 of borders were derived by Slovenia and Croatia and Serbia only to a

9 minimum extent because on its behalf Tito renounced war damages which were

10 due to it, either in the form of territory or funds from Bulgaria,

11 Albania, and Germany.

12 "The question of compensation which Croatia was supposed to pay

13 was never raised; but on the contrary, it was rewarded with new

14 territories which is a precedent in the history of wars."

15 Q. You mentioned, in answer to the Presiding Judge's question, that

16 the Ravna Gora Movement convened a congress in the village of Ba in

17 January 1944. What was the intention of the congress?

18 A. The intention of this congress was to try and get the Ravna Gora

19 Movement out of this political impasse. This dead-end street inasmuch as

20 the movement had been abandoned by the Western Allies. The Western Allies

21 had decided to support the communist resistance movement, which they

22 thought was more efficient against the German occupier. And also --

23 Q. Did the --

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I haven't finished my answer.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please, Mr. Seselj, only raise

2 an objection if it is fundamental. Sometimes you speak but you should do

3 that during cross-examination, because you know when you speak time is

4 lost. And it's either the Prosecution or the Judges' time, and it's not

5 taken away from your time. So only speak if it is essential, if there is

6 a major historical untruth or error, or if you challenge a document. If

7 you now challenge what the witness says, you can do so in

8 cross-examination.

9 Please finish your answer, Witness.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In November 1943, the Communist

11 Partisan Movement organized what the future Yugoslav republics' power

12 would be by establishing a federal structure with six republics. You can

13 see, therefore, that there is some urgency for this movement to give an

14 answer to the issues raised by its rival at the time.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj, what did you

16 want to say? What do you challenge? Do you challenge this? What's just

17 been said seemed logical to me, so what's wrong with it?

18 THE ACCUSED: Mr. President, I'm doing my best to make only

19 procedural objections without interfering in the statement of the witness,

20 and my procedural objection related to the previous question. We have

21 been shown some sort of a map of Greater Serbia which is attributed to

22 Stevan Moljevic.

23 Madam Dahl has not provided us with a photocopy of the journal of

24 Nasput of 1991, but she took a map from a book by Jozo Tomasevich, War and

25 Revolution in Yugoslavia. It is a book published in the States in 1975.

1 Jozo Tomasevich is a Croat by ethnicity and an American by citizenship.

2 She is giving us his map and attributing it to Stevan Moljevic. She

3 should have found the original map by Stevan Moljevic.

4 So i think that this is a purely procedural objection. I'm really

5 not interfering in the testimony of this witness. I just insist on

6 documents being described with detail and being told exactly what a

7 document represents, rather than being offered another one, which is not

8 the same.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you have this map and

10 then in the upper left-hand corner a commentary. What Mr. Seselj says is

11 that this was a map established by Mr. Tomasevich, apparently an American

12 citizen of Croat decent. What do you have to say?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the map is basically the same

14 in these two pieces of work. If you take into account the territories

15 indicated by Moljevic at the time, you have the same map. Tomasevich did

16 not invent this map. He just took a map that had been printed at the time

17 in 1941, that by Moljevic. And Tomasevich is, indeed, of Croat origin,

18 but he is regarded as somebody who is not so negative towards the Chetnik

19 Movement in his position.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So if your answer to

21 Mr. Seselj's objection is that Mr. Tomasevich basically only took again

22 the map by Stevan Moljevic and you say that these are identical maps?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, nearly.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Are they identical or are they

25 basically the same?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not notice any differences.

2 If any, then it's a detail only.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We have not been provided with the

4 map by Stevan Moljevic. In the expert report by this witness, we have a

5 map by Jozo Tomasevich. It is a geographic map 7, a component part of the

6 expert report. Madam Dahl has presented us with the same map with

7 comments written by a Serb author obviously many years after the Second

8 World War. It could not have been Stevan Moljevic because Moljevic was

9 arrested by the communists and sentenced to many years' imprisonment, and

10 I think he died in prison.

11 So we have one map that has been identified. Mrs. Dahl has not

12 identified the second one, and we do not have the original one from the

13 journal, Nasput. It has been preserved; there are copies of it. Why

14 didn't she produce it?

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, it appears that in this

16 journal, Nasput, there was this map by Moljevic, and Mr. Seselj is asking

17 why it was not used. Do you have an answer?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was not able to find this issue.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you don't have it?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. But the authors who used this

21 map, when they wrote this book on the National Programme of the Ravna Gora

22 Movement are authors, one of whom is a specialist in Serbia of the history

23 of the Ravna Gora Movement.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, if you do have the

25 map from Nasput, you can show it to the witness, because he says that he

1 doesn't have it but he trusts those who worked on it, including somebody

2 who was a specialist in the history of the Ravna Gora Movement.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Kosta Nikolic who wrote three

4 volumes on the history of the Ravna Gora Movement and had -- and published

5 other works, some of which were mentioned previously.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

7 Ms. Dahl.

8 MS. DAHL:

9 Q. Mr. Tomic, in --

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, all of these

11 interventions of mine would have been unnecessary if the Prosecutor and

12 the witness had clearly stated what we are talking about. The source of

13 one man is Jozo Tomasevich; the source of the other is Kosta Nikolic, a

14 new author who studied this issue. There is no original map. You see how

15 much time we could have saved if they had clearly stated all this right at

16 the beginning instead of us turning around in a circle and concealing

17 certain facts.

18 MS. DAHL: Your Honour --

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We got the message. Well, this

20 Moljevic apparently died in detention; and according to Mr. Seselj, he had

21 been arrested by the communists. Did he have any publications? Do you

22 have books with maps?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I was able to find is

24 reproductions of the texts and the map, but this map is not challenged not

25 even by expert historians of the Ravna Gora Movement, including Kosta

1 Nikolic, who's not at all a historian --

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But we have no material document

3 that makes it possible to ascribe the authorship to Mr. Moljevic with

4 certainty?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but these historians worked on

6 archives, military archives in Belgrade. I just wanted to stress that

7 Kosta Nikolic is a historian who's not at all negative towards the Ravna

8 Gora Movement.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl.

10 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, it would seem that Mr. Seselj's objection

11 lacks a good-faith basis that there is some discrepancies in this map in

12 the historical record, and I would ask that he be precluded from

13 interrupting the examination and obfuscating the points that I'm trying to

14 elicit from the witness's testimony.

15 Q. Mr. Tomic, can you describe how Mr. Moljevic viewed the objective

16 of creating a homogenous Serbia?

17 A. Stevan Moljevic hails from Banja Luka in Bosnia and Herzegovina,

18 and his interest has always been to defend the Serbs from that area. When

19 he suggested that a Greater Serbia be created, a Greater Serbia that would

20 extend to Bosnia-Herzegovina, to Dalmatia, up to the north of Sibenik, he

21 wanted this territory to be nationally as homogenous as possible.

22 So he did not want to have a co-habitation or co-existence of

23 Serbs and Croats in that territory because the massacres against the --

24 because of the massacres against the Serbs in 1941 and 1942 in the

25 territory of the Independent Croat state.

1 Q. Did he advocate taking over and ethnically cleansing certain

2 towns?

3 A. Yes. He indicated a certain number of towns that needed to be

4 taken over and which needed to be captured in Slavonia, which was part of

5 the territory of the Independent State of Croatia.

6 Q. Can you list the towns from which he recommended driving out

7 Croats and Muslims?

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have to make another

9 objection. I did not hear the witness say that Moljevic advocated the

10 expulsion of Croats and Muslims from certain towns and territories, and we

11 were supplied here with a copy of Moljevic's text from which we can see

12 that he advocated an exchange of populations. And I think it is clear to

13 anyone that exchange and expulsion is not the same --

14 MS. DAHL: Your Honour --

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- and this is a leading question

16 which is put to the expert which are also impermissible.

17 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, these are matters for Mr. Seselj to raise

18 with the witness in cross-examination, and I think that the procedures

19 need to be applied fairly so that my direct examination is not

20 unnecessarily interrupted.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are right, but Mr. Seselj

22 appears to be reproaching you for a leading question which I didn't

23 notice. So could you rephrase it, please.

24 MS. DAHL:

25 Q. Mr. Tomic, let's turn to your report at page 53, and I'd like to

1 directly your attention to the Ravna Gora Movement and its policy on

2 ethnic cleansing. In your analysis of Mr. Moljevic's positions, did you

3 form an opinion about whether he took a position on the means by which to

4 accomplish his objective of creating a Greater Serbia?

5 A. During the war, he mentioned exchanges of population, but also the

6 cleansing of non-Serb elements from territories that should have been

7 taken --

8 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] -- ethnic cleansing?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

10 MS. DAHL:

11 Q. What territories did he recommend be ethnically cleansed of

12 inhabitants who were not Serbs?

13 A. He mentions, in a letter addressed to Dragisa Vasic, the towns of

14 Slavonia of the military border, Karlovac, Knin, and also towns in

15 Herzegovina like Mostar and Metkovic. Actually, being from Banja Luka,

16 Moljevic, while accompanying Draza Mihajlovic, he constantly spoke of the

17 western territories of Serbs, and he insisted with Draza that they defend

18 the interests of the Serbs in these regions, because these populations

19 were not sufficiently supported during the inter-war period. And that is

20 why the town he mentions are towns that were within the Banovina or

21 Croatia -- of Croatia or part of the Independent State of Croatia in

22 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] On page 53, I'm going to read,

24 and you say: "According to Moljevic, it was a question of applying the

25 policy of fait accompli. The mapped-out territory had to be taken over,

1 in the first place," such and such towns, "and to proceed with cleansing."

2 And, in footnote 106, this was contained in a letter addressed to

3 Dragisa Vasic, and this letter was published in a work published by

4 Dedijer and Miletic.

5 So this document which could have been important, why didn't you

6 include it in your report, this document?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Actually, it is a letter. It is

8 part of a private correspondence, if you like, between two members of the

9 movement. So it is not of the same nature as a brochure of 1941, for

10 example, when reference is made to homogenous Serbia.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So he speaks of cleansing in

12 private correspondence?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. But it reflects the ideas that

14 had been previously formulated, and I referred to this earlier.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So this letter exists; it is in

16 this work?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have quoted most of the works that

18 refer to this document.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

20 Please continue, Mrs. Dahl.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, just a brief

22 objection. The author should now -- or the author of this expert report

23 should state clearly that the original source of this document is a

24 collection of documents and data of the National Liberation War of the

25 Peoples of Yugoslavia, volume 14, book 1. He states this in footnote

1 106. That is the first source, and that collection is full of forged

2 documents which the communists produced for political and ideological

3 reasons. Everything else uncritically taken over by individual authors is

4 not relevant for us here.

5 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, this is a matter for cross-examination,

6 and Mr. Seselj --

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are right.

8 MS. DAHL: -- should be asked to bring forward the evidence he is

9 referring to, rather than casting aspersions on documents without proof.

10 Q. Now, did the Ravna Gora Movement issue a programme that concerned

11 the radical cleansing of towns to remove non-Serb elements?

12 A. Yes, indeed, this happened. These are not actions that one found

13 between 1941 and 1944. But it is true that specifically in 1942 in the

14 region of Foca in Bosnia, Eastern Bosnia, and also in January and February

15 1943, again in Eastern Bosnia and also in Sandzak, units under the command

16 of Djurisic, who was a leader of the Yugoslav Army in the homeland, these

17 units did massacre civilian populations.

18 So these were reprisals at the time following attacks suffered by

19 the Chetniks. But when we see the number of victims in each of these --

20 on each of these sides, we see that there were very few victims on the

21 Chetnik side, a certain number of military victims among the Muslims who

22 were involved in these operations, but above all there were women and

23 children and the elderly who were killed in large numbers.

24 So historians asked themselves the question whether this was

25 purely an operation in reprisal, or was there a link between the idea of

1 creating a homogenous Greater Serbia and these events. And we note that

2 in certain documents mention is made of the regulation of the Muslim

3 question and the cleansing of Muslims from certain territories, and one

4 can therefore conclude that this was part of the motivation behind these

5 events with a view to reducing the number of Muslims in the areas.

6 Q. Did Mr. Djurisic make reports on the killings by his units?

7 A. Yes, to several reports to the command, to the military command,

8 of the Ravna Gora Movement, in which he described the operations conducted

9 at the time and especially in January and February 1943.

10 Q. Who was the military command at the time that Mr. Djurisic

11 reported to?

12 A. He reported to Draza Mihajlovic, who was the supreme commander of

13 the Ravna Gora Movement and at the same time the Defence Minister.

14 Q. Now, I believe that your report at pages 55 and 56 reproduces two

15 reports from 1943 by Mr. Djurisic to Draza Mihajlovic. Can you summarize

16 the first report that he made with regard to the number of villages, the

17 casualties of Muslims versus the casualties of the Chetniks?

18 A. He gives a list of Muslim villages that were completely destroyed,

19 a total of 33 villages. He speaks of 400 Muslim combatants that were

20 killed and about 1.000 women and children killed, and the victims on the

21 Chetnik side were 14 killed and 26 wounded.

22 Q. Does he indicate whether the attack was carried out as planned?

23 A. He says, at the beginning of the document, that the operation was

24 conducted exactly as envisaged.

25 Q. Did he report what happened to the villages after the attack?

1 A. He indicates that they were burnt down, that the villages were

2 burnt down.

3 Q. Did Commander Djurisic send in a further report to Draza

4 Mihajlovic?

5 A. In other operations of the 13th of February, 1943, he states or he

6 describes the operations in the way they were conducted and he provides

7 the casualty lists.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Between the two reports, I am

9 astonished by the figures. The first report of the 10th of January, 400

10 Muslim fighters; second report, number of Muslim combatants, 1.200, if the

11 figure 1.200 is correct. So there was fighting between the two sides and

12 these combats resulted in losses among Djurisic's troops amounting to 22

13 killed and 32 wounded. So the Muslims in all these villages, 33 villages,

14 defended themselves. There must have been armed conflict.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Clearly, there was resistance.

16 If there is an attack, there is some resistance.

17 But when we look at the number of victims on the Chetnik side, we

18 notice that either the attack was very speedy and the Muslim armed men

19 didn't have time to respond. There might have been the surprise effect.

20 Or if on the Chetnik side there were more soldiers, maybe that explains

21 the figures.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So these two documents

23 apparently of military origin, as they are combat reports, a Judge asks

24 himself two questions. First: Was there fighting, armed conflict,

25 followed by executions; or was there no conflict, everybody was taken

1 prisoner and executed? You did not focus on these operations. You simply

2 referred to two documents addressed by Djurisic to his Chief of Staff

3 Milanovic. Is that right?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I didn't go into the details.

5 But in view of the reports, I can only conclude that the combat didn't

6 last long if there were any at all.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

8 Madam Dahl.

9 MS. DAHL:

10 Q. In the third paragraph of the second report, which is reproduced

11 on your report, page 56, does Commander Djurisic indicate whether the

12 enemy offered resistance?

13 A. Which paragraph did you mention?

14 Q. This is the report of 13 February 1943, and in the English

15 translation there, it's the third full paragraph.

16 A. Yes. He says, in fact, that the resistance of the enemy was weak

17 from the beginning to the end.

18 Q. Is there any indication of whether the attack was carried out in

19 conformity with the orders and commands?

20 A. Yes. It is clearly stated, in the -- as in the first report, that

21 the operations were carried out in conformity with the orders and

22 commands. The attack started as planned.

23 Q. Can you look at the middle of the report with the sentence

24 beginning: "During the operation, the Muslim population," and can you

25 read that out, please, continuing through the list of casualties.

1 A. "During the operation, the Muslim population was completely

2 destroyed, irrespective of sex and age."

3 Q. And the next line.

4 A. "Casualties: We had 22 dead, two of whom were killed by accident,

5 and 32 wounded."

6 Q. And "Among the Muslims ..."

7 A. "Among the Muslims: 1.200 fighters and 8.000 women, elderly

8 people, and children."

9 Q. Would you kindly read the last paragraph.

10 A. "At the outset of the operation, the Muslims took flight towards

11 Metaljka, Cajnice, and the river Drina. Part of the population took

12 shelter in Metaljka. There are an estimated 2.000 refugees in Cajnice,

13 some of whom were able to get away before our units had blocked off

14 possible escape routes in this sector. The rest of the population was

15 completely destroyed."

16 Q. What was the estimate of the total number of victims in the

17 operations against the Muslims in January and February 1943?

18 A. Roughly 10.000, approximately 10.000, the number of victims during

19 these operations of January and February 1943.

20 Q. How about in Montenegro between 1942 and mid-1943?

21 A. The estimate is about 3.000 victims.

22 Q. Were divisions of the Ravna Gora Movement active at this

23 time-period in Croatia?

24 A. They were active in the Independent State of Croatia, which at the

25 time included the state of Croatia proper and part of Bosnia and

1 Herzegovina. In the region of Krajina, in Lika and the north of Dalmatia

2 and also in the Bosnian part of Krajina, there were operations by Chetnik

3 units of the region.

4 Q. Who commanded the Chetnik units in that region?

5 A. Momcilo Djujic, in one of the regions, he was the leader. He was

6 in command; he was the military leader.

7 Q. Now, your report covers an attack by Chetnik forces of Croatian

8 villages in 1942 and 1943. Can you focus on the Dinara operation in

9 October 1942? Can you tell me what forces commanded by Commander Djujic

10 did in Croatia?

11 A. Well, at the time, Momcilo Djujic was at the head of the Dinara

12 Chetnik division and were inside the Croatian independent state. There

13 were numerous cases of combat between the various parties. There were

14 fights between either the Chetniks and Croatian Ustasha, and similarly

15 between the Chetniks and the communist partisans. So it depended on the

16 incursions of the various parties into the territory. And depending on

17 these incursions, there were Chetnik responses; and in course of certain

18 operations, civilians were affected.

19 Q. At the end of the war, what happened with Commander Djujic?

20 A. Momcilo Djujic managed to escape, initially to Slovenia and then

21 to Italy. Later on, in the 1950s, he immigrated to the United States.

22 Q. What did he do in the United States with regard to the Chetnik

23 Movement?

24 A. He founded the Serbian Chetnik of Ravna Gora. In some way, he

25 nurtured this memory of the movement of the combatants. There were

1 commemorative events that were held regularly and every year. This

2 movement had assemblies in the course of those years. Well, it was a

3 movement of a veterans, so to speak.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Why wasn't he extradited from

5 the US? You mentioned something in your report.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were several requests for

7 extradition. I don't know of the exact reason for which he wasn't

8 extradited, but I think it was an isolated case because there were other

9 war criminals. It wasn't an isolated case.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, if there was a demand for

11 extradition, I -- well, in the 1990s in Yugoslavia, there must have been

12 an investigating judge who was dealing with everything that had happened

13 in the territory and who must have initiated this. Have you looked into

14 this matter or not?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not in detail.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Dahl, please continue.

17 Q. At the beginning of this morning, you mentioned that Momcilo

18 Djujic had proclaimed Dr. Seselj a Chetnik Vojvoda. When did that happen?

19 A. End of June, 1989. At the time, Vojislav Seselj went to the US

20 and held a number of conferences there for the Serbs from the US and for

21 former Chetniks.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In your conclusion, there seems

23 to be something that's incoherent in my opinion. You say, in June 1989,

24 Djujic made Seselj a Vojvoda, and then you continue and you say: "So

25 there is a direct link between the Chetnik Movement from the Second World

1 War and the political movement founded by Vojislav Seselj in 1990. Seselj

2 was made a Vojvoda in 1989.

3 How do you get to 1990 in the same sentence?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, we're dealing with June 1989

5 here, and then Vojislav Seselj established a party in January 1990. This

6 was the Libertas Movement, the Freedom Movement in Serb; and in June 1990,

7 he created the Serbian Chetnik Movement. The Chetnik Movement of Ravna

8 Gora led by Momcilo Djujic believed that the movement of Chetniks created

9 in Serbia was, in fact, part of his own movement. So he was, in fact,

10 responsible for the movement in the free world and the US in this case,

11 and Mr. Seselj was responsible for the movement in the homeland, in the

12 home country.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But when Mr. Seselj was made a

14 Vojvoda, at the time he wasn't at the head of that party?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. In fact, he wasn't at the head

16 of a party; he wasn't the leader of a party.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So it was a personal appointment

18 or nomination?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The first free elections took

20 place in spring 1990, so multi-party -- the multi-party system hadn't been

21 recognised at the time.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

23 Ms. Dahl.

24 MS. DAHL: May I ask what time we'll be taking the next break, so

25 I can plan my examination?

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We should be having a break at

2 11.50, so we have another 20 minutes before the break.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. President, perhaps

4 there's been an interpretation error, but I heard the witness say that the

5 first multi-party elections were held in spring 1990. That's what I

6 heard; that's how it was interpreted. I don't know whether that's

7 correct, but perhaps we could try and clear this up.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.

9 Sir, the multi-party elections, when were they held?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In April 1990 in Croatia; and then

11 in Slovenia; in Serbia, it was in December 1990.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So the multi-party elections,

13 April 1990 in Croatia and Slovenia and December 1990 in Serbia?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

15 MS. DAHL:

16 Q. In preparation of your report, did you undertake a study of the

17 writings and development of the political ideology of Dr. Seselj?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. When did Dr. Seselj begin taking part in political or intellectual

20 debates?

21 A. Well, I'd say that he started taking part in such debates, or

22 rather, he started publishing in 1991 --

23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: In 1981.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were articles in the Belgrade

25 press in which he put into question a certain number -- or he cast out a

1 certain number of Bosnian Muslim intellectuals. He accused them of

2 defending Islamist or pan-Islamist positions at the time. He also

3 denounced Branko Milesa's case of plagiarism. He was a leader of the

4 communist party in Bosnia. In Sarajevo, he had drafted a thesis for his

5 post-graduate studies, and he had copied certain passages. He had

6 plagiarised certain passages from authors who were leaders at the time.

7 So, when these articles were published, after they were published,

8 there were numerous debates that communist bodies in Bosnia and

9 Herzegovina reacted, in particular they reacted strongly in Sarajevo, and

10 they excluded Vojislav Seselj from the Yugoslav League of Communists in

11 December 1981.

12 MS. DAHL:

13 Q. Did Dr. Seselj formulate opinions about the Serbian national

14 question at that time?

15 A. In 1981, not immediately. It was a little later, after the

16 history that concern -- after the story that concerns the journalist's

17 investigation. It had to do with a communist newspaper, Bogavac. He was

18 involved in an investigation called, What To Do, and this was within the

19 political and economic crisis in Yugoslavia. He wanted to interrogate

20 some intellectuals to see what their opinions were on the crisis that the

21 country was going through.

22 Vojislav Seselj wanted to participate in this project and drafted

23 an article in which he said what his vision was of how the Yugoslav

24 Federation should be reorganized. This text was seized by the security

25 forces, by the police; and on the basis of this document which was never

1 published, he was condemned to eight years in prison.

2 Q. How long did he serve?

3 A. One year and ten months. In this document, he suggests that the

4 Yugoslav Federation be reorganized into four federal units; whereas, the

5 country was composed of six such units. And he suggested that the

6 country's federal units should be Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, and

7 Macedonia.

8 Q. Let me ask you to turn to page 69 in your report, where I believe

9 you quote some materials published by Dr. Seselj on this matter.

10 A. Yes. This is an extract from the document that was subsequently

11 published in one of Mr. Seselj's books.

12 Q. What book?

13 A. It was published in "Democracy and Dogma" in 1991.

14 Q. What were Mr. Seselj's views on the redrawing of borders between

15 Serbia and Croatia?

16 A. He, in fact, suggested a new territorial border between Serbia and

17 Croatia.

18 Q. What would he use to draw the line?

19 A. That in particular --

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have a comment to make.

21 Mr. President, I believe that the witness should express his opinion now

22 because he said my book "Democracy and Dogma" was published in 1991. Was

23 that the first edition or a subsequent edition? Could we say when my

24 book"Democracy and Dogma" was published for the first time. This is very

25 important for this examination, because if we leave it at 1991, the

1 matters will be confused. Could the witness please say when my

2 book"Democracy and Dogma" was published for the first time?

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, Democracy and Dogma?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I used the 1991 version, but there

5 must have been a prior version that must have been banned at the end of

6 the 1980s, 1988 or 1989.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So it was written a few years

8 earlier?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, a few years earlier, not more

10 than that, and it appeared at a subsequent date after the change of the

11 political regime, after the process of democracy had started.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj will tell us, in the

13 course of the cross-examination, when exactly he published "Dogma and

14 Democracy."

15 Ms. Dahl, please continue.

16 MS. DAHL: I would like to return to the question that

17 Mr. Seselj's objection interrupted.

18 Q. On what basis did Mr. Seselj propose redrawing the borders between

19 Croatia and Serbia?

20 A. Well, he suggested a new delimitation of the border based on the

21 following principle: He said there were just as many Croats in Serbia as

22 there were Serbs in Croatia.

23 Q. So was he going to use population figures to establish a new

24 border?

25 A. Well, in fact, the census was quite precise, and it was possible

1 to know how the various nationalities were represented in each part of

2 Yugoslavia. So that was a possible source. So there was information,

3 detailed information, on how the various nations or nationalities were

4 represented in the country.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I can see that in the text that

6 was published, he says that the national Serbo-Croat question would be

7 finally dealt with on the basis of humanistic and democratic principles

8 and on the basis of an agreement. Is that what he wrote?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] At the time, were there any

11 repercussions when this was published? Did this affect the political

12 opinions at the time?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When the book appeared, is that what

14 you mean? Well, we're taking into consideration the 1991 version, not the

15 first version in this case, not the first version that was banned. And at

16 the time Yugoslavia was breaking up, that was the context. So these

17 statements have a different scope because of the time reference was made

18 to reorganizing the Yugoslav Federation, and there was a series of

19 negotiations between the leaders of the various republics, the purpose of

20 which was to see whether Yugoslavia should be transformed into a

21 confederation or to a federation, should a more centralist system be

22 introduced, or should the republics be accorded more autonomy.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] His proposition, his suggestion,

24 seems to be twofold. Initially, he seems to want to maintain or to keep

25 Croats in Serbia and Serbs in Croatia. That's the main principle; and

1 then on the basis of the census, one would delimit the border, one would

2 trace the border. You have studied the issue. Was this technically

3 feasible?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in fact, in Serbia such as

5 in -- had been envisaged, Serbia would have included Bosnia and

6 Herzegovina. So one would have had to count the number of Croats in that

7 republic, since it would have become part of federal Serbia and one would

8 have had to count the number of Croats in Serbia and one would have had to

9 compare that number with the number of Serbs living in Croatia.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And the text that you must have

11 read on numerous occasions, did it involve moving the population because

12 one has the impression that these people didn't move. Their existence has

13 been recognised but they don't move; it's the borders that are to move.

14 Am I mistaken or not?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in Croatia, about 12 per cent

16 of the population was Serbian. There were about 4.700.000 Croats. If you

17 count the number of Serbs -- I apologise, the number of Croats in

18 Bosnia-Herzegovina, they represented 22 per cent of the population.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Given such figures, do such

20 figures imply the status quo?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if they're not comparable, if

22 they're not identical, well, we can't proceed then. One can't proceed. I

23 can't make the calculation. I can't remember the exact census figures for

24 1981, but one should do the calculations.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The main question on the basis

1 of this text is: Would the consequence be moving the population and

2 everything that that implies, or was this just a matter of drawing a

3 conclusion? Was this a matter of stating that there were ethnic

4 minorities and these ethnic minorities were to remain where they were?

5 And one would then trace the borders on the basis of the census

6 statistics?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the text isn't explicit

8 enough. One can't really see the idea of moving the population in the

9 text, but I don't have all the figures. I know that there were about

10 178.000 Croats in Serbia, the Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina should be added

11 to the number, we should compare it with the number of Serbs, and we

12 should see whether there was a balance or an imbalance between the two

13 sets of figures.

14 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] But this text which comes from

15 the end of the 1980s --

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. This text was drafted in 1983

17 or 1984. It was taken from Vojislav Seselj's apartment in the spring

18 1984.

19 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] So this was a time when Seselj --

20 Mr. Seselj was speaking about administrative borders, not international

21 ones?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was speaking about internal

23 borders between the various republics.

24 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you. So perhaps we

25 should also look at the question of not moving the population, within that

1 context, within the context of internal administrative borders. Thank

2 you.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And the last question before the

4 break: In your report, did you include this idea of administrative

5 borders in the former Yugoslavia, as my colleague has put it; and in this

6 idea of borders, did you refer to how they could have -- these borders

7 could have had political connotation?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time, the reference is only

9 made to the territories on the basis of the boundaries of the borders of

10 republics.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Internationally recognised?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. At the time, there are

13 internal administrative boundaries.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but at the time Yugoslavia

15 was recognised internationally?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's ten to 12.00. We're going

18 to have a 20-minute break.

19 --- Recess taken at 11.50 a.m.

20 --- On resuming at 12.12 p.m.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing's resumed.

22 Ms. Dahl.

23 MS. DAHL: Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Q. Before the break, we were discussing the manuscript entitled:

25 "Answers to an Interview: What is to be done?" Can you describe why the

1 proposal to organize the Yugoslav Federation into four republics and a

2 revision of the border between Serbia and Croatia would be considered

3 counter-revolutionary activities against the social order?

4 A. At the time Yugoslavia was made up of six republics, so this is

5 questioning the federal structure that was created during World War II at

6 the initiative of the communist partisans. This order was supposed to

7 settle the national question in all of Yugoslavia. It was not conceivable

8 at the time to see a restructuring of this Federation into four republics.

9 Bosnia and Herzegovina would have been part of Serbia then. This was

10 regarded as a nationalist position. Nationalism at the time was repressed

11 in Yugoslavia.

12 Q. Did Mr. Seselj take part in the debates on constitutional changes

13 in the Republic of Serbia in 1988?

14 A. Yes, he did. At the time there were amendments that were

15 proposed, constitutional reform had been proposed in Serbia. It, in

16 particular, dealt with the definition of the autonomous provinces within

17 Serbia. Serbia was the only republic that had two autonomous provinces;

18 in the north it was Vojvodina, and the south it was Kosovo. These two

19 autonomous provinces were recognised as federal units and fully so.

20 So this raised a problem for Serbia because the central power in

21 Serbia could not intervene in the affairs of these two autonomous

22 provinces. At the time Slobodan Milosevic had taken control of the

23 political apparatus. He was the main leader in Serbia, and there was an

24 initiative to change the constitution. This reform aimed at reducing the

25 prerogatives of the autonomous provinces. This led to many debates in

1 numerous organizations, the Writers' Union, the Association of Researchers

2 at the time, and Vojislav Seselj did take part in such debates.

3 MS. DAHL: Let me ask that a map of the Socialist Federal Republic

4 of Yugoslavia be displayed. It's 65 ter number 07005, and it's in the map

5 book at map number 4.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Ms. Dahl, could you kindly repeat the number.

7 MS. DAHL: 07005.

8 Q. Looking at this map, can you explain to the Chamber the republics

9 and which were the autonomous units or the autonomous provinces? I think

10 there's an electronic pen that you can use that will display.

11 A. Here is, in the north, the autonomous province of Vojvodina; and

12 in the south, that of Kosovo.

13 Q. Can you indicate the other republics.

14 A. Starting from the north, you have the Republic of Slovenia; that

15 of Croatia; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Serbia, with the two autonomous

16 provinces; the Republic of Montenegro; and that of Macedonia.

17 MS. DAHL: Can I have the map marked for identification.

18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be MFI P143.

19 MS. DAHL: I would like the whole map marked not just his

20 indications.

21 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Dahl, my fellow Judge

23 is wondering that, and me, too, why marked for identification? Why not

24 give it a definitive number. There's no challenge to that. It was

25 authenticated by the witness.

1 MS. DAHL: That's fine, Your Honour. I was following the practice

2 from yesterday.

3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the annotated map will be MFI P143

4 and the unannotated will be MFI P -- will be Exhibit P144.

5 MS. DAHL:

6 Q. In 1988, when Mr. Seselj proposed restructuring the Federation,

7 did he propose the same ideas as previously with regard to the number of

8 republics or federal units?

9 A. No, he went back. He changed his previous position. He thought

10 that Yugoslavia had to be restructured into three federal units:

11 Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia. Compared to the previous proposal, the

12 Republic of Macedonia would disappear and would become part of the

13 Republic of Serbia?

14 Q. What reasons did Dr. Seselj express for limiting the number of

15 federal units to three?

16 A. Actually, Macedonia is regarded by many Serbs as being south or

17 southern Serbia. Macedonians are, in fact, regarded as being Serbs;

18 therefore, it is to be found in most of the Greater Serbian projects as a

19 former territory of the medieval Serbia anyway.

20 Q. Did Dr. Seselj express a view on the Macedonian or Muslim nations?

21 A. He believes that the Macedonian nation is an artificial one

22 created by the communist regime in Yugoslavia. This goes for the Muslim

23 nation which was recognised in 1968. He believes, too, that it is an

24 artificial nation.

25 Q. How did Mr. Seselj's views align with the conceptual framework of

1 the first Yugoslavia?

2 A. If you look at the proposal he made in late 1980s for a federal

3 Yugoslavia in three units, we're going back to the first framework of the

4 first Yugoslavia. In the first Yugoslavia, there was a Yugoslav nation

5 with three tribes: The Slovenes, the Croats, and the Serbs. And other

6 nations were not recognised at the time. In proposing to restructure the

7 Yugoslav Federation into three republics with the Slovenes, the Croats,

8 and the Serbs, we go back to the concept that was prevalent between the

9 two wars.

10 MS. DAHL: May I ask the registrar to take the map down because

11 we're finished with it.

12 Q. What was the reason that Dr. Seselj went to the United States in

13 1989?

14 A. He got in touch with the Serbian Chetniks of the -- among the

15 migrants, the Serbian Ravna Gora headed by Momcilo Djujic; and, in 1989,

16 he went to give lectures and conferences held -- organized throughout the

17 country. And, during these conferences, he's going to expound his

18 political programme for the future of Serbia and Yugoslavia.

19 Q. Let me ask you to turn to page 73 of your report, where you

20 excerpt Dr. Seselj's national programme as he articulated it in 1989.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Witness. Before we

22 deal with this, let me go back to what you just said. So Mr. Seselj went

23 to the United States and gave a series of lectures. Did you ask yourself

24 what setting it was in? Was he there as a tourist, as a green card

25 resident? Because it appears he stayed there for quite some time. Based

1 on that, did he go with the agreement of the Americans? Because you can't

2 just go to the American territory and hold lectures for months on end

3 without enjoying some kind of status from the point of view of

4 immigration.

5 Did you look into this matter? Because if I connect his visit

6 with the fact that the Americans were against the extradition of the one

7 who had appointed him a Vojvod, we are entitled to raise quite a number of

8 issues. Did you look into it or not?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He had been convicted so he didn't

10 have a passport; that was banned. And when he went to the United States,

11 he got a passport again. At the time, Vojislav Seselj was regarded as a

12 dissent of the communist rule, and he was supported by numerous human

13 rights organizations, including in the United States.

14 So he had this I image of being an opponent to his communist

15 regime of being a defender of human rights. So he was supported by

16 organization in favour of free expression in Yugoslavia and more

17 specifically in Serbia, but he was also supported by numerous

18 organizations in Europe, as in the United States. So it's not surprising

19 that the United States let him in.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Does that mean that he enjoyed

21 the same status as Solzhenitsyn [Realtime transcript missing word

22 "Solzhenitsyn"]?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I wouldn't say so.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you're telling us that he was

25 regarded as a dissident?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, at the time he was.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I can see that the interpreter

3 does not know Solzhenitsyn.

4 Please continue.

5 THE INTERPRETER: It is the court reporter, sir.

6 MS. DAHL:

7 Q. Would you please read the excerpt you have drawn from Dr. Seselj's

8 book, and I am referring to the paragraph at page 73.

9 MS. DAHL: This is at e-court 02802A.

10 Q. And I'm referring to the paragraph that begins: "We Serbs in

11 Yugoslavia must define our national goals ..."

12 A. I'm reading it.

13 "We Serbs in Yugoslavia must define our national goals, our

14 national programme, and the borders of our state, while allowing our

15 supposed northern brothers, the Croats and the Slovenes, can express

16 themselves in full freedom whether they want to live in such a state or

17 not. The Serbian people is not a priori opposed to the existence of

18 Yugoslavia. I'm deeply convinced that the Serbian people is in favour of

19 the existence of Yugoslavia, but it does not want Yugoslavia at any price.

20 "It only wants a Yugoslavia whose frontiers would respect the

21 borders of Serbian statehood, as guaranteed by the Treaty of London.

22 Therefore, should a federal Yugoslavia remain in existence, the Serbian

23 federal unit should comprise within its borders not only the current

24 territory of Serbia and the current provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo and

25 Metohija, but Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dubrovnik,

1 Dalmatia, Lika, Banija, Kordun, Eastern Slavonia, and Baranja.

2 "These borders are not guaranteed by the Treaty of London but were

3 drawn by Ante Pavelic during World War II. He drew them with Serbian

4 graves, Serbian mass burials, Serbian suffering, camps, massacre sites,

5 and pits, and I think that the Serbian people must on no account allow a

6 single Serbian mass grave to remain outside the borders of the Serbian

7 state."

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. President. The

9 interpreter several times orally, and now in the written text, too, of the

10 expert report, there's mention of the Slovenes. It should say

11 "Slovenians." There's an enormous difference between Slovenes and

12 Slovenians. Slovenes or Slavs is the general concept applied to all Slav

13 people, Serbs, Russians, Czechs, and all others. And Slovenians are a

14 small Slav people. So the interpreters orally make the same mistake

15 often, and I think it is important to correct it.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. But with regard to the

17 text that you wrote into your national programme, where's the problem?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I have received as an expert

19 report was probably translated from the French; and in the third line, it

20 says: "To Croats and Slovenes," and it should say "Croats and

21 Slovenians." There's an enormous difference between Slavs and Slovenians.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So, in the French version, it is

23 the Croats and the Slovenes; but, apparently, in the English translation

24 that Mr. Seselj has in his language, it was misinterpreted. So having

25 specified that, we can continue.

1 MS. DAHL:

2 Q. Did you draw from Dr. Seselj's text for your research?

3 A. Yes. I used all the works that he has written, also the

4 interviews he granted to various media, and there are numerous

5 compilations of those statements and interviews. So there is a host of

6 documents and very important texts to follow the evolution of the ideas of

7 Vojislav Seselj.

8 Q. In what language did you study Dr. Seselj's writings?

9 A. Directly in Serbian, in the original.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In this text, which is an

11 important one, there are two matters which I wish to refer to.

12 The first element is the Treaty of London, because this text

13 refers to the Treaty of London regarding the frontiers emanating from the

14 Treaty of London.

15 And the second highlight of this text are all these symmetries of

16 massacred Serbs that were victimised in the Second World War, and there is

17 a demand on the part of the author of the text that those Serbs who are

18 buried there should be buried in -- within the boundaries of a Serbian

19 state.

20 The Treaty of London, what is it exactly for you?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Treaty of London concluded on

22 the 26th of April, 1915. It was a text among the forces of the Entente:

23 France, Great Britain, and Russia; and to have Italy join against the

24 central powers, that is, Austro-Hungary and Germany --

25 MS. DAHL: If I may interject briefly and ask the registrar to

1 bring up map number 9, which illustrates the Treaty of London, I think it

2 may make the testimony visible in terms of the territorial negotiations.

3 It's at page 109 in the English translation.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There is a map 9 that

5 corresponds to the Treaty of London.

6 So please continue.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In order to have Italy join in the

8 war, it was necessary to satisfy its national aspirations and to grant it

9 a certain number of territories along the Adriatic coast on the Yugoslav

10 side. So the Treaty of London will define parts of the literal that will

11 belong to each of the countries of the region. Therefore, the treaty in

12 itself has nothing to do with the concept of the Greater Serbia.

13 It was not a question of creating a Greater Serbia. Serbia itself

14 was not a party to the negotiations, and it was informed post festum,

15 after the event. But, nevertheless, there was the idea of granting to

16 Serbia Bosnia-Herzegovina. Actually, if the Allies of the Entente wanted

17 to give Bosnia-Herzegovina to Serbia, it was because the Serbs were asked

18 to cede a good part of Macedonia.

19 So this was a matter of territorial compensation, because at the

20 same time since the autumn of 1914, the forces of the Entente were

21 endeavouring to persuade the Bulgarians and the Romanians to join the

22 conflict against the central forces. I think the question of the

23 distribution of the coast is very important, if I can come back to that.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, please do.

25 MS. DAHL: May I ask -- oh, I'm sorry. I'm looking at the wrong

1 screen. It is enlarged.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, go ahead, please.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time, Serbia was granted a

4 part of the literal going from Ploca in Serbo-Croatia and the entire

5 territory south of that cape that is north of Split up to ten kilometres

6 south of Dubrovnik.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. President. The

8 translation is wrong again. I don't know what the witness has said in the

9 original, but the interpreter is telling me that it is the territory south

10 of Ploca. Maybe the interpreters don't know anything, but the witness

11 should know. It is the Palanka cape above Split. Ploca and Palanka is

12 not the same. Ploca is far further to the south of Split.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Palanka is not a village; it is just

14 a promontory. So the term used by Western diplomacy was Palanka. So

15 south of Palanka was given to Serbia; further to the north, the territory

16 south of Karlobag. All of this was returned to Italy. Then the area of

17 Volusko close to Opatija up to south of Karlobag was given to Croatia, and

18 the whole of Istria to Italy.

19 So the Treaty of London actually divides the literal, but it

20 doesn't concern itself with the borders inland, only with the coast, part

21 of which is given to Serbia; and, therefore, one could conclude that the

22 territory behind the coast is also granted to Serbia, in this case Bosnia.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can we give this map a number,

24 an exhibit number, please?

25 MS. DAHL: Yes, please.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Dahl.

2 THE REGISTRAR: [Previous translation continues]... 5.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The second issue, regarding the

4 Serb tombs, should it be inferred from this text that there would be

5 Serbs, for instance, those living in Romania who were killed during the

6 Second World War, is this a requirement regarding those territories based

7 on Serb cemeteries? How do you interpret this?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This defines territories on the

9 basis of the locations of the massacres, and it mainly concerns territory

10 of the Republic of Croatia.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So, for you, what is indicated

12 here refers to territory of the Republic of Croatia?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you for that

15 clarification.

16 Madam Dahl.

17 MS. DAHL: Thank you, Your Honour.

18 Q. Does the negotiations concerning the Treaty of London define any

19 inland boundaries?

20 A. At the time, no. It was later in the months that followed, in

21 June, July, and August in 1915, the forces of the Entente are going to

22 propose territorial compensation to Serbia in view of the fact that Serbia

23 had to cede territory to other countries. But this policy of territorial

24 compensation had nothing to do with the Treaty of London.

25 Q. What --

1 A. For example, there was a question of granting the region of Banat

2 to Romania; the Serb government refused this suggestion. And to the

3 extent that the support, the military support of Serbia, was required, a

4 region of Slavonia, a part of Slavonia, was granted to Serbia. So this

5 was all part of the logic of territorial compensation.

6 Q. When you compare and contrast the borders of Dr. Seselj's national

7 programme and the claims that he makes based on the Treaty of London with

8 the actual borders ...

9 MS. DAHL: And if we could bring back the map.

10 Q. ... can you indicate --

11 A. Actually, if we start from the town of Karlobag, which is a small

12 town of some 1.000 inhabitants on the Adriatic coast.

13 Q. Could you illustrate, please.

14 A. If we take the town of Karlobag, if I can find it, as a point of

15 departure, it is in the zone, the coastal zone, that was to be given to

16 Croatia. It was granted to Serbia, as I have already indicated, starting

17 from the promontory of Palanka. And then if we go from Karlobag to

18 Ogulin, which is further to the north, and then Virovitica, these were not

19 taken into consideration by the Treaty of London. They were not defined

20 by that treaty.

21 There's even a part in the area of Sibenik, the town of Zadar;

22 including the town of Knin, that is the hinterland of Zadar which is an

23 important town for the Serb Krajina. According to the Treaty of London,

24 this belonged to Italy. These were territories that were inhabited to a

25 large extent by Serbs.

1 Q. Let --

2 A. So there was a kind of distortion between what emanated from the

3 Treaty of London, the line Karlobag-Ogulin-Karlovac-Virovitica, there was

4 a distortion of the Treaty of London as that line was not defined by that

5 treaty.

6 Q. A distortion by whom?

7 A. By Vojislav Seselj, who is claiming that that was the western

8 border of Serbia. It does not correspond to historical data of the Treaty

9 of London of 1915.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So if I understand well, that

11 when Mr. Seselj talks of Karlobag-Ogulin-Karlovac-Virovitica, this does

12 not correspond to the Treaty of London?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not at all. The Treaty of London

14 dealt with the coast and the area apart, north of Zadar up to the delta of

15 the Neretva, the mouth of the Neretva. As further to the north,

16 Karlovac-Virovitica, this was certainly not defined by the Treaty of

17 London.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Shall we give this map a number,

19 please. For the needs of the transcript, for the previous map, it was not

20 recorded, P145.

21 THE REGISTRAR: That's correct, Your Honour. And this map, the

22 second annotation, will be Exhibit P146.

23 MS. DAHL: Let's bring up a clean copy of --

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, to avoid any

25 confusion, I think it is important for me to intervene whenever there is

1 some confusion. The witness quoted part of my speech in the United

2 States; and if you remember well, all the -- it was stated that these

3 borders were not guaranteed by the Treaty of London. They were marked by

4 Ante Pavelic during the Second World War. So there's no need to make any

5 confusion between the Treaty of London and my concept of these borders.

6 MS. DAHL: [Previous translation continues]...

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I stated this

8 explicitly; and if there is not cleared up, there is some confusion.

9 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, this is a matter for cross-examination,

10 and I would like to proceed to my next point.

11 Q. Let's -- if you would with the pen, would you outline the treaty

12 boundaries for Serbia on map number 9.

13 A. You mean the coast, the literal?

14 Q. Well, the area that would result in Serbia under the treaty.

15 A. [Marks]

16 Q. And if there's a geographic determination you can make of the rest

17 of Serbia.

18 A. [Marks]

19 Q. Now, on page 75, you've quoted Dr. Seselj in his book, "Politics

20 as a Challenge of Conscience," and I'm going to read out the claim that

21 you've excerpt --

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have another

23 objection. The witness started to draw the border of the rest of Serbia.

24 Mrs. Dahl did not allow him to finish that drawing, and I would like to

25 see it. If the screen is switched off, I can't see what he has drawn.

1 MS. DAHL: I'm sorry. I want the document, the map, to stay on

2 the screen and the drawing to be completed.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, will you please finish

4 tracing the line of Serbia?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] One can suppose that this part, too,

6 was intended for Serbia.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We'll give this a

8 number, please.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have another request, Your Honour,

10 for this to be printed out for me, so that I can cross-examine the witness

11 on the basis of it and I need it, the drawing made by the witness at the

12 end, please.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Registrar, will you

14 please give a copy to Mr. Seselj, but first a number.

15 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, that will be Exhibit Number

16 P147.

17 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] If I understood you well, this is

18 not the border emanating from the Treaty of London because you said the

19 Treaty of London only dealt with the borders along the coast?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. But when a part of the coast

21 is given to Serbia, this implies that Bosnia-Herzegovina was also given to

22 Serbia. And, at the time, these territories were suggested to Serbia to

23 compensate the loss of territory of Macedonia because Serbia would lose a

24 part of Macedonia.

25 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes. But you could perhaps say

1 that this was a consequence of the Treaty of London, but this was not part

2 of the treaty?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed. The Treaty of London

4 did not deal with borders inland.

5 MS. DAHL:

6 Q. I want to read to you an excerpt that you've quoted Dr. Seselj on

7 regarding the boundaries of the Serbian state that he considered

8 guaranteed by this treaty. Would you with your pen and in different

9 colour indicate this boundary of the Serbian federal unit as Dr. Seselj

10 articulated.

11 So he would -- he says: "The boundaries of the Serbian state

12 guaranteed by the 1915 Treaty of London are the only acceptable boundaries

13 of the Serbian federal unit. This means that Serbia shall encompass

14 Serbia proper, Vojvodina, Kosovo and Metohija, Montenegro,

15 Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Dubrovnik, Dalmatia, Lika, Kordun, Banija,

16 Eastern Slavonia, and Baranja."

17 A. It's a little difficult, this exercise, because I don't have all

18 the information I need. I don't have the entire map. So to have the --

19 to draw the line, I'm not sure where everything is located. I don't have

20 all the necessary information.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl, this exercise appears

22 to be a difficult one because he can't do it with this map.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We could take Karlobag, go up to

24 Ogulin, Karlovac, so that's the western border there suggested by Vojislav

25 Seselj. Then --

1 MS. DAHL: Let me, if I may, see if I can simplify the question of

2 maps. Let's turn to the last map in your report, map number 10, and I ask

3 you if you can tell me what this is.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you should warn the

5 witness that his border encompasses Zagreb given the way that he has

6 traced the delimitation line.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said I didn't have the information

9 to draw the line. I did it roughly, but in any event Zagreb is not

10 included in the area.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, we have that in the

12 transcript now.

13 Let's have a look at the other map.

14 MS. DAHL:

15 Q. Can you tell me what map number 10 is?

16 A. Well, this is the territory of Greater Serbia suggested by the

17 Chetnik Serbian Movement. This was published in the journal, Velika

18 Srbija, Greater Serbia. It's this movement's journal. The territory

19 depicted in the map includes Macedonia, which is called southern Serbia

20 here; Kosovo is called old Serbia; Serbia is, well, you have Vojvodina,

21 you have Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Dalmatia; part of the

22 military border area and of the territory of the Republic of Croatia of

23 the north.

24 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] What is the date of this map?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1st of August, 1990. The Chetnik

1 Serb -- the Serbian Chetnik Movement was established in June 1990, so this

2 is issue number 2 of the journal that appeared a month earlier.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] With regard to the coast, the

4 London treaty wasn't taken into consideration at all?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Well, if you have a look at

6 the zone that goes to the Serb, it starts here at Palanka; at Palanka cape

7 to the north of Split, that is to say west of Trogir; and an area that was

8 given to Serbia starts ten kilometres to the south of Dubrovnik. It's

9 this area here, up to Karlobag that goes to Italy. Between Palanka and

10 Karlobag, this area goes to Italy; and above in April, the area went to

11 Croatia.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And in the map that was

13 published, this was given to Serbia?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl

16 MS. DAHL:

17 Q. What was Dr. Seselj's relationship to the Serbian Chetnik Movement

18 in August 1990 when this magazine was published?

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's give this document a

20 number first.

21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit Number P148.

22 MS. DAHL:

23 Q. Shall I repeat my question?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. What was Dr. Seselj's relationship to the Serbian Chetnik Movement

1 at the time this publication was issued in August 1990?

2 A. He was the president, the leader.

3 MS. DAHL: May I ask Your Honour what time we're concluding today.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Today we will be concluding at

5 1.15, so you have another 15 minutes.

6 MS. DAHL:

7 Q. What is the programme of the Serbian Chetnik Movement?

8 A. The main objective of the Serbian Chetnik Movement is the creation

9 of a Greater Serbia, which would include, in addition to Serbia,

10 Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dubrovnik, and then

11 territory in Croatia, Lika, Kordun, Banija, Slavonia, the Baranja

12 territory. So that's the main issue, the main objective in the party's

13 programme.

14 In addition, as part of this programme, one also finds the desire

15 to establish a democratic order in Serbia, the rule of law, a market

16 economy, the development of Catholicism [as interpreted] in Serbia. These

17 elements also form part of the programme. The programme also has detailed

18 plans for regulating the Albanian question in Kosovo, because well, the

19 programme has a number of elements that say that there is a course one

20 should follow in order to deal with the Albanian issue, and this course is

21 mentioned.

22 The course of action suggested is the expulsion of 360.000

23 Albanians who settled in Kosovo during the Second World War. A state of

24 war should also be declared in the province of Kosovo; a buffer zone at

25 the border should be created, a buffer zone in which there would be no

1 Albanians in order to make sure that the border with Albania was secure.

2 Q. Do you reprint the programme of the Serbian Chetnik Movement in

3 your report?

4 A. Yes. Those would be the essential issues, essential points, that

5 were mentioned there.

6 Q. And those appear at your report at pages 81 and 82?

7 A. I made reference to the issues that concern the national Serbian

8 question, and I didn't mention all the other elements that have to do with

9 the establishment of democracy and market economy. I didn't mention

10 things that don't directly concern the Serbian national question and

11 tracing the borders.

12 Q. Let me ask you to take a look at what is in your binder as

13 document 83. It's been previously marked for identification as P27.

14 Looking at paragraph number 1, can you read to yourself the

15 borders of the Serbian federal unit that are part of the platform and tell

16 me or tell the Chamber whether that is the same borderline illustrated on

17 the Velika Srbija issue we just saw.

18 A. Well, the map of Greater Serbia results from this point of the

19 programme, so we have the map that shows what the objectives were.

20 Q. How does this political platform of the Serbian Chetnik Movement

21 relate to the intellectual movements of the 1930s?

22 MS. DAHL: And can I ask for an interpreter's question. I think

23 the reference was to the word "capitalism," and it was translated as

24 "Catholicism" at 94, 20.

25 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter can confirm that the witness

1 mentioned "capitalism" and not "Catholicism."

2 MS. DAHL:

3 Q. Going back to the question: How does the political platform of

4 the Serbian Chetnik Movement relate to the intellectual movements of the

5 1930s, specifically with regard to the Serbian national question?

6 A. At the end of the 1930s, the Serbian cultural centre wanted to

7 establish a Serbian entity that would include most of the territory

8 mentioned. A lot of the territory in Croatia is under item 1 of the

9 programme and much of this territory was in the Croatian Banovina. This

10 was a Croatian entity created in 1939 within Yugoslavia.

11 So the cultural -- the Serbian cultural movement wanted the

12 borders of this Croatian entity revised. They thought that a certain

13 number of municipalities were inhabited by Serbs who were in the majority,

14 and they didn't think it was normal for them to be located within the

15 borders of the Croatian entity.

16 So the borders suggested by these two organizations are different,

17 but the objective was the same in any event. They wanted to trace the

18 limits of Serbian entity within Yugoslavia.

19 Q. Who were the main intellectuals of the Serbian Cultural Club?

20 A. There was the president, Slobodan Jovanovic, who was a very

21 respected lawyer. He was the head of the Yugoslav government in exile

22 during the Second World War. There was also Dragisa Vasic who was the

23 vice-president. He was the chief editor of the Serbian club's journal,

24 Srpski Glas. His name was Dragisa Vasic, and he became part of the Ravna

25 Gora Movement subsequently. He was one of the main leaders of that

1 movement. There was also Stevan Moljevic, he was also a member of this

2 organization; and at the time, he was a lawyer in Banja Luka and was much

3 interested in Serbian national question, in particular after the Banovina

4 in Croatia had been established. This was in August 1939.

5 Q. Did the Serbian Cultural Club in the late 1930s organize lectures

6 regarding methods to resolve the Serbian national question?

7 A. Well, in fact, at the time, yes. Even before the Croatian entity

8 was established in 1939. In 1937, there were conferences organized on the

9 Serbian national question and on the question of the nationalisation of

10 certain territories where the -- where there was a minority. That was the

11 case in Kosovo and Vojvodina, and these intellectuals who held these

12 conferences often mentioned moving the population and population exchanges

13 as a means of dealing with the issue.

14 Vasic Cubrilovic held a conference on Kosovo, and the idea was to

15 forcibly expel people within Yugoslavia and outside Yugoslavia. There was

16 also Djoko Perin who presented arguments on the nationalisation of

17 Vojvodina and Kosovo, and he was particularly interested in Vojvodina.

18 There was various sketches, various scenarios, the purpose of which was to

19 ensure that the Serbs would be in the majority in Vojvodina, because at

20 the time that wasn't the case. There was a population -- a general

21 population of over 300.000. There were Hungarians, too.

22 So, in each case, the idea was to proceed with population

23 [Realtime transcript read in error "proposition"] exchanges or to

24 encourage or compel national minorities to move.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The political platform of the

1 Serbian Chetnik Movement is something I'd like to ask you about. When we

2 have a look at the situation in paragraph 1, I'm struck by the following.

3 Reference is made to Serbian territory. Everything else appears to me to

4 be a reaction to the communist regime and to what Tito had done, except

5 for at the end where mention is made of the expulsion of Albanian -- of

6 Albanian immigrants.

7 So, as far as this political programme is concerned, what was its

8 main objective in your opinion?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time, in 1990, there were

10 troubles in Croatia, and one of the main activities of the Serbian Chetnik

11 Movement was to ensure its own promotion in Serbia because elections were

12 about to be held towards the end of the year; but in addition to that, it

13 was also to organize sending Serbian volunteers to Croatia in order to

14 defend local Serbian populations in Croatia.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Is this mentioned in the

16 platform?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That's what I can see. Why is

19 it not mentioned?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The main objective is mentioned, but

21 the means to achieve it are not detailed, are not developed.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

23 We still have a few minutes, four exactly.

24 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, let me ask for a correction to the

25 interpretation. At 97:24, the witness spoke to "population" exchanges; it

1 was translated as "proposition" exchanges.

2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters explain that this is the LiveNote

3 which is a very transitional system to transcribe and the final version is

4 verified later on; that applied to previous cases.

5 MS. DAHL: Thank you.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, the time may have come to

7 finish for today. You can continue tomorrow, Ms. Dahl.

8 MS. DAHL: Thank you, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]

10 You're reminded that you're not supposed to have any contacts with

11 the Prosecutor. As you know, we're sitting in the morning; this means

12 that we're going to resume and reconvene tomorrow at 8.30.

13 With regard to your time, Ms. Dahl, the registrar has told me that

14 you had used one hour and 35 to 40 minutes. I'm not too sure.

15 MS. DAHL: Thank you, Your Honour. I wanted to let you know that,

16 during the break, my staff retrieved from the materials provided to us by

17 Mr. Tomic the original Serbian reprints of the material. I will

18 distribute this, and the Chamber can determine whether it wishes to

19 examine the witness on this. It bears evidence registration number

20 0619-8785 and there is a two-page document, and I brought a copy for the

21 witness as well as for Dr. Seselj.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We're going to give

23 the documents to Mr. Seselj.

24 MS. DAHL: I'm sorry. I don't have a translated copy that I'm

25 aware of. I'll look overnight to see if I can assist in that regard.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It is nearly 1.15.

2 Thank you.

3 Yes, very quickly, Mr. Seselj.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, we just need an extract from

5 this document. We have two pages from a book here. We have to know which

6 book in question, when it was published, where. We know nothing.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl, what is the provenance

8 of it, from which book is it? It's part of a book that can be seen.

9 MS. DAHL: I would need to ask Mr. Tomic because I can't read it',

10 it's in Serbian.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Tomic, where does this come

12 from?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't see it so I can't tell you.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, you can tell us tomorrow.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if I can see the documents.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, you have to be given a

17 copy then.

18 So?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is an article on the history of

20 the Chetnik Movement in Croatia. It deals with the programme of the

21 Dinara Chetnik unit.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You don't know from which book

23 it is?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's from a series called [B/C/S

25 spoken]. It's a kind of journal publishing work done by Yugoslav

1 historians at the time.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I hope this is enough for

3 Dr. Seselj. Anyway, we'll look into it again tomorrow. We shall

4 reconvene tomorrow at 8.30.

5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.15 p.m.,

6 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 30th day of

7 January, 2008, at 8.30 a.m.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25