²³¹²¹

Thursday, 26 June 2003

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

WITNESS: PETER GALBRAITH [Resumed] Examined by Mr. Nice: [Continued]

MR. NICE: As the court closed yesterday afternoon, the accused made a request to the legal officers for a copy of the joint statement of November the 1st of 1995 reflecting the point at the evidence where we reached yesterday. That's been provided to him but I'm not going to ask the witness any questions myself arising from it.

Q. Ambassador Galbraith, after the meeting you described yesterday ended, did you indeed return to press on with negotiations?

A. I did.

Q. Did you return to Dayton or was your time at Dayton limited?

A. I returned to Dayton at the very end, but that is to say after the peace agreement in Croatia had been signed.

Q. The conversation that you had with the accused and that you told us about yesterday, was that reflected in or confirmed by or countered by conversations you had with Milan Milanovic?

A. Yes. When we resumed the negotiations which involved a shuttle between Zagreb or sometimes Osijek and Erdut in Eastern Slavonia, we were not making any progress, and at one point Milan Milanovic told me -- we ²³¹²² had presented a new and revised draft, and at one point, I thinks it was November 5th, November 5th or 6th he said, "Well, I'll sign this draft if Milosevic tells me to do so."

Q. And your understanding, what level of influence or control did the accused have over the Eastern Slavonia part of the Dayton negotiations until the conclusion of those negotiations?

A. It was completely clear to me that we were not going to have an agreement until the accused decided that there would be an agreement, and that would depend not on any circumstance in Eastern Slavonia but it would depend on when he found it convenient in the Dayton process, that is, in the overall process, to reach an agreement.

Q. As to that overall process, you can, of course, speak of what you saw yourself, of what you were told by others, but Eastern Slavonia apart, the rest of it was dealt with by others?

A. I dealt in a very limited way with some of the Bosnia issues and Federation, but it was a very small role.

Q. Exhibit 471, I think it is, tab 2. If that could just be made available. Tell us about this agreement without taking us through the detail of it.

A. Yes. This is the Erdut agreement of the 12th of November, 1995. This is the Croatia peace agreement that provided for the peaceful reintegration of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem into Croatia after a one or two-year transitional period.

You will notice that this is a 14-point agreement, and it is substantially the same as what was agreed to on October 3rd, also in ²³¹²³ Erdut.

Q. That leaves one general topic, then. You've spoken of the accused's resistance to offers and plans in respect of Eastern Slavonia. You've explained to us something about the majority of Serbs requirement or the requirement that there be a majority of Serbs for autonomy under the Z-4 plan. What was the reason revealed to you from your negotiations for the accused's reluctance to conclude an agreement for Eastern Slavonia?

A. Well, first, to put -- there was a larger context here. It's my judgement that at the beginning of the Croatia war and indeed perhaps at the beginning of the Bosnia war, it was the hope of the accused to be able to create a Greater Serbia carved out of most of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as the -- a sizeable part of Croatia. Obviously the Krajina region, Eastern Slavonia, Western Slavonia, and the Dubrovnik region. By 1993, 1994, that obviously was not attainable, but I think it was his hope that he could make a deal in which he would trade -- he would allow Croatia to recover the Krajina, probably militarily in exchange for which there would be some kind of territorial settlement in which Serbia would acquire some Croatian territory in Eastern Slavonia, either the entire region, which was very rich farmland and which included oil, or a part of it. And in this he was encouraged, if my view, by one of the international mediators, Lord David Owen who did speak frequently about the possibility of territorial exchanges, although the international community, both the United States and the European Union, completely opposed any border changes, especially those that came about by force. ²³¹²⁴ Nonetheless, he engaged in those discussions.

I must also say that from time to time, President Tudjman indicated or perhaps sent signals that he may have been interested in giving up at least part of Eastern Slavonia. So I think that too may have encouraged the defendant to believe that such an arrangement was possible. I also think that he -- I don't think that he had any interest in the welfare of the Serbs that lived in the Krajina, and I think he looked at the Z-4 plan as not for what it might have done for the Serbs of Krajina which is to have allowed them to remain in Croatia and to have had substantial autonomy but, rather, as a precedent that might be applied to Kosovo.

Q. Now, before you move on, just to qualify that and it's the last thing I want to deal with I suspect, can you give us your source for this proposition, namely his linking it to and forecasting difficulties with Kosovo if autonomy was granted in Eastern Slavonia?

A. I heard this from international mediators who dealt with him, and also this was something that Hrvoje Sarinic, Tudjman's Chief of Staff who had a number of meetings with him also said to me.

Q. And just to crystallise it, his concern was what as you understood it from those sources?

A. His concern was that if the Krajina had a high degree of autonomy such as was envisioned in the Z-4 plan, the Krajina being a minority community within Croatia, a local majority but a minority within the entire country, it would create a precedent for the Albanian majority in Kosovo to have the same kind of autonomy. ²³¹²⁵

MR. NICE: Thank you very much, Ambassador. You will be asked some further questions.

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

Q. [No Interpretation]

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. We're not getting any interpretation. Can you start again, please?

THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the interpreters now?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Start again.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know that the Croatian World Congress on the 4th of July 2002 submitted a formal application to Mrs. Del Ponte to start an investigation against retired US army officers for assistance they gave to Operations Flash and Storm and also against a few officials of the United States of America, including yourself?

A. Yes, I am aware that that has taken place, or at least I've seen reports of it on the Internet.

JUDGE MAY: What's the relevance of this?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The relevance, Mr. May, is that in this Operation Storm that Mr. Galbraith has been testifying about, the greatest crime was committed against the Serbs. Over 250.000 persons were expelled from Krajina.

JUDGE MAY: Don't make a speech. Just try and make the point shortly. Now, what is the point you're trying to put to the witness, instead of making a speech about it. ²³¹²⁶

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The point is that a crime was committed against the Serbs in Croatia in this operation.

JUDGE MAY: No. We're not going to get anywhere like this. What is the point that you want the witness to deal with?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I got my answer, that he did know about it, that the World Croatian Congress committed a formal request --

JUDGE MAY: You know what "relevance" means. What is the relevance of it even if it's right?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The relevance, Mr. May, is that Mr. Galbraith, no doubt throughout his testimony, has been justifying this crime and explaining it with some political reasoning that --

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Yes. We now have the relevance and it can be put to the witness.

What is suggested, Ambassador, is that your evidence is, I suppose, biased, it's being said, and that you were concerned to justify your role and the role, no doubt, of the United States. How would you respond to that allegation?

THE WITNESS: I think the United States did everything possible to try to bring about a peaceful solution to the Krajina problem. We devoted enormous effort at considerable expense to our relations with Croatia to come up with a plan, a viable plan that would have provided very substantial autonomy. We pursued this even up until the very last minute. I explained yesterday the very difficult circumstances, the very difficult choices that we were presented with in July of 1995 when we were ²³¹²⁷ faced with the dilemma of having to choose between the possible -- likely fall of Bihac and the probable massacre of 40.000 men and boys, assuming that the Bosnian Serbs did exactly the same thing there that they had done a week before, ten days before, in Srebrenica, and what would be the consequences of Croatian military action, which we anticipated likely would create a lot of refugees. It was a terrible dilemma and we tried everything we could to avoid that, to find a peaceful settlement.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Since you've raised the question of Bihac, Mr. Galbraith, do you know that this was not a conflict at all between the forces of Republika Srpska or the forces of the Republika Srpska Krajina with the 5th Corps that was in Bihac? It was a Muslim/Muslim conflict, because the entire area had been proclaimed the Autonomous Region of Western Bosnia, and its president was Fikret Abdic.

A. The issue that took place in July of 1995 was not about the Muslim/Muslim conflict, the conflict between Abdic and the 5th Corps. It was an attack by the army of the Republika Srpska Krajina across an international border into an United Nations safe area of Bihac and a simultaneous attack by the Bosnian Serb army into Bihac in circumstances where we had every reason to expect that there would be systematic killing of thousands of people if the attackers prevailed.

Q. I have here the declaration. The opposing side has it, and I received an English translation from them. The 23rd of October is the date. Radovan Karadzic and Fikret Abdic concluded a peace agreement thereby and made it possible to fully normalise relations between them and ²³¹²⁸ the Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia.

In it it says: "Motivated" --

JUDGE MAY: The witness should have a copy of this. Do you have it?

MR. NICE: We'll try and find it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can give the witness this declaration.

JUDGE MAY: Very well, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- once I've pointed out --

JUDGE MAY: We'll try and find a copy of it. In the meanwhile, carry on, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is an English translation, so Mr. Galbraith can have a look at it.

Q. It says: [In English] "Securing a durable peace between the Serbs and Muslims in the area of former Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the president of the Republika Srpska Radovan Karadzic and the president of Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia, the Republic of Bosnia, Fikret Abdic, have met in Belgrade and decided to propose jointly and with the involvement of president of Republic of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic, the following declaration." [Interpretation] And then this declaration which has about 12 paragraphs, and it was signed on the 22nd of October, 1993. And this indicates a full normalisation of their relations, mutual respect, freedom of movement, economic, political and every other form of cooperation, and it was signed by the president of Republika Srpska, Radovan Karadzic, the president of the Autonomous Region of Western ²³¹²⁹ Bosnia, of the Republic of Bosnia, Fikret Abdic. I did too, but it says, "Witness to the agreement achieved [In English] and assuming the obligation to mediate in the case of difficulties arising in its implementation, [Interpretation] president of the Republic of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic."

You can have a look at the declaration. So the Autonomous Region of Western Bosnia was recognised, and everybody thought that this was a major step towards peace, because at least over there, all hostilities had ceased between the Serbs and Muslims. However, there were hostilities between Muslims and Alija Izetbegovic's 5th Corps which was stationed in Bihac.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Ambassador, have you got a copy of that?

THE WITNESS: I do.

JUDGE MAY: Is there any comment would you like to make about it?

THE WITNESS: I don't see what the point is.

JUDGE MAY: For the moment, that's the agreement?

THE WITNESS: There was an attack from the Republika Srpska Krajina and the Bosnian Serb army on Bihac, and it was -- the Bihac enclave was in danger of falling. That remains the situation that existed in July of 1995.

JUDGE MAY: And is it right that it refers to the possibility of mediation by the accused?

THE WITNESS: Well, I haven't had the chance to -- I mean, I haven't had the chance to look through this document. I'll do so. Well, in fact, and I have to say I've skimmed it because I know ²³¹³⁰ the defendant doesn't have a lot of time, I actually don't see a reference here to the defendant being -- having a role of mediating. What I do see is that Karadzic and Abdic expressed their gratitude for the great contribution he has given to the arrangement of just and durable peace between the Republika Srpska and the Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia of the Republic of Bosnia. But just to set the record straight, the problem here is that Abdic was not in control of Bihac. It is true that Abdic was aligned with the Serbian side, but he was not in control of Bihac, and so I don't quite understand the relevance of all of this.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know, Mr. Galbraith, in view of the fact that you were then ambassador to Croatia, that Mr. Abdic, just as he came to see me, visited President Tudjman even more often? And he also established good relations with Croatia.

A. I certainly know that he was a regular visitor to Croatia, and indeed he took up residence in Rijeka. He was given or has Croatian citizenship. He met with Hrvoje Sarinic, and indeed on at least one occasion I met him.

Q. But he did meet with Tudjman too, as you know; right?

A. I don't recall. I have no reason to doubt it.

Q. So the Autonomous Region of Western Bosnia could not have constituted a danger for Croatia, and the forces of Fikret Abdic wanted to have the entire territory under their control, and they wanted to expel Alija Izetbegovic's 5th Corps from there altogether. Is that right or ^{23131 BLANK PAGE 23132} not?

A. Well, I'm sure Fikret Abdic did wish to defeat the 5th Corps and establish his control over all of Bihac, but he didn't. Bihac was mostly controlled by Dudakovic and the 5th Corps, and they were being attacked by the RSK forces and by the Bosnian Serb army.

Q. You believe that they were not being attacked by Fikret Abdic's forces?

A. Well, Fikret Abdic was at various times a minor ally of the RSK. Again, the attack that came across the international border was an attack by forces of the army of the so-called Republika Srpska Krajina.

Q. And are you aware of the position taken by Belgrade, that no one should interfere in this conflict, regardless of the fact that there was an alliance and that the leaderships of Republika Srpska and Republika Srpska Krajina had a very good understanding with Fikret Abdic and his leadership and that they cooperated as well?

A. I imagine that if you wish to launch an attack, you might be able to find somebody from the other side. In other words, if you're the Serbian side and you want to attack the Bihac enclave, you might be able to find some Muslim from the Bihac enclave who could be on your side. That doesn't change the fact that this was an attack by the Bosnian Serb army and the Republika Srpska Krajina army, and it wasn't an attack by the Abdic forces. They may have been involved, but it was fundamentally an attack by the two Serbian armies.

Q. But the fact that Abdic held the majority of the territory of the Autonomous Region of Western Bosnia, which was recognised by the Republika ²³¹³³ Srpska Krajina and Republika Srpska as well as the Republic of Croatia, which also had problems -- which also had good relations with Abdic, isn't that proof that the AP of Western Bosnia, including Bihac, could not jeopardise Croatia at all? As you said yourself, Abdic even had Croatian citizenship. He lived in Rijeka in addition to Kladusa in the AP of Western Bosnia. So wasn't that a pretext to attack Knin?

A. Abdic controlled a part of the Bihac enclave part of the time. Most of the Bihac enclave was controlled by the 5th Corps, and that certainly was true of Bihac town.

Croatia's concern was that if the Bihac enclave collapsed, if it was overrun by the Bosnian Serb army and the RSK, that then there could be created a single western Serb state. The unification of the RSK and the Republika Srpska, and there would be no internal lines, that is the Serb forces would not be facing forces in Bihac. They could transfer their forces to the Krajina front and it would become impossible for Croatia to recover its territory. That was their strategic concern.

Q. But you know very well what the official position taken by Belgrade was, that Belgrade in fact did not agree with any kind of unification of Republika Srpska and Republika Srpska Krajina at all, which was initiated, and it was written about in the press. It was no secret that that was the subject of negotiations between the leadership of Republika Srpska and Republika Srpska Krajina on several occasions. And Belgrade considered this to be completely untenable. I'm sure you'll remember that.

A. I remember statements to that effect, but I also know that at the ²³¹³⁴ same time, you were supporting the armies of both Serbian entities.

Q. We supported Republika Srpska and Republika Srpska Krajina for them to survive. That is not challenged at all. We did assist them in that respect. And you yourself said that it was a very poor area which would not have been able to survive without assistance from us, without food, without medicines, and all the other types of aid and assistance that we afforded them. What's strange in that?

A. Well, I'll tell you what's strange. If you were genuinely concerned with the survival of the Serbs in the Krajina, why didn't you come out and support a plan that would have provided them with very substantial autonomy, that would have enabled them to stay there? Why, on the 2nd and 3rd of August, didn't you meet with Babic? Why on the 2nd and 3rd of August -- or the 3rd of August did you refuse to meet with Rudy Perina, the American Charge? Why didn't you send that word that could have stopped the tragedy that overtook the Serbs of the Krajina? That's why I don't understand. Why did you refuse to meet us in January of 1995?

Q. Well, I'll explain why. It's take it in order. I'm the one asking questions, and I'm going to ask you questions. Do you happen to recall, Mr. Galbraith -- let's be fair here in observance of the facts at least, nothing else, nothing more than that -- that on the 19th of January, 1994, that is to say a year and a half before all these events came to pass, in the Geneva Palace of Nations a joint declaration was signed on the gradual normalisation of relations between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Croatia, and that ²³¹³⁵ provided for the opening up of official representative offices on the part of the two governments in Belgrade and Zagreb respectively to facilitate inter-state relations and contacts and to contribute to building up mutual trust and confidence between the two sides, including the process of normalisation for Serbo-Croatian relations. And this is what was set up in that statement, in the declaration signed by the Foreign Ministers of Yugoslavia, by Radoslav Jovanovic and the Foreign Minister of Croatia, Mate Granic, in the presence of the president of Republic of Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro.

JUDGE MAY: We must have a question. Ambassador -- just a moment -- you're being asked about this agreement on the 19th of January, 1994. Do you recollect that?

THE WITNESS: I recollect such an agreement. I obviously don't precisely remember the date, but yes, there was such an agreement.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Therefore, at the time, in the presence of Tudjman, myself, and the others, the two Ministers signed this declaration on normalisation, and we considered that the future of the relationships lay in confidence-building measures, in creating good relation the between Croatia and Yugoslavia, whereas the questions that remain open and unsettled had to be solved by political means, on a Knin-Zagreb relationship. Was that true, Mr. Galbraith? It wasn't up to Yugoslavia itself, but it was the normalisation of relations that was initiated, and the questions would be solved between Knin and Zagreb. Is that right, ²³¹³⁶ Mr. Galbraith?

A. You were the decisive factor in whether there was going to be a settlement between Zagreb and Knin. You were the one who called the shots, and this was demonstrated in the Eastern Slavonia process where the lead Serb negotiator, Milan Milanovic, basically went to Belgrade before every negotiating session and where the final deal was not concluded in the negotiations that Stoltenberg and I were conducting between Zagreb and Erdut, but it was concluded in Dayton when you and President Tudjman, in the presence of Secretary Christopher, concluded the final agreement using the document that in fact had been worked out on October 3rd. That was when the deal was done. The paper was then brought by Hrvoje Sarinic to Zagreb. I was under very clear instructions that there were to be no changes, and indeed there weren't, and it was signed. And incidentally, unlike Bosnia where at least you had the so-called patriarch document, that is the document signed by Karadzic and Mladic and others saying that you could make decisions on their behalf, there wasn't even a comparable document here. You just went ahead and did it.

JUDGE MAY: Well, I suppose the question which the accused was asking and which perhaps you would deal with is this: Assuming, and I'll try and get a copy of this to see if it's correct, but assuming for the moment there there was an understanding in Geneva that matters were to be resolved between Knin and Zagreb, was that put into effect?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ²³¹³⁷

Q. Mr. Galbraith, unfortunately, the facts overall what you're saying. You say that in Dayton we signed an agreement. I did not have it, and I asked the Registrar of the Tribunal to provide me a copy of the agreement and I received it this morning when I came into the courtroom here. And because it was considered that it was by this agreement -- let me put it this way: On my part and Croatia's part that the question was solved, the question of Eastern Slavonia. I really would like, as the agreement is a very short one, for us to establish that that is not correct.

Here is what it says in the agreement, and we can put it on the overhead projector, perhaps. It says: "Joint statement --"

JUDGE MAY: Let's have copies. Let's all have copies.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If you have copies to distribute, then you can read what it says and bear that in mind.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But before we do so, let's clear up one point. We came to Dayton to solve the question of Bosnia-Herzegovina. That's right, isn't it, Mr. Galbraith? Peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

A. Yes, although it was not going to be possible to get a peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina without also getting a peace agreement that provided for the return of Eastern Slavonia to Croatia.

Q. Well, take a look at what you call an agreement. This is a joint declaration, in fact, and this is what it says: "President Tudjman and Milosevic [In English] Requesting Ambassador Galbraith and Mr. Stoltenberg to resume negotiation." [Interpretation] That is the title, the heading, ²³¹³⁸ which is like a journalistic one, "Dayton Ohio, the 1st of November, 1995" and then it says under the auspices of Secretary Christopher, President Tudjman and Milosevic met at the carriage house, [In English] Dayton, Wright-Patterson Airbase. They agreed to a peaceful resolution of the Eastern Slavonia question and -- and asked Ambassador Galbraith and Mr. Stoltenberg to resume their mediation efforts." [Interpretation] So the mediation efforts between Knin and Zagreb. And then it goes on to say: "Ambassador Galbraith prepared a statement that the two presidents signed." And what does it say in that statement? Now, this is the actual text of the statement. You refer to it as an agreement and solution and my decision about this solution. Here is what it says: [In English] "At the question of Secretary Christopher, President Tudjman and President Milosevic met this afternoon." [Interpretation] That meeting, as you will remember, was not scheduled, and I wasn't late because I was informed about it later on. [In English] "Agreed to form toward a full normalisation of relations between their countries on the basis of ..." [Interpretation] That means that we are agreeing to work toward full normalisation between our two countries on the following basis. And then there are just three points. Actually, they're not numbered, these points, but it just says paragraphs: "[In English] [Previous translation continues]... human rights for all citizens of their countries." [Interpretation] That's the first point. [In English] "All refugees and displaced persons in the two countries to return to their homes and to recover their property or to receive just compensation." [Interpretation] And the third point: [In English] "Support for a ²³¹³⁹ solution to the problem of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, as rapidly as possible on the basis of negotiations between the government of Croatia and the representatives of the Serbian people in the area." [Interpretation] So those are the three points, Mr. Galbraith. No agreement did we manage to reach, but we did precisely what I claimed we did, and that is that between the government in Zagreb and the representatives of the Serb people in the area, a solution should be found through negotiation.

And finally it says, in this spirit: [In English] "Ambassador Galbraith and Mr. Stoltenberg to return to the region tomorrow to continue, on an intensified basis, their mediation." [Interpretation] And that's all it says.

Therefore, this confirms that the problem must be solved, had to be solved between the representatives of the Croatian government and the Serb representatives for the Serbs in the region. So we didn't in fact reach an agreement of any kind between Tudjman and myself or, rather, I not decide what Eastern Slavonia was going to look like. And here you have that piece of paper.

JUDGE MAY: You must come to a question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It says, isn't it?

JUDGE MAY: If you could deal with that, Ambassador, please.

THE WITNESS: Mr. Milosevic, this is not an agreement on Eastern Slavonia, and this is not the agreement to which I was referring. The agreement to which I was referring is the Erdut agreement of the 12th of ²³¹⁴⁰ November. And the final text of that agreement, which is obviously very similar to the one of the 3rd of October, but that final text was worked out between you and President Tudjman in the presence of Secretary Christopher and Chris Hill in Dayton. And specifically, there was one issue that was unresolved from the 3rd of October, which was the length of the transitional period. And it was you who worked it out with President Tudjman that it would be one year, possibly renewable. That text incorporating that point was then hand-carried to me by Hrvoje Sarinic, as well as sent by fax, with instructions that none of it was going to be changed because this is what the two presidents had agreed to. That is the agreement to which I'm referring. And incidentally, if you're maintaining that this was all to be worked out in the region, why in the very meeting were you and President Tudjman agreed to this statement, why in that very meeting did you then raise substantive issues, such as insisting that there should be a referendum?

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. We'll give a number to the joint statement.

THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit number 151, Your Honours.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Galbraith, a moment ago we took a look at what we signed in Dayton here, that is to say that we wanted to see a normalisation of relations and that we strove for a respect of the internationally recognised human rights, that the refugees should return, all of them, and that we lent our support to a peaceful solution to the problem and that ^{23141 BLANK PAGE 23142} that depended on the government in Zagreb and the representative of the Serbs in the Eastern Slavonia area, and that's how it was. That's what happened. And that's all we signed, and that is what you gave us as a draft. And then in the negotiations that followed, you, as the mediators, and as far as I was able to see from the papers I consulted, I was able to see that on behalf of the representative of the Serbs in Eastern Slavonia, this was signed by Milanovic whom you mentioned a moment ago and on behalf of the international community it was Stoltenberg, and you witnessed it as the witness. Isn't that so, Mr. Galbraith?

A. It is true that it was signed by Milanovic, myself, Stoltenberg, and Hrvoje Sarinic, but that does not mean that the final text was negotiated by us. The final text was negotiated by you in Dayton.

Q. Very well, Mr. Galbraith. I don't have time to spare on that issue. We have it as an exhibit, and we see the three points in the document and the agreement signed by you and Milanovic also exists. Not as an agreement between myself and Tudjman but as an agreement between myself and the government of the other side.

JUDGE MAY: If you have a question, you can ask it, but you're not making comments here. It's something we may have to determine in due course.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, apart from the fact that I explained how the Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia was a threat to Croatia and that that was the ²³¹⁴³ basis for Croatia to attack Knin, did you as the US Ambassador to Croatia, were you actually conscious of the fact that it was completely illegal that in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina there were regular Croatian troops present? Were you aware of that?

A. Just to be clear, Mr. Milosevic, I never said that the Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia was a threat to Croatia, and I don't agree with that. What I said was that the Bosnian Serb -- that the Croatians, that the Croatians felt that the Bosnian Serb -- a Bosnian Serb and RSK army takeover of Bihac would be a serious -- would do serious harm to the interests of Croatia. That's what I said.

Now, as to your second question, yes, we were aware that at various times the Croatian army was present in Bosnia, and we did consider that at certain times to be illegal. However, there was a point in time when we considered it to be legal, and that was when the internationally recognised Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina invited the Croatian army to come and provide assistance to it, and that took place in July of 1995.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] All right. But let's just clear up one point, Mr. May. Did you take as an exhibit this agreement between Karadzic and Abdic? Has it been exhibited on the peace signing between the Republika Srpska and the Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia, which actually explains the actual situation as it was?

JUDGE MAY: I don't know if we've had that yet. We'll give that the next exhibit number.

THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit 152, Your Honour.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ²³¹⁴⁴

Q. Mr. Galbraith, is it true and correct that in fact throughout all those years, apart from the Croatian side, there were no attacks on the part of Republika Srpska Krajina launched against the Croatian side?

A. No, that's not correct.

Q. Well, take a look then at the 16th of July, 1993, a document here. The government of the Republic of Croatia and the Republika Srpska Krajina in Erdut signed an agreement according to which Croatia was bound by the 31st of July, and we're talking about 1993, to withdraw its troops from occupied territories of Republika Srpska Krajina, Ravni Kotari and Maslenica, the Miljevac plateau, the hydroelectric power station Peruca, the airport in return for opening the bridge over the Maslenica canal and the canal in Zemunik.

So before that they had stormed the area which was under UN protection, and on the 16th of July, 1993, they agreed that the Croatian army should withdraw from the area and in return they would open up the bridge across the Maslenica canal and the approaches to the Zemunik airport. Is that right, Mr. Galbraith?

A. Well, I mean I -- there was an agreement somewhat along those lines. I would have to look at that specific document that you're citing. I would -- I'm not sure where this is leading, but I mean, I would also have to note that subsequent to that, the Krajina Serb forces launched artillery on the pontoon bridge at Maslenica that the Croatians had built.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness look at the document. If you want to rely on the document, let the witness see it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't have the document here. I ²³¹⁴⁵ have a chronology of events here, and I assume that Mr. Galbraith knows about these events, is familiar with them.

Now, if he says --

JUDGE MAY: Depends where you get the chronology from, but you could certainly put it to the witness and it will be up to him whether he can agree to it or not.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I did put it to the witness. Now, if he claims that there was no agreement in Erdut with the following contents, I'll move on with my questions. That's no problem.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I'm sure you'll remember that, Mr. Galbraith. Do you in fact remember it or not?

A. As I said to you, there was at some point in there an agreement that provided for the opening of the airport by Zadar and the bridge, but in the absence of having the chronology or the documents, I can't say that, you know, what the details of the document were. I mean, there was an agreement along the lines that you suggest at a certain point in time, quite likely as you say on the 16th of July. It's just you're asking me to vouch for something when, you know, I frankly can't remember the specific date and the details of the document. But it sounds right. It sounds like something like that happened around that time.

Q. All right. I accept your answer. Yes, I do. Now, do you remember this -- it will be something closer to you because it was an international document, that the February Resolution 802 of the UN ²³¹⁴⁶ Security Council made it incumbent upon the parties, just like the Erdut agreement, that the Croatian army withdraw from those territories. And I'm talking about a UN Security Council Resolution now. It's number is 802. Because this jeopardised the agreement that had been reached, the basic elements of the Vance Plan that was being put into practice in the region?

A. Again, sounds right. I do recall a Security Council Resolution. Quite likely it was Resolution 802. Without the resolution I can't say definitively.

Q. Mr. Galbraith, it's easy to ascertain all this because there are documents. We can refer to them.

A. I don't doubt that. I just don't have these documents before me.

Q. Now, do you remember, Mr. Galbraith, that on the 4th of February, 1994, the Security Council, UN Security Council --

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. -- adopted --

JUDGE MAY: The witness is just being handed a document. I don't know where it comes from.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, it's Defence Exhibit 66.

JUDGE MAY: Perhaps you just tell us what it is, Ambassador, so we know.

THE WITNESS: The document I've just been given?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: It's UN Security Council Resolution 802, and it -- ²³¹⁴⁷ let me -- I could read it. It demands the immediate cessation of hostilities by Croatian armed forces within or adjacent to the United Nations Protected Areas and the withdrawal of Croatian armed forces from these areas. It condemns attacks on UNPROFOR personnel. It demands that the heavy weapons ceased from UNPROFOR-controlled storage areas be returned immediately to UNPROFOR. It -- which I think were the Serbian -- taken by the Serbs. It demands that all parties and others concerned comply strictly with the cease-fire arrangements already agreed, cooperate fully and unconditionally in the implementation of the United Nations peacekeeping plan, expresses its condolences to the family of UNPROFOR personnel who have lost their lives, demands that all parties and others concerned respect the safety of United Nations personnel.

JUDGE MAY: I think we've got it.

THE WITNESS: I would note this is 25 January, 1993, which was actually was about five months before I took up my duties.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So we're not disputing the fact, I assume, that this was a Croatian attack on the protected areas; right?

JUDGE MAY: The witness can only say what's in the document. It's before his time. Now, let's go on.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And do you know that on the 4th of February, 1994, the UN Security Council adopted a presidential statement cautioning Croatia that it will ²³¹⁴⁸ be subjected to serious consequences if within the space of two weeks it fails to reduce its regular military units from Bosnia? And the point of my question now is was it clear and well known that ever since 1992, regular Croatian forces were stationed in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

A. Yes. And I'm very familiar with that presidential statement of the 4th of February, 1994. It was my job to convey to the -- to President Tudjman and other Croatian officials in the strongest possible terms our insistence that they withdraw their regular military forces, that they stop the attacks on the forces of the Bosnian government, and to warn that there would be serious consequences including the likelihood of sanctions. Incidentally, something I also stated publicly in a speech I gave at the Lisinski concert hall on the 17th of February, 1994.

Q. Now, Mr. Galbraith, let us try and do this in some logical order. You have seen this agreement on a normalisation of relations between Yugoslavia and Croatia. I assume that you will recollect that the position of Serbia and my own personal position was that as far as final solutions were concerned, there were three significant steps that needed to be made, and those were in the following order: First of all, the cessation of all hostilities, followed by a normalisation of economic relations, and thirdly, a political settlement.

A cessation of all hostilities, in a sense, is a precondition for the beginning of the normalisation of economic relations, and the normalisation of those relations, as a result of which life will encourage the parties to cooperate and is a precondition for a fair political settlement for existing problems. ²³¹⁴⁹ Was that not, from the very beginning, the position held by Serbia and me personally?

A. You have described the Z-4 process in which we engaged, which indeed began with a cease-fire, was followed by an effort to reach an agreement on economics -- economic and confidence-building measures and meant to be followed by a political settlement. The difficulty was that the Krajina Serbs refused to engage seriously for a very long period of time on the economic and confidence-building measures. They played ridiculous games, canceling meetings because the Croatians wanted to bring five journalists instead of two and all sorts of insane and bizarre behaviours which indicated to us, the mediators, and, I have to say, to the Croatian government that they weren't serious. And when the time came following the signing of an economic and confidence-building measures to present a political plan, they refused to even receive this plan. And you, when you had an opportunity to help, provided no help.

Q. Mr. Galbraith, when did you draw up that Z-4 plan? When was it first heard of?

A. I think we decided in the late summer of 1994 that the economic and confidence-building negotiations were going no place, that a dangerous situation was developing because the Croatian government was becoming very impatient, and that the best chance to avoid war was to jump ahead to the political stage and to prepare a plan which could be presented to both sides, not on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, not like the Contact Group plan for Bosnia, but as a basis of negotiation. And we wanted to demonstrate to the Serbian side just how much autonomy would be possible within ²³¹⁵⁰ Croatia, and that's why the document looked as it did. The drafting of the document began in late August or early September of 1994, and it was completed in January of 1995, although substantially completed in September, early October of 1994.

Q. Very well. The plan was first heard of in January 1995, the plan that you were working on; is that right?

A. Well, I mean the plan was known to -- it was known to many people in September, October of 1994. It was the subject of considerable press comment in Croatia. It was known -- some of the ideas were known to the Croatian government, and for that matter also to the Krajina Serbs, before January of 1995.

Q. You're referring to certain ideas from the plan, but when did the plan itself come to be known?

A. It was known that there was a plan in this time, in the latter part of 1994. The plan itself was presented on the 30th of January, 1995, to President Tudjman and attempted to be presented to the Krajina Serb leadership that same day and attempted to be presented to you.

Q. So on the 13th of January was when the plan was first presented to Tudjman; is that right? That was the first person it was handed to. This was in January 1995; isn't that right?

A. The 30th of January.

Q. Very well, but in 1995?

A. That is right.

Q. You say that because the talks on economic relations were not producing any results, you speeded up work on the Z-4 plan. Now, do you ^{23151 BLANK PAGE 23152} remember that on the 30th of November, 1994, which means two months prior to the appearance of the Z-4 plan, the government of the Republika Srpska Krajina, at a meeting in Knin, unanimously adopted a package on an agreement on economic relations with Croatia, thereby, as stated by the prime minister, and let me correct the translation, there's constant reference to Nikolic here, but it's not Nikolic, it's Mikelic. It should say "Mikelic." That it showed once again quite unequivocally that it supported a policy of peace and cooperation with the international community.

You know that the initiative for a normalisation of economic relations had come precisely from Borislav's Mikelic's government, which Belgrade supported fully and encouraged to proceed along that path. Later on, Owen and Stoltenberg joined in and there were several meetings between representatives --

JUDGE MAY: No. This is too long for a question. Ambassador, I don't know if you can comment on anything that's been said by the accused so far.

THE WITNESS: It's -- it's an interesting history, but it ignores the fact, the basic facts, which are that the cease-fire agreement was concluded on the 30th of March. It was meant to be followed by a meeting two weeks later in the Russian embassy, the Krajina ought to start economic and confidence-building negotiations. The Krajina Serbs refused to show up. We tried to reschedule, I think in June, for Plitvice. They wouldn't allow the Plitvice meeting to take place because the Croatians wanted to bring five journalists. They engaged in all sorts of antics and ²³¹⁵³ it was as a result of that that we started the political process. It was well known that we were working on the Z-4 plan. The fact that, very late in the day, another six months having elapsed that they agreed to economic and confidence-building measures which they only partially implemented, I don't see the significance of it. The fact is the only way to avoid war was to come to a political settlement. The patience of the Croatians had run out, and these games absolutely made the situation much worse. We tried our best to come to a solution, and the defendant, who had a decisive role -- decisive influence over these people refused to cooperate. Not only refused to cooperate, but according to several of the Krajina Serb leadership, ordered them not to accept the Z-4 plan. And the consequence was a war and 180.000 Serb refugees.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I don't know according to whose words, and that's very vague, and furthermore, it is not true, but let us proceed with the facts only, Mr. Galbraith.

Do you know that even though you said that they avoided these meetings that the Assembly of the Republika Srpska Krajina in Knin adopted the texts of the agreement on mutual economic relations and cooperation between the RSK and the Republic of Croatia, and the documents were signed by Hrvoje Sarinic and Borislav Mikelic? This was at the end of 1994. So, first of all, the government that agreed, as I quoted, and after that the Assembly, as well. Are you aware of that?

A. Of course I'm aware of it. In fact, I also signed as a witness ²³¹⁵⁴ those documents. But let me again say the relevant point is that they played games for six months. They brought the situation closer to war. The agreement came far too late and we saw that time was of the essence and which is why we felt it was very important to move forward with the political process, and that's what we attempted to do.

Q. Yes, but Mr. Galbraith, let us clear up just a matter of detail. What I'm quoting from occurred even before the Z-4 plan appeared, so there were no gains. At the Assembly of the Republic of Srpska Krajina on the 1st of December 1994 accepted this agreement. And you also have here the fact that on the 11th of January, 1995, again before you had even presented the plan to Tudjman at the UNPROFOR base at the Zagreb airport Pleso, another round of delegations started on the implementation of the agreement on economic matters signed the previous month between the RSK and Croatia. It says that the talks were behind closed doors and that participating were international mediators Lord Owen and Stoltenberg. Heading the Krajina negotiating team was Borislav Mikelic and the Croatian Hrvoje Sarinic. So all this happened before you came out with the Z-4 plan. Therefore, something that happen afterwards cannot provoke something that occurred previously.

JUDGE MAY: I don't understand what you mean. What are you trying to get across, because it's not clear. What is it you're trying to put to the witness? That you had no influence on this? Is that the point?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The point, Mr. May, is that these negotiations on economic relations and cooperation and confidence-building were continuing and developing in relations between the Croatian ²³¹⁵⁵ government and Knin with the mediation of Owen and Stoltenberg before the Z-4 plan was produced, that things were evolving according to their own dynamics and there was no alarm sounded that a war had to be engaged in between the Serbs in Krajina. That is the point, Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Very well.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Because --

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness deal with it.

THE WITNESS: Well, the facts speak for themselves, Your Honour. There was a war and it was catastrophic, and the war was avoidable. It could have been avoided, absolutely could have been avoided had there been serious negotiations on a political settlement within Croatia. An incidently, it is absurd to say that things were progressing happily in November, December, January, 1994/1995. In January of 1995, the Croatians announced they weren't going to extend the UNPROFOR mandate beyond the 31st of March. They were going to force the UN to withdraw, which of course would have set up the situation for military action. Now, if they were so happy with everything, it would seem very surprising that they would take this action. There was a series of events that were escalating toward war. I could describe them in great detail, but they certainly included what I call the first Bihac crisis. November 12th of 1994, a series of attacks on Bihac. The end of the UNPROFOR mandate and a number of other steps that were driving toward war and the war actually happened.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Galbraith, wasn't perhaps everything quite the opposite, that ²³¹⁵⁶ these things that I have mentioned as facts which you cannot deny pointed to the fact that a peaceful solution would be achieved through this dynamic process which was becoming increasingly intensive, and that the Croatian leadership really had no interest in a peaceful solution because they wouldn't have been able to expel 250.000 Serbs if there had been a peaceful solution? Isn't that right, Mr. Galbraith, or not?

A. The fact is that the president of Croatia was -- was prepared and did accept the document that had been prepared by the United States of America, not an insignificant country in the world, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations.

Milan Martic and his colleagues in Knin literally refused to accept this document. And you refused to see the representatives of these countries.

Now, I don't see how that behaviour can be said by anybody to be conducive to peace or part of any process that had momentum toward peace. I don't understand it, and I don't think it's true.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, if you challenge that you refused to see this emissary then you should put it to the witness, if you challenge that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course I challenge it. And secondly, Mr. Galbraith was not in Belgrade at all. He was the ambassador in Croatia, and I received --

JUDGE MAY: No, it's the charges d'affaires who he says you refused to see.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, never -- this time there's ²³¹⁵⁷ reference to Rudy Perina, who was charges d'affaires in Yugoslavia. I never refused to receive him as I never refused to receive Ambassador Roberts. That is completely untrue. But let us move on.

JUDGE MAY: No. We'll deal with that and find out what the source of information which the witness has as to the refusal to see the charges d'affaires.

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, we're discussing two separate events so, I want to be clear about that.

The first event was in January of 1995 when the Z-4 representatives requested an appointment to see Mr. Milosevic. Indeed, I would have been the representative who would have gone and seen him along with Ambassador Ahrens, who was the German representative. He was not a bilateral ambassador in Croatia. I was dual-hatted at that time. An Ambassador Matakota [phoen] who represented the United Nations, and the Russian ambassador.

We were told by Lord Owen, and confirmed by the American Embassy in Belgrade, that Mr. Milosevic had turned down the request to see us. This had been transmitted in the way in which these are a formal request to see him to present the plan. That was the event in January of 1995. In August of 1995, this was August 2nd, this was the meeting I had in Belgrade with Babic which produced the last-minute agreement to try to head off the war.

The next day Rudy Perina requested an appointment to see Mr. Milosevic to demarche him to support the Galbraith-Babic agreement. He refused to see Mr. Perina that day, the 3rd of August, and the next day ²³¹⁵⁸ the Croatian army attacked the Krajina.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Galbraith, I never refused to receive Rudy Perina. I wasn't in Belgrade at that time.

JUDGE MAY: It's no use repeating that. You've heard what the witness says. If you can give evidence about it, no doubt you may.

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, if I can point out, even if the witness were not in Belgrade, which I don't know, there are telephones, and we did use telephones to talk to leaders on urgent matters.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Why then didn't they speak to me by telephone? They didn't want to talk to me, Mr. Galbraith. Why don't you say that?

A. We desperately wanted to talk to you. We desperately wanted you to support this last-minute agreement. We desperately wanted to head off the war. Mr. Babic also wanted to see you and get you to support this last-minute agreement. As he said to me, one sentence from you and Knin would have agreed, and I think there would have been a very good chance at that point that Operation Storm, even at that last minute, Operation Storm could have been headed off and a 180.000 Serbs from the Krajina would not have been driven from their homes and a huge humanitarian catastrophe would not have happened.

Q. Mr. Galbraith, Babic testified here. He asked to see me. He heard that I wasn't in Belgrade. He asked for my telephone from people from the Ministry of the Interior, and my telephone was known to all my associates always. I was on vacation. He reached me by phone. He even ²³¹⁵⁹ explained here that it could be seen that I was from a distance. The line was not good because I was on a mountain. And the only thing he said to me is that he had accepted the Z-4 plan. And he testified here, I can't remember the whole conversation myself, but he said that I just said, yes, yes, peacefully. And that is what he testified about here. There was no mention --

JUDGE MAY: The witness can't possibly comment on what Mr. Babic had said.

During the adjournment, Mr. Nice, would you please check what Babic said about this so we may have it for the record, and the witness can hear.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I checked that yesterday. I have it all ready if necessary.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So no one, even Babic, according to his own testimony, and of course everyone else knows this too, never mentioned to the officials of Serbia that he spoke to and from whom he asked for my telephone number, he never mentioned any kind of threat of war, nor did anyone imagine that there could be a war or an invasion or any such thing as the Storm operation as a result of which the Serbs were thrown out.

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... on what Mr. Babic may or may not have said here, and we'll check it after the adjournment. Your information, please, Ambassador, what was your information? ²³¹⁶⁰

THE WITNESS: I mean, I don't -- Mr. Milosevic must have been very cut off on top of the mountain, because everybody else in the world understood that in August 1995, Europe was on the verge of the biggest battle since the Second World War. And how any leader, any responsible leader could be on vacation with all this happening and with the fate of so many people, may I add, so many Serbs, at stake, I cannot understand. But, you know, it was clear that the Croatians were going to attack. It was in the press. It was -- their forces were mobilised. I mean, he could not have not known this.

And so -- I mean, what else can I say?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Judging by what we learned here, Mr. Galbraith, it appears that the only person who was well-informed about this was Milan Babic, who even according to his own testimony, doesn't say that he informed anyone. No one expect that had Croatia could attack areas under the protection of the United Nations. Truly no one.

JUDGE MAY: The witness has answered. What he said was that everybody knew, and that must have included you. That's what he says. Now, that may be a matter which we will have to determine in due course as to whether you did or you didn't know. But let us move on. In fact, it's time for an adjournment.

MR. NICE: In case the Chamber has any time to do research over the break, it's, I think, page 13265. 13265.

JUDGE MAY: Well, you can tell us what it says. Please summarise it. ^{23161 BLANK PAGE 23162} We will adjourn for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Judge Kwon has found what seems to be the relevant passage. It says he was in touch with Milosevic and what did he say? "He repeated, he mumbled as if he was speaking out of a dream. He just said, yes, yes, slowly, slowly, everything would be conducted calmly. Those were his words over the phone. And he said, 'Contact Vlatko Jovanovic. Consult him.'"

MR. NICE:, but in fairness to the accused one has to look on because this was subject -- this was during examination-in-chief. The accused suggested that the interpretation of the word "mirno" was incorrect and I think it should have been either slowly or calmly. And on the following page, the witness said calmly or peacefully. And if I may very briefly put that in the setting of the other points that the accused is raising, the Chamber may be assisted by recalling that the witness Babic did speak of an April 1995 conversation with the accused where the accused had referred to Z-4 as a good plan, although the witness didn't believe that -- didn't believe what Milosevic was saying to him about that and never mentioned it to Galbraith, to the witness, Ambassador Galbraith. And Babic also dealt with Exhibit 352, 104, the capable, the United Kingdom cable which sets out how he had -- he, Babic, had been refused access by the accused, in paragraph 6, and it appears he confirms that. So that the sequence of events would be apart from the April 1995 contact, which was not communicated to ²³¹⁶³ Ambassador Galbraith would be on Babic's evidence refusal to see him, Babic, followed by the phone call organised by Stanisic and Babic not informing Ambassador Galbraith that he'd had the phone call.

JUDGE KWON: And also for the fairness of the accused, I have to not that to the answer asked by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, "Did you actually have an ultimatum from Mr. Galbraith to accept the plan right now, otherwise, consequences would happen?" Mr. Babic answered, he said: "What we could expect if we didn't accept, which meant a Croatian aggression and that we could fare the same as Western Slavonia." And the page number, in hard copy, starts from 13256, not 265.

If you have any comment, Ambassador. Yes. No.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you've got three-quarters of an hour more with this witness if you want.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is not sufficient for me, Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: We have adjudged it sufficient. Now, let's move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What Mr. Kwon said a minute ago had to do with the conversation between this witness and Mr. Babic, and as you may recall, during his testimony, he did not say a single word, nor did he mention to me that there was any danger of any kind of attack against Krajina, and you will see that in his statement.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We have dealt with that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Secondly, this correction that Mr. May explained, not very well, Babic said that his answer to my information that he had talked to Galbraith and that he had accepted the ²³¹⁶⁴ Z-4 plan was, "Yes, yes. Calmly, calmly." It did not mean "slowly," it meant "calmly." Calm is a very clear word, calmly, in the sense of peaceably. I'm talking about a peaceful solution.

JUDGE MAY: The matter has been put to the witness. He has no comment. It's the evidence of another witness. Now, let's move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I will fully agree with you, Mr. Galbraith, that it would have been totally irresponsible for me to be sitting vacationing somewhere, on top of a mountain, while a war was in the making. No one in Serbia, Mr. Galbraith, knew or could have supposed that Croatia would attack UN protected areas. Is that --

JUDGE MAY: Sorry. Let the witness deal with that assertion. Ambassador, you said that everybody knew, using a colloquialism, that Croatia was likely to attack. What were the objective signs of that.

THE WITNESS: The Croatian military was fully mobilised. They were positioned at the boundaries of the Krajina region. There was a huge amount of press coverage of the impending war. There were statements by Croatian officials that while they didn't necessarily directly say war would come tomorrow that in every way indicated that war was imminent. There was warnings from UN officials, and there was the warnings that I conveyed to Mr. Babic, that I conveyed to UN officials or conversations I had with UN officials and through them conveyed to the leadership in Knin. There was absolutely no secret about this.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ²³¹⁶⁵

Q. Well, obviously it was not a secret to Babic, but Babic did not convey this secret to anybody else. Do you find that clear at least?

JUDGE MAY: What the witness is saying, so you understand it, is that it was plain from press coverage and mobilisation that a war was likely. Now, it wasn't a question -- you misrepresent him when you say it was just a matter of Babic. He's saying that it was clear to everybody at the time. Now, that's the point that he makes. If you want to challenge that, of course you can, saying nobody knew.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course I'm challenging that, because in Serbia, nobody could have supposed that. It seems to that we are responsible for the fact that we did not assume that Croatia could attack an UN protected area. As a matter of fact, at the time when negotiations were scheduled in Geneva between the representatives of the Republic of Srpska Krajina and the Republic of Croatia, Yugoslavia or Serbia were not invited there, of course, because this was a matter between Zagreb and Knin.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So, Mr. Galbraith, these are UN protected areas. There is no doubt about that. Negotiations in Geneva were scheduled precisely for that time between the representatives of the republic of Srpska Krajina, and the Republic of Croatia, and you claim that we should have assumed that Croatian forces would attack a UN protected area at the point in time when negotiations were scheduled between them and Knin. Is that your assertion?

A. Well, the Croatian army had taken over an UN protected area at the ²³¹⁶⁶ beginning of May, 1995, just three months before these events. So I can't understand your statement saying that it was unthinkable that this could happen. It in fact had just happened in UN protected area Sector West just three months before.

As to the meetings in Geneva, they -- the Croatians used them as a vehicle to present their final ultimatum. They anticipated that there would not be a positive answer, and they proceeded with their attack. I don't think the Croatians had the slightest thought that there were going to be meaningful negotiations. And it was clear to me as it was to other diplomats in Zagreb, and I think to the broader international community, that this meeting in Geneva was just that, that it was pro forma, that it was a very dangerous situation, that the -- that Tudjman was going to outline demands that he had already stated, that the Serbs were going to refuse them and that that would provide the pretext for a war. I would also suggest that one can go back and look at what was in the press in the first few days of August of 1995. I think it would be inescapable that there was this looming crisis and a very strong likelihood of a war.

Q. Mr. Galbraith, you've just given an argument against what you've been asserting, because it is correct that the aggression on the 1st and 2nd of May against Western Slavonia did occur. This was an aggression against a UN protected area, but it had been condemned by the UN, and Croatia had been warned that such violations were not to happen. Is that right or is that not right, Mr. Galbraith?

A. It had been opposed by the United Nations. There had been no ²³¹⁶⁷ practical adverse consequences, and by July of 1995, Croatia and Bosnia were in a state of acute crisis created by the activities of General Ratko Mladic and the Bosnian Serbs who had taken UNPROFOR personnel as hostage, who had taken over the enclave of Srebrenica, massacred the 7.000 men and boys, who attacked Zepa, another UN protected area, had taken that over and were in the process of attacking Bihac.

Meanwhile, the Croatian army was marching up the Livno Valley and making considerable progress. The war was heating up in an extraordinary way at that point in time. And I think any observer, any knowledgeable observer, would have realised -- and knowledgeable observers all did realise that there was a very strong likelihood of a further escalation. I think they also saw that the United States and the other members of international community were extremely concerned about what was happening, that indeed we saw this as a major crisis. Our policies were in crisis. And to have -- well, I don't think that anybody could have assumed that the posture of the international community would be the same toward a possible Croatian military action in August of 1995 as it had been for example in 1994 when the first Bihac crisis took place. And in any event, one could only have observed the relatively tepid response of the international community to the Croatian takeover of Sector West.

JUDGE KWON: I think the Prosecution at a later state can produce some Serbian newspapers dealing with this issue and how it was dealt with.

MR. NICE: It's already on my list of things to do.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. Please go on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ²³¹⁶⁸

Q. I would be pleased to see that because in Serbia nobody had assumed that. But from this vantage point, Mr. Galbraith, it's quite clear that Croatia dared attack Krajina with your permission. When I say "your permission," I'm not saying you personally. I'm talking about the permission given by your country.

And not only with your permission but also with the active cooperation of your representatives, of your instructors in the attack against the Krajina. Of course, nobody knew about that either. Is that right or is that not right, Mr. Galbraith?

A. I've described the position of the United States yesterday, and I'll repeat that. Our position was we neither opposed nor endorsed Croatian military action. We did warn -- I personally, on instructions, warned President Tudjman that military action was inherently risky, that if he ran into difficulty he could count on no help from the United States, and that there would be serious consequences to US-Croatia relations if there were attacks on civilians or on UN personnel. And I might add parenthetically, indeed because Croatia failed to respect the Serbian -- the property of the Serbian civilians and tolerated the killing the stragglers, there were serious consequences for US-Croatia relations. Now, to the second part of your question, the United States did not assist the Croatian military in this operation. To the best of my knowledge it provided no instruction to the Croatians on any aspect of the military operation in spite of some very imaginative press stories suggesting otherwise.

Q. Well, you know very well that as far back as 1994, September 1994, ²³¹⁶⁹ an agreement was signed in Washington between the Minister of Defence of Croatia, Gojko Susak, and the US company MPRI. It was signed by the executive officer of that company and General Carl Vaughan. Do you remember that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. So that organisation practically planned this operation and participated in this Operation Storm, supporting the Croatian initiative against an UN protected area, and you consider that to be legal; right?

A. So far as I know, the company did not plan any aspect of Operation Storm. It did not participate in any aspect of Operation Storm. Its contract was not in any way related to that kind of military planning. If it had done so -- if it did so, it did so without the authorisation of the United States government, and I believe it would have also been in violation of the United States law.

At that time, there was an embargo on military assistance to the parties, and the United States on -- the United States itself honoured that embargo.

It was -- among the things that MPRI was providing was human rights training and training in such areas as budgeting and sort of general leadership skills, and those were judged to be legal under US law and not a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 713.

Q. Before we move on, just one thing, please. Since you said that you could not reach me, that Perina could not reach me, that Roberts could not reach me because I was away on vacation, if you already wanted to give this kind of information, why didn't you give it to the Foreign Minister, ²³¹⁷⁰ the Prime Minister, anybody, or why didn't you request telephone contact with me? It was possible at any time.

A. It was for -- referring now to the August meeting or August 3rd events, it was for the charges of the United States to try to get in contact with you. He attempted to get in contact with you. I don't know the particulars of it. Some of these officials the United States did not see because we did not recognise the government of -- of the so-called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Q. That's not correct. Perina contacted the Foreign Minister, Jovanovic, and many others. So if you really cared about this, if you really wanted to convey some information or a demarche, are you trying to say that the US charges d'affaires could not deliver this at my office and would he not have known that I would have gotten it immediately for sure, or couldn't he have requested to speak to me on the telephone? He didn't ask for any such thing. He just asked for me to receive him and the answer given to him was I was not in Belgrade and that was it. There's a saying in Serbia, Mr. Galbraith, and it says that a person requests something and prays to God not to get it. So I think that this was the case.

JUDGE MAY: We've exhausted this topic, but if you want to reply, Ambassador, you may and then we must move on.

THE WITNESS: Well, that is nonsense. We --

JUDGE MAY: Let him answer.

THE WITNESS: We desperately tried to avoid this war. We embarked on this initiative. Even at the very last minute we tried to get you to ^{23171 BLANK PAGE 23172} support it. We believed your public support could have headed off the war. You were on vacation at the moment that the catastrophe was overtaking 180.000 Serbs in the Krajina.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Correct, catastrophe that was being prepared secretly and that was carried out at the -- to the surprise of everyone in Serbia, including myself, and anybody, any ordinary citizen of Serbia.

JUDGE MAY: We have exhausted this topic now. Will you move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please, is it correct that precisely this organisation of yours, this military organisation of yours, MPRI, had a programme at the Petar Zrinjski Officers School that started considerably before the attack on Krajina and just before the attack on the Srpska Krajina, and on the 17th of July, 1995, in Brioni, a seminar was held precisely for these top officials --

JUDGE MAY: You're misrepresenting the evidence. It's not the first time. This is not the witness's organisation. It's a private organisation. In you're going to ask questions about it, you can ask them separately.

What is alleged is that it had -- this organisation had an officers' school, yes, a programme at the officers' school, no doubt in Croatia. Do you know anything about that, Ambassador?

THE WITNESS: It was a private organisation, so I didn't, obviously, follow all of its activities, but it did organise some kind of seminar, which I think had been planned for sometime in advance, in July ²³¹⁷³ of 1995 for the Croatian military. This was on human rights issues and leadership issues, you know, techniques for effective leadership. It had, so far as I know, nothing to do with war planning of any kind, and of course after the -- I received some reports on it as this programme was going on from my defence attache, and after Operation Storm and with all these allegations, I went back and I checked, and so far as I was able to determine, and I believe this is correct, there was no military planning carried out by this organisation of any kind.

And in any event, it's absurd to think that a handful of retired American army officers arriving in July of 1995 could have transformed the military situation in the former Yugoslavia.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Since you insist on this being a private organisation, do you believe that this private organisation which brought together 200 elite American generals, retired, in all fairness, could have done something that was contrary to the policy of the United States?

A. I have no information to indicate that they violated United States law and/or United States policy. That is to say, I have no information to indicate that they assisted the Croatian government in any military planning.

JUDGE MAY: Did they consist of 200 generals, elite but retired?

THE WITNESS: They -- it was an organisation of retired military -- consisting primarily of retired US military. Certainly I can't imagine that it had 200 generals. That would be a very large number of generals. But it is -- it was and it is a private company, so I can't ²³¹⁷⁴ speak further to who it is that actually works for the company. I mean, I know who is the head of it and I know people who were in Croatia. I think there were about ten or 15 officers working in Croatia at various times, retired officers.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right, Mr. Galbraith. At that time, do you remember that there was an affair that had to do with your participation and the participation of the CIA and the Pentagon on the 28th of July, a Croatian newspaper, Slobodna Dalmacija, wrote about it. Do you recall that, the participation in Operation Storm?

A. I don't know what you're talking about, actually.

Q. All right. Let us finish on that note then. You believe that nothing illegal was done when the UN protected area was attacked and that the objective was not to have a war and to have the Serbs expelled. The objective was to attain peace. Is that what you're asserting, Mr. Galbraith?

A. No. That's not what I'm asserting at all.

Q. Well, isn't it quite obvious that not -- it wasn't -- you didn't want peace nor did the Croatian government, because if you had peace, you wouldn't be able to implement your brutal aggression that ultimately came and the fact that 200.000 Serbs were expelled from Krajina. Isn't that right, Mr. Galbraith?

JUDGE MAY: You are again totally misrepresenting the evidence. I don't think that's worthy of a response, but if you want to, you can.

THE WITNESS: I will simply say, first, the United States ²³¹⁷⁵ government did everything possible for peace, and I think the testimony I've given to you, Your Honour, speaks to that. Second, the Croatian army had -- the Croatian government clearly had decided on war, and it was the actions of Ratko Mladic and the Krajina Serbs that -- backed by the defendant that gave the Croatian army the pretext to launch a war and created an environment in which it was very difficult for any of the major international powers to restrain the Croatians. Third, Croatia engaged in much illegal and criminal behaviour in the course of Operation Storm. That included the -- permitting the systematic burning of the homes and property of the Serbian population there after they had left. It included the killing of several hundred stragglers. It included efforts by Tudjman who was, in my view, a racist, to prevent Serbs who were citizens of Croatia to return to their homes.

We criticised this repeatedly, strongly, this illegal and immoral behaviour. We tried to reverse it. We imposed sanctions on Croatia, and indeed we succeeded in reversing at least some parts of it, because the Croatian government eventually did agree that Serbs from the Krajina could return home and could recover their citizenship, and indeed the new government in Croatia has been encouraging Serbian citizens to return home.

Also, in negotiating the Eastern Slavonia agreement, one of our top priorities was to enable the Serbian citizens of that region to remain as this area became part of Croatia, and I'm proud to say that that in fact happened. Indeed, it was the only time in the former Yugoslavia where territory changed hands from one party to the other and the people ²³¹⁷⁶ of the ethnic group which had lost control actually remained.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Galbraith, as you in a way defined this operation you were talking about General Mladic and the events that took place in Bosnia as a pretext, one of the causes for the attack on Krajina. Could you please be so kind as to comment this, something I received yesterday, in fact, precisely from the opposite side, Mr. Nice, this piece of information. I have two copies of the document. I'm going to hand one over to you to take a look at. We can place it on the overhead projector. And tell me whether you know anything about it, please.

My time is limited here, of course, but we will have an opportunity of looking through all the facts and putting each piece in its proper place.

JUDGE MAY: The document seems to be -- Mr. Nice, you can help us with it. Perhaps you'd better have a look at it yourself to see if you have any objection to it being put to the witness. It's a letter from you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me make a correction. I received it from the Registrar, but it was in fact signed by Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: It's part of our standard Rule 68 process, providing information in accordance with our duty. It says nothing about reliability of or our belief in.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. May I have it back, please? What is the point you want to make through this document, Mr. Milosevic, rather than putting it to the witness? And if necessary, ²³¹⁷⁷ the witness can see it, but what is the point?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wish to hear Mr. Galbraith's comments with respect to the assertion made that I mentioned otherwise here in this courtroom.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Go on.

[Trial Chamber confers]

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, while they're taking a moment to have a look at the document, the gentlemen, Mr. May and the others, it says here: "The Prosecution has received the following information. [In English] Allegedly Alija Izetbegovic ordered that a meeting take place on 28 September, 1993, between Izetbegovic and nine leaders from the Srebrenica pocket." [Interpretation] Then it goes on to state who these people are. And then it says the following: "[Previous translation continues]... [In English] by UNPROFOR helicopter and brought to Sarajevo. The meeting took place in the Holiday Inn. Izetbegovic told the delegation that he ordered the meeting to advise those present that he wanted -- that he wanted to exchange Srebrenica for Vogosca. Izetbegovic stated that President Clinton had offered him to let the Chetniks into Srebrenica to kill 5.000 Muslims and then there would be international military intervention. Delegation stated that they would not back such a proposal. The source of this information believes that what was proposed in 1993 procured in 1995."

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness have the piece of paper. The bottom. It needn't be put on the ELMO, shouldn't be put on the ELMO, but it can be ²³¹⁷⁸ shown to the witness.

Just a moment. Mr. Galbraith, just look at that, if you would. The accused has read it out. We have no idea what the source of this information is. It's apparently some information described as information which has come from a source to the Prosecution. Maybe you know absolutely nothing about it at all. Have you heard of any such suggestion?

THE WITNESS: Well, I mean, I don't know which part of this to comment on. I mean, it's almost hilarious. I find it completely unbelievable that President Izetbegovic would make such a statement, especially to the people from Srebrenica. And of course, I mean, nobody could imagine that that President Clinton could offer to let the Chetniks go into Srebrenica to kill 5.000 people. I mean, it's just completely absurd.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The Chetniks are Izetbegovic's expression meaning the Serbs. So when he says Chetniks, that's what he means.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let's hear from the Prosecution about this document.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, can I just repeat so there will be no confusion about it that our duty to provide information coming to us that would qualify as Rule 68 reflects no attribution of credibility to the material and indeed we may all too easily be subject to intentional disinformation coming our way. We simply have a duty once information could qualify as Rule 68 material to make it available, but those viewing ²³¹⁷⁹ these proceedings must understand the material is handed over with absolutely no truth value being associated with it so far as we're concerned.

THE WITNESS: Let me just say as somebody who has followed the events in the former Yugoslavia for many years, this is obviously and patently absurd, and -- so would clearly fall in the category of disinformation.

JUDGE MAY: It may be that we shall require the source of this information to be able to make some sort of judgement about it.

MR. NICE: Perhaps we can deal with that later as a procedural issue in private session.

JUDGE MAY: Of course. You can consider it. Yes. Yes, Mr. Milosevic. The piece of paper should be returned to the accused. Not be exhibited, no.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, I hope this will not be difficult, because there are many names mentioned here, many names of people who were present at the meeting. So they have been identified, all those present. If not all of this them, then most of them so it won't be difficult to check that out. But let's go back to what you saying a moment ago about the crimes committed by the Croatian forces in Krajina. So without a doubt, many crimes were committed against the Serbs. Isn't that right, Mr. Galbraith?

A. I have said that, and those crimes included the systematic destruction of the property of the Krajina Serbs. It included permitting the killing of several hundred stragglers and preventing people from being ²³¹⁸⁰ able to return to their homes.

Q. You were talking yesterday in explaining your interview to the BBC that it wasn't ethnic cleansing because the people had fled before any kind of paramilitaries entered. Now, do you happen to know that the people had fled in the face of the grenades and shelling? Knin was heavily shelled and so were the surrounding areas. Or do you think they just escaped and fled just like that because they feared the Croatian army which was nearby? I'm sure you will remember that the attack began precisely with the heavy shelling of Knin itself.

A. Well, I'm sure that people fled the shelling, and I'm sure that people fled because they feared the Croatian army. The shelling was relatively brief because there was effective no resistance. I think Knin fell within 24 hours.

Q. Therefore, you're claiming that it -- it's not ethnic cleansing when you use shells to destroy a town and inhabitants have to flee, but you only consider it to be ethnic cleansing from the point that troops enter the town and start to slaughter the people and set fire to the houses? Is that the limit, is that the borderline where you differentiate what is and is not ethnic cleansing?

A. The first point is that -- just a factual matter. Knin was not destroyed. In fact, it was not all that heavily damaged. I had embassy officers in there within a few days of the Croatian takeover. Second, as to what constitutes ethnic cleansing, I would say that it is a combination of -- and the important word here is the "combination" of military actions, certainly can include shelling. It includes the entry of troops ²³¹⁸¹ into the territory -- into a village, but it also includes when the people are there executions, beatings, torture, you know, burning of houses, rape, activities intending to terrorise the population and force them to leave.

Q. All right. Now, did all of this actually take place, Mr. Galbraith? Did it happen, all that together, all the things that you enumerated taken together, did they happen?

A. They happened in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and they happened in Croatia. Did they happen in Operation Storm? No, because the population had -- almost all of it had already left before the Croatian military entered the towns and, therefore, there were basically no people there for them to terrorise.

Q. And the ones who stayed on, the stragglers, they were killed. Is that right, Mr. Galbraith?

A. Yes. Several hundred of the stragglers were killed, and it was a very serious crime. These were, in some cases, old people who -- in isolated farmhouses, who were too sick or too infirm to leave. Unspeakable crime.

Q. Very well, Mr. Galbraith. Now, do you remember that on the 28th of July, 1995, Croatia with its troops stormed Glamoc and Grahovo? Otherwise, it was the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Serb people against the Ustasha state.

Now, do you happen to know that this storming was preceded by Tudjman's and Izetbegovic's agreement to send reinforcements? The agreement was made in Split, and I think you attended. Isn't that right, ^{23182 BLANK PAGE 23183} Mr. Galbraith?

A. It was preceded by a summit between Tudjman and Izetbegovic which was held in Split and which I attended, yes.

Q. All right then. Now, do you consider yourself and the United States government responsible for the crimes that were committed against the Serbs?

A.

JUDGE MAY: No need to answer that. That's a preposterous question. You've heard it, you've heard what the witnesses has said. Now, you've got one minute left, so you better have your last question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'm very sorry that I really don't have the time to cross-examine the witness fully. That has become customary here.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But tell me, Mr. Galbraith, as you spent five years in Zagreb, according to what Chris Hedges from The New York Times 1997 says, who wrote a text on the 24th of December, 1997, you have a special place because you did not represent the true state of affairs to Washington and the relationship of the Serbian authorities until the Serbs were expelled -- were actually expelled from Croatia. Is that right?

A. No.

Q. All right. And tell me this then, John Galvin, the retired general who took part in the negotiations in Yugoslavia together with Charles Redman who was otherwise an expert for the so-called doctrine of low-intensity conflicts was an advisor to Alija Izetbegovic, a military ²³¹⁸⁴ advisor to boot; is that right?

A. Charles Redman? He was a US ambassador and the American representative to the Contact Group. And I don't think he was an expert on low-intensity conflict.

Q. All right. Tell me this then, please, is it true and correct that for the Iranian shipments of weapons to Bosnia-Herzegovina that your president knew about that, Bill Clinton, and that Holbrooke, in his testimony to Congress, recognised that arms were being infiltrated into Croatia from Iran?

A. Yes.

JUDGE MAY: This is your last question. Your time is then up.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And is it true and generally well known that you were included in the affair over the secret import and smuggling of arms into Bosnia? You were involved in that?

A. Well, first, I was not involved in the -- in any way in the smuggling of arms into Bosnia. This was the subject -- this whole issue was the subject of a number of congressional hearings and reports, as well as a lot of press discussion, and what I did came out in the course of that and it was very simple. On the -- I think it was the 28th of April, 1994, President Tudjman asked me, as I knew he would, what would be the attitude of the United States if Croatia -- if Croatia were to accede to the request from Bosnia and Herzegovina to permit arms from Iran and from other countries to transit Croatia to go to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I told him, on instructions, of course, that I had no instructions, which he ²³¹⁸⁵ understood to mean that the United States did not object and indeed the arms went -- shipments went forward.

Just a word of explanation, which is that the Clinton administration did not support UN Security Council Resolution 713. It thought that the arms embargo had favoured the aggressor because the aggressor, Serbia and its allies in Croatia and Bosnia, had basically had all the arms of the former JNA and that the victims, notably the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, was essentially left undefended. The United States itself did not violate the arms embargo at any time. On the other hand, we took the position that Resolution 713 should not be the only UN Security Council Resolution should be honoured when every over one was being dishonoured mostly by the Serbian side including resolutions that required the protection of innocent civilians.

Q. That means --

JUDGE MAY: No. That concludes your cross-examination. The transcript should be corrected to reflect that in my last intervention I characterised the witness's -- the accused's question as preposterous. It was not reflected in the transcript. It should be. Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Galbraith, I should like to ask you some questions about facts, documents for which I assume you either know about, know what their contents are or should have had reason to know. If I understood you correctly yesterday, and I took a look at the ²³¹⁸⁶ transcript, you said that the process around -- surrounding plan Z-4 began on the 23rd of March, 1994, and lasted until sometime around Operation Storm and that it evolved in three stages. Is that correct?

A. Yes, that's what I said.

Q. I have here a report dated the 29th of March, 1994, which I was given by the OTP pursuant to Rule 68, and it has to do with the daily report of the observer mission of the European Union of the 29th of March, 1994. Can we agree that that was just a few days after this process over the Z-4 plan had started, when it was launched?

A. Well, it wasn't the process of the Z-4 plan, but it was the -- the process in which Russia and the United States married up with the ICFY co-chairman in the Croatia peace process. But at that stage, we hadn't thought about preparing what became known as the Z-4 political plan.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, we have the document available should the witness want to look at it, and I understand he has in any event been in a position to review it before giving evidence, so he knows about it.

THE WITNESS: I wonder if actually I could see the document.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. Let the witness see the document.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I have a sufficient number of copies for Your Honours if you would like to have them.

Q. What I'm interested in is in this: First of all, point 2(A) at the beginning. That's something you already stated. It says, "the USA ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith, said that the USA and Russia agreed that the reintegration of Krajina into Croatia must take place peacefully and that the Serbs should be given considerable autonomy." Is ²³¹⁸⁷ that right?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. Now, this "considerable autonomy," Mr. Ambassador, at that point in time after the preparations were launched for covering up this plan, the Z-4 plan, does that imply autonomy within those frameworks or perhaps in some other frameworks?

A. Certainly it was my view that any settlement that was mutually agreeable to the government of Croatia and to the Krajina Serbs that would preserve the territorial integrity of Croatia, enabled displaced Croatians to return home and ensured that the Serbian population could safely remain, that any such settlement would be agreeable to me, and I know it would have been agreeable to the United States. So I don't think -- we were not committed to any particular framework. We were committed to a peace settlement that adhered to certain fundamental principles.

Q. That's how I understood it too. However, this Z-4 plan was prepared already in September, and as we heard yesterday, you spoke about that, that you presented it for the first time to the leaders of Srpska Krajina and also to President Tudjman. That's how I understand it yesterday. And that was on the 30th of January, 1995; is that right? Is that what you said?

A. The plan was substantially prepared in September and October of 1995. It wasn't finalised until January -- sorry, September and October of 1994. It was not finalised until January of 1995. Otherwise, your statement about it is correct.

Q. So during that first meeting when you offered up the plan to ²³¹⁸⁸ Martic and Abdic and Mikelic, you were given a relative answer, if I can put it that way. And Mr. Abdic said he was sorry because of that. Is that right?

A. There was in my view nothing relative about the answer. The answer that they refused to receive the plan. I mean, Martic literally refused to pick the plan off the table when it was handed to him. I mean, it was -- it was the most -- it was the strongest possible objection, and it was intentionally insulting to the United States, to Russia, and to the European Union.

JUDGE KWON: For the record, the transcript says it was Mr. Abdic who said he was sorry. Is that right? I think it should be Mr. Martic.

THE WITNESS: No, it was Mr. Babic who said he was sorry. And it was Martic who refused to pick up the plan, Your Honour.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. Please go on.

THE WITNESS: Perhaps I should add to clarify: Babic said this privately to me as an aside. It in no way represented the decision of the collective leadership of the Krajina Serbs. It was just that he was, I think, obviously embarrassed by what had happened.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Yes, Mr. Galbraith, but I have here in my hands something that I also received from the Prosecution, a special report from the observer mission of the European Union in connection with the plan Z-4 dated the 31st of January, 1995. I have sufficient copies, one for you as well. Would you be kind enough to look at it. It is RO2358335834. And the following can be found in this text. The 31st of January, 1995, a day ²³¹⁸⁹ after the meeting with the gentlemen you spoke is to, and it says and I quote: "Ambassador Galbraith admitted that the Z-4 plan had been presented earlier than expected because of President Tudjman's insistence that the negotiations be speeded up." Is that right? Is that correct?

A. No. I -- no. I don't think that that report accurately reflects my thinking or what I said.

I believe that the Z-4 plan was presented too late, and indeed --

Q. Mr. Galbraith, I'm just asking whether you said that or not.

JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Could I have a copy of that document together with that of 29th of March. For the Chamber.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Could you please tell Their Honours whether what is stated here in the special report of the European Union mission was written accurately. Does it correspond to what you said or not?

A. Well, I don't -- I don't believe the statement is -- accurately reflects my views, and therefore, I don't think it accurately reflects what I would have said. I think it's quite likely that I said that there was -- that because of -- that there was a lot of pressure on us to go forward with the negotiations as a result of President Tudjman's action in -- in terminating the -- announcing the termination of the UNPROFOR mandate and because I felt that we were -- that this was a situation that was headed toward. But I don't think I would have said, because it wouldn't have been right, that the Z-4 plan was presented too soon. I mean, on the contrary, my view is that it was presented too late.

Q. Thank you. However, in that same report, one finds the following, ²³¹⁹⁰ that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Babic, in a recent statement, said, "Regarding the status offered to the RSK, that the people of the republic should decide." There is no mention of the fact that he said he was sorry. But on the contrary, it says that he said that such a plan could not be accepted unless the people of the Serbian Krajina were able to take a stand about it. Does that correspond to the truth or not?

A. Well, if your question is is it true that Foreign Minister Babic in a recent statement said the future status of the RSK must be decided by the population of the RSK, I have no reason to doubt that he might have said that in a recent statement. I would note that the document you've presented to me also points out that -- correctly that Dr. Babic, in a discreet meeting the last week had been more forth coming. And it also says in paragraph 7 an initial opinion from very limited interviews with RSK citizens is that some form of highly independent autonomy for the quote unquote RSK albeit within Croatia might very reluctantly be considered better than continued hostility, isolation, and poverty.

Q. Thank you. The very next day, you had a meeting with Mr. Tudjman in the morning, and as I heard from you yesterday, could you please explain to Their Honours the following: Tudjman stated that he agreed that negotiations be conducted within that framework but he did so reluctantly. And later on, there was no chance to test Croatia's position precisely because the rejection by the Serbs. Is that so?

A. Yes, I did say that.

Q. Thank you. In view of the fact that you said that you had in mind an autonomy which should lead to peace, in that period of time from the ²³¹⁹¹ 23rd of March until the 4th of August, 23rd of March, 1994, until the 4th of August, 1995, did Croatia, or, rather, President Tudjman ever present their own views as to how they envisaged the autonomy of the Republic of Srpska Krajina within Croatia? Was ever any such proposal presented by them?

A. Yes.

Q. In what form?

A. There were autonomy provisions contained within the Croatian constitutional law, and in fact they were not -- also not unsubstantial. Obviously much less than was in the Z-4 plan, but there was a fair amount of autonomy contained in the Croatian constitutional law.

Q. Your excellency, Ambassador Galbraith, I'm very familiar with all those conditions that were in force at the time and are now. I'm asking whether there was any kind of formal offer in the form of a document or not.

A. Well, on numerous occasions the Croatian -- President Tudjman and his principal colleagues said, you know, pointed to the Croatian constitutional law, which is of course a document, and said, you know, this is a basis for a settlement. I believe they indicated that it might even be in some parts negotiable.

Q. Thank you. But in this document dated the 29th of March, it also says in paragraph 2A/2, the following: The Yugoslav leadership obviously, and this is a comment by a mission of the European Union, is also bringing pressure to bear on the Krajina that it sign the agreement because for the FRY, this is the only way to ensure a lifting of the sanctions on Serbia ²³¹⁹² and Montenegro. Is that right, that is that the European mission had information of this kind that it was in the interest of Yugoslavia, that is of Serbia and Montenegro?

A. You're now referring to the document of the 29th of March of 1994, which I no longer have.

Q. Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Tapuskovic, I speak for myself, but I'd be grateful if you would finish by the adjournment, please, if you could adjust the time.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'll do my best, Your Honour, but I have another two documents which I feel that Your Honours should have access to.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Let us try and speed it along. Yes.

THE WITNESS: I mean, I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of this statement that the Yugoslav leadership is pressing the Krajina to sign the cease-fire agreement, which is the operative agreement, but that has nothing to do with the political plan. This was a very limited ceasefire agreement that created zones of separation and regulated a number of police that might be in these zones and those kind of questions.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Galbraith, I have no right to debate this with. I just asked you. But I would like to ask also, this whole period from the 29th of March until the 4th of August, 1994, did the European mission have any information that would say or show that the position of Yugoslavia was not what it says here? ^{23193 BLANK PAGE 23194}

A. Well, first, I can't speak to what information the European Union mission might have. The United States is not a member of the European Union and, therefore, of its mission. But I would -- I mean, I would think that the statement contained in here is true and remained true, namely that the Yugoslav leadership wanted the Krajina government to sign and I suppose honour the cease-fire agreement. Again, that has nothing to do with -- or very little to do with the big issue which was to have a political settlement within Croatia.

Q. Thank you. I should now like to ask you to look at another document I have, a special report of the European Union regarding the positions taken at the Geneva negotiations in -- on the 3rd of August, 1995. I have a copy for you, and I have copies for Their Honours as well. This is what it says in the summary at the very beginning: "After talks in Belgrade with the ambassador of the United States in Croatia on the 2nd of August, 1995, the new Prime Minister of the Republic of Srpska Krajina, Dr. Babic, sent a Krajina delegation to talks in Geneva on the 3rd of August, 1995, to accept the Z-4 plan as a basis for negotiations with Croatia. And then it goes on to say: "That same day he declared that Serbia's president, Milosevic, supported the idea on negotiations based on the Z-4 plan." And then further on, it also says: "On the 3rd of August, the new prime minister of RSK, Milan Babic, declared that the Serbs were ready to initiate political negotiations with Zagreb on the basis after modified and improved Z-4 plan. He confirmed that on the 2nd of August he met in Belgrade with the US Ambassador in Croatia, Mr. Galbraith, who promised that the United States would try to dissuade ²³¹⁹⁵ Croatia from attacking Krajina."

Are you aware of this report and that the observer mission of the European Union already had information conveyed by Mr. Babic that Milosevic agreed with the Z-4 plan?

A. I am aware of this report.

Q. So the negotiators in Geneva had a clear sign and evidence that Mr. Milosevic supported and accepted the Z-4 plan before the negotiations on a peaceful settlement were due to begin?

A. Well, first, the ECMM was not one of the negotiators in Geneva. Second, Mr. Milosevic did not support these negotiations based on the Z-4 plan or based on the reintegration of the Krajina into Croatia. He made no attempt to -- to support the idea, at least none that was sufficient to be impressive on Tudjman, he made no public statement. I mean I'm not privy to the call that he had with Babic, but from the testimony that I have heard, even that hardly counts as a -- as a -- as any kind of endorsement or any kind of strong endorsement. What was required was for Milosevic to come out and strongly and unequivocally endorse a political settlement within Croatia, and that didn't happen.

Q. If I may complete this part of my examination before the break. Two more points. Surely the most important thing is that the ECMM had this information and that after that, the Serbian delegation and the documents indicates what the agreement looked like, the Serbian delegation signed it and accepted the Z-4 plan. Surely that is the most important thing. Is that correct?

A. Well, what it says here is not that. It says that the Serbian ²³¹⁹⁶ delegation accepted the seven-point plan although they said they wanted to consult with Knin before agreeing officially. They created sufficient ambiguity that some of the international observers doubted that they had accepted it, and it provided a perfect pretext for the Croatians to say that the Serbian side had not fully accepted it. In any event, if I may remind the Court of what President Tudjman said to me. He said, you know -- he did not believe that Babic had sufficient clout actually to deliver, and what was missing clearly was the strong endorsements of Martic and Milosevic.

Q. But, Mr. Galbraith, the Croats did not sign that agreement. Is that in dispute or not?

A. It is -- it is not in dispute. They did not sign the agreement, nor, I think, did the Serbs sign anything either.

Q. Allow me now to read the last part of that report which is important in view of something that His Honour Judge Kwon referred to --

JUDGE MAY: I think we're going to adjourn now. Mr. Tapuskovic, I must ask you to try and speed things up. You've been cross-examining for half an hour. Of course you can have slightly more time, but please try and restrict it.

Mr. Nice, we've got another witness waiting, have we.

MR. NICE: We have a 92 bis witness waiting who will be as long as basically cross-examination time takes because I should be only a few minutes with him and I've got a couple of administrative things to explain before we get there, but that...

JUDGE MAY: We'll adjourn. Twenty minutes. ²³¹⁹⁷

--- Recess taken at 12.18 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.39 p.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I had intended to read the entire text of the conclusions of the Special Rapporteur of the head of the ECMM, but I just wanted to check with you whether you would like these three documents to be admitted into evidence.

JUDGE MAY: We will admit them into evidence with C numbers. Please do not read the entire text, because time is short. But if you want briefly to ask the witness something, you can. Yes, Judge Kwon.

JUDGE KWON: Before that, if the Prosecution could explain us as to the format of this document. This is not the original, and this seems to be Prosecution's documents summarising some other original document.

MR. NICE: They are documents that we have, and you will see at the head of them we have them originally under certain terms. Those terms no longer apply. And as to the particular form, they are redacted to a degree. And they cannot be -- they cannot be changed in format from the present way.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] So in connection with this last document, let me just note that in the conclusion it says that the Special Rapporteur established that on that day, that is the 3rd of August, 1995, at 1930 hours, on the most important news programme, the first item was that the Serbs had rejected a peaceful reintegration into Croatia. Are you aware of this news report that was broadcast that the Serbs had ²³¹⁹⁸ refused peaceful reintegration within Croatia?

A. I don't have the document to which you refer. However, I am aware of that broadcast. And as I recall, it was preceded, maybe an hour or two earlier, by a more positive broadcast about my mission to Belgrade.

Q. Mr. Galbraith, just a couple of more questions in connection with this last issue. It has to do with the plan.

You stated yesterday that on the 1st of August, at Brioni, you spoke to Tudjman about the problem having to do with Babic, that you wanted to meet with Babic as soon as possible. Is that right?

A. That was not a primary purpose of my mission to Brioni, but when I was at Brioni, I indicated that Babic wanted to meet with me and asked for Tudjman's views.

Q. I understand that. But you were add Brioni on the 31st of July, 1995, also; is that right?

A. I was there on the 1st of August.

Q. I just have here in front of me your statement which you gave to the investigators on the 9th and 10th of December, 2002, and it says that on the 31st of July, 1995, you were at Brioni and that you advised them that if they embark upon the operation that they have to protect the civilian population. Is that right or not?

A. I had misrecollected the date, and the correct date was the 1st of August. I apologise for the error.

Q. Thank you. I also thought this was an error. But you were there on the 1st of August. Are you aware of a meeting that President Tudjman had with his generals and even officials on the 31st of July, the day ²³¹⁹⁹ prior to your visit? Were you aware of such a meeting taking place? If you were there on the 1st of August, did you know or not that Tudjman held a meeting with his generals at Brioni on the 31st of July, the day before your visit?

A. Yes. I knew on the 31st of July that such a meeting had taken place.

Q. Do you know that at that meeting Tudjman told the generals present, I don't know whether he passed on this information to you, with regard to the Bihac problem the following: The situation now is such that representatives of the United Nations Akashi and Stoltenberg have taken this reason out of our hands," the reference is to Bihac, "because they're withdrawing their forces from Bihac now. They will not attack. They are allowing the UN CO to take positions there for monitoring, and clearly they have passed on this information to the whole world." Did you know that Tudjman said this, and are you aware of the move taken by Akashi and Stoltenberg to stop the Serbs and that they had agreed to this?

A. I was aware of an UN effort to try to ease the situation around Bihac and to get monitors in place.

Q. Mr. Galbraith, I am quoting what Tudjman said at that meeting held on the 31st of July. These are the minutes of that meeting which I received from the Prosecution, and the date of the meeting was the 31st of July. And in those minutes or that report, you can also find - I don't know whether you were aware of this, maybe you learnt about it later, and I quote: "Therefore, we have no justification to embark upon the ²³²⁰⁰ deblocking of Bihac. We have the inclination of the United States if, gentlemen, you decide to engage in that attack as you did in Slavonia." Do you know that he said that?

A. I do know that, or I know that he said something approximately like that, because I had an opportunity I think the day before yesterday to review those minutes. I did not know he had made such a statement at the time.

Q. And do you know that he completed his statement by saying: "That is the purpose of this discussion today, to inflict such a blow on the Serbs that they should virtually disappear"?

A. Again, I saw those minutes two days ago. I was very much aware that Croatia was planning military action, which is precisely why I was so eager and so determined to try to find a peaceful settlement.

Q. Just one more thing. Do you know that he said that he had instructed Sarinic to go to the negotiations in Geneva but that should just be a smoke screen and that the acceptance of any kind of peace plan was absolutely out of the question?

A. I was not aware of any such statement at the time. Again, I have reviewed those minutes, and I think before I accepted everything that you said, I would want to look at them in their entirety.

JUDGE MAY: Is this the last document? Yes.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] My last question. This is the last document, Your Honour, Judge May. I really see no reason why we have this reaction. I really think this is a serious problem. I really think that you need to know this. Just interrupt me and I'll sit down if that ²³²⁰¹ is what you wish.

JUDGE MAY: If you get on with it, Mr. Tapuskovic, if you will.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] My last question. I am doing my very best to make my questions very brief and Mr. Galbraith is entitled to speak at length at his will.

Q. My last question is: Do you know that Boutros-Ghali on the 3rd of August called up President Tudjman and appealed to him not to engage in that attack. Are you aware of that? There is evidence of that but I'm asking you whether you knew about it. He was the Secretary-General of the UN at the time.

A. I don't now recall that he made such -- I do not now recall whether I was aware of such a call at the time.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Galbraith.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

JUDGE MAY: So far we have three documents. We'll exhibit them. If there's another one, we'll consider that.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I am giving you this document, the document in question. These are minutes from the meeting between Franjo Tudjman and his Supreme Commanders, and I'm handing it in. Thank you. The 31st of July, 1995.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, the special report from the observer mission from the European Union dated the 31st of January, 1995, is Chamber Exhibit 8. The daily report dated 29th of March 1994 is Chamber Exhibit 9. The special report of the head of the observer mission of the European Union dated the 3rd August 1995 is Chamber Exhibit 10, and the ²³²⁰² minutes I was just handed is Chamber Exhibit 11. Re-examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Two points arising from documents. I think in the minutes there's a reference to Bihac not being a pretext for war because of the Livno operation. Can you comment on that very briefly?

A. Yes. The Croatians had undertaken a military operation going up the Livno Valley which had the effect of relieving some of the pressure on Bihac because the Bosnian Serb army had to redeploy forces to meet the threat that was coming from being posed by the Croatian army coming up the Livno Valley.

Q. In court Exhibit 9, the ECMM document of the 29th of March, there is one passage of all of the material put to you that is in contrast to your account where it suggests that the main obstacle to the agreement was the fact that the president of the RSK, Martic, backed by Milosevic and absolutely devoted to him, didn't have the majority of parliament, whereas what is described as hard-line Serbs led by Babic are opposing the idea. Can you give any explanation for why that report by the ECMM it's towards the bottom of the first page, is in contrast to your evidence and recollection?

A. It's not, I think, in contrast to my evidence or recollection. I said yesterday that in 1994, when this took place, that Babic was using these negotiations as a political club against Martic, but -- and as you know, I did not meet with Babic in 1994, but -- because he refused to meet with me. But in 1995, as the situation became more serious, war more imminent, it was my impression that he was much more open and more ²³²⁰³ flexible to a political settlement. In other words, when the time came critical and the survival of the RSK or the Krajina Serbs was at stake, he recognised the reality and seemed prepared to make the kind of concessions that could possibly have averted a war.

Q. His Honour Judge Kwon raised the issue of contemporaneous newspaper reporting at the time of Storm. Do you know anything about contemporaneous newspaper reporting? Are you aware one way or the other of whether Belgrade reporting would have objectives to serve other than the mere dissemination of news?

A. There was not what could remotely be described as a free press in Belgrade at that time. So I -- the Belgrade press would have reflected what the Serbian government and what the defendant wanted it to say. When I refer to "newspaper reporting," I was referring to items that might have been appearing in the international press and, for that matter, in the Croatian press. I realise there were sanctions, but I am a hundred per cent confident that what was in the major newspapers of the world would actually have been picked up by officials in Serbia, by their intelligence agencies, and so forth.

And if I might add, there was a Yugoslav representative in Zagreb at this time, and if he failed to pick up the signals about what was happening, then he would be one of the most incompetent diplomats on the face of the earth.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, it may be that not only Belgrade but Croatian or, indeed, even Knin newspapers are what we'll have to turn to guidance on this. ^{23204 BLANK PAGE 23205}

Q. But on your last answer about intelligence the accused suggested really that he was ignorant of the impending attack. As far as you understood, did Belgrade have an intelligence capability that would have penetrated Croatia?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. Substantial? Or don't you know?

A. I don't know how substantial it would have been, but I know that they had a capability that was able to penetrate in Zagreb as the Croatians indeed had a capability of penetrating in Serbia. What I know the Court must be aware of is that after all this was all one country. These people all knew each other. There were lots of links, and whatever the level of penetration that the Serb intelligence agency had, again I'm confident that it would be sufficient to determine that there was a strong likelihood of military action.

Q. I think about three more questions. The first is this: We've seen in one of the documents some reference to Serbs leaving ahead of Operation Storm. Were you aware of that? If so, what significance do you attach to it?

A. I am aware of that, and it is clear that at least some part of the Serbian population left on the orders of the leaders and not in response to the military action. It also, of course, suggests an awareness of the imminence of military action.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I think I can actually abandon my last two questions and leave it at that. Thank you very much.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May. ²³²⁰⁶

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Now, you're not going to be able to ask any more questions. You know that. So what is the point?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I know that I will not be able to put any more questions, although I would have a great many to put, but the time will come for that.

For the transcript, I just want to have a correction made. Something that was said and that is really not fair in terms of Martic's behaviour, and I understood the witness to say something different yesterday than what -- than the way it was interpreted during Mr. Tapuskovic's questioning.

I just want to repeat this. Martic did not say that he would not look at the plan of Z-4. He said that he would not consider the plan until the problem of the UNPROFOR mandate is resolved. I think that that would be a comprehensive explanation. Not only the first part of the sentence. Is that right, Mr. Galbraith?

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Thank you. We can look at the transcript to see that.

Ambassador, you've concluded your evidence. Thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give it. You are free to go.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honours.

[The witness withdrew]

MR. NICE: For the next witness who is a 92 bis witness --

JUDGE MAY: Let me deal with this, if I may interrupt.

MR. NICE: I'm so sorry.

JUDGE MAY: We should since he is a 92 bis witness giving our ²³²⁰⁷ ruling you asked us to give on timing, and the ruling we give is this: In relation to the Rule 92 bis witnesses, that is, witnesses whose statements are admitted under that Rule but who are tendered for cross-examination, the time allowed for cross-examination will normally be one hour. We have that in mind from our previous experience. When we started with one hour, we reduced it to three-quarters of an hour, but in the interests of allowing the accused further time, we will do so. It may be in the interests of justice to allow him slightly longer. So we will allow him one hour. But of course, circumstances may alter with the various witnesses and that ruling cannot be an absolute one.

MR. NICE: Grateful. Your Honour will know that we've provided a new list. I hope you have had an opportunity to see it because it will be coming in revised forms periodically.

JUDGE MAY: I've seen it. I was not pleased to see that it seemed to be rather longer. I may be wrong, in comparison to the other list that we had.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I hope will be pleased with its format. What I've done, intentionally, is to freeze the overall length of the list at what it was when we first started using it because familiar documents are more easy to handle if they remain familiar. It comes in four parts, and if one starts at the -- you may not have the document with you. No, it doesn't matter. The last two parts of the 92 bis listings, they, in each case, presuppose one hour total for a witness so that will have to be slightly extended but I hope by not very much on average. ²³²⁰⁸ Part 2 is the list of witnesses who we won't be calling but will identify for you to know what's available in our category of witnesses we would like to call or you may find of interest to know what's available. At the end of the first part of the list and I'm very grateful to the team, particularly Ms. Wee and Ms. Dicklich who have done a great deal of work to get this in a most usable form. At the end of the first part of that list, 17, page 17 of 17, is an arithmetical compilation of the various component parts and it reveals how much we had to cut in order to finish on the time, because if we're the going to apply for any more time. And that is a lower figure than I feared at one stage. Now we've been able to put better estimates in. It's down to 38 days that we have to cut from the witnesses we would otherwise wish to call under lists 1, 3, and 4. And the reason the list is a bit longer is we're providing more detail at all times we hope to help you but we are shading out witnesses as they are called or otherwise rejected as no longer witnesses we wish to call, so that you can see as it were how well we've done so far, or how well the Court has done generally so far in getting through the evidence from what there is left, which is the ordinary black and white type. So I hope it's a very useful document, and it will come again probably in a month or thereabouts.

We'll also provide a further fill-box document of the kind that you've been provided with periodically and you're due for an update before the summer recess for the Bosnia section which is an easy tool or a tool useful for showing what's outstanding to be proved and what has already be ²³²⁰⁹ proved.

I mentioned at an earlier stage that we might be converting these materials to a different computer system. I said I would discuss it with your staff in the event we didn't get round to having a joint meeting and I've made the decision independently of them. But although the new system will enable all of us, I hope, in due course to retrieve information, if we wish to, on a computer basis more readily. The system will also enables us to provide for you documents that are in the same format as you've had before in hard copy so that the familiarity of documents will continue.

I think that's probably all I need to say.

JUDGE KWON: Whatever the new system will be I believe that the Prosecution is working on the index of Exhibit which I mentioned earlier.

MR. NICE: Yes. That's very nearly ready. I think these documents actually all take a lot of time, and having got this one done and this one will now be much more easy to amend month by month so that we can get down to the final position, the exhibit list is on its way.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: That list should include, Mr. Nice, it seems to me, numbers for --

THE INTERPRETER: Your microphone, please.

JUDGE MAY: I'm sorry, the microphone. The list should include numbers for each exhibit. The reason being this: That at the moment, since we're using tabs, it's quite impossible to keep count the number of exhibits. I think for historical and other reasons we should have a ²³²¹⁰ number. Not the Court number, of course but merely the file number or whatever you call it in your document.

So you start at 1, and then when you get to Exhibit 352 with 76 tabs, each one is a separate number.

MR. NICE: Right. Well, we'll look into that. If the interest is in having a total number of exhibits --

JUDGE MAY: Yes, it is.

MR. NICE: -- that can certainly be achieved as a comparatively small exercise. Whether we can do it as a running list on the same document, I don't know if we can.

JUDGE MAY: If you can, whatever, we need to know precisely how many exhibits you've submitted and you should know too.

MR. NICE: Certainly, and my final observation on this list which I wanted to make is I've frozen the form of the list with numbers for witnesses on the second column. Your Honour is right to say that to some extent it's extended because where we've added names they've rather than change the numbers which makes it so confusing to refer to witnesses, they've gone in as A, B, C, and D numbers, but it's possible to see how many prospective witness there are left on the list quite easily, and in any event, because we need to reduce by 38 days the time that the witness will take, they're all not going to be called. That's quite obvious. And we'll carry on in the process of indicating by comment which ones are falling to the bottom of the list and which ones are witnesses we really must call.

The next witness is a crime base witness. The general format for ²³²¹¹ calling these witnesses under 92 bis as Your Honour will recall is that the witness, in this case it's a fully-open witness, has a 92 bis package which has been prepared. There may, as there will be in this witness's case, be a couple of additional exhibits, a map and a list of people killed. There will be a summary that I will read out which will be very brief, a minute or so. Some witnesses may at our application and if so granted add a couple of sentences before they are subject to cross-examination.

This witness is Suad Dzafic.

[The witness entered court]

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

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

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

WITNESS: SUAD DZAFIC

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

Q. Full name, please?

A. Suad Dzafic.

Q. Mr. Dzafic, did you, here in the ICTY over recent days, go through your witness statement in the presence of an officer of the court, attest to its accuracy subject to corrections which were noted, and sign the documentation showing that you had attested your statement?

A. Yes.

MR. NICE: May that be given an exhibit number ²³²¹²

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 472.

Q. Mr. Dzafic, did you also mark a map which makes for ease of understanding your evidence --

A. Yes.

Q. This will become Exhibit 366 -- 336, Suad Dzafic, and on that map, Mr. Dzafic, apart from villages that are highlighted is your village, your home village marked with a D or DJ?

A. Yes.

Q. Finally, may this have a separate exhibit number. Is there a list prepared by you of those killed on the 21st of May of 1992 near Nova Kasaba in Vlasenica municipality?

A. Yes.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, the list is Prosecution Exhibit 473.

MR. NICE: That's 21 names, and I think they're either most or all family connected to this witness most certainly. Your Honour, the summary of this witness's evidence is as follows: That he is from Vitkovici or from near Vitkovici in the Bratunac municipality. He returned from Serbia to his home village in that municipality in March 1992.

He's able to give an account of the fate of himself and his fellow villagers, as his statement reveals, including by hearsay of the takeover of Bratunac town and other villages in the municipality in April and May of 1992.

Krasno Polje, a neighbouring village, was attacked on the 10th of May, 1992, and on that day Serb neighbours of the witness came and told ²³²¹³ him and his fellow villagers that they would be safer if they fled to the woods, which they did, returning the same night. From that day and until the 18th of May, Serb police patrolled the village, but on the 17th of May the police chief came and asked them to hand in any weapons that they owned.

On the morning of the following day, the 18th of May, Serb neighbours, now armed, surrounded the village. This witness with fellow villagers were put onto buses, transferred to Bratunac, and at about 3.00 on the afternoon, the buses left Bratunac and went to Vlasenica. Each bus had an armed guard on board.

At Vlasenica they parked through the bus station, being surrounded by a mixed group of soldiers. The witness identifying some of the guards as being Arkan's Tigers and others as Beli Orlovi. The men of military age and five younger males were taken to the Vlasenica SUP where they were detained until the 21st of May, during which time they were beaten and maltreated.

On that day the 21st of May, the men of military age were taken out of the SUP and put on a bus accompanied by an armoured vehicle which had been parked near the bus and which joined the bus on convoy along with four other cars, one of those cars having a skull on its door. Those vehicles left in the direction of Bratunac, stopping at a cafe for about 30 minutes, but then continuing towards Bratunac where the convoy stopped. The men were ordered off the bus being shot in batches as they left the bus.

The witness was shot but survived, ultimately being able to flee ^{23214 BLANK PAGE 23215} the execution site and reach Muslim territory.

From the possible additions and clarifications noted for you on a separate sheet of paper, a separate filing, paragraph 10.

Q. Mr. Dzafic, as you entered the place where you were held in Vlasenica, how many people in your estimation remained on the buses?

A. About 120.

Q. Later you heard from your wife, I think, that she and your children had been driven to Tisca between Kladanj and Vlasenica from where they'd been allowed to walk to Muslim territory; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Paragraph 12. Of the soldiers guarding you as you boarded the buses on the 21st of May, did you see or on those soldiers many types of uniform?

A. Yes.

Q. Did one of them have a sign saying "Beli Orlovi" and a skill?

A. No. No. It was on the automobile, on the car.

Q. Very well. That --

A. Please. I mean, I didn't really quite understand your question.

Q. I was going to ask you that in any event. The car that accompanied you to the execution site, did that have a marking on the side of it?

A. Not one, several, several signs. Beli Orlovi and also skulls. And it was a white Lada Niva make of car.

Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Dzafic. You'll be asked some further questions. ²³²¹⁶

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

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Dzafic, as far as I can see, from 1989 until 1992, you lived in Serbia; is that right?

A. Yes. I was temporarily employed there.

Q. In your statement, on page 1, in paragraph 4 you say that in March 1992, you heard that the Bosnian Serbs had killed some Muslims at Bascarsija in Sarajevo.

A. Yes. This was in the first statement. And, well, now I am sure -- I mean, I'm not sure who killed who now, but this killing did take place in Bascarsija.

Q. Did some Serbs kill some Muslims in Bascarsija?

A. Well, that I don't know, who killed who. I just heard that a killing had taken place.

Q. All right, Mr. Dzafic, but what you heard was the motive that led you to return to your village; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you planning to return briefly then or did you plan to stay there?

A. I planned to return quite simply to see what was going on and to hear what was going on.

Q. So what did you hear then? Did you hear a confirmation of this that you stated or did you hear that it was not correct?

A. I heard that a killing had taken place.

Q. Killing of who? ²³²¹⁷

A. A killing happened because there was some kind of a wedding party, and I don't know who killed who.

Q. You don't know that it was members of a Serb wedding party that were killed?

A. I don't know.

Q. All right. Let's skip some things then, and let's have a look at something else. In paragraph 5, you say that after the Serb forces entered Bratunac, all Muslims were dismissed from their workplaces and that all key positions were taken over by the Serbs, that the former MUP was completely cleansed of Muslims.

A. Yes.

Q. Is that what you stated?

A. Yes.

Q. And what happened before that? Did something important happen before that?

A. In which period?

Q. Until then. You say that the Serb forces entered Bratunac. So before that.

A. Are you referring to the period before the taking of Bratunac or during the taking of Bratunac?

Q. I'm going to be more precise with my question. Do you know what happened to workers of Serb ethnicity and the Serb population in general before the conflict broke out in Bratunac?

A. No.

Q. All right. Do you know at least that in 1992 all important ²³²¹⁸ positions in Bratunac were held by Muslims, as a matter of fact; is that right?

A. I'm not aware of that.

Q. Well, there's this annex number 2, this list of municipal officials?

A. Whose officials?

Q. Municipality officials.

A. Which ethnicity?

Q. Muslim ethnicity.

A. I gave a list?

Q. I saw it somewhere.

A. I certainly didn't give a list.

Q. You don't have this information?

A. No, I don't, that's for sure.

Q. Do you know that in the Territorial Defence, that very same year, all command positions from company level up to Chief of Staff were held by Muslims?

A. No.

Q. Do you know anything the fact that the entire military, economic, and political authority was exercised by Muslims?

A. No.

Q. Do you know that the then-authorities in Bratunac adopted specific plans on the blockade of Serb villages and the nearby roads?

A. No.

Q. Do you know that all committees of the Party of Democratic Action ²³²¹⁹ in local communes already had illegal Crisis Staffs established and attached to them when you came?

A. No.

Q. Their only duty was to prepare armed activities?

A. No.

Q. You don't know anything about this?

A. I don't know anything about this.

Q. Do you know that before that the Patriotic League was formed in Vlasenica?

A. No.

Q. You don't know about that either?

A. I don't know about that either.

Q. And do you know anything about the organisation of military training of Muslims in the territory of the municipality of Bratunac?

A. No.

Q. All right. Do you know anything about the accelerated arming of Muslim extremists in Bratunac?

A. No, and I don't believe that any such thing existed, as far as I know.

Q. All right. Do you know who Nezir Muratovic is and Senad Hodzic who was deputy commander of the public security station in Bratunac?

A. I heard of Senad, but I cannot remember that I know him personally, but I have heard the name and surname.

Q. Did you hear anything about his activities in terms of obtaining and distributing weapons and carrying out nighttime training in weapons ²³²²⁰ use for Muslim extremists in Bratunac?

A. No.

Q. Have you heard of Nurif Rizvanovic?

A. I have.

Q. Do you remember his statement at a particular gathering of locals in Bratunac? And I'm quoting his statement now, that Serb children should be slaughtered if Serbia cannot do anything.

A. No.

Q. And do you know who the local hodza there is, Munib Efendi Ahmetovic from Vlasenica? Have you heard of him?

A. No.

Q. Are you heard of Osman Halilovic?

A. The name rings a bell. I'm not sure.

Q. You're not sure. Have you heard of Ramic, the man who was in charge of arming in Bratunac?

A. I have heard of Ramic.

Q. Do you know anything about him?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Did you have an opportunity to see the programme of the Crisis Staff of the SDA in Bratunac? And among other things, it referred to an elaboration of a blockade of roads and also a list was supposed to be made of Muslim traitors, those who did not want to fight the Serbs, those who were supposed to be liquidated before all of this started and to make a list of those who were capable of combat, also to make lists of weapons.

A. No. ²³²²¹

Q. You don't know anything about this?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Well, the Crisis Staff of your village, did one exist? Did you know anything about its activities?

A. No, I don't. I don't know whether this existed at all and whether there was any kind of roster.

Q. All right. Since you don't know whether it existed, then I'm not going to ask you about it.

You say on page 1 of your statement, in line 6 and 7, that the Serbs started taking away the most prominent Muslims from town, and you heard that part of these people were executed and thrown into the Drina. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Who were these people who were taken from town? Can you give me any names?

A. I think Suljic, but is it a nickname?

Q. This man was taken from town?

A. Yes.

Q. Who did you hear this from?

A. I heard this, but I didn't see it, and I can't remember who I heard it from.

Q. Who took them? Who took this Suco?

A. I heard it was the members of the army, of the Serb army.

Q. And this man was killed; is that right?

A. Yes. ²³²²²

Q. That's what you heard over there too?

A. That's what I heard.

Q. You didn't hear about anybody else? Except for this Suco?

A. I heard about another one who worked as a salesperson. I can't remember now. I knew his name and surname before.

Q. But you heard that he had also been taken away and killed; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you can't remember who you heard this from either?

A. No, I can't.

Q. On page 3, paragraph 1 of your statement, you say that the village of Glogova was attacked on the 9th of May and that 60 inhabitants of this village were killed, while Krasno Polje was attacked on the 10th of May. That's what you assert?

A. Yes.

Q. Were there any casualties in the village of Krasno Polje?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Did you know anything about fighting in the village of Glogova and the village of Krasno Polje?

A. No.

Q. They were near your village, were they?

A. I don't know what kind of fighting was going on.

Q. All right. But I assume that you'd have to know because Glogova is right next to you, also Krasno Polje, and that this was one of the major strongholds of the Muslim extremists. ²³²²³

A. Muslim extremists? To hear this from you for the first time?

Q. So there weren't any armed formations there and there wasn't any fighting?

A. No. I'm saying that people who were killed were civilians.

Q. Do you mean to say that they were Muslim civilians? Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you know anything about the killing of Serb civilians?

A. No. And I don't know that anybody was killed in Krasno Polje.

Q. And what about the municipality of Bratunac? Do you know anything about the killing of Serb civilians there?

A. I don't know, and I don't believe that happened.

Q. Well, nobody believes that, not even Mrs. Florence Hartmann, because she said --

JUDGE MAY: It doesn't matter what Florence Hartmann said. It's not a matter for the witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But it is for the witness that he does not believe that any Serb civilians were killed in the Bratunac municipality. And it is highly relevant, Mr. May, because the opposite side is not accusing Muslim commanders for the killing of civilians because they say that the killing of civilians was never established. So as the witness is now claiming that something like that could not have happened, I have here a document about the Serb victims in Bratunac, and there are a large number of them. I'm not going to read it out. You needn't worry. What did you say? ^{23224 BLANK PAGE 23225}

JUDGE MAY: No. At what date are you talking about?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm talking about 1991 onwards. The Serb victims in Bratunac. But I'm not going to read it all out, so you needn't worry on that score. All I want to do is to read out several names from those lists to try to jog the witness's memory, because he says that none of that ever happened, that Serb civilians were not victims. So, for example -- I'll be very quick about this.

Q. Radojka Vucetic, born in 1946. She was a housewife. I don't suppose you can question the fact that she was civilian. Then there was Cedo Milutinovic, he was born in 1975 and was a student. Next we have Radojka Jovanovic, a woman, a student, born in 1974. Kosana Zekic, a housewife. Her throat was slit. Otherwise she was born in 1928. So she was an elderly woman.

And all this took place in the Bratunac municipality. Stojka Stjepanovic, another housewife, born in 1922. Stanija Vasic, a woman, born in 1930, a housewife. She was born in 1930. Then we have Vujadin Cirkovic, born in 1974, a student. Then we have Dusanka Paunovic, born in 1954, a retiree. The next one is Mileva Dimitric, a housewife. Rada Milosevic, a housewife. She was massacred and lynched. Ilinka Rankovic, also a housewife. Slavka Mladjenovic, housewife. Miloslav Stjepanovic, born in 1919, a pensioner.

JUDGE MAY: What are you asking the witness to do?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'm asking the witness who said that he does not believe that any Serb civilians were killed in Bratunac, and as I have selected these names from this vast list of killed ²³²²⁶ Serbs whose throats were slit, burnt to death, and so on, mostly women, housewives, children, pensioners, students, and pupils, I'm asking him to tell me whether he knows anything about that. Another one, Kristina Eric, a housewife, burnt to death. A pensioner born in 1920, Risto Popovic. His throat was slit.

JUDGE MAY: No. You're not giving evidence yourself. You're cross-examining this witness. The witness can simply be asked if he knows any of these names.

It's alleged that these people were killed. Mr. Dzafic, can you help as to that? Do you know anything about any of these allegations?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

JUDGE MAY: So there's no point reading out any more names. Let's get on with something else.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May. I understand that as far as you're concerned there's no point to that, so let me move on. And that's the position taken by the opposite side over there too, that the Muslims are not responsible for the killings of civilians.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now do you know who Ejub Ganic is?

A. Ejub Golic, you mean.

Q. Yes, Golic.

A. I've heard of him, yes.

Q. Was he the commander of the infamous Mountain Brigade of the 28th division of the BH army?

A. Yes. Now whether it was infamous or not I don't know, but he was ²³²²⁷ the commander.

Q. They were people from the village of Glogova who made up the Mountain Battalion. Now do you know that they set fire to all the Serb villages and killed hundreds of civilians in Kravica, in Mijesici [phoen], Jelestica, Kijevci, Siljkovici, all those villages Bacici, Bjelovac, Fakovici, et cetera?

JUDGE MAY: No. The witness -- the witness -- let the witness answer instead of putting all these allegations to him. Yes, Mr. Dzafic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please. Could you ask questions that relate to my case, what I experienced? As to these other cases, I know nothing about them.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Let me ask about your case. Is it true that in your village the Serbs guaranteed the safety and security of one and all if they is your surrendered their weapons?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. On page 3, paragraph 5 of your statement, you say that four persons from your village on the 17th of May were taken into custody and taken to the police station.

MR. NICE: The witness has not yet asked for a copy of his witness statement but it might be thought prudent -- appropriate for him to have it. And the accused might like to bear in mind for all 92 bis witnesses that paragraphs have been specifically numbered for ease of reference so that if the witness wants to have the statement before him, he can, and ²³²²⁸ the accused should refer to paragraph numbers as well as page numbers because that will enable the witness to go directly to the appropriate paragraph.

JUDGE MAY: Are the B/C/S versions numbered to?

MR. NICE: I hope so. If they weren't, they should be. I think so. Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness have a copy of the statement. Yes, he's got a copy. Yes, you hear that, Mr. Milosevic, I would echo that. Refer to paragraph numbers. You should have a copies with the numbers beside you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I assume I was very precise and said page 3, paragraph 5 of the statement and the witness confirmed this. He confirmed what he said in his statement, that four persons from his village on the 17th of May, were taken to the police station in Bratunac and held in custody there. I asked him that, and his answer was yes.

JUDGE MAY: The point that's being made is that we now have statements which have numbers against each paragraph. It may be that you are working from an earlier edition which doesn't have the numbers on it. It would therefore be convenient, when you cross-examine witnesses, if you would check to see what the number of the paragraph is. It's much easier to follow a paragraph number than a page and then have to work down. So if you would bear that in mind when you're preparing your cross-examination. Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am bearing this in mind, and it ²³²²⁹ would be much easier for me too if it were so, but I have been given a witness statement without numbered paragraphs from start to finish, and I got the numbered statement and version a moment ago. So I can't now refer and introduce my notes into this latest copy when I have marked the copy I was given first of all. And I have them very precisely noted. So I can't look for them now in this second version of the statement where the paragraphs are numbered from 1 to I don't know how many numbers from start to finish.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. If you feel you can't assist in that way it will take more time while we all have to find the number, but we will go on in that way. Yes. Let's move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, you could ask them to supply me with copies that have been marked in the numbers that you insist they should have. It would be much easier for me that way too. But as I say, I just received a copy with the numbering in that way just now -- or, rather, before I started my cross-examination of this witness.

Q. But as we were saying, four people were taken into custody and to the police station on the 17th of May, Mr. Dzafic; is that right?

A. Yes.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is paragraph 15 in the numbered version.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And how many inhabitants does your village have in total?

A. My village numbers 12 houses. As to inhabitants, I can't really say. Twelve households. ²³²³⁰ Now, if you would like me to, I could count through all the members of the households and give you their names and surnames.

Q. Does that make about a hundred inhabitants would you say?

A. Roughly.

Q. Why did the police look for these four?

A. Well, it didn't look for those four alone. It said, "Here you go. Somebody should come to the police station." My father came forward, as did my brother and another cousin. Both cousins. They were neighbours and cousins. They came forward.

Q. I don't understand this, Mr. Dzafic. I'm not setting a trap for you through my questions. All I'm saying is I don't know why they asked for four people if they didn't ask for four people specifically. Why did they ask for four inhabitants to step forward?

A. Do you mean did they ask for by name or did they ask for any four persons?

Q. Well, you said they took four people into custody. Why did they take four people into custody?

A. You mean the number or the people concerned?

Q. I mean why those four. Why were they looking for them at all?

A. Well, I don't think I really understand your question.

Q. I'm asking you, do you know the reason why these four persons were taken into custody and taken to the police station?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Well, what was the reason?

A. The reason was because the commander of the sector, Vidoje, he was ²³²³¹ a policeman, he brought a list with him. And looking at the list, there was the deployment of people in the village. That is to say that those persons were issued weapons.

Q. I see. So they had been issued weapons according to that list from the previous Territorial Defence; is that right?

A. Yes. It appeared that they had been issued weapons.

Q. I see. So how many weapons were there in your village, pieces of weapons, how many?

A. I do know that.

Q. Well, tell me how many then?

A. Well, do you want me to state the names?

Q. You don't have to state the names.

A. Well, I do, because that makes it easier for me to see how many weapons there were.

Q. Well, go ahead. Do what you feel is easiest for you.

A. My father had a pistol. He had a permit to carry, a license to carry the weapon. My cousin had a pistol and a rifle. It was a hunting rifle. And he also had a pistol. Once again he had licenses for those weapons. My other cousin also had a hunting rifle and a pistol. And the third cousin did as well. He also had a hunting rifle. He was a neighbour. But he had had the hunting rifle for a long time and so did the others.

Q. Am I understanding you correctly? Does that mean that, to all intents and purposes, that they were disarmed through the use of force, that they were forcibly disarmed? ²³²³²

A. Ah no. They handed over their weapons of their own free will following orders, orders from the police station of Bratunac. And the order was that all weapons should be surrendered, and they went of their own free will to the police station to hand over their weapons, and they were given receipts.

Q. Well, is that what you mean? Was that when they were taken to the police station? Was that the case?

A. No. That happened beforehand. When they were taken away and taken off to the police station, they didn't have anything in their possession.

Q. Well, why did they take them there then?

A. Well, I don't know. They were on this list, and they didn't believe that these people didn't have any weapons on them and they were given an ultimatum of three to five hours to hand in their weapons. If they failed to do so, then the village was not guaranteed safety any longer.

JUDGE MAY: We have come to the time to adjourn. Mr. Dzafic, we are going to adjourn now. We must ask you to come back at 9.00 tomorrow morning to finish your evidence. Would you remember --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

JUDGE MAY: Would you remember not to speak to anybody, including the Prosecution, until you've finished your evidence. Yes.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I know there will be timetable problems ²³²³³ with the next witness arising from the fact that we've overrun with the last couple of witnesses. There are two witnesses currently scheduled for tomorrow. I can't say at the moment whether there will be any application to change the present order so that it's the reverse way round. It might be possible.

JUDGE MAY: I would regard that with some seriousness. Some consideration must be given to others involved in this trial. Now, that witness has been prepared for a long time. I don't see why he shouldn't be here tomorrow.

MR. NICE: His trouble is his return date and I just -- I've received a message. I don't know what the consequence of it is, and I don't know if there is any chance of any more court time available for tomorrow, but I'm just alerting the Chamber to the fact that there's a problem looming about the amount of time. I'll go and deal with it as soon as I can.

JUDGE MAY: If you would, because I don't understand what problem there can be knowing the circumstances of the witness. He should be made available. Maybe you will get some information.

MR. NICE: Yes. I think you're thinking of another witness. Yes. The witness Your Honour had in mind is unavoidably available as it were.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. It's the witness after that. Very well.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I know the order of witnesses after this witness if it's being changed in relation to the list I ^{23234 BLANK PAGE 23235} received earlier on?

JUDGE MAY: It is precisely that that we have expressed concern about and indicated our views. We will hear more tomorrow.

MR. NICE: But order is as is at present but if we have to make any application to change, we'll let everybody know.

JUDGE MAY: It should be stabilised. Very well. Tomorrow morning at 9.00, please.

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