³³⁴⁷⁵

Wednesday, 17 November 2004

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, do you have any questions of the witness?

MR. KAY: No, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And if you have questions of witnesses in the future, I assume you'll let us know.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Yes. Before I ask questions of this witness, a general observation. With the Defence witnesses to date and under the regime then operative involving the assigned counsel, there was never any time pressure because there was always either only one witness for several days or something of that sort, and indeed it wasn't known how many witnesses were going to come in all.

The present situation, of course, is different, and I am very aware of the expectation that my cross-examination of witnesses will be substantially shorter than the examination-in-chief of the accused. A witness like this is a witness who I could without any difficulty question for many hours and probably days because he covers a wide territory of potential evidence, but I will endeavour to confine my evidence and to compact it. ³³⁴⁷⁶ There are two inevitable consequences of that. First, that I won't necessarily with every witness be able to cover every topic and some that could be raised with a witness; and secondly, that if a witness is prone to give extensive answers beyond that which is responsive to the question, and although it may seem to the witness to be unfair and even unfriendly, it isn't, I shall have to step in to stop them, which is something I haven't done with earlier witnesses. I thought it only fair to explain both not my problem but my reality and the reason why I shall be expecting short answers of witnesses.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. And I think you have an absolute right to stop the witness when you have had the answer that you want.

WITNESS: MIHAILO MARKOVIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] Cross-examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Professor Markovic, as an intellectual and a politician, you knew and know that words uttered publicly may have real political effect. It may also create states of mind in others that can have unforeseen consequences; correct?

A. Yes. With the proviso that I'm not a politician but a scientist. But I do, of course, delve in politics from time to time.

Q. Praksis, of which you were a member, came to a conclusion in 1990 because of an article that you wrote; correct?

A. I'm not aware that that was the case. I don't know what article you mean. Because, quite simply, the circumstances changed, and the people who continued to work and lead Praksis -- I was the editor-in-chief ³³⁴⁷⁷ from 1981 to 1986 myself. Afterwards, I was replaced by my junior colleague Svetozar Stojanovic and someone else from America. They were the editors-in-chief. And afterwards they came to the conclusion that, given the circumstances in 1990, Praksis no longer had any reason for existing.

Q. In 1990, you wrote an article describing the Albanians of Kosovo as a backward, clannish people incapable of lifting themselves from poverty; correct?

A. No. No, I'm not aware of that article. What article is it, in fact?

Q. May I remind you of some other passages, and if you don't remember it, we will have to deal with it in another way. Do you remember describing them as having -- in an article in Praksis, do you remember describing the Albanian nationalists of having adopted a rapid birth rate as a demographic weapon against Serbs?

A. You mean non-Albanians. You're mentioning Albanian nationalists. That's what you said. I don't know what the article is that you're referring to since you didn't tell me the heading and title of the article, and I think that in 1990 Praksis was not being published any more.

Q. I'll ask you a few more points about the article that I suggest you wrote, and I'll produce the article in due course.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I consider that Mr. Nice would be duty-bound to place the article before the witness if he is in fact ³³⁴⁷⁸ claiming that it is his article, which is very probable, but it would be a good idea if he placed the article in front of the witness for him to be able to answer the question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Getting to that.

MR. NICE: Unfortunately, I don't have the article itself with me today. I will be able to produce it in due course. I'm reading a summary of the article at the moment by Laura Secor, in an article published under the Belgrade Circle banner. And I would hope to be able to have the article itself for the Court but not until the end of the week.

Q. Professor, was it your opinion that there had been fiscal [Realtime transcript read in error "physical"] mismanagement by corrupt Albanian leaders?

A. Fiscal [Realtime transcript read in error "physical"] mismanagement by the Albanian leaders? I never wrote about anything like that. I know nothing about their fiscal [Realtime transcript read in error "physical"] mismanagements, and I especially didn't write about them.

Q. And then finally for these purposes, do you remember writing an article where you raise as --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a correction. The transcript has "physical mismanagement."

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note: Fiscal.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Please proceed.

MR. NICE:

Q. Was it your view and did you write to the effect that throughout ³³⁴⁷⁹ history Albanians had had great powers on their side while Serbia had limped along on her own two feet?

A. No, I never wrote that because that is simply not correct. The Albanians were on the superficial -- on the opposite side in the wars, on the wrong side, fascist Germany and Italy, whereas all the highly developed democratic countries of the West were on the other side, so they weren't with them.

Q. And finally, have you proposed -- or not proposed, have you raised for discussion the possibility of partitioning Kosovo so that the north would have stayed with Serbia and the south, poorer half would have gone -- or part, would have gone to Albanian?

A. I don't know, Mr. Nice, where you get this information from. I was opposed to that position, and that position was advocated by my colleague from the academy, Dobrica Cosic. That was his idea about the division of Kosovo. I was never in favour of that and I even criticised the president of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, Mr. Despic, when he listened to Cosic and went on to write an article in the 1990s in which he set out this idea of the division. So I was never an advocate of this division of Kosovo myself ever.

Q. Professor, I will -- if the questioning goes over the first break, I will arrange for you to be provided with a copy of the article by Laura Secor which comes in parallel columns in English and in B/C/S or Serbian and would ask you to have a look at it over that break. Shall we --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I have to say that I would have expected you to have had that article here. ³³⁴⁸⁰

MR. NICE: If it had been possible, we would have done, and I'm sorry that we've had to proceed on second-tier material for it. I'll try and make efforts to secure it by e-mail or fax today, if I can, but I'm not optimistic. But in any event, the report of the article is a document that I would ask the witness to read.

JUDGE BONOMY: One possibility as a result of all this, Mr. Nice, of course is that you've simply wasted the time you've had so far in the cross-examination by not having the document to clarify the point. The evidence so far is absolutely valueless in the --

MR. NICE: Quite understandable, but, Your Honour, that's the position in which I find myself.

Q. Can I now turn to the memorandum. There was a question from His Honour Judge Kwon yesterday about the very first edition and what part a priest called Mihajlo Mikic played in it. Do you know anything yourself about the first publication by St. Savo's library in English of a version of the memorandum by the priest Mikic?

A. I never heard about the priest called Mikic. All I do know is that the memorandum was published first in Croatia in two journals, whereas I've never actually heard of this man Mikic. And I don't think he is of any particular importance.

MR. NICE: And, Your Honours, I haven't been able to obtain any more detail overnight about that beyond what's contained in Mr. de la Brosse's report.

Q. Professor, can you -- there are various versions of the memorandum. We have a number here, and I don't want to burden the record ³³⁴⁸¹ by producing all of them or indeed any more of them. Can you please confirm this from your knowledge, that in September 1986, a version of the memorandum was sent by the committee of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts to the federal secretary of the interior, Dobrislav Culafic.

A. When do you mean? When was this? Because the Serbian academy did not recognise this memorandum as being its own and a complete integral version from the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, in those first years, which would make it 1986 to the early 1990s, considered that it was an incomplete document, unfinished, and it wasn't adopted by the commission as a whole, the commission working on it. Neither did the presidency of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Q. I'm showing you a document which we can lay on the overhead projector, if necessary, and which we can copy and produce, if necessary, purporting to be a version sent to the federal secretary of the interior on the authority of Mile Puzovic, dated the 26th of September, 1986. Does that assist you at all, looking at the document?

A. Well, this does not have anything to do with the academy, which means that the handwritten version of the memorandum, which was incomplete, the manuscript which was published in the press, that the Ministry of the Interior came by it and this man Mr. Puzovic of course has nothing to do with the academy itself. It is the republican, as it says here, the Republican Secretariat for Internal Affairs, which means the intelligence services came by this document and forward it on to the federal secretary. The academy never forwarded any document to the Ministry of the Interior. ³³⁴⁸²

Q. It was rumoured at the time, was it not, Professor, that the leaking of the memorandum was not accidental but intentional. Do you accept that or not?

A. Well, I cannot accept that because the academy wished or, rather, those of us who worked on the text, after great deal of discussion and amendments and corrections that we made to it, wished to complete it, and so it was in none of our interests or in the interests of the academy indeed for the text to be sent out to the papers incomplete and unfinished all the more so because it had dire consequences for the academy because this publication of an incomplete text in the papers had as a consequence that there was a witch hunt against the academy for months afterwards, and the top leaders - for example, Ivan Stambolic, the president of the republic - attacked the academy very violently, saying that a knife was being thrust in the back of Yugoslavia, and responsibility was sought for and people that were held accountable, people that were responsible. And they asked for the dismissal of Antonije Isakovic, the professor -- the president of the academy, for his dismissal.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I believe Mr. Nice had the answer.

MR. NICE:

Q. The repeated suggestion that the document was only ever a draft needs to be considered, does it not, Professor, beside this: The academy published the version that we have as an exhibit in 1995, didn't it, together with an answer to criticisms -- yes, an answer to criticisms.

A. Nine years later --

Q. The answer, I think, is yes? ³³⁴⁸³

A. -- the academy did publish it, yes. In 1986, it did not publish it and could not publish it because it was incomplete, unfinished, and not accepted by the academy, but afterwards the document was highly abused and was represented in that way, and in 1995, the decision was made to publish it. Well, you have to let me -- allow me to answer your question. It's not a long answer.

Q. The question is this, though: On analysis, the differences between the first released versions in 1986 and the final version produced by the academy in 1995 were extremely limited, were they not?

A. Well, the text had passed through a number of versions because the discussion around it lasted for more than a year with the corrections, amendments, and so on. So there were several versions. There was the version that was published in the papers, that was one of the latest -- last versions, and afterwards it was that version, I think, that was actually published in 1995.

Q. I'm going to suggest, but I'm not going to take time on the detail now, that there were a total of about six differences, two deletions and four additions between those two versions. I have an analysis for you to look at later if that becomes helpful. Do you accept that the number of changes may have been as limited as six?

A. No. No. I don't know what number there were, how many changes. Quite simply, what was published in the papers was not accepted by the academy as being its version, its authentic version. Once it decided to go ahead and publish, it published its own version. So the version that was actually stolen and leaked was not one that was accepted and adopted ³³⁴⁸⁴ by the academy embraced as its own.

Q. May we look now at the version produced yesterday in the bound form, Exhibit D --

JUDGE KWON: 250.

MR. NICE: 250. Thank you very much. If the witness can have it.

Q. And, Professor, I hope you're happy to follow it in English. It will assist us if you -- I know you speak English, having degrees from London and having lectured in -- having held academic posts in North America, but it would help us if we can go through it in the English version.

On page -- and I'm going to look at the thing in some detail to see what it constitutes. Starting at page 10, where on the top it says: "Although the largest Yugoslav republic in territory and population, Serbia has been dispossessed of its attributes of statehood by the new constitution promulgated in 1974."

That was the principal concern of Serbia and of the intellectuals of whom you were a member; correct?

A. The 1974 constitution, under that constitution, Serbia, unlike the rest of the republics, did not gain the status of being a sovereign state because Serbia remained divided into three parts; Serbia proper, Kosovo, and Vojvodina. And that's what this passage refers to and that's what caused it --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Professor. Professor, let us look at the question, which was fairly simple. The question was whether the principal concern of yourself and your fellow intellectuals is what is stated in the ^{33485 BLANK PAGE 33486} passage starting at page 10, that: "Although Serbia was the largest Yugoslav republic in territory and population, it had been dispossessed of its attributes of statehood by the constitution of 1974." What is the answer to that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was one, although not the principal reason for concern. As I've already said, the proposal to draft this memorandum was given by Maksimovic, who was an economist, and he played a very important -- Mihajlovic, and the very serious economic crisis was at the root of it and the fact that Yugoslavia was divided into six states -- well, even eight, and that everything was disintegrated, as it goes on to say. But, yes, this was one of the reasons where the need for equality was raised. So Serbia did not enjoy the same status as the other republics.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that Mr. Nice's questions are creating confusion, because I'm reading from this book in English, the one he's using now. He's not quoting the actual text of the memorandum. The text of the memorandum begins only on page 90 of this book, and in front of that we have a series of articles. It is Kosta Mihailovic and Vasilije Krestic who are the authors and who provide different explanations and the history that led up to the memorandum, the reasons and so on and so forth. So what Mr. Nice is quoting from is not the actual text of the memorandum but explanations by Professors Kosta Mihailovic and Vasilije Krestic who wrote a book. So it was not corrected in order to be published but because the memorandum was -- there were ³³⁴⁸⁷ mystifications around it, people decided to publish this text to explain what it was all about. So on page 10, the passages quoted by Mr. Nice are not in fact the passages from the memorandum itself. It is the heading of why the memorandum was written, and that was written itself nine years after it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I see.

MR. NICE: Your Honour --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice --

MR. NICE: I think we're all aware of that. I think we made this point very clearly yesterday in explaining what the document was.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But you're still asking the question.

MR. NICE: I'm still asking the question.

Q. And this was, of course, Professor, a document published by the academy itself, with the authority of the academy, wasn't it, this version that you're looking at?

A. Mr. Nice, I really am very surprised that you don't distinguish between the memorandum proper and the additional commentaries. Yes, this was published by the academy, but it is additional commentary. But the memorandum does indeed begin on page 93. So I will be happy to answer any of your questions but please don't do that.

Q. The 1974 constitution remained the law of Yugoslavia until it was itself lawfully changed; correct?

A. At the time, the 1974 constitution was in force, and since it was in force, the memorandum criticised it. Otherwise, there would be no sense in doing so, in referring to the 1974 constitution in the first ³³⁴⁸⁸ place.

Q. And we move on, to save time, to page 13. We can then see how the academy itself sets out the history of the project -- not the academy, your colleagues Mihailovic and Krestic, set out the history of the work on the memorandum. In the second paragraph they identify the Assembly's resolution. And then in the second to last paragraph they identify you as one of the working group.

We can turn over to the page 14, where it is set out, again to reflect your evidence in part, that the committee meeting on the 19th of September was still at an editing stage, and the work came to an abrupt end with an appearance of an article in Vecernje Novosti; correct?

A. Yes. Yes. An article did appear in Vecernje Novosti, and attacks were launched at the academy. This went on for weeks. And of course all further work was interrupted at that point.

Q. Page 15 on the right-hand side and at the bottom, it says "Minutes kept of the meetings." The first portion of the text up to about page 30 can be considered to have been approved by the committee and deals with the remaining editing. So on any reckoning, the first 30 pages were thought to have been approved; is that right? This is of a version that's the 74-page version.

It's to help the Judges. You can see the history of it in this record.

A. Yes. The first 30 or so pages dealt with the economic situation that Yugoslavia was in only. That is the section that Kosta Mihailovic worked on as well as our other colleagues from the field of economic ³³⁴⁸⁹ sciences. That was the least controversial part of all. It was among the first to be finished, and it had to deal with the state of the economy only.

Q. Page 16, if you please, under the heading Serbian Academy and Political Establishment At Daggers Drawn, identifies statements by Milos Macura, president of the party chapter, Antonije Isakovic, Dusan Kanazir, and identifies some of those.

Now, did those become members of the Main Board of the accused's SPS party, those academicians?

A. In 1990, that is to say four years later, they became members of the Main Board, that's correct. Kanazir, who was president of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, and Antonije Isakovic, who was vice-president of the academy. At that time, Isakovic was particularly held responsible because he headed the working group, and his resignation was sought on the basis of the fact that he was responsible for the elaboration of the memorandum.

Q. At page 18, please, Professor, and at the foot of the page. We see reference, about 12 lines up, to Professor -- President Stambolic's reaction to the memorandum, which he said had upset previously good relations. President Stambolic's attitude to the memorandum is set out in a book he published before he was killed; correct?

A. I don't know. I never saw that book written by President Stambolic.

Q. You're unaware of his taking the view, perhaps either in the book or elsewhere, that the memorandum was really an in memoriam for the former ³³⁴⁹⁰ Yugoslavia. That's the way he described it. Do you recall that?

A. Yes. He headed this very fierce campaign against the Academy of Sciences. There were attacks in the newspapers, calls to responsibility, and the following year the academy was supposed to celebrate its centenary, the centenary of its establishment. The state, the government, denied the academy any assistance for celebrating the centennial. We had to write to other academies from other countries in the world, telling them that we cannot cover their expenses at all when they come to celebrate our centenary with us because the government has denied us all support, but Stambolic did have the position that you explained just now, a very negative one towards this. If we have got time --

Q. Can we go to page 39, please. Does the -- this part of this document, before we come to the memorandum itself, sets out an account of the involvement of the accused.

At page 39 we see this in the second paragraph: "The cessation of the official smear campaign and normalisation of relations with the Serbian academy occurred after the removal of Ivan Stambolic and other officials in the League of Communists who had been the ringleaders of the attack. The change in Serbia's political leadership signalled a change of heart towards the Serbian intellectuals, freedom of the press, and responsibility for public pronouncements."

What it amounts to is that under the accused's leadership, the academy and its memorandum were treated better; correct?

A. The memorandum was no longer referred to, but the attitude towards the academy had changed completely. The attacks -- the attacks ceased, ³³⁴⁹¹ the constant criticism stopped and calls for responsibility. The new state leadership and the leadership of the then League of Communists established normal relations with the academy as they could have been earlier on as well, respecting their freedom of speech and freedom of deciding on their own.

During those years, almost all Serb intellectuals gave the accused major support when he became president of the republic and when a new era started. For the first time we did not have political prisoners. For the first time people could freely write whatever they wanted to, and normal relations were established with the Serbian Academy of Sciences. And then everything --

Q. The accused had made either no or only muted criticisms of the memorandum. Would that be correct?

A. The accused did not voice any explicit criticism of the memorandum, although the party that he headed did establish a commission to investigate what it was that was going on in relation to the memorandum. It was headed by a person called Milenko Markovic, but the commission did not finish its work, so it was actually dissolved without having completed anything.

So the accused did not explicitly refer to the memorandum anywhere. He did not support it, but he did not condemn it either.

Q. And on page 41, we see a reflection of the accused's public position where in late 1989 he was reported as saying: "As regards the Serbian Academy of Sciences, I really do not see why it should not have a say in politics in Serbia." Do you remember that? ³³⁴⁹²

A. Yes, of course. Well, the accused established the freedom of thought and the right of the academy to present its views without restraining it and without punishing it, and that was very well-received.

Q. Shall we go to page 80. Because in fairness to the accused, in this document we should see the way his overall position was reflected --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In order to be fair, in order to be fair, this article that was quoted just now by Mr. Nice is entitled The Witch Hunt Dies Down. Just to make things clear, that a witch hunt died down.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These were the last remnants --

JUDGE ROBINSON: You will have an opportunity to re-examine, and you may introduce matters that arise out of cross-examination like that.

MR. NICE:

Q. We come to page 80. There's a chapter or part headed The Memorandum and Slobodan Milosevic. I'm going to read half of it, or read with the witness half of it, I hope not doing it a disservice, unless the Chamber has already had an opportunity of reading this in full itself. But this is the published position, Professor. If we start towards the bottom of page 80, and I'll read, I hope, slowly enough for the interpreters.

"The insinuation that Slobodan Milosevic was carrying out a national agenda contained in the memorandum is a pure fabrication. This claim was inspired by the course of events and the anti-Serbian ³³⁴⁹³ propaganda's need to keep the official and unofficial organs of Serbia under a constant barrage of accusations. This fabrication is untenable, because the memorandum is not a national programme at all. It would seem that this fact must be repeated many times, since the anti-Serbian propaganda, without any grounds whatsoever, is continually trying to convince the world of the opposite.

"Another charge against the memorandum is that it served as a springboard for Slobodan Milosevic's policies. There is nothing strange in the fact that he may have seen some of the problems and solutions in the same or similar light as the document in question. It is more likely that he did not learn about the existence of these problems for the first time from the memorandum, but that he found in it confirmation for some of his personal -- his own personal observations. The Yugoslav crisis was so acute that such a coincidence is very probable. It is quite certain that even without the memorandum, he would have had to put an end to further abuse of autonomy in Kosovo and to the autonomism in Vojvodina, all of which stood in the way of establishing the normal prerogatives of statehood in the Republic of Serbia."

Miss the next sentence. "Milosevic was in favour of preserving Yugoslavia, as was clearly seen at the last, 14th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, among other things because the Serbian people were then living in one single state."

Pausing there. This document thus sets out, as it were, a defence of the independence of the memorandum, doesn't it? ³³⁴⁹⁴

A. Yes, certainly. Milosevic had nothing to do with the memorandum. People didn't know him. They didn't have contacts with him. Some of these positions were so generally accepted. These problems were so big. I said yesterday that the Slovenes decided at the time that they did not want to live in that kind of state any longer that was in such disarray and chaos, where there was no equality of rights any longer and where there was no proper economic policy.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... just focusing on the last sentence I've read. Were you present at the 14th Congress of the League of Communists?

A. No. No. No. I was not a member of the League of Communists, not since 1968. In 1968, I was excluded from the ranks of the League of Communists, together with the entire party organisation of the faculty of philosophy.

Q. Are you aware - yes or no - that this was the Congress at which the Slovenes through Kucan tried to effect a number of constitutional amendments to the League of Communists, all of which were defeated by the accused and that on Kucan's account it was that that led him to lead his delegation out?

A. I cannot give just a mere yes or no answer. Just one sentence, please. It was indispensable for this very loose association of republics to be strengthened, to have more regulation within it rather than to have it weakened further. Kucan and the Slovenes had by then already decided to leave Yugoslavia, and they needed to leave the League of Communists first. And that is why they proposed these amendments, that it should be ³³⁴⁹⁵ turned even looser and that it should become even more fragile in that way, and of course no one in his right mind could accept that.

Q. Well, we'll go back to page 81, please. The same part of the page but the next paragraph. Third sentence.

"However, some facts suggest that he was critical of the authors of the memorandum more out of compliance with party discipline than out of personal conviction. During the political witch hunt in Serbia, it was noted that his criticisms were rare and relatively mild. After assuming the key political position in Serbia, finding himself able to influence the direction of political action, he stopped the campaign against the memorandum."

It picks up on one of my earlier questions: Do the views of Mr. Mihailovic and Mr. Krestic accord with your recollection, Professor, on this topic?

A. They do. They do. I can just say one thing, though. I don't know whether Mr. Milosevic expressed any kind of criticism of the memorandum anywhere, although, as I said, he did send this party commission to investigate how it was written in the first place. It is true that he stopped the campaign, because that was the only democratic thing to do. That was the last remnant of this communist intolerance that Stambolic carried out by starting a full-fledged war against the Academy of Sciences and Arts. That was very unpopular and no intellectual could accept that, so it was quite fortunate that Mr. Milosevic stopped the campaign, or the witch hunt, if you will.

Q. Just for the assistance of the Court and for one very small ^{33496 BLANK PAGE 33497} question, we can see on page 85 that the -- this part of the document covers in one page the thesis of a Greater Serbia, which I may be able to ask you about if I have the time, but we can see locked in here the fact that the notion of a Greater Serbia certainly goes back to the 19th century, doesn't it, Professor? You'll know that independently.

A. Yes, but it comes from Austro-Hungary. Austro-Hungary in this way tried to discredit the aspirations of the Southern Slavs to become free and to become united.

Q. With that --

A. Part of a Greater Serbia.

Q. With those preliminary observations from this document can we look at some passages of the memorandum itself. And I would like to save time to cover two issues simultaneously but I'll see how I fare. On page 104, we see that the -- at the right hand -- at the top of the page, about four lines down, after dealing with disintegration generally: "... the first post-war -- the first decades of post-war development into a kind of confederation, which became institutionalised in the most recent constitution of 1974. There have been many cases in history of a confederation turning into a federation, but there is not a single example of the opposite occurring."

And then at the end of this paragraph: "Eleven years have been more than enough time for the enormous difficulties caused by all the consequences of confederalism in the social order to become clear, as a result of which even the constitution itself has found itself in the focus of criticism ... ³³⁴⁹⁸ "The most important element of confederalism consists of the requirement that the assemblies of all the republics and provinces must first give their consent before ... amendments ..." Objection to the arrangement described as confederation came from Serbs, but the confederation was not the subject of any such similar criticisms from the other republics. Would that be correct?

A. Those republics that wanted to secede took that course, to have the federation first turn into a confederation, recognising the sovereign republics and their borders, and then the actual step of seceding from a confederation would be easy.

It is true what it says here, that usually confederations turn into federations. For example, the Swiss confederation is not a confederation by any standard, or in the United States --

JUDGE ROBINSON: You must discipline yourself to answer the question that was asked. I think that question was fairly simple.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's what I'm doing.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No. The question -- the question was whether objection to confederalism came from republics other than Serbia, and that could have been answered far more simply.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could have, but it would not have been clear why the other republics sought a confederation. I explained why.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thanks for the tutorial.

MR. NICE: And I'm not going to at the moment pick up on that answer - not that I necessarily accept it - because of time. ³³⁴⁹⁹

Q. On page 104 still, the last paragraph begins: "The affirmation of republican and provincial attributes of statehood alongside the simultaneous disappearance of the coordinating functions vested in the federal government have opened the doors wide to the promotion of local interests at the expense of national interests." Now, which particular local interests were you identifying or was the memorandum identifying? Just list them, if you will, please.

A. Of course there are very many local interests. If I were to refer to all of them, we'd need a great deal of time. It is sufficiently clear when it is said that local interests were placed above general interests.

Q. Did these local interests, in the view of Serbs, find expression in the autonomous provinces? Is that what was meant?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is no point in any of this, Mr. Robinson. This is an intellectual text that talks about the destructive effect that this division into republican economies had on the overall development of Yugoslavia at a time when the entire world was moving towards economic integration. This has nothing to do with anything. I think that Mr. Nice does not understand the text of the memorandum or that he did not read it properly. He is putting questions that are simply confusing the witness. The witness can explain everything that is actually written here, but this is such a low level of examination that it is pointless. This was written by academicians, after all, and please bear that in mind.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think you're right; the witness can answer the ³³⁵⁰⁰ question.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes. These interruptions by the accused aren't going to help the timetable or anything else. The answer -- the question was clearly one that the witness was capable of answering, and I would ask him to, with Your Honour's leave indeed, to answer the question.

Q. Do these local interests relate to the autonomous regions?

A. No. Local interests are even pettier than that, and they do not pertain to autonomous regions, only. For example, local interest in Slovenia was that the citizens of Slovenia can travel without a passport, without a visa, to Italy and bring goods back without paying customs. That was the local interest of Slovenia and the bordering regions along the border with Italy. So this is an example of a local interest. What would happen if the USA decided that each and every one of its regions can independently trade with the rest of the world? And this was travelling without visas and importing goods without paying customs, duty free.

So this has to do with all the municipalities as well. There were hundreds of them in Yugoslavia.

Q. We go to page 117. At the top of the page we see: "Unless there is a change in this constitution and the political and economic system based on it, it will be impossible to resolve any of the basic problems in our society ..."

There is no doubt that the purpose of this memorandum, or at least its conclusion, was that there had to be a change in the constitution; correct? ³³⁵⁰¹

A. It was necessary to change the constitution because this constitution actually buried Yugoslavia. I already said that yesterday. Not a single state could have survived that kind of constitution that says that special laws, particular laws, are more important than general laws, and that says that every one of the integral parts can veto any decision. Under those conditions, life together became impossible, and I mentioned that is one of the reasons why Slovenia decided to secede. So it was indispensable to change the constitution, yes.

Q. Professor, as I think you've agreed, the other republics were not dissatisfied with the constitution, and the constitution was the law of the land at the time, and it was only from Serbia that there was the demand coming for constitutional change of this kind; correct?

A. No. No. It's the other way around. All the republics were dissatisfied with the constitution, but Serbia proposed to make a step towards federalism, whereas the other republics, for example Slovenia, Croatia, et cetera, proposed to move in the opposite direction, to disintegrate even more, to disintegrate this federation that had already turned into a confederation even further. But all the republics were asking for changes, though in different directions.

Q. Did the constitution of 1974, in your opinion, reflect Tito's famous belief that a weak -- for a strong Yugoslavia you needed a weak or weakened Serbia?

A. It was believed at the time that Tito and some others in other republics believed it was necessary to have a weak republic. However, I have another explanation with regard to this ³³⁵⁰² constitution. Tito believed that while he was alive, with the strength of his own authority and his control over the army and intelligence services, he will manage to keep Yugoslavia together as a whole. On the other hand, in order to be as popular as possible throughout the country, he did not oppose these demands for a further confederalisation of Yugoslavia that were coming from the Slovenes and the Croats. He allowed that because he thought that while he was still alive, he will manage to keep the country together. It became obvious that once he was no longer there, that became impossible. The country fell apart or was broken apart.

Q. The first steps of reform with which the Chamber is familiar were those that, of course, led to strengthening of Serbia by the withdrawal of the autonomy of Kosovo and Vojvodina; correct?

A. I spoke yesterday of the reform of the political and economic systems, referring to various other things as well. This, however, refers to the change of the Serbian constitution in 1990, which strengthened this integrative factor within the country and turned Serbia into the same sort of state that other republics already were.

So inside Serbia, it became possible for the government and the organs of Serbia to enact laws valid throughout Serbia. That is the change that you described.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... because the question I asked was quite simple: Did the reforms by the withdrawal of autonomies lead to a strengthening of Serbia? Yes or no.

A. By the very fact that the elements of sovereignty -- mind you, I'm not speaking of autonomy -- elements of sovereignty of provinces were ³³⁵⁰³ removed, they remained autonomous, Serbia as a whole was strengthened.

Q. And so whatever the accused's involvement or not with the academy and its memorandum, in the reforms of constitutions that he effected, he met the demand or requirement of the memorandum that we've been looking at on page 117 where there was the requirement for a change in the constitution.

A. It was the common belief of all the intelligentsia, all the leading intellectuals and people involved in the public life of Serbia. It was not only the opinion or the demand of the accused.

Q. And if we can look forward to the speech at Gazimestan, do you accept that one way and another the revocation of Kosovo's autonomy was dealt with there and reform of the constitution was covered? It may be in oblique language, but it was covered in those speeches -- in that speech?

A. That speech was not on that subject. However, a year later, in response to a general demand, the constitution was amended without - I repeat, without - revoking the economy, because you keep talking about the revocation of the autonomy, which didn't happen, but elements of the sovereignty of the provinces were removed in the constitutional amendments of 1990.

Q. See whether we can have in mind if we turn it up or not, right at the beginning of the Gazimestan speech, which is Exhibit D251, the accused said of the very year 1989 that Serbia had, after many years and many decades, regained its state national and spiritual integrity. Later in the same paragraph, "through the play of history and life, it seems as if Serbia has precisely in this year, 1989, regained its state and its ³³⁵⁰⁴ dignity and thus has celebrated an event of the distance passed which has great historical and symbolic significance for its future." Professor, was the accused referring there effectively to the reintegration of Kosovo into the state of Serbia itself?

A. Well, one could not talk about reintegrating Kosovo, because Kosovo had already been a part of Serbia even under the 1974 constitution. It was a constituent element of Serbia and the federation, including some elements of sovereignty. So it was not reintegrated. It remained a part of Serbia. It only lost some elements of sovereignty. And the Serbian institutions, the institutions of Serbia as a whole, had purview as of that time over the whole territory of Serbia rather than only Serbia proper.

Q. It may be my mistake; I didn't make it clear. Was the accused, in his speech at Kosovo Polje, to a million or a million and a half people, speaking of the constitutional changes?

A. No, he did not.

Q. What was he talking about to you, then?

A. He didn't.

Q. What was he talking about?

A. Well, we discussed that yesterday. He spoke of the need for unity, because disunity had, centuries before that, led to the defeat of Serbia. He spoke of the need for national equality, about tolerance. He didn't breathe a word about Kosovo, Albania, or Albanians.

Q. Have you got the document of his speech in front of you?

A. Yes, I do. I'm sorry, I don't. ³³⁵⁰⁵

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... following in English or Serbian. I'm content with either. The second line says -- let's just read both lines: "By the force of social circumstances this great 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo is taking place in a year in which Serbia, after many years, after many decades, has regained its state, national, and spiritual integrity."

What was he referring to? Nobody could be better placed than an intellectual and academician to interpret Mr. Milosevic's words.

A. Everyone knows what "integrity" means. That means being one whole application of laws throughout one's territory, equal socio-political and other human rights throughout the territory. You do not see reintegration mentioned anywhere here. You see references to being one whole.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, can you remind me of the date of the constitutional amendments?

MR. NICE: March of the same year, 1989. The speech in June.

Q. And can you just help us with this, Professor: We've heard a little bit of evidence about the constitutional changes that came in two stages in March in Kosovo itself. Do you recall the presence of tanks being around the building of the Assembly when the constitutional changes were brought in in Kosovo? Do you recall that?

A. No. No.

Q. Could you explain why it might be necessary to have a show of force in Kosovo for constitutional change?

A. Well, if I'm telling you that that -- I don't remember that it happened, then of course I can't explain why it happened. ³³⁵⁰⁶

Q. Can you help us with this as well, and you'll remember that yesterday His Honour asked some questions -- His Honour Judge Bonomy asked some questions about contemporaneous newspaper reports, and we'll come to that a little later, but can you help us with this: This speech delivered in Kosovo by the accused makes no single reference to a Kosovo Albanian. Can you interpret that for us? Can you explain --

A. I can. It was the general expectation, among the people who gathered there, of course, that he would, speaking of Kosovo Albanians, criticise what had been going on in the previous years. And we know what had been going on. However, in order to avoid uttering any criticism, he didn't mention it at all. He spoke of the region as a whole without mentioning any of the ethnic communities. He mentioned Serbs a couple of times, but otherwise he didn't mention in particular any community.

Q. The Gazimestan speech was for Serbs and it was attended by Serbs. It wasn't at all for Kosovo Albanians, was it?

A. Quite the contrary. He said, and it was widely quoted, that Kosovo was inhabited not only by Serbs and that all of them, not only Serbs, were at issue.

Q. Is it the case, do you recall, that indeed at the very time of this meeting for Serbs there was a state of emergency in Kosovo which would have restricted or forbidden public gathering by Kosovo Albanians?

A. There was no state emergency whatsoever at the time, although it is true that in that year I was not involved in politics and I was often away abroad, in America and other countries, but I'm not aware of any state of emergency in Serbia. ^{33507 BLANK PAGE 33508} I told you yesterday that you can qualify as a state of emergency the situation in 1968 when Tito brought two divisions in Kosovo, as well as 1991, when another insurgency by Kosovo Albanians occurred. But in 1989 and in 1990, there was no state of emergency. This time, the Assembly met and decided in a democratic way about constitutional changes, and we all witnessed the result of that decision-making.

Q. If you look back to the memorandum, please. If we go to page 118, at the top on the right -- at the top, we see the memorandum saying: "Not all the national groups were equal: the Serbian nation, for instance, was not given the right to have its own state. The large sections of the Serbian people who live in other republics, unlike the national minorities, do not have the right to use their own language and script; they do not have the right to set up their own political or cultural organisations or to foster the common cultural traditions of their nation together with their co-nationals. The unremitting persecution and expulsion of Serbs from Kosovo is a drastic example showing that those principles which protect the autonomy of a minority (the ethnic Albanians) are not applied to a minority within a minority (the Serbs, Montenegrins, Turks, Roms in Kosovo)."

Setting out in -- first of all, this is the view you all held at the time, is it?

A. That is the view that not only I held. It was held, indeed, by all those who participated in drafting this document. It can be substantiated and proven correct.

JUDGE BONOMY: That's not a matter of opinion, Mr. Nice, is it? ³³⁵⁰⁹ That's a question of fact.

MR. NICE: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can explain. May I? There was a difference between the rights of minorities and the rights enjoyed by constituent peoples. In Yugoslavia, it was considered that constituent peoples were those who had a republic - Serbs, Macedonians, Croats, and others - whereas those parts of a nation which had their mother state elsewhere, such as Hungarians and Albanians, were another category. Our constitution dealt specifically with the rights of minorities. However, constituent peoples, for instance, Serbs living in Croatia, did not enjoy the rights that were explicitly given to Albanians at Kosovo. It was absurd, but it was the way it was. So Serbs in Croatia did not enjoy all the rights that I earlier said were enjoyed by Albanians in Kosovo; the right to their own university, to their own publishing house, the right to free publication of their own magazines in their own language. That, therefore --

JUDGE BONOMY: [Previous translation continues] ... can I interrupt you, Professor. Did that also apply to Croats living in Serbia?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. Even their rights were not explicitly stipulated, and all the constituent peoples were in the same position. Their minorities living in other republics were not governed by any law. It was a huge loophole in the constitution.

MR. NICE:

Q. I think the -- you said something yesterday about the definition of Serbia as a nation of citizens -- not a nation of citizens, I beg your ³³⁵¹⁰ pardon. As a state of citizens, not of Serbs. Is the position that from the 1974 constitution right through and beyond the 1989 revocation of autonomy in Kosovo, the Serbian constitution referred to a state of Serbs and other nations or Serbs and other groups; is that right? And it only became a state of citizens later on in 1990?

A. Correct. In 1990, the constitution stipulated that Serbia was a state of all the citizens living in it, whereas before that, under the 1974 constitution, it was stipulated that republics were primarily states of their primary nations and then only all the other citizens.

Q. I mentioned that because I think you said yesterday that the change happened in 1989. It happened in 1990. But now let's deal with this question of the expulsion of Serbs from Kosovo. You gave a figure yesterday, and I think it's a figure that matched a figure given by an earlier witness, Professor Avramov. I must deal with this point of detail. How many do you say were expelled from Kosovo?

A. The number of Serbs expelled from Kosovo mentioned somewhere in the memorandum is 200.000 for the period from late 1960s to the 1990s. That means 200.000 in 20 years.

Q. Have you checked these figures against the Yugoslav survey, statistical survey itself, ever?

A. Well, one of the authors of the memorandum is our leading demographer, Professor Milos Macura. He knows these things and he's responsible for these figures.

Q. Because the statistical survey from Yugoslavia might suggest much ³³⁵¹¹ lower figures up and until 1989, 40.000 and thereafter some 20.000; 60.000 in all. Do you accept that those figures might be as right as the figure of 200.000, or do you simply not know?

A. That is a controversial issue among experts, demographers. What we can establish here is that indeed a large number, a very large number was expelled, in the tens of thousands, and we can leave the exact figure open for further exploration and determination. Even if it's only the tens of thousands, it is a lot.

Q. And by expulsion, are you including economic migration, for example where people found that they were offered attractive prices for their homes by Kosovo Albanians and finding it preferable to leave and move to Serbia? Are you including that in your notion of expulsion?

A. It happened occasionally that some people, seeing how the general circumstances of living were insecure, getting a good price for their house and land indeed accepted and left, but that's not something that happens under normal circumstances. At least, it shouldn't.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are they included in your figure of 200.000?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That includes everyone who left Kosovo and moved to Serbia. Maybe -- there are some different assessments. Maybe the figure of 200.000 includes those who sold out voluntarily, and the figure of 40.000 refers only to those who were violently expelled. Maybe that's the difference.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, by not taking that any further, I'm not accepting in any sense the answer given. ³³⁵¹²

Q. Can we move on to page 122 of the memorandum. And we can see, about a third of the way down the page, in a paragraph headed "Serbia's economic subordination," the next sentence: "This ideological platform gave rise to opinions and behaviour which were to have a crucial influence on subsequent political events and intercommunal relations. Before the Second World War, the Slovenes and Croats set up their own national communist parties, and they gained a decisive voice in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia's Central Committee. Their political leaders became arbiters on all political issues both during and after the war. These two neighbouring republics shared a similar history; they have the same religion and aspirations for greater independence, and as the most highly developed, they also have common economic interests, all of which prove -- provided sufficient grounds for a permanent coalition in the endeavour to achieve political dominance. This coalition was cemented by the long years of collaboration between Tito and Kardelj, the two most emminent political figures in post-war Yugoslavia, who enjoyed inviolable authority in the centres of power."

This is really a description, would this be fair, of the Serbian state as a victim of the supremacy of others; is that right?

A. We can speak of inequalities. I have already mentioned yesterday that it was the opinion of the Comintern that in Serbia, for reasons that I stated, Serbian hegemony prevailed, and that is why the Comintern was seeking to break up Yugoslavia.

Tito, however, a Croat, and Kardelj, who was a Slovene, believed from the outset that a faster development of other republics should be ³³⁵¹³ favoured. According to the five-year plan, it was determined that Serbia should develop at a lower rate than other republics although Croatia and Slovenia were even then economically more developed than Serbia. So that was the initial situation in which Tito decided, as early as 1940, that separate communist parties of Slovenia and Croatia should be established, while denying that right to Serbia. So we had the Communist Party of Slovenia, Croatia, and Yugoslavia, but we did not have the Communist Party of Serbia.

Similarly, Tito did not allow, at the time when organs of national liberation were established playing the role of assemblies, did not allow them to be set up in Serbia but only in Slovenia, for instance. So in Serbia it was forbidden, in 1940, and it was only in 1945 that its leading Communist Party was established.

In the meantime, major decisions were made without the participation of a Serbian representative who could advocate one or another opinion on behalf of the Serbian people, and it was precisely the time when certain boundaries were decided, boundaries that became later the basis for secession.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Professor.

MR. NICE:

Q. In the balance of letting you answer and cutting you off, I must seek to bring you back to the question, which I'll amplify. The question was whether this was -- this passage of the memorandum is setting Serbia as a victim of the supremacy of others, and I'd like you to answer that, please. And is it indeed a recurring theme in the developing politics of ³³⁵¹⁴ Serbia that it does see itself as a victim? Can you help us?

A. Well, I would not use that language such as the victim, because of course if it had been a victim, there would have been great resistance and insurgency in Serbia from the beginning. Serbia was simply less equal. It had less rights than Slovenia and Croatia. And as I said, the first five-year plan from 1945 to 1950 determined that Serbia should develop at a less speedy rate than Slovenia and Croatia, and even entire factories were moved from Serbia to the other two republics.

Q. Did it occur to the academy that publishing -- and of course it eventually came out, publishing this interpretation of Serbia against the rest might have an adverse effect on relations between the republics?

A. The truth had to be told, and the truth was that Slovenia and Croatia had their communist parties; Serbia did not have one. It was also true that the development rate of Croatia and Slovenia were faster than in Serbia. All that was necessary to be told in order to normalise relations.

Q. Go to the top of page 123. You see a summary in the second line: "The vindictive policy against the Serbs began before the Second World War, in the sense that a communist party was deemed unnecessary for a 'nation of oppressors.'" .

So again -- and if we look at the next paragraph: "These historical facts show that during the war Serbia was not even formally and certainly not genuinely in an equal position when decisions of far reaching importance for the future ... were taken." I realise you don't like the word or don't adopt the word ³³⁵¹⁵ "victim," but doesn't this all show the perception through the memorandum of Serbia as a victim?

A. Well, a situation of fact can be described in -- by using stronger language or weaker language. The term "victim" is too strong, I think, to describe it, but it was a certain amount of inequality, yes, and that was fact. And of course if you tell the truth, it shouldn't hurt anybody, especially the people who had based their whole involvement and engagement on the truth.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But you prefer the term "inequality" to "victim"?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, inequality, unequal.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, it's time for the adjournment.

MR. NICE: May I, through the Court, invite the witness, if he doesn't require complete rest in the period of the adjournment, to review the article that summarises the article I was raising with him at the beginning. If he could take that away with him and read it, I'd be grateful.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Does he have it?

MR. NICE: No. I can make it available.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Make it available to him. We will adjourn now for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Please continue, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. Professor, I'm happy to say that the article of which I asked you ³³⁵¹⁶ it read a summary has I think now been identified, and I'm hopeful to having it produced to Court within the next half an hour, so I will come back to the document that you read in the break in some minutes' time.

A. I will not be able to say something about it?

Q. Absolutely, of course you will, but a little later.

A. Did you say?

Q. Can we go back to memorandum. We were on page 123, and I suggest it's helpful to explore the documents fairly deliberately today, I will try to accelerate the last few pages by taking several entries together. Can we go to page 125, where we see, three lines down: "Serbia's politicians proved to be unprepared for the historical task which was posed for them by the extremely adverse internal relationships within the Yugoslav state."

Then paragraph 7: "The attitude taken to Serbia's economic stagnation shows that the vindictive policy towards this republic has not lost any of its edge with the passing of time. On the contrary, encouraged by its own success, it has grown ever stronger, to the point of genocide."

And then we see, six lines beyond, a reference to the Tito-believed policy: "And yet not even here is Serbia equal, because of its special legal and political status, which reflects the desire to keep the Serbian people constantly under control. The watchword of this policy has been 'A weak Serbia ensures a strong Yugoslavia' ..." Did it occur to you as one of the authors of this memorandum, Professor, that the language used generally, both in description of ³³⁵¹⁷ Serbia's position and in the characterisation of other parts of the former Yugoslavia as being genocidal in intent and actions were bound to have consequences of an adverse kind?

A. To seems to me that the word "genocide" is too strong, too, although they had in mind what was happening in Kosovo; the expulsion of people, their mistreatment, the destruction of cultural monuments, et cetera.

Now, as for the rest, if we leave behind that particular word, I would say that this is a fairly exact description, accurate description, and that Serbia really was, from the beginning, under some special treatment, because just as the Comintern had explained, it enjoyed hegemony and oppressed others between the two world wars, and then this had to be suppressed at that time.

Take this example, for example: In Serbia alone there was this kind of supervision about what intellectuals felt and wrote, and you could only have it in Serbia where several of us, just for publishing and editing a journal like Praksis, that we were on the verge of being arrested. Our passports were taken away from us, we were expelled from the university, and so on.

So taken as a whole, I would say that this is accurate and correct except where it says that a weak Yugoslavia shows a strong -- a weak Serbia shows a strong Yugoslavia. That was by Tupurkovski and Kolisevski. They stated that. Two Macedonians who represented Macedonia and the Yugoslav state Presidency. That's what they took note of and said that a policy of that kind was indeed waged during those years. ^{33518 BLANK PAGE 33519}

Q. Page 127, paragraph numbered 8. I'm really still on the topic of the language and the way that this document describes events. "The expulsion of the Serbian people from Kosovo bears dramatic testimony to their historical defeat. In the spring of 1981, open and total war was declared on the Serbian people, which had been carefully prepared for in advance of the various changes of administrative, political and constitutional reform. This open war has been going on for almost five years. It has been waged with the skilful and carefully orchestrated use of various methods and tactics, with the active and not just tacit support of various political centres ..." Now, you're here describing the war by -- by whom, Professor?

A. Well, this passage talks about the war in Kosovo, and the war is being waged by the organisation, secret clandestine organisations that existed in Kosovo. I mentioned one such one, the Balli Kombitar organisation, and another one was called the Prizren League, and yes indeed, there was violent expulsion of people that took place and cultural monuments were toppled and all the rest of it, all the other details mentioned here. So that's it.

Q. If we go to page 128 the first new paragraph: "The physical, political, legal, and cultural genocide of the Serbian population in Kosovo and Metohija is in a worse defeat than any experienced in the liberation wars waged by Serbia in the First Serbian Uprising in 1804 to the uprising of 1941."

And if you'd be good enough, just so that we can stay with genocide, to go over to page 139 for these purposes, and about eight lines ³³⁵²⁰ down: "Admittedly, the first article of the constitution of the Socialist Republic of Serbia contains a clause declaring that Serbia is a state, but the question must be asked what kind of a state is denied jurisdiction over its own territory or does not have the means at its disposal to establish law and order in one of its sections, or ensure the personal safety and security of property of its citizens, or to put a stop to the genocide in Kosovo and halt the exodus of Serbs from their ancestral homes."

This language, repeated language in this document, Professor, was bound to have a significant effect, was it not?

A. Well, yes, but the language expressed the factual situation. And you must bear in mind that Kosovo was once completely Serbian territory during the Middle Ages, and the Serb state. Then the Turks populated Kosovo with their loyal Muslim followers, and in the Turkish books, defkas [phoen] as they're called, with the results of the census, there were no Albanians, practically no Albanians in Kosovo in the 15th century. And then more and more of them came in after that. There was a balance that had been struck after that at one point, but --

Q. Forgive me, Professor. You as academicians must have realised you were dealing with the 20th century demographic distribution and that you were accusing your fellow countrymen of committing acts of genocide on the Serbs. Do you think that might have had an alienating effect on those people?

A. It didn't lead to their alienation. They had been organised since 1988 to create a Greater Albania, and what they wanted to do was to take ³³⁵²¹ Kosovo and attached it to Albania. This was a very conscious aim. We know who did it and how this was done. All the facts exist. So this was going on for one and a half centuries before our very eyes, without any power to stop it or do anything about it because the Yugoslav 1974 constitution took away any right that the Serb institutions had to meddle in Kosovo. So this was a process, an ongoing process that went on and on, became worse and worse, and nobody was able to do anything about it. So that must be taken in account.

Q. As an intellectual and person of broad learning, Professor, are you aware that if you create a culture where one segment of society is categorised as an outsider, it's going to be easier to commit crimes against that outsider group? Are you aware of that?

A. No, no. Don't you hold lectures here asking me whether I'm aware and whether I know this and that. They weren't outsiders. They were recognised. They had all human rights accorded them, more rights than minorities enjoy in other states, for example, and nobody did anything bad to them at all. But they wanted to achieve their goal, liberate Kosovo from Serbia and attach it, conjoin it to Albania. That's the context.

Q. At the time that you were publishing this Serb view of Kosovo Albanians, the Kosovo problem was a federal problem, because the constitution was intact, and the federal authorities were dealing with it, weren't they, and in a tough way?

A. Well, the problem was of the Republic of Serbia and of the Yugoslav federation too. And I've already said whenever these uprisings took place, rebellions took place, Tito would send in the army to restore ³³⁵²² law and order. The first took place in 1945, the second in 1968, and the third in 1991 -- I'm sorry, 1981, if we disregard what was happening in the 1990s. So there were three rebellions, three uprisings, and while Tito was still alive he was very energetic in dealing with them, in preventing any disturbance of law and order. But the status quo remained, because the agreement had been reached with the Albanian leadership dating back to the war years whereby Albania would enter into the Yugoslav federation and Kosovo would be linked to Albania. Enver Hodza reminded Tito of that agreement that had been reached, and Tito expected or wanted to see whether Albania was ready to enter into Yugoslavia with Kosovo, and when all relations were severed and when the bloodshed took place later on --

Q. That's probably responded to the question. Can we just look at one more passage on page 138. By spending time with you on this document, I, of course, save time so far as any future memorandum-related witnesses are concerned.

On page 138, in the middle: "The acquisition of equal rights and an independent development for the Serbian nation have a more profound historical significance. In less than 50 years, for two successive generations, the Serbs were twice subjected to physical annihilation, forced assimilation, conversion to a different religion, cultural genocide, ideological indoctrination, denigration and compulsion to renounce their own traditions because of an imposed guilt complex. Intellectually and politically unmanned, the Serbian nation has had to bear trials and tribulations that are too severe not to leave deep scars ³³⁵²³ in their psyche, and at the close of this century of great technological feats of the human mind, this fact must not be ignored." And then at the beginning of the next paragraph: "The present state of depression of the Serbian people, against a background of chauvinism and Serbophobia which are gaining in intensity in some milieux, provides fertile soil for an ever more drastic manifestation of the national sensibilities of the Serbian nation and reactions which might be inflammatory and dangerous."

Professor, looking at the language and the context, did it not occur to you academicians that this document itself would be inflammatory in reaction it may have stimulated in those described in adverse terms and in the approach that Serbs themselves might take to their own dilemma if such it was?

A. All I can do is repeat what I've already stated, and that is that the truth had to be told once and for all, what was actually going on. And in uttering that truth, you couldn't have had the effect that you are talking about because those facts had existed for decades before that. So nothing new had actually happened because of the memorandum. The memorandum just brought into the consciousness of people what was really going on and what was being hidden in the interests of maintaining the whole. And under Tito, for example, this was hidden. For example, the 1968 uprising was never noted in the media. Tito sent two divisions to deal with the situation, and none of that was written about in the papers. So people ran out of patience and finally had to state the facts.

Q. One thing that does emerge is that although the federal body had ³³⁵²⁴ dealt and was dealing with Kosovo problem, following the rise of the accused and the changes in the constitutions, the problem became entirely a Serbian problem, did it not? The Kosovo problem became entirely a Serbian problem?

A. Well, the Kosovo problem became a Serbian problem because already in 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared their secession from Yugoslavia. Up until then, it was a Yugoslav problem.

Q. And that inevitably sharpened the crisis and led eventually to the problems in Kosovo that are reflected in the third indictment here; correct?

A. It led to the fact that in 1998, in Drenica, another up -- we were witness to another uprising. And it also led to the fact that all sides in -- that stocks of weapons were set up all over Kosovo, underground channels dug, police forces constantly attacked on a daily basis. People were killed. So that brought the situation to a head in 1998, when what happened was armed action from both sides.

Q. Before we turn then from the memorandum, may I display on the overhead projector one page from Mr. de la Brosse's expert report, Exhibit 446, tab 2, to invite the witness's comments on two footnoted quotations. Page 40.

Professor, I hope you will be prepared to either read it on the overhead projector or it can be brought up on the screen for you by the usher. This is page 40 of an expert report prepared by an expert on political propaganda, and I trust on the screen is the footnote 75, which -- if it's working. ³³⁵²⁵

JUDGE KWON: No.

MR. NICE:

Q. I'll read the quotation, Professor, and I expect the audiovisual booth will manage to make it display in a minute, but you can have it in front of you until such time as they get that working.

MR. NICE: Perhaps you could make the page available to the witness, please, Usher.

I'm sorry the Court doesn't have it; I expected to display it in this way.

Q. Footnote 75 says that: "Although the accused didn't adopt a stance in --"

A. [In English] Wait a minute. Which footnote?

Q. Footnote 75.

A. [In English] 75. This is 85.

MR. NICE: May I have it back just to check. The page numbers may be different. Page 37. My apologies. The documents get re-page-numbered. Thank you very much.

Q. "Although Slobodan Milosevic himself did not actually adopt any stance when the memorandum extracts were published and he managed to avoid being condemned by the League's Central Committee, he would publicly acknowledge several years later that the academy had acted legitimately in intervening in Serbian politics." And then there's the quotation we've seen from the 1995 document.

It goes on: "This complicity with the academy was reciprocal. At its general assembly in May 1989, the academy would declare: 'As a result ³³⁵²⁶ of the praiseworthy struggle and unity of its people which required daring, bold and honest decisions, and as a result of the unity of the party and state's new leadership, headed by Slobodan Milosevic, Serbia has recovered its sovereignty, statehood and unity and has become an equal member of our socialist, federative, and multinational community. The academy has supported and still supports today the efforts and programme of the new Serbian leadership.'"

Is that a view with which you agree?

A. That's right. At the time the entire academy and all the intellectuals lent their support to these new efforts on the part of the new leadership with respect to freedom of public opinion, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech and with respect to the reforms that were implemented. Only later, in the 1990s, were there rifts amongst the Serb intelligentsia, and I can explain that too if you want me to.

Q. Just looking down the page to the middle of it. "In January 1992, the academician and Serbian parliamentary deputy for Milosevic's Socialist Party, Antonije Isakovic stated: 'The fundamental thing is that the memorandum had its impact - some accepted it, whilst anti-Serbs were mostly against it.'"

And the author of this report says: "There would be another indication of the collusion between the Milosevic group and the people behind the memorandum when some of the academicians would have the misfortune to demand Milosevic's recommendation." And he goes on to make a quote by Mira Markovic, the accused's wife, saying: "The members of the academy do not have the right to harm this institution's place in the life ³³⁵²⁷ of the nation by signing a petition for the president to resign. The academicians cannot call for one thing in the memorandum and the absolute opposite now."

Do those passages, Professor, reflect again that there was indeed a connection between the memorandum and the rise to power of this accused, even if at a later stage there was a change of heart on the part of some academicians?

A. No. At that time, at the time that Milosevic came into power, right up until 1991, the academy fully support the changes that were taking place in the country, because we had a process of democratisation, freedom, and the paragraph was rescinded which saw verbal crimes as crimes to be punished. But I mentioned a moment ago that in 1991, there were changes that took place in the academy itself when a portion of the intellectuals and a portion of the academicians came to realise that we were faced with a great danger, because already at that time Serbia was being cautioned, threatened with sanctions and even bombing. This was in 1991. And that was expressly stated by Lord Carrington himself. And then some of the academicians took the view and stance that the original country, that is to say Serbia, should be saved, that we should give up giving assistance to the Serbs the other side of the Drina River, and this brought about an internal conflict between the two factions or groups of academicians, and that was when some members of the academy asked for dismissals and were asked to retire and so on. That was 1992, when the request was made for Milosevic himself to tender his resignation. Some of the academicians signed the request, others were ³³⁵²⁸ opposed to it, but the academy did not take a stance as a whole because there were differing opinions within it.

Q. You made I think two or maybe three references to the accused not really being well known at the time the memorandum was being written, coming to prominence later. Would this be fair: That the memorandum identify a political strategy for the way forward, and in Milosevic found the leader to execute it, and that Milosevic was happy to lead on the basis of policies as advanced in the memorandum?

A. You keep insisting upon that here in Court. I've noticed that several times. And I've also said several times what actually happened at the time. Not the memorandum which the people didn't really know about. What happened was that there were democratic changes taking place in society itself. The two commissions were set up to -- and they guaranteed pluralism, the freedom of thought. Political prisoners disappeared or were released. There was a unity on the part of the people, and that is what gave and lent great prestige to President Milosevic at the time. And in his speeches, he was very fresh in his manner of speaking, without the old cliches dating back to the communist days. And by speaking like that he was able to attract the masses. So the memorandum did not play any role there at all. It had no role to play in the fact that he gained mass support.

Q. The changes of which you speak did not happen at the time of the memorandum. If they happened, they happened later.

A. Well, of course, yes. Certainly. And that is why the memorandum did not leave its imprint, nor did it contribute to President Milosevic's ^{33529 BLANK PAGE 33530} popularity and his -- its relationship towards Milosevic was something that wasn't known. There was a party commission that had been set up to investigate the academy, to try and find the culprits, but a series of moves on his part, his steps towards the country's democratisation and the realisation of a modern market economy in Serbia, that's what led to boosting his reputation and having the entire people and the intelligentsia stand by him and support him right up until the later divisions in 1991 and 1992, the rifts that took place then.

Q. I'm not going to deal with your observations about the market economy because I understand we're going to have an economist, probably the other writer of the document on the memorandum, and I'll deal with those through him, but it mustn't be thought I'm accepting your observations on that.

I must move to Gazimestan again, but quite briefly because the document's been gone through extensively.

You say that this last and famous observation, that we perhaps can put up -- have you got a copy? In English, I know. I hope you'll accept that, Professor. Where, in the paragraph that I hope's displayed: "Six centuries now we are being again engaged in battles and are facing battles. They are not armed battles although such things cannot be excluded yet. However, regardless of what kind of battles they are, they cannot be won without resolve," et cetera. We know the quote. You gave an explanation for that yesterday. I think, if I understood it correctly, that spoke of battles with forces entirely outside the former Yugoslavia. Is that your interpretation of the ³³⁵³¹ passage?

A. First and foremost, this is a celebration of the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo. The Battle of Kosovo, of course, took place against forces from outside Serbia, the forces of the Turkish Ottoman Empire.

In the defence, the entire aristocracy of Serbia was killed. This was a decisive battle in our history. We spent centuries as slaves after that. When you are commemorating the anniversary of that battle, it is only natural that you speak about defence from an external enemy. On the other hand, you have a situation in the country itself. There are growing forces fighting for secession, and you do not know what can happen so you cannot preclude the possibility of defence. However, that is not what had been accentuated but, rather, the economic, cultural, and political battles. Indeed I think that this half sentence was abused when it led to such far-reaching inference that Slobodan Milosevic was trying to push the Serb people into a war. I think that is very far reaching.

Q. You remember His Honour Judge Bonomy asking yesterday about contemporaneous newspaper reports of the Gazimestan speech. Can you remind us, please, because I was a little unclear as to what you were saying, can you remind us, please, whether you accept that the speech drew contemporaneous anxiety or not?

A. No. Yesterday, I stated unequivocally that at that time, the speech was assessed very favourably in the Western media, including those that did not resort to agency reports, those who had their own reporters ³³⁵³² on the ground, including the London Independent. The assessment was that it was a peaceful, peace-loving, reasonable speech and Independent even wrote at that time that Milosevic in this way promoted himself as a statesman and as an undoubted leader of the Serb people. Yesterday, I did have these excerpts and it wasn't necessary to do it yesterday, I wanted to offer them yesterday, but now I can't find them. The point is that ten years after that, the London Times, the Independent, the Washington Post, the BBC, everybody wrote in unison that this was a fiery, firebrand speech that galvanised the Serbs who were then battle ready out of their minds. All of that was simply invented later on. Yesterday I could actually quote these newspapers because I had brought the excerpts.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... has been done. I don't have all the material available. Some has been prepared, some has not. That which has been made available can be made available shortly but probably not today.

Q. But tell us, please, Professor, are you aware of a Slovenian newspaper called Delo?

A. There is a Slovenian newspaper called Delo, yes.

Q. Do you allow for the possibility that that may have interpreted the speech in an anxious way?

A. There is another fragment of the Slovenian press speaking about how the battle for people's minds and souls was won, because this fear was being nurtured all the time, and hostile feelings were being fanned ³³⁵³³ towards Serbs, towards Yugoslavia, towards the Yugoslav army. I have that text, but that was the situation in Slovenia. Slovenia was getting ready to secede.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... was at the time an independent paper published in Belgrade; correct?

A. Well, Borba was always the organ of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia.

Q. Subsequently - is this right - it passed into the influence or control of the accused and was replaced by a paper called Nova Borba?

A. I don't know how it was that Borba succumbed to the influence of the accused. There were newspapers in our country that supported the government of the time and those that were of an opposition point of view, and they were free to publish their criticism. They even said that Milosevic was a dictator.

I can say that no leader of any state was insulted, offended, and criticised in the press as much as he was in his time.

Q. The scrap of newspaper to which you refer, contrary to what you told us yesterday, was Borba reporting on what the newspaper Delo had said of Gazimestan. And there was indeed reporting of great concern of the use of the words about battles, was there not, at the time? Whatever the Independent may have said, the local perception was of anxiety.

A. Just as I did not read Delo, I and most other people did not read Borba any more. It had lost the role it had had before that. They had a very small circulation, and I don't know what they really wrote.

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honours, what I think's the best course, if ³³⁵³⁴ I can suggest this, partly responsive to the question from the Bench and partly as something I was going to do in any event, if I prepare a clip of newspaper extracts from the time with appropriate English translations, and I can say in light of the last answer by the witness, who didn't read Delo, that there are reports on the 29th, the 30th of June from Delo and from Borba.

Q. Vjesnik, the newspaper from Zagreb, do you accept, Professor, that that would be publishing reports of anxiety?

A. Well, you know what? We're talking about 1989, aren't we, or later?

Q. 1989.

A. That's very important.

Q. 1989, Vjesnik in Zagreb --

A. Vjesnik in Zagreb, like Delo, were already preparing for secession, and it was in their interest to attack everything that was going on in Serbia, and that's exactly what they did. It was unheard-of, this extremely high level of chauvinism that manifested itself in the press.

Q. The reality, Professor, is whatever may have been the international perception, there were expressions of concern there, the national perception in local newspapers or in other republics' newspapers was of great anxiety at what the accused had said, wasn't it? And you know that.

A. But we had the text, and we can still study it, the text itself. But then we also had the reactions of the foreign journalists who were ³³⁵³⁵ impartial. Now, why do you want to rely on the reactions from Croatia and Slovenia? Although I do not know what they were like. There was an interest, a partiality there, because that can be monitored, the Serbophobic writing of the Croatian press in the 1980s. These were already the last days of our life together in a single state. So that's not relevant at all.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, have you also tried to find a news clipping of the Albanian press?

MR. NICE: Albanian press? No, we don't have yet. We have some Western press. We certainly have an observation by Ibrahim Rugova reported on the day before the Gazimestan speech of his anxiety as to how it was going to be. I'll just get the quote for you. He described the forthcoming event as a Serbian chauvinist celebration and described it as a provocation. There's a newspaper report of that. I'll just ask the witness about that.

Q. You've heard what I said, Professor, that this enormous gathering, at very great expense, conducted without Kosovo Albanian presence, was seen by Ibrahim Rugova, if the newspaper report is accurate, as a provocation. It was a provocation, wasn't it, on any view?

A. How can you say it was a provocation? The Serbs assembled to commemorate a great historical event like other people do, like other nations do. For example, now there's going to be a commemoration of liberation.

The French celebrate every year on the 14th of July when they commemorate the anniversary of the French Revolution. ³³⁵³⁶ I found what the BBC had written then in 1989, and I'll read it in English: [In English] "Milosevic said that whenever they were able to, the Serbs had helped others to liberate themselves, and they had never used the advantage of they being a large nation against others or for themselves. He added that Yugoslavia was a multinational community which could survive providing there was full equality for all the nations living in it."

[Interpretation] That was on the 29th of June, sections part 2, Eastern Europe. And now I'm going to say what the Independent wrote on the 29th of June, 1989. Mr. Edward Stein and a Mr. Tanner were there in Kosovo, and this is what they wrote: "[In English] Yesterday he assumed the mantle of a statesman and Yugoslavia's natural leader. He gave an unexpectedly conciliatory speech without any aggressive reference to Albanian counterrevolutionaries in Kosovo province. Instead, he talked of mutual intolerance, building a rich and democratic society and ending the discord which had, he said, led to Serbia's defeat here by the Turks six centuries ago." And go on: "I think people were a little disappointed. It became very quiet after the beginning. An educated looking woman from Belgrade said, everyone seemed a little stunted." That's it from 1989, and the comments from 1999 are quite different.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's from the Independent English newspaper.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's the Independent, the English newspaper, and also I have the BBC, The New York Times, and the Times of London. If you wish, I can read that out too. ³³⁵³⁷

MR. NICE: Your Honour, what I suggest is -- I don't want to stop the witness, of course, but what I suggest is that if I put together a collection of contemporaneous extracts I'll include these if I can get them from the libraries of the newspapers concerned, although, obviously, it's our case the more important ones are the local ones which would more readily understand what was the text, but that's a matter for Your Honours in due course.

Q. Professor, so far as you're concerned, you've obviously been published widely in various places, interviews, and so on and so forth. I just want to ask you about a few positions I may suggest that you'd taken. Did you yourself ever refer to the genocide term in liberating Serbs from the terror and fear of genocide?

A. Possibly in the sense that there had been forcible expulsions, killings, and destruction of cultural monuments, but I cannot recall. Which interview of mine are you referring to? Which particular text?

A. It's a British Broadcasting Corporation broadcast, I think on September 2nd of 1991, but I'm happy, for the time being, to go on your recollection. You said you may have said such things. And were you concerned at the time that with the independence of Croatia there would be Serbs in Croatia who would be -- and/or in Bosnia who would be completely surrounded by non-Serbs, not capable of thus being connected to Serbia itself? Was that your concern?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, it is unfair to put that ³³⁵³⁸ kind of question to the witness about something that he said 15 years ago or so. This is 1991. It would only be proper to put the text before the witness so that the witness can read it, so that he can see whether something was taken out of context. He absolutely cannot. I cannot, and I'm considerably younger than he is. And probably you yourselves, who are younger than I am, cannot remember your exact words of 15 years ago. If Mr. Nice wants the witness to confirm something or deny something, he should show the particular section to him. I believe that this is only appropriate.

MR. NICE: Certainly, and I rather agree that it would be helpful if I can and if I'm dealing on reported speech I can only deal with the matters in the way I am.

Your Honour, I'm also concerned to save time. Can we move --

Q. We haven't yet got the article that I asked you to see the review of over the break. I still hope to have it, but I also hope to conclude my cross-examination of you shortly.

Do you have some observations you'd like to make about the reported article straight away? And then if we get the article we can contrast it or we can give you a chance to look at it.

A. Well, Mr. Nice, you asked me about a position of mine that I published in Praksis. I said that I never said any such thing or published any such thing. Then you gave me this, what I have in my hands now, and I simply cannot believe my eyes. This is not my text at all, or perhaps you think that this Laura Secor is some kind of secret name that I'm hiding behind. This was not published in Praksis, it's published in ³³⁵³⁹ Lingua Franca, and this is Testaments Betrayed, Yugoslav Intellectuals and The Road to War. It looks like propaganda material to me that is compiled by intelligence services.

Q. I can cut you short to this extent: If you don't accept that the article is yours --

A. Well, of course you have good reason to interrupt me, yes.

Q. If you don't accept it's yours, then we will take the matter no further until we have the article itself to lay before you.

A. This is not my article. This is Laura Secor's article.

Q. You may be at cross-purposes. Through that article she gives an account of the article she says you did author, and it was to that that I was asking you to turn your attention.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The witness has headphones on his ears and he is probably following the Serbian interpretation, but -- and the interpretation he received was if you accept that this is your article, but then I see the transcript stating that Mr. Nice said if you do not accept it. And the interpretation said if you do accept it. That is what I heard, and I believe that created some confusion.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's clear that the witness does not accept it. Mr. Nice suggested that they were at cross-purposes. Mr. Nice had put the article, as I understood it -- no, let me speak.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's somebody else's article. It's not mine. ^{33540 BLANK PAGE 33541}

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice had put it as Ms. Secor's summation of his article. But I think -- I don't think Mr. Nice is pressing ahead with it, so we can move on.

MR. NICE: No, not at the moment. Thank you very much.

Q. Can I just deal with one other matter in general terms at the moment and possibly in general terms only. The notion of Greater Serbia, you explained, derived from the 19th century but from Austro-Hungary. It still exists, doesn't it? There are still those who espouse the notion of a Greater Serbia.

A. In the 19th century, this idea was engendered by the effort made by Austro-Hungary to present everything that the Serbs did, and the Serbs were in Bosnia, for instance, and they invented this term a Greater Serbia. Not a single government, not a single state until the present day did not espouse this project of a Greater Serbia, although all the other neighbouring countries did have such projects; a Greater Croatia, a Greater Slovenia, a Greater Hungary, a Greater Romania, et cetera. Individuals and groups were still talking about a Greater Serbia. For example, during the Second World War the Chetniks of Draza Mihailovic even had a map in terms of what a Greater Serbia should be like, but no government ever officially supported this as an official project. This Greater Serbia, if it refers to the earlier days like of Ilija Garasanin, for instance, the Nacertanije, the first draft constitution, was written by Czartorysky and Zach, who were Poles. It was never written by Ilija Garasanin.

Q. There was and there still is a notion of the Greater Serbia as a ³³⁵⁴² possibility. Is that something that Seselj's party has espoused?

A. I've already said: Individuals and individual groups spoke about it, but I have to remind you of something else, of the words of a man who established the idea of socialism in Serbia, that is Svetozar Markovic. He decisively criticised the very idea of a Greater Serbia and the very idea of creating a state consisting of Serbs only. He advocated a Balkan federation. Not a single socialist ever advocated a Greater Serbia. No government ever advocated a Greater Serbia.

Q. Seselj's party has been associated with Greater Serbia; yes or no. Has Seselj's party been associated with Greater Serbia? Yes or no.

A. Seselj's party, that is to say one of the opposition parties, believes in the idea of uniting all Serb lands, and they call that a Greater Serbia, yes. Yes. Seselj's party, yes.

Q. Have you yourself, as a matter of fact, been associated recently at all with Seselj's party?

A. No. No way. No. I was never associated with Seselj's party, no.

Q. You produced, or you were going to be producing as an exhibit a book -- I beg your pardon, an article of yours that produced a number of maps. We were provided in advance by the accused with a number of maps contained in an article of yours, and I want to take it shortly, if I can. One of those maps was the map of the London agreement of, I think, 1914. Are you familiar with that map? 15, is it? 1915.

A. I never published any maps, and I never resorted to any maps, because I'm not an historian or a geographer.

As for the London agreement, it was an agreement concluded in ³³⁵⁴³ London with the representatives of Italy. They were given an offer. Italy was given certain parts of Dalmatia in order to get into the war on the side of the great powers. So that has nothing to do with the Greater Serbia. It was an offer made to Italy.

MR. NICE: Your Honours will perhaps have seen this as Exhibit 8A as listed in the accused's list of exhibits, and I don't know if you have a bundle in the same form that we do.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Not here.

MR. NICE: Can we just lay that map on the overhead projector, and perhaps the accused could be good enough to provide the original of the article concerned. I was expecting to deal with it.

Q. If you'd take your time, Professor, to see if this is an article with which you're familiar.

A. There's no beginning here. The beginning of this article is not here. Well, look, this is probably a publication of the Serb Radical Party. Once they organised a meeting of scholars and I participated in it and spoke there, but this map is not mine, and I did not talk about a Greater Serbia at all at that meeting.

Q. I want your help, Professor, at the moment --

A. So this is a publication of the Serb Radical Party. Although we cannot see very well from here, whose is this? You see, there's no beginning here. See? See, the beginning is not here.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... provided to us. But if the usher would be good enough to place on the overhead projector the first map. The pages aren't numbered, but it's the -- I'll hold it ³³⁵⁴⁴ up. It looks like that. It's got two maps on it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We don't even know whose maps these maps are.

Q. Do you recognise this map? It's said to be the London agreement map. This is the 1915 map showing an enlarged Serbia, I think including Macedonia. Would that be correct?

A. No. No. The map of the London agreement can only include what is given to Italy, nothing else.

Q. But it shows a much enlarged Serbia, doesn't it, going to the north and west?

A. I don't know what is being expanded here, but in any case, the London agreement did not deal with Serbia at all. There were, as a matter of fact, some British offers in view of the fact that Austria-Hungary would lose the war, and in case it loses the war, and if all the nations involved express their right to self-determination, then Southern Slavs would be able to unite. So these lands are Southern Slav. And indeed, it was the allies who created Yugoslavia in 1918, the state of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. This, therefore, does not refer to Serbs, it involves Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] To avoid any confusion, this is a set of historical maps. Not a single map here represents anybody's proposal. You see here maps dating from the 11th, 14th century, maps of what was approximately Yugoslavia between two wars. But if you read the legends below, you will realise that this is a set of historical maps, and ³³⁵⁴⁵ that is why the professor included this set into his exhibits.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not include anything. I have no idea what this is.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I thought this was coming from you. This -- one of the maps here shows the territory occupied by the Serbian people in the 10th century. Dusan's Empire in the 14th century. The Dukja [phoen] state, Ruska [phoen] in the Bosnian district where Serbs settled in the 11th century.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Serbia, Austria-Hungary, Austria-Hungary reaches up to the Drina River.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Put the map in the appropriate context, and that is necessary if it is to be of any benefit.

MR. NICE: Yes. I'm going to put it in the context --

JUDGE KWON: And, Mr. Nice, there are keys or footnotes on the page, but it's very difficult to follow with this moment.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... I entirely accept that.

JUDGE KWON: And for clarity. Professor, if you follow the map in B/C/S, the fourth page but the actual -- it's paginated as 13, there appears a picture. It may be a picture of yours.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, there is a photograph of me in this paper. I thought it was in relation to a gathering I attended. And there is a question here saying, "Another element of the national programme according to you is a concept of relations with neighbouring and ³³⁵⁴⁶ other countries," and then follows my answer. There is nothing about Serbia. I talk about our relations with neighbouring countries such as Greece and Hungary.

MR. NICE: I'm grateful for the answer, but I'm only interested in the map itself, the London map, Your Honour, which is slightly better shown in the Serb version a few pages further on as I have it. The legend, I think, is the same probably.

Q. The point simply is this, Professor: We have an exhibit in this case. It's Exhibit 613, tab 103, and there's another one which is 613, tab 101, and the first of those exhibits is a transcript of an intercepted telephone conversation between Radovan Karadzic and the accused following the breakdown or conclusion of the talks here in The Hague, where they talk of talks continuing and where Karadzic says, "Maybe we should engage in international activity prior to the 5th. Do the Rapalo and London accords apply?" And the accused says he doesn't know, he'll ask somebody called Vladan and go through the documents. And he says, "I think London includes Macedonia." Karadzic replies, "All right, but London can be revised." And the accused says something about they would interpret that as our pretensions against Macedonia. And Karadzic says, "We can revise the London accord."

And then on the other intercept a couple days later, on the 26th of October, the accused, again in conversation with Karadzic says, "Did you consider the possibility with Avramov" - that's Smilja Avramov - "if there is no Yugoslavia, should we go to the London agreement?" That's Karadzic speaking. And the accused says, "I didn't consider that ³³⁵⁴⁷ possibility, but we can also --" Karadzic says, "It would be a great thing because there are the signatures of France, I think, and England and everyone." The accused says, "Yes, we need to see what it is." And Karadzic goes on and they press on with that idea for a little bit further before the accused says he's due to meet some Americans. We can see from the London agreement map, whatever its exact history at the time was, that it would be a much enlarged Serbia, and my interest is this: You as an intellectual moving in these circles, this sort of enlargement of Serbia was a common theme and a common ambition right the way through the 20th century among some Serbs, wasn't it?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, has the witness agreed that the map depicts an enlarged Serbia?

MR. NICE: He said, in fact, it was about Italy, but the legend -- Your Honour is right to check on that, or get me to check on that, and the boundaries incorporate Serbia and show a single territory.

Q. Professor, you hear His Honour's question. Do you accept that the London agreement shows or could be taken as showing an enlarged Serbia?

A. First of all, I think I -- I'm not the right person to ask. Why would I comment on intercepts between Karadzic and Mr. Milosevic? What I can say with regard to the London accord is that in 1915, Austria-Hungary being an enemy state, an offer is being made to Italy with no Serbian representative involved. There are talks between the British and Italy. They're making plans to do -- as what to do about the war. Austria-Hungary even had to pay indemnification after the war. So the British are entering into an agreement with Italy to give a ³³⁵⁴⁸ part of their Austro-Hungarian territory to Italians, whereas the rest would go either to Serbia or to that Serb, Croat, Slovene state, but Serbs had nothing to do with it. They did not participate, and especially I didn't.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, even these quoted intercepted conversation were inappropriately used. Professor Avramov testified about that. It was a time when all our international experts were collecting all documents relevant to The Hague Conference. Any trace at any time in history of any such plans needed to be presented. There is a professor -- there was Professor Avramov and other competent professors who were substantiating our point of view at the conference in The Hague. It was not about territorial divisions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This material is being used inadequately.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me explain to you again: You will have a chance to re-examine. It's a new exercise for you, but one of the classical functions of re-examination is to rehabilitate your witness. If you believe that your witness has been attacked or weakened in his presentation, then you are allowed in re-examination to rehabilitate him. And the comments that you were just making would fall into that -- into that category.

MR. NICE: Thank you.

Q. Professor, another map is the Moljevic map of the Second World War. Are you familiar with that map? And if we can -- I can probably ³³⁵⁴⁹ find that in --

A. Yes.

Q. Can you just find that --

A. Yes. I mentioned yesterday it is a map that the Chetniks and Draza Mihailovic made. Moljevic was the Chetnik ideologist and the fact doubtlessly stands that the movement of Draza Mihailovic, which was supported in for a while in the West and then they withdrew that support, was interested in creating a Greater Serbia and Moljevic made the map. That is what I covered when I said that the Greater Serbia was a plan of individuals and individual groups, but it was never a state plan. Moljevic was not a state official.

MR. NICE: Take this opportunity by the overhead projector to show this map to the Judges. If we can just lay it -- it's this one here, in fact. If you bring it to me, I'll select it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If this is a trial of Draza Mihailovic, then it's fine.

Q. Now, the important point about this is that it shows, again, a substantially larger Serbia, but as the legend at the bottom shows -- this is the Koljevic [sic] map, isn't it?

And as this -- this Second World War map shows the ambition of the people you identified was to have a north or north-western territory that ran along the Karlobag-Karlovac-Virovitica line about which we've heard a lot about in this trial. And that's the Koljevic map.

A. Correct.

Q. And the Koljevic map was -- ³³⁵⁵⁰

A. You mean Moljevic.

Q. Ms. Dicklich was trying to correct me and I was wrong. The Moljevic map - thank you so much - was created before any question of the completion of the genocide against the Serbs in the Second World War. It was before and independent of that terrible and serious event, the genocide of the Serbs; correct?

A. That map was made during the Second World War, certainly after the genocide committed against the Serbs in Croatia. It was made after, because the genocide took place in 1941 and the beginning of 1942, whereas the map was made a bit later. There are many similar maps, I can tell you. King Aleksandar has a map depicting the rest of Yugoslavia on the condition that Croatia secedes.

Q. You're aware of a magazine called Epoha, I think, yes?

A. Epoha.

Q. Yes.

A. If that is the same magazine that was published for a while by the Socialist Party of Serbia, I do. I don't know which one you mean.

Q. So that's the accused's party. Can you look, please, at this copy of Epoha for the 22nd of October, 1991, just after the refusal of the Hague conference proposals. And if you display just the first page of it. I'm afraid a copy is all I can have. And then the map, please. There's the magazine. If we go over to the next page, there is a map.

MR. NICE: We've got an English translation for this, Your Honour. If we can put this in as an exhibit. ^{33551 BLANK PAGE 33552}

Q. Now --

A. I don't know. Where is the map?

Q. You're looking at that map.

A. Whose is the map?

Q. It comes in Epoha, doesn't it? And if you now go to the B/C/S version, you'll see -- if the witness can have the B/C/S version of the map. It's on there now, is it? Oh, yes, that's right. The legend reads as follows: The three lines which we can have in an English translation are republic borders, new borders with the Republic of Croatia, and then the thicker line at the top left is the optimal western borders of Serbian countries.

And if you look at the map, Professor, that line is again the Virovitica-Karlobag line, is it not?

A. Yes, but I don't know who the author is. In any case, I'm not aware that this has ever been accepted as a map. It reflects the opinion of some individual, but which individual, I have no idea. Whose map is this?

You see, a magazine can publish maps that authors have a negative attitude to, negative views on. They are being published for the purpose of criticising them. Who is the author of this?

Q. I'll hand in the translations if we've got them.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I find there is merit in what the witness says. If we are to be helped by these maps, we must know --

MR. NICE: Certainly.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- who -- ³³⁵⁵³

MR. NICE:

Q. Zoran Rakic is the author of the article. Do you know him?

A. I have no idea who Zoran Rakic is.

Q. If you'd be good enough, in the English translation, which doesn't have the map reproduced, go to what is page 2. The text in the magazine of the SPS is headed -- and we must find the original of this for the witness -- yes -- it's the top of the page that the witness has got on the overhead projector at the moment, but the translation reads as follows, Professor: "How are we going to draw new borders? Desirable possibility of territorial demarcation between the third Yugoslavia and Croatia," then it sets out the various areas identified on the map by number. One, Serbian Autonomous Region of Krajina; 2, Western Slavonia; 3, Serbian region Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem; 4, Western Herzegovina; 5, Samac Posavina; 6, Dubrovnik Republic; and 7, optimal western border of Serbian countries.

So that -- and this is where I want your help if you can. Do you recall following the conclusion and failure of The Hague conference that this plan was being advanced and discussed by the accused's party with, and in particular, with borders stretching to the Karlobag-Virovitica line?

JUDGE ROBINSON: You mean the plan as evidenced by the map?

MR. NICE: Yes, indeed.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is not something that the Socialist Party of Serbia discussed. As you rightly said, it was something published in a magazine where various people were entitled to ³³⁵⁵⁴ publish their own opinions.

Second, this is not a plan for demarcation between Serbia and Croatia. This is a depiction of Yugoslavia from which Croatia seceded, and the question was if Croatia seceded, where should the border be. So this was nothing to do with Greater Serbia. You see, Macedonia is depicted here, Bosnia, Montenegro. That means Slovenia and Croatia seceded, Yugoslavia remained. The year is 1991. And the question now is how to draw the border between Croatia and Yugoslavia.

Q. And do you accept that amongst your group, amongst the political party, and amongst the political leadership there was an intention to take Serbia up to that Karlobag-Virovitica line?

A. There was absolutely never any mention of that. Not a word. The question was where the army were deployed if, for instance, Croatia secedes, one. Second, the issue arose of those territories, the Serbian Krajina where the peacekeeping forces of the United Nations arrived under the agreement reached at The Hague conference in 1991. So the peacekeeping force arrived, and it was expected that after the war was over, those people -- in fact, that people would be able to self-determine where they would continue to live, that is the area where the UN force was deployed.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, it's time for the adjournment. We will adjourn for 20 minutes.

JUDGE KWON: And during the adjournment could you check whether the name of the magazine is Epoha or Epoka.

MR. NICE: It's H, Epoha. ³³⁵⁵⁵

JUDGE KWON: The previous transcript says that it's Epoka. Could you check it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is Epoha with an H, in Serbian, at least.

--- Recess taken at 12.23 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.47 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Please continue, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: May the two exhibits we've been looking at be labelled as the maps have provided in some way by the accused. Either the two single maps could be selected or the whole collection of maps could be turned into an exhibit, I'm neutral as to that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the maps be numbered.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There's a mistake probably. I didn't tender any maps myself, because there were thousands and thousands of similar maps at the time. They were published in the newspapers. Everybody wrote articles about Yugoslavia, producing maps of one sort or another. So this has no probative value for Mr. Nice from his point of view. It has nothing to do with state policy, it has nothing to do with the Socialist Party, it has nothing to do with the subject of his examination.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Their being tendered as exhibits is not dependent, as I understand it, on their having been introduced into evidence by you. ³³⁵⁵⁶

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So they will be exhibited. What are the numbers?

JUDGE KWON: Prosecution exhibits.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Prosecution exhibits, yes.

THE REGISTRAR: They will be 785.

MR. NICE: And then may the Epoha magazine be exhibited, please.

THE REGISTRAR: 786.

MR. NICE: Thank you.

Q. Professor, I'm coming to the end, and we still don't have the original of the article so I shan't be -- unless it comes in the next few minutes, shan't be troubling you with that, the article that we started off with today. As we move then, a few tidying up matters, just this: The problem for Serbia was that Serbs lived in other states, didn't they? They lived in Croatia and they lived in Bosnia.

A. Yes, that was the problem. And Serbs, as opposed to other peoples, withdrew in the face of conquerors. They went to other territories, and that is why it was difficult to create a state. And so the Serbs wished to have Yugoslavia where they could live together with their kindred peoples. That's why Yugoslavia was so important to them, that they could be in the same country and stay as their brothers, with their brothers.

Q. Slovenia having gone and such part of Croatia being accorded its independence as Serbia was content for it to have, the rest of the Serbs could all have remained in a single body, whether described as a new Yugoslavia or described as something else, but that was the only way in ³³⁵⁵⁷ which all the Serbs could remain in a single body?

A. That's right. And that's why it was thought that once the peace forces, the UN peace forces leave, that the Serbian Krajina -- in the Serbian Krajina the people could have a referendum for everybody to state their views and say where they wished to live. And then one part would remain in Croatia, according to that, the other would remain in Yugoslavia, but nobody knew what was going to happen to Bosnia and Macedonia at that time because we're talking about 1991.

Q. Although this is all very well covered before the Judges already, just to round it all off, the general plan, put neutrally, and the general intention was that Serb-occupied territories should have some connection with Serbia itself so there should be a contiguous or continuous territory; correct?

A. If the population would come out -- were to come out in favour of wishing to live in Serbia, and if the problem of the different corridors were resolved, because it wasn't easy to have a uniform united territory because the population was mixed. There were Croats in Bosnia, for example. There were Muslims in Bosnia. And we didn't know how Bosnia and Herzegovina would vote, whether they wanted to remain in Yugoslavia or whether they wanted to break away.

Q. Can we look at one BBC broadcast of yours that sets out the position -- or you're being interviewed, sets out the position at the end of the Hague conference.

MR. NICE: Lay it on the overhead projector and provide it to the Court, please. ³³⁵⁵⁸

Q. This is on the 6th of November, 1991, the time we've just been concerned with with the map and so on.

MR. NICE: The bottom part of the page, please, Usher, a bit further down.

Q. "This was said at a press conference today by Dr. Mihailo Markovic, vice-president of the Main Committee of the Socialist Party of Serbia, Milosevic's ruling party. In an explanation of the standpoints adopted today by the SPS Main Committee at a session lasting several hours, Markovic said that the party outlined the following three points as a minimum which Serbia will agree upon at the negotiations in The Hague. "First - it can accept that the existing regions of Serbian Krajinas in Croatia come under international trusteeship, that the Yugoslav army withdraws from the region only after international forces are installed there, and that the population of the region is allowed to decide in which state and where to live in a referendum under international auspices.

"Second - the SPS insists that the people who wish to stay in a common Yugoslav state and perpetuate that state will be given an opportunity to do so.

"Third - the SPS cannot accept that national minorities such as Albanians and Hungarians, should enjoy the same rights in a future community as those given to the Serbian people in Croatia, because the latter are not a national minority. National minorities will be guaranteed only the rights national minorities enjoy in other European countries." ³³⁵⁵⁹ And it was in that way that you and those with whom you worked distinguished between the rights of Kosovo Albanians, who, despite their majority, should never have independence, and the rights of Serbs who should be allowed to cut out part of Croatia and attack it -- and attach it to Serbia; correct?

A. Well, there was a distinction there between Serbs and Albanians. The difference was between the minorities and constituent peoples. So the Albanians had their own country already, their own state of Albania. They were a minority in Yugoslavia. Whereas the Serbs in Yugoslavia, in a state of their own, were the -- a constituent peoples. And as I said a moment ago, the mistake had been during Tito's time for not ensuring two constitutive nations the fact that their minorities have minority rights, enjoy minority rights. And now if the Serbs were to opt to live in Serbia, and if this were decided to have this become a joint territory, then they would have greater rights as a constituent nation than national minorities. National minorities have the universally accepted minority rights. And we have already enumerated those. Whereas these are both, the constitutive nations and peoples, are part of a whole, part of an entity, which means a nation, a peoples constituting that particular state.

Q. If we look, please, at two programmes of the Socialist Party of Serbia, you were looking at one that you drafted yesterday. This is a part of Exhibit 469, tab 3, the programme for the 16th of July of 1990. I'll just lay it on the overhead projector to save time. I'll read it from there. ³³⁵⁶⁰ The political philosophy that lay behind the memorandum and lay behind the Socialist Party of Serbia of this accused can be seen. Top extract first, please, in red. Bit further down. Thank you. "The Serbian diaspora.

"The Socialist Party of Serbia will regularly monitor the living conditions and development of Serbs living in the other republics and abroad, and maintain intensive relations with their political, cultural, and other organisations, believing it to be only natural for other nations to maintain such relations with their fellow countrymen living in Serbia. She will extend material and moral assistance to them, help improve their living conditions, preserve their national identity and cultural traditions and ensure more intensive cultural development." And at the bottom of the page, please.

"The new Yugoslav constitution should allow for the forming of autonomous provinces in Yugoslavia on the basis of the expressed will and population -- of the population and national, historical, cultural and other specificities."

Well, that applied, didn't it, to the Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia; autonomous provinces? Was that the intention?

A. The intention was to enable the original state to be able to hold cultural and other ties with that portion of the people that were separated and lived elsewhere, just as it was possible for the state of Albania, for example, to send to Kosovo its professors and all other manner of cultural ties that it maintained, ties between the state of Albania and Kosovo in the 1970s and 1980s, and that was not possible with ³³⁵⁶¹ the Serbs in Croatia, for instance. That was not possible. So this was designed to facilitate and enable that, that the mother country or original country can maintain ties with that portion of its populace living elsewhere.

Q. Autonomous provinces in Yugoslavia, was that intended to justify the creation of Serb territories in Croatia and Bosnia? Did you draft this one, by the way?

A. How do you mean Croatian territories in Croatia? What do you mean?

Q. Serbian territories in Croatia is what I meant to say.

A. Yes. It was about this, the fact that the Serbs in Croatia, in the area stretching in today's Lika, Banija and Kordun, that area, that region, they had lived there for many years. They were historically there. They were a separate Krajina enjoying separate rights under Austria, for example, and the Croatian rulers never had control over that area. Those rights were abolished, and now we wished to revive them, to give them back their rights and the -- for Serbs living on the territory of Croatia, yes, that's right.

Q. You wished, by your Socialist Party of Serbia, to change the established 1974 rights of Croatia, and in particular of the Croatian Serbs. That was your intention.

A. Yes. The Croatian Serbs enjoyed no rights, and now they were supposed to win rights.

MR. NICE: Next page, please, Usher, on this one.

Q. Did you draft this document yourself, Professor? Did you draft it ^{33562 BLANK PAGE 33563} yourself? Did you write this one yourself?

A. The foundations of the programme, well, I wrote the initial draft and then we held discussions, and it was accepted, corrected, but the basic draft, yes, I did write that.

Q. And then we see here highlighted apart from that Kosovo should be an inseparable part of Serbia, we see: "The Socialist Party will invest determined efforts to stop Serbs and Montenegrins from moving out of the province and secure their return and the moving in of citizens who wish to live and work in Kosovo and Metohija. We shall do our utmost to tell the world the full truth about Kosovo and Metohija, and to tell them about the causes and grave consequences of the actions of Albanians, chauvinists, and separatists."

So here was an expressed intention to reverse the demographic changes and to repopulate Kosovo, correct, with Serbs?

A. No. Let's be precise here. The Albanians in Kosovo had an exceptional rate of demographic growth, a large growth rate, and this couldn't be -- you couldn't, of course, stop them having this population increase, but one wanted to enable that those people who had been expelled from Kosovo to have the right to go back to their own homes and houses. Now, as to the demographic growth, the birth rate was so high with the Albanians that you couldn't compare anything with them, the growth rate in Serbia or other ethnic communities.

Q. Well, that form preceded The Hague conference. If you just look at this one passage from the 1992 document for the party, Exhibit 469, tab 4. We see again an absolute reflection of your party's clear ambition in ³³⁵⁶⁴ the red highlighted part, please.

"The option for Yugoslavia is based on a variety of grounds. It makes a community with the Montenegrin nation possible. By maintaining Yugoslavia, the Serbian nation preserves its homeland, an essential guarantee of the protection of all the remaining parts of the Serbian nation. It enables legitimate concern for the Serbs outside Serbia and creates the institutional possibility for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to be joined in future by Krajina and the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina."

So just pausing there. That sentence makes clear that which I suggested to you earlier. There was a clear intention to have contiguous, to have joined-up Serbian territory carved out of Bosnia and of Croatia, true?

A. No.

Q. Well, what does that --

A. It's not true.

Q. -- sentence mean?

A. That's not correct. It was about this: That all human beings had basic human rights, and one of their basic human rights was to have freedom of movement, freedom to live where they wished, and to enjoy all their cultural rights and freedoms. So that was what this was about, that the territories where the Serbs were in the majority had the right to state where they wished to live, just as the Croats had opted for living in a separate state. The Slovenes themselves had said they wanted to live in a separate state. So quite simply, it was the equal right enjoyed by ³³⁵⁶⁵ all people. No special intention where the Serbs were concerned.

Q. Forgive me. The sentence we've just reached says, in terms "... for the Serbs outside Serbia and creates the institutional possibility for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to be joined --"

A. [In English] I don't see this.

Q. Sorry. It's on the screen. Now I don't see it because I haven't got another copy. Can it go back on the overhead projector.

A. I don't see this. It is quite blurred.

Q. Okay. I'm sorry.

A. With this red, red pencil. I don't see that.

Q. Another version coming your way.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You have overhighlighted, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I'm afraid so, yes.

Q. Here's coming a version in Serbian, because I don't want to run any risk of there being an error of translation. You've got the paragraph that begins: "The option for Yugoslavia is," and then further down it says: "The possibility for the future -- for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to be joined in future by Krajina and the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina." That's what it says, doesn't it?

A. Yes. On the basis of the self-determination of the people, because all nations must be equal and have the same right to the self-determine of nations, according to which the Slovenes, Croats, Bosnian Muslims, Macedonians decided to secede from Yugoslavia, by the same token the Serb peoples, where they are the majority, may opt to ³³⁵⁶⁶ remain in the same state. So you can't give one right to one and not to the other, to have one people able to secede and the others not to be able to stay in the same state they wished to.

Q. You said yesterday -- I'm just going to turn very briefly to a totally different topic. You said yesterday there had been no expulsion of people from Serbia. I'd like you, please, to reflect upon that. Is that, strictly speaking, accurate? Would you like to think about Vojvodina and think about what happened there?

A. That's absolutely correct. The ethnic structure of the people remained unchanged solely in Serbia. In Vojvodina you still have the ethnic groups living there who had -- living there who had lived there before; the Hungarians, the Slovaks, the Croats, and so on. Certain Croats and certain Serbs did happen to exchange houses and property, but these were individuals, individuals who decided to swap properties and go and live in the other person's. But the national structure of Vojvodina and Serbia has remained intact, and I categorically state that nobody whatsoever was expulsed.

Q. We've had evidence from C47, C48, in considerable detail about what happened at Hrtkovci. Hrtkovci was also the subject of official reports of one kind or another, including one by the Humanitarian Law Fund. Are you telling us that you're entirely unaware of the existence of compulsory movement of non-Serbs from Vojvodina?

A. There was never any coercion, duress brought to bear. I said that individuals, including Hrtkovci, had exchanged houses with Serbs living in Croatia and who had taken over their houses. So the fact is that only in ³³⁵⁶⁷ Hrtkovci there was an incident that broke out and provoked by the president of the then-Radical Party who issued some threats, but this was a negligible opposition group, and you didn't have the state powers standing behind them. The state never expulsed anybody from Hrtkovci or anywhere else in Vojvodina. Of course, this can be established and investigated, the Hrtkovci case, but I claim that there were exchanges. Houses were exchanged, that's all, on an individual basis, not in an organised fashion.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Professor. You're here to help the Judges. Were you there at the time of the exchange of houses? Did you supervise them, or are you relying on something else for your very firm assertion that there was no such thing as what we've heard of in evidence from witnesses?

A. Well, I'm claiming that. I was never myself in Hrtkovci, but everything that I heard went along those lines, and I will withdraw my opinion or change my opinion if it is proved otherwise. And then it will be just the case of Hrtkovci. It wasn't a general policy that was waged throughout Vojvodina province or throughout Serbia. You're just taking Hrtkovci as a case in point where Seselj arrived and issued some threats to the Croats. And this was an incident that was condemned by the Serbian authorities.

Q. So you are aware of the threats he issued, are you?

A. There were, yes. I know about that. But I do not know that the state took any steps against the Croats, for example. Quite the reverse.

Q. And I'm not restricting it to Hrtkovci. There's also Golubvci. ³³⁵⁶⁸ Mr. NICE: Your Honour, that's all I'm going to ask this witness, there are a couple of exhibit issues that -- may that extract from the BBC be given an exhibit number?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE REGISTRAR: 787.

MR. NICE: We are in a position to, but not particularly anxious to, produce a sequence of some memoranda, unless they're already all in evidence. Would you just give me one minute, please.

[Prosecution counsel confer]

MR. NICE: Perhaps I'll start again, I think. Can I tell you what are the exhibits numbers for the memorandums, as I understand it. There's 446.28, which is the one that we've referred to earlier associated with the priest Mikic. There's, I think, 446 and --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This has nothing to do with this witness whatsoever. He said himself that he had no idea as to whether a priest published the memorandum somewhere. It was in the newspapers. Anybody could have published it anywhere, and this has nothing to do with this witness.

I tendered the memorandum as it was printed, and I believe that that is sufficient. The witness said that he had nothing to do with this whatsoever and that he had not heard of this priest. Neither have I. Never heard of him.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You may be right, Mr. Milosevic, but the weight ³³⁵⁶⁹ to be attached to it is a matter for the Chamber.

MR. NICE: We've now got the one that's been --

JUDGE BONOMY: I take it what you're doing, Mr. Nice, is answering the question I asked about the exhibit numbers for --

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: -- various examples of the memorandum that had previously been produced, and it's purely a technical exercise.

MR. NICE: Purely a technical exercise, yes, and I think in fact we've probably only previously had 446.28. We've now got the present version, which has got its number, 350 whatever it is, which contains the answers to criticisms. There is the one other version that I showed to the witness earlier today dated the 26th of September, 1986, sent to a minister that he says necessarily obtained following the leak. Unless anybody particularly wants us to produce that, I don't think there's any particular need to, but if you do want it or anybody else wants it, we can produce that.

I asserted to the witness and didn't wish to take the time establishing it that there were a limited number of changes between the first 1986 version and the 1995 version. I can provide a very short one-side schedule of those variations, and it may be that if I provide those and if the assigned counsel and/or the accused are so disposed, they could check it for accuracy and then the Chamber would be able to know to some degree the history of changes if it ever becomes necessary.

JUDGE BONOMY: Is 446.28 a 1985 version?

MR. NICE: As far as I know, that's the -- ³³⁵⁷⁰

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

MR. NICE: 1986.

JUDGE BONOMY: So is that the one that would be compared with --

MR. NICE: 1995.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. NICE: Yes. That apart, I have nothing else to ask this witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Professor, I would like to ask you a question. Questioned by the Court:

JUDGE ROBINSON: Professor, you have been asked many questions -- you have been asked many questions by Mr. Nice about the memorandum directed at showing that the memorandum, by reason of its content, in particular the language used, would have influenced people, presumably in Serbia. What I wanted to find out from you is what is the -- generally is the kind of influence that other memoranda, quite apart from this one, other memoranda prepared by the academy has in Serbia? When you produced other memoranda, other documents, other learned documents, what kind of circulation, what kind of influence do they have?

A. [In English] This is the last document which Serbian Academy of Science produced as a whole. Academy became divided later, and it was never possible to prepare another collective text. There were a number of academicians who expressed one position, and then this would be opposed by another group of academicians. So this was the last moment when Serbian Academy of Science was a united, scholarly institution.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I understand that, but prior to this ³³⁵⁷¹ memorandum, did the academy produce other works, other publications on other subjects?

A. This was not a custom in academy that they will publish such memorandums, so I don't remember that there was any other similar document. But at this moment, there was a sense that there was such a deep depression, that things in Yugoslavia became so terribly bad that it was high time for intellectuals to express their critical views about that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. I see.

A. We mentioned last time how the Slovenes, seeing what is going on in Yugoslavia, decided to -- to secede. That was one of the reasons.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. I'd like to find out your age.

A. I am 82.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Professor. Mr. Milosevic, now it's your time to re-examine. You're not obliged to re-examine. I mentioned one of the classical functions of re-examination, to rehabilitate the witness, and sometimes it is better to let things lie as they are.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I think, Mr. Robinson, that in this case, you are quite right. The witness has not been brought into question at all through Mr. Nice's cross-examination, so there is nothing I can do in terms of rehabilitation. Nothing was really challenged by the cross-examination. So thank you. No further questions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. And thank you, Professor, for the evidence that you have given. ³³⁵⁷² You may now leave.

[The witness withdrew]

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I just wish to remind you we are resuming on Monday afternoon at 2.15, and you have the weekly obligation to produce your list by Thursday, and I imagine you'll be doing that tomorrow.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have already done that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Oh. Well, so much the better. We are adjourned until next Monday at 2.15 p.m.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.22 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday, the 22nd day of

November, 2004, at 2.15 p.m.