¹⁹⁶⁹²

Tuesday, 29 April 2003

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, we dealt yesterday with the meeting with the accused in March of 1993, which was covered on the notes that the witness has been referring to, page 8 and the top of page 9. That being which tab of the exhibit? Three. Tab 3 of the exhibit. If we can go to the witness summary, there are a few matters that I just wish to tidy up about the meetings of which the witness has spoken. First paragraph, 98, on page 17.

WITNESS: WITNESS C-[Resumed]

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

Q. Something I didn't ask you yesterday, Witness C-048, about the first meeting. When you saw Stanisic on that occasion, were you formally introduced?

A. Yes, although I knew him previously. But Milan Popivoda [sic] introduced me to him once again, because Mr. Stanisic met various different people, so quite possibly he might have forgotten and not remembered my name.

Milan Popivoda [sic] mentioned on that occasion to him once again that I was his man, and I quote that. He said, "Our man." ¹⁹⁶⁹³

Q. What, if anything, did Stanisic say when he was introduced to you formally or, rather, you were introduced to him formally?

A. The answer was, "Yes, yes. Fine. Very well."

Q. As to Kertes, had you met Kertes before this meeting or not?

A. Several times before that. He would come to the premises on his own.

Q. Paragraph 113, page 19. Returning to the meeting with the accused, you tell us that you see where the group had come from, namely the regional board.

The encounter or meeting in the casino, what was it like? Was it an official meeting or if not, describe it. How long did it last roughly?

A. The meeting itself was not an official meeting in the sense that there were minutes taken by a clerk and all the rest of it. So I would characterise it as being a sort of informal meeting, relaxation after an official meeting in the premises of the Regional Board, provincial board of the SPS. But they did discuss very concrete, specific, and serious issues.

Q. Was it --

A. And those present were -- that is to say, the people I mentioned were present, those who made up the Backa Palanka lobby, and all the posts they held.

Q. No need to go over that again. Thank you. Was this in the same area of the restaurant as the previous two meetings or in a different area, or can't you remember?

A. It was in the same part. And in addition to what I've already ¹⁹⁶⁹⁴ said, this was the part of the restaurant where they had Louis XIV-style furniture and it was the most exclusively furnished area.

Q. Paragraph 125, page 20. In the course of this meeting what form of address was used by the accused to those with whom he was speaking? What form of address was used by them to him?

A. The accused had a fairly familiar way of speaking to them. Of course he didn't use the "tu" form, the second person singular. But I must say quite frankly with the exception of Milorad Vucelic and Jovica Stanisic, they were fairly humble towards him. Whereas Vucelic Milorad and Jovica Stanisic would retain a sort of human integrity, if I can put it that way.

Q. Did the accused know or use their first names, last names, or nicknames of any of these people or can't you remember?

A. Of course he knew the names and nicknames of all his associates. He would refer to some people by name. Other people didn't have nicknames. Milan Popivoda [sic], I never heard a nickname used for him at all. As for Kertes, he would say Bracika. As for Radovan Pankov, Rasa. Vucelic would be referred to as Milorad or Vucela, a combination of the two.

Q. Paragraph 127, page 21. Just a few more things about the notes from which the notes in court were derived. The original notes, how soon after events did you write those notes down?

A. Two to three days at the most. I didn't do this the same day because sometimes I would have other things to do because I would be working for 16 hours a day in those times. ¹⁹⁶⁹⁵

Q. Just -- I know you've touched on this once already, but just again explain why you were writing these notes down, please.

A. Well, I had no specific goal in mind. I kept my diary, and it was all very interesting for me, for an ordinary man who suddenly was involved in all these things. And of course I always have my logic in life. You never know what you might need something.

Q. Turn briefly to the topic paragraph 128 or 129, Arkan and Arkan's Tigers. At paragraph 129. Did Milovan Popivoda tell you anything about his understanding of Arkan's position?

A. Milovan Popivoda said that Arkan's position he considered to be subordinate to the service. So somebody close to the service, in fact, and a man in whom the state security service had full trust and confidence in.

Q. Did you hear any account of Arkan from anybody other than Milovan Popivoda?

A. I did hear the accused at the meeting when he quite clearly spoke to Mihalj Kertes, with his nickname Bracika. And he said, "Bracika, are you and Frenki holding Arkan under your control? Do you have him under your control?"

Q. My question may have not been clear. Was there anybody else of the people you've spoken about yesterday who told you things about Arkan or spoke about Arkan's position?

A. Yes. Milan Popivoda [sic] mostly and other people were mentioned. Veselin Vukotic, Darko Asanin, that the weapons and all the other things they needed, uniforms, medical supplies, and so on for Arkan's so-called ¹⁹⁶⁹⁶ Serbian Volunteer Guards should go via Frenki and that he was in charge of equipping them and procuring weapons and all the other materiel and resources that Arkan's guards needed. And --

Q. You -- was there any Arkan's Tiger individual who came to work for the casino?

A. Yes. After the Russian business partners in the summer of 1998 became partners in the casino and 70 per cent of that, Branko Bucalo provided security. And he had recommendations from my Russian business partners. And they said that up to then he had been in Arkan's volunteer guards and he had spent quite a lot of time at the fronts in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Branko Bucalo was a very capable young man and was well able to perform his duties, and so I took him myself to be my personal bodyguard. And there were a lot of interesting things that we could talk about, so we became quite close. In fact, we became friends.

Q. Did he tell you anything about, anything of particular interest about what he'd done as a member of Arkan's guards?

A. He told me quite a lot of interesting things. And what I found strange was that when he was 16, he joined Arkan's Serbian Volunteer Guards, because he was born in 1975, in fact. And he would tell me generally about what had come to pass in Croatia. And I clearly remember him mentioning to me that in the early autumn, that is to say in September, October, mostly September, I would say, when they went to Western Bosnia, the environs of Prijedor and Banja Luka, in order, as Branko Bucalo himself said, because he's not -- he's not a very good speaker, he's a very good guy, but he said that they were sent there to ¹⁹⁶⁹⁷ introduce some law and order.

And he told me how they had come to cross the straight border between the international recognised SRY and the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and he said that their commander, Commander Peja, as he called him, had paid an UNPROFOR -- bribed an UNPROFOR staff member and that he entered into a bus just for appearance's sake. And during that time, they held their weapons pointed downwards between their knees, between their legs. So he made a show of getting into the bus. And after that, they in fact did go to north-western Bosnia, that area. The location was Prijedor and Banja Luka, where they found complete anarchy. And even high-ranking officials of the Republika Srpska were in a state of panic because the situation on the ground had dramatically reversed to the advantage of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Q. Very well. And I think he'd also told you something about the methods of disciplining of soldiers or army members who weren't inclined to fight. Yes? If so, just in a sentence.

A. Yes. They applied various methods to humiliate people, physically mistreat them and so on.

Q. Before I turn to one or two other topics and one or two or exhibits, I want you to try and paint the picture of communication between various parties as appeared from your experience at the casino. You've spoken of politicians and leaders, and you've spoken of criminals. Can you, in your own words, explain what nature of connection, if connection at all, there was between these different parts of the then-society?

A. Quite clearly a connection did exist. They would refer to each ¹⁹⁶⁹⁸ other with the second person singular. They wouldn't say it in the plural. And on Sundays, they would be at Milan Vucelic's house at Crvenka for lunch. And they would buy each other presents like the expensive watch I mentioned.

Darko Asanin presented Milutin Popivoda with a jeep that had been stolen or a Fiat Punto vehicle, a car to his wife, his daughter, Milan Popivoda's daughter. And as privileges, as privileges, in seven and a half years, the financial police never came to visit our premises, so in my view, in my assessment, plus/minus 1 per cent, so I'm pretty sure, our tax evasions amounted to approximately 2 million German marks which we quite certainly wouldn't have been able to do without the support of the people I mentioned.

They connection could also be seen in the personal solidarity between the people I mentioned that made up the Backa Palanka lobby and in that context when I say that when Milan Vucelic was replaced from his post as general director of Radio-television Serbia, for example, and that was in August 1995, his -- the person who replaced him, director of marketing in the television station when he was replaced, their friends from the same lobby helped them avoid being held criminally responsible and charges brought against them, because the true reason that Milorad Vucelic was replaced was financial abuse and not anything else.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, it would be helpful, I think --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And not the conflict with the accused's wife.

JUDGE MAY: It would be helpful if we could get through this ¹⁹⁶⁹⁹ witness today. If you could bring the examination-in-chief to an end as soon as possible.

MR. NICE: Certainly. Can the witness -- that concludes what I wanted to ask him on that last topic. Can the witness have, please, what is to become Exhibit 390, tab 17, signed sheets by him with annotations of the people he is able to recognise from the Kula camp video. I trust the Chamber has copies of these sheets.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, we do.

MR. NICE: We'll just look at a few of them enlarged because they're new.

Q. But it's right, isn't it, Witness C-048, that you've signed these three sheets in recognition of your ability to recognise the people named there and on the basis described? Yes?

A. Yes.

Q. Perhaps we can simply look at the second sheet, 440. Enlarge that photograph. Who are these?

A. I apologise, but which one do you mean?

Q. On the --

A. The two final digits are 91, are they?

Q. On the screen. On the left?

A. Yes. On the left we have Milorad Vucelic. And at that time, he just held a party function, and that was the vice-president of the SPS. He didn't have any state function at the time.

Q. You've heard the learned Judge's observations about time. We need to move swiftly so confine your answers, if you would be so good. ¹⁹⁷⁰⁰ The next photograph -- Just look at the screen. On the left. This is 3716.

A. Yes, yes. On the left the person is Milan Popivoda [sic] and next to him is Franko Simatovic nicknamed Frenki.

Q. The following page, 4132.

A. This is Stanisic Jovica, and Senta Milenkovic.

Q. Thank you. And 2604.

A. First of all, somebody I don't know. Then the person who is in this hall and has been accused of war crimes. Then the person in uniform I do not know, unknown. The person behind Jovica Stanisic is Miodrag Zavisic, the head of the Novi Sad SUP at the time. Then we have Jovica Stanisic, Milorad Vucelic, and Franko Simatovic, Frenki.

Q. Thank you. A few short topics and for the reasons just given as briefly as you can, did you see anything of Badza at Asanin's house or at Asanin's club at Dedinje in Belgrade?

A. Yes, I did see him there.

Q. On the night of Badza's death, was he discussed by people in the casino? If so, who?

A. Yes. The same night they celebrated the birth of Vesko's daughter, and Milovan Popivoda was there as well as Milutin Popivoda, Milorad Vucelic, Asanin Darko and Veselin Vukotic and myself.

Q. What did they say about Badza who died?

A. They just said he'd died but they didn't comment on the reasons, on how he died. They were, of course, sad, and the celebrations were interrupted. Milorad Popivoda spoke of Badza as a patriot, as a man who ¹⁹⁷⁰¹ played an important role in the organisation of the so-called Territorial Defence of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem. And they also said that he had coordinated operations on the ground, that is to say, the executive part, that he coordinated that with Arkan.

Q. Were you able to assess from what you were told or what you observed, probably from what you were told, how Stanisic's authority compared with Badza's?

A. They were personal friends. But I would say that Stanisic was more important, held the upper hand, especially as Jovica Stanisic was an intellectual, whereas Badza was a policeman in the classical sense of the word.

Q. Another topic. Did you go to the Erdut centre from time to time with Simatovic and also on one occasion, I think, with Kertes and have meetings there with Hadzic?

A. Yes.

Q. And if you want to follow some direct quotations, this can be found on page 9 of 12 of tab 3, the notes.

And Witness C-048, if you want to you can find these in the registry pages at the top right-hand corner, 6465. Can he have those notes.

Did you go on an occasion in April 1993 with Asanin and Simatovic in Asanin's jeep?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you arrive at Erdut and did you see the staff of the president as he was known, Hadzic? ¹⁹⁷⁰²

A. Yes.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... Turn to page 6465 in the notes so that you can deal with it in the most expeditious way possible. And when Frenki got out of the jeep, what was the reaction of the unit commander there at Erdut?

A. The commander of the unit that provided security for Goran Hadzic reported to him. So the commander of that unit, the unit commander providing security reported to him.

Q. Following greetings, was there then a private conversation between Frenki and Hadzic for about an hour, after which you went back to Novi Sad, to Belgrade?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you get off in Novi Sad --

A. Yes.

Q. Did they speak about political issues on this journey generally, including discussing the Vance-Owen Plan and did Frenki say that they had problems? If so, what did he say about the problems?

A. Yes, Franko Simatovic did speak about the problems he was having with Radovan Karadzic, and he said about him -- he said, "Well, we gave him everything and now he's trying to play smart now. He doesn't want to listen to us." And in that context he praised Goran Hadzic. He said that he was -- always listened and that there was no chance that he would escape control like the other one. And the other one was clearly meant to mean Radovan Karadzic. And he would also say with respect to Goran Hadzic that he had been a warehouse clerk before that and that he was happy to ¹⁹⁷⁰³ hold the position he held now and that he had no plans of making any difficulties or meddling in any affairs.

Q. Bottom of the page before I come to --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. At the bottom of the page following a note that says "May 1993." Was there another trip to Goran Hadzic?

A. Yes.

Q. Were Kertes, Asanin and yourself involved, and if so, just briefly looking at the note, what was said on this occasion?

A. The trip was the same. By that time, the Vance-Owen Peace Plan for Bosnia had already fallen through. Mihalj Kertes also spoke about the problems in communication with Milan Babic and that it was necessary to promote Goran Hadzic about whom he stressed that he was obedient and that this was an ideal post for him.

Q. Tidying those matters up. From page 23, paragraphs 138 and on of the summary. On the first meeting at Erdut, whom, if anything, saluted who -- whom?

A. The commander of the unit first saluted Frenki Simatovic, which is in accordance with the rules of the service.

Q. On the way back again with this first trip, on the way back to Novi Sad was anything said about who gave instructions to Hadzic?

A. Yes. Mr. Frenki Simatovic did not mention the specific name, but he said that he got instructions from us, meaning the Serbian state power, the state authorities. ¹⁹⁷⁰⁴

Q. Paragraph 141. Was there another occasion at Asanin's house when Frenki spoke about the RSK leadership? If so, what do you remember him saying?

A. Yes. He said in the same context that Goran Hadzic was obedient, that he listened to them. He mentioned Radovan Karadzic in the opposite context, and he clearly stated the sentence regarding the arming of Serbs in Croatia using the words, "We armed those people."

Q. Turning to the second meeting with Kertes and -- at Erdut. On the occasion of this visit when you went to see Hadzic, were there any forces or paramilitary forces present there that you could identify?

A. [No interpretation]

Q. What type of force?

A. The forces carrying out security matters, security of Goran Hadzic as well as of the facilities themselves.

Q. I should be directing your attention to the office of Hadzic. What forces were there at the office if you can recall?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, you mean around the office?

Q. Yes.

A. These were persons in uniforms, and they had caps of red colour, and they had the insignia of the special operations units comprising the four letters S in Cyrillic which look like the letters C in the Latin alphabet. And they also had red berets on their head.

Q. Two final questions. Paragraph 143, dealing with the same meeting. On the return from the meeting, did Kertes say anything about the means or frequency of control of subordinates? If so, just what was ¹⁹⁷⁰⁵ it and explain it.

A. Yes. He said a sentence in the context that we have to keep reminding them who is responsible that they are in the posts that they are in at this time.

Q. Finally, did Milovan Popivoda at any stage tell you anything that you can recall now about organisation of the Territorial Defence in the RSK?

A. Yes. Milovan Popivoda also said that these jobs were done by people from Serbia, primarily Frenki Simatovic and Mihalj Kertes who organised the distribution of weapons from warehouses of the TO in the Republic of Serbia and from the weapons which the JNA illegally seized from the Republic of Croatia following the democratic elections, and in cooperation with as they called it the patriotic elements of the JNA which they distributed to the Serbs in Croatia which used those weapons to begin a rebellion against the authorities in the Republic of Croatia.

Q. Thank you. You will be asked further questions.

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

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. C-048, yesterday you said at the beginning of your testimony that you were ashamed. I didn't understand very well whether the company you were in or the company you kept or all of the things that you did yourself or one or the other. Could you please be so kind and explain this to me?

A. Yes, of course. Your Honours, I am ashamed of everything that I did. Especially I am ashamed of spying on my two best friends. I'm ¹⁹⁷⁰⁶ ashamed that I participated in the organisation of the attack on the priest's mother, an old woman of 70 years old who had welcomed me numerous times in her home, and everything else that I did during those years. Also during those years as a young man - I have to admit that also - I did not think in the same way that I am thinking now, and I didn't realise who Veselin "Vesko" Vukotic and Darko Asanin and the other people really were. And I must admit that I looked upon Vesko Vukotic as my idol.

Q. Very well. You said you were testifying here because you felt it was the duty of every honourable man. That is what you said.

A. Here, just like at any other court.

Q. Very well. But it is not in dispute that people whom you mentioned, the priest, this Coban, this journalist who was your best friend were people who were very close to you; is that right?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. And you accepted to spy on them for money; is that right?

A. Not exclusively for money. I wouldn't say that. My salary at the casino was part of it. I didn't specifically receive money for that.

Q. Well, I thought that that is how I understood your explanation. You agreed to do that because you were paid to do so.

A. I had a very good job, and I was thinking that there was a danger that I might lose that job and the comfortable and easy life I was enjoying should I reject this offer.

Q. Very well. Could you please tell me whether there is anything else that you are ashamed of besides the things that you have told us? ¹⁹⁷⁰⁷

JUDGE MAY: I don't think the witness need answer that. If you've got some particular point, you can put it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do, Mr. May. I do, unfortunately, or perhaps by luck.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

A. I don't remember -- I cannot remember the numbers, but I'm quite sure that I did not commit any armed robbery.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. ¹⁹⁷⁰⁸

MR. NICE: Fairly obvious risk, once we start identifying documents that might be public, of identification. The accused is putting an identifiable document. I don't know how easy it will be for the public to deal with it.

[Trial Chamber confers]

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

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁹⁷⁰⁹ Page 19709-19717 - redacted - private session

¹⁹⁷¹⁸

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Are we in open session again now? ¹⁹⁷¹⁹

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Witness C-048, have we established that you were convicted to an unconditional term of prison --

JUDGE MAY: I've already told you that that matter is not a matter for you to raise now, any matter like that. Now, if you want to -- if you want to continue your cross-examination, you will do so under the instructions of the Trial Chamber. Now, move on to something else.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, are we in open session?

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

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I should like to protest, and I object to you -- my objection is to you, that you are not allowing, regardless of the fact that we're not disclosing the identity of the witness thereby, to bring into question the credibility of the witness. You're not allowing me to do that, a witness who is quite obviously lying.

JUDGE MAY: The mistake that you make is to think that matters have to be repeated over and over again and rulings challenged. Now, stop arguing and go on to something else if you want to ask the witness something else.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course I do want to ask the witness something else, and I'm very pleased that we were able to note that what I claimed was true and correct. That for itself speaks of who the opposite side over there is bringing in to testify into this courtroom.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ¹⁹⁷²⁰

Q. Mr. C-048, you were born -- you were the child of a mixed marriage. Your father was Serb. Your mother was a Croat; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. You can answer in Croatian too, I'll understand you. You don't have to answer in English.

A. Don't be cynical. You have been cynical and lied for 13 years so perhaps you could refrain from doing that now.

JUDGE MAY: Witness C-048, it may be provoking to listen to these questions, particularly the nature of some of them, but accused will be stopped if he is offensive or he uses oppressive tactics, so you need have no fear about that. But we'll get on more quickly if you simply answer the questions and answer them as shortly as you can. But would you remember, and also the accused, that you speak the same language and therefore there is a danger that not enough time is given to the interpreters to interpret questions and answers. So would you pause between the two.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise, Your Honours.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I understand that the witness is disturbed, Mr. May, because of the facts that we have just ascertained, he is upset.

JUDGE MAY: No. You restrain yourself from your comments, comments of that sort which do not assist anybody.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, it does assist. It probably assists those who want to understand the truth, that this behaviour falls into the context of the lives and times that the witness worked in and how ¹⁹⁷²¹ he was given this judgement.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me, please, when did you become a citizen of Croatia?

A. I became a citizen of Croatia at the beginning of April 1988.

Q. 1988?

A. No, 1998. I do apologise. It wasn't possible in 1988. I do apologise, Your Honours, in 1998.

Q. Right. 1998?

MR. NICE: I'm sorry. Could I just ask for a private session for one minute?

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁹⁷²²

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

JUDGE MAY: I will say this to the public. Various passages have been redacted. They are not to be used in the circumstances in any public way or to be referred to or revealed.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have a principled and a concrete objection. The principled objection --

JUDGE MAY: We will go into private session.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Then I will not state my ¹⁹⁷²³ objection. I would like to bring out or state the objection in an open session.

My objection, Mr. May --

JUDGE MAY: Are we in private session?

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll go into private session. If you're going to raise any matter, you can do it in private session.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁹⁷²⁴

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[Open session]

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

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So that we do not go back into private session again, Mr. May, are we clear on the fact that the place of employment of the witness and everything else that he talked about regarding the company where he worked was something that was stated in open session?

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, you can assist us on that. My recollection is yes.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So in your statement, you talk about some company called MP Royal.

A. It's not some company, it's the company MP Royal.

Q. All right. For me it's some company. There are thousands and thousands of company.

A. Well, it's a legal company. This is what I'm thinking of.

Q. Very well. Do you know that for years you worked in the company whose full name is not that? What is the full name of the company where you worked for many years?

A. Your Honours, MP Royal was the name until mid-1998 when in accordance with the changes on law on enterprises the name of the company ¹⁹⁷²⁵ changed to Royal DO company with limited liability.

Q. In 1998.

A. That is when the law on enterprises was adopted and when this transformation was implemented and when we entered into business relations with Russian business partners. So for those reasons it wasn't MP Royal any more but Royal DO. But it was still the same legal entity.

Q. Very well. Since I have here the register which as you know is a public document and in it states that this company, as I said, is Royal DO, and it's an export/import company, and so on and so forth, for trade organisation and for games of chance. Is that correct?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. You said that the owner was a certain Veselin Vukotic; is that right?

A. Yes. I said he was the actual and only owner until July or August of 1998.

Q. As you know, a public document is a document that would also contain the record or registry of ownership.

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. I got this document from my associates. It was obtained by them. So under 1, Vukovic Lidija, father's name Ivo from Dusseldorf, Germany. Are you familiar with the name of this entity?

A. That is the unmarried or common-law wife of Veselin "Vesko" Vukotic. And I just want to say that the name of her father is not Ivo but it is Radonja, that Ivo is probably the name of the street.

Q. Yes. You are probably right. Let's go on. Ivanovic Spasoje, ¹⁹⁷²⁶ Belgrade. Do you know him?

A. Of course. He was also the formal owner who received the money very often during the first two years of work in October 1994, Spasoje officially left the enterprise. He was an acquaintance of Vukotic, and he was the domestic founder of the company, if you're thinking of the foundation documents from 1992.

Q. No. I am only thinking about the founding documents that we're talking about here.

And then under 3 it says Vukotic Veselin, Novi Sad. Is that right?

A. Never at the same time in official documents were Spasoje Ivanovic and Veselin Vukotic mentioned at the same time. You are probably holding the document on the change of the founder from October 1994.

Q. I have this document, and I will submit it as an exhibit. Under 1 it is Vukovic Lidija. Under 2 it's Ivanovic Spasoje. Under 3, it's Veselin Vukotic and then it continues, Anatolij Luginom, some Russian, Vasilij Siricenko and so on. However, these are copies of the registry document -- registration document, and this has not been translated, but if necessary, I will hand it over to Mr. Tapuskovic to look at. This is a common kind of form, so we can then continue so that we do not waste time.

A. Your Honours, I would ask to look at the documents in order to give any kind of answer, because changes were made in such documents several times.

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]...

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- So -- ¹⁹⁷²⁷

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before the witness sees the document, Mr. May --

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And since you -- Well, since you claim that you were the director of the company.

A. Yes.

Q. Nowhere here is your name entered into this registration document.

A. Of course not because the official director who would be subjected to criminal liability in case of tax evasion of a massive scale was discovered would be a third person. I would not place myself in such a position.

Q. You were the actual director in a company which was involved in crime and the responsibility was borne by someone else; is that right?

A. Your Honours, the company was not involved in crime. The main activity were games of chance. Tax evasion at that time was something that was considered normal in Serbia at the time, as well as the state of the documents. I would like to repeat that under my management, the sum of about 2 million German marks was not paid, and there was never an investigation into our tax affairs because of the connections that the company had. The financial police for seven years that we worked never set foot on our premises.

JUDGE MAY: Let him have a look at them.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As much as I can see, these are changes in the registration document from the 27th of December, 2002. Your Honours, is there any need to comment on this? This is a founding ¹⁹⁷²⁸ document from December 2002.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the accused, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You have 1992 there. Then you have these that I have cited here. It says that they are owners in 1992. Regardless of when we actually get the document, we can look at the most recent changes in ownership in a form, but there you will see all of the changes that happened throughout the history of the enterprise, and I'm saying that in all of those names your name is not mentioned as one of the directors of the company.

A. This is the -- also includes the original founding document. The found -- when the enterprise was founded, Lidija Vukotic was one of the owners, the common-law wife of Veselin Vukotic. She was the foreign investor of the company. It was essential that one of the persons in a company of games of chance would be a foreign citizen. Lidija Vukotic at that time was living abroad so that is why she was one of the founders. Besides that, the formal founder who didn't really have any connections, he was just a friend of Vesko's, his name -- his nickname was Paja Jajara. He left the firm in 1994. That was this other person. Veselin "Vesko" Vukotic in the beginning was not a formal founder because he committed a murder earlier. He killed Andrija Lakonic, and this was covered up by the secret service of Serbia. This was in late March 1990.

Q. And then he appeared there in 1992.

A. He returned to Yugoslavia at the end of 1991 with the tacit permission of the service.

Q. According to the documents, we can see that he was the owner of ¹⁹⁷²⁹ the --

THE INTERPRETER: The speakers are going too fast.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let's see if I have understood you perfectly. Although you were the main director, your name is not mentioned because you did not want to risk going into conflict with the law. So --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I note the remark of the interpreters.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did you tell the investigator Tore Soldal this fact as well when you were explaining your activities?

JUDGE MAY: Now, there must be a pause between question and answer not only for the interpreters but also that the microphone could be switched on and off. So could you both bear that in mind. Mr. Milosevic, do you want those registration documents exhibited? The company registration documents. Very well. We'll get the next Defence number.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Prosecutor's Exhibit Number?

JUDGE MAY: Defence.

THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit number 127.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well, Mr. C-048.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours. Should I answer the previous question? You put the previous question to me but I didn't give an answer. ¹⁹⁷³⁰

JUDGE MAY: Yes. I interrupted, so would you explain the position to us, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course. I explained to the investigators and to the Prosecutors that the accounting books and actual state of affairs were different, but I possess the proper employment documents which state the actual number of years that I worked, and I have other documents proving my post as director in MP Royal, which I provided to the Prosecution.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You didn't answer my question whether -- about -- regarding the facts due to which you failed to -- your explanation about why your identity was not included in the official documents about the founding of the company. Did you explain that fact to the investigators, to the other side?

A. I respect the other side very much. They are doing a very honourable job. Of course this is something that I explained that to them and they're aware of the real, actual situation and the bookkeeping situation, but I'm not quite clear specifically what you're asking me about.

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

JUDGE MAY: That is a totally improper question and you know it. We'll adjourn now. ¹⁹⁷³¹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. NICE: With appropriate redaction of that question.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. One more question like that and this cross-examination will stop. If you continue --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

JUDGE MAY: -- You will not be allowed to go on cross-examining.

--- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, as in my opinion you threatened to take my right away for cross-examination if I ask another question linked to the credibility of this witness, and I don't think you were right in doing so, may we move into private session for me to be able to ask another question in that regard?

JUDGE MAY: Before you do, it is not questions linked to the credibility of this witness, as you know quite well, but a particular topic which has been ruled upon. But yes, let us go into private session.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁹⁷³²

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're now in open session.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You said a moment ago that Veselin Vukotic who was your boss, provided you with a job, was a sort of idol of yours. You looked up to him; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Is he from Novi Sad?

A. No, he came to Novi Sad at the beginning of 1992 but he was born in Niksic where he lived until he was 25 and later on he lived in various ¹⁹⁷³³ places.

Q. You said that, to use your term, he was a man that one could trust and that people knew that he had liquidated Yugoslav emigres living abroad; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right. That's what I learned about him before I actually came to know him.

Q. Tell me when was that? When did he liquidate Yugoslav emigres abroad?

A. I think you mean emigres from the former Yugoslavia who were ethnic Yugoslavs. I said Albanian emigres, not Yugoslav emigres.

Q. That's what you said.

A. Your Honours, I said Albanian emigres, the political adversaries of the former Yugoslav regime.

Q. Yes. And what was that?

A. In the mid-1980s and towards the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, the killing in Brussels.

JUDGE MAY: Would you have in mind the interpreters.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So are you claiming that that man was some kind of professional killer?

A. Not only am I claiming that but in socialising with him, I saw that that was true. We became very good friends and he would tell me about the things he did.

Q. Yes. And he was your employer for many years; right?

A. Yes. ¹⁹⁷³⁴

Q. Now, this question of his activities, did you learn about those activities before you began working in his casino or after that, after you began working for him?

A. The general things that were rumoured and talked about quite obviously I heard about those before I began working for him. However, the details that I testified about here, especially the details as to the killing of Enver Hadriu and Lakonic, I heard that personally from him.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, to the accused. Microphone.

MR. MILOSEVIC:

Q. Yes, but my question was did you know the person you were dealing with, the person that you described? And as you described, you knew about all this before you got a job with him and nonetheless you became an employee of his; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you say that he engaged in the trafficking and the sale of drugs. Did you know about that too? Narcotics.

A. I didn't say that. Your Honours, where does it say I said that? Could you look at the transcript or could the accused tell me where I said that he delved in drug trafficking?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC:

Q. So he didn't engage in drug trafficking?

A. No, he didn't personally, but he had dealings with that kind of underworld.

Q. Right. Fine. Now, as you say that this was a man you could ¹⁹⁷³⁵ trust, who could trust him? Whose confidence had he gained?

A. The security service, if that's what you mean. Or do you want me to state a name, the people who trusted him?

Q. You said that he was a man in whom one could place one's trust. That's what you said, isn't it? And as you say, he engaged in liquidations in the 1980s, as early on as the 1980s.

A. Yes. So the state security service of the former Yugoslavia placed their trust in him, Stane Dolanc, Zdravko Mustac and others. And when the former state began to topple and the security system began to be dismantled, then he was a man that the state security of Serbia trusted.

Q. I'm not quite sure I'm following you. When you allegedly say you began working for the State Security Service of Serbia, he was not the one who gave you any instructions, was he? But as you say yourself, you received instructions from some sort of representatives of the State Security Service of Serbia, isn't that right?

A. Well, my instructions were given by persons employed in the service.

Q. In his service?

A. In connection to the jobs I did for the service. No, I didn't get instructions from him.

Q. So he wasn't working for the State Security Service of Serbia, was he? Is that right or not?

A. He did work for it, but I didn't receive my assignments from him.

Q. Well, what did he do for the State Security Service of Serbia? What was his job there? ¹⁹⁷³⁶

A. Well, specifically the liquidation of Enver Hadri in Brussels in February 1990 in front of the European parliament building. Enver Hadri.

Q. And who was the head of the Serbian state security in February 1990? Can you tell me that?

A. It wasn't Jovica Stanisic as far as I recall, but I may be wrong. I can confirm that. But Janackovic.

Q. And somebody before him?

A. Mitrovic.

Q. What?

A. I know that the head of the federal service was Zdravko Mustac.

Q. Zdravko Mustac was the head of the head of the federal service, was he? Zdravko Mustac was a cadre from Croatia; right?

JUDGE MAY: If you don't know something, Witness C-048, just say so. But if you do know, of course give the answer.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm trying to make a pause between question and answer so I give my answer once I see that the question has come up on the screen. So that is why I'm making pauses. It's no problem for me to answer straight away, but I'm bearing in mind the interpreters.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You said that the chief of -- of the State Security Service of Serbia was Zdravko Mustac from Croatia; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And a moment ago you mentioned Vukotic's activities during the ¹⁹⁷³⁷ sometime of Stane Dolanc is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Stane Dolanc was a leading Slovenian politician, was he not?

A. Yes, of a communist Yugoslav orientation.

Q. Yes. Without a doubt he was a leading Slovenian politician at the time. And he was the Minister of the Interior on a federal level; right? Federal interior Minister?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, do you then consider that he gave instructions and orders for those killings that took place in the 1980s that you mentioned?

A. He was the individual who, in coordination with the other ministers of internal affairs in the different republics, would make decisions as to whether the ultimate solution would be applied to certain individuals, that is to say, liquidation of those individuals.

Q. Right.

A. Veselin Vukotic told me that.

Q. How would he know? How could he know? He was intimate with Stane Dolanc, was he?

A. No, I don't say he was intimate with Stane Dolanc, but as a man of trust he must have known about that.

Q. This man Vukotic that same year, according to you, in a Belgrade nightclub called Nana killed a certain person called Lakonic, and as far as I understood you, he was also a DB agent of some kind; right?

A. Your Honours, he wasn't also a DB agent. There are court documents and in the Serbian public there was an affair as to cooperation ¹⁹⁷³⁸ between the criminal elements of society and the state security service.

Q. So you're saying that one DB agent killed another DB agent and not one criminal killing another criminal? Is that what you're saying?

A. Andrija Lakonic was liquidated because he was a heroin drug addict and under the influence of drugs would brag in public about the things he had done for the service. It is true that both the victim and killer were criminals and long-term associates of the service.

Q. So you say they were criminals and DB service members, agents?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, wouldn't it emerge from that that the service agents were criminals?

A. Well, when you say agent, I suppose you mean -- I take it to mean associates or collaborators, not working for the service full time.

Q. So you mean that the service used certain individuals for their own purposes on certain occasions, is that it?

A. Yes, to do the -- its dirty work.

Q. Well, tell me then, as you claim that you yourself were a collaborator or associate of the service, do you have any knowledge about how in a state security service somebody can give orders for somebody else to be killed? I assume you know the technology of how this is done. So explain it to us please so we can all understand.

A. Of course, Your Honours, I will explain that, although the accused knows full well how this works. There are never any written traces or evidence. A certain individual who was considered to be a threat to state interests, and when I say state interests, this was interests of a ¹⁹⁷³⁹ one-party system, they were people mostly of a democratic and liberal orientation of different ethnic backgrounds, and the decision in the former state was taken at the level of a collegiate. That is to say the ministers of the interiors of all the different republics and the federal minister as well. A team decision. And later the killing of Enver Hadri was the first one that was organised independently and autonomously by the state security of Serbia.

Q. All right. You're claiming that in the former Yugoslavia, in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in fact when, it existed that a decision could be made at a meeting of the federal minister of his republican ministers to kill somebody. Is that what you're claiming?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. Fine. Now, who gave instructions? Who gave the order? Because as you say, you cooperated very closely with Vukotic and Vukotic told you all about this. Who gave instructions in March 1990 for this killing, the killing that you're talking about? Who gave the order? You must know that, if you know that an order was given by the service as you say.

A. Well, I know that the order was given by the service, and this I know from Vesko Vukotic, from what he said. And he said, "these people of mine told me to get rid of him because he talked a lot." That's what he said.

Q. So who gave the order?

A. He didn't next that.

Q. Ah. He didn't mention a name. Right. Now, on page 3 of your statement, paragraph 2, you state the ¹⁹⁷⁴⁰ following. You say that: "He was never charged for the murder of Lakonic but an arrest warrant was issued for him, and he managed to escape, you say, because an inspector in the homicide squad in the Belgrade SUP, Miroslav Bizic was his name warned him and enabled him escape to Hungary. That's what you say in your statement; right? Border?

A. Up to the Hungarian border.

Q. All right. Hungarian border, Hungary, it doesn't make much difference. But is that what you said in your statement?

A. Yes. But there was an error in the translation. I didn't say warned him but Inspector Miroslav Bizic helped him and brought him to the Hungarian border.

Q. All right. Fine. Now, do you know that Miroslav Bizic was never an inspector of the homicide squad but that he was an inspector --

A. For adolescent delinquency?

Q. That's right, yes.

A. He worked in a different department, but Miroslav Bizic afterwards was suspended from service and he was held in detention for participating in the event.

Q. Yes. That's what you claim in your statement too.

A. It exists in legal documents too.

Q. All right. A moment ago, I quoted paragraph 2 on page 3 of your statement where you say that Vukotic was never charged for Lakonic's murder. That's what you said, isn't it? Now, can you tell me this: You have studied law, you say. Explain how come Bizic was held responsible for being an associate, an accomplice whereas the other one wasn't charged ¹⁹⁷⁴¹ with murder? Was he or wasn't he? Is what you say true and correct on page 3, paragraph 2? You say he was never charged for Lakonic's murder.

A. Your Honours, there were certain mistakes made in the translation of my statement. He was accused and charged with some other individuals but was not convicted. And although he was -- made an attempt to flee, he was still prosecuted.

Q. All right. Fine. Now, do you know that with respect -- that investigations were conducted against all the persons involved in the Nana nightclub incident and not only an investigation but Vukotic was accused of Lakonic's murder. He was charged with it. Do you know that?

A. Of course I do. But nobody was convicted, and it turned out that Lakonic killed himself. That was the upshot. And Vukotic was freed of all responsibility and accountability, although he was a fugitive from justice the whole time. Others were in detention.

Q. All right. And do you know that it was the district court in Belgrade, Judge Vladan Vukcevic was the judge in charge of the case when it was brought to court? You don't have to make such long pauses, you know. The transcript is always a little late. But the translation -- the interpretation is a little faster.

A. I don't know the President of the Trial Chamber, by I know that there were legal proceedings.

Q. Right. As legal proceedings were initiated, court proceedings, how then are you able to say such nonsensical things, that the DB tried to mask the murder and cover Vukotic if it was brought to court?

A. Your Honours, this is not nonsense. It is the truth. They didn't ¹⁹⁷⁴² try as to this cover-up. These people were acquitted of all responsibility and accountability, and Vukotic too, although he was a fugitive. And as I said a moment ago, it appears as if Andrija Lakonic killed himself.

Q. Well, I don't know what it says in the judgement. I don't suppose it says that he killed himself.

A. Well, it doesn't say that of course.

Q. Well, we don't have to make a caricature of this, but tell me as you're a friend of Vukotic, is he living in Yugoslavia today?

A. No. He lives abroad because there was a warrant out for his arrest for a killing in Montenegro on the 16th of November, 1997.

Q. So you're saying he fled in 1997, did he?

A. Yes, with my assistance.

Q. What did you say?

A. With my assistance.

Q. Ah, with your assistance you say. Now, as since he fled with your assistance, do you have any contacts with him today, now?

A. Not at the present time, no.

Q. What do you mean at present?

A. It means the last few years or perhaps -- a few months. Perhaps one year.

Q. So until before a year ago you did have contacts with him?

A. Well, more or less. I don't want you to hold me to the date.

Q. All right. Tell me this: Did -- did you ask him what he thought about your appearing here as a witness? Did you ask his opinion? ¹⁹⁷⁴³

A. Not only did I not ask his opinion, he will probably ask that I be liquidated after my testimony here.

Q. What did you say he asked you? I didn't hear you properly. What did you say?

A. Not only did I not ask permission from him to appear here to testify, but I think that he will ask that I be liquidated after my testimony here.

Q. All right. Now, as you yourself said that after four weeks of work in the casino you became the boss for all the employees there; isn't that right? Then you carried out his orders directly, didn't you, his direct orders?

A. Yes.

Q. And that means that you enjoyed -- that he -- that you enjoyed his trust; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. In paragraph 4 on the same page, you say that in the beginning of 1993 MP Royal expanded and took over the Swedish gambling company, Cherry; is this correct?

A. Cherry.

Q. Cherry?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. Is it correct that the owner of this company, a Swede, was also killed under very strange circumstances?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have anything to do with this? ¹⁹⁷⁴⁴

A. No. But Andrija Draskovic tell us when we took over the company and later on he became the boyfriend of the wife or the widow of the former owner.

Q. Do you know who killed the chief of this company? As a person who enjoyed the confidence of this man who you say is a murderer, I would assume you would have to know this.

A. Your Honour, I don't see why I would have to know this. The murder happened before we took over the company and it didn't happen in Yugoslavia.

Q. So you know nothing about this?

A. I don't see why I should. His widow was -- inherited the company legally, and we concluded the contract with her.

Q. You say that the state security made use of your company, your casino, in order to gain control over certain people by letting them gamble, as you say, or supplying them with prostitutes. Is this correct? Is this correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Very well. Can you give me the name of an individual over whom the state security service gained control in this manner? Because as an agent of the DB and the general manager of the company would have to know this.

A. Yes, I will tell you the name of one such person. Miodrag Mile Isakov, who is now the deputy prime minister of the Serbian government. He was then the representative of the independent journalists' association. He is a gambler, and he lost large sums of money. And ¹⁹⁷⁴⁵ during a certain period of time in early 1994, he gambled away the financial aid and the equipment that was granted him by the Soros foundation.

Q. So the DB held this man Isakov under control in this way?

A. I told Milovan Popivoda about this, and of course I wasn't to know everything that happened.

Mile Isakov gambled away the financial aid and the computers he had been given by the US embassy. No, I apologise, the Soros foundation from the Americans. And very soon after that an inspection arrived from the Soros foundation because of course people didn't want to squander money away on computers that would be gambled away by someone, and they asked Isakov to show them where the computers were.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not hear the accused.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Gained control over people whom they allowed to act in this way. So did it gain control over Isakov?

A. I don't see why I, as one of the collaborators of the DB, would have to know this, whether he was under their control or not.

Q. But I asked you to explain your claim that the DB used your company and the casino in order to gain control over certain people, and I asked you to name an individual and you named him. So my question is something that follows logically. Is this an example of the manner in which the DB gained control over this man? Did it gain control over him or not?

A. From the context and the circumstances, it is my opinion that they ¹⁹⁷⁴⁶ did, yes. That's my opinion based on circumstances, but I cannot assert decidedly whether this was so or not. Only Milan Popivoda [sic] could confirm this.

Q. The service is responsible for Mile Isakov gambling, gambling away the Soros donation, the money he had been given? Is that what you're saying?

A. No, Your Honours, that's not what I'm saying. But the service, having this information, had this man under their control.

Q. You say that you started working for the DB in July 1992. This is on page 3, paragraph 7 of your statement.

A. Yes. But I corrected this. It was in June, not July. I made this correction when talking to the OTP earlier.

Q. How then do you explain what you say on this same page in paragraph 3 that for weeks after becoming employed there in 1993, you became the general manager of the company?

A. Do you mean the year?

Q. Yes.

A. It's an error.

Q. Another error?

A. It could be a translation error.

Q. Very well. So yet another error. This cannot be explained then. You did not begin working for the DB before you got your job in the casino.

A. No, no, I didn't. This must be a typing error.

Q. A typing error? ¹⁹⁷⁴⁷

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, may I ask him in public session how old he was at the time?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. How old were you then?

A. Twenty-two. Not yet. I was actually 21.

Q. Tell me, since you say you were an agent of the DB, does that mean that you also had an official pass, an official identity card of the state security?

A. No, I didn't. No collaborator was issued with identity papers. It was only people who were employed full time by the service.

Q. Does that mean in fact that you were a spy of the DB or a police spy, an informer?

A. No. I was a collaborator of the state security service.

Q. A collaborator who was not employed by the DB, an external associate.

A. Your Honours, there is a clear distinction between the employees of the DB who we might call agents and collaborators such as Veselin Vukotic and myself. I had a telephone for emergency cases, 6225542, and the extension was 021, and Popivoda used this phone if we needed to contact the DB urgently.

Q. Very well. On page 3, in paragraph 7, you say that Milovan Popivoda was the head of the DB in Vojvodina. Is this correct?

A. Yes.

Q. But that he was also in charge of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and ¹⁹⁷⁴⁸ Western Srem. Is that what you're saying?

A. Yes. Yes, I am saying that.

Q. So you are claiming that they did not have their own security service but that the Serbian Security Service operated in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, and that it was this Popivoda who was in charge.

A. They did have their own service, but formally, only formally. It was actually part of the DB of Serbia. It was financed from Serbia. Some of the staff came from Serbia and so on.

Q. Are you trying to say that Popivoda was -- that this was said to you by Popivoda, the head of the DB in Vojvodina, in confidence?

A. Yes.

Q. So he confided in you?

A. Well, I wouldn't call it confiding, but when he told me this, he never dreamt how all this would end and where I would end up.

Q. Very well. On page 4 in paragraph 1, you say you don't want to justify your own actions but you try to do so by saying that you were against the plan to create a Greater Serbia. Is that what you said? Is that so?

A. Yes.

Q. Did the investigator Tore Soldal ask you whether you were against the plan to create a Greater Serbia or did you say this of your own initiative?

A. Nobody asked me this. I said this on my own initiative.

Q. Very well. As you said it, it was your idea to say this, when and ¹⁹⁷⁴⁹ how did you hear of a plan to create a Greater Serbia?

A. Your Honours, I would be pleased to answer this question. To the last questions put to me by Mr. Geoffrey Nice, I already explained where and how and under what circumstances I heard this, and I said to the best of my recollection in view of the passage of time when I had heard this, and I think this is sufficient if I have to expand on this.

Q. Well, I can't remember everything you said exactly so I'm asking you again. From whom and where did you hear about the plan to create a Greater Serbia? Answer me in brief.

A. I heard you in Royal in early March 1993, among others.

Q. We'll come to that later. And I mentioned a Greater Serbia then?

A. You mentioned the creation of a single Serbian state.

Q. Is that so? Well, we'll come to that. But now let's proceed according to your statement.

On page 4, in paragraph 2 you say that you were told to monitor the Catholic priest Marko Kljajic, and Robert Coban, editor-in-chief of the newspaper, Nezavisni Svet. They were Croats who as you say were suspected of cooperating with both the Croatian -- with the Croatian intelligence services. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that, you say, was your task?

A. Not my alleged task it was my task.

Q. I say alleged because that's what you're claiming. I'm quoting you.

A. Well, I am asserting it. ¹⁹⁷⁵⁰

Q. You, who had a Croatian mother and who have many friends who are Croats, you say you supported the Dinamo club from Zagreb in soccer, and you were friendly with the people. You were monitoring. And yet you agreed to monitor them, to spy on them.

Can you tell us what your motivation was for doing something like that?

A. Very briefly, it was pragmatic.

Q. So it boiled down to money?

A. Money and everything that money brings with it.

Q. Very well then. Can you tell me what you discovered? Did the -- were the priest Kljajic and Coban, agents of foreign intelligence services?

A. I submitted reports on their activities, and, of course, I was unable to judge whether they were or were not foreign agents. Robert Coban did receive certain financial assistance, some of it from the US embassy, from Mr. Lee to be specific, who in those years was a representative of the embassy in Belgrade and who visited Marko Kljajic also. As I have already said, they asked me to be present at Marko Kljajic's when certain people visited him. And as for Reverend Beslic, Milovan Popivoda told me that they had reliable information that he was in the employ of the Croatian service for the protection of the constitutional order and that he was meeting him in Osijek, that he met him during one of his trips there.

Q. Very well. You mentioned several persons whom you talked to, monitored at the time, and these talks were mostly held in Novi Sad. Is ¹⁹⁷⁵¹ that correct?

A. In Novi Sad, and on several occasions I travelled with Reverend Marko Kljajic to Zagreb where I met some people who Milovan Popivoda told me were of interest to the intelligence services.

Q. Very well. And yesterday, you listed four men who had conversations in Yugoslavia; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did anything happen to any of these people? Were they arrested as foreign agents? Did anything happen to them? To any of the four you mentioned.

A. I was told to pay attention to the contacts of Marko Kljajic with these people, Melvinger, Kraljevic and others. And if you ask whether anything happened to any of them, yes. Niko Kraljevic, the priest, was attacked on several occasions in Hrtkovci in mid-1992. And Marko Kljajic testified to this in his book, "How My People Died."

Q. Very well. We'll come to that. Now, tell me, please, and answer my question directly, as you say that your boss was in charge of liquidations, were you ever tasked with some liquidations?

A. My answer to that is no.

Q. So you didn't liquidate anyone?

A. No.

Q. But as I can see from what you just said a moment ago, you did organise the mistreatment of an elderly woman. That is the mother of this Catholic priest who was a close friend of yours, Marko Kljajic. Is this correct? ¹⁹⁷⁵²

A. I took part in that but I didn't organise it. I receive the order from Milovan Popivoda, the chief of the Novi Sad DB centre.

Q. Does he know that you are behind this attack on his mother, you as his close friend?

A. He didn't know up until this moment, but I assume yesterday if he is following the trial, I assume that he understood who is in question.

Q. Could you tell me the names of those refugees who, as you say -- as you say in your statement how she attacked them and they had to deal with her and then they escaped?

A. I said that she retaliated, not that she attacked. They didn't expect any resistance.

Q. Don't you think that this was a very strange attack on an old lady as you explain it here, as you say they managed to overpower her?

A. It's not clear to me. There was a conflict. There was a clash. The woman was resilient. She responded regardless of the fact that she's old.

Q. You described this event. How did it actually happen? Can you tell us, please?

A. Yes, of course.

JUDGE MAY: I think the witness has really covered this, Mr. Milosevic. There seems little point going over it again. He's covered it in his evidence in chief. Now, your time is limited, and there may be other things you want to cover in his evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would just like to dwell a little bit on this topic, Mr. May. Just -- ¹⁹⁷⁵³

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Could you just briefly tell us how it happened?

A. It happened in this way: They rang her doorbell, then -- however, there was always a bar near the door, which the lady who is deceased now, which the deceased Kata Kljajic used.

Q. Does it seem to you that you're minimising this event?

A. I'm not minimising this event. I'm telling it the way it happened. Of course those two did not expect such a reaction, those two refugees, one of whom as far as I can recall was called Stankovic.

Q. Very well. May I remind you how this criminal act was committed? I'm not going to quote any newspapers. I will read from Marko Kljajic's book which you mentioned. This is on page 103 of the book. He writes: "The parish house in Petro Varadin was attacked in broad daylight on the 6th of January at the end of the holidays. Two young men with iron poles broke into the parish house and seriously wounded Kata Kljajic, a woman in her late 60s. They also beat up the neighbour who later came to the aid of the old lady."

This is why I'm asking you. Why are you minimising this event? You said that they rang the doorbell, she opened the door and so on.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for the accused.

JUDGE MAY: The witness should be able to answer first of all. You've heard the account, Witness C-048, which has been read out -- which has been read - just a moment - which has been read out. You weren't, of course, present, nor was the author, I suspect. Now, does that accord, as far as you know, with what happened? ¹⁹⁷⁵⁴

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the story in the book is somewhat exaggerated. Marko Kljajic liked to exaggerate a little bit, particularly because the money for the publication of this book was received from the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia. It's not true that she was beaten by iron bars.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. They did not break down the door with iron bars and they did not beat her with iron rods?

A. I cannot say about the door but I saw her a couple of days later and I would have surely noticed if she had sustained injuries inflicted by rods.

Q. If you cannot say anything about the door, why did you then say that they rang the doorbell and opened it?

JUDGE MAY: Our time is limited. We've been over this incident. The witness has described it. Now, move on to something else.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In Marko Kljajic's report I have a report here, a medical report. It's a photocopy, it's not very legible, but it's possible to get the book itself.

So do you know who are these friends of yours who broke down the parish house door, the parish house door in Petro Varadin with rods?

A. They are not any friends of mine. I explained to the Honourable Court my role in this incident. It was up to me to tell Milan Popivoda [sic] when Marko Kljajic is not at home, to tell him when he would be absent for a longer time. When I say "longer time," I mean more than a day ¹⁹⁷⁵⁵ or two.

Q. Do you know that book -- from -- from the -- book -- in the book it says there was a man who lived opposite the street, in a house across the street, and he came and -- because the man heard the noise, he came to the house and he rescued her. And then in the book it says they managed to overcome her because -- they didn't manage to overcome her. She continued to fight. But in the book it says that they managed to beat up this man too?

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop this. This is one incident, a relatively small one, although important obviously for those involved and serious enough at the time. But compared with the amount of evidence this witness has given, you are wasting the time of the Tribunal. We've heard what you've put. Now, either you move on to something else or this examination is brought to an end. It's a matter for you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is it true that one of those attackers was Mirko Stankovic?

JUDGE MAY: Very well. I'm going to consider stopping this. You have been told to move on. You have declined to do so. We're going to consider whether this whole cross-examination doesn't come to an end.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, I have very important questions.

[Trial Chamber confers]

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt. I suspect you're just about to announce are decision, but before you do, may I make one contribution to the concerns that the Chamber has expressed about ^{19756 BLANK PAGE 19765} cross-examination by the accused. It is always possible that the accused, knowing the pattern of the Trial Chamber in allowing an equal amount of time for cross-examination to examination-in-chief takes time with what is irrelevant in order to justify after the event, as it were, the limited time he might spend on the really material issues. Here, the meetings of which evidence has been given by this witness are topics that it really is important that the accused should deal with, and indeed under the Rules of the Tribunal could almost be compelled to deal with if he is to cross-examine at all, and obviously we would be very anxious that he should by one means or another bring his attention to those topics and put his case.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Very well. You've got one hour and ten minutes left. During that time, if you challenge any form of the conversation which you had, which took place in your presence and you were involved in, if you don't challenge that, we will except the account which the witness gives as accurate. You must understand that. So if you're challenging that, you must do so or it will be accepted as accurate. Now, you can tell us, if there is, what the relevance of the minute detail of this particular attack on Mr. Kljajic's mother is. What is the relevance of the detail as to whether iron poles were used or what happened? What's the relevance of that? And if it's relevant, we'll consider allowing you to continue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course I am disputing not only this witness's statement but this witness as a whole. The relevance lies ¹⁹⁷⁶⁶ in the fact that the witness speaking about this incident which really was an individual incident said that the press wrote about it in order to frighten other Croats, and that is why I'm putting to him the question whether our press wrote about it in order to frighten other Croats or the press wrote about it in order to condemn this crime that happened. Did it write about it in order to promote such violence or to the contrary, to condemn this crime so that it would not be repeated?

JUDGE MAY: You must ask the witness to clarify his statement. If the reports that you say were given were intended to frighten the Croats, if you say that was the reason, why do you say so? What is your reason for saying that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I say that on the basis of the fact that in December 1992, Milovan Popivoda told me that Marko Kljajic, the priest, should be pressed so that he would move out of Vojvodina. And the reason for that was that Reverend Marko Kljajic would dissuade his parishioners from moving out to Croatia. He persuaded them to stay on their hearths and reserve their ethnic identity. In my statement, regarding that event, I mentioned it, but what I basically wanted to say was that the political objective of that event was for the remaining Croats in Vojvodina to start to think in the following way: If we see what they're doing to the reverend, what are they going to do to us?

Reverend Marko Kljajic told me after that, "I am not going to move out, even if they kill me on our own hearth."

So the details on which the accused is insisting, such as the iron ¹⁹⁷⁶⁷ bars or whatever, are not important. The political nature of that -- of the event is important.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I am asking you, did the press write about if in such a way as to condemn this event, expressing general condemnation of that event? Did you look at the press from that time? Did the press condemn this event?

A. Of course officially it did condemn this act, but the political message behind that was very clear. What good is it to some victim if the perpetrators will be sentenced if they get killed?

Q. You're saying the press used to do that to frighten Croats. If the press condemned that, how can you say that something else was behind that?

A. The purpose was to inform the public what happened to the reverend and so that the other parishioners would start thinking along the lines of: If this is what they're doing to the reverend, what are they going to do to us? It doesn't matter to a person if they're killed later what will happen later, whether this act would be condemned or not.

Q. What, according to you, would happen if the press did not write about an event? What would have happened if the press had ignored such an event?

A. There were many such attacks. You know that very well.

Q. I don't know that very well. Quite the opposite. We looked after all of the citizens in Serbia, Muslims, Croats, and members of all ethnicities, so that is precisely why I don't know about that. I don't know that there was any violence. ¹⁹⁷⁶⁸

A. Your Honours, I am keeping to your instructions. I do not wish to enter into discussion with the accused here. As far as the question regarding the writing of the press, I said that there were political objectives, and I replied to that and if something is unclear, then I will reply to that.

Q. Please tell me, did the press condemn this event or not?

A. Yes, formally they did. Nobody was gleeful about it in the press. They did condemn it, yes.

Q. There is no point in continuing on along these lines with this question any more.

Could you please tell us about this so-called diary of yours? Do you have a diary or do you not have a diary?

A. I don't have it at the moment. Nobody asked for it. The investigators, when they visited me at my house were able to see it. I don't have it here. Only later after I came to a certain place was I asked about this diary. I'm speaking generally, in general terms like this so we do not have to move into a private session.

Q. That is not important. I do not wish to move into a private session. But you do not have a diary, is that so?

A. Of course. I don't have it now. I didn't think I would need it here.

Q. Would you be able to obtain it?

A. I think, Your Honour, that we already talked about this during private session.

Q. Does that mean that your diary has been destroyed? ¹⁹⁷⁶⁹

A. Well, we could say that, yes.

Q. So you do not have a diary.

A. I think I already answered this question.

Q. And these notes allegedly which are extracts from your diary, you copied from that diary; is that right?

A. A part was copied, and a part were just reminders to me about certain things so that I would not forget to talk about them, and this is obvious when you look at the notes.

Q. Very well.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I don't know whether there is any need to move into private session, but in the accompanying document to these alleged notes, it says that the witness provided the following explanation: "[In English] Rewrote from my original diary when I was preparing myself for" -- [No Interpretation] -- "[In English] I left the original ..." [Interpretation] And so on. I'm not going to identify this now. And he says that the diary was destroyed after his departure but that these notes can be of use.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So you don't have any proof that you had a diary at all from which you would have been able to make these notes?

A. The diary was on the table at my house in front of the investigators on two occasions.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the accused, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But the investigators did not instruct you that you needed to ¹⁹⁷⁷⁰ bring the diary with you? They didn't give you any specific instructions about this document that you had? They didn't tell you that you need to bring the diary with you when you come to The Hague, is that what your sea saying?

A. Nobody told me I had to bring the diary with me.

Q. Nobody told you that?

A. That's right. I agree with what you have just said now.

Q. You did not have a diary at all?

A. Your Honour, I did not say that. The accused, as usual, is lying.

Q. I think it's quite the opposite. It is incredible that somebody's proving something with something that they allegedly copied from something and then say that they had destroyed the original.

JUDGE MAY: That's all by way of comment.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, you accept documents here which are in fact not documents. That's up to you and it's your method. I'm not going to involve myself in that. But it's quite clear that he doesn't have the diary.

JUDGE MAY: That is another comment. We've heard what the witness said. We'll have to make our minds up about it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. NICE: And, Your Honour, I'm quite prepared to call the investigator who was at the witness's house to say whether there was indeed a diary apparent to him existed at that time.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It could have been the Bible or ¹⁹⁷⁷¹ anything else, the Holy Scriptures on the book -- on the table or anything else. Why would somebody destroy a piece of evidence which they rely on? But let's go on to the contents.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. On page 5, paragraph 5 of your statement, you say that many influential people often visited the casino, and among them you mention my name too. That's right, isn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, tell me this. When was it that I visited the casino?

A. In the first weeks of March 1993.

Q. And you made a note of that in your diary, did you?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Let me now ask you something quite specific. When one keeps a diary, generally speaking, that in itself implies dates. So a diary is kept on a daily basis usually, day by day. So what date was I there then in your casino? What does it say about that in your diary? What was the date you had this entry in when you say I visited this casino. Do you have a date? If you say it's a diary you must have dates and entries.

A. It wasn't an official diary. It was my own private diary, Your Honours, which I would put entries in from time to time. It's true that people sometimes stick to dates, but they're usually adolescents who have a lot of time to do a lot of writing in their diaries.

Q. Well, many famous people throughout the world who keep diaries write dates in their diaries and that's why the book is called a diary in ¹⁹⁷⁷² the first place.

A. They write official diaries. I didn't say it was an official diary. It was my private diary. Of course I did have official records too.

Q. So you don't have any date? That's right, isn't it, no dates?

A. I think we have located the time, pinpointed the time close enough.

Q. All right. Fine. Now, assume that you don't know that I never in my life visited a casino of any kind either in my own country or abroad.

A. I didn't say that the accused was in the casino itself. I said that he was on the premises of MP Royal, which has a casino, cafeteria, and restaurant within its complex. I didn't say that you were in the casino and least of all did I say that you were there to gamble.

Q. All right. That's fine. So I was in the cafeteria, was I?

A. The cafeteria or restaurant.

Q. All right. Cafeteria or restaurant. Now, you also say that a meeting was held there.

A. Yes.

Q. Then you go on to say Vucelic, Kertes, Stanisic, Popivoda, you mention all these names. Kekovic, Pankov, and yourself. Is that right? Have I omitted anyone?

A. Yes. Vesko Vukotic. You omitted Vesko Vukotic.

Q. What did you say?

A. Vesko Vukotic.

Q. Right. Vesko Vukotic as well. So I had a meeting with ¹⁹⁷⁷³ Vesko Vukotic as well, did I?

A. No. He was sitting there. I didn't say you had a meeting with him.

Q. Just let me find my notes about this matter and what you said yesterday. Right. Here I have it.

You say that I came from the provincial board of the Socialist Party of Vojvodina?

A. The Socialist Party of Serbia, the provincial board of Vojvodina.

Q. Right. The provincial board of the Socialist Party of Serbia and Vojvodina. Very well. Now, do you know what my -- what the position I held was in 1993?

A. The president of the Republic of Serbia. And you were the party chief. Whether that was your official title or whether it was frozen at that time, but any way, you were the number one man in the party.

Q. But I was the president of the republic at all events; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Fine. Now, tell me this: As you were a citizen of Novi Sad at the time generally speaking, I don't mean that particular day, date, week month, or whatever, but generally speaking, did you ever happen to see what it's like when the president of the republic arrives? Not to the town, any town, but to the town of Novi Sad, what does it generally look like?

A. Well, I saw several of your arrivals in Novi Sad.

Q. All right. Now, did you happen to note that there was always several thousand citizens out in the streets to greet me; right? ¹⁹⁷⁷⁴

A. Not always. When it was a classical working visit, then there weren't. But when the people were brought in from the other settlements, then there were people there.

Q. All right. I don't remember at any time when they weren't out in the streets, but there were so many inhabitants of Novi Sad I needn't go into that question with you.

Do you know that when the -- from the time the doors of the car are open up until the time when I return to the car there is always a large number of journalists, reporters, cameramen, photographers, and so on which record my arrival, my stay, and my departure from the minute I set foot on the pavement from my car? It is a political event, the whole of my stay until I get into the car again and drive off to Belgrade. Do you know that? Are you aware of that?

A. Well, I don't know what every working visit of yours looked like to any town or party organisation in the country. I describe what this particular event looked like and your arrival at the Royal.

Q. Mr. C-048, I don't want -- let's not tire ourselves with all these stories of yours and fabrications. In March 1993, I was not in Novi Sad at all, not even in the provincial board of the Socialist Party. I was never there then. According to well-checked-out information by my associates, they looked through my agendas and in March I was not in Novi Sad at all. I was in October and November during the election campaign later on. But all this is something you have fabricated. You just thought it up.

A. Your Honour, I was not thought anything up. It's the truth and ¹⁹⁷⁷⁵ there are workers who can confirm this, employees who can bear it out. And I sincerely hope that individuals who were present at the meeting, that they will remember very well. When prodded, they will remember.

Q. I assume that the directing done by the opposite side there, this is part of their job, just as it is to prove that today is Friday, for example.

JUDGE MAY: What's the question? What's the question? Are you suggesting this is fabricated, this evidence, is that it?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, in March 1993, Mr. May, I was not in Novi Sad at all.

JUDGE MAY: You've said that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Witness, can you imagine that the president of the republic arrives to a political event of any kind, to the headquarters of the Socialist Party of Vojvodina or Serbia for Vojvodina, rather, and that he is able to go unnoticed with a few of his associates and go to no more, nor less than a casino? Don't you assume that there would not be a single newspaper in Yugoslavia which would not bring this news and say President Milosevic went to a casino, et cetera, et cetera?

JUDGE MAY: This is not a question for the witness. This is by way of comment. He says that you were there, and he reports your conversation. Now, if you've got some questions about it, more questions, you can put it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You even go so far as to claim that I came from the provincial ¹⁹⁷⁷⁶ board together with Stanisic, Popivoda, Kekovic, and all the rest; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, of this list and I've made a note of it, a note of the names as you claim, that Stanisic was there, Popivoda and Kekovic, they are members of the DB; right? Is that what you say?

A. Marko Kekovic was director of Television Novi Sad.

Q. Just Stanisic and Popivoda were DB men then, right?

A. Yes. Milan Popivoda [sic] to be specific, not to mix him up with Milutin.

Q. Well, I can't mix them up because I don't know either of them.

A. You know them very well.

Q. All right. You say that and that's why you're testifying here. But do you know, for example, that never at any party meetings of any kind did Jovica Stanisic attend? He never attended any party meetings. What did he have to do at a party meeting at all to which I had allegedly come in Novi Sad? You construed that. You fabricated it all, that too. And then you say allegedly that he came with me to your casino from that party meeting.

JUDGE MAY: What's the question?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The question is why the witness is lying, Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, but move on. Ask another question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, to move on, you go on to quote my words, what I said; is that right? ¹⁹⁷⁷⁷

A. Yes, of course.

Q. Then you go on to say that I just said subtly, that I was -- they were to be subtle; right? I wrote down the word "subtle."

A. Yes, of course. This isn't anything funny to me, Your Honours.

Q. Well, it is funny to me, Mr. C-048, because I never use that word in my vocabulary. And if I was to use something similar, I'd use a Serbian word. You have underestimated the differences in the level of education between the two of us. And I assume also the difference in the Serbian language and all its diversity that I use when the person told you to write down that word that I did so.

JUDGE MAY: The question is this: Did the accused use the word "subtle"?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I don't see why this shouldn't be a Serbian word.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. How -- perhaps you could just -- this is one matter I want to clarify. How were you able, C-048, to remember this conversation? You say you made your entry two or three days later. Were you present in the room all the time? How -- and if not, how were you able to remember what was said and report it as it were word-for-word?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I was present in that room. My role and function was the kind I have already described.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So from the aspects of fact, the factual situation, I challenge that wholly. I was never in Novi Sad. But let's look at the contents and substance. ¹⁹⁷⁷⁸ Doesn't it seem to you to be amazing, Mr. C-048, as you say that I allegedly on the occasion went on to explain some sort of Greater Serbia plan, that's what you say, in the spring of 1993. Is that what you say; right?

A. Yes, although the official beginning of spring is March.

Q. All right then. Now, do you know that that was precisely when the Vance-Owen Plan was topical and running?

A. Of course you held official negotiations with the international community behind their backs, behind the backs of the international community something quite different was going on.

Q. All right. When you say that I drove for the Vance-Owen Plan to be adopted, that I at the same time made plans for a Greater Serbia, is that what you're saying?

A. Your Honours, I stated here the sentences I heard uttered from the conversation. Now, what the accused had in his mind at the time I'm not is a psychiatrist to say.

Q. Mr. C-048, you never heard a conversation of that kind at all. You couldn't have.

A. I did hear the conversation.

Q. It never took place, so you couldn't have heard it. And as to the direction by the other side, it's difficult to bear out. You seem to have forgotten that I was president of the republic, and therefore, nothing could have been remained a secret or confidential, anything of that kind.

A. Your Honours, it's no secret. Many citizens of Novi Sad know that you were in the provincial board and the casino. Canak [phoen] remembers ¹⁹⁷⁷⁹ that. I don't say he was there, but he remembers, and so do other honourable citizens.

Q. You have an excellent witness here, quite excellent. It seems you have mixed up some other things too, but there's no sense in us discussing nonsensical things of this kind.

You said that in 1993, for example, it was allegedly Kertes who explained that he was having problems with communicating with Babic, whereas Hadzic was a good man, good guy. Is that what you said?

A. He spoke about the problems he was having in communicating with him up until then, and he mentioned the previous period, the events in the previous period. And you know about those events too.

Q. So Babic is bad and Hadzic is good. That's what Kertes told you, is it?

JUDGE MAY: That's a comment.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Why a comment? I have made a note of it. I have made a note of the fact that Kertes said this was in 1993 and that he had communication problems with Babic, whereas Hadzic --

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Not good and bad.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is that right?

JUDGE MAY: Not good and bad. But what's the question?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, my question, for example, is this: Did you, Mr. C-048, mix up Vance's plan and the Vance-Owen Plan, and do you know the difference at all between the two? ¹⁹⁷⁸⁰

A. Your Honours, I'm not here to speak about the differences between the Vance Plan and the Vance-Owen Plan. In this specific case, I heard Kertes say that Goran Hadzic was a good guy, that he listened, obedient, because the other one did not wish to be obedient. So they had a lot of problems to get him away from the position he was in and then prevail upon him to sign the plan.

Mr. Kertes, in that context, comparing those two individuals, said that Goran Hadzic was a former warehouse clerk but was much better because he didn't meddle in other people's affairs, and he was obedient and listened to instructions.

Q. Well, I don't think you're a partner to discuss the differences between the two plans. That's quite certain. But do you happen to recall a notorious fact, and that is that the Vance Plan in 1991 and 1992 related to the areas under UN protection in Croatia and that the Vance-Owen Plan related to Bosnia-Herzegovina? Do you know that at least?

JUDGE MAY: What has that got to do with the witness? All the witness can say is what he heard, and that's what he's done. Now, whether we accept it or not, that's a matter for us. The intricacies of the plan are not for the witness to talk about. Maybe we'll have to consider them. No. He can only say what he heard. Now, let us move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, the point is precisely in that he could not have heard it, because the people he worked with knew the difference and could not have made a mistake of that kind. The only person that could have made the mistake was somebody who knew nothing about either plan. ¹⁹⁷⁸¹

JUDGE MAY: You can make the point. You can make the comment to us when you come to address us on this witness's evidence, but there's no point asking him about these intricacies.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And I'm precisely explaining that there is a point to, because the collocutors did know the difference. It is the witness who mixed up. The collocutors could not have mixed it up.

JUDGE MAY: What do you mean by the collocutors? What are you talking about?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, his collocutors were high-ranking officials of the Socialist party. And Mihalj Kertes, a state official, who would certainly not mix up the Vance Plan and the Vance-Owen Plan as the witness did. Therefore, I'm taking this as proof and evidence that this is not true and correct, that he could have told him something of that kind, but that he construed it all and fabricated it himself.

JUDGE MAY: You've made the point as you've done several times over to us when you address us about it. What he said, what the witness can only answer is this: What's said is that you have made a mistake, either deliberately in reporting this conversation, you've lied about it or you've made a mistake about it. Do you follow? That's what the accused is putting. Now, is that so or not? What is your answer to that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the conversation did take place. Whether Mihalj Kertes said the Vance or the Vance Plan, I consider that to be completely irrelevant. The point of the conversation was to indicate Goran Hadzic's abeyance and the disobedience of Milan Babic. ¹⁹⁷⁸² As for Mihalj Kertes, I don't remember that he held any state function at the time let alone participation in negotiations with the international community. In May or whatever, 1993.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for the accused.

JUDGE MAY: I think it's time to adjourn, in fact. Before we do let me deal with one administrative matter while it's in the Trial Chamber's mind, and that is a change in our sittings for the end of this month. We are going to now sit on the 26th and 27th of May but take the break, the health or the rest break, on the 30th of May, Friday the 30th of May and Monday the 2nd of June. We will also sit on Friday, the 6th of June. I hope that won't lead to inconvenience.

We will adjourn. Twenty minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.17 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.34 p.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Tell me please, Mr. May, how much time have I got left?

JUDGE MAY: Let me look. 40 minutes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's move on for the sake of efficiency.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. C-048, do you know who Dragan Perac is?

A. He was an employee of the security working in the casino from the end of 1995, and he was one of the leading people in Vojislav Seselj's radical party in Novi Sad and his nickname was Pera. ¹⁹⁷⁸³

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not hear the question.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. He didn't work there throughout this period but from the end of --

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Can he confirm what you say as to who visited the casino and so on?

JUDGE MAY: Let's have a break between question and answer, please, because the --

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters missed some of the dates that the witness mentioned.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I asked you, can he confirm what you say about who visited the casino and whether it was these people who came who attended the meetings and so on?

A. The person named Dragan Perac can testify only to events from the end of 1995 when he became an employee of MP Royal. Whether he will agree to do so as he's one of the leaders of the Serbian Radical Party in Novi Sad and what he will say, I don't know. But I can tell you from when he was employed there.

Q. Have you heard of the companies Luka Di Konte and Yason?

A. Luka Di Konte, Dejan was the owner. He was an invalid. And as to Optika, it was Yason, Y-A-S-O-N, who was the owner.

Q. Well, I have it in Serbian so I didn't know what the English spelling was. You know about these two companies, don't you?

A. Yes. The second company was an optician shop selling glasses. ¹⁹⁷⁸⁴

Q. Is it true you visited these companies, racketeering there?

A. This is a lie. A big lie.

Q. Very well. Were you ever in prison in Zrenjanin?

A. Only --

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let's go into private session.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁹⁷⁸⁵

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[Open session]

JUDGE MAY: What the witness said, I think, was that others would corroborate other than others will, but we can clarify.

THE REGISTRAR: We're --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Are we in open session?

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. A little while ago in connection with my challenging what you said about this meeting you mentioned, you said that some other participants at this meeting will be able to corroborate your testimony and testify about this. Does this mean that you know what other people are going to come here and testify falsely against me, thus doing their dirty laundry? Is there some organisation where this is known?

A. Your Honour, I think the accused is asking me something I cannot answer. I said only what I know. I know that many criminals have their memories restored only when they end up in prison. So Milorad Vucelic and other people will probably recall some facts after spending some time in ¹⁹⁷⁸⁶ prison. But, Your Honours, I have had no other contacts with the Prosecution apart from my statements, and they only asked me for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Milosevic, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. -- What you meant. You said at one point that Vukotic, your employer, criticised my policy as a policy of mass repression. Did this refer to Kosovo?

A. Yes.

Q. And that he explained to you that it was much more efficient to achieve goals by individual murders.

A. Yes. More efficient, and it didn't cause problems with the international community.

Q. So he told you this in his criticism of me engaging in mass repression rather than individual liquidations. What kind of mass repressions were we engaging in in Kosovo?

A. There were no democratic institutions for the Kosovo Albanians. Police force was used on a large scale. The demonstrations of 1990 were put down, blood was spilled, and Mr. Kadriu was liquidated.

Q. You ascribe this to the service?

A. I ascribe this to the policy of which you were the leader. He emphasised to me the methods, the differences in the methods used previously and the methods used by the government which was headed by you. And this especially referred to the period beginning in mid-1995. And you know that since the end of 1997, since Djukanovic split from Bulatovic, he ¹⁹⁷⁸⁷ criticised your policy.

Q. Well, we have no time to go into topics connected with Montenegro. But you said that these men that you mentioned who all belonged to political and security structures - I noted this down yesterday - had a close relationship with me until around 1995 and that after that they complained that my wife was hindering their actions. Is this correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, to clarify this, because my wife had no personal relations with them, did this hindering imply what she was stating and writing in public throughout all this time against inter-ethnic conflicts, against the rejection of peace plans, against the war? Is this what you meant by hindering?

A. Your Honours, I do not feel called upon to comment on the articles his wife wrote in the newspapers, but Milorad Vucelic and Milan Popivoda [sic] told me that the wife of Slobodan Milosevic was acting against them. And this was a classical internecine struggle for power. And the director for radio and television Serbia said the accused's wife was responsible for the replacement. His name was Vucetic. Milan Vucetic. He said that your wife was exerting pressure on the way he was editing the news programmes.

Q. Well, you said that he was replaced for other reasons.

A. Well, that's what was presented in public, but he was replaced for financial misconduct.

Q. Do you know that my wife had no contacts with him?

A. Well, I know she didn't like him. That was quite clear, and he ¹⁹⁷⁸⁸ told me that on several occasions. She didn't like him or any other member of that lobby. But I don't feel called upon to comment on this.

Q. Well, you were a student. You probably read the newspapers. My wife published several books. I assume that you had occasion to familiarise yourself with what I'm talking about. And everything she said ran counter to the behaviour of the people with whom you were associating.

A. It's true that Milorad Vucelic said the Dayton Accords signified capitulation and not an agreement, and they criticised you not for waging a Greater Serbian policy but because you were not successful in implementing it to the end.

Q. So that was the policy I conducted, but I didn't carry it through to the end.

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. All right. Very well.

A. They criticised especially you, Zivko Soklovacki in the same context. He was a local functionary, and he counted Montenegrins in positions in the magazine Duga in August 1995, an interview with Soklovacki appeared.

Q. Well, now we are diverging from the main topic and I'm not interested in this interview.

You said that in a conversation with Popivoda in 1996, in June or July, you asked him whether we would give Eastern Slavonia to the Croats, whether we would surrender it to them.

A. The conversation was in July 1996, and the context was dislocating the state security centres from eastern Croatia to Vojvodina. ¹⁹⁷⁸⁹

Q. So you said, "well, we're not going to leave that area that the Croats, are we?"

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. And he said, no, that he was leaving some men of his there.

A. That he was leaving an operative network that would function in a different manner, and he explained how, through infiltrating the transitional administration of the UN, especially the police and other services, plus classical intelligence networks such as every police has, ending in receptionists, waiters, taxi drivers, and so on.

Q. Very well. What you said about receptionists and taxi drivers, let's not go into that. But do you know that in July 1996, the authorities of Eastern Slavonia and those in Zagreb had long ago signed an agreement on peaceful reintegration and that the international administration was already in place there and that the transitional period was already under way?

A. The agreement was signed in November 1995. It began to be implemented on the 15th of January, 1996, and the deadline was one year plus one year. That is two years. And of course a certain period of time is needed in order to implement an agreement. And transferring the security of Serbia was -- from there was completed in June 1996.

Q. Very well. But there is no doubt that implementation of the agreement started six months before you had this conversation. So there was no doubt that Eastern Slavonia was to be reintegrated into Croatia and that under this agreement the Serbian population of Eastern Slavonia had some special rights. They had the right to participate in the government ¹⁹⁷⁹⁰ and so on. Were you aware of this?

A. Yes.

Q. How then was it possible for you to ask him what you allegedly asked him? We're not going to surrender Eastern Slavonia to the Croats. Six months after the beginning of the implementation of the agreement on reintegration?

A. My question referred to the intelligence contacts, because he was talking about the dislocation of the state security centres. My question to Milan Popivoda [sic] meant we're not going to give them intelligence control over these areas. I wasn't referring to military control.

Q. Oh, I see. So you were speaking about intelligence control. I see.

Well, in relation to the Republic of Serbian Krajina and so on, you say that this was occupied territory. So how is it possible, since you know about the accords that were reached which included the rights of the Serbs in that area, how could you consider that they occupied the territory on which they live?

A. I can justify my position that this was occupied territory of the Republic of Croatia because in late 1991, a Serbian aggression took place against the territory in which the Serbian police took part along with local rebel Serbs, many of whom were misled by false promises made by the Serbian authorities, although the Croatian democratic government guaranteed all their ethnic and civil rights.

Your Honour, let me continue. When I say "occupation," according to the dictionary definition, occupation means that the currency use was ¹⁹⁷⁹¹ the dinar. This was Serbian currency. Serbian telephone extensions were used. Traffic between Eastern Slavonia and Serbia took place as if it was a single country. There was no border control. That's why I used the word "occupation," although officially it was called the UNPA zone because the resolution was passed in a period where the SFRY still existed.

Q. In 1992 these were UN protected zones and there was probably a reason for that I assume, but there's no need to go into that with you in relation to your testimony.

Since we have to speed up, let's move on. Yesterday during your testimony you said that the state security, as a form of special warfare against Croatia, infiltrated onto Croatian territory large amounts of narcotics, heroin, and engaged in monstrous activity which shocked you, as you said. Is this correct?

A. Yes, that's what I said. And I explained what I heard from whom and when. I explained how I know this, and I talked about evidence of 600 kilogrammes of heroin in a safe belonging to the state security.

Q. Well, all I wanted to establish was that you were shocked by this, and you mentioned this yesterday, and there is no doubt about it. Is this correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Very well. Then please explain to me, because were this true it really would be monstrous and would be really shocking. How is it possible that this important fact which shocked you so much is something that you never even mentioned in the statement that you made prior to your testimony and that you recalled it only yesterday and thought of ¹⁹⁷⁹² explaining it only yesterday, this special form of warfare?

A. Your Honours, it wasn't just yesterday that I remembered this. I the investigators about this I left Serbia. And the reason I didn't mention it before was that certain people were, unfortunately, still at large then. Now they are where they belong. And the reasons I didn't speak about this on the territory of the Republic of Serbia was for my own security, because this is something for which one can be killed.

Q. You could have said everything. But you did not say anything. You were not able to say anything about this issue with the drugs.

A. As I said, it's the most terrible thing that I have ever heard. And because of that fact, I believe that I was under the greatest danger. I specifically said what I heard and from whom I heard it.

MR. NICE: The reference to drugs may only have been in the version of the summary served on Monday. In fact, it had been raised with those proofing this witness throughout last week.

JUDGE MAY: It wasn't in the original statement.

MR. NICE: It wasn't in the original statement. It wasn't in the earlier version of the proofing notes that the accused received, and in fact it had been raised with those assisting me throughout the previous week.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did I write down correctly, Mr. C-048, the following: The criminals which you mentioned during your testimony are Vukotic, Asanin, a certain Batko, I didn't remember his name, then Draskovic, Sobot? Did you ¹⁹⁷⁹³ mention anyone else of the criminals?

A. Arkan.

Q. Arkan.

A. Your former associates are financial criminals, but if you're thinking of convicted persons, then mainly that would be the ones that you just mentioned.

Q. So, I'm talking about the criminals whom you mentioned?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. What links do I have with any of those criminals?

A. I don't believe I'm competent to answer those questions. I explained the other facts and the circumstances. If the Trial Chamber thinks that I need to explain that, I can do that and I can briefly answer this question.

JUDGE MAY: No. Unless the accused has a specific question about it.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Any kind of my relationship with any of those criminals whom you mentioned or with any criminal that you had ever heard about.

A. In early March 1993, I personally, at the meeting where you yourself were present, also Mr. Vesko Vukotic was present, and also through the public media and according to what Vucelic said, Raznjatovic stood three rows behind you during Badza's funeral, which I doubt that he would be able to do had he not enjoyed such trust from you.

Q. Well, I doubt that that would mean anything. Zeljko Raznjatovic, ¹⁹⁷⁹⁴ I saw only once in my life when he was a deputy in the national assembly, and that was an occasion when I saw all the other deputies in the hall of the national assembly.

But I'm asking you do you have any knowledge of any of my contacts with any of those criminals that you have mentioned? For example, I don't even know what this --

JUDGE MAY: He's answered that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. -- Man looks like.

JUDGE MAY: He's referred to the meeting in early March.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Could you please tell me something about this drug Mafia that operated in Belgrade and Zagreb? Does that mean that the Belgrade and the Croatian services cooperated or that the Belgrade service cooperated with the Croatian Mafia? Explain to us what this is. How was this possible?

A. I will explain. According to what Darko Asanin and Milan Popivoda [sic] told me, Jovica Stanisic conceived the idea of getting large quantities of heroin into Croatia. This task was given to Darko Asanin who then organised the distribution through the checkpoint at Orasje. Of course --

Q. Where is Orasje?

A. Where is Orasje?

Q. Yes.

A. In Bosanska Posavina.

Q. In Bosnia-Herzegovina? ¹⁹⁷⁹⁵

A. Yes in the republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Q. Yes. So that we can clarify that for those who are listening to this?

A. Yes. And Orasje was in the hands of the Croats as far as I know. At the moment it's part of the Croatian part of the Bosniak-Croatian federation. How it changed hands during the war I'm not able to specify.

I said through the checkpoint in Orasje the drugs enter the Republic of Croatia. The person who did that was Zeljko Sobot who later was a victim of the Serbian and Albanian Mafia conflict in Croatia.

Q. So did this Sobot belong to the Serbian or to the Albanian drug Mafia?

A. I said that he belonged to the Serbian drug Mafia but he was killed in a conflict between the Albanian and Serbian Mafia in Croatia. There were some other people who were involved in that from the intelligence and criminal milieu with whom I had intense relations with during my time in Zagreb during the NATO bombardment of Serbia.

Q. And what were you doing with the chief of this intelligence service in Croatia?

A. He was the president of the Croatia football team.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch the name.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And he was a person that the newspapers wrote about. Our contacts were exclusively relating to sports.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So it arises from this that neither the Belgrade nor the Zagreb ¹⁹⁷⁹⁶ police prosecuted any drug transactions?

A. They did prosecute that, but it is well known that specific proof is required for that. A certain group was processed only in late 1999 in this regard, out of whom nine -- out of the nine members, six of them were of Serbian ethnicity and they were found to have connections with the Serbian Security Service. One of them was Zeljko Sobot.

Q. And he is a Serb or a Croat?

A. He is a Serb.

Q. And criminals, particularly the DRUG Mafia, as far as I can judge, don't have any religion or any citizenship. They only have money, and that is their only faith.

A. I would agree with that. It is true they had financial motives, but it is also true that this was the idea of Jovica Stanisic with the idea of conducting special warfare, weakening morale, and also in order to stimulate other kinds of crimes which are prompted by the drug Mafia when the majority of the territory was under occupation and half of it was destroyed.

Q. How do you get the idea at all that this originated from Jovica Stanisic?

A. Milan Popivoda [sic] told me this.

Q. So he was so powerful that he could infiltrate drugs into a neighbouring state?

A. He engaged criminals to do that and you said yourself that there is no faith or ethnicity in this regard, that money is the only guide or motive. ¹⁹⁷⁹⁷

Q. Out of all of those that participated in these narcotics transactions, you say that Sobot was killed, Asanin was killed. Are there any of them alive who would know anything about that except you?

A. People from the criminal milieu, it is quite normal for them to get killed and have a short life.

Q. Is there anyone alive who could testify about this? You're talking about only the things that you have heard about, about dead people or from dead people.

A. Mr. Milan Popivoda [sic] is alive today.

Q. As far as I know, Mr. Popivoda is still working in the state security service.

A. He's working at an institute in Belgrade and he's waiting to retire. Mr. Veselin Vukotic is also alive. He's on the run but he's alive.

Q. Yes. You talked about the Special Operations Unit. Do you know that this unit was formed in early 1996?

A. No. It was formed in 1992.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, can I interrupt for one second while we have a passage on the screen. At line 13: 09: 30. I I've been taken to task for not raising references in the transcript to Milan Popivoda [sic]. I think you'll find from the witness that it's not Milan Popivoda [sic] as it appears on the screen but a different name, Milovan, and there is some lack of clarity in the way the words spoken have been recorded. It apparently happened on several occasions earlier in the transcript.

JUDGE MAY: Is that right? It's Milovan. ¹⁹⁷⁹⁸

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it is Milovan Popivoda, Your Honours.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let us clarify when we're talking about Popivoda. I understood that you are not accusing him of participating in the -- in drug trafficking.

A. I only said what he told me. I'm not saying that he did it. I'm just bringing out facts here and information that I heard from other people. This is what I'm doing. I don't believe that it is up to me to accuse anyone of anything. I'm here in the function of a witness and in no other function.

Q. What you claim now is what you heard from Popivoda, who did not participate in that himself; is that right?

A. And from people such as Darko Asanin who did personally participate in that.

Q. Well, he's dead so he cannot participate in that. You mentioned Bubanj Potok. Bubanj Potok is a regular military training centre. Do you know that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. So, volunteers who joined the JNA were able to go to Bubanj Potok. Do you know that?

A. I never went to Bubanj Potok in the autumn of 1991 so that I would be able to answer such a question.

Q. Very well. You mentioned some paramilitary formations, and you mentioned Mirko Jovic, Bokan. I don't know who else. White Eagles and so ¹⁹⁷⁹⁹ on.

A. Yes, that's right. And I forgot to say that in early 1992, in the place of Bacin they committed the murder of 45 elderly persons.

Q. Do you know that all of those paramilitary formations that you mentioned belonged to the opposition parties in Serbia at the time?

A. Mirko Jovic had a completely peripheral opposition party, and as far as Bokan is concerned, I'm not aware that he had any kind of party. Maybe a tiny party. They didn't even have deputies in the Assembly.

Q. You talked about the lobby from Backa Palanka.

A. Yes.

Q. And you mentioned Kertes, Pankov, Stanisic, Vucelic, Kekovic, Popivoda, Frenki, Brana Crncevic. What I'm asking you, does Brana Crncevic have anything to do, Brana Crncevic, an author, have anything to do with Backa Palanka? He's not from Backa Palanka. He's not a criminal. He's not I don't know what else which you could here attribute to him.

What does Vucelic have anything to do or Kekovic or Popivoda, neither of whom are from Backa Palanka or Franko Simatovic who is not from Backa Palanka either. What kind of Backa Palanka lobby is this? But let's start from Brana Crncevic. Do you know that Brana Crncevic is a writer?

A. He was also a deputy of the SPS and was a member of the either main or the Executive Board but he had an important post in the party and he was a deputy in the federal parliament.

Q. I think that he was a deputy but that has nothing to do with it. ¹⁹⁸⁰⁰ What has an author have to do with any kind of lobby? A militant lobby at that. Is he maybe a criminal?

A. I placed him in the party apparatus because he was a deputy in the Assembly and he was very close in the way he thought with all the of mentioned persons and it was horrible to read his articles and his comments. On one occasion he stated on television, I am quoting the following, "If it's necessary for Serbia, then it's okay to lie as well."

Q. I don't understand the context of this Backa Palanka lobby. What does Brana Crncevic have anything to do with the Backa Palanka lobby?

A. Well, he got an Audi 6 vehicle from Kertes. The term Backa Palanka lobby does not refer to people who are born there or live there but it refers to a group of people. The actual name Backa Palanka lobby comes from the fact that certain people happened to be from Backa Palanka. This is Pankov, Kertes, Jovica Stanisic who was from nearby, but the others were not too far from there, Vrbas, Kula, Crvenka.

Q. Vucelic is from Crvenka. So probably on weekends he would go to visit his mother from Belgrade. He would stop by to have coffee at your Royal, which is in the centre of Novi Sad. Perhaps he did and perhaps he did not. I don't know that. But what is wrong in that or what is wrong in the fact that he said that the television is showing a patriotic programme?

A. Your Honours, I spoke here about circumstances, about people, about what certain people said in certain circumstances, and I don't believe that I am competent to evaluate what this has to do with anything else. If you feel that I should answer this question in a slightly ¹⁹⁸⁰¹ modified way, perhaps then I will, but I'm not sure about the gist of the question.

Q. Could you please tell me then in August 1992, you were talking about some kind of a meeting which they had. You said who was present. You said that Stanisic came and talked about the forthcoming London conference, and then there was discussion about what should be conjoined to Serbia and so on. Is this right?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know what the London conference was about? Do you know that it wasn't about any kind of territories but that these were political negotiations? Are you aware of this?

A. Of course I'm aware of it. I know that the London conference, the main topic of it, was Bosnia and Herzegovina, but Croatia was also discussed because it was impossible to separate one war from the other war and one event from another.

Q. The London conference dealt with the attempts to achieve peace. There was no discussion of any territories or any kind of changing of the compositions. These were political negotiations. Did you read newspapers at the time?

A. But your objectives were the ones that I said you did. I heard this from the people that I talked about. I don't believe that I'm competent to reply to questions like this, but I will if the courts believe that I should. I talked about the facts that I had heard about.

Q. Well, I don't believe that you are competent about that either, that is why I wonder that you're talking about these facts too. Do you ¹⁹⁸⁰² know who headed the Yugoslav delegation at the London conference?

JUDGE MAY: This is off the point and, Mr. Milosevic, you've got three minutes left if you have any other more relevant questions.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Time goes very quickly.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You said that on that occasion, Stanisic said, and then you quote the same thing which you later wrote down in your alleged diary, that they should act subtly. Is that right? This is what you ascribed to him yesterday?

A. I didn't ascribe anything to anybody. I stated what people said.

Q. So he said also that activity had to be as subtle as possible. So on two different occasions, he and I used the same terminology and that is how you wrote it down.

A. I don't see anything strange in talking in the same manner about the same things.

Q. You talked about how Stanisic at a meeting conveyed a message of mine of some kind not to allow the Croats to come for All Saints Day.

A. Yes, to step up security to prevent any possible surprises.

Q. Do you know that the authorities of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem actually enabled, in cooperation with UNPROFOR at the time, for All Saints Day for citizens who did not live there to be able to come and visit the graves and that actually it was quite the opposite from the way you described it?

A. No, Your Honours. That is not correct. Perhaps for the period of 1996 and 1997, but in 1992 there was a clear marketing action or ¹⁹⁸⁰³ publication action on behalf of the Croat authorities to attempt a mass return to the occupied parts of the territory and people en masse came to those areas and then UNPROFOR had to turn them back.

Q. UNPROFOR?

A. Yes, UNPROFOR. They didn't let them pass because they were afraid that conflicts would inevitably break out.

Q. Very well. So let us clarify that UNPROFOR turned them back.

A. Yes.

Q. Well, we have some other questions. You said that Franko Simatovic was commander of the Red Berets.

A. Yes, of course.

Q. You said that Franko Simatovic was the deputy of Jovica Stanisic; is that right?

A. One of the deputies.

Q. Okay. One of the deputies. So there was nobody in between them. Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic were directly in coordination.

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. So how do you explain your claim that Mihalj Kertes was the connection between the Red Berets and the service, i.e., between Frank Simatovic and Jovica Stanisic? How did now Franko Simatovic who was Stanisic's deputy and Jovica Stanisic be an intermediary like Mihalj Kertes relating to the Red Berets? Is this logical to you?

A. I never said anything like that, Your Honours. I would like to see the transcript where I said that.

Q. We have that in your statement, that he was the political ¹⁹⁸⁰⁴ connection of the Red Berets with the service. This is what you said. So he was an intermediary between Frenki Simatovic and Jovica Stanisic?

A. No, I did not say that.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, this must be your last question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. When we're talking about the Red Berets, do you know that specifically that unit and its members carried out my arrest on the night of the 31st of March, 2001?

A. Your Honours, do I need to answer this question about the arrest of Slobodan Milosevic on March 31, 2001.

JUDGE MAY: No.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's relevant because he's talking about some --

JUDGE MAY: No. It's only something he would have read in the papers anyway.

Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I should like to draw your attention to tab 3 of the evidence in connection with this witness, because I would like to ask some questions in that regard, based on that.

Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

Q. [Interpretation] Witness, you were interviewed on three occasions by the investigators?

JUDGE MAY: Let him have a copy of the document.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] ¹⁹⁸⁰⁵

Q. You have it?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. As I can see from this with investigator Tore Soldal and Michael Stefanovic, you were interviewed three times: On the 16th of May, the 30th of May, and the 13th of June 2002; right?

A. Yes. On the first occasion, just Mr. Tore Soldal was present.

Q. Is it correct that when you interviewed for the first time with these investigators, did you have your diary with you, the diary you kept over a number of years and that you also had the notes that you have presented here now, that you had both those things?

A. No. I took my notes to that first interview, and they saw my diary on two occasions in my home when they were guests.

Q. Did they ask to have possession of the diary? Why didn't they keep it?

A. They didn't ask me if they could keep the diary. Why not, I don't know.

Q. Well, did you explain how you came to make these notes, the notes that are in evidence now?

A. During my statements and conversations to the investigators, I made use of my notes. I showed them the original of the diary and some newspaper articles that came out about me with different photographs. So they were able clearly to see what the notes were and what the diary was.

Q. But you -- they didn't ask you for the diary or to photocopy the diary, did they?

A. This was not feasible technically because I don't have a photocopy ¹⁹⁸⁰⁶ machine at home.

Q. And they didn't ask you to do that?

A. Nobody did, no.

Q. Well, I have the statements that you made to the investigators, and everything you say about the diary. This is all you say: "I kept a diary about all my affairs with the DB, the state security."

A. Yes.

Q. So is that the reason why you didn't hand the diary over to them?

A. No, Mr. Tapuskovic. The reason is that nobody asked for it.

Q. Thank you. I should now like to ask the Judges to look at page 10 of the English version and the BH version is 03276469.

A. Could you repeat the number, please.

Q. 6469 and 6470 are the last digits.

A. You mean the notes.

Q. Yes. This makes up almost three pages, three written pages. On those three pages, that is to say the first page is in blue, marked in blue, and the whole of the next page is almost all in blue except for two sentences in red and then everything ends with a blue colour, blue markings again. Does that mean that on these three pages you write your recollections after ten years and that just that little portion, the little section was introduced and written on the basis of what it says in your diary?

A. Your Honours, I haven't got these markings in colour as to what is at the original and what is not, but I can answer Mr. Tapuskovic's question. I didn't write anything after the passage of ten years, nor did ¹⁹⁸⁰⁷ I construe everything. Everything I say is the truth.

Q. I just asked you about the passage marked in blue. You said when asked by the interviewers that you had jotted that down a few days before you left for the conversation with the investigators, whereas the red passage was extracted from the diary and copied out; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. So that means three days before you came to see the investigators you wrote down everything that has been marked in blue, the passage marked in blue?

A. Yes. I wrote that passage down then. These were my concepts of what I wanted to say because I didn't want to leave anything out. Look at some sentences such as, "The intimidation of Marko [as interpreted] Popivoda," and so on.

Q. I'm asking you about one single sentence marked in red.

A. Tell me which that is.

Q. It is on page 6470.

A. Yes, I've found it.

Q. Take a look at this here. This is how it begins. "Petar Divljakovic told me in person that he was with the Red Berets, that they would create a Greater Serbia." That's what you write in the year 2001.

A. Just a moment, please. Tell me what line that is, what paragraph you're referring to. Page 6470.

Q. The sentence begins with, "Petar Divljakovic," Divljakovic.

A. I don't see the 6470.

MR. NICE: 6469. If Mr. Tapuskovic would turn back to that line, ¹⁹⁸⁰⁸ and it's 12 lines up.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] That's right.

A. You gave me the wrong page number.

Q. All right, Witness. This is what you wrote in the year you did about the Greater Serbia.

Now, the one sentence here, can you tell us how you worked? Why did you introduce this particular sentence in the place you put it in? And it says: "He said that several of them in Borovo Selo had killed Ustashas, Croatian police officers, and had them thrown into the Danube and soon after a comrade of his, Ivo Andric, got killed. I remember on one occasion he showed me his state security service ID card." That's the only portion that you introduce from your diary.

A. Yes.

Q. And all the rest you say when you wrote in 2002 that you wrote it in mid-1992. Why then did you not, when you extracted these things from your diary, why didn't you say when this was jotted down?

A. You mean this beginning with told -- he that rated as to how several of them, that passage? What are you asking me?

Q. What does it just say "mid-1992"? Why didn't you record the exact date if you had it recorded in your diary?

A. I don't see why there should be an a date. I just introduced this at different intervals. I said I didn't record the date.

Q. All right page 5 of the English version now, and it is 6455 in the B/C/S and it says during the summer of 1992. That's how the paragraph begins on page 5. And now everything is marked in red which means that ¹⁹⁸⁰⁹ you're copying out of the diary. There's just one sentence introduced here and you're writing this in the year 2002. "From the conversation, it was easy to deduce that Jovica Stanisic was the main personage among them and he was receiving instructions from Slobodan Milosevic which he himself often emphasised."

How come you didn't write that in 1992? It took you up until 2002 to write that down?

A. Well, why should I? That was understood of its own accord. It's not a fact you could forget.

Q. Thank you. Now we come to page 6 of the English version, and this is marked all in red. There's just one single sentence marked in blue.

A. Could you please give me the B/C/S page number? I haven't got the English version.

Q. The last digits are 6458, I believe, and it is page 6 of the English version. Everything here is marked in red, which means it was copied out. Whereas in 2002, you say, "I was standing near the table to call the waiter if that particular gentleman happened to need anything, any food or drink, and I would tell the waiter what to bring and he would bring it without delay." Why are you writing this in 2002?

A. Mr. Tapuskovic, could you give me the exact numbers of the B/C/S page? Otherwise, I'm going to think you're doing it intentionally, giving me the wrong page numbers. That's highly improper of you.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues]... 7, in fact, and it's the bottom of the page.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 57. You said 58. ¹⁹⁸¹⁰

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, it's not my intention to get you mixed up. Why did you write this sentence in 2001 which did not exist in your diary?

A. I wrote it because I expected a logical question from the inspectors. What were you doing there?

Q. That's what I'm saying. You're getting ready for the questions you that might be asked of you because logical solutions and reasons would be sought?

A. Yes. I didn't think we would be talking about flowers.

Q. Could you please tell me this: On page -- on page 11 of the English version, next to the text there is an uninterrupted red line and a dotted blue line. What does that mean? What does that signify, the red line and the dotted blue line?

JUDGE MAY: Give him the B/C/S reference.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. 6472 is the number.

A. Yes. That means that it is apart from the diary. A portion is from the diary and the rest of it is within my preparations for the interview conducted with the investigators.

Q. What is your principle then? If you want to tell the true, then you should copy it out in full, integrally. So what is the criterion you're applying here?

A. Quotation by individuals attending the meeting, extracts from the diary and all the others. I don't remember all the things in the same way. Regardless of my high intelligence, I'm not intelligent enough to be ¹⁹⁸¹¹ able to remember everything from the past.

Q. Yes. But it's the very delicate matters that you're discussing ten years later. Wouldn't you have had to rely on your diary more for those particular matters? That's my question to you.

A. Well, I think that I explained all the circumstances surrounding my diary and why I didn't hand it over.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I now ask several questions in private session, please?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁹⁸¹²

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're now in open session. Re-examined by Mr. Nice: ¹⁹⁸¹³

Q. Just a few matters arising from what you've just been asked. To clarify the position about your notes, the passages in red are those derived from your original notes; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. We see some passages which have quotation marks in them, other matters in summary form and so on. Derived or written out word-for-word, or a bit of each? Just help us so we can understand it.

A. The quotations are verbatim from the diary, word-for-word, but when I copied it out I would use the perfect tense because I'm talking about events that took place in the past.

Q. Now, you see, it's been suggested by the accused that -- I think that this meeting never happened, that he was never there, and that in reality you simply made all this up. If you look at what is the passage in your notes, pages 8 and the top of page 9 of the English version of tab 3 of the exhibit, and you can find it on -- I think it's page 6465. Just give me one minute.

While I'm finding the right page for you, I can press on with the question. Apart from all the conversation that's recorded by you, it's also suggested that you must have completely made up things to the effect of the accused making comments about the position of keeping the Montenegrins under control unless they started to make troubles. Did you make details like that up or were those honestly recorded by you from what you heard? It's on page 6462 and onwards.

A. All the details regarding this question which you have just put to me about the creation of an united Serbian state and with the help of ¹⁹⁸¹⁴ Republika Srpska and the Republic of Srpska Krajina, the accused intends to keep Montenegro under control, is just as it was stated at the time. I am here in order to tell you about the facts and the information as I know them, and I would like to stress that in my conversations with the investigator and with the Prosecution, this is what I said because those people were only interested in the truth and nothing but the truth.

Q. You said that there was some workers at the meeting who could confirm that the accused was there. You've dealt with, in answer to the accused, people who have either died since and one who is on the run and one who is awaiting retirement, but can you give us the names or identifications of any other people who it will be possible for us to perhaps pursue or even the accused to pursue through his associates to check on whether this meeting occurred? Can you think of any of the people who might be there?

A. Yes, I can remember some names. And as far as the names are concerned, perhaps it would be best to prove to private session.

Q. Yes, for that purpose.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁹⁸¹⁵ Page 19815 - redacted - private session

¹⁹⁸¹⁶

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

MR. NICE:

Q. I will repeat the question. You've been asked a little bit about why you should write down the notes of the meeting that you say you were at where the accused was present. Were you present in the room throughout the meeting and did you leave the meeting at all?

A. I was present throughout the whole meeting except possibly when I needed to call the waiter in order to empty the ashtrays, change glasses, and this would last 20 seconds at the maximum.

Q. And what were your emotions about being present in a room where this accused, given the position he then had, was present?

A. Well, I must admit regardless of the fact that I did not agree with his convictions, it meant something to me to be in the same room as the president of the state.

Q. Was that instrumental in your making notes of what was said the day or so or couple days afterwards that you did so?

A. Yes.

Q. He asked you, did the accused, various questions about the activities of the DB, activities of which you were aware. You replied that they were connected to the government of which he was the leader. Was there ever, so far as you could judge from your contacts, any disapproval ¹⁹⁸¹⁷ expressed apart from the incident with the gold watch, any disapproval expressed of the things that were being done coming from the government?

A. Mr. Nice, the question is not clear to me. Was I opposed to it or was it about my disapproval? The question is not clear to me.

Q. My error. Did you ever receive any indication from those with whom you were communicating, your superiors at the DB, that what was being done was disapproved of by the government for which they were working?

A. No.

Q. The accused asked you questions about the connection, if any, between him and criminals. You dealt with that, but the associated question is this: From your experience, was there or not connection between not individual criminals and the accused, but between politics and crime?

A. Yes. There was a very strong and clear connection.

Q. One other matter of -- one other matter of detail and then I think I'm probably done. In the context of being challenged by the accused as to the accuracy of what you've said, he hasn't raised with you the accuracy of your identification of people at the Kula celebration of which you were shown a video. Do you remember now whether you were shown that video before or after you signed your statement that was provided to the office of the Tribunal -- the Office of the Prosecutor?

A. I saw it after I signed my statement in early July 2001. That was the first time.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, there was a question by the accused about connecting Kertes to the Red Berets. I've been unable to trace precisely ¹⁹⁸¹⁸ what the accused had in mind. It was towards the end of his cross-examination. The accused asked a number of questions about the witness's statement. I personally don't desire to put that statement in. It is of course available for you. There's one other matter of explanation that the Chamber might like and it's this: The accused quoted at some stage from a document that you don't have where the witness set out for the investigator how he had taken the notes from his original diary. If I can just explain.

The document going to the accused last week that contained the notes contained part of a letter written by the witness to the investigator, part being excised for the same reason that one page of those notes has also been excised. The entire letter and of course the excised page is available for inspection by the Chamber should the Chamber want to see it for completeness and to be sure that the excised passage is properly excised. Alternatively, we can provide a redacted version of the letter that went to the accused containing the passage he read out to the witness.

JUDGE KWON: And apart from that, who has the original of this note?

MR. NICE: The note was in the evidence unit. I unusually procured it to be here at court for the witness because the writing won't too clear. It's on the desk, I think, at the moment.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Witness, is it a diary book you took note? I notice some times and telephones which look like a diary book. You took note on a diary book, did you not? ¹⁹⁸¹⁹

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This note you mean.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. Note.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. In the diary, when I was going to the interview with the investigators.

JUDGE KWON: So you took notes from your diary on a separate diary book?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The agenda where I have my telephones -- where my telephone number is and everything, just by chance it's actually here with me in the witness room.

JUDGE KWON: Is there any special reason you used a telephone diary book to take notes from your diary? Is it that you tried -- you tried to make it look like the original diary? Is it your intention?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours. I never said that was my original diary. What I said was during interviews I had after I left Serbia. So -- I'm speaking in this way so we wouldn't have to move into private session. The investigators asked me do I perhaps have the diary with me and I said what happened with the diary. And I also said that I would see whether the place where I'm residing now, if I had brought that other diary, that agenda book, with me. And then through the department, I sent these notes on.

MR. NICE: Can I -- can I have the original notes, please, usher? And, Your Honour, I think it may be necessary for you to have a sight of if you're prepared to, on possibly an ex parte basis, the first sheet of these pages which -- in which case it won't be.

JUDGE KWON: It's not a complete book. ¹⁹⁸²⁰

MR. NICE: It may be sufficient, I think, if you look at what we have, and you can see it's not a complete book. And of course -- I don't know what page numbers Your Honour had in mind, but the page numbers are page numbers stamped by the registry here when the documents are lodged.

[Trial Chamber confers]

MR. NICE: And -- sorry.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

JUDGE KWON: I think it's a diary book. It's times and telephones, yes. It's torn some pages from the agenda book.

MR. NICE: It would appear so.

JUDGE KWON: That seems to be the case.

MR. NICE: And that is what the witness says. In fact, he says he has the book here with him, that particular book. I don't know if Your Honour has any more questions. I have one more.

JUDGE KWON: Yes, please.

JUDGE MAY: Something from the accused. Yes.

MR. NICE: The one question is just to deal with the possibility raised by His Honour Judge Kwon about making these notes as if to resemble an original document. The Chamber will have in mind that the passages marked blue are broadly in plain speech but we can simply take one example on page 3 of 12. Right in the middle we can find that. I'm not sure we can find it. Towards the foot of page 6451, because it was a correction that the witness made.

Q. And there's a paragraph, Witness C-048, that begins, "During in the 1990s, the service had a custom to enable its long time and approved ¹⁹⁸²¹ collaborators." I don't know if you can find that passage easily and I don't want you to take time, but is that just an example of how you were certainly in the passages sidelined blue setting out a historical account of events?

A. Yes. I set out a history -- a historical account of events, because in order to help the investigators, because these were people who were not so well informed about it. Not that they were not so well informed about it, but they were coming in from a different environment. So I just wished to explain to them the actual circumstances.

MR. KAY: A very unfair way of putting a question if I may say so. It was spoon-feeding the witness the answer, the context and everything. We would ask that the Trial Chamber make their own judgement about the matter which has been well covered in cross-examination and direct examination.

MR. NICE: Sorry. I absolutely disagree with that. Limited time. Possibility raised by His Honour Judge Kwon. It's quite important that before the matter is lost from memory we can see the context and setting of this document and the witness has made it quite plain that the blue passages are indeed historic.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Milosevic, what was it you wanted to say?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have one principled objection, Mr. May. Mr. Nice is using the term "original notes." This term cannot be used for a text written undoubtedly in 2002, because the diary does not exist.

JUDGE MAY: We have the point as to how this came about, and we'll ¹⁹⁸²² have to consider it in due course.

Yes. Unless there are any further questions.

MR. NICE: No, thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Witness C-048, that does conclude your evidence. Thank you for coming to the International Tribunal to give it. You are now free to go.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you for inviting me.

JUDGE MAY: We will adjourn now until Thursday morning, 9.00.

[The witness withdrew]

MR. NICE: Your Honour, the -- I don't think there's anyway we're going to be able to deal with it now. The Court indicated yesterday that might have some concerns about the protective measures of the next witness. Mr. Groome was going to be in a position to deal with that extensively -- not extensively, fully today. He now seems to have left. I can -- I think I can, in short, tell what you the position is, but I think we probably have no choice but to keep the witness here for Thursday and also have a back-up, because I suspect the Court is required for another hearing now, isn't it or this afternoon?

JUDGE MAY: We could have another five minutes. It may be best if the witness leaves, the arrangements having been made. We'll deal previously with that.

MR. NICE: I'll try and find Mr. Groome to deal with it in detail because he knows more about it than I do.

JUDGE MAY: You can deal with it briefly. I think we know the broad point. ¹⁹⁸²³

MR. NICE: While that's all happening, can I simply use time because I wanted to say something about the list of witnesses that is attached to the application for time that you've received a week or so ago. That list is a document that I hope will be useful to you. I think it can actually be improved on. It's a document where there will be updates from time to time. I think it can be improved on in its present format in any event because I'd like to get at many names associated with witnesses rather than just letters because I think that's less helpful for the Chamber. I'll try and flesh out some of the details in the blocks of evidence to be given because again I think that would be helpful to the Chamber. But what I would like the accused to understand is that that document is not a list of witnesses in the order in which they're coming. The list being put together by topics in of course it's impossible to say of any witness he only speaks about Bosnia and MUP issues because probably he'll speak about something else as well. But the witnesses have been put together broadly by topics or by broad topics and the witness list will be the list that will be coming on a regular basis throughout every working week.

However, the accused should understand, and I know he doesn't always have the time to read procedural matters in full, he should understand that the intention is that every bolded and underlined witness that there is given in that list is a witness who may be accelerated up and taken at an early stage so that if he or his associates have the time and opportunity to prepare in advance witnesses, they may want to focus on those bolded and underlined witnesses, they being witnesses whose ¹⁹⁸²⁴ importance and value is such that we will take them at an early stage if at all possible. So those are the only qualifications I wanted to make to the lists.

And as I say, we will try -- the list of course will change over time as witnesses are called. The list may come with witnesses taken or excluded crossed out, but it's supposed to be a useful working document to guide the Chamber and the accused to what evidence is outstanding and also to what other evidence we think is important even if there's not going to be time to gather it. That's schedule three.

Here is Mr. Groome.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Dealing with the next witness.

MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: We had better be, I suppose, in private session.

MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, I would ask that.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted] ¹⁹⁸²⁵ Pages 19825-19829 - redacted - private session

¹⁹⁸³⁰

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

JUDGE MAY: The evidence of the next witness will be given in ¹⁹⁸³¹ closed session, it being the position that protective orders - B-108 I'm told, thank you - protective orders were given -- protective measures, I should say, were ordered by another Trial Chamber, and Rule 75(F) and (G) preventing this Trial Chamber in any way interfering with those orders. We are bound by them. We think it right to hear the evidence rather than not, and accordingly, the order is made. No indication, of course, is to be taken from that as to any future orders about closed session. Help us --

MR. NICE: The remaining witnesses for this week and next week are as indicated in the latest letter to the accused. There has, of course, been a slight change in the timetable because the last witness took a bit longer than was expected. If there are to be any changes following on from that as to next week's witnesses, we will send an appropriate letter immediately when we make that decision, but for the present, witnesses as ordered.

JUDGE MAY: And the accused presumably can take it -- the accused can presumably take it that the order appears in the letters which you send weekly or so but that the general order may appear elsewhere in the way that you describe.

MR. NICE: Well, absolutely. It will always be in his interests, if he has spare capacity, to prepare the underlined and bolded witnesses on the list, yes.

JUDGE MAY: We will adjourn now.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.19 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the 1st day of May, ¹⁹⁸³² 2003, at 9.00 p.m.