Milosevic Transcript 2002-09-30

¹⁰⁴⁰⁴

Monday, 30 September 2002

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, outstanding from last week is the issue of the intercept. You asked us to deal with it, I think, today. Can I propose the following way of dealing with it, I hope shortly: Arguments about admissibility of intercept in this Tribunal typically -- typically contain two component parts to them: First, the issue of whether there is any illegality according to the domestic law of the country where the intercept was made that could justify its exclusion from evidence; second, whether there's any issue of authenticity that could justify the exclusion of the intercept.

In this case, the intercept which is the subject of the evidence identified at paragraph 48 of the summary does give rise to no issues of authenticity because the intercept is between -- is of a conversation between the witness and one other, Karadzic, and the witness is in a position to identify both voices and the conversation itself. That's probably dispositive of any argument, and that may be the view of others in court today.

Even if it isn't and we have to go back to the first issue of legality to which sometimes adjoined arguments arising from conventions on human rights generally, it's worth observing the following as a preamble: ¹⁰⁴⁰⁵ There can be no question of invasion of privacy here, first because it is the witness himself who is one of the participants in the conversation, and he makes no point on privacy, the other party being a fugitive from justice, Radovan Karadzic, indicted here and failing to attend. That leaves outstanding as the only conceivable argument, a pure legality argument, I understand that which the accused raised last week. Let me make it plain I take no issue with the accused raising the issue late because he had only recent notice of these matters. Nevertheless, there is no substance in any argument of illegality, and the question is how do I make that point? How, if necessary, and at what stage in these proceedings should the matter be explored in detail? It happens by chance that the same Chamber is seized of another case in which the identical point has been raised and in which there has been a very recent filing which is itself public although its annexures are confidential. That's a public filing in the Krajisnik/Plavsic case dated the 27th of September, and so far as material, I read simply from paragraph 10 of that filing of the Prosecution which sets out the following: "On the 23rd of August of 1991, the SDB made a further application to the SRBH Minister for Internal Affairs to intercept the telephone and fax communications of Karadzic." The code name used to refer to Karadzic in the second application was Latas. It goes on to explain that transcripts of intercepts pursued - obtained pursuant to that authorisation are frequently headed with the name Latas, and indeed the transcript we have here is so headed and it is the Prosecution's case that this is the transcript of an intercept obtained lawfully according to the ¹⁰⁴⁰⁶ relevant domestic jurisdiction in place at the time. Your Honour, to prove these matters fully and extensively would or will take a considerable period of time and would or will best be an exercise served by pleadings served by all relevant parties in advance, and what I would propose is the following, given the expectation we have that other intercepts will be the subject of evidence before you. My proposal is that this case should be the subject of full pleadings identifying, so far as we can in advance, all the intercepts that we propose to adduce and setting out the legal foundation or the factual foundation for their adduction because we may reasonably assume that the accused will repeat his assertion that Rule 95 is breached. We can do that, I hope, fairly quickly because in large part it will be complete repetition of the position in the Krajisnik/Plavsic case with some additions and perhaps some deletions.

If we can do that, with others filing pleadings in response if they judge it appropriate, then we should be in a position to have the matter fully before you in written form, I would hope, ahead of the time, perhaps towards the end of this month, when it's expected that there will next be a witness who will be producing intercepts not only of his own voice, as this witness would do for this single intercept, but also intercepts of others whose voices he can recognise, which may give rise to a slightly more complex consideration.

If that course is acceptable to the Chamber, that will simply leave for resolution this particular intercept. I go back to my first point: Authenticity can be proved immediately by this witness. There's ¹⁰⁴⁰⁷ no issue of privacy, and that may be dispositive of any objection here today, and we would ask you to admit the intercept. Even if it's not ultimately dispositive of it, the Chamber could admit it on the basis that it will give reconsideration to the topic when all other intercepts are discussed, if they need to be discussed beyond written pleadings, being in a position thereafter to exclude from consideration evidence of these intercepts if it judges that it is indeed in breach of any of the Rules of the Tribunal.

JUDGE MAY: So the proposal is this: That this matter should be addressed first of all by the Prosecution in writing - and if we were to do that, we would invite the amicus to do the same - that there would be an oral hearing at which the -- all tapes could be addressed, but that meanwhile, this tape should be admitted for the time being - perhaps marked for identification would be an appropriate way to deal with it - the witness can give such evidence as he can about it, but we would decide on its admissibility when we decided on the admissibility of all tapes.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes. And of course, has the added advantage -- that course has the added advantage that the same Chamber will find itself dealing at the same time with effectively the same issues in the two cases over which it has oversight, and that, of course, both saves judicial time and ensures consistency of approach.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, all the other intercepts raise the same kind of factual situation, and that's what makes them appropriate to be dealt with together?

MR. NICE: The same kind. I think that we will discover that the ¹⁰⁴⁰⁸ majority of intercepts come under the same forms of authority as this one does and as the two categories do identified in the Krajisnik/Plavsic pleading. There are some additional ones which probably have a different factual background and they can conveniently be dealt with at the same time. All intercepts give rise to authenticity issues. Those authenticity issues can be resolved either because it is the witness who will be speaking of his own voice as one of the participating speakers or, alternatively, will be voices he or she can recognise.

JUDGE KWON: One question regarding the specific intercept we have in mind in this case. So the thing is that it is not tape recorded by one of the interlocutors, that is, the witness. So actually, it is an intercept made by a third party, isn't it?

MR. NICE: Correct. It is.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. NICE: Simply recognised by the witness as his own voice.

JUDGE MAY: We would wish to be addressed in due course, of course, on the jurisprudence, but it occurs to me that this Trial Chamber as it was then constituted in Kordic dealt with not precisely a similar matter but there was a telephone conversation which was intercepted, and the issue about eavesdropping was raised, and I remember we made, I think, an oral ruling on that.

MR. NICE: Your Honour's recollection is absolutely correct. I can take you to the passages but, to save time, wasn't going to this morning. It starts at 13653. That's not the official version but it's of that order. ¹⁰⁴⁰⁹ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹⁰⁴¹⁰

JUDGE MAY: It's about there.

MR. NICE: It's about there, and we can take you directly to the reference.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kay, is there anything you want to say about that particular course?

MR. KAY: Yes, it's a Rule 95 issue here what that has to obviously be carefully considered because the accused has taken a point against it. At this stage, we don't know the provenance of any of the intercepts. We've been tracking them in the material as they've come in to see that they arise, so to speak, and it's been difficult to link them with particular witnesses within the existing framework of the case. So it would be helpful to start this from the basis of a schedule, the Prosecution setting out their case and then us being able to look at it and decide whether there are indeed Rule 95 issues that there may be on these particular issues.

JUDGE MAY: And can you see any objection to the course which is proposed about this witness dealing with this particular intercept, marking it for identification, and then the Trial Chamber in due course ruling upon the admissibility when we've heard the rest of the evidence?

MR. KAY: Yes. It's not in evidence until it's ruled by the Trial Chamber as being in evidence. So until that moment, it purely exists as an adjunct to the proceedings.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. But rather than have the witness back to deal with it when we're ready, it may be sensible to have the witness give his evidence about it today. ¹⁰⁴¹¹

MR. KAY: Yes. But it being subject to admissibility.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you've heard what's being proposed. At this stage, since we don't have the information available, that we will not rule on the admissibility of this particular tape, this intercept, that we will rule on them all together, all the intercepts as a matter of principle at one hearing. The Prosecution will, first of all, put in a paper which will set out their case, where they say the intercepts came from and their arguments about it. We will give you and the amicus the opportunity to address us upon it. What is proposed for today is that this witness should give his evidence about the tape and then it be marked for identification and so that he doesn't have to be brought back here unnecessarily, and we will rule on the admissibility of this tape at the same time as we rule on the admissibility of the others. Now, rather than addressing us on the principle, is there anything you want to say about that particular course of action? It means that you will have your opportunity to address us on the admissibility of all of the intercepts together.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [No translation].

JUDGE MAY: We're not getting any interpretation.

THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the English channel now?

JUDGE MAY: We hear it now. Will you start again, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I say that in spite of the fact that I'm not really interested in the substance of these conversations of ¹⁰⁴¹² theirs, my objection is of a principled nature. All these audio recordings were made on the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina and on the territory of the republics of the former Yugoslavia. That is not contested.

I'm not going into the authenticity of the intercept now, although that can be brought into question as well. It was intercepted illegally, without the authority of the state agency in charge. There is no approval of a single state agency for the electronic surveillance of any one of the conversations or, rather, anything that any one of the participants in these conversations said.

I point out once again that I'm not interested in the substance. Whatever is obtained illegally is something that is not allowed according to the domestic law or international law. For example, in the law on the interior in Yugoslavia, in Serbia, there is very clear regulation of this. It says if it is indispensable for criminal proceedings or for security or defence reasons, the Supreme Court can, at the request of the Minister, free from the principle of inviolability of such information certain persons. And these are constitutional tenets --

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to interrupt you. As I said, we will hear the argument upon it in due course. The only point we're deciding at the moment is as to whether there would be any prejudice in ruling on the admissibility of this tape -- hearing the evidence today but ruling on the admissibility at a later occasion. That's really the only point that we're deciding just at the moment. Have you any objection to that course being followed? ¹⁰⁴¹³

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that's precisely what I've been speaking about. What I say pertains to this witness and to other witnesses, because --

JUDGE MAY: Let us consider for a moment.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We're going to follow the procedure which is proposed, namely, that this intercept at the moment will be simply marked for identification, the witness can give his evidence about it, we will rule on its admissibility in due course when we have ruled on the admissibility of all the intercepts, when we have the Prosecution paper and a response in writing from the amicus, the accused if he wishes to make it, and we've heard oral argument on the topic at a date to be fixed. Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Good morning, Your Honours.

WITNESS: WITNESS C-O[Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] Examined by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff: [Continued]

Q. Good morning, Witness.

A. Good morning.

JUDGE MAY: We had got to paragraph 62, I think it was.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. But I would actually like to raise the intercept issue now with the witness, and it's paragraph 48. And for this reason, I would like -- I would like to request private session.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. ¹⁰⁴¹⁴

[Private Session]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁰⁴¹⁵ Pages 10415-10423 - redacted - private session

¹⁰⁴²⁴

[redacted]

[Open session]

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher I would -- we are now moving forward to the section Crimes in the Indictment. It's paragraph 62 in the summary.

With the help of the usher, I would like to show the witness the Exhibit -- the map C341, and it is tab 4 in the binder.

Q. Witness, you have here a map with blue lines, and the map -- what do the blue lines show? Can you explain that? ¹⁰⁴²⁵

A. The blue lines show the area which the Serbs had under their control.

Q. What is the name of the area that -- where you -- on the left-hand side where you find the names Nadin, Saborsko, Skabrnje, and Bacin?

A. This is the Krajina area. This is the Western Slavonia area, and this is the Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem area.

Q. Thank you. With the help of the usher, I would like now to show the witness the map 342, and it's tab 5.

Witness, you see now red lines in addition to the blue lines that you just explained before. Can you explain the red lines?

A. The meaning of the red lines is as follows: This was an area which remained under the control of the Serbs at the end of 1991 and right up until 1995.

Q. Thank you.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like now to show the witness the map C338, and it's tab 2.

Q. Witness, can you explain this red zone that is encircled here on this map?

A. That's the area which the Serbs at the beginning of 1991 held under their control.

Q. You said beginning 1991?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. When was that taken under control? By what acts?

A. Well, those were the headquarters and staffs of the Territorial Defence in mid-August, with their soldiers, and they occupied that area ¹⁰⁴²⁶ and held it under their control.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like now to show the witness the map 343, and it is tab 6.

JUDGE MAY: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, it may be helpful - it may be that there is such a map, but I don't think we have one at the moment - if we could have an unmarked map of this particular area. I'm looking at tab 2. But the area of the three SAOs in an unmarked form. Don't deal with it now, but at some stage it may be helpful just to have a plain map of the whole area.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. We will produce it.

Q. Looking at the map C343, can you explain this map?

A. This map shows the individual localities, and it describes their ethnic composition. The blue were locations where the Serbs had the majority, and the orange indicates the ratio, how many Serbs and how many non-Serbs or, rather, how many Croats living in the area.

Q. And looking to Western Slavonia, the places that are here highlighted, Bacin, Balinci, Corlug and Cetekovac, would they be correct on the map?

A. This was introduced for those particular places, so just for those places, yes.

Q. And looking at the SAO Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem and at the SAO Krajina, can you comment on these places as well or do you not know the ethnic composition?

A. I don't know the ethnic composition of that, no.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like now ¹⁰⁴²⁷ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹⁰⁴²⁸ to show the witness the map C344, and it's tab 7.

Q. We have now a regional ethnic distribution map, and could you look at Western Slavonia and tell us whether this is correct.

A. That map shows the municipalities according to statistical data, and it is correct, yes.

Q. Could you comment on the SAO Krajina and the SAO Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem?

A. Well, I can't. I don't have all the facts and figures.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you. You can put the map away.

Q. You mentioned that this zone in red on the map for Western Slavonia, that the Serbs were in control. What authorities were in control there in summer 1991?

A. If you mean in Western Slavonia, that was controlled by the Territorial Defence staffs, only them.

Q. How -- in what time frame were they in control of this entire area?

A. They controlled the entire area until the 15th of October, and then it became less and less. In Lubicko Polje first and then Dadua [phoen] municipality area, and then Boriska Slatina, Orahovica, and finally, Pakrac. That's how it diminished up until the 24th of December 1991, and then you have that narrow portion which stayed on until 1995.

Q. During this time, were crimes committed against the civilian Croat population?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. What was done? What kind of crimes occurred? ¹⁰⁴²⁹

A. In the Donji Caglic area, with the entry of part of the Banja Luka Corps, a clash broke out and civilians were killed on that occasion with the assistance, as I heard later on, with the local extremists who recognised and pointed out the Banja Luka Corps. In the Cetekovac area, that region there, the local commander with the Territorial Defence units committed crimes as well as in Balinci. In Balinci and in Bacin, the crimes were perpetrated by the members of the radicals, Seselj's radicals, of course with the support and assistance from domestic extremists. And in the Bucje area, there was a prison there where the civilian Croats were brought in and there were some Serb civilians in the prison there too together with them. A part of them were killed and some of them managed to be taken over by the Banja Luka Corps and they were later on exchanged.

Q. When you speak of the crimes, except for what happened in Bucje, in these other localities, what occurred? Did anything else than killing occur?

A. You mean in Western Slavonia? Well, I can't remember just now.

Q. In these regions that were under control, were homes of Croat civilians searched?

A. Yes. I heard about that later on, that in Vocin, the civilian homes were searched. Usually some people were suspected of having radio stations and that they were informing the enemy. So that was the first reason. And later on, there was looting.

Q. How did you hear of these things? You said you later heard.

A. Yes, I did hear about it, especially in the Vocin area in the end ¹⁰⁴³⁰ of December, because soon after that there was the great exodus of Serbs from there. So I heard later on from people who were there, and heard about it and conveyed it to others, and that's how I came by that piece of information.

Q. Those who conveyed this information, were they Serbs?

A. I heard this from the Serbs, and I later on heard it from the Croatian media as well.

Q. Were homes looted and destroyed?

A. I heard about the looting. As for the destruction, I didn't hear about that. In Donji Caglic I think they were destroyed.

Q. Were churches destroyed, Catholic churches?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. Where?

A. Well, this happened in Okucani, for instance, and in Donji Caglic when the Orthodox church in Nova Gradiska was destroyed. As reprisal, this was done in Okucani, this act, and in Donji Caglic. That's what I heard. That was the information I received.

Q. Were Croats expelled from the region?

A. Yes. A part of the population was expelled; the others stayed on.

Q. How did you get this information?

A. From the local inhabitants who disagreed with it.

Q. When you say "the local inhabitants who disagreed with it," would that be Serbs?

A. That's right, yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like to ¹⁰⁴³¹ show the witness the map C338. That's tab 2 again.

Q. Witness, can you point to the village Vocin?

A. Let me just have a look, please. Here it is.

Q. Do you know which -- whether there were any [microphone not activated].

A. No. That's where the Territorial Defence units were and the volunteers.

Q. And when you say "Territorial Defence units," what does that mean?

A. In the area, the Territorial Defence staff of Podravska Slatina was in place.

Q. Who was the commander?

A. I think it was Boro Radosavljevic.

Q. Was he a professional soldier?

A. I don't think so, no.

Q. And you mentioned the -- you mentioned volunteers. Which kind of volunteers?

A. Seselj's radicals were in that area.

Q. Do you know what happened in Vocin?

A. What I heard was that several days towards the end of the exodus several Croatian families were taken off and killed. I also heard that some Serbs managed to hide the Croats to save them from that fate, but they were unsuccessful.

Q. When was that? About what time? End of the exodus, what is that for you? Which month?

A. Well, sometime around the 15th of December, that part was ¹⁰⁴³² subjected to an exodus. And on the 23rd of December, the exodus from the municipality of Pakrac took place.

Q. And who killed these people?

A. According to what the locals said, it was Seselj's radicals and the local extremists who did that.

Q. And when did you hear of this? At that time?

A. I heard about that sometime round the 17th or 18th of December. Then I heard about it even more later on.

Q. And you said locals told you. What -- who told you? Can you be more precise?

A. Well, locals told me about it, and later on, during the course of 1992, I heard about this from Mr. Mladen Kulic, who, when he heard about this, asked for an investigation to be carried out so it would be known who had done this. He asked the Territorial Defence headquarters of Podravska Slatina to carry out an investigation. Later on, I also heard about what had happened in Vocin from the Croatian media.

Q. Was there actually an investigation conducted, and if so, with which result?

A. As far as I can remember, no investigation was carried out because the exodus did take place. And later on, I don't think anything was done. Subsequently, perhaps it was the Croatian police that carried out an investigation.

Q. You also mentioned Balinci and some other places. Can you point them out on the map?

A. It should be somewhere around here. ¹⁰⁴³³ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹⁰⁴³⁴

Q. And the places, can you show us the places Corlug and Cetekovac?

A. Cetekovac? Here, this is where Cetekovac is.

Q. Do you know what happened there?

A. As far as I can remember, what was done in Cetekovac was done by the local territorials. As for Balinci, this was done by the local extremists and Seselj's volunteers. That's what I heard.

Q. When was -- was someone killed in these three places and when?

A. Yes. I think it was the beginning of October that people were killed in these villages. Civilians, that is to say, both women and men. I don't know the exact date now, believe me.

Q. And when you say "civilians," do you mean Croats?

A. Yes, I mean Croats.

Q. You also mentioned a place where people were detained, Bucje. Can you point this out on the map?

A. It's right over here.

Q. Can you repeat this, please, because it was not visible. It was not visible.

A. It's right over here.

Q. And what kind of a place was it where this happened? Was it a military installation? Was it a civilian place? What was it?

A. Bucje is a Serb village. There are no military installations there. The prison was in private houses. Before, it was allegedly some kind of a school, an old house at any rate. There were no military installations, though.

Q. Who was in charge of this place when people were detained there? ¹⁰⁴³⁵

A. I don't know that. That I don't know.

Q. Were Croats detained there, civilians, soldiers? Who was detained?

A. Croats were bought there, Croat civilians. I don't know about soldiers. I can't remember. I didn't hear about that. But Serb civilians were brought too, those who the commanders in the area did not like.

Q. What does that mean they did not like? Had they committed any offences?

A. I did not hear of any offences, misdemeanors, or crimes. They just protested against the conduct of the local commanders, and then they took them into custody, into those prisons. That's what I heard from people who had been in that prison.

Q. How long were people detained? In what time period were people detained in Bucje?

A. Well, I don't know. From the beginning -- from the end of August, rather, until roughly the end of November when again, I don't know which way, but they did take them to Stara Gradiska, the Banja Luka Corps did, and then there was an exchange there.

Q. Was there also a detention facility in Gradiska -- in Gradiska?

A. Yes, in Stara Gradiska there is a prison facility. It's there right now and it's been there for the past several decades.

Q. Can you point this place out on the map?

A. It's somewhere around here. Around here. You can't see it.

Q. Is this in Bosnia or Western Slavonia? ¹⁰⁴³⁶

A. In Western Slavonia. I see now that the red lines have to be extended to the Sava River. I can't see very well. And the road also has to be extended towards the Sava River, and that's where the boundary is, around this line here. This is where the road is and this is where the boundary is. So these lines should be extended. I didn't notice that until now when I had a more careful look.

Q. Can you point out to us in which part of this territory the Banja Luka Corps was, as you mentioned, from September onwards?

A. Approximately here and then down here, this area.

Q. Were crimes against civilian Croats committed in this region when the Banja Luka Corps was there?

A. In this area here around Stara Gradiska and on the road leading to Okucani, when there was a fighting, then civilians lost their lives as well. But that was in the heat of the fighting, so I don't know under which circumstances this happened exactly.

Q. Yes. Thank you. That should be enough with the map. Just one more question in relation to the map. Sorry. This -- we wouldn't need the map. We wouldn't need the map for this.

There is this red line -- there was this red line in the -- in the map. This red line, was it based on something you did?

A. No.

Q. Did you --

A. You mean what I drew? Oh, I'm sorry.

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, I drew that. ¹⁰⁴³⁷

Q. Thank you.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like to show the witness now the Exhibit C2747, and it's tab 2. Oh, sorry. It's tab 11.

Q. Witness, it is a report of the military post Banja Luka security organ to the military prosecutor in Banja Luka, dated the 23rd of March, 1992. And there is a person signing for this on the last page, Milan Stevilovic. Do you know this person?

A. Milan Stevilovic. I heard of him, and I saw him once at the beginning of 1992, sometime in February, towards the end of February, 1992, in the area of Stara Gradiska.

Q. What was his position? What did he do?

A. As far as I can remember, he was head of security for the Banja Luka Corps.

Q. For which time period was he in this position? Do you know that?

A. I don't know about that. I just know that at the time they said that he held that position. I don't know from when until when.

Q. Do you know what happened to him later?

A. I heard that he was killed in an ambush later somewhere in Bosnia, that he was killed by some Serbs who had disagreed with him.

Q. How -- who told you? How did you get this information?

A. Well, quite a bit was said about this in public. The military people were talking about it a lot. People were talking about it in general.

Q. And you said that some Serbs had disagreed with him. With what ¹⁰⁴³⁸ did they disagree? Do you know that?

A. Well, because he carried out various investigations, investigations about killings but also about crime. They say that he did this very staunchly and in a very professional manner.

Q. Looking at this report from him, he has listed here 11 persons. Do you know these persons or have you ever met them or heard anything about them?

A. Yes. I don't know these people by name, but according to what I read about later, they belong to the group of Seselj's radicals. I don't know them by name, but I do remember this Stojan Bojanic looted, killed in Glavica. I know that this was done then by Seselj's radicals who were withdrawing, but I don't know them by name.

Q. You said you heard that. When did you get this information and what information was it?

A. Well, as for the first information I got concerning this killing, it was already on the 21st or 22nd of December. As for Vocin, I said that I heard about that later. As for Brusnik, what is mentioned here, the Serb village where shells were thrown, I heard about that only later, in January 1992. The situation was chaotic then. As they were withdrawing, you heard different stories about what they had experienced, what they had seen, what they had heard had happened. So I heard about that as they were withdrawing, heard about them too.

Q. All the places that are listed here in the report - Glavica, Brusnik, Vocin, Kamensko - are they all in Western Slavonia?

A. Yes. All of that is in the area of Western Slavonia. ¹⁰⁴³⁹ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹⁰⁴⁴⁰

Q. And the incidents that are listed here, are the victims of these incidents Croats or Serbs or both?

A. Victims are both Croats and Serbs.

Q. Do you know whether anyone was convicted later on for these crimes?

A. I didn't hear about any such thing. You mean this group here? I didn't hear about that, but I heard that some Serbs were later convicted and were in Croat prisons.

Q. Does that mean they were convicted by Croats later, by the Croatian authorities later on?

A. Some Serbs, yes, but not from this list.

Q. Do you know whether any Serbs were convicted for these crimes in -- by Serb courts or Serbian authorities?

A. I did not hear about any such thing.

Q. I would like to have the Exhibit C2768 shown to the witness. And it's tab 12.

You have here, Witness, a report from the MUP -- the Ministry of Interior of Croatia, and there is a reference in this to the persons Borivoje Lukic and Borivoje Radosavljevic. Did you ever get any information that these persons were involved in crimes in Vocin?

A. As far as I can remember, this was ascribed to Borivoje Lukic more, although they did speak about this Radosavljevic as well. However, this was ascribed mainly to Borivoje Lukic.

Q. Who was Borivoje Lukic? Who is he?

A. He was a local man there. That is to say he lived there in the ¹⁰⁴⁴¹ municipality of Podravska Slatina. He was one of the commanders. I don't know of which unit, but he was one of the commanders. I saw him later. I met him later, as a matter of fact, in 1992.

Q. And you have mentioned here in this report four places where it says training camps. It's Sekulinci, Bucje, Zvecevo and Ceralije. What kind of places were these?

A. These were villages in the territory of Western Slavonia. As for these bases, I did not hear about them but I know that there were TO commands in these places later.

Q. And you have already mentioned Bucje, that people were detained there. What about these other three places? Were people detained in these places as well, Croatians?

A. I heard about Ceralije. I don't know about Sekulinci. I don't know about Zvecevo either.

Q. In these places, in these four places, were Seselj's men stationed there? Do you know?

A. Not at Bucje but in the area from Zvecevo -- I don't know. In Ceralije they weren't there, they were somewhere from Zvecevo towards Slatina, I don't know which area exactly, but they were stationed somewhere in that area.

Q. Yes. That's enough with the document, thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is not clear to me. These documents like the one that was displayed just now, are they being admitted into evidence or does the other side use them only to establish ¹⁰⁴⁴² what he had actually stated?

JUDGE MAY: They're being admitted into evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't understand this, then, because the answers -- or, rather, I didn't understand many others before. The answers of this witness are that he had heard something, that he does not know, that he does not remember, and so on and so forth; that he assumes. I don't see how anything can be admitted on that basis, on the basis of his testimony, how anything could be admitted into evidence. It's a different thing if you want to admit into evidence here the entire correspondence of the Croat organs of the interior. That's a different matter altogether. But I don't see how you can tender through this witness things that this witness does not remember, does not recall fully, does not know, had only heard about, et cetera. How can that be admitted at all through him?

JUDGE MAY: The documents can be admitted because they speak for themselves as documents. As to whether there's any point asking this witness about questions -- about documents about which he knows nothing, that is a reasonable point.

Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, I'm sure you'll have that in mind. If he doesn't know anything about the document, there's really no point asking him anything about it beyond an identification.

We are coming to the adjournment, and I must raise with you the question of timing. We've considered the matter, and you can have up until the end of today with this witness in chief, but then we must call that an end, because he will have been giving evidence for something like ¹⁰⁴⁴³ seven hours by then.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. I will be finished.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you very much.

JUDGE ROBINSON: There is another matter, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, that you had asked and I believe we might have agreed; to have another witness interposed before the cross-examination. Now, it seems to me that in light of the length of the examination-in-chief, we'll have to reconsider that because I don't imagine it could be reasonable to expect the accused, after seven hours of examination-in-chief, to have another witness interposed and then to have to come back to cross-examination. I think interposing a witness is appropriate where the examination-in-chief is relatively short.

Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: As to that, of course, the other witness is a witness in a quite particular position. He's only available for tomorrow and the day after that. He's coming in today, and I'm afraid arrangements have been made on the basis that his evidence may be interposed, so I very much --

JUDGE MAY: How long do you anticipate being with that witness in chief?

MR. NICE: A day.

JUDGE MAY: A day. We've already got a transcript, a substantial transcript.

MR. NICE: Yes. It may be less than a day but certainly no longer. I would hope to be less, but we'll see. ¹⁰⁴⁴⁴

JUDGE MAY: I would invite you to do so. Having read the transcript, there are references to this accused which obviously will have to be dealt with, but for the rest of it, we can rely on the transcript which we've read and thereby shorten at least the examination-in-chief.

MR. NICE: Very helpful.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would just like to say something. I don't think it is proper to have any break in this witness's testimony because this witness has important things to say in relation to what the next witness will be saying too. I don't think there should be any distinction made between various witnesses here. I believe that the accused will be seriously injured if this witness is not fully heard before the next witness comes in. I really think you should look at that.

JUDGE MAY: In what respect? Can you point to something?

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm convinced that the examination of this witness is relevant to the examination of the next witness too and that the next witness should explain some things probably, I think, in accordance with what I know about this case, after this witness is finished completely. If this is done in the future as well, I believe that it will be to the detriment of validly ascertaining the facts in this case.

JUDGE MAY: You haven't yet given me an example, so it's difficult to judge whether you're right or not, Mr. Tapuskovic, but in any event, the difficulty about the next witness is the position which he holds. ¹⁰⁴⁴⁵ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹⁰⁴⁴⁶ There is a limit, of course, to what a Tribunal can do to compel witnesses in the position such as the next witness to come, and to some extent we have to accommodate ourselves to their other duties, important duties which they have to perform.

Now, we've agreed that he should be interposed. Of course we can always reconsider it. But I don't myself see at the moment, apart from the difficulties which of course there are if a witness is interposed, difficulties for those who have to cross-examine the first witness, but it doesn't seem to me that it's an insuperable task or that it's one which is seriously prejudicial.

Having said that, it's not a practice we would encourage. It's only one which should take place in exceptional circumstances. It's not only difficult for those trying to conduct a cross-examination, it's inconvenient for the witnesses. But it must be said that the position of the next witness is one which is wholly exceptional.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't want to take up your time, but believe me, it is hard for me to present the arguments why I believe that this witness should be completed first, entirely completed, and that then the next witness be heard. That is very difficult before I do what I think I should do during the cross-examination of this witness, if this is necessary at all, namely if Slobodan Milosevic doesn't deal with that before I do. However, I think that this works to the detriment of the proper establishment of facts. If some witnesses are heard and then interposed and then continued yet again. Of course, it is for you to judge and it is for you to decide on that ¹⁰⁴⁴⁷ matter, but it is for me to raise this objection.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will adjourn now. Half an hour -- 20 minutes, rather. The usual adjournment.

--- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As the break interrupted what I was saying when I objected, I should just like to comment on one point. You said a moment ago that the documents speak for themselves. Documents can only speak for themselves in the case of an original or when it is an authorised copy, authorised by the Court that it is the same as the original, although not even that bears out the truth of its contents. But I'm just speaking about the form now. Now, this witness is not the author of those documents nor does he know anything about them for those documents to be able to be introduced into evidence on the basis of these copies. And we see through the examination-in-chief that he knows nothing of any substance with respect to the indictment. He's not testifying to the facts, but he is testifying on the basis of some of his political positions and stands.

So this long list, I don't know how many tabs and all the rest of it, I can't see the number, cannot be introduced through a witness of this kind.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, that is the common law position which you have enunciated accurately, the old common law position, I might say, which in many jurisdictions has been changed. The old rule was that only ¹⁰⁴⁴⁸ a witness who produced a document could in fact produce it in court, that is, one who wrote it or produced it in some way. The law has now moved on from there in most common law jurisdictions.

And as far as documents are concerned, as far as official documents are concerned, then they are admissible for what they're worth. Of course they don't necessarily prove that what they say happened happened. That is a matter of weight and a matter to which the Trial Chamber in each case will have to give consideration. But business documents and the like, official documents and the like, are now admissible in many common law jurisdictions, and as far as I know, admissible in all civil law jurisdictions, although I may be wrong about that.

However, that is by way of background. In this -- in this jurisdiction, or this Tribunal, we admit hearsay evidence, which of course includes documents. As I said before, they speak for themselves. If there is a real objection to authenticity and there is some ground for that objection apart from just being a general objection, if there is specific ground to say that in a particular case a document is not authentic, then of course that would be considered on being raised by the party making it.

So therefore, these documents are admissible for what they contain. As for the contents, that's a matter for the Trial Chamber to consider and decide what weight to give them.

Now -- just a moment. Let me finish what I'm going to say. And that concerns the evidence of the witness. If as is happening here, where ¹⁰⁴⁴⁹ a witness cannot speak to the document, why, then, he cannot give evidence about it. If there is some point on which you think that evidence should be given, that's a matter which you can raise. And, of course, I remind you that in the course of your evidence -- your case, rather, you can call evidence about documents if you want and call evidence about any aspects of them.

So the position is this: That these documents are prima facie admissible, they have been admitted, their weight is for a Trial Chamber to consider, but they're admitted on the basis that official documents and others speak for themselves and it's a matter what weight the Trial Chamber gives to them. We do not have, as I say, a hearsay rule here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, may I say that I found the objection interesting because it sounded so much like a lawyer from the common law jurisdiction, and for that reason I found it quite interesting. But as has been explained, that rule has been overtaken. And in any event, in this jurisdiction we are quite flexible. We admit hearsay evidence. It doesn't mean, of course, that anything and everything goes, but we do have a fairly flexible practice in the admission of evidence which approximates more closely to the system out of which you come, the civil law system.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we cannot have a debate about this now. That's the ruling of the Court. Now, if you've got any specific objection later on, then of course you can make it about a particular document. I want to deal with a matter with the --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one brief question, Mr. May, ¹⁰⁴⁵⁰ with regard to what you said. You said a moment ago that the witness may introduce as evidence certain documents, and you went on to explain that that is in fact possible. However, unless I'm very much mistaken, all this mass of papers here are not evidence -- is not evidence that the witness is introducing but the opposing party over there, and is introducing through this witness and is asking about them. And that seems to me to be quite specific and cannot be accepted in the way in which you explained. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Perhaps the witness brought in all these documents.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. I've explained and we've given a ruling and the matter is at an end for now. We're not going to engage in a debate on it. But there is one matter. Mr. Nice, we've been considering over the adjournment the position of the interposing of witnesses. We will not disturb the ruling which we gave about the next witness, but on the whole, particularly with long witnesses, it's not a practice which we think should be followed hereafter. We recognise there are difficulties about getting witnesses from abroad in, but where there are long witnesses, it is very difficult for those who have to cross-examine, particularly an accused in person, to cross-examine a witness if there is maybe a lengthy break of two or three days. So could you arrange that in future we don't find ourselves in that position.

MR. NICE: We'll do our best. And indeed, we already are doing our best. It involves a certain amount of negotiation with Victims and Witnesses unit over the length of time that witnesses can stay here, and we have given some thought as to whether there can be reserve witnesses to ¹⁰⁴⁵¹ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹⁰⁴⁵² fill gaps that might otherwise appear in the schedule. Difficult, but we're doing our best.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, regarding the admissibility of the document, if you are going to challenge the authenticity of a document, you need to do it specifically rather than challenging it in general terms as to the content of the document.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour. With the help of the usher, I would like to show the Witness the map C2868, and it's tab 8.

Q. Witness, this is a map indicating camps, and it's produced by the Ministry of Health in Croatia. You have already pointed out to us the two camps in Western Slavonia, yet there is a third camp indicated for Western Slavonia. It's called -- it's called Molokivicevo [phoen]. Are you aware that there was a prison camp in this place?

A. You mean Miokovicevo.

Q. Yes.

A. I have heard about Miokovicevo and the fact that some killings occurred there but I didn't know about the camp.

Q. There are camps indicated in Western Slavonia -- Eastern Slavonia. Do you know any of these camps indicated here? Did you get information about this?

A. I heard about Ovcara and Sarengrad, but I heard about them from the media. ¹⁰⁴⁵³

Q. Did you hear -- did you hear it at that time while they existed or a long time afterwards?

A. I heard about them during 1991, approximately in October of that year. And later on as well. I heard more about them later on.

Q. Looking at Krajina, the SAO Krajina, did you get information about camps there?

A. I heard about Knin and Udbina. I heard about the others later.

Q. And these camps in Knin and Udbina, did you get this information at the time when they existed, these camps?

A. Some of them I heard about from the Croatian media during the war. And then later on, as I say, I heard about all the rest, after 1995.

Q. Looking at Bosnia, do you know the camps in Bosnia? Did you get information about any camps in Bosnia?

JUDGE MAY: I think we're now going out of the area in which the witness can usefully give evidence unless he was actually in Bosnia and saw some of these camps.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the point that I wish -- would wish to make is the widespread knowledge of these sort of facilities and of crimes.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Could I continue?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you.

Q. Did --

A. I heard about Manjaca at the time from the media, and Banja Luka ¹⁰⁴⁵⁴ too.

Q. Did you hear that atrocities were committed or people were killed in these places at that time?

A. Yes, I heard that.

Q. Yes. Thank you.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, I would like now to move on to the point -- paragraph 69 and the following about Seselj.

Q. You have already mentioned Seselj's men's involvement in the crimes in Vocin. Do you know when Seselj's men arrived in the region of Western Slavonia?

A. As far as I remember, this was sometime towards the end of September.

Q. Did you actually see them arrive?

A. Well, I saw one group when it arrived in a bus. I didn't know at the time that it was Seselj's men, but that's what I heard later on.

Q. What did these soldiers look like?

A. They were dressed differently. They had camouflage uniforms on with different insignia and emblems on their caps, on their shoulders, et cetera.

Q. What kind of insignia?

A. They had the eagles, flags, and other types of folklore, but mostly it was the eagles.

Q. You call it folklore. Is there a special term for this kind of folklore signs?

A. Well, they were signs that the radicals used to sport and wear. ¹⁰⁴⁵⁵

Q. Could you see how these people were armed?

A. They had different types of rifles, short barreled pistols, the Heckler type of short weapon, automatic and semi-automatic rifles as well.

Q. Do you know how they got these weapons?

A. I don't know that.

Q. When you saw them arrive, did they have these weapons already or were they distributed within the region of Western Slavonia?

A. The group that I saw in the bus didn't have any weapons. Now, I can't say what the other groups had or where they got their weapons from later on.

Q. Did you later on then see these kind of soldiers with weapons? Because you described the weapons.

A. Later on, around the region of Glavica, I saw a group with them.

Q. Those arriving soldiers, were they integrated in -- within the ranks of the TO in the regions or did they always operate separate?

A. As far as I was able to learn, they were under the TO command of Boriska Slatina. That's who they were with most often. But whether they were a separate unit, I really can't say because I was never in the region, so I don't know.

Q. Do you know how they were fed and housed and equipped with other than weapons?

A. They were in the Boriska Slatina region from Zvecevo, to the north of that. How they got their food, I don't know. Whether they had their own kitchens or how they came by their supplies, I really can't say.

Q. Do you know whether these soldiers were paid? ¹⁰⁴⁵⁶

A. I don't know.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like now to show the witness Exhibit 2780, and it is a rather lengthy, complex document, but I will only discuss a few pages.

THE REGISTRAR: That will be tab 13.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: The witness has to have the whole stack.

Q. Witness, after your arrival in The Hague, did you have opportunity to look through this rather complex, huge document with all the lists attached to it?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What kind of document, in particular the lists involved with these documents, are these?

A. They are lists of fighters of the Territorial Defence at Zvecevo, Boriska Slatina, et cetera, and I have received a document here - perhaps it was a mistake, it is in English - pertaining to the crimes and the investigation Locin.

Q. The witness should --

A. These are lists of TO defence fighters, and the cards, the military records that came from the secretariat, the municipal ones, and they were photocopied and copied out, of the people, the number of weapons, and personal data relating to them.

Q. Do you know who compiled these sort of documents? Are you aware of that?

A. Usually they were compiled by people working in the TO defence staffs, and they were also, by virtue of office, employees keeping records ¹⁰⁴⁵⁷ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹⁰⁴⁵⁸ in the municipalities.

Q. Having reviewed these documents in detail before the testimony, would you say they are genuine documents?

A. Yes, I would.

Q. I would like now to speak about a few items on this list, and I think it's most helpful if you look into the index, the index list on top of the document.

The first item is a special platoon members list. Do you know whether there was a special platoon and what it was doing?

A. I heard that there were several special platoons up there, but what their purpose was I really can't say, but all I know is that it was composed of former policemen, and people liked to brag about being in one of the special platoons.

Q. There is also, as item 3, the Papuk detachment. What was the Papuk detachment?

A. The Papuk detachment got his name from Papuk Mountain in the Boriska Slatina area, up by Daruvar.

Q. In the list, there are references to weapons that the certain unit members had. Do you know who provided the weapons to these people?

JUDGE MAY: Do we have a translation of this? I don't seem to have one.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, you should have one.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I -- the information I received was that the commanders and the command of the Territorial Defence were provided with weapons. Now, how they came by those weapons, I don't know. ¹⁰⁴⁵⁹

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, for your assistance, the entire English translation comes first and then there comes the B/C/S, and it's all numbered with the numbers in the index.

JUDGE MAY: For some reason mine seems to be missing. Judge Kwon has one, so I can use his. Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. Witness, please have a look now at item 58, the document 58 of this list. Do you have it?

A. It says 58 here, a list of volunteers from Serbia and the permits.

Q. Yes. The list -- this list dated 9 December 1991, is signed by Rajko Bojcic. Do you know what position Rajko Bojcic had at that time?

A. He was one of the local commanders. I don't know which unit and headquarters he belonged to.

Q. And you have -- the document includes a list of 38 persons of the Serbian Radical Party going on leave.

A. Yes, I can see that.

Q. And the following pages, 59 is another list of members of the Radical Party. Do you see that?

A. Not yet. Just a moment.

Q. It's identified as 59, and it says, "Volunteers from Serbia, special unit." To make it easier, can I just give you my copy?

A. Here it is. Here it is. We've found it.

Q. And as you can see, there is a list of volunteers from Serbia special unit. Were --

A. Yes, I can see that. ¹⁰⁴⁶⁰

Q. What kind of unit was this?

A. I don't know about that. As I said, they often called themselves a special unit. They would probably have a special status, therefore. However, what their particular assignments were, I really don't know.

Q. Besides the Seseljs that you have already mentioned, these members of the Serbian Radical Party, were there any other special units from Serbia in the region?

A. Well, all these units that were from Serbia were said to be Seselj's.

Q. And related to this list of volunteers on the document 19 December, would you have a look at a document dated 10 December 1991, a list of escorts for the fighters going on leave. It does not have a proper index number on it.

JUDGE MAY: How is the witness to find, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can see that.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. And it refers to a list of escorts for the fighters going on leave, destination Vocin, Banja Luka, and back. Was Vocin located in Podravska Slatina municipality?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the relation between Vocin and Banja Luka? Can you explain the destination of these fighters going on leave?

A. Well, I don't know where they could have come from. Rajko Dobric should be from Western Slavonia, judging by his surname. Gajic Milan too. They were probably going on leave or to visit their families. I really ¹⁰⁴⁶¹ don't know. But Vocin is Western Slavonia, and Banja Luka, as we know, is in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Can the witness now have a look at --

JUDGE KWON: Mrs. Uertz-Retzlaff, before that, could you establish as to the reason why there is a Croatian stamp there.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.

Q. You heard the Judge's question. On these documents, actually on each page there is a Croatian stamp. Do you know why it is there?

A. Well, I think that the Croatian police came in the possession of these documents and, therefore, they marked them as being in their possession.

Q. Do you know anything -- how these documents got in the possession of the Croatian police?

A. Well, the only thing that is possible is that, when there was the exodus, when the people from that area left, as well as the fighters, then these documents stayed behind and they found them.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, is that sufficient?

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. I would like you to have now a look at a document which is marked 58, and it's an authorisation --

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I assume that it's a technical mistake. I'm not really accusing anyone. But in tab 13, I just have one sheet of paper where there are a few names, scouts of the 1st Company, and ¹⁰⁴⁶² it has this Croatian stamp. I don't have these lists at all that were quoted a while ago. This is probably a technical error. So could you please give me copies of these documents that have been referred to just now, that are being looked into, so that I could have a look as well.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Mr. Milosevic, these documents were disclosed to you.

JUDGE MAY: Well, don't -- don't address him. The documents, no doubt, were disclosed, but if you would assist us by producing another bundle. First of all, in the -- no need to do it now, but make sure he gets it by the end of the day.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour, we will do that.

JUDGE MAY: Produce a list, if you would, in the B/C/S for him, and I would like an English translation, which I don't seem to have got.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Sorry, Your Honour, for this.

JUDGE MAY: Have we finished with the lists?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No. There are several more documents, and it's actually not so much the listing but the documents, letters and authorisations attached to these lists.

Q. The first I would like to address, the document which is marked 57, and it is a document dated 14 November 1991. Here is a -- we have here -- we can assist you, Usher.

A. Yes.

Q. Who is signing this document? Have a look at the signature.

A. It says Munja, but I can't know exactly, judging by this signature, who the actual signatory was. ¹⁰⁴⁶³ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹⁰⁴⁶⁴

Q. Was there a person with the code name or nickname Munja?

A. There was a person. I think it was either Boro Radosavljevic or this other one. Just a minute. Let me find this so that I can remember. This was used by two or three men. Somebody said it was Veljko Vukovic. Somebody said it was Boro Radosavljevic. So I don't know who it was exactly.

Q. Then I would like you to have a look at the item 58, and it's an authorisation of the 5th of November, 1991, and --

A. Here it is.

Q. Yes. And it is also signed "Munja" again. And there is a handwritten note on it. Can you read this note to us?

A. "Veljko Vukelic is hiding behind the name of Munja."

Q. There is a --

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, on this document, it says "Munja," yes, but there is a handwritten note here stating who it is. So this is a very leading question because the answer is readily available. Please have a look at the document itself. You will see it written down here.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We have the document. Thank you.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.

Q. I would like to continue now with a document which is marked as number 62, and it's an order, an order dated the 27th of September, 1991, from the TO municipal staff Podravska Slatina.

A. Yes, I can see that. ¹⁰⁴⁶⁵

Q. Can you tell us who signs this document? Can you identify the signature?

A. I am not receiving any interpretation.

Q. Can you --

A. I'm sorry, I didn't hear any interpretation.

Q. Yes. Can you have a look at the signature. Do you know who signs the document?

A. Now I can hear it.

Q. Yes. Can you identify the signature?

A. Radosavljevic. On other documents, it also said "Radosavljevic" and there was his signature, and now I see this signature again.

Q. And can you read what is written on the stamp?

A. "Podravska Slatina SAO Krajina, the municipal staff of the Territorial Defence."

Q. What is written on the outer -- what is the outer wording?

A. It says "The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."

Q. Can you comment on this for us? Why does the stamp have "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" and why is there also "SAO Krajina" on it?

A. Well, I don't know. These staffs made their own stamps, their own seals. So they were different. They were not uniform ones. They did not have anything to do with the SAO Krajina, so they put it there by themselves. I don't know. I don't find this clear either, because if you look at the seals and stamps of other units, you will see that they are quite different. ¹⁰⁴⁶⁶

Q. And as to the contents of this document, it says here: "Pursuant to the requirements and plans of the SAO Slavonia Main Staff, I order the forming of regional departments of Vocin police station as follows," and there come the departments. Was the SAO TO, was it responsible for the police stations as well or what does that mean that they order something in relation to the police, that?

A. Well, that means -- yes, that means that the Territorial Defence established police stations at the locations where they were in command. They had authority over them.

Q. Since when did the TO have authority over the police stations? Do you know that?

A. Well, they did that from the beginning, from the beginning of the war, depending on the place involved. There were no other authorities, only the Territorial Defence staffs, and then they took over that function as well.

Q. And the next item I would like you to look at is a call-up note. It's also not specifically numbered. It's a call-up note dated the 28th of November, 1991.

A. Yes, I an see that.

Q. Were at that time in November 1991, was there a general mobilisation?

A. Oh, no. Again it was the Territorial Defence staffs on their own who put people there who were not on those units. And they carried out this mobilisation on their own in order to place them under their command.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I need half a minute, because ¹⁰⁴⁶⁷ I'm actually looking now for a certain document that I can't find myself.

[Prosecution counsel confer]

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. I can continue. I lost the tab on it.

Q. It's item 60. Can you please look at item 60, a permit for free movement on the territory of the SAO Krajina Western Slavonia.

A. Yes, I can see that document.

Q. Witness, can you say who is giving this authorisation?

A. Again it was issued by Radosavljevic, commander in Podravska Slatina. At that time, such permits for movement in the territory concerned were being issued.

Q. Did people need authorisation to move around?

A. Commanders did not allow soldiers to move about without permits.

Q. Thank you. That was all.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We can now leave this exhibit, Your Honour.

Q. Witness, before we started to talk about this exhibit, we were speaking about Seselj's men. Did Seselj's men have a certain reputation?

A. Well, people were rather afraid of them. They were quite rough. They did things to the local population. They were often under the influence. They made threats. Some of them were engaged in looting, at least that's what people told me. People complained to me that they had been robbed. At any rate, the local population distrusted them and feared them.

Q. Did that apply to the Croatians, the Croatian population, the Serbs, or who? ¹⁰⁴⁶⁸

A. This applied both to Serbs and Croats.

Q. Did Vojislav Seselj ever come to the region and visit Seselj's men?

A. Yes. He was there sometime in November 1991, in the area of Zvecevo, and then he went to review his units.

Q. When you say "review his units," what does that mean?

A. Well, at that time people said that he came to review his units to see what position they were in, how well equipped they were, to talk to them. He was supposed to review them like any commander who would be lining up his troops.

Q. Do you know where exactly he went in Western Slavonia, where he did that?

A. Well, somewhere between Zvecevo, Vocin, and that area around Podravska Slatina. I don't know the other places involved.

Q. Did he give speeches to the soldiers? Do you know that?

A. I heard that he made a speech, that he spoke to them, greeted them.

Q. You said you heard that. Did you hear him give the speech or did you only hear about the speech?

A. I was not there where he was making the speech. That's to say that I could not have heard the speech itself. I heard that he had made a speech.

Q. And who told you?

A. People talked about it, the local population, people who were there. And then later on, they talked about it. ¹⁰⁴⁶⁹ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹⁰⁴⁷⁰

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I would like now to go into a private session because I want to discuss a matter between this witness and Seselj.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁰⁴⁷¹

[redacted]

[Open session]

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Okay.

Q. Did the various units -- you have already mentioned that the various units left Western Slavonia at some point in time. When was that? Western Slavonia.

A. Well, the beginning was on the 15th of October, 1991, when the people from Grubisic Polje left. And then towards the end of November, the second half, the people from Daruvar, then Slatina, Orahovac and Pakrac. Most of Pakrac was abandoned on the 23rd, 24th, by the 27th of December. They actually left in several waves, and they were accompanied by the volunteers who were in Slatina. They were also leaving from Slatina. On the 15th of October, they went to Bucje -- no, not the 15th of October, the 15th of November, from Vocin. Vocin. Slatina. Sorry; the 15th of December. It was the 15th of December. ¹⁰⁴⁷²

Q. When the soldiers left, what did the local Serb population do?

A. They left together with them.

Q. Why did they leave? Was there a major offensive of the Croats ongoing or why did they do that?

A. Later on, it turned out that there was not a major Croat offensive but the territorials, as they were leaving, I mean the territorials were from the families that lived there. So then when they left, of course they left with their wives and children. Of course they left together. Only a few days later, the Croat units entered these villages. And then they carried out certain actions in these villages, but it was only a few days later.

Q. When you speak about "certain actions," what do you mean?

A. Well, then, when the Croat army entered these Serb villages, they also looted the area, torched houses, mined them. Some of the local population was killed and others were taken to prisons.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I would like now to move on to a meeting regarding the Vance Plan, and it needs to be in private session because it's a very particular meeting.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁰⁴⁷³ Pages 10473-10479 - redacted - private session

¹⁰⁴⁸⁰

[Open session]

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. You mentioned the RSK. When was it established?

A. On the 26th of February in Borovo Selo, near Vukovar.

Q. Was it established -- was there an RSK established in Knin before that date?

A. No. It was only the SAO Krajina that was in Knin.

Q. Who was the president of the RSK?

A. The first president was Goran Hadzic.

Q. Before this meeting in Borovo Selo and the establishment of the RSK, was there a meeting in Glina?

A. I heard that a meeting was held in Glina to discuss the Vance Plan. There was the SAO Krajina Assembly there, and the Vance-Owen Plan was accepted.

Q. On this 26th of February, 1992, the RSK, what was it comprised of in relation to territories?

A. It comprised of the SAO Krajina, Baranja, Western Srem, and the SAO Western Slavonia.

Q. Why did they -- why did Western Slavonia join?

A. Because it saw its chance and seized it, through the Vance Plan, to set up a body for negotiation and that contact be established with the international community. But what we endeavoured to do was to remain our own autonomy, so that we insisted in the -- to join the RSK as a regional entity and as the Serb region of Western Slavonia. And this was introduced into the new RSK laws which provided for its autonomy. ¹⁰⁴⁸¹ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹⁰⁴⁸²

Q. Given your -- given your criticism against Goran Hadzic as a leader, why was he chosen to be president? Do you know that?

A. Well, at that point in time, a substitute for Milan Babic had to be found, and he -- as he was a rather popular person who had emerged from the war and accepted the Vance Plan, then he was to be the president of the republic. And Zdravko Zecevic who was from Benkovac was to be the Prime Minister.

Q. That appointment of Mr. Hadzic, was it agreed upon in advance of the meeting on the 26th of February?

A. I think so, yes.

Q. Who agreed upon this? Do you know that?

A. Well, I can't say now. I don't know. I heard that that was the agreement reached, but who actually reached it and between whom, I don't know.

Q. And how did -- who informed you about this agreement?

A. I heard it at the Assembly on the 26th of February. I think it was from Zdravko Zecevic that I heard it.

Q. Who was the Minister of the Interior of the RSK?

A. Milan Martic.

Q. Was there a Defence Minister, and if so, who was he?

A. Yes, there was. It was Spanovic. Spanovic was the surname. I can't remember his first name just now. Colonel Spanovic, anyway.

Q. Colonel. Was he a professional soldier?

A. Yes, he was. He was an officer of the Yugoslav People's Army. Beforehand, he was from Pakrac by birth, and he spent the war in the Knin ¹⁰⁴⁸³ area.

Q. Did you have a Minister of Finance?

A. Yes. That was Vojislav Peuraca.

Q. Did the government of the RSK have a regular budget?

A. Well, it had to have a budget in order to be able to function and to finance its institutions, services, and departments.

Q. In which periods? Which budget periods did you have there?

A. Well, at that time, at the beginning, I think they were quarterly ones and later on were annual budgets.

Q. Do you recall the percentage spent on police and TO in the budget?

A. No.

Q. What source of income did the RSK have within their own territory?

A. The only source that they could have had was from the timber industry and the little production that they had and from the oil resources in Eastern Slavonia.

Q. To how much did this amount?

A. I don't know. I can't say.

Q. Could the RSK exist on this income gained on their own territory?

A. No, it couldn't. It wasn't sufficient.

Q. Where did the funds come from that were needed?

A. Well, the Prime Minister and Finance Minister would go off to Belgrade for talks. I don't know who with, but they did discuss financing aspects.

Q. And as a result of these discussions, did any money arrive? Do you know that? ¹⁰⁴⁸⁴

A. I knew that the money was coming in because we received our salaries. All bills were paid. So I don't know how or the amounts of monies that were coming in, but anyway.

Q. How do you know that the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister would go off to talks in Belgrade? Did they report about this or did they speak about it in advance?

A. At one of the government meetings, they said that they had to go there for negotiations, to discuss the currency, what it was going to be called, what shape it would take, what value it would be set at, that they had to discuss this with the governor of the bank, and they had to go to Belgrade for talks, although these meetings were held in a rather narrow circle, so I never learned the details.

Q. When was that said? You said they mentioned it in government meetings.

A. Well, that was already sometime at the beginning of 1992. April, I would say. May perhaps.

Q. Did they go and meet authorities of Serbia or Yugoslavia? Do you know?

A. As far as I heard, it was the Serbian authorities.

Q. Did Mr. Martic, the Minister of Interior, also go to Belgrade for discussions?

A. Yes, he did. He went too.

Q. When -- when did he do that and whom did he meet?

A. Well, right at the beginning when the government was set up and had been formed, he went to Belgrade, but who he met there, I don't know. ¹⁰⁴⁸⁵

Q. Did he report on his meetings? Did he say what he achieved?

A. No. I don't remember that.

JUDGE MAY: If that's a convenient moment, we'll take the adjournment. We will adjourn now for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.16 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.41 p.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour. With the help of the usher, I would like to put to the witness Exhibit C2449, and it's tab 9.

Q. Witness, please have a look at the signature and the stamp of this document. Do you know them?

A. Yes.

Q. What is it?

A. That is Spanovic's signature, and the stamp is the government stamp.

Q. This document refers to a meeting on the 12th of November, 1992, hosted by the president of Serbia. Do you know about this meeting?

A. No.

Q. At that time, was -- what was the financial situation in the RSK in late autumn 1992?

A. Well, I think there were problems with the salaries of soldiers, that their salaries were very small. I think there was a general lack of money.

Q. And was this general -- was this situation solved afterwards? ¹⁰⁴⁸⁶

A. Well, there was an ongoing crisis, but it wasn't as bad as it was at that point.

Q. Do you know whether money arrived?

A. I don't remember. I don't know.

Q. In this document, there is a reference in the second paragraph. It says the president, Mr. Milosevic, agreed to the concept of creating a defence system of the Krajina which would be based upon about 23.000 people in the police of whom 5.000 would be in the regular police and 18.000 in brigades. Do you know about this concept?

A. I heard about these figures, the number of men and police and the regular composition, the brigades, that all this was mentioned, but I don't know the exact quantities, numbers, and their deployment.

Q. In this document, it's -- a little bit further down in the next paragraph, it says: "President Milosevic said that funds for maintaining equipment should be planned by the army of Yugoslavia, that it would help in the implementation of this, and that the army of Yugoslavia should finance the active officers and civilians who stayed behind in Krajina." Do you know anything about how equipment maintenance was funded, and soldiers?

A. I heard that this went through the army of Yugoslavia. I don't know how, though. This was the first time I see this document. But I did hear that this went through the army of Yugoslavia.

Q. And how did you hear it? Where was it?

A. Well, I heard that at one of the government meetings, that the army would be financed through the army of Yugoslavia. This was round the ¹⁰⁴⁸⁷ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹⁰⁴⁸⁸ end of 1992 or the beginning of 1993.

Q. We can put this document away.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And the witness should be given the document C584. That's tab 5.

Q. This exhibit is a set of three letters, and I would like you to look at the first letter, which is a letter from the president of the republic, Goran Hadzic, to the president of Serbia. Would you please have a look at the signature and the stamp of this document, and can you tell us whether they are genuine?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recognise the signature and the stamp?

A. Yes.

Q. This letter refers to the staffing needs and assistance in maintenance. Do you -- are you aware of this letter? Were you aware of this letter at that time?

A. No. At that time, I was no longer in the Krajina government.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the letter has no date, but there is a date received, 4 June 1993.

Q. Looking at the next letter, it is a letter from the 13th of April, 1993. If you please look for the stamp and the signature. Can you say --

A. I don't know the signature because I did not know the signature of what it says here, Mile Novakovic, General. As for the stamp, that kind of stamp did exist in the army.

Q. Mile Novakovic, what was his position at that time?

A. Well, he was commander at that time, commander of the army of ¹⁰⁴⁸⁹ Republic of Srpska Krajina.

Q. The letter is actually to the Minister of the Defence of SRJ. What does that stand for?

A. Well, that means it was sent to him, to the Minister of Defence of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, that this letter was sent to him and that he was requested to do what it says here.

Q. The request relates to officers with a law degree. Are you -- do you know whether there was a need for such officers and whether they actually came?

A. Well, I heard people say that there were quite a few problems, that there were things that needed to be processed legally. I don't know whether that was the case then, because I was no longer active by then so this information was not really accessible to me, especially as far as the army is concerned. I knew hardly anything.

Q. The next -- the next letter, the last of this exhibit, is a request for this -- is a request for equipment from the 22nd of March, 1993. Would you please have a look at the stamp and the signature.

A. I see that. Again the stamp is not clear to me, and I don't know the signature of Mile Novakovic, as I said, but this is the kind of stamp that the military did use.

Q. Yes. Thank you. Before we go to the next document, I have forgotten to ask you something. What currency did you have in the RSK?

A. We had the Krajina dinar, the dinar of the RSK.

Q. The national bank -- was there a national bank in the RSK?

A. Believe me, I can't remember. I don't know about that. ¹⁰⁴⁹⁰

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Can the witness now be given the document C3383, and it's tab 14.

Q. Witness, this is a letter dated the 28th of April, 1993, from Mr. -- Minister Milan Martic to several officers listed on top. Can you please look at the stamp and the signature.

A. I have seen both the stamp and the signature. As far as I know, it does correspond to the original. That is what the stamp was, and that is what Martic's signature was like.

Q. Do you recall that there was, at that time, a discussion on the increase of the salaries of the police?

A. No. At that time, I was suspended, so I'm not aware of any such talks.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Can the witness now be shown the Exhibit 4236, which is tab 23.

Q. Would you please have a look at the stamps and the signatures on the last page of this document.

A. Again, the signature of Mile Novakovic is not familiar to me because I didn't know his signature. I recognise the stamp of the army, and I also recognise the stamp of the ministry, and also Martic's signature.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Can the witness now be shown Exhibit 4236. Sorry, that was just the one we had. Sorry. 3769.

THE REGISTRAR: Tab 17.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. Witness, this is a letter of the Ministry of the Interior of the ¹⁰⁴⁹¹ RSK to the Ministry of Interior of Serbia, and would you please have a look at the stamp and the signature.

A. The stamp does correspond to the ministry, but I don't know whose signature it is. I see it is not Martic's signature, it is somebody else's signature.

Q. Yes. Thank you.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you. That's enough.

Q. Witness, when did the UN troops arrive in the RSK?

A. Well, I think it was sometime around the beginning of March 1992. That's when they started coming.

Q. When the UN troops arrived, did the authorities in Western Slavonia cooperate with them?

A. Yes, they did.

Q. What was done in Western Slavonia in relation to demilitarisation?

A. Western Slavonia carried out demilitarisation, which means that weapons were only carried by policemen round their waists. All the rest were civilians. Marrack Goulding, Under-Secretary of the UN, came in September and gave us recognition for this because we had carried this out on time, and then we could proceed further.

Q. Did you increase the police force in Western Slavonia?

A. No. There was no increase. The number of policemen remained the same except for the fact that they were the only ones who carried weapons, namely pistols, on belts around their waists.

Q. Who was the local TO commander?

A. Colonel Jovan Cubric, who took part in the demilitarisation. ¹⁰⁴⁹² After that, he was in civilian clothing as well.

Q. Was he replaced at some point in time?

A. Yes. He was replaced in 1993, sometime in the month of April, and he was replaced by Colonel Celeketic, and he established once again an army in the territory of Western Slavonia.

Q. Does that mean after the replacement -- what does it mean? After the replacement of Jovan Cubric, did the demilitarisation come to an end?

A. Yes.

Q. This new commander, Celeketic, where did he come from?

A. Celeketic? He came from Yugoslavia. Originally he is from Kikinda.

Q. And what did he do?

A. Well, then he established staffs once again. Officers wore a uniform again. They were given weapons. People again went on guard duty on positions. He established brigades, units.

Q. In relation to the Vance Plan in Western Slavonia, did you try to carry out the return of refugees?

A. Yes, that was our plan, for the refugees to return. And we negotiated with the representatives of international organisations to do that as well.

Q. Did the Serbs in Western Slavonia accept the reintegration of Western Slavonia into Croatia?

A. They did. They were in favour of that option.

Q. Looking at the former SAO Krajina, did they also work towards demilitarisation? ¹⁰⁴⁹³

A. No. They did not work towards demilitarisation. Martic wanted to create an army, a strong army and police and hold the borders of the territory under control.

Q. How do you know that? Did you go there?

A. Well, I was in Knin when he negotiated and quarreled with UN commanders. He did not accept short weapons only. He kept asking for long rifles for the police, as well as heavy machine-guns, and also for the military. He did not accept the solution that we had worked out for Western Slavonia.

Q. Was the police force increased in the former SAO Krajina?

A. Well, I can't say the police when it was the army before the Vance Plan. I can't exactly say what the personnel levels were, but I know that there was quite a bit of army people and the police.

Q. Did Croatia -- did Croatian refugees return to the SAO Krajina? Do you know that?

A. No, they did not.

Q. What was the problem?

A. Well, the climate was not right yet, and most of the members of the government thought that there can be no refugee return yet, that all of these things were still fresh, and that it was -- that the situation was not right for the return of the Serbs or of the Croats.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like to put to the witness the Exhibit 3765, and it's tab 16.

Q. Witness, this is a letter of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Knin, dated the 28th of September, 1992. Can you please have a look at ¹⁰⁴⁹⁴ the stamp and the signature.

A. I see that somebody signed this instead of Milan Martic. The stamp is the one that corresponds to the ministry.

Q. There is a reference made in this document to the -- to the immigration of the population for Skabrnje, Novi Grad, and Pridraga. Do you know about this?

A. I heard about that, that the Croats wanted to return to their villages and towns again, the ones where they had lived before. I remember about Skabrnje and Novi Grad. I don't remember about the rest. I also remember about Baranja. Croatia kept exerting pressure for the refugees to their villages and towns.

Q. In this letter, there is a -- there is mention that the government will be forced to prevent the arrival. Did the government of the RSK prevent the arrival of these people from Croatia?

A. I don't know exactly about this case because I was not in the government -- oh, yes. Yes. I'm sorry. I was. They were not prepared for any kind to return to that area. They were not. The government was against the return of refugees all the time. I know that because I had proposed that the Serbs return, but they did not have any understanding for that proposal either.

Q. Thank you. That's enough for the documents. Do you know whether the former SAO Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem worked on the demilitarisation issue or the return of the refugees? You didn't hear me?

A. I can't hear this. Now I can. ¹⁰⁴⁹⁵

Q. Yes.

A. Could I please have translation of what you said once again, because I didn't hear it.

Q. I will ask it again. Did the authorities in the former SAO Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem work towards demilitarisation and the return of refugees in their region?

A. They did not.

Q. What did they do?

A. Well, they kept the state of affairs that was there. That is to say, that the Croats could not return to the area, and refugees from Western Slavonia lived there, those who had fled from there and from other parts of Croatia. They were opposed to the return of Croats to that area.

Q. And what about demilitarisation in this region?

A. Again, they were not demilitarised. The situation remained as it was except that there was no more JNA military presence, only the local people were there. But the equipment remained behind.

Q. Did the authorities in Yugoslavia or Serbia, did they support the course taken by Western Slavonia?

A. Well, we never got clear-cut support.

Q. What about the support for Knin and Eastern Slavonia?

A. Well, I think that they had more understanding.

Q. You say "I think." What is it based on, your thinking?

A. Well, because I think that we in Western Slavonia who were in favour of things that made us advance further, we would have received support for that. And if the Krajina people were in favour of that, they ¹⁰⁴⁹⁶ would not have been supported either. And we also see that there was close contact between the Republic of Srpska Krajina and Belgrade, so that does mean that they did support them.

Q. Because of Western Slavonia, you said already that when the new military commander came, there was a change. Were the political organs stopped doing their work towards the Vance Plan aims?

A. Well, Western Slavonia was then divided. The Okucani wing opted for the hard-line option, that is to say militarisation again, while the municipal authorities in Pakrac continued within the framework of their abilities that were limited to cooperate with international forces on the expansion of zones, et cetera. They pursued a more normal policy - perhaps I can put it that way - in order to have the situation become calmer. And then in Western Slavonia, there was more army and police. And the regional committee got a man to head it who was close to army and police circles and then they did work in favour of that option.

Q. Was there an Assembly meeting in Western Slavonia on the 24th of February, 1993?

A. Yes. That was a meeting of the Assembly of Western Slavonia that discussed the Daruvar agreement that had been signed on the 18th of February, 1992. Yes, the 18th of February.

Q. Did anything happen during this Assembly meeting?

A. Well, during this Assembly meeting, because there were positive views regarding this agreement, at one point in time the building where the Assembly meeting was taking place was encircled. These special units came. They really liked names like this, special police, special units, ¹⁰⁴⁹⁷ et cetera. This unit was headed by Miscevic, and they were issuing threats, namely that they would shoot all of us inside if the Assembly were to decide that way. So people slowly started leaving the Assembly building out of fear so that this would not happen. We wanted to avoid this incident and we therefore recommended that the Assembly do not adopt such a document only to avoid this situation. However, people did feel that the Daruvar agreement did present a solution for them.

Q. When you say a special unit, are these military units or police units, or can you say?

A. Well, it was something between the police and the military. I could never understand what they really were.

Q. You have already mentioned that militarisation started again. How was that financed? Do you know that? How did the people in Western Slavonia get money for this?

A. Well, everything went through Knin. Knin, at that time, financed the police, the military, the local authorities.

Q. Did you ever hear about a Z4 plan?

A. A Z4 plan? Yes. Yes, I did hear about that.

Q. What was that?

A. It was a plan of the international representatives for resolving the Krajina area issues within Croatia. Certain autonomous rights were given to this area then, which was called the RSK. It also dealt with the position of the police and a certain form of autonomy in terms of the political aspect and territorial aspect. I have forgotten the details, but this was a proposal put forth by the international community in order ¹⁰⁴⁹⁸ to resolve the status of the Krajina area within Croatia.

Q. When was this Z4 plan discussed?

A. It was first mentioned at the beginning of 1995. First of all just a bit and then more so through the media. As far as I know, it was not officially discussed by the Assembly of Krajina because the top people of the Krajina were against this Z4 plan. It was rejected outright, that they would not accept it, that they would not even debate it. They would not even read it, look at it. And this was done by the president of the republic, Milan Martic.

Q. How do you know that? Did you hear him reject that plan?

A. I saw that on television when he rejected to comment upon it. At that time, I was no longer in Krajina. By then, I was already in Croatia.

Q. Did -- did Mr. Milosevic have a position to the Z4 plan? Do you know that?

A. Well, what I had heard from others -- let me say first of all that I personally considered that Milan Martic didn't wish to accept the agreement and that perhaps he received from friends proposals of this kind. But later on, I heard from one of the Foreign Ministers at the Krajina, Milivoje-Misa Vojnovic that what -- that President Milosevic proposed that the plan not be adopted. And those were his words. And I also heard from others and -- the fact that they didn't want Martic to accept this. But I understood it that Martic didn't want to do so for his own reasons, but I've just told you what I heard.

Q. When did Mr. Vojinovic mention Mr. Milosevic in this context?

A. I heard that somewhere towards the end of 1997, Milivoje-Misa ¹⁰⁴⁹⁹ Vojnovic say that because I asked him personally why this wasn't accepted straight away, because he was the Foreign Minister and only later on through his activities did he become engaged in this, when it was drawing to a close.

Q. Witness, you have mentioned now Milan Martic quite a lot. What was his position before the war?

A. Before the war, he worked in the police force in Knin. I don't know whether he was police chief or a commander or whatever, but I know that he worked in the police in Knin.

Q. What was his reputation?

A. Well, he became famous on the 17th of August, 1990. That's when he made a name for himself when he cut off the access roads to Knin. Otherwise, he was prone to anger. He was very explosive by nature and often quarreled. He was quarrelsome. And I think that the tasks that he undertook, and assignments, if I can say so, he wasn't qualified to carry them out. He had very limited education and training for those types of activities, if I may say so.

Q. What was his attitude towards Croats?

A. Well, he ranged from being indifferent to adverse. He didn't want to have any talks with them, negotiations with them. He said they could not be trusted and things like that. That was at the other end of the scale.

Q. The Martic police, when -- do you know when it was founded?

A. Well, I think it was sometime in the summer of 1990.

Q. And in -- how did it develop through the years? ¹⁰⁵⁰⁰

A. Well, it developed from Knin slowly towards Dalmatia and Lika and then to Banija and Kordun as things came to a head, and then encompassed the area of Knin itself and part of Lika, and later on in the war, it spread to Banija and Kordun.

Q. In the years when the RSK existed, was the Martic police -- were they active throughout the entire territory?

A. Yes, they were. The RSK did act throughout the territory.

Q. The original Martic police, who trained them?

A. Well, at the time, there was a lot written about it in the press, actually, and that it was Captain Dragan in that area, Captain Dragan who helped him and trained him and so on.

Q. You have this information only from the media or do you have an insight into the relationship of the two?

A. Mostly from the media, and later on in Knin, I saw that Martic didn't really like Captain Dragan much, although he was not down there when I was in Knin. But when Captain Dragan's name was mentioned, he would grimace and sort of let it be known that he did not acknowledge him as an expert of any kind.

Q. Were any officials from Belgrade involved with the Martic police? Do you know that?

A. I don't know that. I didn't see them, so I can't say.

Q. Did Mr. Martic ever refer to some officials?

A. On one occasion he did mention some. I heard Frenki mentioned. He said he was angry with him and his relationship towards the police and to people, but I don't remember anybody else. ¹⁰⁵⁰¹

Q. Who was angry, Martic or Frenki?

A. Martic was angry.

Q. And when did you hear this remark from Martic?

A. That was sometime in 1992.

Q. The -- did Mr. -- did the Martic police and did Mr. Martic also control the police in Eastern Slavonia?

A. Well, I think that in Eastern Slavonia, a part of the men were not under their control. There were incidents with Arkan's men, members of his unit or the police, and there were incidents between Martic and Goran Hadzic who allegedly was defending Arkan's men over there.

Q. When did you get this information and what kind of information?

A. That was at the end of 1992. And this is what it was about. They were people who were outside Milan Martic's control. They weren't accountable to him, but they were accountable to Arkan, and he didn't agree that they should be independent and autonomous and should act in the region without his control.

Q. And was an agreement found? Did -- was that situation ever solved?

A. While I was in the government, there were clashes all the time, and I didn't hear of any agreement.

Q. You have mentioned for the SAO Krajina the president, Milan Babic. Did he control Martic and his police force?

A. Milan Babic liked to introduce absolutism, that he was the supreme power over one and all. But knowing Milan Martic, I doubt that he was fully under his control because he liked to be fairly free too, whereas ¹⁰⁵⁰² Milan Babic did like to issue decrees and proclaim himself to be lord and master over one and all.

Q. Did Milan Martic have control over the TO forces in the SAO Krajina? Do you know that?

A. I don't know that.

Q. Milan Martic became -- did he become president of the RSK at some point in time?

A. Yes, he did. I think that was at the beginning of 1994.

Q. Did you see parts of his election campaign?

A. Yes, I did see them and heard about them. At the time, he would come to Western Slavonia and engage in his presidential campaign there.

Q. What was Martic's position regarding the future of the RSK and his own future?

A. Well, he always had the idea of forming an alliance of Serb lands, and on several occasions an assembly of that kind would be held between the Republika Srpska and Republika Srpska Krajina, and in his presidential campaign, whether because he wanted to win the elections or because he wanted to actually do so, he would say that he would hand over his presidential office to President Slobodan Milosevic in a short space of time so that he could be the sole president. That was what the slogan was during his presidential campaign.

Q. Did Mr. Milosevic react to such slogans?

A. I didn't hear that.

Q. Did the Belgrade media support Mr. Martic during this election campaign? ¹⁰⁵⁰³

A. Well, they gave him quite a lot of coverage.

Q. The Martic police, were they -- do you know whether they were involved in crimes against the Croatian population?

A. I heard down there that in those actions and fighting, there were operations of that kind, but I only heard that from the media. I can't say.

Q. While you were in the RSK position that you had then, did you ever notice that Martic dismissed or punished any of his police staff for crimes committed against Croats?

A. No, I didn't hear anything like that.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like to show the witness Exhibit C3971, it's tab 20. It has also a B number for Bosnian document. It's both, for both sections.

Q. Witness, it is a letter of the Secretariat of Interior, Vukovar, dated the 3rd of August, 1992, to the MUP in Knin. Do you know -- and it's signed -- it's signed by a person, Dragan Lalic -- Lazic. Sorry; Lazic.

Do you know this person Dragan Lazic?

A. No.

Q. Reference is made to a Special Purpose Unit called Red Tigers. Do you know any unit with that name related to the village of Ernestinovo

A. I just heard about the Red Tigers and Arkan as their leader, but I don't know what place this was linked to, what Erdut or Ernestinovo. I can't say that now. I think it was connected to Erdut most probably. I don't know why, but that seems to be my recollection. ¹⁰⁵⁰⁴

Q. What was in Erdut?

A. Erdut was also a base where Arkan was stationed.

Q. You say "also a base." Was Arkan stationed in other places as well?

A. I think he had some others as well. At least, according to what I heard, but I don't know where. Quite possibly it was in this place Ernestinovo as well.

Q. Did you ever go to the training or base in Erdut?

A. No.

Q. How, then, do you know about the base in Erdut?

A. Well, when we had a government meeting in Erdut, I heard about it. I heard that Arkan was there, was located there.

Q. Yes. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, I'm sure you have it in mind, but you have quarter of an hour left.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Thank you.

Q. Witness, you have already mentioned the JNA in Western Slavonia. Do you know how the JNA cooperated or if they cooperated with Martic police?

A. I don't know about that.

Q. You mentioned the arrival of the JNA in Western Slavonia. Who was Jovan Trbojevic?

A. Jovan Trbojevic was an officer of the Yugoslav People's Army who had come sometime after the 31st of October, I think, to the region of Zvecevo. He was a native of a village near Virovitica, and he arrived ¹⁰⁵⁰⁵ with some of his volunteers from Novi Sad. Then after a few days, he took over command in Western Slavonia, and it was not functioning at the time. It had been disbanded because the former commander and several members had in fact left Western Slavonia and their commands there.

Q. Who -- do you know who sent Mr Trbojevic to Western Slavonia?

A. Well, on one occasion he said that he had come there following orders from Kadijevic, General Kadijevic.

Q. When did he say that?

A. I think that was at the beginning, when he arrived. That's how he introduced himself and that's what he said in order to establish his authority.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like to show the witness the Exhibit C4236.

THE REGISTRAR: Tab 23.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Sorry. Sorry. I misspoke. 4328. I'm sorry; 4328.

THE REGISTRAR: Tab 24.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, unfortunately, the translation -- the translation that you have in your binder shows illegible throughout, but looking at the B/C/S version it's actually quite readable. So -- I was just informed you've got another one. Thank you.

Q. Witness, this document is dated the 16th of October, 1991. Who is the -- it's the TO staff of Western Slavonia and it is a report of the Ministry of Defence. Looking at the document, if you look through the documents, can you tell us what it is? ¹⁰⁵⁰⁶

A. I can't see very well, but as far as I can see, it is a report on the situation, although I'm not quite clear what this document is about. It lists the distribution of units, deployment of units, according to the staff, the battalions, the fighters, and so on, in Western Slavonia.

Q. And looking at the municipalities that are listed in these documents and their commanders, are they correct?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. Thank you.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: That's all in relation to this document.

Q. You have mentioned actually at the beginning of the -- your testimony that the Serbs fled the region. Can you tell us when the Serbs fled the region?

A. Let me repeat: This took place in several -- at several intervals. The 15th of October, Grubisino Polje to begin with, and one month later, the Daruvar Polje --

Q. Let me stop you. I think you misunderstood me. Were there several waves of people leaving Croatia through the years? I do not want to go into specifics of Western Slavonia in 1991 but --

A. Yes.

Q. -- were they -- in addition to the 1991 wave, were there other waves leaving the territory?

A. Yes, there were. There were some later on as well.

Q. Yes. And can you tell us about it, but briefly?

A. There was a great gave in 1995 after the Flash and Storm operations. ¹⁰⁵⁰⁷

Q. And the Serbs from Croatia, where did they end up? Where did they go?

A. Well, a part of them ended up in Republika Srpska, the others in Eastern Slavonia, and another portion again was in Vojvodina or, rather, in Serbia, down there in the south.

Q. When you say "down there in the south," does that mean Kosovo, or where in the south?

A. Yes, that's right. I mean Kosovo and the area around Kosovo.

Q. How did the Serbs end up there? Did they go there voluntarily?

A. They didn't leave Krajina voluntarily. And when they did leave, what I heard from them, because I wasn't in the actual column, I was told that they were directed in the direction they were to go. So one portion was sent towards Kosovo, another towards Vojvodina, a third towards Eastern Slavonia. They weren't allowed to go where they wanted to go.

Q. Those who -- who were -- those who went to Vojvodina, did this have an effect on the Croatian population living in Vojvodina?

A. Well, in these waves of refugees, when they left for Serbia, what happened was a part of the Croats from Vojvodina went to Croatia. So they exchanged houses with the Serbs. They exchanged their properties. They would come to Croatia and the Serbs would go to Serbia. Or they sold their houses, their properties.

Q. Did the Croatians leave the Vojvodina voluntarily or were they expelled?

A. Well, there were cases where there were excessive incidents and where they were actually expelled. I heard about these. But some of ¹⁰⁵⁰⁸ them, because of the general climate that prevailed during the war, although no pressure, specific pressure was exerted on them, they decided to leave too. And I also heard that the police would prevent incidents from taking place in Vojvodina, the Serb police, they prevented these incidents, but that people, out of fear, because they were frightened, did leave. I heard that too.

Q. Did you -- did Croats from Vojvodina arrive in Western Slavonia??

A. Some of them came to Western Slavonia too, yes.

Q. Where did you meet these people, or did you have contacts with them?

A. I talked to some of them when they came to exchange their property. But at the time, they weren't ready to negotiate or have talks. They were very nervous, they were unhappy, and they wanted to find a place a live. That was their prime concern.

Q. Refugees who fled -- Serb refugees who fled Western Slavonia and went to Serbia, were they arrested at some point in time? Do you know that?

A. Those who went towards Eastern Slavonia, those were arrested by Arkan's police or, how shall I call them, Arkan's men, they were beaten. I heard a lot about that. Not one story but many stories bandied about, how about how they were belittled and beaten.

Q. Did you speak with victims of such actions?

A. Yes. Some of my compatriots from Pakrac. I talked to some of them.

Q. When were they arrested and beaten by Arkan's? Do you know that? ¹⁰⁵⁰⁹

A. It was in 1995, after May. Sometime in June. End of May, in June.

Q. Were any of them arrested in Serbia, by the police in Serbia?

A. I heard that some of them had been arrested and sent to the front in Knin. I heard that too. I don't know which police did this.

Q. Witness, you have told us how you tried over many years to struggle for the Serb issues with peaceful means, and you have also told us about consequences that you suffered in this process. Did you ever give up?

A. No, never.

Q. Can you explain that?

A. Well, all my activities so far are geared in that direction. Everything I have done up until now I do now. I wanted to have everything solved by peaceful means. I wanted to avoid conflicts as far as was possible. I wanted people to live normally. I'm now engaged in a programme to bring refugees back and to normalise relations between the Serbs and the Croats, because I know that we have to live together in the region, that that is the imperative concern, and that all prejudice should be done away with and conditions be created for the flow of refugees. Many people wish to go back although there are many problems which prevent them from doing so. So those are the areas I'm working in now.

Q. And in this work, did you ever get any support from the Belgrade authorities?

A. Not any significant support. It is just in this last year or two that I can say that we have been receiving support from the authorities in ¹⁰⁵¹⁰ Belgrade, and we're working towards the return of refugees and to bringing life back to normal again.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, these are all my questions.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Well, it's time for us to adjourn. Before we do adjourn, one thing about maps; I think, having heard this evidence, it would be helpful not only to have a map of the relevant part of Croatia but also to have the municipalities marked, because there is evidence about municipalities and we should know where they are. If you could see to that, please.

The other point is this: That this courtroom is apparently available on Thursday afternoon, and we are minded to sit Thursday afternoon as well as Thursday morning, but we will let you know the hours in due course. That's just to give a general warning. We will adjourn now.

Witness C-037, I should have said to you, the arrangement appears to be that there is another witness to be heard tomorrow, and it may be the day after too, so would you be back, please, when you're asked, and it may be on Thursday but it may be before then, to complete your evidence. Of course remember what I said about not speaking to anybody about it until it's over. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 1st day of October, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.