³⁰⁷⁰⁸

Tuesday, 13 January 2004

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, there are two witnesses listed for today. It is important that we conclude them both if at all possible. There are a number of administrative matters I should bring to your attention. Might it be convenient if I do that between the two witnesses, at which time I should have some speaking notes to make matters more efficient?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. NICE: By way of forecast, however, there are two points. One is we will be filing today an application for safe conduct of a particular witness under Article 18 of the headquarters agreement. For timetable reasons we would be extremely grateful if that can have consideration by the Chamber as soon as possible, and I'll get that filed immediately. And it may help the Chamber to know that I'm going to invite you to consider fixing strict timetables of examination-in-chief and cross-examination for remaining witnesses so that we can know with certainty what witnesses can be accommodated rather than it being a matter evolving simply by passage of time. But I'll come to all those matters between the two witnesses. Thank you very much.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Yes.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution calls Mr. Nenad Zafirovic. ³⁰⁷⁰⁹

JUDGE MAY: How long do you anticipate you might be?

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I anticipate that I will take approximately 40 minutes in my direct examination. We will be admitting a number of paragraphs that are contained in the summary and I will notify the Court as I do that.

Your Honour, while we are waiting for the witness to be brought into the Chamber could I ask that an exhibit number be assigned for a binder of five exhibits, that I could draw the Chamber's attention to a correction that needs to be made to the summary.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, the next number, please.

THE REGISTRAR: 632, Your Honours.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, in the summary that you've been provided under tab 5, it was a courtesy copy of Exhibit 538, tab 9. Overnight we've removed that from the bundle of exhibits and we've provided that separately. So what is listed as tab 6 in the witness summary is now 5, and 5 has been omitted.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Thank you.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE MAY: If you would like to 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 would like to take a seat.

WITNESS: NENAD ZAFIROVIC

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. ³⁰⁷¹⁰ Examined by Mr. Groome:

Q. Sir, can I ask you to begin your testimony by telling us your name.

A. My name is Nenad Zafirovic.

Q. And what is your profession?

A. I'm a reporter, a journalist.

MR. GROOME: Can I ask that the witness be shown tab 1 of Exhibit 632.

Q. And, sir, can I draw your attention to the bottom right-hand corner and ask you is that your initials on the bottom of that page?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Does this document accurately record your professional and educational experience?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. Can I ask you now to turn to tab 2 of that same exhibit, 632.

A. Yes.

Q. And are those your initials on the bottom of that page?

A. Yes, those are my initials.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, it is my intention to lead all of the evidence today in open session. The witness has requested that the person whose name appears at the top of tab 2, if he be permitted to be allowed to refer to him as a JNA officer rather than call his name publicly in court because of concerns he has for this person's security. If that's acceptable to the Chamber.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. ³⁰⁷¹¹

MR. GROOME: Sir, I'm finished with the exhibits for the time being.

Q. Sir, I want to draw your attention now to August of 1991. Did you have a conversation with the JNA officer that's listed in tab 2 of 632?

A. Yes, I did talk to that officer.

Q. And did you have a conversation with him regarding some events that had occurred in Erdut?

A. Yes. That in fact was the main topic of our conversation. We were discussing what was happening in Erdut over the past few weeks, and I was informed of the situation on the ground.

Q. Did you have a conversation with him regarding the destruction of the Catholic church there, and if so, did he tell you who it was that destroyed the church?

A. Yes, because the first thing one sees on entering Erdut is the destroyed Catholic church. I asked him who had done it, and he answered that it had been done by soldiers of Zeljko Raznjatovic Arkan.

Q. Did he tell you whether or not he informed his superiors in the JNA about this act by Arkan's men?

A. Yes. He told me that he had informed them about it, and he also expressed his personal disapproval of this fact -- of this act.

Q. Did he also inform you about Arkan or Arkan's men arresting two of his men, JNA soldiers?

A. Yes. That was referred to as well.

Q. When did he say that Arkan's men arrested two of his soldiers, his JNA soldiers? ³⁰⁷¹²

A. I think this was in mid or end of August. These were regular soldiers of the Yugoslav People's Army, and according to this officer, they were taken to the auto centre or the headquarters of the Serbian Volunteer Guards in Erdut where they were detained, after which an officer of the JNA came with his units in front of this Alpha Centre in Erdut and asked or demanded Arkan to release these soldiers immediately, which he did. And according to this officer, he went with him to his command. Arkan apologised for the incident and promised that such things would not happen again.

Q. And this was in August of what year?

A. August 1991, which is the first year of the beginning of the war.

Q. Sir --

JUDGE KWON: If you could ask the witness whether he had been aware of the reason for the -- Arkan's men to arrest the JNA soldiers at that time.

MR. GROOME:

Q. Did the JNA officer tell you or explain why it was his men were arrested?

A. In his opinion, this was an attempt by Arkan to frighten the Yugoslav People's Army or, rather, the unit that was there and to show that he virtually controlled the area. This is not my opinion. This is what I heard from this officer.

Q. Now, sir, is it true that you are familiar with Arkan's centre in Erdut and you have visited it -- or visited it during this period a number of times? ^{30713 BLANK PAGE 30714}

A. Yes, I am familiar with the centre. Its name is Alpha. It was situated in the former wine cellar in Erdut. On one occasion with a group of journalists I entered the centre. It was a kind of promotional visit, and we were taken around several premises, places where members dined, and a short statement was given, and that was the first and last time that I had visited this centre in Erdut.

Q. The JNA officer that relayed this account to you of his men being arrested, did he inform you of any corrective action or any action that the JNA took with respect to Arkan in regard to this incident?

A. No, he didn't. And as far as I know, no measures were taken against Zeljko Raznjatovic Arkan.

Q. Now, during the times that you were in the Erdut area near the Alpha Centre, did you ever see a person who was commonly known at that time as Captain Dragan?

A. Yes. That is Dragan Vasiljkovic, also known as Captain Dragan. On several occasions passing through -- along the road going past the Alpha Centre I and some colleagues of mine would see Dragan Vasiljevic engaging in tactical exercises with members of the Serbian Volunteer Guard of Zeljko Raznjatovic Arkan.

Q. During the course of one of your visits to the Alpha Centre did you become aware that a person by the name of Jovica Stanisic was visiting the centre?

A. I have to correct you. This wasn't during any visit to the Alpha Centre, but while staying in Erdut, we wanted to pass along the road leading to the Alpha Centre but it was blocked. A column of black ³⁰⁷¹⁵ vehicles went by and later, subsequently we learned that Jovica Stanisic was in one of those black vehicles.

Q. Did you ever see a person by the name of Radovan Stojicic, commonly known as Badza, in the Erdut area or the area of the camp?

A. No, not in the area of the Alpha Centre but in the area of Erdut, yes. On one occasion he came to visit a part of the armoured Mechanised Brigade of the JNA that was situated in the area.

Q. During any of your trips to the Erdut area, did you ever cross a border that was guarded by members of Arkan's Tigers?

A. Yes. The bridge at Bogojevo, which actually separated the part of Serbia not swept by war and a part of Eastern Slavonia where there was a war, and on the Slavonia side of the bridge were members of the Serbian Volunteer Guard of Zeljko Raznjatovic Arkan.

Q. And on how many occasions did you see them at that border crossing?

A. I can't say with absolute certainty, but it must have been more than six or seven times.

Q. I would like to now draw your attention to April 1992, to the Bosnia municipality of Bijeljina. During that month did you, in pursuit of your work as a journalist, have occasion to go to Bijeljina?

A. Yes. At the beginning of April when conflicts started in Bijeljina.

Q. I want to draw your attention specifically to the Serbian side of the border on your way to Bijeljina. Can you describe for the Chamber what if any armed forces you saw gathering on the Serb side of the border? ³⁰⁷¹⁶

A. Yes. This was several days prior to the events in Bijeljina. I think it was the 2nd of April, close to the frontier crossing at Sremska Raca. I was driving with a colleague towards Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I saw a member of Arkan's Serbian Volunteer Guards.

Q. Approximately how many? Was it just one member or were there other members of Arkan's guards or Arkan's Tigers on the Serbian side of the border?

A. I must say it was a group. There were several vehicles or, rather, jeeps. There was an armoured vehicle, a camouflage armoured vehicle, and the exact number of members of the guard I can't tell you, but I think there were more than 60 of them.

Q. Were the vehicles that you describe, did they contain any logo identifying the organisation that they belonged to?

A. Yes. SDG, standing for the Serbian Volunteer Guards.

Q. Now, I want to draw your attention to a period of time after you entered into Bijeljina. Were you present when Mrs. Plavsic and Mr. Abdic visited from the Assembly in Sarajevo?

A. Yes, I was present.

Q. Were you present during a meeting that was held in Bijeljina pursuant to their visit?

A. Yes, I was present during part of the meeting between Mrs. Plavsic, Mr. Abdic, and Mr. Zeljko Raznjatovic Arkan, and Mr. Ljubisa Savic Mauzer.

Q. Can you briefly explain to the Chamber the circumstances surrounding your attendance at that meeting. ³⁰⁷¹⁷

A. The circumstances were rather strange. As a journalist, I had managed to reach Bijeljina. We had heard that a delegation was coming from Sarajevo. At the time, Mrs. Plavsic and Mr. Abdic were members of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. They were members of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the reason that they were said to be coming was to calm down the situation and the conflict that had broken out in Bijeljina the previous night.

The delegation arrived in Bijeljina, as far as I can remember around midday, they went to the Municipal Assembly building where they were met by Zeljko Raznjatovic Arkan, and Ljubisa Savic Mauzer was also present who introduced himself as a representative of the Serbs in Bijeljina and head of the Crisis Staff of Serbs in Bijeljina. And for unknown reasons that were never explained to us Goran Hadzic was also there, who at the time was the president of the Serbian Council of Eastern Slavonia. Also present were officers of the Yugoslav People's Army. I remember the presence of General or Colonel Jankovic whose units were in the barracks in Bijeljina.

Q. Drawing your attention specifically to a meeting held at that time, were journalists allowed unrestricted access to that meeting?

A. Journalists were given a photo-op at the beginning of the meeting, as it is known. There were several cameras and cameramen present, after which all the journalists were chased out. As this is a large room in the Municipal Assembly, I simply sat down in a corner, waiting to be thrown out, but this didn't happen, so I can say that it was actually by chance that I attended a part of that meeting. ³⁰⁷¹⁸

Q. Were you eventually thrown out of the meeting when your identity was discovered?

A. Yes. Mr. Ljubisa Savic Mauzer, about 30 or 35 minutes later noticed me and asked me what I was doing there. I told him what my job was, and then he asked me to leave.

MR. GROOME: I'm going to ask now that the witness be shown Prosecution -- Exhibit 632, tab 3. It is a videotape of approximately five minutes.

Q. Sir, I'm going to ask you to look at this on the monitor before you, and I will ask you some questions during the course of it running.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, there seems to be a problem with the video. Just give me half a second in trying to get it to move.

Q. Sir, while we're waiting for the video to load, are you -- you've seen this video already; is that not true?

A. Yes, you showed it to me.

Q. And are you visible in the video?

A. Yes, at a certain point in time you can see me passing along.

Q. Can I ask you to characterise for the Chamber the meeting that you observed while you were there; the respective roles of Arkan, of General or Colonel Jankovic as you refer to him, of Mrs. Plavsic, and of Mr. Abdic.

A. I have to say that the meeting evolved in an atmosphere of great tension, especially at the beginning. There was a serious dispute between Mr. Raznjatovic and Mr. Abdic. Raznjatovic accused Abdic and what he called the Muslim and Ustasha sides of arming the Muslims in Bijeljina. ^{30719 BLANK PAGE 30720} To corroborate that, he brought a pistol of a rather strange shape and green in colour, and Raznjatovic said it was a Croatian pistol, the Sokac model, and he accused Abdic that they had received it from the Croatian side. Abdic denied this, pointing out that this was a conflict between armed Serbs and Muslim unarmed inhabitants of Bijeljina. Raznjatovic rejected this and denied it.

Mrs. Plavsic throughout tried to calm the situation down and appealed to both Raznjatovic and Abdic to do everything they could to bring the situation in Bijeljina back to normal. As regards representatives of the Yugoslav People's Army, they virtually didn't speak during the meeting. General Jankovic kept notes, but during the part of the meeting that I attended, he didn't say anything.

Q. Sir, the video is now playing. Can you see it on the monitor before you?

A. Yes, I can.

[Videotape played]

MR. GROOME:

Q. And is this the meeting that you have just described to the Chamber?

A. Yes, that is the meeting.

Q. I am going to ask that we watch it for a minute or two, and I will ask for it to be paused at a particular point and ask you to describe what we see in the video.

MR. GROOME: Could you pause the video here. ³⁰⁷²¹

Q. Sir, we are now at 1 hour, 54 minutes, 32 seconds of the video. Can I ask you to describe who is the person sitting that can be seen in the frame?

A. It is Mr. Fikret Abdic, at that time a member of the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the man standing next to him is the commander of the Serbian Volunteer Guards, Zeljko Raznjatovic Arkan.

Q. And the gun that we can see on the table there, is that the green gun that you referred to in your testimony?

A. Yes. That is this rifle or pistol of strange shape that he called the Sokac model.

Q. And where again did he say that he got this gun from, this painted green gun?

A. He said that that rifle had been captured from one of the Muslims during combat the previous night, and he claimed that those rifles were obtained by Muslims from the Republic of Croatia.

Q. Sir, before I conclude the running of the video, can you describe who is to Mr. Abdic's left in the video?

A. On that side we see Mrs. Biljana Plavsic. She was to my right.

Q. And --

A. On my left is Mr. Zeljko Raznjatovic.

Q. And who sitting at the table was to Mr. Abdic's right? Who is on his right-hand side?

A. To the right of Mr. Abdic is one of the members of the JNA.

Q. We will conclude the video now at this time. Sir, can I draw your attention now to the talks that were held in ³⁰⁷²² Geneva in an attempt to resolve the conflict in Bosnia. There have been a number of witnesses who have testified about those talks. My questions to you are limited.

First, did you cover those talks? Did you go to Geneva and cover what happened at those talks?

A. Yes, I did. I spent in Geneva the time from June 1993 until sometime in November. Not all the time. I would be there on a stint for 15 or 20 days, after which I would return to Belgrade, or depending how long or how well the talks were proceeding.

Q. During the time that you covered those talks, did you have regular contact with members of the Bosnian Serb delegation to those talks?

A. Yes. I had regular contacts with the members of the delegation of the Bosnian Serbs, and not only them but with members of all the three delegations including the delegation of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the delegation of Herceg-Bosna.

Q. Can I ask you to identify for the Chamber the most prominent members of the Bosnian Serb delegation with which -- with whom you had regular contact during the course of covering the Geneva talks.

A. Practically throughout the negotiations the delegation of the Bosnian Serbs comprised Radovan Karadzic, at that time president of Republika Srpska; Momcilo Krajisnik, president of the Assembly of Republika Srpska; and Nikola Koljevic, at that time vice-president of Republika Srpska.

Q. Can I ask you, based upon your observations and your dealings with the Bosnian Serb delegation, what if anything you can say about their ³⁰⁷²³ relationship with the accused, Mr. Milosevic, during the course of the Geneva talks? What interaction existed between them?

A. First of all, the accused spent several days in Geneva on several occasions, and in those moments when he was present in Geneva, he was practically the head of the delegation of Bosnian Serbs. At those times, they were difficult to get in touch with, and from all information that I was able to gather as a journalist and the information available to my colleagues, the accused was the head of their delegation and everything depended on him.

Q. Were you ever present with Mr. Karadzic when Mr. Milosevic contacted him by phone? Were you ever present in the room?

A. I can say yes to that question. On one occasion, more precisely one morning, I went for a brief interview with Mr. Karadzic, and I wanted to get a statement from him regarding the events of the previous day. We sat down - there were also Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Koljevic in the same room - and at that moment the telephone rang in the office. Mr. Karadzic answered the phone, and he said, "Hello, Mr. President." At that moment, Mr. Krajisnik asked me to leave the room.

Q. During your discussions with the members of the Bosnian Serb delegation, how would they refer or by what term would they refer to Mr. Milosevic?

A. Officially, on the record, they would address him "Mr. President," whereas in informal conversations he was referred to as The Big Boss or The Big Daddy.

Q. Now I want to draw your attention to Belgrade itself. During the ³⁰⁷²⁴ course of this time period, were you also in Belgrade, working as a journalist?

A. Yes. In that period I lived and worked in Belgrade as a journalist.

Q. Did there ever come a time when you saw Mr. Krajisnik in Belgrade on an unannounced visit and have a conversation with him regarding why he was there?

A. I can say yes to that question too. On one occasion, quite by chance, I met with Mr. Krajisnik. It was sometime -- somewhere in downtown Belgrade near the offices of Republika Srpska. I was surprised to see him, and I asked how come he was in Belgrade, because his visit had not been announced. And he replied that he was due to attend some talks in the Ministry of the Interior.

Q. As best you're able, can you fix a date on when you saw him, or a time period when you saw Mr. Krajisnik?

A. It's difficult for me to give you a precise answer, but I think it could have been the very end of 1993 or the beginning of 1994, but again I can't be sure.

Q. Was there another occasion when you saw General Ratko Mladic on an unannounced visit in Belgrade?

A. Yes. Again, in view of the numerous visits by foreign statesmen and other foreign officials to the accused, whose office was in downtown Belgrade in the so-called Presidency of Serbia, the agency for which I worked had duty service at the parking lot outside the building of the Presidency, and on one such occasion we saw Ratko Mladic coming out of ^{30725 BLANK PAGE 30726} that brigade.

Q. Was this the Federal Presidency or the Serbian Presidency?

A. It was the building of the Presidency of the Republic of Serbia.

Q. Sir, I want to now draw your attention to Pale in May of 1993.

MR. GROOME: If I could ask the director to prepare the ELMO I will ask that an exhibit be placed on the ELMO.

Q. Sir, did you cover this 30th meeting of the Republika Srpska Assembly session that was held in Pale, in Jahorina in May of 1993?

A. Yes, I reported from that session.

Q. And were you present during the entire Assembly session?

A. From its beginning until it ended in the small hours of the following day.

Q. Were you aware or were you present when Mr. Milosevic addressed that Assembly?

A. Yes, I was there.

Q. To your knowledge, how many times did Mr. Milosevic address that Assembly?

A. He addressed the deputies for the first time in open session, and his speech was followed by the speech of the Greek Premier Constantin Mitsotakis. The second time he addressed the deputies of Republika Srpska in closed session, and according to some information that I'm not able to confirm, he again addressed them towards the very end of the session.

Q. I'm going to ask that tab 5 of Exhibit 632 be placed on the ELMO. And, sir, if I could ask you to take the pointer that should be in front of you, I'm going to ask you to begin by describing to the Chamber what it ³⁰⁷²⁷ is they're looking at, or what it is that is tab 5.

A. On this chart, you can see my drawing of the Jahorina hotel, which is a place where members of the JNA and families resided in a place which was the seat of the Republika Srpska. The place is called Rajska Dolina. Here you can see the press room --

Q. Sir, since you're pointing to things. You need to point on the original to your left for us to be able to see where you're pointing, okay? So if I could ask you just to point to your left.

A. I will start from the beginning. This is the entrance to the Rajska Dolina Hotel. This was the lobby. Right next to the entrance there was the designated press room, as it was known, with a couple of telephone sets and fax machines, and in addition to that, there was another room available to journalists for their use.

Q. To save time, perhaps if I could ask you to indicate particular points of interests that I think are of most assistance to the Chamber. Could I ask you to indicate the room in which the Assembly session -- where the Assembly met and in which the speeches were given. Can I ask you to point to that on the diagram

A. It is this large room here. It is practically a dining hall that had been adapted to house parliament sessions. This big table was designated for the Presidency of the Republika Srpska. Momcilo Krajisnik, then president of the Assembly, was seated in the middle. This is the roster from which the speakers addressed the Assembly, and this is the first row where high officials from Belgrade, including Greek guests, were seated. Slobodan Milosevic must have sat somewhere here. I cannot ³⁰⁷²⁸ remember exactly whether it was on the left or on the right. The second row was also occupied by high officials, and the rest of the rows --

Q. You've testified that Mr. Milosevic addressed the Assembly twice, once in open session, once in closed session. Can I ask you to point where the journalists were during his first address to the 30th Assembly? If you would just point to that at this time.

A. The journalists were towards the end of the hall on the left and on the right. They had their equipment located here for mixing, and they could obtain sound from the front part of the room.

Q. Did there come a time when all the journalists were directed to leave that room, that the Assembly was going into closed session?

A. Yes. It was after the first part of the session when a break was announced for dinner. And following that, the deputies returned to the room and resumed work, and perhaps one or two speeches later the Chairperson, Krajisnik, suggested that they move into closed session because the subject they were discussing was serious and confidential. That means that it was to be closed for the public.

Q. Were all the journalists required to leave the room?

A. Yes. All journalists were requested to leave the room, as far as I remember. Only the camera of the Pale television station remained inside.

Q. Where were the journalists made to stay during this second address in closed session by Mr. Milosevic?

A. The journalists were on these premises here. And since they were working in closed session, and this was a glass door here, two soldiers ³⁰⁷²⁹ were positioned in those places to prevent anyone from entering. And the journalists were still able to see through the glass door who the speakers were and perhaps even what they were talking about, whereas a part of the journalists returned to the room next to the entrance of the hotel.

Q. Did there come a time when you were able to sneak a tape recorder back into and record a portion of Mr. Milosevic's speech that he gave in closed session?

A. I did do that, but not directly, not myself. A couple of my colleagues and I availed ourselves of the opportunity when we saw some deputies coming out to the restrooms to ask them whether they would be willing to take a tape recorder back in, and they did, and thus we were able to record part of the speech of the accused when he addressed the Assembly.

Q. I'm going to ask that Exhibit 632, tab 4 be now played. Sir, I'm going to ask you to listen to this and then identify whether or not it is the audiotape.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, for the convenience of the Court, I have provided the other exhibit, 538, tab 9, I believe, a courtesy copy of that and have marked on that the portion -- that's the official transcript that was received from the Republika Srpska government, and I've marked on that the portion of the speech that the Chamber will now hear on audiotape, and also included in the binder of materials is the -- another translation of the actual tape and the Chamber will note or be able to see that they do correspond.

I'd ask that the tape be now played. ³⁰⁷³⁰

JUDGE KWON: Let me clarify this. This tape is not the original one which the witness was able to get at that time.

MR. GROOME: Perhaps if I could ask a few questions, Your Honours, and I'll be able to clear that up.

Q. Sir, do you have -- what we're going to listen to now, is this the original tape that came out of that room?

A. No, Your Honour, it is not the original tape. It is part of the material that was broadcast on the same day in a radio show within a broader programme about the session of the Republika Srpska.

Q. Before we hear the tape, can I ask a couple of questions. After getting the tape, did you go and participate in a radio show in which you played a portion of that tape?

A. Yes, precisely, although it was not immediately after I got the tape, because I got the tape around 2.00 or 3.00 o'clock in the morning, and the session lasted until 6.00 a.m. After the session was over, I sent another telephone report to my head office, and after that I returned from Pale to Belgrade, went to work, edited my report, and it was used in a broadcast that was made at 3.00 p.m.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My associate received yesterday documents under several tabs. He got them yesterday for today. But the final tab is 6. After that, I have no more documents. This is what we received yesterday.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And you seem to be speaking about tab 9. ^{30731 BLANK PAGE 30732}

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, it may be a bit confusing. If I can just restate what is now contained in the bundle of exhibits. Tab 4 is the transcript of this audiotape that we will now hear. I provided as a courtesy to the Court a copy of 538, tab 9, which is the official transcript by the Republika Srpska government of the same session, so that the Court can compare the audiotape plus the official transcript taken at the time of that closed session.

I'd now ask that the tape be played. If the director can broadcast it.

[Audiotape played]

MR. GROOME:

Q. Sir, is this an accurate -- fair and accurate copy of the tape as you recall it that was made of Mr. Milosevic's closed session remarks to the 30th session of the Republika Srpska Assembly?

A. Yes.

Q. And were you one of the journalists who made these remarks that were made in closed session? Were you one of them -- one of the journalists who published them shortly after they were made?

A. I have already answered that question, and I can repeat. It was broadcast eight and a half, nine hours after the session of the Assembly of the Republika Srpska ended. So I don't know if we were the first, but we were among the first radio stations that broadcast this material.

Q. Sir, the final area that I'd ask you to deal with here today is to summarise your experience as an independent journalist working in Serbia during this time period. Can I ask you in a few sentences to describe ³⁰⁷³³ what independence -- what ability independent journalists like yourself had to disseminate objective news and opinions about what was going on in Bosnia?

A. I have to say that from my personal experience, I can say that I really was able to report freely and objectively on all events, including events in Bosnia and Herzegovina, primarily to the editorial policy of the -- of my employer at the time, and that is the Belgrade Radio 92. What might have been a problem was the fact that B92 radio was not very far reaching technically speaking, and many people in Serbia were not able to listen to us.

Q. What was the area that B92 had the capacity to broadcast to?

A. In the period we are discussing, B92 could be heard in downtown Belgrade and the immediate vicinity of Belgrade.

MR. GROOME: I have no further questions.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we've considered how long you should have in light of the relatively short time which the Prosecution have had, and the answer is that you will have one hour, if you require it, for cross-examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I expected at least the hour and a half that was indicated here, because this witness was introduced as 92 bis. I didn't think the side opposite would spend any time on him at all. In any case, I will try to use my time rationally. Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] So for the sake of rationality, let us clear up ³⁰⁷³⁴ the issue where you left off the examination-in-chief, this notorious session. We saw an audio clip of the discussion where we could hear various views expressed at the session. I hope you understand this, Witness.

A. I think what we heard was your address to the deputies of the Assembly of Republika Srpska.

Q. Of course. It was my address to them, because all of us who spoke, who took the floor at the Assembly, spoke to the entire audience, the entire room, and it is only one fragment of the discussion in which I propose arguments to the contrary to those that had been heard before regarding the adoption of the Vance-Owen Plan, and I am opposing arguments that were presented in favour of rejecting the plan. Do you understand that? Because you said a moment ago you followed the entire session from beginning to end.

A. Of course I understand that, but, Your Honours, regrettably I was not able to follow the entirety of the session because part of it was closed to the public. I followed very closely the part which was open to the public.

Q. Well, this small closed session resulted from a very fiery discussion that had taken place, if I remember correctly, and I hope that as one of the attending journalists you were there in the building all day.

A. Yes, I was.

Q. You know it was doubly closed. It was closed twice, in fact; once when the speaker of the Assembly asked the journalists to be removed for ³⁰⁷³⁵ reasons of confidentiality, and the second time when members of the deputies' club were conferring upstairs, and Cosic, myself, Mitsotakis and the other guests were waiting downstairs. Can you confirm that?

A. Yes, I can confirm that. I said at the moment when members of the deputies' club had their own private consultations there was a closed session downstairs.

Q. That lasted for several hours, if you remember.

A. I cannot say with any certainty how long that took, by think it might have been for 60 minutes.

Q. All right. There are records to show that, and I suppose there must be an audio recording, at least one, of this session from which you only took out a fragment, as you said. Don't you think that in fact it was the side opposite that took out this fragment from the broader material that is available to them?

A. Your Honours, I must say that the segment that was played here was played in the radio show Interview of the Day of Radio B92. The segment that you heard was my own selection, made at that point in time when I compiled this for the radio show. So the opposing side or, rather, the OTP simply used material from that 60-minute broadcast.

MR. GROOME: Lest there be any confusion, the entire Assembly session, including the comments of all of the participants, not only Mr. Milosevic, are already in evidence as Exhibit 538, tab 9.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, though the witness is making the point -- or the accused is making the point that we haven't heard all of it. Maybe that's a good thing. But let's go on. I think we've got the point. ³⁰⁷³⁶

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, on the basis of what we did hear a few minutes ago, I followed the transcript as I was listening, it is my voice, indeed. It is part of the arguments that I presented as to why the Vance-Owen Plan should be accepted, but it makes sense when what was said previously is heard as well. So the arguments presented then have to do with what was said previously. And I heard my own voice when I said we came to the conclusion together when we were from -- when we were in Geneva, Cosic, Karadzic, Bulatovic, Owen, Vance and others were in Geneva. There are lots of dots -- or, rather, there is not enough punctuation but you as a journalist can see that. Anyway, we observed with our constitutional lawyers there isn't a confederation in the world with fewer powers than Bosnia-Herzegovina.

So fears were voiced, had been voiced that Serbs would be unequal, that this would be something that would not be good for the Serbs, and so on and so forth. And that is why I'm referring to this. That is why I'm saying that there is not a single man in uniform. And this reference is made to Bosnia-Herzegovina. There is not a single policeman, there is not a single soldier, there is not a single administrative organ. Everything is within the provinces; the police, the army, the administration, the judiciary, transportation, the economy, et cetera, everything, and so on --

JUDGE MAY: You are asking questions of the witness. You're not doing that, you're making a speech. What is the question you want to put to the witness? ^{30737 BLANK PAGE 30738}

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not making a speech. I'm just trying to -- I mean, this is what was played by the witness himself here. This is what the witness played here.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So then I'm talking about foreign policy. And the point is -- is this clear to you, Mr. Zafirovic? I say that a lever was provided that has the absolutely same importance and bears the same weight as the others. So the Serbs are equal there. They have equal rights. And then I give an example. Probably Radovan Karadzic, together with Alija Izetbegovic and Mate Boban, because these are the three leaders of the three communities, since foreign policy is a common one, then they will go to the conference in Iceland together because they constitute the Presidency. And then I explained therefore, they have equal rights. They are equal.

JUDGE MAY: Now, it's time that you were -- let the witness answer. You're not giving evidence at the moment. Now, do you -- do you agree -- let the witness answer what it is you're putting.

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, Islamic conference rather than Iceland conference.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's not for me to agree or disagree. As far as I can understand the point of this testimony, I'm supposed to answer questions related to events that I attended, and what the accused is doing now is presenting a political opinion. If you ask me to give an answer to that, I shall do so, but I do not think that -- ³⁰⁷³⁹

JUDGE MAY: If you --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- There's a question--

JUDGE MAY: If you have got anything useful to add, say so. But he's conducting himself, and he is allowed, to some extent, the right to ask questions but he's not entitled to speak all the time. Now, if you've got anything useful that you wish to answer to what's put so far, answer it or we'll go back to his asking questions. But if you'd like to say something, of course you've got the opportunity to say so now.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I really have no comment.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Since this was taken out of context, I would like to repeat, Mr. May, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Kwon. I received this yesterday afternoon from my associate, all of this that was provided. There is tab 5 over here. Mr. Groome singled it out, and it is the very same text, and this excerpt was taken from there. So since you all received it just like I did, I would like to draw your attention to that as well. I have the Serbian text here. I see that it says 45, 44, pages 44, 45. Mr. Zafirovic, I assume you got the same thing that I got.

A. No, I did not get a transcript of the entire speech made by the accused.

Q. Far be it from the entire speech. Pages were simply plucked out at random, a page or two. I'm just talking about the tabs that I got. I assumed that you received them too.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the witness was not provided a copy of Exhibit 538. ³⁰⁷⁴⁰

JUDGE MAY: Have you got a copy now for him in case there is something he might wish to answer?

MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Now, what is it that you want to ask the witness about, Mr. Milosevic? What page? Perhaps you could ask him that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, what was played a few minutes ago shows this same text. It says a lever was given which has the same weight, the same importance as others. What is referred to are the powers shared by all three communities in Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is what was quoted from Mr. Zafirovic's tape, this very same text which is on a page that has an ERN number in Serbian.

And towards the end, this sentence was given, a lever was given with the same weight and the same importance with others. It shows that it is the very same tiny segment of the speech that was extracted here. So it's on this very same page.

In that speech, it says with wise behaviour and sensible action in that position.

Q. So is it clear to you, since you followed the session, that that is precisely what I advocated and Cosic and Mitsotakis and Bulatovic and others? What we were advocating was based on the fact that Serbs had achieved an equality of rights. This Vance-Owen Plan guaranteed peace, and that's why it should be accepted.

So the insert that you refer to is an insert through which I am debating with them and some of their positions, because I'm saying that they live in a delusion as far as the importance of the plan is concerned. ³⁰⁷⁴¹ And then I say, "Do not say that the Serbs will not be equal --"

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. The witness should have a chance to answer these various points that you are making. Is there anything you want to add to what's been suggested?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I can only say as a journalists who followed the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina I am aware that the Vance-Owen Plan would have brought peace to Bosnia-Herzegovina. By your leave, I would like to explain why it is precisely this clip that you heard was played in the radio B92 broadcast, if you allow me to do so.

JUDGE MAY: You could certainly, the matter has been raised, but if you could deal with it fairly briefly, please, because the accused's time is limited, but certainly for some matter you wish to raise, of course you can do so.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'll be very brief. The reason why we decided to play precisely this material in the radio programme is the fact that the accused, when addressing the Assembly of Republika Srpska, used the word "we," not "you" as the Republika Srpska but "we." And that was quite different to what the accused was stating otherwise, that Serbia was not involved in the war. It is a fact that B92, by playing this recording, wanted to show that the accused was in a way involved in what was taking place in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Oh, great, Mr. Zafirovic. Thank you very much for having put it ³⁰⁷⁴² this way. My entire approach at this session was that peace was in the greatest interest of all Serbs. And I said that on several occasions during that session, and that can be seen from the transcript. For all Serbs, Serbs in Bosnia, Serbs in Serbia, Serbs everywhere, regardless of where they are. And since I am a Serb, of course I say "we." And when I criticise certain positions, I say "you." And as far as peace is concerned, the issue of peace, which was of utmost importance for all Serbs, of course I say "we" because I'm a Serb. This is what can be read on this particular page.

I'm not going to quote this yet again, what you quoted just now --

JUDGE MAY: Allow the witness to respond to your comment. If there's anything you want to add to what the accused has put, then of course you can answer.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, since there wasn't a question involved.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Now on the following page, 02191, the last figures are 0191, I keep referring to the arguments against the plan in order to voice my approve of the plan. And then I say many have spoken about things that I absolutely cannot agree with. Many advocated the rejection of the plan, and they pointed out that war had been imposed upon us so that we could defend ourselves. Who is challenging that? Of course war was imposed on the Serb people. They had to defend themselves. And who was bringing that into question, that war was being imposed? But what else did the Serb people do? Had they not defended themselves, there would have been ^{30743 BLANK PAGE 30744} no such plan. That is the point. And then I state that explicitly. That is an argument in favour of the opposite, that this plan should be accepted. That is what is written here.

JUDGE MAY: Now, wait a moment. The witness must have a chance to answer the comment if he wishes to.

Yes, Mr. Zafirovic. If you wish to answer, do.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No, indeed I have nothing to say.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. This is part of the clip that we're talking about. And then I say in order to confirm exactly the issue that you raise now, since I'm discussing peace in the first person plural, because it is in the interest of all Serbs. I say: "We are either going to make senseless sacrifices, and who has the right to do that on behalf of the people? So that is not the question that is being put here, whether we are going to die slower or faster, because people who spoke against the plan said that this was a plan for dying. That is not the question. The question is whether to die or whether to live, and living implies living in peace." So that is what it says here. It is quite clear why, and I believe that even today everybody believes that the primary interests for all Serbs then and now is and was peace. And of course this pertains to Serbs in Serbia and Serbs in Republika Srpska and so on. I'm not going to go into the economic references made, and so on and so forth. I'm just going to say when I'm saying "you", finally I say: "Do not tell us that you feel abandoned." Because we insisted that they ³⁰⁷⁴⁵ should accept the plan. And then some of them say, "We feel abandoned, you're not supporting us, et cetera." And I say, "Do not say that you feel abandoned. We who shared all your concerns all this time. Serbia did its utmost to help at a great cost to the population of Serbia, the 10 million inhabitants of Serbia, but do not say that you feel abandoned, because that is not fair."

And then, since there's an interruption there, two pages were simply taken out, then there is an English page here, 0204 are the last numbers, and that is where the speech ends. [In English] "Is the Assembly going to decide on the reasonable way or the unreasonable way to the goal? I do not think that anybody should convince this Assembly about this, because I think that peace is the reasonable way. On the other hand, only the crimes against the Serbs can be achieved under the slogan that only the Serb does not wish peace. I think that this must be taken into consideration. This is why I think that now, when the road towards peace opens, you cannot explain to your people more massive brutality than during the entire war so far. You cannot explain that to either the people of Republika Srpska or the people in Serbia. In the end, I wish to tell you and I urge you to remember this: Everything needs to be sacrificed for the people except for the people themselves. You cannot sacrifice the people and you have no right to do that, either as the Assembly or as anything else."

[Interpretation] So all of this is fragmented, and I assume that it can be seen that the point, the central issue is peace only. Therefore -- ³⁰⁷⁴⁶

JUDGE MAY: Now, it's high time -- high time that the witness has a chance to answer. Wait a moment. Wait a moment. Now, let the witness -- let the witness answer. You've written out -- or read out a large part of written material. The witness must have a chance.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is what I received from you last night. I am reading from your document.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness answer. It's not just you alone.

Now, do you want to say anything or not?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. President.

JUDGE MAY: It's up to you, Mr. Zafirovic, whether you do or not, but if you want to say something, you should have the opportunity to add anything.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I really have nothing to say.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I'll try to speed things up, Mr. May.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Zafirovic, I received your statement. I assume you're familiar with it as it is yours.

A. Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, it occurred to me that having read out so much of that speech you should have put a specific question to the witness to drive home the point that you're making, which it seems to me is that you were seeking to promote peace, but the witness has not made any comment on it because you haven't asked him a specific question. ³⁰⁷⁴⁷

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I hadn't finished my sentence because once again Mr. May interrupted me. The witness explained that this segment was played by him because I was speaking in the first person plural, because I was saying "we," which he feels is proof, as he said, that it was not true what we were saying, that Serbia was not at war, because I was saying "we." However, reading out those excerpts from the speech, I'm proving that we were -- I was saying "we" because peace is in the interests of all Serbs. And I say that in my speech, the Serbs in Republika Srpska and the Serbs in the Republic of Serbia. You cannot explain to any Serbs anywhere anything if you reject peace. And I am saying "we" because peace is in the interest of all Serbs and because I am a Serb, and that is quite clear.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Continue with your questioning.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Zafirovic, I will quote from your statement now. I assume you agree with what you said in that statement because it is your statement and you are a professional who sought to do so as well as you could. At the end of your statement, if you would like to look at the last page. It is page 8 in my copy in the Serbian language "As regards atrocities, it is my professional opinion that the leadership of Republika Srpska, Krajisnik, Plavsic, and especially Karadzic, knew about them and did nothing to stop them. In my judgement the largest number of crimes in Croatia and Bosnia were committed by local people against their neighbours. The leadership of Republika Srpska just ³⁰⁷⁴⁸ stood aside and let the locals commit the atrocities. They did nothing to stop them. This opinion of mine is based on my numerous interviews with leaders, soldiers, people, and -- I had during my travels as a journalist throughout Bosnia."

Therefore, Mr. Zafirovic, you explained something that I assume you will confirm, but tell me whether you do or not, that this explanation of yours is actually a definition of something that is called a civil war. Isn't that so?

A. Your Honours, I fully stand by the statement I gave, including the part read out by the accused.

Q. Very well. Since you mention here only Krajisnik, Plavsic, and Karadzic, you're just mentioning the Serb leaders in Bosnia, and yet you're talking about a phenomenon of crimes being committed mostly among neighbours, et cetera. I assumed that you also monitored the crimes committed against the Serbs. Again, between neighbours directly or by various units which you must have heard of covering the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina all that time; is that right, Mr. Zafirovic?

A. Your Honours, as a reporter I reported on all events, including crimes committed against Serbs and crimes committed against non-Serbs.

Q. In view of the fact that you spoke to officials of Republika Srpska, you mention also soldiers and officers, et cetera, did you have any knowledge about formations such as the Green Berets, the Patriotic League, the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the armija as it was called, various paramilitary formations, the Mujahedin units that you probably had occasion to see a video story about, the review made by Alija ^{30749 BLANK PAGE 30750} Izetbegovic of that -- of those units with the Mujahedin. What do you know about those things, Mr. Zafirovic?

A. I did know of the existence of the Patriotic League, the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but in those days, I didn't have any knowledge of Mujahedin units.

Q. When did you learn about the existence of those Mujahedin units and various other terrorists that have become so popular since the 11th of September?

A. I learnt about Mujahedin units after the end of the war and the signing of the Dayton agreements.

Q. The knowledge that you acquired, does it enable you to answer my question, and that is what would roughly be the number of those warriors that were waging war, cutting people's heads off and -- throughout Bosnia and having their photographs taken with those heads and putting them in ammunition boxes? How many of them were there in your opinion?

A. Your Honours, I really am unable to give a precise answer to this question since, as I have already said, I learnt about this from the media after the end of the war, and I have no specific information about those people nor their number.

Q. Well, what information do you have about the forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the time that you covered the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina; that is, the units that were waging war against the Serbs? What knowledge do you have about that?

A. What I can say is that I knew of the existence of the Patriotic League, the Green Berets, and of the army of Bosnia and ³⁰⁷⁵¹ Herzegovina. As to the exact number of members of those units, I had no information. But compared with a number of members of the army of Republika Srpska, these were much fewer and more poorly armed.

Q. How did you establish that they were far fewer in spite of opinion clearly expressed which you must be familiar with as a journalist that the fears that some witnesses even testified about on the part of the leadership of Republika Srpska were prompted by the fact that the Muslim forces were far more numerous, and they used this as an argument even when talking to representatives of UNPROFOR who testified here, saying that they couldn't pull back the artillery because the far more numerous Muslim forces could commit massacres in Serb areas which they were protecting. Where did you get the idea from that they were less numerous, that is members of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina were fewer in number?

A. Your Honours, I stand behind what I said, and that is that at the beginning of the war and well into the war units under the command of the government in Sarajevo were fewer and drastically less well-armed than units of the army of Republika Srpska.

Q. Did you tour the units of the army?

JUDGE MAY: We're going to adjourn now. It's time for the break. Would you tell the witness, as far as the witness is concerned, don't speak to anybody of course about your evidence until you've finished. Mr. Milosevic, you've got another 25 minutes to cross-examine this witness.

We will adjourn for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m. ³⁰⁷⁵²

--- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, before I resume, could you please give me some more time, because for a 92 bis witness who isn't testifying live at all, you give me usually an hour, and Mr. Zafirovic testified live for almost an hour, so I think I should have a little more time.

JUDGE MAY: We will consider that.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We've had to make a decision on the matter. It is this, that you have an extra ten minutes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me try and cover at least a few more questions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Zafirovic, you mentioned the negotiations in Geneva that you covered; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Three delegations were negotiating over there; isn't that right?

A. Yes.

Q. The Serb delegation and heading it was Karadzic. Heading the Bosnian Croats was Mate Boban, and heading the Muslim delegation was Alija Izetbegovic; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. As for my presence and the presence of Mr. Bulatovic, the presence of Mr. Tudjman, we would come exclusively at the invitation of Cyrus Vance ³⁰⁷⁵³ and David Owen. I assume you're aware of that. And later at the invitation of David Owen and Thorvald Stoltenberg when Vance, after what we discussed in 1993 left this position, and Mr. Stoltenberg was appointed in his place. Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know that we were invited to attend those negotiations of theirs precisely in order to assist in achieving an agreement among the three negotiating delegations; that is, the delegation of Republika Srpska, the delegation of Herceg-Bosna, the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna at the time, and the delegation of Alija Izetbegovic, the Muslim delegation?

A. I can answer in the affirmative.

Q. Do you know that on those occasions and in contact with those delegations and at the plenary meetings it was we who urged and endeavoured - and David Owen testified to that effect and I hope that Thorvald Stoltenberg will be able to come too - to help in achieving peace as soon as possible?

A. That was the idea behind your presence as represented by the co-chairman.

Q. Very well. In that case, there's no need to go into that matter any further. Let me move on, then, to your statement. You worked for the newspaper Vreme, didn't you?

A. Yes. I was an associate, a stringer. I wasn't a full-time employee.

Q. Your colleagues Dulovic and Dejan Anastasijevic testified here. ³⁰⁷⁵⁴ You know them, don't you?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. How do you explain the fact that three journalists testifying here, all three were working in Vreme?

A. Your Honours, as I have already said, I was never employed by the weekly Vreme but I would occasionally write for that weekly.

Q. Very well. On page 2 of your statement, you say that you did your military service in 1991 and that later you became a reservist; is that right?

A. I served my regular military service in 1985, 1986, and I later became a reservist.

Q. I see. And were you called up or mobilised in 1991 as a reservist?

A. The answer is in the affirmative, yes.

Q. Did you voluntarily desert the JNA or had you completed your term?

A. No. I had a back injury. After that, I was transferred to hospital, and after that I was discharged from service.

Q. Very well. And it was only then that you started working as a journalist covering the war?

A. No. Before I was mobilised, I had already been covering the events in Eastern Slavonia. And after returning from the front, I continued to cover those events.

Q. In the first paragraph I see you say that you were never a member of the Serbian Democratic Party. In the second paragraph, I beg your pardon. ^{30755 BLANK PAGE 30756}

A. That is right; I never was.

Q. I don't understand why you stress that in your statement. Were you asked about it by the investigators or did you yourself want to state that?

A. No, the investigator asked me that question.

Q. Were you ever a member of any other political party?

A. Yes.

Q. Which?

A. The Democratic Party.

Q. Since you say you were a member of the Democratic Party, in your statement here you mention Mauzer when talking about Bijeljina; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know that he too was a member of that party of yours? He was, because he is no longer alive. In fact, in the mid-1990s, he was leader of the Democratic Party for Bosnia-Herzegovina.

A. I cannot confirm that, because really I don't have such information.

Q. Very well. Since you spoke about these various paramilitary formations, I assume you remember well that the leadership of Serbia and I personally advocated support for the JNA. Do you remember that?

A. Yes. There was a declarative support.

Q. And the paramilitary units were mainly formed by various opposition parties, the SPO and Mauzer's Serbian Guard, as you know yourself. ³⁰⁷⁵⁷

A. I can confirm what the accused said regarding the SPO, but as for Mauzer's Guards, I don't know that it was formed as a party paramilitary army.

Q. This unit that he had in Bijeljina at the time that you are talking about was called the Serbian Guards, and there are articles in the press, I even think in your own paper, about this. And then later, according to information collected by my associates, they came to be called the Panthers after their commander who was killed and whose surname was Pantelic. But during the time that you're testifying about, they were known as the Serbian Guards.

A. According to information I received from the late Mauzer, this was a combined unit of the Territorial Defence formed by the Crisis Staff in Bijeljina, and the subsequent name Panthers was acquired when the unit was attached to the regular forces of the army of Republika Srpska, which was headed by General Mladic.

Q. Very well. When talking about Mauzer, you say that he was Minister of the Interior of Republika Srpska. I'm sure you must have found out that this was incorrect, because he was never Minister of the Interior of Republika Srpska.

A. Yes, I can confirm what the accused has said.

Q. Speaking about the events in Bijeljina, I wish to draw your attention to your statement on page 4, paragraph 2 -- or the third paragraph if you count the one carried over from the previous page. "It seemed to me that Mauzer was the person who had the greatest control over paramilitary units that had captured Bijeljina." And last sentence in the ³⁰⁷⁵⁸ same paragraph: "I think that Mauzer was the person who was most responsible for the killings and destruction in Bijeljina." Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know that he even gave money to Arkan for him to come and assist his forces in Bijeljina?

A. No, I'm not aware of that.

Q. Very well. And do you know of Mauzer's statement from those days in Bijeljina -- I cannot claim for certainty that it appeared in your newspaper, but in anyway in one of the Belgrade papers, I think it was yours, Vreme, but I'm not a hundred per cent sure, and he was interviewed by a reporter about the events and then he says, "Now we fix these, and once we've done with them, we will cross the Drina to deal with the communists and fix them." Do you remember that statement?

A. Very superficially. I'm unable to comment on it.

Q. But do you remember a position to that effect roughly?

A. Yes.

Q. So Mauzer and the people around him were, in any event, against the authorities in Serbia; isn't that right?

A. That is a question I cannot answer because I don't have precise information.

Q. Very well. If you don't have precise information, I won't press you any further about that.

You mentioned an officer of the JNA. Mr. Groome pointed out that his name shouldn't be mentioned because he could be at risk, though ³⁰⁷⁵⁹

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

MR. GROOME: Your Honour --

JUDGE MAY: This is going well beyond anything that we should be -- We will go into private session for this part of the hearing.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, could I ask the Court to inquire of the witness whether the biographical information that has been discussed openly would compromise the person's identity in his opinion?

JUDGE MAY: Certainly the witness can deal with that question if he wants.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ³⁰⁷⁶⁰ Page 30760 redacted, private session

^{30761 BLANK PAGE 30762} Page 30762 redacted, private session

³⁰⁷⁶³

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So in April 1992, you were in Sarajevo, and you say that's when the war broke out.

A. Yes.

Q. However, on the same page, the same paragraph, you speak about shots heard from the background on one of your tapes, and you say it was the time of the siege in February 1992.

A. Yes. The answer is yes. I was in Sarajevo on both occasions, in February and --

Q. What was it that was happening in February? What kind of shots occurred in February 1992?

A. If I may remind the accused, Your Honours, it was the siege of Sarajevo by Serb civilians or paramilitary units. It has never been clearly established. Sarajevo was under siege for ten or 12 hours.

Q. Are you saying Sarajevo was completely blocked for a couple of hours?

A. Yes. The formal reason for the blockade was the shooting at Bascarsija and the murder, the assassination of a member of a Serb wedding ³⁰⁷⁶⁴ party.

Q. When you mentioned this shot heard in the background on one of your tapes, how can you say who it was who fired the shot?

A. I was there myself and that tape was recorded by me. A group of civilians had set out towards one of the barricades at a distance of about 600 metres from the Holiday Inn hotel in the centre of Sarajevo. That's where members of Serb forces, of Serb units, I don't know what to call them, were located, and Serb soldiers fired into the air.

Q. But nobody was killed then? They did not shoot into the crowd?

A. They did not.

Q. And the blockade was instituted in response to the assassination of a Serb during that wedding party at Bascarsija?

A. Yes. That was the formal reason given for the blockade of downtown Sarajevo, Bascarsija.

Q. What do you call "formal" in that case? It was an assassination in the context of political events. Serbs were very upset. They thought to themselves, "They started killing us already. We need to do something."

A. Your Honours, I'm being asked to speculate, and I don't want to do that.

Q. Well, who created these tensions in the first place? Do you know that? Was it the Serbs or the Muslims?

A. I cannot give you a precise answer. The situation was already rather tense even before that event.

Q. Very well. On the 4th of April, you were in Bijeljina. ³⁰⁷⁶⁵

A. Correct.

Q. Mrs. Plavsic and Mr. Abdic arrived in their capacity as members of the Presidency.

A. I said so a moment ago.

Q. Do you suppose or do you know that somebody authorised them to go there? Because the president of the Presidency was Alija Izetbegovic; right?

A. Right.

Q. So they came on behalf of the Presidency to a place where an inter-ethnic conflict broke out between Serbs and Muslims, and two members of the Presidency, one Serb, one Muslim, arrived. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. I suppose they had good intentions. They wanted to respond to that conflict in Bijeljina, and this Serb person, a Muslim, members of the Presidency, wanted to calm the situation down.

A. Yes. I suppose that was the main reason for their visit.

Q. Did they succeed in calming the situation down, which lasted for a very short time? The conflict was very short-lived, and things returned to normal very quickly. After that there were no further incidents. Is that your information too?

A. At that moment when Mrs. Plavsic and Mr. Abdic were in Bijeljina, the situation had indeed calmed down, but tensions remained in the immediate vicinity of Bijeljina in a village called Janja, which had a majority Muslim population.

Q. That is to put it mildly, majority Muslim population. It was ³⁰⁷⁶⁶ almost purely Muslim.

A. I can agree with that.

Q. As far as I know, there were no conflicts and there were no casualties, or maybe you've had different information.

A. According to the information I have, nobody was killed.

Q. Very well. You described here a quarrel between Abdic and Arkan, and you said that Arkan, as I saw in one of these transcripts I have been served, was accusing the Croats. But from what I can see in the transcript, Arkan was not speaking of Croats, he was speaking of Ustashas.

A. Yes. That's the term Raznjatovic used.

Q. All right. But I suppose that you, as everyone else, make a distinction between Croats and Ustashas. We're not talking about Ustashas as a derogatory term for Croats, we're talking about a specific group called Ustashas.

A. Your Honours, this is not a topic I can testify on, and I would not like to.

Q. I'm mentioning this only because this term is treated as a derogatory term to denote all Croats, and I don't agree with that. Nobody uses "Ustasha" as a term applying to all Croats.

A. I cannot say, Your Honours, what Arkan meant by saying "Ustashas." Did he mean all Croats or maybe the members of the Ustasha movement from the Second World War? So I cannot answer this question.

Q. All right. So you attended that meeting, and then you were thrown out of it. I don't quite see how this was done, because from your statement, I seem to understand that when they found out you were there, ^{30767 BLANK PAGE 30768} you were chased out. You say: "I was interrogated by Ljubisa Savic, nicknamed Mauzer, who mistreated me." And you say here -- what you said here is that he kindly asked you to leave. Could you explain that?

A. I had an argument with Ljubisa Savic Mauzer after I was thrown out of the meeting. The terms used were not mild.

Q. But it was not that kind of atmosphere where journalists would be mistreated.

A. Well, in my own opinion, I don't think the journalists were very welcome on that day in Bijeljina.

Q. That's quite a different matter. I asked you whether you were mistreated.

A. Verbally, yes; physically, no.

Q. You say that after this discussion, you were banned from entering the territory of Republika Srpska for another four months.

A. Your Honours, could the accused be asked to specify after which discussion.

Q. Immediately after the paragraph from which I quoted a moment ago. It says: "RS, Republika Srpska therefore, banned me from entering its territory for another four months."

It must have been after your visit to Bijeljina on that occasion because it's in the same paragraph. I supposed you understood what I was driving at.

A. No. This did not happen immediately after Bijeljina. That happened in the later months of 1992.

Q. So it had nothing to do with Bijeljina? ³⁰⁷⁶⁹

A. No. The answer is no.

Q. Very well. You mentioned people in the territory of Serbia, and you mention helicopters, 110 persons. I suppose those people were guarding the border, if you're referring to the police of the Republic of Serbia. No one from the Republic of Serbia, apart from that group headed by Mauzer, ever took part in the conflicts in Bijeljina. Do you know that?

A. I can confirm that on that day in Bijeljina, I didn't see anyone from the MUP of Serbia. That much is true.

Q. Do you understand from the video recording that you were shown and from the overall conduct when that delegation arrived to respond to the conflict between Serbs and Muslims, there was no intervention in the conflict? The conflict was dealt with, and tensions were dispelled.

A. I have said so once, and I will repeat: The JNA did not get involved in the conflict.

Q. Generally speaking, in that barracks of the JNA, there was just a small group of soldiers who discharged mainly logistical duties. They had no serious tasks of other natures.

A. I cannot confirm that because the press was not allowed into the barracks.

Q. Yes. But you say on page 4, the penultimate paragraph: "I was not allowed to visit the JNA barracks in Bijeljina where, as I heard, the JNA accommodated refugees."

A. Yes.

Q. So the JNA was taking care of people, refugees, and allowed them ³⁰⁷⁷⁰ to be put up in their barracks to protect them from possible danger; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So if we look at this as a whole, the events in Bijeljina, including what you said yourself, namely that Mauzer and his unit played the main part in this, the so-called Serbian Guards, and Arkan who was also there according to the testimony of some people who were here. My information is that he had ten men with him, some others say that his unit consisted of 60 people. Can I ask you if you can remember how many men were in the unit of Zeljko Raznjatovic Arkan?

A. Your Honours, I would abide by my statement that there were around 60 based on their overall deployment in town. I did not count them, but my impression was there were about 60.

Q. You say yourself there was no one from the police of the Republic of Serbia, the JNA remained neutral, and then you say that Mrs. Plavsic who had arrived there with Mr. Abdic to calm the situation down. Plavsic, Krajisnik, and Karadzic together planned this conflict in Bijeljina. How did you arrive at this assertion?

A. Can I be guided a little? Where can I find this statement?

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] If I may assist. Page 4, the last sentence.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. "In my professional opinion as a journalist, Krajisnik, Karadzic, Mladic and Plavsic knew about these events and participated in their planning together with Milosevic." Don't you think this assertion is ³⁰⁷⁷¹ pretty absurd?

A. I must say, Your Honours, I gave my statement in the English language, which is not my native tongue, and some parts of it may have been misinterpreted. I mentioned this possibility to the OTP as well. Some of the things I said, namely, were not conveyed truthfully.

Q. Very well, then. Tell me now about this paragraph on page 5 which sounds illogical to me. It may also be a question of translation. I will read it out to you. It's only four lines long. The penultimate paragraph.

"Milosevic and Krajisnik were very close. I remember that on one occasion I asked Krajisnik why he was in Belgrade. He said that he was supposed to talk to the Minister of Interior. He talked to the minister and left Belgrade soon after. This was unusual because the government in Belgrade had not announced this visit to the media. I ran across Krajisnik purely by chance."

Now, tell me, when you ran across him and he told you he was meeting the Minister of the Interior, how did you conclude that Krajisnik and I were very close?

A. Your Honours, I already explained about Mr. Krajisnik and my meeting with him. I can add that from the sources I had as a journalist, I received information that Krajisnik and the accused were close. The information is put together in such a way that it does not reflect the length of my interviews with the Office of the Prosecutor, but the sentence as it stands here is correct.

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... ³⁰⁷⁷²

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, that is really -- I just wish to clarify some other issues that I think --

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You say in the last paragraph --

JUDGE MAY: My last statement was not interpreted for some reason. What I said was the accused has two minutes left.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You say: "I recall that the leaders of Republika Srpska met in Jahorina in May 1993." That is the Assembly that we discussed. "And the Assembly decided to reject the plans. I remember that Plavsic was not present."

If you attended the Assembly, as you said, how can you say that Biljana Plavsic was not present at the Assembly?

A. Your Honours, obviously there is a major misunderstanding involved here. The text that the accused has before him is my first statement, and afterwards I corrected it also in terms of Mrs. Plavsic's presence, because there was a small scandal, as a matter of fact, just before the Assembly started between the accused and Mrs. Plavsic. Of course I know that Mrs. Plavsic was at the Rajska Dolina Hotel on that day.

Q. I just wanted to have that established, that this is an assertion that is wrong, but you explain it to be a mistake. All right. Just one more question that seems to very important to me. On page 6, you say: "As regards the existence of concentration camps in Republika Srpska, I remember that I asked Plavsic and Karadzic about that. Karadzic said that he did not know about the existence of the camps and ^{30773 BLANK PAGE 30774} declared that he would investigate."

This is the first time I see that someone is testifying about something that Karadzic said to me and that had I been claiming all along, that Karadzic said to me that there were no concentration camps, and apparently he said the same thing to you. When was it that he told you that in response to your question?

A. I cannot give you the exact date, but I think it was the end of 1993 and the beginning of 1994.

Q. So had he known anything about it, he would have had to know at least by then in 1993/1994; right?

A. I put the question to Mr. Karadzic in an interview, and that's the answer he gave me. That's the only thing I can say.

Q. Now I'm interested in something that I come across for the first time here. So far, I haven't heard anything like that from anyone. It has to do with Karadzic and Krajisnik. You say on page 6, in the first paragraph: "My professional opinion is that Krajisnik and Karadzic used their positions for their personal benefit. They were involved in illegal financial transactions and money laundering. All the profits went to their overseas accounts. I remember the story that went around among the journalists. I mean that the Bosnian Minister Silajdzic met with Karadzic in a place between Pale and Sarajevo so that they would reach an agreement concerning the selling of certain parts of Bosnia. They decided that the Serbs should start shelling certain towns for about a million or a million and a half Deutschmark and that they should remain where they were." On the basis of what can you say an ugly thing like that in ³⁰⁷⁷⁵ relation to Karadzic, that he was meeting with Silajdzic and that he was trying to sell parts of Bosnia for money? I mean, this is a very grave accusation. Is this what you really said? Do you have any grounds for this kind of assertion?

A. Yes, Your Honours, that is what I said. Again, there is a mistake. It was not Karadzic, it was Krajisnik. Everything else that is contained in the statement is indeed what I said. And I got this knowledge from meetings with various people from the leadership of Republika Srpska and also having talked to some politicians from the area of the federation.

JUDGE MAY: That was rather more than your time as it is. Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

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

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Zafirovic, I would like to ask you if you could just explain a few more things to the Judges. They have to do with your stay in Geneva.

You speak about this in your statement, and it is on page 7 of the B/C/S version, and the English version is paragraph 6 on page 6. A few minutes ago during the cross-examination, you said that in Geneva there were three delegations. One was the Serb delegation. It was led by Karadzic; is that right? And the second one was the Muslim delegation. It was led by Karadzic -- by Izetbegovic; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And the third one was the Croat delegation that was led by Boban; ³⁰⁷⁷⁶ is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then the representatives of Serbia and Croatia were asked to mediate in these talks and to help as much as they could?

A. Yes.

Q. If you could explain now what you said a few minutes ago in response to the questions put to you by Prosecutor Groome you said that Slobodan Milosevic at the negotiations in Geneva was head of the delegation of the Bosnian Serbs.

A. Your Honours, that was the impression that one invariably had when the accused was in Geneva. As I've already mentioned during my testimony, he had regular contact with the delegation of Republika Srpska in the periods when he was physically not present in Geneva. That was confirmed to me from several sources.

Q. Just tell me whether Slobodan Milosevic at that time could give any kind of orders to the representatives of the Serb side in those negotiations or whether he could have done anything against their will.

A. Your Honours, it is my deep conviction that at that time, the accused did have the possibility of affecting decisions of the leadership of Republika Srpska.

Q. I'm asking you whether he could decide anything on their behalf or give them orders.

A. Formally, the decision had to be made by the leadership of Republika Srpska. Now, whether he could have ordered them to do so, that is something that I really did not know about. I did not attend their ³⁰⁷⁷⁷ internal meetings.

Q. You say in your statement they called him in order to seek advice. Is that the right way of putting it?

A. I stand by that, that there were regular communications between the accused and the delegation of Republika Srpska in Geneva.

Q. Well, wasn't that the normal way to proceed? But here you say something that you did not say in your previous statement, that between them in communications when somebody addressed Slobodan Milosevic, they used the expression "Big Daddy" or "Boss."

A. Yes. These were informal talks between members of the delegations, their bodyguards, and lower-ranking officials who were in Geneva. When mentioning the accused, they used these words.

Q. But you personally did not hear that?

A. No, I did hear that.

Q. This is what --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. May, just one. Perhaps it has to do with the translation. I don't think that Mr. Zafirovic means it that way. He said that that is how they addressed me. I assume that they did not address me directly. Nobody ever addressed me directly that way.

JUDGE MAY: No one has said that. No one has said that it was directed to you personally. It was their own comments themselves informally. At least, that's what I understand.

Yes, let's move on.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁰⁷⁷⁸

Q. I don't want to dwell on that much longer, but he said that everything he said here was what he knew about from his contacts with bodyguards, members of their security details, et cetera, but I don't want to go into all of that.

In the next paragraph it says -- or, rather, you said here today that you saw when Mladic left the meeting at Milosevic's office.

A. Yes. I saw General Mladic walking down the staircase in the building of the Presidency of Serbia, yes.

Q. Yes. And this is what you say in paragraph 7 on page 7: "Mladic came alone secretly to Belgrade to meet with Milosevic. He quietly entered the Serb Presidency building. There was no announcement, no press briefing, and no press notification of the visit." How do you explain that? Was this the way it was or was it the way that you had put it that way?

A. Your Honours, this is exactly the way it was. This is how he entered the building. He quietly entered it, but then my previous reference was to the way he exited. I think I explained that.

Q. Just one more thing. You said here today when -- that when you came to Bijeljina, you said that at the border, you saw 60 of Arkan's men, is that right, armed?

A. I just have to correct this. It wasn't when I was coming to Bijeljina. It was two days prior to my arrival in Bijeljina, when I had set out for Bosnia-Herzegovina and when I did not reach Bijeljina. So the answer is yes.

Q. On the day when you arrived? ^{30779 BLANK PAGE 30780}

A. On the day when I arrived. That was the 4th of April. On that day, at the border, I did not see members of the Serb Volunteer Guard; I saw them in Bijeljina itself.

Q. Just one more thing. You said a few minutes ago that the JNA had taken care of the refugees on that day. The refugees that were taken care of at the JNA barracks, were they both Muslims and Serbs?

A. I do not have any precise information, but my answer could be yes.

Q. Just one more thing. In the streets on that day, were there any JNA soldiers at all?

A. I've already answered that question, and the answer was no.

Q. Thank you.

MR. GROOME: I have no re-examination, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Questioned by the Court:

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Zafirovic, you remember that Arkan and Mr. Abdic at Bijeljina went to the Radio Bijeljina station and made a speech. Did you follow them there?

A. Yes. I was there with the group of journalists that went towards Radio Bijeljina.

JUDGE KWON: I wonder whether you are in the position to confirm that Abdic's speech was broadcast at that time or not?

A. I can confirm that. To the best of my knowledge, this joint address of Fikret Abdic and Zeljko Raznjatovic Arkan was broadcast indeed, and it called for a calming down of the situation in town.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. ³⁰⁷⁸¹

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Zafirovic, that concludes your evidence now. Thank you for coming here to give it. You are free to go.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, the next witness, I think, is in closed session. Before we come to that might it be convenient to mention a few procedural matters and to do so swiftly by use of some speaking notes that I've had prepared that have the disadvantage of having the odd error in them but I think they're better than nothing. If they could be distributed and then I can be very brief and I hope we can accomplish the task of hearing both witnesses scheduled for this morning this morning. Because it is a somewhat imperfect document, I prefer not to file it but if it could be treated as strictly confidential by all parties I will avoid going into closed session, private -- or, rather, I'll avoid seeking to go into private session by not referring to names where they are dealt with in the document.

And point number 1 is that the safe conduct request is now before you in a courtesy copy form. It's been filed. We ask if you're able to deal with it today it would be extremely helpful because until the documentation for safe conduct is in place, a seven-day period necessary to ensure the travel of the potential witness can't start to run. Paragraph 2. I've mentioned earlier that it may be the Chamber will think looking at the schedule of witnesses that certainty would be -- or near certainty would be helpful for us all, certainty as to which ³⁰⁷⁸² witnesses may be called, which may have to be dropped. And if the Chamber were to think it a good idea to give strict timetables in advance, I've set out under paragraph 2 for some witnesses, and I'll finish it I hope tomorrow, what we would say would be the maximum time that we would ask for for examination-in-chief. And incidentally, two-thirds of the way down the list two names read 3/4. That's three-quarters, it's not three or four hours.

Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 --

JUDGE MAY: Before you get on to that --

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: -- Mr. Nice, I must say, speaking for myself, it's difficult to decide what may be important witnesses which you wish to call can necessarily be decided in a very generalised way without us really having any particular idea about this. I mean, I warn you of that. Of course we'll look at this.

MR. NICE: I can see that problem, of course. It's a question of balancing. The Chamber now sees the witnesses and the topics they cover on the schedule, and there may, in the Chamber's judgement, be an overall advantage in securing certainty that certain witnesses will be available, even if that means ensuring that the accused has his mind focused by limitations on cross-examination at an early stage. But I understand the point.

Your Honour, witnesses -- points 3, 4, and 5 are outstanding rulings which would assist us, particularly 3, in relation to the Prijedor witnesses, and also 4. The Chamber will remember what I've said in the ³⁰⁷⁸³ application which named that witness and why, in our respectful submission, his evidence should be before you but we simply don't have time to call him in full for he would be a very extensive witness if he was able to cover all matters on which we don't actually require him. Paragraph 6 relates to a particular form of intercept witness. We've already asked that if rejection is contemplated, we might be able to address you orally. Can I draw to your attention that the Prosecutor herself has been actively pursuing this matter? We haven't yet got a response, but the authorities have been subject to a quite direct request, and we'd ask for you to take that into account.

Paragraph 7 relates to the camps project, and that application for documents to be exhibited without witness recall is one we'll be assisted by knowing the answer to.

Paragraph 8, in light of the refusal of an 89(F) statement, understandably on the grounds of lateness of service, can we draw to your attention that this witness, due to testify on Friday, is only coming on Thursday so that there's no prospect of a signed statement in advance. Would a draft, on this occasion -- we know the views on drafts are somewhat -- they're not necessarily to favour them, but on this occasion might a draft assist, were the Chamber to notify of that by the end of today's hearings we could respond.

Paragraph 10 deals with the intercept project. That's the Bosnian intercepts, and the Chamber will recall seeking a document that would identify in a sentence or so why a particular intercept should be admitted. I hope the schedule will be available tomorrow. His Honour ³⁰⁷⁸⁴ Judge Kwon may like to know that the material we're working with is such that will enable us to sort it in various electronic ways, although it will be presented to the Chamber in one, or possibly two, hard copy formats. They substantially speak to themselves, although the schedule does rely to an extent on the expertise of a researcher, and so although a witness was refused, and where the four asterisks are the refusal by the Chamber was on grounds of relevance not being established. When the document is before you, as I hope it will be tomorrow or possibly Thursday, one issue will be whether the researcher should be available for cross-examination and if so, we would ask that that be limited in time for the accused to identify with particularity what interpretations he challenges.

11 is -- relates to the witness we've already spoken of in paragraph 1, and I remind the Chamber that this is a witness both who would be prefer to be called by the Chamber but whose interpretations may not coincide with those of the Prosecution, and we would invite the Chamber to allow him to deal with the very substantial quantity of documents that he can cover and which he will deal with briefly by perhaps scheduling entries that relate to common topics, and we would ask to be able to put in our interpretation, as we would have done in an opening statement had the documents been available then to get round the problem that I set out in paragraph 11.

JUDGE KWON: It's not clear to me. If you could explain to me what you mean by scheduling according to the Prosecution's interpretation.

MR. NICE: Yes. Well, these particular documents -- and as we're ³⁰⁷⁸⁵ in open session I'm going to speak somewhat obliquely -- cover topics that recur throughout the various different meetings that the documents cover. Now, it might be that the Prosecution would want to say, well, all these various passages relating to this particular topic show this objective on the part of the leadership, and so we would schedule them. We would say here's a topic. This topic is dealt with at this meeting, pages so-and-so, this meeting, pages so-and-so, this meeting, pages so-and-so, and the interpretation we would invite the Chamber to consider would be the following. The witness may offer evidence of a different kind. This is a witness not dissimilar from earlier witnesses we've called whose evidence will not necessarily be accepted by the Prosecution but who we are quite satisfied should be before you in general terms and because of his evidence overall.

We have identified a constitutional expert. It's very remiss of me not to have got the name. I should inform the Chamber, and indeed the accused, he is a German academic. He's working in a Croatian institute, but he seems to us to be entirely suitable, and his report will be available but not, I think, with the margin of 30 days before the close of our case, and his name is not at present on the schedule of witnesses. 13 deals with a proof of death project in respect of Kosovo of which you may be unaware. It's been in preparation for a long time. It seeks to save labourious ploughing through the exhumation materials, and we'll provide by a spreadsheet identification of the way various deaths are dealt with. We're going to invite you to accept it without a witness being called. It will be with you soon. I hope by the end of next week. ³⁰⁷⁸⁶ Paragraph 14. "Fill Box" documents and the chronology are going to continue to be provided. We will offer another one because I know that the amici in particular find it helpful. We will offer another version of all of those by the end of January, and we hope to have a final version for use in 98 bis arguments available almost immediately the Prosecution case closes.

Our intention is to convert or to further convert these documents to the CaseMap format before the opening of the Defence case and thereafter to continue logging evidence in a way that will make a chronology and/or will make documents similar to Fill Box documents available periodically.

And that brings me to paragraph 15, which is where we repeat the promise we've made earlier, namely that we will, before we engage in the process of conversion to CaseMap, set out our proposed list of topics by which material can be computer sorted to the parties and to the Chamber in case other views are thought to -- be or other views are advanced by which we can add to or change the topics by which we will make the material sortable.

And then finally 16 and 17 --

JUDGE KWON: Pausing there. We are doing ours ourselves, but I wonder if you can produce a document which is called as dramatis personae which can be used as a starting point.

MR. NICE: We can do that, certainly, yes. And I think the proposal that we should offer in advance as criteria for CaseMap sorting, something we made right at the beginning, as soon as CaseMap became a ³⁰⁷⁸⁷ possibility, I gather in other Chambers it's now become a requirement so we were not out of line with the practice in some Chambers, I think; it's agreed in advance what should be the criteria by which the material be sorted. But we'll certainly make dramatis personae as one of the -- or some of the dramatis personae.

And then two points, 16 and 17. The Chamber will remember before we converted to the chart as the method of notifying witnesses, we had a three-part witness list which really set out our approach to witnesses and our intention in relation to witnesses for, I suppose, the last year or thereabouts, I'm not quite sure when it started. Part II of that list was witnesses who the Chamber would possibly or arguably like to hear from if time were not limited and it's always been our view that we should notify you of that sort of witness because otherwise, if the Chamber has any intention of exercising its powers to call witnesses on its own initiative, it wouldn't know who is available.

I mention here one particular witness - I can name him: Mr. Arria. He's currently been removed from the schedule it not being clear whether there's time to call him or not. It seems to us that he's a witness who would be interesting to the Chamber. He's prepared a substantial history setting out the history and view of events of a leading member of the non-aligned group at the United Nations at the time. His report covers issues of foreseeability for Srebrenica and the massacre. It also covers embargoes and other Security Council resolutions and is extremely critical of the approach of the members of the Security Council and of the international community and it might be thought to ³⁰⁷⁸⁸ provide insight otherwise not available.

Now his report is quite extensive --

THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down a little.

MR. NICE: Certainly. I apologise. The report is in final revision. At the moment, we simply can't be sure if there's time to call him, but we would suggest that it might be helpful for us to serve this report in the hope that it might be taken under 89(F) with limited cross-examination if time only allows for that. And then there's one other name which I won't read out, but his name can be seen on paragraph 17, and it seemed important to do two things about this person who has volunteered to give evidence. You will see his historical and present circumstances. And his material in written form, which we sought from him, has been made available to the accused and the amici. There's no prospect of our even considering calling him as a witness although we may see him in due course, but he's made it clear that his material, although confidential for the purposes of the Court, and you can see to what issues it generally goes, is available not only to the accused and the amici, on whom it's already been served, but to the Chamber should they want to see it now or at some later stage. And we're going to add his name to part B of the list because again, without our doing so, you simply wouldn't know that such a witness was available. That's all, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Yes. Does that conclude --

MR. NICE: That's all I want to draw to your attention and I'm simply trying to take as little time as possible to make sure that we make ³⁰⁷⁸⁹ the best use of the remaining time in court.

JUDGE MAY: You better tell us -- these elliptical matters are not always clear, and the number you were speaking to last.

MR. NICE: Yes. Can we go into private session just for those purposes?

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ³⁰⁷⁹⁰

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

JUDGE MAY: The list of 20 witnesses that you have put forward in paragraph 2.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Are they already inside your schedule which has been served on us?

MR. NICE: Yes, they are.

JUDGE MAY: So they're included here. And how many new witnesses are there outside the number who are on the schedule?

MR. NICE: There's nothing outside the schedule. The two at the end of that list of 20, which says "If called - see below," Arria and Tromp, have -- Arria has been within the schedule at one stage and has been temporarily removed because it looks unlikely that we will be able to call him.

Tromp is somebody you refused on the grounds that I already set out as relevance not established. That's the expert. But they're all on the schedule in the sense that they're either in the tabulated part of the ³⁰⁷⁹¹ schedule or in the footnotes at the bottom of witnesses to be added.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Thank you, Mr. Nice. Yes. I'm grateful to the Court, but -- yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, from what we have just heard and this list and the time available, it is quite obvious that Mr. Nice is abusing the fact that his time is running out in order to push in at great haste, topsy-turvy, as we would say, additional witnesses accompanied by an enormous amount of material while at the same time insisting on the maximum shortening of my cross-examination. This was also illustrated by the former example, and as far as I understand it, it will be repeated with the next witness. So I think it is absolutely unacceptable to limit so rigorously my time for cross-examination regardless of the witnesses in question if the side opposite feels that they should call them. And I think this is nothing more than abuse of the fact that they have no more time. And it is very hard to explain that since they have been presenting their half time for two years now, and they are now under pressure of time.

I will not mention the name of Izetbegovic's associate that Mr. Nice mentioned at the end, because he says it is confidential. I haven't received any material regarding any statement by him, so could that be served on me, though it's probably of no importance, as many other things are.

JUDGE MAY: It will be a matter for the Trial Chamber to rule how long an accused is to have. It is open to the Prosecution to put forward, ³⁰⁷⁹² if they wish, a proposal as to how long they say, given the time which is available to them, how long the witness should have in a particular case. But at the same time, it's the responsibility, of course, of the Prosecution, the Prosecution to make one point, but also, of course, for the Trial Chamber, which ultimately have to determine, and that's why the Prosecution will make its submission but it's the Trial Chamber which make a decision which ensure that there is a reasonable time. Yes?

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I shall be very brief in view of time constraints. It is very hard at this point in time to express an opinion regarding everything that Mr. Nice has covered. Of course on behalf of the amici, I can say that we stand by our principled positions that we have advocated so far.

I would just appeal to you for one thing. As Mr. Kay is not present today, he will be here on Thursday, it seems to me that perhaps after consultations with him we might have certain observations to make regarding point 12, because here it is stated that a German academic is being called as an expert witness for constitutional matters, but it is stated that he's working in a Croatian institute. I don't know whether we will object along those lines, but I would like to reserve our position on that until Thursday.

What I am concerned by as an amicus, you have already ruled on it so I won't go into it, but the witness referred to under paragraph 1 will be examined pursuant to your decision, but I think that everything connected to this witness will require more time than is available, but we ³⁰⁷⁹³ will do our best to cross-examine that witness as best we can in the time available.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will consider about this in due course. We're not going to make a ruling about that at the moment. Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Only to say, Your Honour, that the accused has had notice of all these witnesses in advance, save the one covered in paragraph 1 who was notified as soon as he was available. And he may be working under a misunderstanding because he sometimes doesn't focus on procedural matters. In paragraph 2 we are setting out maximum examination-in-chief times we would seek were the Chamber to decide to make strict timetable rulings, that's all.

The next witness is subject to protective measures.

JUDGE MAY: In fact, we're not going to reach him before the adjournment. There are two matters I want to deal with. If the officers for the Tribunal would come up, please.

[Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

JUDGE MAY: As far as the next witness is concerned, these are not matters in open court. Anything you want to add?

MR. NICE: No, but I remember that in respect of Mr. Tapuskovic's observation about the proposed expert, the Chamber will remember that it is the expert we've been able to identify after having very considerable difficulties, and the proposed response, which is the sort of thing that I'm afraid I've rather anticipated is inappropriate. I drew it to everybody's attention because I feared that sort of response might be ³⁰⁷⁹⁴ forthcoming, but this is an expert of international reputability, and it would be quite wrong to suggest that he could be excluded on grounds basically of prejudice. So I'm disturbed and saddened to hear that preliminary indication by the amici. Nothing else, thank you.

JUDGE MAY: It will be a matter for the Trial Chamber to determine, which we'll do.

No. We've finished now. We're going to adjourn for a quarter of an hour -- 20 minutes, rather, and then we'll continue in the usual rules. Twenty minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.15 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.40 p.m.

[Closed session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ³⁰⁷⁹⁵ Pages 30795 to 30821 redacted, closed session

³⁰⁸²²

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the 15th day of January, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.