Page 10739
1 Thursday, 3 October 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
6 JUDGE MAY: The programme for today will be as follows: That the
7 witness will be examined until 10.20 in the way which we've already
8 ordered. We'll then break until 10.50. At 10.50 we will deal with
9 Mr. Wladimiroff's matter. We will then have the earlier witness back for
10 examination today and tomorrow. The first session will be until 12.20,
11 the luncheon adjournment will be until 1.50. We will sit again 1.50 to
12 3.20. We'll take a 10-minute break; we'll sit again 3.30 to 4.30.
13 Tomorrow morning we will sit for four hours between 9.00 and 1.00,
14 with breaks as appropriate. We will finish tomorrow at 1.00, by which
15 time we will have finished the examination of the earlier witness.
16 Now, as we said, there is cross-examination of this witness for a
17 further hour, Mr. Milosevic. Yes.
18 WITNESS: STJEPAN MESIC [Resumed]
19 [Witness answered through interpreter]
20 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]
21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mesic, for the past two days, you have spoken
22 a lot about Greater Serbia. Do you know that Greater Serbia is a creation
23 of the Austro-Hungarian empire from the century before the last and that
24 it was used exclusively as a means of anti-Serb propaganda and that there
25 was never a programme, that no Serbian government ever had this kind of
Page 10740
1 programme from the moment Serbia came into existence until today? Are you
2 aware of that?
3 A. I know a lot of things about history, but we are here for another
4 reason. If Greater Serbia was not in issue, why, then, did the Guards
5 Division, commanded by the Supreme Command, directly subordinated to
6 Blagoje Adzic, attack Vukovar? Why did the 252nd Armoured Brigade from
7 Kraljevo, from Kraljevo, mind you, go against Vukovar? Why did the 220th
8 Armoured Brigade from Nis attack Vukovar? Why did the 2nd and 3rd Guards
9 Brigades attack Vukovar? They were commanded by Sljivancanin, Mrksic, and
10 Radic, as is well known. Why did the White Eagles come, Dusan Silni
11 commanded by Raznjatovic, Arkan?
12 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Mesic, I'm going to interrupt you. Do I take it
13 from that answer that this is a conclusion which you draw from the events
14 which occurred?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were implementing the plan for
16 the creation of a Greater Serbia. These were units of the Ministry of the
17 Interior, special purpose units of the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia,
18 and the Territorial Defence of Serbia, all under the command, ultimately,
19 of Slobodan Milosevic, accused here. The plan for the creation of a
20 Greater Serbia started from Vukovar. I don't want to enter into
21 Austro-Hungarian propaganda.
22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Mr. Mesic, as you know, I was the President of Serbia. Yesterday,
24 Mr. May asked me about Vukovar, and I told him I didn't know about that.
25 I was the President of Serbia. And you, Mr. Mesic, is it not correct,
Page 10741
1 attacked, according to your own decision, the JNA, wherever it was
2 stationed. You are responsible for the conflicts with the JNA, which was
3 on the territory of Yugoslavia. You caused all the destruction and
4 killing. Is that correct or not, Mr. Mesic?
5 A. The accused is putting forward conclusions that not even David
6 Copperfield would be ashamed of. Croatia was defending itself from the
7 JNA because the JNA was arming those who were attacking Croatia, the
8 Croatian state and the Croatian government. Croatia was defending itself
9 because the JNA, under the control of the accused, was attacking Croatian
10 territory. No one attacked barracks. They were simply blocked,
11 surrounded, to prevent them attacking.
12 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Mr. Milosevic, I think the reference
13 to David Copperfield was probably to Micawber, although I don't know if
14 that's right or not. But in any event, can we deal with something more
15 concrete? We are dealing in generalities and it's really of no assistance
16 to the Trial Chamber to have these very general discussions.
17 Perhaps you can help us. Since the plan for the Greater Serbia
18 was mentioned, Mr. Mesic, did you hear the accused or anybody in the
19 leadership of the JNA or the Republic of Serbia talking about such a plan?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct. Or rather, it is
21 correct that there was no discussion of the creation of a Greater Serbia.
22 As far as I know, there is no such conclusion, formal conclusion, but the
23 job of creating a Greater Serbia was being done in Serbia and in Bosnia
24 and Herzegovina. So work on it was being conducted. And I draw this
25 conclusion on the basis of the actions of the JNA, the Territorial
Page 10742
1 Defence, and the illegal, or rather, legal in Serbia, paramilitary
2 organisations which were mobilised in centres in Serbia, which were
3 trained in centres in Serbia, and after the fall of Vukovar, men, women,
4 and children, all those who were not killed in Ovcara, were taken to camps
5 in Serbia, which stretched all the way to Nis.
6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Since this is evidently untrue, to avoid your explaining again
8 about Greater Serbia, which as you yourself say nobody ever discussed,
9 yesterday you said that you were well aware of the time, so the Serbs
10 reacted in August 1990. You spoke of the log revolution. And you claim
11 that conflicts broke out because there was a plan to create a Greater
12 Serbia, which as you yourself have just said nobody ever mentioned, and
13 that it was the plan to create a Greater Serbia which broke up Yugoslavia.
14 Now tell me: You were the first Prime Minister of Croatia after
15 the HDZ won the elections, and this government introduced a reign of
16 terror over the Serbian population. They did this before August 1990.
17 A. There was no reign of terror in Croatia. As I said, there were
18 unacceptable messages, that is correct.
19 Q. What sort of messages are you talking about? Let me just remind
20 you: This wave of anti-Serbian nationalism which was reminiscent of 1945
21 and 1971, let me tell you, on the 12th of March, the presidency of Croatia
22 sent a letter where Milan Seselj resigned because of the benevolent view
23 of the Ustasha taken by the government because the government was allowing
24 the Serbian people to be mistreated, their language thrown out of the
25 constitution, and taking every opportunity to mistreat the Serbs in
Page 10743
1 Croatia. This was in March 1990. You said the Serbs rebelled and put up
2 logs to prevent your police from slaughtering them in August, but the
3 Ustasha killed Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies in Jasenica, as you well know.
4 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we're going to deal with concrete
5 matters and we're going to deal with questions and not speeches. Now,
6 would you move on to some other topic. I think we have exhausted this
7 topic. We've been through it several times yesterday, and now we're going
8 through it again today. Now, remember, your time is limited.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You are wasting my time and
10 Mr. Mesic is wasting my time. I'm using my time very rationally.
11 JUDGE MAY: If you don't have sensible questions, it will be
12 brought to an end.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Is this a sensible question,
14 Mr. May, for him to tell me why the survivors of Jasenovac, of the
15 Jasenovac camp, wrote a message saying, "We have escaped one hell, we
16 don't want our children and grandchildren to experience another. We are
17 embittered by the knowledge that the independent state of Croatia was the
18 will of the Croatian people."
19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Mesic --
21 JUDGE MAY: The witness cannot answer the question as to why that
22 letter was written. You will have to call evidence about it if you wish.
23 Now, what is your next question?
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. My question is: In your programme, the programme of the Croatian
Page 10744
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10745
1 Democratic Union, did you include all this? I'm speaking of the
2 historical opportunity for the Croatian people to create their own state.
3 And did you embark upon a pogrom of the Serbs on the 17th of June, 1989?
4 This is the programme of that HDZ of yours which was established on the
5 17th of June, 1989, with these goals. So did the Serbs rebel before that
6 for you to do that, or was it afterwards? How can something that happened
7 later cause something that happened before?
8 JUDGE MAY: Several questions in one. The first allegation is
9 that you embarked upon a pogrom. I think, Mr. Mesic, these are matters
10 which you've dealt with before, but since it's put in that way, you should
11 have the opportunity to deal with it.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have already answered this
13 question, but I can do so again. The Croatian people had the right to
14 independence, just as the people of Finland have, just as the Serbs have.
15 They have the right to independence and they made use of that right.
16 Because Yugoslavia had no integrating factors any longer, Croatia wanted,
17 in the period leading up to dissociation, to have this happen in a
18 peaceful way, which is why it offered a confederal model. I have already
19 stated this.
20 I also said that Croatia was based on the anti-fascist Croatia
21 created in World War II. The Croatia of today is based on the
22 anti-fascist Croatia. The independent state of Croatia was neither
23 Croatian, nor was it independent. It was a creation of quislings. It
24 perpetrated crimes and it had to answer for those crimes. To link the
25 independent state of Croatia as it was then with the Croatia of today can
Page 10746
1 only be in the interest of somebody's propaganda. But the Croatia of
2 today, a democratic country ruled by law, has nothing to do with that
3 independent state of Croatia. I said, and I say again, that there were
4 erroneous messages, messages that were wrong, but this had to be resolved
5 through the institutions of the Croatian state and not to have the Serbs,
6 who are elected to the Croatian parliament, walk out of that parliament
7 when there were issues to be identified and resolved. What was it they
8 wanted? They wanted precisely what happened and precisely what Milosevic
9 is accused of today. But it was not they themselves who wanted the
10 rebellion, it was others who led them into rebellion, and the accused
11 knows very well that the aim was to set up the Virovitica-
12 Karlovac-Karlobag boundary.
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. You said that a thousand times.
15 A. It's always the same.
16 Q. You hold it against Croatian MPs. I'm not entering into your
17 internal affairs in the parliament, but you hold it against them that they
18 walked out of the parliament to avoid resolving issues, and this,
19 according to you, was the place where they should have been solved, and
20 yet you do not hold it against yourself that you walked out of the
21 Presidency of Yugoslavia, the highest organ of Yugoslavia, where problems
22 had to be resolved. You purposely brought the Presidency into a situation
23 in which it became a rump Presidency by walking out of it and leading
24 others to do the same. All your stories about Greater Serbia were merely
25 a pretext for you to carry out your plan, to decapitate --
Page 10747
1 MR. NICE: I'm sorry to interrupt, but can the witness perhaps
2 answer that question, if there is a single question locked in there.
3 JUDGE MAY: Was there a question? What was it?
4 MR. NICE: The suggestion is that he walked out of the Presidency
5 of Yugoslavia. I'd like to have an answer to that.
6 JUDGE MAY: Well, I think he's answered it several times, but of
7 course he can.
8 The suggestion is that you accused the Serbs of walking out of the
9 parliament but you walked out of the Presidency, and I suppose what's the
10 difference? That's the point which was made.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will gladly answer, and I'm glad
12 that the question was put. Croatia proclaimed its independence in
13 agreement with the international community. Croatia postponed the
14 implementation of its decision, hoping that a political solution would be
15 reached within three months' time, namely, a political model as to how we
16 would move from that federation which no longer functioned into something
17 that was different. We said that we wanted a confederal model. If it did
18 not function, then everybody would take their own path. But as an
19 independent state without wars.
20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Mesic, we've already heard that.
22 A. Yes, we have already heard it. That's why I'm repeating it. And
23 once these three months elapsed, when there was no more Presidency, when
24 Croatia was independent, I had nothing to do with the Presidency. I had
25 no business there. I did not come to the Presidency of Yugoslavia of my
Page 10748
1 own free will. I came on the basis of a decision reached by the Croatian
2 parliament, and if there was no more Presidency, my only task was to
3 return to the parliament and say that I had no more business in Belgrade,
4 and that's exactly what happened. I don't see how I was the one who
5 toppled Yugoslavia.
6 Q. Of course you're the one who did. Mr. Mesic, is it being denied
7 that mass dismissals from Serbs who were employed in the police, state
8 administration, and even the health sector, was --
9 JUDGE MAY: The witness can't answer questions on that. You asked
10 them yesterday and he dealt with it. You must ask something new today if
11 you want to continue.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am asking him something new.
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Because the point is that it's not possible if you put the time
15 sequence together, then you will see that the reaction of the Serbs in
16 Croatia was reaction to a pogrom that was started against them.
17 JUDGE MAY: You've dealt with them. Now, look, Mr. Milosevic:
18 You can ask questions about what the witness has said, but you can't go
19 over and over again the same material. It's pointless. Now, you've got
20 10 minutes left.
21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Mr. Mesic, do you remember the statement made by Lord Carrington,
23 who said: We were about to reach a solution. You are talking about it
24 now, a political solution. We were about to resolve the problem of
25 Slavonia and Krajina when Germany recognised Croatia within its borders
Page 10749
1 and that destroyed the peace process. Croatia had no interest whatsoever
2 in pursuing the political process. They simply carried out what they had
3 intended to carry out. Do you think that he's right when he says that?
4 A. Germany was not the first one to recognise Croatia. It was
5 Iceland that did. Iceland and Germany and all other countries that
6 recognised Croatia and Slovenia. Later, Bosnia and Herzegovina as well.
7 They recognised reality, because Serbia did not accept agreements.
8 Serbia, headed by the accused, wanted to change borders of the republics.
9 That's the whole problem. Because if there were dismissals from work, I
10 repeat once again, is that a reason to destroy Vukovar? Are divisions
11 supposed to be brought in then?
12 Q. I believe that we've cleared that up, that there were conflicts
13 with the JNA, not with Serbia, and conflicts with the JNA and the
14 territory of Yugoslavia and the Croatian part of Yugoslav territory were
15 caused by your violence, not the violence perpetrated by the JNA.
16 But my question is: Did the Serbs accept Vance's plan and the
17 UN-protected areas, north, south, east, west? Is that correct or is that
18 not correct, Mr. Mesic? Is that not what happened at the end of 1991 and
19 the beginning of 1992? Is that correct, Mr. Mesic?
20 A. Correct. The Vance-Owen Plan.
21 Q. It's not the Vance-Owen Plan. It's the Vance plan.
22 A. All right. It was the Vance plan and then the Vance-Owen plan,
23 and the UNPAs, and Croatia abided by that. They were protected.
24 Q. Oh, you're saying that you protected the UNPAs and you carried out
25 all these attacks against the UN-protected areas, all of them. Look at
Page 10750
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10751
1 it. That is a book about the Miljevac Plateau, with pictures of corpses.
2 The book about Maslenica also. This is 1992. This is 1993. The exodus
3 in 1995. Persons who went missing, Western Slavonia. 1995. All these
4 attacks were carried out against UN-protected areas. How do you explain
5 that, Mr. Mesic, that you attacked all the UNPAs?
6 JUDGE MAY: We are being asked by the interpreters to remind you
7 to slow down, both the accused and the witness.
8 Now, Mr. Mesic, the allegation is that there were attacks on the
9 protected areas. Perhaps you could deal with those.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were only responses to
11 attacks. Croatia had to re-establish traffic on its roads. Croatia had
12 to ensure normal life in its towns, and they were under attack, under
13 attack at all roads in Croatia. As for Maslenica, it is a well-known fact
14 that this is an area above the Adriatic highway and Croatia was
15 practically cut in two and Croatia had to ensure the possibility of
16 traffic taking place.
17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Mesic, it is my claim that the Serbs accepted the Vance plan,
19 that they carried out demilitarisation, that they were guarded by the UN
20 and that you attacked them and that you expelled them from the areas that
21 were protected by the UN. These are historical facts. Are you denying
22 that? Are you claiming that that's not the way it was?
23 A. Of course I'm denying that, because, quite simply --
24 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness finish. Let the witness make an
25 explanation. Yes.
Page 10752
1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] Great.
2 Q. Mr. Mesic --
3 JUDGE MAY: Let him finish.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He has finished, Mr. May.
5 JUDGE MAY: Can you add anything, Mr. Mesic, to that, about the
6 protected areas?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. I can add that disarmament
8 was not carried out.
9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Mr. Mesic, we are not going to go into that now. I don't have
11 time to exhibit these books and these abominations. Whether the Serbs
12 observed the zones under UN protection is not something that I'm going to
13 contest, because it's quite clear that they did and that you did not. So
14 now we have to proceed.
15 JUDGE MAY: Put a question. You're not giving evidence.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please.
17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. You came to the head of the Presidency on the 1st of July, 1991.
19 Within three months' time, until the 1st of October, you held 15 sessions
20 of this highest organ of the Federation, at which discussions were held on
21 halting hostilities and on a peaceful resolution to the Yugoslav crisis.
22 I did not attend a single one of these sessions. You rarely invited the
23 presidents of the republics, these 15 sessions that I'm referring to. Did
24 any member of the Presidency of the SFRY, as you put it, from the pro-Serb
25 bloc, was against stopping hostilities and finding a peaceful resolution
Page 10753
1 to the crisis? At these 15 sessions that you convened, was a single one
2 of them against it?
3 A. Even a commission was stopped -- was formed to stop the
4 hostilities. It was headed by Branko Kostic, member of the Presidency.
5 As a matter of fact, he was vice-president of the Presidency. This
6 commission was actually a commission for fanning the flames of war, and
7 that's the way they behaved. They had support among the Serbian bloc,
8 which was headed by Borislav Jovic. And he, on the other hand, had direct
9 communication with the accused.
10 Q. Are you trying to say that they opposed a peaceful solution, that
11 they did not want a peaceful solution?
12 A. Correct. That is precisely what I'm saying.
13 Q. The minutes that you presented here shows that on the 1st of
14 October, six members of the Presidency were present. I just want to
15 correct you in terms of what you said yesterday. And the decision on the
16 demobilisation of all armed groups on the territory of the SFRY, except
17 for the JNA, and the regular peacetime police force, and that was supposed
18 to take place as of the 18th of July, 1991, as of midnight, and you
19 personally signed that decision, Mr. Mesic. You signed that decision on
20 behalf of the SFRY Presidency to disarm everyone except for the JNA and
21 the peacetime police force, and you armed your own ZNGs, members of the
22 national guard, and other paramilitaries who were plundering and killing
23 all over Croatia, and there is also --
24 JUDGE MAY: You must allow the witness to answer.
25 Yes, Mr. Mesic. No. You've been speaking for a long time.
Page 10754
1 Mr. Mesic, what's suggested is that you were disarming everyone except the
2 ZNG.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The accused knows full well that
4 these were illegal paramilitary organisations that had to be disarmed, and
5 I agree with that. As for the ZNG, the National Guard Corps is not an
6 illegal paramilitary organisation. It is an institution established
7 within the Ministry of the Interior, but it was armed. So this is a legal
8 organisation, not an illegal organisation.
9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Mr. Mesic, item 1 of this decision that you signed reads as
11 follows: To demobilise all armed units in the territory of the SFRY, the
12 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, except for the JNA and the
13 regular peacetime police force, by the 18th of July, 1991, 2400 hours.
14 There is no mention of legal, illegal. It says everyone, all armed units
15 except for the army and the police. You signed that decision, and now you
16 are claiming, because the ZNG --
17 JUDGE MAY: You must come to a question.
18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. You were aware of the crimes from the report of Stjepan Herzog
20 published in 2002 on the 29th of January. It was published by Novi List.
21 He says there is certain information about illegal arrests of peace-loving
22 citizens of Serb ethnicity who are taken away and nobody knows whether
23 they are dead or alive. That pertains to the liquidation of the Serbs in
24 1991. It says that this was addressed to the Committee for the Protection
25 of the Constitutional Order, to Tudjman, et cetera. You knew about all of
Page 10755
1 that, didn't you, Mr. Mesic?
2 A. Such a letter was not sent to me. After I was elected to this
3 office, I found this. Croatia did not always function as a state based on
4 the rule of law. It is today, though. And these crimes are being
5 investigated. If it is correct -- if what Mr. Stjepan Herzog established
6 then is correct, the perpetrators will be brought to justice. Croatia
7 today is a state based on the rule of law.
8 Q. Mr. Mesic, I'm not asking you about anything that is taking place
9 today. You keep explaining this period of time when you were responsible
10 for crimes against Serbs by saying that, I don't know, that the parliament
11 decide this, that you were not being asked about this, that you were --
12 JUDGE MAY: This is going over old ground yet again. Now, your
13 time is now up. You can ask, though, two more questions if you wish, but
14 they must be new questions.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that's precisely the question
16 I put: Was Mr. Mesic some invisible man who was not in this leadership
17 that was responsible for these crimes, or does he consider himself to be
18 one of the persons responsible for these crimes against Yugoslavia?
19 JUDGE MAY: He's already answered that several times.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. If you're letting me put
21 two more questions, I'm going to put my next two questions.
22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Is it correct that it was precisely this same JNA - and you were
24 at the helm of the collective supreme commander - did it not agree to 14
25 cease fires during these operations, and all were requested by the
Page 10756
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Page blanche insérée aux fins d’assurer la correspondance entre la
13 pagination anglaise et la pagination française.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10757
1 Croatian side, doesn't that best show the attitude precisely of that
2 military leadership that you have been contesting? This Supreme Command
3 staff was founded in 1987, not later, as you were saying. Doesn't that
4 show the attitude of the Presidency and of the military leadership, that
5 is to say, to find a peaceful solution to all these problems? And each
6 and every one of these cases, the army did accept your requests, and in
7 their reports that I have received here, it says that they did not open
8 fire anywhere, only in the places where they were attacked. How do you --
9 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer that.
10 A. We are not establishing negative facts here. We are talking about
11 positive facts. That is to say that the Supreme Command staff can become
12 operational --
13 JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... translation.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the English channel? Can you hear
15 the English channel?
16 JUDGE MAY: Yes. It's all right. Yes. Let's go on.
17 Yes, Mr. Mesic.
18 A. The Supreme Command staff can be activated only in case of war and
19 only in case of imminent threat of war. A decision on that is to be
20 passed by the Presidency of Yugoslavia. Such a decision was never
21 reached.
22 As for the ceasefire, there were ceasefires, as far as I know this
23 was the case, yes, 14 times. I'm not going into who had requested a
24 ceasefire; there were ceasefires. But the army was carrying out the
25 assignment it got, to cover the area that the paramilitaries had put under
Page 10758
1 their control before that and they expelled the non-Serb population from
2 that area.
3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. All right. So I'm entitled to one more question only. This area
5 that you are talking about were UN-protected areas after that, and I see
6 that you learned this very well, this sadly composed false indictment. My
7 question is the following: Now that you are working for this illegal
8 Tribunal, do you really believe you can evade criminal responsibility for
9 crimes?
10 JUDGE MAY: That's not a proper question. The witness is a
11 witness before the Tribunal, he's not working for it, as you know quite
12 well.
13 Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
15 Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:
16 Q. [Interpretation] From the extensive material we have here, it was
17 very difficult for me to decide which particular documents to select and
18 what to choose as interventions as amicus. And I decided on two pages
19 from this massive material, and I'd like to ask the Prosecution to prepare
20 these documents. They are Mr. Mesic's statements given in March 1998
21 before the investigators of The Hague Tribunal, so that I won't be able to
22 go into that other statement, which was longer, in the Dokmanovic case,
23 except for a fragment of that.
24 But what I would like to ask you first, Mr. Mesic, is this: It is
25 a sort of introductory question and has to do with the event that took
Page 10759
1 place in Karadjordjevo. You said that you wanted to organise a meeting
2 between yourself and Tudjman and Jovic and Milosevic, and you proposed
3 this to Tudjman, whereas only Tudjman actually went to the meeting; isn't
4 that right?
5 A. Yes, that's right.
6 Q. Is it also right that in all the matters relating to the destiny
7 and fate of Croatia, you consulted the president of the Republic but that
8 you also stood by your own opinions and views? Is that right?
9 A. In the Yugoslav state Presidency, I represented the interests of
10 the Republic of Croatia, and I put forward my own views as well.
11 Q. Thank you. Yesterday you said that your entire family were in the
12 Partizan movement, and you said that when you were interviewed as a
13 witness in the Dokmanovic case, at one point you said the following: "My
14 father and his five brothers and my entire family, including myself, all
15 of us were with the Partizans." And I know that very well, and that 11 of
16 your relatives were killed.
17 I'm not going to ask you about some things that this Court will
18 have to go into about the victims in the camps during World War II, but I
19 do want to ask you the following in view of the fact that your whole
20 family was in the Partizans: Is it correct that in World War II, of all
21 the people living in our areas and in our part of the world, it was the
22 Serbs that suffered most? Yes or no.
23 A. It was the Jews, the Romanies, and of course a lot of Serbs that
24 suffered and were -- fell casualty. But I don't want to enter into
25 speculation as to numbers.
Page 10760
1 Q. Thank you. Is it also true that Hitler bombed -- only bombed
2 Belgrade and the Serbian towns and Montenegrin towns, not military targets
3 but mostly civilian targets and that there were a great deal of victims
4 and casualties among the civilians themselves? Is that right?
5 A. Yes, it is. The Wehrmacht did bomb Serb towns.
6 Q. Thank you. Is it also true that it was only in Serbia where if
7 one person was killed, 100 Serbs were killed in retaliation, in
8 Kragujevac, Kraljevo, and other towns in Serbia?
9 A. Yes, that is correct. I just have to add that General Adzic told
10 me that if one Serb was killed, 2.000 Croats will pay with their heads.
11 Q. Yes, I've heard that, but I asked you this, and I'm going to ask
12 you today the following: Yesterday you mentioned the killing of
13 Ferdinand. The killing of one man is always a tragedy and I don't think
14 that the killing of, the murder of Ferdinand was a good thing. But what I
15 want to ask you is the following: Are you aware of the fact that in World
16 War I, of the military-able men in Serbia, 60 per cent of the male
17 population in Serbia were killed? Is that correct or is the percentage
18 approximately correct? Perhaps it was 54 per cent.
19 JUDGE MAY: Your role is to assist the Trial Chamber and not to
20 try and make points of various sorts for either side. Now, these are
21 matters which no doubt we can read, if they're relevant, but I don't
22 really see that it's going to assist cross-examining this witness about
23 the First World War or indeed the Second World War.
24 The point that the accused has made is that the Serbs were in
25 fear, and he says, no doubt that that is because of a background of what
Page 10761
1 happened 50 years before. But there's a limit to the evidence that we can
2 receive on this topic, and it's a limit to what benefit there is in
3 cross-examining this witness about it. Now, we will -- we've said that we
4 will hear on both sides one historian, but there is a limit beyond that
5 which we're not really prepared to go. So could you bear that in mind,
6 please.
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge May, that is
8 precisely what I wish to do, just what you were saying. I am bearing that
9 in mind and wish to clarify that point. I want to arrive at a question,
10 but I have to go back to one previous question before I get to my main
11 question. I would like to ask Mr. Mesic whether, in the history of the
12 Yugoslav peoples and area - as you called it, the invalid Yugoslavia -
13 whether there were any 40 years between 1950 and 1999, whether the country
14 had ever gone through a period of this type in history where there were no
15 casualties, no victims, no civilian casualties, and that it was in fact
16 the most peaceful period in the history of that entire region.
17 Q. Is that correct?
18 A. I agree with you on one point, and that is that it was a peaceful
19 time, without war. The Serbs and Croats never went to war in history
20 until this particular war, which was imposed in order to expand borders,
21 or rather, to change the borders and frontiers of the republics of the
22 then Yugoslavia.
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have to go back
24 to some matters that are really very relevant to this Trial Chamber, and
25 that is the following: In World War I, a large number of regiments came
Page 10762
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10763
1 from the area of Croatia.
2 Q. Is it true that Josip Broz Tito was a member of one of those
3 regiments and arrived in Serbia, in Ljig?
4 JUDGE MAY: I do not see why that is very relevant to the Trial
5 Chamber, and particularly I don't see why it's of any relevance to the
6 cross-examination of this witness. Now, he dealt, Mr. Tapuskovic, with a
7 great deal of evidence, and there's been little cross-examination relating
8 to it. If you want to cross-examine him on his evidence and if you want
9 to assist the Trial Chamber, by all means do so, but going back in history
10 at the moment does not seem to be of any assistance.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It is precisely because of those
12 killings that the Serb people were afraid of any other conflict or war
13 that might come. That is why I put my questions. But I will stop there.
14 Q. Yesterday you said that there were only three integrational
15 elements in Yugoslavia and that they were Tito and his -- with his
16 charisma and authority, then we had the League of Communists of
17 Yugoslavia, and finally, the Yugoslav People's Army. That's what you
18 said, I believe, isn't it?
19 A. Yes. They were the main factors of integration. Of course, there
20 were economic interests and so on and so forth, communications, and so on.
21 But they were the main factors of integration, without which Yugoslavia
22 was no longer tenable.
23 Q. That's what I wanted to ask you. The people that lived for 70
24 years together, the language, family ties, the economy, culture, and
25 everything else, did this not link up people? Was it really only tourism
Page 10764
1 that was the important link in the chain? Were not all these other links
2 important?
3 A. An amicus curiae is there to assist the Court. That is the duty
4 of the Judges too. But he must also help ascertain the truth. I did not
5 say that tourism was the main factor of integration. What I said was that
6 the main integrative factors were the ones I stated. There were others.
7 But without those three main factors of integration, Yugoslavia could not
8 have survived. It was Serbia that went to block Slovenia, and Slovenia
9 was within the frameworks of Yugoslavia. It was Serbia that forbade, led
10 by Mr. Milosevic, the accused here, to purchase goods from the republic of
11 Serbia, any goods whatsoever, in the republic of Serbia. This boycott was
12 enforced. So who, then, is it who wished to dismember the country?
13 Q. Nonetheless, this first factor of integration did exist because,
14 of course, Josip Broz Tito died. He died a natural death and the League
15 of Communists disintegrated.
16 You said yesterday -- actually, in the statement you gave
17 previously, in paragraph 4 of that statement, you said that Milosevic
18 destroyed the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. Now, do you think that the
19 Communist Party of Yugoslavia should have remained in place or do you
20 think that it should have been done away with in order to democratise the
21 region? Do you consider that it should have remained? Because you seem
22 to criticise Milosevic for having effectively destroyed the Yugoslav
23 Communist Party.
24 A. That is your explanation and interpretation, that is not what I
25 said. All I said was that that particular factor of integration had
Page 10765
1 disappeared too. And let me say that I went to prison because I was
2 against a one-party system, so don't put into my mouth words that I did
3 not say.
4 Q. No. I'm just reading your statement, reading the statement you
5 gave, in which you say: "Milosevic effectively destroyed the Yugoslav
6 Communist Party." That is word-for-word what it says in your statement,
7 the statement you gave in 1998.
8 A. I have to answer once again and respond: There were three factors
9 of integration which had disappeared. Amongst them was the League of
10 Communists, which was a multinationality, multi-ethnic party, which means
11 that all the nations and nationalities, in one way or another, took part
12 and participated in the membership of the League of Communists of
13 Yugoslavia. And then the League of Communists of Yugoslavia disappeared.
14 I do not say that the League of Communists was a good thing. It could not
15 have been a good thing by virtue of the fact that it was just one party,
16 one single party, and I was in favour of a multiparty system. So don't
17 place words into my mouth and say that I was sorry to see the League of
18 Communists go. All I said was that it was this factor of integration
19 which had disappeared.
20 Q. Thank you. And then you say all that remained was the Yugoslav
21 People's Army, and then you said yesterday now it was up to destroying the
22 Yugoslav People's Army. Who was it who should have done this? Who was it
23 who destroyed the Yugoslav People's Army?
24 A. It was the accused and his vision of the creation of Serbia at the
25 expense of other people's territory. The army asked for sponsors,
Page 10766
1 sponsorship, because the mechanism, that enormous mechanism, was left
2 without the money to fund it, so it sought for sponsors. And the army saw
3 Slobodan Milosevic as being its sponsor. Slobodan Milosevic who stands
4 accused here. And in Serbia, who would have a larger territory. That is
5 why the army took the side of Slobodan Milosevic and executed the tasks
6 that he placed before it.
7 Q. But was not the army attacked in Slovenia on the 27th of June,
8 1991, when barricades were set up around the borders? The army wished to
9 go and control the borders, but on that occasion 40 innocent soldiers were
10 killed and they were not bearing arms. Is that correct? Wasn't the army
11 attacked in Slovenia when the barricades were set up by the Territorial
12 Defence throughout Slovenia? Isn't that right?
13 A. In Slovenia, the army was not attacked. It was the Yugoslav
14 People's Army who was the attacker in Slovenia, attacking the institutions
15 of the Slovenian Republic.
16 Q. Thank you. And was a blockade set up of the barracks, following
17 orders from Zeks? In Croatia and in Split, to prevent the soldiers from
18 being able to get water, food, and electricity?
19 A. I have already answered that question. The blockade was
20 necessary. The blockade of the barracks of the Yugoslav People's Army was
21 necessary to prevent the arming of those who were overthrowing the
22 institutions of the Croatian state.
23 Q. I don't want to go back to Mr. Spegelj and his statement that what
24 should be done was to begin killing the officers of the Yugoslav army, but
25 you keep saying that one party in Serbia kept talking about the
Page 10767
1 Karlobag-Virovitica et cetera, that border there.
2 A. You mean Karlovac.
3 Q. Yes, I mean Karlovac. We know what we mean. Now, the Croatian
4 party of rights on the 17th of June, 1991, did it proclaim the Lipljanska
5 povelja on which it demanded the eastern borders along the lines of
6 Subotica, Zemun, Drina, Sandzak and Boka Kotorska?
7 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please be asked to slow down
8 and repeat the final part of his question. Thank you.
9 JUDGE MAY: You're being asked to slow down and also to repeat the
10 final line of the -- the final part of your question.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. That the borders had to be along the
13 Subotica-Zemun-Drina-Sandzak-Boka Kotorska line, that's what I was saying
14 with the June charter.
15 A. I do not know about that June charter, but even if it was adopted,
16 the authority in Croatia was not in the hands of the Croatian Party of
17 Rights. As far as General Spegelj is concerned, because he was mentioned
18 here, he never uttered the fact that anybody ought to be killed. What he
19 said was - and there are videotapes about that - that in the case of a
20 civil war, should a civil war break out, nobody will ask who was guilty
21 and who was not, there's just shooting and people are killed. And that is
22 why he said that a civil war should be avoided.
23 Q. Now, you say that because of all this, among the people in the
24 region - and I equate the Serb and Croat people - that there was not the
25 fear of new conflicts and loss of life. But let me ask you this question
Page 10768
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10769
1 now and wind up that area. If there was no fear and no justified fear --
2 I understand that Croatia had the right to unite its territory. That is
3 quite normal, to have a uniform united territory, and I accept that. But
4 isn't this what happened in the end, what happened actually in the
5 Krajina, that it was the Serb houses that were burnt, that the civilians
6 were killed and that all the people, about 300.000, perhaps it wasn't
7 exactly 300.000, but one day, with bombings from planes, were expelled
8 from those areas. I don't know whether forever, but anyway, they were
9 expelled then. How could that have happened if your aim was only to get
10 back your territories? Does that not mean actually that the fear was
11 justified and that the Serbs suffered the fate that they were afraid of?
12 A. When the log revolution began, there was not one single reason for
13 any serious fear. There were no serious grounds for fear and anxiety.
14 Everything should have been settled through Croatian institutions. And
15 had that been done, there would not have been any war in Croatia. But it
16 was the arming of those who were implementing the plan to expand the
17 borders of Serbia - I don't want to say Greater Serbia here - but to
18 expand it. Because it's a small area, so nobody can be great in a small
19 area, or greater in a small area. So it was this expansion of Serbian
20 borders that was wanted. So those who were armed worked to implement that
21 plan. And when the final operation took place, a part of the people left
22 together with the army. They left together with the army.
23 Q. Mr. Mesic, I accept all that, but I'm asking you why civilian
24 casualties were necessary. Why was it necessary to kill civilians, to
25 burn their houses, and to expel them from these regions? That's what I'm
Page 10770
1 asking you.
2 A. I have already answered that question. I said what the Serbs in
3 Croatia were needed for. Slobodan Milosevic needed them to populate
4 Kosovo once he had expelled the Albanians. But the crimes committed
5 against the civilians, it is I myself who am in favour of having every
6 criminal brought to justice and have all these cases investigated, and
7 that is the policy that I am pursuing and the Croatian radicals are
8 criticising me. They are uniting against me with the Serb radicals and
9 are criticising me in that. And if you change their title, then you will
10 see that they are working along those same lines, and we were able to see
11 that during this trial as well.
12 Q. Thank you. That was the topic I wished to discuss and ask you
13 about. I have one more matter to deal with. They are constitutional
14 matters. I know full well that, as a statesman, you are well versed in
15 the most subtle aspects of constitutionality so I won't be able to go into
16 the details but just some basics, please.
17 In your statement here, you spoke about the Croatian Spring and
18 you say here at one point that many ideas for which we strove were adopted
19 and were incorporated into the 1974 constitution, which established a
20 confederal Yugoslavia. That's what you say in your statement. And when
21 you were examined as a witness in the Dokmanovic case, on page 1629, lines
22 7 and 8, you say the following: That the 1974 constitution introduced
23 into the Yugoslav mechanism the confederal model. Is that correct?
24 A. The functioning of the Federation, in practical terms, meant that
25 it worked according to the confederal model. That's not the name it was
Page 10771
1 given, but if automatism exists with the rotation of the president and
2 vice-president, and if the most important questions require a consensus of
3 opinion, then quite certainly that is a form of a confederation, the
4 confederal model.
5 Q. You said yesterday that you decided that you had to work towards
6 independence because Yugoslavia was no longer a federal state, which
7 according to your convictions, as you stated here already, in 1974 it was
8 in fact a confederal state. Now, how do you explain this? How do you
9 marry the two?
10 A. It was not fully a confederal state. It had aspects of the
11 confederal model in its mechanism. That is why Croatia and Slovenia
12 proposed a confederal state to the ultimate consequences. The model that
13 was in force could not have survived, because neither Serbia was satisfied
14 with it, nor any of the other republics, and that is quite true. But what
15 we were asking for was a confederal model. Serbia proposed what it
16 implemented later on in Kosovo and Vojvodina, and we were not able to
17 agree to that.
18 Q. Thank you. Is it true - especially as you followed this - after
19 the Croatian Spring, there was initiative to change the constitution, to
20 alter the constitution? Is that so?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. As early as 1971, were there tempestuous discussions about this?
23 And this book published in 1971 at the faculty of law in Belgrade, was it
24 not banned, and did it not contain the opinions of the biggest legal
25 experts of the time in Yugoslavia who thought that this was leading to the
Page 10772
1 break-up of Yugoslavia, which is why it was banned? Are you aware of this
2 or not?
3 A. I don't know which books were banned in Belgrade.
4 Q. I'm asking you about this one.
5 A. I have to mention, if we are discussing law, that original
6 sovereignty in the Yugoslav Federation was born by the republics. Dr.
7 Jovan Stefanovic, a university professor, held the view - and he was
8 correct in this - that original sovereignty was born by the republics and
9 it was by the will of the republics that part of their sovereignty was
10 transferred to the Federation. Dr. Jovan Stefanovic also said that
11 citizenship originally resided in the republics, but by virtue of the
12 logic of things, if a republic belonged to a federation, it was considered
13 that if someone was a citizen of the republic, he was also a citizen of
14 Yugoslavia.
15 Q. We have no time to go into this. You say you don't know anything
16 about this book, but since you yourself were imprisoned unjustifiably, do
17 you know that because of their opinions that these constitutional changes
18 were leading to the break-up of Yugoslavia, Mihajlo Djuric, a university
19 professor, another assistant professor, Cavoski, as well as Kostunica,
20 were persecuted and dismissed, expelled, from the university because they
21 held the view that these changes were leading to the break-up of
22 Yugoslavia? Are you aware of this?
23 A. I know that many people in Croatia were punished for their
24 opinions, and I'm absolutely against this. I'm also against people in
25 Serbia being punished for holding certain opinions. Whether I agree or
Page 10773
1 disagree with these opinions is another question. At the time, it was a
2 crime to hold certain opinions. Unfortunately, the country was a
3 dictatorship, and that's how it was.
4 Q. We have no time to go into this. I will have to discuss this with
5 experts on constitutional law. But let me ask you this: Did the
6 constitution of 1974 provide for a veto?
7 A. I cannot answer this question.
8 Q. Did the regions, the autonomous regions, have the right to take
9 independent decisions, and if Serbia voted in favour of a certain proposal
10 in the Federation, a decision could not be reached if one of the provinces
11 disagreed with it?
12 A. A province could halt a certain measure if it disagreed with it.
13 Q. So a province could block any proposal coming from Serbia at the
14 federal level?
15 A. I don't think this refers to any proposal. It was only essential
16 matters, and this also meant that the republics, if they disagreed with a
17 certain measure, could not -- it could not be implemented at the federal
18 level.
19 Q. Is it true that no republican law could be passed without the
20 consent of the provinces in a country of 10 million inhabitants and the
21 provinces had only 2 million inhabitants? Is this correct?
22 A. Yes. They were a constitutional category.
23 Q. If the constitution proclaimed the -- that all the republics were
24 equal, how was it possible for Serbia to be so powerless that it could do
25 nothing, absolutely nothing, on its own? Practically all the federal
Page 10774
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10775
1 institutions had been eliminated, nothing was functioning at the federal
2 level precisely because of what was imposed on Serbia and did not exist in
3 any other republic. Answer me just this: Were there attempts in Croatia
4 for national minorities or the constituent peoples to attain the same sort
5 of rights but they were unable to do this?
6 A. Croatia had no autonomous provinces. Serbia had two autonomous
7 provinces; Kosovo and Vojvodina. But the Yugoslav constitution
8 established that the autonomous provinces were a constituent element of
9 the Federation within the framework of Serbia. Their representatives in
10 the federal Presidency held equal status to the presidents of the
11 republics.
12 Q. Mr. Mesic, my time is up. I have to take this into account. And
13 I have only one question left: When you set out to declare independence
14 in the situation where two Germanys -- the two Germanys had already united
15 and Europe was headed towards integration, in a situation in which the
16 Helsinki charter existed, how was it possible for you to go for
17 independence, when the whole world was heading towards integration, you
18 were breaking up a small part on the globe into a fragment, in separate
19 states? That's my last question.
20 A. As the Federation was untenable, it is quite logical that we
21 wanted dissociation. There was no other way out. There are far smaller
22 states in Europe than any of the Yugoslav republics, much smaller states,
23 which are sovereign and independent. But the solution for all the former
24 republics, which are now states, is a united Europe, which will open up
25 its borders. Nothing stood in the way of the republics becoming
Page 10776
1 independent without a war, and for every nation, as is happening now in
2 Europe, to live within its own culture - just as a German doesn't care
3 today whether he's on one side of the border or the other, or a Frenchman
4 - the same would have happened on the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
5 It wouldn't have mattered whether a Croat or a Serb was on one side of a
6 border or another because the same rules that apply in Europe and that are
7 reached through European mechanisms in a democratic procedure would have
8 applied. There was no need to use tanks to impose one's own solutions on
9 others. This was the biggest mistake made by the one who wanted to change
10 the borders of republics, and that is the accused.
11 Q. Well, I agree, but why was Germany, which had united, the first
12 country to recognise you?
13 A. I answered yesterday that we were first recognised by Iceland.
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you, Your
15 Honours.
16 Re-examined by Mr. Nice:
17 Q. The correct and full quotation from the statement of March 1998
18 put by Mr. Tapuskovic reads as follows:
19 "That in 1989 ... Milosevic --" or "at the 14th congress,
20 Milosevic effectively destroyed the Yugoslav Communist Party. This
21 created a void at the federal level, since the only functioning parties
22 were those at the republic level."
23 Was that your view of events at the time, Mr. Mesic?
24 A. That is correct. I was not defending the policy of the Communist
25 Party; I was simply ascertaining that it had disintegrated.
Page 10777
1 Q. And by being destroyed at the federal level, were there then only
2 republican parties in operation?
3 A. That is correct. The League of Communists remained at the
4 republic level. In Croatia, it was transformed into a social democratic
5 party. It accepted the multiparty system and carried out social
6 democratic policies such as is normal in Europe.
7 Q. In the limited time available, any question that you can answer by
8 a yes or no will probably result in the saving of time.
9 Various allegations have been made against you. A little bit more
10 about your own credentials, please. Were you ever a member of the
11 Communist Party yourself, so we can know about that? Yes or no.
12 A. Yes, I was.
13 Q. Until when?
14 A. Until 1971, when I participated in the Croatian Spring, called for
15 democracy and called for clear accounts at the federal level.
16 Q. You were asked about the period of peace of which the next 20
17 years, approximately, would form part. Period of peace, yes; with or
18 without civil rights, as properly understood in Europe, would you judge
19 that period of peace?
20 A. It was a period without war, but not a period of peace, because
21 laws were applied selectively, and this cannot be so in a democracy.
22 Q. You told us of the period of time which you, a qualified lawyer,
23 were unable to get a job and indeed unable to travel because you were
24 deprived a passport. Was deprivation of passport a standard tool of the
25 then state?
Page 10778
1 A. Hundreds of thousands of people were denied a passport. I was one
2 of them. I applied for 150 vacancies, and although I had passed the
3 examination to become a judge, the bar examination, I was unable to get a
4 job.
5 Q. With that background of concern for democracy, did you cleave to
6 those positions throughout the beginnings of the HDZ as a party, leaving
7 that party only when you disapproved of its actions in Bosnia?
8 A. I was convinced that Yugoslavia could not survive, but I was also
9 afraid of those enormous rallies, the million-strong masses, saying that
10 they would settle accounts with Croatia. I was looking for those who
11 could resist these attacks, stand up to those attacks, and I thought it
12 was the HDZ that could rise to that historical challenge. When I saw,
13 however, that part of that policy was diverging from what I wanted, then I
14 abandoned it.
15 Q. Pausing there in the chronology, and I'm dealing with a few
16 matters chronologically: Who were the first victims of Plitvice and
17 Pakrac? Were they Croats or Serbs?
18 A. There were no victims in Pakrac, no wounded and no dead, but the
19 Yugoslav army was brought in to take the territory needed to achieve
20 Greater Serbian goals. The first victim in Plitvice was a Croat, Josip
21 Jovic.
22 Q. During your occupancy of the Presidency, as president, for which
23 you had striven, were you working conscientiously to achieve results
24 through the Presidency?
25 A. That is correct. I understood my arrival at the Presidency as an
Page 10779
1 opportunity to find a peaceful political way out of the crisis, because
2 Yugoslavia entered the crisis before my arrival. The work of the
3 Presidency was blocked. Federal institutions were not functioning. All
4 this was already happening when I was appointed to that office.
5 Q. And were your attempts to hold meetings away from Belgrade, where
6 it was too dangerous for you to travel, were your attempts to hold
7 meetings sincere attempts where you would have conducted business had it
8 been arranged -- had it been possible to make arrangements to meet?
9 A. It's not that it was just dangerous for me to reach Belgrade. I
10 was prevented from reaching Belgrade because the airport in Zagreb had
11 been closed down and the roads were blocked. I wanted to convene a
12 meeting where everybody could come, and that was on Brioni. The answer
13 was that there could be no agreement and that the military option was to
14 be employed.
15 Q. Let's move on, then, in time, dealing still with your overall
16 credentials. You've had put to you -- shouldn't have been done but you've
17 had put to you a passage from a protected transcript, which I'll deal with
18 procedurally when your evidence is concluded, but can you help us with one
19 question or two questions about that and answer them yes or no. You know
20 the protected evidence and the trial to which it relates. Was the
21 defendant in that trial a Serb? Yes or no.
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Was he a Serb, the defendant in the other -- the Chamber knows the
24 point I'm getting at.
25 JUDGE MAY: I think you know -- we need to look at our Rules,
Page 10780
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10781
1 because the witness is giving evidence here.
2 MR. NICE: I'll deal with that procedurally. The point, I think,
3 is obvious.
4 Q. Let's come to Bobetko. In the very last week, when it was known
5 you were coming here to give evidence, had there been reaction,
6 substantial reaction in Croatia, adverse to the surrender of Bobetko to
7 this Tribunal?
8 A. Yes, that is correct.
9 Q. Have you, from the very first moment when this issue was raised in
10 Croatia, I think last week or the week before, been resolute that Croatian
11 defendants indicted here should be surrendered here for trial?
12 A. I consider that Croatia has a constitutional law on cooperation
13 with the Tribunal and that it must cooperate always, at all times. The
14 Croatian government also has the right to use the legal means at its
15 disposal when it finds this necessary.
16 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I have a few matters of detail arising
17 from questions. Can I just deal with those? I can't deal with
18 everything.
19 Q. I think you spoke of the Serbian minister's visit to Croatian
20 territory. Do you remember that passage of questioning? If so, can you
21 give us the name of the Serbian minister and whereabouts it was he went,
22 and when, if you can remember.
23 A. I cannot recall his first and last name at the moment, but I know
24 that he visited the area that entered into the
25 Karlobag-Karlovac-Virovitica boundary without the knowledge of the
Page 10782
1 Croatian authorities, and he was a minister in the government of Serbia.
2 He was accompanied by Vojislav Seselj, whose military units were also in
3 the same area.
4 Q. When there was a vote about the withdrawal of the army from
5 Croatia, were you the only one to vote against that proposal?
6 A. I have to correct you: The vote was on the withdrawal of the army
7 from Slovenia.
8 Q. Sorry. From Slovenia. Yes. Were you the only one to vote
9 against?
10 A. Correct, because I held the view that this was part of the
11 accused's scenario. He wanted to let Slovenia go because there was no
12 indigenous Serb population there, so he could not attack part of Slovenian
13 territory. That is why the JNA withdrew from Slovenia and did not enter
14 into a further war with the Territorial Defence of Slovenia, which was
15 very successful.
16 Q. It's suggested that at this time you were enthusiastic for the
17 break-up of Yugoslavia. If you had voted differently, would you have
18 shown more enthusiasm for the break-up, do you think?
19 A. When I voted, I had in mind that this was the implementation of a
20 scenario, but I said: If the Yugoslav army, which had become Serbian,
21 also withdraws from Croatia, Bosnia, and Macedonia, then I will vote for
22 its withdrawal.
23 Q. Just a matter of detail the Chamber may not otherwise have
24 understood: As president of the Presidency, you explain you had only a
25 very limited personal staff serving you. Is that correct?
Page 10783
1 A. Yes. I had only a few staff members; an advisor, a Chef de
2 Cabinet, and two secretaries.
3 Q. I think perhaps finally: You've had drawn to your attention this
4 morning, very recently, the possible existence in the Serbs of fears that
5 they will have had built on earlier unhappy and tragic events. Did you
6 ever prey on Serb fears with your approach to politics, Mr. Mesic, or not?
7 A. Never, not for a single moment was it my policy to intimidate or
8 frighten anyone because of their nationality or ethnicity. I always
9 advocated, and I still advocate today, the rights of citizens, civil
10 rights, the protection of minority rights, and positive discrimination of
11 vulnerable groups, including minorities.
12 Q. And have you at all times attempted to bring that about in
13 Croatia, the positive discrimination for vulnerable groups?
14 A. Yes, that is correct, which is why I supported the law on national
15 minorities which is being passed in accordance with European standards. I
16 wanted Croatia to be even more advanced and to give national minorities
17 even more space.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Mesic, that concludes your evidence. Thank you
20 for coming to the Tribunal to give it, and indeed for making yourself
21 available for an extra day. The Tribunal, the Trial Chamber, will adjourn
22 now for half an hour. We'll begin again with Mr. Wladimiroff's matter.
23 MR. NICE: Your Honour, just before we adjourn and perhaps after
24 the witness has withdrawn, may I just make our position clear on the other
25 transcript, so that we can -- before we forget it.
Page 10784
1 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
2 MR. NICE: The position is -- this doesn't -- the witness doesn't
3 have to stay for this, I know he's probably in a hurry to go. The
4 position is that --
5 JUDGE MAY: The witness would like to go.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 MR. NICE: The transcript remained subject to protective measures
8 of another Chamber, and indeed was then moved to the Appeals Chamber,
9 where it remains under protection. The Prosecution, consistent with its
10 duty of disclosure, was concerned that the accused should have an
11 opportunity to read that transcript, and since the accused finds
12 opportunities when he can to criticise these procedures, it should be
13 known publicly that everything is done to make material available to him,
14 the Prosecution taking initiatives when they must. So we took the
15 necessary steps that would enable him to read the transcript, and it was
16 provided on him pursuant to an order of the Presiding Judge of an Appeals
17 Chamber on the basis of non-further disclosure and indeed on the basis of
18 contempt consequences for breach of the order. Therefore, it should never
19 have been, under that order, mentioned publicly in this Court.
20 Now, if, in the event -- and I had no desire to interrupt a point
21 while it was being taken by the accused. If in the event it's only that
22 part of the transcript that he wants to go before you, then that can
23 really be an end of the matter.
24 JUDGE MAY: Why don't we look at the whole transcript and see if
25 there's any relevance in it.
Page 10785
1 MR. NICE: Yes. If you want any more, then we'll have to consider
2 whether the accused, or someone on his behalf, should apply back to the
3 Appeals Chamber for a more liberal extension.
4 JUDGE MAY: This is going round and round. I thought the law --
5 Rules had been amended to make it more practicable.
6 MR. NICE: They may have been, but that's what we have been left
7 with in this case and we have to obey those Rules for obvious reasons.
8 JUDGE MAY: The sensible course may be for the Trial Chamber to
9 have a look at the transcript, see what may or may not be relevant, and we
10 can take the matter further from there. Thank you.
11 MR. NICE: Thank you, sir.
12 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In connection with this transcript,
14 I just wish to correct a factual error that was probably intentional on
15 Mr. Nice's part. He asked Witness Mesic whether the defendant was a Serb,
16 the accused was a Serb, and then he did confirm that the accused was a
17 Serb. And I was using the transcript from a trial where a Croat was the
18 accused. I also referred to the transcript from the trial of Dokmanovic,
19 but that was public.
20 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Nice's question was aimed at getting the
21 answer which you've just given. He didn't get it. But that was the
22 purpose of the question, obviously.
23 Look, we're going to look at this transcript and we'll come back
24 to it in due course and see if we can't make it public in some way. So
25 we'll return to it when we've had a look at it ourselves.
Page 10786
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10787
1 We'll adjourn now, half an hour.
2 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
4 JUDGE MAY: Yes. There is a request that the accused be permitted
5 to consult with his associates today, here, after the Court has stopped
6 sitting, for an hour or an hour and a half. That we shall instruct the
7 registry to facilitate.
8 Now, I turn to the matter which we said we would deal with, which
9 relates to the amicus Mr. Wladimiroff.
10 Mr. Milosevic, you were making some submissions on that topic when
11 I stopped you last week. Is there anything you want to add to what you
12 said then?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As you know, I put a question in
14 relation to what the friend of the Court said - your friend, not mine -
15 about these proceedings. I consider this to be inappropriate and I
16 consider that to be an obstruction in the proceedings and whatever is
17 going on here, but I believe that this confirms precisely that this
18 illegal court is not in the domain of law. It is in the domain of
19 politics and the media. After all, the previous witness too primarily
20 expounded on his political thoughts, he was not establishing facts. This
21 is yet additional proof of the fact that this is a political and media
22 operation, not a legal operation of any kind.
23 As far as individuals in this room are concerned, I consider it to
24 be highly inappropriate that they engage directly in this media campaign
25 which is following this operation that you call a trial, and I believe
Page 10788
1 that in this way Mr. Wladimiroff has fully disqualified himself, even as
2 your friend, from carrying out that duty.
3 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, I wouldn't normally call on the Prosecution,
4 but if there's anything you want to say about this, you should have the
5 opportunity of doing so.
6 MR. NICE: Thank you, Your Honour. No. The transcript has
7 recently come to my attention. There are some passages that cause us
8 concern, but I'm sure that those passages will already have occurred to
9 the Chamber. I made the observation on the last occasion that this was
10 raised that there are dangers involved in speaking to the press at all. We
11 do not do so and we've pursued that policy rigorously from the beginning
12 of this trial, and I think it's extremely unfortunate that --
13 JUDGE MAY: Well, Mr. Nice, you may not have done so, but others,
14 I suspect, have.
15 MR. NICE: Not from this trial team we haven't.
16 JUDGE MAY: No, not from your trial team, I'm sure, but others
17 have. You might like to review that.
18 MR. NICE: Yes. I mean, there is, of course, a press component in
19 this office, but so far as the trial team is concerned --
20 JUDGE MAY: Well, there have been comments on the trial, which it
21 may be that you might review the propriety of in due course.
22 MR. NICE: I haven't seen them myself. Indeed, I don't really
23 read the press, because it's, as I indicated in my recent short opening,
24 so far as I can understand, often ill informed. There it is. That's my
25 basic observation. Unfortunately, there shouldn't be any contact with the
Page 10789
1 press, and inappropriate for those involved in trials of this kind.
2 I'll just check with Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff and Mr. Groome. I haven't
3 discussed it.
4 No, nothing else.
5 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Wladimiroff, we have now your note which has been
6 passed to us about the article which appeared in the Kultura newspaper and
7 then was part of it reproduced in the Dutch press. Perhaps you'd like to
8 begin by dealing with that.
9 MR. WLADIMIROFF: Yes, Your Honour. I will start indeed with the
10 Bulgarian one. And dealing with the portion of that Bulgarian publication
11 Mr. Milosevic mentioned, I can firmly say these were not my exact words.
12 The publication resulted from a visit to Salzburg in August. I was
13 teaching students at a summer school on international criminal law, a
14 course organised by the University of Salzburg, and one of the students
15 active for the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee's Legal Defence Programme
16 asked for an interview, which he taped at the time.
17 When answering general questions about my practice as a lawyer,
18 Tadic case and fair trial issues as a whole, questions of the student
19 moved to the Milosevic trial. In my response to the question, "Is there a
20 chance Mr. Milosevic will be acquitted?" I indicated that the Prosecutor
21 has chosen a large target against the accused of the Kosovo, Croatia, and
22 Bosnia issues. In using a shotgun - you have read in the transcript what
23 I actually said on that subject: In using a shotgun, he was attempting to
24 assure that some of the pellets from the shotgun - perhaps I should say
25 hunting rifle - hit the target as a way of proving his case. I stated as
Page 10790
1 well that there is a possibility of the accused being acquitted of all
2 charges. And again, I take it you have read it in the transcript.
3 Later the student, who is not a journalist, told me that he
4 published the article in a newspaper in Bulgaria and that he had edited my
5 answers to his questions and had included a phrase not used by me
6 deliberately. That is the phrase, and I quote: "Theoretically, yes, but
7 in practice, no." He e-mailed me yesterday the transcript of the relevant
8 passage from the tape, and has also confirmed my account of the interview.
9 And that confirms my reaction. You have these documents.
10 Let me say I regret what happened, but as you may have noticed,
11 what has been published here was not actually what I said, and you have
12 read what I have said.
13 If I may now turn to the previous issue, the Haagsche Courant, I
14 dealt with it during the hearing of the 11th and I wrote you a letter on
15 the 12th to explain how that came about. As I've written in that letter,
16 actually, I have nothing to add to what I said here in Court. In my
17 judgement, the content of the article does not reflect the spirit of my
18 conversation with that journalist and what is said, the quotations, are a
19 misrepresentation of what I've said.
20 Here the situation is slightly different. After the hearing, I
21 contacted the journalist, and he regretted that the article had not been
22 sent to me for approval. He defended his understanding of the
23 conversation but acknowledged that his version was an interpretation of
24 our conversation; these were not quotes. I disagree with his
25 interpretation, but that leaves the matter as it is.
Page 10791
1 In both cases, I realised that I should have not given an
2 interview, as I have written to you, and I accept that by giving an
3 interview, consequently I am responsible for that interview, although I
4 have not been quoted correctly; in one case not quoted at all, and in the
5 other case, incorrectly.
6 Let me say, I regret the criticism on matters that have happened
7 outside of the courtroom. Since my assignment as amicus curiae in
8 September last year, I have tried to assist the Court and the accused in
9 this trial in the interests of justice, and I believe that the accused has
10 benefitted from this assistance, and I can tell the Court that if there is
11 a lesson for me to learn, the lesson is clearly this: I can't talk to the
12 press, even not on matters which are not directly -- indirectly being
13 related to Milosevic case. I do better to keep silent and simply do my
14 task entrusted by the Court.
15 JUDGE MAY: The accused has submitted that it's inappropriate for
16 you to continue. It will be a matter for us, of course, to determine
17 that, but how do you answer that suggestion which he makes, that it is
18 inappropriate for you to continue?
19 MR. WLADIMIROFF: I understand his observation on this issue, but
20 as I already have said, these incidents deal with matters I was reported
21 to have said outside of the Court. I take the position that in Court, I
22 have function to calling to the standards as has been required by the
23 Court to the amici. I think I can function as an amicus in this case if I
24 keep up the standard in Court, as I've done before, and to avoid a
25 repetition of what happened outside of the Court I just indicated I won't
Page 10792
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10793
1 speak to the press any more and I think it is possible to continue.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Could you, Mr. Wladimiroff, reconsider that
3 answer against the background that one of your roles is to make
4 submissions and objections that are open to the accused, which it would
5 seem to me raises a question as to whether, in light of what has happened,
6 any confidence can be reposed in you to discharge that responsibility.
7 MR. WLADIMIROFF: Let me say this, Your Honour: I take it that
8 the matter of confidence is a matter for the Court. If I say it very
9 directly, the amici do have a relation with the Court. We try to assist
10 in the Court. We are not tied to any of the parties. We have no relation
11 with any of the parties. We are not instructed by any of the parties. So
12 there is not a matter of a relation of trust with any of the parties.
13 We do have a relation to the Court, and as I've said, I regret
14 what happened outside of the Court, misquoted or not quoted at all, but
15 anyhow, having been reported of what I was -- said -- what I have said,
16 which I did not say, I feel that there is a -- let me try to phrase it
17 very carefully. I feel that I have happened an incident that may have
18 disappointed the Court, and I apologise for that, but I still believe that
19 what I've done in Court would allow me to go on, because that is what
20 matters, what I do here in Court in front of you.
21 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Wladimiroff, you raised the point that you, as an
22 amicus curiae, have some relation with the Court. That's the point, I
23 think. But the other people, the laymen, who do not understand very well
24 what amicus curiae is and what their role is, they might think that they
25 have regular contact with Judges, which is not true at all.
Page 10794
1 MR. WLADIMIROFF: No.
2 JUDGE KWON: So what you are saying may be reflected to other
3 people that they may include some Judges' thinking or something like that.
4 So could you give me your observation of what is the real transcript? You
5 compare the -- you describe the trial as a kind of hunting game, and at
6 the end of the transcript you mention that there is a possibility some
7 bullets will stick. So could you clarify that, that meaning.
8 MR. WLADIMIROFF: I will try to do so, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes, thank you.
10 MR. WLADIMIROFF: Let me first address the first issue you raised.
11 Perhaps one of the problems I created for myself is to explain to the
12 outside world what an amicus is doing. The lesson, as I said, here to
13 learn is perhaps one should not, because in an attempt to explain what an
14 amicus is doing, in a way you come to talk about the trial and then you're
15 vulnerable to questions you don't want to answer to, and that's what
16 happened.
17 Now, answering to your second question, in my appreciation, at
18 least I've not meant to compare the trial with a hunting game. Of course
19 not. But I used an example which I think is not -- is perhaps not the
20 best example I ever used in my life. But the example was meant to
21 demonstrate, in a very simple way, what one perhaps could say the
22 Prosecution is doing with so many charges, and the example of a hunting
23 rifle shooting all these bullets, the charges, I thought at that very
24 moment would explain what is going on. It doesn't say that we are dealing
25 here with a trial in that respect. It's not a comparison of the trial;
Page 10795
1 it's a comparison of what the Prosecution is.
2 Perhaps I shouldn't have done it. I should leave out the word
3 "perhaps." I shouldn't have done it.
4 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. And I remember I mentioned this once
5 before while we are dealing with some summarising witness, with Mr. Nice,
6 I remember I said that what is important is that we have to do the right
7 thing and we have to do the fair trial. But what is also important is
8 that we have to be seen to others as we are doing just things, right
9 things, and fair trial. But what would you say to this: That the public
10 and the media may no longer consider you as to be an impartial body? What
11 is your observation, by what you have said in the media?
12 MR. WLADIMIROFF: Let me say this, Your Honour: I try to separate
13 what I am reported to have said and what I actually have said. It is
14 extremely difficult to respond to things you have not said. Actually, you
15 simply can't. I can only respond to what I've said, and I reiterate:
16 What I have said is not endangering the fairness of the trial, in my view.
17 What I've said may not be beautiful language or the finest example one can
18 use. It is unfortunate to deal, perhaps, with the matter at all, but I've
19 not really said anything that is wrong, that really endangers the trial,
20 which is unfair to the accused. And from that feeling, that I was
21 misquoted, I feel that I'm able to continue to do the work as properly as
22 one should. And as I also said, in Court, I did not make this mistake in
23 terms of phrasing things not very elegantly, and not having done so, I
24 feel I can continue.
25 Perhaps it's also -- I shouldn't say this, but I think, to be
Page 10796
1 frank with the Court, after all, I am a Dutchman. I try to speak English
2 as good as I can. It's sufficient to do my task, but sometimes it may
3 hinder me, and I think these are the occasions where it was of hindrance.
4 Perhaps if you're a native speaker, one would have used finer examples or
5 phrased it perhaps in a way that no misunderstanding could happen. But
6 again, it's not an excuse. It's more an explanation.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: For example, Mr. Wladimiroff, in the quote cited
8 by Judge Kwon, it says, "You may lose half of all the links --" this is
9 the transcript from the tape. "At the very top, you may lose again a
10 number of cases, but some will stick, as we have spoken of a chance that
11 some will stick." That's very unfortunate language, and perhaps it would
12 have been more felicitous if you had said some may stick.
13 MR. WLADIMIROFF: I appreciate what you say, Your Honour, and
14 indeed, in hindsight, when you read it back, of course you wish you had
15 used more better language, more elegant language, more subtle language.
16 But you also may have noticed this is speaking language. It is long
17 sentences, and again, not as an excuse, but to explain why it was phrased
18 as it was, this is speaking language of a non-native speaker.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: I want to reinforce, though, what Judge Kwon said
20 because, as you know very well, in assessing matters of bias and
21 partiality, very seldom will you get evidence of direct bias. So the real
22 test is how the matter appears to a reasonable man. The appearance is
23 more important, is a more significant indicator than the reality. And so
24 what Judge Kwon said is extremely important in, I think, how we assess
25 this. This is how it appears to the reasonable person.
Page 10797
1 MR. WLADIMIROFF: I understand that, Your Honour, and I also
2 understand that this is a matter of careful consideration and indeed to
3 look at the transcript and judge matters on the basis of that and not on
4 what has been published. I appreciate that.
5 I also understand that justice should not only be done but also be
6 seen. But perhaps if the standard of the test of justice should also be
7 seen is applied, one may consider that that standard should be an
8 objective one, in the sense that it should perhaps not be understood in
9 the way as others decide how to promote it. What I'm saying is if the
10 media are making more out of it than is in it, it is a matter for you to
11 consider. I'm not saying they're making more out of it than there is in
12 it, but it is always in my mind that it would be wrong to reach at a point
13 where others would decide what you will have to think about it by writing
14 a lot about it. I'm not able to express myself more superbly, but I think
15 you understand what I'm saying. It's a matter of an objective test.
16 JUDGE MAY: Well, you must be right there. The test is: Has what
17 you have done affected the fairness of the trial?
18 MR. WLADIMIROFF: Yes.
19 JUDGE MAY: Is there any prejudice to the fairness of the trial?
20 That is the first question. And the answer to that is plainly not. This
21 is a Trial Chamber composed of independent and professional Judges, and no
22 reasonable person could say that there's any prejudice to the fairness of
23 the trial.
24 The next issue is: Is there any prejudice to the perception of
25 the fairness of the trial? And I speak for myself when I say that no
Page 10798
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10799
1 reasonable person could imagine that comments attributed to you could in
2 any way be attributed to the Trial Chamber. Of course not.
3 So the issue then is: Is it possible for you to continue in your
4 role, acting independently but as a friend of the court, your having
5 admitted, as is plainly the case, that it was wrong to speak in the way
6 which you have done. Now, do you feel that your independence has been
7 compromised and your ability to continue has been compromised by what has
8 happened? And more important, do you think the fairness or the perception
9 of the fairness of the trial has been compromised by your continuing?
10 Plainly, the Trial Chamber has ordered there should be an amicus, and
11 plainly that should continue.
12 MR. WLADIMIROFF: I will try to answer that, Your Honour. I think
13 the fairness of the trial is not affected. I think that the perception of
14 fairness of the trial has been, unfortunately, a matter of discussion, and
15 my hope is that the discussion today cleared that there should not be a
16 perception of unfairness if there was such a perception at all. If that's
17 right, if I evaluate the situation rightly, I would say I can go on.
18 JUDGE KWON: What is raised by our Presiding Judge and answered by
19 you is very appropriate, and it's absolutely right. We are not affected
20 at all by what you have said or what is expressed by the media.
21 My last concern is that the role of the amicus curiae is to assist
22 the Court, and it is also to assist, in part, the accused, who is not
23 represented by an attorney. But if the accused is so strongly opposed to
24 an amicus curiae, I'm concerned whether you, as an amicus curiae, can
25 pursue a robust role in the proceeding.
Page 10800
1 MR. WLADIMIROFF: Let me say this: I think that the accused's
2 position is that he doesn't recognise this Court, and consequently he
3 doesn't recognise anyone appointed by the Court. So from the very start
4 on, I have been aware that I am a persona non-grata in terms of law,
5 because I'm appointed by the Court. That by itself is not a hindrance to
6 do my task as good as possible, and that's what I've done.
7 You may have noticed that the amici concentrate on the legal
8 issues of this case, and we are very reluctant to interfere in
9 cross-examination. And I speak for myself; that's very true. In any
10 legal dealings, I realise that by addressing legal issues raised by the
11 Prosecution or raised by the Trial Chamber, I engage myself in a legal
12 debate or legal issue which the accused may not like because it is an
13 expression of playing according to the Rules and my understanding is that
14 he doesn't accept that because he doesn't recognise the Court. So I'm
15 familiar with the concept of an accused who doesn't like what someone who
16 is appointed by the Court may do. That will not change.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Wladimiroff, let me say that -- let me
18 clarify that, for my part, the question is not so much the fairness of the
19 trial from the point of view of the Judges sitting here. I would dismiss
20 that. The question, it seems to me, is more particular. It's the
21 perception of your fairness as an amicus. It's the perception as to
22 whether you can discharge fairly and impartially your role to make
23 submissions and objections that are open to the accused, in the light of
24 what has happened. It's not the fairness of the trial in abstracto or in
25 relation to the Judges. The question is whether you can be perceived as
Page 10801
1 being impartial and fair in light of the fact that it may reasonably be
2 said that you have commented on the evidence, not necessarily in the
3 Bulgarian transcript but in the other one, and in a manner which can be
4 said to be adverse to the accused. That's the perception which is at
5 issue; of your fairness in discharging the role ascribed to you to make
6 submissions and objections open to the accused.
7 MR. WLADIMIROFF: Yes, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Because if you can't do that, if I can't have any
9 confidence that you will be impartial and fair in making submissions and
10 objections that are open to the accused, then I don't see how you can
11 discharge your role at all. That's what I think you should concentrate
12 on. But I don't believe that we need to spend a very long time on this.
13 For my part, I'd be quite satisfied with what you have to say after you
14 have answered this particular question.
15 MR. WLADIMIROFF: Yes, Your Honour. Perhaps I say too much when I
16 say I am an independent mind, and I do mind when people say that I'm not
17 independent. I do not beg for this job or anything of that kind. I like
18 to do what I do, because I think it's in the interests of justice, and
19 that's the only concern, and I have no fear that it will be different. I
20 think I will continue as I did, in a way to assist the Court as I've done
21 within the courtroom every time I was here, and nothing will change, and I
22 feel fit to do it.
23 JUDGE MAY: I have to say, for myself, that I regard the crucial
24 issue in this, as in all issues, as to whether the fairness of the trial
25 is prejudiced, and that is the issue which I shall be putting to myself.
Page 10802
1 In relation to the fairness of your submissions, I think, as it were, not
2 in mitigation, but it can be said that the Trial Chamber has been assisted
3 by the submissions which have been made so far by the amici on a number of
4 issues, some of which I have no doubt that you have drafted. Yes.
5 Just one moment.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE MAY: The Trial Chamber will consider the issue.
8 Mr. Nice. I have a note that we'll need a few minutes to prepare
9 for the next witness.
10 MR. NICE: The next witness, as Your Honour will remember, is the
11 witness returning for cross-examination, who has the benefit of
12 protection.
13 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll rise for a few minutes.
14 --- Break taken at 11.36 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 11.50 a.m.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 JUDGE MAY: Since we've had this break, we'll in fact go on now
18 until 1.00 and adjourn then.
19 The second administrative point is this: Because of the form of
20 the microphone for the witness, it's most important that all speakers turn
21 off their microphone, having spoken, or otherwise it affects the witness's
22 microphone.
23 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
24 WITNESS: WITNESS C-037 [Resumed]
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
Page 10803
1 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:
2 Q. [Interpretation] You gave a statement, as far as I can see, on the
3 1st of May, 2002, that is, of this year, and you're testifying about the
4 events which took place 11 or 12 years ago.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Now, these 12 years that have elapsed, is that too great a passage
8 of time for you to be able to remember all the details in precise terms,
9 everything related to those events, 11 or 12 years later?
10 A. Yes, it is a long period of time. That's true. And I try to do
11 my best to remember everything that I thought I could remember and
12 everything that did take place.
13 Q. Well, that's the purpose of my question. So what you say, you are
14 absolutely convinced that that's how things happened; is that right?
15 A. Yes, I am convinced that that was how it was.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for the accused. We did not
17 hear the question.
18 JUDGE MAY: Microphone, please.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The microphone is switched on,
20 Mr. May.
21 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. -- with your family?
24 A. Part of my family. We don't all live in Pakrac in Croatia.
25 Q. Are you employed?
Page 10804
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10805
1 A. I am now.
2 Q. Do you have any difficulties with respect to going about your
3 daily life and work normally?
4 A. Well, it's not easy, but ...
5 JUDGE KWON: I don't think we have transcript which proceeded
6 "-- with your family?" What was the question and answer? Could you
7 repeat it again?
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The question was: Is he living
9 normally, a normal life, with his family, and he says he's living in
10 Pakrac, quite normally, with his family.
11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Now, I'm interested in another matter. I'm not sure that it's
13 correct, but you'll give me your answer and then I'll know. Is it true
14 and correct that in November 1991 you were first accused in a trial before
15 the Croatian authorities that was --
16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: May I interrupt here?
17 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Closed session.
18 [Private session]
19 [redacted]
20 [redacted]
21 [redacted]
22 [redacted]
23 [redacted]
24 [redacted]
25 [redacted]
Page 10806
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Page 10806 – redacted – private session
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10807
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Page 10807 – redacted – private session
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10808
1 [redacted]
2 [redacted]
3 [redacted]
4 [redacted]
5 [redacted]
6 [redacted]
7 [redacted]
8 [redacted]
9 [redacted]
10 [redacted]
11 [Open session]
12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. When did you set up the Serbian Democratic Party of Western
14 Slavonia?
15 A. Towards the end of May or perhaps in June 1990.
16 Q. The 6th of June? Who was the initiator? Who initiated the
17 formation of the party?
18 A. Well, there were several of us, amongst them I myself.
19 Q. Did you form the party independently or did you have any links and
20 connections with any other SDS party's branches, from Knin, for example?
21 Who were formed first: Those in Knin, the party in Knin, or your one?
22 Could you tell us something about that?
23 A. It was the people in Knin that registered their party first, and
24 then the first democratic elections were held, and several -- they won
25 several seats in parliament, in the Sabor. And it was only after those
Page 10809
1 elections that we founded our party in Western Slavonia.
2 Q. So you founded the party as part of the SDS which had already been
3 formed or as a separate party and registered it as such?
4 A. No. We belonged to the Knin party, the Knin SDS party.
5 Q. Tell me now, please: Did anybody outside those members of yours,
6 that composition of membership in Knin and in Western Slavonia, was
7 anybody else involved in the formation and establishment of that party,
8 for example, anybody from Serbia, from Belgrade? Was anybody involved in
9 the setting up of that party of yours?
10 A. As far as I know, no.
11 Q. Well, tell me, then, how you came by the idea of forming the
12 Autonomous Region of Western Slavonia.
13 A. Because the war was already ongoing in the Krajina region and in
14 Eastern Slavonia, and what we wanted to do was to ensure that Western
15 Slavonia avoid a war and to enter into negotiation, and that's why we set
16 up a separate party for SAO Western Slavonia.
17 Q. Why did you set up the SAO of Western Slavonia? As far as I
18 understood, it was to negotiate with Zagreb and to settle the issue. Why,
19 then, did you need to form an autonomous region, if that was your
20 intention at the time? Could you not have negotiated --
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for the accused.
22 Microphone.
23 MR. MILOSEVIC:
24 Q. [No interpretation]
25 A. Well, this was because cell Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem
Page 10810
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10811
1 was already in existence, so that some people considered that we belonged
2 to that area. We didn't want to belong to the area under that particular
3 name, and we wanted to have a different identification for ourselves.
4 Q. So that means that you set up the Serbian autonomous region of
5 Western Slavonia in order to distance yourselves from those in Eastern
6 Slavonia; is that what you're saying?
7 A. So as not to come under the SAO Slavonia, Baranja and Western
8 Srem. We wanted to be separate in order to be able to articulate our
9 requirements and demands.
10 Q. That's what I'm saying, so that you could distance yourself.
11 That's why you set up your particular SAO; right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, I asked you a moment ago about the establishment of the SDS
14 in setting up the SAO. Was anybody from Serbia involved?
15 A. You're thinking of Western Slavonia?
16 Q. Well, whatever.
17 A. Not as far as Western Slavonia is concerned. I don't know about
18 the others.
19 Q. All right. Now, let's look at this from a financial aspect. Did
20 anybody provide funds for the SDS of Western Slavonia? For example, from
21 Belgrade, Serbia? Did anybody finance it in any way?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Did you have any connection whatsoever with Belgrade and Serbia in
24 the -- in your activities?
25 A. No.
Page 10812
1 Q. Tell me, please: Is it true that, with respect to the referendum
2 that you put into effect about the autonomy of the Serb people in Croatia,
3 that nobody from Serbia or Belgrade participated in that either; isn't
4 that right?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. So you didn't have -- there wasn't any participation from them; is
7 that what you're saying?
8 A. No, there wasn't.
9 Q. Tell me this: You say, and you say that on page 9 of your
10 statement, that you would come to Belgrade, to the government of Serbia,
11 to have talks there with Budimir Kosutic, who was the vice-premier at the
12 time. Did you come at your own initiative?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Did you go to see him first and foremost because he too was a Serb
15 from Croatia, from those parts, and so you considered that you could pay
16 him a visit and talk to him?
17 A. I don't know which date you mean, which date you're referring to.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the accused, please.
19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. This is on page 9 of your statement. You said you went to
21 Belgrade to talk to him.
22 A. Our first contacts with Mr. Kostic was the fact that he was a
23 professor and we thought he could help us to articulate our criticisms to
24 the Croatian constitution.
25 Q. Well, thank you very much, because that's precisely what I wanted
Page 10813
1 to ask you, and you've saved me a question there. So you went to see him
2 for him, like a compatriot, who was from the same area, from the same
3 region, to help you with some legal matters because he was professor at
4 the Belgrade faculty of law; is that right?
5 A. Yes. That was our first contact with him, but that was not in
6 Belgrade; it was in Western Slavonia. But when I went to see him in
7 Belgrade, this was on the 21st or perhaps 22nd of August, 1991. On that
8 occasion I went to see him with a colleague of mine. I wanted to put
9 forward the problems because the war had started over there, and he
10 received us on that particular occasion.
11 Q. So it was at your initiative that you went to tell him what was
12 going on; is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, did he encourage you in any way to have a conflict, incite
15 you towards a conflict with the Croatian state, or influence you in any
16 way in that respect, in a sense in which you could condemn in any way now?
17 A. Well, between the two conversations that we had, two meetings that
18 we had, when we went to have our negotiations with Mr. Tudjman, he didn't
19 like the fact that we had been previously -- this was a telephone
20 conversation. But he never incited us to go to war. I never heard about
21 that.
22 Q. All right. Let's go on now. When it comes to the question of
23 Territorial Defence for the SAO of Slavonia, is it true and correct that
24 in no way was Serbia involved in this?
25 A. I have no awareness or knowledge of it having been directly
Page 10814
1 involved, because I do not know in what way the Territorial Defence units
2 were set up, because the people who set them up did so without my
3 knowledge. I was not informed of this, so I don't know -- or whether
4 there was any part played by Serbia.
5 Q. Right. So you know nothing about the involvement of Serbia in the
6 Territorial Defence of Western Slavonia; is that right?
7 A. That is right. I do not.
8 Q. There was some tension over there and some conflicts and clashes.
9 I assume you mean in Pakrac; right?
10 A. Yes, that's right.
11 Q. What happened there, in fact? Why did that conflict break out?
12 A. Well, it all started with the police station there, because the
13 ministry had sent some 30, approximately 30 policemen to the police
14 station in order to change the ethnic composition and to avoid having a
15 Serb majority but to have a different ratio in the make-up of the police
16 force, and they had new insignia and emblems on their caps. And as far as
17 I remember, the criticisms and objections made by the chief of police - or
18 secretary, whatever he was - that they were taking away the weapons from
19 the -- they were taking weapons out of the police station and into their
20 own homes, and this was a danger. And he asked the leadership of the
21 municipality to provide him with written authorisation for him to be able
22 to disarm the policemen and call in the reserve police force in order to
23 maintain law and order in the Pakrac municipality.
24 Once he did this, the ministry became involved, the Ministry of
25 the Interior, and one or two days later - I can't remember exactly - an
Page 10815
1 incident broke out when they were entering Pakrac to take over the police
2 station again and have it under their control. There was sporadic
3 shooting between the reserve police force and the ministry. There were
4 talks and negotiations, and the federal ministry became involved in this.
5 Control was taken over of the police station again and the same insignia
6 were reverted to, both in the municipality and in the police station.
7 That is briefly what happened.
8 Q. Very well. And then when did the army come in?
9 A. The army came in several hours after the incident.
10 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the question.
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. What did the army do? What was its task? How did the army
14 behave?
15 A. The army arrived. I don't know who they contacted in the town and
16 in the police, but later on they asked that the reserve police force be
17 disarmed and that they hand over their weapons so that they could hand
18 over the weapons to the MUP of Croatia.
19 JUDGE KWON: We are having some kind of technical difficulty.
20 This witness is a protected witness and his voice is being distorted, so
21 you have to put a pause and speak very slow, slower than ordinary case.
22 And regarding the previous question to this one, when the witness said,
23 "Yes," there was no interpretation, either interpretation nor the
24 transcript. What was the question after: "The army came in several hours
25 after the incident," and what is the following question?
Page 10816
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10817
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The witness has already answered the
2 question. The question was: What did the army do? And the witness said
3 that the army asked that weapons be given back and handed over to the
4 ministry.
5 JUDGE KWON: What was the previous question to that, if you
6 remember?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Don't you have it here? The
8 question was about the incident, what sort of incident took place. When
9 he described the incident, I asked him whether the army came in and what
10 its role was. He has just explained that the army in fact insisted that
11 the weapons taken by the reserve policemen be given back and handed over
12 to the Ministry of the Interior of Croatia.
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. This means, in effect, that in this situation, the one just
15 described, was assisting the Ministry of the Interior of Croatia and its
16 organs. Is that correct, Mr. C-37?
17 A. Yes, it is.
18 Q. Is it correct that the task of the army was in fact to prevent
19 conflicts on the territory you are testifying about? I'm not talking
20 about all the territories, but just the one you know about. Is this
21 correct or not?
22 A. On the 2nd of March, the army came in to prevent a conflict.
23 Q. The army tried to separate the conflicting sides?
24 A. There was no conflict any longer.
25 Q. So everything had calmed down and the army was helping the
Page 10818
1 Ministry of the Interior of Croatia; is that what happened?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Were there any attempts, on any side, to attack a village or to
4 incite some sort of violence at that time or immediately after that, in
5 that year?
6 A. No.
7 Q. So the situation was quite calm?
8 A. Yes. Not in that year, because the war broke out later on, but in
9 those days.
10 Q. In view of the fact that in your testimony you say that the JNA
11 prevented attacks on Croatian villages when tensions mounted and violence
12 erupted -- is that correct?
13 A. When tensions mounted, you mean after the 2nd of March?
14 Q. I don't know the exact dates, I'm not fully conversant with your
15 situation. I'm just trying to say because you are testifying as an
16 eyewitness, I'm trying to ask about the behaviour of the JNA. I'm going
17 by your statement, and you say, on page 11, paragraph 5, that the army
18 prevented an attack on a Croatian village.
19 A. That was in the area of Pakrac. In that area, it did prevent an
20 attack on Croatian villages, but in Donji Caglic, which was a mixed
21 village, there was a conflict between the Serbs and the Croats.
22 Q. And they were trying to separate them?
23 A. That's not what happened then, because some of the Croats left and
24 the others were killed.
25 Q. Tell me: Is it correct that the army respected all the ceasefire
Page 10819
1 agreements?
2 A. I cannot give you an answer to that question, because I don't know
3 who broke the ceasefires. I know that ceasefires were constantly
4 violated, but as there were no JNA soldiers in the area where I was, I
5 cannot say with any certainty who it actually was who broke the
6 ceasefires. I don't know that.
7 Q. What I'm asking you is whether the army respected the ceasefire
8 agreements or not.
9 A. Well, my answer is that I don't know because I wasn't in the same
10 location as the army.
11 Q. As far as I understand you, you say that the task of the JNA was
12 to prevent the spreading of the conflict, to prevent the entry of Croatian
13 policemen into Serbian villages, and also to prevent attacks on Croatian
14 villages, and that the JNA respected ceasefire agreements. That's what
15 you say on page 11, the third paragraph from the bottom of your statement.
16 A. I abide by my statement.
17 Q. That's all I wanted to establish.
18 Tell me, please --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] -- conflicts that broke out in
21 your area in that year?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You say in most cases when there was a conflict, both Serbs and
24 Croats left their homes and fled. The main difference was that most of
25 the Croats would return home after hostilities ceased, but many Serbs did
Page 10820
1 not come back.
2 A. I was referring to the area of Western Slavonia, near the
3 confrontation line, because this area narrowed down in time. And when the
4 population of Grubisno Polje left, they did not come back. But the Croats
5 who lived near Grubisno Polje did come back. The same happened in
6 Daruvar, later on in Podravska Slatina and in Orahovica. Ultimately,
7 that's what happened in the area of Pakrac.
8 Q. You have read the indictment against me; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Tell me now: Is it true that you yourself, although you held the
11 posts that we mentioned in closed session - so I don't want to mention
12 them again - that you are not aware of any of the crimes alleged against
13 me? Is that correct or not?
14 A. Can you clarify this? I really don't understand the question.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Milosevic, please.
16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Is it correct that holding the posts you did, and you have just
18 said that you have read the indictment against me, is it correct that you
19 have no knowledge of any of the crimes alleged against me?
20 A. As for crimes, I don't know that you yourself perpetrated any
21 crime.
22 Q. So you know nothing of this?
23 A. No.
24 Q. You have just said that you don't know who established the
25 Territorial Defence of Slavonia. Is that correct?
Page 10821
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. And yet you held the post that you did. If you don't know who
3 established the Territorial Defence, can you tell us whether it consisted
4 of the residents, the villagers, from the villages and hamlets in the
5 area?
6 A. Yes. It was composed of local people. But when I spoke of the
7 organisation of the Territorial Defence, it was organised by local people
8 working in the municipal secretariats, but I don't know who gave them
9 their orders and I don't know how they did it.
10 Q. Very well. That's something you don't know. But you do know that
11 these were local people, the inhabitants of the area. So if I understand
12 you correctly, you don't know whether anyone ordered them or suggested to
13 them that they should establish a Territorial Defence. You don't know
14 that.
15 A. I have said that I don't know that.
16 Q. Does this then imply that they organised the Territorial Defence
17 on their own initiative?
18 A. It's possible, but I don't know that.
19 JUDGE KWON: Just a minute, Mr. Milosevic, and before it
20 disappears from the transcript, I better intervene here. To the question
21 of Mr. Milosevic, Mr. Witness, whether you have no knowledge of any of the
22 crimes alleged against Mr. Milosevic, after having -- you have read the
23 indictment and you were asked whether you have any knowledge of the crimes
24 there. And you said: "As for crimes, I don't know that you yourself
25 perpetrated any crime." But are you aware of any crimes alleged in the
Page 10822
1 indictment perpetrated by other than the accused that is allegedly
2 perpetrated by the Serbs in Croatia? Are you aware of any incident in the
3 indictment?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have spoken of such crimes. I
5 have testified about them. They happened in the area of Western Slavonia.
6 I spoke of particular crimes in particular locations.
7 JUDGE KWON: Is it -- to your knowledge, is it included in the
8 indictment?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
10 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Well, that's just what I'm asking you. As far as you know,
13 Serbia, and I as its president, did we have any connection with what you
14 say you read in the indictment?
15 A. I do not know whether you personally have anything to do with the
16 crimes or Serbia itself. I spoke about the crimes that were perpetrated
17 there. That was my answer.
18 Q. So you do not know whether I had anything to do with them or
19 whether Serbia had anything to do with them.
20 A. I don't know that.
21 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the question.
22 A. I don't want to speculate.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
24 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, would you bear in mind, please, the
25 technical difficulties we're having with this particular witness because
Page 10823
1 of the various measures. And the interpreters are not hearing the
2 question because the microphones have to be turned off between question
3 and answer. So could you leave a pause after he's answered a question and
4 before you ask your next one. And turn off your microphone.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can turn it off if the command is
6 switched from your desk to my desk, because I'm already pausing for too
7 long, but it seems to be insufficient, the pauses I'm making ...
8 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear.
9 THE ACCUSED: -- on. Yes. It was switched off. [Interpretation]
10 If the command is transferred to me, I will make sure that I switch the
11 microphone off when the answer is complete.
12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Let's move on faster, and I will pause when you complete your
14 answer.
15 Is it correct that you know nothing about the arming of the
16 Territorial Defence?
17 A. No, I don't know anything about it.
18 Q. You don't know anything?
19 A. No, I don't.
20 Q. Very well. You also know nothing about the equipping of the
21 Territorial Defence?
22 A. No, I don't.
23 Q. You have no information about the way the Territorial Defence was
24 funded?
25 A. No, I don't.
Page 10824
1 Q. Is it correct that all the commanders of the Territorial Defence
2 were local people? For example, just as the members of the Territorial
3 Defence were?
4 A. To begin with, no; later on, some JNA officers arrived.
5 Q. Where did they come from?
6 A. Well, they came from Banja Luka and Jovo Trbojevic arrived from
7 Novi Sad. He was born in Western Slavonia.
8 Q. So the people who came originated from the area?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Nobody arrived from Serbia to issue commands in your area. It was
11 local people who had some military education; is that correct?
12 A. In the area of Okucani, there was a JNA unit which had arrived
13 from Bjelovar and the officers there were not local people. They were
14 from Yugoslavia, from Serbia, from Bosnia.
15 Q. Very well. A JNA unit from Bjelovar, but Bjelovar is the closest
16 Croatian town, is that not correct, where there was a barracks?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And they also arrived from Croatia; is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Very well.
21 A. Later on, there were units arriving from Vojvodina, from
22 Vojvodina, from Zrenjanin.
23 Q. Are you speaking of regular JNA units?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. While the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia existed?
Page 10825
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Very well. Tell me, now: In the office that you held, you didn't
3 know of any assistance to the Territorial Defence of Western Slavonia by
4 the ministry of Serbia?
5 A. No, I don't.
6 Q. I conclude that on the basis of your statement, so I want to
7 confirm it. But you did visit the Ministry of Defence of Serbia?
8 A. I was there in 1992. I think it was the beginning of 1992. I was
9 in the Ministry for Serbs Outside Serbia, and then I was invited to the
10 Ministry of Defence to say what was going on and what had happened in
11 Western Slavonia.
12 Q. When you paid this visit, they asked you what was going on. They
13 wanted information as to what was going on in Western Slavonia, what is
14 going on there; right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. At that time, did you discuss any crimes or anything else from
17 over there?
18 A. I don't think so.
19 Q. As for the relationship between the Territorial Defence and the
20 JNA, you absolutely know nothing about that; is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Also, to the best of my understanding, you know nothing about the
23 arming of the Territorial Defence of Krajina.
24 A. I'm not aware of that.
25 Q. Are you aware, in view of the office that you held, not at that
Page 10826
1 time but let's say in the earlier years, a year or two or three
2 previously, where these weapons of the Territorial Defence were? Were
3 they there in your town, in your municipality, in your locality, where the
4 Territorial Defence was -- I imagine that the Territorial Defence was
5 organised the same way throughout Yugoslavia. I don't know what the
6 situation exactly was in Croatia, but I assume that the weapons were there
7 where you were, the weapons of the Territorial Defence. Are you aware of
8 that?
9 A. As far as I know, the Territorial Defence in Croatia was organised
10 just as it was throughout Yugoslavia, and it did have weapons of its own.
11 I know that later these weapons were taken from the Secretariats of
12 National Defence. I don't know in which way and I don't know from which
13 localities, but I do know that it was referred to.
14 Q. All right. As far as I can understand from what you've been
15 saying, the JNA was not present in a greater part of Western Slavonia.
16 A. No. Perhaps in one-third, up to one-third.
17 Q. Tell me now, please: In relation to what you said during your
18 direct examination, the session of the Presidency of the SFRY that had
19 to do with the Vance plan, and this was held in 1991 --
20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, this matter was actually
21 discussed in private session.
22 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll go into private session.
23 [Private session]
24 [redacted]
25 [redacted]
Page 10827
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10828
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Pages 10828-10834 – redacted – private session
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10835
1 [redacted]
2 [redacted]
3 [redacted]
4 [redacted]
5 [redacted]
6 [redacted]
7 [redacted]
8 [redacted]
9 [redacted]
10 [redacted]
11 [redacted]
12 [Open session]
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Did I understand this correctly, that the contacts between the
15 leadership of Western Slavonia and the leadership of the Bosnian Serbs
16 were only of a personal nature? Is that right or is that not right?
17 A. As far as I can remember, yes. At that time, there weren't any
18 contacts. There were some later.
19 Q. You do not have any knowledge about any linkage between the
20 government of Serbia as far as these contacts are concerned?
21 A. No.
22 Q. You don't know about that. So in view of your position, the
23 office you held, you have no knowledge about these events that are
24 described. If you do not have any information that anybody issued an
25 order for some alleged expulsions of Croats from certain towns and
Page 10836
1 villages, if you do not have any knowledge about the participation of
2 Belgrade in the organisation of the Territorial Defence, in the
3 organisation of a referendum, the organisation of leaving towns, leaving
4 certain municipalities and confrontations that arose, why, then, on page
5 12, in the penultimate paragraph, you say that there is no reason for you
6 not to believe that some crimes were committed after all? You say that
7 there is no reason for you not to believe that these crimes had been
8 committed. And since we've gone through all of this, you do not have any
9 knowledge about this, but you say that you do not have any reason not to
10 believe that this was committed. How can you explain that?
11 A. I have no reason to -- not to believe that crimes were committed.
12 I say that because we know that crimes were committed down there in
13 Dalmacija, in the south, that civilians were killed, and also in Western
14 Slavonia I talked about these crimes, like the Croats were moved out of
15 Ilok.
16 Q. Let us be clear on one thing, please: I'm not talking about these
17 showdowns that you had in various villages and what have you not. I am
18 talking about these crimes that are being linked to some kind of intent,
19 to some kind of influence from Serbia, some kind of organisation against
20 the civilian population belonging to a different ethnic group. That's
21 what I'm talking about. And the fact that you were fighting each other
22 there, that you were settling various accounts, I'm not referring to that
23 at all. I am talking about your claim. What does this have to do with
24 any kind of influence coming from Belgrade and Serbia? That is what I'm
25 talking about. The fact that you fought between yourselves is a different
Page 10837
1 thing.
2 A. I'm going to repeat my answer. I beg your pardon. I have no
3 reason to believe that crimes were not committed, but I did not say
4 anywhere that I thought that I said that Serbia was linked to these
5 crimes. Is that what it says anywhere?
6 Q. Well, even as far as these crimes are concerned, is it true that
7 you do not have any personal knowledge or information about any one of
8 these crimes?
9 A. Well, I said that I heard that crimes had been committed.
10 Q. Well, that's what I wish to establish. You do not even have
11 personal knowledge of any one of these crimes, not only the first thing
12 that we mentioned.
13 A. I said in my previous statements that there were crimes in Western
14 Slavonia that I had heard of. Since I was not nearby when any of this
15 happened, I talked about the crimes that I heard had been committed and
16 that I heard who had perpetrated them.
17 Q. Just give me an answer to the following now: At the beginning of
18 the examination-in-chief, you were asked about a meeting in my office; is
19 that right? Is it correct that the persons who were present then asked
20 me -- no, no.
21 JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... session?
22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, it was in private session. The
23 meeting with Mr. Jovic and Mr. Milosevic.
24 JUDGE MAY: We'll go into private session.
25 [Private session]
Page 10838
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Page 10838 – redacted – private session
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10839
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10840
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Page 10840 – redacted – private session
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10841
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Page 10841 – redacted – private session
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10842
1 [redacted]
2 [redacted]
3 [redacted]
4 [redacted]
5 [redacted]
6 [redacted]
7 [redacted]
8 [redacted]
9 [redacted]
10 [redacted]
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
13 JUDGE MAY: We are going to adjourn now until half past 2.00.
14 There's one matter I wanted to deal with before they do. How much longer
15 do you think you might be with this witness, Mr. Milosevic?
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I don't really know, but I
17 will adhere to the time allotted to the Prosecution, that is to say, that
18 opposite side over there.
19 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Very well.
20 I'm thinking of tomorrow. Do you have any other witness? It may
21 not be necessary.
22 MR. NICE: We certainly do have another witness. May I say two
23 things about witnesses? Our intention is to have enough witnesses here to
24 keep a continuous flow of evidence, wherever possible, and we do have one
25 for tomorrow. There may be something I want to say about revision of the
Page 10843
1 witness order after the break.
2 JUDGE MAY: We have to finish at 1.00 because of technical
3 reasons. The accused was saying earlier that he hadn't got the papers for
4 the next witness. It may well be that he has got them, but it also may be
5 that you could supply him with a new supply so he can look at it over the
6 weekend.
7 MR. NICE: Can I make one other point in 30 seconds? The accused
8 complaining about the amount of time set out in the timetable. The
9 original timetable of how long witnesses must take was a best estimate.
10 Of course we will be taking witnesses more quickly wherever we can and it
11 looks as though we will often be able to improve on the timetable
12 originally given, taking less time than originally forecast.
13 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
14 Witness 37, would you be back, please, half past 2.00.
15 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.00 p.m.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10844
1 --- On resuming at 2.33 p.m.
2 MR. NICE: Your Honour, before the accused starts asking
3 questions, just one administrative matter, as I shall be leaving the
4 Chamber in a few minutes. The next two witnesses are Matovina and
5 Samardzic. The accused hadn't yet located the material -- it's all been
6 served. He hadn't located the material in Matovina. Now being served.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot hear anything.
8 MR. NICE: May I carry on, as it doesn't immediately concern the
9 witness? So that material is being served on him again and it may be
10 we'll be able to serve the exhibits for one or both witnesses today to
11 assist him, or certainly tomorrow.
12 If there's a witness to start tomorrow, it will have to be, I
13 think, Matovina, because I don't think Samardzic is going to be in a
14 position to start. But if we don't start the next witness until Monday
15 morning, it may be that we will ask the Chamber to take Samardzic first
16 and Matovina second, and I don't imagine that will inconvenience the
17 accused and I hope that it will be acceptable to the Chamber.
18 JUDGE MAY: Very well. It seems unlikely that we're going to get
19 to another witness tomorrow. But thank you for that.
20 Now, I should say that we have received the English version of the
21 exhibit which was put in, D40.
22 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Well, Mr. C, let's continue, Mr. C-037. Let's take note of all
25 the other things you don't know about. You don't know about Babic's
Page 10845
1 contacts with the Defence Ministry of Serbia and Minister Simovic, isn't
2 that so?
3 A. I don't know, no.
4 Q. You know nothing about any support, either to Babic or Matic, from
5 Belgrade; right?
6 A. I have no proof or evidence that they had any support except that
7 through the media they were allowed to speak quite extensively along those
8 lines.
9 Q. But nonetheless, you make mention of the fact that the state
10 security used the Association of Serbs from Croatia so that through them
11 they could wield their influence on events in Croatia. That is your free
12 assumption. Now, is it true that you never attended meetings in that
13 association, especially not with representatives from the state security
14 service?
15 A. I was in the association, the Association of Serbs from Croatia.
16 Q. Yes, but explain to me on the basis of what you say that the state
17 security service used it, used them, for their own ends.
18 A. Well, as far as I remember, some of the members did say they were
19 in contact with them, but I don't know anything more about that.
20 Q. Which members of the Association of Serbs in Croatia said they
21 maintained contacts?
22 A. Well, one of the generals, was it Kokot or someone else, I'm not
23 quite sure.
24 Q. You mean the people who are retired, pensioned, pensioned, retired
25 generals living in Belgrade, people of that sort?
Page 10846
1 A. Yes, that's right.
2 Q. So you don't actually know of any contacts between the Association
3 of Serbs in Croatia with the state security service?
4 A. No, I don't have any knowledge of that directly.
5 Q. Now, the military level, the military line that you -- that we
6 have made mention on several occasions here, you know nothing about that,
7 the military connection; isn't that right?
8 A. Yes. I don't know.
9 Q. What military line do you mean about?
10 Q. Well, I'm talking about a military connection between Krajina and
11 Belgrade, or anything of that type, any sort of military link-up, link-up
12 with military structures. You know nothing about that?
13 A. Well, all I know is that Minister Spanovic went to the JNA, to
14 Belgrade.
15 Q. In Belgrade?
16 A. Yes. He went to Belgrade.
17 Q. Right. But otherwise, you know nothing of that link, do you?
18 A. No.
19 Q. And you know nothing about the links between the Ministry of the
20 Interior of Serbia and the police of Krajina; isn't that right? Is that
21 correct?
22 A. Well, I don't know whether they had any direct contacts, no.
23 Q. Right. You don't know. And you never saw, as a functionary - I
24 don't want to mention your title or office - any Red Berets in Western
25 Slavonia; isn't that right?
Page 10847
1 A. No.
2 Q. You didn't see them, did you? Very well. When you speak about
3 the police force of Western Slavonia, do you -- I don't assume that
4 Belgrade had anything to do with its formation.
5 A. As far as I know, no.
6 Q. You also have no knowledge about the contacts of the police of
7 Western Slavonia with the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia.
8 A. I don't know about that.
9 Q. All right. Very well. You also have no knowledge about the
10 presence of anybody from the MUP of Serbia on the territory of Western
11 Slavonia.
12 A. No, I don't. The only thing I can say is that Vezmar Jovo, the
13 man who worked in the MUP, came and went back. I just know about him.
14 Q. And where is Vezmar Jovo from?
15 A. Pakrac.
16 Q. You mean he came to work in Pakrac?
17 A. No. He left Pakrac and went to work in Pancevo and from the
18 police force in Pancevo, he was the commander in Western Slavonia in part
19 of Pakrac. And then he returned to Pancevo. That's all I know.
20 Q. So he went to work in Serbia after the fall of Western Slavonia;
21 is that it?
22 A. Yes, that's right.
23 Q. Do you know how many people left and went to Serbia, to the
24 Republika Srpska as well after they were expelled, after the Serbs were
25 expelled from Croatia, after August, August 1995? Have you any idea?
Page 10848
1 A. Well, about 350.000 in total.
2 Q. Well, I assume that a large number of those 350.000 found jobs
3 working in the field they were professionals for.
4 A. Well, we can assume that, yes.
5 Q. And the man you mentioned, Jovo, was a professional policeman and
6 continued working in the police force; is that right?
7 A. Yes, that's right.
8 Q. You don't know where the money came from for what you were doing
9 and whether Serbia financed the SAO of Western Slavonia; is that correct?
10 A. As far as I know, I have no information that Serbia financed it,
11 no.
12 Q. Is it correct that in fact policemen from Western Slavonia were
13 people who lived there and who used to work in the MUP of Croatia?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. You mentioned your contacts with generals, first of all General
16 Uzelac. At the time, you did not discuss weapons with him or military
17 issues; is that correct?
18 A. In Bucje, he came to see what the situation was, and he only said
19 that he would try to keep that area so that people could stay there.
20 There was no discussion of weapons.
21 Q. Which means that he expected it to be safe so people wouldn't have
22 to flee; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. The document, one of the documents attached to your statement,
25 entitled "The meeting of the Regional Board of the SDS" held on the 8th of
Page 10849
1 May, 1991, contains the standpoint of the majority of the Serbs who lived
2 in the area; is that correct?
3 A. What conclusion are you referring to?
4 Q. I mean what is attached to your statement.
5 A. Do you mean the referendum?
6 Q. To be precise, there are too many of these documents delivered by
7 the other side.
8 A. Are you referring to the 8th of May, 1991?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. Speaking about the referendum, yes. It was the majority view that
11 there should be a referendum in order to vote on remaining within
12 Yugoslavia.
13 Q. Very well. I won't go into that any further.
14 Is it correct that on page 2 of that document, under number 2 --
15 let me just see. You concluded at that meeting, and let's just clarify
16 this: Was there anyone from Serbia present at that meeting and did anyone
17 give you any instructions coming from Serbia at that meeting?
18 A. No, there was no one from Serbia there, and no instructions were
19 given.
20 Q. In item 2, there is your name, and then it says again that
21 Slovenia and Croatia were puppets in the hands of Big Daddy, and it is
22 well known that Bosnia, Sandzak, and Kosovo were to become a Muslim state
23 of the Balkans. And on the 15th of May, 1991, under quotation marks,
24 "15.000 Albanians were to cross over from Albania and start a war, and
25 Izetbegovic played a major role in this." Is this correct? This is what
Page 10850
1 was discussed, what you discussed.
2 A. No. As I said, this was not discussed.
3 Q. It was not discussed?
4 A. No.
5 Q. So the minutes that you gave are not authentic.
6 A. It wasn't me who gave the minutes.
7 Q. So it was the other side?
8 A. It was the Prosecutor's office, and these minutes are not actually
9 minutes of that meeting.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please bear in mind that minutes of
11 this kind, which is being introduced through this witness, can in no way
12 be connected to this witness or admitted into evidence through this
13 witness. If you have another witness, well that's your business, but this
14 cannot be introduced in this manner which is evidently inappropriate.
15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. You say that in August, after the MUP of Croatia went to Okucani,
17 units arrived there from Bjelovar. Is it correct that these units arrived
18 in order to prevent further clashes?
19 A. They disarmed -- the Croatian MUP disarmed part of the army and
20 then the army took back its people, and then, as far as I remember, the
21 Banja Luka Corps arrived to assist them through Gradiska, because Western
22 Slavonia had been cut off for more than a month, and there had been no
23 contacts with Bosnia for more than a month. And then the JNA units from
24 Bjelovar, which were in Okucani, linked up with the Banja Luka Corps which
25 had arrived from Banja Luka.
Page 10851
1 Q. Very well. So we see that in this case the army liberated
2 soldiers that had been taken prisoner by the MUP of Croatia, the Ministry
3 of the Interior of Croatia, which had captured and disarmed them, and the
4 army prevented conflicts. Is that right?
5 A. Yes, that's what happened on that occasion.
6 Q. Was the JNA then stationed all over the territory of the former
7 Yugoslavia, and Croatia was then part of Yugoslavia?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. You read a list of the camps mentioned in the indictment, but you
10 have no personal knowledge as regards these camps. From what you said, I
11 understand that you heard about this only on Croatian television. Is this
12 correct?
13 A. I heard about the others through Croatian television, but in
14 Western Slavonia I also heard something from the people who lived there.
15 Q. Tell me: What kind of camps were these? As I assume you know
16 that the leadership of the Krajina always asserted to Belgrade that there
17 were no camps. I don't know if you were among those who asserted this.
18 Were these camps? Were they prisons? Or what were they? What do you
19 know personally?
20 A. I personally don't know what the distinction -- the actual
21 distinction is in the definition of a camp or a gaol, but what there was
22 in Bucje was a family house which was used to detain people, to lock them
23 up. And from what I heard, some were beaten up and some were liquidated,
24 but most of them managed to be exchanged.
25 What I heard about Ovcara was that people were put in a warehouse,
Page 10852
1 as far as I can remember, that they were taken away and killed.
2 What I heard about Knin was that it was a prison. Whether it was
3 part of a barracks, I'm not sure.
4 Q. Well, who, example, was in the prison in Knin?
5 A. I don't know who was inside.
6 Q. Well, was it criminals or were peaceful citizens locked up in the
7 gaol in Knin?
8 A. When I was there, there were criminals, who were Serbs, and as for
9 the others, I don't know, but I heard that they were civilians. I didn't
10 see them myself.
11 Q. I assume that the Serb criminals were also civilians who were
12 locked up.
13 A. Yes, but some of them were soldiers.
14 Q. You went to Knin often; is that correct?
15 A. Yes. Well, not really often, but maybe once a fortnight. I would
16 spend a day there.
17 Q. Well, once a fortnight for one day. You would have had to have
18 some sort of knowledge of that. Milan Martic told me, and I believe he
19 was telling me the truth, that in Knin there were Croats --
20 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you can't give evidence now what Milan
21 Martic told you. You can either call Mr. Martic or you can give evidence
22 yourself about it. But ask this witness questions.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will reformulate my question. You
24 see, Mr. May, when the other side is putting questions, they are examining
25 this witness about places he had never been to, asking him what he heard,
Page 10853
1 and I'm asking him about Knin, which he visited himself, to ask him
2 whether there were Croats living a normal life in Knin and whether it's
3 true what I was assured of, that there was no discrimination, no
4 mistreatment, and that --
5 JUDGE MAY: You can put that. First of all, put --
6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Is this correct or not?
8 JUDGE MAY: -- there were Croats living a normal life in Knin. Is
9 that right?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were Croats living a normal
11 life in Knin.
12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. So there were Croats living a normal life in Knin?
14 A. Yes, there were.
15 Q. And there was no violence perpetrated against them, they were not
16 mistreated?
17 A. I can't say that about everyone, but I know that there were Croats
18 who had no problems. I can't vouch for each and every one of them.
19 Q. Very well. Just to clarify this: So we cannot speak of ethnic
20 cleansing or anything like that there. That happened on the other side,
21 but everything is being inverted here.
22 Well, since you say that you have no reason - excuse me - you said
23 that you heard about some camps only from Croatian television. As you say
24 that you have no reason to disbelieve the truth of these reports - this is
25 on page 13, paragraph 1 of your statement - in view of the office you
Page 10854
1 held, were you aware of information about camps for Serbs in Croatia, in
2 Western Slavonia, during the time you were there? Let me ask you about
3 some of them. For example, in Western Slavonia, Pakrac, Slavonska Pozega
4 and so on - I have a whole list here - do you know about this?
5 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness deal with the matter, particularly
6 Pakrac, where he lived.
7 A. Yes, I heard that there was a prison in Pakrac, in Pozega, in
8 Pakracka Poljana.
9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Very well. Let me look at this list. Slavonska Pozega, 1, 2, 3,
11 4, 5. Slavonska Pozega the barracks was a camp for Serbs. Slavonska
12 Pozega the sports hall, Slavonska Pozega the female prison, Slavonska
13 Pozega the police station, Slavonska Pozega the district prison. Are you
14 aware of all of these places?
15 A. Yes, I've heard of them.
16 JUDGE MAY: This was a prison, was it, for Serbs in these places
17 or was it a prison for Croats?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A prison for Serbs.
19 JUDGE MAY: And what period are we dealing with when it was a
20 prison for Serbs?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, as for Croats -- oh, the
22 Serbs. Well, it was in the course of 1991. And in Pozega there is still
23 a prison there.
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Yes, but the sports hall and the other places I read out, these
Page 10855
1 prisons certainly no longer exist today, or at least I assume so.
2 A. No, they don't exist today.
3 Q. Would you please answer the following question. This refers to
4 Pakrac. There were the following camps for Serbs there, so please tell me
5 which ones you know about and which ones you don't know about, or whether
6 you know about them all, which would be logical. Pakrac-Lipik, Pakrac the
7 prison, Pakrac the basement of the department store, Pakrac-Gavrinica,
8 Pakrac the village of Seovica, a camp in the community centre, Pakrac the
9 village of Seovica, a camp in the woods, Pakrac-Marino Selo, the basement
10 of the Ribnjak Hotel, Pakrac-Marino Selo the fishing cottage,
11 Pakrac-Marino Selo --
12 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness deal with this. He cannot be expected
13 to retain all this information.
14 A. I heard of camps in Pakrac in the police station, and in Pakrac in
15 the department store. Seovica and the other places you mention were under
16 Serbian control in 1991. Maybe some people say these were camps after
17 Operation Flash, but this was not a camp for Serbs at the time. As for
18 Pakrac Ka Poljana, two or three of these locations did exist. They can
19 all be counted as a single camp.
20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Very well, so the three locations in Pakrac Ka Poljana were a
22 single camp for Serbs; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Apart from these three, what other camps for Serbs do you know
25 about in the Pakrac area?
Page 10856
1 A. What I said: The department store, the police station, and there
2 was one in the area of Lipik. I don't know exactly where.
3 Q. So you know about these three and the other one, but do you know
4 anything about Pakrac Marino Selo the administration building?
5 A. That was all a single camp.
6 Q. Tell me: Do you know anything about the Pakrac Ka Poljana camp in
7 the Jedinstvo company? This was a company producing ballpoint pens and
8 light switches.
9 A. All this can be considered a single camp.
10 Q. Very well. Then the fishing cottage and the firefighting centre,
11 the fire brigade centre?
12 A. This is all a single location.
13 Q. What about the other locations?
14 A. This is all a single camp.
15 Q. And how many Serbs were detained in those camps?
16 A. I don't know what the number is. They said it was over a hundred.
17 Some said two or three hundred, but we never got any exact data.
18 Q. When you speak of a hundred, two hundred, or three hundred, are
19 you speaking of all the camps you confirmed existed in Pakrac and in the
20 Pakrac region, or in one of these camps?
21 A. What I said refers to Pakrac Ka Poljana. As for the basement of
22 the Pakrac department store, I don't know the number detained there.
23 Q. So you don't know how many people were there, but you know there
24 was a camp?
25 A. Yes, because people are still afraid to speak about it, the people
Page 10857
1 who were there, at least those that I'm in contact with.
2 Q. All right. But you are now in contact. We heard Mr. Mesic say
3 that Croatia is now a state in which the rule of law prevails. How do you
4 explain the fact that people are afraid to say that they were in camps,
5 people who live there? Is that to say that they are not sure of their
6 safety even nowadays if they're afraid to speak about this?
7 A. People who were in camps are afraid to speak about this because
8 they are afraid that those who kept them in these camps could harm them
9 until the present day. There is still fear.
10 Q. Can you say something about what you learned concerning the
11 treatment, the treatment of people in these camps, how they were treated
12 there?
13 A. I heard that they were tortured, that they were beaten with
14 electric wires, that electric current went through them, that they made
15 each other cut their ears off and that the other person was supposed to
16 eat the other person's ear, that there were beatings, that there were
17 killings. That's what happened in Pakrac Ka Poljana. And in Pakrac, they
18 were beaten, they were tied up to radiators, they were beaten up.
19 Q. How many of them survived and how many were killed in these camps?
20 A. As for figures, I really cannot speak about that, because the
21 exact number of persons killed is not known. These numbers are still
22 being dealt with. The number of missing persons is going up day after
23 day. As people are returning, everybody is looking for their own family
24 members, and there are still quite a few who are missing. I don't know
25 about the survivors either. People left and they went to different
Page 10858
1 places, so it is hard now that the situation hasn't been fully stabilised
2 yet, it's hard to tell. I don't really want to make any estimates of this
3 kind because it concerns human beings.
4 Q. Did you personally have the opportunity of talking to any one of
5 these victims whose ears were cut off, and then they made them swallow
6 these ears, and people who were burned by electric current and beaten up?
7 A. I talked to one person. They fired a gunshot through his stomach.
8 He talked to me about that. And also another one who buried others, but
9 they are still afraid to testify about that in public.
10 Q. And this other person buried those who did not survive; is that
11 right?
12 A. Yes.
13 JUDGE MAY: Help us with this: When was all this occurring?
14 You're describing these incidents in prison camps. Again, what period
15 would we be talking about?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This happened sometime from August
17 1991 until the beginning of 1992.
18 JUDGE MAY: And what was the situation in Pakrac at the time?
19 Because you've described various Serb takeovers and that sort of thing.
20 What happened?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the 19th of August, in the town
22 of Pakrac, Serbs were only on the outskirts, as for the area that they
23 held militarily. The town itself was no man's land for a while, and
24 afterwards it was under Croatian control all the time. So Gavrinica, that
25 was mentioned by Mr. Milosevic, was on the side of Pakrac. The town was
Page 10859
1 extensively shelled, bombed, so no one lived there except for the police
2 station and the basement of that department store, and in the streets on
3 the other side of the line, the area that was held by the Serbs.
4 Life returned there only as of March 1992. It started to return,
5 to put it that way. There were Croats there for the most part, and very,
6 very few Serbs until 1995. And in 1995, after Operation Flash, a few
7 Serbs returned, those who had somewhere to go back to, and they still
8 don't live in the apartments where they lived before because they do not
9 have the right to do that. Their apartments were taken away. Apartments
10 were also destroyed. And then when buildings are repaired, they are being
11 repaired and reconstructed by the European Union. And once houses are
12 repaired, then those Serbs who applied to live in those houses can
13 actually return there.
14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Let's be quite clear about this: You had direct communication.
16 You learned about these camps for Serbs in this area of Pakrac, and
17 torture of Serbs in 1991, while Croatia was still within the SFRY, before
18 the international recognition, while the army was in the Croatian
19 territory of the then Yugoslavia. They were still the one and only
20 Yugoslav army. So all of that was taking place at that time; is that
21 right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Can you say something more specific as to who were the Serbs who
24 were detained and tortured in camps, whose noses and ears were cut off,
25 who were beaten up, who had gunshots fired into their stomachs? Who were
Page 10860
1 these people? Were these people who had committed crimes or what?
2 A. These were ordinary people. These were citizens from that area.
3 Some lived in Pakrac Ka Poljana. They were taken there. And many were
4 brought to Pakrac Ka Poljana from Zagreb and from other parts in Croatia.
5 Also from the areas surrounding Pakrac, Daruvar, et cetera. Also from the
6 village of Kip a group of people was brought to Pakrac Ka Poljana. They
7 were not criminals in any way, nor were they doing anything against the
8 state.
9 Q. So on the basis of this, one may infer that they were beaten up,
10 massacred, killed, only because they were Serbs; is that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You said just now that a number of people returned but that some
13 people still do not live in their apartments even though their apartments
14 were not destroyed. Why?
15 A. When war broke out, all the Serbs who had fled from their
16 apartments and did not live there during the war lost the right to return
17 to their own apartments. That is this so-called tenancy right that
18 prevailed before, and this law is still in force, namely, that Serbs do
19 not have the right to apartments. Efforts are being made to have this
20 returned. I don't know when this will happen, but serious efforts are
21 being made in order to have these tenancy rights restored. So they lost
22 the right to live in the apartments where they had lived before, and this
23 is a serious existential problem.
24 Q. When was this law passed, that the Serbs did not have a right to
25 return to their apartments, the apartments that they left because of what
Page 10861
1 you just described now, the kind of things that happened to them?
2 A. I don't know exactly whether this was in 1992 or in 1995. I don't
3 know exactly, to tell you the truth, because I was reintegrated in 1995.
4 I don't know, but I think the law had already been passed by then.
5 Q. So in the present-day state of Croatia, where the rule of law
6 prevails, this law is still in force and Serbs still cannot return to
7 their apartments?
8 A. No, they cannot. Some were bought, some were given to others and
9 others are empty.
10 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear the question of Mr.
11 Milosevic.
12 A. Refugees from Slavonia, Bosnia, when they got Croatian
13 citizenship, they moved into these apartments because other citizens of
14 Croatia who did not have apartments bought these apartments and now own
15 them.
16 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, the interpreter said that they
17 couldn't hear your question before. Could you slow down, please, and put
18 a pause between the question and answer.
19 Mr. Witness too.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Kwon. I thought that
21 I was bearing this in mind, but I shall pause.
22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Could you tell me something else now. You've just described this
24 for me, what was going on in Pakrac. Can you tell me something else? I
25 don't really want to read this again, and you heard this and you said it
Page 10862
1 was correct. These camps in Slavonska Pozega, for Serbs, of course, I'm
2 asking about that, those camps, do you have any knowledge about that,
3 about the number of Serbs who were interned in these camps and how they
4 were treated there?
5 A. I don't have any knowledge. I don't have any knowledge concerning
6 the number of people who were there. What I heard was that they were also
7 beaten and tortured. At that time, that seemed to be some kind of a rule
8 between these two sides that were in conflict around Pakrac in Western
9 Slavonia, that on the Serb side, the Croats were beaten up and tortured;
10 and then on the Croatian side, that's what happened to the Serbs. I don't
11 know what kind of contacts and relations they had, but one could come to
12 the conclusion that this was really known about everyone who ever was
13 detained. Well, not everyone, but almost everyone. So then this gave
14 rise to tensions and also to a wish to revenge the situation that
15 happened. So that's what happened in Pakrac and the surrounding area. I
16 don't know about the numbers involved in Pozega. I just know that they
17 were really beaten up badly. And I know that there were frequent
18 exchanges between the Serb side and the Croat side, that the Croats
19 exchanged Serbs and the Serbs exchanged Croats. So they each took their
20 own prisoners out for exchanges.
21 Q. Please, I read out only part of this to you, this list of prisons
22 for the Serbs. How many Serb prisons were there for Croats, ones that you
23 know about?
24 A. What I enumerated in Western Slavonia was Mijokovicevo, Bucje,
25 Vocin, down in Okucani. These were prisons. And then -- well, I know
Page 10863
1 about these prisons. And the rest were conflicts and killings, like
2 Balinci, Cetekovac.
3 Q. Oh, so you know of these four; right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. So how many Croats were in these four prisons that were held by
6 the Serbs?
7 A. I don't know that figure either. It's very hard for me to say,
8 especially for Stara Gradiska. And up there at Bucje, I really don't like
9 to make estimates. We're talking about human beings.
10 Q. Is it correct that in 1991, in October, you lived in Bucje for
11 some 30 days or so?
12 A. Yes. Well, not only in Bucje, but at Bucje too. Not only in
13 Bucje, but also in the surrounding areas.
14 Q. So that's where the prison was?
15 A. Yes, in that village.
16 Q. All right. So you lived there for 30 days and you saw that
17 prison. So this is a prison where Serbs held Croats. I assume, in view
18 of the office that you held, that you had to have been informed as to what
19 was going on in this prison, how many people there were there, who these
20 people were, and how they were treated.
21 A. Since you are referring to the office I held, let me inform you
22 once again, if you do not remember. I did not have any authority up there
23 whatsoever. There was only military authority up there, namely, the
24 Territorial Defence. It was operating up there. And I did not have the
25 possibility or the right, as they had put it, to meddle in things that I
Page 10864
1 was not supposed to be interested in, according to them. So I don't know
2 how many people were in this prison. I know that there were civilians,
3 for the most part, those who had been collected near the separation line,
4 and perhaps there were a small number of soldiers who had been taken
5 prisoner during the war. Among these prisoners, there were Serbs as well.
6 And I heard from them the most that they had been beaten up, and some were
7 taken away and killed. But I could not really have insight into this
8 because this was under the control of the Territorial Defence, which
9 throughout the war that was taking place there, was violently opposed to
10 me, so I did not have any right to access the area or enter it.
11 Q. Well, but it is highly unlikely that you couldn't really get any
12 information, because among local people, one usually knows everything.
13 You know what other people are cooking for lunch let alone how many people
14 are in prison and what's going on in that prison. How many persons were
15 there in that prison?
16 A. I can't tell you a number that I don't know.
17 Q. But you probably saw the building. Were you in that building?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did you see that building?
20 A. I did not come close to the building, so I don't know.
21 Q. Oh, so you don't even know what the building looks like?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Are you sure?
24 A. Sure.
25 Q. What was the maximum number of people who could have been there?
Page 10865
1 A. Perhaps around 100.
2 Q. How many of them were Serbs and how many were Croats?
3 A. Perhaps 10 were Serbs and the rest were Croats.
4 Q. How many soldiers, how many civilians?
5 A. I don't know about that.
6 Q. All right. Let's not pursue this any further.
7 When you talk about events in Pakrac, on page 4, in the last
8 paragraph, you explained that the municipality of Pakrac made a decision
9 to remain in Yugoslavia if Croatia were to leave Yugoslavia. Is it the
10 population itself that reached that decision or did you organise that?
11 A. That was the decision of the assembly of the municipality of
12 Pakrac, not of the population, but of the delegates of the population of
13 the municipality.
14 Q. Did anybody suggest that you should make this kind of decision?
15 A. This was after the disassociation, when Croatia disassociated from
16 Yugoslavia. That's when the Serbs voted that they wanted to remain in
17 Yugoslavia. This was some kind of a political gesture, to make it known
18 that people did want to stay in Yugoslavia.
19 Q. However, as far as I can understand this, this was not within the
20 referendum that you had had before that; is that right? Was it before or
21 after?
22 A. The first referendum was for cultural autonomy, in 1990. This was
23 sometime around the 21st or 22nd of February, 1991. And the second
24 referendum was to remain in Yugoslavia. That was on the 12th of May,
25 1991. So that was between the two referendums.
Page 10866
1 Q. All right. Tell me: What was the substance of this referendum
2 for cultural autonomy?
3 A. I cannot be aware of the details now. It was a long time ago.
4 But it was cultural and political autonomy of the Serbs in Croatia that
5 was referred to. This was supposed to protect Serb identity in Croatia.
6 I don't really know about the details of this referendum.
7 Q. Did this mean education in the Serb language, the use of the
8 Cyrillic alphabet, the functioning of the Serb Cultural Society of
9 Prosvjeta? So equal treatment, actually, in terms of the protection of
10 national identity of the Serbs, in terms of their cultural needs, then
11 also in the fields of education, culture, et cetera. Is that what it was?
12 A. I think that that is the right way to put it, to protect Serb
13 cultural identity, not to mention all these things that you have just
14 mentioned.
15 Q. And is it true that after that there was great pressure exerted?
16 What do you know, for example, about the dismissal of Serbs from the
17 police force, from all public services, from the media, from the health
18 service, and so on, in Croatia in the course of 1990, when there were
19 still no conflicts or clashes? Can you tell me something about that?
20 What do you know about that?
21 A. Yes. That was the time that the dismissal started, especially
22 from the police force.
23 Q. I apologise for interrupting you. I apologise. Mr. Kwon, I won't
24 speed up. But let me just add something. When you say "at the beginning
25 there were dismissals from the police force," what do you mean
Page 10867
1 "beginning"? When was this beginning?
2 A. Well, I couldn't give you an exact date, but I think it was the
3 end of 1990. That's when dismissals from the police force started and
4 from state public services, when Serbs were let go. Because it was
5 considered there were more than was necessary by virtue of the ethnic
6 representation, especially in the police and public services, and
7 especially in municipalities where the HDZ won the majority in the
8 elections.
9 Later on, in 1991, this took hold and there were more and more
10 dismissals from work after that.
11 Q. And do you have an idea as to how many people at the beginning and
12 before the conflict broke out, how many Serbs were dismissed from the
13 police force, from public services, from the media, and from the other
14 jobs that they held?
15 A. Well, I don't have a figure, and I don't have an estimate either,
16 because when all this was going on, it created great tension. And I can't
17 make assessments of that kind. I can't hazard a figure.
18 Q. Yes, but do you have any knowledge about other areas except for
19 the police force, health service, public services? Were Serbs dismissed
20 from companies and enterprises, from commercial organisations, for
21 example?
22 A. That came later. I heard about that in the course of 1991,
23 especially in Zagreb and in the larger towns, where there were many large
24 enterprises. I heard that they had been dismissed just for being Serbs.
25 Q. Just for being Serbs, no other reason?
Page 10868
1 A. Yes, that's right. That's what I heard from the people who were
2 fired.
3 Q. It was the people who were fired who told you this?
4 A. Yes, that's right.
5 Q. Now, do you know that for the most part all the directors, the
6 company managers or people who had positions of leadership in the economy,
7 who were Serbs, ethnic Serbs, that they were dismissed straight away, or
8 rather, replaced straight away? Some of them might have carried on doing
9 some work in the companies, but they were replaced in their post of
10 director or manager. Did you hear anything about that?
11 A. Yes, I did hear of things like that happening too, yes.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. What was going on in all these areas; police, public services, the
15 media, the health service, and so on and so forth? Did this take on the
16 form of a general all-out discrimination of Serbs in Croatia?
17 A. Yes, it did take on those proportions. It did become an all-out
18 general discrimination, and the Serbs were afraid that they would lose
19 their jobs. That happened principally in areas where Serbs were the
20 minority, that is to say, in Zagreb, Sisak, Pozega, and those towns
21 towards Bjelovar and other places.
22 Q. So that means that happened where Serbs were really in the
23 minority. That is where the discriminatory measures were greatest, most
24 widespread; is that right?
25 A. Yes, it is. That's right. Where the HDZ had won the majority
Page 10869
1 vote.
2 Q. All right. So that means where the HDZ won, the programme was to
3 dismiss the Serbs and expel them; is that so or isn't it?
4 A. Well, I don't know whether that was their programme, but I do know
5 that that is what happened.
6 Q. When you heard for the first time of instances and cases where
7 people were taken away, where there were illegal and unlawful arrests,
8 that all trace was lost of people, that they were being killed, from
9 Zagreb to Vukovar, in the different places in that area, when did you
10 first hear of that happening?
11 A. I first heard that in mid-1991.
12 Q. I quoted something this morning, a report, and Mesic confirmed
13 that he found it when he assumed his post of president. It dates back to
14 1991. It was Herzog, Tudjman's advisor, who talks about unlawful arrests
15 of Serbs, unlawful detention of Serbs, he means arrest of Serbs - I don't
16 have to translate from the Croatian into the Serbian language for you -
17 and that all traces are lost of them, that it is not known whether they
18 are alive or dead. Do you know about that?
19 A. No, I didn't know of that report.
20 Q. Was -- did that report -- was that report made public after the
21 arrival of the new authorities?
22 JUDGE MAY: He says he doesn't know anything about it. Now, let's
23 try and move on.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May.
25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Page 10870
1 Q. Tell me this, please: After the famous barricades were set up, is
2 it true that you established that the government in Serbia, the government
3 in Belgrade, had nothing to do with or knowledge of that before this
4 appeared in the public information media, and this kind of resistance?
5 A. I didn't understand you when you said whether we had established
6 this.
7 Q. Is it true that the government in Belgrade had nothing to do or
8 any knowledge about this? And I'm thinking of your own statement. But
9 answer the question. You know what you said; I don't have to repeat that.
10 A. As far as I know, this was done by the local population, at their
11 own initiative.
12 Q. You said that the Pakrac police set up barricades during the night
13 but the JNA demanded that they be removed. Members of the MUP of Croatia
14 took advantage of this and on the 2nd of March, 1991, they entered the
15 town, exchanged gunfire with the Pakrac policemen, which means that they
16 shot at each other, they disarmed a few of them, and in the meantime, the
17 JNA arrived and negotiations started between the JNA and the MUP of
18 Croatia. Two days later, the disarmament process started of the rest of
19 the members of the Pakrac police force and the weapons were returned back
20 to the police. Then you go on to say four assistants of Petar Gracanin,
21 the federal Minister for Internal Affairs, arrived in Pakrac. I remember
22 that one of them said that the -- that Croatia was a legal state and that
23 the Pakrac policemen had to return the weapons, otherwise they would be
24 arrested by the federal police force and that they would be turned over to
25 the MUP of Croatia. The Serbs in Pakrac were -- saw that everything had
Page 10871
1 calmed down and were disillusioned. Is that so?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now, how did the barricades come to be set up in the first place?
4 Can you tell me that?
5 A. I think that I said that in private session, that I explained that
6 in private session, so can I repeat it in a private session?
7 JUDGE MAY: Private session, yes.
8 [Private session]
9 [redacted]
10 [redacted]
11 [redacted]
12 [redacted]
13 [redacted]
14 [redacted]
15 [redacted]
16 [redacted]
17 [redacted]
18 [redacted]
19 [redacted]
20 [redacted]
21 [redacted]
22 [redacted]
23 [redacted]
24 [redacted]
25 [redacted]
Page 10872
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Page 10872 – redacted – private session
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10873
1 [redacted]
2 [redacted]
3 [redacted]
4 [redacted]
5 [redacted]
6 [redacted]
7 [redacted]
8 [redacted]
9 [redacted]
10 [redacted]
11 [Open session]
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I thought we had returned to
13 open session a long time ago. I thought we were already in open session,
14 Mr. May, quite some time ago, because the witness only had several facts
15 to give us in private session. I cannot waste time and go back to the
16 questions I've already asked, that we've already covered, but I do like to
17 know -- and I do think that too much insistence is made on these closed
18 sessions, private sessions, because it is not the witness C-037 that is
19 endangered by the publication of what we're talking about because
20 everybody knows who he is anyway.
21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Is it true that this red/white, and white/red chequerboard was
23 found on the death camps of Jasenovac, likes of Jasenovac, for example?
24 Is that true?
25 A. Yes, it is.
Page 10874
1 Q. Well, do you then consider that it was only the elderly people, as
2 you say, the older generations, who were troubled and upset by that? Do
3 you think they had reason, good reason to be upset and troubled, and was
4 there good reason for them to be anxious and even afraid of what was in
5 store for them?
6 A. Yes, they did.
7 Q. So what we were saying a moment ago, discussing a moment ago,
8 about the camps, the dismissals, the beatings up and killings and so on
9 and so forth, was that confirmation that their fears were justified?
10 A. In a way, yes, because those were the first steps taken to instil
11 fear in the people.
12 Q. And is it true that the region of Western Slavonia had deep scars,
13 was deeply scarred by the mass crimes committed during World War II and
14 that the people there had to be sensitive, quite justifiably so?
15 A. Yes, that's right.
16 Q. Is there a Serb family, a single Serb family in that part of the
17 world which did not have casualties of some kind in World War II, during
18 World War II? Let me stop there and then I'll continue and I'll go on to
19 ask another question.
20 A. Well, perhaps -- I don't know. Likely -- not likely.
21 Q. In Western Slavonia, with the exception of those who had fled
22 before the clashes started, was there a family that did not lose somebody
23 in these attacks launched by the Croatian police and army on Serb
24 settlements and Serb houses?
25 A. I apologise, but could you repeat that question? I didn't follow
Page 10875
1 you.
2 Q. In that part of the world, that is to say, in Western Slavonia, in
3 that region, is there any family which has not lost any -- which did not
4 lose anybody in the attacks 1991, up to 1995, in Western Slavonia, except
5 for those who had fled before 1991 and gone to Serbia or somewhere else?
6 A. Yes, some of the Serb families fought in the Croatian army and
7 were there together, so such families do exist.
8 Q. Yes, but are there many such families?
9 A. No, there are not.
10 Q. Now, with respect to this event, as far as I was able to follow
11 and gather - and this is on page 5, paragraph 5 of your statement - you
12 say that in the information media --
13 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, I note you are quoting the witness's
14 written statement several times, a number of times, so it seems that your
15 intention -- it is your intention to continuously quote his statement. Do
16 you like us to have one? We don't have them right now.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, this is his statement, the one
18 that I was given by you. I assume that it was included in the materials.
19 JUDGE MAY: You refer to "you." Remember that we're the Judges.
20 The Prosecution sent you that document. We had nothing to do with that,
21 and we don't have them. Now, you were asked by the Judge: Do you want us
22 to have the copies or not?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course I do, but as far as I
24 recall, so far you always had copies of statements, looked at them, looked
25 for sentences and were able to find them. So I would ask myself now why,
Page 10876
1 and is this a logical mistake, that you don't have them now?
2 JUDGE MAY: We don't have the statements. We've told you this
3 before: We don't have the statements of the witnesses unless they're
4 disclosed under the Rule, which, as you know, allows for the admissibility
5 of written statements. We have those, but the other statements we don't
6 have.
7 Let us have a copy of these ones and we'll give it an exhibit
8 number.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Then I should like to
10 have this introduced.
11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
12 JUDGE MAY: Well, I gather there are six statements. Which is the
13 one that you've been relying on, Mr. Milosevic? We've got it. Thank you.
14 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Maybe, Your Honour, I can be of assistance.
15 Maybe Mr. Milosevic refers to the proofing summary. That is something you
16 have in front of you, and ...
17 JUDGE MAY: We have the proofing summary, that's right.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have the witness's statement of
19 the 19th of March. No. I apologise. Of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th of May,
20 1990 -- no, sorry, 2002. That's the statement.
21 JUDGE MAY: Yes. This is a summary. Yes, we've got that. Thank
22 you. Yes, we've got this one.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. May I proceed, then?
24 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Page 10877
1 Q. Mr. C-037, you say that in the media, the events that we have just
2 described, partly in private and partly in open session, were represented
3 as dramatic events, and this is your opinion. Don't you think that this
4 kind of event in Pakrac is dramatic?
5 A. Yes, it is, but what was said in the media was that people had
6 been killed, and even their names were mentioned, and this did not happen.
7 That's why I said that these events were misrepresented.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for Mr. Milosevic.
9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Did you ever manage to find out who produced this report? Was it
11 given by someone from Pakrac or did somebody in the media make it up? I
12 mean the report about the people who were killed and that this was not
13 true.
14 A. As far as I can remember, a journalist arrived and wrote the
15 article from Pakrac, the report, from Pakrac.
16 Q. So it was somebody who came to Pakrac, observed the sporadic
17 shooting and the conflict, and wrote an article about it?
18 A. I don't know what he observed.
19 Q. Very well. But you say there was no reason for the Serbs to flee
20 because there was no threat to them from the Croatian side.
21 A. What period are you referring to, please?
22 Q. I'll tell you. You say, in fact, there was no reason to leave
23 because there was no military threat from the Croatian side in
24 November/December 1991. So this is late 1991. And then ... Yes. You
25 say there was no reason for the Serbs to leave because there was no
Page 10878
1 military threat from the Croatian side. And then you mention the
2 amendments. This is on page 18, the second paragraph from the bottom of
3 your statement. You said: I was able to see that people were being
4 manipulated in Western Slavonia, for example, in the SDS. And that's your
5 party, is it not? Wanted to study the amendments to the Croatian
6 constitution. People didn't want to listen but demanded weapons because
7 they had heard rumours that the Croats had armed. So they had heard
8 rumours that the Croats had armed. Were these rumours true? Were the
9 Croats armed or not?
10 A. In your first and second comments, you mixed up two events. First
11 you spoke of late 1991 and then you spoke of early 1991. These two events
12 were nine months apart. To respond to your first comment, in late 1991,
13 when people were withdrawing from Grubisno Polje, Daruvar and other
14 municipalities, there was not a strong concentration of the Croatian army,
15 so the pressure was not so great. They were not withdrawing because of
16 the military strength of the other side. In Daruvar, they entered Serbian
17 villages only some five or six days later, and then destroyed and burnt
18 them.
19 Q. When did this happen precisely?
20 A. Well, Daruvar retreated around the 15th of November, and they
21 entered it some five days later, five or six. So it may have been the
22 15th, the 20th. I don't know the exact day. But there was no fighting in
23 those villages. People withdrew from the villages, out of fear, because
24 there were rumours of heavy concentrations of Croatian forces. And people
25 did not have enough self-confidence, enough self-reliance. There was no
Page 10879
1 JNA there. They were expecting help from the JNA. And as they were there
2 on their own for days and days, they retreated. After that, the Croatian
3 forces entered. Whether these were the home guard or the Croatian army or
4 what they were called, I don't know, but they entered all the villages in
5 Western Slavonia.
6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the question.
7 A. These villages then were looted for days. They were torched for
8 days. The better houses that could not be torched were blown up.
9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. What happened to the better houses?
11 A. Well, they would not burn, so they were blown up with explosives,
12 and that's what happened to all the villages that had been controlled by
13 the Serbs during the war. As for the second part of your question --
14 Q. Let's stay with the first part for a while. That's why I'm asking
15 you this, because it seems illogical when you say that they had no reason
16 to be anxious and to flee, when you yourself say that once they had fled
17 from the Croatian forces, these villages were first looted and then burnt
18 or blown up. Does that not contradict what you said, namely, that they
19 had nothing to fear, nothing to flee from?
20 A. The forces that entered these villages were not strong enough to
21 take these villages from the local Serbs. A single man can torch a house
22 or a village. I don't know how many of them came in later, but had they
23 had strong forces, they would have entered the villages on the same day
24 that the Serbs left them. But the villages were not looted and burnt in a
25 single day. This went on for days and days. So there was time for more
Page 10880
1 people to arrive. Maybe some civilians took part in this. That's why I'm
2 saying there was no reason to abandon the area. People could have held it
3 and gone on living there. But I think the local commanders were not up to
4 the task; they panicked and they manipulated the people.
5 Q. So they manipulated people into fleeing instead of fighting; is
6 that what you're saying?
7 A. I think they should have stayed there and preserved their village
8 rather than leaving it. That's my opinion, still.
9 As for the other question you put to me, when the videotape of
10 Spegelj was published, was broadcast, it terrified people because they
11 concluded that the Croats were arming, and felt unsafe. When the
12 amendments to the constitution were discussed in Okucani, when Mr. Kosutic
13 came there to help us, you couldn't even talk to people about the
14 constitutional amendments. They were not interested in that. All they
15 wanted was weapons. They said: If I have a gun, I feel safe. And this
16 was a widespread phenomenon. The fear was such that they demanded
17 weapons, and there was pressure on all the political leaders to do this.
18 Those who refused were considered to be traitors. It was thought that
19 they were not looking after the people properly.
20 Later on, in June 1991, when the event at Borovo Selo took
21 place, I think it was - yes - in May, on my way back, passing through the
22 Croatian villages from Osijek to Slavonska Pozega, I saw people going out
23 at night carrying rifles, so I saw that the Croats were also armed. I
24 don't know who of the Croats was armed, on what basis, how, whether it was
25 just members of the HDZ or whether it was also other people, but I did see
Page 10881
1 them carrying weapons. And then at the same time the Serbs armed
2 themselves as well. Some people bought weapons initially. I don't know
3 who supplied them, but a lot of weapons were bought, and many people armed
4 themselves. This was a widespread phenomenon.
5 Q. What do you know about the point in time when the National Guard
6 Corps, as it was called, was established?
7 A. I think it was sometime in the summer of 1991, but I don't have
8 the exact information.
9 Q. Who were members of this National Guard Corps?
10 A. I think it was volunteers or policemen. I'm not sure exactly. I
11 know it was established and that its name was the National Guard Corps,
12 but I don't know who the recruits were. I don't know from where these
13 people were recruited.
14 Q. So you have described camps where people were tortured, people
15 fleeing and torching of houses and villages. Now I have a general
16 question for you. After the first day of your testimony, a newspaper said
17 that Witness C-037 accused Milosevic of planning the
18 Karlovac-Karlobag-Virovitica boundary. Since I have --
19 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, that doesn't sound like a very correct
20 question. What you can do is ask the witness about his evidence, not
21 about the way in which some newspaper has reported it. Now, what is the
22 correct question?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I'm asking the witness
24 whether he accused me in his testimony --
25 JUDGE MAY: It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. What he said
Page 10882
1 is what he said. It's not for the witness to comment on it. You can do
2 so in due course and we can make a finding about it. It's not for him to
3 comment now.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May --
5 JUDGE MAY: No, don't argue. Just move on to the next point.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May --
7 JUDGE MAY: You can ask him some question which is relevant to the
8 evidence, but asking him about the newspaper report is not either -- or
9 asking him to comment on his own evidence, which is what you appear to be
10 doing. Now, that is simply not permissible. Now, what's the point --
11 what is the point you want to make? If you tell us the point, maybe we
12 can formulate it into a question which is permissible.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll tell you, Mr. May, if you will
14 allow me. I assume I have the right to put questions in connection with
15 exhibits shown to the witness who was asked to comment on them. If an
16 exhibit was shown to a witness and --
17 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Of course you're entitled to do that. Put
18 the -- let's go to the exhibit. Put the exhibit -- the right way to do it
19 is put the exhibit to him and then you can ask your question. Now, which
20 is the exhibit you want to ask him about? If you don't know which one it
21 is, we'll find it.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There was a map of Croatia on which
23 there were two straight lines, or rather, one broken straight line,
24 marking --
25 JUDGE MAY: Let's identify the exhibit. We'll find it.
Page 10883
1 JUDGE KWON: It seems to be tab 3 of Exhibit 326.
2 Is this the one?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes, yes. This map was
4 shown. Please put it on the projector. I can see it even from here. I'm
5 sure the witness can see it, if it's only 50 centimetres away. So put it
6 on the projector.
7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. There, you see this map, Mr. C-037?
9 A. I do.
10 Q. This map was shown to you here. What connection does it have with
11 any standpoint of Belgrade? If you know, tell me.
12 A. This has to do with Seselj's slogan, Karlobag, Karlovac,
13 Virovitica.
14 Q. Wait a minute. Leave Seselj's slogan alone. Various politicians
15 say various things at different points in time. Did you ever hear a
16 single representative of the government -- as you know, Seselj was in the
17 opposition. Did you ever hear a single representative of the government,
18 starting with me in Serbia, or the Prime Minister or a minister, or
19 someone from Yugoslavia, a general, for example, talking about a plan, an
20 alleged plan, such as the one shown to you on this map? Did anyone
21 ever --
22 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer. It's an important point.
23 There's no point if you go on; he can't answer it.
24 A. No, I didn't hear it from any officials of the government of
25 Serbia or the government of Yugoslavia. I said what this line, this
Page 10884
1 boundary, was connected with.
2 JUDGE MAY: So can we take it, Witness 37, that you never heard
3 anybody in the government talking about this line?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't.
5 JUDGE MAY: But as I recollect it, you said that you saw somebody
6 - I may be wrong about this -- remind us, if you would, what your evidence
7 was that you say connects this line with the Serbian government.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps with the sentence that all
9 the Serbs would live in a single state.
10 JUDGE MAY: Yes, but how is that connected with this line?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I linked this sentence with
12 Mr. Milosevic, that all the Serbs would live in one state.
13 JUDGE MAY: Let me finish. It doesn't explain quite why you come
14 to this particular -- why this particular line on the map. What's the
15 significance of it? Would you explain to us. I know you say it's
16 connected with Greater Serbia, but can you help us as to this or not? It
17 may be you can't.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This here is the Krajina. This is
19 Western Slavonia. Seselj came to visit Krajina and Western Slavonia and
20 he spoke about this border, about this line.
21 JUDGE MAY: So it's what Seselj says. I see. Thank you.
22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. When was this?
24 A. Seselj said that in 1991.
25 Q. All right. Did he have some kind of a political party then?
Page 10885
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Was he perhaps in parliament?
3 A. Yes, I think he was.
4 Q. Are you sure?
5 A. I think I am. The radical party --
6 Q. Was he in opposition?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Whose opposition?
9 A. Yours.
10 Q. So how can you say, then, even if he had spoken about this - I
11 don't even know that he had - how can you link this up with some position
12 of the government of Serbia or any position of mine? Because somebody,
13 according to you, said something at some point, some person from the
14 opposition.
15 A. I said that I am linking that to his name.
16 Q. Oh, all right. I don't know if he said that, but over here,
17 during your testimony, this was linked up to me. It's being held against
18 me. So as you can see --
19 JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... trouble what
20 anybody is putting in the papers. It's what the evidence is here of which
21 we shall be the Judges.
22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Do you know that that sentence that many are abusing here, "All
24 Serbs in a single state," does not say "will" but was linked to the
25 following explanation: That Yugoslavia was in the interests of all
Page 10886
1 Yugoslav peoples and that Serbs had a particular interest in the
2 preservation of Yugoslavia because only with the existence of Yugoslavia
3 can the Serbs live in one state, although they are in different republics?
4 Do you know that? Do you know how come this quotation was distorted, that
5 it pertains to that one and only state, Yugoslavia, the then Socialist
6 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
7 A. I did not correct the quotation or distort it, believe me. I am
8 telling you, I just know that the Serbs wanted to remain in Yugoslavia, to
9 live in that state. As for this line, I linked it up to the statement of
10 that man, not to go into all of that again. And I don't know about these
11 changes and these inversions, what you said, I mean "will" or "do" or
12 whatever.
13 Q. But you are interpreting it that way. The Serbs did live in one
14 state while Yugoslavia was still in existence, but also all Croats lived
15 in one state. Because they even have problems now, Croats in Bosnia,
16 greater problems than they ever thought they would have, because slowly,
17 under pressure, they are not sending children to Sarajevo to go to school.
18 They're sending them to Split or to Zagreb. All the Croats lived in one
19 state too, and the Muslims lived in one state too. That's why I said that
20 for all Yugoslav peoples, Yugoslavia is the solution, because they all
21 live in one state.
22 JUDGE MAY: You've been asked: What is the question?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The question was to clarify this.
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. You uttered that sentence, which is very correct and very humane
Page 10887
1 and very reasonable, but you linked that up with some speech. You even
2 said that this was in Kosovo Polje, this speech. This speech in Kosovo
3 Polje is a remarkable speech, and it is quite contrary to what is being
4 asserted here, and everybody had the right to read it. So who put this
5 into your head, that we --
6 JUDGE MAY: No, Mr. Milosevic, you can't go on making these
7 speeches. Now, you can give evidence in due course and you can tell us
8 about it then. Now, have you got any other questions for this witness?
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Oh, of course. Well, I have three
10 hours left for tomorrow, Mr. May. Please.
11 JUDGE MAY: Let's get on with it now.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. I am going on, yes.
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. All right. So regardless of the fact that there was no military
15 danger involved as far as the Serbs from Croatia were concerned, in your
16 opinion, and it was obvious that they were endangered indeed, that all
17 their villages were torched, et cetera, and they all had to flee, and you
18 seem to be saying that they should have stayed there and fought because
19 then they would have kept their houses, then probably somebody would have
20 accused them too of carrying out an aggression against their own houses.
21 A. May I say something?
22 JUDGE MAY: Yes. You're supposed to be giving evidence, although
23 it may not appear like that. Yes?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Milosevic, I still think that
25 there was no reason for them to leave. I believe that. Because there are
Page 10888
1 reasons why I'm saying this. Where the Serbs were in Croatia, in their
2 own villages, and where there were no conflicts, the villages remained
3 intact. Had Serbs not left then, as they stayed behind from Pakrac
4 further down, these villages remained. I am not justifying this. This
5 was a retaliation. This was a crime committed against these people. But
6 I repeat: There was no concentration of forces. There was not that kind
7 of threat that was supposed to make them leave.
8 And I know, on the other hand, that there was no goodwill for the
9 Serbs to remain. But one cannot live on the goodwill of others only. One
10 has to live on the basis of one's own free will and to stay where they are
11 and fight. I did not mean that they should fight in the sense of
12 committing crimes or something like that, but defending themselves. I
13 think that then Croatia would not have entered Western Slavonia. What was
14 done against it afterwards is a different story altogether.
15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters cannot hear Mr. Milosevic.
16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. So this is your explanation. In Croatia, did the Serbs do
18 anything else but defend themselves in the territory where they had lived
19 for several centuries? Did they go to conquer Croat territories, or were
20 they defending the territories where they lived, territories that were
21 theirs?
22 A. Well, down there, around Drnis, there were conquests of Croatian
23 villages that did not belong to the Serbs, that did not belong to the
24 Serbs. Also there were some in Kordun or in Banija. I can't recall
25 exactly now. The problem is that in those areas where the Serbs did
Page 10889
1 exercise their own control, they should not have torched Croat villages.
2 And they should not have expelled or killed Croat civilians who were
3 there, because that happened too. I'm not trying to say that there was
4 not ethnic distrust among them, but that's not right. Like Donji Caglic
5 near Pakrac, when the army came, there were one or ten, I don't know how
6 many extremists, but others were not. They could have remained alive.
7 Because if you are involved in a struggle of defence to live in your own
8 home, that does not give you the right to expel others. And now everybody
9 is trying to justify themselves that way when they say that's why I
10 committed something bad against someone else.
11 I think that sufficient attempts were not made to avoid this evil,
12 and I have reason to think this way. I was born in Croatia. My parents
13 were born in Croatia. They also lived through the Second World War.
14 Their entire families, all their relatives, were killed. As children,
15 they were in Ustasha camps. But it was Croats who saved them from these
16 Ustasha camps. So in our history, we have cases when we were killing each
17 other, but there are also cases when we were saving, rescuing each other,
18 and I think it was more difficult to do it then than it is now. I live in
19 the conviction that we Serbs should have done even more in order to
20 prevent this from happening. That is my conviction. I cannot change it.
21 I know what kind of state this is, and I know the fears involved,
22 and I saw my own father, who was afraid, and he said, "Yes, the Ustasha
23 killed all the members of my family, all my relatives, but it is Croats
24 who saved me from the camp." And he was 12 years old, he was not 30 years
25 old. He was a child, a 12-year-old child, but he was aware of that.
Page 10890
1 And also in that war, they joined the Croats and they joined the
2 Partizans. And we did not give each other a chance to resolve things and
3 not slaughter each other. That's what I keep thinking about time and
4 again.
5 Q. C-037, I think that your way of thinking is right, and I think
6 that no one can or has the right to kill another person because he himself
7 is exposed to danger unless he is saving his own life, unless this is
8 self-defence. As for these excesses that you are referring to, you
9 mentioned a village near Drnis and you mentioned something else near
10 Benkovac, et cetera. But you did not answer my question: Is it correct,
11 along with the exceptions that nobody can or should justify, nor would
12 anybody accept this kind of justification. So given these exceptions, is
13 it correct that in those years of crisis, Serbs, for the most part, that
14 is to say as a rule, exclusively defended their own doorstep and the
15 territories where they lived, along with these excesses that nobody is
16 justifying. But generally speaking, isn't it correct that they were
17 defending their own villages, their own homes, their own doorsteps where
18 they were imperilled? Is that correct?
19 A. For the most part, yes.
20 Q. So let's clarify that. As for crimes, nobody is justifying that.
21 The Croatian parliament, in 1990, adopted an amendment to this -
22 what's it called? - 68 and abolished the Cyrillic alphabet; is that right?
23 What was the reaction in Western Slavonia to this? Do you think that this
24 evolution in the atmosphere of fear started escalating, I mean with these
25 first seemingly not exactly dramatic changes but basically, and over the
Page 10891
1 longer term, dramatic changes. Tell me about the atmosphere then.
2 A. Yes. This did sound negative among the Serb population, because
3 they were building Croatia together with the Croats. They were
4 constituent people. And the alphabet had a footing -- was on a footing of
5 equality. And they wanted their alphabet to be equal, because that is a
6 right that had been acquired, and that is something that they had lived
7 with for years. So this upset them.
8 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters cannot hear the question.
9 JUDGE MAY: Again, they can't hear the question. You've got to
10 leave a pause. And this must be the last question before we adjourn.
11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. The events that followed later, after this first alarm, so to
13 speak, did they escalate further into an atmosphere of fear and threat
14 that you reacted to, as you had put it yourself, spontaneously and on the
15 basis of the feelings of the citizens themselves there where they lived?
16 A. Yes, especially when the Serbs were no longer a constituent
17 people, when they became a minority. And when they were becoming a
18 minority people, felt that in this way they were considered to be of minor
19 value. And before that, it was said that they were privileged and
20 whatever. So they took this to be an attack against them, as a rise in
21 discrimination.
22 JUDGE MAY: We must adjourn now because the tape is about to run
23 out.
24 JUDGE KWON: Just one thing. I have to apologise for my mistake
25 that, with the assistance of Madam Registrar, I realise that it was not
Page 10892
1 the proof summary that the accused is quoting, and the written statement
2 is dated 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th of May. So we had better have one, if the
3 Prosecution -- yes.
4 JUDGE MAY: We'll adjourn now, 9.00 tomorrow morning.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.15 p.m.
6 to be reconvened on Friday, the 4th day of
7 October 2002, at 9.00 a.m.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25