¹⁶⁵³²

Thursday, 20 February 2003

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Groome.

WITNESS: DRAGAN VASILJKOVIC [Resumed]

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

Q. Mr. Vasiljkovic, before we move forward, I'd like to just clear up something from yesterday, and it's having to do with the tape recording that you made of the threats against you. My question to you is: After you made the tape recording of the conversation and General Boskovic made a transcript of the recording, did Frenki Simatovic come and ask you for the tapes? Did he ask you to give him the tapes?

A. Yes, he did come and ask me to give him the tapes.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if I can have a minute. The headset seems to be out of order.

Q. And after he requested the tapes, you had a meeting with Mr. Stanisic; is that correct?

A. Actually, I was at Frenki's, at his home, when Stanisic entered. He shook hands with me and he said, "I'm glad to see that you're still good friends after everything that has happened, and I hope we will be able to bury our axes and overcome everything that has happened," and that is where it ended. I never gave him the tapes. ¹⁶⁵³³

Q. Okay. I want to now ask that the witness be shown Prosecution Exhibit 389, tab 8. I'm going to ask that the witness actually be handed the original.

I'd ask you to take a look at this document, Mr. Vasiljkovic, and I'd ask you, after you arrived here at The Hague, were you given an opportunity to look at and read this document?

A. Yes, I read it.

Q. And is it a report in order signed by General Tolimir of the 1st Krajina Corps, the 28th of July, 1992?

A. Yes, that is right.

Q. The Chamber will be able to read the entirety of this document, but would it be fair to say this is a rather lengthy report by General Tolimir regarding his assessment of volunteers and paramilitaries in the Bosnian theatre?

A. Yes. It is a document in which he presents his views about volunteers, yes.

Q. And would it be fair to say that his views are generally quite negative regarding the role of volunteers in Bosnia?

A. No. I think it would be correct to say that they were extremely negative and that, through this report, he expresses his own great mistrust towards volunteers.

Q. I want to draw your attention to a particular portion of the report, and it will be displayed on the television screen in front of you, but again you have the original if the glare from the lights makes it hard to read. I'm going to ask you to just read this particular paragraph ¹⁶⁵³⁴ that's been enlarged on the screen in front of you now. Are you able to see that with the lights?

A. Yes, I can see it.

Q. Could you please read that paragraph.

A. "In the area of the Serbian municipality of Skelani, a camp of so-called Red Berets was established, headed by Nikola Pupovac, one of Captain Dragan's pupils. According to unconfirmed reports, this group is preparing to overthrow the government and take power in the Serbian municipality of Skelani."

Q. Do you recognise the name Nikola Pupovac?

A. Yes, I do. I think he was one of my students in Golubic.

Q. Do you have any personal knowledge regarding this so-called camp of Red Berets established in Skelani?

A. I have no knowledge about this because here too it says "unconfirmed reports."

Q. I'm now going to direct your attention to another portion of this report. It's going to be highlighted now in a moment.

JUDGE KWON: If you could give me the page number in the English version.

MR. GROOME: Just a second, Your Honour. It's page 9, Your Honour, and it's the second paragraph at the top of that page.

Q. Mr. Vasiljkovic, could I please ask you to read this paragraph from the report.

A. "A so-called special company has been formed in the territory of the municipality of Teslic. It is formally a part of the Teslic Serbian ¹⁶⁵³⁵ Brigade but it is in fact under the influence of individuals from the municipal structures in the municipality of Teslic. This company has about 80 members, mostly criminals, under the command of Dracen Jocic. A platoon of the so-called Serbian Guards has also joined this company. Members of this company completed a nine-day training course organised by the Red Berets from Mount Ozren. This company carries out 'special tasks' on the defence line without informing the brigade command."

Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of a nine-day training course organised by the Red Berets from Mount Ozren?

A. I would not even be able to point to Ozren on the map. I was never there, nor was I ever in Teslic, so I simply don't know why you're linking this to me.

Q. No, I'm not linking it to you, sir, I'm just asking whether you have any knowledge or information you can contribute regarding it. How about the name of Dracen Jocic? Do you recognise that name?

A. No. The name doesn't mean anything to me. I think it's in Republika Srpska. I wasn't there, so I don't know why ...

Q. The last couple of sentences I'd ask you to look at from this report -- and for the Chamber, that -- on the English translation, it's page 10, it's the second paragraph from the bottom. Mr. Vasiljkovic, could I ask you to read that portion there.

A. "Krajina special police with 45 men led by Zivojin Ivanovic, also known as Crnogorac, is present in the area of Brcko. He has not placed himself under the command of the Brcko Brigade. He was allegedly sent by the Serbian SUP." ¹⁶⁵³⁶

Q. Do you recognise the name Zivojin Ivanovic?

A. Yes, I know it very well.

Q. Is that the same Ivanovic that you spoke about yesterday?

A. I assume it could be the same one. As I wasn't there, I can't be sure, but name is the same as the Ivanovic that I mentioned, and I have reason to believe that it was him.

MR. GROOME: I'm going to ask the witness be shown Prosecution Exhibit 389, tab 9. And that will also be displayed.

Q. We're handing you a hard copy of that. It will also be displayed on the monitor in front of you. I'd ask you to take a look at the name and signature of this document dated the 9th of July, 1992. Do you recognise that signature?

A. Yes. I think it is Zika Ivanovic, Crnogorac.

Q. Now, can you read for us the heading, the listing of where this particular document is originating from, the upper left-hand corner of the document.

A. SAO, the Serbian Autonomous Region of Semberija and Majevica, unit for special purposes Brcko, date July 9, 1992. I think this was during the breakthrough of the corridor when many men participated in this operation of the breakthrough of the corridor. At least, that is what I assume it is.

Q. Can you describe for the Chamber, if you know, the significance of special purposes unit?

A. I'm afraid you have to be more specific. You mean generally or this particular unit that you're speaking about? ¹⁶⁵³⁷

Q. Generally.

A. Let me tell you how I think it was generally speaking in Yugoslavia. After the battle for Glina, the Knindza, who were then the special forces of the Krajina police, gained a significant reputation so that almost all those who fought there consider themselves to be special units or Knindza or Red Berets, so that my understanding of a special unit differs drastically from the special units that I saw on the ground. As far as this particular unit is concerned, I think it was specially formed of volunteers who had come from all over when the corridor was being stormed to the Republic of Srpska Krajina. So I don't think that Zika Ivanovic was in Brcko all the time. He was in this operation in which the whole of the Krajina took part, and men from Republika Srpska. I think there were a lot of reports about this, and I am informed about it solely from -- by the press.

Q. Would it be fair to say that it was common for a -- it was common for many different units to take on the title or incorporate into the title of their unit "special purposes unit"?

A. Well, yes. I think that there were more special purpose units than regular units. I rarely came across someone who said, "I was just a soldier." Everyone over there was a so-called "specialjalist" or a member of a special unit. It didn't mean much to me. It just meant that he was a fighter down there.

Q. Thank you.

MR. GROOME: Your Honours, I'm going to proceed in the questioning a little bit out of order. If I could direct your attention to paragraph ^{16538 BLANK PAGE 16539} 71 of the witness summary.

Q. Mr. Vasiljkovic, I'd ask you now -- you've mentioned earlier regarding how, during the summer of 1991, you had the idea for the formation of the Captain Dragan Fund. Could I ask you to describe in a little greater detail what the fund was and what was the goal of the fund.

A. After I was replaced, or once I had realised that I would have no more opportunity to fight in the armed forces of my country, as I mentioned yesterday, there was an aura of popularity around me, and I wanted to use that popularity for something good. I didn't wish to get involved in politics in those days, and it occurred to me, as I visited some hospitals and seeing the wounded arriving there were not taken care of properly because Serbia was not officially at war, so there was no law to take care of the wounded. So I decided to use the media popularity I had to set up a fund that would care for the victims of war. The fund was formed with the aim of assisting all the physical victims of the war. More than 67.000 people have received aid from the foundation, of which 14.000 were children, of which 1.500 were born after their fathers were killed. So it's a wonderful institution which had more than 300.000 donors, and I think that all the bodies, including the authorities and individuals, assisted this institution and it has grown into a very large institution which has 12 years of work behind it.

Q. Can I ask you this: Can you briefly describe what would be the process if a former soldier who was, let's say, permanently disabled in the war, what would be the basic process for that soldier to make a claim ¹⁶⁵⁴⁰ and receive assistance from the fund?

A. First of all, the work of the fund was public from the very first day, and this is stated in the statute. So anyone who wishes to look at our documents is free to do so.

Secondly, a combatant or a representative of his or, rather, the victim of the war should come, or his representative, to fill in certain forms to provide some evidence that he was wounded and to fill in this form indicating which unit he was a member of, when this happened, a brief description of his wounding, or killing if it's a relative, upon which he would be given aid depending on the category that the combatant would be ranked within.

Q. Once a person fills out the paperwork saying where they were injured and how they were injured, did the fund take any steps to verify the accuracy of that information?

A. The fund did have access to almost all the institutions in the country. Yes, we had a large team of people doing this, and whenever we felt it necessary, we would check the information given to us. I don't know whether this was done in each and every case when it was obvious that the documents were correct and there was no doubt about it. If somebody said he lost his leg and we see that he's without a leg, we didn't need to call the hospital to check out. But whenever there were any doubts, we did check it out.

Q. Was there a requirement that a person who was saying that he was under the command of, let's say, a particular person, that his commander would have to file a certification that he indeed was under his command ¹⁶⁵⁴¹ and did -- was injured in the way that he described in the questionnaire?

A. Yes.

MR. GROOME: I'm going to ask that the witness be shown Exhibit 391, tab 2.

Q. It also should be on the monitor in front of you. After you arrived in The Hague, in consultation with members of the Office of the Prosecutor, was this -- just a second -- was this chart created as an aid to the Chamber, identifying all the different types of records that make up a typical file in the fund?

A. Yes.

MR. GROOME: I'm going to ask that the witness be shown Prosecution Exhibit 391, tab 3. It will not be put on the monitor. It does contain some confidential medical information regarding one of the applicants, so I would ask that this be tendered under seal.

Q. And I would ask, Mr. Vasiljkovic, would you take a look at the document the usher has here. And would it be fair to say that that is a summary of the paperwork contained in one particular file, the file of Jovan Vejnovic?

A. Yes, I agree.

Q. Now, over the course of the last year, did you permit copies of all of the documents in the fund to be made and put onto CDs?

A. As I said, the work of the fund is absolutely open to the public, and it is accessible to any organisation. We have a very extensive archives with some 67.000 files, and several organisations have already copied those documents, and I allowed you to do so as well, of course. ¹⁶⁵⁴²

MR. GROOME: I ask that the witness be shown Prosecution Exhibit tab 1. These are 11 compact disks. I would note that the Prosecution is not seeking to tender these but is seeking simply to ask some foundational questions regarding them.

Q. Earlier this week were you asked to view the contents of these disks and to verify that they are indeed an accurate copy of the records of the fund?

A. Yes, I did review them, and I have no reason to doubt anything. Of course, I couldn't look through each and every file - it would take years - but I'm satisfied and there is no doubt in my mind that they are not authentic and trustworthy, yes.

Q. The translation said that they are not authentic. Could you please restate --

A. Let me say that again. I reviewed the documents. I was not able to review each file, because for that I would need several years. But as much as I was able to review, I am satisfied and I have no reason to doubt that these are not original documents. I have no reason to doubt -- the documents are original, in my opinion. They are original documents.

Q. Did you place your initials on each of the CDs after you reviewed the CD?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Now, I am going to tender a few specific records. I'm going to show them to you at this time. I'm going to ask that you --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Groome, before you go on, would you assist us with the relevance of this to the case. I'm not sure I'm following that. ¹⁶⁵⁴³

MR. GROOME: Perhaps I should have asked an additional question. If I could do that I think it may become clear.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. GROOME:

Q. Mr. Vasiljkovic, would it be fair to say that the documents contained in the Captain Dragan Fund would be a reliable source of information regarding where combatants were injured and fighting in both Bosnia and Croatia, including who their commander was, where they were injured, and how they were injured?

A. Yes. We have people from the whole of the territory of the former Yugoslavia. There were -- the fewest numbers were from Belgrade. Hardly any, in fact.

Q. So, for example, if later in the trial a particular person be coming under -- in a special unit testified that he was injured in a particular place in Bosnia, the Chamber could take a look at these CDs to either verify or contradict the veracity of that statement. Is that not correct?

A. With a high degree of certainty, yes.

MR. GROOME: Is there anything else the Chamber would wish me to ask in this regard?

JUDGE MAY: No. Thank you.

MR. GROOME:

Q. I'd ask that you take a look at the screen in front of you, and this is a particular questionnaire, again of Vejnovic. I'd ask you to look at it, and I would ask you to tell us, from the questionnaire, where ¹⁶⁵⁴⁴ was his place of his enlistment and the date of his enlistment.

A. [In English] Okay. 8th of August, 1992. I really can't read it. [Interpretation] Can I have a hard copy, please?

MR. GROOME: For the record, this is tab 4 of 391.

THE WITNESS: [In English] Okay. He joined -- [Interpretation] Pardon. He joined in the unit on the 8th of August, 1992. He joined the Knindza. [In English] It's called Knindza.

MR. GROOME:

Q. Who is his commander?

A. Zika Crnogorac, or the Montenegrin.

Q. And how was he injured?

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours. Your Honours. In my submission, these files, recorded in this way, were served on the amici on Monday. I don't know when exactly Slobodan Milosevic received them, but these thousands and thousands of pages were served on us on Monday, and I think this is something the Court should be aware of. That is, on the 17th of this month.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will be looking into the question of disclosure and service, but for the moment, it doesn't affect the witness's evidence. He can give it, and then we'll consider what should be done with these records.

MR. GROOME: May I just say, Your Honour, that the Prosecution is not tendering them, the disks now. The reason I'm asking these foundational questions is that, in the event some of these records become relevant later on in the trial, we won't -- it will not be necessary to ^{16545 BLANK PAGE 16546} have Mr. Vasiljkovic return to authenticate them. I imagine that there will be very few of these records that are actually tendered during the course of the trial. The five records that are being tendered today have been turned over in compliance with the discovery regime that was established for this witness. So there's no violation of the discovery for the actual exhibits that are being tendered today.

JUDGE MAY: So you are not seeking to exhibit anything beyond what we have, but on the other hand, you want to be in a position, if you need to, to be able to use them if matters arise later.

MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. And equally, the amici or Mr. Milosevic may find that, after reviewing these CDs, that there is information that they would want to bring to the Chamber's attention.

JUDGE MAY: I suppose the question does arise as to why this wasn't disclosed before.

MR. GROOME: The regime established for this witness, Your Honour, was one of delayed disclosure, and it was disclosed under that regime.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

MR. KAY: Just to add one point, Your Honour, because it is important: It's the volume of the material. It's over 10.000 pages on these CDs that has to be accessed in a special way which came to my possession yesterday. Mr. Tapuskovic had it first, it being largely in B/C/S, for us to look at. It's the volume that is so phenomenal. But --

JUDGE MAY: We understand, and it is a matter which we are going to have to consider. It may be that in due course what we can do is to have at least the names of those whose records appear here, for ease of ¹⁶⁵⁴⁷ all, rather than having to read them all yourselves - an impossible task - it may be that we can get a list of the names, at least, and have that served.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution is in the process of generating such a list. The list will consist of the name of the person, the command that they said they were under, as well as the date and place of their injury; those key pieces of information. And we will make that available as soon as that list is completed. That is in process now.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Let's continue with this witness's evidence.

MR. GROOME: I'd ask you now -- that the witness be shown the certification from this particular file, and that is also tab 4 of Prosecution Exhibit 391. And if the usher could show the witness the hard copy. I believe the lights are making it difficult to read the monitor.

Q. Is this a typical certification that could be found in a claimant's file in the Captain Dragan Fund?

A. Yes.

Q. Could I ask you to read the first paragraph, please.

A. "Certificate confirming that Jovan Vejnovic was born on the 19th of June, 1963 in Subotica, residing in Futog, Romanijska Street number 44," telephone number, et cetera. "Jovan Vejnovic is a member of the special unit for special purposes of the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia.

"Carrying out that assignment of patrol --"

Q. That's sufficient. I'm going to ask you now to take a look at ¹⁶⁵⁴⁸ Prosecution Exhibit 391, tab 5, the records of a person by the name of Sinisa Calic.

I'm sorry, before the -- can the witness please have the certification. Can you tell us the signature on that certification, who -- this is tab 4, the one that you just read from. Whose signature is that on that page?

A. Unit commander Zivojin Ivanovic, Crnogorac.

Q. I'm going back to tab 5, Sinisa Calic's file. Can you tell us what unit he belonged to?

A. He was -- he joined the unit on the 17th of July, 1991, a reconnaissance unit, a scouts unit, a special unit, Captain Dragan, under contract. That was his status at the time. He was wounded near Skabrnja in 1993, under my command.

Q. Can you describe for us, what does "soldier on contract" mean?

A. I believe that in 1992 or 1993, the beginning of 1993, before I came there, the Serbian army of Krajina carried out a reorganisation, engaging soldiers on contract. They had begun some sort of professionalisation, and he was one of such soldiers. And he was wounded when I arrived there. He was given to me, to my unit, and he was wounded in the battle for Skabrnja under my command.

Q. Thank you. I'd ask that you be shown, from the same exhibit, this certification in the file, and I would simply ask you to tell us who -- who verified his injury and his place of injury.

A. Rade Bozic. He was then in charge of the centre that I established, and he came back again to help me set up a similar centre in ¹⁶⁵⁴⁹ Brcko.

Q. The stamp that appears next to Mr. Bozic's name, can you help us by identifying that stamp?

A. It's a standard stamp of the army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, the official stamp.

Q. I want to now draw your attention to tab 6 of Prosecution Exhibit 391, the records, or some of the records, of a person by the name of Miodrag Obradovic. I want to first ask you about the questionnaire. Can you please read the relevant portion of the record that identifies how Mr. Obradovic was wounded.

A. On the 24th of May, 1992, in Brcko, Klanac, during the attack on a Ustasha house, he was shot at and wounded in his right low -- in his right upper arm. He was captured on the 30th of June, 1992, where he suffered serious physical injuries. I can't read the couple of words that follow. And after that, he was in hospital in Brcko.

Q. Can I ask you now to read from the portion of the record that indicates what he expresses as his intention to do after he is discharged from the hospital.

JUDGE MAY: The translation that we have in the exhibit is "right lower leg," but it appears it should be "upper arm." Mr. Groome, perhaps someone could check that out.

MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. We'll check that translation and -- we'll have it checked.

Q. Mr. Vasiljkovic, can you assist us on that?

A. Sorry. My mistake. The Judge is right, it's right lower leg. I ¹⁶⁵⁵⁰ don't know why I'm reading this in the first place. Why doesn't your translator read it out? I didn't write this, he did.

Q. I'm just asking you to read from the records, as the administrator of the fund, to read from the Serbian records kept in the fund. I draw your attention to the portion of the record where Mr. Obradovic states his intention -- his intentions after he recuperates. Can you please read that section of the record.

A. "The wounded returned from the battlefield." It's really difficult for me to read this handwriting because it's not a simple one to make out, and I would really ask somebody to help me with it. I can't make out --

Q. Mr. Vasiljkovic --

A. -- one in two words.

Q. We will perhaps ask the translator to read it. Can you verify that this is a record from the Captain Dragan Fund? Can you do that from your examination of the document?

A. Yes, that's true.

Q. I'd ask that the witness be shown the certification from the same file, and I would simply ask you, do you recognise the signature of the person who certificated this man's injury, and if you can assist us in identifying the stamp over the signature.

A. It says here "Captain Bozic," and the stamp is the military stamp of the Brcko region.

Q. Now, the stamp from the Brcko region, does it identify -- is this a JNA stamp or a Ministry of Interior stamp? Are you able to tell us that ¹⁶⁵⁵¹ from looking at the stamp?

A. I think it is a JNA stamp because it has the five -- five-cornered star and it has the number of the military post box. It's 984.

Q. There are only two more records I'd seek your comment on. I'd ask you to take a look at Prosecution Exhibit 391, tab 7, the certificate submitted in the case of Mr. Ranko Strbac. I ask you, do you recognise who signed this certification?

A. It says here Zeljko Raznjatovic.

Q. And the stamp that accompanies Zeljko Raznjatovic's name, do you recognise that?

A. This is the first time I see this. I never noticed it before. Territorial Defence centre, the command in Erdut, which probably means that this Zeljko Raznjatovic was under the command of this Territorial Defence centre in Erdut.

Q. Now, this letter signed by Raznjatovic, how does it indicate this person was injured; where and when?

A. You mean I should find this place in the document if I read it in its entirety?

"Certificate and confirmation of wounding --"

Q. No need to read out loud. If you could scan it and just identify the portion of it that indicates where and when this person was injured, according to Mr. Raznjatovic. Mr. Raznjatovic is Arkan; is that not correct?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. Could you just indicate -- where does Arkan say this man was ^{16552 BLANK PAGE 16553} injured?

A. Slavonia-Baranja-Western Srem, Erdut.

Q. I'd ask you to look at the screen in front of you. This is a portion of the document highlighted. I'd ask you just to read that one portion. Does that indicate where Arkan said this man was injured?

A. I can't find it here. I'm really trying. I don't see it mentioned specifically.

JUDGE MAY: We don't need it read out.

MR. GROOME:

Q. I just want to draw your attention to the last sentence of the letter from Arkan, the certification. Can you please read the last letter, where it begins, "It is our opinion..."

A. "It is our opinion that all conditions have been met for disability status for an invalid of war according to the Article 97, paragraph 2, Law on Basic Rights of Invalids of War and the Families of the Deceased," Official Gazette number and so on and so forth.

Q. This last sentence, is this Arkan stating his belief that the federal law as it regarded war invalids applied to his men?

A. Yes. I believe he's saying that this refers to -- yes. Yes, I agree.

Q. The last document I'm going to ask you to take a look at is tab 8 of Prosecution Exhibit 392. The Chamber will be able to read the entirety of the document. I just want you to read for us the disposition of this case; what payments were made by the Captain Dragan Fund to this person.

A. Certificate confirming that -- this is a very bad copy. ¹⁶⁵⁵⁴

Q. I'm sorry. The certificate. Who signed the certificate for this man, Mr. Vukan Subaric?

A. Zeljko Raznjatovic. In fact, it says Zeljko Raznjatovic.

Q. Now, please look at the disposition on the last page of the questionnaire, and that's the ERN ending 063, and it's up on the screen now. The portion beginning: "I suggest paying the amount of 5.000 dinars ..."

A. Yes. "With the proviso that --" I have a little problem with this lighting and the reflection from the monitor. These are very bad copies, and I have trouble reading this handwriting. It is not the best of handwritings anyway.

Will you please find a translator who will read this out better than I would.

Q. I'll read the translation for you and ask you to comment on it. "I suggest paying the amount of 5.000 dinars to the patient. His wife will bring medical insurance cards for their children, as they will get 100.000 -- or 100 dinars per child, the 15th of July, 1992. The patient has asked for financial support. He was instructed to submit a document confirming that he is unemployed. The case is settled because the municipality will take care about the patient."

Assuming that that is a correct translation of the record in the fund, does that indicate that in this particular instance, one of Arkan's men who was injured received official benefits from the municipality in which he lived?

A. I believe that later, laws were passed according to which all ¹⁶⁵⁵⁵ people who were victims of war benefited from one or another form of aid. Not only these men but everyone else. You could read that in newspapers. It is no major discovery.

Q. Thank you. I want to return to the video that we watched last -- yesterday, and I want to ask you to comment on a few particular sections of that video. If you would look at the screen in front of you. The person that we are viewing on the screen now --

A. I don't see anything. Sorry.

MR. GROOME: If we could have the sound, please.

[Videotape played]

MR. GROOME:

Q. The person who greeted Mr. Milosevic and presented the troops for inspection, is the name that was listed in the transcript, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Milorad Lukovic?

A. Milorad Lukovic.

Q. I believe "Vukelic" was in the transcript. Does Mr. Lukovic have another name that he's popularly known as?

A. He had a nickname. It was "Legija." I believe he also had another nickname, "Ulemek," that was linked to him at a certain period.

Q. I draw your attention to the monitor in front of you at 8:36 on the video. Mr. Stanisic is laying a wreath at a memorial to a Mr. Kostic. Can you just tell the Chamber what, if anything, you know about who this person Mr. Kostic was. ¹⁶⁵⁵⁶

A. I think, although I can't put my money on it, that I met with him once in Belgrade before his killing, but the Tribunal itself can draw the conclusion that he was an important person in the state security service, and he was one of the first people to get killed in the fighting in that war. Nothing very important. I think he was linked with a completely different theatre of war, and I had no major contacts with Kostic.

Q. I'd ask you to look at another still from the video. This person Rade Bozovic, the person who Mr. Milosevic is saying, "I've read those reports of yours," can you tell us what, if anything, you know about who Mr. Bozovic is and where he was engaged.

A. He appeared at the fortress a couple of days after my arrival from Glina, so I had little time to spend with him. He was also at Fruska Gora when the establishment of JCO began, or when the planning for the establishment of the JCO began. And later, I would meet him around town, but we had no special business or any other contacts or common projects.

Q. I'm going to now play a few excerpts from the speech made by Frenki Simatovic and ask for your comment on some portions of.

[Videotape played] [Please refer to Exhibit 390, tab 2

for video transcript - 05:56]

MR. GROOME:

Q. Mr. Simatovic talks about the 4th of May, 1991, as the date on which this unit was founded. Does that date have any significance to you?

A. I established my company on the 4th of April, so it can't be linked with me. It must have concerned some internal decisions of theirs ¹⁶⁵⁵⁷ for the establishment of that unit. I can only guess that this is so, but I really wasn't the sort of person to whom they would report about their activities.

Q. Mr. Vasiljkovic, you've been using an abbreviation for this unit which has been recorded as JCO. Is that the abbreviation that you intend or is there some problem of mishearing what you're saying?

A. Special Operations Unit, JSO.

Q. Would it be fair to say that this unit became to be known as the JSO around the time of the ceremony that we saw yesterday?

A. I don't think so. I attended a similar celebration two years previously. Maybe names changed in the meantime, but in my mind, that unit had been established or had begun to be established at the time we went to Fruska Gora. As far as I remember, that's what we always called it, but I really can't be sure now.

Q. Thank you. We ask that you watch the next portion of the speech.

[Videotape played] [Please refer to Exhibit 390, tab 2

for video transcript - 08:22]

MR. GROOME:

Q. In that portion, Mr. Simatovic says that they were forced to operate in complete secrecy. When you trained your men and in the battle of Glina and Ljubovo, were your men trained to conceal that they were associated with you and your unit?

A. Excuse me. I really don't understand your question at all. What does the secrecy of the service has to do with it? It works in secret ¹⁶⁵⁵⁸ because it is a secret service. If it were a public service, it would be working in public. And what does my unit have to do with it? And the way you are putting your question is really -- eludes my understanding. Would you please split your question in two.

Q. Yes. My apologies. At the time that you conducted your training, during any part of your training did you train your men -- now, I'm not associating your men with what Mr. Simatovic is saying, I'm asking you, did you train your men to conceal their association with the Knindza?

A. No. We were a police unit that had its own uniforms, its flag, its base, its headquarters. We were a public service. And as far as I understand, this other unit is part of the secret service. And I really don't see the point of all this.

Q. I'm going to ask you to look at another portion.

[Videotape played] [Please refer to Exhibit 390, tab 2

for video transcript - 09:33]

MR. GROOME:

Q. In this particular portion, Mr. Simatovic is estimating the amount of soldiers at 5.000 and telling his audience that it was coordinated by the unit command and intelligence team from the second administration. Could you comment on any relationship you're aware of between the JSO and the second administration?

A. Again you're asking me two or three questions at once and I find it very difficult to answer when you do that, so I'd like you to ask me more specific questions. But since you're asking me, I think it's high ^{16559 BLANK PAGE 16560} time that we say some things: That this staged performance that we all attended was prepared to welcome the president. In his report, he mentions Benkovac, Glina -- I don't have the exact transcript, I'd like to read it again. But first of all, in Benkovac there were no operations or fighting. Kostajnica was taken without a single shot being fired. And Frenki probably didn't know about it until he read it out in the papers. So it was prepared for the president, to give an impression on him. What does the president know where Kostajnica or where Benkovac is or what happened there? So I quite understand that. So this unit never exceeded the size of a company.

I don't know where he got the figure of 5.000 from, but I have absolutely no evidence to that effect. This was for the public. This was a theatre performance. I even asked him later on, "Where did you get all those numbers from?" He said, "I didn't write it all. I just gave some instructions, but we have to embellish it a little bit for the benefit of the president." So I don't think you can take this to be a reliable document. You had thousands of observers and monitors in Krajina. Did anyone ever mention 5.000 or anything like that? It is so exaggerated here. Believe me, I've been here for two weeks now, and maybe I'm getting towards the end of my tether a little bit, but their participant is really over exaggerated that I feel ashamed to take part in this. This has nothing to do with the truth.

JUDGE MAY: Counsel may have his purpose in answering a question -- or asking a question. Answer it as best you can. If you can't answer, just say so. ¹⁶⁵⁶¹

MR. GROOME:

Q. Mr. Vasiljkovic, are you saying that all of the statements that Mr. Simatovic said, and I'll just summarise them here: Where Mr. Simatovic talks about an air helicopter squadron that transported tons of equipment and materials into Bosnia; then when Mr. Simatovic talks about 26 training camps for special police units of Republika Srpska, Republic of Serbian Krajina; that when Mr. Simatovic talks about the involvement of these forces in freeing the UNPROFOR hostages; that all of these are mistruths or lies or gross exaggerations of the truth? Is that what you're saying here this morning?

A. No. I didn't say that. Far from it. I'm just saying that what he said in connection with the Krajina, and that is the only area I can comment on with certainty, I am saying that Mr. Simatovic or his men had nothing to do with Glina or Kostajnica or Benkovac. Nothing ever happened there in that sense.

And as for helicopter units, I know of two Gazelles and one Bell from the Vietnam war which he had at his disposal. But as this is a gentleman who liked planes, he spoke about it as a helicopter squadron. I have friends who own more helicopters than that. So all this is absolutely exaggerated. I don't think there's any material evidence to corroborate this.

As for UNPROFOR, we are aware of that, but I do not wish to comment on anything that was done in Kosovo or Bosnia. I don't know. But what did happen in Krajina, I knew about it at least while I was in command there. ¹⁶⁵⁶²

Q. Could I direct your attention to a map that was seen in the video. It's on the screen in front of you. Can you tell us what, if anything, you can tell us about this map and any indications that are on it.

A. I really don't know. I think this was done in copper. It was a work of art of a sculptor who was a friend of the unit who worked on their insignia and everything else, but I don't think it's anything of any major importance. This is a map of the former Yugoslavia, and it was made with a great deal of nostalgia, in copper. It is the work of an artist, not of a strategist or commander. As far as I remember. I may be wrong. I see Mr. Milosevic looking at it close up.

Q. I'm going to draw your attention now to tab 5 of Prosecution Exhibit 390. You've seen this exhibit yesterday. It was the stills from the video and your correction of people that were incorrectly identified. I just want to draw your attention to page 062, time frame 04:50. Could you please identify the two people in that still of the video.

A. Mihalj Kertes and General Zivota Panic.

Q. I draw your attention to 07:55 of the video. Tell us who is in this still.

A. Jovica Stanisic, Slobodan Milosevic, and Milorad Lukovic.

Q. I draw your attention to the next page and the time stamp 15:41. Can you please identify these people for us.

A. Mr. Vucelic, Tepavcevic, Vasiljevic, and Lukovic.

Q. Could you tell us; Mr. Vucelic, who is he?

A. I know him as director of RTS, and I think he was an official in the SPS party while it was in power. I think he has his own party now. ¹⁶⁵⁶³ That's as much as I know about him.

Q. In an earlier portion -- or I'm sorry, a portion of the video after this, Mr. Stanisic presents three gifts to three people, Mr. Milosevic, Mr. Kertes, and is this the Mr. Vucelic who is presented the third gift?

A. I really don't remember. It didn't seem so important to me for me to remember it. Probably, yes. A lot of people were given awards. I think so. I think you're right, yes.

Q. I ask you to take a look at --

JUDGE KWON: Just the picture before. 15:41, the picture previous.

MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, we'll call that up now.

JUDGE KWON: Number 3 man, he called this General Vasiljevic. Is this Aleksandar Vasiljevic, the previous witness?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I think so.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. GROOME:

Q. Did you know or have any personal contact with General Aleksandar Vasiljevic?

A. No. I had no need to have any contact with him.

Q. Had you ever personally met him?

A. To tell you the truth, if I hadn't seen this tape, I wouldn't have even remembered that he was at this ceremony. He didn't mean anything to me. I had no contact with him, so I really don't know him.

Q. The next still I'm going -- I'm sorry. The one before, the ¹⁶⁵⁶⁴ Mr. Paskovic, I believe the name was, the second man. Who is he? Tepavcevic.

A. Tepavcevic was a high-ranking official in the state security who died last year or the year before.

Q. The next portion I'd like you to look at is the time stamp 23:23. And who is in this frame?

A. Mr. Rajh, and I am next to him. That's me.

Q. And finally --

A. Would you like to know who Mr. Rajh is?

Q. Yes, please. Tell us who he is.

A. Mr. Rajh, I met him as one of the suppliers who purchased some supplies for the service, and that is how he introduced himself to me. He's Frenki Simatovic's Kum or best man. I know that for certain.

Q. I draw your attention now to 24 minutes, the still from that time. Can you describe who is depicted in this still.

A. [In English] Is my monitoring playing up or --

MR. GROOME: Could you please check his monitor.

Q. Push the "off" button.

A. I tried all that.

Q. Okay? Who is depicted in this particular still?

A. [Interpretation] Jovica Stanisic and Milorad Vucelic.

Q. And finally, the still at 30:28. And who is depicted in this still?

A. Slobodan Milosevic and Milorad Vucelic. They're chatting, with drinks in their hands. ¹⁶⁵⁶⁵

Q. I'm going to ask you to look at final short excerpt. At the end of it, I would ask you, can you tell us who was the person making the toast?

[Videotape played] [Please refer to Exhibit 390, tab 2

for video transcript - 39:14]

MR. GROOME:

Q. Who is the person who made the toast?

A. Zivojin Ivanovic, known as Zika Crnogorac, the Montenegrin.

Q. Thank you.

MR. GROOME: Your Honours, Mr. Vasiljkovic continued to live in the former Yugoslavia during times relevant to the Chamber's inquiry. He was well-known in the region from 1991 onwards, and there is a large volume of material from contemporaneous media and other sources which refers to him which the Prosecution has not been able to further investigate.

There is a volume of documents and reports which, if believed, would be in direct conflict with his testimony as to events after the period with which he's already testified. All of this material has been provided to the amici and the accused under Rule 68, and they may wish to explore this material at length. I, however, in light of my obligations as an attorney and a prosecutor, will conclude my examination at this point in time.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Yes, Mr. Milosevic. It's for you to cross-examine. ^{16566 BLANK PAGE 16567} Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Captain, do you know that in this institution you are listed as a protected witness, B-073? That is your pseudonym.

A. I don't know. I didn't insist on that. I asked that everything be in public.

Q. Did you at any point in time wish or ask or in any way made it known that you wanted to testify anonymously rather than in public?

A. No. God forbid. No.

Q. And did a member of the opposing side, I think -- I refer to the fake Prosecution, did he suggest to you that you should testify confidentially and that you have protection?

A. No. I learnt about it for the first time when I arrived here, and I said that I didn't want any protective measures.

Q. So they asked you whether you wanted to be a protected witness?

A. Let's me be quite frank. It was like this: I arrived, and I said that I had made a statement to the media saying that I was coming here, and then they said, "Aren't you a protected witness?" And I said, "As far as I know, I am not." "Yes, but we've listed you as a protected witness." And I said I didn't know anything about that. So that's all I know about this question of protection.

Q. So you had nothing to conceal from the public, nor do you have anything now, and you have no reason, nor did you have any reason, nor did you make any requests at any time to be anonymous here or in any proceedings or any testimony, and whatever I ask you can also be done in public? ¹⁶⁵⁶⁸

A. Yes, absolutely so.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I wish to draw your attention to this. The previous witness was in a similar situation, though he was, to some extent, protected. This one is quite different. But this is the umpteenth time that the opposite side is keeping the witness under a pseudonym as a protected witness to prevent me from collecting facts, and the witness is claiming that he never requested any kind of protection and that he never wanted to be an anonymous witness.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that this is a gross abuse.

JUDGE MAY: We have your point. Now, Mr. Nice, if I can address you on this subject.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: The accused is right that this is the second occasion of two witnesses of which this has occurred, and it's not the first time. There have been other witnesses during this trial. Now, this really is a matter of concern, because it appears -- now, I may be wrong, but it appears that the Prosecution is of its own decision putting these matters forward, or else the witness isn't right.

MR. NICE: In respect of both these witnesses, I'll need a little bit more time to research the detailed history. I'll come back to you with it, if I may, a little later.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. And would you do that, and would you review your practice in relation to future witnesses to ensure it doesn't happen if it has been happening. ¹⁶⁵⁶⁹

MR. NICE: That's already in my mind and I hope in our practice, but I will review these two and come back to you before the end of the day.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Yes. Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Your Honours, the amicus filed an observation on this matter with the Registry yesterday as a matter for the attention of the Trial Chamber, principally in relation to the last witness and previous examples. So we've put it in a paper form already. It might be appropriate if the Prosecution provided a report in response as to the exact dealings with this witness and the previous witness.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may just add --

JUDGE MAY: We haven't -- we haven't yet got your observations, and it may be it's in the machine somewhere, in the bureaucracy. Maybe if you had a copy available for us we could look at it sometime today before the Prosecution reports.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Mr. Nice, if you would do that at the end of the day. I have in mind we have to deal with at least one witness today, General Mangan, if I remember correctly.

MR. NICE: Yes. And there may be matters I need to raise about that witness as well. I'll see. So a few minutes at the end of the day will be helpful.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, we'll have to stop at half past one. I take it there's another case this afternoon.

Mr. Milosevic, we will take up the matters you raise. Now, let us ¹⁶⁵⁷⁰ continue with the cross-examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope you will, Mr. May. But I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this is not the second case but the umpteenth case, because more than half of the protected witnesses were later unprotected, and we'll make up the exact statistics and we'll see what it is about. I claim it is a manipulation.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Captain, do you have anything to add in connection with these tricks over protection, non-protection, your possible requests? Have you omitted to say anything about this?

A. I just wanted to say that I didn't even accept this type of protection that they issue in a routine way, which I refused to sign.

Q. I don't know what that is.

A. [In English] "This is to confirm a commitment of the part of a Prosecutor that any conversation or statement you will make during the course of your preparation to testify as a witness in the case of Prosecutor versus Milosevic will not be used against you." [Interpretation] I think that everything should be used against me that I do which is wrong. If I give false testimony, I should be held accountable too. So I didn't wish to sign this either.

Q. Very well. That's rather interesting, and I think it is a good thing for the public to be aware of such documents issued by the other side that you call the Prosecution, that everything is stated -- that is stated here against me cannot be used against the person making such a statement. ¹⁶⁵⁷¹

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, that's not an accurate reading of that document. Under Rules 42 and 43, in order for the Prosecution to put the allegations that it was in possession of to Mr. Vasiljkovic, we had one of two choices: One, to tape record the entire proceeding and furnish transcripts, or the other way, which is the proffer, to give him a guarantee that he could answer, respond to allegations that we put to him honestly, without fear of their later being used against him. It was a mechanism to comply with Rules 42 and 43, as well as to give Mr. Vasiljkovic a further assurance that he could be completely honest and open in his discussions and responses to allegations of specific criminal conduct put to him during the course of his preparation.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Vasiljkovic, I haven't mentioned so far, but so that you understand the legal position, you do not have to answer any questions which you think may incriminate you. If you wish to object to such questions, you can do so to the Trial Chamber. But that merely -- I know your position; I'm merely telling you what your legal position is.

THE WITNESS: You have to clarify something for me, sir.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Isn't this in collusion with this?

JUDGE MAY: You mustn't ask me questions. All I'm doing is telling you what your legal position is. You are not obliged to answer any questions which may incriminate you. So you can decline to answer. It doesn't affect the declaration you've taken.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. ¹⁶⁵⁷²

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You're also a citizen of Australia, are you not?

A. I am.

Q. And you completed military schools over there?

A. Yes.

Q. I heard that you said yesterday that you worked for six years in the army of Australia, as an instructor of various formations in Latin America, Africa, Kuwait?

A. Not quite so. They added these things. After Australia, I went to Africa. I worked in Africa as a security advisor. Then the air force academy I worked as a flying instructor and as a sailing instructor too. So I was an instructor of some sort all my life, and I think this paid in Krajina, and that is probably why I did my job well. So my experience is in Australia, a little in Africa. It was more to do with security than military. And my experience in Krajina, which was unbelievable.

Q. In any event, we can say that you can competently assess military operations, military organisation, operations on the ground, and everything that was happening in the areas in which you were present, that you are professionally trained for that and that you have the necessary experience to qualify you to judge about these things competently.

A. I wouldn't say that that was at the strategic level, but at the tactical level, certainly.

Q. I will certainly not put any questions to you beyond the tactical level or which are not specifically linked to your activities.

A. Thank you. ^{16573 BLANK PAGE 16574}

Q. But before we start with those questions, would you tell me, please, whether for your appearance in The Hague in the capacity as a witness, did you receive any money from the opposing party?

A. So far I have received about 4.000 euros. I have to explain that most of that money was spent for the tickets, because I came here from Africa, and for hotel accommodation, because I have spent some time here. I hope you don't think that they can buy me for 4.000 euros.

Q. No. I don't doubt that. I'm just asking whether anything was offered.

A. No. Just to cover my expenses. And I received about 4.000 euros.

Q. That is all you received from them, for your travelling expenses and accommodation costs?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. Let us clear up a few more points. You were mentioned here by certain witnesses, and I assume you followed some of that, probably not all of it. You were linked to the state security service of the Republic of Serbia. You were described as a mercenary. Are you aware of that?

A. Yes, I am. I know quite a lot. Probably not all of it.

Q. Now, please will you give me a direct and very categorical answer: Did you ever officially or unofficially, directly or indirectly, were you ever a member of the State Security Service of Serbia?

A. In two cases. Once on an honourary basis in 1997 for 28 days when I was engaged, together with 20 observers, to monitor exercises. And I received 2.200 dinars there as a fee. I wrote out my report, and I was ¹⁶⁵⁷⁵ engaged on that basis by them.

And the second occasion was there was some discussion that I would be engaged in the future, and that engagement was linked to Fruska Gora. It lasted some ten days or maybe a fortnight, and it never came about. It was discussed, but it was never realised.

So those were the only two occasions when I may have been in a position to receive orders from anyone from the state security service. Those were the two occasions.

Q. The fact that you were engaged to monitor exercises of the police, this was in 1997 or 1996?

A. 1997.

Q. This was somewhere near Nis, according to my notes. It was in Serbia, near Nis?

A. Yes. I was just waiting because the interpreters. Yes, close to Nis somewhere.

Q. So this was in 1996?

A. No, in 1997.

Q. I see. So you were engaged because they considered you to be a qualified professional to be able to assess their military exercises?

A. That's right.

Q. So you were engaged, you were hired as a professional and not as a member of the service. So at the time you were not a member of the service either, were you?

A. No, I was not.

Q. So you never were a member of the State Security Service of ¹⁶⁵⁷⁶ Serbia?

A. Absolutely not. I was never a member of the service.

JUDGE MAY: It's time for an adjournment. We will adjourn now. Twenty minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Captain, during your stay in Krajina, you were a member of the defence units of the SAO Krajina. Is that true?

A. Well, I was down there two times. The first time I was a member of the Krajina police, and the second time I was a member of the Krajina army. You have to understand that at the beginning, when the defence efforts began, they began with the people organised by the Martic police. So in the first part of the war in 1991, I was under the command of Milan Martic.

Q. I understand that. But doubtlessly from what you say, the Krajina police and the Serbian army of Krajina both constitute the defence forces of the Republic of Serbian Krajina.

A. Absolutely.

Q. So in all your posts, you were a member of those forces.

A. Yes.

Q. And you were under the command of the defence forces of the Republic of Serbian Krajina.

A. Yes. ¹⁶⁵⁷⁷

Q. During your stay in Krajina and all those activities you testified about, did you receive any order at all from a person who was a member of the state security service in the Republic of Serbia?

A. No.

Q. Did you receive your salary during your service in Krajina?

A. No, not a dinar.

Q. So let's clear this up: Could we say that you were a mercenary in Krajina or, as you testify here, your motives were completely different? As I understand them, they were absolutely patriotic in nature. They were not mercenary. You did not work there for lucrative purposes.

A. Of course I didn't.

Q. In your statement, in the first paragraph, and I will quote you: "In the military sense, Krajina was ruled by complete chaos. It was a time of massive emigration of Serbian refugees to Knin." Do you remember that that -- that at that time there was a large number of Serbian refugees coming into Serbia?

A. I'm afraid this is a mistake, because what I said was there was a massive flow of Serbian refugees to Belgrade from Knin.

Q. So you agree. Do you remember that in that first year we already had about 100.000 refugees from various areas of Croatia, not only from Krajina, in Serbia?

A. I don't know about that, but I know that there were very few people in Knin. Most of them had left to Serbia, and I don't know any figures.

Q. And then you go on in the same paragraph: "In the hearts of the ¹⁶⁵⁷⁸ Serbian people, there was great fear, and the generally accepted opinion was that these people should be defended."

Did you say that?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me, in your opinion, what was the reason for this fear in the hearts and minds of Serbs that made them flee from the territory of Croatia?

A. Without wishing to go too deep into history, as far as I followed, a lot has been said here already, but you have to understand -- and it's probably very difficult for someone who lived in the West, and I was lucky enough to live both in the West and in Serbia and in Krajina, and I can understand how difficult it is for the Trial Chamber to understand that this is a relatively poor people who lived in small houses -- I'm talking about rural areas now. They lived in small rooms on the upper floor without any TV sets. Stories circulated about atrocities from the Second World War and the stories became more and more horrible with retelling. And then came the appearance of Ustasha uniforms and the chequerboard flag. That very word "chequerboard flag" inspired great fear in every Serb. There is almost not a single family which does not have in its history a great tragedy.

It's not such a long time. We're talking about 50 years. There are people still alive who remember all that. And it is clear to everyone who made the smallest effort to follow those events that all those people were very afraid from this spectre of fascism rising again.

Q. That's very clear. In paragraph 5, you say: "Among the ¹⁶⁵⁷⁹ volunteers, there was a general willingness to fight this revived fascism, the resurgent fascism."

A. Yes, it was clear to me.

Q. And you say: "There were no great idealists among us, and the future did not seem rosy to us."

A. May I say something? If I can say in my on words how I saw it. A person who lies in the bed of his ancestors who had been there for 600 years and wakes up turning into a potential minority from being a constituent nation, so he wakes up as a potential minority under a government which promises him expulsions, slaughter, killings -- [In English] They didn't have a rosy future.

Q. All right. But quite briefly and concisely, we could say perhaps, and you will confirm this or not, that it is precisely this resurgent fascism of the new Croatian authorities was the reason why the Serbian people in Croatia were afraid.

A. [Interpretation] Absolutely. There's no dilemma about that.

Q. Let's move on then, Captain. Did anyone at all invite you to come or did anyone send you to Krajina, or did you feel yourself that it was your patriotic duty to defend that people there?

A. I felt myself that I could help and that my help could save lives. That was my primary motive. I don't think any one of us here could sit in this chair if they knew that if they went out they could save lives. I don't think that's something exceptional. It's the normal drive and wish of a person to do whatever they can. And it is a fact that by going there I did save lives. ^{16580 BLANK PAGE 16581} And you heard from Sasa Medakovic, who was the prime initiator of my going to the Krajina, the main reason for my going there was my own feeling that I should. Today nobody could even prevent me from going there. Even you would not have been able to prevent me if I had really felt the need to do so.

Q. You just mentioned Sasa Medakovic. That is a man from Krajina and he lived in Krajina.

A. Of course. And he died in Krajina. He was killed there.

Q. So he was born, lived, and got killed in Krajina defending his people from Ustashas?

A. That is so.

Q. We heard claims here that Franko Simatovic, and to some extent Jovica Stanisic, according to Babic's testimony, were in charge of this camp in Golubic. There was even some talk about Franko Simatovic being the commander of that camp.

Is it true that during your stay in Krajina you were the exclusive commander of the camp in Golubic, or was there a time when it was somebody else?

A. No. I was the only commander, and no one else could have occupied that post.

Q. And is it true that you were appointed commander of that camp by somebody from the state security service of Serbia, or was it someone from Krajina?

A. Milan Martic, with the approval of Milan Babic who was the supreme authority at the time. ¹⁶⁵⁸²

Q. So you were appointed by the legal chief of the Krajina police, Martic, with the approval of the then president of the Krajina government, Babic.

A. That's so.

Q. Did the state security service or anyone else from Serbia in the broadest sense have anything to do with your appointment?

A. Absolutely not. That claim can absolutely not stand.

Q. So it is not in dispute that at the first stage when you were a member of the police of Krajina and carried out your duties in that capacity, whereas later you were a member of the Serbian army of Krajina within the framework of the command system of the Krajina armed forces, meaning both the police and the army, not Serbia and not the JNA. Is that so?

A. Yes, that is so, and I believe that is fully corroborated by the existing documentation.

Q. Is it true - you said something about that - that the attitude of a significant number of the members of the people in the Republic of Serbian Krajina was almost hostile to JNA members?

A. Well, yes. There was a number of factions. In fact, factions had begun to emerge. To me, as someone who came from outside, trying to help -- and when I say "outside," don't forget that to me Knin, Krajina, Rijeka, Ljubljana, those were cities in my own country to me. But when I came there, I noticed a significant difference; various factions between Martic and Babic. There were different currents there. So they were on the one hand, and the army on the other hand, which was completely ¹⁶⁵⁸³ untouchable. And as soon as I spoke, as I exchanged my first word with the JNA officer, that was in June, whereas I arrived in April, to that extent was the army removed. And it was easier for me to cooperate with the UNPROFOR than with the JNA. It's a shame, but that is so.

Q. You say again in paragraph 8: "The JNA was completely unimportant. We didn't inform them of anything. They were close by between two sides, and we didn't know how they would react." Is that what you said?

A. Yes, because at that time there were Croats, Macedonians, Slovenes, all ethnicities in the army, in the JNA.

Q. And is it true that such an attitude to the JNA is explained by the fact that the JNA, at the time, treated both sides equally and almost without exception tried to play a buffer between those Croat paramilitary formations and the Serbian members of territorial units and civilians?

A. Well, since the 5th Command of the army was stationed in Zagreb, I felt personally that the army was against the Serbs. Now, looking back, I can agree, perhaps, with you that it was neutral, but at that time I believed that the army that was stationed in Glina was not really kindly disposed to Serbs. But if you look at it this way, you can say that the army was much more conscientious in holding the line between the Serbs and the Croats than certain forces of the UNPROFOR, at least in my experience.

Q. And from your experience again, I'm speaking about that time again, about events which were the result of these pressures on the Serbs from these paramilitary formations, is it true that Croat officers and soldiers increasingly deserted from the JNA, taking with them their ¹⁶⁵⁸⁴ weapons in order to join Croat paramilitary formations?

A. Yes. That is common knowledge.

Q. And in fact, the greatest number of officers of the 5th Army deserted at that time.

A. Yes. It's mainly Croats that served in the 5th Army. So you can't say that the army was on my side, because I was the only one carrying out operations at the time. And it is true, yes, most of them deserted in that period.

Q. I understood from your testimony that you were quite concerned and afraid that the JNA might take action against you, and you said that you held 60 per cent of your forces in a state of alert in case you were attacked by the JNA.

A. Unfortunately, yes. And we did have a clash in Glina after the liberation of Glina.

Q. And tell me now again from your experience, if it had happened - I'm not saying it did - but if you with your forces had attacked JNA members, do you believe that the JNA would have retaliated in defence?

A. They absolutely would have.

Q. And when attacked by Croatian forces, is it true that they only returned fire and did not commit any acts of aggression against the Croatian side?

A. In my assessment, they had much more strength and capacity to retaliate than they actually used. And if I had been in their shoes, I would have retaliated much more strongly when they were in the position in which they were, when their barracks were blockaded, when their people ¹⁶⁵⁸⁵ were attacked, when their men were in danger. But that's my assessment.

Q. Is it fair to say that at the cost of sacrifices, casualties, and humiliation, they tried to minimise their reactions and reacted just as much as was necessary to protect the garrisons that were under attack?

A. Yes, it is absolutely fair to say that.

Q. Talking about the people who made up the defence of Krajina, in the beginning it was only the police, the Territorial Defence, and later, the Serbian army of Krajina. Is it true that those were precisely people from Krajina, and only in individual cases were they volunteers from Serbia who arrived as individuals or groups?

A. In the very beginning, until July, perhaps, I believe you can count on the fingers of one hand the volunteers who accidentally found their way into Krajina. There were no other people except natives of Krajina.

Q. At any time during your stay in Krajina, and you were there until 1994, with interruptions --

A. Until 1995, until the fall.

Q. At any time was there a unit of the MUP of Serbia?

A. No. If you give me two minutes --

Q. Please go ahead.

A. The only men who set their foot there from the MUP of Serbia, as far as I know, and I believe I know a lot, were Jovica Stanisic once on an informal visit; Frenki Simatovic three or four times. Let's make it five. I saw him only in the beginning. Milan Radonjic who spent a total of three days there. Milan Radonjic, I mentioned him before. And Dragan ¹⁶⁵⁸⁶ Filipovic whom I also saw three or four times.

In my view, what were they doing there? They were collecting intelligence. We're talking about four men. One, two, three, four. Year 1991, where there were no computers in sight. The first computer appeared in Krajina in 1993. What could they have been doing? I don't know what Jovica is by training. Is he a political worker or a lawyer? There were two men working for the service, defectologists or social workers by training, and one computer scientist who didn't even graduate. That's Frenki.

Their presence there was so exaggerated. Mr. Milosevic, thousands of observers passed through Krajina. I don't believe you will find -- I believe this Tribunal has many of their reports, and there are many reports about me. I don't believe you will find a single report mentioning a fifth person. And believe me when I say that there are many people, many more people working here in the Tribunal today whom I saw here who had been in Krajina.

If you have the impression that I am being protective towards Frenki, you will be right. I knew him. We were friends. Somebody said so a moment -- a moment ago, "You were friends and he was your superior." That's true. I simply can't believe that this number of serious people is discussing four half-trained men --

JUDGE MAY: No. Just a moment. Don't -- if you would, don't run on. Just concentrate on the question and try and deal with that. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ^{16587 BLANK PAGE 16588}

Q. Talking about these four men, I understand that you are not talking about their presence of any length there but only about their overall presence during that period of time, which can only be measured in a matter of days, two, three, or four days for all four of them.

A. I can't say that someone was there for three days. One day, two days maybe, but I can't say that any one of them spent more than three days there.

Q. So is it clear, then, that these four men, apart from having possible reasons of a private nature - as you know, Stanisic has relatives in the Krajina - that they were there exclusively to collect information and to study the situation, which was their job.

A. I'm absolutely convinced that that is so and that there were no conditions to do anything more than that. Especially if you have Babic against you, you have the JNA against you, you have all these factions against you. It was technically not possible to do anything more than that.

Q. Captain, I should like us to clear this up completely. Last night, on the Belgrade and Zagreb media, I saw a news report to the effect that you had here -- testified here that formations in Krajina were formed under the competence of the MUP or the DB of the Republic of Serbia. And as I understood you to say -- when you referred to MUP and DB, you were referring to the MUP and DB of the Krajina. When you're talking about the army, you're talking about the JNA and, after the withdrawal of the JNA, the Serbian army of Krajina. So is my understanding correct or is the understanding of the reporters who claim that you testified that the state ¹⁶⁵⁸⁹ security of Serbia had organised the military units in Krajina? Did they understand you better and inform the public accordingly? What was your testimony yesterday?

JUDGE MAY: Let me make it plain: It doesn't matter what the reports say. What matters in this trial is what is said in the court and what the Trial Chamber decides about it.

Now, what is being suggested here, or appears to be suggested by the accused, is that you are referring to the security service of Krajina and not that of Serbia. If you want the question clarified, we'll have him clarify it, but if you think you can answer it, do.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I was speaking yesterday, I was speaking exclusively about the service of Krajina, the police of Krajina, or the army of Krajina and the JNA, or the JNA up until the Vance Plan.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So I hope that matter is quite clear now, because you said no one could participate without the permission of either the service or the police or the army. Those were your words.

A. Yes. I stand by that.

Q. I'm not questioning that. I just wanted to make quite clear the definition because of this kind of reporting and distorting what you say. When you say the service, you mean the state security of Krajina. When you say the army, you mean the army of Krajina. And when you say the police, you mean the police of Krajina. And you do not imply under any of these organisations, the police or the State Security Service of Serbia; is that right? ¹⁶⁵⁹⁰

A. That is right.

Q. On page 3, paragraph 4 of your statement, you say that when you arrived in Krajina, the state security of Krajina had already been formed. Isn't that so?

A. Yes. According to my understanding, yes, of course. Yes. Sasa Medakovic and other people were there.

Q. And then you go on to say on page 3, paragraph 4, that in those days, you saw Frenki Simatovic in Knin only a couple of times and that you asked Sasa Medakovic, "Who is that man and who is Jovica Stanisic?" And he answered that they were from the Belgrade DB and that they wanted to remain incognito because their bosses didn't know they were there. This is stated on page 3, paragraph 4 of your statement; is that right?

A. Yes, that is right. And they were not the only people who came there without their bosses knowing about it. Dr. Ivanovic, who took leave to come to Krajina to assist, and their superiors in the hospital didn't know about it.

Q. Captain, it is without doubt that the state security of the Republic of Serbia and the state security of Krajina cooperated in a certain sense because they are related services. But is it true that you never received any order from, for instance, Frenki Simatovic or Jovica Stanisic regarding any military security or any other activity?

A. Of course that is true. It would be the same as if the porter were to give an order to the cook. I don't understand. There were no circumstances for them to give me orders. They knew nothing about what I was doing, nor were they qualified in my field of work. I told -- I said ¹⁶⁵⁹¹ what their qualifications were in April 1991.

Q. Though I think we have established the very limited number of people that came there and the time they spent there, who came there to collect information mostly, do you know -- do you have any direct or indirect knowledge that they or anyone else from the state security of Serbia had initiated or suggested, not to say ordered, any crime to be committed in the territory of Krajina?

A. God forbid, no. Absolutely not.

Q. On page 7, paragraph 3, and I quote: "Frenki appeared from time to time, but I find it hard to believe that he was Milosevic's man. I never heard him say any nice word about him."

So could you infer then, or even today, that I had sent Frenki to Krajina, or did he go there simply as part of his professional duty, and he headed the intelligence work in the state security service?

A. To be quite frank, I could never link Frenki to you and your political work. I grew up in a country in which we were not educated to respect political leaders too much. And in my presence, he never said anything for me to link him to you. I saw him as a member of the service who was professionally doing his work.

Q. On page 7, paragraph 3, you said that he saw himself as a professional agent in the struggle against terrorism rather than as a political figure of any kind. Is that right?

A. Yes, absolutely so.

Q. Let me ask you now since, regarding your testimony, I'm not quite clear on one point. Did I understand you correctly? You said that you ¹⁶⁵⁹² saw Stanisic only twice in Knin, that he had relatives there. The second time you saw him when he allegedly came to relieve you of your duties. This was on page 7, paragraph 4.

From your testimony, my impression is that this wasn't worded properly. He didn't come to relieve you of your duty, since you had clashed with Babic, who accused you of being a mercenary, and as Stanisic hadn't even appointed you to that position, he couldn't relieve you.

A. I saw Stanisic only once. The second time -- I think this is a play of words in that paragraph. I will explain in a minute. I saw Stanisic for the second time in Belgrade, after this problem with Babic had arisen, when he told me that I shouldn't go back again. I did use the words "relieve me of my duties" because he made it known to me that I shouldn't go back there, but of course that doesn't mean that he had appointed me. Even the Patriarch Paul could have relieved me because he had influence over me.

Q. So it was a suggestion on his part. We will come to the motives for such a suggestion later.

When you speak of Babic on page 7, paragraph 10, you say that: "His problem was that I was seen as Martic's number one man, and he was Martic's political opponent. If he could harm me, he could harm Martic, and he would take control over the military forces in Krajina." Is that what you said?

A. Yes. Maybe it's my pride coming to the fore there, but really, yes, that's how I felt it was.

Q. So is it true that Babic wanted at all cost to take over control ¹⁶⁵⁹³ over both the military and police forces in Krajina, to control everything that was going on in Krajina, in other words?

A. Yes. There's no dilemma on that score.

Q. Is it true, then, that it was really Milan Babic who expelled you from Krajina?

A. My feeling was that Milan Babic was superior to you, that he had more authority, because if you had had authority over him, both Frenki and I would have stayed on in Krajina. At least, that is my opinion. However, that -- my intolerance towards you was that I thought that Babic had called you, that you had called Stanisic, and Stanisic told me not to go there. But you're right in saying that it was Babic's decision, and it was because of his decision that I didn't go there. But it wasn't Babic who told me that. I was told that by Stanisic. So in my mind, and after what I had read about Babic, that was my interpretation. Now, whether that was so or not, I didn't really I attend any meeting or conversation between you and Babic, but that is my belief.

Q. From what you're saying now, could you draw the conclusion, precisely because of the pressure that existed over there, that nobody had really ordered it but simply Jovica Stanisic wanted to protect you from political conflict that had broken out in Krajina at the time between Babic and Martic and the pressure that accompanied those clashes and conflicts?

A. I didn't think about it along those lines, but there is a certain logic to it.

Q. Do you consider it common sense that the political leadership of ^{16594 BLANK PAGE 16595} Krajina represented by Milan Babic at the time, and you yourself said yesterday that you felt you had been removed from the scene, and then you saw on television Babic saying that Captain Dragan is a mercenary who has been hired to carry out his part of the job, he has been paid out, and he has left. Is that what you said yesterday?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Is it then clear from that that he wanted to denigrate, minimise what you had done there for the defence of the people of Krajina and at the same time to remove responsibility from himself? Because many people had criticised him, why he had turned against you when, according to some general assessments, you were the most useful man to organise the defence of Krajina, and he was criticized for removing you. And wasn't that a justification he gave, by saying that you were a mercenary and you had -- you had left?

A. Could you give me two minutes? I would like to say something, because this has really been bothering me.

After the struggle for Glina, the whole situation turned around by 180 degrees. I lived through it. From an absolutely -- absolute impasse on the 4th of April, and the dominant position we had by the 28th of July, this change was such that I had expected, to say the least, a decoration. Instead, I was replaced. I couldn't imagine that I wouldn't get your support and even the support of the JNA and all the political bodies in any possible clash with Babic. So I blamed you, that you hadn't used sufficient authority to bring pressure on Babic. So here you appear to be accused of the opposite. So you can't win either way. I wouldn't like to ¹⁶⁵⁹⁶ be in your shoes.

Q. Very well. But would you allow for the possibility, on the basis of what you quoted from your conversation with Stanisic yesterday, that he wanted to protect you and pull you out of that conflict in Krajina? Because you said yesterday that, walking with you, he said that in Krajina, dirty things were happening, that, unawares, you had become involved in politics there, and that as a result, he believed that -- I didn't hear you use that word, but actually, I think that his intention was to protect you from those pressures and from the position you found yourself in, an unpleasant position because of the dirty things going on there.

A. That's possible. But if he wanted to protect one man and at the same time allow a defensive system to fall apart that had been established, I found it difficult to accept. But from this point of view today, yes. I think that Stanisic had respect for me for a long time.

Q. Judging by what you are saying, you were astonished that upon your return, the fortress had been taken by a disorderly group which did not look like an army, and Frenki came to you, and you say he was upset. He came to that meeting, and he told you that there were problems between Babic and Martic.

A. No. Let me correct you: He didn't come to the meeting, he came to see me.

Q. Yes, and then you say that Babic came in after that and that you were rather impolite towards him. You simply considered him to be a negative factor - let me put it that way - for what was going on there. ¹⁶⁵⁹⁷

A. I considered him to be dishonest, a man who was not of his word. I had been convinced that an agreement had been reached between Martic and Babic, that Martic would lead the armed forces and Babic the political side. And that was stated on one occasion in my presence when both of them were there. And then I realised that Mr. Babic's word meant nothing, that he wanted much more than at the beginning of their relationship.

Q. His nickname was Titic, if you remember, a small Tito. I asked him about that when he was here, because he wanted to have control of everything, about that nickname, Titic, a small Tito. Tell me, is it true that you told your officers that you were going, and you advised them to ask Frenki about it; that you handed things over to him because he was an intelligence officer, you considered him to be an honourable man, and he would tell them the truth, rather than telling them to follow his command, that he would be their commander. Is my understanding correct or not?

A. There is no doubt that I consider Frenki to be an extremely honourable man to this day. You must understand my position. I hadn't spent a long time in Krajina. I no longer knew who to trust. Frenki, in addition to what you said, was also a Belgrader, and I thought that he would be best informed as to what was going on. So I had a moral duty to address those people. You can't be a commander and then turn your back on those people. I had to say something to them, and I couldn't think of anything better than that, because the decision was taken very quickly. And if anything should happen to me - and I felt that this could happen - so the words I used were, "Listen to what Frenki has to say." It wasn't a ¹⁶⁵⁹⁸ command or anything like that. I don't know what Frenki would have done with such an order from me anyway.

Q. Let us move on. Since you are mentioning Babic and his political activities and ambitions in the area of Krajina, would you agree that this was a man who opted for peace or was it a man who wanted to control the army and whose option was that of war?

A. I shall try to leave out my emotions, because I really have many reasons not to like this man. This was a man who got up at 2.00 or 3.00 in the afternoon. He never arrived at the office before then. Secondly, he had a quarrel with me as to why I wouldn't allow beards and a Chetnik image among the Knindza.

Q. So criticised you for not allowing beards and a Chetnik image among the Knindza; is that right?

A. Yes. In that period, he was very close to Seselj, and I think he liked that option. You heard of the incident that occurred later with the busload of Seselj's men, so that, in my opinion, he even criticised the Z-4 plan, that he said, "We will never allow Belgrade to bring pressure on us, that Belgrade wants to make a gift of a part of the Krajina territory," and he was a major opponent to the signing of the Vance Plan and the disarmament, et cetera.

Q. Did you have a particular conflict with Babic?

A. Well, you see, I grew up - and you probably noticed that while you were in power - I have a certain attitude towards politicians in power. In fact, that is my political option, to always be in the opposition. I was in the opposition during Tito's days, during your day, and even ¹⁶⁵⁹⁹ nowadays, and that is my option. So I never had any close relations with him. So I thought, what have I got to talk to him about? So we had very little contact except when we had to, and then I just respected his position, just as I respected you if -- I don't know whether you remember: We met at the entrance to the Military Medical Academy and I greeted you courteously, as I did during this ceremony courteously, but my private opinion of politicians in power is always a negative one. I always look for their negative sides, in that way feeling that I will encourage them to do better.

Q. Do you know anything about Babic's activities with respect to the arming or formation of a unit down there outside of the structures that had legally been established in Krajina?

A. Very little, except that I snatched away from him two cisterns, two tanks, two fuel tanks containing weapons. When I say snatched it from him, the secret service had informed me that the border was being crossed -- it would be crossed. When I'm talking about the border, I'm talking about the Grahovo border between Bosnia, that two trucks would cross the border carrying weapons that were not intended for me. To tell you the truth, we in Krajina had so many weapons that more weapons went from Krajina to Belgrade than vice versa. The weapons coming from Serbia were hunting weapons reaching us through private channels, at least, as far as I know. So I intercepted those trucks. I could maybe even find the name of the driver. When I asked him, "Where are you talking these weapons?" He said, "They are for Babic." We seized those weapons, and as the man was coming with the best intentions, we released ¹⁶⁶⁰⁰ the driver and we kept those weapons, expecting Babic to react. There was no particular reaction towards me, but as far as I can remember, Frenki informed me later, though what I'm going to say needs to be checked. I think Frenki said that he complained either to you or to someone else that we were stealing weapons from him. But I don't know the details. Anyway, this didn't reach me. There were Thompsons, 45 among those weapons, conserved weapons from the Second World War which had been kept stored away somewhere in a state of conservation.

Q. Yes. But you explained that Babic's -- Babic was the main political figure and that Martic headed the defence.

A. Yes.

Q. Then for whom was Babic procuring those weapons?

A. For some Chetniks of his who later on, as far as I know, looted Drnis. I wasn't there, but that was the information that reached me.

Q. That's quite sufficient, Captain, thank you. Is it true that a large number of members of your unit, after the takeover of power by Babic in Krajina and the conflict with Martic when he pushed Martic back, that some of the members of units were out of favour and that they left the Krajina and went to Serbia?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. On page 4, paragraph 3, you refer to this. You say that a part of your unit went to a training camp in Fruska Gora.

A. Yes. That was at my initiative. And the authority I had with Frenki, when I said to him that I had the moral obligation towards these men who were under me, who trusted me and who were now out of work and who ^{16601 BLANK PAGE 16602} had some knowledge that could be of use to the service because, after all, there was a war going on, that he should admit them to the service. And he promised that he would do as much as he could in view of the position he held at the time.

Q. And is it true that this Fruska Gora camp was a kind of isolation for those men so that they could be under control while they were in Serbia?

A. Yes. A kind of reception centre. It would be better for them to be kept in one place than for them to disperse all over the country.

Q. Is it true that most of them, when they wanted to return to the areas from which they had come, left on their own initiative and joined the commands of the towns they had come from or wherever they thought they could be of assistance in the defence?

A. To gain a proper perspective - and I have a feeling that the Tribunal may think that this was some sort of an army - we're talking about 15 to 25 men.

Q. Yes. I'm talking of a small group of men.

A. Some returned immediately, saying, "What are we doing here, sitting around while a war is being waged?" And some others were waiting to return when the conditions were ready for that.

Q. Tell me, Captain, quite briefly, how did your unit or the popular Knindza get weapons in 1991 and 1992?

A. There were already weapons in Krajina. Do not forget that I arrived there on the 4th of April. And there had been many battles by then. I didn't arrive there before the beginning of the conflict. I ¹⁶⁶⁰³ arrived there a year after the beginning of the conflict. So there were weapons there already. And I think it was a Colonel Dragisic, who was the commander of the Territorial Defence, who had the keys to the TO warehouse. Later on, we stole a little from the army. I brought the first armoured vehicles from Glina, the first anti-tank rockets. I got them from the Ustashas. Later on, what UNPROFOR had left to the Croats and when we took over that territory again, we took some of the UNPROFOR weaponry.

So we could have captured much more weapons than we were able to use, so that the weapons were not a major problem. A much greater problem were the weapons coming from Krajina to Serbia.

Q. Is it true that, apart from a small calibre gun, you did not have any heavy weapons in your unit?

A. It's a 14-millimetre cannon from the Second World War that one Serb had kept and kept it in readiness. We should all ask ourselves why, over 50 years in Tito's time of brotherhood and unity, someone felt it necessary to keep a gun.

Q. Buried somewhere, conserved.

A. No, kept in combat readiness, regularly lubricated.

Q. On page 6, paragraph 8, you say that your unit was already very famous by 1991 and that Serbs from all corners of the country assisted you, brought aid, equipment, that that never was a problem. They even brought you many things that were of absolutely no use to you, but what really mattered was the great goodwill to help you, and what was useful and what wasn't was a different matter. Is that the proper description of ¹⁶⁶⁰⁴ the atmosphere and attitude to your unit?

A. Yes. That's exactly the way it was. It was an all people's movement.

Q. You said that as far as financing is concerned, it went through Martic. So I'm asking you, was it normal and logical for Martic, as the first man in the police, to be the best informed and the most competent in the distribution of resources, equipment, and assistance in general received by the Serbian army of Krajina and the Serbian police, including aid from Serbia?

A. Certainly. That was the only proper way.

Q. Was there a single piece of heavy or small weapon that you received in Krajina from a member of the security service in Serbia?

A. The only piece of weaponry was the CZ-99 pistol I received from Jovica Stanisic as his own personal gift to me with an inscription and a card, and I believed he made it to me man to man. That is the only piece of weaponry received, and not a single shot was fired from it.

Q. That is how we do it in our country; a gift as a sign of respect and friendship, as a token of his respect for you, with an inscription. That was nothing unusual?

A. That's correct.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, are you going to refer to the statements continuously? Would you like the Judges to have the statement? Please bear in mind the Judges don't have the statements, unless you ask us to do so.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't need to ask for it because I ¹⁶⁶⁰⁵ have no dispute with the witness over authenticity. So there is no need for me to prove to you that he is not telling the truth. Whenever I quote him, he says that is indeed what he said, and I think that is sufficient. Thank you very much for your good intentions, Mr. Kwon.

JUDGE KWON: Very well.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I only wish, and you will decide yourselves whether you need it or not.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution wouldn't object to the Chamber -- if Mr. Milosevic wants to admit the statement. The Prosecution may very well do it on re-examination.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Prosecutor's Exhibit 392.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It doesn't quite fit, and I'm referring to something that I read in your statement, it doesn't quite fit with your testimony, so I want us to clear this matter up. I will ask you a couple of questions, and then we will try to put your answers together one by one to get the best possible reflection of reality.

On page 4 of your statement, in line 1, you say: "In my opinion, the war effort was financed by the Serbian government, but I have no proof of that."

A. Who says that?

Q. It says so in your statement on page 4. Will you please look at it. I would really like us to clarify this. That is your statement of the 23rd, 24th, 26th August. I'm talking about the statement in B/C/S. I ¹⁶⁶⁰⁶ don't know where it is in English.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, it's the -- page 4. It's the second paragraph. I might note that since Mr. Vasiljkovic speaks English, the statement was given in English, I would suggest that perhaps the best copy for the witness to work from is the language in which he made the statement, which would be the English copy.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember saying this at all. Maybe it was taken out of context. I can't place it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So it's not something that you could testify to, that the war effort --

A. Well, there's absolutely no logic to it.

Q. Because I was listening to your testimony, and what is written here makes --

JUDGE KWON: Just a minute. It's in the middle of page 4.

THE WITNESS: [In English] I'm sorry. In the middle?

JUDGE KWON: Yes. Could you find: "We wore green camouflage combat uniforms." Three lines from there. "In my opinion, Serbian government financed the war effort. However, I have no evidence."

THE WITNESS: I might have -- [Interpretation] I may have made a comment to the effect that Krajina or -- I don't remember my precise answer, because I only have answers here, not the questions. It depends on what the question was. Maybe the question was whether financial assistance was being sent to Krajina during the war. So my answer would have been yes, and it's normal. ¹⁶⁶⁰⁷

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Of course it is. But I don't think it can be treated as the financing of some sort of war effort, because that's precisely the point. It is put in a context here that absolutely distorts reality.

A. It certainly does. I don't know how this found its way into my statement, although I see my initials on it.

Q. Captain, you are not the first witness here who finds in his statement things he hadn't meant to say.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I wish to tell you this: In addition to those questions which are always open, such as my opposition to your use of the 92 bis article, the use of statements in which we don't see the questions asked is very dubious from the point of view of establishing the truth, so that testifying on the basis of written statements with only cross-examination allowed is also very dubious, because completely different answers can be given to various questions, and taken out of context, they create a completely different, untruthful picture.

JUDGE MAY: The answer is this, that we do not have a tape recording - and I don't know of any system that does - usually of the questions and answers. What we have are the statements which are taken down as a result. The protection, as far as the truth is concerned, is to be found, or should be found in the fact that each page has the witness's signature on it, that at the beginning, the witness says that the information is true "to the best of my knowledge and belief," and that at the end, in the standard form, the witness acknowledges, signs that the ^{16608 BLANK PAGE 16609} statement has been read over to him, he's given it voluntarily, and that he may be called to give evidence. So those are such protections as the Court has. Now, we have to make do with the statements as we have them. Yes.

JUDGE KWON: And one thing you should do is that you have to put the full text to the witness. The phrase which has been referred to is related to the uniform. "A local company had made the uniforms for us. All the funding came from Martic Milan. In my opinion, Serbian government financed the war efforts."

THE WITNESS: I would not use the term "war effort" for sure. This is not my word.

JUDGE KWON: Okay.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry that I signed it. I don't know how that went past. Okay, if I might describe it, I reject it. This is not my terminology. I don't know how that came through. It could have been a genuine mistake. I don't think -- I don't believe that people that worked with me would go into the trouble of doing -- I think it's just a misunderstanding.

At the end, I don't think, even if I said that, my opinion, based on nothing, would -- should count in any way anyway. I'm not a -- you know --

JUDGE MAY: Well, I think the point has been made in relation to this, and no need to take any further time on it. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ¹⁶⁶¹⁰

Q. So would it be fair to say that material assistance extended by Serbia to the people in Krajina who were in danger, this material assistance is treated in this explanation here as the financing of the war effort?

A. Yes.

Q. Whereas it was not the financing of the war effort. It was material assistance to the jeopardised people in Krajina? Is that what material assistance means?

A. Yes, it is, and it was insufficient, in my opinion.

Q. It was as large as we could afford. In any case, material assistance is one thing and the financing of the war effort is another thing.

Now, let's see another answer. I will, I will. Don't you worry. You remember that it was precisely Serbia and me personally who insisted on the acceptance of the Vance-Owen plan and that this issue gave rise to my open conflict with the then leader of Krajina, Milan Babic.

A. Absolutely.

Q. My influence could only have been political in nature, and do you remember that I sent open letter in which I stated my views on his detrimental activity to the people of Krajina? You know that he refused to sign this plan?

A. Yes.

Q. And he continued on insisting on the war option?

A. Yes. He wouldn't accept the Vance Plan, and on that score even your influence did not help. It was distorted because he held himself out ¹⁶⁶¹¹ who -- as a man who refused to surrender Krajina and you as the person who wanted to sell out.

Q. All right. And even based on facts, we can see from here that we sent our assistance to the people who were in danger and who needed to defend themselves. But the very fact that we insisted on the peaceful solution speaks in support of my claim that it was not financing of the war effort but material assistance to the people in danger.

A. Yes, certainly.

Q. And you didn't see it as financing of your activities?

A. It is certain that money did not come into my pockets while I was there, from Serbia.

Q. Let us conclude this part. Captain, talking about the Republic of Serbian Krajina, can we talk at all about armed Serbian people who were fighting for their own lives, for their families, for their homeland in an area which they had populated for centuries rather than an aggression on the part of those people or on the part of Serbia who supported them?

A. I absolutely agree with you that it is the only possible understanding or definition of this.

Q. And in your experience, those people were very much afraid for their lives and existence, in view of the circumstances we already mentioned.

A. Yes. There is absolutely no doubt about it.

Q. Captain, do you know anything at all from any source about some plan for the creation of a Greater Serbia?

A. Even from this film that we saw, and let us remind ourselves that ¹⁶⁶¹² it is a secret film from the Serbian secret service in which the presidents of Serbia arrived. It was not the Serbian hymn that we saw, that played; it was the Yugoslav hymn. It was never felt that anyone in Serbia, except jokingly, tongue in cheek, was talking about Greater Serbia. It was entirely propaganda, enemy propaganda. And it was so ridiculous that this poor country of Serbia, so impoverished, on its knees with all these members of the secret service, and you saw them in the film, there was not a single boss among them, should be talking about the creation of some great Serbian state. It was pure nonsense, and only somebody with the most ill intentions could present it as something serious.

Q. Well, this is what the opposite side is saying. I completely agree with you, Captain. It is only the way to interpret it. Let's move on. Is it true that after the attack of Croatian armed forces on Serbian Krajina on the 20th of January, 1993, it was in Milovica, the Miljevina plateau, you decided to return to Krajina?

A. There was an across-the-board appeal from the government of Krajina regardless of the fact that Jovica Stanisic advised me, banned me from going there. I decided to go there nevertheless because it seemed silly to me to walk the streets of Belgrade and have people ask me in the street, "What are you doing here, Captain, while people are being killed in Krajina?" I simply couldn't stay in Belgrade. I returned to Krajina. And I returned accompanied by one single man and one journalist of the Nin magazine. The three of us went there.

So I didn't go there with a unit representing Serbia. We were ¹⁶⁶¹³ three men in one car. We went down there and we put ourselves at the disposal of the then government of Krajina.

Q. Do you know about the events preceding the incursion into the Miljevina plateau?

A. I had so much to think about, so many problems with the wounded, thousands of them coming from all battlefields, that I read the press and followed the media very superficially, and I'm really not competent to comment on this.

Q. But you know that according to the Vance-Owen Plan, the Serbs put all their weapons under the control of the United Nations, under lock.

A. Yes.

Q. You know that the Serbian forces attacked the Miljevac plateau which was in a UN protected area. They recaptured their weapons, seeing that the UNPROFOR does not wish or cannot protect them. Do you know that?

A. I do. And I know one more thing: There was a belief in Krajina that Yugoslavia was the guarantor of the cease-fire between Serbs and Croats.

Q. So under those circumstances, you decided to go back, since the agreement was not being observed, there was an attack, people were again in danger. They recaptured the weapons that they had turned over, in accordance with the plan.

A. That is so.

Q. And seeing that, you say that you decided to go back to Krajina to help the cause. That's what you said on page 9, paragraph 2. Tell me, what do you understand under the term "cause"? ¹⁶⁶¹⁴

A. Please don't hold my terminology against me.

Q. I'm not holding anything against you. Just tell me, what do you imply?

A. I imply defence against an enemy who does not respect the cease-fire or the rules of the agreement.

Q. Is it true that you then approached Goran Hadzic, and he told you to go and see General Mile Novakovic who was then commander of the headquarters of the Serbian army of Krajina, the Chief of Staff?

A. Precisely.

Q. Is it true that during your stay during in the Republic of Serbian Krajina in 1993, 1994, and 1995, you actually were an officer of the army of Serbian Krajina and your job was to conduct the training of the troops as an instructor and training advisor?

A. Correct.

Q. And is it true that you were appointed to that post by an order of the then commander of the army of Serbian Krajina, the General Novakovic I just mentioned?

A. Correct.

Q. Did anyone from Serbia send you there to go back to Krajina after the attack on the Miljevac plateau?

A. No. In that period, I almost had no contact with the service at all due to a conflict which I described yesterday. And I did not wish to contact Frenki either lest I brought him into a position where he would have to choose between his service and our friendship.

Q. Is it indisputable that it was only your reputation and popularity ^{16615 BLANK PAGE 16616} among the people in Krajina that made the commander in the Krajina appoint you to the post which meant you were in charge of the training of troops in Bruska?

A. Yes.

Q. I suppose at that time you had many contacts and frequent contacts with many officers of the army of Serbian Krajina. Is that so?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it well known -- and please think about this carefully before you answer. You met with many of them, talked to them. Did any of them receive an order to leave the army of Yugoslavia and go to the Republic of Serbian Krajina? Was it an order given to any one of them who used to be officers of the JNA? Was a single one of them ordered to leave the JNA and go to the army of Serbian Krajina?

A. I didn't meet anyone who did, and I didn't meet there anyone who wasn't a native of the area.

Q. All right. While we are talking about this, can we agree that it is correct that the greatest majority of them came of their own free will, feeling it as their own patriotic duty, whereas a part of them had responded to the appeal issued to the effect that those who were born there should go and help out?

A. I'm certain that many of them arrived there with the same motivation that I shared. One thing is certain: I can't remember anyone who wasn't a native of the area, and I had met hundreds of officers. I can say 100 per cent, or let's make it 95 per cent of them were natives the area. I don't remember meeting a single Belgrader. ¹⁶⁶¹⁷

Q. Can it be said that the JNA exerted pressure on people from Krajina and that they were told they had to go back to Krajina? Did you meet a single officer from Krajina who intimated to you in any way that he had gone back under pressure from a command in Belgrade?

A. On the contrary. There were cases when certain officers who had arrived were not well accepted by the environment because they were accused of being communist officers. They had come of their own free will, and I don't remember that any of them had been subjected to any sort of proceedings.

If you give me a chance to answer at least one part of what he said --

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop this now. It's time for an adjournment. We will resume in 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.17 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.39 p.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Captain, the previous witness, General Vasiljevic, mentioned you here as Martic's mercenary and as an exponent of the State Security Service of Serbia. Do you believe that there are any grounds for either of these allegations that he made here?

A. I think I have given a lot of my time to this Tribunal, so please give me a little time to respond, because this is the only witness statement that has really scared me.

When talking about Mr. Vasiljevic, we're talking about the head of ¹⁶⁶¹⁸ the counter-intelligence service of the army, a man with fantastic resources at his disposal to reveal the facts, and I was seriously concerned by hearing such a statement. As far as I remember, he said that it took quite a lot of time for them to learn that the service had brought me from Australia to Krajina. I think we have to take his statement seriously, and I'm sure the Tribunal does so, but it is such nonsense. In 1983, I left Australia, and this is something that can easily be verified. I spent three years cruising on my yacht in the Indian Ocean. I came here from Africa.

Now, why did this cause concern? It is because somebody who should have known everything was unable to discover basic facts about a man who is moving around with weapons in his own territory. He can't say that this didn't interest him and he could have very simply found out. So he's either lying or he's absolutely incapable. I don't believe that he's lying, so I think he's just --

JUDGE MAY: I'm not going to stop you for a moment, but there must come an end to this. As you appreciate, you're a witness here, not to argue a case either way, and what we depend on is your answers to questions which are factual. Now, at the moment you're arguing a case against what it's alleged somebody else said. I don't recollect precisely that piece of evidence, but we will not stop now on that point. But we hear what you say. You deny that that's true, and no doubt we'll hear argument about it in due course.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ¹⁶⁶¹⁹

Q. So his statement that the state security service had brought you from Australia is not true?

A. Of course it's not true.

Q. You didn't even come from Australia to Krajina. You came from the United States, didn't you?

A. The first time from Africa, the second time from the United States, yes.

Q. Do you know who Rrahim Ademi is? Have you heard of his name?

A. He is an officer in the Croatian army, isn't he, who later went somewhere? Do you mean him? That's what you're saying?

Q. Is it true that he's an Albanian, a member of the Croatian army who participated in the massacre of Serbs in the Medak pocket? Do you remember that? Had you heard of that?

A. Yes. I had arrived there with my men after that massacre.

Q. And did you hear, and according to your information, is that the same man who later, as a member of the terrorist KLA, carried out a series of crimes in Kosovo?

JUDGE MAY: Now, wait a minute. Do you know any of this from your own knowledge as opposed to something you may have read about or something of that sort? I thought your evidence was limited to the Krajina.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree with you. I cannot tell you much about Kosovo or Bosnia, only what I read from the media.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well, then. I won't ask you anything about Kosovo. But do you know how many Albanians from Kosovo took part on the Croatian side ¹⁶⁶²⁰ during the fighting for Gospic, for instance, the battles for Gospic?

A. When the battle was ongoing for Gospic, I was in Belgrade. I didn't take part in that battle, but I was informed by people who were in contact with me that there were quite a number of Albanians who voluntarily went to fight on the Croatian side.

Q. And do you know, but not only from the media, that if not all, then most of them afterwards, as members of the terrorist KLA, were the actual perpetrators of crimes?

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop this. The witness has said he can't deal with Kosovo. Now, you're not to put to him tendentious matters which you no doubt are going to rely on. You must call evidence about it. There's no point asking him.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But I have to ask him a question from the point of view of motivation, shall I call it that, for his engagement that I have already asked him about.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Therefore, tell me, please, Captain, why the participation of Serbs from Krajina in the Serbian army of Krajina in the war for the defence of the Serbian people would be a crime and an evil act, whereas the participation of Albanians in the Croatian army and in massacres --

JUDGE MAY: This is a pure comment, not a question. Now, your time is limited, as you know, so you should make the best use of it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, as far as my time is concerned, tomorrow after the first break I have another one hour and 15 minutes, because the witness testified all day yesterday and for an hour ¹⁶⁶²¹ and 15 minutes today.

JUDGE MAY: We will decide on that in due course, but let's move on now with this witness. We shall be adjourning the evidence at half past one, to deal with administrative matters.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I asked you this question in connection with Krajina, but I will repeat the same question linked to your knowledge regarding Bosnia, since on page 11, second paragraph, you said that you didn't believe that a single unit or so-called paramilitary unit could have acted in Krajina without the permission of the army, the police, and the state security. Is it clear that in that case you are referring to the army, police, and state security of the Serbian Krajina and Republika Srpska and not to the state security of the Republic of Serbia?

A. Yes, precisely so. I never refer to the police, state security or the army of the Republic of Serbia. I don't think that anyone in Serbia today can have an army without the permission of the army, the police, or the state security of Serbia, which is quite normal.

Q. On page 10, in paragraph 2, you mention you're going to Bosnia and your involvement with the release of a Muslim sportsman. I think he was a rower, if I'm not mistaken.

A. Yes.

Q. On that occasion, you clashed with a certain Pavlovic who headed the Territorial Defence down there, and from what is contained in your statement, you assumed that he was a member of the Serbian state security. ^{16622 BLANK PAGE 16623} Are you referring to the state security of Republika Srpska?

A. No. In that case, I meant the state security of Serbia. And later on, when I checked this out - and I told the investigators this too - I learnt much more about this gentleman. He's an ordinary cheat, a freak, who one day would say he was a member of the state security, a friend of Captain Dragan, a friend of Patriarch Paul. So that was my opinion at the time. As I was in conflict with the service of the time, in my mind this seemed to fit. But I told the investigators that I later on learnt that he had no connection with the Serbian state security.

Q. Very well. I just wanted to establish that. There is no dispute also that in the past you were my political opponent and that frequently you did not agree with my political views. So tell me now, do you believe that I or anyone else from Serbia had in any way prepared, organised, aided and abetted in the commission of any crime in Krajina throughout your stay there?

JUDGE MAY: It's not the witness's belief which is evidence. If you want to ask him the question in this way, you can: Do you know -- wait a minute. Do you know -- his belief is irrelevant. What isn't irrelevant is any state of knowledge he has, and if you want, you can ask him does he know of any crime which you committed, if you want, or your connection with any crime. If you want to ask that question, you can, but you want to ask him in that form.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Certainly, Mr. May.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You heard my question, Captain. So do you consider -- I will ¹⁶⁶²⁴ replace that with the words do you have any direct or indirect knowledge about that, that I or anyone else from Serbia had prepared, organised, instigated, or committed a crime in the territory of Krajina while you were there? Do you have any direct or indirect knowledge about that?

A. As your political opponent, that is something I never concealed. If I had had any such knowledge, I think I would have done everything to make that public so that you would be dismissed from the position you held, so that never for a moment did I have any information or knowledge or even belief that you or any other member of the Serbian system had ordered or participated or had knowledge about any crimes.

Q. Captain, tell me, as an experienced man for these military matters in connection with certain crimes which certainly did happen in the territory of Serbian Krajina - there's no doubt about that - can you claim that any of that was the result of anybody's orders or policies, or was it something that attends any such conflict and which was always an individual act on the part of an individual or a group that committed it?

A. On the basis of my experience in Krajina, and not only experience but during my 12 years of work with the victims of war, I think I can provide a precise explanation which may assist the Tribunal which, after all, Their Honours were not on the spot, so we can clarify some things in connection with crimes.

It is virtually impossible -- that is my belief: It is impossible to send an order to commit a crime from the top because along the chain of command, there must be a normal man who will not do that. It is far more probable for a crime to be committed at the bottom, and in the chain of ¹⁶⁶²⁵ command for somebody to be found who will cover it up. Why? Because the first person witnessed it, and when he reported about it, he belittled it, and as it goes up the chain of command, it becomes of lesser and lesser magnitude.

So I don't know if I have made myself clear. If we wish to capture a war criminal, it is far better to start from the victim than from the top and point your finger in a vacuum.

Q. Can we conclude that what was happening is characteristic of that type of a conflict such as the civil war in Yugoslavia was?

A. I have a theory that I firmly believe in. When an armed people goes to war, they do so with emotions, and those emotions are fear and hatred, and hatred is most frequently produced by fear, and everyone who's studied psychology will know that. So we had precisely such a situation when football fans set the war in motion. Imagine a match that we all watched and went wrong, and imagine if those fans had weapons. You see what they do even when they are unarmed. And that is precisely the sort of thing that happened there, that deep-felt fear, and also the fear on the other side, the fear of Chetniks produced by Bulajic's films created such hatred among unprofessional users of weapons, people who were -- who put on a uniform and were told, "From now on, you're a soldier." Do not forget that the power of weapons, even basic weapons nowadays, are tenfold what they were during the Second World War.

So that I believe tomorrow if a war were to break out between the Netherlands and the neighbouring countries - God forbid - and if the citizens were to be armed and go to war, I think there -- the situation ¹⁶⁶²⁶ would be similar and there would be even more crimes than there were over there.

And please do not forget that I am probably one of the officers who arrested most of his own men for the purpose of prevention or for violations of any code of war -- warfare.

Q. You know that Satish Nambiar, the commander of UNPROFOR, said words to that effect too. He said he'd never received any report from his subordinates from genocide but that these are conflicts typical of that type of conflict anywhere in the world and developments and events that are typical. Did you hear Satish Nambiar perhaps?

A. No. I hear this for the first time. I'm sorry not to have that information.

Q. Can you give me a direct answer to this question: Do you know that anyone, let us leave aside Serbia but even in Krajina, that the authorities in Krajina, starting from Milan Martic who headed the police and the defence forces for most of the time, that anyone was given orders to commit a crime?

A. No. I have no such information, nor do I believe that anyone would have the courage to do any such thing.

Q. I'll ask you now to deny or confirm something that Martic told me in those days, since you were a close associate of his for a time in Krajina. He said to me that the rights of the Croats in Krajina, those who remained living there, were fully protected and that in no way were the Croats discriminated against as compared to the Serbian population living in Krajina. Is that your own experience or not? ¹⁶⁶²⁷

A. I had very few contacts, which is quite understandable, with Croatian civilians. Simply I avoided it, because I believed that a Croat in Krajina would not be too happy seeing a Serb in uniform close to him. So I did my best to make a detour around the places inhabited by Croats. I had a couple of cases when, in my area of responsibility, there were Croatian families, and exceptional measures were taken to protect those families, to feed them, to provide medical care for them. And I am quite certain that the investigators must have in their possession documents confirming such a situation, documents from the UNPROFOR forces who were there.

Q. There is no doubt that they are aware of the truth, but there's a difference between what they know and what is presented here. So can I draw the conclusion from what you said that this coincides practically with what Martic told me, that care was taken of them, good care was taken of them, and there was no discrimination. The authorities tried, in relation to possible irresponsible acts on the part of civilians or a member of the armed forces of the Krajina, to protect every Croat in that area from that.

A. You just said what I wanted to mention myself. There were certain incidents. I remember in November when I went there for a couple of days, I saw in prison a Serb who was suspected of having committed a crime. He was imprisoned. It was in November. And I don't believe that despite individual incidents it could have been a general policy of Krajina.

Q. Was it exactly the opposite? Was it the policy of the authorities of Krajina, that anyone who committed a crime must be prosecuted and ¹⁶⁶²⁸ turned over to the authorities, to the judiciary?

A. That's the way I understood it. And in my zone of responsibility, and even outside it sometimes, I acted on that.

Q. According to what you say in response to my questions, it transpires that Martic was telling the truth to me. Do you consider him to be an honourable man and a patriot?

A. Yes, absolutely. I believe him to be a man of honour and a man of his word.

Q. All right. Let us move on. On page 4, paragraph 4, of your second statement, you say that Dafina Milanovic, the banker, after your withdrawal supposedly from Krajina, expressed her desire to help you, and you mentioned even during your examination-in-chief that she placed at your disposal 1 million Deutschmarks which you didn't take for yourself but placed them in a fund used for the supply of equipment to Krajina, including kevlar vests, all sorts of military equipment. When was that?

A. That happened when the decision was made to establish this centre in Fruska Gora to collect these young men who were leaving Krajina after my replacement.

Q. Tell me now, the fact that she helped you and that she wanted to give you some financial assistance even, did it seem to you that she was doing so under some sort of pressure from the government or because she simply wanted, as a patriot, to help the cause of Serbian defence?

A. She certainly didn't do it under pressure from the government, but I said to Frenki that I procured uniforms. He was happy as a puppy. It was certainly not her motive -- it was certainly her motive to ^{16629 BLANK PAGE 16630} wish to help the defence. And because of my popularity at the time, she also may have seen it as serving her commercial interests to be seen as somebody assisting this popular captain. So you have there two different motives which may have been behind this act.

But the purchase of this equipment and this aid that I gave for that purpose was my own initiative and my own way of joining the defence.

Q. I will not ask you more questions about this because you talked at great length about battles for Glina. I just want to clarify one detail. If I noted it down correctly yesterday, you said that, to the members in the fighting over there -- there were not many of you. Twenty, wasn't it?

A. Yes, about 20.

Q. To those people, you wanted to make some sort of gift, and you had nothing to give them but red berets. Is that so?

A. Yes.

Q. Those were called at the time the Red Berets of Krajina; is that so?

A. Yes.

Q. Does that have anything to do with the unit for special operations of Serbia or the Special Operations Unit of Serbia?

A. Yes, in a very special way that I will have to explain. The people who created the JSO, in other words Frenki Simatovic, he needed a tradition to put behind a unit that did not exist. And later, some of these young men from this area whom he took under his wing --

JUDGE MAY: Let him finish. ¹⁶⁶³¹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, since --

JUDGE MAY: Would you like to finish what you were going to say? Don't interrupt all the time. Let him give his account.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He simply started appropriating traditions. He asked me if I had any souvenirs from battles in Glina, from Ljubovo, and I gave him what I had. He was driven by the desire to lend importance and tradition to a unit which never exceeded a company in strength. It must have created a great impression on you, Mr. President, to see those men lined up and to see that armband on them, but to anyone who knows anything about military matters, it is clear that it was a small unit, and to give it more authority, Frenki needed some sort of biography. And Frenki started building up that history, that biography for the unit, in the best of intentions, to create a positive effect, a positive image. That's why you saw those maps of Glina, those weapons captured from - what's his name? I'm getting on age, it seems. That famous Ustasha and so on and so forth. Just as here in the Tribunal you see some souvenirs from Krajina on the walls, it's the same thing that existed there. That is the only link in the technical sense.

This was used for propaganda, to promote the image of the unit. I don't see anything wrong with it.

Q. I don't see anything wrong with it either, and we will come back to that later when we see that film.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And don't you worry, Mr. May, I'm not going to try to restrict the witness in his testimony because I don't see that he has anything to hide. I believe you should apply the same ¹⁶⁶³² practice to the opposite side when they tell the witness to answer their questions only with a yes or no or when they interrupt him.

JUDGE MAY: If they are doing anything wrong, they will be stopped. But they do it in order to speed things up. So perhaps you might do the same.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's precisely what I'm doing. But this, "Let the witness answer," has already become a tradition whenever I interrupt the witness, and it applies exclusively to cross-examination, never in chief. But let us move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So from the viewpoint of this fact, and we'll come back to that later, the fact that certain fighters in the area of Krajina, Republika Srpska, later joined the Special Operations Unit which was established much later within the state security department of Serbia, the tradition belonged to individuals that belonged to such units, not to the unit itself; is that correct?

A. That's correct. And just as we have today in the Tribunal former observers from Krajina. There is no other link.

Q. Let us go back to just one detail from your description of the fighting around Glina. I wrote down here, "An officer of the JNA --"

A. Boric or Drobnjak. Grujica Boric.

Q. After a single shell fired, he ordered to -- through a megaphone that the JNA cease fire because Chetniks and units -- Ustashas are fighting. The JNA has nothing to do with it. The JNA was playing a buffer between those forces. Is that so? ¹⁶⁶³³

A. Yes.

Q. You said that on your way back, when you were all exhausted after the takeover of Glina, you heard, although it was outside your zone of responsibility, you heard along the way, in a place called Strugar, that some people had committed a crime. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So you went there, arrested those people, and put them in prison.

A. It was a crime against Croats. Let me be precise.

Q. Yes, against Croats. Who were those people who committed that crime against Croats? Were they civilians or were they members of some sort of armed formations of the Serbian army of Krajina or the TO or the police or anyone else?

A. I think, but please bear in mind that we hadn't slept for five days, we spent one day clearing the mines, at that time I had 20 kilos less than today, I seem to remember the information we got was this: Those people had committed a crime, and I believe I did all that can be expected from a very exhausted man, and bear in mind I hadn't seen the corpses, I hadn't been to Strugar, I hadn't visited the hospital, but the assessment was that the person informing me about it was telling the truth. I detained those people, locked them up, and since I didn't trust anyone with the key, I kept the key until Martic showed up. Then I gave the key to Martic and went to sleep.

Q. How many were the people you arrested?

A. We were 16, and they were between 10 and 12. I can't remember exactly. ¹⁶⁶³⁴

Q. So it was a group of TO members, local TO members.

A. Yes.

Q. And what happened with them later?

A. I inquired. Somebody told me that the military security took them over from Martic, but this has to be checked out. I really don't know. Soon after that, I went to Belgrade, so that the entire incident became history to me. And I asked people in Krajina later if any trial followed after that, and they didn't know.

So this was simply superseded by more important, more recent events. And I don't remember whether Frenki asked me to write to him something about it. It was one of the very few reports which I actually put in writing, but it was more on a friend-to-friend basis than anything formal. It was for the sake of our personal relationship, not through official channels.

Q. In any case, at the time you were a member of the Krajina police, and having learned of potential perpetrators of potential crime against the Croats, so you arrested them, and the rest was not your job.

A. Of course. I was not competent to conduct an investigation.

Q. All right. Let us go back to those red berets. So you distributed to them those red berets and those were red berets of Krajina, not of a special operations unit from Serbia.

A. Of course.

Q. You talked today, and I noted it down, in Skelani some man called Pupovac set up a unit of Red Berets, and then you mentioned Teslic where some sort of company was formed, but it was municipal Red Berets, not Red ¹⁶⁶³⁵ Berets as part of the army of Republika Srpska. Then again in Brcko, there were Red Berets of the SAO of Semberija and Majevica; right? That's what was mentioned this morning.

Is it true that after these distributions of red berets to this small group of ten people it became very popular and was copied in many municipalities of Serbian Krajina and elsewhere? Many small detachments were formed called Red Berets. You mentioned Skelani, Teslic, Brcko. I don't know if there were any other cases, but you must know many more. In many places it became a fashion almost.

A. Even in Yugoslavia, the 63rd Assault Brigade adopted the name Red Berets. It was considered as something that could attract young people. It became a general fashion. Everybody wanted to become a member of the Red Berets.

Q. That's all I wanted to hear from you, because your predecessor Vasiljevic claimed that all these Red Berets were members of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia or even the special units of the MUP of Serbia. Let us move on to our next topic, Captain. You took part in the fighting around Skabrnja; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. In this fighting, did you participate as a member of the army of Serbian Krajina?

A. Certainly. But please, before we finish with Skabrnja, give me one minute.

Q. Please go ahead. That's precisely what I wanted to ask you.

A. Skabrnja is very frequently mentioned, because allegedly - and I ^{16636 BLANK PAGE 16637} wasn't there at the time, I must say - in 1991, sometime in December, Skabrnja, as we know, is a Croatian village where units under the command of the JNA committed some crime. I had nothing to do with it because I wasn't there.

In 1993, the UNPROFOR was stationed there, the French UNPROFOR who was supposed to hold the demarcation line between Serbs and Croats. They withdrew and the Croats retook Skabrnja and certain other positions as well.

I came down there, and that is the only area, the only territory which we managed to liberate again and even move a little forward to reach the positions we held previously. I had very little forces in 1993 when there was the attack on the Miljevac plateau.

I just want to make one thing clear. Captain Dragan has nothing to do with Skabrnja 1991 and has everything to do with Skabrnja 1993.

Q. So you have nothing to do with Skabrnja 1991, and you have everything to do with the events in 1993.

A. That is so.

Q. Would I be right in saying, based on the information I got, that at that time, at the time of that fighting, there were no Croat civilians in Skabrnja?

A. No. There was not a single civilian. There hadn't been any civilians in Skabrnja for two years by then.

Q. What was the strength of the Croatian force in Skabrnja?

A. My information was that they had one brigade in position. I believe it was the 115th Brigade. I'm not sure. But a lot was written ¹⁶⁶³⁸ about it, so it's not difficult to check. It was quite a large force deployed in that area between Zadar and Beograd.

Q. You took part there as a member of the Serbian army of Krajina. Therefore, you accomplished that assignment in accordance with the plan which was to secure that defence line of Krajina that had been jeopardised by Croatian forces despite the presence of the UNPROFOR; is that so?

A. Correct.

Q. Is it correct that at your invitation a unit of Arkan's volunteers came to assist you and on that occasion suffered major losses? That's the information I have. Is this piece of information true or not?

A. Since I had under my command only two platoons, that is about 60 men, at one point I was in half encirclement, and I sent out an appeal for help, and then a unit arrived to assist me, a unit that had been in the vicinity on my right flank. That unit of volunteers was commanded by Legija.

They came to my help and, during that operation, suffered major losses. I believe there was seven killed or something like that. At Martic's request, they left Krajina couple of days later, a couple of days after they helped me out.

And we took over Krajina -- sorry. We took over Skabrnja 14 days after they left.

Q. All right. Tell me, please, as briefly as you can, do you believe that they acted in a soldierly manner, courageously? Did they fight as soldiers or were they committing crimes?

A. In all my encounters on the battlefield with them, they observed ¹⁶⁶³⁹ the soldiers' code of honour. Of course I don't know everything about them, but from what I saw, they acted in a manner which deserves every praise, and I'm very grateful to them.

Q. Certain things are ascribed to them which were not corroborated by any facts or documents. This is why I'm asking. You say that they fought courageously, but did they fight honourably?

A. In that case where I was present, they deserve every praise.

Q. I'm only asking you, Captain, about things you can testify to. I'm not asking you to talk about things you know nothing about or did not witness.

And why did Martic insist that they leave Krajina? Was there a clash with them or among them or were there some political or other reasons involved? Do you know of any reason at all?

A. I will be telling you my own opinion now because I was not present during that conflict, but I think my opinion will do. There was some personal hostility between Zeljko Raznjatovic and Martic, and Martic simply didn't want to tolerate under him anyone who did not treat him with sufficient respect that Martic expected to enjoy. So I think it's a matter of personal conflict between Raznjatovic and Martic rather than any other reason.

Q. So we are now in the area of vanity rather than any events or objective reasons.

A. But you will agree with me that vanity ranks very high in our Serbian minds. Sometimes it supersedes even the national interest.

Q. Well, in the case of Milan Babic, I believe it became very clear. ¹⁶⁶⁴⁰ I don't know whether you share my opinion.

A. Absolutely.

Q. You answered, let me say, certain questions with lengthy explanations, and I want to use my time rationally.

JUDGE MAY: Well, Mr. Milosevic, it's nearly half past. That might be a convenient moment to stop. You'll have two hours -- you will have two hours tomorrow, if you want it. Up to two hours tomorrow. You don't have to spend that time with the witness.

Mr. Vasiljkovic, that's all for today. Could you be back, please, at 9.00 tomorrow morning.

[Witness stood down]

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, before we begin, let me deal with just one or two matters by way of a programme so we can deal with them, particularly the 92 bis statements, in a fairly orderly and rational way. We'll deal with General Mangan today, plus the point about the pseudonyms if you've got a report ready now.

Tomorrow we will find time to deal with those three witnesses who I identified to whom the amici took specific objection, and that was B-1732, C-1201, C-1231.

Next week we will go on with the Vukovar statements, so far as I've identified them, and I will give the numbers so that preparation can be made: C-006, C-1149, C-1164 and 5, C-1126, C-1071, and C-1171. At a convenient moment next week we'll address those and any other connected Vukovar statements anyone can identify.

MR. NICE: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff can deal with General Mangan now. ¹⁶⁶⁴¹ She can also confirm to you -- I think. She can also confirm to you that she has made a filing in respect of the three witnesses you want dealt with tomorrow, to save time.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, as my colleague just said, we have prepared a filing that will reach you today in relation to these three persons, and I think that will deal with the matter.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And in relation to General Mangan, I have already mentioned yesterday that we have a similar case like in the case of Mr. Davies, that we had proposed to hear General Mangan live on all matters that are actually here in dispute; that means the defence of Dubrovnik, the conduct of artillery operations, and the reasoning behind the attack on Dubrovnik. And the --

JUDGE MAY: For the rest, he was a European Monitor, and he deals with his deployment. He was in Croatia for a short time, and most of the evidence, in fact, will have to be given live, in any event, because according to my notes, it will be simplest if paragraphs 12, 17 to 27, and 33 be given live.

Yes. Thank you. Anything, Mr. Kay, on that?

MR. KAY: There is the additional issue, I believe, with this witness - I'm just turning it up - of dealings with Milan Babic, part of the joint criminal enterprise. There's an issue we raised in our filing on the matter.

JUDGE MAY: Can we --

MR. KAY: I'm looking at page 3 of the English. ^{16642 BLANK PAGE 16643}

JUDGE MAY: Do we need that to be given live? It doesn't seem very controversial.

MR. KAY: It's not necessary perhaps live but it's certainly an issue that I should imagine the accused will be looking at when I'm looking at the central passage. He was clearly in control of the state of affairs.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, that would be in evidence, and if the accused wants to cross-examine about it, of course he can.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Milosevic, apart from your standard objection, the -- what will happen is that this evidence would be admitted, it's proposed under Rule 92 bis, but the majority would have been given live, including the paragraphs which I have mentioned. Anything you want to say about that? You will have the opportunity to cross-examine.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's exclusively a matter regarding the cross-examination that is important. In addition to the objection that I've already made that statements under 92 bis are distorted statements. We've seen that through examples of witnesses from Kosovo. So they distort the picture that is being given.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. None of the criteria which prevent this statement being admitted under the Rule exist, apart from those paragraphs which I've identified which would be the subject of live evidence. So the statement will be admitted subject to the live evidence on those ¹⁶⁶⁴⁴ paragraphs, 7 to 27 and 33. There will be cross-examination.

MR. NICE: Pseudonyms and protection?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We've got -- let me say we've had now the observations of the amicus on this subject, so we've had a chance of reading those.

MR. NICE: Yes. Historically, I think, there are about four features to have in mind. Looking right back to the beginning of the Kosovo phase, there was some clear over enthusiasm that had been allowed to enter into applications for protection as identified as the problem, and it's been corrected.

The following three features, we've had a number of witnesses who have come here having been granted protection, and they've simply preferred to give evidence openly.

The next feature --

JUDGE MAY: Those -- just pausing there so we have it in mind. Those are witnesses who asked for protection, were given it, and then when they come to give evidence say that they will give evidence live. So they're in one particular category, yes.

MR. NICE: There's then either a category or a single example of the Chamber indicating its reluctance to allow protection where a witness came with protection and having been granted in advance. The matter was reviewed, the protection was withdrawn, and indeed the witness left the Chamber altogether and returned, and gave no evidence at all. You may remember it. It's quite an extended process. The witness had come a very long way. That was, of course, something that guided us in reinforcing ¹⁶⁶⁴⁵ our own view of the desirability of open-session testimony. Then the last factor, which links with the first factor and the second point I've been making, is that the growing experience of closed-session matters being disclosed in the press has led several witnesses who may have been granted protection or who may have been minded to ask for protection to take the view that it was actually less dangerous to give evidence publicly than to give evidence with protection, confident that the protection would eventually be blown and that suspicion and identification of them would be more dangerous for them than simply to give evidence openly. And we've had one or two examples of that. One, to my personal knowledge, very recently.

So that's the overall history against which the particular pseudonyms with which we are concerned may perhaps be viewed. But before I come to these two witnesses, I can perhaps just identify to remind you a little more. Very grateful to my colleagues, particularly, I think, Ms. Dicklich, for getting the material out.

You'll remember that K-1 was a witness who had full protection but decided to give evidence openly once he was here. There was a witness who gave evidence without a pseudonym and was then subsequently protected on the second day. We've had one witness, C-061, who made a decision right at the end of his testimony to give up the protection that he was afforded, and we've had two witnesses, C-1 and C-034, who fall into that first category, I think, of coming here with protection and then deciding not to.

Now, the position about these two witnesses is as follows, and I ¹⁶⁶⁴⁶ can give you the dates of the relevant filings: On the 17th of April, we sought protective measures pursuant to Rule 69 and 75 for delayed disclosure. It was said that the nature of their testimony and the positions they currently held exposed them to risk and, therefore, we sought delayed disclosure as to their identity.

And included in those were the two witnesses, C-039, who was described as appropriately and it was said that if it were to become known that he would testify in these proceedings, he would face serious risk to his safety and other identified bodies.

And then this witness, B-073, was identified in the appropriate way, said that he'd become a controversial figure, advised to leave the country by the Serb DB and, according to him, it was the accused that wanted him out of the way. In order to ensure that there is no intimidation or worse, it is requested that his identification be delayed as late as possible. Because of the political situation and the position of the Serb DB at the time, it's believed that he will be at risk. Now, this was an assessment, therefore, made of him entirely in accordance with the provisions of Rule 60 -- I'm sorry. Rule 65? 69. Thank you.

I can tell you that in relation to those witnesses, the factual position was as follows: That as to General Vasiljevic, at that time and indeed throughout, he was very concerned about his identification being known ahead of the time he gave evidence and was here at the Tribunal. And as to this witness, Dragan, he wanted everything of his dealings with the OTP dealt with on an entirely confidential basis. I'll return to that ¹⁶⁶⁴⁷ a little later.

But the terms of Rule 69 bear just a moment's consideration and examination because they say: "... the Prosecutor may apply ... to order the non-disclosure of the identity of a victim or witness who may be in danger or at risk until such person is brought under the protection of the Tribunal."

So that was the first application. It was dealt with by the first decision of this Chamber on the 3rd of May, or by a filing of the 3rd of May of 2002 where those pseudonyms were permitted for the witnesses with whom we are concerned.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So, Mr. Nice, if I understand you, in applying Rule 69, the Prosecutor does so proprio motu, not necessarily on the basis of any request from the --

MR. NICE: Can go proprio motu. To some degree did in these cases, but in fact in each case each witness was expressing concerns either explicitly requiring anonymity or requiring confidentiality, which was judged the same thing, because you can't offer confidentiality without offering anonymity. And Dragan -- I'll say a little more about how he reflected his desire for anonymity later, or confidentiality. The next application was on the 30 --

JUDGE MAY: I'm reminded by the registrar that there is an initial appearance in this court at 2.15, so we really have to be out at quarter to.

MR. NICE: Yes. Very well, then, can I summarise it in this way -- ¹⁶⁶⁴⁸

JUDGE MAY: It may be we'll have to continue this tomorrow, but go on, yes.

MR. NICE: The next application was 31st of May of last year - these are all 2002 applications, of course - where pursuant to an order of the Chamber that we should make applications for protective measures it intends to make in respect of witnesses. We made no application for protective measures at trial for either of these two witnesses. We said in paragraph 15 that witnesses will require certain protective measures relating to their testimony before the Trial Chamber, that we'd be in a better position to assess the extent of the protective measures required closer to the time when they will testify, and we requested to be permitted to file an application for trial-related protective measures for sensitive source witnesses at a time closer to the testimony, and suggested that it would be appropriate to make such applications at the time that they were disclosed to the amici. That would be 30 days before coming to testify.

At that stage, General Vasiljevic was still thinking of seeking full protection. Dragan was simply somebody seeking confidentiality. An application was made for closed-session testimony for Vasiljevic, and that's dated the 17th of September, but it was rejected, so that each witness remained the beneficiary of an order for delayed disclosure and nothing more, and the pseudonym, of course, protecting the delayed disclosure.

General Vasiljevic made it absolutely plain to us -- General Vasiljevic made it absolutely plain to us, for all sorts of reasons that ^{16649 BLANK PAGE 16650} require considerable explanation, that he wanted his anonymity maintained until giving evidence. He had notified us at some stage before, although it remained a little unclear until his last visit, but I think it was before that, that he would give evidence in open session. But of course with the length of time that witnesses have to wait and the changing circumstances in the territory in which they live, that wouldn't be something that could be relied on in any event because it might itself have changed back. But we had a general indication he was going to give evidence openly but he wanted protection until the moment that he gave evidence.

It may be that I should have re-examined him more fully on this, but that's been our clear understanding, and thus it was in his case that he came and gave evidence in the circumstances he did. I can summarise the position for Dragan --

JUDGE MAY: I think we've got to go.

MR. NICE: Very well. I'll come back to that tomorrow.

JUDGE MAY: Tomorrow morning we'll come back to it.

MR. NICE: And obviously, we should hear the bit about Captain Dragan in his absence, and then the accused, if he wants to, can raise the matter with him.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday, the 21st day of

February, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.