²¹²¹³

Monday, 26 May 2003

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Milosevic, you've got this session for your cross-examination. We'll have in mind we'll starting rather late, and of course that time will be added to it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May.

WITNESS: RENAUD DE LA BROSSE [Resumed]

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

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. De la Brosse, in paragraph 61, page 60, paragraph 2 of your report, speaking about reporting from Vukovar and the testimony of civilians, you criticise the fact that the testimony was never firsthand. And I'm quoting you there.

In paragraph 59, page 57, at the end of the first paragraph, you say that contrary to professional ethics, the reporters show as witnesses people who were either too close to the events -- were persons who were either too close to the events they were reporting on or too far away from them.

And in paragraph 5 on page 187, speaking about the possibility of foreign journalists reporting from Kosovo and Metohija there was only secondhand information to be had which included the risk of error and imprecision. ²¹²¹⁴ My question to you is this: You, therefore, indirect informing -- you considered this to be unreliable, isn't that so? You consider that that should not be something that should be resorted to because there's always the risk of error. Isn't that correct?

A. In -- generally speaking, a journalist reporting looks for direct witnesses of events, firsthand witnesses, whatever the case.

Q. Very well. So not only the fact that you don't speak Serbian, but from the entire contents of your report, it would emerge that you base your analyses on other people's text, other people's articles and books which speak about the state of affairs of media -- of the media in Yugoslavia and Serbia, and you state that in your footnotes and not with a direct access to the situation. So how come something you criticise in others, that is to say, indirect information, you consider to be allowed when you yourself are in question. Why are you an exception to that rule?

A. The work that I based my report on is to go to the source, source information, of course. And let me go back to that in a minute. And these were established on the basis of academic articles, press articles, and reports by people who were in the field, on the ground. And also I met a -- I had a number of meetings with research journalists who were on the spot. So I think that the scope is fairly broad. The samples that I took were very broad from my point of view.

Q. As you're talking about sources, I asked you towards the end of the last session what your sources were, in fact, and you indicated tab 3 to me. And that is a fairly short document. It is three pages long, and you have academic works, books and articles, in fact, and then again you ²¹²¹⁵ have analytical books and articles, and then you have some other articles and agencies and reports by different organisations, and finally, interviews with different journalists, conversations with them and so on. So am I right if I conclude that you did not report on the state of the media because you weren't able to follow the media yourself, but you speak about that on the basis of what your sources think about those media, and in that regard it is quite obviously that this was done on a selective basis; isn't that right?

A. An impression as to the goal that my report had, as I said last week, the object of my report was to describe the mechanisms of propaganda in play in the Serbian press. And this work was based on the sources, the sources that I quoted. Of course, these are not all the sources that I used. This is not an exhaustive list in document number 3. But on the other hand, this work of mine is also based on questionnaires and sounding performed together with the team that I work with in Belgrade. And for its part, the team used -- made use not only of the press but also a good knowledge of the situation on the ground.

Q. All right. In order to round off this subject matter, we can see that you used, on a selective basis, certain sources which you considered in one way or another can serve your purpose to construe your findings. However, there is no doubt that you did not conduct an analysis, perform an analysis of the press in Yugoslavia and Serbia at all; isn't that right?

A. The sources that were used to accomplish this work and compile this report, which is my work, is the fruit of my own personal work, and ²¹²¹⁶ as I said, the team on the spot in Belgrade. The selection of sources that was made was made on the basis of the representative samples that we were able to find at the time quoted by the Serbian press. So they were extracts from the Serbian press. And this was the core of the knowledge. It is not exhaustive, but nevertheless, it helps us in representing the type of situation that we found when we went to Belgrade to study the press and television as well.

Q. All right, Mr. De la Brosse. Now, on the basis of what criteria were you able to conclude that this was a representative sample at all? How do you come to that conclusion? Because we noted that you weren't able to read through the press clippings yourself or analyse them yourself. You used intermediaries and intermediary sources. So why is this a representative sample except for you want to represent it being as such?

A. The bulk of the subject matter that was studied, as I said last week, represents about 20 million documents that were examined and processed - 20.000 documents, I'm sorry - which were examined and research by journalists from Belgrade. Of course, these 20.000 pages were not the total of everything that the press in Belgrade put out, but at least the researchers and journalists that studied those texts were able to select a number of them, a number of articles in which we could see effects of propaganda.

Q. Well, all right, Mr. de la Brosse. From this vast bulk of material, and you say that they made the selection and everything -- everybody can select what they like according to their ²¹²¹⁷ motives, so this body of material, you have just shown certain extracts of my speeches here, one speech in which I say that there is terrorism in Kosovo and the right to self-defence, which I state now -- here and now again. There is terrorism in Kosovo, and people do have the right to defend themselves.

So is that all that you were able to extract from that whole body of material as some kind of illustration to bear out your assertion that the press was motivated by this and diffused negative sentiments?

A. Could you be more specific in your question, please?

Q. I said from this whole body of material that you say you looked through, and we just saw a brief excerpt from my speech to the Assembly where I say that there is terrorism over Kosovo, and I speak of the right to self-defence and self-protection which is what I say today. So I don't see that anything should be changed. Where do you see propaganda here in the impassioned press? Perhaps there wasn't -- Do you want to say that there was no terrorism in Kosovo and I just invented it, or somebody challenged the right to defence from terrorism?

A. Well, I don't want to take up a position with respect to the bases and foundations of that alone, but what I would like to say in quoting the excerpt, you yourself in your speech used terminology which could be qualified as being terminology used by the media wishing to present in a pejorative way and stigmatising one specific community. In this particular case it was the Albanians of Kosovo and by the same token the Croatian community as well.

Q. All right. I thoughts we cleared that up. No mention is made of ²¹²¹⁸ the either of the Croatian or Albanian community anywhere but what I was talking about was Albanian terrorists and extremists, extremists in Croatia who committed crimes, who had already committed crimes at the time against Serbs in Croatia. So why do you equate extremists all the time and the nationalities that those extremists belong to? Terrorism knows no national ethnic boundaries. A killer is a killer, regardless of the ethnic group or nation he belongs to. So why do you keep saying that we're stigmatising a national community, an ethnic community because certain terrorists are by virtue of their ethnicity, something that they are intrinsically. You won't be able to find that anywhere. Find me an example, if you can, where I or anybody speaks about Croats or Albanians as criminals? On the contrary, we're just talking about extremists. Is that quite clear or not from what you were able to read?

A. What I tried to explain through my report, as I said last week with respect to the -- is that the media used terminology or a vocabulary with a view to stigmatising or creating stereotypes with respect to one or another community, one or another ethnic group, and what I wanted to say, with respect to the example to what you've just quoted, is that throughout the speech in question, you yourself took part in disseminating these stereotypes.

Now, if we wish to know whether the Albanians in Kosovo ran any risk or not, I can't really say because it's not the subject of my report. And let me remind you that I was describing the propaganda mechanism, and also that there was part of the report concerning the results of the collective research and sources of the Belgrade team. So this report was ²¹²¹⁹ compiled - how shall I put this? - in the space of one month. That was the time span given the object and time that I had at my disposal as I underlined last time. It was impossible for me and that the three-member team that I had in Belgrade to look at the entire body of material that existed. And ideally, this would -- should have been analysed, all of it, in an exhaustive fashion. So the part of the media in the diffusion of stereotypes.

Now I think that I can say, looking at the material I had access to and by analysing the propaganda mechanisms in the Serbian press, I think I'll be -- can say although I'm aware of the facts that it is not an exhaustive source matter, that they did take part in diffusing stereotypes, in putting out stereotypes, in propagating messages, ethnically coloured, of hatred. And this was true manipulation in actual fact, and the instrumentalisation of the political times.

Q. Well, that would be correct if what you said a moment ago were correct, that it is claimed that the Albanians from Kosovo represent a terrorist movement. And that was never stated anywhere. What was stated was that they were terrorists, not Albanians. Mention was not made of Albanians. The reference was to terrorists, not the ethnic Albanian community at all, which you in fact should know full well. This is reversal of thesis as it's called. Do you really think that as a scientist you have the right to reverse the thesis in this way?

JUDGE MAY: I think you've made this point and we cannot go any further into it. The witness has given the answer which he has. It will be a matter for us to judge. Shall we move on to a different point? ²¹²²⁰

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, in compiling your expert report as an expert, let me ask you this: Do you -- I don't suppose you think that you should use sources that are not characterised by neutrality, or rather, let me put it in this way: Do you think that sources should be used which are neutral sources, that is to say, sources which are objective and not coloured and impassioned in any way?

A. Well, one has to know what the purpose is and to see whether it's objective or not.

Q. Well, the purpose of objectivity is to ascertain the truth, as far as I'm able to understand it.

Do you consider that for an expert report a relevant sources texts from the titles of which one would see hatred on the part of their authors, hatred towards the Serb people, towards myself personally, and so on? Let me read out a few titles of the texts you used by way of example, and you quote them in your footnotes. For example, footnote 87 on page 42: Jean-Paul Collette is the author of the article and it is titled "Opportunistic Monster" in the daily, Le Soir. And part of the article says that Slobodan Milosevic, according to much testimony, himself provided inspiration for propaganda messages on television through which he disseminating his nationalistic hysteria. Do you have any illustrations of the dissemination of nationalistic hysteria from my speeches at all? And this very biased text, can it be the basis for any kind of expert report at all along your lines? ²¹²²¹

A. Could you tell me exactly where that is.

Q. I've already told you.

JUDGE KWON: It's paragraph 45.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Footnote 87.

JUDGE KWON: Paragraph 45.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, there in fact I did base myself on an article by a journalist from Le Soir. It's one of the main newspapers in Belgium, that is in French-speaking Belgium. This is the testimony of a journalist who was on site. The testimony talks about the -- Milosevic's control over the contents of the press, and it is confirmed, and I quote the Borisav Jovic, one of his closest collaborators, Borisav Jovic, that is, and every day he would write, as of 1990 that Slobodan Milosevic inspired or, rather, put out three articles that -- that he was asked to write in Politika and in which he attacks directly the Federal Prime Minister, Mr. Ante Markovic. What I'm saying is that I relied both on the journalists from Le Soir, Jean-Paul Collette, but also on Borisav Jovic's testimony. And I could also quote the excerpt that we saw already, the clip, the -- from Dusan Mitevic who was the director of RTS and who emphasised that Milosevic had direct responsibility as regards distribution of false information and reporting.

Q. I just don't know which false report he mentioned, because you keep confusing things. But let me give you a few more examples. I asked you a question of principle, a general question. Is it possible to use ²¹²²² articles and consider them to be objective when at first glance already they're inflammatory and biased?

On page 82, you refer to a text from the Internet, also Benedicte Chesnelong, and the title is "Serbia, the Black Hole of the Balkans." And the author obviously had a fine opinion of Serbia. That title in itself surely disqualifies the text as a source of information for what should be a scientific study.

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop you. You characterise the witness's response as not being an answer to the question. His response was that he relied on the matter you quoted, but he also relied on other matter. So in fact, it was a response.

Now, moving on to this question. Page 82. We'll see if we can find the reference. I certainly remember the reference. I don't remember it being on page 82.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's footnote 208, "Serbia, the Black Hole of the Balkans" is the title. The very title disqualifies such an article as a source of information for a scientific study.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Surely you would agree with that, Mr. de la Brosse.

JUDGE MAY: Let's deal with that. It is in fact page 84 of ours, but it is footnote 208.

Yes, Mr. de la Brosse, if you've found that.

JUDGE KWON: It's at the end of the paragraph 90.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The source in question here is a ²¹²²³ mission report from the International Human Rights Federation which went on site from the 19th to the 22nd of September, 1997. The report was prepared by a member of the International Human Rights Federation, and this is a source which in my mind was objective. Was I right? Was I wrong? I allow the Judges to come to that decision.

Q. That is the whole point, yes.

JUDGE MAY: Let him finish.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] One clarification about the title of an article or a report. The operating internal mechanisms for the press mean that the newspapers in particular were accustomed to choose headlines that would catch people's attention and which did not really reflect the contents. That is the idea that was being put forward by the headlines. So I don't think one should only base oneself on the headline or the title of an article in order to judge its content and then to disqualify it. The article -- the article has to be judged on its own merit and the facts it contains.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Very well, Mr. de la Brosse. Now, please look at footnote 81. Here you have Ms. Florence Hartmann who is an employee here in this illegal Tribunal who wrote a book, "Milosevic, a Diagonal of a Madman". Isn't such hatred sufficient basis to doubt the objectivity of such a source? If the other side doesn't believe that one who openly expresses hatred towards me and the Serbian people could be exempted from any participation in legal proceedings.

You see, the things you use. You're using senseless propaganda ²¹²²⁴ that for a whole decade demonised the Serb people.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer on the specific point, and we'll have a translation, if we may, from the French of footnote 81, "Milosevic, la diagonale du fou".

THE INTERPRETER: This is the diagonal of the fou, of the madman. It also refers to the chess player, to the bishop that goes diagonally.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you very much.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you feel that is rather inflammatory and full of hatred to be able to be used as an objective source for any judgement on your part?

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer. The translation we got was that it was the diagonal of the madman and also a reference to the bishop in chess, which moves diagonally, of course.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely. That is the interpretation that I made of the book which directly refers to chess. A few words about the source that you're criticising me for having quoted. The journalist who wrote the book was a journalist from Le Monde, the daily newspaper Le Monde and was who was a correspondent in Belgrade for several years for that newspaper. She is -- she's a journalist who speaks Serbo-Croat, and she heard and she saw many things which happened at the time in Serbia. I didn't make any value judgement on the work. What I simply say is that she is a journalist who is respected for her work.

The book on which I partially based myself contains some ²¹²²⁵ information which was collected, which was gleaned in Serbia throughout the first half of the decade of the 1990s -- decade of the 1990s. It appeared in 1999, and it is the work of -- former work, work that she had been doing before.

If that journalist changed her activities, that change happened subsequent to the book, and I used it as the testimony of the journalist who was in Belgrade in Serbia until, I think, 1995 or 1996, if I'm not mistaken. It has to be checked, but I believe that she -- that the work that you're referring to came -- that she does now, the work she's doing now is after the book was published.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well, Mr. de la Brosse. You are clearly selectively using your sources. And, of course, they are indirect sources. Tell me, on page 18 --

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness deal with that assertion, you see. If you make assertions like that, the witness must have the chance to deal with it.

The point has been made before but you can give us your answer now it's made so plainly. The accusation is that you were purely selective in the sources you chose to support your thesis, and it must follow from that that you ignored sources which might have been to the contrary. Now, that is the characterisation which is made of your evidence and your report. You should have the opportunity to deal with it and tell us whether it's an accurate characterisation or not.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I worked on sources which I believed ^{21226 BLANK PAGE 21227} were objective, sources which from my point of view varied. This is in my own point of view. I worked on many reports from very different types of organisations. They might be French-speaking organisations or English-speaking organisations or other languages. Any way, organisations whose objective in general was to protect human rights and the freedom of the press. I worked on official reports from the United Nations, from the Council of Europe, and so I think that I had access to different types of sources which were objective.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But obviously you did not analyse at all the contents of the Serbian and Yugoslav media, but you are now yourself confirming that you used selectively a certain number of books which fitted into this order that you had received from the opposing side as you wrote on the cover page of your work at the request of the Prosecution, as you yourself said. Is that right or not?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness answer that.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The sources with which I worked, let me repeat, were in part provided by the Belgrade team. I'm referring particularly to the press articles. The sources on which I worked in the report are ones which I found myself. Let me remind you, I began to become interested in the issue of propaganda spread by the media of the former Yugoslavia as of 1994, and in the work that I worked for a report is without [no translation] -- Clips, television clips. How should I say this?

The sources are not only sources that I got from the Belgrade ²¹²²⁸ team.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Yes, I understand. They are the fruit of the work of this entire machinery and propaganda that I would call global propaganda that has been satanising the Serbs for more than a decade. Are you aware of that or not? Demonising the Serbs.

A. I can't answer that question.

Q. You can't answer that question. Did you perhaps watch the CNN last night, for instance? There's an example how low such propaganda can fall. They were interviewing a journalist who never interviewed me and who ranks me among some sort of dictators, even though we had free elections in Serbia every two years. And who, among various arguments mentions --

JUDGE MAY: Let's see if the witness saw the programme. Were you watching CNN last night, Mr. de la Brosse?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I wasn't watching -- I didn't watch television last night.

JUDGE MAY: Now, let's move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And among all the different arguments that he chose as this was just an excerpt --

JUDGE MAY: No. It's no good asking him about television last night. Now, move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I was saying that when arguments are so thin and untenable, then people are prone to resort to ²¹²²⁹ such very base propaganda which reveals that you're having a lot of problems with the real facts.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, the witness has answered the question on these matters. Have you got anything more specific to ask? And I have in mind that the witness should have the opportunity to deal with the various documents which you produced. When we find a convenient time, he can deal with those.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know when we'll find any convenient time, Mr. May. As far as I'm concerned, it suits me that he referred to whatever you like if there is enough time.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But among the various things attributed to me, the one mentioned yesterday, the only one mentioned yesterday was that my wife said I was handsome.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May. Talking about my wife.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Nice placed under the ELMO here a specific paragraph from tab number 6. This is the last paragraph, and it relates to verbal attacks on the so-called independent media, and in brackets, quotations. And I've highlighted that paragraph in the same way as it was highlighted on the screen here, and it says as follows: [In English] "Published by political on 29th of March, 1996, Mira Markovic," - that is my wife --

JUDGE MAY: What number is it? What number paragraph?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is -- I don't have the number of ²¹²³⁰ the paragraph here. It is tab 6 and on page 1 of that document in tab 6 and at the bottom of the page.

We all saw this on the screen. It was selected as something meant to be extremely important. Have you found it?

[In English] "In an interview published by Politika on 29th of March, 1996, Mira Markovic," [Interpretation] that is my wife, [In English] "referred to the independent media as," [Interpretation] and then she is quoted as saying, [In English] "Stirring up political and nationalistic hatred, defeatism and physical violence directed against men." End of quotation. And it says that it was quoted by Reporters Without Borders in "La liberte de la presse," Le Monde, 1997, et cetera. And since I have found the original text, all of them having been published by her, this paragraph from which this was extracted relates to something quite different, and I will read to you the paragraph since it says here, speaking about the independent media which is not true, and the paragraph reads as follows: "Such politically profiled, morally and intellectually intoned rightists," she's talking about the right wing, "can hardly become a political subject in the changes which are historically justified by their method and content and outcome. By their current political, moral and intellectual being, the right wing in Serbia, judging at least by the press that supports it, can only be the vehicle of cheap nihilism, very rudeness, extreme rudeness, national, religious and political hatred, destructive defeatism, physical and political violence over people, the product of a new Balkan Fascism." So this is a pure forgery because it doesn't relate to any ²¹²³¹ independent media at all. Secondly, it is taken out of context and quoted only half of the sentence. And number three, Mr. de la Brosse, when Mr. le Pen won a large percentage of votes in the elections, the whole of France got on its feet to demand and to wonder what such support to the right wing meant. So this is a text written by her about the right wing, not about the media.

JUDGE MAY: Well, let the witness have a chance to answer -- wait a moment. Wait a moment. Let the witness -- let him answer. What is said about this passage, Mr. De la Brosse, is that it is a passage which is taken out of context and that the writer was referring essentially to something else.

Now, can you help us about that or not? Can you say anything more about it than what's written on the exhibit which we have?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I say in the footnote, that quotation that I relied on comes from Reporters Without Borders, about freedom in press in the field -- in the world.

I used in good faith the information which is found in the report. Obviously wrongly so. I think it's an error that was made by the team that was -- that was responsible for drafting that part of the report in the former Yugoslavia. But I replaced that comment into the context of other statements in respect of the report in question, that is the preceding report or those that are found on page 2, which is not a direct quotation of Mrs. Markovic but is a resolution of the party that she was leader of, and they are attacks on the independent press which is characterised as mercenary, as people who denounce others as traitors. So ²¹²³² if that quotation comes -- is taken out of context and is incorrect, I apologise, but it has to be put back into a context of other statements by Mira Markovic.

JUDGE MAY: Let him finish.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In newspapers like Duga or quoted in the report of the International Committee for Independent Press in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which is on page -- from 2 to 7 of the list. Page 2, that is.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Let us not waste any more time. Luckily Mira Markovic -- whatever Mira Markovic wrote has been published and published at the time she wrote it, so that forgeries are impossible, regardless of the intentions of those behind it. But let us move on to the next point. In -- I have to leave out some things because time is flying. In footnote 44, page 22, in the second paragraph of that footnote or, rather, in the third, you mention the following: "On a second occasion, for instance, when the Serb reservists took Zvornik in Bosnia, the Serb media announced the liberation of the town, not mentioning in a word the several thousands corpses lying in the streets."

Tell me, please, where did you get that information from about several thousand bodies in the streets of Zvornik, which is certainly untrue and which you again take as being some sort of undisputed fact. "The Serbian media are not reporting on thousands of bodies in the streets of Zvornik".

You know, people are listening to you in Zvornik now, and you can ²¹²³³ imagine how astonished they will be when they hear that you're claiming there were several thousand bodies in the streets of Zvornik that Serb media did not report about. How could they write about something that didn't happen?

JUDGE MAY: Just keep your questions shorter and we'll get on more quickly.

Mr. de la Brosse, can you find the reference to this?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm referring to page 44. That is do you -- are you referring to page 44? Is that what you mean?

JUDGE MAY: We haven't got the reference. Give us the reference again so the witness can see it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Footnote 44, and I was quoting from it. It is on page 22, where it says: "They announced the liberation of the town without saying a word about several thousand bodies lying in the streets."

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And now you're criticising the Serbian press for not writing about something that didn't happen.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness find the passage. Have you found the passage?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've found it. It's footnote 44. The source, as indicated, referring to that event was Florence Hartmann's book, "Milosevic, the diagonal of the madman".

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Therefore, you're relying on this as if it were the Bible, and ²¹²³⁴ that is an absolutely gross lie which you are using to explain that allegedly Serbian propaganda refuses to report about crimes involving several thousand corpses in the streets of Zvornik. This is what your Florence Hartmann found.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. What's the question? The witness has dealt with it. He's given his answer as best he can.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If you believe that this answer is acceptable -- well, no, it's a good answer, in fact. He took it from Florence Hartmann's book. You can find even worse things from other propaganda. But this is an absolutely blatant lie. Even the other side knows that. There were no thousands of bodies in the streets of Zvornik.

JUDGE MAY: What's your next question?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I have to hurry, Mr. May.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You spoke about the contents of the news published about the killing of Serb children by Croats in Eastern Slavonia. Do you claim that that is not a correct piece of news, the fact that children were killed there?

A. Could you be more specific, please?

Q. Well, you spoke here orally, you testified orally that some news was put out about the killing of Serb children in Eastern Slavonia, and I'm asking you now, are you saying that it didn't happen and that this was invented by the media, this news item?

A. Are you referring to Vukovar?

JUDGE MAY: If you would look at -- just a moment. Just a moment. ²¹²³⁵ Let's find the references. Tab 26 are the references, and there are references in clip 9 of the killing of a child as alleged.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Do you start out from the fact that all the crimes that the press wrote about were in fact fabricated, invented? Is that what you're saying?

A. No.

JUDGE MAY: Deal, if you would, with the allegations with regard to children. I've referred you to one at clip 9. There's the reference from "What the Friar Said". I'm also looking for a reference, which at the moment I cannot find, to the allegation that over 40 children were killed. It may be it's in a different -- it may be that it's in a different section.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May --

JUDGE MAY: You were raising these matters, and they must be dealt with, and the witness must have a chance to answer them. There is the reference to the, yes, clip 1 to Serb children being thrown to the lions in the zoo. So it's clip 1, clip 9. And also you may remember there is the reference to the killing of, I think, 41 children. No, I see. It's clip 13. "In Vukovar, more than a thousand Serbs are feared to have been butchered, including several dozen Serbian children who have fallen victim to the Ustasha knives."

So those are the three clips which you were -- you referred to. What's being put to you is that, as I understand it, are these facts -- were these facts fabricated or were they true as alleged? ²¹²³⁶

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As regards the news that 41 Serbian children were murdered by the Ustasha, that information was published and turned out to be false. It was not found, and that's why Reuters press agency itself published a disavowal of that having happened. I think perhaps you were referring to the three examples that I gave. I found the passage. In paragraph 59 of the report where I try to show that through the presentation of individual tragedies, in this case children, allegedly victims of crimes -- that is, Serbian children who were victims of crime committed by other combatants, all of this was to show that, using these three examples, it was -- well, I'm not coming to any conclusions about whether or not this happened. I think that as regards the third example, this is a proven fact. The second refers to the death of the parents of a boy, and the first refers to the death of a boy allegedly killed by Croatian fighters. As regards the first example, I don't know whether the information is correct, but what I wanted to demonstrate through this example is that by showing individual tragedies involving children, the objective was to play on the emotional side of the public by speaking of facts that the viewer would have to have sympathy for, facts for which every protective mechanism on the part of the television viewer would not play. That is when he was talking about the most fragile people, that is children. I'm not saying that the facts alleged or even verified in the three examples didn't -- didn't happen. What I am interested in is the interpretation of the facts.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ²¹²³⁷

Q. Mr. de la Brosse, Mr. de la Brosse, we seem to be losing a lot of time here, but this is an example that cannot serve to anybody's credit. What it says here is this: It says that that killing of children was, first of all, televised by the British television station ITV, and then the media in Serbia televised what went through Reuters. But first, that is to say Reuters, published a denial, a disavowal, and this was cared too, the denial. So the news goes from Reuters. It is transmitted by the media, carried by the media, not only Belgrade but others, and then Reuters publishes a disclaimer. The media carry this, and where do you see Serbian propaganda there? Or perhaps I'd been manipulating with Reuters.

You yourself describe what happened, and this is a blatant example of how you in your function of let's call it expertise, of expert testimony, are abusing this kind of material.

A. Well, you're going back to the example of the master of 41 Serbian children by the Croatian fighters which did not take place. I think we agree on that point.

What I said is that the -- the news about that event, which turned out to be incorrect, was widely distributed and used by the Serbian media. The Serb media, once the information had been denied, the Serbian media did not even take the trouble to go and check on it and I put it into the footnote. I say that that information was also denied by the Serbian media except when -- when information is broadcast, information of this type, any disavowal of that information does not set aside the effects that the news originally had created. ²¹²³⁸ This can be checked not only in this case in the former Yugoslavia but also with other phenomena of that sort in other countries. So this very strong media coverage of the death of these 41 children supported in the eyes of the public, Serbian public opinion because it was a very broad coverage of that event which was not based on the truth, that strong media -- that very important media coverage supported the image that was cultivated in the Serbian media of a Croatian people which was genocidal and criminal just as that information was used by the media in order to make those opposed to the war be silenced.

Q. Mr. de la Brosse, Mr. de la Brosse, I hope it's not being challenged that the media in Serbia carried Reuters reporting and the reporting of ITV. Did Reuters published a disclaimer after that and the media in Serbia disclaimed it too. So they followed these reports put out by Reuters, because the Serbian -- did the Serb media disseminate nationalism because they were carrying a Reuters news item? How can you say such nonsensical things?

A. Clarification. This information was spread in the newspapers by those journalists who were there in the former Yugoslavia at the time. The information was distributed by Reuters without having any real on-site checks being made. Other media who were there on the ground did not distribute that information because there were questions about it.

Q. All right, Mr. de la Brosse. Let's not waste more time on this matter, but I think that this is -- it is illustrative in itself. The facts that you mentioned, information came from Reuters the Serb media carried it, Reuters disclaimed it, the Serbian media disclaimed it and you ²¹²³⁹ accuse the Serb media of some sort of propaganda. And to make things quite clear to you, gentlemen, or to make it even more complicated, I have here one of the next witness's --

A. I haven't finished answering the question you asked me about. You asked me whether the Serb media had denied that information or disclaimed it. Let me give you an example from Politika which did in fact deny the information through a few lines that were at the back of the newspaper. So it doesn't have the same position in the newspaper as the news had when it was originally put out. And that way it does not erase the effect that had been produced.

Q. Disclaimers never deny the effects that the first information has when it's put out. That's a general rule in the media, and I'm sure you ought to know that much better than me. Once you put out a lie, disclaimers never cover that. And for ten years, an enormous mass of lies was put out against Serbia.

JUDGE MAY: Now, let's move on, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Especially --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, I have a witness here, he is a Prosecution witness and I have been supplied with this statement. He was on the list and then disappeared from the list but this seems to be common practice with them. Other people seem to crop up all the time. And it doesn't say here that this particular witness is an a protected one but I'm if the going to read out his name because I'm not sure whether he's a protected witness or not. He is a Serb anyway and he is testifying ^{21240 BLANK PAGE 21241} against me, or will be, against me here in this courtroom. And on page 3 and for your purposes, this is 039392, that is the number of the witness statement which was disclosed to me by the other side over there in order to prepare for his testimony.

On page 3 of that statement this witness towards the end of paragraph 2 or, rather, this should be paragraph 3, but it's densely typed, says the following: 'On one occasion we found 80 dead Serb children lined up in the hospital. Each of them had a -- three wounds in his back from a bullet shot. I personally saw them, 100 to 150 metres away from the Vukovar Hospital in a ditch. I know they were Serb children because they were identified by the surviving parents," and so on.

JUDGE MAY: You can ask the witness if he's seen that report or anything like that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not speaking about -- this is a statement by --

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... As far as this witness's evidence is concerned is whether he's seen such a report and he's indicating he hasn't. Whether the witness is called or not, we'll find out. We'll be able to hear his evidence on the point. Yes, let's move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, please, on page 11 and 12, you claim that propaganda becomes detrimental when it is used in a totalitarian fashion, and that is not challenged at all. And when it promotes goals contrary to human and ²¹²⁴² international law. However, what is challenged is the fact that you wish to link this up with the state of affairs in Serbia. My question to you is this: How can you talk about any kind of totalitarianism at that time, not now in Serbia, of course, but at that time in a Serbia in which a multi-party system was in existence, which at that time was introduced, not before but precisely during that period of time a democratically adopted constitution proclaiming guaranteed rights on the basis of international pacts and covenants including secret ballot elections which had a very vociferous and loud opposition, in fact. And every two years there were different extraordinary elections that were held. So how can you, and on the basis of what criteria, can this kind of society be ranked among what you wish to rank Serbia among?

A. Could you indicate the paragraphs that you're referring to, please? You said pages 11, 10 -- 11.

Q. It's on pages 11, 12. Propaganda --

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, can I be of assistance? It's actually paragraph 12, and it is the last sentence of this paragraph.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I am referring to in this paragraph through footnote 25 is the message regarding stereotypes whose purpose is to stigmatise other communities. We reviewed the examples last week. I am referring to the distribution of a -- messages fomenting hatred through the regime-controlled media. And in that sense I have based myself on several texts including the covenant on civil and political rights which was ratified by Yugoslavia in 1966 and which requires the Yugoslav state and Serbia to prohibit and to fight against ²¹²⁴³ any messages of hatred. And so I note, and perhaps I'm wrong, but I didn't find any traces anywhere whether it be in reports prepared by NGOs or international organisations. I have noted that no activity -- no case was ever brought to a court by the Yugoslav or Serbian authorities against public media which carried out that type of practice.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Tell me this, Mr. de la Brosse, please, how can you claim -- actually, you're quoting Serbian scientists, for example, with respect to the thesis on creating an unified state in which all Serbs would be living, and you quote the quotations and statements made of Serb scientists, academicians and so on who make no mention of that at all. And the example of this is a quotation from academician Mihajlo Markovic on page 21 and he writes about the tragedy of Serbs under Croatian authority which is ongoing and which in future could even be greater as well as the position of the Serb people in Croatia which is worse than the position of any national minority anywhere, and that is quite right, quite true.

Do you know that according to the constitution, pursuant to the Croatian constitution, up until 1990, Croatia was defined as a state of the Serbian people --

JUDGE MAY: Wait a moment. Let the witness deal with this. The reference, as I understand it, is in paragraph 22 to what Mr. Markovic says.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Mr. de la Brosse, have you got the ²¹²⁴⁴ reference?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The reference from the Duga excerpt, is that what your are referring to?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. What's the question, Mr. Milosevic, about this?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I am referring to the quotation by academician Mihajlo Markovic, and Mr. de la Brosse links this up to with the thesis to create a unified state that would house all the Serbs. Markovic doesn't mention that at all. On page 21 what he does mention is this: He speaks about the tragedy of the Croatian Serbs under Croatian authority which is ongoing and in the future could reach tragic proportions, which unfortunately is quite true. And my question is to you: When you read that, did you know that precisely up until the year 1991 or, rather, in the year 1990 and 1991 the Serb people were thrown out of the Croatian constitution. Up until then Croatia was defined as the Croatian people, the Serb people, and all the peoples living within it. Do you know anything about that at all?

JUDGE MAY: Wait a moment? What's this got to do with anything? What's the point that you're making, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The point I'm making, Mr. May, is in the essence, your own expert, through various quotations, is trying to prove something which does not exist in those quotations.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] For example --

JUDGE MAY: We will take this -- we will take this stage by stage. ²¹²⁴⁵ Just a moment. What is it, first of all, that he's trying to prove?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He wishes to prove that propaganda and that the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences worked along the lines of the title of his project that we saw here on the overhead projector, the project of having all Serbs living in one state, state for all Serbs, which isn't written anywhere, which isn't contained in any of the quotations he uses in his text or his footnotes. So it is a complete montage.

JUDGE MAY: Let's the witness answer that. Your proposition is unsupported, it's said, by the quotations from the academicians and others.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Quite the contrary, in fact. In the quotations which are contained in the footnotes --

JUDGE MAY: Let him answer one thing at a time.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The quotation you're referring to supports paragraph 22 of the report which indicates one of the mechanisms used by the propaganda, that is to put -- to project on others the -- your own fault or your own faults. So the quotation here -- the quotation here is by Mr. Markovic is used as an example. I'm not speaking -- I'm not using the quotation here or relying on it for the purposes that you're alluding to.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, your whole work is used for the purposes for which you wrote the report, propaganda as a function of the plan to create a state for all ²¹²⁴⁶ Serbs. Now, how can you separate that and say you're not using it for that purpose? Use a bit of elementary logic, Mr. de la Brosse, please.

A. I'm sorry, I can't answer that question.

Q. Very well.

A. [Previous translation continues]... Been asked.

Q. This then, please. Do you consider that contrary to the charter on human rights and international law the affirmation of the identity of one's own nation for which you accuse academician Dobrica Cosic, for example, who you claim assumes a special place in the instrumentalisation of Serbian frustrations and the burgeoning of nationalism and that he is directly responsible for the growth of international hatred. That is on page 34, the footnote there.

A. Let me go back to what I was saying a little while ago about the international text that I used and that I quoted talking about unlawful propaganda. I repeat, I based myself on those texts in order to state that at the time, the propaganda of hatred and stigmatisation of a community fell within those international documents that Serbia and Yugoslavia had prescribed to, which had delivered that type of message, that type of hateful message. I'm not saying anything else when I refer to those texts. That's what I mean when I refer to them.

Q. All right, then. Please go ahead and quote from those texts, the ones you mention, what you consider to be a message of hatred, because I keep claiming that you are mentioning people and you're quoting quotes in which there is none of what you're claiming. Then there is no message of hate within those quotations. Go ahead, quote. Quote from your text. ²¹²⁴⁷

A. I return to the terminology used in the media which was one of stigmatisation, of denigrating a community or several communities, and in that way I think that I can say - I'm not a legal specialist - but in any case, it seems to me that that type of message of stigmatisation, demonisation of other communities are messages putting forward hatred against a community, and in that way they are covered by international law which Serbia subscribed to. I'm not saying anything more than that.

Q. Well, you've just falsified that, because you cannot quote a single quotation from your footnotes, what you yourself qualify as being a speech of hatred. Otherwise, those listening to this in the Serbian language, let me translate the word stigmatisation. Stigmatisation means to blacken someone, because I keep listening to the word stigmatisation coming from the interpretation. It is to blacken somebody, to demonise them. So please find me an example where somebody is doing that, the Serb media is doing that, that is to say blackening or demonising some other ethnic community.

JUDGE MAY: Do that over the adjournment. We're going to adjourn now for 20 minutes. When you come back, Mr. de la Brosse, you can answer that question with a passage.

Yes, 20 minutes. Before we call the next witness, there are matters under Rule 92 bis on which rulings are required. Perhaps I could give everybody warning that we will discuss these. They relate to the statements of witnesses B-1455, 1775, and also the transcripts of Mr. Selak.

MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honour. I only received 1455 and 1775, I ²¹²⁴⁸ think it is, on Friday. I've been able to consider 1455 but not 1775 yet.

JUDGE MAY: Well, perhaps we can have a discussion about it anyway.

MR. KAY: Yes. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will adjourn now, 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. de la Brosse, you were asked before the adjournment about any speech which might be described as a speech of hatred, and it was put to you that you couldn't yourself quote from your footnotes any such speech.

Now, you should have the opportunity of answering that. Perhaps you could do so briefly. But if there is any particular speech you have in mind you can, of course, refer us to it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would recall that in some of the clips that were shown last week, I referred to footnote 147 and 146. There we can see that through the terminology used, speaking about Ustasha, what is shown is a group through the use of terminology which will stigmatise it.

As regards the quotations in the report and on which I based myself, I should refer you to footnote 85 in my report. In footnote 85, and you see all of the quotations which refer to the mechanism which would be used against the Croats who are presented as the heirs of those responsible for the crimes committed against other populations, including the Serbs, during the Second World War. ²¹²⁴⁹ Through the quotations which I use to support myself, we see a historical amalgamation whose purpose is to use different types of quotations with terms that are used. Perhaps we could look at the various quotations which come from Politika in which one describes a direct link between the Croatian government in 1990 and the-- rather, the Croatian community and the Croatian government of the Second World War. And so what connection is drawn between the crimes committed by the Second World War Croatian government and the crimes and activities of the Franjo Tudjman government.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. I think we've got 85 in front of us, and we can see what's set out there.

Now, Mr. Milosevic, you've got ten minutes left for questioning of this witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is not sufficient for me, Mr. May, ten minutes. Would you please consider the possibility of giving me a little more time with this witness?

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: You can have another half hour starting from now. So you can have until half past eleven.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Would you be kind enough, as you say that you mention certain quotations, in any of those quotations is a nation being stigmatised or denigrated. You mention authorities committing crimes against the Serbs, who have thrown the Serbs from the constitution, who have fired the Serbs ²¹²⁵⁰ from all public services, who are persecuting the Serbs in an organised manner. Find me a single quotation in which the nation as such is being denigrated, be it the Croats or the Albanians where the Croats are being stigmatised or the Albanians being stigmatised as a national minority. That was my question to you.

A. In footnote 85, the second quotation, an express connection is made here. Should I read it in English? [In English] "Democratic community is proud of Ante Starcevic according to folk saying" -- "is proud of Ante Starcevic, according to folk saying, the words, shy away from places where the fools treat -- treat. Croatia is proud of so-called independent state and is covertly and stealthily priming the new slaughter of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina."

[Interpretation] So what is described here is Croatia as a whole, something that includes all of the population.

Q. Mr. de la Brosse --

JUDGE MAY: Let him finish. Yes, Mr. de la Brosse, is there something you want to add?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A generalisation is made about the entire Croatian people.

I would also like to quote or, rather, to recall the video clip. I don't remember the number, but the transcript of the Jovan Raskovic's statement is found in footnote 117, in paragraph 54. It follows a statement of Dobrica Cosic which was -- we've also had the opportunity to see at the beginning of my testimony. Through those two examples a constant reminder is made in respect of the atrocities committed by the ²¹²⁵¹ independent Croatian state under the Ustasha and the attentions ascribed to Franjo Tudjman's regime.

If I read the excerpt which appeared -- the excerpt from Jovan Raskovic which appeared in Serbian television, I would remind you that he is speaking about the fact that genocide has begun and it depends on the Serbs in Croatia and in Serbia and the international factor, Europe and the world whether their movement [In English] "open its concentration camps, pits used as collective tombs. But one thing is for sure, Serbs will never again be led to the pits by just the Ustasha. Serbs have to put up a great resistance and the genocidal idea will collapse along with the genocidal Croatian state."

[Interpretation] I would recall that Jovan Raskovic, who was the promoter of this idea according to which the Croatian people had a -- has a genocidal character.

I would also like to quote another example of this type of amalgamation which was made by certain Serbian intellectuals. The example is in a -- is in a statement by Jovan Raskovic that you can find on the 25th of March, 1990, in Politika. This is an example that I didn't use in the report. It isn't quoted as such, but I can give you the quotation which is in English.

"[In English] That that which disrupts relations between Serbs and Croats now is connected to the genocide which was perpetrated against the Serbian people by the Croatian Ustasha regime. We can conclude that this hiding of genocide, this hiding of genocide represents an appeal for -- to history -- for history," excuse me, "for a repeat." ²¹²⁵² [Interpretation] The second quotation that I'd like to give to you in order to replace things in their proper context is also an excerpt from Politika of the 7th of August, 1992, in which Radovan Samardzic states that: "[Previous translation continues]... [In English] Who are constantly exposed to genocide. The Serbs are the people that." Through these various examples of historical amalgamation between two situations which are not the same, what is shown is the Croatian regime and the Croatian people at the beginning of the 1990s as the heirs of the Croatian government of the Second World War. And as such, I might be wrong but I think that a stereotype is being presented and what is sought is the demonisation of a community by relying on historic amalgamations which remain to be proved.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. de la Brosse, you give very lengthy answers so that half an hour will really not be sufficient if you continue in that way. So would you please be kind enough to bear in mind what you yourself said. You said that the expression is that the Croatian Democratic Union and then you come to the conclusion that the reference is to the whole people. The HDZ, the Croatian Democratic Union, was the party which in restarted the persecution of the Serbs 50 years later, not the Croatian people. The HDZ is not the Croatian people.

Therefore, in what you yourself have said, you say the authorities, then you make a comma, and then you add the Croatian people yourself, which no one has referred to. So you're making -- you're construing something that could be described as a forgery. ²¹²⁵³ Now, did you perhaps have occasion to see -- I have shown here a film, though very briefly as my time is extremely limited, an extract of what Simon Wiesenthal said in connection with those crimes? Can you imagine that Simon Wiesenthal was also in the service of the national list objectives that the Serbian leadership led by me was implementing.

JUDGE MAY: What is the question? There's one about the HDZ which we will allow the witness to answer, but what's the second question?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The second question which is linked to what I just mentioned:

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In your second paragraph on page 43, paragraph 47, you describe as a manipulation the fact that in the media there was reference to the genocide committed by the NDH against the Serbian people during the Second World War. The word "genocide" in your text is in quotation marks, and you're suggesting by doing so that it never took place, the NDH being the Independent State of Croatia.

On pages 52 and 53 again, you are criticising reference to the crimes of the NDH suggesting that they were exaggerating. Do you know that according to official data of the former Yugoslavia that was headed by Tito, who was a Croat, about 700.000 Serbs, Romanies and Jews were killed in the Jasenovac concentration camps?

JUDGE MAY: That's another question. So there are two questions there for you, Mr. de la Brosse.

Just a moment. Just a moment, please. Let him answer. The first question is you are -- let him answer what you're ^{21254 BLANK PAGE 21255} putting.

The first question is that you are conflating in some way the HDZ with the Croatian people and ascribing to the Croatian people what was purely ascribed to the HDZ. What would your answer be to that? If you could briefly answer that, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I quoted Mr. Jovan Raskovic on several occasions. What he says has to be related to the way that he -- that he writes and speaks. Let me remind you that in work that I do quote in a footnote, Jovan Raskovic describes the Croatian people as having a genocidal nature.

The fact that through statements that he made in the press and to which I have just given -- which I've just read out to you, one should recall that Jovan Raskovic was invited to all the television programmes on Serbian television at the time wherever he was able to put forward, to explain his theory according to which the Croatian people had a genocidal nature.

Therefore, in the public's eyes, the connection was made. The example which I read out a little while ago I believe makes use of that conflation.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. I think really we must move on. The second question or the second point which is made is that you have been playing down the genocide, as it's put, during the Second World War. Is that right or not? Have you been playing that down?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. Absolutely not. I want to be very clear about that. If I put it into quotation marks, the word ²¹²⁵⁶ "genocide" in quotation marks, because even historians raise that question, because there is not an agreement about the extent of the number of the victims of that genocide. So to -- using the word "genocide" was referring to that historical uncertainty, not the fact that the massacre took place but what the extent of the massacre was. It's in no way a denial of the genocide.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Since you're doing the same thing as the new Croatian regime did after the elections, that is minimising the genocide, here is what the Wiesenthal centre says. In the Wiesenthal centre, and you can find this, you can take the Internet and search for it. "Jasenovac was the largest camp in Croatia [In English] between 1941 and 1945 under department 3 of the Croatian security police. About 600.000 people were murdered here, Serbs, Jewish, [Interpretation] In brackets 30.000 of them, Gypsies and opponents of the Ustasha regime."

So you are claiming that the figures don't match and that this is something in dispute in your opinion, but for the Wiesenthal centre, it is not in dispute. You will also be able to find his definition of the concept of Ustasha and the Wiesenthal centre says and I quote again: "Created in 1930 [In English] Was a Croatian national terrorist organisation. Its members [Interpretation] Ustasha was a Croatian terrorist organisation. Its member's hatred of the Jews was only rivalled by their hatred of the Serbs. [In English] Power of the Hitler created a Croatian puppet state. In 1941 Ustasha terrorists killed 500.000 Serbs, expelled 250.000 and forced 250.000 to convert to Catholicism. They ²¹²⁵⁷ murdered thousands of Jewish and Gypsies."

[Interpretation] Are you aware of these facts? Can't you see that --

JUDGE MAY: Let him answer. Let him answer.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To be very clear, I'm not denying that hundreds of thousands of Serbs and other peoples were massacred, massacred in the camps. What I'm simply trying to say is that since I'm not an historian, I saw the various estimates in respect of the various numbers of deaths which would -- and they weren't the same in all the different articles, but there was a spread from 500 to 900.000. Since I'm not an historian, since I see there is no absolute consensus on the specific number of deaths in those Croatian camps, I thought that it would be more prudent to put in the quotations around the word "genocide." If that was understood differently, I am sorry, but that was my intention as a person who is not an historian. I wanted to show caution in this area.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. de la Brosse, perhaps your report would have been strengthened in this respect if the explanation that you just gave had been inserted either as a footnote or indeed in the text, the explanation, that is, as to why you have "genocide" in quotation marks.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I move on?

JUDGE ROBINSON: No. I'd like the witness to comment on that.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I should have indicated that in a footnote. It is true that when I prepared the report my objective was to describe the propaganda mechanisms, and it is true that I was not aware ²¹²⁵⁸ of the need or of the significance there would be in dealing with certain historical facts about which I did not feel qualified, and for that reason, that might have been something clumsy on my part. If I were to redo this work, I would include a footnote that I was led by caution, perhaps in a clumsy way, to explain why I put quotations around that word and not being an historian, and I could not come to a specific decision about a factual issue that -- an issue dealing with facts that had occurred.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. And I will prove to you now that this reference to your lack of qualifications is not correct and that, in fact, it testifies to your lack of objectivity.

In footnote 119, you quote the sorrowful comments by Florence Hartmann because the parallel showing of Franjo Tudjman and Ante Pavelic's speeches - and Ante Pavelic headed this puppet state in 1941 - in a TV programme on the 27th of July 1991. So my question to you is: Are you aware that Tudjman in those quoted speeches said something that Pavelic also said, namely do you know that at the rally of the HDZ held on the 24th and 25th of February, 1990 in Zagreb, the then-elected president of that newly formed party, Tudjman, said among other things and I quote: "The Independent State of Croatia," and he's referring to the Pavelic state, "was not only a quisling entity and a fascist crime but also an expression of the historic aspirations of the Croatian people." End of quotation.

Therefore, you say that you are uninformed, that you are not an ²¹²⁵⁹ historian, but the lament of Florence Hartmann regarding the link between Tudjman and Pavelic you find necessary to quote. But as you see, the link is quite obvious and quite clear.

What would be your comment to that, Mr. de la Brosse?

A. If I quoted that excerpt from a work by Florence Hartmann, it has to do with the fact that she also shows, with examples, what the amalgamation was that was made between those responsible for the genocide and massacres committed by the Croats during the Second World War and what Franjo Tudjman was prepared -- was preparing to do allegedly. I didn't read the work that you're referring to by Franjo Tudjman. If I used this quotation, it is because the constant recalling of the past - constant - and the comparison made between the Croatian government of 1990 and that in the Second World War, in the readers' minds and the television viewer's mind, what is created is a type of confusion, because what -- what is-- message is that as the regime is on the point of -- of repeating the massacres, the massacres that were committed by the Ustashas during the Second World War. And the quotation which I gave you a little while ago by Jovan Raskovic in Politika, the 25th of March, 1990, is, in my opinion, something which sheds light on what we're talking about.

Q. So you find that is the justification for this. But the link, as you can see from the quotation, was made by Tudjman himself, because he says that that entity was the historic expression of the aspirations of the Croatian people. So it was not the Belgrade press that made this link but he himself. Isn't that right or not?

A. I didn't read that work by Tudjman that you're referring to. ²¹²⁶⁰

Q. I said it was his speech at a Congress of the HDZ which you should have read if you're denying this link with -- which he himself made in that same speech.

JUDGE MAY: We have it. We have the point, Mr. Milosevic, insofar as there is one. You said Tudjman referred in a speech in 1990 to the NDH government and said it represented the aspirations of the people of Croatia. The witness is saying to you that the constant repetition of these wrongs in the 1990s, the constant repetition of this was a way of building up hatred and a way of justifying the use of force and violence. That's his evidence. What the significance is of it will be a matter for us.

Now, there is not much point going on arguing about what Mr. Tudjman may or may not have said.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Maybe he didn't say it. Very well. He may not have said it. And maybe he did not make this link. Then we're okay.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But tell me, please, how do you, as a media expert, because you keep referring to this amalgamation, and obviously there's an amalgamation between you and Florence Hartmann, between you and this illegal OTP and not the way you put it. How can you, as an expert for the media, who doesn't know the language which the media use, in paragraph 52, second paragraph on page 49, when the TV was the only source of information for more than 90 per cent of the Serbs in confirmation of that in footnote 107, you quote from an article by Nicole du Roy, who with a very moderate ²¹²⁶¹ title, "Serbia Paranoiac Television," et cetera, you have the references there, and the quotation is: In this country Serbia where 46 per cent of the people are illiterate, which would mean every other inhabitant, the only form of media information which covers the whole territory are information broadcast by state television."

It seems to me, Mr. de la Brosse, that even you who upon the instructions of the opposite side prepared this report, this is going a little too far in saying that in Serbia 46 per cent of the people are illiterate. People are watching in Serbia and probably they can't believe their own ears, but --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, this will be your last question, because you've now gone on for half an hour. Yes. But you can finish it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But those are your sources, Mr. de la Brosse. Forty-six per cent of the people in Serbia are illiterate.

A. I think that you're confusing illiteracy and people who haven't studied. Here we are speaking of people whose only diploma would be from primary school. We're not talking about people who can't read and write at all. Reading -- that's not the same thing. People who have limited education and those who are illiterate.

Q. That is a very lame excuse. A little later in the report, you say that state television, at the end of page 90, 91, paragraph 110, you say that state television and I quote now: "For 30 per cent of the population who have not completed elementary school was the only and exclusive source of information." ²¹²⁶² So now you are referring to those who not completed eight years of elementary school. Earlier on it was four years, and it was increased to eight years. So the number of people who do not have elementary school education is 30 per cent. So you haven't even bothered to be consistent in your own report so as not to repeat different pieces of information and figures in different places.

What does this mean then, that 30 per cent of the population have not completed elementary school? A moment ago you said 46 per cent were illiterate, and neither of those figures are correct.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. de la Brosse, answer that question it you would, and that will conclude the cross-examination. Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I relied on several sources, including Nicole du Roy. I also used -- for numbers which would show the importance and weight of television and its impact on the population which was not familiar -- was not used to reading a great deal, I relied on several figures. Specifically as regards the weight of television, since it was the main medium covering Serbian territory and therefore the principal information or news medium for most of the population, I would refer to a report prepared in about -- which was about the elections in Serbia in 1990 through 2000 that were prepared by two fellows from the University of Belgrade called: "Television Elections and -- Elections in Serbia, 1990 to 2000, TV images in government and opposition". The study was done by Jovanka Matic. Jovanka Matic. And by Snezana Milojevic, and it is based on figures provided by RTS television at the time. ²¹²⁶³

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, just a couple of questions more. You told me I had another two or -- you didn't say I had two or three questions left.

JUDGE MAY: I think we've really had sufficient time on this.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: I've consulted. My colleagues think you should have two more questions, and literally that, otherwise we shall never finish this witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Here is one question, please. To make it clear to you, I have taken out of the binder that you have provided me for Mr. Kristan, this is Borba, a federal newspaper, dated of the 17th of March. The opposing side, in its opening statement, said that on that occasion I said that Yugoslavia was dead, and the sentence that is clearly quoted here says: "The Presidency of SFRY has not been functioning for a long time, and the illusion of the efforts of the Presidency of Yugoslavia and the efforts which in fact are lacking as of tonight are definitely dead."

So I'm saying that the illusion regarding the efforts of the Presidency are dead because it fell apart, whereas the opposing side said that I had said that Yugoslavia was dead.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. As you're an expert for the media, the question is: Do you consider this to be a manipulation if I say that an illusion that there ²¹²⁶⁴ are efforts which are -- do not exist are dead, is it a manipulation if I am alleged to have said that Yugoslavia was dead?

JUDGE MAY: That's not a question for the witness. You can -- you can ask one more question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. de la Brosse, I gave you a hundred pages of various different non-Yugoslav articles, articles that were not published in Serbia, and I have another one of the 31st of December, 1999, referring to the witness Barani who testified here, saying that his allegations were investigated, that it was established that they were not true, and it ends with the quotation: "Mr. Barani doesn't completely stand by his story. 'I told everybody that was a supposition. It was not confirmed information,' he says, [In English] 'But he says for the Serbs everything is possible.'" So these fabricated falsehoods and everything that you read in those 100 pages, would you have made somewhat different conclusions if you had consulted all those sources instead of your own selective sources which show that you did not make a study of the contents of the media reports?

JUDGE MAY: The witness need not answer because it's totally irrelevant, a report about Mr. Barani. It's nothing to do with the witness at all. Just a moment, please.

But, Mr. de la Brosse, you should have the opportunity of commenting on the articles we invited you to look at which the accused produced to you on the last occasion you were here. So if you have any ²¹²⁶⁵ comments on them, this is the time to make them.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I consulted -- well, I went through all of these press excerpts, mostly from the international press, and I had several problems in respect of the nature and status of the excerpts from the various newspapers because there is no information about the author's status. We don't know whether it's an article by one person or some of the texts are in quotation marks, others are not. So I would simply like to point out the difficulty I would have in reacting to this type of text by giving you one example, the one of page 13, which is an article by Thomas Fleiner that was published in a Swiss newspaper in German, the Die Welt Woche, and the name of it has to do with demonisation of a people in 1994.

The article is in quotations. Nothing is known about the author, and so I took the initiative and I did some research into the author, and I tried to find the article. It turns out that I was able to find a document by Thomas Fleiner which can be found on a Serbian site. I could give you the Internet address if we put the document on the -- the ELMO. And the text which is published by an academician in Switzerland and it's about ten pages long, the excerpt that it was suggested I comment on is presented as an ordinary speech which in fact does not correspond with reality, because in the text which you see on the Internet site which has the entire speech, when you -- I was asked to comment on the first part. The beginning of the text comes from the second page of the work of this academician. And then the -- I was also asked to look at something which appears on page 5, and it goes on to page 6 and then goes on to page ²¹²⁶⁶ 8 and further yet to page 10.

In the article that I was asked to comment on, nothing is said about the fact that the article, about the pieces of the article come from different passage of a text that was prepared by an academician which in itself is problematical because I'm not sure that by working that way we are respecting the author's thoughts, and it seems to me they were rather distorting the intention and the demonstration made by that author. In particular when we're dealing with an article whose purpose was to see to what extent the multi-ethnic experience in Switzerland can be used to investigate matters in the Balkans. There are certain positions taken by the author particularly in favour of pluralism in the media within Yugoslavia, and that leaves doubts with me in respect of the meaning to be given to the author's text if I compare what I was asked to compare with the entire text, and so I would have difficulty in commenting on that type of text.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, plainly if we are to introduce these -- No. You've been on long enough.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm --

JUDGE MAY: You can address us at the end. If we are going to admit any of these articles, plainly we should not admit excerpts, we should admit the whole article because otherwise the meaning can be distorted. But we'll consider that in a moment.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: No. You can address that at the end.

THE ACCUSED: I have an objection, Mr. May. ²¹²⁶⁷

JUDGE MAY: No. You can make it at the end. You've gone on long enough today. Let Mr. Tapuskovic cross-examine.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I really did do my best to select a topic from the vast subjects that could be discussed here, so I have selected three or four which I consider to be of importance for your -- the Judges' deliberation was respect to all the problems before you, Your Honours. So I really would ask you to allot me some time to go through them. I'll be as quick as possible. And if Mr. de la Brosse gives me yes or no answers wherever possible, that would be a great help. I think I will be able to get through my questions very quickly.

Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. de la Brosse, let me start off from paragraph 111, if I may, and that is towards the end of your report, in fact. Perhaps I won't have time to yet through everything I wish to get through, but it is a paragraph which is titled or, rather, first of all, it was entitled "The impossibility of a democratic political alternative." That was the first title. And then we received a correction to this effect: It now reads as follows: "Impossibility of a democratic change over political power." That's right, isn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. In the first sentence of that report of yours and paragraph, you say that the monopoly over information, the state television monopoly over information and to a lesser degree the national radio monopoly was a guarantee that Slobodan Milosevic would cash in on extraordinary political ^{21268 BLANK PAGE 21269} royalties. Is that right? Is that what you say?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you conclude by saying that this media supremacy and how this -- this will pay off many -- many-fold prior to the elections, and the same would be repeated at the December 1992 elections. Is that right?

A. 1990.

Q. Yes, 1990 and 1992, that this will be repeated in December 1992 as well.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, my questions are as follows: In response to a question from Mr. Nice during your examination-in-chief, you said that in Yugoslavia, that is to say in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, you arrived there in 1994 and that you dealt in journalism. And prior to the war in Kosovo, you published an article linked to propaganda. Is that correct?

A. Yes. I said that in 1994 I directed a work on the media and hatred than I wrote an article on the impossibility of covering the war in Kosovo.

Q. Mr. de la Brosse, I'm going to try and present you with facts. In view of the fact that you lived and worked in the former Yugoslavia for the period of time you did, were you aware of a notorious fact at the time, namely that the Albanians in Kosovo did not go out to the elections to vote for a whole decade, and quite certainly they did not in 1990 and 1992. Did you know about this undisputed fact, the fact that the Albanians did not go to the polls?

A. No. ²¹²⁷⁰

Q. You didn't know about that, something like that, and you spent so much time there? Can you compare, for example, the propaganda you discussed in your report with the propaganda that was used, utilised in order to have people not go to the elections at all, not go to vote? And it is a fact that the Albanians did not go to vote for ten years. But the important years for me that I'd like to focus on is 1990 and 1992. So did you hear about the propaganda that lead out to the fact that the Albanians took no part in Serbia's political life at all.

A. Let me make a clarification. I began to work in 1994. I made -- prepared a comparative study on the use of propaganda and the propagation of ethnic hatred. I worked on that from 1994 to 1995. And then in 1996 I published another article. I never said that I spent a -- many years in the former Yugoslavia.

Q. Mr. de la Brosse, I have to hurry this up a little. Now, why I'm asking you this is because you conclude, you observe in paragraph 111 titled "Impossibility of a democratic changeover of a political power," you make a conclusion there. Now, let me take you through 1992. You mentioned Milan Panic, for example, who in 1992 was a counter-candidate to Slobodan Milosevic. Slobodan Milosevic, as far as I recall, got a few more votes, although ten years -- that was ten years ago.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just a million. A million more.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Right, a million more. So quite a substantial difference.

Q. Now, do you know that the democratic opposition in Serbia in 1992 already had solid foundations, it had a good response among the people? ²¹²⁷¹ What it did came across a good response from the population. Are you aware of that?

A. You referred to two elections, 1990 and 1992. I would like to go back to the purpose of the paragraph 111. Here I am referring to the media coverage of the December 1990 elections during which the opposition did not have a fair access to the audio-visual media of the state. I remind you that television is the main news medium for the vast majority of the Serbian people, and so there was an inequality, and I'm referring to the study that was prepared, "Television and elections in Serbia" --

Q. You've explained all that. Mr. De la Brosse, you've explained all that in your report. I'm not asking you to repeat what you've explained in the report.

You spoke about the influence of the authorities on the elections and you don't know the notorious facts that the Albanians in 1990 did not go to the polls. But I'm not interested in that either. What I'm interested in is this: Had the Albanians gone out to the elections in 1992 would the authorities have remained in power? Would Slobodan Milosevic himself have remained in power? Can you answer that question for me, please?

A. Apparently not.

Q. The Albanians gone out to vote, there would have been a million votes added to Milan Panic's vote. Pure arithmetic would have shown that had they wanted to have a parliamentary struggle, Slobodan Milosevic and the authorities would not have been able to stay if power?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Tapuskovic, let's move on. ²¹²⁷²

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I will move on to another subject, but I think this is quite obvious and self-evident, but it is up to you to assess, of course. I have just broached the question.

Q. Now, something else. What you state in paragraph 68. And we dealt at length on the issue. It is as you said the paranoia of conspiracy, I think you called it. And in you first statement, you say: "However, what set Serbian nationalism far apart was its paranoia." That's right, isn't it? That's what you say?

A. Yes.

Q. And then in the next paragraph, paragraph 69, and you've already spoken about that too, you mentioned Dobrica Cosic and say that when he was the president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and you quote his words, "it is a question of a total war being waged against our nation," and you wind up by invoking the influence of the mass media. Are you referring to the mass media with respect to the world information media?

A. Could you indicate the passage again, please?

A. It is paragraph 69, the last sentence. Just before paragraph 70.

A. Yes. I think that he's speaking about the international media.

Q. Very well, yes. Now take a look at paragraph 75, if you would, the beginning of paragraph 75. And you say: "When despite everything certain information directly implicating Serbian responsibility for the perpetuation of atrocities managed to filter through, it was distorted. On the 27th of May, 1992, 17 inhabitants of Sarajevo were killed by a Serbian shell, and 150 wounded as they were queueing for bread. The picture of the massacre would be broadcast by RTS only with the Serb's ²¹²⁷³ official version of events later on, which accused the Sarajevo government of having organised it to cause the West to intercede." Is that correct?

A. What I say is that on Serbian television, the only thing shown was one version.

Q. Don't you know that the whole of Serbia was watching this on that day and that the citizens of Serbia watched with horror these images that were broadcast? You don't know about that, that they were horrified?

A. Let me reread this, please. So what was your question?

Q. Well, I don't want to go back to the question. If you didn't understand it, I have to move on.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I should like at this point to open up several questions dealt with by Mr. de la Brosse which in the future work related to Bosnia -- actually, he analysed what happened in Vasa Miskin Street. I think this will be of great importance to Your Honours. That is my opinion, at least.

Q. So I would like to ask the witness before that. Before I go on to Vasa Miskin Street and the event there, does he know at all, he can just give me a yes or no answer, whether he knows of the existence of the American agency for relations with the public Norton Hill, and Ruder and Fin. Has he heard of those two agencies? If he deals in propaganda and is testifying before us in court here --

A. You are allude to go an American agency which Mr. Parenti talks about in his book?

Q. No. I'm just asking you whether you know of the existence of ²¹²⁷⁴ those two agencies, Norton Hill and Ruder and Fin, and that they lobbied for the Bosnian and Croatian side. Are you aware of that? Do you know about that? Do you have knowledge of that? Give me a yes or no answer, please?

A. No.

Q. And on French television in 1993 given the fact that you deal in propaganda, did you hear a statement made by James Harf and I'm just going to read several sentences, just give me a yes or no answer once again please. "It is not up to us to check out the truthfulness of information. We are not capacitated to do so. What is our task is to disseminate useful information as soon as possible. Independently of that, the Croatian and Muslim past were such that they were coloured by strong anti-Semitism. Dozens of thousands of Jews were killed in concentration camps and everything spoke in favour of the fact that intellectuals and the Jewish organisations would be hostilely disposed towards the Croats and Bosnians. For us this was a challenge to have this position changed at its very roots. For us, this was a great success, magnificent success. When the Jewish organisations stood on the side of Bosnian organisations, we were able to equate the Serbs straight away in public" --

JUDGE MAY: Now, Mr. Tapuskovic --

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] -- "The Nazis."

JUDGE MAY: What do you see in your control as amicus the purpose of this question? How is it of assistance or how are you trying to assist the Court?

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I said that I would ²¹²⁷⁵ use concrete examples to link all this up, because Mr. de la Brosse spoke about Vasa Miskin Street, the incident there, and how that fact, what happened there was assessed in Serbia. And these will be things that you will be dealing with many times in times to come. And let me tell you why. He doesn't know about this statement. All right. I'm satisfied the answer and it will be useful to you. But do you know --

JUDGE MAY: Are you going to put -- very simply, is this the point of it all, that there was manipulation of propaganda by Bosnians or Croats? Is that the point that you're making?

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, no. I stated the quotation by Mr. de la Brosse that Dobrica Cosic said there was a conspiracy afoot against the Serbs than the world media were used for that purpose, harnessed for that purpose, and it is along those lines that I am examining the witness.

JUDGE MAY: Isn't that really a matter for Mr. Milosevic to put forward? Is it really a matter for the amicus to get into this kind of argument?

Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, I may be of assistance. Mr. Milosevic actually put forward these arguments when he referred to a person, Merlinot who appeared and made such allegations, and he actually quoted quite lengthy the same things that Mr. Tapuskovic puts now.

JUDGE MAY: I seem to remember the quotation attributed to Mr. Harf. Yes. Just one moment.

[Trial Chamber confers] ²¹²⁷⁶

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Tapuskovic, we must ask you to move on. These are matters which Mr. Milosevic has already raised. We are familiar with the argument, and it's not going to assist us to have it reiterated. And time is short. We really have a limit on the time available.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I won't go back to that issue, no, but the three events that he mentions in his report I would have to put forward to you here and also to hear his comments.

Q. Is it true that on the 27th of May, 1992, in the bread line a shell killed all these people and 150 were wounded, 150 wounded and 17 inhabitants killed? Is that correct? And that's what you say in your report, don't you?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it also true and correct that all the world agencies carried this news item that day and on the following days, that they repeated this many times? Is that true as well?

A. The fact that the media and the international agencies gave information about the massacre, reported on the massacre, yes.

Q. And is it also true and correct that on that same day in Lisbon, negotiations were interrupted between the three national delegations which were discussing the constitutional order to come? They began on the 21st of May, the Portuguese Ambassador, Cutileiro, the presiding officer interrupted the conference on that very day; is that correct?

A. I believe so.

Q. Is it also true and correct that on the 30th of May, a Security Council decision was taken on 757 Resolution introducing sanctions against ²¹²⁷⁷ the FRY, Serbia and Montenegro. Is that true? Did the United Nations Security Council make that decision without previously ascertaining who was responsible for the incident in the first place?

JUDGE MAY: What is the point of reiterating all this, Mr. Tapuskovic? I want to know what the point is and I have not got it. What are you going to put to the witness?

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you will be able to ascertain the truth here about Racak, for instance. You are going to decide on what happened in Racak, whether it was civilians who were killed or something else. Here before public opinion, international public opinion, the news was put forward that the crime was committed by the Serbs.

Now, Mr. de la Brosse is here. Was it ever established who used and deployed the shell? Whereas what followed the incident was sanctions imposed against Serbia. So that is the point of my question.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We've heard this argument before. You're suggesting that it was the Bosnians who were responsible. This witness isn't to deal with that. He's merely dealing with propaganda. And we've heard all these arguments. We hear them from the accused all the time. Now, you must consider your role as amicus and consider that you're not putting forward a positive case on behalf of anybody. And I must ask you to finish this -- just a moment.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours --

JUDGE MAY: I must ask you to finish this in the next ten minutes, by quarter past. ²¹²⁷⁸

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will finish whenever you want me to, but I must say quite seriously that I'm constantly under time constraints, and it is very difficult for me to perform my role as amicus curiae. So I ask myself whether I am necessary to the Trial Chamber in this case at all. I cannot work under pressure of this kind. And let me say also -- I have to say this although maybe it's not the right place, but I am the oldest person here and I can't be under stress constantly as to be given instruction when and what to ask. If I can't raise issues of this kind, then my services serve no purpose here. It has nothing to do with Mr. Milosevic here, but it has to do with questions that you will have to deliberate about and make a ruling on. If I'm superfluous here, then I no longer wish to perform this role.

JUDGE MAY: Go on to your next point, provided it's not going over old ground which we've covered already.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] We have the occurrence of the 5th of February, 1994, the Markale incident. Sixty-eight dead in that incident in Sarajevo. On that particular day, the truth is disseminated for Markale, the first Markale incident. In 1996, it was established that this was really perpetrated by the Muslim side.

JUDGE MAY: These points are all made by Mr. Milosevic. It's not helpful to have them reiterated with this witness. No doubt we'll have to make a decision about it. This witness can't help.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, let me really shorten what I wanted to say. I wanted to raise a topic here, and that is this: It ²¹²⁷⁹ was stated that Cosic and the Academy of Arts and Sciences, that they were constantly putting out certain information as to a Serb conspiracy or, rather, an international conspiracy. That's what de la Brosse speaks about. I just wanted to raise this question, that before anything was established, certain steps were taken against certain states. I, of course, know that you can not establish that at this point in time. You'll clear it up at the end. But before the truth was known about anything, certain actions were taken on the part of the international state against -- community against that state. And that's the question I wanted to raise. And this was done on three occasion up until the bombings, which did not wait for a decision as to what had happened at the Markale 3 incident, but I don't want to go back to that. I want to end by raising a question we had here already and which refers to propaganda. You will recall, I'm sure, that with witness Jeri Laber, for example, I broached a particular question which had to do with propaganda precisely because in December 1992, the Muslim leaders in Bosnia accused the Bosnian Serbs of raping 50.000 Muslim women in camps where they held them as detainees, as prisoners.

Q. Do you know about that? Do you know about that incident?

A. Are you referring to a witness who appeared at this Tribunal?

Q. I'm referring to a testimony. But I'm asking you whether you know about this, these facts and figures. And they are contained in a document that was already raised here in court, and it has been tendered into evidence, admitted into evidence.

A. I had access to that testimony. ²¹²⁸⁰

Q. Do you know about that piece of information or not? Did you read in Newsweek that 30 to 50.000 rapes this had been committed by Serb soldiers, that this was put out before the sanctions were imposed?

A. I wasn't aware of that at the time. I learnt it from Mr. Parenti's book.

Q. But it was one of the arguments before the sanctions were imposed against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

JUDGE MAY: That's nothing to do with this witness why sanctions were imposed.

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

Q. But do you know that there was even a report by the Council of Europe that was put out which speaks about the rape of 20.000 Muslim women. And after that, the International Red Cross made a statement by Philippe Miserez which said there was no evidence that camps of that kind of existed or ever existed. He stresses that the greatest part of prisoners of war were held in Bosnia by all sides and there were 10.000 in July 1992 and the accusations were exaggerated. Do you know about that? Have you heard about that?

A. I learned it in Mr. Parenti's book.

Q. Can I refer to another topic? But I don't know whether I'll be able to complete it within the space of three or four minutes. Can I start my third topic or shall I give up on it?

JUDGE MAY: You can start it now.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In paragraph 96, you speak about the fact that the Serbs or, ²¹²⁸¹ rather, the Serbia authorities via radio and television Serbia played the nationalistic card as it says here and the air raids were considered to be an international conspiracy against Serbia. That's what you state here. And a little further on you go on to say the following, that even the least collateral damage for which responsibility was taken over by the allied aviation, air force, was exploited by the media, and the target was inside and outside to strengthen the idea that it really was a war against the civilian population. That is what you write in your report.

A. In paragraph 96, I can find it, but I don't see the second part.

Q. Paragraph 97, that is, the middle of the paragraph. No, 98. I'm sorry, it's paragraph 98 that I'm referring to and they mostly said that a F170 American aeroplane was shot down and that this was exaggerated and exploited, the slightest collateral damage caused by NATO aircraft was exploited for external and internal consumption, et cetera.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Yes, what is the question, Mr. Tapuskovic?

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, my question with reference to this is: Is it exaggeration or were bridges and refineries and hydro electric power plants destroyed, and to take the lowest figure, 502 civilians were killed? Is that correct, to take a conservative figure?

Did you have information of that kind working on your report, compiling it?

A. What figure are you alluding to?

JUDGE MAY: Look, again, what counsel is putting, and it really is a Defence point is that again this is an exaggeration because there were ^{21282 BLANK PAGE 21283} indeed -- there was damage and there were casualties on the Serb side. Could you briefly deal with it, please, Mr. de la Brosse.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I quote the example of the American aircraft, the 11 -- the F170. It's not sure that it was shot down by the -- whether it was shot down or whether it was an accident, that American F170 stealth bomber. And this was presented as a victorious exploit by the Serbian army. I'm asking for a little bit of time here because I feel that the -- I'm -- the amicus curiae is a bit stressed. So am I, in fact. It's hard to answer just yes or no.

JUDGE MAY: Let's adjourn. Now you, you must bring this to an end, Mr. Tapuskovic as quickly as possible, because time is limited and in my judgement these are all Defence points and I don't think --

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I need two more minutes. Two more minutes and I'll be finished. I'll give up all the other questions. I just want to clarify this point otherwise there's no sense in working.

JUDGE MAY: I don't want people to be stressed though. You can ask two minutes more then.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. This is what I would want to ask you, Mr. de la Brosse. Is the principle -- is it the principle of every democratic country to have the freedom of the press, the freedom of the media and for the media to be able to freely express themselves and put forward things to the public even if they are not always correct or the truth? Is that a principle that prevails in all countries throughout the world? ²¹²⁸⁴

A. Freedom of the press is put forward as the cornerstone of freedom in a democratic society.

Q. That's how I understand it too. Now, do you know this, that in Yugoslavia, the director of the television was convicted to a prison term of ten years because he failed to liberate the -- failed to evacuate the television building when the television building and station was bombed? Now, I'm not going into that matter. He got ten years of a prison sentence for that. Now, what could have justified, this is what I'm interested in, that the symbol of democracy, a television station in any country should be hit by a NATO shell and that 17 civilians were killed in the process. That is my question to you. If freedom of the media is a democratic principle, how is that possible then?

JUDGE MAY: No. That's not a matter for the witness to answer. Yes. Now, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, it may be in the particular circumstances you could forego any re-examination and the witness can be allowed to go.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour -- Your Honour, I actually have a few points that need to be clarified, and it's -- because it relates to the articles that the witness was supposed to read. It relates to one item with the 41 children, and one point in relation to his methodology.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will adjourn. Twenty minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.19 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.44 p.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. ²¹²⁸⁵ Re-examined by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff:

Q. Mr. de la Brosse, in the cross-examination, both the accused and Mr. Tapuskovic put to you various events and classifications of personalities or groups, suggesting that these were true, these facts were true, and challenging your findings that this was propaganda. My question to you is: Effective propaganda, is that simply spreading lies or can the reporting of true facts be even more effective as a propaganda tool?

A. The fact that one is reporting facts that actually happened can be very -- can also be a very effective means of propaganda.

Q. During the cross-examination, the accused challenged the validity of your expertise as such given your working methods, and you yourself actually addressed limitations, particularly the lack of knowledge of the Serbian language and details of historical facts. You said in this regard that this did not allow you to see all facets of that propaganda at work and that, therefore, you could not reconstitute the entire scope of the propaganda.

This fact that you could not see all facets, would that work in favour of the accused or would it be his disadvantage, your limitations?

A. I think that would be disadvantageous to him.

Q. In which way?

A. Because of the material itself, the body of material used. As I said, I limited myself to -- to using certain newspapers like Politika, material which basically was used to analyse the media and television coverage, especially the major Serbian television news programme. As I ²¹²⁸⁶ was saying on Monday, there were many other areas which are used in order to get propaganda across which were not studied.

Q. Mr. de la Brosse, I was actually referring to the knowledge of the Serbian language and the lack of all the details of all the history. Would that -- that therefore you could not see all facets in propaganda. Would that disadvantage him or would that even work in favour of him?

A. The fact that I do not know the Serbian language, I know a little bit about history but I'm not an historian, as I've said, all of that meant that I was unable to study the use that might have been made of certain symbols or certain emblems, and that, therefore, is a limitation on the study of the propaganda.

Q. You have read, I understood, the articles that were given to you by the accused, and you have already mentioned that you had difficulties to comment on these articles and even found that they were incorrect in relation to an article in the German language or, rather, the Swiss language.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And, Your Honours, I have to inform and everybody should know that here in court, that the source of this document is actually a document provided to the US embassy by Momcilo Krajisnik on the 14th of April, 1997, in Pale. Mr. Milosevic did not know that, so he should also know that.

Q. And I would like to put to the witness another. The Prosecution has tried to find the underlying articles, and I would like to put to Mr. de la Brosse another example of the underlying article, and it's again in the German language because that was the easiest to do over the ²¹²⁸⁷ weekend. On and -- yes, please.

I have provided the underlying article from Mr. Tuman in Die Zeit, and one of our German colleagues, I have to say it wasn't me, has found these quotes which are highlighted in this article and has translated these quotes.

The first quote as Mr. Milosevic read from this document that he had at hand was that "out of 30.000 of the Serbs that used to live in Mostar, there are only 400 left." And the complete quote is actually reread. Author is referring to other articles that in 1992 and 1993, "Serbs expelled more than 50.000 Muslims and Croats from the Bosnian Prijedor at the same time out of 30.000 Serbs that used to live in Mostar, there are only 400 today."

And the next quote that Mr. Milosevic did in relation to the refugees in Serbia, the complete quote is: "The Croatian -- in Croatia today live 550.000 refugees, expelled victims of ethnic cleansing, but also Serbs give home to 450.000 refugees victims of ethnic cleansing. Both are true."

Then there is also the reference that Mr. Milosevic read here in relation to the warmongering journalism and is actually a quote referring to a dispute in the media, and it starts with "The reproach of the revisionists is," and then comes the quote.

Did you yourself also find this article or find similar incorrect -- incorrect matters in these examples?

A. I was a bit uncomfortable about the type of excerpts that I was asked to comment on. I did some research on one article, and I didn't do ²¹²⁸⁸ any research for the other so I can't answer yes.

Q. Did you do any research on Alfred Sherman who also had a quote in this group of documents referring to the Germans wanting control over the Danube basin in the Balkans? Were you aware that in summer 1993 Alfred Sherman was residing in Pale next to Radovan Karadzic and actually was his advisor?

A. No, I didn't know that.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, that should be enough. I could continue with more examples from this, but I think that's enough. And the only other thing that I actually want to address is the 41 children killed, allegedly killed, in Vukovar.

Q. And you have actually in paragraph 5 of your report commented the entire story with all the details, and I just want to refer you to this paragraph. And in the context -- in this context, the accused spoke about the disclaimer done by the Serbian television, and you have actually in footnote 13 given a quote -- you've quoted this disclaimer. And I just want to draw your attention to the following sentence: "Assuming the news story was not authentic, now we can't say whether it is or it is not because we have no convincing proof, and it's always easy to apologise," and so forth and so on.

Is this a clear denial that the event didn't happen, or is there an underlying message in there to the contrary when you read this sentence?

Haven't you found it? It's footnote 13.

A. I don't know if I'm answering your question, but in the television ²¹²⁸⁹ excerpt that I'm referring to in footnote 13, the journalist says that "Assuming the news story was not authentic, [In English] ... Say whether it is or it is not."

[Interpretation] The news was denied by the Reuters press agency.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, no more questions.

JUDGE MAY: We'll come back to the report. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I had an objection earlier on, namely, you said that you could not accept these 100 pages which I provided on the previous day because the texts were not integral, that is the 100 pages were just extracts. But the witness explained that he looked for one article out of all those contained in those 100 pages. So I have two objections.

The first is that I received all of those 100 pages from the side opposite. It was not I that found them. I received them, and I showed you the references of the opposite side regarding all of those 100 pages. If you don't accept that, then it means that the opposite side is giving me unacceptable documents which cannot be of any use. So this is a question that should be addressed, why they're doing it. And another argument in favour of what I'm saying is that the quotations of the witness contained in his would-be expert report are also incomplete or even in many cases they are parts of sentences taken out of context.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Yes. Let us save time -- let us save time on this. We will consider what the status of these documents is going to be, but meanwhile, let the witness retire. He shouldn't have to remain any ²¹²⁹⁰ longer for this kind of debate.

Mr. de la Brosse, thank you for coming, and thank you for coming back to the Tribunal to continue your evidence. It is now finished, and you are free to go.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will consider what the status of these documents is.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We will admit the various articles. So that is the first seven items in the index which I have in front of me. They will all be admitted. They are, of course, not evidence, but since the witness was dealing with what was in the press, on the same basis this can be admitted.

We will not admit the book by Michael Parenti. It is not our practice, as we made plain during the course of the trial, to admit such document into evidence.

Accordingly, numbers 1 to 7 admitted, the book not. But we can have exhibit number for those seven.

THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit 141, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Can I raise two short administrative matters because I think everybody in the courtroom should know so that nobody ²¹²⁹¹ prepares something in vain.

The first thing is in light of the recent decision in relation to Professor Kristan, the witness will not appear this week, and we will reconsider whether he needs to be called.

And in relation to the witness order, we would like to make one change, and that relates to the witness 47 and the witness B-1775, given the change in the court schedule and the practical reasons for travelling and so forth, we would like to have B-1775 before the Witness C-047. We believe that C-047 would then testify next Monday.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. There was one -- there was one witness who you weren't going to call. I can't remember who it was. It was announced last week. Perhaps you could at some stage let us have the number and pseudonym again.

I have it. The registry, as usual, has it. Thank you. The next matter we need to consider are the various Rule 92 bis issues. I'll just get my papers into order.

The witnesses were 1455, 1725, and Osman Selak. The first two were -- are cumulative in the sense they both deal with the takeover of Zvornik and, therefore, potentially admissible under Rule 92 bis, with cross-examination, of course.

One matter of concern, though, Mr. Groome, is the fact that these statements are coming in late and requiring a variation of the Rule. That's not a practice which the Trial Chamber would encourage at all, if you can help us about it.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, these were witnesses originally ²¹²⁹² scheduled to testify viva voce and it was a decision by the Prosecution, who wanted to expedite matters here, wherever appropriate here we would seek wherever to 92 bis (B) the statements of such witnesses. We are making efforts to now complete all of the necessary paperwork and comply with all time limits of viva voce witnesses that will be called later in the case which we will attempt to do at least in part by 92 bis (D) but apologise for the short notice on these particular ones. It was inevitable in these particular situations.

JUDGE MAY: I don't know if you've had an opportunity of --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Sorry. I don't know if you've had the opportunity, Mr. Groome, of reading the objections the amici about Osman Selak.

MR. GROOME: I have, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Perhaps you would like to deal with them.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, it's the Prosecution's intention to only rely on approximately or less than half of the transcript, less than 400 pages. The Prosecution felt it was in fairness, just basic principles of fairness required that we seek to submit the entire transcript including the cross-examination rather than just the examination-in-chief that we would seek to rely upon. It's our position that even if the testimony of Mr. Selak were to be taken entirely viva voce, that it still would be necessary for the accused to read that 800-page transcript. So it's the Prosecution's position that we take no position on the -- on how much time is allotted the accused to -- that the Court determines is a reasonable period of time to cross-examine Mr. Selak, but ²¹²⁹³ in the interests of saving some time, it seems entirely appropriate to seek to introduce his prior court testimony before the Trial Chamber under 92 bis (D).

JUDGE MAY: One point which is made by the amici relates to evidence concerning the relationship between the military and political wings of the government which it says is -- which is said is pivotal evidence and relates to the accused. Will that evidence be given live?

MR. GROOME: It was our intention to do some very small portion of that live but to again rely on the prior testimony simply in the interests of saving time. The Prosecution would not object to leading that evidence if that is the determination by the Chamber.

JUDGE MAY: So what parts of his evidence do you propose to give live so we have some idea of the position?

MR. GROOME: Portions of the testimony related to that pivotal relationship as well as some additional documents that are more relevant to the Court's consideration of this matter than the Chamber that's hearing the Brdjanin case. We anticipate that his testimony, if his prior testimony is accepted under 92 bis (D), that his viva voce testimony, that component of his evidence would be less than an hour of examination-in-chief.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Well, Mr. Kay, you hear what's suggested for Mr. Selak if we take him first, that evidence about the acts and conduct or anything which remotely could be said to be the acts and conduct will be given live.

MR. KAY: One of the problems in dealing with his testimony in ²¹²⁹⁴ this way is that the two transcripts amount to a very dense quantity of material, 800 pages. And it's very difficult going through that material to have a clear understanding of all the detail of his evidence. It is possible to have an understanding of the generality, but the concern for my part was that this could be opening a door for future problems in the trial if the accused has not dealt with something that remains within those papers that is crucial to the Prosecution or becomes crucial at a later stage.

If his evidence was given not in 92 bis form but in a simple and concise way so that the accused was able to understand the nature of the case against him, in my submission the stated objectives of the Prosecution could be readily achieved, avoiding a great morass of detail within those transcripts that it is difficult to get to grips with in relation to this case because, for instance, that evidence concerned the trial of General Talic. And we are being cautious about this matter because at first sight it seems the transcript is just being produced, albeit now cut in half to 400 pages, that in the end there will not be a very great saving of time if one has avoided taking these issues in a precise form viva voce before the Trial Chamber.

JUDGE MAY: Well, that's a matter, isn't it, for the Prosecution? The point is that the evidence could all be repeated. The only thing of a transcript is that it is the evidence which was given live earlier. So if it's all repeated again, we'll be in the same position. And it's a matter for the Prosecution how they present their case, surely, not for you.

MR. KAY: Well, it is a matter for us because it deals with the ²¹²⁹⁵ ability of the other party to be able to comprehend the issues that are being put in the courtroom, which is a fair trial issue, and I would submit for the Judges themselves.

Looking at that transcript, the meandering way of the evidence and questioning makes the points very difficult to follow, and I would urge the Trial Chamber, if they have not been in a position to do so yet, to spend a little time going through the transcript to have a look at that intelligibility issue.

JUDGE MAY: In an ideal world, no doubt all the evidence could be given live in the way that you recommend, concentrating purely on the issues in a case. The problems that we are having in this Tribunal is the length of these cases.

Now, I know that this is not your responsibility at all or indeed the responsibility of the accused. Of course not. It's the responsibility of the Prosecution, and they have to grapple with this. But at the same time, the Tribunal must do something to ensure that material is put in an expeditious and fair way, and this particular Rule is one of the ways of doing it.

Here is a man who has given evidence twice, given his evidence in chief, and this is a way of getting that evidence in front of this Trial Chamber without going over it all again but making sure, from the point of view of a fair trial, that the accused has the opportunity to cross-examine.

It's the scale and complexity of these trials which require the one forms new forms of thinking in the ways of conducting trials, away ^{21296 BLANK PAGE 21297} from the old common law oral model but, of course, ensuring that fairness is maintained.

MR. KAY: I don't disagree with that. And we are an international court here applying international rules of evidence. But the point I'm making is that in an ideal world, the original questioning would have been clear in its direction and the issues able to be comprehended. But the massive detail and the repetition of issues with slight developments at one stage from a stage that was given previously, relying upon various documents, do not make this evidence clear to understand, and that has been my concern on behalf of this accused.

I appreciate the statement by the Trial Chamber then concerning the nature of these trials and the time taken upon them, but it does seem to me that the proceedings are helped better if there is concise and clear questioning that puts us directly into the issues, which can't take too long a period of time. But if one considers the approach we've had in relation to this submission, I appreciate the Prosecution are under pressure of work and time, but 800 pages turns up with a supporting application saying admit this into evidence and a general description of what is within those pages. We would have been far better served if we could have gone to that document, looked at certain pages and passages which perhaps encompass ten pages in one part, five in another, one in another, drawn red lines down the side and been able to say, "This is the issue within this testimony from this witness on that occasion and it is summed up in this form as being an issue that goes to structure and command responsibility." But that hasn't happened. ²¹²⁹⁸ So forgive me for being a Luddite on this matter, because we have to face what has been -- what has been done through the means presented, what has been attempted by the means presented. And that's where clarity of issues, in our submission, not only serve the accused but they also serve the Trial Chamber. And if we are to have a practice of vast pages of transcripts being produced under a Rule which is to help precious court time, it's going to cause great difficulties in isolating the issues in this case because we lose the focus in the case against this accused. Those are my submissions on the Selak transcript unless I can assist the Court any further on that particular one.

JUDGE MAY: The other two.

MR. KAY: Yes. Dealing first with 1455. Cumulative crime base, Zvornik, and not acts and conduct of the accused, I'm able to paraphrase it in that way because we know the territory that we're dealing with. The one extra issue I would raise on this evidence is that it deals with a particular distinct village called Drinjaca that I don't believe that we have had evidence about to date in this trial, and so in that sense, there is a fresh introduction of evidence on a particular place.

I had been setting out an oral document --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, are you saying that goes to the cumulative character of the evidence?

MR. KAY: The fact that it is a new village is a fresh place, so it could be said to be a distinct issue and is, therefore, not cumulative of evidence relating to the place. ²¹²⁹⁹ In the context of Zvornik as a whole, that is a different matter. But I raise that point for the Trial Chamber's consideration. I'm conscious of the fact that in the Croatia phase of the trial when we looked at this and we considered the Rule 92 bis applications that were cumulative of the Babic testimony, the Trial Chamber was happy to rule in those statements on the basis of generality of area rather than distinctly looking at particular villages.

I was writing something over the weekend for the Trial Chamber on this, and I haven't had time to print it out and hand it in. If I can just check and see I've covered all the points.

No. That's all I need to raise on 1455. 1775, I've had an opportunity to consider today. Again this is Zvornik crime base, cumulative of Zvornik events within Zvornik itself, not acts and conduct of the accused but deals with the mass burial of peoples around the area, and as yet, we have had no witness on evidence such as this. We have had pathologist evidence, but I think I'm right in saying that we have had no specific witness dealing with transportation of bodies from places and their burial.

A factor that he does deal with that is important within the case, he mentions a Belgrade pathologist and his evidence concerning that particular matter and its relevance to issues outside Bosnia-Herzegovina are obviously relevant in the case against this accused. Now, the Trial Chamber, I anticipate, would permit cross-examination on this particular witness following the guidance that's been given from previous decisions. Outside what happens in Zvornik, it ²¹³⁰⁰ may well be that the Court, in exercising its discretion, would want to hear the live evidence concerning the shipment of the bodies and their disposal in various places, which is an important and distinct feature of this witness's testimony.

Can I assist the Court any further?

JUDGE MAY: No, thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In connection with the witness Mr. Selak and the proposal by the opposite side over there to accept 800 pages of transcript, the question is, in fact, whether or not what is being presented here in the courtroom before the public should be presented clearly or unclearly.

As I understand it, the opposite side considers that this should be expressed in an unclear way, that is to say, to make it as confusing as possible that absolutely nobody can actually establish what it's all about. The transcripts from some kind of other trial, case, which has nothing to do with either the authorities of Serbia or myself personally, or indeed with the aspect from which we should view these events. So it does not provide any possibility of clarifying matters. There is some sort of cross-examination accorded here which is very suspect, of doubtful value, not only because I could, for example, claim that it was done in an incompetent way. I'm far from making any judgements as to anybody's capabilities or competence. That's something I don't want to do. But if it targets a specific act, trial, or behaviour on the part of an individual, somebody that we're dealing with here, then it did not have as its focus a whole scale of general questions which ²¹³⁰¹ relate to the events that took place in Bosnia and a context -- the context in which those events took place, the circumstances which from the aspect of a rational-minded and may I say honest and reasonable approach to these events must be clarified, because we're dealing here with an individual case, the transcript of which for the examination in chief and cross-examination is to be introduced without any - how shall I put this? - physical possibility of delving into the contents of it before the individual appears, before the witness appears at all. I, therefore, consider that this option to use lack of clarity in presenting this whole case, the whole case that the witness is to testify about, in my opinion is something that is quite contrary to the basic principles of behaviour in courts throughout the world, courts which are legal courts.

And as for these two other individuals, Mr. Kay has already indicated that with 1455 there are new facts to be disclosed and 1725, or 1755, I don't remember the number exactly. I didn't jot the number down, but once again that we have new facts coming to light there too. So I don't know how you're going to go about this, how this written testimony is going to be in order to make the trial an expeditious one are going to be accepted without having a necessary, if I can put it that way, a necessary explanation, one that is required if you do indeed feel that this is testimony that should be heard, that merits being heard from the person who has come here to testify.

Therefore, I think that we are going to infringe upon the general principles in both cases, and I categorically oppose having this ²¹³⁰² introduced under Rule 92 bis. And as Mr. Kay has said here, these are new facts coming to light and not cumulative testimony and cumulative evidence. And I think that with Selak I have put forward sufficient arguments to prove my point.

Now, whether it is cumulative or not, that is once again a relative concept, because for you anything can become cumulative. You are accusing Serbia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia here, myself personally for the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the war in Croatia as well. So from that standpoint, all the testimonies are cumulative. And from that point of view, all of them could come under 92 bis rulings because none of them have direct contacts and links to me or the authorities in Serbia. So they fully succumb under your rules, fall under your rules. Then we ask ourselves the question for what you need your witnesses anyway, and why you need these individual cases at all which prove the existence of something that does not in fact exist.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Groome.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just briefly. It is the Prosecution's desire and intention to present the evidence quite clearly and it is our position that it is no less clear because it is in written form or from a previous trial.

With respect to shortcomings of earlier cross-examiners, the Prosecution as I said earlier is not opposing the accused being given a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine the witness and the Prosecution's producing the witness here for that purpose. Finally or -- not finally, but with respect to cumulative -- issue ²¹³⁰³ of cumulativeness, 92 bis (A)(i)(a) describes cumulative as one of the factors the chamber should consider. It is the Prosecution's position that although it is a very important factor it is not dispositive of the issue. Furthermore, the importance of whether an issue -- evidence is cumulative is less important in cases where the witness will be here to testify and -- or will be here to be cross-examined and can answer any question regarding written assertions made in the written statement. And finally, Your Honour, I asked a colleague of mine who was working on the Selak transcript earlier today to examine the transcript and -- with a view towards identifying those sections of the transcript which we will not be placing great importance on and those sections which are of critical importance. I have some notes here before me. I would propose that the Prosecution turn this into a letter sent to the accused and the amici via the registrar, and it would identify those portions of the transcript on which are -- we would seek to focus on those which we would not.

The Prosecution is also willing to provide a draft summary of the anticipated live testimony to assist both the amici and the accused in their preparation for this important witness.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. The Trial Chamber will consider these matters.

Yes. Have you got your witness here? We might as well use what time we have.

MR. GROOME: The Prosecution recalls Witness B-024.

[The witness entered court] ²¹³⁰⁴

JUDGE MAY: Witness B-024, if you'd like to take a seat. I'm sorry that we haven't been able to get to your evidence earlier and also because the courtroom is required, we shall only be able to have a short period of your evidence today, and we'll have to ask you to come back tomorrow.

Perhaps, Mr. Groome, you can take a quarter of an hour.

MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

WITNESS: WITNESS B-[Resumed]

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

Q. B-024, at the end of last week you were describing a visit, the second visit of Mrs. Biljana Plavsic to the Zvornik municipality. I have a few more questions I would like to ask you about that visit. The first question is how long altogether was she present in the Zvornik municipality on the second visit?

A. I think that altogether she was there for three to four hours.

Q. And can you describe for us all of the places in Zvornik municipality that you know she visited on that day?

A. Well, as far as I know, she just visited Zvornik, and that was under Serb control already, and Mali Zvornik where the Serbs were too.

Q. Can you describe with any greater particularity the places that she visited in Zvornik? You've told us she was at the Alhos centre. Can you tell us any we are places she may have gone that day that you're aware of?

A. Well, I was there with her when she was in Mali Zvornik and in the ²¹³⁰⁵ Alhos building. However, afterwards, she was escorted by the police and she toured Zvornik, which was already under the control of the Serb forces. So I don't know exactly what individual places in the town of Zvornik she visited, but I think she went to the hospital, among others.

Q. Do you know if she had any meetings with any members of the Yugoslav People's Army on this second visit?

A. I don't know that.

Q. I want to now draw your attention to the end of May 1992, the time after the Yugoslav People's Army officially withdrew from Bosnia, and my question to you is: After their official withdrawal from Bosnia, were you aware of any involvement of the now renamed Yugoslav army in Bosnia after May 1992?

A. After May 1992, it is common knowledge that in 1993 in an operation that a unit from Valjevo under the command of a certain officer named Solaja took part in an operation in Zvornik itself.

Q. Can you please describe what type of unit Colonel Solaja commanded?

A. Well, I think it was a tank unit from the Valjevo garrison.

Q. And approximately how many tanks were in this unit that fought in Zvornik?

A. I don't know those details, but it was general knowledge that the unit, in 1993, did take part in a battle near Zvornik.

Q. Do you know a person by the name of Vinko Pandurevic?

A. Yes.

Q. Did there come a time when you came to know who was paying ²¹³⁰⁶ Vinko Pandurevic's salary?

A. Well, for a time, I was the president of the Executive Board, and I know that at the time he received his salary from the TO, the Territorial Defence. And he told me that he also received a salary from the Yugoslav army.

Q. At the time he told you that he received a salary from the Yugoslav army, what organisation or what formation did he belong to?

A. I don't know details like that, which unit he belonged to, but I think it was common knowledge that the active officers were on the salary lists of the Yugoslav army.

Q. Vinko Pandurevic was an officer in what army?

A. He was an officer in the Army of Republika Srpska. But before that, he had been a member of the Yugoslav People's Army, some unit which withdrew from Slovenia.

Q. After the official withdrawal of the Yugoslav People's Army, did there come a time when you became aware that military supplies from the Yugoslav army, as it was then called, were being brought into Zvornik from Serbia?

A. I didn't have any concrete evidence of this, but I know that trucks from my company were engaged for the Defence Ministry's requirements, and I know that the drivers went to the territory of Yugoslavia to bring in logistical equipment for the army. However, I don't know what kind of material this was and what the quantities involved were.

Q. For what period of time were these trucks that you've referred to ²¹³⁰⁷ being used to transport logistical equipment in for the army?

A. They were used throughout the whole war. As there was a state of war generally, the Defence Ministry always had the priority in requisition or using these trucks as compared to their use for commercial purposes.

Q. When you say for the entire war, are you saying for the time period between 1992 and the implementation of the Dayton Accord in 1995?

A. Yes, that's precisely it.

Q. You've just testified that these trucks were requisitions by the Defence Ministry. The Defence Ministry of what country?

A. Yes, the Defence Ministry of Republika Srpska.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. May. The witness said that the Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska had priority in the use of transport, the means of transport, and Mr. Groome says when did the ministry of -- when the Ministry of Defence requisitioned trucks. So that's quite contrary to what the witness was saying. The trucks belong to the company that he mentioned, and the purpose -- defence purposes were given the priority. The trucks were not requisitioned by the Defence Ministry, as far as I understood it. So the question is a leading one.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness clarify it.

MR. GROOME:

Q. Sir, can you clarify exactly what happened to the trucks? What was the relationship between the Defence Ministry of Republika Srpska and these trucks?

A. Well, I was in a company which was in Republika Srpska, and during the war situation, we -- the Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska had ²¹³⁰⁸ the priority to engage those trucks for logistical needs of the army.

Q. And with what frequency did the Republika Srpska Defence Ministry engage these trucks for the purposes you've described?

A. In the period I worked in the transport company, very frequently. And in fact, there were always two or three vehicles which were at the disposal of the Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska.

Q. Can you give us some sense of the capacity of the type of truck that you're talking about?

A. They were the classical type of truck with about 20 kilogrammes -- 20 tons of bearing capacity.

Q. And just to ask you a more particular question regarding the frequency, could you estimate in times per week or times per month these trucks were used by the RS Ministry of Defence?

A. I said that it was roughly at least almost every day two or three trucks were placed at the disposal of the Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska.

Q. Are you aware of how these trucks would cross from Zvornik into Serbia?

A. Well, from the very beginning of the war, there was always a procedure at the border. So they probably applied the regular procedure. I didn't drive the trucks. I was the manager of that enterprise.

Q. Can you describe the procedure that was employed?

A. A classical customs procedure. There were customs records that were kept already at that time and goods coming from Yugoslavia going to Republika Srpska and vice versa as far as I can remember didn't have to ²¹³⁰⁹ pay customs duty but there were customs records kept because of taxation requirements.

Q. Is it your testimony that for the trucks that you've described here that there should be records existing for every time they crossed the border between Serbia and Zvornik?

A. I really don't know that, but I think that as soon as the drivers were mobilised by the Ministry of Defence they were treated as soldiers from then on. So they didn't bring in any documents to their original company, so that those documents are probably with the Ministry of Defence.

Q. Sir, can I now ask you to turn your attention to the relationship between the Republic of Serbia Ministry of Interior beyond and the Serbian Republic Ministry of Interior. Can I ask you to describe what you know about the relationship between those two entities?

A. Well, when I was in the police at the very beginning of the conflict in Zvornik, we had good and friendly relations with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Serbia, and we had logistic support to the extent which those police stations on the border between Mali Zvornik and Zvornik could assist us. And as a citizen, I do know that throughout the duration of the war, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska had good relations with the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia.

Q. Drawing your attention to the start of the conflict. Can you please describe in greater detail the logistical support that you and members of the Ministry of Interior of Republika Srpska received from Serbia? ^{21310 BLANK PAGE 21311}

A. Yes. Since according to plan B as a minority municipality we had a local police station in Karakaj in the Alhos building, we didn't have the technical equipment, I mean, the uniforms, the clothing that in those days were the same as in Yugoslavia, as in Serbia. So we received aid in the form of uniforms, some communications equipment from police stations in Mali Zvornik and Loznica.

Q. During the latter party of the conflict, did you receive any logistical support from the Serbian Ministry of Interior?

A. At the beginning of April, I left the police, so I don't know how that cooperation developed later on.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Groome, I think the time now is up. We must vacate the court. We will sit again tomorrow at 9:00. Witness B-024, could you be back please, at 9:00 tomorrow morning. If you would just wait a moment, we will adjourn.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 27th day of May, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.