081009ED

Page 10506

1 point in time, we will ask for a private session. We're following this

2 extremely carefully to make sure that we don't run into any problems. We

3 do note that the accused said that he would not address any issues having

4 to do with your family.

5 Furthermore, Mr. Seselj, if at one point in time you need to look

6 into family matters, please ask us, with advanced notice, to move into

7 private session.

8 This being said, Mr. Seselj, you have the floor. Please

9 continue.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I guarantee to you that I will not

11 go into the domain of the witness's privacy at all. There is no reason

12 for that. I just want to discuss what pertains to his testimony, and

13 that only, his statements made to The Hague investigators and what he

14 said during the examination-in-chief.

15 Cross-examination by Mr. Seselj: [Continued]

16 Q. Mr. Ejic, could you agree with me that refugees from the Croatian

17 federal unit arrived in about three waves in Serbia; the first one was

18 immediately after Tudjman came to power, that is to say, in the second

19 half of 1990 and 1991; the second wave came after the fall of a large

20 part of Western Slavonia in December 1991, when Western Slavonia

21 practically became reduced to the area of Pakrac or, rather, Okucani and

22 this belt area leading to Pakrac, up into the outskirts of Pakrac. And

23 the third wave was in 1995, after Operations Flash and Storm.

24 Do you agree with that?

25 A. Yes, I agree that there were several influxes of refugees.

Page 10507

1 Q. These first arrivals in the first stage were individual or in

2 smaller groups, for the most part; isn't that right? When Tudjman came

3 to power, then the first incidents in Croatia, and then up until the end

4 of 1991?

5 A. Yes, I agree with that.

6 Q. The second wave was already a massive one in December 1992,

7 because there was a massive exodus of the Serb people from Western

8 Slavonia; right?

9 A. That's the way it was, yes.

10 Q. And the third even more massive exodus was after Operations Flash

11 and Storm in 1995, when all the western parts of the Serb Krajina were

12 occupied and when the population was expelled; am I not right?

13 A. As far as my village is concerned, I don't know whether that was

14 the wave, but that there were waves after these operations, that is true.

15 Q. Perhaps I'm putting questions that are a bit leading, but I'd

16 like to get answers as fast as possible.

17 Do you believe me that that's the only reason? I have no other

18 trap questions for you.

19 A. I don't have much trust in you.

20 Q. I know that you have no trust in me, but I have no trust in you,

21 either.

22 A. Well, when you falsely accuse me in your books, then of course I

23 don't trust you.

24 Q. All right. You can respond by writing your own book. You're a

25 literate man, after all, so you can respond in that way if you found

Page 10508

1 anything there that doesn't correspond to the truth.

2 I had the impression, from your answers provided during the

3 examination-in-chief and also some answers provided during my

4 cross-examination, that you represented Hrtkovci as some kind of a

5 central location relating to the influx of Serb refugees from the area of

6 Croatia and the Serb Krajina. Is that actually what you wanted to say,

7 that Hrtkovci was chosen as some kind of centre where these refugees

8 would come in?

9 A. No. I came here to tell the truth, what it was that happened in

10 Hrtkovci. As for the area beyond that, I don't have complete

11 information. My information is incomplete, so I don't wish to speak

12 about that. I don't want to talk about things I don't know exactly.

13 What I know about is Hrtkovci, and that's why I came, so that the public

14 would find out the entire truth.

15 Q. All right. To your estimate, what is the total number of Serb

16 refugees that arrived in Hrtkovci to this day; what would be the

17 approximate number?

18 A. Well, over 1.500, I would say.

19 Q. Did they all remain to live in Hrtkovci?

20 A. No.

21 Q. How many stayed on?

22 A. Well, the number that entered into an exchange and two

23 settlements that were built as refugee places, and I worked for one of

24 them, so in my estimation, about 1.000 inhabitants.

25 Q. The 500, they came, tried to exchange their property, didn't

Page 10509

1 succeed, and went somewhere else to try and do it somewhere else; is that

2 right?

3 A. Mostly they went to towns. Now, whether they managed to buy any

4 property or exchange any property or were given accommodation in some

5 refugee centres, I don't know.

6 Q. Do you know that in Serbia, a lot of refugees still live in

7 collective accommodation?

8 A. Yes, I do know that from television and what the public -- what

9 the media says.

10 Q. So these are people who still haven't got a roof over their heads

11 and haven't been supplied that by the government, and haven't got their

12 own property in order to buy something themselves, and do you know that

13 among those people there are many who, in Croatia, destroyed their

14 properties, placed mines there, devastated the apartments?

15 A. I've heard of stories like that, but I don't know of any cases

16 myself. I can only rely on what I heard and the stories I heard.

17 Q. Now, if at the beginning of 1992, according to official data,

18 there were about 200.000 refugees from different areas of Croatia in

19 Serbia, then is that figure of 1.000 refugees in Hrtkovci just half

20 a per cent out of the total number of refugees in Serbia? That would be

21 the case, wouldn't it, 1.000 compared to 200.000? 0.5 per cent would be

22 the figure.

23 A. That's what math says.

24 Q. That means in Hrtkovci, a negligible number of refugees turned up

25 in relation to the large number of people who came to Serbia, this wave

Page 10510

1 of refugees in Serbia?

2 A. Well, not at the beginning, but later on it would appear that it

3 is as you have just put it.

4 Q. Well, I know that your suffering in Hrtkovci was the greatest

5 because you had a lot of problems. A vast number of people arrived.

6 They had to be put up. You didn't have anywhere to put them up. You had

7 to feed them, no food, so that was an objective problem; right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. But these refugees were frustrated when they came in, frustrated

10 by what they had experienced in life?

11 A. Absolutely correct, and I feel deeply for those people.

12 Q. They lost everything they had, they lost their property, they

13 came in angry, frustrated, having suffered a great deal; am I right?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Many of those refugees, especially after the fall of Western

16 Slavonia in December 1991, came on, didn't they?

17 A. Mostly all of them.

18 Q. Well, those who came in from Croatian towns previously didn't

19 have weapons; do you agree with that, that first lot that came in 1990

20 and the first half of 1991?

21 A. I don't know.

22 Q. Well, did you notice anybody bearing weapons? No, okay, I'll

23 leave that.

24 Now, do you know of cases whereby the police found whole arsenals

25 of weapons stashed with individuals of refugees; for example, half a

Page 10511

1 tractor-trailer full of weapons? Were there cases like that?

2 A. I don't remember that, but the -- there was information about

3 that in the public.

4 Q. Well, I have police data in the book that you didn't like, but

5 never mind. We're not going to deal with that now. There is information

6 whereby the police seized large quantities of weapons at the homes of

7 some individuals, which were probably intended for the black market in

8 Serbia. You say you heard something about that, but know nothing

9 specific?

10 A. No, I don't know about that.

11 Q. Whenever you say you don't know, I'll move on, I won't dwell on

12 that.

13 Now, the next question: Do you know that the whole of Yugoslavia

14 in 1991, 1992, under conditions of a civil war, was faced with a legal

15 system or had a legal system where there were no serious regulations for

16 criminal proceedings against people who had weapons? Do you remember a

17 situation like that?

18 A. I'm not versed in that area.

19 Q. Well, do you know that if somebody illegally was in possession of

20 a pistol and the police uncovers that pistol, all that could be done was

21 he could be had up for a misdemeanor, or would have to pay a fine, or two

22 months in prison, and the greatest sentence would be to have his pistol

23 confiscated? Do you remember that?

24 A. I don't remember that law, but if you didn't have a permit to

25 carry your weapons, the weapons were confiscated and then legal

Page 10512

1 proceedings were taken against that person.

2 Q. I say that there were no criminal proceedings, just -- it was

3 just considered a misdemeanor.

4 A. I don't know about that.

5 Q. Do you know that I was a national deputy in 1991 and 1992?

6 A. Yes, I do.

7 Q. Do you know that I was the only deputy of the Serbian Radical

8 Party in the National Assembly?

9 A. I don't know that you were the only one.

10 Q. Well, can you name someone else from the Serbian Radical Party

11 then?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Do you know that the Serbian Radical Party was established much

14 later than all the other serious political parties in Serbia, only in

15 February, at late as February 1991, in actual fact, with the unification

16 of the Serbian Chetnik Movement and the popular Radical Party?

17 A. Well, I know that was the period when the party was established.

18 Q. We didn't have an opportunity to go to the December elections in

19 1990; isn't that right?

20 A. I don't remember.

21 Q. It was only after subsequent elections that I won in Rakovica and

22 became a deputy for my party; you don't remember that?

23 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers kindly be asked to slow

24 down. Thank you.

25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Seselj and Mr. Witness, I'm sorry to

Page 10513

1 interrupt you, but again the interpreters are asking you to slow down

2 because they have a hard time catching what you are saying when you

3 overlap. So please respect a short pause between question and answers.

4 Thank you.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I will. Thank you,

6 Your Honour.

7 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation].

8 Q. As a deputy, I remember that it was only in the second half of

9 1992 that a law was passed about weapons and ammunition, which provided

10 for criminal sanctions for illegal possession of weapons. Do you believe

11 me when I say that?

12 A. Quite possible, yes.

13 Q. Now, the war circumstances and the arrival of a large number of

14 refugees from the occupied Krajina territories brought in a large number

15 of weapons into Serbia; is that correct?

16 A. That is correct.

17 Q. And people brandished weapons quite frequently in public places?

18 A. Probably.

19 Q. Before, we had settlings of account between criminals, usually

20 brawls in cafes and drinking places. Suddenly we have conflicts between

21 hundreds of people, and many people were killed with these strong

22 musclemen, as they were called in the media, and groups like that of

23 criminals and so on?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Then there was increased use of weapons because people would just

Page 10514

1 shoot up in the air, throw hand grenades in meadows during some

2 celebrations or sometimes for no reason at all; isn't that right?

3 A. There were a lot of examples like that, and they were shown on

4 television, when birthdays were being celebrated, for example, that

5 people who had weapons with them would use them to shoot, and people were

6 injured.

7 Q. Do you remember a fatal case when a stray bullet hit, I think, a

8 young girl? I can't remember quite, but I think that was the case.

9 A. Yes, I do remember something about that.

10 Q. All right. So in that atmosphere, an atmosphere in which people

11 brandished weapons very easily, without any reason, nobody took it up

12 with anybody? Shooting all over the place, half an hour --

13 A. About 30 kilometres.

14 Q. Well, when I'm driving, I don't need more than half an hour;

15 isn't that right?

16 A. Well, I don't have such a good car, so I need more time.

17 Q. Well, I hope you'll be able to buy a better car and then you can

18 drive faster. But don't drive too fast. Be careful about that.

19 Anyway, under conditions like that, there was uncertainty among

20 the population, regardless of nationality; isn't that right?

21 A. Well, that was one of the reasons, too.

22 Q. People felt far less safe than in the pre-war conditions, when

23 there were rare cases of people being illegally in possession of weapons;

24 isn't that right?

25 A. Well, people felt far less safe because of the events that were

Page 10515

1 happening in the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, not because

2 they were in possession of private sidearms.

3 Q. You mean the disintegration that was caused by the war?

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A follow-up question, if I may.

5 Through these questions, we understand that among those refugees,

6 some had weapons, which didn't come out very clearly up until now. Now

7 we know, we're sure about that.

8 When these refugees came, after they were expelled from Croatia,

9 I guess they were angry, because I guess they were not happy to have been

10 expelled from their homes. You met these people, so what was your

11 impression? Were they angry against Tudjman, who was forcing them to go,

12 and/or were they angry against Slobodan Milosevic, who hadn't taken the

13 necessary measures to protect them in Croatia so that they didn't have to

14 leave? You were saying they had weapons. Of course, this state of mind

15 could have led them to carry out certain types of activities.

16 So who were they angry against? Were they angry against Tudjman,

17 against Slobodan Milosevic, against the International Community which was

18 not doing anything? Who were they angry against?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in my opinion by the

20 talks I had with the refugees, they were angry with the Croatian

21 government or, rather, Tudjman and Milosevic, or, rather, the Serb

22 authorities who did not protect them sufficiently and for not having

23 provided the circumstances for them to be able to stay in their

24 households and their own thresholds. Now, as for the International

25 Community, I don't know.

Page 10516

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. Your

2 answer is very clear.

3 Mr. Seselj.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

5 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation].

6 Q. Is it true and correct that the Serb refugees were not satisfied

7 with the conditions in which they were accommodated in Serbia and how the

8 powers that be in Serbia took them in, received them?

9 A. That's true too.

10 Q. Is it your feeling that the authorities in Serbia didn't do

11 everything they could to take into the refugees properly?

12 A. Yes, that's my feeling too.

13 Q. Is it your feeling that spontaneity was the main characteristic

14 of the way in which the refugees were taken in? When I say

15 "spontaneous," the local community did something, somebody did something

16 over there, but there wasn't any systematic form of organisation to

17 provide accommodation and welcome the refugees?

18 A. I don't think so.

19 Q. Well, what do you think, then?

20 A. Well, I think there was spontaneous individual efforts, and in

21 my -- the place I lived in, people took in refugees, but there were

22 organised forms as well by the authorities to send refugees to certain

23 areas where the inhabitants were Croats.

24 Q. Where do you get that information from?

25 A. Well, that's my conviction.

Page 10517

1 Q. So you're speaking on the basis of your own conviction and not

2 facts which could bear that out?

3 A. Well, facts -- well, if facts are not sent -- if refugees are not

4 sent to areas in Serbia, but to Vojvodina, then this is a strong fact for

5 me to base my opinion on.

6 Q. Do you know that the refugees really did go all over Serbia and

7 that there were reception centres in the south, in Vranje, Leskovac,

8 Krusevac and so on?

9 A. Yes, I did know that.

10 Q. Now, wouldn't it be normal for the refugees to try to find their

11 own way, and the most logical solution, find a Croatian family with which

12 to exchange their property? Would that be logical?

13 A. Yes, that would be normal and logical for the refugees to try and

14 do something about their situation themselves, and there were many

15 examples of that in Hrtkovci, to the best of my knowledge.

16 Q. Do you agree that in Hrtkovci, a lot of property had already been

17 exchanged in 1991, when the situation was calmer?

18 A. Yes, a few.

19 Q. Well, how many?

20 A. Well, in comparison to the overall exchanges, perhaps 5 to

21 10 per cent.

22 Q. Already in 1991, you say. All right, fine. Now, in 1992, you

23 say that Ostoja Sibincic was a member of the Serbian Renewal Movement;

24 right?

25 A. Yes, for a brief period of time.

Page 10518

1 Q. To begin with, he was president of the local board?

2 A. But for a very short time.

3 Q. So you and Ostoja Sibincic were the main founders of the Serbian

4 Renewal Movement in Hrtkovci; is that right?

5 A. Well, it's not right that we were the main founders.

6 Q. Well, not only you; there were others too?

7 I've been asked to slow down again. We've been asked to slow

8 down again. All right.

9 Now, when the local board was formed, Ostoja Sibincic was elected

10 president and you were elected secretary, so logically that would mean

11 that the two of you were the main people in all that. There were other

12 important people, but the two of you were the most important; isn't that

13 right?

14 A. All right, if you say so, then yes.

15 Q. That means that you and Ostoja Sibincic were on very good terms.

16 As far as I know, you were close friends at that time too.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. All right. Now, when you disbanded in 1992 the local board in

19 Hrtkovci, you didn't inform the public about that at all, did you?

20 A. No, you're not right. I did inform the public. I made a

21 proclamation and sent out a letter to the Municipal Board in Ruma.

22 Q. Was that in the media at all?

23 A. Now, whether somebody published that in the media, I don't know,

24 but I did put it up on the board as a proclamation and information.

25 Q. My associates looked through all the daily papers from 1992, and

Page 10519

1 they didn't find that piece of information, so the media ignored it, if

2 you really did proclaim it yourself? Do you know that I made that

3 proclamation, I provided that proclamation?

4 A. No, I haven't found any information on that.

5 Q. Well, do you believe me when I say that I did that?

6 A. Well, let me say that I do believe you.

7 Q. All right, thank you.

8 Now, in 1992, the extraordinary elections were held, the federal,

9 provincial, local and so on, in Serbia?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. That was in December?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. In December, your party went to the elections, did it not?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And you were a candidate for a municipal assemblyman on behalf of

16 the SPO; is that right?

17 A. Yes, that's right.

18 Q. If the local committee of the SPO is disbanded, how can you stand

19 as a candidate and run in the election? I don't understand that. Well,

20 it's not impossible, but could you explain how come that happened?

21 A. Well, I could have been a candidate in Ruma or anywhere else on

22 behalf of my party. So according to our statute, it doesn't really

23 matter whether there is a local committee, whether it had been disbanded

24 or not.

25 Q. Please, let us be specific on this. The local elections were

Page 10520

1 majority elections, meaning that the municipality of Ruma was divided

2 into several election units. Hrtkovci was divided into two; is that

3 right?

4 A. Yes, that's right.

5 Q. In one of these two units, you were the candidate of the SPO, the

6 Serbian Renewal Movement; is that right?

7 A. Yes, that's right.

8 Q. And your party was still strong enough for you to get into the

9 second round; right?

10 A. That's right.

11 Q. The candidate running against you was a candidate of the Serbian

12 Socialist Party, which was the ruling party at the time?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And he won over you only in the second round; right?

15 A. Yes, with a majority of only a few votes.

16 Q. And the candidate of the Serbian Radical Party won very few votes

17 in the first round and did not get into the second round?

18 A. He didn't get into the second round because refugees didn't have

19 the right to vote. So it's only logical.

20 Q. So it's logical. You find it logical that that didn't happen,

21 and that means also that the Serbian Radical Party wasn't all that

22 popular in Hrtkovci yet; right?

23 A. As far as the local population was concerned, it wasn't popular

24 at all.

25 Q. How did one acquire the right to vote in local elections? What

Page 10521

1 was required? Just to reside there; right?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Nothing else is needed. You don't need any certificate of

4 citizenship or anything of the kind?

5 A. I'm talking about the right to vote.

6 Q. Well, there is a passive and an active right to vote; right?

7 Passive is that someone can elect you, and active is that you can vote.

8 For both active and passive voting rights, the same conditions were in

9 force?

10 A. If you're not on the list of voters, you could not vote, and at

11 that time the refugees came in and those who had exchanged houses didn't

12 have the right to vote, and they were not registered in the voting lists.

13 They could vote only in the next elections.

14 Q. How come, as soon as they applied for residence in Ruma or,

15 rather, in Hrtkovci, they have to be registered in the municipality and

16 their right to vote, right, so somebody omitted to do that?

17 A. Well, perhaps there were omissions.

18 Q. These omissions were, after all, of an individual nature, not

19 en masse; right?

20 A. Sorry. I don't know the answer to your question.

21 Q. All right. But no certificate of citizenship was required at

22 that time to participate in the elections, either to apply one's active

23 or passive voting right; right?

24 A. In the first elections, I think that's the way it was. Already

25 at the second elections, I had to have a certificate of citizenship.

Page 10522

1 Q. That was later. I'm talking about 1992.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Do you know that later on many prominent opposition leaders first

4 had to register in the book of citizens of Serbia and then only to

5 exercise their voting rights? For example, Zoran Djindjic was born in

6 Samac, Kostunica in Tuzla, Vuk Draskovic had his citizenship based in

7 Gacko, where his father was born and where he grew up. They had to get

8 citizenship of Serbia only at a subsequent date. Did you hear about

9 that?

10 A. I heard about that.

11 Q. Did you know that Milan Panic did not have citizenship of Serbia,

12 so it was only at a later stage that he had to register in the book of

13 citizens?

14 A. I know about that as well.

15 Q. So your party, at these elections in 1992, was still so strong in

16 Hrtkovci that you got into the second round, and it was with great

17 difficulty that the candidate of the Socialist Party won over you?

18 A. My party did not have such large numbers, but it was big in --

19 Q. Popularity?

20 A. And other things.

21 Q. You had a great deal of merit in the eyes of the voters; isn't

22 that right?

23 A. At that time, we were popular.

24 Q. I know you were popular. That's what I'm talking about.

25 All right. Ostoja Sibincic, when this local committee of the SPO

Page 10523

1 was allegedly disbanded, up until 2000, did not join any other party;

2 right?

3 A. I'm not aware of that.

4 Q. He was arrested twice --

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A follow-up question. I

6 thought Mr. Seselj was going to ask it, but he didn't.

7 This second round of election, there was only the Socialist Party

8 and your party remaining. The candidate for the Serbian Radical Party

9 didn't reach the second round. In your memory, the Serbian Radical Party

10 got what kind of percentage of the votes during the election? Do you

11 remember? If you know, of course. If not, then just let us know.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't exactly, in percentage

13 terms, but perhaps 50 or 60 votes. That's what the Serb Radical Party

14 candidate won.

15 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

16 Q. How many votes did you win in the first round?

17 A. I don't remember exactly. Over a hundred.

18 Q. So more than twice as much as the candidate of the Radicals;

19 right?

20 A. Yes.

21 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] May I proceed?

22 Q. Now you say that you do not remember. However, when you were

23 making your statement to The Hague investigators in 2004 and 2006 --

24 twice; right?

25 A. Yes.

Page 10524

1 Q. In paragraph 10, you said, allegedly -- perhaps this is not

2 correct, what they're stating there. I provide for that reservation,

3 because I believe you more than I believe the investigators from

4 The Hague. Do you believe me when I say that?

5 A. Well, I can.

6 Q. It says here:

7 "After the Hrtkovci SPO local board was dismantled,

8 Ostoja Sibincic did not formally join any party until 1999-2000, when he

9 became an SPS member in Ruma."

10 They say that that's what you said. Is that true?

11 A. Now you've refreshed my memory. I remember this one meeting of

12 the SPS that I attended and where Sibincic's membership card was showed,

13 because he joined in Ruma and according to the statute he was supposed to

14 join the basic cell in his place of residence. They were opposed, so he

15 was not accepted. That is the information that I received then, that he

16 had joined the SPS.

17 Q. Was that in 1992 or 2000? So eight years after what had happened

18 in Hrtkovci; right?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. There are some speculations that after the SPS, he joined yet

21 another party after 2000. Did you hear anything of that nature?

22 A. Well, what I know is that he is now in the Serb Radical Party.

23 Q. But you said very nicely that it was only this year that he

24 joined the Serb Radical Party or late in last year?

25 A. Yes.

Page 10525

1 Q. So you were precise on that?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. In this seven-year intermezzo, was he a member anywhere else?

4 A. I did hear something, but I don't have any complete knowledge.

5 Q. So what is it that you heard, because I heard that he made a new

6 statement to my associates, but I haven't got it yet because they've

7 imposed restrictions on me here.

8 A. I can't remember now.

9 Q. All right. It doesn't really matter, then.

10 Tell me, do you know how come Ostoja Sibincic became a member of

11 the Serb Radical Party late last year?

12 A. Well, I don't know exactly.

13 Q. Well, my investigators, Nemanja Sarovic and Elena Bozic-Talijan,

14 have combed through Vojvodina, especially the municipality of Ruma,

15 especially Hrtkovci, gathering information that is needed for my Defence,

16 and the result of their work is this book of 1.200 densely-printed pages.

17 That's the first time that they talked to Ostoja Sibincic, and that's

18 when he made his first statement to them.

19 A few days ago, he gave another statement to them, and it is

20 after he talked to them that he decided to join the Serb Radical Party.

21 Do you believe me when I say that?

22 A. What I heard in relation to Sibincic's membership was that he had

23 blackmailed the municipal authorities to give them -- give him a job so

24 that he'd make a statement pertaining to you.

25 Q. How could he blackmail them when he worked for the municipality?

Page 10526

1 A. As far as I know, he was an employee at the Revenues Department

2 and then he was laid off as a redundant person, and later on he got a job

3 as a clerk in the municipality, and it was the Serb Radical Party that

4 was in power there then.

5 Q. So then he blackmailed someone?

6 A. That's what I heard.

7 Q. Why would we allow anyone to blackmail us when people throughout

8 Ruma and in Hrtkovci were actually rushing to my investigators and they

9 could barely wait to talk to my investigators? Even you agreed to talk

10 to Nemanja Sarovic, who did not know at all that you were an OTP witness;

11 isn't that right?

12 A. That's not right.

13 Q. All right, if it's not right. When you talked about these

14 arrests of Ostoja Sibincic, you said at one moment when he got out of

15 jail, he went on working at the Ruma municipality as if nothing had

16 happened. You said something along those lines; right?

17 A. Yes, I remember.

18 Q. Could anyone actually dismiss him after the arrest and after the

19 judgement?

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I'd like to go back to

21 Sarovic. I'd like to refer you to line 4 of page 27.

22 According to what Mr. Seselj says, his investigators did their

23 work, and then Sarovic got in touch with you and at the time he didn't

24 know you were an OTP witness. You're saying it's not true. This is on

25 line 9, page 27 of the transcript.

Page 10527

1 When Mr. Sarovic called you on the phone and when he met you,

2 what did he tell you? Do you remember, specifically, what he said?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my first contacts with

4 Mr. Sarovic, he said to me that he wanted to talk to me in relation to my

5 testimony against Seselj.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That's what he said, "I want to

7 talk to you in relation to your testimony against Mr. Seselj"; is that

8 what he told you, word for word?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I cannot remember exactly now

10 because I do not remember, I mean, every little word exactly. Well,

11 that's what he wanted to talk about, because he had had information that

12 I was a Defence witness -- sorry, Prosecution witness.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

14 Mr. Seselj, please continue.

15 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation].

16 Q. All right. Since you've remembered all of this belatedly, tell

17 me now, why did you state that Blagoje Dudic spoke at the rally of the

18 Serb Radical Party in Hrtkovci?

19 A. I did not state that Blagoje Dudic spoke. As chairman, he's the

20 one who announced who would be the speakers. He didn't speak, himself.

21 Q. He didn't speak at all; right?

22 A. I don't remember that he said anything, or if he did speak, I

23 didn't really pay attention.

24 Q. You said here that he did speak, that he made a few introductory

25 remarks. That's what you say in paragraph 41?

Page 10528

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Do you stand by that or do you not remember? Perhaps you've

3 forgotten. Things like that can be forgotten.

4 A. Well, it's been a long time, and as far as I can remember, that's

5 the way it was, roughly.

6 Q. All right. You spoke about this rally of citizens at the

7 cultural centre in 1992, when the leadership of the local commune had

8 been replaced or, rather, when they resigned and when a new leadership

9 was elected, headed by Ostoja Sibincic; right?

10 A. I spoke about that, yes.

11 Q. You said that Ostoja Sibincic was then illegally elected

12 representative of the commune. Why?

13 A. Because I think that's the way it was.

14 Q. Well, wait a minute. According to the laws in force then, were

15 elections in local communes held at rallies of citizens?

16 A. According to the law then, it was by public vote, acclamation, or

17 in writing at citizens' rallies. However, that was not a rally of the

18 citizens of Hrtkovci only. It was a rally of citizens who came from

19 elsewhere too. That is why I claim that it was illegal.

20 Q. Who was it that established that there were citizens from

21 elsewhere in attendance there?

22 A. The hall of the cultural centre takes a maximum of 250 people,

23 and it was full of people standing in the aisles and in front and all

24 over.

25 Q. Is that your only argument when you say that there were quite a

Page 10529

1 few citizens from elsewhere there as well?

2 A. Well, at that time it wasn't customary for more than 50 or

3 60 per cent of the local population to respond to invitations to attend

4 rallies and to have the local commune council elected in that way.

5 Q. When there is a rally, there's no need for a quorum; right? The

6 number of citizens who show up actually make the decision; right?

7 A. Half an hour has to go by until there's a quorum.

8 Q. A quorum was not indispensable. One waits for half an hour from

9 the scheduled time, and then work starts?

10 A. Then work goes on.

11 Q. As if there were a quorum?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Was the new leadership of the local commune elected unanimously?

14 A. I don't know.

15 Q. Do you know anyone who was there and who voted against the

16 election of Ostoja Sibincic?

17 A. I'd like to say something else in relation to that.

18 Q. You tell me what it is that I am asking you about. It's

19 different when the Prosecutor is asking you.

20 A. Well, I know, myself.

21 Q. Were you at that rally?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Did you vote against?

24 A. I didn't vote in favour, so that means that I'm against.

25 Q. That is not true. I am asking you whether you raised your hand

Page 10530

1 to vote against him. You didn't; right?

2 A. There was no point in me raising my hand when the situation was

3 as it was.

4 Q. When everybody was in favour of Ostoja Sibincic as president

5 unanimously; right?

6 A. That's not right.

7 Q. Did you speak at that rally of citizens?

8 A. I spoke in front of the cultural centre at the rally of citizens

9 that was held by the other inhabitants of Hrtkovci.

10 Q. Who are these other inhabitants, other citizens?

11 A. Well, at that time the citizens of Hrtkovci.

12 Q. Not with a single word did you oppose the election of

13 Ostoja Sibincic as president of the local commune, although you were

14 present at that rally of citizens, right, not a single word?

15 A. If that kind of atmosphere was created of a verbal clash, with a

16 possibility of it growing into a physical conflict, when I went out and

17 when I asked the local inhabitants to walk out so that there wouldn't be

18 a conflict, I think that that is a telling fact in its own right.

19 Q. No one remembers that you said a word, including asking anyone to

20 leave. No one in Hrtkovci remembers that.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, if I understood well,

22 this election had been rigged. Listening to you, it seems that there

23 were people who were there, but they didn't have a right of vote. This

24 is what you just told us; right?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what I wanted to say.

Page 10531

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the witness wasn't

2 in a position to identify a single man who was not from Hrtkovci. His

3 conclusion is on the basis of the large number, 200 and something-odd

4 people who came to the meeting, that there must have been others on the

5 side, because before 50 or 60 people would come to the rallies, citizens

6 rallies. That's what he said.

7 Q. Anyway, do you know about a single incident which happened in

8 Hrtkovci between the refugees and the local population, any serious

9 incident, where the police did not intervene when called? Can you tell

10 me anything like that?

11 A. Well, I can't remember.

12 Q. You can't remember because there were no such incidents. And do

13 you know that in Ruma, the police of Serbia set up a separate

14 headquarters, as it did in all other large places in Vojvodina, which was

15 in charge of preventing incidents from breaking out in that generally

16 heated atmosphere?

17 A. Yes, I do know about that.

18 Q. All right. Now, do you know, for example, that when the refugees

19 entered houses that had been left void, empty houses, that the police

20 always intervened whenever they were called and threw the refugees out of

21 other people's houses?

22 A. Yes, I do know about that.

23 Q. Do you know that a certain Milivoj Vukelja, who tried to set up

24 life in somebody else's house, was expelled to Republika Srpska; they

25 went that far to expel him?

Page 10532

1 A. I know that Vukelja lived in that house for a few months, so it

2 wasn't that he just tried to enter. He forcibly entered the house and

3 lived there for a few months, and it was only after a court judgement

4 that he was deported to Bosnia.

5 Q. With his family?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Why was he deported to Bosnia?

8 A. I don't know.

9 Q. Well, I assume because it was considered that he wasn't from the

10 areas from which the refugees had been expelled, but that he had come in

11 from Bosnia and was therefore returned and deported back to Bosnia.

12 Isn't that right?

13 A. Well, I don't know.

14 Q. But you do know about the general situation; right.

15 Now, why did you say that Slobodan Milosevic, with Tudjman, had

16 reached an agreement on a population exchange? Where do you get that

17 information from?

18 A. I said that that was my conviction, and I'm still convinced that

19 that is the case.

20 Q. Well, if you're convinced of something, you must base that

21 conviction on some facts. For example, I never saw anywhere in the

22 press, or in the electronic media, or political rallies, that somebody

23 accused Slobodan Milosevic of having agreed on a population exchange with

24 Tudjman by way of expelling people.

25 A. It is my conclusion, and I base it on the events that took place

Page 10533

1 and partially on information that was put out. You know that there was a

2 secret meeting between Tudjman and Milosevic. You know that yourself.

3 Q. Well, we could have read a lot about that secret meeting in the

4 media and some transcripts, too, but the media speculated that Tudjman

5 and Milosevic had reached an agreement about carving up Bosnia. But

6 nowhere did I read that they agreed about the exchange of the population

7 between Croatia and Serbia. That was not in the media. So don't put

8 this question on its head. If Tudjman -- if Tudjman and Milosevic

9 discussed one question and reached an agreement about one question, you

10 needn't draw the conclusion that they must have reached an agreement on a

11 completely different issue because that's your opinion, that's your

12 conviction.

13 A. I said that's my opinion, and I based it on the events that

14 happened and the facts.

15 Q. All right. Well, the Prosecution then has brought you in here to

16 testify on the basis of your convictions. Well, that's possible, too.

17 In The Hague Tribunal, things like that can happen too.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When you said this yesterday,

19 sir, I was quite interested by this.

20 Let's assume that what you said is right and that there is an

21 agreement between Tudjman and Milosevic which will provide for the Serbs

22 of Croatia to go to Serbia, and the other way around for the others. So

23 the Croats who were in your own village, somebody has to tell them that

24 they have to leave, in the framework of this agreement. So to your

25 knowledge, the Croats who left, and I'm not talking about those who

Page 10534

1 joined the Croatian National Guard but the others, were you convinced

2 that some of those Croats left because someone had pushed them to leave,

3 someone who was not a Serb, maybe he was a Croat, and who was exerting

4 pressure in order to get them to leave so that the agreement would

5 actually come to fruition?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my assumption is based

7 on the fact that there was information that I received from refugees who

8 had exchanged their houses, and also on the basis of the events that took

9 place in the place I lived in. And it is a fact that in Croatia, there

10 was a civil war that happened, so there was an armed conflict at the very

11 beginning between the authorities and the citizens. And in our state,

12 that did not happen, and it is my opinion and my conviction that this is

13 something that was coveted where we were, too. So the motive to send

14 refugees to predominantly Croatian areas was that, too. On the basis of

15 that, I base my opinions that there was an agreement to that effect, in

16 actual fact, because in situations where there was force and violence,

17 and when the population almost doubled, there was as many refugees as

18 inhabitants in the area where I lived in, that interventions came too

19 slow, and even where there was intervention, the perpetrator still stayed

20 on in the town or village. So that led me to make that conclusion and

21 form that opinion. Then and now, I understood the situation that these

22 refugees were in. They were frustrated. Their properties had been

23 destroyed. They'd been expelled. Family members had been killed. So I

24 understand them, I understand their reactions.

25 However, at the public rallies and when I spoke publicly, I

Page 10535

1 always said that it wasn't the inhabitants of Hrtkovci who were to blame

2 for what had happened "to you refugees, so don't blame them for your

3 predicament."

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I assume you know

5 Croats who left, and maybe you talked to them because you had a good

6 relationship with them as neighbours. I assume you did and you talked to

7 them. So before they left, what did they tell you, if they told you

8 anything?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, many people told me that when

10 they had reported things to the police or went to the police or their

11 friends' lawyers who had worked at the police force at one point or state

12 institutions, that they were told that they couldn't protect them and

13 that the best thing for them would be, for their own safety, to exchange

14 their property. I also talked to many refugees, who told me why they

15 were angry with me and those people that were protecting their

16 neighbours. Well, the neighbours did not protect us there as you were

17 neighbours protecting your neighbours here." That's what they said, so

18 they expected me, as a member of the same ethnicity, should take them in,

19 to forget my neighbours, the neighbours I lived next to and had lived for

20 many years, just because the person was of Croatian or Hungarian

21 ethnicity. They wanted me to go against my neighbours. So that's what I

22 know about the situation, what they went through, how they came to leave

23 and so on.

24 What I want to say is this: I do have information that I

25 received from the previous residents and inhabitants, that that was the

Page 10536

1 case, that was how it was, and that the Serbs were not welcome there,

2 returnees or any others, and they're not welcome to this day.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Seselj.

4 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation].

5 Q. Mr. Ejic, why, in your testimony, on many occasions do you

6 mention the Hungarians? Have you ever heard of me or any other

7 functionary of the Serbian Radical Party ever said an ugly word with

8 respect to the Hungarians?

9 A. No, I never heard that.

10 Q. Well, that's why I'm surprised that you're mentioning Hungarians

11 at all in this context, in the context of you accusing me that I stoked

12 the fire of the atmosphere to expel Croats. So there's no reason to

13 mention Hungarians here, is there?

14 A. Well, the fact is it happened, so then there is grounds for

15 mentioning Hungarians.

16 Q. Well, there were Hungarians in some places, too, but can that be

17 linked to the policies waged by the Serbian Radical Party in any way?

18 A. Well, there were fewer exchanges with Hungarians in comparison to

19 the Croatians.

20 Q. All right. I didn't understand that answer of yours, but never

21 mind. You said that unconsciously I was a tool in the hands of

22 Milosevic, which he used to promote his ends. Is that your conviction

23 again or do you have facts to bear that out, to support that?

24 A. That is my conviction on the basis of your behaviour and -- your

25 behaviour in the press and in public. If you strive for the principle of

Page 10537

1 reciprocity, then I cannot accept you as a humane person, because evil

2 must not be met with evil.

3 Q. So if I'm not a humane person, then according to you, I must be

4 Milosevic's tool, because anybody who is inhumane is Milosevic's tool.

5 Let aside the fact that you consider me to be inhumane, even if I were,

6 if you consider me to be that, why would I have to be a tool in

7 Milosevic's hands? Do you have any other reason for saying that?

8 A. Because you advocated the question of refugees most.

9 Q. Well, yes, I did do my best for refugees, and the Serbian Radical

10 Party did strive for the principle of retorsion publicly, but we attacked

11 Milosevic for not accepting that principle. Is that the truth of it?

12 A. Yes, it is.

13 Q. And we promised that when we came into power, we would apply that

14 principle; is that true too?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And is everything we said in the pre-election campaign true, that

17 we promised that when we came into power, we promised what we would do

18 once we seized power; right?

19 A. Yes, there was that too, there was that promise too.

20 Q. And did you ever happen to hear me utter or anybody else utter

21 from the Serbian Radical Party, high officials, that we advocated

22 situations where incidents broke out, that the Croatian population should

23 be abused and mistreated, that they should be beaten, that hand grenades

24 should be thrown on their property and anything like that? Did you ever

25 hear me utter things like that, or anybody from the party?

Page 10538

1 A. No.

2 Q. Did you hear of us giving out instructions of that kind

3 clandestinely, secretly?

4 A. That is just my assumption.

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I see. Your assumption; right.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, Mr. Seselj has put

7 some questions to you on the retaliation principle, and I'm trying to

8 shed some light on this.

9 At the time, from what I understood out of what Mr. Seselj was

10 saying, when he was talking about "retaliation or retorsion," what did

11 that mean, as far as you were concerned? How far did it go?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My understanding of the word is

13 that it is a response to the conduct and behaviour of a state, the

14 authorities, towards a section of the population, and that the same

15 conduct should be applied in the other state.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Does this mean that this led to

17 the following situation, and I'll illustrate this with an example: A

18 Serb is expelled by a Croat. Does this automatically lead to the fact

19 that a Croat will be expelled by a Serb?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's how I understand it.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is how you understand it.

22 Thank you.

23 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation].

24 Q. Well, since you understood it that way on the basis of the

25 leading question put to you by the Presiding Judge, were you conscious at

Page 10539

1 the relevant time --

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you're not allowed

3 to say this, it's a leading question. I put a question to the witness,

4 and I'm entitled to ask any question I wish.

5 Secondly, I wanted to know from the witness what he met by

6 retribution, the principle of retribution. I shall give an example,

7 practical case, and he gave us an answer. So let's not make anything out

8 of this question.

9 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation].

10 Q. At the relevant time, did I speak about the state policy and not

11 what one individual did was something that another individual did? I was

12 talking about state policy, "When we come into power, we will provide you

13 with the addresses, and then you will exchange your property with them."

14 Did I say that?

15 A. Yes, you did say that, but the inhabitants didn't understand that

16 that was something that would be applied before you came into power.

17 Q. But that was the policy of the Serbian Renewal Movement, led by

18 you and Ostoja Sibincic, and not the Serbian Radical Party?

19 A. That's not true.

20 Q. Do you know of a single case whereby the members of the Serbian

21 Radical Party from Hrtkovci exerted pressure on the local Croats to move

22 out, a single case? Give me the name and surname of somebody who was a

23 member of the Serbian Radical Party who did things like that.

24 A. I don't know whether he was an official member at the time, but,

25 for example, what happened to my cousin -- to my brother-in-law by Cakmak

Page 10540

1 and his son and somebody else tells me that that was the case.

2 Q. But Rade Cakmak was never a member of the Serbian Radical Party.

3 Ostoja Sibincic became a member at the end of last year, but Rade Cakmak

4 never was.

5 A. Well, that was the prevailing opinion, that they were members of

6 the Serbian Radical Party.

7 Q. I see. So whenever a Serb does something bad, you are convinced

8 straight away that that person must be a member of the Serbian Radical

9 Party; is that the logic?

10 A. Well, that's the logic, but if the Serbian Radical Party did

11 nothing in the local area and let incidents like that go by, then that's

12 the opinion I draw.

13 Q. The Hague Tribunal has several speeches of mine in which I speak

14 out against incidents like that, and they must have put out a

15 proclamation on -- up on the board; right? So what newspaper would be

16 interested about what a local board does in Hrtkovci?

17 A. The public board for announcements in Hrtkovci is not a yard

18 fence.

19 Q. All right. You said that Ostoja Sibincic, in 1992, was arrested

20 pursuant to instructions from the federal Prime Minister Milan Panic;

21 right?

22 A. That's what I heard. That's what the press wrote about.

23 Q. On what grounds? On what grounds was the prime minister able to

24 give instructions for anybody's arrest? Where is that to be found in the

25 law?

Page 10541

1 A. I don't know.

2 Q. You don't understand the law, but you say he issued instructions

3 to that effect?

4 A. That's what I heard.

5 Q. I know that there was a lot of problems in Serbia with the

6 functioning of the legal system, but that a prime minister can order

7 somebody's arrest in Serbia, that was absolutely impossible, right,

8 especially as that federal prime minister was in a conflict with the

9 president of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic; right?

10 A. The arrest did happen now.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, yesterday when you

12 said this, I was quite surprised. I wondered how a federal

13 prime minister could take care of what was happening to John Doe at some

14 kind of village. I was quite surprised. And you say, "I heard," but

15 through hearsay or what, because you had no specific elements that could

16 lead you to think that Milan Panic had arrested Ostoja Sibincic?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think, Your Honour, that this is

18 what was written in some newspapers, and Mr. Panic himself spoke on

19 television to the effect -- well, I can't remember his exact words. Now,

20 did he suggest or order the arrest?

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But if Panic talked

22 about it over the television, why was Sibincic arrested? What was the

23 motivation behind arresting this person? He was against law and order,

24 he was an agitator; why did he want him arrested?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, because Mr. Panic

Page 10542

1 himself had received information and complaints from the citizens of

2 Hrtkovci that Ostoja Sibincic, together with a group of refugees, was the

3 organiser and protagonist of all of these things that were happening in

4 Hrtkovci; violence, threats, evictions of people from houses, forcible

5 moving in and so on.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I understand better

7 now.

8 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation].

9 Q. When talking to The Hague investigators, you stated that at one

10 moment a group of people from elsewhere showed up, who exerted pressure,

11 and you said that they were either Arkan's men or White Eagles. Do you

12 remember that?

13 A. I remember.

14 Q. When was this? Just the year, just the year. The date doesn't

15 matter.

16 A. Well, that year, 1992. I don't know the date.

17 Q. And on the basis of what did you conclude that they were Arkan's

18 men or White Eagles? Did they have some insignia?

19 A. No. I said that I heard that.

20 Q. You didn't even see them?

21 A. I didn't.

22 Q. Somebody told you that?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Do you know who it was?

25 A. I can't remember.

Page 10543

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Do we have enough time

2 until the break? I want to put one more question. I hope there's enough

3 time.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ten minutes before the break.

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Perhaps we can extend the time for

6 four or five minutes, if so required by this question, perhaps. Do you

7 allow me to do that? Okay.

8 Q. Now, towards the end of your statement to The Hague

9 investigators, you said or you mentioned that I also had a gathering

10 within the local elections campaign in Ruma and in Indija, that I

11 criticised Slobodan Milosevic and the Socialist Party there, as well as

12 Vuk Draskovic and the Serbian Renewal Movement, and that at these two

13 gatherings I said that all of those who were not local Serbs should

14 leave, and you ascribed other things to me as well. Do you remember

15 having said that to The Hague investigators?

16 A. Your Honour, correction in relation to that. I do remember, but

17 I attended two gatherings, one in Ruma and another one in Indija. I

18 don't remember what the date was. I know that the one in Indija was held

19 on a Sunday, because I played chess at the club there. I stand corrected

20 in relation to whether you took part in these two gatherings or was it

21 only your party and its representatives. Perhaps I confused this with

22 your speeches on television, so then I linked it up to these two cases

23 when I was actually present.

24 Q. A few days ago, on the 5th of October, you talked again to the

25 Prosecutor, to the investigators from The Hague, and as far as they've

Page 10544

1 informed me, you stated that you were not sure whether Seselj took part

2 at the gatherings in Ruma and Indija or whether it was on television that

3 he had seen Seselj:

4 "He had seen a large number of meetings on television, so perhaps

5 he was confused. Nikolic, the former deputy, spoke. He remembers that

6 that person spoke in Ruma and Indija. The witness attended these two

7 meetings. The meeting in Indija was on a Sunday at 1.00 or 2.00 in the

8 afternoon. The one at Ruma was held later at 6.00. He wasn't sure

9 whether Seselj was present or not. The meeting was organised by the SRS,

10 but he's not sure whether Seselj was present."

11 What was it that happened on the 5th of October that you

12 mentioned that Tomislav Nikolic spoke at these two gatherings?

13 A. Well, there are a lot of things that I saw on TV, so I confuse

14 things in terms of my memory. Since I do not remember faces and people

15 that much, I remember the essence of what happened and what was spoken in

16 general terms, so that's why I said that, that I'm not sure whether you

17 were there or not, whether I confused you with being there or being on

18 television, and then I linked those two up or, rather, these two

19 gatherings that I personally attended.

20 Q. But you do not know that at that time, Tomislav Nikolic lived in

21 Kragujevac, and that he only attended big rallies of the Serb Radical

22 Party in Sumadija, Pomoravlje, and he attended smaller ones, that was his

23 area and and elsewhere in Serbia, he attended only big rallies? What I'm

24 saying to you is it is impossible that Tomislav Nikolic spoke in Ruma and

25 Indija, because these are, after all, small towns and he wouldn't come

Page 10545

1 all the way from Kraljevac to be there. Do you believe me when Ii say

2 that?

3 A. Well, I can believe you, and it's possible that I got mixed up in

4 terms of faces.

5 Q. The fact that Tomislav Nikolic was thrown out of the Serb

6 Radical Party, is that what perhaps made you say to The Hague

7 investigators, "Ah, he spoke at these rallies"?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Was the association maybe that now Tomislav Nikolic is moving in

10 the steps of Vuk Draskovic, your former president, and that you inferred

11 it on the basis of that? I'm really surprised why you mentioned his name

12 here.

13 A. Well, I mentioned his name as a prominent official of --

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But that's a bit irresponsible.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, the Trial Chamber

16 has asked you not to address Mr. Nikolic's situation in relation to your

17 own party. Everyone is well aware of this. We don't need to rehash the

18 subject over and over again. The only important question was to find out

19 whether Mr. Nikolic had actually made this speech. It seems that the

20 witness is no longer sure about this, so please move on.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, on the 5th of

22 October, the witness was sure, when he spoke to the investigators from

23 The Hague, or the Prosecutor, or whoever it was that talked to him. He

24 is sure here Nikolic, the former deputy, spoke. That is what is written

25 here on page 3 of this document that I received from the OTP: "Present

Page 10546

1 were the following persons:"

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But what is important is what

3 the witness is saying today in this courtroom before the Bench.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Ms. Lattanzi, it is important

5 when I see that there is a collision between his two statements, what he

6 says today and what he says four days ago. What's the day today, the

7 9th?

8 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes, but he admitted, he said

9 that he might have been confused. He gave us an explanation, and that is

10 sufficient.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] However, on the basis of similar

12 confused witnesses yesterday, Milan Martic, the president of the Republic

13 of the Serb Krajina had his sentence of 35 years confirmed. A witness

14 gets confused, and terrible things happen.

15 I have the right to defend myself in this way, and it only suits

16 me when witnesses get confused, so I try to use it to a maximum.

17 As far as I'm concerned, you can take the break now, if that's

18 what you wanted. Just tell me how much more time I have left. I have

19 two or three questions left.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You must have -- well, we'll

21 take a break, of course, but you will have one hour left after the break,

22 one hour.

23 We'll take the break now.

24 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

25 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.

Page 10547

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We're back in

2 session.

3 Mr. Seselj, you have the floor. I told you you had one hour

4 left.

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Perhaps I'll finish even a bit

6 earlier. Some important questions will remain unanswered, because I have

7 to remind you yet again that I have not been allowed contact with my

8 associates. So as for cross-examination --

9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Seselj, I think we have been through this

10 before, and you are incorrect in saying that you have been denied access.

11 The only thing is that you have still the possibility of contacting your

12 Defence associates in Belgrade, but not under the privileged terms,

13 because the issue of a possible violation is still pending.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, if I don't have a privileged

15 relationship, then it's as if I had no relationship whatsoever, and

16 indeed I do not have any relationship. So I have to remind you, each and

17 every time I cross-examine, that that is the case. Well, you can forbid

18 that as well, because that is a problem for me for as long as witnesses

19 are here, and I do have the right to complain for being denied the

20 possibility of putting more important questions.

21 Q. All right. Mr. Ejic, sometime in mid-1992, you got in touch with

22 Nenad Canak, president of the Legal of Social Democrats in Vojvodina;

23 right? When did that take place?

24 A. Could I please ask you not to speak so loud, because I really

25 cannot handle it even through headphones.

Page 10548

1 Q. Well, move them away. What can I do about it?

2 A. All right. It is correct that I had contacts with Nenad Canak.

3 This was after the killing of Mijat Stefanac.

4 Q. Mijat Stefanac was killed during the night between the 28th and

5 29th of June, 1992; right?

6 A. I don't remember exactly what the date was. Approximately that.

7 Q. Do you know that the murderers were killed immediately on that

8 day, that they were taken to court and convicted?

9 A. I do know about that.

10 Q. What was the reason for you to go to see Nenad Canak; the fact

11 that Stefanac was killed?

12 A. Precisely.

13 Q. So what did you say to Canak then?

14 A. I visited him at his apartment. I informed him about the

15 situation in Hrtkovci, and I mentioned that I was very frightened that

16 the first murder had happened. The motive was not known, but the fact

17 remains that this did happen, and that I was afraid that similar

18 situations could spread.

19 Q. Who got you in touch with Nenad Canak?

20 A. I can't remember, but somehow I managed to get his telephone

21 number.

22 Q. Did you call him up then and say, "This is who I am, my name is"

23 so-and-so, "I wish to talk to you"? What did you say?

24 A. Well, I that think we've known each other from earlier on, from

25 the public domain. He knew my name and I knew his name.

Page 10549

1 Q. How is it you met?

2 A. I don't remember exactly.

3 Q. Well, that is a very prominent figure in Serbian political life.

4 I, for instance, remember when I first met him, although as a politician

5 he's not all that important, but then I remember and you don't remember.

6 I find that a bit strange. Right?

7 A. I don't find it strange. Sometimes I forget my very own

8 neighbour's real name and then I remember it afterwards, and especially

9 now, after all this time, I cannot remember all these details that are

10 not really important in my life.

11 Q. Well, wasn't it more natural for you to call the president of

12 your own party at the time, Vuk Draskovic, and to discuss what had

13 happened with him?

14 A. Well, it would have been more natural. However, when I disbanded

15 the local board, I, in fact, ceased being a member and I was no longer

16 active in the SPO.

17 Q. But this is the month of June. In June, you hadn't disbanded the

18 board yet. It was in the second half of the year that you did that;

19 right? That's what you said. You went to see Nenad Canak at the time

20 when you were still president of the local board of the Serb Renewal

21 Movement; right?

22 A. I don't recall that that's exactly the way it was.

23 Q. When did you disband the local board of the SPO?

24 A. Well, you see, I don't even remember that date. If you remind me

25 with a document, then I can confirm, yes, that's when it happened.

Page 10550

1 Q. You said the end of 1992. I would like to remind you of what

2 you, yourself, said. What do I need documents for? What you pasted on

3 that bulletin board of yours there is something that I've never seen, and

4 no one remembers that. You said yourself that at the end of 1992, you

5 disbanded the local board of the SPO and that you had the consent of the

6 Municipal Board to do that, and that is something that remains carved in

7 one's memory forever. That party of yours disappeared in Hrtkovci then

8 and it was never renewed, although as a candidate of that party in

9 December 1992, you ran in the election, and after that you were even a

10 candidate in the provincial elections; right?

11 A. I remembered that what remains carved in my memory are events and

12 facts, not dates and names.

13 Q. All right. What was it that Nenad Canak said to you then, when

14 you explained the situation in Hrtkovci to him?

15 A. As far as I can remember, he said that he could not help me very

16 much because pressure is being brought to bear against him, too, by the

17 authorities. He just made it possible for me to have contacts with the

18 press. I think it was Mazar Sol [phoen] and some other media. I can't

19 remember exactly now. I went there and I made a statement.

20 Q. Mr. Ejic, Nenad Canak at the time was the president of a marginal

21 political party which was not represented at all either in the Federal

22 Parliament or the Republican Parliament, and at no local level of

23 government either; right? They had no municipal assemblymen, no MPs, no

24 one. You went to see this very marginal politician to seek his

25 intervention and assistance, and the president of your party, in

Page 10551

1 Belgrade -- Belgrade is closer to you than Novi Sad. The president of

2 your party is there, and your party at that time was a major opposition

3 party; right? In the Parliament of Serbia, your party had the largest

4 number of MPs, compared to other opposition parties; right?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Isn't that a bit strange?

7 A. Well, perhaps to you, but not to me, because I went to see a man

8 who's from Vojvodina and who was opposed to what was happening in

9 Vojvodina, so I don't find that strange.

10 Q. Mr. Ejic, you were afraid of the policy you had been pursuing

11 until then because a man had lost his life. You were not aware of the

12 circumstances of his death, and you were seeking ways and means to get

13 yourself out of that situation, and that is why you did not turn to the

14 organs of your party that stood behind what had happened in Hrtkovci.

15 Rather, you sought Nenad Canak, knowing, although his party was way too

16 small, that he had lots of contacts with the media, especially foreign

17 journalists, that he also had diplomatic contacts and so on and so forth,

18 not to go into any depth; right? You wanted in a way to switch sides on

19 time?

20 MR. FERRARA: Your Honours, I don't see any question in this long

21 speech.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, this is the first

23 objection raised today, and I hope it will be the last. Please try to

24 turn what you've just said into a question.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I think the question was a

Page 10552

1 very clear one and a precise one, and I'm not going to repeat it. I'm

2 going to move on to my other question, and it is this --

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, don't feel

4 offended. You have the screen in front of you. Look at line 1, page 52.

5 You can see that it's more a statement than a question. If you don't

6 want to ask that question, fine, but this is the reason why Mr. Ferrara

7 raised his objection, and I think he was right.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, if he was right.

9 Q. Mr. Ejic, what else did Nenad Canak do with respect to your

10 arrival?

11 A. In addition to enabling me to have access to the media and make a

12 statement, he did his best to inform the public and the party.

13 Q. And then you made an agreement with Nenad Canak that all the

14 blame should be placed on the Serbian Radical Party, shifted to them,

15 because the killing of Mijat Stefanac you were sure would have serious

16 consequences; right?

17 A. I didn't reach any agreement with anybody linked to you.

18 Q. Not me, personally, but the Serbian Radical Party. Anyway,

19 Nenad Canak, did he send out a large number of journalists, both foreign

20 and domestic, to Hrtkovci?

21 A. The fact is that after that event, a large number of domestic and

22 foreign journalists did appear in our town.

23 Q. And a campaign against the Serbian Radical Party was unleashed;

24 right?

25 A. I didn't understand it that way, as a campaign against your party

Page 10553

1 at the time, but as informing the broader public about what was happening

2 in Hrtkovci.

3 Q. And it was orchestrated, synchronised, all the problems in

4 Hrtkovci were made to appear as being the consequence of my 6th of May

5 speech at a Serbian Radical Party meeting; right?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Did any other famous people come to Hrtkovci during that time?

8 A. Could you refresh my memory and give me a name, perhaps?

9 Q. Yes, I can. Did Natasa Kandic, for instance, come to Hrtkovci

10 immediately after that?

11 A. I know she was there, but I don't know whether she came

12 immediately afterwards, and I fairly frequently had contacts with her,

13 too, with respect to the situation in Hrtkovci.

14 Q. How many times did you have -- were you in contact with her?

15 A. Quite a number of times. I can't remember how many.

16 Q. When was the last time?

17 A. Perhaps a few years ago.

18 Q. Did you talk to Natasa Kandic about your testimony in the trial

19 against me?

20 A. No.

21 Q. You didn't; right. Now, what about Vesna Pesic, the president of

22 the Citizens Alliance or the Reformist Party; did she come to Hrtkovci?

23 A. At a citizens' rally, there were a number of representatives, I

24 remember on one occasion, and I remember the Seselj Democratic League,

25 the party of Vojvodina Croats, and Hungarians, the Citizens Alliance and

Page 10554

1 so on. Now, whether Vesna Pesic was there, I can't remember.

2 Q. Well, do you know that Vesna Pesic convinced

3 Dr. Branimir Vuksanovic that his name should be found on a secret list

4 for persecution and that he should leave Hrtkovci as soon as possible?

5 A. No, I don't know about that.

6 Q. But you claimed here that Mr. Zilic, among other things, at a

7 rally mentioned the name of Branimir Vuksanic; right?

8 A. Yes, I remember of that.

9 Q. And nobody heard that except for you, nobody remembers that, no

10 the policemen who were present, and yesterday I quoted a passage of the

11 Security Service detail that was there. Nobody mentions that the name of

12 Branimir Vuksanic was mentioned at all. What do you say to that?

13 Branimir Vuksanic is one of the most prominent and respected citizens of

14 Hrtkovci; right?

15 A. As a doctor, yes, indeed.

16 Q. He was a very well-loved doctor. He was recognised as a good

17 diagnostician, his wife was a Serb, and he was on good terms with

18 everyone. He was never involved in any incidents.

19 A. Well, I think his wife is still a Serb and what you say is

20 correct.

21 Q. And this group chose him to provide him with false information

22 and to encourage him to leave Hrtkovci and to exchange his property for a

23 suburb of Zagreb or somewhere around Zagreb, and to influence other

24 Croats to do the same through his example, to exchange their own

25 properties?

Page 10555

1 A. I don't know about that.

2 Q. Do you know of a single incident linked to the name of Branimir

3 Vuksanic?

4 A. What I heard from him personally was that at his workplace, he

5 had an unpleasant time when he heard comments made by others to the

6 effect, "I don't want to be treated by an Ustasha doctor," and things

7 like that, and that he was threatened through the mail.

8 Q. Well, how come he doesn't remember that, that people said they

9 didn't want to be treated by an Ustasha doctor? Nobody ever referred to

10 him as a Ustasha in Hrtkovci.

11 A. Well, I don't remember [as interpreted] how he doesn't remember,

12 because that's how the story went, how I heard it.

13 Q. Very well. You looked through this list provided to you by the

14 OTP, isn't that right, and on the list we have 728 names of Croats from

15 Hrtkovci; right?

16 A. That's right, and the names I added.

17 Q. 722, and you added 6 names to the list; right?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. You established, first of all, that all the people on the list

20 had not actually moved out of Hrtkovci and that some live there today

21 still?

22 A. Yes, that's right.

23 Q. And then you marked a total of eight people who you thought had

24 left under pressure; right?

25 A. I think that I, yes, made a note of eight, singled out eight.

Page 10556

1 Q. The first name is Branko, Branimir Vuksanic, I don't know what

2 his real name was, and Nikola Vuksanic; right?

3 A. Yes, that's right.

4 Q. And as to pressure exerted against them, you give the example of

5 the fact that somebody had said to him at work that he didn't want to be

6 treated by an Ustasha doctor; right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And the threat, the pamphlet put through his letter box?

9 A. Right, pamphlet through the letter box.

10 Q. Pakic, Rozalija and Vlado, what about them? That was a married

11 couple from Skolska [phoen] Street who were forcibly evicted by the

12 refugees, but were returned to their homes with the help of the police;

13 right?

14 A. Right.

15 Q. Are they still living in Hrtkovci?

16 A. Yes, they're still living in Hrtkovci today.

17 Q. So they had a problem. The police resolved that problem, and

18 they've stayed on living there. Were all the rest able to stay on? If

19 they had some unpleasantness, they got through it; they would contact the

20 authorities and be given protection. Was that the normal way of doing

21 things, going about things?

22 A. That's how it should have been, but it wasn't like that in

23 practice.

24 Q. Then we have the couple Jelica and Franjo Tkalac; right? You

25 said that a hand grenade was thrown next to their house?

Page 10557

1 A. I say that now, too, and that's what I wrote on the list.

2 Q. All right. It probably was a hand grenade. I heard that there

3 were three or four hand grenades or, rather, explosions in Hrtkovci. To

4 my knowledge, four, in fact, and you mentioned three explosions. That's

5 no secret. Now, tell me what happened to that couple?

6 A. They live in Croatia today and exchanged their property.

7 Q. Who did they exchange their house with?

8 A. With refugees from Croatia.

9 Q. Did they receive property which was worth more or less, in

10 relation to the value of the property they owned?

11 A. Well, they didn't complain to me that they had been short-changed

12 at all.

13 Q. According to my information, they received property of far

14 greater value than their original property in Hrtkovci. Right?

15 A. In some cases, what you say was correct.

16 Q. The seventh example of pressure that you mention is Josip Bagi?

17 A. Yes, Josip Bagi. He is my brother-in-law.

18 Q. And you spoke of the incident that took place?

19 A. Yes, I did mention that.

20 Q. Anyway, did Josip Bagi continue to live in Hrtkovci?

21 A. Yes, he still lives in Hrtkovci.

22 Q. And the eighth name that pressure was exerted upon was you,

23 Aleksa Ejic; right?

24 A. Yes, right.

25 Q. So to the best of your knowledge, those were all the people from

Page 10558

1 Hrtkovci upon whom pressure was brought to bear; right?

2 A. Well, not quite right. They were people that I know about.

3 Q. Yes, that you know about. Well, had you known of other cases,

4 I'm sure you would have marked their names on this list. You wouldn't

5 have kept quiet about them.

6 A. Well, what you hear from others, you can't actually claim to be

7 100 per cent true, so that is why I didn't pinpoint any other names,

8 except for the fact that I added that the other names, the names of other

9 people, due to psychological pressure, entered the exchange process.

10 Q. But this psychological pressure was created by the general mood

11 in the society?

12 A. I agree.

13 Q. There weren't specific instances of pressure or coercion, people

14 saying, "You have to leave and move out or we'll kill you;" do you agree

15 with what I'm saying?

16 A. Yes, partially.

17 Q. Can we then say that the Croatian population in Hrtkovci, some

18 organised force launched an attack, and that it was as a result of an

19 attack that they left their houses and flats and fled?

20 A. Well, if by "organised force" you consider a group of five or six

21 citizens, then that would be the case.

22 Q. Do you consider that in Hrtkovci, a crime against humanity was

23 committed against the Croats of Hrtkovci? Do you know what a crime

24 against humanity means, that term, do you know what it means?

25 A. As I understand it, "crime against humanity" means inhumane

Page 10559

1 treatment, violence, physical and psychological pressure.

2 Q. But the consequences must be terrible for it to be a crime

3 against humanity; right? Anyway, that's an expert question. Let's leave

4 that for the moment.

5 Do you consider that in any one case, that members of the

6 Croatian National Minority [as interpreted] in Hrtkovci or any other

7 place in Vojvodina, that deportation was carried out? Do you know what

8 "deportation" means, when you capture somebody, take them into custody,

9 and then deport that person somewhere, just like when they arrest the

10 Romany ethnicity in Germany and deport them to Serbia? That's an example

11 of deportation. Were there any instances of a single Croat being

12 deported from Serbia to Croatia?

13 A. I have no knowledge about that.

14 Q. And can you mention a single case of forcible eviction -- or let

15 me explain the difference between deportation and forcible expulsion.

16 Deportation is between states, and forcible expulsion or eviction is

17 within one state. Have you got any examples of somebody coming and

18 telling someone, "You now have to move to some other place in Belgrade,"

19 Novi Sad or wherever, and forcibly force that person to pick up all his

20 chattels and move out; any examples?

21 A. The example of Milivoj Vukelja is a case in point, and when there

22 was a Serb decision to move him out.

23 Q. But they were Serb refugees. Just a moment, I'm talking about

24 Croats now. Do you have a single case of a Croat that was forcibly

25 expelled and forced to move and settle somewhere else?

Page 10560

1 A. No, not for deportation.

2 Q. But you've understood the difference between deportation and

3 forcible expulsion. It's only of a formal nature?

4 A. Yes, I do understand that.

5 Q. Now, many Croats were motivated -- now, I'm going to put this to

6 you, and then you can say whether you agree with me or not. Many Croats

7 were motivated to exchange their properties. One of the reasons were

8 that they would be exchanging their own property for property of greater

9 value. The second reason was that they considered that their life would

10 be better in Croatia than it would be in Serbia. The third reason was

11 that they were afraid of social disruptions in Serbia because a vast -- a

12 large wave of refugees had already arrived in Serbia, so their future was

13 not certain. The fourth reason was that perhaps they had experienced

14 some incident -- an incident, whether serious or less serious. The

15 police intervened in all these incidents, but people perhaps thought it

16 would be better to exchange their properties than run any risks.

17 So now have I quoted the four main reasons for people engaging in

18 an exchange of property?

19 A. You have, you have set out the main reasons.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, fine.

21 Then that concludes the cross-examination, and, Mr. Ejic, I have

22 no reason to be dissatisfied with your testimony at all, and I wish to

23 state that publicly, and any negative reaction in your environment

24 towards you would be ill-intentioned, and if it were to occur, I would

25 condemn it. So there's no reason for that at all, sir, and I don't think

Page 10561

1 you have any reason to fear anything. That is my personal view.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you for being -- if you're

3 frank and sincere.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, you doubted my frankness and

5 sincerity, I doubted yours. But we're on opposite sides, you're a

6 Prosecution witness, I'm the accused, so that's something that's quite

7 normal. But I really think that there's no reason for you to fear

8 because you've helped me a great deal in presenting some of the

9 information and details you've gave here, especially with helping me to

10 identify the people for whom you establish that pressure was exerted upon

11 them, including the Serbs.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I came here to tell the truth and

13 the whole truth of what happened, and that is my motive for coming here;

14 nothing else. And of course we differ politically, we have different

15 opinions and views as to how the situation should have been dealt with

16 and how the situation should be dealt with today, indeed, and that's the

17 basic difference between you and me.

18 Questioned by the Court:

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, a few follow-up

20 questions. I take the opportunity of you being here to try and better

21 understand a few aspects of the indictment and the pre-trial brief.

22 The Prosecutor and Mr. Seselj brought out this speech made on the

23 6th of May, 1992, by Mr. Seselj, but I'm looking at the indictment and

24 the pre-trial brief, and I notice that we needed to go back even further

25 in time.

Page 10562

1 According to what the Prosecutor claims, and of course the

2 Prosecutor's claims will be put under scrutiny when the Judges

3 deliberate, but what the Prosecutor says is that during the fall of 1991,

4 before May 1992, in other words, another speech was delivered by

5 Mr. Seselj in Subotica, in Vojvodina. Had you heard about that speech?

6 Did you hear that it had been delivered?

7 A. Your Honour, unfortunately I cannot recall anything in relation

8 to that speech.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This is the

10 starting point for the Prosecutor. This is in paragraph 126 of the

11 Prosecutor's brief. You don't have it, but trust me, I'm quoting from

12 that document. With the influx of Serb refugees, there was also a

13 campaign of intimidation of non-Serbs in several municipalities of

14 Vojvodina, and in particular in your own area.

15 Now, as far as you know, did other people, maybe other members of

16 your own party, tell you that this was the same situation everywhere,

17 that there were several campaigns of intimidation, or didn't you know

18 anything about it?

19 A. It's not that I didn't know anything about it. I knew that there

20 were stories of that nature and that there was that kind of campaign

21 going on too, but I don't have any personal knowledge. It wasn't that I

22 was present or something like that.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You'd heard several things, but

24 you didn't have personal knowledge. Fine.

25 Still, according to the Prosecutor, members of the Serbian

Page 10563

1 Radical Party from the municipality of Sid, the stronghold of the party,

2 according to you, were all the members of the party concentrated in Sid,

3 at least most of them?

4 A. What I know is that we in Sid also had a strong organisation, and

5 once I even attended a meeting there, which is to say that the SPO had

6 quite a presence in Sid.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] SPO was very present in Sid.

8 Now, to your knowledge, did Mr. Seselj's supporters or those who were in

9 his movement, were they also -- was there a strong presence of these

10 people in Sid.

11 A. I do not know of that.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You don't know. Because

13 paragraph 126 of the Prosecution's brief, the Prosecutor says that

14 members of the Serbian Radical Party of Sid used to roam around in cities

15 and villages, it does seem that there are a lot of people who are roaming

16 around in cities and the villages to harass the Croats. So if this is

17 true, if what is alleged here is true, you know, we will be asking all

18 these questions to other witnesses, not just you, but we have a person

19 here in the courtroom who has good information on this, so let's take

20 advantage of this. So could you tell us whether at the time you knew

21 that there were these harassment and intimidation campaigns going on in

22 cities and villages in the area?

23 A. As far as I can remember, I heard that something like that had

24 been written in the press; namely, that certain groups were doing things

25 like that.

Page 10564

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In the press. Very well, in

2 the press, only in the press. How far is Sid from Hrtkovci.

3 A. Around 40 kilometres.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] About 40 kilometres. Very

5 well. There was mention of the Hungarians who lived in your village.

6 How far is the Hungarian border from Hrtkovci?

7 A. Well, Novi Sad is 60 kilometres away, and then Subotica, say,

8 about 100 kilometres.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Croats who'd

10 left for Croatia and who came back later on, because we know that when

11 things cooled down, some Croats came back, and you actually told us that

12 some Croats had come about, now, did you discuss with those who returned,

13 did you discuss these events with them?

14 A. I don't quite understand the question. You mean --

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me be very specific. There

16 were Croats who used to live in your village, and in 1992 they left that

17 town to go to Croatia, maybe Zagreb or elsewhere. They went to Croatia.

18 So either that was in the framework of a voluntary flat exchange or

19 because of exchanges that had been initiated by someone. So all these

20 people left for Croatia, and then a few years later, when things cooled

21 down, these people came back, and I thought, if I'm not mistaken, that

22 you did say that some came back. Now, did you discuss it with those who

23 actually came back?

24 A. Ilic, Justina, is a person who is deceased. She left. She

25 carried out an exchange of her house. She left with her husband, and her

Page 10565

1 daughter stayed on in Platicevo, and then she returned and lived with her

2 daughter. I know of that case. What I mentioned was that some people

3 had left and then returned. I meant they went somewhere abroad, sought

4 shelter somewhere, and then returned afterwards.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What I'm interested in is those

6 Croats who went to Croatia, not those who went abroad. Those who went to

7 Croatia and came back, were there any of them?

8 A. I understand the question, and I mentioned this one case that I'm

9 aware of of this elderly person.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Did you discuss with this

11 elderly lady, did you discuss the events with her.

12 A. Well, sometimes we did talk, and she expressed her

13 dissatisfaction and her regret over the fact that she had left in the

14 first place and carried out the exchange. Specifically, she had carried

15 out an exchange for a home at a smaller place. I think it's Kula. In

16 relation to Hrtkovci, it's not as nice.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This exchange of houses, which

18 we've already discussed with other witnesses, it's not extremely clear in

19 my mind, and maybe also in the mind of my fellow Judges. So you exchange

20 houses. Does this mean that you exchange them over a period of time or

21 that you actually own the house? Because if you become owner of the

22 house, there needs to be some kind of deed. So how did it happen? I

23 mean, you were a local official. You were well informed on many things,

24 and you proved this amply to us. So when there is a house exchange, what

25 happens regarding the deeds?

Page 10566

1 A. Well, exchange procedures evolved as follows: Refugees, well,

2 many of them used the telephone to agree on exchanges. However, there

3 were examples of the residents of Hrtkovci going out there to check

4 things out and carry out exchanges only then. There were many agreements

5 of that kind. They would make an agreement over the telephone, they

6 would take each other's word, and that's what they'd do. And then this

7 would be made official at the court in the municipality of Ruma, this

8 official document on the exchange of the house.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you go to the municipality

10 or to court. I believe I've heard that. And that's when the official

11 document on the exchange of the house is actually drafted; is that what

12 you mean?

13 A. Yes, Your Honour, you are right.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I assume that the

15 Croats going to Zagreb also need to draft an official deed in order to

16 exchange the vacant Serb house, so are there two official deeds that are

17 done simultaneously or is there only one deed.

18 A. At first, I think that this was not possible for many people

19 because of the war operations in Croatia, to do that. It was only done

20 through -- in Serbia, but then perhaps the document would be dealt with

21 through a lawyer in Croatia as well, and it would be verified in that

22 way. I know many people did not go there because of their personal

23 safety concerns.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In passing again, a very

25 interesting detail. You said that people were calling on the phone. So

Page 10567

1 they call on the phone, they make an agreement over the phone, and

2 sometimes they even go on site to check the house. Very well.

3 Let's imagine that we have Mr. X living in Zagreb. He's a Serb,

4 and he will call Mr. Y, who is a Croat living in Hrtkovci. And over the

5 phone, they say, "Can we exchange houses?" So everything happens over

6 the phone, if I understood you well.

7 A. Yes. I know the case of Milan Fumic, that he spoke on the

8 telephone with the current owner, Zunic, who was staying with some

9 relatives or friends of his in Vojvodina at the time. I heard that from

10 Zunic as well, that it was over the telephone that they carried out the

11 exchange or, rather, agreed on it. Milan Fumic went to the actual spot,

12 saw the property involved, and then he returned and wrote up a deed in

13 Ruma.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. And when those who

15 arrived found out that they had a nice house earlier and that they were

16 stuck now with a smaller house that was not so nice, what happened ?

17 A. Many people didn't have a choice. Then they accepted what was

18 offered to them at that point in time, although they were not satisfied

19 with that.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What of today?

21 A. There were cases the other way around, too, from the other side.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I had a question for you, but I

23 saw Mr. Seselj raising his hand.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'm trying to contribute to

25 this very good examination of yours. I think it would be a good thing to

Page 10568

1 see exactly who the people who did not have a choice were. Was it the

2 Croats from Serbia who were exchanging property with the expelled Serbs,

3 or the Serbs who were expelled from Croatia?

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You did say that earlier. It

5 didn't escape me. It looked like at first some did this on a voluntary

6 basis, very freely, but then some really didn't have much of a choice.

7 So the Serbs who lived in Croatia -- you know, our problem is

8 that in the evidence that we were provided with, we don't really know

9 what the situation in Croatia was. We have a few elements in this

10 respect, but not much. We don't really know what happened over there.

11 So the Serbs in Croatia who would -- so this Mr. X in Croatia,

12 who is calling Mr. Y in Hrtkovci, Mr. X is a Serb living in Croatia and

13 he's calling, does he calling because he's forced by the Croats to do

14 this? This is important.

15 A. Yes, Your Honour, precisely on account of that, that he was

16 forced to do something like that, and that was the situation of the

17 locals of Hrtkovci. When they were carrying out an exchange, it wasn't

18 that they were forced to do that by the person with whom they were

19 carrying out the exchange, but they had clashed with somebody else.

20 There were examples on both sides. There were more examples from the

21 Croat side --

22 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter cannot hear the rest of the

23 sentence.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me return to your

25 assumption, the fact that there would have been an agreement between

Page 10569

1 Tudjman and Milosevic, because that might explain some things if it's

2 true. So far, we have no elements, but just like Diogenes, I'm trying

3 to -- with my lantern, I'm trying to find explanations.

4 So those Serbs are calling over the phone. I would like to know

5 whether they called the Croats in Hrtkovci first or whether it was the

6 other way around, whether it's the Croats in Hrtkovci that called the

7 Serbs. Who called first, according to you?

8 A. In my view, the first exchanges took place, well, not when the

9 refugees arrived en masse, but when the refugees arrived from the areas

10 where there were no war operations in Croatia, that is to say, when they

11 arrived from Zagreb and the other towns. I think that I have mentioned

12 two examples already of the Jogar family with Ulemek and the Udenko

13 [phoen] family with Sulan. They were among the first to carry out this

14 exchange, so it was the other way around. In Croatia, they had been

15 contacted by some persons or they received threats to the effect that

16 they should carry out an exchange with such-and-such a person.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That was before the tension.

18 It was peaceful, and that's when there was these early exchanges?

19 A. Yes. It first started from the Croatian side. Serbs were

20 seeking to carry out exchanges with Croats in Hrtkovci and in other

21 places, that is to say, once they had already arrived. It's not that

22 they had contacted the Croats in Hrtkovci from Croatia, and it's not that

23 exchange offers were made then. They were already in Serbia, in

24 different places, Hrtkovci included.

25 Your Honour, one more thing in relation to this thesis. One of

Page 10570

1 the arguments in relation to this plan would be the following:

2 At a meeting, at a conference, a press conference, when the

3 Minister of Human Rights, Ms. Margit Savovic was there, I wanted to

4 attend. However, the organiser, President Sibincic at the time, demanded

5 that I leave. He was probably afraid that I would tell the truth as to

6 what was going on in Hrtkovci. So, in fact, as Minister of Human Rights,

7 she was supposed to meet with the persons who were imperiled, not by

8 those who were imperilling them. At the exit, she asked me, "Mr. Ejic,

9 what is it you have against the refugees?" I gave her a brief answer,

10 "Madam, I have nothing against refugees, nor did I ever have anything

11 against them. I am only opposed to what they are doing, that is to say,

12 instigating violence, carrying out violence, threats, things like that."

13 That's the only thing I said. I did not get an answer to this comment of

14 mine. I expected her to contact me after the meeting or, rather, to --

15 that she would ask to talk to us who had made statements to the press.

16 That never happened. That supports my thesis that there had been an

17 agreement with the authorities to act that way.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One last question. The

19 situation today in your village, is everyone good friends with

20 Mr. Sibincic, are things -- is the relationship correct? Now that things

21 have cooled down, is everybody, you know, friendly or is there still some

22 problems that haven't been solved, like people who left and exchanges

23 that haven't finished? What is your assessment of the situation as it is

24 now in your village?

25 A. The situation in the village now can be termed as normal. Time

Page 10571

1 has passed, and many people who were frustrated at the time and who did

2 not think kindly of the Croats and the Hungarians have changed their

3 minds in the meantime. Now they are friends with many of them. I'm also

4 on good terms with the majority, as opposed to some people, individuals,

5 who were extremists. That can be found at any time, but they are

6 exceptions to the rule. I even won over their confidence, so for a while

7 I was even president of the Council of the Local Commune for over four

8 years, so that was one and a half terms of office. I did many things

9 during that period of time. I made it possible to build a refugee

10 settlement, too.

11 The current situation can be described as normal, in the briefest

12 possible terms.

13 You mentioned Ostoja Sibincic. I am sorry that he's very ill.

14 Now he is being avoided by refugees and locals because of the activities

15 that he had engaged in.

16 Generally speaking, the situation is normal. Right now, there

17 are local elections for the municipality, and previously there had been

18 elections for the local commune. It is a fact that there is just one

19 representative of the Radical Party in local government. All the rest

20 belong to local parties. That shows that the situation is normal.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One final question. It's a bit

22 sensitive, but I need to ask it, because you are an official, you were

23 elected. You know what happened.

24 According to you, what does a resident of your village feel, as

25 far as this Tribunal is concerned? Are they defiant, do they trust the

Page 10572

1 Tribunal? What is the feeling of the residents of your town regarding

2 this institution?

3 A. Your Honour, my knowledge and my opinion is that opinions are

4 divided on the basis of the fact that some of the accused have been

5 acquitted, although they committed crimes against the Serb population.

6 So that's why opinions are divided. However, I personally trust this

7 Tribunal. That is why I came to testify.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you for your

9 answer.

10 I believe my fellow Judges also have questions.

11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.

12 Mr. Ejic, the only question I had for you is if you know whether

13 the exchange of property between refugees from Croatia and refugees from

14 Hrtkovci, whether these exchanges were organised by any institution, or

15 did they occur spontaneously by rumour or by information that was just

16 spread around among the people that, you know, they could just try and

17 call some contacts in the other end of their journey and see if they

18 could get into contact with somebody who was leaving there? That would

19 be one way. The other way would be if there was an organisation somehow

20 that was in charge of the process of putting people together for them to

21 arrange for an exchange of property.

22 Do you understand my question?

23 A. I understand your question, Your Honour.

24 My view of that matter is that most of these cases were

25 spontaneous. There is quite a bit of knowledge on both sides, to the

Page 10573

1 effect that certain groups that were self-organised gathered information

2 about addresses and forwarded that to refugees. So in this way, they led

3 them to the possibility of exchanges. I mentioned who was doing that in

4 our village. I don't know about Croatia, but I did know that that kind

5 of thing did exist; namely, that they provided addresses there of the

6 Serbs with whom exchanges could be carried out. They gave them to Croats

7 in Vojvodina.

8 JUDGE HARHOFF: And these self-organised groups, were they

9 affiliated to any organisation or movements?

10 A. I don't know about that.

11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir.

12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Witness, two days ago you --

13 when we were talking about these exchanges, you mentioned fake contracts

14 that had been drafted. Could you give us some details on this, be more

15 specific on this? I did not really understand what you meant at the time

16 with these fake contracts, and I would like to know where the pressure to

17 draft these fake contracts actually came from.

18 A. To the best of my knowledge, I think that it is Rade Cakmak.

19 Now, who gave him this idea, to the best of my knowledge, it was

20 Ostoja Sibincic, who prompted others to act in the same way as well. It

21 was only when the real owner appeared and started proceedings before a

22 court of law people found out that they had shown to the police this kind

23 of fake contracts, because the police would not intervene until the real

24 owner complained to a court of law. That is what I know.

25 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I haven't really understood yet.

Page 10574

1 There were contracts which mentioned owners who were not the real owners

2 who actually took over the house; is that it? I really haven't

3 understood what you meant. What was written in that contract or deed?

4 A. I didn't see any of the contracts. It's only what I heard. I

5 heard when Sibincic said what he said, what they were supposed to do, at

6 a citizens' rally to a little group of refugees. He told them, "Do such

7 and such. Make up a false contract. When the police comes, they won't

8 do anything to you. You're legally here." But I didn't actually see a

9 contract myself. It's only something I heard about. And how the police

10 acted, that the police acted only when the real owner came in from abroad

11 and put into motion legal proceedings.

12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] If I understood --

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...

14 understand me.

15 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] If I understood well, they were

16 Serbs coming from Croatia who would receive or would be given houses.

17 However, the Croat owners of those houses did not consent freely to this

18 takeover of their houses. Is it what happened?

19 A. No, it wasn't the property, it was a contract saying that they

20 agreed with the owner that he was giving his property over for temporary

21 use by these other people.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have some knowledge in this

23 area, due to my former occupation or former job. I think the situation

24 you're describing is very simple.

25 Mr. Sibincic told the refugees that they should draw fake

Page 10575

1 contracts so that they have a deed that would entitle them to occupy

2 houses, and that's what the refugees did. Somebody gave them fake

3 contracts with fake signatures. They signed, and that was it. But the

4 real owners are not aware of what's going on, because they're probably

5 abroad. They may be working in Germany, in Milan, elsewhere. And when

6 they come back, they find out that their houses are being occupied by

7 Serbs. At that stage, they go immediately to the police station to say,

8 "Look, what's going on? Somebody is in our house." Then the police

9 come, and then the whole situation is discovered.

10 Is it what happened?

11 A. Yes, that's it, precisely.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So this is a good

13 summary of what was happening at the time; right?

14 A. Yes, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. So I think it's clear

16 for everybody now.

17 Mr. Ferrara, would you like time to redirect?

18 MR. FERRARA: No, Your Honour, I don't have any redirect.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, on behalf of the

20 Judges of this Chamber, I would like to thank you for coming to The Hague

21 at the request of the Prosecution, to give a statement on the events

22 which took place in your village. Thank you for coming. Thank you for

23 testifying, and I wish you well and I wish you a safe trip back to your

24 country.

25 I would like Madam Usher to escort you out of the courtroom.

Page 10577

1 almost three days, so how much do you need for 1133? I'm talking about

2 the examination-in-chief. Unfortunately, I don't have the document

3 before me, so maybe you don't have it either.

4 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, I believe the witness was listed down

5 as 2.5 hours or -- 2 or 2.5 hours. My colleague, who will be leading him

6 in court, will not be finishing the proofing until Monday, so it's a bit

7 premature to give a more revised estimate. But we have him down, 1133,

8 down for Tuesday, Wednesday, and continuing into Thursday if need be.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, and then we'll hear

10 1134, a 92 ter witness. If Mr. Seselj doesn't wish to cross-examine him,

11 he won't. This is his absolute right, of course, and there won't be any

12 problem. We know what is the position of the parties on this.

13 Thank you. Very well.

14 Mr. Seselj, an administrative matter you wish to raise with the

15 Court?

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, just with respect to the next

17 witness or, rather, the next two witnesses.

18 I read both statements which The Hague Prosecutors had these

19 witnesses give, and I'm convinced that no examination-in-chief will last

20 longer than one to one and a half hours, because there's nothing much, in

21 my opinion, that they can ask. So both of them can be heard viva voce,

22 and an hour and a half be accorded to each of them, if there is the

23 goodwill for that. If there's something else, well, then ...

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We've noted what

25 you've just said.

Page 10578

1 Mr. Seselj, you mentioned it several times, and Judge Harhoff, my

2 colleague, also reminded you of this, and there should be no

3 misunderstanding among the public about the measures that are being

4 applied to you. The Registrar has decided to wire-tap your

5 conversations. It is true. It has been done according to the Rules. I

6 told you what my opinion about this was, but that's the way it is. Your

7 phone is tapped. It means that you can use your phone, you can use your

8 phone and call your associates. There is no question about it. Of

9 course you can call them. If you don't want to, of course, that's up to

10 you to decide.

11 I think my colleague would like to say something else.

12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. President.

13 You see, Mr. Seselj, we have discussed this at several reprisals,

14 and the issue, as far as I have understood it, is that as long as your

15 collaborators in Belgrade are unwilling to provide the information to the

16 Registrar that the Registrar has asked, as long will your communication

17 with your group in Belgrade remain supervised. Now, if you are in

18 control of your associates in Belgrade, all it takes is for you to

19 instruct them to provide to the Registrar the information that the

20 Registrar has asked for, and the matter will be solved. So as long as

21 you do nothing, this situation will remain, and therefore I have a

22 difficulty in accepting that you are suffering prejudice, because you,

23 yourself, are in control of these matters.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, my legal advisers have

25 answered all the questions put by the Registrar. The fact that the

Page 10579

1 Registrar is not satisfied with their answers is the Registrar's problem,

2 and they're not going to respond any more.

3 Secondly, I have to have sensitive conversations and discussions

4 with my associates, not to be tapped in to, because we have to assess

5 whether we're going to deal with a fact during a cross-examination or

6 not. And then the material that I receive from them by fax, I have to

7 see whether some of it is useful and what is and what isn't, to make a

8 selection, and not have the Registrar select my material and to inform

9 the Prosecutor what it was that I discussed and which papers I received.

10 So because of that, I don't want to discuss the trial with them at all,

11 and when I talk to them, I ask them what the public thinks, having looked

12 at the television footage and what the media says. So I'm the one that

13 is in control of my Defence case and that is my right, so I will not

14 allow anybody to tap into my telephone conversations with my legal

15 advisers. If somebody does that, then I'm not going to have those

16 conversations. And once again, in that way, in that fashion, stop them

17 from tapping in to my conversations. That's the only thing I can do, to

18 stop having conversations, and then they have nothing to tap into.

19 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I accept the fact

20 that you need to prepare your Defence case in a privileged environment.

21 However, I cannot accept for you to say that the Registrar will give the

22 documents you might receive to the Prosecutor.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, I heard you say that too.

24 You think that when a document is received by the Registrar, and the

25 Registrar goes straight to the Prosecutor to give him a copy of that

Page 10580

1 document? I find it hard to believe, because if it was the case, it

2 would be very serious and he could end up in jail. So I find it hard to

3 believe. That's what you think, that's what you think, but I find it

4 hard to believe. If you have evidence of this, then show it to us. But

5 somebody sends you a document, the registrar -- not the Court Registrar

6 but somebody else from within the Registry will go to the Prosecutor and

7 say, "Look, Mr. Seselj has received this document, please take a look,"

8 when the Judges don't even know about this? I find it really hard to

9 believe. It would be a major surprise for me.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, a few days ago I

11 provided you with some important and valuable information. The former

12 deputy of -- Deputy Secretary David Tolbert two or three years ago became

13 the Deputy of the Prosecutor-in-Chief, Carla Del Ponte. Now I have the

14 latest, freshest information. I learned from a reliable source, and you

15 can check this out with David Tolbert, that about two years ago

16 David Tolbert had meetings with Tomislav Nikolic to discuss me and my

17 trial. So check that out, please, Mr. President. Ask David Tolbert to

18 tell you whether he indeed did have meetings with Tomislav Nikolic or not

19 and what the reasons for those meetings were.

20 There's a plot against me here. The Registrar has been dealing

21 me a bad deal for all these years, much more than the Prosecutor. They

22 have prohibited me from having telephone conversations with even my

23 closest family and visits from my closest family, and the reason they

24 said was that my party had received a large number of votes at the last

25 elections and to prevent me from taking part in forming the next Serbian

Page 10581

1 government. That was the official reason provided on the letterhead of

2 the Registry, so I have no reason to try and convince you of this, that

3 the secretariat is in cohorts and plotting with goodness knows who else

4 against me, but please check that fact out, whether David Tolbert did

5 have a meeting about two years ago with Tomislav Nikolic in order to

6 discuss the trial against me. If you check that out, everything will

7 become clear to you.

8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Seselj, this is a tangent. The issue was

9 whether you could resolve yourself the problem of supervision of your

10 communication with your Defence.

11 Team in Belgrade. The Registrar has asked a question to them,

12 and they have not given a satisfactory answer. The question, if you want

13 to know, that was put to your collaborators in Belgrade was whether any

14 of them had or had not participated in conference calls between you and

15 other persons who were not privileged by way of the privileged telephone

16 line between the 4th of January, 2007, and the 10th of September, 2008.

17 That's a simple question, and this has not been answered by your

18 collaborators. And if you instruct them to provide the simple answer,

19 "yes" or "no," then the situation is resolved. That's all it takes.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge Harhoff, I answered that

21 question. I gave the Registry the answer in a handwritten submission,

22 and I said that my telephone conversations, privileged telephone

23 conversations with legal advisers, were attended by members of my Defence

24 team. My Defence team consists of a team of legal advisers. In addition

25 to the three registered, I have several other lawyers working on my case

Page 10582

1 and a team of investigators too. Depending on what was on the agenda

2 here in court, certain investigators attended the conversation. And I

3 confirm that in addition to the legal advisers, there was some other

4 people who joined in the consultations, but I insist upon the fact that

5 it was only members of the team for my Defence who took part, and the

6 composition of that team is something that I let the Registry know in

7 advance on time. So how can I defend myself without contacting my

8 investigators? How could I have instructed the investigators to compile

9 (redacted) was uncovered

10 and unveiled? That is the fruit of their labour, pursuant to my

11 instructions. They are my extended arm in all this.

12 So you can assess the success of my cross-examination and the

13 valuable work of my advisers, not only my legal advisers but my

14 investigators as well, because you can see that there is no secret for

15 us, no problem that cannot be resolved.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, in order to be

17 clear, the problem flows from two different things, and I'm going to

18 explain what they are, and I'll go slowly so that everybody can

19 understand, because it's a very complicated issue for people who did not

20 follow the whole process.

21 You were granted the right to self-defense. It means that you

22 must have the necessary means to investigate, because of course the

23 Defence has to carry out its own investigation to prepare for

24 cross-examination and to prepare its own case. In my mind, since I

25 issued a decision on the necessary financial means to support your

Page 10583

1 Defence case, in my mind you had the right to have contacts with the

2 person assisting you in your case. That was the legal position.

3 On top of this, another element came into play, and these are,

4 namely, the inherent powers of the Registrar. Since your associates had

5 to have access to the Detention Centre and may have received some kind of

6 remuneration, the Registrar, on its own initiative, without consulting

7 with the Pre-Trial Judge, i.e., me at the time, the Registrar decided

8 that there would be a privilege agreement within the Registrar system.

9 The situation is now as follows: There is some kind of a clash

10 between the administrative system, the Registrar administrative system,

11 and the rights of Defence, and this is an important issue. There are

12 various possibilities to solve the problems.

13 The first one is you could have challenged the decision by

14 referring it to the President, according with the rules of detention,

15 which gives you that right. You could have filed a motion, referred to

16 the Chamber. We could have issued a decision on this motion. Then you

17 could have appealed the decision. This is an example of a solution that

18 could have been found, and that's where we stand at the moment.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me remind you that the

20 President of this Tribunal acts in two capacities; as a legal person and

21 the President of the Court, presiding over the Appeals Chamber, so as the

22 judiciary, and in the administrative sense, in this case as the

23 second-instance organ in relation to the Registry. I categorically state

24 that no administrative organ has the right to clip the right to my

25 Defence, neither the Registry nor the President of the Tribunal. And

Page 10584

1 with respect to my elementary right to a defence, I don't want to discuss

2 that with them.

3 I appealed to the President of the Tribunal because they seized

4 250 Euros and two diskettes that the Prosecution had provided me with, so

5 I did complain because of that. That was an administrative issue. The

6 right to my Defence cannot be an administrative issue, and so I address

7 you orally as the Trial Chamber.

8 In my legal system, the legal system of Serbia, orally addressing

9 the Court has the same weight as a written submission, and I suppose that

10 that is the same in the civilised world. What I say in court and is

11 recorded and becomes a record of the proceedings is the same as a written

12 submission; perhaps less detailed, but nonetheless carrying the same

13 weight. So I have addressed you on that issue.

14 Now, if you have the right to resolve the problem in exercising

15 your duties, then I expect you to do so. If you have not been given that

16 possibility and can't resolve the problem, then the problem remains

17 unsolved until the end, and I continue to defend myself alone. I am

18 alone in the universe, in the cosmos.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right, okay, I think the whole

20 issue has been clarified. I understand now you're referring this matter

21 to the Chamber, orally. Since it is quite a complex issue, maybe you

22 should submit written submissions. But, of course, it is your right to

23 make an oral submission. I won't challenge the logic here, but of course

24 the Prosecution, who is also interested in this matter, can also submit

25 oral submissions or written submissions on this simple question, can the

Page 10585

1 Registrar obstruct the rights of Defence by tapping telephone

2 conversations and by receiving documents that are received by an accused

3 from his team, and the other way around?" I think it's a simple matter,

4 a simple question. Maybe the answer will be much more complicated.

5 Mr. Mundis, what's your intention? Would you like to submit

6 written submissions or maybe to provide an oral answer?

7 MR. MUNDIS: Well, Mr. President, I'm very quickly looking at the

8 rules of detention, and it's, I believe, relatively clear that the appeal

9 of this decision has to go to the President of the Tribunal. And so our

10 position would be that the only thing that the Trial Chamber could do

11 would be to refer any submissions by the accused directly to the

12 President for his decision and determination. Until such a point in time

13 as that happens, it's premature to be putting any position onto the

14 record. Of course, I would imagine in those circumstances the Registrar

15 very well may be desirous of being heard on the point, since it was his

16 decision under the various regulations that apply. So at this point in

17 time, our view would be that the rules of detention are very clear. It's

18 a matter for the President to decide, and that the Trial Chamber has no

19 authority to act on this matter, other than, of course, to refer the

20 appeal by the accused to the President for his determination.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Should the Trial Chamber feel

22 that it has competence, what would be the position of the Prosecutor?

23 Would you make written submissions or oral submissions?

24 MR. MUNDIS: Well, Mr. President, I mean, I think our position

25 with respect to the conduct of the accused and his associates has been

Page 10586

1 made very clear. In the event that the accused makes further written

2 submissions, we will certainly address the issue to the Trial Chamber, or

3 perhaps if the Chamber does, in fact, refer it to the President, we very

4 well may seek to provide some written submissions on that point directly

5 to the President.

6 I don't really have anything else to add on this point at this

7 time. Again, we've, in a number of different filings and orally, have

8 made our position quite clear. Of course, our view is that this entire

9 situation has arisen as a direct result of the misconduct of the accused

10 and his associates, and that's clearly our position, and he has no, as we

11 would say, no clean hands to complain about the Registrar's decision,

12 since it was based upon factual findings concerning the misconduct of the

13 accused and his associates.

14 I don't know if that's the end of that discussion, Mr. President.

15 I do have a couple of other issues that need to be raised before we

16 adjourn, and I am also looking at the clock. Perhaps we might need to

17 take a break and then resume.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Maybe we have enough time.

19 Mr. Seselj has been heard. You can raise your two issues, and

20 then we can suspend.

21 Mr. Seselj.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I had one thing to say first, and

23 now I have two things.

24 With respect to the clean hands/dirty hands, I think that the

25 dirtiest hands are those which are in the indictment and inscribed there,

Page 10587

1 saying that at the rally in Hrtkovci, I strove for children of mixed

2 marriages to be killed, so so much about clean hands and dirty hands.

3 Now I have to object to what the Prosecution says, that it's not

4 up to the Trial Chamber to resolve this problem. I think that it is only

5 the Trial Chamber that is in a position to resolve this problem, because

6 they are the only guarantor of the justness and fairness of the

7 proceedings and the only guarantor of the right to present my Defence and

8 ensure a fair trial. The Trial Chamber is the one who is there to

9 protect my rights from anybody jeopardising them. They can be

10 jeopardised by the Registrar, by the President of the Tribunal, by the

11 prison guards, by anybody, and it is up to the Trial Chamber to protect

12 my rights to a proper Defence. And that Defence and my rights cannot be

13 jeopardised in any way, because if they are, there can be no fair and

14 just trial.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The two other

16 topics, very quickly, please.

17 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.

18 On the 23rd of September, my colleague Ms. Dahl indicated to the

19 Trial Chamber that we would be filing a Rule 77 application with respect

20 to the publication of the (redacted) Earlier, just a few

21 moments ago, as reflected on page 82 and into page 83, Dr. Seselj made

22 some statements which, in light of our stated intention to file that

23 application, very well might be considered to be incriminatory, and we

24 would ask that the Trial Chamber at this point perhaps caution Mr. Seselj

25 with respect to statements that he might make concerning that book, and

Page 10588

1 how that book was produced, and who produced that book under his

2 direction, because to be as transparent as possible, the statements that

3 he has made concerning this book very well might be considered

4 incriminatory in the context of a Rule 77 application, which should be

5 filed later today but which we've orally indicated from the 23rd of

6 September would be forthcoming. And so we believe that he should be

7 cautioned that anything that he states on the record concerning that book

8 very well might form the basis of further action in that respect.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I don't know this book. I

10 don't know what's in the book. We're totally in the dark right now.

11 Let's wait and -- wait for your submissions.

12 Second point?

13 MR. MUNDIS: Well, again, just for the record, it's our view that

14 the accused should be cautioned concerning statements that he might make

15 concerning this book, and the authorship of it, and who was working on it

16 and under whose supervision.

17 The final point for today, Mr. President, concerns the expert

18 Ms. Ewa Tabeau, and my colleague, Ms. Biersay, would like to briefly

19 address Your Honours on that expert witness.

20 MS. BIERSAY: Good afternoon, Your Honours.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I don't know this

22 book, I don't know what's in the book. Mr. Mundis said very important

23 things. You've heard him well. We're not going to start debating this,

24 because the Judges can't really debate -- start debating on something

25 that they have no knowledge of. Mr. Mundis said what he had to say.

Page 10589

1 It's on the transcript. You know exactly what he meant.

2 Mrs. Biersay, we haven't seen you for a long time. I'm very glad

3 to see you.

4 MS. BIERSAY: Thank you, Your Honour.

5 Good afternoon, Your Honours. I am here to quickly give you a

6 status report with respect to Madam Tabeau.

7 Today, we'll be giving a letter to the accused, to whom we have

8 already disclosed her testimony from seven trials, and we have two

9 remaining trials to transcribe, and we're hoping to have those completed

10 by Tuesday. So I wanted to make the Court aware of that.

11 And a second issue is: We have also previously provided to

12 Mr. Seselj approximately nine reports, previous reports of Madam Tabeau,

13 and we are going to give him a list of some others so that he can choose

14 which ones, if any, he would like to have. We were concerned about

15 giving him all these reports that may not, in his eyes, be relevant, so

16 we are submitting this letter to him so that he can tell us whether he

17 wants all of them, or none of them, or some of them.

18 So I just wanted to give the Court that report.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I demand that all the reports be

20 submitted to me, and I'm counting on the kindness of the OTP that now

21 they are going to send, once again, what it was that they sent me earlier

22 on so, so that I don't go through the trouble of going through all the

23 documents that got all messed up by the prison guards during this summer.

24 Why am I asking for this? Because I'm going to challenge the

25 credibility of Ewa Tabeau, and especially in respect of the report on

Page 10590

1 Srebrenica, with the thesis that she is taking part in the falsification

2 of the actual event that took place there, and I'm telling you that

3 openly. That's why I need all of this, and I'm totally going to

4 challenge her credibility and her expert knowledge.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Challenge, but challenge

6 quickly, please. Ms. Tabeau is scheduled for two weeks from now,

7 I think, in a fortnight. The Trial Chamber will first make a decision to

8 see whether this will be a viva voce testimony or whether it will be a

9 cross-examination by Defence with no in-chief and with only the reports

10 being tendered. But we need to know exactly what you intend to do

11 quickly, Mr. Seselj. We need to know what you're challenging, which

12 points you're challenging.

13 You stated mentioning Srebrenica. I mean, we have not been

14 seized of Srebrenica, and this Trial Chamber is not involved in this

15 matter. So we are waiting for your submissions, your written

16 submissions.

17 I believe it's time to adjourn. We're running out of tape. We

18 will resume next week, in the afternoon. So we will meet again on

19 Tuesday at 2.15.

20 Thank you.

21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.36 p.m.,

22 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 14th day of

23 October, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.