¹⁰⁸⁹³

Friday, 4 October 2002

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: We have been informed that there is the ability to sit next week during the afternoons from Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. We've made no decision about that, but we'll hear the parties in due course as to desirability of doing that.

MR. NICE: Thank you, Your Honour. For reasons that I'll explain later, perhaps this morning, there may be difficulties in filling the week with evidence. We'll do our best to put plans into operation to ensure that we can.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll consider the matter in due course. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

I should say we've now been handed copies of the witness's statements. We'll consider in due course whether any or all of them should be exhibited.

Yes.

WITNESS: WITNESS C-[Resumed]

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

Q. [Interpretation] Yesterday, towards the end of the hearing, you said that your family and your father had been in a camp. You also mentioned the common struggle, the joint struggle, of the Serbs and Croats ¹⁰⁸⁹⁴ in World War II against fascism. Since you were active in politics, and in view of the fact that you are an educated man, do you know that all the constitutions of Croatia after World War II until the amendments were passed in 1990 contained provisions prescribing that the Serbs were a constituent nation in Croatia? This applies to all the constitutions, the one from 1945, 1965, and 1974. And do you know that the Serbs lost this status in Croatia only in 1990, with these changes? Is this correct?

A. Yes, this is correct. During the war, the Serbs acquired equal status at the Zavnoh meeting, and they had this status in every constitution until 1990, when they lost it.

Q. When you refer to Zavnoh, this is the anti-fascist council of the Peoples Liberation of Croatia. For those who don't know what Zavnoh is.

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Do you recall -- of course, you hadn't been born yet, but in our country it was well known that the Zavnoh resolution contained statements to the effect that the Serbs in Croatia had sacrificed themselves to an unimaginable extent, that they loved their country, that they had struggled against the enemy, and that there could be no free and democratic Croatia in which the Serbs did not have full equality, just as the Croats do. Do you know about this Zavnoh resolution?

A. Yes, I do, and in the first democratic elections, as they are called, we referred to those decisions and the acquired rights of the Serbs in Croatia.

Q. Where did the anti-fascist uprising begin in Croatia? ¹⁰⁸⁹⁵

A. The official information was that it was on the 27th of July, in a place called Srb in Lika. However, when the new government came to power, this was changed.

Q. So in 1941, the anti-fascist uprising in Croatia started in a place called Srb, which is an area inhabited by Serbs. It's situated in Lika. And then it spread throughout Croatia. Is that correct?

A. Yes, that's correct.

JUDGE MAY: We need, Mr. Milosevic, to consider where this examination is going. You're asking this witness about events long before his birth. It seems to me -- just let me think. It seems to me that you are claiming relevance to these events in -- for events in 1991. We will need to know what the relevance is and we'll need to consider what the appropriate way of dealing with it is. Your case, so you've told us, is that the Serbs were in fear, that that fear arose partly from events 50 years before, and we will have to decide what truth there is in that. The Prosecution case, of course, is that forces were responsible for crimes committed in and against the Croatian population in the area which we are dealing with. So there is a conflict there which we will have to resolve. But nonetheless, I doubt that there's a great deal of point asking this witness about events 50 or 60 years before. Mr. Kay, again, perhaps you could assist us from the point of view of the amicus on this issue. Really, it's a question of how far can cross-examination properly go. It cannot go that every witness is going to be asked about this.

MR. KAY: There is a great degree of relevance in relation to this ¹⁰⁸⁹⁶ matter, but it has limited effect, and Your Honour has stated what the broad issues on this matter are, and they have been canvassed with other witnesses, and indeed this witness, before. So for my part, I don't take objection to Your Honour raising this matter at this stage, because the point is well known and the Trial Chamber Bench has expressed it only a moment ago. My greater concern would be that the accused put his full case in relation to matters and dealt with other matters rather than dealing exclusively with historical matters.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you've heard what has been said, and we will reinforce that ruling. The issue which you want to explore is the fear which you say the Serbs had at the relevant time because of matters which occurred before. You can ask the witness about that fear, but you must do so briefly, and particularly we shall not allow a great deal about the history from this witness, who, as I say, wasn't born then. In due course, we're going to allow both sides to call a historian. You can call a historian too. The Prosecution can call a historian. And that's the appropriate time to deal with these historical matters, not with this particular witness. And what is important is during the time available to you this morning, that you should put to the witness, so he can deal with it and so we may know what your case is, anything you disagree with about what he said about happenings in Western Slavonia and other matters that he dealt with in his evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, you asked about the relevance of this, without extensive explanations, the relevance is that ¹⁰⁸⁹⁷ in the late 1980s and early 1990s, this same fascism from World War II rose from the grave, and it was not expressed merely through symbols and rhetoric, the symbols and rhetoric dating back to World War II, but also through widespread pogroms of the Serbian population, of their expulsion from the constitution, illegal arrests, murders, pressure, dismissals from jobs --

JUDGE MAY: We have the point that you make. You've expressed it before and we have the point. And in due course, you can call your evidence about it. But you're dealing here with cross-examination of a particular witness, and you should restrict yourself to what that witness has said and what he knows about himself. In due course, as it's been said many times, you can call your evidence about these things.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As you have seen, the witness spoke of things he knows about now, and yesterday he gave clear answers to my questions about camps, torture, mutilation, murder, and so on.

JUDGE MAY: Now, let's not take any further time about this. Let's get on with anything else you've got to put, and if you can finish this witness today -- you have to finish him today, but if you can finish earlier, so much the better. You've already put a great deal to him, but anything else which is relevant to his evidence, you should put.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that all of this is relevant. I will put a question to him that relates to the year 1990. We are not speaking of fears but of phenomena that occurred in 1990, not some abstract fears from 50 years ago.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ¹⁰⁸⁹⁸

Q. In the area you lived in, nearby, was the biggest concentration camp Jasenovac? Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. It is well known how many Serbs, Jews, and Roma were killed in that camp.

A. Yes, it was well known.

Q. According to what you knew and what you learned in school in Croatia, how many Serbs were killed in Jasenovac?

A. What we learned was 700.000.

Q. 700.000 Serbs killed in a single Ustasha concentration camp alone. Do you know about the event on the 27th of March from a rally of --

JUDGE MAY: Which year?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1990, on the 27th of March, 1990, the time the witness is testifying about, an appeal was issued to the Yugoslav public, saying: We have escaped from one hell. We don't want our children and grandchildren to experience the same evil. We are especially embittered by the knowledge that the independent state of Croatia - we are referring to Hitler's Croatia - was in the historical interests of the Croatian people.

Q. Do you remember this appeal?

A. I remember the event, but not the appeal.

JUDGE MAY: What was the event? Could you tell us that, or remind us?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Like every year, there was a meeting ¹⁰⁸⁹⁹ of the camp survivors in Jasenovac to mark the day when they were liberated from Jasenovac, and this is still happening today. It started again in 1995. And on that day they come together and remember these events, and they always call on the conscience of their fellow citizens to make sure that this will never happen again. This has been a tradition from the 1960s, and it's still going on today.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Since this is not an abstract fear, but it's an event that happened, is the information I have here correct, that in Western Slavonia, in 1991 and 1992, several hundreds of Serbs were killed, several hundreds were wounded, and several thousand houses were torched, and 27 Orthodox churches? Is this correct?

A. I cannot tell you the numbers. You say it's several hundred, which could mean 200, 300, 700.

Q. What are your figures, since you are a Prosecution witness? Tell me your figures.

A. What we knew, the information we had, and I'm sure it's not correct, because everything cannot be established yet, over 500 people were killed in Western Slavonia. But it is correct that several thousand houses were blown up or torched, and also a large number of villages.

Q. Is it correct that 27 Orthodox churches were torched?

A. I don't know the exact number of churches. It was the Orthodox church that kept these records. But I know a large number of churches were destroyed.

Q. In view of what was happening, can it be said that the resistance ¹⁰⁹⁰⁰ to this violence was spontaneous from the Serb population in Western Slavonia?

A. I don't think we could put it like that. The resistance occurred in Okucani, when the Croatian police entered, and there was shooting. The rest of Western Slavonia started the war even before there were such killings and torchings. The killings and torchings occurred during the war and after the war. The commanders of Territorial Defence there started the war. Now, whether that was prompted by the events in Okucani, I don't know, but there were still no great danger to justify the shooting and the attacks that occurred there, because the danger was not such yet. But there was fear and lack of confidence.

Q. But Okucani is a part of Western Slavonia, is it not?

A. Okucani is in Western Slavonia. They're about 25 kilometres from Pakrac and 45 kilometres from Daruvar. So these are all places within a range of 20 to 30 kilometres.

Q. So the resistance was justified and spontaneous in Okucani, but until the killing occurs --

JUDGE MAY: No, that's not what the witness said. You mustn't misrepresent or take on what he said when he didn't say it. It's your case. I know it's your case, but you adopt it as though the witness has said it when he hasn't. Now what you're supposed to do is put questions, Mr. Milosevic, not make a series of comments. Now, let's concentrate on that.

While I'm speaking, Witness 37, can you help us with this: You said 500 people were killed and several thousand houses torched. Were you ¹⁰⁹⁰¹ referring to the Serb people who were killed and the houses torched?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, when I mentioned the 500 killed, I had in mind the battles that were fought. So as far as I know, the civilians and a part of the troops. Though this number is not final, believe me, because the number is -- the number of missing Serbs in Croatia is growing. So I was talking about Serbs. They are still looking for their missing persons, and whom they have lost all trace in the war. So this figure is certainly not final. It is much larger. As for the houses, I was talking about Serbian villages and Serb houses, because in this area of Western Slavonia, about 150 to 160 Serb villages were totally devastated, and this went on from October until about mid -- mid-October 1991 until April 1992. In this period villages were torched and plundered and a part of the civilians who stayed behind were either killed or taken to prisons in Bjelovar, Pakracka Polje, and other places.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone. We can't hear the accused.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. The microphone is not on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I was saying, from what Mr. May has said, it appears that I didn't understand you correctly when interpreting what you had said in order to ask you my next question, I was saying the attack was in Okucani, where the resistance of the Serb population was spontaneous, and then you said in Pakrac, which is 20 kilometres from Okucani, there were no attacks, but they also organised themselves to put up resistance. Is that what you said? Did I understand you correctly? ¹⁰⁹⁰²

A. Yes, that is right. That is how it was in Pakrac, Daruvar, Grubisno Polje, and Podravska Slatina, where the Serbs were the first to launch an armed conflict.

Q. So when Okucani was attacked, who was attacking?

A. According to what I learnt several days later or the next day, it was the Croatian police that entered Okucani and started shooting in Okucani itself. And then the local Serbs responded, and this lasted for a day or two, with interruptions, because the Yugoslav People's Army came to intervene immediately from Bjelovar.

Q. So they were attacked, and spontaneously they put up resistance against that attack; is that right?

A. Yes, that is how I was informed from Okucani.

Q. So that is how conflicts in Western Slavonia started; is that right?

A. Yes, that is how conflicts in Slavonia started.

Q. And do you remember an order of the Crisis Staff of Slavonska Pozega referring to measures of ethnic cleansing of Western Slavonia, which needs to be cleansed of Serbs? The order of the Crisis Staff of Slavonska Pozega ordering resettlement of 24 Serb villages in the north-western part of the municipality of Slavonska Pozega. Do you remember that order?

A. I do remember the order. Later on I personally saw it. I remember when the people from those villages partly went towards Slavonska Pozega, and a part of the population who had no confidence in the government went to the area which was at the time under the control of the ¹⁰⁹⁰³ Serbs.

Q. For the purpose of explanation, was there any reason except ethnic cleansing to give the order for the Serbs to be resettled from 24 villages of the municipality of Slavonska Pozega?

A. Subsequent events showed that there was no cause or reason for this because those villages, with the departure of those people, were burnt down and looted. A part of the population that stayed behind were killed. And just this year their bodies were exhumed.

Q. And this order, which you yourself said had no reason to be issued, there was no reason to throw out the Serbs from 24 villages, does it remind you of the well-known order signed by Kvarternic in 1941 on the 7th of June --

JUDGE MAY: It's pure comment. It doesn't matter what it reminds anybody of. That is your argument. It's not a proper question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May --

JUDGE MAY: This is not a matter for argument. It's not a proper question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, the order is identical to the order of 1941.

JUDGE MAY: You can make the point to us if you want. It doesn't matter what the witness's view about it. What you're trying to do is to argue your case through the witnesses, and that's not permissible.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. In my examination, I'm just endeavouring to have the witness tell me whether something is correct or not, Mr. May, and I think I'm allowed to do that. ¹⁰⁹⁰⁴

JUDGE MAY: Move on to the next question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is it true that the largest number of settlements or the greatest amount of violence - I'm sorry - was manifested in Daruvar, Grubisno Polje, Nova Gradiska, Novska, Orahovica, Pakrac, Podravska Slatina, Slavonska Pozega, and Virovitica? These are all the names of municipalities?

A. Your Honours, could the question be more specific? What kind of violence, by whom, and against whom?

Q. Against the Serbs by these forces of the Croatian authorities. I'm talking about ethnic cleansing, killings, detentions, torture, all types of violence, expulsions, evictions. Was the violence most intensive in this part of Western Slavonia and in the municipalities I have listed? You are familiar with all of them.

A. During the war, from August until December 1991, the Serbs, who held their positions, those positions were outside of town; therefore, Daruvar and Pakrac and Grubisno Polje as towns, and Virovitica and Slavonska Pozega, and Orahovica and Podravska Slatina and Novska and Nova Gradiska, they were all under Croatian control. The events were such that in those towns, Serbs were taken to prison and some were mistreated, beaten, some in Novska, Pakrac, and Daruvar were also killed, as happened in Vucin, Cetekovac, and Balinci, and Bucje, where Serbs were in control, similar events occurred.

Later on, the exodus of Serbs started from Grubisno Polje and Daruvar - I'm now talking about municipalities as opposed to towns that I ¹⁰⁹⁰⁵ mentioned before. These were parts of territories consisting of Serb villages, and with the departure of Serbs from those villages, the villages were devastated and burnt down. And I will repeat what I said: Those who stayed behind were arrested, and after released, and some were killed. So that this area, if we go from the north, from Virovitica, Podravska Slatina, the part of the Serb villages that were in the mountains up to the approaches to Pakrac, which was under the control of the territorial forces and the JNA, were devastated. The villages were totally destroyed, in other words.

Q. Do you remember the events that disturbed the public when, on the Orthodox church in Grdzevci, a large slogan appeared saying "Death to the Serbs"? And then on the 13th of August 1991 already, the Black Shirts arrived, members of the national guards from Virovitica, under the command of an official of the HDZ, Stojan Gustin. This was on the 13th of August, 1991. And then the misdeeds that occurred, do you remember those events?

JUDGE MAY: Let us deal with these singly. First of all, what is put is that a slogan appeared on a church, "Death to the Serbs". Is that right?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. This was even referred to in its issue of the 19th of July, 1991 by a local newspaper?

JUDGE MAY: The witness says he doesn't remember. So the next point is that the Black Shirts arrived, National Guards. Did you see any Black Shirts? ¹⁰⁹⁰⁶

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I wasn't there, and I didn't see that. I did hear that some forces had arrived, but I didn't see them.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And do you know anything about this event, that is, the arrival of this group of killers of the National Guards, under the command of Stojan Gustin on the 13th of August, 1991, and the misdeeds committed by them? Do you know anything about them?

A. I heard about this around the 15th of August, and that conflicts broke out which spread later on, but I don't know exactly how it all started.

Q. Very well. Do you remember, for instance, within the context of that event - let me give you a specific example, because hundreds of Serbs were killed on that occasion. Mladen Kekerovic, the wealthiest Serb from Grubisna Polje, and his address Novi Put BB, was arrested, of course without a warrant, by the National Guards, as he was on a business trip and he had money on him. Then they cut off one ear. And when they had seized all his property, they allowed him to leave Croatia. Do you remember that incident at least?

A. In those days, there were very many events and stories of that kind. I truly do not remember that particular name, but I do know that there were interceptions and people beaten up, but it's a long time ago, so I'm afraid among the host of data, I don't remember that particular name.

Q. Very well. And is what I have here correct or not? Just tell me yes or no. That during the ethnic cleansing, according to data, up to the ¹⁰⁹⁰⁷ 15th of August, 1992, in that area, 183 villages were totally ethnically cleansed and 87 partially. Are those figures correct?

A. I think it is not quite as many, not quite 183. I think it is a little less, about 170, something like that.

Q. So it's not 183, but how many?

A. Totally ethnically cleansed. According to our data, about 165 villages were totally destroyed, and about 50 partially destroyed.

JUDGE MAY: And when was that, Witness C-037? I think you've told us, but you can remind us again. During what period did that happen?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, these events began at the end of September and beginning of October 1991 and went on until mid-1992.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You say October. I have information here that, for example, in the municipality of Virovitica, the Croatian forces and armed citizens shot at Serb houses already in early September 1991. Is this true or not? Please just say yes or no so that we don't waste time. I gave you a specific piece of information, the village of Nova Cabuna, the beginning of 1995, so September, not October, armed Croatian civilians and civilian forces shot at Serb houses. Is this true or not?

A. I don't know the exact period. I did hear about that event. This was outside of the control of the area where I was living. We heard also about the village of Kip that this is what happened, and also in the area of Daruvar. So this did happen right after August, so that this time period that you're talking about, September, is probably right, but I ¹⁰⁹⁰⁸ don't know exactly anything about this village. I don't have the precise information. I don't have any records so that I could talk about specific dates. But this was the time period when these events began to happen.

Q. Well, I'm not talking about the exact date, but was it the beginning of September?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Very well. Thank you. Could you please tell me now: Since I'm looking at data now which was gathered until the 15th of August, 1992, so only until the 15th of August, that the following villages or settlements have been completely cleansed Bastajski Brdjani, Batina, Batinska Rijeka, Bijela, Donja Vrijeska, Donje Cjepidlake, Gornji Borki, Dobra Kuca, Gornje Cjepidlake, Gornja Vrijeska, Gornji Borki, Katinac?

JUDGE MAY: The witness can't deal with this, reading out a long list. He can't possibly begin to deal with it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The list is very long, but --

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Can you remember the names of all these 165 villages?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I cannot remember them all, but the villages that are being cited now are villages in the area of the municipality of Daruvar. But I cannot remember at this moment all of the villages, all of their names.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you've got the general point that it's 165. Now, we don't need to go into any more detail. Let's move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I said that it was 183 villages, and the witness confirmed 165 villages. ¹⁰⁹⁰⁹

JUDGE MAY: What we rely on is not what you say. It's what the witness gives in his evidence. That's what the Court relies on. Can we move on from this topic?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is it true that in Croatia, from 1991 - and now I'm talking about Croatia, not only about Western Slavonia - that the Croatian authorities blew up 10.000 houses belonging to Serbs, even the occasional Croatian house, where they were owned by people who disagreed with them?

JUDGE MAY: You've given evidence about Western Slavonia. Can you give evidence about what happened in the rest of Croatia or not? Something you read in the paper, then it's of no value really, or something you heard on the radio.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I heard about this piece of information in the media, and I heard it talked about in the Croatian different bodies. They discussed the blowing up of these houses. And there was also discussion about that in Strasbourg. But I don't have official information about that, no.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter cannot hear the accused.

JUDGE MAY: We can't hear you, but it sounds what you're saying is irrelevant. There's no point asking a witness what he heard on the radio about facts which can be established by other evidence, if they are facts. What you're trying to do is to argue your entire case through this witness, which is a waste of the Court's time. Ask him about Western Slavonia, by all means. He knows about that, but simply he's read something in a paper, it's of no use to anybody, particularly these ¹⁰⁹¹⁰ general points.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, during the examination-in-chief, the examination-in-chief, I expected you to make such a remark to the other side, because to many questions: How do you know about this?, the witness replied that he had seen that in the newspaper or had heard about it on Croatian television. I did not ask in any of my questions for him to say what he had read in the papers. I'm only asking him what he knows. If you look at the transcript of the examination-in-chief, you will see how many times he had said that he had read something in the Croatian press.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. For example, did you see the prison in Knin, for Croats, or any camp in Udbina, which you mentioned in the examination-in-chief? Or did you hear about this or read about it?

A. I heard about that.

Q. Heard about it. So you accept the testimony about something that he had heard and talked about during the examination-in-chief, but you are asking me to ask him only about things that he knows. But he occupied a post in which he was supposed to know things like that?

JUDGE MAY: We will rule and see what value there is in anything which the Prosecution called in evidence, if you're right about that. I don't recollect it, but if you're right we will certainly do that. It's of no point saying I heard on the radio that so many houses were burnt down or whatever, unless he's got some particular connection with it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. A while ago we ¹⁰⁹¹¹ established during this questioning his claim about 165 villages, so let us go on. I'm talking about Western Slavonia now. So you won't allow anything else other than Western Slavonia.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So could you please tell me: Is this information correct? Because, for example, I took this information from American -- the American media, Tomislav Mercep, who was the advisor of the minister of internal affairs and a member of parliament, led death squads and a vast number of Serbs were killed by him in Western Slavonia. Is this true or not?

A. I heard from people that -- mention his name, both from Croats and from Serbs, also by some Croat officials that he led actions in Western Slavonia. At that time I didn't have any direct contacts with him, nor did I meet him. His name is linked with villages around Novska which were destroyed and his name is also linked to the Pakracka Poljana. I heard about that, but I don't have any concrete arguments about that.

Q. Very well. And now, since you are living in Croatia, are you aware about the recognition of an officer -- the admission of an officer of his who admitted that he had slaughtered 72 Serbs, officer Bajramovic, and those victims including eight -- no, nine women? Did you hear about this affair and the revelation of these facts relating to Western Slavonia regarding these cruel murders of Serbian civilians?

A. I read about this in the newspaper. I read Mr. Bajramovic's interview about these events. And then I know that he was detained and that an investigation was launched against him, and another two persons, ¹⁰⁹¹² that later they were freed due to lack of evidence. And now these proceedings are before the Court again, but without Bajramovic, because he's on the run. But the other two whom he mentioned while he was in investigative detention, in prison, are on trial and they talked about the massacres and murders of Serb civilians in Pakrac, including women.

Q. How do you explain that Croatia, a state with a rule of law, frees because of lack of evidence a man who himself admits -- Very well. And do you know the activities of Mercep in Vukovar regarding the murders of Serbs, together with Glavas and Seks and their death squads, murders, blockades, and so on? Do you know anything about the activities of Mercep, Glavas, and Seks in Eastern Slavonia? Do you know anything about that?

A. I heard about those things later from Serbs who lived in that area, but I don't have any detailed information about that other than stories that this is what he took part in, that he took Serbs away, he liquidated them, they were dumped in the River Drava. But as I say, I do not have any direct information about that.

Q. Well, direct information. Yesterday we dealt with a series of issues that I put questions to you about regarding -- which you also said you don't know anything about that. We mentioned a lot of things that you don't seem to know anything about. Do you know -- well, you were in Croatia throughout that period. You listened to their radio and television. Do you know what the Yugoslav National Army was called? I'm asking because I have an order here relating to reporting from combat areas where it is stated: "Not to call the JNA anything else but the Serb ¹⁰⁹¹³ or communist occupying army." So during the time that the JNA was in the Croatian part of the Yugoslav territory, the Yugoslav army, it was proclaimed to be the Serbo-Communist Occupational Army, in accordance with orders given to their media. Was this the vocabulary, the terms, that were used?

A. The vocabulary used was Serbo-Communist and Serbo-Chetnik.

Q. Well, relating to Serbo Chetnik, I saw in the report about the questioning of Miro Bajramovic, that he explained that there was no problem for him to cut the throats of women and so on because he wanted to kill them all. As far as we were concerned, they were all Chetniks, and then things just went on automatically from there. So please tell me, since you talked about this yesterday, about the ways in which Serbs were tortured in camps and prisons. Since I have a report here which, based on the examination of a number of prisoners who were exchanged, and these examinations were conducted by the institute for mental health of the military hospital in Belgrade, and it was signed by Colonel Dr. Bratislav Petrovic himself. So this analysis of medical and psychological examinations by experts of these people who came from these camps, is this something that --

JUDGE MAY: You're going a long way from what the witness can deal with. Now, time is limited. He gave evidence, for instance, that he was arrested, charged with treason and espionage, detained for 72 days in Belgrade. These are all matters which he's given evidence about. Not a word of cross-examination by you. And there comes a limit to the amount of cross-examination we can allow on the -- what you know now is called ¹⁰⁹¹⁴ the -- or is referred to as the tu quoque basis, that means attacking the other side for the crimes they committed. Now, you're on trial here for various crimes and evidence is being given against you. Now, if you challenge any of the evidence which this witness gave, such as what I've described already, then you must do so, because it's your duty to challenge his evidence rather than put your own case accusing the others of various other crimes, which may not be relevant in the trial. [redacted]

[redacted] If there's anything you want to ask about that, you should. You should deal with the crimes which it's alleged were committed by the TO and others. These are all matters that you should deal with.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, let's just be clear about one thing. My case is not what you say, the tu quoque case, because Serbia did not commit this. You are talking about a civilian -- civil war in Croatia. To me, who was the president of Serbia, and not the president of Croatia or Yugoslavia at that time, and Serbia was not at war with Croatia and did not commit these things. We have established during the cross-examination of this witness also that all the units who were there that he's aware of were local ones and that Serbia did not take any part in this. So my case is not that you also committed that, but I'm talking about the fact that this has no material or legal basis in order for it to be discussed like this. How can I know what --

JUDGE MAY: What you've established so far, or what you're attempting to establish, as far as I can see, because your evidence is -- or the cross-examination is purely directed to this, is that during this ¹⁰⁹¹⁵ conflict in Croatia, crimes were committed against the Serbs. Now, that may or may not be so, but you must understand it is of limited assistance to us in deciding whether crimes were committed by you and others, as alleged, in Croatia at this time. Now, the witness's evidence is aimed at directing allegations that you, not you personally, but others were involved in these crimes, and you should be concentrating your defence, if I may say, and your cross-examination, in challenging what he says, not simply rehearsing at great length and, if I may say, with much repetition, that crimes were committed against the Serbs. You understand that, that the trial has got to concentrate on the matters of the indictment, not simply on allegations against the other side. It may be that it can concentrate on more relevant issues. And in my view, much too much time has been taken up with allegations against the other side. I speak for myself, of course, but that is my view.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I wish to remind you, since I am not concealing my view, that what you call an indictment is a false indictment, for primarily two reasons: First of all, because there was no aggression. It was a civil war. That's the first reason. And the second one is that the Serbian people had this war imposed on them, both in Croatia and in Bosnia, and that for them it was a war of defence. So it is evident that the Serbs were defending themselves on the territories on which they lived, defending themselves from pogroms, such as had been perpetrated 50 years before. That's all I'm saying, Mr. May. That's the only truth I'm trying to explain here. Far be it for me to say tu quoque, because I have committed no crimes. ¹⁰⁹¹⁶

JUDGE MAY: You challenge, for instance, that this witness was arrested, as is --

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: [Previous translation continues] ...

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: The matters related to arrests and such things were discussed in private session.

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

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁰⁹¹⁷ Page 10917 - redacted - private session

¹⁰⁹¹⁸ Page 10918 - redacted - private session

¹⁰⁹¹⁹

[redacted]

[redacted]

[Open session]

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. There is no need to go into any further detail as to the persecution of Serbs, the ethnic cleansing, and so on, because there is no doubt that this was widespread and covered almost all of the territory; isn't that correct?

A. If you are speaking of later events, if you're speaking of 1995 and the exodus of the Serbs from the RSK, as it was, then it became widespread, but as for Western Slavonia, I have told you how many villages, municipalities, and people went.

Q. Well, you said 165 villages and so on. Was this widespread or not, in relation to such a small area as Western Slavonia? Because 165 villages, as you say - I say it's more - would that be widespread or not?

A. Well, yes, I think it's widespread.

Q. How many houses did you say were torched or blown up with explosives?

JUDGE MAY: We're going over the same ground again and again. Now, have you got anything else, anything new to ask him?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course I do.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The amendments, as we concluded, caused people to be upset, but as far as I can remember, after this a discussion was held on preparations ¹⁰⁹²⁰ for a new constitution of Croatia; is that correct? The amendments were enacted in the middle of the year, and towards the end of the year there were preparations and there was debate about a new constitution. Is that correct?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Well, now, you took an active part in all this, putting forward proposals, and you took part in the preparation of some amendments on behalf of the political organisations you were active in, which advocated certain rights for Serbs which should be provided for in the constitution. Is that correct?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Is it correct - and this is my question to you now - is it correct that the Croatian authorities did not take into account a single one of the Serb amendments to the proposed constitution, especially as regards demands that in the new constitution the Serbs should keep their previous status, that is, the status of a people, which they had had in all the previous constitutions ever since the Republic of Croatia came into existence? Is this correct?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. Do you remember, then, the series of laws that deepened or exacerbated the repetition of the system of 50 years before? For example, the law on public holidays. Let me not speak of the Serbs, for example, but the Jews would have the right to an official holiday only if they were members of the Jewish community, and if they weren't, they wouldn't have the right to an official holiday, and so on and so forth. And the Croats ¹⁰⁹²¹ could celebrate Christmas for two days, while the Serbs could celebrate it for only one day. So discriminatory laws were enacted in all areas of life, for example, education, the Academy of Arts and Sciences. Do you remember the law on the academy saying that the Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences was the legal successor of the Yugoslav academy from 1941 to 1945? This was the academy that had been set up during the fascist government. And there were a number of laws. I cannot quote them all now. Didn't this exacerbate - in parallel with the preparations for the new constitution and the new constitution - didn't it exacerbate the situation in which the Serbian people in Croatia were threatened, imperilled, at the time?

A. I remember the enactment of these laws, but as for the academy, I don't remember that. It doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I cannot remember that, since you asked about this specifically. But as for public holidays and other things, I remember that, yes, and I know that this caused tension, that people lacked confidence, that they felt discriminated against, so they did not trust the new authorities.

Q. I assume - and please confirm whether this is correct, in view of the feelings you had then and your relations then - when I say "you," of course I'm not referring to you personally, but to the Serbs. Were you upset by the fact that demands for the Serbian people to retain their previous status in the Republic of Croatia were rejected? I'm referring to the status of an equal nation.

A. Yes, it did have a negative effect on us. It increased the mistrust, the lack of confidence, because we wanted Croatia to be a civil ¹⁰⁹²² state, not a national state of the Croats, but a state of all its citizens, and this proposal saying that we were no longer a constituent people really caused the Serbs in Croatia to lack confidence in the new government.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters cannot hear the question.

JUDGE MAY: Start again, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. After all the events that we have mentioned in this examination, did this not show that the lack of confidence in the new authorities was not unjustified; but on the contrary, that unfortunately, the fears were justified?

A. Unfortunately, all the events that happened after 1995 showed that the fear was justified.

Q. I shall skip over some questions in order to save time, but there is one that I cannot leave out.

Do you remember that the law on primary education does not provide for education for children of Serb nationality but only education in the Croatian language, also the law on secondary schools education, while the law on education of minorities provides only for minorities --

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not catch all the names.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. -- that the Serbs were not referred to, that they were not given even the status of a national minority? Is this correct, Mr. C-037?

A. Yes, because there had been a law on minorities up to that point, which was not -- declared not in force. The Serbs were declared a ¹⁰⁹²³ minority, but there was no law on the basis of which they could realise their rights in Croatia.

Q. When all this is borne in mind, the constitution, the laws, the violence, the ethnic cleansing, the murders, can it be concluded that the Croatian authorities incited not only nationalism in Croatia but also fascism and discriminatory and insulting stance towards the Serbs in Croatia?

JUDGE MAY: These are all conclusions which you are asking us to draw. They're not a matter for the witness. You can ask him what the law was and how it was changed, but comments upon it are not for him.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is not a comment, Mr. May, because I am talking about the consequences this had, unfortunately tragic ones, which the witness is testifying about here.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is it correct that the election campaign in Croatia - let me be more specific - which illustrates all this, that the election campaign at the beginning of 1990, when it was gaining momentum, intimated, without any question, the attitude of Croatian nationalist parties towards Serbs and their status in Croatia, and after that, this was fully reflected during the preparation for and adoption of the new Croatian constitution?

A. Yes, I do remember the speeches that were held nationalist, containing threats, an insulting attitude towards the Serbs, which was later materialised through the laws and constitution.

Q. You remember the HDZ programme adopted in 1989, at its founding assembly? ¹⁰⁹²⁴

A. I don't remember the details any more, but I do know that a programme was adopted, but I cannot talk about the details.

Q. I'm not asking you about the details. I'm asking you about the position they took towards all these key issues that I have put to you. Was all that based on this programme adopted in 1989?

A. It was.

JUDGE MAY: The time has come to adjourn. We will adjourn now for 20 minutes. There will be another short adjournment later in the morning. We will finish at 1.00.

Mr. Kay, if either you or Mr. Tapuskovic got any questions?

MR. KAY: Yes. There will be a few questions, but it will be under ten minutes.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. And re-examination?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour, but not more than 15 minutes.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Kay, in the course of your examination, or apart from it, I wonder if you can help us with an issue raised by the accused in the form of general objection to the Prosecution's exhibit regarding, in particular, tab 7 and tab 12 of Exhibit 327. Tab 7 is a minute or a report of a meeting purportedly presided by this witness, but the witness said he doesn't know of this. But I note -- I noted that that very document was attached to the written statement, so he might have said something different at the statement. And tab 12 is a document named as ¹⁰⁹²⁵ "List of crimes made by the Republic of Croatia, department of war crimes." We admitted it on the ground that it is a prima facie official document, but if you look at the original B/C/S version, it is a typewritten one and there's no official seal, nor anything like that. So if you could deal with this matter or give us your observation. And also for the Prosecution, if you could give us your explanation as to the authenticity of the document or how the Prosecution did get this document.

JUDGE MAY: We'll adjourn now, 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.22 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.47 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: An administrative matter. We've reviewed the position of witnesses. We are already facing considerable difficulties arising from the failure so far for waivers to be granted, in particular, cases where witnesses require them. I'm pursuing the problem with all energy, but we may be turning to the Chamber for assistance fairly soon, so that's going to disturb the order of witnesses in any event. As far as next week is concerned, the possibility of sitting three half days next week, obviously we will take any time that's available whenever we can and we will do our best to fill such a week if that time is available. We think we can probably just about get witnesses in, but it will necessarily be again with the consequences of some disturbance of the order of witnesses. What we will do is notify the Court by the end of today, or the accused by the end of the full day, what witnesses we are in ¹⁰⁹²⁶ a position to call next week, and hope that the Chamber will allow them to be called out of order. For personal reasons, I shan't be here on Monday afternoon or on Tuesday until about 10.00. I hopped to take a witness on Monday morning, I still hope to do so, leaving supervision of cross-examination to one of my colleagues, of course. But if that's still possible, I'd be grateful to start at 9.00 on Monday so ensure I can finish him by the time I have to leave. I had budgeted on 9.00 until 2.00, or 9.00 until 1.45.

JUDGE MAY: We'll do the normal hours for Monday. Tuesday and Wednesday we'll sit in the afternoon, 9.30 until 4.15. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I understood now that the opposite party intends to change the order of witnesses once again. It seems to me that we had cleared up the matter, that it was the least that could be done for me to have the order of witnesses at least one week in advance. Let me remind you that one thousand twenty-five [as interpreted] thousand pages were disclosed, 600 videotapes, and 200 or 300 audiotapes, and it is absolutely impossible, physically, not to review all this material, but even to make some sort of a selection unless you know at least a few days in advance when which witness will appear. And if the other party wishes to use these tricks, I cannot understand that this is permissible. I think it is impermissible.

JUDGE MAY: You're wrong to talk of tricks. The difficulties arise because of getting witnesses here. We are conscious of the amount of material which has been served on you and the difficulty which you have ¹⁰⁹²⁷ in preparing your defence, and it's a matter which we keep in consideration. But the order of witnesses is not in fact necessarily set in stone, and occasionally there must be changes. What we have to do is to ensure that you have time for preparation of each, and that we will do. Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Nothing I really need to at to the summary of our position that Your Honour has identified. We are of course in many ways entirely in the hands of others. But what I can say is this: Aware of the possibility of the need for future and further changes to the order of witnesses, we will be voluntarily disclosing material earlier than might otherwise have been the case to ensure that the accused has the maximum amount of time to review it.

JUDGE MAY: And it may be of assistance, with any changes there is in the order, that he gets, besides the notification, he also gets the witness statement and also the summary, although he's had them before, but if he can have them again so he doesn't have to look for them.

MR. NICE: I've already made arrangements for that to happen in respect of changes for next week.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Let's go on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. C-037, can it be said that the civil war in Croatia was initiated by illegal paramilitary formations of the secessionist regime in Croatia?

A. What regime are you referring to? ¹⁰⁹²⁸

Q. The one who carried out the secession of Croatia by force and contrary to the provisions of the constitution, as of 1990, following the elections.

A. I couldn't answer in that way, that the war started by the secessionists. I think it broke out due to nationalism, mistrust, incidents, and then the conflict spread. So there was a gradual development.

Q. Very well. Are you aware -- were you aware then, or now, do you know now, that at the beginning of 1990, for instance, the Croatian leadership planned the formation of an armed force, about 44.000 strong, in peacetime, and 220.000 strong in wartime, as preparations for the forcible secession and the expulsion of Serbs from Croatia?

A. I'm not familiar with such details. I know that there was reference to the formation of a Croatian army, the ZNG was formed. But I do -- I am not aware of any plans, nor did I see them, for the expulsion of Serbs.

Q. You just mentioned the national guards corps, the ZNG. That was counter-constitutional, was it not, to form such a guard corps?

A. I'm not a lawyer, and really, I'm unable to answer that question.

Q. Do you remember that at the time, illegal arming started in Croatia?

A. I heard about it first from the media, and later I saw civilians being armed.

Q. When later did you see civilians armed?

A. I saw them at the end of May/beginning of June, in 1991. ¹⁰⁹²⁹

Q. Do you know that trailer trucks with weapons were illegally delivered and the first arrived on the 12th of October, 1991, and then the next convoy -- I'm sorry, on the 20th of October, 1[as interpreted] from the DDR, that is, from the former stocks of the former East Germany.

A. I heard that from the media, but I didn't see that. I heard about it from the media and I heard people talking about it, citizens, discussing this, but nothing more than that.

Q. Were you aware of weapons being brought in from Panama, Frankfurt, by planes, also illegally?

A. As it was illegal, I couldn't be aware of it. If it had been legal, again I wouldn't have seen it, because I wasn't in such organisations that had access to such information.

Q. Do you remember that on the 13th of January, 1991, that is, after the decision of the Presidency of Yugoslavia on the disarming --

JUDGE MAY: Unless this witness was involved in this matter, again, you are putting very generalised matters to him which he cannot give evidence about. You have the opportunity to call evidence about them, and you can -- if there are witnesses who can deal with them for the Prosecution, you can cross-examine them. But merely putting your entire defence, your broad brush allegations, and asking witnesses who know nothing about them is of no assistance to us. We have to decide what the limits of this are. Ask him a question he might know something about.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am asking him whether he knows about it, Mr. May. I cannot know in advance, like the opposite party, what he does know, nor can I give him the indictment to learn by heart, as ¹⁰⁹³⁰ the other side has done, to quote from it. He is a Prosecution witness --

JUDGE MAY: An improper allegation by you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Do you remember the confiscation of a Boeing 707 from Uganda full of weapons and ammunition?

JUDGE MAY: Do you know anything about this sort of thing? Were you involved in confiscating a Boeing?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours. I heard about it from the information media.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Tell me, please, since a moment ago you said you saw weapons being distributed to civilians and so on: From the standpoint of the strengthening of repression and dictatorship in Croatia, the formation of paramilitary units organised by the ruling political party, that is, the HDZ, the formation of the national guards and their illegal arming and equipment, does that have special significance for the beginning of the civil war in Croatia which was prompted by the persecution of the Serbs --

JUDGE MAY: He's given his evidence about it. He can't answer these questions of that sort. They are matters which we may have to decide, but this witness can't help us about it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Do you remember, as this was common knowledge in Yugoslavia, that the Presidency of Yugoslavia, in full composition, at a session on the 7th and 8th of May, 1991, which was also attended by the prime minister of the federal government, who was from Croatia, Ante ¹⁰⁹³¹ Markovic, as well as the presidents of the presidencies of all the republics, that they adopted a conclusion to form immediately a parity group consisting of representatives of the Republic of Croatia and the legitimate representatives of the Serb people in Croatia for initiating talks on all disputed matters, the main ones being the constitutional equality of the Croatian and Serb peoples, the language, the alphabet, et cetera, et cetera? That was within the context of the things that you were involved in, that is, the so-called Serbian amendments to the Croatian constitution. Do you remember this event?

A. Yes, I do remember.

Q. Very well, then. Do you remember the decisions to block all barracks of the Yugoslav People's Army in Croatia on the basis of a decision of the leadership in, in the second half of August, 1991, and the decision to attack them, as well as all units of the JNA, on the 14th of September, 1991? Do you remember those decisions?

A. I heard of those decisions, but I cannot tell you exactly from which sources. I do remember those decisions, because they were widely discussed.

Q. You heard of the decisions and you remember that such decisions were made, but do you remember the actual practice, what was actually done pursuant to those decisions, that is, the blockade of barracks, attacks on members of the JNA, at a time when Croatia was a legitimate component part of the territory of Yugoslavia, their attacks on the army of Yugoslavia, the Yugoslav People's Army?

JUDGE MAY: Tell us, witness 37, what you saw or heard yourself, ¹⁰⁹³² not what you may have heard on the radio what was happening in X, Y, and Z. But tell us what you saw, if anything, of what is being put to you here.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I was not close to a single barracks, and I was not in a position of seeing any such blockades. I heard about them and I saw it on television and learnt about them from the media. I was not in a position to personally witness these things.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is it true that refugees, in large waves, set off in the autumn of 1991?

A. They started, one can say, in waves. Whether they were large, I said in reference to Grubisno Polje, between 3.000 and 5.000 people, then later on 15.000, those were the figures of people leaving Western Slavonia.

Q. And the reason for them to leave was the pressure of the Croatian forces against them. That surely is not in dispute.

A. I answered that question yesterday, that at the time there were no large concentrations of forces in the area, but there was a developed awareness among the people that they were alone, they were weak, they lacked the strength to defend themselves, and with the commanders of the TO and with the retreat of their families, they left the area, which, as I said yesterday, was subsequently devastated.

Q. Very well. Let me just look. Because of the limited time, I cannot show you the films and ¹⁰⁹³³ documents, but, for instance, are you aware of facts referred to in this document, for instance? It is a report of the United Nations, the command of sector West. So Sector West was your sector, wasn't it?

A. Yes, it was. It is a report on crimes committed against the civilian population in Western Slavonia --

Q. And that is the Sector West, Safe Area of the United Nations, and this was a report compiled by the UN. Do you remember that report? It is one particular report signed by Musali on behalf of the commander of the Sector West. And it says, for instance, that in the village of Paklenica, the property of Mr. Solaja, people were slaughtered: Mica Teodorcevic, a veteran without a leg from the village of Paklenica; Nikola Vojnovic; Milan Brdjac [phoen] wounded; Aleksa Raus, a nurse; Senka Raus, a nurse; Ruza Solaja, a nurse; Dusan Hasura, from the village of Rajici; Mitar Vujakelja [phoen], who was wounded in the head --

JUDGE MAY: Can you assist the Court as to these matters? Do you know anything yourself of your direct knowledge, anything about them, Witness C-037?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I heard of these events, but I didn't have occasion to see that report.

THE INTERPRETER: The microphone, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. As you see, even nurses had their throats slit, according to the report of the United Nations?

JUDGE MAY: Now, Mr. Milosevic, do you want us to have that report? We haven't got it now. Maybe the Prosecution have got a copy. ¹⁰⁹³⁴

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour, I'm not aware of this now.

JUDGE MAY: You don't know about this report. Well, Mr. Milosevic, if you want to put the report in, you can.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I could put in lots of such reports, so do admit it. There's no problem in that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. For instance, do you have any knowledge about a report of Sector West, for the department for civil affairs, for instance, this one? All these things must exist in the original in the archives of the United Nations organisation. This is Sector West, the civilian police, UN, station Okucani.

"On the road to Novska we saw many terrible scenes, at least 50 corpses along the road. They were Serbs, soldiers, and civilians. Many houses were destroyed, shelled," et cetera. Do you remember those reports? Or, for instance -- or, for instance, a report just for your sector. We also have the Dalmacija-Zagreb-Gorni Koviljaca-Baranska sector. But just for the Slavonian eparchy a report of the church, 39 churches, 35 parochial homes destroyed in the eparchy of Slavonia, and 40 churches damaged, 15 parochial homes and the eparchy residence in Pakracka destroyed. Did you have this report? Did you ever learn anything about this report?

JUDGE MAY: Have you seen that report?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I haven't seen that report.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, the way to get this evidence before us is to hand in the reports. Now, just help us with this: What is the ¹⁰⁹³⁵ church report that you've been quoting? Which church and what date, if you please?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The report of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the Republic of Croatia, the state of church facilities after the expulsion, according to data of the Serb Orthodox Church. That's the report. And the other reports that I quoted from about the cutting of throats of nurses and veterans without a leg, and other victims, these are reports from the United Nations, the command of Sector West of civilian affairs and Sector West civilian police of the station Okucani. This I just happen to have here with me right now, but if you are interested in the truth, you could get all of those reports for you to find out what was going on. Because at least the sources of the UN --

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will get those reports, but --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And these can be entered as exhibits, these two reports here that I have provided. Please go ahead.

JUDGE MAY: Let the usher get those and we'll have a look.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I assume --

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. We'll consider.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: These are in B/C/S. We will hand them to the -- we'll hand them to the Prosecution. We will then mark them for identification. They can be translated. And perhaps the Prosecution, certainly in relation to the UN reports, could get the full reports that are being referred to here.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: [Microphone not activated] ¹⁰⁹³⁶

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: As soon as we have these documents, we will check whether we have a full version of this document within our vault and see whether we can provide the English version.

JUDGE MAY: It may be convenient now to give them numbers. The UN report can be the first one, and the church report the second.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the UN report will be marked for identification as D41 and the church report will be marked for identification as D42.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I would like to hear your comments about information that I have here from the UN KRO political and humanitarian affairs, the sector of Daruvar, and I have the municipality of Pakrac here, which shows, according to the different settlements, a comparison before April 1991 and October 1995. For example, Batinjani, before April 1991, 154 Serb citizens, 55 Croats; in October 1995, Serbs, 0; Biljaci [phoen], October 1995, Serbs, 0; Branesci, October 1995, Serbs, 0. Allow me to read wherever there is -- Bucesi [phoen], Svera [phoen], Breza, Donji Obrijez, all of these places number 0 Serbs, Donja Sumetlica, Donji Grahovljami, and further on is illegible. Then Gornji Grahovo, Jakovci, Koturici, Lipovac, Mali, Banovac, Mali Budici, Ozegovci, Popovci, Preko Praka, Prg Male [phoen], Ragule [phoen], Srednji Grahovo, Spanovica, Tisovac, Toranj Veliki, Banovac, Veliki Budic, and so on.

So the number of the population in 1995, the number that was then, has been now reduced to a 0. Do you know anything about this? ^{10937 BLANK PAGE 10954}

A. Yes, I know about that, and that is how it was.

Q. So is this ethnic cleansing?

A. Yes, in those villages.

Q. Well, yes. You say in those villages. But now we're giving you a total in the municipality of Pakrac. Before April --

JUDGE MAY: Now, do you want us to look at this document?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I would just like to ask the witness something, because I don't have two copies of this, and I need to ask him something, because this illustrates something that you do not understand, and it would be good for you to see so you could understand.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. A total of 16.300 citizens, the majority of that are Serbs, 7.806 are Serbs, 7.806. In that region, only 564 Serb citizens have remained in that whole area, so it has been cleansed 93 per cent. The remainder of the Serbs could be boiled down to a statistical error?

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues] ... question to the witness. These are all assertions by you. Now, what area are you talking about, first of all? What area are we talking about?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm only talking about his municipality now, because I want to give you a clear example.

JUDGE MAY: Now, those are the -- just a moment. Let the witness deal with it, because it's his evidence that we're dealing with. You see the -- you remember the various figures that were put there. Can you assist us as to whether they're correct or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I remember the numbers. They are ¹⁰⁹⁵⁵ correct. You talked about half the municipality, that there was 7.900. Well, no. In the municipality of Pakrac, there were about 14.000 Serbs, but in October 1995, there were 1.200 Serbs, because we did keep records of that in 1995. When you asked me specifically about the villages that you mentioned, and you asked me about ethnic cleansing, when you specifically asked me about the villages, I said that yes, there was ethnic cleansing specifically in those villages. So I didn't respond to something that you didn't ask me about. In the area of municipality of Pakrac, in those villages, ethnic cleansing was carried out. The number of Serbs was reduced to a minimum, houses were torched, their apartments were confiscated and they did not have any place to come back to.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So 14.000 something Serbs. How many Serbs were there?

A. I think 14.600 or 14.800.

Q. Okay. 14.600 or 14.800. And now you have 1.200.

A. No. In October 1995, there were 1.200. Now there are about 2.700 or 2.800.

Q. So they came back?

A. Yes.

Q. So let's put these figures into perspective. 14.600 to 14.700 [as interpreted] and 1.200 indicates that, when you look at the municipality, ethnic cleansing was carried out to a degree of 93 per cent. There was only 7 or 8 per cent Serbs left. Now, when these people came back, it turns out that in 2002 the situation regarding ethnic cleansing in that ¹⁰⁹⁵⁶ area is still 80 per cent. So the number of people who returned are still fewer than 20 per cent of the Serb population that was there at that time. Is that so or not so?

A. Yes. I'm not --

JUDGE MAY: I think the stenographer is having problems and five minutes are necessary.

Let me just look at our timing. We'll take a ten-minute break and reduce the breaks from then on. In fact, if we have a quarter-of-an-hour break now we can then sit until 1.00 thereafter.

--- Break taken at 11.20 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.40 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, before we lose the point, do you want the report, the Pakrac report that you referred to, the UN report, do you want that exhibited too?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Would you hand it in, please. Just a moment. We'll get a number for it.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be marked Prosecutor's Exhibit D43.

JUDGE MAY: It's at the moment marked for identification. You said Prosecutor's Exhibit.

THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit D43. I apologise.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you have 50 minutes more for your cross-examination, and that will allow the other parties a few minutes to re-examine. ¹⁰⁹⁵⁷

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May. I will hurry. But before that, I would just like to clarify one question. You said that the witness, in principle, a witness in principle, and this one specifically, can talk about things that he took part in and that he has personal knowledge of, and I understand that. It is logical. However, if this is so, and if it is logical, it is not clear to me why you allow, during the examination-in-chief, for documents to be introduced which have nothing to do with this witness and allow remarks for which on many occasions he has said that he has heard about them from the media but doesn't have any personal knowledge of that. And particularly if it has to do with documents that he has no personal knowledge of. And very many such documents have been admitted, so --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you can make your objection when we come to specific evidence, and we'll consider it, but there is little point asking a witness, as you have done on occasion, about what he heard on the radio or something of that sort, when there are very general points to be made by you. Now, let's try and move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. So you are familiar with the broader area of Western Slavonia, where the Serb population was left without protection with the withdrawal of the JNA, especially near Okucani and Pakrac and there was this large exodus where tens of thousands of citizens left the area of Slatina and other areas on horse carts and so on. Do you remember that a decision of the government of Yugoslavia and the date is the 3rd of November, 1991, sent a letter to Lord Carrington, as the chairman of the ¹⁰⁹⁵⁸ conference, and also Mr. van den Broek, since the Netherlands also was, at that time, chairman of the 12 and he was the president of the council of the economic community, so those areas of Croatia were unprotected because they were at the -- exposed to strikes by the Croat forces. So do you remember that this was information that was forwarded to Lord Carrington and Mr. van den Broek?

A. There was something incorrect in your question. The JNA did not withdraw from Western Slavonia to Pakrac, because it was not there in Pakrac, but the Territorial Defence units withdrew together with the population, the JNA was from -- was at Okucani, and up to Stara Gradiska up to Pakrac. So it wasn't in Pakrac. I remember that. The other thing is I do remember such a letter being sent, and I heard that from the media. I was in Western Slavonia and was not in a position to see something like that.

Q. You claim that the army did not advance beyond Pakrac but you don't know anything about the reasons why that was so; is that true?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. So that is noted. You say that some group carried out murders in Vucin but you didn't see that personally; is that true?

A. No, I didn't see it myself, no.

Q. Is it true that you didn't even report anything to anybody regarding this murder in Vocin?

A. No, I did not report it to anybody, because when I heard about it, it was already late December, and I reacted on this issue via the media.

Q. Is it true that you have no idea whether anybody kept the ¹⁰⁹⁵⁹ authorities in Belgrade informed about this event?

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

Q. You also mentioned some units of Vuk Draskovic and other paramilitary formations. You yourself don't know anything about those paramilitary formations; is that so?

A. I don't know anything about those paramilitary organisations, and I did make a correction, and I said that those were not units of Vuk Draskovic; they were ascribed to Seselj. But I don't know anything about them.

Q. You ascribed them to Seselj, but you don't know whether they were Seselj's or not?

A. The citizens thought that they belonged to him, particularly after Seselj came and reviewed his volunteer units.

Q. A group of those people whom you claim were his volunteers, you saw them without weapons; is that true? This is what I heard during the examination-in-chief.

A. The group, when it arrived, I saw a group without weapons, and I saw a group with weapons, and I said that this was near the village of Glavica, and I also stated that during the examination-in-chief.

Q. You mentioned a group of people, among whom was a person called Rastovic, who exerted pressure on certain groups of people. You mentioned an incident where he threatened you with a pistol, and you also mentioned Milan Babic as belonging to that group of extremists. My question is: Is it true that you never heard that Babic threatened anybody or asked -- or demand that somebody be killed? You never heard him say that; is that ¹⁰⁹⁶⁰ so or not?

A. No, I never heard Babic demand that anybody be killed.

Q. So as far as I understand, you don't have any knowledge, and you don't know anything regarding the distribution of weapons or anything about Martic's involvement in that, even though you testified about Martic as well.

A. I don't know about the distribution of weapons that he carried out.

Q. You say Martic had support from Belgrade and that Martic was informed about the crimes. You say that he was informed about the crimes carried out by his police forces and that he did not punish or dismiss anybody. This is what you claim. But you don't have any knowledge either about the alleged crimes which you ascribed to Martic, or about his activities. Is this true or not?

A. I assumed that Martic, who was the chief of police down there, was informed about what was going on and what his men were doing, so I based my conclusion on that. I wasn't next to him, so I was not able to see what he was doing and how he was doing it, but I drew my conclusion based on the fact that he was the chief of police and that he was leading those units.

Q. You confirmed my question about Croats who were living normally in Knin and Martic told me about them, that there was no discrimination, that they were able to live normal lives, and you confirmed that. You said yesterday that you knew that Croats who lived there normally and without any pressure whatsoever, they lived there in their own houses; is that so ¹⁰⁹⁶¹ or not?

A. Yes, I said that. I know that there were Croats in Knin, that there were many mixed marriages, there were many friends, and I know that they lived there. But I did not say that there were also Croats who were left, and there were such Croats who left. I don't know specifically who but I heard that Croats had left Knin.

Q. So if you don't know about what I just asked you about, how can you know that individuals under the command of Martic carried out crimes and that he knew about that and that he did not wish to punish anyone? Did you inform anybody at any time, anybody in Belgrade, for example, about those crimes?

A. During 1991, I didn't hear anything. I didn't have the opportunity to do that. It was a long way away. So I just heard about that. And if I had heard about that, I expected that others had heard about that too. So it wasn't up to me to deal with matters like that when there were people there who were responsible for such matters.

THE ACCUSED: I assume, Mr. May, that you will tell me that some of my questions have to be in closed session, so may we briefly go into closed session so that I will not disrupt your proceedings.

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

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁰⁹⁶² Page 10962 - redacted - private session

¹⁰⁹⁶³ Page 10963 - redacted - private session

¹⁰⁹⁶⁴

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're back into open session, Your Honours.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I want to put only a few questions to you in connection with your examination-in-chief. You were shown the territory, and the question was asked of you as to when this area was put under Serb control, and you said in late 1991. Is this correct?

A. I don't know what map you are referring to and what area, because in late 1991, only the area around Knin, Benkovac, Gradacac, and Lapac was under Serb control, later it expanded.

Q. Well, your explanation that the Serbs put this area under their control and the very term "control," is it evident that this was an area where the Serbs had lived for at least a few centuries? Is this in dispute or not?

A. Yes, this is an area that they had inhabited for several centuries. ¹⁰⁹⁶⁵

Q. Were Catholic churches destroyed?

A. Yes, they were.

JUDGE KWON: Just a minute, Mr. Milosevic. Is the map you are referring to the tab 5 of Exhibit 326?

Can the witness be shown the map?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. To avoid wasting time, the point I wanted to make, Mr. Kwon, was that putting territories under control does not mean that the Serbs occupied somebody else's territory. These were territories they had inhabited for centuries. The map itself doesn't have any major significance.

JUDGE KWON: Put the map on the ELMO. I think that's tab 6, but is this the map you're referring to? Is it right?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wasn't thinking of the map itself. I was speaking of the year 1991, but this was brought up because a map was shown to him. He has already answered my question, Mr. Kwon. I don't want to waste any time discussing maps.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I asked you then whether Catholic churches had been destroyed, whether you know about a Catholic church that was destroyed.

A. Yes, the one in Okucani.

Q. So you know about one Catholic church. Do you know of any others?

A. I've heard of some in Dalmacija, but I don't know the names of the villages, just as I did not keep a record of Serbian churches, I didn't keep a record on Catholic churches.

Q. Very well. Recently I showed you a list of tens -- of dozens of ¹⁰⁹⁶⁶ Orthodox churches that had been destroyed and you said you knew about those, or didn't you?

A. I said I knew about some churches. You asked me about the number, and I said I didn't know the exact number because it was the church that kept these records. I know that some churches were destroyed, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In order to save time, let's proceed.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You were asked during the examination-in-chief, when you mentioned that meeting, whether any party contacts with the socialist party, did you have any party contacts with my party?

A. Personally, no.

Q. Do you know that the socialist party is a left-wing party and that the Serb Democratic Party, at the elections in Serbia, was an opposition party?

A. Yes, I know this.

Q. So what sort of collaboration are you talking about when you talk about collaboration between the Socialist Party and the party you say you know was in the opposition at the elections?

A. I was referring to the SDS from Croatia. As far as I can recall, Babic and several others said they had contacts. What sort of contacts, I don't know, and whether they actually had them or not.

Q. You said that the media was under government control. Do you remember that in these same media you claim were under government control, which is not correct, your then minister of foreign affairs wrote an ¹⁰⁹⁶⁷ article against me in which he even claimed - I ask you if you remember this - that Cyrus Vance had bribed me with 120 million dollars to accept the arrival of UN troops and to support this in the area where later on the UN zones were established? Do you remember this? This was in the Belgrade press, the Yugoslav press.

A. I don't know what minister you're referring to.

Q. It was Caslav Vocic at the time.

A. It's possible, but I don't know about this because I didn't know Caslav Vocic. I never met him. I'm not saying it didn't happen.

Q. When speaking of control over the media and, as you say, that the media allegedly worked against the interests of peace, and I say this cannot be linked up with the authorities in Belgrade, but did you say during your examination-in-chief that you only heard about the alleged camps in Knin and Udbina from the Croatian media? Is this correct?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. So you only heard about this from the Croatian media. You know nothing of it?

A. I know nothing of them.

Q. Very well. You said -- or rather, you mentioned a colonel or I'm not sure what his rank was. I think he was a colonel, Celeketic, who as you say, came from Yugoslavia. Where was Colonel Celeketic from?

A. As far as I heard, he was born in Kikinda. He was in the barracks in Bjelovar. In 1991 he came to Okucani. Later on, I don't know where he went, but he turned up again in 1993, in Okucani.

Q. So he was in Bjelovar? ¹⁰⁹⁶⁸

A. Yes.

Q. Very well. You said a lot about the manner in which things functioned within the Republic of Srpska Krajina. Do you know whether anyone imposed anything on you from outside with respect to your political positions, your behaviour or attitudes, and so on and so forth? Do you know anything about this?

A. I know only that the Association of Serbs in Croatia interfered and radicalised matters against Jovan Raskovic and in favour of Babic. Their pressure was exerted in this direction.

Q. Well, that's another matter. That's your internal problem. But as far as I can recall the reactions of Belgrade, can you confirm these were always aimed exclusively, if there were any suggestions or, as you say, pressures, in the direction of accepting a peaceful solution, accepting the Vance plan, Vance-Owen Plan, the arrival of the UN, cooperation with them and opening up dialogue between Zagreb and Knin? Is this true or not?

A. I have already spoken of this in my testimony.

Q. Are you aware of the fact that the Zagreb Knin dialogue was opened up and that Nikolic and Sardonic negotiated on several occasions, that the main road was opened up, that there was economic cooperation and so on, and that on both sides the governments discussed this, it was written about in the media, Owen and Stoltenberg mediated in this respect, they had a meeting at the Zagreb airport, Pleso airport. Do you know about these activities?

A. I know about these activities. I know there was resistance to ¹⁰⁹⁶⁹ them and I know that because of this, the presidents of the municipalities of the Republic of Serbian Krajina went to see you, that you supported the opening up of the motor way and the opening up of a dialogue between Zagreb and the Krajina.

Q. At one point you said that the Serbian state security incited people at rallies. Did you say that? Did you say that on the basis of your personal knowledge or did you hear about this from someone else or didn't you -- maybe you didn't say it at all.

A. I didn't say that this was done by the security services of Serbia. What I said was that it was security agents who did this in the field. But what services they actually belonged to, whether they were local ones, I didn't say that.

Q. Very well. According to my notes, because your testimony was given a few days ago, you said that refugees from Croatia were sent on to Kosovo. Did you mention that?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Where did you find this out?

A. I heard this from some of the refugees.

Q. From some of the refugees who went to Kosovo?

A. I heard it from some refugees who were in the column but didn't go to Kosovo. They told me that some had been sent to Kosovo.

Q. Do you know that Kosovo makes up 10 per cent of the territory of Serbia? This is a geographical fact. And are you aware of the fact that only one per cent, that is, ten times below the average, of the refugees went to the area of Kosovo and Metohija within Serbia, which is ten times ¹⁰⁹⁷⁰ less than went to other parts of Serbia? Are you aware of this? Only one per cent of these refugees went to Kosovo.

A. I wasn't talking about figures and how many refugees went where in Serbia, nor do I know what percentage of the territories taken up by Kosovo. I only know that they went to the south of Serbia, and I mentioned Kosovo. I didn't say they went exclusively to Kosovo.

Q. You accept, then, the fact that in view of the figures I have put forward, the least amount of refugees went in the direction of Kosovo. Did you mention that Croats were expelled from Serbia? I have a note about this, but I'm not sure what words you actually used. You were referring to Vojvodina primarily.

A. Yes, I did say that. Based on statements made by some Croats who arrived in Western Slavonia and said they had been expelled from their villages. I have no other knowledge apart from this.

Q. So you have no knowledge about this?

A. I was not in Vojvodina, so I didn't see these events. I made my statement on the basis of what I heard from Croats who arrived in Western Slavonia, asking for a place to live, and some of them, as I remember, went to Korenica. And my statement was made on the basis of what they said.

Q. Have you ever heard of a single example of the torching of someone's house or the looting of the property of any Croat in Serbia or the forcible expulsion of any individual there?

A. As for burnings of houses, I didn't hear that, but I have told you what I did hear. ¹⁰⁹⁷¹

Q. You heard this from some Croat who arrived in Western Slavonia; is that correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Are you aware of the fact that throughout the ten years of the Yugoslav crisis, it is only in Serbia that the ethnic make-up of the population didn't change at all? Are you aware of this?

A. I have heard of this.

Q. You mentioned that the Serbs who escaped, who fled from Western Slavonia were arrested. Were they arrested in Serbia by anyone?

A. I think I heard there were such incidents, that they were arrested there and taken to Bosnia. I think I heard that.

Q. Well, I just wanted to know how certain you were of this. You said that some of them were arrested in Eastern Slavonia. Is this correct or not?

A. I'm sure they were arrested and mistreated and beaten up and humiliated in Eastern Slavonia, and this is what I said.

Q. But you don't have any such knowledge about Serbia?

A. Not any specific knowledge, but I think I did hear of several people who were arrested and taken to the front.

Q. Where were they taken?

A. I think they were taken to the front in Bosnia.

Q. They were arrested and several of those hundreds of thousands who fled, do you have any explanation which should be logical?

A. No, I don't.

Q. And you have no personal knowledge about that, do you? ¹⁰⁹⁷²

A. No.

Q. Who told you that, then?

A. I heard about it after the Storm Operation, several months later, when people got together and started talking about those events. I think it was then.

Q. So these were rumours after the Operation Storm, that is, the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Croatia and the offensive against Krajina; is that right?

A. I said what I heard after those events. I have no other evidence except what I heard.

Q. Mr. C-037, at the time of the attack on the territories inhabited by Serbs, is it disputed that those territories were under the protection of the United Nations, so-called UN-Protected Areas? They were known as UNPA zones, United Nations-Protected Areas. Is that right or not?

A. Yes, that is right.

Q. Is it then true that all those large-scale attacks, when in Western Slavonia the number were expelled that we have already mentioned, then in the Knin Krajina, and the other 250.000 people, and these numerous crimes, that all these occurred in areas that were under United Nations protection?

A. It is true.

Q. Is it true that the Serbs agreed to the plan to be placed under United Nations protection and that they were promised to be protected until a political solution was found?

A. Yes. ¹⁰⁹⁷³

Q. And were they protected until a political solution was found or were they expelled as a result of these crimes committed against them in the presence of the United Nations forces?

A. They were not protected, obviously, when all this happened.

Q. Do you believe that a crime was committed against the Serbs with the co-responsibility of the United Nations?

JUDGE MAY: Not a matter for the witness. His opinion about that is not relevant.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] Very well.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours --

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may add, the Serbian side also made an omission, a significant one. According to the Vance plan, they should have been demilitarised, which means the heavy weapons should have been placed under UN control and only the police was to be left with weapons. We did that in Western Slavonia, and we were given written guarantees that we would be protected. The rest did not do that. Later on, in the course of 1993 and 1994, weapons were taken and given to people who formed units. When I spoke to the commander in Western Slavonia, General Zabalo, about protection, because people were afraid if they were not protected, that they would get killed. His answer was as follows, and I would like to quote him. I don't know whether that would be the same now, but he said: If both sides have weapons and use them, then the United Nations units will not put themselves in between the two, because they would get killed as a result of conflicts. But if ¹⁰⁹⁷⁴ demilitarisation is completed and the weapons placed under control, then the United Nations will take upon itself full responsibility. And this was the omission made by the Krajina authorities, what weapons they had proved to be insufficient, and using them or not using them could not protect the people.

I do not in this way relieve Croatia of the responsibility for what it did in this area, especially after the exodus of the population, but I do consider that the political leadership of Krajina is also responsible if it accepted the Vance plan, why didn't it carry it out fully and thereby transfer full responsibility to the international forces, which would have to accept that responsibility. In this way, an excuse or justification, or I don't know what, was given to them, for them to say demilitarisation was not carried out and we cannot place our forces between two armed formations. Whether they were equally well armed or not, I don't know, because I'm not a military expert, but I believe, and I repeat, that I think part of the responsibility is with the people who represented the people -- with the authorities, not the people, exposing the population to the danger and to the events that occurred there.

JUDGE MAY: Before you go on, let's just clarify something. General Zabalo, who you spoke to, was he the UN commander in Western Slavonia.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. He was the commander of the Sector West up until the end of February 1993.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. We'll come back to that, but let's clear up one point. Since you ¹⁰⁹⁷⁵ skipped over some -- or at least one very important detail. First of all, do you remember that according to the Vance plan, which the Serbs accepted, the weapons, true, had to be placed under a double key: One key would be in the hands of the Krajina Serbs and the other in the hands of the UN, and the Serbs did hand over their weapons and they did carry out the demilitarisation and it was only the police that was left with what they called side arms, that is, pistols. Do you remember, therefore, that they did fulfil their obligation but that they took up arms again from those same depots when they were attacked, and not before they were attacked? You should know this, and you probably do have this book, because I don't have time --

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let the witness answer the point that's made. Just a moment. The point that is made is that the Krajina Serbs in fact complied, but it's said they took up arms when they were attacked. Can you help us as to that or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They resorted to tanks and cannon then, but not long barrel weapons, because they were present in the territory of Krajina. And when I was mobilised, I saw that people were carrying rifles, and this was also contrary to the Vance plan. And the best guarantee is if the international forces that are present, that are supervising the area and who are intended to protect the area, that they say that the disarming has been done, and not by certain officials who judge the disarming according to their own criteria.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. C-037, here's a book about the Miljevac Plateau of 1992, are you ¹⁰⁹⁷⁶ familiar with that book, which discusses the attack against an area again under UN protection? Are you familiar with this book?

A. I'm familiar with the events. I have not seen the book. I know that those people were massacred, even in Croatia. I saw a video recording of those events, the Miljevac Plateau, when a film was made against the crimes against Serbs in Croatia.

Q. You have this offensive against UNPAs in 1993, Maslenica?

A. I've heard of those events too, but I haven't seen that book.

Q. And do you have a book on the expulsion of Serbs from Krajina in 1995?

A. I don't have that book either.

Q. And do you at least have the book concerning Western Slavonia, May 1995, and the exodus of Serbs from Western Slavonia?

A. Unfortunately, I was not given that book either.

Q. Well, let me just tell you that from Western Slavonia and quoting from a letter by Yasushi Akashi, a special envoy of the UN Secretary-General, who says the government of the republic of Croatia should immediately halt the military offensive launched by its forces in the area of Western Slavonia, known as the Sector West, which it started on the 1st of May, 1995, in the morning, in violation of the agreement on the cessation of hostilities of the 29th of March, 1994?

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, let me get the chronology right. The indictment is dealing with events in 1990 and 1991. What is the relevance of events in 1995? You've been given considerable leeway to go into those events, but I'm concerned that they may have no relevance at all to what ¹⁰⁹⁷⁷ happened five years earlier. It may be there was, and I don't take a view. It may be there was an attack at that stage. But is it of any assistance, is it of any relevance at all during the trial?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just wanted to establish, Mr. May, that in addition to crimes being committed and a complete ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Croatia, those crimes were committed in a territory and at a time when that territory was under the protection of the United Nations.

JUDGE MAY: What's the relevance of that? What is the relevance of that to this trial, what happened in 1990 and 1991? You seem to lose the focus which is necessary in a trial, which is on the particular charges, not on other wrongs that may have been done at some other time.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, if you dwell only on the years 1990 and 1991 and 1992, then you will see that what I'm claiming is true, and that is that in those years, the Serbs were defending themselves against a pogrom and that from the moment the United Nations forces arrived, they trusted those forces and expected to be protected until a political settlement was found. They handed over their weapons under double key and they took them back only after the attacks that are described in these books in order to defend themselves, because they were not protected by the United Nations, as they were promised they would be.

JUDGE MAY: Well, the books are not admissible. They're various opinions. We admit reports and the like, but I doubt those books have any value, although we'll consider them in due course if you want to put them in.

Mr. Kay, I don't want to take up time with -- I'm sorry. I don't ¹⁰⁹⁷⁸ want to take up time. The accused has another five minutes. But in relation to the events in Kosovo, where, of course, there was a direct relevance of the activities of the KLA and also there was maybe relevance to the NATO bombing, you put in a paper, or the amici put in a paper, concerning the scope of cross-examination. I would find it helpful myself to find a similar paper in relation to events in Croatia, because for the moment I am not convinced of the relevance of events in 1995 to an indictment which is concerned with 1990 and 1991. But if may be you would like to reflect on that.

MR. KAY: We will certainly attempt to do that for the Trial Chamber. It may well be here that the accused is dealing with an entire picture that the Prosecution have made against him, asserting that he has been double-dealing, that he didn't keep to promises, and in many respects that the whole period from 1990 up to 1999, as characterised by the way the Prosecution put their case, is something that the accused feels he needs to deal with in this particular way, to demonstrate that he in fact was attempting to abide by international agreements, so far as he could.

JUDGE MAY: But to use the argument that because wrongs were done to Serbs in 1995, it justified behaviour in 1991 is one which I will need to be convinced of.

MR. KAY: The context that I put it in is the picture that the Prosecution have presented to this Trial Chamber in opening their cases.

JUDGE MAY: It's not a matter we can debate now, although I opened it up. Time is limited. The accused should have his extra five minutes and then you should be able to cross-examine. But perhaps you can put a ¹⁰⁹⁷⁹ paper on it and we'll take it from there.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic. You want to add a bit more? I've asked the amici to put a paper in, and when that's in, you can address us on it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You just said that I was trying to explain, by events in 1945, what happened in 1991, which is absolutely incorrect, because the violence --

JUDGE MAY: 1995. 1995. Not 1945. 1995.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is not true that what happened in 1991 -- 1995 - I'm trying to explain what happened in 1991. On the contrary. I have shown here that the violence against the Serbs started already in 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992. I've been questioning this witness alone about 1991 and 1992. So it is obvious why the United Nations arrived, because those areas needed to be protected. Did they protect them? They did not. Did the Serbs accept them? They did. So it's not what Mr. Kay says, that only I wanted a peaceful solution. The Serbs in Krajina accepted the United Nations and agreed to a political settlement, by political means. But no political solution was found, and they were expelled. I'm talking about crimes committed in a civil war, provoked by the forcible secession of Croatia from Yugoslavia, against Yugoslavia, and especially against the Serb population. And here an inversion is being made. The victim is proclaimed the culprit, and the victim in that civil war in Croatia was the Serb people living on their own territory, Mr. May. And all the events that I have questioned this witness about refer to 1991 and 1992, and prove precisely what I'm alleging, and I'm just showing the fact that what the Serbs agreed to in those United ¹⁰⁹⁸⁰ Nations-Protected Areas was not -- did not lead to a political settlement but rather to an aggression and crimes against them. So it is absolutely impossible to reverse things, to turn things upside down.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... cross-examine in relation to any events in 1995.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Only the last three minutes, Mr. Robinson. I asked him about this, and I wanted to ask whether these areas from which the Serbs were ethnically cleansed, at the time when this was done, were under the protection of the United Nations. And I wanted that to be established, and nothing more than that. And during the two days of cross-examination, I've spent two minutes on 1995.

JUDGE MAY: Five minutes more, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So, Mr. C-037, is it completely clear that the civil war in Croatia - we were now discussing events in 1990, the amendments of the constitution, the new constitution, the firing of Serbs, the killings, illegal arrests, violence, et cetera, the events that occurred in 1990, 1991, and 1992, that these were provoked by violence on the part of the Croatian state at the time in the process of forcible secession from Yugoslavia, violence against the Serb population, and against the Yugoslav army?

JUDGE MAY: The witness -- you asked him that and he's given an answer.

Do you want to add anything, Witness C-037, to what you've already said on this topic? ¹⁰⁹⁸¹

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have nothing more to add. I have said everything I have to say.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So are we quite clear on that point, that this was a civil war?

JUDGE MAY: That's a matter we're going to have to decide. That's a matter -- that's a matter of law which has got to be decided by us. Not for the witness to decide.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, you can decide that today is Monday, as far as that is concerned. I was talking here about facts, and all the answers given by the witness confirm the facts that I have presented.

JUDGE MAY: Two more questions, if you want.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. C-037, is it your opinion that the civil war was imposed upon the Serbs in Croatia by the behaviour of the Croatian authorities?

A. I cannot say that it was imposed upon them, but I can say that tension was provoked, mistrust of Serbs towards the authorities in Croatia, and a split, a serious split, between them occurred, but I wouldn't give any other legal attributes to this.

Q. And do you, Mr. C-037, believe that when we're talking about Serbs in Croatia in that civil war, was that war for them a defensive war?

A. That is how the Serbs behaved and that is how they felt.

Q. That is how they behaved and how they felt. Did you ever hear of any intention on the part of the Serbian Krajina to occupy any part of territory belonging to the Croats? ¹⁰⁹⁸²

A. No, I didn't hear that.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kay. Questioned by Mr. Kay:

Q. I'll deal with one matter first of all and then I'll deal with Judge Kwon's matters, if I may.

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour --

JUDGE MAY: Was this in private session?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. This was a private for private session.

JUDGE MAY: Into private session then.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁰⁹⁸³ Page 10983 - redacted - private session

¹⁰⁹⁸⁴ Page 10984 - redacted - private session

¹⁰⁹⁸⁵

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're now in open session.

MR. KAY:

Q. If we turn to tab 12 and if that could be put before the witness as well. This is a document about which you were asked questions at the beginning of the week, 30th of September, LiveNote 10434. It's a document from the war crimes department, or department for war crimes, and it's a document that lists various events as having taken place on a date in 1991, as well as with a list of names. Are you looking at the B/C/S version at the moment? If you, Witness C-037, if you just look at the B/C/S version rather than the English version.

Is it a form of document that you recognise at all in your experience?

A. No. I saw it here at the Prosecutor's office for the first time, such a document.

Q. Are you in a position to state in any way about its production or how it came into being, from any knowledge of your own?

A. I think that this was compiled by the MUP of Croatia, by interviewing the citizens of Vocin and gathering the information about those events. What I saw later, and which was confirmed, and that was the only thing was by naming people who -- Serbs who had committed crimes against Croats, people were mentioned who -- about there was no proof that they had committed them. So the same applies to this document here, that there are too many names here with unsubstantiated claims. So this happened in the case of Vocin as well, and I had heard this from the Croat ¹⁰⁹⁸⁶ media and as well as from Serbs.

MR. KAY: Thank you. That's all I need asked about it. Does that help Judge Kwon on the matters?

JUDGE KWON: Thank you very much.

MR. KAY: Your Honour asked me to address you on evidential status about that, but I'm not sure I really need to.

Q. Dealing with one other aspect of your evidence, C-037, you gave evidence of discriminating laws against the Serbs in Croatia, concerning their national holidays, their education, other aspects of their life. Are you able to give the dates of those discriminating laws that you were talking about, or the approximate dates?

A. I can only give you approximate dates. This was in the course of 1990 and 1991 that such laws were enacted.

Q. Again, on just one other matter: The proposal that the Serbs weren't a constituent people within Croatia, that you said caused a lack of confidence in the new government, was that about the same time period as well, 1990?

A. I think that this was in 1991.

Q. And you described in the 1990 elections that there were insulting attitudes towards Serbs by Croatian political parties. Could you tell us what you were able to see as the effect that that had on the Serb population within Croatia?

A. It was humiliating for the Serbs, it was an irritation, and it also prompted distrust towards the new political authorities.

MR. KAY: I have no further questions. ¹⁰⁹⁸⁷

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour. Re-examined by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

Q. Witness, you mentioned during the cross-examination Jovo Vezmar, and you said that he went to Serbia in 1995. Did he go to Serbia at an earlier time as well? When did he go to Serbia?

A. I didn't say 1995. The first time he went was in 1991. Maybe on the 10th of March or the 7th or 8th of March, and he came back in August, in 1991, and then he left finally again at some point in October 1991.

Q. And when he was in Serbia in 1991, did he achieve a post within the MUP Serbia?

A. He worked in the Pancevo police station. I don't know exactly what his job was there.

Q. In relation to the -- in relation to the relation between the TO and the JNA, you said that you would not know about this, and I would like to clarify to which time this relates. When the Banja Luka Corps arrived in Pakrac in September 1991, was the TO Western Slavonia then subordinated to the JNA in this region?

A. As far as I can recall, the TO commanders went to Bijela Stijena, where the forward command post of the Banja Luka Corps was, and I think that they were subordinated to the command of the Banja Luka Corps.

Q. Were they paid, the TO staff? Was it also paid by the Banja Luka Corps at that time?

A. I think that after October they did receive a salary. I heard that from regular soldiers, and I also heard that the TO command issued salaries to the men. ¹⁰⁹⁸⁸

Q. You described the fear that the Serbs felt given these changes within the constitution and other matters in the society in Croatia. Was that fear fuelled by the SDS politicians, by certain SDS politicians, or Serbian politicians or Serbian media? Would you know?

A. Yes, by local Serb politicians at the SAO Krajina at that time, tension was raised. So any distrust that appeared amongst the Serbs, they incited it even more at the rallies, they had people with Chetnik insignia who also recalled the ugly past, which was in common with them, and with their shouting, they created fear among the Serbs, as well as the Croats.

Q. Did the state-owned Serbian media play a role in instilling this fear or increasing the fear?

A. When such statements were published or issued by the local politicians, then I think the broadcasting of such statements would increase the tensions that were already there.

Q. You mentioned that you saw already in June 1991 people armed. Do you refer to Serbs, Croats, or both?

A. At that time, both sides had weapons: Croats and Serbs both. Some had hunting rifles, some had obtained automatic rifles. There were also pump-action rifles. They were -- it was possible to purchase them. So I know that both the Croats and the Serbs were arming themselves.

Q. You described many crimes committed against the Serbs, and you said that as early as mid-June -- mid-1991 you heard about such crimes. Those crimes, did they happen before the war broke out or clashes broke out, or during those fights?

A. In mid-1991 this happened, but there were incidents which preceded ¹⁰⁹⁸⁹ these conflicts. But I didn't hear anything detailed about such incidents, but I did hear that they did take place in the territory of Eastern Slavonia. Once the war began, there was more talk about such incidents, but now, I don't know if these are authentic stories about these events or not.

Q. And in Western Slavonia, those crimes that you described, did they occur after the outbreak of the war?

A. Regarding Western Slavonia, I think they took place after the war broke out, that there were incidents, fights, for example, but I know that Serbs in Western Slavonia before the war killed I think three police officers, one at Obrijez and two near Trnakovac, in Okucani. So there were events like this as well.

Q. When you say they killed three policemen, do you mean Croatian policemen?

A. Yes, they were Croatian policemen. They were on duty. They were on their way to work. Two of them were ambushed and killed, and one of them was killed while he was standing on the road near Obrijez, turning to Obrijez.

Q. In relation to the prison camp in Bucje, you mentioned that besides Croats, also some Serbs were detained there. Why were they detained there?

A. These Serbs who were detained were, I would say, the opponents of people who were in the TO command. Perhaps people were jealous. They were well off. I had heard from them while they were arrested they were robbed. Their property was confiscated, especially money. They spoke ¹⁰⁹⁹⁰ freely, they said what they thought, and they didn't expect to be treated the way they were treated.

Q. In relation to the event in Pakrac, and this is the last thing I want to ask you, you mentioned that the JNA came there and the situation calmed down. Were there at the same time also politicians from the federal level coming to Pakrac and negotiating peace?

A. The politicians from the federal level I think at that time Mesic came, but I don't remember anyone else coming other than those four deputy ministers for internal affairs. I don't know about any others.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, these are the questions that I have to raise. I wonder if I should now also address briefly the two documents, how we got them and what we intend to do. But the witness would actually not be necessarily be present.

JUDGE MAY: The only question is a question of time.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I can do that very briefly.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: In relation to the document tab 7, it is not the Prosecution's position that these are official minutes from this meeting. The Prosecution believes that this is a report about this meeting, actually produced by this person mentioned in the last line of the document, and the Prosecution will -- we don't have this person on the witness list, and also not another participant in this meeting, because we thought that this witness would actually confirm that this was the content of the meeting. We would have to add these two persons to our witness list. One a participant and then the person we believe made this draft. ¹⁰⁹⁹¹ And we received this document from the Croatian authorities. And in relation to this other document, C-2768, this is also a document that we received from the Croatian government, and the purpose to put it to the witness was actually only that he confirms certain contents in this document, not to authenticate it.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. It remains to exhibit the witness statement, the statement, date of interview, 1st to the 4th of May. Is that the relevant statement, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: We'll get a number, Prosecution Exhibit number, for it.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, and it has to be under seal.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Yes, of course.

THE REGISTRAR: It will be Prosecutor's Exhibit 332, under seal.

JUDGE MAY: Witness C-037, that concludes your evidence. I'm sorry you've been kept so long, but thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give it. You are, of course, free to go.

The case will be adjourned until Monday morning, 9.00.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.01 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday, the 7th day of

October 2002, at 9.00 a.m.