²⁹¹⁹⁴

Wednesday, 19 November 2003

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Before I return to questioning, I've investigated how it was that I made the mistake I did with Exhibit 396, tab 6 yesterday. The position is --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you please put the volume up. I can barely hear it. Just a bit more. I hope it's all right now.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues]... Mr. Jovic, not for you. You can listen but I'm addressing the Court. The document that was presented to you had been the exhibit intended to be used until a late stage and was logged in our system under that reference and that ERN number. It was sometime shortly before the exhibit was produced it was substituted by the original document, as the accused correctly recalled, but unfortunately our records weren't amended, and I apologise for the fact that that error occurred.

WITNESS: BORISAV JOVIC [Resumed]

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

MR. NICE: In the statement of the witness, at page 39 in the English, paragraph 151.

Q. Mr. Jovic, I think you respected the accused as a leader. Tell ²⁹¹⁹⁵ us, please, very briefly, were you able to disagree with him privately; were you able to disagree with him publicly?

A. Of course I respected Mr. Milosevic as a leader, and I absolutely never had any ambition of disputing that. I had a very good cooperation with him over a long period of time. He was always accessible to me, either by telephone or in person. I could always present my own point of view and not agree with him. Of course, I could not change his views if these arguments of mine would not be accepted. Definitely things would always remain the way he had wanted them.

As for the remaining part of your question, perhaps I didn't hear it quite well. I could disagree orally. That's the practice we had. We did not want to challenge each other in public because that would have harmed the interests and the policies of our party, although once there was a public disagreement when Mr. Milosevic, during a speech in Leskovac, vehemently criticised the party that he belonged to and whose president I was at the time, and then I gave him an answer in public. So this was an incident, if I can put it that way, that was overcome later on and things continued as usual.

Q. Paragraph 153. At the end of 1991, was there a decision to retire generals and admirals?

A. Yes. That was the time practically of the gradual reduction of Yugoslavia in real terms, and the gradual decrease in the number of soldiers in Yugoslavia. It was necessary to scale down the number of generals as well but also to reduce army expenditures. A number of generals were of retirement age anyway, so according to the customary ²⁹¹⁹⁶ procedure in the army, this situation was reviewed, proposals were made to the Presidency, and a number of generals were relieved of their duties. About 40 of them, I believe.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

MR. NICE: Sorry.

Q. In April 1992 was there a second wave? And you deal with that in paragraph 154, where Kostic had not consulted the accused.

A. I have to say that, as far as I know, he was not consulted about the first round either, Mr. Milosevic. As for the second round, Mr. Kostic made a list for further retirement. In my opinion, he did this under the great influence of Mr. Boskovic whom he had reactivated, because he had been retired before that. He appointed him chief of the intelligence service. And then under his influence, a new list was made for further retirements in a way which was not customary in the army. In the army this was usually discussed among the General Staff and then proposals were made.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... short. When decisions were made to which the accused --

A. Yes.

Q. -- was not a party, what was the reaction?

A. Mr. Milosevic was supposed to take part in the decision-making on the basis of the fact that I was absent. I was abroad at the time and he was standing in for me. That was the way it was according to the constitution. Mr. Kostic did not consult Mr. Milosevic, and he made this decision. However, regrettably in that decision, another thing was ²⁹¹⁹⁷ included, that is the demobilisation of the minister of defence of Serbia, who was also a general, Mr. Negovanovic.

Mr. Milosevic called me, and he was upset. He was angry. How could his minister of defence be replaced, demobilised? Of course that was not right. Mr. Milosevic was supposed to have been consulted, but a practical solution was found, that Mr. Negovanovic, now as a retired civilian, would continue doing that job as well.

Q. Paragraphs 157 --

JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Mr. Jovic, could you elaborate again to us. When you were absent, how could Mr. Milosevic take part in the procedure at the federal stage? Could you tell us more in detail, including the constitution and everything.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. According to the rules of procedure of the Presidency of the SFRY, which was based on the constitutional provisions, if a member of the Presidency from one republic is not in a position to attend a Presidency session due to illness or being away on official business, et cetera, then the president of that particular republic stands in for him, and then he comes to the Presidency session enjoying all the rights of the member of the Presidency from that republic.

Since I was abroad at that time - it was a long trip, perhaps about a week - and this happened at that time, I said to Mr. Kostic that what had to be taken into account was the fact that Mr. Milosevic would be standing in for me and that he should consult him if he wants to do that.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. And at a later stage if the Prosecution ²⁹¹⁹⁸ could indicate the relevant passages of the constitutional statute.

MR. NICE: Certainly. We'll try and have that before you before the witness finishes his evidence.

Q. Paragraphs 157 and 158. You record that you believe that the accused made mistakes in Kosovo and Metohija. There's one point you touch on about the level of representation of the Albanian national community in state structures in the last decade of the accused's rule. Just a word about -- literally a word about that, please, or sentence.

A. Well, it says here quite specifically "many people say." It's not that I say it. Many people say it that the beginning and the end of his mistakes was Kosovo and Metohija. I'm not the one who said it; I just said that many people say that. And I say that this statement was a problematic one, but the fact remains that it was a major problem, or mistake perhaps, that for an entire decade the policy of Serbia did not manage to incorporate in the state structures in Kosovo a meaningful number, if any, of Albanians in the leaderships there.

Q. And just on the same page, paragraph 159, your last sentence, please, where, quoting from your book, there's an opinion of yours expressed. Can you just read the last, literally the last sentence of your statement and then explain in a sentence or so what you meant by that.

A. "Little has been said about the role of decisions that Milosevic had created himself and that this also accelerated the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the decline of the Serbian economy." In this text that I signed for the Court I said, and I would like ²⁹¹⁹⁹ to repeat it once again, that these excerpts here can be properly understood only if one reads the integral text from the book or, rather, if one reads the entire book. The core of the matter is in the following: "The disintegration of Yugoslavia harmed the economy of Serbia to a great extent as it did the economies of the other republics, because all links had been severed." I explained there what the main causes of Yugoslavia's break-up were. Mostly they did not have to do with Serbia, with Mr. Milosevic, but I also said that a lot is being said about Mr. Milosevic being the one who was to blame the most for the disintegration of Yugoslavia. And then I said that Mr. Milosevic, although he was such a strong personality, although his policy was a clumsy one, he could not influence this totally. His influence was only partial. And then I give examples of where this partial influence came in. For example, one could say that although he firmly advocated Yugoslavia and its unity, at the extraordinary 14th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia - and he had initiated its convening - at this Congress he did not work for the unity of Yugoslavia but, rather, towards its break-up. One could say that the severing of economic ties with Slovenia, which was caused by the behaviour of Slovenia towards Yugoslavia because they no longer wanted to pay their dues towards Yugoslavia, they did not want to behave as a republic of Yugoslavia any longer, and this brought great misfortune to the Serbian economy. These are examples that show that Mr. Milosevic and Serbia did not contribute to that entirely. What was -- that was not of crucial importance, their contribution. What was crucial was what I already ²⁹²⁰⁰ referred to, the aspirations for secession, including violent secession, of some republics from Yugoslavia.

Q. To that I'll turn in a moment. First three more of the four exhibits yet to be produced. Tab 4 first, please, dealt with at the end of paragraph 84 of the witness statement, on page 23 in the English version.

Mr. Jovic, you have been shown the extract of a diary of somebody called Petar Jankovic. You've reviewed this, and in the diary the author speaks of, about six lines down, going to see you, presenting the situation which surprised you when you heard that there were 18.000 Muslims in Bijeljina, "surprised that the army had not armed us. Why don't the orders go through the army? Radmilo avoids." And then you're recorded in the diary as saying, "The Serb people have been buying that arms and they must get it, they must use it only for defence. He asked what kind of contact we had with the army. I said we had good relations with the commander..."

Do you recall this event and being aware of or involved with the arming of Serb people to this extent?

A. I did not quite understand the last sentence, that I said that I had good relations with the commander. Who said that; he or I?

Q. He -- he said that, I think.

A. Well, let's get things straight. These people did come to see me. At that time, I was the president of the Socialist Party of Serbia, I think. This happened in my office, at any rate. Mr. Radmilo Bogdanovic, who was either minister of the interior or an official at that level, I ²⁹²⁰¹ really don't know exactly whether he was still minister of the interior at the time, insisted that they should come. I thought they were people who wanted cooperation with the Socialist Party, because over there in Bosnia there is also a Socialist Party of Serbia.

When they came and when they spoke about that problem of theirs, of course what they said, how many Muslims there were, et cetera, I was a bit surprised by that because I am not very familiar with the area. As far as I know, Bijeljina is a Serb town, but I didn't know that there were that many Muslims. So this information was news to me. But that's not really that important.

This is the question they dealt with. They said that they did not have enough weapons over there. Of course, what I thought then and what I think now is that the Territorial Defence of Serbia did not have enough weapons, although it was supposed to have enough. The Territorial Defence was supposed to function that way, because that's the way it was supposed to function for decades. And I said to them that they have to discuss these matters with the army, because the army was supposed to take care of that, that proportionately every area should have a sufficient number of weapons.

That's what it was all about; no more, no less.

MR. NICE: Tab 14, please, is a transcript of an interview, of the unedited interview of Zivota Panic for The Death of Yugoslavia in which both he and this witness and many others participated. There's a short extract. The Chamber has the transcript at tab 14. If we can play it, please. ²⁹²⁰²

[Videotape played]

MR. NICE: Thank you very much.

Q. Mr. Jovic, General Panic said that the plan which followed on the fall of Croatia and the fall of Vukovar was discussed and approved by the Rump Presidency. Your comment, please.

A. Never was such a plan discussed at the Presidency sessions, but there was a political position that was confirmed several times, and the army was aware of that, what the political position of the Presidency was. We did not want to use the army in order to overthrow the Croatian government or to conquer Croatia that had decided to secede from Yugoslavia. Quite simply, we wanted there to be protection. We wanted to have a buffer between the Serb territories and the Croatian units in order to protect the Serb territories until a political solution is found for this issue. That was our position.

So what Mr. Panic said, that they had a plan and they could have reached Zagreb, these were probably some kind of plans of their own. They probably could have reached Zagreb, but the policy of the Presidency of Yugoslavia was that this should not be done. There was never a specific meeting devoted to that. There was a political position that the army had been aware of for months.

Q. You were part of the body that was the Commander-in-Chief of the army. Were you aware of Panic's plan? Did you countermand his actions or control him in any way? What's the position?

A. No. No. We were not aware of this plan. He mentioned me here but he did not discuss that with me. In all fairness, he described the ²⁹²⁰³ meeting with me in relative terms, because he said that Kostic was at that time president of the Presidency and that he had talked to him, possibly, but I can say -- I beg your pardon? I can just claim that at that time it was definitely quite clear within the Presidency, and all the members of the Presidency said the same thing, that we do not accept any kind of advancement towards Zagreb or the toppling of the Croatian government or the taking of Croatian territories where Croats live. Rather, we want conditions to be created for a political solution for the Serb question in Croatia and that that is where it should be stopped.

Q. A few more exhibits. One added overnight by way of an addendum, and a new exhibit list has been published, but first of all just to deal with things swiftly, at tab 20, there's a passage just extracted for convenience from the evidence of Ambassador Okun where he made an observation about the taking of Vukovar, and he observed -- and I'll just read out the relevant passage. It's halfway down the page: "He saw the garrison. It was small and hardly touched in Vukovar. And then Mr. Jovic, the former president of the country, reported in his book on the break-up of Yugoslavia that in fact he said the garrison had been freed on the 20th of September, 1991."

That's what you wrote in your book. Is that right, Mr. Jovic, that the garrison was freed by the 20th of September 1991?

A. Well, you should indicate where that was written. I really don't remember. Possibly that's what it says, but I really do not remember.

Q. I will be coming to that in a second. So let's go to the last exhibit, tab 21. This is again to do with Vukovar. It's a television ²⁹²⁰⁴ clip at the time when you were in the Presidency -- I beg your pardon, you were -- yes, in the Presidency, and we can just play it. It's something from Radio/Television Belgrade, and I'd like your comment on it, please. Incidentally, Mr. Jovic, you will recall that when discussing matters with the Office of the Prosecutor who were giving you an opportunity to deal with the matters in advance, this was covered in a newspaper article, but this is a television broadcast covering the same topic.

[Videotape played]

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters do not have a transcript.

JUDGE MAY: How long is this going to play?

MR. NICE: -- transcript. It's nearly finished. I trust the Court has had an opportunity to follow the transcript. The witness has heard it.

Q. Can you help us, please, Mr. Jovic? This was a celebration of success in Vukovar. Were you aware of it at the time?

A. Of this celebration?

Q. Yes.

A. No. I hear of it for the first time now.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... article in a newspaper covering the same thing a couple days ago.

You will remember yesterday I was asking you about how, when Vukovar and the fall of it and the crimes committed, if they were, were on your watch, asked you how that could happen. This ceremony took place on the 21st of November, 1991. Can you explain how, please, you as member of ²⁹²⁰⁵ the Commander-in-Chief body would be unaware of something like this? So we can have the picture.

A. I believe that it is quite clear. The army was not so dependent on the Presidency as not to be able to hold a meeting of its own at which it would congratulate someone, praise someone, or punish someone. These were things that were quite normal. How shall I put it? Within the Presidency of the SFRY does not have such control over the army that it would be impossible for them to get together --

Q. Very well.

A. -- and congratulate one another.

Q. Very well. I have three more or four more general questions for which I would like your assistance, and I'm going to ask you, before you answer the first question, to review with me and for the assistance of the Chamber some passages in your statement. I'll tell you what the question is straight away, we'll look at the passage in your statement, and then I'll ask you the question again.

The question is: To what extent in the minds of the leadership was violence recognised from the beginning as the only solution to this problem?

And if we can start, please, at English page 24, paragraph 89. I'm going to work backwards. So if you have paragraph 89, Mr. Jovic. Incidentally, that's the paragraph where the Chamber will see, right at the end of the page, that the siege in the garrison at Vukovar was lifted, according to an entry of yours, on the 20th of September. But if we can go further up the page to paragraph 88, the first reference is, the first ²⁹²⁰⁶ three lines: "The war," according to Kadijevic, "must be offensive and high-intensity, because anything else would lead to defeat." We then come back, please, to paragraph 81, where, at a meeting of just now the three of you at Kadijevic's house, the accused insisted the military must defend the future borders of Yugoslavia. Indeed, in paragraph 83, the boundaries are identified.

If you would be good enough, please, Mr. Jovic, to come back before that to paragraph 48, which the Chamber will find on page 14 so far as material, for an entry of the 18th and 21st of January, 1991. Mr. Jovic, at the end of paragraph 48, you record asking the accused "if he would rather have us take weapons by force than have them surrendered voluntarily. I asked him directly: Does he want bloodshed over a matter that might be able to resolve peacefully? In his opinion, this is not a solution."

And then on the same or the following day, paragraph 49: "The agreement I had with Mesic fell through three days later." Three days later -- I was right the first time. "The Croats lied and didn't surrender the weapons. Milosevic thought that was excellent. He thought we should accept Croatia's secession and hold Krajina militarily." And at paragraph 52, at the foot of the same page, four lines down, the accused is disappointed with the results of the Presidency session. It doesn't fit in with his idea which we can discuss over the phone, and that is -- because he says, "Once the military covers Serb territory in Croatia, we no longer have any reason to fear the final outcome of the Yugoslav crisis." ²⁹²⁰⁷ If you would be good enough to come back to paragraph 47 on English version 13. I've only got three more page references, I think. At the end of paragraph 47, this is arguably in the voice of Kadijevic but it's not clear from the overall script, the last three lines read like this: "We will shed blood if there is no alternative only for territories in which nations who want to remain in Yugoslavia live." If the Chamber would come back to page 12. We may just look at the top of the page, which is the end of your paragraph 42, Mr. Jovic, and that is where you acknowledge that symbols of Chetniks and Ustashas and other defeated collaborationist forces are being paraded -- World War II collaborationist forces are being paraded around in plain public view. The wave of hatred and national prejudices threatens to return us to our bloody past."

We come -- there are actually four more, but they won't take very long. Come back to English page 7 so that paragraph -- your paragraph 24, Mr. Jovic --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, I don't think this is fair on the witness. I think this is a matter of argument which you're trying to put into the witness's mouth. It's also, with respect, taking up time.

MR. NICE: Very well, Your Honour. Can I ask the question nevertheless by reference to one of the passages, and I can explain the purpose of the exercise which is designed to assist the Chamber. If we come back before the one I've got to and we come right the way back to 1989, paragraph 10, page 3, we see that well before the violence, Mr. Jovic, in 1989, paragraph 10, you record this, four lines up ²⁹²⁰⁸ from the bottom of the paragraph, roughly: "I was of that opinion because Serbs lived in nearly all parts of Yugoslavia and because I strongly felt that if Yugoslavia were to fall apart, a large part of the Serb population could end up beyond the borders of Serbia unless they opted for another solution through the use of force."

The question that I want your assistance with for the Chamber is this: Was there a recognition, or to what extent --

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Let counsel finish his question and then you can object. Yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. To what extent was there a recognition that force, violent force, military force, was the only solution to the developing political problem?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Now, Mr. Milosevic, what is your point?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that Mr. Nice is quoting this paragraph 10 of the witness statement incorrectly in relation to the witness, because he's putting the end of the quotation except and unless another solution were to be achieved by force. The next sentence reads: "I have feared genocide against the Serbs should they become national minorities, especially in Croatia. The Serb issue was not an easy matter to resolve. There was an objective risk of a civil war breaking out for a new division of Yugoslavia," et cetera. So the point --

JUDGE MAY: Now, wait a moment.

MR. NICE: Quite happy to -- ²⁹²⁰⁹

JUDGE MAY: The witness has now heard the rest, of course, of the quotation which he could have read for himself. Yes. He can now answer the question.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If the reference is to paragraph 10, I will answer the question, but I have to say -- or, rather, to caution that in this statement of mine, I pointed out that these quotations in the way in which they have been given are abstracts from the book and that they are not fully representative.

Now, if we take a sentence out of those quotations without taking into consideration the whole passage, then it requires a great deal of clarification and explanation. So I appeal to the Court, regardless of the sentence I'm being asked about by the Prosecution, if I don't have time to read the whole passage and to clear up everything, then the whole passage must be taken into consideration and even the book from which it was extracted.

I shall now come back to this point 10. I said quite clearly that our fundamental interest in Serbia was for Yugoslavia to prevail, because the Serb people were living in virtually all the republics. And if Yugoslavia were to break up, there was a very grave danger that a large portion of the Serb people should be left outside the mother country. In view of our history, particularly of the Second World War, the Serb population there was destroyed. About 1 million out of 3 million were destroyed, and there would be a grave danger of an exodus towards Serbia which we could not deal with. Of course, the first danger would be that all their rights would be taken away from them though they were ²⁹²¹⁰ entitled to them according to the constitution of Croatia and Bosnia. And as this would probably lead to discord among the Serb people in those areas, then there would be conflict over their rights, and that is what I was referring to. And I said that there was an objective risk for their rights to be jeopardised and for them to be persecuted or destroyed. And I said, unfortunately, my fears in many respects proved justified. As you know, there was a civil war and more than 250.000 people from Croatia were expelled to Serbia.

MR. NICE:

Q. Very well.

A. And the fact that my assessment was that war would probably be inevitable, unfortunately my estimate, assessment, proved to be right. Not because we wanted it that way but because that was our assessment.

Q. Second question, which I'll do without reference to the pages to save time, although they're available if anyone wants me to identify them, is this: Can you help the Chamber with different philosophical bases for denying Kosovo Albanians secession where they were in a majority, being prepared to impose Serb rule on areas in Croatia and later in Bosnia, but Croatia for your period, where Serbs were in a local majority, being prepared to impose Serb rule on areas like Eastern Slavonia, Western Drina, Dubrovnik, where there was no Serb majority? Can you explain, please, in general terms, the philosophical justification for those three different positions.

A. There's no philosophical background to that, there is a constitutional basis for it. Simply, the Albanians in Kosovo and ²⁹²¹¹ Metohija, and Albanians in Serbia in general, are a national minority because they have their motherland, Albania. Not a single nation in the world, as far as I know, is allowed to have two states. There's no reason for that. If they are partially inhabiting another state, they enjoy the status of a minority there, and they have their mother country. The Albanians in Serbia had autonomy -- or, rather, Kosovo and Metohija were an autonomy where the Albanians were in the majority with enormous rights that were close to the rights of a republic.

As regards Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, those were two republics in Yugoslavia which were the only ones that were multinational, that is they had constituent nations. Slovenia, Macedonia, and Montenegro has one nation and several minorities; however, Croatia and Bosnia were republics in which three nations constituted the republic. The Croatian constitution said that Croatia was a state of the Croatian and Serbian people. The constitution of Bosnia said that Bosnia and Herzegovina was a state of the Serbian, Croatian, and Muslim people. They now renamed themselves into Bosniaks. And it was in that way that their rights were defined not only in the constitution but right through in all the bylaws and regulations so that Serbs in territories or municipalities in which they had majorities - I think the UN proclaimed 24 such municipalities with a Serb majority - they had power in those municipalities. Of course, participating in the authorities were Croats, but in proportionate numbers. They had their representatives in the Croatian parliament, again in proportion to their numbers, so that due to the very fact that Serbs and Croats and in Bosnia also the Muslims were constituent elements of ²⁹²¹² that state, they had the same or equal rights.

And now I come back to a provision of the Yugoslav constitution which says that the right to self-determination is inviolable and belongs to the republics and the nations. The implications is the nations in the republics. It was never stated that the Serb nation throughout Yugoslavia could call a referendum and separate as a nation. No. A referendum could be called within a republic where there are one nation and several minorities. Where there are two nations, two referendums. When there are three, three referendums. And if there are differences, they must find a joint solution. That is the constitutional basis. And it was not there by chance. It was the result of the historical evolution of our country accepted by all the Yugoslav peoples.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... probably identified that. The one that remains is imposing Serb rule on areas where there was either a relative majority or indeed a minority of Serbs. Eastern Slavonia will do as an example. Can you help us with that; what's the philosophical or political justification, in your opinion, for that for Dubrovnik?

A. This is absolutely no evidence that Serbia ever tried or imposed Serb authority in Dubrovnik. That is absolutely incorrect. I would like to ask you kindly to tell me when that happened.

Q. I'm not going to ask any more on that. And my last question, because I realise the time, but I think it's important that we have this before us: You know, Mr. Jovic, that Mr. Markovic, the man against whom you -- as you make clear in your statement, ran some anonymous articles at one stage in a newspaper, is coming back to give his evidence, you ²⁹²¹³ criticise him in this document. Was he a man of peace, and in a sentence just so that we can understand it, what was the criticism -- and so that he may deal with it maybe, what was the criticism that your leadership made of him?

A. Mr. Markovic was the president of the federal Executive Council within whose competence economic policies were in the first place, and fiscal and financial matters, everything related to the economy. In our judgement, he pursued economic policies which were partially directly contrary to the interests of Serbia. And he also had the political aim of toppling the Serbian leadership.

I will give you a couple of examples as these are very complex matters. He devised a stabilisation programme according to which the prices of products manufactured in Serbia and sold throughout Yugoslavia, in the first place electricity and agricultural products, those prices were limited by the state at such a low level that they would have no profits - in fact, they would function at a loss - yet they were supplying the whole of Yugoslavia.

On the other hand, he allowed free formation for the prices of all products manufactured by other republics and which are sold also in Serbia, of course. In this way, Serbia was damaged, and it couldn't accept that readily.

Secondly, Serbia was a major exporter to the former Soviet Union. Other republics as well, but Serbia was the largest exporter to that market. The mechanism of those exports were such that the state supported it. When goods were exported to the Soviet Union, there was a ²⁹²¹⁴ state-controlled fund out of which those goods would be paid for immediately and money would be restored to that fund when Russian goods coming to Yugoslavia - and the state was importing gas, oil, and other goods - and then that money would go back into that fund.

Q. You've told about that and you've told us what he did in relation to it.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I see the time. One could go on raising interesting issues with the witness like this, but I'll stop now.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, but you stopped me when I wanted to say just one more sentence, and with the permission of the Court.

We had to halt exports to Russia because he stopped that mechanism. He said only once you collect payment can you receive the money. And there were a series of things like that, so we felt that he was working against our economy and against the Serbian leadership. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before I begin my cross-examination, Mr. May, Mr. Kwon, and Mr. Robinson, I received your ruling on Sunday in which you limit Mr. Nice's time up to two hours. You give me up to six hours, and the amicus one hour. And as we can see, Mr. Nice spent not two hours yesterday but two sessions, and 55 minutes this morning. So I assume that this will have a proportionate reflection on my time and that you will give me more time, and would you please bear that in mind. ²⁹²¹⁵

JUDGE MAY: We will bear it in mind, but you also heard us say that we were going to allow the Prosecution more time because of our requirement that he deal -- the Prosecution deal live with evidence, and secondly, because of new material which the witness had adduced. We will bear in mind your application, but I would have thought six hours would be more than enough to deal with this cross-examination. And we also bear in mind that we would want to finish it this week. We have two days, or one and a half days left. We'll also see if we can sit a bit later this afternoon to fit in more time.

Yes. Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] As time is limited and there are many things to get through and many things which were raised here and matters upon which I think you can testify objectively, Boro, because you occupied top positions in Serbia and Yugoslavia at the time, so I'm going to try and ask as short questions as possible and I should also like to ask you to answer in the measure to which you consider to be necessary to respond and answer and explain.

Here the main - how shall I put this? - of that false indictment, the main assertion here is, or allegation, is that we or, rather, in this case I, because I am sitting here in this seat, but of course other members of the leadership as well, the peaks of the state, had some kind of concept of a Greater Serbia. So I should like to ask you for a very decisive, resolute answer to the question: Is it true that that is a pure invention and fabrication, that the political leadership of Serbia and ²⁹²¹⁶ Yugoslavia had some kind of notion of a Greater Serbia; or, rather, is it true and correct that the political leadership of Serbia and Yugoslavia never had this concept of a Greater Serbia in their minds?

A. Yes, that is true, and what I can say is this: We had three concepts throughout that period of time which were adapted to suit the situation. The first concept was to preserve Yugoslavia, which we failed to do through constitutional change. The second concept was that if Yugoslavia had to disintegrate, then that the right of self-determination to nations should be applied, a referendum everywhere to hear the vox populi. When that wasn't accepted, the third concept was to ensure equality for the Serb people just like all the other nationalities in the republics which remained outside Yugoslavia. And that is all. There was never any other concept.

Q. And is it true that this slogan that was promoted and I explained here how this was incepted as an Austro-Hungarian creation after the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, when everything that was Serb was referred to as "Greater Serb" or "Greater Serbian," that the slogan that the Serb people had the aspirations of a Greater Serbia was a pretext for realising what were in fact separatist tendencies and plans to break up Yugoslavia?

A. Well, historians should give the final say, and they have actually said how this theory of a Greater Serbia came into being in the first place, and that is probably correct and it's up to them to say. Now, as far as the disintegration of Yugoslavia is concerned, it is common knowledge, or at least as far as I know it is, it was the ²⁹²¹⁷ historical aspirations of the Croatian Slovenian people to create their own independent states. And this dates back to the disintegration of Austro-Hungary itself. Because they didn't succeed in doing so, they were pushed into this common state at the time, but throughout their existence, or rather, the existence of the new Yugoslavia created after World War I, they constantly worked towards increasing their independence and autonomy and that's what they succeeded in doing through constitutional amendment until 1974, in the 1974 constitution they didn't succeed in writing down -- they succeeded in writing down provisions which allowed them to step down from Yugoslavia unpunished.

Q. But when they entered into Yugoslavia after World War I, they entered into it together, that is to say the Slovenes, the Croats, and Serbs entered into it together from the areas of the defeated Austro-Hungarian monarchy. And that was the idea of American President Wilson, to allow them the right to self-determination, and they proclaimed that right to self-determination. So the Croats, Slovenes and Serbs from the former Austro-Hungary united together with the Serbs to create the new Yugoslavia; is that right?

A. Yes, that is right.

Q. So they joined Yugoslavia on a footing of equality, and when they stepped down from Yugoslavia or out of Yugoslavia, they just wiped out the right of the Serb people who together with them joined this new Yugoslavia and had lived there before World War II and to the end of World War II on the territory of the former Austro-Hungary; is that right?

A. Yes, that is right. That was the former territory of Slovenia, ²⁹²¹⁸ Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, and Vojvodina. On the whole of this territory there were Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes living there. Of course the Slovenes are now in Slovenia. Now, the boundaries between them had never been drawn when they joined together to form Yugoslavia, and so they entered into Yugoslavia as one state of the Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs and joined the Kingdom of Serbia.

Q. So to sum up this question about a Greater Serbia, is it true that none of the politicians or any political organ of Serbia or Yugoslavia ever came out with the idea or a plan to create a Greater Serbia?

A. Yes, that is right. They never came out with that. It wasn't in the interests of the Serbian people.

Q. And is it true that our position of principle throughout the Yugoslav crisis, regardless of whether we are dealing with your variants, the ones you quoted to begin with, the right to self-determination or equality, because that boils down to the same thing, our standard principle was always that the Serbian people should be equal and on a footing of equality and free in the territory they live in, nothing more, nothing less, and that nobody in Serbia or Yugoslavia asked for anything more or anything less; is that right?

A. Yes, that is right.

Q. All right. Now, I'm going to try and get through my questions as quickly as possible, but let's start off with Kosovo. You mentioned yesterday that for a time before being elected as a Yugoslav state Presidency member from the Republic of Serbia, you were president of the national Assembly of Serbia; is that right? ²⁹²¹⁹

A. Yes.

Q. And it was precisely at that time when you were president of the national Assembly of Serbia that the constitutional amendments came about which wielded changes in Serbia and changes which had to do with Kosovo and Vojvodina province; is that right?

A. Yes, that is right.

Q. You were also the president of the commission which worked on those constitutional amendments; is that right?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Therefore, I assume that we cannot say that there is anybody who would be better placed than you yourself to give political and legal assessments about the events that took place at the time, political first and foremost, but of course legal ones too, because we were dealing with constitutional matter and work in the commission that you headed and the Assembly that made the decisions and you were at its head too. Is that right, Boro?

A. Yes. There are probably people who are more competent, but I'll tell you everything I know.

Q. All right. Fine. Now, you can just give me yes or no answers to my questions. Of course if that is sufficient. I don't insist on preventing you from explaining, but it is true that Kosovo and Metohija had autonomy from the 1974 constitution onwards and that, pursuant to that constitution, Vojvodina had the character of an autonomous province with a slightly higher degree whereas Kosovo and Metohija a slightly lower status or, rather, it was called an autonomous region? Is that right? ²⁹²²⁰

A. Yes.

Q. And is it true that the 1963 constitution equated the status of Kosovo and Metohija and Vojvodina?

A. Yes.

Q. And that the 1963 constitution Vojvodina and Kosovo reached the highest possible autonomy, the kind that had no precedence anywhere in the world?

A. Well, I don't know everything going on in the world, but yes, I can say they did have a great degree of autonomy.

Q. Is it true that through the process of constitutional change at the beginning of the 1970s, with the 1974 constitution as its culmination, their position, the position of the provinces was raised up to a hitherto unprecedented level either in theory or practice, according to which they were constituent, which means the socialist autonomous provinces were constituent elements of the federation according to which the Republic of Serbia, whose part they were, were under their tutorship, in fact?

A. Yes, that is right. It was already in 1971 that the constitutional amendments were passed which gave the autonomous provinces all the inherences that republics had with the exception of some small ones such as a coat of arms, a flag, and so on.

Q. All right. But I would like to make one point clear to everybody listening to these proceedings; that what was done was in contravention with the constitution of Yugoslavia itself and the constitution of Serbia as well. And let me illustrate this by asking you several questions. Is it true that the SFRY constitution of 1974, the 1974 ²⁹²²¹ constitution providing this greatest level of autonomy, in Articles 1 and 2 provided for the fact that the SFRY was composed of six socialist republics, and two autonomous provinces are also mentioned. And in this regard, it is emphasised that those two provinces are a constituent part of the Socialist Republic of Serbia; is that right?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Is it also right that Article 3 of the SFRY constitution read as follows -- the socialist republic and autonomous provinces are not mentioned there but the socialist republic is mentioned: "That the socialist republic is a state based on the sovereignty of the nations and on the rule of the working classes and all working people and the socialist self-management democratic immunity of working people and citizens and equal nations and nationalities."

So are you aware of that Article 3? Do you also know --

A. Yes.

Q. Do you also know that the constitution of Serbia defined republics in similar fashion?

A. Yes.

Q. As "a state based on the sovereignty of the people and the power of and self-management by the working class and all working people." So does each state imply the existence of power and authority exercising its powers throughout the territory of that state?

A. That's how it should be but it wasn't the case in our particular case.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, earlier you asked the witness to ²⁹²²² confirm that what was done was in contravention of the Yugoslav and Serbian constitution. Could you clarify and have the witness answer what was it that was done that was in contravention.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What I said was, and I confirm it through the questions and responses given by the witness, that that degree of autonomy given to the provinces was in contradiction with the letter of the constitution itself or, rather, the constitution was in contradiction with itself, because if in Article 3 that I've just quoted from and Mr. Jovic confirmed, it states that a socialist republic, or the socialist republics - and a republic is a state - the socialist republics are states it says, and at the same time by other acts this degree of autonomy wipes out the fact that it is a state, then that is in itself a contradiction in objecto, a contradiction of itself. And that is why I raised the question of whether every state implies the existence of power and authority which through its organs is exerted and exercised throughout the territory. And Mr. Jovic's answer was yes. But in this case that was not the case. That was not how it was. But as a lawyer and legal man yourself, Mr. Robinson, you know full well that the state implies the existence of power and authority exercised on the territory where it exists. May I continue with my questions, please?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, continue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, is it true that the organs of Serbia to all intents and purposes had no competencies and authorisations on the territory of the ²⁹²²³ provinces because the hierarchy of the organs ended at the level of the provinces?

A. Well, they did not have the right, the organs of the republic at the level of the provinces did not have these rights but neither did the citizens of the provinces have the right to realise their rights within the republic. For instance, they weren't able to complain to the republican courts if they were prosecuted, for example, in Kosovo for something they considered was not in order. So there was this interruption, this great severance.

Q. All right. So it is true that the hierarchy of the legal organs ended at the level of the supreme courts of the provinces and not the Supreme Court of Serbia, that -- whose jurisdiction did not even stretch to the territory of the provinces. Isn't that right?

A. And that was very difficult, because Serbia could not change or enact its constitution without agreement from the provinces, and the provinces could pass all their legal acts, statutory, constitutional provisions and others, without the agreement of the republics, which was complete nonsense.

Q. All right. Now, the examples I've quoted, and I have taken just a few examples because my time is limited, don't they clearly confirm and bear out the fact that concrete institutional, constitutional solutions and settlements from the 1974 Serbian constitution were in drastic contravention with the provisions of that constitution itself, in contradiction with them and the SFRY constitutions which defined the status of the republics and republics in general, including the status of ²⁹²²⁴ Serbia itself and the status of the republics in general, as I say, because it says the socialist republic is a -- the socialist republics are states. That's what it says. Isn't that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, is it true that Serbia, pursuant to its own constitution, was duty-bound to protect the rights of all its citizens?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it quite obvious that it was not in a position to fulfil that duty of its in the provinces because it had no institutional mechanisms or ways of doing so, either judicial or any other kind? Is that right?

A. Yes, that is right.

Q. So in the territory of the provinces, Serbia was completely disenfranchised, although pursuant to the constitution of Serbia and Yugoslavia, both provinces were in fact parts of Serbia. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And although it had the constitutional duty to take care of all its citizens in this same provision, it was practically denied of the possibility of exercising that duty.

A. Yes.

Q. So according to the federal and republican constitutions, all citizens were equal, weren't they?

A. Yes.

Q. Isn't it quite clear that this principle of equality, which at any rate supersedes any kind of administrative divisions, was fully ²⁹²²⁵ jeopardised and imperiled?

A. That's why we had to change the constitution; not because it was written that way but simply because it proved in practice to create insurmountable difficulties. In Vojvodina we did not have such problems but in Kosovo there were many problems where citizens could not get appropriate protection within the Kosovo authorities, and they sought protection from the republic and the republic did not have the right to provide them with this protection.

Q. We'll get to that as well.

A. Is it correct that the autonomous status of Vojvodina and Kosovo and Metohija was granted to them because of certain specific characteristics they had ethnically, historically speaking, culturally and so on?

A. Yes.

Q. It was a mix. Isn't that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it right that only a very small number of laws in Serbia from 1974 onwards pertained to the entirety of the republic, whereas a great many laws were passed separately for the autonomous provinces and for Serbia proper, as it was called although this was never defined legally?

A. Yes. There were practically these three areas that did not coordinate mutually.

Q. Is it true that on the legislative plane this disintegration did not have anything to do with the specific characteristics of the autonomous provinces, why they actually got this autonomous status? ²⁹²²⁶

A. Well, I cannot exactly claim that it had nothing to do with it, but it could have had something to do with the following: For example, education, that can be a specific matter. Then also as regards some questions that have would have been regulated in a different way because of the ethnic composition. However, as for elementary matters, there was no reason for having any kind of difference involved. For example, the Criminal Code would have to be the same everywhere. They had separate Criminal Codes. So if something was punishable according to the Criminal Code of Serbia, it was not according to the Criminal Code of the province. You could do whatever you wanted there and you wouldn't be punished for it, whereas it was not possible to do that in our state. That is impossible as a way for a state to function.

Q. But isn't it correct that this kind of legislative separation had been brought to an absurd level that absolutely annulled the definition of Serbia as a proper state?

A. Well, it seriously brought into question the existence of Serbia as an integral state. And also at the same time, it seriously brought into question the equality of Serbia vis-a-vis the other republics that did not have such problems.

Q. All right. Doesn't all of this tellingly show that the constitutional changes for 1989 were indispensable in order to bring the provisions of the republican constitution in line with the federal constitution and the republican constitution itself because the two collided? And the only way of redressing this collision were these changes. ²⁹²²⁷ Before you answer this question of mine, this is your book, "A Date For History," because in addition to these two books --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, I'm going to ask for these two books to be tendered into evidence in addition to the ones that were tendered by Mr. Nice. These two books of Mr. Jovic's as well. This is a book called "A Date for History," and on page 144 - I'm quoting - I agree with the quotation, but I would like you to comment this.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please slow down because the interpreters do not have the text.

JUDGE MAY: Slow down, please. Slow down when you're reading. Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. I'm going to skip this part. "This amendment spells out specifically the legislative powers of the republic throughout its territory, notably in the field of national defence, internal affairs, international relations --" I don't want there to be a mistake in the interpretation. I mean international relations indeed at an international level, not inter-ethnic relations. And I continue the quotation: "A singular protection of the most important social values, et cetera, with the aspiration of specifically spelling out all of this in accordance with the constitutional rights and responsibilities of Serbia as well as in accordance with the rights and responsibilities of the provinces. Rather, without referring to any ambiguity the sovereign rights should be spelled out quite specifically, those that are exercised in the republic as a state." ²⁹²²⁸ This is from page 144. And if we had time, there would be very many useful quotations that we could refer to so that everybody would understand all the things that were going on. But is it clear that these constitutional changes were a necessity, something that was made indispensable and showing the high degree to which various constitutional provisions collided within the constitution itself and also in relation to the provisions of the republican and federal constitution? Isn't that right?

A. Allow me to say two things. Firstly, this situation made it possible for those forces in Kosovo that wanted an ethnically pure Kosovo - and they have always existed over the past 100 years, this is not only characteristic of the period while we were in power - they felt that they had the law in their own hands and, therefore, they could abuse it and that they should make the Serb people feel unwelcome and that they should flee from the area. The exodus was a massive one. Tens of thousands of people were fleeing to Serbia, and this caused great political problems, and it also pressured Serbia towards resolving these questions. Serbia brought this question to the agenda dealt with by all of Yugoslavia. The constitution of Yugoslavia was changed, therefore, to a certain extent.

In 1988, after a big discussion at the Central Committee and other places, it was made possible for Serbia to adjust the provisions of its constitutions so that these illogical elements could be redressed. So first the constitution of Yugoslavia was changed, the extent that it was indispensable so that Serbia could carry out its own amendments without ²⁹²²⁹ clashing with the Yugoslav constitution, and then changes were carried out in Serbia. The Assemblies of the autonomous provinces agreed to this as well. This is a fact.

So under these circumstances, the autonomous provinces still enjoyed all the rights in the area of culture, education, information, human rights, and a great many other things that they should have, except for the police, the army, the judiciary, criminal law, prosecution, et cetera, other things that are purely matters for the state to deal with. So those are the amendments that took place with the agreement of Yugoslavia and the assemblies of both autonomous provinces. In all fairness, then a constitutional provision was adopted abolishing the rights of the autonomous provinces to approve the republican constitution, because legally this is impossible for a lower-level territorial unit to approve decisions for a higher-level territorial unit, as was the case previously.

Q. Lest there be any misunderstanding, the entire structure of the judiciary remained within the provinces but they were no longer independent. They went all the way up to the Supreme Court of Serbia.

A. Yes. Now every citizen could appeal to the court of Serbia in respect of decisions reached by the courts of Kosovo. That was impossible beforehand.

Q. Is it correct that what was provided for by the constitution of 1974, in these first changes that were introduced in Kosovo and in Vojvodina as elements of the federation, even after these changes, didn't Kosovo and Vojvodina remain constituent elements of the federation as ²⁹²³⁰ well?

A. Yes. There is always a bit of confusion in this respect. When these changes were carried out in Serbia in 1989, Kosovo and Vojvodina did not have their status vis-a-vis the federation changed at all. They remained constituent elements of the federation, as it was called then, and it consisted of the following: They had their own delegation in the Federal Assembly, just as the republics do, and they also have their own members of parliament, and they have the same rights. As a matter of fact, they can veto any decision of the Federal Assembly. So the delegation of the province can veto any decision of the Federal Assembly. As a matter of fact, it can even veto a proposal made by Serbia, like the proposal of any other republic. Secondly, they still had the same right in the Presidency of Yugoslavia. They had a member of the Presidency of their own, like all the republics did, and so on and so forth. So nothing was changed in respect of that in the relationship between the provinces and the federation.

Q. All right. Is it quite clear then that one cannot say at all that the constitutional changes in Serbia in 1989 abolished the autonomous provinces?

A. That cannot be said that they were abolished. What can be said is that their rights were curtailed, those that, by the very nature of things, belonged to the state not to an autonomous province.

Q. However, let's be even more specific about this. Does this exclusively refer to the rights that republics in Yugoslavia have? ²⁹²³¹

A. Well, that's right, but those rights that were left to the provinces in other republics belonged to the republics. But in our case, many of these rights were conveyed to the provinces.

Q. Very well. So the provinces still allocate -- made allocations from their own budget. They still had their own revenues and expenditures, so everything that existed vis-a-vis the federation until the constitutional changes were made in 1989, and this is the way it still worked; right?

A. Well, the provinces had their own Assemblies, their own governments, their own budgets, their own revenues, and also their own financial relationship with the federation.

In relation to the federation, they continued to have the same kind of relationship that all the republics had. It was a direct relationship. From that point of view, they were the same as republics.

Q. However, as far as Kosovo is concerned, Kosovo received a great deal of material assistance from the fund of the federation and from the fund of the Republic of Serbia for the Accelerated Development of Underdeveloped Areas; is that right?

A. Yes. The greatest amount of aid and assistance for development throughout Yugoslavia was received in Kosovo, and all the republics contributed to that aid.

Q. And also there was the fund in Serbia for the Accelerated Development of Underdeveloped Areas within Serbia; is that right?

A. Yes. Serbia has other areas that are just as underdeveloped as Kosovo is, so these areas of Serbia were assisted as well as Kosovo ²⁹²³² itself.

Q. These changes were carried out in 1989. Not to go too far back into the past, do you know about the nature of the demonstrations that were held in Kosovo by the Albanian separatists already in 1980 and 1981?

A. Of course. The constitution from 1974, as was said just now, gave the autonomous provinces rights that differed very slightly from the rights of the republics. They were just not called republics, and they did not have the right to secede. It was only republics that had the right to secede, just like peoples had.

In 1980 and 1981, the Albanians, those who had a separatist orientation, practically rebelled. We called them demonstrations, but practically this was a rebellion, and their slogan was "Kosovo Republic." So they were not pleased with the constitutional provisions, although the constitutional provisions were practically unique in the world in case of these provinces. These demonstrations went on for almost two years, and it was very hard to stop them with the intervention of the state. The state had to intervene in order for them to be banned.

JUDGE MAY: That would be a convenient moment. We're going to adjourn now. Twenty minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I am far from wanting you to extend your case with additional witnesses, but the line of the cross-examination raises the issue that has been before us already, the question of a constitutional expert. Are you any further with that issue, in getting ²⁹²³³ one?

MR. NICE: I'm further with it, and so far it's been pretty much more of the same, the same problem. I haven't -- I was going to think -- I'm thinking of giving you a list of the number of contacts we've made and the difficulties we have encountered. Members of the team are actively engaged in it over the last few weeks. I will keep you posted. It isn't easy.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It is hard for us to understand that in a country like Yugoslavia with so many institutions of higher learning that it is not possible to find one person.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, first of all, we obviously need to have somebody who would have the level of independence and standing that would merit your attention. We can't simply go for anyone. And at that level, we encounter the anxieties, still, that I referred to earlier. We've, I think, got one or two candidates lined up, each of whom has a sort of superficial disadvantage to them. I'll come back to you perhaps later today or file something so that you know where we are, but I readily understand how the evidence is required.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, I urge you, because some of the constitutional issues are not just background, they are essential for proper adjudication and understanding.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I should like to be of assistance in connection with the matter raised by Mr. Robinson. I think it would be sufficient, in view of the fact that you are jurists, just to read the ²⁹²³⁴ constitutions of both Serbia and Yugoslavia of 1974 and the constitutional amendments, and you will see that what I am claiming and what the witness has confirmed is quite correct.

Furthermore, I also asked this book to be admitted, by Mr. Jovic. And you will find many explanations in there.

JUDGE MAY: Just one moment. Let's deal with the book. What is it called again? Can you remind us?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is a book written by Mr. Borisav Jovic and it is called "A Date for History" and it has to do with the activities linked to the adoption of constitutional amendments that this other side is addressing in a distorted manner, and it was written authentically and contemporaneously.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Have you got a date -- have you got the date of that book? Have you got the date of that book?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll try and find it. It's not indicated at the beginning. Probably at the end.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the second page somewhere.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Belgrade, 1989.

JUDGE MAY: Any objection, Mr. Nice, to that?

MR. NICE: I haven't read it. No objection. It will have to be translated. We may seek the assistance -- if there is no English version, we may seek the assistance of the Chamber through the Registry to get it translated sooner rather than later, books take some time to get done.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll give it the next D number.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, the number is D217. ²⁹²³⁵

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

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. From the beginning of the 1980s, were there enormous problems which developed into a massive expulsion of the Serb population from the territory of Kosovo and Metohija?

A. There was a massive exodus due to the questions that we have discussed. My personal opinion is that the constitutional rights at the disposal of the authorities in Kosovo and Metohija were abused and that this put the Serb people in a position that it couldn't defend itself in any other way except by fleeing.

Q. Do you remember that the figure used in those days, that from about 1981 until 1987, about 40.000 Serbs had left Kosovo and their homes under pressure?

A. Yes. That figure is most probably correct as it was analysed repeatedly.

Q. And is it true that that was the first time that we encountered the publicly declared goal of Albanian separatists contained in the sentence "an ethnically pure Kosovo"?

A. I cannot say when we first encountered it and whether it was declared in that manner. I just am aware of the slogan "Kosovo Republic" and the practice of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

Q. But the use of the term "ethnic cleansing" existed and we considered it to be one the greatest crimes.

A. Yes, that is true, but I really do not remember them declaring ²⁹²³⁶ that they wanted an ethnically pure Kosovo.

Q. And do you then recall that there was a lot of talk of ethnic cleansing, of which the victims were the Serbs?

A. Yes. Those are facts. Of course I remember that. And that was the reason why we made the request to amend the constitution so as to protect those people, to help them to stay there so that they could ask their republic to protect them and allow them to stay on where they lived.

Q. A minor detail in this connection as the fact is being abused that the Assembly of Serbia disbanded the Assembly of Kosovo at a point in time in 1991. Is it true that this was done to protect the constitution? Because that Assembly had acted unconstitutionally or, rather, had taken a decision to secede from Serbia, something it was not entitled to do according to the constitution?

A. Yes. That was the reason. Of course a session of the Kosovo Assembly was a legal affair within the framework of its competencies, but when it took the decision on secession from Serbia and on the proclamation of Kosovo as a republic, then this was annulled by the Assembly of Serbia and that Assembly was disbanded.

Q. So it was disbanded because it had acted unconstitutionally.

A. Yes.

Q. Or, rather, it had flagrantly violated the constitution.

A. Yes.

Q. I hope that it is not in dispute - and this is something you mentioned - that changes to the Serbian constitution were made with the agreement of the Assemblies of the provinces, which was the regular ²⁹²³⁷ procedure until amendments to the Serbian constitution. That is, nothing could be decided without the agreement of the provincial Assembly. So these amendments were made with the agreement of the provincial Assemblies.

A. Correct. There was a debate all day in the Assembly of Kosovo. There was a vote, and only 12 deputies voted against those amendments. All the others voted in favour.

Q. The fact is being manipulated here that some sort of violence was resorted to, or use of force, for the Assembly of Kosovo to vote in favour of changes to the Serbian constitution. Was any force used to make the Assembly vote in favour of the amendments to the Serbian constitution?

A. I do apologise. I didn't switch off my mobile. It's my mistake. I do apologise. I'm very sorry about this, that it happened. You see, there was a great deal of resistance among a portion of the Albanians who had separatist ambitions, and they were against the constitutional amendments that were to be adopted. And contrary to the official instructions of the authorities that the Assembly could not be obstructed by demonstrations or pressure being brought to bear on it by the demonstrators or, rather, the Albanians who did not agree with the constitutional amendments, a large number of people were gathering around the Assembly building to prevent it from working. Police and military forces prevented these citizens entering the Assembly and undermining its work.

Of course, everyone has his own interpretation of this. Some people say the army or the police pressured the Assembly. That is not ²⁹²³⁸ true; there was a debate all day and there was a vote.

Q. No forces stepped into the Assembly?

A. No, they didn't. They just prevented the citizens from breaking into the Assembly and obstructing its work, though they had such plans.

Q. Thank you. On the 28th of March, when the Assembly of Serbia was held to adopt the amendments, at that formal session, because a large number of guests were invited, it was held in the Sava centre, and the entire Yugoslav leadership was present; isn't that right?

A. Yes, including Ante Markovic, the Prime Minister, the federal Prime Minister.

Q. But more important than Ante Markovic's presence, I think, and let me remind you, was also the presence of Sinan Hasani, who at the time was president of the Presidency of Yugoslavia and who represented Kosovo and who was an Albanian; is that right?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. I remember that as he was sitting next to me.

A. Yes, that's quite correct.

Q. So there is no doubt that a procedure was carried out which was absolutely legal and against which no one in Yugoslavia had any objections, not even the representative of Kosovo in the SFRY Presidency, who was an Albanian, Sinan Hasani; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now a very brief question as the significance of the memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences is being grossly distorted here and certain substances being attributed to it which it doesn't have, and ²⁹²³⁹ allegedly some kind of request for all Serbs to live in one state. Would you agree that treating the memorandum in such a way is nonsense, because the Serbs were living in one state, and that was the state of Yugoslavia? And they didn't ask for any other right beyond that and so the memorandum could not have demanded something they already had. Is that right?

A. Yes, it is. The memorandum addressed certain problems that they felt remained outstanding within Yugoslavia. However, if the Tribunal allows, and perhaps also Mr. Milosevic will not mind if I say the following: On the day that memorandum was published, it was a great surprise and disappointment for us. So virtually the very next day we had a meeting of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Serbia that had already been scheduled about economic matters at which I was due to make the -- to submit the main report.

Q. This was in 1984, wasn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Milosevic insisted that in that report I add a sentence, and it was meant to express our disappointment and disagreement with this act by the Academy of Sciences. This didn't fit into my concept, because my report dealt with certain conceptual matters for the future, but I accepted this and I wrote it down and it was published in the media that we were disappointed and we considered what the Sciences Academy had published to be quite unnecessary.

Q. Boro, that was in 1984, wasn't it?

A. Yes, most probably so. ²⁹²⁴⁰

Q. I fear that you have caused a mix-up, that you have confused things a little bit, because I wasn't president of the Central Committee at the time, nor could I have suggested to you that you put anything in the report concerning the memorandum. Maybe somebody else made such a suggestion, but it certainly wasn't me.

JUDGE MAY: Just a point of detail. My recollection of the memorandum was that it was 1986. I will be corrected if I'm wrong about that. So that may explain any confusion there may have been.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I also think it was in 1986 and that we had a meeting of the Central Committee at which we discussed the question of economic reform. And what I was saying is right. Mr. Milosevic may be wrong because he didn't say that to me directly. He sent me such a message through one of the members of our Executive Board. And I agreed, but unwillingly because it didn't fit into my concept. But it -- in the end, I did say that. What I wanted to say was that when the memorandum was published, Mr. Milosevic was disappointed. And this sentence can be found in the newspaper. Actually, I uttered that sentence, I accepted it, that we felt that such a move by the Serbian Academy of Sciences was quite unnecessary, that Serbia has its own leadership, and that it is aware of the problems that it had to address together with the other Yugoslav peoples.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Let's not delve into that which is certainly of marginal significance. What I'm saying is that the memorandum cannot be said to have certain properties which it doesn't have, and especially not ²⁹²⁴¹ any what I would call the role of a platform that the leadership may have used to achieve certain goals that were at the detriment of the other peoples in Yugoslavia, because no such thing was contained in the memorandum. Isn't that so?

A. All I can say is that we never officially put that memorandum on the agenda in the sense of analysing it and using it for our own work. We had our own programmes and our own activities, and we were quite separate from that.

Q. Very well. Can we sum up by saying that with the constitutional changes, that Serbia didn't acquire anything more, any greater rights than enjoyed by the other Yugoslav republics?

A. It couldn't have because the constitution of Yugoslavia limited the rights of republics. This was just a problem of relationships within Serbia and not a question of the relationship towards the federation.

Q. That's very important for us to clear up. Now, do you remember that from 1981 to 1987 or 1988, when all these turbulent events occurred in Kosovo and when the Serbs were persecuted over there, that this problem was reviewed on several occasions at the level of the Yugoslav bodies, both by the Central Committee and the government and the Presidency of the SFRY?

A. The question of the exodus from Kosovo, yes. Yes, of course it was reviewed, repeatedly, at meetings of the Central Committee of Serbia, the Central Committee of Yugoslavia, and I spoke a moment ago about the constitutional changes in the Yugoslav constitution which enabled changes of our own constitution. And all these were based on these discussion and ²⁹²⁴² a decision of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia that that exodus must be put to a stop and that essential changes needed to be made to the constitution.

Q. When talking about various ideas regarding amendments to the constitution, was there disagreement between on the one hand Slovenia and Croatian and on the other hand the other republics and provinces of Yugoslavia?

A. You mean in that period or generally? Regarding these changes that preceded changes to our own constitution, those changes were adopted by the Federal Assembly and the Assemblies of all republics. So there was no resistance to those changes.

As for the conceptual changes to the Yugoslav constitution in the period of the crisis in Yugoslavia and when we sought to address the problem of Yugoslavia through constitutional amendments, to find a way of continuing to live together, on the one hand, according to the official proposals that were made to the Yugoslav Assembly, were Slovenia and Croatia who proposed the break-up of Yugoslavia and then that independent states, that we were to form a confederation for five years and afterwards each would decide what to do next. And on the other side were the four republics and two autonomous provinces who felt that the Yugoslav constitutional reconstruction was necessary.

So the idea that is usually discussed that the conflict was between Serbia and Slovenia is not correct. This is what the division was like. And these official proposals were addressed to the Federal Assembly to deal with the crisis. Of course they were not adopted because for ²⁹²⁴³ either of these two proposals to be adopted, the agreement of all republics was necessary, because according to the constitution, without a consensus of all the republics, the constitution could not be amended.

Q. But what is of essential importance, I think, is that this divergence in approach was not between Serbia on the one hand and Slovenia and Croatia on the other, as is the customary explanation given, but between Slovenia and Croatia on the one side and the other four republics and provinces on the other.

A. There are reports, there are proposals, there are agendas of the Federal Assembly which can clearly corroborate this.

Q. In view of the fact that the Yugoslav state Presidency discussed the security aspects and problems and everything else linked to that subject matter, are you aware of the fact that in 1981 the first illegal groups of Albanian extremists were uncovered who were militarily organised by the Albanian emigres both in the world and in certain centres within the country itself?

A. Well, I don't want to enter into all that now. Most probably, but at the time I didn't work on those affairs in 1981 and 1982, so I can't really say.

Q. Very well. Then I'm going to focus on the period when you were the president of the Presidency of Yugoslavia.

THE INTERPRETER: Member of the Presidency of Yugoslavia, interpreter's correction.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. As we often hear said here that I de facto was heading the ²⁹²⁴⁴ Yugoslav state Presidency and managing it, can this kind of assertion and claim be made at all? Can it be acceptable in any way, that I manned it -- ran it, sorry.

A. I explained this on a number of occasions and can explain it again. The Presidency had eight members to it and it was able to make decisions by a majority vote with five members with most of the decisions and six members for some separate decisions of special importance. So it was not able to function in any other way.

As far as the influence of the republics go, or the presidents of the republics on their Presidency members, it was there without a doubt. Every member of the Yugoslav state Presidency was duty-bound at the Presidency sessions to stand by the views of its republic and also to cooperate with its republic because it was the role of the Yugoslav state Presidency to dovetail and coordinate the policies of the republics and cooperation amongst them.

Therefore, the president of the Republic of Serbia by that same score, by virtue of the job he was doing, was directly based on cooperating with me, and vice versa. He did wield influence on me and the kind of position I would assume. However, this could not have a bearing on the other Presidency members with which he did not communicate directly. So I wasn't able to vote on any decision alone because one member of the Presidency, even if he was president of the Presidency, didn't have the right to make a decision if there was not a majority vote. So everybody influenced everything. All the presidents of the republics influenced their Presidency members. ²⁹²⁴⁵

Q. All right. That was a form of regular cooperation and communication, if I can put it that way, between the presidents of the individual republics with the Yugoslav state Presidency members or member from their republic.

A. Yes, and that is written down in the rules of procedure as a duty and obligation.

Q. Now, my relationship towards you, was it any different from the relationship of any other republican presidents towards the members of the Presidency from their own -- their republic?

A. Well, I don't know what their relationship was like. All I can say is that our relationship was a normal relationship of cooperation working on the positions held by the republic and that there was not a single case in which I wanted to assume a different position and that my republic, or you yourself, wanted to assume a different position and that we didn't have any harmonisation of views. There wasn't that kind of case ever.

Q. So there wasn't a case in which I would impose my positions on you and you not agree with that position?

A. No. That never occurred. Had there been a case like that, I would have withdrawn or perhaps I would have been replaced had I stayed in that position.

Q. All right. But anyway, there was never such a case?

A. No, there wasn't.

Q. All right. Fine. Now, the Supreme Commander of the armed forces, that was -- that post was filled by the entire Presidency; is that right? ²⁹²⁴⁶

A. Yes.

Q. So you weren't able to usurp that position or post, were you?

A. No, not even when I was president did I have the right to do so. The president only has the right to implement the decisions made by the Presidency but not to change them or to make the decisions himself.

Q. Therefore, by the same token, Serbia wasn't able to usurp that function through you. If you couldn't, Serbia couldn't either; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, is it quite clear that the political position assumed by the then-leadership of Yugoslavia and the political position of the leadership of Serbia as well was to preserve Yugoslavia?

A. What period are you referring to?

Q. I am -- I am referring to the period when you yourself were a member and president of the Yugoslav state Presidency.

A. Well, the position taken by Serbia was to preserve Yugoslavia and also the position of certain republics - I spoke about that a moment ago - whereas Slovenia and Croatia quite obviously had the position of secession because they had enacted their declaration or, rather, decisions for autonomy and independence.

Q. All right. Fine. Now, yesterday during the examination-in-chief, you emphasised the fact that Yugoslavia wanted to strengthen Yugoslav institutions. And was it Serbia's position also to hold multi-party elections for the federal parliament on the principles of the one man, one vote, and for the larger republics the principle of equal representation ²⁹²⁴⁷ of all the federal units. Is that right?

A. Yes. However, there were no elections for the Federal Assembly although the term of office of the previous one had expired, the previous composition had expired, and that because the republics which wished to see the break-up of Yugoslavia did not agree to that decision, and therefore they paralysed the possibility of elections for the Federal Assembly.

Q. All right. But without doubt, Serbia strove to have the federal elections take place; is that right?

A. Oh, yes, that's right.

Q. And we also favoured strengthening federal institutions. Now, is it true that we strove to ensure that the role of the Yugoslav People's Army should not be weakened as a federal institution itself and that there was mention, when the crisis had entered into deeper waters, if I can put it that way, that the JNA should represent the armed force of the nations and nationalities who remain living in Yugoslavia to protect the territories they live in? Wouldn't that be right?

A. Now, you have two questions there, actually, two issues. As far as I understood it, your first question is that we with respect to others, if there were such others, advocated to see the JNA's role preserved and not weakened. I don't think there were any official debates and discussions with the other republics on that score. The constitutional role of the Yugoslav People's Army, as compared to many other states, countries, was different. In many states, the role of the army is to defend the country from a foreign enemy, so the country's integrity. Our ²⁹²⁴⁸ army had a dual role, a dual task; to protect the constitutional order as the first objective, and to protect the country's integrity as a second objective.

Now, this difference emerged because the federal state did not have its own police, police force. It was only the republics that had their police forces. And there was never any dispute or discussion amongst the republics on that subject except when the time came to use the army to protect the constitutional order. Then a lot of debate and discussion arose but not to amend the constitution, just to see whether constitutional reasons existed to use and deploy the army to defend the constitutional order.

That is in general terms. Now, as far as our position goes to the effect that the army was there to defend the peoples and territory inhabited by peoples and nationalities wishing to stay within Yugoslavia is a well-known stance which you can find throughout my book and throughout my statement, and it is true and correct. So we did not consider that the army should forcibly keep anyone within Yugoslavia and toppling anybody's power if they didn't wish to stay in Yugoslavia without respecting the stand of the peoples who wanted to step down from Yugoslavia but that it should defend those who wished to stay within Yugoslavia.

Q. Was our position a clear-cut one to the effect that we didn't want to inflict damage on a single Yugoslav nation or nationality?

A. Well, of course. I don't think that anybody could have declared anything like that at all. ²⁹²⁴⁹

Q. When the unrest started and various attacks were launched against Serbs in Croatia, for example, and when the first crisis loomed before us, and this is something you testified yesterday in part, there was the formation of certain volunteer or paramilitary formations; isn't that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, I should like to clear up one point in that respect for the time being. Is it true that it was only the opposition in Serbia and primarily the Vuk Draskovic Serbian reconstruction movement demanded the establishment of a Serb army and came out against the JNA and set up its paramilitary formations?

A. Yes, that is correct. And in my opinion, that was far more in the function of toppling our power and authority and seizing power by the opposition rather than being geared towards a war with others and preparing a war with others, because what they wanted was to gain the public's trust and come into power themselves.

Q. So the care of alleged Serb interests was just a pretext.

A. That's how I see it, yes.

Q. Whereas what they really wanted was to come into power in Serbia?

A. That is my opinion. That is what I think.

Q. I have gained the impression that that is the -- that that opinion is fairly justified, and I should now like to remind you, on page 360 of your diary, this diary of yours, the version that I have been provided by the opposite side over there, ERN 00158251 is the ERN number, and the date mentioned is the 10th of July, 1991, and the title is "An Agreement ²⁹²⁵⁰ Between Mesic and Vuk Draskovic." And let's establish what it says here first.

It is your diary. "Veljko Kadijevic rang me up and informed me that he took a look at the conversation between Vuk Draskovic and Stjepan Mesic, and they claimed that they had common political goals for which they would strive: The toppling of the JNA and the leadership of Serbia, the ways in which to do so, propaganda against the JNA, its destruction and liquidation. And in such a way, the Serb citizens would remain unprotected in Croatia. The Croats would threaten it, and this will give rise to Serb reaction and intervention. Croatia will then proclaim Serbia the aggressor and will call upon foreign troops with the help of which the legal Serbian authorities will be toppled.

"According to this claim, Vuk Draskovic is supported in this by Dragoljub Micunovic," and in brackets you have "Democratic Party." "Veljko's assessment is this is tantamount to sacrificing the interests of the Serb nation in Croatia and outside Serbia in general. That is the price of the agreement with Mesic. The consequences of it are already being felt because in Belgrade itself in units of the 1st Army district soldiers are disregarding orders en masse, saying that they will not obey the orders of those who prevented the overthrow of the Serbian authorities on the 9th of March. He urges us to react politically ..." and that's all. I've read it word-for-word under the heading "The 10th of July, The Agreement Between Mesic and Vuk Draskovic" from your diary. Does that confirm that the main goal was not to protect Serb interests but precisely efforts to use manipulations of this kind and ²⁹²⁵¹ violence of this kind to topple power and authority in Serbia; is that clear?

A. Well, that note just confirms that that's what Veljko Kadijevic told me. Now, interpretations are free to one and all. I have nothing against your particular interpretation of it.

Q. Well, I'd like to refer to the 15th of October, 1990, and another extract. This was after what I as the president of the republic and the Socialist Party, the ruling party, received in parliament; right? And the 15th of October, 1990, is roughly two months prior to the elections; right? And it says here in the diary, and it is page 207 of the diary, of the version that I have, the ERN number is 157868, the 15th of October is the date, and Vuk Draskovic spoke with US Ambassador Zimmerman. "Draskovic asked that the Americans support him in the election campaign in two ways: First that they stop attacking Milosevic because of the repression in Kosovo, since that that only elevates his standing among the Serbian people; instead, they should attack him for Bolshevism because the Serbian people do not like that;.

"Second, that they contribute to the rehabilitation of Draza Mihajlovic..."

Therefore, is it common knowledge that immediately -- that this cooperation to topple the authority in Belgrade was ongoing and that US Ambassador Zimmerman was involved along those lines with Vuk Draskovic and the Serbian resistance movement?

A. That information from the book is reliable information. Now, whether you can draw that general conclusion on the basis of other sources ²⁹²⁵² of information, that remains to be seen on the basis of everything else.

Q. All right. As you've already spoken about the paramilitary formations and the fact that in the information with respect to the army explanations were given that they were undisciplined, that the soldiers were undisciplined, not sufficiently held under control, that they made problems, is it clear that the Serbian reconstruction movement and renewal movement organised these paramilitary formations but that the Socialist Party never organised any armed formation of any kind? Is that right?

A. Yes, that is right.

Q. So the goal of the leadership at that time, of our leadership at that time, and not only our own but generally in Yugoslavia, was to preserve Yugoslavia. This approach at that time, was it the same kind of approach that other countries had, or let me put it this way, the international community? Because there were very many statements made, declarations made and official support by the international community to the principle of Yugoslavia's territorial integrity. Do you remember that?

A. Well, of course that was an evolution that took place in the positions taken particularly of the big powers or the European countries in that regard, and in the initial stage, the Helsinki Act was to be respected and that exterior borders were inviolable and that any attempts to go against that was gone against and that the problems of Yugoslavia should be settled politically.

Now, later on there was deviation from this little by little, and they considered that the internal borders were those which the ²⁹²⁵³ international community should protect and defend, which led to the catastrophe that took place in Yugoslavia. There was a great deal of discussion, and I record this in my book, from George Bush, whom I talked to and who supported the unity of Yugoslavia right up until the European Troika, the three foreign ministers who visited Yugoslavia. At that time, they were led by Mr. Poos [phoen] who was the foreign minister of Luxembourg, and they expressly stated that they supported Yugoslavia's unity and that they would not be holding any discussions with individual parts who -- which wished to secede, and so on and so forth. But as time evolved and events evolved, those positions underwent change.

Q. Let us discuss a detail that has to do with Mesic's arrival in the Presidency. I had the opportunity of seeing him here as well when he was sitting in that chair, but let's clarify this particular matter. Is it correct that in relation to his coming to the Presidency the problem was that the members of the Presidency practically wanted to stand by their oath, they would defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country, whereas Mesic, before he was supposed to become president of the Presidency of Yugoslavia, made a public statement that his objective was to break Yugoslavia up and that he would be the last president of Yugoslavia; isn't that right?

A. Yes. That was a serious political problem, and this was a great dilemma before the members of the Presidency, how we could cooperate with a man who publicly stated that his intention was to break up Yugoslavia, whereas we took a solemn oath to act in accordance with the constitution of Yugoslavia and the constitution does not allow the break-up of ²⁹²⁵⁴ Yugoslavia. That was the main reason why he was not elected president.

Q. So this conflict, if that is how it could be termed, was caused by him, actually, not those who refused to elect him.

A. Yes. We stated at the session of the Presidency that nobody is challenging the right of the representative of Croatia in the forthcoming period to be president of the Presidency. We are not denying anyone that right, because that is in accordance with the rules of procedure of the Presidency. However, since the members of the Presidency objected to that statement made by Mr. Mesic, they believed that the problem could be resolved by having Croatia send a different person, whom we would elect immediately. Of course, Croatia did not want to agree to that and the problem escalated.

Q. All right. Now let us look into the question of illegality of the work of the Rump Presidency of Yugoslavia without Drnovsek and Mesic. That is what it was called here. Later on they did not come and attend sessions of the Presidency.

Is it correct that Tupurkovski took part, that Bogicevic took part, namely that six members of the Presidency, excluding Mesic and Drnovsek, held sessions for a while? Isn't that right?

A. It is correct until the end of October. There are minutes from sessions of the Presidency too. As far as I can remember, the last session of the Presidency in which Tupurkovski and Bogicevic book part as well, that is to say one that involved six members of the Presidency, which is sufficient in order to have any kind of decision passed, any kind of lawful decision passed, that session was the last one, I think, on the ^{29255 BLANK PAGE 29265} 3rd or 4th of October, I cannot remember exactly now. It was in 1991. And at that session, a decision was made that the Presidency would start operating in a situation of imminent threat of war. So imminent threat of war was proclaimed, and according to the Rules of Procedure of the Presidency and according to the constitution, in such a situation if for any reason whatsoever all the members of the Presidency are not present, then decisions are made with full validity as if all the members were present.

From then onwards, the Presidency functioned as a Rump Presidency. At first, Drnovsek and Mesic did not come and later on Tupurkovski did not come either, and Bogicevic too, but on that basis of that decision, the Presidency continued to operate.

Q. All right. This is a very important issue so I would like to clarify it very carefully. So it is not being disputed that six members of the Presidency are quite sufficient for passing any decision of the Presidency in a regular situation, including the decision for the Presidency to move into a situation of imminent threat of war and to operate under those circumstances?

A. Yes. No decision requires more than the presence of six members of Presidency for it to have full force.

Q. All right. In such a situation, when such a decision was made, on the basis of the constitution, the work of the Presidency continues with the number of members of the Presidency who are in a position to come, to attend the session at all, and then these decisions have full force?

A. That's right. ²⁹²⁶⁶

Q. Is it correct that the decision to work with a number of members of the Presidency that was possible was reached with the approval of Tupurkovski and Bogicevic and that it was valid all the way up to the end of the functioning of the Presidency in the composition that was possible?

A. Yes. There is a stenogram and there are minutes that show this. Nobody voted against it; everybody voted in favour.

Q. All right. The Presidency of Yugoslavia, at a given point in time on the basis of a decision reached by the Presidency itself, a fully valid decision, and with required number of members present, namely six, starts working in a situation of imminent threat of war, and that is possible. And according to the Rules of Procedure, fully valid decisions can be reached in that way.

A. Yes. I've already said that. Yes.

Q. So on the 1st of October, 1991, Kostic convened a session of the Presidency where Bogicevic, Tupurkovski, Jovic were present. Everybody with the exception of Drnovsek and Mesic; isn't that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. In its press release on the 1st of October, 1991, the Presidency stated that: "The federal Executive Council is not functioning, that the federal agencies are not functioning, and therefore the Presidency is in a state of crisis and that therefore expanded sessions will be held. They will be attended by representatives of the republics and the federal government." Isn't that right?

A. That is probably correct. I don't remember that exactly.

Q. And then for the following day, the 2nd of October, a session of ²⁹²⁶⁷ the Presidency was convened where questions pertaining to state security were supposed to be discussed.

A. That is very likely.

Q. And then at the session of the 3rd of October -- this is according to the information that I have. So could you please corroborate it or deny it, because that is very important in relation to the work of the Presidency of Yugoslavia. The session of the 3rd of October, the Presidency stated that Yugoslavia is confronted with imminent threat of war and that from then onwards the Presidency would start functioning in a situation of imminent threat of war on the basis of this decision of theirs; is that right?

A. Yes. I've already said the 3rd or 4th, I do not remember exactly when this session was held and we passed this decision. As for the previous questions, that's probably the way it was. I did not write it down and that is why I cannot remember everything that I did not write down.

Q. So this decision was based on the Rules of Procedure of the Presidency, on the constitution, and also it was made in the presence of six members of the Presidency; is that right?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. Since they are saying here that I created some kind of a Serbian bloc in the Presidency, is it correct that all divisions in the Presidency were created on the basis of the political divisions that existed regarding the political fate of Yugoslavia, not under someone's personal influence, including my own? ²⁹²⁶⁸

A. Well, it could be put that way because there was not a division of views according to personal sympathy and likes and dislikes. It was based on political views.

Q. And the political position of Serbia and Montenegro was that they were against having Yugoslavia carved up; is that right?

A. At first all the republics were opposed to that except for Croatia and Slovenia until the international community started vacillating and saying that this might be acceptable for the international community as well, especially beginning with the first Hague Conference and the offer made to the republics that they could become independent states. That is when some of the other republics made that decision too. But at first, all the republics with the exception of Slovenia and Croatia were in favour of keeping Yugoslavia and finding an appropriate solution along those lines.

Q. All right. Do you remember the session of the Presidency of the SFRY that was held on the 7th and 8th of May, 1991?

A. Yes, of course I remember.

Q. According to what I have written here, it took almost two days, it lasted almost two days, and you invited all the representatives of the republics. According to the information I have, all the members of the Presidency of the SFRY were present without any exception. The president of the federal Executive Council was present. The presidents of the republics of Macedonia and Serbia respectively were present, namely Gligorov and myself. Then the presidents of the Presidencies of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Slovenia. Lest there be any ²⁹²⁶⁹ misunderstanding here, in some of these republics there were Presidencies and in these others there were presidents. So Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia, everybody was represented. And also the Prime Minister of Croatia, that is to say that all the highest officials of the country were there. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. As for presidents, only the president of Croatia was not there, but the Prime Minister came instead of him?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it correct that at that time very important decisions were made that had to do with inter-ethnic relations in terms of how these relations should be resolved, and important assessments were made as to the causes why there were inter-ethnic conflicts and clashes?

A. Yes. This was a session of the Presidency attended by all presidents of the respective republics at which agreement was reached for the first time as to what the causes were for the conflict in Croatia between the Serb people and the Croat paramilitary units there. It was indicated what this was all about. There was agreement on that, and it was concluded that the representatives of the Croatian authorities and the representatives of the Serbs from Croatia should discuss these matters and deal with all the issues one by one. This is a very important session. In my opinion, it is of historic importance because all the representatives of all the republics, including the representative of Croatia, agreed on what the causes of the conflicts were and how they should be dealt with. ²⁹²⁷⁰

Q. What I have written down here is something that I would like you to comment upon, if necessary. Item 5 from that session says that a parity group should be established straight away consisting of, as you had put it, representatives of the Croatian authorities and the legitimate representatives of the Serb people from Croatia in order to have talks started on all controversial political issues which are considered to be the cause of the crisis. And then they're enumerated, like the constitutional equality of the Croat and Serb people, the alphabet, the language, national symbols and emblems, the right of people to self-determination including the right to secession. So the right of nations to self-determination up to the right of secession -- right to secession, and also that these views could be stated at a referendum and so on.

A. Yes.

Q. Was all of this enumerated as elements that produced disputes in Croatia? And the joint conclusion of the entire leadership in the presence of the top representatives of all the republics was that this should be resolved there between the legitimate representatives of the Serb people and the Croatian government; is that right?

A. Yes. We thought that this was the internal affair of Croatia, that these were the problems involved and that they should resolve them so that the conflict would not escalate.

Q. But it is beyond dispute that everyone decided that these were precisely the issues that led to conflicts in Croatia and that this had to be discussed and that all these obstacles had to be dealt with in a ²⁹²⁷¹ peaceful manner, but basically this had to do with the violation of rights of the Serb people; right?

A. That is beyond dispute. Mr. Mesic, who was the member of the Presidency from Croatia, and the Prime Minister of Croatia who represented Croatia there, did not dispute this. This was adopted unanimously.

Q. Had this been done, there would have been no conflict; is that right?

A. Well, it's the same old problem. Faced with the facts, they could not deny it, especially because all the other republics and all the other members of the Presidency said that that's the way things were. However, immediately afterwards, they simply ignored this. As a matter of fact, no discussion was started with the representatives of the Serb people. They continued the same old way.

Q. So what was continued was activity along the lines of violent secession; isn't that right?

A. Well, basically the main cause for the conflict was the decision of Croatia to secede from Yugoslavia, and then the parallel decision of the Serb people that if Croatia secedes from Yugoslavia, then the Serb people would secede from Croatia. That was the last straw, so to speak. And for as long as the rights of the Serb people were jeopardised, there was a bad feeling. There was disagreement. There were discussions and debates, but there was not a serious conflict because of these other matters. But this is what was the most difficult thing of all, secession.

Q. And what about Serbs in Croatia at the time? Were they under the same pressure that Mr. Nice asked you about in relation to, I think, item ²⁹²⁷² 10 in your statement, paragraph 10, where you say: "I was afraid that there would be genocide against the Serbs especially if they became a national minority in Croatia," and so on and so forth. So was it for good reason in view of the history involved and their experience from World War II, did they not state unanimously, and also the Presidency of Yugoslavia at the session that you mentioned, did they share these concerns and is that -- and is that why they were so upset?

A. Well, the court can ask the people from that region, and I think it is so. And I think that that is beyond any doubt.

Q. Do you remember that the Federal Assembly on the 29th of May, 1990, supported the principle of self-determination, including secession, because the Presidency of Yugoslavia, on the 28th of May, launched an initiative in the Assembly that the right to secession should be regulated by law; isn't that right?

A. Yes. We thought that there was a very real fact involved, that some republics wanted to leave Yugoslavia, and that this should be viewed as their constitutional right but that this had to be regulated by law, because there are problems. There are material, financial problems between and among companies, then citizens working on both sides, then there are problems related to insurance, debts, property, the properties of different persons in different areas, then this will become two different states, then there are also international obligations involved and we'd have to see how that could be dealt with, and then finally there is the national issue that particularly had to be resolved in Croatia because they are the ones who put it on the agenda and to see whether they ²⁹²⁷³ would remain together or not.

We thought that if a law were not to be passed which would prescribe the exact procedure how this could take place, that we could enter a state of chaos. Croatia did not want to accept that by any means. It is my deep conviction because -- because it was a fact that they thought that if we were to pass this law, they could not attain the objectives that they had envisaged. They simply wanted to outvote everyone without taking due account of the right of the Serb people. They wanted to do this violently. And it is in this period that Croatia armed itself in violation of the law and constitution and irrespective of the way in which the official authorities would act.

Q. Do you remember that the main concept of that proposal was to ensure the basic human rights, peaceful settlement of dispute, equality of all nations? This was something that was particularly insisted upon and expected in view of the fact that we had been developing for many years as a civilised country and this shouldn't have been a problem?

A. Of course. In this process of separation, this should have been ensured as well, and this draft of our proposal did envisage those points. However, unfortunately, not a single law in the Assembly of Yugoslavia could be adopted without the consensus of all the republics.

Q. And was it quite clear that we advocated the preservation of Yugoslavia and a civilised, polite and just process of separation respecting the right of all nations to self-determination, believing that no force, no violence to keep someone with Yugoslavia could be contemplated and that all this was rejected and that the break-up of ²⁹²⁷⁴ Yugoslavia started with the forcible secession of Slovenia and Croatia despite all these measures that were taken? Is that right or not?

A. Yes. The main difference between our position and theirs was not whether they could or could not secede but whether they should secede in a lawfully regulated manner which would ensure the rights of those remaining and those leaving, or whether it would be done outside the law, that is by means of force, by resort to force. That was the main difference, and that is why everything happened later on in the form of a conflict.

Q. Now, let us look at things from the other side of the border. Let us take a view from a different angle, that is the international scene, that no warnings could dissuade Germany from recognising the independence of Slovenia and Croatia on the 21st of December, 1991, that many statesmen later recognised their mistake. For example, French President Mitterrand, in a statement for television on the 3rd of September, 1992, stated that, "The international community bears part of the responsibility for the conflict in Yugoslavia because Europe, in Yugoslavia's case, did not wish to defend existing legal norms, saying that all the republics were hastily recognised." And I quote him when I say that the international community has part of the responsibility for the conflict in Yugoslavia. "Europe did not wish to defend existing legal norms." Those are his words. And also the fact that all the republics were recognised too quickly. Those were his words.

A. I'd rather not comment on the statements of world leaders. They said what they said. I am testifying here about what I felt, and my feeling is that the international community or, rather, certain bodies, ²⁹²⁷⁵ did commit certain errors which contributed to the escalation of the conflict in Yugoslavia and that things developed to the great misfortune of all the Yugoslav peoples and that this could have been done quite differently had a road been taken that we had proposed, or something like it, which excluded the use of force.

Q. So after this premature recognition of Slovenia and Croatia and later on, tragically, even of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the conflict escalated. Isn't that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, tell me, as you were in the Presidency throughout that time, for a while as the president of the Presidency and for a while as a member of the Presidency, up until the mid-1992, is it true that all members of the Presidency who continued working in the Presidency, who didn't abandon it, were in favour of halting hostilities and a peaceful settlement to the conflict and that that was the position of both Serbia and Montenegro?

A. That is absolutely so. Our vital aim was to stop hostilities as soon as possible, immediately, for two very simple reasons. The first was for there not to be loss of life unnecessarily because things could be resolved by agreement, and the second being that Serbia was punished quite unjustly, in my opinion. Sanctions were imposed upon it, it couldn't live normally because there was a war outside of Serbia, and that is why it was in our vital interest to get rid of the sanctions and to put an end to the war.

Q. There is a thesis here that Serbia committed aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina. In view of your position at the time in the ²⁹²⁷⁶ Presidency of SFRY and generally in politics of Yugoslavia and Serbia, how can one explain such an allegation at all?

A. The Yugoslav People's Army was in Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of its own state, as a part of Yugoslavia, which it naturally covered because it was the Yugoslav People's Army, up until the moment when Bosnia and Herzegovina was internationally recognised as a separate state. On that very day, we passed the decision to pull out of Bosnia and Herzegovina or, rather, to pull out from the Yugoslav army, to demobilise and to pull out all citizens of Serbia and Montenegro. So while Bosnia and Herzegovina was part of Yugoslavia, it couldn't have been an aggressor because it was on its own territory. Truly it was attacked from time to time and it had to defend itself from time to time, but this was quite marginal. It wasn't warring against anyone, it was just present there. And after that, the Yugoslav People's Army was not in Bosnia-Herzegovina, at least for as long as I was in the Presidency of Yugoslavia, and I believe after that as well. That, as far as the Yugoslav People's Army is concerned, that's something I know and I can talk about.

Q. Is it true that the army was Yugoslav oriented and that the armed forces consisted of the armed forces of all the nations and national minorities in Yugoslavia?

A. Of course. Both the leadership in the army and all units, the personnel were mixed. That was the policy, that all units would be ethnically mixed, that commands would be ethnically mixed. And from the very beginning, it was a truly Yugoslav army. ²⁹²⁷⁷ This process started to be undermined with the departure of Croatia and Slovenia from Yugoslavia, even before they were recognised, and when the Yugoslav army was abandoned by people from Croatia and Slovenia under the influence of the political situation in their own republics. But nevertheless, that army continued to be Yugoslav because all the other nations were represented in it.

Q. Let us now clear up this question of control and command, because certainly you are qualified to talk about it. And various allegations have been made here. I would like to clarify certain things fully. Is it true that regarding the competence of control and command of the armed forces of SFRY, the presidents of the republics did not have any competence in terms of control and command over the armed forces?

A. They did not. They only had the possibility through their members in the Presidency or through their direct participation at Presidency meetings when invited to express their views and express their influence, but they had no right to vote or to make any independent decisions in that area.

Q. That was the situation de jure, and that is not in dispute, is it? Now, did I, as it is asserted frequently, was I in a situation to be in command of the armed forces through you, through other members of the Presidency, or in any other way was I in a position to command over the Yugoslav People's Army or to issue orders to Kadijevic, who was defence minister throughout 1991?

A. As regards decisions of the Presidency of Yugoslavia, the decisions of the Presidency can be made only by members of the Presidency, ²⁹²⁷⁸ and I have reiterated that. They were binding for the military leadership, the General Staff, and the defence minister. Their implementation on the ground was not within the competence of the Presidency but within the terms of reference of the General Staff. Now, whether someone did make any suggestions to someone in the army, including Mr. Milosevic, that is something I don't know. They should be asked whether they received any such suggestions. But they could not receive orders because he did not have that competence. That is beyond doubt.

Now, if he made any suggestions, whether they followed those suggestions, I don't know. They should be asked about that. But according to the constitution, they had no right to receive instructions from anyone, not even from any member of the Presidency, or the president of the Presidency, except a decision taken by the whole Presidency which they were bound to respect and to report about that back to the Presidency.

Q. Very well. Now let us move on to a completely different issue, an opposite allegation as I'm trying to clear up all of them. Did you ever have any knowledge of me wanting to make any kind of Serbian army?

A. I had knowledge that you were against that.

Q. Thank you.

A. Our concept always was -- our concern was for the Serbian people outside Serbia. We didn't have the problem of anybody wanting to attack Serbia. Our problem was how we could, in a satisfactory political manner, ²⁹²⁷⁹ deal with the problem of Serbs outside Serbia. For that to be possible, somebody needed to protect them, to remain where they lived in freedom until a political settlement was found. And this could only be done by the Yugoslav People's Army while it existed.

If we had had a Serbian army, we couldn't do that because that would be mean going beyond the borders of our republic and that would be internationally quite unacceptable. And it was logical that that could not have been our idea. Those who advocated the idea of the creation of a Serbian army, in my opinion that was simply to promote themselves politically, to break up the Yugoslav army, or to topple the Serbian authorities.

Q. And is it true that in 1987 the army was reorganised in such a manner that it was numerically reduced in strength and that the territory of army districts no longer coincided with the territories of the republics?

A. I don't know when this occurred because I didn't deal with military matters at the time, but I do know when I took up my post in the Presidency of Yugoslavia this was true; the army districts did not coincide with the boundaries of the republics but, on the contrary, they were differently formed.

Q. And is it true that I did not attend a single meeting of the Supreme Command in 1990 or in 1991 while you were in the Presidency?

A. Meetings of the Supreme Command of the armed forces were attended only by members of the Presidency and the General Staff. We never invited to those meetings any single representative of the republics. So none of ²⁹²⁸⁰ them attended and neither did you.

Q. A moment ago, towards the end of the examination-in-chief, you explained that I had no share in your decision-making regarding the reduction of number of officers, the retirement of generals, and it even follows from what I have heard and which I was reminded of listening to your explanations, I was not asked even when you were present when they should have asked me not as a president of Serbia but as someone standing in for a member of the Presidency -- when you were absent, I'm sorry -- regarding the retirement of generals and even the minister of defence of Serbia when he was replaced.

A. In that first round of pensioning of generals, we did not consult the presidents of the republics. It was proposed by the army and we agreed. In the second round, I've explained how that was done. It was done in a manner I did not approve, and I still believe that it was wrong. Maybe not wrong, but somehow unfair towards people who had been in the army for so long to be simply removed from the list for no reason at all, no justified reason, and that you should have consulted -- been consulted simply because you were standing in for me while I was absent.

Q. Very well. Since I was not consulted even when I was standing in for you when they should have consulted me, doesn't it follow from this quite clearly that they didn't consult me at all on other occasions when I was not standing in for you?

A. Yes. I've already said that we didn't consult anyone, and that means we didn't consult you either during the first round. And in the second, again we didn't consult anyone. ²⁹²⁸¹

Q. Is it true that already in November 1991 the JNA was considered still, de facto and de jure, the army of SFRY, that it wasn't in any sense of the word a Serbian army, that the personnel were not all Serbs in spite of the fact that many Slovenes and Croats had left, that the Muslims were instructed not to respond to the call-up, in spite of a major anti-army campaign by some opposition parties and so on? It was still the army of SFRY, wasn't it?

A. Yes, absolutely so. The most eloquent example is that the minister of defence was from Croatia, that the Chief of Staff was from Bosnia, and that the deputy minister of the army was from Slovenia, so that the entire composition of the army remained mixed to the extent to which some people had not left it.

JUDGE MAY: We've reached the time for the adjournment. We will adjourn for 20 minutes.

MR. NICE: The document that His Honour Judge Kwon wanted is in Exhibit 131 and it is Article 324 of the constitution, and I have a copy for you.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. We will adjourn.

--- Recess taken at 12.18 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.40 p.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you please tell me how long you plan to go on until today.

JUDGE MAY: 2.15 today. I'm sorry, 2.00 rather, 2.00. ²⁹²⁸²

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is the piece of information that I have here correct and true that in October 1991, 27 per cent of the leadership of the senior officers cadre in the JNA was -- were not Serbs, Montenegrins, or those who declared themselves as Yugoslav, technically speaking?

A. Well, I can't confirm or deny that because I don't have the information at hand. But I do believe that it could be true, yes.

Q. And is it true that in April 1992 already, in the JNA, there were about 600 Croatian soldiers, and in January -- although in January 1992 Croatia had been internationally recognised? So it wasn't the period when they were all separated.

A. The same answer as I gave you a moment ago.

Q. And is it true that in the air force around 52 per cent of the flying cadres were not Serbs, Montenegrins, or Yugoslavs?

A. Well, that is a well-known piece of information.

Q. And when it came to the role of the JNA in Croatia, and that was precisely the time that you were a member of the SFRY Presidency, is it true that the JNA, apart from protecting itself and defending itself endeavoured to prevent conflicts from breaking out and to stand in between the two sides and only protected the Serb people when it was under -- when they were under attack, and that it didn't engage in any other activities?

A. Well, this is how it was. Just like in any other areas in Yugoslavia, in Croatia the army was also deployed according to the strategic plans that existed at the time in the General Staff from the ²⁹²⁸³ aspects of the defence of the country. Therefore, it was deployed in barracks in different parts of Croatia. It had no assignments of any kind, military ones, and it was in the barracks or at training grounds where they were undergoing training.

The fate was, however, twofold after that, its fate, the army's fate. In territory where it had the support of the people, where the majority population was Serb, it remained in the barracks because nobody attacked it. On the other hand, in territory where Croatian paramilitary units had been set up, it was blocked and it was not allowed -- the soldiers were not allowed to leave the barracks. And they were left without water, without electricity, without bread, without the means of a livelihood and survival. And we had to contend with that kind of situation almost until the conflicts in Croatia ended and when the peacekeepers arrived.

Now, in territory where it was not under attack, that is to say areas inhabited by the Serbs, the army was in the barracks up until the time that the Presidency of Yugoslavia passed a decision according to which it could take up positions along the boundaries and borders of those territories to prevent conflicts between the Croatian units who wanted to move forward into these areas and the Serb paramilitaries who were defending themselves from the Croatian side.

So that then is how matters stood with respect to the army in Croatia.

Q. All right. Now, during that period of time, Veljko Kadijevic headed the army; isn't that right? ²⁹²⁸⁴

A. Yes.

Q. And is it true that -- and we have heard various assertions here that not only was Kadijevic not my man, as they like to put it here, but he couldn't have been under my command in any way either.

A. What I can say is what I know according to the law and what I know in general terms. According to the law, Kadijevic had the Presidency of Yugoslavia as a superior body to him. He was not able to implement anything in the army, either to augment it or to diminish it or to affect its strategic deployment or the appointment of military leaders in any way, or any of the major questions that an army deals with, without a Presidency decision to do so. So the Yugoslav state Presidency was superior to him.

As with respect to his relationship to anybody, including the president of the Republic of Serbia, they were not prohibited in any way but quite naturally there were no legal grounds for anybody to order anybody anything.

Now, as to my knowledge about their personal relationships, as I attended many meetings where we were all there together, Kadijevic, Milosevic, and myself, they were tolerant, a tolerant relationship, but sparks did tend to fly now and again in the sense of disagreement, and this took two aspects.

The first aspect was that the Kadijevic made persistent insistence on defending the whole of Yugoslavia. Milosevic considered that we ought not to force the Croats and Slovenes who wished to step down from Yugoslavia to remain within Yugoslavia, and that we should not topple ²⁹²⁸⁵ their authorities and counteract them if they had decided that way. So that was the first difference.

The second difference was this: Kadijevic, on many occasions asked Serbia and other republics as well to have too much mobilisation and too many soldiers than was realistically necessary for the goals he had political permission to go ahead with. Sometimes Kadijevic would try to make certain political suggestions which Milosevic did not find suitable, just as Kadijevic didn't like it when Milosevic made suggestions of a military and tactical nature. So sparks flew sometimes, but generally speaking, cooperation more or less ran along normal lines.

Q. Yes, but it wasn't of my being in a position to order him anything.

A. No, that wasn't the relationship. And even if we're talking about the final outcome and the consequences that this might have, it was common knowledge that Kadijevic was elected by the Federal Assembly and it was only the Federal Assembly that could replace or dismiss him. And that in any conflict with Milosevic, he would not suffer any personal consequences or repercussions.

Q. All right. Fine. Now let me just touch upon the question of Territorial Defence briefly. Do you remember that because weapons were stolen from certain warehouses the TO decided that all TO weapons should be moved to military warehouses and provided military security for?

A. Yes, that's right, because what happened was that at the time Croatia and Slovenia started to arm their illegal units intensively, they took weapons from those storehouses for that purpose, and the Yugoslav ²⁹²⁸⁶ state Presidency issued instructions to the General Staff to put a stop to that, and the chief of the General Staff did do so. He issued orders that all army warehouses be placed under military control in all the republics.

Q. There was even a deputy question why arms were being taken away from our Territorial Defence. This question was raised in the Assembly because Serbia had invested in it. And the answer was that this applied to one and all and everybody, including us, had to respect that. I don't know if you remember that.

A. No, I don't, but those reactions were quite natural because the people who were in charge of that were taken aback and surprised by this sudden decision which hadn't been announced previously.

Q. Is it true that after this disintegration of the JNA, most of the officers born in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia went back to their republics, the ones they were born in, to join up there with the armies that had been established in those republics in order to help their own population and, generally speaking, to be included in the defence of their own people?

A. The members of the army from top to bottom - and we're talking about officers in this case - followed the political trends in their own republics and in their own ethnic communities, and they joined - how shall I put this? - the political will expressed by their peoples and republics. So they stepped down from the army en masse. Not completely, but quite a lot of them. The officers left first and then so did the other soldiers from Croatia and Slovenia, and later on from Bosnia-Herzegovina, who were not Serbs. ²⁹²⁸⁷

Q. All right. And now that we're talking about those who went to the army of Republika Srpska Krajina and the army of Republika Srpska, would it be true to say that the JNA, or, rather, later the army of Yugoslavia as it came to be known, had no command authority over those armies, no control and command over those armies?

A. During that period of time, I was not in the Supreme Command myself. However, to the best of my knowledge, and I was an Assembly deputy, I consider that to be true. I do believe that that is true, yes.

Q. So in the sense of control and command, those armies were not subordinated in any way to the army of Yugoslavia.

A. We had no decision taken by the Federal Assembly, whose member I was at the time, from which the right would emerge of the Yugoslav army or its leadership to command some other army which was not within its own composition. That's what I can say, and I do believe that they adhered to that principle.

Q. And is it true that after the victory of the HDZ party at the elections in 1990, the project for Croatian armed forces to be put in place was started straight away and there was an offensive plan vis-a-vis the officers with the aim of breaking up the JNA?

A. In my book, I have noted this kind of thing down, and according to information from our intelligence services and on the basis of what Croatian officials said themselves, including President Tudjman, as well as on the basis of the orders amassed from the Croatian leadership and sent out to the local organs and Territorial Defence organs or units, and this was an undertaking with the help of which Croatia wished to secure ²⁹²⁸⁸ for itself the possibility of seceding from Yugoslavia despite, as they thought, that Yugoslavia, the Yugoslav People's Army, would not allow them to do so.

Q. Is it true that already in the summer of 1990 mass provocations started and open attacks and pressure were brought to bear against the JNA, members of their family members, and officers? And I assume that all of you who were members of the Presidency received reports to that effect from the army.

A. I'm sure the Trial Chamber will read through all those documents and the information received by the Presidency. It's contained in my book. And they were absolutely incredible things that were going on. Their paramilitary units, either wearing civilian clothes or armed, they were given tasks and assignments of making it impossible or, rather, of threatening all the officers' families and even to go as far as killing them to prevent the arrival of the officers in the barracks, to take away their apartments, and a series of other measures that were incomprehensible for peacetime, because it was still a time of peace. So there was enormous pressure brought to bear against the army from all sides and parties. And later on, this peaked in the blockade of the barracks themselves.

Q. And is it right that at the beginning of October 1990, they began intensively, illegally arming the Croatian paramilitary formations from other countries, from Hungary, Austria, et cetera, and some other countries?

A. According to the intelligence that the Presidency received from ²⁹²⁸⁹ our army and which are quoted in my book, that is when all that started, yes.

Q. Is it true that the Croatian paramilitary formations simultaneously stormed the Secretariats of the Interior in which they -- the Serbs were working? They would disarm them, take away weapons from the reserve Serb force, and in the Knin region in 1990, they threatened -- issued threats? There was fear. Fear prevailed generally and then the Serbs began arming themselves in order to protect themselves from all of this?

A. That was a serious reason for which the Serbs in Serbian Krajina set up their resistance, because the Croatian government, completely by surprise and without any reason whatsoever, issued orders that helicopters should bring in special units of the police from Zagreb into the area, into all these places where there was a majority Serb population and to round up all the weapons that was there catering to the reserve police force. And each municipality, in addition to the regular police force, had additional weapons for reserve police force should the need arise. And the Serbs considered that to be a complete onslaught in order to disarm them at a later stage in order to force them to behave in the way that didn't suit them.

So that was one of the reasons for which the Yugoslav state Presidency on the 7th and 8th or 8th or 9th of May stated that that question must be dealt with with the Serbs and settled in an acceptable way.

Q. And is it true that a decision was made by the Presidency to ²⁹²⁹⁰ disarm all paramilitary units and that of the 30.000 automatic rifles and -- that only 150 barrels were returned, which only 11 were Kalashnikovs? Those are the facts and figures I've been supplied with.

A. On the 9th of January, 1991, we considered the situation of illegal arming of people on an ethnic basis and the dangers of a civil war breaking out as a result. And we established that there was indeed a large number of weaponry in units which were set up on the basis of an ethnic composition, both Serbs and Croats, but far more Croats, in fact, who had imported those weapons in an illegal manner. The Yugoslav state Presidency, on the 9th of March, concluded, since it had evidence and proof of who the perpetrators were, when this was done, how this was done, to abolish -- or, rather, not to prosecute everybody but just to prosecute the few most responsible individuals, those organising this endeavour, and that within the space of a fortnight, if the weapons were turned in to the local district units, they would not be prosecuted. So this was a decision that was accepted by the Croatian representative, and President Tudjman attended the meeting himself. However, the Serbs did hand over their weapons. They surrendered their weapons because they believed that once they did so, they would still be protected by the JNA.

We had a lot of difficulty with the Croats on several occasions. We had to hold additional talks and negotiations, and they are noted in my book as well. And finally, they failed to turn in their weapons, and they remained armed until the very end regardless of all the Presidency decisions taken to the contrary and regardless of the promises they made. ²⁹²⁹¹ And also, they did not allow us to bring to justice the perpetrators, the people who should be prosecuted. A military court started to sit to try the cases themselves.

Q. What about paragraph 48 of your statement? Does that refer to this subject matter? I think that Mr. Nice extracted the wrong conclusion from that portion of your statement because it is stated here that I was in favour of prosecuting the perpetrators, and he considers that any laxity would be wrong, so that the perpetrators should be brought to justice, the ones who had procured the weapons and had been involved in all that.

Now, an amnesty was for the lower-ranking people, but I didn't think that we ought to give in in prosecuting the main culprits and not to seize weapons, along with bloodshed.

A. Paragraph 48 in my statement can be read exactly the way it is written, but it has to be understood as part of what had happened in general. When we decided that the weapons should be returned and that there would be an amnesty, Mr. Mesic and I discussed the matter so that they would really do this. This conversation points to the fact that in this one conversation we had, that he promised that they would hand in 20 of those Kalashnikovs. Of course, all the rest that is stated here is also correct, because I immediately informed Kadijevic and Milosevic that the Croats would hand in 20.000 rifles, and what it says here is true, that Milosevic thought that they would lie, that we were just wasting time, and that they were just gaining time in terms of arming themselves in the meantime. And my reaction was are we going to wage war now over ²⁹²⁹² these weapons now that we've made this agreement and they've made this promise? So this is a conversation that remains to be a fact. And then he said, "Are we going to pardon those who are guilty?" And I said, "No, we are going to prosecute them," and that's how the conversation ended.

Q. So I am advocating the prosecution of the guilty, and on the other hand I'm saying that they would lie. And didn't that prove to be true within a few days?

A. Yes, they did lie, and this was clear within a few days, and unfortunately, we did not prosecute the perpetrators.

Q. Very well. Is it true that on the basis of that order the Serbs in Knin returned those weapons?

A. Yes, that is correct, but I have to say that Serbs in Knin believed that they would be protected by the Yugoslav army if something possibly happened to the contrary.

Q. Is it correct that Tudjman, after the Spegelj film was shown, the one that had to do with illegal arming, firmly promised the Presidency that all paramilitaries would be disarmed and that all the perpetrators would be punished as a matter of fact, and then he did nothing about it; is that right?

A. As I said, Tudjman was present at the Presidency session held on the 9th of January when this decision on disarmament and on punishing the perpetrators was adopted. He accepted the decision, but he did not implement it.

My opinion is that he did not have any other option but acting ²⁹²⁹³ that way for tactical purposes in order to mitigate the anger of the Presidency directed at him personally.

Q. All right. Do you remember the proposed extraordinary measures, emergency measures? Is it correct that at the session of the Presidency on the 11th of March, 1991, Riza Sapundziju who voted in favour of introducing emergency measures in Yugoslavia, in addition to him, three other members of the Presidency also voted in favour of emergency measures which involved primarily disarming and then three -- and then six months of peace and then elections. So then the majority, 4 to 3, was in favour of emergency measures but they were not passed because Drnovsek was absent.

A. Yes. That was on the 12th of March.

Q. Well, all right. My notes say the 11th. Whether it's the 11th or 12th, it's not that important.

A. It's the 12th, so I want to prevent any kind of confusion. That is correct. We did not have a full quorum, Drnovsek was not present that day, but as is well-known, for this kind of a decision of the Presidency to be passed, it was necessary to have five members of the Presidency. Even if only five were present, five would have to vote in favour. It was not sufficient that seven were present and four were in favour of the decision. Nevertheless, the decision could not be passed.

Q. Is it correct that this decision or, rather, the failure to pass this decision caused very negative consequences by way of the reaction of the imperiled Serbs, because they expected the army to protect them, as you said a few minutes ago, to have these emergency measures adopted? And ²⁹²⁹⁴ when this proposal made by the Federal Secretariat for National Defence to introduce martial law was not adopted when disarmament failed, so when all of this is viewed together, it was only then that they started arming themselves spontaneously. When I say "them," I mean the Serbs in the Krajina.

A. I'm not quite sure that that was the turning point, but this is what the essence of the matter is: It became obvious that the Croats did not honour the decision reached on the 9th of January. So two or three months went by and they continued arming themselves, not only from local but also from international sources, and then of course the Serbs started arming themselves too, not trusting anyone any longer. That is true. Now, whether that particular day was a turning point is something I cannot say, but this is the course of events that actually prevailed at the time, and there were no major watersheds.

Q. Is it correct that the leadership of the paramilitary units in Croatia actually distributed weapons to ethnic Croats who were surrounded by Serbs living in the areas where there was a mixed population in the regions of Knin, Lika, Kordun Banija, Srem, and Baranja area?

A. I did not quite understand your question. They distributed weapons to Croats where Croats were surrounded by Serbs?

Q. Yes. Where there was a predominantly Serb population.

A. I don't know really. That's not the kind of information that was dominant. I did not register that anywhere, but possibly this happened too. I know that the Croatian authorities, generally speaking, armed Croats only, and for the most part, members of the HDZ. So on ethnic ²⁹²⁹⁵ grounds and according to party affiliation. That is the basis for their arming.

Now, whether they did that only in settlements where there were no Serbs or in the settlements where there was a predominantly Serb population, that is something that I did not have very reliable information about, but it is possible.

Q. All right. As far as back as 1990, the disarming of those police stations started, those that had a staff consisting of Serbs primarily.

A. Yes.

Q. And new police stations were opened, especially in Slavonia and in the Knin region?

A. Yes.

Q. And also on the outskirts where the Serbs lived?

A. Yes.

Q. And then the members of the special units stormed the area. That's what you mentioned a few minutes ago.

A. Yes.

Q. Is it correct that at that time it was actually the army that prevented the outbreak of a more serious conflict, not the way Babic put it when he was testifying here, that they were trying to prevent the legal authorities of the State of Croatia from operating in their territory?

A. Well, this is a question that has not sufficiently been clarified, at least not from my point of view. As far as I know, Croatia took measures to disarm all these police units where Serbs were predominant, and it sent helicopters to collect the weapons concerned. They managed to ²⁹²⁹⁶ do so in many places but not in Obrovac and Knin. When the helicopters went in that area, they were stopped and they were returned by the army. Now, the controversy is whether the army sent them back because they knew they were going to Knin or to Obrovac where a conflict would ensue - that is what Tudjman claimed - or whether the army returned them because they did not report that there would be a flight, because air control was exercised by the army.

Tudjman telephoned me and told me that the army forced their helicopters that were legally moving about in order to carry out their assignments and that they forced them to go back. I telephoned Adzic, and I asked him what this was all about. He said to me that it was not true. He said that the helicopters did not report these flights in advance, and army exercised control over the airspace, and they told them to go back and to say that they would be making this flight and then they would allow them to go.

Now, what is true out of the two is something that I leave to everyone else for their deliberations.

Q. I'm going to put an all-embracing question to you now, and I would like to ask you to tell me in response what you know yourself, because that is when you were a member of the Presidency. Many events are referred to here. I cannot even write all of them down because I did not want to go through all the documents, but, for example, Vukovar, Dubrovnik, Lovas, Skabrnja, Zvornik, Foca, Bijeljina, Brcko, Srebrenica. I cannot make a full list.

So Serbia or the Presidency of the SFRY, did they have any part in ²⁹²⁹⁷ what was going on? For example, I first heard of Lovas and Skabrnja here. Even in geographic terms I was not aware of them before. These other towns I know of at least geographically speaking, but I was not aware of anything going on there.

So do you know that I knew about anything that had to do with these particular localities and some kind of impermissible involvement of forces, some forces from Serbia, or the role of the JNA in all of this for that matter?

A. The two of us never talked about this. I don't know who knew what and who did not know what, but we never discussed this. As for my own knowledge, I explained this, and I would like to say it once again: The role of the Presidency and its powers stopped at a particular point, namely the Presidency passed general political decisions. Everything else was the responsibility of the General Staff from the point of view of tactical matters, operational matters, and problems in various localities. And from time to time, the Presidency received general reports on such matters.

So the localities that are referred to here were never in my mind, and I had no idea what was going on over there except in very general terms. And I wrote about this in my book, namely what the form of providing information was.

Q. All right. If you did not know about this and if you did not have information that would have been of a certain volume, do you think that I knew about what was going on in these localities?

A. What I can assert is that we never discussed this, and therefore ²⁹²⁹⁸ it can be assumed that you were not kept abreast of this.

Q. All right. What do you know about what happened in Vukovar? What was the role of the Presidency of Yugoslavia in the events in Vukovar? Did the Presidency of the SFRY have an immediate role there or is this in the context of general attacks against the JNA and conflicts with the JNA in the territory of Croatia?

A. These are two things that the Presidency was involved in. The first thing is the decision of the Presidency of the 8th and 9th of May, that the Yugoslav People's Army should stand as a buffer between the Serb and Croat units in order to reduce the level of conflict and to protect the areas populated by Serbs until a political solution is found. That is the decision of the 9th of May on the basis of which the army operated in Croatia.

The second matter is the following: The agreement between Kadijevic, who was in Geneva on our behalf, and Tudjman. As far as I can remember, Vance was there, and Mr. Milosevic was there, and Croatia was supposed to deblockade all the blocked military barracks of the JNA in Croatia and all the personnel from these barracks should be withdrawn by peaceful means.

We agreed to that, and that was our basis for operations. As is well known, this decision was not consistently implemented or was not implemented at all.

In Vukovar, there were barracks with several hundred members of the Yugoslav People's Army there. It was under blockade for several months. I cannot say exactly for how many months, but for a long period ²⁹²⁹⁹ of time, it was cut off. They could not receive food supplies, medical supplies, they had no telephone connections, electricity, water. So they were completely prevented from leading a normal life. At the same time, it was under constant shelling and sniper fire. In the barracks, there were people who were shot dead or others who died, and there was no place to bury them because, under these constant attacks, no one could leave the barracks.

The agreement that was signed in Geneva is one that the Croatian side did not wish to implement. They would not allow the normal evacuation of these barracks. Under these circumstances, the Yugoslav People's Army decided to liberate the barracks because it was absolutely impossible to allow any longer for several hundred people to die there of starvation or get ill, because the corpses that were already inside started decaying. So this was information that the Presidency of Yugoslavia received, that Croatia was not implementing the decision on the deblockade of military barracks and that the military barracks in Vukovar had to be taken by force. That is the knowledge that the Presidency of Yugoslavia had.

Q. Is there anything else that we knew in Serbia? Because this is outside Serbia. Could we have known anything more than the Presidency knew?

A. I cannot compare knowledge. I'm just saying what information we were given and what the army told us. It's quite possible that someone may have known a little more or not even as much, but I don't know that.

Q. I assume it can be said that we followed events and what was going ²⁹³⁰⁰ on in Serbia within our competence and what was within the competence of the army, I assume was followed by the Presidency of SFRY when talking about political bodies.

A. It was normal that the Yugoslav People's Army had the most information and that it provided us with sufficient information. And I assume that no one else had more information than the army.

Q. I assume the same. Now, let us make a brief digression. I should like to ask you to try and remember. Yesterday you mentioned that the international community - I'm paraphrasing what you said - that it always insisted that Serbia take part in all those negotiations. Is that right?

A. That is a fact. They wanted you always to be present everywhere.

Q. Yes. And do you remember this cropped up in the Geneva discussions, and in Igalo Kadijevic was present on behalf of Yugoslavia. I was asked to attend because the Serbian question was on the table in connection with the Carrington plan. I think I spoke to you about that at the time. There was a discussion of the wording to the effect that all forces under their command, or something to that effect, should be withdrawn, that there should be a cease-fire, et cetera, et cetera, and that my objection repeatedly was that I had nothing to do there because Serbia had no forces. And then Carrington found a solution, saying "or under their influence," which is a very vague expression, so it could imply that Serbia and I personally would do everything within the framework of our political influence in bringing that influence to bear over those people we had influence over.

Are you familiar with this wording, this phrase? It appeared in ²⁹³⁰¹ Geneva, in the Igalo agreement, but Carrington then said to me, "All right. You don't have your forces, but you can exert some political influence," which I endeavoured to do, after all, with respect to the coming of the UN, the Vance Plan, the calming down of the situation, et cetera. So is it beyond doubt that we did not have any forces of our own to send there? I'm talking about the political leadership of Serbia, the government of Serbia, or any authorities in Serbia.

A. The problem, or the basic fundamental problem occurred, in my opinion, when the international community or its bodies did not recognise the so-called Rump Presidency, but they couldn't avoid talking to bodies of the federation because they were the decision-makers regarding military matters. So the compromise found was that General Veljko Kadijevic should go there on our behalf - he was recognised by them - so they avoided the Presidency of Yugoslavia being mentioned anywhere. So when talking about questions relating to the army and Yugoslavia, then Kadijevic had the authority to do everything and sign everything as if we had been present for the simple reason that they refused to recognise us.

As for the participation of others, in my opinion, that was demanded by representatives of the international community, especially with respect to Mr. Milosevic, because they felt sure that things would be implemented better and very probably because of the reputation he had and the influence he had over others. He was not the person who was indispensable from the standpoint of the obligations of the federation, but probably they concluded that it was useful. ²⁹³⁰²

Q. Thank you. I think that is quite a sufficient explanation. Do you know, since there is repeated mention here, at least it was referred to many times within the framework of the concept of the so-called Greater Serbia, that the army should be positioned on the borders of Greater Serbia, Karlobag, Karlovac, Virovitica, I can't remember exactly now, but roughly along those lines. Do you know that anyone in any body or in contacts with the army or anywhere else that there was any mention of such a border?

A. In the public, this was ever present, but those were slogans or objectives set by the opposition parties. In the first place, the Serbian Renewal Movement and the Radical Party. In my opinion, this was a sort of promise to the Serb people that if they came to power, that they would ensure this. And this, in my opinion, was not just an illusion in relation to realities, but it was a political trick and deception. The official leadership never made any statements along those lines, nor did it advocate any such ideas. It is common knowledge what it did, and that is to ensure for the Serb people the right to self-determination and to find a political settlement for the Serb people in Croatia which would be acceptable for them without any mention of any such border, which doesn't even correspond to the ethnic borders of the Serb people.

Q. You are well aware that when the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was proclaimed in April 1992, the Assembly proclaimed that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had absolutely no territorial claims or pretensions towards any other Yugoslav republics; is that right?

A. Yes. Yes. That was virtually a component part of the ²⁹³⁰³ constitution. It was a declaration that accompanied the promulgation of the constitution.

Q. Let us now go back to the events in Croatia. Was it well known at the time that these extremists and paramilitary formations formed in Croatia consisting -- that committed the most horrific crimes against Serbs in Sisak and the surroundings in the summer of 1991, the Pakrac Poljana, the Miljevac plateau, the Maslenica-Medak pocket, the Storm and Flash in 1995, all of this together, was it really in fact a part of the war against Yugoslavia, that is a part of the armed secession that was supported by a part of the international community, Germany, in the first place?

A. I would not like to judge each individual incident or event because that would be very dangerous and sensitive, but generally speaking, all those military activities in Croatia were designed to neutralise the Yugoslav People's Army and to neutralise the resistance of the Serb people.

The forms all those activities took, whether some of them are -- were out of control of the Croatian authorities themselves or were a component part of their policies and tactics would need to be judged in each individual case and is something which I cannot delve into.

Q. Very well. And is it true that the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the one in Croatia was an inter-ethnic conflict and a civil war and certainly not a Serb aggression or an aggression of Yugoslavia or an aggression by the Yugoslav People's Army?

A. Of course the Yugoslav People's Army did not attack anyone at the ²⁹³⁰⁴ time the conflict broke out. They broke out on an inter-ethnic basis for the reasons that I have discussed and which are well known. The Yugoslav army got involved after the 8th or 9th of May, 1991, when it was given instructions to position itself between the warring parties, and those were the ethnic communities and that was a civil war.

Q. Is it true that the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was objectively imposed upon the Serb people precisely by those who engaged in a forcible secession from Yugoslavia?

A. That is a judgement that perhaps a far more broader, a more competent forum should make on the basis of everything that happened. All I can say is my own profound conviction that Bosnia and Herzegovina had all the pre-conditions to survive without a war. Either to separate from Yugoslavia or to remain within Yugoslavia only if efforts were not made to form a unitary state without respecting the right of three nations in it. Bosnia and Herzegovina in Yugoslavia had a constitutional position adopted by all three nations on the basis of which they were absolutely equal. They had an Assembly with three Chambers - the Serbian, Croatian, and Muslim - and whose deputies were elected by citizens of those three ethnic groups, and not a single decision could be taken to the detriment of the others. They had to be coordinated. There were special committees for coordination. Had it left Yugoslavia or remained in Yugoslavia, this concept, which had been observed and which was functioning for 50 years, had it been retained, there would not have been any war. Instead, the tendency was something that did not respect all nations. The steps taken were a referendum of all the people, and the Muslims had a large majority ²⁹³⁰⁵ there, and in my opinion, that was the cause of the war over there in Bosnia.

Q. Is it true that the civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, to be a little more specific, started when an outvoting took place, that is a referendum that was held without the participation of the Serb people even though the constitution says that the republic is constituted by three equal nations?

A. The sequence of events was such. The first incident started immediately after that, and then they escalated.

Q. And is it true that neither Serbia nor Yugoslavia was involved in that war?

A. Of course it was true. That was a civil war pure and simple that broke out for the reasons I have given.

Q. Is it true that we persistently insisted, and I think I don't think, I personally know, how many times I insisted, and I think you did as well, that you took the same position, that there is only one solution for the crisis in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and that is a solution that would equally protect the rights and interests of all, and that means Serbs, Muslims, and Croats.

A. That is what developments proved, that the war was in vain because without the consensus of all three nations, no solution could be found.

Q. And the war started because that consensus was violated because the referendum was organised without the participation of the Serbs.

A. Unfortunately, that was the suggestion of the European Community, as it was called then, to organise such a referendum without respecting ²⁹³⁰⁶ the fact that Bosnia was a multi-ethnic state.

Q. But despite that fact, as events developed, is it well known and is it true and was that also a subject of discussion between us, that Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia supported all peace plans whereby the war would be stopped in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

A. Yes, that is the truth. I think there were six, from the Cutileiro plan to the Dayton Accords, and Serbia accepted all the plans. And each one of them was rejected by one or other party, which was the reason why they were not adopted except for the last one, the Dayton Accords.

Not only was Serbia vitally committed to ending the war, because that is the worst thing that could happen, but it was vitally interested in sanctions being lifted because it had been punished with sanctions because there was a war being waged in another country.

Q. And is it true that -- now, you yourself mentioned the Cutileiro plan, that representatives of all three parties before the conflict started, before the war started, accepted it in Sarajevo on the 18th of March 1992, before the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

A. As far as I can remember, yes, but afterwards, the Muslim party reneged.

Q. Yes. Izetbegovic, on the 25th of March, withdrew his signature from that plan.

A. Yes.

Q. Is it a well-known fact that he withdrew his signature under the influence of the American Ambassador Warren Zimmermann? ²⁹³⁰⁷

A. There were reports in the media about this, and it was not denied, so it's very probable that that is true.

Q. Is it true that that plan provided for an independent Bosnia-Herzegovina but divided into cantons? Is that right?

A. Yes, that is true. All three nations and their representatives at that point in time agreed to Bosnia and Herzegovina being an independent state, and the division into cantons in which they had certain powers and a joint government that they agreed to.

Q. So Serb representatives in Bosnia-Herzegovina cannot be accused of aspiring to any kind of Greater Serbia as they accepted the plan of an independent Bosnia-Herzegovina but one that recognised their equality up to a point and which would be divided into cantons; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. I should like you to comment or, rather, to tell me whether this is the right view published in the Muslim papers Majod Bosna [phoen] of the 19th of July, 1993, where it states that the refusal to accept Cutileiro's plan is one of the most catastrophic mistakes made by Muslim policy, and I'm quoting: "The short-sightedness of the Muslim policy is best borne out by the lack of the acceptance of the Cutileiro plan at the beginning of the peace negotiation on Bosnia-Herzegovina which the Serbs too have accepted. The Muslims refused it because of the idea of a uniform -- unified BH."

Is that a statement that was realistic, an assessment that was realistic?

A. As far as I'm concerned, I agree with that excerpt says but ²⁹³⁰⁸ everybody is entitled to his own opinion, of course.

Q. Now, do you remember that at an Assembly meeting of BH on the 27th of February, 1991, which discussed the draft declaration on the sovereignty of Bosnia proposed by the Party of Democratic Action of Alija Izetbegovic, that he said, "We would give up peace for a sovereign Bosnia-Herzegovina but we wouldn't forfeit its sovereignty for peace"?

A. Yes. That sentence is something I record in my diary as a very dangerous statement.

Q. Do you remember how much unrest there was amongst the Serbs in Bosnia following that statement?

A. Well, the statement did cause unrest and concern beyond Bosnia-Herzegovina as well. If somebody declared publicly that he was prepared to go to war for a unitary Bosnia and that he was ready to forfeit peace for a sovereign Bosnia, that means to abolish the sovereign rights of the two other nations, then that is a very dangerous statement indeed.

Q. Now, do you remember, and I apologise in advance because I don't have the date in my notes, but I'm sure you will remember when this took place, that following this statement by Alija Izetbegovic and the declaration on the sovereignty of Bosnia-Herzegovina, there was reaction by the deputies' club of the Serbian Democratic Party in the BH Assembly precisely by writing a letter to the Yugoslav state Presidency, and I think it was addressed to the president of the Presidency, calling for protection and referring in particular to its own sovereign right to remain within Yugoslavia guaranteed by Articles 1 and 2 of the ²⁹³⁰⁹ constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Yugoslav state constitution too. And in that letter, among other things, they say that, "We the Serb representatives in the Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina as the legitimate and sole representatives of the Serbian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina, demand of the federal institutions that they protect our sovereign rights to remain within the frameworks of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and we base our rights on living in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on the grounds of the present BH constitution Article 1, paragraph 2 of the constitution, and also your still existing constitution of the SFRY.

And I think that you were the president of the Presidency at that time, and I assume you received that letter, and they reacted. They reacted to this dangerous intention on the part of Izetbegovic which he made public.

A. Well, they did address the Yugoslav state Presidency because the Yugoslav constitution stipulates the guarantee of equality to all nations and nationalities in Yugoslavia. This is what the Yugoslav state constitution guarantees but those rights must be realised within the republics themselves.

Of course we did not agree to the outvoting in the BH Assembly and making decisions in that way without the agreement of the deputies of all three Chambers and all three nationalities, but as we also know, our power at the time was diminishing and we were able to say they were right - that's what we could do and we did do - but we couldn't do a great deal other than that, because the European community -- or, rather, the ²⁹³¹⁰ international community, had called upon Bosnia-Herzegovina to settle the matter itself, so that any reaction on our part except for lending verbal support would be in conflict with what was happening following instructions from the international community.

Q. All right. Let's now go back to the fact that we noted a moment ago. Without doubt the Serb side, therefore, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in accepting Cutileiro's plan, gave up its demands for Bosnia and Herzegovina to remain within the frameworks of Yugoslavia. That is to say it accepted an independent BH separate from Yugoslavia, and all it did seek through regionalisation and accepted -- it accepted that because it was provided for by the Cutileiro plan, it was called cantonisation, a sort of protection and defence of their equality vis-a-vis other ethnic communities.

So is that quite obvious?

A. Yesterday we looked into certain details here from the minutes of the Yugoslav state Presidency meeting dated the 2nd of March, 1992, and that meeting was attended by Mr. Karadzic as well. The Vance Plan was under discussion and its application, and on several occasions in 1992 already and also prior to that, he stated that the Serbs in Bosnia had fully accepted not to be within the composition of Yugoslavia but, rather, to be within the composition of a future Bosnia-Herzegovina. All they asked for was equality within that state.

So they did this in continuous fashion and came out with declarations of that kind.

Q. And do you remember Cutileiro's statement from the Sarajevo ²⁹³¹¹ Oslobodjenje of the 24th of February 1992 at the beginning of the negotiating process that he led after the Lisbon Conference on the 21st and 22nd of February, 1992 when he said that the Serbs were asking for a confederal Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Muslims a unitarian one, and the Croats want a federation?

A. Well, I don't remember that, but I have no reason to disbelieve it.

Q. All right. Now I assume it is not challenged that the Cutileiro plan did not provide for a confederal Bosnia but for a cantonised state, which is a much firmer form than the other variant.

A. Well, we can check that out in the text of the agreement itself.

Q. Of course. Now, can we accept that the Serbs agreed to the Cutileiro plan although it was not in conformity with their demands for BH to remain within Yugoslavia but was not in conformity with what they themselves asked of Cutileiro with respect to an independent Bosnia-Herzegovina and that kind of organisation? The Serbs said -- the Serbs asked for confederal, the Muslims a unitarian, and the Croats a federation. So they gave up their idea of the unitarian one, the federal one. They went two steps down their initial demand, down the ladder of their initial demand, in the interests of a rational and peaceful solution.

A. Well, everybody had to give something up and a compromise was made, and it is a great pity that that plan was not adopted ultimately.

Q. So the Serbs were willing to make concessions in the interests of peace and Izetbegovic's side was not or, rather, the authorities in ²⁹³¹² Sarajevo were not prepared to do the same.

A. I don't want to enter into a discussion of these matters, but I can give you my opinion, and that is that the authorities in Sarajevo first did accept the plan because they considered it to be a good thing for Bosnia, and then afterwards, incited by the interests of those who had appointed them, that this should not be done, that they should not go through with it because nobody would encourage a uni-national community in a state and not to accept something unless it was in the interests of the person promoting it to do so. But of course I'm not the best placed person to make conclusions of this kind. I can just give you my opinions to the best of my knowledge.

Q. Yes, but as you were president of the Yugoslav state Presidency yourself, occupying the topmost function and post, you knew full well many of these things and had a lot of international experience, experience in international affairs. Whose interests was it to provoke conflicts in Bosnia-Herzegovina? Whose interests did that serve?

A. Well, probably those who suggested that the plan should not be adopted, and it probably made greater promises to Alija Izetbegovic which he found attractive. So probably that was the crux of it. Probably, but I can't say that I know for sure.

Q. All right. And is it certain that the Cutileiro plan was the best chance for preserving peace in Bosnia and that the Serbs accepted that plan? Is that an undisputed fact?

A. That the Serbs accepted it, that is undisputed. That it was the best plan, I would say it was a very good plan myself. ²⁹³¹³

Q. Yes, but it was the option which would prevent any kind of war.

A. Most probably that is correct.

Q. Now, do you know that the two of us, you and I or, rather, the authorities in the Republic of Serbia and the authorities in Yugoslavia, including the two of us, supported Cutileiro's plan?

A. Well, that's not being challenged. As I said, we supported all plans for the two reasons I mentioned. The most important thing was to stop the war, and the second most important thing was to have the sanctions lifted. After that, we could seek a solution ourselves.

Q. So we supported the Vance-Owen, Stoltenberg plan, the Three Republics plan, the European Union Action Plan and this other one on the basis of Kinkel-Juppe and the others, and the Contact Group plan, and finally, through our endeavours, we accepted the Dayton Accords as well. Now, is it true and correct that all the plans I've just enumerated envisaged a regionalised, or cantonised as you will, Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that right?

A. Yes, that is right.

Q. So this acceptance of a regional or regionalisation, cantonisation in all the plans that was being proposed, let alone the Serb call for regionalisation and cantonisation which was put forward even before the war in the BH Assembly and it was justified because it was a minimum to ensure equality and the protection of ethnic rights, both of the Serbs and other nationalities as well. Is that how it was? Yes or no.

A. Well, I can't say what the minimum or the maximum requirement was. All I know is that in Yugoslavia, until it had disintegrated, Bosnia had a ²⁹³¹⁴ structure as it did, the kind of power structure that I described, in which each nationality, regardless of where it was located, enjoyed the right to elect his own representatives without any territorial regionalisation. But we knew that about 60 per cent of the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina was predominantly inhabited by the Serbs. They were territories that were inhabited sparsely and 30 per cent of the territory was inhabited by the Muslims. But they were in the towns basically and in high built-up areas, and the Croats lived in the other portions. Now, what had existed up until then, whether that was not sufficiently acceptable to them and then they accepted regionalisation as a result along with guarantees that power and authority would be elected from the populace that they represented, probably that did -- everybody did find that acceptable and agreeable.

Q. But the Cutileiro plan was found suitable by the Muslims too. Izetbegovic wouldn't have signed it had it not been acceptable.

A. Well, yes. That's precisely what I'm saying too.

Q. Now, the fact that the Serbs in Bosnia and Serbia and Yugoslavia accepted all these plans, isn't that the best illustration that we cannot speak about any plan for a Greater Serbia at all? Not only verbally but factually as well.

A. Neither verbally nor factually. Our political positions, our political speeches, our documents have no mention of that concept, and it would be impossible during all those years and the problems that were resolved during those years, none of the Serb politicians who were in power ever uttered that word. That just did not exist in our policy or ²⁹³¹⁵ practice, because never in practice anywhere, and this is -- was the practice of the Vance-Owen Plan and the Dayton Accord and all the other agreements and plans, we never came out in favour of having parts of those territories annexed to Serbia but that the Serb people living over there should find a solution which would be on a footing of equality with all other ethnic communities.

Q. That means that they are free and equal on a footing of equality. That was our principle; isn't that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it true that this principle stand of ours was confirmed already in mid-1991, since the arrival of Cyrus Vance and the proposal for the peace forces, UN peace forces to come into the country, to place those zones under their protection, under UN protection, so that a political settlement could be found in a peaceful environment? Is that quite clear? And is it clear that nobody could -- it couldn't have entered their heads of having another concept that would be to the detriment of one of the nationalities, ethnic groups.

A. Yes, that is correct, but unfortunately, a group of four ambassadors, the ambassadors of the four great powers devised a Z-4 plan for a political settlement for the position of the Serbs in Croatia on the basis of substantial autonomy which in my view was a very good solution. However, before the plan was seriously discussed, what happened was that there was Operation Storm, and while the UN forces were there the Serbs were expelled from the territory and the whole thing fell through.

Q. Is it true and correct -- I think we've clarified that point out ²⁹³¹⁶ now very well, but is it true that some countries which from the onset of the Yugoslav crisis encouraged and supported a unilateral act on the part of the Yugoslav republics towards secession and later on they awarded them by recognising their independence, violated the basic principles of the OSCE and the basic principles of international law as well but also the conclusions made of the Conference on Yugoslavia held in The Hague in September 1991? Would that be true?

A. Well, I don't want to answer you directly. I can't give you a direct answer. All I can say is that those of us who led the country and were at the head of politics and policy in Yugoslavia were very disappointed because we came to the conclusion that we were harbouring an illusion. Now, why an illusion? We considered that Europe would respect the principle held true in Helsinki, that the frontiers were inviolable and what they did was to consider interior frontiers and boundaries inviolable. And our next delusion was that the rights of nations to self-determination would be respected, which was set out in the United Nations's charter and the Yugoslav constitution but also through the fact that Yugoslavia was created through the options and will of its nations and nationalities to live together. And this is set out in the constitution and it also stipulates that they can use that right to step down from Yugoslavia. This principle was not accepted by Europe, a principle that it nurtured itself and which it found acceptable within the United Nations frameworks itself. What it said was that nationalities did not have the right to self-determination but the republics had the right to secession, which was unacceptable to us. ²⁹³¹⁷ There were many other things well. For example, the problem of secession. Europe and the world were absolutely opposed to supporting secession, especially violent secession. However, in Yugoslavia, we were disillusioned because Europe started to lend its support to violent secession to Croatia and Slovenia and to proclaim that the Yugoslav army was engaged in some sort of aggression over there, which was not true. So all in all what I can say is this: Things happened. The international law was interpreted in different ways, ways which were not good because international law did not respect the provisions of the Yugoslav constitution but probably respected the interests of the powers that be which acted in the way they did, and that had catastrophic repercussions on Yugoslavia and events that were to follow, things that could have been settled through peaceful means, but they evolved to become a war conflict.

Q. So violence was committed against Yugoslavia. I assume that is not in dispute.

A. Well, if we're talking about legal violence and lack of respect for the norms of international law, then I think that that is a correct assumption.

Q. Is it true that the decision made by the European Community on 23rd of June, 1991 was that 12 countries of the EEC decided not to recognise the independence of Slovenia and Croatia and that they rejected to have any top-level contact if the two republics unilaterally stepped down from the federation? And that is a quote. I'm quoting that. Was that how it was? ²⁹³¹⁸

A. Yes, that was how it was. That was one particular stage in the European Community's views.

Q. All right. So it wasn't our delusion, but the position taken by the European Community asserted through Helsinki and the norms of international law; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then, precipitously, that position was left behind because Germany exerted pressure and they decided to give direct support to secession and to break up Yugoslavia and recognise the independence of the seceded republics even to the extent to which they invited the republics to gain international recognition, to put themselves forward for international recognition. Wasn't that how it was, Boro?

A. Well, I don't wish to accuse individual countries, because it's not in good form to do so, although there is a lot of truth to it. However, I would like to say that we accepted the mediation of Europe, the European Community -- or, rather, had we accepted it, with its help and assistance, we would have been able to find a political settlement to the country's problems. It was suggested to us that a commission be set up within the European Community, a legal commission, to look into the norms of international law and domestic law within the frameworks of which we could find a political solution which would be a point of support for finding a political settlement of the situation in Yugoslavia, although war hadn't broken out yet at that time, and the internationality conflicts existed, of course.

Now, this commission, which was later to be called the Badinter ²⁹³¹⁹ Commission following its president, didn't take a look at the constitution of Yugoslavia or the situation of Yugoslavia nor did he ever come to see us to discuss any matters with us, but at its first session, it proclaimed that Yugoslavia was in the process of being disintegrated and that all the republics should be called upon to secede if they wished to do so. I think that this assistance was not the right assistance. We had enormous trust and confidence in Europe, but we were disillusioned in the end. Now, had that decision been otherwise, had all the Yugoslav nations and republics been called to exert caution and look for a peaceful settlement with the help of Europe so if somebody wished to secede they should do so peacefully that would have been quite another matter, and not leave it to be a free-for-all and to have the catastrophe ensue that did ensue. So I think that that was the decisive moment and decisive step. Now, whether he was influenced by Germany or France or England or whoever, I leave those matters to others. They are not matters that are not generally known, but I don't wish to comment upon them.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, well, that's a convenient moment.

MR. NICE: Could I address you for 30 seconds in private session --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: -- about something totally different?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted) ²⁹³²⁰

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ²⁹³²¹

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ²⁹³²²

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ²⁹³²³

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, we are in open session.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice - and this affects Mr. Jovic too - we've considered the time which the accused should have available, and given the importance of this witness, we think that he should have tomorrow available for cross-examination.

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, I'm bound to express our concerns at that. This is clearly a witness who, from the beginning, was likely to be a witness the accused could want for himself. We recognise that. We recognise that he would want the book and the materials. We've provided a great deal of material arguably favourable to the accused, and there must come a time when eating into our allotted time is something that's -- I'm not going to say unfair but unfortunate.

JUDGE MAY: Let us say if there is any unfairness, we will have to ²⁹³²⁴ reflect that. It may be an extension of time for you. I hope not, but it may be that we would have to do that if he's granted more time.

MR. NICE: Certainly we're obviously not concerned to close down the questioning once the witness is here save by reason of consideration of the overall time. We are concerned that we should have a significant amount of time for re-examination should we require it.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, that brings me to the point, which is that it will be necessary for the witness to be here for another session. Now, plainly that will be a matter in which his convenience will have to be consulted, and so perhaps you can have a word with him about what would be a convenient time for him to return.

MR. NICE: May I add one other thing. I know that the Chamber will find this a difficult proposition to make at this stage, but given the nature of the cross-examination and the nature of the reactions of the witness, which were reasonably to be forecast but nevertheless are as they are, and given the problems of the overall time limits upon us, is this really a witness for whom a second cross-examination from the amici in full is appropriate? I would respectfully suggest that the amici are here where -- to deal with shortcomings in the -- or potential shortcomings in the cross-examination of the accused. With this particular exchange, the Chamber may wonder whether that's strictly necessary or appropriate. I realise in light of the order already been given the Chamber will be reluctant hearing me make that point but I have it guard our timetable with as much care as I can.

[Trial Chamber confers] ²⁹³²⁵

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I just say something? I will really make an effort, if I am given the time that was announced I would be given, I will really deal only with questions that Mr. Slobodan Milosevic does not raise. Really, I bear this in mind all the time, to deal with topics that were not raised in Mr. Slobodan Milosevic's questions and that nevertheless fall into -- within the ambit of the examination-in-chief. So I will really restrict myself to these subjects only.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Tapuskovic, we really -- of course we have in mind your sincerity in making this application, but we think that half an hour must be the time allotted to you in view of the length of the time which the accused is going to have. He's going to have over seven hours.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am going to honour your decision, of course, but it really is extremely difficult to work under such constraints. I'm fighting against time all the time. But please allow me at least next time to complete two topics - I'm not going to go further than that - because it's really so difficult to work under such time constraints. Believe me, it is so hard. Sometimes I really feel like dropping this work altogether because it is really difficult to confine oneself to five or ten minutes only, indeed.

JUDGE MAY: Well, I'm sure you won't. We're all under these constraints. It's hard for everybody, but thank you very much for your ²⁹³²⁶ cooperation, and we'll let you cover those topics. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't understand Mr. Nice's remark that I want to keep this witness to myself, because I insist on my right to use the time I have for cross-examination. Please. I assume that I --

JUDGE MAY: I wouldn't worry unduly about what he says and what he means by that expression. The fact is you've got tomorrow to cross-examine.

Mr. Jovic, I'm sorry that you're going to run overtime, but if we allow the accused tomorrow, which we're going to, it does mean, I'm afraid, that we must ask you to come back to finish your examination for the amicus and also for the Prosecution to ask some more questions. That is our normal procedure. But plainly since it means your having to come back yet again, your convenience must be consulted. So perhaps you would like to have a word with Mr. Nice to try and find a time which is convenient to you, either next month or in the following two months when we shall be sitting.

[Trial Chamber confers]

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There will be no problem whatsoever as far as I'm concerned.

MR. NICE: I simply wonder whether, given that it would only be re-examination, if there is a possibility of a session on the Friday of this week.

JUDGE MAY: I could tell you that's exactly what was suggested on the Bench, but let's think about that. It would be -- how long would you ²⁹³²⁷ anticipate being?

MR. NICE: I can't say now. As short as possible but it's bound to be half an hour, isn't it? It's bound to be half an hour.

JUDGE MAY: So the session would be -- effectively it would be one session by the time we finished on Friday. That's what you're proposing.

MR. NICE: Indeed, yes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, I think that's probably a sensible suggestion. If we sat on Friday for one session, we would have to finish in one session. We don't think that that would so unfairly impinge on the accused that we shouldn't be able to do it having regard to everybody else's convenience.

We haven't got a court. That's going to be the next problem. Courtroom 2 would be free. Well, that would do.

MR. NICE: Change is as good as a rest.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Very well. That's what we'll do. We'll sit on -- we'll sit tomorrow for the accused; Friday morning, first session for Mr. Tapuskovic and for Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Mr. Tapuskovic will have up to half an hour and the balance will be available for us?

JUDGE MAY: I don't think we can take this any further. Yes. We'll sit tomorrow.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.20 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the 20th day of

November, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.