Milosevic Transcript 2003-11-27

²⁹⁷¹⁹

Thursday, 27 November 2003

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.10 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: We are awaiting the arrival of Mr. Deronjic. I gather there's a matter which the Prosecution want to raise. Before you do so, let me deal with the programme for the rest of the day. We've considered the accused's request for more time. On this occasion we will allow it. The accused can have three-quarters of an hour. The amicus, a quarter of an hour. The proposal, the objective being to finish the witness by the adjournment.

We will then hear Witness C-057. We will admit his statement under Rule 89(F). We would urge on the Prosecution a minimum of examination live so that the accused can have the balance of the day to cross-examine that witness with a view to finishing the witness. We will sit -- since we're starting late, we will sit a little longer, at least until 2.00, but we have to be out of the court for a hearing at 3.00.

MR. NICE: I'm grateful for that helpful indication of the programme and I'll communicate with Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff about C-057. Your Honour, there are -- apart from the one matter that I've indicated through the usual channels, I wanted to raise, there are also some other 92 bis packages that can be tendered. Perhaps it would be better to do that now.

JUDGE MAY: Do that now so that it is in fact done.

MR. NICE: The first one is B-1010, 92 bis (A) granted on the 22nd ²⁹⁷²⁰ of July of 2003 without cross-examination, the package to be under seal.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 602.

MR. NICE: The next one is Mirsad Pajic or Palic. 92 bis (A) granted on the 10th of October without cross-examination, the statement to be tendered publicly.

JUDGE MAY: Can we have the name again for the record.

MR. NICE: Palic, P-A-L-I-C.

JUDGE MAY: According to my document it seems to be Talic -- you're quite right. My error. I've got the wrong one. Yes, Mirsad Palic. Thank you.

THE REGISTRAR: 603, Your Honours.

MR. NICE: The next one is Sead Kurbegovic, 92 bis (A) granted on the 31st of October without cross-examination. One 92 bis statement to be tendered publicly.

THE REGISTRAR: 604, Your Honours.

MR. NICE: The next one is B-1499, 92 bis (A) granted on the 31st of July without cross-examination, the statement to be tendered under seal.

And then --

THE REGISTRAR: 605, Your Honours.

MR. NICE: And then finally B-1516, 92 bis (A) granted on the 22nd of July without cross-examination. The statement to be under seal, but three of the attachments at tabs 2 to 4 can be tendered publicly.

THE REGISTRAR: Finally, Your Honours, 606.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, a couple of other procedural matters to ²⁹⁷²¹ help the Chamber and all the participants. Obviously as we reach the end of the year, filling the remaining days is always problematic, and we seek to give the maximum advance notice of what's likely to be called. We understand there's still uncertainty about the date of the 9th, and so that week there may only be the one sitting day. If there is the one sitting day at present advised, we will call Mr. Markovic for that -- or recall Mr. Markovic for that day, and we'll have to fit everything around him.

I'm not excluding the possibility of a telephone call next week to see if we can accelerate him into the -- into next week but I don't think it's likely. I think he will be coming on that day, the 10th. Working around that and recognising that I can't mention publicly all the witnesses, there may be a gap next week because of witnesses who have been allowed without cross-examination, and we're not in a position at the moment to know who for sure we can pull forward for those days. The material of an OTP witness, Dean Manning, is going to be served today but it comes with a large amount of supporting material and we doubt if he's somebody who can be introduced next week, although if all the parties agree that can happen. There's the in-house witness Tore Soldal, who is somebody who has been allowed to be added to the list, and he's somebody who we might call actual notice in the absence of any sustained objection if a gap develops. But at the moment, the uncertainty about the 9th of December doesn't make it difficult but it obviously adds to the logistical difficulties of getting witnesses, and I think it will be that we'll not call the witness listed on the 9th of December, on the ²⁹⁷²² 10th of December we'll call Mr. Markovic and fill in the time as best we may.

As to Mr. Markovic, the Chamber required him to come back to conclude his cross-examination, and I think used a form of words that said, "Your examination will conclude on the day you return," without specifying precisely how much time in further cross-examination was to be allowed. If my recollection on that is correct, it may be that all parties would find it helpful to know roughly how much time is to be allowed.

JUDGE MAY: Give me the date on which he gave evidence, please.

MR. NICE: Yes, coming up. 23rd of October.

JUDGE MAY: I have here and my note is that the accused is to have three hours.

MR. NICE: Thank you very much. In which case in reality that will consume the whole of the day if the accused wants to use his three hours, because the amici will have some questions, I forecast, of such a witness, and there will be a little bit of re-examination, or may be. There is going to be an urgent application for protective measures for one of next week's witnesses. It will be with me by, I believe, 10.00 so I will have it for you before the break.

Your Honour, the only other matter I was going to raise --

JUDGE MAY: Before you go on to that, let me deal with one other administrative matter about next year and the sittings next year. The week of the 13th of January, in fact the first week back, we shall not be sitting on Wednesday the 14th, but we'll change that to Friday the 16th. ²⁹⁷²³

MR. NICE: Thank you very much.

JUDGE MAY: We must ensure that there is a court available then. I'd be grateful if court management could be informed.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, the only other matter that I'd like to raise perhaps I could raise in private session in substance.

[Private session] (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted) ²⁹⁷²⁴ Pages 29724 to 29729 - redacted - private session. ²⁹⁷³⁰ (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.

JUDGE MAY: Judge Kwon raises the possibility of starting C-057 as a possibility so we wasn't waste yet further time. It may be that the best course is for us to rise for a few minutes to try and see what's happened. But if Mr. Deronjic isn't here and we have 20 minutes or so, it might be an idea to at least start that witness.

MR. NICE: We'll make arrangements.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. We'll rise now.

--- Break taken at 9.39 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.09 a.m. ²⁹⁷³¹

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE MAY: In order to make as good time as we can of the time available, we will sit now for two sessions with a half-hour break between them.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

WITNESS: MIROSLAV DERONJIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just before I begin, Mr. May, with regard to your time restriction on my cross-examination, since you told me to select from this extensive statement of 240 paragraphs the relevant parts, I would like to remind you that when I do so, I hear from the side opposite that I should have challenged what I wanted to challenge, and I challenge everything here, and I want to make this clear for the record before I start my cross.

JUDGE MAY: To make it also clear for the record this: You will not be criticised if you are subject to time restrictions and you don't put every single point in your case. Clearly that will not be right, and you won't be. But we also take account of the fact, and I think it's fairly plain, that you challenge everything in the Prosecution. Yes. Now let's begin.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's precisely what I'm taking into account, because I challenge everything in the Prosecution case, "Prosecution" being the term that you use.

Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Deronjic, let us just finish discussing your ²⁹⁷³² meeting at Pale. Allegedly you had a one-on-one talk with Karadzic first, informing him about the situation in general, and later you informed him about Beara's visit.

Look at paragraph 213, where you discuss the situation in general, the prisoners, the transport of civilians. In the same paragraph, you say that 2.000 Muslims had been transported -- sorry, 20.000 Muslims had been transported, and you say, "I conveyed to him my impression that everything had been executed properly, without incident, at least as far as I knew. These people were taken to Kladanj."

Kladanj was then controlled by Bosnian Muslim forces; correct?

A. Yes, correct.

Q. You told him it passed without any incidents and the people had been taken to Kladanj. Tell me, why didn't you ask Karadzic on that occasion if he had really sent Beara?

A. Mr. Milosevic, I quoted to President Karadzic precisely what Beara told me in my office on the 13th of July.

Q. You told him about the visit of Beara probably in the same terms as you did it here, that he had come drunk, that he made a racket, and you quote only one of the things he said, like "These soldiers are fools." This does not mean that you asked him if he had been sent by Karadzic.

A. No, I didn't ask that.

Q. And then in paragraph 214, when you conveyed something from Borovcanin about liquidations on the road from Konjevic Polje to Kasaba, you say: "I remember he told him that the retaliation by our people was inspired by something they had done." Is it clear from that that there ²⁹⁷³³ was no order that they should be killed but he, rather, interpreted it as an act of reprisal on the part of people from Srebrenica in retribution for the crimes previously committed by Naser Oric and his forces?

A. I do not dispute that it may be your conclusion. I dare not draw any conclusions on the basis of the very few facts that I have at my disposal.

Q. I'm only quoting you here.

A. But I didn't draw that conclusion. He commented on the events in the Kravica cooperative, and he told me, "Well, this can be seen as a retribution, as payback for the incident created by the Muslim forces."

Q. All right. In paragraph 216, you say: "Once I returned to Bratunac, I saw a lot of buses with the prisoners were gone. I inquired where they had gone and I was told they had been taken to Zvornik." So obviously neither you nor he knew at the time, because this is something you thought after talking to him, you thought that somebody had killed those people, or at least some of them.

A. That's quite correct. I didn't know at the time that those people had been killed. I conveyed to him the intentions that I understood were held by the army, or at least what was conveyed to me by Beara.

Q. You say that on the 15th or the 16th you broached the subject of evacuation from Potocari, which gave you a reason to visit the UNPROFOR base where you met the commander, Mr. Karremans, his assistant Mr. Franken, and others. Is that true?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And then you explain how you drew up some sort of record together ²⁹⁷³⁴ with them where you wrote that evacuation is being handled correctly.

A. Correct.

Q. Although I don't have this report by Mr. Franken, I noticed that there is a handwritten note made personally by Mr. Franken which says that everything had been done properly, but that applies to the convoys escorted by the UNPROFOR.

A. Correct.

Q. So he confirmed that the convoys handled by the UNPROFOR had been carried out properly, but he couldn't say anything about the other convoys.

A. Correct.

Q. At that time, you were informed that there had been some killings.

A. Yes, I was informed.

Q. But you did not inform them. You concealed it from them.

A. Do you mean the UNPROFOR? Mr. Milosevic, the document you are referring to, the record of evacuation of civilians from Potocari, refers only to that evacuation from the Potocari base. According to the information I had at the time, those civilians had not been mistreated. They were transported instead to Kladanj.

That record applies only to the transport of civilians who had been at Potocari at that time.

Q. All right, Mr. Deronjic. Throughout that meeting with your delegation from Srebrenica in Karadzic's office, which according to the document I tendered lasted from 2.25 to 6.25, that is four hours, what did you discuss for four hours? ²⁹⁷³⁵

A. Mr. Karadzic -- in fact, Mr. Milosevic, there were two segments to that meeting. I don't know exactly how the meeting lasted. In the first segment, I had a tete-a-tete with Mr. Karadzic, and that relates to the information which I summarised in my statement. The rest of the time we discussed the fact that my position, that of the civilian commissioner, was abolished. It was transformed into the War Presidency. I was president of the War Presidency. We had to agree on the composition of the War Presidency and a number of other topics that included the normalisation of return of displaced persons and refugees to Srebrenica, and many other related topics.

Q. All right. You speak about the return of refugees to Srebrenica, the normalisation of life, the establishment of this War Presidency, but you were president of the War Presidency in Bratunac; right?

A. No. That was the year 1995. After occupying the post of civilian commissioner for only three or four days, it was renamed into War Presidency, and I was appointed president of the War Presidency in Srebrenica.

Q. But before that you were president of the War Presidency in Bratunac.

A. Yes, but in 1992.

Q. That president of the War Presidency was the most important person in that area, wasn't he?

A. Yes.

Q. And throughout that time while you spoke, while you discussed the normalisation of life in Srebrenica, the return of refugees, it was never ²⁹⁷³⁶ mentioned that some people had been killed?

A. That meeting was attended by some ten people from Srebrenica, some of which I myself didn't know very well. I explained to the Office of the Prosecutor how this meeting had come about. It was precisely at the request of those people. It would not have made sense, and it would have been indiscreet to discuss such topics in front of strangers.

Q. What do you mean "strangers"? Those were people from Srebrenica who came to attend the same meeting as you did. Is it possible that they were not aware of anything, having come from that locality?

A. Do you think that President Karadzic and I would discuss in front of them things like Beara's visit to my office and the orders he conveyed to me?

Q. I saw the notes you made about the visit of Beara to your office and those alleged orders he had conveyed to you. I just want to be clear on this point: You did not discuss anything of the sort at that meeting?

A. Not in the presence of those people from Srebrenica.

Q. Very well. I would now like to ask you only a few questions related to spring 1991. On the 9th of March, 1991, were you in Belgrade for the demonstrations?

A. Yes.

Q. And you took part in those demonstrations, didn't you?

A. Correct, Mr. Milosevic.

Q. You were even on the podium, weren't you?

A. Yes. I applied to address the public, but I didn't get a chance.

Q. And those demonstrations were organised -- those were the first ²⁹⁷³⁷ violent demonstrations in Belgrade in 1991, organised against the authorities and against me personally, and you were a participant, weren't you?

A. I wouldn't agree with your qualification that they were violent but they were organised against you and your government.

Q. Yes, and that was on the 9th of March, 1991.

A. Yes.

Q. And only a couple of months before that multi-party elections were held where I was held -- where I was elected president with an overwhelming majority and where the Socialist Party won more than an overwhelming majority in the Assembly. At the time, you were an official of the SDS, weren't you?

A. Correct.

Q. And you took part in the demonstrations against the government in Serbia?

A. Yes. Correct.

Q. And then immediately after those demonstrations, you came to Belgrade, straight to the Presidency of Serbia, and as you claim here, you went to see Kertes; right?

A. I wouldn't say it was immediately after. It was the end of April.

Q. In any case, in the month that followed.

A. Yes.

Q. And you asked for a personal sidearm, you say that he sent you to the MUP, and you say also that some hand grenades were put in your cars for some sort of drills. Is that what you asked him for? ²⁹⁷³⁸

A. We asked -- in fact, Zekic asked if we could get some weapons for personal use. Kertes called somebody in the MUP and they gave us two hand grenades each.

Q. So you didn't get any sidearms, did you?

A. No, we didn't.

Q. Let us come back to the demonstrations of March 1991 in which you took part. Do you remember, Mr. Deronjic, from that time that those volunteers who were gathering there all came from the opposition parties that had organised the demonstrations?

A. Which volunteers are you talking about?

Q. All the volunteers that you had occasion to see there and whom you brought to Bosnia-Herzegovina.

A. First of all, it was not me who brought them. Second, they had come through the government bodies of the Republic of Serbia. Their membership in opposition parties is something I'm not aware of. I suppose you may be referring to Seselj's men or maybe some other opposition party. I didn't get involved with that.

Q. The main organiser of those demonstrations set up the Serb Guard, the Serbian Renewal Movement, as you well know.

A. Correct.

Q. And all these people you enumerated were representatives of opposition parties.

A. Well, if you consider Seselj and his party opposition, then that's true. I don't agree with that personally.

Q. He was indubitably in opposition. ²⁹⁷³⁹

A. In your opinion maybe.

Q. And you were on good terms with them, unlike the authorities. Is that true, Mr. Deronjic?

A. No, it's not true, Mr. Milosevic. With parties such as radicals, Jovic's party, whatever its name was, I was on no terms whatsoever. On the contrary, it was you who had a coalition with then. I had a relatively good relationship with Vuk -- Vuk's party.

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The party of Vuk Draskovic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I'm speaking about the year 1991, 1992, 1993. At that time, I had no coalition with any of the these parties, and that is easy to establish. But let us move on.

A. Let's not move on straight away. What you're saying is true, but you did form a coalition with those parties later, and I was on no terms whatsoever with then.

Q. Apart from the fact that you participated in demonstrations against me together with them.

A. Mr. Jovic and Mr. Seselj did not take part in those demonstrations.

Q. It is well known who did take part and how, but let's not waste any more time.

What position was Kertes occupying when you came to visit him in his office?

A. I saw the man for the first time then. I didn't inquire about his position. ²⁹⁷⁴⁰

Q. So you don't know that either?

A. So I don't know.

Q. Your statement here was worked out in a very systemic manner, precisely the way this side opposite is trying to portray everything that happened. I will try to go through these things as soon as possible. So let us look at paragraph 4 and the heading: "Illegal arming of Bosnian Serbs, Spring 1991." And then in paragraph 4, you talk about Goran Zekic who was a member of the Bosnian Serb Republic Assembly. You call them the Bosnian Serbs. I don't know what you are.

A. I'm a Serb, I should say.

Q. Well, they're Serbs too. And then you move on to say: "He told me that he was obtaining weapons through smuggling channels --" that's what it says here in paragraph 4 -- "and he even mentioned the name of the person through whom he was procuring it. It was a man who was a Muslim from the Zvornik area. On one occasion, I went with him to buy a rifle for myself."

Is that what you wrote?

A. Yes. I didn't write it; that's what I said.

Q. All right. That's what's written in that statement of yours. So through smuggling channels when you talk about the arming of the Bosnian Serbs in the spring of 1991, that is how these weapons were obtained. And as a matter of fact, even from a Muslim that you bought a rifle from.

A. Exactly.

Q. And then you move on to say that there was a meeting with Rajko ²⁹⁷⁴¹ Dukic, a certain businessman, as you describe him. And towards the end of paragraph 6, you say: "This was a man that had very high political standing in Belgrade and among the leaders of the SDS." Where did he have this very high political standing in Belgrade? With who in Belgrade?

A. I said that I found out during the war and later that he had good relations with the SPS and JUL at the time. I did not check that. I did not have the possibility of doing so, so I allow for the possibility that perhaps this was not the case. In the previous period, this man did have certain positions in the business and political circles of Belgrade.

Q. You should know as an SDS official, Mr. Deronjic, that the SPS, the Socialist Party of Serbia, never had any relations with the SDS. It was an opposition party.

A. The SDS?

Q. Yes, the Serb Democratic Party. The Socialist Party of Serbia never had good relations with the SDS. As a matter of fact, they had no relations. Do you know that?

A. I don't know that. On the contrary; at all the rallies that you held against the opposition, the SDS took part as well. And I even sent a telegram of protest protesting that. Also, I witnessed many meetings between you and leaders of the SDS, and I know of them personally.

Q. My contacts with Karadzic and Krajisnik were contacts with officials of the Republika Srpska, not the SDS. They were officials of Republika Srpska. One was the president of the republic, the other one was president of the Assembly. Krajisnik was also president of the ²⁹⁷⁴² Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina, as you know.

A. Exactly.

Q. And now you mentioned JUL and that this Rajko Dukic had good relations with JUL. Well, you know that JUL was established in 1994, so he could not have had any relations with JUL that did not even exist then.

A. I did not say that he had good relations in 1991.

Q. Well, what year was this then, please? If you are talking these particular years here, then what was the year when he had good relations with JUL, and what kind of relations could he have had with then anyway?

A. What is it that precludes the possibility of him having any relations with them?

Q. I can't even say whether it was 1994 or 1995 when JUL was founded, but let's not go into all that. He had no relations with them whatsoever. I mean, that is completely false.

A. Well, how did he know about Mr. Kertes then?

Q. I don't know that. I don't know about him having been with Kertes at all. Or do you have any evidence to prove that? I have noticed in your statement that all the people whose names you mention in terms of having had tete-a-tete meetings with them in Serbia, all of them are dead. Isn't that right, Mr. Deronjic? None of them can corroborate what you've said.

A. Mr. Kertes is not dead.

Q. Oh, so you had relations with Mr. Kertes.

A. No. I came to see him. I came to see Mr. Kertes, which was on the recommendation of Rajko Dukic. Of course, I do not have an influence ²⁹⁷⁴³ over events. I was not a person who staged the death of anyone. Goran Zekic was killed.

Q. How was he killed?

A. Mr. Milosevic, he was killed by the Muslims, and if you're interested in that subject, I have the complete documentation here.

Q. I don't want to go into that subject.

A. It would be good to go into that subject if you want to.

JUDGE MAY: Let's not waste time. Mr. Deronjic, we are under constraints of time, so if you could try and avoid arguing with the accused and just stick to your answers, please.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. In paragraph 8, you say that Dukic, whom I don't know, told you that a decision had been passed to arm the Serbs, and then he told us, you say, and I quote - and all of this is a quotation from your statement, I'm quoting you - paragraph 8: "Karadzic personally convinced Milosevic the Serbs are to arm themselves." And further on you say: "They did not believe that the JNA could protect the Serbs. Karadzic wanted to arm the people."

Mr. Deronjic, even the birds that fly know that Belgrade, Serbia, and I personally supported the JNA. Don't you know that?

A. Yes, I know that.

Q. So this is completely wrong. Why would Karadzic need my approval to arm himself? I don't command the JNA. What does this mean? You say here that he convinced me that the Serbs should arm themselves. Can you ²⁹⁷⁴⁴ explain that?

A. I can. Mr. Dukic exactly used that sentence. Later on, when I had a meeting with Karadzic, I heard that very same sentence, that he personally convinced you that people in Bosnia, primarily meaning the Serbs, should arm themselves. And he explained this by saying that he had no confidence in the army, the Yugoslav People's Army, and he thought that at a critical point in time they would not defend us.

Q. And my position was completely opposite, that the JNA should be supported. I am sure you know that.

A. Well, it's not that I know most of these things, but if that's what you claim --

Q. Then in paragraph 6, you say about Dukic, that he was involved in different affairs, even some criminal dealings, and that he was well known for having done that, and you say that he was notorious for having been involved in such criminal affairs, et cetera. So you believe that.

A. I don't believe anything. I just quoted what he said.

Q. Then in paragraph 10 you talk about your return to Bratunac. Goran Zekic said to you that he knew people that were involved in the army. So these are some officers who helped with the arming, and he said that Veselinovic was the person in charge of that entire operation. Who was Veselinovic?

A. I saw Veselinovic a few times. I don't know his name. He died. He's one of the founders of the SDS and one of the greatest financiers of the SDS at the outset.

Q. So Veselinovic is dead and Goran Zekic is dead; is that right? ²⁹⁷⁴⁵

A. Yes.

Q. All right.

A. Many people are dead, Mr. Milosevic.

Q. Regrettably, yes. And then you say that Kertes was trying to impress you, that he mentioned Croatia and even Kosovo. What did Kosovo have to do with anything going on in 1991? Was anything happening in Kosovo then?

A. I quoted what he had said. He boasted that he took part in the arming of Serbs in Croatia and in Kosovo.

Q. What did Kosovo have to do with anything in 1991 and the arming of the Serbs?

A. You have to ask him about that.

Q. And even you say that allegedly he asked you whether you wanted to visit me, but then you didn't have time and therefore you didn't visit me. Doesn't that seem a bit -- a bit -- how should I put this? Doesn't this seem like an illusion altogether, Mr. Deronjic?

A. I said in my statement that I did not know whether this was possible, but he alleged that you were in that building, and that was his proposal, and I said that there was no need for that and there wasn't any time.

Q. I'm not challenging that, that I was probably in the building where my office is. There's no doubt about that, because you claim that you entered the building of the Presidency of Serbia, and at that time I was the president of Serbia, so I was certainly in my office if I was not elsewhere at that particular moment. ²⁹⁷⁴⁶

A. Would you like me to describe Kertes's office for you?

Q. That's no use. I have no use for that. I personally could not remember what his office looked like, although it was in my building. And you claim that he was there then, but at that time he held no position, no office in the Presidency. He was not a member of the -- he was, rather, a member of the Presidency of Serbia until 1990, until the elections were held, but then according to the new constitution, Serbia got a president, not a Presidency.

A. Do you remember, Mr. Milosevic, that at that time Mr. Kertes was having dentures made?

Q. I assure you I have no recollection of that. And then you say that in -- in paragraph 17, you say it was you and this late Zekic who cannot confirm that, you said that this is an area 50 kilometres from the Drina River, and he was saying that everything would be Serb within that area of 50 kilometres from the Drina River. He, a Hungarian, is saying that everything in that area of 50 kilometres from the Drina River will be Serb.

Who could say that? I mean, even a Serb. Who could say anything? I mean, a person who knew anything of history and geography could not say that and you're claiming that Kertes told you that.

A. I claim that that is what he said.

Q. And then you say something about Bubanj Potok that belongs to the military. Do you think that Kertes was in a position to issue orders to the army?

A. Obviously he was, because the arms from Bubanj Potok not -- came ²⁹⁷⁴⁷ not only to Bratunac but also to other municipalities precisely from Bubanj Potok.

Q. This is very questionable. You say that you saw a truck being loaded allegedly while you were there, and you asked what this was and then one of the soldiers said that these were weapons going to Croatia. The assumption is that this was the JNA and that at that time there was a regular JNA operation there, nothing else. Isn't that right, Mr. Deronjic?

A. I didn't say anything else.

Q. All right. Tell me, please, in paragraph 21 you say -- I mean, you keep on talking about this Zekic all the time, and you say all the time -- well, let me not quote everything. He said that he would organise the transport himself, that this would be his task, and that he should arrange the transfer and that "we should find people to transport the goods in Bosnia itself. And he said that I should find several people in Bratunac whom I trusted ..."

Isn't quite clear here that this is smuggling?

A. Well, there was no way of transporting weapons to Bosnia legally. There was absolutely no way of doing it.

Q. Of course there was no way of doing it legally. Look at your next page or, rather, paragraph 26. You say: "Soon after that, Slavko Jovanovic arrived, who had already prepared a spot where the weapons would be kept. And soon thereafter, Rasa Milosevic arrived with Milan Sundjin, and they all told me that they had prepared sites, locations in Serbia along the Drina where they would keep the weapons and later on transfer ²⁹⁷⁴⁸ them to Bosnia."

And then you say: "He designated a place in his friend's weekend cottage in the village of Bacevci, which is across from the village of Patovici," so that weekend cottage in Bacevci is in Serbia; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. And then these other two men, towards the end of this paragraph, you say: "He found some premises in a co-op called Velika Rijeka, in a cooperative." That is in Serbia; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. So he found a weekend cottage in Serbia and also an agricultural cooperative, the premises of an agricultural cooperative. So this was a clandestine business altogether. How can you say that it was the MUP of Serbia that approved of this if you are hiding this in a weekend cottage in the area of Serbia and also in some agricultural cooperative in the territory of Serbia? Why would this have to be hidden from the MUP of Serbia if the MUP of Serbia had approved of this?

A. Mr. Milosevic, I will tell you why I claim this. The truck that arrived in Ljubovija around that time -- I just remember that that was when the soccer finale game was held --

Q. Just keep it short. I mean, soccer.

A. Well, this truck was stopped in Ljubovija. This is where a Muslim worked, at the police station in Ljubovija.

Q. Ljubovija is in Serbia.

A. Yes, in Serbia, correct.

Q. A Muslim worked in the police in Serbia. ²⁹⁷⁴⁹

A. Correct. And this Muslim suspected that there was some kind of smuggling going on and that's why the truck was there, and the rest of the police removed this man and advised Goran to move on to Bajina Basta.

Q. You were present there?

A. Yes.

Q. How many policemen were there in Ljubovija? In Ljubovija there would have been two policemen who could have stopped a truck or perhaps even one only. I assume that this wasn't a group of policemen there.

A. A patrol.

Q. A two-man patrol?

A. Yes.

Q. One was a Muslim, one was a Serb, and then the Serb told the Muslim to go away, removed him, and then advised this man to go on further?

A. No. Mr. Zekic went to the police station in Ljubovija, and then the situation became completely different. This man was removed, this patrol was removed, and Goran Zekic went on to Bajina Basta.

Q. He probably did this on the basis of some personal connections of his then. Isn't that obvious to you, Mr. Deronjic?

A. Well, if you think that Goran Zekic commands the police in Ljubovija, then that would be about right.

Q. Well, it's no command, it's a personal connection.

A. That he can change patrols on the road?

Q. I don't think he could change patrols. And also you say in paragraph 27, rather 28, "And then people were ²⁹⁷⁵⁰ saying that I was the one who had done that and transported the weapons." So you did it.

A. That I participated in that.

Q. No, not participated. People knew that you had done it. You say: "I had done that, that I had transported the weapons." That's what you say. "This was the first transport in the area, and then after that, I was no longer directly involved in such matters."

A. The way in which I described this, I mean there's no need for me to repeat that. I described exactly how the weapons had reached Bratunac. I personally did not transport it.

Q. But I'm quoting you. You say, "I did it." You always use the first person singular, and obviously this is smuggling. And you also talk about an army depot, and then before that you say that you don't have any confidence in the JNA. Doesn't all of this seem quite contradictory to you, Mr. Deronjic?

A. Well, Mr. Milosevic, I did not say that I did not have any confidence in the JNA. Secondly, at the moment when the political crisis in Yugoslavia became very radical, we all practically knew that there would be a war, because there were more important objectives than political objectives. That was the need for us to protect ourselves, to defend ourselves in that area, and it is for those reasons that I went to get these weapons.

Q. But when you describe how all this came about -- let us make a small digression. In paragraph 44, and you will remember this for sure immediately because you were involved in politics, you say, "The Assembly ²⁹⁷⁵¹ of Bosnia-Herzegovina on the 14th and 15th October 1991, in the absence of SDS deputies, passed a memorandum supporting the creation of a sovereign Bosnia-Herzegovina"; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Is it true that the Serbian side in Bosnia-Herzegovina accepted even the idea of Bosnia and Herzegovina separating from Yugoslavia provided it was cantonised, and even in 1992, before the outbreak of any conflict, the Serbs accepted the Cutileiro plan, as it was called?

A. I do remember that. I remember every detail.

Q. So these reactions that you refer to were reactions of the Serbian side to the referendum which excluded them from deciding on their own fate. Is that true, Mr. Deronjic, or not?

A. It's true, Mr. Milosevic. And in one of the paragraphs, I described it precisely.

Q. So it was not the Serbs who made a plan to separate themselves. It was, rather, that they were excluded from deciding through a referendum.

A. I agree with you, Mr. Milosevic, but the Serbs did make a plan.

Q. Tell me, you are talking about Variants A and B. It was a public document of the SDS. But tell me, Mr. Deronjic, under the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, were Serbs a constituent people in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

A. They were.

Q. And when they were excluded from the decision-making process in Bosnia and Herzegovina, they organised themselves in order to survive. ²⁹⁷⁵²

A. Those were my motives too.

Q. So we're not talking here about some plan they made to secede or separate themselves from others. They were planning -- making plans to protect themselves. And you know, Mr. Deronjic, that the first armed attacks in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina were attacks against Serbs. Is that true, Mr. Deronjic?

A. I don't know these facts very well. I can't answer this question. There were attacks from both sides.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment so the witness can deal with it. The suggestion is that the Serbs were making plans in order to protect themselves. That's what the accused is putting. Is that right or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I explained how I came to learn about that plan, the plan for creating Republika Srpska. In April 1991, I learned for the first time that there may be a division of Bosnia in the future. In the beginning, as it was publicly explained, this plan implied division by political means, namely that we would create our own political entity using political means.

In the beginning of 1991, I understood, however, that the objective was to join Serbia and that it was also planned to use such means as expulsion, killing, et cetera. That's what I know about it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me, Mr. Deronjic, what kind of killing and expulsion are you talking about in 1991?

A. I'm talking about the beginning of 1992.

Q. And concerning your references to division, don't you know that ²⁹⁷⁵³ even the Cutileiro plan, which involved an independent Bosnia and Herzegovina, envisaged that it be divided into cantons, some of which would be majority Serb, majority Muslims, others majority Croat? Don't you know that? This was common knowledge. Your representatives negotiated this with others at international conferences on Yugoslavia.

A. The Cutileiro plan did exist. We accepted it. I know that well. However, the creation of Republika Srpska did not result from the Cutileiro plan, because that plan fell through. It was a different project altogether, as I have explained.

Q. You need not explain any further. Let us come back to the arming. You say in paragraph 29 that weapons were arriving from the army in Tuzla, and all that was organised by Goran Zekic, whom you referred to in the beginning. Is that correct?

A. Yes, him, among other people. I also mentioned Mr. Jankovic, if I am not mistaken.

Q. You say some General Jankovic.

A. I meant Petar Jankovic right now.

Q. Ah. Petar Jankovic. I can't find him at this moment. Is Tuzla in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

A. It is.

Q. Is Tuzla located in an area populated mainly by Muslims?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it the case that Tuzla remained under Muslim control throughout the war?

A. It is. ²⁹⁷⁵⁴

Q. You go on to say, and this is all the year 1991, that there was a General Djukic, commander for logistics. Are you talking about the late General Djukic?

A. Absolutely not. I'm talking about the Uzice Corps now.

Q. You say that there was some Marko Milanovic in Skelani at the time, a representative of the structures. I don't think this is your vocabulary, Mr. Deronjic. What it says here is he was from the structures in charge of arming Serbs. I don't think that's the kind of language you use.

A. Why don't you believe that? It's a geographical term denominating Serbs.

Q. These people were in Australia. I never heard Serbs using the term "Bosnian Serbs."

A. Serbs from Bosnia or Bosnian Serbs.

Q. Well, you are the first Serb that I hear calling Serbs Bosnian Serbs.

You say that he wasn't there in the beginning, he came later.

A. Before -- just before the beginning of the war in 1991.

Q. Where did he come from?

A. From the police. As far as I know, from Sarajevo.

Q. In any case, from Bosnia. He was from Bosnia and Herzegovina.

A. Yes.

Q. I only wanted this clarified. And then you say it was not necessary to procure weapons from Serbia because a large depot of weaponry had been established in Milici; correct? ²⁹⁷⁵⁵

A. Correct.

Q. So the bulk of the weaponry was procured from Milici, which is not far from where you lived; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you speak about the arming of Bosnian Serbs, as it says here, by the JNA, and you say it was an activity engaged in by the Territorial Defence. The Territorial Defence in your own area; right?

A. Correct, if you mean Bosnia.

Q. I mean Bosnia. It was through the Territorial Defence. And then you go on to say: "I know very little about the organisation of Territorial Defence. I know their headquarters were in Tuzla." Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So it was in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

A. Yes.

Q. "I knew that, because my brother-in-law worked in the TO, and he was engaged precisely in the training of young people." And then you speak about the fact that your brother-in-law, Milenko Stjepanovic, was killed in the war. And you say that the training took part in a school in Rujevici and he was in charge of the training of those young men in your area; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Paragraph 34, you say: "Muslims boycotted the army including even the Territorial Defence, which at the time was part of the JNA. So the Muslims boycotted the army and the TO, and a couple of lines below you say they organised training for Serbs only because the ²⁹⁷⁵⁶ Muslims did not want to participate any longer. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So the Territorial Defence did not expel the Muslims. They boycotted the TO, and the Territorial Defence was composed of those who didn't; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So it's -- the Serbs did not expel Muslims from the Territorial Defence; correct?

A. Yes.

JUDGE MAY: It's now 11:00. You can have ten minute more. That will have given you practically three and a half hours to cross-examine this witness. So you've got ten minutes more now.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It will be very difficult for me to complete this within ten minutes. I'll try to skip a couple of questions.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Mr. Milosevic. Since you haven't finish this topic of the Territorial Defence, can I add a comment?

JUDGE MAY: Very briefly, please, because time is short.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just wanted to say that it was not our practice with regard to normal drills of the Territorial Defence for the weapons to be kept by those involved in the exercise.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I wanted to clarify what you wrote here: "That the Muslims boycotted the army. They boycotted the Territorial Defence, that training was organised for Serbs because the Muslims did not want to take part." Those are indisputable facts, aren't they? ²⁹⁷⁵⁷

A. Yes.

Q. And then you say -- I'm skipping quite a lot of these paragraphs. I'm skipping to the part where you mentioned Bijeljina, Zvornik, Visegrad. You know at least from information which became available later that the fact that Arkan's Volunteer Guard was there, and we heard a witness here who said there were 20 men of that guard, came because they were paid to do so, and they came to Zvornik in exchange for 400.000 Deutschmark at the invitation of the local leadership. They were paid for that job, and they had nothing to do with the authorities.

A. Mr. Milosevic, I know very well who is in the leadership of the SDS in Zvornik. It was not true that they were paid or invited. (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Deronjic, very briefly, if there is something you want to add, you can, but it must be short.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours. I always keep thinking that Mr. Milosevic will follow-up on his questions. I want to say that the leadership of the SDS in Zvornik was ²⁹⁷⁵⁸ arrested when Arkan arrived. They were tortured, mistreated, and kept in prison.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Even they didn't testify about that. However, you are not testifying about Zvornik, and I don't want to waste my time on this. Please, in paragraph 56, you say: "I asked Goran Zekic what it was all about and why I had been called to come. He told me that he had brought volunteers there."

So he brought volunteers.

A. Yes.

Q. Wasn't it you together with Zekic who brought the volunteers?

A. No. Some of these volunteers are still alive.

Q. In any case, he brought them?

A. Yes.

Q. Yes. That's what you say. And the volunteers, as you -- we established, were organised by various parties.

A. That's what you say.

Q. And Zekic brought them there.

A. To the Territorial Defence in Bajina Basta, with the assistance of the police.

Q. You say that there was some sort of scheme, some sort of pattern. First the volunteers would arrive - we just established who brought them - followed by killings, and then the JNA with an apparent desire to restore order. You are saying that the JNA was pretending they were establishing law and order. You know how many places they came to to restore order, ²⁹⁷⁵⁹ and you call this a pattern?

A. You know, Mr. Milosevic, because it was your scheme. Instead of arresting volunteers, as I insisted, they arrested me.

Q. You didn't insist on anyone arresting the volunteers. You brought the volunteers, and the JNA tried to restore order.

A. Mr. Milosevic, I have a document dated the 13th of May that testifies that I expelled volunteers from Bratunac. I have a document about this. The JNA refused to do it, so I did it myself.

Q. All right, Mr. Deronjic. You probably expelled some men you had a personal conflict with. You certainly didn't expel any of the volunteers that you had brought yourself.

And then you go on to conclude, in paragraph 68, in the way Mr. Nice is trying to represent it here, the creation of Republika Srpska, a very serious move, when they were expelled by that referendum, they proclaimed the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the MPs in the parliament did.

A. Yes, they did so in the Serb parliament.

Q. And you explained that the creation of Republika Srpska was a complex and serious move that had to have been planned in advance. Didn't we just establish that the Serbs were sidelined by that referendum and had to take measures for their own protection? They were shunted to the margins.

A. Mr. Milosevic, you're mixing up dates. We were talking first about the beginning of the 1991. That was followed by Serb activities to establish Serb autonomous regions. The parliament verified them at the ²⁹⁷⁶⁰ session of the Assembly in November, and that was followed by Variants A and B, and so on.

Q. I will not go into what the SDS did, but the Serbian autonomous regions were formed spontaneously for the purpose of self-protection.

A. There was an order of the SDS to establish them, and they were verified by the Assembly in November 1991, and that was done publicly.

Q. Publicly, of course. They made it quite public that that is the way in which they were protecting themselves from the violence that they were exposed to. They were establishing Serb autonomous provinces. Everything was done in public. So this was not done in any planned fashion. There was no plan whatsoever let alone a secret plan. This appeared everywhere, wherever they felt threatened or jeopardised. Tell me, what does this mean?

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer that. Was this done publicly, Mr. Deronjic, as is alleged?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The establishment of Serb autonomous regions was a public affair. Their verification in the Assembly in November 1991 was also a public matter.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Could you please just comment, Mr. Deronjic, on paragraph 72 briefly. What do you say there? You say: "I sat there with Miodrag Jokic." Miodrag Jokic is not the general that is referred to here. This is some local person of yours down there.

A. Yes.

Q. "When one man in uniform asked Ljubisa Simic whether he was ²⁹⁷⁶¹ president of the municipality."

So this was a man in uniform, someone from the JNA. "And I also remember him saying to Ljubo Simic that he should compile lists of all extremists, both Serbs and Muslims."

A. Yes.

Q. So the representative of the JNA asked him to compile a list of extremists, both Serb and Muslim.

A. Wait a moment, Mr. Milosevic.

Q. I'm just reading what you wrote here.

A. Where is it written that he's a representative of the JNA?

Q. You say a man in uniform. Usually when a person says "man in uniform," they usually mean the JNA.

A. No, way. These are volunteers.

Q. He told you to compile a list of all extremists, both Serbs and Muslims, and Ljubo Simic was very tense and soon thereafter he left the meeting. He said, and then you quote: "I'm not going to take part in this. If you want a list of Serb extremists you should put my name on it first, on the list." Is that what you say?

A. Exactly.

Q. Does this have to do with somebody's activity aimed at preventing conflicts, at having tensions abate? Who are these people who asked to be informed about extremists from both sides between who there could be a clash?

A. These are volunteers, and their intention was not to prevent a conflict at all. Soon afterwards they caused a conflict as they killed ²⁹⁷⁶² Muslims in Bratunac, as they looted property, so many activities.

Q. These volunteers that you brought.

A. Never.

Q. All right, but you say that Zekic brought them. So Zekic brought these volunteers who then looted and killed there?

A. Exactly.

Q. And Zekic is dead. All right.

JUDGE MAY: You have two minutes left now.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I really don't know, Mr. May, I mean, whether there's any point in all of this.

JUDGE MAY: Well, if you want to use the two minutes, you can.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let's have a look at this.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The arrival of the JNA in Bratunac. That's what you say. And you talk about some 20 men, members of the JNA, and we heard evidence here that they were commanded by a certain Lieutenant Musa, who was an Albanian. And you say that this was the Novi Sad Corps. However, you yourself say that these people had arrived from Sekovici. Is that right?

A. Sekovici?

Q. Well, by way of formation, establishment, army district and corps were not limited in any way by republican boundaries. This was a unit that was stationed in Sekovici but was also in Bosnia-Herzegovina, right in your neighbourhood; isn't that right? And you yourself say they same from Sekovici.

A. Exactly. ²⁹⁷⁶³

Q. Could you please explain to me what was this that happened? What happened? You say Glogova. That's a sub-heading here. It was my understanding of this document that you concluded a plea agreement with this so-called Prosecution, and you agreed to testify, and now it seems that you disarmed the inhabitants of this place called Glogova; is that right?

A. No. I said that the Yugoslav People's Army worked with the approval of the Crisis Staff and that they disarmed the Muslims.

Q. The Yugoslav People's Army disarmed everyone, but let's clarify this. You say here in paragraph D of this indictment of yours -- and you pleaded guilty to all of it, so as far as you're concerned, it is not contested, but as far as I am concerned, I have an opinion of my own, and I believe it is shared by everybody else in this regard. You say: "Milutin Milosevic, chief of the Serb SUP, told the villagers of Glogova that they would not -- that Glogova would not be attacked because they had turned over their weapons. This Milutin Milosevic added that he was speaking on behalf of Miroslav Deronjic." So on your behalf, you were president of the Crisis Staff, he was speaking on your behalf, and he said to the inhabitants of Glogova, which is almost a purely Muslim village, that they would not be attacked because they had handed over their weapons.

A. I beg your pardon. Where are you reading this from?

Q. I'm reading from paragraph D of this -- well, I got this entire set of documents. This is your plea agreement with the Prosecution, that you would testify, that you would plead guilty. ²⁹⁷⁶⁴

JUDGE KWON: No, it's the passage in the indictment itself. It's paragraph 8(D).

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Paragraph 8(D). Exactly, Mr. Kwon.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But it is my understanding that Mr. Deronjic confirmed all of this.

A. That is not correct. Please.

Q. So on your behalf, the chief of the SUP, Milutin Milosevic, informed the inhabitants of Glogova that they would not be attacked. And already in the next paragraph, paragraph (E), it says: "Miroslav Deronjic in his capacity as president of the Crisis Staff of the municipality of Bratunac, a position which gave him de facto and de jure control over the TO and de facto control over the police gave an order ..." That's what it says here, "... gave an order to attack the village of Glogova, burn part of it down, and forcibly displace its Bosnian Muslim residents."

A. Mr. Milosevic, time will run out and you won't allow me to answer.

Q. But I'm just reading.

JUDGE MAY: One at a time. Mr. Deronjic, have you got the passage that the accused is referring to?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. Milosevic is reading the indictment, and he claims that I admitted to all of this. But in the text of my plea agreement, this is not what is written down. And the accused is insinuating that I pleaded guilty to all of this and that ²⁹⁷⁶⁵ that is what is written, the other text, the plea agreement, and that, quite simply, is not true.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Deronjic, I really do not have time now to go back with you to this very voluminous document, but in the agreement itself that you made with this Office of the Prosecutor so that they would propose a lower sentence for you and that -- and in order to have that done you agreed to testify against anyone that they asked you to testify against, that agreement invokes the second amended indictment that I am quoting from. And by way of this agreement, you accept this second amended indictment.

A. That's right.

Q. So how can you say that what I'm reading from this second amended indictment, which you accepted and signed through your plea agreement, both you and your lawyers, and now you say that this is not true?

A. I don't know whether it's true or not, but --

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I'm sorry. You're reading very fast, and time is running out, and it seemed to me at one moment, because it's so hard for me to follow, that you were saying something that I had not agreed to, but now I've read it, yes it's true, that's what's written here, that Milutin Milosevic did say that he was speaking on my behalf, yes.

JUDGE MAY: Let us clarify what is in the indictment. Would you look, please, at the two allegations which are in the indictment which is attached to your plea agreement. You will see the passages to which the ²⁹⁷⁶⁶ accused refers, paragraph D which says that Milutin Milosevic, speaking on your behalf, told the villagers they wouldn't be attacked because they had turned over their weapons.

Do you accept that as being true?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I accept this absolutely as being true.

JUDGE MAY: Then the next paragraph reads that you, in your capacity as president of the Crisis Staff, a position which gave you control over the TO and the police of Bratunac, gave an order to attack the village, burn part of it down, and forcibly displace the Bosnian Muslim residents, and that you were aware that you were ordering an attack on an unarmed civilian village.

Now, is that right or not?

A. That is right. It is completely right, Your Honour. May I just explain briefly in one sentence what I meant?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. You needn't worry about time, you can explain exactly what you mean.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Milosevic previously spoke and insinuated that I or somebody else had disarmed the Muslims. I said that the action of disarming the Muslims was based on a decision passed by Mr. Reljic. So this was the plan of the JNA, his plan, and that is how the disarming of the Muslims took place in Bratunac. It is correct that I said that the Crisis Staff agreed with this decision to disarm the Muslims.

As for the action of disarming the Muslims, it was Mr. Reljic who ²⁹⁷⁶⁷ was in charge of it, and I thought that Mr. Milosevic was insinuating that, that I passed this decision and that I carried out the disarming of Muslims in Bratunac.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. That has nothing to do with anything, and I'm not insinuating anything. It is quite clear that here, on your behalf, the chief of the SUP, who is under your command, informed the inhabitants of Glogova that they would not be attacked and --

JUDGE MAY: No need to repeat it all. We've read that. Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So I cannot finish, Mr. May?

JUDGE MAY: No, because you've made the point and we can read it, and the witness accepts that it's right.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, Mr. May, my point is that this witness concluded an agreement with the Prosecution, the Office of the Prosecutor, in order to be able to lie here on behalf of the Prosecution and for the benefit of the Prosecution. That is the core of this matter.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness deal with that because it's right that, the allegation having been made, the witness should deal with it. You've heard what's said, Mr. Deronjic. What's said by the accused is this: That you have come here to lie on the basis of a plea agreement, an agreement you've made with the Prosecution. That's a very serious allegation, and you should have the opportunity of dealing with it. ²⁹⁷⁶⁸ Is it true or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do thank you, Your Honour, for giving me this opportunity. I think that I did not insult Mr. Milosevic at any given point in time. As for every count --

JUDGE MAY: Don't take it for these purposes as an insult. The important point is that the allegation has been made and you should answer it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is absolutely not true. I am testifying here, and I said that during the sitting yesterday, that my absolute wish was to testify before this Court and that that wish has nothing do with the agreement that was concluded.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have decided to deal with two subjects only, and they will only have to do with the contacts between Mr. Deronjic and Mr. Karadzic and General Mladic. This is contained in his statement, because he did not have any direct contacts with Slobodan Milosevic.

Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Deronjic, I would not want to go back to paragraph 181 that you dealt with extensively yesterday, but what you say there in that part of your statement, and that is what needs to be explained to the Trial Chamber primarily, you said inter alia that Karadzic had said to you: "Miroslav, all of them need to be killed." Is that right?

A. Yes, that's right. ²⁹⁷⁶⁹

Q. And then you said -- and then you explained this in paragraphs 185 and 187, that on the 11th, that is to say two days after this meeting with Karadzic that was held on the 9th, you heard on the radio that you were appointed civilian commissioner for Srebrenica and that Karadzic told you in a telephone conversation what was envisaged by that office. Was this a normal telephone conversation? Is that the way it was?

A. It was a normal telephone conversation, and that's the way it was.

Q. And in paragraph 187 you said that you insisted on the following, that you be given the decisions that were passed and that these decisions be faxed to you, if possible. Are those the decisions that were faxed to you? Have you seen them until now? I'm not sure that they were exhibited before this.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I've already shown you this book. These are all the war orders issued by Karadzic, and that's where I found these orders with the seal of Republika Srpska and the signature of Radovan Karadzic.

Q. Are these the two decisions?

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I have them in English as well, Your Honour. They were translated.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. If we could have them, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Tapuskovic, I have seen the first decision, which has to do with my appointment.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right.

A. I had this decision in my possession, and it is correct, this is ²⁹⁷⁷⁰ the one I received. As for this other decision, this is the first time I see it. I never had the opportunity of seeing it earlier.

Q. Can you just tell us whether the core of this matter is to respect war orders and to especially protect the civilian population? Was that the essence of these two decisions?

A. Yes.

Q. So two days after you say that Karadzic told you in a one-on-one meeting that they should all be killed, you receive two decisions in writing that show exactly what Karadzic ordered you to do.

A. That is correct, but I would just like to ask you, Mr. Tapuskovic, not to take words out of context. I did not say that he only said they all need to be killed. He added a great deal of explanation.

Q. I accept that.

A. We were talking about civilians, and I explained all of this.

Q. Now, look at this paragraph 199, 206, and 209. We are still on the first subject.

In paragraph 199, we can see that on the same day you had a completely normal conversation with no interference at all with Karadzic when he told you -- you say: "He called me, and he wanted to know what's going on with the transport of civilians. I told him that more than a half of those people were loaded onto buses and that I expect that the transport would be completed by the end of the day."

A. Correct.

Q. Now look at paragraph 206 and later 209. Paragraph 206, you mentioned that Karadzic told you a man would come with instructions as to ²⁹⁷⁷¹ ^{BLANK PAGE} ²⁹⁷⁸⁵ what you should do. And in paragraph 208, towards the end, you say verbatim: "I assumed that he, the man who introduced himself as Beara, was the one sent by Karadzic." And as you say in paragraph 209, he was the one who told you everyone should be killed.

A. Correct.

Q. We saw yesterday that transcript of that intercept. Just tell me one thing. That transcript of the intercept, it was done on the basis of what? Did you listen to the audio first and then wrote it down? How was the transcript made? Why are you looking towards the Prosecutor?

A. Are you asking me? It was not I who made the transcript. I thought you were asking the Prosecutor.

Q. No. I'm asking you. How was the transcript made? Did you listen to that conversation and then wrote it down, or did you just receive it, this paper, as it was presented here?

A. I only got the paper. I don't know how it was made.

Q. On this piece of paper that we all have in front of us, it is never alleged that the conversation included a phrase like "a man would come bringing instructions" as to what you should do.

A. Mr. Tapuskovic, I explained this to my lawyers. I gave my statement because -- before this paper was shown to me, and I established that it was the way it was. The Prosecutor warned me that this piece of paper did not contain this phrase. I said I remembered it clearly, that they should check the recording, and they informed me later that they listened to the recording, it was full of interference, and this part was not audible. ²⁹⁷⁸⁶

Q. On the 10th of March, 2003, I was given a transcript of an interview of Mr. Ruez with Deronjic on Variants A and B, and out of the wealth of this material containing several hundred pages, I singled out two or three. I talked to the Prosecutor yesterday and asked them to provide this in English. The Prosecutor has this part of the interview, and I wanted us to see what this witness told the investigator at that time.

THE INTERPRETER: It was an interview -- interpreter's correction -- from 1990.

The interpreter is not sure which year Mr. Tapuskovic mentioned, the date of the interview.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I really believe this is an important issue. Let us clarify this.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Can you clarify the year of the interview, which wasn't plain to the interpreters.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I think I mentioned it. 12th March 2003 -- 2001. Sorry. 2001.

Q. Please pay attention, pay special attention to page 6, lines 1 to 10. It says that there was a telegram, and it says then -- it was a telegram, a wire that was forwarded on the 13th of July, 1995, the same day when he talked to Karadzic in the morning. It says: "You are not talking directly to the president, you are talking through a mediator." And then Mr. Deronjic answers: "But you can't hear this?" "No. I'm talking directly to the president."

JUDGE KWON: We have difficulty locating the relevant passage. ²⁹⁷⁸⁷ Could you help us?

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours --

MR. NICE: -- line 9, I'm told.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So the first question is we're talking about a telegram. It seems to be an intercept on 13th of July, 1995. What is more important, throughout this conversation you never mentioned that a man would come bringing instructions. Neither here nor in another conversation that I can't present to the Court now, you mentioned that there would be a man coming with instructions or anything about this Beara. Can you explain this?

A. First of all, I regret not having this paper in front of me in Serbian, and I don't know what it relates to, but I will answer your question.

Q. Well, it relates precisely to the subject of our discussion, this conversation that we have transcribed here.

A. I know what it relates to, but I cannot find my complete answer in this paper I have, but I don't doubt that what you are saying is true.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask Your Honours to allow me to tender this. I don't have time to deal with all of this, but it is clear that he is not communicating with Karadzic directly. On the contrary, he is warned many times that's talking through someone else. It seems to be an operative officer of the Bratunac Brigade. That's one. And second, there is no reference to that particular phrase we are talking about. I would like to tender this into evidence because it shows ²⁹⁷⁸⁸ clearly what I am arguing. There is no reference at all to a man who is supposed to come.

Q. How can you explain this to the Judges? How come you didn't mention it?

A. Listen, Mr. Tapuskovic, do you know the circumstances under which I gave my statement? At that moment, there was no indictment against me, and I was certainly not motivated to indict myself. I told the Office of the Prosecutor that all my conversations were recorded, intercepted, and many of them were analysed in the General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia. I told them that as well.

Q. But tell the Judges one more thing. Did this telegram exist at the time? It was a -- was it an intercept that you were able to analyse? Is that something you said in your statement of 2001?

A. What are you talking about? What intercept? What document? Can you specify?

Q. Before the investigative organs, that is the investigators of this Tribunal, the investigator showed you a communication between you and Karadzic that was not direct at any point in time. There was always a mediator, and you were always being told what Karadzic had said. You were not able to have a single direct contact with Karadzic.

A. That must be his version. I don't know whether or not I spoke to him directly. I told the Prosecutor here that at one point I heard Karadzic directly. I heard his voice.

Q. But you are saying this here for the first time. At the time when you were shown this document from this transcript of the conversation, ²⁹⁷⁸⁹ there is no single reference to this man, and in 2001, you didn't mention him either. You didn't say that a man was coming.

A. That's right, but I explained why I failed to mention it.

Q. Thank you. Look now at paragraph 182. But before that, would you be so kind as to answer one other question.

Before the 1st of July, in the area where all this took place in Srebrenica, first of all, was it a demilitarised zone?

A. No.

Q. You talked about it yesterday. Were there incidents originating from the Muslim side targeting Serbian villages, and were Serbian villages even burned in that area?

A. Yes.

Q. Now look at paragraph 182. You say: "Sinisa Glogovac and I spent the night together with the soldiers between the 10th and the 11th in an area called Divljakinje. On the 11th in the morning we went again to Pribicevac, to the plateau where the forward command post was located." Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Can you tell me now, at the moment when you were on that location, did the UNPROFOR forces react? Was fire opened by the UNPROFOR forces against the Serbian forces?

A. When I was at Pribicevac?

Q. Yes.

A. You mean shelling.

Q. No, no, not shelling. Was there any fire before that? ²⁹⁷⁹⁰

A. No.

Q. Then you go on to say, "At one point rumours circulated that Mladic had arrived. We saw him on that plateau about ten metres away from us. He was upset, angry, and he was yelling. Glogovac and I were standing about ten, 15 metres away to the side."

A. Correct.

Q. In paragraph 183 you say: "They were in a lot of hurry. There was a lot of commotion, and it was very hectic. I soon realised what the reason was. Mladic got into a car and set off towards a place called Kvarc where there was some sort of transmitter, a radio relay. Ten metres or so after, the planes started flying over that area, bombing the positions, and I realised that Mladic was upset and angry precisely about this. Very soon after that, some bombs were dropped very close to us. There were two aircraft. Two sorties were made. It was over very soon." Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it true that Muslim fighters, even though they had air support, did not defend Srebrenica at all? They moved elsewhere, leaving civilians behind?

A. At first there was fighting between Muslims and Serbs. They left later, on the 11th, leaving civilians behind.

Q. And just one more paragraph. Paragraph 184. Correction, 144. You spoke here about state security. You talked about the gathering of intelligence. You said there was a lot of activity going on related to intelligence affairs; correct? ²⁹⁷⁹¹

A. Correct.

Q. Tell me, in that area were all sorts of intelligence officers active from all states, all countries?

A. Probably.

Q. Do you know anything about it?

A. Not much.

Q. If there was so much intelligence activity, so many representatives of the press and the media, does it make sense to you that some sort of operation can be started in the presence of the UNPROFOR if that operation ended as we know it ended?

A. I can't answer that.

Q. Just the last question: Was there any official representative of the army of Yugoslavia in that area at that time?

A. I answered this question many times. As far as I know, there wasn't.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, it is time to adjourn. Are you going to be fairly brief or --

MR. NICE: I'm going to strike a balance between what I should and what I must ask in order to be brief, but after the adjournment would be more helpful.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will make it after the adjournment. There were various documents which Mr. Tapuskovic put in.

MR. NICE: Can I --

JUDGE MAY: Two decisions which seem to me to be admissible if he wants. Yes. ²⁹⁷⁹²

MR. NICE: No objection to those.

JUDGE MAY: Part of an interview.

MR. NICE: I don't understand the relevance of that at this stage. It seems to me that the passage being -- the intercept being referred to by the interviewing investigator is the very intercept that we've got. I haven't been able to check every line of it. Therefore, if that's the purpose for which it's being put in, it's mere duplication of our exhibit.

JUDGE MAY: I took it to be the fact that the witness did not refer to speaking to via an intermediary or speaking directly to Karadzic and he didn't mention these other two things, and he's given an answer as to why he didn't, so I think technically that's admissible too. What weight it has, of course, is a matter entirely for the Trial Chamber. The sensible thing might be to give those C numbers, Court numbers, beginning with the order. I don't know if the registry have got these. We've got an order of the -- yes, the appointment, I suppose, would be the one. It's headed "Decision." It's dated the 11th of July.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Court Exhibit 21.

JUDGE MAY: Next the order. It's headed "Order." The same day.

THE REGISTRAR: Court Exhibit 22.

JUDGE MAY: And the extract from the interview with the investigator.

THE REGISTRAR: Court Exhibit 23.

JUDGE MAY: I'd be grateful if it could be confirmed that the date, the last date we had was the 12th of March of 2001. It might be helpful to have the correct date for it. ²⁹⁷⁹³

MR. NICE: Yes, apparently it is.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. We will adjourn now. Half an hour, please.

--- Recess taken at 11.48 a.m.

--- On resuming at 12.24 p.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice. Re-examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Mr. Deronjic, a few matters. First the intercept that's covered in your statement at paragraph 206. If you want to turn that up, please. And we now know from the Court Exhibit number 23, which you don't have Serbian or B/C/S, it only being in English as produced, I think, that you were interviewed about this topic, and the interviewers asked you about the --

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have a copy. Perhaps I could provide it.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] A copy.

JUDGE KWON: I think we have it in Serbian too.

MR. NICE:

Q. It's clear that you were interviewed about this intercept, whether or not it was shown to you. And in the course of that, it was made clear that the communications were by a middleman. Do you recall that fact in the interview?

A. Yes, I recall that fact.

Q. In your statement at page 206 -- paragraph 206, before you'd been ²⁹⁷⁹⁴ shown the transcript of the intercept, you gave an account of what was said to you, and you said at the end, "I don't remember whether these words were uttered by him or an intermediary."

A. That's correct.

Q. You were then shown here a couple of days ago our Exhibit 601, the transcript itself, which has a break in it indicative of non-continuous transcript, or intercept, but which nevertheless contains no reference to your speaking directly to Karadzic but speaking to the intermediary; correct?

A. Yes. On the basis of what I see here in front of me, it seems evident that I am talking about the middleman and to the middleman and that he is involved in the conversation.

Q. In giving evidence to the learned Judges yesterday, you spoke of the transcript being incomplete because things were said that were not recorded there or not heard there.

A. That's correct.

Q. And in paragraph 206 of your witness statement, you refer to the passage of the conversation where you were told that someone would come with instructions, and we can see that that is not reflected on the transcript Exhibit 601.

A. That's correct.

Q. Does it remain your evidence that in this same telephone discussion which is the subject of this transcript, there were things said that are not recorded there?

A. I abide by that. ²⁹⁷⁹⁵

Q. Now dealing with the emissary that you say it was Beara, expecting someone to come, apart from Beara, did anyone else turn up, saying he'd come from Karadzic?

A. No. I did not know Mr. Beara, and I did not know who could come. When he showed up in my office, I assumed that he was the man who came after my conversation with Karadzic.

Q. Did he hold himself out by manner or by what he said as having some authority? The accused has suggested he was just a man on a sort of drunken frolic, or something to that effect. Did he, so far as you're concerned, indicate any authority in his mission?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice says that the accused suggested that he was some type of alcoholic. I did not suggest anything. I just quoted what Mr. Deronjic wrote in his statement, that Beara, that is to say this man who came, was tipsy. Quoted him. I cannot suggest that Beara was an alcoholic or was not an alcoholic because I don't know the man at all. I just quoted from the statement.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We have the point. Perhaps you'd like to repeat the question, please.

MR. NICE: Certainly. And I have a recollection that I'll turn up in due course, the way the accused asked the question, but --

JUDGE MAY: I don't think it matters very much.

MR. NICE: No.

Q. Did Beara hold himself out, by either his manner or by what he ²⁹⁷⁹⁶ said, as having authority to give you instructions?

A. I shall answer that question. It is correct that at that moment he looked quite tipsy. That was the word I used, and that is what the witnesses say, those who saw him that night in my office. So it was that he was under the influence of a certain dose of alcohol. I don't want to deny that. He did behave like a man with a degree of authority. He held a high rank at that time in the army of Republika Srpska.

Q. Thank you very much. You've been asked various things about the circumstances in which you pleaded guilty and the terms upon which you did so. I'm sure the Chamber is alive to this but the precise terms upon which you've pleaded guilty are set out in something called the factual basis of your plea, which is the third part of the bundle, and at page numbered 406 in the top right-hand corner and starting at about paragraph 30, the Chamber can find the terms, the factual basis for which you pleaded guilty; correct?

A. That is completely correct. All the precise terms and conditions were specified, those under which I pleaded guilty.

Q. Turning now to what you set out at paragraph 63 in your statement, on the pattern of events and the use of volunteers, the accused has suggested that you brought these volunteers in yourself for your own purposes.

In your statement, you indicate that what happened in your town happened in other locations and in a regular way, so as to justify the phrase or the word "pattern". Two questions -- three questions. Did you have access to volunteers of the kind you describe whom you could command? ²⁹⁷⁹⁷

A. No, absolutely not. I did not know them, and never was I in contact with these volunteers, including at the beginning of 1992.

Q. Would there have been any purpose in volunteers coming into your town and acting in the way you describe? I mean, any purpose that you would have approved of or agreed with?

A. The purpose of their coming to Bratunac, the way I understood things, was to take over Bratunac, to have Bratunac taken over by the Serbs. They did not fully exercise power at that time in Bratunac, they only participated in the government.

Q. Was that something you wanted done in that way, by that form of violence, or not?

A. No. I explained the way in which I thought that Variants A and B should be carried out, and there are records of that in the Office of the Prosecutor. I was present during these events, and I precisely described my own participation in all of this.

Q. And then the last question on this topic and then just a couple more topics. The last question on this topic: You speak of this pattern having been repeated in other locations. Can you give us an approximate idea of how many other locations you saw this pattern being repeated?

A. Due to the circumstances in Bratunac, I was not in a position to closely monitor events in neighbouring municipalities, but I do know about them from the period that followed afterwards. Of course I did know about some things because we were so nearby, and I'm talking about April, precisely Zvornik, which is 43 kilometres away from Bratunac. Of course I was aware of what happened in Bijeljina too, which started a bit earlier. ²⁹⁷⁹⁸ As for the way in which this evolved and the purpose involved, I learnt of all of that gradually. I had quite a bit of information, though, when these events were actually taking place. I also knew what was going on in Visegrad. I read the newspapers and saw what was happening in Banja Luka, and I described that in what I had to say.

Q. Two more questions about weapons and arming. The accused has drawn to your attention that one of the places from which you say arms were coming, Tuzla, was a predominantly Muslim town. Can you explain, if it needs explanation, how it would be possible for arms for Serbs to come from Tuzla?

A. I going to tell you what my assumption is. As far as I know and as far as I was told, weapons were obtained on several occasions. Goran Zekic went up there with those people through the military. I assume that this was done secretly and that of course some other services in this town could not have been aware of that.

Q. The accused used the word "smuggling" for the movement of arms into Bosnia. Smuggling -- well, so far as you're concerned, was the activity, whether described as smuggling or not, done with the approval of Serbia?

A. I described the participation of particular organs and persons from these organs in such events. I would not like to draw a general conclusion, but it is obvious that some organs and some persons from these organs, including the army, the police, and the Territorial Defence, were taking part in such activities.

Q. And you've spoken of Kertes and his location in the same building ²⁹⁷⁹⁹ as occupied by the accused. Kertes offered you an opportunity to meet the accused. You make it clear you don't know whether he was able to deliver on that offer, but you declined the offer?

A. Yes, I declined. Goran Zekic also declined the offer. We probably did so for different reasons, though.

Q. And in a word, your reason?

A. My reason were my activities aimed against the authorities and the policy that was advocated by Mr. Milosevic.

MR. NICE: Nothing else in re-examination.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Deronjic, that concludes your evidence. Thank you for giving it. As far as this trial is concerned, you are now free to leave the courtroom.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE MAY: While the witness is leaving, Mr. Nice, could you help us about Tuesday's witness or witnesses? It might be helpful to have a statement of those witnesses.

MR. NICE: If you haven't had one so far, I'll ensure that it comes your way if we can.

JUDGE MAY: It may be we've had one, but a 92 bis application.

MR. NICE: I expect you have.

JUDGE KWON: 89(F) statements.

MR. NICE: An 89(F) statement. Yes. For the first witness, I understand that an 89(F) is required. We'll make one available. I'll go and deal with it straight away. ²⁹⁸⁰⁰

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Is the order of the witnesses the one that was provided in the general review for next week?

JUDGE MAY: Perhaps to make sure that it's clarified you would just give us the order verbally again since we've got two orders now. They may be the same, of course.

MR. NICE: We'll have to go into private session if I am to give the names. Can you just give me one second.

[Prosecution counsel confer]

MR. NICE: Your Honour, if we're in --

[Private session] (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted) ²⁹⁸⁰¹ (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, we're now in open session.

JUDGE MAY: I take it the witness is on his way.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, the next witness is the witness C-057. He's a protected witness with voice and image distortion.

[The witness entered court] ²⁹⁸⁰²

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

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

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

THE WITNESS:

WITNESS: WITNESS C-057

[Witness answered through interpreter] Examined by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff:

Q. Yes. Witness C-057, you gave a statement to an investigator of the Office of the Prosecutor in July this year. Was it taken in the Serbian language?

A. Yes, that statement was taken in the Serbian language.

Q. Did you have the opportunity to review this document while in The Hague and preparing for your testimony?

A. Yes, I had the opportunity of reviewing it in detail.

Q. During the preparation of your -- for your testimony, did you, together with Prosecution staff, go through each and every paragraph?

A. Yes, each and every paragraph was dealt with in detail.

Q. Did you identify, while doing so, a few minor errors such as two incorrect dates and a few unclear English expressions?

A. Yes. That was noticed and corrections were made or, rather, amendments were made to the statement.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, while doing this we actually prepared an addendum to the statement with some minor corrections and clarifications, and the Prosecution would like to tender both documents. ²⁹⁸⁰³ But before I do that --

Q. Did you have opportunity to review and sign this addendum on the 25th of November, 2003?

A. Yes. I reviewed this addendum and signed it. Yes.

Q. Are both your statement from July this year and the addendum true and accurate?

A. They are absolutely accurate.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, the Prosecution would like to tender both documents.

JUDGE MAY: We are apparently told we're short a pseudonym sheet, but it may be that it's been suggested that it's in the page of the statement. Is that right?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, that's the point. The name of the witness is on the -- in the statement, and all his personal details. So I felt there's no need to have a pseudonym sheet.

THE REGISTRAR: 607, Your Honours. I believe that's -- tab 1 is under seal.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I do not intend to go into any of the details of the statement or the addendum. All I intend to do is to address a few of the exhibits that are going in.

JUDGE MAY: If you would so that we know and the accused should know what they are, please.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Just clarification: The documents tab 2 to tab 9 were actually provided by the witness himself, and they are all addressed in detail in the statement that is already tendered, and I do ²⁹⁸⁰⁴ not want to go with the witness through all these documents.

Q. Just this question, sir: Did you provide, while giving your initial statement, a lot of documents that deal with your position?

A. Yes. Along with the statement, I submitted a certain number of documents that I had, ones that I kept, and that was done in the month of July when I made my statement.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Can the tab 4 be put to the witness. Tab 4 is a marching order from the 1st of July, 1991. It's actually a document consisting of a warning order and then the order for march.

Q. Witness, did you provide these -- these pages, these two documents?

A. Yes. I provided these two documents to you.

Q. On page 2 or, actually, the marching order as such, in the first paragraph reference is made - in the first line, actually, of paragraph 1 - reference to made to the internal enemy aided by external factors. Could you explain who the internal enemy was at that time?

A. At that time, the internal enemy were the secessionist forces, as is said here, primarily in Croatia and Slovenia. So that is what is basically meant, the secessionist forces. In everyday conversations, we used the word "Ustasha forces" in respect of Croatia.

Q. In that same paragraph there is also mentioned the task that you were assigned to or the troops that were involved in this marching order, and there is a reference to preventing clashes and the same is also mentioned in the next paragraph where is mention of preventing inter-ethnic clashes in the Vukovar section. Is that actually what you ²⁹⁸⁰⁵ did?

A. This was the official order. I can only give a comment. This is a document. In practice we were cautioned that actually it was the Ustasha forces that were the enemy, that we would have major problems over there on the other side, and I think that I mentioned that in my statement. We were cautioned that the entire population in Croatian settlements had an Ustasha orientation and that even pets and domestic animals had an Ustasha orientation. So this order is worded nicely but the practical instructions were quite different.

Q. When you reached the territory of Croatia, did you actually prevent inter-ethnic clashes and serve as a buffer or did you do something different?

A. No, we did not serve as a buffer. In practice we are launching an attack against the territory and the Croatian population fled from the areas where we came, so we did not serve as a buffer.

Q. You mention in your statement and you mention it also today that there was actually a quite different oral order accompanying this -- this written order. Was this something unusual or was it a common occurrence in the JNA at that time to have conflicting or absolutely different written and oral orders?

A. It happened even in peacetime and also then. As it can be seen, the orders were in proper form, but in practice things collided with these orders. What was said were things that were inappropriate to be put in an order, and I mentioned that in the previous example, that things that were said to us were different from what was written in the order. ²⁹⁸⁰⁶

Q. In paragraph 5 of this same marching order in relation to the tank company, there is a reference that the tank company should avoid all provocations and open fire in self-defence. Did the JNA indeed operate in Croatia firing only in self-defence?

A. No. No. Things turned out quite differently in relation to what is stated here. An attack was launched a month later, but it was absolutely not in self-defence, not in self-defence.

Q. In the paragraphs 5.a, 5.b, and 5.c related to the task of the various units, there is reference, quite the similar one in all these paragraphs, speaking of "during the march be ready to break up relatively powerful forces in sectors with major populated areas." Were you given any concrete instruction how to break up resistance in populated areas, in particular in relation to the civilians that were in these areas?

A. Well, the oral instruction was to open fire by all means, that we should not sustain any losses whatsoever. And what was expected was large concentrations of the MUP in towns with a predominantly Croatian population. So what we were supposed to do was to prevent any attempt of an attack at us.

Q. This is enough from this document. The next document I briefly want to address with you is tab 5. It is again a marching and defend order of the 27th of July, 1991. And just have a look in the first paragraph. It says here: "Early in the morning on the 27th July, 1991, a conflict broke out between the Serbian population and Croatian MUP forces in the village of Erdut."

To your knowledge, did such a conflict between the population and ²⁹⁸⁰⁷ the Croatian MUP indeed break out or what happened?

A. No. I know about this. This paragraph is inaccurate. There was no conflict. There was no clash between the MUP and the forces of Serb ethnicity. This order was issued because we were shelling Erdut a day or two prior to that in the evening in an area where MUP was concentrated. It is not true that there was a clash between Serbs and Croats on that territory. What is true is that we shelled the MUP forces in Erdut and its surroundings.

Q. And now tab 7. Tab 7 is a newspaper article provided by you, and in this newspaper article there is actually a reference to a long battle in Erdut.

First of all, did you yourself speak with journalists about that?

A. No, I did not speak to journalists about it. Somebody from the command, I suppose, brought journalists to our position, introduced me, and the journalist took my photograph. I made no comment, I was only photographed. I think you can see the contents of this article and the occasion.

Q. The next exhibit that I want briefly to address with you is tab 10, consisting of three charts, and my question to you first is: Did you prepare, during your proofing session together with Prosecution staff, these organigrammes of the units you were involved with?

A. Yes. I prepared these myself. These are accurate organigrammes of the units where I served. These are accurate schemes indicating composition, strength, et cetera, weaponry as well.

Q. In relation to the organigramme attack on Luzac, if you would ²⁹⁸⁰⁸ please have a look at this, you have indicated here the Novi Sad Corps on top of it and, below, your brigade command. How and if -- did those two organs work together during the attack; and if so, how?

A. These two bodies did work together. At the silo, an operative command was set up consisting of a part of commanding officers from the Novi Sad Corps and part of the commanding officers from my brigade. So they functioned as one joint operative body.

Q. During the proofing, did you also review a document -- photos related to weaponry and aircraft involved in the battles that you were engaged with?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, that would be tab 11.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did look at those photographs. They depict the weaponry and equipment that were at the disposal of my unit.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, the exhibits tab 1 to tab 10 need to be under seal, the others not.

Q. Witness, were you also shown -- tab 13, please. Were you also shown a report from a security organ dated the 1st of October, 1991? Did you have time to review this document?

A. Yes. I reviewed this document a couple of days ago. I'm aware of it.

Q. Was this the first time that you saw this document or --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Did I -- I don't have tab 13. The last tab in the binder I received is 12. Perhaps Mrs. Uertz-Retzlaff was wrong about the number. ²⁹⁸⁰⁹

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll make sure you get a copy.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Mr. Milosevic actually has a copy. He got it yesterday, but the tabs are obviously not in order in relation to tab 13 and tab 14.

JUDGE MAY: That can be done in due course. He's got a copy now.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. Did you see this document from the 1st of October, 1991, before or is that the first time that you saw it in the Office of the Prosecutor?

A. I saw this document in the Office of the Prosecutor for the first time.

Q. Looking at the stamps at the top and the end of this document, does it appear to you that it is authentic?

A. The document is obviously authentic.

Q. In the text, it refers to Arkan's behaviour in the field, and you yourself, in your statement, gave a lot of similar facts as to Arkan's behaviour in the field. Can you comment on what is described here in this document?

A. I don't think there's any need for me to read the document now. All that is written here is absolutely accurate. At the time when this information was received, I had not met him yet, but all the commanding officers said that he should be given a wide berth because he treated all of the officers of the JNA very badly. I only had occasion to see him for the first time when the church was destroyed. It was later, towards the end of the month indicated here.

Q. In this document, we have here a suggestion at the end from the ²⁹⁸¹⁰ person who signs it, and it says here: "We suggest immediate measures to be taken against Arkan so the JNA could distance itself from his operations which have negative influence on the morale of the JNA members in that area."

Are you aware whether any measures were indeed taken against Arkan and his men?

A. I do know no measures were taken. In fact, measures were taken to the opposite effect. Arkan reinforced his position, and he was untouchable on this ground, in this area, as far as his troops were concerned. If any measures were taken, they were completely to the contrary. That is, measures were taken to reinforce his position.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And finally, tab 14. Can they please be shown to the witness. It's another report of the security organ dealing with Arkan from the 18th of October, 1991.

Q. Did you have opportunity to review this document during the proofing?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. The format of the document, in particular the stamps at the beginning and the end, would you say it's authentic or not?

A. This is, in my view, absolutely authentic, certainly authentic.

Q. In this document, referring to the training centre in particular and also a reference is in here in the last sentence in relation to the media who, according to these findings of the person who drafted the document, gave a lot of publicity to this behaviour. Can you comment on this? ²⁹⁸¹¹

A. I can give you a brief comment. It was television at that time which started making a hero out of him, ascribing great credit and merits to him in terms of struggle for Serbian freedom. We knew that in practice, in reality, things were quite different, but in the media he was depicted as a hero.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And finally, Your Honours, just for this testimony, as a help, the witness did produce a map. It's actually based on Exhibit 326, tab 15. He just highlighted the locations in which he was present. And that concludes my questions.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. But I would like to make one remark. The witness, of course, is anxious that his identity is not revealed, and the point is during the cross-examination, there should not be any reference to the names of his battalion, his units. That should be -- that should not be mentioned. It would be enough to speak of brigade, battalion, and company. His superiors should not be mentioned by name. It could be easily done by referring to "the person mentioned in paragraph so-and-so." And finally, all private matters, and the actions, the concrete actions of the witness in the field should not be mentioned or should then -- or we should move into private session for these matters.

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

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Tell me, please, in advance, Mr. May, how much time will I have with this witness, because in the schedule I received, it said three hours. I just want to know in advance. I don't want you to tell me that towards the end. ²⁹⁸¹²

JUDGE MAY: That schedule is merely an overall estimate by the Prosecution. We had in mind an hour and a half to two hours.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, then. Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] In order to be more efficient in the use of my time, I will first focus, Mr. C-057, on these several exhibits that have been tendered.

This marching order, as far as I can see, relates -- first an explanation: "Enemy forces with the aid of outside factors have been causing ethnic conflicts for some time now with the objective of toppling the legitimate authorities." And then it goes on to say that, "These activities are the most intensive in the territories of the Republics of Slovenia and Croatia, and particular hotbeds are Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, and Krajina."

Was it true at the time that particular hotbeds were located in the territory of Slovenia and Croatia and that there was already talk of the secession of these republics?

A. Yes. It was already the time when there were even armed clashes. As far as I remember, on the 4th of May there was a clash with the members of the MUP of Croatia and the residents of Borovo Selo, Borovo village. Before that, there already had been armed clashes around the Catholic Easter. So you can well say that those were hotbeds of crisis.

Q. But what it says in the order is correct?

A. Yes. Those were hotbeds of crisis.

Q. It says: "For the time being, the JNA has with great effort, ²⁹⁸¹³ without the use of force, been successfully executing its tasks in preventing clashes of major scale." It says specifically in this document "with great effort and without the use of force." I suppose that too is correct. The JNA tried to prevent all this without resorting to force. Is that true or not, Mr. C-057?

A. I cannot give you a definitive answer because I did not go there at the time. I only went there on the 1st of August. So I cannot tell you exactly whether it is completely accurate or not.

Q. Mr. C-057, I asked you a question. I got an answer. Thank you. The next thing it says: "Members of the JNA and their families have been subjected to great pressures by slights and provocations, all intended to make members of the army resort to armed force so that the army as a whole might be presented as an aggressive factor." Are you aware of this? Is it true that JNA members and their families were subjected to major pressure through slurs, slights, humiliations, et cetera. Are you aware of that?

A. No, I'm not, because at the time I was in Serbia where we were not, of course, subjected to any pressure or humiliation. I simply wasn't there.

Q. You were not informed of what was going on at the time in Croatia and Slovenia?

A. I don't remember anyone speaking to me about that in particular.

Q. In paragraph 2, it says that that unit received an assignment to go on the 30th of March on a march in a single file, and it says the axis was Zrenjanin, Aradac village, Zabalj, Belgrade-Novi Sad road junction, ²⁹⁸¹⁴ Beska village, Indjija village, Putinci, Ruma, Radinci, towards the area of Vukovar; and then it goes on to say: "Their objective is to secure the unhindered and unconditional execution of tasks geared at preventing inter-ethnic conflict in the area of Vukovar-Vinkovci." That is how the order reads.

A. That's true. I read the order, I am aware of it.

Q. You were an officer of the JNA then. You read the order. Tell me one thing. I suppose that the order is made known to the entire unit.

A. That's true. All members of the unit, all subordinates, are informed of the order.

Q. Is it read out to the unit?

A. No, it isn't. Based on that order, I wrote my own marching order.

Q. So the subordinate commander writes his own order in keeping with the superior order. They have to coincide.

A. That's correct. I gave my own order in keeping with the order I received, with the proviso that I cautioned my subordinate officers of the -- the oral information I had been given, that we would fare very badly because all the local population was pro-Ustashi.

Q. We'll come back to that later, C-057. I'm discussing this document now which is an exhibit. What you are saying now is not written in the order.

A. Of course it is not written. I'm telling you what I was told verbally.

Q. It says, in 5.a: "Be ready during the march to break up stronger forces in areas of major populated places." When they say stronger ²⁹⁸¹⁵ forces, they mean strong armed units that could be hostile to the JNA.

A. Yes. It means armed units that could attack us. I don't see anything that could give rise to any doubts here.

Q. I want everything to be clear. I don't want any confusion or misunderstandings, such as your unit going to attack populated areas. It says: "Stronger units in major populated areas." It means units that could attack you; right?

A. Of course that's what it means.

Q. In 5.b, it says: "Open fire during the march only in self-defence and upon my permission. Do not allow any provocation or firing in response to provocation."

That means you are allowed to open fire only in response to attack, and do not allow provocations or response to provocations.

A. That's what I said to my subordinates. Do not open fire in case fire is -- tomatoes are thrown at us or something stupid like that, something trivial.

Q. I'll skip one part. A morale -- morale and psychological support. It says: "Immediately hold meetings of military staff where attention should be drawn to the significance of the tasks ahead and possible forms of provocation, how to act in such circumstances and what measures to undertake." This order refers to the arrival of your unit in the Vukovar-Vinkovci sector with clearly designated tasks to prevent inter-ethnic conflict in that region. And it refers to how the units should behave in keeping with this order; correct?

A. Correct. ²⁹⁸¹⁶

Q. Now, the next exhibit is marching order dated 27 July. It says: "On the 27th of July, there was a conflict between the Serbian population and Croatian MUP forces in the village of Erdut and its broader area." And in paragraph 2, it says: "Upon emerging at the destination of the march, use combat formation to separate the parties, that is the opposed sides, along the Novi-Erdut, trig point 1.58 line. That is, effect their separation." Is that what it says?

A. That's what the order says. There was no conflict. The occasion for that order was our shelling of the Erdut area, the Erdut tower, and that entire locality. So there was no conflict between the Serb and the Croatian population. It was us who shelled this area the day before. We shelled the localities where Croatian MUP forces were concentrated.

Q. You were supposed to go in and separate their forces from the other part where the civilian population was?

A. No. When we came in on the 1st of August, those forces fled before us.

Q. So you had no one to separate. They simply fled before you came?

A. Right.

Q. In paragraph 5, it says: "Open fire only if the unit is attacked." And that is reiterated in relation to each of the units named here. Then it says that the minesweeper should be kept ready to remove minefields. Do you remember the removal of minefields, the clearing of minefields?

A. I don't remember it. There was no clearing of minefields. I did that as part of the assignment of the advanced unit. I didn't open fire ²⁹⁸¹⁷ on those who were fleeing. I saw them on a couple of occasions. They were fleeing and there was -- there were no mines so we had nothing to remove.

Q. You didn't fire even at armed units that were fleeing before you?

A. We didn't.

Q. Paragraph 6.3 says: "The focus of security should be protection from surprise fire and fire opened from ambushes. During action, strictly respect the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. Gather weapons captured and surrendered in one place and upon completion of the task hand them over to the --" what follows is illegible, but I suppose -- yes, it's "military police company." Correct?

A. I don't have the document in front of me but I believe your quotation is correct.

Q. I'm asking this because that is what it is supposed to mean, isn't it?

A. Yes, and that's how we acted in these situations. If you want my comment on what you just said, there was no captured weaponry. We didn't seize any weapons and we didn't capture any prisoners.

Q. The order says that you should act in every way in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. That is a rule that you must have been familiar with as a trained officer of the JNA and during your training in the JNA you must have been made aware of the rules of the Geneva Convention and what such warnings mean. Correct, Mr. C-057?

A. Yes, that's right. The Geneva Conventions, the customs and laws of war are referred to. Well, not referred to, they are studied at the ²⁹⁸¹⁸ military academy in detail. Unfortunately, later, in operations that followed, this was not mentioned and there were grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

Q. No doubt about that. I'm just looking at this particular exhibit, and I'm saying that the command that issues this order, and Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff drew my attention to the fact that I should not mention who the commander is or anything else, so the commander who is issuing this order is the lieutenant colonel?

A. Yes, I know who this is. There is no need to mention his name.

Q. All right, so this is not some kind of a general order of the Supreme Command. This is the order of a lieutenant colonel that you are subordinated to. In his order, he also makes it clear that you should act in accordance with the Geneva Conventions; is that right?

A. That was readily understood. And not only that, it was his duty to put this into the order.

Q. This newspaper article was also given as an exhibit, and it is considered to be some kind of propaganda. What is said here is that there is this fort --

JUDGE MAY: Let us -- if we are going to talk about the article, it may be sensible to go into private session to do so. Go into private session.

[Private session] (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted) ²⁹⁸¹⁹ Pages 29819 to 29820 - redacted - private session. ²⁹⁸²¹

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. C-057, Mrs. Uertz-Retzlaff showed you some diagrams here, ones that you made yourself, and you confirmed that that is the way things were. And then here it says on the diagram -- she just commented on it superficially, but I would like to hear your brief comment. Attack on Luzac. What kind of attack was this? What is Luzac? Where is Luzac and what kind of attack was this on Luzac? But please try to keep it as brief as possible.

A. Luzac is a settlement, a very small village to the north of Vukovar and to the south of Borovo Kombinac [phoen] on the banks of the Danube, like Vukovar. The attack on Luzac was planned by the command to cut through the forces of the MUP and the ZNG from Borovo Naselje and Vukovar, that is to say, to separate the two, to cut through them. That was the basic aim of the attack that was carried out on the 1st of November.

I don't know whether I was clear enough.

Q. So was there a conflict there between these forces and the forces of the National Guards Corps?

A. Yes, certainly. That morning, we had a conflict. We had sustained losses. I don't know what else I should say. Of course there was a conflict. The conflicts went on until the 18th.

Q. So you sustained losses, as far as you know?

A. The initial losses, my initial losses that morning were ten or 11 ²⁹⁸²² wounded that morning, but my losses went up to 27 killed and wounded persons.

Q. Is that only within your company?

A. Only within the company that I commanded, a reinforced company.

Q. Only a reinforced company?

A. Yes. Considerable losses, yes.

Q. So these forces were rather powerful, weren't they?

A. No. No. It doesn't mean that they were powerful. They were well organised, well organised. It's called flexible defence. I don't know how familiar you are with military terminology. Rapid gunfire, losses sustained by the enemy, and then quickly withdraw to shelters.

Q. Now I would like you to explain this diagram. You talk about a unit. Now I have to find the right way of putting this without identifying you.

A. Well, just say what you have to say.

Q. So it's a brigade.

A. Yes.

Q. The attack on Luzac. I'm not going to read the actual names out or anything else. And then there is the command of that brigade.

A. Yes, yes, of course.

Q. I'm not naming any names. Then under that command, you have one mechanised company; is that right? Motorised company. Please take a look at this.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could somebody please assist me with this? Could somebody find the document for me? ²⁹⁸²³

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's tab 10, the third chart.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Tell me, please, what is it you want to know in relation to this?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Just a brief description of the boxes that you placed here. As far as I can understand, under the command of the brigade you have one MC. That is probably the first motorised company or something like that.

A. I think it would be good to go into private session very briefly, just for five minutes, then I can properly explain this, otherwise I don't think I really can, if that is what you wish.

[Private session] (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) ²⁹⁸²⁴ Page 29824 - redacted - private session.

²⁹⁸²⁵ (redacted)

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, just to mention, I didn't refer to any of the names of the units involved, just to the form of the units.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not going into that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Thank you very much, Mr. C-057, for having explained the composition of this unit to me, which was a battalion; is that right?

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. I'm not going to go into what you explained now during the private session, but during the introduction in one of these tabs - I think it was tab 13 - another thing was explained. This is an official information, I assume, of the security organs - I'm not going to read out the name of the security organ - which was submitted in connection with Zeljko Raznjatovic Arkan. Observations. There is no doubt, evidently, that in this diagram that you provided his unit was within the composition of that battalion.

A. Yes, that is undoubted.

Q. Under the command of the battalion; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And in this information, on page 2, in paragraph 2, if we include the paragraph that started on the previous page, it says: "Arkan and his group consisting of about 25 to 30 men."

So this well-known Serb Volunteer Guard, organised by Zeljko Raznjatovic Arkan, then consisted of 25 to 30 men, and it is here together ²⁹⁸²⁶ with the local Territorial Defence. It blended in with that unit. And both he and this Territorial Defence blended into this battalion under the command of that battalion.

A. Tell me, please, this information that you referred to just now, what's its date? Just give me the date, please.

Q. I'm sorry if I cannot see it immediately. Oh, yes. The day is --

JUDGE MAY: Wait a moment. Wait a moment for us all. We'll find the reference.

JUDGE KWON: It's tab 13. You can find it in the exhibit bundle.

JUDGE MAY: Tab 13, paragraph 2.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have pointed out that this was tab 13. And the date is the 1st of October, 1991.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's all right. I found the document myself now.

The diagram that I explained to you a few minutes ago pertains to the 1st of November, which is a month later, and I think I said that a few minutes ago, that requests from that particular formation were not carried out and the guard was increased. At the moment that I'm talking about, the 1st of November, the guard had about 100 to 150 men.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And how was it increased? People who were there in the Territorial Defence, they became part of the guard; is that right?

A. No. The guard was increased -- well, actually, the people from the Territorial Defence did not join the guard or, rather, I don't know how it was increased. I just know that the members of the guard were ²⁹⁸²⁷ significantly different from the JNA members and the members of the Territorial Defence. When we are talking about the 1st of November now. Each and every one of Arkan's men led a small group of local men. So they were all small-scale commanding officers, if I can put it that way.

Q. So they were integrated in the Territorial Defence as volunteers. They came there as volunteers and they were integrated into the Territorial Defence of that area, Eastern Slavonia; and the Territorial Defence itself, when this diagram was made, was subordinated to the command of your battalion; is that right?

A. Yes, of course. This can be seen from the diagram.

Q. That is what I wished to establish, because later, as far as I can see in the documents I have, this unit from the very outset joined the Territorial Defence in the area.

Now, I think that we have gone through these exhibits, so I can make things easier both for myself and for you. Please, Mr. C-057, you know that my time is limited. Please try to be brief in your answers if you possibly can.

A. Of course. I will try not to go into too much detail. (redacted)

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, that should be private session.

JUDGE MAY: Private session.

[Private session] (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted) ²⁹⁸²⁸ Pages 29828 to 29832 - redacted - private session. ²⁹⁸³³ (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted)

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I think when we go into details of the unit, ²⁹⁸³⁴ there is a risk to reveal his identity.

JUDGE MAY: Let's go on to something else or we go into private session.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There's no need.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So in paragraph 4, you say that there were a lot of Croats, so I will not go into that. You mention other ethnicities as well which I will not refer to lest I identify you. And in the same paragraph, if I understand this well, you say all ethnicities were represented and there was no intolerance on that ground, on that basis.

A. If we are talking about paragraph 4, that's true.

Q. And all this is true, accurate.

A. Of course it is.

Q. So there was no intolerance at that time, no inter-ethnic intolerance?

A. There was really none, at least not in my unit.

Q. It was a JNA unit which, as you say, was involved in JNA activities in Eastern Slavonia from the beginning of the war; correct?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. And when you say there was no intolerance, that implies all types of human relations in your unit, interpersonal relations in your unit.

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Tell me, to the best of your knowledge and conviction, Mr. C-057, would it be fair to say that the JNA, at least in the time when you were in it and from what you know, in the battles in Eastern Slavonia ²⁹⁸³⁵ acted as a genuinely Yugoslav army committed to Yugoslavia with a Yugoslav orientation that displayed no discrimination against any ethnicity?

A. I think it would be simplified to say so. It is true that my unit was mixed in terms of ethnicity, but it is also true that from the beginning of October nobody explained to us the objectives of our operation. Are we preserving Yugoslavia? Are we creating a Greater Serbia? Are we moving on to Zagreb? Nobody told us that.

Q. Since you're answering to me only about your own unit, please limit yourself to that.

A. Nobody abandoned their position in my unit.

Q. Nobody; right?

A. The only person who did was a Serb of higher rank. He was the only one who left the unit.

Q. He was the only one?

A. Yes. And he was a Serb. And he did not run away because he was a nationalist but because he wanted to save his skin from this party.

Q. Is it true that major propaganda preceded this conflict?

A. Yes, from the Croatian side. We were called the Serb-Chetnik army.

Q. And you were referred to as the occupying force.

A. Yes. I had occasion to listen to Radio Erdut myself where we were called "the Serb-Chetnik occupying army."

Q. Tell me, please, since you are talking in the third paragraph about the fact that your unit was equipped, technically, 100 per cent, but the manpower level was only 30 to 40 per cent of establishment. ²⁹⁸³⁶

A. Yes. It was from April to the end of June 1991.

JUDGE MAY: We are now going beyond the time and we have to adjourn.

Witness C-057, I'm afraid we must ask you to come back next Tuesday to conclude your evidence, and I'm sorry we haven't been able to finish today, but we have to leave the courtroom because another case is going to come in.

Mr. Milosevic, for your preparation, you can have one hour more of cross-examination of this witness on Tuesday.

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

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will adjourn now.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, just -- Your Honour, you have not reminded the witness yet that he is not to have contact.

JUDGE MAY: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff reminds me -- we haven't got an interpreter. Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, would you remind the witness for me not to speak to anybody.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.05 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 2nd day of

December, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.