Milosevic Transcript 2003-01-29

¹⁵⁰⁷⁵

Wednesday, 29 January 2003

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

WITNESS: IVO SIMUNOVIC [Resumed]

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

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Simunovic, what were the forces that you had in Dubrovnik in fact, please?

A. You mean military units?

Q. I mean men under arms. As you yourself said, you had policemen and civilians and members of the National Guards Corps.

A. The police and members of the National Guards Corps and members of the special police, members of the Territorial Defence, at the beginning of the aggression on Dubrovnik, there were between 650 and 700 men in all.

Q. Some people said here that there were a hundred, 200, 300. Now we see Nojko Marinovic mentioning the figure of 670. Maybe you heard when your predecessor, that is, Mr. Kriste, who was Minister of Defence at the time, spoke here and said that at meetings with representatives of the JNA you claimed you had 5.000 to sort of trick them. In your opinion, how were they able to establish how many of you were there?

A. We actually believed that the Yugoslav army had information. I ¹⁵⁰⁷⁶ don't know about the statements of the witnesses who appeared before me, but I can state emphatically what I do know, and what I have told you are correct figures.

It's another matter that the Yugoslav army wanted to give the impression that Dubrovnik was full of all kinds of armed forces. But at these joint meetings that we had, we denied all that, and I believe that you too are familiar with this and that this was conveyed to you.

Q. There was nothing they had to convey to me. I was the President of Serbia and was not involved in that. But from the information I have, were there people from the outside, people from abroad there?

A. No.

Q. Very well. You said that there were no military operations in the old town, and you claim that emphatically.

A. On our part, there were no operations, but on your part there were plenty.

Q. You had a unit that was supposed to act in the old town, did you not?

A. Those were units that were formed before the actual beginning of the aggression. These were the units of the so-called local communities. However, as the old town, or the monument, protected monument of the old town had a local community of its own and it was entitled to form such a unit. However, when the unit was formed, I personally disbanded it.

Q. So you disbanded it but the unit had been formed?

A. Yes, as it had been in all local communities. They were so-called national protection detachments, their primary aim being to protect the ¹⁵⁰⁷⁷ inhabitants of those local communities in the event of aggression. This was even before the aggression began against the town of Dubrovnik. When I say the town of Dubrovnik, I mean the Dubrovnik municipality in those days.

Q. And those sandbags that we saw, were they linked to the existence of that unit in the old town?

A. I'm very sorry, Mr. Accused, that you who yesterday showed so much knowledge linked to artillery, being a reserve officer of the former army, you must know that those sandbags were used exclusively to protect monuments of culture. The stone plasterworks. Unfortunately, we didn't have enough of them. If we had had enough, we would have saved more of the old town than we managed to do.

Q. Very well, Mr. Simunovic. Was the command of your forces in the police building that was in the very centre of Dubrovnik, at least for a time?

A. The command was for a time in the police building, but the police building was then on Marsal Tito Road number 35, which is the same building as the one in which the state security service was stationed. And you mentioned a name yesterday which I'd rather not mention. So they were five kilometres away from the old town.

Q. I did not mention in any -- anything in any kind of statement of mine, but I asked you --

A. You were talking about a person who was in that same building.

Q. No. I was referring to what you said in your own statement. I asked you to explain, and you didn't explain it because you said that ¹⁵⁰⁷⁸ there was an error in the translation or something. I asked you whether this Risto --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, let's not go over old ground like this. Let's move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. On page 3 of your statement, you say: "I believe that Risto Vreca, a senior official of the DB in Dubrovnik, organised Serbian nationalist activities in town." What kind of Serbian nationalist activities did this Risto Vreca organise in town?

A. Mr. Vreca, at the time of the aggression, was already retired. However, that same gentleman and his service provided security for you in the period prior to 1989. He had close contacts vertically with his superiors and as far as we know - but I will limit myself to the municipality of Dubrovnik - we do know that such links existed and that such cooperation existed along the change of command.

Q. That there were links with the state security along the chain of command?

A. You know that better than I do probably.

Q. I don't know anything better than you. I'm just asking you to explain how this Risto Vreca organised Serbian nationalist activities in town. What kind of activities were they, please?

A. If you can consider the formation the individual parties, rallying on an ethnic basis, and various in camera meetings of this minority in Dubrovnik in those days, which was not in jeopardy in any sense of the term, then one could probably conclude with certainty that this gentleman ¹⁵⁰⁷⁹ was behind it as nothing could happen in Dubrovnik without him knowing it about or, rather, his service.

Q. And when did this man retire?

A. Immediately after the multi-party elections.

Q. So that means in 1990. I see. So let's clear that up at least. So he retired a year and a half before these things happened that you referred to. Let me tell you what Marinovic says on page 19 in connection with the question where your command was, and I quote: "For the first two months, my command post was in the police building. We later moved it to the Zagreb Hotel in Lapad, and in 1992 it was moved to the Splendid Hotel which was to some extent protected by the Petka hill." So this first position was not in the centre of Dubrovnik but several kilometres away.

A. Several kilometres away from the very centre of town.

Q. Very well. Let's not waste time on that any more. You listed meetings that you attended, and they virtually took place almost on a daily basis. And I've seen the list of meetings that you have provided, and you see -- and I see that on that list, without any exception, one of the foreign observers or mediators always attended, the people who mediated between you and the army.

Does this in itself indicate that there was an effort to resolve those problems by peaceful means, the problems that existed? You met on a daily basis without any military operations.

A. There were military operations. They even lasted while we were negotiating possible cessations of hostilities on your part. The ¹⁵⁰⁸⁰ substance of our talks and the endeavour of the European Monitoring Mission was to try and prevent a conflict, that is, to try and prevent the activities of the JNA against civilian targets. Unfortunately, they were not very successful. And one has the impression that one body on behalf of the JNA conducted these talks and was in a certain sense misleading both us, the Croatian side, and the monitors.

Q. Is it true, Mr. Simunovic -- let us clear this up: Is it true that at those meetings the army requested exclusively the surrender of weapons and the disbanding of paramilitary formations?

A. It didn't request such things. It made all kinds of ultimatums. Among other things, it demanded that Dubrovnik surrender, that allegedly Kurds should leave Dubrovnik, that foreign mercenaries should leave the town, that the situation in the police force be put back to the situation as it was in 1990, and there were a number of other requests, and I believe you're familiar with them.

Q. I am afraid I am not able to say I do, I'm sorry, but judging from what information I have here, they wanted weapons to be surrendered and various criminal elements to leave the town and for the town to be demilitarised, as it had been before this. Is that what the army wanted?

A. I cannot accept your thesis and description of criminal elements. What the army requested we realised the moment we started negotiating. That means that up until the beginning of the negotiations, the army had burned down a couple of villages as Konavle, and along the coastline villages were looted and the population expelled.

Q. On page 10, you say that the army certainly forwarded information ¹⁵⁰⁸¹ up the chain of command to Belgrade, and you make that conclusion because you were knowledgeable as an officer in reserve. Is that the only grounds that led you to that conclusion?

A. No, it is not the only one. My conclusion was based on the behaviour of the officers of the JNA when any decision had to be taken on their part, and I can confirm -- corroborate this with a number of examples.

One of them is Cavtat. Colonel Svicevic, who did not receive authorisation for signing the document, and this shows that he was unable to decide. Or, as I spoke to a number of generals of the Yugoslav army in those days, I can just mention General Damjanovic. He didn't have authority, who was commander of the Hercegovina Corps. And General Pavlo Strugar also didn't have the authorities to sign an agreement when I was present. And that was the Avenger frigate with General Morillon and General Kriste present.

So we concluded on that basis that the commanders in the area do not have the authority to sign anything or to agree to anything without the agreement from Belgrade.

Q. Isn't what you describe on page 12 in contradiction with what you say? When General Damjanovic, you say, said that the operations should cease and they had refused his order for the army to withdraw, how do you explain that?

A. I believe you know this. This was an operation on the ground when Minister Kouchner was with us at the negotiations. The Yugoslav army took advantage of the opportunity while we were negotiating. He was a minister ¹⁵⁰⁸² of the French government, and General Damjanovic, commander of the Hercegovina Corps. The army once again tried to enter Dubrovnik, however they failed, thanks to our defensive forces. And upon the insistence of General Damjanovic that Captain Milan Zec should withdraw the army, and we were watching this on the other side of Rijeka Dubrovacka, he refused his order.

Q. So please let's be rational with the time because we were told yesterday that I only have another 25 minutes for you.

A. I'm trying to explain to you what you either don't know or what you want me to tell you.

Q. That is why I'm asking you, because I saw on page 12 that this same General Damjanovic ordered the army to withdraw, but the army didn't withdraw. So what actually happened if this chain of command functioned properly, as you claim it did?

A. There was an order for an attack issued by the Naval Maritime Centre Boka, Admiral Jokic, the order being to try and enter Dubrovnik while the negotiations were ongoing. However, General Damjanovic led the Hercegovina Corps, and probably the general and the admiral had not coordinated their views. And General Damjanovic was very embarrassed because of the presence of Minister Kouchner.

Q. Yes, but if you're talking about the chain of command going all the way up to Belgrade, then it should be quite the opposite. It was not for a sailor and a soldier to coordinate on the ground, but they both were supposed to carry out orders coming from Belgrade. So if you claim that the chain of command was in control of this operation in Dubrovnik, as you ¹⁵⁰⁸³ call it, this proves that it wasn't so.

A. No. You're not right. I should like to give you another example, if Their Honours allow me.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, you may, but obviously quickly as you can, Mr. Simunovic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the 3rd of December, a delegation of the Croatian government led by Minister Rudolf via an admiral, an assistant of General Kadijevic, that is Admiral Brovet in Belgrade, arranged a meeting in Cavtat for the 5th of December.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I don't know what that explains.

A. Let me explain. Let me explain. On the same day, on the 3rd, at the command post in Kupari, a decision was taken to attack Dubrovnik.

Q. But the attack was not carried out, was it?

A. Yes, it was, only one day later, so that this delegation could complete the talks and leave. And on the 6th, the attack started. So this is for certain that it couldn't have been done without Belgrade.

Q. All right. And tell me this: Is it true - you've been talking about this on page 12 - you say that Damjanovic reacted very strongly when somebody behaved incorrectly towards you and that he protected you. Is it true that the JNA officers did in fact endeavour to protect you?

A. General Damjanovic was quite an exceptional personality at the time, and in our private discussions prior to the meeting that took place in Mokosica, he tried to explain to me his role in all this, in the whole situation. And at the point that the Belgrade television crew turned up ¹⁵⁰⁸⁴ to make a statement, he gave a statement, and I was right next to him when he gave it. He gave quite a different statement. He mentioned the Kurds. He mentioned the Ustashas. He mentioned all the rest and that they had come to defend Dubrovnik. And at the end of the interview on television, he told me, "Mr. Simunovic, I apologise, but I had to say those things." And that was General Damjanovic, the commander of the Hercegovina Corps.

Q. Well, I can't find an explanation for that, and it doesn't seem to me to be very logical, but just tell me this: Is it true that the army, throughout the time, said that it was just responding to your fire? You say this in -- on page 13, the last paragraph.

A. Mr. Milosevic, we defended ourselves the whole time from the attacks launched by the Yugoslav army.

Q. All right. But you're talking about some fighting here. You speak about Mount Srdj, for example, which was left empty, and the army did not enter Srdj. Isn't that best proof of the fact that they had absolutely no intention of taking control of Srdj but just held you under siege in a blockade? Isn't that so?

A. No, that is not so. The army on three occasions, three times, tried to take control of the Mount -- of Mount Srdj and the fortress on Mount Srdj, but it did not succeed in doing so. The fact that we were able to escape this and pull out in November from Mount Srdj, we were able to pull out for the simple reason that the commander - and we had a large number of casualties on the Bosanka platform - the commander didn't allow anybody else to be killed, any other people to lose their lives. But we returned the same night. ¹⁵⁰⁸⁵ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹⁵⁰⁸⁶

Q. Mr. Simunovic, you yourself are just saying that you were very astonished, that as the Srdj fortress had been left empty, that the army did not take control of it, and you explain that by saying that the army did not know that it had been left empty. Is that what you're saying?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Very well. Let's not waste time. I have some information here, some facts and figures that I have received as to the number of times the Croatian paramilitary formations and units attacked the JNA and its facilities, that they did so for no cause, for no reason, and I have a whole list of questions on this page.

JUDGE MAY: We've been over that. Mr. Milosevic, it would be helpful for us to know, if you would tell us, what was the JNA doing, shelling the old town? Or do you dispute that?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, from all the information that I have received, I state once again -- I tell you all once again, all the people attending this trial in this courtroom here, that Serbia had nothing to do with that operation whatsoever. And the information that I have received, I was able to see from that information that it says that the JNA exclusively responded to the shooting that it was being targeted with.

Now, according to the information that I have received here, on the 12th of October, for example, you shot without any reason at the army. Then on the 13th of October, the 16th of October, the 17th of October, you opened fire without any reason at all.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness deal with this. ¹⁵⁰⁸⁷ Where are you saying the fire came from, so the witness can deal with it. Are you alleging that this came from the old town on these occasions or not? You should make it clear.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. According to my information, the army, and you yourself said that at meetings you found it -- you said that it was just responding to your fire. So was that the case? Are these the right dates when you shot at the army for no reason at all from Dubrovnik which you had militarised previously?

A. None of that is correct.

Q. So none of these dates that I quoted, and I have a full page of dates here, is correct. Is that what you say?

A. When you quote the date, could you quote the positions, what weapons were used to fire.

Q. I'm saying that you shot at the army posts, and the army claims that it just responded, retaliated to your firing at them. Is that correct?

A. Well, your information is incorrect. You have some very bad information there.

Q. I have here five, ten, 20, 24, 28, 30 -- 33 dates in all on this piece of paper, ranging from the 12th of October to the 18th of December -- of May, 1992, and explanations that it was response and retaliation to the fire coming at them. And you claim that none of this is correct. Is that right, Mr. Simunovic?

A. Yes, that is what I'm saying. And with the Court's indulgence, I ¹⁵⁰⁸⁸ can give you examples of what the army did on the territory of the Dubrovnik municipality; everything it destroyed, how many civilians it killed, all the houses it burned. I can give you the exact dates and the villages where this took place. However, the dates you have just quoted, without any evidence and proof as to who did the shooting, who was shot at, I don't think that piece of paper is worth much. And the person that gave you that piece of paper gave you something that was quite wrong.

Q. All right, Mr. Simunovic. Let me just ask you one more thing in this regard. I have here a photocopy, in memory of my -- of the co-fighters that were killed, is the 163rd Brigade of the Croatian army of Dubrovnik. I'm sure you know this. It is in memoriam to these soldiers killed. It has been printed and published, so you can't question the authenticity, and the first person killed on this list on the 28th of September 1991, it says Catovic Ismet Sreten. I have a piece of information here which claims that on that precise date, this person Sreten Catovic was killed. His father's name was Ismet, he was an engineer, a native of Trebinje, who had been working on the placing of mines, mines and fragmentation explosives, and that was the first victim and casualty. So this person actually died when you were laying mines and fragmentation explosive devices around Dubrovnik; is that correct?

A. That is not correct. If you will allow me, I can explain how Mr. Catovic lost his life. Mr. Catovic was a graduate engineer, he worked in the Ugalo Grafik factory of Dubrovnik. He was one of the first defenders of Dubrovnik. He was an engineer, as I said, a machine engineer, and he devised explosive devices in order to protect Dubrovnik. He was a ¹⁵⁰⁸⁹ constructor of explosives. However, in testing those explosive devices, he lost his own life. But he did not lose his life in the Dubrovnik county. He lost his life on the Osojnik plateau where he was testing some of the explosives devices he had devised. That is how that particular man lost his life.

Q. So he died of his own accord, did he?

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... on this particular point. You have now gone over the time we have allotted. You can ask one more question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, just one more question, then.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. These were all tragic events, the events around Dubrovnik, and I'm sure that nobody is disputing that. But do you consider, Mr. Simunovic, that with that militarisation of Dubrovnik and by shooting at the army from Dubrovnik, you did some good?

JUDGE MAY: You're not doing that. The witness has not agreed to those suggestions that you make. That's merely what you say. Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours -- Your Honour Judge May, may I just make a brief explanation at this point? And I'll try to be as brief as possible today. You told me yesterday -- actually, you asked me whether I was challenging the fact that Dubrovnik had been bombed, shelled. I really do not wish to do that. That is up to you. You will decide and ascertain what happened in Dubrovnik, in and around ¹⁵⁰⁹⁰ Dubrovnik.

It is my duty as an amicus curiae to indicate the material contained in the Prosecution evidence so that you can weigh up the evidence and proof when the time comes, in due course. Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

Q. [Interpretation] That is why, Mr. Simunovic, I should like to start off by asking you the following: Could you explain to the Court everything that happened around Mount Srdj and the Srdj fortress. Because in your statement, you said that most of the clashes around Srdj fortress took place between the 18th of November and the 18th and 13th of November, and then, later on, on the 6th of December.

Can you explain to the Trial Chamber exactly -- tell us, where is Srdj located? It is above Dubrovnik. Mount Srdj and fortress Srdj is just above Dubrovnik, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And on that hill, there are no civilian facilities.

A. Yes, there were, but they were destroyed by the Yugoslav People's Army.

Q. Where were those facilities?

A. We had a transmitter up there and a cable car.

Q. I'm talking about people. Were any people -- did any people live there? Was it a residential area or was it an old imperial fortress which was a shelter?

A. No, the fortress was used as a tourist site and so were the facilities around there and then Croatian radio television had its ¹⁵⁰⁹¹ transmitters there and the post office did too.

Q. But nobody actually lived on Mount Srdj and the Srdj fortress.

A. Well, there were duty people up there.

Q. In those critical times?

A. Yes, and in normal times.

Q. How many members of the army, of the Croatian army were up there?

A. That depends on the date and the day; from 7 to 28.

Q. You mean people, men?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. I should like to ask you one thing from your statement now. You gave a statement earlier on, and I'm referring to the following: You say that you had a gun, a cannon in Josip Kosor Street, Josip Kosor Street. I see. And it was 500 metres from the Lero Hotel; is that right?

A. That is not true.

Q. This is in your statement. It says 105-millimetre gun located by the Lero Hotel. Approximately 500 metres past the Lero Hotel on Josip Kosor Street. That's what you say.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues]... following.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- an artillery piece.

JUDGE MAY: We can't hear what's being said; there's interruptions.

MR. NICE: The witness ought to have his copy of his statement if he's going to be challenged as to matters.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We better have a copy too. ¹⁵⁰⁹² Mr. Tapuskovic, don't be too long, please.

MR. NICE: The statement has been substantially cross-examined to by the accused, so may it be given a number?

JUDGE MAY: Yes, give it a number.

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecutor's Exhibit 373, Your Honours.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I ask you for a map of Dubrovnik for me to be able to indicate the exact location of our gun and the exact location of the hotel that the gentleman has just mentioned?

JUDGE MAY: Well, various maps have been exhibited. Just refer us to one of those.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The map of Dubrovnik, please.

JUDGE MAY: No. You should know what the exhibit number is. It's not for somebody else to find it. Yes, Mr. Nice. Would you help us, please.

MR. NICE: Can I just make this one available. It's already been produced. Just to save time. It's 326, tab 13. Ms. Dicklich, as ever, on top of it.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Simunovic, this is on page 15 of your statement. In the English version, it is page 14, second paragraph, and the first paragraph as well.

So, Mr. Simunovic, these are your very words: "I think it was a 105-millimetre gun. We put it there for two reasons: First of all, it was a relatively secluded, protected place." Is that right?

A. Yes. ¹⁵⁰⁹³

Q. And then in the following paragraph, you say the following: "We had to concentrate our fire on our own positions at Srdj to keep the JNA from taking them. Our men there were ordered into the cellars of the imperial fortress, and we shelled all around them in an effort to stop the JNA attackers."

And the last sentence: "The barrel of our one cannon was so overheated by that time that we had had to use wet towels to cool it off keep it functional." Is that right?

A. Yes, sir, all that is quite true.

Q. So there was shooting from this gun, this cannon in town at Srdj hill?

A. All our materiel and resources were in the town of Dubrovnik. We defended the town of Dubrovnik and did so successfully. We were defending it from Dubrovnik. I'm not talking about the old protected area, the old town, I'm talking about Dubrovnik, the parks, the forests, but not near residential areas. So it is thanks to that that we were able to defend Srdj successfully.

Q. How far is the Lero Hotel from the old part of town?

A. I'll show you this in just a moment.

Q. Very well.

A. Let me just find my bearings on this map, please. May I be given a moment.

Yes, the Lero Hotel and the old town. That is where they are. That means, in kilometres, there's about five kilometres between the two.

Q. And from that place, on the 6th of December, was that the only ¹⁵⁰⁹⁴ place that you shot at the JNA from?

A. With those weapons, yes.

Q. Did you shoot from anywhere else?

A. Yes, I'm sure we did. We shot to defend ourselves, and that is our right.

Q. You were talking about the battery hit at Zarkovica. When was that?

A. It wasn't a battery, it was a truckload full of explosive devices which had been placed there in the shelter, in shelter of Zarkovica.

Q. When was that?

A. That was in November.

Q. Right, in November.

A. While Dubrovnik was being shelled and rocketed, which means that we were defending ourselves against that same artillery fire.

Q. Could you tell me what a foreign observer said is correct -- and I received this from the Prosecutor. He said this was a significant successful operation for the Croatian defence forces when they were able to hit using their weapons the nearest artillery battery positioned on Zarkovica mountain and setting fire to the ammunitions depot there. However, some stray bullets ricocheted, which means they returned back from Zarkovica, they backfired, ricocheted around the old town and the shells fell on the Dubrovnik harbour, hitting a vessel, boat, that had not taken shelter. This was observed by a foreign observer, according to my evidence.

A. Sir, if this wasn't tragic, it would be ludicrous. You say ¹⁵⁰⁹⁵ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹⁵⁰⁹⁶ ricocheted. I'll show you where Zarkovica was and where Dubrovnik was. So you mean this bullet ricocheted five kilometres, did it? I think the statement made by this particular gentleman - I know -- don't know who it was - he either gave that statement under some very strange circumstances or otherwise he's not familiar with warfare and does not know about any artillery shooting.

Q. We received this according to Rule 68. I have a copy of this and an explanation given by the witness, Paul Davidson, an observer who made a film, who made footage of that particular event.

JUDGE MAY: No. The witness has answered your question. You must move on rather than dealing with the statement at length.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And could you tell me this: Is it true that while the cease-fire was in force, while the truce was in force, you used this lull to arm yourselves?

A. There was no cease-fire. You, the Yugoslav side as it was called, never agreed to a cease-fire. It never signed the truce agreement, which means that throughout the area of the town of Dubrovnik or, rather, the broad Dubrovnik municipality, towards Dubrovacka, Primorje and so on, it never ceased its operations throughout the time it was there until it withdrew from the area, that is to say, until the Croatian forces advanced and liberated the area.

Q. Can you tell me the following: You toured around these positions, this whole stretch from Montenegro to Dubrovnik, as Nojko Marinovic explained - he was the commander - was it all covered without -- with ¹⁵⁰⁹⁷ about 250 mines? Do you know about that?

A. Yes, I know about that.

Q. That there were 250 mines on the road, on that stretch of road?

A. I don't know that, but possibly because army units moved along that way, so in addition to those 250 mines, not a single mine - I don't know the exact number of mines - but as I say, not a single mine was activated, nor did a single one of your vehicles - I'm sorry to say "your" vehicle; you are their representative so that's why I say "you" - so not a single vehicle was destroyed by any one of these mines.

Q. And as the JNA was moving, were six tanks destroyed?

A. I'm talking about the breakthrough, artillery preparations, infantry and tanks.

Q. Were they destroyed?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. And all these weapons positioned, were they later withdrawn to Dubrovnik?

A. Unfortunately not.

Q. On the 13th of November, were you in Zelenika?

A. I was.

Q. And what was happening in Herceg-Novi on that day?

A. There was a funeral of soldiers killed on the Bosanka plateau.

Q. JNA soldiers?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. Thank you.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, there is a certain amount of material ¹⁵⁰⁹⁸ that I must cover in re-examination. I want to do it in the most time efficient way possible. First can I turn to the statement of General Marinovic, and may I have just one minute in closed session.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁵⁰⁹⁹

[redacted]

[Open session]

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

JUDGE MAY: We've heard submissions on the admissibility of the statement of General Marinovic. We do not usually, as we've said before, admit statements. However, this matter -- this statement was used for the purpose of cross-examination. It's right that the Prosecution should be ¹⁵¹⁰⁰ able to put that cross-examination into context because it's said that what the general says contradicts what this witness says, and the Trial Chamber should have the whole matter before it.

It is, therefore, convenient that we have a copy of that, indeed, we must for that purpose of the statement.

It then remains that the part, as Mr. Kay has suggested, that part only of the statement should be admitted; i.e., that part that was used for cross-examination. We do not agree with that. We think it is artificial to try and admit part but not admit the whole and may indeed be misleading if that course is followed.

We will admit the whole statement, but we say immediately that it would be preferable if the witness was called so that he could be cross-examined upon his statement, and that no doubt can be considered, but meanwhile, we will admit it but with this caveat: That it has not been cross-examined and, therefore, has less weight than evidence which has been cross-examined.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm grateful. To make best use of time, may we, first of all, have an exhibit number for it.

THE REGISTRAR: It's Prosecutor's Exhibit 374, Your Honours.

MR. NICE: I have about four passages that I'll refer to for the purposes of putting the cross-examination in context. It would be convenient if there could be one placed on the overhead projector at the various pages to which I'll refer when reading, because it hasn't yet been provided to the interpreters, I don't think. I'm sorry about that. There may not be enough copies to go to them now, but if we put it on the ¹⁵¹⁰¹ overhead projector and I'm corrected when I start to read too fast, which I'm sure I will be, it won't take very long.

If we could go, please, first to page 10. If we could lay it on the overhead projector, if the usher could do that. She's going to. Thank you.

Re-examined by Mr. Nice:

MR. NICE: The challenge is to the degree as to which Dubrovnik was revealed as a defended city by this witness's materials. In fact, in the middle of the page, and in his statement he makes this point: "After being in Dubrovnik for only a short period, I realised that the city was practically defenseless."

If we can go to the bottom of the same page. Usher, if you could move -- thank you very much. Just at the bottom of that page. Further down. Right to the bottom.

"The only unit in Dubrovnik which could have been considered to have been of relatively high quality at that time was the 37-man Special Police Unit which was part of the Dubrovnik police." We could now turn --

Q. Do you agree, Mr. Simunovic, with those assessments set out in this statement?

A. I do.

Q. If we could go to page 12, just before -- a third of the way down. Further up. Further up. The paragraph beginning, "Altogether..." Mr. Simunovic, you've told us about three cannons that you got from the island of Korcula. This is what this witness says: "Altogether, ¹⁵¹⁰² we got four 85-millimetre cannons, two 76-millimetre anti-tank guns, two wire-guided missiles, munitions for the weapons, and six trucks. While in the Korcula barracks, we could only locate one sight for the cannons. We also were not aware of it at the time because it was dark and we were rushing to get in and out quickly, but the firing pins had been removed from all of the cannons. We discovered this the next morning. The JNA had already withdrawn all of their better equipment from the island, so these had effectively been abandoned. The 85-millimetre guns had been used as coastal artillery pieces, and they only had a range of about 15 kilometres, so the JNA pretty much considered them obsolete. For the purposes of defending Dubrovnik, though, they were perfect. With the removal of the firing pins, however, they had hoped to disable them for use by anyone else. As the first order of business, we used the manuals for the weapons (which we had also taken) to see what the firing pins should look like, and we then tried to improvise and make some of our own at the TUP metal factory. The material which we used to make them was of poor quality, though, so they only lasted for about two firings of the weapons.

"I know that the equipment we had was of only limited value - particularly in light of the missing firing pins ..." Now, Mr. Simunovic, that is different as to number and arguably different as to number of firings, by one, from your evidence. What do you say? Do you accept what's said here or challenge it or what?

A. No, I don't challenge this. General Marinovic certainly had better insight regarding the condition of the equipment and the weapons, ¹⁵¹⁰³ and all that is said in this statement is correct. I don't know what you meant regarding the use of those weapons, but these firing pins could not be used more than twice, as is stated here.

Q. Page 16, the last but one, I think, of references I'll make on detail in the statement, where again it's suggested effectively that the general reveals some kind of equality of forces. It's right, isn't it, Mr. Simunovic, that this general had come straight from the JNA. Is that correct?

A. Yes. General Marinovic arrived from Trebinje where he had been the commander of the garrison in Trebinje.

Q. So at the top of page 16. Further up. Right at the top. Thank you.

"The total troop strength of the Yugoslav army forces dedicated to the Dubrovnik campaign was about 5.000 - 7.000 men at a minimum. The combined units involved had at least 36 howitzers, 60 heavy mortars, 240 bazookas, 60 anti-aircraft guns, and 44 tanks. They had total air superiority with squadrons from Mostar, Tivat, and Podgorica, and they had three missile boats and two patrol boats deployed. Also three batteries of P-15 surface to surface missiles with an 80-kilometre range were available to them.

"The JA plan for the Dubrovnik operation was to launch a two-pronged attack on the region simultaneously from east Herzegovina and from south-western Montenegro. Their first objective was to isolate Dubrovnik and take control of the Croatian coast from the Montenegrin border to the Neretva Valley. They projected that this would take them ¹⁵¹⁰⁴ one week. The second objective was to link up with JA forces coming down the Neretva from Sarajevo and Mostar and to use this enlarged force to move in a north-westerly direction until they joined the SAO Krajina forces move south-easterly. The projected time for this second phase of the operation was another week. These land operations were to be supplemented by naval attacks at the bay of Budim on Peljelac; by air support from bases in Mostar, Podgorica and Tivat; and by artillery and rocket assaults. The total time estimated to achieve their objectives was 15 days."

And he goes on in the next paragraph to say the JNA offensives started at the same time from Herzegovina and Montenegro. Does what is recorded there match with your experience of events, Mr. Simunovic?

A. It does.

Q. And the final page, for context, that the --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, before you go on, is there given a corresponding estimate of the number of personnel defending Dubrovnik?

MR. NICE: Yes. I think it's consistent with what the witness has given, which is why I didn't look for it for contrast, but I'll ask Ms. Bibles to double-check.

Yes. Thank you. It was on pages 14 and 15 that he was cross-examined, and I think if you look at the top of page -- if you look at the bottom of page 14 and at the top of page 15, you'll see the reference to 670 soldiers, and the Court will recall the witness's explanation of how that figure matched his own 300 estimate when you take ¹⁵¹⁰⁵ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹⁵¹⁰⁶ out the police units. And you'll see on this same page, page 15, the general's explanation for his deployment of the forces available to him. But as to the first point, the 670 soldiers, which we see at the top of page 15, Mr. Simunovic, including ZNG, MUP, and the recently mobilised men, do you accept that figure given here by General Marinovic?

A. I accept it with the explanation that this 607 -- 70 men includes the regular police.

MR. NICE: I hope that meets Your Honour's concern and I'll ask Ms. Bibles to check if there is any other reference to numbers we should draw to your attention before I close. She says not. In those circumstances, can I draw to the Court's attention a route map -- as a route map through this particular statement, page 19. It's really deployment of his forces, or the forces available to him, starting at page 19, second fresh paragraph: "During the fighting in the east, I lost one of the truck-mounted anti-aircraft guns when it was bombed by an aircraft at Zvekovica. Unfortunately, the crew was killed. I lost the two 88-millimetre cannons at Resnici near Molunat. The improvised firing pins that we had installed on those guns had broken after only a couple of shells were fired. The crew manning the guns tried to get new ones made at the TUP factory, and when they returned to the area, the JA had already taken the location as part of their amphibious landings and the men were captured, as were the guns. "After the area to the east of Dubrovnik had been occupied by the JA and with their advance in the west continuing, I had withdrawn most of my weaponry to the area of the city. I also received a few more weapons ¹⁵¹⁰⁷ that were brought into the city from Sipan, including two more 85-millimetre cannons and two zis guns."

Q. Just pausing there. Mr. Simunovic, I don't know that you told us about that. Do you know about it? Do you accept it is accurate or not?

A. Yes, I did know about it, and I do accept it.

Q. And then he goes on to detail what was available in this way: "In the period between mid-October and the end of December 1991, I had the following heavy weapons in the city of Dubrovnik itself, and placed as indicated: One zis at the end of Babin Kuk." Now, if that map is available, it may help if you're able to -- would you be able, Mr. Simunovic, to point out where these various locations are if we put the map on the projector? More particularly to see whether they're in the old town or not. I'll just read out and you put the map on, please.

We can see the map. Right. So three -- one zis at the end of Babin Kuk. Where is that and where is that in relation to the old town, so we can see it?

A. [Indicates]

Q. Right up on the north, near Rijeka, the river. Three mortars near the campground at Babin Kuk. Is that the similar sort of area?

A. [Indicates]

Q. Very well. Two 85 cannons on Lapad with 48 shells. Lapad, please.

A. [Indicates] ¹⁵¹⁰⁸

JUDGE MAY: Yes, the registrar suggests we get some initialling or something of that sort to indicate what is what.

MR. NICE: Very well.

Q. If you could write the letter A - and if that pen isn't strong enough, we'll find you a stronger one - A for the end of Babin Kuk, please. If you could write it on the map, Mr. Simunovic. Just write A for the end of Babin Kuk, B for the campground at Babin Kuk, C for Lapad. The general's statement continues: Two zis near the playing fields below the Hotel Lero. We'll mark that as D, please.

A. [Marks]

Q. One zis on the Lapad peninsula west of the Hotel Libertas. Mark that E, please.

A. [Marks]

Q. Two 23 anti-aircraft guns on Lapad west of the Hotel Lero. Mark that F, please.

A. [Marks]

Q. And then, finally, three 82-millimetre mortars in Bogisica Park west of the Hotel Imperijal. Mark that G, please.

A. [Marks]

Q. And do you accept or challenge the accuracy of that account?

A. I accept it.

Q. The last paragraph on the same page - I'm sorry we don't have the general's map immediately to hand, or if we have, I haven't produced it - the last entry on the same page says: "The only other heavy weapons that were used inside the city of Dubrovnik were the two truck-mounted ¹⁵¹⁰⁹ 20-millimetre anti-aircraft cannons." Do you accept that those two cannons were also deployed, Mr. Simunovic?

A. One cannon was 20-millimetre calibre, and I think that one was a machine-gun, a Browning 12.7 millimetre calibre.

MR. NICE: Your Honour will see -- Your Honours will see what starts at the top of page 20, but I don't understand the cross-examination, unless I've missed it, to have been specific as to any assertion that there was firing from the old town. But the material is there even if I'm wrong.

Just a couple of other questions, I think, from you, please, Mr. Simunovic.

Q. The accused suggested to you that the residents of Dubrovnik of Serb ethnicity felt themselves to be in jeopardy. Was there, to your knowledge and within your experience, anything happening that could have explained their being in jeopardy?

A. Nothing was happening for them to feel in jeopardy. On the contrary, a part of them took an active part in the defence of Dubrovnik and were members of the Croatian army.

Q. You gave an answer dealing with illegally built houses. We haven't explored this in detail before. In a couple of sentences, can you explain, please, the significance of and part in the history played by illegally built houses and their destruction.

A. I'm probably not the right person to be able to explain that in detail, but I am able to say the following: Before the war, I was a manager in a work organisation, a company, in which there were a number of ¹⁵¹¹⁰ Croats of a different religion, so that there were quite a number of them. Not one of them had their houses destroyed, which means that regardless of the fact that they didn't have building permits for those houses, those houses were not on roads, they were not an obstacle to normal traffic, and I believe those houses are still standing there, though they didn't have a building permit for them.

Q. Were there any houses destroyed? Was the destruction of houses ever relied upon, either at the time or after the event, as an explanation for the attack that was launched on Dubrovnik?

A. As far as I know, nobody engaged in that kind of action towards other ethnic groups in Dubrovnik.

Q. Very well. You were asked about two Judges --

JUDGE MAY: Just a point. Yes, Mr. Milosevic, what is it?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I consider that the opposite side is leading the witness in quite an erroneous manner, because he claims that I claimed that there were I don't know what kinds of abuses, and I was in fact quoting exclusively from court documents from the Dubrovnik courts.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, I'm going to interrupt you. Yes, I know that but he's entitled to cross-examine -- to re-examine, rather, on the material that you examined about. He's entitled to ask questions about that.

Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. You were asked in this very context, Mr. Simunovic, about two Judges, one of whom was called Gajic, and you gave an answer that, because ¹⁵¹¹¹ of translation uncertainties, is unclear. You were asked by the accused whether the report of one or other of these Judges would be a document to be accepted. You said as to the first gentleman, which is Judge Gajic, that's not possible.

I don't want a long answer, but can you please say this: Are you accepting that what Judge Gajic wrote is something that should be relied upon or not?

A. No. No, he didn't write it.

Q. Is he somebody whose word or report should be relied upon, in your judgement, or not?

A. In my judgement, it is not a credible witness, and what he stated, if he did indeed state it, then a great question mark must be put after the statement.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... I'm not going to explore with you the particular reasons for that view, but I just wanted that clarified.

Finally - I think finally - you explained how Damjanovic appeared differently in public from the things that he said in private. Was that a behaviour pattern that Svicevic also revealed, that he said a different approach in public from the approach he took in private?

A. No. Colonel Svicevic did not behave like General Damjanovic. He considered privately and publicly to follow his orthodox views.

Q. And we can see this on page 9 of your statement. At one stage when asking -- asked by you what they were doing, said he was here to liberate Dubrovnik from the Ustasha and the Kurds; is that right? ¹⁵¹¹²

A. Well, Mr. Svicevic thought I was an Ustasha too. But in our conversations later on when I asked him what he was doing there, he said he had come to free us from ourselves, liberate us from ourselves. And my response to him was that had I been mobilised and sent to Montenegro, for example, or Serbia, I would not have responded to the mobilisation call, and I would have suffered all the consequences probably that are put into place in cases of that kind. He said no, that he was doing it all with full consciousness.

Q. And finally, we looked at the material that you've been challenged with about the comparative strength of the various forces. At any time did the forces that you say were defending Dubrovnik take aggressive action against the JNA other than in defence of the city?

A. All the actions taken by the Croatian army in the area of responsibility of the command of the Dubrovnik municipality were put into effect by defensive operations.

MR. NICE: Those conclude my questions.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, two points: In view of the extensive use that has been made of this statement, the Chamber would urge you to use your best efforts to have this witness attend court. Secondly, yesterday I raised the question of the designation of Dubrovnik as a UNESCO protected site. It does not appear to be challenged by the accused. However, in view of the bearing that that designation might have for the Chamber when it comes to assess the events in Dubrovnik at the end of the day, it would be proper, it would seem to me, to have ¹⁵¹¹³ more evidence on the criteria for the designation and the general implications that arise from such designation.

It is obviously a matter of some importance. For example, on page 20 of the statement, I see a reference to -- in the first paragraph to that people went to the old town, relying on the belief that because of its status and its historical character, it would never be targeted. So that in view of the importance of that designation, we would like to have more specific evidence on it.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, the position is that a witness already listed to come will be dealing with this on a much more expert basis, and I hope will have the materials to satisfy the Court's concern. Dealing with Your Honour's first point, as I've indicated at an earlier stage, the efforts we were already going to make to have General Marinovic available for cross-examination will be maintained, and I probably will be in a position to report back to you in about two weeks' time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: We ought to deal with exhibiting the marked map.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the marked map will be Prosecutor's Exhibit 326 tab 13.IS.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, what we're going to do is this: If the witness is available, then of course you'll be able to cross-examine. If not, we will give you the opportunity in due course to make some observations, if you wish, upon the statement since you haven't had the chance to do so. ¹⁵¹¹⁴ Mr. Simunovic, that concludes your evidence. Thank you for coming to the International Tribunal to give it. You are free to go.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you for making it possible for me to testify.

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. It would convenient, unless there's anything you want to raise, Mr. Nice, to take the break now, in fact.

MR. NICE: It might be convenient if I deal with something --

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness go, in any event.

MR. NICE: I was going to deal with in closed session in any event.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁵¹¹⁵ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹⁵¹¹⁶ Page 15116 - redacted - private session

¹⁵¹¹⁷ Page 15117 - redacted - private session

¹⁵¹¹⁸

[redacted]

--- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

[Open session]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness take the declaration.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

JUDGE MAY: If you'd like to take a seat.

WITNESS: WITNESS C-013

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you. Your Honours, could I have two minutes in private session before the --

JUDGE MAY: Before you do, perhaps you'd better give the witnesses name or pseudonym, rather, so we may know who it is.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. The witness is the Witness C-013.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll go into private session. ¹⁵¹¹⁹

[Private session]

[redacted]

[Open session]

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

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. Witness, SUP Vukovar, did it have a mixed police force?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the ethnic composition, approximately? ¹⁵¹²⁰

A. Approximately 50/50; fifty per cent were Croats, 50 per cent were Serbs.

Q. In the year 1990, was there increasing ethnic tension both in the town and in the police force?

A. Yes, there was.

Q. Vukovar town, was it predominantly populated by Croats at that time, the town as such?

A. Yes.

Q. Regarding the municipality of Vukovar as a whole, what was the ethnic composition there? Was it the same or different?

A. It was different. 65 per cent were Serbs, approximately, and 30 per cent Croats. Five per cent were the others, other ethnic groups.

Q. While in Vukovar, did you receive information that the Serbs and Croats were arming themselves?

A. Yes.

Q. Towards the end of 1990, did the Croatian authorities increase the number of police in Vukovar?

A. Yes, many times.

Q. At that time, what was -- was there an atmosphere of distrust, of fear within the police force?

A. Absolutely so, yes.

Q. Did the Serb policemen in Vukovar resign from the police force at some point in time?

A. Yes, they did. I think that was at the end of March 1991.

Q. All the police -- of the Serb policemen, how many, approximately, ¹⁵¹²¹ did resign? Can you say?

A. All the Serb policemen. About 30 of them.

Q. Around that time, end of March, beginning April 1991, was there anything on TV displayed that disturbed you?

A. Yes, about the arming of Croatia, which was organised by General Martin Spegelj.

Q. Which TV station did send it, and was that sent only once?

A. No, not once, several times. And it was on Television Belgrade.

Q. Did you fear for the safety of your --

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters ask the witness to get closer to the microphone.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did, quite certainly.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. Witness, can you please move a little bit closer to the microphone. The interpreters can't hear you properly.

A. Is this better?

Q. Witness, because of this fear, did you therefore go to a location that was inhabited by Serbs? And what did your family do?

A. I did.

Q. And what did your family do?

A. They did.

Q. I asked you what did your family do?

A. They went with me to the same village.

Q. Did they subsequently leave for Belgrade or Serbia?

A. Yes. ¹⁵¹²²

Q. Why there?

A. Because of the lack of safety. It was extremely unsafe. One couldn't move around. So I decided they should go to Serbia.

Q. I would like now to speak to you about the situation in the village of Bobota. Did the village have a village defence in April 1991?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. Did this village defence, did these people have weapons?

A. They did, but not military weapons at the time.

Q. And who was in charge of this village defence?

A. Rade Kresojevic.

Q. Was this a local person, and who was he?

A. Yes.

Q. I asked you who was he. Was he a military person? Was he police?

A. No. He had a position in Vukovar municipality. I think he was a deputy or something like that.

Q. You said that the village -- the village defence did not have military weapons at that time. Did they get military weapons; and if so, when?

A. Yes. Just around that time, weapons started arriving.

Q. How did the weapons arrive in Bobota? Can you explain how that happened?

A. I can. The weapons were brought in from Borovo Selo.

Q. What kind of weapons were they?

A. All kinds of weapons.

Q. Can you be more specific? What kind of weapons? ¹⁵¹²³

A. Military weapons. Rifles of various calibres and types, mortars, mines, bombs, and the like.

Q. You said that they got the weapons from Borovo Selo. How did the weapons get to Borovo Selo? Do you know that? Where did the weapons actually originate from?

A. It came from Serbia, across the Danube.

Q. And when it crossed the Danube, how was it then distributed? Where did it actually arrive and how was it distributed?

A. It arrived in trucks. There were warehouses in the village, and then members of the Territorial Defence from the villages outside Borovo Selo came to Borovo Selo and took over the weapons and drove them off to their village.

Q. When the weapons arrived, did they -- were they in crates or boxes or were they loose?

A. Yes. Yes, in boxes.

Q. Were there any seals or inscriptions on the boxes so that you could see where they originate from?

A. Yes. It was military weapons of the JNA, of the JNA.

Q. In Borovo Selo at that time, was there a Serbian TO and was there -- did they have a headquarters there, or why did they arrive in Borovo Selo?

A. Borovo Selo was specific in terms of its territory, that is, it was along the Danube itself, on the banks of the Danube, and it was easiest to cross the Danube and reach Borovo Selo. The other villages were under blockade. ¹⁵¹²⁴

Q. And on the other side of the river, on the other side of Borovo Selo, is there a Serbia?

A. Yes.

Q. In Borovo Selo, who was the commander at the time, the Serbian TO commander at that time?

A. Vukasin Soskocanin, known as Vule.

Q. Was he a professional solder or a police person?

A. No. I think he was a vet in Borovo village.

Q. Did he eventually die, drown in the river in 1991 and do you know when, approximately?

A. Yes, that is true. Around the beginning of June.

Q. And who replaced him?

A. He was replaced by Jovica Vucenovic.

Q. And was that a local person, and if so, what -- did you know him?

A. Yes, a local person, and I did know him.

Q. Who organised the transport of the weapons from Serbia to Borovo Selo and then the distribution to the villages? Do you know that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Can you tell us?

A. The weapons came from a certain Sarac. I don't know his first name. And as I said a moment ago, there were warehouses in the village, and from those warehouses the weapons were distributed to other villages in the region.

Q. Sarac, what kind of a person was he? To whom was he related? Can you tell us? ¹⁵¹²⁵ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹⁵¹²⁶

A. I do not know Sarac personally, but I do know from contacts with other people that he is from the state security, either from Novi Sad or from Belgrade. I'm not sure which.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Can we briefly go into private session for just actually two minutes.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁵¹²⁷

[redacted]

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. In beginning of May 1991, did clashes occur in Borovo Selo between the Croatian police and the Serbs?

A. The question isn't clear to me. Please, could you be more specific?

Q. Did anything happen on the 1st of May or 2nd of May, 1991, involving Croatian police and the local Serb TO?

A. Yes, I understand now. On the 2nd of May, the Croatian police stormed the village of Borovo with about 200 or 300 men, and there was shooting, an exchange of fire when several local people were killed as well as some members of the Croatian police.

Q. Did the JNA intervene in this situation and, if so, in which way?

A. Yes, they did. The JNA entered the village, and I can freely say that it assisted the Croatian policemen to pull out of the village, because there was a danger of the conflicts continuing, which would have been disastrous for them.

Q. After this incident on the 2nd of May, 1991, did the JNA stay in the region, and who was then in control of Borovo Selo?

A. Yes. The JNA stayed there, and they controlled Borovo Selo throughout. ¹⁵¹²⁸

Q. At that time, were any irregular soldiers in Borovo Selo, such as Seselj's White Eagles or the like? I mean around the beginning of May.

A. I don't know what their name was, but there were some members, and they had Chetnik insignias.

Q. Where was the TO headquarters in Borovo Selo? Where?

A. In the centre itself.

Q. Did the JNA also have a military post in Borovo Selo itself and, if so, where was this post?

A. Yes; close by. Maybe there was some 50 metres dividing them.

Q. Did the TO and the JNA cooperate?

A. Yes.

Q. In which way? What -- what did you see?

A. Mostly from the TO staff, they went to meetings in the JNA staff or headquarters, and also they would come to the TO headquarters.

Q. Do you know what -- if there were any briefings and in which way they cooperated? What did it involve?

A. Cooperation consisted of the JNA in the TO headquarters telling them what was going on outside the territory of Borovo Selo and where the guard duty should be reinforced and what things particular attention should be devoted to. I think that was the kind of cooperation between the TO and the JNA.

Q. And who was the JNA person that the TO had contacts with? Is there any particular person?

A. At that time, the commander there, I just remember his surname. His surname was Garevski. ¹⁵¹²⁹

Q. Do you know his military rank?

A. I think he was a lieutenant colonel.

Q. In May and June 1991, did politicians come to Borovo Selo and give speeches?

A. Yes, that is true. There were several rallies, and I remember the politicians who came. I personally saw Vojislav Seselj, Mihalj Kertes, and Jovan Raskovic also came in those days.

Q. In relation to Vojislav Seselj, did you hear him give a speech; and what was the gist of the speech?

A. I did. I was personally present at that rally. Seselj's slogans were the ones that he publicly proclaimed on television on the protection of the Serbian people in the RSK and on the borders that the Serbs should have, should capture, should take control of.

Q. And what were the borders?

A. They are the well-known borders; Karlobag, Virovitica.

Q. Yes. Did you also see at that time, that is May, June 1991, a person with the name Jovo Ostojic in Borovo Selo; and if so, who was he and what was he doing?

A. Yes. I saw Jovo several times in Borovo Selo. He wore Chetnik insignia, and I never learned what his role was.

Q. Did he have a group of men with him that he commanded?

A. Yes.

Q. Did this person and also the group that he commanded eventually leave Borovo Selo; and if so, where did they go?

A. Yes. They were there maybe for a total of one month in Borovo ¹⁵¹³⁰ Selo, and later on they went to the area of Western Slavonia.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I would like to go now into private session in relation to a meeting that the witness had. It's actually paragraph 9 in the summary.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁵¹³¹ Page 15131 - redacted - private session

¹⁵¹³² Page 15132 - redacted - private session

¹⁵¹³³

[redacted]

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. Witness, did Mr. Kojic achieve later on a position in the government of the SAO Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem?

A. Yes, he did. He became the Defence Minister of that region.

Q. Did a meeting take place in mid-July 1991 attended by a former policeman from Vukovar, and if so, what -- how did this meeting come about?

A. I'm sorry but I didn't understand your question.

Q. Did a meeting take place in mid-July attended by the former policeman of Vukovar with Mr. Hadzic, and can you tell us why you met? ¹⁵¹³⁴

A. Yes, it did. Not one former policeman but all the former policemen - that's why I didn't understand your question - and Mr. Hadzic.

Q. Yes. Can you explain what happened at this meeting? Why was it conducted in the first place, and what was said?

A. At the meeting, what was supposed to have happened was to elect the secretary of internal affairs or, rather, the secretariat for internal affairs, for the interior, for the Vukovar municipality, people who had been in exile or, rather, in Borovo Selo.

Q. Does that mean a police -- a police force was to be established, a police force in Borovo Selo?

A. Yes. That's precisely what it meant.

Q. And was it supposed to be a civilian police with the usual civilian tasks?

A. Absolutely, yes, a civilian police with civilian tasks. That's right.

Q. Was that an initiative by the policemen who attended the meeting?

A. No. First of all, I think that this initiative came from the people, and this reached Mr. Goran Hadzic. And also I think that it was dictated from Serbia as well that this should be done.

Q. Why do you think that? Did you have -- did you hear anything to that effect?

A. I think that because it was precisely in talking to Kojic, and Mr. Ante before that, that the time had come for this to be done, because in Borovo Selo, some strange things were happening at that time. The people had been armed to a considerable degree, and the people quite ¹⁵¹³⁵ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹⁵¹³⁶ simply wanted to have peace reign as much as possible, and they wanted to have a regular police force.

Q. Witness, this Ante, this person Ante, did you find out his correct name, his full name?

A. Yes, I did, later on. His name was Radovan Kostic.

Q. Was he an official of the Serbian DB?

A. Yes, he was.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we need to go into private session because I would like to address point 11 in the summary.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁵¹³⁷ Pages 15137-15143 - redacted - private session

¹⁵¹⁴⁴

[redacted]

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. At the time when the civil police was established in July 1991, was there already another sort of police operating in Borovo Selo and, if so, what kind of people were they and who commanded them?

A. Yes. There was the so-called village police, men who were simply not capable of doing their job. And personally, I believe that they were under the TO.

Q. Who was their commander and why do you believe they were under the TO?

A. The commander was Soskocanin himself. And after his death -- ¹⁵¹⁴⁵ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹⁵¹⁴⁶ after his death, they acted on their own, more or less. There was no one else there except the TO.

Q. Did they have -- did they also have their equipment and weapons from the MUP Serbia? Do you know that?

A. No. No.

Q. What does "No" mean? You don't know that or they didn't have their weapons from the MUP?

A. They didn't have them. They had weapons that was coming illegally across the Danube.

Q. Does that mean they came as you described it before, how they came over the river and were then -- through the Sarac person?

A. Yes, precisely so.

Q. The civilian police that was established, did they have problems with this so-called -- with this other police which was under the TO? Do you know that?

A. Yes indeed. We had a lot of problems, serious problems. Those men felt that that was their village, they were the most important there, and we were simply outsiders, regardless of the fact that people from the police had been elected from their own village, that had been selected from the villagers.

Q. The civilian police, was it stationed in the TO headquarters or somewhere else?

A. No. The civilian police had its own separate premises that were given to them by the TO.

Q. Did the civilian police cooperate with the TO, and, if so, were ¹⁵¹⁴⁷ there any problems?

A. Yes, they did cooperate. They had to cooperate. And in those days, there weren't any problems.

Q. Did the civilian police cooperate with the JNA?

A. No. With the JNA it did not cooperate.

Q. I would now like to turn to you -- to the attack on Dalj in August 1991. When did the attack on Dalj occur? Do you know the date?

A. Yes, I do. On the 1st of August, 1991.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I would like now to go into private session on paragraph 17 of the proofing summary.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁵¹⁴⁸ Page 15148 - redacted - private session

¹⁵¹⁴⁹ Page 15149 - redacted - private session

¹⁵¹⁵⁰

[redacted]

--- Recess taken at 12.15 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.36 p.m.

[Open session]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We're in open session.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. And I think we can stay in open session for a while and as long as the witness does not refer to the meeting that he just described before the break.

Q. Witness, during your talks with me and investigators in ¹⁵¹⁵¹ preparation of your testimony, did you make annotations onto a map of the region that is concerned?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And can the witness please be given the Exhibit 326, tab 15.C13. Is this the map that you discussed and on which you made these annotations in different colours?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Can we have it on the ELMO, and I would like you to explain a few things.

Before the attack on Dalj, were the Serb-controlled areas like it is here, in -- shown in brown, in this light brown? Is that what you indicated are the Serb-controlled areas?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Can you please point out Borovo Selo on the ELMO with the pointer. On the ELMO, please, not on the screen. Would you please point out Borovo Selo.

A. [Indicates]

Q. And these pink-coloured zones, were these villages that were controlled by Croats?

A. Yes, yes, that's right.

Q. Would you please point out Dalj.

A. [Indicates]

Q. Yes. Thank you. And you have here indicated in green a line around that whole territory between more or less Osijek and Vukovar, including Vukovar, actually. Is that the territory that was talked about? ¹⁵¹⁵²

A. Yes, it is. Yes, it is.

Q. And you have also indicated here a blue line. When was -- what does that mean, the blue line? Can you explain?

A. The blue line was the area that was not under control, and the green was later on, when all of that was established. This is what should have been linked up. These places needed to be linked up.

Q. Yes. So just to clarify, the -- when you look at the map on the legend, it says there for green, "Hadzic's plan," and blue it says, "End result." And I would like to know from you when was this entire territory that you have encircled in blue, when was it under the control of the Serbs?

A. Around mid-October or the end of October.

Q. When it comes to dates, how -- how well do you remember dates? Can you tell us?

A. Not very well at all.

Q. Which town was attacked first within this territory, within this encircled territory?

A. It would be better to say "village."

Q. Yes. Which village was attacked first?

A. The village of Dalj.

Q. And you have indicated here with red -- red arrows movements, and the first red arrow you have put between Borovo Selo and Dalj, and you have also marked here the word "TO." Can you explain how the attack on Dalj was actually conducted?

A. Units of the TO set off from Borovo Selo towards Dalj. They were ¹⁵¹⁵³ formed into three groups. The first group, which used military vehicles and entered Dalj, attacked the police station. The second group attacked members of the ZNG and the guards in the area of the water supply system, and a third group that accompanied them and that did not take part in the fighting.

Q. When did the attack start, and was it in any way provoked by actions of the Croats in Dalj?

A. The attack started in the morning, on the 1st of August, around 4.00 a.m. And there were no provocations on the part of Croatian members of either the army or the police.

Q. You have also indicated on the map an arrow, a red arrow, and you have written there "JNA." It's in the right-hand corner. Can you explain how the JNA got involved in the attack?

A. Yes. Members of the JNA were in that area that I have indicated, and this was the bridge between Erdut in Bogojevo. And after the attack, after the first shots were fired, those units joined in. A part of them came to Dalj directly and joined in the fighting, providing assistance to the TO members, and a second group went in the direction of Erdut and Carvak -- Palmas.

Q. Can you indicate Erdut and Palmas on the map?

A. I'm sorry, Aljmas. Erdut, Aljmas.

Q. Does that mean Erdut was attacked on that same day?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. The JNA, did they come from -- it looks here -- did they come from Serbia? Did they get involved coming over the bridge from Serbia? ¹⁵¹⁵⁴

A. Yes, because there's no other road except across that bridge.

Q. How long did the attack last?

A. A few hours, as far as I can remember. By noon, everything was over.

Q. In relation to the population of Dalj and Erdut and the region, what did happen in relation to the population?

A. Could you please clarify? Which population do you mean?

Q. I mean the Croatian population.

A. The Croatian population was leaving their homes in Dalj and Erdut, in the Dalj mountain, and was fleeing in the direction of Aljmas. In those days, Croatia had already organised, that is, the Croatian army and the police. They came along the Drava River in boats, and all these people were transported to Osijek along the Drava River Valley -- river, sorry. Drava River.

Q. This region was under Croatian control?

A. Up until the 1st of August, until 4.00 a.m., Dalj, Erdut, the Dalj mountain, Aljmas were under Croatian control.

Q. Yes. But I was asking about where the population fled to on the 1st of August. Did they flee to Croat-held territory?

A. Yes.

Q. Were Croats also driven out forcefully on that day?

A. Yes.

Q. Who did that, and in which way?

A. The TO members, with the full support of the JNA.

Q. What did they do? ¹⁵¹⁵⁵ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹⁵¹⁵⁶

A. Would you repeat that, please?

Q. What did they do? You said that the people were driven out forcefully by the TO in full support of the JNA. In which way was that achieved?

A. When the police station was attacked in Dalj, there were many casualties, many casualties on the Croatian side. There was a lot of shooting, and people realised what was happening and started to flee. And as -- when the JNA crossed the bridge, some of them went in the direction of Erdut. Let me just point out that everyone was armed in those days, both Serbs and Croats. The Croats put up resistance in Erdut, as much as they could, which wasn't of such great significance for the JNA, because they entered the area in armoured vehicles so that they didn't have much choice but to flee in the direction of Aljmas and to go along the Drava River to Osijek as best they could.

Q. You have indicated quite a few Croat settlements here in that encircled territory. When the operations in the regions were terminated, were all these settlements gone? Were all the Croats gone from this region?

A. Yes. They left. From most of these villages, yes, they left, with the exception of the Dalj mountain, Corkovac, where the villages were mostly inhabited by ethnic Hungarians. As they didn't want to, at least, most of them didn't wish to take weapons either from the Serbs or the Croats, they felt that they did no wrong and that they could stay in their homes.

Q. In relation to the attacks, the subsequent attacks, on the region, ¹⁵¹⁵⁷ can you say in which direction and in which order was the whole -- the whole region taken? Where did the forces move?

A. I can. On that day, the JNA and the TO stopped at the border between Sarvas and Bijelo Brdo. And during the two or two and a half months that we are referring to, these lines moved forward until they reached the end of this green or, rather, blue line.

Q. And was it always done in a similar fashion, that is, TO attacking first and then the JNA moving in, or how was that done in the other places? Was it similar?

A. As for the other places, I really can't say. I don't know much about that, because I was there in the area for some time. But more or less while I was there up until October, the line went this way, in this direction.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. I would like to turn briefly again to that meeting that we had discussed and, therefore, would like to ask for private session.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁵¹⁵⁸ Pages 15158-15168 - redacted - private session

¹⁵¹⁶⁹

[redacted]

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. Do you know, was there a prison facility in Borovo Selo?

A. Yes, I do know that there was a prison in Borovo Selo.

Q. When was it established and how long did it exist?

A. When it was established, I don't know, but I assume sometime in May 1991. And it continued to exist after I left the area.

Q. And when did you leave the area?

A. I left at the end of October.

Q. Who ran it? Who ran that prison facility?

A. The TO ran it.

Q. And can you say anything about the size and capacity and how many people were detained there in the months from August to October?

A. This was a cinema hall which was equipped for that purpose, and as the Croatian villages were taken control of one by one, so Croats were brought to that prison.

Q. Civilians or soldiers? ¹⁵¹⁷⁰

A. Not soldiers, no. Civilians.

Q. Were they mistreated, to your knowledge? Were they mistreated during their detention there?

A. I can't say that. I never went to the prison. I had no right to. But only on a couple of occasions I passed by when those people were working outside. They were carrying wheat and maize. They were working. They had guards, TO guards.

Q. Let me interrupt you. We wouldn't need these details. So you don't know about mistreatment. That was my question. Was there a prison in --

A. No, I don't.

Q. Was there a prison in Dalj?

A. Yes, there was.

Q. Where was it situated and who ran it?

A. Again, it was run by the TO, and it was situated -- I could point out the place to you, but I can't tell you exactly. Anyway, close to the Orthodox church in Dalj.

Q. And what kind of a place was it?

A. What place?

Q. Yes. What kind of a building was it; a normal house or a police station?

A. Next to that building was a police station, was the police station. Maybe the distance between them was 20 or 30 metres.

Q. And in which time did it operate? Do you know that? Was that the same period, August until you left at least? ¹⁵¹⁷¹

A. Yes. The prison was set up on the same day as the police station, which means after the 1st of August.

Q. Were Croats detained there; in particular, civilians?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you know how many were detained there in Dalj?

A. I really don't know. I have to say again that I was never in that prison.

Q. Do you know whether detainees were mistreated there?

A. Yes, I do know.

Q. Yes. Were they -- in which way were they mistreated, and how do you know that?

A. I know because the commander would submit reports to me as to what was happening.

Q. And what did happen?

A. What happened was that Arkan would come to the prison and take people away wherever he wanted to.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we come to this, because we have two documents to this effect, we come to this a little bit later. This Arkan section follows.

Q. Witness, just one question in private session in relation to the prisons.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁵¹⁷²

[redacted]

[Open session]

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I would like to now go to paragraph 34.

Q. Did Arkan arrive in the region about the same time as Zavisic?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he come with a group of men? Do you know?

A. Yes, he did, in several vans with markings of Arkan's Tigers. And this is my information. I think there weren't more than 50 or 60 members with him.

Q. And did they put up their headquarters in Erdut, in the winery?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see Arkan's men in Dalj and recognise them due to their special uniforms and their vehicles?

A. Yes, I saw his men many times.

Q. What were their uniforms like? What is special that you can recognise them immediately? ¹⁵¹⁷³

A. Those were black uniforms, completely black, uniforms that were well-supplied with headphones, radio transmitters, first-class weaponry, and all the equipment that befits an elite or special policeman.

Q. What kind of weapons did they have?

A. They mostly had Hecklers, and it is known that this is a very fast-operating weapon.

Q. At that time, were there roadblocks and checkpoints in the region?

A. Yes. From the first day there were barricades between the villages which were not removed even later on.

Q. Could Arkan and his men, could they move throughout these checkpoints without any problems?

A. Those checkpoints did not exist as far as Arkan was concerned.

Q. Who actually manned those checkpoints; police, TO, JNA, or all three?

A. At first the TO. Later, when the villages had been linked together, it was taken over by the JNA.

Q. While Arkan was in the region, did he recruit men into his special Tiger group?

A. Yes. Yes, quite a number of men, in fact.

Q. How strong did the force around Arkan grow while you were there?

A. I don't know exactly, but since they were to be seen everywhere in the area, I can freely say that at least 300 or 400.

Q. Were they local people or did they come from Serbia?

A. No, they were not local people. Those people came from Serbia.

Q. Did you know Arkan at that time from public sources, and did he ¹⁵¹⁷⁴ have a reputation?

A. Yes. I knew Arkan from before. Not personally, but I knew him from police documents.

Q. Was he a criminal? Did he have a criminal reputation and police records?

A. Yes. We can quite freely say that he was not only -- that he not only had a police record in Yugoslavia but also in Interpol.

Q. When he arrived in the region with his men, did his men commit any crimes such as looting? Do you know that?

A. We had many reported thefts on the part of Arkan and his men. Those lootings occurred mostly in the area of Erdut, the Dalj mountain, Aljmas, which means in the places that I mentioned before and in which I said earlier on that people remained who had not wanted to take up weapons either from the Serbs or the Croats.

Q. Does that mean the victims of these activities were mostly Hungarians?

A. Yes. That is precisely what that means.

Q. Did this group around Arkan, did they have a special pattern in which they conducted such lootings? And in this regard, I would like to refer to the villages Laslovo and Korodj.

A. Korodj.

Q. Sorry, yes.

A. I didn't quite understand the question, please.

Q. When Arkan's men looted, did they have a special way how they did it? Did they have a special pattern of conduct? ¹⁵¹⁷⁵ ^{BLANK PAGE} ¹⁵¹⁷⁶

A. Yes. The method was that they would enter at night into a house and carry out valuables, demanding money. Many of those people would come to report this secretly so that nobody knew about it. However, the police at the time was simply powerless to do anything because Mr. Zavisic had determined that in -- that the regular police could not be dispatched to those areas, so that they simply could not protect those people.

Q. Did Arkan and -- you mentioned already that Arkan and Zavisic actually shared a headquarters or the same premises. Did they cooperate?

A. Yes. I saw them together on many an occasion.

Q. Did the civilian police get involved, participate in combat activities?

A. No. No. They really never did participate in combat activities. But I have to add by members of the police -- among the police members, there were some who simply neglected their role as policemen. They found it boring. And people like that left the police and joined the TO headquarters or some other formations, and then they continued their activities there.

Q. Was the civilian police called upon by the TO to participate in an attack on Borovo Naselje in September 1991, and what did the police do?

A. Yes, that is true. The police did not take part. It was rejected.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, I would now go into -- I would have to go to private session because we come now to several meetings with Arkan, Stanisic, and those kind of people.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, that's a convenient moment. We will ¹⁵¹⁷⁷ adjourn now.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: My assumption is that I will need another approximately half an hour. It may be a little bit more because it's going a little bit slow, but I can't do anything about it.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll sit again at 9.00 tomorrow morning. We will adjourn until then.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the 30th day of

January, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.