¹⁸⁵⁰⁹

Thursday, 3 April 2003

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: General Nojko Marinovic is available for cross-examination by videolink, he being in a studio in Dubrovnik. A couple of administrative matters before he takes the solemn declaration if I may. He has asked the Registry's representative if he may have in the video room a language assistant by the name of Talida Cvicdic, ICTY language assistant as I understand it in order that he may communicate directly with a representative of the Registry if he needs to. I wonder if he may have leave for that.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, we grant that.

MR. NICE: Also, we've got in the room the same map --

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. NICE: -- that we have here. Or put another way, we have the same maps here that he's got there. I've got them here so that they can be available for inspection if it's too difficult to see things over the videolink, and I'm told that the general has in front of him a copy of his statement together with some handwritten notes that he's made following consideration of the statement.

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

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. ¹⁸⁵¹⁰

WITNESS: NOJKO MARINOVIC

[The witness testified via videolink]

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE MAY: If you would like to take a seat, general. Mr. Nice, I should say we have the statement of course which has already been exhibited. There is no need to go over that. We've had the chance of reading it. I don't know how long the witness feels that he will be able to give evidence for. We were told at one stage it would be about an hour. So perhaps you would have that in mind when you ask any questions.

MR. NICE: I'm going to ask a very limited number of questions. But, Your Honour, Exhibit 374, the witness's statement, be taken also to include the map, the large map to which he refers on page 18 and its key which we'll see in a minute. There's also reference, I think, to the smaller map. May they all be part of the same exhibit.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. NICE: Before I ask the general any questions, I ask the usher, please, to go and point at the first of the maps which is a map of Dubrovnik. If the video booth could just focus on it. There's one error on that map, and we might as well identify it straight away. Just focus on the top map on the board, please.

JUDGE MAY: We are getting quite a lot of interference on the line. We may be able to find out how we can deal with it. But meanwhile, could everybody speak up.

MR. NICE: Your Honours will see on this map where the usher is ¹⁸⁵¹¹ pointing. Djakovica is marked. That is -- above that. Djakovica there. That's right. That is incorrectly marked there. It is much further to the right on this map and is simply an error on the map. Can you turn over that map. Flip that one over and we'll now focus on the map the witness refers to at page 18, and I'll ask the witness a few questions first.

Examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Your full name, please, General.

A. Nojko Marinovic.

Q. And, General --

JUDGE KWON: I tried the B/C/S channel, but I hear nothing.

MR. NICE: I'm listening to the English channel and I heard his answer.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Tapuskovic, could you hear anything?

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: No, absolutely nothing, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: It may be that listening to the other channel on the desk works. It does before you come into court, that is, if you have that channel there.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. I tried 6. Mr. Milosevic, could you hear that? As long as you could hear that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can't hear anything, as Mr. Tapuskovic has said. No microphone.

JUDGE MAY: We can't hear you either.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the microphone wasn't ¹⁸⁵¹² switched on. I'm suggesting that you tell the witness to sit down. I see him standing, and I know he's an ill man.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I think it may be that the desk monitor selection, if you have the same type that we have, is the one that we have to use for the B/C/S.

THE REGISTRAR: There's the little button for the audio remote witness which has to be turned up to hear the B/C/S translation.

MR. NICE: The accused will have to use the headphones in order to hear the B/C/S.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Yes. You'll have to use your headphones. Right. Let's go on.

MR. NICE:

Q. General, did you make a statement to investigators, and I think a lawyer, of the OTP on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 7th of August of 2000?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you reviewed that statement recently?

A. Yes.

Q. Is there one correction to the map produced -- is there one correction to the map produced and referred to on page 18 of that statement?

MR. NICE: And if the usher would be good enough to point on this map and if you would good enough to point on the map on the wall beside you. Does this correction relate to additional forces that you omitted to mark on the map when you first marked it?

Your Honour, the usher is pointing to the relevant place which has ¹⁸⁵¹³ a green sticker on it, and if the witness could look at his map which has a similarly placed green sticker.

Q. Can you tell us, please, General, did you remember on reviewing the map that there was at the place where there is a green sticker a further JA force, the 521st PMP unit?

A. Yes. I omitted --

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I cannot hear a word of what Mr. Marinovic is saying.

JUDGE MAY: Would the usher kindly deal with Mr. Tapuskovic's microphone. Yes. Let's go on.

MR. NICE: And if the Court has the small summary in tabulated form, I'm only going to ask the General one question, and it relates to what we see on page 2 of the summary, the large box at the bottom of the page beside the reference to page 18 of the statement.

Q. General, can you by reference to the map on the wall to the left of you explain your understanding of the JA campaign so far as it affected Dubrovnik and Dalmatia and further north, just taking literally a couple of minutes to explain your understanding of what was going on?

JUDGE MAY: Well, let us try and get on with this evidence, Mr. Tapuskovic. I'm sorry you're in that position. Mr. Kay no doubt will take a note and tell you what's said, but we've waited a very long time for this gentleman to give evidence, and he's not well, and he should be allowed to do so. I'm sorry you've got these difficulties.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I agree with you, but when I will have to ask questions, problems will arise, and especially when ¹⁸⁵¹⁴ Mr. Milosevic starts his cross-examination. That is the problem.

JUDGE MAY: He's listening. He appears to have no difficulty. It's your machine which is creating the problem.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Hear anything. Mr. Milosevic can't hear either.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, will you just permit me to see as I suspect my microphone is working and Mr. Tapuskovic can sit here. It's not.

MR. KAY: It's not working. We can hear the B/C/S in here. It's the B/C/S the other side that is impossible to hear. What I thought I was getting -- I don't know what I'm listening to. I thought it was within here, but it's the B/C/S here.

JUDGE MAY: We'll rise while this matter is put right.

--- Break taken at 9.19 a.m.

--- On resuming at 9.35 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice. It's apparently working now.

MR. NICE:

Q. General, if you could, please, with the pointer and by reference to the map on the wall to your left give an account of your understanding of the campaign, keeping is it to just a couple of minutes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Try again, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. General, can you hear me?

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters apologise, but that was incomprehensible. ¹⁸⁵¹⁵

MR. NICE: I'll ask again.

Q. General, can you hear me?

A. I can now, yes.

Q. General, there are problems with the quality of transmission which may require us for the time being to speak fairly slowly. Can you please, with your pointer and by reference to the plan -- the map on the wall to your left give, in a couple of minutes, an account of the campaign as you understood it by the JA?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, to effect the aggression against the Croatian south, the military leaders formed an Operational Group which was called south-east Herzegovina. The composition because the corps -- was the Hercegovina Corps, and that was composed of 400 and -- the 422nd Motorised Brigade from Trebinje, the 10th Motorised Brigade from Mostar, and the brigade from Niksic. The naval military sector of Boka was composed of the following: The 521st Platoon of the marine infantry, naval infantry, regiment, the navy -- the gun division --

JUDGE MAY: Just -- put your headphones on. You may be able to hear more.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have put my headset on. All I hear is a lot of noise and interference, and through that noise and interference his voice, but the noise far exceeds the sound of the voice.

JUDGE MAY: Let's try for a little bit longer. Mr. Nice, this doesn't seem like a very successful experiment. Let's try a little bit longer.

MR. NICE: I'm sorry the equipment is not working as ideally as it ¹⁸⁵¹⁶ might. It may be the accused may have a better quality of sound if he listened to the B/C/S channel. I'm not sure whether that produces B/C/S from this --

JUDGE MAY: There is a lot of interference. We can hear that without listening to the B/C/S.

MR. NICE:

Q. General, could you carry on, please. General, could you carry on? You told us about the 51st Platoon of the marine infantry, the navy infantry regiment, and the navy gun division.

A. The navy from the Naval Military District of Boka, and the air force from the Mostar airport, Podgorica and Tivat. The idea was to rely on Eastern Herzegovina and the area of south-western Montenegro to launch an attack along several axes using all available resources, the navy and air force, to effect the quickest possible -- to reach the Neretva River and the Neretva River valley as soon as possible and to connect up with the 10th Brigade from Mostar and thus to continue the operation in the direction and axis of Sinj, which is where they would be connected up with the forces of the Knin Corps. Furthermore, their activities would depend upon -- would complete their strategic goal thereby and emerge to the line they had set, which was Virovitica, Karlovac, and Karlobag, to emerge along that line. The duration -- the first stage of that operation of the Neretva River valley would last for seven days. The second stage, that is to say to connect up with the Knin Corps, that would last 15 days. In order to implement the strategic goals, which was to emerge ¹⁸⁵¹⁷ upon that imaginary line, the line that had been set, would be made possible by the development of further events.

Q. Thank you, General. I think that's sufficient on that for which -- thanks. I have one other question to ask you about two photographs that I would ask the usher to place on the overhead projector here, and I believe you'll be able to see them.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, these photographs, it's my oversight, haven't been produced yet, I'll have that done in the course of the day, if the witness can identify them. And it may help to have the other map of Dubrovnik flipped back for us, if you'd be so good.

Q. Can you see the photographs on our overhead projector, General?

A. This is the view of -- the view from Zarkovica. It is about 30 metres to the west of Zarkovica, on the slopes of Zarkovica, in fact.

Q. Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May. Mr. May, I am getting this noise and interference on all the channels, and the voice is fairly indistinct of General Marinovic. Is there any channel upon -- through which I can hear a clear English interpretation, the one you're listening too, or should I follow on the monitor, on the screen?

JUDGE MAY: I will ask the registrar. Channel 4 we are on and seems to be all right.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On channel 4 I hear interference.

THE INTERPRETER: The French booth doesn't get anything but noise as well.

The interpreters are finding it very difficult to follow. Yes. ^{18518 BLANK PAGE 18519} One, two, three, four. Can you hear the English?

JUDGE MAY: The interpreters are having trouble, the accused is having trouble, and as far as we are concerned, the Court is too. We have to say it is no fault of the witnesses, of course, and I'm sorry he's been inconvenienced again, but we cannot proceed in this way with constant interruption and also a very poor quality of sound. The Court can't operate in that way.

We will rise again for five minutes to see whether this matter can be put right, and then we will have to consider whether we can continue or not.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes. The --

JUDGE MAY: No. I don't think there is any point discussing it any further. Now let us -- we'll rise for five minutes and see if we can't get it put right.

--- Break taken at 9.48 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.07 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let's try again.

MR. NICE: Then if the overhead projector view of the two photographs could be displayed.

Q. General, you've told us what the bottom picture is. The bottom picture was taken from the position shown in the top picture. Do you know what the top picture is, the stones in the foreground of that picture?

A. The bottom picture is west of the Zarkovica fortress. Several dozen metres away from it the photograph was taken. The upper photograph is west of the feature Srdj. No. To the ¹⁸⁵²⁰ east, I'm sorry.

MR. NICE: Could I withdraw the top photograph and just produce the bottom photograph. The witness hadn't had a chance to look at them before. Can the bottom photograph please be produced. The Chamber will see that from Zarkovica the town is in view and it's directly in line with the main Stradun, street of the town so may that have a number.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, give it a number.

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 417.

MR. NICE: That is all I ask of this witness, although I should tell the Chamber there are similar amateur photographs and of Srdj should anyone want to see them. They're available.

Q. General, you'll be asked some further questions.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Marinovic -- now I'm hearing myself in the headphones. I really don't know what's happening to the equipment. Mr. Marinovic, from the data I see that you were wounded.

JUDGE MAY: Can you hear, General, or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I hear you, yes, but the accused I couldn't hear. I didn't hear him.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Try it again, Mr. Milosevic, if you would.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Marinovic, can you hear me now?

A. Yes, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There's a humming sound in any ¹⁸⁵²¹ headphones non-stop. I don't know what it is. A whistling sound. Now it's stopped.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Can you hear me, Mr. Marinovic?

A. Yes.

Q. I see that you were wounded. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. How were you wounded? Could you please tell us briefly?

A. With a group of commanders, I was passing through a minefield, and I had to do this in the interest of defence, and somebody tripped on the wire.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters apologise, but it is absolutely impossible to work under these conditions.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. We will inquire of the Registry whether this can be put right.

[Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

JUDGE MAY: Very well. I've been told that it's been adjusted. Let's try and go on.

Yes, General. You said you were going through a minefield.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the 19th of March with a group of commanders for the needs of defence I was passing through a minefield. One of the commanders tripped on a wire. The consequences were six injured, six wounded, whereas my injuries were the gravest.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do I understand you correctly, General, you were passing through ¹⁸⁵²² your own minefield, weren't you?

A. Yes.

Q. Will you please tell me now when was the Dubrovnik area, as I don't know that exactly, but I think it was in the early 1970s or the late 1960s that Dubrovnik was demilitarised totally.

A. At the end of the 1960s, the army withdrew from Dubrovnik, and from one location to there it was moved to Trebinje.

Q. Trebinje is in the area of Bosnia-Herzegovina, isn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. So at the end of the 1960s, Dubrovnik was demilitarised. And why was it militarised in 1991?

A. In 1991, the Dubrovnik area and not just the town of Dubrovnik but the whole area was attacked, and this resulted in the Croatian people defending themselves and gradually forming their own army.

Q. And tell me, please, when were those first attacks that you say were committed by the JNA? When did they occur?

A. The first provocations on the 23rd of September, on the 25th of September, and an all-out attack on the 1st of October, 1991.

Q. Very well. So that means that the Croatian forces appeared in the Dubrovnik area after those dates.

A. Even before the aggression, Dubrovnik had its police force, and within the framework of the police force, it had 87 members of the National Guards Corps, exactly to the letter. Eighty-seven.

Q. Very well, Mr. Marinovic. I have here a letter from Mr. Marin Vukorep, Chief of Staff of the Territorial Defence of Dubrovnik, addressed ¹⁸⁵²³ to the Ministry of Defence in Zagreb to the Minister Sime Djodan personally, and to the command of the National Guards Corps, Colonel General Martin Spegelj, the commander.

My first question is do you know the name Mr. Marin Vukorep?

A. I have heard of him. He worked in the Territorial Defence.

Q. Very well. I will read to you what it says because it only consists of a couple of lines. But I would like to ask you, beforehand, to pay attention to the date because it says: "In Dubrovnik, the 23rd of July, 1991." That is the date of the letter.

So it was much before the events you are talking about. And he writes: "Considering the overall situation within the composition of the defence of Dubrovnik municipality and the consequences that may occur as a result of it, with full responsibility I, the undersigned, have decided not to continue to be in the service of the brigade of the 116th Brigade of the National Guards Corps, the Croatian National Guards Corps of Dubrovnik. The difficulties I am encountering in my work are prompting me to take this step."

And the letter ends with the following sentence: "For more detailed explanations, I am fully at the disposal -- at your disposal as well as for any future assignment."

Will you please place this letter on the ELMO. Can you see the letter, Mr. Marinovic?

A. No. Yes.

Q. Will you please look at the date indicated at the top of the letter. The 23rd of July, 1991. ¹⁸⁵²⁴ So the head of the Territorial Defence of Dubrovnik is resigning his position because of problems he's having with the 116th National Guards Corps Brigade. Is that sufficient evidence that Dubrovnik was militarised by this certainly paramilitary formation at the time in order to provoke the JNA?

JUDGE MAY: No. Let's not have any comments for the moment. Let the witness deal with the letter.

If you can, General. If you have any comment that you can make about that letter. You won't have seen it before, I expect, but if you've got any comment to make about it, do.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I claim categorically that the 116th Brigade was never formed in Dubrovnik but in Metkovici. And Marin Vukorep was never the commander of the Territorial Defence. He did work in the staff as a rapporteur. Whether he had any disputes with his superiors, I don't know. And what prompted him to write in that way. But the 116th was not in Dubrovnik but in Metkovici.

In Dubrovnik in those days, there were only 87 members of the ZNG, of the National Guards Corps, who were in the town of Dubrovnik under the umbrella, conditionally speaking, of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Tell me, since you claim that he falsely represented himself.

A. I am not claiming that. I'm just claiming that such a brigade was never formed there and that he was never the commander of the Territorial Defence. ¹⁸⁵²⁵

Q. Very well, Mr. Marinovic. So in his letter, he's speaking about a non-existent brigade.

A. No, no. In June the brigade started to be formed in Metkovici, sir, in Metkovici.

Q. Very well, Mr. Marinovic. As far as I can see, he speaks on behalf of the Territorial Defence of Dubrovnik and not Metkovici. Tell me now, please -- let me just check this. For instance, on the 1st of October, 1991, how many, shall we say, police forces were there who were acting in defence of Dubrovnik, as you put it?

A. In those days, we had a total of about 670 members of the National Guards Corps, the police, including the special police. That's all.

Q. I see. That's all. Well, I would like to show you a letter of the government of the Republic of Croatia, the office for cooperation with the International Tribunal and International Criminal Courts, as they call them, Kazneni Sudovi. It is addressed to Mrs. Del Ponte. And then it is stated in this letter that they are providing the requested copy of a document, and then it also says on top this is just an accompanying letter. And it says: "The assessment of the strength of police forces that were active in defence of the Dubrovnik area," with their locations, deployment, and weaponry.

I won't read it to you because it is rather lengthy, but I should like to tender it here. And the first paragraph enumerates, 359 active policemen, 479 reserve policemen, 365 persons who at the beginning of the aggression joined voluntarily, and it refers to the date of the 1st of October, 1991. ¹⁸⁵²⁶ Since I asked you the question and in answer to it, you said there were 600 and something of you in all. And here it says which totals 1.203. And this is a letter by the Croatian government. And these persons were within the MUP, and as such they participated in the defence of the Dubrovnik area.

A. I believe that even more took part. Even more.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, put it on the ELMO so the witness can see it if he can, then he can comment on it.

Do you want the earlier letter exhibited, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. And this is a letter I received from the opposite side.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will have the first letter exhibited.

THE REGISTRAR: First letter will be Exhibit D54.

JUDGE MAY: It's more than that.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, the first document doesn't appear to be signed. Whether its capacity is as a document for identification, it's a matter for the Chamber.

JUDGE MAY: Let us have a look at it. Let us have a look at the letter.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is quite obviously a telegram sent to Zagreb.

JUDGE MAY: We don't agree there's sufficient sign of authenticity to admit that. We'll admit it D -- I'm sorry what is the number. We think number 116. That will be that. Now, we'll go back to the second the second letter. ^{18527 BLANK PAGE 18528} General, again this will not be a letter you've seen. I don't know if you can see it or not, but in any event, you've heard what's said about it, what it consists of. If you can make any comment about it, do.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The police administration of Dubrovnik covers the island of Korcula, Peljesac, Vela Luka. They all came here to replace the police force when it was off duty.

THE INTERPRETER: We're not hearing the general. We apologise.

JUDGE MAY: Hold on a moment, General, if you would. There is some problem about -- with the equipment again.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In October, in Split, I had 670 policemen, members of the Croatian National Guards Corps and the special police. Not counting the islands, because the -- the others stayed on the islands to protect them.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May we proceed, Mr. May?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In order to save time, General, I have here another document. It says the Republic of Croatia in the header, the municipality of Dubrovnik.

JUDGE MAY: Before you go on, let's deal with that one so the usher doesn't have to stay there. You want that exhibited, no doubt. I believe that will be D117.

THE REGISTRAR: Yes. D117.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I object -- Mr. May, I object, because what -- this is quite obviously a telegram, and that hasn't been ¹⁸⁵²⁹ challenged.

JUDGE MAY: Both letters are being exhibited. Now, go on to the next one if you want to put it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The Crisis Staff, the municipality of Dubrovnik. The 6th of September, 1991, is the date. That means once again before any kind of hostilities began. And it is sent to Zeljko Pavlovic, the commander of the TO headquarters of the municipality of Dubrovnik. And the subject is it is placing at the disposal of facilities and manpower. That's what it's about. So the Croatian National Guards Corps of Dubrovnik. And he is informing him equipment, manpower, military materiel, all this to be placed at the disposal of the commander.

And would you please bear in mind what I'm emphasising. The 116th Brigade I emphasise, for the Crisis Staff. The secretary Milenko Bratos, and there is a signature there as well. You can take a look at it.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, General, if you have any comment on that document?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My only comment would be that the 116th Brigade was established in Metkovici and that one company came to Dubrovnik, and it became the nucleus of the 163rd Brigade in due course. But what the accused is talking about, preparation of facilities and materiel and all the rest of it, is a plan which was designed to secure the formation of the unit.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right, Mr. Marinovic. That 116th Brigade, the emphasis is -- ¹⁸⁵³⁰ it says in Dubrovnik all the time. That is what is being emphasised. And I have a letter here to the command of the 116th Brigade.

JUDGE MAY: One at a time. The next letter will be produced. Yes. Exhibited.

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D118.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is it a letter to the command of the 116th Brigade, and the name was Ivan Varenina, and in it says the following: "All problems with regard to mobilisation should be resolved with the SN, SNO Dubrovnik, that is to say not Metkovic but Dubrovnik. And it was signed by the Chief of Staff of the command of the Croatian National Guards Corps, the ZNG, and at the time it was colonel Imeraj Agotic who will be coming in to testify, by the way. But you can take a look at this document too?

A. I don't have to look at it because I believe that is the truth. Ivan Varenina was the commander in Dubrovnik. In June -- he was appointed in June 1991 when that particular company arrived in Dubrovnik. And he was supposed to devise a mobilisation plan to set up a brigade from the nucleus that had arrived from the Metkovici company.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Any more questions about that?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Nothing about the letter, but I would just like to have it introduced as evidence.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D119.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And as you challenged the function, the position of this other ¹⁸⁵³¹ gentleman, Marin Vukorep, I have here a piece of information by him as to the problems he was facing with regard to defence, a report of his. It says: "Information on the state of affairs re: Defence and the proposals to strengthen it." And the date is the 31st of August, 1991. So do you question the fact that he dealt with these kinds of affairs?

A. No. He was an operative, and that was one of the duties that he had to do, although an assessment of defence and the problems of defence are not actually on the level of operatives but commanders. It is commanders who usually deal with problems of that kind.

Q. Among other things, in point 5, and I'll draw your attention to that point, he writes the following: "The procurement and distribution of weapons and lethal devices is being done as people see fit. Whoever wants to is procuring them without any records being kept at all or information and reports. And already at the present, we see the presence of many incriminated acts and offences."

So judging by this, I should like to draw your attention to point 5 here and also the undoubted violence and lawlessness that was going on and that attended the present of the Croatian National Guards Corps in Dubrovnik.

Do you know about this, Mr. Marinovic? Were you informed of it?

A. Not with this letter. I don't know this letter. And I don't see any need to become acquainted with its contents. When I arrived in Dubrovnik, I didn't hear from the headquarters, the Executive Council, the municipality, or the population either. I didn't hear about any kind of ¹⁸⁵³² act which would be in violation of the norms of civilised behaviour.

Q. All right. Now, tell me this, please, Mr. Marinovic: As we have here other documents as well --

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Before we go onto the other documents, do you want that one exhibited?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, Mr. May, please.

JUDGE MAY: This will be exhibited.

THE REGISTRAR: Document D120.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Could you please now just -- may we move on to a later date -- or, rather, here I have an order for attack. And we also have section 1 to 25, Dubrovnik. That's what it says. And 1 to 50.000, Trebinje. That's the ratio. And then it goes on to speak about the enemy and how to attack the enemy and so forth. It also speaks about a series of points, and the commander of combat group 2, Drago Matanovic. Do you know anything about that?

A. I do know, if it is Drago Matanovic. A man called Drago Matanovic does exist. But following military logic, 25.000 and 50.000 can't be contained together on the same page. So something's been improvised there. The figures don't correspond.

Q. No. Mr. Marinovic, I do not wish to mislead you in any way with my question. As you're a soldier, all I was doing was reading you the header, the title. This 25.000, the figure I mentioned, you might not have heard me properly, but I said -- it says section 1 to the ratio of 25.000, Dubrovnik. That's what it says. And section 1 to 50.000, ¹⁸⁵³³ Trebinje. And this relates to the markings on the geographical maps.

A. No. That refers to the scale. It's the scale. 25.000 is one scale, and 50.000 is a smaller scale.

Q. Well, all I'm telling you -- I'm not asking you about this. I'm just -- I didn't mean these figures to mean men, people. I'm just telling you the parts, the sections on -- geographically where these attacks were being prepared. So it was on the Dubrovnik section and the Trebinje section.

So do you know anything about these activities?

A. I must say that actually you haven't asked me a question, but let me answer in advance and tell you that when we carried out the deblockade of Dubrovnik, we took a step -- we went one or two kilometres in depth to prevent the Chetniks from shelling the town and the port. However, that took place in 1992, in July. I don't know what it says on that piece of paper of yours, but it should say July 1992.

Q. Mr. Marinovic, when you say you entered 1 kilometre or 2 kilometres in depth in places --

A. Yes.

Q. So let's put it simply. Does that mean that you entered onto the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, that you penetrated that territory? Does that mean that?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Very well. Now, please tell me this: You began your explanations by talking about stages, some sorts of stages which the JNA had to perform. Are you aware, do you know, Mr. Marinovic, anything about ¹⁸⁵³⁴ an order from the General Staff of the JNA - and I have already presented that order here in the courtroom. I think it was dated the 1st of October, 1991 - in which it says in very strict terms, "Do not take Dubrovnik. Dubrovnik should not be occupied or bombed from land, air, or sea." That was the order, and that is what I found in the documents. Therefore, what are these stages that you're talking about according to which Dubrovnik was supposed to be a strategic point?

A. Dubrovnik was supposed to be an operative point, an operational point, and the strategic line was supposed to be Virovitica-Karlovac-Karlobag, and it was in that context I was talking about what Dubrovnik was supposed to be. However, the offer was supposed to be made for it to be a republic, the Dubrovnik Republic if it accepted --

Q. I didn't understand your last word. If it accepted what?

A. Serboslavia.

Q. I never heard of the term Serboslavia to date.

A. But it was something you worked towards.

Q. All right, Mr. Marinovic, and who did you stand up against in Dubrovnik? How were you confronting?

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

JUDGE MAY: Could you repeat it, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Your conflict in the area of Dubrovnik, was it between your forces and the JNA?

JUDGE MAY: It appears we're not hearing the answer. ¹⁸⁵³⁵

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was not a conflict. It was a bloody war.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I'm not asking you whether it was a bloody war. Not only was it full of bloodshed, but it was also quite unnecessary.

A. That's the first time that we agree.

Q. Yes, but my question is: Who was fighting who? Was the fighting between your forces and the JNA?

A. At the beginning of 1991, it was mostly the JNA. In 1991, there were few Chetnik costumes. However, for 1992, that could not be said.

Q. Very well. I'm asking you about 1991 that you are testifying about just now. Were you being attacked by a formation of the Republic of Serbia or were you in conflict with the JNA?

A. With the so-called JNA.

Q. So what has Serbia got to do with Dubrovnik?

A. Well, that's a question that I should have asked you. Before October 1991.

Q. Mr. Marinovic, though you never asked me, I would find it easy to answer it, and I would say that it has absolutely nothing to do with it. But since I'm the one who should be asking you questions, allow me to continue.

Does it seem to you -- tell me, since you're a general, an educated man, and we agree that this was something that was not only unnecessary but a crime was committed against Yugoslavia by the provoking of that war, by instigating that war, do you believe -- ¹⁸⁵³⁶

JUDGE MAY: No, Mr. Milosevic. This is far too wide a question, and I suspect it's a matter we ultimately are going to have to deal with. All the general can deal with when he's giving evidence is what he saw or heard himself. If you've got a question about Dubrovnik, ask it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May. Don't worry. I will not offend the general. I am very well aware that he's an officer, that he was wounded, and it would be absolutely dishonourable on my part to insult him in any way.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But I'm asking you, General, do you not perhaps believe that Dubrovnik was chosen as the best-known Croatian town worldwide? Isn't it?

JUDGE MAY: I don't follow the question. There's no question. You haven't been insulting the general, but you must ask him relevant questions which he can answer. Now, that last one appears to have no meaning at all.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Marinovic, there is no doubt that Dubrovnik was the best-known and most popular Croatian town in the world?

A. In the touristic sense, yes.

Q. Was that the reason why it was chosen for a media propaganda campaign --

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to interrupt you because it's not clear. Chosen by who?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] By those who wanted to represent themselves as victims. ^{18537 BLANK PAGE 18538}

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If the accused could explicitly ask me a question, it would be much easier for me to give him an answer.

JUDGE MAY: Let me put the question to you because it is plain enough. What is suggested is that your side, the Croatian side, used Dubrovnik as a pretext by, in effect, pretending that they were victims of attack. That, as I understand it, is the question, the suggestion which is being made, and you should have the opportunity to deal with that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I specify, Mr. May?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So is it in dispute at all, Mr. Marinovic, that fire was opened from Dubrovnik against JNA positions to provoke a conflict?

A. I don't know whether the accused knows Dubrovnik. I believe he was there. Then he should know that it is not possible to see any other territory from Dubrovnik except Zarkovica, Srdj, Njegosca [phoen], et cetera.

Q. Very well, General.

JUDGE MAY: You should be able to answer the question, General. You've had that opportunity. What's suggested is that fire was - although you say it's not possible, you should deal with it - was fire opened on the JNA in order to provoke them? Is there any question of that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have always avoided provocations, not because I like the aggressor but because I didn't have the means. And for me, a truce, not only for me but for the inhabitants of this town, meant prolonging life. And I wouldn't be a serious and responsible ¹⁸⁵³⁹ person, and I would be acting against my conscience, my people, and my state to provoke a lion if I had nothing to resist him with.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Marinovic, I am quite sure that that is how you saw it. Unfortunately for the stage managers of that war, that was not like that. But I would now like to ask you or to suggest that we take advantage of this opportunity to look at the maps. Moment ago you were pointing at it. So could you please comment on what I have here? And I have a very detailed map of the old town in Dubrovnik with several numbers written on it, and I would like to ask the Court usher -- [In English] I would ask you kindly just to show the numbers when I indicate the number. [Interpretation] Could you please place it on the easel.

JUDGE MAY: Can we -- can we zoom in on that so that the witness can see whatever it is? Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Can you see on the map certain points marked with numbers, highlighted in green?

A. I can see the old town.

Q. I'm asking the usher whether he can see the numbers so he can show them to you.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, he can see.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. This is a map of the old town at point 1, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Will you point to point 1?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ¹⁸⁵⁴⁰

Q. You had four 82-millimetre mortars there next to the so-called Chinese wall towards Pile. Allow me to explain these points to you and then you can answer, and in that way we will be saving time. I can refer to them all together, if you agree.

At point 2 you have your observation point on the bell tower of the Franciscan monastery. At point 3, the area of the fish market and the city cafe. An anti-aircraft machine-gun, then another machine-gun, and a group of members of the National Guards Corps, between 15 and 20 strong. At point 4, one 82-millimetre mortar on the southern tower facing the sea, overlooking the sea.

At point 5, an anti-aircraft 20-millimetre cannon in the tower of the St. Luke fortress.

At point 6, occasionally there was a Charlie, as you called it. It's also a mortar, coming from the area of St. Mary tower. And at point 7 in the Ploca harbour, ammunition was delivered to the old town.

Is what I'm saying correct, Mr. Marinovic?

A. I don't know who showed this to you, but it's all been incorrect. It has been planted on you. I do allow that there was that there was an observer with a rifle in town and policemen with pistols, but it is against logic and the use of weapons. There are stone slabs there and a mortar cannot operate under those conditions. That is the first point. Secondly, this can -- will be confirmed by all the monitors who were there. This anchorage in the old harbour provided a direct link with Zarkovica. Again there is no logic. Throughout the time of the naval ¹⁸⁵⁴¹ blockade, your ship was between Lokrum and the old harbour. So again that's not logical. What would I use that cannon against from the old town? If I was the greatest amateur, I wouldn't place a mortar or cannon or any such Charlies in the old town. The old town is not only for me but for the country I was born in, sacred.

JUDGE MAY: Wait a moment. Let me clarify this because the witness should have the chance to deal with it.

General, so we can be sure of what you're saying, was there any mortar or cannon or anti-aircraft machine-gun stationed in the old town as is alleged?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, no. In the old town, I allow for the possibility of a policeman or a soldier entering it with a rifle. No heavy calibre, and especially not a mortar or a cannon was there. The closest position to the old town was Gradac, and that is, as the crow flies ...

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Let's not dwell on this too long, Mr. Marinovic. You're claiming that none of this is true and that no one opened fire from Dubrovnik on the army.

A. The army wasn't so close to the old town for it to be possible to fire at it from the old town. That is my first point. Second point, all the monitors and observers will confirm that too.

Q. Very well, Mr. Marinovic. Let's please look at a larger map?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Just a moment return the first map to the accused, if the usher can manage with all that lot. ^{18542 BLANK PAGE 18543}

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, will you take this map into evidence?

JUDGE MAY: No. It's not been produced. The witness doesn't recognise any of it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Will you turn the map on the other side. Just the back side of it, please. Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Marinovic, it can be clearly seen on this map, though I would like to ask the usher to show the green spots because they cannot be seen well on the monitor, not as well as the red spots. We don't have the same reaction to colour.

So the red spots, according to this map or the red lines, represent the JNA positions, and the green ones the positions of your forces. Is that correct?

A. I must admit that I can't see the colours well, so I'm not sure.

JUDGE MAY: Let's begin with the red colours --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What you're showing now, yes, I'm sure about that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is it clear then that in view of the fact that the JNA had its own deployment in the hinterland of Dubrovnik that it wasn't logical from the military point of view for your -- for the alleged offensive of the JNA towards the north, it was not logical for the JNA to take Dubrovnik, to capture Dubrovnik?

A. I think that Dubrovnik had to be controlled for three reasons, for ¹⁸⁵⁴⁴ the military reasons, political, and also economical. From the military standpoint, the army, whatever kind it may have been, could not permit itself is to have such a long line when it wanted to link up with the Knin Corps and to have Dubrovnik in the middle of it. No military strategist would allow that, like a thorn in its side.

Secondly, politically the accused knows well, Nis is three or four times larger than Dubrovnik, and no one had ever heard of it. But Dubrovnik is everything everybody knows about, the whole world knows about.

And thirdly, politically it was necessary to reach the imaginary line, Virovitica-Karlovac-Karlobag, and no oasis was permitted to be left in the middle of it.

Q. Mr. Marinovic, don't you think that precisely the military and political and economic reasons to boot, that all these three reasons could only have spoken against the occupation of Dubrovnik, certainly not in favour of its occupation?

But tell me this, please, was this in fact the deployment of your forces in the broader area around Dubrovnik or, rather, in the city of Dubrovnik proper except for the old town?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you place this map on the easel now, please. [In English] This is the old city, and the rest is Dubrovnik.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very briefly now, please. Could you just indicate the old town for everybody to see. That's the old town. And the rest is Dubrovnik ¹⁸⁵⁴⁵ proper, the whole of it.

Now, then, is it true, Mr. Marinovic, that, for example, the Dubrovnik hotel -- that the President Hotel of Dubrovnik, that is at point 1, the President Hotel, that that was where military forces had been stationed?

A. The Hotel President? I'm not quite clear. What did you say?

Q. Yes. Dubrovnik. The President Hotel. And that is point 1. According to my information, the ground floor of the building as well as the first floor was occupied by the army. And up on top were the refugees, in the upper storeys.

At the Neptun Hotel --

JUDGE MAY: We'll deal with them one by one. It's not fair to the witness to try this kind of list.

General, can you tell us about the President Hotel. Was the army based there as the accused alleges?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the President Hotel, Your Honour, there were refugees who had been accommodated. In the Neptun Hotel was the Croatian National Guards Corps food storage space, and that's where it was, where -- that was where they took their meals. They had their breakfast, lunch, and dinner there.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Not to go into each individual explanation, tell us what is not correct, then, of all this. The President Hotel is one point where you had your base.

A. No. In the Hotel President was not where we had -- ¹⁸⁵⁴⁶

Q. All right. So your answer to that was no. Now the next one, Hotel Neptun, point 2.

A. That was where logistics was stationed, the food, meals.

Q. All right. Point 3, the Solitudo camp.

A. That was where a mortar firing position was located.

Q. The Kompas Hotel on Lapad.

A. That's where the refugees were housed.

Q. So there was no Croatian navy or any troops of any kind?

A. That's where the motorboats would come in to dock, a marina. But there was just the Civil Defence headquarters that were located there.

Q. Do you mean to say that that was not a military unit then?

A. No, it wasn't.

Q. What about the next point, point number 5, the Orsan yacht club, yachting club? Was that another point where your forces were based?

A. There were motorboats there who formed communication with the blockade of the town, were able to communicate with the town that had been blocked. But there were no troops there. They were motorboats tied to a mooring.

Q. All right. And what about point 6, the Zagreb Hotel? There was even a headquarters and part of the military police housed there.

A. Yes, that's right. Throughout 1991, in fact.

Q. So that is right, is it?

A. But you didn't hit that. You didn't manage to hit it.

Q. I didn't hit anything, Mr. Marinovic. Now, another hotel, the Sumatra Hotel, number 7. ¹⁸⁵⁴⁷

A. Hotel Sumartin is what it's called.

Q. Sumartin. All right.

A. The military police was there.

Q. So the military police was there, was it?

A. But it remain intact. It was not damaged.

Q. I'm not indicating the points where you were hit, Mr. Marinovic. What I'm asking you about is the deployment of your own forces. Were your troops in the Commodore Hotel as well? And that is point 8?

A. They are right next to each other. If they slept in one of the hotels, they took their meals in the other. They're two adjoining hotels.

Q. So your forces were in the Hotel Komodor as well?

A. As I said, if they slept in one, they ate in the other.

Q. All right. What about the Dubrovnik Palace Hotel? Were your perhaps there too?

A. The crews of the motorboats, 12, 15.

Q. Or was that part of the military, or what were they, soldiers or what?

A. Not the army, not soldiers. They were heroes, courageous men.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let me clear something up. General, can you tell us what date you're talking about that these various forces were present outside Dubrovnik?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the 10th and 11th -- October, November, December, January, February, March, and even April. Until April 1992.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, a moment ago, you said -- ^{18548 BLANK PAGE 18549} you asked whether the army -- you asked Marinovic whether there were any forces at those positions outside Dubrovnik. None of those positions are outside Dubrovnik. They are all positions inside --

JUDGE MAY: Outside the old town, in the part of Dubrovnik outside the old town. You're quite right.

Now, let's -- I'm just going to have to consider the timing. The tape needs to be changed. I guess that's any minute now. How much longer, Mr. Milosevic, would you wish to be with this witness if you were able?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is very difficult for me to make an assessment at this point because I don't really know how much Mr. Marinovic, in view of his health, can take, how long he can stay there answering my questions.

JUDGE MAY: Let's --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So I will respect his limits.

JUDGE MAY: Let's make an inquiry of the General. General, we -- the position is this, that we can -- we'll have to take a short break one way and another in a minute or two to change a tape, but we can then take a longer break if you wish. But also, we were told that for health reasons, you were ready for about an hour. You've already been going for an hour and a quarter. The accused would like to ask you some more questions, but we are dependent on how you feel. How do you feel? Would you like a break before going on or have you had enough?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can go on without a ¹⁸⁵⁵⁰ break. I don't know when I might feel ill, but for the moment, I feel all right. It's bearable.

JUDGE MAY: It may be that we could go on for about 20 minutes, something of that sort.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We'll change the tape now and we'll go on for 20 minutes more.

THE REGISTRAR: We can proceed, Your Honours.

JUDGE MAY: We're ready now. And the interpreters, I should have mentioned. You've done an hour and -- an hour and a quarter, so it's not quite an hour and a half. If we could do another quarter of an hour, we'd be grateful.

THE INTERPRETER: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you very much indeed. Twenty minutes, Mr. Milosevic, please.

And General, if at any time you don't feel you can -- you can go on or you feel tired or something, just let us know and we'll obviously take that into account. And if you can't feel -- you feel you can give no more evidence, just tell us, but let's see how we get on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I really find that too short a time, but I completely respect the health of Mr. Marinovic. But I think that you should also bear in mind the fact that to all intents and purposes, we don't have the proper conditions to cross-examine this witness who is an important one.

JUDGE MAY: Well, the conditions are as good as can be done. Now, ¹⁸⁵⁵¹ let's move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Marinovic, point 10, the Villa Rasica, the old building and the adjacent buildings, was that also turned into a barracks?

A. That is where the Croatian National Guards Corps was put up, the 87 persons. And that was the new nucleus of the 163rd brigade.

Q. So your answer is yes. Point 11, Hotel Petka, part of the police and the command?

A. No.

Q. There was nothing in Petka?

A. Not the police. When the units would come to take up their shifts, this would be a transit point for their accommodation to take over their duty, not the police.

Q. All right. The army, not the police then. I don't mind whichever.

And tell me about the Stadion Hotel? We had logistics there and accommodation. For the engineering unit.

Q. What about the Belvedere Hotel? There were refugees there but soldiers there too; right?

A. No soldiers. Not even refugees, actually, because they had been taken away from there because of the rapid deterioration of the building.

Q. Take a look now at this overall area of the map. This is a map of Dubrovnik. The whole of Dubrovnik. And look at the dotted line. You're well acquainted with military markings, and those are minefields there, the dotted area. Isn't that right? ¹⁸⁵⁵²

A. Yes.

Q. Then the first zone is the Palace Villa Rasica zone, the town hospital of Gorica. Those are the lines, the lined-in area, and the army training centre was there too, and the positions of the artillery. A Samohodka device was stationed there too, a self-propelled vehicle. These were forbidden area, isn't that right? And they're marked in the lined area.

Can you hear me?

JUDGE MAY: Have you -- have you lost us? Try again, Mr. Milosevic. We don't seem to have had success with that question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Can you hear me, Mr. Marinovic?

A. Yes, I can hear you.

Q. Can you confirm looking at this map that the minefields are marked, the prohibited zones, areas have been marked into this map, as well as the lines the defence positions, the curved lines denoting the defence positions? And then the mortar area and the platoon -- mortar platoon area?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you look at all those points and tell us where these pieces were located? The mortar platoon, for example, it says "Mortar" and is marked with just one semi-circular line up there on top. But I'm sure you're better acquainted with these markings than I am. You're a soldier, I'm not? ¹⁸⁵⁵³

A. The mortar, the mortar battery, we didn't have a battery but we had a platoon, and that was in Bogisica Park. And in the automobile camp at Babin Kuk.

Q. All right. Fine. So I can see that your memory serves you well. Tell us then, please, where and what types of pieces were deployed to save me from going into them myself, enumerating them myself?

A. Two mortars, 82-millimetre; one 120-millimetre in Bogisica Park which is 1 kilometre to the northeast of the Imperijal Hotel. Two mortars, 120-millimetre ones; and two 82-millimetres at the automobile camping site at Babin Kuk. One mortar, 82-millimetre; and one, 60-millimetre; and six mortars at Cepikuce, Vodavodja, and Cepikuce. So those were all the mortars we had. One Zis at Babin Kuk. Are you following me? Can you follow me? Can you hear me at all?

Q. Yes, of course. We can, of course.

A. I'm going to --

Q. I can't hear anything now. Let me make things simpler for you, Mr. Marinovic. Here I have it. Take a look at -- I don't know if you would change anything. I'm going to read you page 15 of your own statement.

A. Yes.

Q. And if you add up all the things you just told us, how many anti-aircraft guns did you have in total?

A. What calibre are you talking about?

Q. Any gun, any cannon. Anti-aircraft I'm talking about?

A. I had ten, 20/3 and two, 20/1. ¹⁸⁵⁵⁴

Q. That means that you had ten anti-aircraft guns, did you?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. And as you know, those guns are highly potent for ground targets.

A. You can target targets on the ground at a distance of 1.000 metres.

Q. From those guns?

A. Yes. But you target bunkers, light armoured vehicles, and fortified buildings.

Q. Well, I did my military service in Zadar, Mr. Marinovic, myself, and I went to the reserve officers' school, a PR artillery division of that school there in fact?

A. Well, they taught you that there too, that you target bunkers, armoured vehicles.

Q. All right. So you had ten anti-aircraft guns?

A. Yes.

Q. How many mortars did you have?

A. Which ones?

Q. All of them, all types of mortars. 82-millimetres, 120-millimetres, 60-millimetre, all of them. When a mine of any -- shot out by any mortar is thrown onto soldiers they are killed, whatever the type?

JUDGE MAY: Can you help us as to the total, please?

[Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

JUDGE MAY: There is apparently a problem on the line. We will adjourn now while this is being done. Twenty minutes. ¹⁸⁵⁵⁵

--- Recess taken at 11.38 a.m.

--- On resuming at 12.03 p.m.

JUDGE MAY: General, are you all right for a few more minutes, quarter an hour or so from the accused and then there may be one or two other questions. Are you okay?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm okay, yes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Marinovic, let us finish with your positions and artillery weapons. Is my calculation right, and it is based on your statement alone, ten anti-aircraft cannon, 17 mortars, four 185-millimetre guns? Is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. And we've seen in that report sent by the government of the Republic of Croatia how many armed men there were; is that right?

JUDGE MAY: No. That's a matter of dispute, so move on, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. When all this is borne in mind, can it be said that Dubrovnik was demilitarised before any incidents of any kind occurred?

A. Sir, the incident started -- armed indents started on the 23rd of September and the 24th of September, and the guns I brought there from the Korcula barracks on the 26th of September, four guns and two zises. The mortars arrived on the 29th of September. We only had four 82-millimetre ¹⁸⁵⁵⁶ mortars before those provocations.

Q. So were the figures provided by the JNA to the public incorrect in regards -- as regards the fact that in Dubrovnik there were a large number of paramilitary formations?

A. Complete misinformation.

Q. Tell me, please, you are familiar, I hope, with the case when a group of soldiers, members of the JNA, were killed in the Ivanica area?

A. I don't know which period you're referring to.

Q. I'm referring to September 1991.

A. I happened to have been responsible for Ivanica just then because I was the commander in Trebinje, and Ivanica territorially belonged to Trebinje, and no one was killed at Ivanica.

Q. Well, tell me, then, do you know anything about the number of JNA members who were killed as a result of activities by your forces in the area of Dubrovnik?

A. That were killed where, please?

Q. In the area of Dubrovnik, Mr. Marinovic.

A. In the Dubrovnik area, there were never any JNA members, as they were called. So how could they have got killed?

Q. So you're claiming that JNA soldiers did not lose their lives in that area, that is the area of Dubrovnik?

A. I don't know what you mean by "the area." What exactly do you mean? It is very broad. It could be 1 kilometre, 500 metres, 2 or 3 kilometres from Dubrovnik. Could you be more precise, please? People were killed at Bosanka, at Zarkovica, at Brgat. They were killed at Zupa ¹⁸⁵⁵⁷ and in Plat soldiers were killed.

Q. All these places that you have listed, aren't they very close to the Dubrovnik area?

A. Yes.

Q. And who killed these soldiers?

A. The defenders.

Q. I see. So they were attacking Dubrovnik, were they?

A. Yes.

Q. Very well, Mr. Marinovic. Let us now move on to a few other questions. Is it true that your colleagues, when you were leaving Trebinje, your colleagues from the Trebinje barracks provided safe departure for you, your withdrawal from the JNA, your abandoning of the JNA, and they allowed both you and your family to be transported. They transported your belongings and your family.

A. Yes. They allowed me to go unhindered. But they didn't provide transportation for me. And I have a document in my possession, a list on which my name figures as being planned for liquidation.

Q. And whose document is that, Mr. Marinovic?

A. The document was compiled by the SDS of Trebinje, the Serbian Democratic Party.

Q. You learned that as information, didn't you?

A. Yes.

Q. Did that have anything to do with the Yugoslav People's Army?

A. I can't assert that.

Q. I understood, reading your statement, that you were on very good ^{18558 BLANK PAGE 18559} terms with your commander or colonel in the navy. It's captain of a combat ship, Krsto Djurovic?

A. Yes, you're right.

Q. And on that occasion, you yourself said that you didn't want to fight against your comrades.

A. No, I didn't say that, nor did he ask me that.

Q. And is it true, since this now refers to the time when you were in your position in Dubrovnik, that on the 6th of December, from 6.00 a.m. on, the Croatian forces opened artillery and mortar fire from positions in Dubrovnik on positions of the JNA battalion headed by Captain Vlado Kovacevic?

A. Not only is this incorrect, it is even ridiculous. If I have the time, I should like to explain. On the 4th of December -- I have information that on the 4th of December, in Kupari, a hotel east of Dubrovnik, which the army had already taken control of, on the 4th there was a meeting attended by commanders from Trebinje, Boka, the Bay of Kotor, and the commanders had a working meeting as to how to take control of Srdj.

On the 5th, there was command reconnaissance on the same day when in Cavtat an agreement was being signed on a cessation of hostilities. On the 6th, at 5.45, the attack started, and the forces of the army took advantage of the night to approach Srdj, and they arrived 50 metres as the crow flies from Srdj. And they got their tanks moving at 6.00 a.m. from the direction of Bosanka.

The commander was Vlado Kovacevic, also known as Rambo. The ¹⁸⁵⁶⁰ accused has forgotten that his deputy is now in Croatia. He into was attacking Srdj, a peak at which ten defenders were killed. All of them were killed. And they were attacked by Captain Limani. All this is well known to Dubrovnik, to the people of Dubrovnik, and I believe that this Court will soon learn about it too.

We did not start the attack, sir. It was started by the so-called Yugoslav People's Army.

Q. Very well. Tell me then, General, since I have in front of me an agreement which you signed. When I say "you," I don't mean you personally. But this is an agreement signed on the 7th of December, 1991, on behalf of the government of Croatia, Davorin Rudolf, Minister; Ivan Cifric, Minister; and Petar Krsta, Minister. And on behalf of the JNA by Vice-Admiral Miodrag Jokic.

And then I don't want to quote the whole agreement for you. First of all, there's a list of attendants on behalf of the government of Croatia and also on behalf of the Supreme Command of the armed forces of Yugoslavia, and then it goes on to refer to them as the JNA. And in that agreement it says: "In conformity with the agreement reached in Geneva on the 23rd of November, 1991," signed by the President of Croatia, Dr. Franjo Tudjman, and the Federal Secretary of National Defence, General Veljko Kadijevic. They agreed to conclude the following agreement. And then we have the text of the agreement which says that both sides are in agreement to strictly adhere to a cessation of armed hostilities throughout the area of the municipalities of Metkovic and Dubrovnik and that they would not undertake any armed attacks or any kind ¹⁸⁵⁶¹ of movement towards the opposing side, nor would they act on the ground, from the sea, or from the air as it says here.

And to that end, the appropriate commands will issue precise instructions and orders not later than 1800 hours on the 7th of December. And then there's reference to joint commissions for various sectors and a number of other matters.

Tell me, are you familiar with this agreement?

A. Yes. And on the basis of that agreement, a hotline, if I can call it that, was established with the opposing side so that any disagreements and provocations should not flare up into a conflict.

Q. Very well. And tell me, is what I received as information correct, that in spite of that agreement, your side continued armed provocations towards the JNA?

A. I think you were not properly informed and that that not only is a fabrication but is a lie.

Q. Very well. Were there any such activities on the 6th?

A. There were. At 6.45, the attack on Srdj started.

Q. And is it true that those positions stretched from Zarkovica across Bosanka to Mount Srdj? That's right, isn't it?

A. On the one side. On the other side, from Zec, according -- across the Strincera feature to Srdj. Srdj was the only thing that was left free, that was still free at that time.

Q. And do you know that from the effects of your forces and their activities, five members of the JNA were killed? And let me stress again, the JNA. And among them was a soldier who was a Hungarian by way of ¹⁸⁵⁶² ethnicity?

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you must be bringing this to an end. You've had more than the time which we allotted, in fairness to the witness, but you can ask two more questions.

I'm sorry, General, I interrupted you. Could you deal with that? Were -- do you know if five members of the JNA were killed or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know of three, and they were from Podgorica, two of them, and one of them -- the third from Kumbora. He was a water polo player. The ones from Podgorica had flack jackets on, which indicated that they were special forces, a special forces unit.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I'm really sorry but I don't have enough time to cross-examine this witness fully, but let me ask just a couple of questions more.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, in your statement you say that the actual disintegration of Yugoslavia began during the period of time when you returned to Trebinje in 1990, in fact, up until 1991 when you handed in your resignation as an officer of the JNA.

A. Yes.

Q. So who started this disintegration of Yugoslavia, the breakdown of Yugoslavia?

A. Well, that one -- the person who -- the one who publicly repeated -- repeatedly stressed that Serb lands were where Serb graves were.

Q. All right. Very well, Mr. Marinovic. Do you really think that ¹⁸⁵⁶³ what happened had anything to do with an armed secession on the part of Croatia?

A. I cannot agree that it be termed an armed secession. Croatia even proposed another option which Serbia did not agree to, or ex-Serbia.

Q. All right. Not to go into political matters because I'm not going to burden you with politics, but I'll have enough time and opportunity to clear that up with other witnesses in due course. But could you explain this to me, please? On page 3 of your statement you say the JNA increased its security measures in order to be able to defend itself from any possible threat and that you yourself issued an order to that effect in your capacity as the Trebinje garrison commander, that steps be taken to ensure security, to secure different strategic points and that pursuant to that, you had your men deployed to protect various military equipment on part of the territory which was under your responsibility, in your area of responsibility. Is that correct?

A. Correct.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you must bring this to a close. You can ask one more question certainly.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Then I'll link two questions into one.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Can you be more specific and tell me the date when you issued that order, and what threats were coming from the JNA? Towards the JNA. I'm sorry, threats towards the JNA. Who were they coming from? ¹⁸⁵⁶⁴

A. I can't say what the date was, but I can say that it was already spring, the spring of 1991.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was getting orders from my superior command, the 9th navy military sector of Boka, to the effect that I should take the necessary measures to protect the barracks and warehouses and all the warehouse and storage premises. All the more so that in Trebinje, it was in Trebinje, that in July 1991, a truck full of weapons had been seized, and it was from Danilovgrad or more specifically, the Spuz warehouse in Montenegro. And that truck was supposed to be sent to dispatch to the SDS of Trebinje, Eastern Herzegovina to be more exact. So all this indicated by and large of the need to step up security, all the more so that the weapons that the Territorial Defence had of Ljubinje, Trebinje, and Dubrovnik were in my warehouses and they were my responsibility, came under my responsibility.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I just ask one more question, please.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And did you know of the fact that precisely at that time, all the barracks in Croatia had already been blocked and under siege or attacked by various armed formations of the Republic of Croatia?

A. Well, I was able to follow these developments from the media and from the papers.

JUDGE MAY: General, do you feel well enough to ask -- answer a ¹⁸⁵⁶⁵ few more questions counsel may have?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you for giving me this opportunity.

Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

Q. Mr. Poljanic, I would like to ask you about something you brought up in your statement to the investigators. And you gave it on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th of August, and the 20th of September, 2000. I'm sure you've read the statement. Do you have it with you, before you?

A. Yes.

Q. Is there anything in that statement, having taken a look at it again, which you consider was not correctly introduced into the document?

A. Well, only the fact that I'm not Poljanic. My name is Marinovic.

Q. I do apologise, Mr. Marinovic. I have a list here with the name Poljanic on it. So I apologise for making that slip of the tongue. Have you read if and do you consider there is anything that is not entered as you stated it?

A. I have read it, and I have not come across any substantive difference from what I said.

Q. Is it true that you left the Yugoslav People's Army on the 17th of September, 1991?

A. Correct.

Q. Is it also correct that you arrived in Dubrovnik sometime after the 20th of September, 1991? If you can give us an exact date, that would ¹⁸⁵⁶⁶ be helpful, when you arrived in Dubrovnik.

A. Exactly on the 20th, at 1300 hours and a few minutes later.

Q. And is it true that you met the mayor, Pero Poljanic immediately after that?

A. Not immediately but that same evening.

Q. And is it also correct that together with him you drew up a list of what you needed which you sent off to Zagreb, and among the needed requirements were rifles, anti-aircraft guns, ammunition, and uniforms?

A. Correct. When I saw that they didn't have anything, that they had none of that.

Q. All right. Thank you. Is it also true that everything that you knew about you informed Poljanic? You passed all your knowledge on to Poljanic when you had these negotiations?

A. What he needed to know in order for him to be able to negotiate.

Q. Did he know the numerical state, the strength of the men that you commanded?

A. No.

Q. Is it true that during those few days in Dubrovnik Krsta Petar was there as a government representative?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Did he know the numerical situation as to troops?

A. No.

Q. You say no?

A. No.

Q. When he arrived did he bring in a truck with mines and explosive ¹⁸⁵⁶⁷ devices?

A. Yes, he did. Mines, mines.

Q. I see, mines. Now, are those the same mines that you mention on page 25 of your statement and in it you say the following: "We had a total of 250 anti-aircraft mines and we dug holes about 50 by 50 centimetres on the surface of the road and positioned those mines in some of those holes. The rest of the holes were dug at a distance of about 100 metres in order to create the impression that the entire road was mined."

A. That's what I said and that's what we did.

Q. Does that mean that whole distance from Montenegro to Dubrovnik, that entire road?

A. No.

Q. What does it mean then?

A. It is the main road government the town from below Mount Zarkovica to Mokosica.

Q. Can you explain to the Court please when you arrived you said you only had in the Dubrovnik area 87 members of the ZNG, the Croatian National Guard's corps, where on the 1st of October you already had 670 people under your command. Can you explain to the Court, please, how come that in the space of just ten days there was such an increase in troops?

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues] ... following it.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Can you hear me, Mr. Marinovic?

JUDGE MAY: Can you hear the counsel? It appears we've lost the witness. We'll ask the Registry to see what's happening. ^{18568 BLANK PAGE 18569}

THE REGISTRAR: We're reconnecting, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Sorry?

THE REGISTRAR: We're reconnecting.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. It's being reconnected. If you'd like to take a seat, Mr. Tapuskovic. How long do you think you'll be with the witness?

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'll do my best and conclude within ten minutes, but please believe me when I say I have some very important questions to ask him and beneficial for you to hear, and I would like to prevail upon you that the questions are such that I think they would be very useful for you.

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

MR. NICE: While we're reconnecting and to save time, it may help the Chamber to know that two of the exhibits produced by the accused this morning have already been produced and therefore exist in translation so that either the Chamber can read them straight away or alternatively know that they don't need to be retranslated. And one was Exhibit D88, and that is the one that was produced this morning as 118 so that's that one. And the slightly longer document of three sides over the name of Vukorep was produced as this morning -- as 120, but in fact it's Exhibit D86. It already exists.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. While we're doing that, we'll consider the rest of today's hearing. You did have a witness, but we've also got outstanding and have had outstanding these 92 bis witnesses. We really do need to resolve that matter.

MR. NICE: We're in Your Honour's hands. We've discussed it ¹⁸⁵⁷⁰ amongst ourselves. The witness would have to come back next week in any event to conclude his evidence for sure. I think if the Chamber took the view that 92 bis was something better disposed of first, we would not disagree.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. The other possibility which we have raised is that since we had a short week this week and since we missed out the last two weeks due to the illness of the accused, the possibility of sitting next Monday, the 7th of April.

Now, I don't know how practical that is. Apparently this is a courtroom available.

MR. NICE: As it happens, I can't be here on Monday. I've got a long-standing commitment elsewhere. Well, maybe I could, but I'm pretty sure --

JUDGE MAY: I've no doubt we could dispense with you for one day.

MR. NICE: Yes, it's not critical. But we've got video witnesses on Tuesday. We could take the missing witness from today on Monday.

JUDGE MAY: It would certainly inconvenience him rather less.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: If the Registry would come up, please.

[Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

JUDGE MAY: We're apparently reconnected. Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Marinovic, I will have to repeat my last question. Can you please explain to the Trial Chamber how it came about that this increase occurred in the number of men under your command within a period of ten ¹⁸⁵⁷¹ days after your arrival? When you arrived, there were about 87 of the National Guards Corps members, and on the 1st of October, when the attack started as you said, there were 670. How did that increase occur?

A. When I say that number, I include the active police force, the reserve police force, and volunteers and the special police and about 87 members of the National Guards Corps. They were on my list. They were the number of men that were fed.

Q. Thank you. Mr. Marinovic, in your statement, on page 13 you said you still hadn't expected the attack, but you had envisaged that it would come. You even said that you felt that the attack would be unavoidable. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it true that precisely for that reason, because that is what you forecast, you said the following: "I deployed the defensive forces to blocking positions where I envisaged that the JNA would approach." Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. When I say "blocking positions," I have in mind a flexible defence whereby I would engage for as long as possible, and if there was no further point to fight, then we would withdraw to the following positions. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Your men, the men under your command, were they deployed from Slano in the West to Ban which is about 1 kilometre from the Montenegrin border, a length of 75 kilometres? Is that right? ¹⁸⁵⁷²

A. Yes.

Q. And is it true that as you said there was an order from Zagreb that you mustn't undertake any open defensive measures, overt measures in that area and that that order had been issued by President Tudjman?

A. It wasn't an order. It was an oral instruction after his return from Igalo on the 25th of August, 2001. On return there, he said we've agreed everything. There will be no attack on Dubrovnik. Don't alarm the people. Just hold checkpoints along the communication lines land don't make any provocations.

Q. And what you said, is it true, and it sounds as follows, as you said: "I agreed with the proposal that the JNA should not have been provoked, because the last thing I wanted was to invite an attack. However, as I felt the attack was inevitable, I believed that I would have been negligent had I done nothing. Accordingly, the closest I placed men to the border was 500 metres from the border with Montenegro where the troops of the JNA were stationed." Is that right?

A. I placed observers there.

Q. And can you explain to Their Honours what happened on the 25th of September? You said: "I went to the area close to the Montenegrin border to examine the defensive preparations. When I saw that fire was opened from the JNA barracks at Prevlaka. The fire was directed towards Zvjin in Montenegro. I couldn't understand why they were shooting at their own side." And then you said: "I could -- I couldn't believe that it was anything else but a calculated provocation by the JNA to alarm their forces." ¹⁸⁵⁷³ Does that mean that the JNA were opening fire from Montenegro to Montenegro?

A. Not only was that my conclusion, but this was confirmed to me by observers several months later.

Q. So you're claiming they were shooting at themselves. Do you know whether there were any victims in Montenegro? You don't know that.

A. No, I don't know.

Q. But when you were speaking about the flexible deployment in defence, you listed precisely, and you abide by what you said regarding the deployment of men. And you said that every couple of kilometres certain personnel were stationed.

A. Yes, throughout.

Q. And is it true that in Cepikuce you had 40 men? How far is that from Dubrovnik?

A. It is about 60 kilometres away.

Q. Yes. And you said that the JNA suffered heavy losses there. Do you mean men? And how many men were killed on the JNA side?

A. I think that three were killed and about 12 were seriously wounded when they entered a minefield.

Q. And so men were stationed evenly distributed over a territory of 75 kilometres.

A. Not evenly but only at crossings, only at certain points. And there was some open spaces in between.

Q. I think that brings me to the end. You also said on page 24, and is that true, "Essentially our strategy was to gain time. We knew that ¹⁸⁵⁷⁴ the longer this went on for, we would get stronger and the JNA would get weaker. That is why we always wanted to reach ceasefire agreements, and this for two reasons. First of all, as I indicated previously, we had very limited supplies of munitions. If a cease-fire was in effect, we would not have to expend these precious items."

You also said: "When a cease-fire was on, we had a much better chance to smuggle in additional supplies or men over the sea." Was that how it was, as is stated in your statement?

A. Yes, it is correctly stated in my statement, and that is what happened in practice.

Q. So you were regularly replenished with weapons and men?

A. That is true too. Not as much as we wished but as much as it was possible.

Q. And was that in harmony with the speech of Mr. Tudjman who said: "That is why we applied a policy of negotiations while at the same time we were forming armed units"? Was that an order or was that a position?

A. I didn't have any such order, nor am I familiar with such a position. I was given the assignment to organise the defence of the city, and I did that as far as my possibilities allowed.

Q. So this means that you took those decisions yourself without receiving any orders?

A. Regarding the defence of the town, yes.

Q. Just one more question. Is it true what you say on page 19: "The only other heavy weapons used within the town of Dubrovnik were two -- two 20-millimetre anti-aircraft guns attached to trucks. In view of the fact ¹⁸⁵⁷⁵ that they were mobile, they are not marked on the map." Were they moved from one place to another?

A. Yes, but that doesn't apply to the old town but to the rest of the town itself. Not the old town itself but the rest of the town.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Marinovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Re-examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Mr. Marinovic, I have a few more questions for you arising from the questions you've recently been asked. I just want you to look at one of exhibits which was 116, which comes from the man Vukorep. We will lay it on the overhead projector and you can view it. We don't have an English-language translation for this, and I'm going to, I hope, summarise its effect correctly that the man Vukorep is seeking to withdraw from his role in the 116 on grounds of work difficulties. He's described at the head of the document as the Chief of Staff of the Territorial Defence. Do you allow for this being a genuine document sent by Vukorep? Apparently it was a telegram stating his position that he wanted to leave because of work difficulties. Do you have any other comment on it?

A. I can say that -- Mr. Prosecutor, all I can say is that Vukorep was never Chief of Staff of the TO. I knew the man personally.

Q. We see a later --

A. And he was never head of the TO.

Q. We see a later report which exists in an English translation where he complains, still apparently in a position in relation to the Territorial Defence. This was Exhibit 86 or Exhibit 120, where he ¹⁸⁵⁷⁶ complains of the general shambolic state of affairs of the ZNG and other matters of defence. The Chamber can see it in English. Do you accept that the man Vukorep would be sending a report like this on the 30th of August of 1991?

A. I cannot accept that. That is contrary to common sense and logic unless it is malicious.

Q. The content of the report, and I can just read one passage which wasn't read over to you, is to this effect, it's paragraph 2: "The reserve -- the ZNG reserve brigade is completely lacking a conceptual framework for its utilisation, there being no instructions on how long men are to be retained in the brigade or how they are financed," and it goes on in that manner.

Such a description at a time before your arrival in Dubrovnik, would it have been accurate as you understood things from what you have told?

A. It is unfounded. It is not said which brigade or who would finance nor what kind of problems. All I know is that when I arrived on the 12th of September that I found 87 men there.

Q. Finally on documents, you were shown something, Exhibit 117, which we have been able to track down in the English language version, it being a document from the Republic of Croatia to the Office of the Prosecutor and to the Prosecutor, dated the 8th of September, and I will ask you about one paragraph in that.

The B/C/S version could be conveniently placed on the overhead projector at where my thumb is. Thank you very much. So that General, ¹⁸⁵⁷⁷ you may follow the B/C/S version and I'm going to read from the passage read in part by the accused. And this is an assessment of the Republic of Croatia from the 8th of September, 2000, and it says: "A total of 1.203 individuals, 359 active police officers, 479 reserve policemen, and 365 persons who voluntarily joined the police at the beginning of the aggression participated with the Ministry of the Interior ranks in the Dubrovnik area in 1991 to 1992. These 1.203 individuals took part in the defence in the area from Debeli Brijeg and Ston along 110 kilometres at the beginning of the JNA people's army, more precisely the defence of the Dubrovnik area and Dubrovnik from," it says 1st of October 1992 in English, but I think it must be 1st of October 1991. So this document's assessment covers both years 1991 and 1992 and a 110 kilometre geography. Do you have any comment? Does this appear to be about right or wrong or can't you say?

A. I don't know whether the data are correct, but it is my duty to give you an explanation.

The number of defenders could not have been round the clock for ten days on positions or 20 days. They came from police administrations, Lastovo, Kocova [phoen], Ploca, Sinj. They would stay for seven days and they would leave. And my government added all these figures out and wrote that they participated in the defence. They did participate, but never were there that many at one time. The maximum was 670.

Q. Thank you. I'm not going to go into the document in any more detail, but the Court will see that picking up at page 4, there's an analysis of the particular Dubrovnik area which we may turn to for ^{18578 BLANK PAGE 18579} purposes of argument at the end of the case.

A few more questions without reference to documents then, please. You left Trebinje, 10 or 20 kilometres at most from Dubrovnik, on the 17th of September and you arrived in Dubrovnik three days later. In the JNA in Trebinje, did you have information on the strengths of forces in Dubrovnik?

A. The security service informed us -- the security service from the Boka sector via my security officer informed us that in Dubrovnik, there were about 2.000 mercenaries. That was the first information that I received in connection with Dubrovnik and any number of men in Dubrovnik.

Q. When you got to Dubrovnik, was there any truth in that?

A. When I arrived, that evening I had a meeting. The situation was disastrous, to such an extent that I said, "Gentlemen, you've said this now and never again. The other side believes that there are more of us and let them continue to believe that, and let us try and do what we can."

Q. However that information came to Trebinje, you've described the firing from Montenegro to Montenegro. What was the effect of that firing, that provocation? What did it provoke?

A. I think that the units of the so-called Yugoslav People's Army were not trained to attack any one people of the former state, and it was necessary to prepare them and motivate them and create a framework for what was to follow, and that framework was that there were 2.000 mercenaries in Dubrovnik who were looting, harassing, destroying, setting fire, beating children and women.

Q. And as to Prevlaka -- ¹⁸⁵⁸⁰

A. And this event too, this event around Prevlaka and Zvjin was another addition to that, to that scenario which was to have mobilised the masses of the people who were not, up until then, trained to attack any one ethnicity of the former state.

Q. The question may be asked: Why -- in summary form, why was Dubrovnik not taken eventually by the much superior forces of the JNA as you've described them in your statement and as you have spelt out in answers to the accused? Can you explain for the Judges why it was that Dubrovnik was not, in the event, taken?

A. The defenders relatively quickly lost the eastern and western part, the operative directions that the so-called Yugoslav People's Army was heading along. And on the 15th of October, 1991, they reached the Zarkovica, which is a height east of Dubrovnik from which one can have a perfect view of the old town and the Lapad. That was already by the 15th of October.

And the western part, the area of Slano and Mokosica was captured too and only the old town was left. Why did it not fall? Well, in my opinion, because we had the strength which opposed force, and the strength of patriotism. We were defending our families and our homes. And the other side was destroying and looting. And when it had passed through Konavle, it had looted and devastated it. Primorje it also looted and devastated. And now that it was necessary to lose your lives to looting, they would not do that. They only wanted to loot where they could do so safely.

Q. You described the possibility of a soldier with a rifle being in ¹⁸⁵⁸¹ the old town. In what circumstances could a soldier with a rifle be in the old town?

A. I took special care of the old town for several reasons. First of all, because in the 1980s, it was part of the world heritage of UNESCO and because it is precious. And secondly, tactically it is not suitable for use by defenders. This soldier may have been there when he was returning from the front line on leave home, because there wasn't enough weapons and he had to leave his weapon to the next one or he would take it home to bring it with him the next day. So people slept with their weapon. They ate with their weapons, and they lived with their weapons in those days in the Dubrovnik.

Q. The accused has suggested to you via map which has not been produced but you've seen, that there were a number of armed placements there in the old down. You've said there is no truth in that and that that's entirely a lie. Have you ever seen any photographs or film footage or news reports of any kind showing such armed placements in the old city or not?

A. I would go into the old town on occasion to see how people were put up in their shelters, because those who stayed there had this kind of protection. But I never heard nor saw, nor did anybody tell me nor did I ever have any knowledge of anybody entering with arms. And has to the question about mortars and guns, that is something that somebody has planted on the accused. I think his Defence team has done a bad job in this particular case by giving him those documents.

Q. Two last questions. The learned Judges may not be familiar with ¹⁸⁵⁸² the geography and topography of Dubrovnik. We can help with some pictures we have, but just tell us, from Dubrovnik old town or from the wider area of Dubrovnik, is it possible to see or to attack any standard position of the JNA or not?

A. From the old town, no possibility, not at all. And from Dubrovnik, the rest of Dubrovnik, there is a theoretical chance. If there was a missile which could target a distance of 30 kilometres, you could hit Trebinje -- from Trebinje. And you could hit Montenegro too if you had one with the range of 100 kilometres.

Q. And the reason you couldn't attack anything from the old town is that because the hill behind it with Srdj on top is so steep and high?

A. Absolutely correct, because theoretically there are absolutely no conditions for opening fire from the old town. There's Zarkovica, there's Srdj, there's Sinjevo. It's 450 metres above sea level. That's how high it is.

Q. Was there any purpose to be served by those defending Dubrovnik firing on anyone or provoking anyone after the cease-fire was drawn up in the beginning of December 1991?

A. All they would be doing was a slaughter of their own men and everybody else's. The possibility to make use of the night to bring in some ammunition from the naval blockade, to bring in several more rifles for a few of the people who were to replace the defenders, to give them a rest. So there was -- so provocation was not to our advantage on any score, let alone the fact that we didn't even have ammunition to refute the attack let alone launch an attack. ¹⁸⁵⁸³

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I could ask many more questions, but I think out of deference to the witness's condition, I'll leave it at those.

Q. Thank you very much, General. Questioned by the Court:

JUDGE ROBINSON: General, in answer to the Prosecutor's question as to why Dubrovnik was not taken when the JNA had superior force, you said, among other things, that they had looted one or two places, and then you said specifically that they only wanted to loot where they could do so safely. What was it that made it up safe for them to loot in some particular areas? Did you hear me?

A. Your Honour, yes, I did hear your question, and I understand it. When we spread out, taking up an area of 75 kilometres, there were very few of us, and that is why relatively quickly we lost the eastern and western sections. However, when we rallied our ranks towards the centre, then there were quite a large number of us, 540 in all for the defence of the town itself. And our strength increased. When we saw that they were not able to do everything they intended to, our morale rose, it was exceptionally high, our fighting spirit. We took up several positions, Bosanka, Sinjevo, Pomorac. Nobody left their positions. Everybody stayed there and were killed at those positions if need be. So we knew if we lost those positions, we knew what would be in store for us so they stayed there? And they had learnt that the artillery was in front of them and the tanks and that would make a blanket. They would reach a settlement, take the technical equipment they needed from the airport and from the houses then they would set fire to the houses and leave their units and ¹⁸⁵⁸⁴ that's why they had a lot of trouble with their numerical strength, and hundreds of them started out and 300 came to Dubrovnik, 400 fled.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: General, thank you for making yourself available to give your evidence to the Tribunal. I'm sorry there have been problems, first of all, in hearing your evidence two weeks ago and also the problems there have been with the equipment today. However, your evidence is now concluded, and you go with the thanks of the Tribunal.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you too.

[The witness's testimony via videolink concluded]

JUDGE MAY: Well, that concludes the videolink evidence. We ought to deal with the exhibits. We've got one very large one. Has this one been exhibited before?

MR. NICE: It's the same as the one on the board, I think, being especially copied for you and is produced as part of this exhibit and can therefore be part of that exhibit or separately exhibited, as you prefer. Referred to on page 18 of his report and I think the other map, which we've hardly looked at all, and is in any event inaccurate.

JUDGE MAY: Right. This is the street map.

MR. NICE: Yes. It's a perhaps useful document to have.

JUDGE MAY: We might as well give it a number.

MR. NICE: Remembering that it's inaccurate in its placing of Zarkovica at the north.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Just give them two new numbers. Yes. The bigger map to start with and the street map secondly. ¹⁸⁵⁸⁵

THE REGISTRAR: The bigger map will be Prosecution Exhibit 418, and the street map Prosecution Exhibit 419.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yesterday, because the time had expired, you interrupted some questions that I was going to ask.

JUDGE MAY: If you're dealing with the discovery point, we are looking into that. If there's some other point you want to make, make it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, I would like to clear up one matter that I broached yesterday which has to do with the 400.000 pages. One of you, I think it was Mr. Robinson but I'm not quite sure, raised the question of how many more pages I would be served. I think that --

JUDGE MAY: I raised that, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, you did. That's right. It's putting things upside down, reversing the thesis, Mr. May. I didn't ask you how many more pages I would be given but how much I would need, how long I would need to read through the pages that I have already been given, because --

JUDGE MAY: We have that point. We are looking into it. The point -- the point is to work out -- no, we've heard you on this, Mr. Milosevic. We are considering it, and we will hear further argument. Now, we must move on to other matters. We cannot go back. You will hear further argument when we've got an up-to-date report. And the other point is this: The reason that we ask about the ¹⁸⁵⁸⁶ future disclosure is to ensure that what is coming is limited and that the Prosecution brings to an end its entire disclosure process, and that's important.

Now, we're going to go on to deal with these exhibits which we've got to do, exhibits --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: No, we can't go on with one continuous argument, Mr. Milosevic. We've told you we're looking into it, and we will. Now, let's deal with the 92 bis witnesses.

THE ACCUSED: [No translation]

JUDGE MAY: I'm not going to hear any more argument. I said we're going to go on to the 92 bis witnesses and we will go on to them. Yes. You can address us on a future date about them.

Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, if you're dealing with them, I gave a number before. It may be a certain number of statements we'd deal with before, and it may be convenient to deal with them in chronological order. Perhaps we could deal with three or so at a time beginning with 1052.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: If you have that.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. This is a witness related to eastern Slavonia, and in particular the first of the two Dalj massacres. And the basic information on this event is from the witnesses C-025, C-013, Dr. Strinovic and Colonel Grujic. But this witness is of importance because he connects the place where the victims actually come from, how they came to Dalj. ¹⁸⁵⁸⁷ And there is actually some remark that relates to most of the witnesses that we have the general description of what happens. We have the results of -- from the experts Grujic and Strinovic, but we often lack the details -- the details on how -- the exact circumstances of the killings, and this is actually -- most of the witnesses give these additional circumstantial evidence. This is why the Prosecution would need this person here, this Mr. Andjal.

JUDGE MAY: Dealing next with 1063. He is a witness from Bacin. He deals with attacks which he describes, as far as I can see, Serb attacks on Bacin and a nearby village, and of course the murder of his mother-in-law and some others. Is there anything you want to add about that one?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No. The only point --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: The only point to raise here is actually the two witnesses, C-1063 and C-1084, they both deal with Dubica and Bacin, but they speak about different events, different killings. So you may have wondered why we would need two witnesses for these villages, but they speak about different killings.

JUDGE MAY: And C-1091. I have him dealing with the attack on Bruska and the murder by members of the Krajina militia.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Anything else you want to say about that?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No.

JUDGE MAY: Perhaps we've got five. A C-1140. ^{18588 BLANK PAGE 18589}

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: This is again a person who deals with the Dalj, killings in Dalj.

JUDGE MAY: He does deal with the arming of the militia, I've noticed.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. He speaks actually -- he testifies about the arming of the Serbs. He mentions the Red Berets, and speaks then about the prisoners in Dalj and the victims of the killings. And he also speaks about the connections of the militia with the MUP Belgrade, SUP Belgrade.

JUDGE MAY: Well, perhaps we could deal too with 1152 and 1153. 1152 I notice also deals with Bruska and an attack by people he describes as Martic's men. I don't know if there's anything else you want to add about him.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: This witness gives more of the background information, more than the other that we just discussed before, and is actually an eyewitness to the killings.

JUDGE MAY: And 1153. You can perhaps help me with this, as to where Lipovaca, which this witness deals with, is. I haven't been able to locate it on the map.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's a very small settlement in the region of -- let me just check. It's when you -- when you have a look at Saborsko, you remember we discussed Saborsko, and there are small settlements -- it should be east, east of Saborsko you find Poljanak at and Lipovan. Those are the two smaller settlements. It's more in the direction of Plitvice. When you follow the road from Saborsko to Plitvice ¹⁸⁵⁹⁰ you come across these two villages, more in the direction of Plitvice.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. The only thing I could find in the atlas is somewhere in Bosnia, which obviously isn't --

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No. It's actually near Saborsko.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We've got that information which is all we need for the moment. So it's to be considered with the other Saborsko witnesses.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. And it's part of paragraph 41 in the indictment where these two places -- these three places are listed together.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll take those together. Thank you.

MR. KAY: Should I go through them in the same order that --

JUDGE MAY: If you would. It's easier if we deal with them numerically.

MR. KAY: -- that Your Honour dealt with them? 1052 being the first one. Mention here of the JNA and the Serb aeroplane attack. Many issues re: Military Intelligence Service and links to Belgrade. So in those circumstances could be said to go to acts and conduct of the accused but that in many respects is a matter of how you view it, how direct that is to the accused.

JUDGE MAY: The Appeals Chamber have said that's very much a question of proximity, I think was the test they laid down.

MR. KAY: Yes. That's why I wasn't precise about it saying it did or it didn't. It's a matter really how the Trial Chamber view such evidence, whether that is approximate enough when it refers to links to ¹⁸⁵⁹¹ Belgrade.

JUDGE MAY: Could you give me the -- have you got the reference there? Which page is it on? If you haven't got it, no doubt we can --

MR. KAY: I can get it as it's marked. I say that I cannot find it. I apologise. It really is dealing with the issues of the JNA, in our submission a witness who should be cross-examined by the accused.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We go on to 1063.

MR. KAY: The Bacin issue we raised with the Trial Chamber in relation to the 92 bis statement of the witness Josipovic which you will remember you ruled upon and said that the Babic evidence, although not explicit about Bacin as it was in general terms, the Trial Chamber was satisfied by the cumulative nature of that. So we don't repeat that issue, we just remind the Trial Chamber how the ruling went in relation to Bacin issue.

But this statement deals with Serbs arming themselves, ammunition being obtained from the JNA, and the weapons could only have come from the JNA. So again, in our submission, suitable for cross-examination.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. 1084, I think.

MR. KAY: Yes. Again the Bacin issue has already been dealt with on the Josipovic ruling, not acts and conduct of the accused is cumulative but reference to the JNA helicopter supplying weapons to the Serbs. In light of the previous rulings of the Trial Chamber, we would submit that is suitable for cross-examination.

JUDGE MAY: 1140.

MR. KAY: Is the next one 1140 or 1091, Your Honour? ¹⁸⁵⁹²

JUDGE MAY: 1091.

MR. KAY: Tab 16, 1091. What I raise about Bruska is this: If you go to the transcripts of evidence from Babic's testimony, at page 13407 you'll see that his evidence was actually that he didn't remember fighting. He heard about it later. And so we say that is this truly cumulative evidence in those circumstances? It's in fact far too weak in its initial provenance for this witness to be said to be cumulative of that. If anything, Babic would have been cumulative in a genuine interpretation of the matter of this particular witness. So that was how Bruska was mentioned within his evidence, and this witness in particular deals with the JNA reserve, refers to uniforms, refers to the JNA uniforms mobilised by the JNA reserve.

JUDGE MAY: We have to change the tapes. Yes. I think 1140 now.

MR. KAY: Yes, 1140, tab 29. It's referring to the arming of the Baranja militia by Belgrade and referring to Radoslav Kostic bringing into the area -- sorry.

Tab 29, C-1140, referring to the arming of the Baranja militia by Belgrade. Radoslav Kostic being to the area the Red Berets and the JNA chasing away the Croatian inhabitants. Again, in our submission, these are issues that should entitle the accused to cross-examine the witness.

JUDGE MAY: 1152.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, what is the principal factor that induces you to go for cross-examination.

MR. KAY: A, the accused seeks cross-examination and those issues have been put before the Trial Chamber by the amicus curiae, that these ¹⁸⁵⁹³ are live issues for his defence. The principal factor underpinning that point for his is the issue of the use of the JNA. It's matter for him how he cross-examines on it, whether it's been a correct identification of the JNA and the strength and resources of the JNA that the witness is referring to.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So that practically every time the JNA's involvement is mentioned, in your submission cross-examination is warranted.

MR. KAY: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. We'll hear Mr. Kay out and then we'll come back.

MR. KAY: The next one is 1152. Sorry. The next one is 1152, dealing with tab 32. This again is the same matter that I raised in relation to tab 16, the Bruska evidence from Babic, which he didn't remember the fighting of or see at the time. So we say this has not been a cumulative feature of the evidence.

Again, we get to the issue of the involvement of the JNA. The JNA was giving the Serbs weapons, which we say is an issue of importance to the accused in this case. JNA uniforms and the issues concerning Captain Dragan's training ground in Bruska.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think you can continue, Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Sure. The next one is tab 34, C-1153, Lipovaca, which the Trial Chamber has mentioned already. Babic's evidence on this was in very general terms, and this is specific. And so again we say is this ¹⁸⁵⁹⁴ desirable to have had such general evidence from that witness and then use, under 92 bis, what is specific evidence from a witness, which we would submit is unsatisfactory in many respects. It prevents the Trial Chamber ever really coming to grips with the source evidence. And to repeat again the issue of the JNA.

So in relation to a witness -- this witness, we would say it shouldn't be 92 bis. It should be live and with cross-examination.

JUDGE MAY: It may be convenient on this one since you raise that issue to deal with the -- it's very late, but to deal with one other witness which is 1203, who is also a Lipovaca witness. No doubt you will say the same considerations arise.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, may I say something in relation to this witness? We withdraw this witness because he's actually only repeating what the previous one said. So --

JUDGE MAY: So 1203.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: 1203 we would like to draw because that was just additional.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Thank you very much. Yes.

MR. KAY: The next one is 1168.

JUDGE MAY: I don't think we got that far, did we? I think we got to 1153. I think we'll -- it's now coming up quarter to, and I think we'll have to call the -- call it a day there. We will hear from the accused on these witnesses.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, maybe just another remark.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. ¹⁸⁵⁹⁵

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: From the list that I got that you wanted to discuss, there's also C-1231, unless -- I think we've already dealt with this person.

JUDGE MAY: He was already admitted. That was an error on my part. We've dealt with him. Yes. So the remaining ones would be 1154, 68, 87, and then 1230, 1232, and 1234 which will have to be dealt with at another time.

Mr. Milosevic, anything you want to say about these seven witnesses there would be now we're considering? We have your general point that you wish to cross-examine. We know that, but if there's anything you wish to add, add it.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I was saying I have something to add. I'm always given the floor when there's only one or two minutes left, and I do not have the chance to say what I want to say.

JUDGE MAY: You should have --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Actually, let me tell you. Not only generally, but generally and categorically I oppose the use of written statements which you describe under 92 bis statements for a very concrete and specific reason, because such written statements without live testimony increase the degree of possibility much conveying untruths, and to prove that, I will tell you that I have taken note of dozens of examples of witnesses, so-called alleged witness who testified here who afterwards denied what they had said.

For instance, I took note so far of 38 instances. I haven't ¹⁸⁵⁹⁶ reviewed them all yet. I went as far as Mustafa Cengic. So just look at this. It won't take too much time. Just reviewing the transcript, let me use the last two so I don't want to tire you with 38 examples. For instance, Slobodan Lazarevic, 110th day of the trial, 59th page of the transcript says, when I quote to him what he had said, and then he says, "I never mentioned that Topusko had been the object of mining." Then again when I extract from what he said, then he says, "I really don't know how Topusko came here, because that is not what I said." Then that same witness, in answer to a question by Mr. Tapuskovic, he quotes to him his own statement when he said: "I personally made up the story about civilians massacred by Muslims in Topusko which was covered by the CNN." "Is that true that you said that?" And he says, "No. I said nicely that this part of the transcript be redacted, that what happened is what I said and that is strong attacks by the Croatian air force." Question, Tapuskovic. Why wasn't that passage removed from your testimony? It's still there in your statement." The witness says, "I don't know, because I wanted that to be done." Question: "And did you say that?" "No." Now, look at Mustafa Cengic. At the end of the war he says Slovenia and JNA withdrew to the line that Milosevic had set as the border of the Greater Serbia. When I questioned him about it, he says, "I do not believe that I said anything to that effect. I may have misspoken, and if I did, I'm saying now I did not say that Milosevic had set the borders of a Greater Serbia. I don't have that transcript," and so on. Then I asked him, "Were you responsible for Krajina?" Then he says, "No." Then again I quote for him that he says that he was ^{18597 BLANK PAGE 18598} responsible for Krajina as well. And then he says, "I repeat, I do not know who wrote this. I never said that I was responsible for Krajina," et cetera, et cetera.

So I have here in front of me 37 witnesses who go back on what then said. So your 92 bis does not -- is not being used for the economy of the proceedings but in order to more easily camouflage false testimonies, and all the witnesses here are false. For these 37, I don't have even time to look into all this and to read all the things that have been disclosed to me because you have withheld my right even to read what you are giving to me, and you are saying that you have some intentions to conduct fair proceedings.

Therefore, I categorically and with argument, I hope, oppose the introduction and use of Rule 92 bis at all, because it is a farce and nothing more than that. And it is used to mask false testimony, to better mask false testimony than when false testimony is given live. I have another matter of quite a different nature.

JUDGE MAY: No. We're only dealing with 92 bis now.

THE ACCUSED: Okay. [Interpretation] Very well, then. Some other time. It is the documents given to me after the 6th of January, 2003, and it relates to the Kosovo case which, you as you know ended far before that date, but I will raise that when you give me such a chance to have two minutes for my questions.

JUDGE MAY: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, is there anything you want to add to the argument we've heard?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour. ¹⁸⁵⁹⁹

JUDGE MAY: Thank you very much. We'll sit on Monday, half past nine. Nine o'clock, I'm reminded. Nine o'clock, of course, and I hope it doesn't cause inconvenience to too many.

MR. NICE: It won't cause any inconvenience I think at all. We'll have a witness for you, but perhaps we can put off any further consideration of document provision until Tuesday at the earliest. I'm having further charts and graphs prepared to acquaint you with that sort of detail.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, of course. We'll adjourn now.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.51 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,

the 7th day of April, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.