²⁷¹⁹⁰

Wednesday, 8 October 2003

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: The Prosecution application, Your Honour, is that the next two witnesses may give their evidence in chief substantially by way of acknowledging in testimony the accuracy of signed, written witness statements.

The written application in respect of these two witnesses was confidential because one of them was protected by pseudonym until the moment he gives evidence. It's now clear, the accused being here and the witness being about to come in, that his name will be revealed. So these two witnesses are, respectively, Milan Milanovic first, and General Sir Rupert Smith second. The first witness to be taken by my learned friend Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff and the second witness by me, that witness, the second witness being available tomorrow and really not present beyond tomorrow.

JUDGE MAY: Let me just stop you there. Our preparation has extended to the first of those witnesses. We have not yet had a chance to consider the second.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, no. A draft-- I'll come to that. A draft summary will be provided immediately or before the end of the morning session.

As the application was confidential, three sentences to explain the value of the proposal which follows a decision of the Appeals Chamber ²⁷¹⁹¹ of the 30th of September, which ruled that such a procedure may be acceptable subject to the Trial Chamber's determination of the interests of justice.

First, such a procedure reflects the ability of professional Judges to deal with, to consume written material and is in accordance with modern practice in various jurisdictions where trials are dealt with by professional Judges.

Second, it would enable a great deal more of the evidence the Prosecution wishes to lead to be presented within the necessarily limited time available to it.

Third, something that the accused might regard as of great value to himself, it brings the accused, by his cross-examination, much more rapidly to the process of identifying matters that are in issue between the accused and the Prosecution.

In any case, this or any other case before the Tribunal, it will give focus for the accused and his case to a much greater extent during the Prosecution case, and indeed he will have the floor, as it were in the vernacular, have air time for a far larger percentage of the time than would otherwise be the case in identifying issues for the Trial Chamber's consideration, and it may be thought that with an accused who has a good case to advance, he or she would benefit by that focus of attention. So far as the two witnesses are concerned, there are additional problems that I may be able to overcome for future witnesses. In each case, the witnesses have made witness statements which are to be supplemented in part, in reality substituted by witness summaries of the ²⁷¹⁹² type with which we are familiar. However, in the time available -- the decision to attempt to call the evidence following the 30th of September decision, in the time available for different reasons it hasn't been possible for those witness summaries to be translated into B/C/S. We recognise, of course, that the accused does in fact speak English, but the case has proceeded on the basis thus far that documents must be presented to him on the basis that the language is his language of -- his first language, and I don't at the moment seek to get round that unless the Chamber takes a different view.

And for these two witnesses, the proofing summaries are in English. In each case, they identify paragraph by paragraph what is already covered in the witness statement that the witness has signed and will adopt, and for these witnesses, I would ask that the Chamber allow only those matters not covered -- I beg your pardon. To allow all matters to be dealt with by way of the signed witness statement save where they are revealed as additional or explanatory in the summary. For future witnesses, and I have yet to be sure of this, it may be possible for witness summaries to be prepared simultaneously in B/C/S and English so that those witness summaries, whether they cover all the evidence a witness is to give or act as supplements to existing witness statements, may be available immediately the proofing session of a witness is concluded in B/C/S as well as in English. But not for these two witnesses for different reasons, unfortunately.

JUDGE MAY: So let me just see if I understand that. What you're asking us to do is to admit the signed witness statement and also the ²⁷¹⁹³ additional matter in the summary? I'm not sure --

MR. NICE: Sorry. My mistake. For these witnesses to go through the witness summary and to give live evidence of the passages not covered in the witness statement simply because they haven't yet been served on the accused in B/C/S.

JUDGE MAY: Do you want the witness statement admitted?

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: -- there is no basis for the evidence.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. So the additional material would be given live. We'll just deal with these two witnesses now. We can come to any new witnesses in due course.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: And in your observation, you think that the accused has enough time to prepare his defence based on the proof summary, which is -- which should be disclosed how long before?

MR. NICE: We always attempt to disclose proofing summaries at the earliest opportunity, and I think that the one -- I can't remember when the one for Milanovic was disclosed. We disclosed the proofing summary for Sir Rupert Smith in draft, I think, yesterday, and we've got another one for service today. They're always served at the earliest opportunity. They vary in the degree to which they add to material in the witness statements that the accused will have had for a considerable period of time, and as we know, the accused always come to court well-armed with ²⁷¹⁹⁴ questions to ask of these witnesses.

JUDGE KWON: And what's the position of the Prosecution as to the documents or exhibits? So you are dealing -- you are going to deal with it live or you will leave it up to also the witness statements.

MR. NICE: With these two witnesses, I think they will all have to be dealt with live. With subsequent witnesses, it will probably depend whether the exhibits have already been produced through the witness statement to the accused when the witness statement is served on him, because if they have been and if they don't need any further explanation by live evidence or by supplementary comment in a proofing summary, then they can be produced as simply as that by the witness statement. But it will have to be done on a case-by-case basis.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I'm not very clear about the status that you're seeking to have us give to the summary. Prior to this, we have not attached an evidential status to summaries. I mean, summaries, as they have developed in this Chamber, have been but a kind of administrative guide, administrative aid. Now we're going to give an evidential status to a summary, albeit one that is signed by the witness. But it is a summary. It's not a statement.

MR. NICE: For these two witnesses, the position will not change if my proposal is accepted. For subsequent witnesses, although the document may be called a witness summary, once it becomes signed and attested as to its accuracy, it's in reality a supplementary statement and it can be re-titled as such.

JUDGE MAY: It may be convenient if we deal with these two now ²⁷¹⁹⁵ without -- which means we don't have to consider the summary.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: It will go on being, as Judge Robinson says, an administrative tool to assist us and others, but it has no evidential value. We will have to consider in future cases whether it should be admissible or not, but it is a separate issue.

MR. NICE: And it may then be appropriate to rename it supplementary statement to mark a change in practice.

JUDGE MAY: Just one thing so we can be thinking about it, we're not going to rule on it, will you be seeking in those cases to admit the statement too?

MR. NICE: That would all depend. For example, if you had a really massive, a large statement only part of which was relevant to this trial, and if we then had a supplementary statement or summary which was much more focused, it would be an unnecessary burden on you, the accused and the amici to invite you to wade through the long statement if only the shorter statement was required. The longer statement would have been served for the usual purposes on the accused so that it would be available to him, but we would try and tailor our presentation to that which is efficient and making the best use of everybody's limited time.

JUDGE MAY: The other point, and I'm sorry to interrupt, but while we have it in mind, the other point we have to consider is that part dealing with the acts and conduct of the accused and whether it's in the interests of justice that that party, the evidence should be given live or not, but you can deal with that in due course. ²⁷¹⁹⁶

MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes. And our position is that we would start with, as it were, the clean slate. We'd say it's possible for everything to be given in this way subject to the rulings that you make. So far as General Sir Rupert Smith is concerned, he's been very cooperative in dealing with the draft proofing summary by some facts, amendments, but he's only flying in today, so the draft version that will be coming your way in the course of this morning may be subject to further qualifications when he is seen this afternoon.

JUDGE MAY: The ruling, Mr. Kay and Mr. Milosevic can hear what we say. The ruling of the Appeals Chamber which, as I said yesterday, we were bound, that is the decision on the interlocutory appeal of the 30th of September, provides, and I summarise the effect so that it can be heard publicly and also any argument addressed to it, the ruling provides that the rules under Rule 89(F) allow for the admission of a written statement, a witness statement when the witness is available in court for cross-examination and attests that the statement accurately reflects the declaration.

The Trial Chamber must consider the admission of evidence in accordance with this decision. The Trial Chamber must also make a determination of the interests of justice in relation to the witness in the light of the surrounding circumstances and the witness's evidence, that is, whether to allow the evidence to be given in written form. The factors which the Trial Chamber may take into account include the evidence going to the acts and conduct of the accused and the fact that the Trial Chamber is not able to assess the credibility of -- or may ^{27197 BLANK PAGE 27198} not be able to assess the credibility of a particular witness if the evidence is not given in chief, and also that there is a principle of a fair and public hearing.

But that is the ruling, summarised, of the Appeals Chamber by which, as I say, we're bound. We now have to establish a procedure - it may be that of course it will vary from witness to witness - to admit evidence within that decision.

Yes. Mr. Kay, do you want to go first or shall we hear from Mr. Milosevic?

MR. KAY: I'm entirely in the Court's hands on this. I thought you were explaining the order to the accused at that stage.

JUDGE MAY: I was. I was.

MR. KAY: It's just that you mentioned me.

JUDGE MAY: I was.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you've heard the legal position and the fact that we are, for the moment, considering in particular the evidence of Milan Milanovic, and also we will in due course deal with that of General Smith.

Yes. If there's anything you want to say about this, now is your chance.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, it is my position that you should reject this request, and I categorically oppose this procedure, because practically this can be reduced to the abolition of an examination-in-chief. I have seen Mr. Nice's submission, and it says ²⁷¹⁹⁹ "Confidential motion concerning the admission under Rule 89(F)." Rule 89(F), and I have it here, I have your Rules here in front of me, and it says that "The Chamber may receive the evidence of a witness orally or, where the interests of justice allow, in written form." I believe that the interests of justice do not allow the examination-in-chief to be carried out in this way, that is in written form, because it would then appear that Mr. Nice or, rather, his party proceeds from the assumption that they are claiming in advance that the witness will be testifying in the way he did so in his statement. But nobody knows how the witness will testify until he's examined in chief, because after all, we have had a whole host of testimonies by witnesses who in the examination-in-chief denied some of the allegations that they themselves allegedly made in their statements. Therefore, the interests of justice and fairness requires an examination-in-chief to be done. And if we proceed from the fiction that they know in advance how the witness will testify, then why would we have the institution of an examination-in-chief at all?

Furthermore, I assume that it is the elementary right for the evidence and testimony to be presented in my presence and in public, not in Mr. Nice's office after which it is presented here, but rather here in this courtroom in public in the presence of everyone, so that then in the cross-examination, certain elements of that examination may be referred to which is in the interest of justice and fairness. Pursuant to Rule 92 bis, we have had written statements, but Rule 92 bis in the way that you have explained and is elaborated here in the ²⁷²⁰⁰ Rules, implies a certain narrower framework of circumstances to which this witness is testifying, and those 92 bis witnesses have no concrete links with anything that is being -- the accused is being charged with. They refer to general circumstances.

However, this witness apparently speaks about meetings with me, about the role of the JNA, the police, et cetera, a whole series of questions for which an examination-in-chief is absolutely unavoidable. We need to hear him about these matters, and only then is it possible to proceed with the cross-examination. A series of issues are raised. Also, I've seen in this pile of material, please look at these two binders, some intercepts are being produced which the witness needs to confirm, and he should do so here in front of us. He's commenting on conversations between various people. We don't even know if he ever met those people or not. Conversations between third parties, what it is all about, because really, I cannot even imagine that you could accept, with reference to this Rule 89(F), and Mr. Nice himself said in his submission that this could be done when it is in the interests of justice, and this is absolutely against the interests of justice, that is, not to have an examination-in-chief and to just skip through these various documents and no one knows everything they contain because there are pages and pages that an attempt is being made to produce through various witnesses. And I don't need to dwell any further on this. I think that my categorical objection is absolutely reasonable.

I received the summary in English last night, which is signed. And then I really wonder. I ask myself, how can a witness sign a summary ²⁷²⁰¹ in English when he doesn't speak English? Secondly, a summary is written by Mr. Nice and not by the witness. So what does it mean to sign a piece of paper which is not written by the witness himself? It was my understanding, too, that a summary was an aid to facilitate the proceedings.

JUDGE MAY: I think you will find that a great number of the statements are not written by the witnesses themselves. They're taken down by the investigators. But let that pass.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I did find that, and I mentioned a moment ago that you had endless examples of witnesses saying, as one of them said, that he wouldn't have written what is in this statement even if he were drunk, even though the statement was his. So there's no examination-in-chief, then there's no risk for the side opposite, that whatever they write down as alleged testimony of the witness should be considered the truth. So what Mr. Nice says is absolutely contrary to the interests of justice and fairness.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Mr. Kay, is there anything you want to add to that? That summarises the argument, doesn't it?

MR. KAY: Yes. It's worth pointing out that the Appeals Chamber were not saying that as a matter of law every witness statement for every witness could be introduced in this way.

JUDGE MAY: No. I hope my summary made that clear. It has to be considered in each case. An application could be made and then we have to decide.

MR. KAY: Yes. And the point that needs to be made here is, of ²⁷²⁰² course, the Prosecution approach to this has been a blanket intention to apply that ruling to every witness regardless of any definition of the interests of justice, and that is quite clear in their motion that they have signalled that intention. So the Court has to be pretty vigilant accordingly in relation to every witness and every statement as to where it believes the interests of justice are.

Quite plainly in this case there is evidence that goes throughout the statement to the acts and conduct of the accused. There is evidence relating to other members of the joint criminal enterprise. There is evidence that is proximate to the accused in accordance with the Galic definition. There are statements by the witness relating to the involvement of the JNA and police which are areas over which it is alleged that this accused had criminal responsibility.

The point the accused was making over the summary was, of course, there's been no attestation of a translation of this summary to the accused -- to this particular witness, but he still signed the summary in English, and he's pointing out the dangers that there could be in relation to the adoption of statements in this form, which is a matter that the Court is obviously aware of.

In our submission, this is not an appropriate case for the admission of this evidence in this form because of the important nature of the statement and its contents in relation to the charges against the accused. The interests of justice issue, we submit, fall plainly on the side of the accused's argument to hear this witness viva voce in full. There is no point separating out odd paragraphs where he doesn't mention ²⁷²⁰³ the accused or material matters because they are just background matters within the statement. This statement is firmly in the heart of the Croatia indictment alleging criminal responsibility against the accused for those acts alleged in the indictment.

I don't know if I can assist the Court any further.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, what kind of statement do you think might be appropriate for admission following the Appeals Chamber's ruling?

MR. KAY: We come to those 92 bis style statements where the Prosecution concede that there are issues for cross-examination where there is mention of the JNA or other features of the evidence that are relevant matters within the indictment. The Appeals Chamber is plainly saying that 92 bis should be applied in circumstances where witnesses are not present at court, but the Rule 89(F), it's not a procedure that means of admission of evidence is appropriate as a way of hearing a combination of oral as well as written testimony.

As they say, this Rule is quite limited in its scope and the examples that the Appeals Chamber gave, the impeachment in prior inconsistent statements. If one looks at the examples that the amici cited and which they cited in their own judgement of the 30th of September, 2002, paragraph 14 of this decision, they use very limited examples rather than the wholesale reception of evidence in this form, which would be quite a significant departure from the procedures hitherto adopted in all the trials throughout this Tribunal.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You don't think it would be appropriate or -- appropriate in this case to have part of the statement done live and part ^{27204 BLANK PAGE 27205} admitted?

MR. KAY: In relation to this statement, the entirety of it concerns the heart of affairs that were happening in the Krajina and the involvement of this accused and the other politicians as well as military leaders in the events that were taking place.

There are paragraphs there that you can say are not relevant or not central, but they really add nothing to what's happening. They perhaps require a sentence of linking from one moment that is being testified about to another. And when you look at the statement, little would be served by having a paragraph here and a paragraph there taken out in this form.

If you go through the summary, you can see the reason for that is it goes quite clearly all the way through, involvement of the JNA, involvement of politicians.

JUDGE MAY: If one took out the acts and conducts of the accused, that would remove a part, an identifiable part. The fact is that this ruling involves a departure from the previous practice. Plainly that is what the Appeals Chamber intended, otherwise they would have simply confirmed our ruling, but they did not. They have opened the door to a change in practice which the Prosecutor has invited us to follow. Now, to what extent we should try and -- we should try and reverse that, which you're inviting us to do, to go back to the old procedure, I don't know. I mean, the fact is, of course, in every case we have to consider the interests of justice. But why it should not be possible as we've done in other cases not to divide some of the evidence, and have some of it in the ²⁷²⁰⁶ statement and some of it given orally, that I do not follow.

MR. KAY: Your Honour's really mentioning this specific case here as well as the wider issue. Shall I deal with the specifics first of all? The paragraphs that mention Mr. Milosevic are easily identifiable. There are other paragraphs that mention other members of the joint criminal enterprise which is evidence that is proximate to the accused. There's Babic, there's Martic, there's Stojicic. There are so many of them that are -- Mladic. There are so many of them mentioned that the entire narrative of this statement is really that of a witness who should be heard by this Court live.

The involvement of the JNA and the police from Serbia, the Serbian secret service, all those issues run throughout this statement. You can pick out ones that are just background and material, but as I said, no real purpose is being served here in doing that exercise. On the wider issue -- I'm not attempting to argue against a decision of the Appeals Chamber. What I'm pointing out is that in that decision, it was not stated that this is a complete departure of the procedures within previous trials held within this building. It is saying quite clearly, in my view, that this is back to looking at the word and language of Rule 89(F), which plainly allows in oral or written evidence if the interests of justice allow, and that's something that the Trial Chamber has to weigh up taking into account all the issues in a particular trial before it.

It may have been very different if we'd had that decision at the start of Mr. Milosevic's trial. One could imagine vast tracts of Kosovo ²⁷²⁰⁷ evidence where this could have been employed. We're at the stage now, however, where we are dealing perhaps with the very important central witnesses against him that we were advised from the start of the trial by the Prosecutor was to be his technique and strategy. And whilst it may be inconvenient for their timing or not as expeditious as they would otherwise like, these witnesses are big witnesses that this Tribunal should hear, we submit, in the interests of justice if it is looking into the heart of this case.

A very one-sided picture may well emerge if you do not hear a witness properly in direct examination if you're hearing the accused merely start straight out of the blocks in cross-examination with no foundation having been set. The issues that the Prosecutor relies upon not having been put in any concrete form before the Tribunal in a viva voce testimony. And with witnesses of that size and importance to the trial, our submission is that it's important that this evidence be handled fairly.

As I say, it's difficult for this Tribunal dealing with this decision at this stage when it -- if it had come earlier in the trials, it may well have had a different effect, and it may have a different effect on other trials if it is to be a more widespread application.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Why do you say it would have been more appropriate in the Kosovo part of the case?

MR. KAY: I'm allowing the translation to catch up. That is because we heard many crime base witnesses. We had five weeks of the Racak witnesses. We had a whole spread of witnesses from ²⁷²⁰⁸ municipalities, a lot of them giving cumulative testimony.

JUDGE KWON: So -- please go on. Please go on, yes.

MR. KAY: I was allowing the translation to catch up. Which was not proximate to the accused or evidence that went to the acts and conduct of the accused. And one could see there that the Appeals Chamber ruling could have had an application and speeded matters up if that was a judgement that had to be taken in the interests of justice to provide an overall fair trial. But that has happened. That time has gone, and the Prosecutor employed a very deliberate strategy in relation to the Kosovo part of the indictment, although there were warning signals coming from the Trial Chamber that they'd probably heard enough about particular incidents and were exhorting the Prosecution to proceed. One could see there that that evidence may have been more suitable for an application of the Appeals Chamber's decision. There may be such witnesses still to arrive in this trial, but looking at the witness list as I have so far as it is concrete at the moment, that doesn't appear to be the case. And this was a decision where the Appeals Chamber were not applying a judgement in relation to this particular trial. They were applying a wider judgement over the interpretation of the Rules.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. But the effect of that was to say that the arguments which you're putting forward was to say that Rule 92 bis, which used to govern these matters, is not the governing factor. They've accepted the Prosecution argument that this other rule, 89(F), is the governing Rule, in effect. We therefore have to look at things from a different point of view. In particular, we have to get away from the ²⁷²⁰⁹ common law notion that all the evidence has to be given orally. You know, behind this there is a very fundamental point which will face this Tribunal and any other Tribunals dealing with these very large cases, and that is the amount of evidence which can be given orally, and it may be that the way forward is pointed by this decision, which is to allow evidence in chief to be given in this written form with the safeguard, of course, of cross-examination. That's the important safeguard which the Rules still build in. And the question really is are we bound by the old rule that everything has to be given orally because you never know what people are saying to say when they give evidence orally, or are we to move to a new consideration whereby much of the evidence should be given in written form in chief, if not all of it, and that a witness should simply be cross-examined.

There is -- the point you mention, which is the expeditiousness of the trial, which you mentioned purely in relation to the Prosecution but it affects the trial as a whole, how is this trial to be expedited in a fair way, and this may be one way of securing a balance.

MR. KAY: I perfectly agree with Your Honour's observation that it may represent a sea change in relation to trials like this and of this magnitude in the future. It may not make a difference in relation to a camp guard trial where most of the witnesses tend to be identification witnesses and all the evidence is more proximate in relation to that type of defendant, because one must realise that these cases have a hierarchial nature, and they have a different breadth in their scope and in the type of evidence that is received. ²⁷²¹⁰ But to answer Your Honour's question about where do we go from here, this is new, the answer is simple: It's the interests of justice. And that is written within this Rule. And that is the governing factor in relation to the decision that Your Honours have to take. At this stage, to be more conscious of the wider implications of the ruling and its future application in perhaps other trials or particular types of witnesses may not serve the interests of justice in this case. It may do in relation to some witnesses, as I say, but in relation to big witnesses, that is a determination that still has to be brought to bear on the particular witness before the Court.

JUDGE KWON: So can I take a suggestion like this: So your interpretation of the Appeals Chamber decision is that that decision is nothing more than removing some procedural requirements from 92 bis while retaining the basic regime as to the admissibility of written statements. So, for example, you need not -- you don't need a legal officer to attest written statements to fly to the ground, on the ground, and those procedural -- what is not necessary is only those procedural requirements in the practical sense.

MR. KAY: Quite so, Your Honour. Rule 92 bis is being hived off from the mainstream to fit a particular category of evidence and witness. The Appeals Chamber is saying that essentially this should be evidence in lieu of oral testimony, and when you get the witness here in court and he's cross-examined or gives a summary or confirms the statement, that immediately moves that witness into the oral category and that Rule 92 bis should be seen as being a very distinct package. ²⁷²¹¹ But the rules of evidence that govern generally the admissibility of evidence require the interests of justice and the usual general rules to be applied, because the Appeals Chamber did not make any startling advice or give any startling guidance to Trial Chambers to say, "This is a new procedure and in future, trials should be run this way." It has left it up to the judgement in the interests of justice of each Trial Chamber, fitting the circumstances, the nature of the case, the particular evidence before it, a kind of indictment as to whether such a use of a procedure that is possible, whether it is in fact applied. In many cases, they have gone through this procedure. If one looks through the transcripts, I know Your Honours have sat on these cases where they've gone into the witness box and adopted their statement, and that has been a procedure that Defence and Prosecution have agreed to. And this ruling affirms that practice that has been current in many of the cases in the Tribunal if the parties have agreed, and the Appeals Chamber have made the particular point that there are circumstances when written statements are admissible, and that is when the parties agree to it, firstly; secondly, when a statement is used in cross-examination and comes into the evidence as a result of the questioning. And there may be other situations and circumstances, including written documents by a witness which form part of a statement.

JUDGE KWON: I wonder whether you have answered to the question of Learned Judge Robinson's when he asked about the half -- some part in written statements and some parts live, not in relation to these two witnesses. ^{27212 BLANK PAGE 27213}

MR. KAY: On the wider issue, yes. I must apologise. I thought Your Honour was referring to this particular witness that we're dealing with, the first witness where I don't think it really is practicable. But on other witnesses, one can see that that procedure, according to this decision, could be applied if it made sense to do it. What the Court has to be aware of, of course, is the kind of situation where Mr. Nice has already referred to it quite sensible, is that you get a massive statement, most of which is nothing to do with this trial, but it just gets put in, and the witness is, in fact, only dealing with a small area of relevance within that statement to this trial. There is a danger in that, because that can open up all sorts of unnecessary avenues and be burdensome on the trial and those involved in it. But those statements where it is appropriate according to that witness and in the interests of justice and it could be properly achieved, one could see the purpose of that. What I was saying was, though, that this particular first witness, Milanovic, in my submission to the Court, doesn't fit the category at all.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The Appeals Chamber, while not defining the interests of justice, in my view, did identify some factors that would be relevant in considering whether the interests of justice are met. The fact that the Trial Chamber would not be able to assess the credibility of witnesses in examination-in-chief, that Prosecution evidence would be accepted at face value only to be tested in cross-examination and that the adoption of evidence by written statement is contrary to the principle of a fair and public hearing. The Chamber -- Appeals Chamber did go on to ²⁷²¹⁴ say that these factors may be relevant when determining whether admitting such statements is in the interests of justice under 89(F). I've been trying to extract from what -- from your submissions a principle, Mr. Kay, and you seem to be saying that this particular statement is so important, is so central to the Croatian part of the indictment, is so critical that the evidence should be given live.

MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honour, in relation to this particular witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And you also say that it is not susceptible to the kind of severance that we have done in the past.

MR. KAY: It would really carry no purpose to do that because there are link paragraphs. The focus of this witness's statement is on those involved with the SAO Krajina, the influence of Belgrade, the role of the JNA, the police, the political developments from 1991 when he became involved through to, in fact, Kosovo, and his statement is a -- almost like a narrative of that period involving the Krajina. The principles involved are really those the amici have always cited in their appeal document and in their original opposition to it, but one can see that the Appeals Chamber wish this to be applied on a case-by-case basis and have not been specific in the kind of areas to which it should be applied.

JUDGE ROBINSON: As a wholly practical matter, the time spent in hearing argument might have been used in examination-in-chief. I'm grateful for your arguments, Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Can I assist the Court any further? ²⁷²¹⁵

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: A number of matters. I'll deal with them shortly. I don't think as to sort of criticism that we raised in the Kosovo section, I don't think I can be criticised for not having sought procedural reforms throughout this case to deal with the problem of cases of this scale. I suspect sometimes the Trial Chamber's thought "Will he ever give up?" but there it is. And of course, the Kosovo case actually in its evidence in chief only took a very short space of time, I have sometimes equated it, and I think accurately, to five weeks in the evidence in chief, five weeks of a domestic court. Not bad for the proof of a war. And time was taken for cross-examination. Enough of that. We've taken a blanket approach without ourselves identifying any parts of evidence we would typically want to take in chief because we realise this is an important decision and it sets the sail not only for this case but arguably for the Tribunal as a whole. And in the same way as I regret to remind my learned friend, I don't think any of my procedural reforms, to my recollection, have met with the response from the amici that they're a good idea because they get more evidence in or because they save time. I don't think either my learned friend or the accused in their response deal with the interests of justice advantages that I identified, namely of getting more evidence before sophisticated, literate, professional Judges in these difficult cases, of concluding cases earlier, and that would particularly apply here if the accused was to take advantage of this method of evidence adduction. Therefore the advantage for the Tribunal as a whole that will come from that in either its completion strategy or in the number of cases it ²⁷²¹⁶ can properly dispose of. And there is, of course, in this particular case an interests of justice issue, a slight one but worth consideration, where we are working three day weeks with four days off. It's going to be very difficult for us to have witnesses who conclude within a three-day period. It's asking a great deal of witnesses to stay on for four days in order that their evidence can be concluded, and it would be that with more flexible use of witness statements, we might be better able to meet that as a problem.

Dealing briefly with His Honour Judge Robinson's point drawn from the Appeals Chamber judgement about the value of evidence in chief because it deals with credibility of witnesses, if I may respectfully say so, yes, but also no. There is an obligation on parties, including this accused, to put his case to witnesses. Therefore, if a witness's statement is unchallenged because it's accurate, there is really no need to spend time assessing his credibility, because by concession of the parties it's accurate on those passages. It's only on the issues where the accused doesn't accept what's in the witness statement that the witness should be cross-examined or where the accused has a positive case to put to a witness and credibility can and typically is revealed at that stage and more at that stage or sometimes indeed exclusively at that stage rather than elsewhere.

Turning to the accused's concern generally about the statements going in, he may have missed the point slightly. I make no criticism of him for that. As the Appeals Chamber makes clear, what will happen with a witness statement put into evidence is that the witness comes to the ²⁷²¹⁷ witness chair and says, "I have read the statement line by line. It is true." That exposes him immediately to a sanction if he is saying something that's untrue, because he's adopting it as a true statement, different and stronger in its effect on him than the 92 bis procedure taken out of court.

So that it's not a question of putting, as the Trial Chamber, it's not a question of putting in written material. It is actually viva voce evidence simply adopting because he has reviewed line by line the statement. The accused says there were witnesses who revealed by their evidence in chief that things in the statement were untrue. Those witnesses, no doubt in elaborate proofing sessions or less elaborate, hadn't through the witness statements line by line because the exercise had been conducted apart from it. There's not always time to do that. One of the witnesses, in particular, plainly had not done that, otherwise he wouldn't have felt able to say the things he did about his statement. So it's a very good corrective and it's an exposure to sanction on the witness that he adopts his witness statement line by line. As to the immediate witnesses, it happens that Milanovic's original statement was in B/C/S. He's one of the witnesses who made the decision that it had to be and it happens to be in B/C/S, although as Your Honour says, many statements are in fact taken in English and read back in B/C/S to the witness and that's a perfectly proper and satisfactory way of dealing with things and part of the practice of this Tribunal. So far as that -- this particular witness is concerned and just so that the -- those viewing who don't have the documents can understand it ²⁷²¹⁸ better, each paragraph, and I'm looking simply now at page 9 because that's where it fell open, each paragraph of the witness summary identifies the paragraph either as coming in part from a paragraph of the written statement together with what was revealed in proofing. That applies to paragraphs 2 and 3 of this particular page. Alternatively, identifies a paragraph as coming entirely from a -- the witness summary or, over the page, entirely coming from proofing. And as Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff reminds me, in this particular case, the witness is able to deal, and almost certainly would by dealing with matters revealed or expanded on in proofing, is able to deal viva voce with all the encounters he had, for example, with the accused should the Chamber decide independently of the fact that they are covered in proofing and not in the statement, then that is what would be appropriate for him. So in our respectful submission and following the ruling of the Appeals Chamber, this procedure adapted on a witness-by-witness basis and to which we can be responsive in the documents we prepare in future to help the process will save time, will get more material before you for you to consider, and will enable the accused to present his case with greater focus, which will again help the Trial Chamber.

JUDGE MAY: Deal with Mr. Kay's argument that the common law method should be followed if the evidence is important to the case. That is centrally what's saying, and it so happens that every single paragraph, he says, in this particular statement is important.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, that would, in our respectful submission, be a very unfortunate path along which we should start by this ruling ^{27219 BLANK PAGE 27220} here. Evidence against accused persons is, by the reason that it's evidence, important. If it wasn't important, you wouldn't be calling it. It happens that in some of these cases there can be a fairly clear line drawn between evidence of crimes, evidence of background, and evidence that more particularly and clearly links an accused, but all evidence is important. And attempting to draw the line drawn I think by His Honour Judge Hunt of acts and conduct of the accused incorporating those proximate to the accused is an exercise again that may be far too limiting, because it will drive courts ever to say that evermore has to be given viva voce.

In principle, there is no reason why all evidence should not be given in a written statement and adopted for the very reason that I've recently given. One, that by adopting it, the witness is not just putting a statement in. He is saying, "Look, I've read this statement, I've had it read to me," if it is in another language and is translated, "and line by line I agree with it." The accused, knowing what has to be -- the accused or his or her representative, knowing what has to be challenged, then explores the issues with the witness.

Now, that is what happens in large litigation where juries are not involved, around the world, and is a satisfactory procedure. The common law system is, as we know, rooted in different scales of trials where juries were used, jurors who might regularly not be literate and whose literacy was not something one could assume.

Examination-in-chief, it may even be thought, is a somewhat unusual exercise, and the Appeals Chamber rather picks on this point, ²⁷²²¹ because examination-in-chief has one person, counsel, getting another person, the witness, to tell his story to a third person, the trier of fact. As the Appeals Chamber said, one thing that a witness could do would simply be to read his statement out line by line, and that might, in certain circumstances, be a sensible thing to do although it actually takes quite a lot of time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, when did Judge Hunt speak of acts and conduct of the accused, incorporating those proximate to the accused?

MR. NICE: It's Galic.

JUDGE MAY: The Galic decision.

MR. NICE: But the line -- the defining line is always difficult to be sure about, although he's given a definition. We would -- sorry. In our submission and in theory, everything can, and quite safely, be given in writing because there are those double protections. The witness adopts it, so it becomes actually live evidence. He knows perfectly well that he's under sanction if he lies, and issues can be joined by and must be joined by the accused or his or her representative. The consequence of this procedure is quite simply that professional Judges can deal with in an active way the material much more swiftly because they read it in advance and they immediately know what the issues are. Now, having said that --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, surely to say that the evidence becomes live merely because the witness adopts it in court is a technicality.

MR. NICE: I don't think the Appeals Chamber expresses it in that way, and I respectfully adopt and urge as sensible and appropriate their ²⁷²²² view. If I come -- if the solemn declaration means anything and a witness comes to the witness chair, takes the solemn declaration, and says, "I have read this statement, it is true," that is a significant piece of evidence that he or she gives, and it is not a technicality.

JUDGE ROBINSON: There is absent the opportunity which you have in examination-in-chief for discrepancies between the evidence given in chief and the statement.

MR. NICE: The opportunity -- some Judges, I've heard, say that when these issues arise, well, these exercises shouldn't be memory games and witnesses should have their statements available to read and refer to. And that happens not infrequently I think, in these cases.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I'm quite familiar with that. But some of the discrepancies may be substantial and may affect credibility.

MR. NICE: It may happen, but I would respectfully suggest that it's not that common, and when it happens would have been remedied if in fact the witnesses had gone line by line through their statements in advance, which of course they now will have to do. I'm not suggesting that in the interests of justice the Chamber will be not identifying passages it wants to be given live. Of course, and it's a matter for the Chamber, which is why, I repeat, we make the application in the way that we do. But it would be, in our respectful submission, unhelpful to be over restrictive at this stage, and identifying or seeking to identify by way of too general a ruling what should be given in chief may not serve the interests of justice that will be served, and very substantially served, by the general application of ²⁷²²³ this new approach.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, this is of some different issue, but when you said the new regime, if adopted, would get us -- get more material before us --

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: -- your implication is that you're going to add more witnesses to the current list?

MR. NICE: No, not at all. No. Again so that it can be absolutely -- well, so that it can be absolutely clearly understood, we're under a duty to provide our final list by the week after next. That's very nearly in final preparation. There are some witnesses for whom there are applications to add, but they've already nearly all been signalled in advance on earlier versions of the list. It's clear to us that we will not get all our witnesses in before you by the time limit imposed on us, under this regime or I think any other regime. We will get more material before you under a system that allows the use of witness statements than one that requires slavishly everything to be given in examination-in-chief.

I should have said, by the way, in answer to the accused's concern, one of the passages that would be dealt with, I think, viva voce is the identification of the intercepts because they would have to be. Unless I can help further.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. As I understand it, you will be making these sort of applications in the case of every witness from now on; is that right? ²⁷²²⁴

MR. NICE: In principle, yes. And the reason I -- perhaps I should also make this point, because it may be being -- the impression may be being given that we are serving only our own interests in doing this. We would much prefer, as advocates presenting evidence, of course, to have the advantage of the best bits of evidence or all evidence given live by all witnesses. We as Prosecutors, or we as a party, obviously lose the impact that can be drawn publicly from evidence being given that is particularly powerful or significant. We don't seek that sort of narrow advantage, and the only way we can make it clear that we are not seeking that advantage is by saying, well, let the Rule -- let the application apply for all witnesses so that even a witness producing spectacular insider information or an insider of huge international profile, we would -- we would not say in principle, ah, because this is an especially good witness we will ask to have this one live just on impact. Not at all. We'll say the same principles apply, we'll try and put the evidence in in writing and, subject to the rulings of the Court as to what must be given live, we will follow that practice with all witnesses.

JUDGE MAY: And so we can get the position, we will obviously have to consider this application now. You will be applying to start with Mr. Milanovic in whatever form.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: But you will also be applying to interpose the general; is that right?

MR. NICE: I am afraid I will. His proofing summary in draft form is now available and can be distributed. A final version will be ²⁷²²⁵ available later this afternoon, assuming he arrives on time and we can get it tidied up by the end of the afternoon; otherwise, tomorrow.

JUDGE MAY: He is only available, is this right, tomorrow?

MR. NICE: At the moment, yes.

[Trial Chamber confers]

THE ACCUSED: Mr. May.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Very briefly, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very briefly. First of all, just the observation that up until now, a pile of written documents have been produced which it was not even possible to read through, so that what Mr. Nice says, that this will allow him to produce written documents, doesn't stand.

Secondly, Mr. May, you personally indicated that this question now relates to Rule 89(F). So as you say, it is binding on you to pay attention to it and to implement Rule 89(F). But the key words in that Rule 89(F) is that the Chamber may receive testimony orally or, when the interests of justice allow, the Chamber - which means you - may, which means that you are free to decide whether it is in the interests of justice to produce a pile of papers here or to have oral testimony. There is no automatic obligation on you not to decide what is in the interests of justice with respect to this announced change in practice to produce here piles and piles of so-called alleged evidence in writing and then I would allegedly be allowed to react to them through the cross-examination. That is what it boils down to. But it is up to you to judge, and you ^{27226 BLANK PAGE 27227} cannot rely on someone else's decision in order to ignore what is the elementary interest of justice regarding the examination-in-chief of any witness. I am not interested in any particular witness, but I am saying all witnesses.

This is just an effort to change the procedure and for these piles of documents to become even greater. And you are yourself aware that there's no physical possibility of reviewing all those pages of documents. So to simply say "all that has been disclosed to you" doesn't mean anything. I can say to you the Congress library is there for you, it's been disclosed to you, and it's your duty to know everything it contains. You have to respect at least the rules of physics, if nothing else. And this is just an attempt for piles and piles of new documents and produced and fabricated evidence to be exhibited without them being exposed to the judgement of the public, because what is not stated in public, the public is not able to see or hear.

JUDGE MAY: We will need to consider these submissions. We will adjourn accordingly for slightly longer than usual, for half an hour, and we will give our ruling on returning.

--- Recess taken at 10.19 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.50 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: We have heard, as we acknowledge, some able submissions on all sides on this by no means straightforward matter, and we're grateful for them.

The decision of the Trial Chamber is as follows: On the basis of the Appeals Chamber decision of the 30th of September, it is for the Trial ²⁷²²⁸ Chamber in each case to determine whether it is in the interests of justice for a witness to give evidence in the way which is now proposed by the Prosecution. The Trial Chamber, by a majority, Judge Robinson dissenting, will admit the witness statement of Mr. Milanovic in the interests of justice because it will be subject to safeguards. Firstly, the witness will state under solemn declaration and verify that the contents of his statement are true and do so in court; and secondly, he will be subject to cross-examination. However, the majority are also of the view that the evidence of the acts and conduct of the accused himself relates to such a central issue in the case that it should be given orally, and so those parts of the statement must be subject to oral evidence.

That's the ruling of the majority.

MR. NICE: We're grateful. Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff -- I'm so sorry.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The Appeals Chamber has left it to the Trial Chamber to determine when it is in the interests of justice to admit a written statement under Rule 89(F). The statement of this witness is of critical importance to the central issues in this case. Where a statement is of this significance, going to not only the acts and conduct of the accused but also of some of the principal actors in the joint criminal enterprise, the interests of justice would not be served by admitting it under 89(F), since the opportunity of assessing the credibility of the witness in examination-in-chief would be lost and the adoption of this evidence by written statement would be contrary to the principle of a fair and public hearing. ²⁷²²⁹

MR. NICE: Please accept my apologies for having interrupted. I didn't realise that His Honour Judge Robinson was about to deliver his judgement.

Your Honour, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff will call the next witness. There is, at the moment, the issue of the interposition of another witness tomorrow. Can we revert to that at the break.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. How long do you anticipate? It may be difficult now because of the new ruling. How long do you anticipate he might be in chief?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I would anticipate it will be about one and a half to two hours because we have to deal with a lot of exhibits, and we said in the beginning that the exhibits will be viva voce.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, we'll consider the matter in the next break. Yes. Can we have the witness, please.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, and just in relation to the exhibits before the witness arrives, I can already say that you will have three different sets of exhibits. The first set are the new exhibits. These are the documents that will be tendered with this witness, and they're basically provided also by him during his interviews. The second group of statements are the intercepts and his declaration in relation to this. And thirdly, we have the third batch which includes a map produced by the witness and also the exhibits that were already tendered during other testimony, but the witness will elaborate on them because he has sometimes signed them or dealt with them in another context.

JUDGE MAY: Could we give an exhibit number to the first of these ²⁷²³⁰ binders, which is entitled "Exhibits tendered through witness."

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 549.

[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 would like to take a seat.

WITNESS: MILAN MILANOVIC

[Witness answered through interpreter]

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honours. Examined by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff:

Q. Witness, please state your name.

A. Milan Milanovic.

Q. Mr. Milanovic, you have given a statement in May, July 2002, and in June 2003 to investigators of the Office of the Prosecutor. The original statement, was it taken in your language, that is in the Serbian language?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you have opportunity to review your statement?

A. I did.

Q. Did you find it correct and to be the truth?

A. The truth.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, the Prosecution would like to tender this statement into evidence, and it would need to have a separate exhibit number. ²⁷²³¹

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit number 550.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. Witness -- Mr. Milanovic, you also signed a proofing summary yesterday. Was this proofing summary read to you?

A. It was.

Q. And did you actually make three minor corrections within that document?

A. I did.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, in the signed version, we are not going to tender it, but you can see that the witness read it and made changes.

Q. Witness, the Trial Chamber has allowed you to give part of your evidence in form of the written statement, so we do not have to address the whole events that you took part in but address only those matters that are not part of the statement and also those events that relate to the actions of Mr. Milosevic personally.

In paragraph 1 of your statement, you spoke about your personal career, and my question is: Did you stop going to work in May 1991; and if so, why?

A. It is correct that I stopped working in May 1991 because of what happened in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. As everyone knows, there was unrest, the war began and war operations in part, and I thought that it was not a good thing for me to go to work any longer.

Q. In paragraph 2 of your statement and also in the proofing summary, ²⁷²³² you described the arming of the Serbs and the Croats in the region and also your position. When the inter-ethnic tensions started in 1990 and 1991, did both the local Serbs and the Croats start to arm themselves or just one side?

A. Both.

Q. And did the villagers also put up night guards in the region?

A. Yes, they did, with their personal weapons, either sports weapons or firearms for which people had permits.

Q. In paragraph 3 of the proofing summary and the statement, you refer to the situation in your village. What was the ethnic composition of Palaca?

A. Well, about 90 per cent were Serbs.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the region we are talking about is actually on page 23 of the atlas on the road Osijek to Vinkovci. You can see there the villages Laslovo and Korog, but not Palaca itself, but it's between the two, on page 23.

Q. Those neighbouring villages, Laslovo and Korog, what was their ethnic composition?

A. In Laslovo, about 80 per cent were Hungarians, 20 per cent Croats, whereas in Korog about 90 or 95 per cent were Hungarians and the rest was accounted for by others.

Q. On the 2nd of May, 1991, when the JNA came to Palaca, had there been any clashes between those three villages, Palaca, Laslovo, and Korog at that time?

A. There weren't any clashes, but there was night guard duty on both ^{27233 BLANK PAGE 27234} sides.

Q. After the fall of Vukovar, did the -- did the JNA take over the entire region, including Laslovo and Korog?

A. Yes.

Q. In paragraph 5 of your statement and paragraph 4 and the following in the proofing summary, you have described the founding of the Serbian National Council and how it developed into the government of the SAO Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem. I have only a very few questions, and the first relates to Exhibit -- tab 1 of the -- of the Exhibit 549. Tab 1.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: That's -- and I propose, to make it faster, that the witness also gets the binder so that he can look at it, and I also would like the witness to have his statement so that he can orient himself as well.

Q. Mr. Milanovic, in the binder you see always these tab numbers, and the first is a list of people that you produced, the list of the members of the Serbian National Council. Is that a list that you produced with the help of the Prosecutor?

A. Yes, that's the list.

Q. What was the purpose to form the SNC?

A. Well, the purpose of forming the SNC was quite simply to rally the people together around some kind of leadership, and the SNC constituted that leadership.

Q. And when you speak of "people," does that refer to Serbs?

A. Serbs. ²⁷²³⁵

Q. What was the overall goal of the SNC and later the SAO government in relation to Yugoslavia?

A. Well, the goal was for Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem to remain within Yugoslavia.

Q. What was your understanding of the consequences of this goal for the Croats and Hungarians that preferred to live in an independent Croatia and not Yugoslavia?

A. Well, my understanding was that just like a portion of the Serb people who were not included, for example, in Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, would have to decide whether they wanted to go on living in Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, whether they would go on living in Yugoslavia in this way or whether they would leave that area if they wanted to live elsewhere. For example, like some Serbs from Zagreb, they went to territories where government was organised by the Serbs.

Q. Did the Croats in your village leave at some point in time, and if so, when was that?

A. Croats left at a point in time when more active war operations started. I think it was around the 25th or 26th of June 1991.

Q. Did you have a meeting in the village before they left?

A. Yes. I myself had a meeting with them.

Q. Did you discuss the safety of the Croat villagers at that meeting?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. At that time, had you got information that the Croat villagers had been killed elsewhere?

A. Well, I had some sort of information and also information that ²⁷²³⁶ Croats would not be in the area when reservists would come in. And on the basis of that, I said to them that I thought that they should decide involving their own responsibility whether they would stay with us or leave.

Q. Were you in a position to protect the Croats against the reservists, as you mentioned here?

A. I could not guarantee their safety.

Q. Did the JNA protect the Croats against the reservists?

A. The JNA could not have guaranteed any such thing either.

Q. After this meeting with you, did the Croats leave and, if so, why?

A. They listened to what I had to say. They made some brief comments, and they decided to leave, almost all of them.

Q. Did they leave because they were afraid or for other reason?

A. Well, because they were afraid, because of their own safety.

Q. Did the Croats in the neighbouring villages also leave for the same reason?

A. The same reason.

Q. Did you observe the attack on Ernestinovo on the 21st of November, 1991?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that a Croatian village or a mixed village?

A. Predominantly Croat.

Q. Was a corridor left for the civilians or was the -- this place encircled?

A. A corridor was left. ²⁷²³⁷

Q. Who left the corridor and for what reason?

A. Well, the practice was for the army of Yugoslavia, when they had combat activity, they would always leave a corridor for the civilians to withdraw.

Q. Was that done without any exception in your region or was there an exception to that?

A. Well, as far as I can remember, without any exceptions.

Q. In relation to Vukovar, how was it -- how was the attack done there?

A. Well, I cannot say with 100 per cent certainty, but I think that a small corridor was left there too where the Croats withdrew from the encirclement.

Q. Were Croats and other non-Serbs expelled from their homes and, if so, at what times?

A. Well, the for the most part, this happened during combat operations, either a day or two prior to them or during the attack itself.

Q. Did expulsion occur also in the later years, in particular, when Serb refugees arrived from Western Slavonia or the southern part of the Krajina?

A. Yes. It happened precisely then, after refugees came from Western Slavonia and from the lower part of the Krajina. These refugees of Serb ethnicity came to Eastern Slavonia and then there were such cases. Not often, but the government tried to stop this. However, on some occasions they didn't manage to stop this.

Q. And you are talking about what years? ²⁷²³⁸

A. This happened during 1991, at a point in time when a smaller part of Western Slavonia had fallen, but for the most part it happened in 1995 when the lower part of Krajina fell.

Q. Mr. Milanovic, during the -- we will now turn to the exhibits, 327, tab 2, and 327, tab 3. During the proofing sessions, did you have opportunity to review the two documents of the SNC of the 28th of May, 1991, and the 4th of August, 1991; and if so, are they authentic?

A. I reviewed these documents, and they are authentic.

Q. In these documents, there are references to the defence -- the defenseless Serbs who objected to the state terror of the Croatian government. There are actually references to the hunt for Serbs, a list of Serbs to be arrested or killed.

Did you share this view? Was the situation like that?

A. Well, from this point of view, it is partly correct. That is what most Serbs thought. Now I'm sure that on the other side that is what the Croats thought too. They were also unarmed.

Q. Were events exploited by propaganda at that time in the region?

A. Yes, on both sides.

Q. And what effect did it have, if any, on the population, both the Croats and the Serbs?

A. A great effect.

Q. You have described in your statement, in paragraph 5, the most influential politicians in the region, and you have, in particular, highlighted the role of Goran Hadzic.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's in paragraph 5, and, Your Honours, we're ²⁷²³⁹ now in paragraph 10 of the proofing summary.

What was -- I'll lead this live because it relates to Mr. Milosevic.

Q. What was the basis of his being so important?

A. Well, Mr. Goran Hadzic was important because he was in the Serbian National Council, and he was president of the SNC, if that's what it was called then. And at one point in time, the Croats arrested him in the area of Lika -- or Plitvice, rather. Soon he was released, and this gave him political weight, so to speak.

According to what Hadzic himself said, he was very close to Mr. Milosevic.

Q. Was that important, for a politician to get into high ranks, this latter fact?

A. This fact was important.

Q. Did Mr. Hadzic have consultations and meetings with Milosevic? Do you know that?

A. According to what Hadzic himself said, yes.

Q. What did he say about that, and when?

A. Well, I can speak specifically about the end of 1991 and the beginning of 1992 and onwards. Hadzic said that he often went to see Mr. Milosevic and often spoke to him and discussed things with him.

Q. Did Goran Hadzic have the skills to be president of the SAO government or the RSK?

A. Well, I think he did not have the necessary skills.

Q. Did he actually fulfil his role as president of those entities? ²⁷²⁴⁰

A. I think he did not.

Q. Did he spend much time in the region or was he elsewhere?

A. He spent little time in the region. For the most part, he was elsewhere.

Q. How, then, could he get and maintain such high position as president of -- of these entities?

A. Well, in my very own opinion, because of his links with Belgrade. That is how he managed to stay in power.

Q. When the war started, did the SAO civilian authorities have power in the region?

A. When the war started, I don't think that they had true power in the region.

Q. Who, then, had the power?

A. Well, when military operations started, active military operations, it was the then Yugoslav People's Army that had power.

Q. Mr. Milanovic, you have actually listed in your statement the members of the government of the SAO, and we do not need to go into the details of that. And you have also -- do you recall that you reviewed an Official Gazette --

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, that's Exhibit 327, tab 6.

Q. -- and find those names correct?

A. I have read this Official Gazette, and the names are correctly referred to.

Q. You have also described in your statement your role as first acting -- Assistant Minister for Transport and later Acting Minister of ²⁷²⁴¹ Defence. In these capacities, did you participate in government meetings and also have meetings with military and police officials?

A. As for government meetings I attended them sometimes as deputy minister. As for military and police officials, I did have meetings and discussions with them.

Q. Will you please have a look at now into the binder, tab 2, and there is a document, minutes of a meeting of the 28th November 1991, and we have here in the row of people attending, we have here yourself and Radovan Stojicic. Did you provide this document?

A. Yes, I provided this.

Q. And we have tab 3 in that same binder. We have a meeting from the 18th February 1992, and we have you here again as being present, and there is then mentioned Zivko Trajkovic.

Zivko Trajkovic, in which capacity was he present?

A. Zivko Trajkovic attended the meeting as the commander of the Territorial Defence of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem by then.

Q. Does that mean he replaced Badza by then?

A. Yes, that's what it means.

Q. In the next two documents, that's tab 4 and tab 5, it's actually an invitation, the same invitations from the 18 February 1992, and on the document, tab 5, there is a handwritten note saying, "Mrgud, come along." "Mrgud," is that your nickname or was that your nickname?

A. Yes, that was my nickname.

Q. The next exhibit, tab 6 in that same binder, is your appointment as Assistant Minister of Defence, dated 19 December 1991. Did you provide ^{27242 BLANK PAGE 27243} this document as well?

A. Yes, I provided it.

Q. The next document, tab 7 in that binder, is a specification of requirements for the work of the Serbian National Security Service, signed by Stevo Bogic, and subsequently also a different signature underneath. What was Bogic's nickname? Do you know that?

A. I think that Bogic's nickname was Jajo.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, it's not indicated in the proofing summary, but Mr. Mrgud has mentioned this person and his role and also the role of this Serbian National Security Service in paragraph 37, so I will not ask any more questions in relation to that.

Q. In -- you mentioned in your statement, in paragraph 103, that in relation to the southern part of the Krajina, the connections -- the close connections of Mr. Milosevic were Milan Babic and Milan Martic. How do you know that, and -- yes, how do you know that?

A. Well, there were connections between the people you mentioned. I mean, they are generally known through the media and from time to time, I would hear from Martic or Babic themselves that they were meeting with Mr. Milosevic.

Q. The next -- the next chapter in your statement is the forming of the RSK. You have described in the statement the formation of the RSK, and we need not go into details. You have actually listed in the statement the members of the RSK government.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And, Your Honour, it's tab 8.

Q. When you look -- Mr. Milanovic, if you look at your binder with ²⁷²⁴⁴ the exhibits, you will find there tab 8. Is that the list that you actually made about the ministers?

A. Yes, that's the list.

Q. And you mentioned in your statement, in paragraph 92 and 93, you mentioned the meeting in Borovo Selo on the 26th of February, 1992, and you listed those from the Serbian government being present there. Did they influence the decisions being taken on that day? Do you know that?

A. I think they did not influence the decision-making on that day, but their presence meant something as support to that Assembly meeting being held in Borovo Selo on that date.

Q. Turning now to the next three tabs in that binder. It's tab 9, tab 10, and tab 11.

These three documents deal with your position as Assistant Minister of Defence of the SAO. What were your duties in this function?

A. My duties in this function were the duties that any ministry in any country has, and especially that particular Ministry of Defence. Under wartime conditions or conditions of imminent threat of war, the ministry had to take care of the army, its rear, supplies, logistics, and the safety of the civilian population.

Q. In tab 9, that's the first decision on your appointment signed by Stojan Spanovic, there is a reference made to an approval by the General Staff of the VJ. Can you explain why such an approval was needed?

A. I think that it was needed because at the time in the former Yugoslavia, the Ministry of Defence mostly consisted of military men who were employed in the General Staff or in the Ministry of Defence of the ²⁷²⁴⁵ Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. So that in my opinion, that is why this was needed.

Q. And in tab 11 - that's the decision from the 30th of October, 1995 - there is again the reference to the VJ, and actually, it says here that you were a civilian member of the VJ. Can you explain that?

A. Yes. As I was not an active-duty officer of the army of Yugoslavia, I was admitted as a civilian employed by the army of Yugoslavia.

Q. But you are actually in the RSK and now, according to this document and to what you say, you become a civilian employee of the VJ. Can you explain that?

A. It is well known that officers of the army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina were active-duty officers of the army of Yugoslavia and that they were deployed and assigned to work in the Republic of Serbian Krajina, or they went there voluntarily, and they received their salaries from the army of Yugoslavia. Since the Ministry of Defence is a specific body that is closely linked to the army, the decision was taken that all the people in the Defence Ministry of the Republic of Serbian Krajina should be employees of the army of Yugoslavia.

Q. In tab 11, in this document we're talking about, there is mention of a military post number 4001. What kind of post was that? Where was it?

A. It is a military post that concerned itself with these officers and civilians in the army of Yugoslavia who were located in the territory of the former Republic of Serbian Krajina, and it was located in Belgrade. ²⁷²⁴⁶

Q. While you maintained the position of Assistant Minister of Defence of the RSK through those years, were you always employed by the VJ under the said post?

A. Yes, that is true, right up until about the end of 1995 or the beginning of 1996.

Q. Were you always paid by the VJ? Did you get a salary?

A. I did.

Q. Was there a similar post as you had in relation to the southern part of the Krajina? That's Knin area.

A. I think there was. I think there was another one or two assistants.

Q. Do you know whether they were also employed and paid by the VJ, like you?

A. As far as I can remember, I think they were. One of them was also a civilian like me, and the other one was an active-duty officer of the army of Yugoslavia.

Q. And do you know their names?

A. The active military officer was Lieutenant Colonel Dusko Babic, and the civilian person was Milan Potusa.

Q. Mr. Milanovic, you also provided a document, this tab 12 in the binder, an invitation to a meeting in Knin on the 30th of May, 1994. Are you actually -- your position and you in person, are you actually addressed under position number 15, saying, "Heads of the Ministry of Defence Departments of Baranja, Eastern Slavonia, and Western Srem"? Is that addressed to you, this position? ²⁷²⁴⁷

A. One could say that.

Q. You described the TO and its structure and the cooperation with the JNA in your statement, and it's in various paragraphs mentioned, in particular in the paragraphs 17 and 21. We do not need to repeat that, but my question to you is: Was the TO subordinated to the JNA during military actions?

A. Always.

Q. Did you, you not only in person but the Ministry of Defence or Stojicic Badza, did you have meetings before military activities with the JNA officers?

A. At the time, I didn't have a position, but I do know that Badza held meetings with the command of the army of Yugoslavia.

Q. Where were such meetings held?

A. That depended, but mostly in the territory of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem. Perhaps sometimes also within the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Q. You mentioned in your statement also that the TO of Serbia was somehow involved, and you mention in particular the Generals Mandaric and Geza Farkas. Why were they involved in the military activities in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem? What was their role?

A. Their role was simple: Wherever the army of Yugoslavia is participating, it is normal for the TO to participate as well as it is, in a sense, within the army of Yugoslavia.

Q. Does that mean that the TO -- TO units from Serbia participated in your region, or what do you mean? ²⁷²⁴⁸

A. Yes, that is what it means, they participated.

Q. In your statement, in paragraph 50, you have addressed the strength of the troops of the JNA being present in your region, and you mention the Novi Sad Corps and later the Guards Brigade. When did the Guards Brigade arrive? Can you say?

A. I can't say exactly, but I think that the Guards Brigade came to the area of Srem sometime around August 1991.

Q. Did you prepare a map indicating the zones of responsibility of the Guards Brigade and the -- and the Novi Sad Corps?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, it's now a map, and it would be Exhibit 326. That's the map binder of Croatia. And the next tab number would be 30. I'm just told it's 30.

Q. Did you actually produce this map and --

JUDGE KWON: I should correct; it should be 31.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: 31. Thank you, Your Honour.

JUDGE KWON: 30 is, I wrote it, related to that Agotic.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour.

Q. You have indicated in this map the ethnic composition in the villages of the region, and it explains itself. We do not need to go into details, but could you show us on the ELMO where the different units, JNA units were, and what was the line?

A. In the territory of Baranja, one or two brigades were involved of the Novi Sad Corps, who also came sometime in August to Baranja. In the territory of Slavonia, the Novi Sad Corps participated with several brigades, and they also arrived sometime in August in the ^{27249 BLANK PAGE 27250} territory of Vukovar, but it must be noted that a part of the army of Yugoslavia that were in Vukovar, a smaller unit, joined them, joined the Novi Sad Corps.

And in the territory of Srem, the Guards Brigade was active, which in a later stage grew into a corps. Now, whether it was called the Belgrade or Guards Corps, I don't know, but at first it was just a brigade.

Q. And if I understand your drawing correctly, the border between the Novi Sad Corps region and the Guards Brigade, that's the blue line, the blue line following a river?

A. Yes. It is the blue line, and the river is Vuka, which divided the town of Vukovar into two.

Q. Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: That's -- that should be enough with the map. Your Honour, just to clarify this, I'm just told that you have actually two maps. The one is -- the bigger -- the map showing the bigger region shows the entire SAO, while the map showing the smaller region is more precise and shows Eastern Slavonia and Srem while the other one includes also Baranja, and in the Baranja region the witness has not indicated the ethnic composition of the villages because it didn't really matter for this case. That's the distinction.

JUDGE KWON: The next number.

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 326, tab 32.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. ²⁷²⁵¹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't have in tab 30 or tab 31 any map, and I see that there's quite a number of them here. So could you please give me one.

JUDGE MAY: The accused should have the maps.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Yes. I apologise. I didn't -- I wasn't aware.

JUDGE KWON: I remember that I asked you to update the index of the map binder and its table of contents.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We will take care of this.

JUDGE KWON: Exhibit 326, 343.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. Mr. Milanovic, you have mentioned the role of the JNA as being one of a buffer between the two parties in the region. Did the JNA mission change in August 1991?

A. Yes. In August 1991, its role changed, the role of the JNA.

Q. In which way?

A. Roughly at that time, the JNA from the buffer zone crossed over to the Serb side, but I must clarify that briefly, because in those days, Croats were fleeing and leaving the JNA and other ethnic groups as well, and the JNA was replenished with Serbs so that it de facto crossed to the Serb side, because it was virtually of the same ethnic composition.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness's microphone be switched on.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. Did JNA units from then onwards conduct joint operations with the TO brigade -- brigades? ²⁷²⁵²

A. Yes, they did act together.

Q. Did volunteers from Serbia participate in these joint actions?

A. There weren't many volunteers, but they did participate.

Q. Were there any volunteers from Montenegro, to your knowledge?

A. I can't really guarantee that there were some from Montenegro. They were mostly from Serbia in my area, according to the best of my knowledge. Maybe in some other part of Krajina or Bosnia.

Q. How were these volunteers integrated into the troops? Under which subordination were they?

A. In most cases the volunteers were under the command of the Territorial Defence, and the Territorial Defence was under the command of the JNA.

Q. You mentioned in your statement that Arkan's Tigers also participated in joint operations. How were they subordinated within the troops?

A. The Tigers were subordinated to the TO, and the TO, as I have said, to the JNA.

Q. Did police units from the RS -- from the region participate in the joint military actions?

A. They did, yes. They participated in joint actions, again under the command of the TO and the JNA.

Q. Did police units from Serbia, from the MUP Serbia participate?

A. I can't say units. There were individuals, but units did not participate in active combat.

Q. In paragraph 17 and 21 of your statement, and it's also 21 in the ²⁷²⁵³ proofing summary, you have described military actions in Nova Tenja, and we need not address that, you mentioned that Radovan Stojicic Badza planned and commanded the operation jointly, and I wonder what exactly does that mean? What did he do in relation to Nova Tenja?

A. Well, Radovan Stojicic Badza as the commander of the Territorial Defence, it was normal that he should participate in the planning and commanding in the liberation of Nova Tenja together with the JNA.

Q. Who was then the commander on the ground who actually directed the troops during the military action?

A. When you say the army, you mean the JNA?

Q. All troops. All troops involved. Who directed then the actions in the field? Was Badza then in the field or who was there in charge?

A. I think that Badza and General Bijorcevic were in command of that operation, and they were at the forward command post.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, do I need to lead all evidence in relation to Badza which is now coming in the paragraphs 23 and the following live or can I restrict on additional evidence given by the witness during the proofing?

JUDGE MAY: If it relates to the accused and it's evidence about his acts and conduct, then you must call it live.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Then I just simply make the distinction between Badza's action in the field and his relationship with Mr. Milosevic, I think. I'll make the distinction here.

Q. You have described Radovan Stojicic's arrival in the region in your statement, and you have also described him as being the commander of ²⁷²⁵⁴ the TO in the region. My question is: Did he come as a volunteer to the region or was he there as an official from Serbia?

A. I think that he did not come as a volunteer.

Q. Why do you think that? What are your observations to that effect?

A. He never said that he had come as a volunteer, and on the ground, our understanding was that he had been sent there by the official authorities of the Republic of Serbia.

Q. You described how he arrived with personnel from the MUP Serbia and also with MUP Serbia equipment. Did he continue to receive equipment from Serbia?

A. Partially, yes.

Q. Did he continue to receive his salary from MUP Serbia? Do you know that?

A. As far as I know, yes.

Q. You have mentioned in paragraphs 19 and 24 also Zivko Trajkovic and Miodrag Zavisic. How long did Zivko Trajkovic stay in the region?

A. I think that Zivko Trajkovic stayed in the area up until the time when the blue helmets arrived in the area of Baranja and Srem and Slavonia.

Q. And Miodrag Zavisic, how long did he stay?

A. For as long as Trajkovic did.

Q. In paragraph 28 of your statement, and it's 25 in the summary, you mention also inspector Veljko Bogunovic who came with about 100 men, Serb policemen employed by the MUP. For how long did they stay in the region?

A. Also until the blue helmets arrived in the region. ²⁷²⁵⁵

Q. Given Badza's role and responsibility, does that mean he and his followers or successors were in charge of both the TO and the police in the entire region?

A. In a sense and pursuant to the law on the imminent threat of war and in a state of war, the police as an armed force comes under the Territorial Defence so that de facto Badza was the commander of the police as well. Only Zavisic was in charge of the professional activities of the police.

Q. After Badza's and Trajkovic's return to Serbia, who then took over the role as the TO commander?

A. The role of the TV commander was taken over by Colonel Bogdan Sladojevic, but through the Vance Plan and the arrival of the Blue Helmets, the Territorial Defence was partially or almost entirely disbanded and the equipment and weapons went under the system of a double lock, double key.

Q. Colonel Sladojevic, was he a JNA officer, and did he continue to be an officer in the VJ?

A. Yes. Sladojevic was an officer of the army of Yugoslavia, and he stayed.

Q. The next exhibit is one that we have already had in the courtroom. It's tab -- it's Exhibit 466, tab 12, and I just would like you to have a look at it. Is that an authentic document, and do you know the signature of Mr. Stojicic?

A. I think that the document is authentic and that that is the signature of Radovan Stojicic. ^{27256 BLANK PAGE 27257}

Q. Yes. Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, in tab 12, I have a document which was signed by -- or, rather, it's an invitation to a meeting. It was signed by a certain Kuzet. I can't find this.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, it is in a separate binder which was already introduced, which is together with the maps. The last document.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's Exhibit 466 --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just got this with the maps now.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's a device, Your Honours, it's a device just for everyone in the courtroom to find the exhibits easier. It's in Exhibit 466, tab 12, already known.

Q. Mr. Milanovic, you said that the civilian authorities were more or less powerless at the -- when the war started and that the JNA was the main power in the region. In your statement, in paragraph 17, you, however, mentioned that the TO was put on a more equal footage when Badza arrived. Can you say when the TO was on a more equal footage, at what time?

A. The Territorial Defence of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem was brought into a somewhat more equitable position when Radovan Stojicic Badza arrived. In some areas this happened in the month of October, and in other areas it happened towards the end of November too.

Q. When this equal footage or somewhat equal footage, was that also achieved in the Vukovar region; and if so, when?

A. Well, as far as the Vukovar region is concerned, it involved the month of November, the end of November, because one could not get from ²⁷²⁵⁸ Slavonia to Vukovar by land because Vukovar was still under Croatian authority. So as for the lower part of Srem where the town of Vukovar is for the most part, on the right bank of the Vuka river, this was under the command of the then JNA.

Q. And when you say the end of November, does that mean after the fall of Vukovar?

A. That's what I mean.

Q. Did Stojicic and the TO become even more powerful than the JNA at any point in time?

A. I think so. After the Vukovar operations were completed, the Territorial Defence gained in importance, like the civilian authorities a bit.

Q. You have described in your statement how you met Badza Stojicic and your dealings with him. When did you meet him for the first time, and did you ask -- did he ask anything of you at that time?

A. Well, I think that I met him sometime during the first part of the month of October 1991, and yes, he did ask me, because he had come from the area of Serbia. He was not familiar with this area, and he had heard from other people that I was familiar with the area, so he wanted me to come along with him when he was carrying out his duties. He wanted me to be in the same car with him so that I would show him the way, because this was not a good time, it was a time of war.

Q. Did he ask you information regarding the villages and their ethnic composition?

A. Yes, he did. That among other things. ²⁷²⁵⁹

Q. Did you become friends with him?

A. I did.

Q. And did you continue to be close to him even after he left the region?

A. Yes.

Q. You mentioned Badza's activities and that he also took part in government session. What -- was his word -- what he said, did this count in the region?

A. Yes, it did. It did carry weight.

Q. Was he well-informed about what was going on in the region?

A. I think he was well-informed.

Q. Why do you think that?

A. Well, I think that because I spent quite a bit of time with him. I think he had all information as to what was going on in the field, particularly because he was commander of the Territorial Defence, and he had meetings every day with his co-workers who were throughout the area.

Q. Do you know whether Mr. Stojicic reported back to Belgrade; and if so, to whom?

A. I think that he sent reports to Belgrade, but I don't know who to.

Q. We have now an exhibit, and it's tab 13 in the binder, in the first binder, Exhibit 549, and is that a document that you provided? It's a decision dealing with a pistol. Is that what you provided?

A. I'm not -- I'm not quite sure that I'm the person who provided that.

Q. If you have a look at this document, you see there a number on top ²⁷²⁶⁰ of it, MM-VD-07. Do you recall that documents that you provided were marked like this during the interview?

A. Yes. This document is a proper one.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, it's not mentioned in the proofing summary, but the witness speaks about this document at paragraph 27 of his statement.

Q. Was Radovan Stojicic close to Mr. Milosevic?

A. Well, according to my information, he was.

Q. Did he communicate -- did Stojicic communicate directly with Milosevic?

A. As far as I know, after 1992, yes. As for 1991 and 1992, I cannot say that.

Q. In the transcript it says as your answer: "As far as I know after 1992, yes." That means not in 1992? You're not sure about 1992? You can't say for 1992?

A. I cannot say anything about 1992.

Q. How do you know that -- what information did you have that he was close to Mr. Milosevic?

A. Well, that is information from Radovan Stojicic, Badza.

Q. Did you actually hear -- overhear conversations that he had with Mr. Milosevic?

A. Well, yes, I did. As I've already said, I heard a few conversations.

Q. How would Badza address Mr. Milosevic in these conversations?

A. Badza addressed him with respect. ²⁷²⁶¹

Q. And what -- how would he -- would he address him by name, by title?

A. Always by his title.

Q. And how would in turn Mr. Milosevic address Stojicic?

A. I think he called him Badza.

Q. In 1993, did the VJ withdraw elements from their positions at the border with the -- with Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem?

A. Yes.

Q. And noticing that, what did you do?

A. I informed Badza that that is what the army of Yugoslavia -- no, the JNA -- no, actually by then the army of Yugoslavia did.

Q. And what did Badza do about this?

A. Well, Badza called Mr. Milosevic right there in front of me, and he informed him about the situation. Mr. Milosevic called Momcilo Perisic and told him to revert the situation to the way it was before that.

Q. Could you hear what Mr. Milosevic was saying to Badza and subsequently to Mr. Perisic?

A. I did hear it.

Q. How was that possible?

A. Well, quite simply Badza had the speaker phone on, so I heard Mr. Milosevic's voice. And Mr. Milosevic said to Badza to wait, that he would call Momcilo now, meaning Perisic. He did call him, and he told him to return the troops where they had been before. I heard that too, because the speaker phone was still on, and the army was indeed returned.

Q. Did you also have an occasion -- ²⁷²⁶²

JUDGE MAY: I think it's about time for the break.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milanovic, we're going to have a break now for 20 minutes. During this adjournment and any others there may be in your evidence, please don't speak to anybody about it until it's over, and that does include the members of the Prosecution team. We will adjourn.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.

--- Recess taken at 12.18 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.40 p.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour.

Q. Witness, you just described to us the conversation in which Mr. Milosevic reversed the order by Momcilo Perisic. Do you recall what exactly he said?

A. Mr. Milosevic said to General Perisic, "Momcilo, it's not for you to think. Just return the troops to where they had been."

Q. You also described a conversation between Mr. Stojicic and Milosevic in relation to a demonstration in Serbia. Can you tell the Court what you heard on this occasion?

A. During the demonstrations in Serbia, Radovan Stojicic Badza was in my apartment. He called Mr. Milosevic, and they spoke about the current situation regarding the demonstrations.

Q. Mr. Milanovic, you described the role of Zeljko Raznjatovic Arkan in the region, and we do not need to repeat all this. My question is: ^{27263 BLANK PAGE 27264} When Badza left the region, to whom was Arkan then subordinated?

A. Legally, he was subordinated to the commander of the Territorial Defence, which soon after that or, rather, after the Vance Plan, was transformed into the blue brigades of the police, the Milicija. Like the other territorials, the Tigers fell under the command of the blue brigades or the police, rather.

Q. You say legally he was subordinated to the TO commander. And de facto? Is there a difference?

A. That is difference, because the Territorial Defence withered away. According to the Vance Plan, it was only the command of the Territorial Defence that could have stayed on, and they were to coordinate with UN headquarters because all the heavy weapons were under the double-key provision, and the UN guarded all heavy weapons. And Bozo Kosutic took over the command of the brigade.

Q. What was Arkan's role after the fighting had ceased, if any?

A. His role was the following: He had a unit that he commanded, and he was present in case there were attack of the Croatian army. Then he would defend the area.

Q. You mentioned in your statement that Arkan became the commander of the training camp in Erdut and that it was Hadzic who appointed him to this position. Who made the decision to this effect? Who decided that?

A. Well, that decision was made by Goran Hadzic.

Q. This training centre, what purpose did it have before Arkan moved in?

A. Well, that centre was the centre for training the Territorial ²⁷²⁶⁵ Defence of the former Yugoslavia. Right after the war operations started, sometime in the month of August, that is where the government of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem moved into. For a while, Radovan Stojicic Badza was staying there as well. When Arkan came, the TO command moved to another building in Erdut which was called the Saponija rest house. The government moved to the castle, as it was called. Others called it the yellow house. This centre remained the training centre for the TO, and that is where Arkan was accommodated. Afterwards, it was only Arkan's centre.

Q. Was the Arkan training centre financed by the DP Dalj company?

A. Well, at that time in these uncertain, unstable times, the TO and the police were financed in different ways until proper government was established, when taxes were paid and when there was a budget once again. In the meantime, individual companies assisted the TO and the police.

Q. So the answer, did DP Dalj finance the -- Arkan's training centre? You didn't --

A. Yes.

Q. Did you review during the proofing several exhibits dealing with the financing of the training centre, and did you find these documents authentic?

A. I think that the documents are authentic.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, it's tab 14 of the Exhibit 549, the legal foundation for this financing. Tab 15 equally, a decree related to the legal foundation. Tab 16, a certificate related to the position of Milan Panisic as a director of the Dalj company. Then we have a document, ²⁷²⁶⁶ tab 427 -- Exhibit 427, tab 44, which is in that separate bundle, and it is an approval that the expenses of the TO training centre be -- will be reimbursed by the Dalj enterprise, and that's you who signs it? Is that your signature?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. And this document doesn't have a date on it. Do you recall when you approved this practice?

A. This document doesn't have a date, but in the top left-hand corner there appears to be written when this company, DP Dalj, received the document, and it says in 1992. So I think this was sometime at the beginning of 1992.

Q. And we have the tabs again from Exhibit 427, tab 47 and 45.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May. Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have two binders for this witness. One -- in one, the last tab is 31, and in the other, the last tab is number 27. I don't have anywhere tabs 44, unless there is a third binder which I haven't seen.

JUDGE KWON: No. It's in this bundle, which is together with the maps.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] With the maps. This bundle says the Presidency of Yugoslavia, and then --

JUDGE KWON: You noticed the number, exhibit number, on the left top of the document. These are exhibits which were already introduced. The exhibit we are dealing with now is Exhibit 427, which was introduced ²⁷²⁶⁷ at the time that Mr. Torkildsen gave evidence.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. So we have the two invoices, one from January 1992 signed by Arkan, and then the other one from January -- January -- the 22nd of January, 1992. Are they authentic?

A. They are.

Q. Then we have three documents, that's tab 45, again in the Exhibit 549. Tab 45, tab 17, tab 18, and tab 19 related to the payment of specific invoices. And I don't think we need to go into details to this effect.

And finally, we have tab 20, and it relates to -- again to the payment, and my question to you would be: Were payments facilitated through accounts in Serbia, to your knowledge?

A. With the beginning of the war operations and the fact that Croatia failed to recognise the country and the abolition of the system of payments transactions that used to apply in the former Republic of Croatia, there were quite a number of work organisations or companies working in the territory of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, and they opened their accounts in banks in Serbia.

Q. And the government as such, the SAO government as such, we have here also indicated on page 4 in the English translation that there is an account for the budget of the Serbian district of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem with Mr. Hadzic as the person who is able to make transactions. Were you aware of that?

A. I remember that document and that decision, and it is pursuant to ²⁷²⁶⁸ that decision that companies in the region of Srem and Baranja opened accounts in Serbia.

Q. Turning now to tab 21 of the Exhibit 549, there is a photo, Mr. Milanovic. Who is seen on the photo, and can you say where this photo was made?

A. On the photograph is Radovan Stojicic Badza, and Zeljko Raznjatovic Arkan. I think it was taken sometime in the autumn of 1991.

Q. And where? Can you see from the background what it may be?

A. You can't see it on this photograph, but I saw a better copy of the photograph, and on it one can see that it was taken in the centre of Erdut.

Q. Mr. Milanovic, did you review some videotapes during the proofing sessions and subsequently some stills from the videos?

A. I did.

Q. And did you also indicate then on a separate sheet whom you recognised?

A. I did.

Q. The first video, did it relate to a news conference on the 25th of November, 1991?

A. Correct.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, it's Exhibit -- tab 22 and 23 in Exhibit 549, and we do not like to play the video because it simply shows who is present, but the witness has indicated on a document that he signed and also dated, he has indicated the people that he saw in the video. We have the stills here and also his comments on who is who, and it's at the ²⁷²⁶⁹ moment on Sanction.

Q. Witness, it's tab 23. If you look into your binder, it's tab 23. And is that what you actually found from the video?

A. Yes, that's it.

Q. And the next video that you actually saw was related to a footage from a meeting on the 20th of November, 1991, in Velepromet in Vukovar.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And, Your Honours, in this case it is Exhibit 458, tabs 19.2 and 19.3.

Q. And did you also -- if you now look at the screen, did you produce also a document indicating again which persons you recognised?

A. Yes, that is the video. On the first photograph I recognised --

Q. We can all see it. You do not need to repeat it. But that is document that's signed by you and produced by you together with assistance from the office here; is that correct?

A. That is that document, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I don't understand what this is about. Madam Uertz-Retzlaff said that this was a meeting that took place on the 20th of November in Vukovar, and here some men can be seen who are standing there to have their photograph taken. Is that the photograph she was referring to? Who was attending this meeting in Vukovar? I simply cannot decipher it from this examination. What is the witness claiming? Who attended that meeting in Vukovar on the 20th of November.

JUDGE MAY: All this witness is doing is identifying these people in the photographs. If there is anything more that Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff ^{27270 BLANK PAGE 27271} wants to ask him or you want to ask him in due course, you can both do so.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I'm not going to ask any questions in relation to this meeting. I just wanted him to identify the people that he saw on the video when he reviewed it.

Q. And the next video, it's tab 24 and tab 25 of the Exhibit 549, and it relates to a parade and press conference in Baranja in January 1992. Mr. Milanovic, did you review that video in which General Bijorcevic gave a speech?

A. Yes, I did review the video.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, we do not want to play the speech of Mr. Bijorcevic. What we have done is we have provided a page with a transcript of what he said, and it was given to the registrar.

JUDGE MAY: Where is that now? We've got the photographs, 24, and the -- I'm sorry, 25.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: 25 are the photographs, and 24 is the video. And we have actually provided also a sheet --

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: -- with the speech of Bijorcevic, which is actually also cited in the statement and in the proofing summary.

JUDGE MAY: It can go in at 24.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. And we therefore do not want to play the video.

Q. But you reviewed the -- you reviewed the tape, and you produced again a document in relation to the people that you recognised; is that correct? ²⁷²⁷²

A. Correct.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, and you can also see that the witness has indicated himself as well as a participant on 51.07. It's just here in Sanction. He has indicated himself being present there. That should be enough for this. Thank you.

Q. Witness, you have described in your statement, and I have to say here that it is and is forgotten in the proofing summary at paragraph 77 and 78 of the statement, you have described how you participated in a session of the extended Presidency on the 1st of February, 1992, and my question is: Do you recall what General Adzic said to promote the Vance Plan, to make it acceptable to the people in the region, in your region?

A. I remember that meeting in the palace of the Federation. I don't need to enumerate all those present because it's written here. Among others, General Adzic spoke, and I think at the time he was Chief of Staff of the Main Staff of the army of Yugoslavia or the Yugoslav People's Army, and he was trying to assure and persuade those of us present to accept the Vance Owen Plan and that the army stood behind it, and should the Croats should attack us, they would help us.

Q. You have already mentioned and it's also described in your statement the arrival of the UN forces and what was done to prepare for this.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And, Your Honours, it's in the -- it's the paragraphs 57, 79, and 80 of the statements.

Q. You have mentioned the officers, Colonel Bozo Kosutic, and Colonel Rajko Kovacevic being in charge of the blue brigades, and my question is: ²⁷²⁷³ These officers, were they JNA officers and did they continue to be employed with the VJ and paid by them?

A. Yes, they were officers of the army of Yugoslavia, and they received a salary.

Q. You have also mentioned that the JNA left behind vehicles and weapons under this double-key system and how they were repainted? Who made these decisions?

A. I didn't understand the question. What decisions?

Q. You mentioned in your statement that the JNA left behind vehicles and weapons under this double-key systems. You said that military vehicles were repainted blue, that parts of the TO now became police staff, and my question was: Who made these decisions to do that?

A. On the basis of the Vance Owen Plan, the Territorial Defence and the army needed to take off their uniforms and put on civilian clothes. Only the command of the TO could remain active, incomplete, but they had to be in plain clothes. According to the Vance Owen Plan, it was permitted for two police brigades to be formed which would wear blue uniforms. In our country the police wear blue uniforms. And that they should be in the area. I also said the exact number of men, and as there was a shortage of men, then from the army and the TO some people transferred to special police units, and the permitted weapons were painted over in blue.

Q. You mentioned a meeting in Karadjordjevo on the 24th of February, 1992, in your -- in your statement. Those steps to be taken, were they all discussed there on that meeting? ²⁷²⁷⁴

A. Yes, they were discussed at the meeting as to how this should be technically carried out and how the blue brigade should be prepared so that they would guarantee the safety of the people in the area of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, because the army of Yugoslavia was withdrawing. The TO was being disbanded, and it was important that the people should have confidence in the two brigades that would be in that area of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem.

Q. Would you please have a look at tab 26 in the binder Exhibit 549. That's a plan for the demilitarisation and transforming of the 11th Corps of the army of the RSK. That is not now related to the arrival of the UN forces but to the Erdut agreement. Can you say to which -- when this document was actually compiled, because it has no date on it?

A. This document was most probably compiled in the second half of November 1995, after the signing of the Erdut agreement, because it is in the spirit of that agreement according to which the 11th Corps of the SBO needed to be demilitarised.

Q. And when you look at the second page of this document, at item number 8, there is a reference to 300 policemen from the Serbian MUP. What kind of unit is that?

A. It was a unit, PJM, a special unit from the MUP of Serbia which was in the area and guaranteed safety to the people of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem.

Q. And when did they come to the region and who commanded them? Do you know that?

A. I can't tell you the exact date, but it must have been after the ²⁷²⁷⁵ 5th of August, 1995. The commander was Major General Obrad Stevanovic.

Q. In your statement and also already today, you mentioned the weapons that were left behind by the JNA and placed under the double-key system. You also gave the details of the amount of weapons and what kind they were. Who had the two keys?

A. The one key was in the TO command or headquarters, and the other key was in the hands of the commander of the sector for the UN forces.

Q. Did the RSK TO regain control over these weapons at some point in time?

A. Yes. After the attack of the Croatian army on Western Slavonia in May 1995, Croatia violated the Vance Owen Plan. It attacked the area, and in agreement with the UN forces, the weapons and artillery was taken over by the TO and an army was formed in the territory of the region of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem.

Q. You also mentioned in your statement that despite the Vance Owen Plan, five TO brigades continued to exist in the region, and they were commanded by Colonel Sladojevic. To whom did Colonel Sladojevic answer? To whom did he report?

A. Which period are you referring to?

Q. I'm referring to the period when there was the RSK. That's in 1992 through to his replacement.

A. If we're talking about the taking over of weapons and artillery from the double-key system, the brigade and command existed, as I said, in civilian clothes. When the weapons were taken, they put on uniforms. And he was subordinated to the TO command in Knin. ²⁷²⁷⁶

Q. Did he also report to someone in Serbia or coordinate his actions with someone in Serbia, with the VJ? Do you know?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let the witness answer the question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My objection has to do with the question, because the question is leading. He's being asked whether he coordinated his activities with anyone else. At that time, there were no actions over there, so he couldn't be coordinating. There were no operations in the Srem-Baranja region.

JUDGE MAY: Perhaps you would like to rephrase the question, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. In the time period that Colonel Sladojevic was in charge of the TO, that is starting from 1992, did he coordinate with anyone in Serbia?

A. When Colonel Sladojevic became TO commander, up until to his replacement almost in 1995, there were no operations. His commander was in Knin. But he was on good terms with the Novi Sad Corps, and this, in my view, out of logical reasons, because the SBO was not physically linked to the lower part of Krajina, but it leaned on the area of responsibility of the Novi Sad Corps. It was adjacent to it.

Q. In relation to funding and equipment of the TO, beginning actually in 1991, during 1991, did -- who financed and equipped the TO in 1991?

A. I can't testify about the very beginning of 1991, but for the very end of it I can, as well as the beginning of 1992 until the Republic of Srpska Krajina was formed. It was financed in various ways. Partly by ²⁷²⁷⁷ the economy of the region, the SBO, and aid did come from the army of Yugoslavia as well.

Q. Did the TO continue to receive funding from the JNA or VJ later?

A. It did receive it later, but since the formation of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, that is the 22nd of February, 1992, all this was done via Knin and then Knin would pass it on.

Q. Did you review a variety of documents related to financing, equipping, and training of either TO or police of the RSK during the proofing session?

A. I did review those documents.

Q. We will now -- did you find them to be authentic?

A. Yes, they are authentic.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, we will now address some of these documents.

Q. First of all, Exhibit 327, tab 9. It's now all exhibits from the special bundle with the map on top of it, and it is here an Official Note on a meeting with Mr. Milosevic and others on the 12th of November, 1992. Did you know that such a meeting took place?

A. I remember that Colonel Stojan Spanovic was then Minister of Defence and that he said to me that a meeting had been held, but I did not know who had been present. And he also said that the mode of financing had been agreed upon.

Q. And looking at the document as such, is it -- when you look at the signature and the stamp and the format, is it authentic?

A. It is correct. I know the stamp, and I personally know ^{27278 BLANK PAGE 27279} Mr. Spanovic's signature.

Q. And the mode of financing that is discussed here, partly through the VJ and partly through the Ministry of Defence, was that actually done in that way, to your knowledge?

A. I think that it was being carried through.

Q. The next exhibit is 327, tab 14. It relates to the funding of the police. Do you know whether this was done in the way described from the -- through the Republic of Serbia, and is it an authentic document?

A. According to its letterhead, stamp, and signature, the document is a correct one.

Q. The next one is tab -- is 327, tab 17, and it's a document of the 28th of August, 1993, and refers to a sum of $60.000 US. First of all, the person Milan Tepavcevic receiving this document, who was he? What was his position?

A. I think that at that time Tepavcevic was assistant head or deputy head of the state security service of Serbia. As for the document, I think that it is correct in terms of its letterhead and stamp. However, it was not signed by Martic himself; it was signed by someone else on his behalf.

Q. Do you know anything about the background of this matter here described in the letter?

A. I remember an Assembly when Martic attacked the mentioned Dusan Orlovic, and this money went missing, that what was intended to be bought was not actually bought.

Q. The next document is Exhibit 352, tab 14, and it relates to a ²⁷²⁸⁰ request for a unified credit and monetary system. Were you aware of the request for such a unified system?

A. I remember that request because in 1992 it was a topical matter.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is what we looked at awhile ago, Martic's letter, when he says, "Within your possibilities, please give us help." Is there another tab 14 perhaps? This is the only tab 14 I have here. This is what it says here. Exhibit 327, tab 14.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's Exhibit 352, tab 14. That's a different document.

JUDGE MAY: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, I don't want to stop you going through these, of course it's matter for you, but I just wonder, when they've already been produced, if we need go through them again. They may speak for themselves.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, but --

JUDGE MAY: In the interests of speeding things up.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We can do that, but --

JUDGE KWON: Were they marked for identification?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, I think they were admitted, but the witness is actually closer, that's why I thought it may be necessary to repeat this exercise. So if not, then we simply --

JUDGE MAY: If there are any matters arising, you can ask them --

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: -- but for the moment, I suggest we move on.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: But I want to ask him in relation to this document. ²⁷²⁸¹

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. This document is directed to the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro, and not -- except for the bank, not to the federal organs. Why that? Why was that?

A. I think that at that time, that was the 12th of May, 1992, the federal authorities did not function for reasons that are well known, because republics had seceded, and the entire monetary system and the budget was reduced to the government of Serbia and the government of Montenegro, and the government of Srpska Krajina addresses them directly, as well as the governor of the National Bank of Yugoslavia.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, this is a typical example of a question that is quite wrong and totally leading. This document pertains to the monetary system, and it is addressed, as you can see, to the governor of the National Bank of Yugoslavia. That is an institution. It is the central bank which is responsible precisely for such matters. And of course it is also addressed to the government of the Republic of Serbia and the government of the Republic of Montenegro, but it is addressed to the federal authorities. The only federal authority in charge of this particular matter, the monetary system, the central bank. How can this question be put why it was not addressed to the federal authorities? But it was. It was addressed to the central bank, and it pertains to monetary matters.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, let the Prosecution put their questions; you can put yours. But as we say, I'm not quite sure the value ²⁷²⁸² of this exercise now.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, just one more --

JUDGE MAY: Let's move on.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Just one more --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It is on.

Q. One more question: Was the money of the RSK printed by the National Bank of Yugoslavia later on?

A. Yes, it was printed at the mint, or I don't know the name of this institution but this is an institution of the National Bank of Yugoslavia.

Q. And was cash money transported from Yugoslavia to the RSK?

A. Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, I -- but I would like to turn to one exhibit, and that's Exhibit 352, tab 15 -- 152. This document was discussed, but I think the witness can tell us the background of the proceedings here. It's an order by Zivota Panic in relation to the accepting and initiating conscript soldiers into the army of the RSK from Yugoslavia.

Q. Do you know to which practice this document relates?

A. The document shows that this happened in January 1993. I cannot say exactly, but I think that's when the Croats attacked the lower part of the Republic of Srpska Krajina. Was it the Miljevac plateau or was it the Medak pocket, I cannot remember exactly, but it is for sure that that is when the Republic of Srpska Krajina proclaimed a state of general mobilisation and sent a request to Yugoslavia for its military conscripts ²⁷²⁸³ to be returned to the area of the Krajina.

Q. Were refugees from the RSK, were they falsely recruited in Serbia? Do you know that?

A. Well, there were such cases.

Q. You have also reviewed a document that asked -- it was a letter of Goran Hadzic.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, it's 352, tab 156, but we do not need to look at it.

Q. In this document, there was a reference to staff for the military justice system. Was -- did staff from the VJ, military prosecutors and legal staff, come to the RSK, to your knowledge?

A. They did. They certainly did.

Q. And was a military justice system established?

A. Yes.

Q. Was any war crime ever -- any war crime trial ever conducted in these courts?

A. I cannot remember for all of the Republic of Srpska Krajina, but in the SBO, no, but civilian courts were trying war crimes.

Q. And do you know how many convictions were achieved and -- in relation to war crimes?

A. I cannot recall exactly. I remember one particular case in Baranja, one that I have truly remembered, but I couldn't remember anything else.

Q. You have described the -- in your statement, and we're now at paragraph 50 in the proofing summary, Your Honours, in the statement it's ²⁷²⁸⁴ paragraphs 91, you have described the cooperation between the -- with the JNA Novi Sad Corps and how it developed in the time. My question to you is: Did you also have direct access to the chief of staff of the VJ, in particular General Zivota Panic?

A. As I said, cooperation was good, and I did have contact with the chief of the General Staff.

Q. How did this start, actually, this direct contact with Zivota Panic? When did it start and how?

A. First of all, they weren't really frequent contacts, and they started -- I can't remember. One occasion when we met at a gathering, we exchanged telephone numbers, and occasionally we would talk to each other and see one another.

Q. What would be the issues of the -- that you discussed? Can you give examples?

A. I can't remember exactly, but it was always in the service of the defence of the territory of the SBO.

Q. You have described in your statement a contact with General Perisic in relation to 50 tanks that you requested and actually received. Did you ask for tanks only or also for the crews to man the tanks?

A. I can't remember the exact date now when I made the request for the tanks and when I received them, but I didn't ask for crews.

Q. And the tanks when they arrived, how did they get into the RSK without being noticed, and where were they deployed?

A. Well -- well, normally we did this secretly. They were deployed in the territory of SBO, but all this was in the interests of defending ²⁷²⁸⁵ the area.

Q. You have also described a conversation or, rather, a visit of General Perisic to the 11th Corps in July 1995.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And, Your Honours, it's omitted in the proofing summary. It's at page -- at paragraph 121 of the witness statement.

Q. You have described -- you have already described an event in which you rejected the -- rejected 21 -- 20 VJ officers that arrived in the region, but I think that's something we have to lead live. In 1995, did you make a request for commanding officers to the VJ?

A. This was in August 1995, but certainly after the fall of the lower part of Krajina, we requested officers from General Perisic, and he sent to us some 20 or so officers but not with the speciality we had requested. He sent those we didn't need. So we turned them back. We sent them back.

Q. Did you make an order to this effect?

A. Yes, I did give the order.

Q. Did Badza call you in this context?

A. Yes, he called me.

Q. And can you describe what happened? What did he say, and what happened afterwards?

A. After that, when I had written the order for them to be returned, Badza called me up, saying that I should come to a meeting in Belgrade, and I did go to the meeting. And I arrived at the meeting, and Badza sent me to see Mr. Milosevic, and we had a brief meeting there. Mr. Milosevic asked me to the effect that Momcilo Perisic was complaining about me, that ²⁷²⁸⁶ I had written an order about the officers. I explained what it was all about, and Mr. Milosevic said that he would talk to Perisic, that it wasn't quite the way he had put it as he had heard my side of the story, what the request was, what kind of officers had arrived, and why they had left.

Q. Did Mr. Milosevic actually know your order or did he have it?

A. I remember that he had it, had this order. Perisic probably gave it to him.

Q. Was your order reversed or was it upheld?

A. No, no. My order was carried out, and it was only once it had been carried out that Perisic complained about it.

Q. Yes. That's understood. But after your conversation with Mr. Milosevic, was your order reversed or was it upheld?

A. I really can't remember exactly whether it was upheld or carried out, but anyway, officers would come and go from our area.

Q. You have described in your statement your communication with the Serbian MUP and other Serbian officials to special telephone lines. Who established these lines?

A. I can't remember exactly, but I think that men came from Serbia. Whether they used to work in the post office or in the MUP, I can't remember exactly.

Q. Were the telephone lines occasionally cut off, and if so, who did that and why?

A. Yes, they were frequently cut off. When I would make a "error," relations would cool, and as soon as the line would break, I knew what it ^{27287 BLANK PAGE 27288} was about.

Q. Were you the only one in the region with such a special telephone that you mentioned?

A. I'm not quite sure about that. Mr. Ilija Kojic may have had it, but I'm not quite sure. And he was Assistant Minister of Internal Affairs.

Q. Would others come to your office to use that telephone line, calling officials in Serbia?

A. Occasionally.

Q. You have mentioned the Serbian state security people being present in the -- in the region, and in relation to Branko Glusica, I would like to know -- where did he have his office?

A. I didn't quite understand. The office in the SBO or in Serbia?

Q. In the region, in your region.

JUDGE MAY: I wonder if in fact that would be a convenient moment, since we're going on to a different topic. It is time to adjourn. Mr. Nice, as I understand it, you want to interpose another witness, which means that this witness would have to come back for the rest of his evidence next week.

MR. NICE: Can I address you about that in private session for a minute?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted] ²⁷²⁸⁹ Page 27289 - redacted - private session

²⁷²⁹⁰

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[Open session]

JUDGE MAY: Tomorrow, then, Mr. Milosevic, it may be that the evidence of General Smith will be interposed, but as you've heard, you are to hear within the hour. And I want, Mr. Nice, to make sure that if you would make sure this evidence, this note gets through, information gets through to the accused as to which of the two witnesses he has to prepare, ²⁷²⁹¹ either this witness or General Smith.

Now, I should also say this, that tomorrow Judge Robinson has to be away from the Tribunal on urgent personal business and cannot, therefore, be present here, but he will have had the opportunity, and we will consider together the appropriate order in relation of General Smith. We've got the material, I think I'm right in saying. You're not asking for the summary to go in but the statement.

MR. NICE: We're asking for the statement. The summary is a draft, but the general has already worked on it, very helpfully by electronic means with us, and so I don't think there are going to be too many further amendments, but there may be some.

JUDGE MAY: And he's only available tomorrow, you say.

MR. NICE: As I understand it. It was difficult to get a day, but of course we'll see what he'll do, given the problems that this witness faces.

JUDGE MAY: That we face. Very well. We will adjourn now. Tomorrow morning.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.52 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the 9th day of

October, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.