¹⁰⁷³⁹

Thursday, 3 October 2002

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: The programme for today will be as follows: That the witness will be examined until 10.20 in the way which we've already ordered. We'll then break until 10.50. At 10.50 we will deal with Mr. Wladimiroff's matter. We will then have the earlier witness back for examination today and tomorrow. The first session will be until 12.20, the luncheon adjournment will be until 1.50. We will sit again 1.50 to 3.20. We'll take a 10-minute break; we'll sit again 3.30 to 4.30. Tomorrow morning we will sit for four hours between 9.00 and 1.00, with breaks as appropriate. We will finish tomorrow at 1.00, by which time we will have finished the examination of the earlier witness. Now, as we said, there is cross-examination of this witness for a further hour, Mr. Milosevic. Yes.

WITNESS: STJEPAN MESIC [Resumed]

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

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mesic, for the past two days, you have spoken a lot about Greater Serbia. Do you know that Greater Serbia is a creation of the Austro-Hungarian empire from the century before the last and that it was used exclusively as a means of anti-Serb propaganda and that there was never a programme, that no Serbian government ever had this kind of ¹⁰⁷⁴⁰ programme from the moment Serbia came into existence until today? Are you aware of that?

A. I know a lot of things about history, but we are here for another reason. If Greater Serbia was not in issue, why, then, did the Guards Division, commanded by the Supreme Command, directly subordinated to Blagoje Adzic, attack Vukovar? Why did the 252nd Armoured Brigade from Kraljevo, from Kraljevo, mind you, go against Vukovar? Why did the 220th Armoured Brigade from Nis attack Vukovar? Why did the 2nd and 3rd Guards Brigades attack Vukovar? They were commanded by Sljivancanin, Mrksic, and Radic, as is well known. Why did the White Eagles come, Dusan Silni commanded by Raznjatovic, Arkan?

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Mesic, I'm going to interrupt you. Do I take it from that answer that this is a conclusion which you draw from the events which occurred?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were implementing the plan for the creation of a Greater Serbia. These were units of the Ministry of the Interior, special purpose units of the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia, and the Territorial Defence of Serbia, all under the command, ultimately, of Slobodan Milosevic, accused here. The plan for the creation of a Greater Serbia started from Vukovar. I don't want to enter into Austro-Hungarian propaganda.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Mesic, as you know, I was the President of Serbia. Yesterday, Mr. May asked me about Vukovar, and I told him I didn't know about that. I was the President of Serbia. And you, Mr. Mesic, is it not correct, ¹⁰⁷⁴¹ attacked, according to your own decision, the JNA, wherever it was stationed. You are responsible for the conflicts with the JNA, which was on the territory of Yugoslavia. You caused all the destruction and killing. Is that correct or not, Mr. Mesic?

A. The accused is putting forward conclusions that not even David Copperfield would be ashamed of. Croatia was defending itself from the JNA because the JNA was arming those who were attacking Croatia, the Croatian state and the Croatian government. Croatia was defending itself because the JNA, under the control of the accused, was attacking Croatian territory. No one attacked barracks. They were simply blocked, surrounded, to prevent them attacking.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Mr. Milosevic, I think the reference to David Copperfield was probably to Micawber, although I don't know if that's right or not. But in any event, can we deal with something more concrete? We are dealing in generalities and it's really of no assistance to the Trial Chamber to have these very general discussions. Perhaps you can help us. Since the plan for the Greater Serbia was mentioned, Mr. Mesic, did you hear the accused or anybody in the leadership of the JNA or the Republic of Serbia talking about such a plan?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct. Or rather, it is correct that there was no discussion of the creation of a Greater Serbia. As far as I know, there is no such conclusion, formal conclusion, but the job of creating a Greater Serbia was being done in Serbia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina. So work on it was being conducted. And I draw this conclusion on the basis of the actions of the JNA, the Territorial ¹⁰⁷⁴² Defence, and the illegal, or rather, legal in Serbia, paramilitary organisations which were mobilised in centres in Serbia, which were trained in centres in Serbia, and after the fall of Vukovar, men, women, and children, all those who were not killed in Ovcara, were taken to camps in Serbia, which stretched all the way to Nis.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Since this is evidently untrue, to avoid your explaining again about Greater Serbia, which as you yourself say nobody ever discussed, yesterday you said that you were well aware of the time, so the Serbs reacted in August 1990. You spoke of the log revolution. And you claim that conflicts broke out because there was a plan to create a Greater Serbia, which as you yourself have just said nobody ever mentioned, and that it was the plan to create a Greater Serbia which broke up Yugoslavia. Now tell me: You were the first Prime Minister of Croatia after the HDZ won the elections, and this government introduced a reign of terror over the Serbian population. They did this before August 1990.

A. There was no reign of terror in Croatia. As I said, there were unacceptable messages, that is correct.

Q. What sort of messages are you talking about? Let me just remind you: This wave of anti-Serbian nationalism which was reminiscent of 1945 and 1971, let me tell you, on the 12th of March, the presidency of Croatia sent a letter where Milan Seselj resigned because of the benevolent view of the Ustasha taken by the government because the government was allowing the Serbian people to be mistreated, their language thrown out of the constitution, and taking every opportunity to mistreat the Serbs in ¹⁰⁷⁴³ Croatia. This was in March 1990. You said the Serbs rebelled and put up logs to prevent your police from slaughtering them in August, but the Ustasha killed Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies in Jasenica, as you well know.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we're going to deal with concrete matters and we're going to deal with questions and not speeches. Now, would you move on to some other topic. I think we have exhausted this topic. We've been through it several times yesterday, and now we're going through it again today. Now, remember, your time is limited.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You are wasting my time and Mr. Mesic is wasting my time. I'm using my time very rationally.

JUDGE MAY: If you don't have sensible questions, it will be brought to an end.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Is this a sensible question, Mr. May, for him to tell me why the survivors of Jasenovac, of the Jasenovac camp, wrote a message saying, "We have escaped one hell, we don't want our children and grandchildren to experience another. We are embittered by the knowledge that the independent state of Croatia was the will of the Croatian people."

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Mesic --

JUDGE MAY: The witness cannot answer the question as to why that letter was written. You will have to call evidence about it if you wish. Now, what is your next question?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. My question is: In your programme, the programme of the Croatian ^{10744 BLANK PAGE 10745} Democratic Union, did you include all this? I'm speaking of the historical opportunity for the Croatian people to create their own state. And did you embark upon a pogrom of the Serbs on the 17th of June, 1989? This is the programme of that HDZ of yours which was established on the 17th of June, 1989, with these goals. So did the Serbs rebel before that for you to do that, or was it afterwards? How can something that happened later cause something that happened before?

JUDGE MAY: Several questions in one. The first allegation is that you embarked upon a pogrom. I think, Mr. Mesic, these are matters which you've dealt with before, but since it's put in that way, you should have the opportunity to deal with it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have already answered this question, but I can do so again. The Croatian people had the right to independence, just as the people of Finland have, just as the Serbs have. They have the right to independence and they made use of that right. Because Yugoslavia had no integrating factors any longer, Croatia wanted, in the period leading up to dissociation, to have this happen in a peaceful way, which is why it offered a confederal model. I have already stated this.

I also said that Croatia was based on the anti-fascist Croatia created in World War II. The Croatia of today is based on the anti-fascist Croatia. The independent state of Croatia was neither Croatian, nor was it independent. It was a creation of quislings. It perpetrated crimes and it had to answer for those crimes. To link the independent state of Croatia as it was then with the Croatia of today can ¹⁰⁷⁴⁶ only be in the interest of somebody's propaganda. But the Croatia of today, a democratic country ruled by law, has nothing to do with that independent state of Croatia. I said, and I say again, that there were erroneous messages, messages that were wrong, but this had to be resolved through the institutions of the Croatian state and not to have the Serbs, who are elected to the Croatian parliament, walk out of that parliament when there were issues to be identified and resolved. What was it they wanted? They wanted precisely what happened and precisely what Milosevic is accused of today. But it was not they themselves who wanted the rebellion, it was others who led them into rebellion, and the accused knows very well that the aim was to set up the Virovitica- Karlovac-Karlobag boundary.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You said that a thousand times.

A. It's always the same.

Q. You hold it against Croatian MPs. I'm not entering into your internal affairs in the parliament, but you hold it against them that they walked out of the parliament to avoid resolving issues, and this, according to you, was the place where they should have been solved, and yet you do not hold it against yourself that you walked out of the Presidency of Yugoslavia, the highest organ of Yugoslavia, where problems had to be resolved. You purposely brought the Presidency into a situation in which it became a rump Presidency by walking out of it and leading others to do the same. All your stories about Greater Serbia were merely a pretext for you to carry out your plan, to decapitate -- ¹⁰⁷⁴⁷

MR. NICE: I'm sorry to interrupt, but can the witness perhaps answer that question, if there is a single question locked in there.

JUDGE MAY: Was there a question? What was it?

MR. NICE: The suggestion is that he walked out of the Presidency of Yugoslavia. I'd like to have an answer to that.

JUDGE MAY: Well, I think he's answered it several times, but of course he can.

The suggestion is that you accused the Serbs of walking out of the parliament but you walked out of the Presidency, and I suppose what's the difference? That's the point which was made.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will gladly answer, and I'm glad that the question was put. Croatia proclaimed its independence in agreement with the international community. Croatia postponed the implementation of its decision, hoping that a political solution would be reached within three months' time, namely, a political model as to how we would move from that federation which no longer functioned into something that was different. We said that we wanted a confederal model. If it did not function, then everybody would take their own path. But as an independent state without wars.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Mesic, we've already heard that.

A. Yes, we have already heard it. That's why I'm repeating it. And once these three months elapsed, when there was no more Presidency, when Croatia was independent, I had nothing to do with the Presidency. I had no business there. I did not come to the Presidency of Yugoslavia of my ¹⁰⁷⁴⁸ own free will. I came on the basis of a decision reached by the Croatian parliament, and if there was no more Presidency, my only task was to return to the parliament and say that I had no more business in Belgrade, and that's exactly what happened. I don't see how I was the one who toppled Yugoslavia.

Q. Of course you're the one who did. Mr. Mesic, is it being denied that mass dismissals from Serbs who were employed in the police, state administration, and even the health sector, was --

JUDGE MAY: The witness can't answer questions on that. You asked them yesterday and he dealt with it. You must ask something new today if you want to continue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am asking him something new.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Because the point is that it's not possible if you put the time sequence together, then you will see that the reaction of the Serbs in Croatia was reaction to a pogrom that was started against them.

JUDGE MAY: You've dealt with them. Now, look, Mr. Milosevic: You can ask questions about what the witness has said, but you can't go over and over again the same material. It's pointless. Now, you've got 10 minutes left.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Mesic, do you remember the statement made by Lord Carrington, who said: We were about to reach a solution. You are talking about it now, a political solution. We were about to resolve the problem of Slavonia and Krajina when Germany recognised Croatia within its borders ¹⁰⁷⁴⁹ and that destroyed the peace process. Croatia had no interest whatsoever in pursuing the political process. They simply carried out what they had intended to carry out. Do you think that he's right when he says that?

A. Germany was not the first one to recognise Croatia. It was Iceland that did. Iceland and Germany and all other countries that recognised Croatia and Slovenia. Later, Bosnia and Herzegovina as well. They recognised reality, because Serbia did not accept agreements. Serbia, headed by the accused, wanted to change borders of the republics. That's the whole problem. Because if there were dismissals from work, I repeat once again, is that a reason to destroy Vukovar? Are divisions supposed to be brought in then?

Q. I believe that we've cleared that up, that there were conflicts with the JNA, not with Serbia, and conflicts with the JNA and the territory of Yugoslavia and the Croatian part of Yugoslav territory were caused by your violence, not the violence perpetrated by the JNA. But my question is: Did the Serbs accept Vance's plan and the UN-protected areas, north, south, east, west? Is that correct or is that not correct, Mr. Mesic? Is that not what happened at the end of 1991 and the beginning of 1992? Is that correct, Mr. Mesic?

A. Correct. The Vance-Owen Plan.

Q. It's not the Vance-Owen Plan. It's the Vance plan.

A. All right. It was the Vance plan and then the Vance-Owen plan, and the UNPAs, and Croatia abided by that. They were protected.

Q. Oh, you're saying that you protected the UNPAs and you carried out all these attacks against the UN-protected areas, all of them. Look at ^{10750 BLANK PAGE 10751} it. That is a book about the Miljevac Plateau, with pictures of corpses. The book about Maslenica also. This is 1992. This is 1993. The exodus in 1995. Persons who went missing, Western Slavonia. 1995. All these attacks were carried out against UN-protected areas. How do you explain that, Mr. Mesic, that you attacked all the UNPAs?

JUDGE MAY: We are being asked by the interpreters to remind you to slow down, both the accused and the witness.

Now, Mr. Mesic, the allegation is that there were attacks on the protected areas. Perhaps you could deal with those.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were only responses to attacks. Croatia had to re-establish traffic on its roads. Croatia had to ensure normal life in its towns, and they were under attack, under attack at all roads in Croatia. As for Maslenica, it is a well-known fact that this is an area above the Adriatic highway and Croatia was practically cut in two and Croatia had to ensure the possibility of traffic taking place.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Mesic, it is my claim that the Serbs accepted the Vance plan, that they carried out demilitarisation, that they were guarded by the UN and that you attacked them and that you expelled them from the areas that were protected by the UN. These are historical facts. Are you denying that? Are you claiming that that's not the way it was?

A. Of course I'm denying that, because, quite simply --

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness finish. Let the witness make an explanation. Yes. ¹⁰⁷⁵²

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] Great.

Q. Mr. Mesic --

JUDGE MAY: Let him finish.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He has finished, Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Can you add anything, Mr. Mesic, to that, about the protected areas?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. I can add that disarmament was not carried out.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Mesic, we are not going to go into that now. I don't have time to exhibit these books and these abominations. Whether the Serbs observed the zones under UN protection is not something that I'm going to contest, because it's quite clear that they did and that you did not. So now we have to proceed.

JUDGE MAY: Put a question. You're not giving evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You came to the head of the Presidency on the 1st of July, 1991. Within three months' time, until the 1st of October, you held 15 sessions of this highest organ of the Federation, at which discussions were held on halting hostilities and on a peaceful resolution to the Yugoslav crisis. I did not attend a single one of these sessions. You rarely invited the presidents of the republics, these 15 sessions that I'm referring to. Did any member of the Presidency of the SFRY, as you put it, from the pro-Serb bloc, was against stopping hostilities and finding a peaceful resolution ¹⁰⁷⁵³ to the crisis? At these 15 sessions that you convened, was a single one of them against it?

A. Even a commission was stopped -- was formed to stop the hostilities. It was headed by Branko Kostic, member of the Presidency. As a matter of fact, he was vice-president of the Presidency. This commission was actually a commission for fanning the flames of war, and that's the way they behaved. They had support among the Serbian bloc, which was headed by Borislav Jovic. And he, on the other hand, had direct communication with the accused.

Q. Are you trying to say that they opposed a peaceful solution, that they did not want a peaceful solution?

A. Correct. That is precisely what I'm saying.

Q. The minutes that you presented here shows that on the 1st of October, six members of the Presidency were present. I just want to correct you in terms of what you said yesterday. And the decision on the demobilisation of all armed groups on the territory of the SFRY, except for the JNA, and the regular peacetime police force, and that was supposed to take place as of the 18th of July, 1991, as of midnight, and you personally signed that decision, Mr. Mesic. You signed that decision on behalf of the SFRY Presidency to disarm everyone except for the JNA and the peacetime police force, and you armed your own ZNGs, members of the national guard, and other paramilitaries who were plundering and killing all over Croatia, and there is also --

JUDGE MAY: You must allow the witness to answer. Yes, Mr. Mesic. No. You've been speaking for a long time. ¹⁰⁷⁵⁴ Mr. Mesic, what's suggested is that you were disarming everyone except the ZNG.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The accused knows full well that these were illegal paramilitary organisations that had to be disarmed, and I agree with that. As for the ZNG, the National Guard Corps is not an illegal paramilitary organisation. It is an institution established within the Ministry of the Interior, but it was armed. So this is a legal organisation, not an illegal organisation.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Mesic, item 1 of this decision that you signed reads as follows: To demobilise all armed units in the territory of the SFRY, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, except for the JNA and the regular peacetime police force, by the 18th of July, 1991, 2400 hours. There is no mention of legal, illegal. It says everyone, all armed units except for the army and the police. You signed that decision, and now you are claiming, because the ZNG --

JUDGE MAY: You must come to a question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You were aware of the crimes from the report of Stjepan Herzog published in 2002 on the 29th of January. It was published by Novi List. He says there is certain information about illegal arrests of peace-loving citizens of Serb ethnicity who are taken away and nobody knows whether they are dead or alive. That pertains to the liquidation of the Serbs in 1991. It says that this was addressed to the Committee for the Protection of the Constitutional Order, to Tudjman, et cetera. You knew about all of ¹⁰⁷⁵⁵ that, didn't you, Mr. Mesic?

A. Such a letter was not sent to me. After I was elected to this office, I found this. Croatia did not always function as a state based on the rule of law. It is today, though. And these crimes are being investigated. If it is correct -- if what Mr. Stjepan Herzog established then is correct, the perpetrators will be brought to justice. Croatia today is a state based on the rule of law.

Q. Mr. Mesic, I'm not asking you about anything that is taking place today. You keep explaining this period of time when you were responsible for crimes against Serbs by saying that, I don't know, that the parliament decide this, that you were not being asked about this, that you were --

JUDGE MAY: This is going over old ground yet again. Now, your time is now up. You can ask, though, two more questions if you wish, but they must be new questions.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that's precisely the question I put: Was Mr. Mesic some invisible man who was not in this leadership that was responsible for these crimes, or does he consider himself to be one of the persons responsible for these crimes against Yugoslavia?

JUDGE MAY: He's already answered that several times.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. If you're letting me put two more questions, I'm going to put my next two questions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is it correct that it was precisely this same JNA - and you were at the helm of the collective supreme commander - did it not agree to 14 cease fires during these operations, and all were requested by the ¹⁰⁷⁵⁶ Page blanche insérée aux fins d'assurer la correspondance entre la pagination anglaise et la pagination française.

¹⁰⁷⁵⁷ Croatian side, doesn't that best show the attitude precisely of that military leadership that you have been contesting? This Supreme Command staff was founded in 1987, not later, as you were saying. Doesn't that show the attitude of the Presidency and of the military leadership, that is to say, to find a peaceful solution to all these problems? And each and every one of these cases, the army did accept your requests, and in their reports that I have received here, it says that they did not open fire anywhere, only in the places where they were attacked. How do you --

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer that.

A. We are not establishing negative facts here. We are talking about positive facts. That is to say that the Supreme Command staff can become operational --

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... translation.

THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the English channel? Can you hear the English channel?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. It's all right. Yes. Let's go on. Yes, Mr. Mesic.

A. The Supreme Command staff can be activated only in case of war and only in case of imminent threat of war. A decision on that is to be passed by the Presidency of Yugoslavia. Such a decision was never reached.

As for the ceasefire, there were ceasefires, as far as I know this was the case, yes, 14 times. I'm not going into who had requested a ceasefire; there were ceasefires. But the army was carrying out the assignment it got, to cover the area that the paramilitaries had put under ¹⁰⁷⁵⁸ their control before that and they expelled the non-Serb population from that area.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. So I'm entitled to one more question only. This area that you are talking about were UN-protected areas after that, and I see that you learned this very well, this sadly composed false indictment. My question is the following: Now that you are working for this illegal Tribunal, do you really believe you can evade criminal responsibility for crimes?

JUDGE MAY: That's not a proper question. The witness is a witness before the Tribunal, he's not working for it, as you know quite well.

Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

Q. [Interpretation] From the extensive material we have here, it was very difficult for me to decide which particular documents to select and what to choose as interventions as amicus. And I decided on two pages from this massive material, and I'd like to ask the Prosecution to prepare these documents. They are Mr. Mesic's statements given in March 1998 before the investigators of The Hague Tribunal, so that I won't be able to go into that other statement, which was longer, in the Dokmanovic case, except for a fragment of that.

But what I would like to ask you first, Mr. Mesic, is this: It is a sort of introductory question and has to do with the event that took ¹⁰⁷⁵⁹ place in Karadjordjevo. You said that you wanted to organise a meeting between yourself and Tudjman and Jovic and Milosevic, and you proposed this to Tudjman, whereas only Tudjman actually went to the meeting; isn't that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Is it also right that in all the matters relating to the destiny and fate of Croatia, you consulted the president of the Republic but that you also stood by your own opinions and views? Is that right?

A. In the Yugoslav state Presidency, I represented the interests of the Republic of Croatia, and I put forward my own views as well.

Q. Thank you. Yesterday you said that your entire family were in the Partizan movement, and you said that when you were interviewed as a witness in the Dokmanovic case, at one point you said the following: "My father and his five brothers and my entire family, including myself, all of us were with the Partizans." And I know that very well, and that 11 of your relatives were killed.

I'm not going to ask you about some things that this Court will have to go into about the victims in the camps during World War II, but I do want to ask you the following in view of the fact that your whole family was in the Partizans: Is it correct that in World War II, of all the people living in our areas and in our part of the world, it was the Serbs that suffered most? Yes or no.

A. It was the Jews, the Romanies, and of course a lot of Serbs that suffered and were -- fell casualty. But I don't want to enter into speculation as to numbers. ¹⁰⁷⁶⁰

Q. Thank you. Is it also true that Hitler bombed -- only bombed Belgrade and the Serbian towns and Montenegrin towns, not military targets but mostly civilian targets and that there were a great deal of victims and casualties among the civilians themselves? Is that right?

A. Yes, it is. The Wehrmacht did bomb Serb towns.

Q. Thank you. Is it also true that it was only in Serbia where if one person was killed, 100 Serbs were killed in retaliation, in Kragujevac, Kraljevo, and other towns in Serbia?

A. Yes, that is correct. I just have to add that General Adzic told me that if one Serb was killed, 2.000 Croats will pay with their heads.

Q. Yes, I've heard that, but I asked you this, and I'm going to ask you today the following: Yesterday you mentioned the killing of Ferdinand. The killing of one man is always a tragedy and I don't think that the killing of, the murder of Ferdinand was a good thing. But what I want to ask you is the following: Are you aware of the fact that in World War I, of the military-able men in Serbia, 60 per cent of the male population in Serbia were killed? Is that correct or is the percentage approximately correct? Perhaps it was 54 per cent.

JUDGE MAY: Your role is to assist the Trial Chamber and not to try and make points of various sorts for either side. Now, these are matters which no doubt we can read, if they're relevant, but I don't really see that it's going to assist cross-examining this witness about the First World War or indeed the Second World War. The point that the accused has made is that the Serbs were in fear, and he says, no doubt that that is because of a background of what ¹⁰⁷⁶¹ happened 50 years before. But there's a limit to the evidence that we can receive on this topic, and it's a limit to what benefit there is in cross-examining this witness about it. Now, we will -- we've said that we will hear on both sides one historian, but there is a limit beyond that which we're not really prepared to go. So could you bear that in mind, please.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge May, that is precisely what I wish to do, just what you were saying. I am bearing that in mind and wish to clarify that point. I want to arrive at a question, but I have to go back to one previous question before I get to my main question. I would like to ask Mr. Mesic whether, in the history of the Yugoslav peoples and area - as you called it, the invalid Yugoslavia - whether there were any 40 years between 1950 and 1999, whether the country had ever gone through a period of this type in history where there were no casualties, no victims, no civilian casualties, and that it was in fact the most peaceful period in the history of that entire region.

Q. Is that correct?

A. I agree with you on one point, and that is that it was a peaceful time, without war. The Serbs and Croats never went to war in history until this particular war, which was imposed in order to expand borders, or rather, to change the borders and frontiers of the republics of the then Yugoslavia.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have to go back to some matters that are really very relevant to this Trial Chamber, and that is the following: In World War I, a large number of regiments came ^{10762 BLANK PAGE 10763} from the area of Croatia.

Q. Is it true that Josip Broz Tito was a member of one of those regiments and arrived in Serbia, in Ljig?

JUDGE MAY: I do not see why that is very relevant to the Trial Chamber, and particularly I don't see why it's of any relevance to the cross-examination of this witness. Now, he dealt, Mr. Tapuskovic, with a great deal of evidence, and there's been little cross-examination relating to it. If you want to cross-examine him on his evidence and if you want to assist the Trial Chamber, by all means do so, but going back in history at the moment does not seem to be of any assistance.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It is precisely because of those killings that the Serb people were afraid of any other conflict or war that might come. That is why I put my questions. But I will stop there.

Q. Yesterday you said that there were only three integrational elements in Yugoslavia and that they were Tito and his -- with his charisma and authority, then we had the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, and finally, the Yugoslav People's Army. That's what you said, I believe, isn't it?

A. Yes. They were the main factors of integration. Of course, there were economic interests and so on and so forth, communications, and so on. But they were the main factors of integration, without which Yugoslavia was no longer tenable.

Q. That's what I wanted to ask you. The people that lived for 70 years together, the language, family ties, the economy, culture, and everything else, did this not link up people? Was it really only tourism ¹⁰⁷⁶⁴ that was the important link in the chain? Were not all these other links important?

A. An amicus curiae is there to assist the Court. That is the duty of the Judges too. But he must also help ascertain the truth. I did not say that tourism was the main factor of integration. What I said was that the main integrative factors were the ones I stated. There were others. But without those three main factors of integration, Yugoslavia could not have survived. It was Serbia that went to block Slovenia, and Slovenia was within the frameworks of Yugoslavia. It was Serbia that forbade, led by Mr. Milosevic, the accused here, to purchase goods from the republic of Serbia, any goods whatsoever, in the republic of Serbia. This boycott was enforced. So who, then, is it who wished to dismember the country?

Q. Nonetheless, this first factor of integration did exist because, of course, Josip Broz Tito died. He died a natural death and the League of Communists disintegrated.

You said yesterday -- actually, in the statement you gave previously, in paragraph 4 of that statement, you said that Milosevic destroyed the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. Now, do you think that the Communist Party of Yugoslavia should have remained in place or do you think that it should have been done away with in order to democratise the region? Do you consider that it should have remained? Because you seem to criticise Milosevic for having effectively destroyed the Yugoslav Communist Party.

A. That is your explanation and interpretation, that is not what I said. All I said was that that particular factor of integration had ¹⁰⁷⁶⁵ disappeared too. And let me say that I went to prison because I was against a one-party system, so don't put into my mouth words that I did not say.

Q. No. I'm just reading your statement, reading the statement you gave, in which you say: "Milosevic effectively destroyed the Yugoslav Communist Party." That is word-for-word what it says in your statement, the statement you gave in 1998.

A. I have to answer once again and respond: There were three factors of integration which had disappeared. Amongst them was the League of Communists, which was a multinationality, multi-ethnic party, which means that all the nations and nationalities, in one way or another, took part and participated in the membership of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. And then the League of Communists of Yugoslavia disappeared. I do not say that the League of Communists was a good thing. It could not have been a good thing by virtue of the fact that it was just one party, one single party, and I was in favour of a multiparty system. So don't place words into my mouth and say that I was sorry to see the League of Communists go. All I said was that it was this factor of integration which had disappeared.

Q. Thank you. And then you say all that remained was the Yugoslav People's Army, and then you said yesterday now it was up to destroying the Yugoslav People's Army. Who was it who should have done this? Who was it who destroyed the Yugoslav People's Army?

A. It was the accused and his vision of the creation of Serbia at the expense of other people's territory. The army asked for sponsors, ¹⁰⁷⁶⁶ sponsorship, because the mechanism, that enormous mechanism, was left without the money to fund it, so it sought for sponsors. And the army saw Slobodan Milosevic as being its sponsor. Slobodan Milosevic who stands accused here. And in Serbia, who would have a larger territory. That is why the army took the side of Slobodan Milosevic and executed the tasks that he placed before it.

Q. But was not the army attacked in Slovenia on the 27th of June, 1991, when barricades were set up around the borders? The army wished to go and control the borders, but on that occasion 40 innocent soldiers were killed and they were not bearing arms. Is that correct? Wasn't the army attacked in Slovenia when the barricades were set up by the Territorial Defence throughout Slovenia? Isn't that right?

A. In Slovenia, the army was not attacked. It was the Yugoslav People's Army who was the attacker in Slovenia, attacking the institutions of the Slovenian Republic.

Q. Thank you. And was a blockade set up of the barracks, following orders from Zeks? In Croatia and in Split, to prevent the soldiers from being able to get water, food, and electricity?

A. I have already answered that question. The blockade was necessary. The blockade of the barracks of the Yugoslav People's Army was necessary to prevent the arming of those who were overthrowing the institutions of the Croatian state.

Q. I don't want to go back to Mr. Spegelj and his statement that what should be done was to begin killing the officers of the Yugoslav army, but you keep saying that one party in Serbia kept talking about the ¹⁰⁷⁶⁷ Karlobag-Virovitica et cetera, that border there.

A. You mean Karlovac.

Q. Yes, I mean Karlovac. We know what we mean. Now, the Croatian party of rights on the 17th of June, 1991, did it proclaim the Lipljanska povelja on which it demanded the eastern borders along the lines of Subotica, Zemun, Drina, Sandzak and Boka Kotorska?

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please be asked to slow down and repeat the final part of his question. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: You're being asked to slow down and also to repeat the final line of the -- the final part of your question.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. That the borders had to be along the Subotica-Zemun-Drina-Sandzak-Boka Kotorska line, that's what I was saying with the June charter.

A. I do not know about that June charter, but even if it was adopted, the authority in Croatia was not in the hands of the Croatian Party of Rights. As far as General Spegelj is concerned, because he was mentioned here, he never uttered the fact that anybody ought to be killed. What he said was - and there are videotapes about that - that in the case of a civil war, should a civil war break out, nobody will ask who was guilty and who was not, there's just shooting and people are killed. And that is why he said that a civil war should be avoided.

Q. Now, you say that because of all this, among the people in the region - and I equate the Serb and Croat people - that there was not the fear of new conflicts and loss of life. But let me ask you this question ^{10768 BLANK PAGE 10769} now and wind up that area. If there was no fear and no justified fear -- I understand that Croatia had the right to unite its territory. That is quite normal, to have a uniform united territory, and I accept that. But isn't this what happened in the end, what happened actually in the Krajina, that it was the Serb houses that were burnt, that the civilians were killed and that all the people, about 300.000, perhaps it wasn't exactly 300.000, but one day, with bombings from planes, were expelled from those areas. I don't know whether forever, but anyway, they were expelled then. How could that have happened if your aim was only to get back your territories? Does that not mean actually that the fear was justified and that the Serbs suffered the fate that they were afraid of?

A. When the log revolution began, there was not one single reason for any serious fear. There were no serious grounds for fear and anxiety. Everything should have been settled through Croatian institutions. And had that been done, there would not have been any war in Croatia. But it was the arming of those who were implementing the plan to expand the borders of Serbia - I don't want to say Greater Serbia here - but to expand it. Because it's a small area, so nobody can be great in a small area, or greater in a small area. So it was this expansion of Serbian borders that was wanted. So those who were armed worked to implement that plan. And when the final operation took place, a part of the people left together with the army. They left together with the army.

Q. Mr. Mesic, I accept all that, but I'm asking you why civilian casualties were necessary. Why was it necessary to kill civilians, to burn their houses, and to expel them from these regions? That's what I'm ¹⁰⁷⁷⁰ asking you.

A. I have already answered that question. I said what the Serbs in Croatia were needed for. Slobodan Milosevic needed them to populate Kosovo once he had expelled the Albanians. But the crimes committed against the civilians, it is I myself who am in favour of having every criminal brought to justice and have all these cases investigated, and that is the policy that I am pursuing and the Croatian radicals are criticising me. They are uniting against me with the Serb radicals and are criticising me in that. And if you change their title, then you will see that they are working along those same lines, and we were able to see that during this trial as well.

Q. Thank you. That was the topic I wished to discuss and ask you about. I have one more matter to deal with. They are constitutional matters. I know full well that, as a statesman, you are well versed in the most subtle aspects of constitutionality so I won't be able to go into the details but just some basics, please.

In your statement here, you spoke about the Croatian Spring and you say here at one point that many ideas for which we strove were adopted and were incorporated into the 1974 constitution, which established a confederal Yugoslavia. That's what you say in your statement. And when you were examined as a witness in the Dokmanovic case, on page 1629, lines 7 and 8, you say the following: That the 1974 constitution introduced into the Yugoslav mechanism the confederal model. Is that correct?

A. The functioning of the Federation, in practical terms, meant that it worked according to the confederal model. That's not the name it was ¹⁰⁷⁷¹ given, but if automatism exists with the rotation of the president and vice-president, and if the most important questions require a consensus of opinion, then quite certainly that is a form of a confederation, the confederal model.

Q. You said yesterday that you decided that you had to work towards independence because Yugoslavia was no longer a federal state, which according to your convictions, as you stated here already, in 1974 it was in fact a confederal state. Now, how do you explain this? How do you marry the two?

A. It was not fully a confederal state. It had aspects of the confederal model in its mechanism. That is why Croatia and Slovenia proposed a confederal state to the ultimate consequences. The model that was in force could not have survived, because neither Serbia was satisfied with it, nor any of the other republics, and that is quite true. But what we were asking for was a confederal model. Serbia proposed what it implemented later on in Kosovo and Vojvodina, and we were not able to agree to that.

Q. Thank you. Is it true - especially as you followed this - after the Croatian Spring, there was initiative to change the constitution, to alter the constitution? Is that so?

A. Yes.

Q. As early as 1971, were there tempestuous discussions about this? And this book published in 1971 at the faculty of law in Belgrade, was it not banned, and did it not contain the opinions of the biggest legal experts of the time in Yugoslavia who thought that this was leading to the ¹⁰⁷⁷² break-up of Yugoslavia, which is why it was banned? Are you aware of this or not?

A. I don't know which books were banned in Belgrade.

Q. I'm asking you about this one.

A. I have to mention, if we are discussing law, that original sovereignty in the Yugoslav Federation was born by the republics. Dr. Jovan Stefanovic, a university professor, held the view - and he was correct in this - that original sovereignty was born by the republics and it was by the will of the republics that part of their sovereignty was transferred to the Federation. Dr. Jovan Stefanovic also said that citizenship originally resided in the republics, but by virtue of the logic of things, if a republic belonged to a federation, it was considered that if someone was a citizen of the republic, he was also a citizen of Yugoslavia.

Q. We have no time to go into this. You say you don't know anything about this book, but since you yourself were imprisoned unjustifiably, do you know that because of their opinions that these constitutional changes were leading to the break-up of Yugoslavia, Mihajlo Djuric, a university professor, another assistant professor, Cavoski, as well as Kostunica, were persecuted and dismissed, expelled, from the university because they held the view that these changes were leading to the break-up of Yugoslavia? Are you aware of this?

A. I know that many people in Croatia were punished for their opinions, and I'm absolutely against this. I'm also against people in Serbia being punished for holding certain opinions. Whether I agree or ¹⁰⁷⁷³ disagree with these opinions is another question. At the time, it was a crime to hold certain opinions. Unfortunately, the country was a dictatorship, and that's how it was.

Q. We have no time to go into this. I will have to discuss this with experts on constitutional law. But let me ask you this: Did the constitution of 1974 provide for a veto?

A. I cannot answer this question.

Q. Did the regions, the autonomous regions, have the right to take independent decisions, and if Serbia voted in favour of a certain proposal in the Federation, a decision could not be reached if one of the provinces disagreed with it?

A. A province could halt a certain measure if it disagreed with it.

Q. So a province could block any proposal coming from Serbia at the federal level?

A. I don't think this refers to any proposal. It was only essential matters, and this also meant that the republics, if they disagreed with a certain measure, could not -- it could not be implemented at the federal level.

Q. Is it true that no republican law could be passed without the consent of the provinces in a country of 10 million inhabitants and the provinces had only 2 million inhabitants? Is this correct?

A. Yes. They were a constitutional category.

Q. If the constitution proclaimed the -- that all the republics were equal, how was it possible for Serbia to be so powerless that it could do nothing, absolutely nothing, on its own? Practically all the federal ^{10774 BLANK PAGE 10775} institutions had been eliminated, nothing was functioning at the federal level precisely because of what was imposed on Serbia and did not exist in any other republic. Answer me just this: Were there attempts in Croatia for national minorities or the constituent peoples to attain the same sort of rights but they were unable to do this?

A. Croatia had no autonomous provinces. Serbia had two autonomous provinces; Kosovo and Vojvodina. But the Yugoslav constitution established that the autonomous provinces were a constituent element of the Federation within the framework of Serbia. Their representatives in the federal Presidency held equal status to the presidents of the republics.

Q. Mr. Mesic, my time is up. I have to take this into account. And I have only one question left: When you set out to declare independence in the situation where two Germanys -- the two Germanys had already united and Europe was headed towards integration, in a situation in which the Helsinki charter existed, how was it possible for you to go for independence, when the whole world was heading towards integration, you were breaking up a small part on the globe into a fragment, in separate states? That's my last question.

A. As the Federation was untenable, it is quite logical that we wanted dissociation. There was no other way out. There are far smaller states in Europe than any of the Yugoslav republics, much smaller states, which are sovereign and independent. But the solution for all the former republics, which are now states, is a united Europe, which will open up its borders. Nothing stood in the way of the republics becoming ¹⁰⁷⁷⁶ independent without a war, and for every nation, as is happening now in Europe, to live within its own culture - just as a German doesn't care today whether he's on one side of the border or the other, or a Frenchman - the same would have happened on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. It wouldn't have mattered whether a Croat or a Serb was on one side of a border or another because the same rules that apply in Europe and that are reached through European mechanisms in a democratic procedure would have applied. There was no need to use tanks to impose one's own solutions on others. This was the biggest mistake made by the one who wanted to change the borders of republics, and that is the accused.

Q. Well, I agree, but why was Germany, which had united, the first country to recognise you?

A. I answered yesterday that we were first recognised by Iceland.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you, Your Honours.

Re-examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. The correct and full quotation from the statement of March 1998 put by Mr. Tapuskovic reads as follows:

"That in 1989 ... Milosevic --" or "at the 14th congress, Milosevic effectively destroyed the Yugoslav Communist Party. This created a void at the federal level, since the only functioning parties were those at the republic level."

Was that your view of events at the time, Mr. Mesic?

A. That is correct. I was not defending the policy of the Communist Party; I was simply ascertaining that it had disintegrated. ¹⁰⁷⁷⁷

Q. And by being destroyed at the federal level, were there then only republican parties in operation?

A. That is correct. The League of Communists remained at the republic level. In Croatia, it was transformed into a social democratic party. It accepted the multiparty system and carried out social democratic policies such as is normal in Europe.

Q. In the limited time available, any question that you can answer by a yes or no will probably result in the saving of time. Various allegations have been made against you. A little bit more about your own credentials, please. Were you ever a member of the Communist Party yourself, so we can know about that? Yes or no.

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Until when?

A. Until 1971, when I participated in the Croatian Spring, called for democracy and called for clear accounts at the federal level.

Q. You were asked about the period of peace of which the next 20 years, approximately, would form part. Period of peace, yes; with or without civil rights, as properly understood in Europe, would you judge that period of peace?

A. It was a period without war, but not a period of peace, because laws were applied selectively, and this cannot be so in a democracy.

Q. You told us of the period of time which you, a qualified lawyer, were unable to get a job and indeed unable to travel because you were deprived a passport. Was deprivation of passport a standard tool of the then state? ¹⁰⁷⁷⁸

A. Hundreds of thousands of people were denied a passport. I was one of them. I applied for 150 vacancies, and although I had passed the examination to become a judge, the bar examination, I was unable to get a job.

Q. With that background of concern for democracy, did you cleave to those positions throughout the beginnings of the HDZ as a party, leaving that party only when you disapproved of its actions in Bosnia?

A. I was convinced that Yugoslavia could not survive, but I was also afraid of those enormous rallies, the million-strong masses, saying that they would settle accounts with Croatia. I was looking for those who could resist these attacks, stand up to those attacks, and I thought it was the HDZ that could rise to that historical challenge. When I saw, however, that part of that policy was diverging from what I wanted, then I abandoned it.

Q. Pausing there in the chronology, and I'm dealing with a few matters chronologically: Who were the first victims of Plitvice and Pakrac? Were they Croats or Serbs?

A. There were no victims in Pakrac, no wounded and no dead, but the Yugoslav army was brought in to take the territory needed to achieve Greater Serbian goals. The first victim in Plitvice was a Croat, Josip Jovic.

Q. During your occupancy of the Presidency, as president, for which you had striven, were you working conscientiously to achieve results through the Presidency?

A. That is correct. I understood my arrival at the Presidency as an ¹⁰⁷⁷⁹ opportunity to find a peaceful political way out of the crisis, because Yugoslavia entered the crisis before my arrival. The work of the Presidency was blocked. Federal institutions were not functioning. All this was already happening when I was appointed to that office.

Q. And were your attempts to hold meetings away from Belgrade, where it was too dangerous for you to travel, were your attempts to hold meetings sincere attempts where you would have conducted business had it been arranged -- had it been possible to make arrangements to meet?

A. It's not that it was just dangerous for me to reach Belgrade. I was prevented from reaching Belgrade because the airport in Zagreb had been closed down and the roads were blocked. I wanted to convene a meeting where everybody could come, and that was on Brioni. The answer was that there could be no agreement and that the military option was to be employed.

Q. Let's move on, then, in time, dealing still with your overall credentials. You've had put to you -- shouldn't have been done but you've had put to you a passage from a protected transcript, which I'll deal with procedurally when your evidence is concluded, but can you help us with one question or two questions about that and answer them yes or no. You know the protected evidence and the trial to which it relates. Was the defendant in that trial a Serb? Yes or no.

A. That's correct.

Q. Was he a Serb, the defendant in the other -- the Chamber knows the point I'm getting at.

JUDGE MAY: I think you know -- we need to look at our Rules, ^{10780 BLANK PAGE 10781} because the witness is giving evidence here.

MR. NICE: I'll deal with that procedurally. The point, I think, is obvious.

Q. Let's come to Bobetko. In the very last week, when it was known you were coming here to give evidence, had there been reaction, substantial reaction in Croatia, adverse to the surrender of Bobetko to this Tribunal?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. Have you, from the very first moment when this issue was raised in Croatia, I think last week or the week before, been resolute that Croatian defendants indicted here should be surrendered here for trial?

A. I consider that Croatia has a constitutional law on cooperation with the Tribunal and that it must cooperate always, at all times. The Croatian government also has the right to use the legal means at its disposal when it finds this necessary.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I have a few matters of detail arising from questions. Can I just deal with those? I can't deal with everything.

Q. I think you spoke of the Serbian minister's visit to Croatian territory. Do you remember that passage of questioning? If so, can you give us the name of the Serbian minister and whereabouts it was he went, and when, if you can remember.

A. I cannot recall his first and last name at the moment, but I know that he visited the area that entered into the

Karlobag-Karlovac-Virovitica boundary without the knowledge of the ¹⁰⁷⁸² Croatian authorities, and he was a minister in the government of Serbia. He was accompanied by Vojislav Seselj, whose military units were also in the same area.

Q. When there was a vote about the withdrawal of the army from Croatia, were you the only one to vote against that proposal?

A. I have to correct you: The vote was on the withdrawal of the army from Slovenia.

Q. Sorry. From Slovenia. Yes. Were you the only one to vote against?

A. Correct, because I held the view that this was part of the accused's scenario. He wanted to let Slovenia go because there was no indigenous Serb population there, so he could not attack part of Slovenian territory. That is why the JNA withdrew from Slovenia and did not enter into a further war with the Territorial Defence of Slovenia, which was very successful.

Q. It's suggested that at this time you were enthusiastic for the break-up of Yugoslavia. If you had voted differently, would you have shown more enthusiasm for the break-up, do you think?

A. When I voted, I had in mind that this was the implementation of a scenario, but I said: If the Yugoslav army, which had become Serbian, also withdraws from Croatia, Bosnia, and Macedonia, then I will vote for its withdrawal.

Q. Just a matter of detail the Chamber may not otherwise have understood: As president of the Presidency, you explain you had only a very limited personal staff serving you. Is that correct? ¹⁰⁷⁸³

A. Yes. I had only a few staff members; an advisor, a Chef de Cabinet, and two secretaries.

Q. I think perhaps finally: You've had drawn to your attention this morning, very recently, the possible existence in the Serbs of fears that they will have had built on earlier unhappy and tragic events. Did you ever prey on Serb fears with your approach to politics, Mr. Mesic, or not?

A. Never, not for a single moment was it my policy to intimidate or frighten anyone because of their nationality or ethnicity. I always advocated, and I still advocate today, the rights of citizens, civil rights, the protection of minority rights, and positive discrimination of vulnerable groups, including minorities.

Q. And have you at all times attempted to bring that about in Croatia, the positive discrimination for vulnerable groups?

A. Yes, that is correct, which is why I supported the law on national minorities which is being passed in accordance with European standards. I wanted Croatia to be even more advanced and to give national minorities even more space.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Mesic, that concludes your evidence. Thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give it, and indeed for making yourself available for an extra day. The Tribunal, the Trial Chamber, will adjourn now for half an hour. We'll begin again with Mr. Wladimiroff's matter.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, just before we adjourn and perhaps after the witness has withdrawn, may I just make our position clear on the other transcript, so that we can -- before we forget it. ¹⁰⁷⁸⁴

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

MR. NICE: The position is -- this doesn't -- the witness doesn't have to stay for this, I know he's probably in a hurry to go. The position is that --

JUDGE MAY: The witness would like to go.

[The witness withdrew]

MR. NICE: The transcript remained subject to protective measures of another Chamber, and indeed was then moved to the Appeals Chamber, where it remains under protection. The Prosecution, consistent with its duty of disclosure, was concerned that the accused should have an opportunity to read that transcript, and since the accused finds opportunities when he can to criticise these procedures, it should be known publicly that everything is done to make material available to him, the Prosecution taking initiatives when they must. So we took the necessary steps that would enable him to read the transcript, and it was provided on him pursuant to an order of the Presiding Judge of an Appeals Chamber on the basis of non-further disclosure and indeed on the basis of contempt consequences for breach of the order. Therefore, it should never have been, under that order, mentioned publicly in this Court. Now, if, in the event -- and I had no desire to interrupt a point while it was being taken by the accused. If in the event it's only that part of the transcript that he wants to go before you, then that can really be an end of the matter.

JUDGE MAY: Why don't we look at the whole transcript and see if there's any relevance in it. ¹⁰⁷⁸⁵

MR. NICE: Yes. If you want any more, then we'll have to consider whether the accused, or someone on his behalf, should apply back to the Appeals Chamber for a more liberal extension.

JUDGE MAY: This is going round and round. I thought the law -- Rules had been amended to make it more practicable.

MR. NICE: They may have been, but that's what we have been left with in this case and we have to obey those Rules for obvious reasons.

JUDGE MAY: The sensible course may be for the Trial Chamber to have a look at the transcript, see what may or may not be relevant, and we can take the matter further from there. Thank you.

MR. NICE: Thank you, sir.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In connection with this transcript, I just wish to correct a factual error that was probably intentional on Mr. Nice's part. He asked Witness Mesic whether the defendant was a Serb, the accused was a Serb, and then he did confirm that the accused was a Serb. And I was using the transcript from a trial where a Croat was the accused. I also referred to the transcript from the trial of Dokmanovic, but that was public.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Nice's question was aimed at getting the answer which you've just given. He didn't get it. But that was the purpose of the question, obviously.

Look, we're going to look at this transcript and we'll come back to it in due course and see if we can't make it public in some way. So we'll return to it when we've had a look at it ourselves. ^{10786 BLANK PAGE 10787} We'll adjourn now, half an hour.

--- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. There is a request that the accused be permitted to consult with his associates today, here, after the Court has stopped sitting, for an hour or an hour and a half. That we shall instruct the registry to facilitate.

Now, I turn to the matter which we said we would deal with, which relates to the amicus Mr. Wladimiroff.

Mr. Milosevic, you were making some submissions on that topic when I stopped you last week. Is there anything you want to add to what you said then?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As you know, I put a question in relation to what the friend of the Court said - your friend, not mine - about these proceedings. I consider this to be inappropriate and I consider that to be an obstruction in the proceedings and whatever is going on here, but I believe that this confirms precisely that this illegal court is not in the domain of law. It is in the domain of politics and the media. After all, the previous witness too primarily expounded on his political thoughts, he was not establishing facts. This is yet additional proof of the fact that this is a political and media operation, not a legal operation of any kind.

As far as individuals in this room are concerned, I consider it to be highly inappropriate that they engage directly in this media campaign which is following this operation that you call a trial, and I believe ¹⁰⁷⁸⁸ that in this way Mr. Wladimiroff has fully disqualified himself, even as your friend, from carrying out that duty.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, I wouldn't normally call on the Prosecution, but if there's anything you want to say about this, you should have the opportunity of doing so.

MR. NICE: Thank you, Your Honour. No. The transcript has recently come to my attention. There are some passages that cause us concern, but I'm sure that those passages will already have occurred to the Chamber. I made the observation on the last occasion that this was raised that there are dangers involved in speaking to the press at all. We do not do so and we've pursued that policy rigorously from the beginning of this trial, and I think it's extremely unfortunate that --

JUDGE MAY: Well, Mr. Nice, you may not have done so, but others, I suspect, have.

MR. NICE: Not from this trial team we haven't.

JUDGE MAY: No, not from your trial team, I'm sure, but others have. You might like to review that.

MR. NICE: Yes. I mean, there is, of course, a press component in this office, but so far as the trial team is concerned --

JUDGE MAY: Well, there have been comments on the trial, which it may be that you might review the propriety of in due course.

MR. NICE: I haven't seen them myself. Indeed, I don't really read the press, because it's, as I indicated in my recent short opening, so far as I can understand, often ill informed. There it is. That's my basic observation. Unfortunately, there shouldn't be any contact with the ¹⁰⁷⁸⁹ press, and inappropriate for those involved in trials of this kind. I'll just check with Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff and Mr. Groome. I haven't discussed it.

No, nothing else.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Wladimiroff, we have now your note which has been passed to us about the article which appeared in the Kultura newspaper and then was part of it reproduced in the Dutch press. Perhaps you'd like to begin by dealing with that.

MR. WLADIMIROFF: Yes, Your Honour. I will start indeed with the Bulgarian one. And dealing with the portion of that Bulgarian publication Mr. Milosevic mentioned, I can firmly say these were not my exact words. The publication resulted from a visit to Salzburg in August. I was teaching students at a summer school on international criminal law, a course organised by the University of Salzburg, and one of the students active for the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee's Legal Defence Programme asked for an interview, which he taped at the time. When answering general questions about my practice as a lawyer, Tadic case and fair trial issues as a whole, questions of the student moved to the Milosevic trial. In my response to the question, "Is there a chance Mr. Milosevic will be acquitted?" I indicated that the Prosecutor has chosen a large target against the accused of the Kosovo, Croatia, and Bosnia issues. In using a shotgun - you have read in the transcript what I actually said on that subject: In using a shotgun, he was attempting to assure that some of the pellets from the shotgun - perhaps I should say hunting rifle - hit the target as a way of proving his case. I stated as ¹⁰⁷⁹⁰ well that there is a possibility of the accused being acquitted of all charges. And again, I take it you have read it in the transcript. Later the student, who is not a journalist, told me that he published the article in a newspaper in Bulgaria and that he had edited my answers to his questions and had included a phrase not used by me deliberately. That is the phrase, and I quote: "Theoretically, yes, but in practice, no." He e-mailed me yesterday the transcript of the relevant passage from the tape, and has also confirmed my account of the interview. And that confirms my reaction. You have these documents. Let me say I regret what happened, but as you may have noticed, what has been published here was not actually what I said, and you have read what I have said.

If I may now turn to the previous issue, the Haagsche Courant, I dealt with it during the hearing of the 11th and I wrote you a letter on the 12th to explain how that came about. As I've written in that letter, actually, I have nothing to add to what I said here in Court. In my judgement, the content of the article does not reflect the spirit of my conversation with that journalist and what is said, the quotations, are a misrepresentation of what I've said.

Here the situation is slightly different. After the hearing, I contacted the journalist, and he regretted that the article had not been sent to me for approval. He defended his understanding of the conversation but acknowledged that his version was an interpretation of our conversation; these were not quotes. I disagree with his interpretation, but that leaves the matter as it is. ¹⁰⁷⁹¹ In both cases, I realised that I should have not given an interview, as I have written to you, and I accept that by giving an interview, consequently I am responsible for that interview, although I have not been quoted correctly; in one case not quoted at all, and in the other case, incorrectly.

Let me say, I regret the criticism on matters that have happened outside of the courtroom. Since my assignment as amicus curiae in September last year, I have tried to assist the Court and the accused in this trial in the interests of justice, and I believe that the accused has benefitted from this assistance, and I can tell the Court that if there is a lesson for me to learn, the lesson is clearly this: I can't talk to the press, even not on matters which are not directly -- indirectly being related to Milosevic case. I do better to keep silent and simply do my task entrusted by the Court.

JUDGE MAY: The accused has submitted that it's inappropriate for you to continue. It will be a matter for us, of course, to determine that, but how do you answer that suggestion which he makes, that it is inappropriate for you to continue?

MR. WLADIMIROFF: I understand his observation on this issue, but as I already have said, these incidents deal with matters I was reported to have said outside of the Court. I take the position that in Court, I have function to calling to the standards as has been required by the Court to the amici. I think I can function as an amicus in this case if I keep up the standard in Court, as I've done before, and to avoid a repetition of what happened outside of the Court I just indicated I won't ^{10792 BLANK PAGE 10793} speak to the press any more and I think it is possible to continue.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Could you, Mr. Wladimiroff, reconsider that answer against the background that one of your roles is to make submissions and objections that are open to the accused, which it would seem to me raises a question as to whether, in light of what has happened, any confidence can be reposed in you to discharge that responsibility.

MR. WLADIMIROFF: Let me say this, Your Honour: I take it that the matter of confidence is a matter for the Court. If I say it very directly, the amici do have a relation with the Court. We try to assist in the Court. We are not tied to any of the parties. We have no relation with any of the parties. We are not instructed by any of the parties. So there is not a matter of a relation of trust with any of the parties. We do have a relation to the Court, and as I've said, I regret what happened outside of the Court, misquoted or not quoted at all, but anyhow, having been reported of what I was -- said -- what I have said, which I did not say, I feel that there is a -- let me try to phrase it very carefully. I feel that I have happened an incident that may have disappointed the Court, and I apologise for that, but I still believe that what I've done in Court would allow me to go on, because that is what matters, what I do here in Court in front of you.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Wladimiroff, you raised the point that you, as an amicus curiae, have some relation with the Court. That's the point, I think. But the other people, the laymen, who do not understand very well what amicus curiae is and what their role is, they might think that they have regular contact with Judges, which is not true at all. ¹⁰⁷⁹⁴

MR. WLADIMIROFF: No.

JUDGE KWON: So what you are saying may be reflected to other people that they may include some Judges' thinking or something like that. So could you give me your observation of what is the real transcript? You compare the -- you describe the trial as a kind of hunting game, and at the end of the transcript you mention that there is a possibility some bullets will stick. So could you clarify that, that meaning.

MR. WLADIMIROFF: I will try to do so, Your Honour.

JUDGE KWON: Yes, thank you.

MR. WLADIMIROFF: Let me first address the first issue you raised. Perhaps one of the problems I created for myself is to explain to the outside world what an amicus is doing. The lesson, as I said, here to learn is perhaps one should not, because in an attempt to explain what an amicus is doing, in a way you come to talk about the trial and then you're vulnerable to questions you don't want to answer to, and that's what happened.

Now, answering to your second question, in my appreciation, at least I've not meant to compare the trial with a hunting game. Of course not. But I used an example which I think is not -- is perhaps not the best example I ever used in my life. But the example was meant to demonstrate, in a very simple way, what one perhaps could say the Prosecution is doing with so many charges, and the example of a hunting rifle shooting all these bullets, the charges, I thought at that very moment would explain what is going on. It doesn't say that we are dealing here with a trial in that respect. It's not a comparison of the trial; ¹⁰⁷⁹⁵ it's a comparison of what the Prosecution is.

Perhaps I shouldn't have done it. I should leave out the word "perhaps." I shouldn't have done it.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. And I remember I mentioned this once before while we are dealing with some summarising witness, with Mr. Nice, I remember I said that what is important is that we have to do the right thing and we have to do the fair trial. But what is also important is that we have to be seen to others as we are doing just things, right things, and fair trial. But what would you say to this: That the public and the media may no longer consider you as to be an impartial body? What is your observation, by what you have said in the media?

MR. WLADIMIROFF: Let me say this, Your Honour: I try to separate what I am reported to have said and what I actually have said. It is extremely difficult to respond to things you have not said. Actually, you simply can't. I can only respond to what I've said, and I reiterate: What I have said is not endangering the fairness of the trial, in my view. What I've said may not be beautiful language or the finest example one can use. It is unfortunate to deal, perhaps, with the matter at all, but I've not really said anything that is wrong, that really endangers the trial, which is unfair to the accused. And from that feeling, that I was misquoted, I feel that I'm able to continue to do the work as properly as one should. And as I also said, in Court, I did not make this mistake in terms of phrasing things not very elegantly, and not having done so, I feel I can continue.

Perhaps it's also -- I shouldn't say this, but I think, to be ¹⁰⁷⁹⁶ frank with the Court, after all, I am a Dutchman. I try to speak English as good as I can. It's sufficient to do my task, but sometimes it may hinder me, and I think these are the occasions where it was of hindrance. Perhaps if you're a native speaker, one would have used finer examples or phrased it perhaps in a way that no misunderstanding could happen. But again, it's not an excuse. It's more an explanation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: For example, Mr. Wladimiroff, in the quote cited by Judge Kwon, it says, "You may lose half of all the links --" this is the transcript from the tape. "At the very top, you may lose again a number of cases, but some will stick, as we have spoken of a chance that some will stick." That's very unfortunate language, and perhaps it would have been more felicitous if you had said some may stick.

MR. WLADIMIROFF: I appreciate what you say, Your Honour, and indeed, in hindsight, when you read it back, of course you wish you had used more better language, more elegant language, more subtle language. But you also may have noticed this is speaking language. It is long sentences, and again, not as an excuse, but to explain why it was phrased as it was, this is speaking language of a non-native speaker.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I want to reinforce, though, what Judge Kwon said because, as you know very well, in assessing matters of bias and partiality, very seldom will you get evidence of direct bias. So the real test is how the matter appears to a reasonable man. The appearance is more important, is a more significant indicator than the reality. And so what Judge Kwon said is extremely important in, I think, how we assess this. This is how it appears to the reasonable person. ¹⁰⁷⁹⁷

MR. WLADIMIROFF: I understand that, Your Honour, and I also understand that this is a matter of careful consideration and indeed to look at the transcript and judge matters on the basis of that and not on what has been published. I appreciate that.

I also understand that justice should not only be done but also be seen. But perhaps if the standard of the test of justice should also be seen is applied, one may consider that that standard should be an objective one, in the sense that it should perhaps not be understood in the way as others decide how to promote it. What I'm saying is if the media are making more out of it than is in it, it is a matter for you to consider. I'm not saying they're making more out of it than there is in it, but it is always in my mind that it would be wrong to reach at a point where others would decide what you will have to think about it by writing a lot about it. I'm not able to express myself more superbly, but I think you understand what I'm saying. It's a matter of an objective test.

JUDGE MAY: Well, you must be right there. The test is: Has what you have done affected the fairness of the trial?

MR. WLADIMIROFF: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Is there any prejudice to the fairness of the trial? That is the first question. And the answer to that is plainly not. This is a Trial Chamber composed of independent and professional Judges, and no reasonable person could say that there's any prejudice to the fairness of the trial.

The next issue is: Is there any prejudice to the perception of the fairness of the trial? And I speak for myself when I say that no ^{10798 BLANK PAGE 10799} reasonable person could imagine that comments attributed to you could in any way be attributed to the Trial Chamber. Of course not. So the issue then is: Is it possible for you to continue in your role, acting independently but as a friend of the court, your having admitted, as is plainly the case, that it was wrong to speak in the way which you have done. Now, do you feel that your independence has been compromised and your ability to continue has been compromised by what has happened? And more important, do you think the fairness or the perception of the fairness of the trial has been compromised by your continuing? Plainly, the Trial Chamber has ordered there should be an amicus, and plainly that should continue.

MR. WLADIMIROFF: I will try to answer that, Your Honour. I think the fairness of the trial is not affected. I think that the perception of fairness of the trial has been, unfortunately, a matter of discussion, and my hope is that the discussion today cleared that there should not be a perception of unfairness if there was such a perception at all. If that's right, if I evaluate the situation rightly, I would say I can go on.

JUDGE KWON: What is raised by our Presiding Judge and answered by you is very appropriate, and it's absolutely right. We are not affected at all by what you have said or what is expressed by the media. My last concern is that the role of the amicus curiae is to assist the Court, and it is also to assist, in part, the accused, who is not represented by an attorney. But if the accused is so strongly opposed to an amicus curiae, I'm concerned whether you, as an amicus curiae, can pursue a robust role in the proceeding. ¹⁰⁸⁰⁰

MR. WLADIMIROFF: Let me say this: I think that the accused's position is that he doesn't recognise this Court, and consequently he doesn't recognise anyone appointed by the Court. So from the very start on, I have been aware that I am a persona non-grata in terms of law, because I'm appointed by the Court. That by itself is not a hindrance to do my task as good as possible, and that's what I've done. You may have noticed that the amici concentrate on the legal issues of this case, and we are very reluctant to interfere in cross-examination. And I speak for myself; that's very true. In any legal dealings, I realise that by addressing legal issues raised by the Prosecution or raised by the Trial Chamber, I engage myself in a legal debate or legal issue which the accused may not like because it is an expression of playing according to the Rules and my understanding is that he doesn't accept that because he doesn't recognise the Court. So I'm familiar with the concept of an accused who doesn't like what someone who is appointed by the Court may do. That will not change.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Wladimiroff, let me say that -- let me clarify that, for my part, the question is not so much the fairness of the trial from the point of view of the Judges sitting here. I would dismiss that. The question, it seems to me, is more particular. It's the perception of your fairness as an amicus. It's the perception as to whether you can discharge fairly and impartially your role to make submissions and objections that are open to the accused, in the light of what has happened. It's not the fairness of the trial in abstracto or in relation to the Judges. The question is whether you can be perceived as ¹⁰⁸⁰¹ being impartial and fair in light of the fact that it may reasonably be said that you have commented on the evidence, not necessarily in the Bulgarian transcript but in the other one, and in a manner which can be said to be adverse to the accused. That's the perception which is at issue; of your fairness in discharging the role ascribed to you to make submissions and objections open to the accused.

MR. WLADIMIROFF: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Because if you can't do that, if I can't have any confidence that you will be impartial and fair in making submissions and objections that are open to the accused, then I don't see how you can discharge your role at all. That's what I think you should concentrate on. But I don't believe that we need to spend a very long time on this. For my part, I'd be quite satisfied with what you have to say after you have answered this particular question.

MR. WLADIMIROFF: Yes, Your Honour. Perhaps I say too much when I say I am an independent mind, and I do mind when people say that I'm not independent. I do not beg for this job or anything of that kind. I like to do what I do, because I think it's in the interests of justice, and that's the only concern, and I have no fear that it will be different. I think I will continue as I did, in a way to assist the Court as I've done within the courtroom every time I was here, and nothing will change, and I feel fit to do it.

JUDGE MAY: I have to say, for myself, that I regard the crucial issue in this, as in all issues, as to whether the fairness of the trial is prejudiced, and that is the issue which I shall be putting to myself. ¹⁰⁸⁰² In relation to the fairness of your submissions, I think, as it were, not in mitigation, but it can be said that the Trial Chamber has been assisted by the submissions which have been made so far by the amici on a number of issues, some of which I have no doubt that you have drafted. Yes. Just one moment.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: The Trial Chamber will consider the issue. Mr. Nice. I have a note that we'll need a few minutes to prepare for the next witness.

MR. NICE: The next witness, as Your Honour will remember, is the witness returning for cross-examination, who has the benefit of protection.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll rise for a few minutes.

--- Break taken at 11.36 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.50 a.m.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE MAY: Since we've had this break, we'll in fact go on now until 1.00 and adjourn then.

The second administrative point is this: Because of the form of the microphone for the witness, it's most important that all speakers turn off their microphone, having spoken, or otherwise it affects the witness's microphone.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

WITNESS: WITNESS C-[Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] ¹⁰⁸⁰³ Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] You gave a statement, as far as I can see, on the 1st of May, 2002, that is, of this year, and you're testifying about the events which took place 11 or 12 years ago.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, these 12 years that have elapsed, is that too great a passage of time for you to be able to remember all the details in precise terms, everything related to those events, 11 or 12 years later?

A. Yes, it is a long period of time. That's true. And I try to do my best to remember everything that I thought I could remember and everything that did take place.

Q. Well, that's the purpose of my question. So what you say, you are absolutely convinced that that's how things happened; is that right?

A. Yes, I am convinced that that was how it was.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for the accused. We did not hear the question.

JUDGE MAY: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The microphone is switched on, Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. -- with your family?

A. Part of my family. We don't all live in Pakrac in Croatia.

Q. Are you employed? ^{10804 BLANK PAGE 10805}

A. I am now.

Q. Do you have any difficulties with respect to going about your daily life and work normally?

A. Well, it's not easy, but ...

JUDGE KWON: I don't think we have transcript which proceeded "-- with your family?" What was the question and answer? Could you repeat it again?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The question was: Is he living normally, a normal life, with his family, and he says he's living in Pakrac, quite normally, with his family.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, I'm interested in another matter. I'm not sure that it's correct, but you'll give me your answer and then I'll know. Is it true and correct that in November 1991 you were first accused in a trial before the Croatian authorities that was --

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: May I interrupt here?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Closed session.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁰⁸⁰⁶ Page 10806 - redacted - private session

¹⁰⁸⁰⁷ Page 10807 - redacted - private session

¹⁰⁸⁰⁸

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[Open session]

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. When did you set up the Serbian Democratic Party of Western Slavonia?

A. Towards the end of May or perhaps in June 1990.

Q. The 6th of June? Who was the initiator? Who initiated the formation of the party?

A. Well, there were several of us, amongst them I myself.

Q. Did you form the party independently or did you have any links and connections with any other SDS party's branches, from Knin, for example? Who were formed first: Those in Knin, the party in Knin, or your one? Could you tell us something about that?

A. It was the people in Knin that registered their party first, and then the first democratic elections were held, and several -- they won several seats in parliament, in the Sabor. And it was only after those ¹⁰⁸⁰⁹ elections that we founded our party in Western Slavonia.

Q. So you founded the party as part of the SDS which had already been formed or as a separate party and registered it as such?

A. No. We belonged to the Knin party, the Knin SDS party.

Q. Tell me now, please: Did anybody outside those members of yours, that composition of membership in Knin and in Western Slavonia, was anybody else involved in the formation and establishment of that party, for example, anybody from Serbia, from Belgrade? Was anybody involved in the setting up of that party of yours?

A. As far as I know, no.

Q. Well, tell me, then, how you came by the idea of forming the Autonomous Region of Western Slavonia.

A. Because the war was already ongoing in the Krajina region and in Eastern Slavonia, and what we wanted to do was to ensure that Western Slavonia avoid a war and to enter into negotiation, and that's why we set up a separate party for SAO Western Slavonia.

Q. Why did you set up the SAO of Western Slavonia? As far as I understood, it was to negotiate with Zagreb and to settle the issue. Why, then, did you need to form an autonomous region, if that was your intention at the time? Could you not have negotiated --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for the accused. Microphone.

MR. MILOSEVIC:

Q. [No interpretation]

A. Well, this was because cell Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem ^{10810 BLANK PAGE 10811} was already in existence, so that some people considered that we belonged to that area. We didn't want to belong to the area under that particular name, and we wanted to have a different identification for ourselves.

Q. So that means that you set up the Serbian autonomous region of Western Slavonia in order to distance yourselves from those in Eastern Slavonia; is that what you're saying?

A. So as not to come under the SAO Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem. We wanted to be separate in order to be able to articulate our requirements and demands.

Q. That's what I'm saying, so that you could distance yourself. That's why you set up your particular SAO; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, I asked you a moment ago about the establishment of the SDS in setting up the SAO. Was anybody from Serbia involved?

A. You're thinking of Western Slavonia?

Q. Well, whatever.

A. Not as far as Western Slavonia is concerned. I don't know about the others.

Q. All right. Now, let's look at this from a financial aspect. Did anybody provide funds for the SDS of Western Slavonia? For example, from Belgrade, Serbia? Did anybody finance it in any way?

A. No.

Q. Did you have any connection whatsoever with Belgrade and Serbia in the -- in your activities?

A. No. ¹⁰⁸¹²

Q. Tell me, please: Is it true that, with respect to the referendum that you put into effect about the autonomy of the Serb people in Croatia, that nobody from Serbia or Belgrade participated in that either; isn't that right?

A. That's right.

Q. So you didn't have -- there wasn't any participation from them; is that what you're saying?

A. No, there wasn't.

Q. Tell me this: You say, and you say that on page 9 of your statement, that you would come to Belgrade, to the government of Serbia, to have talks there with Budimir Kosutic, who was the vice-premier at the time. Did you come at your own initiative?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you go to see him first and foremost because he too was a Serb from Croatia, from those parts, and so you considered that you could pay him a visit and talk to him?

A. I don't know which date you mean, which date you're referring to.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the accused, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. This is on page 9 of your statement. You said you went to Belgrade to talk to him.

A. Our first contacts with Mr. Kostic was the fact that he was a professor and we thought he could help us to articulate our criticisms to the Croatian constitution.

Q. Well, thank you very much, because that's precisely what I wanted ¹⁰⁸¹³ to ask you, and you've saved me a question there. So you went to see him for him, like a compatriot, who was from the same area, from the same region, to help you with some legal matters because he was professor at the Belgrade faculty of law; is that right?

A. Yes. That was our first contact with him, but that was not in Belgrade; it was in Western Slavonia. But when I went to see him in Belgrade, this was on the 21st or perhaps 22nd of August, 1991. On that occasion I went to see him with a colleague of mine. I wanted to put forward the problems because the war had started over there, and he received us on that particular occasion.

Q. So it was at your initiative that you went to tell him what was going on; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, did he encourage you in any way to have a conflict, incite you towards a conflict with the Croatian state, or influence you in any way in that respect, in a sense in which you could condemn in any way now?

A. Well, between the two conversations that we had, two meetings that we had, when we went to have our negotiations with Mr. Tudjman, he didn't like the fact that we had been previously -- this was a telephone conversation. But he never incited us to go to war. I never heard about that.

Q. All right. Let's go on now. When it comes to the question of Territorial Defence for the SAO of Slavonia, is it true and correct that in no way was Serbia involved in this?

A. I have no awareness or knowledge of it having been directly ¹⁰⁸¹⁴ involved, because I do not know in what way the Territorial Defence units were set up, because the people who set them up did so without my knowledge. I was not informed of this, so I don't know -- or whether there was any part played by Serbia.

Q. Right. So you know nothing about the involvement of Serbia in the Territorial Defence of Western Slavonia; is that right?

A. That is right. I do not.

Q. There was some tension over there and some conflicts and clashes. I assume you mean in Pakrac; right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. What happened there, in fact? Why did that conflict break out?

A. Well, it all started with the police station there, because the ministry had sent some 30, approximately 30 policemen to the police station in order to change the ethnic composition and to avoid having a Serb majority but to have a different ratio in the make-up of the police force, and they had new insignia and emblems on their caps. And as far as I remember, the criticisms and objections made by the chief of police - or secretary, whatever he was - that they were taking away the weapons from the -- they were taking weapons out of the police station and into their own homes, and this was a danger. And he asked the leadership of the municipality to provide him with written authorisation for him to be able to disarm the policemen and call in the reserve police force in order to maintain law and order in the Pakrac municipality. Once he did this, the ministry became involved, the Ministry of the Interior, and one or two days later - I can't remember exactly - an ¹⁰⁸¹⁵ incident broke out when they were entering Pakrac to take over the police station again and have it under their control. There was sporadic shooting between the reserve police force and the ministry. There were talks and negotiations, and the federal ministry became involved in this. Control was taken over of the police station again and the same insignia were reverted to, both in the municipality and in the police station. That is briefly what happened.

Q. Very well. And then when did the army come in?

A. The army came in several hours after the incident.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the question.

A. Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. What did the army do? What was its task? How did the army behave?

A. The army arrived. I don't know who they contacted in the town and in the police, but later on they asked that the reserve police force be disarmed and that they hand over their weapons so that they could hand over the weapons to the MUP of Croatia.

JUDGE KWON: We are having some kind of technical difficulty. This witness is a protected witness and his voice is being distorted, so you have to put a pause and speak very slow, slower than ordinary case. And regarding the previous question to this one, when the witness said, "Yes," there was no interpretation, either interpretation nor the transcript. What was the question after: "The army came in several hours after the incident," and what is the following question? ^{10816 BLANK PAGE 10817}

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The witness has already answered the question. The question was: What did the army do? And the witness said that the army asked that weapons be given back and handed over to the ministry.

JUDGE KWON: What was the previous question to that, if you remember?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Don't you have it here? The question was about the incident, what sort of incident took place. When he described the incident, I asked him whether the army came in and what its role was. He has just explained that the army in fact insisted that the weapons taken by the reserve policemen be given back and handed over to the Ministry of the Interior of Croatia.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. This means, in effect, that in this situation, the one just described, was assisting the Ministry of the Interior of Croatia and its organs. Is that correct, Mr. C-37?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Is it correct that the task of the army was in fact to prevent conflicts on the territory you are testifying about? I'm not talking about all the territories, but just the one you know about. Is this correct or not?

A. On the 2nd of March, the army came in to prevent a conflict.

Q. The army tried to separate the conflicting sides?

A. There was no conflict any longer.

Q. So everything had calmed down and the army was helping the ¹⁰⁸¹⁸ Ministry of the Interior of Croatia; is that what happened?

A. Yes.

Q. Were there any attempts, on any side, to attack a village or to incite some sort of violence at that time or immediately after that, in that year?

A. No.

Q. So the situation was quite calm?

A. Yes. Not in that year, because the war broke out later on, but in those days.

Q. In view of the fact that in your testimony you say that the JNA prevented attacks on Croatian villages when tensions mounted and violence erupted -- is that correct?

A. When tensions mounted, you mean after the 2nd of March?

Q. I don't know the exact dates, I'm not fully conversant with your situation. I'm just trying to say because you are testifying as an eyewitness, I'm trying to ask about the behaviour of the JNA. I'm going by your statement, and you say, on page 11, paragraph 5, that the army prevented an attack on a Croatian village.

A. That was in the area of Pakrac. In that area, it did prevent an attack on Croatian villages, but in Donji Caglic, which was a mixed village, there was a conflict between the Serbs and the Croats.

Q. And they were trying to separate them?

A. That's not what happened then, because some of the Croats left and the others were killed.

Q. Tell me: Is it correct that the army respected all the ceasefire ¹⁰⁸¹⁹ agreements?

A. I cannot give you an answer to that question, because I don't know who broke the ceasefires. I know that ceasefires were constantly violated, but as there were no JNA soldiers in the area where I was, I cannot say with any certainty who it actually was who broke the ceasefires. I don't know that.

Q. What I'm asking you is whether the army respected the ceasefire agreements or not.

A. Well, my answer is that I don't know because I wasn't in the same location as the army.

Q. As far as I understand you, you say that the task of the JNA was to prevent the spreading of the conflict, to prevent the entry of Croatian policemen into Serbian villages, and also to prevent attacks on Croatian villages, and that the JNA respected ceasefire agreements. That's what you say on page 11, the third paragraph from the bottom of your statement.

A. I abide by my statement.

Q. That's all I wanted to establish. Tell me, please --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] -- conflicts that broke out in your area in that year?

A. Yes.

Q. You say in most cases when there was a conflict, both Serbs and Croats left their homes and fled. The main difference was that most of the Croats would return home after hostilities ceased, but many Serbs did ¹⁰⁸²⁰ not come back.

A. I was referring to the area of Western Slavonia, near the confrontation line, because this area narrowed down in time. And when the population of Grubisno Polje left, they did not come back. But the Croats who lived near Grubisno Polje did come back. The same happened in Daruvar, later on in Podravska Slatina and in Orahovica. Ultimately, that's what happened in the area of Pakrac.

Q. You have read the indictment against me; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me now: Is it true that you yourself, although you held the posts that we mentioned in closed session - so I don't want to mention them again - that you are not aware of any of the crimes alleged against me? Is that correct or not?

A. Can you clarify this? I really don't understand the question.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Milosevic, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is it correct that holding the posts you did, and you have just said that you have read the indictment against me, is it correct that you have no knowledge of any of the crimes alleged against me?

A. As for crimes, I don't know that you yourself perpetrated any crime.

Q. So you know nothing of this?

A. No.

Q. You have just said that you don't know who established the Territorial Defence of Slavonia. Is that correct? ¹⁰⁸²¹

A. That's correct.

Q. And yet you held the post that you did. If you don't know who established the Territorial Defence, can you tell us whether it consisted of the residents, the villagers, from the villages and hamlets in the area?

A. Yes. It was composed of local people. But when I spoke of the organisation of the Territorial Defence, it was organised by local people working in the municipal secretariats, but I don't know who gave them their orders and I don't know how they did it.

Q. Very well. That's something you don't know. But you do know that these were local people, the inhabitants of the area. So if I understand you correctly, you don't know whether anyone ordered them or suggested to them that they should establish a Territorial Defence. You don't know that.

A. I have said that I don't know that.

Q. Does this then imply that they organised the Territorial Defence on their own initiative?

A. It's possible, but I don't know that.

JUDGE KWON: Just a minute, Mr. Milosevic, and before it disappears from the transcript, I better intervene here. To the question of Mr. Milosevic, Mr. Witness, whether you have no knowledge of any of the crimes alleged against Mr. Milosevic, after having -- you have read the indictment and you were asked whether you have any knowledge of the crimes there. And you said: "As for crimes, I don't know that you yourself perpetrated any crime." But are you aware of any crimes alleged in the ¹⁰⁸²² indictment perpetrated by other than the accused that is allegedly perpetrated by the Serbs in Croatia? Are you aware of any incident in the indictment?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have spoken of such crimes. I have testified about them. They happened in the area of Western Slavonia. I spoke of particular crimes in particular locations.

JUDGE KWON: Is it -- to your knowledge, is it included in the indictment?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, that's just what I'm asking you. As far as you know, Serbia, and I as its president, did we have any connection with what you say you read in the indictment?

A. I do not know whether you personally have anything to do with the crimes or Serbia itself. I spoke about the crimes that were perpetrated there. That was my answer.

Q. So you do not know whether I had anything to do with them or whether Serbia had anything to do with them.

A. I don't know that.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the question.

A. I don't want to speculate.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, would you bear in mind, please, the technical difficulties we're having with this particular witness because ¹⁰⁸²³ of the various measures. And the interpreters are not hearing the question because the microphones have to be turned off between question and answer. So could you leave a pause after he's answered a question and before you ask your next one. And turn off your microphone.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can turn it off if the command is switched from your desk to my desk, because I'm already pausing for too long, but it seems to be insufficient, the pauses I'm making ...

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear.

THE ACCUSED: -- on. Yes. It was switched off. [Interpretation] If the command is transferred to me, I will make sure that I switch the microphone off when the answer is complete.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let's move on faster, and I will pause when you complete your answer.

Is it correct that you know nothing about the arming of the Territorial Defence?

A. No, I don't know anything about it.

Q. You don't know anything?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Very well. You also know nothing about the equipping of the Territorial Defence?

A. No, I don't.

Q. You have no information about the way the Territorial Defence was funded?

A. No, I don't. ¹⁰⁸²⁴

Q. Is it correct that all the commanders of the Territorial Defence were local people? For example, just as the members of the Territorial Defence were?

A. To begin with, no; later on, some JNA officers arrived.

Q. Where did they come from?

A. Well, they came from Banja Luka and Jovo Trbojevic arrived from Novi Sad. He was born in Western Slavonia.

Q. So the people who came originated from the area?

A. Yes.

Q. Nobody arrived from Serbia to issue commands in your area. It was local people who had some military education; is that correct?

A. In the area of Okucani, there was a JNA unit which had arrived from Bjelovar and the officers there were not local people. They were from Yugoslavia, from Serbia, from Bosnia.

Q. Very well. A JNA unit from Bjelovar, but Bjelovar is the closest Croatian town, is that not correct, where there was a barracks?

A. Yes.

Q. And they also arrived from Croatia; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Very well.

A. Later on, there were units arriving from Vojvodina, from Vojvodina, from Zrenjanin.

Q. Are you speaking of regular JNA units?

A. Yes.

Q. While the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia existed? ¹⁰⁸²⁵

A. Yes.

Q. Very well. Tell me, now: In the office that you held, you didn't know of any assistance to the Territorial Defence of Western Slavonia by the ministry of Serbia?

A. No, I don't.

Q. I conclude that on the basis of your statement, so I want to confirm it. But you did visit the Ministry of Defence of Serbia?

A. I was there in 1992. I think it was the beginning of 1992. I was in the Ministry for Serbs Outside Serbia, and then I was invited to the Ministry of Defence to say what was going on and what had happened in Western Slavonia.

Q. When you paid this visit, they asked you what was going on. They wanted information as to what was going on in Western Slavonia, what is going on there; right?

A. Yes.

Q. At that time, did you discuss any crimes or anything else from over there?

A. I don't think so.

Q. As for the relationship between the Territorial Defence and the JNA, you absolutely know nothing about that; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Also, to the best of my understanding, you know nothing about the arming of the Territorial Defence of Krajina.

A. I'm not aware of that.

Q. Are you aware, in view of the office that you held, not at that ¹⁰⁸²⁶ time but let's say in the earlier years, a year or two or three previously, where these weapons of the Territorial Defence were? Were they there in your town, in your municipality, in your locality, where the Territorial Defence was -- I imagine that the Territorial Defence was organised the same way throughout Yugoslavia. I don't know what the situation exactly was in Croatia, but I assume that the weapons were there where you were, the weapons of the Territorial Defence. Are you aware of that?

A. As far as I know, the Territorial Defence in Croatia was organised just as it was throughout Yugoslavia, and it did have weapons of its own. I know that later these weapons were taken from the Secretariats of National Defence. I don't know in which way and I don't know from which localities, but I do know that it was referred to.

Q. All right. As far as I can understand from what you've been saying, the JNA was not present in a greater part of Western Slavonia.

A. No. Perhaps in one-third, up to one-third.

Q. Tell me now, please: In relation to what you said during your direct examination, the session of the Presidency of the SFRY that had to do with the Vance plan, and this was held in 1991 --

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, this matter was actually discussed in private session.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll go into private session.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted] ^{10827 BLANK PAGE 10828} Pages 10828-10834 - redacted - private session

¹⁰⁸³⁵

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[Open session]

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did I understand this correctly, that the contacts between the leadership of Western Slavonia and the leadership of the Bosnian Serbs were only of a personal nature? Is that right or is that not right?

A. As far as I can remember, yes. At that time, there weren't any contacts. There were some later.

Q. You do not have any knowledge about any linkage between the government of Serbia as far as these contacts are concerned?

A. No.

Q. You don't know about that. So in view of your position, the office you held, you have no knowledge about these events that are described. If you do not have any information that anybody issued an order for some alleged expulsions of Croats from certain towns and ¹⁰⁸³⁶ villages, if you do not have any knowledge about the participation of Belgrade in the organisation of the Territorial Defence, in the organisation of a referendum, the organisation of leaving towns, leaving certain municipalities and confrontations that arose, why, then, on page 12, in the penultimate paragraph, you say that there is no reason for you not to believe that some crimes were committed after all? You say that there is no reason for you not to believe that these crimes had been committed. And since we've gone through all of this, you do not have any knowledge about this, but you say that you do not have any reason not to believe that this was committed. How can you explain that?

A. I have no reason to -- not to believe that crimes were committed. I say that because we know that crimes were committed down there in Dalmacija, in the south, that civilians were killed, and also in Western Slavonia I talked about these crimes, like the Croats were moved out of Ilok.

Q. Let us be clear on one thing, please: I'm not talking about these showdowns that you had in various villages and what have you not. I am talking about these crimes that are being linked to some kind of intent, to some kind of influence from Serbia, some kind of organisation against the civilian population belonging to a different ethnic group. That's what I'm talking about. And the fact that you were fighting each other there, that you were settling various accounts, I'm not referring to that at all. I am talking about your claim. What does this have to do with any kind of influence coming from Belgrade and Serbia? That is what I'm talking about. The fact that you fought between yourselves is a different ¹⁰⁸³⁷ thing.

A. I'm going to repeat my answer. I beg your pardon. I have no reason to believe that crimes were not committed, but I did not say anywhere that I thought that I said that Serbia was linked to these crimes. Is that what it says anywhere?

Q. Well, even as far as these crimes are concerned, is it true that you do not have any personal knowledge or information about any one of these crimes?

A. Well, I said that I heard that crimes had been committed.

Q. Well, that's what I wish to establish. You do not even have personal knowledge of any one of these crimes, not only the first thing that we mentioned.

A. I said in my previous statements that there were crimes in Western Slavonia that I had heard of. Since I was not nearby when any of this happened, I talked about the crimes that I heard had been committed and that I heard who had perpetrated them.

Q. Just give me an answer to the following now: At the beginning of the examination-in-chief, you were asked about a meeting in my office; is that right? Is it correct that the persons who were present then asked me -- no, no.

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... session?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, it was in private session. The meeting with Mr. Jovic and Mr. Milosevic.

JUDGE MAY: We'll go into private session.

[Private session] ¹⁰⁸³⁸ Page 10838 - redacted - private session

^{10839 BLANK PAGE 10840} Page 10840 - redacted - private session

¹⁰⁸⁴¹ Page 10841 - redacted - private session

¹⁰⁸⁴²

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[Open session]

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

JUDGE MAY: We are going to adjourn now until half past 2.00. There's one matter I wanted to deal with before they do. How much longer do you think you might be with this witness, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I don't really know, but I will adhere to the time allotted to the Prosecution, that is to say, that opposite side over there.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Very well. I'm thinking of tomorrow. Do you have any other witness? It may not be necessary.

MR. NICE: We certainly do have another witness. May I say two things about witnesses? Our intention is to have enough witnesses here to keep a continuous flow of evidence, wherever possible, and we do have one for tomorrow. There may be something I want to say about revision of the ¹⁰⁸⁴³ witness order after the break.

JUDGE MAY: We have to finish at 1.00 because of technical reasons. The accused was saying earlier that he hadn't got the papers for the next witness. It may well be that he has got them, but it also may be that you could supply him with a new supply so he can look at it over the weekend.

MR. NICE: Can I make one other point in 30 seconds? The accused complaining about the amount of time set out in the timetable. The original timetable of how long witnesses must take was a best estimate. Of course we will be taking witnesses more quickly wherever we can and it looks as though we will often be able to improve on the timetable originally given, taking less time than originally forecast.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Witness 37, would you be back, please, half past 2.00.

--- Luncheon recess taken at 1.00 p.m. ¹⁰⁸⁴⁴

--- On resuming at 2.33 p.m.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, before the accused starts asking questions, just one administrative matter, as I shall be leaving the Chamber in a few minutes. The next two witnesses are Matovina and Samardzic. The accused hadn't yet located the material -- it's all been served. He hadn't located the material in Matovina. Now being served.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot hear anything.

MR. NICE: May I carry on, as it doesn't immediately concern the witness? So that material is being served on him again and it may be we'll be able to serve the exhibits for one or both witnesses today to assist him, or certainly tomorrow.

If there's a witness to start tomorrow, it will have to be, I think, Matovina, because I don't think Samardzic is going to be in a position to start. But if we don't start the next witness until Monday morning, it may be that we will ask the Chamber to take Samardzic first and Matovina second, and I don't imagine that will inconvenience the accused and I hope that it will be acceptable to the Chamber.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. It seems unlikely that we're going to get to another witness tomorrow. But thank you for that. Now, I should say that we have received the English version of the exhibit which was put in, D40.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, Mr. C, let's continue, Mr. C-037. Let's take note of all the other things you don't know about. You don't know about Babic's ¹⁰⁸⁴⁵ contacts with the Defence Ministry of Serbia and Minister Simovic, isn't that so?

A. I don't know, no.

Q. You know nothing about any support, either to Babic or Matic, from Belgrade; right?

A. I have no proof or evidence that they had any support except that through the media they were allowed to speak quite extensively along those lines.

Q. But nonetheless, you make mention of the fact that the state security used the Association of Serbs from Croatia so that through them they could wield their influence on events in Croatia. That is your free assumption. Now, is it true that you never attended meetings in that association, especially not with representatives from the state security service?

A. I was in the association, the Association of Serbs from Croatia.

Q. Yes, but explain to me on the basis of what you say that the state security service used it, used them, for their own ends.

A. Well, as far as I remember, some of the members did say they were in contact with them, but I don't know anything more about that.

Q. Which members of the Association of Serbs in Croatia said they maintained contacts?

A. Well, one of the generals, was it Kokot or someone else, I'm not quite sure.

Q. You mean the people who are retired, pensioned, pensioned, retired generals living in Belgrade, people of that sort? ¹⁰⁸⁴⁶

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. So you don't actually know of any contacts between the Association of Serbs in Croatia with the state security service?

A. No, I don't have any knowledge of that directly.

Q. Now, the military level, the military line that you -- that we have made mention on several occasions here, you know nothing about that, the military connection; isn't that right?

A. Yes. I don't know.

Q. What military line do you mean about?

Q. Well, I'm talking about a military connection between Krajina and Belgrade, or anything of that type, any sort of military link-up, link-up with military structures. You know nothing about that?

A. Well, all I know is that Minister Spanovic went to the JNA, to Belgrade.

Q. In Belgrade?

A. Yes. He went to Belgrade.

Q. Right. But otherwise, you know nothing of that link, do you?

A. No.

Q. And you know nothing about the links between the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia and the police of Krajina; isn't that right? Is that correct?

A. Well, I don't know whether they had any direct contacts, no.

Q. Right. You don't know. And you never saw, as a functionary - I don't want to mention your title or office - any Red Berets in Western Slavonia; isn't that right? ¹⁰⁸⁴⁷

A. No.

Q. You didn't see them, did you? Very well. When you speak about the police force of Western Slavonia, do you -- I don't assume that Belgrade had anything to do with its formation.

A. As far as I know, no.

Q. You also have no knowledge about the contacts of the police of Western Slavonia with the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia.

A. I don't know about that.

Q. All right. Very well. You also have no knowledge about the presence of anybody from the MUP of Serbia on the territory of Western Slavonia.

A. No, I don't. The only thing I can say is that Vezmar Jovo, the man who worked in the MUP, came and went back. I just know about him.

Q. And where is Vezmar Jovo from?

A. Pakrac.

Q. You mean he came to work in Pakrac?

A. No. He left Pakrac and went to work in Pancevo and from the police force in Pancevo, he was the commander in Western Slavonia in part of Pakrac. And then he returned to Pancevo. That's all I know.

Q. So he went to work in Serbia after the fall of Western Slavonia; is that it?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Do you know how many people left and went to Serbia, to the Republika Srpska as well after they were expelled, after the Serbs were expelled from Croatia, after August, August 1995? Have you any idea? ¹⁰⁸⁴⁸

A. Well, about 350.000 in total.

Q. Well, I assume that a large number of those 350.000 found jobs working in the field they were professionals for.

A. Well, we can assume that, yes.

Q. And the man you mentioned, Jovo, was a professional policeman and continued working in the police force; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. You don't know where the money came from for what you were doing and whether Serbia financed the SAO of Western Slavonia; is that correct?

A. As far as I know, I have no information that Serbia financed it, no.

Q. Is it correct that in fact policemen from Western Slavonia were people who lived there and who used to work in the MUP of Croatia?

A. Yes.

Q. You mentioned your contacts with generals, first of all General Uzelac. At the time, you did not discuss weapons with him or military issues; is that correct?

A. In Bucje, he came to see what the situation was, and he only said that he would try to keep that area so that people could stay there. There was no discussion of weapons.

Q. Which means that he expected it to be safe so people wouldn't have to flee; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. The document, one of the documents attached to your statement, entitled "The meeting of the Regional Board of the SDS" held on the 8th of ¹⁰⁸⁴⁹ May, 1991, contains the standpoint of the majority of the Serbs who lived in the area; is that correct?

A. What conclusion are you referring to?

Q. I mean what is attached to your statement.

A. Do you mean the referendum?

Q. To be precise, there are too many of these documents delivered by the other side.

A. Are you referring to the 8th of May, 1991?

Q. Yes.

A. Speaking about the referendum, yes. It was the majority view that there should be a referendum in order to vote on remaining within Yugoslavia.

Q. Very well. I won't go into that any further. Is it correct that on page 2 of that document, under number 2 -- let me just see. You concluded at that meeting, and let's just clarify this: Was there anyone from Serbia present at that meeting and did anyone give you any instructions coming from Serbia at that meeting?

A. No, there was no one from Serbia there, and no instructions were given.

Q. In item 2, there is your name, and then it says again that Slovenia and Croatia were puppets in the hands of Big Daddy, and it is well known that Bosnia, Sandzak, and Kosovo were to become a Muslim state of the Balkans. And on the 15th of May, 1991, under quotation marks, "15.000 Albanians were to cross over from Albania and start a war, and Izetbegovic played a major role in this." Is this correct? This is what ¹⁰⁸⁵⁰ was discussed, what you discussed.

A. No. As I said, this was not discussed.

Q. It was not discussed?

A. No.

Q. So the minutes that you gave are not authentic.

A. It wasn't me who gave the minutes.

Q. So it was the other side?

A. It was the Prosecutor's office, and these minutes are not actually minutes of that meeting.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please bear in mind that minutes of this kind, which is being introduced through this witness, can in no way be connected to this witness or admitted into evidence through this witness. If you have another witness, well that's your business, but this cannot be introduced in this manner which is evidently inappropriate.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You say that in August, after the MUP of Croatia went to Okucani, units arrived there from Bjelovar. Is it correct that these units arrived in order to prevent further clashes?

A. They disarmed -- the Croatian MUP disarmed part of the army and then the army took back its people, and then, as far as I remember, the Banja Luka Corps arrived to assist them through Gradiska, because Western Slavonia had been cut off for more than a month, and there had been no contacts with Bosnia for more than a month. And then the JNA units from Bjelovar, which were in Okucani, linked up with the Banja Luka Corps which had arrived from Banja Luka. ¹⁰⁸⁵¹

Q. Very well. So we see that in this case the army liberated soldiers that had been taken prisoner by the MUP of Croatia, the Ministry of the Interior of Croatia, which had captured and disarmed them, and the army prevented conflicts. Is that right?

A. Yes, that's what happened on that occasion.

Q. Was the JNA then stationed all over the territory of the former Yugoslavia, and Croatia was then part of Yugoslavia?

A. Yes.

Q. You read a list of the camps mentioned in the indictment, but you have no personal knowledge as regards these camps. From what you said, I understand that you heard about this only on Croatian television. Is this correct?

A. I heard about the others through Croatian television, but in Western Slavonia I also heard something from the people who lived there.

Q. Tell me: What kind of camps were these? As I assume you know that the leadership of the Krajina always asserted to Belgrade that there were no camps. I don't know if you were among those who asserted this. Were these camps? Were they prisons? Or what were they? What do you know personally?

A. I personally don't know what the distinction -- the actual distinction is in the definition of a camp or a gaol, but what there was in Bucje was a family house which was used to detain people, to lock them up. And from what I heard, some were beaten up and some were liquidated, but most of them managed to be exchanged.

What I heard about Ovcara was that people were put in a warehouse, ¹⁰⁸⁵² as far as I can remember, that they were taken away and killed. What I heard about Knin was that it was a prison. Whether it was part of a barracks, I'm not sure.

Q. Well, who, example, was in the prison in Knin?

A. I don't know who was inside.

Q. Well, was it criminals or were peaceful citizens locked up in the gaol in Knin?

A. When I was there, there were criminals, who were Serbs, and as for the others, I don't know, but I heard that they were civilians. I didn't see them myself.

Q. I assume that the Serb criminals were also civilians who were locked up.

A. Yes, but some of them were soldiers.

Q. You went to Knin often; is that correct?

A. Yes. Well, not really often, but maybe once a fortnight. I would spend a day there.

Q. Well, once a fortnight for one day. You would have had to have some sort of knowledge of that. Milan Martic told me, and I believe he was telling me the truth, that in Knin there were Croats --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you can't give evidence now what Milan Martic told you. You can either call Mr. Martic or you can give evidence yourself about it. But ask this witness questions.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will reformulate my question. You see, Mr. May, when the other side is putting questions, they are examining this witness about places he had never been to, asking him what he heard, ¹⁰⁸⁵³ and I'm asking him about Knin, which he visited himself, to ask him whether there were Croats living a normal life in Knin and whether it's true what I was assured of, that there was no discrimination, no mistreatment, and that --

JUDGE MAY: You can put that. First of all, put --

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is this correct or not?

JUDGE MAY: -- there were Croats living a normal life in Knin. Is that right?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were Croats living a normal life in Knin.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So there were Croats living a normal life in Knin?

A. Yes, there were.

Q. And there was no violence perpetrated against them, they were not mistreated?

A. I can't say that about everyone, but I know that there were Croats who had no problems. I can't vouch for each and every one of them.

Q. Very well. Just to clarify this: So we cannot speak of ethnic cleansing or anything like that there. That happened on the other side, but everything is being inverted here.

Well, since you say that you have no reason - excuse me - you said that you heard about some camps only from Croatian television. As you say that you have no reason to disbelieve the truth of these reports - this is on page 13, paragraph 1 of your statement - in view of the office you ¹⁰⁸⁵⁴ held, were you aware of information about camps for Serbs in Croatia, in Western Slavonia, during the time you were there? Let me ask you about some of them. For example, in Western Slavonia, Pakrac, Slavonska Pozega and so on - I have a whole list here - do you know about this?

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness deal with the matter, particularly Pakrac, where he lived.

A. Yes, I heard that there was a prison in Pakrac, in Pozega, in Pakracka Poljana.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Let me look at this list. Slavonska Pozega, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Slavonska Pozega the barracks was a camp for Serbs. Slavonska Pozega the sports hall, Slavonska Pozega the female prison, Slavonska Pozega the police station, Slavonska Pozega the district prison. Are you aware of all of these places?

A. Yes, I've heard of them.

JUDGE MAY: This was a prison, was it, for Serbs in these places or was it a prison for Croats?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A prison for Serbs.

JUDGE MAY: And what period are we dealing with when it was a prison for Serbs?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, as for Croats -- oh, the Serbs. Well, it was in the course of 1991. And in Pozega there is still a prison there.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Yes, but the sports hall and the other places I read out, these ¹⁰⁸⁵⁵ prisons certainly no longer exist today, or at least I assume so.

A. No, they don't exist today.

Q. Would you please answer the following question. This refers to Pakrac. There were the following camps for Serbs there, so please tell me which ones you know about and which ones you don't know about, or whether you know about them all, which would be logical. Pakrac-Lipik, Pakrac the prison, Pakrac the basement of the department store, Pakrac-Gavrinica, Pakrac the village of Seovica, a camp in the community centre, Pakrac the village of Seovica, a camp in the woods, Pakrac-Marino Selo, the basement of the Ribnjak Hotel, Pakrac-Marino Selo the fishing cottage, Pakrac-Marino Selo --

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness deal with this. He cannot be expected to retain all this information.

A. I heard of camps in Pakrac in the police station, and in Pakrac in the department store. Seovica and the other places you mention were under Serbian control in 1991. Maybe some people say these were camps after Operation Flash, but this was not a camp for Serbs at the time. As for Pakrac Ka Poljana, two or three of these locations did exist. They can all be counted as a single camp.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well, so the three locations in Pakrac Ka Poljana were a single camp for Serbs; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Apart from these three, what other camps for Serbs do you know about in the Pakrac area? ¹⁰⁸⁵⁶

A. What I said: The department store, the police station, and there was one in the area of Lipik. I don't know exactly where.

Q. So you know about these three and the other one, but do you know anything about Pakrac Marino Selo the administration building?

A. That was all a single camp.

Q. Tell me: Do you know anything about the Pakrac Ka Poljana camp in the Jedinstvo company? This was a company producing ballpoint pens and light switches.

A. All this can be considered a single camp.

Q. Very well. Then the fishing cottage and the firefighting centre, the fire brigade centre?

A. This is all a single location.

Q. What about the other locations?

A. This is all a single camp.

Q. And how many Serbs were detained in those camps?

A. I don't know what the number is. They said it was over a hundred. Some said two or three hundred, but we never got any exact data.

Q. When you speak of a hundred, two hundred, or three hundred, are you speaking of all the camps you confirmed existed in Pakrac and in the Pakrac region, or in one of these camps?

A. What I said refers to Pakrac Ka Poljana. As for the basement of the Pakrac department store, I don't know the number detained there.

Q. So you don't know how many people were there, but you know there was a camp?

A. Yes, because people are still afraid to speak about it, the people ¹⁰⁸⁵⁷ who were there, at least those that I'm in contact with.

Q. All right. But you are now in contact. We heard Mr. Mesic say that Croatia is now a state in which the rule of law prevails. How do you explain the fact that people are afraid to say that they were in camps, people who live there? Is that to say that they are not sure of their safety even nowadays if they're afraid to speak about this?

A. People who were in camps are afraid to speak about this because they are afraid that those who kept them in these camps could harm them until the present day. There is still fear.

Q. Can you say something about what you learned concerning the treatment, the treatment of people in these camps, how they were treated there?

A. I heard that they were tortured, that they were beaten with electric wires, that electric current went through them, that they made each other cut their ears off and that the other person was supposed to eat the other person's ear, that there were beatings, that there were killings. That's what happened in Pakrac Ka Poljana. And in Pakrac, they were beaten, they were tied up to radiators, they were beaten up.

Q. How many of them survived and how many were killed in these camps?

A. As for figures, I really cannot speak about that, because the exact number of persons killed is not known. These numbers are still being dealt with. The number of missing persons is going up day after day. As people are returning, everybody is looking for their own family members, and there are still quite a few who are missing. I don't know about the survivors either. People left and they went to different ¹⁰⁸⁵⁸ places, so it is hard now that the situation hasn't been fully stabilised yet, it's hard to tell. I don't really want to make any estimates of this kind because it concerns human beings.

Q. Did you personally have the opportunity of talking to any one of these victims whose ears were cut off, and then they made them swallow these ears, and people who were burned by electric current and beaten up?

A. I talked to one person. They fired a gunshot through his stomach. He talked to me about that. And also another one who buried others, but they are still afraid to testify about that in public.

Q. And this other person buried those who did not survive; is that right?

A. Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Help us with this: When was all this occurring? You're describing these incidents in prison camps. Again, what period would we be talking about?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This happened sometime from August 1991 until the beginning of 1992.

JUDGE MAY: And what was the situation in Pakrac at the time? Because you've described various Serb takeovers and that sort of thing. What happened?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the 19th of August, in the town of Pakrac, Serbs were only on the outskirts, as for the area that they held militarily. The town itself was no man's land for a while, and afterwards it was under Croatian control all the time. So Gavrinica, that was mentioned by Mr. Milosevic, was on the side of Pakrac. The town was ¹⁰⁸⁵⁹ extensively shelled, bombed, so no one lived there except for the police station and the basement of that department store, and in the streets on the other side of the line, the area that was held by the Serbs. Life returned there only as of March 1992. It started to return, to put it that way. There were Croats there for the most part, and very, very few Serbs until 1995. And in 1995, after Operation Flash, a few Serbs returned, those who had somewhere to go back to, and they still don't live in the apartments where they lived before because they do not have the right to do that. Their apartments were taken away. Apartments were also destroyed. And then when buildings are repaired, they are being repaired and reconstructed by the European Union. And once houses are repaired, then those Serbs who applied to live in those houses can actually return there.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let's be quite clear about this: You had direct communication. You learned about these camps for Serbs in this area of Pakrac, and torture of Serbs in 1991, while Croatia was still within the SFRY, before the international recognition, while the army was in the Croatian territory of the then Yugoslavia. They were still the one and only Yugoslav army. So all of that was taking place at that time; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you say something more specific as to who were the Serbs who were detained and tortured in camps, whose noses and ears were cut off, who were beaten up, who had gunshots fired into their stomachs? Who were ¹⁰⁸⁶⁰ these people? Were these people who had committed crimes or what?

A. These were ordinary people. These were citizens from that area. Some lived in Pakrac Ka Poljana. They were taken there. And many were brought to Pakrac Ka Poljana from Zagreb and from other parts in Croatia. Also from the areas surrounding Pakrac, Daruvar, et cetera. Also from the village of Kip a group of people was brought to Pakrac Ka Poljana. They were not criminals in any way, nor were they doing anything against the state.

Q. So on the basis of this, one may infer that they were beaten up, massacred, killed, only because they were Serbs; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. You said just now that a number of people returned but that some people still do not live in their apartments even though their apartments were not destroyed. Why?

A. When war broke out, all the Serbs who had fled from their apartments and did not live there during the war lost the right to return to their own apartments. That is this so-called tenancy right that prevailed before, and this law is still in force, namely, that Serbs do not have the right to apartments. Efforts are being made to have this returned. I don't know when this will happen, but serious efforts are being made in order to have these tenancy rights restored. So they lost the right to live in the apartments where they had lived before, and this is a serious existential problem.

Q. When was this law passed, that the Serbs did not have a right to return to their apartments, the apartments that they left because of what ¹⁰⁸⁶¹ you just described now, the kind of things that happened to them?

A. I don't know exactly whether this was in 1992 or in 1995. I don't know exactly, to tell you the truth, because I was reintegrated in 1995. I don't know, but I think the law had already been passed by then.

Q. So in the present-day state of Croatia, where the rule of law prevails, this law is still in force and Serbs still cannot return to their apartments?

A. No, they cannot. Some were bought, some were given to others and others are empty.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear the question of Mr. Milosevic.

A. Refugees from Slavonia, Bosnia, when they got Croatian citizenship, they moved into these apartments because other citizens of Croatia who did not have apartments bought these apartments and now own them.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, the interpreter said that they couldn't hear your question before. Could you slow down, please, and put a pause between the question and answer.

Mr. Witness too.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Kwon. I thought that I was bearing this in mind, but I shall pause.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Could you tell me something else now. You've just described this for me, what was going on in Pakrac. Can you tell me something else? I don't really want to read this again, and you heard this and you said it ¹⁰⁸⁶² was correct. These camps in Slavonska Pozega, for Serbs, of course, I'm asking about that, those camps, do you have any knowledge about that, about the number of Serbs who were interned in these camps and how they were treated there?

A. I don't have any knowledge. I don't have any knowledge concerning the number of people who were there. What I heard was that they were also beaten and tortured. At that time, that seemed to be some kind of a rule between these two sides that were in conflict around Pakrac in Western Slavonia, that on the Serb side, the Croats were beaten up and tortured; and then on the Croatian side, that's what happened to the Serbs. I don't know what kind of contacts and relations they had, but one could come to the conclusion that this was really known about everyone who ever was detained. Well, not everyone, but almost everyone. So then this gave rise to tensions and also to a wish to revenge the situation that happened. So that's what happened in Pakrac and the surrounding area. I don't know about the numbers involved in Pozega. I just know that they were really beaten up badly. And I know that there were frequent exchanges between the Serb side and the Croat side, that the Croats exchanged Serbs and the Serbs exchanged Croats. So they each took their own prisoners out for exchanges.

Q. Please, I read out only part of this to you, this list of prisons for the Serbs. How many Serb prisons were there for Croats, ones that you know about?

A. What I enumerated in Western Slavonia was Mijokovicevo, Bucje, Vocin, down in Okucani. These were prisons. And then -- well, I know ¹⁰⁸⁶³ about these prisons. And the rest were conflicts and killings, like Balinci, Cetekovac.

Q. Oh, so you know of these four; right?

A. Yes.

Q. So how many Croats were in these four prisons that were held by the Serbs?

A. I don't know that figure either. It's very hard for me to say, especially for Stara Gradiska. And up there at Bucje, I really don't like to make estimates. We're talking about human beings.

Q. Is it correct that in 1991, in October, you lived in Bucje for some 30 days or so?

A. Yes. Well, not only in Bucje, but at Bucje too. Not only in Bucje, but also in the surrounding areas.

Q. So that's where the prison was?

A. Yes, in that village.

Q. All right. So you lived there for 30 days and you saw that prison. So this is a prison where Serbs held Croats. I assume, in view of the office that you held, that you had to have been informed as to what was going on in this prison, how many people there were there, who these people were, and how they were treated.

A. Since you are referring to the office I held, let me inform you once again, if you do not remember. I did not have any authority up there whatsoever. There was only military authority up there, namely, the Territorial Defence. It was operating up there. And I did not have the possibility or the right, as they had put it, to meddle in things that I ¹⁰⁸⁶⁴ was not supposed to be interested in, according to them. So I don't know how many people were in this prison. I know that there were civilians, for the most part, those who had been collected near the separation line, and perhaps there were a small number of soldiers who had been taken prisoner during the war. Among these prisoners, there were Serbs as well. And I heard from them the most that they had been beaten up, and some were taken away and killed. But I could not really have insight into this because this was under the control of the Territorial Defence, which throughout the war that was taking place there, was violently opposed to me, so I did not have any right to access the area or enter it.

Q. Well, but it is highly unlikely that you couldn't really get any information, because among local people, one usually knows everything. You know what other people are cooking for lunch let alone how many people are in prison and what's going on in that prison. How many persons were there in that prison?

A. I can't tell you a number that I don't know.

Q. But you probably saw the building. Were you in that building?

A. No.

Q. Did you see that building?

A. I did not come close to the building, so I don't know.

Q. Oh, so you don't even know what the building looks like?

A. No.

Q. Are you sure?

A. Sure.

Q. What was the maximum number of people who could have been there? ¹⁰⁸⁶⁵

A. Perhaps around 100.

Q. How many of them were Serbs and how many were Croats?

A. Perhaps 10 were Serbs and the rest were Croats.

Q. How many soldiers, how many civilians?

A. I don't know about that.

Q. All right. Let's not pursue this any further. When you talk about events in Pakrac, on page 4, in the last paragraph, you explained that the municipality of Pakrac made a decision to remain in Yugoslavia if Croatia were to leave Yugoslavia. Is it the population itself that reached that decision or did you organise that?

A. That was the decision of the assembly of the municipality of Pakrac, not of the population, but of the delegates of the population of the municipality.

Q. Did anybody suggest that you should make this kind of decision?

A. This was after the disassociation, when Croatia disassociated from Yugoslavia. That's when the Serbs voted that they wanted to remain in Yugoslavia. This was some kind of a political gesture, to make it known that people did want to stay in Yugoslavia.

Q. However, as far as I can understand this, this was not within the referendum that you had had before that; is that right? Was it before or after?

A. The first referendum was for cultural autonomy, in 1990. This was sometime around the 21st or 22nd of February, 1991. And the second referendum was to remain in Yugoslavia. That was on the 12th of May, 1991. So that was between the two referendums. ¹⁰⁸⁶⁶

Q. All right. Tell me: What was the substance of this referendum for cultural autonomy?

A. I cannot be aware of the details now. It was a long time ago. But it was cultural and political autonomy of the Serbs in Croatia that was referred to. This was supposed to protect Serb identity in Croatia. I don't really know about the details of this referendum.

Q. Did this mean education in the Serb language, the use of the Cyrillic alphabet, the functioning of the Serb Cultural Society of Prosvjeta? So equal treatment, actually, in terms of the protection of national identity of the Serbs, in terms of their cultural needs, then also in the fields of education, culture, et cetera. Is that what it was?

A. I think that that is the right way to put it, to protect Serb cultural identity, not to mention all these things that you have just mentioned.

Q. And is it true that after that there was great pressure exerted? What do you know, for example, about the dismissal of Serbs from the police force, from all public services, from the media, from the health service, and so on, in Croatia in the course of 1990, when there were still no conflicts or clashes? Can you tell me something about that? What do you know about that?

A. Yes. That was the time that the dismissal started, especially from the police force.

Q. I apologise for interrupting you. I apologise. Mr. Kwon, I won't speed up. But let me just add something. When you say "at the beginning there were dismissals from the police force," what do you mean ¹⁰⁸⁶⁷ "beginning"? When was this beginning?

A. Well, I couldn't give you an exact date, but I think it was the end of 1990. That's when dismissals from the police force started and from state public services, when Serbs were let go. Because it was considered there were more than was necessary by virtue of the ethnic representation, especially in the police and public services, and especially in municipalities where the HDZ won the majority in the elections.

Later on, in 1991, this took hold and there were more and more dismissals from work after that.

Q. And do you have an idea as to how many people at the beginning and before the conflict broke out, how many Serbs were dismissed from the police force, from public services, from the media, and from the other jobs that they held?

A. Well, I don't have a figure, and I don't have an estimate either, because when all this was going on, it created great tension. And I can't make assessments of that kind. I can't hazard a figure.

Q. Yes, but do you have any knowledge about other areas except for the police force, health service, public services? Were Serbs dismissed from companies and enterprises, from commercial organisations, for example?

A. That came later. I heard about that in the course of 1991, especially in Zagreb and in the larger towns, where there were many large enterprises. I heard that they had been dismissed just for being Serbs.

Q. Just for being Serbs, no other reason? ¹⁰⁸⁶⁸

A. Yes, that's right. That's what I heard from the people who were fired.

Q. It was the people who were fired who told you this?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Now, do you know that for the most part all the directors, the company managers or people who had positions of leadership in the economy, who were Serbs, ethnic Serbs, that they were dismissed straight away, or rather, replaced straight away? Some of them might have carried on doing some work in the companies, but they were replaced in their post of director or manager. Did you hear anything about that?

A. Yes, I did hear of things like that happening too, yes.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. What was going on in all these areas; police, public services, the media, the health service, and so on and so forth? Did this take on the form of a general all-out discrimination of Serbs in Croatia?

A. Yes, it did take on those proportions. It did become an all-out general discrimination, and the Serbs were afraid that they would lose their jobs. That happened principally in areas where Serbs were the minority, that is to say, in Zagreb, Sisak, Pozega, and those towns towards Bjelovar and other places.

Q. So that means that happened where Serbs were really in the minority. That is where the discriminatory measures were greatest, most widespread; is that right?

A. Yes, it is. That's right. Where the HDZ had won the majority ¹⁰⁸⁶⁹ vote.

Q. All right. So that means where the HDZ won, the programme was to dismiss the Serbs and expel them; is that so or isn't it?

A. Well, I don't know whether that was their programme, but I do know that that is what happened.

Q. When you heard for the first time of instances and cases where people were taken away, where there were illegal and unlawful arrests, that all trace was lost of people, that they were being killed, from Zagreb to Vukovar, in the different places in that area, when did you first hear of that happening?

A. I first heard that in mid-1991.

Q. I quoted something this morning, a report, and Mesic confirmed that he found it when he assumed his post of president. It dates back to 1991. It was Herzog, Tudjman's advisor, who talks about unlawful arrests of Serbs, unlawful detention of Serbs, he means arrest of Serbs - I don't have to translate from the Croatian into the Serbian language for you - and that all traces are lost of them, that it is not known whether they are alive or dead. Do you know about that?

A. No, I didn't know of that report.

Q. Was -- did that report -- was that report made public after the arrival of the new authorities?

JUDGE MAY: He says he doesn't know anything about it. Now, let's try and move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ¹⁰⁸⁷⁰

Q. Tell me this, please: After the famous barricades were set up, is it true that you established that the government in Serbia, the government in Belgrade, had nothing to do with or knowledge of that before this appeared in the public information media, and this kind of resistance?

A. I didn't understand you when you said whether we had established this.

Q. Is it true that the government in Belgrade had nothing to do or any knowledge about this? And I'm thinking of your own statement. But answer the question. You know what you said; I don't have to repeat that.

A. As far as I know, this was done by the local population, at their own initiative.

Q. You said that the Pakrac police set up barricades during the night but the JNA demanded that they be removed. Members of the MUP of Croatia took advantage of this and on the 2nd of March, 1991, they entered the town, exchanged gunfire with the Pakrac policemen, which means that they shot at each other, they disarmed a few of them, and in the meantime, the JNA arrived and negotiations started between the JNA and the MUP of Croatia. Two days later, the disarmament process started of the rest of the members of the Pakrac police force and the weapons were returned back to the police. Then you go on to say four assistants of Petar Gracanin, the federal Minister for Internal Affairs, arrived in Pakrac. I remember that one of them said that the -- that Croatia was a legal state and that the Pakrac policemen had to return the weapons, otherwise they would be arrested by the federal police force and that they would be turned over to the MUP of Croatia. The Serbs in Pakrac were -- saw that everything had ¹⁰⁸⁷¹ calmed down and were disillusioned. Is that so?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, how did the barricades come to be set up in the first place? Can you tell me that?

A. I think that I said that in private session, that I explained that in private session, so can I repeat it in a private session?

JUDGE MAY: Private session, yes.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁰⁸⁷² Page 10872 - redacted - private session

¹⁰⁸⁷³

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[Open session]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I thought we had returned to open session a long time ago. I thought we were already in open session, Mr. May, quite some time ago, because the witness only had several facts to give us in private session. I cannot waste time and go back to the questions I've already asked, that we've already covered, but I do like to know -- and I do think that too much insistence is made on these closed sessions, private sessions, because it is not the witness C-037 that is endangered by the publication of what we're talking about because everybody knows who he is anyway.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is it true that this red/white, and white/red chequerboard was found on the death camps of Jasenovac, likes of Jasenovac, for example? Is that true?

A. Yes, it is. ¹⁰⁸⁷⁴

Q. Well, do you then consider that it was only the elderly people, as you say, the older generations, who were troubled and upset by that? Do you think they had reason, good reason to be upset and troubled, and was there good reason for them to be anxious and even afraid of what was in store for them?

A. Yes, they did.

Q. So what we were saying a moment ago, discussing a moment ago, about the camps, the dismissals, the beatings up and killings and so on and so forth, was that confirmation that their fears were justified?

A. In a way, yes, because those were the first steps taken to instil fear in the people.

Q. And is it true that the region of Western Slavonia had deep scars, was deeply scarred by the mass crimes committed during World War II and that the people there had to be sensitive, quite justifiably so?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Is there a Serb family, a single Serb family in that part of the world which did not have casualties of some kind in World War II, during World War II? Let me stop there and then I'll continue and I'll go on to ask another question.

A. Well, perhaps -- I don't know. Likely -- not likely.

Q. In Western Slavonia, with the exception of those who had fled before the clashes started, was there a family that did not lose somebody in these attacks launched by the Croatian police and army on Serb settlements and Serb houses?

A. I apologise, but could you repeat that question? I didn't follow ¹⁰⁸⁷⁵ you.

Q. In that part of the world, that is to say, in Western Slavonia, in that region, is there any family which has not lost any -- which did not lose anybody in the attacks 1991, up to 1995, in Western Slavonia, except for those who had fled before 1991 and gone to Serbia or somewhere else?

A. Yes, some of the Serb families fought in the Croatian army and were there together, so such families do exist.

Q. Yes, but are there many such families?

A. No, there are not.

Q. Now, with respect to this event, as far as I was able to follow and gather - and this is on page 5, paragraph 5 of your statement - you say that in the information media --

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, I note you are quoting the witness's written statement several times, a number of times, so it seems that your intention -- it is your intention to continuously quote his statement. Do you like us to have one? We don't have them right now.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, this is his statement, the one that I was given by you. I assume that it was included in the materials.

JUDGE MAY: You refer to "you." Remember that we're the Judges. The Prosecution sent you that document. We had nothing to do with that, and we don't have them. Now, you were asked by the Judge: Do you want us to have the copies or not?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course I do, but as far as I recall, so far you always had copies of statements, looked at them, looked for sentences and were able to find them. So I would ask myself now why, ¹⁰⁸⁷⁶ and is this a logical mistake, that you don't have them now?

JUDGE MAY: We don't have the statements. We've told you this before: We don't have the statements of the witnesses unless they're disclosed under the Rule, which, as you know, allows for the admissibility of written statements. We have those, but the other statements we don't have.

Let us have a copy of these ones and we'll give it an exhibit number.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Then I should like to have this introduced.

[Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

JUDGE MAY: Well, I gather there are six statements. Which is the one that you've been relying on, Mr. Milosevic? We've got it. Thank you.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Maybe, Your Honour, I can be of assistance. Maybe Mr. Milosevic refers to the proofing summary. That is something you have in front of you, and ...

JUDGE MAY: We have the proofing summary, that's right.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have the witness's statement of the 19th of March. No. I apologise. Of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th of May, 1990 -- no, sorry, 2002. That's the statement.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. This is a summary. Yes, we've got that. Thank you. Yes, we've got this one.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. May I proceed, then?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ¹⁰⁸⁷⁷

Q. Mr. C-037, you say that in the media, the events that we have just described, partly in private and partly in open session, were represented as dramatic events, and this is your opinion. Don't you think that this kind of event in Pakrac is dramatic?

A. Yes, it is, but what was said in the media was that people had been killed, and even their names were mentioned, and this did not happen. That's why I said that these events were misrepresented.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did you ever manage to find out who produced this report? Was it given by someone from Pakrac or did somebody in the media make it up? I mean the report about the people who were killed and that this was not true.

A. As far as I can remember, a journalist arrived and wrote the article from Pakrac, the report, from Pakrac.

Q. So it was somebody who came to Pakrac, observed the sporadic shooting and the conflict, and wrote an article about it?

A. I don't know what he observed.

Q. Very well. But you say there was no reason for the Serbs to flee because there was no threat to them from the Croatian side.

A. What period are you referring to, please?

Q. I'll tell you. You say, in fact, there was no reason to leave because there was no military threat from the Croatian side in November/December 1991. So this is late 1991. And then ... Yes. You say there was no reason for the Serbs to leave because there was no ¹⁰⁸⁷⁸ military threat from the Croatian side. And then you mention the amendments. This is on page 18, the second paragraph from the bottom of your statement. You said: I was able to see that people were being manipulated in Western Slavonia, for example, in the SDS. And that's your party, is it not? Wanted to study the amendments to the Croatian constitution. People didn't want to listen but demanded weapons because they had heard rumours that the Croats had armed. So they had heard rumours that the Croats had armed. Were these rumours true? Were the Croats armed or not?

A. In your first and second comments, you mixed up two events. First you spoke of late 1991 and then you spoke of early 1991. These two events were nine months apart. To respond to your first comment, in late 1991, when people were withdrawing from Grubisno Polje, Daruvar and other municipalities, there was not a strong concentration of the Croatian army, so the pressure was not so great. They were not withdrawing because of the military strength of the other side. In Daruvar, they entered Serbian villages only some five or six days later, and then destroyed and burnt them.

Q. When did this happen precisely?

A. Well, Daruvar retreated around the 15th of November, and they entered it some five days later, five or six. So it may have been the 15th, the 20th. I don't know the exact day. But there was no fighting in those villages. People withdrew from the villages, out of fear, because there were rumours of heavy concentrations of Croatian forces. And people did not have enough self-confidence, enough self-reliance. There was no ¹⁰⁸⁷⁹ JNA there. They were expecting help from the JNA. And as they were there on their own for days and days, they retreated. After that, the Croatian forces entered. Whether these were the home guard or the Croatian army or what they were called, I don't know, but they entered all the villages in Western Slavonia.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the question.

A. These villages then were looted for days. They were torched for days. The better houses that could not be torched were blown up.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. What happened to the better houses?

A. Well, they would not burn, so they were blown up with explosives, and that's what happened to all the villages that had been controlled by the Serbs during the war. As for the second part of your question --

Q. Let's stay with the first part for a while. That's why I'm asking you this, because it seems illogical when you say that they had no reason to be anxious and to flee, when you yourself say that once they had fled from the Croatian forces, these villages were first looted and then burnt or blown up. Does that not contradict what you said, namely, that they had nothing to fear, nothing to flee from?

A. The forces that entered these villages were not strong enough to take these villages from the local Serbs. A single man can torch a house or a village. I don't know how many of them came in later, but had they had strong forces, they would have entered the villages on the same day that the Serbs left them. But the villages were not looted and burnt in a single day. This went on for days and days. So there was time for more ¹⁰⁸⁸⁰ people to arrive. Maybe some civilians took part in this. That's why I'm saying there was no reason to abandon the area. People could have held it and gone on living there. But I think the local commanders were not up to the task; they panicked and they manipulated the people.

Q. So they manipulated people into fleeing instead of fighting; is that what you're saying?

A. I think they should have stayed there and preserved their village rather than leaving it. That's my opinion, still. As for the other question you put to me, when the videotape of Spegelj was published, was broadcast, it terrified people because they concluded that the Croats were arming, and felt unsafe. When the amendments to the constitution were discussed in Okucani, when Mr. Kosutic came there to help us, you couldn't even talk to people about the constitutional amendments. They were not interested in that. All they wanted was weapons. They said: If I have a gun, I feel safe. And this was a widespread phenomenon. The fear was such that they demanded weapons, and there was pressure on all the political leaders to do this. Those who refused were considered to be traitors. It was thought that they were not looking after the people properly. Later on, in June 1991, when the event at Borovo Selo took place, I think it was - yes - in May, on my way back, passing through the Croatian villages from Osijek to Slavonska Pozega, I saw people going out at night carrying rifles, so I saw that the Croats were also armed. I don't know who of the Croats was armed, on what basis, how, whether it was just members of the HDZ or whether it was also other people, but I did see ¹⁰⁸⁸¹ them carrying weapons. And then at the same time the Serbs armed themselves as well. Some people bought weapons initially. I don't know who supplied them, but a lot of weapons were bought, and many people armed themselves. This was a widespread phenomenon.

Q. What do you know about the point in time when the National Guard Corps, as it was called, was established?

A. I think it was sometime in the summer of 1991, but I don't have the exact information.

Q. Who were members of this National Guard Corps?

A. I think it was volunteers or policemen. I'm not sure exactly. I know it was established and that its name was the National Guard Corps, but I don't know who the recruits were. I don't know from where these people were recruited.

Q. So you have described camps where people were tortured, people fleeing and torching of houses and villages. Now I have a general question for you. After the first day of your testimony, a newspaper said that Witness C-037 accused Milosevic of planning the Karlovac-Karlobag-Virovitica boundary. Since I have --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, that doesn't sound like a very correct question. What you can do is ask the witness about his evidence, not about the way in which some newspaper has reported it. Now, what is the correct question?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I'm asking the witness whether he accused me in his testimony --

JUDGE MAY: It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. What he said ¹⁰⁸⁸² is what he said. It's not for the witness to comment on it. You can do so in due course and we can make a finding about it. It's not for him to comment now.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May --

JUDGE MAY: No, don't argue. Just move on to the next point.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May --

JUDGE MAY: You can ask him some question which is relevant to the evidence, but asking him about the newspaper report is not either -- or asking him to comment on his own evidence, which is what you appear to be doing. Now, that is simply not permissible. Now, what's the point -- what is the point you want to make? If you tell us the point, maybe we can formulate it into a question which is permissible.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll tell you, Mr. May, if you will allow me. I assume I have the right to put questions in connection with exhibits shown to the witness who was asked to comment on them. If an exhibit was shown to a witness and --

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Of course you're entitled to do that. Put the -- let's go to the exhibit. Put the exhibit -- the right way to do it is put the exhibit to him and then you can ask your question. Now, which is the exhibit you want to ask him about? If you don't know which one it is, we'll find it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There was a map of Croatia on which there were two straight lines, or rather, one broken straight line, marking --

JUDGE MAY: Let's identify the exhibit. We'll find it. ¹⁰⁸⁸³

JUDGE KWON: It seems to be tab 3 of Exhibit 326. Is this the one?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes, yes. This map was shown. Please put it on the projector. I can see it even from here. I'm sure the witness can see it, if it's only 50 centimetres away. So put it on the projector.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. There, you see this map, Mr. C-037?

A. I do.

Q. This map was shown to you here. What connection does it have with any standpoint of Belgrade? If you know, tell me.

A. This has to do with Seselj's slogan, Karlobag, Karlovac, Virovitica.

Q. Wait a minute. Leave Seselj's slogan alone. Various politicians say various things at different points in time. Did you ever hear a single representative of the government -- as you know, Seselj was in the opposition. Did you ever hear a single representative of the government, starting with me in Serbia, or the Prime Minister or a minister, or someone from Yugoslavia, a general, for example, talking about a plan, an alleged plan, such as the one shown to you on this map? Did anyone ever --

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer. It's an important point. There's no point if you go on; he can't answer it.

A. No, I didn't hear it from any officials of the government of Serbia or the government of Yugoslavia. I said what this line, this ¹⁰⁸⁸⁴ boundary, was connected with.

JUDGE MAY: So can we take it, Witness 37, that you never heard anybody in the government talking about this line?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't.

JUDGE MAY: But as I recollect it, you said that you saw somebody - I may be wrong about this -- remind us, if you would, what your evidence was that you say connects this line with the Serbian government.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps with the sentence that all the Serbs would live in a single state.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, but how is that connected with this line?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I linked this sentence with Mr. Milosevic, that all the Serbs would live in one state.

JUDGE MAY: Let me finish. It doesn't explain quite why you come to this particular -- why this particular line on the map. What's the significance of it? Would you explain to us. I know you say it's connected with Greater Serbia, but can you help us as to this or not? It may be you can't.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This here is the Krajina. This is Western Slavonia. Seselj came to visit Krajina and Western Slavonia and he spoke about this border, about this line.

JUDGE MAY: So it's what Seselj says. I see. Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. When was this?

A. Seselj said that in 1991.

Q. All right. Did he have some kind of a political party then? ¹⁰⁸⁸⁵

A. Yes.

Q. Was he perhaps in parliament?

A. Yes, I think he was.

Q. Are you sure?

A. I think I am. The radical party --

Q. Was he in opposition?

A. Yes.

Q. Whose opposition?

A. Yours.

Q. So how can you say, then, even if he had spoken about this - I don't even know that he had - how can you link this up with some position of the government of Serbia or any position of mine? Because somebody, according to you, said something at some point, some person from the opposition.

A. I said that I am linking that to his name.

Q. Oh, all right. I don't know if he said that, but over here, during your testimony, this was linked up to me. It's being held against me. So as you can see --

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... trouble what anybody is putting in the papers. It's what the evidence is here of which we shall be the Judges.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know that that sentence that many are abusing here, "All Serbs in a single state," does not say "will" but was linked to the following explanation: That Yugoslavia was in the interests of all ¹⁰⁸⁸⁶ Yugoslav peoples and that Serbs had a particular interest in the preservation of Yugoslavia because only with the existence of Yugoslavia can the Serbs live in one state, although they are in different republics? Do you know that? Do you know how come this quotation was distorted, that it pertains to that one and only state, Yugoslavia, the then Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

A. I did not correct the quotation or distort it, believe me. I am telling you, I just know that the Serbs wanted to remain in Yugoslavia, to live in that state. As for this line, I linked it up to the statement of that man, not to go into all of that again. And I don't know about these changes and these inversions, what you said, I mean "will" or "do" or whatever.

Q. But you are interpreting it that way. The Serbs did live in one state while Yugoslavia was still in existence, but also all Croats lived in one state. Because they even have problems now, Croats in Bosnia, greater problems than they ever thought they would have, because slowly, under pressure, they are not sending children to Sarajevo to go to school. They're sending them to Split or to Zagreb. All the Croats lived in one state too, and the Muslims lived in one state too. That's why I said that for all Yugoslav peoples, Yugoslavia is the solution, because they all live in one state.

JUDGE MAY: You've been asked: What is the question?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The question was to clarify this.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You uttered that sentence, which is very correct and very humane ¹⁰⁸⁸⁷ and very reasonable, but you linked that up with some speech. You even said that this was in Kosovo Polje, this speech. This speech in Kosovo Polje is a remarkable speech, and it is quite contrary to what is being asserted here, and everybody had the right to read it. So who put this into your head, that we --

JUDGE MAY: No, Mr. Milosevic, you can't go on making these speeches. Now, you can give evidence in due course and you can tell us about it then. Now, have you got any other questions for this witness?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Oh, of course. Well, I have three hours left for tomorrow, Mr. May. Please.

JUDGE MAY: Let's get on with it now.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. I am going on, yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. So regardless of the fact that there was no military danger involved as far as the Serbs from Croatia were concerned, in your opinion, and it was obvious that they were endangered indeed, that all their villages were torched, et cetera, and they all had to flee, and you seem to be saying that they should have stayed there and fought because then they would have kept their houses, then probably somebody would have accused them too of carrying out an aggression against their own houses.

A. May I say something?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. You're supposed to be giving evidence, although it may not appear like that. Yes?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Milosevic, I still think that there was no reason for them to leave. I believe that. Because there are ¹⁰⁸⁸⁸ reasons why I'm saying this. Where the Serbs were in Croatia, in their own villages, and where there were no conflicts, the villages remained intact. Had Serbs not left then, as they stayed behind from Pakrac further down, these villages remained. I am not justifying this. This was a retaliation. This was a crime committed against these people. But I repeat: There was no concentration of forces. There was not that kind of threat that was supposed to make them leave.

And I know, on the other hand, that there was no goodwill for the Serbs to remain. But one cannot live on the goodwill of others only. One has to live on the basis of one's own free will and to stay where they are and fight. I did not mean that they should fight in the sense of committing crimes or something like that, but defending themselves. I think that then Croatia would not have entered Western Slavonia. What was done against it afterwards is a different story altogether.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters cannot hear Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So this is your explanation. In Croatia, did the Serbs do anything else but defend themselves in the territory where they had lived for several centuries? Did they go to conquer Croat territories, or were they defending the territories where they lived, territories that were theirs?

A. Well, down there, around Drnis, there were conquests of Croatian villages that did not belong to the Serbs, that did not belong to the Serbs. Also there were some in Kordun or in Banija. I can't recall exactly now. The problem is that in those areas where the Serbs did ¹⁰⁸⁸⁹ exercise their own control, they should not have torched Croat villages. And they should not have expelled or killed Croat civilians who were there, because that happened too. I'm not trying to say that there was not ethnic distrust among them, but that's not right. Like Donji Caglic near Pakrac, when the army came, there were one or ten, I don't know how many extremists, but others were not. They could have remained alive. Because if you are involved in a struggle of defence to live in your own home, that does not give you the right to expel others. And now everybody is trying to justify themselves that way when they say that's why I committed something bad against someone else.

I think that sufficient attempts were not made to avoid this evil, and I have reason to think this way. I was born in Croatia. My parents were born in Croatia. They also lived through the Second World War. Their entire families, all their relatives, were killed. As children, they were in Ustasha camps. But it was Croats who saved them from these Ustasha camps. So in our history, we have cases when we were killing each other, but there are also cases when we were saving, rescuing each other, and I think it was more difficult to do it then than it is now. I live in the conviction that we Serbs should have done even more in order to prevent this from happening. That is my conviction. I cannot change it. I know what kind of state this is, and I know the fears involved, and I saw my own father, who was afraid, and he said, "Yes, the Ustasha killed all the members of my family, all my relatives, but it is Croats who saved me from the camp." And he was 12 years old, he was not 30 years old. He was a child, a 12-year-old child, but he was aware of that. ¹⁰⁸⁹⁰ And also in that war, they joined the Croats and they joined the Partizans. And we did not give each other a chance to resolve things and not slaughter each other. That's what I keep thinking about time and again.

Q. C-037, I think that your way of thinking is right, and I think that no one can or has the right to kill another person because he himself is exposed to danger unless he is saving his own life, unless this is self-defence. As for these excesses that you are referring to, you mentioned a village near Drnis and you mentioned something else near Benkovac, et cetera. But you did not answer my question: Is it correct, along with the exceptions that nobody can or should justify, nor would anybody accept this kind of justification. So given these exceptions, is it correct that in those years of crisis, Serbs, for the most part, that is to say as a rule, exclusively defended their own doorstep and the territories where they lived, along with these excesses that nobody is justifying. But generally speaking, isn't it correct that they were defending their own villages, their own homes, their own doorsteps where they were imperilled? Is that correct?

A. For the most part, yes.

Q. So let's clarify that. As for crimes, nobody is justifying that. The Croatian parliament, in 1990, adopted an amendment to this - what's it called? - 68 and abolished the Cyrillic alphabet; is that right? What was the reaction in Western Slavonia to this? Do you think that this evolution in the atmosphere of fear started escalating, I mean with these first seemingly not exactly dramatic changes but basically, and over the ¹⁰⁸⁹¹ longer term, dramatic changes. Tell me about the atmosphere then.

A. Yes. This did sound negative among the Serb population, because they were building Croatia together with the Croats. They were constituent people. And the alphabet had a footing -- was on a footing of equality. And they wanted their alphabet to be equal, because that is a right that had been acquired, and that is something that they had lived with for years. So this upset them.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters cannot hear the question.

JUDGE MAY: Again, they can't hear the question. You've got to leave a pause. And this must be the last question before we adjourn.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The events that followed later, after this first alarm, so to speak, did they escalate further into an atmosphere of fear and threat that you reacted to, as you had put it yourself, spontaneously and on the basis of the feelings of the citizens themselves there where they lived?

A. Yes, especially when the Serbs were no longer a constituent people, when they became a minority. And when they were becoming a minority people, felt that in this way they were considered to be of minor value. And before that, it was said that they were privileged and whatever. So they took this to be an attack against them, as a rise in discrimination.

JUDGE MAY: We must adjourn now because the tape is about to run out.

JUDGE KWON: Just one thing. I have to apologise for my mistake that, with the assistance of Madam Registrar, I realise that it was not ¹⁰⁸⁹² the proof summary that the accused is quoting, and the written statement is dated 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th of May. So we had better have one, if the Prosecution -- yes.

JUDGE MAY: We'll adjourn now, 9.00 tomorrow morning.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.15 p.m. to be reconvened on Friday, the 4th day of

October 2002, at 9.00 a.m.