³⁴⁹⁰⁰

Wednesday, 12 January 2005

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, to continue your examination-in-chief.

WITNESS: PATRICK BARRIOT [Resumed]

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

Q. [Interpretation] To the best of your knowledge - that's where we broke off yesterday - America did take part in Operation Storm in which over 200.000 Serbs were expelled. Lord Owen called it the greatest ethnic cleansing in all the conflicts in Yugoslavia, and the mass killing of vast numbers of civilians. A permanent member of the Security Council took part in ethnic cleansing that started from UN protected areas and they were placed under the protection by that same Security Council.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... and --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: This is already a question that is turning into a statement. The first part of the question, "To the best of your knowledge America did take part in Operation Storm where 200.000 Serbs were expelled" is a collapse of the alleged involvement by America, if any, in Operation Storm with what is said to be the overall results, and it's clearly a tendentious question in the form of a statement, and the accused ³⁴⁹⁰¹ should confine his question to something that this witness can really answer.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I agree. It's not sufficiently relevant. I'm not allowing it. Move on to another question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know why Mr. Nice is so nervous about all of this.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Move on to another question. I've already ruled on it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So Colonel Barriot, yesterday we broke off when you explained that, in contravention of any kind of authority given to them by the United Nations, the Americans took part in Operation Storm. Tell us, what do you know about that operation?

A. Yes, Mr. President. My answer will be a very clear one. This is not an alleged participation by the United States as was underlined just now by Mr. Nice. It is a proved fact, it is a proved participation on two levels. On the one hand you have a direct military intervention and participation because in the very first days of the Storm operation the US air force had two jets coming from the Roosevelt warship that bombed Knin. So this was a direct participation of the US army in the very beginning of the Operation Storm, with application of securing the airspace in the Krajina so that there could be an intervention by the Croat army. And on the other hand you have an indirect intervention through this private military company, MPRI Incorporated, which is a military private company depending on the Pentagon. And these specialists ³⁴⁹⁰² intervened as instructors and also as advisors of the Croat army in order to carry out the Operation Storm. But we also saw instructors from that company during the Storm operation in the territory of the Krajina, especially in Knin. And this was stated unambiguously by Canadian soldiers who were in Knin at the time.

Therefore, the US participation is not an alleged one. It has been a direct intervention -- both indirect and direct intervention, and it has been proved as well.

Q. Tell me, in Krajina, at the time of the conflict between the Muslim forces in the Bihac pocket, according to the information I have, is it correct that there were 40.000 Muslim refugees in Krajina?

A. Yes. I can confirm the figures. This happened during the summer of 1994. The 5th Corps of the BH army in the Bihac pocket was headed by General Atif Dudakovic and it launched an attack especially in the area of Velika Kladusa, and it expelled up to 40.000 Muslims who were faithful to Fikret Abdic. These 40.000 Muslims were expelled towards the Krajina area, and they were taken in two camps which I personally visited together with people, officials from the UNHCR. Bertrand Dupasquier was a responsible official at the time.

These 40.000 people were taken in the Batnoga and Turan camps where they were taken care of with a lot of humanity by the local population in Krajina. The local population fed them but also looked after them medically speaking; if they were wounded, if they were sick, if they were women about to deliver, they were taken care of. So all these Muslims were gathered in Batnoga and Turan and they were taken care of in ³⁴⁹⁰³ the Glina Hospital with total dedication. They were given blood supplies. They were helped without any kind of discrimination. And very often the few medicines, the few supplies that there were in the Glina Hospital were given to the Muslim population.

Q. These refugees, these 40.000 Muslims who came to Krajina, could they have gone to Croatia or somewhere else?

A. No. It was impossible for them to get out and to seek shelter in Krajina or elsewhere. The only opening for them or the only possibility offered to them later on was a return to the Bihac pocket early in 1995. And it is precisely in the Bihac pocket that the large amount of them were massacred during the Operation Storm by the 5th Corps of the BH army, but also by Croat troops that had infiltrated in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in Western Bosnia.

Q. Does that mean that there was a double standard involved in terms of treating the Muslim population itself; those who were on Alija Izetbegovic's side received support whereas those who were on Fikret Abdic's side were exposed to all kinds of persecution, destruction and the like?

A. I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand your question.

Q. Does that mean that the Muslims who were on the side of Fikret Abdic, including these 40.000 expelled refugees, were practically victims of persecution by the Muslim and Croat forces?

A. Yes, quite. Absolutely. In 1994, it was obvious that the central authority in Sarajevo and that Izetbegovic's army was trying everything possible to eliminate both Fikret Abdic and to remove all the Muslims in ³⁴⁹⁰⁴ the Bihac pocket faithful to the latter.

So they were exposed, and they were victims of the central authority in Sarajevo, and they also fell prey to the Croat forces which were intent on removing any kind of support to the Krajina Serbs, support by the Muslims who were in the Bihac pocket.

Q. What about the authorities of the Republic of the Serbian Krajina? Was it clear to them that since these Muslims had no where to go that a considerable number of these people could stay on in Krajina forever?

A. Yes. In my view there was no problem whatsoever regarding taking in the Muslims in the Krajina Republic, because even before the 5th Corps was created in the Bihac pocket, it was obvious and it was frequent that Muslims would come from Velika Kladusa, from that area towards Glina where they were taken care of, they were looked after, and they could remain very safely in that area and also in Banija.

Q. Tell me, Mr. Barriot, I would like to hear your comment concerning a quotation that I'm going to read out to you from this so-called Croatian indictment. It is count number 6. I have a revised copy only in the English language, so count 6 says: "[In English] The purpose of this joint criminal enterprise," [Interpretation] and previously it says: [Previous translation continues] ... "[In English] joint criminal enterprise. The purpose of this joint criminal enterprise was the forcible removal of the majority of Croat and other non-Serb population from the approximately one-third of territory of the Republic of Croatia. That he planned to become part of new Serb-dominated state through the commission of crime," et cetera. ^{34905 BLANK PAGE 34906} [Interpretation] Can you comment upon this? What kind of enterprise could this have been if they were taking in such a large number of Muslims or, rather, non-Serbs, taking care of them, not expelling them?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I think that the question itself reveals its inappropriateness. It is not for the witness to comment.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, he can comment on fact situations.

MR. NICE: He can -- he can give evidence of facts, but he cannot give comments, and the comments that he's invited to give is a comment that is for the Judges to make.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think you must reformulate the question, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Barriot, the fact that you spoke of, that is to say the acceptance of so many thousands of Muslims in the area of the Serb Krajina, does that preclude any possibility of these authorities having some kind of plan of expelling the non-Serb population from that area?

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't see how he can answer that. He can't answer that question, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Maybe he will be able to answer another question later on that also has to do with these manipulations.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. However, before that, let us go back -- or, rather, can I just ask you to be as brief as possible in your comments regarding a document which is under tab 27 of the exhibits that will be introduced through you, and ³⁴⁹⁰⁷ that is an official document of the Ministry of the Interior of Bosnia-Herzegovina, dated the 20th of December --

THE INTERPRETER: September, interpreter's correction, 2001.

MR. NICE: No translation, I think, has yet been provided. I'll check.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. You have been given a translation.

MR. NICE: It may be within the Crepin ones. I haven't done a cross-reference. Tab 26 of Crepin I think is the same document, so we do have it there.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Tab 26.

JUDGE KWON: We have 27 as well in English.

MR. NICE: Tab 27 in Barriot is, I think, tab 26 in Crepin, and we have been provided with an English translation at tab 26 in Crepin.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes, we have it in English, yes. Go ahead, Mr. Milosevic. You must point us to the particular section in tab 26 to which you are referring.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just the last paragraph. Just the last paragraph. It is in the context of what we've been discussing. It has to do with an investigation based on the 11th of September, and it says the document was signed by the director and the two deputy directors of the service, and it was sent to the president of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia-Herzegovina. And that paragraph says: "The same day (at 1932 hours), Interpol Wiesbaden sent us a request for a check on a person called Atta who, according to their information, is said to have ³⁴⁹⁰⁸ lived in a small village called Bakotic, 8 kilometres from Maglaj in 1999."

So it's 1999. "They enclosed a copy of a photograph of Mohammed Atta who was supposed to be identified by a man called Mehmet Hasanic from the village of Bakotic. We forwarded the Interpol Wiesbaden request to the MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina," and so on and so forth. This is a person who piloted one of the planes that hit the World Trade Centre, Mohammed Atta. I assume that everybody knows about that. And I showed the review conducted by Izetbegovic of an entire brigade of Mujahedin near Maglaj. And this man was in Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1999, and this indicates that he was there earlier on as well, which shows that this terrorist network was well rooted in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Could you please give us your comment about this.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, no. Don't ask him to give a comment. You must ask a specific question.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is this yet another confirmation of the existence of this terrorist network in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina? In this case, it is directly linked to the events of 9/11.

JUDGE ROBINSON: There is nothing to suggest that, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. NICE: That was a completely leading question in substance and form. I can't keep standing to object to them, but I'm sure the accused, who is now an experienced operator in this courtroom, knows the ³⁴⁹⁰⁹ difference.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, yesterday you, in response to me, explained how evidence of terrorism in Bosnia could be relevant to specific charges. I'd like you to rehearse that, because I'm still troubled by it.

MR. KAY: In many respects this particular line of questioning was not something I had anticipated or known about. As the Court knows, I don't have instructions on it. I think the position we have here is as the accused put in the question about it being -- terrorism being well rooted in the region, and it is attempt by the Defence here to link the established and well-rooted links with terrorism to events that were taking place during the parameters of the indictment. That's been a fairly consistent approach, or a very consistent approach by the accused during the trial, and this is an example of -- a very well-known example of the man Mohammed Atta who was held responsible, amongst others, for the 11th of September hijacking and terrorist incidents in the US, to show that from information received he was able to be identified as having been within Bosnia-Herzegovina at a particular time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm sorry, Mr. Kay. You had -- had you finished?

MR. KAY: Yes, I have.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. Mr. Milosevic, we'll allow the questioning along these lines, but it has to be fairly specific and focused. I mean, ultimately we have to be satisfied about relevance to particular charges ³⁴⁹¹⁰ in the indictment, how the question of terrorism affects the question of guilt or innocence arising from the charges in the indictment. And on the basis that there is some relevance in terms of the defence that you're raising, we'll allow it, but we intend to monitor this line of questioning very closely.

JUDGE BONOMY: Colonel, before Mr. Milosevic asks you another question, can I ask you how you came by this document?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was provided by intelligence services, and I was authorised to present them because they were not classified as secret by the French government.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Barriot, does this document corroborate the fact that terrorism was well rooted in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

A. Yes, absolutely so. But before I answer this question, I'd like to underline the paradox there is to be found in Mr. Nice's argument. He was challenging the credibility of my testimony yesterday because I failed to provide concrete information or failed to show specific links with intelligence services whilst today I'm introducing evidence of the fact that this terrorism is well rooted and he'd like to challenge that as well. He would like me not to present these documents and me not to comment on them.

So my answer will be this, and it will be a very clear answer. This comes from the Ministry -- ^{34911 BLANK PAGE 34912}

JUDGE BONOMY: Before you answer, I should make it clear I certainly don't understand Mr. Nice's position to be as you've indicated. Mr. Nice has taken no objection to the production of the document. The objection is to some of the questions that are posed, which are entirely inappropriate. So you must understand that you're not being unfairly treated by the Prosecutor here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, before the witness answers -- Mr. Milosevic, I'm returning to this linkage of terrorism with the charges in the indictment. If you can establish that terrorism was well rooted there, where does that take us in terms of your Defence?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, in my introductory presentation, I explained that the Western countries supported in Croatia the forces of Nazism in Bosnia, in Kosovo, the forces of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism is what I said, and that is completely contrary to any healthy reasoning. And everything was used and utilised for the frameworks of this criminal enterprise launched against the Serbs. You saw how things developed in Croatia, how they developed in Bosnia, how paramilitary formations were formed in Bosnia, who took part in them. And if all those are positive phenomena, then there's no need for me to go and explain them. But with respect to the instructions and guidelines you gave a moment ago, Mr. Robinson, I have understood it so far that it is my right or, rather, the right of somebody accusing somebody of something has the burden of proof and that the burden of proof is not on the accused to prove his innocence, whereas you keep explaining the former -- or, rather, the latter. ³⁴⁹¹³

JUDGE ROBINSON: No. I'm going to stop you. Let -- let -- I have stopped you, Mr. Milosevic, because the comment shows that you don't understand the function of the Chamber.

We have a duty to admit evidence but only evidence that is relevant, and that applies as much to the Defence as it does to the Prosecution. And I'm having some difficulty, perhaps I'm speaking for myself, in understanding the linkage between well-rooted establishment of terrorism in Croatia at the time and -- in Bosnia and the question of your guilt or innocence. I see it in a tangential way, but I'm still not fully satisfied. Perhaps it is my own weakness. I can see some marginal relevance and it is on that basis that I'd allow the question, but the questioning has to be very specific and focused.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Ask your question now, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Barriot, does this represent confirmation of the assertion about the well-rootedness of terrorism in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

MR. NICE: I've stayed out of this debate as much as I can, but I must suggest, with all due deference, that an appropriate approach to the questioning by the accused of this or any other witness on this topic could or should be limited as follows: If the existence of terrorism on the territory is relevant or may be relevant, then it would be open to the witness to simply produce a document such as this to show the existence of the man Atta on the territory at a particular time. I note parenthetically that the man Atta was present on a number of other ³⁴⁹¹⁴ European territories over the broad period of time as well. I hope it doesn't have a similar significance for those countries. His evidence, however, should be limited to the fact of the presence of a terrorist on the territory. He should not be allowed to be asked questions of the kind that have just been asked, which are leading in substance and form and have no value and are indeed really covering the territory that has to be covered in due course by --

The only other way in which questions might be of value is this: If the accused is able to ask of a witness, "Do you know of a terrorist or did a terrorist show involvement in or commit one of the crimes with which I'm charged," fine, obviously relevant, but it's as far as that and no further.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, what about specific questions about terrorist acts committed in Bosnia against Serbs?

MR. NICE: I can see that potentially of significance if it may change the overall picture, yes, but it is, of course, a specific question. Yes, I wouldn't object to that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, there is merit in the points taken by Mr. Nice.

You could ask him if he was aware of the presence of -- of terrorists or of a specific person, but -- I mean, but to ask -- I'm not allowing you to ask him to confirm that the paragraph establishes or goes to show that terrorism was well-rooted. The document is before us, and we can read it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Since Mr. Nice raised the question ³⁴⁹¹⁵ of whether these were used against the Serbs, then I shall continue on from that question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Barriot, did the terrorists in Bosnia, were they used against the Muslims in -- with the aim of placing the burden on the Serbs and responsibility in accusing the Serbs of the crimes which they in fact had committed?

A. Yes. So it will be a question in different forms. I will give very clear names of Islamic terrorists. I give you the names of Kelda Hubet [phoen], who was in Bosnia, and Christophe Caset, Lionel Dumont, Urad Puguran [phoen]. So I have quoted specific names of people who were connected to the Islamic network, so with connections with the GIA and al Qaeda that operated in Bosnia against the Serbian forces and Serb civilians, and also operated against French people in France. I mentioned today the presence of Mohammed Atta in a Bosnian village in 1994 and 1995. He was also present there in 1999. We also have pictures showing the presence of Mirsad Asahawi [phoen], formerly Izetbegovic in the 1990s. So these are very clear facts clearly indicating that these people were not just travelling around and dropping off in a hotel in Sarajevo over 48 hours. These were terrorists that had gone to terrorist training camps in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the north of Albania.

So I think things are very clear on that point. These were terrorists actions. And to answer the question put by President Milosevic, we have knowledge and understanding of a number of terrorist ³⁴⁹¹⁶ acts conducted by Bosnian Muslims at the time. More specifically, attacks against French Blue Helmets. Let me also mention that there were -- there were 56 French Blue Helmets who died between 1991 and 1995, and two-thirds of the French Blue Helmets were targeted by the Muslim snipers on the orders of Mr. Izetbegovic. I think nobody can deny this. Now, as far as these terrorist attacks against Sarajevo are concerned, I would like to mention that all French ballistics experts on the 27th of May, 1992, attack, or the Markale attack on the 5th of February, 1994, as well as the attack against Markale on the 2nd of August, 1994 are not due to Serb fighters but to Muslim snipers. You can question what I'm saying, of course, but you can also then question Lewis MacKenzie, the Canadian general; Sir Michael Rose, the British officer; Jacques Longsade, who is the Chief of Staff of the French army. Also you then question Pierre-Marie Gallois, the founding father of nuclear deterrence in France, and a number of personalities in the French government, and I can quote you further details if you so wish.

JUDGE BONOMY: Colonel Barriot, the question you were actually asked there is whether terrorists were used to attack Muslims with a view to placing the blame on Serbs. Now, did you actually answer any -- was any part of your answer directed to that question?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The second part has to do with the explosions in Sarajevo which were conducted by Muslim terrorists against the Muslim population in Sarajevo.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What -- what information or evidence do you have in answer to Mr. Milosevic's question that this was done with a view to ^{34917 BLANK PAGE 34918} placing the blame on Serbs? Are you in a position to address that?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, well, the Serbs were accused of it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, no. You must allow the witness to answer.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. So there are a whole series of evidence and statements which have been provided in the wake of these facts. I -- I have described them to you rather briefly. If you so wish, I have all the statements of the French officials and French generals regarding these facts and stating clearly that one could not accuse the Serbs of these explosions, but these explosions had been conducted by -- at the hands of the Muslims. I can read out these statements if you so wish.

May I --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't think you have answered the question. Perhaps you are not in a position to.

Mr. Milosevic, move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Just a brief digression, if I may, one question. You were in Topusko, Colonel Barriot; is that right?

A. Yes, Mr. President.

Q. Did you meet someone called Slobodan Lazarevic there; and if so, what can you tell us about him?

A. Yes, I did meet Mr. Slobodan Lazarevic on several occasions because he was taken part in the briefing sessions of UNPROFOR in Glina. He was a rather strange person which nobody took very seriously and who ³⁴⁹¹⁹ spoke about a lot of things and then denied them.

Q. I asked you that question because he was one of the witnesses presented here by the other side over there. So that's why I wanted to draw your attention to that.

Now, Colonel Barriot, as far as Bosnia is concerned, you were in contact with Radovan Karadzic, weren't you? I assume that you talked to him about the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina. And what was the contents of those talks you had with him?

A. Yes. I met President Radovan Karadzic on several occasions, and more specifically in 1995. As I mentioned yesterday, I also published an article in my book, The Murder of a People, Serbs of Krajina, and I also brought along a French television crew that conducted reports on President Karadzic, some of which were broadcast and others were not. During these interviews with President Karadzic, we primarily talked about the political situation, the overall political situation in Bosnia, and we talked about the way fundamentalism was running out of control, and this was a matter of great concern to President Karadzic. We discussed in great detail the situation in the Bihac pocket, because he felt that this was quite indicative of the tension mounting between the fundamentalism movement of the SDA of Izetbegovic and the moderate Muslims, on the other hand, that wanted peace with the Serbs. What comes to mind more specifically here is Fikret Abdic. He stressed the fact that Fikret Abdic was the man who should be entitled. According to the elections in 1990, Fikret Abdic was the natural leader. He mentioned assassination attempts carried out by Izetbegovic's men to do ³⁴⁹²⁰ away with Fikret Abdic - he was threatened on several occasions - and military operations of the 5th Corps of the BH army, which was again supported by the US army, because all the Muslim fighters of the 5th Corps were equipped with assault rifles, M-16s, which came from the US army, and this was in total contradiction with the arms embargo at the time. Ever since the elections, little by little fundamentalist government had done away with its Serb and Croat partners but had also done away with moderate Muslims in Bosnia who, I repeat, had remained loyal to Fikret Abdic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have to draw your attention to the fact that the interpretation into the Serbian language, if we can call it Serbian at all, is very poor. I assume that we're not talking about lack of knowledge but quite simply things are not being interpreted if they don't -- if the interpreter doesn't feel that they need to. I noticed that yesterday.

This is what it says in English: "Ever since the elections, little by little fundamentalist governments had done away with its Serb and Croat partners but had also done away with modern Muslims in Bosnia [In English] remained loyal to Fikret Abdic."

[Interpretation] We're talking, in Serbian, I hear "integrism" mentioned, and quite simply, the interpretation into the Serbian language is being distorted, so please bear that in mind because I'm not going to tolerate that any more. That happened yesterday and there is no sense in having that continue. But let's move on.

MR. NICE: Your Honour. ³⁴⁹²¹

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm stopping you.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, that's a terrible assertion to make about the --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. NICE: That's a terrible assertion to make about the interpreters. And if the accused is able to identify some particular either shortcoming or difference in interpretation from that which he would have preferred, then he can always raise it, and he should raise it in a neutral way and the interpreters could then be given a chance, when matters are fresh in their memory, to deal with what he is asserting. But it is quite inappropriate for him to make the sort of assertion he has made about people who serve this court faithfully for several years and work in extremely hard circumstances, not least circumstances made difficult by the rapidity of questions and answers that they have to deal with.

So that on this particular occasion he has said that there was a reference to "integrism," as he has used the word, which hasn't been reflected. I would invite the Chamber to allow the interpreters to explain whether they heard the word, and if so, how they interpreted it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice. Your comments are very appropriate.

Mr. Milosevic, your comments were ungracious and completely neglect the hard work that the interpreters have done. They have worked proficiently.

I'm going to ask you to identify the particular passage which you ³⁴⁹²² say was misinterpreted and then ask the interpreters to comment on it. I believe it was a reference you said to integrism in Serbia.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. We're talking about Islamic fundamentalism here, and that of course is understandable for anybody following these proceedings. I don't think more than half the people here could understand what the integrism --

THE INTERPRETER: Or "integralism," interpreter's note.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- that is something we can't understand. I'm looking at the transcript and I'm listening to the interpretation. So I don't see why I can't raise an objection to something like that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Of course you can. You must do so in a manner that is appropriate and that reflects due consideration for the hard work which interpreters have to do here. And I must say, speaking for the Chamber, we find that their work is of the highest standard. This doesn't mean that a mistake cannot be made now and then. So that for "integrism" you're saying that the reference should be to "fundamentalism"; is that it?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that's what it says in the transcript. I don't know what should have been said, but that's what the transcript recorded, "Islamic fundamentalism" as it was translated and recorded by the transcript. So I'm listening to the interpretation and looking at the transcript.

But let's not waste time. I made the objection and I hope that they will pay attention to the interpretation. ^{34923 BLANK PAGE 34924}

JUDGE ROBINSON: I would like to say that the Chamber does not approve of the manner in which you made the objection. Mr. Nice is perfectly correct. These proceedings must be conducted with a decorum that is appropriate to the nature of the work, the gravity of the work that we are doing here, and you must show due respect to the interpreters, and we will not tolerate that kind of comment. If a mistake is made, then you must bring it to our attention and we will see to it that it is corrected if it is to be corrected.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: May I ask the interpreter to comment on this particular passage.

THE INTERPRETER: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. It's the interpreter of the Serbian booth. I am practically certain that -- I mean, I am certain that I heard the word "integrisme" in French. The English booth translated it as "fundamentalism" and I translated it in Serbian as "integrism," which I consider to be closer. Mr. Milosevic was not referring to the original, which was in French and which was "integrism" but to the translation into English, which is just one of the two translations, and ours was into Serbian and I consider it was faithful. But you can, of course, check it with the witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think we have the explanation, and we will move on.

And, Mr. Milosevic, bear in mind what I've said about the attitude, your attitude towards the interpreters.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't have a negative attitude to ³⁴⁹²⁵ the interpreters, but I expect them to conduct themselves properly.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, Mr. Milosevic, I, speaking for myself, consider that you owe the interpreter in this instance an apology unless you dispute what she's just said to you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's not only that mistake that I'm objecting to. I cannot follow everything, of course. There are completely incomprehensible parts of sentences, whether somebody is opposed to someone or opposed to who. You can't get the gist of it, who is opposed to what. And if we take a look at the tape, then I'll be able to compare. I can't go into comparative linguistics now, whatever. I was just doing the comparison between what I was hearing from the Serbian, in the Serbian, and what was recorded in the transcript. So there are more mistakes. I wouldn't have reacted if it were just that one mistake. So I don't see why I would have to apologise to the interpreters, Mr. Bonomy, and I of course cannot listen to the French in the original. It was not I who made the mistake.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, are you accepting what the interpreter has said about this matter or are you not?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] With the word "integrism," yes, the explanation, but not as regards the context of the whole translation, the interpretation, which is, when it comes to the Serbian interpretation, is quite incomprehensible at times. But whether she's going to say "integrism," whether the interpreter is going to say "integrism" in one way or another isn't that essential. I just hitched on that point and took -- brought up that difference. But let's move on because my time is ³⁴⁹²⁶ moving on.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic, I won't allow you to make a general criticism of the interpretation in the manner in which you have just done. You say that it is quite incomprehensible at times. If you find that a mistake has been made, a mistake, in your view, has been made, then you must bring it our attention, but it is absolutely unfair and unacceptable to make a general criticism of the interpretation without pointing to specific misinterpretations. That's not -- that's not playing fair at all and is totally unacceptable. And I'd like to say on behalf of the Chamber that we find that the interpretation generally has been of a very high standard and we express our gratitude to the interpreters for the work that they have done and continue to do.

Proceed with the next question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Barriot, we left off discussing your conversation with Karadzic. Did you discuss anything else except the Bihac pocket, the conflict with the Muslims, for example, and so on and so forth? Do you wish to stress some important point or can we just move on?

A. Yes, I would like to stress two points. After these conversations I had with President Karadzic, he repeated often times that the 20th century had seen the emergence of an unnatural alliance of the Croatians and Serbs, and he hoped that the 20th century would see an alliance between the Croatians and the Serbs to fight Muslim fundamentalism in Bosnia. That is the first thing I remember clearly after these ³⁴⁹²⁷ discussions we had.

Secondly, at this time we talked about the breakaway from Belgrade, and I remember quite clearly when he said that this breakaway is not due to us but this is no solace either. He also said often times that he never received any orders from Belgrade.

Q. I don't understand this now. In the Serbian language, I heard "secession." The word "secession" was used, whereas in the English it's "the breakaway from Belgrade," according to the transcript. So I don't know what "the breakaway from Belgrade" means, or the rift from Belgrade. And I really can't say what the witness said in French.

A. Yes. I repeat what I said. In the course of these discussions where a number of French journalists were present, we discussed the rift or the distance between the Serbs in Bosnia and the authorities in Belgrade. And what I was saying is that President Karadzic was saying that in effect there had been a rift between the two and he was saying that it wasn't due to him, but he was saying also that that was no consolation either. He also stated that he did not receive any orders from Belgrade.

Q. All right. You met General Mladic several times; is that right?

A. Yes. I met him, Karadzic, several times -- Mladic, sorry, in 1995, and more specifically in June 1995 in Bijeljina, in September 1995 in Banja Luka. And it's at that time also that I published an article by him in my book and that I authorised French television crews to conduct interviews of General Mladic.

Q. All right. I'm going to put two questions to you now that have to ³⁴⁹²⁸ do with talks with General Mladic and then you're going to tell me whether you discussed that or not, but I'm interested in the following: Did you speak more precisely about what was going on in the UN protected areas, what happened in Sarajevo? Was there any mention of what was going on in the eastern enclaves, in the Bihac pocket? Did you discuss these important issues, if I can put it that way, or did you discuss some of them, at least?

A. Yes, we did. I spoke with General Mladic on the one hand about the general military situation prevailing in Bosnia, and then we talked about the security zones, especially about Sarajevo, and then about the eastern enclaves. Of course, we also spoke about Srebrenica. So I'll say yes, we mentioned all the issues you have just mentioned.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, it is of course perfectly open to you to call General Mladic as a witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If you intend to arrest him on the basis of his being a witness here, then I certainly do not want to call him.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm just saying it's a matter for you, but you could call him as a witness in your Defence.

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: Not at all.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You mentioned a minute ago that you talked about Srebrenica. You said a few minutes ago that you saw him in September 1995 in Banja Luka; is that right? ^{34929 BLANK PAGE 34930}

A. Yes, I can confirm this.

Q. Tell me, then, what was it that you found out about what happened in Srebrenica?

A. I shall be very clear as to the unfolding of these events. I can state that I have this information directly from General Mladic. On the one hand, I can stress once again, because General Mladic would insist on this very often, that Srebrenica should have been a demilitarised zone as early as 1993, but it wasn't at all. It sheltered an entire division of the BH army. The troops under Naser Oric spread terror around Srebrenica in the Serb villages for several years, from 1992 to 1995. Naser Oric's militia killed 1.500 to 2.000 people in the area. Everybody remembers the Kravica village massacre during the Orthodox Christmas in 1993.

General Mladic would often speak about the massacre by Naser Oric's militia in the area in order to account for the resentment and the fear of the Serbs towards the militia, his militia. And General Mladic mentioned often that these forces were found in a zone protected by the UN which should have been demilitarised.

As to the Srebrenica events, General Mladic would insist on the events that took place just before the Srebrenica battle. He would insist on the fact that whilst the UN, the UNHCR had recommended to Mr. Izetbegovic that the women and the children should be evacuated and sent somewhere safe because there might be an attack by the Serbs, but Sarajevo very decidedly refused to do so, refused to evacuate women and children until July 1995. ³⁴⁹³¹ General Mladic also insisted on the fact that it was the Sarajevo government that had ordered Naser Oric to withdraw and to withdraw his staff from the town of Srebrenica before the attack. So there was an obvious decision and deliberate intention not to defend the town and not to ensure the safety of its inhabitants. He insisted a lot on that.

Now, regarding the events that took place in July 1995, this is how the events unfolded as was related by General Mladic: During the attack or the battle that occurred on the 11th of July, 1995, there were some 40.000 inhabitants in Srebrenica. Twenty-five thousand of them were mainly women, children, old people, and they surrendered to the forces of General Mladic. These 25.000 civilians were never in danger. They were transported towards Kladanj and towards Tuzla in Muslim territory, and nothing, nothing was -- no harm was done to them. Out of these 25.000 people, there were about 750 men that were held prisoners because their identity was to be checked and it had to be checked that none of them was suspected of crimes against Serbs in the area. Out of these people, 500 were not suspected at all. They were released, and they were able to go towards Kladanj and Tuzla. Two hundred and fifty of them were held back because there was suspicion against them. They were suspected of crimes against the Serbs. They were detained in Zvornik and Batkovic, and it is probable that out of these people there were some summary executions because some Serbs recognised some of the authors of some crimes in their villages, but according to General Mladic, no more than hundred summary executions took ³⁴⁹³² place out of this group of people.

Regarding the actual battle that took place in the night of the 11th to the 12th of July, 1995, in the surrounding woods, some 15.000 Muslims, armed Muslims, came out of Srebrenica in that night of the 11th to the 12th. This figure was confirmed by Naser Oric himself. And out of these 10 to 15.000 men, they were confronted in the woods in the night with General Mladic's army, who expected a ferocious battle against well-armed Muslims. So of course there were fights during the night. The Serbs, conducted by General Mladic, lost over 500 men, and the armed Muslims lost some 1.500 to 1.800 men.

So this is what actually happened in Srebrenica on the 11th and the 12th of July.

JUDGE ROBINSON: This narrative is just too long, and it's not an acceptable way of receiving evidence. You must ask -- ask another question and get a specific answer to the question. To have the witness speak for five, ten minutes is just -- it's not -- I don't even remember the question that he's answering. And we have discussed this before. I want questions asked, and I want short answers where that is possible. Of course some answers will be longer than others.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, it's just the way you put it, Mr. Robinson; "whenever possible." I think that my question was quite appropriate, the one I addressed to Colonel Barriot: "What was it that you found out from General Mladic about Srebrenica?" He is a person who talked to General Mladic in September 1995, and he briefly related what he learned from him about the events in Srebrenica and that's all. And I ³⁴⁹³³ don't see anything inappropriate in that.

There are no facts on the basis of which I could put brief questions to him that would only entail yes or no answers. I simply asked him what he found out from General Mladic and that's what he related to you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Not yes or no answers. Not necessarily yes or no answers, but an answer which takes five to ten minutes doesn't help because it's difficult to digest. It's difficult to understand. So you are in charge of your examination-in-chief. After he has spoken for a short time, two or three or four sentences, you must intervene, come in again with another question. That's the way I would like the evidence to be given. I'm not in support of what is called the narrative approach to evidence where witnesses speak forever. It does not conduce to an understanding of the evidence. So please ask another question and let us have an answer to it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Colonel Barriot, what you said, would that be the gist of the explanations that General Mladic gave to you in relation to what happened in Srebrenica?

A. No, no. I'm sorry, Mr. President, regarding something as serious as Srebrenica, regarding the talks that were long, it would be absolutely abnormal to be reduced to three minutes of explanation to relate discussions that took place over several hours and something as tragic and as important as the battle in Srebrenica. I insist.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It is not for you to insist. That's totally out ³⁴⁹³⁴ of order. You will answer the question in the way that I have directed or not at all. Do I make myself clear?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely. I insist on the need to answer the questions, Mr. President.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It is not for you to insist on anything. It's not for you to insist on anything.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but --

JUDGE ROBINSON: You will answer the question in the way that it was asked and along the lines that I have suggested. I don't want a narrative of five to ten minutes which is difficult for anybody to understand.

Mr. Milosevic, you are leading the witness. You come from a system in which this is not the practice. Examination-in-chief and cross-examination are not part of the civil law system. In this part of the case we are following an adversarial system. If you follow Mr. Nice when he's examining in chief, he does not allow a witness to speak for five, ten minutes. That's the way I want it to be done and that's the way it will be done while I'm presiding here. I will not allow answers that roam far and wide and last for five, ten minutes, because that's not helpful. So if you want him to relate what his understanding of what happened in Srebrenica, do it in bits and pieces. I will not allow a narrative of five, ten minutes from the witness.

You have assumed responsibility for examining in chief, and you must do it in accordance with the procedures that the Chamber approves. ^{34935 BLANK PAGE 34936} If you want more from him on Srebrenica, he can give more, but I don't want him to speak for five, ten, 15 minutes.

JUDGE BONOMY: I have to make one comment on this, though. I've -- or I understand that question quite differently, I think, from the witness. Mr. Milosevic seemed to me to be making the point that all the witness had done was give the gist of the account that Mladic gave him, that obviously the account would be much lengthier, but the gist was all that was necessary for the purposes of the trial, and the witness, instead of simply saying yes to the question embarked on a long -- or sought to embark on a further narrative that was quite unnecessary. So the fault at the moment seems to me to lie with the witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Put a specific question and let us have a specific answer.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. How long did your conversation with Mladic last then in September 1995, as you said, when you met with him?

A. We spent several hours speaking together in the Banja Luka barracks, and President Milan Martic was there, along with other people, but there was also a French television crew which took part in part of the discussion, not in all of it.

Q. And did the French television crew take part in that portion of the conversation when you talked about Srebrenica?

A. The French television crew were there mainly to interview General Mladic regarding the fact that the French pilots had been taken prisoners and to talk about the terms for their release, but they also mentioned ³⁴⁹³⁷ Srebrenica. But the French crew were not there at all the meetings and discussions.

Q. Tell me, during that conversation that you had, did General Mladic give any other explanations as to how come a number of prisoners of war were killed in Srebrenica? Did you talk about that?

A. Yes. He mentioned the possibility indeed of some executions, there again because there was so much hate accumulated between the Serbs and the Muslims in the area that it was inevitable for some executions to take place, because the Serbs of the area recognised some Muslim militia of Naser Oric who had massacred their families. So obviously it cannot be doubted that there were some settlements of accounts, but never was any order given for a massacre or the execution of prisoners by him. That is obvious. That cannot be doubted at all. And he also insisted chiefly on the fact that Srebrenica was a strategic objective. He attacked Srebrenica in order to neutralise Naser Oric's militia, not at all in order to eliminate the population of Srebrenica.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Barriot, when you say that "never was there any order given for a massacre or the execution of prisoners by him. That is obvious. That cannot be doubted at all," is this what was related to you by General Mladic or is that your own assessment?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. It was stated. He was quite sort of adamant about it. There was no single execution of a prisoner.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're relating what he said to you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. ³⁴⁹³⁸

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson. That's precisely what I wished to ask the witness, is this exactly what General Mladic said to him.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So it was General Mladic who said to you that there were absolutely no orders to execute prisoners. That's what he said to you in that conversation?

A. Yes, yes. I can confirm that again. I can support what I said totally.

Q. All right. There is no need to go through it again. All right. Now we are briefly going to deal with your stay in Kosovo. In June 1998, you were in Pristina. Please tell us in the briefest possible terms what the situation was like when you came to Pristina then. Can you describe the situation to us?

A. Yes. I shall be very brief. I arrived in Pristina in July 1998, or June 1998. The situation was then very tense because it was practically impossible to just walk about in the streets of Pristina together with Serbs, because the Serbs felt that they were threatened. I met at length Rector Radivoj Papovic. I had long conversations and discussions with him, and I then told him I wished to go to the southern area in Kosovo. I wanted to go to Pec and Decani in particular. Rector Papovic said I should not do that, I should not go through Kosovo because the roads were blocked by the KLA on the one hand but also because two Croat generals of Albanian origin, Ademi, Ceku notably, were in the area and they had all reasons to have resentments towards the Serbs in the ³⁴⁹³⁹ -- towards the representatives of the Krajina Serbs.

Q. Tell me, Colonel Barriot, when did you go to the south of the province? After that, you did go to Pec after all, didn't you?

A. Yes, indeed, I did. In July and August already I went towards the southern area in Kosovo, and I had in my pocket a letter by Patriarch Pavle. He had asked me to support and aid the Pec hospital because there was a lot of fighting in the area. The hospital was overwhelmed, and Patriarch Pavle thought it was useful to send me to Pec so that I could help the hospital doctors look after the wounded. So I went to Pec in July and August 1995 -- 1998, sorry.

Q. All right. Now I'm going to read a brief quotation to you now from this so-called Kosovo indictment, and then I'm going to put a question to you.

That's count 87 for you gentlemen. It says here: "[In English] In late 1990 and 1991, thousands of Kosovo Albanian -- of Kosovo Albanian doctors," [Interpretation] and so on, "[In English] dismissed from their positions."

[Interpretation] Now it says that Albanians -- or, actually, you were in the hospital and doctors were referred to. You were dismissed from your own job. Tell me, what kind of medical staff did you find employed at the Pec hospital when you arrived there?

A. I wasn't aware of such a statement. It's hard to believe it. Indeed a large part of the medical staff and paramedical staff in the Pec hospital were of Albanian origin, so I couldn't tell you exactly what the ratio was but one thing was certain; there are more Albanian doctors and ³⁴⁹⁴⁰ nurses than Serb doctors and nurses, and that was the case in the Pec hospital where I worked for several weeks in 1998. And there were so few Serb doctors that in the summer of 1998, medical teams had to come from Serbia or from Kragujevac in Kosovo in order to help me and to bring additional assistance, because there were very few Serb doctors and nurses at the time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, just in the interest of accuracy, paragraph 87 reads: "Throughout late 1990 and 1991, thousands of Kosovo Albanian doctors, teachers, professors, workers, police, and civil servants were dismissed from their positions." I think you stopped at "doctors."

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I did because I did not consider this witness to be competent to give answers in relation to the others. I quoted this so that I could compare it to the situation that he found at the Pec hospital as far as the medical staff is concerned, to compare it with this position contained here. Because it is asserted here that in 1990 and 1991 Albanians were dismissed from their jobs, and he was there in 1998, and now he says that the majority of the medical staff, the majority of the doctors, the majority of the nurses, of all staff, were Albanians. So this is just one of the falsehoods contained here, and there's really no point even commenting on it. This could not happen in a single civilised country, to put these kind of things on paper, but paper will suffer anything, won't it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Barriot -- ^{34941 BLANK PAGE 34942}

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we are now at the time for the break. And in future you must avoid comments of that kind. We will break for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Colonel Barriot, a moment ago you were talking about the facts which had to do with the structure of the hospital staff. Just tell us briefly, what about the patient make-up? What was the structure of the patient composition?

A. So as I was in the Pec hospital in the summer of 1998, there were essentially two kinds of injured people. There were on the one hand a great number of Serbs that were coming in every day, whether they were civilians or members of the police forces that had been injured and had been wounded by bullets.

And there was a second category of wounded people. These people were Albanians, generally speaking moderate Albanians that had been beaten up by members of the KLA because of their friendly attitude vis-a-vis the Serbs, either because they had had a drink with them or because they had showed signs of friendship towards the Serbs. So these people were -- had generally been beaten up. They had broken limbs, broken jaws due to -- because they had been hit with some sharp objects. ³⁴⁹⁴³

Q. As you yourself are a humanitarian worker and officer and were there for a significant period of time, if I can say so, tell us, please, what was the situation like with respect to the rights of the Kosovo Albanians, for instance?

A. Yes. I can testify to the fact that I -- I was in the -- working for the patriarch of Pec. I was working on a daily basis in the Pec hospital, and I moved around on foot in the town, and I went to the market every day. I also went or drove around the whole region by car. We went to Decani and that entire area.

So what I can say is that I have at -- I have never witnessed any violent attitudes on the part of Serbs or the Serb forces vis-a-vis the Albanians. And the presence of Serb forces in Pec at the time was minimal and was not something which was particularly striking at the time. What I can also say is that the Albanians, the Kosovo Albanians, were never discriminated, as far as I could see. And they spoke Albanian. And when I went to the market or I went to march and I said "avijenje" [phoen], "good-bye" they picked me up in a rather aggressive way and said to me that I should say goodbye in Albanian, in the Albanian language. We saw the flourish of a number of the Albanian flags, the black eagle against a red background. We saw this on a number of houses. Also in the streets you could see people handing out posters and leaflets calling for the independence of Albania.

So I think it is quite clear that the situation in the summer of 1998 in this particular region, I can say there was no discrimination or no violence carried out at the hands of the Albanian population on the ³⁴⁹⁴⁴ part of the Serbs or carried out by the Serb forces. There were a number of newspapers around. It was very easy to find newspapers in the Albanian language. It's much easier to find Albanian newspapers than it was to find Serbian newspapers. There were hardly any Serbian newspapers, as a matter of fact, to be found.

Q. Do you have any knowledge about the activities of the KLA during that period of time, and how would you characterise those activities if you do have knowledge of them?

A. Yes. I knew that the UCK had mistreated a number of people, and these mistreatments were of different kinds. There was, on the one hand, people had been attacked, there had been ambushes laid against the Serb police forces, and this resulted in a number of deaths. There had been a number of Serb people had been abducted, particularly in the centre of Kosovo, in the central region of Kosovo. Some villages had been completely burnt down and the Serb people had been expelled from these villages.

So we saw a surge of violence at this time, and this was conducted by the KLA militia. I would call these terrorist attacks since -- insofar as these people targeted civilians primarily, whether they be Serb civilians or the refugees from the Serb camps in Krajina. I visited a number of centres where the refugees had been placed, and they were savagely attacked by the KLA militiamen. This violence was not only targeted at Serb civilians but also at moderate Albanian civilians when the latter had not been involved or were not part of the separatist movement of the KLA. ³⁴⁹⁴⁵ Pec is close to the border -- is on the border with Albania. Pec, Levubinje [phoen]. There is a lot of drug trafficking on these borders and the Serb forces were trying to counteract this arms and drug trafficking which was crossing the border at the time.

Q. Is that all you know about the activities of the Serb forces and security forces at that time or do you know something more? What were the activities, to the best of your knowledge? What kind of activities were in force by the Serb forces and security forces of Serbia and Yugoslavia?

Q. What I do know as regards the activity of the Serb forces at the time is that these Serb forces were responding or retaliating to the attacks and the ambushes. So this was very clearly targeted and in line with the violence against them. It was aimed at protecting the civilian population. As I said, not only the Serb civilians but the non-Albanian minorities like the Romas and the moderate Albanians in Kosovo. The Serb forces therefore were protecting the civilians and were retaliating to the KLA attacks on a case-by-case basis and were trying to counteract these groups being infiltrated on the border with Albania.

Q. Did you have any personal contact with a compatriot of yours and your colleague, Bernard Kouchner, for instance, and do you know anything about his involvement in the events in Yugoslavia?

A. Yes. Bernard Kouchner is a colleague of mine. I met him personally in 1991 because he sent me to Kurdistan, the Iraqi part of the country, and I had a close contact, personal contact with him. Now, as regards his approach to the Yugoslav conflict, I believe that he clearly demonstrated that he took sides, because the two ³⁴⁹⁴⁶ associations he created would be Medecins du Monde and Medecins Sans Frontieres which are two associations which sided quite clearly and did not respect the neutrality which such organisations should respond to. In other words, these organisations which were created by Kouchner, which were to protect the Muslims in Bosnia and also sided with Kosovo in Albania and totally disregarded the suffering of the Serb people during this war.

I also believe that Bernard Kouchner, who was administrator of Kosovo, I think went well beyond the scope of the 1240 UN Resolution which granted him his mandate. He ordered the expulsion of the last Serbs still remaining in Kosovo. I think Bernard Kouchner probably left the same souvenir as Kurt Waldheim in the mountains of Kozara left. So he went beyond his mandate, and as we saw what happened in March of 2004, the UN mission fell short of its requirement and could not prevent the expulsions of the last Serbs remaining in Kosovo.

I also question the honesty of Mr. Kouchner. I think it's -- he is an unnatural result or combination between the political situation and the army.

I'm sorry. I just wanted to say that it is because of Mr. Kouchner that we don't know today whether the hospitals are there to protect patients or armed militia. We don't know whether ambulances are transporting patients or arms. And during this war, in 1993 in particular, we discovered large stashes of weapons under the Medecins Sans Frontieres humanitarian aid packages which were designed for the Muslim enclaves, the same way we discovered in Kosovo in the ambulance rocket ^{34947 BLANK PAGE 34948} launchers belonging to or destined to the KLA. I think this is something which Mr. Kouchner was largely instrumental in and led to the lack of neutrality of the NGOs.

MR. NICE: I'm more than a little concerned about the nature of this extended answer. Let me make it straight away clear: Of course I have no interest here to serve in defending anyone who happens to be named, but it is one thing for the witness to give evidence of facts, he appears to be able to do, of discovering items in particular vehicles or places, but it's another entirely for him to be allowed to say the sort of things that he's saying at page 39, line 21, and to make assertions about the honesty of a public servant.

I repeat, I have no role to defend the person but there must surely come a time when unless it is absolutely and clearly relevant, this sort of comment should not be tolerated.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We hear the submission, Mr. Nice.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me, Colonel Barriot, do you have any knowledge about the support that the terrorists in Kosovo and Metohija received?

A. Yes. These KLA terrorists in the Kosovo-Metohija region were supported by a number of factions. On the one hand they were, of course, supported diplomatically by Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrooke in the region. Let me remind you that when Richard Holbrooke, in the autumn of 1998, went to Kosovo, Osama bin Laden was actually in the Northern Albania at the time. They were supported, likewise, by William Walker and all American diplomats. They were also supported by Croatian generals of ³⁴⁹⁴⁹ Albanian origin, General Rahim Ademi and Agim Ceku were present in the region. Agim Ceku was charged with coordinating the movements of the KLA.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, yes.

MR. NICE: Again, with such extraordinary wide-ranging allegations, none of which is our function to defend necessarily or to deal with, might it be at least helpful if the witness identified the piece of paper or the precise source of his knowledge for some of these assertions that he's making. Because otherwise, and we know what's going to happen, the assertions will be picked up because they are attractive fodder for certain types of media outlets, particularly in the former Yugoslavia, and they will be given a prominence they simply don't deserve, which may be unfair on those named and may of course not reflect properly the way this case is being conducted.

I made an observation in a recent filing that there may be reason to be concerned about the accused using his opportunity to ask questions and to elicit evidence turning into a propaganda exercise of a kind that's irrelevant to the trial but potentially harmful in the future, and I would invite the Court to be cautious about allowing the sort of rein that this witness is taking in making the sort of broad assertions he's just made, linking all sorts of names without identifying his source material.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's a matter that you could take up in cross-examination, and the position that I've taken or the doubt that I've expressed about the relevance of terrorism doesn't apply to this part of the case. It relates to the Bosnia part of the case. I don't see the relevance. But here the KLA is definitely relevant, and if he has ³⁴⁹⁵⁰ evidence of support for the KLA, I would think that that is relevant evidence. It is, of course, open to you to refute it.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm not necessarily challenging that, and of course there's the opportunity in cross-examination, but when one sees the artful, it may be, linking of high-profile names together in consecutive sentences and drawing broad conclusions, I would invite the Chamber to be cautious.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. I understand your concern, but I think there is a basis here for the -- for that kind of evidence.

JUDGE KWON: But I'd like to emphasise to the witness to make his evidence more specific. Let me give you an example. You said in an earlier answer, "On the one hand they were --" yes, this is it. You said, "Let me remind you that when Richard Holbrooke, in the autumn of 1998, went to Kosovo, Osama bin Laden was actually in Northern Albania at the time. They were supported, likewise, by Mr. William Walker and all American diplomats."

It is an overly general statement without any specific comments. It's nothing to the Chamber. So Mr. Nice is referring to this overall generality in his submission. Then Mr. Milosevic should pursue more specificity from the witness.

Bearing this in mind, please proceed.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Colonel Barriot, on what basis did you observe that Holbrooke and the rest of the people you mentioned lent support to the KLA or, rather, the terrorist groups in Kosovo and Metohija, and what do you know -- but, ³⁴⁹⁵¹ never mind. That will be my next question. Answer this one first, please. What was the basis for you to make your observations?

A. Yes. On the one hand, when I talked about Srebrenica earlier on and I gave details, I was told I was too slow, and when I try to be more concise and just talk about what is essential, I'm told I'm too detailed. So I shall go into this in detail.

As far as General Agim Ceku is concerned, he was a general who was in charge, or one of the senior people in charge of the Operation Storm against the Serbs in Krajina. At the time he was responsible or running MPRI, and I -- he was in charge of the armed branch of the KLA in 1999. He was appointed chief of the operations in Kosovo, and he was appointed by the Americans. I think these are very clear facts which took place at the time.

As far as William Walker is concerned --

THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to slow down a little.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Barriot, the interpreters are asking you to slow down. I know you're eager to give the evidence, but speak more slowly so that the interpreters can follow.

And bear in mind that the question you are answering, what is the basis for you to make your observations, it's the question of support. What is the evidential basis for saying that these high-ranking Americans were supporting the KLA?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the basis of the information I got from French and foreign intelligence services at the time I was there. ³⁴⁹⁵² So I believe that I retrieved firsthand information as regards this particular case.

I should also like to emphasise that transmission equipment was provided by the KLA, by the French intelligence and German intelligence services. So diplomatic, military and material support was given by the Western intelligence services, and this was given to the KLA.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know anything about the crimes of Ceku in Croatia?

A. Yes. Yes. If I may and if I still may -- still may quote some names, Agim Ceku was a member of the Croatian forces who conducted the massacre in the Medak pocket in 1993 with Janko Bobetko, and together with Ceku there was also Ante Gotovina and General Mirko Norac, so these generals were responsible for the invasion and attack on Krajina and Operation Storm in August 1995, and they also were guilty of crimes against civilian populations in Krajina. And as far as Rahim Ademi, he went from Krajina to Kosovo and there is great reason to believe that he was involved in the Klecka massacre in the summer of 1998.

Q. Let's stay with Ceku for just a moment. His crimes in the Medak pocket, I assume, were something that was -- people knew about. How do you explain the fact that despite a clear knowledge about the great crimes committed by Agim Ceku, he himself was nominated commander of the Kosovo Protection Corps when the United Nations took over control of Kosovo in 1999?

A. I think that all this is very clear. This has to do with the connections with the Americans, with the United States, because during ^{34953 BLANK PAGE 34954} Operation Storm, he was one of the main people in charge. He was there, establishing contact with MPRI, and he held the same position in Kosovo, where he was in charge of coordinating the movements of the KLA together with Military Professional Resources Incorporated was also present in Kosovo and Macedonia. And I would like to stress this. Ante Gotovina also said that if ever he were to be captured, he would talk about everything he knew about the connections between the Croatian forces, MPRI, the US army and what happened in Krajina in August of 1995. I think Mr. Ceku knows enough about all of this and will probably never be called upon.

Q. At the end of 1994, Colonel Barriot, you wrote a letter to your paper Le Monde. What was the contents of that letter and what was the response you got?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, before we come to that, because I can't quite see how a letter to Le Monde is likely to be relevant and its answer less so, I should perhaps respectfully draw to your attention that the accused indicated he was going to take, I think, an hour and a half with this witness. He's already taken two hours and 40 minutes. We've made the point before and we don't resile from it that it is substantially a matter for the accused how he either uses or it may be wastes the time available to him, but if the Chamber is concerned about the relevance or marginal relevance of some of this evidence, it may be it would want to have in mind the fact that the time limit has already been getting on for doubled.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Some of the time was taken up, Mr. Nice, in legal ³⁴⁹⁵⁵ argumentation about the relevance of evidence, matters raised by the Chamber itself. So I'd like to take account of that.

JUDGE KWON: But have we limited the time for examination in chief in this case?

MR. NICE: No, we haven't limited it. It's just his own indication. He's set his own budget, and I just draw to your attention he's almost doubled his time. Almost.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That will not be lost on Mr. Milosevic. He attends to these matters very carefully, I know.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let me repeat that question. You wrote a letter to Le Monde. What did it contain, and what was the answer?

A. Yes. This letter is important because it clearly shows the state of mind at the time and how the media reacted at the time. In 1994, let me repeat, this was a time when there was fighting in the Bihac pocket between the governmental forces of Sarajevo, the 5th Corps of the Bosnian army, and the moderate Muslims of Fikret Abdic. I was worried about this and I sent a letter to Le Monde to underline the suffering and persecutions the moderate Muslims were suffering from, those that were loyal to Fikret Abdic. Let me just quote one sentence of this very well known French paper. "We cannot share your interpretation between Fikret Abdic and Irakovic [phoen] who was acting in the name of an essential government in the face of a threat of secession." The media always took sides or took the side of the government in Sarajevo in the same way as they took sides for the government in Zagreb against the ³⁴⁹⁵⁶ people who were wanting to secede. But in Kosovo, when the Albanians found themselves in the identical situation, they were then supported. So it's a double-standard system which I think clearly is indicated in this letter.

On the one hand you had to support Sarajevo against Fikret Abdic, Tudjman against the Serbs in Krajina, but on the other hand, when there was not, to support Belgrade against Albanian secessionist. I think double standards were applied all the time during this war and the three moments, important moments in this war.

Q. Colonel Barriot, just a few short questions. You looked at the effects of different types of weapons professionally. To what extent was the -- were the weapons used by NATO created an effect on the civilians or had an effect on the civilians? How did it affect the civilians and the possibility of them staying in their own homes and houses or deciding to flee?

A. Yes. I shall be very brief. This is my speciality, and I can spend days talking about it. Different weapons were used by NATO, and these hit civilians. What comes to mind is the fragmentation bombs or cluster bombs which were used in the sites of Kosovo, and we know full well that these cluster bombs don't explode instantly, and when they don't, they operate like anti-personnel mines and had killed a number of children in the sites of Kosovo. Graphite bombs, which led to power cuts in hospitals which resulted in a number of deaths in hospitals, particularly in the reanimation centres and for newly-born children. Uranium 238, which led to the contamination of the ground and the whole of ³⁴⁹⁵⁷ the food chain, which would probably lead to a number of cancer -- cases of cancer and malformation.

What comes to mind also is the bombing of chemical industrial sites. When you destroy with a standard bomb a chemical industrial site, you contaminate the environment for a number of decades. So the Pancevo complex was destroyed, the Novi Sad refinement was destroyed, Kragujevac Zastava site was destroyed, Bor complex were destroyed also. There were thousands of tonnes of chemical products, sulphur dioxide, a number of extremely toxic products were released in great quantities, in tens of thousands of tonnes, which will lead to very adverse effects for the people living there.

All these attacks were not aimed at the Serb forces because they were not hit, but these targeted primarily civilians and are, therefore, crimes against humanity.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're a man of many parts, Colonel Barriot. Colonel, I was saying that you're a man of many parts. You're a doctor, you're an expert in arms, and now you're a lawyer. I see you have characterised this as a crime against humanity. That's a matter for the Chamber. So I'll thank you to avoid legal characterisations which are a matter for the Chamber.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Barriot, in view of the operations that you could assess professionally, what was their effect on the general feeling among the population, namely, in terms of deciding whether they would stay at home or whether they would flee their homes? I'm talking about Kosovo and ³⁴⁹⁵⁸ Metohija where the bombing was intensive, 24 hours every day, round the clock.

So the point is, how could this affect the citizens in terms of them deciding whether they're going to stay at home or whether they're going to flee? How did this affect civilians?

A. Yes. Before answering your question --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Before you answer that, could you provide us with the basis for your giving an answer of this kind? Were you present or is this answer going to be on the basis of information that you received?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, I'd like to say that I was in Serbia in March and April of 1999, so I can say that I got -- I saw these bombs coming down. I was in Belgrade at the time of the bombing. I saw with my own eyes the destruction of the radio television building in Serbia. I saw the destruction of the Chinese embassy as well as a number of -- the Pancevo complex and a number other civilian buildings. I was there, on the one hand. I was also in contact with a number of Serbian -- Serb doctors, and I received their reports. Let me remind you that I've just written a book on arms systems.

I would also like to say that when I -- what I said was not of a legal nature but of a medical nature. When I talk about crimes against humanity, I'm talking in medical terms and not in legal terms. So to answer President Milosevic's question, of course the civilian population was never warned and the children in Kosovo who would played in the fields cannot be warned that there are cluster bombs around. In the same way, the farmers in Kosovo who drink the milk and eat their ^{34959 BLANK PAGE 34960} salads do not know and cannot detect 238 uranium in the ground. In the same way, when the NATO military conducted investigations, they were wearing very heavy protected suits, whereas people were never warned and never protected in any way and were never told about the risks that they were incurring.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Colonel Barriot, now I'm going to talk about the entirety of your experience that you gained over a rather long period of time in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. In terms of everything you saw in Krajina, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in Kosovo and Metohija, does that correspond to what you could find in the media of your country and other Western countries and in the statements, public statements made by statesmen in your countries?

A. No, not at all. There is a total split, and I indeed think of the fact that I have, through the many years I experienced that, a good overview of the situation. What was hidden from the public opinions in those countries is the fact that in Croatia, in Bosnia, and in Kosovo the Serbs were not at all aggressors but, on the contrary, were in a state of legitimate self-defence in the face of an aggression. Vukovar did not start in November 1991 with the fall of the city. It started in August of that year, starting with the abuse by Mercep's militia. Srebrenica did not start either in 1995. It started in 1992, and it started with the aggression by Naser Oric's militia. So there is a distinction that was made between the first initial aggression and the response, whilst the Serbs only responded. I showed it for Bosnia and ³⁴⁹⁶¹ Kosovo. The Serbs tried to answer and to face a threat by terrorists, by fundamentalists often coming from abroad. So the hands of the Serbs were tied in their backs so they could not exert their right to self-defence. That's what I noted. And I insist on saying that many military and senior officers made the same observations. I'm not going to quote again all the books written by generals, by foreign generals, on the topic which confirm my interpretation.

Q. And the last question I'm going to put to you during this examination, Colonel Barriot: What is your general conclusion on the basis of your experience?

MR. NICE: I completely fail to understand how a question like that can be of any value to this Chamber.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Quite so, Mr. Milosevic. Ask another question. That question is -- just doesn't make any sense at all.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Thank you, Colonel Barriot. I have concluded my questions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, I was handed over from you a bundle of documents which I guess you'd like to present as evidence. However, among them you dealt with only two tabs of it. Can I take it as you are going to present only two of them as evidence? Am I right in so understanding?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have in mind the fact that these documents are self-explanatory, because these documents confirm the presence of the witness at the sites that he spoke of, testified about. It seems to me that no comment is necessary. Therefore, I ask that all ³⁴⁹⁶² these exhibits be admitted into evidence although I did not invoke many of them because many of them just have to do with establishing the presence of the witness at certain particular sites, and also the references that are taken as a basis for his competence.

I should like to draw your attention to the following: As for both witnesses, the tabs coincide. I have sent a note to that effect. So therefore, what I ask for is that they all be admitted.

JUDGE KWON: Even so, no, speaking for myself, I don't think it is a proper way to present the written documents as evidence. Unless it is put to the witness I'm not inclined to admit any of them. So even if it is time-consuming, you have to put every document to the witness in order to introduce them as evidence. So if there's any documents that you'd like to produce other than tabs 4 and 27, you have to put to the witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, with all due respect for what you've said just now and which is, in principle, correct, and I'm not denying that, I think that the documents are self-explanatory. Look, for example, at the letter of the chief of police. The -- I'm dealing with them in order. Now I've -- well, you've got only the front page of the book, but Mrs. Del Ponte said yesterday that she had read these books. Then you have a certificate that was signed by General de Lapresle in relation to the UNPROFOR medal that was conferred upon Mr. Barriot. Then the letter of Milan Martic under number 4. And then number 5 is the certificate of Air Travel Croatia. And then number 6 is certificate of employment as medical staff at Glina Hospital. And then number 7 is report -- and so on and so forth. All of these are documents. ³⁴⁹⁶³ I did not want to waste time introducing each and every one of them through the witness and showing them to the witness and so on. These are documents that have their own headings, their substance, their content, and they attest to the presence of the witness in the area and all the knowledge he could have gained while in the area.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, in the Prosecution case, your practice was to simply refer to them and then you had a number of tabs.

MR. NICE: I think typically -- I'm so sorry.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Even if you didn't put them to the witness.

MR. NICE: Typically documents will be dealt with individually. From time to time, documents were dealt with compendiously, but their being dealt with in that way was always explained and a foundation for their being produced in that way was laid with the witness. There are no doubt some exceptions to the general rule and we know there were some other exhibits that were produced, for example, collections of exhibits that were produced on the basis of production through, for example, compulsion to the state concerned and then commentary by the OTP in the form of a filing.

Our position, as advanced in the recent filing that's been made available to the accused and that I hope he has read, as he must do if he's going to conduct the case as if counsel, is that that's the practice that should now obtain and that only exhibits properly relied on or identified should burden the Trial Chamber, and indeed the OTP, from this stage onwards.

Now, in relation to this particular witness, that would mean that ³⁴⁹⁶⁴ only the two tabs should be produced, and the accused will not be inconvenienced by this, because if -- because he's been able to adduce the evidence, either as to generality or detail, without reference to these documents. If the detail is challenged, it will be open to him in re-examination to say, for example, well, it's been challenged that you weren't present at X, Y, and Z on this particular date; do you now produce this document? By this method we will keep to the necessary minimum the number of documents that burden the record.

To allow documents to go in without being relied on or referred to is an inappropriate process and one we would resist. We should also observe that although we've been provided with translations more recently today - and Ms. Dicklich is correcting the record as I go along - there are still, I think, four, tabs 9, 11, 14, and 17, that either are not translated or for which we have yet to be provided with translations, and many of the others that were translated have been translated only recently so that it hasn't been possible for us to give any particularly detailed consideration to them. So in our submission just the two tabs, maybe more in re-examination if they become relevant.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll consider the matter.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Nice, you are, of course, right that the documents should be produced through the witness, but in the interests of fairness to the accused and in view of the approach that I knew you took in some cases, I'm going to allow the accused - Mr. Milosevic, listen ^{34965 BLANK PAGE 34966} carefully - to just go through very quickly with the witness each tab, just to cite to the witness the title, and he can just say yes or no. The Prosecutor did that, so we'll allow you to do the same. Examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters cannot hear the speaker.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I assume that you have this set of documents in front of you. Do you have all the tabs as presented? Now you do have it before you. So number 1 is the front page of the book, The Assassination of a People. Is that your book?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Just say yes or no, please. Then number 2 is Our Testimony on Serbia. Again, is that your book?

A. It is.

Q. Three, certificate signed by General Lapresle awarding the UNPROFOR medal to you. Is that a document that confirms that fact?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Then number 4, decision signed by --

JUDGE KWON: That's been dealt with. Go to number 5.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Number 5, certificate of air travel in Croatia, 1994. Is that yours?

A. Yes, it is. ³⁴⁹⁶⁷

Q. Number 6, certificate of employment as medical staff of Glina Hospital.

Seven -- is that all right? Eight, medical work performed at Glina Hospital. That was number 8. So there were these two reports. Are both yours?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. Number 9, letter of acknowledgement for assistance rendered at Glina Hospital.

Number 10 also. Is that all right?

A. Yes, absolutely.

Q. Eleven, report on travel in Krajina forwarded by Association Krajina, humanitarian association.

Twelve also. Thirteen, Topusko hotel invoice; 14, [In English] Report on travel in Bosnia and Krajina in June 1995; 15 accreditation for reporting purposes provided by the Republika Srpska of Bosnia to a team of journalists of French TV channel FR3 in 1995 and 1996; 16, authorisation to participate in the Vidovdan ceremonies in Bijeljina, in 1995; 17, text written by General Mladic, Bijeljina, June 1995. Then Banja Luka hotel invoice, March 1996.

JUDGE KWON: Pausing there. Let's go to number 17. Is that handwriting by General Mladic?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it is.

JUDGE KWON: He wrote that for you?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, he did. I can confirm this. ³⁴⁹⁶⁸ He wrote it for me in June 1995 in Bijeljina.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The dedication says, "For peace and friendship, I would like for France to think of us the way we think of it." Then there's a signature and then the 28th of June, 1995. Is that right? Okay. All right. I've already gone through the rest.

JUDGE KWON: Excuse me. If we go back to number 14. We have text only in B/C/S, but you confirm this. You understand the Serbian language or you can read this? What is this? If you could tell us what this is. Number 14.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do you have in mind the text by General Mladic?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. No, no, no. Number 14 is certificate on travel, Republika Srpska.

A. No. I do not speak or I don't understand the Cyrillic alphabet, but I know what it is about. I know the dates and the circumstances of the travel, especially with the passports and the number plates.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Yes, proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Eighteen and 19 we've dealt with already. Twenty is Pristina, a hotel invoice too.

Then 21, text by Rector Papovic, who you refer to, 1998. Twenty-two is letter of recommendation by [In English] His Grace Luka, Bishop of Western Europe for a mission in Kosovo. ³⁴⁹⁶⁹ [Interpretation] Then 23, mission letter for Kosovo issued by Patriarch Pavle in June 1998.

Then 24, [In English] Confirmation of presence in Kosovo issued by the Pec police in August 1998.

[Interpretation] Twenty-five --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the witness should be indicating yes or no to these.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He's nodding his head. Yes, I mean, we are saving time a bit.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Then tab 25, [In English] Letter of acknowledgement from Patriarch Pavle on receipt of a text on Krajina; 26, letter from French national TV channel antenna 2 on the release of French hostages; 27, Ministry of Civil Affairs and Communications section for relations with Interpol. [Interpretation] That is what we quoted from. That was not challenged in any way.

Then 28 is a CD-ROM film, The Unit of El Mujahedin; and 29, photographs of terrorists. That's all we have there?

JUDGE KWON: I don't understand what the CD-ROM is.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. You don't have to admit that because we haven't shown it. So this was it.

JUDGE KWON: We don't have 29 either.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, you don't have it. You don't have it. I don't have it either. I just have it on my list.

JUDGE KWON: I noticed -- ³⁴⁹⁷⁰

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So now we've gone through all of this, haven't we?

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice was on foot, yes.

MR. NICE: I was only on foot to say we don't have the CD-ROM either and we know nothing about it, nor the following photographs either. As to the first two tabs, of course they are only the cover sheets of the documents concerned and that's all that's being admitted, as I understand it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, yes, yes. Well, we'll admit these documents as -- what's the next number?

THE REGISTRAR: D270.

JUDGE ROBINSON: D270. D270. Well, that's your examination-in-chief, so we move now to the cross-examination.

Madam Prosecutor.

MS. DEL PONTE: Thank you, Your Honour. Cross-examined by Ms. Del Ponte:

Q. [Interpretation] Dr. Barriot, first of all you call Mr. Milosevic "Mr. President." Can you tell me why, because you know he is no longer president. He has not been a president for many years now.

A. Yes, this is a rule in France. You always call somebody "President" when that somebody has been the president of a republic, out of respect. It's just out of courtesy, French courtesy.

Q. What is your current job?

A. I'm presently a specialist doctor for hospitals and I do lecture ³⁴⁹⁷¹ in several schools of medicine and in various ecoles speciales, specialised schools, and I'm part of an expert group working on weapon systems and terrorism.

Q. But you're also a doctor.

A. Yes. My initial speciality is anaesthetics and emergency care, so I currently practice as an anaesthesiologist and also for primary care, emergency care.

Q. Yesterday you spoke about the job that you had as the official representative of the Serbian Republic of Krajina. You opened that office in Paris, and you showed in the documents the decision by President Milan Martic to this effect. What I'm interested in is the following: Why did you want to open this office? Did you think of this yourself or was the idea from somebody else?

A. It's a joint idea. It emerged at the same time. I made the proposal and it was accepted by President Milan Martic and by his advisors. So it can be said that this was a joint project which gradually emerged. It didn't come about in June 1995, it took several months to come about in 1994 and 1995.

Q. So through the links of personal friendships you had President Martic, through discussions with him, that's how the idea came about?

A. Yes.

Q. And how long did it exist, this office?

A. It was officially inaugurated in June 1994 --

THE INTERPRETER: 1995, interpreter's correction.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- but it never closed. It's true ³⁴⁹⁷² that as of August 1995, because Krajina had been invaded by the Croatian forces, therefore it was not really possible any longer to maintain a representation of the RSK as such, but I remained a representative of the Krajina Serbs, especially in Bosnia and Kosovo, in order to maintain the representation and to keep looking after the RSK Serb refugees, especially in Kosovo. When I met with Karadzic and Mladic, I represented the Krajina Serbs.

Q. Did you have any trouble with the French government? If I understood you properly yesterday, you said that this was the reason why you gave up your military career in the French army.

A. Yes. I was punished by the minister of defence, Jean Chevenement, at the time, and Mate Granic lodged a complaint, the Croatian foreign affairs minister, so I was arrested for several days. I was criticised, but it was because I did not comply with the duty of silence.

Q. That we've known since yesterday.

A. It's not because I failed to respect the army or because of any non-compliance or for lies, it was only because I had told the truth, but the truth should not have been told.

Q. You were in the former Yugoslavia as a doctor for the UNPROFOR. That was your official position, and that lasted three months. That's right?

A. Yes.

Q. But as to the other visits you paid, two-, three-week-long visits every two or three months, that was on a private basis?

A. Yes. It was as a private individual. I was no longer within the ³⁴⁹⁷³ UNPROFOR. It was as a part of a humanitarian organisation, basically the Krajina humanitarian organisation funded by Bucan and Teleobjectif founded by Marica Mathei.

Q. So you were interested in the former Yugoslavia and facts relating to it as early as in 1994?

A. Yes.

Q. Because before you were not interested?

A. No. The only experience I had in the Balkans before that was a mission to Albania in 1991.

Q. In 1991. And who for?

A. I was in Tirana when there was some kind of an insurrection in Tirana. So I had been dispatched to foreign embassies, and I was the only Western doctor present then, and I looked after the Albanian insurgents that had sought refuge in various foreign embassies. There were many thousands of them. I looked after them for several weeks, and I took some of them, several back to France. Several thousands of them were welcomed back in France.

Q. It can be said that as to the facts mentioned in the indictment against Milosevic regarding Croatia for the periods of 1991, 1992, you were not on the ground.

A. I've just made a mistake regarding the date of my mission to Albania.

Q. Yes. We do have the relevant documents we were provided with.

A. Yes. That was in 1990, July.

Q. Right. July 1990. ³⁴⁹⁷⁴

A. That's right.

Q. I can see that. So '80, '82 you were in Paris, '90 you were in Albania and you were in Iraq in '91.

A. Yes.

Q. In other words, you were not present at the time of the Croatian indictment against Milosevic. You were not in Croatia.

A. No, I wasn't.

Q. Just for my own sake and for the Judges' sake, can you tell me this: We heard Ms. Eve Crepin, but I saw in the Belgrade press from this morning that you are apparently married. Can you explain the kind of relationship you have with Ms. or Mrs. Crepin.

A. We live together but we're not married.

Q. How long have you been living together?

A. Since 1994.

Q. Yesterday in your testimony, today also, you testified to, let's say, Muslim terrorism and mainly in Bosnia-Herzegovina. You mentioned names of possible authors or perpetrators of attacks, but of course your testimony is a mere assessment by you of what you learned speaking to various people. What I'm asking you, what the Judges asked you yesterday was this: Do you have any document to support what you say?

A. You know, madam, no doubt that as soon as you mention sensitive areas such as the topic of terrorism, most of the sources are classified as secret, and a French individual is not allowed to mention classified information. So whenever I was in a position to present to you a source or a document that was not classified as secret by the French authorities, ³⁴⁹⁷⁵ for instance, this exhibit, the Ministry of Civil Affairs regarding the presence of Mr. Mohammed Atta, I did, in the same way a DVD was mentioned which is not going to be produced where you see Mr. Halzaouari together with Mr. Izetbegovic in Bosnia and Herzegovina. So in some cases I was able to produce evidence. In other instances, these are official sources that provided me with the information but I'm not authorised to mention them because these are classified secret documents.

Q. But you agree with me anybody can come here, can state anything and ask for it to be tendered into evidence whilst it is not evidence for me. I mean, it could be your private opinion, your private assessment of what you may know.

A. No. You then questioned the positions I had and what I may have done in my life. I gave you a very simple example. I'm sorry -- sorry for the interpreters. Yes, I gave you a very -- I can give you a very simple example.

I was planning to bring here the list of French soldiers or French Blue Helmets who were killed in Bosnia, 56 of them to be precise. More than two-thirds were killed by Muslim sniper fire, and I asked to be allowed to introduce this list to the French military authorities and this was refused because this is a classified, secret piece of information. Now, do you challenge the fact that 56 soldiers were killed in Bosnia until 1994, that two-thirds of them were killed by Muslim Bosnian fire? That's the truth. But I'm not authorised to present this to you.

Q. Sorry for interrupting you. You are now talking about terrorist acts by Muslims in Bosnia. That's not enough. It's not enough to just ³⁴⁹⁷⁶ mention that. It's not enough to say this. I want to know precisely because that interests me too. Can you prove this? Just let me come back to this document you produced regarding the 9/11 events. You said that the French authorities had allowed you to produce this document. What can I see, however, on this document? I can see this document was sent to you by fax by the Presidency of Republika Srpska. You can see "Presi BH." I suppose that's Bosnia and Herzegovina.

A. You see where it comes from, but look at the people it is directed to. How can you not know that this was sent to the French intelligence service?

Q. I ask you this question because I know perfectly well that the French authorities do not authorise any document to be produced, not a single one of this kind. Of course I have not had time to check this with the French authorities, but I can see that this comes from Republika Srpska.

A. Yes, it does, but you're distorting what I said. I never said that the French authorities had allowed me. I said that they did not forbid this, and when it is part of a French document such as the list of the French Blue Helmets killed, the French authorities can say no because these are French documents, but inasmuch as these documents were channeled to me by other sources and are not French documents, there is no reason whatsoever for not allowing me to produce them.

Q. Who did you seek the approval of - I mean, from the French authorities - to produce this document? I'd like to check this, you see. Can you give me a name, be it only one? ³⁴⁹⁷⁷

A. No, I can't give you any single name.

Q. Which office or servants?

A. I can tell you that this comes from the Military Intelligence Service, but I can't tell you which service or department, but it's not relevant.

Q. But it's not even a classified document.

A. I think you're distorting the issue or dodging the issue. The problem is that this document shows that Mr. Mohammed Atta was in Bosnia in 1999. So either you challenge his presence --

Q. I do not challenge his presence. I'm trying to ascertain how you got hold of the document. If you tell me that you have been authorised by this intelligence department from the French military authorities, okay, but I would say that it amazes me because that's not what they usually do. And I tell you in addition to that that this has not been classified as a secret document by France. But never mind. I don't want to delve into this because, well, the fact Atta was there does not change anything to our discussions, not an iota. I can produce any document showing that Mr. Atta was in Zurich and that's not a reason for claiming that Switzerland was involved in terrorist acts.

But let's go back to snipers in Sarajevo. We know that and the Judges, the Trial Chamber knows that as well. That was true for all the sides in the conflict. There were people who were snipers.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE BONOMY: [Previous translation continues] ... speech that's ³⁴⁹⁷⁸ being made.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, this is a completely inappropriate comparison, because the village of Bakotic, I showed you a film at Maglaj, a review of the Mujahedin Brigade. There are no air links between Bakotic and America but there are between Zurich and America. So Atta, when he went from Bosnia, he had to go somewhere in Europe to fly on from there, so you can't compare Maglaj and the village of Bakotic with Zurich and the reasons for his stay in Zurich or Bakotic or elsewhere. He wasn't in Bakotic for the same reasons that he was in Zurich for quite certainly.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Madam Prosecutor, I'd ask you not to indulge in comments and to confine your questions to fact situations. What is the precise question that you're asking?

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

Q. The precise question runs as follows: Dr. Barriot, do you know anything about the Vrbanja incident in Sarajevo in June of 1995?

A. Yes. I don't remember it very clearly, but if I remember correctly, it was a clash between French soldiers and the Serb forces.

Q. Yes, that's right. And there were casualties. How many people died?

A. A few people died. Two or three, I believe.

Q. Yes. This is to say that Serbs killed people because you said that the French Blue Helmets had been killed by snipers. The Vrbanja bridge incident led to a number of deaths.

A. You can't compare this. Something had been planned. I can quote ³⁴⁹⁷⁹ or mention French soldiers.

Q. Thank you, Dr. Barriot. You said that MacKenzie, didn't you, MacKenzie stressed that it was the Muslims, and you talked about the long queue. I have MacKenzie's book here at hand. I don't want to adduce it as evidence, but I'd like to -- on a particular page General MacKenzie says, and I'm sure you will agree with me, Dr. Barriot, that he expresses doubt, but he does not adopt a categorical attitude vis-a-vis the situation, in particular with the -- what you quoted, the 27th of May disaster in Sarajevo. [In English] "Attacked and at least 17 killed." [Interpretation] That is the passage you quoted, isn't it? And he says, [In English] "... it was a set-up using explosives. Our people tell us there were a number of things that didn't fit. The street had been blocked off just before the incident. ... The majority of people killed are alleged to be 'tame Serbs.' Who knows?" -- [Interpretation] says -- "Who knows," says General MacKenzie. Do you agree with me here, Dr. Barriot? Do you agree with me? I would like your answer.

A. I'd like to answer. The street had been cut off been on both sides by the Bosnian authorities just before the attack. Once the people were lined up before the bakery, the media came to the forefront but stayed behind, and that's when the attack started. I don't know if you understand ballistics, but I would like you to explain to me how a mortar shot at that distance could possibly reach a queue, a line of people.

Q. I wanted you to tell me General MacKenzie, I just wanted to check that you quoted the same passage which I read out in English, that General MacKenzie is saying "Who knows"; in other words, the perpetrators of this ³⁴⁹⁸⁰ attack, who knows who the perpetrators are. The question remains unanswered. It's an open question.

A. Yes, as far as the book is concerned, yes, but afterwards he made statements.

Q. Yes, well, I shall stick to the book.

A. Yes, if you intend to call about Markale 1 and Markale 2 so that we are more precise on this one.

Q. General Rose never mentioned Markale. As you know, there must be some documents. We need evidence. It's not possible that somebody turns up here and just states something.

A. I do like you do. I -- I --

Q. I have a book at hand here.

A. I have a number of references and books and articles that are all dated, and I can provide these likewise.

Q. I would now like to ask you a number of questions about the situation in Croatia. Let's first of all talk about 1991, the events in 1991.

You, in your deposition, talked about the crimes committed by the Croats in 1991, described these in great detail, and you stressed that no crimes had been committed by the Serbs and that the latter launched -- only launched operation in the last months of 1991. Can you confirm this?

A. No. You are distorting what I said. I will not corroborate this. I never said that crimes were never committed on both sides. This is not what I said. I never challenged that. During a civil war crimes are obviously committed. ³⁴⁹⁸¹

Q. You were not that clear-cut yesterday but I'm listening with great interest to what you are saying.

A. What I'm saying is attacks against the Serbs had been planned since 1990 and the instruments in all of this had been set up beforehand by the Ministry of the Interior and the National Guard units that were being -- had been created to attack the Serbs. This is what I said. I said that the Serbs fought primarily during the second half of the year and that they had fought in Krajina, but they had not fought outside their -- in Zagreb Rijeka, in other words, outside their own territories.

Q. In other words, you saying quite clearly today that you admit that the Serbs have also committed crimes during that same period of time. Please answer my question.

A. I wrote down on paper that Serbians are not angels either and that they may -- I would like to quote this. I would like to quote my book. When we're dealing with a civil war, it's out of the question to say that one of the parties to the conflict has not committed a single crime.

Q. You are not answering my question.

A. Yes, I have answered your question.

Q. Fine. We had somebody testifying here, Mr. Milan Babic. You know who Mr. Milan Babic is?

A. Yes, of course I do. He was the first president of Croatia before Goran Hadzic and before Milan Martic.

Q. That's quite right. So he testified here and I'm not going to read out his testimony for the acts in question. 27 November 2002, 13064 and 066 is the transcript page number. I shall sum all of this up in one ³⁴⁹⁸² single sentence.

Milan Babic says that the crimes committed by local Serbs together with the JNA were committed against non-Serbs in Krajina, and more -- and particularly to force the Serbs to flee these regions. Do you admit to this, to the non-Serbs to flee the region? This is how you understand it?

A. Well, Milan Babic can say what he likes. All I can say is what I've seen in 1994, in other words in Krajina there were tens of thousands of Muslims and there were also Croatian people in the Glina Hospital. There were Croatians who wanted to stay and live in peace with the Serbs in Krajina, and nobody drove them out. And I'm just talking to you about what I experienced. Tens of thousands of Muslims in Krajina, in other words, non-Serbs. I also saw Croatian people who, if they wanted to stay, could stay and were now threatened. This is what I actually saw. So Mr. Milan Babic of course is -- can only be held responsible for what he says.

Q. Yes. You were there, and in 1994 -- 1914 you were --

A. I was not born in 1914.

Q. 1994. 1994, but you weren't there in 1991 so you -- you cannot testify --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that this emphasis on the fact that the witness wasn't there in 1991 is tendentious. We're not disputing that he wasn't there in 1991, but yesterday we had established precisely that the witness attended more than ten briefings at UNPROFOR where they professionally analysed all the events that took place since UNPROFOR began its mission, that is to say in 1991 and 1992 and 1993. We ³⁴⁹⁸³ established that yesterday.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the Prosecutor is entitled to put that to the witness. It's for us to evaluate the evidence. There's nothing improper in that.

It's time for the break, Madam Prosecutor. We'll break now for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.18 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.51 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Madam Prosecutor.

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

Q. Dr. Barriot, do you know anything about the crimes which were committed by the Serb forces in the following regions: I am mentioning this because these are all mentioned in the indictment. Milosevic is charged with these crimes that were committed in Dalmatia in the Lika area, Banja area, Western Slavonia, Eastern Slavonia, and Vukovar in particular Erdut, Lovas. Do you know or are you aware of these facts?

A. You have just quoted place names but you haven't given me any dates.

Q. This is still in 1991, from August 1991 to November -- December 1991.

A. At this time, given the dates you have quoted, you talk about the second half of 1991, and the Serb territories in Croatia I am aware of primarily what the Tomislav Mercep and Abramovic Croatian militia have done, but I'm not aware of crimes.

Q. Committed by the paramilitary Serb forces. ³⁴⁹⁸⁴

A. I am aware of the primary attacks by the Croatians and legitimate self-defence by the Serbs who were not prepared to be killed without defending themselves. I'm not aware of any crimes primarily committed or first of all committed by the Serbs.

Q. You have rather a selective memory, I dare say.

A. I don't think so. I think my memory serves me well.

Q. Whatever the case may be, I would like to show you a document, Exhibit 342, tab 11. This is the report written by a high-ranking officer in the JNA, Lieutenant Colonel Eremija, who is the commander, the deputy commander for political affairs and morale in the 1st Division of the Mechanised Guard of the JNA. This document is dated 24th of October, 1991 -- 23rd of October -- 3rd of October, and was talking about his unit -- 23rd of October and was talking about his unit which was active in Western Slavonia at the time.

I should like to draw your attention to the following: Page 2, at the bottom of the page 2, and page 3, the top of the page and paragraph 5 on page 3.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the document please be placed on the ELMO. Thank you.

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation]

Q. My question is as follows: You are aware of the letter and its contents --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Madam Prosecutor, just a moment.

MS. DEL PONTE: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Could the document be placed on the ELMO. ³⁴⁹⁸⁵

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation]

Q. So my question -- well, as you've just read the passage, have you, Dr. Barriot? So I would like to know whether you're aware of this letter and its content, because this letter had been published in the international press a few months later.

A. To answer your question, I have never read this entire letter.

Q. You agree with me, and you -- do you agree that the Colonel Eremija admits that the Serbs had committed crimes, crimes in Western Slavonia in the autumn of 1991? There is no doubt about that when you read these passages I have just mentioned.

A. No, I don't agree with the way in which you present this to me. There was never any question of denying the fact that there was fighting. This was the second half of the year 1991. This was a period in time when there was fighting in the Krajina. This started at Gospic in September of 1991 and then in Slavonia and Western Slavonia, Pakracka Poljana in October and then in Eastern Slavonia and Prijedor. So -- that there was fighting. I repeat I think nobody can deny this, but the point on which I would like to labour is that the fighting was due to response to the MUP and the National Guard, which was Croatian. That there was fighting and casualties on both sides I don't think is questionable.

Q. This is the way you interpret this. I think we shall let the Judges rule on this. This just demonstrates that there were Serb paramilitary forces that did commit crimes.

Let's now move on to UNPROFOR. You said that you were kept abreast of what had happened in 1991 and in the following years. I have ³⁴⁹⁸⁶ here in front of me a report written by the Secretary-General of the United Nations Security Council, and I would like this document to be tendered into evidence.

You testified about the fact that you forge your opinion based on the fact what had happened in 1992, 1993, and you base this on what you had heard from your colleagues working for UNPROFOR. The document which I'm about to show you and ask you to read indicates a number of things, and indicates, Dr. Barriot, that you were not well-informed or fully informed about the facts.

Now, let's look at the following paragraphs in detail: Paragraph 2, which talks about, amongst other things, the Croatian attack in the Miljevci plateau area, and paragraph 3, which mentions other attacks by the Croatian forces.

I would like now to draw your attention to paragraph 4, more specifically, in other words, the creation of a new police force which is Serb in order to bypass the Vance Plan. The commander of UNPROFOR considers that these forces are paramilitary forces. Are you with me?

A. Yes, yes, I am.

Q. And in paragraph 6, the word "terrorism" is used. This term "terrorism" is spelled out in paragraph 10 to 17, and more importantly and which I would like to stress here, we are talking about harassment of non-Serb minorities living in the territories controlled by the Serbs in Croatia. Can you confirm this?

A. I don't confirm anything at all. You are showing me a document ³⁴⁹⁸⁷ which I know nothing about. I agree you are mentioning the Miljevaca plateau in June of 1994.

Q. 1991, 1992. 1992.

A. 1992, yes. So we can agree that in 1992, the Serb territorial forces in June 1992 were aggressed or attacked by the Croatian forces. There were four people dead among the Serb territorial forces. The bodies were thrown in a well. I was in the San Salva hospital [phoen] in Knin, and I met the forensic doctors because the -- in the summer of 1992, we were unable to put the pieces together. This was a most terrible massacre, and Janko Dzerenko [phoen] was there on the spot, and then a UN Resolution asked the Croatian forces to move out of the Miljevaca plateau and they didn't.

Q. If I may interrupt you, what I would like to underline here is the fact that UNPROFOR has, via the Secretary-General, produced a document and also mentions harassment of non-Serb minorities living in the territories controlled by the Serbs in Croatia, because you are saying that the Serbs in this particular territory are only victims or are just in a position of legitimate self-defence, whereas UNPROFOR, which provided you with all the data in 1994, drafts a report which is totally independent, whereas you are not.

A. No, no, not at all. You are distorting the facts totally. You are talking about the events in 1992, whereas I said on several occasions, and that cannot be challenged, the attack on Serbs started in 1990 and 1991, and after all the events in 1991 - I can quote them all - everything that happened in that region; Northern Dalmatia, Kopinj [phoen] area, but ³⁴⁹⁸⁸ I answer, if I may, where the troops from Makunerac [phoen] massacred Serbs, Tiro [phoen], Meskovic [phoen], all this happened in this region. You're now telling me that the Serbs were defending themselves. This was not harassment, this was just a question of legitimate self-defence.

Q. Fine. We shall now move on to the observations made by the UN Secretary-General in paragraph 33 to 34, where he states -- I would like to draw your attention to this paragraph, paragraph 34, which mentions the responsibility of the Serbs in Krajina for the deterioration of the situation in Krajina. And in paragraph 35, the UN Secretary-General explains the frustration of the Croat authorities in the light of this situation and describes it as something which is totally incomprehensible. This is what I would like to draw your attention to.

A. Yes, I understand that. We are talking about 1992, and you totally overlook the fact.

Q. Doctor, you don't agree -- Barriot, you don't agree with this?

A. I don't agree with the interpretation of this.

Q. This is not a question of interpretation.

A. Fine.

Q. I have a very clear question to put to you after all that. Dr. Barriot, is it not right to say that the fact that the Serbs in Krajina refused to abide by the Vance Plan and that they refused to adopt a peaceful solution meant that the Z-4 plan was also rejected? This encouraged the Croats to adopt a military position to try and find a settlement to the conflict.

A. No, I don't agree with this interpretation, because if we go back ³⁴⁹⁸⁹ to 1991, 1992, 1993, the attacks and the plan which you've just mentioned, the Zagreb 4 plan came under -- came after a number of years where massacres were being perpetrated against the Serbs and the Zagreb 4 failed is because Franjo Tudjman did not want to discuss the matter with Martic and Martic was on the list of war criminals. This was not that the Serbs were unwilling to accept this, they were not provided with the possibility of negotiating this or finding a solution.

Q. This is the way you see things. We have a number of documents, a number of testimony, and we also have Ambassador Galbraith's testimony on this point.

Now, let me move on to another subject. You mentioned yesterday that the Serbs in Krajina no longer had heavy weaponry after 1992. So if we are to look at the letter which commander of the UNPROFOR, General Lars Wahlgren sent on the 1st of April, 1993, to Goran Hadzic, president of RSK.

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] This, Your Honour, is a new document which I would like to tender.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, the number will be 815.

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] We should also have a number for the Security Council report that I mentioned before.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, that is the Security Council report of the 28th September?

MS. DEL PONTE: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's 815, yes. ³⁴⁹⁹⁰

MR. KAY: Just an observation on that: Of course it wasn't a document adopted by the witness, so -- we've been studying the filing by the Prosecution on exhibits in this case where they complain about documents being put into evidence that are not adopted or referred to and taken no further, and don't we have an example of it with this document of the 28th of September, 1992? She's been putting cross-examination, but the witness hasn't been able to comment about it. He says he's unfamiliar with it --

MS. DEL PONTE: No, he comments. He interpret. Absolutely.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't think we can apply those strict common law rules to admission of documents here. This system is a little different. The UN document is --

MS. DEL PONTE: Public.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's a public document in any event.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE BONOMY: Madam Prosecutor, assist me if you can, please. This is a document which hasn't been part of the Prosecution case so far.

MS. DEL PONTE: Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: This witness has -- has made it clear he knows nothing about it. So if it's admitted, what's its status?

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Of course this document is in contradiction to everything the witness says on this topic, because here you have a report by the commander, the general command -- by General Nambiar, who was the UNPROFOR commander in 1992. And this is a report in relation to the situation in Croatia. The witness mentioned the ³⁴⁹⁹¹ situation. This contradicts everything he said. So it is important for me to get a comment from the witness, for him to look at this document. I wanted to ask him to comment on it, because I think this is a very relevant document. Indeed, what he said yesterday and today is to be found in this document, and this is in contradiction to what he said.

JUDGE BONOMY: It may well be relevant, but my concern is how does it acquire a status in the case when the witness hasn't accepted any part of it, it's not presented as part of the Prosecution case, although it could have been if it was thought to have been important. It could perhaps be produced at a later stage in the case when the opportunity does arise to seek to answer part of the Defence case. But I just want to be clear, in case there's a series of these, that the decision we make is on solid ground.

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] I believe, Your Honour, that I presented this document to the witness, and I asked him to comment on it, because this denies the witness statement. So I think that document may be produced now since it is being used now, here at the hearing. What the witness has just said prompts me to say that I have a report by the UNPROFOR commander. He says that he got this information from meetings he had with the UNPROFOR, but you have here the UNPROFOR commander drafting a report conveyed to the UN Secretary-General. That's the reason why this should be produced now and tendered into evidence, because I am now presenting this document for assessment by the witness. He's discussed this. Even if he hasn't seen it before, he's seen it now and he's discussing it, so I think now is the time for the document to be tendered ³⁴⁹⁹² into evidence. That's my view.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As for this explanation given in response to Mr. Bonomy's question, the one provided by Ms. Del Ponte, her main assertion is that the document is contradictory to the testimony of this witness. That explanation is not correct.

If you look at the document - this is also the first time that I see it - you will see that it starts with the following -- look at the first chapter, and it says: "[In English] However, tension has been high in Sector South, particularly in the areas of Peruca dam, Miljevci plateau (where there was a Croatian army incursion on 21st of June, 1992) ..." [Interpretation] And then --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, are you looking at the same document? What paragraph of the document?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I've quoted it. It's on page 1, paragraph 2, and it refers to the merit of the case. [In English] "The major incidents that have generated considerable tension have been as follows:" [Interpretation] And (a): "[In English] On 7 August 1992, fighting erupted in an area adjacent to the south-eastern portion of Sector West, apparently due to attempts by armed elements from the Croatian side to cross the Sava River and attack Bosnian Serb elements south of the river."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... presenting ³⁴⁹⁹³ it as a document that contradicts --

JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Can I make an observation? I think we are having a useless debate. I noted, just noted this exhibit was exhibited already by the Defence. Its number is D93. So it is already in the exhibit list, and I'll --

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: And if I can make further observation, the letter which is given the number 815 should be 814. The Road to War was not admitted.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I wanted to say to Mr. Milosevic the Prosecutor is presenting it as a document that contradicts the testimony of the witness. The extent to which it achieves that purpose, the extent to which it does that is a matter for us to determine. So the fact that you can point to passages in the document which are not a contradiction doesn't go to the admissibility. It goes to the weight. But in any event, the document is already tendered.

JUDGE BONOMY: But it may be that we disagree about this. I find difficulty with the concept in an adversarial system that the Prosecution can positively introduce material that is not accepted by the witness, the Defence witness who is giving evidence at that time, and therefore I'm exploring the proper legal basis on which this can become a positive part of the Prosecution case.

Now, that's a matter that we can debate later, because as it turns out, this is a Defence production, and it my opinion it should not have a Prosecution exhibit number. ³⁴⁹⁹⁴

MS. DEL PONTE: Even if it is -- sorry. Even if it is a public document that I use for the cross-examination of the witness?

JUDGE BONOMY: That is my opinion at the moment. And I don't think it's necessary to reach a final conclusion. It's sufficient that it has a D93 number for present purposes, in my view.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Proceed, Madam Prosecutor.

MS. DEL PONTE: Yes. We have the second document. That is the letter, the Hadzic -- letter to Hadzic. That is -- [Interpretation] since the witness said that the Krajina Serbs no longer had any heavy weaponry after 1992, I'm seeking to tender this letter into evidence. This is a letter by General Lars Wahlgren, UNPROFOR commander. It was sent to Goran Hadzic on the 1st of April, 1993. Hadzic was then president of the RSK. Now, as to the motives. This shows several examples of heavy weaponry fire by Krajina Serbs on civilian -- Croatian civilian targets in March 1993. Note page 3. You have a survey of the weapons used. Under 4 it is even mentioned that on the 11th of March, 1993, six cluster bombs were used in Sibenik.

The witness mentioned cluster bombs used by the other side, according to him, in Kosovo, and of the, of course, negative effects they had.

So I'm tendering this letter. I'd like this letter to be submitted to the witness for him to comment on it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Point him to the specific passage on which he is to comment.

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Second paragraph, Your Honour, and ³⁴⁹⁹⁵ page 3 as to the types of weaponry.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'd say two things regarding this document that I've never seen before. I'm therefore discovering it now. Regarding the last but one document, you said that this contradicts what I said. Sorry, it does not contradict it at all.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, no. You do not -- you do not determine the rules here. We are past that. We are now dealing with the letter addressed to Mr. Hadzic, and the Prosecutor wants you to comment on the second paragraph.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My comment refers to documents going back to 1992 and 1993, and I stated very clearly that all the documents that I had analysing the UNPROFOR back in 1994 went from 1990 to 1994, including, therefore, events that happened after the production of these two documents. It cannot be said that the analysis I had provided of UNPROFOR in 1994 would be contradicted by documents that happened before, in 1992 and 1993.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Barriot, you're bordering on being out of order and contemptuous. You really are. You're skating on very thin ice. I've already told you that is ground we have already covered. We are not returning do it. Address yourself now exclusively to the specific question put by the Prosecutor. The second paragraph of the letter. Do you have it there? Do you have the letter in front of you?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have it in front of me.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Second paragraph. Madam Prosecutor, it's the second paragraph, the one beginning, "As you are no doubt aware ..." ³⁴⁹⁹⁶

MS. DEL PONTE: Yes, particularly the second paragraph. The first also, but -- [Interpretation] the information I'm seeking from the witness is this: He said that there were no heavy weaponry, and I say this letter shows that there was heavy weaponry and even cluster bombs.

Q. Therefore I'm asking the witness whether he admits that he had only partial information.

A. No. I don't agree with that, because when I mentioned heavy weaponry, I think of tanks, of planes. I'm not having in mind rockets or rocket launchers which can be moved about very quickly and which, unlike truly heavy weaponry, can be moved whilst the latter cannot. And I also observe that this is in April 1993. So then Serbs were trying to respond to aggressions and attacks.

JUDGE BONOMY: Colonel Barriot, what I understand this question to be asking you to consider is whether you accept that in the light of the second paragraph of this letter and the fourth item on the third page, that it's possible that weapons were improperly used against civilian persons by Serb forces based in Knin.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. -- there are two different things I'm forced to admit because I have no reason to question what an UNPROFOR general would say. I admit that there was firing with these weapons. As to know why, that's a matter for interpretation and it doesn't show that this fire was directed at civilians.

JUDGE BONOMY: But you accept that it's possible that this is an accurate report? Yes or no.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, sir. ³⁴⁹⁹⁷

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes. You're addressing a question to Judge Bonomy?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He raised the issue. Mrs. Del Ponte says that the witness had partial information when he testified, and on the other hand, Mrs. Del Ponte is also using partial information. When it is not compared to the other side, it doesn't mean a thing. I would like to draw your attention to the last paragraph of this letter, and it reads as follows: I am writing to the other party to this conflict --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic, I've stopped you because, as I have told you on a number of occasions, a matter like that is classically an issue to be taken up in re-examination. When you re-examine, you simply draw the attention of the witness to the third paragraph and read it to him or ask him to read it, but you don't interrupt to make the point now.

Yes. Please continue.

MS. DEL PONTE: We can continue?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

Q. Let's move on to another topic, Dr. Barriot, namely the support by the US air force during the Operation Storm.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You would like to exhibit this?

MS. DEL PONTE: Yes, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And Judge Kwon can assure us that it is not ³⁴⁹⁹⁸ already a Defence or Prosecution Exhibit.

JUDGE BONOMY: 814, is it?

JUDGE ROBINSON: 814.

JUDGE BONOMY: Can I just explain that I see a difference between the situation of this document and the situation of the previous one because this witness, as a Defence witness, has accepted that it's possible that this is an accurate report and that it thus becomes part of the case that the Prosecutor can rely on at a later stage.

MS. DEL PONTE: Thank you very much.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone, please.

JUDGE KWON: Microphone.

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Oh. I thought it was on. Sorry. I have -- we have information gathered by Human Rights Watch, and it makes it possible to have a better understanding of what happened. Here again, we have a document dated August 1996 from Human Rights Watch, and I would like to tender this document into evidence.

Q. On page 8 it is said, and let me quote this passage --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Do we have the document, Madam Prosecutor?

MS. DEL PONTE: Oh, yes. Of course.

Q. [Interpretation] So Doctor, please take page 8, the first paragraph -- the first full paragraph of this page. It says, and I quote: "[In English] NATO threatened to attack Croatian forces in retaliation for their assault on UN positions. However, the only NATO attack during the operation was against a Serbian surface-to-air missile site near Knin that had locked onto two NATO planes dispatched in response to UN calls for ³⁴⁹⁹⁹ support."

[Interpretation] Were you aware of this? Were you aware of these facts?

A. Yes. My response, my answer will be very simple. You mention attacks by US air force onto batteries --

Q. No. These are NATO, not US attacks.

A. But when the 19 ambassadors, NATO ambassadors are the only one accredited to allow army intervention, when did they sign this order for operation on Knin? This is no such document. There was no NATO order to launch an attack on Knin. It is the US army.

Q. We're not talking about the US army.

A. In 1994, it is the US army that bombed the Ogdina [phoen] airport in Krajina, and it is again that same army which attacked defensive or defence arms. These arms used by the Serbs were aimed at defending Knin, nothing else.

Q. It is up for the Trial Chamber to adjudicate this. I read a document, and I can read in this that this was an attack by NATO. I don't deny that there may have been American aeroplanes, but this is NATO.

A. This comes from Human Rights Watch, and I don't think that they are able to provide this type of information.

Q. I do work with the documents I have, Doctor. And here I can read that this is upon -- upon a request by the UN that NATO attacked.

A. This comes from Human Rights Watch.

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Can I tender this document into evidence, Your Honour? ³⁵⁰⁰⁰

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number will be 815.

MR. KAY: We've got the same running objection, so to speak, in a document that's not adopted by the witness.

JUDGE KWON: No, I don't think so. I think the witness agrees with this paragraph, apart from the issue whether it was NATO or the United States which attacked Knin. This paragraph is dealing with the abuse by Croatian government, and I remember the witness said yes to the answer of the Prosecutor.

MR. KAY: I took it that there was a disavowal by him and that they'd descended into an argument over whether it was UN or NATO and whether who was performing what rather than the content of the document which was meant -- which is really designed to show that it was the Serbs who were on the offensive and were being repelled and attacked.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're saying that if the Prosecutor wants to introduce this, then they must introduce it in rebuttal through a witness?

MR. KAY: In rebuttal. We are in a danger here. It's something we've been observing over a succession of witnesses, and we're dealing with a response to the Prosecutor's current motion over material that's coming in that the witness looks at, well, there it is. But it's being put in as a vehicle, as a Trojan horse, if you like, for the Prosecutor into the Defence case, and the documents are not adopted by the witnesses so their actual worth is merely an assertion by counsel that they exist in the terms that they do when the witness himself has not adopted it, and it bears no impact on his testimony at all. ³⁵⁰⁰¹ If documents have already been in evidence, like the Kirudja document, D93, which we eventually found in the Defence documents, that of course is a different matter. But when we have documents that are being introduced for their own sake as a vehicle of expressing the case for the other side in a different form, I think the Trial Chamber is getting in a very dangerous area there because the document itself has no real status. It's not being produced by the witness. It's coming through the organ of the Prosecutor but without any foundation having been laid as to its merit, its provenance, what it means, how it arose, in the usual way, and if they are concerned with the number of exhibits that are piling up in the case, they seem to be not heeding their own alarm signals, if you like, and are adding considerably to them. But I suppose if it suits them, they're willing to go along with it; if it doesn't, they're not. I think we do need consistency in relation to these documents.

JUDGE BONOMY: I consider this should be admitted, or exhibited, because there's sufficient in the answer, as indicated by Judge Kwon, to justify reference at least to that paragraph in the context of any later submissions. For that purpose alone, I support exhibiting this document.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Proceed.

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have no further documents and just a few last questions so that we finish on time.

Q. Dr. Barriot, as regards Kosovo, you said that you were there in July of 1998 and for two weeks?

A. In June for two weeks and July and August for one month.

Q. Right. And you said that there were Albanians. You said that ³⁵⁰⁰² there were Albanian professionals in the hospital?

A. Yes, in the hospital.

Q. In the hospital. The accused Milosevic talks about paragraph 87 in the indictment that mentions facts in 1991. So as regards this, you don't know. You talked about 1998.

A. Yes.

Q. Fine. So as regards 1991, this remains to be seen. You talk about Kouchner. You attacked him personally here. As my colleague Mr. Nice said, we're not here to defend people, but Kouchner arrived much later, didn't he, after the facts mentioned in the indictment against Mr. Milosevic.

A. No, not at all. Mr. Kouchner was in Dubrovnik in 1991 and --

Q. We're actually talking about Kosovo.

A. No, no.

Q. Kosovo.

A. Yes, Kosovo. He arrived then.

Q. Fine. One last point, and Mladic and Srebrenica. For a while I shuddered because you mentioned what Mladic had told you, which I can understand, because you know that there is an indictment against Mladic. You know this, don't you?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Do you know since when?

A. The indictment goes back to 1995, I believe.

Q. Quite right. And you mentioned Oric. You do know that Oric is being prosecuted here? Do you know this? ³⁵⁰⁰³

A. Yes, recently so.

Q. But you know about this?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Do you also know that a commission in the Republika Srpska was set up to look into the Srebrenica massacre?

A. Yes, which is -- confirms what I've said.

Q. Then we didn't read the same report?

A. Probably not.

Q. The Republika Srpska commission admits that the Serb forces have massacred over 7.000 people in Srebrenica.

A. No. I challenge that fact.

Q. So you have not read this, but you know that Lord Ashdown set up this commission in Republika Srpska and they admitted publicly? This was a public admission.

A. I know what Lord Ashdown did for the Serb Republic.

Q. But my question doesn't hinge on that. My question has to do with Srebrenica.

A. In Srebrenica I confirm what I've said already and I corroborate what I said.

Q. This is what Mladic told you?

A. But I think he was in the -- he knew full well and he knew much more about it than Paddy Ashdown. He was in the right position.

Q. He was also in a position to defend himself. So there are a number of things here in the evidence to state that there were 7 to 8.000 Muslim victims. ³⁵⁰⁰⁴

A. You know full well as I do that there were 2.500 bodies which have been identified, 2.500 that were exhumed. So don't say that 10 years down the road there were 8.000, or sometimes it's been said 13.000 able-bodied men and that these are not women, children and elderly people.

Q. Just one last question, Dr. Barriot: Do you admit that in this armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia crimes were committed on all sides?

A. Yes, I told you that already.

Q. Could you just confirm this?

A. I confirm that from 1990 to 1999, there was a civil war in Yugoslavia, and there were casualties in the three communities.

Q. I'm not talking about dead people, I'm talking about crimes committed by the various groups.

A. Every day in France you have crimes committed.

Q. I'm not talking to you about crimes committed in France. I'm asking you whether, yes or no, you agree with me that the fact that crimes were committed during this conflict by all the groups party to the conflict.

A. Yes, crimes were committed by the Muslims, by the Croats, by --

Q. Thank you very much.

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] I've finished, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Questioned by the Court:

JUDGE BONOMY: Colonel, can I ask you one question? Have I noted correctly that you have not read the report of the commission set up by ³⁵⁰⁰⁵ Republika Srpska to investigate Srebrenica?

A. Yes, I have. I read the reports. There were two reports, and we're not talking about the same one, the one which I believe was dictated by Paddy Ashdown.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Barriot, can I ask this: I'd like to clarify what you answered to Judge Bonomy and Madam Prosecutor. When Madam Prosecutor asked you whether you had been allowed by the French government to disclose this document, I'm referring to tab 27 of your exhibit binder related to Mohammed Atta, if you remember, you said, I quote: "I did not say the French authorities allowed me." But when Judge Bonomy asked you how you came by with that document, you answered this way: "This was provided by intelligence services, and I was authorised to present them because they were not classified as secret by the French government." I'm a little bit confused. Could you elaborate on this matter.

A. Yes. Madam Del Ponte did make a confusion here. I never said that the authorities had granted me permission to disclose these documents. I said that I had not been prohibited from doing so. Before coming here I wanted to show a number of documents. So the only one for which I was banned by the French authority was the list giving the names of the Blue Helmets who were killed in the former -- in Yugoslavia. But for the other documents I was told I was free to do what I liked but this was under my own responsibility.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: May I ask you, Mr. Barriot, you're clearly a man ³⁵⁰⁰⁶ committed to the Serbs, sympathetic to the Serbs, and for that one can have no quarrel. When did your association with Serbia begin? What was your first association? I know you went to Bosnia in 1993 with the Blue Helmets, I think, but what was the origin of your association, your relationship with Yugoslavia and Serbia?

A. In 1994, after having served UNPROFOR and the Blue Helmets. It's after that time when I realised what was actually happening on the ground, I then got closer to the Serb people because I felt they were suffering from a great injustice.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So your commitment arose as a result of what you saw in 1994.

A. Yes, Your Honour. This is really what I experienced on the ground, what I heard, what I saw personally.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, re-examination?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's on now. Well, just a few linked to the document produced by Madam Del Ponte. I can't take the same order, take them in the same order but let me start off with this. Re-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Barriot, look at the Human Rights Watch Helsinki document first, please. This is the first paragraph on page 8 which Madam Del Ponte quoted from.

"[In English] During the offensive, Croatian forces restricted movement of most of the approximately 10.000 UN troops stationed in the Krajina area. They also attacked 65 UN posts, killing three and wounding ³⁵⁰⁰⁷ eight peacekeepers during the offensive. NATO threatened to attack Croatian forces in retaliation for their assault on UN positions, however, the only NATO attack during the operation was against a Serbs surface-to-air missile ..." et cetera. [Interpretation] in Knin. Now, does that change anything with respect to your assertions and claims that it was American planes which attacked Knin?

A. No. It corroborates the fact that it was the US planes that fired on the positions around Knin. Also this corroborates the fact that the Croatian forces deliberately fired on the Blue Helmets and -- there is a Klaus Gomberger [phoen], a lieutenant officer who was deliberately killed by a Croat tank. Bernard Jean-Pierre [phoen] mentioned this, and a number of people were killed at the hands of the Croats during this attack. And Blue Helmets were used as human shields. And all the Blue Helmets, Canadian Blue Helmets who were thrown in gaol in Knin at the time that Knin town was being destroyed during Operation Storm.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute, Mr. Milosevic. You said in answer to Mr. Milosevic that the paragraph that he read corroborates the fact that it was the US planes that fired on the positions around Knin. What is in that paragraph that corroborates that? In it I see no reference to the USA.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But the two planes, Your Honour, came from Teddy Roosevelt and they were two fighter planes. They were American fighter planes, and this is not challenged, and they fired on Knin. They were on an aircraft carrier. If I'm lying, it's easy to check. ³⁵⁰⁰⁸

JUDGE ROBINSON: So it's not the paragraph itself that corroborates it, it's evidence which you have independently of the paragraph.

Go ahead, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, please, Mr. Barriot, if you look at the end of the paragraph there's a footnote, because as Madam Del Ponte said, this is a document of the Human Rights Watch, but you have footnote number 14 indicated there, isn't that right? The very end of that paragraph, you have footnote 14.

A. Yes, I've got it. Yes.

Q. Well, take a look at the bottom of the page what it says. What is footnote 14 and what is stated here? It says Raymond Bonner, so that's the article in The New York Times of the 5th of August, 1995, and the title is "[In English] In Broad Attack, Croatia Is Trying To Dislodge Serbs." [Interpretation] So that, therefore, is the article that appeared in The New York Times, to which this, as they say document of the Human Rights Watch is referring, and nothing more than that, right?

A. Yes, I do corroborate that fact.

Q. Let's take a look now quickly at this next point. Madam Del Ponte quoted General --

JUDGE ROBINSON: A good point, Mr. Milosevic.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let's take a look at the quotation, as I was saying, of General MacKenzie, which is May the 27th, his diary, and that was what Madam Del ³⁵⁰⁰⁹ Ponte was quoting from, briefly. I consider that it is necessary to read out that portion of the diary, but before I do that, I'd like to say that I had to look at the dictionary and find -- MacKenzie says this: "Tame Serbs" under quotation marks. "Tame." So what does "tame" mean? And I looked at the dictionary and read what it says: Domesticated, which means tamed. And now I can understand it.

THE INTERPRETER: "Pritonje" [phoen] would be the Serbian translation of the word tame, interpreter's note.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, let me read the following: "Disaster in Sarajevo. People lined up for bread. They were attacked and at least 17 killed. [In English] Presidency claims it was a Serb mortar attack. Serbs claim it was a set-up using explosives. Our people tell us there were a number of things that didn't fit. The street had been blocked off just before the incident. Once the crowd was let in and had lined up, the media appeared but kept their distance. The attack took place and the media were immediately on the scene. The majority of people killed are alleged to be 'tame' Serbs. Who knows? The only thing for sure is that innocent people were killed."

[Interpretation] Is this, regardless of the more precise statements by General MacKenzie later on, is it clear that here what this is about is that it was a construed attack, because he says quite clearly: [In English] "The street had been blocked off just before the incident --"

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: Tendentious or leading or both. ³⁵⁰¹⁰

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic, I think you have to formulate your question differently.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Every time you begin "is it clear..." it is almost certain that you're leading.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well. I won't start my questions with "is it clear..."

Q. It says here, Mr. Barriot: "The streets had been blocked off just before the incident. [In English] Once the crowd was let in and had lined up, the media appeared but kept their distance. The attack took place and the media were immediately on the scene." [Interpretation] Then it says the tame Serbs were killed.

What does that tell us, then, Mr. Barriot?

A. I think this is not ambiguous. Lewis Mackenzie's story is clear the Serbs were not responsible for this explosion. This is what UNPROFOR people were saying at the time, and this is what has been corroborated by a number of Canadian military who were close to General MacKenzie. I would like to say, by the way, that Mrs. Carla Del Ponte only mentioned the 27th of May 1992 attack because the only person who challenged the responsibility of the Serbs was General MacKenzie, whereas Markale 1 and Markale 2 we have a series of statements by generals and officers who dispute the responsibility of the Serbs in these attacks.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Barriot. Now, let's take a look at General Wahlgren's letter which Madam Del Ponte also presented to us. The letter is addressed to Goran Hadzic. We're not challenging that, are we? That's ³⁵⁰¹¹ not in dispute. No, right.

Then and page 2, that is to say at the end of the letter, the last paragraph says the following: "I'm also writing [In English] the other party to this conflict in respect of breaches emanating from their military activity."

So that second page -- I'm sorry. The other side is the Croatian side. I assume that's not in dispute either.

A. I don't think this can be challenged in any way. This letter was written in 1993 after the attack against the Miljevaca plateau in 1992 and after the attacks that were launched in January 1993 against Ravni Kotari and Netica [phoen] and this entire region, and this continued throughout 1993. Hundred or so people died in the offensive and Ravni Kotari and Netica, so it's quite obvious when he writes on the 1st of April, 1993, what he has primarily in mind is the Croat attacks against the UN protected areas.

Q. But -- well, that's part of the matter, but here we're talking about two parties, one we have the Republika Srpska Krajina, he addresses Goran Hadzic; and the other party is the Croatian party, the Croatian side. Is there Yugoslavia, Serbia, Belgrade, anything like that here? Any third side, third party, perhaps?

A. No, nothing is mentioned about this.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It shows that the lieutenant intended to be even-handed in this matter. He was going to report crimes on both sides. Mr. Milosevic, we are pretty near to 2.00. We are about 15, 20 minutes beyond the time. ³⁵⁰¹²

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I am bearing that in mind, but we have been presented with a few documents here, and the document that -- one of the documents by Lieutenant Colonel or Colonel - I can't remember the rank exactly now - Eremija -- can we see who it's addressed to, because -- do we see that? Because it mentions a JNA officer. The date is the 23rd of October, 1991. 23rd of October, therefore, 1991. That was the time when the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was still in existence.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Are you aware of that?

A. Yes, of course. At that time, in 1991, the only legitimate army was the JNA, the one of the Yugoslav Federation, which had less than 50 per cent of Serbs, comprised less than 50 per cent of Serbs. In the summer of 1991, I'd like to stress the fact that a number of attacks were launched and a number of the Slovenian and Croatian secessionists did massacre a number of JNA soldiers.

Q. Can we see from this that this JNA officer is addressing his higher command, that is to say the command of the military district of the JNA? Would that be right, of that legitimate army of the SFRY?

A. Yes. I would like to say that a number of these officers were Croats, and let's say that some of them deserted the JNA to go and fight against their own army. In other words, they deserted before, they had deserted awhile before.

Q. All right. Now I'd like to draw your attention to something else. Lieutenant colonel, a lieutenant colonel of the JNA, assistant commander ³⁵⁰¹³ of a certain unit is writing to the commander of the 1st Army of the 1st Military District, as it was then, in the SFRY, and in item 5 he says proposals for improving morale in the units, and he goes on to speak of, in point 1 of that same paragraph 5, that they should undertake the organised disarming of paramilitary formations, and then goes on to enumerate them and proposes that the authorities of the Republic of Serbia must participate in the campaign.

So as far as I can say -- see, the Republic of Serbia is only mentioned here within the context of the proposal of measures made by this commander that if it deals with Serb citizens who might be somewhere in that territory. Is there anywhere else in this document where we can deduce that this has anything at all to do with Serbia?

A. I don't see it.

Q. Very well. Thank you. And let's have a look at this report. As far as I can understand, it was General Nambiar's report. In paragraph 2, reference is made to the incursion of the Croatian army on the 21st of June, and in point 3, Sector West is referred to. "[In English]... armed elements from the Croatian side to cross the Sava River and attack Bosnian Serb elements south of the river." "... Croatian side across the Sava River and attack Bosnian Serb elements south of --" [Interpretation] So that was point 2. And then 3(a) and 3(b) it says attacked by the Croatian army, the 3rd of August, again Sector East.

Then in the middle of (d): "[In English] Prisoners interviewed by UNPROFOR said that they had been mobilised and trained by the Croatian army in certain areas in Croatian and were being infiltrated in small ³⁵⁰¹⁴ groups into Bosnia and Herzegovina to join in the fighting there." [Interpretation] So this entire chapter, the first chapter, speaks of violations of cease-fire. All of this has to do with violations. I skipped over (c), subparagraph (c). That's the only one, and it says: "[In English] On 21 August 1992, three Serbs so-called 'border militia' personnel were shot dead in the vicinity of the confrontation line in Sector East."

[Interpretation] So the entire chapter has to do with cease-fire violations. Can you find a single subparagraph where it shows that Serbs had violated the cease-fire? You have the entire chapter to deal with. It's -- the report starts with it. Is there a single reference to any Serb violations of the cease-fire? Try to find one.

A. No, I couldn't find any. And anyway, throughout my testimony I mentioned on various occasions all the cease-fire violations by the Croatian forces, especially in 1992, in 1993, against the UNPAs. So all these cease-fire violations in 1992, in 1993 were by the Croatian forces. I also stressed how many infiltrations there were by the Croatian regular and irregular forces towards Bosnia and especially towards Bosnia and Herzegovina and towards the eastern -- the western part of Bosnia, especially with a view to carrying out the Storm operation which was supposed to put two groups on the flanks of Krajina.

Q. Now I'm going to read something out to you, parts of Resolution 802, dated 1993, Security Council Resolution 803 --

THE INTERPRETER: 802, interpreter's correction.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]. ³⁵⁰¹⁵

Q. The question is whether it is identical to what your own knowledge has been. Resolution 802, dated 1993, says: "[In English] Deeply concerned by the information provided by the Secretary-General to the Security Council on 25 of January, 1993, on the rapid and violent deterioration of the situation in Croatia as a result of military attacks by Croatian armed forces on the areas under the protection of the United Nations Protection Forces (UNPROFOR),

"Strongly condemning those attacks which have led to casualties and loss of life in UNPROFOR, as well as among the civilian population, "Deeply concerned also by the lack of cooperation in recent months by the Serb local authorities in the area under protection of UNPROFOR --"

MR. NICE: Your Honour, we're a little confused at the moment. This is Resolution 802.

JUDGE KWON: That's D66.

MR. NICE: We're dealing with the exhibit with Council Resolution 743 and 762.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think he has moved on now to 802, which is D66.

MR. NICE: D66, if that was dealt with in cross-examination, can be dealt with in re-examination but arguably not otherwise.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I have to bring to your attention the question of time. It's now almost ten minutes after two. We were scheduled to stop at 1.45. There is another case here that --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, all right.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We cannot go beyond another five minutes. So if we can't conclude with this witness, he will have to -- ³⁵⁰¹⁶

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right then, I'm going to skip all of this, Medak investigation, the United Nations Security Council Annex 7 -- "[In English] 28th of December, 1994." [Interpretation] And then, "[In English] ... of the military operation of the Republic of Croatia." [Interpretation] And so on, and then about Medak in September 1993. I think -- let me just read --

MR. NICE: Your Honour, fundamentally is there a question being formulated at the moment? He's just reading things out.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, that's the problem. That's the problem. You're reading from the Resolution. You're not formulating a question. I don't wish to rush you. I mean, if you're not through with your examination-in-chief, then the witness will have to return tomorrow morning, although I would imagine that would be quite regrettable.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm going to finish with this question now. All right. Let's let the witness go. So I'm just going to read four more lines from this UN document. "[In English] ... September about 600 Croat forces attacked the pocket and artillery mortar and/or tank fire barrage preceded an infantry and tank advance. Croats attacked from the north-east and quickly killed or routed a few Serb defenders. Overrunning the Serb defences, the Croat forces soon captured Divoselo, Citluk, Donje Selo and surrounding villages. By 10th of September, Croatian army was in charge of the area."

Q. [Interpretation] Does this correspond to the knowledge you have about the attacks against the zones and this pocket of Medak in general? What do you know about this? All of these are UN documents, documents. ³⁵⁰¹⁷ Does this correspond to your own knowledge from the time?

A. Yes, it does correspond perfectly and it does corroborate my testimony. We back then in September 1993 in the Medak pocket. This is the third aggression by the Croatian forces again the UNPAs. This was the Scorched Earth operation, headed by General Bobetko, who himself admitted in the book that he wrote, All My Battles is the title, he admitted that the attack on the Medak pocket had been planned at the highest level within the Croatian state and many generals took part in the operation, among them Mirko Norac, Agim Ceku, and Ante Gotovina.

Q. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Barriot. I'm going to skip of rest of my questions in order to be able to finish today.

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: And thank you, Mr. Barriot, for coming to the Tribunal to give evidence. Your testimony is concluded, and you may leave.

We will resume tomorrow morning at 9.00 a.m.

[The witness withdrew]

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.13 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the 13th day of

January, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.