³⁴⁴⁸⁰

Wednesday, 15 December 2004

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Your Honour, before we start the main business of the day, there's a matter that I have to raise that would be of concern to the Trial Chamber as much as it is to assigned counsel. We're all aware of the recent litigation there has been over the appointment of assigned counsel, and decisions have been made at various stages of the process consistent with examining that position. I have to tell the Trial Chamber that specific terms and conditions were agreed with the Registry for our engagement as assigned counsel, and it was on those terms that we undertook the assignment. On the 3rd of December, the Registry issued a letter to us revoking what had previously been agreed and imposing completely new terms and conditions unilaterally upon us in the absence of any consultation or agreement.

This is a matter of great concern, because it completely repudiates what had been arranged with assigned counsel and puts us in a very difficult personal position. In effect, it totally undermines the order of this Court appointing us as assigned counsel, and it's probably an attack on the position that the Trial Chamber would have least expected and least welcomed.

We are very concerned. I responded on the 6th of December, asking -- or refusing to accept those changes in our conditions, and there were ³⁴⁴⁸¹ meetings last week, but I was told that those conditions applied anyway. We are greatly concerned, and I have told them that they have by Friday to reimpose the conditions or, by agreement, vary conditions, because that description I gave to the Trial Chamber of the Registrar being hauled up to explain himself is capable of actually occurring. I've told them that if they are going to do that, I have no option but to seek work elsewhere from January of 2005, because it completely undermines the position of assigned Defence counsel in this case, and I would have thought was an attack on the position that the Trial Chamber would least welcome.

I have to raise this matter because this is of great importance. It concerns our personal commitment to the case, and we have not accepted any variation in terms. We would do or may do if they were appropriate.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, isn't this a matter that, if you wish us to consider, you should be filing a motion? I don't know that the Chamber is in a position to do anything unless there is a motion filed.

MR. KAY: I've raised it orally. I have considered that, whether I do -- I did that and whether I produce correspondence to you, as I didn't know whether the Court wanted to get into the detail of it, because traditionally this has been --

JUDGE ROBINSON: If we had a motion, we could look at it and then I think we'd have to consider to what extent we are competent to deal with the issue.

MR. KAY: At the moment it's contractual.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't think we can deal with it orally. I ³⁴⁴⁸² wouldn't like to attempt to deal with it orally.

MR. KAY: It is a contractual matter at the moment, and for that reason I am very concerned about the unilateral overturning of agreements without consultation, which are guaranteed to put me in conflict with this Registry and this Court. They know that.

We are absolutely furious about this matter, because it -- there's a lot of personal commitment riding on our involvement, and the one thing that's guaranteed to destroy our position and make me make a personal decision, which it seems to be unnecessary on that basis, would be that, and they know that, and we are astonished about what has gone on.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, as I indicated, the Chamber is of the view that, if you wish, this is a matter in respect of which you should consider filing a motion for us to consider.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But we don't think it proper to debate the matter in Court in this way.

MR. KAY: I understand that. I have to raise things in the issue of transparency, otherwise the Court will think that I have done something completely without any motivation, which is simply not the case. And I felt so strongly about it that it should be raised so that you knew of it today. The end of the legal term is Friday, and January 2005 is arriving, and people should not be treated in this way.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you for bringing it to our attention, Mr. Kay. ³⁴⁴⁸³

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The witness Professor Popov.

[The witness entered court]

WITNESS: CEDOMIR POPOV [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Professor Popov, you are still subject to the declaration that you made.

Mr. Milosevic. Examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Professor.

A. Good morning.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the accused, please. Microphone, please. Microphone.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor Popov, would you take a look at your report, please, page 37. And in the English it is page 34 going over to page 35. But for you in the Serbian language, it is page 37.

A. I've found it.

Q. Thank you. The third paragraph begins as follows: "The crushing of the Greater Serbia policy during World War I was brought to the level of widespread war crimes, persecution and even threats of extinction of the Serbian people."

Now, what can you tell us about that? What do historical facts say about that? How do they stand?

A. I can quote a few examples. The first genocidal, if I can put it ³⁴⁴⁸⁴ that way, action was carried out in Bosnia in August 1914 at a place called Celebici where 84 Serb civilians were shot. After that, there were mass arrests of the Serb population, and especially in Bosnia. We see prominent intellectuals, businessmen, tradesmen arrested. And two trials were organised in Banja Luka in 1915 in which heavy sentences were meted out for many years imprisonment, for the simple fact that the people arrested and accused were prominent public figures, politicians in Bosnia itself.

And at the same time - may I just be allowed to finish? - in Vojvodina there were also mass arrests were people were taken to concentration camps, and among others we saw very prominent individuals like the leader of the Radical Party, Jasa Tomic, and a prominent scientist, Vasa Stajic, and many others.

Q. Now, on the following page, which is in your text page 38 and carries on in the English on page 35, you mentioned what happened on the territory of the then-Austria-Hungary.

A. Yes.

Q. And you end this paragraph by saying: "The most hideous war crimes against the civilian population were committed in the occupied parts of Serbia in 1914 and were repeated in the second phase of the occupation between 1915 to 1918."

A. Yes, that's right. In the occupied parts of Serbia in 1914, in the autumn, that is to say after the first battle of Cer when the Austrian army was expelled from Serbia and when the second offensive began at the time of the so-called battle of Kolubara, there were large-scale ^{34485 BLANK PAGE 34486} crimes committed against the civilian population, and very often the victims were women. And there is extensive written matter and photographs about that. Several villages were destroyed. Among other things, the town of Sabac was seriously destroyed, and we have much testimony about that from the prominent Swiss legal man Wilhelm Reiss [phoen], and for that he was given great recognition in Serbia.

So that Austrian occupation, the first occupation, which lasted until December 1914 was remembered by the most terrible crimes in which several thousand people were killed. However, later on, after the second occupation, when the Germans beat the Serbian army in 1915, the autumn of that year, then there was permanent terror over the whole of the occupied territories, especially in Toplica in 1917 after an uprising against the Bulgarian authorities when the Austrians came as reinforcements and when the people of Kursumlija, Prokuplje and other areas and villages suffered enormous losses.

All in all, the losses numbered there thousands. We don't have exact records of them and figures of them, and men of science have not counted all the victims yet, and I don't think they'll ever manage to do so to the last number.

Q. Professor, you've now quoted examples from Bosnia, from Serbia, from the first occupation and from the second occupation, and in the following paragraph of your report, you say: "All this, from the Austro-Hungarian annexation policy through German offensive plans to war crimes, was obscured by the (war cries) against the Greater Serbia policy with its alleged 'conspiracy' and 'criminal plans.' One must not forget ³⁴⁴⁸⁷ that at the same time, the scenario of castigating 'Greater Serbian nationalism' was continued after World War I by those who lost the war and the revisionist countries of the defeated camp." Therefore, everything was justified, as you yourself say here, by the outcries against Greater Serbian nationalism, plots, conspiracies, and so on. Now, as an historian, can you draw a parallel between what was done then and what is being done today, to the present day, because here in this courtroom, in this room we're once again hearing the term "Greater Serbian nationalism" being bandied about and --

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... invitation to the witness to comment on what's happening in Court. By all means the witness may conceivably, I suppose, answer some questions about evidence, but it looks to me as though this question was actually focusing on the Court itself.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, I think it's focusing on the evidence that has been given.

MR. NICE: I hope so.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, just reformulate your question to make it clearer that what you're asking the witness to do is to comment on the evidence that has been given in Court.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I had just asked Professor Popov to comment on what he says in his report, the statement he made. And if we were to simplify it, then in what I've just quoted, this would indicate that the mass crimes and genocide perpetrated against the Serbs were justified throughout by some sort of Greater Serbian nationalism. ³⁴⁴⁸⁸

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So I'd like to ask you --

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're not to make statements like that when you're asking a question. Just reformulate the question. Professor Popov, I think the question that is being asked is whether the evidence that has been given in Court about the concept of a Greater Serbia bears any parallel with what happened in the -- is it the 1914, 1915, Mr. Milosevic? In the First World War. Do you see any parallel? I'm interested in the answer.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it would be difficult for me to say that there were none, that you cannot draw any parallels, especially in rhetorics; and secondly, in the methods of explaining Serbian history, that is to say, looking at it in the past, 100 years ago, 90 years ago during World War I, and in the last decades of the 20th century. The explanation given was always that Serbia had aggressive plans towards its neighbours, for instance, that it wished to appropriate other people's territory, and that the goal was to create a Greater Serbian state in which it would include other -- the members of other ethnic groups and nations.

So the parallel there is quite obvious and evident. Of course I cannot comment about things that went on here in the courtroom because I wasn't here to follow the proceedings, the whole trial. However, in public, the general public opinion is that in the moves made by the great powers towards Serbia, the parallels drawn there are more than evident.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁴⁴⁸⁹

Q. Thank you, Professor. When you go on to speak about, in your report -- actually, you say: "German and Central-European clerical accusations against the 'Greater Serbia threat' found their most devoted followers and clique in Croatian chauvinists of all hues in Croatia. And the Greater Croatia aspirations allegedly from a threat of Greater Serbian was a formidable screen, a means of camouflage." Now, why do you speak of a screen and camouflage? Why do you use those terms?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you started out well in terms of adhering to the practice of alerting the Chamber to the page in the report that you are citing. What is the page and where is it?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In English, 34, 35. This is paragraph at the beginning of page 35, "German and Central European clerical accusations," et cetera, et cetera.

JUDGE ROBINSON: All right.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I be allowed to answer?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you may answer.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] German Imperialism, which was being created and was being geared towards East-central Europe and Eastern Europe, gained expression particularly at the end of the 19th century, the last decades of the 19th century, in fact, and at the beginning of the 20th century, before the First World War.

This German Imperialistic breakthrough "Drang nach Osten," to the east was pushed by Austria, which had a twofold motivation for this, for breaking through to the Balkans and for attacking Serbia, and it was this: ³⁴⁴⁹⁰ The burgeoning of the liberation tendencies of the South Slav peoples within their borders, which looked to a free Serbia; and secondly, the strategic position of Serbia through which you had to pass and surmount if you wanted to move further to the east and open the road to Celonica [phoen] and Constantinople and the other.

Now, with this Austrian breakthrough we saw the Croatian efforts and aspirations latch onto it. Not, of course, all the Croatian people, but a significant portion of the political leadership or the political public opinion which was very loud, represented by clerical Catholic circles and the so-called Party of Rights, first and foremost, and then the genuine Party of Rights, Stranka Prava. That is to say the clerical Ivan Frank followers, because Ivan Frank and Josip Frank led the party, and they were preparing a large march on Serbia on the one hand, and on the other hand they were preparing to destroy the Serb population in Croatia proper. And they even went so far as to organise some volunteer detachments which would have as their task a settling of accounts with Serbs in Croatia because they were afraid of their operations and action in the rear. With a Prince Cuvaj, who was not favourably disposed to the Serbs, I think that in 1910 we had a deputy from the Franko Fatima's party, so Krsnjavi, he went as a representative and deputy and proposed that the Serbian question in Croatia be dealt with first of all and resolved.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm stopping you because I don't think we need all of that detail. We just need an outline of the main historical points of interest. I don't think we need all of that detail. ^{34491 BLANK PAGE 34492} Mr. Milosevic, let's concentrate on the important points in this history.

MR. MILOSEVIC:

Q. [No interpretation]

A. [No interpretation]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Again, sorry. There was no translation of your question, Mr. Milosevic, so please repeat it.

THE INTERPRETER: Do you hear the English channel now?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor, you described Frank's supporters as clerical fascists. That's the definition you use in your text. Why?

A. Because they were opposed to parliamentary democracy and they were advocating a Greater Croatian policy on ethnic grounds, saying that the Croatian nation was the only decisive factor in Croatian politics. They asked for the extermination of Serbs, that they should be killed by axes in the head. That was the terminology they used. The Catholic church always supported them and in a way gave them ideological and religious support. To this kind of policy, I mean.

Q. Let's get things clear here. In your paper, you do not talk about the Croatian people. On the contrary, you talk about Croatian chauvinists only.

A. That's right.

Q. All right. Let's be clear on that. Who was Ivo Pilar?

A. Ivo Pilar was a writer, a member or at least a supporter of Frank's party. ³⁴⁴⁹³

Q. All right. Tell me now, what do you know about his theory of the indispensability of eradicating Greater Serbdom? You referred to it on the same page. "The eradication of Greater Serbdom as the bearer of an inferior Eastern Byzantine civilisation." I'm quoting you, Professor.

A. Sudland was the pseudonym he used when, in 1915, he published a book in which he proved that -- or set out to prove that a Greater Serbian policy was actually infringing upon harmonious relations in the Balkans and preventing the penetration of the Western civilisation because they were traditionally linked to the Eastern church and the Byzantine historical heritage. This was a major obstacle to the spread of Roman Catholicism on the one hand and the Western civilisation in the Balkans.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we now are hearing of a Greater Croatian policy. We have heard of a Greater Albanian policy, and of course a Greater Serbian policy. The only thing missing now is a Greater Bosnian policy.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, you'll have to ask the professor to explain that for you if that's the only thing you still have missing.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It appears that all the states in the region had expansionist visions at one time or another.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. You've put this very well, Mr. Robinson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did Serbia have expansionist aspirations, or what was the word that Mr. Robinson used? ³⁴⁴⁹⁴

A. Serbia did not. Serbia had its national programme which envisaged the creation of a national state. That was an aspiration that meant keeping abreast of the times. That is what all nations wanted at the time, to keep abreast of the times. This was the process of modernisation in Europe at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. There could not have been a Greater Bosnian programme because a Bosnian nation did not exist.

I can just give you one piece of information: The Bosnian Muslims, from 1860 until 1980, changed their ethnic affiliation nine times -- ten times, from Turkish to Muslim. So there could not have been a Greater Bosnian programme.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Don't dwell too much on it. It was a lighthearted comment.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Professor, in order to make things clear, could you please put on the overhead projector, that is in tab 5, actually. This is a collection of documents. As soon as you open page 1, you have a letter of Frano Supilo.

A. Ah, yes.

Q. Sent to Sir Edward Grey.

A. This is it. This is it.

Q. London, 30th of September, 1915. So could you please put this on the ELMO. We're not going to go through the entire letter, just a few sentences so that they can be interpreted. ³⁴⁴⁹⁵ So point 1, Supilo says: "Croats, Serbs, and Slovenes are genetically one nation with three names of different historical, legal, state traditions but of one language and belonging to one race." So he is talking about one nation, one people with three names. Vuk Karadzic, considerably before, that speaks of one people and three laws; Greek law, Roman law, and Turkish law. Speaking of people belonging to three laws, he actually refers to the three faiths, the three religions.

Tell me now, this approach of a single people, to what extent did it come to the fore during these years of crisis at the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th century?

A. The idea of the unity of the Southern Slav peoples is not a Serb idea. It is an idea of a still undifferentiated and still nationally undefined people of Croatia, the Croatian people. It is called the Illyrian Movement. After that, the idea of the unity of the three people in one, Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, was a very widespread one in the political and intellectual public. And at first, it had a rather cool reception in the Serbian public. The Serbs espoused this idea only towards the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. Supilo, as you can see, was a supporter of this idea and theory himself, that is to say, of the national unity of the Southern Slavs, at least the ethnic unity of the Southern Slavs, except that they were divided by religion and history.

Vuk Karadzic, while accepting the Illyrian idea, believed that this unity was based on linguistic unity, which in Central Europe was ³⁴⁴⁹⁶ present in Central Europe, and even now linguistic theory believes that language is the most prominent feature of a people, a nation. So it was at least in the philological and cultural circles that the Serbs did espouse this theory. It was the end of the 19th century, the beginning of the 20th century.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, I would like to hear from the professor the meaning of Serbislav people. Could you elaborate on the meaning. I think he mentioned Serbislav people, which I don't follow.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Serb Slav language, which is Slavonic, Slavonic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The translation doesn't read right. Slavono-Serb. This is Slavonic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the Slavonic language was the literary language of the Serbs before Vuk Karadzic's reform in the mid-19th century.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. It is now clear. Please proceed.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In paragraph 4, Supilo says: "The idea of national unity of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes from a political point of view brings a logical consequence; the aspiration to unite into a single free state in which each tribe would -- with its own name and its own traditions will bring its best abilities and powers into this new state." Not to waste time, in number 6, it says --

MR. NICE: Your Honour, my mistake, I'm sure, but I can't immediately find the paragraph 4 to which the accused is referring. And ^{34497 BLANK PAGE 34498} if it is -- if it is Roman IV on the right-hand side of the letter of Edward Grey, I missed it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, redirect us to this paragraph.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Roman numeral IV. Yes, Roman numeral IV, the letter of Frano Supilo to Sir Edward Grey, 30th of September, 1915. So the first quotation was Roman numeral I, and then there is a footnote, and then on the right-hand side numerals II through V are printed. So I've already quoted them, the idea of the national unity of Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, et cetera.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And then in number VI, it says on the same page: "If forces stronger than fairness want to stop the implementation of this fair idea, that is to say, for example, that they wish to exclude Croatia from this framework of Yugoslav countries with Serbia, then -- and to create a separate State of Croatia, then it is necessary that Serbia at first carry out the necessary reforms, national, political, constitutional, cultural, which would make it impossible to develop another competitive Yugoslav state as well as every national work-force. In other words, it is necessary to have Serbia reformed internally in such a way that it should be the only proponent of the unity of Yugoslavs." What can we see on the basis of this, Professor?

A. We can see that Frano Supilo, belonging to the Croatian-Serbian coalition said that it was necessary to have this kind of unity and to link up the Serbs and Croats so that the Croats would not be separated from the other Southern Slavs, notably the Serbs, because in that case, ³⁴⁴⁹⁹ there would be antagonism between them, a competitive struggle which would work to the detriment of both peoples. That is why he asked for the support of the great powers, notably Great Britain, believing that that is the only fair solution, to use his words, and that the great powers will not turn a deaf ear to this historical justice of bringing the two peoples together.

Q. Professor, could you please take tab 3 now. This is one of the few exhibits that have been translated. The Nis declaration. Unfortunately, the Corfu declaration has not been translated, I think. It's within the same documents that we quoted a few minutes ago. But in the Nis declaration, on the 24th of November, it's a single page.

A. It is the 7th of December, according to the new calendar.

Q. Oh, I see, the 7th of December, 24th of November. In paragraph 4 -- the first paragraph is only one line -- it says: "In these decisive moments, the only task to --"

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters ask the speaker to please slow down because they do not have the text.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the interpreters are asking you to speak more slowly. Why don't they have the text? Because we have it here --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You have it, and I assume that they have it, because they should have this same set.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Do the interpreters have this? I'm asking the Deputy Registrar. We're just checking to ensure that they have it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I assume that I can proceed. You ³⁴⁵⁰⁰ have the text in front of you, don't you?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, but we also want the interpreters to have it. Do the interpreters now have the text?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes, they do, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Proceed, yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So in paragraph IV, I'm quoting paragraph IV of the Nis declaration, where it says: "The government of the kingdom considers as its most important and only task in these crucial moments to ensure the successful outcome of this great struggle which, at the moment when it started, became the struggle for the liberation and unification of all our unfree brothers; Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes."

So this is the very beginning of the war, 1914. What is the approach of Serbia's policy at that point in time?

A. The essence of this declaration, a very solemn declaration adopted by the national Assembly of the Kingdom of Serbia is that the Kingdom of Serbia is waging a war for two primary objectives: For the defence of the homeland, that is to say, their own fatherland, the Kingdom of Serbia, but it is not waging it for the creation of a Greater Serbia or taking territories that were populated mostly by Serbs. On the contrary, they are waging a struggle coinciding with the wishes of the other Southern Slavic peoples, notably the Croats and Slovenes. Serbia is waging a struggle for their emancipation from Austro-Hungarian rule and for the creation of a joint state of three equal peoples.

Q. Professor, now please go back to tab 5. After the documents that ³⁴⁵⁰¹ I quoted already, there is the Corfu declaration adopted in July 1917.

A. Yes.

Q. It is rather long. And this is where elements are given of the future state establishment, but what is the historical importance of the Corfu declaration? What does it show?

A. It shows that the idea of creating a joint state had spread to large numbers of Serbian, Croatian, and Slovenian members of the public and that they were willing to enter into a joint state with Serbia, even sacrificing some of their own ideas. The Yugoslav council was an organisation of Croatian, Serb, and Slovenian emigres from Austria, and its principles were to create a so-called dual federation. Serbia did not wish to agree to this but asked that a unified state be created where all religious, national, and other rights of all three peoples would be respected.

The Croatian and Slovenian politicians accepted this gladly, because they knew that if they did not enter into Yugoslavia together with Serbia, they would experience the tragic fate of defeated nations, because they had been part of Austria-Hungary on the one hand and on the other hand they would have large territorial losses to Italy and Austria, who were defending their territories in the war and who wanted -- so together with Serbia, they wanted to avoid the fate of conquered peoples.

Q. Professor, please turn to the next page where you have the statement of Nikola Pasic, the Prime Minister, to The Morning Post. This was not only an interview, it was a public statement, not merely an interview. I cannot quote extensively because it has not been translated. ³⁴⁵⁰² It has been provided only in Serbian in this book of documents, so I wish to draw your attention to the first paragraph, where Pasic first says that the Serbian government will decisively adhere to the Corfu declaration. At the end of the passage he says the following: "The Serbian people cannot not wish to take up a dominant position in the future kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes."

A. Pasic sincerely thought this. Most Serbian politicians were more than willing to make a number of sacrifices in addition to those they had suffered during the war, and those were enormous for the small state of Serbia. They were willing --

Q. Professor, now that you're speaking of this, what were the sacrifices for Serbia in that war?

A. Serbia lost between a 1.2 million and 1.3 million inhabitants, among them between 350 and 400.000 were soldiers, and the rest were civilians. They severed terror and epidemics, so that the population was reduced by about 30 per cent. The population of Serbia itself, that is, Serbia proper.

However, do you wish me to complete my response to the previous question?

Q. Yes, of course. I just made a small digression in order to show clearly how enormous had been the sacrifices of Serbia, which lost a third of its population in World War I.

A. Yes. The biggest sacrifice that Serbia was willing to make was to renounce its sovereign kingdom of Serbia, which was internationally recognised, and to sink its statehood into the general, more extensive ^{34503 BLANK PAGE 34504} state. They had capital which they were willing to exchange for a loan, an insecure loan. Serbia could have enjoyed great prestige after World War I. In the new state, it risked losing the prestige it had won in World War I, and unfortunately this was to happen.

Q. Pasic goes on to say, in the third passage: "I hereby solemnly declare that Serbia feels it --"

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, that is tab number 5.7. You have to indicate the tab number if you'd like the documents to be properly translated.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, what you have just said is correct. Tab 5.7, the statement of Nikola Pasic in The Morning Post.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. "Serbia feels it its national duty to liberate Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. When they are free, their right to self-determination will be recognised, that is, the right to state freely whether they wish to join Serbia on the basis of the Corfu declaration or whether they wish to create small states as they had done in the distant past. In accordance to what came previously, we not only do not wish to wage an Imperialist policy, we even do not wish to limit the rights of the Serbs, Slovenes, and Croats in any way or even to adhere to the Corfu declaration should it go against their wishes."

So he's bringing into question even the Corfu declaration, putting in the first place the wish of these people, once they have been liberated, to make their own choice freely. And the statement of the Yugoslav parliamentary club testifies to the fact that we all agree in our ³⁴⁵⁰⁵ aspirations, as far as our national future goes, and this will be confirmed in an even more solemn manner, and so on and so forth. Can we speak at all of Greater Serbia pretensions, domination, or anything that might in any way cast doubt on the actions and the policy that was implemented?

A. As a scholar, I'm deeply convinced that this was not the case, and that is why I said so in the text that I forwarded to the Court. During World War I, the Serbian government waged an action of liberation, leaving the decision as to whether they would unite with Serbia or not to the authorised representatives of the Croatian and Slovenian people.

Q. Mr. Popov, thank you. Tell me now, please, whether --

JUDGE ROBINSON: May I ask the professor a question. Professor, then your evidence is that at no time was there ever a Greater Serbian policy?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I'm not mistaken, during my first exposition here, I said that there had been such ideas but that they always belonged to peripheral and marginal political forces with one exception, when an organisation of officers demanded a Greater Serbia. There is something that would require a more extensive explanation, three minutes by your leave, when Serbia expressed a certain measure of expansionism viewed from today's point of view.

In 1912, Serbian waged the first Balkan war, together with Greece, Montenegro, and Bulgaria in order to expel the Turks from the Southern Slav territories in the Balkans where they had still remained after 1878. One of the most important goals of Serbia in that war was to break through ³⁴⁵⁰⁶ to the Adriatic Sea, because over 80 per cent of its exports were passing through Austria-Hungary, as were its imports. And whenever Austria wanted to exert pressure on Serbia, it would close off the border. For this reason, an Adriatic port was a crucial issue for Serbia. That's why the Serbs wanted to take not only liberated Kosovo but also a port in Northern Albania.

As the great powers did not allow this, it took a part of Macedonia, which, seen from today's vantage point, is not Serbian. However, in the early 20th century, the Macedonian nation had not yet constituted itself, and they opted to be either Bulgarian or Serbian at various points or nationally not affiliated. So that the Bulgarians and the Serbs divided up Macedonia and Greece, and they took various parts of Macedonia.

This was the only expansionist move by Serbia as far as I know, but I will conclude now by saying, by your leave --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, conclude.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In that area in the Vardar valley of Macedonia, which had been taken by Serbia, speaking only of the territory where the Serbian army had come, that's where the Macedonian nation and the Macedonian state were established in about 20 years. However, Macedonians are not recognised even as minorities either in Bulgaria or in Greece.

In Serbia, they were able to attain affirmation as a nation, to assert themselves, and in this way, the Serbs atoned for the fact that they had not realised on time that these were a separate nation. Had they ³⁴⁵⁰⁷ not done this, Macedonia would not exist today. It would still be divided among Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor, let's clarify just one fact. Today's Republic of Macedonia exists exclusively on the territory liberated from the Turks by the Serbian army.

A. That's correct.

Q. It does not exist outside that territory?

A. Not only does Macedonia not exist on those territories, but Macedonians don't exist either.

Q. In 1991, Macedonia decided to be independent, and without any conflicts nobody tried to prevent this, just as they would not have prevented others had they wished to do so without a conflict.

A. I think you're right.

Q. Professor Popov, to clarify, would you explain: At the end of World War I, did Serbia have an opportunity, although we have seen that it didn't do this, but did it have an opportunity to create a state that might be called Greater Serbia?

A. It did have an opportunity to establish a Serbia far larger than Serbia actually was at the time, that is, within borders which would practically double its territory. And the Serbs would still have between 60 and 70 per cent of the population on that territory. These were the borders which the great powers in 1915 offered Serbia for two reasons. In August 1915, pressure was exerted on Serbia by Great Britain and France and Russia to cede to the Bulgarians parts of Eastern Macedonia ³⁴⁵⁰⁸ so that they would be prevented from joining Germany and Austro-Hungary. On the other hand, the London agreement saw the light of day by which the powers of the entente attracted Italy to join them, and this caused protests among the Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs. As compensation, Serbia was offered the opportunity of creating a state on the territory of Bosnia, parts of Vojvodina without Banat, and Eastern Slavonia. There is even a map which I have to say I believe is a combination of the various offers made by Great Britain and France. Edward Grey and Georges Clemenceau are mentioned by name.

Therefore, the first offer to create a Greater Serbia was made to Serbia by the allied powers in World War I. This was the real idea of a Greater Serbia, and I might say the only one.

Q. Let's just make a small digression.

MR. NICE: Before we go on, I'm aware, of course, that we challenged aspects of this witness's evidence and the Chamber ruled against us, and of course there has been reference by witnesses called by the Prosecution to Greater Serbia, thus the topic of Greater Serbia generally, but I must invite the Chamber to consider whether we are now going into historical matters in far more detail than can be of any ultimate value to the Chamber. I'm hesitant about interrupting and trying to stop the evidence, because it obviously does no damage to the Prosecution case, but there is the question of the use of time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: This is something that the Chamber has in mind. Mr. Milosevic, I think I have said before that we are not in academia. It is proper for you to bring evidence on this question because ^{34509 BLANK PAGE 34510} the Prosecution made it an important part of their case, and to that extent it is proper for you to bring evidence, but I think we are reaching a stage where we might become drowned in history. You must move us forward to modern times. Fast forward to modern times. I think we have heard enough about the history of this concept, and I don't think the Chamber is going to benefit from more evidence on the 1914-1915 era. So fast forward to the modern era.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I will take your suggestion. Of course it is a very rational one, but please bear in mind that one of the main arguments of this false indictment is a criminal enterprise to create a Greater Serbia. This absurdity has to be clarified and debunked. It doesn't deserve anything else. So you will not be harmed by broader and more extensive knowledge of the issues on which this false indictment is based. These historical facts are indisputable. I just wanted to make a digression. You might call this a detail, but Mr. Nice, for example, put forward this detail in a certain telephone conversation, allegedly between Karadzic and me, where Karadzic asks me about a London agreement. I can tell him nothing about it. So now I want to ask the professor, as Mr. Nice used the London agreement and mentioned it here.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor, in tab 14, you have a map of the London agreement. As far as I understand this map - it's the original map - this London agreement with its map has nothing to do with Serbia. It's an agreement with Italy to draw Italy into the war on the side of the allies, giving to ³⁴⁵¹¹ Italy parts of Dalmatia and so on.

It would be useful if you could either confirm or challenge this. It's in tab 14. That's where you have a map of the London agreement. This has nothing to do with Serbia.

A. There are two maps, in actual fact. One is the map drawn in April 1915, when the London agreement was signed, about Italy joining the entente, and it drew in what it would receive as a prize. And in that series of rewards, we see Dalmatia up to the town of Sibenik, the whole of Istria, Trieste, Trentino, part of the Tirol, the Adriatic islands, and a part of Albanian territory as reward given to Italy. The second map is the map that was offered up to Serbia to make amends for the fact that they would lose the Croats, because the Serbs counted upon them as a nation, as an ethnic group, and what they would lose in Dalmatia they would -- and in Macedonia, they would pick this up on the other side. And that is the second map that is relevant here. The first map is not relevant for this trial.

Q. So this London one with Italy is not the relevant map; is that it?

A. Yes, that's it.

Q. So we're talking about this other map and focusing on the second map?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. So we've finished that line of questioning. Now, tell me this --

JUDGE ROBINSON: We were looking at tab 15 -- tab 14. You're referring now to another map focusing on -- say the second map. Where is that? ³⁴⁵¹²

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know where the second map is. The map provided here is the London agreement map, and it was not the map and agreement or treaty referring to the issue of Serbia, the question of Serbia. It deals with the relationship between the big powers and Italy.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, I don't know if we actually have this second map in our exhibits, Professor.

A. No, we don't, but I brought it with me. It has been translated or the comments and legend has been translated into English, and there is a book of maps, a collection of maps. I didn't think we would be discussing this subject, but I have brought it with me. So I would be happy to show the Court.

Q. Yes. Could we place it on the overhead projector, please, map number 2.

A. Let me just make a moment to find it, please. This is the first map. And that's what was given Italy, or offered to Italy. Now, what was offered to us -- or, rather, to Serbia, I will find that in just a moment. From this collection of maps and books, it is a collection of 28 maps. So here we have the London treaty map, and this is the second map. And this is what they considered Serbia could be given. This was promised to Serbia in London in 1915. It's a rather big map. I don't know if it can be placed on the ELMO.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we have it on the ELMO. What is the point about this map now, Mr. Milosevic? What is the question you want to put ³⁴⁵¹³ to the witness concerning this map?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, you asked to see the second map. I explained what this is about.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't think the Chamber asked to see the second map. We didn't.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Be that as it may.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let's look at the territories and what territories were proposed at the time. You mentioned Edward Grey and Clemenceau and others.

A. Yes.

Q. So what was it that Serbia was being offered as an alternative to Yugoslavia?

A. What was offered was Bosnia, Eastern Slavonia, Backa, Srem, and part of Dalmatia a little more north from Split to the Planck peninsula [phoen]. So a considerable amount of territory, more than Serbia ever considered to be rightfully its territory.

Q. Very well. We've dealt with that map now.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you have dealt with the point that you said was raised by the Prosecution concerning an intercepted conversation with Karadzic in which the London agreement was mentioned. Let us move forward now.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So, Professor, we have now established this. Serbia did not accept this offer, but it decided to go ahead and liberate the Slovenes and Croats and Serbs under Austro-Hungary and the creation of Yugoslavia, ³⁴⁵¹⁴ in which, as Pasic said, and we quoted him, in which he claims that he -- it must not even have the desire to be dominant. Is that clear?

A. Yes, it's clear to me, and I hope we have clarified it to the Trial Chamber. Serbia did not accept the offer of a Greater Serbia but followed its war goals defined in the Nis declaration.

Q. So what do you deduce from the fact that the offer of a Greater Serbia was made by the big powers and that Serbia rejected it? What do you have to say to that? What does that mean?

A. It was a sign of its principles, the principles it had fought for from the first uprising to the present day, if you will.

Q. Thank you, Professor. Now tell me this: What was the general mood of the population at the time in Vojvodina, Baranja, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Slavonia, Dalmatia, that is to say all those regions which were offered to Serbia to expand and enlarge its territory?

A. The year we're talking about, 1915, the population could not -- had no means of expressing its moods, because it was under pressure from war, from a state of emergency, from persecution and so on that you couldn't judge and tap the mood. But once Austria had entered into a crisis in 1918, we saw the burgeoning, true eruption of a wave of enthusiasm for becoming liberated from Austria and for creating a common state, a joint state. And this can be established, first of all, for the public that voiced its mood. One couldn't go from village to village. And except in Vojvodina, unfortunately, the free elections took place there, but otherwise they were not held throughout. But free elections for the Assembly to decide upon the future of the territory. ^{34515 BLANK PAGE 34516} What happened was that the Croatian Sabor, in the name of all the South Slavs west of the Drina, made a decision to set up a National Council of the State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs.

Q. Thank you, Professor. Now, do you know of a statement made by a Croatian representative in the National Assembly of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs, Dr. Ante Pavlovic, and he just happens to have the same name as the latter-day Ante Pavelic of the Independent State of Croatia, but do you know of a statement of his about the dilemma that they faced as to what they should do? And what was their dilemma in actual -- actually, the dilemma of the Croatian political elite, if I can put it that way?

A. The dilemma arose in 1917, first, whether they should see the unification of South Slav lands under the Habsburg Monarchy, and in that connection the May declaration was passed with the representatives of the Croats, Serbs, and Slovenes in the Austrian parliament, in the Austrian delegations, or not to accept this solution and to unite with Serbia. The situation became quite clear in the broadest political circles in 1918, and that was that a unification with Serbia should be chosen. There was to be a dilemma right up to the disintegration of Yugoslavia, whether it should be a centralist state or a federal state, federal kingdom with a federal system. However, that dilemma was to destroy the Yugoslav entity between the two world wars, because no solution was found, it was only intimated.

Q. Professor, right. Now, this option on the part of the Kingdom of Serbia and the Serb people to set up Yugoslavia as a country, was it the best possible proof of the fact that Austrian -- Austro-Hungarian ³⁴⁵¹⁷ propaganda about the bogeyman of Serbia and later on, was that a false propaganda?

A. Of course it was false, because I said a moment ago that the only true real idea of a Greater Serbia was actually born in 1915 and not among Serb circles because the Serb government at the time was still on its own territory in the town of Nis, so not in Serb circles but amongst the circles of the big powers, the entente powers on whose side Serbia fought. So any propaganda along those lines was false propaganda unless we have in mind the individual instances, marginal instances that we mentioned a moment ago, and transitory cases.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I am concerned to ensure that we are making the best use of the time available to us. As I said before, I think it's -- it's open to you, I think you're entitled to refute, to try to refute this concept of a Greater Serbia since it was an important part of the Prosecution's case, and I understand that you're doing this by tracing the history of Serbia to show that at no time in that history was this concept prevalent.

Now, you have dealt with the First World War. Can we then move on to the period between the First and the Second World War -- just the high points in that year, and then you move on to the Second World War, and then the era from the Second World War to the present time. Otherwise, we are in danger of being drowned in a sea of historical detail which is not -- not necessary.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We just want the broad outline of what you're ³⁴⁵¹⁸ trying to do, and which, as I've said, you have a right to do, in my view at any rate.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, you've gained a general impression and general picture. Now we'll look at how this myth of a Greater Serbia -- or, rather, we're going to pass through its dynamics and the dynamics it followed.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me, Professor, the Serb people, did it support the survival of Yugoslavia during World War II?

A. Well, it was this Yugoslav programme that mobilised the national liberation forces in the whole of Yugoslavia, throughout Yugoslavia, and of course among the Serbs. And 80 per cent, right up until the end of 1943, in fact, and the beginning of 1944, 80 per cent of the fighters in the national liberation army for the national liberation war were Serbs who had opted for the Yugoslav solution, which was offered up at that time by the Communist Party, which was the leader of the national liberation war. The Serbian people rejected, did not respond to the other kinds of Greater Serbian designs offered up by -- in declarative terms by the liberation movement of Draza Mihajlovic.

Q. Very well. So the Serb people supported the survival of Yugoslavia during World War II. Did it do so as well in the 1990s, of the 20th century? Did it lend its support and came out in support of Yugoslavia's survival?

A. I don't think there's any doubt about that. The Serbs, both in Serbia and especially the Serbs outside Serb, living in Bosnia, for ³⁴⁵¹⁹ example, and Croatia, were convinced, and that's a fact, that it is only in Yugoslavia that they could remain rallied in a single country within Yugoslavia's borders. If Yugoslavia were to fall apart, were to disintegrate, they would go back to the situation they were in in 1918. That is to say they would go back to other people's countries, alien countries, alien borders, even like in Bosnia where they were the relative majority. And that is why the Serbs were Yugoslav oriented in the majority. And they were ready to defend that Yugoslavia, some of them by taking up arms, as in Krajina and the people in Bosnia, and others working in propaganda, giving material aid and assistance and in ways of that kind.

So in the 1990s, the beginning of the 1990s, it was Yugoslavia that was being defended and the survival of Yugoslavia.

Q. Professor, you mentioned how many casualties there were in World War I. Now, can you tell us, if this won't take away too much time, could you just take a look at those facts and figures, and can we say how many Serb casualties there were in both the world wars and in that process of creation and preservation of Yugoslavia both in World War I and World War II?

A. Well, I can show the Court a map which was drawn and compiled by the American intelligence service at the end of 1942 and which is based on very secure data that were kept highly secret and confidential. It was the intelligence service which was to give birth to the CIA later on, led by William Donovan, and it compiled a map of Serb casualties, Serb victims in Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia and Vojvodina, for example. ³⁴⁵²⁰

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, what is the relevance of Serb casualties in the two world wars to the exercise that, as I said, you are now legitimately involved in, that is, debunking this idea of a Greater Serbia? What is the relevance of this to that exercise, the fact that Serbia suffered casualties in the two world wars? How does that serve to contradict the idea of a Greater Serbia? Because if you can't explain, I'm not going to allow the question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can explain it, Mr. Robinson. Don't you worry about that. I wanted to hear from the professor, and I don't know whether it's been properly translated, interpreted, because you mentioned between the two world wars, how many casualties the Serb people gave to have Yugoslavia survive and persevere. The amount of lives it laid down for the creation and preservation of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia. Bear in mind every word that I say -- I think of every word I say before I say it. So how many lives the Serb people laid down for the creation and preservation and survival of Yugoslavia.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Don't answer the question. I have to rule on it. Mr. Milosevic has to await my ruling, I'm afraid.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. It's marginally relevant since it bears on the question of the creation and preservation of Yugoslavia.

A short answer, though, Professor, a short answer.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The total number of losses, in the briefest possible terms, according to existing facts and figures of Serbia ^{34521 BLANK PAGE 34522} and the Serbs, the Serb people, the -- in the two world wars, were approximately 2.5 million people. That's the shortest answer I can give.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Milosevic, well, we are now at the time for the break. We'll break for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, how much longer do you plan to be with this witness for your examination-in-chief?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- I hope.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We didn't have a translation.

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters heard only the very end.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. The microphone is on now. I'll do my best to finish the examination-in-chief by the middle of this session.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes, Mr. Milosevic, proceed.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor Popov, a few moments ago you explained how much was invested in creating Yugoslavia and ensuring its survival, and before that you also said what Serbia brought into this new joint state. Now I wish to put a question to you as to an historian.

If a people invests millions of human lives into the creation and survival of a state, invests its statehood, its international legal ³⁴⁵²³ subjectivity, et cetera, what seems more normal and more natural to you and more probable; that that people will try to preserve the state for which it had sacrificed so much or that it will do its to break it up?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, that's not a proper question. It will call for an answer that is just too opinionated. It's not relying on the professor's historical skills and knowledge. I think you should ask another question. You can use that in your address, in your closing address, but it's not appropriate as a question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor, in the 1990s, did the Serb people try to preserve Yugoslavia into which they had invested such a great deal or did they turn to projects that were rejected by history?

A. Of course they addressed themselves to the state that they had created themselves, and the Serbian people had terrible negative experience from the First World War and the Second World War inflicted on them by the forces that in the 1990s proclaimed secession and called for the break-up of Yugoslavia. So it is quite clear why Serbs took that side and why they opted for preserving Yugoslavia.

Q. Now, in relation to these rejected projects, you refer to them too. There were such projects. You have tabs 6 onwards. This is a few maps. There are a few maps here.

For example, in tab 6. If you wish to have a look at that, this is homogenous Serbia, and the title is "Dr. Stevan Moljevic, attorney-at-law from Banja Luka."

A. Yes. ³⁴⁵²⁴

Q. What was this map?

A. During this infernal terror that the Serb people was subjected to in the Krajinas, in Bosnia, in Herzegovina by the Ustasha Independent State of Croatia in 1941, the lawyer Moljevic left Banja Luka and was in the town of Niksic in Montenegro, and he was thinking about the break-up of Yugoslavia and the creation of a Greater Serbia, and he made this map which was sent to Draza Mihajlovic's headquarters. There was a map there already of the Belgrade headquarters, and Draza Mihajlovic compared the two maps, and he preferred Moljevic's map.

When Moljevic reached, in March 1942, Draza Mihajlovic's headquarters, that's when this map was adopted. There was a countless number of maps.

The Chetnik movement was an incoherent movement, and there were lots of maps and lots of ideas bandied about, but the objective of Draza Mihajlovic's movement were these ideas of Stevan Moljevic. They were in force until January 1944 when they were modified. Moljevic envisaged a Greater Serbia, even bigger than the one that was offered by the London treaty. The London offer, rather than the London treaty. And Moljevic envisaged that this should be a homogenous Serbia from a national point of view along the following lines: The non-Serb population will be allowed to leave on their own or will be exchanged for those Serbs which remain outside this Greater Serbia. This programme was rejected by the Chetniks themselves. It was revised at the so-called Sveti Sava Congress in the village of Bar in January 1944 when, under pressure exerted by the Allies and because of the ³⁴⁵²⁵ general feeling that prevailed among the Allies, a decision was made to create a federative Yugoslavia with Serbia at its centre. However, that was not accepted either by the Serb people or, rather, the National Liberation Movement, and all these plans, Moljevic's and of the Sveti Sava Congress, all went down the drain in 1945 when the Chetnik movement was defeated once it openly collaborated with the German occupier.

Q. So this plan of a Greater Serbia was never the official policy of these leading forces in Yugoslavia or the Yugoslav state or of the Serbian politicians who were in power?

A. It was not, and it could never succeed because it envisaged further fierce fighting for territories, and the Serb people actually didn't want this. Therefore, every such project failed and failed not only the examination of history but also of that very moment in history.

Q. All right. Was the creation of a Greater Serbia ever part of any official programme of the Serbian state?

A. As far as I know, and I believe that I know quite a bit, it was not.

Q. Thank you, Professor. Now let me ask you something else. The building of any kind of greater state, is that something that entails territorial continuity, compactness, et cetera, everything that this state consists of?

A. For the most part, yes. And it is interesting that all the peoples in our neighbourhood had such plans and such wishes, dreams, if you wish.

I was astonished when I saw the following. I never would have ³⁴⁵²⁶ thought that the Slovenians would want to have that, least of all. They also had the idea of a Greater Slovenia, and I can show you a map of that project, too, but it was not carried through ever because a Greater Serbia or a Greater Croatia or Montenegro or Slovenia simply could not be created in the Balkan religious and national cauldron. The Serb intelligentsia understood that from day one, from the first Serbian uprising in 1804 onwards.

Q. Thank you, Professor. You said that this means that there should be a compact territory and there should be continuity in creating such a state.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I think this has some relevance and we need to be precise. You asked him whether the building of any kind of a greater state, whether that entails territorial continuity, compactness, and he said, "For the most part, yes." So I understand him to be saying that the element of territorial contiguity [Realtime transcript read in error "continuity"] is not a necessary element in the concept of a Greater Serbia or a Greater Slovenia. It may be possible to have that concept in the absence of territorial contiguity [Realtime transcript read in error "continuity"]. It doesn't have to exist in all cases.

Would you like to clarify that? Please clarify that, Professor.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course. I bore in mind this European plan when between the two world wars there were separated territories of a state, and that is a great misfortune. I'm talking about Poland. There was that corridor which divided Poland into two, and that ³⁴⁵²⁷ was a source of constant disputes between Germany and Poland. Therefore, such cases are possible and have existed in history, but most people try to avoid it.

If you wish, we have the example of the two Chinas today. It is one state so it does not have continuity but with two regimes and two territories.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Whereas the transcript has me saying "territorial continuity," I said territorial contiguity, which, in my view, is a better description of the idea.

Continue, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. At any rate, I understood what you were saying in the following way; that the creation of any kind of greater state means that there is territorial contiguity.

A. Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you please place this map on the overhead projector now. This is the Cutileiro plan map for Bosnia-Herzegovina. You have it, but I have prepared it here so that we could show it. Then I will put a question to the professor. Could you please place it on the overhead projector. This is the Cutileiro map, or, rather, the map that was called the Cutileiro plan.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please take a look at this map, Professor. This is the map that on the 18th of March, 1992, all three sides signed. According to this map, Bosnia-Herzegovina was cantonised. It was an independent state, but ³⁴⁵²⁸ it consisted of cantons. According to this plan, is there territorial continuity between Serb territories? You can see very nicely what the Serbian part is with horizontal lines, then the Croatian part are dark areas, and the Muslim part is white, and Sarajevo has slanted lines.

A. Obviously there is no continuity. And if one means a Greater Serbia, if that is what is attempted, this would not be the way.

Q. Well, precisely. That's what I'm asking you. Does this kind of map and this kind of project fit into a concept of a Greater Serbia even if it did exist?

A. I don't think that any serious person could think that this is the road leading to a Greater Serbia and that nobody could have counted on creating a Greater Serbia in this way.

Q. All right. And do you know that the Serb side in Bosnia-Herzegovina accepted this plan before the war broke out?

A. I have not explored this, but as a private person, I have information from the media, and I know that the Serbs accepted this.

Q. And do you know that on the 25th of March, 1992, Izetbegovic withdrew his signature of acceptance?

A. If I am not mistaken, he accepted it first and then he withdrew it.

Q. He signed it on the 18th and then withdrew it on the 25th.

A. Yes.

Q. So this kind of map and this kind of plan certainly could not fit into any kind of concept of a Greater Serbia.

A. That's for sure. ³⁴⁵²⁹

Q. And do you know that we from Serbia, and I personally, gave support to this position taken by the leadership of the Bosnian Serbs and their acceptance of the Cutileiro Plan?

A. I am aware of that.

Q. As an historian, does it seem possible to you that someone is planning the creation a Greater Serbia and at the same time accepting and supporting a plan that means a completely different thing? Does history know of such absurd examples?

A. Well, I cannot say anything but confirm what you've just said, that history practically does not know of any such absurd examples. Of course, I cannot remember all of world history right now but perhaps there were such cases somewhere but not in Balkan history and not in Serbian history, that's for sure.

Q. Please look at the map of the Vance-Owen Plan now from 1993, the spring of 1993. It also envisages --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you please put this on the ELMO.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It also envisages an independent Bosnia-Herzegovina divided into cantons.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, do we have that kind of map also? Have you offered that map to the Chamber or not?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I haven't submitted it to the Chamber. I thought that all these maps of the Cutileiro Plan and Vance-Owen Plan are in existence here. It is not being challenged by ³⁴⁵³⁰ anyone that these are documents that were part of an international conference.

MR. NICE: The -- the accused has got to comply with our practices, and if he's going to produce an exhibit that's already an exhibit, he should really give the Registry and the Court advance notice, A, to ensure that it is an exhibit; and B, to ensure that it's the same version of the document that's already in evidence. I can't assist at the moment as to the question whether either of these documents is an exhibit or not. We may be able to in a minute or so but not immediately.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, was this map exhibited by the Prosecution?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe so. I believe so, because the Vance-Owen Plan was referred to several times here, and it would have been impossible not to have admitted the map.

The professor knows this map very well, too, the map related to the Vance-Owen Plan. My question is as follows --

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, not like that. Not like that. Let us deal with this point. You must comply with the practices and the procedures of the Court. Mr. Nice has made a point, following upon Judge Kwon's perfectly proper question to you. The map is not before the Chamber. We have been through this before. We are repeating ourselves, Mr. Milosevic, and I warn you that if I make the determination that these things are happening because you do not care about the procedure, I will not allow you to produce the evidence. If I am not satisfied that you are making a good faith effort to comply with the procedures, you will not be allowed ³⁴⁵³¹ to adduce the evidence. We have procedures here and they must be complied with.

Let the professor comment on the map.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Vance-Owen map, you mean?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. What was the question you were asking? Let Mr. Milosevic ask the question. I think that's where we broke off.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. My question is the same as it was for the Cutileiro map. This map and this plan, can they fit into any kind of idea or concept of a Greater Serbia?

A. They never did. As far as I can remember from my knowledge of what happens in public affairs, this was one of the chances to stop the war in Bosnia rather than create a Greater Serbia.

Q. Well, you do know that Prime Minister Mitsotakis of Greece and President Cosic of Yugoslavia and I were in Pale then when this plan was discussed, and it is a well-known fact that we supported the plan. So as an historian, does it seem possible to you that somebody plans to create a Greater Serbia and at the same time accepts and supports plans that mean something completely different, that is quite the opposite, as can be seen from here?

A. This session took place at Pale, and I followed this from my hospital bed. The night -- the session went on all night, and in the morning I heard your statement and Mr. Cosic's statement, and you gave your full support to this plan. I don't think that anybody could have ³⁴⁵³² this kind of ulterior motive to say do it and then to go back on it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I allowed that question to pass, but as with another question of a similar kind, that's a comment which is appropriate for your address.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is so obvious.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, it's so obvious -- you make it in your address. The witness can't take the matter any further by answering a question of that kind.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well, Mr. Robinson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let's make a small digression now, because I think it's important to say this -- or, rather, I'm interested in your answer. In the policies of the Serbian political ideologues, during the 19th and 20th centuries, were there any Greater Serbian ideas and actions, and what were their results? We have touched upon Moljevic and some other examples. Are you aware of any other exponents of such ideas and what the results of their ideas were?

A. There were no serious politicians with such ideas. Such ideas did emerge from time to time in public life, denying the existence, for example, of Macedonians as a nation or demands that Serb lands be established and that negotiations with other nations be conducted from positions of power. There was a paper called Srpski Glas published by the Serb Cultural Club just before World War II, which published such ideas, but the then-government banned this paper.

I have no knowledge of any other examples of prominent ³⁴⁵³³ politicians. As far as Slobodan Jovanovic goes, I've studied his writings and I can find no trace of such ideas. He was concerned with Yugoslavia.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, can I just help with the plans.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: I don't have sight at the moment of the Cutileiro Plan offered just now, but the accused should have known that it was he who'd put the Cutileiro Plan in as D209, I think, and I'm grateful to Ms. Dicklich, as ever, for her rapid retrieval of this detail. Whether it's the same version of the plan or not, I'm not sure, because I haven't got it on the screen at the moment.

The Vance-Owen Plan is, we understand, Exhibit 396, tab 10. Again, without being able to see the maps and compare them, I can't know if they're the same.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice, for that assistance, which should have been provided by Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson. If this question refers to any map of the Vance-Owen Plan, I accept that, because it's common knowledge what the Vance-Owen Plan looked like. We are talking about areas from which the army of the Bosnian Serbs was to withdraw and areas from which the army of BH and the Bosnian Croats was supposed to withdraw. That's the area around Sarajevo. But any map exhibited here would refer to the same issue. So I accept any map exhibited here.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor, in the Republic of Serbia proper - I am referring to ³⁴⁵³⁴ the years between 1991 and 1999 - were there any phenomena showing Greater Serbian tendencies, aggressive behaviour, destructive behaviour, hegemony, and so on?

MR. NICE: I think that -- I think there must be some limit to the degree to which the witness can be invited to trespass on the territory of the Court.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You have to ask another question, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. What do you know about Greater Serbia hegemonism emerging in Serbia in the last decades of the 20th century?

A. I know that there was rhetorical and propaganda made advocating these ideas. For example, the Serbian Radical Party and the Serbian Renewal Movement. They did not, however, advocate a war for the expansion of Serbia. They were simply giving verbal support to the Serb people and the desire of those people in the Krajina and in Bosnia to remain in a community with Serbia.

I cannot say that these were coherent Greater Serbia plans, but even when such ideas did emerge in pre-election rallies and speeches, they were very effectively suppressed by the then-authorities; by your government and by the parliament of the Republic of Serbia.

Q. Professor, when examining your colleagues, Professor Avramov and the academician Mihajlo Markovic, Mr. Nice - and I've only found it on the transcript today - this is page 32501 in the case of Professor Avramov and 33550 in the case of Professor Markovic, referred to the writings published in a magazine called Epoha. You have copies of this magazine ³⁴⁵³⁵ and so do I. This was raised here as an important issue. Therefore, I wish to ask you to assist us by clarifying certain points. For example, on line 6 it says there was a magazine called Epoha published for a couple of years, "[In English] in 1991, and it was effectively the magazine of the accused's SPS party; correct?" [Interpretation] This was the question put by Mr. Nice to Smilja Avramov, who said she was unable to answer his question because she wasn't aware of that.

As for Mihajlo Markovic, you are aware of a magazine called Epoha, and so on and so forth. He couldn't say precisely what this was about. However, as we have obtained copies of this magazine in the meantime, and Mr. Nice has exhibited them, you are aware, Professor, that this magazine was issued in the 1990s. This is the issue exhibited here. It's the first issue, of the 22nd of October, 1991.

A. I have to admit, Mr. Milosevic, that I was not aware of the existence of such a magazine. However, I heard about it for the first time when following the proceedings and the testimony of witnesses Avramov and Markovic. And then I made an effort. I asked a young colleague of mine to find this issue for me, and he did.

I looked at it, and nowhere could I see that this was a magazine of the Socialist Party. I am a member of the Socialist Party and have been since it was founded. I have to admit I don't read the weekly press because it's a huge waste of time; however, I did not even know that this magazine existed.

Later on, I found that among the people writing in this magazine ³⁴⁵³⁶ there were current and former members of the Socialist Party, but I also noticed something else. In the back, this is published by a limited liability company, and you have commercial advertisements here. This is an institute for international management, Suhcesije, European Council of Management, and a number of other such organisations, and they started this magazine, as far as I can tell, and they managed to get some prominent journalists and scholars to write in it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Where is that organisation, the -- what is it, the European Council that you referred to that publish the magazine? Where is it based? From -- does it say on the magazine?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was based in Belgrade. It says so in the magazine. As far as I know, a certain Mr. Zecevic established it. His name is Milja Zecevic, if I'm correct. He founded this international management centre, and he had a branch office in Paris. Later on, as far as I can recall but I'm not absolutely sure, he moved to Los Angeles in the USA.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Yes, but the people publishing advertisements here were not the publishers of Epoha. In the impression on page 1, it says published by Epoha Limited, Company Limited. Is this correct? Not by the Socialist Party but by Epoha Company Limited.

A. Of course.

Q. And the people publishing advertisements here are neither the publishers nor of a -- the owners of this magazine.

A. But they're certainly financing it. ³⁴⁵³⁷

Q. As this refers to October 1991, from the magazine which we have finally obtained, for example, here you can see the biggest building construction company building flats, and they're advertising their properties and so on, there's a lot of advertising here, but the fundamental question as to whether this -- this is a magazine of the Socialist Party, the answer is no, it's not.

A. No, it's not.

Q. As far as the content of the magazine goes, have you managed to read it?

A. Yes. I read it last night.

Q. Doesn't it seem to you that there are various opinions expressed here, many of which are contradictory, and this is a part of the freedom of speech and journalism which was prevalent in early 1991, isn't it?

MR. NICE: More leading questions, speeches, I'm not sure --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you have just asked a question which tells the witness what the answer is. We have discussed this before, that you are not allowed to ask leading questions. Rephrase the question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Popov, I assume you are aware that there were many polemics and discussions current at the time about various maps and that the various newspapers and magazines were flooded with them at the time.

A. Well, yes. In that situation, everybody speculated. There's a famous character in literature who, even in difficult situations, ³⁴⁵³⁸ attempted to promote himself. His name was Ostap Bender. So there were various plans current at the time. I saw that some of them came from eminent people, but I have to say, and it's my fault, I don't know who the people putting forward maps in this magazine are, I assume they're not very prominent people in public life.

Q. In any case, various writers express various opinions here, is that clear from this issue of Epoha?

A. Yes. I read it last night because I brought it with me.

Q. Look at page 15, for example. I don't know who this Dr. Jovan Ilic is. Maybe you know him?

A. I've heard that he is a demographer of some sort.

Q. All right, a demographer. Well, look on page 15. I will quote point 1. He says, "It is our opinion that the frequently mentioned border, the western border of Karlovac-Virovitica-Karlobag of the Serbs lands, map number 1, is not favourable to the solution of the Serbian issue."

And, well, now you say he was a demographer. Because many Croats would then remain in the third Yugoslavia, about a million and a half of them. Later, from 1981, he was probably looking at statistics, the census from the current Republic of Croatia.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: We don't have this exhibit, as far as I know, unless it's one of the tabs that I've not tracked down.

JUDGE KWON: Is it not 786 of the --

MR. NICE: It may be, but I'm not sure. There's a colour version ³⁴⁵³⁹ that we have here and we only have a black and white version, so I'm not sure.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice exhibited this issue of Epoha. I'm using his exhibit. I don't know what his number for it is, but I know that Mihajlo Markovic was mentioned and that this was exhibited as if it were something important. I'm trying to show here that this is a pure manipulation on the part of Mr. Nice.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The magazine to which you're referring is the same magazine, Mr. Milosevic, that Mr. Nice exhibited? Is it the same issue?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, it is. Yes, it is. It's the identical issue. I assume that my copy has more pages because Mr. Nice has extracted a map which he has adduced with this issue of Epoha, but the magazine deals with all sorts of various issues. It was simply one among a number of magazines published at the time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... 786.

MR. NICE: Yes, I've now got 786, and indeed it does appear that there is more in this exhibit than we had, because we only had as much as we had. Again, the accused has got to make exhibits available if they are to be dealt with. Perhaps the Chamber would also, if it thinks it should or can, deal with the entirely inappropriate terminology of the accused in referring to my conduct of this case. As the Court knows, I've been very tolerant of his bad use of language, but the word "manipulation" is inappropriate and unacceptable.

JUDGE ROBINSON: If he did use that word, yes, then it's ³⁴⁵⁴⁰ inappropriate.

MR. NICE: Line 16.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Milosevic, that is not acceptable language here.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well, Mr. Robinson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I will quote another passage --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, before you continue, you should have copies of this magazine for the benefit of the Chamber and the Prosecution so that we can follow it. Your examination-in-chief is not a private dialogue between yourself and the witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As far as I can see, Mr. Robinson, you're holding a copy of the magazine in your hand.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I managed to secure this after the efforts of the -- calling upon the efforts of Judge Kwon and the Deputy Registrar. You are to produce it. That's your job. When you organise your case overnight, you must make sure that you come to court with copies of the exhibits or the documents on which you're going to rely in your examination-in-chief.

The next time it happens, I will not allow it. I'm not going to allow you to lead the evidence on it.

THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you through with this magazine now?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am not. I wanted to put a few ³⁴⁵⁴¹ more questions to the Professor. I wanted to quote from page 20, because you can see a wide range of viewpoints.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor, you have page 20. The two last passages in the last column, it says: "People, especially young people, should be brought up to respect their own ethnic and national characteristics in the spirit of general geoglobalism, democratic Europeanism, and the spirit of modern, cultural, scientific, scholarly and other processes. Young people must be educated to respect the equality of citizens in their own country and in the world. We have to avoid the situation which emerged after the collapse of communist one-mindedness. Unfortunately, it has been replaced by nationalist one-mindedness. This means that we have to develop further the process of democratisation."

There are various ideas here, critical views of the events that transpired in 1991. Does what you are holding in your hands now, is it different from the general kind of articles published at the time? Is there any Greater Serbian chauvinist ideology imparted in this magazine published by a company limited, as we can see, and not the Socialist Party?

A. Well, the quotation you read out I have marked myself as a sort of evidence or proof of a healthy political way of thinking and healthy thought, which in the mad times of nationalist and chauvinist aspirations generally was something that was heard.

Now, I don't know who this man Dr. Ilic is, but with these variants set out, I don't know whether I can agree with his variants but I ³⁴⁵⁴² do agree with what you just said, because this is the voice of reason, that the youth, internationalist youth, if you want to put it that way, should be educated in a tolerant manner.

Q. And is it true that while The Hague Conference was still going on and well in political and scientific circles were discussing different borders, administrative borders, non-administrative borders, and so on and so forth, that it was already quite clear that Slovenia's and Croatia's secession was imminent already at that time?

A. Well, this is October 1991, isn't it? And Slovenia proclaimed its secession in June, if I'm correct. Of course, I didn't think I'd be answering questions of this nature, but I think Croatia did so a month later.

Q. And who imposed the fact that the question of borders should be put on the agenda?

A. Those who were stepping down, who were seceding.

Q. Armed secession took place and a general discussion of borders began; is that right? At scientific forums, laymen's forums, expert meetings; everywhere, in fact?

A. Yes, it began with an attack on the Yugoslav People's Army, a strong attack on the army and the killing of unarmed soldiers and the blocking of barracks, and so on and so forth. And immediately after that came the question of borders. That was on the agenda.

Q. Well, with this particular author, Mr. Rakic, we can see that the author considers that it is Europe who should settle the issue of borders.

A. Well, unfortunately, that's how it turned out, and that's what it ³⁴⁵⁴³ would appear, because the man -- this man looked at the realistic situation, and he thought that the influence of the international factor was so great on our internal affairs that that would be the right way to go about it and that one couldn't avoid that influence. So that is how I understand the suggestion on his part.

Q. Very well. Thank you. I won't dwell on this any more, but as you have read through this magazine, is it clear that it collides with the idea of a Greater Serbia as well?

A. Yes, that's quite clear, because nobody is striving for a Greater Serbia anywhere, not this man Rakic and not the man Ilic either.

MR. NICE: Again that's an entirely leading, extremely tendentious question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think in the circumstances we'll allow it, yes.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the professor has already answered anyway.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you are in danger of beating this point to death.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I will refrain from beating this topic to death.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, can you quote examples of certain Serbian politicians in the 1990s, perhaps, who advocated an aggressive presence, the establishment of paramilitary units or anything of that kind, any similar things from ³⁴⁵⁴⁴ Serbia vis-a-vis or towards other parts of Yugoslavia?

A. I remember the first military formation or, rather, paramilitary formation that was set up. That was sometime in mid-1991. I myself live in the city of Novi Sad, which is across from the Danube with the fortress of Petrov Varadin. It is a large fortress with exercise grounds, training grounds, and that's where training took place of the so-called Serbian Guard. And the television televised that and the first commander who was to die in Krajina later on, his name was Djordje Bozovic, nicknamed Giska, explained how they were undergoing training and that they were preparing to go to defend the Serb people, because allegedly this was something that was not being done by the Serbian government in sufficient measure or, rather, the Yugoslav government, as it was still during that time. So this was a formation, a unit which was established by the Party of the Serbian revival movement -- renewal movement, and the leader is Vuk Draskovic. So the Serbian Renewal Movement with Vuk Draskovic at its head. Later on I read that a man named Arkan, who was killed in the year 2000, followed suit, and we heard of some Seselj's volunteers. I don't think that was a paramilitary formation. He went around making a lot of noise, holding patriotic speeches and so on and so forth. It was more a verbal form of agitation to suppress the patriotic spirit and that his men went to the Yugoslav army as volunteers. That's all I know, nothing more than that.

Q. And this Serbian guard of Vuk Draskovic's that you mentioned, what was its relationship towards the state and the state institutions and me personally as the Serbian Renewal Movement of Vuk Draskovic? ³⁴⁵⁴⁵

A. Well, the renewal movement went to the -- led up to the demonstrations in Belgrade in 1990, the destructive ones. Then he set up a guard which I read somewhere numbered 800 men somewhere in Lika. That's where they went to fight. And this man Giska, I might be wrong on this score and I do apologise if I am, but it seems to me that that man Giska said at the time that they could -- they were capable of mobilising 7.000 men at that time.

Q. But my question was what was the relationship between the Serbian Renewal Movement and Serbian Guard towards the official powers that be in Serbia and Yugoslavia of the day?

A. They were the extreme opposition.

Q. Thank you, Professor. In 1990, the Party of Democratic Action of Alija Izetbegovic formed its branch in Serbia. Do you remember that?

A. Well, I think that was in the region called Sandzak. Sulejman Ugljanin led that particular group.

Q. And I'm sure you'll remember the large-scale rallies.

A. Yes, I do. I remember them well. And I remember one particular rally at which that man held a speech precisely against the rallying of Muslims in Sandzak and linking themselves up to Bosnia.

Q. I'm talking about the Party of Democratic Action of Alija Izetbegovic who were in Sandzak, that party. But you remember Draskovic's rallies too?

A. I remember Draskovic's rallies, and I remember on one occasion Ugljanin, for example, made a lot of noise and shouted and said that Serbia didn't ask them about anything and that's why they will seek ³⁴⁵⁴⁶ recourse and protection from Alija Izetbegovic or, rather, the Party of Democratic Action.

Q. What do you remember about Draskovic's rally?

A. Well, he launched threats and said that anybody carrying green flags and from the Party of Democratic Action would come under threat.

Q. What about the Socialist Party of Serbia? Did it establish its branch in Bosnia-Herzegovina or any other republic apart from Serbia?

A. I don't think it did. I don't know about that, and as a party member, I would have to know, but I don't know anything about that. I don't think so.

Q. And is it true that the authorities, because there were the demonstrations by Ugljanin on one side and Draskovic on the other, that there was a media campaign to quell the unrest amongst the population in Sandzak at the time?

A. Well, I read just two papers and I read two papers, I've been reading them for 15 years, and I watch television, of course, and I listen to the radio, and what I remember is this: That the Socialist Party always launched appeals to calm the situation down, advocating tolerant relations, democratic action, and so on and so forth. So I cannot state that there were any, absolutely none, no warmongering policies among the Socialist Party itself at all.

Q. All right. Tell me this, Professor: You're an eyewitness of all the events that took place in the last decade of the 20th century and of course the times that went by previously and you're an historian also. Did you ever note in Serbia any relationship of discrimination during the ³⁴⁵⁴⁷ wars in Bosnia and Croatia, either towards the Croats or towards the Muslims or towards the Hungarians or towards anyone else, any other ethnic group for that matter?

A. Well, I myself live in Vojvodina province, for example, and there are 20 ethnic groups - 23, to be exact - living there, speaking six languages. We speak six languages in Vojvodina and communicate in six languages. Papers and magazines are published in six languages as are television broadcasts, radio broadcasts, and so on. So I have to say that during that period of time, there was absolutely no -- except for the unfortunate case that it seems to be mentioned time and again, that incident at Hrtkovci -- I cannot remember a single other instance or case, either talking to my colleagues, friends, associates who were Croats, Hungarians, or anything else. Our relationships have remained good. They have not been upset from either side. And I think that the policy waged by the Socialist Party in the Republic of Serbia first and foremost was a policy of tolerance which accepted even Muslim refugees, for example, coming in from Bosnia. And we were all witnesses to that. We knew all about that. And I would go to Mount Slativo, for example, where this was the topic of the day.

So I cannot accept any accusations made against Serbia that Serbia waged any kind of discriminatory policy towards anybody. People did say, for example -- Hungarians did say, or Hungarian nationalists used to say that a lot of young people left Serbia at the time. Well, yes, they did. They left to avoid having to join up, to join the army. So there were people fleeing in that way. But anybody else fleeing because of ³⁴⁵⁴⁸ discrimination and threats, I don't know any instance of that kind, no.

Q. Well, in Vojvodina you would have been well placed to see that had it taken place.

A. Certainly.

Q. You mentioned the famous Hrtkovci that are mentioned all the time. Are you aware of the fact that the perpetrators of that incident were arrested?

A. Well, I know that the papers wrote about these people being arrested, that some people were arrested, and unless I'm mistaken, I know Mrs. Margit Savovic, she was on a special mission there to ascertain what had actually happened. And I heard this from her when she visited the Matica Srpska organisation.

Q. Professor, I just have a few more questions for you. You know full well about the situation in the northern part of Serbia and Vojvodina province, and you yourself said that there was no discrimination there. Can you tell us, but just in a few words, please, give your comments about the position of the Serbs and Croats in Hungary, for example, if you were to compare some years. Let's take, for example, the Trianon agreement, for example, and the present times. According to my facts and figures, there were 150.000 Croats in Hungary at the time. Now there are only 13.000. There were over 30.000 Serbs there, now there are only 3.500 Serbs in Hungary. And at that time in Serbia we had 300.000 Hungarians living in Yugoslavia and we still have 300.000 Hungarians living in Yugoslavia. Are those facts and figures correct?

A. Yes, they are correct, and I was a member of an inter-academy ³⁴⁵⁴⁹ study group. We spent 10 days touring South Slav minorities in Hungary, for example. This was in 1988. Antun Vratusa was the head of the delegation, the head of the study group going to Hungary, and we visited a large number of institutions and, amongst others, the ministry in charge of that question, and so those facts and figures are almost identical to the figures quoted by the ministry, by representatives of that particular ministry. They said that there were at least 10.000 Serbs but that they didn't wish to declare themselves as Serbs, and that there are still at least 30.000 Croats who did not wish to declare themselves as Croats because they have had some very difficult experience in the past.

Q. And how many Croats were living in Hungary earlier, during the Trianon agreement?

A. Well, roughly speaking, approximately, in countries -- Hungarians in countries belonging to Yugoslavia there was a slightly larger figure, but there was a considerable number of South Slavs who stayed on, remained living in Hungary. And according to the Trianon agreement, the possibility was given for an option. People could decide whether they wished to move and resettle or not. There was some resettlement but the results were not impressive.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, move on to another area of questioning, because the relevance of this area is questionable.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Robinson. I won't take up more of the professor's time. All I would like to do is to ask him to comment on a couple of maps that we have provided here among the exhibits. And I have in mind map 13 -- or, rather, tab 13 and tab 15. ³⁴⁵⁵⁰

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So just in the briefest possible terms, Professor, could you comment upon Greater Albania, tab 13, tab 15, and tab 16.

A. These are self-explanatory maps, and I'm just going to make one small comment.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May we have the maps placed -- at least one of the maps placed on the ELMO, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here we have a map of the Prizren League, for example. The Prizren League was founded in 1878. It was the first Greater Albania movement, and I have to say that not a single Balkan people, Balkan nations in their national aspirations were so consistent as were the Albanians. Their plans for a Greater Albania dating back to 1878 and in later years, and we have three of them here, from the times of the Italian occupation, from the year 2001, they are almost identical. There are very few deviations.

So this Greater Albania comprises the western reaches of Serbia, Western Macedonia, and western parts of Greece, the so-called Camorija area. And you'll find this identical situation in all the maps.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Thank you, Professor. I have no further questions for you. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Nice.

Cross-examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. I want to deal with a small matter of detail. You will be ³⁴⁵⁵¹ provided with a selection of prints from the magazine Epoha.

JUDGE ROBINSON: A section of prints.

MR. NICE: Well, it's parts of various copies of Epoha --

JUDGE ROBINSON: The transcript has you as saying a selection of principles.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have the magazine itself.

MR. NICE:

Q. I will distribute this exhibit and explain it to the Court and then I'm only going to ask you to look at one point, Professor, so don't be too troubled.

A. I'm not troubled.

Q. What we have in the first, if you look at it - I don't know if you read English - you'll see in the first few pages typewritten versions of the entries in various copies of Epoha. See, the first page is a typewritten version of what appears on the printing detail for the 22nd of October; the second page has, in both Serbian and in English beside it, the entries for the printing of the 29th of October; and then we come to the next page, which is the 26th of December; and then the 16th of December. Over the page we come to the 11th of June, and the 13th of August.

Now, the intention was that the relevant material should always have been translated into English where appropriate. It hasn't happened, but you can help us.

If you go now, please, to the second to last page of this little selection of documents. And if the usher would be good enough to display ³⁴⁵⁵² one on the overhead projector if you've got a spare of that. Second to last page.

You'll see a page from Epoha. It looks like that. Yes, please. Epoha from the 11th of June, 2002. We can see that date at the top, right-hand corner.

But if you put the document, please, Usher, so we can see the bottom, right-hand corner of the page. Right at the bottom. No, right at the bottom. Further down. Right at the bottom. Further down. There it is. That's it.

Now, what we see there on the right-hand side is a passage --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Nice is talking about 2002 now, and all the maps he talked about pertained to 1991 and the magazine from 1991. Now he is trying to prove something through the year 2002; who published the magazine and so on.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we don't know yet what Mr. Nice is trying to prove. Let him continue.

MR. NICE:

Q. Now, the English-Serbian version of this, which is earlier on, didn't translate the word Osnivac, so can you just read out the first line of the printing details beside "Epoha," beginning with Osnivac.

A. I can, yes. Yes. It says: "Founder, Socialist Party of Serbia. Publisher, the company Medijas. Director and editor-in-chief, Milorad Vujovic." ³⁴⁵⁵³

Q. If we go to the next page and look at the same part of it for the 13th of August of 2002, just to be fair and to see what is involved, we now see that Osnivac has changed, and can you read the first line, please.

A. "Founder, the Medijas company. Publisher, the Medijas company. Address, Studentski Trg 15, Belgrade. Director, Milorad Vujovic", et cetera.

Q. Can you help us, please, with why this June edition, June 2002, refers to the founder being the Serbian Socialist Party? Can you help us with that, since you've given an opinion on the rest of it?

A. I have to repeat that this is the first time I see this magazine, so I can hardly help you with this, how come it says the Socialist Party of Serbia. If the founder was the Socialist Party of Serbia, then I was not a very good member, because I did not follow the party newspapers.

Q. Let's now come to your report, and perhaps you'd be good enough, please, to help me with a couple of general points. You're an academic, and you're used, I take it, to preparing academic papers; correct?

A. I assume it's correct.

Q. Academic papers are for reading by fellow academics and people of intelligence and learning, and they have to justify the conclusions that they reach. Would that be fair?

A. That's right.

Q. So let's just take one tiny example of the evidence that you've given and I think that you've referred to in your report, the reference to "axes in their heads." Do you remember giving us evidence about how ³⁴⁵⁵⁴ people were killed with axes in their heads?

A. I do remember. I do remember very well. I remember the document very well. No, they were not actually killed, but this was what was being prepared.

Q. Now, if we were to look through your report, could you tell me where I could find the source for that little detail?

A. I can. It is in the two volumes entitled "Material about Serbs in Croatia," published by Vasilije Krestic, an historian, four or five years ago. In these two volumes, there are about 800 documents. One of these documents is a note of Isa Krsnjavi, a writer and active supporter of the Party of Rights, who visited Ban Cuvaj and suggested that the Serb issue be resolved radically.

In response to Cuvaj's question how it can be resolved radically, he said, "By taking an axe to their heads." And then the other man said, Well, you cannot kill 800.000 people. That's what the source says. This is an original source that Krestic published --

Q. Professor Popov, can you show me -- it may well be that I've missed it, and it will be entirely my mistake if I have, but have you identified that source in your report to this Court?

A. Yes.

Q. Whereabouts?

A. I submitted my report together with the notes. In these notes, everything was identified. I don't know if you received these notes.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... bibliography extract, but I haven't got -- ³⁴⁵⁵⁵

A. No, no, no.

Q. I haven't seen one footnote or end note in this report. So there's nothing in it that I've ever been able to track. Where are these notes that you say come with it? Maybe they weren't provided. Maybe we've mislaid them. Maybe the Court has got them and I haven't.

A. Here they are. It was probably mislaid somewhere, because I have them here. Straight away.

MR. NICE: It's something we raised in our filing about this witness, that there were no footnotes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let them be passed first to the Chamber and then to the Prosecutor.

Professor Popov, hand over the notes to the usher.

[Trial Chamber confers]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, may I just add something to what Professor Popov said? I was confident all the time that whenever the professor referred to footnotes or notes or whatever had been made available to everyone, because they're marked in the text, and perhaps this was a technical mistake. They were not typed on the actual pages of the report, they were added.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... we have indicating footnotes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then it's a technical mistake. I do have these marks in my text, and I have exactly 69 footnotes that he ³⁴⁵⁵⁶ mentioned as sources in this report of his. That's what the professor did.

MR. NICE: This is another example, I'm afraid, of the problems caused by the accused choosing only to take part in procedure when it suits him. Because if he had read the filing -- had he read and responded to the filing of the 18th of October of this year, rather than disregarding it, I imagine, he would have seen that we invited the Chamber to order that the report be rewritten and footnotes or end notes added referencing the sources for the claims made, because we were alarmed at having to deal with an expert report that had no sources at all. And, Your Honour, I don't propose to ask for time to deal with it unless in the course of the break I find something particularly concerning, because I'm not sure of the particular scope and relevance of this report, but it is very unsatisfactory.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I make this remark with great care, but you have done a disservice to Professor Popov. You have done him a great disservice, because he produced for you a report which had footnotes, and yet you did not ensure that the report which is before the Chamber is one which replicates those footnotes.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I would like to know how that happened.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wonder too. I wonder too. This is not only to the detriment of the expert but it's to my detriment too. What would my motive be not to supply the footnotes along with the report? All the footnotes were given at the end of the report, and this is only to the detriment of our work here. ³⁴⁵⁵⁷

JUDGE BONOMY: I have here the text in Serbian. Can you tell me where I'll find reference to the first footnote? On which page will I find reference to the first footnote?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On page 1, at the beginning of paragraph 2, after the word "confusion," where there is a full stop, and that is where footnote number 1 is. That's the first footnote.

JUDGE BONOMY: There is no sign of it on the copy which I have here. Now, these are copies that you have produced, so perhaps you could explain what's happened to the missing footnote.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't understand what could have happened. It never crossed my mind to check the texts and to collate them and to see whether they were properly printed or not. I assumed that people did their work in the right way. And during the break, any one of my associates can mark the footnotes throughout the text so you can have all of them, although, in all fairness, there are 69 of them, and --

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, when you say you assume people did their work in the proper way, which people are you referring to?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I mean those who were given Professor Popov's report. How can I now collate what you have to what I have given? The paper of Professor Popov has, as an annex, footnotes, and it never crossed my mind to check whether the annex with the footnotes were -- was provided. It would be as if I checked whether all the pages were there or something like that.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Kay, you filed a submission in relation to this ³⁴⁵⁵⁸ in response from -- to the Prosecution's motion.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: If you could help us with this matter.

MR. KAY: Yes. We've only ever had it in English, and we don't have the footnotes either. So I've got a text which Your Honours have, which was provided on the 16th of August, 2004, which has got no footnotes.

This, of course, has not been something that we have been dealing with on a hands-on basis at all. All we've done is shore up for the accused an opportunity to get it into evidence by making a filing on the issue of the report itself, as the Court knows.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, you are referring to people who you expect would do their work properly, and now you define these people as the people who had the report. Now, who are these people that you say somehow or other have done you a disservice by altering the form of the report which you had?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] When comparing the two, the Serbian and the English, it never crossed my mind to look at the footnotes, but I don't think anything was altered. This is the first time I hear that something had been altered.

JUDGE BONOMY: That's not an answer to my question, with great respect to you. The question is: Who are the people that you suspect have done something along the way to alter this report?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't think that anyone ³⁴⁵⁵⁹ intentionally altered the report, and it's not any kind of change, really. Obviously, technically, the footnotes were simply not there any longer.

JUDGE BONOMY: Unintentionally will do for me. Who are the people that you say have altered the report?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I cannot make any assumptions, Mr. Bonomy, because once the report leaves my hands, I am no longer -- I mean, it's no longer in my hands. I don't control it any longer.

JUDGE BONOMY: The person who handed it over was Mr. Ognjanovic, as far as I can see from the filing. Are you saying that through his possession of the document it has somehow or other been changed?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Who?

JUDGE KWON: Ognjanovic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't think so. I don't think so. I did not mention Ognjanovic at all, and I cannot tell you exactly which one of my associates forwarded the document, because they take turns here. I assume that this associate of mine who forwarded the document did it in good faith as well, making every effort to do things correctly. So I can really not find fault with anyone now, but I do see now that there are no footnotes, and I find that inexplicable.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, you can find fault with yourself. You can surely do that, because the fault rests with you.

MR. KAY: The Serbian version's got no footnotes as well, although I've just been handed, by Ms. Anoya, a document that -- sorry -- a document that she has on file with -- oh, right. That's the professor's. Sorry, it's come round to me this way and I thought it was from her. ³⁴⁵⁶⁰ Can I suggest that Professor Rakic, who is here at the moment and is the current associate of the accused, gets to work to put in these footnotes in the relevant passages and resubmits the report identifying those, where those passages should be, to at least correct something that I'm sure the professor would like to have completed on his behalf, the correct and appropriate footnoting of the original Serbian text and the English text.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we can do that. But of course, Mr. Nice is disadvantaged to a certain degree in his cross-examination.

MR. NICE: We are very substantially disadvantaged because not only has the original text been altered to excise the footnotes, and unless they were converted to end notes and wiped out in one go, that would have been many actions that were taken, but when prompted to provide a version with footnotes, neither the accused nor any of those associates of his who should have been reading filings and responding to them on his behalf took the trouble to register that we had a non-footnoted version. Now, if the footnotes don't go back in, although they won't come with all the associated documentation, that may lend some greater value to the report than it has at the moment. I'm reluctant in the extreme to ask that this witness goes away and comes back at a time when I've looked at or had a whole lot of footnotes looked at. I'm reluctant in the extreme to think of taking him into cross-examination tomorrow. I'd rather finish with him today. But if so, I'm going to finish him on the basis of the unfootnoted report with such value, if any, as it has.

MR. KAY: It could be said that the concepts of this witness ³⁴⁵⁶¹ remain the same, and they're concepts that are well known to the Prosecution. This is not a unique case for the Prosecutor to have to deal with in this building. They're dealing with 60 of them. These are issues that are well known to the Prosecution.

The fact that specific references may not be in the report is regrettable and wrong, but in my submission, it does not overly disadvantage the Prosecution in relation to dealing with the issues before it because this is a subject that it knows very, very well and perhaps the best that can be done is to try and restore the position to the most appropriate form.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Ultimately it will be for the Chamber to determine what weight to attach to the report and in the light of all the circumstances, one of which is the lack of footnotes. We're past the time for the break. We will rise now for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.21 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.49 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, let me speak first. This whole episode illustrates the importance of paying attention to procedures. Had you attended to the submission from the Prosecutor, you would have picked up that there were no footnotes.

You have assumed responsibility for managing your case, and any fault in this matter must be with you, must reside with you. And if I were Professor Popov, I would not accept the apology which you will no doubt offer him later on. ³⁴⁵⁶² Mr. Nice.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, go ahead.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I saw Mr. Nice's objection, and I thought it was senseless, because it had to do with the paper of a well-known scholar and historian, and I didn't want to go into things like footnotes.

And during the break, we marked all 69 footnotes in the English text. Mr. Nice will have them in front of him. He will be able to ask the professor about his sources, about everything else, because in the English text there are now all 69 footnotes. So that's been taken care of.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, but it's a matter which will go to the weight that the Chamber gives to the report, because the cross-examination will, as I said before, to a certain extent be affected. Mr. Nice, yes.

MR. NICE: Yes. And we have yet to see the footnotes ourselves, and I will require some time, I hope not long, to review them when I see them.

Q. Professor, in light of the accused's recent observation, and indeed in light of something you said yesterday, do you take the view, as he suggests, that it would be senseless to object to the lack of footnoting, to the lack of authority of a well-known scholar and historian or do you accept that a well-known scholar and historian is susceptible to judgement based on sources, just like anyone else? ³⁴⁵⁶³

A. Mr. Prosecutor, as for the methodology of scientific work in history, that is something I did during my first year at university, as a student, and I knew that even before I became a scholar myself let alone academician. So please, do not bring into question my scholarly reputation by ascribing some kind of a technical mistake to me. And I don't know myself where and how it happened.

Q. No. My question to you, Professor, in light of something you said yesterday or -- yes, not yesterday, last week, when saying how your word should be accepted, my question to you is: Do you accept that your report and your evidence is as vulnerable to, as susceptible to investigation and checking as anybody else's evidence, or do you think you stand in some different league because you're an academic?

A. No, no. Everybody's scientific paper or scholarly paper is subject to criticism, and this is not something that I wrote for eternity. It is rather -- I have it here, the manuscript, but I am going to publish it, as a matter of fact, perhaps in an expanded form.

Q. Very well. And my last question on the form of the paper, for the time being, is this: When you handed it over to the accused or to his associates, did it have footnotes or end notes?

A. The way I have it now is the way I handed it in. And I will tell you when: On the 12th of July. This complete material, footnotes included.

Q. So, therefore, to excise the footnotes from the report, electronically or otherwise, would have required going through and excising individually each and every footnote. It couldn't be done by an ³⁴⁵⁶⁴ accidental press of one button, could it?

A. That's not what was done. It was probably the copy with the footnotes that was mislaid somewhere. I have no other explanation.

Q. Very well. Can we look, please, together -- it's simply for want of time. I'm not going to pursue it any further.

JUDGE BONOMY: I just wanted to ask the professor if there was a copy without footnotes or end notes somewhere that he produced to the accused.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To the witness? I did not give it to him personally but to his associates in Belgrade. Possibly the copy with the footnotes was lost somewhere over there.

JUDGE BONOMY: But, Professor, did you hand over a copy that did not have footnotes as well as a copy that did have footnotes?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did hand in that kind of a copy, too, yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. May we look, please, together, at the last paragraph of your report, and I'd like you to, before we do, answer this question: Is there a duty falling on experts and academics who come to court as experts to be moderate in their use of language, Professor Popov, do you think?

A. The language I use is always moderate. In all fairness, I've never been before a court of law, but I think that I always use moderate language.

Q. I'd like you, please, to help us with this last paragraph, and we can lay it on the overhead projector if there's an English version to ³⁴⁵⁶⁵ spare.

"What is the most tragic for the Serbian people of our times is the fact that the centuries' long myth and stereotype of Greater Serbia and that the Serb's inclination towards aggression and hegemony has been nourished, fostered and spread with incomparable force for almost a decade and a half now."

Is that still your view, is it, that this myth has been nourished, fostered and spread with incomparable force? Is that your view?

A. Yes, on the basis of insight into some books that were published in the 1990s, I come to the conclusion that this myth is still fostered. These are textbooks that were published in France first and foremost. I mention the authors here, Pierre Musin [phoen] and Serge Bernstein.

Q. You see, we didn't have the footnotes so we'll have to look for those in a second. I'm going to read on.

A. No, I didn't put that into the footnote, no.

Q. I see. So we would have to work that out for ourselves, would we? "Nowadays it again has its ideological basis, though in a more widespread and developed form in the theory of inequality and conflict of civilisations, the inevitability that a weaker civilisation, the eastern Byzantine to which the Serbs belong, will succumb to a stronger western Roman civilisation represented by a united Europe, United States of America, and their incomparable economic and political power." That, I imagine, is a view you still hold too?

A. Yes. If you read Samuel Huntington's book about the Clash of Civilisations, I'm sure you will know what this is about. ³⁴⁵⁶⁶

Q. You mention that in the next --

A. Please take a look at the book.

Q. You do mention that in the next sentence, and so you do provide a source of this, which we recognise that it's Huntington, not Haington: "From Jacob Philip Fallmereyer, who offered this solution to German imperialism, to Samuel Huntington, who offered it to the aggressive American and European globalism, all the explanations of this kind have always been the same; to conceal the aspirations of conquest of the most powerful forces in the world."

So is it your opinion that this suffering of the Serbs under the myth of Greater Serbia is all the responsibility of the aspirations of those most powerful forces in the world and their desires to conquest this and this?

A. To a large extent that would be the conclusion, because the Serb people, for an entire millennium, for 1.000 years, has been subjected to similar pressures, so what is going on now is nothing new.

Q. Serbia, in your perception, has been really a victim nation and a victim state for hundreds of years, basically, hasn't it? Is that right?

A. That's right.

Q. Let's read on: "There are numerous tendentious explanations, false accusations and rewritings of history which are currently used to attack the alleged Greater Serbdom, its aggressiveness and the genocide it carries out."

So you think that those who write about -- is this right; those who write about Greater Serbdom are making false accusations, that is, ³⁴⁵⁶⁷ deliberately false accusations? Is that your position, Professor Popov?

A. Yes, that is my position.

Q. And of course one thing that an academic would always be cautious about doing would be imputing bad motives to a fellow academic because he would recognise that a fellow academic may hold different views but with -- nevertheless with good intentions, in good faith. Would you agree with that?

A. And do you mean that this was presented in bad faith?

Q. No, no. I'm asking you, in general, academics amongst themselves recognise they may hold differing opinions in good faith.

A. Of course.

Q. And it would be the most extreme criticism that one academic could make of another to suggest that he or her might be holding an opinion in bad faith?

A. I don't think I've -- I understood your question --

Q. My mistake --

A. -- but --

Q. -- let's read on. "All these pseudo-scientific dregs --" I don't know what the Serbian word for "dregs" is -- "of Pierre," and we don't know the name, "Serge Bernstein, Paul Garde, Allain Finkielkraut, David Risman, James Gow, Ellie Weisel, Noel Malcolm, Audrey Budding..." Let's just see if we understand what you're suggesting here, because we've seen Ms. Budding. Did you see her? Mr. Popov, did you see her?

A. Yes, I followed her -- ³⁴⁵⁶⁸

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... -- serious academic that it is appropriate in a report of this kind that you're going to publish as a book to describe her as a "scientific dreg"? Do you?

A. I think that her report is pseudo-scientific, yes.

Q. I'm going to give you an opportunity to prove that, if you're up to it, but let's read on.

"You name it --" please read it. Follow the text. "You name it, as well as of their Serbian lackeys have one task only, and that is to denounce 'Greater Serbian hegemony' in order to clear the path to the new world order and globalism in this part of Europe." So let's just have it. You wish this Court to assess Ms. Budding, who came from another country, not at her request, believe me, to assist this Court, and you're saying she's a dreg and a lackey; yes?

A. Not of her but of the Serb satellites going along.

Q. Now justify your opinions about Ms. Budding, please, and we'll wait here until you do it. You haven't had the grace in your report to descend to particulars and to explain why you should name a fellow academic in this way, Professor Popov, so I'm going to give you a chance to do it now.

A. I did that on the basis of having read her report, from which I concluded that she does not know Serbian history very well and that the Prosecution selected the wrong man -- chose the wrong man or the wrong person for its expert. She did read Serbian history books, yes, but Serb history of the 20th century and that's what her Ph.D. is based on. However, she was very free, if I can say that, in meandering through ³⁴⁵⁶⁹ middle -- the history of the Middle Ages and the 19th century where she isn't that well-versed, and her cross-examination of Mr. Milosevic brought that to light.

Q. That's not -- that's not good enough. You're an academic calling another academic a dreg and a lackey. I want you to explain in detail how you dare make that sort of observation in what you claim to be a serious report.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I don't think the term "lackey" is a reference to Ms. Budding, as the professor has already explained.

MR. NICE: It's linked to him, but you're quite right. The word "dregs" will do.

Q. Can you give me some particulars, please, Professor Popov, of how you choose to describe this court expert in this way.

A. I don't know whether Ms. Budding is a member of the academy, perhaps she is, but her writings are a confusion, in fact, because she is mixing up certain medieval criteria and historical criteria from the 19th century and 21st century criteria. And it is a basic rule, or one of the basic rules of historical methodology as formulated by Dukaj, the philosopher of history, whereby every historical appearance must be looked at from the context of its own times and not from our times, because we make different judgements based on our times when we know some of the consequences of those phenomena, but they must be explained on the basis of the contemporary times.

So the historian must try to relive those times, and I feel that that is lacking with Ms. Budding, and I think that that is the basic ³⁴⁵⁷⁰ shortcoming of her work submitted to this Tribunal, because she makes a judgement of Garasanin's Nacertanije or design or plan, or Sardusin's [phoen] writings form the aspects of the 20th century and the process of globalisation, which is an ongoing one at present.

Q. We'll look at Garasanin's Nacertanije in a minute, but you will recognise that, for the convenience of the Court, Ms. Budding's report didn't focus on the earlier history and it focused on the 20th century. I've given you a chance to be specific and you haven't taken it. We'll look at another document.

May he have the declaration -- it's only in English. This is a document, I'm afraid, in English only. We'll lay it on the overhead projector. We haven't located the no doubt existing B/C/S original, but nevertheless.

It would, of course, would it not -- while we're waiting for this to be displayed. It would, of course, would it not, Professor Popov, be an act of irresponsibility in the troubled times of the former Yugoslavia to put your name to a document without being able to support -- a document that might excite reaction, without being able to support what's contained in the document; correct?

A. Certainly.

Q. Here's a document you put your name to, in Holy Cross Day, or on Holy Cross Day in 1997 in Belgrade, because you're signature number 36, and this is what the declaration you signed said. I don't go through all of it. If you've got it on display, that will probably be enough. If we could have it. Top of the page. ³⁴⁵⁷¹ "Recalls the declaration demanding that The Hague criminal charges against Radovan Karadzic be repealed," I think, "that more than a year has passed since that earliest publication;that The Hague Tribunal, since its unlawful establishment until the present day acted in a biased fashion..."

Just pausing there. Do you count international law amongst your skills, Professor Popov?

A. No, but I know that much, that is to say that institutions of this kind of the United Nations are appointed by the General Assembly and that brings into question to a certain extent the legality of this Tribunal. So that's what I meant when I signed this text.

And the second thing I thought, and that is something that I believe today, too, and it is this: That Radovan Karadzic is not a criminal --

Q. Well, we're going to see what you think. "Recent manoeuvres of The Hague Tribunal cannot conceal abominable crimes..." What manoeuvres? Sorry, "... abominable crimes committed by the Muslims and the Croats against the Serbs." What are the manoeuvres? You want to make allegations about this Tribunal, spell them out.

A. About the crimes in Muslim prisons and camps, about crimes committed in the Podrinje part of Bosnia, about the torching of the Kravica village, of the major crimes in a place on the Drina called -- what was its name now?

Q. What are you suggesting? Because -- be clear. As you know, this ³⁴⁵⁷² Tribunal -- this Prosecution and this -- this Prosecutor - she's here - and this Tribunal try offences allegedly committed by all sides to this conflict. They investigate them and they try them. Now, if you have material to suggest that there's been some category of suppression, you tell us what it is. You signed this document. You weren't obliged to. You chose to.

A. Nobody forced me to, of course, no.

Q. "That the main aim of The Hague Tribunal is obviously to discredit, demonise, and humiliate the Serbs while pronouncing Dr. Radovan Karadzic before the trial the main culprit for war that was conducted with involvement of three parties."

Is that your belief?

A. Not only do I believe it, I know it to be true. I know that the war began in Bosnia with the killing of Serbs at a funeral, at a cemetery.

Q. Pass over the next paragraph unless anybody wants me to read it out, to save time. You say: "It's already clear --" at the bottom of the page -- "that pressure exerted by international community on Dr. Radovan Karadzic is legally unfounded, has no fact nothing in common with international law." Over the page. "Pressure on Dr. Radovan Karadzic is in fact the pressure on the entire Serb people. The people's power -- the world's power mongers are trying to paralyse any political and social activity of Serbian people by completing -- by attempting to completely isolate Dr. Karadzic and continuously threatening with his arrest." And you tell us you are a serious academic. You read this document and understood its content before you put your name to it, did ³⁴⁵⁷³ you?

A. Yes.

Q. And can we just understand the dating? 1997. The truth of Srebrenica was before the world by 1997, Professor Popov, and the nature of the allegations made by the Tribunal set up by the United Nations were known by 1997. Do you know that there was no liability for such events as Srebrenica falling on people such as Karadzic and Mladic? Is that your position? Mladic isn't dealt with here but just Karadzic, but were you all-knowing on this matter?

A. What I know is this: That already in 1992 and 1993, Bratunac had suffered enormously - that's the name I couldn't remember a moment ago - and that nobody lifted a finger. Now, as far as Srebrenica is concerned, that's when the news started to be disseminated, which had not been proved yet. Figures were manipulated. It started with 2.500 victims and they arrived at 9.000 victims.

Yes, that's how it started out, that 2.500 civilians were killed, then 5.000, the figure was 7.000, now the figure is almost at 9.000. Which doesn't matter; the quality of crime remains the same. A crime is a crime.

Q. Professor Popov, your language is very important when you're an expert and an academic. The word you used was "manipulated." Your evidence, please, so that we can understand it, that the figures were manipulated as opposed to simply being the figures that emerge as more mass graves emerge. Why do you say "manipulated"?

A. In order to substantiate the call for condemnation of the accused ³⁴⁵⁷⁴ here standing accused for genocide, and to substantiate the call for war reparations that Bosnia is asking from Serbia, and for the Serb people to be portrayed as a major criminal nation. That, in my opinion, is true manipulation, because be realistic, had 9.000 people really been killed, who would have buried all those bodies in the space of just a few days?

Q. See if I've got it correctly. You are holding yourself out as capable of expressing an opinion to this Court on the factual accuracy of the number of people and thus the number of families bereaved in Srebrenica?

A. I'm not talking about the families who disappeared. They could have disappeared by the fact of having left and gone abroad or taken refuge in other areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina. But I'm talking about the physical destruction of people, the physical victims, and I have every right to have my doubts on that score.

Q. Let's go to the bottom of the page to save some time, give you something where you've probably got more evidence. "The campaign against Dr. Radovan Karadzic and pressures which continuously increase have no footing in true facts. Falsifications are used as documents to impress the public, to distort the truth and to replace it with fabricated lies. Both the local and international public have been informed post festum that neither the Serbs nor Dr. Radovan Karadzic were responsible for the Markale marketplace incident. The engineers of these lies - Izetbegovic and his companions - have been exposed."

Well, there's a strong statement. We know it's a controversial ³⁴⁵⁷⁵ issue. You're an academic. What is the evidence you rely on for that very strong view on a topic that this Chamber may have to consider?

MR. KAY: Can I intervene here? He's actually an academic historian giving evidence before this Court based on a report dealing with Greater Serbia. He is now being asked his opinion on other matters, presumably as an attempt by the Prosecution in some way to discredit him, but we really are getting off the area that is the subject matter of his testimony, which is the report that he submitted before the Court if we're going to ask his opinion about the Markale market massacre, if we're going to ask him his opinion about Srebrenica and all these other issues. In our submission, it may not help the Tribunal to deal with those aspects of his opinion which are within his report which are a matter of history rather than modern day politics in the form that it's being presented now.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, but he did sign this document, and I think the Prosecutor is entitled to test his credibility by asking him questions. Though, Mr. Nice, I hope for not much longer.

MR. NICE: No, I've really come to the end.

Q. Let's go to the last page and see if there's something on this page that I want your assistance with.

A. I have to answer your previous question about the Markale marketplace massacre.

Q. Please do.

A. Well, it's like this: In America, I think it was in Boston or maybe Chicago, there's a journal -- journal put out called Serbian ³⁴⁵⁷⁶ Studies, which published a secret report of a military commission of SFOR which investigated, that is to say an international military commission with officers belonging to different countries, who investigated the alleged bombing of the Markale marketplace and that is a report numbering some 50 pages.

I will just tell you the conclusions of that report. In conclusion, the commission states as follows, and it was handed over to the Security Council, it was never made public. The journal in some ways that I don't know how, that's why I couldn't quote, published the report, in which the conclusions made are as follows: That on that particular day on the Serb side not a single rocket was fired. On that day -- or rocket or shell, whatever -- a shell was fired from the Muslim positions. One of the members of the commission, he was a Frenchman, a French officer, even set aside his opinion claiming that there was no bomb in the first place but that the explosion came from the ground, because that's his conclusion on the basis of his on-site examination of the marketplace and the roofs of the market stalls.

Now, I didn't dare, to tell you the truth, hand in that report to you because I don't have the agreement of the author of that article or the editorial board of the journal either.

Q. If you remember, Professor Popov, I took you to this paragraph saying it was something where you probably have more evidence because we all know that there are competing theories about the Markale incident. What I'm interested in is to know how you, an academic, used, it appears, to weighing evidence, can act on simply one report and put your name to it ³⁴⁵⁷⁷ in this inflammatory document. And I'm going to have a look at your footnotes in a minute if I get a couple of minutes. How could you put your name to a report like this, acting simply on a one-sided report?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to wait for Mr. Nice to put his headsets back on again.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Thank you very much.

A. That was not just one incident, but even that one incident that I brought up is such a serious one and heavy one that it brings all the other situations into question where Serbs have been accused. Of course, in a civil war, crimes are multiple on all sides, and to diminish the quality of a crime, whether it was 2.500 people killed, 7.000, or whatever, it means nothing. Even if there were two innocent victims killed, that is a crime, constitutes a crime. But all this has to be proved and we must not accuse in advance and ban political activity and then delve in persecutions and prosecutions until something has been proved officially.

Q. Quite. Quite. You see I've had now your footnotes reviewed in the limited time available. Have you been setting out and reviewing in your report arguments and academic literature from all sides or have you been generally looking at the material that favours the conclusion that you reached, just as you did in this declaration for Karadzic, rely on the material that favoured the conclusion you wanted to reach?

A. I took great care in following Croatian history until the last ten ³⁴⁵⁷⁸ years. I studied French and German historiography and partially English historiography. Of course, Serbian too, that goes out saying. So all my conclusions are based on thousands of books and articles and studies read so that I cannot criticise myself on any count. And I'll tell you why I believed one source over another, for example, even though I've read different accounts. But if you would like to hear one example, I shall be happy to quote it to you.

Q. Let's just finish with this declaration and then I'll turn to your footnotes.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I think the remaining page, frankly, is repetitious of earlier material.

Can that be given an exhibit number?

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the declaration demanding The Hague Tribunal criminal charges brought against Dr. Radovan Karadzic be repealed dated 1997 will be Prosecution Exhibit P803.

MR. NICE: Sorry, I should have dealt with the Epoha extracts first. If they could have the earlier number and this one the subsequent number.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the Epoha collection will be Prosecution Exhibit P803 and the declaration just referred to will be Prosecution Exhibit P804.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. Now, Professor -- Professor, confining myself to the two topics, ³⁴⁵⁷⁹ Nacertanije and the 1986 or whenever it was memorandum, can you just help me, please, by looking at your footnotes. Can you point to the literature that you've relied on and referred to in your footnotes that expresses a view on Nacertanije different from that that you have advanced so that we can know that you've dealt with it and see how you've dealt with it.

A. You see, Mr. Nice, this is the way it's done in historiography. You rely on a source document, an original document, no interpretation. First you read the original document and then you draw conclusions on different interpretations that were made on the basis of that. This document was published six times until now. I could have taken any one of them. I actually compared two editions, one from 1939 and the other one from 1993, and I saw that with the exception of small interventions in terms of spelling, there were no changes. However, Nacertanije was made public as far back as 1906. So there's no reason for me to look into all these other things because I read the Nacertanije itself.

Q. And when we come to the memorandum -- I may have to come back to the --

MR. NICE: It looks as though, Your Honours, that I won't be able to finish this today but I'm very anxious to dispose of this witness in a short period of time tomorrow, which I will be able to do, I think, with, I hope, reviewing overnight the footnotes.

Q. When we come to the memorandum, I see that you refer to Kosta Mihailovic, our next witness, Vasilije Krestic, as the authors of the memorandum, but you have referred to none of the literature that is critical of the memorandum, its purpose and effect, have you? ³⁴⁵⁸⁰

A. Again I'm telling you that I read the memorandum itself. I did, though, read some critiques that were published at the time, and I will give you just a brief explanation of this because I'm in a hurry, too, to tell you the truth.

One of the harshest critics, as I mentioned in my paper, of the memorandum was an ex-communist high official, inter alia, Prime Minister of Serbia and foreign minister, namely Milos Minic. He accused the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, saying that they were wrong, that they will cause conflicts on the international scale, et cetera. So after all this criticism, what did he conclude? I'll quote this. Since he levelled a great deal of criticism against the memorandum, Minic could not reach any other conclusions about it except that it was an accurate diagnosis of the state of affairs in Yugoslavia in the 1980s and an astute forecast of the tragic consequences that would ensue if things continued along these lines. For me, this was a rather acceptable solution, a solution that was that was quite acceptable, as a matter of fact. When I read the memorandum, I came to the conclusion that this was a diagnosis of the state of affairs as it was and a way of getting out of that. As for an analysis of the memorandum itself, I'm sure that you're going to hear more about that tomorrow from one of its authors.

Q. Just before I move on, one of the points in my mind: Ms. Budding, who you comment on, expressed a summary of the significance of the memorandum in this way: "It was most important as an indicator. As evidenced by 1986, the assertions it set out were accepted by influential figures within Serbia's intellectual elite." She carried on: "To put it ³⁴⁵⁸¹ as clearly as possible, it was the existence of the belief system set out in the memorandum rather than the memorandum itself that influenced the process of Yugoslavia's dissolution."

I don't imagine you'd disagree with that conclusion of Ms. Budding, would you?

A. You've given me a brilliant example of non-historical conclusion. So you're talking about the spirit rather than the text itself. That is not what we do in historiography.

Q. Do you disagree with her conclusion? Because you've been asked rather wider questions than the purely --

A. Of course I disagree. It is the text that had to be proceeded from.

Q. Of course. That's a rather sort of -- as I understand it, that's a rather normative approach to life, isn't it? You just look at the black and white letter and you don't trouble yourselves too much, or you try not to trouble yourselves too much with the effect that the black and white letters have; is that it?

A. I proceed from the methods of Leopold Ranke, who established historiography as a science. That was my first point. The second point is I do not see the memorandum as black and white letters on paper. It is actually an attempt made to replace the black by the white, if I can put it that way, if we are going to speak in metaphors now.

Q. My only dallying in the 19th century is going to be with Nacertanije because you focused on it so much. ³⁴⁵⁸²

A. Yes.

Q. And I'm going to suggest to you that you've been very partial in your analysis. It features in your proposed exhibits at tab 2 without the benefit of advantage, unless it's changed since we last spoke, of a translation. Despite that we've been able to obtain a translation off the Internet, and I'm afraid that's the best that we're going to be able to do.

A. Well, I've submitted Nacertanije here as an exhibit. Again there seems to have been some kind of impediment on the way.

Q. It's not your fault that it hasn't been translated, Professor Popov, don't fear. Would you accept the following three propositions: That Nacertanije promoted the idea of restoration of the Serbian borders along the lines of the medieval criterion as well as establishing the state in its ethnic borders? Would you accept that?

A. The first one, that Serbia was promoted in its medieval borders, that is precisely proof of not looking at the Nacertanije from the point of view of that period of time. When it was written by Ilija Garasanin and Polish immigrants together, no one in the world knew what the Serbian state was and what the Serbian medieval principality was. Historiography discovered this only in the '70s and '80s. So this lived on in the consciousness of the Serbian people more as a tradition told through oral lore of epic poetry, which was highly appreciated. People thought that this empire lasted for 200 years, whereas it was only 25 years. And it did not encompass all the territories that the Nacertanije refers to. Ilija Garasanin and Chartoriski, who gave these instructions, Adam ³⁴⁵⁸³ Chartoriski, they did not know that. And they invoked --

Q. I'm going to ask you to look at two or three extracts from Nacertanije, so you may want to reserve your comments of detail until then.

I've asked you about establishing a state in ethnic borders, and the third point I want you to deal with is whether Nacertanije also dealt with the geostrategic goal of having an outlet to the sea. Yes or no.

A. That's right. Nacertanije dealt with ethnic boundaries, and it can be proven that to the greatest degree, 90 per cent or so, Ilija Garasanin guessed well where the Serbian ethnic boundaries were on the basis of censuses in Turkey from '64, that is the so-called Xhevdet Pasha census [phoen]. It was published by Odile - I cannot refer the full name now - she's a French historian, in a Pakistani journal in 1997. Also, the census of Bosnia-Herzegovina conducted by the Austro-Hungarian authorities in 1879. If you look at all of that, you'll see that Ilija Garasanin was right when he included the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina as ethnic Serbian territory, especially because Muslims at that time did not have an ethnic identity.

Q. The only reason I take time to deal with these points is in light of the way you've sought to diminish the notion of Greater Serbia, what we see in Garasanin's Nacertanije is reflected in the later plans, in the mid and late 20th century for Serbia, isn't it? Ethnic boundaries, medieval state --

A. No.

Q. -- and access to the sea. ³⁴⁵⁸⁴

A. I never said that, and you heard the examination by Mr. Milosevic. I do not recall having said at any point that Serbia in the '90s tried to implement the ideas of Ilija Garasanin, because in the meantime, during those 150 years, the situation changed considerably.

Q. Well, I'm going to have to seek the usher's assistance and yours, Professor Popov, just to deal with this. We have been waiting for a translation of the Defence exhibit. It hasn't come. We've got a full translation from the Internet. It's not yet copied, but it can go on the overhead projector and we can all follow it.

And if you would be good enough, please, to look at -- and I'm sorry you've got this inconvenience of not having the translated version. If you'd be good enough to go to the tab 3 of --

A. I have the text that the young lady from the Registry took from me. Apparently the copy you have was a poor copy, barely legible, so she took my copy and she didn't give it back to me.

Q. We'll give you a copy because I'm going to read you the first sentence of a translation and then I'm going to ask you to find it for us in the original exhibit.

Now, here comes a copy of the original exhibit, and it's probably not very far into it, and the first sentence is: "The Serbian state which has already seen its good start, but must strive to expand ..." I wonder if you can find that. Meanwhile, we'll look at it together, see if we can find it.

A. Never mind. I can't find it. It seems that the translation does not really correspond to the original, but, yes, Garasanin did speak about ³⁴⁵⁸⁵ the unification of Serb territories, ethnic Serb territories with the principality of Serbia. That is the essence of the programme.

Q. Let me read slowly to you, then, what's in this version of the translation and see if you agree that this reflects what Garasanin said. "The Serbian state which has already seen its good start, but must strive to expand and become stronger, has its roots and firm foundation in the Serbian Empire of the 13th and 14th centuries and in the glorious and rich Serbian history. It is known from this history that the Serbian rulers began to assume the position held by the Greek (Byzantine) Empire and almost succeeded in making an end of it in order to replace the collapsed eastern Roman Empire with a Serbian-Slavic Empire." And I'm grateful to Mrs. Tromp. The page is 153 on the original exhibit, and it's the right-hand column, and it's the first fresh paragraph.

JUDGE KWON: That's tab 2.

MR. NICE: Tab 2, indeed, yes. Thank you very much.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I've fond it.

MR. NICE:

Q. So do you accept, as I suggested to you a little earlier, that it promotes the idea of Serbian borders along medieval lines? That simple point.

A. Well, of course I accept that it is along medieval lines to the extent to which Chartoriski and Garasanin knew about it then. But they did not know that in the 13th and 14th century there was a Serbian Empire. There was a principality and then a kingdom and then a despot state, and ³⁴⁵⁸⁶ so on, and the borders kept changing all the time. That the Serbian people had a glorious history, there is no doubt about that.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... if the usher would be so good, and we can probably more readily now follow it in the original text, starting at page 153 of tab 2.

Q. We have this next, Professor Popov: "If we consider the revival of the Serbian Empire from this standpoint, then other South Slavs will easily understand this idea and accept it with joy; for probably no European country in the memory of the historical past so vivid as among the Slavs of Turkey, for whom the recollection is intense and faithful of the celebrated figures and events of history." It's all the same thing, isn't it?

Right.

A. What am I supposed to reply to? What question should I answer?

Q. Medieval history and medieval borders being advanced, and all lying behind the Greater Serbian concept that was to develop and be named, I think, rather later.

A. In the sense in which the concept of Greater Serbia is referred to here, that is not the meaning. Bringing together the entire Serb people or its majority into one state, that is not an idea of a greater state. That is an idea that prevailed throughout Europe in the 19th century. The Serbs also had the right to espouse such an idea. The fact that he invokes medieval history is because he doesn't want to call for revolutionary methods, because he himself says we don't want to apply revolutionary methods but historical law and rights. ³⁴⁵⁸⁷

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I don't know if you're looking for a time to break, but I should make this point: Time and again we are inconvenienced by not having interpreted or translated documents. With this witness I'm going to make the decision simply to reduce dramatically the questions I would otherwise have asked had I had more material because this exercise - and it's not his fault - but this exercise inevitably simply takes more time than would be taken if documentation had been properly prepared.

Can I also, by way of not correction but reminder, alert the Chamber and indeed the accused to the reality that in neither of my opening speeches to this Court did I on behalf of the Prosecution rely on the words "Greater Serbia." I used the phrase once, associating it with the man Seselj, and I think on two occasions I referred to the concept of all Serbs in one state, and the phrase "Greater Serbia" which has, I think, never been attributed to the mouth of the accused is a concept that's been referred to by many other witnesses, and of course we can't control them in their analysis and understanding of events. So far as the Prosecution is concerned, it's always been careful to limit its approach to this issue to the way I opened the case.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's not in the indictment?

MR. NICE: It's in one of the indictments as well, but those, of course, preceded my openings, and my opening, in the sense for the matters of general theory and principle, supplants them, but you're quite right --

JUDGE ROBINSON: But you're not saying it's not an important part of the Prosecution case. ³⁴⁵⁸⁸

MR. NICE: I'm not saying that. Not at all. No, it's an important -- it's an important matter to have in mind, but we've always expressed ourselves in terms of "all Serbs in one state," and we've always expressed the notion in one way or another of instrumentalising the opinions of others.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. We will adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00 a.m.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the 16th day of

December, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.