³⁴²⁷⁰

Tuesday, 7 December 2004

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE ROBINSON: You may be seated. Mr. Milosevic, you are to proceed, and the Chamber would like you to proceed as expeditiously as possible.

WITNESS: SLAVENKO TERZIC [Resumed]

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

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Terzic, may we continue working and try and be as effective as possible. And I'm going to remind you of several portions from your report. And yesterday Mr. Kwon insisted upon seeing from the archives and sources of the Holy Synod, which was dealt with, or some of the examples. We can't go through the entire document and all the archive material, it's very extensive.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Kwon, to page 62 of the English text of the expert report, paragraph 1 on page 62. We have a quote from a portion that is contained in tab 32 of our documents, and it is from the Holy Synod of the -- Holy Synod Assembly of the Serbian church, about a systematic genocide and so on and the exodus from 1947 and 1996, and it is contained in the book about Kosovo, and the text in the English translation says the following: An appeal is being quoted on Good Friday, the 16th of April, 1982, which ³⁴²⁷¹ was signed by 21 Serbian priests and monks. They addressed an appeal to the authorities --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the LiveNote has stopped. We have to await some technical help.

Mr. Milosevic, the LiveNote stopped when you were referring to Judge Kwon's interest in page 62 of the English text.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon was interested in knowing about parts of the text which referred to the Holy Archbishop Synod and Synod Assembly, and I'm just going to take a few examples because it's very extensive material. And as I was saying, on page 62 it says that on Good Friday, the 16th of April, 1982, 21 Serbian priests and monks addressed an appeal to the authorities, and the appeal states, and then they go on to quote. And I'm going to read out that quotation for all of you here present from the English translation of it. "[In English] It may be said without exaggeration that systematic genocide is gradually being perpetrated against the Serbian people in Kosovo! Because, if this were not the case, what do the theses about an 'ethnically clean Kosovo' mean which, regardless of everything, is being implemented without interruption? Or what do the words, often repeated in villages and hamlets, monasteries and churches and even in towns mean: 'What are you waiting for? Move away, this is ours!'"

[Interpretation] And otherwise we have a footnote here, 180, which indicates the source, contained in tab 32 of the exhibits, and we also have something from the book dealt with by Atanasije Jevtic, The Suffering of Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija, 1941 to 1990, on page 63. I am just ³⁴²⁷² mentioning the ones that Mr. Terzic failed to mention yesterday. So Monk Atanasije Jevtic, The Suffering of the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija. And in the penultimate paragraph on page 63 it says the following: "The destruction of Serbian churches during World War II continued after the war. [In English] In March 1952, for example, the Serbian church in the village of Duganjevo near Urosevac was destroyed, but the most drastic case was the dynamiting and blowing up of the Serbian memorial church in Djakovica on the major Serbian holiday, St. Sava's Day, in 1949. Various Albanian facilities were erected on the foundations of Serbian churches and cultural monuments if they were not completely destroyed." [Interpretation] And then mention is made of the examples where this occurred. And after that, on page 64, we have a report Bishop Pavle, Patriarch Pavle in fact now but he was the Bishop Pavle in those days, of the Raska-Prizren eparchy, and it's dated the 11th of May, 1962, and it says the following. And it is in the middle of the paragraph, the first third, for example, and his report is quoted: "[In English] The moving away of Serbs, both settlers and the indigenous inhabitants from all areas of the eparchy has continued this year as well, at an even more intense pace."

[Interpretation] When he says the eparchy, the areas of the eparchy, it means his eparchy where he was the bishop, and this implies at all intents and purposes the entire region of Kosovo and Metohija. And then there are a series of examples given later on. For example, it says what in the -- in recent years has been done, after June 1999, in fact, and that is on page 65. And at the end of the -- ³⁴²⁷³

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, what is the question? It is not you who are giving evidence. Try to put your -- put it into question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The question has to do with the series of exhibits, and I formulated my question yesterday, in fact. It's a very short one, and it was this, addressed to Mr. Terzic, of course: What do church sources testify to in view of the fact that you yourself worked a great deal with the sources found in the archives of the Holy Synod? So what do these church sources testify to?

A. They are completely original and authentic and are the best evidence of circumstances in Kosovo and Metohija. It was only the church from one day to the next, from one month to the next, from one year to the next that monitored the situation in Kosovo and informed the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox church thereof. Therefore we can say today that as opposed to the state organs and the organs of power and authority and the security organs, the most complete archives about those tragic events are to be found in the archives of the Serbian Orthodox church. And I myself in Exhibit 26, tab 26 and tab 32, the book by Atanasije Jevtic and The Legacy of Kosovo, I have attached only part of those archives. But if I may, Mr. President, I'd like to indicate two points. The first is the letter, the appeal by 21 Serbian priests. We have attached it in full in the English language so that the Trial Chamber and the Prosecution does have that letter and appeal in its entirety.

Q. You mean the one I quoted from?

A. Yes, that's right, the one you quoted from. But I'd like to ³⁴²⁷⁴ assist the Trial Chamber and Mr. Nice himself by pointing out the fact that many things that were raised -- many issued raised yesterday, translations of certain portions of documents in the English language were solved by the fact that they are contained in my expert report, in fact. Let me just quote an example. The letter by Major John Henniker is found on page 15 of my report, the English version, of course, page 15, after note 61. And then the Neubacher letter about the crimes in Kosovo is to be found on page 50, note 149. Next we have the Von Ribbentrop-Count Ciano conversation about the Great Albanian state in the Balkans will be found on page 39 and 40, and that the letter by Bedri Pejani to Hitler will be found on page 53, and so on and so forth. So a considerable part of the documents that I mentioned yesterday - not at all of them, of course - are to be found in my expert report. And today I'm going to indicate certain portions or, rather, where they are to be found in my report.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I hope you heard what the witness just said. I think he's trying to say you should be making more use than you have of his report. Conduct your examination-in-chief on the basis of his report. Let us proceed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is what I am doing, conducting my examination-in-chief on the basis of his report.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I said referred to Mr. Nice's intervention who said that he cannot go through all that bulk of material.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Now, Mr. Terzic, on page 1 of your report, you insist ³⁴²⁷⁵ upon the fact that the question of Kosovo and Metohija cannot separate -- be separated from the fate of the Yugoslav state as a whole and broader circumstances prevailing in Europe. We have here in our exhibits under tab 49, for example, a review of the Serbian Albanian relations dating from 1945 to 1982, with all the documentation.

Tell me, please, what were the events that marked a turning point in the history of the Yugoslav state during that period? But very briefly, in the shortest terms, please.

A. Well, that is a vast topic. We could talk about it for three days. But let me tell you this very briefly: The decisive event was the normalisation of relations with the Soviet Union, for example, in 1955 and 1956. After the normalisation of relations with the USSR and the cease of a foreign threat on Yugoslavia, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, led by Tito, started along the road of National Communism and the decisive years, which meant the start of the disintegration of the Yugoslav state, was the year 1962 and 1963. In 1964, at the 8th Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, Tito himself for the first time came out and declared himself as a Croat. Otherwise, before that, he's always declared himself as being a Yugoslav, which meant that the notion of Yugoslavhood was no longer the party ideology, and we can say that from the beginning of the 1960s -- of the 20th century, that is to say, we see the unleashing of a process of political, economic, cultural disintegration of the Yugoslav area and a preparation for confederalism. In the political sense, the year 1966 was a turning point and the settling of accounts with the security services was the turning point which meant -- ³⁴²⁷⁶

Q. May I interrupt you at that point. Yes, you've said it was a turning point, and we have here in tab 27 --

A. May I just quote one document from tab 49?

Q. Yes, go ahead.

A. This illustrates the mood that prevailed. It is in Serbian so I'd like to place it on the overhead projector.

This document, as a whole, is a very good illustration of the political condition prevailing in Yugoslavia in the 1960s which meant the start of Yugoslavia's disintegration. And we're talking about a discussion that took place in Switzerland, in Lucerne, in actual fact, in 1971, about the conditions prevailing in Yugoslavia. And one of the organisers of this debate was the Croatian Review. The topic was Croatian Freedom Days. One of the participation -- participants in that discussion from Yugoslavia, for security reasons is just said to be an associate from the homeland, described the events after 1966 in this way, and this is what he said: "In the struggle against Rankovic --" and Rankovic was the vice-president of Yugoslavia who was replaced in 1966 at the so-called Brioni plenary session, and it says: "In the struggle against Rankovic, we had an active triangle; Zagreb, Ljubljana, and Skopje." And he added, and I quote: "The Croatian communists in the meantime received an offensive ally in the form of the Albanians from Kosovo who were calling for their republic and in future perhaps annexation to the mother country. However, the Albanian state in itself is weak while it's ally, The People's Republic of China, has not so far shown that it is prone to the Croatian communists and the Croatian people in general." End of ³⁴²⁷⁷ quotation.

So that briefly is the political picture of Yugoslavia at the end of the 1960s and beginning of the 1970s.

Q. I mentioned at tab 27, the exhibit there, there's several documents, it's a set of documents relating to the 4th plenary session, the replacement of Rankovic, the settling of accounts with the security services, a report by the provincial government of the Executive Council on reorganisation for state security in Kosovo and Metohija, November 1966, that is, an assessment of the provincial committee for Kosovo and Metohija about the security services, notes about a meeting held in Pristina, and all that you have taken from these archives of Serbia. That was your source.

So were those the basic documents and basic exhibits bearing out what you just said a moment ago?

A. Well, the substance of the matter is in the following: At the so-called 4th Brioni plenum of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, which was held on the 1st of July, 1966 on Brioni island, which is where Tito had his residence - this was when Rankovic was replaced - soon after that we saw the arrival of a radical reorganisation in the state security services of Yugoslavia. The consequences of that were to all intents and purposes the legalisation of the Greater Albanian political concept in Yugoslavia, and a campaign was launched for the investigation of so-called major deformations in the state security service in Kosovo and Metohija. Deviations in that service. Of course, this is a vast material but I'd like to draw from ³⁴²⁷⁸ that material several points.

First of all, Rankovic -- among Rankovic's crimes were the Prizren processes. That was ascribed to Rankovic as a crime. It was -- it dealt with Albanian leaders as an attempt to compromise the political cadres of the Albanian nationality, because as you know at the Prizren process and trial, the leadership, Albanian leadership from Pristina was found to have secret connections with the clandestine Albanian organisation working for Albanian intelligence.

Number two was the amassing of weapons; and number 3, the third point was that cases were quoted of individual instances where people of the Albanian nationality were harassed. So the provincial committee for Kosovo, that is to say the Executive Council of Kosovo, set up working groups which assessed and reviewed all these events and drew their own conclusions. The conclusion was that the Prizren trial was, in fact, in their opinion, a construed political process, construed by the intelligence services.

Q. Yes. Let's slow -- slow this process down. You said yesterday that there was a process of disarmament and you gave us some figures and a document indicating these figures, the number of weapons used to arm an entire division. Now, what about those weapons? Was that construed as well?

A. No, of course not. I'm talking about an entire political manipulation, an attempt that was made to disarm that illegal organisation, to make it impotent, and to show it as being an alleged settling of accounts with the Albanian minority. We have a lot of ³⁴²⁷⁹ documents to bear that out. I can't use them because of the shortness of time, but if you will allow me to do so, I would like to say that the assessment made by the commission of the Executive Council, the deformations found and distortions in the security services, there are some mitigating circumstances that we'll find, and that is Exhibit 27C, for example.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask that the speakers slow down. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're being asked to slow down. That's the first thing.

The second thing is I do not appreciate the way this is being conducted as a kind of history lesson, a dialogue between the accused and yourself.

I am interested in this: You say that the disintegration of Yugoslavia started in 1960s when Tito declared that he was a Croatian. So that are you then saying that the correct historical analysis was that what happened in the 1990s with the break-up of Yugoslavia, the six republics becoming independent states, was the culmination of a process that started in the 1960s.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is precisely what I wanted to say.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is that the -- is that the popular notion of -- the popular reading of the history? Is there another reading that the break-up started after Tito's death, the disintegration really started after Tito's death? ³⁴²⁸⁰

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know about concepts of that kind, but I think that all objective archival research will show, and of course I don't have time to go into all this. I'm speaking fast because you keep hurrying me up, but I could of course set this out in detail. In 1962 and 1963 meant a conflict between two key individuals after Tito; Kardelj, a Slovene, and Rankovic who was a Serb. Now, in that conflict, in that clash, Tito sided with Kardelj, and in 1964 we had a Congress at which Tito declared himself as a Croat. In 1966 we had the settling of accounts with Rankovic and the security service. The security and intelligence service was the sole centralised service that existed, that was the integrative force of that Yugoslav state. After 1966, we saw the speedy disintegration of the country. In 1967 we had the first amendments, in 1968 the second amendments, in 1968 the first large uprising of the Albanian minority in Pristina. In 1972 the second Albanian uprising in Pristina. In 1972 we saw the conclusion of the cycle of amendments to the Yugoslav constitution. And in fact the 1974 Yugoslav constitution laid down the confederal set-up of the country. And there's a paradox there, Mr. President: The economic exchange and trade between the Yugoslav republics was lower than it was between the countries of the European Union at that time. So this was a principle which my colleague called the principle of ethnic and national parochialism. That means to say the republics became completely closed off, as did the provinces. Instead of a programme for a political, economic and cultural integration on the territory of Yugoslavia, what we saw was something quite different, different processes which ultimately led to the tragic disintegration of ³⁴²⁸¹ Yugoslavia in the 1990s. That is my concept and it can be borne out by thousands and thousands of documents, and indeed that is the concept and stand of my international colleagues that delve in research of this kind.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, continue.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, let us go back to your expert report. On pages 87, 89 of the Serbian version, you point out to the fact that as a result of this radical change at the top of the Yugoslav state in 1966, many of those who worked in Kosovo and Metohija against the Yugoslav state came to be rehabilitated.

A. Yes. And I mentioned that in part during my reply to Mr. Robinson. A larger legal organisation was uncovered, also during the process of gathering illegal arms. After Rankovic was replaced and the state security service fell apart, all of those who participated in separatist and illegal organisations were rehabilitated. There is a fact here that especially for you lawyers may seem like a paradox. So the Brioni plenum was held on the 1st of July, 1966. 13 days after that, a meeting was held of the provincial committee of the League of Communists of Serbia for Kosovo and Metohija, attended by several leaders from Belgrade. They discussed what ought to be done in order to reorganise the state security service, and then they made the following conclusion, which you can see under tab 27D. This is an unprecedented historical event. I will quote the last sentence from the minutes of this meeting held on the 13th of July, 1966: ³⁴²⁸² "The Prizren case to be taken out of archives and burnt." I repeat, "The Prizren case to be taken out of archives and burnt." Let me show you this on the ELMO.

Q. That's right. This is the sentence underlined in red: "The Prizren case to be taken out of archives and burnt."

A. Everybody keeps rushing me so I apologise to the interpreters for being so fast. So this case is of great value to the lawyers to show them how the documents from a criminal trial are being treated. And this is something that I and my future colleagues will be researching, this sentence and this attitude that the Prizren case to be taken out of archives and burnt. Why did they want to do that? They wanted to do that in order to destroy evidence.

Q. All right, Mr. Terzic. In tab 29, we have something that I wouldn't like to spend much time on, but let us say that this document reflects the attitude of foreign diplomats in Belgrade in 1966 who themselves saw just how important these events were. Is it clear based on what you wrote?

A. The so-called Brioni plenary session was publicised in our media and also in foreign media. There were many diplomats accredited in Belgrade who commented upon this event. Let me just give you several comments.

Italian Ambassador Roberto Ducci -- I'm now quoting from the archives of Serbia, the documents from the archives of Serbia. So Italian Ambassador Roberto Ducci believed this to be a struggle for prestige and power among those who considered -- who were considered Tito's successors. ³⁴²⁸³ French diplomat -- a French diplomat including the secretary of the commercial section, assistant to the military attache and so on, considered the following --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Terzic, what are you reading from now? Is that -- what document are you reading from?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Tab 29.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Tab 29. Yes, this is the document under tab 29 that I've mentioned.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, if you could just try to deal briefly. This is history. We just want an outline of the major historical events so that the case is set in a context. That's the importance of this evidence. You don't need to delve into too much detail.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Let us continue.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I don't think there is any need to go into specific details of this phenomenon. It is quite clear.

A. Let me just add two sentences. Tab 29. French diplomats, I mentioned three of them, believed that the material from the 4th plenary session which was published was intended to deceive the public and point it into the wrong direction, especially since this plenary liquidated Aleksandar Rankovic on a national basis. Kardelj managed to have Bosniaks side with him, Chief of the General Staff, and Rankovic and Stefanovic were deemed to be the people who ought to be politically disqualified. And then another prognosis which is incredible says the following: ³⁴²⁸⁴ "Slovenia so far existed within SFRY as a federal state," which means that it was in 1966, "and now it is about to leave this state. It will remain within the SFRY but on the confederal basis."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: [Microphone not activated] ... identify the sort of difficulties we're in. The witness made his own decision, overruling the defendant's question to refer to an exhibit. He says that it's material from the 4th plenary, and one can see to some degree that in the title, but we know nothing more about this document, and we're moving at such speed. Is it a minute? Is it contemporaneous note? I have no idea. At the end of this exercise, I'm going to invite the Chamber to say we should go through these tabs one by one, not on the basis that they should be admitted but on the basis that they should not be admitted because the quantity of material produced - and I've been trying to get an estimate - the quantity of material produced once in English would probably take a lawyer in the Prosecution's office a full month at least to process for the purposes of closing submissions. Because either the material has got to be looked at and dealt with properly or not at all. And presumably that expenditure of resource is going to be matched by somewhere in the Chambers. And we really have got, in our respectful submission, to apply some restriction to the amount of material that's coming in in this way.

I simply -- coming back to the original point, I understand from the witness that this is material relating to the session. That's now all I know about it. ³⁴²⁸⁵

JUDGE ROBINSON: If you were to cross-examine to that effect and we don't have the documentation to support it, the effect of that cross-examination would be to reduce the value of the evidence. But we will, Mr. Nice, at the end of this exercise, be looking at the whole question of admissibility.

MR. NICE: Because I can't cross-examine because it's not in English. That's my problem.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, exercise some discipline and control. You already have a lot of evidence on the history, and the purpose of this is really to set the case in a context, and we really ought to be moving much quicker and coming to an end of the examination-in-chief.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will do my best, Mr. Robinson, to use the time in the most efficient manner.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. This document under tab 29 is an official document of the state security service pertaining to the reactions of foreign diplomats as was monitored by the service at the time and reported by it. Therefore, it has its probative value, because at the time it was produced by a competent organ concerning the issues that had to do with the positions of the foreign diplomats with respect to the events taking place on the Yugoslav political scene at the time.

Mr. Terzic, the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox church sent a letter to President Josip Broz Tito, expressing their concern with the extent of violence against the Serbian people in Kosovo and Metohija, ³⁴²⁸⁶ churches, monasteries, and the terror that was being carried out against them.

In a document under tab 33, we can see the letters sent by the Holly Synod to the president of Yugoslavia dated the 23rd of May, 1969, describing all of these events that have to do with the persecution and the terror and so on. I think we have this document in English as well, because it is entitled Kosovo Past and Present, Review of International Affairs, Belgrade, 1989. Is that right?

A. Yes, that's right. And we're not dealing with the events which took place long time ago. No, these were fairly recent events which had repercussions on the events in the '90s. So this is not a very distant historical context, no. These are the events that had the decisive influence on the events of 1990s.

In accordance with the 1974 constitution, the --

Q. Please let us not deal with constitutional issues. We have others who will deal with those issues. We now have to focus on the address of the Holy Synod, this letter which exists in English. So this is a letter where the Holy Synod expresses its great concern -- or, rather, let me ask you: What is this letter about?

A. Let me tell you. We are dealing with a completely abnormal situation here in which Serbia was neither a republic nor a province and the provinces were in fact republics in a province, and this led to a number of problems. And this was pointed out by Dobrica Cosic and Jovan Marjanovic. From one year to the next we had reactions of Serbian church, Serbian intellectuals, local public, international public concerning ³⁴²⁸⁷ everything taking place in Kosovo and Metohija.

Your Honours, if you wish to have an objective assessment of the events in 1990s, you have to be aware of the roots of the issue, and I will tell you something about the roots. This letter of the Holy Synod sent to Tito in 1969 --

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... I was saying it's not your role to lecture the Trial Chamber, Mr. Terzic. We would get a long much -- much more speedily if you just answered the questions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. My question was what does the Holy Synod point out to?

A. Very briefly. So this letter of the Holy Synod to Josip Broz Tito points out to the fact that the life and property were jeopardised, that violence was being committed by members of Albanian minority in Kosovo, numerous examples cited, examples of destruction of property, monastery, forests, destruction of tombstones, other property, and so on. And they are calling upon Josip Broz Tito to give protection to the people and property, as the president of Yugoslavia.

Q. All right. You mentioned disorder back in 1981 and the riots which erupted there, following which many leaders within Yugoslav political leadership gave a proper assessment of the events. Under tab 37 we have assessments given by the top political figures: Stane Dolanc, one of the closest associates of Tito; Lazar Kolisevski, who was a Macedonian, member of the Presidency of the SFRY. And we also have assessments of the leaders from Serbia concerning these events in 1981. Tell us, what were their assessments of the leading political ³⁴²⁸⁸ figures of Yugoslavia at the time? We can see that these are people of different ethnic background. These are leading political figures in Yugoslavia. What did they have to say about these events?

A. After the Albanian uprising in 1968 which had been prepared by an existing illegal organisation that was very well spread out, there was a mass uprising in 1981 which shocked both Yugoslav and international public.

Now, under tab 37 we see a document where we see words of Stane Dolanc, a Slovene, member of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia as well as Lazar Kolisevski, a Macedonian and member of the Presidency.

Stane Dolanc said on the 6th of April 1981 at a press conference, the following: "Behind this there are the most reactionary forces of the world, both fascist and dogmatic which are united in this case." Then he goes on to say that, "We will normalise the situation in Kosovo through political means, but should it be necessary, we will not refrain to use other measures as we have not refrained to use them in the past." This is page 279, document under tab 37.

Lazar Kolisevski is even more clear. He says that it is obvious that Albanian irredentists had a clear goal to annex Kosovo to Albania. This is the essence of what they stated.

Q. All right. Kolisevski, immediately after Tito's death, was the president of the Presidency of the SFRY?

A. Yes, he was from Macedonia.

Q. Yes. And it was Macedonia's turn to nominate the president. ³⁴²⁸⁹ All right. I would like you to say a few words about a document under tab 38, which is also in English. The source for this document is the document entitled Events in the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo, the Causes and Consequences of Irredentist and Counter-revolutionary Subversion. This is the Review of International Affairs, page 33.

We can see the statements given by top Albanian leaders at the time; Fadil Hoxha, Ramiz Bula, Xhavid Nimani, and so on, who spoke about the nature of this unrest in Kosovo.

A. Yes, certainly. The unrests in Kosovo were not caused by economic reasons, as is frequently stated. And I'm going to prove this by the following: If you analyse the economic situation in Kosovo, you have to bear in mind that in 1912, Kosovo was the least developed province in the entire South-east Europe. After 1945, thanks to the investments made by Yugoslavia and especially Serbia, Kosovo was on the fast development track, and it had -- it had gone through a radical change of the social and economic structure. A large number of industrial plants was opened; chemical, energetic, textile, leather industry plants, and so on. I'm not going to go into details, but let me just say the following: Mining, metal, industrial plant Trepca at the time had 27.000 workers. Let me just tell you about what happened in the field of education.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I've stopped you. I think we've had enough on that.

Mr. Milosevic, move on to another question. ³⁴²⁹⁰

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Your Honour --

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, Mr. Terzic, you must follow what the Chamber says. I ruled that we have had enough on that particular aspect of the evidence, and the accused should move on to another --

MR. NICE: I'm sure Your Honours can probably see, but sometimes I think your vision is obscured. The witness is actually reading prepared texts, and every time he interrupts the ruling of the Court and says he has something else to say, he's actually got prepared text in front of him. It's neither the report nor any documents that have been served on us.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, if that is so, that is very improper.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. Excuse me, Your Honour. Mr. President, may I say something? May I be allowed to say something?

JUDGE ROBINSON: If you read from a text, you must let us know because the general rule is that the evidence must be given unaided. And that will affect the assessment of the evidence by the Chamber. What are you reading from now?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can leave all these papers with you. I can leave all this. I can leave it right now.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's not the point.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Put them all down on the -- the point I spoke about is contained in my report, page 56. It is note --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic is to refer to page 56 of the ³⁴²⁹¹ report. That's the proper procedure. And you're not to read from texts which are prepared without the Trial Chamber knowing.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't think it is proper and in order for Mr. Nice to object in that way. I will be happy to tell you where these things that I'm talking about are found in my report and in the notes. This time it is on page 56 and the notes are 166, 167.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's quite in order for Mr. Nice to make an objection of that kind because it's in keeping with the Rules of Evidence followed in this Tribunal.

Move on to another point. And you are not to read from texts unless we know what the text is.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I informed the Trial Chamber yesterday that I have notes which I prepared during my stay in The Hague, while I've been here. But if you should so require, I am well prepared to --

JUDGE ROBINSON: If you're going to read from notes that you have made, then you must let us know.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am not reading from a prepared text. I have an aide-memoire with figures, the figures that I'm quoting and using. Now, if the Trial Chamber considers it improper, then I need not refer to those notes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well, Mr. Terzic. Not to waste any more time, tell me this, ³⁴²⁹² please, and my question was as follows: It had to do with a position taken by the leading personages of Albanian nationality. I mentioned Fadil Hoxha, Ramiz Abdulji, Ali Shukrija, Xhavid Nimani - and this is to be found in tab 38 - and their assessments are identical with the assessments and evaluations made with the Yugoslav leadership and the Serbian leadership. Is that without contest? Is that true?

A. Yes, and document 38 bears that out and document 38 exists in English.

Q. Thank you. Yes, I did draw the Court's attention to the fact that the document exists in English. It was published in an international review, Review of International Affairs, published in 1981, and we're dealing about the times we're discussing.

JUDGE KWON: By whom? By whom was it published, Mr. Terzic?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was published by the Institute for International Economic and Political Relations which publish this Review.

JUDGE KWON: In Serbia?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Serbia, in Belgrade, yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But it was a Yugoslav journal, was it not?

A. Yes, it was the Yugoslav Review with headquarters in Belgrade.

Q. Just as the seat of the government and all governing organs in Yugoslavia; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, could you just say in a few words, tell us about the ³⁴²⁹³ political concept of an ethnically pure Kosovo which -- which there was the violent position of non-Albanian peoples, like Turks, Romanies, et cetera, Albanisation of the non-Albanian peoples. And I would like to draw your attention to tab 40 with an interview of Kadri Raufi, who was a Turk. He was a politician in Kosovo, and the interview was published on the 16th of March, 1984.

Can you tell us something about the forcible Albanisation of non-Albanian people such as Turks and Romanies? And this man who was a Turk by ethnicity talked about that.

A. Kadri Raufi was a Turk. He was a member of the provincial committee of the League of Communists of Kosovo. At a meeting of the provincial committee held in 1971 - and I have attached an exhibit to that effect here - Kadri Raufi indicated the following: He said that just as pressure was being brought to bear against the Serbs and Montenegrins, although they're both Serbs but they were divided into Serbs and Montenegrins at the time, that there was even greater pressure being brought to bear against the Turks. And Kadri Raufi said, "I do not recognise the 1971 population census because the number of Turks was reduced by 53 per cent." And he goes on to say that during the population census, pressure was exerted on the Turks to declare themselves as Albanians. A similar pressure was exerted on the Romany and the Goranis or, rather, Serbs of the Muslim faith living in Gora, the Goranis. So the problem of the denationalisation of the Turks was a key problem highlighted by Kadri Raufi.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Terzic. You also point to the special ³⁴²⁹⁴ responsibility of the political elite of the Albanian minority in the escalation of this Greater Albanian chauvinism and ethnic cleansing of Serbs.

Tell me just briefly, please: What does the memorandum of the forum contain, the forum of Albanian intellectuals of Kosovo published in 1995?

A. I spoke about that yesterday. I brought it up several times, in fact.

Q. Yes. You said it was linked with the platform for the -- of the Albanian Academy of Science in Tirana.

A. Yes, but the memorandum was compiled in 1995, and the platform in 1998. The memorandum of the forum of Albanian intellectuals is a completely construed document, and we can say that there is not a single word of historical truth within it. It's completely fabricated. And I could prove that if I went into an analysis.

The absurdity of it, an example of the absurdity is borne out by a sentence from the memorandum on page 11 of the Serbian text, and I'm going to quote just that one portion, one sentence, where it says the following: The Albanians from -- Albanians from the ethnically occupied territories, and there they mean Kosovo and Metohija, never enjoyed basic human and national rights. The situation -- that situation prevails today, whereas we saw that they had their own Academy of Arts and Sciences, their own university, they had 40.000 students enrolled at them. They had 60.000 journals, periodicals, et cetera; they had their own radio and television. So to say this, given all those facts, is the complete lack of ³⁴²⁹⁵ objectivity. Now, the texts referring to the Albanian Academy of Science, Tirana 1998, I use in my report page 46, note 129, in English. And the policy of ethnic cleansing of Kosovo and Metohija but Serbian ethnic cleansing of Kosovo and Metohija is referred to. And finally we come to another absurd sentence.

Q. Mr. Terzic, I have to interrupt you there. "Ethnic cleansing of Serbs," what do you mean by that?

A. I'm talking -- no, they say the Serbs are ethnically cleansing Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija have been doing so after World War II.

Q. Yes, but that is contained in the memorandum of the Albanian Academy of Science, right?

A. Yes, right, and I quote this in my own report on page 46, note 128. And just one sentence, if I may. An absurd sentence. This is what it says: "In addition to the mass exodus under the pressure exerted from Belgrade, their numbers continued to grow," and then they say 90 per cent. So what kind of cleansing can there be if their numbers have increased by 90 per cent?

Q. Well, those are all notoriously well known facts. Let's move on now.

In your report on pages 103 and 104, you illustrate and speak about the situation in Kosovo, the drastic events that came to pass there, the killing of Danilo Milincic in 1982 at the threshold of his house by an emigre from Albania, the attack on a man called Martinovic in 1985. So why are these cases characteristic? You mention them in your report. Why are they so characteristic and pertinent? ³⁴²⁹⁶

A. Let me caution the Trial Chamber and Mr. Nice again. I do speak about that in the English language, in the English version of my text, on page 65. Note 188. So it is page 65 of my report, note 188. Now, in a series of killings and violence, these cases were drastic. Let's take the case of the Milincic family. In 1941 they were immigrants from Albania. They arrived in 1941 or, rather, immigrants arrived from Albania in 1941 and forced the Milincic family out of Samodreza where there is a famous Serbian Orthodox church. This was in 1941. In 1960, father of Danilo Milincic was killed on his own property in Samodreza. He was killed by a pistol and the perpetrator never uncovered.

In 1982, his -- the son of Slavoljub was killed, Danilo Milincic was violently killed by an immigrant from Albania by the name of Ferat Mujo at the threshold of his house. So in the drama of my -- one family, the Milincic family, you see the entire drama of a nation played out in Kosovo and Metohija.

Now, the case of Djordje Martinovic is a morbid case. It's terrible case and I don't wish to refer to it here and now.

Q. Very well. We have to hurry along. In tab 44 we have an article by Milovan Djilas, and it was published in the Wall Street Journal in 1985 about the events in Kosovo and Metohija. Now, what was Djilas writing about there?

A. I looked -- tried to find this on the Internet, the original text by -- written by Wasa Turner [phoen], but I didn't succeed so I'm using the Serbian version of the text, which was published by Dobrica Cosic in ³⁴²⁹⁷ his book called Kosovo. But Djilas is indicating a major problem of exodus, of people leaving the area. And I'd like to quote one sentence from the Wall Street Journal. Let me just find it, please. That will take me a moment.

It is page 52. Page 52 of that text.

Q. [No interpretation]

A. [No interpretation] I've found it. It is page 44 or -- rather, tab 44, page 52. Tab 44, page 52.

In the Wall Street Journal of 1985, Djilas says, among others - and Milovan Djilas was a leading Yugoslav dissident, very popular in the West, and he says among other things the following: "In recent times the Albanians are buying up Serb land, paying enormously high prices. The authorities do not know or are pretending not to know where the money's coming from for all this. Very often it is paid in foreign currency. So it is not being clandestinely brought in from Albania alone but from the countries of fundamental Islam, because the Muslims in Yugoslavia, which includes 1.700.000 Bosnians and most of the Kosovo Albanians, are to serve as a fulcrum, as a point of support for Islam in Europe." Of course Djilas's assessments are borne out by David Binder in his text that appeared in The New York Times in 1982 and 1987, and I have attached excerpts from a book with David Binder's quotations, but I do believe that we have these excerpts in English, that the passages are in English.

Q. Very well, Mr. Terzic. Now, tell me something about this: In tab 45, we have a petition signed by 5.016 inhabitants of Kosovo and Metohija, ³⁴²⁹⁸ sent to the highest authorities in Yugoslavia and Serbia in December 1985. It was later signed by over 80.000 Serbs. According to these facts and figures, I can see that this was published, Kosovo Past and Present, in the Review of International Affairs, published in Belgrade, and that it too exists in English.

So what were the problems that were highlighted here? The signatures of the petition, what do they refer to?

A. Mr. President, it was the petition that you mentioned at the beginning of today's working day, and I don't want to dwell on it but it was a petition signed by 5.000 or-odd citizens, 2.016, later signed again by 80.000 inhabitants. It was sent out in 1985 with demands by citizens set out in 15 points. I'm not going to go into all these 15 points, but point 2, the second requirement is that they want Serbia to be a normal state like all the other republics; point 5, that all emigres from Albania should be sent home, and they came in on the 6th of April, 1941, that they should be sent back. They consider that there were 260.000 of these emigres that came in from Albania. The sixth point was to annul all the purchasing contracts for land after World War II. Point 7 states that the expelled Serbs should be returned to Kosovo and Metohija, and one of the points calls for the fact that from the organs of authority in the autonomous province all the leaders of the uprising should be expelled from those organs of government.

I have to say that in the Serb society, there was a great reaction. Why should young Albanians who had taken part in the mentioned uprisings be members of these organs of government? The Serbian ³⁴²⁹⁹ intellectuals condemned the arrest of the Albanian young people who were arrested. The Serb intellectuals condemned this.

Q. You were one of the signatories of a letter written by Yugoslav intellectuals, there were 221 of them, at the beginning of 1986, and you supported the citizens' petition, did you not, in your own letter?

A. Yes, I was one of the signatories of that letter and we have it in tab 46 on page 84 -- 844. So it is tab 46, page 844. I was one of the 221 signatories. They included prominent writers, the present minister, Mr. Draskovic, Pavic, Cosic, Matija [phoen], Deskovic [phoen], Simovic, leading writers and intellectuals. But the essence of it was this: What we requested was that the leadership of the province of Serbia and Yugoslavia should take radical steps to change the situation in Kosovo and Metohija, and in the letter we indicate the process of exodus, the violence going on in Kosovo and Metohija, and everything else I have talked about before this Trial Chamber. But I should like particularly to draw your attention to one paragraph from that letter. I think it is a very important paragraph and I hope you won't say that I am reading from documents prepared in advance.

Q. Well, the letter is an exhibit. So you can quote however much you like.

A. It is Exhibit 46, tab 46. Here we have the letter. And I'm going to quote from that now. I think the letter is extremely important.

Q. Without the introduction, Mr. Terzic. Just quote the passage you want to quote from.

A. I'm quoting from the part which speaks of our attitude towards ³⁴³⁰⁰ Albanians. I'm quoting: "The Serbian people in their liberation wars always fought for Albanians as well, extending generous financial aid from 1945 until today, showing thus that they cared about the freedom, progress and dignity of the Albanian people. We point out that we do not wish evil or injustice upon the Albanian people and we are committed to their democratic rights, seeking equality for Serbian and other peoples in Kosovo, among them the Albanian people as well.

"We condemn all injustices that have ever been committed by the Serbs against Albanian people."

Q. Thank you, Mr. Terzic. Under tab 47, we have quite an extensive overview of sources which all pertain to the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and Metohija from 1945 until 1990. Would you please point out only the most important elements. We have documents marked as A, B, C and D. We have Serbs and Albanians as authors here, including Sinan Hasani, an Albanian who at one point was the president of the Presidency of Yugoslavia.

A. To be brief, let me summarise the results of scientific and scholarly research of the figures of Serbs who left Kosovo and Metohija in the period between 1945, 1990. This can be found under 47A, B, C, and D. In accordance with the research committed by famous demographer Professor Milovan Radovanovic, in the period between 1945 until 1989, 1990, a total of more than 250.000 Serbs left Kosovo and Metohija, moved out. You can find this on page 383 of document marked 47A. I will show this on the ELMO. So more than 250.000 Serbs left the area, mostly under pressure. ³⁴³⁰¹ According to the research of a colleague of mine, Branislav Krstic, another historian who is not a demographer like Professor Milovan Radovanovic, in the period between 1961 to 1991, more than 140.000 people left the area. So in the period of 20 years only, Marina Blagojevic and Ruza Petrovac from the Serbian Academy of Sciences conducted a research between 1985 and 1986, establishing that within 20 years between 1961 and 1981, more than 85.000 Serbs moved out from the area. I mentioned this in my report on page 51 of the English version.

And now something about the extent of the ethnic cleansing. That is mentioned in the book of Mile Nedeljkovic, who is an ethnologist, and this is under tab 47D. He, among other things, pointed out that between 1961 and 1971, so in ten years only, more than 230 villages in Kosovo and Metohija were ethnically cleansed. And then between 1981 and 1991, so in the space of only ten years, a total of 150 Serbian villages were cleansed in 26 municipalities. He lists several examples here, and just to be illustrative, I would like to give you several examples. English version, page 51, note 156. I will give you just a few examples to illustrate what that process looked like.

For example, in the village of Petrovac near Kosovska Mitrovica, in 1961 there were 460 Serbs and 0 Albanians. Twenty years later there were 36 Serbs and 800 Albanians. In the village of Orno Brdo, near Istok, in 1961 had 664 Serbs, 11 Albanians. Twenty years later that same village had only 22 Serbs and 576 Albanians -- I'm sorry, 963 Albanians. Village Raka, near Urosevac, in 1961 -- page number is 223, 224 --

JUDGE ROBINSON: We've had enough. We've had enough of that. ³⁴³⁰² We've had enough of that. Move on to another topic now.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I would like to point out that one of the documents under tab 47 you omitted to mention, and this is a document which we're bringing here in English because it's been published in the Review of International Affairs, and that is precisely the article authored by Sinan Hasani, president of the Presidency of Yugoslavia up until May 1987, entitled Chauvinist and Separatist Organisations in Kosovo and Their Links with Foreign Centres.

A. Yes, that's in the book entitled Kosovo Past and Present.

Q. What are his main conclusions, but very, very briefly. Not more than half a minute, please.

A. The essence of conclusions of Sinan Hasani indicate that there were several illegal separatist terrorist organisations in Kosovo and Metohija. He lists their number, quotes their goals, mentions Adem Demaci as one of creators, founders of one of the organisations, I think in 1961, and he believes that these organisations rely on the one hand on the original principles of the Prizren League and on the other hand on the official policy of Enver Hoxha.

Q. All right. Mr. Terzic, we have heard here several times that the Serbian myth of Kosovo can to a certain extent be blamed for the alleged plight of the Albanians. Is Kosovo part of Serbian mythomania or is it the key essence of the Serbian cultural and national identity? And to be as brief as possible, tell us, how can we in that context interpret the anniversary of 600 years since the Kosovo battle? This anniversary was ³⁴³⁰³ celebrated in 1989. Was that celebration discriminatory with respect to any nation, especially Albanians?

A. I know that this issue was discussed at length before this Tribunal. The celebration of 600 years anniversary in 1989 was the first celebration of an anniversary of Kosovo battle held at a time when the country was free, if we could consider Kosovo to have been free in 1989. I believe that in the future we will be able to celebrate this event in truly free circumstances.

Under tab 48, I have a document, an entire book which I photocopied. The book is entitled Kosovo Day, published by the Committee for Celebrating the Day of the Kosovo Battle in Britain, commemorating the Kosovo battle. Namely, in the Second World War, in Great Britain they officially celebrated St. Vitus's day, which is the day of the Kosovo battle, the 28th of June. This book speaks of the commemoration of this battle in Britain.

On page 11 of this book, we can see who were the members of this committee headed by Lady Cowdray, Lady Grogan, Lady Paget, and another 16 renowned university professors and so on. The committee met in the residence of Lady Cowdray. A number of gatherings were organised, church services at which the Bishop of Canterbury spoke as well, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I also attached an excerpt from the book of Mrs. Vickers, speaking about the fact that in 1980 in the United States the battle of Kosovo was commemorated in New York in a church, in a church service where the speakers compared the fate of the Serb people with that of the Jewish ³⁴³⁰⁴ people. Which means that the entire civilised world always considered the day of the Kosovo battle not to be only a great day in the Serbian history but in the history of entire Christian Europe.

Q. Mr. Terzic, on page 49, 50 of your expert report you draw a parallel between the status of Albanian minority in Yugoslavia and the status of the Serbian minority in Albania.

Please tell me very briefly, was there any reciprocity there?

A. This is a unique, unprecedented case in Europe. There are no similar cases nor have there ever been any. There was an Albanian minority -- there was a Serbian minority living in Albania. There were 50.000 of them. They had absolutely no rights. Dr. Jovan Bojevic, in 1991, published a book in Titograd, today's Podgorica, about refugees from Albania in 1991. I think that there were about 1.670 refugees. Refugees from Albania. So this is a book, the book that I'm quoting, in the English version report on page 31 and 32, where he speaks about the fact that their names had been Albanised, that in their identity papers they were declared to be Siptars, not Serbs, that their churches and their graveyards had been destroyed so therefore they had no rights. On the other hand, the Albanian minority in Yugoslavia had its own autonomy, own state, the Academy of Sciences, its own university, radio, television, and so on. So this shows that there was absolutely no reciprocity whatsoever there.

Q. All right. Under tab 50, we have a document in English, Yugoslav Forum for Legal Rights and Remedies for Citizens in Kosovo, 3rd of March, 1989, Kosovo Past and Present, Review of International Affairs, 1989. ³⁴³⁰⁵ Therefore, the Yugoslav Forum for Human Rights points out in early March 1989 that the human rights in Kosovo are jeopardised by this Great Albanian movement. Please tell us what this document speaks about, but very briefly.

A. President of that forum, Professor Vojin Dimitrijevic, renowned fighter for human rights who was the president of this forum, points out to the fact that the rights of Serbs, Montenegrins, and other non-Albanians were limited, violated, points out to the fact that the secessionist movements violates the rights of all non-Albanians, also points out to the fact that there is a need to have trials being concluded as fast as possible. He generally speaks about the violation of human rights in Kosovo and Metohija. This is the essence of this document attached here in English.

Q. All right. What do the facts on the repression of the anti-Yugoslav separatist activity in Kosovo from '81 to '89 point out to? I would like to point out document under 51, which is also in English and is entitled Facts on the Repression of the Anti-Yugoslav Separatist Activity in Kosovo 1981 to 1989. This was also published in Belgrade in 1989, so we're basically concluding our discussion of that period.

A. Very briefly: This document shows that in the period between '89 and '89 [as interpreted], a large -- nine large illegal separatist organisations were uncovered, 94 illegal separatist terrorist groups were uncovered, several illegal political parties such as the Communist-Leninist party or the Marxist-Leninist group of Kosovo, or the Liberation Front of Kosovo in 1981, '84. But I would like to point out ³⁴³⁰⁶ that only in March and April of 1989 there were 100 assaults carried out against Serbs and Montenegrins only in a few days in 1989, which is a shocking fact. The security organs at the time publicised the fact that in Kosovo and Metohija there were 58.162 weapon permits issued. Out of those, 27.000 were pistol permits, and that was sufficient to arm several divisions in Kosovo and Metohija which could have been used to achieve the goals of the separatist movement.

Q. Since you are an historian who has been dealing and researching this area of Serbia for a long time, please tell us, what does the term "historical Kosovo" mean and what is the essence of the Pan-Illyrianism as the historical basis for this Greater Albania project?

A. I hope you will not take it against me that we are going back to history because we're not really dealing with history, we're dealing with an actual reality.

Q. Mr. Terzic, please answer my question without justifying your answer.

A. Today in Kosovo or, rather, today in the Balkans, the so-called historical Kosovo is being established. I'm quoting this on page 46 of the English version of my report after note 131. So page 46. Historical Kosovo is being construed. The one that never existed. There is not a single fact mentioned in any single book except in this platform stating that historical Kosovo ever existed. It is being linked to the old province of Dardania which had its centre in Kosovo and now they're using it as a fact to justify this historical Kosovo. Historical Kosovo shows aspirations towards territories of neighbouring countries. They state ³⁴³⁰⁷ here that there is this so-called proper Kosovo, the current autonomous province of Kosovo, and then there is the other Kosovo, including Presevo, Bujanovac, and Medvedje, and then there is the North-west Kosovo, including parts of Montenegro, and then there is the so-called Southern Kosovo including Kumanovo, Skopje, Tetovo, Gostivar, Struga, and Debar. The centre of this historical Kosovo, according to them, ought to be in Skopje, since the centre of the old province of Dardania allegedly was in Skopje. Since allegedly the centre of the old province of Dardania was in Skopje.

So this historical Kosovo is linked to Kosovo Vilajet, however, the Kosovo Vilajet that existed from 1878 to 1912, which at the time encompassed only part of that area.

In the Kosovo Vilajet, according to the research done by Dr. Peuker, which I mentioned yesterday, in 1912 Serbs and Slavs constituted the majority. I think that 450 or 460.000 Serbs and Slavs lived there, and 430.000 Albanians. Had Albanians had majority in Kosovo Vilajet, then the journal which was published in Prizren in Turkish and Serbian would not have been published in Turkish and in Serbian but, rather, in Turkish and Albanian.

This goes to show that the Serbs had majority in Kosovo Vilajet in the seven -- in the '70s of the 19th century.

Q. Finally, Mr. Terzic, I would like to ask you this: You're an historian and you study European history. How do you assess the support extended by the leaders of the Western countries, including NATO, to the Albanian separatist movement, and how can we make a link between the ³⁴³⁰⁸ projects of Greater Albania with the events that existed between the two world wars, the project of Greater Albania as it was known there -- then, and the statements given by Count Ciano and so on?

A. The events of 1990s open up a number of fundamental issues. First fundamental issue is: Does the West accept secession of ethnic groups or national minorities, and will every ethnic group or national minority in Europe, such as Basques, Corsicans, inhabitants of Northern Ireland, and so on, so is every ethnic group going to seek foreign military intervention in order to resolve their issues? This is one of the fundamental questions in the modern history of Europe. In the second issue is that in Kosovo we did not really deal with the violation of human rights of Albanian minority. I hope I was clear enough in showing that this had nothing to do with resolving Albanian autonomy. As Henry Kissinger in his reports dated the 12th October 1998 stated, that issue could only be resolved through an autonomy given from one village to the next, not by dealing with the status of the autonomy of Kosovo because the autonomy in Kosovo has to resolve not only the rights of Albanians but also the rights of the Serbs.

And third point is that NATO, in its aggression against Yugoslavia, or through its aggression through Yugoslavia, violated a number of international treaties and committed a crime against the Serbian nation as a whole and against Yugoslavia and thus created fertile ground for new crisis. From the time NATO arrived in the territory in Kosovo and Metohija instead of multi-ethnic society and multi-ethnic tolerance, we have a conclusion or final steps in the process of ethnic cleansing. ³⁴³⁰⁹ Since NATO forces arrived, more than hundred and fifty Serb monasteries and churches have been destroyed. Serbs are not allowed to speak their own language in that territory. So what kind of an intervention was this? I think this was a great defeat for Europe, a defeat of European civilisation, European culture, and European system of values. I hope -- I believe that future research will support my arguments.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Terzic. I have no further questions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could this list of exhibits that I have already submitted to you be admitted into evidence, please. We've gone through all of it.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll admit the expert report now, and we'll give a ruling when we return from the break on the admissibility of the other documents.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, when Your Honours come back, you may be assisted if you bring your own copy of your Exhibit 508, the report of Audrey Budding.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We have kept that. We're now going to break for 20 minutes.

THE REGISTRAR: May I give the number to the expert report?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, give the number.

THE REGISTRAR: D259.

JUDGE ROBINSON: When we get back, we'll sort this out. We'll ³⁴³¹⁰ break now for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice. Cross-examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Mr. Terzic -- or Dr. Terzic, your report, does it contain a single remark favourable to Albanians or Kosovo Albanians? Does it?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. Give me some examples, please, so I can just remind myself.

A. In several places. I referred to what the Albanians had in Kosovo and Metohija; scientific institutions, cultural institutions, periodicals, newspapers, companies. And in several places I pointed out the fact that Yugoslav-oriented Albanians and Albanians loyal to the Yugoslav and Serbian state were exposed to pressure.

However, I must say that I myself have had contact with Albanians --

Q. You may not have understood my question. When I asked you something favourable about Albanians and you're saying they have newspapers and things like that, why is that favourable to them? You're not saying it's favourable to them that they're literate and they can read, are you? What's favourable about their having newspapers? I don't understand it.

A. Actually, I didn't understand your question, then. What does "favourable opinion" or "unfavourable opinion" mean in your view? I was referring to historical facts here. I was not talking about liking or ³⁴³¹¹ disliking.

Q. You've spoken throughout of the Albanians being the aggressors and never being the victims of the Serbs, haven't you?

A. No, that's not correct.

Q. Well, you tell us about the degree to which they were victims of the Serbs, please.

A. I think your question is a very one-sided one. I am speaking about a very complex problem of Kosovo and Metohija. I did not talk about Serbs on the whole as totally innocent victims. I talked about the showdown with the Kacaks after the second -- after the First World War, in the period between 1918 and 1924, and I said that there were innocent victims among the Albanians when the police forces fought the Albanian Kacaks, the renegades. So I did not disregard it.

Q. Give us an idea, measured against the hundreds of thousands of Serb victims you've pointed to, how many Kosovo Albanian victims are we dealing with in this particular incident?

A. What period are you referring to; the incident after the First World War?

Q. The one you've just been telling us about. I asked you to give us examples of where the Albanians or Kosovo Albanians had suffered at the hands of the Serbs, and you said that there were the innocent victims amongst the Albanians when the police forces fought the Albanians Kacaks, the renegades. So I said how many victims then?

A. Your suggestions are very leading questions in terms of pointing to Albanian victims only, but I have been talking about conflicts that ³⁴³¹² involved victims and casualties on both sides. Nevertheless, I'm going to give a precise answer to your question.

Yes. So this was an action that was carried out in 1923. I beg your pardon. It was carried out on the 10th of February, 1924, during the arrest of Mehmet Konjuh, a Kacak who had barricaded himself in a fortress for all practical purposes.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... to the question: How many victims?

A. Six Albanians were killed.

Q. Thank you. Now, let's have another example, please, of Albanians suffering at the hands of Serbs, because you explain that you're telling us about the many-sided and thus many-victims-sided consequences of hundreds of years. Tell us about other Albanian victims of Serbs, or were there none?

A. I think that you are putting questions in the wrong way, completely - it's not for me to say - but this is a conflict between the Albanians and Serbs.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Court will correct me if I'm wrong. Before I ask the next question, let me ask you this: Do you know the difference between giving evidence and arguing a position? Do you?

A. I must say that this is the first time I appear in a courtroom. Actually, the second time.

Q. Second time -- you've given evidence here before.

A. Please, may I say this: This is the second time that I am in a courtroom. Both times was in the International Criminal Tribunal in The ³⁴³¹³ Hague. I had never been in a court of law before that ever. I'm not an accused person here. I'm an expert witness.

Q. Do you understand the difference between giving evidence and arguing a cause?

A. I do not.

Q. No. I didn't think so. Forgive me. That was a comment. I shouldn't have made it.

Let's go back to the answers you were giving. We got to six victims of Serbs. Can you please point in your report or in your evidence to times or places where you have identified any other Kosovo Albanian or Albanian victims of Serbs?

A. No. This does not have to do with the conflict between the Albanians and the Serbs. This is a conflict that had to do with the resistance of some Albanians to the legal Yugoslav and Serb state after the First World War. In addition to the six casualties I mentioned, I will refer to others. Between in 1918 and 1923 a total of 52 Kacaks were killed, that is to say renegades who fought against the Yugoslav state, and they acted violently against the law enforcement agencies. Any state in the world would apply force in that situation. So 52 Kacaks were killed --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Terzic, so that we can see how fairly balanced your view of the suffering has been. Any other identifiable, in numbers or rough numbers, Kosovo Albanian victims of the Serbs? How about in the 1990s or the 1980s? Any then?

A. Basically I don't understand your question. ³⁴³¹⁴

Q. Very well. How about in 1945 or --

A. May I give you an answer?

Q. Yes.

A. May I? I don't understand your question. I think that it is a leading question. You're asking me to count casualties among the Serbs and Albanians. Albanians were equal citizens of Serbia and Yugoslavia and enjoyed all the rights guaranteed to them by the constitution. Only those Albanians - I hope that you will allow me to finish this answer - only those Albanians who opposed the law enforcement agencies were victims and casualties.

As far as I know, during the demonstrations in 1981, during this uprising, rebellion, about 20 Albanians were killed, but also tens of policemen were killed. So in the conflicts, both sides had casualties. Among the policemen there were Serbs, Albanians, Turks, and others. They were policemen. I did not count only the Serbs, and I did not count only the Albanians.

Q. And after the demonstrations in 1981 and up and until the bombing campaign in --

A. This had to do with an uprising.

Q. Did it. We'll review that perhaps later. Between whatever happened in 1981 and 1999 when the bombing began, do you accept that there were any Albanian victims of Serbs in the territory of the former Yugoslavia? Do you?

A. Yes, there were victims among those Albanians that took part in violent action against Yugoslav security forces and Yugoslav citizens. ^{34315 BLANK PAGE 34316}

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... is that your position, Mr. Terzic, so that we can understand your point of view? No other Albanian victims apart from those who merited expulsion or death because they had themselves taken violent action?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The witness is an historian. His report is entitled Kosovo and Metohija in the 20th Century, and then it says "political, ideological, demographic, and civilisational coordinates related to the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from the southern areas of Serbia." He did not deal with individual incidents except when quoting documents in which reference is made to certain individual incidents. I believe that it is wrong to ask the witness to work on statistics now. As far as statistics are concerned, there are books of the Yugoslav authorities, and I handed them in here, and then it became obvious that Albanians and Serbs and Turks and --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I've heard your objection, and I have to overrule it. I think the witness is perfectly capable of dealing with the question. It falls within the subject matter of his testimony.

MR. NICE:

Q. I'm not going to deal with -- well, you've got the chance to answer the question as you didn't answer it. And your position is that there were no Albanian victims apart from those who merited expulsion or death. Is that your position, please, Mr. Terzic, and then we'll move on.

A. Please. I'm testifying about a period of 300 years. I am ³⁴³¹⁷ testifying about the historical problems involved in this long period of time. I am not a researcher who investigates specific victims in the field. I know that there were victims among the participants in the uprising against the Yugoslavia law enforcement agencies. These were violent clashes and I don't know whether there were innocent victims involved. Probably there were, but I don't know. I did not research that. I researched political, ideological, demographic, civilisational, ideological problems that held to the crisis. Questions of this nature are for my colleagues who are lawyers and investigators and criminal experts.

Q. You ended your evidence in the only other case in which you've given evidence with the observation that the Security Council was but a tool in the hands of the politicians of the United States of America and the European Union when it brought about the intervention in the former Yugoslavia, in Kosovo. Is that still your view, as a matter of interest, that the Security Council is but a tool in the hands of the United States of America and the European Union?

A. Yes, that is still my view, and I respect the legal organs of the United Nations. I'm not a lawyer, of course, but I believe that there is an established procedure for engaging armed forces under the auspices of the United Nations. The aggression against Yugoslavia was illegal from the point of view of international law. The use of military force in an internal conflict resolving the problem of a minority is an absurdity and it can lead to even greater problems throughout the world if it is applied. ³⁴³¹⁸

Q. I'm just dealing with some general points at the moment. You -- forgive my not looking at you at the moment. Your observation was about Bosnia, I'm reminded, not about Kosovo. But I'm looking for the comment you made yesterday about Kosovo becoming a centre of drug trafficking and crime and one thing and another. Perhaps you'd just like to explain that since you're an historian and you volunteered this opinion.

A. I volunteered this opinion because this is a very significant problem, a very significant problem in terms of the fate of Europe and the world. There is ample evidence, and we read about this every day, that Albanians are in charge of a large portion of drug trafficking in Europe and the United States. The international forces in Kosovo and Metohija have exact figures of the quantities of drugs, arms, and white slaves that are in Kosovo and Metohija. They have exact information about the Mujahedin who are in Kosovo and Metohija right now. Recently a German newspaper wrote about a hodza from Prizren who himself said that he worked for the German --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... at the beginning whether there was anything nice you'd like to say about Kosovo Albanians, you characterised them quite broadly as criminal, and I'll come back to that in my next question, but is there in fact anything good you've got to say about Albanians? You've characterised them in this way now as criminal. Is there anything good you want to say about them?

A. Please, no. Please do not put words into my mouth. I did not say that. Do not put words into my mouth. I'm not speaking in general terms now about all the Albanians of Kosovo and Metohija. I'm talking about ³⁴³¹⁹ problems and certain things that happened amongst the Albanian minority. There are a certain number of Albanians who I know personally. I can tell you that, as a student, for a year I lived in a students' dormitory with an Albanian. I had an Albanian roommate. Then -- sorry. A colleague from Pristina --

Q. One point --

A. I'm not --

Q. One point, please --

A. I'm sorry, I'm not -- I'm sorry. I am not saying that the Albanian minority is the same thing as drug traffickers. I want to be very clear on that.

Q. Just dealing with the observation you offered yesterday about drugs and crime, historian or no, you can confirm that on the release of countries from the shackles, if they were shackles, of communism, many countries, Russia, Serbia, and Montenegro, have all developed extensive criminal fraternities, haven't they? Serbia not least with its so-called Mafia. Montenegro, of course, with its famous dependence on international trafficking in cigarettes illegally.

A. I didn't understand the question.

Q. When countries throw off the shackles of communism, they frequently find themselves generating or having to live with, at least in the short-term, extensive new criminal classes, often described as the Mafia in both Russia and Serbia.

A. I hope, Mr. Nice, that you do not intend to link the Mafia only to Serbia and Russia. Regrettably, the Mafia is an international problem, ³⁴³²⁰ and they have a high degree of solidarity amongst themselves. I'm not denying the fact that there were quite a few bad things that had to do with communism, but I don't think that the Mafia came as a solution afterwards. It is a complex international problem, and it is a major historical phenomenon from the point of view to the extent to which it affects political structures. So the extent to which drug traffickers, white slavers attract --

JUDGE ROBINSON: The essence of the question, Mr. Terzic, was whether you would agree that criminality, as evidenced in drug trafficking and other acts, are not peculiar to Albania.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course I cannot say it is peculiar to Albania. You see, I'm not an expert in drugs or in drug traffickers, but I do follow what is being written, and all leading international experts, like for example Mr. Marko Nincevic, who as part of the world organisation that fights against drug trafficking says that Kosovo became a black hole in terms of drug trafficking, the black hole of Europe.

MR. NICE:

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... did you, as an expert witness giving evidence within your expertise, it was appropriate for you to say that yesterday, did you?

A. I repeat once again: I did not come here to testify about drug routes. There are many people who know much more about this than I do.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... to the question. But I'm going to ask you a different question, and it's this: We've -- ³⁴³²¹

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Your Honour, may I answer the question that Mr. Nice has put to me?

JUDGE ROBINSON: What was the question?

MR. NICE:

Q. The question was: Did you think it appropriate as an expert witness to venture the opinion about the Kosovo Albanians as criminals that you did yesterday?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, answer it.

A. Please. I did not talk about all Albanians as criminals. I refuse that, and this is being put into my mouth. I am saying that drug trafficking was used as a basis for economic activity, and I referred to the interview given by Milovan Djilas to the Wall Street Journal. And in 1985, he pointed out that problem in that interview of his.

MR. NICE:

Q. You came here yesterday, when you came and were giving evidence yesterday, to support this accused with a one-sided account, utterly favourable to the Serbs and utterly unfavourable to the Kosovo Albanians, didn't you, Mr. Terzic? That's been your objective. That's what you've done for a day and a half, and we're going to explore it in detail. That's my suggestion to you.

A. I'm sorry that I cannot agree with your assessment. I believe that it is very one-sided and very partial.

Q. Let's look at a few things about your report, your expertise, and your history. You were a schoolteacher initially?

A. At first I was a professor at a high school for two years, and for ³⁴³²² a while I worked at the University of Novi Sad, but I spent most of my career at the Historical Institute of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

Q. Dealing with Serb history and Serb matters, yes?

A. Serb and Balkan. I'm a Balkanologist first and foremost. My doctorate has to do with Balkan problems and Greece.

Q. And the expertise that you presumably claim in light of the report you've prepared is expertise in politics, history, ideology, and demography, or only one of those?

A. I don't know what the history -- the science of history is as far as you're concerned, but it's a very complex discipline. It has to do with the historical, cultural, and demographic development of a -- and social development of a group. It is a very broad interdisciplinary science. I am trying to follow a modern concept of the science of history.

Q. Well, then a modern concept to the science of history no doubt requires you to look widely for your sources. In these exhibits - and I have to tell you I haven't gone through them, I haven't had time, there's so many of them - but in these exhibits, have you drawn on anything from the Albanian Academy of Science and Arts? Because there is one.

A. Yes, of course. I hope, Mr. Nice, that you read my expert report very carefully and you saw that in several places I quoted Albanian sources. Inter alia, I mentioned several times here the platform of the Academy of Sciences of Albania from October 1998. I quoted my colleague Ali Hadri, the main historian from Kosovo and Metohija. Bajram Akif, my ³⁴³²³ colleague from Pristina. I quoted some other Albanian historians from Kosovo, too. So I did take into account the results of Albanian historiography.

Q. Have you got any of their papers in these exhibits?

A. Certainly.

Q. Which ones?

A. I'll find them straight away. In the expert report.

Q. In the exhibits that we've got?

A. Yes, of course. Among the exhibits we have Exhibit number 8, and probably some others. Exhibit 8 is there for sure. Wait a moment, please. I have to find the list, the list. I'll tell you exactly now. So Exhibit number 8, the memorandum of the forum of Albanian intellectuals, the platform of the Albanian Academy of Sciences, and the map of a Greater Albania. Then Exhibit number 13. Then Exhibit number 14, written by an Albanian woman, a communist from Kosovo and Metohija. I think her name was Nimani. That's number 14.

Q. I'm concerned really with learned papers from the Academy of Albania.

A. Please, please. I insist upon saying that I used the platform for resolving the Albanian question by the Albanian Academy of Science and the whole of the scientific elite of the Albanian Academy of Science worked on that; from Tirana, from Pristina, and from Macedonia, and they say so themselves in the platform. And the platform was tab 8. So I used that source and handed it over in its entirety. And that is the basic source, the main source. The forum of the memorandum of the Albanian ³⁴³²⁴ intellectuals along with some maps that I quoted in my report, and I state that I use my colleague Ali Hadri and Bajram Akifi and several other Albanian historians in my report in addition to these exhibits found in the tabs.

Q. Let's turn to the Kosovo Academy. You seemed outraged in your report that before the 1990 constitution abolished, or under the 1990 constitution, the Academy of Sciences was abolished. You seemed outraged that Kosovo should have such an academy. You mentioned it twice in your report, I think, if not three times. Certainly twice. First of all, why were you so outraged that Kosovo should have an intellectual forum of its own?

A. My answer is simple: Big countries, rich countries, have only one Academy of Sciences. France, for example, has just one Academy of Science.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... rule of nature or is that a rule of law or what?

A. Please. I should like to ask the President -- well, the problem is a serious one. It is of a scientific nature and of an economic nature. Big countries such as France, the enormous country that Russia is, they only have one Academy of Sciences. National minorities, as far as I know, nowhere in the world, absolutely nowhere in the world - and I'd like to ask Mr. Nice to quote me an example if they do - have academies of sciences. In Belgrade we have the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, founded in 1842. It was not rational within the frameworks of a single republic, the Republic of Serbia, that you should have three academies of ³⁴³²⁵ sciences; the Serbian Academy of Sciences, the Vojvodina Academy of Sciences, and the Academy of Arts and Sciences of Kosovo. That's one point.

On the other hand, it's a scientific approach. Should a relatively underdeveloped province, Kosovo and Metohija, within the frameworks of Serbia, did it have a sufficiently qualified scientific elite to found an Academy of Science in the first place as the highest, top level scientific institution? I consider that it did not.

Q. I see. This underdeveloped country was simply not clever enough and should have come along and had its interests represented in Belgrade under the umbrella of Serbia; is that right? Is that what you're saying?

A. No, that's not what I wish to say, but you wish to lend political import to what I'm saying and explaining to you. What I want to say is something else.

It was rational, economically and scientifically speaking, that in Serbia you should have just one, a single Academy of Science. I'm not entering into any political reasons. Every Albanian who through his scientific work proves that he is able to be a member of the academy should have been a member of the academy, that is my position, regardless of whether he's an Albanian, a Romanian, a Serb or whatever. A large number of Serbs, high quality Serbs, never became members of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, and in the Serbian Academy there are indeed members who are not Serbs themselves, so it would have been logical to expect that the scientific work of Albanian intellectuals, if they warranted it, should have been members of the Serbian Academy because the ³⁴³²⁶ Serbian Academy is not a national Serbian Academy. We have had members who were Hungarians, Jews, and other nations too. So I'm quoting the examples of much more developed countries and I quoted the example of France, for example. So a great country like France just has one Academy of Science. So I'm talking about the scientific value and worth of the academy and its members. I don't mean by that to say that in Kosovo there were no scientists who had high ranking scientific qualifications. I personally -- I'm not an expert to delve into them all, but I'm saying in principle, this is my principle position.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. You're trying to put words into my mouth and to say that I consider that Albanians were not clever enough to become members of the academy. That is your own personal position and your own personal explanation, not mine.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice said something. It's at the top of the page on our screens, top of the transcript. It's gone off our screens, in fact, but he said, "So you consider that this insufficiently developed country was not sufficiently clever to have," et cetera, et cetera. First of all, Kosovo is not a country, let's get that quite clear. Kosovo is an autonomous region, an autonomous province.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, those are comments. If you wish, you may raise them in re-examination, but you can't make comments like that at this stage. The witness answered the question, and we should proceed now, Mr. Nice, to another topic. ³⁴³²⁷

MR. NICE:

Q. I'm still on a few general topics but I just -- and I'm not going to deal with the history very much before 1960s, but just back to one thing on the overall history of victims before I forget it. What did happen and how many people suffered in Drenica in 1945 or 1946? How many Kosovo Albanians suffered and at whose hands in 1945 and 1946?

A. I know what you expect me to say. You expect me to say how many Albanians suffered at the hands of the Serbs, but the problem here is of a different nature, and you must understand one thing; the context of the events. We're talking about the end of World War II. There is fighting going on between the forces of the Hitler coalition and the anti-Hitler coalition forces. The vast majority of the Kosovo Albanians took part within the forces of the Hitler coalition. After the withdrawal of German forces from the territory of Yugoslavia, a portion of those forces who were in the 21st SS Division and within the Kosovo Regiment was mobilised into new units, and they refused to move towards the Srem front where a battle was taking place between the Red Army and the German forces. And there was a classical rebellion on the part of 10 to 15.000 armed Albanians, the vestiges of the Ballista Nazi forces from World War II. So we're not talking about the peace-loving Albanian population here. It was a rebellion at the rear of the front against the Hitler coalition. So it was not the Serbs, it was Josip Broz Tito himself, who was a Croat and was a Supreme Commander and obliged to set up a provisional military administration and to withdraw 39.000 troops from the Srem front to stifle ³⁴³²⁸ the -- and put down the uprising, the rebellion. So it was a military conflict in the area of Kosovo and Metohija between the forces the 2nd Prizren League, who allegedly wanted to defend Kosovo as they said, and the forces of the anti-Hitler coalition.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... ask you for your assistance as an historian because we have evidence from General Klaus Naumann and General Clark that the accused, with Mr. Sainovic said that a solution would be found in spring 1999, and when asked what he meant by a solution, he said we'll do the same as we did in Drenica in '45 and '46 when we got together and shot them -- "shot them all," I think. Does that make sense to you, that answer, that a solution would be the same or could be the same as in 1945 or -6 to get them together and shoot them all? Is that what happened?

A. Please. I'm very sorry that you're taking a very serious situation, a great battle at the end of World War II, and simplifying it in such a banal way. We're not talking about the fact that the peace-loving population was gathered together and killed. It was classical fighting in the military sense. On the one side you had the armed vestiges of the Ballista Nazi forces from World War II, and the National Liberation Army on the other. So they were large-scale battles, military battles in which the soldiers of the Yugoslav army were killed but so were the soldiers on the other side, and I think I said that about 850 soldiers belonging to the Yugoslav Liberation Army had been killed and about 650 members of the Ballista forces had been killed, but that several thousand Ballistas surrendered. So the fact that -- so what you say that ³⁴³²⁹ they were rounded up and killed is not true. That is construed and fabricated, because historical facts do not bear that out.

Q. I was simply reading you the words in evidence from two witnesses, coming from the accused and/or from Mr. Sainovic.

A. And Mr. Klaus Naumann in German sources, in fact, was able to check out these facts and figures because German sources could testify very authentically about all that because the leadership of the 21st SS Division, for example, and the leadership of the Kosovo Regiment withdrew together with the Germans from the territory of Yugoslavia.

Q. Mr. Terzic, you have not yourself ever become an academician or have you?

A. No. I was a candidate but I did not become a member, no.

Q. It's obviously important for any fact finder or historian to know about the source to which he turns and to see whether that source has any vulnerability to bias. Help us, please: Were you at one time a senator, maybe an honourary senator, in the Republika Srpska?

A. No, I was never a deputy, a -- in any parliament, in the parliament of any state.

Q. Were you approached to fulfil such a role? Did you fulfil any role in relation to Republika Srpska's government? Did you?

A. In the Republic of Serbia people said I should put my name forward os a deputy on several occasions but I didn't want to because I'm a scientist. I delve into scientific research and not politics.

Q. Absolutely. Have you ever been an advisor to the man Seselj?

A. I had expected you to ask me that question. No, that is not true. ³⁴³³⁰ I was never an advisor to the man Seselj.

Q. Why had you expected me to ask you? Has it been published that you were?

A. Well, there exists an internal political intrigue of that nature linked to a proposal that was made in the Serbian parliament by the foreign minister to test the national identity of Mr. Seselj and his ethnic origins.

Q. You must have been appalled when you heard, along with the rest of the world, of the scale of death and misery caused in Srebrenica in 1995. Yes?

A. Of course that is a great tragedy, and as a man, as a human being, I am appalled by that.

Q. Did you realise from a very early stage where responsibility for that suffering was being allocated? Mladic indicted? Yes? Republika Srpska implicated?

A. I knew what part of the international and world media were saying but I read other opinions, too, and I personally did not research that situation. For me as an historian, I always go to the source. So I did not study the question of Srebrenica, I went to the primary source, and I didn't have any primary sources on the basis of which to make my assessments. I heard both sides. For me to make a relevant evaluation and assessment I would have to have sources on the basis of which I could make up my own mind. But, yes, I am sincerely sorry that it happened, and I'm sincerely sorry for the dissolution of Yugoslavia as a country. I think it was a tragedy for all its peoples. ³⁴³³¹

Q. Can you look at the declaration you signed, then, with all those reservations about going to sources, in June of 1996.

MR. NICE: English version for the overhead projector, B/C/S version for the witness.

And if the usher could very kindly put the English version on the overhead projector. Mr. Terzic's -- sorry. Mr. Terzic's papers will have to be removed, I think. Make sure we've got the right page, it ends in 600 at the top, 0600.

Q. This is a declaration. We'll just run through it. "Supporting the international community efforts for establishing permanent and long lasting peace," et cetera. Then it says at the top: "Highly appreciating Dr. Radovan Karadzic's exceptional contribution to the peace process and the reputation he enjoys among all Serbs.

"We, the signatory Serbian intellectuals, come out with the following

"Declaration: "Demanding that The Hague Tribunal criminal charges brought against Dr. Radovan Karadzic, the president of the Republic of Srpska, be repealed."

I'm not going to read all the paragraphs, but if we go perhaps to paragraph 2: "Attempts to exclude Dr. Radovan Karadzic from the political life of Republic of Srpska in the period of its stabilisation, putting into effect the Dayton agreement regulations and the Paris Treaty, are directly aimed at ruining Serbian people interests and represent the attack against the democratic processes on the territory of the former ³⁴³³² Yugoslavia, especially on the territories where the Serbs have lived for centuries.

"3. Bringing up criminal charges against Dr. Radovan Karadzic, the President of the Republic of Srpska because of the alleged war crimes, has not been grounded on facts, considering that as far back as on June the 13th, 1992, Dr. Radovan Karadzic passed the Order about the international war right application in the Republic of Srpska Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, later Republic of Srpska. Having done this, the Republic of Srpska completely accepted the international treaty regulations ..."

Can we go to the next page, please. There's a lot of it but I'll try and take it briefly.

You set down, for example, at paragraph 6: "The President of the Republic, Dr. Radovan Karadzic, neither gave a single order nor passed any other document on the territory of the former Bosnia and Herzegovina that could have inflamed hatred, called for or encouraged genocide or ethnic cleansing of the war enemies, the Muslims and the Croats." And then at paragraph 9: "Bearing in mind the illegality of The Hague Tribunal, its groundless accusations and its bringing criminal charges against the President of the Republic of Srpska, Dr. Radovan Karadzic, which have not been founded on facts but obviously motivated by political and other goals, we request that the brought charges against the President of the Republic of Srpska, Dr. Radovan Karadzic, be revoked in the interests of strengthening and stabilising peace and vital interests ..." ³⁴³³³ And we see under the signatures first, as a matter of interest, a former witness, Professor Dr. Avramov. We see you at number 11, Dr. Terzic; and we see at number 4 on the right-hand side Milorad Ekmecic; 10, Vasilije Krestic.

How were you able, as a disengaged, non-political historian, to put your name to this document, please, Mr. Terzic?

A. Mr. Nice, I should first of all like to note that you probably know that I am testifying here about Kosovo and Metohija, and I shall be happy to answer your question.

As an intellectual, as an historian, as an historian analysing historical processes in bygone centuries, it was clear to me that the Yugoslav civil war or, rather, that the -- all parties were involved in the Yugoslav civil war, both the Serbian, the Croatian, and the Muslim. And the fact that steps were taken exclusively against Serb leaders in Republika Srpska, in Republika Srpska Krajina, in the Republic of Serbia proper, of all the political leaders, military leaders, for me was absolute proof of bias and prejudice on the part of the international community and this Tribunal as well.

I consider that if the international community wished to see justice and reconciliation take place, then it must have an equal position and attitude towards all the conflicting parties. I don't see that either the president of Croatia or the president of Bosnia-Herzegovina or any other leaders were indicted. It was only Serb leaders who were accused and indicted and this to me was proof of selective justice, biased justice, and the one-sidedness of the International Court, and that is why ³⁴³³⁴ I signed this declaration.

Q. You haven't answered the question, you see, really. It may be why you signed the declaration, but it's not an answer to the question. Because you signed this declaration, just as you signed your expert report, and my question was to you: How were you able to put your name to this document when we'd seen -- the question I asked, but when we look at the facts that I related to you, how are you able to sign your name to facts of which you could have had no knowledge? How could you say that Dr. Karadzic neither gave a single order nor passed any other document that could have inflamed hatred or called for or encouraged genocide? How could you have said that as a serious historian?

A. The co-signators of this declaration are people who are prominent experts of international law, including Mrs. Smilja Avramov, my colleague Mr. Cavoski, and there are others; Academician Jovicic, who died, and so on. So we have prominent international law experts here. And I completely stood behind their assessment and evaluation. That's one point.

On the other point, insistence made by international representatives that the Serbs were the aggressors in Bosnia-Herzegovina, that the Serbs were the aggressors in Croatia, for me was proof of absurdity and the irony of history, because the Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Orthodox Serbs, although most of the Muslims are of Serb origin and converted to Islam, but Orthodox Serbs for centuries made up the majority of the population of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I can provide you with exact figures. From 1910, for example, until 1948, 44 per cent ³⁴³³⁵ of the population --

Q. I don't think this is an answer to the question, but if you feel you can add something to --

A. Please.

Q. If you feel you can add something to how you were able to sign your name to factual assertions and you want to add to it, please do so.

A. I was not informed or was not aware of a single document which would testify to the fact that Radovan Karadzic personally committed any crime. We were discussing the political assessment of the struggle of the Serb people led by Radovan Karadzic. I did not agree, and I still do not agree with the fact that the Serbs were aggressors in their own republic, and that was the crux of the matter.

Q. All right. Let's go to the crux the matter. We've got to try and look at the history simply. Serbia's been in the making since, what, 1804? Is that a reasonable date to start with?

A. First of all, I should like to thank you for the suggestions of looking at history simply, but that's just not possible because history is a highly complex science and a complex process. History, if you're talking about Serbia, the first Serbian state in the Balkans was founded in the 8th century. Later on, it developed. There were first four Serb states; Raska, Zeta, Montenegro, Bosna, and Hum, or Herzegovina. Those were four regions. Of course, later on it developed, and in the 15th century or, rather, the 14th century, Serbia had a large kingdom in the Balkans. It was called the Empire of Tzar Dusan, Emperor Dusan, with its headquarters in Prizren. ³⁴³³⁶

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... so we can at least make a start. What happened in 1884?

A. Yes, of course. In the 15th century, the Serbs came under Turkish rule, and let me remind you, and I have to do so, that the Serbs reached Vienna and Budapest. At the end of the 17th century, the Turks were at the doors of Vienna.

Q. Dr. Terzic, I think the Court will be grateful for an answer to my question because I'm trying to confine your evidence to what is likely to be most valuable to the Chamber. What happened in 1804?

A. Very well. In 1804, the first liberation revolution took place in the Balkans. The Serb revolution. The great German historian Ranke wrote a capital book, Die Serbische Revolution, published in Hamburg in 1829. So in 1804, the Serbian state was renewed, the state that had fallen under the Turks, and from then onwards the new renewed Serbian state was reinstated. This started a renaissance in the entire Balkans. After that came the Greek revolution and --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... that will do. Kosovo was part of the Ottoman Empire until 1912. Correct or false?

A. It is true from a -- from the point of view of international law, but from the point of view of the crux of the matter, it is not correct. I see that you do not understand the crux of the matter, Mr. Nice. I saw -- I showed you yesterday all European maps that show Kosovo as part of Serbia throughout the Ottoman rule. Petar Kruja, and Giacomo Cantelli and Heinrich Renner --

Q. Dr. Terzic, Dr. Terzic. Thank you. Incidentally, when you were ³⁴³³⁷ teaching at school, did you try to teach at the same speed or did you work on the basis that people might need to take things in a little more slowly? Because you go too fast for me, I'm afraid.

A. Yes.

Q. We've got the answer about 1912, and in 1912 Kosovo and various other territories were annexed to Serbia; is that correct?

A. Well, that's not correct. That is an absolute falsehood.

Q. What happened, then, so far as Kosovo and Serbia were concerned? How did Kosovo become part of Serbia after 1912?

A. Kosovo is historically, culturally and ethnically a part of Serbia, always has been throughout the Ottoman Empire as well. We can say today that -- say that Hungary was partly under Ottoman rule and therefore part of Turkey today. For example, Temisvar, which was part of Sandzak, was that part of Turkey too? So Serbia, including Kosovo, were under Turkish rule until 1912. In 1912, together with their Balkan allies, Greece, Bulgaria, Montenegro, the Christian states of the Balkans liberated the Balkans from Turkish rule, and then Kosovo as part of Serbia was liberated and formally, legally speaking, it became part of the Kingdom of Serbia.

Q. Then in the first Yugoslavia in 1918, its separate identity disappears for the time being. Yes, or not? Kosovo.

A. Please. The point is that there is no special identity of Kosovo and Metohija. It simply does not exist. Could you kindly indicate a single fact that corroborates what you're saying?

Q. We're going to move on from there because we understand your ³⁴³³⁸ thesis and it's not for you to ask me questions. What happens between 1918 and the Second World War is of historical interest. We may look at some of it. We'll look at a little bit of it later.

Between the Second World War and 1990 --

A. May I answer the question, the first one?

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't think he has finished. Let him finish the question.

MR. NICE:

Q. Between the Second World War and 1999, the date that we should probably look to as the turning point or the starting point is, in fact, 1966, isn't it? Because 1966, on your own evidence, is when things change.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. President, there are several questions involved here, so I did not understand the question. This embodies several questions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, put one question to the witness.

MR. NICE:

Q. My question is between the Second World War and 1999, the date we should focus on as the turning point or the starting point is 1966. Yes?

A. I do not think it was 1966. Between the two world wars, that is to say in 1918, Kosovo as part of the Kingdom of Serbia, without any kind of separate identity, political, cultural or otherwise, so Kosovo as part of the Kingdom of Serbia became part of the Kingdom --

JUDGE ROBINSON: If I understood the question correctly, it was ³⁴³³⁹ between the Second World War and 1999. That's 1945 to 1999. The question was whether in that period the turning point was 1966.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But Mr. Nice referred to the period between the two world wars. So I would like to answer the question, of course, but I'm starting with the period between the two world wars.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, are you speaking about the period 1945 to 1999?

MR. NICE: I am indeed.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, just concentrate on that period.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well.

MR. NICE:

Q. In that period, the relevant date of the starting point or the turning point is 1966; correct?

A. That's not correct.

Q. Well, which date would you choose and which event? Because we --

A. The key date for me is the 3rd of September, 1945. That is the establishment of the autonomous province of Kosovo by the Presidium of the Republic of Serbia. That is the first time in history that any kind of autonomy of Kosovo was established. And it is from then onwards that any kind of special identity of Kosovo can be referred to.

Q. Well, we may not be so far apart in -- on this topic, Dr. Terzic, cause and effect and so on, but let's go back to 1966. The reason that 1966 is the critical date is because until 1966, the Serbs had, in the person of Aleksandar Rankovic, Tito's deputy, Tito's ears, as he was known, someone whom they thought could represent their interests. And ³⁴³⁴⁰ when he was dismissed, they had no one to make that guarantee, and that's why the date is so important. Correct?

A. No, that's not correct.

Q. Well, correct me.

A. The problem is -- Aleksandar Rankovic was the most loyal associate of Josip Broz Tito. Aleksandar Rankovic was a supporter of the programme of Yugoslav political, cultural and economic integration. One of the pillars of that Yugoslav community were the security services. He was the vice-president of Yugoslavia, but he was in charge of the security services. He was the right hand of Josip Broz Tito, his main support. In 1962 and in 1963, when the processes of the gradual disintegration of the Yugoslav state started, Rankovic was a hinderance to that disintegration. A confederacy was in the making and Rankovic was in favour of a federation and cooperation among the republics. So Rankovic's view that Yugoslavia should exist as a centralised federation of equal republics and provinces was a key hindrance which led to his removal. That was the problem.

And on the other hand, Rankovic's opposition to the action taken by the Greater Albanian forces in Kosovo was another pretext for his removal. 1966 is a turning point, but --

Q. Just a minute. You provide so much answer so fast that we sometimes have to slow you down, Dr. Terzic. And I expect I'll be thanked by the interpreters for doing it. But in fact, although various reasons were given for his dismissal, it was suggested, of course, he'd been persecuting the Kosovo Albanians before his dismissal, wasn't it? ³⁴³⁴¹

A. No, he did not persecute the Kosovo Albanians. I beg your pardon. Audrey Budding, I think, in the expert report that she submitted here, says that Rankovic was equally cruel to the Serbs and to the Albanians. This is what Ms. Budding's property says.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... trust me.

A. He paid attention to the interests of the Yugoslav state. So there are no historical sources indicating that Rankovic had a special political attitude towards the Yugoslav Albanians. The security services, the state security services, in order to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the state, persecuted and captured members of illegal Greater Albanian terrorist organisations. If this kind of struggle against terrorism and subversive activity from Albania in Kosovo can be considered fighting against the Albanians as such, then that is a different matter altogether, but then that is your personal viewpoint, not mine.

Q. Two more questions about Rankovic at this stage, both quite short, or very short, and then we can move on. But as I think you make clear, or Mrs. Budding does, the nominal reason for Rankovic's dismissal was that he'd been tapping President Tito's telephone. That's correct, isn't it? Just yes or no sometimes is a satisfactory answer. That was the nominal reason for his dismissal.

A. I see that you are very well-versed. I would appreciate it if you could offer these documents to me. But the official diplomatic representatives in Belgrade, and I quoted those from France, said that this was just a pretext. That is the official version that was made public, but basically Rankovic was removed on ethnic grounds, as a ³⁴³⁴² hinderance to the further disintegration of Yugoslavia.

Q. To help the Court understand, because we've got to get these big historical events understood by those who have no necessary background knowledge of it: Rankovic stayed out of politics, he didn't write a book, for 20 years before he died in the '80s, mid '80s. And can you estimate how many people were at his funeral? Do you know that? This is a reflection of how important a figure Rankovic actually was for Serbs. When he died, having done, you know, nothing public, really, for 20 years, how many people turned up for the funeral? Can you remember? Hundreds of thousands?

A. I see that you are very well-informed about Rankovic, perhaps even more than I am, in a way, but I shall tell you what I know. Rankovic's UDBA was very cruel towards the Serbs too. I can tell you that he was not well liked among any Serbs because of the repressive measures taken against Serbs.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Can you or can you not answer the question as to the number of people who attended his funeral? Perhaps you're too young.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, I'm not that young, but I did not attend the funeral. I can say that I do not see of what relevance Rankovic's funeral is to this trial.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Absolutely not for you. That's for the Chamber. If you cannot answer it, say you cannot answer it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. I did not attend the funeral, but I read about it in the newspapers, and I heard that there were a great many people present. ³⁴³⁴³ Why? Because Rankovic, after 20 years, when people managed to forget many of the things that he did to the Serbs, too, saw in Rankovic a symbol of resistance to the break-up of Yugoslavia, a symbol of resistance to the disintegration of Yugoslavia. Among the Serb people, there was a highly developed feeling that Yugoslavia is a community in which the Serbs do find their own interest. So in a way, Rankovic was an embodiment of the Yugoslav idea. That was the main reason. Yugoslavia was already falling apart by then.

MR. NICE:

Q. Thank you. That's what I wanted you to explain, because you see, you understand this, don't you, Dr. Terzic, by a little -- no. I won't bother. That's a comment.

Right. Let's go back to 1966. Serbia was the largest part of the former Yugoslavia, yes? Correct?

A. Territorially, yes.

Q. And Serbs wanted to be in charge of Yugoslavia, and they weren't really very happy about the fact that Tito declared himself a Croat and that they then didn't have Rankovic to support their interest; correct?

A. That's not correct. Please, if we look at statistics pertaining to party and state leaders in politics, in the army, et cetera, you will see that the least number were Serbs. The Serbs were the most numerous people in Yugoslavia, but then there was this national criterion, ethnic criterion that was applied, so it was not based on equal representation. Serbs were interested in maintaining Yugoslavia, and after 1968 in Kosovo and after the Croatian mass movement of '68 to '71, Serbs were ³⁴³⁴⁴ terrified by the prospect of Yugoslavia falling apart, hence the attitude towards Rankovic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's time for the break. We're going to adjourn for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.17 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.44 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Please continue, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. Dr. Terzic, before we turn to Audrey Budding's report, and I'm going to focus, as you will appreciate, on matters after the Second World War, although with some references to earlier events, I want to deal with one earlier event in just a little detail, and that's the couple of events concerning the man Vasa Cubrilovic who you mention in your report at page 14, and again give a little detail about him. He was extraordinarily a survivor of the assassination on Prince Ferdinand in 1914, wasn't he? He was a member of the Black Hand and one of the conspirators or whatever it was, but he managed to survive the trial, correct?

A. No, he was not a member of the Black Hand. He was a member of the organisation called Young Bosna, Mlada Bosnas, it's a different organisation. He was quite young at the time. I think he was only 17. He was one of the participants, one of the members of that organisation, and thereafter he was a professor at the Belgrade University for a long time. He was an historian, and --

Q. Now, he then features in this history, as you reveal and the Court can find it on -- in the English, pages 13 and 14 of the report, it's at ³⁴³⁴⁵ the bottom of the page 13 where it's said he wrote a strictly confidential report providing for the possibility of moving a number of Albanians out in agreement with governments of Turkey and Albania. You say that the document was never implemented, nor was it adopted. In fact, it was the subject of a meeting. It was presented at a meeting, wasn't it, Dr. Terzic, at that time in the 19 -- whatever it was, '39, or '37. The document was presented at a meeting, as is accepted.

A. Yes. And this is further evidence confirming that I did not neglect any source regardless of whether it was favourable to the Serbs or not. This is a report by Dr. Vasa Cubrilovic, who at the time was an assistant professor at the Belgrade University, and it was prepared for the institute of country's defence as strictly confidential material, sent to the director of the institute, General Maksimovic.

Q. What we're going to -- and I suggest to you it was presented at a meeting. Yes or no, was it presented at a meeting, this paper?

A. It was said that it was presented at a session of the Serbian Cultural Club in 1937. However, I have newspaper Borba here, dated 15th of March, 2002.

Q. Have a look at that. You've come ready to defend the position on this. That's what it amounts to.

A. I'm not here to defend anybody's views. I'm just here to inform the Chamber. Therefore, a discussion between Teodor Andjelic, a journalist, and historian Vasa Cubrilovic. In this text, and the text is entitled The Moving Out of Albanians prior -- on the Eve of the Second World War. So there's a photograph of Vasa Cubrilovic here, and in this ³⁴³⁴⁶ text Vasa Cubrilovic explains how that report came to be written. He explains that he wrote this report for the institute of the country's defence, strictly confidential material, written for the director of the institute, General Maksimovic. So this report was never reviewed by the Yugoslav government or any other state organ, including the parliament. What did this deal with? On the eve of the Second World War in 1937 --

Q. And if you'd be good enough, because we haven't seen this newspaper article before, it wasn't exhibited, if you could perhaps make that available so that my -- one of my colleagues who can read the language can go through it, and then I'll come to the report itself. Would that be acceptable to you? Thank you.

A. I will very gradually turn it over to you.

Q. Whatever happened in 1937 when the views of Cubrilovic were at least acceptable to the readership or audience, the same document was republished --

A. No. This was never published.

Q. All right. It was published in 1995, in the magazine Velika Srbija, the magazine of Seselj's party. And if you'd like, please, to have the next exhibit --

A. I'm not aware of that.

Q. I'm just going to show it to you. So that the views of -- the views of Cubrilovic -- we'll look at it first of all.

MR. NICE: If the usher would be good enough -- we'll wait for him to finish his task. ³⁴³⁴⁷ Now, if the usher could very kindly retrieve for us the newspaper that the witness has been looking at so my colleague could have a read of that, just for the time being. Thank you very much. If the usher would be good enough to display --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: If the usher would be good enough to display this page, which is towards the back, we'll see the document where it was published in 1955. In October 1995. There's the magazine, Velika Srbija. We can see the date in the right-hand corner, October 1995, and lots of pictures of Mr. Seselj, by the looks of things.

And then if you'd go over two pages, please, on that. One more. That's it. Just have a look at that. Display that. We see in the text of this magazine the article the 7th of March of 1937, and the title I'm afraid I can't immediately help with.

Q. Can you just read the title of that for us, please, Dr. Terzic. The title that's there in front of you on the screen.

A. Yes. The title is The Moving Out of Arnauts.

MR. NICE: Now, if the witness would like to have, please, a marked version which has been provided for him by Ms. Dicklich of the Cyrillic Serbian text, and if the usher would be good enough to lay on the overhead projector the first page of the English translation.

Q. Sorry, I should have asked, can you read us the subtitle, actually, please, Dr. Terzic.

A. "Lecture by Dr. Vasa Cubrilovic held at the Serbian Cultural Club on the 7th of March, 1937." I'm not sure this is an accurate fact, ³⁴³⁴⁸ because in the papers that I just provided to you, Mr. Cubrilovic says that he prepared this report for the institute of country's defence, for General Maksimovic and that it was strictly confidential material. You can see that in the document that I gave you.

Q. Thank you. Now, your version of the Cyrillic has various passages highlighted, I think, in yellow, and I'm going -- the version in English has passages already highlighted. And it's headed, "The resettlement of Arnauts." "Arnauts" meaning what, please, Dr. Terzic?

A. "Arnauts" is the Turkish term denoting Albanians. There are in fact three terms used for Albanians; "Arnauts" used by Turks, "Arbanis" used by Greeks and Serbs; whereas Albanians themselves refer to themselves as "Siptars."

Q. And we see in the first passage: "In this way, an Albanian triangle took shape by the 19th century," it's described, "separating our old Ras lands from Macedonia and the Vadar valley. "In the 19th century, this Albanian wedge, inhabited by an anarchic Albanian element, prevented the development of cultural, education and economic ties between our northern and southern lands."

MR. NICE: And if the usher would turn over to the next page, please. We'll start at the top. And overall I've got about two full pages of this text to read and that's all.

Q. It says at the top: "Serbia began to chip away at this Albanian wedge during the First Uprising by pushing back the northernmost Albanian settlements from Jagodina."

Do you agree with that, Dr. Terzic? This is Academician ³⁴³⁴⁹ Cubrilovic speaking in 1937 about how in the 19th century Serbia had been chipping away at the Albanian wedge.

A. At the time when this report was written, Mr. Cubrilovic was not an academician, he was an associate professor. As for the chipping away at this Albanian wedge, I think that you interpreted it wrongly. I think that an identical thing could be said about the chipping away of Ottoman wedge near Vienna. Why is it that the Austrians chased away Turks all the way down to the Boskoras [phoen], and why is it that the entire Christian Europe waged a war against the Ottoman Empire? This had nothing to do with the expulsion of Albanians. Albanians were members of Ottoman troops, and there was a war going on between Serbia and Turkey. The entire Ottoman population from Vienna to Budapest and Tinisar [phoen] was pushed back to the south of Europe. So the entire Christian Europe did the same thing in Hungary, in Austria, and so on.

Q. Academician Cubrilovic, as he was to become, was a very open-mined man, wasn't he, because of course in due course before his death at the age of about a hundred, he expressed a view - and we'll see this, it's in Stambolic's book - about the folly of trying to link up the Serb lands in Bosnia. Do you know about that? And he's a quite an open-minded man. He's expressing some pretty strong views here, and he changed his mind on things when he felt like it, when he was driven to it. Do you know about him changing his mind later and expressing the view about the folly of trying to join up Serb lands in Bosnia?

A. Mr. Cubrilovic was a Serb from Bosnia, and as someone who participated in the assassination in Sarajevo in 1914, he was committed to ³⁴³⁵⁰ the creation of a single Serb state. This is quite natural. Therefore, I'm not aware of what you are saying.

As a Serb historian, he believed that Serbs had a right to have their own state in the lands which they inhabited for centuries as an ethnic majority in the Balkans. I know of this view of his.

Q. Here an elementary reading of this historian, later academician's view, is that Serbia was taking, was taking bits from Albanian wedge. And I'm not sure if you're saying that he was simply wrong or it's a matter of interpretation.

A. What this is all about, this has to do with the struggle between Serbia and the Ottoman Empire. This is not a struggle between Serbia and Albania or the Serbs and Albanians. Albanians were members of regular and irregular formations of the Ottoman Empire. They were the striking fist of the Ottoman Empire. Many sources from 17th and 18th century testify to this. Therefore, Albanians are involved here as members of the troops of the Ottoman Empire. There is no Albanian state here. What we have here is the struggle between Christian Europe and the Ottoman Empire, and the Albanians are on the side of the Ottoman Empire. Forgive me. May I add something?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you may. Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Up until 1912, there was no Albanian state. Albanians created their state in 1912. Prior to that, throughout the 18th and the 19th century, British and German sources testify to this - I quoted yesterday from the British sources - Albanians together with the Turks were the ones who carried out the majority of military ³⁴³⁵¹ operations in the territory of the Balkans. Therefore, Albanians were part of the Ottoman Empire. A large number of high officials of the Ottoman Empire were Albanians.

MR. NICE:

Q. Read on, then, get on through this document comparatively quickly now.

"Owing to the sweeping statehood projects of Jovan Ristic, Serbia chewed off another piece of that wedge after winning Toplica and Kosanica. The regions between Jastrebac and the South Morava were radically cleared of Arnauts at this time.

"It was the duty of our present state to break up the remaining parts of the Albanian triangle since 1918 to date. It has failed to do it. There are several reasons for this, but we will mention only the most important here.

"1. The fundamental error made by our responsible factors from this period was that in the restless and bloody Balkans, forgetting where they were, they attempted to apply Western methods in dealing with major ethnic problems. Turkey had brought to the Balkans the custom taken from the Sharia law, that by winning a battle and conquering a country, the invader gained control over the life and property of the conquered subjects. It was from them that the Balkan Christians also came to understand that in this way one gained or lost not only power and nobility but also one's home and property. This understanding of private legal land ownership in the Balkans could only be modified to a certain degree by laws, decrees and international treaties adopted under European ³⁴³⁵² pressure, but it has nevertheless remained to this day the central lever in both Turkey and the Balkan states. However, we need not go too far back into the past. We will refer only to recent cases - the resettlements of Greeks from Asia Minor to Greece, and of Turks from Greece to Asia Minor. The most recent settlement of Turks from Bulgaria and Rumania, Rumania to Turkey. While all Balkan states, from 1912 to date, have either already resolved or are on the way to resolving the question of national minorities by their resettlement. We have opted for the slow and fussy methods of gradual colonisation." Now, do you understand the view he's expressing there, Dr. Terzic?

A. I understand the view of Mr. Cubrilovic. I see it as a private -- personal view of a private person who at the time held absolutely no public state office. That's on the one hand.

On the other hand, I see that you failed to understand the historical context referred to by Mr. Cubrilovic. This context means that throughout four or five centuries, a struggle was waged between the Christian Europe and the Ottoman Empire. I would like to remind you that in Budim and --

Q. We're going to have to be --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, may I continue? Mr. Nice spoke for ten minutes. May I be given at least two minutes?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just complete the answer.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Ottoman Empire reached Vienna and Budapest. They lived there. They had tens of mosques. They lived in their cities there. After their defeat in the battle with Christian ³⁴³⁵³ Coalition, the Roman Pope, the Polish King, that entire population moved back from that area towards south, towards southern Balkans. And Doctor -- towards Asia Minor. Dr. Cubrilovic points out to this and speaks about how Greeks moved to Asia Minor and how Turks moved to Greece, and in that context, on the eve of the Second World War, that means that the world came very close to the war, he expresses his private view that there was a possibility to move part of the Albanian population to Albania or Turkey upon prior agreement with those two countries. This is the essence of his position.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... at page 4. I shan't -- in the English version. To save time, the highlighted passage can be seen. If the usher would be good enough to move on to page 8. We can see one or two more passages and then we'll be done with the document.

Q. Page 8 in the English, under International Problems Posed by Resettlement he said: "If we proceed from the position that gradual suppression of the Arnauts through gradual colonisation is ineffective, our only remaining option is large-scale resettlement. In that event, two states will have to be reckoned with, Albania and Turkey. "Scarcely populated with a lot of unreclaimed marshland and unregulated river valleys, Albania would be able to accommodate a few hundred thousand of our Arnaut settlers," and then deals with modern Turkey. So that was his plan, wasn't it?

And we can see, if we go to page 9, he expressed the view that: "There will be some protests by international public opinion ... however, the world is accustomed to far worse things and is so preoccupied with ³⁴³⁵⁴ everyday concerns that there is little to fear there. If Germany can resettle tens of thousands of Jews and Russia can transfer millions from one side of the continent to the other, the resettlement of a few hundred thousand Arnauts will not start a world war."

And at pages 10 and 11, he proposes the method of resettlement, saying the first thing is to create the right psychological climate. He goes on to express about how the Muslims are gullible and how you have to win their clergy and do various other things. Then goes on at the bottom of this page to say: "Another method would be to exert pressure through the state apparatus ... making laws to make the life in Arnauts in our parts as miserable as possible; fines, arrests, uncompromising enforcement of all police regulations," and so on.

Over the page, if the usher would be so good, to page 11. "Resettlement will be accelerated by sanitary measures. Enforcement of regulations inside private homes, pulling down of walls and fences." And then says, "The Arnauts are most vulnerable in religious matters. This can be accomplished by harassing the clergy, clearing graveyards, abolishing polygamy."

Then he says, "Private initiative can also help significantly in this matter. Our colonists should be issued weapons as needed. Bold Chetnik action should be infiltrated into those areas and we should provide them with covert assistance in their operations." It says a wave of Montenegrins should be released from the hills. At the bottom of the bolded or shaded passage, he says: "There is another tool which Serbia has used very pragmatically since 1878 - the ³⁴³⁵⁵ covert torching of villages and Arnaut town districts." What do you say to that? You've been trying to give a balanced view of what happened. Here is Dr. Cubrilovic saying Serbia has pragmatically, since 1878, engaged in the covert torching of villages. What do you say to that?

A. Mr. President, I'm here in a very unequal position because Mr. Nice has spent 50 minutes in -- 15 minutes in asking his question, whereas I'm not allowed more than one or two minutes to respond. I should like to ask you to give me enough time to answer this time. Now, where's the problem? Mr. Nice is quoting a document -- from a document by a private individual, a private person. This document was never a document of any government or ministry. It was -- nothing was ever -- no steps were ever taken on the basis of this document. So not a single Albanian was expelled. This document remains in the archives --

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Terzic, Mr. Nice has made it clear already that he intends to go on to deal with the position of Seselj in all this and the publication of this document was in 1995. Now, it's not for you to decide how to answer the question. He's asked a very simple question, although it took some time to pose it so that you got the full picture from the document, but he's asking for your comment on the assertion made in this document that Serbia engaged in the covert torching of villages and Arnaut town districts. It's a simple question.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My answer is very simple. What I'm saying is this: This document is the private opinion of a person, an individual. It is not the official document of any government or ³⁴³⁵⁶ ministry. And this document never became operative, an operative part of the policy of the Yugoslav government.

The substance of this document is the problem of resettlement of populations, taking the example of Turkey and Greece, taking the example of Bulgaria and Turkey. Vasa Cubrilovic presented the idea, just the idea that resettlement should be made of part of the Albanian population from Kosovo and Metohija to either Albania or Turkey. However, this did not come about. There were negotiations with Turkey in 1938 to that effect, however --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you in a position to answer the question? Are you in a position to answer the question which was asked? It can be yes or no or I don't know. And the question was whether -- let me finish the question. I'm going to put the question and then you can say yes, no, or I don't know.

The question was whether you agree that Serbia used the practice of covert torching of villages and Arnaut town districts from 1878 onwards. Without making a speech, can you say yes, no, or I don't know if you don't agree?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please, I'll be quite clear although I'm not given enough time to answer. You are asking me for very responsible answers but not allowing me to answer. On the basis of available historical sources, domestic and foreign, I do not have any knowledge that can bear out this fact.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

MR. NICE: ³⁴³⁵⁷

Q. Dr. Terzic, if I have the time, which I may not, we can explore the level of sources to which you go, often secondary sources. Here is an historian to become of academician status, setting out, when he would have had no reason to record other than a truthful account of his understanding of history, something that had happened. This is a perfectly, in your standards, this is a very satisfactory source, isn't it? You didn't put it in your report. You brushed this -- you brushed this document aside. You footnote it, but you brush aside what he says here.

A. Just a minute. In several sentences, I present the substance of the document, and you can check that out in my report. I did present the substance of the document, and his ideas on resettlement. I do talk about this in the document. However, I didn't consider this to be relevant because I relied, first and foremost, on sources of state organs, political organs, and those organs that make decisions and implement power and authority. I thought this to be the personal opinion of a private person.

Q. Having dealt with that aspect of the document, the next thing is this: Can you help us, please, as you've ventured various opinions about the basic innocence of Serbs in everything that happened, can you explain how in 1995, in the magazine of the man with whom you say there's been some intrigue to try and have your name associated, Seselj, how it could be appropriate to publish a document like this? Can you help us, please?

A. You would have to ask the editor-in-chief of that publication. I had nothing to do with it so I can't answer the question. ³⁴³⁵⁸

Q. Help us with the environment in which you live, because this document with its clear recommendation for the worst forms of persecution, published in a magazine available on the newsstands, would be an act of propaganda, wouldn't it, and dangerous propaganda in the mid-1990s?

A. In the report or, rather, in Dr. Cubrilovic's writings, it speaks of the resettlement of the population, not persecution. Once again from Turkey, Asia Minor, Greece. The resettlement of the population. But I'm not in a position to explain the editorial policies of the magazine nor can I be held responsible for the editorial policies of it.

Q. Dr. Terzic --

A. And you are trying, you are endeavouring to strike a balance between a lengthy report about the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo and Metohija on the one hand and the many facts that I present there and the personal writings of a private individual. So you cannot strike a balance between those two.

Q. Slow down and listen to the questions. Before footnoting this report at page 13 and 14 in English, I assume that you read or re-read this document of Vasa Cubrilovic. Yes?

A. I did not only put it down in the footnotes, it's also in the text. But I can't find it now. Could you remind me what page that's on.

Q. It's in the English at page 13, and it's in yours at 21 to 23. You say he wrote a strictly confidential report providing for the possibility of moving a number of Albanians out. The document was never implemented.

I've now shown you a newspaper with which you will be -- ³⁴³⁵⁹

A. Yes. I put that in my text.

Q. I've now shown you a newspaper printing, or reprinting but printing the document as a speech in October 1995, just after or just at the time of the Dayton peace negotiation, and it's not just a question of resettlement of populations, because the recommendations are absolutely specific, as we saw. Of course they relate to 1937, but they can be applied at any later stage, and they are specific as to the use of force, as to the use of arms, and so on. And my simple question to you, and I'm asking you to be fair, you see, to be fair on this and tell this Court whether publishing a document like that to a Serb audience in 1995 would or would not have a propaganda effect?

A. Please. This document was written in 1937. I see that -- this is the first time I'm seeing that it has been published in the Velika Srbija magazine. Of course, printing and publishing is something that the citizens are free to do in Serbia, and President Milosevic, as far as I know, had no influence on the editorial policies of this magazine. So I don't see any links between what I'm testifying about here and the fact that you are presenting to me here.

Q. Well, I'm not going to take it any further. I can't go further. I'll just complete the one point that I was going to make in light of his no longer being alive to answer for himself about Vasa Cubrilovic, and you can certainly see the citation, if you wish, in Ivan Stambolic's book, which I've had copied for the relevant chapter but it's only one line. Perhaps we can lay this on the overhead projector and defer the decision whether it needs to become an exhibit. At page 8 of 14. The B/C/S ³⁴³⁶⁰ version coming for the witness, and indeed for the accused. We know that Ivan Stambolic's book, prepared, I think, at the end of 1995, but I'm not sure, is in the form of questions and answers, and in this chapter which is headed "The Memorandum," he was asked a question, "How did it begin in the academy?" And he said this: "If a person like Vasa Cubrilovic, honourable old man, and the oldest academician, was horrified watching how far they were going in advocating the Great Serbia - that explains it all. We talked about how a group of the so-called 'immortals' had spent years analysing the maps of Bosnia, trying to discover at least a goat path which one could walk along from Belgrade to Karlovac passing exclusively through Serbian villages and towns." Now, first of all, I would -- had you read Ivan Stambolic's book?

A. No, I haven't read the book. This is the first time that I see it.

Q. On the basis that his description of his encounter with Dr. Cubrilovic is accurate, does the reflection of a view of horror at the advocation -- or the advocacy of Great Serbia fit with your recollection that divisions were divided? There were intellectuals who thought what was happening in Bosnia was absurd and dangerous?

A. I'm not sure I understood your question properly. With respect to Ivan Stambolic's book or on the basis of the position taken by Serbian intellectuals?

Q. You are, as you tell us, an intellectual. You've been working at --

A. I didn't say for myself that I was an intellectual. ^{34361 BLANK PAGE 34362}

Q. Beg your pardon. If you didn't, I didn't intend to ascribe the term to you unfairly.

But you moved in the society of intellectuals. Here we have one famous intellectual. I mean -- and a person with an extraordinary history, having been in on the plot in 1914, and he is horrified at the -- those advocating Great Serbia and trying to find some way of linking up Serb lands in Bosnia so that you have a continuous Serb state. Is that one of the strands of intellectual thought that did exist in Serbia in the mid-1990s?

A. I can give you my own opinion about that, and that is this: I don't know a single serious Serbian intellectual in the Serbian Academy of Sciences, although I'm not an academician myself, who strove for the creation of a Greater Serbia. And I should like to ask to tell me what you imply when you say "Greater Serbia." How do you understand the term "Greater Serbia," for me to be able to answer your question.

Q. I've explained before that, unfortunately, Dr. Terzic, the question and answering is done the other way round. But since you raise the topic, if I can just find the reference --

A. Very well.

Q. Just one minute. If you'd just give me a minute. There's something I wanted to ask you. I don't think I'm going to be able to find it now. I may have to ask it later.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Terzic, I think Mr. Nice did indicate what is meant by the concept of Greater Serbia. He spoke of trying to find some way of linking up Serb lands in Bosnia so that you have a continuous Serb ³⁴³⁶³ state.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. President, Your Honour, I don't think that that is a Greater Serbia. I believe that the disintegration of the Yugoslav state gave the -- or, rather, in the joint state of Yugoslavia, the Serbs had the right to live in one country, like all other nations.

I have a document here from 1915. It is the treaty of London from 1915. The treaty of London, dated the 16th of August, 1915. I can show it on the overhead projector.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, Dr. Terzic, let's not go ahead with that. Mr. Nice is conducting his cross-examination, and he will put further questions --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well. I'm sorry.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- on the question of Greater Serbia.

MR. NICE:

Q. You sought clarification of an issue, and I'll take you back to the very last questions and answers that you gave to the accused when he was questioning you, and you said this: The first fundamental issue is does the West accept that -- I think it's the success. It reads, "of ethnic groups or national minorities and will every ethnic group or national minority in Europe," and you then referred to Basques and the residents of Northern Ireland, and you said, "so is every ethnic group going to seek foreign military intervention in order to resolve their issues?"

And with the conversation of Stambolic and Cubrilovic in mind and ³⁴³⁶⁴ your request for clarification, along with the concept of Serbs looking for continuous territory in Bosnia, what were the Serbs doing other than by force of arms seeking for the Serbs in Bosnia, by force, that very independence that you in your answer to the accused were saying was inappropriate for Kosovo Albanians? What were they doing that was different?

A. The difference lies in the fact that the Kosovo Albanians have their own national state, and that is Albania. Albanians in Serbia are a national minority. Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina lived in one state. That was Yugoslavia. In the constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Serbs were a constituent people, not a national minority in Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is one thing.

And then there is another thing: As the Yugoslav state fell apart, they wanted to live together in the same state with other Serbs. They were constituent people of that republic, and no one paid any attention to what they wanted, to what their will was. Historically speaking, Bosnia-Herzegovina was always viewed as a Serb land. Hundreds and hundreds of maps and old documents consider Bosnia to be part of the Serb areas. I wanted to show this here, the London treaty of 1915 considers Bosnia-Herzegovina as a territory that should belong to the Serbian state. I didn't want to put it on the overhead projector, but if the Trial Chamber wishes --

Q. We are pressed for time. It sounds, correct me if I'm wrong --

A. You are quite wrong when you do not distinguish between the Albanian national minority in Serbia and the position of Serbs in ³⁴³⁶⁵ Bosnia-Herzegovina who are not a national minority.

Q. Were you one of those immortals who spent years analysing maps of Bosnia trying to discover how to link up Serb lands? You've helped us with a lot of maps. Is that what you did with the maps, try to link up Serb lands?

A. I don't understand the gist of your question. I don't see what you wanted me to say. People usually refer to academicians as immortals in my country. I'm not an academician so I'm not immortal.

MR. NICE: Can we deal with documents now before we forget it. So far there's been the declaration which I'd ask to be exhibited.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: May the declaration in support of Dr. Karadzic be exhibited.

THE REGISTRAR: OTP Exhibit 798.

MR. NICE: The record of -- well, the Cubrilovic document, which can be titled in two ways, resettlement of Arnauts with the newspaper report that produces it as the record of a -- an address or speech. Can that become an exhibit?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE REGISTRAR: OTP Exhibit 799.

MR. NICE: And the chapter from Ivan Stambolic's book, may that become an exhibit as well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Do we have that? I don't think we have received that.

MR. NICE: I'm sorry. This is what we were looking at just now. ³⁴³⁶⁶ If you haven't had it, I'm so sorry, it was on the overhead projector. The court will remember that I said at an earlier stage if I desire to put a passage from a text, I'd get translated whatever the relevant entity from which the passage is taken, and thus the chapter.

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 800.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I regret that I will not be able to conclude this morning. I have two more exercises to go through, one involving Audrey Budding's book, and in light of the argument that's been presented about the Albanian threat, the Pan-Albanian threat, I want to present another document to this witness. It may be convenient if I ask him to read it between now and his return on Thursday. That will save time. And if I can just deal with that now, then we can put that on the metaphorical back-burner, if that's all right.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: So can we place before the witness the ICG document. And the Chamber can have it as well.

Q. You see, while it's coming your way, Dr. Terzic, I'm going to suggest to you that, with very few exceptions, you have simply searched for and relied upon Serb and Serb sympathetic sources and that your duty as an expert, as opposed to the arguer of a cause, included looking more broadly.

Now, before you, if the usher would help me with this when he's finished the distribution, we're looking at a document prepared by something called the International Crisis Group. So if we can look -- just display -- there's versions in B/C/S for both the accused and the ³⁴³⁶⁷ witness.

This is something called Pan-Albanianism, How Big a Threat to Balkan Stability? And it's dated this year, February, produced by the International Crisis Group.

If the usher would be good enough to take us right to the back -- not right to the back, to page 35, Appendix C. Display that. We can see that here's the page that tells us something about the International Crisis Group, its research methods, and on the right-hand side, its funding, just so we that can see -- there it is. Right-hand side. It raises funds from governments, charitable foundations, companies and individual donors. It then lists some of its principal funders, including the United States Agency for International Development. It then sets the foundations who support it. And if the usher would go over to the next page.

Dr. Terzic, let me explain. I'm laying all this material out before you because I know that your view, as expressed elsewhere, is that there is a sort of Western conspiracy headed by the United States or something, but here it is. This is a body that's prepared reports on Algeria, Angola, and so on. If we turn over the page we'll see - next page, please - it's a body that has prepared material on a worldwide basis including - next page, please. Next page. Thank you very much - Croatia -- no, next page. There we see Croatia and Kosovo and Bosnia and various other countries. And I was able to provide you with a copy of this in B/C/S, or Serbian, if you prefer, because the office -- the organisation has an office in Belgrade. ³⁴³⁶⁸ I want to ask you this: Have you previously read and considered this study on the question of Pan-Albanianism?

A. This is the first time I see this study. I am familiar with this position. For me this is advocacy of a Greater Albania, and that is the main source of instability in South-east Europe.

Q. You're familiar with what position? You haven't read the paper yet, so what are you familiar with?

A. Generally speaking, I followed many positions of these colleagues, including James Lyon and other top people of the ICG, and he was a guest at one of the conferences I organised at the institute and I know him personally. For me, this is a programme of a Greater Albania. This is the main source of instability throughout South-east Europe, and I'm not prepared to testify about that. My position on it is quite clear.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But you haven't read it yet.

MR. NICE:

Q. You see -- I'm so sorry.

A. Yes, I haven't read it. You see, this is the first time I see this document. I came here to testify about my expert report, which you admitted. This is something completely different. Now I'm supposed to stay here for another ten days in order to be able to testify about another document. I'm not prepared to do that. I haven't read this document.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me just clarify. The document has been passed to you for you to read between now and the time when we resume on Thursday at 9.00. That's not ten days. ³⁴³⁶⁹

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am not ready -- I mean, I've been here for nine days. I have been here since Monday, and this is something completely different from what I came to testify about. I can come another time and testify about this, about this document, but not now.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's a related subject, Dr. Terzic. Mr. Nice, go ahead.

MR. NICE:

Q. Dr. Terzic, in a way, I must suggest to you the last two answers have --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm afraid that you are going to adjourn abruptly, because it's almost time. You have not considered the admission into evidence of the exhibits I tendered, and now I see that Mr. Nice is easily tendering his exhibits. I believe it would only be fair to look at the exhibits that I provided through the examination-in-chief first and then Mr. Nice's exhibits. I'm not opposed to having his exhibits admitted at all, but I think that these exhibits should be looked at now, too, and admitted into evidence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think that's a fair question, and the reason why we haven't taken up your exhibits yet is that they raise far more difficult issues than the exhibits put in by Mr. Nice. I didn't count them, but I think there must have been at least 20 to 30 documents that you -- that you tendered, and the Chamber has to consider an approach to them. And I think it is in your interest that we should consider ³⁴³⁷⁰ carefully that approach.

So the fact that they haven't been admitted yet or that we haven't taken up that question is in no way detrimental to your position, Mr. Milosevic, I can assure you.

MR. NICE:

MR. NICE: May I ask a couple more questions?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just one more. We are coming up to the break.

MR. NICE:

Q. Dr. Terzic, I want you to understand first of all why I've done what I've done. My suggestion to you is that if you were a fair-minded historian, doing your best to be a proper court expert, you would already have been familiar with this document and have been able to deal with it. But because you haven't, as you explain, dealt with it already, I'm taking careful steps and giving you a day to read it so that when you come become on Thursday you will be in a position, when I ask you, to say which parts of it are wrong and why. Do you understand?

A. No, I do not understand you. I received this document a few minutes ago for the very first time. I am familiar with the positions of my colleagues who worked on this. So generally speaking, I am in favour of the position itself, Advocacy for a Greater Albania, but I never managed to read this document. I received it only a few minutes ago.

MR. NICE: I've done my best.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, but what is being suggested is that you read it in the interval between the adjournment and the resumption on Thursday at 9.00 so that questions to be put to you. I see no difficulty in that ³⁴³⁷¹ position.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No problem whatsoever. The only fact is that I've been here for already ten days. Ten days. Isn't that a lot?

JUDGE ROBINSON: It may be a lot, but that's not a matter for me to consider. I think Mr. Milosevic was aware of the schedule for this week. We announced it from last week.

We are adjourned until Thursday, 9.00 a.m.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the 9th day of

December, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.