⁵⁰³⁴

Thursday, 16 May 2002

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Before we begin, there are one or two administrative matters. First of all, we have looked at the statement of Witness -- what was Witness K28. We will admit that statement under Rule 92 bis, subject to any submissions that are made about it.

The other matter is this: Mr. Milosevic, last night I mentioned the witness statement, and I should explain the position to you so that you understand it.

Normally the rule, the procedure is that the Judges do not have the original witness statements of the witnesses when they give evidence live, so we haven't got the statement of this witness at the moment. We haven't seen it yet.

To explain matters further, we do have the statements if the Prosecution submit the statements under Rule 92 bis, we have those, of course. But for any witness who gives evidence live, we do not have the witness statements unless they are formally exhibited in the case, in which case we have them. And I think it's right that in virtually every case so far, that has happened.

Now, if you want us to have this witness's statement, say so and we will get a copy.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. You can certainly have ⁵⁰³⁵ the statement.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Can we have copies, please.

MR. NICE: Prepared and coming.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be marked Prosecution Exhibit 151.

JUDGE MAY:, Mr. Milosevic, would you bear in mind that both question and answer have to be interpreted, so would you leave a gap after the witness has given his answer.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. By all means. I'll take care about that. I'll turn on the English interpretation. But before I continue, Mr. May, you interrupted me yesterday when I was quoting the statement of his party, Novo Demokratija, from yesterday's newspapers, because you said that you were not interested in comments made by journalists.

Now, since I have the official statement, the official press release of Novo Demokratija, a faxed copy of it, it's on their writing paper, you can see it, and we can also have it displayed on the overhead projector, with a seal and a signature of a member of their leadership. It is Mrs. Rebeka Srbinovic who signed this, who was authorised to sign this. I'm going to quote only a few positions so that both you and the public would know what this is all about. So this is Novo Demokratija whose president is the current Minister of the Interior, that is to say my opponent, not my friend. No associate of mine, it says.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you can put any matters in it to the ⁵⁰³⁶ witness for his comments. The statement of that party is not, at the moment evidence, but you can put it to the witness for his comment.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm going to put it to the witness right now, just a few quotes from there.

WITNESS: RATOMIR TANIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

Q. [Interpretation] They claim that at these round-table discussions and these activities, these debates related to Kosovo, the state authorities took part in no way, nor the representatives of the state security services both home and abroad. That is the first fact. I'm going to present a few facts and then he can make a comment. The second fact is related to Ratomir Tanic, a founder of WIDI [phoen], of the reformists, and Vice-President of the Civil Alliance of Serbia. It says here in this statement: "Who from that position became a sympathiser of Novo Demokratija"

And then she speaks of these public activities, the organisation of meetings, et cetera. "Outside these public activities, there were no plans on the resolution of the Kosovo and Metohija problem, nor did anybody -- nor was anybody authorised on behalf of Novo Demokratija to make such plans with anybody, including the persons Mr. Tanic mentions, such as Markovic, Dojcilo Maslovaric, Jovica Stanisic, Momcilo Perisic, Mira Markovic, Slobodan Milosevic, and the representatives of diplomatic missions in our country. No one in Novo Demokratija was aware of the purported contacts that Tanic had with secret services home and abroad. ⁵⁰³⁷ So this is his personal activity, and this has nothing to do with Mr. Tanic's participation in certain international activities organised by Novo Demokratija. Tanic testifies --"

JUDGE MAY: Just pause there. The witness must be given the opportunity to answer what is being said.

Now, Mr. -- just a moment. Rather than -- so that the witness has a fair opportunity to answer these allegations which are being made, he must be allowed to do so. Therefore, if it's put in parts which he can deal with, he should be able to answer. Now, let him answer that. You've heard, Mr. Tanic, what's said, what's been said, apparently, by this spokesman, spokeswoman. Have you any comments you wish to make about it?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. May I start with my comments? I'll try to be concise.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, the claim that at round-table discussions and at scientific meetings dedicated to resolving the Kosovo problem, there was no participation by the authorities of the Republic of Serbia and of the SDB. First and foremost, I never said that the SDB took part in round-table discussions devoted to the problem of Kosovo. However, I did say that the representatives of the ruling coalition, of the three parties of the ruling coalition did take part. I don't want to present any kind of general thesis, but I'm just going to mention by way of proof a gathering that was organised in 1994 and 1995 - please don't take my word for it - so in the mid-'90s at any ⁵⁰³⁸ rate. It was organised by the British Ambassador, Ivor Roberts, the British Ambassador in Belgrade. And the ruling parties attended: The SPS, the party of Mr. Milosevic was there, represented by Goran Percevic; and from the JUL party, there was Mr. Vladimir Stambuk and Mrs. Jelica Stambuk as representatives of JUL; Percevic as a representative of the SPS; and then Tahir Hasanovic and I took part as representatives of Novo Demokratija; then Fehmi Agani as a representative of the Albanians or, rather, a representative of Rugova's party. There were also other members from Albanian political life; Surroi, Vllasi, et cetera. And also the representatives of the Diplomatic Corps from Belgrade or, rather, the embassies of all countries of the Contact Group.

JUDGE MAY: You're being asked to slow down. You're going too fast. And could you deal with it a little more concisely. We have that point. Now, is there any other answer you want to make?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just mentioned the particular gathering by way of proof, which shows that this claim is not correct. The second assertion, that no one was aware of my contacts with foreign intelligence services -- oh, I'm sorry.

The second claim, that no one was aware of my contacts with the security services, first of all, it is quite normal that these contacts are not advertised all over, so it is only natural that all members of the party would not be aware of that. And secondly, I did not have any kind of illegal contacts with any security service, either home or abroad, foreign services or domestic services. As I already said, I had certain contacts related to the intelligence dimension of legal political issues ⁵⁰³⁹ like the Dayton Agreement, like the struggle against terrorism, like the dialogue in Kosovo.

Such contacts Mr. Milosevic also had through his authorised representatives, both with the CIA and other intelligence organisations. For example, the head of the CIA, Mr. William Deutsche, paid a public visit to our security service.

JUDGE MAY: I think we have the point. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Yes. But this pertains to only part of it, this point made by Mr. Mr. Tanic.

A. Well, please read on. There's no problem.

Q. Outside these public political frameworks, there were no plans on resolving the Kosmet problem.

A. May I respond to this? I'm sorry.

JUDGE MAY: No. Let the question finish. Yes. Go on, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. "On behalf of Novo Demokratija, no one was authorised to make such plans with anyone, including persons that Mr. Tanic mentions, Ratko Markovic, Dojcilo Maslovaric, Jovica Stanisic, Momcilo Perisic, Mira Markovic, Slobodan Milosevic, and the representatives of diplomatic missions in our country."

A. This assertion is also incorrect. There is an official document from the meeting of the Executive Committee and the Presidency of Novo ⁵⁰⁴⁰ Demokratija on several occasions. I'm going to mention only one of them. Before the meeting in New York, a platform was adopted by the Novo Demokratija authorities, that is to say the Executive Committee and the Presidency, and it is exactly the way I described it. That is one thing. Second thing, I never said that any one of us was authorised to make agreements with Mr. Jovica Stanisic, Perisic, Milosevic, or any other persons in relation to Kosovo, rather, the Kosovo problem. I just said that in three and a -- during three and a half years, there was a negotiating process related to Kosovo, that I was one of the participants in this process, that along with me there were other participants as well, and that this political negotiating process was sufficient to prevent the war, that Milosevic supported it, but in 1997 he --

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. There is no contest that there was this public participation, but is it clear that this participation in round-table discussions and, as we will see later, the participation in these other activities, like of the Bertelsmann Foundation and these meetings of free intellectuals, as you call them, were no negotiations. This was a presentation of use by free intellectuals. Is that right or is that not right?

A. Round-table discussions were the presentation of use by free intellectuals and politicians but I did not say these were only round-table discussions. Apart from that, there were also clear negotiations with a view to preparing an agreement on Kosovo, and authorised representatives of all three parties in the ruling coalition ⁵⁰⁴¹ took part in this. I am prepared to present evidence with regard to this and call additional witnesses.

Q. All right, but they claim the opposite, that there were no plans. I quoted that already, and I don't want to mention it again because it's already part of the transcript.

I'm quoting yet again their official paper. The third fact, that: "The content of the testimony of Mr. Tanic testifies to his attempt to construct a story in which Novo Demokratija did not take part in the way he has depicted this, nor did he have such importance as is the one that he wishes to have attached to himself. To the best of our knowledge, Mr. Tanic least of all, least of all could have been a partner to Mr. Milosevic in the building and conduct of some kind of plan for restoring the autonomy to Kosovo and Metohija and resolving the crisis in the province."

And then what I read to you yesterday: "Imagination does all sorts of things and sometimes necessity even more than that."

JUDGE MAY: One moment. Now, Mr. Tanic, you should have the opportunity to comment on that passage which has been read to you if you wish to. It may be that you don't.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Why not? Why would I not wish to? There's nothing there which --

JUDGE MAY: Don't argue. Just answer. If you don't want to comment, don't comment.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My answer is as follows: First of ⁵⁰⁴² all, I never claimed that I was a partner in the negotiations with Mr. Milosevic but that he was included in the negotiations as well, and that from time to time, linked to the topics of those negotiations, I had contacts with his closest associates and with him in order to dovetail our positions. I never said we were partners. Had we been partners, I would probably be here as an accused before this Tribunal as well. Now, as far as the statement that my party made, it says in the second part of that statement that they did not know what I did. And in the first part of the statement, they comment on my work, on what I did do. That seems to me be illogical. And third, I would like to --

JUDGE MAY: That's a comment. Try not to comment on what's said. Just answer, please. Is there anything more you want to say about this point? You've made the point that you weren't a partner and you never said you were. Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I say that perhaps the accused would like to see the contents of two books which bears out the position of Novo Demokratija very similar to the views I am putting forward here today. Or perhaps he doesn't want to see those books. I am not representing the Novo Demokratija party here either.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In continuation, the statement says the following: That is to say apart from the public round-table meetings, he did not comment on what I quoted a moment ago, that Novo Demokratija did not take part in the way it did. ⁵⁰⁴³

A. May I comment? May I comment? I forgot to comment.

Q. Well, I have something more to add. I can't waste time on this because Mr. May is going to curtail my time anyway. Now he goes on to say, does anybody -- "Whether anybody else instrumentalised Mr. Tanic, we cannot know," and so on and so forth. Now, I shall provide you with the entire contents of the statement. It is up to the Tribunal to assess the credibility of Mr. Tanic's statement, testimony, and Novo Demokratija does not wish this to turn into a circus in which witnesses will be witnesses of newspaper articles and facts published in the media. And so on and so forth. So this document has been signed and stamped by the Novo Demokratija seal and person responsible, so you can put this as an attachment to this brilliant witness whom you have brought forth here, and I will continue with my cross-examination.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. That is enough, Mr. Milosevic, with that sort of comment. Quite unnecessary.

Now, since you've quoted from that document, you should hand it over to the Prosecution. Let the Prosecution have a look at it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I would also advise, although your defence is entirely a matter for you, that you consider seriously calling this spokesperson as a witness in your case, the spokesperson on behalf of Novo Demokratija.

JUDGE MAY: Take the document. Give the document to the usher, will you?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm reading -- yes. Yes, please go ⁵⁰⁴⁴ ahead, take it. You can take it. You can also take a better copy from their website. There's no problem in that.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I be allowed to respond to what was laterally said, very briefly?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have not asked a question yet.

JUDGE MAY: He can respond briefly, yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Outside that, the president of the Novo Demokratija, Dusan Mihajlovic, with me or alone took part in some of these meetings, and that can be proved very easily through witness statements. I'm not thinking of the round-table meetings but outside that. And I would like to tender two documents which show that I took part in the formulation of the strategic policy of the Novo Demokratija, if the Tribunal would like to have that.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. The Chamber would wish to exhibit that document, Mr. Milosevic. I'm not sure if it went back to you. It may have done. Yes. If you would hand it over, we'll get it translated and it can be exhibited.

Yes. Let's move on.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours. May I be allowed to ask a question in that regard?

JUDGE MAY: I don't know about ask a question. I think you were prevented from making some comment that you wanted to. If you want to say something about that document, you can.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't wish to comment on the ⁵⁰⁴⁵ document because I want to respect your guidelines not to comment. I should just like to ask the Trial Chamber that if this document is tendered, that the new documents and archive documents be tendered as well which confirm my role in the Novo Demokratija. I have some of them, but there are many more documents in the archives of the party. And also to have this person come in as a witness as well, because he challenges completely and overrides completely what I said, my relevance. So these documents from Novo Demokratija will confirm that I took part in formulating the strategy of the Novo Demokratija with the president himself, the president of the party.

JUDGE MAY: Well, that's no doubt a matter which can be dealt with in re-examination.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, let's now move on to one of the main points of your statement. First, let me remind you of what you said and then I'll go on and ask you a question.

You claim that at a reception in July 1997, in JUL, that I said that at Kosovo there were fewer than 1 million Albanians. Is that right?

A. No. I said that in anger you said you would show and demonstrate that there were less than a million.

Q. All right. Well, in the statement it says it the way I said it.

A. It can't say it the way I said it because that's not what I stated. I said that you said --

JUDGE MAY: Now, would you both remember -- ⁵⁰⁴⁶

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right. All right.

JUDGE MAY: -- to pause. If this matter is to continue, it is to be done so that the interpreters can do their work properly. Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. The point isn't what you seem to be insisting upon now. I'm saying that you claim that in July 1997, in JUL, I said that there were less than a million Albanians. Is that correct? In Kosovo and Metohija, that is.

A. No. I didn't say that you claimed that there were fewer. I said that you would demonstrate and show that there were fewer.

JUDGE MAY: What my note says is that you, Mr. Milosevic, replied that he would show there were less than 1 million Albanians or 10 per cent. Therefore, they would not have autonomy. That's what my note has. If there's something in the statement you want to put to the witness, Mr. Milosevic, you can, but that was his evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We'll come to that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But as you said less than 10 per cent a moment ago, did I say that there were less than 10 per cent on that occasion? Is that what you're saying too?

A. No, you didn't say that then. This came as an additional explanation but you didn't say that then and I didn't say that in that context. I just gave an explanation as to why below a million. You weren't as precise and specific as that. Far be it. ⁵⁰⁴⁷

Q. So you made this as your additional information, is that it?

A. No. I got this from my conversations with your associates and also with some of your lower -- other statements. But let's move on to the point, Mr. Milosevic.

Q. I am asking you; you are not questioning me. Therefore, you, of course, claim that you heard this assertion from other personages that you talked as well; is that right?

A. Yes. Some of that was in the internal communication of the Serbian government and parliament, something along those lines. That was very compatible with those statements.

Q. Ah, yes, right. Now we can move on. And for us to be able to move on without any burdens, let's clarify this point. I heard about those assessments and appraisals as well and I considered them to be realistic because several hundred thousand Albanians were outside Kosovo, living abroad, and it was no secret whatsoever -- do you remember that, at least -- it was no secret whatsoever in talks held between various people that in Kosovo there were fewer than a million Kosovo Albanians? So what?

A. May I answer, respond, and comment, or this -- or is this a comment? May I have your instructions, please?

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I thank Mr. Milosevic for his frankness. I never doubted it. And this is the first time that I saw -- hear that there was a general assessment that there were less than a million of them, that is to say, an official assessment. This is something that I've heard for the first time here today. Usually a figure ⁵⁰⁴⁸ of 2 or 300.000 more than a million were quoted. It is correct that some of them were abroad. It is correct that they had come over from Albania.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, are you aware of the fact, for example, that this figure was a subject of free comment, both with representatives of the American delegation and foreign delegations and so on and so forth. This was something that was openly commented on, because the question was constantly being asked as to how many Albanians there actually were in Kosovo and Metohija. Are you aware of that?

A. Yes, I know the question. It is a legitimate question because the Albanians inflated their numbers up to 2 million. However, I do not know that the official policy was such that it said there were a considerable number less than a million or less than a million at any rate. That is something that I have been informed of for the first time as to its being official policy, so thank you for your honesty and frankness on that point.

Q. Mr. Tanic, the assessment of a figure is not official -- of an official position. It is just an assessment of figures, an evaluation of figures. Politics is an activity with a purpose, and an estimation as to how many people there are in this courtroom, for example, is just an endeavour to establish a fact. But let's move on.

A. Well, I --

JUDGE MAY: No. Let us stop the argument and move on to a question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ⁵⁰⁴⁹

Q. And are you aware of the fact that several hundred thousand Albanians at that time were outside Kosovo, living abroad?

A. Yes, I am aware of that. Some were -- left because of their economic state and others because of repression.

Q. I'm not asking you of the reasons, I'm just asking whether you're aware of that.

A. Yes, of course.

Q. So if you took that figure of persons who were abroad, would it be so much less than a million, than that figure of a million, if you deduct the number living abroad, in Kosovo at present?

A. Well, that would be very difficult. And anyway, those people living abroad also have the right to vote. The fact that they are abroad does not mean that they have left once and for all, for good and that they would have nothing to do with Kosovo. But I'm not an advocate of Kosovo Albanians. We're just dealing with discrepancies in figures and the discrepancy is 2 to 300.000.

Q. Mr. Tanic, I'm not talking about our conversation because the two of us never discussed -- never discussed anything, never had talks. I'm asking you about the figures that you are presenting, that you are putting forward and for which you claim --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, the argument is pointless at this stage. But what would help us is to know this: Are you saying that this comment was never made by you?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am saying, Mr. May, that I never talked to Mr. Tanic, and I'm not asking -- I'm not answering the questions ⁵⁰⁵⁰ here but Mr. Tanic is answering the questions.

Now, if you're interested in this assertion, this statement, it is --

JUDGE MAY: We're not moving on. If you're saying that you didn't have this conversation, then you should put it to the witness so he can have the opportunity to answer and deal with it. Just a moment. Let the witness deal with that assertion.

What Mr. Tanic has said is that Mr. Milosevic never spoke to you, never spoke in your presence, never said anything about a million Albanians in your presence. Is that true or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those are two assertions. First of all, the assertion that we never spoke. That is incorrect and I can prove otherwise, that we did talk, at least on several occasions. He said he never spoke to me in his life. I say that we spoke several times, and I can bring five to ten witnesses here whom I assume I would have the right to bring in to bear that out.

Now, that second assertion that we didn't specifically speak about that figure of under a million, that is also incorrect. But for that second specific conversation, I cannot bring in five to ten witnesses to confirm it as I can for the first assertion to bear out the fact that Mr. Milosevic and I spoke at least on several occasions. So both these assertions are incorrect and I propose that I bring evidence to prove the first.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. As to the second assertion, all I'm doing is asking Mr. Tanic ⁵⁰⁵¹ whether he is aware of the fact that that subject, that topic, that is to say how many Albanians there actually are in Kosovo, was an element which was freely discussed. It was no secret at all.

That is the point of what I'm asking you. You didn't learn about any -- learn any secret piece of information. People discussed the fact, that is to say, how many Kosovo Albanians there actually were in Kosovo. This is no discovery. It's not a discovery of any kind. This was freely discussed with foreigners and with our own people. So it was a very ordinary question that was put forward. Are you aware of that?

JUDGE MAY: The witness should have the chance to answer these long questions, if they are questions.

What is being asserted is that this figure or these kind of discussions were common at the time. Is that right, Mr. Tanic, or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Discussions as to the number of Albanians were common, but discussions as to the fact that there were under a million of them were not common.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Let's make a small digression before we continue along those lines. As you claim that I told you that at a reception in JUL in 1997, where were we standing when we were talking at that reception? Tell me where we were standing, the two of us, or sitting, or whatever you like. Where were we? Describe it.

A. Well, the JUL building is in Djura Djakovica Street. It is a villa. There is a reception salon looking out onto the garden, onto the yard. On the left-hand side, you go into a separate room which is where ⁵⁰⁵² Mr. Milosevic, as was his custom, would have dinner after or, rather, towards the end of the reception with his close associates. I was not among those. But we were standing somewhere there between the large salon and the other room that was shut off with a curtain where Mr. Milosevic and his close associates would be having dinner. So that's where we were talking. We talked for a very brief time. I didn't say it was a meeting, we just spoke briefly and then I talked to Mr. Mirko Marjanovic and so on and so forth, that's it.

Q. Mr. Tanic, as receptions in JUL take place every day on the 23rd of July, that means when the days are hottest in summer, and they were held every year in absolutely the same manner, all those thousands of people who attended, including the member -- numerous members of the diplomatic corps, church officials, and so on and so forth will be able to tell you that the receptions in JUL were held --

JUDGE MAY: You are asking questions, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I finish? Will be able to tell you -- they will be able to tell you--

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... a speech, and now you're making a speech about what you claim the other -- the church officials and others would say. You're here to ask questions. So just ask a question.

No, Mr. Tanic, don't you join in. Mr. Milosevic, ask a question. What is the question?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know, therefore, what I said, that thousands of people who ⁵⁰⁵³ were invited to the reception, that receptions in JUL in July were held in the garden? They were garden parties and not held in the building.

JUDGE MAY: What is being put is that the reception was in the garden. Now, is that true or not?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Not only that party, all parties, no exception whatsoever. These parties are held on the 23rd of July, and they were invariably garden parties, not indoor parties.

A. Parties are held in the garden and the doors are open and of course there were a great many guests and that's why the garden was open and the building itself. Mr. Milosevic was a gracious host, he tried to talk at least a bit to each and every guest. And as far as politics is concerned, it depended on the subject involved, sometimes it was a friendly conversation, sometimes not exactly. I'm surprised that such general things related to Mr. Milosevic's work are something that he denies now. So the parties were indoors and in the garden.

Q. So parties were in the garden. Now let's go back to our question. In mid-July, that is to say at the time of that reception, you know the dates very well and there is no contest about that, this was after the signing of this agreement between Rugova and myself on the subject of education at the time of the implementation of the Dayton Agreement and when tensions were going down, was there an expectation that things would start precisely as you had defined in your statement; that is, the reintegration of Kosovo Albanians in the political life of Serbia and Yugoslavia? ⁵⁰⁵⁴

A. Yes. Absolutely. That was the objective.

Q. Yes. But I mean precisely in that atmosphere, in mid-1997, that is. There was an expectation that was expressed that the process of reintegrating Kosovo Albanians into the political life of Serbia and Yugoslavia would come about. Isn't that right?

A. Yes. It was already in the spring of 1997, but yes, that's the way it was. I agree.

Q. Right. Now, do you remember that precisely on that 23rd of July, that is to say the day when this reception was held, in the evening, that on that 23rd of July, 1997, in the morning, in the Assembly of Yugoslavia, I took my oath and took over the office of President of Serbia, precisely on that day? On the 23rd of July, 1997.

A. I really do not remember things -- I did not present things that were not part of the Kosovo problem. You don't really have to remind anyone of that oath. I don't know whether this is just a statement or a question.

Q. The question is whether you remember that, on that day, I assumed the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. On that day, on the 23rd of July, 1997. This is, after all, a public piece of information, and there is no denying that.

A. Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Now, don't go over old matters again. Mr. Tanic, if you remember something, just say yes and no. We'll get on more quickly without your commenting on it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ⁵⁰⁵⁵

Q. Do you remember that a week before that, I had been elected. On the 23rd of July I took over the office, and at a ceremonial meeting of parliament, I took my oath of office, but I was elected a week before that.

A. How could I not remember when you were elected on our joint list?

Q. All right. I'm just trying to put all the facts together, the facts that I need with regard to these questions, this line of questioning that I've been pursuing. Is it clear that on that day, my term as President of Serbia ceased by virtue of the fact that I was elected President of Yugoslavia and that, therefore, in line with the constitution, it was compulsory to have early presidential elections in Serbia; within two months' time, is that right?

A. Is this a topic that was included in statements or is this a statement? I don't understand this. Mr. Milosevic seems to be telling me about the constitution.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Tanic, you're here as a witness, not to argue points. This is not a meeting, this is a court hearing. Now, if you can't answer the question, say you can't answer it. Or if you don't understand it, say you don't understand. Yes. What is the question, Mr. Milosevic?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Was it a generally-known fact, therefore, since I assumed the office of President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, that according to the constitution, presidential elections had to be held in Serbia within two months' time? Yes or no. ⁵⁰⁵⁶

A. Yes. Yes, of course it was known.

Q. Very well. Now, do you know that precisely talks with regard to the estimated number of Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija in that context were quite topical precisely because of the expectation that this time more Albanians would take part in the elections?

A. I cannot answer this question only with yes or no, because it calls for a lengthier answer. If I give a yes or no answer, I can enter a verbal trap that was set by Mr. Milosevic. So I kindly ask the Trial Chamber for instructions.

Q. I think that the question is quite precise.

A. There were two questions.

Q. I said: Is it clear to you then, in view of the coming elections, that it was possible that the discussion on the number of Albanians in Kosovo was topical at that point because of the expectation that Albanians would vote in the elections in larger numbers this time?

A. The number of Albanians was a topical issue, but the motive why it was so topical is something that requires a lengthier explanation. I kindly ask the Trial Chamber for instructions.

Q. Please. Only a short while ago, you confirmed that at that time, that is to say, in the public, there was a generally-expressed expectation that the process of reintegration of the Kosovo Albanians would start, the reintegration, the political life of Kosovo and -- Serbia and Yugoslavia, and I interrupted you there and you said yes.

A. Of course if an agreement is reached.

Q. So please, there was this general expectation, the ⁵⁰⁵⁷ Milosevic-Rugova agreement had already been signed, the Dayton Peace Accord was already being implemented, tensions were being eased, and in these general expectations that a process of reintegrating the Albanians would start in the political life and then the coming elections for president in view of the fact that my term of office expired. So that had to be held within two months' time. So is it logical to you, because you said it yourself only a short while ago that you could have expected, that there was this general expectation of the political reintegration of Albanians, that forecasts were discussed and --

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop this. I'm going to stop this. It's not a question. What you do, Mr. Milosevic, instead of asking questions, you pile assertion upon assertion, and it makes the life of a witness very difficult. He can't answer assertion after assertion. Now, I don't know what the point of all this is. If there is a point, let's get to it. And ask questions more shortly. If you do, we'll get on more quickly and you won't be stopped.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, if you take things out of a time context and a political context, they look different. And if you put them in a time context and political context, then they are clear, and then they are -- they can be explained. And I imagine that this is quite clear to you as to an intellectual.

So the witness confirmed that at that time in mid 1997, there was a general expectation that the process of reintegration of the Albanians would start.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not confirm that -- ⁵⁰⁵⁸

JUDGE MAY: No. For a moment. You've been over this. You are asking questions. You are not engaging in an argument with this witness. Now, the way to put a question is to put it shortly and go from point to point. That's the way to conduct the examination, rather than a series of assertions, which is quite impossible for the witness to answer.

Now, we've spent a very long time on this particular point, and I still am not following what it is that you are putting to the witness. Can you put a series of short questions? And it may be then we can move on to a different topic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Because of such an atmosphere, which I hope you understand the way I explained it to you, was there an expectation that this time Albanians would vote in the coming presidential elections in greater numbers?

A. We strove for that, that they do vote in the elections and on condition that a political agreement was made, yes.

Q. And is it logical, then, that when elections are likely and, according to the constitution, will take place within two months' time, that there is a discussion on the number of Albanians that may vote in the election so that this may be taken into account amongst various calculations among persons who are interested in the outcome of these elections, of course? Yes or no.

A. Because it was logical, that is why we discussed it. Of course. But there was no agreement afterwards. That was the point of what I said. ⁵⁰⁵⁹ I really do not understand how I'm supposed answer these questions, and I run the risk of --

Q. All right. All right. Do you remember the statements made by some of our officials that before the Albanians boycotted the elections, inter alia because they didn't want it to become obvious that there were less of them than they were actually declaring?

A. Sorry, but this is a comment.

Q. It's up to them to decide. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Mr. Tanic.

A. But, yes, I cannot answer such equivocal questions. Please could I be instructed on this matter.

JUDGE MAY: Slow down. Slow down for the interpreters. No. Wait a moment.

The question was, that you were asked, Mr. Tanic, is this: Do you remember statements made by officials that the Albanians boycotted the elections because they didn't want it to become obvious that there were less of them than they were actually declaring? Now, that was the question. Can you answer that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. There were such statements made by Milosevic's associates.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Tanic, do you have an assessment of your own, since you are involved in such things? How many Albanians from Albania are in Kosovo right now, persons who are not citizens of Yugoslavia?

A. Mr. Milosevic, for two and a half years now I haven't been ⁵⁰⁶⁰ involved in politics because we have emigrated, and I have no assessments with regard to the political situation in Kosovo, and I'm not talking about the present day.

Q. And do you know that, in Belgrade, the figure 200.000 to 300.000 persons is being mentioned as Albanians who have illegally entered Kosovo from Albania?

JUDGE MAY: It's not matter for the witness, as he's told you. It's not part of his evidence.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And do you know that only recently in Kosovo and Metohija elections were held that were --

JUDGE MAY: No.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. -- staged by --

JUDGE MAY: He's given an answer to this. He's outside politics and the country. Anyway, it's irrelevant.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He could have read about it in the newspaper that elections were held in Kosovo and Metohija. This is a fact from the newspapers.

JUDGE MAY: Don't trouble to answer. Let's move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, then, I advise you, since elections were just held in Kosovo and Metohija now, to have a look at this and see how many Albanians voted in the elections.

JUDGE MAY: Let us move on, Mr. Milosevic. ⁵⁰⁶¹

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. So we've clarified this: It was expected that Albanians would vote in the elections in larger numbers.

A. If there is a political agreement.

JUDGE MAY: Don't go back over old matters. Now, if there's repetition, you'll be stopped. Let us move on to another topic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please. Do you know that in Serbia, before elections, as a rule there is no other subject that is discussed apart from elections?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. Is it clear to you, then, that at that reception that you've been referring to and where discussions were held and where you could have heard - of course, not from me because we never talked - you could have heard how many Albanians there were and that there were less than 1 million of them, that all of this was within the context of the coming elections? Isn't that clear to you at least now?

A. That's precisely what I said, that the number of Albanians was discussed at that reception. It's not that I said that I tortured you in order to disclose a secret.

Q. Mr. Tanic, do you remember, since you say that you followed all events very closely, that in that same year, 1997, that is to say it's about two months after that reception where you allegedly talked to me, so do you remember that in that same year, in 1997, in October, a summit meeting was held, a meeting of heads of state or government of south-eastern Europe, in Crete? ⁵⁰⁶²

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. Do you remember that it was devoted to regional integration and cooperation?

A. Of course. Of course.

Q. Do you remember the major step that was made towards the normalisation of relations between Yugoslavia and Albania when Fatos Nano, the then-Prime Minister of Albania and I, before the TV cameras, said that we are starting normalisation, the opening of borders, that we will abolish visas, that we will develope trade and tourism, et cetera, et cetera. Do you remember that? That was carried by all televisions.

A. It's not only that I remember that but I was one of the people who commented on the development of relations between Yugoslavia and Albania in your newspaper Politika.

Q. And do you remember, then, that Fatos Nano then stated that the relations with Kosovo were an internal affair of Yugoslavia?

A. Yes, but who is denying that, Mr. Milosevic?

Q. The point I'm making to you is that throughout that year, until the summit held in Crete, there was a general climate of optimism and also a truly peaceful resolution of all questions in Kosovo and Metohija and in the region, including our relations with Albania. Is that right or not?

A. That is precisely what I said, that there was a political climate and that there was a political agreement that would make it possible to avoid a war, and that is compatible with my claim.

Q. And now, if we place this in the context of time and the events that took place, does it become clear how your conclusions are absurd, ⁵⁰⁶³ that is to say that the number -- that the figure of Albanians was to do with ethnic cleansing and not with the forthcoming process of their reintegration into political life, the normalisation of relations and so on and so forth?

A. No. That does not seem to me to be absurd because the question of the number of Albanians was a subject that was discussed in both contexts and everything was all right until 1998 and until you started with this policy of conflict, engineering that, and that's what I say in my statement.

Q. And are you aware of fact, Mr. Tanic, that this atmosphere of understanding and trust, confidence and optimism that was expressed at the summit on Crete was an alarm signal to the forces which wished to destabilise Yugoslavia and incite terrorism in Kosovo? Is that clear to you? Is that well-known to you as an expert?

A. I apologise, but this is a comment and it's not correct at all what Mr. Milosevic just said. It's completely incorrect. I would have to give a lengthy answer. But my answer in fact is that the assertion is incorrect.

Q. So when we saw a breakthrough in the development of relations both in south-eastern Europe and in the Albanian-Yugoslav relations and the calming down of the situation after Dayton, you consider that the figures that were discussed were discussed because of ethnic cleansing and not precisely to further those relations and to bring about integration; is that what you're saying?

A. No. That's not what I'm saying. I was just saying that it was ⁵⁰⁶⁴ the former option of ethnic cleansing. Of course there were honest people who discussed this in the context of elections. It is not true that foreign powers incited terrorism, and I took part in this climate which was improving, and I took part in this and that is why I know and that is why I say that you upset it all in 1998.

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop -- I'm going to stop you because there must be a pause between question and answer.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So you know for sure, is that it, that the foreign services of the foreign powers had no part to play in inciting, financing, organising, training terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija; is that it? You say you know that full well, do you?

A. The foreign powers offered you precisely the opposite, that under conditions of a political agreement, they enable -- they would enable the cutting down of terrorism, Albanian terrorism in Europe, and that is a component part of my statement; and I'm thinking of the Contact Group countries first and foremost in that regard.

Q. And they did that through you. That's right, isn't it?

A. Not only through me, I never said that, I just said that I was one of the people who knew this.

Q. So who did they do this through? Through whom?

A. They said this to you directly and in political conversations with your political associates, and I made up an official note about that. I don't wish to raise my own importance, I just want to describe the negative process in which I took part. You have an official note in the ⁵⁰⁶⁵ archive of the State Security Service, and if there isn't, we'll call in witnesses. You were offered assistance, in the case of a political agreement, assistance to suppress Albanian terrorism. I never defended Albanian terrorism, Mr. Milosevic, I just said that you were overexaggerating the problems and exploiting them, to the detriment of both the Serbs and the Albanians.

Q. All right. So now you have evolved. You have made a slight step forward, because I asked you whether, under those conditions of a general easing of tensions and normalising of relations, whether it was logical for the figure to be discussed in regard to the elections and not with respect to ethnic cleansing. You said yes in relation to --

JUDGE MAY: We are not going back to this question of the figure and the million. We have spent over half an hour on it. It's quite unnecessary to spend that length of time on the same point. Now, move on to another one, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the point is precisely -- the point is precisely, Mr. May, that in this false indictment --

JUDGE MAY: We've heard you make your points. Now, there's no need to continually repeat them. Let's move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What I was saying was that it is the point of this false indictment to accuse --

JUDGE MAY: No. If you want to continue this cross-examination, you must continue it properly and ask some questions and on a new topic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ⁵⁰⁶⁶

Q. You were asked, I think by Judge Robinson it was, if I remember correctly, but anyway, somebody did ask you, at any rate, where the relevance was. What is the relevance of whether there were more than a million or less than a million? And your answer was that it was because whether they would be treated in a national minority or a constituent people depended on this figure. Am I right in understanding you?

A. Yes. I said that the percentages had a great bearing on the understanding and substance of autonomy.

Q. Now, do you know that one of the basic principles of the protection of minority rights and generally the rights of minorities, that they cannot be conditioned by the number of people that belong to a national minority? Are you aware of that? Do you know that?

A. Well, they are international rules, but I'm not quite sure that they were respected during your regime, Mr. Milosevic.

Q. All right. I should like to ask you not to waste time, our time on your comments. You have made sufficient comment. Would you please answer my questions.

Now, where is the status of the Albanians different - of whom there are a million - from the status of the Hungarians, for example, or the Bulgarians, or the Ruthenians, or the Slovaks or any other national minority, not to enumerate all of them now, in Serbia? Where is the difference? What was -- how was their status different?

A. If a minority numbers 100.000 or 200.000 people, it cannot have the same status as people that number 1 million in a country of 7 million. Otherwise, I'm not quite clear on your question because Kosovo already had ⁵⁰⁶⁷ territorial autonomy, and I don't understand where the problem was with this autonomy for Kosovo as you raised it, except for showing that the Albanians were not the majority there.

Q. You've gone too far. The Albanians were undoubtedly the majority population in Kosovo. Nobody ever questioned that. But you've gone too far. I asked you where the difference in status was, and you said of course there was a difference in status. Of course it's different if the national minority numbers 100.000 and another that numbers 1 million; and that is quite the reverse, it is quite the opposite. Are you aware that that is quite opposite and contrary to the general principles and rights of minorities? That they cannot be conditioned by their numbers and that if somebody belongs to a national minority which has 1 million, that they have greater rights than others who --

JUDGE MAY: The Trial Chamber is going to bring this part of the cross-examination to a close. We have now spent much too long on this particular point of numbers. We have exhausted the topic. If you want to continue this cross-examination, you must go on to another area, Mr. Milosevic. There are a great many areas in this witness's evidence, and you know that your time is limited. You should move on to something else now.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that's why I said that I would need more time, because the witness explained --

JUDGE MAY: No. You're wasting time with this. Now, let us move on to another area of his evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I asked a question. I asked the ⁵⁰⁶⁸ same question that one of you gentlemen posed, that is to say where the relevance lies of --

JUDGE MAY: We've been over the point now several times. Now, let us move on. We do not wish to hear anything more about numbers.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And is it clear to you that in the evidence as to the negotiations that the other side provided us with, that you have shown and demonstrated precisely the opposite, the contrary, that we can't speak about any negotiations here, and your party, that is something that your party states in quite precise terms. The policy that you presented us with - I don't want to waste time and read it all - but this scientific symposium, it says, which has political implications was attended by you, et cetera, et cetera, then Simic and the rest, a scientific symposium.

A. Which has political implications as well.

Q. Yes, political implications. Mr. Tanic, every scientific symposium dealing with a political topic must have political implications. That's quite clear to one and all, it's just very logical. Now, in view of the fact that you have not completed your schooling, how did you manage to take part in a scientific symposium? What science do you delve in?

A. The question -- first of all, I didn't say that I have not completed my schooling. You tested the level of my university training. I said that it was a private question and that I didn't want to answer and that was a rude question on your part. But I took part in a political capacity and not a scientific capacity at the meeting. I never claimed ⁵⁰⁶⁹ that I was a scientist or scientific worker, and that was my function there. And it was published in the papers as well. I never represented myself as being a scientist, Mr. Milosevic.

Q. Well, in this piece of evidence - it is an article in the newspaper Politika - which says that this was a scientific symposium and, in the title, it says, "A Scientific Symposium Held Recently in Munich." That is the main title. And you represented that falsely as being negotiations.

A. I should like to ask the Trial Chamber, please, I never misrepresented this as negotiations. I put forward documents --

JUDGE MAY: That is correct. We have the exhibit in front of us. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Not that you represented this as being negotiations, not only that, but you represented them to be as negotiations that you took part in, following my own authorisation.

A. I represented this to be a component part of the negotiating process. I always spoke of a process, the process was ongoing for three years. It had several tens or dozens of component parts. Some of them were in the form of symposiums, other ones were tete-a-tete negotiations. It was a process, Mr. Milosevic.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Tanic, one at a time.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, this symposium in Munich, you considered that to be part of the negotiating process; is that it? Yes or no. ⁵⁰⁷⁰

A. Yes, it was one of the links of this negotiating process which went on for three weeks [as interpreted]. It was a scientific discussion.

Q. Well, if it was a negotiating process, that means that you considered it to be negotiations, in fact.

A. I don't understand. Is that a statement or are you asking me a question? I said clearly that it was part of the negotiating process which had many parts and lasted for over three years.

Q. So you say that this scientific symposium was part of the negotiating process. Is that what you're claiming?

A. Yes. In conformity with your desire to have NGO groups, scientific institutions, professional institutions take part to discuss the problem from various aspects and dimensions, and of course, your instructions were adhered to both by domestic factors and foreign factors.

Q. You mean I gave instructions to go to Munich to have a scientific symposium held there? Was that my instruction? Is that what you're saying? Is that what you're claiming?

A. No, not specific instructions for Munich. What you called for was that, instead of the state organs, we have preparations for the Kosovo negotiations by non-governmental organisations, notable ones, so that we could avoid having people say that a third party was being involved in Yugoslavia's internal affairs. You expressed that desire not only in my presence or Mr. Mihajlovic's presence, but you said that in front of foreign ambassadors and we'll call them to testify here as witnesses. Your wishes were respected. ⁵⁰⁷¹

Q. Please, please, my stance and positions can be read about in the papers. You needn't seem to be discovering some common standpoints and positions that I personally stated and were published in the press that anybody could read in the papers or see on television. There's nothing to prove there. Well, I doubt that they could all see it.

JUDGE MAY: Just one moment. Just one moment. Now, this is not an argument. This is supposed to be a cross-examination from which we will gain assistance. And at the moment, it seems to be an argument. Mr. Milosevic, would you concentrate on asking questions shortly and to the point, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I hope that the questions are very concise and short, but I'll try and be briefer still.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You said that these joint recommendations on the Kosovo conflict, that you participants compiled them, Bertelsmann and so on and so forth, the scientific centre, et cetera, and that the Germans and the French adopted those recommendations, that paper; is that right? Just yes or no.

A. Well, you can't ask -- you can't answer all questions with a yes or no so that I fall into your verbal trap. The activities of the NGO and the Bertelsmann Foundation went on for two years, and yes, at the -- in the end, the paper was adopted which expressed the spirit of what was discussed, and later on, the substance of that document became an initiative on the part of the German and French diplomacy and later on by the European Union. Not word-for-word but the substance of the document, ⁵⁰⁷² that is to say, the step-by-step approach, the three-stage development, a provisional political agreement, and so on and so forth. And that's why I presented that document, to show the spirit and stand of European diplomacy and contact groups.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, could you explain to Mr. Tanic that he would have to be concrete and brief in his answers and that they must be answers in response to my questions.

JUDGE MAY: There was nothing wrong with that answer. Now, let's move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Therefore, the Germans and the French adopted the recommendations which they ordered to have compiled themselves; is that it?

A. Not the Germans and the French but German and French diplomacy, later the diplomacy of the European Union and not ones that they had ordered themselves but negotiations with the Serbs, the Albanians and the representatives of the international community all took part.

Q. And what about somebody in the name of the Serbian government? Did they represent -- did they take part, people who represented official Serb positions, or was that you? Did you ascribe that function to you yourself?

A. In order to facilitate the work of the court, whether I ascribe something to myself or not, let me leave that aside. But the Bertelsmann Foundation worked in close cooperation with Monsignor Paglia and your personal associates, Mr. Ratko Markovic and Mr. Dojcilo Maslovaric, had contacts with them. Let us forget myself because I say that I can always ⁵⁰⁷³ testify to circumstances that can be proved from two or three aspects.

Q. I asked you whether at these preparations that you say went on for two years were participated in by any official representatives of Serbia?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. When did they take part?

A. I said, first and foremost, this was a process in which several NGOs took part.

Q. I am asking you when. Don't make speeches to me that this was a process, et cetera, et cetera. When?

A. Starting from the first meeting that was held, the one that was organised by Ambassador Roberts in Belgrade.

Q. This was a reception of Mr. Roberts'?

A. No, no, no, it was a meeting at Sava Centre.

Q. Again a round-table discussion.

A. All right. It was a conference, it was called a round-table conference, but why are we engaging in such a verbal traps again? Now Mr. Milosevic is making me decide between two very unfavourable options; I should either be impolite or --

JUDGE MAY: Don't comment. Don't comment. Mr. Tanic, if you feel you can't answer the question, simply say, "I can't answer that," or something of the sort.

Now, Mr. Milosevic, will you bear in mind that the interpreters have to interpret this. So will you leave a gap after the answer before you ask the next question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: May I just stress that. I don't know whether the ⁵⁰⁷⁴ accused and the witness appreciate the need for the pause. In the vast majority of cases, we have a witness speaking in one language and the examiner speaking in a different language so that, ordinarily, the pause is there, but in a case where the witness and the examiner use the same language, there is a tendency to overlap. In many instances, because you are speaking the same language, you quite often even begin an answer before the question is completed, and I can sense that the interpreters are having a very, very difficult time with the interpretation of the exchanges between the witness and the accused. So I must stress the importance of a pause. Resist the temptation to rush into an answer.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know that in these joint recommendations, it says that the Albanians should have the right to use their own language in the process of education, et cetera, et cetera?

A. Yes, but I do not understand the point of the question.

Q. Is that what the joint recommendations say?

A. Most probably. This is a general matter. This was not the core of these recommendations. The core was that there would be three stages involved.

Q. Please answer my question. How can someone then who comes from Serbia, who doesn't even have to represent the government, how can someone write that when this was never denied and when, according to our laws, the Albanian language was equal to the Serbian language in Kosovo? How can that be recommended? How can I recommend it to you to shave your head when you haven't shaved your head? How -- ⁵⁰⁷⁵

JUDGE MAY: What's the question?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. How can I recommend something that is so obvious?

JUDGE MAY: Put a short question to the witness so he can understand it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Since the recommendation is to use the Albanian language in Kosovo and Metohija and the Albanian language is, was, and remained in use as the official language in Kosovo, equal to the Serbian language, how can a recommendation be made to achieve something that has already been achieved?

JUDGE MAY: I'm not going to allow that question because it's another speech.

Yes. The next question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. This third document that you also presented and that you claim is a joint effort, et cetera, et cetera, it's called "Exploring Futures for Kosovo, Kosovo Albanians and Serbs in Dialogue, Project Report." That's what I got, in this form.

I'm not going to quote anything from there. I don't want to waste time. But half of the papers that are contained in this document -- four papers, as a matter of fact, and there are four more, I didn't even look at them. What the foreigners or -- well, anyway, there is one, "Kosovo Republic in a New Confederation via Federalisation of Yugoslavia," Jasmin Pulja [phoen]. That is one of the titles. "The Autonomy Statute of ⁵⁰⁷⁶ Trentino South Tyrol, European Model for the Kosovo Crisis," Predrag Simic [phoen]. "Draft Principles for the Sovereign State of the Republic of Kosovo," Esad Simic [phoen]. "How to realise independence for Kosovo," Martin Brosis [phoen].

Is it clear that half of these papers call for the independence of Kosovo and a Republic of Kosovo as an independent state?

A. One of the tasks of scientific gatherings is to look at different contexts from the worst case scenario to the best case scenario in order to avert further danger on the ground. That is why all options were covered, that is to say from autonomy to the independence of Kosovo so that it would be easier both for the Serb and the Albanian side and there would be less problems on the ground. Nobody asked for anything there. I describe the spirit of the process and I'm saying that there was a political process, nothing else, and that it was favourable to Belgrade.

Q. Yes. A process in question there are seven or eight of you, and then papers are presented on the independence of Kosovo and you believe that that is a political process which resolves problems. Did I understand you correctly?

A. No. No, you did not understand me correctly. I presented this only as part of a total where my own paper's included and I say that this was an authorised approach by the Serb side. You authorised it, step-by-step in three stages, no independence whatsoever, but this is put in a scientific way. And there were people there who wanted to test the negative scenarios as well, precisely to help the authorities in Belgrade in order to avoid this. It's not that somebody was looking for something. ⁵⁰⁷⁷ I presented this only because of my own paper, because of my own platform, because I don't have any other papers.

Q. Oh, this is the first time I hear that you have a platform of your own.

A. No, I'm not saying it's a platform of my own, I just presented this in order to show what I was defending.

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... it's time for an adjournment. We'll adjourn for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, a little while ago --

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues]... I haven't objected to any of the questions this morning because I have no doubt my objection would have added to the difficulties the Court is encountering, but I would urge that the Court consider abbreviating the cross-examination unless it's going to become more useful, but that's matter entirely for the Court.

If the Court is going to allow the accused to go beyond today, I shan't be here on Tuesday, and I would invite the Court to require him to deal with examination on any security issues today, simply because they are matters about which I am much better informed than any others, and they're not necessarily matters that are widely-known amongst our team. So it would be preferable if he could deal with those today. Preferable, ⁵⁰⁷⁸ so far as I'm concerned, that he should finish altogether today, but that's a matter for the Chamber.

JUDGE MAY: When you say "security issues," these are the issues concerned with what?

MR. NICE: Communication with intelligence agencies and matters of that sort.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: I advised Mr. Nice during the break that there would be one or two issues in relation to that matter that I would be touching upon in questioning this particular witness which will go to issues of credibility. It won't be extensive, but it would be of a limited form.

JUDGE MAY: Well, we shall have to decide what, if any, time the accused should have on Tuesday morning.

Meanwhile, Mr. Milosevic, if you can deal with those issues. You've heard what counsel has said and if you can deal with them, you should today.

But we have a more general announcement to make because during the adjournment, we have taken the opportunity of considering the conduct of the cross-examination so far. We are of the view that far too much time has been wasted in repetition and personal argument between the witness and the accused.

From now on, we will expect that the accused avoids lengthy speeches and repetition and keeps his questions short. Likewise, we shall ⁵⁰⁷⁹ expect that the witness avoid personal argument and comments on and to the accused and answers the questions as shortly as possible. Mr. Milosevic, if you want to test the credibility of this witness, you should do so now. There is much of his evidence which has been left untested by your concentration and repetition of preliminary matter. As you know, your time will be limited, so we suggest that you move on to other topics. And if you want to cross-examine about the statement, you should do so as soon as possible. Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I shall cross-examine in the order that I have made for myself. I have it down here, and it follows his own statement.

As for time, I assume that you are duty-bound to give me more time than the Prosecutor had, in view of the written documents that he provided. So I shall continue.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I quoted to you awhile ago the last one of these documents, and it is obvious that half of the papers presented were about the independence of Kosovo. Is what I read correct, that the historian Dusan Matkovic which was the Ambassador of Yugoslavia in Greece today said, in March 1998, that he was, I quote, "surprised and appalled when Tanic, at the talks between the Serb and Albanians intellectuals in Munich in the organisation of the Bertelsmann Foundation concerning the problem of Kosovo, quite coolly discussed the possibility of Kosovo becoming an independent state." Just yes or no; is it correct? ⁵⁰⁸⁰

A. This statement was denied, that is to say that it was given in the wrong context.

Q. All right. You denied it. Let's go on. In your statement, on page 9 - I'll go back to that - it's page 9 in the Serbian translation of the statement, you said that in Kosovo, on the 25th of June, I made a speech in which I annulled all the results of the negotiations which you had held until then. I looked at that speech. I have it. So I'm going to ask you the following: Why do you think that anything was said in a -- against the Albanians in that speech? I'm not talking about your results because I first heard of your results over here. So Politika, the daily newspaper, published all of this.

In this area, there should be a policy of national equality of rights.

JUDGE MAY: This is precisely the point which I had in mind. How can the witness follow this? What is the question?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please. Where is there anything here which jeopardises the rights of Albanians? Because he claims that in my speech, I simply brought into question those rights of theirs. So where does it say that here? I'm quoting, and the newspapers are a kind of history. They cannot be rewritten for the same dates. So it's the 25th.

JUDGE MAY: No need to give us any comment about the newspapers. What is that -- you're asking about the speech, are you, of the 25th of June, 1997, referred to in the witness's statement; is that right?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Right. ⁵⁰⁸¹

JUDGE MAY: What is you're putting about that speech?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I want him to answer the following question: Where in my speech was there any reference to anything that would jeopardise the rights of Albanians? So I'm quoting this to him. "In this area there should be a policy of national equality of rights, a spirit of tolerance should prevail. Everything that characterises a humane, democratic society."

Now I'm going to skip a part, and then it says: "I believe that now is the time for the forces who wish their country and their people well, to unite in order to achieve the results that we wish to achieve in terms of reforms and development, and I hope that in this way this town and all of Kosovo and Metohija is going to give their contribution." Then furthermore: "As for the work of state organs, they should act in accordance with the law, notably in Kosovo, because the possibilities for discrimination are greater than in other parts of the republic, several times greater, at that. Our state has to be an example in terms of the state authority --"

JUDGE MAY: It's impossible for the witness to answer if you read out two or three minutes' worth of speech, as you've done. Just a moment. Mr. Tanic, you're being asked about the speech of the 25th of June, 1997, in Pristina, which the accused made, and he is claiming that there was nothing in it to jeopardise the rights of the Albanians. Now, can you help us about that? What is it that you say there was in the speech which had that effect?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As you know, I did not mention that ⁵⁰⁸² speech in the statement and also when I testified. However, as far as I can remember, in order to be as precise as possible --

JUDGE MAY: It's in your statement of the -- of 2000, and I have read what it says in it, and it's that you're being asked about. If it's wrong, just say it's wrong, but that's what it says.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no. It's not wrong. It's not inaccurate. It's just difficult for me to remember this precisely without having the speech itself. As far as I can remember, in that speech, Mr. Milosevic insisted on the following: That Kosovo be an integral part of Serbia and that he -- and that actually foreign mediation would not be accepted, as far as I can remember. I emphasise that. In that context, there is a certain impediment in the negotiations. I already said what was achieved in the negotiations, but there was foreign mediation already in the schooling negotiations. However, the return to autonomy meant broader autonomy within Serbia and Yugoslavia. So it would be a part of Serbia but not an integral part of Serbia. I would like to have a look at the speech in its entirety because people cannot simply take things out of context this way. I would have to refresh my own memory.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I have quoted what can be checked out, but we can't waste time. I would just like to quote something else in order for it to be quite clear. This is a totally untruthful assertion that is being made here.

JUDGE MAY: We can get a copy of the speech, no doubt.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You will get it. It's Politika of ⁵⁰⁸³ the 26th of June.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters find it impossible to follow this debate.

JUDGE MAY: Will you listen to what the interpreters are saying. They are finding it impossible at the moment.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I'm going to speak really slowly now. So in addition to what I've quoted to you just now, in Prizren, I say particularly in this place and in this town, I want to tell you something that I consider to be the most important in this town, because in it, there are Serbs, Albanians, Muslims, Turks, Roma, and others. Every one of the ethnic groups, to a large proportion. That is why I believe that this town and this region should be an example of carrying out the policy of national equality of rights, a policy that would make it possible for all people to give -- to live on a footing of equality and under humane conditions, that there should be a high degree of mutual understanding and that a joint life of all citizens should be built successfully.

JUDGE MAY: Now, Mr. Milosevic, which speech are you quoting from?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's from the same newspaper. I made a few speeches on that day in Pristina. I quoted a Pristina one at first and then in Prizren. That's the other one.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So all of it is in Kosovo and Metohija.

JUDGE MAY: Let us stop there. ⁵⁰⁸⁴ Mr. Tanic, do you remember now whether the accused made a speech in Prizren that day, and what was in it? If you don't remember, just say so.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not remember. I only referred to the speech in Pristina. But I would like to see it on the monitor, if possible, please.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. No, we're not going to go over it again. You can produce a copy of it in due course, Mr. Milosevic, as part of your case. The witness does not remember. So there's no point going on asking him about it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Does he at least remember they were my generally-known public political positions, and I'm sure that equality, et cetera, et cetera, that this is the only key for life together in this town and in this region, and I am sure the only key to the success of --

JUDGE MAY: No need to go on reading it. You can ask the witness if he remembers that it was your - Mr. Milosevic's - publicly-known position that he believed in or he supported equality. Mr. Tanic, can you help us on that or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I remember that Mr. Milosevic supported this in declarative form but not in his political steps. I think there was a great deal of divergence between what he said and what he did, and that was the essence of the problem and the political debate.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Let me move on since you're not going to allow me to ^{5085 BLANK PAGE 5088} quote. This is a similar form of abuse as the 20 -- 89th of June [as interpreted] speech, which was also abused and misused. You said just now, Mr. Tanic, five minutes ago here and now, referring to the speech, that you do not know everything I said but that I insisted on the fact that Kosovo must be an integral part of Serbia, should be an integral part of Serbia.

A. With the reservation made that I might have some lapses in memory.

Q. Yes. An integral part of Serbia. That was also a common position of mine and I consider that today, that today Kosovo is an integral part of Serbia.

A. That was not your view at the time at the negotiations. I apologise for interrupting.

Q. Now, as you challenge that and you represent the Novo Demokratija, are you aware of the fact that a document exists put out by the Novo Demokratija party which you can take from their website yourself - the date is the 19th of March, 1998 - in which, on page 1 of that document, point 2, it is -- the following is stated: As an integral part of the Republic of Serbia and, point 3, it says the relations between the autonomous province as an integral part of the Republic of Serbia, and then again, separate, individual, and collective rights of national minorities cannot be realised contrary to the constitution and legal provisions as well as internationally-recognised obligation of national minorities to express loyalty to the state within which -- of which they are part.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness -- let the witness see the document if ⁵⁰⁸⁹ you're going to put it to him. Show it to the witness, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will show it to the witness.

JUDGE MAY: Let him see it, and then you can ask a question about it. Let him read it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I cannot spend too much time, because you're going to subtract the time. I can give it to you and I can give it to the witness as well.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness see it if you're going to ask him some questions about it.

Mr. Tanic, if you would just look at that document. Don't say anything. Just read it briefly, and then it can be handed back to the accused.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You can keep it. It's easy to get another copy.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now my question is as follows: His party --

JUDGE MAY: Let him finish reading it. Mr. Tanic, have you now had a chance of looking at that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE MAY: What's your question, Mr. Milosevic?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. As you said that I insisted upon the fact that Kosovo was an integral part of Serbia, and I don't deny that because I do consider it to be an integral part of Serbia - that is what I always considered; I consider now and shall consider in the future - and as you're making that ⁵⁰⁹⁰ comment from the standpoint of your party, is it clear from that document by your party that your party too considers Kosovo to be an integral part of Serbia and that therefore comments of your kind cannot have been presented from the standpoint of your party as representing your party? Is that correct or not?

A. No, it's not. May I quote a provision of the document?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 5, it says: "Novo Demokratija considers that the broad autonomy of Kosovo and Metohija within the frameworks of the Republic of Serbia and Yugoslavia is the sole acceptable solution which respects the interests of Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija for the free expression of their own identity but the -- and the interests of Serbia for having full sovereignty on the territory." So broad competencies within the framework of Serbia and Yugoslavia. That was the formula and that was what Mr. Milosevic applied in the negotiations as well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Yes, but you read out "and sovereignty on the whole of the territory." You've just quoted that, you've just read that out from that particular document, which also confirms the integral part of Serbia.

A. No, Mr. Milosevic. This is a constitutional legal debate and we need to call an expert here.

Q. We're not having a debate.

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to interrupt this. I said there was to be no personal argument, and we meant it. Now, remember the interpreters ⁵⁰⁹¹ too.

Now, Mr. Milosevic, do you want us to have this document as an exhibit?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It doesn't have any importance, but you can include it in any way you like.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You claim that you hadn't met my wife, had meetings with my wife.

JUDGE MAY: If the document can be brought back. Bring the document back. Give it back to Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I asked you, you claim that your met my wife. Yes or no.

A. Yes. But not as your wife but as the leader of the JUL party.

Q. Would you answer me with a yes or no, it will save time.

A. Well, this is an unfortunate term, "wife."

Q. Now, what is the name of the political party of my wife?

A. It is called the Yugoslav United Left.

Q. Do you know that that is not correct?

A. That is how it was represented on the electoral list.

Q. Not as the Yugoslav United Left but as the Yugoslav Left. The name of the party is not the Yugoslav United Left. So you don't even know the name of the party that you say you cooperated with.

JUDGE MAY: You make that assertion, and it's pointless to go on. No doubt we can find out what the truth is. Now, let's move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ⁵⁰⁹²

Q. When was it founded?

A. I apologise. I'm not an expert in matters of your party. We were coalition partners, I was not a member of JUL.

Q. Right. So you don't know, then say so. Say "I don't know." Now, you claim you met me on the premises of the JUL party; right?

A. I meant the reception's head in JUL. It is the administrative building of the JUL party, which is where the receptions were held. It is used as a working premises and for official ceremonies.

Q. Well, we established that the receptions were in fact held in the garden, but let's move on. You claim in your written statement that you met me in the deputy's club secretly.

A. No. I didn't say that. I didn't say secretly. I think that you were in the deputy's club on one occasion, but I threw out everything that I was not able to corroborate with independent sources. So that needn't be taken into account. I think we met each other once, but it wasn't in secret. It wasn't clandestinely, I think, but I don't know.

Q. Right. As you're withdrawing that part of your statement, I'm not going to pursue the point. Now, you're claiming that while I was President of Serbia, you were in my cabinet, in my offices, and I'm going to quote. It is on page 3, and you say the following, the third paragraph from the top on page 3. You make mention there of the Presidency and the Federal Assembly building or, "in his personal cabinet to the left of entrance."

Do you know that my cabinet, my office, is not to the left of the entrance? To the left of the entrance is the porter's premises, and then ⁵⁰⁹³ there's the kitchen, there's the large banquet hall, and my cabinet isn't there at all. The cabinet of the President of the Republic of Serbia is on the first floor, at the end of the corridor, and it is the one but last door. So it's not to the left of the entrance at all, which means that you were never there. Is that right or not?

A. No, that's not right, Mr. Milosevic. I was there at least twice. You keep sticking to this cabinet. You enter through the main entrance, you pass the radar control section, like you do at an airport. As far as I remember, you would go into the big hall on left where we have had meetings, and there are at least two different photographs from two different occasions. I thought that that was where your cabinet was as well, because on one occasion you left the meeting for a brief period of time and said you were going right next door to your cabinet. So those were the official ceremonial halls of the Presidency of Serbia and there are photographs.

Q. Please, it says here that you met me in my personal cabinet to the left of the entrance, and now you're saying --

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]...

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. I'm just wondering how you managed to sell all this.

A. This is a very great insult. I cannot allow that even on pain of seeming arrogant myself, that I sold anything to anyone.

Q. Well, this Tribunal is not a nursery, a kindergarten for me to be able to sell something to it.

JUDGE MAY: Stop this personal argument. Mr. Milosevic, if you ⁵⁰⁹⁴ want this to continue, you must stop, and that is an official warning, that if you go on in this way, then the cross-examination will be brought to a close.

Mr. Tanic, too. I've told you before. Resist the temptation to personalise this.

Now, if you've got a proper question, Mr. Milosevic, ask it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have many questions, Mr. May.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Since you make mention of my wife and the meetings you had with her, tell me, please, what function she held in JUL in the JUL party during the time you allege.

A. Mrs. Markovic was the president of the administration or directorate of JUL, as far as Mr. Markovic told me, and it was a long working meeting with the foreign representatives linked to the topic of Kosovo.

Q. And what month was this in 1994? As you said that I called upon the Novo Demokratija and you to the new coalition meeting?

A. Well, I'd have to refresh my memory on that score. Your proposal was sent to the operation, the Civil Alliance of Serbia, the Novo Demokratija. The Serb SPO and Civil Alliance had a different view from the Novo Demokratija party. I didn't say that you invited Novo Demokratija alone but that Novo Demokratija accepted your invitation that you sent out to the opposition to form a coalition government to strengthen the Dayton peace process. So please doesn't try to divert my words, if you would. ⁵⁰⁹⁵

Q. As in your statement, you use the term very frequently, "discreet negotiations." You seem to use that term. Could you please explain to me what you mean by "discreet negotiations"? What does the term "discreet negotiations" denote? What does it mean?

A. Your express desire linked to the preparation for a political agreement to Kosovo was that all this should be done in a discreet manner so that if the outcome was not a positive one, that the three parties of the coalition party should not lose face and so that the Albanian secessionist movement should not gain the advantage, and that is why they were discreet. Sometimes people knew about them, sometimes they didn't. Some were very public, some were ultra-secret and confidential, sometimes semi-secret, and it all took three years. The process was a three-year-long process in which some ten other people took part in addition to myself.

Q. So you consider that what your party published denying all that is incorrect; right?

A. Well, it -- I -- what -- my party's statement is not correct, and I said that we could be witnesses here to show that, demonstrate that.

Q. Who invited you, allegedly, to attend that first meeting, which, as you claim, you had with me?

A. Well, the president of the Novo Demokratija party, Mr. Mihajlovic, included me into the delegation which went to have a working meeting with you to ascertain the joint platform on several topics. This was done at least once a year and probably more often.

Q. Right. So Dusan Mihajlovic invited you. ⁵⁰⁹⁶

A. He did not invite me, he made me a member of the delegation.

Q. Right. Now in the period that you're testifying to, did you hold any state function whatsoever?

A. No, I never performed any official state function nor did I say I did.

Q. I'm asking you. So just say no, and let's move on.

A. Not state but party.

Q. In that period of time - you're talking about 1994, 1995 - did you -- were you in any way known as a public figure? Were you recognised as a public figure?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. All right. Now, up until then, were you at the head of any information institution?

A. Not up until then. Nor afterwards. I wasn't at the head of any information institution. For a brief period of time, I was president of the executive board of a monthly journal, but only for several months and I didn't deal with any informational media work.

Q. Could you enumerate the results of your work to stabilise relations with the leaders of the Kosovo Albanians.

A. My results thus far did not exist because I didn't work on that question, especially not from the positions of an opposition party. All we did was have a few friendly meetings, and a study was published, but until then, there were no discreet talks, political dialogues, negotiations or anything of that kind. So how can there be results on something that did not in fact exist as yet at the time? ⁵⁰⁹⁷

Q. How many contacts did you have of that nature up until 1994? Personal contacts, the kind that you're mentioning now.

A. Well, at least ten. We're talking about the period that is not incorporated into my statement at all.

Q. Very well. Since, until then, your party did not participate in government, which state authority authorised you to participate in this process?

A. I just said that I did not take part in any kind of negotiations. There weren't any negotiations. I'm sorry. Please do not push me into verbal traps yet again.

In addition to that, I had just joined Novo Demokratija a short while before that. I did not take part in any negotiations in an unauthorised manner. There weren't any negotiations in 1994. Contacts are not negotiations. When they were, they were discreet negotiations and there was a political dialogue and you authorised them for the parties belonging to the ruling coalition and that is something that is a well-known fact.

Q. You claim that you were the chief negotiator in the discreet negotiations with the Albanians; is that right?

A. Did I claim that during my testimony? As far as I know, I did not.

JUDGE MAY: He did not claim that. So you mustn't put things which he didn't say.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. All right. We'll get to that. Let me just have a ⁵⁰⁹⁸ look at something. I'll find that. I can't find it right now, but this does exist in the statement, in Mr. Tanic's statement, so we'll get to that later.

Because you claimed that this role you got or deserved, first and foremost, because you had good relations with the representatives of the Kosovo Albanians; is that right or is that not right?

A. Yes, but personal contacts are one thing and negotiations are another thing. And please restrict yourself to what my testimony consisted of.

Q. All right. Not only with them but also with representatives of the international community and also because, from a security point of view, you were acceptable to the SDB. Did I understand you correctly in response to my question?

A. As far as I understood the people that I was in contact with, that is how you understood me. Having good personal contacts is not a forbidden thing; right?

Q. I put my question very precisely. You say that you got this mission because of your good contacts and relations with the Kosovo Albanians, with the representatives of the international community, and also the SDB.

A. I had good personal relations with the representatives of the Kosovo Albanians, good personal relations with the representatives of the international community, the service of the state security gave security guarantees for me before I saw you. This is a formal administrative matter, and please do not make me answer things I did not mention during ⁵⁰⁹⁹ my testimony and not even in my statement. The statement was given --

JUDGE MAY: You will not -- you will not be required to answer unfair questions, Mr. Tanic, but would you do your best shortly to answer such questions as there are. The more quickly you answer the questions, the sooner this will finish.

Mr. Milosevic, don't put things which he didn't say in his evidence, and we'll get on more quickly.

Yes. Next question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did you say here, verbatim, that you were authorised for negotiations with the Albanians first of all from Dusan Mihajlovic, the head of your party, thirdly from the SDB -- thirdly from me, and secondly from the SDB? Is that what you said here?

A. I said that I had authorisation from Mr. Dusan Mihajlovic and also authorisation from you and from the State Security Service. These are two different things, although they pertain to the same matter. I never introduced myself as some agent of the state security, Mr. Milosevic. Authorisation is one thing; guarantee is another thing.

Q. I do not see any difference between full powers and authorisation except that one is a Serb word and the other is a word that is foreign, that is used in the Serb language. So really --

JUDGE MAY: This is all a matter of argument and a matter of comment. Now, what is the next question?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You said that also in 1999, you carried out the same activities on ⁵¹⁰⁰ behalf of the SDB with interests defined by the SDB. Is that right or is that not right?

A. I'm sorry, but I have to be reminded as to whether I said that during my testimony.

Q. Oh, yes, you did.

A. During my testimony?

Q. Yes, yes.

A. Well, there was authorisation to seek a solution to bring the war with NATO to an end as soon as possible, but again we're talking about an authorisation.

Q. You said that everything --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, sorry to interrupt you. I want to go back to the answer given by the witness where he said he had authorisation from Mr. Dusan Mihajlovic and also authorisation from you. That's from you, Mr. Milosevic. I'd like to ask the witness: How did you get the authorisation from Mr. Milosevic? In what form?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Orally, during that first meeting that I mentioned, the meeting between our delegation and Mr. Milosevic in -- at the premises of the Presidency of Serbia. This was a working meeting and we presented our project of resolving the Kosovo problem to Mr. Milosevic in three stages that I already mentioned, three stages, first confidence building measures and then political engagement, Mr. Milosevic looked at that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... authorisation from him in the presence of others? ⁵¹⁰¹

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Mihajlovic was present and the other members of the delegation. Mr. Milosevic said explicitly, "That is all right, you can continue along those lines." This is clear authorisation. He did not put any objections to persons or --

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. So that was at a meeting with the delegation of Novo Demokratija. Did I understand you correctly?

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. This is what it says on page 3, at the very beginning of your written statement. "As a member of Novo Demokratija --"

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness have a copy of his statement. If he has one in front of him; if not, in the original if it is in the original.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, doesn't the witness know what he was saying? What does he need a copy of the statement for?

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, the -- he's entitled to have a copy of a statement which you're going to ask him questions on which is no less than 41 pages long. He's perfectly entitled to have a copy of that. Now, it's -- it's page --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... is that right?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 3, at the very beginning, it says: "As a member of Novo Demokratija and special advisor to Dusan Mihajlovic, the president of ND --" that is to say Novo Demokratija -- "on international relations in Kosovo." So he was involved in international ⁵¹⁰² relations and Kosovo. "I was chosen to conduct these discreet negotiations with the Kosovo Albanians. I received this authorisation directly from Milosevic at a meeting that I and Dusan Mihajlovic held with him in approximately 1995."

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is that what it says?

A. First and foremost, I still haven't received a copy of the statement. I beg your pardon.

JUDGE MAY: He must have one in his own language.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, you can confirm to him that I rightly quoted what I said in terms of his statement, because you have his statement in front of you. And let me proceed.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice -- Mr. Nice, have we got a copy of this?

MR. NICE: We'll get one in his own language. He does actually speak and read English to a reasonably high level or a high level. Here it comes, I think.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Mr. Tanic, you're being asked about the top of page 2 in the English, beginning: "As a member of the ND party and special advisor to Dusan Mihajlovic..." If you have that passage.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. I've found it.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. What's the question now, Mr. Milosevic?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. My question pertains to the previous answer given by Mr. Tanic, that I authorised him at the meeting held with the delegation of Novo ⁵¹⁰³ Demokratija that I had received. He described the composition of the delegation and where various issues were mentioned. And in the statement, he said that I authorised him at a meeting that he and Dusan Mihajlovic had with me.

So when were you telling the truth; a short while ago or when you made this statement?

A. The question is very unfair. I said the truth on both occasions. I'm not duty-bound to mention all the participants in the meeting. After all, the statement was made in its working version and what is truly valid is what I said when giving evidence here. So it's really unfair. After all, I could not deal with this for three years had I not had this authorisation.

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... just make sure that the transcript contains my comment, which it doesn't. Mr. Tanic, if a question is unfair, we will stop it. Now, the witness, the accused, rather, is entitled to put to you things which are in your statement. What he's not entitled to do is to misrepresent what you said in evidence.

Yes. What's the next question, Mr. Milosevic?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. A short while ago, you said that you had never stated that you were the chief negotiator.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And you, Mr. May, also said that the witness never stated that he was the chief negotiator.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ⁵¹⁰⁴

Q. That's why I ask you --

JUDGE MAY: In his evidence, he did not say that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. That's why I'm asking you to look at line 1 of the next paragraph on the same page, where it says: "I was the principal negotiator in these discreet negotiations." Full stop. Is that what is written down here or not? "I was the principal negotiator in these discreet negotiations." Full stop, that's the whole sentence. Didn't the witness a minute ago say that he --

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, the description while I was giving this written statement, which was of a working nature, is not the same thing as giving evidence in court. I gave a broader context so the Prosecution could understand the context involved. In that context, I was one of the driving forces of these negotiations because the president of my party and I advocated these negotiations with the Albanians the most and because I was the person who prepared the largest quantity of useful documents, and I dealt with this with two or three different sides and it is in that context that I used this.

And secondly, if we are going to talk about the English language, principal negotiator, main negotiator, whatever, I already said that these were political negotiations. This is a working version. Everything that belongs to this working version and that is taken out of context is quite unfair, all such questions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So, Mr. Tanic, what you're really saying is that ⁵¹⁰⁵ what you were one of the driving forces in the negotiations, not the principal negotiator.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right, from a formal and legal point of view, I was not a negotiator. That is not even in the written statement. It doesn't say in legal and formal terms. I was in the discreet negotiations.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And do you believe when I quote your statement verbatim, without any comment, where it says, "I was the principal negotiator in these discreet negotiations --"

JUDGE MAY: You've made the point. The witness has answered. Now, let's move on. You can comment to us in due course but not now.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So you were with Dusan Mihajlovic in my office. Not with the delegation, with Dusan Mihajlovic.

A. I explained during my answer that there were some other people. Please, again this is unfair. Again words are being put in my mouth.

Q. Please --

JUDGE KWON: Just a moment. Let me put to this witness. I read over your statement, Mr. Tanic. It may seem as if that there were only three of you - Mr. Milosevic, Mr. Mihajlovic, and you - and there you were given specifically for the negotiation, and now your version of the story is a little bit different. Why is that? Could you clarify that matter? ⁵¹⁰⁶

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will clarify that very gladly. The accused, Mr. Milosevic, is denying everything, starting from my very existence all the way up to my role. My position is that during my testimony before this Court, I'm going to say only things that can also be corroborated from two or three independent sources in addition. Mr. Mihajlovic did meet Mr. Milosevic many more times than I did, and he came to see me many times with very clear agreements, very clear authorisations. I do not want to talk about anything that cannot be confirmed from two or three independent additional sources. That is why my testimony in a formal sense is always more modest, whereas the written working version describes the broader context, but I'm not going to describe all of this during my testimony here, in order not to bring myself into a troublesome situation. I've had enough trouble as it's been.

JUDGE KWON: Just a moment. Let me ask one more question about the authorisation. Was the authorisation at the time was specifically for the negotiations with Albanians or was that only for the -- in general terms for the three-phase policy of New Democracy?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It related to the policy and to my participation. I can literally repeat Mr. Milosevic's words: "This is a good platform, continue that way." And later on, on several occasions, I had confirmation of this from Mr. Mihajlovic that at meetings where I was not present, that Mr. Milosevic and his associates agreed with this and that we can continue that way, and this was even mentioned in certain interviews, et cetera. I could not deal with this in public for three ⁵¹⁰⁷ years without having had an authorisation. Somebody could have asked me what I was doing.

JUDGE KWON: So it is true that there wasn't any specific mention about the specific negotiations at that time?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh, no. I'm sorry. Mr. Milosevic was quite clear. He said that the three parties of the ruling coalition should go for negotiations. This question was not mentioned in Dayton, that we have some kind of an obligation to work this question out internally, that it would only be the parties from the ruling coalition that would deal with this, first that the negotiations should be prepared in a discreet way and then if a general negotiating platform is adopted, then the participants in the negotiations would withdraw and then, of course, Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Rugova would come into the picture as persons who would sign the agreement. And if -- if there is no previous agreement that is reached, then it would not get up to that level. And this is typical political technique. This is not something that is any kind of Serb speciality. We wanted this tinderbox to be defused before it exploded, so that was the formulation.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Mr. Milosevic, continue.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Before whom?

JUDGE MAY: What's the question?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The question is: Before whom? You say this was a formulation before everyone, as far as I understood it. Now, who is the "everyone" in ⁵¹⁰⁸ the statement?

A. Well, Mr. Dusan Mihajlovic was present, but so were the other members of the delegation. So where's the problem there? It was specifically stated in my statement that we were talking about a delegation.

Q. Well, that's why I'm asking you. You say there was a delegation, but here it says that there was you and Dusan Mihajlovic and not a delegation. When were you telling the truth; then or now?

A. It's unfair. Once again, it is a verbal trick to abuse the free interpretation of the working version.

JUDGE MAY: No. If you -- if you cannot answer a question, say so. If it's unfair, you will be stopped. But you can be asked about your statement. It's a perfectly proper question.

Yes. Mr. Milosevic, can we move on from this?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And do you know precisely in connection with your testimony that Dusan Mihajlovic, last night, live on television, said that you, Mr. Tanic, could have only been an observer, like any other citizen of Serbia? And then he goes on to specify, "Well, at least if not like any other citizen of Serbia, then at least like those citizens of Serbia who are interested in political matters and nothing more than that." Do you know about that statement that he made last night that we were able to hear live via Television Belgrade?

A. Well, yes I do. I know about it. But then I could have seen this as an observer, what I'm saying now. ⁵¹⁰⁹

Q. Not as an observer of the event but "as an observer like any other citizen of Serbia who was interested in politics." That's what he said last night.

A. This statement by Mr. Mihajlovic does not correspond to the actual state of affairs at the time that these events took place, and this can be demonstrated and proved, but I don't think that that is the topic of --

Q. So you claim that he said an untruth yesterday; is that it?

JUDGE MAY: No need to comment. He's answered the question. Let's move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And as I can see that you saw the statement, watched it, did you hear him support the stand and position taken by Mr. May or, rather, his question addressed to Mr. Nice, that is to say whether testimony of this kind can be taken into account at all?

JUDGE MAY: No. That's not a matter for the witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the witness said that he watched it, watched the statement. So I'm asking you -- him whether he heard that being said as well.

All right.

JUDGE MAY: Just -- wait a moment. Make sure this goes down on the transcript, which doesn't always follow. What I said was it doesn't matter. Yes. Let's move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. While we're on this third page, yesterday in the less than 40 minutes that I had left, I cleared up these questions with you, ⁵¹¹⁰ that is to say how many times you actually met me, and then we arrived at the conclusion, with Mr. May's help, that this was between five and seven times, at receptions and the like. Receptions of delegations of Novo Demokratija in JUL. So we said that this was five to seven times. We took note of that. How, then, can you explain, bearing this in mind as a pure fact that was established yesterday, how, then, do you explain what it says at the beginning here of -- in the last paragraph on that same third page, to save time, some -- "I met him some 20 times on public occasions such as state receptions," et cetera. How do you explain that, then, when we observed yesterday and the day before that it was five to seven times and here you say some 20, approximately 20 times? That's what you say in your statement.

That is the beginning of the last paragraph on page 3.

A. First of all, you said you'd never seen me in my life, so thank you for recognising that you saw me at least five to seven times.

Q. No, no, no.

JUDGE MAY: Don't argue. The question -- the question is for the witness.

Mr. Tanic, in your statement, it says: "I met with him --" referring to the accused -- "approximately 20 times on public occasions such as state receptions."

Now, then, can you assist the Trial Chamber as to how that appears in the statement, whether that's accurate or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct, and I -- my testimony was based on what can be proved by individual witnesses, ⁵¹¹¹ otherwise, the statement is correct referring to a larger number of times on different occasions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please. Did we not establish yesterday that you claim that you saw me five to seven times?

JUDGE MAY: You have asked the question. The discrepancy has been put, and he's given his explanation. So there's no point putting the same question again.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. There's no point asking questions in which the witness himself brings himself into a contradiction. That is quite clear to me.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please. This is not fair. This is not fair. I have not brought myself into any kind of contradiction.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You say here, you state here in your oral statement, in your testimony with respect to your cooperation with the State Security Service, that everything that you did had to have an authorisation from me. Is that what you said? Had to have my authorisation.

A. Yes, and that is true for anybody dealing in sensitive issues, in the field of state and national interests of Serbia and Yugoslavia. It didn't apply to me separately, it is a working principle. Please.

Q. All right. And how come when you said later on that the service placed me under the -- under control, tapped my conversations, intercepted them and so on, do you consider that it had my authorisation to do so for what you say that the service did? Did it have my authorisation? ⁵¹¹²

A. In the winter of 1996, you attempted to cause civic unrest in Belgrade. From that time on, a certain number of people from the army, from the State Security Service monitored what you did, followed what you did because you wanted to create a civil war during the winter, during the demonstrations when you withdrew the police units and tried to provoke a clash between armed groups of demonstrators and the authorities and the opposition. From that time on, there was a certain - how shall I put it? - certain slight control. So you accused the top echelons of the security service and that a coup d'Etat was being prepared and that they were following your moves. So why do you make a problem for having accused him of doing so? They prevented the civil war that you wished to cause in Serbia in the winter of 1996. The army, the security service, et cetera.

JUDGE MAY: That's enough.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. As you've already broached that subject, how come people were armed on two sides without any incident breaking out? Nobody was killed, nobody was injured. How did -- how was that managed?

A. One of the demonstrators were killed -- was killed and then the army and the police, contrary to your instructions, set up a buffer zone and a corridor once again and that there are at least two public testimonies to that, but I know this from earlier on without these public testimonies. Without your knowledge, they set up a corridor again to prevent bloodshed. I think one demonstrator was certainly killed in Cikajubila Street [phoen] and perhaps another as well. ⁵¹¹³

Q. Mr. Tanic, that was the day when I held my speech on Trazija Square, isn't that right?

A. It was the day you organised a counter-rally of your people loyal to you to create clashes in Serbia.

Q. Well, how come, then, there weren't any?

A. Because the top echelons of the army and the police and the security services prevented you from doing so with the reformist politicians and afterwards suffered the consequences of that.

Q. Mr. Tanic, do you recall -- and this was seen by at least 300.000 people who were at that rally where I made my speech -- do you remember that throughout that mass of people from my office to the Moscow Hotel where there was a stage erected, I passed through those masses of people on foot? I walked there.

A. They were your -- people loyal to you and your supporters. That's why you were able to pass through this mass on foot.

Q. So I had several hundred thousand armed supporters, and wanted to create and cause a civil war, and I made this speech, which I think was a very nice speech, and then the masses dispersed. How can you construe things in that way?

A. You had about --

JUDGE MAY: This is of no assistance to the Trial Chamber. You're well away from the evidence. I know the witness introduced it. We have gone on long enough about it. Now, let's move on to another topic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You said you had the authorisation of the State Security Service ⁵¹¹⁴ as well, and here on page 3, in the second sentence of paragraph 2, right after the one in which you say that you were the principal negotiator, you say: "From my contacts with the SDB --" that is the state security service -- "and especially with Mijatovic and Stanisic --" so the chief of the State Security Service -- "I knew that the SDB did not systematically support anybody's efforts to negotiate with the Kosovo Albanians." Now, explain this to me, and my question is as follows: How come if the chief of the State Security Service, Mr. Stanisic, and the head of the Belgrade - you say he was chief of the Belgrade part of the security services; Stanisic was chief of the SDB of Serbia - now, if they told you and you understood that the SDB did not systematically support anybody's efforts to negotiate, how, then, could they authorise you to conduct those negotiations?

A. This is quite obviously a typing error, because the statement was given in English and, yes, the sentence is nonsensical as it stands. As far as the names are concerned, Mr. Mijatovic and the other name, I said loud and clear yesterday during my testimony -- that is to say I mentioned these names. All the other discrepancies refer to what I said and can be supported and others that cannot be supported. But the translation is obviously incorrect because the sentence has no meaning. It is nonsensical. The sense of the sentence is that there are no other solutions, no other negotiating efforts were supported except those in which you were and Monsignor Paglia and myself and the president of my party, and Dojcilo Maslovaric, Ratko Markovic and so on and so forth.

Q. All right. Never mind. We'll come to Paglia later on. So you're ⁵¹¹⁵ saying that these are typing errors, are they, what I'm asking you about? Typing errors in your statement; right?

JUDGE MAY: That's what he said.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Very well. Very good.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tanic, I'm not clear as to exactly what you say the sentence should read. What are you saying the sentence should in fact read to make it correct?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I read it out, it is not clear to me either. The exact version is as follows: That the State Security Service did not systematically support any other negotiating effort except the one that I was included in, I was involved in. That's what I know. Otherwise, this is no secret. Our State Security Service was included in all the negotiations because of the exceptionally sensitive national situation and state situation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I understand what you're saying it should read now. Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. You've now said that in 1996, December, there was this rally after which you said that I was being watched and monitored. The date is December 1996. We can check that date out. How, then, could you answer yesterday to a question from Mr. Nice when he asked you whether your work throughout this time was known to me? And you said -- your answer was, "Absolutely so, via the service, because the service had to inform me." Why did it have to inform me? If I was under its supervision, as you claim, according to you, from the end of ⁵¹¹⁶ 1996, why did it have to inform me then?

JUDGE MAY: Do you understand the question?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, I have understood the question, and I'll try and make my answer as concise as possible. First of all, I didn't say that you were under constant observation and surveillance but that you were subject to control from time to time. As far as incompatibility is concerned and to control your conduct and inform you regularly, there was nothing incompatible about that. You promised peace and as long as you strove for peace, everybody supported you. And why should you not be informed as to what was going on? It wasn't classical surveillance. It was a type of stepped-up control and supervision to see what you were doing, whether you wanted to bring about a new war, whether you were going to abide by the Dayton peace. This is no shame, this is something testified to by people from the army and politics and the state security services. In the papers, albeit.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Ah. So you're referring to the papers, are you?

A. No, I'm not referring to the papers, I'm just saying that I'm not the first one to have said that.

Q. All right. Very well.

JUDGE MAY: Judge Kwon has a question.

JUDGE KWON: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but before we go further. Mr. Tanic, when you answered the question regarding to the typing error just before, I noticed that you mentioned it as the statement was given in English. Is it true? ⁵¹¹⁷

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it was. I speak English, but it's not my mother tongue. So sometimes some of the finer points escape me. And of course, there are translators who translate it. So I didn't make a single written statement in my mother tongue, actually.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You said in your statement that with the English -- that you cooperated with the English service from the preparations of Dayton in 1993 onwards; is that right?

A. I said that there was a certain amount of working contact. Cooperation and working contact, those are two different concepts, particularly in this kind of work.

Q. But from 1993, is that right, that's what you said?

A. I said 1993, 1994, for the simple reason that my memory might have lapsed.

Q. Right. We can set the transcript back. If I'm quoting you, we don't have establish what you said. You said you cooperated with them from preparations for Dayton in 1993 onwards. Did you say that or did you not?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Or we can ask the Registrar to --

JUDGE MAY: Yes, he said that. From preparations for Dayton.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right, yes. ⁵¹¹⁸

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now do you know that in 1993, not even the Americans knew about Dayton?

A. I'm sorry. This is quite an unfair question. When I said that it was preparations for Dayton, I meant preparations for peace agreement. They didn't know, of course, that it would be held in Dayton. It could have been held in any other town. A peace agreement in Bosnia was being prepared since 1993 and Dayton was decided as the locality much later on.

Q. I'm not talking about Dayton in the geographic sense either but in the sense of a peace agreement, and do you know that in 1993, which is the year you quote for Dayton preparations, the Vance-Owen Plan was topical in fact and no Dayton at all? It was Vance-Owen, the Vance-Owen Plan.

A. Yes, the Vance-Owen Plan was topical, but it was an idea to hold a mass conference which would definitely put paid to all questions of Yugoslavia's disintegration and war.

Q. Please. The Vance-Owen Plan was an integral plan, a comprehensive plan and did not imply any further conference. It was signed in Athens in 1993, and was not accepted later on, that doesn't matter, that's not essential, let's not now go into that matter, but the Vance-Owen Plan was in 1993. And do you know that one year later, we had the European Union plan which the Serbs also accepted but was not accepted by the Muslims, and that fell through too? Do you therefore know that as regards these preparations which you call preparations for Dayton, there could have been no mention of that either in 1993 or in 1994?

A. First and foremost, I'm here -- ⁵¹¹⁹

JUDGE MAY: We'll wait and pause between question and answer. What is the point of this question, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the point of the question, like of all other questions, because this is a completely false witness, is that he cooperated with the intelligence service of Great Britain in preparing Dayton from 1993 onwards. That's his claim. And in 1993, we had the Vance-Owen Plan.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we know. You have repeated that several times. Now, what is the question for the witness? Is the question supposed to be this: He could not have been -- he could not have been cooperating for a peace agreement because there were no preparations at the time. Is that the point?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is the point, but the question reads as follows --

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer your point.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First and foremost, Great Britain was always interested in all peace solutions and always supported them, including Bosnia. Secondly, I'm not here to testify about Bosnia, I'm here to testify about Kosovo. Thirdly, I was not 100 per cent precise when I was talking about background. We're talking about the end of 1993, the beginning of 1994. I'm aware of the fact that I said 1993 but I'm referring to the end of 1993. There were peace preparations even before the period, before -- that Milosevic is referring to. And as for Dayton, there were preparations much earlier than what he has been saying and, if you really want to, I can give you some further details. ⁵¹²⁰

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Can I go on with my questions?

A. I'm not a witness for Bosnia and Dayton, this is just a background explanation.

Q. I mentioned Dayton because Mr. Tanic mentioned Dayton.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. It's time -- it's time for the adjournment. We will adjourn now for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.15 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.35 p.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Since in 1993, when you say that you cooperated with the British intelligence service, and from then onwards, there was no mention of Dayton or peace agreements, what was your cooperation all about then? What did it pertain to?

A. We have explained that this was a question of working contacts, not cooperation. Could I please note here cooperation once again because I spelled this out very precisely. And these were preparations for a peace agreement generally speaking. Of course, the town of Dayton was not mentioned at that stage yet. There were other issues brought up as well, but it was obvious that a broad international conference was needed that would simply be of a stronger nature than various particular agreements. However, I repeat, I'm not here to testify about Bosnia.

Q. Tell me, then, as for this cooperation with the British intelligence service, did you have authorisation from Dusan Mihajlovic ⁵¹²¹ about that as well?

A. No. No. And that was not cooperation. This was just contact and nothing else stemmed from that. No other activities stemmed from that. No other joint activities or anything. It was just an exchange of views. This was no act of cooperation, and I never used the word "cooperation." Please.

Q. I wrote down what you said, and it's also recorded on a tape in Belgrade and here, that you cooperated on the preparations of Dayton from 1993 onwards.

A. Well, end of 1993, beginning of 1994. I apologise to the Trial Chamber and to you. I'm sorry if I made a mistake. We're talking about a great many years. I can make a mistake. I gave a statement in English, and then after that, I testified only about things that I can prove from independent sources as well. And now you are trying to catch me in making minor errors rather than dwelling on the main points.

Q. These are only main points.

A. Well, first of all, I've proven that I've seen you and you claim that you've never seen me in your life.

Q. I did not say that we had seen me [as interpreted]. I said that yesterday you said that we met five or seven times and in the statement you wrote 20 times.

JUDGE MAY: We have been over that point. We're not returning to it now.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Since Milosevic [as interpreted] did not authorise you ⁵¹²² to cooperate with the British intelligence service, he therefore authorised you only to carry out discreet negotiations with Albanians; is that your claim?

A. I did not cooperate with the British intelligence service and I'm not going to answer a question that is unfair. Mr. Milosevic keeps repeating a formulation that is evocative of espionage and I know that that's the point he's trying to make.

JUDGE MAY: We will look at what was said. My note of the evidence given was that he had working contacts with intelligence services - the United Kingdom, Italy and Russia - in cooperation on analytical affairs. This work was known to all, including the accused. Does that represent the position, Mr. Tanic, or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, except that I spelled this out precisely, that this refers to the intelligence aspect of legal political issues such as peace agreements and the struggle against terrorism and negotiations with warring parties, an analysis of the victims.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Now, Mr. Milosevic, have you got a new point? Let's go on to that. On this topic by all means, but let us have a new point rather than arguing what the witness said before.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, since Mihajlovic did not authorise you for this cooperation, who authorised you for this cooperation with intelligence services?

A. It was not cooperation, it was working contacts. Please.

Q. All right. Who authorised you for that which you claim were working contacts? ⁵¹²³

A. That is not what I claim, that is the way it was. These were working contacts.

Q. All right. Who authorised you for what you say were working contacts?

A. For that which were working contacts, there was authorisation from the State Security Service.

Q. All right. Then I can conclude that on behalf of the State Security Service of Serbia, you had working contacts with the British intelligence service from 1993.

A. You cannot conclude that at all, Mr. Milosevic, not even with the assistance of science fiction. Please.

Q. That is just what you said just awhile ago.

A. No, way. I never said that, neither in my statement or in my testimony, not five minutes ago, not five hours ago. This is malicious construction on your part.

JUDGE MAY: What are you complaining of, Mr. Tanic? Is it that you say the misrepresentation is that it was on behalf of the State Security Service? Is that the point?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Well, it's been misrepresented. When you say "on behalf of," that infers other things.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We have the point. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. You say the State Security Service authorised you for something in relation to these working contacts. What for? ⁵¹²⁴

A. The service authorised this to the extent to which this assisted understanding between the two countries and also peace and integration processes in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.

Q. And at whose initiative was it you that was chosen for this? At the initiative at the State Security Service or at the initiative of the British intelligence service?

A. The question is unfair, and it goes beyond the context of my testimony, to the best of my understanding.

Q. It's not for you to say.

A. I said to the best of my understanding.

JUDGE MAY: The question is: Who chose you to do this work, if anybody chose you, or at whose initiative did you work this work?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The initiative came from both sides. It was mutual. As for political issues, they -- there is always initiative on both sides.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It had to do with your very own personality, coming from both sides; is that right?

A. Yes. Yes, that's quite obvious. It pertained to the questions I mentioned, legal political questions, and it was mutual. It was not an initiative, it was a mutual approval.

Q. You mean from a personal point of view, there was mutual consent that it should be you; right?

A. That it can be me too, Mr. Milosevic, because there were other people involved as well, probably persons who were closer associates of ⁵¹²⁵ yours.

Q. Who were these other people who cooperated with the British service?

A. I did not say cooperated with the British service. There were other people. There were other people as well. Who, with the knowledge of our state authorities, had contacts with foreign intelligence services in relation to legal political issues. I already said that the director of the CIA came to Belgrade on an official visit. This is no secret. Please. It is not a drama. These are legal political questions. I'm not talking about espionage. Nobody dealt in espionage.

Q. My only question was who were these other people? Just as you have this name Stanic, there are other people as well. What are their names?

A. My name is Tanic, please do not mispronounce it. And your head of state security had these contacts certainly with your knowledge. So it can be taken as you had had them too, Mr. Milosevic. He certainly did not secretly meet with the head of the CIA and then the newspapers found out. That is just one thing.

Q. All right. Let's go on. So Mihajlovic did not authorise you for that. He only authorised you for discreet negotiations with the Albanians; is that right? Did I understand you correctly?

A. Correct. Finally there's one thing we can agree upon.

Q. All right. In which capacity was it that he authorised you? As a member of the leadership or his special advisor or an official of Novo Demokratija or -- ⁵¹²⁶

A. As President of Novo Demokratija, he authorised me in my capacity as advisor to the President of Novo Demokratija and a member of the executive committee of Novo Demokratija at the very beginning and also a member of the presidential office of Novo Demokratija.

Q. All right. Could you please put this on the overhead projector. This is a record from Novo Demokratija or, rather, this is the admission paper of Mr. Tanic. This is a form of Novo Demokratija. At the beginning it says "Status," and there are three possibilities, A, founder, B, member, and C, sympathiser. It is the C that has a circle round it, that he's a sympathiser. He's not a member or a founder. Secondly, he signed this paper on the 18th of March, 1995, and this is his admission paper when he was admitted to Novo Demokratija. Please put this on the ELMO since Mr. Tanic said that he was a member of the leadership of the executive committee, a special advisor, that he was authorised by Mihajlovic. Please put this on the ELMO. Show it first to Mr. Tanic. Is that his admission paper?

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness see it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a photocopy of my admission paper. The signature corresponds to mine, but the status not. I'm going to ask the Court to request official papers from Novo Demokratija showing who members of the presidential office were and I kindly ask the Trial Chamber not to accept this document, even if Mr. Milosevic insists, if additional insight is not obtained into the records. So that means papers related to appointment, to appointments, to appointments to the presidential office and also a specific document that pertains to me. ⁵¹²⁷ Please. I never misrepresented myself, and this is a great insult.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So is there also a question related to education here? Does it say here that you are a university graduate? Did you deceive your colleagues at Novo Demokratija as well that you had a university degree? This is what it says here. Education, it says university degree.

A. I did say that I studied at two different schools at the university. There is no contest.

Q. However, to the best of my understanding, you never got a degree from any university. Education implies the degree you get. What school you finish, not schools that you attended to.

A. You could not understand anything because I did not answer that question. I refused to answer that question because it's a private question, and I am not an expert witness here so that I would have to prove the level of my university education.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. So I'm asking Mr. May, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Kwon now whether the witness should answer his question related to his education.

JUDGE MAY: He has declined to do so. It's a matter which goes to his credibility. It's a matter which the Trial Chamber will weigh when considering the credibility of his evidence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us hear what is on this document apart from education; in particular, the question of status.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. The status is "sympathiser."

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can say something straight away, ⁵¹²⁸ and that is that either this is a forgery or a misunderstanding. And let me explain why. Because in addition to that, it says the number -- the record number is 39. Now, I don't think that the number of a party sympathisers is 39. They're usually hundreds of thousands. And the registration number indicates the narrow body of people that make up the leadership. Our executive board had 45 or 50 members and this is 39.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let me remind you that --

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We're going to ask the document to be put on the ELMO and for the interpreters to try and interpret it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I should like to draw your attention to --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I'm very interested in hearing the details, the data on this document, and if the interpreters can translate it, we'd be very grateful. The answers given to each query. Are the interpreters in a position to do that for us?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes. Perhaps somebody could read the actual words out for us.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I read them out?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In the upper left-hand corner it says, "Status." Then A is "Osnivac," [phoen] meaning founder, B is member, and C - or V in the Cyrillic - is sympathiser. And it is the ⁵¹²⁹ third, the word sympathiser that has been circled, which means the third variation, the third option.

In the upper right-hand corner, it says Palilola [phoen], which is the municipality. So the number of this application form for admission refers to one particular municipality. And there are 187 municipalities in Serbia. Therefore, it is not the 39th member of the Novo Demokratija party but it is the 39th who joined as a sympathiser in the Palilola municipality.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not say I was the 39th member at all.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. We are dealing with the document and nothing else. Just read the document, if you would.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Next we have the following titles: It says Movement, Recommendation, Name and Surname. That has been filled in and it says Ratomir Tanic. The address, it seems to be Kakovska Street [phoen], Belgrade, although it's a little bit illegible. The telephone not important. The personal identification number hasn't been entered. The date and place of birth --

THE INTERPRETER: Could we have it moved up a bit, please? Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It says Marital Status, not filled in. Education, it says university. Profession is empty, Job or Profession, empty; Telephone/fax, empty; Hobbies, empty; Interests in the movement, empty; Region in which you would like to work, empty; Changes, empty. The date is the 18th of March, 1995 and a signature in his own ⁵¹³⁰ hand in the bottom right-hand corner. That's all it says on this document.

Let me just add to this from the papers, the denial published by Novo Demokratija where it says, "Ratomir Tanic is not a member but a sympathiser of the Novo Demokratija party, but as --"

JUDGE MAY: We're going to stop comment. We're going to stop comment. We're dealing with examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. The document will be exhibited. Defence Exhibit.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I provide some different kind of evidence and legal evidential material on what everything Mr. Milosevic -- everything that Mr. Milosevic has is his own private correspondence and I'm not interested in it. It means he received it from the Novo Demokratija party.

JUDGE MAY: You can deal with that document. If you want to say something about it, you can.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I continue with my questions?

JUDGE MAY: No. If he wants to say something about the document, he can. It's been put to him, and if he wants to give some sort of explanation, he can.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All I wish to say is that the document does not correspond to my actual status in the Novo Demokratija, and I suggest that, through legal channels, the Tribunal be provided with ⁵¹³¹ information as to my real status within the Novo Demokratija party plus some ten -- tens of interviews that were given as advisor to the President of Novo Demokratija over a three-year period. So I couldn't be just a sympathiser. But legitimate legal documents of Novo Demokratija, and I don't know why Mr. Milosevic is involving my former party in all this.

JUDGE MAY: It doesn't matter what you feel. Can we have an exhibit number?

THE REGISTRAR: This will be Defence Exhibit D10.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. While you were performing what you define, and I hope that I won't be wrong when I say political and intelligence research for these services that we mentioned, you received some form of assistance, material assistance; is that right?

A. No. May I have the interpretation, please? I'm not getting it. My answer is no, that's not correct.

Q. Did you perform political and intelligence research? Is that true?

A. Yes, but at my own expense. And I did scientific research for my own party but at my own expense up until 1999, that is to say until the war.

Q. All right. And can you tell me what kind of professional qualifications you have for you to be able to engage in research work?

A. Now, "research work" has been defined here in the general sense, but the quality of research work is determined by the work itself, not ⁵¹³² whether somebody has some qualifications or not. I didn't wish to speak about that anyway and it's not work for the faculty. I wasn't a university professor for me to have, to have this. Research is a general concept, and you too use it in your terminology. You have to research into this problem and that problem and so on.

Q. Well, difficult, but you weren't able to know that because we never saw each other.

A. May it be entered into the LiveNote that the accused --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

JUDGE MAY: We are not going to have this interruption one of the other. You will ask questions and answers and leave a pause between them. There will not be interruption if this examination is to continue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. May I continue now?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Yesterday, you were asked by Mr. Nice at what level and how frequently you had meetings in the State Security Service, and in response to that question, your answer was two to three times a week. Is that right?

A. I said sometimes two or three times a week, sometimes once in two weeks, and depending on circumstances, this would vary. You can check it out. I didn't say that it was always two to three times a week. Sometimes in times of crisis, it was.

Q. So two or three times a week, contacts. You had, therefore, contacts more frequently than the Minister for the Interior with the State Security Service, it would appear. ⁵¹³³

A. The Minister of the Interior, by virtue of his office, has daily contacts, and I mentioned just in times of crisis when these contacts would be stepped up. People try to do something useful, Mr. Milosevic, quite simply.

Q. All right. Now, as far as level is concerned, we've cleared up this two or three times a week as far as frequency is concerned, the frequency of the contacts. Now let's look at the level of those contacts. Your answer was leadership level; is that right?

A. We have not cleared up the frequency issue, two or three times a week, because Mr. Milosevic has implied that I said all the time two or three times a week.

JUDGE MAY: No. Let us not argue about that. Let's go on to the next question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And the next question was the following: First, at what level? Was I right in understanding that you said the leadership level of the State Security Service?

A. Yes, yes. You understood that quite correctly.

Q. All right. Let me just find this in your statement. Yes. All right. You therefore stated that, in connection with the creation of a coalition of the government of national unity, you talked about these questions, Kosovo issues, twice with Mihajlovic and five or six times with the SDB, the State Security Service. So the coalition had something to do with solutions to the Kosovo question. That's what you say.

A. Could you give me the page, please? I'm not able to follow. ⁵¹³⁴

Q. I'm referring to what you said in your oral testimony.

A. When did I say this orally?

Q. You said this orally in your testimony. You said that one of the subjects of the formation of a coalition was the Kosovo question and that you discussed this twice with Mihajlovic and five or six times with the SDB, the State Security Service. You said that in your oral testimony.

A. I do apologise, but --

Q. Well, you have it in the LiveNote, on the transcript.

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop this because of the argument that's going on.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We're not going to continue on this topic. You'll have to move on to another one.

Mr. Milosevic, repetition, you've been criticised before. Don't repeat.

Mr. Tanic, would you remember not to argue with the accused. You're giving evidence and not in some private argument with him. Would you therefore always leave a period after the question to allow interpretation to take place.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic, go on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You said yesterday, in connection with a question from the Prosecutor as to the formula on the South Tyrol model, that you were not an advocate of that South Tyrol idea but it was Ratko Markovic.

A. I said that that platform was elaborated by Mr. Predrag Simic from ⁵¹³⁵ the Institute for International Politics and Economics. He was the director. And that Mr. Ratko Markovic also supported it in a sense. I said that I wasn't very thrilled with that platform because it was far too costly and Belgrade didn't have that much money. The autonomy of South Tyrol is a very costly idea. This is an additional explanation that I'm making here today.

Q. All right. How, then, in respect of your explanation, can we interpret your statement on page 5, paragraph 2, if you count the one from the previous page, and in that paragraph you say: "Second, my ideas were adopted by individuals close to Milosevic." Full stop. "For example, Ratko Markovic, Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Serbia, began, based on my suggestions, discussing a South Tyrol model for autonomy in Kosovo."

A. You asked me or, rather, Mr. Nice, the Prosecutor, asked me what my opinion was of South Tyrol, and I said that I wasn't too thrilled with the idea. And even publicly, I advocated that kind of autonomy on several occasions, like I said in the statement, for the simple reason that at that time, it was the most acceptable type of model and platform where we could see eye-to-eye with the Albanian side. And let me give a more detailed explanation.

The autonomy of South Tyrol is the ultimate status, refers to the ultimate status of Kosovo. And at the time, we had to find the least common, lowest common denominator for us to be able to start negotiations with the Albanians. So it is one thing what I privately thought myself and another thing what I had to do for political -- out of political ⁵¹³⁶ necessity.

Q. So you now say that, despite your private opinion, you made suggestions because you say, "On the basis of my suggestions, Ratko Markovic started discussing a South Tyrol model for autonomy in Kosovo." So he did that based on your suggestions which were contrary to your own convictions. That was when he started beginning to talk about the South Tyrol model.

A. Well, personal and political convictions differ. I entered into dialogue with the Albanians, although I wasn't too thrilled about them. So sometimes you have to do this for political interests. You have to do something that you're not very sure of privately speaking, but you say, "Well, let's go ahead with the dialogue," and you start one.

Q. The second stage, you say, is the reintegration of Kosovo Albanians into the political life of Serbia and Yugoslavia; is that right?

A. Yes, yes, yes.

Q. All right. And who took part, in addition to Deputy Prime Minister Ratko Markovic, in those talks together with you?

A. I said that this was a political process which lasted three years, perhaps even longer. And in that process, Mr. Dojcilo Maslovaric took part, Mr. Ratko Markovic, Mr. Ratomir Vico, Mr. Percevic, Mr. Dusan Mihajlovic, myself, and a number of intellectuals who were linked to these three parties. And in the broadest possible scope, of course, free thinking intellectuals as well.

There were probably some other people who took part, because, quite simply, it was a group activity which lasted over a long period of ⁵¹³⁷ time. It was not just one negotiation, it was preparations for negotiations that went on for at least three years or, rather, two and a half to three years, thereabouts.

Q. You mentioned Dojcilo Maslovaric as representative in the Vatican, the Holy See; is that right?

A. He was later appointed the Yugoslav ambassador to the Vatican. Otherwise, he was a member of JUL, and he was there at the negotiations authorised by JUL. At least, that's what he said.

Q. And where did you cooperate with Maslovaric most; in Belgrade, in Rome, or in Pristina?

A. I never said that we cooperated. I said that this was a group of people that did one and the same job. Even in the statement that was given in the English language and under much freer circumstances, I never represented this as a group of people that always sat together. They were the most different type of contacts but simply this was the group that work on these matters.

Q. All right. And tell me now, in relation to which questions was it that my wife and Professor Ratko Markovic cooperated? Because that was your claim.

A. Would you please be so kind as to tell me which page or where I should look for this? Are you referring to the statement or are you referring to my testimony?

Q. Well, for example, page 3, paragraph 2, towards the end, when you talk about Markovic and Maslovaric and you, that you were all working together, you say - that is the third line from the bottom of that ⁵¹³⁸ paragraph - it says, "Both --" you're referring to Maslovaric and Markovic - "are closer to Milosevic and his wife Mira Markovic than I am." So I'm asking you, what did they cooperate on? On which matters did my wife and Ratko Markovic cooperate?

A. First of all, you can see that, quite sincerely, I do not represent myself to be your associate, and I'm very glad that you mentioned that and that it says so in my statement, not only during my testimony. And I think that the two of them were close either to you or to her. I did not specify that Dojcilo Maslovaric was close to your wife as president of the directorate of the JUL party, and Ratko Markovic was closer to you, of course.

Q. Did you attend any one of their meetings? I mean meetings between my wife and one of them.

A. I attended meetings related to -- or, rather, a meeting between your wife and international representatives of Kosovo. Not your wife. Ratko Markovic and Dojcilo Maslovaric. I attended some meetings together with Mr. Ratko Markovic, but I did not interfere in any way in meetings between Ratko Markovic and your wife nor did I ever say that.

Q. Now you're claiming that my wife had meetings with Ratko Markovic, or did I misunderstand you?

A. You misunderstood me. I said that these two men were closer to you and your wife than I was. So I said this quite fairly, that I was not the main person around, as you keep telling me that I have been saying.

Q. I am not putting that to you, that I made it up. It says here. This is what you wrote down in your own statement. "I was the principal ⁵¹³⁹ negotiator." That's what you said. That's what you wrote down here. How can you say that it was me?

JUDGE MAY: We have now been over that. Let's move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just had to deal with that, what he said. This is quite unequivocal. He put it quite unequivocally, so I'm not the one who's saying it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And how many times did you come to the JUL premises anyway?

A. At least a few times.

Q. How come you don't know, then, that on the first floor in the street Djura Djakovica, there is not any kind of salon or a parlor, there's only an office?

A. Excuse me, but where is there -- where is any reference made to the first floor? And usually these rooms, these conference rooms are downstairs, especially because this is a typical villa.

Q. That's what it says, but let's not look for it now. This is a statement you made. It's in the transcript. So if you say that you did not make it, that's that.

A. Well, a conference room cannot be upstairs, but there are a few steps from the entrance. It's only four or five steps. I mean, it's not upstairs really.

Q. All right. In order to enter the ground floor from the garden, you say that there are four or five steps; right?

A. The last time I was there was a number of years ago. And of course if I have to describe the villa, it's easier for me to draw it, ⁵¹⁴⁰ with the permission of the Trial Chamber, that is.

Q. But then you would have to know that, from the garden, you have to climb up some steep steps in order to enter the ground floor.

A. Yes. But, Mr. Milosevic, it's not as high as an additional floor is. Perhaps just an extra landing.

Q. Well, yes, yes, but let's not go into all of that. Don't you tell me about it.

When you say that I often had meetings at the JUL premises, tell me the name of at least one person that I received there.

A. I said that you often used receptions hosted by JUL for having meetings of your own during these receptions, and often you would have dinner after these receptions in a special room. If a working dinner is not an opportunity to meet your associates, I don't know what is but this is the narrowest circle of your associates.

Q. That is untrue as well. But do you know that at such dinners there are at least about 30 people present, sometimes even more than that? And also that these dinners are hosted by the host, not me? That is to say, people coming from different structures.

A. Mr. Milosevic, let's not deal with luncheons, dinners, stairs, steps, whatever.

Q. You're the one who started it, not me.

A. I'm sorry, but you're the one who asked me about the steps and stairs.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Tanic, just answer the questions. Mr. Milosevic, let's move on. ⁵¹⁴¹

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I want to hear the name of at least one person that I received at the JUL premises.

JUDGE MAY: He's given his answer. Let's move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, at JUL receptions, Mr. Tanic - just give me a yes or no answer - I was a guest there. So then it's not that I received these 1.000 or 1.500 people. I was a guest, like the rest of them were. And since you claim that I received persons at JUL premises, I'm telling you, give me the name of at least one person whom I received at the JUL premises.

A. Should I give an answer to this question who the people are who had dinners and working meeting with Mr. Milosevic and that can be considered as Mr. Milosevic having received them, although he was a guest there too. I did not even want to refer to the fact that Ms. Markovic is his wife, because I don't want to discuss any personal matters, either my own or Mr. Milosevic's. And of course, under such circumstances --

JUDGE MAY: Let's move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me, how could we have discreet meetings if, as you say, they were held at the MPs' club?

A. I did not repeat that part of my statement during my testimony. I have already said that I'm saying during my testimony only those things that can be additionally proven from independent sources.

Q. Did I ever receive you at the White Palace, Beli Dvor? ⁵¹⁴²

A. As far as I know, no.

Q. Do you know that I never received anyone at the JUL premises or at the club for members of parliament?

JUDGE MAY: We've been over this. There's no point going on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know that I held all my meetings at the place where I worked? That is to say, at Beli Dvor, the White Palace?

A. I'm sorry, but you were not always the President of Yugoslavia. For a while you were the President of Serbia also, and then you did not use the White Palace, you used the Presidency of Serbia.

Q. I'm referring to when I was President of Yugoslavia, and also when I was President of Serbia, again I used my own office.

JUDGE MAY: We've heard evidence about all this. The witness has said what he has. Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. You claim that during some reception, I singled you out and had a conversation with you. Is that what you're saying?

A. Well, may I just say this now? I've seen this page now, the one that Mr. Milosevic referred to. It says the JUL offices here, so it's probably a problem with translation. Here it says the JUL offices or the JUL headquarters rather than the JUL premises.

As for the other question, well, yes, yes. Usually you sort of single out the person that you are going to talk to. I'm not trying to say that you run into the cellar or something like that, but you sort of are separated from other people for a longer or shorter period of time, ⁵¹⁴³ depending on how long you're talking to people.

Q. Since this was not my custom, can you tell me that I singled one individual out and stood separately with that individual and talked to this individual?

JUDGE MAY: He's answered the question. Let's move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It was my understanding, on the basis of what you said, that you regularly submitted reports on your work to the leadership of the state security but also to the head of your party, Dusan Mihajlovic. Did I understand that correctly?

A. You did understand it correctly, provided that the wording implies that they were aware of the results of my work. Sometimes it is a report, sometimes it's not a report. You see, notes can be made in the form of proposals, reports, in five or six different ways, but they were always accurately informed as to what I was doing and what we were doing, and it was always the same kind of information that was provided.

Q. How do you know?

A. Well, because I participated in that, Mr. Milosevic. If I informed someone, then I imagine I should know that I informed them.

Q. Oh. Are you saying that you informed me personally, eye-to-eye?

A. Well, you know what? The first meeting that I mentioned to you when the platform was presented to you, of course I informed you eye-to-eye. Of course we were not sitting in the cellar or in the bathroom or whatever. I am referring to the meeting when the platform was ⁵¹⁴⁴ presented and when it was discussed. It was not only that that was discussed. Collective security in the Balkans was discussed and other questions. So I'm referring to that first meeting.

Q. Oh. So you claim that when I received the delegation of Novo Demokratija, that was that; right?

A. That is one of the examples. You see, it can be proven. This is an example I used to illustrate this.

Q. All right. Well, then, show it. Prove it, if you can.

A. I said I can prove it.

Q. Well, prove it, if you can prove it.

JUDGE MAY: No. Get on with the cross-examination.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Did I understand this correctly? Because you only partially answered my questions. You reported to the leadership of the state security and also to the head of your party, Dusan Mihajlovic. I understood you correctly on that one; is that right?

A. No, you did not understand me right. I said that they were informed. Sometimes these were reports. Sometimes this was communication. Sometimes it was a different form of providing information, because "report" seems to imply being an informer and especially as far as the state security is concerned. That's the way it's looked upon in our country.

Q. Forget about that. Did I understand you correctly that you were reporting to the leadership of the state security and to the head of your party, Dusan Mihajlovic? ⁵¹⁴⁵

A. Yes. Yes, in different forms. In different forms. Not always in writing, of course.

Q. All right. To both. Does that mean that Dusan Mihajlovic was also an associate of the State Security Service?

A. Is that a question or a statement?

Q. No, no. It's a question. I put it very nicely. Does that mean that Dusan Mihajlovic was an associate of the state security?

A. I'm not here to testify about Mr. Dusan Mihajlovic or is his status the subject of any kind of debate. Nobody was an associate. Dusan Mihajlovic was president of one of the ruling parties until 1997, until he left the coalition, because you violated the agreement and because of the problems that you started to make.

JUDGE MAY: No. Next question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. If he was not an associate of the state security, as that is how I understand your answer, why did you submit parallel reports to him as you did to the state security?

A. You cannot understand from my answer that he was not an associate of the state security. I didn't say yes, I didn't say no. However, I said that anybody in the capacity of one of the heads of one of the leading parties --

JUDGE MAY: The question is: Why did you submit reports parallel to both him and the state security? That is the question.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because part of the question had to do strictly with the security component and it's the State Security ⁵¹⁴⁶ Service that is in charge of that. They were supposed to assess whether that does exist or does not exist as a problem. It's not any politician who should do that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. If he was not an associate too, why did he have to be aware of the information that you were giving to the State Security Service?

A. Because I did not hide that. These were legal political issues and their security component. There is no need for you to hide something that is part of regular work.

Q. Did people from the state security know that you were providing information simultaneously to someone else as well?

A. I would kindly ask for the question to be rephrased so I can understand it.

Q. You want me to put the question to you again; is that right?

A. To rephrase it, because I don't understand it.

Q. Were people from the State Security Service aware of the fact that you were providing this information at the same time to somebody else as well?

A. The political part of the information, yes. There is no contest about that, because as for the political issues involved, there are several strata within them.

Q. So can I understand this to mean that they did know that you were giving information to someone else as well?

A. The way you have put it, no, that's not the way I had put it. I was quite specific. They were aware of the political part of this ⁵¹⁴⁷ information, that it was being provided to someone else too, because I was, first and foremost, a politician.

Q. All right. And what was it that you were doing that was so important that I should be informed daily as to your work? I wasn't informed -- I didn't inform myself on the work of any institution like that, even MUP, the foreign affairs ministry, the General Staff, and so on, daily. I didn't do that.

A. Is that on a page of my statement or what?

Q. Well, you said this.

A. I said that on a daily basis, you had contacts with the State Security Service and quite certainly you were informed frequently about my own work too, because some questions were such that what we did, I was able to recognise in what you were doing, and I received information as well that you had been informed about it.

Q. And who gave you that information?

A. From the leadership of the State Security Service. You know, the people who do this don't hold it in a drawer of their desk, especially when you're talking about Kosovo and other vital questions.

Q. So that means that they informed you that they were supplying me with information that you were supplying them with; is that it?

A. Mr. Milosevic, this is routine techniques in all countries all over the world as well as in Serbia and Yugoslavia.

Q. Well, just because it is routine technique and because you say that you are acquainted with the rules of service, do you know that you don't inform as to whom you're distributing information to that was ⁵¹⁴⁸ amassed concerning a member, for example?

A. Yes. When we're dealing with a large number of individuals. But when they are individuals that have to make decisions on the basis of that and when you recognise in the work of those individuals what you had spent doing ten days previously, then it is obvious. For example, me for confidence building measures, for example.

Q. What confidence building measures?

A. Well, I'm taking that as an example to illustrate to this Court. You didn't mention confidence building measures before I -- before this was placed on the table before me and others as a step forward in our negotiations with the Albanians. And then you started mentioning this and applying it. To the great satisfaction of one and all, you concluded this confidence building -- this set of confidence building measures by the agreement on education. And then I put it into practice. But there are no secrets. What you're talking about, the secrets you're talking about refer to espionage and none of us dealt in that.

Q. So do you claim that you knew about the education agreement before it was signed and published in the papers on the 1st of September, 1996? Is that it?

A. Of course. I even took part, in a way, in previous preparations for that. And later on, it came into your hands and Mr. Paglia's hands, Mr. Rugova's hands and Ratko Markovic's hands. Of course I was informed. How would I not be? Because it was on the basis of our recommendations that this confidence building set of measures was devised.

Q. Well, I'm asking you because, up to the present day, I had ⁵¹⁴⁹ believed that this was due to Mr. Paglia as a senior member of the humanitarian community of the Sant' Egidio community and that he was a humanitarian and Christian man and that he did this independently. I didn't know he did that at your initiative.

So you say that Paglia did this at your initiative, do you?

A. No. I didn't say that Monsignor Paglia did this at my initiative, but together with the Italian Ambassador, Francesco Sconi [phoen], and together with myself and the president of my party, Mr. Dusan Mihajlovic, and even together with Vuk Draskovic, he took part in some negotiations, two or three talks with Dojcilo Maslovaric as well, where there was an exchange of views as to what could be done to build confidence and how to start boosting confidence. And he had a similar initiative. You never have the initiative of one man in politics. What I said about myself I said about myself because I am here to testify, but otherwise this implies that there is always an exchange of views in politics, and I saw Mr. Paglia on several occasions.

Q. Just be brief, please; shorter answers, please. Does that mean that you claim you took part in the work of -- Don Vincenzo Paglia's work before the agreement appeared in public on education that was signed by myself and Rugova?

A. Absolutely so. And Don Vincenzo Paglia, in the meantime, became a Bishop and we saw each other quite recently, relatively speaking.

Q. All I wanted to do was to ascertain that. So you say that before we signed the education agreement, you yourself were included, involved, together with Don Vincenzo Paglia, in the activities to prepare the ⁵¹⁵⁰ agreement on education, to pave the way for the education agreement.

A. Yes. And with some other people of goodwill. Some of them were your associates, some of them were foreign diplomats; this is no secret.

Q. But he claimed it was, you see. So I hope that we'll be able to clear that matter up too. And do you know where that agreement was written, was compiled? If you know everything about it, do you know where it was written?

A. Don Vincenzo Paglia kept the agreement as a secret, not the preparations of the agreement, so let's not confuse the two. Later on, when the agreement was prepared in principle, they went on to prepare it in more concrete terms. Mr. Ratko Markovic went to Rome in the formal and legal sense, who had firmer authorisation. I think that Mr. Maslovaric took part in the agreement, and then the agreement was taken to Mr. Rugova to be signed in Pristina, and then it was brought to you for you to sign. So after Rugova signed it, you did. The only thing you did was to avoid the fact that Monsignor Paglia should appear at some joint reception to do away with this side altogether. So to all practical intents and purposes, Mr. Paglia took the agreement to Mr. Rugova, Rugova signed it, it was brought to you, you signed it, and then Mr. Paglia didn't appear there any more.

So he kept it in secret, he kept it confidential, not because nobody else took part but to save face for official Belgrade and for Rugova and you to be the main actors, and you were the main two, the principal two people.

Q. Please. Are you conscious of the fact that he could not appear ⁵¹⁵¹ simultaneously in Pristina and Belgrade as the agreement was signed -- Rugova signed it in Pristina and I signed it later on that same day in Belgrade? Are you aware of that?

A. Well, I wasn't saying where Mr. Monsignor Paglia was. Quite obviously from your question, I know that it was signed first in Pristina and then in Belgrade, and we have both confirmed that I know the details with respect to the technique in which the document was signed, although I needn't have known because I took part in its preparation and not in its signing and writing.

Q. You said a moment ago that the intention for him not to appear was that his participation should be avoided so that the public should not be made aware of his participation in the matter, that it should remain between us, the two main people, Rugova and myself, without seeing his participation in it all publicly. Is that right?

A. We must be very precise there. It was your wish not to have the third party's participation obvious, because this was the third side, third element. But in preparation for the agreement here and there, you would allow this, and this was the case with other agreements too. You allowed Monsignor Paglia to appear here and there and to pave the way in public for it to go ahead.

Q. All right. As you're acquainted with the agreement that Rugova and myself signed, may I remind you that it says in the agreement that the two of us extend our gratitude to our mutual friends from the humanitarian community of Sant' Egidio for their contribution to bringing about the agreement. Are you aware of that? Do you know about that? ⁵¹⁵²

A. Of course I know about that, of course. But you didn't want him to be physically present. You extended your gratitude to Holbrooke and Ivor Robertson and so on. You were friends with them and had quarrels with them but you never wanted anybody, any third party to be physically present, otherwise your history of good and bad relations with many people is common knowledge and common public knowledge, and that is nothing strange.

Q. Mr. Tanic, please, I am here to cross-examine you with respect to your statement. You said -- and testimony. You said a moment ago that he was not present because --

JUDGE MAY: We've exhausted this topic. Let's move on to something else.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It's easy to check that out anyway, because he's an honest man. Now, why -- why do you consider, or did you consider, or do you consider that Serbia and the Serbian people would share your opinion about the fact that the Albanians should be given the role of being the Piedmont of southern Europe?

A. I don't know that I had that kind of opinion. Perhaps I might have let slip something like that here or there. But otherwise, my opinion as to the contents of the agreement stemmed from what was decided upon within the ruling coalition; formally, informally, at whatever level you like.

Q. Let me read out on page 5, the end of the third paragraph from the ⁵¹⁵³ bottom, page 5 of your statement, in which you claim that in this approach for autonomy, the model of the South Tyrol was used. My thinking behind this proposal, and which informed my negotiation with the Kosovo Albanians, was to give them what they wanted most, which was to be the Piedmont of southern Europe, so that they would forget about rebellion. The objective was to come up with a framework for agreement on a solution to the crisis in Kosovo that the Serbian government would sign later. Et cetera. Next paragraph.

So you say: "My thinking behind this proposal was that they should be allowed to be the Piedmont of southern Europe." So that that is what should be given them in order to avoid their bestiality.

A. Well, quite obviously there's a typing error. And nobody can be the Piedmont of southern Europe. There can only be a Piedmont in southern Europe. And it was my thinking that we should give them what they wanted to have them refrain and forget about rebellion. I think that is quite proper, quite proper thinking. And if I said or used the term the Piedmont of southern Europe, I never defended that publicly, and the statement given in English, one can describe something sometimes but it is quite clearly stated they should be given something to forget about their rebellion and I think that was quite a proper stand which was supported by the Serbs as well.

Q. Now, as you keep using the term "colloquial," what do you think "colloquial" means?

A. Well, "colloquial" means something when somebody uses ordinary everyday speech to describe a phenomenon or concept which in its working ⁵¹⁵⁴ version is described more precisely.

Q. All right. Now, as you say you're well-versed in the Kosovo Albanian circumstances, how do you claim that their rebellion could be so destructive that their alternative would be their Piedmont position in southern Europe, no more no less, but you have the Greeks there, the Bulgarians, the Romanians, and all the others.

JUDGE MAY: Time has now run out, in fact, this being a lengthy question.

Mr. Milosevic, this cross-examination will continue on Tuesday of next week, but your time will be limited, and you should prepare on the basis that you will have another hour and a half. So during that time, any questions you want to ask, you must ask.

Mr. Tanic, would you be back, please, at 9.00 on Tuesday.

JUDGE KWON: Before we adjourn, can we take a look at the book named Fire and Flood? Who is keeping this book?

Mr. Milosevic, do you have the book with you now?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I haven't got it with me.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. The microphone is off.

JUDGE MAY: Microphone. Well, in any event, we'll have that book. Yes.

MR. NICE: I was simply saying I think it was provided to the accused yesterday, and it looks as though he may have inadvertently taken it with him and --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I received it yesterday, but I can't carry all these papers about in my bag. I didn't know that I had to ⁵¹⁵⁵ give it back.

JUDGE MAY: Let us have it back sometime.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 21st day of May, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.