¹¹²³⁰

Wednesday, 9 October 2002

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

WITNESS: NIKOLA SAMARDZIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] Examined by Mr. Nice: [Continued]

Q. In the summary, we're at paragraph 36, and it's time to look at Exhibit 338, tab 8, please. This document is the conclusions of the Assembly meeting held on the 24th and 25th of October of 1991, and you've made some passing reference to this yesterday, but if we can just look at it briefly.

It reads: "Conclusions. The Assembly of the Republic of Montenegro supports the participation of the Delegation of the Republic of Montenegro in the plenary session of the Conference ... in The Hague... notes that the Delegation acted in keeping with the power it received during the debate ... of the last session of the Republic of Montenegro Assembly and the conclusions and positions adopted thus far by the Assembly to resolve the Yugoslav crisis in a peaceful and democratic manner."

It's suggested that there was a need to continue in participation in The Hague Conference, taking account of the interests of the citizens of Montenegro, the Republic of Montenegro, and the Montenegrin peoples. ¹¹²³¹ And then the next paragraph, 2, just the first part of it: "The Assembly of the Republic of Montenegro concludes that the Yugoslav crisis must be solved peacefully and democratically. The basic principles supported by the Assembly are the equality of citizens and nations, their inalienable right to decide final questions directly, and the respect for their interests and desires of all nations to decide independently about their fate, and especially those nations which oppose the unilateral abolition of Yugoslavia and have expressed an interest in its preservation."

JUDGE KWON: I note the ELMO is not working for the moment.

MR. NICE: I'm so sorry. I wondered if it was our screen. I see now there's no light on the overhead projector. Thank you, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: It's apparently not working today. The technician is coming in to have a look. Perhaps we can keep going.

MR. NICE: Certainly.

Q. I've read out or summarised the material parts of that document, Mr. Samardzic. Any observations you want to make apart from those made by the document itself?

A. The document clearly says that the Assembly of Montenegro adopted and approved of the position taken by the Montenegrin delegation in The Hague and the position of President Bulatovic to accept the Carrington Plan. So this was drafted and a session was held when Bulatovic had to withdraw from his position in The Hague under pressure. The Assembly of Montenegro expressed itself clearly, and this needs no further comment. However, this was never implemented, including the last conclusion ¹¹²³² which says that efforts must be made for continuing implementation of these conclusions, and that was never done, regrettably.

Q. Thank you.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, if in the Court's papers following the English version of the document there's a two-page document with the number 0305627 on the top right, headed Vecernji List, then it probably shouldn't be there and I think can be removed.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll remove that together with the original. It's a newspaper report.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: We will remove it. Yes. Do you want the usher to remain by the ELMO?

MR. NICE: No. I think we're done for the time being.

Q. A few other topics, then, please, Mr. Samardzic, before we turn to another substantive item, the Vienna conference. But just dealing with the contacts of which you were aware between the President and Prime Minister of Montenegro, Bulatovic and Djukanovic, and the military leadership, in particular amongst others, Miodrag Jokic, are you able to help us with the degree to which there was contact between those parties? If so, what's your source of information?

A. No. I don't have much to say about this. I can't say anything specific because at the time when there was a war around Dubrovnik, Jokic was not in Titograd around the Podgorica most of the time, he was on the front line. Djukanovic, for his part, was in Titograd. So I can't say anything about the extent of their contacts. They must have had some ¹¹²³³ contact, but I can't say anything specific. I know the Montenegrin political leadership was in contact with the senior officers, but to what extent, especially for Djukanovic, I can't say.

Q. Can you help at all with the chain of command so far as the military were concerned, how clear it was, what sort of reporting structure it had, and again tell the Chamber how you would know these things.

A. Most of what I know is from Bulatovic, from speaking to him, usually in his office, and the conversations we had on the plane when we travelled to The Hague. It was clear to me that military operations were led by officers, that is generals of the Yugoslav army, who were on the front line. And as far as the navy is concerned, which was also attacking Dubrovnik, I know that they were under the command of Admiral Jokic. I don't think that politicians were directly involved in military operations, although they had mutual contact and there was reporting among them. That's the way I believe it was.

Q. Did there come a time when the possibility of crimes or the certainty of crimes being committed in the course of this fighting was discussed? And if so, was it ever discussed or talked about between you and any or either of the major political leaders?

A. There was no discussion of that at official sessions, but I did speak about it to President Bulatovic. I must say that he, too, was horrified by the news that reached us from the Dubrovnik front, but nothing was officially done about it at the time.

Q. Was -- ¹¹²³⁴

A. I must add one more thing. In addition to conversations and discussions I heard in the government about plundering and looting, I heard stories from individual citizens. I saw yachts from Dubrovnik in Budva. Obviously stolen. And I saw many other things that must have been stolen. They were called war trophies although they couldn't have been war trophies.

I visited this centre located in the Vinogradi Motel on the border with Croatia - it was guarded by the army - where various items were kept that were looted. I know that from citizens and also from officials, from President Bulatovic. I know that various items from the Cilipi airport of Dubrovnik were moved to Montenegro. Equipment and even cattle were also stolen and taken to Montenegro.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment, Mr. Samardzic. Is this in the indictment? Looting? I don't recollect.

MR. NICE: I'm not sure but it's nevertheless part of the widespread. And it's also a question of notice. I'll just find it. I may be wrong. My indictment's currently supporting my lectern.

JUDGE MAY: If you can deal with that in due course. If you can move on.

MR. NICE: Yes. The topic we're going to come to, in any event, at paragraph 44.

Q. But I want to go back to what I was asking you about initially, which is conversations with Mr. Bulatovic about crimes. Apart from crimes in Dubrovnik, did he speak of any other notorious events happening on the territory of the former Yugoslavia other than at Dubrovnik? ¹¹²³⁵

A. Yes. Before the battle of Dubrovnik, crimes were perpetrated in the north of Montenegro when certain members of paramilitary formations massacred a number of Muslim families in the north of Montenegro. And similarly, somewhere around Zvornik. This became public. The press started writing about it, and President Bulatovic was very much taken aback. He thought that President Milosevic would be forced to resign over this. It is my personal opinion, of course, but I may be naive, but I believe that's what President Bulatovic himself would have done. Later on, people in Montenegro somehow learned to live with it and the attention was less than that first instance.

Q. While these things were happening, did you learn of, directly, some who had deserted from a front line in Western Slavonia?

A. Yes. More precisely, men deserted from Banija. Some units from Montenegro had been sent there. I believe it was only one unit. And one day, about 25 soldiers burst into my office. They looked drained from the long journey. They told me they had run away from the front line, and they asked me to help them avoid the consequences. They were scared that military authorities would arrest them and try them as deserters. They told me about the course of fighting in Banija, and on that occasion I did whatever I could. I went to see President Bulatovic, I told him about the case and asked him to do all in his power to save these young men. Bulatovic told me there wasn't much he could do, but he advised these young men to keep a low profile and hide in their homes, hoping that nobody would come for them. And that's what actually happened. After this event, Bulatovic ordered that Montenegrin soldiers ¹¹²³⁶ withdraw from Banija and return to Montenegro, which again was contrary to the policy of the military leadership and Slobodan Milosevic himself, but that was what was eventually done.

Q. Very well. Thank you. Was there a camp at Morinje in Montenegro?

A. Yes. There was a camp there for captured Croatian soldiers, although some of the detainees were not soldiers, they were just captured somewhere near Dubrovnik and taken to Morinje.

Q. Did you learn something of what happened at that camp from somebody who'd been an employee of yours when you ran the Jugooceanija company?

A. Yes, I did. There was an employee of mine who later became a manager, a director, himself. He was a reserve officer of the KOS, the counter-intelligence service, and when he was appointed in the course of mobilisation to be a guard there, to be on the security staff of the Morinje prison, and much later he arrived in Malta and told me about Morinje and what went on there. According to what he told me, the situation was not good at all and the treatment of Croatian prisoners was not merciful at all.

Q. Did he give you specific examples of what happened to detainees either at his own hand or from what he saw himself?

A. Well, yes. People were slapped about, yelled at, but there were no killings, unlike in Bosnia and in other places. From what I heard, nobody was killed in Morinje, although the regime was strict, obviously.

Q. Was there any incident involving a man named Ante Prlenda?

A. Since there were guards from Kotor there, there was one prisoner ¹¹²³⁷ from Dubrovnik, Ante Prlenda. They hail from somewhere in Dalmatia. And we had in Jugooceanija company a captain by the name of Prlenda. And this prisoner Prlenda was actually slapped in the face only because he had the same family name as this man who wasn't really well liked.

Q. Very well. We'll move on to a couple more documents, one that we can look at, Exhibit 338, tab 9, the date of which is not clear from the document. You may be able to help us with it. Perhaps we could place the original of this one on the overhead projector first briefly so you can see it. It's a typed document in Cyrillic.

The headline word being translated in the English version which will now be laid on the overhead projector meaning, I think, "Stands." And, Mr. Samardzic, this document, a document you've seen before?

A. Yes. I received it as soon as it was drafted or, rather, brought from Belgrade. I believe Kostic himself brought this document after the events in The Hague. And this document represents a draft for the future shaping of Serbia and Montenegro. These stands were formulated here and later distributed in Serbia and Montenegro.

Q. And so the draft reads: "Considering the current situation ... bearing in mind that both Assemblies adopted the Belgrade Initiative and the Fundamentals for the Regulation of Relations... "Stands:

"1. ... we decided that the resolution of the Yugoslav crisis must be made on the legality and continuity of Yugoslavia as a state rather than on its discontinuation because some of its constituent nations do not wish to live in Yugoslavia any longer. ¹¹²³⁸ "2. We express our full respect of the right to

self-determination for each Yugoslav constituent nation that does not wish to live in Yugoslavia any longer. However, we demand full respect of the will of the Serbian and Montenegrin people and the citizens of the Republic of Serbia and Montenegro, as expressed, to preserve Yugoslavia as a common state.

"Within this common state, the Serbian and Montenegrin people and the citizens of the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro, together with other Yugoslav nations that so wish, must be equal and must be provided with all conditions to express and protect their interests and develop successfully.

"3. Proceeding from the fact that the Assemblies of the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro adopted the Belgrade Initiative and the Fundamentals for the Regulation of Relations in Yugoslavia, they will establish an expert commission together based on the principle of equality for the purposes of further constitutional and legal elaboration of documents..." and so on.

Well, there's the draft that was brought from Belgrade. What progress was there with that approach, please?

A. There was no progress. There was regression. What Lord Carrington proposed was annulled, to be annulled, and all six republics would no longer constitute Yugoslavia but, rather, Serbia and Montenegro should form a new state of Yugoslavia, which was actually done on the 27th of April, 1992. The parliament of Montenegro declared that the position of the Montenegrin delegation in The Hague was right. ^{11239 BLANK PAGE 11240} But despite all that, work continued in the opposite direction, geared at establishing a state of Serbia and Montenegro only. These are initial starting positions that were later expressed in the referendum of Montenegro, which was carried out in an illegal way, in an improper way, in which allegedly the people of Montenegro declared themselves in favour of living in a common state with Serbia. Immediately after -- immediately after that, a session of the Montenegrin parliament was held, on the 23rd of April, where the new constitution, hastily written and botched really, was summarily adopted, and that constitution was soon afterwards promulgated, and in Belgrade the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was proclaimed on the 27th of April, 1992 --

Q. Very well.

A. -- by --

Q. Bringing you to a conclusion there --

A. -- helped by the votes of lame duck MPs from Montenegro.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

MR. NICE:

Q. Thank you, Mr. Samardzic. We're moving through things chronologically. With a broadly chronological approach in mind and dealing with the degree to which Mr. Bulatovic was on notice of various views, can we look, please, at Exhibit 338, tab 10, which is an open letter sent to him. And we can -- actually, this can go on the overhead projector generally because it's side by side. Put the first sheet on the overhead projector, please. Thank you. ¹¹²⁴¹ And if you'd be good enough on this occasion, Mr. Samardzic, to follow it on the screen, because this provides the best for those viewing. This is an open letter from the parliament of the Republic of Croatia's committee for external affairs, the letter going to Momir Bulatovic. And six lines down, just picking up parts of it, it reads: "I am writing to warn you that you are much too late in your attempt to deceive Montenegrins about what has been happening in Dubrovnik." Four lines after that: "Too much blood has been shed. Croatia has been incredibly plundered and devastated in the areas near neighbouring Montenegro. In silence, you watch as Milosevic, through the words of his Minister Jovanovic, shames you before the world, denying that Serbia is mixed up in this dirty war when he says that the Yugoslav army and Montenegro are at war with Dubrovnik."

Perhaps go over the page. Starting at the top, having referred to the obligations of a man of high office, it says: "The higher a man's office, the less his scope and time to keep silent in these dramatic days." And then a few lines further down, seven lines down: "Stop the spreading of lies and the fanning of hatred against Dubrovnik and Croatia." And then just to draw a little more from this open letter, the next paragraph but one: "Your responsibility is not only political. Stop the Montenegrins from coming into other people's villages and homes as aggressors, occupiers, and plunderers and exposing themselves to the guns of Dubrovnik's defenders."

Then right at the end, a quote from Njegos: "He who seeks strength in the club has a trail reeking of inhumanity." This is signed ¹¹²⁴² by the president, Dr. Kacic.

JUDGE MAY: Could we have the date, please.

MR. NICE: Yes. It's given -- the 11th of, I'm afraid I can't remember what the month "Prosinca" is. It's December, I think. Perhaps the interpreters could help us. Or indeed, Mr. Samardzic, what month was this?

A. It says the date right here; the 11th of December, 1991.

Q. Well, this open letter speaks for itself, does it not, Mr. Samardzic?

A. Absolutely right. It is self-explanatory. Let me just highlight one thing. It was written after the most ferocious attack on Dubrovnik on the 6th of December when Dubrovnik was attacked both from land and sea. So this was written a few days after that attack on Dubrovnik on the 6th of December.

MR. NICE: Thank you. On the same topic of notice of events being available to those with authority, we go to tab 11 of Exhibit 338. Thank you very much, Usher, Mr. Usher. If you'd be good enough to just lay the original on the overhead projector, to see what it is. And this is a publication of a later date. If we then go to the English version --

JUDGE MAY: We have in fact been stopping the accused cross-examining on these sort of documents. How is this in any way to be distinguished from what we've stopped him asking about?

MR. NICE: If you go on page 3 of the English, notice to Mr. Bulatovic. Public notification in documents of this kind.

JUDGE MAY: You're not producing it -- this better be clear: ¹¹²⁴³ You're not producing it as evidence of what's contained in it.

MR. NICE: No. It's the notice issue.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Is there anything you want to say about that? Distinction is being made, of course, between the contents. It may be a fine distinction but it is one between the contents and the fact that something is brought to the attention of Mr. Bulatovic.

MR. KAY: It's not within the period of the indictment. It's a great deal of time thereafter. In relation to material such as this which one cannot say anyone in particular saw, it's just a publication, it's linkage to facts within the indictment is -- is not made out. Just on the other matter Your Honour mentioned about looting, counts 28 to 32 --

[Trial Chamber confers]

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I don't know if I can, just before you announce a decision, draw your attention just to the format of the document, which is a collection of the expression of views of authors and intellectuals, and indeed you'll see at the first line of the second paragraph there's a historic reference, or reference to an interview on the 1st of November of 1991, and I think that this witness will be able to say of material in this exhibit, of the which I was only going to go to one part in detail, he will be able to say whether such material was being sent to those in office at the time.

JUDGE MAY: That is a distinct point, but the fact is this: That we have rightly excluded, in the hands of the accused when ¹¹²⁴⁴ cross-examining, the opinions and writings of journalists and academics and the like, and we think the same should apply here. It is of very limited value. It is, of course, hearsay and hearsay of a kind which we do not think should be admitted. The distinction between admitting it simply to show that such things were published as opposed to admitting it for the truth of what's in it is too fine for us to allow it to be admitted.

Accordingly, that tab 11 will be excluded, and perhaps I can hand to the registrar my copy of that, plus the other one which didn't come in. Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. I now turn to complete what the witness has already dealt with substantially about plunder. I'm grateful to Mr. Kay for dealing with what I was going to return to, counts 28 and 31. You will find references in the indictment at paragraphs 77 and 81. The witness has already dealt with a great deal of the evidence I wanted him to cover. There was one exhibit which he will have to look at which won't take very long. I'm not sure, Mr. Samardzic, whether you've said anything about your knowledge of which units, if you can say, were involved in plunder of the kind you've described happening in and around Dubrovnik and how the plunder was brought back to Montenegro.

A. I do not know specifically the names of these units, because all units have their names, and I don't know which one specifically did plunder and which one did not. What was plundered was taken from various individuals. I cannot say from here, from this witness stand, that the ¹¹²⁴⁵ entire army was engaged in the plunder. It was only individuals and certain units.

Obviously, for the most part they were organised by the military command, and all of this was collected at the Vinogradi Motel, as I already mentioned, and the rest was taken further on into Montenegro. Who did this specifically, I cannot say. I cannot name any names, but I'm quite sure that this was done and had been done.

Q. In which case, let's look, in light of that, at the next exhibit, tab 12.

THE WITNESS: Some more light, is that possible? Because I cannot read it.

MR. NICE: If the witness can be provided with the original, now that it's been displayed, and we place the English translation on the overhead projector. The witness and we are now viewing a document dated the 28th of December, 1991, from the command of the 9th Naval Sector and, we will see in due course, signed by Vice Admiral Jokic. And it says it's in keeping with the memorandum of the 26th of December, and the order is that in the motel, the Vinogradi Motel in Sutorinsko Polje sector, there is to be set up a collection centre for collecting material captured and confiscated as spoils of war.

The document goes on -- it goes on in paragraph 2 to deal particularly with the appointment of a director, providing of motor vehicles which shall be kept in the parking lot while other weapons and military equipment shall be kept in its hall.

"The physical security of the Collection Centre ..." paragraph 3, ¹¹²⁴⁶ "... five military policemen from among the conscripts of the 9th Military Police Battalion."

Paragraph 4: "The issue of any material from the Collection Centre to military units and institutions ... without permission from the ... Administration ... is prohibited.

"5. The 9th Naval Sector Command shall conclude a contract with the ..." body whose expansion from initials is unknown "... socially-owned enterprise on the rent of three bungalows for the accommodation of personnel and a space for the storage of materiel in the Vinogradi Motel..." And then meals for the personnel. We see over the page Colonel Dragicevic, Commander, unclear, responsible for the operation of the centre, signed by Jokic. Does that fit entirely, Mr. Samardzic, with what you understood to be going on so far as plunder was concerned?

A. Yes. It fully coincides. However, I have to point out that this was done only on the 28th of December. That is to say, the war had been going on, the war around Dubrovnik had been going on for almost three months; all of October, November, and most of December. And there had been plundering until then, too, but no order was established, if I can use that phrase at all. This is considered to be some kind of military booty and that that should be stored at the Vinogradi Motel. Until then, there had been no such centre. It pertained to various sides. Some people brought this in on an organised basis into Montenegro, and many did this on a private basis, so to speak. Soldiers and officers took things from Konavle, from the areas surrounding Dubrovnik, and simply took them ^{11247 BLANK PAGE 11248} to Montenegro.

Q. Very well. Let's -- thank you very much. Let's move on.

JUDGE KWON: Just a minute, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Samardzic, just a moment ago you said that you cannot say from here, from the witness stand, that the entire army was engaged in the plunder; it was only individuals and certain units. Could you make any observation in relation to that comment regarding this document?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Although this document does exist and was written by the commander, I still think that the entire army was not engaged in plundering simply because I trust my Montenegrin people, that not everybody is a thief. What Admiral Jokic wrote shows that he is an admiral and is a military commander on the front line, gives orders to plunder. You're quite right on that.

However, in spite of that, not all the soldiers who were there were plunderers. However, a certain number of them, certain groups involving Admiral Jokic as well, were indeed plunderers.

JUDGE KWON: What do you think Mr. Jokic referred to at that time as "spoils of war"?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Jokic or, rather, Admiral Jokic, when he referred to the spoils of war, for him it is everything that he could collect and bring to motel Vinogradi. It is quite sure that most of this was not of the nature of goods that were required by the military. They took things from privately owned houses and also equipment from ¹¹²⁴⁹ various companies. So all of that was stored there or taken further into Montenegro.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. Can you help with whether any of the political or military high post holders benefited directly from any of this looting? If so, which ones?

A. [In English] Are you asking me?

Q. Yes. So sorry. Yes.

A. [Interpretation] I cannot indicate any person specifically, that I know that this person took something for himself. When we're speaking of the military leaders, there were rumours going about, but we are in a court of law so we're not going to take rumours into account. I could not say that specifically Admiral Jokic took anything for himself or did not take something for himself, although there were some kind of rumours going round. But I personally cannot confirm that. I cannot say that. I can just confirm that there was plundering and property was destroyed in Dubrovnik.

Q. Very well. A couple -- three more shortish topics and we're done, apart from sweeping up issues left over from yesterday. Paragraph 50. What if anything can you help us with about the involvement of the accused in the appointment of the first or second president of the FRY, as it became?

A. I can say the following: I travelled with Bulatovic only once, on the same plane with the accused Milosevic. We had a plane of our own, but ¹¹²⁵⁰ after we spoke up in The Hague and after we expressed all the positions that were contrary to his policies, he asked that we travel together. On that plane, he talked to Bulatovic, he consulted Bulatovic, discussing who should be appointed president of Yugoslavia. This was a few days before this ceremony was held in Belgrade on the 27th of April. Of course, Bulatovic agreed with his proposal, and his proposal was to appoint Dobrica Cosic, a writer with a nationalist orientation who is one of the authors of the memorandum and the idea of a Greater Serbia up to Karlobag and Virovitica.

I said then, perhaps the accused Milosevic may remember, although I did not take part in this conversation - he wasn't really paying any attention to me and, truth to tell, I wasn't really paying any attention to him either - I said to him, "Comrade President, before or later, that man will stab you in the back." I must admit that the accused Milosevic did not say anything, he just looked at me, and that's indeed what happened to him. Dobrica Cosic abandoned him and indeed stabbed him in the back. That's an expression we have in our language. So he did leave him.

As for Lilic, he is a nobody, a non-entity. He also appointed him --

JUDGE MAY: You will have to deal with the relevance of this. Do I understand this conversation to have taken place on the aeroplane on the way back from The Hague? Is that the position?

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. ¹¹²⁵¹

MR. NICE: Lilic was appointed later.

Q. Just yes or no. Do you have any knowledge of the accused's involvement in the appointment or why he chose this man? Don't comment about Mr. Lilic himself, it's just the decision-making process of the accused, if you can help with that, or the involvement of the accused in the decision-making process itself.

A. He proposed him. Not publicly, but as things were going on in those days, he was the man he chose, nobody else, because he was the one who was making the choice. The conversation took place during the flight from Belgrade to The Hague. I want to correct that. So it was on the plane from Belgrade to The Hague that this conversation about Cosic was taking place.

Q. Very well. And finally, on the involvement of the accused and the position of those holding ministerial office: The federal Minister of the Interior for a time was Pavle Bulatovic. Can you just tell us from your own knowledge what happened when he lost office and whether the accused had any role in that.

A. Please, what do you mean? What do you mean? The late Pavle Bulatovic held several different offices, so I'm not sure which particular office or post you're referring to.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm not going to pursue this. It's tangential.

THE WITNESS: Sorry, I remember now but it's irrelevant. [Interpretation] Pavle Bulatovic was appointed federal Minister of the Interior after he held the same office in Montenegro. Namely, he was ¹¹²⁵² Minister of the Interior of Montenegro as well. He was appointed the first Minister of the Interior of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Immediately after that, a funny, strange putsch took place. The Ministry of the Interior of Serbia came one day to the big building in Knez Mihajlova Street and kicked out all the employees of the federal ministry, and the Serbian ministry took over the building and all the equipment in the ministry, and all the employees were practically kicked into the street. So Pavle Bulatovic was not replaced, he was simply expelled from his office into the street and the ministry was taken over by the Serbian ministry. So then the Serbian ministry acted on behalf of the federal ministry. The federal ministry was only there pro forma and it had nothing, it just had a minister, and that's the kind of federation it was.

Q. One detail before we come to the Vienna conference. Paragraph 52. Was there, to your knowledge, any flow of arms or supplies from Montenegro to Republika Srpska before and/or after the blockade?

A. There was a flow of weapons, but I cannot testify about that specifically.

Q. Your source of information --

A. When --

Q. Your source of information being?

A. Well, the sources of my information are certain friends who knew that weapons were being transported to Bosnia. I heard about that while I was in government as well, but then I heard about it also in Malta. I went to Malta when sanctions were imposed, when I was relieved of duty, but then I also resigned as well. Then I moved to Malta. So I could not ¹¹²⁵³ exactly know how many weapons were going to Bosnia, but I was informed through various conversations that arms were certainly going to Bosnia, to Herzegovina, and that this was being done, yes.

Q. Very well. Let's then go to the Vienna conference and then just a couple more questions and I shall be done. You've already taken us, in your evidence, to April 1992, but the Vienna conference was on the 12th to the 15th. Can you just give very shortly a summary of what happened there so far as the accused is concerned?

A. The round table of Europe was held at that time at the initiative of a certain number of politicians from Europe and also the Austrian government. There was an imposing number of people, and it was devoted to the aggression of Serbia against Bosnia. Six days earlier, on the 6th of April, the war in Bosnia started, and Bosnia was recognised internationally during those days.

This round table of Europe brought in a resolution in which it condemned the aggression against Bosnia and called upon Serbia and the Yugoslav army to leave Bosnia. I joined in the spirit of that resolution, although it was not the official policy either of Serbia or Montenegro, and I also confirmed this when I gave a television interview in Vienna and publicly called for peace in Bosnia, and for that to be able to be achieved that the Yugoslav army should pull out of Bosnia, because Bosnia had become an internationally recognised state and, therefore, the Yugoslav army should leave as soon as possible from that territory. So I was criticised for doing this, and I must say that neither Bulatovic nor Djukanovic said a word to me, although I learnt later on ¹¹²⁵⁴ that I was to be arrested and that this was considered a faux pas by the policy pursued at the time by President Milosevic and that it was completely unacceptable to him at the time.

Q. Thank you very much. Last tab in the exhibit bundle, tab 13 of Exhibit 338. It's only in English because it's an original English. And I think we can just lay it on the overhead projector, and Mr. Samardzic, you could read it with us or follow it with us from the video. This is a resolution of the round table of Europe dated the 14th of April, condemning the brutal military aggression in violation of international law and human rights committed in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina by the formerly Yugoslav federal army and by Serbian guerilla commandos who are attempting to change the borders of sovereign states by violent means and are thus causing immeasurable suffering from the innocent -- for the innocent population, and appeals to the UN Security Council to take all the measures necessary to restore peace in the successor states of the former Yugoslavia.

"Moreover, we demand that all refugees be placed under the custody of the European family of peoples, which means in concrete terms that we bear the responsibility for their accommodation and care as well as the personal protection of each individual. The European Community, as well as other states and institutions of Europe, are called upon to ensure the fulfillment of this obligation in a manner compatible with human dignity, with the assistance of humanitarian organisations such as the Red Cross, et cetera.

"We condemn the attitude of Serbia, which is demanding guarantees ^{11255 BLANK PAGE 11256} for the Serbian minorities in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina while severely violating the rights of minorities and nationalities in the autonomous regions of Vojvodina and Kosovo, and therefore demand the immediate restitution of all their rights to the Albanian nation in Kosovo and the ethnic minorities in Vojvodina and Serbia." So that's the resolution following this meeting at which you spoke in the way you've described, and I think probably speaks for itself. Is that right, Mr. Samardzic?

A. Yes. Not after the meeting. That was the conclusion from that particular meeting and it speaks for itself, yes. Although this is not the text in its entirety, it is just a part of the entire text.

MR. NICE: Thank you. Your Honour, I've reviewed the matters that were outstanding and I think although you will have identified them probably on the summary, I don't think I need to take time dealing with them now. The witness has covered everything in one way or another. But there's one other question I want him to just deal with. If he could have back this map which is Exhibit 326 tab 3.

Q. And just briefly, and I mean briefly because you've explained it in various ways already, but it may help the Judges if you deal with this. Do you speak of the formation of Croatia in some way as having two wings, I think? And if so, do you draw a connection in relation to the overall plan of what was happening between what was happening in the area of Dubrovnik, said to be coming from Montenegro, and what was happening in the north? And if so, just explain it briefly to the Judges, please.

A. Croatia has the same borders as it did in socialist Yugoslavia. ¹¹²⁵⁷ Today, too, as an independent state. And if you look at the map, you will see that it does indeed have two wings, or it looks like a crescent moon. In the war that ensued, the Dubrovnik theatre of war, and this is my personal assessment, had as its goal not only to conquer Dubrovnik but to reach Karlobag, because at the same time, there were attacks launched on all the major towns and cities along the Adriatic coast up to Karlobag and not beyond it. In the north, before the battle of Dubrovnik began, there was the battle for Vukovar. And the rest of the parts of the -- what were called self-management regions of Eastern Slavonia, Western Srem and so on had not yet been taken over. And the goal was to reach Virovitica, which is far closer than Vukovar. From Vukovar to Virovitica than from Dubrovnik to Karlobag, it's a shorter distance. Therefore, the military operations had as their objective the creation of --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we must deal with your evidence with respect to what you saw and heard yourself and what you know of. It will be a matter for us to decide what the purpose of this attack was in Dubrovnik.

MR. NICE: Very well. In which case, that's all I ask of this witness. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, may we just determine the time that I'm going to have at my disposal? Yesterday the examination-in-chief lasted exactly three hours, plus an hour and ten minutes today, as you can see for yourself, which is a total of four hours and ten minutes. So could you please bear that in mind in view of the ¹¹²⁵⁸ fact that until the end of work today, and day has been extended, there is far less time than the four hours and ten minutes which I consider you are duty-bound to ensure for me as well.

JUDGE MAY: Since we are time keeping, the time yesterday was two hours 40 minutes, today was one hour five minutes; three hours 45 minutes. Three hours and a half I would have thought would be sufficient, but I'll consult.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Well, Mr. Milosevic, we'd like you to finish, if you can, today. You've got two and a bit sessions, but you can have the same as the Prosecution, three hours, 45 minutes. But try and finish earlier, if you can.

Let me just add this to assist you: There is no need to cross-examine this witness about his theories about what happened because his theories, as I've just pointed out, are not matters of evidence. So you needn't trouble about them, but you can concentrate on the evidence which he gave.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, as you can see yourself if you look at the clock, we have only three hours 15 minutes remaining for the work in hand, and your time keeping doesn't seem to be correct, because yesterday, in the second break, 1 hour and 45 minutes in the last session and, before that, it was one hour and 15 minutes, from 15 to twelve to one, and from half past two to 4.15, which makes it three hours plus one hour ten minutes today. However -- and so as I say, this is ten -- four hours and ten minutes. I don't know how this time seems to be ¹¹²⁵⁹ reduced by so much, but I'm sure there are notes and records about the time and we can compare them. But at any rate, the time you have given me is insufficient for the cross-examination even if you were right with regard to time keeping.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, that's the time you've got. Rather than arguing about it, let's get on and try and finish this, if we can, as soon as possible.

Mr. Samardzic, may I just say something to you: Of course you will need to give explanations to answers. The time will be limited, as I've said, in the way which we've ordered, so it would be of assistance if you could keep your answers as short as you can. Try and, if you can, follow the question and answer it. If you find it impossible to answer the question because it's not comprehensible, just say so. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] You said you were a pensioner, retired.

A. Yes, I am retired. I am a pensioner for Yugoslavia, but in [redacted] I still work. I have a small firm based at home, so that is it.

Q. Do you receive your pension in Montenegro and do you live in fact in Montenegro?

A. Yes, I do receive my pension in Montenegro, but I do not live in Montenegro.

Q. And is it true that you fled to [redacted]after unauthorised -- you took from the bank account where the Jugooceanija had $400.000 on its account, on the official company account, that you took those funds and ¹¹²⁶⁰ fled?

A. That is absolutely not true. Those are information from your secret police. I never took any funds from Jugooceanija.

Q. Well, was the money from the Jugooceanija firm on your private account?

A. The funds of the company were not on my private account. That is a flagrant lie.

Q. My secret police does not exist. It never did exist, and if you mean the secret police of Serbia, I assume you know that it wasn't -- that its competence didn't stretch to Montenegro.

A. Yes, it was in charge of Montenegro as well, but we can discuss that matter on some other occasion.

Q. Mr. Samardzic, as this statement of yours is completely untruthful, and I'm going, of course, to show you that here, and it is in fact quite contrary to everything that you did as the Minister of the -- the Foreign Minister of Montenegro and as the director of the Jugooceanija company. Now, can you tell me, what was promised you? What promises were made to you to utter such a mass of untruths? That's putting it mildly. Are you buying a domo vnica, a residence permit, in Croatia or anything else? What is it that you are getting?

JUDGE MAY: One thing at a time. Have any promises been made to you? I take it to be in return for giving evidence. That's what's being suggested.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is nonsense. What the accused is saying is complete nonsense. No promises were made to me. ¹¹²⁶¹ What he's saying is the product of his imagination and I never asked for a domo vnica or a residence permit in Croatia, neither do I have a passport of his own SR Yugoslavia, nor did I ever take out a passport of that kind.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, then, which passport did you use to go to [redacted]?

A. The red passport of socialist Yugoslavia, Mr. Milosevic, not your one with the hen on it.

Q. Tell me, you were minister in the government of Montenegro and a person in whom great confidence was placed. You were in the peaks of power in the government of Montenegro, whereas you are representing yourself as a sort of dissident here, a sort of anti-communist. You are painting that image although you had a very nice career in the system in which you lived in. You achieved a very high position and lived very well on the proceeds. So how come you suddenly made this salto mortale or this about turn in your image and options?

A. It is not true that I'm a dissident, nor is it true that I left the ideas of the League of Communists. That is something you are just making up yourself here and now. Those ideas and ideals of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and the ideals of Yugoslavhood, you were the one who abandoned them and did what you did. Your state -- and you understand this full well what I'm going to tell you now; your state was -- it is difficult to interpret what I'm now going to say, but it was just one descent into an abyss.

Q. Mr. Samardzic, I understand what you're doing, but let's move on and look at the observations that you made and we'll arrive at answers to ¹¹²⁶² many questions that were raised by you. But in this regard, let me say that you said that there was no place under the sun for you in Montenegro, that you weren't treated properly in terms of cadres, that they treated you as a traitor and that that was because your father had spent a term in prison, et cetera, et cetera. And then you go on to say something quite contradictory and say that you did hold high offices, and then you go on to enumerate the high offices you held. So it is not me that fabricated all this, it is precisely what you say in your statement; isn't that so, Mr. Samardzic?

A. No, it is not true. You're turning things about, topsy-turvy. A long time after my father, who was in the liberation army, I went to the Goli Otok island and -- he, my father did, and it took me a long time to go forward in my career, and I was able to do so in the firm of Jugooceanija and later on in the government. I was elected minister, I was elected to the Yugoslav Assembly. So that has nothing to do with what you're saying. I have made a career for myself, and I'm proud of it, but I will never agree, nor did I ever agree, to be a dissident. I can never be called a dissident, although I was against your criminal policy of destroying Yugoslavia and the crimes that were committed under your command and in your name.

Q. Very well, Mr. Samardzic. Very well. Please just try and answer my questions and don't get so excited.

A. I'm not excited.

Q. You will have quite enough time to get excited in due course.

A. I'm not excited at all. ^{11263 BLANK PAGE 11264}

JUDGE MAY: No. Just a moment. Remember, both of you, that the interpreters have to be able to interpret. Let us keep the temperature down.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In your statement, you say that you went to The Hague with Bulatovic but that you took a route via Prague so as not to be shot at by the army. Could you explain this lie to me, this circuitous route that you took and the expectations of your plane being toppled? And what do you mean by this circuitous route? I assume that airspace between Yugoslavia is the same when you fly to Prague and you fly to The Hague as well, and both times the same.

And also, do you remember that when you flew, you didn't have your own plane, you were lent a plane by the army. How, then, can you imagine the army giving you a plane and then shooting down that plane? Why did you just think this up? Can you tell us that? Why all these fabrications in addition to all the hundreds of other --

JUDGE MAY: Let's get to the question. You're being asked, Mr. Samardzic, about this route that you took to The Hague. Can you explain that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Instead of The Hague, we diverted our route and came to Prague. It is a well known fact, common knowledge, that that is not the direct flight route to Hague, because Prague is more northerly rather than the Belgrade to The Hague route. So what he just said is nonsense and quite incorrect. And the fact that the army was supposed to shoot us down, I didn't actually see the order but I did hear ¹¹²⁶⁵ the rumour that the possibility existed, that this might be done, they might shoot the plane down because of our attitude and positions. And that would have taken place following your orders. The army wouldn't have done this himself.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And who did you hear that from?

A. Well, Bulatovic spoke about that possibility.

Q. Right. Bulatovic again. You seem to refer to Bulatovic all the time. You've mentioned him goodness knows how many times and you've heard everything from Bulatovic. Now, tell me this: Is it true and correct that that particular plane, for technical reasons, had to make a short stay-over in Prague and then flew on to The Hague? But at any rate, Prague and the Hague are to the north of Yugoslavia and from Podgorica you would fly across the same corridor and flight route across Yugoslavia as every other plane; isn't that true, Mr. Samardzic?

A. Of course it isn't true. Look at the map of Europe and you'll see where The Hague is and where Prague is. What are you talking about? Why would we have to go to Prague, fly to Prague? If you can't fly across Croatia because of the war there, you can fly via Budapest and Vienna and then come to The Hague that way.

Q. Well, when you go to The Hague, do you fly across Budapest using the flight route via Budapest and that corridor or do you perhaps fly via Italy?

A. What you're saying is just funny. It's ludicrous. No plane flies to Prague if it is flying to The Hague. Just take a look at the map of ¹¹²⁶⁶ Europe.

Q. Very well, Mr. Samardzic. We're not going to quibble and quabble [sic] over these minute details. It's just comic. But tell me this: You are talking about a conference chaired by Carrington, and you claim that Milosevic didn't like Bulatovic's statement, that he jumped up from his chair, that he was furious and threatened you with his finger and verbally too when he went up to you. All that, of course, is not true, but it is interesting to note because, in fact, it demonstrates just how far you are willing to think up diplomatic scandalous behaviour. How come nobody else noticed that except you yourself? And how can you delve in these - what shall I call them? How shall I put this? - in these very base speculations, Mr. Samardzic?

A. Kiro Gligorov is still alive and he was next to us, and so is his minister and so it Momir Bulatovic. They are all still alive and they all heard what you did. You jumped up, out of your seat. You didn't run. I didn't say you ran. I'm -- and I don't suppose you can run either. But you came up, and this is what you said: "I'll give you what for. I'll give you a sovereign and independent Montenegro." That is the threat you made which meant that you could do any ill you thought up, and that is the whole truth.

Q. Very well, Mr. Samardzic. You have referred yet again to Mr. Bulatovic, as you did at least 50 times yesterday. And that is what Momir Bulatovic himself had to say, so would you please answer me -- answer my question once I read out what he said. "With respect to the testimony of Nikola Samardzic, the former Foreign Minister before the International ¹¹²⁶⁷ Tribunal in The Hague, I make the following statement: In the testimony of Nikola Samardzic, there are many incorrect and --"

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. NICE: [microphone not activated]

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

MR. NICE: -- and there it is.

JUDGE MAY: When was this statement made, Mr. Milosevic, by Mr. Bulatovic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This morning, Mr. May. Mr. Bulatovic listened. He was astounded, just as the whole of Montenegro was astounded, with the lies.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. There's an objection to the question. We'll consider it.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We shall allow the question. The witness -- just a moment. The witness can be asked what it is alleged that Mr. Bulatovic said, but of course what Mr. Bulatovic said is not evidence unless he comes here and says it. It's what the witness has said which is evidence, but you can put what Mr. Bulatovic said in order to test what the witness himself has said.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That will be sufficient. That will be quite sufficient, yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But to continue, these were not founded in any realistic events dating back to the time that he is testifying to, and this can be proved ¹¹²⁶⁸ and borne out by a simple insight into the documents and the newspaper reports that attended the events.

"Mr. Samardzic is testifying about a government meeting of Montenegro of the 1st of October, 1991, at which some generals were present, some JNA generals, representing -- he represented this meeting as a manipulation of Montenegrin public opinion by the JNA and the start of the creation of a plan, the nucleus of a plan of some sort of takeover of Dubrovnik, conquest of Dubrovnik. In fact, it was a joint session of the Presidency of the Republic of the Montenegro, the government of Montenegro, and high-ranking functionaries from the security section. "The meeting had a commemorative character because it was on that day that, on the border, eight members of the JNA were killed from a mortar that had been shot from the -- by the Croatian paramilitary units. And among the dead soldiers, two of them were Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija, one solder was from Macedonia, and one from Tuzla in Bosnia-Herzegovina."

It is from this meeting that the daily paper Pobjeda published the statement by Minister Samardzic in a separate column, as it says here.

JUDGE MAY: Right. Now, pause there. The purpose of this is to put these matters to the witness.

What is being suggested, Mr. Samardzic, is that this meeting on the 1st of October was not to prepare for military action but to -- was of a commemorative nature in relation to the eight members of the JNA who had been killed. Now, what -- you can react to that. You can give us your answer to that. Is that right or not? ¹¹²⁶⁹

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is an absolute untruth, what the accused Milosevic has just said. It was no commemorative meeting. It was a meeting of the military leaders ...

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Go on, Mr. Samardzic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was a meeting of the military leaders who had come in their uniforms, uniforms ready to do battle, battle dress, to denote the beginning the war that had actually begun on that particular day, the war against Dubrovnik. And what he -- the accused Milosevic is saying just now I'm hearing for the first time, that anybody was killed on that first day. That was when the move towards Dubrovnik was made, and my testimony was quite correct. I came to the second half of that meeting because I was sent by President Bulatovic to visit Cetinje and to show the person the museums there, and I didn't know that the war had already begun.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I continue? This is not what I am saying; I'm reading the statement by Momir Bulatovic.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. He goes on to say the following: "The Assembly of Montenegro devoted to the conflicts along the Croatian/Bosnia-Herzegovina/Montenegrin borders because this is tripartite zone, for those who don't know, a three-pronged zone, was held on the 4th of October, and Mr. Samardzic took part in it. The introductory address was made by General Bozidar Babic, the Defence Minister of the day, and he informed the Assembly and the public at large that the -- and the meeting was televised via the national ¹¹²⁷⁰ television station, and he said that in the first three days of the fighting, 28 members of the JNA were killed, of which 12 from the territory of Montenegro. In that same period, 100 were wounded --"

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let the witness deal with what you've put and then we must have the break.

Now, can you help us to this meeting of the Assembly, Mr. Samardzic?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This has nothing to do with the 1st of October, and he himself has just said that this was on the 4th of October. Yes, that meeting was held on the 4th of October. And as to the particulars, apart from the fact that the initiative was taken for negotiations with Croatia, I did not testify about anything else, how many people were killed, how many people were wounded. Nowhere did I testify about that up until now. And what the accused has just said is quite unfounded and untruthful.

I spoke about the 4th and 7th of October when the government and Assembly had their session and took the initiative and tabled documents, and not what the combat operations were like on the theatre of war. I knew that people were killed, and that's what I do know, and they were killed without any need, and this was a crime against Montenegro.

JUDGE MAY: No. We're going to adjourn now. We're a bit past the time. Mr. Samardzic, we'll adjourn for half an hour. Could you be back then, please.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, at some stage today, preferably before the lunch break, may I have five minutes of closed session administrative ^{11271 BLANK PAGE 11272} matters?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Just before the lunch break.

--- Recess taken at 11.04 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.39 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I want to finish what I've started when you interrupted. The sentence I didn't read from that item said, "Units of the JNA were then composed of members from four Yugoslav republics. All this fighting and losses were incurred before the JNA ever approached the town of Dubrovnik."

Next: "The statement by Nikola Samardzic concerning the weapons arsenal in the Port of Bar is completely untruthful. Although he doesn't have any information about it himself, he says it is contrabanded into the area then involved in the conflict, and Milo Djukanovic and his brother Aco were involved in the contraband.

"This was actually a warehouse owned by a private businessman with a partner from one of the Middle East countries. The official taxes and levies were not paid as due so the warehouse was taken over by the police and customs officials. All of this is on record in the competent authorities and you can see from it that the weapons were not really legally brought into the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."

JUDGE MAY: You can't go on reading like this. You're supposed to be cross-examining this witness, not reading out statements. Now, Mr. Samardzic, what is said is your statement about the Port ¹¹²⁷³ of Bar is completely untruthful. Now, you can deal with that, but I'll put the other point which is being made, and that is that this was a warehouse owned by a private businessman and the weapons were not really legally brought into the territory of the FRY. Perhaps you'd like to deal with those two matters.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have nothing to add to what I have said. I never accused Djukanovic or his brother. What was written in the previous record is a mistake, and here before the Court I never said a word about it.

The essence is this: I know that ships were right at the entrance to the Port of Bar. They were full of weapons. And I stated, as I will repeat now, I don't know where these weapons finally ended up. I don't see anything bad about what I said in my testimony, nor do I admit that I uttered an untruth.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Can I continue? "It is a complete misrepresentation of the role of Branko Kostic, member of the Presidency from Montenegro. He is presenting Branko Kostic as a yes-man of Slobodan Milosevic. Nikola Samardzic testifies that Branko Kostic did not participate in the decision-making of the authorities of Montenegro or obey their decisions but, rather, just conveyed decisions from Belgrade. In the press coverage of the work of the parliament of Montenegro, this statement of Nikola Samardzic is gainsaid. Branko Kostic in fact participated in all important debates and decision making, just as Nikola Samardzic, and never presented in the Presidency of the SFRY positions which would run counter ¹¹²⁷⁴ to the conclusions of the parliament of Montenegro. In many photographs of parliament sessions published in the press, you can see both Kostic and Samardzic on the benches of MPs."

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]...

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. My question is, why did you lie, Mr. Samardzic, as far as Branko Kostic is concerned?

A. I didn't lie. I stand by what I said. He was your servant whose task was to discipline Montenegro. That was his role. But I just want to add, since you're asking: In The Hague, when Lord Carrington took the floor away from him and he rose angrily to leave the session, your three other members of the Presidency followed although Lord Carrington had said nothing to them. All four of them left the session because you told them to. That was my testimony. I stand by it and there is no lying involved.

Q. Mr. Samardzic, you are describing events when Lord Carrington took the floor away from Branko Kostic and he rose and left the session. You are saying that it was me who told him to do that when Lord Carrington took the floor away from him?

A. No. You're making this up now. I said that the four of them worked in sync, according to your wishes and your policies. They were your yes-men, and Nikola Samardzic is not the only one who knows that. All Serbia and Montenegro know it.

Q. All this that you are saying to discredit these people, members of the Presidency, the collective body ruling the country, are not founded in ¹¹²⁷⁵ fact. That is just your statement.

A. That's not true. Facts are there. It was their political activity at that time which demonstrates this abundantly clearly.

Q. I'm quoting Bulatovic, actually. He says: "An important part of Mr. Samardzic's testimony is based on information that I allegedly passed on to him in private conversations. I am astounded by his motivation which led him to completely misrepresent the events of the time. However, I'm willing to state that I never told Mr. Nikola Samardzic that his life was in danger or that I am being threatened for my political decisions, nor did I ever tell him that Slobodan Milosevic should resign. And the same is true of many other things that he is interpreting so liberally and casually."

JUDGE MAY: Pause there. The comments of Mr. Bulatovic are neither here nor there, but the witness can respond to his allegation that -- the one matter which I think was given in evidence, you mentioned this morning, I think, that Bulatovic was of the view that Mr. Milosevic should resign owing to some of the crimes committed in Montenegro. Is that right, Mr. Samardzic? Is there anything else you want to say?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just want to reiterate Momir Bulatovic told me this. He was horrified by the crimes perpetrated against the Muslims which were reported by the press. People started to talk about it, and he thought, naively, of course, at the time, that Slobodan Milosevic should resign.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Okay. Let's dwell on this a little. These crimes, were they ¹¹²⁷⁶ perpetrated in Montenegro?

A. Some of them were perpetrated in Montenegro. Others, some were in Bosnia.

Q. Well, as you know, I was President of Serbia then. What had Serbia to do with crimes in Montenegro? Did someone from Serbia come to commit crimes in Montenegro? Is that what you're saying?

A. No, that's not what I'm saying. Those crimes were perpetrated in the name of the idea of Greater Serbia. The killing of Muslims and ethnic cleansing of Muslims from Bosnia, Montenegro, and other areas which were supposed to become part of Greater Serbia. That is a fact. It was done in your name. You were the leader.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The chief of Serbs --

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Mr. Samardzic, would you just concentrate, please, on answering the questions. They may be provoking, but just deal with them as best you can.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Samardzic, are you aware of any event at all when crimes were perpetrated against Muslims in Serbia? In all these past ten years, throughout the war.

A. I know about the event on the railroad Belgrade-Bar, in the place called Strpci, when 20 Muslims and one Croat were taken off the train, killed, and thrown into a river.

Q. Mr. Samardzic, do you know that the Strpci railway station is not in Serbia, it is in Bosnia-Herzegovina? It is for nine kilometres that ¹¹²⁷⁷ this railway passes through Bosnia and Herzegovina. Do you know that?

A. I do. But this railroad of Serbia and Montenegro, if it passes through one single settlement, which is not even an official station and not on the official railway timetable, as far as I'm concerned, it's a crime committed in Serbia.

Q. It is not a crime committed in Serbia because it is not the territory of Serbia. And if you remember, I personally flew through Prijepolje that very day - because the people involved were from Prijepolje, and the ethnic make-up of that place is half and half, Serbs and Muslims - to talk about the need for peaceful life and cooperation. And I told them that that had been done, that must have been done to inflame people and to spread the fire from Bosnia and Herzegovina; that everything had to be done, including proper investigation, which was in fact done, as I informed Mr. Stoltenberg later. I asked for one unit of our police to enter that territory to guard the Strpci railway station precisely from the formations that were roaming the area. Do you know that?

A. No, I don't, and that has nothing to do with it, anyway. It was the inhabitants of Serbia and Montenegro who were killed on that occasion, and you did actually nothing in practice about it, whereas you had the means, you had the power, both in Serbia and Montenegro. The only thing that was done was done in Montenegro, which condemned one single man. I believe only one man, Ranisavljevic, was convicted only ten years later.

Q. This man was convicted in 1994, not recently. I even have the judgement here. If I have enough time, I'll somehow it to you, but let's ¹¹²⁷⁸ move on.

A. That's not true. He was tried and he was in custody, but he was convicted only three months ago.

Q. If he was arrested in 1994 and sentenced to 20 years, which is the maximum sentence in Yugoslavia, you can't say that nothing had been done. And second, you didn't answer my question. Was there, on the territory of Serbia, a single killing committed by any paramilitary formation, any killing of a Muslim in all this time?

A. I never said anything of the kind. I never said anything about Serbia except this place of Strpci. And you can't get away with it just because this is a small place and a small area involved. It is a disgrace, a shame on Serbian leadership, to which you belong.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, could you please just answer the questions and stick to that. And don't -- it may be provoking, but try not to argue with the accused, and he will be told not to argue with you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, my questions are not provocative at all. I am just quoting the statement of Momir Bulatovic.

JUDGE MAY: They may be provocative to him. Just move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, maybe it's provocative in terms of content to this witness who is testifying falsely. But if you remember, Momir Bulatovic is a person whom he invokes all the time in his testimony as the main source of his information.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Furthermore, Bulatovic says, "I am especially surprised by the ^{11279 BLANK PAGE 11280} interpretation of his testimony concerning the peace conference in The Hague. There are two completely untruthful things there. First, that after I made my position clear concerning the proposal of Lord Carrington on the 18th of October, 1991, he said that Slobodan Milosevic crossed the entire hall and threatened him loud and clear. That sort of scandal was simply impossible at such an international conference, and --"

JUDGE MAY: The witness has already answered questions about that and he's described what happened, so let's move on to another point.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But Momir Bulatovic says: "So that is absolutely untrue. Second, another untruth regarding this statement was that later, under pressure and threat, I reversed my position and withdrew my approval of Lord Carrington's plan. Facts speak to something entirely different." I have just a few more words to say about this statement. First, Lord Carrington's plan would --

JUDGE MAY: Yes, go on.

MR. NICE: It appears that the accused is cross-examining from a statement, not from a published statement that's been published in a newspaper. Some jurisdictions, of course, say that where a document is being cross-examined from, the witness should have the right to look at the document himself, and that might be a sensible precaution in this case to ensure that things are being put in context. I'm not suggesting that the document from which the accused is cross-examining should be produced as an exhibit. I know nothing about it. But I suspect that, in fairness, it should be available in its full form for the witness to look at and ¹¹²⁸¹ insofar as I have the advantage of language speakers to assist me, it might be desirable for me to have sight of it as well.

JUDGE MAY: If it's a document that he's got, he's entitled to use it, to put it to the witness. He doesn't have to show it to you, it seems to me. I don't see why he should.

MR. NICE: There are rules and very frequently it's the case that documents are put to witnesses so they can see what's really being said from the document. Otherwise, we don't know whether it's context or not.

JUDGE MAY: I've already made it plain. It doesn't matter what's in the statement. It is only the accused's response which is evidence -- I mean the witness's response which is evidence. It doesn't matter what the statement says. I assumed it was either something sent to the accused or it's something that's been published in the press. It doesn't seem to me to make much difference.

MR. NICE: As Your Honour pleases, but --

JUDGE MAY: I'll certainly consult on that.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes, we think he's entitled to use it. He doesn't have to disclose it.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So the second untruth is related to this subject, and that is the statement that, "Under pressure and threat, I later reversed my position and withdrew my approval of Lord Carrington's plan. Facts speak differently." There are only five items, each one consisting of two ¹¹²⁸² lines. Very briefly: "First, Lord Carrington's plan would be affected only if accepted by all six Yugoslav republics. Second, the fact that the President of Serbia had reservations about one part of the plan did not mean discontinuation of the negotiating process but only its continuation until it is acceptable to all. Third, my position in The Hague was supported by the parliament of Montenegro. I was criticised but there was no pressure. Four, for the following session of the conference --"

JUDGE MAY: The witness cannot possibly follow all this. Perhaps you could have a look, if you would, at the screen, if you can read the English there, Mr. Samardzic. Let's deal with the matters which already -- the first point is that he claims, or it's being claimed that Bulatovic never reversed his position on Lord Carrington's plan. Now, is that true or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He changed his position as soon as he arrived in Podgorica, and that became known one or two days later, this reversal.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. The next item. He says -- he says that he didn't. "Four, for the following session of the Conference on Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic and I approved a joint draft amendment to the document. These amendments were supported by the Presidency of the SFRY and the parliament of Montenegro and Serbia. The Presidency of the Conference on Yugoslavia included our draft amendments in the documentation prepared for the next session on 5 November 1991. This was a new spiral in the ¹¹²⁸³ conference, making it closer to final solution.

"Six, under the leadership of Lord Carrington, the conference did not succeed. But this did not happen due to the categoric position of any individual but, as Lord Carrington said, due to the announcement of the European Union that they would recognise Croatia and Slovenia, which made these two republics lose interest in the --"

JUDGE MAY: You seem to be going a long way from the point, and we're now dealing with Mr. Bulatovic's views, which I've said are irrelevant. Now, have you a question for this witness?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Let me just add the last item in this statement that he signed.

JUDGE MAY: No. No. I'm going to stop you. You've been dealing with total irrelevances. Now, have you got a question for this witness?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I'm just going to take up ten seconds of your time to read the last sentence, which reads as follows: "As for this question and all other questions where I can contribute to establishing the full truth and the real truth, I am prepared to testify at the request of the defence of Slobodan Milosevic."

JUDGE MAY: Very well. You can call him and we'll hear what he's got to say, and these matters can be put to him. The account which this witness gives can be put to him. Now, let's move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So Mr. Samardzic, as I've read to you at the very beginning, he refers to your testimony and says that there are many falsehoods and many ¹¹²⁸⁴ misrepresented facts that are not based on a single real event from the period that you are testifying about. Is that correct, Mr. Samardzic?

A. That is not correct. What you just read now, this statement of Momir Bulatovic, shows that he changed his mind, and this so-called process after The Hague is proof of the fact that, together with you, he agreed not to follow what Lord Carrington had proposed. So he changed his mind. Everything that you have been reading out shows that he no longer accepted Lord Carrington's plan but that other ways and means were to be taken in order to resolve the Yugoslav crisis. So precisely by reading what you've been reading, you have been disputing what you have claimed.

Q. That's not my conclusion. I can only conclude that Bulatovic is fully refuting everything that you said when you invoked his name. As for what I did in The Hague on that day, I'm going to leave aside insinuations like the one that I usurped the microphone, I guess, and that Lord Carrington did not give me the floor, and Lord Carrington was chairing the meeting and that would have been highly improper. But I am going to read one paragraph to you, a paragraph that is in question, and that also fully denies what you have been saying. I am quoting my own speech and I am going to exhibit the speech, the speech in its entirety, that is.

"The proposed arrangements for the general framework agreement on the Yugoslav crisis suspend the valid constitutional and legal order in Yugoslavia. In this way, it is not only internal constitutional continuity of Yugoslavia that is being interrupted but Yugoslavia as such is being abolished as a state which has continuously existed for over 70 ¹¹²⁸⁵ years now. A decision on the abolition of a state cannot be passed by an international forum or even by the top constitution-making authority of the country. Such a decision can only be passed by the entities that founded the state at a given point in time. This state came into being through a decision reached by the Yugoslav peoples, and they are the only ones who can decide to abolish it at a referendum. Not a single participant in this conference has the mandate to do this, nor does this conference as a forum have that kind of mandate." So do you remember, Mr. Samardzic, that after that and in my speech, I said Yugoslavia could not be abolished by a stroke of the pen. I said there at that conference, I asked for the peace process to continue, to find solutions, fair solutions, solutions that would be fair to all the peoples of Yugoslavia, and so on.

I'm not going to read the entire speech because it would take up too much of my time.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, you've been reading for about five minutes -- or two minutes, anyway. Now, the witness should answer. Do you remember this speech? Do you remember what the accused said? Does what's been read out accord with your recollection, Mr. Samardzic?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. That is part of his speech. However, he is not reading the rest. Nevertheless, this shows his hypocrisy, his political hypocrisy, because Yugoslavia had already been abolished through his deeds and what his political party did. Allow me to finish. A lot had already been done for Yugoslavia to ¹¹²⁸⁶ disappear. In The Hague, he could not call for the continuation of Yugoslavia because there was no more Yugoslavia. Nevertheless, I have to add another thing. I did not say during my testimony that he had usurped the floor. Lord Carrington gave him the floor. But this was not in accordance with the rules of procedure or, rather, the order in which we were supposed to speak and that was given to us beforehand. It was Bosnia that was supposed to speak first. Mr. Milosevic took the floor first, and in this way he effectively did away with Lord Carrington's proposal. That's what I said and I stand by that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, you see that Bulatovic, as head of your delegation, is saying the contrary.

JUDGE MAY: No. It doesn't matter about that. You've heard what the witness said.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please. As opposed to many others, I do dare to make public every one of my speeches, and I'm not ashamed of a single word I said. Could you please take this copy of my speech. I see that Mr. Samardzic has been saying that I did not read all of it. I cannot read all of it because it would take up a lot of my time. It has five and a half or six pages. This is the speech I made on the 18th of October.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will exhibit that if it's given the next exhibit number when it's translated.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Defence Exhibit D44.

JUDGE MAY: Let the Prosecution see it. ^{11287 BLANK PAGE 11288}

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Samardzic, yesterday you said that after this, what followed was the Belgrade initiative on the basis of which the constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was adopted, and as you had put it, on the 27th of April, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was established. I wish to remind you precisely in this connection and also in connection with what you said a few minutes ago, that Yugoslavia had been abolished, that from the point of view of international law, what you are saying is not correct.

I have my speech here, the one I delivered on the 6th of May, 1992, in Brussels. So that is only ten days after the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was established or, rather, after the constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was adopted. In this speech, I say, first of all, that the delegations of Serbia and Montenegro shall from that point in time be considered to be the delegation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, that the adoption of the constitution was a step forward towards the stabilisation of the situation in Yugoslavia, that Yugoslavia is not a new state but a rearranged form of the state of Yugoslavia that had existed until then. And I particularly point out a declaration that was adopted along with the constitution which contains the objectives and the principles of guiding the policy that would govern the relations between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the former republics of the former Yugoslavia. There are only four points, and I'm going to read them out to you. They're contained in the declaration: "The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is prepared to observe the ¹¹²⁸⁹ interests of the former republics and it expects that its interests will also be respected and observed at the same time on a footing of equality. "The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is prepared to give its contribution to all interrupted ties on the territory of the former Yugoslavia.

"The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia does not have any territorial aspirations vis-a-vis anyone in its neighbourhood. "The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will strictly observe the objectives and principles of the UN charter, documents of the CSE and particularly the principle of not using force in resolving international disputes, and we hope that threats, blackmail will not be applied towards the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in order to bring out an unraveling of the crisis."

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, I'm going to interrupt you. Now, you have in fact been speaking for three or four minutes and I haven't stopped you. You should be able to put your defence. But we must really come to a point at which we understand what is the point that you're trying to make and what is the question for this witness?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The question for this witness is: How can he claim that Yugoslavia had been abolished? Because Slovenia and Croatia had left. I hope that not even he can deny what I also said in that speech and what I'd like to read out to him. So let him challenge it then. Just one paragraph.

JUDGE MAY: Deal with the first which you've made. Dealing with ¹¹²⁹⁰ the first point:

The point is made that you're wrong to claim that Yugoslavia had been abolished. Do you think you could deal with that or is there anything you want to add to what you've said before, Mr. Samardzic?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly. I will be very glad to answer this question. The word "Yugoslavia" means The Land of the Southern Slavs. Yugoslavia without Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Bosnia is not Yugoslavia. It is not The Land of the Southern Slavs. Yugoslavia without the other peoples. If there are only two people in Yugoslavia out of all the seven southern Slavic peoples is no longer Yugoslavia. It cannot be Yugoslavia if its population consists of Southern Slavs only to the extent of 20 per cent. What Slobodan Milosevic declared about continuity are his positions, and that has nothing to do with reality. It is true that he did advocate the state continuity of Yugoslavia, but the world did not recognise that. The international community did not recognise that continuity. And in fact, this ceased when he was replaced by the people of Serbia.

Yugoslavia itself today is changing its international status, and it accepts that what remains of that Yugoslavia, these are only the remains, that is to say Serbia and Montenegro is no longer Yugoslavia and the name has been abolished. Now it is Serbia and Montenegro. Now they are creating a state. Because what Slobodan Milosevic did on the 27th of April - and that's when he completed the job - that was not Yugoslavia. Although I was Minister of Foreign Affairs and a Member of ¹¹²⁹¹ Parliament, I publicly refused to attend the promulgation, the alleged promulgation of that Yugoslavia of his. And I did that publicly, because that was not the country that my forefathers fought for and that his forefathers fought for. Again, it was a fiction only aimed at retaining power the way he did retain power until he was replaced by the people.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right, Mr. Samardzic. At that time, I was President of Serbia. And as you know full well, I was not a candidate for the Presidency of Yugoslavia. But let me read out this paragraph and later on I'm going to refute what you said just now.

"The idea of dissociation --" this is the speech I made on the 6th of May, in Brussels: "The idea of dissociation was launched in order to conceal and indirectly legalise the one-sided secession. Such an inversion of the truth cannot be accepted, even more so because we always emphasised that we are not a hindrance in the path of those who want to leave Yugoslavia and who want to create states of their own. Let them do this in a peaceful and legal way. But by their secession, we do not cease to exist, for a simple reason; because they could pass decisions on secession that would relate only to themselves, that would not pertain to us and to our destiny. We point out today, as we have pointed out, that the right to secession cannot be stronger than the right to allegiance to one's own state, one's existing state, and we remain convinced that this is a position of principle. Rewarding secession on the one side and punishment for allegience to one's homeland on the other side and denying people the right to guard their homeland cannot lead to fair and just ¹¹²⁹² solutions."

And then I say that we want to have cooperation with the countries of the European Community, and I refer to a great many other things; the situation in Bosnia, our principled position that this should be resolved by the three constituent peoples, et cetera, et cetera. So I would like to have this exhibited as well, please.

The fact remains -- or perhaps you are challenging that fact as well, Mr. Samardzic --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I am normally a very patient person, but I must say that the manner in which you cross-examine does test one's patience. You read passages from speeches, but you do not ask questions. The Chamber has been very, very liberal with you because you are defending yourself. I think in most jurisdictions, you would not be allowed to cross-examine in this way.

You just read out a passage which is about 12 lines. What is the question? The trial here has a specific purpose. We are to determine facts, and we cannot do that if you read passages of that length without asking questions, because by the time you have finished, the witness would have forgotten the first part of the passage.

What you must do is formulate a question. You know the passage. You don't need to read it out. You have the gist of it. Formulate a question based on the passage and put it to the witness, and we can save a lot of time that way.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, this witness invoked my positions at the peace conference, and I thought that I can use the ¹¹²⁹³ authentic text. And after all, that is what Mr. May indicated yesterday, that I could show that to him in order to fully refute the statements he made.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So my question, Mr. Samardzic, is: Is it correct that the citizens of Montenegro carried out a referendum concerning the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and that it was on the basis of this referendum that Montenegro became a constituent element of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia together with the Republic of Serbia?

A. In my statement, I did say that a referendum was held, but I repeat yet again that that referendum was not carried out in a legal way, that the right question had not been put and that the rules governing referendums were not applied, so it is totally invalid and nobody in the world accepted it then as a valid document. The entire international community then condemned this referendum.

However, I have to say something about what you read out just now. Your speeches, the speeches that you made in Brussels and The Hague, you did read them but that is absolute hypocrisy. How can you say that you are giving other republics and other peoples the right to secede and at that time you already held a third of Croatia under your occupation? And you had created the Serb Krajinas with the ultimate objective of separating these territories from Croatia. And also at that time, before the war in Bosnia had started, you had counted on all of Bosnia to be Serbian.

This was a camouflage Yugoslavia. It was camouflage for the idea ¹¹²⁹⁴ of a Greater Serbia, to create some kind of state, since you had already been defeated in 1992. So what remained was to create a small Greater Serbia consisting of Serbia and Montenegro. Can you imagine what kind of a constituent element that could be, what kind of equal rights we could talk about then?

Q. Please, Mr. Samardzic. We don't have time to go into all those details. What you're here to do is to answer my questions. You said that the referendum was held, you just question its legality. But at that time, nobody questioned its legality. And let me add this: Do you recall --

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let the witness deal with that, because you're making an assertion.

Did anybody at the time question the legality of the referendum, Mr. Samardzic?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, they did. The European Community did. The representatives of the European Community, and I have a document in my possession to bear that out, where they stated that the referendum was not conducted in a legal manner. And I don't think it is necessary to prove this any further. The documents will speak for themselves, the ones that individual European countries and the European Community as a whole, when the -- a meeting of it was held and Mr. Van den Broek was there. Those documents record that the referendum in Montenegro was not a valid one and organised in a valid fashion. That it prevailed in Serbia, that was another matter, because there were different authorities there. And if the proclamation of Yugoslavia on the ^{11295 BLANK PAGE 11296} 27th of April, which emerged from that, was accepted, none of the ambassadors who were in Belgrade, except perhaps Iraq and Libya, attended or accepted this new Yugoslavia of his. Nobody. Yugoslavia was not recognised at that time. The policy was reverted towards Montenegro and Serbia afterwards, but at that time, the international community insisted upon the fact that --

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]...

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. This is once again an untruth, because apart from the ambassadors of the United States and the European Union, all the other ambassadors accredited in Yugoslavia attended the promulgation and proclamation. There are minutes and records about this. There was a videotape and footage about this and a television programme. So once again, you are speaking an untruth.

But do you remember this, Mr. Samardzic, because you say that nobody wanted to recognise it, that in fact even, if you will recall, in August 1996, I signed, I myself signed, together with Tudjman, a document on the normalisation of relations in which Croatia recognised the continuity of Yugoslavia. And that same year -- this took place in Athens, and the hosts were Greek Prime Minister Simitis of the day and the present one too and representatives of the Greek government. That document is in existence and it did accept and recognise Yugoslavia's continuity.

In October of that same year, the host was Jacques Chirac this time, to me and Mr. Izetbegovic, and we normalised relations during that ¹¹²⁹⁷ meeting between the SRY and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the provisions were contained therein which recognised the continuity of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia, throughout that time, had its representative in the United Nations, and the fact that the new quisling government threw all that away --

JUDGE MAY: You're making --

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. -- rejected all that is not an argument, sir.

JUDGE MAY: You're making a speech again. Now, what is the question for the witness?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you recall, do you remember those documents signed in 1996 in August and in October with Tudjman and Izetbegovic and the question and issue of continuity? Do you remember that?

A. Allow me to answer your question. I am talking about 1992 and not 1996. I said a moment ago that in 1992, when your so-called Yugoslavia was proclaimed, none of the large civilised countries of the world recognised that state at that time, and I remember very well that the US administration insisted upon it being called Serbia and Montenegro and not Yugoslavia.

And what happened in 1996 that this policy towards Yugoslavia underwent a change, I cannot deny that either. I'm sorry that that happened, and that is why we see complications there today. But that is the year 1996. And, Mr. Milosevic, I did not testify about 1996, I am testifying about 1992 when it was a deformed, completely deformed country ¹¹²⁹⁸ in the views of the international community.

Q. Mr. Samardzic, all right. In 1992, as you were the Foreign Minister when the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was established, do you remember how many tens of ambassadors representing foreign countries were present in that particular Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1992 right up until 1996? If you discount China, Russia, India, and the other big countries, if you don't consider these to be big countries, if you only consider the countries of the European Union and NATO pact countries to be big countries, that's your affair.

A. No. You're trying to trick me. I don't think that the big countries are only countries which belong to NATO. That's not true. I was not present because I refused to go to a meeting of that kind. If this was a demonstration of my part, I did not want to see this proclamation of Yugoslavia that did not have its Assembly to elect it but had delegates, MPs, whose mandate had expired. And these were MPs from two republics and not six. So it was your proclamation of Yugoslavia that was completely illegal and contrary to the provisions of the law, and I didn't want to go there, in protest.

Now, what you're asking about, how many ambassadors were there, I really can't say. I heard that there were just a handful, such as the representative of Cuba, of Iraq, Fidel Castro's representative, Libya's representative, and so on and so forth, their envoys. Whether India and China had their envoys there, I don't know. If they were, I withdraw what I said, that only two or three were present. But I was not there, I did not attend. All I did see was the representative of Libya. He was there. ¹¹²⁹⁹ He could be seen on television, on the television screens. What I'm saying is it doesn't matter how many of them were actually there.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let's cool down. Now, Mr. Milosevic, I think we've exhausted this topic. Now, let's move on to something else.

Yes. You wanted a speech exhibited, and we will give it the next exhibit number.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the speech made on the 6th of May in Brussels will be Defence Exhibit 45.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Before I move on, I just want to prove to you that you weren't speaking the truth here with respect to the government meeting that took place on the 1st of October and that it was precisely Bulatovic who was telling the truth.

I have here the minutes from the 46th session of the government of Montenegro held on the 26th of September, 1991, and under point 14, we see Bozidar Babic, minister who informed the government on the present security situation along the borders of Montenegro with the Republic of Croatia and the measures being undertaken to protect the frontiers and the citizens and what the government concluded in this regard. So that was the 46th session held on the 26th of September.

Do you remember, as you were the minister at the time, that at each subsequent session, the minutes from the previous meeting are first of all adopted as the first point on the agenda? Is that so, Mr. Samardzic? ¹¹³⁰⁰

A. Well, I don't know what your question is, whether I remember --

Q. My question is, as this is the minutes from the meeting of the 26th of September, and that was the 46th session that was held -- just let me finish. You have the minutes from the 47th session of the government of Montenegro that was held on the 3rd of October, for example, and this confirms and bears out the fact that the session that you mentioned of the 1st of October with the generals, Bulatovic, et cetera, was not a government session but a commemorative meeting about which Momir Bulatovic speaks in his own statement. So it was the 46th session and the 47th session.

JUDGE MAY: What is your point? Are you saying that there weren't any minutes of the meeting so therefore it shows that it was something other than a normal session? Is that the point?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The point is that the witness spoke untruths on this subject as well, and that Bulatovic in his statement published the fact that this was not a government meeting that we -- was held.

JUDGE MAY: What is it that you're putting to the witness to refute what he says? He says he's told you the truth about it. Now, what is it you're putting to him to refute it?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am putting to him that I wish him to confirm that that infamous session of the 4th of October, along with the presence of Bulatovic, the eight officers of which four generals, was no government meeting at all but that it was a commemorative meeting, as Bulatovic says. ¹¹³⁰¹

JUDGE MAY: Very well. He's already, I think, dealt with that. Was it a government -- a formal government meeting that day or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On that day, an official government meeting was held, and I stand by that. That is the whole truth. What he is putting forward now, that is to say Mr. Milosevic, are falsifications, and it is quite untrue that it was a commemorative meeting. It was a session, I repeat once again, to discuss the defence of the country in the face of the aggression by Croatia on Boka Kotorska, Montenegro. They did not come to express their commiseration but they came in full battle dress and not in their ceremonial dress for a commemorative meeting. So this was a meeting to discipline Montenegro in an unjust, unfair war against Croatia, a war which took so many young lives with it, young lives from Montenegro. And what you're saying now, this is living falsification, and I assume that that's what you want.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Samardzic, I'm very sorry that you are speaking so many untruths, but what I have here are the minutes of your own government's sessions. I didn't claim that there was a commemorative meeting, but I claimed what Momir Bulatovic said and read out. And we can see that the 46th government meeting was held on the 26th of September, and the 47th government session was held on the 3rd of October. Therefore, that session that you mention of the 1st of October was no government session at all. It was some other kind of meeting. But let's move on. It is precisely in the minutes --

JUDGE MAY: No. You must let the witness deal with it. ¹¹³⁰² What the accused is saying, apparently, is that there were no official minutes, or that the official minutes don't contain a reference to this meeting and, therefore, it was not a government meeting. Now, can you -- is there anything you'd like to say about that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes. At this point in time, after the passage of ten years, I cannot remember what is said in what minutes but I think that this is another provocation and I'm sure that the minutes do exist but I can't say with any certainty. What I have said I stand by. It was a government session. Whether the minutes were recorded or not, I can't say with any certainty but I do believe they were. That the generals were present, they were. My memory has not let me down on that score. And so were the other Montenegrin leaders. And the session was devoted not to the commemoration but to the war efforts against Croatia, and that is the sole truth. Everything else is an attempt to bypass the issue and to seek ways of proving that this was not done. It was done. It was a session to involve the war in -- to involve Montenegro in the war with Croatia, to show that the two were at war whereas Serbia was standing by. That was the object.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please don't take up too much of my time. I am presenting the bare facts here and no assertions or anything else. So I have presented the facts pertaining to the government sessions. Did you attend the 26th of September government session?

A. Probably I did. I didn't testify at all about that session.

Q. And did you attend the session on the 3rd of October, the ^{11303 BLANK PAGE 11304} government session?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Let me then read out to you -- read out to you the minutes from that session that was held. Just let me see. Let me take a moment to find the 3rd of October and the minutes thereof, the government meeting held. Presiding was Mr. Djukanovic, and the stenograms are held of all this. Absent was Zoran Lilic, Vice-Premier, Predrag Goranovic, Vojan Djukanovic [as interpreted], Pavle Bulatovic, and Ilija Lakosic [phoen], and Nikola Samardzic, members of the government. You did not attend that meeting.

At the meeting of the 26th, the following were absent, among others, Nikola Samardzic, et cetera, et cetera, members of the government. Now I want to ask you this: You said that it was after that meeting of the 18th of October, at the conference which was chaired by Lord Carrington, that the Belgrade initiative followed. Let me just tell you that in this -- these minutes dated the 3rd of October, that is to say 15 days before the meeting was held under the chairmanship of Lord Carrington, under point 2, it says that -- and you can look for the original minutes, they will -- the government apparently will give you, looked at the foundations for setting up Yugoslavia and, in brackets, it says, "The Belgrade initiative which was sent to the government by the Montenegrin Assembly for discussion."

So you were telling an untruth there too, Mr. Samardzic. Fifteen days before that, the government presents its views and states its position pertaining to the Belgrade initiative sent by the Montenegrin ¹¹³⁰⁵ Assembly. So that means even prior to that. So you are reversing the facts here and times, and quite blatantly telling untruths. Let me remind you what it says here.

JUDGE MAY: No. Let the witness deal with what you've read out so far.

Mr. Samardzic, it's said that you're not dealing the truth. It's your opportunity now to deal with what the accused has put to you, should you wish to do so.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that after The Hague, the Belgrade initiative received the force and strength to replace what was proposed by Lord Carrington. I did not refer to the rumours and stories put out pertaining to the Belgrade initiative. Probably what Mr. Milosevic just read out was on the agenda of that government meeting, as can be seen from the minutes, because it says that I myself was not present. I was absent from the meeting. As I was the director of the Jugooceanija company, I was very often late to meetings and the minutes probably recorded my absence at these two meetings. However, so far, I have not made any statements with respect to them, nor did I take into account the conclusions made at those meetings. On the 4th of October, I did arrive, but I arrived late.

Now, whether I was present at the 27th meeting, perhaps -- so much time has gone by, perhaps I wasn't. I don't remember, because -- but nothing important on the 27th of September was discussed because the war hadn't begun yet.

Now, what I testified about, and I stand by this, is what happened ¹¹³⁰⁶ on the 1st of October. On the 1st of October, that was the date when the meeting of the generals took place and the members of the Montenegrin government, when they met members of the Presidency of Montenegro, and I stand by that. There is absolutely no possible lie there or any fabrications or untruths. All that I said was the truth.

Q. You are testifying to a government meeting that did not take place but not the one that did take place. Now, please present your views with respect to what I'm now going to read to you from the minutes, and it has to do with the opinions of the government about the Belgrade initiative, and this was a joint initiative of Serbia and Montenegro, not only Belgrade, and I quote, and I will also tender it into evidence: "With this regard, the government gives the following views: The groundwork for relations within Yugoslavia assert that Yugoslavia is a community of equal peoples, republics and citizens. In accordance with the principles of the broadest freedoms and rights of citizens based on parliamentary democracy, market economy, and equality of all types of property and ownership, as well as common interests of republics and citizens, respect for human rights, unified market, monetary system, foreign affairs, security, and unified armed forces as a sovereign country within the borders of its constitution-determined competencies with the republics within its composition as a community where every possibility of national, ethnic, republic, religious and other domination is ruled out. The basis for the future structure of Yugoslavia should express to the greatest possible extent the interests of its citizens to live together in a state following the loftiest standards of modern civilisation. This ¹¹³⁰⁷ document, after being approved by the respective parliaments, should serve as the basis for developing new ideas," et cetera, et cetera. Mr. Samardzic, as you can see, the main qualities emphasised in this document are equality of republics, equality of peoples, independence of republics, a unified state. Where do you see Greater Serbia in this under the name of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia? How can you see it here where the keyword is "independence and equality"? Year 1991, may I remind you.

A. In September 1991, which you're talking about, Greater Serbia, if there is only 95 per cent of the population of the Greater Serbia and only 5 per cent of the population of Montenegro, that amounts to Greater Serbia. There is no equality to speak of, and nobody could make it. And what you are reading is sheer words.

Q. Mr. Samardzic, I'm reading you what your own government, of which you were a member, noted. And what you are considering to be a deficiency I believe to be a virtue. It is true that Serbia is 18 times larger than Montenegro, but it is also true that, despite that, republics are equal in every respect in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, or are you going to gainsay this as well? Are you perhaps asking that your qualification of this constitution which you qualified as botched should be accepted and the opinion of the government of Montenegro dismissed? Because the government of Montenegro says completely the opposite, and you supported it at the time.

A. No, I never supported it, even at the time. I never was in favour of that state. I did not attend the proclamation ceremony. And as for ¹¹³⁰⁸ equality between Serbia and Montenegro, it was impossible in all these past ten or 11 years, as it was founded. Therefore, what you are reading may be written in those declarations, and it is not only the position of the Montenegrin government but after ten or 15 days in The Hague, Momir Bulatovic, president of the Presidency of Montenegro, assumed a completely different position, opposite to the Belgrade initiative, regarding Lord Carrington's proposal. He was the first one to refuse it.

Q. Since that is completely contrary to what Bulatovic is saying, I would only ask --

JUDGE MAY: No. We cannot go over these positions again. We've been over your position. You've heard what the witness has says. We've been over The Hague conference. Now, let us move to something else.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. I have to hurry this up. I have many questions, and I expect this witness to say that he didn't say even what he actually said. You see here in your statement, since you've mentioned it, you said yesterday that you had met with leaders from Republika Srpska, with the mediation of Milo Djukanovic, in Bar. And then for reasons of your own, which I cannot even guess at but they must have to do with your personal interests and this false indictment which can only be proved by lies, not by truth --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, come to a question instead of this sort of abuse.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, here, I'll read out to you from your own statement, page 8, ¹¹³⁰⁹ paragraph 1. First full paragraph, I mean:

"Much more than Bulatovic, Djukanovic contacted with other leaders in Yugoslavia. He kept trying to gain influential friends. For example, I know that he brought the Bosnian Serb leadership to his house in Bar for meetings. I had a home in Budva, and on one occasion I ran into Djukanovic in town. It was unusual, but he invited me to accompany him to Bar where he was entertaining some friends from Republika Srpska. I went with him, and when we arrived, I met Momcilo Krajisnik, Biljana Plavsic, and Nikola Koljevic, who were all there. They were all talking about how they were going to build this new Serbian state in Bosnia. I didn't stay long with them, though, and instead went to visit some friends who live in Bar." That's the end of it.

MR. NICE: He missed a line out. If he's going to quote, would he quote in full, please.

JUDGE MAY: The point that's made, would you use the full quotation.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I read out the entire quotation. "This new Serbian state in Bosnia." And then, "I remember also that every time they referred to Muslims, they called them Turks. I didn't stay long with them and instead went to visit some friends who lived in Bar." I don't see that I had skipped anything of essence. I'm trying to say that this witness is lying, because yesterday he said he had found himself in a public place - a tavern, a cafe or something - and he was trying to accuse Djukanovic of something that Djukanovic cannot possibly be guilty of. ¹¹³¹⁰

A. That's not true I was trying to blame Djukanovic or accuse him. What you have just read is a misrepresentation of my previous statement. I only said that I went to Bar with Djukanovic and that I had met them. Djukanovic has no house in Bar. He didn't have it then, and I don't believe he has it today, so we couldn't have been in his home. I couldn't have said it.

What I did say and what is relevant is what I said yesterday. I see nothing bad about the fact that I met up with some people in casual --

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness finish.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let us make this clear.

A. You are trying to trick me now as you've been trying to trick me all along. Nobody accused President Djukanovic of anything. We just met by chance in Budva and went to Bar. I met these Bosnians in a cafe. I recognised them from television. They started talking about Republika Srpska. They mentioned Turks. That much is true because that's how they called Muslims in Bosnia. And then I left. I don't see anything that accuses Djukanovic in what I said, nor does it matter at all. And what you are trying to put to me is completely untrue.

Q. Another quotation has to do with this: "During the summer of 1991, I was aware of at least five ships that docked in Montenegro carrying weapons. Milo Djukanovic's brother, Aleksandar - Aco - Djukanovic, facilitated these shipments with the police military. I do not know from where the shipments originated, but after they arrived in Bar, the arms were transported in military vehicles onto the Serbs in the ^{11311 BLANK PAGE 11312} Krajina and in Bosnia for distribution. During the same period, the Montenegrin Ministry of Interior began distributing weapons to people in Montenegro who were known to have a Chetnik orientation and those were supportive of the designs for a Greater Serbia. This was coordinated by Deputy Interior Minister Nikola Pejakovic."

I am quoting your statement, the witness statement that you signed, Mr. Samardzic, and you are now claiming that this is a misrepresentation on my part.

A. Of course it is. What I said about Pejakovic is true. He did distribute weapons to Chetnik elements. And that Djukanovic was involved with the weapons, that is something that must have been misunderstood, because when I was giving my statement, I meant Jasmir Vasiljevic [phoen]. And all these are assumptions, anyway. And these were all the dealings involving weapons. That's all I know. I know these dealings existed, I know about these ships. I am a naval man, I know that these ships were berthed there and I gave my statement about it.

Q. Mr. Samardzic, please take your witness statement and tell me, because all I read out is here on the transcript. What did I misquote? I read your statement, signed by you, word-for-word. Are you saying that I did not read it correctly?

A. No, I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is that it's not a real statement of mine. It may have been misunderstood, because I didn't accuse Djukanovic or his brother ever of having anything to do with these weapons.

Q. Do you still say that this part of your statement is made up? ¹¹³¹³

A. No, I'm saying it's in error.

Q. How do you think they can make an error introducing new names in the statement?

A. Well, it is an error. If you want, I made it, but I wasn't lying. I said all I know about the weapons. I know that the weapons arrived on ships and that suddenly it disappeared. Where, I don't know.

Q. Do you mean to say that what you said in your written statement you signed and said by mistake?

A. No. There's no mistake except that I didn't include Djukanovic's brother in all this because that's not true.

Q. Is it written in your statement?

A. It probably is.

Q. Does it mean it's falsified, forged?

A. No, it isn't forged. It may be an error. I didn't repeat this mistake here in court, nor will I accept it.

Q. All right. Shall I read out to you one more --

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to help the Chamber. It's on page 9, paragraph 2 of his witness statement given to investigators.

JUDGE MAY: We haven't got the statement, but thank you for that information.

MR. NICE: It's available.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We better have it exhibited. We'll have it after the adjournment. ¹¹³¹⁴ Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Speaking of - and I'm quoting your statement again - as to why Bulatovic and Djukanovic --

JUDGE MAY: I'm reminded that the Prosecution wanted to raise something, and I said they could raise it before the adjournment. We'll continue -- Mr. Milosevic, we'll continue with your examination after the adjournment.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I only want you to bear in mind that we started this session with a five-minute delay and you are taking away five more minutes plus ten minutes you owe me for tomorrow.

JUDGE MAY: It will be recorded, Mr. Milosevic, don't worry. You won't lose any time.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Fine. Fine.

JUDGE MAY: Can the witness withdraw or --

MR. NICE: Indeed he should withdraw. It's a private session that I want to deal with.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Samardzic, we're going to adjourn now for lunch. Could you be back, please, at half past two.

[The witness stood down]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Private session.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹¹³¹⁵ Page 11315 - redacted - private session

¹¹³¹⁶ Page 11316 - redacted - private session

¹¹³¹⁷ Page 11317 - redacted - private session

¹¹³¹⁸

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will adjourn now. 2.35.

--- Luncheon recess taken at 1.04 p.m. ^{11319 BLANK PAGE 11320}

--- On resuming at 2.37 p.m.- - [Open Session]

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Witness statements of the witness, with attachments, statements, I think being in both English and B/C/S, have now been provided.

JUDGE MAY: What are the attachments?

MR. NICE: They're simply part of the original statement, exhibits to which he then referred. To some degree they are repeated here, to some degree they are separate.

JUDGE MAY: Well, we don't need to exhibit the attachments, simply the statement, but we'll take it as it is now and it can be given an exhibit number.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, it will be marked Prosecutor's Exhibit 339.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope that you have established that it is twenty minutes to three now.

Secondly, before I continue, I asked for these minutes of the meetings of the government of Montenegro that are official records of the government of Montenegro and that refer to many of the points that the witness made here, namely that what he was saying was quite false. I wanted them to be exhibited. I think that these are official transcripts and that therefore you can include them.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now we can go on. ¹¹³²¹

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In your statement --

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. We'll get a number for that.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Defence Exhibit 46.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In your statement, you say -- this is page 8, the paragraph one before last: "As for why Bulatovic and Djukanovic embraced Milosevic's plans so enthusiastically, I think there are several reasons. Bulatovic liked being the president of Montenegro. He wanted to hold on to that and that meant slavishly supporting Milosevic no matter what. Djukanovic, on the other hand, wanted to advance even further. He was extremely ambitious and saw himself perhaps becoming Milosevic's top deputy and one day successor or possibly becoming ruler of some expanded territories in the new Greater Serbia."

Tell me, please, did you ever hear either me or Bulatovic or Djukanovic say anything about any kind of Greater Serbia on any occasion? Just say yes or no.

A. Yes, I heard you talking about a Greater Serbia.

Q. Tell me, please, because this is absolutely untrue, what did you hear me say? Where did I say it and what did I say?

A. At the conference in The Hague, you were advocating a Greater Serbia, for the Serb Krajina to remain within some new state. Also, you spoke about all the Serbs living in the same state. And that you did not refer to that once, you referred to it several times. Wait a minute, let ¹¹³²² me finish now. You said several times that all Serbs should live in one state. You created a Greater Serbia as you created a Serb Krajina practically all the way up to Karlobag.

Secondly, your candidate for the president of Serbia, the current one, Vojvoda Seselj, is talking about a Greater Serbia to Karlobag and Igalo non-stop. That is the candidate for the president of Serbia that you have supported. This is your candidate. He has always asked for a Greater Serbia, and he goes even further than that.

JUDGE MAY: We cannot deal with the current political situation, Mr. Samardzic. We are dealing with events ten years ago, as you know. Was Mr. Seselj saying things like that at the time?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely. He talked about that the most then and now. That is my statement, that he did not change any of it. As a matter of fact, he said that Rijeka was the main Serbian port and Rijeka is even further away.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Samardzic, please save my time. You know full well that my position regarding Yugoslavia was that it should be preserved and that that is in the interest of all the Yugoslav peoples and that the Serb people have an additional interest because in that Yugoslavia, Serbs live in one state. That state in which the Serbs lived was Yugoslavia, not any kind of Greater Serbia. So did you ever hear me speaking about a Greater Serbia?

A. What you said, that the Serbs should live in one state, that was greater Serbia, and Yugoslavia had fallen apart. It no longer existed. ¹¹³²³ For me, Yugoslavia --

Q. All right. All right, Mr. Samardzic. So Yugoslavia was actually a Greater Serbia.

A. No, no.

Q. Let me ask you something else. Did you ever hear Bulatovic or Djukanovic advocating the idea of a Greater Serbia?

A. I never said that I -- that they advocated that. This is nowhere in my statement.

Q. I've just quoted your statement. That's why I'm asking you why you could have -- why you said something like that about the two of them.

A. This statement is the way it is, but I never said that they were in favour of a Greater Serbia.

Q. Also you say in the statement you should also understand that both of them -- I'm continuing that paragraph: "They were both anti-Catholic, extremely anti-Catholic and anti-Croatian. Djukanovic's grandfather Blaze was a Chetnik commander killed during World War II. Djukanovic revered him and in fact named his son after him.

"Bulatovic's mother was from Herzegovina and her father was killed by the Ustasha during the Second World War. She raised him with this intense hatred for the Croats and for Roman Catholics in general. So because of this combination of personal ambition and just pure hatred towards anyone and anything non-Orthodox, Bulatovic and Djukanovic dragged Montenegro down Milosevic's path to disaster."

You say here that they have great hatred for anything non-Orthodox, as if they were some kind of Orthodox fanatics. How can you ¹¹³²⁴ say that when you know that's not true?

A. That's not what I meant to say, that they were Orthodox fanatics. But at that time, that's what this euphoria was like when the war against Croatia started, that everything that is Croatian is Ustasha and that it should be fought against. That is what I said, in that sense, something similar to that, but I don't see that exactly the way you read it.

Q. Mr. Samardzic, I did not say anything. I just read your statement, your signed statement. So it's not my words, it's your words.

A. I did not sign that. I gave statements that were similar to that, but there is no signature of mine there, and obviously you are adding things to this. I am telling you what I am saying to you now and what I said in front of the Court. That is what I'm saying and that is what is true.

Q. Please. That's what it says here. Here it says: "Witness certification: I have read this statement that consists of 34 pages and it contains everything that I said to the best of my recollection and knowledge. I give this statement voluntarily, and I am aware that it can be used in court proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for Violations of International Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia and also that I can be called to give evidence in court." And the date is there when the statement was given, that is to say the 23rd of October, 2000, and now saying that that is not your statement is -- well, let me not use too harsh a word. I don't think this is serious.

Also, what do you have to say with respect to a paragraph on page ¹¹³²⁵ 22? You say, as I mentioned before -- this the penultimate paragraph on page 22: "Djukanovic maintained close contacts with the leadership of Republika Srpska, RS. Large quantities of fuel and weapons were given to the Serbs across the Drina and Milo's brother, Aco Djukanovic, is to be credited with that. Even when Milosevic imposed the blockade on the Drina, even after they rejected the Vance Plan, this equipment still continued to flow into Republika Srpska across the border with Montenegro. As far as I know, international observers were only at Scepan Polje, a single border crossing. So this smuggling went on unhindered." How can you say that when you don't know about that? Why are you accusing people without having any arguments for that?

A. I'm not accusing people there. It was quite well known that weapons did go through Montenegro to Bosnia and that the government of Montenegro knew about that. When this was going on, this was during the war in Bosnia, I was no longer a minister, but I did find out from various people that weapons were getting through and they were.

Q. You don't have any firsthand knowledge about this. You are involved in hearsay, in rumours.

A. This is not hearsay or rumours. These were generally known things in Montenegro. At that time, I was no longer minister. And it is in that sense that I meant it. That's how I said it.

Q. You also say: "Paramilitary groups that operated first in Croatia and then in Bosnia had training and support facilities in Montenegro. I was aware of at least two large training facilities that were in operation in late 1991 and into 1992. One was at Lukovo, near Niksic, and the other ¹¹³²⁶ was in Golobovci at the military airport in Podgorica. These clearly were known to be Babic, Bulatovic, Pavle Bulatovic, Pejakovic and Djukanovic." And then, in brackets, "Niksic is Djukanovic's hometown." This is the only argument you have in order to confirm this that you have been accusing him of?

A. I am not accusing him at all and it has nothing to do with anything that Niksic is his hometown. I probably said this in a different context.

Q. I'm reading your own statement.

A. And I'm giving you an answer, and let me answer. There were centres in Montenegro, and that is correct. However, I wanted to avoid mentioning that now, what I said two years ago but now you're insisting. Yes, it is true. There were training centres in Montenegro.

Q. You say: "There is no way that they could have operated without their acquiescence and their support. These paramilitary groups were responsible for the cleansing of Muslim families from their homes in the Bukovica area. This had been the last remnant of a rural Muslim population in Montenegro left after the 1924 ethnic cleansing of Muslims from Montenegro. The work of the paramilitaries was common knowledge and was clearly done with the knowledge of the police and military." That is your assertion.

A. I assert that at that time, Muslim families in Bukovica, many of them, were massacred. That's a well-known fact, and that occurred in Montenegro.

Q. You say further on: "At the very beginning of the war in Bosnia, ^{11327 BLANK PAGE 11328} I remember Djukanovic saying at a meeting of the government that, 'We (Montenegrins) had to stop the Muslims from killing our Serb brothers.' However, once Milosevic made the decision to 'withdraw' the JNA from Bosnia, though, very little was ever said about Bosnia any more in open meetings. Since Serbia was officially out of Bosnia, so was Montenegro." Well, do you know?

A. What do you mean?

Q. Without any quotation marks, when the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was proclaimed, all the citizens of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were supposed to withdraw into Yugoslavia. That is to say both from Serbia and from Montenegro.

A. Please repeat your question. What are you asking me? What do you want me to say?

Q. I want you to tell me why are you accusing Djukanovic yet again that he explained at a government meeting that you were supposed to struggle against Muslims and that you were supposed to stop them from killing our Serb brothers, et cetera? I did not see this in any of the minutes of the Montenegrin government.

A. Two years have gone by. I don't really remember that that's what I stated. To tell you the truth, I can hardly believe that I put it exactly that way, but if that's the way it's been transcribed --

Q. Mr. Samardzic, in 2000 you remember what happened in 1991, and in 2002 you don't remember what happened in 2000.

A. Yes, it's possible that I don't remember what happened yesterday. That's quite possible. ¹¹³²⁹

Q. And also, you say a certain number of Muslims from Foca were thrown into the Piva Lake, and so on and so forth. Is that what you claim?

A. Yes. A family of Muslims was thrown into the Lake Piva, but I never accused Djukanovic of having done that. That's what you are adding, what you are inventing.

Q. I'm not inventing anything.

A. Yes, you are. Does it say that anywhere? Is that written anywhere?

Q. Please give me an answer to the following question: You say -- you attack Cosic, the president of the FRY at the time, otherwise, he is no doubt the greatest living Serbian author. You say that in Herceg-Novi -- you say this in the penultimate paragraph on page 24, that: "Soon after he became head of state, he made a speech and he said that Yugoslavia would never give up on Prevlaka and that the struggle for Prevlaka is not only the struggle of the people of Herceg-Novi and Kotor but also of Serbs from Kragujevac -- Serbs in Kragujevac and Pancevo. One week later, though, Milosevic told him to sign the agreement for the JNA to withdraw from Prevlaka and for it to be turned over to Croatia albeit under UN supervision."

How can you say that? Cosic was older than me. How can I give orders to him? And secondly, wasn't his -- the step he took a step towards peace, to have UN monitors there until a final settlement? You could have known that at least, Mr. Samardzic. Isn't that the way it was?

A. No. It was the way you read it out, the way I said it. ¹¹³³⁰

Q. All right.

A. Let me answer. That's precisely the speech he made in Herceg-Novi, and he was watching Prevlaka. Seven days later, on your orders, he signed or, rather, he agreed with Tudjman to return Prevlaka to Croatia. What is so surprising about that? He did not return Prevlaka on his own. He wouldn't have done it without you.

Q. All right. All right. Since you say in this statement, and I'm sure you're not going to challenge that because you are now speaking in this way, nobody brought into question the fact that Prevlaka was part of Croatian territory and always had been. That's at the end of page 24. And now I'm asking you the following: Since this story of yours concerning Prevlaka is particularly interesting, you say that Prevlaka was invented as a pretext in order to attack Dubrovnik, and that nobody brought that into question, that it was always Croatian territory. And now I'm asking you, because you are the first person to bring that into question, in the newspapers dated the 3rd of October, 1991, that is to say the time when you say that you were the staunchest critic of the war, and now I'm quoting what you said, this is the Pobjeda newspaper, the leading newspaper in Montenegro, and I'm quoting you: "As for the question of Prevlaka, we have to prove that Prevlaka is part of our territory and that it was never Croatian. With what right are they taking it now and attacking because of that? Since it is so, we have to fight because we are defending ourselves."

This is what Pobjeda published and you stated --

JUDGE MAY: I'm stopping this. It's right that the witness should ¹¹³³¹ be able to deal with this. First of all, do you remember what's ascribed to you as being said on the 3rd of October 1991? Does it sound as though you might have said that? Can you help us?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. This is absolutely made up. I don't think so. If it is in Pobjeda, then it is a forgery or, rather, it was invented by Konatar who was then editor of Pobjeda and who was a major advocate of the war with Croatia. That is why it is called Konatar's Pobjeda. I never could have stated anything like that, nor did I.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. All right, Mr. Samardzic. It is sufficient to say that that is not correct, and that is even what you stated at an extraordinary session of the Presidency of the government of Montenegro that was held on that day; is that right?

A. You mean what Pobjeda wrote? No way, no. It is certain that I never said that, never. Definitely not.

Q. Mr. Samardzic, on the 12th of September at the plenary session of the conference in The Hague -- as regards Pobjeda, it would be easy to find. But in The Hague, you said that Montenegro advocated the preservation of Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav Federation. Now here you are saying that Montenegro advocated a Greater Serbia. I shall remind you. I'm quoting you now. This is the statement made by Nikola Samardzic, Minister of Foreign Affairs in Montenegro at the plenary session of the conference in The Hague on the 12th of September, 1991: "It is generally known that from the very outset, Montenegro advocated the preservation of Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav federation but ¹¹³³² that changes were supposed to be carried out between the republican and federal authorities so that the new federation would be better than the one until now."

So what, you advocated -- what did you advocate, actually? Did Montenegro advocate a Greater Serbia or the preservation of Yugoslavia?

A. I did say that Montenegro -- where did I say that Montenegro advocated Greater Serbia? Why are you trying to trick me into saying that? I say that that's what you advocated.

Q. You are saying here that in Montenegro, there was a feeling in favour of --

JUDGE MAY: Wait a minute. One at a --

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. -- there was a feeling in favour of a Greater Serbia and that is what is present throughout your testimony.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, what is suggested is that you made a statement in The Hague on the 12th of September of that year, and the statement attributed to you is -- well, as the accused has read out, "Montenegro advocated the preservation of Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav federation." Did you make a statement to that effect or anything like it?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, I did. That's the statement I made, and that can be proven by these documents from this session at the beginning of October. And then the leadership of Montenegro advocated peace so that Yugoslavia could be maintained in a way. At that time, there was sill no Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of Slobodan Milosevic. I don't see anything bad in that, in what the accused ¹¹³³³ Milosevic is trying to put into my mouth.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Samardzic, I see nothing bad there too because I always strove to preserve Yugoslavia. What I see that is bad is that you're saying something quite different to what you were saying at the time, and that's the point, not that you advocated the wrong thing. Let me also quote the next sentence from that same speech yours at the conference in The Hague, and it is contained in official documents. At that same session you said the following quite literally: "Montenegro in respecting the rights of Croatia and Slovenia to self-determination, always stressed that the Serbs living in Croatia have the right to remain within Yugoslavia." That is the exact quotation from that same speech of yours. "Fully respecting the rights of the peoples of Croatia and Slovenia to self-determination and to secession from Yugoslavia, Montenegro has always emphasised that the same rights should be enjoyed by the Serb people living in Croatia, that is to say that they may be allowed to opt and live and remain in Yugoslavia. We are convinced that this is the rightful democratic and peaceful solution for the position of the Serb people in Croatia and that is one of the basic factors for the overall solution to the Yugoslav crisis."

I agree with that quotation of yours, Mr. Samardzic.

JUDGE MAY: Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Why are you now saying --

JUDGE MAY: Wait. Let's first of all check that the witness ¹¹³³⁴ agrees that he said this lengthy quotation you're reading out again. Mr. Samardzic, you can see it on the monitor. Do you agree that you said this or something like it at the meeting?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Eleven years have elapsed since that time. I quite certainly did say something very similar. I did not say that the Serb people in Croatia should break away from Croatia and leave but that a settlement should be found for the Serb people in Croatia. I said something along those lines on that occasion. So the first part of the quotation is correct. The second one is an approximation, and I see nothing bad or terrible in what I said at that time at that meeting in defending the interests of Montenegro.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I see nothing terrible or bad either. What I do see as terrible and bad is that you're saying quite the opposite now.

A. What is it that I'm saying that is contrary to what I said then? Tell me. When I said that Montenegro pursued different lines. I kept stressing that the Montenegro leadership wanted to get out from under your influence, at least as far as it was possible.

Q. This has nothing to do with my question. You spoke something quite different then to what you're saying now. You now -- you said that the same rights should be enjoyed by the Serbian people living in Croatia, namely that they could opt to live in Yugoslavia, to continue to live in Yugoslavia. Why are you saying something quite different now, Mr. Samardzic?

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, did you ever say -- ^{11335 BLANK PAGE 11336}

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Judge.

JUDGE MAY: Did you ever say that the Serbs in Croatia could opt to live in Yugoslavia?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did. I remember that. I have just recalled those meetings, and I do remember having said that at one of them.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Yes, Mr. Milosevic. What is your point? What is the point you're trying to make with this witness in these lengthy quotations?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The point is precisely in the fact that the witness who at the time said things that were very reasonable, rational, and quite proper and correct, now calls all of that a crime and refers to it as being Greater Serbian expansionism, et cetera.

JUDGE MAY: What are you challenging in particular?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am challenging the verisimilitude of that, because this witness, Mr. May, is lying. That is what we're dealing with here. As he says in his statement --

JUDGE MAY: I don't understand why you put these points. You make these lengthy quotations; the witness agrees with you. Now, what is the point you want us to take since we're going to have to judge the truthfulness of this evidence?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, he claims that Serbia and Montenegro and all of that together under my leadership had taken up positions along the border of Karlobag-Karlovac-Virovitica, whereas now he says that the Serb people living in Krajina, if they wished to remain ¹¹³³⁷ within Yugoslavia, have the right to do so, to remain within Yugoslavia. That is something he advocated and strove for, whereas in his statement and testimony, he refers to that ten years later, here, as Greater Serbian expansionism and a crime. That's what I'm saying. I think that's quite obvious.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you are simply not making yourself plain, but we'll allow the witness to deal with this. It may be said, this point may be said: Did you at the time - and perhaps you can help with us this - complain about Serb -- what you now say about Serb expansionism and the plans for a Greater Serbia? Can you help us with that?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May --

JUDGE MAY: Don't interrupt. Don't interrupt. I'm asking the witness a question.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time, I did speak about the expansion and about Greater Serbia and taking over territory by force, territory of Croatia as far as I knew at the time, and I knew less about it then than I do now, and taking territories from Croatia by force. This is expansionism, and I condemned it then and condemn it now. And that was borne out by Mr. Kacic and Mr. Wejnaendts as well in their books. I condemned violence, the violence that was directed against Croatia and its territory, and that nothing to do with the right of the Serb people to self-determination, what he is criticising me for now. So I presented this view at the meeting, and I stand by it now, and I stood by it then, and I condemn what was done in Croatia by the ¹¹³³⁸ so-called Yugoslav army under your leadership. That is what I condemn, what was done and perpetrated in Croatia by force.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So you call one and the same concept, the right of Serbs to live in and remain in Yugoslavia, that same concept now ten years later you are referring to and calling Greater Serbian expansionism; is that it?

A. This once again is a trick, because that is not how things stand. It is a complete trick on your part. I still think that the Serb people have the right to self-determination. That means that the Serb people in Croatia have the right to have their own autonomy, as was proposed by Lord Carrington himself, and you should have proposed this and not sent an army against Croatia.

Q. Mr. Samardzic, you know nothing about all that because you wouldn't be saying what you're saying now if you did, but let me be more specific. In that same speech of yours at the plenary session in The Hague - so this is no newspaper article, it is your speech - in that, you say the following: "Montenegro always strove and is still striving for the fact that the existing borders between the Yugoslav republics should remain unchanged on condition that Yugoslavia remains as a state and an international legal subject."

Do you remember having said that?

A. Yes, I do. What's bad in that?

Q. That means that if Yugoslavia is preserved, that the boundaries and borders should be not changed. Now, who called for a change in the borders? Was it the Serbs in Croatia if Yugoslavia was preserved? Do you ¹¹³³⁹ remember that they voted in favour of preserving Yugoslavia? Isn't that right?

A. Well, Yugoslavia had already almost disappeared by that time, and Croatia had proclaimed itself an independent state, so it's no use talking about preserving Yugoslavia at that time because Yugoslavia had already ceased to exist.

Q. How can you then say that Yugoslavia -- that Montenegro strove and is still striving? Why were you striving for that then when you say that Yugoslavia no longer existed, had already disappeared?

A. Well, it was still recognised officially but it had actually disappeared, whereas Montenegro did strive to preserve Yugoslavia. That's it. What do you want?

Q. Yes. But you used the past tense and the present tense.

A. Well, maybe that's a mistake but I used the past tense.

Q. You used both the present and the past tense.

A. Well, don't hold me to just one single word.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now, as this is the statement of your esteemed witness Mr. Samardzic and it is the speech he made in The Hague, I would like to tender this into evidence. Now I can move on to the next question.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be marked Defence Exhibit 47.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Samardzic, I have a document here which you tabled, Nikola J. ¹¹³⁴⁰ Samardzic, Foreign Minister, and Momo Knezevic, Minister of Justice, Titograd. The 15th of September 1991 is the date and you submitted a report on the work to the Ministerial Conference on Yugoslavia. Now, tell me this, please: You state in that report -- the report is a written one, you submitted it. "At a separate meeting with Lord Carrington, we presented a number of details to substantiate the positions put forward at the plenary conference, and they are as follows: The conflicts in Croatia emanated through the fact that the Serb people living in that republic were in jeopardy." Isn't that right, Mr. Samardzic? That is what it says in your own report, that the conflicts in Croatia followed on from the fact that the Serbs were threatened there. And now you say that they were threatened because Milosevic went to -- waged a conquest for the borders up until Karlobag.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness deal with it, please. Yes. That's what's alleged that you reported at the time.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What we did was to write a report. I recognise that we did write this. We presented it, and we told Lord Carrington that we would do so, to justify what was going on at the time in Croatia so that we could in a way protect that party at that time, and I recognise that I did not say all things quite exactly and precisely in my talk with Lord Carrington.

Q. Well, all right. In the report, you go on to write the following, Mr. Samardzic, as well, that you told Carrington, that is to say at that separate meeting with him, and you and the Minister of Justice state this in the report, and I quote you: "Collective consciousness and ¹¹³⁴¹ recollections of Serbs in Croatia about the genocide which took place 50 years previously by the quisling Croatian authorities against the Serbs is still very much present and strong in the psychology of the Serb population living in Croatia."

Isn't that so, Mr. Samardzic?

A. Yes, and I can confirm that today. That idea is -- is -- does exist in the consciousness of the Serbs living in Croatia because there was a genocide that was committed during World War II. All that is true. But what is the point there? The point is that instead of you, faced with a Yugoslav crisis, assume a different position --

JUDGE MAY: Let him finish.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the answer to my question is just this, Mr. May; I don't have time to listen to him go on and on --

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness finish. Yes, Mr. Samardzic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Momo Knezevic and myself set out the truth there. Yes, it is true that the Serbian people in Croatia feared that they would see a repeat of what had happened to them in 1941, and that is why this had to be treated, this symptom had to be treated, because Croatia in 1941 was not the same Croatia that existed later on, and instead of treating this ailment, you supported this fear that the Serb population had.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But you yourself, Mr. Samardzic, wrote down the following here: ¹¹³⁴² "The Serb people in Croatia see the new Croatian authorities as the revamping of fascism and the recollections of the fascist state which was the greatest ally of fascist Germany which declared war on Great Britain, the United States and the USSR." That is something that you yourself wrote down here. Is that what you thought? And if you did think that, why are you saying something quite different here and now?

A. Well, I'm not saying anything different and I'm going to confirm that the Ante Pavlovic Independent State was a quisling creation. There is nothing to be challenged on that score.

Q. But I'm asking you about the first part of your sentence when you say that the Serbian people in Croatia saw the new Croatian authorities as the revival of that type of fascism, and you were very eloquent in explaining it at that time. Are you suffering from dementia of some kind now that you can't explain it away now?

A. These Serb people in Croatia thought that this is what was going to happen to them again, but this did not happen to them because the Croatia that was created in 1991, let me repeat again, was not the same Croatia that existed in 1941, and this is where you should have helped and not to make use of this fear that the Serbs felt to organise bloodshed and everything else you did in Croatia. So that is the accusation made against you. You should have taken steps to prevent this from happening, and --

JUDGE MAY: Now, just a moment. Just a moment. Just pause.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I am precisely proving here that you are not speaking the truth. ^{11343 BLANK PAGE 11344} And in that same text, in the very next sentence, this is what you say: In the elements that you laid forth before Lord Carrington you say everything that is quite right. You're saying quite the opposite now, that's what I'm saying. What you say is that: "The bloodshed in Croatia would have been far greater, incomparably greater had the army not prevented even greater clashes and conflicts from breaking out." That's what you said then. And now you accuse the army of having gone there to incite a conflict and clash.

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]...

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Isn't that right, Mr. Samardzic? Isn't that what you were doing?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

JUDGE MAY: I've turned the microphone off because everybody is trying to speak at the same time. Now we'll pause. Now, the question is put to you that you said then that the bloodshed would have been worse had the army not been there, or words to that effect; had the army not prevented even greater clashes. Now, did you say that? And if so, what did you mean by it?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did say that, Your Honour. That was on the 12th of September. And at that time, I still believed in the Yugoslav army, the kind that I had remembered from my childhood, and I thought that it would defend the heritage of the Yugoslav liberation movement from World War II. I believed that, and I thought that. However, later on, after the 1st of October and beyond, as things developed, I came to realise that it was no longer the kind of army that I ¹¹³⁴⁵ loved and respected. So that is where the difference lies, and that is what the accused Milosevic wants to say.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right, Mr. Samardzic. Will you look at one more thing, one more explanation from this report. "In response to a question by Lord Carrington, 'Why is the army destroying cities?' We replied that the army was trying to deblock their besieged and surrounded barracks in certain towns of Croatia. These barracks were deprived of electricity and water and their food supply was cut off. The army, we said, had to break through to reach their own units."

These things that were correct as you put them then, why are you denying them now? Why are you saying completely the opposite in your testimony?

And there is one more sentence here. You said: "We had no information that the army was destroying cities, so we thought that the European Community should have sent their observers to garrisons as well." Why are you now saying something entirely different to what you said then?

A. I have to say again that you are trying to make a fool of me again. What I said on the 12th of the September was what I believed and what I thought correct. Later, when you attacked Dubrovnik and when you were trying to destroy it, I took the stance that it was an unjust war, an aggression, and acted accordingly. There is no contradiction involved. It is true, as far as I heard then, that there were certain garrisons that were encircled and had to be freed, as the one in Rijeka was indeed freed ¹¹³⁴⁶ and got out. There is no contradiction between this quotation and my subsequent condemnation which -- which followed receipt of information about things that were going on in Vukovar and elsewhere. I realise that the army was not exactly what I thought it was. On the 12th of September, I still believed that the army was defending Yugoslavia and that it would succeed.

However, let me finish. You were pursuing a completely different policy, the policy of Greater Serbia. You took over the army. You turned it practically into a Serb army, and that's how it was after the 1st of October when you attacked Dubrovnik. There is absolutely no contradiction.

And I'm not lying. I did write that report. I did say these things to Lord Carrington. However, when I saw or, rather, when I learned what was going on around Vukovar, around Dubrovnik, then it's quite normal that I condemned it. And other people also confirmed this in their books. Dr. Kacic and Mr. Wejnaendts.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, we must try and conserve time.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You don't have to try so hard to justify yourself. You were telling the truth then and you are now retelling the indictment. And what you said then was the truth.

I would like to know, however, how do you imagine this: You said, "We attacked Dubrovnik." What did Serbia have to do with attacks on Dubrovnik? Did Serbia attack Dubrovnik? Why did you call this letter of the Prime Minister cynical, as if Serbia had attacked Dubrovnik? ¹¹³⁴⁷

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer. There's a series of questions going on. Let the witness answer.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Yugoslav army was the one that attacked Dubrovnik, and at the time when it was done, the Yugoslav army had already been in -- turned over into your hands. It is true that Montenegrin reservists were involved, reservists who were conscripted into the Yugoslav army, but what was done around Dubrovnik could not have been done without the involvement and leadership of Serbia. Zelenovic himself says in his letter the Territorial Defence and the Yugoslav army will do this and that. They will chase away the Black Legions from Dubrovnik. The Black Legions didn't even exist at the time, by the way. So the Prime Minister is telling what the Territorial Defence and the army would do, meaning the Territorial Defence of Montenegro, and he's using the imperative mode. You should read that letter.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. That's not true at all and that's not what Zelenovic's letter says, but I'll come back to that tomorrow if I have enough time. The letter, in fact, says quite the opposite, but I don't want to dwell on it because it has already been exhibited.

Will you please take this report of the Justice Minister Samardzic and --

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Justice Minister Momo Knezevic and Foreign Minister Samardzic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In this report you explained that the army was trying to deblock ¹¹³⁴⁸ their own barracks and --

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let me take a look at this. Wait a moment.

Do you want to exhibit this?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. That is the report of his own Minister of Justice from which I quoted. He was then giving a correct account of the events and now he's saying completely the opposite.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you remember --

JUDGE MAY: Let it be exhibited and we'll have an exhibit number before we go on.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Defence Exhibit 48.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you remember, Mr. Samardzic, that it was I who, when the news arrived that Dubrovnik was being shelled, condemned all attacks on Dubrovnik in the presence of Lord Carrington and Tudjman and said that Dubrovnik is a Croatian town and that it was insane to bomb or attack Dubrovnik, a town which is a jewel not only for that region for but the whole of Yugoslavia? Do you remember that?

A. You may have said that, but that was part of your politics. The army that you commanded was destroying Dubrovnik at the time. There is no doubt about that. And of course you could have been telling sweet stories to Lord Carrington.

Q. We'll come back to that later. Tell me, what is the basis for your claim that Serbia in some way was involved? Was there anyone ever ¹¹³⁴⁹ from Serbia, and I mean from the official level because I'm not interested in anything else, was there anyone who ever mentioned Serbian claims on Dubrovnik based on something that happened in the Middle Ages?

A. Let me say that this campaign against Dubrovnik was led by Yugoslav army officers who were under your command, Serb officers. Furthermore, Dr. Kacic in his book, and I don't know if you've read it, says --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, we can't be -- we can't be dealing with somebody else's book. That's secondhand at best. Mr. Milosevic, just help us -- just -- Mr. Milosevic, will you help us with this: You say that you condemned this attack on Dubrovnik. Now, what is your case about this? I mean, who do you say attacked Dubrovnik? So the witness can deal with it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We worked together with Lord Carrington at this conference when the news arrived that somebody was firing shells at Dubrovnik, and I said, This is madness, I don't believe it, but if anything of the kind is really happening, that deserves condemnation. Dubrovnik is a Croatian town and this cannot be tolerated. There was no doubt at any level in the government of both Yugoslavia and Serbia that this was a Croatian town. And these stories about the Dubrovnik Republic was totally silly.

JUDGE MAY: But who was -- who do you say was responsible for attacking it?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We will come back to that later. At the time when I returned -- ¹¹³⁵⁰

JUDGE MAY: Can you tell us now? You don't have to, of course, but if you can tell us who you suggest was responsible --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please. The explanation that I got was that the army was being attacked. And it was absolutely not true that the army was attacking Dubrovnik, because if it had wanted to take it, it would have taken it. The army, instead, only wanted to limit the actions of the National Guard Corps. That's the information I got.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Samardzic, as you know well, none of the presidents of Yugoslav republics was able to command the Yugoslav army. That was not within their purview.

Mr. Samardzic, you submitted a report to the president of the Republic, Momir Bulatovic, on the 13th of December, and you said in that report that the status of Croatia are hard line, categoric, and the new minister, Separovic, misses absolutely no opportunity to accuse the army and Serbia. You had a critical attitude to the Croatian authorities then and you are saying something quite different now. I will quote item 5, where it says, "Nikola J. Samardzic, Momo Knezevic" - with your signatures underneath - addressed to "Momir Bulatovic, President of the Presidency of Montenegro, brief report on the work of the conference." Item 5: "The stances of Croatia are the most intractable and the new Minister Separovic missed no opportunity to accuse and blame the JNA. He held the only press conference after the work was completed, in addition to one held by Lord Carrington." And then you go on to say where the next meeting should be held, ^{11351 BLANK PAGE 11352} and you mention Igalo. I will exhibit this as well. Can you explain this?

A. It will be very easy. That report was from the session in September, and as I've already said, at that time, I still believed that the Yugoslav army would prevent conflict in Yugoslavia, not create it. That's what I believed and that's when I wrote. I wrote the truth. The aggressive minister of Croatia at the time was Separovic who was indeed very aggressive, very hard-line in all his opinions, and I didn't invent any of this. When Croatia was attacked in the way it was attacked around Dubrovnik, I condemned it. I condemned the attack on Dubrovnik. I condemned the way it was handled.

What you are saying now about the ZNG moving on Montenegro and the reports you got about it, it's absolutely untrue. I don't know what kind of reports you got, but it was the Yugoslav army which moved out of Montenegro at the time and spread devastation and plundering around Dubrovnik. There is absolutely no contradiction involved.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... condemned both by Mr. Milosevic and the witness.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Samardzic, it is certain that nobody justified either plundering or the killing of innocent people, of soldiers or anyone else. I'm saying something quite different, namely you are now telling something quite opposite to your words at the time.

A. I'm not. I'm saying the same thing.

Q. Mr. Samardzic, let's not waste any more time. Give me a direct ¹¹³⁵³ answer. Here is your speech at the peace conference in The Hague held on the 19th September. I will skip everything up to the very end where you say: "The tragedy of the Serb people in Croatia and Bosnia in both world wars, and I emphasise, and the current bloodshed in Croatia are the main causes of the tragedy and crisis in Yugoslavia from its conception to date. Without resolving the Serb issue in Croatia, there can be no resolution of the Yugoslav crisis." These are your words, again, at the plenary session.

Why are you saying something entirely different now as to the cause of the war, something entirely different to what you described as the cause of the war when you were minister?

A. Well, that's simply not the case. I am prepared to say that today, that the Serb people in Croatia and Bosnia, through the fault of their then-leadership because you were not even alive then, was victim of a great tragedy in both world wars. But it is equally true that the Serb people in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia suffered great misfortune also through your policies and your actions.

Q. Mr. Samardzic, you keep repeating, despite all my arguments which completely refute all you say, that it is my policy that is to blame, whereas in the quotations I have read out, you describe the cause of the Yugoslav crisis quite differently.

I want both of these reports exhibited. Let's not waste time. On the 20th of September, 1990, at the press conference in The Hague -- 1991 -- you said, Mr. -- you said: "The Yugoslav People's Army continues the tradition of the heroic resistance to fascism and the ¹¹³⁵⁴ national liberation war. That is why the Yugoslav delegation repels all attacks and attempts to blame the Yugoslav People's Army and slander. "We have many facts that indicate that the Yugoslav People's Army's actions helped prevent much broader conflict and bloodshed among warring parties in Yugoslavia. Until now, the JNA did not respond to attacks in order to avoid greater casualties. The JNA is not destroying Yugoslav towns. If the Croatian troops put -- put a machine-gun nest on a bell tower, then it is a military facility and not a religious temple."

JUDGE MAY: Now, we're going to stop this reading. The witness can't deal with all this.

Mr. Samardzic, you can see what's suggested here that you said at a press conference in The Hague on the 20th of September. You said that the -- just a moment. Let me just go through this. "The Yugoslav delegation repels all attacks and attempts to blame the JNA." You said, as alleged, that it helped prevent much broader conflict and bloodshed. It didn't respond to attacks in order to avoid greater casualties. It isn't destroying Yugoslav towns. And then there is an allegation about the Croatian troops putting a machine-gun on a bell tower, it being a military facility.

Did you say words to that effect or not? And if so, if you want to explain them, you can.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did say words to that effect because I deeply believed then that the Yugoslav army would not do what it actually did and what it started doing ten days after that, that is the 20th of September. The war for Dubrovnik had not started yet. ¹¹³⁵⁵ As for the happenings around Vukovar at the time, I did not know about it. I repeat for the third time to the accused Milosevic that at that time, I still believed that the Yugoslav army would prevent bloodshed in Yugoslavia. I deeply believed in that. I was disillusioned when I saw what was going on around Dubrovnik.

I repeat to you once again: I come from a partisan family. I was a child then, but I remember this national liberation army, the national liberation struggle, and I had deep trust in our army. And when I saw around Dubrovnik that the unit of the 5th Montenegrin Brigade that follows its tradition, that you sent Vojvoda Seselj, a Chetnik, to review that brigade, when you sent him with cockades --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, if you could just deal with the point shortly.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Samardzic, why are you saying such falsehoods? The Yugoslav army, any official authorities of Serbia, the police of Serbia on its territory never wore any different kind of insignia but the official insignia. Everything that you are saying about different political parties and in Montenegro the People's Party and in Serbia various parties that you refer to, you know full well that they were in opposition both in Serbia and in Montenegro and that therefore they could not have nor did they have any role in the functioning of the Yugoslav army or the Montenegrin police or the police of Serbia or any official authorities. Therefore, this is false. ¹¹³⁵⁶ Why did you make this up? Did you see Seselj inspecting this military unit?

A. I saw Seselj on television, and that was in the newspapers, and I'm astounded by that until the present day. And today he is your candidate for the President of Serbia, and he is still a Chetnik vojvoda.

Q. Mr. Samardzic, I don't think that Serbia is threatened by Chetniks. It is threatened by Ustashas, those who forge elections and work for aggressors.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we're not going into the current politics.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Mr. May, I believe that we have heard very well that in terms of everything he established quite correctly at the time, Mr. Samardzic has said that that's the way it was until he saw the units of the JNA, and I don't know who else, attack Dubrovnik, which is not true, because Dubrovnik was not destroyed. And since he found these explanations in September, I'm going to move him on to December.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, this is your text, Mr. Samardzic. It was written in New York on the 6th of December the same year, and it says here -- this is the historical aspect of the alliance between Serbia and Montenegro, and it says: "Montenegro is not denying but highlighting its alliance with Serbia in respect of the protection of interests and the survival of the Serb people in Croatia."

So that's what you wrote in December. And then: "The present-day ¹¹³⁵⁷ Croatian government is carrying out a genocide over the Serb people in Croatia, and in this century only this is the third genocide against the remnants of these people." And that is correct, what you wrote then, Mr. Samardzic, but now you're saying something completely different and --

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer. You're being asked -- let him deal with it.

You're being asked about a statement it's alleged you made in New York on 6th of December when you were highlighting -- just a moment -- highlighting the alliance with Serbia, referred to the protection and survival of the Serb people in Croatia. Can you help us about that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This is a forgery. I did not make any statements in New York. I was in New York in a delegation together with President Bulatovic, and if anybody was making statements, it was him, not me.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Samardzic, I am talking about a text of yours in the capacity of a minister who is accompanying a president and who is writing him an official pro memoria. This is your text. It says the 6th of December, 1991, New York, Nikola J. Samardzic. It is your text.

JUDGE MAY: Let him see the text. Put it to him. Let him see it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No problem, as you know, to prove this. And you can go on denying whatever you don't like, but please go ahead. Just have it admitted into evidence and it is no problem for me to --

JUDGE MAY: We will not admit it into evidence until we've heard ¹¹³⁵⁸ what the witness says about it. If he accepts it, we may.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is not my text. However, I have to give an explanation.

I presented facts to President Bulatovic, and he wrote down these facts about the First World War, about the Second World War, facts that are important for the relations between Serbia and Croatia and in terms of overall relations in the Balkans. I presented him facts about the 14-point plan of President Wilson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It's included there.

A. It is included there and I told him about it and he wrote it down. I did not write this. Again I'm -- an attempt is being made to trick me into something. I did not say that the current authorities in Croatia were genocidal. I said that in 1941 Croatia had a genocidal government. This was the government of Ante Pavlovic, this was a puppet state of Hitler, of Nazi Germany. That's what I said.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Help us with this: What is the document that you're looking at? It's described as a text but what does it purport to be?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it doesn't really represent anything. There are just some historical facts here that I presented to Bulatovic and that he wrote down. I did not write this. And now he has this text, including these historical facts from World War I and World War II. In addition to that, there is the statement that the new Croatian government in the early 1990s was genocidal and that is something I deny. ^{11359 BLANK PAGE 11360} I did not say that. But I did give Bulatovic historical facts as we were flying to America, and I insisted or, rather, I proposed to him that he take advantage of this --

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... signature?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Nobody signed it. Nothing. It was just written. I assume that at the embassy or somewhere Momir wrote this and prepared this so that he could speak about this somewhere, so that he could speak about these historical facts that I told him about. I never wrote this for him in December 1991, that the then-Croatian government in 1991 was genocidal. This is a trick.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Samardzic, do you claim that Momir Bulatovic, on the last page of that text, at the bottom of the page, put the date of the 6th of December, 1991, New York, and then he put Nikola J. Samardzic, your very own name and surname down there? So it was Bulatovic who was taking notes while you were talking to him on the plane, and then he wrote this down and then he put your name on these notes regarding what you had told him verbally. Do you know that the entire delegation can testify to the fact that you gave him this paper as a pro memoria?

JUDGE MAY: No. It didn't matter about the entire delegation. Mr. Samardzic, does your name appear at the bottom?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It's printed, Nikola Samardzic.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] However, I did not sign it. Again, ¹¹³⁶¹ I repeat that I presented historical facts to Momir Bulatovic, historical facts related to the First World War and the Second World War. If necessary, I'm going to present these facts now again, and I presented these facts often, not only then on the plane, and I presented these facts in public very often.

JUDGE MAY: Can you help us as to how your name may have gotten on the bottom?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, to tell you the truth, I can't really help you how this text was written. I don't remember who actually wrote it and when. I remember the historical facts that I presented to Momir Bulatovic, and I remember these very same historical facts that I myself presented at various places. I do advocate an independent Montenegro, and I said often that the President of the United States of America, President Wilson, supported the independence of Montenegro under point 11 within his 14 points, and it says quite clearly that Montenegro should be independent.

Your Honour, let me say one more thing now that this has come up. The 14 points of President Wilson is a programme of the democratic world which was presented to the US Congress on the 8th of January, 1918, so three months after the communist October revolution broke out in Russia.

JUDGE MAY: I must stop you. We can't go into this history. Can we have a look at the document, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All these facts that Mr. Samardzic is mentioning are there.

[Trial Chamber confers] ¹¹³⁶²

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is a reminder, an outline for his president that he accompanied to New York.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Samardzic, are you saying that your name, which appears on page 4 of this text at the bottom, was written by somebody else, was typed in by somebody?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly. I did not write that text, nor did I accept it. I repeat once again that the historical facts that are presented there do come from me. I presented them at several places, and I also presented them to President Bulatovic during the flight to New York and before that. I stand by the historical facts, but do I not stand by the claim that I said that the Croatian authorities at the time were genocidal.

Quite simply, I presented historical facts. And who wrote this text, it was probably one of the civil servants who wrote this out for President Bulatovic on the basis of what I had been saying, because there were several people on the delegation, and there is not a single person who is going to confirm that I wrote that. It is true that I talked about the First World War and I talked about the Second World War.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... translated.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll mark that for identification. And while that is being done, Mr. Milosevic, there was another document you wanted exhibited. I think it was the statement of the 20th of September.

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters cannot hear anything from the courtroom.

THE ACCUSED: Please, separately. ¹¹³⁶³

JUDGE MAY: Let us -- just a moment. Let us get these exhibited in order, see what we've got.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the document dated the 30th of the September, 1991, will be Defence Exhibit 49.

The document dated 19th of September, 1991, will be Defence Exhibit 50.

The document marked the 12th and 13th of September, 1991, will be Defence Exhibit 51.

And then the last document, which is dated 6 December, 1991, will be marked for identification as D52.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So in addition to that document, Mr. Samardzic, that you personally gave to your president as a reminder for his official meetings --

JUDGE MAY: He's given his explanation about it. There's no point in arguing about it.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you remember, Mr. Samardzic, that you also gave him a text entitled, "Questions that may be put to President Bulatovic during his visit to the USA, a brief outline of possible answers"? Do you remember that, Mr. Samardzic, since you accompanied your president and then you gave him this brief outline regarding possible questions and answers? ¹¹³⁶⁴

A. Let me see this document.

Q. First I'm going to put a few questions to you and then I'm going to give you that document just like I gave you the other document. It's also authentic. The Republic of Montenegro, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Questions that may be put to President Bulatovic during his visit, brief outline of possible answers, Titograd 1991." You are preparing your president's visit and the president for this visit. I can't read all of this now but one is: "What is the reason for the Yugoslav crisis?" And now what follows is: "The new authorities in Croatia are carrying out a genocide against the Serb people in Croatia." Next: "The collective memory of the Serb people concerning the genocide that was carried out against it in 1941 is still fresh in people's memories."

Further on: "Due to the current genocide and the memory of the genocide from 1941, the Serb people in Croatia will not at any cost remain in Croatia and live in Croatia."

And then further on: "If the Croatian people has the right to step out of Yugoslavia, so does the Serb people; they have the right to remain within Yugoslavia."

So those then are four points for the cause of the Yugoslav crisis that you prepared for your president, and you're now saying something that is quite the opposite, whereas at that time you claim what he claimed and the whole of official policy.

Now, the next question: "Are there any differences between Montenegro and Serbia in their attitudes to the settlement of the Yugoslav ¹¹³⁶⁵ crisis?" And your thesis and outline for the answers are that: "The basic stands and viewpoints are identical. There are differences in the ways in which to settle certain concrete questions. Montenegro is an equal party in the Yugoslav federation and therefore it is normal for it to have its own positions and stands."

Is that so, Mr. Samardzic? Were they indeed -- was this indeed your outline? Were they your outlines prepared for your president, the president of the Republic of Montenegro?

A. Your Honour, I'd like to be able to have a look at the document for me to be able to answer --

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- and respond.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have just a few more questions to ask from this document and then I'll let him have a look at it afterwards.

JUDGE MAY: Just let him look at it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. "Why do Montenegrin reservists --" "Why are Montenegrin reservists the only ones that are fighting around Dubrovnik?" "Now there is relative peace around Dubrovnik. We are dealing with December 1991 in this theatre of war. The truce is being respected. The historical part of the City of Dubrovnik has not been destroyed or damaged."

And then: "Do you consider that the siege of Dubrovnik is necessary and rational from a military and humanitarian aspect?" And you say: "Yes, it is true that there are no military barracks in Dubrovnik. ¹¹³⁶⁶ The military operations over Dubrovnik started with the onslaughts on the basis of Prevlaka and this was implemented within the frameworks of the basic strategy of the paramilitaries in Croatia to expel all the JNA barracks from the territory of Croatia. The continued operations around Dubrovnik probably have as their objective and have their military logic that the siege at Dubrovnik would reduce the pressure of paramilitary units on the rest of the barracks of the JNA in other parts of Croatia. The JNA is doing everything in its power not to inflict any damage to the historical part of the City of Dubrovnik as endeavouring to normalise life in the Dubrovnik region and there is a lot of proof to bear both these stances out."

JUDGE MAY: This is long enough.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. That is the outline.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness see it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, I'm turning your microphone off. You've been asking long enough questions. Let the witness see it and make his comment. We have only five minutes left before we have to adjourn.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have taken a look at the document. I did not write the document, nor do I have anything to do with it. It is possible that somebody from the ministry compiled it. There were associates of that kind who would work directly with President Bulatovic on documents of this kind, and it was they that -- who probably ^{11367 BLANK PAGE 11368} wrote the document. I did not sign it. It doesn't say that it was written by Nikola J. Samardzic, and I wouldn't have said anything of this kind. Some of these stands put forward here can stand, but not all of them, and I did not take any part in writing this.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Samardzic --

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Give it back to the accused, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Samardzic, is that an authentic document of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro?

A. I don't know. I cannot confirm that. It's not mine, that's all I can say. I'm no longer a minister, but I do know that I didn't write it. And if I may be allowed to say this: You quite obviously are dealing with large scale forgeries.

And let me also mention the matter of the minutes of the government session on the 1st of October. You say -- you deny that that session took place at all on the basis of the minutes, and I say that the whole of the records that were kept from the government meeting and the stenogram, including the 1st of October, was published in the journal Monitor. Do you think that I am lying and that the Monitor is lying? You are also claiming that that session never took place, on the basis of the documents that you have before you, and you have before you forgeries, as far as I'm concerned.

Q. Do you want to say that the minutes from the Montenegrin government sessions that I had in my hands were forgeries? ¹¹³⁶⁹

A. If somebody claims - and you are claiming precisely that - that the government session did not take place on the 1st of October with the generals, then, yes, it is a forgery because the session did take place, and any other assertion with any other document would be a forgery. Look at the Monitor magazine issues. They published the entire proceedings from that government meeting.

Q. Mr. Samardzic, I didn't follow the Montenegrin government meetings at all, and I'm sure that everybody will believe me when I say that. All I did was to collect the minutes, and they are the official documents of the government of Montenegro, and I read out the statement of the then president of the Republic, Momir Bulatovic, who refers to the meeting that you talked about, and you say you were late in arriving to the meeting. And I also read that two consecutive government sessions --

JUDGE MAY: We've been over these minutes now.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I just want to make one more point. Do you claim, Mr. Samardzic, having had in your hands a moment ago - and don't forget that you are a witness under the solemn declaration here and responsible for what you say - you had the document of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro in your hands. Do you state that this is not an authentic document of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro? Just give me a yes or no answer and then we can move on.

A. I state once again that I do not stand behind that document. I didn't then, I don't now. Now, whether anybody wrote it from the ministry, I really can't say. ¹¹³⁷⁰

Q. Mr. Samardzic, you cannot deny this, you say. Were you the Foreign Minister at the time?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Were you --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, he's given his answer. He's given his answer. He doesn't know anything about it. Now, that's not taking us any further. If in due course you want to prove the document, you can do so. He simply says he doesn't know anything about it. No. We've got to adjourn now because we've got to leave the court at ten past. You've got -- tomorrow you have three-quarters of an hour more. You've had just over three hours already. Three-quarters of an hour more with this witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to have my time extended. I insist that I be given more time.

JUDGE MAY: We'll see about that. We're going to adjourn -- we're going to adjourn now until tomorrow morning, half past nine.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.10 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the 10th day of

October, 2002, at 9.30 a.m.