¹⁴⁴⁶⁰

Wednesday, 18 December 2002

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: When Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff concluded last week, she just reached Tab 39. May that, please, go on the overhead projector.

JUDGE MAY: While that's being done, I will say that we will conclude the witness today. There will be cross-examination. We will, then, deal with the conduct of the proceedings. The Trial Chamber has something to say on that topic which we will do at the end of the day. We have to finish fairly promptly, because we've got another hearing this afternoon.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I quite understand that. There's one or two things that I want to add to the report that I provided you. We were going to deal with the financial report. We've received extensive series of projections. We can deal with them, of course, today in general, but it may be that we will run out of time.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll see what the time is. First we need to conclude the witness.

MR. NICE: Yes.

WITNESS: PETAR POLJANIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] Examined by Mr. Nice: ¹⁴⁴⁶¹

Q. If that has gone on the overhead projector, this occasion then, Mr. Poljanic, you're looking at the original of a document, the English translation of which is on the overhead projector, and it is a document coming from Vice-Admiral Jokic requesting of the operative group command for Dubrovnik region that there be a deblockade of Grujic military building on the Island of Mljet, buildings be handed over on the Peljesac Peninsula, return of military equipment, disarming of civil persons in the Dubrovnik region, extra diction of JNA officers who have not regulated their service within the exchange of prisoners, handing over and disarming of all paramilitary formations as indicated, unconditional surrender of the Dubrovnik Crisis Staff, and handing over of complete documentation of Dubrovnik National Defence Council.

Were you aware of that document at the time of its production?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you receive it or see it?

A. I received it on the 12th of October, 1991, in a location called Mocici in Konavle in front of the airport runway, near the beginning or the end, it depends which way you look at it, on the western part of the runway, from Captain Milan Zec, Captain of a naval vessel, Captain Milan Zec.

Q. And a few more words from the pleas about the meeting where you received this document, you told us about the location Mocici. What was the atmosphere of the meeting, who else present?

A. The day before, we had a meeting on the Kotor destroyer, that I mentioned in my testimony days ago. And at that meeting, the opposing ¹⁴⁴⁶² side insisted that at the next meeting, and that's the one we're talking about today, on the 12th of October, that we also bring a representative of the Croatian army.

The next day, that is, on the 12th, we arrived to attend, let us call them negotiations. They were to have been held in Cavtat, however when we got to Cavtat, they told us that the talks would take place in Mocici. We went in a jeep. With me was the president of the executive council of Dubrovnik municipality, Mr. Sikic; a representative of the Croatian army, Dr. Antun Karaman; a member of the negotiating team, Mr. Hrvoje Macan, responsible for communal affairs; and Mr. Miso Mihocevic, who was an interpreter.

Q. Remember, Mr. Poljanic we are very pressed for time today and so we must deal with things in summary. On the other side, who was speaking and what was the atmosphere like very briefly?

A. Very well. On the other side, there was Captain Zec, someone who I think was frigate captain, Mr. Sofronije Jeremic. Then I think he was also a frigate captain, today he is an Admiral Zdravkovic. And I don't remember that there was anyone else representing the military.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... due to the other on the side during this meeting where this ultimatum was handed over?

A. They welcomed us in an unbelievable manner for me with at least 100 reservists present, with rifles on the ready. We had the feeling that we would be killed. I don't know what the reasons were, but that is how they welcomed us. However, in the meantime, again I don't know how this came about because this hadn't been agreed, European observers came by and ¹⁴⁴⁶³ the negotiations which were not real negotiations were conducted. Captain Zec gave me this, which I considered to be an ultimatum. I just looked at it fleetingly, and I said literally: "Captain, this sounds like an ultimatum to me. And I think that we can't accept --"

Q. Was something said about an incident in Ravno?

A. Yes, in response to this statement of mine, Captain Zec said: "I don't know anything. Yesterday, in the village of Ravno, you killed three of our men, and we are going to act. Literally." My response was: "Captain, the village of Ravno is not in Dubrovnik municipality, nor is it in the Republic of Croatia, nor do I have any idea that there were any conflicts there, nor that anyone was killed on either side. He said: "I don't know anything about that, we are going to act. And the next morning, they entered.

MR. NICE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... just lay that on the overhead projector, please.

Q. Is Ravno shown on this copy our Exhibit 326, the place indicated on the yellow sticker we can just see on there. Is that the Ravno you're speaking of?

A. Ravno, there it is, yes. Right here. You can see the word written there.

Q. So he made this reference to Ravno. What else was said at this meeting where the ultimatum was handed over by Captain Zec of importance, if you can remember?

A. He said after that: "We are going to act." And as I said a moment ago, after that, they entered Cavtat. Immediately we left the ¹⁴⁴⁶⁴ negotiations, and they entered Cavtat, and occupied they occupied Cavtat.

Q. We asked if your negotiators, your side, being to reject the ultimatum, for what reasons. Just give the two or three reasons if you can, please.

A. This was absolutely unacceptable. It would mean surrendering the whole area which hadn't been occupied yet. The town. And to hand over something that didn't exist, you see. They insisted on the handing over of paramilitary formations which really we did not have. How could we hand over something that we did not have.

Q. Your fears for the population in the event of surrender were what?

A. Yes. We were resolute to defend ourselves despite the fact that, in the military sense, we were very weak.

Q. What was Admiral Jokic expressed or known political position?

A. Admiral Jokic was a part of that army which had already occupied the whole area of Konavle, the western part of Dubrovnik municipality. So there you are; he was a part of that project.

Q. Did he express any political views or was he known to have any particular political views? If so, what?

A. On every occasion, he expressed such political views. And you will have occasion, if you already haven't received the tapes from those days, and then you will hear from him personally what he was saying.

Q. And his political views, in a nutshell or in a sentence, were what?

A. He was part of the project for the creation of a Greater Serbia.

Q. I move on to what happened after the 12th of October meeting. Did ¹⁴⁴⁶⁵ you focus on your duties as mayor, and did you have a negotiating team available to deal with future negotiations?

A. After that day, that is, after the 12th of October, 1991, those of us who had been in the negotiating team decided, because of our duties in the town itself, we decided to set up a high-quality team which will continue to negotiate with the enemy side. And we did set up such a team. If you wish, I will name them. In any event, that was the last day when I personally took part in the negotiations with the opposing party; the 12th of October.

Q. Just give us the names, please, of those in the negotiating team.

A. Mr. Niksa Obuljen, who was my deputy also, deputy town mayor. There was Mr. Djuro Kolic, Mr. Miso Mihocevic, Mr. Hrvoje Macan, and Mr. Ivo Simunovic; five of them.

Q. [Previous interpretation continues]... were complaints made about the shelling of civilian targets and about the living conditions of those in Dubrovnik?

A. Complaints were made after each and every shelling, so there were very many complaints due to the very fact that there was a lot of shelling. The opposing party paid no attention but simply, in accordance with their plan, they continued shelling when they felt it to be necessary.

Q. To what extent must the JNA have been aware of the situation in the town and of the number of people defending it?

A. The JNA was aware of each and every detail happening in town. First of all, because they had visual contact with the town; they were ¹⁴⁴⁶⁶ only a couple of hundred metres away. Secondly, they were informed. Thirdly, we had a radio station that provided accurate information about everything that was going on, and they certainly listened to it. And furthermore, each time there were negotiations, our side would say what had happened, what they had done. So they were aware of each detail of our tragedy.

Q. How many defenders were there in the first place within Belgrade?

A. At first, I think I said that at the beginning when General Marinovic, who was then colonel and took over the defence of Dubrovnik, I think there were 59 or 69, something like 60 soldiers. Later on, the number increased, but it never reached the figure of 3 or 7.000 as was mentioned earlier on.

MR. NICE: Can we look next at tab 40, and perhaps please place the original briefly on the overhead projector so those viewing can see what the document is. Then hand the original please to the witness and lay the English on the overhead projector.

Q. Is this a document, Mr. Poljanic, dated the 26th of October coming from Lieutenant-General Strugar, headed "Supplement to the Message that is Broadcast on Dubrovnik Radio," addressed to Dubrovnik citizens of all nationalities who wish to be evacuated in the directions of Split, Rijeka, Herceg Novi, and Trebinje. And the proposals for the normalisation of life in Dubrovnik and for ensuring the safety in the city of Dubrovnik are listed: Weapons found to be handed over. JNA and European Community Monitor Mission to control the hand-over. ZNG and Dubrovnik MUP members who didn't regulate their residence status to leave the area. Foreign ¹⁴⁴⁶⁷ mercenaries to be handed over to the diplomatic mission. Internal affairs to be restored to their earlier state. Party symbols to be removed from public places. It being said that the JNA should guarantee that its members will respect the complete cease-fire and safety of citizens. JNA armed formations not to enter Dubrovnik. JNA to organise the control of entrances and exits to and from Dubrovnik. And the JNA to enable the appropriate work organisations to provide utilities. And a reply was awaited.

Were you aware of that document at the time?

A. Yes. I was aware of it.

Q. [Previous interpretation continues]... response to it yourself and the negotiating team in Dubrovnik?

A. Clearly, this is something we couldn't accept because it would mean surrendering the city, surrendering the men, surrendering the area. Then if we had agreed to this, it would have been over for us. This was just a more detailed ultimatum.

Q. Thank you. Next, then, please, the negotiations of the 5th of December. Were there such negotiations? How many people from Croatia conducted them?

A. Yes, the negotiations on the 5th of December were held. On the Croatian side was the then minister Dr. Davorin Rudolf; a second minister, Pero Kriste; Mr. Cifric; and other negotiators. The talks were held. There was a discussion about public utilities so that at least minimum conditions for life could be restored.

Q. [Previous interpretation continues]... although my normal practice ¹⁴⁴⁶⁸ is to display the original, it's probably better if we hand the original straight to the witness, place the first page of the English version on the overhead projector. I'm not going to go through it; it's available to be read. We'll just see what it is.

Mr. Poljanic, is this the agreement that was forged in December of 1991?

A. Yes.

Q. You can deal with the specific terms of it, if asked. Notwithstanding this cease-fire agreement, was Dubrovnik shelled thereafter and into the autumn and summer of 1992?

A. Yes.

Q. How long did the JNA remain in the Dubrovnik region notwithstanding this agreement?

A. The western part of Dubrovnik municipality was left by the JNA on the 27th or the 29th of May. And as for the eastern part, they left on the 22nd of October, 1992.

Q. Briefly, then, can you turn to some public appeals that were recorded about the plight of Dubrovnik. Tab 41, original to the witness, English version on the overhead projector.

I'm sorry, this is in English in all forms. This goes from --

A. Yes, it's fine.

Q. -- the Republic of Croatia, Dubrovnik opstina to heads of state, governments and foreign ministers of the European community. And it there sets out, as of that date, its occupation, its lack of utilities, the failure of the army to withdraw and sets out a protest to the ¹⁴⁴⁶⁹ international community, with a request for immediate action. Correct?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Tab 42, please. This one, the 28th of November. Perhaps we can place one on the overhead projector so that people can take this one and I'll read it from the projector. Place it there rapidly, thank you. This is a document where it sets out UNESCO observers sent to Yugoslavia to Dubrovnik. Canadian. Then we go down three paragraphs. "Mr. Mayor has made strong appeals to all parties in the conflict to respect the principals enshrined in the conventions for the protection of cultural property." Next paragraph, please move it up a bit. "Mr. Mayor in contact with Mr. Poljanic on a daily basis concerning the situation, although observers will monitor the state of cultural heritage, UNESCO has emphasised that its primary concern is for human suffering, preparing an international campaign."

Thank you very much. Does that accord with your recollection of events, Mr. Poljanic?

A. It does, only there is an error. It wasn't the town mayor who contacted Mr. Poljanic, but Mr. Mayor was a High Representative of UNESCO. So it's not mayor as town mayor, but Mr. Mayor, Federico Mayor, and he contacted me, and everything that is stated is true. I did indeed have many contacts with him.

Q. We will place the next one on the overhead projector, tab 40 -- thank you. Place that on the overhead projector, tab 43. And Tab 43 is in the original, but the English translation is at ^{14470 BLANK PAGE 14471} the foot of the page if you can just move the page a little bit for me. This is a protest against the absolutely unprovoked strong artillery fire today at 5.50 from the region of wherever it is in Dubrava. Do you remember this complaint being made? It's the 6th of December, 1991, from the Dubrovnik Crisis Staff.

A. Yes. I do remember. It was made relatively early in the morning. I think it was about half past 7.00 or 8.00 while the town was still in a situation when it was possible to write such complaints. But after the 6th of December, the destruction was so vast that it was not possible to write up any such documents.

Q. Very well. Thank you very much. May I have that back, please. Did the Serbs ever acknowledge culpability for the shelling? Did they ever blame any of parts of their forces at any particular grade for any mistakes that they said had occurred?

A. I don't know. I don't know that they had ever acknowledged that. But I do know that one of the leading people in the region, three months previously in a newspaper, in a weekly, said that he was very sorry for any of the shells that had missed Dubrovnik as the target. He did that, in fact, three months ago.

Q. One other exhibit I better just turn back to very briefly, if I can lay it on the overhead projector, it's Exhibit 338, tab 4, coming up. This is a document dated the 5th of October of 1991 from the government of Serbia in Belgrade. Refers to its session of -- the Republic of Serbia's session held on the 4th of October acquainted with the danger to the civilian population in the city of Dubrovnik. Represents a part of ¹⁴⁴⁷² Serbian and Croatian history as well as a monument to the world cultural heritage. And then it says this: "Your decision to install paramilitary units, black legions, and numerous foreign mercenaries in a city of invaluable historical and cultural value and to launch an armed attack on settlements in Herzegovina and Boka Kotorska from this position represents a totally uncivilised, inhumane, and undignified act." Any truth in that paragraph, please, Mr. Poljanic? Was there any truth in that allegation made by the government of Serbia?

A. Not a single detail is truthful.

Q. Thank you very much.

A. Except for the fact that this was written. The contents are not truthful.

Q. Thank you. If we move on, then, and I'm very nearly at the conclusion. Mr. Poljanic, did you on the 22nd of December of 1991 go to Washington where you met US Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger to whom photographs of the attack on Dubrovnik was shown. And were you aware that Mr. Eagleburger showed the same photographs later to Borisav Jovic?

A. Yes. But I can't quite confirm that that was actually on the 22nd of December. I thought about, it and it might have been the 19th of December, but I don't think that is the essential point now.

Q. Did you hear, and if so, through what channels, what Jovic's response was to the photograph shown to him?

A. Mr. Jovic, and this is what he writes about in his book, he talks -- actually, it was said to be an autobiography, it wasn't an autobiography, it was a book about the events. He recognised in that book ¹⁴⁴⁷³ and said that not even dust fell upon Dubrovnik and he says that those photographs are a montage, that it is all nonsense, that Dubrovnik is completely intact and not even specks of dust fell upon it.

Q. The last exhibit, tab 45, please, it's an English exhibit so place it straight on the overhead projector and I'll read it from there. This Is a document -- just start at the top, please. This is a document from the Crisis Committee of Dubrovnik, and it comes from Admiral Jokic: "... regret for the difficult and unfortunate situation that has been created. This was not our order, neither was it close to my sanity to act like this. General Kadijevic has sent a message to you and the ECMM in Dubrovnik on undertaking an energetic investigation on our responsibility and the guilty ones for this event. At the same time, we expect to find out responsibilities on your side for the sake of a thorough clarification of all circumstances in regard with the events from last night and this morning. General Kadijevic has invited me to Belgrade at 1400, so today I will not be able to continue the negotiations... I suggest the following:" Talks to continue, accept an agreement that fire be ceased, put a boat shuttle between Cavtat and Dubrovnik, control of ships, and so on.

What do you say about this document? Do you have any comment on this document? It suggests a breakdown in chain of command and communication I think by the attacking forces, if we look on. Was there any such breakdown?

A. The document is a true one, but I don't believe the words in it for the simple reason that on the 6th of December, in the afternoon, I ¹⁴⁴⁷⁴ talked to the then Minister of Foreign Affairs of Croatia, Dr. Zvonimir Separovic over the phone, and I told him what the situation was like in town. And quite literally that this would perhaps be our last conversation because we expected that -- to die, all of us thought we would die in the town. The whole town was in flames. I think it was around 3.30 in the afternoon. And Dr. Separovic answered, "Stick it out a little longer. I have just been on the line with Mr. Federico Mayor in Paris." That was the number one man in UNESCO there who told me that he had been given guarantees from the very top echelons of leadership in Belgrade, that everything would be over by 4.00 p.m., that everything would be quiet by 4.00 p.m., and that's what happened. Not a single grenade fell after 4.00 p.m. on that particular day which just shows that it was impossible that Belgrade did not know about it, and not only that but that it could put an end to what was going on, and quite obviously did do so in fact.

Q. And did Mr. Mayor explain that he was in contact with Belgrade?

A. He didn't explain it to me directly because he wasn't able to reach me, but he explained this to Dr. Zvonimir Separovic, the then Foreign Minister of Croatia, and Mr. Separovic relayed that information to me, because he was able to reach me by telephone.

MR. NICE: Thank you, Mr. Poljanic. You'll be asked some further questions.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] How much time do I have, Mr. May? ¹⁴⁴⁷⁵

JUDGE MAY: We'll consider it precisely over the adjournment, but I would think something in the region of two and a half hours.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. Mr. Poljanic, you started your testimony by elections when you were elected as mayor of Dubrovnik, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall they were not only local elections, but they were republican elections as well for the Sabor or parliament of Croatia? Do you remember that in that year of 1990, when those elections were held, most of the Serbs or can I say all of Banija, Kordun, Nis and Slavonia and so on and so forth voted in favour of the former League of Communists of Croatia, or rather, Racan's party, and that 21 of them were elected as deputies to the assembly on the ticket of the former League of Communists of Croatia, and the Racan party; that is to say, that most of them voted for the former League of Communists of Croatia. Is that correct? Is that true?

A. Yes, it is, that's the truth.

Q. All right. Now, if that is true, how can you claim in your statement, although I have not been given the statement in Serbian, if truth be told, but what I have received in English, you say that after the fall of the Berlin wall, the Serbs saw their chance, the chance of realising some kind of idea about a Greater Serbia. How can you claim that when we have just taken note of the fact, when we have just taken note of what we said a moment ago? ¹⁴⁴⁷⁶

A. Well, you know full well that this idea to great a Greater Serbia was not born then and there, although we are not dealing with history here, this isn't history, but I can respond to that. That's not when the idea and concept was born. It was born far, far earlier. And with the toppling of socialism or rather communism, as a sort of world system at the time, on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, quite obviously, some people created conditions for the implementation of precisely this particular irrational project, I would say.

Q. Well, it was -- the project never existed, as you know very well yourself, and the thesis and concept of a Greater Serbia at the beginning of the last century already, or rather after the Berlin congress and the occupation of Bosnia-Herzegovina was launched by Austria as a danger that loomed from the Serbs in the Balkans?

A. This idea was launched before that, and you know that very well yourself, but I don't think we need go into a debate on that point.

Q. Yes, we don't have to go into a debate on that point.

A. You know that full well, perfectly well.

Q. Yes, I do know that perfectly, whose idea it was and how it was used, et cetera, and so do they, those whose idea it was. Now, you showed us a document here, about the formation -- the idea to form a Dubrovnik republic, the movement to form a Dubrovnik republic. Tell me now, did anybody from Serbia take part in that that you know about? It doesn't matter -- I don't want you to say something that you assume, just what you know, on the basis of what you yourself know, did anybody from Serbia take part in that? ¹⁴⁴⁷⁷

A. I don't know about any direct contacts between anybody in Serbia with somebody from that - what shall we call it? - movement or council to restore the Dubrovnik republic. But there was some sort of logic in it all. Of course, we cannot judge on the basis of assumptions.

Q. Mr. Poljanic, I'm just reading what it says here, and here it says movement for whatever it says. That's why I used the word "movement." Otherwise, it does say here: Demilitarised -- that's what it says in the Croatian version, of course, the Serbo-Croatian or Croatian Serbian version, or what is now the Croatian language, that's what it says: A new, modern, demilitarised and democratised democratic republic under the protection of neighbouring republics and the United Nations. So that means under the protection of the United Nations and neighbouring republics. And as you know, Serbia is not a neighbouring republic when we are talking about Dubrovnik. And as you know, it is quite a long way from Dubrovnik anyway. And do you really see any links between Serbia with the events that took place in Dubrovnik, Mr. Poljanic?

A. As you know, no, but it would have been, and you know that very well yourself.

Q. All right, Mr. Poljanic. We'll get to that. We'll get to the facts that you have testified about in due course. But what we're saying is that, according to your knowledge, nobody in Serbia did. Now, did you have any meetings with respect to all these events that took place in Dubrovnik with any representative of Serbia at all?

A. No, although high-ranking officials from Serbia did stroll around Dubrovnik at the time I was mayor or president of the municipality, and ¹⁴⁴⁷⁸ during your -- during the testimony of the president of the Republic of Croatia, Mr. Mesic, you yourself said when he noted that many came to Knin and the surrounding parts, and you said at the time, well, it was enough that they called upon local municipal representatives. Well, those representatives did not call on me. And you were amongst them, you were one of them in my day.

Q. As you know - and if you don't know - for more than ten years, I spent my holidays in those parts, and when I was vacationing with my family without having any other business to attend to, I really didn't feel duty bound to report to the municipal authorities.

A. Well, I didn't want to have a meeting with you. It was just proper to do so because I do know, by the way, that you met with other people who suited you. But let's not waste time on that.

Q. All right. Very well, Mr. Poljanic, I did like having my holidays in Dubrovnik, as you know. And this is common knowledge. During the events when the first news of them reached me, I was in The Hague at the time. Tudjman was there, Lord Carrington was there too, and I condemned any violence -- any and all violence in the area of Dubrovnik. Now, then, Serbia, the leadership of Serbia, and I personally -- or rather, do you have any knowledge at all about any links that we had to any of those events in Dubrovnik? Do you know about any of that?

A. I think that enough has been said on the subject and talked about it.

Q. All right. Fine. Now, you say, you talk about the fact that the JNA attacked Dubrovnik, and then you say that the JNA occupied the ¹⁴⁴⁷⁹ territories and so on and so forth. I don't want to repeat what you said, not to waste time, but all the events that you talk about date back to 1991, don't they? Isn't that so?

A. Not all of them. I talk about some in 1992, and a few days ago, up to 1995. The last shell from Trebinje fell in 1995 and killed three innocent people on the beach, young people on the beach.

Q. I'm talking about the events that are the main object and subject of your testimony. Now, whether somebody shot a grenade, a shell from somewhere in 1995 from Trebinje or wherever, I don't want to delve into that, but are you conscious of the fact that at that time - and we're talking about 1991 - the SFRY was still in existence and that the Yugoslav People's Army was deployed in the territory of Yugoslavia, that is to say, on its own territory, at the time when all these events that you describe were going on; in September and in October, November, December 1991? So all these dramatic events and all the drama that you have described, this took place on its own territory.

A. And are you aware of the fact that on the 21st of June, Croatia proclaimed its independence, and this was not contrary to the constitution that you yourself are referring to?

Q. Well, Mr. Poljanic, if you're asking me that question - although it is my role to ask the questions here and not you --

A. But I did answer your question.

JUDGE MAY: We're going to put some order into this. Mr. Poljanic, could you concentrate, please, on just answering the questions. And both of you, could you remember that what you say has to ^{14480 BLANK PAGE 14481} be interpreted. So would you --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me answer. On the 25th of June, Croatia proclaimed its independence, and according to our concepts and pursuant to the constitution of that state, of the country you're talking about - Yugoslavia - we were free.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And did you happen to read, because you say that everything was done in a constitutional way, this violent secession on the part of Croatia, that it was done in a constitutional way, have you perhaps read the book or what was written about it by the former president of this illegal Tribunal, Mr. Cassese, where it says that you did not have any legal grounds for secession, for breaking away, and that you did that through force of violence. Do you happen to have read that?

A. No.

JUDGE MAY: We have been through this with the previous witness. We have ruled that it is irrelevant as far as the witness is concerned. He is merely giving his evidence of what happened, and what he says is that Croatia was independent. Now, if a point turns on it, a legal point, in due course we will determine where the truth lies and where the law was. But let us move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. As you explained, that it was sometime around the 1st of October that everything started, that the shooting started --

A. Before that. Somewhere around the 15th of September, in fact. On the town itself, it was the 1st of October, but otherwise, before. In ¹⁴⁴⁸² Konavle, in the Konavle region, it started earlier.

Q. Well, I wrote down your words, what you said, so that's what I'm referring to. I'm not investigating the exact details. But Mr. Poljanic, what I want to ask you is this: I have here before me observations and conclusions by the Assembly of the Republic of Montenegro. And let me look at the date. It was the 8th of October, 1991. It was an Assembly session. Now, are you aware of the fact that on the 1st of October, there was a commemorative meeting for the entire leadership over there because of the death and killing of a young man who was stationed at the border between Montenegro and Croatia, and who was killed precisely by the forces that were located in the Dubrovnik region?

A. You say on the border, on the frontier?

Q. Yes, at the border, under fire from your side. And they were killed by the forces who were located precisely in your area.

A. I guarantee and can sign that that is not true. I guarantee and I sign what I guarantee that not a single Serb or anybody else on the territory of Montenegro on the 1st of October was killed from the Croatian side. Not a single one. I guarantee that.

Q. The 1st of October was when the commemorative session was held.

A. That means they were killed previously, and what you're saying is a lie, a sheer lie.

Q. From the documents that are presented here, they testify to the facts otherwise, but we'll come to you, to what you say. And they go on to say - is this a lie too? - "The war being waged on the border belt between the Republic of Montenegro with the Republic of Croatia has been ¹⁴⁴⁸³ imposed on the Yugoslav People's Army by the Republic of Croatia. The war is proof and evidence that the threats made by the Croatian leadership and territorial pretensions that they have towards the Bay of Kotor and other areas in the Republic of Montenegro were not empty threats. The border of the Republic of Montenegro with the Republic of Croatia has been jeopardised and is under threat by the aggression of Ustasha formations on the part of the Croatian Republic." Is that incorrect too?

A. It is so incorrect that I didn't expect you to present such incorrect information.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Poljanic, would you remember this is not a matter for debate. You are in a Court. Just answer the questions. They may seem provocative, but just answer them.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What you have read out is not true.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Poljanic, I am reading the conclusions of the Assembly of Montenegro.

JUDGE MAY: The witness says they are not true. They may be the conclusions, as described. He says they are not true. Let's move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Since this is not true regarding territorial pretensions, you know nothing about territorial pretensions in those days that were discussed, of Croatia towards Boka Kotorska, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and so on? Nothing?

A. No.

Q. Do you know of the Lipan charter, the June charter, have you heard of it? ¹⁴⁴⁸⁴

A. Yes, I have.

Q. What does it say in it? The Croatian territory includes the Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Bay of Kotor, et cetera.

A. I allow that there may have been some exaggerations, but real pretensions never existed nor are there any now.

Q. So you do allow that there may have been some pretensions?

A. I didn't say pretensions; I said inaccuracies.

Q. Very well, then. Is this true, at least: Montenegro does not have an army of its own? I assume you will agree with that. But military conscripts of this republic, on the basis of federal regulations which Montenegro continues to observe, which is an expression of its pro-Yugoslav orientation and determination to defend Yugoslav institutions is taking part in combat operations of the JNA against Ustasha military forces whereby the dilemma as to whether Montenegro is at war or not is nonsense. Montenegro sees Yugoslavia as a state community and any changes in this country have to be made by peaceful means, et cetera, et cetera.

A. In the territory of Dubrovnik municipality, there were absolutely no Ustasha forces. As to what was going on in Montenegro, that's their problem.

Q. I'm only saying --

A. I'm only saying.

Q. Will you please confirm the fact that there were many accusations against Montenegrins that they did something, and they are saying that they don't have their own army, and that their reservists took part in the JNA as they respect Yugoslavia and Yugoslav institutions. I assume you're ¹⁴⁴⁸⁵ aware of that. And that they, of course, advocate a peaceful solution and not violence.

Since you say that there were certain clumsiness, there was some clumsiness in expression, on the other hand, Mr. Poljanic, did Serbia or the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia later on ever express territorial pretensions towards any part outside its own territory? Are you aware of that?

A. I am absolutely aware of that because -- let us talk about the south of Croatia. Because the war in the south of Croatia was waged exclusively because of territorial pretensions towards Croatia. And participating in that war were the Serbian and Montenegrin army. Now, whether you're going to call it a Yugoslav army, that depends on an agreement. These were Serbian and Montenegrin soldiers, and I saw them with my own eyes. They had their guns pointed at me, a hundred of them or so, at those let us call them negotiations.

Q. Since they were armed and in uniform, if you knew that they were Serbs and Montenegrins, how could you tell? There may have been a Macedonian, a Bulgarian, a Croat, a Hungarian, Romanian, Ruthenian, a Muslim, and there were many of them, of all nationalities, in the Yugoslav People's Army.

A. And with all kinds of insignia.

Q. So you had the JNA or some other army there?

A. I said they were wearing all kinds of insignia. They were wearing JNA uniforms with various insignias. There were five-cornered stars and cockades. ¹⁴⁴⁸⁶

Q. JNA uniforms had no cockades.

A. Yes, they did. I saw them.

Q. Very well, Mr. Poljanic. I cannot put to you what you saw.

A. I can, though.

Q. But I am claiming that they didn't have. You explained here that the pretension was to occupy Dubrovnik, then you mentioned Split, Sibenik, Zadar, et cetera.

A. I did.

Q. But Mr. Poljanic, after all, our memories are still fresh, and there are documents to confirm this; wasn't the situation quite the opposite? Wasn't it true that in cities all over Croatia, barracks of the JNA were blocked, electricity was cut off, water, and supplies, and fire opened at JNA barracks? Do you remember, for example, we heard here a telephone conversation between the then federal Secretary of National Defence, Veljko Kadijevic, and the late president of Croatia, Franjo Tudjman, in which Kadijevic requests that the agreement signed with Lord Carrington in Igalo be observed, and placed particular emphasis on the fact that on that day there were very exceptionally strong attacks on the barracks in Sibenik, that this should be stopped, that the army be allowed to withdraw from there. Do you remember these attacks on barracks? Wasn't that true? It wasn't the army attacking Sibenik or Zadar but on the contrary; the barracks were blocked and attacks launched against the barracks and members of the JNA not only in Sibenik and Zadar, but all over Croatia?

A. What you are saying is not true, or partially true. There were ¹⁴⁴⁸⁷ blockades. But the question is what preceded that. You know very well that the weapons of the Territorial Defence had been pulled out by you from Croatia; and when Croatia was attacked, we had to find a way of getting hold of some weapons. As a result, there were some blockades. But we didn't attack Sibenik, you attacked it, not because of the blockade. We didn't attack Split, you attacked it, and again, not because of the blockade. We didn't attack Zadar but you did, and not because of the blockade. You attacked it exclusively because you needed that territory. And there was no other reason. At the head of that project were you.

Q. Very well, Mr. Poljanic. Your comments are your affair. But you know that this was a conflict between your paramilitary forces and the legal Yugoslav army and its units and its garrisons all over Croatia. So you consider that not to be true?

A. That wasn't a conflict between our paramilitary forces and your units. It was not a civil war. It was a pure aggression against the Republic of Croatia.

Q. How could the JNA commit aggression on territory where it had been present for the past 50 years?

A. Shall we go back to the 25th of June again?

Q. Mr. Poljanic, as far as I understand it, you're a diplomat, are you not? You have served in a number of countries, and I assume that you are familiar with some elementary norms. You know when Croatia was recognised by the United Nations.

A. I do. ¹⁴⁴⁸⁸

Q. Was that middle of 1992?

A. It was partially recognised already on the 15th of January, 1992, and then it went on from there.

Q. Yes, we know how things developed. You remember that Germany's recognition was described by Lord Carrington as the death toll for the negotiations.

A. Who made what judgement I don't know, but what is important is that Croatia started to be recognised then. And it wasn't just 12 countries but more that recognised it.

Q. And Croatia committed an armed secession from Yugoslavia?

A. What are you talking about, an armed secession?

Q. We'll come back to those blockades of JNA barracks. You don't know that this happened. You're not aware of that, all over Croatia, of killings and attacks on JNA garrisons? All this is a pure fabrication?

A. I know also about the month of May in Plitvice, May 1991. I know about Borovo Selo, too. I know about Vukovar, too.

Q. Other people have testified about those things, so we don't have time now to delve into that.

A. Yes, but you're talking about the period after that, and I'm talking about the period prior to that, about the causes and the effects.

Q. Very well, Mr. Poljanic. I saw here that you issued a proclamation to citizens. Units of the JNA are in your town for 20 days already, a proclamation to the citizens of Cavtat in which it is said: "We were taught --" "You have been taught from a long period that we are occupiers, and we are not occupiers." The appeal for cooperation, for ¹⁴⁴⁸⁹ refraining from attacks against the army, et cetera. Does this -- is this evidence of goodwill and good faith?

A. No, it is evidence of perfidiousness.

Q. Very well. Very well. You mentioned when speaking about these attacks, their strength and so on, you said that the Yugoslav People's Army was one of the most powerful armies in Europe. I don't know which in order, but you pointed this out, this aspect of the matter.

A. Yes.

Q. On the other hand, you had no defences.

A. Yes.

Q. Is it sensible, then, to say if such a power had intended to capture Dubrovnik, why didn't it?

A. This is a debatable question to this day. There are many answers to it, to the question why. One of them is that, after all, it would have lost so many men that it couldn't probably justify it, shall we say, in this case, before Montenegro. Secondly, it is a fact that you needed Dubrovnik empty or relatively empty. You know very well that Dubrovnik and Konavle are ethnically almost entirely pure. Why would you need Dubrovnik with an 88 per cent population of Croats?

Q. Surely you're not --

A. Why did you chase out 35.000 Croats?

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness finish. Yes, go on. No, Mr. Milosevic, come on. Let him finish.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Who chased out 35.000 Croats from Dubrovnik? Did I do that or somebody from the leadership of Dubrovnik? ^{14490 BLANK PAGE 14491}

JUDGE MAY: The witness must be allowed to finish. Now, just pause a moment for the interpreters.

Now, you were answering the question when you were interrupted. Now, if there's anything else you want to add to the question, which was why didn't they take Dubrovnik, if you want to add anything to what you've said already, do.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I've answered that question. I can go on, but I think I've said what is important.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Poljanic, when you say because of our or my shells, Serbia is too far away. Perhaps you saw an army that came specially outside the JNA from Serbia to attack Dubrovnik.

A. Yes, I did. There are many documents showing that.

Q. That people same from Serbia?

A. Yes, I saw them three days ago and I also saw them those days in Dubrovnik when the Yugo army, as you called it, left the area. Those documents are filed here in Court. I saw them last week when I was here.

Q. I'm not calling it the Yugo army, but the Yugoslav People's Army.

A. Whatever you liked to call it in 1991. They, they even signed their names, many of them, and they said which units they came from and where they were born.

Q. I see. You mean members of the Yugoslav People's Army.

A. Yes, yes, yes, from the territory of Serbia, but they came from all over Yugoslavia, but you just asked me --

THE INTERPRETER: Could there be a pause between question and ¹⁴⁴⁹² answer, please.

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop you both to point out what the interpreters are raising, quite fairly. They are saying could you kindly pause between question and answer. So, Mr. Poljanic, I know the temptation -- you speak the same language, therefore the temptation is to respond immediately to the question. But would you pause. Mr. Milosevic, the same to you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But to be quite truthful, we're speaking two languages. Mr. Poljanic speaks Croatian and I speak Serbian and by some wonder we understand one another. We understand one another because we lived together for too long.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So did it occur to you that since the JNA was such a major power, that it didn't capture Dubrovnik, that it had no intention of capturing it. Did such a possibility occur to you? It had no intention of taking Dubrovnik.

A. I think I have answered that question.

Q. You were just shown a document of the command of the operative groups signed by Miodrag Jokic. And you called it an ultimatum whereas it says here "to hand over and disarm all paramilitary formations, the so-called National Guards Corps and MUP units to be reduced to the level of the -- of what it was in January 1991." And it is emphasised the first agreement when the Republic of Croatia - that is, Tudjman - had signed that it would do that. Didn't they ask you to do what Tudjman had agreed on and signed in January 1991, to disband the National Guards Corps and to ¹⁴⁴⁹³ reduce the police to peacetime strength?

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness have the relevant document, which is tab 40 of the exhibit.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, he's just looked at it, and what it says isn't being challenged. It says the disarming of civilians in the Dubrovnik region, handing over the former officers of the JNA with whom relations have not been regulated --

JUDGE MAY: My mistake, it's 39, in fact, is the relevant document. The witness should have it in front of him before he's asked the question.

Now what -- the witness has the document. What is the question, Mr. Milosevic, about it? What is the point?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you consider it to be a criminal act of some kind the fact that the army is asking for these facilities - I'm going to skip over this - that those facilities should be left - that is such a notorious fact - and then the return of equipment to recruits who had received them, and the disarmament of civilians, which means the disarmament of paramilitary units and formations which were a jeopardy to security in the area. And the disarmament of paramilitary units pursuant to an agreement that Tudjman signed. He said he would put it into effect on the 21st of January, 1991. What is there that the army is calling for and which it did not have complete legal rights to ask of you, and what kind of criminal act did it perpetrate by doing so?

A. I think I've already answered that question, but let me repeat. ¹⁴⁴⁹⁴ This -- in Dubrovnik, there were no paramilitary formations whatsoever. What did exist was the legal army, and your army even recognised that army because a day before this document, it asked us to bring in the representatives of the Croatian army to negotiations of this date. And we legally sent a representative of the Croatian army to the negotiations on the next day, which was the 12th of October. And he was Antun Karaman, that was his name.

Q. So they didn't know that it was a legal army?

A. Yes, they did.

Q. Well, that's why they wrote this and then called the legal army to attend?

A. No, they wrote this as an alibi for further attacks. They knew that we had no paramilitary formations.

Q. We'll come to that, to what you had and what you didn't have. You said how you were received at the negotiations with Jokic. Isn't that right?

A. No, this was with Zec.

Q. All right, with Zec.

A. It was with Jokic one day prior to that.

Q. I have jotted down that you said with Jokic on the 11th of October.

A. That is correct, yes.

Q. And you go on to enumerate, among other things, that there was an interpreter there too; is that right?

A. Yes, but not because of our two languages, but because of the blue ¹⁴⁴⁹⁵ helmet observers.

Q. Right, that's what I wanted to establish. So what you were saying a moment ago, that the observers fell from the sky suddenly appearing there, otherwise you would have been killed, well, those observers I assume, Mr. Poljanic, and I hope you're not going to challenge, that they were there with the authorisation of the Yugoslav authorities and the Yugoslav People's Army, and they were moving around in this zone, in a zone of which the army had control. Is that something you're disputing?

A. I'm allowing for that possibility, too, but I'm claiming that we didn't know that they would arrive. They suddenly appeared there, how I don't know. I said that a moment ago, and I am saying that here today, I have been saying it three times now. And it's a good thing that they did turn up. Let's make that understood.

Q. And they had a ready interpreter because they did not expect the observers to turn up?

A. They came much later, but let's leave that to one side for now. We've been through that several times. We can go through it again if you have time.

Q. No, I have been allotted very little time to put my questions to you, so I'm going to try and focus on as much -- and cover as much ground as possible.

You said that the people in Dubrovnik were very happy to see the changes that had taken place from a communist country into a free country. That change.

A. Yes. ¹⁴⁴⁹⁶

Q. Do you consider that Yugoslavia before that was a country that was not free?

A. Yes.

Q. Very well. As you say, that a certain number of Serbs took part in the formation of a branch of the Serb Democratic Party, which advocated a very nationalistic programme and line, how do you bring this into connection with what you said and what we observed before, that most of the Serbs voted in favour of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia?

A. Well, because we were a truly a democratic authority. We had even forgotten that fact, although at the meeting, you know this very well, there were some very malicious comments and even more malicious songs about the one about Sloban the Salor [phoen], to the verses of that song.

Q. You don't know that song?

A. Yes, it goes: "Come on Slobo, send us some salad. We're going to have some meat, so we'll need the salad for the meat. We're going to slaughter the Croats."

Q. I don't know about that song?

A. Well, it was a song that was widely sung.

JUDGE MAY: Just remember the interpreters.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We were so democratically disposed that the president of the SDS, we took for a time to go to the negotiations with us with the opposite side, to take part in the negotiations.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Why not? ¹⁴⁴⁹⁷

A. Well, I'm asking myself why not, that's what we did do. Later on for well-known reasons all that fell through. And I consider I have been extensive enough on that point.

Q. Now, do you consider that the HDZ programme of 1989 and then 1990 was not a nationalistic one?

A. In my assessment, it was sufficiently national, and I would say that it was an okay programme.

Q. All right. Fine. Now, as you at the time were either already elected or, at any rate, you delved in politics prior to the elections --

A. No, I spent quite a lot of time in hospital.

Q. But were slogans written out around Dubrovnik that "the Serbs and dogs have no place here, we'll throw you into the pits again," and slogans similar to those?

A. I don't know about that.

Q. Did the Serbs start to leave Dubrovnik during that period?

A. No.

Q. And do you know this: According to a report by Amnesty International, I have it here, relating to Veljko Zecevic, and yourself mentioned Veljko Zecevic as well as Aco Apolonije and Milenko Reljic, they were all people from Dubrovnik. Right?

A. Yes. Right.

Q. Are they Serbs or are the Croats?

A. Veljko Zecevic is a neighbour of mine. Our houses are 20 metres apart. He was an intellectual. For a long time he was president of the Court. He is an elderly man today. We have had proper relations at a ¹⁴⁴⁹⁸ point in time. It is true he was -- a lawsuit was brought against him for something, but he was not found not guilty [as interpreted].

Q. Well, this is a report by Amnesty International which states, and this was during your time, that he was arrested because of accusations that he had founded an independent Yugoslav Democratic Party. A Yugoslav party I emphasise?

A. As far as I remember, during my time, he was not arrested. I don't want to claim this with great certainty. I know that he was arrested in Zagreb. Exactly when I don't know. But let me say he was -- the charges were lifted against him.

Q. And 12 other people from Dubrovnik of Serb or Montenegrin, as it says, Serbian or Montenegrin ethnic origin from Dubrovnik. You've also heard about Jovan Pejovic and Milenko Reljic?

A. I know them all.

Q. This one is a little older because when this was written --

A. Reljic is older, and he has been a well-known lawyer, Dubrovnik lawyer for many years. Where he is now, I don't know. But I know him very well.

Q. Do you know in the same Amnesty International report, Milenko Reljic was accused by the Croatian authorities with Veljko Zecevic and another lawyer, Jovan Pejovic who was even arrested by the Croatian authorities, so that they were accused?

A. As for Pejovic, I don't know. I know that Reljic very well. Now, what Amnesty International says I can't day, but I do know actually Reljic was not arrested. He was never taken into custody. ¹⁴⁴⁹⁹

Q. Tell me this: It says here actually that 12 of them were arrested.

A. I don't know that Reljic was ever in prison.

Q. It says the accused Pejovic, Milenko Reljic, and so on. But let's not go into that now. Was there any reason? Were they militant Serbs or anything like that, this Reljic, this Pejovic and this Zecevic man? The ones you know, I'm not asking you about the others whom you don't know. But the people you know, was there any reason for them to be arrested?

A. Let me repeat once again, I don't know and I could even state that he was never arrested, Reljic, but I couldn't actually sign my name to that.

Q. What about Zecevic?

A. Zecevic, that's true, he was arrested but he was set free. And I've already said that for the third or fourth time. As for this man Pejovic, I don't know who he was. I have no idea who this man Pejovic was.

Q. Never mind, it's not important. But what you're saying is you don't consider that there was any reason for those people to have been arrested?

A. That's right. I don't consider that there was reason. And if you want, I can each add that I had heard that Mr. Zecevic had not very nice things to say about the authorities that were in power then from 1990 onwards.

Q. Yes. He had a lovely time in prison, I'm sure.

A. I think that all this took place later on. ^{14500 BLANK PAGE 14501}

Q. Oh, I see.

A. Yes. That's what I think.

Q. Well, he was arrested in December 1992.

A. No, actually it says here in December 1992, he was accused. I think he was arrested later on, but never mind.

Q. That's what it says here in this Amnesty International report.

A. I think that took place quite a while later.

Q. Paragraph 2, it says: "On 12 December 1992 Velimir Zecevic was indicted together with 12 other men of Serbian or Montenegrin ethnic origin from Dubrovnik. [In English] Two of his co-defendants, Jovan Pejovic (age 37) and Milenko Reljic (age 70) are lawyers." And then it goes on to say, The defendant currently under arrest and will almost certainly be the only defendant to be present at the trial. [Interpretation] And the rest had allegedly escaped. So that man was in prison at that time, and he was accused on the 12th of December, so he had been in prison from before that time.

A. I think that there's an error there. I think that that happened -- he ended up in prison much later.

Q. I'm asking you now within this entire context or complex of questions, what measures, in your opinion, when the HDZ came into power and began the persecution of Serbs --

A. The HDZ did not begin to persecute the Serbs in Dubrovnik. That is quite certain.

Q. I did not say it began in Dubrovnik; it began in other places in Croatia. ¹⁴⁵⁰²

A. I didn't hear about that.

Q. All right, then. But were the Serbs discriminated against in Dubrovnik?

A. No.

Q. Were they dismissed from the police force, for example?

A. Yes.

Q. Why? Isn't that aggressive behaviour towards them?

A. No, that is not discrimination. Everybody was retained, just those who did not want to put on Croatian uniforms were dismissed.

Q. Fine. So they were dismissed, but you just say for that particular reason. Is that what you're saying?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, tell me, please, how many houses, Serb houses in Dubrovnik, were demolished?

A. I think we've already discussed that. We discussed it last week. You accused me - not you, but your authorities and the papers wrote about - it accused me of having personally - I think the Politika newspaper wrote about it on its title page or on page 2 - that Poljanic had destroyed 400 Serb house in Dubrovnik. That is just one of the lies that were bandied about.

Those houses, 400 were not demolished. They were not all residences. When we arrived in 1990, we inherited 7.000 facilities and buildings that were built without authorisation. There were pigeon coops and different kinds of buildings, but there were residential buildings among them, too. I think some 60 facilities, ranging from chicken coops ¹⁴⁵⁰³ to residential buildings, that were destroyed and demolished, those which could not be incorporated and legalised on the basis of any criteria. When we had used up all the legal means at our disposal to protect them, those were the ones that were demolished. But they were not Serb houses; they were both Croatian and Muslim and Serb homes and houses. That is for sure.

Q. All right, Mr. Poljanic.

A. Yes, that's how it was. There you have it.

Q. All I asked you was whether the houses were destroyed, and you're claiming that they were not destroyed.

A. What I have been told you is the truth. They were, but in the manner in which I have described.

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop you. What the witness has said is that houses were destroyed, but it was not for any discriminatory reason but because they were built against the regulations. That's what he said. He's said that before, and he's repeated it today. Now, if you've got some evidence to the contrary, you can call it, Mr. Milosevic, but there's no point arguing about it.

Mr. Poljanic, help us with this, if you would: An Amnesty report has been put to you in which it appears to say that 12 Serbs or Montenegrins from Dubrovnik were arrested by the authorities in December 1992. And I think you agree that they shouldn't have been, but you only in fact knew about the details of one of them. That is as I understood your evidence and what was put to you. But can you help us about this: What do you know about this case generally? ¹⁴⁵⁰⁴

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can almost claim that 12 of them were not arrested. I know that several -- well, actually, now I know just about Mr. Velimir Zecevic. And let me say again that he was my neighbour and for a long period of time president of the Court. He really was arrested, and he was acquitted, the accusations were withdrawn. Some of them were accused but not arrested, some of them were tried in absentia. But generally speaking about that case, all I can say is, and what I know about it is -- and I don't think it was in 1992. I think it was later. I don't remember the exact date, so let's leave it at that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You have before you the Amnesty International report.

A. Yes, I can see that. But they were people who at that time were accused of having collaborated with the other side. Now, how far they were guilty, I can't say. In the case of Mr. Zecevic, quite obviously there was no guilt because he was acquitted. The charges were withdrawn. So that's the only one I can speak about. I don't even know some of the others. For example, I don't know who this man Jovo Popovic is. Milenko Reljic I do know. I know that he's not in Dubrovnik. I don't know the others.

Q. All right, let's not waste time and let's move on, if possible. You state in your statement that the JNA shot around --

A. Could you repeat your question, please. I took my earphones off.

Q. I have here, under inverted commas, that you saw that the JNA shot its own villages in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Herzegovina, and other villages.

A. That's true. ¹⁴⁵⁰⁵

Q. What do you mean targeted its own villages? What does that mean "its own villages"? What do you mean by saying its own villages, the JNA? What villages did the JNA have?

A. If I understood your question correctly, then this is what it is all about: Before the beginning of the war, that is to say, at the start of July -- September, the army that you're talking about, the JNA, if we're going to agree that that's what its name was, de facto shot at Montenegrin villages, it shot also at the villages in the Konavle region, but then it put out information in the public that it didn't do any shooting. Now, we didn't have anybody to do any shooting there. And they said loud and clear over the radio, in the papers that the Croatian mercenaries, Kurds, Ustashas, and all the terms you used to refer to us were shooting with the intent of taking control of the Bay of Boka. And in that way, you managed to recruit a lot of people in Montenegro who later on marched on Dubrovnik. And I state once again, and I claim, and I can sign my name to that, that not a single bullet was shot from Konavle into Montenegro. Quite literally not a single bullet from a revolver, let alone a mortar, a gun cannon or whatever they're called, these military devices.

Q. So, Mr. Poljanic --

JUDGE MAY: We are at the time we should adjourn. But before we do, Mr. Milosevic, do you want that Amnesty report exhibited?

THE ACCUSED: [In English] Yes, you can take it.

JUDGE MAY: Let us have the report, please. Yes, Mr. Nice. ¹⁴⁵⁰⁶

MR. NICE: Not in relation to this, only when you're about to adjourn.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, we'll exhibit that. We'll have a number for it, please.

THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit 71, Your Honours.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Nothing to do with the evidence of this witness. It's clear that we won't reach discussions about procedural matters until the third session of the morning. There are some additional documents that I hope will be of considerable value to the Chamber that I would be distributing then. As you're going to have two short breaks between now and then, I propose to distribute two of them now. They are documents you have seen before in an earlier form. We call them fill-box documents. They are documents that record the evidence in a systematic way. There's one for Kosovo which is in a file, one for Croatia thus far which is in a clip like this. If I can distribute them now, they may be of value because you'll have a chance, however brief, to review them.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll adjourn now for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Poljanic, as far as I understand it, you're claiming something rather unbelievable, and that is that the JNA was opening fire and killing ¹⁴⁵⁰⁷ in the territory of Montenegro. So those eight men killed at the border crossing for whom a commemoration was given on the 1st of October in Montenegro were not killed by your forces, but by the JNA.

A. That is not what I said. If there were men killed, then I claim that they were killed on the territory of Croatia by the army of Serbia or Montenegro. So it wasn't a case of our men opening fire and killing them on the Montenegrin side. I never said that. What I was saying was that our people never fired a single bullet across the border to Montenegro. As for those killed, you say there were eight of them, I believe you, if they were killed, then they were surely killed in fighting on the Croatian side and certainly not in the border area, but deep within Croatian territory.

Q. And those killed in Ravno, again, were not killed by your forces because you say that's not in the territory of Dubrovnik municipality?

A. For the dead in Ravno, in those days, I know nothing about. I've said that several times. I said that in the statement, and I'm saying that now. I'm not aware of any kind of fighting there at the time. I do know that after that, Ravno was razed to the ground, literally razed to the ground. Not a single house was left standing.

Q. Tell me, Mr. Poljanic, during the events that you're testifying about, did Dubrovnik have any information device to inform the citizens of Dubrovnik as to what was happening?

A. Yes, Radio Dubrovnik.

Q. Did you have any newspapers?

A. Novina? Newspapers? The Dubrovnik Herald was not published at ¹⁴⁵⁰⁸ the time, but something organised by Lang. Now what was its name? I can't recollect now what the name was.

Q. Very well.

A. You know, we didn't have a printing press. Your army took it away.

Q. I don't know about that.

A. But I know. Yes, they took everything they could get hold of.

Q. Did you have a kind of wartime issue of the Dubrovnik Herald?

A. Yes, there was a kind of.

Q. Very well. Then since you were the town mayor at the time, you were, I assume, interested in providing the public in Dubrovnik timely and correct information. That was your intention.

A. Yes.

Q. And I assume you did that among others via this wartime issue of the Dubrovacki Vjesnik. Were they reliable information?

A. All the information that we published was certainly reliable.

Q. Since in your statement to the investigators and testifying here the other day, you said that the JNA attacked the region that was without any defence, the region of Dubrovnik, the unarmed people. I have here what you just mentioned that you provided accurate information. Here is the Dubrovacki Vjesnik, wartime issue, dated the 5th of October, 1991, to the 4th of January, 1992. And then let me quote from it. This is -- let me just check.

The 1st to the 5th of October, 1991.

A. Yes. ¹⁴⁵⁰⁹

Q. That's what it says here.

A. Yes, Dubrovacki Vjesnik.

Q. On page 1, it says: "The losses of the enemy, 450 enemy soldiers were killed, and we learned from reliable sources that there are more than a thousand wounded. Two enemy airplanes have been destroyed, three tanks, two APCs, more than ten trucks, and other vehicles, a large number of soldiers have been captured or have surrendered as well as reservists, and large quantities of military equipment, et cetera." And then, it goes on to say: "Our losses, killed 6, wounded 75, et cetera." This is this brief passage I wanted to quote from. You said that 450 enemy soldiers were killed and more than a thousand wounded. Two airplanes destroyed, three tanks, two armoured personnel carriers, and more than ten trucks. Tell me please, how was it possible that the empty-handed, unarmed people of Dubrovnik managed to kill 450 heavily armed soldiers, downed two planes, destroyed trucks, et cetera, which is stated here?

JUDGE MAY: That depends on the source of the information and what it is written. Just a minute. Do you have a copy of the paper there?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is a copy of the Dubrovacki Vjesnik or Dubrovnik Gazette, which was published at the time, and it says here: "Dubrovacki Vjesnik, wartime issue, 1st to the 5th October, 1991.

JUDGE MAY: Before he answers, let the witness see what it is you are quoting from. Because it's only fair that he should have the opportunity to put it into context. We simply don't know what it is. Mr. Poljanic -- ^{14510 BLANK PAGE 14511}

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I've highlighted the passage in red.

JUDGE MAY: -- have a look at the report and then you can give us your answer.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I've marked it in red.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But you can read whatever you wish from that.

A. What I am now holding in my hand, I do so for the first time in my life. Where this comes from, I have no idea. I don't even know who printed this. It is a fact that up until the 5th of October, we certainly hadn't downed two planes and certainly hadn't killed 450 men. You know that, too. And all I can do is repeat that this is the first time I'm holding this in my hand. I've never seen it before, and I have no idea how it came about.

Q. Tell me, Mr. Poljanic, didn't you say a moment ago that you had such a newspaper, Dubrovacki Vjesnik, and that everything carried in it was accurate, correct?

A. Yes, I told you that. But I'm also telling you that what I'm holding now I see for the first time in my life. How it came about, I don't know. The facts are quite the opposite.

Q. So I assume that, too, is a fact.

A. I don't know to what extent this is a fact. These are your newspapers. I don't know whether they are our newspapers.

Q. Now, look at this, please, and I'll let you have a look at it. Again, Dubrovacki Vjesnik, wartime issue, number 2, 6th of October, 1991. Listopada is the month of October, is it not? ¹⁴⁵¹²

A. Yes.

Q. So it says, "In the area of Konavle the enemy has managed with tanks to reach Radovci, but it is suffering great losses in manpower and equipment. Among the many dead, according to Belgrade Radio, is captain of the battle Krsto Djurovic, the commander of LPS Boka, and Lieutenant-Colonel-General Jevrem Cokic has been seriously wounded who is guilty for the destruction of Dubrovacka Zupa. The brave defenders have downed their helicopter while it was flying above the airport." So please, look at this that I have just quoted from now. Do you see this, too, for the first time, this Dubrovacki Vjesnik of yours?

A. The same applies, only it is true, but I think the correct date is the 4th of October that Admiral Djurovic was killed. Under which circumstance we discussed the other day, so there's no point in repeating that. As for the other facts, I have no idea.

But it also says something that you didn't read out, that last night, on the 5th of October at 1800, from a gunship, Ploce was attacked. And in this attack, the writer Milan Milisic was killed in his own apartment, several cars were damaged and some ten vehicles. The writer, Milan Milisic, he's about my age, a year younger, was a wonderful man. He was a Serb by ethnicity. He was killed by your shell, and all the newspapers, your newspapers, wrote that we had killed him. And then his wife, who also comes from Belgrade, went up there to tell you they didn't kill him, you killed him. And again, the newspapers reported that we had killed a Serb writer.

I can't say that I saw this before either, but some of the things ¹⁴⁵¹³ are right. So those that are not in your interest are incorrect, and those that are not are correct.

Q. But Mr. Poljanic, only the other day you were explaining here that the JNA was -- opened fire on its helicopter, and that that was how Djurovic was killed. So in a helicopter, you have a Lieutenant-Colonel-General, the name is over there. I've given you the paper so I don't have it in front of me. The commander of that army in that area, a captain of a battleship which corresponds to the rank of Colonel, Djurovic, and you claimed here the other day that actually the JNA had killed him because he, as you put it, did not want to attack Dubrovnik, so they themselves killed him.

A. I didn't claim that the JNA or anyone else opened fire at the helicopter. I didn't speak about that at all. I just claimed that no one on our -- no member of our army had killed admiral Djurovic, I continue to claim that and that is quite certainly true. And according to data of our intelligence services, and not just them, what I said the other day, I said.

Q. So that was based on intelligence reports?

A. I said not only on their reports

Q. That they had opened fire on their own commander?

A. No, I didn't say that anyone fired at the helicopter. Nor did I say that he was killed by fire opened at the helicopter, but it is fact that he's dead.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, do you want to ask any more questions about those excerpts from the paper? Otherwise, they should probably be ¹⁴⁵¹⁴ exhibited.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, they can be exhibited. But let me just ask another question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The 7th of October, please. You say: The losses of the enemy in the last 24 hours: More than 60 dead, 110 wounded, two captured, one gunship, one tank destroyed. It's not legible how many armoured vehicles, three or five. One helicopter, and ten trucks. So this was the 7th of October. Is that also data --

A. If all that were true, then I don't know who would be alive on the other side. You know that, according to official data from Montenegro, there were 150 men killed from Montenegro.

Q. Yes, from Montenegro. But the JNA did not consist exclusively of soldiers from Montenegro.

A. That's true, too.

Q. Please, have a look at this one.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And then you can exhibit it, Mr. May.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The same applies.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me, then, please, did you ever hear from someone from the JNA speaking of the idea of some sort of Dubrovnik republic or a Greater Serbia?

A. I personally did not, because I had very few contacts with people from the JNA. My contacts were limited to the negotiations we had, and ¹⁴⁵¹⁵ the negotiations, at least, when I took part in them, occurred three or four times only. We were never alone. I and someone else, because there were several people on our side and several on the other side, so to be quite frank, at those negotiations, I did not hear from anyone insisting on that idea. But I do know that in Cavtat, when Cavtat was occupied already, certain military officers, soldiers, from the Yugo army, did speak about it. Actually --

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to interrupt for a moment. If we've finished with these excerpts from the paper, the usher should be able to sit down. And they can be exhibited together, three excerpts.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the three excerpts will be Defence Exhibit 72.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me, please, Mr. Poljanic, do you know who Bruno Karnincic and Dragan Gajic are?

A. Bruno Karnincic is a judge in Dubrovnik, in the District Court. Gajic is also a judge in the District Court. Now it's called the Djubanija [phoen] Court. In those days, it was the District Court.

Q. I see. So both of them are judges of what used to be the District Court, now it is the County Court.

A. Whether Karnincic was in the municipal court, I don't know. I think Gajic was already then a judge in the District Court in those days, now the County Court.

Q. Very well. Now, tell me, please, do you know that these ¹⁴⁵¹⁶ investigating judges of the Dubrovnik District Court, in the course of the summer 1991, carried out several dozen investigations on the basis of reports that the property of local Serbs was being destroyed in attacks with explosive devices and the like?

A. No, I don't know that.

Q. And do you know - I assume you must have known, as you were the town mayor - that according to their reports and on-the-spot reports which they were duty bound to compile, more than 50 houses, mostly located in Zupa, Cavtat, and its environs and other localities in the Dubrovnik region, belonging to local Serbs, were destroyed in various bomb attacks when various explosive devices were used?

A. In what period of time?

Q. Right then, in the course of the summer of 1991, these Serb houses being blown up.

A. No, that is not true. In the course of summer 1991, there were no bomb attacks in Serb houses in Dubrovnik municipality. I don't know of them.

Q. Very well. Very well, Mr. Poljanic. Let me just draw your attention to what I have here, a statement given to the opposing side, Gajic Dragan, a judge, in which it says -- he gave the statement on the 10th to the 15th of November, 2000. Page 5, first paragraph of the English version, and I was only given the English version, so I'll read it. [In English]: "The incidents I refer to were the blowing up or torching of Serbian houses, mostly in Zupa, and a few in Cavtat. Sometimes a hand grenade would be thrown through a window, in most cases ¹⁴⁵¹⁷ no one was at home; however, there were two or three cases where people were at home, and were wounded at the time. More than 50 houses belonging to Serbian people were damaged in this way from the summer of 1991 to the summer of 1992."

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Poljanic, were you able to follow?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the summer of 1991 until the summer of 1992, as it's stated there, those areas were occupied by the Yugo army. Therefore, one must wonder how he could have known, how he could have got there. I claim he wasn't there, nor could he have got there. So, excuse me, therefore it could only be damage inflicted as a result of shells fired by the Yugo army and not our shells. Who could have got there? There was no one there. There was an occupied area. Do you believe that the Yugo army would let someone enter and throw a bomb at someone's house? Of course it wouldn't. But how, then, could those people have got there?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Poljanic, wait a minute.

A. I am waiting.

Q. That is precisely what I'm asking you, because these are two judges of the District Court in Dubrovnik, who carried out many inspections as official investigators. Is that credible or not?

A. In my view, it is incredible, because I must ask again, how could those two judges, while the area was occupied, how could they get there? How? Who let them in? I'm not clear on that point.

Q. Well, we quoted -- ¹⁴⁵¹⁸

A. Well, you're making your conclusions and so is the Court. But my question is how could they go there in the first place, Gajic or this other man Karnincic? It was the occupied area.

Q. The report that you gave, the proclamation "Respected Citizens," and when the army addresses the citizens of Cavtat, the date of that document is the 7th of November, 1991. Therefore, this was the summer of 1991 and what you're claiming happened could not have happened in the summer, that the army held under control that area.

A. Not in 1991, but from the 1st of October onwards.

Q. What are we going to do with the summer and their investigations and the bombing affairs?

A. There were no bombing affairs from July up to October at all, and not a single bomb from the Croatian side was thrown into any territory or house, Serbian or Croatian. Perhaps this refers to what we were talking about at the very beginning, about the houses that were built without the legal documents allowing them to be built. That's quite another matter then.

Q. Mr. Poljanic, I don't believe that you as mayor, town mayor, would use bombs to destroy houses that had been illegally built.

A. No, of course not. But the inspection service would do this with dynamite, the classical method used to demolish houses of that kind, but no bombs at all. And I claim that nobody threw any bombs at anybody's houses at that time.

Q. All right. I'm sure you know the rules of procedure and that, after events of this kind, investigations were carried out, on-site ¹⁴⁵¹⁹ investigations by the investigating judges that went out to the scene of the crime. So they sent photographic documentation and all the other reports to the competent court authorities, which were in Dubrovnik, to launch proceedings against the perpetrators of those crimes. Isn't that so?

A. That's how it should have been, yes, but I also claim that nobody threw a bomb on anybody's house. I claim that.

Q. So you don't know whether any of the perpetrators were taken into custody and punished.

A. They couldn't have been because there was nobody who at that time threw any bombs of any kind. I state once again, perhaps this refers to the houses which were demolished, the facilities and houses that we spoke about a moment ago.

Q. But look at what it says here. Your judge here in his report and statement given to the opposite side. That is to say, this particular institution, that's what I mean. He says: "I suspect that sometimes the police did know who was responsible for some of these offences involving people in military uniform ... [In English]: but they would not report this to the Investigating judge. Often it was widely known around town that a particular person was responsible for one of these offences but it was never properly investigated. No one was ever prosecuted for these nationalistic crimes committed in 1991."

A. Which judge wrote that, please?

Q. [Interpretation] This is a statement by a judge. His name is Dragan Gajic, and you yourself said that he was indeed a judge of the ¹⁴⁵²⁰ District Court in Dubrovnik.

A. Yes, that's right, he was. And that was quite certainly written, because you read it out. But let me repeat once again and state again that there were never any bomb attacks on any single houses in that period from the Croatian side. Now, if you happen to notice, he says at one point that he suspects, he doesn't claim.

Q. Yes, an investigating judge always indicates things in this way, that even if it is known who the perpetrators are, that nobody was prosecuted or arrested.

A. Nobody could have been arrested because nobody at that time committed any such act.

Q. All right. Tell me this, then: Did you keep quiet about this, or didn't you know the fact that local criminals in October 1991, following directives from the local authorities and Marinko Peric, president of the District Court, were released from detention which was in the top floor of the District Court building itself, so why were they released?

A. Who were these local criminals? Who are you talking about?

Q. Well, let me make things clearer: Is it true that these same individuals, having been set free, became involved and included into the Croatian armed units and groups which, according to your own newspapers, had killed so many soldiers?

A. I really know nothing about that. I don't know -- but listen, it's a big municipality; 73.000 inhabitants. Probably someone was in prison, I'm sure, following on the logics of having so many people living there. There's always somebody in prison. But as to criminals, criminals ^{14521 BLANK PAGE 14522} who were in prison and who were released to join some units, I really don't know anything about that. I really don't.

Q. I have another statement here.

A. That Gajic's statement again?

Q. Yes. I'm quoting from the report I received from the opposite side pursuant to Rule 68 of the Rules of Procedure. "... I was directed to release a number of criminals who had been held [in English] on remand at the top floor of the court building. They were released on the orders of the President of the District Court, Marinko Peric, as there was a rumour going around that JNA was about to enter Dubrovnik and we didn't know how they would treat detainees had they found them there. I later heard that some of these men continued to commit crimes whilst serving with the Croatian forces."

A. I repeat once again: I do not know how many people there were imprisoned. I don't know of any large number of criminals being there at that time. And I know even less that the former -- or already deceased Marinko Gajic or Marinko Peric, the then president of the District Court would have done that. I really don't know. I don't believe that that information and those facts are correct. Now, who was in prison, why don't you enumerate the names of the people?

Q. Well, you'd have to ask him that. But this is a statement that he didn't give to me.

A. Well, I'll ask him when I meet him.

Q. Tell me this, then, please: Why are you keeping quiet about the fact that at the beginning of the conflict between the then Croatian ¹⁴⁵²³ undoubtedly paramilitary forces and the JNA, and not the JNA aggression as you call it, a number of civilians were killed and that the largest number of those killed were wearing Croatian military uniforms?

A. When did this happen?

Q. In the conflicts that you're testifying about.

A. And which civilians were killed, you say, and where?

Q. The largest number -- the point is this: We're talking about the persons killed that you talked about, on the Croatian side.

A. Right, yes, I'm following you.

Q. So why would these people that were killed wearing Croatian military uniforms?

A. That's not true. The list that was shown to me of the men killed, not a single person was wearing a uniform. There was just a dilemma over someone's surname. And that was because the surname was Martinovic and there were two men with that surname. So there was just that query, and that was cleared up. So not even that man was in uniform. None of the people killed were wearing uniform.

Q. I remember that, because Mr. Kwon mentioned that this man was born in 1914 and then you realised that it was somebody else.

A. Yes, that's right.

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop you. It's quite impossible for anyone to make anything of it if you both talk at once. Now, what are you quoting, Mr. Milosevic, for this assertion that you make that the majority were killed in Croatian uniform? Where does that come from? ¹⁴⁵²⁴

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] According to the information that I have, Mr. May, about 150 postmortems were conducted over persons who were wearing Croatian military uniforms.

Q. Is that correct or not, Mr. Poljanic?

A. I don't know what postmortem examinations you're talking about, or people either. The truth that is a large number of Croatian soldiers were killed. But I'm talking about the list that the Court showed me here, and on that list, there is not a single Croatian soldier. As to the postmortems that you're talking about on the bodies of the Croatian soldiers who were killed in the environs of Dubrovnik, I don't believe that your side carried out those postmortems. And you'll see on the tapes that the Court has received - and if hasn't, it will do so - you will be able to see these people just before you handed them over to us. And I saw some of them dead and recognised them on the tapes. So I don't know that any postmortem was carried out, but it is quite true, the fact is, that there were Croatian soldiers who, unfortunately, were killed, to their great and our great misfortune.

Q. Yes, unfortunately so, especially the 250.000 people. I assumed you knew about this because, according to my documentation, the person carrying out the postmortem was a doctor by the name of Dr. Ciganovic. I assume you know him.

A. I know him very well.

Q. What did you say?

A. I do know him, yes.

Q. And that Damira Poljanic, a relative of yours, attended the ¹⁴⁵²⁵ postmortems.

A. A distant relative.

Q. All right, a distant relative, but it was a distant relative. They were your postmortem people.

A. Then it was a misunderstanding. Our people did carry out the postmortems and there were about 150 soldiers who were killed, but not anybody from the list, because the list that I was shown listed civilians exclusively.

Q. Now, in this statement by the investigating judge which I quoted from, he says the autopsies were conducted by the pathologist, Dr. Ciganovic, and, in brackets, a Serb from the Dubrovnik hospital in the presence of a police representative, [in English]: usually Damira Poljanic, the police photographer, and the investigative judge." [Interpretation] And then it goes on to state [in English]: "October 1991 to January 1992, there were about 150 people, civilians and soldiers, killed. I attended about 40 of these autopsies." [Interpretation] And then it goes on to say that they respect Dr. Ciganovic's professionalism, and so on and so forth.

A. Well, those facts are not challenged, are not being challenged.

Q. Fine. Then we can move on. Tell me this, then, please: How come you say that you had a handful of defenders when so many soldiers had been killed in fighting in these operations underway at that time?

A. Well, about 150 or 160 soldiers were killed in one year. Had even a single one been killed, that would have been too much. But that's it.

Q. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about your assertion, ¹⁴⁵²⁶ your claim, that you had only about a hundred defenders of Dubrovnik.

A. Even less than that. I said at the beginning, but I also said that the number grew as time went by. Especially after April 1992.

Q. All right. Now, what about the facts and figures as to the number of people killed on the JNA side? And you published those figures yourself in your own newspaper, in your own gazette, the wartime issue of your gazette.

A. I didn't say that we printed that, that it was us who printed it. I said I don't know how it came about.

Q. All right. But you yourself stated that 158 were killed in Montenegro.

A. I said that the figure was around 150.

Q. Well, does that indicate without a doubt the fact that the members of the JNA were exposed to constant attack?

A. Not constant attack, but at one period in time, yes, they were under attack. That's certain, too.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Before we move on and lose the point, the quotation by the accused of a part of the report or statement of the investigating judge he's identified refers to 150 people. I'm not sure whether he's suggesting that those particular people have a particular origin or whether he's accepting that those people were people killed in the shelling of Dubrovnik and possibly in other places. It would be quite wrong, in my reading of the statement of that particular judge, for any suggestion to be made other than those were bodies generally dealt with, ¹⁴⁵²⁷ including those killed in the shelling.

JUDGE MAY: We don't normally, of course, allow the exhibiting of statements. That has been our practice, and quite rightly, too. I wonder if this is an exception.

MR. NICE: Well, it might be. It's a very full statement, and it contains material of one kind and another. It deals with the history of what happened in Dubrovnik.

JUDGE MAY: Does he rely on reports, for instance, which he made at the time?

MR. NICE: I'm not sure at the moment whether he had the reports in front of him when he produced his statement, but he certainly refers back to documents that were prepared on a scientific basis, yes. For example, on the topic of autopsies, he says from the outset of the conflict, with his brother judge, he had been going to most of the autopsies of the people killed in the shelling of Dubrovnik and war-related actions in the outlying areas. In the beginning, it was mainly civilians that were killed, but later, most of the people that were killed were in Croatian military uniforms. So he's quite detailed. We would take the pathology reports and start a Court file. Then he says this: I remember that once through the exchange of bodies with the other side, we got bodies of civilians from Zupa and Konavle who had been killed two or three months earlier. The JNA was advancing. He then deals with the conduct of the autopsies and then turns to the passage: From October 1991 to January 1992, there were about 150 people, civilians and soldiers, killed. I tended about 40 of those ¹⁴⁵²⁸ autopsies. That's the passage that the accused read out. It's quite a long statement. It's ten pages. And of course, if it were to be admitted -- I take no position on it. I'm entirely in the Court's hands. If it were to be admitted as an exception to the rule, its evidential status would have to be given some consideration.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we propose to exhibit that document that you've referred to, that statement, as an exception to the usual rule. The judge refers in it to various documents which were reports which were made at the time. It's therefore got more substance than most of these statements which we, of course, exclude.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is quite all right and proper. I do think that it should be included into the evidence.

JUDGE MAY: Before we go on, let's have an exhibit number for it. We'll make it the next Defence exhibit number.

THE REGISTRAR: That would be Defence Exhibit 73, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Perhaps we could have copies of it, if the Prosecution could let us, when they are ready.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right, Mr. Poljanic, in view of the large number of JNA members killed from Montenegro alone, you yourself said 158 was the figure.

A. I didn't say 158, I said approximately 150 from the facts that are not official facts.

Q. Well, I have a list here with their names. But never mind. How ¹⁴⁵²⁹ is it possible that such a large number of JNA members were killed, if you claim that there were no members of Croatian paramilitary forces in the area, or members of the Croatian armed forces at all, or any kinds of groups and units in the area but just a handful of, as you say, or what you call them, a handful of citizens, defenders, that kind of thing?

A. What I said, and I stand by it, is the truth, and I wish to add to that truth by saying this: The fact is that not a single one of those soldiers who were killed, you said that you have a list of 158 of them, but who were killed were not killed either on the territory of Serbia or the territory of Montenegro, but they were killed on the territory of Croatia as a part of the aggressor army.

Q. All right. You claim that in 1991, the JNA on the territory of the SFRY was the aggressor army. Is that what you're saying?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. As you call them the Serbo-Montenegrin army, and you're referring to the JNA by saying that, do you know that it is precisely in that area, in the clashes with the paramilitary forces, the JNA, that not only Serbs and Montenegrins died, were killed, but also Croats and Muslims and members of other different Yugoslav nations and ethnic groups and minorities who were in the ranks of the Yugoslav People's Army because it was a Yugoslav People's Army, as the title says which was quite a legal army its own territory?

A. But not on the territory of Croatia. I do know that in Montenegro, there are Croats. In the Bay of Kotor and around the Bay of Kotor, there are approximately 15.000 ethnic Croats. I also know that ¹⁴⁵³⁰ they, too, had been mobilised, and I do know that some of them were killed, too. How many exactly, I don't know. But some of them were killed, I know that.

Q. All right, Mr. Poljanic. Do you happen to know that the command of the JNA via Radio Herceg Novi, which is very close to Dubrovnik and which can be very well heard, reception is good of that radio station in Dubrovnik, that it appealed to you and, when I say you, I don't mean you personally, I mean the leadership or the forces that were there, not to open fire on members of the JNA and that if they do not -- and that if they don't open fire, the JNA will not open fire. Do you know that they sent out messages to that effect? "Don't shoot at the JNA. We're not going to shoot at anyone. Only if we are attacked shall we respond. So don't shoot at the JNA." Were those the messages sent out all the time? Did you hear those messages?

A. I didn't hear those messages, but I heard of their existence. However, I claim that we never shot first. We never opened fire first ever. At the beginning, nobody on our side shot at all, especially not at the territory of Montenegro. But I also know this: As you mentioned that radio station, that particular radio station did very frequently broadcast news to the effect that 30.000, this was every day, several times, broadcast that 30.000 Ustashas had started marching on the Bay of Kotor. That's what I know. And I also know, and I can also tell you the name of the man who spoke out, who uttered these things. I don't think there's any point in me doing so, but if you insist, I will. He would say, "Dear listeners, while I am saying this, Ustasha shells are falling on Igalo," ^{14531 BLANK PAGE 14532} and in Igalo, there was absolute peace, and the chirping of birds. I know that full well. So the whole of Igalo all the inhabitants of Igalo are witnesses to that and you can check it out.

Q. Well, I had nothing to check out because my question to you was: Were you aware -- do you know that the command of the army sent out warnings not to -- to people not to shoot at the JNA and that nobody would shoot a single bullet at anybody if they weren't shot it?

A. Well, my answer to you is: I am aware of that, and it is also my answer that we did not do that and that the other side was the one doing the shooting and it shot every day and moved forward taking control of territory more and more each day.

Q. Why are you keeping quiet about the fact, or rather saying that there were no armed forces in Dubrovnik itself when your people themselves say that in a secondary school, Nikica Franic, halfway between Gruz and Stari Grad, at the Lovrijenac, at the Saint Lawrence fortress, Gospina Polje, Sveto Lorens within the old town, there were armed forces. This isn't a statement of a citizen of Dubrovnik, a statement I have here of Slobodan Simunovic who says that those were the positions. Let me tell you, it is on page 4. Unfortunately, again, I only have the English version. He speaks of mortar positions, for instance, and says: "I" saw one located at the grammar school Nikica Franic [In English] in Ilina Glavica halfway between Gruz and the old town. I also saw one at the park Gradac near the fortress of St. Lawrence, Lovrijenac. I also saw one at the Madonna's field, Gospino Polje. One was positioned in Poljane, Mrtvo Zvono within the old town. I didn't see it with my own eyes, but ¹⁴⁵³³ even Croats were talking about it. I do not know anyone who saw these mortar themselves."

[Interpretation] He's referring to this position at Mrtvo Zvono. But I am reading literally each and every letter that is written here. So even mortar positions, according to the statement of this witness, whom I don't know, of course, I was given this from the opposite side.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer that. It's alleged there were mortar positions.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you're saying that I'm not mentioning the fact that in old town, there were armed formations, I didn't keep quiet about it. I told the truth. Among all the things that you have listed, not one of those locations is in old town except Mrtvo Zvono, of which this witness, your witness or the witness of the Tribunal, says they didn't see with his own eyes. So not a single of those positions is in the old town. And I myself said that I knew that there was one mortar in Gradac. This was last Wednesday, when I was sitting in this same chair. So I don't know what you're implying.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All I wanted to do was quote a witness who, as you noted know very well, is not my witness.

A. Fine, he's a witness. He's a witness of the opposing side. But he didn't say it was the old town. All of the locations he as mentioned are outside the old town.

Q. Let me quote some more parts of his statement. [Previous interpretation continues]... [In English]: for scouts and young people ¹⁴⁵³⁴ that was used by a special unit of the Croatian police. They would rest there, but take up position around the town from time to time. They had Land Rover type vehicles. I think they were white, and they also had some green Yugoslav transporters. They wore camouflage uniforms, and they were armed with German rifles."

[Interpretation] So you're saying that they were poorly equipped. Where did they get those German rifles from?

A. I don't know where they got them from, nor do I know that they were German rifles. But again, that is not the old town. You know that cars don't enter the old town. And I did not deny the fact that there were several soldiers. There's no dispute about that.

Q. Very well, the next paragraph says, "Martial law was also declared during this period [In English] also beatings were done. Men with masks were breaking into houses owned by Serbs and were beating some people, stealing things, and one older lady in Gruz was raped. One Serbian man named Drasko Ljubibrtic was one of those who was badly beaten and even his personal records, such university records, were taken." [Interpretation] Do you remember those incidents?

A. No, I know Drasko Ljubibrtic very well. He went to school. He was one year younger than me. You know him, too. He was a water polo judge. In those days, he had an operation. He had four or five bypasses, so whether that really happened, I can't say. I never heard about it. The first time I meet him, I'll ask him.

JUDGE MAY: It's also alleged in that statement, and you should have the chance to deal with it, that a woman was raped. ¹⁴⁵³⁵

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I hear of that for the first time. It sounds absolutely unbelievable that such a thing could happen in Dubrovnik. In this war, unfortunately, there were many rapes. But that somebody in Dubrovnik did that is something quite unbelievable to me, and I hear it for the first time.

Anyway, who was this woman that was raped? I have no idea. Who was the person who did the rape? It doesn't say that in the statement. That's out of the question.

Q. I'm just quoting from a statement, so I'm not claiming anything other than that this is what is written in a statement given to me by the opposite side, so you can have it in front of you. You can see for yourself.

Are you saying that fire was not opened at JNA members from positions within the old town?

A. Yes, I'm claiming that no such fire was opened.

Q. And do you know, for instance, that on the 6th of December, 1991, that morning, around 6.00, there were several dozen shells fired from the town of Dubrovnik itself, again JNA positions on Zarkovica, and it was after that only that these positions were shelled, the positions from which fire was opened at the JNA?

A. I've lived to hear that, too. I'm claiming that that is not too, that it is a lie, that it was stated and written simply in order to somehow try and justify the horror that occurred on that day. That day, and that night, and that morning, I was in town, in the middle of town. And at a quarter to 6.00, shells started falling on the town like rain. ¹⁴⁵³⁶ And not a single pistol bullet was fired from the town, let alone a shell. So what you have read now, I don't know who wrote it, but it's a shameless lie. These are such tragic events that I hate thinking back to those days and who hasn't experienced that cannot understand what it was like. And now, I'm being told that on the 6th of December, the greatest tragedy in the 2.000-year-long history of Dubrovnik that somebody had opened fire on the Yugo Army, that's shameful.

Q. Please, don't get so excited.

A. I have to.

Q. But I'm just quoting a statement of their witness, not my witness. Let me just read out the first sentence.

A. Is this another Gajic?

Q. No, no.

A. So someone rather like him.

Q. No, this one is Simunovic.

A. Oh, I was saying someone like him.

JUDGE MAY: One at a time.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. These are witnesses of the same institution of which you are a witness, too. So the what the similarity amongst you is, it's up to you to judge. So just the first sentence of the one but last paragraph, "On the 6th of December, 1991, [In English] I was at home with my wife, children, and mother. About 6.00 a.m., 6.00 a.m., I heard the sound of a very intense shelling hitting Zarkovica."

So that is not true, is that what you're saying? ¹⁴⁵³⁷

A. I've answered the question.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. What is the full sentence, Mr. Nice? Perhaps if you would read it out.

MR. NICE: To assist the witness and to put matters in context, the statement goes on to say: "My family and I then sheltered inside the strongest part of my house. A short while later, a few shells started landing in the city of Dubrovnik. After about 8.00 a.m., the shelling of the city became very intense." So I have yet to locate the original quotation ascribed to this statement by the accused when he was saying that it said "in turn shelling coming from Dubrovnik." That's a matter for him to sort out.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So there is no dispute, according to what this witness is claiming, that Dubrovnik was shelled. But judging by what this witness says, who is a citizen of Dubrovnik and who condemns the shelling of Dubrovnik, he is claiming that what first happened was shelling of the positions of the army at Zarkovica coming from Dubrovnik?

A. It did not.

Q. So, several dozen shells were not fired from the town of Dubrovnik itself to JNA positions on Zarkovica?

A. On that day, not a single one. And from the old town, never.

Q. And is it true, Mr. Poljanic, that before any conflicts in the whole area of Dubrovnik occurred, the local authorities had organised armed platoons, and that they were acting against JNA positions together with members of the police and the National Guards Corps? ¹⁴⁵³⁸

A. What positions? When there were no troops in the territory of Dubrovnik.

Q. On the edges where there were army members on the border with Montenegro?

A. I've already said that not a single shot, not even a revolver shot.

Q. Very well. I just wanted your answer, nothing more.

A. You have it.

Q. Is it true that already on the 30th of September, you set up a so-called defence line which went from Brgat to St. Barbara Hill, and that from those positions, joint action was taken by members of the National Guards Corps, the police, and armed civilians organised to form these platoons against the army positions?

A. There were no lines on Brgat on the 30th of September, but a couple of days prior to the 30th of September, from the positions from the Yugo Army, as you call it, from Ivanica which is in the immediate vicinity of Brgat, a shell was fired, a maljutka - the one which leaves a trace, some kind of a tracer. It has a 3 kilometre range - at a house of a naval officer at Brgat. That was the first shell fired in Dubrovnik, in the Dubrovnik area, already in September at the house of a naval officer who had been for years sailing abroad to build this house, to earn enough money to build this house. And it was hit. That is the truth. And what you have read is not the truth.

Q. Very well. Nothing is true. But, Mr. Poljanic, I don't wish to enter into any kind of polemics with you. I'm just asking you questions ¹⁴⁵³⁹ based on a statement of a witness like you. For instance, the statement of Stipan Jelavic, who also testifies for the Prosecution, of course, this false Prosecution. He says on page 3 of his statement: [In English] "On the 30th of September, we received orders to form a defence line from Brgat to St. Barbara's Hill which was approximately 700 metres long. This defence line consisted of between 100 and 110 men being stationed at various strategic locations. These men were from three platoons with each platoon having about 32 to 34 men. There were three old World War II bunkers along this defence line. We only used two of them. The third one was near a villager's home, but instead of using it, we dug a trench in the area. There were machine-gun nests placed at these particular sites. Another machine-gun nest was placed at the St. Anne Church," [Interpretation] and you are claiming that no fire was opened from St. Anne Church. And this witness of yours, Stipan Jelavic says that there was a machine-gun nest on the St. Anne Church. [In English] "We also placed a TV mine at this spot." [Interpretation] I don't know what a TV mine is. And there is a rather rough sketch here showing what he says machine-gun nests in Brgat and the other localities in the village. And he gave this to the investigator -- I don't know how you read this, his name. He appears to be Dutch, Hooijkaas. And he attached this statement of his, too.

A. May I answer?

Q. Yes, of course. That's why I'm putting questions to you.

A. A moment ago, I said that in the course of September already, a shell from Ivanica, which is in the immediate vicinity of Brgat - I think ¹⁴⁵⁴⁰ the distance may be about 2 kilometres, maybe less - was fired at Brgat. At Ivanica, there was a rather strong concentration of the military. I saw that when I went to Trebinje a couple of days prior to that, and I do allow for the possibility that there were some of our troops at Brgat, not many. How many, I don't know. Well, God knows, we had to defend ourselves. But I do not allow for the possibility that on the St. Anne Church there was any machine-gun nest, and especially not on the belfry. The St. Anne Church doesn't have a belfry. It didn't exist then, and it doesn't exist now. So I physically don't understand how one could position a machine-gun nest in the roof, which is covered, or inside a church. So that is definitely wrong.

And this question keeps cropping up. The St. Anne Church was simply very badly damaged by your army.

Q. Very well.

A. As well as the cemetery around the St. Anne Church. That too was rather badly damaged.

Q. But he speaks about these operations from that line at the JNA forces, and that is Stipan Jelavic, and he even includes two World War II bunkers in this.

A. Well, there's several bunkers in that area. And your army held them under its control, occupied them, and then held them from World War II.

Q. Well, it is precisely in this report by Stipan Jelavic, the statement given to the Prosecution, the investigators on the 4th and 5th of June, 2001, in which he suddenly speaks of a commander of the ^{14541 BLANK PAGE 14542} paramilitary -- Croatian paramilitary forces from the Dubrovnik area on page 3, paragraph 3, and you make no mention of that. He says, "I record the military commander Cengija," and in brackets it says, "(ex-JNA) coming to the area, [In English] inspecting the defence line and telling who would or who would not be killed."

A. Cengija, was in the command of our defence. Cengija is an honourable man, and quite certainly he did not say who was to be killed and who was not to be killed. He quite certainly did not. And at any rate, who was killed except somebody in our own army, and that was later on as far as I know. Not then and there.

Q. All right.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, before you continue, let me just say that the statements that you have brought to our attention and which, as I understand it, tend to show in your submission that the JNA were under attack in Dubrovnik, are really central to your case. And therefore, if and when you come to present your case, it would be absolutely essential, in my view, that you call the witnesses to give the relevant evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Robinson. But this is not a central issue, nor can it be a central issue, because neither Serbia nor the Serbian leadership has anything to do with the events in Dubrovnik. But what I'm talking about, I am saying this because of the others who were accused on the side of the JNA for committing what they did not commit. And who endeavoured to solve things peacefully at all events and who came under attack. So that's what it's about. ¹⁴⁵⁴³

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, do you know, Mr. Poljanic, that that same man, Stipan Jelavic, in his statement, the statement of the Prosecution, it's a Prosecution document, not a Defence document, but he writes, among other things, some things that are contradictory to what you yourself are saying here, quite obviously. And he says and talks about the fact that the JNA was attacked from anti-aircraft guns in the Dubrovnik area as well.

A. Last Wednesday, I spoke about, I think it was one particular 20-millimetre, although I am not a military expert, a 20-millimetre gun. It is between a machine-gun and a cannon gun, which we received, which didn't have a clip or whatever, and our experts had to add this device to it. We found it hard to come by this. But it was placed on a small truck and would stroll around town or move around town, not the old town, of course, but round about the surrounding areas. And it is true that it was an anti-aircraft, tiny little gun, and it was moved around to give people the impression that we had far more weapons than we did in fact have, and it was our only weapon. That was all we had. And that it was used to shoot, it was. It was shot from, but isn't it normal for us to defend ourselves? We did not attack anybody with it. We just defended with it.

Q. Mr. Poljanic.

A. Yes, please, go ahead.

Q. You know that as of 1997, because of the importance and value of the cultural monuments and heritage of Dubrovnik itself, that there were no JNA forces in the area at all as far back as 1970. The nearest garrison was in Trebinje, which is in fact in Bosnia-Herzegovina. ¹⁴⁵⁴⁴

A. Yes, I do.

Q. So it was a completely demilitarised zone already at that time, precisely to avoid damaging and burdening this very valuable cultural heritage site by any installations or JNA garrisons?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. So it was you who militarised Dubrovnik in 1991 and entered into the conflict, first of all at the Montenegrin border, and then later on towards the JNA and against the JNA on both sides. Isn't that so?

A. No, and it will now turn out that we ourselves destroyed it, and it was destroyed.

Q. How far it was destroyed we'll see in just a moment, we'll come to that.

MR. NICE: Again, before we lose sight of a passage being put by the accused, if the reference to the anti-aircraft gun he's referring to first fresh paragraph and the first half of the next paragraph on page 4, I think the whole passage could be read out for context because otherwise a very misleading --

JUDGE MAY: Well, perhaps you could summarise it for us.

MR. NICE: May I just read it, if this is the passage the accused had in mind. What the person preparing this statement says is that he observed the JNA taking out their cannons on Ivanica and then starting to shell the area on the 21st of October. "We were being shelled with missiles from the sea from the area of Zupa. The missiles the JNA were firing from Zupa were ones I had never seen before." And it's in that setting he goes on to say, if this is the passage the accused was ¹⁴⁵⁴⁵ referring to, "At approximately 5.00 a.m. on the 22nd of October, I became aware of an anti-aircraft gun coming to Brgat. I believe it was delivered on the back of a truck. Once they arrived, they opened fire on Ivanica and quickly departed. The JNA retreated to some extent as a result of this show of fire power."

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. The statement is no secret for you here. I don't have time to go into in its entirety. I'm just choosing excerpts which allow me to ask the witness some questions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I'm just going to read another portion of that statement, that same witness. His name is Stipan Jelavic, and he says the following: "During my tour of duty within Dubrovnik, I became aware of the number of Croat defence positions. [In English] The investigator -"

[Interpretation] I don't know how his name is pronounced - [in English] "has supplied me with a map of Dubrovnik, and I have noted this on the map, which is attached. Number 1, Hotel Neptun, there were a number of ZNG staying there, but he had no fire power. At number 2, Medarevo, there was an anti-aircraft cannon. At number 3 --"

JUDGE MAY: I think the witness must be given the chance to answer these various points if you're going to make them specifically. The Hotel Neptun, it's said that the ZNG were there but had no fire power. Just a moment. Let the witness answer that. Is that right or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know that there was any army, any solders in the Hotel Neptun. I allow for the possibility that ¹⁴⁵⁴⁶ someone might have spent the night there and the witness says there were some without any fire power there. I wasn't in a position to know that there was anybody there. For your information, the Neptun Hotel is at the most westerly point of the Lapad peninsula in Dubrovnik, of course, but the furthest possible point away from the old town of Dubrovnik itself, so that's it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right, point 2, Medarevo, was an anti-aircraft gun. At point 3, Lapadska Glavica, he heard that a gun was positioned there. Point 4 was Gorica, and this is about 50 metres to the west of the metereological station and 500 metres from the Libertas Hotel, and he also heard that an anti-aircraft gun had been set up there. He doesn't say what kind. Point 5 was Gradac, another gun there. At point 6, Ploce, another gun --

JUDGE MAY: The witness can't take all this in if you read it out so quickly. No; a moment. Let the witness answer. He has got to be able to answer.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All these locations that have been mentioned refer to the area of the peninsula of Lapad, the Lapad peninsula. At one of those positions, as Gorica was mentioned, and 500 metres from the Libertas Hotel, or rather, 50 metres from the meteorological station is where I live. I lived there, some 50 metres away from there. And I would be astonished not to have ever heard any shooting from the gun. I never saw a gun of that kind. I was not, of course, at the headquarters of the Dubrovnik Defence, I wasn't a military man myself, but I can allow for the possibility that on the Lapad ¹⁴⁵⁴⁷ peninsula, and I said in my statement eight days ago, that there were defence positions in Lapad. I accept that. But I don't know about them. And in concrete terms specifically, I don't know even if what was said was 50 metres from my own home. From my flat.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, I'm going to ask you to take a look at the map that he sketched and the positions he included in the map. But let me ask you in the meantime, do you know of a report put out by the Ministry of National Defence of the 4th of October, 1991, which states that the Ustasha forces, with weapons, have taken control of Dubrovnik, and they took the whole town as hostage along with its inhabitants. And from that vantage point, they are opening fire on the JNA and even at cultural and historical monuments, and that the JNA has saved the monuments at cost -- on pain of its own life and that the Ustasha formation, together with foreign mercenaries, are preparing a scenario by which to destroy the town of Dubrovnik and to have the JNA accused of that act of vandalism. That is a report that I am quoting from. Do you know about that?

A. Yes, and I don't even like to listen to it. I find it painful to listen to. I claim that apart from the town itself, the name of Dubrovnik, every single letter on that page, piece of paper, is false. That's what I claim. There's no other expression I can use than that it is a lie. It is false.

Q. All right. May we have two brief tapes played for us to hear your own comments. So I should like to ask the technical booth to play the tape, please. ¹⁴⁵⁴⁸

JUDGE MAY: We will take the break now, and we will sit again in 20 minutes and the tapes can be played then.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, do you want these statements to be exhibited, Mr. Jelavic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, Mr. Kwon, I do. And as I've already told Mr. Poljanic, I would like to show him something from that report, these sketches, these diagrams by Stipan Jelavic, so he can take a look at them, too, if he's interested.

JUDGE MAY: We'll deal with that after the break.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And this is the one with the positions.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, we'll hear your submissions on the statement, the exhibiting of it. It would be contrary to our earlier practice. You've referred to it. It's a question whether the best way of getting the evidence in front of us is to put the statement in or whether the witness should be called, as Judge Robinson suggests, by the accused or by the Trial Chamber.

MR. NICE: I can answer it straight away in case you want to deliberate about it over the very short adjournment. The general policy, of course, is that statements aren't put in and I have only been enlarging passages that have been put to the witness so that they can be given a fair context, rather be too selective. We made one exception this morning because so much of the statement had been put and appeared to come from a person who may have been referring to matters of detail -- for matters of detail to documents. But I would invite caution before we expand on our ¹⁴⁵⁴⁹ practices in relation to this type of document. It's a matter for the Chamber, but I would caution before allowing too many of these statements in because their evidential position will be hard for us to evaluate.

JUDGE KWON: If it's the statement given to OTP peoples, there's some limit to that, or safeguard.

MR. NICE: As Your Honour knows, in other settings, I'm only too happy for witness statements to go in, but the Chamber has ruled against us on that. Generally speaking, I'm entirely happy for statements to be seen. But my concern is the uncertainty that may come about the evidential status of these documents. That's all. But I'm not going to resist documents going in unless we have particular reasons to believe that a particular witness may be untruthful.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I was saying that you do seem to have almost joined issue on these statements. I mean, you say that you have only sought to put in context the references that the accused has made to the statements, but it seems to me that you have practically made the statements very important.

MR. NICE: I'm not sure about that. I mean, this particular witness, for example, we have absolutely no objection to you having it, reading it, and considering it. And as far as I know, we have no reason particularly to doubt it. But, no, I haven't been putting it in issue. What is very important for a witness is not to have a selective passage put to him that may excite from him a reaction which would be unfortunate and unfair for him. And therefore, all I have been doing, on three or four occasions, is to make sure that the context of what's put to the ¹⁴⁵⁵⁰ witness is accurate. But so far as these witness statements are concerned, saving on occasions if and when we believe the witness to be untruthful, we're entirely happy for the Chamber to have the material. And I simply repeat my invitation to the Court before breaking your own rules and bringing about difficulties in how we deal with the value of such material.

JUDGE MAY: The danger is the principle. If we say that this statement can go in because it is a Prosecution statement, are we then not finding ourselves in the position in which you invite us to take all your statements, because they were made to OTP investigators, and put them in? And it seems to me that there's a matter of principle which we must consider carefully before we do admit this statement. We admitted one today. It was by a judge, it was referring to his professional work. There are, therefore, signs of reliability in it, referring to reports which were made at the time which it might be right for us to accept -- I mean was right for us to accept. It was a different category. Mr. Kay, perhaps you could help us. I don't know if you want to do it now. We should be breaking.

MR. KAY: Shall we help you after the break, if the Trial Chamber has any more --

JUDGE MAY: Maybe at the end of the cross-examination would be the right time so we don't take up any more time. We'll adjourn now.

--- Recess taken at 12.17 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.40 p.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, we were going to play the tape. If that could be ^{14551 BLANK PAGE 14552} played now.

[Videotape played] "SPEAKER: ... separatist agenda. This was particularly evident in the reporting of the war around the resort town of Dubrovnik, a favourite vacation spot for German tourists. Working through its Washington PR firm, the Croatian government managed to convince much of the world that Dubrovnik was being destroyed by the Serbs in unprovoked attacks which lasted for months during the fall of 1991.

SPEAKER: The public has been led to believe that the federal army attack on Dubrovnik was not precipitated by anything but sheer malice. However, on August 25th of 1991, Croatian forces attacked a base in the Bay of Kotor, around the Bay of Kotor, and they were repulsed with heavy losses.

SPEAKER: Yugoslav troops based in Montenegro then fought their way up the coast, confronting Croatian forces near Dubrovnik.

SPEAKER: Targets outside the old city were hit, consisting mostly of hotels which had been taken over as barracks and spotter points by Croatian forces who also put refugees in the lower stories of their own barracks and spotter facilities.

SPEAKER: It was obvious that the Croats were using the old town as a defensive wall. They were firing from behind hospitals and mortar position next to our hotel. The final straw for me when was there was this incredible bombardment in our hotel basement. Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. The worst we had ever heard. And I was furious. And everyone else was panicking. And I said to the manager who was down there ¹⁴⁵⁵³ with us, I wish you would tell that chap with the heavy machine-gun on the floor above to stop firing at the Serbs because they're going to fire back.

SPEAKER: Contrary to news reports, there was little damage to the historic old city.

SPEAKER: Yes, it has been reported some 15.000 shells rained on the old city of Dubrovnik. I counted 15 mortar hits on the main street. The Yugoslav federal army could have destroyed the old city of Dubrovnik in two hours. It is not destroyed.

SPEAKER: Washington Post reporter Peter Maass, who visited the old city several months after the fighting stopped, found Dubrovnik in what he described as 'nearly pristine condition.'

SPEAKER: There are many people who go to these scenes of mayhem and adventure who don't know where they are, who don't know the languages, cannot really communicate with the people, and take press handouts from the local authorities. So there is certainly an orchestrated effort on the part of the Croatian and Slovenian, Austrian and German media to portray the Serbs as a bunch of howling, Byzantine, uncivilised barbarians.

SPEAKER: These impressions help strengthen Germany's resolve to lead a reluctant --"

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's all from this tape, please.

JUDGE MAY: Now, Mr. Milosevic, what have we been watching? Who made the tape, what's its -- where does it come from, before we ask any questions about it? ¹⁴⁵⁵⁴

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It was made abroad. I'll tell you later. I don't have the exact information. But you saw the people speaking.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. It might have been a pure piece of propaganda, for all we know. We need to know more about it in order so we can decide whether it should be given any weight at all.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I will give you the precise data about it, which I don't have on me just now, but I assume that a reporter of the London Independent, nor the representative of the counter-intelligence US service surely are not exponents of Belgrade propaganda, and you saw them and heard them.

JUDGE MAY: We don't know that. Now let the witness answer. He should have the opportunity, since it has been played, of answering what's on the tape.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All that I have seen is very familiar to me. I know the exact date when this was filmed. I personally received these people in Dubrovnik, and I will tell you how this video came into being.

After the 1st of October, 1991, when Dubrovnik was bombarded from all sides, we did, as far as we were able to, made a lot of noise and hullabaloo seeking to inform the world about what was going on. Dubrovnik was in truth heavily bombed by then, thousands and thousands of shells had fallen on Dubrovnik by then. But before the 23rd of October, not a single one fell on the old city. In response to our assistance that the world be made aware what was happening in Dubrovnik, the arrival of reporters to ¹⁴⁵⁵⁵ Dubrovnik was organised, and I repeat once again, I received them. They came by sea. They were not allowed to pass through Konavle, which by then had been totally destroyed. They came by sea. They disembarked in the harbour of the old city. I welcomed them and received them. They let them film only the old city that you see so well here. There's not a single photograph outside the old city. They let them view the old city, film it, and they sent reports to the world that this was all nonsense, that Dubrovnik hadn't been bombed at all.

So that is the truth. After that, the heavy bombing of the old city as well started. On the 23rd of October, the first two shells fell. One on the museum and a second in the Boskovic Street, a couple of metres from Stradun, the main street in Dubrovnik. That is the truth.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would now like to ask the technical booth to show us another tape taken by John Peter Maher, Professor of Illinois University on the 25th of March, 1992. So it is after all these events. You'll see the tape. After that, I only have a couple more questions so that I will be within the time limit you have set me.

[Videotape played]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is no sound here. These are just views of the old city, details of the old city, and the whole tape is a couple of minutes long only.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, while we're watching it, it also might be helpful to know if the same professor from Illinois also attached the subtitles to the film. I don't know if the accused could help us. ¹⁴⁵⁵⁶

[Videotape played]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In my understanding, it's his film. An amateur video. He's a professor, not a cameraman. And it's a bit detailed and too long, but I didn't have time to abbreviate it. So I chose just a part of it.

[Videotape played]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that's sufficient. So this was filmed on the 25th of March, 1992.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. As you can see, the whole of the old city is in one piece, and I know that it was your members of the National Guard which set fire to the library of the Serbian orthodox church which, as you see, was the only seriously damaged facility in the old town. Isn't that right?

A. No, that's not right. That is not at all the building of the library of the Serbian orthodox church. This is the building of Ivo Grbic a Dubrovnik painter, the house he lived in all his life, and from which he carried out his old mother on his hands who was 90 years old. And this inscription, icons --

Q. Icons, that's fine there was a shop of icons, but it is written in Cyrillic.

A. Yes, in Cyrillic. Why not?

Q. Doesn't that indicate the origin?

A. But you see nobody destroyed those inscriptions indicating where the icons were. But this building is not the building of the Serbian library, but rather the building owned by Ivo Grbic that I went to ¹⁴⁵⁵⁷ hundreds of times and which was razed to the ground. That's one point. This may be the best photograph of all that I have seen. I think that quality is very bad and very little can be seen, probably, for technical reasons. So I don't see how anyone could see anything. One could just see a little piece of what was destroyed on the fence of the St. Vlaho Church, the patron saint of Dubrovnik. By then the town had been cleaned up. It was a notorious fact that 1.500 shells fell on the town. That on the main street, Stradun, 56 shells fell. It is also a notorious fact that the Franciscan monastery received 53 hits. It is also a notorious fact that the Dominican monastery, which was also shown here, was hit by 23 shells. It is also a fact that the St. Vlaho, who was shown here, also received five shells. And this Tribunal will receive the documents about this when the next witness comes, who is an architect and director of the Institute for the Protection of Monuments and who is an expert in the field.

JUDGE MAY: Witness, help us with this: The accused has suggested that the orthodox library was burned down by members of the ZNG. Can you help us with that, first of all, whether the library was burned down, and secondly whether -- if it was, whether it was done by members of the ZNG.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I guarantee, with everyone that it is possible to provide guarantees with, that there were no, no attacks by members of Zengas, which is in fact the National Guards Corps, were carried out against the library of the orthodox church. Everything that was damaged in Dubrovnik, including that library, if it was damaged - to tell you the truth, I don't know that it was, but if it was, I accept it - ¹⁴⁵⁵⁸ was the result of the shelling of this army that we have well agreed to call it the Serbian/Montenegrin, or Yugoslav. Whichever you like. I guarantee it was by them. Not a single other shell was not fired at Dubrovnik by anyone else.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now you have listed a number of the buildings. How come they didn't fall down after these numerous shells that you have listed?

A. You know very well how Dubrovnik was built. You know perfectly well that buildings which lean on one another, it is very difficult to demolish, even with shells. But almost each was hit, almost each, not each and every one, with one or more shells. All the roofs were destroyed, so when you approach Dubrovnik from the highway, from the hill, you no longer see the roofs with patina who developed this patinated colour of the centuries. You see new red-tiled roofs because each and every roof had to be changed.

Q. Mr. Poljanic, commenting on the first tape, you said it was taken before. But that on the 23rd and the 24th of October, the old city was shelled.

A. I said two shells.

Q. And that after that, there was more shelling, even though the old city was demilitarised, as you say, and there was no action from it. How, then, do you explain that on the 30th of October, 1991, a week later, a week after the date you mention as the shelling -- date of the shelling of the city, so it is the last day in the month of October, the 30th of October, foreign diplomats, including the ambassadors of Great Britain, ¹⁴⁵⁵⁹ the Netherlands, Italy, and Greece, and the deputy ambassador of the United States of America, toured the city and establish that the old city had not been damaged except for a few buildings on the edges which were insignificantly damaged without any proof as to who had provoked the damage, and that these stories of about 15.000 shells or however many you mentioned have absolutely no foundation. An official announcement was issued that all of us were able to hear in the media on the 30th of October, 1991.

A. Nevertheless, I have told the truth. If I am mistaken, then I may be mistaken by saying a small number. The truth is that on the 12th of October, I said that at least 15.000 shells fell on Dubrovnik. If I erred, I erred by reducing the number, not by increasingly. Not only did the diplomats come, but the Libertas convoy arrived.

Q. Yes, but these people came and we all heard their announcement.

A. In the same way that those other 30 or so -- I beg your pardon. In the same way that the 30 journalists that I received and who, after the surroundings of Dubrovnik had been bombed, except the old city, they came to the old city, filmed it, saw that it wasn't damaged, and that information was sent to the world. But not the surroundings of the old town. They were not allowed to see that.

Q. Mr. Poljanic, you just said that they saw that the old city was not damaged. And you said that 15.000 shells fell on the old city?

A. No. God forbid, I never said on the old city. I said 1.056 on the old city. But on Dubrovnik as a whole, more than 15.000.

Q. So 1.056 shells fell, and it wasn't damaged -- ¹⁴⁵⁶⁰

A. Yes, but they fell afterwards. Up to that date, that is, the 23rd of October, there were only two shells. One on Boskovic Street, the one going up hill to towards Buzi, as you know well, and the other, the roof of the Rupe museum. If somebody doesn't want to see it. They need not see it.

Q. Will you please look at this map or sketch marked by witness Stipan Jelavic where you can see the positions from which fire was opened at the JNA. Is it then at least clear that the JNA was only responding to fire coming from these positions firing at it?

A. That is not clear, nor can it be clear. The JNA was attacking Dubrovnik and it was under no circumstances responding to fire coming from Dubrovnik as there was no such fire. The positions that he marked here, all of them, with the exception of -- in fact, there's not a single position in the old town. On this sketch, I don't see a single position in the old city. I don't see it. Not a single one. Not even on this sketch that you have shown me, and with the word "Jelavic" on it. I don't see a single position in the old city which is fully in accord with what I've just said.

Q. So you are claiming that the army invaded, attacked, its own territory, because after all Yugoslavia still existed in those days, and the army was responding to fire --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you have put point this frequently, and the witness has dealt with it. Now, unless you have something new, we must bring this to a close.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May. Fine. ^{14561 BLANK PAGE 14562}

MR. KAY: Yes, if the Court will grant us time, I realise we're in a difficult position today, it being the end of the term so to speak, but there is five minutes that I would like to use.

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

Q. Witness, in relation to the first of the videos that Mr. Milosevic showed you this morning, it was clear, from what you said, that a number of journalists had been invited to Dubrovnik. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. At that time, who was in effective control of Dubrovnik?

A. The town of Dubrovnik was controlled by us.

Q. When you say "us," you mean a Crisis Staff. Is that right?

A. No, I mean the municipal authorities.

Q. Who ran the police?

A. The chief of the police administration.

Q. And the defence of Dubrovnik, who was running that?

A. If you're talking about the end of September onwards, then Lieutenant-Colonel at the time, or rather, Colonel and today General Nojko Marinovic.

Q. Yes, my questions are only directed from the 1st of October until the end of December.

A. General Marinovic, then.

Q. In inviting those journalists on that occasion, did you invite other journalists and film crews on other occasions to Dubrovnik?

A. We didn't invite those journalists. Let's clear that point up. ¹⁴⁵⁶³ Those journalists arrived, they turned up. To be quite frank, I don't know how they came there, got to be there. We didn't invite them. And after that, we did invite a lot but it was so difficult to reach Dubrovnik that many of them didn't come. But those who did arrive, I must say, sent out very proper reporting, proper reports out to the world. But there were those who filmed this kind of stuff as well.

Q. What one of those journalists appeared to be saying was that there was provocation taking place by people within Dubrovnik firing at the Serbs, expecting a retaliation. Is that right?

A. If somebody said that, they were telling lies.

Q. What I want to put to you is this: Was what you were undertaking during the period of October until the end of December a publicity campaign within Dubrovnik in an attempt to turn world opinion against the Serbs?

A. No. If you mean -- I don't know what you're referring to when you say what we did. Could you be a little clearer, please. "What you were undertaking," you said. Now what did that refer to? Do you mean the information that we sent out to the world?

Q. First of all, were tyres being burned in the streets to give an impression of bombs having been, or shells having been fired, and that the city was on fire? Were tyres lit in the streets to give an impression of fire?

A. That is a heinous lie. I swear that they were not. The tyres were burning from the burnt cars which the Yugo army set fire to on the parking lot. So the cars burnt down and so did the tyres, and anything ¹⁴⁵⁶⁴ else that could be put alight. But no Croatian or Croatian soldier set fire to a single tyre to create smoke and send out information to the world that Dubrovnik was alight. Now, we must agree upon this; Dubrovnik was alight, it had suffered worse than ever in its history and that so many shells were thrown on Dubrovnik that were thrown. Let's accept that truth and agree to that because it is the truth which has been documented.

Q. Were gun positions put on the top of buildings so that shots could be fired at the JNA to enable a retaliation that you knew would occur?

A. Well, that question isn't clear to me. There were no nests or guns on any roofs. I'm not -- I don't understand your question. Would you repeat it, please. Which roofs do you mean? The tops of which buildings? What tops?

Q. You heard the journalists describe a man on top of the hotel firing with a machine-gun, and the journalist saying what was going to be expected was that there was going to be firing back. Was that deliberately being done to provoke a reaction?

A. No. What reaction? Why would we do that? To provoke somebody to shell us back? Where's the logic there?

Q. Again, as a policy to get a condemnation of the Serbs, using Dubrovnik as a well-known place.

A. Everything we did, all the information we sent into the world, we did exclusively in order to protect the town and the area around Dubrovnik, or rather, the Dubrovnik municipality, which was as it was then. And for no other reason whatsoever. Just in order and exclusively to have the world learn about the truth. We knew that Dubrovnik was a ¹⁴⁵⁶⁵ very important town. It was a world cultural heritage site. And the information that we sent out into the world we sent exclusively for the purpose of protecting ourselves. There were no other reasons at all; for the world to protect us.

MR. KAY: That's all I have.

MR. NICE: A few matters arising. Re-examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. It has been suggested to you or at least inquired of you whether you were drawing fire down onto yourself and onto your ancient city. Any truth in that, and has that ever been suggested to you before?

A. Well, this was put forward all the time. At that time, nobody -- let me tell you the people of Dubrovnik loved their town too much to allow themselves to fire a single shot at their own town. This is really beyond all belief. So nobody, none of the inhabitants of Dubrovnik, no -- or people living in the surrounding parts ever fired a single shot at Dubrovnik. Not only in this war, but either previously or afterwards. And for the men of Dubrovnik, the town of Dubrovnik is sacred. And it is the only town which is written when it is says city, the word "city" is written in capital letters, or "town."

Q. The suggestion that Serbs were persecuted in some way for this war, any suggestion that the Serbs of Dubrovnik were subject to reduction of privilege or in any other way persecuted?

A. No rights were taken away from them, nor were they persecuted in any way. Let me say, we have been here for such a long time and this was not mentioned at all: There were Serbs from Dubrovnik even who, very ¹⁴⁵⁶⁶ honourably, joined the ranks of the Croatian army and together, with all the rest, defended Dubrovnik. And there are some of them from the area who are in the Croatian army to this very day.

Q. The accused asked you a question in slightly different terms about any links that there may have been between the attack on Dubrovnik and Serbia itself. And you said that enough had been said about those links to Serbia. Tell us, please, but only by title or topic, what events, what features of this history link these events, not just to the JNA but to Serbia itself?

A. If I have understood you correctly, there is exclusively one link for everything that has happened. One link. And that is the attempt to form a Greater Serbia. Nothing else than that.

Q. It was suggested, I think, that the JNA was composed of all ethnicities. What do you say about that at the time with which we are concerned in Dubrovnik and the Dubrovnik area?

A. From the JNA at that time, the Slovenes had left, and so had the Croats and the Macedonians. They had all left the JNA by that time, and largely even the Albanians. They had already left. And as for the claim that several Croats had also been killed in the Dubrovnik area on the Yugoslav army side, that is true. They were the Croats who, from Montenegro, they were citizens of Montenegro and they were in the army, in the Yugo army. And of course, quite obviously and naturally, they were among the occupying forces and I'm sure that in some of the fighting, some of them had probably been killed too.

Q. Staying with Montenegro and returning to the topic of arguable ¹⁴⁵⁶⁷ links to Serbia, are you yourself of any apology that has been made publicly by the president of Montenegro, now the Prime Minister, Mr. Djukanovic, for events that happened in your city?

A. Yes, I am. President Djukanovic did apologise to the Croatian people for what had happened in South Croatia in which the citizens of Montenegro had taken part. I must also state one more thing here, with respect to that topic: In the course of the war, at Cetinje - and Cetinje is a Montenegrin town, very old and ancient, at one time the capital of Montenegro - the liberals organised a rally, a meeting, at which at that time there were a lot of people, 200.000 people, in fact. It was no easy matter to gather together such a large number of people. And they sang from Mount Lovcen that the fairy is saying forgive us Dubrovnik, the verses of the song to that effect.

Q. Are you aware - just yes or no, and if you can't remember, don't say so - but are you aware of whether in his apology, Mr. Djukanovic made any reference to Serbia? If you're not aware and can't remember it, we'll probably be able to play the tape of the apology in due course, but can you remember?

A. I don't recall that particular detail, but you can play the tape and I'll be able to tell you after I've seen it.

Q. Not now, another time, I think, for want of time. Are you aware also of Serbs in Serbia itself demonstrating in favour of Dubrovnik?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, it's Exhibit 328, Tab 8. We don't have time to look at it.

Q. Yes or no. ¹⁴⁵⁶⁸

A. Dubrovnik, no.

Q. The Serbs in Serbia protesting in favour of the suffering in Dubrovnik, a rally held in Belgrade on the 30th of October.

A. I don't know about that. I did hear that there were individual sorts of protests, but not a mass rally of that kind. I don't know about that.

Q. Finally, a matter of detail about one of those two films. The film that showed, you said, Ivo Grbic's house razed to the ground, how was it razed to the ground?

A. It was not razed to the ground. The walls remained standing because the walls are linked to the neighbouring houses, adjacent houses. But it burned down to the ground. And this happened exclusively as the result of the shelling. It received several shell shots, and of course, quite normally, one of them set fire to the wooden construction, whether between the storeys or the roof construction, but it did burn down to the ground, and the walls remained standing. It has been reconstructed today.

MR. NICE: Nothing else. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Poljanic, that concludes your evidence. Thank you for coming to the International Tribunal to give you. You are free to go.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE MAY: We are proposing, in fact, to adjourn at half past, because we have another hearing in an hour's time. It may be helpful if we could briefly hear from the amicus on the Jelavic statement. ¹⁴⁵⁶⁹

MR. KAY: Yes. I've given some thought to this, Your Honours, because it seems essential that there needs to be some sort of control and a test of relevancy rather than increasing documentation unnecessarily. If the accused produces a statement in cross-examination and a witness adopts the passage that is being put, then quite clearly, that passage is able to be put into evidence and the document should be marked in some way to denote the relevant passage and that it is entered into the proceedings through that way. If the Prosecution then go on to cross-examine in relation to the same document, and the witness adopts further passages, then that further material should also be likewise identified to show what has been brought into evidence.

The practice of putting the whole document in, in my submission, produces more extraneous and irrelevant material that shouldn't really be before the Trial Chamber because it has not been dealt with explicitly. If a passage is also put into cross-examination from a statement produced by the accused, and the accused agrees that the Trial Chamber, for sake of convenience should have a copy of the document so that they can see what is being put and understand it perhaps more clearly, then such a document becomes an aid, and that should only be marked for identification purposes. And then at a later stage, in our submission, the Trial Chamber or the accused himself may call the witness and have the document produced, if need be, through direct evidence. It seems that that's, in our submission, the fairest way of dealing with material because we can have a problem of if one side wants statements produced, the other side wants statements produced, that we're ¹⁴⁵⁷⁰ not really going to be sure what we're dealing with in terms of evidence in the trial from the statements.

JUDGE MAY: That is yet another suggestion, if I may say so, which we'll have to consider.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: I don't think we can resolve this at the moment.

JUDGE KWON: If the witness adopts the passage, and if the Prosecution doesn't oppose to admit the witness statement, is there any obstacle to admit such a document, especially if it is a statement given to an OTP investigator?

MR. KAY: That's a fifth category Your Honour has pointed out, and I would agree that if a waiver has taken place, and obviously if it's an OTP document, they will have considered the matter themselves from their own perspective, and be prepared to waive an objection in those circumstances. But it's an issue whether there is objection to the content or not.

JUDGE MAY: The other issue is the sheer amount of material which we may be accumulating.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I would caution against any practice that starts admitting little bits and pieces of statements. I think your general rule has been out-of-court statements can form the subject matter of questions if the question is acknowledged. Then the answer of the witness is evidence in the case, and you don't need the trigger question to identify what it is he's saying to be produced as an exhibit. And my only concern this morning was, as it has been on several occasions, to ^{14571 BLANK PAGE 14572} ensure that questions are asked in a fair context. Making an exception for a particular statement was an exception, and keen though I am to have a much larger documentary base in the form of witness statements, generally another argument possibly for another day, possibly never to be raised again, I respectfully suggest that it's better to stick to your normal policy and to make this an exception.

JUDGE MAY: Would you accept in this particular case the Jelavic statement it should go in?

MR. NICE: I'm quite happy for it to go in, yes.

JUDGE MAY: But in the light of the absence of objection, the Jelavic statement will be admitted. This is not to be seen as any precedent for future rulings.

Now, Mr. Nice, we have literally a minute left. There's a matter I want to deal with myself about the future conduct, briefly. It' really by way of stating what our current conclusions are. If there's anything urgent you'd like to raise, of course you --

MR. NICE: Well, I've supplied you with a confidential document which might have merited or benefitted from a short, and indeed confidential, discussion because the purpose of its being confidential is set out in its last or second to last paragraph. I was hoping just to amplify the purpose and to explain a couple of rather, I hope, helpful things, encouraging things, but I would rather do it confidentially.

JUDGE MAY: Given the time, I wonder if you could do it in writing.

MR. NICE: Yes, I can. ¹⁴⁵⁷³

JUDGE MAY: Because I don't think it will affect what we're going to say. Time is against us.

MR. NICE: Very well. If by chance, it might affect what you're going to say I must, of course, ask for liberty to come back on it. But I hope that you'll accept, and this is really fundamental to the submissions that we have made to you in writing, I hope you'll accept that our intention is to achieve exactly the general result that we know the Chamber wants in terms of brevity and to do it in a way that meets everybody's requirements.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, we will -- I have been passed a note about the exhibits. The statement will be Exhibit D74. We'll consider whether to admit the two videotapes, which would be 75 and 76. But we will leave that decision. It may be that the one without sound could be admitted, since it's a factual one apart from the various comments on it. The other one is in a more controversial position and I would have thought probably should be excluded.

MR. NICE: Very well, then Your Honours. Perhaps one thing I can say publicly is that the two documents I provided you with this morning, the one about Kosovo and the one about Croatia, are documents I have forecast right from the beginning of this trial I would be providing, and the one about Croatia and the one about Bosnia, that is also in a state of preparation, are documents that I will be preparing in any event. But if they serve a useful purpose, and I think they can serve a very useful purpose in control of the trial, I will do my best, by allocating resources, to have them prepared on a regular basis so that you will never ¹⁴⁵⁷⁴ be very far out of date with the use that this document can make for you and indeed for all of us.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We'll resolve the question about the videos by simply marking both for identification, 75 and 76.

We've received a number of reports recently, including a medical report on the accused. We've received submissions from the parties. So it's right that the parties should know what the proposal, the thinking of the Trial Chamber is as to the conduct, the future conduct of the proceedings, since it affects them.

And in summary form, our conclusions are these: One, the trial will proceed according to timetable, due allowance being made for illness and such rest days as appropriate. There will be no other extension of time for the Prosecution case. Two, Defence counsel will not be imposed upon the accused against his wishes in the present circumstances. It is not normally appropriate in adversarial proceedings such as these. The Trial Chamber will keep the position under review. Three, as we have previously ruled, the accused will not be provisionally released, as he has asked, during the course of these proceedings. The case is now adjourned until the 9th of January. We'll rise.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.34 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the 9th day of

January, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.