Milosevic Transcript 2003-05-21

²⁰⁸⁴⁸

Wednesday, 21 May 2003

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: May I raise something in private session for a couple of minutes.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted] ²⁰⁸⁴⁹ Pages 20849-20851 - redacted - private session

²⁰⁸⁵²

[redacted]

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

MR. NICE: I trust the Chamber has a summary of this morning's date.

JUDGE MAY: We have.

[The witness entered court]

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

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

JUDGE MAY: Thank you very much. If you would like to take a seat, Mr. Kucan.

WITNESS: MILAN KUCAN

[Witness answered through interpreter]

MR. NICE: Your Honour, before we start the testimony, the witness is -- before we start the testimony, may the witness's exhibits be given a general number. ²⁰⁸⁵³

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 447, Your Honours. Examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Mr. Kucan, you are Milan Kucan, president of Slovenia between April/May of 1990 and the year 2002, having been elected three times to that office?

A. Yes.

Q. Other matters of your history, of course, well-known as a matter of public record and are contained, for the assistance of the Chamber, in summary at Exhibit 447, tab 1.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, of course this witness could deal with enormous numbers of background matters. We don't propose to do anything except take him through the critical and significant events, in light both of pressure of court and his time and also because the Chamber is already very well-informed from other evidence on many matters of background.

Q. I turn first, Mr. Kucan, to the Central Committee meeting of the 30th of January of 1989, the Central Committee of the League of Communists that was held in Belgrade.

MR. NICE: Your Honours will find that we have for this a translation of a speech made by the accused. It's at tab 2.

Q. Before we come to look at that speech, Mr. Kucan, can you just give us the setting for what was happening there. What were the issues being focused on at that committee meeting?

A. Your Honours, this was a period when the crisis in Yugoslavia reached its culmination. It was a crisis which was multi-faceted. It was not just a political, economic crisis or a crisis between the relations of ²⁰⁸⁵⁴ nations and ethnicities but also a crisis of social values. By then, the recognition became obvious that changes are indeed needed in Yugoslavia. The Slovenian political leadership conceived and understood these changes as a new agreement about a common life within Yugoslavia. And then within the direction of a new definition of the common interests and the common life. The then Serbian political leadership was thinking along a different line, which is that changes are indeed necessary, that changes in terms of persons and personalities should be made in the first place to thus achieve support for the changes that the Serbian political leadership had been advocating. Changes in persons and personalities, in fact, were made also through the organisation of large mass meetings and rallies through which first the leadership of Vojvodina was replaced, then the leadership of Montenegro. And at this session of the Central Committee we initially discussed the issue whether we should talk about the political circumstances and constitutional changes and amendments with the new leadership which brought about a new relation of power within the Central Committee or with the former leadership that had represented their League of Communists on the Central Committee. It is within this context that the discussion went on which the Prosecutor has referred to.

Q. Was the accused the keynote speaker at this event?

A. No. He was one of the speakers. The keynote speaker was the then president of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, Stipe Suvar.

MR. NICE: Nevertheless, the accused made a significant speech, ²⁰⁸⁵⁵ ^{BLANK PAGE} ²⁰⁸⁵⁶ which we have in B/C/S for the witness and which we can, I hope, put up in English. We can't put it up in English. We have it only in English at tab 2 of Exhibit -- I've forgotten the number already -- 447. And if Your Honours would be good enough to go with me through certain highlighted passages, Ms. Wee will, on the B/C/S version, take the witness, if he's able to see it on the screen at this stage, to the same passages and I'll ask his comments on those passages later.

Within tab 2, if the Chamber would be good enough, please, to go to page 2, a third of the way down, there is a passage reading as follows: "Things that cannot be changed institutionally, and they must be changed because people don't like them or they lasted for too long, will be changed uninstitutionally. It's always been like that in any society." If the Chamber would then turn on to page 4, and the middle paragraph: "Therefore, I would like to say to all those who obviously cannot easily get rid of their habits to judge Serbia, that Serbia is equal and united and that they should not get excited about that. Once this becomes clear to them, we should all solve the difficult problems of the Yugoslav crisis together more easily and equally." Over the page, please, in the English, to page 5, the second paragraph: "I have to say that if Yugoslavia were to be conceived as a community in which Serbia is divided into three parts and on its knees, then Serbia would be against such a community, against such a Yugoslavia. Then we would be for a different Yugoslavia. In other words, for the only possible Yugoslavia, for Yugoslavia in which everyone would be equal and, therefore, Serbia as well. In that process, we would not care at all ²⁰⁸⁵⁷ whether somebody would call it the third, fifth, or tenth Yugoslavia." And finally, if the Chamber would turn to page 7 and the paragraph starting at the foot of the page and going over, did the speech of the accused end in this way: "This session was expected to be a session of conflicts and differences, and we shouldn't be afraid of them. They're unavoidable in order to remove obstacles and to find solutions, but procedure will not bring that solution that's big and small traps, small and big artifices, intrigues and frameups. A politics chosen by people institutionally and non-institutionally, statutory, and non-statutory, on the streets and inside, populist and elitist, with or without arguments can only reach the solution. But in any case, it is clear that it is politics for socialists non-aligned and democratic Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia where people will live unitary, equally, richer, and more cultured but above all where they will live unanimously. Thank you."

Q. Mr. Kucan, with a reminder of the speech by those extracts, what was the message you perceived the accused to be giving?

A. The message, to put it in very simple terms, was the following: Changes such as they had been advocated by the Serbian leadership will take place whether the institutional or non-institutional approach will be used to achieve them; i.e., whether constitutional provisions will be respected or not. And this is where we differed essentially. The dilemmas were known to one and all, but as far as these dilemmas that Yugoslavia faced at that time is concerned, we applied for different answers. We opted for different answers. Where these answers brought us is apparently very well illustrated by the current status of Slovenia, ²⁰⁸⁵⁸ which opted for the institutional, legal, and constitutional approach, and the status and situation in other parts of the former Yugoslavia that have also become independent states by now.

Q. One matter of precision. We see from the text that the accused used the words "institutionally or uninstitutionally." In your answer, you have referred to "constitutionally." In the setting in which he spoke, is there an identity or proximity between something that is non-institutional and something that is non-constitutional? If not, can you explain why you used the word "constitutional."

A. In terms of its substance, this syntax "institutional" or "non-institutional" in fact implies the respect of institutional, i.e., constitutional paths and non-constitutional paths if non-institutional approaches are opted for. This was a period of mass rallies and meetings which insisted upon and achieved replacement of leaderships through the demand of the populace on the street whereby none of us believed that the people at large should be deprived of their right to voice their dissatisfaction with the circumstances. My view at that time was that of course you can go and rally on the streets to voice your dissatisfaction, but you cannot go to the streets to devise a new concept to find a way out of the situation. In other words, for legitimate political objectives to be reached, not every means can be used.

Q. Are you able to express a view on the accused's attitude to the use of people demonstrating on the streets?

A. Well, at that time in Slovenia, there was no one who would believe that these mass meetings and rallies that were given different names, the ²⁰⁸⁵⁹ Meeting of the Truth about Serbs and Montenegrins in Kosovo, whose situation was difficult indeed and full of trials and tribulations, or they would be called the Anti-Bureaucratic Revolution. So other names were given to this. So none of us believed in Slovenia that these were spontaneous meetings and rallies.

One of the meetings that was to spread the truth throughout Yugoslavia was an announced meeting on the 1st of December, 1989, to be held in Ljubljana. The leadership, the then leadership of Slovenia, the then Executive Council of the Republic of Slovenia and the Ministry for the Interior banned this meeting through the use of a provision of our law since the meeting could escalate into very serious clashes and inter-ethnic conflicts on the territory of the Republic of Slovenia. So this is the continuation of that discussion and the discussions we had had on the 20th, a session of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia which the Prosecutor referred to. Before that, we had the 17th and 18th session where we also discussed changes, including constitutional changes. My view at that time was the following: We need to reach a consensus about these issues and such very significant changes cannot be made given that tense situation in Kosovo.

The answer to our reservations was the following: Consensus cannot be reached. Socialism wasn't introduced through a consensus either, and that these changes will take place even if a state of emergency would have to be declared for that to take place.

Q. Two supplementary questions -- ²⁰⁸⁶⁰

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. NICE:

Q. Two supplementary questions on the speech of the accused to which we've been referring. First, we know that the accused made a speech in June of 1989, the 28th, I think, the Battle of Kosovo speech. Did that connect back to or resonate with this earlier speech?

A. In my view, this speech had been a logic continuation of the former discussions and views that changes will take place regardless the means. In fact, this speech was held to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the Kosovo Battle, which was an important battle in the history of Europe and the Serb people. At that time it was said that through these --

Q. Forgive my interrupting you. On this matter the Chamber has heard a lot of evidence already and is familiar with the speech, so if you could simply answer briefly whether there is a connection between the two, and effectively you've already done so. That's all I want from you at the moment.

A. So my answer will be very brief, but let me just finish my thought. At that time, it was said that the Serbian people are entering again battles, as it was said, not armed battles as yet; however, this is what one could not exclude. One could anticipate that there would be armed battles to follow and that changes will take place regardless the means to be used.

Q. And the final question is: Did you at some stage - paragraph 9 of the summary - reply to the speech that the accused had made? If so, when ²⁰⁸⁶¹ and to what effect? In absolute summary form, please.

A. On the basis of an agreement reached by the Slovene delegates at this session of the Central Committee, Mr. Boris Muzic took the floor the next day to respond to these assumptions.

Q. At this time, then, 1989, insofar as one can crystallise states of thinking, do you take the view that there were two concepts by which Yugoslavia was being approached, one of which was that it was a vehicle for many people to live under a single roof and the other of which was different? If so, please explain, but very briefly.

A. In fact, what you have just described is true. However, this difference in terms of Yugoslavia was born when Yugoslavia was born itself. For some politicians in Serbia, Yugoslavia was always conceived to be the state within which a single state all Serbs could live together. Others, such as the Slovenians, the Croats, the Macedonians, and I'm now speaking particularly on behalf of the Slovenes, never understood Yugoslavia in such a sense. In fact, we conceived Yugoslavia to be a state which provides for a peaceful life, development, and well-being as well as prosperity for all peoples that live within it, on an equal footing. And throughout all the crisis situations, this difference was important, even in the period of the dictatorship which was announced in 1929 in the former Kingdom of Yugoslavia when the occupation of Yugoslavia eventually took place by the Nazis. And in fact this is what was emphasised in 1945 and after the war as well as in 1974 when the last constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was adopted.

Q. The Chamber has already heard much evidence about steps taken by ²⁰⁸⁶² ^{BLANK PAGE} ²⁰⁸⁶³ Serbia in relation to the two autonomous provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo, and this as well, very briefly - perhaps even in a sentence - can you just remind us or explain to us whether taking steps in relation to those autonomous provinces had an effect on Yugoslavia as a whole structurally?

A. Yes, it did have an influence. This constitutional structure of the Yugoslav constitution and of the Socialist Republic of Serbia was based on the basis that in the autonomous province of Vojvodina as well as Autonomous Province of Kosovo, minorities lived. The bigger minority in Vojvodina was the Hungarian one, and in the Kosovo province the big and later prevailing minority Albanian. And in that sense, both autonomous provinces functioned as a constituent element of the Yugoslav federation. With the change of the position of these two provinces in the constitutional setup of Serbia also the constitutional make-up of the federal republic changed. With the changes of the Serbian constitution in spring 1998, the constitution was changed, amended, and essentially this was an announcement of how the changes should be attained also in Yugoslavia. Because when you reduced the importance of the provinces in the constitutional setup of Yugoslavia, the -- this is what the political leadership insisted on, and this is what was done, that on matters of Yugoslav matters, the vote remains to the two provinces. So Serbia had in fact three votes on federal matters.

As I said, first the changes were introduced through mass rallies. Personnel changes took place with introduction of persons who were dedicated and devoted to the goals of the Serb leadership. ²⁰⁸⁶⁴

Q. Two topics about the army, reversed in order from in the summary to take them chronologically, but to give us context, what was the Slovenian expectation, or indeed what promises had been made to generate expectations in Slovenia about its army after the Second World War?

A. Well, Slovenes during the course of the Second World War, after the -- through the occupation of fascist Italy and Germany, we formed our rebel army, and it never abandoned the territory of the Republic of Slovenia. This decision was based on our conviction that this partisan army cannot be separated from its nation, which would remain totally without defence.

In 1990 -- in 1943, when the highest body of Yugoslavia met, the anti-fascist council Ovnoy [phoen], the Slovene delegation, and there it was promised to also our delegation and to General Jaka Avsic, that our army would become a part of the Yugoslav party -- army and that Slovene would remain also the language of command.

The Slovene army was in fact disbanded. This promise was broken. The army was disbanded, it became a part of the Yugoslav army where in communication you had the equality of languages, but the command language was the Serbian language and the principle of equality of languages as a communication -- languages of communications of use was also flagrantly clear in the trial against the four in Ljubljana, trial of the four, and formally there the trial was carried on in the Serbian language.

Q. Before I turn to my second point on the army generally, just help us so that we can understand it. A Serbian foot soldier stationed in Slovenia, would he typically be in a position to understand and ²⁰⁸⁶⁵ communicate with ordinary Slovenians in their language or not?

A. Well, with a bit of an effort, he could communicate, but logically it was -- it was expected that everybody speaks in the Serbian. Not only in the army but also at the federal level, at the Constitutional Court, the Serbo-Croatian, respectively Serbian language be used.

Q. Paragraph 15, second topic on the army of general nature. In your judgement, did the JNA in the time of Tito have, as you described it, two homes? If so, what were they?

A. In a certain way, yes. This army became an ideological and a political army, and in the central parts of Yugoslavia it became as the armed force of the Communist Party which was leading the resistance. A specific situation existed in Slovenia, but it's not important for this debate. But in fact, it did have two homes. The ideological home was the -- one was Yugoslavia. That was the political home of JNA, and it was always convinced that it is a factor of unity and of the very existence of Yugoslavia. This army was absolutely dedicated to President Tito, who was both the president of the state of Yugoslavia and the president of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia.

At his death in 1990, the -- it remained without its father, the Supreme Commander, and then the Presidency of the state which replaced Tito, it didn't recognise this Supreme Commander, and this led to the -- this meeting between the Presidency, the formal Supreme Commander, and the leadership of the army in March 1990 where the conflicts, well-known conflicts arose concerning who is in command and who is commanding the JNA, the Yugoslav army. ²⁰⁸⁶⁶

Q. Thank you. Moving so far as is possible chronologically through matters that are relevant, I want to take you next to a passage from the diary of Borisav Jovic. Before we consider, if we do, extracts from that diary, is this a book you've read and are you in a position to say whether so far as factual matters related in it, they are or are not accurate? Mr. Kucan, have you -- did you hear the question or --

A. No.

Q. I'm so sorry. Have you read Borisav Jovic's book, and insofar as it contains matters of fact of which you are aware, are you able to say whether it is accurate or inaccurate?

A. The description of events which the president of Presidency participated as well as myself are pretty precise and correct, but for other events, his description of them I cannot ascertain whether they are exactly precise.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, we have extracted from that book some passages which we would like exhibited separately, if they may be, to be commented on by this witness, the issue of the admissibility of the book as a whole falling for later determination, if that's convenient.

JUDGE MAY: That's correct. We have in fact, already, I think, said we would do that in due course.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: But the passages about which the witness can speak, of course can be admitted once he identifies and asserts they're accurate.

MR. NICE: May this clip of exhibits then be given a separate exhibit number. ²⁰⁸⁶⁷

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Prosecutor's Exhibit 448.

MR. NICE: The Court will see the preface to the book. I needn't take you through that. If you'd turn on, at the bottom page numbering, to what is page 44 as it reads, we see a long extract for the 21st of September, 1989. I'm not going to go into it in full because it would take too long. I'm going to ask the witness to make some comments upon it, but I'll get the flavour of the entry before asking him those questions, and I hope that the witness has the original before him. If this is acceptable to the Chamber, he has with him a volume of the book in Slovenian, as I understand it, but unless it's essential, we prefer not to relieve him of it so he can take it back with him.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. So, Mr. Kucan, we're looking here at an extract for the 21st of September. And if the Chamber will follow to the second paragraph, this is at a meeting that was held with Drnovsek. "He also wants to consult with me in connection with yesterday's report in Trieste's Il Piccolo that Yugoslavia is preparing for military intervention in Slovenia." If we go further down, we see that, in the middle of the page: "The Slovenes have agreed to come in the evening at 1900: Stanovik, Kucan, Potrc, and Sinogoj."

If we look a little further down, we see a passage that says -- sorry, much further down. Towards the foot of the page: "Potrc briefly explains for each controversial amendment what has been changed on the basis of our objections. In essence, everything has remained the same, ²⁰⁸⁶⁸ nothing substantive has been approved aside from a few cosmetic changes, but he stubbornly explains that absolutely everything is in keeping with the SFRY constitution. In his opinion, what we are doing is unconstitutional. He asks that we leave them alone to responsibly complete the constitutional changes, and then let the Constitutional Court react if there is reason to do so. Unfortunately, according to the Yugoslav constitution, the Constitutional Court can conclude that a republic's constitution is not in agreement with the federal constitution and call on the republic to bring it into line ..." We turn over the page to the first fresh paragraph: "Next, I took the floor. I said very clearly that in the Presidency's assessment, the adoption of the amendments in the proposed form would constitute a direct threat to the integrity of the country and the disruption of the constitutionally established order ..."

And if we go on a little bit further, we'll find just a little over halfway down the page a reference to Ante: "Ante distances himself by saying he is not familiar with all the details but he feels a timeout is necessary until the issues are fully discussed. After our mostly uniform remarks, Kucan, who is visibly agitated, asks me to explain what 'other measures at the disposal of the Presidency' means. Veljko and I explain: 'What is provided for by the constitution and by the law, nothing beyond that.' 'No, no,' he insists further, 'Just tell me exactly what you mean.'"

Foot of the page, the last two lines: "We have lost our thanks --" "Kucan turns to me and says, 'How do you explain that?' Of course I do. ²⁰⁸⁶⁹ ^{BLANK PAGE} ²⁰⁸⁷⁰ 'We have lost our thanks to your (meaning the Serbian) two-year public offensive against our leadership, and especially because of the letter in which you invited us to come to talk to you as long as we first accept all of your assessments and positions...'" and so on. Mr. Kucan, reminding you briefly of those -- of that meeting, in a couple of sentences can you explain to the Chamber, please, what was happening here and what you were concerned about.

A. Distinguished Honours, this meeting was held on the 21st of September. On the 26th of September, a session was foreseen of the government -- of the Assembly of Slovenia which would adopt amendments to the constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, and with these amendments, Slovenia wished to ensure a legal path in order of asserting its interest in the Yugoslav federation; namely, if it were -- that were not possible, in order to ensure its legal and moral right to self-determination. The adoption of these constitutional amendments, the intention was to stop that in any way possible. On the eve of the 26th of September, a session of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia was convened, and they asked us to suppress both that meeting and the amendments. And this meeting also concerns that. Dr. Drnovsek was the president of the Yugoslav Presidency, and representing Slovenia and our interlocutors. The entire leadership of Slovenia was there, not only the president of the federal government but also the Minister of Defence. After requesting that we do not adopt these amendments, and as the Prosecutor has quoted, it was said that all other means would be used at their disposal. ²⁰⁸⁷¹ Now, my question: "What does it mean all other means will be used?" It remained unanswered. But we all knew what it implied: The state of emergency and the possible use of the army in order to ensure the -- and secure order in Slovenia.

So this was how we lived in Yugoslavia the last few years. It was either accusations of counter-revolutions, anti-Yugoslav activities, and then proclaim a state of emergency and then give the authorisation to the army to suspend the legal authorities and to operate in line with the interests of those who wished to have this state of emergency introduced. And this is how we understood this meeting and the discussion we had.

Q. Thank you. I'm going to pass over the 22nd of September entry because of time and move to the next -- at least I am at the moment -- and move to the next topic, which is this: On the -- in January of 1990, was there the 14th Congress of the League of Communists? It was on the -- the appropriate four yearly interval but it was accelerated, so to that extent an Extraordinary Congress, and at the end of it, did your delegation walk out? Just confirm that, if you will, because I'm going to play a tape first and ask for your comments later.

A. This was the 14th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. Indeed they were usually typically held every four years, and in 1990, it was a Congress year. However, in the atmosphere that existed, the atmosphere of emergency that was in the air and of extraordinary situation in Yugoslavia, this Congress that was to be an ordinary Congress was requalified into an Extraordinary Congress.

And at the 18th session of the League of Communists, this proposal ²⁰⁸⁷² was turned down. Then the 20th session, upon the demand of the provincial conference of Vojvodina which called for an Extraordinary Congress, which again was refuted, and then the 22nd session which was -- which approved this being an Extraordinary Congress. And in my own -- in my own contribution, I had pointed out that this was an Extraordinary Congress against the will and stand of the Slovene delegation.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, we will now play an extract from the film Death of Yugoslavia made by the BBC. May it become, I think, tab 7 of Exhibit 447.

JUDGE MAY: This is the extract.

MR. NICE: It is the extract. It includes not only the footage of the Congress itself but observations by others. Those are available for the witness to comment on. There's not a transcript available yet - I apologise for that - it will be provided in due course, but it is in English so I hope it will not inconvenience the Chamber.

[Videotape played] "The instrument Milosevic chose was the Yugoslav Communist Party. He called an Extraordinary Congress. As the delegates stood for their hymn to brotherhood and unity, they all knew that this Congress had been summoned to crush the defiant Slovenes.

"[No interpretation] "Kucan had only one hope. Yugoslavia's second largest republic, Croatia.

"[No interpretation] "Milosevic selected as chairman one of the leaders who owed him ²⁰⁸⁷³ his career. It was the first party Congress the president of Montenegro had ever attended.

"[No interpretation]

THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Well, it was thought that the Slovenes were not brave enough to take this crucial step. "[No interpretation]

"This latest example of the Serb's domineering behaviour shook the delegates from other republics.

"[No interpretation] "The Serb bloc showed no mercy. In the break, the Slovenes held a crisis meeting. Kucan knew if they walked out he would be blamed for the chaos that could consume Yugoslavia. He offered a deal. "[No interpretation]

"The second before the final vote was announced, I was still at the speaking podium when Ribicic requested the floor. Nobody gave him the floor. He simply walked up.

"[No interpretation] "Ribicic, one of the Slovene delegates, had been primed to give them their signal.

"[No interpretation] "He said, unfortunately, the Slovene delegation could not accept the Krynots [phoen] in the Central Committee.

THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "That, unfortunately, the situation is such that we have to walk out.

"[Previous translation continues]... from the presiding head ²⁰⁸⁷⁴ table, and they started leaving the plenary session from one single door."

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Kucan, does the footage we've looked at, together with the observations made, reflect the tension and difficulties of that Congress?

A. Yes, they do reflect it very faithfully, especially the round of applause that we were given when we were walking out of the room.

Q. We saw the card voting. Did you observe something about the actions of the accused at the time of card voting?

A. Your Honours, I should say a few sentences before I answer this question. At this Congress, what was discussed were most crucial political questions in Yugoslavia, and what we proposed is that the discussion at the Congress should concern a concept of future living together in Yugoslavia, whether there is an interest of such living together, under what circumstances, what is this interest, and also, under what conditions to remain members of the same organisation, and that in this way political life in Yugoslavia be democratised. And the contents of the amendment that we proposed for this reason was the following: To first to endorse political pluralism that has already become a reality in Yugoslavia, then the parliamentary elections had been held in Slovenia at the time of the Congress, that political processes start evolving in Yugoslavia, then also an article of the law sanctioning the so-called verbal offence was also proposed, that all political prisoners be released, that torture be also forbidden in proceedings, and so forth. And also what we demanded is that we should go through with the logic whereby in fact communists within their individual leagues be autonomous ²⁰⁸⁷⁵ and that it was not possible to outvote the stance or positions of any one of these organisations.

There was an atmosphere in which the Slovene communists and their positions at this Congress be in fact isolated and should not receive any support from delegates from other republics and provinces. And this had happened already during the debates within the commissions or committees and also at the Congress session, and thus our amendments were largely refuted and rejected. And Milosevic, who was -- and Ribicic then said that we -- the Slovene communists could no longer see a place within such an organisation and that we were going to decide on these issues at home. So this is to briefly describe the situation once it has already culminated.

I would also say the following: There were voting cards, and the accused was the first or among the first to lift it, and then this was followed by the majority at the Congress who showed the corresponding colour of their cards, and that meant rejecting the Slovene amendments.

Q. You already volunteered the observation that the applause at the end of the Congress, as you left, was significant. And if you want to add just a word or so about that, do, before we move on to the next topic.

A. Yes. Perhaps what needs to be said is that all those who applauded us when we walked out did not really thought that this was and spelled the true dissolution of Yugoslavia or the end of it. And Ivica Racan, who was heading the Croatian Communist delegation proposed that the Congress should interrupt the session so that the necessary consultations may be carried out and that the Congress may then resume its session. And ²⁰⁸⁷⁶ while the accused said that there should be no interruption in the deliberations of the Congress, that a new quorum should be established, a new majority whereby the Congress would adopt decisions, because if Ivica Racan's proposal were to be accepted, that would mean beheading and disbanding the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. And this is what happened. The Congress indeed had been interrupted, but it had never been resumed again. And it had also announced the end of Yugoslavia as a state.

Q. Thank you. We turn in the summary to paragraph 26, to May of 1990 and to the disarming of the Slovenian Territorial Defence. For speed, can I ask you, please, Mr. Kucan, to look at Exhibit 447, tab 3, the English version of which can, if possible, be shown on the overhead projector.

To save time, we'll abbreviate our description of this document dated the 14th of May, coming from the Secretariat for National Defence, strictly confidential, headed "The safekeeping of weapons" and ordering, under number 1, that: "The military district commands, together with TO staffs, shall organise the takeover, storage, and safekeeping of the complete stock of Territorial Defence weapons and ammunition in the JNA supply dumps and depots. Within the scope of further organisational and establishment improvements, Territorial Defence commanders shall consider the possibility of abolishing certain smaller Territorial Defence units ..."

Perhaps we should look at number 2 as well further down the page. "Exceptionally, where facilities are very far away and where conditions ²⁰⁸⁷⁷ ^{BLANK PAGE} ²⁰⁸⁷⁸ are not conducive to it or it is impossible to find a place for Territorial Defence weapons and ammunition ... they should be stored and safeguarded in Territorial Defence depots guarded by JNA units." And we see that this comes from General Adzic, the order to be completed by the 21st of May.

If we then turn to the Jovic diary extracts, Exhibit 448, and using the page numbers at the foot, page 131 for the 17th of May, is there an entry: "We take measures to ensure that weapons are taken from civilian Territorial Defence depots in Slovenia and Croatia and transferred to military depots. We will not permit Territorial Defence weapons to be misused in any conflicts or for forcible secession. "Practically speaking, we have disarmed them. Formally, this was done by the head of the General Staff, but it was actually under our order. Extreme reaction by the Slovenes and Croatians, but they have no recourse."

18th of May: "I am at my weekend house in Niksic. In the evening Milan Kucan calls me. He complains about the seizure of weapons. He says that the people are opposed to this move, that there could be casualties. He's called a session of the Slovene Presidency over the question and he asks whether we can meet to discuss the matter.

"Sure, I tell him. He should contact me Monday morning so that we can set up a meeting. By the way, I tell him, I have heard about this campaign on the radio. I do not know what is going on, but I advise him not to get into conflict with the army, to surrender the weapons and on Monday we will clear up everything, if necessary. ²⁰⁸⁷⁹ "A rough start. They immediately summon Stipe Suvar to Zagreb to report on what we have concluded in connection with the speech before the Yugoslav Assembly."

I don't think I need to finish that. We go to the 21st of May, the same page, 131.

"Kucan and Drnovsek came to discuss the seizure of Slovene Territorial Defence weapons based on the Presidency decision that the weapons be seized from all republican Territorial Defences and placed under JNA control. On our side, Vjelko Kadijevic and Anton Stari beside me.

"Kucan spoke at length: 'We were not notified by anyone.' The weapons were first transferred and then they learned of the action. They do not know the essence, the reasons, and the goal. They regard this as disarmament. They feel that this threatens the republic's sovereignty. He asks that they be showed the order, how it reads, and who issued it. He regards the General Staff's explanation as inadequate. He thinks that there is no basis in the constitution for such a measure. They brought the weapons, they are responsible for directing the Territorial Defence, and now they are being treated this way, without being told, and the weapons are seized. He believes this is a case of political intervention and that is a threat to their sovereign rights. Perhaps the direct cause of this is the climate that has emerged in Slovenia after my inaugural speech and the criticism of that speech in Slovenia and Croatia. The political situation in Slovenia is very serious because of the weapon seizures -- ²⁰⁸⁸⁰

THE INTERPRETER: Could you slow down, please.

MR. NICE: Yes. And I'm very sorry. "He is not sure how it can be remedied.

"He asks that they be accurately informed about what is going on. "That the weapons be returned to them and they will look after their storage conditions;

"That the commander of the Territorial Defence for Slovenia be replaced;

"That we take a look at how to reduce political tensions. "Veljko explains that the measures were taken throughout the country, not only in Slovenia, because the depots were poorly secured and the inter-ethnic and general political situation is rapidly worsening; that this is exclusively the military's jurisdiction --" I go over the brackets -- "that this is not the republic's concern, and that they, the republics, want to interfere with military questions and have no right to do so. If they provide good conditions for protecting the weapons, returning them might be considered, but that presupposes at least one armed unit and not one sentry, which in the event of an attack will repulse the seizure of weapons. All of their authorities remain, including using the weapons from the military depots for training exercise.

"Naturally, Kucan was not satisfied." And then on the 21st of May:

"Veljko informs me of a conversation with Ante Markovic. Spoke with him for three hours. Seems to have persuaded him to accept our plan ²⁰⁸⁸¹ for trying to impose legal and constitutional order. He has serious doubts about Ante Markovic's real intentions but will monitor that closely."

And so on, and I think, for reasons of time, I'm going cut to my questions to you with those materials in mind.

Were you aware in advance of this disarmament of you?

A. No. Nobody notified us about these plans.

Q. The order that we looked at first, did you discover whether it was an order that applied to the federal Yugoslavia as a whole or not?

A. Well, this order, such as it is, is something that I have in front of my eyes for the first time. I had an opportunity to see an order which was issued on the basis of this order by the commander of the 5th Military District in Zagreb, and that order also had to do with the withdrawal of the arms of the Territorial Defence in Slovenia. This order was issued on the 15th of May, which is the very day on which the term of office expired of the president of the Presidency of the SFRY, Dr. Drnovsek, who represented Slovenia, and when Dr. Jovic took office as president of the Presidency on behalf of Serbia. This happened after a situation in which, through the first democratic elections held in April, we had already had elected a new Assembly, new parliament in Slovenia, and the Zagreb order entered into force on the day when our parliament sat for the first time, when our new government was elected, and when the new Presidency took oath. And I was elected during the general elections the president of the Presidency. So as far as this order is concerned, when people called in from ²⁰⁸⁸² the municipalities, telling us about this order, telling us that the army came in with the demand that they hand over the weapons, so we were -- we received this information from the people in the municipalities, and we considered this order to be an order to disarm the Slovene Territorial Defence.

At a later stage, in the course of our conversations and discussions, it turned out that the argument they used was to prevent the new authorities in Slovenia to use these weapons. Let me draw your attention to the fact that this is May 1990. In formal terms, Slovenia decided and discussed its independence, its autonomy, its dissociation from Yugoslavia only when we launched preparations for the referendum of independence which was held in December 1990. So reasons to think and to believe that Slovenia could use these weapons to dissolve, by use of force, Yugoslavia were not there. And in fact, there was no theft of the weapons no Slovenia because the Slovene Territorial Defence very carefully guarded and protected its own weapons.

Q. Everything else that I want you to help us with in relation to the disarming has been covered by the documents we've looked at, I think, save for this: Did you have -- paragraph 27 of the summary. Did you contact General Hocevar and did he explain to you what was happening?

A. Yes, indeed, this did take place. I tried to establish contact with General Hocevar. However, Your Honours, may I be allowed to say a few statements before. The Territorial Defence of Yugoslavia was part and parcel of the armed forces of Yugoslavia. It was established in 1968 after the attack of the Warsaw Pact forces upon the Czechoslovak republic. ²⁰⁸⁸³ In peacetimes, it was under the competency and authority of the republics which from their own national budgets funded the procurement of the weapons and other capabilities required by the Territorial Defence should a state of war be imposed upon Yugoslavia.

The Territorial Defence commander was appointed by the Presidency of Yugoslavia but always on the basis of consultation with the republic's authorities.

General Hocevar was appointed in -- was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Territorial Defence, however, without any approval of the Republic of Slovenia which otherwise was provided for by law. When I was informed from the municipalities that the Territorial Defence's weapons were withdrawn from them, I asked General Hocevar to explain the situation. He said, "We are in fact replacing the old trophy weapons with state-of-the-art weaponry." Since this went on, I insisted on meeting with him, and what he said was the following: "In fact, I have received, he said, instructions that neither you nor anyone else from the leadership of Slovenia were to be informed about this activity, and that he has -- he found himself in a situation in which he's not quite clear whose orders to follow and that he will simply follow this order because he's supposed to.

Q. Thank you. May we now turn to tab 2 of Exhibit 447.

MR. NICE: The Chamber has a translation, or a transcript and translation of this speech, but there is a difference between that improved version and the version that may be shown up on the screen. It's -- beg your pardon, it's tab 6. ²⁰⁸⁸⁴ ^{BLANK PAGE} ²⁰⁸⁸⁵

JUDGE MAY: Tab 6?

MR. NICE: Yes, tab 6. Before we play this, this, I think, is an address in or about June 1990 of the accused at the Serbian parliament.

[Videotape played]

THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "The president of the Presidency of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic, addressed the deputies of the parliament of Serbia with these words, explaining the draft version of the most important republican document. According to the new constitution, a unified Serbia was to be established as a sovereign state." The interpreters apologise but the tone is incomprehensible of the tape.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, in those circumstances, the transcript that you have being available, I think the best course is for me to read out from the English, and the witness has heard the tape played yesterday in circumstances where it could be listened to and I think he recollected it.

JUDGE MAY: Since we have it in front of us and time is short, if you would take the matters you rely on particularly.

MR. NICE: Yes, of course. If we go down from where we are, the summarising passage by the journalist says that: "... the new constitution, the unique Serbia is to be established as a sovereign state..." Next sentence: "Stressing that the federal Yugoslavia is the main political choice for Serbia but with regard to strongly expressed disintegration and confederation tendencies in some parts of the country, Milosevic said: This is why this draft ²⁰⁸⁸⁶ constitution of Serbia has been prepared respecting other possible options of Serbia as an independent state; passing the new constitution, among other things, should prevent every attempt of silent conversion of federal Yugoslavia into confederation, i.e., it represent a moment when Serbia is to clearly and on time say that the Serbia's administrative borders are linked only with the federal system in Yugoslavia because, should the system in Yugoslavia change, i.e., should there be a confederalisation, all the constitutional issues would be opened. A confederation is not a state but a union of independent states. Therefore, there is no confederation even if all the political subjects of Yugoslavia want it within the existing administratively set borders among the republics. In that case, in the case that they do not want the federal Yugoslavia, the issues of borders of Serbia is an open political issue." Further comments by the journalist, and then the accused speaks on the second page: "Therefore, because of the significance and because of the far-reaching consequences of fulfilment of the projects of political reform in Serbia and in interest in stable political conditions in Serbia, I suggest that the citizens express their views about the draft of the Presidency of Serbia through a referendum first. In that way, we would simply eliminate unnecessary conflicts and deprive the coalition, which acts against Serbia, from any basis for accusations that we want to impose the new constitution in a non-democratic way. Today especially when anti-Serb coalition leads to an unprecedented campaign against Serbia in the country and abroad and when in Kosovo yet another pitiful show is taking place whose playscript gets even the parliament of the region ²⁰⁸⁸⁷ involved. Pulling in the highest organs of the government in the region in a non-constitutional and illegal way in the fight for Albanian separatists' causes in the name of democracy is the best proof that so-called Albanian Democratic Alternative is nothing else but nationalist movement for the separation of Kosovo and Metohija, i.e., a movement against the Serbian state and its integrity. Therefore, from this place I would like to say that the Serbian state will consider every attempt of seizing its territory to be an act against the state and the people and will act accordingly."

Mr. Kucan, you saw this tape yesterday in circumstances where the sound was audible. We see what is said by the accused there about the borders being potentially an open issue. Remembering, please, that we are very pressed for time and if you could put it very summarily, what was the meaning, as you understood it, of this speech and what was its effect on you and others?

A. Well, this is footage from a meeting of the Presidency of the Assembly of the Republic of Serbia where they discuss the proposal of the Presidency of Serbia for a new constitution of the Republic of Serbia. This took place at a time in which in Yugoslavia we all sought for ways and means to resolve the crisis. At that time, different concepts were in the offing. We in Slovenia, throughout this period, advocated either a new agreement concerning the concept of the future state of Yugoslavia on the basis on establishing the interest to live in a single state, what are the interests and how to put them into practice. Once we noted that there is no such interest, we offered a variety ²⁰⁸⁸⁸ of options. One of them was the possibility to establish a confederation comprising the republics of the former Yugoslavia. This proposal or draft Serbian constitution, which I think was adopted in the fall of 1990, in fact speaks about the understanding of a confederation by the political leadership in Serbia. It states that a confederation is not a state, and it also emphasises that they could not adopt this option since the political issue and question of the borders between the republics could arise.

The point of departure in this matter was the following: The borders between -- of the republics in Yugoslavia are supposed to be administrative borders, which is contrary to facts. The first constitution after the Second World War outlined the borders. The borders were drawn on the basis of a consensus, and from that point onward, all Yugoslav constitutions included a provision that the borders between the republics cannot be changed without consensus of all the republics. Now, how I understand this message, as you've asked me, sir, let me answer in the following way: The message was that should Yugoslavia fall apart and should other forms be opted for, such as a confrontation, Serbia will never agree to a situation in which parts of the Serbian people living outside the territory of the Republic of Serbia be left beyond the Serb republic.

This is the difference in concepts that I referred to in my introductory statements. Our understanding of the Yugoslav state differed, on our decisions consequently differed. However, let me emphasise that this is an approach through which Serbia, given the ²⁰⁸⁸⁹ circumstances such as they were, tried to resolve the Serbian national question. This is, of course, a very difficult question to resolve. The alternative would have been to use the European standards and criteria, to use the international standards and criteria to safeguard and protect the rights of ethnic Serbs living as minorities in other republics throughout Yugoslavia, particularly in the Republic of Croatia as well as in the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the latter, the Serbs were one of the three constitutive peoples in the republic.

As the Serb political doctrine emphasised throughout this period that Serbs cannot live as an ethnic minority in any part of Yugoslavia, this approach was a sort of a logical philosophical continuation of this doctrine. But it may also have implied that borders might be redrawn by use of force.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, that's a convenient time.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, may it be acceptable if I take another half an hour, and I hope no more with this witness. That will mean that I will have taken something in the region of two hours and I hope leave enough time in the remainder of the morning for cross-examination.

JUDGE MAY: We'll consider that. Mr. Kucan, I should say we're going to adjourn now for 20 minutes. Could you remember, please, during the adjournment not to speak to anyone about your evidence until it's over. That's a direction we give to all witnesses. Could you be back in 20 minutes, please.

--- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.59 a.m. ²⁰⁸⁹⁰

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, you can have the extra half an hour now. We may, as a result, have to sit rather longer into the adjournment period, but we can do that, I'm told.

MR. NICE: I'm grateful.

Q. Mr. Kucan, I'll deal with some matters in brief because there's no need for us to deal with them extensively. Paragraph 36 of the court summary. The plebiscite you've already referred to in December with very large figures in favour of having an independent state, that decision to take place six months later, as I think you've already told us. Just yes or no to that.

A. Yes.

Q. Paragraph 39 and 40 of the court summary. You're aware from passages in Jovic's published diary of the possibility of meetings between Kadijevic and Milosevic, closed meetings between Kadijevic, Milosevic, and Jovic dealing with military matters. Were you aware - just yes or no again - of those meetings at the time or did it only come to light when you read the book or learnt about it afterwards?

A. No, I did not know about them then.

Q. Paragraph 41. Did Slovenia and Croatia at this time or about this time favour the notion of a confederation of states, something that was rejected at a Presidency meeting in January 1991 which was attended by republican authorities?

A. Yes. In summer of 1990 at the Presidency of Yugoslavia, a decision was made that Slovenia and Croatia should elaborate such a draft contract and the rest of the four republics a modern confederation ²⁰⁸⁹¹ concept. However, this concept, this idea was rejected at the following session of the Presidency in January.

Q. Paragraph 42. Were there talks between Serb and Slovenian delegations in January of 1991 where you headed the Slovenian delegation and the accused headed the Serbian delegation where this confederation was discussed; and then in February were there meetings of the republican presidents in Belgrade, again consideration of confederation, confederal system, again rejected by Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Macedonia; and as a result of that, did you come to the view that the notion of a confederal model was not going to be accepted?

A. On the plebiscite on Slovenia's independence was adopted on December 23rd in 1990, and the results were proclaimed on the 26th of December, when the documents were also made public. And there are two characteristics to these documents that I wish to underscore. First, that Slovenia wishes to settle all relations with other republics once its independent, wishes to do so by consensus and wishes also to establish what the possibilities are for the future institutional cooperation with the republics of Yugoslavia.

And a second feature of the documents then published after the plebiscite and around the plebiscite was the following; namely, that it will be the Assembly and the -- the Assembly and the government that will have to carry out all the necessary acts and measures necessary for Slovenia to become an independent state and basing this decision of theirs on the constitution and other legal documents of the Republic of Slovenia. And the Slovene political leadership then also decided as regards their ²⁰⁸⁹² ^{BLANK PAGE} ²⁰⁸⁹³ intentions about the mode of independence and ways of regulating relations with other republics to do so in direct contact and talks with the leaderships of other republics and do so also at the meeting of federal bodies that we only saw as mediators between the republics and provinces. Our stand was that the constituent parts of Yugoslavia are the republics of the federation. Hence, the meeting that I had already mentioned, the 10th of January, 1991, when this bilateral meeting was held between the leadership of Slovenia and the leadership of Serbia. And the delegations at this meeting -- well, I was present there as well as the accused, and we could establish there that this was the end of this concept of transforming Yugoslavia into a confederation.

Q. As we move towards the time when independence of Slovenia was to be --

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters would kindly request you to slow the witness down, please.

THE WITNESS: I got no translation.

JUDGE MAY: You're being asked to slow down a bit, Mr. Kucan.

MR. NICE:

Q. As we approach the time when independence of Slovenia was declared, we note that Croatia had announced an intention to declare independence at the same time and that there was then a meeting in Brdo on the 11th of April of 1991, in the process of continuing discussions and negotiations. Paragraph 45 of the summary.

In the course of that meeting and during a break, did you go for a walk alone with the accused, talking about the difficulties and ²⁰⁸⁹⁴ frustrations of that meeting, and can you tell us, please, in summary, what it was the accused said?

A. Yes. This meeting did take place, and it was one of the meetings that were regularly held. After January 1991, regular -- regular meetings of presidents of Yugoslav republics to discuss, in fact, just one topic, what a possible way out of the crisis is and also how to reshape living in Yugoslavia and the co-existing in Yugoslavia and whether a formula could be found for the future.

And this particular meeting that was held at Brdo near Ljubljana was one such meeting, and at this meeting this is indeed also one of the questions that was discussed. And I did say that 26 months between the decision at the plebiscite and before independence was running out and that this discussion should become much more concrete. President Tudjman also said at the meeting that should Slovenia do so, the very same day Croatia was going to act accordingly and do the same. And we did discuss this with the accused at the -- when we took this walk together, and also after that, the accused said to me, "Well, if the Slovenes really want to leave the federation, well, in that case it will not be possible for us to be opposed to it," he said. "However, the conditions will have to be met before Slovenia can leave Yugoslavia. However, the same could not go for Croatia in view of the fact that a good portion -- number of Serbs were living on the territory of Croatia and in this way they are -- they really have this blood link, blood ties with Croatia."

And when we heard this proposal about the Serb constitution in the ²⁰⁸⁹⁵ tape and when it was said that it was not possible to accept any other form of relations between the republics in Yugoslavia than the federation, because otherwise all different questions are open, including also the borders of Yugoslavia.

Q. Paragraph 49 in the summary. Slovenia's independence was declared publicly on the 25th of June of 1991. I think you made the point that all documents were published and open for consideration, and I think there was inevitably some celebration on the day or the night of independence; correct?

A. Yes. On the 25th of June, the Slovene Assembly adopted the documents, the fundamental charter on Slovenia's independence, then also a constitutional law to implement it as well as the independence declaration stating again what I have been trying to say all along, namely that Slovenia took this decision to exercise its right to self-determination but does not wish to do so at the detriment or against the right of any other nation in Yugoslavia, that it also wishes to settle all relations from the past and for the future as well as agree on forms of cooperation in the future. And these documents were published the following day, on the 26th of June, and it is then on that evening that this was celebrated and this was the sanctioned decision taken by the citizens of Slovenia concerning the autonomy and the independence of the Slovene state.

Q. Very well. We know of the short conflict, military conflict, between Slovenia and the JNA. Tell us when that started and when it finished, please.

A. Well, the JNA carried out this aggression immediately in the ²⁰⁸⁹⁶ course of or after the celebration of independence. If my memory serves me right, that was 2.30 or 2:00 p.m. that night with the tanks that came out of the barracks on the way to the external borders of the republic of Slovenia. And this decision, so it seems, although we knew nothing about it, was adopted at a meeting of the federal government, but we considered it illegal and unconstitutional because only the Presidency of Yugoslavia could actually take such decisions, and this conflict or aggression or war on Slovenia then was first of all interrupted and then came to an end on the 7th of July with -- talks then were organised on the Brioni islands upon the proposal of the ministerial Troika of the European Union, and during the period of the 27th of June to the 7th of July made interventions within the framework of these armed conflict, and it is Hans van den Broek, the then Foreign Minister of the Netherlands that led the talks.

Q. The withdrawal of the JNA from Slovenia, please. When it happened, what did you notice about where the JNA withdrew to?

A. The decision on the JNA's or the rest of the army's withdrawal, there were no longer Slovenes or Croats in JNA or members of other nations. This decision was adopted at the federal Presidency's meeting on the 18th of July, the first ten days after the Brioni meeting, that is. And the Presidency decided to ensure this withdrawal within a period of three months, and the last soldier left the Slovene territory on the 26th of October the same year.

Now, among the documents that were adopted by the Assembly of Slovenia on the 26th of June, well, the period that was decided upon was ²⁰⁸⁹⁷ five years to start with. However, then the Presidency decided that it would just be three months.

The JNA did not withdraw to elsewhere in Slovenia or Croatia but mainly to Bosnia-Herzegovina and especially the territories with the majority -- which was majority -- with a Serb majority.

Q. Thank you very much. In Exhibit 448, the extracts from Jovic's diary, there are entries that you have reviewed on page numbered 311 at the foot for the 5th of July, and I'm going to just touch them rather than go through them because of the time.

The 5th of July which begins with Jovic saying, "Slobodan and I scheduled a meeting with Kadijevic which we regard as critical. The situation in the country is almost tragic. The JNA has been defeated and routed in Slovenia. Army morale has hit rock bottom." Matters of that sort.

We go over the page, in fact over two pages to the 15th of July on page 326: "We finally adopted a decision on withdrawing the JNA from Slovenia. Formally the decision states the JNA units from Slovenia will be redeployed to new positions," and so on.

And then the 30th of July: "Veljko, Slobodan and I are sitting in my office before the Presidency with the presidents of the republics and the future of Yugoslavia." Next paragraph: "The JNA should be transformed into a military force of those who want to remain in Yugoslavia."

We are very pressed for time now, Mr. Kucan. You've reviewed those entries. Anything you particularly want to refer to in them? Do ²⁰⁸⁹⁸ they reflect, although you may not have known it at times, what you understand was going on?

A. Except for the meeting of the Presidency that I mentioned, I said the 17th of July, it was the 15th of July. We did not have information about this meeting, but withdrawal to the positions to which the JNA withdrew from Slovenia confirms actually what we find in these notes as to the reasons why they go there and what their tasks is.

Q. Have you also reviewed passages in a book by Kadijevic, which we haven't yet exhibited but will become a separate exhibit, if it may, please. The same terms.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that's Prosecution Exhibit 449.

MR. NICE:

Q. Without looking at the extracts, in order to save time, if you can deal with this, Mr. Kucan, what's your view on how Kadijevic describes the process of nationalisation of the army following its withdrawal from Slovenia?

A. Which extract is this, please? If you're referring to the book --

Q. Yes.

A. The book. When the book was published, I read it, so what would you like to know exactly in connection with this book?

Q. Do you have any immediate recollection of any particular passage dealing with the withdrawal of the army? I'll withdraw that question for the time being. It can possibly be raised in cross-examination.

A. Well, if you are referring to those excerpts and their description and his thoughts as to where the army should withdraw and what it should ²⁰⁸⁹⁹ ^{BLANK PAGE} ²⁰⁹⁰⁰ be done, obviously this is true, because it was part of the recognition that Yugoslavia no longer can be kept together. The army had been an integrating factor. Now with the withdrawal from Slovenia, its strategic mission changed. Not to protect and safeguard Yugoslavia but, rather, to protect the smaller Yugoslav borders, particularly the parts inhabited by ethnic Serbs.

In fact, how I understand it is that apparently they do not want, or he doesn't want to, agree to parts of ethnic Serbs living outside a single state.

MR. NICE: Your Honours may want to have an eye on this extract on page 73 at the foot in particular and towards the foot, and the witness may wish to recall that there's reference in the book by Kadijevic to the Karlobag-Virovitica lines and thereabouts.

Q. Do you have any comment to make on what has been said about those lines?

A. Yes. Now, as to where would be the borders of the limited Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia without Slovenia and parts of Croatia inhabited predominantly by ethnic Serbs, well, these do coincide with this line Virovitica-Karlovac further down to the south of Herzegovina and Montenegro. This had been spoken about in Yugoslavia quite often before and afterwards, and in fact, this book by Kadijevic simply confirms the reasoning that we had known from before.

Q. One other matter of fact, two other matters of commentary before I finish.

The matter of fact I didn't deal with, it's at paragraph 14 of the ²⁰⁹⁰¹ summary. It goes back in time. In the build-up to the decision to secede or to have independence, did you have limitations on the information you received from the army? Did Slovenia suffer limitations in what it was told by the army?

A. As far as the relationship between Slovenia and the JNA goes, this was characterised by a series of conflicts from 1988 onwards. The events that I'm sure the Chamber is fully familiar with. Therefore, it is quite understandable that we either had received no information from the JNA or we received very scattered information, particularly as far as their position and plans for Slovenia.

We did know, however, that a special staff had been established to regulate the situation in Slovenia. This is what we have been told by the Slovene generals. However, we had no possibility whatsoever to verify this and check this at a later point in time.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, there are two exhibits I haven't touched, tabs 4 and 5, being articles where this witness was interviewed in 1992 and 1993. The purpose of them, and they can be seen from the extracts included, that the phrase "Greater Serbia" was in use at the time even if not used by the accused. It was used as reflecting the ideas that were going on so far as Serbia was concerned.

Q. My two conceptual questions that I want you to deal with in about one minute or two minutes each. As the -- paragraph 61. You take the view, I think, Mr. Kucan, that there were different values of what Yugoslavia should become after its break-up, and you take a view as to how it was that nationalism came to play a part. Could you ²⁰⁹⁰² express that, but really, I'm afraid, very shortly.

A. In my introduction, I emphasised that one of the typical features of the crisis in Yugoslavia was also a crisis of values, ethical and others, and that in fact Yugoslavia as a non-aligned state and such as it had been had performed its role. Once the values, the system of values fell apart, it was the nationalist concept that had become the single criterion of any action and activity which by itself and in itself is not a tragic development.

The desire and aspiration for freedom and independence by a people is a legitimate right. However, the question is whether this right can be exercised at the detriment of other people's rights, and this is where one of the major conceptual differences lies.

Q. Yes. Do you take any view about how there was an absence of values, or a vacuum, indeed, that needed to be filled?

A. Yes. In fact, our proposals made at the 14th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, i.e., the proposals made by the Slovene delegation, in fact were emphasising the need to fill this vacuum out with a new system of values and standards which Yugoslavia or, rather, Europe had been promoting since the Second World War, and I'm referring to Europe that had -- stood for the values such as democracy, open market economy, openness towards the world, and the need to safeguard the image that Yugoslavia had had internationally.

I should also like to emphasise the following: Officially, "Greater Serbia" is not a term that had been used by the Serbian leadership, but the Republic of Serbia per se and the Republic of Serbia ²⁰⁹⁰³ including all ethnic Serbians of course makes a big difference.

Q. You spoke earlier of the two concepts of Yugoslavia, one as the vehicle where all Serbs lived under one roof, the other as a community -- as nations in a community.

The break-up, did it reflect one or other of those concepts, in your view?

A. The manner in which the concepts were implemented as well as the facts that took place in fact speak for themselves, and they are now shown today very vividly in the concepts that have been pursued by the current parts of the former Yugoslavia, and it is now obvious which parts are living under circumstances and values and standards that are characteristic of modern Europe, of today.

Q. And finally, at paragraph 62, do you feel it important to compare the break-up of the former Yugoslavia with the break-up of other territories into constituent parts at the same time or similar time?

A. By all means. This is very important for at least two reasons. Number one, our proposal also to the international community as well as to the European Union to realise and recognise that Yugoslavia's days were over and that their intervention is needed for this break-up to be controlled and free of violence.

The second reason is closely associated with the first one. The response to our requests and proposals always was: Yugoslavia cannot be broken up because this would be a very bad model for the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union is a much more complex case than Yugoslavia. In these changes and restructuring after the fall of the Berlin ²⁰⁹⁰⁴ Wall, when the former Czechoslovakia fell apart, the Soviet Union fell apart and both these states fell apart on the basis of an agreement, peacefully, without the use of violence and without bloodshed. In a tragic and bloody manner, it was only Yugoslavia that broke up. The question, the crucial question, is why this took place and why did it happen in Yugoslavia alone?

Q. Thank you very much. There will be further questions from the accused.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I'm not quite sure how much time you're going to give me for the cross-examination of this witness, because I can see that it's already after half past eleven.

JUDGE MAY: We're going to give you the same as the Prosecution. That will be one hour, 50 minutes. We might extend that, if you don't waste time, to two hours.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that that's too short a time, but that is your -- the practice you have applied here.

JUDGE MAY: The witness is only available today. We must get through his evidence and we must do so as equitably as we can. Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I should like to ask your indulgence for a minute of explanation by me. As the amicus throughout all this time, I have truly endeavoured to save as much time as possible. I think that I can say on behalf of the amicus that to bring in a key witness of this nature for only one day is not sufficient. I don't ²⁰⁹⁰⁵ think it is enough time for us to get through everything that is necessary.

I shall abide and respect your decision with regard to the time allotted for cross-examination, but I fear that we're going to find ourselves in a situation in which I will have no time to ask the witness anything, whereas I have very many key questions and issues to raise. So I should like to know how much time I can count on, as the amicus, for my questioning. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Tapuskovic, we have in this trial, as in any trial, to balance the need for evidence with the availability of witnesses, and in that availability we have to consider the convenience and the possibility of witnesses coming. That's one thing to bear in mind.

Secondly, with respect to the amicus, of course you have an important role to fulfil, but it's more important that the time is taken up with cross-examination by the accused, and he should have his allotted time.

As you've heard, there may be extra time this afternoon, and we'll consider whether it would be possible to fit as much as possible of your cross-examination in.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] May I just be allowed to add, I don't understand, although I do respect the work obligations of Mr. Kucan, however, witnesses of this kind, key witnesses, might I say, are brought into the courtroom for only one day, and I think that we ought to extend a caution to the Prosecution to ask them to find enough time, and I think ²⁰⁹⁰⁶ every man in his life has enough time to spare, so that people can come in and have longer time with the witnesses. So that is the objection and remark I have to make on behalf of the amicus. That's something we'll have to weigh up and assess. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: We must get on now with the examination and not take up further time.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As we were saying, it's 25 minutes to 12:00 now.

Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Let me ask a preliminary question first. You mentioned the war in Slovenia. You used three expressions; "conflict," "aggression," and "war." Did Serbia have anything at all to do with that war in Slovenia which, as you said, went on for ten days?

A. Well, I used the expression "the war in Slovenia." I apologise. A war against Slovenia. Slovenia was confronted with JNA. Who influenced the acts of the JNA can be judged today on the basis of the documents which are at the disposal of this Court.

Q. Very well. At that time, and I hope you also know today, that we in Serbia didn't know about that intervention at all when it began. We had no idea, and we couldn't have known in advance when we didn't know when it actually began.

A. Distinguished Your Honours, we in Slovenia turned to the federal bodies, believing that the federal bodies were controlling the JNA, and the federation was the sole other party in this dialogue between the two. ²⁰⁹⁰⁷ ^{BLANK PAGE} ²⁰⁹⁰⁸

Q. Well, all right. But that -- does that then mean that Serbia has nothing to do with the war?

A. I do not know. Documents speak about that, as well as books which had been written later. My conclusions today on the basis of facts that I know today I didn't -- and which I didn't know at the time they were happening.

Q. What was the conclusion?

JUDGE MAY: Well, you know, it would be much easier and much more productive to deal with what the witness himself knew and what he dealt with, and what he said about this is that he doesn't know at the time whether Serbia was involved. He dealt with the federal authorities. Now, what I caution you against, Mr. Milosevic, because it wastes time, is getting into arguments with witnesses, dealing with things which they haven't come to give evidence about.

His conclusions are not relevant what -- unless they affected what happened at the time. His conclusions about the evidence are subject to what this Trial Chamber is going to find. We're going to make conclusions about what the evidence is insofar as it's relevant to this indictment. So there's not much point asking him about his conclusions.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not asking him about his conclusions. What I'm asking him is about his knowledge.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I have the transcript from the meeting of the 21st of August, and I'm going to read out the first sentence and one sentence later on. "'I am not going to be responsible,' says Milan Kucan: 'I'm not going to be ²⁰⁹⁰⁹ responsible to the Prime Minister who quite obviously, now that he has lost the war, wants to win everything else,'" and so on and so forth. And then there's another sentence. In speaking about the fact that the two members of the federal government who had left would not be returning, you go on to say: "I don't have to convince you that you're not going to find a man in Slovenia, including these two men, who will return to the federal government and work in it. That is the SIV, the federal government for which we know in Slovenia started the war in Slovenia." And those are your very words.

Have I quoted you correctly?

A. Yes, and it's clear that Slovenia acted in this way, and that was also my stand in connection with that.

JUDGE MAY: Which year are we talking about and what were the circumstances of the meeting? Which meeting was it?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It was a meeting of the Presidency of the SFRY in extended composition, as was the term used at the time, which meant that those present -- we were present, the presidents of the Presidencies or the presidents of the republics, the individual Yugoslav republics. I attended the meeting and so did the witness.

JUDGE MAY: And which year?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The -- it was on the 21st of August, 1991, after the conflict in Slovenia. And therefore this observation made by the witness, which quite clearly speaks about who did what at the time.

Q. But let's dwell for a moment on some more serious matters because these are things you have talked about. I think they're essential. ²⁰⁹¹⁰ Was it clear that the federal organs, as you yourself state, undertook individual measures and took steps to make it impossible to infringe upon the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the SFRY? Was that the explanation that was given at the time?

A. Your Honours, Slovenia was not infringing upon the territorial integrity of SFR Yugoslavia. It was -- in a legitimate way it was availing itself of its right to self-determination.

Q. Is it true that the very next day, that is to say after the proclamation of the independence of Slovenia on the 25th of June, already on the 26th of June, the day after, you took control of the borders, took down all the plaques which said "Yugoslavia" on it at the border crossings, that you took over the customs control, customs offices and so on and so forth?

A. In line with the decisions of the republican Assembly, after proclaiming its independence, it effectively took over the authority on the border and carried out these operations mentioned by the accused and put up the border plaques with the name of Republic of Slovenia.

Q. So the activities that were taken by the federal government were reactions to what had in fact taken place. That's right, isn't it?

A. Well, six months after the plebiscite and the announcement that the decision of the plebiscite would be implemented in six months, there were no other reactions with which we would resolve the situation after the independence of Slovenia.

Q. Do you happen to remember the statements made by the US State Secretary, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on the 12th of January, ²⁰⁹¹¹ 1995, in the American Senate, that the war was started by Slovenia? Do you know about that statement?

A. I know also of similar statements, and I don't deny the right of anyone to have his own opinion on what has been happening in Yugoslavia, but of course I have a right to my own opinion, which I have also stated in this court.

Q. I'm not talking about an opinion. I'm talking about facts. And do you happen to remember, Warren Zimmermann wrote this, the last American ambassador to the SFRY, in a journal called Foreign Affairs, the March/April issue 1991, the title is "Remembering the Catastrophe in Yugoslavia," and he writes the following: "Contrary to generally held opinions, the Slovenes were the ones who started the war. Their declaration of independence, which was not preceded by any efforts to negotiate, really did place under their control all border crossings between Slovenia and its two neighbours Italy and Austria. This meant that Slovenia was the sole international passage between the Western Yugoslavia and that it appropriated the right and goods intended for other countries and the revenues from customs taxes which amounted to 75 per cent of the national budget. Even a less primitive army than the JNA would have reacted. The worst thing of all was the understandable wish of the Slovenes to be independent, however, condemned the rest of Yugoslavia for war."

And that was verbatim a quotation by him.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness -- just a moment. You read that out. The witness should have a chance to comment on it, part by part. ²⁰⁹¹² Mr. Kucan, you've dealt with the point about whether the Slovenes started the war. What's said is there was no effort to negotiate beforehand, and the effect was that Slovenia was the international passage, as it's put, between Yugoslavia and that you appropriated various rights in connection with customs and the like, so the JNA was bound to react.

You've probably heard this, these sort of comments before, but obviously you should have the chance of responding to them since the accused has put them to you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is the position of the former Ambassador Zimmerman of the United States. I am acquainted with that. There are also other and different opinions from that. Of course the assertion doesn't stand that Slovenia did not -- did nothing in order to assure that this would take place in a peaceful and orderly manner.

Already at the meeting in January, in January 1991, after the meetings when it turned out that no agreement could be achieved about the reorganisation of Yugoslavia, our Assembly, the Assembly in February 1991 adopted a declaration on an agreed upon disassociation with a proposal, which contained a proposal how to ensure Slovene self-determination where it was also stated that it doesn't want it any other way than through an agreement with other republics.

This declaration had been then sent to all the Assemblies of other republics and provinces. The only answer and positive answer we received was from the Assembly of Croatia. No other answer received. ²⁰⁹¹³ So this was just one of the examples what Slovenia did in order to assure that this would happen in agreement and in a peaceful way.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Kucan, I hope we're not challenging the fact that nobody in Yugoslavia disputed the right of Slovenia to self-determination, the right of the Slovenian people to self-determination.

A. No, that is not true.

Q. Well, who, then, did challenge the right to self-determination?

A. There is -- was a difference between the principled view, stand, and the practical stand, namely that this right can be implemented up to the right of secession or that the federal bodies determined that. While in the federal bodies you had a majority decision-making. We know what that looked like at the Congress, the 14th Congress in January, 1991, when Slovenia came with its legitimate and rightful proposals and through which it was brutally outvoted.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Could you comment on the passage that Mr. Milosevic quoted to the effect that one result of your declaration of independence was that you had the right to impose customs duties on goods coming into Western Yugoslavia. I'm not sure I quite understand that. Was that a consequence?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] One of the decisions of the Slovene Assemblies was to take over the customs duties, customs duties which were taxed on the territory of the Republic of Slovenia. It would have been paid into a special fund and then the decision concerning this fund would be taken during the talks on the future. ²⁰⁹¹⁴ ^{BLANK PAGE} ²⁰⁹¹⁵

JUDGE ROBINSON: You mean the decision as to how the funds would be distributed among the other republics. I see. Thanks.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This was also specified in the Brioni accord Annex 1. It was July 1991.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. July 1991. The Brioni agreement was after the war and here we're talking about the war.

So tell me, as you did have the possibility of stepping down from Yugoslavia in the way Slovakia did, for example, and you opted for violence and you played the decisive role, and of course Germany, Austria, the politicians that you discussed this issue with, why then did you opt for war when you could have stepped down peacefully? Why did you attack the JNA in Slovenia?

A. The decision concerning the customs and the fate of the customs was a decision adopted by the Slovene Assembly on the 25th of June. And as far as other countries and politicians from other countries, I cannot involve them concerning the Slovene decision. The decision was taken by us. We weren't influenced by anybody else. The risk we took upon ourselves.

As far as Slovakia is concerned, nobody set any conditions. It was an agreement which was reached by the two presidents of the Czech and the Slovak government.

Q. You just mentioned the fact that you weren't able to go to the federal organs not to be outvoted, to avoid being outvoted. I think you know that in the Federal Assembly, according to the constitution, nobody ²⁰⁹¹⁶ could be outvoted and that the federal council and the council of chambers and provinces existed at the time, so Slovenia could not have been outvoted on an issue of this kind. A consensus was being offered. So bearing this in mind, why, then, did you attack the JNA on your territory, the JNA which went there to --

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer one question at a time. The question was that you were being offered, it's said, a consensus. Would that be true or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The law on secession as was proposed would have been adopted in the federal chamber, not in the chamber of republics and provinces where consensus was needed. It was the federal chamber where the majority vote prevailed. And also, the Serbian leadership, when speaking of greater efficiency of the federal bodies, they also insisted one man, one vote, and it meant that for the smaller nations within the federation, we'd be outvoted. So this assertion doesn't stand.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, it is precisely the fact that this law was not adopted because of a lack of consensus confirms that the assertion does stand, because the law was not adopted because they could not agree on the basis of a consensus. Isn't that so, Mr. Kucan? Why wasn't the law adopted, then, if we had the majority in the Assembly, and those four other republics, and were able in the federal chamber to adopt it by a majority a vote? It wasn't adopted, wasn't passed because there was no consensus. You did not allow it to be adopted, in fact, and to step down peacefully ²⁰⁹¹⁷ as a result.

A. Your Honours, it would be difficult for me -- as a member of a small nation, it would be difficult for me to dictate to the majority. It was another matter was at stake. Was it a decision, Slovene decision of secession or issue of disassociation from Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia wouldn't exist without Slovenia. We were a constitutive element of Yugoslavia. And this has roots in 1918 when the country was founded and what it is. That is why we proposed this concept of disassociation and the declaration of the Republican Assembly in February 1991, it proposed it to the assemblies of the other republics to reflect and reconsider it. I know also of many other proposals concerning -- and drafts of this law on secession, and there were two lines of thinking, the indissolubility of the republics concerning all the debts of all the individual republics, so how much each and every republic borrowed abroad for its development, and it would be requested that the -- it would also request that its workers be employed also in all other republics. So these were the thinkings along the lines concerning this draft law.

Q. Well, that's precisely why I'm asking you this, because you yourself said a moment ago the right to self-determination, which is the right enjoyed by all nations, all ethnic groups, and that that could not be realised at the expense of the same rights enjoyed by others. So is that clear? Do we agree on that point at least?

A. As far as the fact that each nation has the right to self-determination, yes, they all. But it's not an abstract category. It lives in a reality, and it is linked to the republic in the context of the ²⁰⁹¹⁸ border, because the borders between the republics were borders and borders that cannot be changed without the agreement of the affected republic. Therefore, the decision of self-determination was fixed on the territory and not the changes of territories.

We have not tried to infringe upon the territories either of the other republics of Yugoslavia or of other neighbouring countries.

Q. And the intervention of the federal government wasn't on inter-republican borders but on the external borders of Yugoslavia which it was its constitutional right to do, wasn't it? And you attacked the army on your territory. The Yugoslav People's Army, the only legitimate army in Yugoslavia at that time, and you attacked it on your territory, which took up positions on the external borders of Yugoslavia. Isn't that right?

A. For many years, Your Honours, I had this unpleasant duty to carry on the political debates on what Yugoslavia is. The external borders of Yugoslavia were also Slovene borders. And when Slovenia decided to go independent legally, all Slovene borders became external borders. And as I said before, there can be no Yugoslavia without Slovenia, so there was no need to defend the Yugoslav borders, at least not there where Slovenia was.

Q. Very well. Obviously this is changing the subject, because I quoted Zimmerman who is giving the exact reasons why you did that. But to be practical, let us move on.

Do you please remember your involvement on NTV television, one of those private TV stations in 1995, in November, together with Mesic, ²⁰⁹¹⁹ Tomac, Spegelj in a live programme? Do you remember that programme that you were a participant of?

A. I would have to look at the footage. I would have to look at the footage; we had many such programmes, I don't know exactly which you're thinking about.

Q. Very well. Do you remember, I'm referring to the programme aired on the 8th of November, on the NTV private TV station in which you participated together with Stipe Mesic who at the time headed the party of Croatian Independent Democrats, and also participating were Spegelj, Tomac and others. It was a Kontakt programme. Spectators called in and you had a lot of discussion. I'm sure you didn't have many programmes with the same participants, especially on that date and that year, so surely you remember that programme.

A. Your Honours, I do remember the programme but I don't remember the date, and of course I don't have such a memory to recollect both the programmes and the dates, but I do remember participating in the programme.

Q. Very well. That's fine. Now, do you remember that in that programme Mesic - you were present - declared, Mesic declared, that the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany, Hans Dietrich Genscher, and the Pope John Paul II, by the direct agreement and support designed to break up the former Yugoslavia had practically contributed most to that actually happening? Do you remember the positions he took and the explanations he gave along those lines?

A. Those were the stance of Mr. Mesic. I already mentioned before ²⁰⁹²⁰ that foreign statesmen will not be involved in this story of the independence of Slovenia. Also, in connection with the concrete name --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kucan, let us just stick to whatever it is the accused wants to put. That is what Mr. Mesic said, something along those lines; is that right?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. But my experience with these people is different. That is what I wanted to state.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You mean with reference to Genscher and the Pope?

A. Yes.

Q. Yes. But I'm asking you whether Mesic said what I said.

JUDGE MAY: He has agreed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Oh, I see. Fine.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what you exactly want from me.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I'm asking you, Mr. Kucan. You are testifying here. Among other things, half of your testimony referred to the book by Borisav Jovic. So I'm now asking you, for instance, about a statement by Stipe Mesic in front of you in a Kontakt programme in which you took part together. You said here that you could confirm here what Jovic said at meetings that you attended. Now I'm asking you whether you could confirm what Mesic said in a Kontakt programme you were in.

JUDGE MAY: Let's move on, Mr. Milosevic. The witness has agreed with that. ²⁰⁹²¹ ^{BLANK PAGE} ²⁰⁹²²

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's fine.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let us just specify something else, please. Do you remember that at the time Mesic said that he came to Belgrade, to the highest position in the federation in order to, through the mediation of the Yugoslav diplomacy at the time, to get in touch with the most influential factors and to persuade them that the survival of Yugoslavia was nonsense? And I have a quotation: "I wanted to convey that the idea of the break-up of Yugoslavia to those who had the greatest influence on its fate, to Genscher and the Pope. In fact, I had three meetings with Genscher. He enabled a contact with the Holy See. The Pope and Genscher agreed with the total break-up of SFRY." Was that what he said?

A. Your Honours, this programme which I participated together with Mr. Mesic, I can confirm that. But to be able to confirm each and every word, I'd need either a transcript or a video in order to be able to confirm it. These are very weighty words, and to testify like this wouldn't -- just wouldn't do.

JUDGE MAY: Were these put to Mr. Mesic? I don't remember. Just a moment. Just a moment.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's not waste time.

MR. NICE: I do not recall these passages being put, no.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, they were not put because when I was cross-examining Mesic, I didn't have this information about that particular programme. Otherwise, I would have surely. But since Mr. Kucan was a participant, I think it is quite relevant to establish that. ²⁰⁹²³

JUDGE MAY: The witness can't remember the particular detail, and he's dealt with it generally. Now, let's move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you remember that Tomac at the time recalled that Slovenia and Croatia, as long as 1990, had formed a strong partnership in favour of the break-up of Yugoslavia? He was, according to his criteria, was favourable for you, and this tandem, this couple, consisted of Franjo Tudjman and yourself; is that right?

A. Your Honours, I and nobody else from the leadership of Slovenia worked on the concept of the break-up of Yugoslavia. We only worked together on the reorganisation, restructuring of Yugoslavia. I mentioned the session of the Presidency in the summer of 1990 when it was agreed that Slovenia and Croatia prepare a concept of a federation, and also a confederal agreement was drawn up but which wasn't accepted by the other republics.

Q. Yes, yes. Four republics, as you yourself said, did not agree to it. But then let us go back since I asked you why you attacked the Yugoslav People's Army when it wasn't jeopardising anyone over there. I'm asking you now, is it true that during the conflict in Slovenia 44 members of the JNA were killed, 184 seriously wounded?

A. Your Honours, I must refute the assertion that -- the assertion that Slovenia attacked the JNA. It wasn't the Slovene army that went out of the barracks to attack the JNA, but it was the JNA, according to our judgement, on the basis of an illegal, unconstitutional decision of the ²⁰⁹²⁴ federal government, moved out of the barracks not only in Slovenia but also those located on the territory of the Republic of Croatia. And that is a fact, and it's an unavoidable fact.

In this war, in fact, regrettably, people died. According to our data, 37 members of the JNA, eight members of the Slovene TO, four policemen, six civilians, citizens of Slovenia, and six foreigners who were at the time on the territory -- our territory of the Republic of Slovenia.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I have here a list of the killed and wounded members of the JNA in Slovenia, and as I'm saying that this was an attack on the JNA, I should like to tender it into evidence.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you remember the worst kind of crimes that you committed against --

JUDGE MAY: Before we get there, let's deal with this. Where does the list come from which you want to tender into evidence?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is an official book, "Killed and died members of the JNA," those who died from the consequences of their injuries, with their names, date of birth, garrison they belonged to. It's easily verifiable and is not at issue.

JUDGE MAY: Just hand it in and we'll have a look at it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. You can do that later on, just to save time. Please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you remember the worst kind of crimes you committed -- ²⁰⁹²⁵

JUDGE MAY: No. Mr. Nice has a point.

MR. NICE: If this extract is admissible, then the whole book should be admitted, in our respectful submission.

JUDGE MAY: I'm not sure about that.

MR. NICE: It would be more valuable. There may be issues as to whether it's admissible in any event because it may lack relevance, simply to put a list of names in light of the answer given by the witness. But if it is relevant, we would invite the accused to provide the whole book.

JUDGE MAY: What we might do is this, we will hand you it to look at during the adjournment, which is just coming up. You can have a look at it, but what we might simply do is mark it for identification and it may become relevant in due course. But hand this, if you would, to the Prosecution and we'll consider it after the adjournment. We're going to adjourn now. We will adjourn now for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.15 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.38 p.m.

JUDGE MAY: Exhibit number first.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Defence Exhibit 135, marked for identification.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, we've reviewed it. We would not object to its being marked for identification. Obviously, we need to see the book in due course.

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

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ²⁰⁹²⁶

Q. Will you please give me brief answers because our time is limited. Do you remember that at five crossing points you brought minor children of officers and, under threat of death, you forced them to call on their fathers to surrender? Right or not?

A. No, we didn't do that.

Q. Do you remember that armed civilians arrested JNA members in the streets of towns and then in prisons they were subjected to various kinds of torture, such as scheduling their execution and things like that? Do you remember that? Yes or no.

A. No.

Q. And do you remember that you expelled or evicted from their apartments the families of officers, threatening to liquidate them unless they left Slovenia within a certain time period, by a certain deadline?

A. No.

Q. And is it true that the Territorial Defence of Slovenia, with so-called units of national protection, set up barricades to prevent the passage of the JNA? Yes or no.

A. Your Honours, the barricades were first put up by the citizens of Slovenia. The Territorial Defence wasn't organised yet. It was on the night from the 26th/27th of June when we -- the citizens were celebrating their independence, and when going home, they saw the tanks coming, and they put up -- they used their cars, the buses to place in front of these vehicles.

Q. Very well. I have documentation in support of all this, so I won't dwell on it. You certainly remember that passenger vehicles with ²⁰⁹²⁷ licence plates from Serbia, ordinary passengers, civilians, who happened to be on the territory of Slovenia had their cars seized from them.

THE INTERPRETER: No microphone. I'm sorry, the interpreter can't hear the speaker.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You certainly remember that passenger vehicles with licence plates from Serbia, various civilians who were travelling on business or otherwise, that their vehicles were seized and the passengers were held as hostages and used as human shields? Yes or no.

A. Your Honours, as I took the oath to speak the truth, nothing but the truth, it's not possible to answer these questions. In Slovenia, due to the aggression of the JNA, some trucks were stopped and the drivers and passengers were warned that they could be attacked and were asked to withdraw. I allow that maybe in these columns of vehicles there could be some vehicles with Serbian licence plates.

Q. And do you remember that the military hospital, the military hospital in Ljubljana and the rehabilitation centre in Rimska Toplica were blocked and electricity and water were cut off, as well as food supplies, and there were vehicles placed in front of them filled with gas and petrol cans? Yes or no.

A. In order that they were brought trucks with gas cylinders, I don't know, but I know that civilians were also injured concerning civilian hospitals.

Q. And do you remember that these institutions, that is the military hospital and the military rehabilitation centre, were told that they would ²⁰⁹²⁸ be destroyed, together with their patients, if the JNA undertakes any military actions in the Republic of Slovenia?

A. I do not know that, but I know that the JNA used helicopters to transport the injured and that they wore the sign of the Red Cross.

Q. And do you know that extending aid to wounded soldiers was prevented and that there were even attacks on ambulances, streets were blocked, the civilian medical service refused to extend first aid to officers and soldiers of the JNA due to which some very young soldiers died of wounds that were not lethal.

A. From as far as I know, our civilian hospitals and first aid had the task to help each and every one who was injured, be it the JNA -- members of the JNA, the police, the TO, or civilians.

Q. Since that is not true, but I have documents in support of this --

JUDGE MAY: The witness asserts that it is, so there's no point arguing about it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, I will not argue, Mr. May. I don't want to waste time.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you remember injuries of civilians which shows that there was violence against the lives and health of individuals, that hostages were taken, that there was terrorism, that there were impermissible threats made? I have information. I'll just read out the title: "Violations of the Rules of International Humanitarian Law by Members of the Armed Forces of Slovenia."

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is also from this white book. ²⁰⁹²⁹ ^{BLANK PAGE} ²⁰⁹³⁰ Could this be also exhibited and then you will consider it, because I don't have time to read it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And do you remember violations of international law with respect to civilians, the injured, and patients and the dead?

JUDGE MAY: One thing at a time. This is another entry from the same book; is that right?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, let us have it now.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, different considerations might apply to this extract, seeing the way the title's been read, because if it's going to go in in any way as evidence of what it says, it's probably something we would object to, but we'll see.

JUDGE MAY: The list can be marked for identification. It's no more than that. It appears to be an extract from the book. The Prosecution can make objections in due course.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Defence Exhibit 136, marked for identification.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you remember violations of international law with respect to the civilian population, the wounded, the sick, dead persons, medical staff? I have here 19 such cases of failure to respect those rules, failure to respect medical staff, impermissible attacks on Red Cross marked vehicles and ambulances. This is violations of the rules regarding ²⁰⁹³¹ the sick, the wounded, the dead, et cetera. There are 19 different entries, and I would like to tender it.

JUDGE MAY: No. This is merely some allegations which are made by somebody in a book, no doubt. You can call evidence about it in due course, but first of all, the witness should have the opportunity to deal with these allegations and suggestions.

Mr. Kucan, it's alleged, as you've heard, that there were various violations of international law with respect to medical staff, attacks on Red Cross vehicles, and other violations about the sick and the wounded. Normally, I would have the accused go through these 19 allegations one by one, but in the interests of saving time, I'm not going to do that. But you should have the opportunity of answering. Is it true that there were violations on the Slovene side, of these rules?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, these allegations, these types of allegations put forward by the accused I refute and in the most decided manner. This is a propaganda brochure which was published and printed by Narodna Armija. Slovenia, in connection with these cases mentioned by the accused, this has been investigated by the investigative judge, by a forensic expert, and we have documents on this which are preserved in the Ministry of Defence. And if the Court wishes so, it will be able to receive it.

I assert that this was not -- was not happening in Slovenia. And even if something like this did happen, it would be an extreme, excessive situation. The TO members, the JNA, and also the civilians were here. But later, what was happening in Srebrenica, Vukovar, Dubrovnik, and the ²⁰⁹³² concentration camps, this was a system, and I don't believe that there the investigations have been completed as they have been in Slovenia.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. May, so you won't accept this; is that right?

JUDGE MAY: No.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] These injuries, violations of the rules?

JUDGE MAY: No.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] These 19 points? Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And do you remember violations of the rules with respect to people in custody? I have 17 different entries proving that the wounded and the sick were not given appropriate aid but they were threatened, their lives were threatened, their human dignity violated, and so on. Is that incorrect too, Mr. Kucan?

A. Your Honours, I've already answered to that. I said that we also offered assistance, and after the Brioni accord, it was also agreed that the exchange would take place of the POWs as well as of the injured, and so they could go wherever they wished to go.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So you won't accept this either as an exhibit, Mr. May? Very well. I have here some documents which say, for instance, Vednost [phoen], which means for information of the president of Slovenia, Mr. Milan Kucan. These are documents of the District Court in Kopar [phoen] of the Helsinki Monitor of Slovenia, et cetera, signed the president, Neva Miklavcic Predan, the president of the ²⁰⁹³³ Helsinki board of Slovenia. I have documents of the state Prosecutor's office in Maribor, et cetera, also forwarded to you for your attention. And the question is: Are you informed about the well-known case when three captured members of the JNA were executed? Three captured members of the JNA executed by Slovenian policemen at the Holmec crossing on the 28th of June, 1991. Do you remember that?

A. The Holmec case and all the other cases mentioned in the white book have been investigated. As I said, a report exists of the findings, and the Court may also request it and receive it. But that there was no say of this that civilians or that POWs would be executed.

Q. I didn't get the Serbian interpretation. I just heard you speaking, Mr. Kucan, but I think you said that they were not executed. Is that right?

A. If I understood you correctly that as POWs, that they had been shot, then my answer is no.

Q. So these three JNA members were not executed?

JUDGE MAY: That's what he said.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I even have here the notes of the post-mortems, the reports on the post-mortems of these three JNA members who were executed. I have the letters of the Helsinki committee, and other documents. So would at least these documents be admitted into evidence?

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness -- let the witness see them first of all. He may have a comment on them. ²⁰⁹³⁴

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He can see all of them. But let me just first find something else. Yes, the Prosecutor's office. This whole set of documents as an exhibit, I would like the witness to look at it. I also have information that the opposite side has received such documents, Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Can you help us with those, Mr. Kucan, what they are?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. What does this prove? That -- it just goes to prove that Slovenia also in the case of war acted as a state with a rule of law, that the prosecution came in, carried out their investigation and made its findings. The Helsinki Monitor also was involved.

I asserted that these soldiers were not killed and executed as prisoners of war, but unfortunately, they were executed.

JUDGE MAY: This is the, according to the accused, a file or part of a file which the Prosecutor's office had. Is that a correct way to describe it?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what the Prosecution has at its disposal, but these are authentic documents referring to the work of the judicial bodies of Slovenia.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Tell me this then, please; were these people executed or were they not?

JUDGE MAY: Let us deal with it first of all by way of deciding whether to admit it or not. Yes.

MR. NICE: All I would add for your deliberations is this: There ²⁰⁹³⁵ is a threshold of relevance for consideration when we're looking at events in Slovenia. For Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, of course there's a conflict, and therefore, what's done by the other side is raised as relevant by the accused. I'm not going to try and hold out any documents that may be helpful, but if we consider receiving the white book and then in consequence the whole report in answer to the white book which will add to the materials before the Chamber, we may have gone too far in broadening the admissibility of evidence, but it's a matter for the Chamber.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll admit these documents. We bear in mind what the Prosecution say about relevance, but meanwhile, de bene esse, we'll admit these and allow the accused to cross-examine on these matters of detail. In due course we'll have to decide how relevant the matter is.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Defence Exhibit 137.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I presented just a few examples from all that which show that in that alleged attack by the JNA and the aggression against Slovenia, the casualties were several times greater, several times more soldiers with the JNA, just eight members, in fact, of the Territorial Defence of Slovenia among them were killed, and this was exclusively self-defence from an attack, an attack which was not caused or --

JUDGE MAY: We have been over all this. The witness has given his evidence. Let's move on to something else.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please. In the statement -- in his ²⁰⁹³⁶ ^{BLANK PAGE} ²⁰⁹³⁷ statement, actually, the witness in point 75 quotes Kostic and Jovic at Brioni Island, as it says here, and they say: "A few Slovenians hate Yugoslavia so much and wish to leave Yugoslavia, then okay, leave this country but don't kill our sons, because their mothers did not bear them to be killed and die on Slovenian territory." That is your own quotation. Now, why did you need this war at all?

A. Your Honours, the -- Slovenia didn't want this war. It didn't need this war, and it didn't initiate it. The sons of Serb -- of Montenegrin mothers died, but so did of Slovenian mothers, but certainly we did not, Slovenia did not instigate this war.

Q. All right. Let's now take a look at something. I presented some assertions. I don't think by mutual people, but those who weren't well disposed to Yugoslavia when the war began, actually. So is it true that you could have left Yugoslavia without a war and that you started a war in order to destroy the whole of Yugoslavia? That that was in fact your role?

JUDGE MAY: Listen, the witness has said many times that they did not start the war. So any question which is based on that is irrelevant. Any question based on that sort of assertion. You've heard his answer. Now, let's move on to something else, some of the detail of his evidence which he actually gave.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, his statement is a very lengthy one, Mr. May. It comprises 27 pages. We have different observations made throughout, and we have some short explanations too. So I have a great deal of questions to ask this witness. ²⁰⁹³⁸

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You speak about the following: In point 6, paragraph 6, you say that the Serbs insisted upon the fact that Yugoslavia continued into existence due to an annexation of the other kingdom, which is correct, and why the Serbs said that Slovenia was seceding from Yugoslavia, and we insisted that it was dissociation.

Do you agree, Mr. Kucan, quite a construed construction, because the Serbs considered that the Slovenes could, according to their own free will, decide about their own fate and destiny, but they cannot impose their will on others, by the same token, those who wish to remain living in Yugoslavia? Isn't that right?

A. Your Honours, I wouldn't like to reopen all the discussions concerning different views on the break-up of Yugoslavia and the role of Yugoslavia in the lives of these nations. It didn't come through annexation, it was the free will of everyone who united into Yugoslavia. I'm looking back at the year 1918. It's true that on our own free will we left. We didn't want to impose this on anyone. We took many actions - I won't list them all - to ensure that it would be done in a peaceful way and a way that we could all agree upon.

Q. Let's clear up a few points first, please. I'm sure you know enough to be able to do so and that you're competent to do so. You said that the Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina were one of the three constituent peoples, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you consider that the referendum on the secession of ²⁰⁹³⁹ Bosnia-Herzegovina without one of the three constituent peoples, in this case the Serb people, could have been legitimate or not, was legitimate or not, judging by the criteria, principles, provisions of the Yugoslav constitution, general norms, and a question of principle as well?

JUDGE MAY: The witness isn't here as a constitutional expert, and the secession of Bosnia-Herzegovina, as you call it, has not been put into issue by his evidence. So his opinion as to that will not assist us.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's not a question of me asking him as a constitutional expert. I'm asking him with respect to his statement when he said that the Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina were one of the three constituent peoples, and that isn't something that is challenged.

JUDGE MAY: Let me explain one thing: What's in his statement is not evidence. He's not given evidence about that. It's what he says here which is evidence.

Now, as I say, time is short, and we're not going to be assisted by his views, with respect to him, on this matter.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Very well, Mr. May. I won't take everything he said into consideration, just in part, because I assume that the statement is a basis for asking legitimate questions, or a legitimate basis for questions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You said today here and now something about a meeting you had with the Presidency, the Yugoslavia state Presidency and the president of the Federal Executive Council, the SIV, and as you've said, and I made a note of that, you asked to complete the constitutional changes, amendments, ²⁰⁹⁴⁰ that they be completed, that they should not insist that this process be stopped, and that your answer was that the Constitutional Court was in existence and that it there up to determine whether something was unconstitutional or not; is that right? Is that what you said?

A. Yes.

Q. Very well. You indicated the authority of the Constitutional Court as a form of guarantor, that the constitutional order would not be upset, infringed upon. However, as you speak about Slovenia's attachment to legality and democracy, is it true and correct that, in opposition to this, Slovenia, through unilateral decisions made by its state organs in fact was aiming at destroying the legal order by its representatives in the Yugoslav Assembly and made decisions which were not in conformity with the constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia itself? Is that true or not?

A. This is not accurate, because before the Constitutional Court there were four amendments, one speaking of the rights of religious communities to establish schools, then another one speaking of the fact that a state of emergency could not be declared without the agreement of the republic authorities, a third amendment speaking of linking up large technological systems, the post, the railway, and thirdly the exercise of this right to self-determination. Two constitutional judges in Yugoslavia, because each republic had two judges in the federal -- in the federal bodies, had each separate view on this.

Q. I'm not talking about anybody's opinion during a meeting of the Constitutional Court, because everybody's entitled to their own opinion ²⁰⁹⁴¹ but it is the court that makes a ruling. You said today, and just confirm, that as a guarantee that everything would proceed in a constitutional manner, you mentioned the existence of the Constitutional Court which would act and assess whether something was constitutional or not, whereas in fact you were dealing with the toppling, you wanted to topple the constitutional order of Yugoslavia.

And in connection with the witness's assertion along those lines, that he offered the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia as a guarantor, I have the authentic decisions by the Constitutional Court, which of course I won't have time to read through here and now because I would need several days to read through them, but they are authentic decisions, and we have here the opinions of the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia with respect to amendments 9 to 90, amendments to the constitution and the constitution of Slovenia aligned with that of Yugoslavia. Furthermore, they're opinions that the amendments were contrary to the constitution in the field of national defence, another decision and ruling made by the Constitutional Court which the witness referred to in his talks and confirmed again today.

Then furthermore, the Constitutional Court observes that the -- an amendment to the constitution of Slovenia was not in order, re paragraph 99 and Article 1, paragraph 1.2 on the law of putting a stop to certain crimes and offences, and the declaration on the sovereignty of the Republic of Slovenia. This was something that was annulled by the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia and its decision with respect to articles 4 and 10 of the plebiscite law. ²⁰⁹⁴² Yes. I have been cautioned to speak more slowly for the interpreters.

And then Article 4 and 10 of the law on plebiscite, as I said, the independence and autonomy of the Republic of Slovenia. This was also overruled by the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia. Then there was another decision, the constitutionality and a proposal for disassociation of the socialist -- from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. That was overruled by the Constitutional Court. And then there was another decision overruling your proposals referring to defence and protection. That was overruled too. Then the decision to assess the military responsibilities, which also overruled, and articles 2, paragraph 2 of Article 3 and 4, and Articles 6, 7, and 8 of the law on amendments to the Safety on the Roads Act and the decision to determine the constitutionality of the constitutional charter referring to the independence and autonomy of the Republic of Slovenia. So these were Constitutional Court decisions and rulings. We have another one; the law to implement the basic constitutional charter on the independence and autonomy of the Republic of Slovenia. Another decision assessing the constitutionality of the declaration with respect to independence. The decision to assess the customs services and how far they were constitutional. And this was something that you brought up.

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to interrupt you because you've read out a great long list and the witness should have the opportunity of commenting, and indeed of answering, if necessary, individual decisions. Mr. Kucan, you've heard the accused refer to a number of decisions ²⁰⁹⁴³ of the -- just a moment. Just a moment. -- of the Yugoslav Constitutional Court. If you want to look at any of them or you want to comment on any individually or as a whole, this will be your opportunity to do so, if you wish.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These decisions, I'm aware of them. And the accused is saying that the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia quashed these acts, and the Constitutional Court did not have such an authority but could establish whether this was not in conformity and what the state of compliance with the constitution of Yugoslavia was. I wish to assert that this is very important, because just as all other cases of voting occurred in Yugoslavia, the same method was used in the Constitutional Court, and both judges, constitutional judges from Slovenia, in the case of these documents, had a view differing from those of the majority of other judges on this point.

JUDGE MAY: When you say the same method of voting, Mr. Kucan, what was that method of voting?

A. Well, the one that was evident at the 14th session and that would also happen in the Federal Assembly, for instance; laws would be adopted if a decision was to be made on disassociation from Yugoslavia.

JUDGE MAY: And if we look at these decisions, we'll find the Slovene judges will be in a minority; is that right?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As a rule, yes, they were on their own.

JUDGE MAY: Perhaps you can tell us, we'll no doubt be able to find out, but can you tell us, did any other judges side with them or not? ²⁰⁹⁴⁴ ^{BLANK PAGE} ²⁰⁹⁴⁵

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would have to see it on the basis of concrete judgements or concrete rulings of the Constitutional Court, and I think that now just guessing this could mislead the Court, the Tribunal.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Kucan, I don't know where the sense of this is, comparing voting at party Congresses which, according to the rules of procedure as to who votes and that there should be a majority vote on the part of those present and Constitutional Court decisions which, according to its rules of procedure, at the level of laws makes decisions which cannot be adopted unless they have a qualified majority to do so. And any court in the world - supreme, constitutional, whatever - makes rulings on the basis of a majority vote.

So are you saying -- let me be more precise and specific in answering -- asking my question: That the Constitutional Court overruling these acts of Slovenia, documents of Slovenia, or, rather, in which they express their view that they are unconstitutional and not in conformity with the constitution of Yugoslavia, were made -- decisions were made by violating the work of the Constitutional Court, or did the Constitutional Court work in keeping with its code of conduct and rules of procedure?

A. Your Honours, you see the accused is saying that it is really irrelevant to present the mode of voting used. I think it is very important to point the voting out, because this was showing the majority of views, of stands of one republic through the voting mechanism and ²⁰⁹⁴⁶ putting this minority or, concretely, the Republic of Slovenia in a position where it can never really assert its views and make them accepted. And this was one man, one vote, which obviously is a democratic principle.

In a multinational country, there is this principle of one man, one voice, which would be replaced by one man, one republic, one vote and where no outvoting is possible but where consensus or agreement is the basis for decisions.

In 1989, at the meeting that has already been referred to, I did point out this necessity for consensus, for agreement, and the answer that was given to me is that changes could not be achieved on this basis on the basis of consensus, and this is this logic which differs from the one that I was aware of.

Q. Mr. Kucan, let's not put things upside down like this and reverse the thesis. What I'm talking about is legal decisions on the part of the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia and not about one man, one vote, that system.

You said yourself that you asked the Yugoslav state Presidency and the federal government at a meeting that you talked about this morning to complete your constitutional changes and that guarantees -- that you gave guarantees that this would not sidestep the constitution of Yugoslavia. And a Constitutional Court exists to rule if something is not in conformity with constitution. And once the Constitutional Court made its decisions, you say that this was to the detriment of your republic because the Constitutional Court ruled that you were unconstitutional in toppling ²⁰⁹⁴⁷ the legal system of Yugoslavia. Is that what you're in fact saying, Mr. Kucan?

A. [Previous translation continues]... the federal Constitutional Court did not say that Slovenia toppled the constitutional order of Yugoslavia. What I am saying is what would be the meaning of a constitutional decision that there be judges, an equal number of judges coming from each individual Yugoslav republic? And if I went -- if I had to conclude on this basis, I could say that both constitutional -- constitutional judges from Slovenia therefore could be considered as being incompetent and without having authority to participate in this decision-making if I were to say this.

Q. Well, they did participate in the decision-making process, but if they are left in the minority, as you know, and the Constitutional Court meets in full composition in plenary session and therefore takes decisions on that basis --

JUDGE MAY: I think, Mr. Milosevic, we've taken this point as far as we can. Let's move on to something else.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think we have too. So look at those 27 decisions of the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia. And as the witness spoke about them, you can take them over, and I should like to have them exhibited as a unified exhibit. There are 27 decisions although there are, of course, more than that.

JUDGE MAY: We will exhibit them for identification. They will be admitted for identification until they're translated and shown to be what they claim to be. ²⁰⁹⁴⁸

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Defence Exhibit 138 marked for identification.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let's move on, because my time is short. Let's look at some important issues.

Is it true that at the beginning of the October 1990, activities began to intensify illegal arming of Croatia in collaboration with Slovenia? I'm sure you'll remember that during that period of time, the JNA uncovered nine illegal channels for smuggling weapons, et cetera. Is that true?

A. Not that I know of. And that the JNA uncovered any such illegal channels, but I do know that the army disarmed the Slovene Territorial Defence in May that year, and this was already referred to. This is when the democratically elected authorities were put in power.

Q. I'm not taking this as cause and effect of any kind. I have here, for example, a certificate. It says the Republic of Slovenia, the Ministry of the Interior, confirming that a transport of weapons and ammunition passing through the Republic of Serbia is exclusively intended for the Defence Ministry of Croatia and contains the following, and then we have an enumeration of what it contains: 10.000 mines, 9.757.000 bullets, and so on and so forth.

The Minister -- let me just read his name, what his name was. Jarnjak, and the stamp -- actually, his name is under the stamp so it's not very legible. Anyway, it's addressed to the Republic of Slovenia and the Ministry of the Interior. ²⁰⁹⁴⁹ Is it true and correct that you participated in the arming of Croatia?

JUDGE MAY: If you want the witness to comment on the document, he must see it. Let the witness see the document and comment on it. Mr. Kucan, would you look at that document, please, and if you can, identify it, confirm it is what the accused said it is, perhaps you could give us a date for it, and then went on it as you wish.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The date is the 7th of December, 1992. But of course, it is the first time I see this document, however, I do not see really anything questionable here on this document because the accused in his previous questions said that there were illegal channels for acquiring weapons for -- well, I do not know about illegal channels. There was a legal channel, and for this procurement it is the authorities of republics that had the responsibility, and otherwise, there was really no need for republics to purchase arms.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And do you know that at that time too there was an embargo imposed by the international community on any kind of import of arms into Yugoslavia?

A. This was before the international recognition of Slovenia and Croatia, as we can conclude from the date indicated, and therefore, this embargo did not concern us. This was after the withdrawal of the JNA from -- excuse me, that was at the time of recognition, recognition of both states which then individually, as individual states, took measures to be able to safeguard and protect their sovereignty. ²⁰⁹⁵⁰

Q. And did the embargo apply to Bosnia and Herzegovina?

A. The embargo concerned the sales of arms and was valid for the sales of arms.

Q. I'd like you to hear this. My question was whether the embargo applied to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and your answer was that the embargo was only on the sale of weapons. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. I have here a document of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, signed by Azim Karamehmedovic, a certificate by authority of the president of the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Alija Izetbegovic, I declare that I, born on such-and-such a date, member of the Crisis Staff, et cetera, that equipment amounting to the 1.850.000 --

JUDGE MAY: This sounds very much like a statement by somebody. What you could put to the witness, if you wish, if he can deal with it, if it's anything to do with him, you can put what it has in it, but you can't exhibit a statement by somebody.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is not a statement. It is a certificate by authority of the president of the republic, Alija Izetbegovic, and it says: "1.850.000 German marks, equipment obtained from the Republic of Slovenia, that it will be paid for within the shortest delay, and until the date of payment we provide as guarantees to the Republic of Slovenia our helicopter which is on the territory of Slovenia. If the BH fails to pay this amount, this helicopter will remain permanently in the possession of Slovenia." ²⁰⁹⁵¹ ^{BLANK PAGE} ²⁰⁹⁵²

JUDGE MAY: What is the date? What is the date of this document?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 29th of May, 1992, which means during the period when the embargo was in force. And as the witness himself said, related to the sale of weapons, and this document talks about the sale of weapons.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness see it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] To save time. Yes, I will. I'll show it to him, Mr. May, and I would like to tender it into evidence. But before I show it to him, I have something else I wish to show him. A specification of needs for Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it is addressed --

JUDGE MAY: One thing at a time. We cannot deal with a whole plethora of documents. Show the witness the certificate and let the witness comment on it. Do one at a time.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. But my time is short, otherwise, I'd be glad to do that.

Attached to the certificate is this document from the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Slovenia, addressed to the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, indicating which weapons were involved. Here you are.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kucan, could you look, please, at this document and confirm, please, if it is what the accused says it is, and if you have any comments to make about them, please do.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all about embargo. It is not forbidden that states purchase weapons for their defence. And the question this document concerns was carried out by our Minister of Defence and the responsible body of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There are documents ²⁰⁹⁵³ to this effect in the archives of the Republic of Slovenia, in the Ministry of Defence, and should the Prosecution wish so, they can obtain this exhibit in Slovenia.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Can you see the specification signed by Alija Izetbegovic, how many million rounds, how many rifles, et cetera? Written by hand and signed by Alija Izetbegovic. You're familiar with his signature, just as I am.

A. As far as thousands of rifles are concerned, 1.000 rifles and not several thousand rifles. And as mentioned before, there were competent bodies in Slovenia dealing with this, and it is these bodies that can provide accurate answers. The fact is, however, that in January 1993, a decision was adopted to the effect of which Slovenia is no longer to take part in aid or help, be it with weapons or, for instance, in terms of transport across its territory, either to Croatia or to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will have these documents exhibited, marked for identification. The relevance of them we will deal with in due course. The Croatian one first, please, and then the BiH one.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the certificate dated the 7th of December, 1992, is Defence Exhibit 139, marked for identification. And the certificate signed by Alija Izetbegovic is Defence Exhibit 140, marked for identification.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. So you did participate in arming Bosnia and ²⁰⁹⁵⁴ Herzegovina; isn't that right? That is not at issue, is it?

A. It is difficult for me to accept such an assertion, because first of all, we should establish where the weapons that the Yugoslav army took with it upon withdrawal was headed for, and then also once it established that they no longer needed weapons for the military service for reserve forces, and then only can we see whether Bosnia and Herzegovina was capable of organising its own defence or not under the circumstances.

Q. I'm just asking you whether it is challenged that you participated in arming Bosnia and Herzegovina.

A. And my answer is: Why was it necessary?

Q. That's a very good answer. Is it true, please, that the president of your commission for establishing Slovenia's involvement in arming Bosnia and Herzegovina, called Rudolf Odbor, requested that the commission be disbanded? You had a commission to establish the involvement of Slovenia in the arming of Bosnia and Herzegovina, didn't you?

A. I do not know this name. Can you repeat this person's name, please?

Q. I have it noted here. Rudolf Mofe, according to my notes.

A. Well, probably a deputy of the Slovene -- Slovene Assembly Rudolf Moge, who headed this committee. It was one of the committees that was there to establish the facts in connection with the weapons in Slovenia beginning with the disarmament of the Territorial Defence forces. And these reports can be found in the archives and records in Slovenia, and actually, this is something that is not yet concluded in Slovenia.

Q. It hasn't been completed yet. So let us move on, please. ²⁰⁹⁵⁵ In paragraph 7 of your statement, you say that the Serbs looked upon Yugoslavia as a country enabling all Serbs to live in one state, which is a fact; all the Serbs lived in Yugoslavia. But then you go on to say that non-Serb nations saw Yugoslavia as protecting groups, which I -- as I find this quite unbelievable, I'm asking you now, surely you know that the constitution of Yugoslavia guaranteed to all citizens, regardless of their nationality or faith, equal civil rights, judicial and every other protection up to the level of the federal state. The constitution didn't protect any groups but the citizens who, therefore, logically believed that they were living in one state. It applied to everyone, without any discrimination.

A. Such a statement certainly is unbelievable, but I didn't make such a statement.

Q. I said it was unbelievable, and it is paragraph 7 of your statement. But if you say it's unbelievable, then I won't read it out to you.

A. I say it is. I assert it's unbelievable, by I also insist I didn't state that.

Q. Here it says, "Non-Serb nations saw Yugoslavia as protecting the groups while as the Serbs viewed it as a country that allowed all Serbs to live in the same state." I read this from your statement, but I'm glad that you also consider it to be unbelievable.

Let us move on then. You claim that the JNA did not recognise the collective Supreme Command after Tito. Did you assert that or is this again an unbelievable fabrication? ²⁰⁹⁵⁶

A. Your Honours, concerning the previous assertion, I'm sure it must have been an erroneous interpretation. Yugoslavia didn't protect groups, and the Slovenian nation is not a group. I spoke about that. As far as the JNA is concerned, it is true it did not recognise the Supreme Command. And in the sessions held in March 1991, after -- concerning which a lot has been written about, it was -- became clear that the JNA, its leadership, wanted to place itself above the Supreme Commander, i.e., the Presidency of the SFRY.

And let me make it clear already at the 13th Congress of the League of Communists in 1986, there was quite a heated debate which was stated there, and the -- concerning the fact that if the League of Communists is not capable of resolving the situation, then the JNA will step in and attempt to resolve it. Transcripts of that exist, and you can find it.

Q. Wait a minute, please. This is in paragraph 27 -- 26, rather, that it didn't recognise the Presidency. The example you use is incorrect. You say the army did not want a state of emergency. On the contrary, it proposed such a state of emergency but the Presidency did not accept that proposal. It did not adopt it. There was such a proposal. So your example is incorrect too.

A. Your Honours, it would be needed to have a close look of what had -- what's happening there and the time. The books of Borisav Jovic and Vjelko Kadijevic speak clear what was the nature of the JNA leadership and how it responded to the dilemmas faced by Yugoslavia. In order to have a better understanding of this, let me mention a detail. ²⁰⁹⁵⁷ One of the greatest opponents at the 14th Congress of the League of Communists was the proposal to have a civilian control over the JNA and also to accept the civilian serving of the military service as well as also not serving due to reasons of conscience, as conscientious objectors.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we move on, Mr. May?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. At the beginning of today's testimony, Mr. Nice produced a transcript of one of my speeches from a Central Committee meeting at which there was quite a bit of manipulation, as I can see, with words. Institutional, and non-institutional, but in the interest of Yugoslavia, and so on.

Do you recollect that this institutional and non-institutional related to rallies that were being held at which the citizens expressed their political dissatisfaction or their political options, which were widely reported on, saying not a single flower had been stamped upon, not a single windowpane broken, but on the contrary, people were carrying flowers and singing. And in the leadership of Yugoslavia at the time spoke about such rallies as being non-institutional and said that problems could not be resolved non-institutionally.

Therefore, this term related to those mass rallies, and what you did is to equate non-institutional with non-constitutional. Why would public rallies be non-constitutional or illegal if freedom of assembly was guaranteed by the constitution?

A. Well, this interpretation is not correct. At that meeting, we ²⁰⁹⁵⁸ discussed changes, and it was said that if changes do not occur institutionally, they will occur uninstitutionally, and it won't be according to the procedures, but it will be introduced by the will of the people, will of the nation, be it by the people of the nation or of the street.

We asserted that on the street it is possible to express the dissatisfaction but that the street cannot bring changes and that it cannot formulate a positive programme.

These rallies were not such an innocent matter. There was, for example, the Vojvodina leadership which did not accept the decisions of the Belgrade government. And after two rallies, they were replaced. Later, it was the turn of Montenegro.

So it's not a question of a right to assembly and rally and expressing of dissatisfaction, and it all ended with a ban on that rally which was planned for the 1st of December, 1989, in Ljubljana.

Q. Did the citizens of Montenegro rally? Oh, I see. It ended with the prohibition of the rally planned for Ljubljana.

A. Who planned it? Slovenes did not.

Q. We'll come to that too. Now, in this speech of mine that was quoted from by Mr. Nice, I say that jeopardy for the system reached its climax in Kosovo in the physical, political, and cultural violence against Serbs and Montenegrins.

Are you denying that in those days there was a lot of violence against Serbs and Montenegrins in Kosovo?

A. I know that there was violence, also mutual violence. I also ²⁰⁹⁵⁹ ^{BLANK PAGE} ²⁰⁹⁶⁰ presented to the Court my position. I said that the Serb national issue is very complex, that the complexity is reflected also through the tense relations, particularly in Kosovo. And in 1985, I was at the head of a group which was to study the constitutional relationship in the Socialist Republic of Serbia, the two autonomous provinces and the republic within the federal structure, in order to introduce some improvement for the improvement of the entire situation in the Republic of Serbia and within the federation.

Q. Very well. But I say here, since I was quoted out of context, that the threats reached a climax in violence. And then the next sentence: "In environments or in connection with problems that were not heeded and which could not be addressed by institutional means, as a result, there were large-scale and public protests by the citizens at public rallies."

Therefore, I am saying that the institutions did not react, the citizens protest at rallies and bring pressure to bear on institutions. And then I go on to say that is how it always was in human society. But true, with the development of society and its greater organisation and greater democratisation, man's ability to effect changes in society by institutional means increase and that the requests for a pro-Yugoslav orientation are directed to activate the system of elected institutions. That is what I spoke about. And I defend the right of citizens to express their views at rallies which, as I hope you too will admit, were not violent. Is that right or not, Mr. Kucan?

A. I don't know what you're really asking me on the basis of this ²⁰⁹⁶¹ very long explanation.

Q. I'm asking whether those rallies why were violent in any sense of the word.

A. This would be best answered by those who had to resign but were -- although elected to their posts, and resigned on the basis of these rallies.

As I remember from 1981 onwards, in Kosovo three times state of emergency was introduced. But let me say, state of emergency and violence couldn't stop violence in general. It just bred additional violence and new political solutions had to be found and by strengthening institutions and not by making, creating difficulties in the work of these institutions.

JUDGE MAY: You have five minutes left, Mr. Milosevic. Five minutes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I simply cannot cross-examine the witness fully in five minutes. Mr. Nice spent at least ten minutes on this one speech of mine, and I have to ask the witness certain things about Kosovo as well, which are very important.

JUDGE MAY: You must move on to that then. You were given two hours, and in five minutes -- five minutes the two hours -- don't interrupt. Five minutes' time, the two hours will be up. So move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's why I'm asking you to give me a little more time, because my time is expiring in five minutes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. KAY: Could I raise a matter, and that is that this witness be ²⁰⁹⁶² recalled to continue his evidence on another occasion? It's often used that important people are too busy to give up their time when the experience might be that important people are more able to create space in their diaries to give up time, and it's harder for those less elevated to provide time to come to these institutions.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: You can have a quarter of an hour more. Mr. Kay, we hear what you say, and no doubt the Prosecution has heard it too.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So I was saying, as they're selectively quoting things out of context, that is Mr. Nice quoting certain things from my speech, and the witness also speaks about Serbia's pro-centralist position and Slovenia's more liberal attitude, I say, for instance, in that very speech for which I'm grateful to the opposite for making it available to me as I have great difficulty getting hold of documents, I say that an important fact is being neglected and that is we are a federation. Yugoslavia is a federal community, all nations and nationalities living in it, which means they are all equal amongst themselves or, rather, that they have an equal position in the economic, political, and cultural life of the country in which they live. This undisputed assertion must, for all these reasons, be made clear that a collection of votes can resolve the situation whereas inequality can upset the federation.

So I am speaking in favour of the equality of nations and republics, and that is my position. ²⁰⁹⁶³

JUDGE MAY: Let us save time by saying that we have this speech, and we have that passage or the passage you referred to about Yugoslavia being a federal community. Yes. Anything else you want to refer to and any question you want to ask the witness, do it quickly.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do have questions, and I'm going to have to ask them quickly. That seems to be quite clear.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But have I understood you correctly and it is not a typing error once again; you were aware of the fact that in Kosovo the strike, the famous strike, hunger strike by the miners on the old square was rigged and in fact that the miners did receive food? Was that how it was?

A. No. I didn't know that, and I think it's irrelevant. It's irrelevant whether they received the food or not. It's a fact that they were on strike, that they were in the pit against -- in full or greater awareness concerning the changing of the status of the Kosovo province.

Q. All right. You claim that Kosovo and Vojvodina, that their autonomy was rescinded. Is that what you state?

A. I think I was quite precise when there was the officially -- the autonomy was officially rescinded. As I understood it, the then-policy of Serbia and the position of the Serbian leadership, it was essential to preserve the three votes together -- the three votes, the two votes coming from the two provinces. And therefore, the changes in the Serbian constitution significantly reduced the autonomy of the two provinces.

Q. All right. And do you know that it says in the constitution that two autonomous provinces exist, those of Kosovo and Vojvodina and that ²⁰⁹⁶⁴ they enjoy autonomy, that that is what it says in the constitution or, rather, the constitution of Serbia?

A. Well, that was written, also put down in the Yugoslav constitution.

Q. Yes, but it also says so in the constitution of Serbia, doesn't it? So neither -- the constitution of Serbia did not abolish the autonomy of Kosovo and Metohija and Vojvodina. And second, is it also true there was an error made here when you had said that the members of the SFRY Presidency from the provinces were replaced? You know that the Presidency member by the name of Zelenovic was elected as Prime Minister of the government of Serbia and before that he was a member of the Yugoslavia state Presidency for Vojvodina province, and as he took up his new duties, the Assembly of Vojvodina elected a new Presidency member. Isn't that how it was?

Serbia did not replace him. On the contrary, he was the Prime Minister designate asked to set up a government and there was a seat left empty for the Vojvodina Presidency because he couldn't keep two posts. So the Vojvodina Assembly elected a new member to the Yugoslav state Presidency. Wasn't that how it was, Mr. Kucan, or is what you say correct?

A. Formally it is so, but de facto, the events evolved under pressure of those rallies which we've already discussed.

Q. Mr. Kucan, well, you don't really assume that somebody was designated Prime Minister of Serbia formally, officially, elected in the Assembly in order to de facto be replaced in his post as Yugoslav ²⁰⁹⁶⁵ Presidency member? I'm sure you're not going to say anything nonsensical as that.

A. I am not saying that this is nonsensical or that it happened due to the nonsense, but I'm just saying these replacements occurred due to certain facts, and if it's relevant, then we have to go back into those documents which exist of the time and which are in the files. But I'm not an historian which would follow these events, and I don't think that this court is writing a history -- the history either.

Q. No. This court is endeavouring to recut history, to tailor history, in fact.

As you denied what I claimed a moment ago, I'm going to read out your own paragraph, and it is paragraph 57, where you say the following: "Linked to paragraph as to how Milosevic used the army, deployed the army," and it says in brackets, "Kucan's comments on the Death of Yugoslavia, linked to the events in the mines at the Stari Trg old square, this took place at the regular Presidency meeting. We did not receive information of this kind. The protest was organised by the Slovenian opposition and the party. I was supposed to speak there. It was going to be a staged strike, in fact, that the miners were not on a hunger strike, that they were getting food into the mine, since it was uncertain how long the session would last," and so on and so forth. Now, what does all this mean? I have several questions, specific ones. First: This took place during the period of time when I myself was the party president and not the President of Serbia, this strike in the old square. And we were there at the Presidency meeting together on Stari ²⁰⁹⁶⁶ ^{BLANK PAGE} ²⁰⁹⁶⁷ Trg, the party Presidency. So what use of the army could there have been on our side or on the part of any republic, because Janez Drnovsek was president of the Yugoslav state Presidency during that period of time. So was the decisions which you mention --

JUDGE MAY: We must have a question in this. I'm just trying to understand what you're asking.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm asking something with respect to paragraph 57.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the accused, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. How could I have used --

JUDGE MAY: Just ask a specific question and the witness can answer it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did I use the army?

A. Is that the question? The army could be used on the basis of the decision of the Presidency, and that is what I insisted upon also when the army was used in Slovenia. The Presidency didn't issue such an order then, but it did decide on the use of the army in Kosovo.

Q. So the Presidency of Yugoslavia, wasn't it, made the decision with respect to any army activities in Kosovo. The Yugoslav state Presidency made decisions of that kind, didn't it?

A. Yes. The Presidency of Yugoslavia, which had always decided on the basis of a proposal. And I don't know who submitted such a proposal ²⁰⁹⁶⁸ on the basis of which then they decided on this matter.

Q. I don't know either, to tell you the truth. But the Presidency of Yugoslavia made the decision, so I assume that it's common knowledge to both of us, you and I, that none of the presidents of the republics could have wielded an influence on the army and we could have just been received by the top military echelons, we were not able to give them orders of any kind. Isn't that so?

A. I never asserted anything else. I don't know from where this idea that I asserted that you were the ones who were issuing orders.

Q. Well, that's precisely what I wanted to hear, because, Mr. Kucan, it was precisely because of the manipulations of the opposite side over there that here in this summary for which they say you did not authorise it, that they are their notes and so on, says regarding the paragraph on Milosevic using the army with respect to the events that took place at Stari Trg, and so on. I couldn't believe that you yourself said something like that. So I would like to have this manipulation eliminated, and I'm happy to see that you have confirmed this in this way. Now, let me ask you something with respect to Kosovo, one more thing relating to Kosovo. Is it true that you supported the separatists, separatism and terrorism in Kosovo which -- and the separatists being intensively armed via Slovenia and in the centres of Territorial Defence of Slovenia they were being trained, that is to say the members of --

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. One thing at a time. Let me say this, that we have received information that we can in fact have this courtroom for an extra half hour to try and accommodate all those who want to ask ²⁰⁹⁶⁹ questions. So we will break in a few minutes for ten minutes and then we will consider how long anybody else should have. Now, Mr. Kucan, it's put that you were supporting two things in Kosovo. It's put first of all you were supporting separatism, and then it's suggested you were also supporting terrorism - and I should say three things - and then that the separatists in Kosovo were being armed via Slovenia and being trained by the Territorial Defence.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, most energetically I refute these allegations. Let me say that nobody from the leadership, Slovenian leadership supported their separatism. We never trained on our territory. We always insisted on a political solution of the Kosovo problem, and when there was a widespread outbreak of violence in Kosovo with the exodus of Albanians, and when the violence turned the other way, and let me say that will not prevent one violence with other sources of violence. And I can accept no accusations of this type for myself or anybody in the leadership of Slovenia.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will break now for ten minutes, for the interpreters. We will come back and decide how long anybody should have from now on.

Any re-examination I anticipate?

MR. NICE: A few questions but I can deal with them in a compact way, I'm sure.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Nice.

--- Recess taken at 2.13 p.m.

--- On resuming at 2.24 p.m. ²⁰⁹⁷⁰

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you can have another ten minutes, if you want, to ask the witness any questions.

Mr. Tapuskovic, 20 minutes thereafter. And, Mr. Nice, you've got five minutes.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Strove for separatism in Kosovo, I have Agim Zogaj book here, "A Dialogue with Naim Maljoku," and he says to him -- first of all he tells him about the meeting in Cankarjev Dom which was held and it was support to them. Then he goes on to speak about close cooperation with Janez Jansa, and then we have information about the training of their members who later took part in the KLA. And I'm going to read out on page 43, this is what he says with respect to the rally that you forbid, and the Serbs came from Kosovo expecting to find solidarity on the part of the Slovenian people for the sufferings they experienced over there, he says: "I and Fadilj Demiri one evening were watching the news bulletin, and when the bulletin began with 500.000 armed Serbs coming to Ljubljana --" that's how the news bulletin started.

So you -- this initiative of the Serbs from Kosovo who were the victims of Albanian terrorism, when they turned up, you -- to tell the citizens of Slovenia, as they had done in other localities, there was no violence anywhere, you forbid them to come and to state the truth about their sufferings and even on your television news bulletin you say that 500.000 armed Serbs are on their way to Ljubljana. Now, during those years and when the meeting took place, was there ²⁰⁹⁷¹ any arming at all and shooting at those rallies or was there testimony about the truly difficult situation that the Serbs were facing at that time?

A. So there is a number of questions raised by the accused and also assessment. First of all, I don't know -- I know neither the book nor the authors of the book quoted by the accused.

I refute, and I will refute also in the future that we supported any type of Albanian separatism in Kosovo. The accused knows full well my position -- what my position is, that Kosovo is a part of the territory of Serbia and that it was a part, as such, of SFRY, and that is why also at the meeting in Ljubljana, which was a meeting of support to the miners in Stari Trg in Kosovo, there there was -- no word was said that we support any separatism, secession. We opted for a political solution because it's not possible to achieve any other type of solution for this problem. Why did we ban that rally of truth? Because the bodies of internal order evaluated that there would be -- conflicts would break out and unrest. And Slovenes didn't want people who -- Slovenes didn't want people attending rallies to come to tell them the truth about Kosovo. They believed their other channels for that. And we didn't have propaganda which would speak unilaterally of the situation in Kosovo. We knew it enough to know that it was a complex solution and that a solution cannot be imposed, neither to Serbs, Montenegrins or Albanians, that they must find a modus vivendi for this life together and also a rationale for that.

We never considered that it would be irrational to keep Kosovo in ²⁰⁹⁷² Yugoslavia, but the Serbs sometimes asserted that that was our line. And Borisav Jovic wrote something along these lines in his book, and I will -- I don't know whether it is authentic or not.

Q. All right. But I hope that you will remember the demonstrations held in 1980, as far as back as that, organised by the separatists where the main slogan was "Kosovo Republic" and that the main goal was the independence of Kosovo and conjunction with Albania. There was no Milosevic on the political scene of the day. There was nothing about what we're talking and testifying about here in quite a distorted fashion. But do you remember that? Do you consider that this support lent to this kind of policy served the purpose of stability for Serbian Yugoslavia or served the purpose of destabilising it.

JUDGE MAY: What's the relevance of this?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The relevance is that the witness is talking about this support lent to the miners, the alleged hunger strike which was staged, rigged, without entering into what was called for. And what was called for was that the goals be fulfilled, which were voiced in 1980 and proclaimed, and that was Kosovo Republic, and so on and so forth.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Isn't that so, Mr. Kucan?

JUDGE MAY: He said that there was no support for Kosovo separatism. He didn't support that. The Slovenes didn't. That's what he said.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that he personally did not support it, but I think that Janez Jansa, for example, and the whole ²⁰⁹⁷³ camaderia around him did indeed support this. And you can find that in this book here, and I would like to have the book exhibited --

JUDGE MAY: You know quite well we don't exhibit books unless there is some extract that the witness can personally vouch for, which we did this morning, and that was the only exception. But you're putting that Janez Jansa and what you describe as the camaderia around him did support it.

Mr. Kucan, can you help us with that or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Janez Jansa was the minister in the first government after the first free democratic elections. I cooperated with him throughout his occupying this post of minister. And never in my formal and informal contacts with him could I have an indication that anybody was supporting separatism of Albanians in Kosovo or Kosovo Republic, and I will not reiterate what I already stated. We could do only that if we hated Serbs.

But I insist: We were not in conflict with the Serbian nation. We always understood how difficult it was to resolve the Serb national issue. And certainly in the Balkans, it's one of the most difficult. Where we differed was how this problem could be solved and that it wouldn't be at the expense of other nations and nationalities. And that is why recriminations concerning the support of Slovenes for Albanian separatism is not founded, and you will not find it in no documents of the government or other bodies of Slovenia.

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

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would need at least two questions, ²⁰⁹⁷⁴ ^{BLANK PAGE} ²⁰⁹⁷⁵ please, Mr. May. One -- this one now and one more.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Kucan, I'm sure you will remember that in Ljubljana in November 1985, a discussion was held between Slovenian and Serbian intellectuals to discuss the situation in the then-Yugoslavia. It was a group around the Nova Revija, journal, with some theoreticians, Paca [phoen], Ljubancic [phoen], Hribar, Apic, Hermaun [phoen], and others, and it was incontestable at the time that Slovenian nationalism and the anti-Yugoslav sentiments had been undisguised at a time when Milosevic wasn't on the political arena, when there was no Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the sense that you mention later on. Is that right or not? We're talking about 1985, and I'm sure you know full well what I'm talking about.

A. This meeting did take place, a meeting between some Serbian and Slovenian intellectuals. That is a fact that is universally known. However, I have no knowledge whether at that time Slovene nationalism broke out or not.

JUDGE MAY: One last but quick question.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Point 11, paragraph 11 of your statement, you say the Kingdom of Yugoslavia lived with very different internal differences. I don't think that sentence has been translated very well, but anyway, I'm ²⁰⁹⁷⁶ interested in the second sentence: "The occupation in 1941, shortened the agony; Slovenia capitulated basically because it did not see itself fighting to save a country that was not really their own." Did you really say that, that Slovenia capitulated because it saw no reason to preserve a country which was not its own? Please. And within this context, the context of this question, tell me, where was your family during World War II and how come you have the name -- your first name is Milan?

JUDGE MAY: You need not answer either of those last questions. The question about what happened in 1941, if you want to answer it, Mr. Kucan, you can. If you don't, there's no need.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will answer this question, because there has been a lot of speculation in the Serbian press about it, and there seems to be continuing.

My family lived in Prekmurje in Krizurci [phoen], which is a part of Slovenia close to the Hungarian border. This was the part of Slovenia that was occupied by the Hungarians. My mother, who was a teacher, was arrested and was imprisoned for shorter periods of time. My father, who returned after the capitulation of the Yugoslav Royal Army, was drafted by the Germans, sent to the Russian front. He there decided, with some other combatants, to join voluntarily the POWs and when in the Soviet Union the Yugoslav brigade was established, he joined it, and together with the brigade he returned to Yugoslavia and he was killed in the battle for Cacak, a city in Serbia. He was in fact wounded there, and then he was taken to a hospital but he died because of bleeding, and he was buried ²⁰⁹⁷⁷ there, and in 1954, when we brought his remains to Slovenia.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I really don't know how I will be able to do my job today. Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

Q. [Interpretation] Could you please, Mr. Kucan, tell me first whether Kristan Milan -- Ivan is one of the constitutional judges in the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia who passed rulings in connection with these decision and these amendments?

A. Yes. Dr. Ivan Kristan was one of the two constitutional judges from Slovenia serving on the court at that time.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I should like to draw the attention of the Court right now that an expert witness in this case in connection with constitutional matters is a Slovene who was a judge in the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia, and this is something that we shall have to bear in mind. So Ivan Kristan is an expert witness in this case and he was a judge in the Constitutional Court.

Q. So my first question now is, Mr. Kucan, did you ever hear of the existence, before 1991, or before August 1991, to be more precise, any kind of criminal plan in connection with the commission of crimes ethnic cleansing, or genocide?

A. Excuse me. Where should such a plan have been drawn up and existed?

Q. Such a plan, according to the indictment, should have existed in the first place in Serbia, that there should have -- that there was ²⁰⁹⁷⁸ allegedly a plan to commit the crime of ethnic cleansing and eventually the crime of genocide. Did you hear from anyone that any such thing had been prepared in 1991?

A. No, I never heard of it, and I never said anything to that effect.

Q. Thank you. And now as you have the book -- this book in front of you, the book by General Kadijevic, will you please look at a chapter headed by the more important events in the final stages of the break-up of Yugoslavia and the attacks on the JNA in Slovenia. This is page 99 of the B/C/S version.

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... book.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Could you please find the chapter, the important events from the final stages --

JUDGE MAY: He doesn't have the book. It was merely an extract which was admitted and was put in front of him.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Could I ask you something? A moment ago, you said that in Slovenia it was not accepted for commands in the army to be spoken in Serbian. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Wasn't the dominant language in Yugoslavia Serbo-Croatian, and throughout the history after the Second World War, we never spoke of Serbian or Croatian but only about the Serbo-Croatian language, and orders were expressed in the Serbo-Croatian language. Isn't that right?

A. Now, you see, you are talking about a dominant language. I have ²⁰⁹⁷⁹ no knowledge of a dominant language. All languages of nations were equal in the territories in which they lived, including the languages of the ethnicities. We never said anything to that effect, that we're against the language of commands, although we had certain reservations. What I said is the following: The official language in the JNA was the language of all nations and ethnicities and that the Slovene language had not been used on the Slovene territory in the armed forces at any time.

Q. But it was necessary to have commands in the JNA in a language that would be understandable for all the nations and nationalities. I think that the Slovenes understood both Serbian and Croatian very well.

A. They understood it relatively well. However, the opposite never was the case. The Serbs, the Croats, and the Macedonians never made the effort to understand the Slovene language. But this seems to be quite irrelevant to me.

Q. I wasted time on this that I shouldn't have. Is it true that in Kadijevic's book it says that, by significance and time, there was the attack on the JNA in Yugoslavia stemmed from the 1974 constitution. Then and later, acts were taken through the JNA against the Yugoslav state. What would be your comments?

A. This is a very severe political condemnation for which I see absolutely no political argument.

Q. Thank you. Is it true that in October 1984, there was a meeting of the then-leaders of Slovenia and a decision taken to engage in an open political conflict and attack against the JNA through the youth and to ²⁰⁹⁸⁰ declare the JNA already then as an occupying army? Is that true?

A. No. This is an army construct that I'm quite familiar with. I met it occasionally. And it's quite interesting that -- Your Honours, this is a sort of construct that I was faced with during the party sessions. Let me emphasise that the League of Communists of Yugoslavia comprised the parties that had existed in the individual republics and Autonomous Provinces. However, the army had its own party organisation as well. And this organisation had the same weight and the same rights as were the rights and weight of the republic's communist party organisations. This is what I'm emphasising to show to you that the army had a very strong ideological and political stamp and that its ideological homeland was the League of Communists of Yugoslavia.

Q. And is it true that those attacks were particularly fierce between 1984 and 1988 prior to the adoption of the constitutional amendments in 1988 when JNA soldiers who came from all over Yugoslavia were humiliated, spat upon, and even beaten in some cases? Is that true or not? This is something that Mr. Kadijevic speaks about in his book.

A. You are using "attacked by." This is the terminology of the JNA and the political leaders in the JNA. The question was the following: Can the army, the privileges of the army, the procedures and actions, the plans of the army, large projects such as the manufacturing of a Yugoslav tank, a Yugoslav supersonic aircraft, can this sort of issues and questions be described and written about in the press? Since the tank project did go through, the aircraft project did not, it had been obvious that the JNA was launching these projects not only to cover its own ²⁰⁹⁸¹ capability requirements but also to export them. An article entitled "Mamula Go Home" - Mamula was the then Minister of Defence - and this article described the selling of weapons to Ethiopia, a very poor country at that time. These articles and others were qualified as attacks on the JNA.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... relevant.

A. It is relevant because you are talking about the attacks on the JNA.

Q. On the 12th of August, 1988, was there a meeting of the Presidency of the SFRY at which these problems were discussed? And the representative of Slovenia rejected all the proposals made to prevent such things occurring again. Do you know anything about that meeting?

A. I apologise. I -- because the speaker is speaking very fast, I couldn't get either the date or the event in question.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I could speak very slowly, but really, under these circumstances, I wonder whether I'm able to perform my duties at all. I really find myself in a very difficult situation because there are many things that I would like to draw your attention to.

JUDGE MAY: I'm sure there are. If you want to put them into writing, you can, and we'll deal with them. But you know, this witness has been cross-examined for two and a half hours already.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I should like to appeal to you. I've already discussed this with Mr. Kay and will make something in writing, but under these circumstances, it is absolutely impossible for me ²⁰⁹⁸² ^{BLANK PAGE} ²⁰⁹⁸³ to cross-examine in 20 minutes, and there are many issues which I really think would be interesting for you. It is only now that I come to my main point.

JUDGE MAY: Put your main point now. If you want to put them to the witness, do. Otherwise, we'll just go on to the re-examination.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So I must come to the most important thing which is also contained in Mr. Kadijevic's book. With the collapse of the USSR, the possibility of military intervention from the West became quite clear and obvious. Is that clear, Mr. Kucan? Is that true, Mr. Kucan?

A. I do not really know what sort of military interventions you're referring to and what you have in mind by putting this question to me.

Q. I didn't speak of any military intervention. I referred to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the toppling of the Berlin Wall, and all the other events that occurred at that time. And according to the notes that were made on the 5th/6th of November, 2002, you said that Slovenia's path towards independence could not have taken place without the collapse of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany; is that correct? That you realised what the problems would be even before Gorbachev, and that you spoke to Gorbachev about this. This is contained in the notes of your interview.

A. My testimonies, if they're authentic, you can read the following: I understand that the Yugoslav crisis was a part of the wider crisis of the socialist world that had compromised itself and that it culminated through the toppling of the Berlin Wall and through the disintegration of ²⁰⁹⁸⁴ the Soviet Union. This is true and this is also what the facts of history have confirmed.

Q. And is it true what General Kadijevic says in his book, that there were certain influences from abroad and that to justify the aggression there were two variants; the first, if the defenders of the unity of Yugoslavia resort to force first, they have justification because, in quotation marks, unitary Greater Serbian forces are trying to topple democratically regimes all over Yugoslavia. And the second variant, if that does not happen, then Slovenia and Croatia would be forced to use force to impose their will, and through the media war the world would be convinced that they are the victims of gross aggression. And what happened was this second option, second variant. Is that true or not?

JUDGE MAY: I'm not sure if we're very assisted. These are the opinions of General Kadijevic. Now, I'm not sure that it's of great assistance putting them to the witness. We've heard his evidence about it.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge May, was there any external influence over Slovenia so that it should attack the JNA first to provoke what happened in Yugoslavia? Was there any such influence?

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll let the witness answer that question.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With his ideas, concerns, and fears that he harboured, I had never been informed by Mr. Kadijevic. Now, I emphasised it before that no external influences, no external interests, ²⁰⁹⁸⁵ and no external incentives that would run our activities had existed. We never followed anybody's instructions, we're not doing it at this point in time. We are trying to live within a democratic community of nations, and we are trying to do it to the best of our abilities.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You stated here that all you wanted was independence and to prevent violence; isn't that right?

A. I said that we wanted to achieve independence and that we wanted to achieve it on the basis of an agreement without the use of force. We wanted, on the basis of a consensus, to regulate our past and to discuss how we can continue to live together with those who had, until then, lived on the territory of the SFRY. This is what is also written down in all of the relevant documents.

Q. Have you seen, and it was shown in Slovenia quite recently, a film by an Austrian TV station at the Holmec frontier crossing, a group of JNA soldiers were shown with their hands raised in a token of surrender, coming out of a trench, on whom Slovenian TO members opened fire, upon which they all fell back into the trenches. Have you seen that film and did this take place or not?

A. A TV coverage of an event already mentioned here before. I emphasised before that a special committee was established in Slovenia to investigate this event. It did not establish that --

JUDGE MAY: I don't think we need to trouble you to go over that again. This is the Holmec incident which has been referred to.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm repeating this ²⁰⁹⁸⁶ only because on this clip it is visible to see the men with their hands raised, upon which they were shot at. That's why I'm repeating. They were surrendering whereas they were shot at. Fire was opened at them.

Q. Is that right?

JUDGE MAY: We've already dealt with this. He said there was an investigation. Now, we must ask you to come to an end, please.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it really is difficult. I'll put my last question.

Q. I received from the Prosecution an interview of Kucan on the 21st of December, 1993 to the Mladina newspaper in Slovenia. When the war broke out in Croatia, the position of the Defence Ministry was adopted, and that is to help Croatia with weapons and that that would be the best defence for Slovenia. Is that right or not? This is what you stated on 21st of December, 1993, and this was published in the Mladina newspaper -- magazine. If you were against violence, why did you assist Croatia with weapons and, after that, Bosnia as well? Though according to your original assessments, you considered that to have been a civil war in Bosnia.

A. I do not know what is the question. Are you asking me about the civil war or about something else?

JUDGE MAY: Let's try and deal with it this way: What is alleged is that in an interview in a newspaper in 1993, you said the position was to help Croatia with weapons when the war broke out there, and that would be the defence for Slovenia. Did you say that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did say that in this ²⁰⁹⁸⁷ particular interview, and I am convinced that this was a justified act. At that time, there was only a cease-fire in Slovenia. The war went on to Croatia, and since Croatia was attacked, helping Croatia, we indeed believed that that would be a defence for Slovenia as well.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So Croatia was attacked or were all the barracks in Croatia surrounded and the soldiers left without bread, water, electricity?

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Tapuskovic, that's something about which we've heard a lot of evidence. We will have to decide about it. I don't think we need trouble the witness with it.

Do you want us to have the interview?

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The Prosecution has it. I can give you the number. It is R0336514, disclosed on the 12th of May.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Nice. I'm afraid two minutes.

Re-examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Mr. Kucan, single word answers, if you please, without being offensive, just to save time. We've heard of customs money. At the declaration of independence, did Slovenia have entitlement to monies at the central bank? If so, did it get them?

A. The customs monies is a special example. It was collected by Slovenia, placed on a special account, and this account would be also decided upon on the basis of the final solution for the former Yugoslavia. However, the Republic of Serbia intervened, intervened in the monetary system January 1991. ²⁰⁹⁸⁸

Q. You still have substantial claims outstanding as a result? Yes or no.

A. Where the foreign currency reserves have been placed, we don't know the amounts and that is why we're asking also for the financial statements of the National Bank of Yugoslavia, because this could be an item in the secession negotiations which have not been completed yet.

Q. Mass demonstrations spoken of by the accused, for example in Vojvodina, arising spontaneously or, as you understand it, stimulated from elsewhere?

A. As far as the conditions of life of Serbs and Montenegrins living in Kosovo, there was a lot of anguish, a lot of difficulties between Serbs, Montenegrins, and Albanians. And if mass demonstrations -- a rally didn't take place in 1987 where the accused stated nobody has a right to beat you, this referred to Serbs and Montenegrins, one would think that these meetings were really spontaneous. But in fact, if he said nobody has a right to beat anybody in Kosovo, I would have -- hold my beliefs even today.

Q. The weapons paid for by Slovenia held at its Territorial Defence bases, did it retain those weapons or did it lose them?

A. The weapons which were taken away, the JNA then, when withdrawing, it took with them.

MR. NICE: I am not going to stretch my time limit. Your Honour, I would ask, there was one exercise we could have done with the Jovic diary on the allegations of the Slovenia starting the war. I'd ask you to consider the Jovic extracts, to which I'm adding one, for the relevant ²⁰⁹⁸⁹ period to see how consistent they are with that as an allegation. Providing you've got the documents, there's nothing more I need deal with. Then there's the constitutional decisions that were placed in evidence. There is another one that we have which relates to or comes from February 1990, but we can deal with those through the expert witness Dr. Kristan when he comes, and I hope I haven't gone beyond my two minutes.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Mr. Kucan, thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give your evidence. It is concluded and you are free to go. We will adjourn. 9:00 tomorrow morning.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, there is a short administrative matter, if it's possible to deal with now about the next witness.

JUDGE MAY: The problem is that we must be out of here because there is another hearing due. We'll deal with it in writing, if we can. If you put something in writing, we'll consider it.

[The witness withdrew]

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.04 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the 22nd day of May, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.