Milosevic Transcript 2002-12-03

¹³⁷²⁷

Tuesday, 3 December 2002

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

WITNESS: WITNESS C-[Resumed]

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

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I should like the AV booth to play the third excerpt from the tape that we haven't seen until the end yesterday.

[Trial Chamber confers]

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹³⁷²⁸ Page 13728 - redacted - private session

¹³⁷²⁹

[redacted]

[Open session]

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

JUDGE MAY: We're in open session, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. I will not be mentioning the witness's name. However, what we see on this tape makes it indisputable that several of them had met in a private apartment, all of them from the same area, and they agreed among themselves whom they would need, in terms of experts, to organise Territorial Defence. I therefore assume, Mr. C-061, that it is not in dispute.

A. Right.

Q. And you explained some time ago that since one of them was an active-duty military man, you had agreed to ask for approval for him to leave the active force of the army and help you out with the Territorial Defence out there. Do you distinguish between finding volunteers who ¹³⁷³⁰ would go out to help you and asking approval for them to leave the army in order to help you out, on one hand, and appointing your own commanders, either by me or by military authorities in Belgrade, on the other hand?

A. In this specific case, things went like this: They found a man who was ready to go. He was an active-duty officer. The defence administration of Belgrade, that's what he called his institution where he was employed, and he said he needed your approval to go. As for the rest of the developments, I described them as best I could.

Q. How could I possibly approve for someone to leave the defence administration of Belgrade? You said even on tape that I would be supposed to ask the competent military authorities for approval for this man to be put at your disposal.

A. Approval for him to go, yes. Use your clout to make it possible for him to go, from the position that you held.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the accused.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You said yourself that I was supposed to ask for this man to be released from his duties.

A. Yes. We wanted him to be released from the army to help us organise the Territorial Defence of SAO Krajina.

Q. The idea seems one that pleases you, the idea of me approving every single decision of yours. Can you tell me how you made the selection and appointments of individuals in the Territorial Defence and later the Serbian army of Krajina?

A. General Simovic said that it was you who decided that it should be ¹³⁷³¹ General Djujic.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters can't hear the accused.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You mentioned he was a retired officer.

A. Correct.

Q. Rather than an active-duty officer. So I suppose that no one from the military authorities, and even less civilian authorities, had to approve for a retired person to go to his homeland and help out in the organisation of Territorial Defence.

A. Colonel Maksic was supposed to come to this staff of Territorial Defence, with ten men, and help organise it. However, only several men came, with Colonel Kasim, and said they would make a phone call to Belgrade, and said that you had decided it should be General Djujic. Maksic also came with him, but he was not a commander.

Q. These associates or colleagues of yours, whatever you called them, say that it was you who decided on your own that it should be a retired general, Ilija Djujic, who would do this job. They say that what you're saying is not correct.

A. What is correct is what Simovic said, and then followed Djujic's appointment. And they said, the three officers who came, said they had the decision of the federal secretary for National Defence.

Q. For them to be relieved from their duties in the JNA in order to help with the technical organisation of the TO in Krajina?

A. They had approval to make up the staff of the TO of Krajina.

Q. You say that at that meeting you heard from one of them, the one ¹³⁷³² who was the leader among them, and I can't remember his name at the moment - you know it - you say you heard him say that he can gather ten officers and take them there in order to help you.

A. That's what Colonel Maksic said.

Q. You met with him in his own private apartment, and as fellow countrymen, people from the same home town, you came to an agreement without consulting anyone.

A. Colonel Maksic said that he came from Serbia proper.

Q. What did he say?

A. He said he was from Serbia.

Q. So what?

A. Our homeland is Krajina.

JUDGE MAY: Would both you of bear in mind the interpreters.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So in this private arrangement of yours, if somebody volunteered to help you, then you construe it as his having to bear some sort of responsibility or guilt?

A. He was supposed to ask for a transfer.

Q. Isn't it logical for an active-duty officer to have to ask for approval from his superiors if he wanted to go there as a volunteer? Did he go there of his own will or did anyone force him?

A. Yes, that is logical, and that is why we asked approval from you.

Q. You didn't answer. Did he volunteer or did somebody order him to go?

A. They said they had the decision from the federal secretary for ¹³⁷³³ defence, Veljko Kadijevic.

Q. You're not answering again. Was he a volunteer? Is that how he represented himself to you?

A. He offered himself as a volunteer, but they arrived with the appropriate decision from the federal secretary for defence, Veljko Kadijevic.

Q. So yes, they got approval to be released from active-duty service and help you out with the TO. Do you know that half-truths are worse than lies, Mr. Croatia-061?

JUDGE MAY: Not a question. Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I suppose it is not in dispute who commanded the Territorial Defence of Krajina.

A. The TO of Krajina was commanded by the superior commands in the JNA in combat actions.

Q. Isn't it true that the TO of Krajina was under the command of the then president of Krajina?

A. That Krajina did not have a president. It had a Prime Minister, who was supposed to be a civilian commander.

Q. That's what I'm talking about. Isn't that right?

A. That's right. That's how it should have been. But that's not the way it was.

Q. That's what you're saying now.

A. That's what it was at the time.

Q. I believe we had cleared up that yesterday, especially in the ¹³⁷³⁴ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹³⁷³⁵ light of the assertions I made yesterday regarding your own role.

JUDGE MAY: No point going back over evidence given earlier.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I won't, in that case, address issues which will force us to go back into private session.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please answer with precision: Apart from the MUP of Krajina that were appointed by the bodies of Krajina and which consisted of members from Krajina, the state security of Krajina, Krajina had its own Red Berets as well that were known as the Red Berets of Krajina; is that true?

A. I hadn't heard of the Red Berets of Krajina. As for the MUP and the DB in Krajina, I have spoken about that already. At the beginning of August, the government took a decision to abolish the service of state security within the territory of SAO Krajina. And as for MUP appointments and operations, I've spoken about that already as well.

Q. Very well. To abolish the state security service sounds -- gives one one impression when you put it that way and gives a completely different impression if you tell the truth, and that is that you wanted to make a distinction, to set up an organisation like those which exist in many Western countries, to rename the state security into a security agency. Wasn't that so?

A. The plan was to form a new agency, and it should have been under the control of the government rather than the Ministry of the Interior and the DB of Serbia.

Q. Very well. Leave the DB of Serbia. You keep making up its responsibilities over there. Is it true that you did not abolish the ¹³⁷³⁶ service but you wanted to rename it into an agency for the security of Krajina, and you took a decision to that effect?

A. No. The service of state security in the territory of Krajina was abolished, and subsequently an agency was to have been formed under the control of the government, but this was not done because it was not possible under the existing circumstances, and which I've already testified about.

Q. You were rather contradictory in discussing these matters, because you say that I controlled everything, that I had command over there. Then why would a parallel structure be necessary when I was in control? Please, is it true that you've made up completely this parallel structure out of fear? Is that right or not, Mr. C-061?

A. First of all, the government needed to have its own intelligence agency under its control rather than under the control of the DB of Serbia. Secondly, the parallel structure was as I have described it. At the top of that structure was the DB of Serbia, and above the DB of Serbia, you.

Q. But you were the person who took the decisions. You shaped life in Krajina. You appointed the ministers, you appointed the heads of state security, the Minister of Police, the Minister of Defence; the whole organisation of life. What has parallel structure got to do with it?

A. I have been addressing these issues specifically. If I need to go into them again, I can.

Q. Is it true that all those structures that I have listed - state security, MUP, and the TO, the army of Krajina - they had a completely ¹³⁷³⁷ separate command structure in relation to Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

A. The MUP in the Krajina was under the control of the DB of Serbia. That is under your control. The army, the Serbian army in the Republic of Srpska Krajina, was under your control. One of the ways I have already described, one of the ways in which this was done. The Territorial Defence of Krajina was controlled by the JNA, that is, by you. The DB in Krajina was formed first within the SUP, the Ministry of the Interior, and then it was abolished because you controlled it. However, it continued to operate. The government did not set up its own separate service.

Q. Very well. Doesn't the following completely annul what you are just saying, and doesn't it reveal your complete separation from what you're saying? [redacted]

[redacted]

JUDGE MAY: We'll go into private session.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹³⁷³⁸ Pages 13738-13750 - redacted - private session

¹³⁷⁵¹

[redacted]

[Open session]

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ¹³⁷⁵²

Q. You know that the citizens from the diaspora collected money during all those war years and they assisted the Serbs in Krajina. I'm sure you're aware of that. I have here just one example of that. It dates to the end of 1994, when a sum of money had been collected, and you can take a look at this list. These are people who live in America for the most part, or rather, American citizens. Some people gave 20 dollars, others gave 2.000 dollars, one person gave 500 dollars, another might have given a thousand dollars. But anyway, a sum was collected and the total was 169.417 dollars in that one assistance campaign and one sum that was raised for you. 169.417 US dollars was the sum that was collected and sent to you. Do you remember that? That was in 1994. You can take a look at this list of donors, and you'll be able to see. Some people gave 50, others gave 4.000, some gave 20, some gave 200. But there were many of them. They're not in order, alphabetical order or numerical order. There are four and a half pages of names. Do you remember that?

A. I remember that the Serbs from the diaspora did send assistance in money to Krajina, and this began as early on as 1990. First of all, this collection was made for Serb radio television in Knin, then there were other collection drives, and there was even some communication equipment that was sent into the region, but the DB of Serbia seized it at the airport in Belgrade --

Q. I'm not asking you -- please, I'm not asking you about any communication devices that were dispatched. Now, this is your specialty; you're not answering the questions that I'm asking you, and we're seeing through that, Mr. C-061. What I'm asking you is this, and I want a yes or ¹³⁷⁵³ no answer: The representatives of these citizens who collected these 169.000 dollars, 169,417 US dollars was the sum that had been collected, and these citizens claimed that they personally handed over that sum of money to you, that the money was never paid into either the budget of the municipality of the SAO of Krajina or any other institution, for that matter.

A. I never received the 169.000 dollars personally. It was never handed over to me.

Q. And do you know that it was precisely because they had handed the money over to you personally that proceedings were brought against you; however, these court proceedings were closed to the public because of the post and position you held? Do you know about these legal proceedings that were taken because of the appropriation of these 169.417 US dollars?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Does the name Vladimir Velebit, an inspector, mean anything to you, who headed those legal proceedings and the investigation undertaken because of the fact that you had appropriated this money?

A. I do not.

Q. And do you know that the proceedings led by this inspector named Vladimir Velebit, who conducted the embezzlement procedures was killed in Krajina in a way that was never found out how?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Fine. Great. As we're on the subject of finances, and you're talking off the bat about finances, quite incorrectly, do you happen to know the following: What were the contributions, or rather, donations, ¹³⁷⁵⁴ that were made by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the budget of the Republic of the Serbian Krajina? Quite officially, official figures, public figures, and quite legally and lawfully.

A. I can't remember the exact figure, but there are facts and figures about that question.

Q. Well, you have made statements here and observations as to some shady dealings. Do you know, for example, that with the budget of Krajina for 1992, the year 1992, all the social welfare and protection, health protection, education grants, et cetera, and allowances, amounted to 1.666.000 Krajina dinars, or 5 per cent of the overall total budget of the Republic of the RSK, for instance? And at the same time --

JUDGE MAY: One thing at a time. Let the witness deal with this question.

Can you assist as to that or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The largest portion of the budget for Krajina was allocated for military purposes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You're once again answering a question that I never asked you. I'm not asking you that.

A. Well, you enumerated all those facts.

Q. You're answering a question I didn't ask you about. I know you have received your instructions and you are following the lesson you have learnt --

JUDGE MAY: Now, Mr. Milosevic, that's a totally improper comment, and you know it. It cuts no ice at all for you to make these sort of ¹³⁷⁵⁵ comments. Now, the question that was asked was whether --

THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. The question that was asked was the 5 per cent for those amounts. Can you help? If you can't help, just say so. You've told us that most went on military expenditure.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The figures I know date to 1995, and the Krajina had about 30.000 pensioners, that it had several thousand health workers. You mentioned something about the health care system. That means that these were the recipients of those funds for those purposes, allocated to those purposes. Now, what the exact sum was, I can't say, I can't express it in figures.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Croatia C-061, had have you read the epic Gorski Vijenac, The Mountain Wreath?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, do you recall the verse by Njegos, the author, which says that fear tarnishes one's face, the face of a man?

A. Well, I know many portions and verses from The Mountain Wreath by heart.

THE INTERPRETER: That a man's honour is tarnished, interpreter's correction.

JUDGE MAY: We've had enough of the literary excursion. Let us move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. There were not 30.000 pensioners in Krajina, Mr. C-061. You ¹³⁷⁵⁶ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹³⁷⁵⁷ ignore that because you did not deal in public affairs. You rather paraded in uniforms and took credit that didn't belong to you. There were 50.000 pensioners in Krajina. And in your budget, you had 5 per cent of funds for all those needs. And Yugoslavia, for instance, in 1993, gave 14.8 per cent - that is, almost 15 per cent - of your budget for those purposes: Health care, education, veterans, and the disabled. We have this data.

A. Which year did you say?

Q. 1993. Veterans, health care, and other allowances, 154.249.841.991 dinars, which is 14.8 per cent of the total budget of Krajina for 1993. You even --

A. I was not in the government then. If you ask me about 1994, 1995 --

Q. You have no clue. These --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, it is not fair to put a string of figures to a witness and then claim he has no clue, and you know it. Now, if you want to cross-examine, you must do so fairly and properly, or it will be stopped. Now, have you got some figures to put in front of him? Try and do it fairly so he has the chance to answer, instead of just reeling them off. Have you got some figures that you can put in front of him to substantiate what you're saying?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. May. I will not squander my time quoting all the figures, but in view of his job, or jobs, he should be aware of these figures, at least approximately.

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... now, let's move ¹³⁷⁵⁸ on. You can either cross-examine him properly by putting the documents in front of him and asking him about them - it's not a memory test - or we'll go on to something else.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let me ask you, then, since he doesn't have a memory, he says he has a visual one, and this is easy to remember visually if you look at figures, but he doesn't know that, of course. Do you know how much aid, how many thousands of barges with oil, sugar, staple foods, medicines, and other things, trailers, came to Krajina from Serbia over all these years?

A. Krajina could not have survived without Serbia's help. That's obvious.

Q. How many thousands of trailers arrived to Krajina from Serbia over those years?

A. I don't know how many thousands. All I know is that we depended on Serbia.

Q. Why are you smirking here, then, and answering questions of the lady from the opposite side related to the intercept, the intercepted conversation between Karadzic and Kertes about flour, oil, blankets? Why do you laugh and why do you say that those were code-names for weapons and ammunition?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

A. Well, I read it as a very mildly coded conversation, very mildly.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right, then. What terms were then used for blankets, flour, oil, sugar, medicines, and all the other things that we sent as aid to ¹³⁷⁵⁹ you? If "flour" was used as a term for ammunition, what term was used to denote flour proper? Let me learn something from you if I can.

A. Well, flour was called flour. What else was mentioned in that intercept? Batteries, HDZ will be receiving batteries. It is quite clear that it is a mildly coded conversation for weapons.

Q. Well, "flour" means sometimes flour, sometimes it means weapons.

A. Well, I never heard about Kertes sending flour to the HDZ.

Q. There is no mention of flour transports to the HDZ in that intercept.

A. There are references to lights out, to batteries, to other things.

Q. In Yugoslavia, Vojvodina is the bread basket of the country and probably the greatest bread basket in the Balkans, and they even talk about the sending of supplies which are soon going to expire because they would be getting new ones, and most of the stuff was sent from the so-called food reserves.

A. Well, because Kertes was the head of that -- I'm not aware of Kertes being involved in that.

Q. I was never head of the commodity reserves directorate.

A. I didn't say that you were.

Q. Well, according to you, I was head of everything in Yugoslavia, and if anybody ran over a pedestrian in the street, it's probably my fault.

A. I know that you were Kertes's boss.

Q. I was Kertes's boss, but I was not your boss. And if I had been your boss, you would not have done what you did. And is it correct that ¹³⁷⁶⁰ with this assertion of Croatia in 1990 and 1991, Croatia also interrupted all payments and payment transactions towards the area populated by Serbs and that there it was practically impossible to make a payment to the screw factory which you mentioned and for which you came to me to ask for assistance? They were unable to operate; is that correct?

A. You have to make one distinction here. One thing here is that the Croatian government, in spring 1991, blocked and isolated from the payment system these areas, and in 1991, the giro accounts of certain factories were blocked, were frozen. For instance, the Tvik factory had its account frozen because of a 40-million debt. Certain accounts were frozen by the Croatian government because of debts, and also in the case of some enterprises, such as Splitvica, because they were politically in bad order. And payment transactions completely ceased in May 1991, in Krajina, and Krajina was no longer able to be involved in the payment system through the Croatian SDK.

Q. Is it clear to you that the Republic of Serbian Krajina, facing this problem, embarked upon creating its own payment system in order to be able to function as an economic entity? Is that correct?

A. Yes. First we started with the payments system, whereas the banking system of Krajina remained within the economic territory of your Yugoslavia, in order to survive economically. That's right.

Q. Well, you are too susceptible to the inertia of answering in the negative to every question of mine, even those questions which seem favourable to you. Do you know that Yugoslavia had its own system of payments transactions? ¹³⁷⁶¹

A. As of 1992, of course. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia did have its own payment system.

Q. Payments transactions were effected through the social accountancy service, the SDK, although in other countries this is done through banks, and it was even our intention to change the system and replace the SDK by banks.

A. I heard from experts that according to plans for the reform of the SDK, the SDK was supposed to be brought under the umbrella of the National Bank of Yugoslavia. Several years were necessary for this plan to be effected. The plan was to abolish the service for payment transactions within the National Bank of Yugoslavia and hand it over to specialised services. I don't know what was the situation at the time we are talking about and at what stage the implementation of the plan was.

Q. You should refrain from incorrect assumptions. Is it true that for the purposes of enabling payments to be made to the Krajina, special accounts were opened in the SDK, in the Republic of Krajina?

A. After the 16th of May, 1991, the social accountancy service of the SAO Krajina was established, and all participants in the payment system opened their accounts with that service. In fact, they had accounts before, but they were not integrated. That service was integrated with the SDK of Serbia through Belgrade.

Q. Here we come back to that claim of yours, probably because you don't understand this completely. But all accounts were run through the SDK of Krajina, whereas the processing of payment orders was done in Yugoslavia by the service with which a contract on the extension of ¹³⁷⁶² services was signed for that purpose, because you were not able to tackle the technical aspect of the job. And this was done by branch offices in Sombor, Zemun, and Belgrade.

A. I know about that. This was done by branch office 6 in Belgrade, and I know that before that, enterprises from Krajina opened duplicate accounts in the branch office in Belgrade. How that technically operated, who processed payment orders, who signed them, is a matter of technique and method. I don't know that.

Q. Do you know, for instance, that the Republic of Serbian Krajina set up its own payments operation service and opened branch offices in Knin, Glina, Petrinja, Vukovar, Beli Manastir? Do you know about that?

A. Of course I know. We were actively working on setting up that system.

Q. Do you know that your SDK had a contract with SDK Novi Belgrade and Sombor for the processing of those payments orders?

A. That was a way of integrating the system, because the system itself would mean nothing if it had not been integrated with the system of Yugoslavia. It would have been just an isolated SDK system of Krajina, and it would have been stifled.

Q. Do you know that within Krajina such a system can operate, and outside the SAO Krajina, it can operate through any payments institution or bank, be it in Belgrade, New York, Geneva, or Milan? It doesn't matter. Payments transactions are effected with entities with whom you have deals.

A. The financial authorities in Yugoslavia resolved this in the way ¹³⁷⁶³ which was favourable to Krajina, bypassing Croatia. It was done through the FRY SDK system. That's the reason why the SDK of Krajina was integrated with the payment system of Yugoslavia.

Q. I just explained in which way it was integrated, but let's not waste time.

Is it true that on the 14th of July, 1992, the National Bank of Krajina was set up, that the so-called Krajina dinar was introduced, that the banking system was built up and completely equipped to function, both the payment system and the banking system of Krajina?

A. Correct.

Q. And the payment system, with the banking system of Krajina, cooperated with its counterparts in Yugoslavia, exclusively on the basis of the relevant regulations.

A. It functioned as a component part of the unified system of Yugoslavia.

Q. I just explained to you that it is not the way you are describing it. But since you seem to have the need to continue claiming the opposite --

A. We needed --

JUDGE MAY: He's entitled -- [Previous translation continues]... You may not like it, but he's entitled to give it. Your comment is of no assistance. Now, anything else you want to ask him?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You are right, Mr. May; the witness has the right not to know something. But he doesn't have the right to lie. ¹³⁷⁶⁴ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹³⁷⁶⁵

JUDGE MAY: That's a matter for us to determine, between what you assert and the evidence he gives.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know that until the budget of SAO Krajina was decided in 1992, the needs of municipalities were being met, among other things, from the production and processing of oil?

A. The production of oil was located in the Mirkovci municipality. Other municipalities did not have this amenity for filling their budgets.

Q. Do you know that as far as this production is concerned, it did not belong to the Mirkovci municipality; it belonged to the whole of Krajina?

A. That's true. You were talking about municipalities, though.

Q. I had two things in mind: One were municipal budgets, and another thing was the financing of the Krajina budget from its own revenues, including revenues from oil production. Are you aware of that?

A. The budget was filled from turnover tax on sales of oil and oil derivatives.

Q. Since you presented a number of false pieces of information here, including that Stanisic, Kertes, and others appropriated funds from oil revenues, I have a disclaimer from Mikelic, who claims exactly the opposite. He says as follows:

"It never happened, in all the time that I was Prime Minister of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, that I, with Jovica Stanisic and Mihalj Kertes, ever had a conversation regarding the sale of oil and oil derivatives in Mirkovci, let alone having a joint venture with them for ¹³⁷⁶⁶ sale of oil to the refinery in Pancevo. If the witness had known about such things, such serious offences, how is it possible that he did not present them at the Assembly of Serbian Krajina --"

JUDGE MAY: We don't want the comments of your various correspondents. What you can put to the witness is that he is not right when he asserts there was this conversation about oil derivatives. Now, you've heard that, Witness C-061. It's suggested that that conversation never took place, there was no joint venture. What is your answer to that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I had several reports regarding the distribution of oil derivatives, and when I spoke about that, I was referring to the situation in 1994 and 1995. I heard, before that, that control over oil sources was in the hands of Mihalj Kertes, that he had a unit of his over there. I first heard that in Ilok Slavonia, he had a unit called Red Berets --

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Who had a unit? Excuse me. I didn't hear it.

JUDGE MAY: Let him finish.

A. And that his men also controlled Djeletovci. That is a region where oil was being pumped near Mirkovci. Secondly, after the introduction of sanctions, the imposition of sanctions, after they were published and, to be more precise, the blockade, actually, towards Republika Srpska, and similarly also towards the Republic of Srpska Krajina, the trade in oil derivatives, or rather, the transit of oil derivatives, was under the control of international observers. To avoid ¹³⁷⁶⁷ the control of international observers, the following was done, to bypass their control. I know very well that several times at government sessions chaired by Mikelic there was a discussion on the number of cisterns and so-called "arnjevi," which was an expression used to camouflage the tanks so that they wouldn't be spotted by planes overflying the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and to not be noticed by the observers at border crossings. And I had two reports. One report came from people in Slavonia, that oil passed partially through the woods north of Sremska Raca, upstream, along the Sava River, and the other route was these camouflaged oil trucks used country roads to reach the bridge connecting the two Racas on the Sava River, and in that way they bypassed international control.

Thirdly, I think this was a conversation sometime in April 1995, in the villa in Boticevo Street, attended by several participants, among them President Milosevic, Sokolovic, Stanisic, Badza, Mikelic, and there was a discussion there about oil and this problem. At that point in time, I didn't quite understand the reasons why this was a problem. I realised it was a problem when Mikelic turned up late.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the answer be shorter.

JUDGE MAY: Let him finish.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mikelic was late to the meeting, and in fear sort of, he asked, "What happened, what happened?" as if he was afraid. I didn't realise anything special had happened. There was a discussion about football. I was a fan of Partizan and he of Zvezda.

JUDGE MAY: If you can finish that. ¹³⁷⁶⁸

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That meeting did take place, Your Honour, in April 1995.

Also, in May 1995, regarding the same subject, Stanisic and Karadzic mentioned Boro Mikelic in Bijeljina. I think I've already testified about that, and if necessary, I can repeat what I said.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I don't understand anything, anything of what you've just said. Here is what he says: The production -- Is this true, please? That is my question to you. He says that the production of crude oil was in Djeletovci, in Mirkovci municipality, and processing was done in the oil refinery in Pancevo. After processing in Pancevo, the distribution of oil derivatives was carried out through the company Nik Mirkovci and then the derivatives were directed towards public enterprises: Nik Mirkovci, Nik Vukovar, Nik Dvor na Uni, and Nik Knin. So four public companies. Through these branch companies, the oil derivatives --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, let the witness answer you. You've put a series of assertions about where the processing was done and the like of it.

Now, Witness, it's put to you, first of all, the processing was done in Pancevo. Do you agree with that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. It was pumped in Djeletovci, in two ways, using the normal technology. The processing was in Pancevo.

JUDGE MAY: It's suggested the distribution was carried out through various -- through a company Nik Mirkovci, and directed towards ¹³⁷⁶⁹ various public enterprises. Is that right?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For the territory of Krajina, yes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So for the needs of agriculture, industry, the army of the Republic of Srpska Krajina, and for sale at petrol stations in Krajina; is that right? Sale to the public.

A. Yes.

Q. Is it true that the -- a certain percentage of oil derivatives, every tonne produced, processed, and then returned to Krajina, that these accounts were established at every government session regarding the needs that have just been listed, that a balance was made every month of oil derivatives at government sessions of Krajina?

A. For the territory of Krajina, yes. From regular production. I wanted to say that there was also so-called extraordinary production.

Q. I am really unable to fathom what you have just said, because it follows from this that Mikelic, who was Prime Minister at the time you are talking about, he says that the balances were made at government sessions monthly, that oil was distributed throughout Krajina for all these needs - you confirmed that - and now you are saying that there was some extraordinary production. What are you talking about?

A. I can't explain it technologically, but these people from Mirkovci explained to me that regular technological procedures implies pumping oil, injecting water, to maintain the stability of the soil. But there was another way of faster pumping without injecting water, something like ¹³⁷⁷⁰ that. I can't be very specific about this. So in this way, there were additional quantities of oil.

What I testified about was the problem between determining the quotas for Krajina and Republika Srpska, namely, the method in which certain debts were balanced out between Mikelic and Karadzic was the disappearance of oil tankers passing through the Republic of -- Republika Srpska, and this was a discussion that we had at government meetings. Certain quantities of oil derivatives designated for Srpska Krajina did not arrive in Krajina, and Mikelic explained this, that Karadzic was taking them from him as they passed through the territory of Republika Srpska. So this was one of the incidents and disagreements with Karadzic that I am aware of.

Q. What has that got to do with Serbia, whether Mikelic and Karadzic had a dispute over a particular oil tank? And what has Karadzic got to do if an oil tank disappeared in Republika Srpska? Are you saying that Karadzic stole an oil tank?

A. This was a dispute between Stanisic and Mikelic, and this was a dispute that was discussed at your offices.

Q. You really believe that the state security of Serbia would address a dispute between Mikelic and Karadzic regarding an oil cistern?

JUDGE MAY: One moment. This will be the last answer and then we'll adjourn.

Would you deal with that, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sorry, what was the -- our last question? ¹³⁷⁷¹ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹³⁷⁷²

JUDGE MAY: You were asked about your belief. Do you believe the state security of Serbia would address a dispute between Mikelic and Karadzic concerning an oil cistern? Now, you can give an answer to that, if you can.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that that is what happened.

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

--- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

--- Upon commencing at 10.56 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Now, we have, I understand, an excerpt from the last part of the interview which was played. We'll ask the registrar to give it a number.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be marked Defence Exhibit 57B, under seal.

JUDGE MAY: There's also, I see on the desk, the collection, the list of the collection, 69.000 dollars, or 169.000, I forget the precise amount. Do you want this exhibited, Mr. Milosevic? Yes. Give it an exhibit number, please.

[Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

JUDGE MAY: No, there's no reason why it should be under seal. It can be open.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Defence Exhibit 63.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let's finish the question of oil. The Ministry of Energy and the man in charge or responsible for oil was Milivoj Kricka, the Minister of ¹³⁷⁷³ Energy; is that right?

A. In Borislav Mikelic's government, yes.

Q. But you're talking about that period, aren't you, when you claim what you allege happened? Do you know that Milivoj Kricka, the Minister of Energy, is also saying that you're not telling the truth?

A. I don't know what Kricka, is saying, but I do know that Kricka was drilling the Adriatic oil pipeline, or the Yugoslav pipeline, as it was known, in the area of Banija or Kordun before that pipeline in 1995 was to be set in operation in order to exhaust the oil reserves that existed.

Q. I see. So you're now accusing the Minister of Energy for drilling the pipeline.

A. No. That was Mikelic's decision, and his decision, and many people agreed with that.

Q. So you didn't agree, of course.

A. I didn't mind. It wasn't part of my responsibility. But if that was useful for Krajina, I agreed.

Q. Very well, then. Since you have such a critical attitude towards Mikelic's government, and him personally, are you aware that over an eight-month period of this government headed by Borislav Mikelic, that you describe in this way, industrial production went up by all of 26 per cent, and agricultural production marked an increase of 35 per cent? And the results were such that material reserves went up seven times over, and employed figures increased by 23.000 workers, which, for the conditions in Krajina, was a great deal. And also, it became possible in May to start ¹³⁷⁷⁴ paying out salaries to employees in public service, and these salaries had been delayed also for the pensioners, members of the army, the police of the Republic of Srpska Krajina, all this thanks to a stabilisation of economic conditions as a result of the efforts invested by this government. Are you aware of this?

A. It is true that the government headed by Borislav Mikelic did achieve a lot and produced positive results in terms of stabilisation of economic and overall social life in the Republic of Srpska Krajina, especially so in the second half of 1994 and the beginning of 1995.

Q. And is it true that one of the -- that the priorities of this government headed by Mikelic was the implementation of the Zagreb Peace Agreement, signed on the 29th of November, 1994, in the embassy of Russia, in Belgrade -- in Zagreb, sorry, and signed by Admiral Rakic, who was Minister of Defence of the Republic Srpska Krajina, and General Mile Novakovic, upon authority of Milan Martic, president of the Republic of Srpska Krajina?

A. Would you please repeat that? I think you mentioned a number of things just then.

Q. My question was whether it is true that one of the top priorities of that government headed by Mikelic was the implementation of the Zagreb Peace Agreement, and I mentioned, and I identified the people involved.

A. You mentioned two agreements, one from November 1994, which was an agreement with the Croatian government on the normalisation of economic relations in certain areas, which were listed specifically, that is, traffic, oil, electricity, water supply, and railway traffic. And before ¹³⁷⁷⁵ that, there was another agreement that you mentioned, and that was an agreement on a ceasefire, from March 1994, signed by the persons you named. I don't know exactly, but that agreement was later confirmed by the Assembly.

Q. That's right. But I also assume that you will not deny that those two agreements were linked together and that that was part of the normalisation of relations: First a ceasefire, followed by the establishment of economic relations. So I'm asking you: Is it true that a negotiating team was formed to discuss economic issues with Croatia, and before those economic negotiations with Croatia and joint activities, this agreement on a ceasefire was implemented?

A. The ceasefire agreement was complied with. There were reports of isolated incidents, but generally it was observed. Secondly, the talks on economic relations with Croatia between representatives of the government of Krajina and representatives of the Croatian government started in August, after you had approved those talks to begin in June, and those talks ended partly with the agreement in November relating to certain economic issues.

Q. And do you remember that those negotiations were conducted with the participation - I would call it active participation and direct involvement - of international mediators: David Owen and Thorwald Stoltenberg and their associates, such as Kai Eide and others, and that priorities were established, and those were the opening to traffic of the Belgrade-Zagreb highway, the Yugoslav oil pipeline, the long-distance electricity cables, the water supply system, and then other economic ¹³⁷⁷⁶ matters and projects, such as the project to set up a joint oil company, and others? Do you remember that?

A. In my previous answer, I said what the agreement covered, and it is true that the negotiations started also through the mediation of international mediators that you have mentioned.

Q. Tell me now: Is it true that when final agreement was reached on all matters on which economic negotiations were conducted, that you refused to go to Zagreb because it was your estimate that your rating would go down in Krajina and, to tell you the truth, among Serbs outside of Krajina as well? Was that right or not?

A. As far as I know, the agreement was signed in Knin, in the headquarters of the peace forces for Sector South.

Q. Again you're answering a question that I did not put to you.

JUDGE MAY: We'll go into private session to deal with this.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹³⁷⁷⁷ Pages 13777-13788 - redacted - private session

¹³⁷⁸⁹

[redacted]

[Open session]

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. As we're talking about the political status of Serbs in Krajina and in Republika Srpska, and so on and so forth, I think that we can state in open -- we can ask for answers in open session to some of the questions that have been raised and that relate to the declaration adopted at a Sabor Assembly held in Srb on the 25th of July, 1995. Could you give me your views about that declaration.

A. What kind of opinion do you want?

Q. What? ¹³⁷⁹⁰

A. In what sense do you want me to answer?

Q. Well, you have said a lot of contradictory things. I would like to know whether you agreed with the contents of that declaration.

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... Mr. Milosevic. Your comments on the evidence are of no assistance to anybody. No doubt you do it for your own purposes, but you don't assist the Court and it's not fair to the witness. Now, what is it you want to put, in concrete terms, as opposed to making some generalizations?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What is not fair to the witness?

JUDGE MAY: It's not fair to make these general and sometimes rather wild allegations that he's been contradicting himself and the like. Now, point out a contradiction. If you want to ask him about it, of course you're entitled to. But put things in concrete terms, not generalizations and not comments on the evidence, such as, "You've said a lot of contradictory things." Now, ask something concrete.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Forget, then, all the contradictory things he said.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. My specific question is as follows: Now, when you take this declaration from Srb, do you agree with the text or not?

A. At that time, I agreed with that text.

Q. All right, then. What about today? You agreed at that time. Do you agree with it today?

A. Today, political circumstances are different. We have behind us an experience full of political mistakes and failures. But in itself, the ¹³⁷⁹¹ text of the declaration, in those times and under those circumstances, could have produced a good political effect had it not been for subsequent political abuses and your own insistence on a political process which you described as legal, whereas it ended up causing internecine conflicts and divisions.

Q. We've already heard that. You explained, in response to one of my questions yesterday, that it was not the violent secession of certain republics that caused the war in Yugoslavia, and it was not the effect of the various political pressures from outside; it was, rather, the right to self-determination that caused the war.

A. Well, that was your explanation. The war was caused by you, by abusing and compromising that right to self-determination.

Q. All right, then. Since you say that from today's point of view you would not today support this declaration again -- did I understand you correctly?

A. I referred to certain political processes which followed that declaration.

Q. I'll read out to you something that you wrote at that time proceeding from universal principles, or rather, one universal principle, and that is the right of peoples to self-determination after secession, and proceeding from the existing norms in the constitution of the FRY and the Republic of Croatia, and especially in the Republic of Croatia, stating that the Republic of Croatia is also a state of the Serbian people of Croatia, and for purposes of protecting its sovereignty and freedom, the Serbian people populating today's unified territories hereby adopts ¹³⁷⁹² and promulgates.

What is there about it that is not honourable or principled? What do you see in it that is not politically correct and dishonest?

A. In that part of the text that you read?

Q. I can read out to you the entire declaration.

A. The right to self-determination should have been exercised within the boundaries of the republics where these peoples lived. That would have been a solution that would not have caused conflicts.

Q. So that is your current interpretation?

A. That's my current opinion.

Q. I don't know where it is in my notes, but I'll find it later. It is precisely peaceful solutions that the Presidency of the SFRY discussed at that time. Before I quote again to you a part of this declaration, do you know that in all constitutions of Croatia, until those changes that brought HDZ into power, that in all constitutions of Croatia, the Serbian people in Croatia were treated as an equal constituent nation? Do you know that?

A. That's correct.

Q. Do you know that Croats, Serbs, and Slovenes who lived in the Austro-Hungarian empire after the First World War united into one state with Serbia who was on the side of the victors in that war, the First World War, whereas Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, and other South Slavs in that area were on the side of the Austro-Hungarian empire?

A. I spoke before this Court about the way the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes was established. ¹³⁷⁹³ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹³⁷⁹⁴

Q. It was those Serbs who united together with Croats and Slovenes in this area, who united with Serbia, who were expelled from that state as if they hadn't existed before that state ever came into being.

A. That was an agreement between the Serbian people there and the Croatian government, or rather, lack of agreement between them about the position of the Serbian people there.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the record reflect that I said what period are we dealing with? Perhaps the witness can help us.

THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]

MR. MAY: Be quiet, Mr. Milosevic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Milosevic made a historical outline of the establishment of the first state in 1918, of the first state of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, and the unification of those peoples from the previous territory of the Austro-Hungarian empire. That was one topic. Another topic --

JUDGE MAY: We're dealing with 1918. No assistance to us, Mr. Milosevic. Now, move on to something up to date, if you want us to continue with this.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I just mentioned in passing 1918 in a complex sentence addressed to the witness.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Let us move on, then. Let us move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Therefore, it is not in dispute that in all constitutions until 1990, until the HDZ appeared, the Serbian people were an equal, constituent people within Croatia and that Croatia was defined as the ¹³⁷⁹⁵ state of the Croatian people, the Serbian people, and other peoples living there. Was that true, Mr. C-061?

A. Yes, that's true. I spoke about that several times already.

Q. So it's not an everyday political conflict between HDZ and Serbian representatives in 1990. It was about the abolishing of the status of the Serbian people in Krajina, a status which they had even before Croatia existed?

A. I said already, and let me repeat: Yes, it was a topic and the subject of the political conflict in 1990 between the political representatives of the Serbian people and the new Croatian authorities, that is, the HDZ. You interfered in that political conflict in the way I've already described.

Q. What you described is not correct, but let me get back to this declaration of which you're now washing your hands. Let me read another passage from it.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, to assist you, it's the declaration of Srb, and it's tab 10 of Exhibit 351.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So this one further up I read out invokes the constitution of Croatia, which defines Croatia as a state belonging also to the Serbian people. And then it goes on to say in the declaration itself: "Within the borders of the state of Croatia, which is a state also of the Serbian people living in it, the Serbian people, based on its geographical, historical, cultural, and other characteristics, is a ¹³⁷⁹⁶ sovereign people, with all the rights making up the sovereignty of one people."

What do you have against a stand like that? Is that an honourable position?

A. At that time, it was an honourable position that we fought for. It is still an honourable position from the point of view of the constitution and the status of the Serbian people in Croatia.

Q. A stance can be either principled or unprincipled. It cannot be principled at one time and not be principled today. I'll quote another passage:

"One cannot, without the participation of the Serbian people in Croatia, choose the form of Yugoslav unity, especially in terms of secession. Peoples can secede, not states."

Is that an appropriate position? Was it true?

A. That's in the declaration. It was true at the time. I said at the time there were two options: One in favour of the Yugoslav Federation, and staying within it, which was supported by you; and another option, supported by the HDZ, headed by Franjo Tudjman, and between these two options, we chose the option favoured by Serbia, and that's the sentence you just read.

Q. I don't know whether you accepted that option. If you had, it is to your credit, because the stance of Serbia at the time was that all nations and peoples are equal, that it was peoples who united using their right to self-determination into Yugoslavia. It was no fabrication of the regime. It is a historic fact contained in all the constitutions of ¹³⁷⁹⁷ Yugoslavia until that day.

A. You forgot just one thing: Peoples exercise their equality and rights within the republics where they lived, whereas on the level of the SFRY, they exercised them through their republics. That's what you overlooked.

Q. You didn't overlook anything. You simply don't know anything about it. Out of fear, you are now denouncing very principled positions that you held at the time, and I think --

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Just a moment. It's alleged that you are acting out of fear in denouncing the principles you held at the time. You should have the opportunity of answering that.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not giving up those views out of fear. I only believe that advocating such stands on the division of peoples in states was groundwork for conflict in war, and it was a premise, as it turned out, for the beginning of ethnic clashes on the territory of Yugoslavia, which brought about horrors and destruction.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Wasn't it precisely the stand of Serbia and my own personal stand that peoples should not separate, that they should stay together, to preserve Yugoslavia instead? And I'm claiming, and was claiming at the time, that only if we preserve Yugoslavia, the Serbian people would remain within one state, because by creating that state in 1918, they began living in one state, although they populated various territories in that part of the world.

A. You said that only that people would remain within one state, ¹³⁷⁹⁸ whereas self-determination was divided across republics. Parts of other republics who did not favour that sort of Yugoslavia also had the right to self-determination, and that caused the war.

Q. Let us look at the facts. It is senseless to repeat over and over again this lecture about Serbia and myself personally working for divisions and separation. If we had done that, Serbia would not have been the only one who remained with an unchanged ethnic composition throughout these years. We worked on the country for unity and preserving Yugoslavia. And this declaration which you are denouncing now reflects an honourable and principled position, and you degraded it by the moves you made. [redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted] [redacted] Wasn't this the way to resolve these principled issues? You approached them in a completely wrong way, which you are now trying to blame on your associates --

JUDGE MAY: Now, you've been told before, Mr. Milosevic, that speeches are not questions, and we've had a speech which has lasted a minute and a half. We'll go into private session.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹³⁷⁹⁹ Pages 13799-13817 - redacted - private session

¹³⁸¹⁸

[redacted]

[Open session]

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is it true that the Republic of Serbian Krajina set up a state ¹³⁸¹⁹ commission for war crimes and the crimes of genocide, headed by Mile Dakic?

A. There was some commission, but who dealt with these issues, I really don't know. There was something in this area. I don't really know. I believe Dakic dealt with historical issues, whereas somebody else dealt with certain facts that had to do with hostilities. Strbac, I believe.

Q. I didn't ask you about the staffing of that commission. I asked you whether Krajina formed a state commission for war crimes, headed by Mile Dakic.

A. I know that Dakic dealt with some historical facts, but whether it was within a state commission, I don't know.

Q. Do you know about his letter of 30th September 1994 - and I assume you should be aware of it, in light of your job - a letter addressed to the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Serbian Krajina in Knin, to which letter there was attached a list of established perpetrators of war crimes from 1990 to 1991, and he enumerated all sorts of crimes committed against the population of Krajina, descriptions of victims and perpetrators. And do you know whether the judiciary of the Krajina instituted proceedings in a single case from that list?

A. I don't remember that document exactly. I know that there were proceedings in the judiciary against perpetrators. I have already said all I knew about this, all that I could remember.

Q. Answer this now: Why are you making up that at some reception in Belgrade in December 1990, or January 1991, you heard from Dobrica Cosic ¹³⁸²⁰ that Bosnian Krajina and Serbian Krajina should unite and become the seventh Yugoslav Republic?

A. I heard that from academician Raskovic, who said that it was an idea of Dobrica Cosic. That was before December 1990. So it was before his departure for America, and he spoke about it after he returned from America. That's the way he spoke. Raskovic said, namely, that it was Dobrica Cosic who told him about this. Raskovic advocated this thesis about the unification of the two Krajinas at rallies in the autumn, and he even said that at the water of the Una River, the two Krajinas should be united.

Q. So you said before that it was an idea of this person whom we qualified as your alter ego. How come you are saying something totally different now? Did you make this up?

A. We are now discussing political ideas presented in autumn 1990 and the events that we discussed in closed session were from June and July 1991.

Q. Of course. June and July 1991. At one point you said that in January 1991 you heard this from Dobrica Cosic at the reception in Belgrade.

A. I didn't say that.

Q. Well, why don't you take a look at your own statements? They are pretty long, so you can hardly keep check of all the untruths you've uttered. But that's your problem. Anyway, we've cleared this up. You've made it all up.

A. I didn't. ¹³⁸²¹

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you are making speeches. You're not to comment on the witness's evidence. You can do that in due course, such comment as you want. But for the moment you're supposed to be asking questions and not making denigrating comments about the witnesses.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] All right.

[redacted]

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I think when Mr. Milosevic becomes so very specific about public appearances, I think this should be done in private session.

JUDGE MAY: Private session.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹³⁸²² ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹³⁸²³ Page 13823 - redacted - private session

¹³⁸²⁴ Page 13824 - redacted - private session

¹³⁸²⁵ Page 13825 - redacted - private session

¹³⁸²⁶

[redacted]

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And is it true that Mladic and the other officers of the JNA from the 9th Corps you called dirty communists?

THE INTERPRETER: "Komunare" is the term in Serbian, interpreter's note.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember using that term publicly. In 1992 in the political discussions surrounding the Vance Plan, these terms -- a lot of these kinds of terms were bandied about. ¹³⁸²⁷ I'm not sure about that particular one. I don't know which circumstance you have in mind.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me, then: Is the reason for your conflict with Mladic the call for mobilisation immediately prior to the deblocking of the JNA barracks in Zadar, Sibenik, and Split?

A. No.

Q. All right, then. Is it true - let me be very specific here - that you called upon the inhabitants of Knin not to respond to the call-up, not to fight in a non-Serb army but to join the Territorial Defence, which you called at the time the only pure, real, true Serb army? Is that right?

A. It is not in the way that you described.

Q. How was it, then?

A. The call to mobilisation was a public call, and it was a government decision taken by the SAO Krajina on the basis of certain decisions pursuant to some decisions of the rump Presidency of the SFRY, in October 1991. And they were called to mobilise within the forces of the SFRY. And there was another call-up in September. There was activities to mobilise certain JNA units at the request of the competent commands of the JNA.

Q. And what then? What next? Were you opposed to that?

A. I am telling you what I personally took part in.

Q. All right. Do you know that you weren't the only one who said that the JNA was a non-Serb army and that therefore people shouldn't respond to the call-up, to the mobilisation call, that there were a lot of ¹³⁸²⁸ rumours going round of that nature, even in Serbia itself, that the JNA should be disbanded and a Serb guard set up in its place and so on and so forth? Do you remember any of that?

A. The first part of your question I answered in my previous answer, and it is not as you say. And what was the second part of your question? I said yes, I responded to the decisions of the Yugoslav state Presidency and the calls of the JNA commands in September and October 1991 to mobilise the citizens into units and structures of the SFRY. What was your question?

Q. About the calls for people not to respond to the mobilisation call-up into the ranks of the JNA, from those days. Do you know that that happened, that they tried to undermine the JNA from within?

A. As I know there was quite a lot of opposition in Serbia itself to this idea on the part of individuals and groups of people and they went out onto the streets to demonstrate against the mobilisation for the JNA in September and in the autumn of 1991. That's what happened in Serbia, and that is common knowledge.

Q. So you say you weren't working against this mobilisation call-up in Krajina, and your explanation was that it was a traitor army, as you said, it was not a purely Serb army, and so on and so forth.

A. Well, I've already answered that. I don't understand --

Q. So you say that that's not what you actually did do.

A. Well, I said what we did in Krajina. I've just explained that.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour --

JUDGE MAY: Yes. ¹³⁸²⁹ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹³⁸³⁰

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: The witness and Mr. Milosevic were referring to tab 161 from Exhibit 352. It's the mobilisation call of the 26th of October, 1991.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Let's move on from this. We've been going round in circles.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] Very well.

Q. An intercept was played here, as they call it, an intercept, where I am appealing to Karadzic to stand up to that wave of opposition to the JNA, and to wield his political influence to have people respond to the call-up. Did you hear that?

A. I heard the transcript of your conversation with Karadzic with respect to mobilisation.

Q. Yes. Well, was the JNA an armed force which had the task of defending and protecting the entire territory of Yugoslavia and all the Yugoslav peoples within it?

A. The JNA represented the armed forces of the SFRY. That's what it was.

Q. All right. And is it common knowledge that in the events that took place before it was attacked itself, and before this mass blockade of the barracks started, the killing of soldiers and all the rest of it, that it exclusively presented a buffer zone, a buffer, between the conflicting parties, the warring parties, including the area of the Republic of Srpska Krajina and other territory where clashes had taken place at that time, within that time frame? Isn't that right? ¹³⁸³¹

A. I told you about what I knew as to how the JNA was deployed in the area of Krajina. It was deployed after the incident which was provoked by the police, or rather, the parallel structures, which you headed, and that was the reason why the JNA was deployed on the territory.

Q. Now, I don't want to discuss those parallel structures that you have conjured up yourself and construed, but I want to ask something about the general climate and mood, and you are trying to avoid speaking about that. So I have several questions in that regard. Is it true that with the introduction of the multiparty system into the SFRY in 1989, we saw an escalation in nationalistic, secessionist tendencies?

A. The multiparty system in the former Yugoslavia was introduced successively in the republics. Each republic would bring its own laws to that effect.

Q. I'm not asking you that. Answer my question, please. Was there a burgeoning of nationalist, secessionist tendencies, precisely within that time span?

A. Well, I can say specifically, if -- I could give you a specific answer if you tell me what party, what republic, what time you have in mind.

Q. Well, I'm asking for you in the situation in Croatia, for example, in 1989, as well as in 1990, that is to say, before the elections, after the elections, prior to the HDZ coming to power, after the HDZ had come into power, was there an escalation of nationalist secessionist tendencies? ¹³⁸³²

A. Well, in 1989, that was one period of time when power and authority was in the hands of the League of Communists of Croatia, that is to say, the institutions that the League controlled. Now, do you want me to say what the policy of the League of Communists of Croatia was in 1989 or what your policy was in Croatia in that same year? I don't understand what you're asking me.

Q. Do you mean to say that I don't know my own policy in Croatia? But in 1989, yes, indeed, what I'm talking about is the wave of nationalism that swept the country. Did you happen to notice anything in Croatia in 1989 and 1990 to that effect?

A. Well, I've spoken about that before this Tribunal. I said what I'd noticed and what things happened at that time. Do you want me to speak about each of these events individually? If so, I'm ready to do so.

Q. All right. And is it true that in Croatia it was this trend, this increase of nationalism, that enabled the HDZ party, as a nationalistic group, to come to the fore, to take the head positions on the political arena, and to all intents and purposes to stand at the head of all the anti-Yugoslav forces by the same token? Was that how things were?

A. The HDZ won the elections in Croatia in April and May 1991. It won the majority vote and got a place in the Sabor, or Assembly of Croatia. It received the support of the citizens for its programme. The majority voted for that party.

Q. And is it true -- or before we move on to this other area, one, the elections, do you remember the percentages, how many votes there were in favour? ¹³⁸³³

A. A third.

THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry. The witness said "majority."

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, would you check that out? I'd like you to look up the percentages.

A. There was a majority vote. We voted in the electoral units, so it won the majority of deputies for the Sabor, or Assembly. What the exact percentage was, I can't remember.

Q. Well, that's true, it did win a majority of deputies in the Assembly. It got the vote.

Now, is it also true that preventing this quite obviously disputable right of the Serb people to self-determination, that this was justified in Croatia by promises that were made to the effect that a future independent state of Croatia, as it said in its programme, in its plan and programme, that it would be independent, that this was justified by promises that the state would be a democratic one, a multi-ethnic one, a multiconfessional one, multicultural? Was that -- were those the promises that were made, the main incentive and arguments for the fact that nothing -- saying that nothing would change when the Serbs were pushed out of the constitution as a constituent peoples?

A. This was a basic political issue, and the political parties of Serbs in Croatia and the Serbs clashed there on the one side with the newly established Croatian authorities on the other, and this was unleashed, as of May 1990, up until December 1990, when the new Croatian constitution was adopted. The first polemics started in that period of ¹³⁸³⁴ time, and there was a clash of political views with respect to the proposals made by the Presidency, led by Franjo Tudjman, the Croatian Presidency, about the constitutional amendments to the constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia.

And I spoke specifically on that subject. This gave rise to resistance and political opposition on the part of the representatives of the Serb people, or rather, the parties representing the Serb people, and I made a number of speeches on that occasion, as I did in December 1990, when the new constitution was enacted and passed of the Republic of Croatia, where it was no longer stipulated that the state of Croatia was also a state of the Serb peoples living in Croatia. But that constitution mentioned the Serbs as being a national minority, which in fact meant that they did not have the right to self-determination. And this constitutional determination of this constituent peoples, as they had been up until that time, and recognises the right of peoples to self-determination, up until secession from the republic, by this new constitution, the December constitution of 1990 in Croatia, this right was rescinded. It no longer existed. It was declared null and void. And so before the constitution went through, the Serbian autonomous province of Krajina, we wanted to establish it on the basis of the constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia, which were in force until December 1990.

Q. Could you make it brief, please.

A. Including the amendments adopted in July 1990.

Q. Well, did we have a discussion of principle at that time too? Because those people who wanted to break away said they wanted to go into ¹³⁸³⁵ Europe, move and become part of Europe within the process of European integration, and we asked ourselves: How come we're going to be included into the process of European integration quicker if, before that, we break up what had already been integrated as a multi-ethnic and multicultural factor, the kind of Yugoslavia that -- and the Yugoslavia that was a successful model? Was that clear?

A. What are you talking about?

Q. Well, I'm talking about our public statements made with respect to those false explanations given, that we'd reach European integration quicker if we first of all break up Yugoslavia's integration. So whose idea was that?

A. I was saying that there were two dominant political options at the time as to the future of Yugoslavia. One of those options was a federal one, a federalist one, which was your own. You came out in favour of a strong federation, and the right of nations to self-determination and the right of peoples to remain within Yugoslavia. The second concept at that time was Franjo Tudjman's concept, and Slovenia's concept, according to which the republics should form a confederative alliance, or rather, to reach an agreement on the disassociation of these entities.

Q. You've already said that.

A. With respect to the European community, I don't know what your question was specifically in that regard.

Q. Very well. You're using a lot of time for explanations in answer to things that I'm not asking you about. Tell me, with precision: Is it true that with the victory of the HDZ at the elections in 1990, this ¹³⁸³⁶ marked the beginning of an intensified anti-Serb campaign manifested in day-to-day life as well, which Raskovic described as an aggression of consciousness? It came to expression in the streets, at workplaces, through the press, posters, and so on, and even at the administrative level, which confirmed that this was an official policy towards the Serbs because there was massive firings from the state administration, and especially the police, and even from economic enterprises. There were pogroms, unlawful arrests that their own officials are even now talking about, the disappearance of individuals.

JUDGE MAY: The witness must have the chance to answer questions, insofar as these are questions. They sound more like speeches. But do you agree that after the elections in 1990, there was an intensified anti-Serb campaign? That's the real point that's being made.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was the policy of the HDZ, that Croatia be defined as a national state of Croats and the Serbs get the status of a national minority. And the Serb representatives interpreted this as being anti-Serb.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I'm not asking you about the interpretations of a political view. I'm asking you what you know about the dismissals, about the arrests, about the disappearance of individuals, about killings, repression.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So according to you, nobody got killed.

JUDGE MAY: The witness must answer. Let him answer. ¹³⁸³⁷ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹³⁸³⁸

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as firing is concerned, from jobs, most dismissals occurred in the state administration, and especially in the police. Then people were also dismissed from other companies, and the Serbs saw this as being directed against them. Serbs were losing jobs. The Croatian authority justified this with the fact that the economy required it, that enterprises were not profitable. As for killings, murders, in 1990, I don't -- I'm not able to remember which murders you're referring to.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So you don't know anything about what was happening in Croatia in 1990?

A. Many things were happening.

Q. What I mean is, you don't know of any murders, unlawful arrests, deportations, disappearance? You know nothing about that, do you?

A. I can't remember any murders.

Q. That's fine. You don't know anything about the murder of Serbs in 1990 anywhere in Croatia.

Tell me, then, please, since you want to stick to this political level and you don't want to go into these concrete and banal events, such as killings, that you never heard of --

A. I'm telling you what I know. Remind me. Perhaps you know something I don't know.

Q. As far as I know, you had such a killing in your own family.

A. That was in August 1991.

Q. You probably don't remember that either. ¹³⁸³⁹

A. You're asking me about 1990?

Q. Yes. I'm asking you first about 1990. Later on, I'll ask you about 1991. But your answer is very important to me about 1990, that you don't know anything.

A. I don't remember any killings from 1990.

Q. Is it true that among the moves whereby such a discriminatory attitude towards the Serbian people was to be justified, and the abolition of their status, the changes in the constitution, was the census -- I have the data, but I would like to hear your interpretation. According to Croatian data, in the 1991 census, there were 581.663 inhabitants of Serb ethnicity, or 12.2 per cent. And according to Serb calculations, there were 750.000 of them, or just over that, which would mean just over 17 per cent. What is your knowledge regarding these data, and was this an instance of manipulation that I mentioned at the beginning of my question?

A. I know the following: The census documents from 1991 for the area of a part of SAO Krajina were submitted to the federal statistical institute.

Q. I'm not talking about the technique.

A. But it was not submitted to the Croatian republican institute. Secondly, it was noted that many Yugoslavs were actually Serbs. So I accept the statistics as they were, but there is also another interpretation that most of those who declared themselves to be Yugoslavs were actually Serb, and there were also some interpretations that some Serbs did not dare state their ethnicity as being Serbian. There was reference to that too in those days. That was the discussion with respect ¹³⁸⁴⁰ to the census.

Q. So you know nothing else about it?

A. I know what was happening in Krajina, and I know that the census documents were not submitted to Zagreb but to Belgrade.

Q. I would say that you must have known more. For instance, regarding the referendum that you organised and in which the Serbs in Croatia participated, how many votes were counted at that referendum?

A. There is a report of the commission, so it wasn't a referendum. A legal provision was applied on the right of citizens to declare their ethnicity --

Q. I'm not asking you about that. I'm just asking you about the number of votes.

A. The Serbs living in Croatia took part, but also Serbs living in Serbia and elsewhere in the world - in France or other countries - so there were about -- more than 500.000 votes cast. Those were the results filed by the commission.

Q. It seems to me that you should know better than I do the exact figure. As far as I can remember, I saw it only once. There were 570 something thousand votes.

A. It seems to me it was 530.000.

Q. We'll find the exact figure. That shouldn't be a problem. Maybe your memory is not quite as good as mine, which of course is no wonder. But the number of those who cast their votes, doesn't that number seem to be much closer to the census figure? Because, as you know, only the inhabitants of age cast their vote, so the real number must have been ¹³⁸⁴¹ greater.

A. Let me say that it is not quite certain that the process was technically correct, and some doubts lingered as to whether people outside Krajina were not counted twice in that report. But that was just a doubt. That's as much as I know about the commission's report. However, as far as I know, the Serbian National Council accepted the commission in charge of this process and these were the data presented to the public.

Q. Tell me, Mr. Croatia-061, are you now accusing the Serbian National Council from that period of having forged the number of people who cast their votes in the referendum, that that wasn't actually correct?

A. As I have taken an oath to tell the truth in this Tribunal, I'm telling you of what I know, and I'm not presenting anything but that, but my knowledge about these things.

Q. And your knowledge tells you that those were actually votes by Serbs from France and other countries. I don't remember what other countries you mentioned. So not just Serbs living in Croatia.

A. That's right. The Serbs in Croatia, the Serbs originating from Croatia, and their descendents in Serbia, and in the diaspora, Serbs originally from Croatia. I mentioned France specifically because I know exactly that reports came in from Paris.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, for your assistance, we are talking about the report on the referendum, tab 11 of Exhibit 351, and it's actually -- mentioned 567.317 people, so about 567.000.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. As you obviously now remember better, allegedly remember better ¹³⁸⁴² the facts now than when they actually happened, do you also remember that there was an initiative to form a Croatian Orthodox Church which existed very briefly only during the days of Pavelic's NDH, independent state of Croatia?

A. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.

Q. Do you remember that there was an idea to form a Croatian Orthodox Church, such as existed only during the time of Pavelic's NDH?

A. There was talk about it as being the intention of the new Croatian authorities.

Q. And you know nothing about that? "I know that this was said to have been the intention of the Croatian authorities." Why are you again speaking indefinitely? Who was it who was saying this?

A. I can't remember exactly who was saying it. I know there was a man originally from Drnis who spoke about this. He said that he intended to form such a church. I don't know with precision. I can't tell you, because I don't know exactly. I do know that such a man existed. What his religion was, whether he was an Orthodox, a Catholic, a Serbo-Croat, I don't know exactly, but I do know that he specifically spoke about it, and also there was talk about it among the Serbs, that the new Croatian authority intends to form such a church. That is as much as I know from that time.

Q. I have been given a quotation here of the late Jovan Raskovic, academician, and I will quote him. He says:

"The Serb people feels all this as a call to history for recidivism. It spreads new apprehensions and old doubts. After all this, ¹³⁸⁴³ the Croato-Serbian relationships acquire a new aspect of paranoia. The Croatian paranoia diminishes the Ustasha genocide and the Serb is renewing the genocidal memories."

Were you on good terms with Raskovic in those days?

A. I can say that Raskovic did speak along those lines at the time.

Q. And did you share that opinion too?

A. I expressed my opinion in public. What you have quoted is a conglomeration of views.

Q. Shall we move a little faster when we talk about this climate? So before the elections in 1990, long before the elections - and I'm talking about this wave of nationalism - do you remember the event of the 15th of March, 1990 - the elections took place later - that Ustasha symbols were inscribed on the Serbian Orthodox Church premises in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia?

A. There were incidents of that kind.

Q. So this was in March 1990, during a period when you say that the communists were in power in Croatia and they held the situation in control. But the communists did not control the Ustashas, certainly. And do you remember that on the 16th of March, 1990, the inhabitants of Biograd On The Sea, a small tourist town close to Zadar, who read the Belgrade press were left without it because the entire delivery of press was confiscated and thrown away, and a report to that effect appeared in the press, you could have read that, on the 17th and 18th of March, 1990.

A. I do remember some incidents of that kind in Primosten, and the intolerant attitude of the locals towards tourists from Serbia. There ¹³⁸⁴⁴ were quite a lot of reports to that effect in the media.

Q. And do you remember that on the 30th of August, 1990, volunteer youth units of the civil defence of Croatia - you remember that? - volunteer youth units of the civil defence of Croatia, which were joined by persons from 15 to 30 years of age, started to form in local communes and municipalities in the city of Zagreb. Such units began to be formed there on the 30th of August. Do you remember?

A. Yes. I heard of the formation of such volunteer units. I don't remember exactly as of which date.

Q. Well, what did you hear about it? Did you have any knowledge about it? You just heard about it, without anything more specific?

A. It was said that this marked the beginning of the formation of armed groups at the beginning of 1991. It was said that those groups were being armed and that in this way the HDZ was arming its members and creating its own army. That was the explanation given in January. Those were the interpretations. There was even a photograph of Branimir Glavas, from Osijek - I don't exactly remember the date - showing a pistol stuck in his belt.

Q. Do you remember, for example, a more large-scale event: 800 faithful and priests, on the 24th of October, in Zagreb - this is the Serbian Orthodox Church of the Holy Transfiguration - demanded protection because of increased attacks? 800 of them demanding protection in October 1990? Did you know anything about that?

A. I know from Metropolitan Jovan that he had to leave Zagreb, that he couldn't remain in his eparchy because of these developments. ¹³⁸⁴⁵ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹³⁸⁴⁶

Q. And do you remember, then, with respect to such parallel paramilitary formations that were being formed called Tjelesni Zdrug, the Croatian National Guards Corps, the Sokola Guards, volunteer youth units that I've already mentioned, et cetera, et cetera? Do you remember all these organised formations, when they started to act, what their purpose was, and what was going on, and whether anyone was disturbed as a result of this?

A. I know when the Croatian National Guard Corps was formed as an army of the Croatian government. That took place in mid-1991, in the spring. And then there were others, as far as I know, the so-called unarmed youth organisations and the ones you mentioned. You mentioned the various names. There were rumours of that. People were talking about it. But I didn't see it personally in Krajina, where I lived.

Q. So you want to say that you know nothing about that either?

A. I heard about it, and I know what -- as much as I heard.

Q. All right. Fine. Do you remember that the Croatian Assembly, in 1990, passed an amendment to the Croatian constitution, abolishing the Cyrillic script?

A. I have already said that this unleashed great polemics, this amendment to the constitution that was adopted on the 25th of July, 1995, and that we were very much against this. And I took part in this political resistance against having amendments of this kind adopted. And I said that the Assembly, the Sabor in Srb, was organised in order to demonstrate resistance to the adoption of amendments of that kind. And at that time, we saw this as being outvoting, the majority voting over the ¹³⁸⁴⁷ minority in the Croatian parliament.

Q. All right. Well, as we're on the subject of the constitution of Croatia, is it true that the Croatian authorities did not uphold any of the amendments that the Serbs favoured in the constitution?

A. Well, my knowledge on that score is the following: First, that Raskovic was elected to the commission for preparing the constitution, drafting the constitution of Croatia. I don't think it took part in its work, though. And secondly, that the municipalities of Northern Dalmatia and Lika sent in a draft for the statute of SAO Krajina to the Croatian authorities as a proposal for discussing the new Croatian constitution. Now, how many other amendments there were, I don't know. There were other amendments tabled by deputies from other parties.

Q. All right. So you don't seem to be able to answer my question --

A. I apologise. What was the question?

Q. The question was: Is it true that the new Croatian authorities did not introduce a single amendment tabled and proposed by the Serbs, and the main one, of course, was that the Serbs in the new constitution should retain their status of nation, as they had enjoyed in the previous constitution, but many other amendments too and that not a single one of them was adopted. Is that true or not?

A. I don't know how many amendments there were, but it is true that the Croatian parliament, in passing the constitution, as was popularly said, threw the Serbs out of the Croatian constitution. That is true, and we did oppose this fervently. We engaged in political debate and discussion and tabled a number of proposals, but none of that was taken ¹³⁸⁴⁸ into account. However, there were other possibilities open as well, which means that there were discussions about a so-called proposal for cultural autonomy, which wasn't implemented at the time, and some other models which were not put into practice either, due to the escalation of incidents and raising of political tensions and conflicts to the level of incidents and - how shall I put it? - armed provocations as well, which meant this was a parallel structure which was burgeoning in Krajina, and that contributed, by the same token, to the fact that there was not a climate of tolerance for discussing the adoption of the new Croatian constitution. I'm not amnestying, if I can put it that way, this kind of nationalism at that time and auto-centrism and the authorities that brought in the new Croatian constitution without taking into account the views of the minority, or rather, the Serb people in Croatia, which had been a constituent peoples.

Q. Well, all right. In this series of discriminatory laws, for example, the law on basic education, primary education, was that such that it did not provide for tuition for children of Serb ethnicity? And then there was the law on education and the languages of the nations and nationalities. It provided tuition for Hungarians, Ruthenians, Armenians and all the rest, and not the Serb language in Serb schools.

A. This we saw as a perfidious policy on the part of the HDZ and the majority in the Croatian parliament to change the name of the language and the standard language that they called Croatian -- the literary language of Croatia, to impose it to the Serb people in Croatia.

Q. What was the language called up until that time? What was the ¹³⁸⁴⁹ name of the language?

A. That language underwent a historical evolution.

Q. In Croatia, it was known as Croato-Serbian and in Serbian it was called Serbo-Croatian.

A. It was first called Croato-Serbian, then it was later on called by an unwieldy name, a very long formulation and construction, that in Croatia -- the language that was in use was Croatian, or Serbian, so Croatian literary language, which is called either the Croatian or the Serbian language, and then that formulation was changed and altered to say that the Croatian literary language was in official use in Croatia. So this was a long period of time with different variations and adjustments of the official language, as it was defined in Croatia, and this was interpreted in different ways and it was indeed the imposition of one particular variant of the language onto the Serbs as well. So this one variation was imposed on the Serbs and it was promoted by the ruling parties in the Croatian parliament.

Q. All right. There were many other laws. We mentioned them earlier on. Now, if we place all these laws into the context of the adoption of fascist emblems and symbols of a state, of a country, abolishing the right of the constituent peoples, the Serbs, the unlawful arming of paramilitary units, arrests, killings, and similar occurrences, does that lead us to the conclusion that the Croatian authorities promoted not only nationalism in Croatia but fascism and a discriminatory approach to the Serbs in Croatia, and did this lead to a great deal of unrest? Did it upset the Serbs? ¹³⁸⁵⁰

A. This was all your terminology used at the time.

Q. Well, were they facts or were they terminology? So who stirred up the people and caused disturbances with the arrests, killings, persecutions, dismissals, new laws, amendments to the constitution, and so on and so forth? Were those facts or were they fabrications on the part of the Belgrade media?

A. Well, we can mention some basic facts there, three basic facts, in fact: The policy of the HDZ and the Croatian authorities, and their relationship toward the Serbs; then we have political resistance and nonacquiescence of the Serbs with those kind of changes; and third, your meddling in the conflict in such a way as to produce a greater conflict. You fanned the flames of the conflict.

Q. I don't know that anybody from Serbia provoked any incidents, and if our interference in this very unwelcome turn of events -- well, whose interference was there in 1971 and in 1941? Was it also interference on the part of the same people or not?

JUDGE MAY: We don't need to go back then. I think we've probably finished for the day. Let me add this: Mr. Milosevic, you have six hours left, if you want it, up to six hours.

Mr. Tapuskovic, we've considered your application, and we will certainly grant you up to one hour to cross-examine this witness in due course.

And half an hour for the re-examination.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I shall abide by your decision, of course, but I should like you to understand that all the ¹³⁸⁵¹ material and documents that I have looked through and had in my hands is so extensive that I will, of course, do my best to get through it in one hour, but I do really think that we amicus should be given at least a little more time in this particular instance. I will try to do my best, but --

JUDGE MAY: We've considered your application. You've got an hour. So tailor your examination accordingly. We must let this witness go. He's been giving evidence for about ten days.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, but I assume that it is more important to get to the bottom of things rather than release a witness.

JUDGE MAY: Not at the expense -- one of our duties, Mr. Tapuskovic, is to conduct a trial expeditiously, and that we must do. Now, we'll have your application in mind. We'll --

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, then, I'm not sure whether I can perform my duty. I really do have to ask myself whether to continue in this position.

JUDGE MAY: You have one hour. Now, then, tomorrow morning, please, 9.00.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.51 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 4th day of

December 2002, at 9.00 a.m.