³¹⁶⁹⁷

Tuesday, 10 February 2004

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Before we begin, let me say at the outset that Judge May being indisposed, Judge Kwon and myself are sitting pursuant to the provisions of Rule 15 bis.

Mr. Theunens, you remain subject to the declaration that you made. And Mr. Tapuskovic, last day that we met, ten minutes was set for your cross-examination. You may begin.

WITNESS: REYNAUD THEUNENS [Resumed]

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours and Mr. President Robinson. In the course of these ten minutes, I'm sure you will recall that we broached this subject, I was asking the expert witness something about a document I showed him, so might we have the document shown to the expert witness once again. I wanted to put certain paragraphs to him which I wasn't able to do because our time was up. So just a few documents of a document exhibited in September 2002, which comprises 300 pages. I would just like to put several paragraphs to the witness and ask him some questions about them.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Go ahead. Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic: [Continued]

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Theunens, you know that on the 1st of July, 1991, Stipe Mesic, under the influence of the European Community, became ³¹⁶⁹⁸ president of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or, rather, the President of the Presidency of the SFRY. Are you aware of that?

A. Your Honours, as I replied last time to this question, related questions, this is outside the scope of my report. However, I do recall that there were certain problems already on the 15th of May when Stipe Mesic was supposed to become the president of the SFRY but he didn't obtain the required majority, and the EC, or currently the EU, became involved in trying to find a peaceful solution. I also recall the negotiations that took place in Brioni on the 7th and 8th of July. But to answer the question, I didn't analyse that aspect of the conflict in detail for my report as it is outside the scope of the report.

Q. Please, Mr. Theunens, your report or, rather, the summary of your report, reads as follows: "The armed forces of the SFRY and the conflict in Croatia." That's the heading, a title. And precisely because of that I'd like to present certain paragraphs from that report or, rather, from the document, and it is the Presidency session of the 12th of July, the first and only Presidency session held within that composition under the Presidency of Stipe Mesic which dealt exclusively with questions of what the armed forces of the SFRY should do, should undertake. The Chief of the General Staff, Kadijevic, and even Ante Markovic was present, the Prime Minister of the federal government. And the only person missing was Drnovsek. And if you look at page 1 of that document, do you agree with that, with what I've just said?

A. Yes, Your Honour, I agree with that.

Q. Now, please, would you take a look at the English version of page ³¹⁶⁹⁹ 36, the sixth and seventh paragraphs on that page. In paragraph 6 --

THE INTERPRETER: And the interpreters apologise, they don't have a copy of the document.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. -- Kadijevic is speaking, and would you pay attention to the several sentences before, and you will see that it is Kadijevic speaking about the place and role of the army and the goals of the army, the objectives of the army of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. And that is in paragraph 6; right?

A. Yes, Your Honour. I don't know how many pages the document counts, but these are apparently minutes and I believe Mr. Tapuskovic when he says it's Kadijevic who is speaking, but --

Q. What I've just read out. He says the following, in paragraph 7 now, speaking with the tasks of the army, its essence lies in the following: "First and foremost to have all armed conflicts cease throughout the territory of the SFRY within the space of four days, to demobilise all armed formations on the territory of the SFRY except the JNA." So isn't it right that that's what he asked the Presidency to do, that a decision be taken for that objective to be fulfilled? Is that what it says here in that paragraph?

A. Based on this paragraph indeed. In this paragraph, Colonel General Kadijevic or army General Kadijevic, sorry, indeed requests, makes that request on the 12th of July. Now, I think it's obvious from other sources, like for example the book of Kadijevic and the orders I discussed in the reports, orders from the SSNO as well as the Chief of General Staff ³¹⁷⁰⁰ of the JNA that the situation--

Q. Please excuse me, but I don't have time to go into all that. I've just presented a document to you, and you spoke about Kadijevic's book yourself. Take a look at page 85 of the English version, please, paragraphs 1 and 2 of that page.

The majority were in favour of Kadijevic's proposal, the one that we've just set out. And in the previous paragraph he asks for just four days, a four-day deadline to have the paramilitaries disarmed, the units that were operational throughout Yugoslavia, and the majority agreed. And this is what Bogicevic says - he was the president of the Bosnia-Herzegovina - on page 85, you have it, and it is before you. "When it comes to the first proposal to cease all armed conflicts throughout the territory of the SFRY, I absolutely agree with that, and I think that the establishment of peace is the sole guarantee for us to move towards negotiations. Whether we'll succeed, and I'd like us to succeed within the space of 24 hours not even with us in the space of four days." So that was -- those were the views presented by the majority, and is that what it says, or words to that effect?

A. Your Honours, this is what the paragraph says, but again, it's a --

Q. Thank you.

A. Okay. I would still like to say, I mean, it's a very long document, and I find it dangerous to draw conclusions based on certain paragraphs without having had the opportunity to look at the other paragraphs. Of course I can read too, I know what this paragraph says, ³¹⁷⁰¹ but I'm not in a position to say whether this paragraph reflects the contents of the whole document because it is just a paragraph.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We note what you have said. Continue, Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Theunens, you spoke about Kadijevic's book, and I know that you respected what he said in the book, but I don't think you remember that the document that was produced on the first day of the Croatia trial, which is 300 pages long and it exclusively focuses on the work of the army of the SFRY and its efforts to disarm the paramilitaries, that you failed to organise this document. So it is my duty to quote several paragraphs to you and put them to you to ask you why the army wasn't given the green light to go ahead and disarm the paramilitary.

So how is it possible that you have not had occasion to see this document and analyse it and you've been working in the OTP for so many years? Why didn't you look at the problems linked to the conflict in Croatia? Could you give me an explanation for that, please.

A. Your Honours, the three parts of the document, or the report, I believe there are around 400 documents footnoted. I think it's also clear from the -- what is described in the beginning of the report in the scope as well as executive summary that my task was mainly a military analysis task. My task was not to analyse the sessions of the SFRY Presidency or to act as if I were a legal analyst.

My understanding of the various sessions of the SFR Presidency and the various meetings is that indeed there were a lot of discussions about ^{31702 BLANK PAGE 31703} arming, disarming, taking measures and so on, but I didn't judge it necessary or didn't consider it necessary to go into details into that matter as it --

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I should like to ask Mr. Theunens to clarify two more matters with respect to this report, and I'd like to ask for his comments, and my final question would come after presenting two more paragraphs to him from this document.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]...

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour, yes.

Q. On page 194 -- or rather, the English version is 171, page 171, paragraph 5, this is -- above that it says Kadijevic addresses everybody there and says the following, as far as point number 1 is concerned, it is so crucial that, as you were able to see, the new variant to withdraw from Slovenia, he didn't sidestep that point because the future of Yugoslavia ultimately is either a civil -- a civil war and it will depend on point 1 regardless of what will happen in Slovenia. Ante Markovic's response to that was, "I completely agree." And Kadijevic then says this is the key point, the crucial issue, and whether there will be a war or not depends on that key point. Is that what it says, or words to that effect?

A. Your Honours, I will repeat my previous answer to similar questions. This is one paragraph out of a quite long document, 252 pages. I can read the paragraph. I agree with what Mr. Tapuskovic has read as far as this paragraph is concerned. I'm not in a position to compare it with other paragraphs of this document.

Q. Thank you. Thank you. Now take a look at page 228, paragraph 2. ³¹⁷⁰⁴ Stipe Mesic says when everything was over and when everybody was in favour of taking the decisions, Stipe Mesic said, and this is what it says here: "Very well, you can take that decision, make any decision you like, but I cannot sign the -- a capitulation here and that you are seizing Croatian territory." And at one paragraph further on, he says: "I can't go back to Croatia tomorrow as a traitor. That's out of the question. You can arrest me, you can do what you like. Do you want me to tender my resignation? If you do, I will do so." Is that what it says? And Mesic as president of the Yugoslav state Presidency did not want to stand behind the positions taken by all the other Presidency members to give a deadline of four days to the army to disarm the paramilitaries. To disarm the paramilitaries. I said the army but I meant paramilitaries, yes. And in that connection, Mr. Theunens, my final question.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone. Microphone, please.

JUDGE KWON: Microphone, please. MR. TAPUSKOVIC [Interpretation]

Q. In a situation of that kind, if the Yugoslav People's Army had the monopoly of violence, was the sole person which had the monopoly of violence, and if they were asking, the Presidency was asking to disarm the paramilitaries to prevent any further conflicts all over Yugoslavia, was that something that was of significance for further developments in Croatia, since the very next month all the barracks were blocked in Croatia?

A. Your Honours, I find it very difficult to make comments more or ³¹⁷⁰⁵ less out of the loop or out of the blue on one paragraph of a quite extensive document which discusses a very complicated matter, a complicated, complex matter which is actually not completely within my field of expertise as I focused on the military aspects of that conflict.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my last question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is your last question?

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Just one more point, please, with the Court's indulgence. And here's why, and this is why I'm asking this last question of mine.

Q. Mr. Theunens says that this does not come within his remit to say anything, and in paragraph 8 it says: "The task of the armed forces of the SFRY was --" and this is from his summary -- "to pretext the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of the country and the social order as provided for by the SFRY constitution." Now, how, then, was it possible for the -- how could the army of the SFRY fulfil its duty and obligation if the decision that the army wanted the Presidency to take could not be implemented? How could it fulfil its role if what you say in the summary in paragraph 8 is correct?

A. Paragraph 8 of the executive summary is the executive summary, so it's based on, as far as the mission is concerned, that mission is indicated and defined in the 1974 constitution and is of course confirmed in 1992 Law on All People's Defence as well as relevant JNA regulations, so I'm not in a position to discuss whether this is -- this is correct or not correct; I just read these legal documents and I quoted from there. And the second part of paragraph 8, where the evolution of the ³¹⁷⁰⁶ actual implementation of that mission is discussed, that's based on my review of JNA orders, SSNO orders, statements in the SSNO bulletin signed by Kadijevic and/or General Adzic, and last but not least, Kadijevic's book. If my task had been to analyse --

Q. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... not to continue. Thank you, Mr. Theunens. Thank you, Mr. Tapuskovic. Mr. Nice, last day you had indicated that you would not re-examine. Is that still your stance?

MR. NICE: I was prepared to waive re-examination on the last occasion in the interests of brevity, and I'm not going to change my position.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

MR. NICE: However, can we deal with exhibits.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: I've -- in order to save time, I've filed a short motion making a proposal as to how exhibits might be dealt with.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We have -- we have the motion in hand, and I am to say that the Chamber accedes to the motion except for the third paragraph of the relief sought, that is, that the balance of the documents be marked for identification so that the other exhibits can be marked as proposed, and Judge Kwon will oversee the marking with the registrar.

MR. NICE: Grateful. And then there's also tab 22 to be added, which is a document. I don't know whether Mr. Theunens knows if it's being added or not but if he's got it there then I ask him just to have a ³¹⁷⁰⁷ quick look at it.

THE WITNESS: I don't have it.

MR. NICE: The proposed additional exhibit, tab 22, just explain what that is, please, Mr. Theunens, if you're immediately familiar with it.

THE WITNESS: Your Honours, this is a report prepared by the 2nd Military District where the commander, General Milutin Kukanjac, makes an assessment of the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina as it is during the March time period in 1992. I reviewed this document before, and it was also used in the third part of the report, the section -- the part that deals with the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I don't know whether you want me to go further into details.

MR. NICE: No, that's fine. And, Your Honour, for those following the evidence and with an eye to the detail of how evidence is being dealt with, the proposal made to the Chamber in the short motion that I filed is that the 20 or more binders of material that Mr. Theunens has examined and that are reflected in his and Mr. Borrelli's reports remain available, as it were, through the conclusions in the report but aren't otherwise to be produced and to burden the court record save for the 22 tabs in the exhibit. We propose to the Chamber alternative ways of dealing with it and are entirely intent, of course, with the outcome, the position being that if at a later stage of the trial it is necessary to look at one of those documents in detail, you will have to take the appropriate step at that stage to look at the document. ³¹⁷⁰⁸

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. As for tab 22, which is just being introduced, the accused should have a chance of looking at it. The Chamber is disposed to --

Mr. Milosevic, have you had a chance to look at tab 22 which was just given to you?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, I have not, Mr. Robinson.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. We will give the accused a chance to look at that, and we'll come back to that specific tab later. Mr. Theunens, that concludes your evidence, and you may go.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.

[The witness withdrew]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As there is no witness in the courtroom just now, I should like to take this opportunity to ask you two things, to raise two matters.

I have received a schedule for our sessions, the 4th of February, and I'd just like to quote two paragraphs, and I'd like an explanation about that from you, please. You say the following: "Considering that the accused must prepare [In English] for five longer sitting days in circumstances where he is currently unwell and because the longer sitting days will create a requirement for the accused to make preparations outside of the normal sitting schedule, it is appropriate for the Registrar to provide whatever reasonable assistance the accused may ³¹⁷⁰⁹ require to prepare for court."

[Interpretation] The next paragraph says: "Noting that Judge May, due to illness, will not be available to sit in the trial when the trial recommences on the 10th of -- 2004 --"

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute. Just a minute, Mr. Milosevic.

[Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Continue.

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

JUDGE ROBINSON: The order speaks for itself. The Chamber was of the view that since you're ill, it would be appropriate for the Registrar to render whatever assistance he could to you, and I expect that he's doing that. The Chamber is of the view that it is important that this -- the Prosecution case be completed within the next two weeks. That is as much as we'll discuss in relation to that matter. Mr. Nice, next --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I just tell you something, Mr. May -- Mr. Robinson and Mr. Kwon. I don't see what the Registrar ³¹⁷¹⁰ could do. That's the first point. And secondly, the Registrar has done nothing.

And then I have a further question, Mr. Robinson. A moment ago I received the prolongation of the ban on communication, that is to say for the third month running. And as you know full well, once you finish your half time that that false accusation has over there, then it's my turn to function. So how do you assume that I will be able to function even under conditions where I -- there is a ban on my communicating with anybody?

JUDGE ROBINSON: That is a matter which the Chamber will look at in due course, I can assure you.

Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: The next witness is --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Before the witness is brought in, Mr. Nice, the -- you will, of course, have received the order that the Chamber made in relation to --

MR. NICE: I've received the order, and we've made preparations accordingly.

The witness, as you know, made an extensive statement from his own notes, and in order to deal with matters swiftly, I'd ask that he be allowed to have that with him as an aide-memoire and I can take him to paragraphs and I can deal with --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. The statement is very long, and we were concerned that the examination-in-chief and indeed the cross-examination should be focused. ³¹⁷¹¹

MR. NICE: It will be. But if he could have the document as an aide-memoire, then it will make life much easier.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, he can have the document.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I trust the Court and everybody else has the exhibit binders. I'm going to ask that all the exhibits be produced in due course, and I shall use the list of exhibits as another way to move through the evidence very swiftly.

While we're waiting for the witness, if a provisional exhibit number could be given for the binder I'd be grateful.

THE REGISTRAR: 645, Your Honours.

JUDGE MAY: The legal officer.

[Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.

WITNESS: DIEGO ENRIQUE ARRIA Examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Your full name, please.

A. Diego Enrique Arria.

Q. A Venezuelan, holder of various high offices, permanent representative for Venezuela at the United Nations in 1992 and 1993, currently holding unpaid office at the United Nations as Assistant to the ³¹⁷¹² Secretary-General, and other posts well documented and available in detail if anybody wants.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Please answer.

THE WITNESS: Pardon me, sir?

MR. NICE:

Q. Did you hear the question, I'm sorry? Venezuelan, permanent representative to the UN for Venezuela in 1992 to 1993, former governor of Caracas, holder of various other high offices and academic posts, and currently with an unpaid position at the United Nations.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You've publicly and in the course of a very long statement that's available but not produced here, expressed views that are highly critical of various parties and non-parties to the conflict, including the United Nations and the international community generally; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. I want to focus on two aspects of evidence that you can help us with. They are these: First, I want you to summarise through exhibits and through your evidence the way and ways in which to your knowledge the accused and governments in Serbia and Yugoslavia were put on notice as to what was happening in the territory.

Second, I want you to help us from your knowledge and experience of what effect that had on any sense of impunity that may have existed in those territories. Do you follow me?

A. Your Honours, on the first case, the Yugoslavia -- the former Yugoslavia, was for the people in the part of my world an extremely ³¹⁷¹³ prestigious country and we were completely in support of preserving the integrity of Yugoslavia until the end of 1991. And when events start turning in the wrong direction, it was beginning of 1992, the end of 1991, is when we put it -- put a notice to the accused of the direction the events were taking.

Q. Now, I'm going to have to ask you to be responsive to questions because of the very great limitations of time. You have an index of exhibits and you also have the exhibits to your left-hand side. They can be -- the index can be laid on -- or a copy of the index can be laid on the overhead projector. We don't have time to go through it in detail. But were there several Security Council Resolutions about the former Yugoslavia and about Serbian involvement there of which, in general terms, you're critical on the grounds that they were either too strong or too weak, which was it?

A. They were too weak. They were not relevant to really putting a stop to the conflict.

Q. And in your judgement, what effect did that have on the people on the ground and on the Serb parties in particular?

A. It definitely created the impression that the international community was not about to put a red light. Was not precisely a green light but was not really meaning to do anything forceful to stop the developments on the ground.

Q. Tabs 1, 2, and 3 of what will be Exhibit 615 are some of those Resolutions. The Chamber has seen others of them through other witnesses. Can you turn, please, to tab 4, very briefly, which is a letter from ³¹⁷¹⁴ Branko Kostic, vice-president of the Presidency of Yugoslavia, denying all allegations made, this letter being the 30th of May of 1992 - a little out of order in the bundle, but never mind - and if we turn to the second page of that, we see setting out following denials of all allegations against the former Yugoslavia, firstly respect -- that it respects territorial integrity; secondly, that it will use all means to stop the fighting; third, it will prevent military organisation; fourth conditions be ensured to enable efficient and unhindered distribution of humanitarian aid; fifth, reaffirm strong opposition to forcible expulsion. Just yes or no: In your speech in the United Nations in due course on this topic, did you deal with those five assertions by the former Yugoslavia?

A. Yes, definitely.

Q. Was any one of them true?

A. None.

Q. I turn to the next exhibit in the file, tab 5, a letter from Mrs. Ogata, dated the 18th of March of 1993.

This is a letter that has on page 1 an account of receiving verbal assurances from this accused and Dr. Karadzic on the 16th of March of that year, but on page 2 of the letter - this can be shown on the overhead projector if there's time but I can't delay so I will be dependent on the usher's good offices - on page 2 it says: "I also wish to draw your attention to the medium term developments in Srebrenica. I consider it absolutely necessary to maintain a permanent international presence in the enclave. This is the only means to ensure that the desperate population ³¹⁷¹⁵ is not totally abandoned." And she's ready to maintain her own staff there. "Everything would indicate that a massive humanitarian tragedy is unfolding in the Srebrenica enclave. I believe that key world leaders should be alerted to these developments. I hope that what is happening today in Eastern Bosnia can be brought to the attention of the participants of the international conference."

When did you first see that letter, Mr. Arria?

A. I saw this letter almost 11 years later, after it was never revealed or shared with the Security Council.

Q. You make many comments, we don't have time to expand on them, criticising the Security Council's failure to disseminate or even to have information available; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Go to tab 6, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, let me just ask Dr. Arria: Whose underlining is it in the two paragraphs?

THE WITNESS: Madam Ogata's, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's her emphasis.

THE WITNESS: It's her emphasis, yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. Tab 6 is a letter from the then Secretary Boutros-Ghali of whom you are extremely critical generally, which has, as we see, general distribution. In short, would "general" have included distribution to the former Yugoslavia?

A. Yes. ³¹⁷¹⁶

Q. The second page of tab 6 is the letter to which he refers. What he says, and we can see his description on the first sheet, is in line 3 -- he refers to a letter which is a second letter from Mrs. Ogata. It describes the disturbing situation which has developed in Srebrenica. Does that match the first letter or is that different in tone?

A. It complements the previous letter.

Q. The next letter we see, however -- no, I meant does Boutros-Ghali's observation reflect the tone of the first letter or --

A. Not at all. Madame Ogata actually, Your Honour, urged the Secretary-General to bring key leaders into the matter and with a great sense of urgency, and it took about 12 days for the Security Council to hear again about the situation while the people in Srebrenica were beginning -- were under siege.

Q. And we see at the second two -- the second and third sheet of tab 6 the letter of the 2nd of April set out in an annex setting out the plight of the people in Srebrenica in paragraph 1, and over the page, as I must deal with this briefly, it can all be read at leisure, second paragraph: "Under these circumstances, I believe we are faced with two options if we are to save lives. The first is to immediately enhance international presence in order to turn the enclave into an area protected," and then she goes on to deal with other assistance that must be given.

That letter, therefore, and what it reflected of the position on the ground, was available to Yugoslavia.

A. Yes. ³¹⁷¹⁷

Q. We then see at tab 7 a note by the president with general distribution of the Security Council. First paragraph: Shocked and alarmed at the dire and worsening position. Second paragraph, the Security Council recalls and affirms its relevant Resolutions and condemns the disregard and wilful flouting of the Bosnian Serb party which once again, in pursuit of its unlawful, unacceptable, and abhorrent policy of ethnic cleansing has blocked humanitarian relief efforts. And in the third paragraph, four lines up from the bottom, recalls on strict compliance with Security Council Resolutions.

That letter was available?

A. Yes.

Q. Tab 8, we see the first of two, I think, letters from Sacirbey. How were Sacirbey's complaints of what was happening treated?

A. They were almost totally disregarded. It was a total sense of blase, another complaint by Sacirbey coming to the Council.

Q. Was Bosnia, in your judgement, taken as seriously as it ought to have been at that time in any complaints it made?

A. It was not. We live in a sort of a climate of denial of what the whole world knew was taking place, but not -- the Council was not very much interested in accepting the collective knowledge.

Q. Was this attitude connected, in your judgement, to any particular position taken by Council or, rather, UN members to Bosnia?

A. Well, definitely. We always felt, in aligned countries in the Security Council, that there was a great fear -- there was a double standard being applied in the case of Bosnia versus the standards that we ³¹⁷¹⁸ applied in the case of Kuwait shortly before, and there was a fear of the emergence of a Muslim country in the middle of Europe and that they were being treated not as Europeans but as Muslims.

Q. Tab 9, please. A document we haven't looked at yet but which was available because of its being an order from the 8th of April from the International Court of Justice. This was an order on the complaint of Bosnia. We don't have time to look at the Bosnian complaint in any detail, but it's all set out, what they were complaining. But if we go to three or four pages from the end of the document, and we can see it at the top page 24, bottom of page 25. The court under a heading "Application of the Genocide Convention" ordered unanimously that the government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should immediately take measures within its power to prevent the commission of the crime of genocide, and then by 13 votes to 1, with the Russian I think not voting, that they should in particular ensure that any military, paramilitary, or irregular armed units which may be directed or supported by it, as well as any organisations and persons which may be subject to its control, direction, or influence do not commit any acts of genocide or conspiracy to commit genocide or direct and public incitement to commit genocide. So this was a publicly available order following a publicly available complaint.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You regard that as an important document, and did you at the time regard it as important?

A. Very important, significant document, Your Honours. So much so that we, the non-aligned countries in the Security Council struggled to ³¹⁷¹⁹ actually have it recorded in a Resolution and to be acknowledged, coming from the International Court of Justice. There was great resistance to the inclusion of the Council of genocide at the moment.

Q. And explain so that we can understand, on such a document, how long would normally or might take before some Resolution could be passed and some action could be taken? Could it be done the same day or the following --

A. It could have been within the next 48 hours, and especially coming from the International Court of Justice, which was the second time in my memory that I recall that addressed the Security Council. First it addressed in the case of Libya and second in this case it was done. It should have deserved urgent treatment by the Security Council, coming from the International Court.

Q. But in this case, as we see tab 11, you have to wait until the 15th of April, until your letter as coordinator transmits the copy of a statement. The statement we see on the following page. All of this is available for general distribution. The statement comes from the non-aligned countries; correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And in the middle of the first sheet, the --

JUDGE KWON: The tab number should be ten.

MR. NICE: Did I not say 10? I apologise, tab 10.

Q. The paragraph headed, "In this context we consider an extremely -- as extremely serious the postponement of the adoption of the aforementioned draft Resolution." This was your draft Resolution; ³¹⁷²⁰ correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. "The Bosnian Serb party has given ample proof that it is not willing to heed to any goodwill efforts to peace." Then you deal with Vance-Owen. Next paragraph towards the bottom of the page: "We stand behind the principles contained in the draft Resolution." Last paragraph you deal with the lifting of the arms embargo for which you pressed. And your view on the existence of the arms embargo was what? What effect did that have on Bosnia-Herzegovina?

A. We consider that when the arms embargo was imposed on the countries in 1991, at the end of November 1991, we thought that this was a very significant, important measure, but we didn't know that actually we were preordaining the outcome of this conflict because the only side that was not armed, to have a regular armed forces, was actually the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and no one informed the Security Council or the permanent members of this situation. So it was innocently believing that this would put all the parties in similar condition. That was not the case at all, as time proved to be the case.

Q. Now, the draft Resolution itself is at tab 11 where, as drafted by your non-aligned group, you pressed for reaffirmation of position against ethnic cleansing. You reaffirmed the independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and pressed for the establishment of this Tribunal. On the second sheet we see at number 3 concern at the refusal to accept the agreement of interim arrangements, demands observations of a cease-fire and full respect for rights of UN. ³¹⁷²¹ This draft Resolution never got passed; correct?

A. No.

Q. And your judgement on what would have been the consequences of its being passed at that time had there been the will to do so?

A. It was very clear and evident that the Security Council was not going to go, Your Honour, beyond what it had already done, so we thought if they lifted the arms embargo would level the situation, and there was a complete agreement on the majority of the countries of the United Nations but not the Security Council where the Resolution was voted 9 to 6.

Q. Returning to the issue of impunity that may or may not have been created, was the atmosphere and the attitude that was apparent to you in the United Nations something that should have been or would have been available to Yugoslavia?

A. Yes. So much so I remember that the Yugoslavian ambassador at the time, Jokic, used to send letters, Your Honours, to his colleague in Venezuela, informing exactly what we were doing in the private consultations of the Security Council. I remember one day telling to Jokic that I wasn't going to send more reports to my own government about my performance in the Security Council because his reports were more fully informed than even mine, and presented even faster.

Q. So if it was coming to Venezuela from the Security Council, your inference is that it was going at the same speed and the same quality to Belgrade.

A. I have to imagine that, sir.

Q. We then come to the mission, and the only mission, I think, of the ³¹⁷²² United Nations to Srebrenica at the relevant time; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You pressed for that mission and led it.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. By the way, tab 12 is another letter from Sacirbey, you would say characteristically not taken seriously?

A. The same situation, even though at the time all these letters were corroborated by the international media.

Q. And also tab 14 as well. If we please in your -- you using your statement as an aide-memoire because the Court has allowed you to do so, go to page 40, and it's -- I'm going to start about paragraph 304. The mission involved several countries and we're going to see in due course that your report was a unanimous report; correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Something itself of which you are proud.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. When you got there, what did you discover about the agreement that had already been forged by UNPROFOR? Paragraph 304.

A. Well, Your Honours, we were debating the Resolution of the Security Council until midnight, thinking that we were about to preserve the safety of the people of Srebrenica, and when we got to Srebrenica, to Bosnia-Herzegovina, we found out that at the same time that we were debating this issue, the issue had already been settled on the ground; capitulation had been forced upon the Bosnian forces and demilitarisation ³¹⁷²³ and disarmament of the Bosnian side had started, implemented and enforced by UNPROFOR, which is much beyond the scope of the Resolution. But it meant that actually our Resolution was irrelevant and it was not pertinent because it had already been replaced by the action on the ground.

Q. And again, the conflict between the public debate in the United Nations but the capitulation on the ground which we see reflected at tab 14 of the exhibits in the agreement which you've referred to, would that have been available to the former Yugoslavia?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. If we go to paragraph 307, we're going to find that you prepared a report in due course. We shan't look at it in detail. In the course of that, you refer to the possibility of a massacre of 25.000 people having been stemmed by this agreement. Your view on whether that potential for massacre of 25.000 people was obvious at the time.

A. Yes. It was a figure that we reached consulting with the representative UNHCR, the humanitarian office, the Red Cross, Medicins Sans Frontieres, and other NGOs plus the UNPROFOR forces on the ground, that was the estimate.

Q. You say in the report that as the UNPROFOR agreement brings that to an end. What do you say as to whether that was the end of the threat or the risk of massacre of this number of people or whether it continued?

A. At the moment, yes, because the whole attention of the international community, Your Honours, thanks fundamentally to the international media, we can focus on the case of Srebrenica and we thought at the moment a red light had been put on by the international media and ³¹⁷²⁴ public opinion at the moment.

Q. In the mid-term or long-term, however, what was the position?

A. We thought, and it is in the report, that we saw crimen and the slow-motion genocide taking place and that a massacre would take place. And the degrading conditions when I visit Srebrenica were really unimaginable of the situation being suffered by the people in the area which had not been described to us and the Security Council at all. We thought that Srebrenica was under siege but never that it had been taken over it was like an open gaol where the -- this slow-motion genocide was taking place and was actually finalised in the second stage of 1995.

Q. Did the risk to these people continue?

A. The risk continued because the UNPROFOR forces were actually under the control and supervision of the Serb paramilitary around the area.

Q. We'll come to the detail in second. The risk continued. Was it obvious to you and to anybody on the ground --

A. Yes, it was obvious that we were -- the whole village, enclave was surrounded by heavy weapons around the hills, we were shown that by UNPROFOR forces, and the Serb paramilitary were actually patrolling the area.

Q. The -- the mission, paragraph 311, involved your being held up by a limited number of Serb soldiers for an hour and a half, I think, and having a gun pointed at you in Kiseljak.

A. Yes, sir. I mean, it was five Serb soldiers stop about a contingent of about 20 armoured cars and a hundred paratroopers from Denmark that were escorting the Security Council mission. ³¹⁷²⁵

Q. What did that and other events on the ground show you about who was in charge in Srebrenica?

A. It was very clear to us that the United Nations was not in charge at all, that the Serbs were in charge, and the attitude of the officers who were leading us were like subordinates to the Serb soldiers, not even officers.

Q. Had that ever been revealed to you in New York?

A. Never. I mean, to me, to us, to the whole mission came as a shock so much so that even though some of the ambassadors who accompanied us and were part of the mission had a different position than the Security Council. They all signed the report and they noticed that that was the situation, and they were the ones who included this quotation in the report to the mission.

Q. Did Brigadier Hayes, who was your contact, facilitate your visit or did he stand in the way of your seeing what you wanted to see?

A. Brigadier Hayes was more interested in having sort of a perfunctory visit by the mission, not -- he did not show himself to be cooperative in any way to really get us to be able to discharge our responsibility in evaluating what was going on in Srebrenica. On the contrary; he did everything possible to block that we really get an impression. I would say that I understood finally why the United Nations didn't ever send missions to the ground, because when you send missions to the ground you find out the truth.

Q. I think your colleagues were delayed and stalled. Everybody's cameras were taken away except yours, and yours were the only photographs ³¹⁷²⁶ broadcast around the world.

A. That's the case. I was even brought into Zvornik without telling me. We landed in a stadium in Zvornik and I was greeted by the Serb colonel, Ratko I think was his name, who told me that I was arriving into the Republika Srpska, which of course we never recognise. And they -- I was held there for another hour. It was clear they were killing time for us not to get to Srebrenica, and my colleagues had been left behind in Kiseljak and actually arrived an hour later, and the journalists who came from New York international media were not allowed to come into Srebrenica. And the only -- the only camera that was allowed, because I didn't surrender, was mine and it was given to Reuters at the time and those were the photographs that came out of Srebrenica.

Q. And then you saw Karadzic who'd previously said something about trapping the people in Srebrenica?

A. Well, we saw the other indicted in Belgrade, in the airport in Belgrade. He was just coming out of a meeting with Mr. Milosevic, and that was at the airport when we met with him, and he had publicly said that they had them trapped like rats. And I actually quoted him in one of my speeches at the Security Council but we never anticipated what he meant until we got to Srebrenica and we really saw that he was not telling a lie.

Q. And you made your complaints to him. Was this something he was expecting or was it, in your judgement, something that came as a surprise to him that complaints could be made in the way you did?

A. No, he was smiling all the time to us, you know. He didn't know ³¹⁷²⁷ anything. He didn't know that there was no water coming to the city, no electricity, no doctors --

Q. Very well.

A. -- there were people starving, et cetera.

Q. To deal with the question of notice, you've described the control, the general atmosphere that was there. Page -- paragraph 344 on page 46. You then gave press statements which of course are available around the world, and to pick up some of them to save time, you've already dealt with the fact that this was a slow-motion genocide, that Srebrenica was far from being a safe area. You dealt with the cutting off of all aid, including medical aid, and you also said, is this correct, middle of paragraph 344, that there was open defiance of the international community?

A. Absolutely.

Q. And you then made your observations later to some other journalists about, or perhaps Serbs running a concentration camp --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. -- policed by UNPROFOR. Meanwhile the slow-motion genocide to kill them gains speed.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. If we, to deal with the exhibits, look at tab 15, there's your unanimous report, and you set out a draft Resolution, which was not passed or was passed?

A. It was passed.

Q. Sorry, yes. You're dealing with the adopted Resolution first. ³¹⁷²⁸ But if we go on to the report, effectively the report itself, which is four pages in, under the heading "Situation on the Ground," you've set out a number of points. The Muslims viewed by the Serbs -- actions by the Muslims viewed by the Serbs as justifying their offensive.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What paragraph?

MR. NICE: This is paragraph 6.

Q. Seven, the 70.000 people there. Down to paragraph 11, an account of how you'd been obstructed. Paragraph 13, your account of what Wahlgren told you that came as a surprise to you about the so-called agreement, or the agreement, rather. And then you set out the potential massacre of 25.000 people in paragraph 14.

17 you go back to that. 19 you deal with the slow-motion genocide. And then over the page, paragraph 27A, the town practically under siege -- sorry, 24 you set out what you observed, tanks dug in, heavy weapons, and so on; and 27A, under siege; B inhuman conditions. Over the page, G, the general humanitarian convoy position that you observed; K, the need to be kept fully informed. Was that document, your report, which can be perused in detail if necessary, available to the former Yugoslavia and to this accused?

A. Absolutely. That report was actually circulated to the whole General Assembly and it was widely quoted by the international media, Your Honours, so that definitely it was a very well known report. It was the first report ever produced by the Security Council on a mission on the ground during a conflict.

Q. Then we go through tabs 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. They are ³¹⁷²⁹ samples of press and radio television output by you at that time?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Your observations at the time, that this was a slow-motion genocide waiting to happen or in the course of happening, was that ever significantly challenged in the debate?

A. It was never challenged because it was so evident, Your Honours, to watch a small town surrounded by heavy weapons, no doctors coming in, no health, no water, no electricity, and it was obvious that it was going to be a matter of time, which unfortunately proved to be the case. And where the United Nations wasn't willing to do anything more forceful to prevent that from happening, not even with withdrawing the heavy weapons around the area or even allow the doctors to come into the area or water to be resumed.

Q. You've described a state up and until your visit where information coming to New York was inadequate and indeed incorrect.

A. And -- and not only that, usually late, too late. We -- we really, it was a tremendous great shock to all the members of the Security Council mission when we visit the area that the papers we had in our hands did not reflect the gravity and the tragic situation on the ground, and I think that that's why it propelled the members of the mission to put it in black and white and really present it to the Council.

Q. Your mission was able to bring -- put the problem of Srebrenica on the map for a time. Following this attempt of yours to bring change, what happened? Did the level of reporting and information coming out of Srebrenica continue at the higher level that you'd raised it to or did it ³¹⁷³⁰ return to the lower level?

A. It returned to the lower level, Your Honours. Not only that, at the time, the Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali addressed General Wahlgren on the ground to tell him that he didn't believe any military -- his interpretation of our Resolution did not imply any changes in the military attitude or policy. And that was corroborated to me by the Brigadier Hayes who told me in Sarajevo that the Security Council Resolution were woolly-headed Resolutions. If our own forces considered them irrelevant, you can remember what the Serbs in the area considered them.

Q. Had you been able to effect any long-term change in any level of impunity existing in the area of Srebrenica?

A. The Council never took any more measure -- initiative. The Canadian Battalion at the time was about 200 effective were left intact. They were not increased, augmented. The situation didn't change. What Mr. Karadzic offered to us at the Belgrade airport never took place, and the situation continued there, and other events continued absorbing the attention of the international media and Srebrenica slowly came out of the radar of the international community until it was too late and to -- in July 1995.

Q. Tab 23, just to complete the documentary position. Tab 23 is a letter from the permanent representative of Pakistan dated the 14th of May, and this is a letter signed up by various people, the non-aligned group. It -- I think paragraph 2 says that the Council has been fundamentally unable to discharge its responsibilities under the Charter to maintain the collective security system as envisaged, has failed to ³¹⁷³¹ redress this tragic situation. This is evident from the fact -- and then various facts are set out.

Now, this document -- oh, yes. If we go over the page, please, to paragraph -- the top of page -- the next page, at the end of what is paragraph 4. "Since the London International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia and up to the Vance-Owen Plan, the Serbs have repeatedly deceived the international community and reneged on their commitments. The Serbs have used the negotiating process and the Vance-Owen Plan not as a means to a peaceful solution but as a vehicle for procrastination and for gaining internationally legitimacy." Was that the view held by your group at that time?

A. Yes, Your Honours. If I may explain something that I believe is very significant: The non-aligned countries in the Security Council were very concerned that all these debates were taking place in a closed room. People always to used to see the public room of the Security Council, but in formal consultation room, which are where the real debates and discussions are held, were not being made public. And the non-aligned felt that the real questions were not being brought up to the light. That was reason that we produced this document, which became then and gave the full information not only what was our position but what our information was regarding this issue.

Q. So again available to the former Yugoslavia, and at paragraph 15 on the same document: "Bosnia and Herzegovina have become a symbol of the resistance to the resurgence of the crime of genocide," and you set out more than a hundred thousand deaths, and you say, "No one can claim ³¹⁷³² ignorance or lack of knowledge of these facts."

A. Even in colours, there was -- the only crime that wasn't committed there was the crime of silence, like Bertrand Russell once said.

Q. And then tab 24, Resolution 827, adopted on the 25th of May, does alarm -- continue to express alarm at continuing the talks of genocide. And then finally, the tab is tab 25, a number of countries dealing with -- a draft Resolution this. Just tell us about this, please.

A. This was a draft Resolution which we presented to lift the arms embargo.

Q. Yes.

A. Described, as I explained before in my previous comments, to really provide to -- to one of the parties the capacity to defend itself, which is enshrined in the United Nations charter, because we were negating them the possibility to defend them so at least we should allow them to defend themselves. And even though that was a unanimous decision by the General Assembly, it did not get the support of the permanent members of the Security Council with exception of the United States who supported our proposal.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I have just got a couple of more questions, with your leave, and then I'm done.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. In the draft statement, acting as an aide-memoire, at page 60, paragraph 436, you set out how it was that it was on the 29th of June that you spoke in favour of the draft Resolution that you advanced, and at page ³¹⁷³³ 400 -- page 64, paragraph 463, some of the things you said, which were of course going to be reported back to Belgrade in your judgement, you set out how the UN was not a debating Chamber. You likened the position there to Czechoslovakia in 1938. Is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you said that the historical backdrop, page -- paragraph 465: "... had sowed many dangerous seeds in the degenerating conflict. President Izetbegovic has been called intransigent by Lord Owen, just as Benes was. And Bosnia-Herzegovina is being compelled to cede to its Croat and Serb neighbours 90 per cent of its territory. What will be left will be perfectly homogenous areas within the spirit of apartheid so often condemned by this organisation."

You go on to extend your analogy with Czechoslovakia, and at paragraph 467 you set out the danger of preventing people from the right to defend themselves.

Mr. Arria, as you know the time is limited and I have indeed exhausted my time: You did everything you could, or did you do everything you could to describe the position on the ground to the world and to the United Nations?

A. Yes, sir, even though I believe it was completely unnecessary because the whole world knew what was taking place. It was being recorded, Your Honours, by all the international media and television all over the world, so what we did was to add I would say the gravity of coming from the Security Court members as the non-aligned members of the Security Council agreed. By the way, I don't think add anything new ³¹⁷³⁴ except when, during our visit to Srebrenica, Your Honours, when we found this dire and terrible and tragic situation. Otherwise, the whole world knew exactly what was going on.

Q. And the means of communication that you've described identified the risk to the 25.000 people that you set out in your report?

A. Absolutely. I remember perfectly well, Your Honours, even The New York Times carrying a long story about what slow-motion genocide meant and actually fatally happened in 1995. It was an accumulation. I always believe that the massacre started in 1993. It did not take place, started in 1995. It was the same crime in an accumulated fashion that just took a longer period to be implemented and executed but it was a massacre that started two years and it took two years to accomplish and went beyond the 7.000 people of Srebrenica. It was around 20.000, even according to the report of Secretary-General Kofi Annan on the Srebrenica report.

Q. In the absence of a red light, to which you referred at the very beginning, was that clear to those who became involved in this matter?

A. I always believed that the sense of the culture, Your Honours, of impunity started when the United Nations, the UNPROFOR forces were taken to the airport in Sarajevo. The Deputy Prime Minister of Bosnia, Mr. Turajlic, they opened the door of an armoured car and he was murdered in front of a patrol of United Nations troops and no one did raise a finger, did anything about it, and it was clear that if you can murder, with the protection of the United Nations, the Deputy Prime Minister the newest member of the United Nations, you can get away with murder, which actually they did. ³¹⁷³⁵

MR. NICE: I'm grateful for the indulgence of a few more minutes, but I hope that's a compact form of evidence acceptable to the Chamber.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice. The Chamber is grateful for your cooperation. Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, how much time am I going to have for the cross-examination of this witness?

JUDGE ROBINSON: We had originally indicated one hour, but in view of the examination-in-chief, we'll give you an hour and 20 minutes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I received this witness's statement, which is almost 500 paragraphs long, last night, and I received your decision that his presentation would be shorter, shortened, and that Mr. Nice would have 30 minutes. Mr. Nice took up 60 minutes, as you've just seen.

JUDGE KWON: No. He has used only 40 minutes, 41 minutes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, commence. The Chamber has always been sensitive to your right to cross-examine. If you have an application to make at the end, then you can make it and we'll consider it.

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

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Arria, in paragraph 7 of your statement you say the following: "This statement is not meant to provide a definitive chronology [In English] of events relating to all matters I dealt with as I was brought in and out of service of the UN Security Council. I have been asked by staff from the Office of the Prosecutor -- I have been asked by staff from the office of Prosecutor to review a number of documents and ³¹⁷³⁶ comment on them."

[Interpretation] That's a quotation from your statement. Was that indeed the task you were given by the opposite side?

A. Precisely.

Q. And did you adhere to the task presented in that way when you made your statement?

A. The request to me, Your Honours, was not regimented my contribution to my position. I volunteer most of the information that is provided in the document.

Q. So you selected the information; is that right? The information that you provided and the comments you provided.

A. Your Honours, I always had full control of my own contribution to this document.

Q. Very well, Mr. Arria, but the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina was a continuous process, and the Security Council followed the continuity of this process. Do you feel that a complete picture of this process and UN Security Council reactions can be given if you limit your analysis to just a part of the documents without giving us a full chronology of the events?

A. That was precisely, Your Honours, what I tried to contribute to the case, to fill the gaps that were -- have to be filled and to bring exactly whole context of my experience throughout whole process in the Security Council and not -- that's what I said. I was not regimented or limited in my contribution.

Q. Very well. But Mr. Arria, when we're talking about the events that took place in Bosnia-Herzegovina, you weren't present, you weren't ³¹⁷³⁷ there, you have no direct knowledge of them with the exception of your brief stay there in April 1993 within the frameworks of the UN Security Council mission; isn't that right?

A. We had the information from many sources, not only from our own, Your Honours, visit. We had, even though some of them were late, we had from the UNPROFOR forces, we had from the missions who had people on the ground, so we had -- we were in a privileged position to really know and to get information, Your Honour.

Q. When I say that you have no direct knowledge except that brief stay from the 23rd to the 26th of April, that's what I mean, that's right, isn't it? And during those three days, you visited Zagreb and Belgrade and various other places in Bosnia. So your immediate direct knowledge was only based on what you learnt during the space of those three days. Isn't that right, Mr. Arria?

A. No, Your Honours, that's not the case. There have been many reports from commission of experts, human rights, the UN, especially the United Nations Human Rights Commission, special commission, et cetera, there was a lot of information. Of course you cannot have access directly to all of them, but we were receiving a lot of this information.

Q. Yes, but in fact, you are testifying only about what you learnt and the information you received from other sources, in fact. Would that be right, Mr. Arria?

A. No. I am relying on my own information. I'm relying on information from reliable sources, qualified sources to report to Security Council. After all, the Security Council doesn't have people on the ³¹⁷³⁸ ground. The whole United Nations system is actually politically under the Security Council, so actually, Your Honours, we were working with the whole system that is supposedly working for you.

Q. Very well. So that means that you as the representative of Venezuela in the UN Security Council at that time base your knowledge on the events on the ground from reports that were sent out by representatives of UNPROFOR in the field, or UNMO, and it was their task to follow events in the area and to report back to New York; is that right?

A. No, not necessarily the case. We received information, Your Honours, like I said before, from different sources, missions, the commission of experts, the UNPROFOR, our own mission on the ground, our own embassies, embassies from other countries that had access to information. So it was -- we were not lacking, from that point of view, information what was really happening on the ground.

Q. Mr. Arria, in paragraph 38 of your statement, you say the following: "I always thought that the UN Security Council, [In English] regardless of its international political prominence was collectively an extremely poorly informed body for two reasons. First because the permanent members generally do not share information available to them; and second, because the secretariat reports were regularly late and often partial and incomplete and not necessarily because of the ignorance of the facts."

[Interpretation] So it was this information precisely to which you are referring that you say in paragraph 38 were withheld and that the UN ³¹⁷³⁹ Security Council was an extremely poorly informed body is what you say.

A. Your Honours, the Security Council officially, that's what I mean, was poorly informed but not in the reality. The problem with the Security Council was precisely that they don't want to acknowledge and they won't recognise even though they knew what was taking place. So it wasn't because of lacking of information. What I meant was a lack of official information that could be acted upon it.

Q. All right, Mr. Arria, but the first of the reasons that you indicate was not that all the persons were not informed but the permanent members generally do not share information with others. And then in paragraph 29, you say that the permanent members had their own sources of information and that it was those -- that they shared those informations with the -- selectively and at their convenience shared the information. It was the non-permanent members that were not informed or, rather, their representatives.

A. Yes, Your Honours, but again I reinstate it was officially but in reality we knew, there were a lot of people in the United Nations membership countries who were alarmed what was happening on the ground and were willing to provide information to us, even missions from the permanent member countries, from the permanent members of the Security Council. So we had ample information to act. What -- but there was not officially acknowledged by some of the permanent members who really didn't want to act.

Q. Very well. The fact that you accuse these UN Security Council members is your affair, but you say that the secretariat, and I'm quoting ³¹⁷⁴⁰ you, "The secretariat reports were regularly late and often partial and incomplete. [In English] And not necessarily because of the ignorance of the facts."

[Interpretation] So Ghali and his services consciously and intentionally covered up the facts. Is that what you're saying, Mr. Arria, in fact?

A. Your Honours, I think it's only one accused party here. I'm not accusing anybody else except the accused. And then what I said that, that also -- I consider this operation one of the most -- the greatest cover-up operation of the United Nations officially because so much information was kept away from the -- from the Security Council membership to act upon.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The -- there's a very narrow area of relevance of the evidence of this witness, and that is why the Chamber issued an order directing the Prosecutor how to conduct the examination-in-chief. The United Nations and the Security Council is, of course, not on trial here, but what happened there is -- is important and relevant as part of the backdrop, the background to the events in Srebrenica. I understand Mr. Milosevic to be asking you about the -- how well the Security Council was informed, because to the extent that it was poorly informed and that you are a member, then he might be saying that you're also poorly informed, and I think that is what you need to answer.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour. I fully grasp the meaning of the accused's remarks and questions to me, and I would like to try to clarify what I said, that officially the Council was very poorly informed, but that didn't mean that the members of the Council would not get access ³¹⁷⁴¹ to the information except for information that we were only able to gather on the ground, like during our visit to Srebrenica. I don't know whether I make myself clear, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Milosevic, please continue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I have been trying to establish that this witness presented the facts in a lopsided manner, upside down. He is criticising the Security Council and the Secretary-General, and it seems the Security Council did not know anything, but it seems that the entire UN structure, only he and a few member of his group knew something and that no one else knew a thing.

Q. Please, Mr. Arria, in paragraph 29 you even went a step further in your accusations against Boutros-Ghali. You say [In English]: "... in some cases has provided disinformation." [Interpretation] You emphasised that far the case with Bosnia-Herzegovina and specifically Srebrenica. So you claim not only that the secretariat headed by Boutros Boutros-Ghali denied you information but that even they disinformed you that they gave you misinformation. That is a major accusation, isn't it? I'm quoting you, so that is what you allege.

A. Your Honour, it is very clear to me that I'm not accusing anybody else except the accused. The -- the relevance of this -- of the secretariat not providing information on time or it is very clear -- I actually mention in Madame Ogata's letter, for example, of October -- October -- March 18, I only came to see this letter 11 years later. If that's not misinformation, it's very difficult to understand what misinformation means. Not only that, we were prevented -- actually the ³¹⁷⁴² Secretary-General at the time, Boutros-Ghali was almost never present during the private consultations when we were debating the position of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I was very critical of this arm-length position from the man who is responsible to the charge and moral responsibility, like the case of the Secretary-General.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It is time for a break. We are I think five minutes beyond.

Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Can I raise an entirely separate administrative matter that it would be helpful to sort out just now?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Well, let me have the witness now leave. We're going to break for half an hour, and during the break you are not to discuss your evidence with anybody. You may leave, Mr. Arria.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.

MR. NICE: Small matter. The Court will remember issuing an order about a range of documents, SDC minutes, Council for Harmonisation documents and so on in respect of which it seeks us to provide and we are going to provide analysis and interpretation. The task is a rather large one and despite staff working all weekend, I'd be grateful for a short extension of time. The Chamber may remember that there's a return date for the amici I think one month after our document is in, and if you could give us until the end of the week that would be of great assistance to us.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, that's granted. Yes. We adjourn for half an hour.

--- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m. ³¹⁷⁴³

--- On resuming at 11.10 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Please continue.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So, Mr. Arria, let it be quite clear. I am fully challenging your assertion that the general secretary of the UN at the time, that is to say Boutros-Ghali, misinformed you and that when you say the secretary in some cases, that is a completely unfounded accusation levelled against the then-Secretary-General. Are you aware of that or not?

A. Your Honour, I believe if that will be the case, I think Mr. Boutros-Ghali would choose another lawyer besides the accused.

Q. I don't understand your answer. I'm quoting you, Mr. Arria, because you say: "Has provided disinformation."

A. Your Honour, to --

Q. You also express a lack of confidence in the Secretary-General and the Security Council and everybody except for what you have been saying all along yourself in terms of what you say happened.

A. Your Honour, when the accused referred before to a group, I would like to tell you that our group meant 110 countries in the United Nations, all the non-aligned countries of the United Nations, whom the members of the non-aligned who were represented in the Security Council kept always in consultation. So it was not only the opinion of only five members or non-aligned members of the Security Council.

To illustrate to the Court, Your Honour, you allow me, I will tell you only three things which I didn't want to extend more. Mrs. Ogata was ³¹⁷⁴⁴ the highest official of the United Nations in charge of humanitarian refugees. On March 18th informed the Secretary-General of the emerging tragedy of an imminent danger for the population of Srebrenica. It took two weeks for the Secretary-General to inform the Security Council. The night that we were debating the Security Council Resolution of safe areas, the secretariat knew fully well that Srebrenica had already been capitulated, even though they did not inform the Council that such-and-such was the case.

The third case, when the new Resolution for all the safe areas, the secretariat withdrew the terms of reference that had been prepare by Madame Ogata and the secretariat itself which were excellent terms of reference to really create safe areas, they were withdrawn by the secretariat at the instruction of the Secretary-General. That was what I was -- when I address the issue of the lack of cooperation or misinformation or cover-up, this is what I'm referring to, sir.

Q. Mr. Arria, since you mentioned Mrs. Ogata now and her letter that you showed here, are you aware of the fact that it was actually the other way round, that it was quite different from what you've been trying to say all along as you show this letter, because she says: "[In English] During the course of three telephone conversations I had with President Milosevic on passage of relief convoys to Eastern and Central Bosnia, and in particular to Srebrenica."

[Interpretation] Do you know that there has not been a single case whatsoever that Serbia and I personally, and I was the one whom Mrs. Ogata addressed, turned a deaf ear to requests put forth by the UN High ³¹⁷⁴⁵ Commissioner for Refugees in order to facilitate the passage of humanitarian convoys? Every humanitarian convoy that went through Serbia was approved and not a single one was prevented from carrying out their mission. You do not have one single case that Serbia presented any kind of obstacle to humanitarian aid. On the contrary. Serbia made every effort to make it possible for humanitarian convoys to come through. Do you know that Serbia itself sent convoys to Serbia, including Sarajevo, including the Muslims in Sarajevo?

So what have you been trying to prove through this letter as far as Serbia's concerned and as far as I'm concerned personally? You do not have a single case that we did not --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you must allow the witness to answer the question that you have raised.

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I sort of understood that was a statement rather than a question. I don't know -- will you please correct me if that's wrong.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think the substance of his question is that Serbia did not present any kind of obstacle to humanitarian convoys coming through.

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, Serbia provided all the tanks, ammunition, armament, uniforms, fuel to precisely to their proxies who were preventing the humanitarian assistance to arrive.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. That is an absurd assertion, Mr. Arria, but let's move on. You say in connection with this lack of information which is impermissible, ³¹⁷⁴⁶ and you say that it was Boutros-Ghali and his services. In paragraph 30 you say: "[In English] The filter became excessive in the case of the former Yugoslavia tragedy when the filter turned into a dam for the containment of information that limited and prevented the arrival of valuable information to Security Council in realtime, even on issues affecting the lives of thousands of peoples."

[Interpretation] Are you accusing the secretariat or, rather, Boutros-Ghali of having committed a crime?

A. Your Honour, in the documents that I presented, General Wahlgren admits that a month before we ever knew that Srebrenica was about to fall the secretariat knew about it. That's precisely what I'm referring to. The information was not provided in time. I hardly doubt that the Security Council would have done much more had it been provided information but the situation was not as dire a month before as it was in April 1993.

Q. In relation to Ghali, you spare no accusations, even in insulting terms. Paragraph 42 when you say that he did not come to informal consultations at the UN. You call Ghali's behaviour "[In English] perverse to define such a practice." "I can only use the term perverse to define such a practice."

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the specific question that you're putting to the witness?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Does that mean that Ghali was concealing information and providing misinformation about things that had to do with the lives of thousands of ³¹⁷⁴⁷ people and that he behaved in a perverse way? You describe the behaviour of the General-Secretary at the request of a body which aspires to be a body of the United Nations.

A. Your Honour, almost 11 years ago I raised my hand to approve the creation of this Tribunal, and it was precisely to handle the case such as the person who is the accused, not to consider the Secretary-General. So I have said in my deposition, and I repeat it, that at the time I always was critical and I remain very critical of the lack of candidness, to use a term, by the secretariat and some of the member countries to admit and to provide the real information in realtime to the Security Council.

Q. All right, Mr. Arria. You are no less harsh in an assessing the behaviour of envoys in negotiations, like Cyrus Vance and Lord David Owen. In paragraph 148 of your statement, you say: "[In English] Negotiations were ongoing at the time under the leadership of David Owen and Cyrus Vance. A territorial division of an apartheid character was being proposed by them and by Milosevic ..."

So according what you say, the two of them, together with me, created apartheid in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and that is a crime, isn't it? How did you get that idea?

A. The Security Council, the non-members, Your Honour, always said that it was -- it should not be the outcome that Bosnia-Herzegovina should be divided apartheid lines, which precisely the United Nations fought for years before. One of the greatest victories of the United Nations was the victory against apartheid.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic is, however, asking what is the ³¹⁷⁴⁸ specific basis for your conclusion that he was proposing a division based on apartheid?

THE WITNESS: Your Honours, the accused was at -- proceeded -- adopted a policy of endless conversations and negotiations with the Security Council with some of the mediators. I was perfectly informed by Mr. Owen and Mr. Vance at the time precisely of what the ambitions of the Serb Party were. At the time, even included from the beginning Srebrenica as part of what they called later on the Republika Srpska. That's what I'm referring to. And it came -- that part came from Mr. Milosevic himself.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic, continue.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Even that is not correct, that it came directly from me. And I asked you a question by quoting you directly, because you say territorial division of an apartheid character was being proposed by them. So it's Owen and Cyrus Vance. And then you add "and by Milosevic." That's why I'm telling you, so the two of them, together with me, created some kind of an apartheid.

A. I think I already replied, Your Honour, to that question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, do you know, Mr. Arria, that the Vance-Owen Plan precisely envisaged the cantonisation of Bosnia, which hardly overlapped with the ethnic pattern of the population in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Partly it did coincide, but partly it did not at all. So that was not the basic premise ³¹⁷⁴⁹ of the Vance-Owen Plan that we all supported, to create any kind of apartheid. After all that, plan still exists and can be seen.

A. Your Honour, precisely the part that did not coincide on ethnic grounds was the area of Srebrenica, and I think that the main party in this conflict knows what they did about it, which was precisely to remove the people from Srebrenica which were far away from Sarajevo. That's precisely the region that did not fit exactly into the ethnic partition. Srebrenica was the part that paid for this.

Q. Mr. Arria, in paragraphs 150, 51 and 52 of your statement you say: "[In English] The surrender of Srebrenica to the Serbs was of strategic importance - both for the Serbs and for the UN negotiators - because Srebrenica had to be in Serb-held territory in order to be able to secure a peace 'deal.'

"It would become part of Greater Serbia. "Such a premeditated course of action can be easily established by just following the reports that Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali never shared with the Council non-permanent members - who were the only ones who would have opposed such a course - as well as by reading the directives he provided to UNPROFOR not to assist in the protection of the enclaves." [Interpretation] So this is what you said in terms of the responsibility of the UN negotiators. I assume that you include Owen in addition to Vance and the Secretary-General and the permanent members of the Security Council. So this is a premeditated course of action, as you put it; is that right?

A. Your Honours, I think I have even put it in writing what's my ³¹⁷⁵⁰ position, which I don't want it to be altered in the way that's been presented by Mr. Milosevic.

Q. I didn't alter anything, Mr. Arria. I just quoted you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: In other words, you stand by what is in your report.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So in your opinion, Owen, Vance, and the Security Council, together with me, created some kind of a basis for a Greater Serbia. Is that what you're alleging? There's a lack of seriousness in that, Mr. Arria. Doesn't it look that way to you?

A. No, it doesn't look that way at all to me. From the first negotiations, at the end, the outcome that came from the peace Resolution at the end of the conflict reflected precisely what was intended from the beginning, which was an ethnic partition of Bosnia which unfortunately took place at the end.

Q. Are you saying now that the Dayton Agreement was also misconceived, the one that brought the war in Bosnia to an end, achieved peace? Is that what you're claiming, Mr. Arria?

A. Your Honour, I don't know how the accused feels about it. I feel greatly relieved that fortunately peace was brought to people with whom he humiliated and damaged for such a long time but I don't think that is the cause of issue that is at stake, but if you want me to reply to that, Your Honour, I will do that with pleasure.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Proceed, Mr. Milosevic. ³¹⁷⁵¹

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But please take a look at paragraph 46 of your statement, the UN mission. You say -- you actually refer to the enclaves, the safe areas, and then you say: "[In English] But in any Resolution to give effect to such designation, it should be clearly and emphatically recorded that the establishment Security Council safe areas in no way -- in no way undermines the proposed settlement details of the --"

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I think we're having difficulty finding that. Did you say paragraph 46?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, in the report of the mission to the Security Council. His mission or, rather, the mission of his group.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. "[In English] ... in no way undermines the proposed settlement details of the Vance-Owen Plan. It is not an attempt to create new and different internal boundaries within Bosnia."

[Interpretation] So you, like all members of the mission then, supported the Vance-Owen Plan. Does that mean that by giving your support in writing by way of an official document, you supported apartheid, actually, by way of supporting the creation of a Greater Serbia? Because in this report of yours, you actually support the Vance-Owen Plan.

A. Your Honour, I couldn't follow the paragraph that he's quoting.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think he's referring to paragraph --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Presiding Judge, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Not paragraph 46 of your statement but paragraph 46 of the report to the Security Council. ³¹⁷⁵² Mr. Nice, is that --

JUDGE KWON: It's tab 15.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Tab 15.

JUDGE KWON: And page 11.

THE WITNESS: Yes, 46. I have it, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Have you read the paragraph, and are you in a position now to answer the question raised?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. Yes, Your Honour, I am. Throughout the whole process, the non-aligned members of the -- we always endorse all peace plans that were proposed, especially the Vance-Owen Plan. It was always -- we could not but hope for peace, but at the same time we were demanding some force of action would be taken by the Security Council and we conceived that to be compatible and especially compatible with the political situation within the Security Council, which nothing else could be achieved. And unfortunately, I believe at the end the Council agreement brought, as actually corroborated, the ending partition of a country, setting a terrible precedent for humanity. I believe so, sir.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, I assume that you're not testifying here about your convictions, but it has become obvious that you are testifying about your convictions. So you supported the Vance-Owen Plan, although you said before that the Vance-Owen Plan was -- or, rather, that Vance and Owen, together with me, were creating a division which constituted apartheid. That plan, if you don't know that, Mr. Arria, was made by the three ³¹⁷⁵³ parties in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Yugoslavia supported that as it supported all other peace plans. In that respect, you cannot find any difference between the positions upheld by the Security Council and the positions of Yugoslavia, because Yugoslavia, Serbia, and I personally supported all peace plans. Are you aware of that?

A. I am very much aware, Your Honour, that Srebrenica was always an issue in discussion, because the Serb side always wanted to have Srebrenica, which was -- they wanted to have it always on the Serb side, and that was finally what happened. Srebrenica today is on the Serb side.

Q. Do you know that these maps are the result of the final negotiations held in Dayton on the basis of the finally adopted position which was based on the proposal of the Contact Group, 51 to 49 between Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and that proposal of the Contact Group had been put forth months before that. You remember that, don't you?

A. Your Honour, at the moment of Dayton, already the situation created by the atrocities committed by the Serb side in Bosnia-Herzegovina have settled already the issue. There was no option for the Bosnia-Herzegovina government to accept those terms, especially knowing that no one else was going to do anything about it.

Q. Mr. Arria, since you were not in Dayton, you probably don't know that all options were on the table, and there weren't any questions that were reserved, so to speak, and that could not be discussed. The Dayton Agreement is the result of consensus among the three parties that participated in it as well as the representatives of the Contact Group and ³¹⁷⁵⁴ the host country, the United States. I assume that you know that and that you don't need me to explain it to you.

A. Your Honour, I don't know whether the Council will -- the Dayton Agreement is part of what you would like me to consider in the time that I've been given. If you want me to, I will go into it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, answer to the extent that you can, briefly.

THE WITNESS: I stand by what I said before. I believe that at the outcome it was -- people had already been ravaged, the country has been destroyed, subject to genocide, all kinds of crimes against humanity, and the situation settled by the Serb forces with the support of Belgrade had made it -- that possible, and there were no other options but the representative of Bosnia-Herzegovina to sign. There are many books written about what happened there, and I'm sure Your Honours know about it, but there is one item, a fact that remains standing, that at the end, Bosnia-Herzegovina, one of the newest countries of the United Nations, partitioned on ethnic considerations, and that's -- I -- I stand on that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right, Mr. Arria. You stand by facts that cannot be corroborated in the field, actually, but let us move on, because our time is not unlimited.

In paragraph 35, you say: "[In English] The non-permanent members therefore often relied on media sources rather than UN information services. They were usually more reliable than the secretariat ..." [Interpretation] So since you were very poorly informed in the Security Council, you received information from the media; is that right? ³¹⁷⁵⁵

A. Your Honours, if a courageous British photographer and journalist had not brought to the attention of the world what was happening in Srebrenica even though the United Nations knew, we didn't know, all the attention would have been provided, and it was international media precisely in Great Britain that provided that information. The media was following actually were the greatest allies that the non-permanent members had. They had more people on the ground covering up and being objective and independently providing information. That was not the only source, of course, but it was the one that resounded more in public opinion. Srebrenica to a great extent was not massacre in April 1993 because of the assistance that this British journalist provided to world opinion.

Q. Why there was not a massacre in 1993 is something that is clearly testified about. There is a lot of evidence about that, but I'm not going to take up any more time because you obviously don't know about it. If you received your information from the media, can one therefore infer that you did not differ substantially from millions of people who received their information by watching television, listening to the radio, and reading the newspapers? Can we, therefore, conclude that you are no better a witness than any other listener of the radio or any other person who read the newspapers, watched television, and so on?

A. Your Honours, had it not been for this information, General Morillon probably would not have appeared in Srebrenica, and he did. And when you compound the news that were circulating in the world and immediately General Morillon going to Srebrenica, that made it impossible for the Security Council not to meet. And I must tell Your Honours that ³¹⁷⁵⁶ had it not been because the non-aligned countries present their Resolution to create a safe area, no Resolution had been created, probably just a presidential statement would have only been circulated.

Q. That's not true, but as we'll have occasion to hear General Morillon here in this courtroom, I don't suppose there's any need for you to testify in place of General Morillon.

Now, tell me, please, since you're speaking about the media and the fact that you were informed thereof, do you agree with the observation made by David Owen which he presents in his book, and I'm going to quote from that book, and it is linked to the media. This is what he says: "In this stage of the propaganda war via its relations with the public has become a feature of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The documents registered with the Ministry of Justice of the United States of America have shown that the -- that Croatia paid a Washington company for relations with the public, Rudder-Finn Global Public, -->0.000 a month plus expenses, for it to project a favourable image of Croatia, a member of the Congress, the function of administration and media placing news, and for their part the Bosnian government paid for services rendered in placing comments and columns by writers to -- and letters to the editor." And then it goes on it state all the activities undertaken. I haven't got time to quote Lord Owen in full on all these communiques, interviews and all the rest granted to the press through official letters and so on --

JUDGE ROBINSON: We must now put a specific -- you must now put a specific question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³¹⁷⁵⁷

Q. So Lord Owen concludes that: "In the International Committee for the Former Yugoslavia we did not have the means by which to respond to something of that nature." So he means to this media propaganda that Owen is indicating.

So are you bearing that in mind or not, and do you agree with him or don't you?

A. Your Honour, I believe that's for Lord Owen to respond to himself. I cannot respond for Lord Owen, but I can make, if you like, a couple of comments.

JUDGE ROBINSON: If you wish to, briefly.

THE WITNESS: I will. Had Belgrade not been under sanction most probably would have also hired a public relation firm but they were under sanction. Had the former Yugoslavia kept the prestige it had for many years until this conflict started, they would not have needed any kind of public relations to help them. Yugoslavia was, before the accused came in, a very respected and prestigious country in the international community. Thank you, sir.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, why, then, did the Bosnian government need experts for public relations and paid agitators and lobbyists in Congress and in the media in general in the west? Why did they need that if everything you say was true?

A. Well, I'm not here to -- first, I'm not privy to what Bosnia had or had not. That's for them to respond, Your Honour.

Q. All right. But bearing in mind the propaganda war that Lord Owen ³¹⁷⁵⁸ mentions, can you say with certainty that the media information upon which you based your knowledge about the events in Bosnia were always true and correct and reliable?

A. Your Honours, I cannot comment on the propaganda war. What I can comment is on the ethnic cleansing war, on the massacre war, and the crimes and atrocities being committed. That I can report. I cannot report on the propaganda war.

Q. Tell me now, please, since in the report that I quoted from, and it is your own report I was quoting, paragraph 46, whereas we can see you say nice things about the Vance-Owen Plan, whereas in the statement you gave following an assignment from the opposite side you say the worst things about the peace plan. So what knowledge did you gain in the meantime which influenced this change of opinion on your part?

A. Your Honour, I really don't understand the question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Repeat your question.

THE WITNESS: -- for example.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Repeat the question and clarify it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Arria, in your statement, the one that I quoted from, saying nice things about the plan, and you gave that statement at the request of the opposite side, meaning Mr. Nice.

Now, in your report you say favourable things about that same Vance Plan. So I'm asking you now, from the time you made favourable statements about the plan, what made you change your opinion? What influences were you working under which led you to change your opinion ³¹⁷⁵⁹ about the Vance-Owen Plan?

A. The behaviour of the accused fundamentally, the systematic boycotting of the process, the creation of the image that the accused was going to -- being the main party was really going to be put into effect, the finalisation of the conflict. That's what created fundamentally our change of opinion and policy.

Q. But, Mr. Arria, it is common knowledge that all my efforts, and you say that that is the main side, geared -- was geared towards achieving peace, and nobody can dispute that through all the peace plans that were put on the negotiating table. Are you aware of that or not?

A. We were clear that the two-prong approach had been adopted by the Serbian side. One side you had the accused, Mr. Milosevic, entertaining endless negotiation. On the other side you had his proxies on the ground doing the dirty work of the ethnic cleansing and killing, committing atrocities, and that two-prong approach was led the international community to wait for so many years and almost 200.000 people to be killed and dead until they finally reacted and put an end to this conflict.

Q. Oh, come on, Mr. Arria. You're talking about our relationship towards ethnic cleansing. I'm going to quote now something from 1992. So the year is 1992, much before you yourself were in Srebrenica?

JUDGE ROBINSON: What are you quoting from, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is my interview given to the ITN TV network where I speak about the London conference, and I say that we are associating our efforts to stop the bloody events in Bosnia-Herzegovina. And then I go on to say the following: "There are ³¹⁷⁶⁰ some," I say that, "there are some who are advocating some sort of ethnic cleansing, and I say to that we in Serbia consider that that is a criminal act, a crime." And that was in the summer of 1992. Officially we emphasised very clearly that something like that must not happen and that anybody engaging in things of that kind must be prosecuted criminally. And then I go on to speak about Bosnia and say that there is a civil war going on there and in wars like that there are no innocent sides and victors. All there are are casualties and victims. So the London conference held in the summer of 1992, then, is what I mention, and you say that we behaved as if we did not know about this and did not wish to help to bring about peace. So what I read out was my statement to the British ITN news network, and it refers precisely to those who, as it says here, are advocating ethnic cleansing. And my position was that we in Serbia consider that to be a crime, a criminal act, and any perpetrators thereof must be brought to justice.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And do you know this detail, for example? Are you aware of that detail, Mr. Arria? And that is just one of the examples that I chose to quote, but there are many others.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness answer, now, Mr. Milosevic.

THE WITNESS: Your Honours, my only comment to this would be that I only wish that he had lived up to these words.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Continue, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know, for example, Mr. Arria, that the first crimes or ³¹⁷⁶¹ criminal acts that people learnt about, the crimes that took place in Bosnia and where it was established that the perpetrators were certain citizens of Serbia or those who were in fact taken to court and tried for war crimes in Serbia in 1993? They were prosecuted. Are you aware of that?

A. Yes, Your Honour, I'm aware of that.

Q. So it wasn't just verbally, it was the actual factual conduct of Serbia this should not be allowed. And as you know the former Yugoslavia, Mr. Arria, and are well acquainted with Serbia and Montenegro, I assume you know that throughout the ten years that the crisis lasted it was only Serbia and Montenegro which did not change anything in the ethnic structure and that nobody was persecuted in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on an ethnic basis in any way whatsoever. Do you know about that? Are you aware of that?

A. Your Honour, I don't believe that that one -- that single case contradicts what I said before. I only wish and hope that Mr. Milosevic would have lived up to what he declare, like he declare many other times and he would do something about it. And it took many years. And it took until the international community regain resolve and will to really force Mr. Milosevic to put an end to this conflict.

Q. Mr. Arria, well, I assume that it was a civil war between three warring parties in Bosnia and not Mr. Milosevic's war, as you said. And Lord Owen wrote about it anyway, and he spoke about it too. It was a civil war between the Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Serbs, and Bosnian Croats, the three sides. And as opposed to you, he was there all the time, and ³¹⁷⁶² throughout he was at the head of the international conference.

A. Your Honours, if this had been a civil war like the accused is stating, his country would have never been under sanctions. His country would have never been mentioned in more than 50 Resolutions. Why would former Yugoslavia be punished by the international community if this was a civil war? This was not a civil war. It was war of aggression of one former member of the United Nations against a smaller undefended member of the United Nations. This was not civil war. This was a war of aggression, conquers of territory, ethnic cleansing. That's what it was.

JUDGE ROBINSON: As for the nature of the conflict, that is a legal issue which the Chamber will have to decide.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Since you say that the sanctions were introduced because Yugoslavia behaved as it should not have behaved, I'm going to remind you of something now. The statement or, rather, report of the UN Secretary-General linked to a UN Security Council Resolution number 752. This is the 30th of May, 1992. I think I received it within the batch of documents I was given, report of the Secretary-General, pursuant to paragraph 4 of the Security Council Resolution number 752.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just allow us to find it, Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Nice, can you help us? Or maybe Mr. Milosevic himself can tell us. Do you have the tab number, Mr. Milosevic?

MR. NICE: Tab 4.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I have a lot of papers here. It was in one of the tabs, and I pulled it out. ³¹⁷⁶³

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues]... he's referring to, the proposal --

JUDGE ROBINSON: We're going to try tab 4.

MR. NICE: The way he describes it, it makes it a little unclear to me.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, it doesn't appear to be tab 4. If he shows me the document or if he shows Ms. Dicklich the document, we can find it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I tell you what, Mr. Milosevic, you continue with your cross-examination. Just read very slowly the passage, and I'm quite sure we will be able to gather what you mean.

MR. KAY: Page 12 of the witness statement of Dr. Arria contains a reference to it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Kay. Page 12.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. As I was saying, this is a report of the UN Secretary-General, and I'm just going to read a couple -- or, rather, three basic points that I wish to refer to. This is what he says, and it is the report of Boutros-Ghali to the UN Security Council on the 30th of May, 1992. Point 5 says: "[In English] The bulk of the JNA personnel were deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina were citizens of that republic and were not therefore covered by Belgrade authorities' decision of 4th of May to withdraw JNA from Bosnia-Herzegovina. Most of them appear to have joined army of so-called Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Others have joined the Territorial Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina which is under the political control of the Presidency of that republic. Others may have ³¹⁷⁶⁴ joined various irregular forces operating there."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Time to put your question now, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Point 6 reads: "[In English] [Previous translation continues]... citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina are said by the Belgrade authorities number barely 20 per cent of the total. Most of these are believed to have withdrawn already into Serbia and Montenegro, some of them having been subjected to attack during their withdrawal. Others, however, remain at the various garrison in Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially in Serb-controlled areas, et cetera. A further category consists of personnel who have been blocked -- personnel who have been blocked in their barracks by the Territorial Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina or hostile irregular forces."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, it's now time for you to put a question. Otherwise, the sense of the original passages will have been lost.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, Mr. Arria, is it clear to you that in the UN Secretary-General's report, Boutros-Ghali to the Security Council, it clearly states that the decision of the leadership of Yugoslavia was to withdraw its citizens because at the time Bosnia-Herzegovina had already been recognised. And Yugoslavia does that. It withdraws all its citizens who were members of the Yugoslav People's Army from Bosnia-Herzegovina and that the people who were not withdrawn were those who were blocked in some ³¹⁷⁶⁵ of the garrisons and couldn't be. I assume that's clear to you.

A. Your Honours, I have not been able to find this in my documents. What I have found is the other counterpart of the present Secretary-General for United Nations's report to Srebrenica, which is the opposite to what --

JUDGE ROBINSON: And you need it to be able to answer the question, you need to see it?

THE WITNESS: I want to make sure --

JUDGE ROBINSON: You want to make sure.

THE WITNESS: -- that's what was said because Mr. Annan said something completely different in his report on Srebrenica.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, we're not able to find it.

MR. NICE: The last document we thought we'd found as Exhibit 547, tab 2, but that's the Resolution. The latest document, I'm not sure what's being referred to, if the same or --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you have the document there?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is, yes. And I was quoting from that document, Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the usher pass it to the witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I have it back, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't think the witness will purloin it, Mr. Milosevic. Will you just pass it to the witness and let the witness read it, the particular passages.

I am now told it's Defence Exhibit 91. After the witness has read it, Mr. Milosevic will rephrase his question very shortly, and the witness ³¹⁷⁶⁶ will answer.

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, meanwhile I can tell you this is the first time ever I see this document and the title on top is different to the regular documents of the Security Council. So I don't even know who issued this. Doesn't look like an official document of the Security Council at all. Doesn't have a number, doesn't have a reference.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Pass it to me. I do have some familiarity with Security Council Resolutions.

It seems to be a report of the Secretary-General pursuant to a Security Council Resolution. That's Exhibit 91.

And, Mr. Milosevic, you are quoting from what paragraphs?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Point 5, para 5, I believe, Mr. Robinson. If you turn the page and have a look at paragraph 5, and I think 6 and 7 as well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Would you pass that to the witness. I have marked it. It's on the second page.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And may I be given my own copy back, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Give Mr. Milosevic his copy. So it's a report of the Secretary-General pursuant to a Resolution.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour. The one I was presented was a different text.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: This one I also recognise. I've never seen it before, I must tell you. ³¹⁷⁶⁷ On the -- precisely on that point, Your Honour, the Secretary-General Kofi Annan's report on Srebrenica states specifically that the bulk of the army suddenly created by sort of an act of magic in the so-called Republika Srpska was coming from Belgrade. The Secretary-General Annan says himself that also with people linked to Mafia and criminal activities were the ones, are the way he described it in his now well-known report on Srebrenica. And he says here, in a way he's in contradiction because this initial report by Secretary-General Annan says it is a mission on the responsibility of the United Nations failing a member country. And I'm just quoting Mr. Annan's words. And he says the opposite of this. He says precisely that they were transferred, ammunition, tanks, planes, radars, the whole thing was transferred from Belgrade. It was not an act of magic. It was an act of support by Belgrade to create these armed forces to the group that was the same coming from Serbia. Now, whether there were some from Bosnia -- Bosnia was an ecumenical country until this conflict began. There were all kinds of ethnic groups living under the same roof until they were provoked into this conflict.

So I see, Your Honour, differences between Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali's remarks, which is the first time I see this document, and the Secretary-General Kofi Annan several years later evaluating the situation, stating perfectly clear that they moved the armed forces from Serbia, from former Yugoslavia, to Bosnia-Herzegovina. Now, whether they were -- of course there must have been contingents of these officers who were already living on the other side. After all, it used to be one ³¹⁷⁶⁸ country until the year before. That's all I have to say, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, please continue.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Arria, let's be proper in our conduct and stick to the report from those times, that is to say when Boutros-Ghali, on the 30th of May, 1992, reported to the United Nations Security Council. And it is quite clear in that report that those parts of the JNA - and as you know, it was an army throughout the territory of Yugoslavia - that those people that originated from Serbia and Montenegro or, rather, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, were being withdrawn to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. That is what he observes and takes note of. And the only people remaining were those people who were citizens of that newly recognised country, as you yourself say. So why would they then withdraw to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia if they were in this newly recognised country? The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia cannot withdraw and pull out citizens of a neighbouring state, can it, withdraw it to its own territory? And Ghali here confirms the fact that Yugoslavia did fulfil its responsibilities and withdraw that portion of the JNA back to base, so to speak. And then he goes on to explain, if you have noted that, and I don't think that can be challenged or disputed.

JUDGE ROBINSON: After you note that, the witness should answer if he can.

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, the only thing that I can contribute with here would be to contrast Secretary-General Annan's review with the statement. I cannot -- I think that it would not be useful for me to ³¹⁷⁶⁹ comment on Boutros-Ghali's comment, report at that time which I just seen it for the first time today, even though I was a member of the Security Council at the time. But I can quote on Secretary-General Kofi Annan's precisely on that mission, precisely on this point, which it carries a completely different interpretation of what I've been hearing now.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Arria, you yourself mentioned a moment ago that it was because Yugoslavia did not carry out something it should have done that sanctions were imposed. And this is a report dated the 30th of May, 1992 and it states what I quoted. It also states clearly that the forces which remained in Bosnia beyond the control of the JNA. And then in point 10 it says the following: "As regards the withdrawal of the elements of the Croatian army [In English] [Previous translation continues]... now in Bosnia, information currently available in New York suggested no such withdrawal has occurred. UNPROFOR has received reliable reports of Croatian army personnel in uniform operating within and as part of military formation in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Croatian authorities here consistently taken position that the Croatian soldiers in Bosnia and Herzegovina have left the Croatian army and are not subject to this authority. International observers do not, however, doubt that portions of Bosnia and Herzegovina are under control of Croatian military units, whether belonging to the local Territorial Defence, to paramilitary group, or to the Croatian army. It is unclear in the circumstances how their withdrawal or disbandment as required by the Council can be achieved." [Interpretation] Therefore -- therefore, three points. Ghali is ³¹⁷⁷⁰ saying three points here, that the JNA has withdrawn, that the army of Republika Srpska is outside any JNA control whatsoever, or the control of Belgrade in other words, and that the Croatian army has not withdrawn. And now I'm going to ask you, are you aware, Mr. Arria, of the fact that this report precisely was kept by the then-Chairman of the UN Security Council, Mr. Hohenfellner, the Austrian representative, that he did not divide it up among the UN Security Council members. He waited for the UN Security Council session to pass, at which sanctions against Yugoslavia were voted on, and he gave an explanation which is quite different from Ghali's report, and it was only after the sanctions had actually been enforced, introduced that --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic -- Mr. Milosevic, stop. Mr. Milosevic, as a rule of thumb, no more than two or three sentences and then a question. Otherwise, it becomes very difficult for the witness and does not serve your interests also. It doesn't serve the interests of the trial.

Let the witness answer now if he can.

THE WITNESS: As you can see, Your Honours, I was right. I never seen the report. It was not circulated. That is what has been said. But I can comment, make a general, very brief comment. That it was very convenient for Mr. Tudjman and for Mr. Milosevic to masquerade, to carry on a masquerade that these were local forces. These were forces coming from Croatia one time and coming from Belgrade. I don't think Mr. Mladic went to a military school in Pale. He went to military school, like all these officers, in Belgrade. ³¹⁷⁷¹

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Arria, it's very difficult for me to understand that this report of the Secretary-General was not circulated at that time. Are you positive?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, I am positive. I have never seen this before. It's not the only time. As I said at the beginning, I have also seen other reports that have come to my attention 11 years later, and I have consulted with some of my colleagues at the time, and I -- if you read, Your Honour, in the French commission that evaluated, there are many gaps into the same thing because some of them didn't even know that these documents were circulated. That's why I alluded to a cover-up operation at the beginning where there were very few people who were not guilty.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Does it have a Security Council number, the report?

THE WITNESS: No. It is a report -- yes, it has a number. It could be a general distribution document. It -- the Security Council number, as you -- I cannot compete now with your knowledge of the Security Council Resolution, always have a number, and it's SC, X number, et cetera, and they put the number and the date. This is not the case here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No. But this is a report of the Secretary-General pursuant to.

THE WITNESS: Pursuant to. But I -- yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But it would still have a number.

THE WITNESS: It looks like a report. There's no doubt in my mind. You are absolutely correct, it looks like a report, but I have ³¹⁷⁷² never seen it. I'm sorry, Your Honour, not to be able to provide more information now.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the hour and 20 minutes will end in three minutes. What is your position?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, in response to that, Mr. Robinson, I ask you to extend my time for at least one hour, for one hour at least.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think one hour may be too much, but I'll consult.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. You will have the rest of this session, that is up to 12.30, and then ten minutes after the break.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Robinson. I will try, then, to make a selection, but do bear in mind that I received a 500-paragraph long statement of this witness, and then it was shortened down only much later.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Arria, do you know that Peter Hohenfellner, who was president of the Security Council in the month of May 1992, that is to say at the time when this report of Ghali's was submitted to the Security Council for it to reach its further decisions on that -- on the basis of that report, that he kept this report, withheld it, waited for the session to end where sanctions were voted on, and this decision was based on facts which were totally not in line with the facts presented in the report? Do you know ³¹⁷⁷³ about that?

A. Your Honours, I know very well Ambassador Hohenfellner, and I know very well the Austrian people, and I cannot -- doubt that that would be the behaviour of Austria and of the ambassador, but that was -- it is really could be irrelevant, because the basis -- that would not alter or change at all the decision taken by the Security Council on sanction, not even by the closest people to Belgrade. It would not alter it at all.

Q. All right, Mr. Arria. Isn't it obvious from the content of Ghali's report that he is not giving any basis for imposing sanctions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia? Perhaps only against Croatia, because on one page he says that the JNA did withdraw but that the Croatian forces did not withdraw. And as you know full well, Austria was their ally, and now you say that Hohenfellner did not withhold the report although that is a material fact, because the report is dated the 30th of May. Are you aware of that?

A. I'm not aware of any deceive by the Austria ambassador acting as president of the Security Council, Your Honour, and I haven't read the whole report, this report. You asked me to read a paragraph and I cannot speak for the whole document which I have not seen. I can speak to the paragraph that you had asked me to address.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Quite so, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll try to speed things up as much as I can, Mr. Robinson. I hope that that is quite clear, and I assume that this report of the Secretary-General has been admitted into evidence.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³¹⁷⁷⁴

Q. In paragraph 444, when speaking about the negotiations in Geneva chaired by Owen and Stoltenberg, you say: "[In English]... when it came the moment to negotiate with the Muslim side, the negotiators agreed to bring seven members of the Presidency of that republic: Three Croatians, three Serbs, and one Muslim. I repeat, only one Muslim." [Interpretation] Quotation. Now, if we have the same Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina in mind, I don't know which one you have in mind, it had a totality of seven members. Its ethnic composition could not have been determined by international negotiators. It had been established in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and it is not true at all that there was only one Muslim on the Presidency.

Are you aware at least of that material fact, and also is that an indicator of the fact that you are using complete inaccuracies here? I've quoted you just now.

A. Your Honours, at the time I said in a public meeting of the Security Council that the negotiator was trying to clinch a deal at any price, and then I said that it was bizarre to say the least that the negotiations in Geneva that could pull three of the other two parties, three members and one Muslim, and I said to the bad luck of the conveners that man was being searched by the police and had to leave the meeting, because he was the only one who were able -- that they were able to get to appear in that meeting.

Q. Never heard of any such thing, and I did not hear at all about any representative of the Muslim delegation, starting from Alija Izetbegovic onwards, he always had very numerous delegations, was mistreated by the ³¹⁷⁷⁵ police in Geneva or discriminated against. You are the first person to be claiming so. This is the first time that this has ever been heard.

A. Your Honour, I can only tell you that is in the record of my public statement. Lord Owen was there. It wasn't contested. The British representative was there. It wasn't contested. No one in the Security Council contested this information.

Q. And when did this happen? Tell me, please. If you say that you have it in your notes, when was this meeting held when three Croats and three Serbs came from the Bosnian Presidency? Three Serbs were never on the Bosnian Presidency. There were two of them, Nikola Koljevic and Biljana Plavsic. I don't see how three could have come when they were not members of the Presidency at all.

A. Your Honour, I'm not saying they were members of the Presidency. I said delegates. The three of the Croats, three of the Serbs, and one of the Muslims. I didn't say they were members of the Presidency.

Q. All right. Let's not dwell on this any longer. I believe that this is a completely unfounded allegation.

In paragraph 11, which is highly unlikely for a witness, you put many questions. "[In English] Why did the UNSC delegate ex officio the main responsibility for the handling of the crisis to the EU (David Owen) and the United States (Cyrus Vance)?"

[Interpretation] Now, tell me, you are putting this question. You are referring to the delegate of the European Union, David Owen, and the US envoy Cyrus Vance, and in the text further on you refer to Thorvald Stoltenberg who replaced Vance as UN envoy. It is obvious that you are ³¹⁷⁷⁶ aware of that fact because you referred to it. Stoltenberg is a Norwegian. That has nothing to do with the United States. So this question that you put, that they delegated people from the European Union and from the US, that's senseless, isn't it?

Vance was elected or, rather, appointed and was there for a while and then he was succeeded by Stoltenberg. That's what you knew.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Tell us what motivated the question.

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, it proved to be a major catastrophe, to say the least, for the poor Bosnians, that it was claimed that it was the hour of Europe and the European Community decided to assume responsibility, which they never discharged properly, and my question was raised more as a point to the international community. They -- I remember the Foreign Minister of Luxembourg, Mr. Poos, said this is the hour of Europe, it's not for the United Nations or the United Nations, this is our responsibility. And of course that responsibility was not discharged, and that's what I'm referring to. And what I add, Your Honour, was that the Security Council found that convenient, and it had to do it. Imagine this all happened in middle of Europe, that genocide was being committed and rape of women as a policy of a state was being committed in the middle of Europe after they had said 40 years before no more, never again. And this was happening again in the middle of Europe, that the Security Council didn't have any other option but to let the European Community to try to manage the issue. This is what I'm referring to.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³¹⁷⁷⁷

Q. Are you aware of the fact that there was a civil war going on over there and that atrocities or, rather, that in such a war and in such conflicts there could have been no parties involved who were innocent?

A. Your Honour, I restate my answer before: This was not civil war, this was a war of conquest.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And, Mr. Milosevic, refrain from engaging in the question of the characterisation of the conflict, as I have told you before. That's a legal issue. So please move on.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. When speaking about the Security Council Resolution dated the 7th of February, 1992, and that is Resolution 740, in paragraph 60 you say: "[In English] When the Resolution was passed, I remember the satisfaction that the non-aligned members of the Council felt for having approved a Resolution to impose an arms embargo. Little did we know then that with that Resolution we were sealing the fate of the Bosnian republic, that we were taking away from this member country the right of self-defence enshrined in the UN Charter."

[Interpretation] Tell me now, Mr. Arria, what kind of a member state are you talking about on the 7th of February, 1992? There was only one country then, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. At that time, Bosnia and Herzegovina had not even proclaimed its own independence, and it was recognised only on the 6th of April, 1992. And it was admitted into the UN on the 22nd of May in 1992. And you are talking about a Resolution dated the 7th of February. So that is to say three months ³¹⁷⁷⁸ before this which you call a member state of the UN had even existed as an internationally recognised state. And as you know, this unfortunate war was triggered by this premature recognition. Aren't you aware of that? Isn't that clear to you, Mr. Arria?

A. I am aware not only -- not only aware of the first part, but, Your Honours, that I said in my deposition that my country was a supporter preserving the integrity. It took very few weeks to find out under the conflict that Yugoslavia was not the Yugoslavia of Tito and that the accused was not just Josip Broz Tito either, and then that's when the position changed.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, your last question before the break.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me, please, in paragraphs 53 through 56, you talk about your support to preserving the territorial integrity of the SFRY, and you refer to it just now. This same kind of support was given by other members of the non-aligned movement to Yugoslavia. Now, tell me, how is it that you can express regret, then, that the arming of secessionists was forbidden in the SFRY? Because according to the constitution of Yugoslavia, it was only the army and the Territorial Defence that had the right to be the armed force of Yugoslavia.

For example, the Patriotic League of Bosnia-Herzegovina and other such organisations were illegal because they only pursued secession. Don't you know that? And had they been disarmed, there would have been no war. ³¹⁷⁷⁹

THE WITNESS: Your Honours, will you please help me? Which is the question here?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, just rephrase the question briefly.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, do you know that at that time there was support given to the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia? Isn't that right, Mr. Arria?

THE WITNESS: In which date, Your Honour, I would like to ask Mr. Milosevic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What period are you talking about?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The time before the recognition of these republics that had carried out secession. There was The Hague Conference, there were several statements by all sorts of world officials who supported the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Yugoslavia and so on. My question is, how can you express regret over the fact that the arming of secessionist political groups was being banned? That is to say they were trying to act apart from the constitution of Yugoslavia, and that was the only legitimate state, and they were trying to pursue violent secession.

A. Your Honours, the non-aligned movement in the United Nations kept the support of the integrity of the unity of Yugoslavia until Belgrade started shelling Croatia, and then it was clear that we were facing a war in the Balkans again. And what my remarks at that time was -- I'm referring to what happened, our knowledge of the situation in February 1992 that -- I'm commenting that had we known the intentions of ³¹⁷⁸⁰ Belgrade at the time, and we innocently thought that to put an arms embargo was actually like a great measure and a great help, and I said that this really meant that we left unarmed, and I believe, Your Honours, that's a major responsibility for the countries who knew this issue well, that they should be more accountable for having imposed and then later refusing in the -- even if confronting the realities on the ground, refused to lift the arms embargo which actually almost sealed the fate -- the fatal fate of the Bosnian population.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. It's time for the adjournment. We break for lunch and resume at 2.00 p.m.

I remind you, Mr. Arria, during the adjournment you're not to discuss the case with anyone.

THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

--- Luncheon recess taken at 12.33 p.m.

--- On resuming at 2.06 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, ten minutes, to be applied strictly.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson. All right. I will really try to deal with two topics very briefly.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Arria, in paragraph 49 of the mission report to the Security Council established according to Resolution 819, "[In English] General Morillon and UNPROFOR military and civilian staff, et cetera ..." [Interpretation] So in April 1993, after visiting Bosnia-Herzegovina, you admired the generals and other members of ³¹⁷⁸¹ UNPROFOR. And now you claim that they made the Muslim side surrender on the basis of the demilitarisation agreement. Is this a change in your position yet again?

A. Your Honour, I am on the record for being an admirer of the efforts of the countries that put up the forces of UNPROFOR. Actually, that's one of paragraphs in the statement. I have actually even added that the government of Holland, the Netherlands, took an unfairly heavy load of responsibility upon themselves on the massacre at Srebrenica which should have set a precedent for the other countries to be more accountable, like the Dutch government, that even one government failed fell. I have never changed my opinion about UNPROFOR forces. When I said they were forced to capitulate and we understood at the moment it was because they knew on the ground that no other help, no other assistance was coming. Even Lord Owen had said before to President Izetbegovic, no one is coming to your assistance. So there was no other option at the moment for UNPROFOR forces but to do what they did. And I -- we said that in the report. It was not only my belief, it was the belief of all the members of the Security Council delegation.

Q. All right, Mr. Arria. Do you know that this zone was not demilitarised, that the 28th Division was operating within it under the command of Naser Oric and that before these events in 1993 and after that the safe area was used as a support for committing terrible atrocities against the Serb villages around Srebrenica and around the area, that hundreds of people were killed and villages destroyed? Do you know anything about any of this? ³¹⁷⁸²

A. What I said at the moment, and I continue saying today, is that we knew that Srebrenica was surrounded, under siege, under siege, that it was being bombarded, shelled to the defenceless population. That is as much as we knew, Your Honour.

Q. All right. And did you know how much we from Serbia and I personally made an effort precisely in that year, 1993, in order to prevent larger-scale conflicts and these horrible consequences? At that time, it was supported by the leadership of Republika Srpska too in order to attain an agreement and to have an alleviation of the situation on the ground and that terrible atrocities were committed, horrific crimes. Are you aware of that?

A. I am aware, Your Honour, that Mr. Milosevic stated through a long period of time all kinds of promises and statements that were not fulfilled until international community took a firm action and stopped him. That's as much as we all know.

Q. I'm not aware of any promises that I gave, promises that I gave and did not fulfil, but we don't have time to go into that now. And now this other issue I wish to deal with. It seems to me that your most telling proof of what you have been saying, that Serbs committed genocide and that Yugoslavia committed genocide against the Muslims, and you keep referring to the 8th of April, 1993, ruling of the International Court on provisional measures. Isn't that right, Mr. Arria?

A. Your Honours, it's very important that I clear -- I have never addressed the Yugoslavian people as a whole, for whom I have great admiration. They are not to be blamed for the faults and crimes committed ³¹⁷⁸³ under the name of their country. It's terrible what has been brought also to the Serbian population because of the practices promoted and implemented by the Belgrade regime, never addressed them as Yugoslavian people.

Q. Mr. Arria, I'm not asking you about whether you spoke about that. You say that the International Court of Justice, by their measures taken on the 8th of April, 1993, in connection with the Convention on Genocide, Bosnia-Herzegovina brought charges against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

In paragraphs 178 and 180, you say: "[In English] The following provisional measures to be in effect while the court is seized of this case."

179: "That Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) together with its agents and surrogates in Bosnia and elsewhere must immediately cease and desist from all acts of genocide and genocidal acts against the people and the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina including but not limited to murder, summary executions, torture, rape, mayhem, so-called ethnic cleansing, the wanton devastation of villages, towns, districts and cities, the seige of villages, towns, the starvation of the civilian population, the bombardment of civilian population centres and the detention of civilians in concentration camps."

[Interpretation] That is what you said the position of the International Court of Justice was. However, my question to you, Mr. Arria, is the following: Isn't it clear to you from the actual text that you've quoted from that what you say is not an integral part of the ³¹⁷⁸⁴ decision of the ICJ at all? This sentence is part of the request put forth by the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is not part of the court ruling. So you, Mr. Arria, deceive those who are listening to this, claiming that what I just quoted to you now is part of the court ruling, the court order, and you actually quoted the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina. And of course, their document is worded in the worst possible way against the Serbian side.

A. Your Honour, this was the first time ever the International Court of Justice took a case such as this and took it on the monumental evidence provided to it. This is only one part, one quote from the whole court order by the International Court of Justice. If we take a minute to read the other parts of the court order, you will see that that's repeated throughout the whole document. This is the most detailed court order because it was the first time ever that the issue of genocide was being considered --

JUDGE ROBINSON: What I understand Mr. Milosevic to be saying is that what is in paragraph 179 reflects the request made for provisional measures and does not itself form a part of the actual decision. One would need to look at the judgement itself to be sure.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, you know full well, and I hope that Mr. Arria, with his diplomatic experience, would have to know that when provisional measures are taken by the International Court of Justice, they do not go into the merit of the case, and they do not establish the factual basis. They just remind that there is the duty to abide by the provisions of the convention, but they do not rule that there ³¹⁷⁸⁵ actually had been a violation of them.

Please look at this document. I got it in your tab number 9.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So after all of this, and of course there are quotations of sentences provided by the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, because after all that is what they are ruling on, after all those quotations, it says very nicely on page 24: "[In English] For these reasons the court indicates, pending its final decision in the proceedings instituted on 20th of March 1993 by Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the following provisional measures: A, the government of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should immediately in pursuance of its undertaking in the Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide on 9 December 1948 take all measures within its power to prevent commission of the crime of genocide." [Interpretation] And paragraph 2: "[In English] Yugoslavia should in particular ensure that military, paramilitary, or irregular armed units which may be," [Interpretation] would like to emphasise may be, "as any organisation and person which may be subject to its control, direction or influence do not commit any act of genocide or conspiracy to commit genocide of direct and public instrument to commit genocide or of complicity in genocide whether directed against the Muslim population of Bosnia-Herzegovina or against any other national, ethnic, racial or religious group."

[Interpretation] And finally under B: "[In English] The Yugoslavian government of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina should not ³¹⁷⁸⁶ take any action and should ensure that no action is taken which may aggravate or extend the existing dispute over the prevention of punishment of crime of genocide or render it more difficult a solution."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic, stop. We have the ICJ decision, and we can look at it to see what it actually says. It appears, however, that what is in paragraph 180 of the statement, the witness's statement, is reflected in the second paragraph on page 24 of the decision, but what is in paragraph 179 of the statement does not appear to be reflected. But we have the decision, as I said, and we can -- we'll have a look at it, and we'll make up our own minds. So please proceed.

In any event, you are beyond the ten minutes now. So I think you have to stop.

The amicus. Questioned by Mr. Kay:

Q. Dr. Arria, I've got some questions which essentially deal with the report that you made for the United Nations and deal with the comments you made in various press conferences. So if you could turn, first of all, to tab 17 of our exhibit file.

A. 17, 5, page 5?

Q. Tab 17, and it's headed "Transcriptions from Arria tapes." Have you got that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you'll see within this section apparently a number of recorded statements that were made by you and others after you had visited ³¹⁷⁸⁷ Srebrenica and during your visit to the region and the statements that were made there. And if we could look first of all at that first page, at the foot of it, and there's a paragraph that begins: "No, these conditions have not been known. This is the first time. I am a member of the Security Council. My colleagues never knew this. We have to ask permission for a doctor to enter Srebrenica," and it goes on to say you're really shocked and it's a serious matter, and you were shocked to see the conditions.

Now, the issue in your evidence concerns notice and knowledge, and what it seems to be saying here, which may be slightly different from your testimony earlier today, that you did not know about the conditions within Srebrenica. Is that right?

A. Absolutely correct. The situation and conditions as I describe them in this press statement which were made to BBC of London, which gave me a copy.

Q. And you comment on page 2, if we look at the second paragraph, saying what the UN authorities have done there is extraordinary, and you refer to particular troops from countries such as Canada, Bangladesh, Russia, and Denmark. So it seems you were impressed by what the UN authorities had done within Srebrenica; is that right?

A. Yes. I stated that previously. I never ceased my admiration for the men and women who served under UNPROFOR.

Q. I'd like to turn now to the next page, which is headed in the top right-hand corner "842" as the numbering, and we see paragraphs there. If we turn to the fourth -- or third paragraph, second to last sentence. You ³¹⁷⁸⁸ refer to the UNHCR doing a wonderful job. Do you see that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. "We absolutely should help those who are not residents and want to leave." And in the next paragraph you mention: "We met with the Muslim government, and they did not express that they did not wish their people to leave. No one in the streets approaches us to ask if they want to leave."

Was there an issue then that in fact people within that safe haven, that the civil authorities wanted to keep a large number of civilian people within Srebrenica?

A. That was not our impression at all.

Q. Was there an issue that people were not saying that they wanted to leave?

A. We would have been surprised people didn't want to leave, living suffering under those conditions. Actually, we were impressed by the opposite, that they didn't want to leave, living under those extreme circumstances, under siege and surrounded by the Serb paramilitary.

Q. Yes. Srebrenica was a community of a certain size. The figure escapes me, you might be able to correct me, but I think 10.000 population that had become the home to 40.000 plus people; is that right?

A. There were 70.000.

Q. Seventy thousand. You correct me. So the whole population in this place had expanded to a degree that the actual community there didn't have the facilities and structure to cope with that number of refugees.

A. It didn't even satisfy the conditions for 500 people, even less, ³¹⁷⁸⁹ of course. By the time we got there, there weren't 70.000. There were around 10.000 to 15.000 when we got to Srebrenica.

Q. And the point is that this safe haven was created importing a large number of people beyond the level to which that particular town could deal with those numbers. It was simply not equipped to deal with those numbers.

A. This is first time I hear that, sir.

Q. Well, isn't that why there was horrific conditions concerning water, concerning the way people were living? There was insufficient housing, there was insufficient food. This place had not been established to cope with that number of people.

A. The reality was completely opposite, sir. There were no houses because they had been shelled. There were no houses because they had been destroyed. There were no medicines, there was no water because it had been cut. There was no electricity because it had been cut. Even 500 people could not live there.

Q. And were you aware at the time that you were there that in fact there was an issue that was being put forward by the Bosnian Serbs that they were facing attacks from Muslim forces who were kept within that enclave?

A. You know, I had company, sir, the Canadian Battalion commander in Srebrenica, and you will see -- I have never forgotten that Brigadier Hayes introduced me to the Serb officers by name - this is Colonel Such-and-such, Major Such-and-such - and then he looked at the ones on the right who were almost dressed like civilians and said these are also my ³¹⁷⁹⁰ friends on the Muslim side. They were very lightly armed and you would have to be blind not to see that the town was surrounded by heavy weapons and very heavy artillery and under the absolute control of the Serb paramilitary forces, and the kinds of armament actually UNPROFOR found later on, they were very light weapons.

Q. That may have been the case about the armory that was surrounding Srebrenica. I'm not asking about that. I'm asking whether you were aware of the issue that there were forces led by a commander going out from Srebrenica who were fighting the Bosnian Serb forces in the surrounding territory. Were you aware of that as an issue?

A. That was an issue that was always raised by Mr. Karadzic. That I absolutely recall, yes.

Q. And were you aware of the name of the commander who was said to be of those particular forces, a man called Naser Oric?

A. No, sir.

Q. If we just turn over to the next page, then, the -- if we turn over to the next page, then, the figures end in 843. And it's in the middle of the large -- there's a large paragraph in the middle of the page. One of your UNHCR representatives had explained that the town is overcrowded, it's impossible to assist all the population, problems for doctors, materials, foods, every day comforts. And in the middle of the page there is this: "But the main question is should we fight for the right of the people to be evacuated from Srebrenica or for the right to stay in dignity and safety? The UNHCR here will do whatever we can, and I hope that the politicians and ambassadors will help us in negotiating ³¹⁷⁹¹ expansion of the safe area."

So firstly, going back to that issue, people did not -- or people were being subject to a decision made by the civilian authorities within Srebrenica, telling them not to leave the safe haven. Were you aware of that?

A. We created -- we thought that we passed a Resolution, Your Honours, to create a safe area, and of course it was far away from. It was a very unsafe area. So much so that when we returned to New York, we said to the Security Council we cannot repeat this experience in the next safe areas which were recommended, for those cities, and eventually, as Your Honours remember, there was another very unsafe area Resolution which did not prevent the repetition of the experiences that were suffered by the people in Srebrenica. That's how I recall these events.

Q. Moving back to your report, then, which is in tab 15, and I'm looking at what has in the top left-hand corner page 4.

A. It's not my report, Your Honour. It's the report of the mission.

Q. Sorry. You're just the vehicle in court and I appreciate it was others, but it's come to be known -- it's come to be identified with you. So if we look at the report that you were a party to making, page 4 sets out the mandate and scope of activities, and you list in paragraph 3 the leaders of the three parties to the conflict whom you met. Is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. President Izetbegovic, Dr. Karadzic, and Mate Boban. You didn't meet Mr. -- President Milosevic on this -- during this report; is that ³¹⁷⁹² right?

A. That is correct.

Q. You conducted interviews. You have said several remarks during the course of your evidence about the various parties, but it's correct that it was reported to you that all sides were committing atrocities at different levels but only the Serbs are taking territory; is that right?

A. I was informed of that. I was also informed what the Secretary-General Kofi Annan called at the time the moral equivalence of the parties as completely different in importance and significance.

Q. And that is why you were seeing all the parties to the conflict, from the Croat leadership to the Bosnian Serb leadership to the Bosnian Muslim leadership, because you were aware that this conflict involved three parties.

A. Not completely like that, sir. We did not see at the time President Milosevic for one reason specifically, because we did not want to interfere in the negotiations that were being under going in the Lord Owen and Secretary Vance. That was exactly the reason why we didn't include him in our agenda. Not because we thought that he was not a party. On the contrary. We thought he was the main party.

Q. But it seems, though, that from -- you don't mention that within this report; is that right?

A. Yes, I think I mention it in the report, why we didn't meet with him.

Q. Very well.

A. And if you want, I'll read it over. ³¹⁷⁹³

Q. If you could point it out to me and let me know where it is.

A. I'll have to take a look.

Q. In fact, the Judges can probably look at that in their own time and it can be re-examined on if it's there, Dr. Arria. My time is very brief, as you will understand, and that is why I'm dealing with one issue and trying to deal with it as rapidly as possible. If we go to page 7 of the report, at the foot of the page, paragraph 27(C), Dr. Karadzic indicated to the mission at its meeting with him at the Belgrade airport that he would not take the town, that the water supply would be immediately restored and that humanitarian convoys would be allowed.

It would be right to say that in terms of forces at that stage, it was obvious that Dr. Karadzic had sufficient troops and weaponry, if he had wanted to, to have gone into Srebrenica there and then.

A. Well, actually he was not telling the truth, and we express in the report. He had already taken the town. The town was an open gaol. And actually, when we entered into Srebrenica, I went in the United Nations armoured car, and the car behind me was the head of the Serb paramilitary, Colonel Ratko, parading around town with Brigadier General Hayes. If that's not a sign of control of the town, I wouldn't know what else could be.

Q. But it's a world apart from actually being in the town and having taken over its government, infrastructure, and having troops on the streets, isn't it?

A. There was no infrastructure, there were no troops on the street. ³¹⁷⁹⁴ There was only poor people couldn't have a house, couldn't have water, couldn't have doctors, couldn't have medicines. There were epidemics around. So it was easier to leave the poor people in the village to take care of themselves. It was an open gaol.

Q. This was a matter that was known about by you, then, and others, presumably, on your mission for the United Nations, of Dr. Karadzic's ability at this time in 1993, the position that he was in?

A. Which position, if you can tell me.

Q. Of having surrounded and made Srebrenica an open gaol, as you've described it.

A. We actually described it to him, because he acted like he didn't know. And he of course promised that the water would be resumed and the doctors be allowed into town, and the tents be allowed into town, which he never did, of course.

Q. Very well. But having seen Srebrenica, if we look at your observations within page 11 and the two paragraphs that have been dealt with so far, paragraphs 46 and 47, in fact, the position that you and your mission had come to was that the safe haven should remain. The mandate may be changed as far as UNPROFOR was concerned, but that the use of a -- a place such as Srebrenica should be maintained.

A. I'm not following the last part of your question, sir.

Q. All right. Isn't that right? That is the position. If we look at 47, the mission recognises, and that is the creation that enclaves are safe areas deserving serious consideration, as you say in paragraph 46, but a larger UNPROFOR presence, a revised mandate to accompany cease-fire ³¹⁷⁹⁵ and safe area monitoring and different rules of engagement but stopping short of a military strike enforcement.

A. I don't understand. Is that a question or are you quoting my statement?

Q. I am quoting your statement and I am putting to you --

A. I stand behind that.

Q. So that is the position you had found yourself in rather than tearing up the rule book as far as Srebrenica --

A. Sorry, what?

Q. Tearing up the rule book. Rather than changing the whole policy concerning Srebrenica, you had decided with your mission that that policy should be continued.

A. No. On the contrary. When we came back to New York, one of the points in the report says that the bad experience of Srebrenica should not be repeated and we recommended the creation of other safe areas based on different terms. It's the opposite of what you're asking me.

Q. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding between you and me on that issue, but I'll leave the matter there. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, just to return to a question that you asked earlier.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Were you asking the witness whether the conditions in Srebrenica, the suffering of the Muslims was due primarily or only to overcrowding in contradistinction to anything else, any other cause? ³¹⁷⁹⁶

MR. KAY: Your Honour, the -- if we turn to that particular section of the press conference. Tab 17. Apologies.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. KAY: What was being said at the time was the damage to the particular town, including damage to the school, damage to the buildings, but that the circumstances in which the people were living was also due to the numbers, the sheer numbers of people who were taking refuge within the particular confines of that place. At the top of page 843 is the remark that the town is so overcrowded it's impossible to assist all the population.

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, would you like me to comment?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you may comment on that paragraph, clarify.

THE WITNESS: Absolutely. You know, that would be a major recreation of the circumstances. Your Honour, I visit the school, one of the schools in Srebrenica where five days before we arrived, or a week before we arrived, the same Serbian colonel who was accompanying us had shelled the city of Srebrenica and there were still remains of children on the patio. With a city without doctors, without medicines. I admit it must be true that many people came afterwards, because the small villages around Srebrenica had already been run over by the Serb paramilitary, but by no measure of the imagination it's possible to conceive that people could live under those circumstances, no water, no electricity, no surgeon, no houses. People were living on the streets, Your Honour. When we talk about infrastructure, there was no infrastructure to talk about. And on top of that, they were surrounded, intimidated by the pressure of ³¹⁷⁹⁷ very heavy armed people, and the people knew already that the United Nations didn't have any control. I don't think what happened was so much -- public opinion was concentrated those days on the enclave that nothing more could happen. I think that was our contribution at the time. As time passed by, Srebrenica ceased to be in the centre of attention of the world opinion, and as we all know, we all know how this sad chapter for humanity ends.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: One or two points to pick up on, please, Mr. Arria. Re-examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. On tab 15, the report, you've been asked about these paragraphs 46 and 47, it being suggested that you were in favour of continuation or enlargement of the safe area policy. Your recommendation, was it for more of the same or was it for something totally different?

A. Something totally different. The only thing it had in common was the name.

Q. And the differences that you regarded as essential if the interests of the citizens were to be taken care of.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What were the differences? What --

A. The differences is we had asked for protection. This is one thing, Your Honour, it is interesting to note. I'm sure know about it, in the United Nations, in the drafting the language, semantics plays a very important role. In French version it was "la protection," in Spanish it was "ellos protohijos [phoen]," and in English it was "safe areas," and ³¹⁷⁹⁸ each one chose his own interpretation. And this is what happened. Not only in that, I cannot really imagine how many other documents of the Security Council the same thing goes and happens but with a mandate for something completely different.

Q. You've referred to it, indeed your report or your -- your, as you describe it, affidavit speaks of the moral equivalence spoken of by Mr. Annan. Can you just explain that term and its significance.

A. The UN had a tradition, a custom to apply this term both parties, aggressors and victims, like they were on the same. And I think Secretary-General Kofi Annan called it the moral equivalence of the parties to put the perpetrators and the victims in the same consideration was like to appear to be neutral in something which was difficult to be neutral.

Q. But was neutrality being represented here --

A. I think --

Q. -- in a moral equivalence or was there some lack of neutrality --

A. It could be a combination, but it was also a reaction not to be more involved than they should -- they wanted to be. That's one of the reasons I said this morning the Council of Genocide. There was so much effort to even get that into a Resolution, even though it was coming from the International Court of Justice, because the Convention on Prevention of Genocide should have obligated the parties to do something about it. So to acknowledge this was taking place would have put them in a very difficult situation, and that's why many of the permanent members decided that it wasn't a good idea to be so forceful on that issue. ³¹⁷⁹⁹

Q. Was the -- were the armies that hadn't been recognised, the Republika Srpska army and so on, treated in the same or a different way for purposes of equivalence to the state itself?

A. I'm not understanding you.

Q. I haven't asked the question well. I may come back to it but let's move on. By the way, your reference to not meeting Milosevic is in your affidavit at paragraph 301. It may not be in the report. I think that may be what you had in mind.

A. Thank you. I know I said it somewhere.

Q. You said that Karadzic complained of Muslim forces attacking out of Srebrenica. When you were there, you were in the presence of the Serb soldiers who appeared to be confident and in charge; correct?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Did they complain to you, the ones actually on the ground, did they complain to you in the way that Mr. Kay's been raising, of any attackings coming from out of the enclave?

A. Not at all. They were even walking around the city unarmed or maybe they had a pistol. The colonel marched into Belgrade United Nations force never expressed any concern at all about troops of Bosnians in the enclave.

Q. And Mr. Kay asked you two other questions for which I have follow-ups. One is you were giving a general account of the lack of water, lack of medicines. Can you just give us one example, I think it's in your report, about the water and Karadzic. Did he deal with that, turning it on or off? ³¹⁸⁰⁰

A. We had the meeting, Dr. Karadzic at the airport, he was just coming to visit Mr. Milosevic in his office. That was the we met in Belgrade, because that's where he used to dispatch very often. And when we met him at the airport of Belgrade, I told him General Dr. Karadzic the water problem is something that can be solved immediately, and he said I will solve this immediately. He never did.

Q. And finally from Mr. Kay's questions, you speak of your admiration for the UNPROFOR forces but you've also spoken of the way in which the forces you saw were subordinate to the Serb forces. That's the Canadian Forces, I think, at the time.

A. No. This situation was with the British officers.

Q. British officers.

A. This was not actually in Srebrenica. I think on the contrary. The Canadian Battalion commander was extremely angry at the lack of support he had. And not only -- and also many British officials privately complained to me of the orders that they had to perform, like do not rock the boat. That was the general policy. Do not create too many problems. Do not get us involved. So that was the reason they had those, I would say subservient -- acting in relationship with the Serbs.

Q. So your admiration for the forces takes account of the fact that they were acting in the way they did and for the reasons you've given?

A. Yes, and acting under instructions, of course, the military.

MR. NICE: As to the ICJ case, Your Honour, and the references to that, I think I dealt in the few questions in examination-in-chief with the distinction between the recital and the conclusions. ³¹⁸⁰¹ Yes. I think I've asked that already.

Q. It's been really suggested to you by the accused that you were taken in by the public relations of, for example, Bosnia. You were deceived by it because it was a propaganda war. Just remind us in short form how, if at all, you thought you were able to achieve balanced reporting, how you got enough information to have a balanced view.

A. The only fact that convinced us, Your Honours, what was happening was the reality on the ground. I don't think any propaganda war, I never met any of the lobbyists, of the Bosnians. The issue here, when I became member of the Security Council I didn't think I was representing only my country. I was representing the region as a whole. And I vowed not to be a bystander, and I would -- and that's the reason why I'm here, because I was not a bystander.

Q. You were very concerned to go on this mission to Srebrenica?

A. We wanted to see what was happening because we were by that time receiving all kinds of information. The president of the Security Council was a Pakistan ambassador at that time, Marker. It was not easy to get the mission to be approved to be sent to Srebrenica. It was a long discussion for about two hours at night in the Security Council. Then they appointed me to head the mission, to really, you know, gather the facts on the ground, and it was a very important visit.

Q. And what you saw, as the accused has suggested was propaganda war, did this fit in with the general reporting that you were getting from the press and the media or did it change your view, or did it confirm your view? Just explain. ³¹⁸⁰²

A. It was worse. Your Honour, I mentioned this morning that a British journalist was the first one who showed the world what was happening, and that prompted General Morillon and prompted the Security Council to act, but when we got there, it was much worse. It was unimaginable. I remember telling the Russian Ambassador who had -- who was in a position to our policy at the Security Council. I said you always talk of Leningrad. There is another Leningrad in a different scale. You have to see it on your own. And even the Russian ambassador who was with us on the mission shared this in our report. He signed the report which was a consensus report.

Q. Two last questions. You've been asked by the accused about what he said in a particular report about ethnic cleansing being a criminal act. You told us of what you regarded as the accused's two-prong approach. You remember. Does his being reported as saying that ethnic cleansing was a criminal act fit in with your understanding of the two-pronged approach?

A. Yes. You know, I remember explaining to the members of Security Council. I said we finally understood the full meaning of ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing is putting bombs under the roofs of the homes, it's to intimidate, to terrorise and to eliminate the possessions and to move them and to displace them. That's ethnic cleansing. I said now we don't have to read it, now we know what it means. It was the first time that we really could grasp the meaning of this terrible policy.

Q. I think you misunderstood my question. It was my mistake. Did the accused's saying publicly that ethnic cleansing was a crime fit with ³¹⁸⁰³ your description of his having a two-pronged approach?

A. Absolutely. You know, it was very clear to us that it was, like you said, a two-pronged approach; one from Belgrade entertaining the international community in endless negotiation, paramilitary negotiation. On the other side I said this morning the proxies, Mladic, Karadzic and others in Bosnia-Herzegovina, executing the policy of ethnic cleansing, genocide, crimes against humanity. So it was until the moment came when these two-prong approach was stopped by the international community, but this served to conquer more territory and to change the geography of a sovereign state of the United Nations.

Q. And that brings me indeed, by the phrase "change the geography," to my last question. The phrase "Greater Serbia" suggested as, I think, a fiction by the accused has been used by you in your report, not associating it with necessarily the speech of the accused himself. But your understanding at the time of Greater Serbia or the intention to create a Greater Serbia was what?

A. It was understood there was not one media or one report that didn't speak of the Greater Serbia. It would be difficult to understand how a country in the former Republic of Yugoslavia was willing to accept these sanctions imposed upon them if they have anything to gain in this process, and the thing to gain was a larger territory controlled by proxies in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

MR. NICE: No other questions of this witness. Thank you very much.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson. ³¹⁸⁰⁴

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] By your leave, just a minute, please. Since Mr. Nice mentioned only now the meeting with Karadzic at the airport, just one question. Just one question for the witness please.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, one question. Further cross-examination by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Arria, since you met Karadzic on the 26th of April at the airport, as you said here, the Belgrade airport, and he said to you that he had been at a meeting with me, the question is, do you know that only a few days later in Athens, on the 1st of May, a peace conference was held under the auspices of the Greek Premier, Constantin Mitsotakis, where Vance and Owen presented their plan and at that conference Karadzic signed the Vance-Owen Peace Plan? So it was a few days after that meeting. Do you remember that or not?

A. Your Honours, the meeting in Athens, which I even quote in my official speeches in the Security Council, the negotiators allow something which we thought and I stated officially was uncalled for. This is true Mr. Karadzic signed, but with the proviso that he will have to get the authorisation and confirmation from a so-called congress or parliament in the so-called Republika Srpska, which didn't exist, and the negotiations allowed that to happen.

And Your Honour, if I may add, like, I have another question, on the disappearance of this mysterious document that you asked me this morning of Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali, the only way -- you remember ³¹⁸⁰⁵ Mr. Milosevic asked me do you know, have you seen this document? I said no. He said this document was circulated to the Security Council. After I said, no, it wasn't, then he said, well, this document was retained by the Austrian Ambassador, who was the president of the Security Council, who wanted to impose sanctions and hid it from the Security Council. The only way that this could have happened was Mr. Boutros-Ghali to be in connivance with him in complicity, and that was not the case. I cannot imagine Mr. Boutros-Ghali allowing the Austrian ambassador to hide a report from him addressed to the Security Council. I just wanted to add that as a contribution to the point you made this morning.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much. That concludes your evidence, Mr. Arria.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And you're free to go.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.

[The witness withdrew]

MR. NICE: Before the next witness who is --

JUDGE MAY: Just a minute, Mr. Nice.

[Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, before you proceed, I want to deal with two matters raised by Mr. Milosevic this morning. The first one is a follow-up to the order made by the Chamber that the Registrar would give him as much assistance as it could during this phase of the case, and he said he had not received any. I have caused inquiries to be made, and I am to say that Mr. Milosevic, you are to raise this matter with the ³¹⁸⁰⁶ Registrar, let him know what assistance you need, and he will, to the extent that he can, provide the assistance. In particular, if you need more time for consultations with your associates, that's the kind of assistance that he would be in a position to grant. The second matter raised by Mr. Milosevic had to do with the effect of the decision of the Registrar on communication. Mr. Milosevic maintained that the effect of that decision would be that he would be hampered in the preparation of his case. I've looked at the decision itself, Mr. Milosevic, and it explicitly states that the restrictions do not apply to communications and visits reasonably necessary for the preparation of your case, including interviewing by telephone or in person potential witnesses or otherwise collecting evidence in his defence provided that the facility is not to be used in any manner for any contacts with the media. So your right to prepare your case is not prejudiced in any way by the decision.

Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Before we turn from --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Apologies. Before we turn from the last witness, he was, in the course of cross-examination, asked a large number of questions of a detailed nature about his statement. I'm entirely in the Court's hands. It might be more convenient for the statement to be exhibited principally for reference to the passages to which Mr. -- the accused referred but generally where there's extensive cross-examination on grounds of credibility or reliability on a witness's statement, it may be ³¹⁸⁰⁷ thought appropriate to exhibit it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, do you have any comments on that, exhibiting the statement of the --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- of the last witness?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do, Mr. Robinson. That statement contains 500 paragraphs, and as you know full well, I did not have the opportunity of dealing with more than one fifth of it. I mean, I could not deal with four-fifths because of the time limit that was imposed and because of the evasiveness of this statement. It is no doubt evasive and not relevant.

This story looks like a newspaper article to me more than anything else. It is supposed to support this false indictment and it doesn't really prove a thing. It just shows what the witness's line of thinking is.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, I see you're getting ready to rise.

MR. KAY: If I could just assist the Court. The Court passed an order as to the confines of the statement. That statement well and truly exceeds that. It is also full of opinion and observations and personal opinions of that particular witness. In my submission, the extent of that statement does not require, as a result of the cross-examination, the evidence heard live in court, for it to be made an exhibit as a result of what the Court heard.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: The decision is not to admit it. ³¹⁸⁰⁸

MR. NICE: As Your Honour pleases. Before the next witness, there's one administrative matter to be dealt with, and after the next break I suspect I will have to come to the question of the order of witnesses for tomorrow. I'm not in a position finally to come to it at the moment. So may I deal with the first administrative problem now, which can be dealt with in open court, bearing in mind that the next witness is protected to some degree.

With the change of the timetable, there is no date within the current schedule on which Mr. Bildt can come. He was originally coming, I think, last week on the 4th, and I've explored with him his diary for this week; today, tomorrow, and Thursday the 12th; next week the 18th and 19th. Without going into it in any great detail, he is between several -- well, two or three continents, I'm not quite sure how many, in that one-week period, returning to Northern Europe, he would be available on the afternoons of either this Friday, next Monday, or next Tuesday, but he is completely unavailable for the other remaining four days. He was a witness who, as the Chamber will recall, we sought to add both because he can provide valuable evidence over a short time period but also because, in our submission, it's evidence that will give a context or deepen the context of other evidence that's very important for the Chamber to assess in relation to the accused's state of knowledge and activities at the time of the Srebrenica massacre, and it was for that evidence that we sought leave to add him to the list.

Of course he could give a great deal of other evidence because of his position, but that wasn't critical to our application, and we would ³¹⁸⁰⁹ still not be seeking to lead any evidence of it, although the Chamber was comparatively generous in the cross-examination allowed so that, overall, his evidence could last three hours, perhaps a little longer. I don't obviously seek an immediate response, but I would ask the Chamber to consider adjusting the timetable so that he might give evidence, perhaps next week, given that his inability to come on the day fixed for him was not as a result of any action of his or ours but through forces outside our control.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We hear the submission.

MR. NICE: Thank you. The next witness is entitled to protection by your order. May I respectfully suggest that we go briefly into closed session for the opening parts of his testimony and for consideration of how to deal with his evidence --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: -- and the exhibits.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ³¹⁸¹⁰ Page 31810 redacted, private session

³¹⁸¹¹ Page 31811 redacted, private session

³¹⁸¹² Page 31812 redacted, private session

³¹⁸¹³ Page 31813 redacted, private session

³¹⁸¹⁴

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

MR. NICE: -- read out literally the topics covered by the witness in his statements, picking up at the exhibits and informing Your Honours where those exhibits have already been tendered so that you can mark your papers accordingly.

Q. Witness B-1804, in your first statement -- just a minute.

[Prosecution counsel confer]

MR. NICE:

Q. In your first statement, did you deal with the withdrawal and ³¹⁸¹⁵ deployment of your then-unit to Bosnia?

A. Yes, I did answer those questions.

Q. You went on to deal with the conditions in Zvornik?

A. Yes.

Q. And to deal with the takeover of Bijeljina?

A. I was asked several questions in that regard.

MR. NICE: Your Honours will see that tab 2 in the bundle is a document that relates to paragraph 24. We take the view on review and in order to save burdening the Chamber that it's an exhibit that we needn't bother with so it need not be produced.

JUDGE KWON: Let me clarify this. What are included in tab 1, the two statements --

MR. NICE: No just the first statement.

JUDGE KWON: The first statement, together with the pseudonym sheet.

MR. NICE: Indeed.

JUDGE KWON: Okay.

MR. NICE: And if we strike tab 2.

Q. You then went on, Witness B-1804, to deal with the arming of Serbs in Zvornik, and at paragraph 33 dealt with a document called the Variant A and B document.

MR. NICE: Your Honours will see this is in your papers at tab 3. It has previously been exhibited, and therefore, subject to how the Court orders its papers, need not become a burden.

Q. You went on to deal with the attack on Zvornik, with Kula Grad, ³¹⁸¹⁶ with the cleansing, as described, of Zvornik; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And at paragraph 52, in that section, you deal with an exhibit again previously tendered, the decision on strategic objectives of the Serbian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

You turned to the creation of the VRS and then dealt with Srebrenica, focusing first on the relationship between the VRS and the JNA, or VJ, including the 30th Personnel Centre, and at paragraph 72 dealt with an intercept.

MR. NICE: And, Your Honour, intercepts are, save perhaps with one exception or maybe more than one, but the exception being dealt with by being marked for identification only in the conduct of the trial.

Q. But this particular intercept you dealt with as a document confirming payment of salaries from Belgrade; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. One detail slightly outside the statement but just for the avoidance of doubt: When you were paid, you yourself were paid money, as you explain, from Belgrade right the way through the period we are concerned with, you were paid at the rank appropriate -- at the rate appropriate to your rank; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that relates to the entire period with which your two statements are concerned.

A. Yes. Just an interruption of five or six months.

Q. Not a question of when paid from Belgrade simply getting a reduced ³¹⁸¹⁷ amount of money constituting social security, you were paid the rate appropriate to your rank in the services.

A. Yes.

Q. Tab 6 you dealt with in the section of your statement follows, following support from the VJ to the VRS and with examples, and this was an intercept.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, at this point may we perhaps go into private session, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, private session.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ³¹⁸¹⁸ Page 31818 redacted, private session

³¹⁸¹⁹

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

MR. NICE:

Q. With -- in the next section on the planning of the proposed attack on Srebrenica, tab 8, a document you were able to produce or identify, although it's been previously exhibited, and that was a command of the Drina Corps of the 2nd of July of 1995.

A. I have had a look at that document, yes.

Q. You dealt with the objective of the attack, with the expectations prior to the attack on the Srebrenica area, and at paragraph 111 within this section, you produced or you identified an exhibit already produced, tab 9, a directive for further operations issued by the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces of Republika Srpska.

MR. NICE: Already produced, Your Honours, as you will see, 553, tab 2.

Q. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You dealt with the embargo imposed on Republika Srpska, with the lack of direct VJ involvement in the military attack on Srebrenica safe area, saying that so far as you were aware, no VJ units or personnel took part in any direct combat action in the 1995 military operation to attack and -- the Srebrenica safe area? ³¹⁸²⁰

A. That's right.

Q. After the fall of Srebrenica was the next section of your first statement, and then in the section dealing with General Krstic at tab 10, may we look at that, please? At paragraph 125, you see an identification card of Krstic, the rank of major general from Belgrade, and of course a VJ military service and identification card; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. At tab 11 in the same section but at your paragraph 131, a further identification card to the same general effect, and you can authenticate it; correct?

A. This is the civilian identification card.

MR. NICE: At tabs 12 to 17, Your Honours will see have already been produced or tendered, and -- Your Honour, I think we must now return to private session very briefly.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, private session.

MR. NICE: To --

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ³¹⁸²¹ Page 31821 redacted, private session

³¹⁸²²

(redacted)

[Open session]

MR. NICE: -- being an organigramme of the Main Staff VRS structure, which you were able to confirm as accurate?

THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, with certain remarks that I made on the occasion.

MR. NICE:

Q. And in the following tab, tab 19, there's another organigramme of the Main Staff of the VRS. Again you were an able to confirm the data at least in part?

A. Yes. There were two organigrammes, one of the Main Staff and the second of the Drina Corps command.

Q. The following tab, tab 20, gives VRS code names.

MR. NICE: And if Your Honours have this before you, I think the witness can take us down, as he says in paragraph 144, to Domar, that he doesn't know the call-signs after that.

Q. Paragraph 146 produces tab 21, an order dated the 8th of April of 1994, which lists, at page 6, Gojko Simic as a member of the Zvornik Brigade; correct?

A. Yes. I was shown an order by the brigade commander where that name was mentioned.

Q. At tab 22, paragraph 107 -- 147 is a document perhaps you could just look at, please. Does this appear to you to be a genuine document?

A. This is a copy of the original document. ³¹⁸²³

Q. Yes. Signed by Pandurevic. And on page 3 in the English, under the Organ for Combat Arms, we can see Maksimovic and Kajtaz as on the records for the General Staff of the VJ; correct?

A. I apologise, but may I just take a minute to find that? Yes. I found it under number 8 and 9, the organ for the services for the brigade. Maksimovic Milos Captain First Class and Kajtaz Milenko Captain First Class. They weren't in the masons staff but in the command of the Zvornik Brigade.

MR. NICE: As we turn to page 21 of the witness's statement, the Chamber should know that from the top of the page of the English version, two lines have been inadvertently missed out and we've got a substitute page that I hope is before you that provides those two missing lines.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's page 20 --

MR. NICE: Page 21.

Q. Tab 23, actually, is dealt with in that paragraph that we're looking at and is a document that the witness is able to identify, although a copy, as he correctly says, as being an identical one -- original one properly copied coming from Zivanovic, a major general of the Drina Corps.

A. Yes, commander of the Drina Corps.

Q. Tabs 24, 5, 6, and 7 deal with vehicle logs, and the Chamber will see, looking at tab 24, the dates in the second half of July 1995 at 24, and then it will see the logs of personnel of the logistics platoon company for tab 25. For tab 26 it will see the log of presence of personnel for the battalion. And for tab 27, the work of vehicle ³¹⁸²⁴ maintenance and generators, again with dates in July. And we then come to tab 28, dealt with at paragraph 154, which is the death certificate of Gojko Simic, which, Witness 1804, you were able to identify as, I think, an authenticate document.

A. Yes. I have had a look at that document too, earlier on when you showed it to me.

Q. And finally tab 29, dealt with at paragraph 155, is a document that you looked at for the military police dealing with attendance roster for July 1995.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, can we then please go into private session for tab 30.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ³¹⁸²⁵ Page 31825 redacted, private session

³¹⁸²⁶ Page 31826 redacted, private session

³¹⁸²⁷

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

MR. NICE:

Q. Sets out matters at paragraph 1 to 3 which are background that I won't cover, sets out general areas of history for material matters in the following paragraphs, gives a chronology of material events in the middle ³¹⁸²⁸ of 1995 and then sets out in some detail some of the events that happened at the fall of Srebrenica; correct?

A. Yes, you're right.

MR. NICE: Your Honours will see what is, and I don't need to go into private session to deal with this -- perhaps -- no, perhaps I should to assist the Chamber. Can we go, sorry, into private session very briefly.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ³¹⁸²⁹ Page 31829 redacted, private session

³¹⁸³⁰

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Before the cross-examination commences, I want to say that this witness is a protected witness. That means he's subject to certain protective measures, and protective measures are an important element in the administration of justice in this Tribunal. As such, any person breaching the protective measures will be subject to prosecution, and so I advise and warn the media and others that any reporting of the witness's testimony that tends to identify him would amount to a contempt of court and be punishable under Rule 77 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, tell me, how much time are you giving me for this witness?

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we had assigned two and a half hours, and it would be subject to the same thing that I said this morning; if you have an application to make, should you choose to use the entire ³¹⁸³¹ time, you may make it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. I will be able to assess that tomorrow, thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. 1804 --

A. Please go ahead.

Q. Before the conflict broke out in Bosnia-Herzegovina, you were an active JNA officer; isn't that right?

A. You're right.

Q. Tell me, before any conflict broke out in the former Yugoslavia, although you hail from Bosnia-Herzegovina, you did your military service or, rather, no, not your military service but you were in the military outside Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it correct that it was the usual practice, in view of the fact that the Yugoslav People's Army was multi-ethnic, that officers, depending on the requirements of the service, be assigned throughout Yugoslavia without any constraints in terms of the republic they originally came from?

A. That's right.

Q. In the units that you served in, did you work as an officer together with members of all other ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Among you, were there any tensions in view of the fact that you belonged to different national or ethnic groups? ³¹⁸³²

A. No.

Q. Tell me, when did the first crises and tensions appear in the Yugoslav People's Army?

A. Well, sometime just before the war in Slovenia broke out, if I remember correctly. So perhaps -- let me say 1991, something like that.

Q. All right. You were withdrawn from the area where you had been serving. You were withdrawn to Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. Do you know where other units were withdrawn to from your corps or from part of the army district that you had served in?

A. Well, I could not give an exact answer to your question in view of my position then, but they were withdrawn to Bosnia, Vojvodina, Serbia.

Q. All right. I will try to work as efficiently as possible so that we would make the best possible use of our time. So I'm going to start dealing with some matters that were brought up in your statement. In paragraph 11 of your statement, you say that the practice was in the JNA, when the conflicts started, that is, and that is what paragraph 11 of your statement pertains to, that paramilitary units were involved in combat activities, and you mentioned Seselj's men, Dragan's men, and others by way of an example here. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me, please, in that case would these units be under the command of the JNA or were they able to move about independently and to operate without any kind of superior command?

A. On the basis of what I heard and what I know, these different ³¹⁸³³ paramilitary units took part in combat activities voluntarily if they wanted to take part in such activities. And when actual combat would take place, then they were operating on the basis of command. So within the combat operation itself under the command of the JNA officer in charge.

Q. Are you aware of any order of a superior officer or any superior related to paramilitary units that were not willing to be under the command of the JNA, that such paramilitary units would have to be disbanded, disarmed, arrested, et cetera?

A. I do not recall such an order, but I do remember that in Zvornik there was an intervention when the units of the Protection Regiment expelled a paramilitary unit.

Q. They expelled a paramilitary unit which was engaged in unlawful acts; is that right?

A. Well, yes.

Q. Could the witness repeat? Yes, he said Zuca. And this man Zuca was later arrested in Serbia. I assume you know that. And tell me, please, these combat activities which took place in Croatia in 1991 occurred when Yugoslavia was still in existence; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. I can see from your CV that you graduated from your military schools in regular fashion, the military academy as well, and I assume you're familiar with the provisions that have to do with All People's Defence; is that right, Mr. 1804?

A. Yes, I think so. ³¹⁸³⁴

Q. I'll now skip some of the general points but I'm sure you know that in the constitution of SFRY it is stated that each and every citizen who with arms takes part in resistance against the attackers is a member of the armed forces of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I assume that as an educated officer yourself you're aware of that.

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Now, does that mean -- I'm asking you now, give me your example and tell me, did you consider that all those who took part in the defence of the SFRY and defence of its territorial integrity pursuant to the constitution were legal members of the armed forces, lawful ones? Would that be true?

A. Mr. Milosevic, I personally considered that those people who were in the legal units and lawfully belonged to those units were, by the same token, members of the armed forces, that is to say the police or milicija, the Territorial Defence, the JNA, et cetera.

Q. I assume that you include the volunteer units there if they are subordinated to the JNA.

A. Yes, if they're subordinated to the JNA.

Q. And we've already observed that if they weren't subordinated to the JNA, they were arrested, disarmed, and expelled. Is that right?

A. Yes, in certain cases.

Q. All right. Now, in view of the profession, your military profession and the rules and regulations in force at the time from your position and post, I assume you had an awareness of the fact that the character of the paramilitary formations were those formations which did ³¹⁸³⁵ not defend Yugoslavia. They were characterised as paramilitaries, and their territorial integrity -- and its territorial integrity, but did the contrary?

A. Yes, there were paramilitary formations of that kind too.

Q. They were formations that jeopardised the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia and acted contrary to the constitution, that is to say contrary to the law and legal provisions, and their very existence was unlawful and contrary to the provision of law; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. As you have experience from those days in 1991, can we conclude that, for example, the Croatian National Guard Corps, the ZNG, set up an institution that was contrary to the Yugoslav constitution; or, for example, the Patriotic League, another instance in point in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Were they paramilitary formations, in fact?

A. Mr. Milosevic, I think that until those republics were recognised, these were indeed paramilitary formations.

Q. And do you know since -- well, let's narrow down our focus of attention and look at Bosnia-Herzegovina, that the Patriotic League, for example, was established already in March 1991.

A. Yes, that's right. I don't know the exact month, whether it was March or not, but I do know that it was set up sometime in 1991.

Q. Well, the date exists and it is celebrated as Patriotic League Day on that particular day with them, so this is no secret.

A. You're probably right although I didn't pay attention to the exact date, but I did say that I know it was sometime in 1991, yes. ³¹⁸³⁶

Q. In paragraph 8 of your statement, say, and I'm quoting you, that: "An order was received from a higher instance that all officers and soldiers who were from the Krajina should remain in Krajina and join up the army of Krajina and that anybody else could join up with the other army."

Is that what you said?

A. Yes, that's what I said.

Q. Now, tell me, this superior instance that proclaimed this obligation on the -- for the Krajina citizens to join the Krajina army was quite certainly not the JNA or any kind of Yugoslav authority. It didn't have this competence and authorisation when the JNA was withdrawing from Croatia or, rather, the territory of the Krajina.

A. We reached that -- that reached us from the superior command, which means from the corps command, in fact.

Q. Well, is it true that this kind of order could only have been issued by the authorities in Krajina to its own citizens and that in fact it was a component part of the general mobilisation process?

A. Well, I suppose that the authorities of Krajina issued that order, but I don't know about these details as to what was going on in the Krajina. I can't say with any great precision. I'm not sufficiently aware of what was going on.

Q. All right. Now, do you know that the withdrawal of the JNA from that territory was a component part of the agreement that was reached and, generally speaking, the plan that was well known under the name of the Vance Plan when the area was placed under protection, the areas in Croatia ³¹⁸³⁷ were placed under protection?

A. Well, I do remember that there was some political negotiations, but what I remember more was that General Raseta negotiated on pulling out the JNA units, on having the JNA units pull out and that they deblocked the barracks for us and allowed us to withdraw, and I'm thinking of my particular unit.

Q. Right. So up until then, the barracks in Croatia were blocked until that time; is that right?

A. The one I was in was blocked, yes, and I assume the others were too, but I'm now speaking about my own one and I say yes.

Q. How long was your barracks blocked for? How long did the blockade of your barracks last?

A. Well, sometime after the war in Slovenia, that is to say from the summer of 1991 to the withdrawal itself.

Q. When did you withdraw from Croatia yourself?

A. If I remember correctly, that was sometime on the 10th or 11th of November, 1991, thereabouts.

Q. And you had spent several months under a blockade; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, your particular unit at that time while it was under a blockade, did it launch any attack on its environment at all?

A. The unit I was in did not, no.

Q. Did -- were you fired at? Did they shoot at you?

A. On several occasions. Not like they did in some other places, but -- ³¹⁸³⁸

Q. Not like they did in some other place, but yes, they did shoot at you, is that what you mean?

A. On several occasions. It was infantry fire on several occasions.

Q. And you didn't shoot at them at all, did you?

A. No, we did not.

Q. The order -- you had an order not to shoot?

A. Yes, by our commander.

Q. In paragraph 12, you state the following: "When I was redeployed with my unit --" and I'm going to skip the locality you were redeployed to bearing in mind the fact that this could disclose your identity, but that's what it says in paragraph 12 of your statement, the point isn't on location itself, so: "When I was redeployed with my unit to a locality X in Bosnia-Herzegovina, there were more Serb officers there than any other ethnic group."

And I'm continuing with the quotation: "This, however, was mainly because the different ethnic groups had decided to join up with the armies of their own countries. For example, the Croats left to join the Croatian army, and the Slovenes went to join the Slovenian army. A part of the Muslims and the Albanians also fled the unit. Also, some political parties invited the members of their nationalities to leave the JNA or not to respond to the JNA as well as for other reasons." End of quotation. Now, my question to you is the following: Up until the war in Slovenia and Croatia, until the war broke out there and then during the war in Croatia, the JNA was multi-ethnic, as we have already observed. It included different nationalities. And then there was this change, the ³¹⁸³⁹ secession of the republics which forcibly seceded from Yugoslavia. That's right, isn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. Then that secession was followed by secession from the JNA by the members of the JNA who adopted for the secession; is that right?

A. Some of them left, others fled, so I don't know whether we can call that secession, but yes, they did leave our ranks.

Q. All right. So what you observe, that is that it was mostly the Serb officers who remained, was not the result of any kind of act by the JNA to be rid of the members of the other ethnic groups. It was purely the fact that they had left the JNA.

A. Well, I didn't say that.

Q. Yes. I just wanted to check that out with you, to verify it. I'm not claiming that you did say that. So they left the JNA. When you say that they were mostly Serb officers, that means that it wasn't only the Serb officers that stayed on, there were other ethnicities who stayed on in the JNA when you arrived in Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Then in paragraph 14, paragraph 14 you say that amongst the officers of the JNA in Bosnia there was the fear that the Muslims and Croats in Bosnia might unilaterally try to secede from Yugoslavia and establish their own unitary state as Slovenia and Croatia had previously done. Is that right?

A. Yes, that's right. ³¹⁸⁴⁰

Q. Can I conclude and take it then that the officers in the JNA, who were mostly Serbs at the time, were in favour of preserving the common state of Yugoslavia or, rather, that they wished to preserve it?

A. In the majority of cases, yes, they did.

Q. All right. Now, since you yourself are a Serb from Bosnia-Herzegovina, did the Serb inhabitants in Bosnia-Herzegovina come out in favour of preserving Yugoslavia?

A. As far as I know, yes.

Q. And since Yugoslavia was a multi-ethnic state whose federal constitutional system guaranteed equal rights to all its citizens, you know full well that the Serbs -- the total Serb population in Yugoslavia was a little less than 40 per cent of the total population. This means that the Serbs strove for multi-ethnicity and equality; is that right?

A. Most of the population, the majority of the population strove to preserve Yugoslavia, if we're talking about the Serbs in Bosnia.

Q. All right. Fine. Now, what about their position? Was it their position that all nationalities or ethnic groups should be equal?

A. At the time we're talking about, yes.

Q. Tell me now, please, since the preservation of the countries' territorial integrity was guaranteed by the constitution and since secession was banned by that same constitution, does that mean that Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Krajina and all over Yugoslavia strove to protect the constitutional order by the same token?

A. Well, I've already said they did strive to preserve Yugoslavia.

Q. Now, this fact that the Serbs strove to preserve Yugoslavia and ³¹⁸⁴¹ that the JNA as a Yugoslav institution also was in favour of seeing Yugoslavia preserved, was that precisely the factor which painted an impression as to an alliance between the Serbs and the JNA, gave that impression?

A. Well, perhaps it did, yes.

Q. All right, Mr. 1804. If they were essentially allies and if their goals were to respect the constitution and preserve the state and thereby stand in opposition to those toppling the state and the constitution, is it obvious that there was nothing in that that was bad, if I can put it that way, but that both acted in the moral and legal sense as dictated by the constitution and the law?

A. At the beginning, yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you seem to be reinvigorated for the afternoon session, but it's time to adjourn. Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, if we are adjourning -- I see the time, yes, we are adjourning. There are administrative matters that I must deal with and I prefer to deal with in the absence of the witness, they having nothing whatsoever to do with him.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Witness 1804, we will adjourn for the afternoon. You are not to discuss your evidence with anybody during the adjournment, and be back tomorrow morning at 9.00.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand.

[The witness stands down]

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. ³¹⁸⁴²

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: My concern is with the following --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. NICE: My concern is with following witnesses:

THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.

MR. NICE: Can we be in private session, please.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ³¹⁸⁴³

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.50 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 11th day of

February, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.