³⁵²⁵⁹

Wednesday, 19 January 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Before you resume your examination-in-chief, Mr. Milosevic, may I say that we have received translations into English tab 27A and tab 31, both of which had been marked for identification pending translation. So they can now be admitted. 28? 28 as well? Yes, 28 as well. 28 as well, yes. So they can now be admitted. Please continue, Mr. Milosevic.

WITNESS: RATKO MARKOVIC [Resumed]

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

Q. [No interpretation]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Would you repeat, Mr. Milosevic. Please repeat the question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor Markovic, yesterday we ended with the topic of the delegation which you headed which was established on the 10th of March, 1998, and whose mandate it was to discuss all political issues. Do you remember that a long time before that delegation, in fact, full two years before that time, another delegation had been established to negotiate about the educational system? Do you remember that? ³⁵²⁶⁰

A. Yes, I do. I even remember the composition of that delegation. Minister Ratomir Vico was in it, Goran Perkovic and Dobroslav Bjelotic. The negotiations were organised through before Sant'Egidio and Monsignor Paglia.

Q. And how long did that go on for, as far as you can remember?

A. Well, these negotiations lasted for quite awhile. I didn't follow them closely, but I think that they finished before we started going to Pristina. Before the delegation established by the government of Serbia started going to Pristina.

Q. Very well. Please tell me, what was the result of the negotiations led by you, negotiations with the representatives of all ethnic communities? When I say "representatives of all ethnic communities," I'm referring to the ethnic communities which are generally mentioned in the documents emanating from those negotiations, namely Albanians, Gorani, Romas, the Turks, Muslims, the Serb and Montenegrin ethnic community, and so on. What was the result of these discussions?

A. The result of these discussions was an agreement on building certain solutions into the framework which would respect the individuality of all ethnic communities, and these solutions were to be built into the law on local self-government. In addition to that, we also achieved a political agreement on self-government in Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. Very well, Professor Markovic. Now, please take a look at tab 43. Tab 43 is the agreement published on the 25th of November, 1998. In order to save time, I don't want to put this question to Mr. Markovic, because we're dealing just with an information. This is a photocopy of the Borba ³⁵²⁶¹ daily. You can see in the upper corner it says "Borba" in English, because this daily also published some pages in English. So what was published at the time was published in English as well on the 25th of November, 1998.

Professor Markovic, now, let us please take a look at this agreement. First of all, in order to have a proper approach, I would like to quote what was taken here as a starting point. And in the very beginning it says that the signatories to the agreement, in view of the complex national structure in Kosovo and Metohija and the necessity to protect the development and existence of each individual national community, and then it goes on to say other things that I will cover quickly.

"[In English] From their commitment to the position that all national communities, regardless of their numbers, are mutually equal and that, therefore, in relations among them there can be no discrimination; "Considering that persons belonging to all national communities in Kosovo and Metohija should be enabled to exercise fully their ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity, in accordance with the highest international standards and basic documents of United Nations, Organisation on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Council of Europe," and then within brackets, "(the Charter of the United Nations, Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Helsinki Final Act, Paris Charter, European Convention on Human Rights, Council of Europe, Framework Convention on the Rights of the Persons belonging to National Minorities), et cetera; "Considering that it is necessary to set up appropriate democratic ³⁵²⁶² institutions in order to create --" all those things. "Determined in their position that broad self-governance within national communities and in territory of Kosovo and Metohija is a precondition for overcoming inter-ethnic tensions and conflicts; "Bearing in mind the most positive experience and legal solutions developed through long-standing common life;

Have agreed as follows." [Interpretation] And then they go on to list the principles. Professor Markovic, please quote and explain these principles briefly.

A. The main idea of this entire agreement, which represented a comprehensive political solution for Kosovo and Metohija, is that Kosovo is a multi-ethnic area and that in Kosovo and Metohija, the individuality of all national communities had to be expressed, that when it came to ethnic essentials, there could be no overpowering or outvoting. In addition to that, constitutional provisions had to be taken into account, namely that Kosovo and Metohija was an autonomous province within the framework of Serbia. These principles deal with the rights of citizens and rights of members of ethnic communities. In addition to that, they also specify the organs of Kosovo and Metohija; the Assembly, the Executive Council, the administration, the ombudsman and so on, and also determining the local self-government system or, rather, the basic territorial unit, which was a municipality.

In addition to that, this document also deals with the representation of the citizens of Kosovo and Metohija in the federal ³⁵²⁶³ bodies in view of the fact that Kosovo was within the Republic of Serbia. Moreover, their provisions about the courts of national communities and local police, there are some provisions about funding, and confidence-building measures as well as implementation of this agreement and additions and changes of this agreement.

I wouldn't go into details because you have the agreement before you. It would take me quite some time to cover the details, which are important. What is more important, however, is that this agreement is a comprehensive political, therefore political solution, using political and democratic means to resolve the situation in Kosovo and Metohija. This agreement was concluded on the 20th of November, 1998, as you can see in the text itself. It was concluded between the representatives of the government of Serbia and representatives of all national communities in Kosovo and Metohija, and these representatives signed the agreement, whereas on behalf of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia the agreement was signed by the then Prime Minister Vladan Kutlesic. After that, in Pristina, on the 25th of November, a declaration was adopted in support of this agreement.

Q. Professor Markovic, we have that declaration in tab 44, but before we turn to tab 44 --

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, it is not that I doubt the authenticity of this document. I wonder whether you are in a position to explain me why the Roman paragraph IV follows paragraph I, while the paragraph II and III appears on the next page.

I think maybe Mr. Kay can -- ^{35264 BLANK PAGE 35265}

MR. KAY: I'm sorry. It's a newspaper with columns and it's been photocopied that particular way.

JUDGE KWON: I can understand that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, if you put page 1 above page 2, you will see the entire newspaper page, which has three columns. So in the left column you have the principles, and then you have Roman II and III, and then the middle column has Roman IV and V and so on.

JUDGE KWON: It's clear now. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is what the agreement looked as it was printed in the Borba daily.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Professor Markovic is now showing you the original from which we made the photocopy. This is the Borba daily published on the 25th of November, 1998.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor Markovic, was the essence of the solution adopted in practical terms to have this principle of the equality of ethnic communities complied with consistently, and is it reflected under Roman IV where it says the organs of Kosovo and Metohija? I would like you to explain this, because the Assembly, as the highest body, it is the parliament of the province, is defined very specifically here. Item 1: "The Assembly shall be elected directly. The Assembly shall have two Chambers: [In English] Chamber of Citizens and Chamber of National Communities.

"Members of the Chamber of Citizens shall be elected directly in line with the principle one citizen - one vote. ³⁵²⁶⁶ "Members of Chamber of National Communities shall be elected democratically, within each national community. Each national community shall have a delegation with equal number of members in the Chamber." [Interpretation] Was that the essence of this solution; on the one hand to secure full expression of democratic principles within the Chamber of citizens where they worked on the basis of one citizen, one vote principle, and where the will of citizens was expressed directly, and to have, on the other hand, the Chamber of national communities where they had delegations --

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... and it seems to me that the question, which is very long, is likely to attract a simple yes, no, answer and it's not an interpretation by the witness of what the agreement amounts to.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Reformulate the question in a shorter manner, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor Markovic, please explain this principle to us, and please give your comments concerning this solution. Why was this position taken? Why was this solution adopted? Were there any other options?

A. The concept of this agreement, now that we're dealing with the Assembly and the organisational structure of the autonomous province, to have this done combining the principle of territorial self-governance and national self-governance, or the principle of ethnic sovereignty. These two principles combined express the will of the citizens of Kosovo and Metohija. In Kosovo and Metohija, we didn't have just one nation, the ³⁵²⁶⁷ nation of Kosovo and Metohija. No. That was a multi-ethnic community containing several, numerous ethnic communities. And the concept of this agreement, of this document, was to take the approach whereby -- concerning the issues of vital interests. An ethnic community could not have been outvoted. The issues that were of vital importance to each and every ethnic community had to be dealt in such a way as to not outvote that ethnic community. So that was the main concept. Another principle that was used was to treat Kosovo as area where the citizens had an equal right to vote, meaning to -- to avoid a situation where the majority would dominate the other ethnic community, where we would avoid the possibility of outvoting other ethnic communities.

Q. In tab 44, we have a declaration on support to the agreement, which was published just five days later, this document in support. Would you comment on this briefly.

A. This declaration was signed in Pristina, and it represents an excerpt of the main ideas from the previous agreement on political framework of self-government in Kosovo and Metohija. And the signatories to this declaration take it upon themselves to seek political solution to Kosovo and Metohija based on those principles. On behalf of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, this declaration was signed by Vladan Kutlesic as the Deputy Prime Minister of the federal government. On behalf of the Kosovo Democratic Initiative, it was signed by Faik Jashari. It was also signed by Sokol Qusha, Ljuban Koka, Zejnelabidin Kurejs, Qerim Abazi, Refik Senadovic, and myself as the head of the delegation of the Republic ³⁵²⁶⁸ of Serbia.

Briefly, this declaration is referred to as the Pristina Declaration. This was, therefore, a solemn expression of support to the political agreement concluded on the 20th of November, and an expression of consent to seek a political solution in Kosovo and Metohija based on the principles expressed in the agreement in very global terms. Kosovo never established territorial autonomy on the basis of the 1990 constitution for the simple reason that the Albanians, starting from that year, boycotted all elections in Kosovo and Metohija. They believed that they had their own constitution, the Kacanik constitution, and that all life in Kosovo and Metohija had to develop in accordance with their constitution, not in accordance with the constitution of the Republic of Serbia.

Q. We commented upon that Kacanik constitution yesterday. I think that its main characteristic is that it treated Kosovo as a uni-ethnic or a monoethnic environment. Is that right or would you like to add something to that?

A. In the preamble of that constitution, we can see that that document, that constitution, was adopted by Albanians. Nowhere does the document refer to "the citizens of Kosovo" or "the people of Kosovo." No. It is -- it simply refers to Albanians. And we have a copy of that Kacanik constitution here and its preamble.

As I've said earlier, some Albanians equate Kosovo and Metohija with the Albanian issue. They think that Kosovo and Metohija is an Albanian issue. ³⁵²⁶⁹

Q. And what this declaration says and what the agreement says, both documents, that is to say tabs 44 and 45, do -- does the law on local self-government, which is in tab 13, contain more or less the same things that tabs 44 and 45 do?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, you have the translation into English.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The government of Serbia --

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You don't have to go into the history of it. I'm just asking you whether this was the law of Serbia on local self-government and whether these main principles are contained in it, those that pertain to multi-ethnic communities, municipalities, and so on.

A. Yes. From Articles 104 to 119. And then in the subsequent articles, local self-government in these municipalities is dealt with.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I observe that 113 is not translated.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do have a translation here, and it should be in the tab, and it's your translation too. Maybe the paper fell out of your binder.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I understand it's there, but it's not in mine.

JUDGE KWON: And you referred to tab 44 and 45. Is it not a mistake? 43 and 44?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 43 and 44, actually. And then 13.

JUDGE BONOMY: Professor Markovic, can you clarify for me, what is the Kosovo Democratic Initiative?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's a political party that ^{35270 BLANK PAGE 35271} existed in Kosovo and Metohija. I don't know whether it still exists, but it is a minority party. It never became a parliamentary party in Kosovo and Metohija. It was represented by Mr. Faik Jashari, who was an ethnic Albanian, whereas the Albanian Reform and Democratic Party was also represented by an Albanian, Mr. Sokol Qusha.

JUDGE BONOMY: And so far as the Kosovo Albanians in general are concerned, were they not represented in the completion of the agreement or in the declaration itself?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But they were. They were. The two I mentioned took part in the elaboration of the agreement, and they signed the declaration. I have their manuscript here. I have their signatures here on this declaration.

JUDGE BONOMY: Can they be said to be representing Kosovo Albanians in general, or is it -- were they representing a limited number of Kosovo Albanians?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think only the latter, that they represented a limited number of Kosovo Albanians, because the majority had a different opinion, a different political view, that is.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Professor.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Jashari is a fairly common name in Kosovo?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, just like my surname, Markovic, among the Serbs, as you must have noticed. There are a lot of Markovics, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As for tabs 43 and 44 and tab 13, can we have them admitted into evidence? ³⁵²⁷²

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes, yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor Markovic, are you aware of anything -- or, rather, Mr. Bonomy mentioned a few moments ago the political parties of the Albanians, those who speak for the majority of the Albanians. Are you aware of any principled objections by those who disagreed with this agreement? Did they actually place any such objections to this agreement?

A. A principled objection was that a political solution for Kosovo and Metohija cannot be sought in negotiations between the government of the Republic of Serbia and the representatives of Albanian political parties. They simplified the ethnic pattern of Kosovo and Metohija, and they reduced this ethnic multitude to a simple Albanian majority. And they said that the international community had to participate in the quest for a solution. So that was their objection of principle; that it was the international community that had to mediate in seeking a solution for Kosovo and Metohija for a simple reason, that they did not recognise the state, the Republic of Serbia, as a state within which they were. They could not reconcile themselves to the fact that they were within Serbia. They thought that they were a corpus separatum, that they were something separate from Serbia and that in negotiations between these two entities, which is their idea of what was going on, the international community had to mediate.

Q. You mentioned -- rather, you met at the headquarters of Rugova's party, which is also where the headquarters of the Writers Association is, you met with Rugova and his co-workers? ³⁵²⁷³

A. Yes, only once.

Q. As for the positions of the two parties, what was actually discussed then and when did that happen?

A. The 22nd of May, 1998. It was a Friday. In the building of the Association of Writers of Kosovo. A meeting was held between the delegation of the government of Republic of Serbia, and this time the representatives of the majority Albanian parties. In this discussion, the need to seek a political solution was referred to in very general terms, as well as the need to stop the armed conflict. Nothing tangible was agreed upon at that meeting. Basically, the meeting took place, but no conclusions were reached at it. At the same time, this was the only meeting of its kind that was held. And I think that it was held primarily thanks to the mediation of Mr. Christopher Hill, who at that time was the US ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia.

Q. No agreement was reached then?

A. No agreement. And the discussion itself was not concrete at all. It was in very general terms. The need to find a political solution was referred to, and the need to stop the armed conflict as well.

Q. Now let's move on to your efforts within the delegation in Rambouillet. Just tell me, please, in which capacity were you in Rambouillet, and when were you in Rambouillet?

A. I was in Rambouillet in the capacity of leader of the state delegation. The so-called alleged negotiations in Rambouillet were supposed to take place from the 6th of February onwards, and then the ³⁵²⁷⁴ deadlines were extended all the time, and formally they went on until the 23rd of February, until 3.00 p.m.

Q. All right, Professor Markovic. Who was on the state delegation that you headed? I wish to draw your attention to tab 7. That's a photocopy of the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, a very brief decision. It's the decision on the appointment of the government delegation for the talks in France, adopted by the government of the Republic of Serbia, and it was published in the Official Gazette. The leader of the delegation was Professor Dr. Ratko Markovic and the members of the delegation were Professor Dr. Vladan Kutlesic, Professor Dr. Vladimir Stambuk, Gruljbehar Sabovic, Refik Senadovic, Zejnelabidin Kurejs, Ibro Vait, Faik Jashari, Sokol Qusha, Ljuan Koka, and Qerim Abazi. Please, is that the full composition of the state delegation?

A. That was the full composition of the state delegation. In addition to the political establishment that was represented on the delegation, that is to say officeholders in the federal government and in the Serbian government, all the ethnic communities were supposed to be represented, too, and indeed the ethnic Albanians were represented, and the Turks. That is to say Zejnelabidin Kurejs and Bruljbehar Sabovic, Refik Senadovic was a representative of the Muslims, the Roma were represented, too. Ljuan Koka was a representative of the Roma. And also the Ashkali, namely the Egyptians, were represented. Qerim Abazi was a representative of the Egyptians community, and of course the Serbs and Montenegrins, represented by Vojislav Zivkovic.

It was believed that if a true discussion were to take place in ³⁵²⁷⁵ respect of Kosovo and Metohija, then the representatives of all ethnic communities would have to take part in them, all of those who are vitally interested in finding a solution to Kosovo and Metohija, not only representatives of the top political establishment in Serbia and in Yugoslavia. That was the underlying idea, which obviously did not meet with much understanding, because what was referred to all the time was the general low level of the delegation. However, that was the right level. And had real negotiations had taken place in Rambouillet, then the representatives of all these ethnic communities would have been invaluable interlocutors, because these are people who had an authentic knowledge of all the problems in Kosovo and Metohija, having spent their entire lives there.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Markovic, your position at that time was vice-premier; is that right?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. I've already said at that time I was one of the five Deputy Prime Ministers of the Republic of Serbia, as I was in charge of legislation and the legal system.

JUDGE KWON: What position did Mr. Nikola Sainovic hold at that time, who was apparently one of the members.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Nikola Sainovic at that time was the Deputy Prime Minister of the federal government, just like Mr. Vladan Kutlesic. He was also a Deputy Prime Minister in the federal government.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I want to be very specific on this point, as Mr. Kwon was a few moments ago. So the delegation was headed by the Deputy Prime Minister of ^{35276 BLANK PAGE 35277} the Republic of Serbia, and then there were two Deputy Prime Ministers on the delegation itself. Then the representatives of these parties of the ethnic communities, that is to say the most prominent people in these ethnic communities at that point in time.

As far as the Albanian community is concerned, these people were leaders of Albanian parties but not of the leading Albanian parties. How is it possible, then, that someone can qualify that as a low-level delegation? How come you mentioned that? Whose assessment was that?

A. Well, that was the assessment that could be found in the media and that was even bandied about in our own public opinion. I think that this was an elitist approach to the matter, and it came from people who declare themselves as supporters of a European orientation. They were actually putting down the people on this delegation and saying that they were not very prominent political personalities, but they were ordinary people who were not public personalities.

Q. Wait a minute, Professor Markovic. Let me express my disagreement with this explanation of yours by putting a question to you. What does this mean? These people who represent the Roma or the Gorani or whoever, are these people who do figure prominently in their own ethnic communities as political leaders or did you just pick them off the street?

A. These were people who figured very prominently within their own ethnic communities, but obviously people thought that only the top echelons of government should be sent to negotiate.

MR. NICE: Before we pass through this part of the transcript, and I don't want to come back and be nitpicking about details, the formulation ³⁵²⁷⁸ of the accused's question suggested it was going to be improper because he said, "Let me express disagreement with this explanation of yours." And we then see that the witness has appeared to do an about face from saying that they weren't prominent political personalities, they were ordinary people who were not public personalities, to following the accused's leading question lead and saying these were people who figured prominently within their own ethnic communities. Yes. So that I mean not only was the question improper, and the accused must have known it as he tried to drive the witness to give the answer he wanted, but we see exactly why this kind of leading question in examination-in-chief is valueless, because it produces material that the Chamber can hardly weigh. The witness seems to have given two entirely contrary answers, the second because he was encouraged to do so by the accused.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, was the first answer not expressing the opinions the witness was aware of having heard from the media and indeed from people in Serbia rather than his own view?

MR. NICE: Well, the first answer that I take it is that these people represent the Roma or Gorani or whoever -- I beg your pardon, above that. "They were not very prominent political persons, they were ordinary people who were not public personalities." And the accused then starts a question, "Let me express disagreement with this explanation of yours by putting a question to you," and then we get a different answer.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I think the accused has to have some understanding. I mean, he's not a trained lawyer, and the niceties of leading questions apparently escape him from time to time. ³⁵²⁷⁹ I allowed this question, because I think it is -- it's fair. What I didn't like about it was that he appeared to be commenting on the evidence. It appeared to be more a comment than a question.

MR. NICE: As Your Honour pleases.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you must avoid asking leading questions. Leading questions come when you -- when you have -- let me finish. Leading questions come when you -- you have an introduction to the question which is combative in nature. "Let me express my disagreement," or, "Isn't it clear that so-and-so." So you must try and avoid leading questions, because when you ask a leading question, it really means you have put the answer in the mouth of the witness, and the evidence is coming from you and you're not a witness. So continue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, the explanation that you did not understand and that I did understand, the one provided by Professor Markovic about the criticism of this delegation, that it was not at a sufficiently high level is - how shall I put this? - relative in terms of the most prominent people in Yugoslavia. He did not talk about the members of the delegation as people who were unknown in their own communities. Since this relative relationship was not clear, I wanted to have it clarified. It is easy to establish this even without Professor Markovic, that these people were not selected just at random. These were people who held appropriate positions in their own ethnic communities. These were the most respected people in their own ethnic communities, and that was one of the advantages of this delegation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I understand the distinction, yes. Proceed. ³⁵²⁸⁰

JUDGE KWON: It is -- may I add this to that: It is the way or manner you put it to Mr. Markovic. You can clarify those parts which is not clear, but it is not proper for you to express your disagreement with what the witness had said. Please go on.

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

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I be allowed to say something, Your Honours, and explain? May I?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is it on this point?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very briefly. Very briefly.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I put forward the positions taken by the information media, not my own views. And it is the information media that commented on the delegation in that way. They said it was a low-level delegation. But that wasn't my own opinion. I wasn't presenting my own views.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And who made up the Albanian delegation? Let's establish that first and see the balance of forces. We have in tab 8 a technical review, actually, to see who was on what floor and in what room and office, but we can see all the names. They're all there. So who made up the Albanian delegation, then?

A. We never actually received a list of the state -- of the members of the delegation of the Kosmet Albanians. And you can see the list from where whom was put up at the Rambouillet Chateau, and we can see that on ³⁵²⁸¹ the 3rd floor, for example, the 3rd floor was where the Albanian delegation was accommodated, and they numbered 17 members, you can see from this list. It begins with Rexhep Qosja and ends with Ibrahim Rugova. And from this list you can see that all 17 members were in fact Albanians.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I assume that you can admit into evidence tabs 7 and 8 as exhibits; is that right?

JUDGE ROBINSON: What was the total membership of the delegation?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In our delegation, you mean the delegation from the government of Serbia?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the delegation of the Republic of Serbia, we had 13 members; I as the head of the delegation and 12 delegation members.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And then 19 from Kosovo, Albanians?

JUDGE BONOMY: There's no number 13 so it looks like 18.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. There's no number 13.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Triskaidekaphobia.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Eighteen members, yes, I'm sorry, it is in fact 18 members.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I said Triskaidekaphobia, a fear of the number 13.

Continue, Mr. Milosevic. Yes, we admit that document. Did we admit 43 and 44? Registrar? Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I assume, Mr. Robinson, that you have admitted tab 13 as well, which is the translation. ^{35282 BLANK PAGE 35283}

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. And then we have 7 and 8 here. Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. How did you -- well, and others too, the other participants in Rambouillet, view the fact that the delegation was monoethnic or uni-ethnic? What did this look like? What was this like? You had state delegations on one hand, Albanians, Montenegrins, Roma, Muslims, et cetera, all of them, Turks, on the one side, and on the other you had a delegation which was monoethnic. So how did you look upon this and how did others view this, for that matter?

A. Well, I know how we viewed the matter. That fact disclosed intention, in actual fact, the intentions of the Kosovo Albanians, because a make-up of that kind, a delegation made up Kosmet Albanians preempted the solution. We knew which solution they would strive for, having brought a delegation of that composition to Rambouillet to represent Kosovo and Metohija; that is to say exclusively monoethnic.

Q. Otherwise, when we're talking about the arrivals in Rambouillet, in tab 50 we have an annex. It is the statement by the Contact Group issued in London on the 29th of January, 1999, in actual fact. I'm not going to quote the whole document, you have it in the files. So this is the annex. Did the Contact Group later on assume a position with respect to the representatives of other communities? And I am going to quote something here. "[In English]... Contact Group: Insisted that the parties accept that the basis for a fair settlement must include the ³⁵²⁸⁴ principles set out by the Contact Group." [Interpretation] That's in 3(a).

"[In English] Consider that the proposals drafted by the negotiators contained the elements for a substantial autonomy for Kosovo and asked the negotiators to refine them further to serve as the framework for agreement between the parties.

"Recognised that the work done by the negotiators had identified a limited number of points that required final negotiation between the parties.

"Agreed to summon representatives from the Federal Yugoslav and Serbian governments and representatives of the Kosovo Albanians to Rambouillet by 6th of February, under the co-chairmanship of Hubert Vedrine and Robin Cook, to begin negotiations with the direct involvement of the Contact Group. Contact Group recognised the legitimate rights of other communities within Kosovo. In the context of these negotiations, it will work to ensure that their interests are fully reflected in a settlement."

[Interpretation] Therefore this is the position taken by the Contact Group on the basis of which Rambouillet was convened formally in the first place. Is that correct, Professor?

A. Yes, it was on the basis of that appeal launched by the Contact Group on the 29th of January, 1999. The national Assembly held a session at which it supported the position that the Republic of Serbia should be one of the participants at the negotiations at Rambouillet and where it determined the conclusions binding the delegation of the Republic of ³⁵²⁸⁵ Serbia.

Q. Well, in that context and the approach to Rambouillet, we see a topic that we discussed a moment ago, and you testified about it a moment ago. The Contact Group - let me repeat this part of the quotation - recognises the legitimate right of other communities within Kosovo.

A. Well, that is a declaration, a statement made by the Contact Group, and that's what it says, that in the context of the negotiations, the interests of all national communities will be assured. However, I don't know how they could have been assured without the presence of the representatives of the national communities themselves within the delegation that was supposed to represent Kosovo, so that we in fact, that is to say the delegation that signed the agreement as the Kosovo delegation, we will see we actually had a delegation of the Kosmet Albanians, not a delegation of Kosovo but a delegation of the Kosovo Albanians. And when the delegation signed the agreement in Rambouillet, it signed it for Kosovo and not as the Kosmet Albanians, which they were. So these different ethnic communities were represented only in the state delegation, that is to say the delegation of the government of Serbia.

JUDGE BONOMY: Professor, that seems to be the way in which the Contact Group envisaged the discussions would take place, because they refer to summoning representatives from the federal Yugoslav and Serbian governments, on the one hand, and representatives of the Kosovo Albanians on the other hand.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct. However, it says ³⁵²⁸⁶ that the Contact Group -- this is the sentence which was read out a moment ago: "... recognised the legitimate rights of other communities within Kosovo." And that is under (d). So it is point 3, paragraph (d), the second sentence there. "The Contact Group recognised the legitimate rights of other communities within Kosovo," which means that the Contact Group is fully conscious of the fact that you don't have only the Serbs and Albanians living in Kosovo but other national communities there too.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor Markovic, were there any members of the terrorist organisation the KLA within the Albanian delegation?

A. Yes, there were. And moreover, the head of the Albanian delegation was a member of the KLA, and his name was Hasim Thaci.

Q. And you in the state delegation, how did you feel that the head of the -- that the KLA member was head of the delegation in view of the state -- Security Council Resolution on terrorism and its condemnation of terrorism? How did you view that? How did you experience that?

A. We experienced this as a provocation because the Albanian delegation did have political figures. They were Mr. Ibrahim Rugova, men like that, Mr. Rexhep Qosja, for example, and many others. So if political talks were supposed to be held, then the talks should have been conducted between politicians, people of politics, and not to have at the head of a delegation - and that's the internal affair of that delegation - to have a member of an organisation which has been assessed as a terrorist organisation.

However, so that it didn't appear that we had left the ³⁵²⁸⁷ negotiations and made it impossible for the negotiations to go ahead, we agreed, despite the fact that the delegation of Kosmet Albanians was led by Hasim Thaci himself as the head of the KLA, we did agree to go ahead and participate, all despite the protests we voiced to the negotiators through the mediators.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Who had made the assessment that the KLA was a terrorist organisation? This in reference to your statement that that was the internal affair of that delegation, to have a member of an organisation which has been assessed as a terrorist organisation?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't quote the document exactly just now and the people who did that. However, I think it is common knowledge, or sufficiently common knowledge that the KLA used the method of terror, of intimidation against the population in Kosovo and Metohija, and that we were indeed dealing with an organisation which had all the elements of a terrorist organisation.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. How were the negotiations in Rambouillet envisaged to take place?

A. The negotiations in Rambouillet had no plan to guide them. We insisted that an agenda be set up for the work and the rules of procedure for the Rambouillet negotiations. However, that was not accepted, so it went in a chaotic fashion. Everybody did what they wanted to. We didn't know when meetings would be held, who would negotiate with whom. Everything was improvised. And the most important thing was that the ^{35288 BLANK PAGE 35289} negotiations never actually took place.

Q. Tell me, please, Mr. Markovic, did you have direct meetings with members of the Albanian delegation? And everybody assumed that those were the people you were supposed to negotiate with.

A. Never. Never. We never had direct contacts between the representatives of the state delegation and representatives of the Kosovo Albanians. Just sporadic meetings in the corridors but no official, formal meeting ever took place. So that this was a sort of self-negotiation process. That is to say the mediators, Mr. Hill, Petritsch, and Mayorski, would bring in parts of the agreement and hand them round to the delegation to consider and deliberate. There was never any talks or negotiations with the other side, with the opposite side that we were supposed to be negotiating with. There was always talks just with the mediators.

Q. All right. And who were the co-presidents of the conference and what was their role and importance?

A. The vice -- or rather, co-presidents were the foreign ministers of France and Great Britain, Mr. Vedrine and Cook, Mr. Cook. Ah, what was their role? Well, I'm not aware of that, I really don't know. Their presence could not be felt in any way at Rambouillet except for us having read their press statements, statements for the press.

Q. How were they able to make those statements for the press if they had no meetings with you, as co-presidents of the conference? As co-presidents did they convene the conference in the first place?

A. Well, the conference was convened under the auspices of the ³⁵²⁹⁰ Contact Group as the organisers, and the co-chairmen were the foreign ministers, as I've already said, of those two countries, of Britain and France. There were no rules as to the proceedings of the conference in Rambouillet. So we didn't even have stipulated the role of the co-presiding people as head of the delegation. I don't know what their role was. I can only judge by what the term "co-president" meant, or "co-chairman" meant. Now, what their duties were, what their rights were, what their authority and power encompassed, I really don't know.

Q. Did they convene a meeting at -- which they co-chaired?

A. We didn't attend a meeting like that except at the very beginning of the conference. That is to say on the 6th of February, in the evening, when there was a ceremonial opening of the conference, an official opening, and the co-chairmen were there and the president of the Republic of France held a brief speech, and the co-chairmen delivered brief speeches, we had no further meetings after that.

Q. So this ceremony, the official opening ceremony and Chirac's speech and the speeches of the co-chairmen was the end of all the meetings? None after that?

A. After that there were alleged negotiations between the three mediators and the delegation, and probably the same was followed up with the Kosmet Albanian delegation. I don't know about that, I don't know how they worked with them, but I can say quite definitely that there was never a direct contact between the two delegations themselves which were supposed to negotiate.

Q. And who made up the negotiating three-party team? What was their ³⁵²⁹¹ role?

A. The negotiating trio was made up of Mr. Christopher Hill, Wolfgang Petritsch, and Boris Mayorski, and their role was what the name says, to mediate, to be mediators and not to be a party to the negotiations. And it turned out that they were a party in the negotiations, because the two other parties that were supposed to negotiate never met, never sat down to the negotiating table. And they negotiated themselves independently with one side and with the other side.

Q. Tell me now, please, and at the conference, what position did Madeleine Albright occupy? In what capacity was she there as?

A. Madeleine Albright was present there as the US Secretary of State.

Q. And what was her role?

A. I believe that she was the grey eminence at the conference in Rambouillet. She was the architect of the agreement. She wrote the screenplay, she directed the whole conference. So everything went as directed by Madeleine Albright. She was the central figure at Rambouillet.

Q. What about your delegation, the delegation that you headed, the delegation that was under your authority? Did your delegation meet with Madeleine Albright?

A. We had one meeting with Madeleine Albright, on the 14th of February, 1999, and that meeting was a mixture of, if I may call it, sentimental pathos and despotic attitude. Mrs. Albright first spoke about her childhood, which she had spent in Serbia at the time when Serbia was a kingdom. Then she spoke about the fact that her father loved the Serbs ³⁵²⁹² and that he lulled her to sleep when she was a child by singing Serbian lullabies, and that her father always used to say that had he not been what he was, he would have preferred to be a Serb. And then she would change the tone suddenly and say that if we failed to sign the Rambouillet agreement, we would be deprived of Kosovo, that NATO forces would bomb Serbia, that the territory of the Republic of Serbia would be reduced; and then on the other hand, if we were to sign the agreement, then Kosovo would remain within the composition of Serbia, that the KLA would be disarmed, that the Serbian economy would be integrated into the world economy, that there would be an economic initiative within Serbia. And then she used a typically female phrase, saying that the Serb spirit would flourish.

I took notes during that meeting, therefore I'm authentically bringing you the words that she uttered there.

Q. And what was the role of the Contact Group?

A. The Contact Group was an organiser, and if I can say so, the Contact Group guided the whole enterprise. Parts of the agreement that were given to the delegations had gone through the hands of the Contact Group and were verified by the Contact Group. So if I can call the Contact Group that way, it was actually spiritus novus of the negotiations in Rambouillet.

Q. What was the starting point for the negotiations? What material was used as a foundation for negotiations, and who authored it?

A. We received that material in bits and pieces. We never received it all at the same time. ³⁵²⁹³

Q. No. I'm now referring to Contact Group, since the Contact Group had a very important role. I'm now not discussing the course of the conference itself. I'm referring to the role of the Contact Group, and you said that the Contact Group was the initiator.

A. Yes, that's right. On the 29th of January, at a meeting in London, the Contact Group demanded that the two delegations meet, and it established the principle based upon which a political solution had to be sought.

Q. Very well. So these were the principles established by the Contact Group, and these principles were used as a basis for the Rambouillet agreement; is that right?

A. Yes. These principles precisely were defined as non-negotiable terms. They were the axioms that we had to start from.

Q. Yes, the starting point and the principles that could not be changed. Now, please take a look at tab 47.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, just a second. Professor, under whose auspices was Rambouillet held, the Rambouillet conference?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Under the auspices of the Contact Group. The Contact Group ordered, in a meeting on the 29th of January in London, that a conference be held, and precisely at the request of the Contact Group we in Serbia or, rather, the Assembly held a session, accepted the invitation and established the principles that were to guide the delegation of Serbia at the conference.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Earlier in answer to Mr. Milosevic, you said that ^{35294 BLANK PAGE 35295} there were no negotiations. What do you mean by that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You see, negotiations necessarily mean two sides which are negotiating. In this case there was no other side. We never in fact negotiated with the other side with which we were supposed to conclude an agreement. We only talked to the mediators, Mr. Hill, Mr. Petritsch and Mr. Mayorski. We never talked to the other side, because "negotiating" implies that there must be two sides.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Why was that? Is it that it wasn't organised in a way that you could talk with the other side?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The mediators explained to us that the Albanian side refused to negotiate. It even refused to negotiate at the level of the meeting of experts. Because there were two types of meetings, at the political level and expert level, and the Albanian delegation refused to meet at the level of experts with the Republic of Serbia. On several occasions, even in writing, I tried to secure a meeting with the Albanian side, and Mr. Petritsch and Mr. Mayorski explained to us that the delegation of Albania did not wish to have direct contact with the delegation of the Republic of Serbia.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Therefore, you went to Rambouillet to negotiate about Kosovo. There were never, in fact, any negotiations. Is that what you're saying?

A. Precisely so. There were, in fact, never any negotiations.

Q. And you never negotiated about anything with the other side?

A. Absolutely never. Not in Rambouillet, and not even in Paris. ³⁵²⁹⁶

Q. And every initiative that you showed to negotiate with the other side was refused by the other side?

A. Yes, that's right. There's even written evidence to that effect. As I told you, I asked on several occasions to be granted an occasion to meet with them and was always denied that.

Q. Very well, Professor Markovic. Let us take a look at tab 47, which are the Contact Group Non-negotiable Principles Basic Elements, dated 29th of January, 1999.

The document goes on to list general elements, and then it says that General Elements contained the necessity of immediate end to violence in respect to a cease-fire; peaceful solution through dialogue; interim agreement: a mechanism for a final settlement after an interim period of three years; no unilateral change of interim status; territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and its neighbours. Therefore, that was non-negotiable as well. Protection of the rights of members of all national communities (preservation of identity, language and education, special protection for the religious institutions); free and fair elections in Kosovo (municipal and Kosovo-wide) under the supervision of the OSCE; neither party shall prosecute anyone for crimes related to the Kosovo conflict (with the exception of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other serious violations of international law); amnesty and release of political prisoners; international involvement and full cooperation by the parties concerning implementation. These are the general elements established by the Contact Group. And then the document goes on to discuss the governance in Kosovo, ³⁵²⁹⁷ governance in Kosmet, and it says there people in Kosovo are to be self-governed by democratically accountable Kosovo institutions; high degree of self-governance ought to be realised through own legislative, executive and judiciary bodies. And then it goes on to list the authority over various elements and fields, and then it says, "subject to the rights of the members of national communities."

Then it goes on to mention the Assembly, the judiciary, definition of competencies at communal level, municipal level. It says very specifically "Members of all national communities to be fairly represented at all levels of administration and elected government." Therefore, as far as I can understand it and in order to be as brief as possible, Professor Markovic, is this the only document produced by the Contact Group with relation to the Rambouillet negotiations? Is this the only document? I'm referring now to the Contact Group.

A. Yes, precisely. That was the sole document that we had when we went to Rambouillet.

Q. Professor Markovic, please listen to my question very carefully. Did the Contact Group provide any other document in addition to this one?

A. Parts of the agreement --

Q. No, no. I'm now referring to the Contact Group. Let us not mix the negotiators that you met with in Rambouillet and the Contact Group. I'm referring now only to the Contact Group.

A. This was the sole document they produced.

Q. Did you accept this document?

A. We did. We signed these principles, and we requested that the ³⁵²⁹⁸ Albanian delegation do the same.

Q. So you accepted and signed these principles.

A. Yes.

Q. What about the Albanian delegation?

A. They did not accept them and neither did they sign to them.

Q. Why do you think is that? Why do you think the Albanian delegation refused to sign these principles?

A. I think that one particular principle was objectionable to the Kosovo Albanians, which is the principle of territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and its neighbours. Back then, they did not want to leave the request that they had to achieve an independent status for Kosovo. Therefore, this principle, which was determined by the contact group to be non-negotiable, this principle on the territorial integrity, was unacceptable to them and I believe that that was their reason.

Q. The refusal of the Albanian delegation to sign these principles, did it block, did it stall the negotiating process?

A. Yes, it did. Our delegation did not want to proceed with the agreement until these basic principles established by the Contact Group were accepted. Since the Albanian delegation refused to do that, the negotiations were stalled. For several days we had a complete halt up until Madeleine Albright arrived. Even later on, even though parts of the Rambouillet agreement kept coming in, the delegation of the Kosovo Albanians kept refusing to accept these basic principles. Then they came up with a solution, namely to express in the preamble of this interim ³⁵²⁹⁹ agreement for self-governance in Kosovo and to express also in the Kosovo constitution a loyalty to the principles of the Contact Group without mentioning individual principles. And if you can see in this framework agreement for peace and self-government in Kosovo, if you take a look at that agreement and if you take a look at the constitution, chapter 1, you will see that there is a declaration proclaiming loyalty to the Contact Group principles without enumerating the actual principles. In the constitution, in the preamble, the last paragraph says: "Mindful of and supporting the principles and basic elements agreed upon by the Contact Group at a ministerial meeting in London on the 29th of January, 1999."

Q. Thank you. Thank you, Professor Markovic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I would like tab 47 to be tendered into evidence. These are the principles of the Contact Group.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, they will be tendered.

JUDGE KWON: Let me clarify one thing. Professor Markovic, when you had a talk with Mrs. Madeleine Albright, were the delegates from Kosovo Albanians present?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. That was a meeting between Madam Albright and the delegation of the government of the Republic of Serbia. Naturally, within that delegation we had two Albanian representatives that I mentioned in the beginning, Faik Jashari and Sokol Qusha.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But those were members of your delegation. ^{35300 BLANK PAGE 35301}

A. Yes, that's right, they were members of our delegation.

JUDGE KWON: Because I remember Dr. Rugova once said that he had met Mrs. Albright together with the Serbian delegates. I'll check it later. Thank you.

Go on, Mr. Milosevic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was one such meeting with Madam Albright, but not with entire delegations, not with complete, full delegations. That was, in fact, a monologue by Madam Albright. Nothing concretely was discussed at that meeting. She simply appealed to those present to try to achieve a political solution and conclude an agreement. Mr. Thaci spoke there, as did Mr. Milan Milutinovic, president of the Republic of Serbia, but that was not a meeting between two delegations, no, that was a meeting where only top echelons of the delegation of the Kosovo Albanians were present and some other leaders. There were no direct talks at that meeting either. There was just a monologue.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. I believe that we cleared this. You, as head of the delegation, claim that there were no negotiations between the two delegations. In a meeting with Mrs. Albright, as far as I could understand, she said to you that she was quite sentimental with respect to Serbs, and the second was that Serbia would be bombed if you failed to sign the agreement. This is what she talked to you about.

A. Yes, that's right.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, it's time for the break. We will ³⁵³⁰² adjourn for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor Markovic, please look at tab 51, where more light is being shed on this problem of not accepting these axioms, these basic principles of the Contact Group. "Axioms" is the word you used. In tab 51 -- I hope we all have tab 51 -- we have "Reeker briefs on day 2 of Kosovo peace talks." The 8th of February is the date. Then there is the explanation "[In English] Philip Reeker, spokesman for the negotiators at the Kosovo peace talks ..."

[Interpretation] And then paragraph 2: "[In English] When the Contact Group at the ministerial level made their statement in London on January 29, they invited two delegations (Serbs and Kosovar Albanians) to attend talks at Rambouillet in order to come to a peaceful solution for the Kosovo crisis. With those invitations was a set of basic principles, non-negotiable elements ... by which the talks and negotiation process would be conducted. By accepting these invitations, the members of both delegations fully understood and accepted those elements. "He added, 'The two delegations are working very hard on the text of the agreement - a process which is taking place on the basis of a set of principles and elements.'"

[Interpretation] So this is quite clear. On the 29th of January in London, these principles contained in this document of the Contact ³⁵³⁰³ Group. And now I would like to draw your attention to the bottom of the page, where there is a question. This is the question. "[In English]

CNN: Phil, can you clear up for us the confusion over, I think, it's principles and something else? The delegates - the delegations - by coming here committed themselves to, let's say, principles. Do those principles include the territorial integrity of Serbia and Yugoslavia? I ask this partly because there's been a communique -- there's been a communique from the KLA third of Albanian delegation saying they hadn't signed up to any such thing and they're never going to concede anything on the independence issue. They insist on a clear, unambiguous wording on independence in the final document."

[Interpretation] Then again recurs repetition of the same. The journalist repeats his question. That's the next paragraph. "[In English] I'd like to come back to this question of interpretation: Who agreed to what? Is it like this - You think that by coming here to Rambouillet they agreed already, but that the delegation doesn't think like this and says, 'We came, but we didn't agree'?"

[Interpretation] So the delegation of the Kosovo Albanians did not accept this only document that the Contact Group provided as a platform for Rambouillet. That was clear even to the journalists at that session. Isn't that the way it was?

A. That's the way it was. I talked about it before the break, that both offers for signing the basic principles of the Contact Group were rejected by the delegation of the Kosmet Albanians.

Q. All right. Now I would like to show you tab 22, and I will just ³⁵³⁰⁴ briefly quote page 2. That is Cook's and Vedrine's conference. Mr. Vedrine, on page 2, the third answer --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Tab 22. Before you begin, Mr. Milosevic, you must ensure that the Chamber has the document in front of it, as well as the Prosecutor, of course.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is tab 52, 52.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You had said 22.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I said 22, then I simply misspoke, but it is 52.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we have it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You can see page 2 of 5. Vedrine, the first time, the second time, the third time, and then the second part: "[In English] As for the issues under discussion, over the course of the past several weeks the Contact Group worked out a number of basic principles which formed the core of the possible solution. The discussions around these central principles should make it possible to complete and make clear what still hasn't been settled."

[Interpretation] So the co-chairman of the Rambouillet conference points out these principles. Is there any doubt here that they were not accepted by the Albanian delegation?

A. What was pointed out here was the nature of these principles. As I explained them, the principles are not subject to any kind of negotiations. They are non-negotiable. They are supposed to be taken the way they have been put forth. ³⁵³⁰⁵

Q. All right. And now on page 3, the journalists are seeking clarification yet again. A question at the very beginning of the page: "[In English] Can you give us some details about the famous basic principles you mentioned, the main line set out by the Contact Group? ... "Vedrine: I can't exactly go into the detail about the principles because I'm keeping all possibilities open for the talks to move forward and conclude successfully. But I would remind you that we propose substantial autonomy which already says a great deal. It means autonomy that goes very far in the framework of respect for existing and recognised international borders."

[Interpretation] So is that this basic principle that the co-chairman is highlighting now, too, and which is basically the stumbling block for the Albanian delegation? They can't accept it because it has to do with the territorial integrity of Serbia and Yugoslavia?

A. Yes, that was basically the stumbling-block, as you put it. And obviously for the delegation of the Kosovo Albanians it was unacceptable.

Q. All right. Tell me now, please, how was this text worded, the one that was put forth as the agreement?

A. It was done in parts, in sections. We came to Rambouillet on the 6th of February. In the evening there was an inauguration of the conference, and already the next day we got from the negotiators annexes. Later on, they turned into chapters, 1, 3 and 6, that is. 1 is the constitution of Kosovo, 3 was elections, and in chapter 6, the Ombudsman. Our suggestion was the following: That it is much better if we get the agreement in its entirety and then embark upon negotiations on the ^{35306 BLANK PAGE 35307} agreement. We do not have an overview of the entire agreement. We do not see the underlying idea of the entire agreement. Then on the 13th of February, six days later, we got section 4, or, rather, chapter 4 - annex 4, as it was called then - which was dedicated to economic development, then humanitarian issues, and reconstruction.

Then on the 15th of February, the delegation was given annex 4A -- I'm sorry. Chapter 4 was economic development, and 4A was humanitarian issues, reconstruction and development.

Since we were wondering how long these different sections of the agreement would be coming in, our delegation insisted to get an answer to the following question: Does the agreement have some other parts, too, or are these all the parts of the agreement? That was the 15th of February, 1999. The negotiating troika told us explicitly that this was the entire agreement.

Immediately on the following day, that is to say on the 16th, we gave the negotiators our objections to the portions that we had received; annex 1, annex 3, annex 6, annex 4 devoted to economic issues, and 4A devoted to humanitarian issues, reconstruction, and economic development. Then again there was a standstill in the negotiations, and on the 22nd of February we were given an annex or, rather, chapters 2, 5, and 7. These were the chapters that had to do with implementation and that had to do with the police and public security, civilian security. We then mentioned the information we were given by the troika on the 15th of February, namely that we had received the agreement in its entirety. Now ³⁵³⁰⁸ we got more than a half of the agreement. We received a total of 56 extra pages, and we said that we did not want to receive these chapters 2, 5, and 7.

And then on the 23rd, that is to say when the second extension of the Rambouillet conference was about to expire, in the morning, at 9.30, the negotiating troika sent us the entire agreement with all annexes, all chapters, including now for the first time chapters 2, 5, and 7. We were given a deadline too. I have the letter here of the negotiating troika.

Q. We all have it. I would like us all to have a look at it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you please place it on this projector. Could you please put tab 45 on the overhead projector. Tab 45.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You have got tab 45, haven't you? We can have a look at it. Yes.

A. Well, you can see it now.

Q. Let me just put a few questions to you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the usher please include the top of the page so that the date and the time can be seen. Here it is.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation].

Q. So look at what it says here, Rambouillet, the 23rd of February, 1999, 9.30 a.m. Is that the letter that you were talking about, Professor Markovic?

A. Precisely. That's the letter.

Q. The last sentence. We can read it together since it is on the overhead projector. "[In English] The co-chairmen and the negotiators are ³⁵³⁰⁹ ready to receive your response no later than 1 p.m. ..." So the first time you received the entire text of the agreement, including these new tens of pages, at 9.30 a.m. on the 23rd of February, and you had a deadline of three and a half hours to give an answer. Is that what can be seen from this text?

A. Precisely. That was the first time we received it. That is to say on the day when the second extension of the conference was about to expire, then we received the integral text of the Rambouillet agreement, including chapters 2, 5, and 7, which we had never been given until then or, rather, they were given at 7.00 p.m. on the 22nd. And then I said why we refused to receive them then.

And then within three and a half hours time, we were supposed to study 56 pages of the text of chapters 2, 5, and 7. That was the length of those texts. These were the vital pages of the agreement, if I can put it that way, the vital portions of the agreement, because chapters 2, 5, and 7 have to do with implementation. Chapter 2, rather, is police, public security, and civilian security.

This letter also shows that Russia does not associate itself with chapters 2 and 7. We were given an explanation why. The member of the troika, Mr. Mayorski, explained that chapters 2 and 7 were not discussed at all, nor were they agreed upon by the Contact Group itself. The entire document was handed over to us by the negotiators on behalf of the Contact Group, as the first paragraph says.

He mentioned that chapter 5 had been looked at but it was not adopted, as opposed to chapters 2 and 7 that were not reviewed at all and ³⁵³¹⁰ that were not discussed, let alone adopted. And that could be seen from the signatures.

Q. All right. Could you please move the page a bit up so that we can see the signatures. The signature of Christopher Hill, and Boris Mayorski signed it, and he said: "[In English] Russia does not associate itself with chapters 2 and 7."

A. 2 and 7.

Q. [Interpretation] And the third was Wolfgang Petritsch. So is it clear that the complete agreement in Rambouillet on what you have said and the explanations given by the Russian representative was not a proposal put forward by the Contact Group and that the Contact Group didn't consider it at all?

A. Yes, absolutely correct. And that is not being challenged. You can't challenge that or dispute it. It was the explanation given by Mr. Mayorski himself, why he was -- didn't want to sign the paper as a whole. And we were told at the very beginning that the agreement could not be accepted in part, only in whole, as a packet, packet of measures with all the eight chapters taken together, which is the number of chapters the final version of agreement had, or the so-called agreement from Rambouillet had.

Q. Very well. Tell me this again, please, and let's go back to the Contact Group again. So the only text that was adopted in fact by the Contact Group at its ministerial meeting in London was the text of the principles that you signed and the Albanians refused to sign. The Rambouillet text, as it would emerge from this letter and the explanations ³⁵³¹¹ given by Mayorski was something that the Contact Group did not adopt; is that right?

A. Yes, absolutely correct.

Q. Tell me this now, please: Did they allow for the possibility of working on the text to fine tune it in the continuation of the negotiations?

A. When we came to Paris to continue the negotiations, we brought with us two acts, two documents which represented our vision of self-government, self-governance in Kosovo and Metohija, and incorporating that vision into all the chapters of that agreement except the agreement on the implementation of it, which was not the subject of adoption at the contact -- or by the Contact Group. And I attach here those documents. The negotiators themselves, the negotiating trio responded and said that no essential changes in the political part of the agreement could be accepted, that the political part had been adopted in Rambouillet, and that the process had been completed, and that in Paris what was to be discussed was the implementation of it. So just chapters 5 and 7 and not even discussions on chapter 2 were to be allowed. And we were asked to move on straight away to negotiating with the negotiators on chapter 5. Once again, there was never a meeting either in Paris during the five days that we were there between the delegations of the government of the Republic of Serbia and the delegation of the Kosmet Albanians. According to the same principle and pattern, the negotiations followed the previous pattern, but the difference was in the negotiations this time. In our delegation we had the president of the Republic of Serbia, ^{35312 BLANK PAGE 35313} Mr. Milan Milutinovic.

Q. Let me go back to a question that was raised earlier on by Mr. Robinson when he asked you under whose auspices the meeting was held, and you said that the meeting was -- the negotiations in Rambouillet was held on the auspices of the Contact Group, but you also mentioned the speech delivered by President Chirac, and France was the host country and at the same time the patron was it, or was it just the Contact Group that was the patron and under their auspices?

A. I understood that France was the host and that the main organiser, the principal organiser, which can be seen from these conclusions made by the Contact Group and dated the 29th of January, 1999, that the main organiser was the Contact Group itself. France, of course, was the host country.

Q. Yes, you clarified the point. I had the feeling that we might not have rounded off that question and clarified it fully. Tell me this now, please --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And Mr. Robinson, I would like to have this letter signed by Hill, Mayorski, and Petritsch, that is to say tab 45, tendered into evidence, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it may be exhibited. And also 51 and 52.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me this now, please, Professor Markovic, my next question: Why did the state delegation not sign this text?

A. The delegation didn't sign, didn't put its signature to the text for the reasons that I have already mentioned. First of all, as to the ³⁵³¹⁴ political section, there were no negotiations that were held, and we didn't know whether the comments we made and objections we made had been adopted or not, especially with respect to the constitution of Kosovo, that portion of the text.

And secondly, more than half the -- we were not able to become acquainted with more than half of the agreement, because when the conference ended, on that very day we received chapters 2, 5, and 7, at that late hour. And there was the decisive statement made by Mr. Mayorski as well to the effect that those sections had never been decided upon in the Contact Group itself, with the proviso that the -- that chapter 5 was discussed but that no stand or decision was made, and there was no mention at all of chapters 2 and 7.

Q. All right. Can I simplify this? What you actually did was you refused to sign an agreement which was not the subject of discussion by the Contact Group.

A. Yes. It was not an agreement at all. It was no agreement. It was quite simply a one-sided dictate, and all they required was our signature. No participation in its formulation, just a signature, nothing more than that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Professor, in deciding not to sign the agreement, did the delegation act on its own or did it receive instructions from Belgrade?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We didn't receive any instructions from Belgrade. And in the delegation itself we had the president of the Republic of Serbia, who, according to the constitution, is the organ ³⁵³¹⁵ representing the republic or representing the state abroad. And the position taken by the delegation was unanimous. It was unanimously decided that that alleged agreement should not be signed.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Thank you. Professor Markovic, a moment ago we established that the agreement was not an act of the Contact Group. Now, what about the members of the troika, the negotiating troika? Did they sign the agreement? And would you please look at tab 48 now in that regard. And we just provide the last page with the signatures themselves. It's a photocopy of the final page of the agreement, with the signatures themselves. And if I can see this, what it says here properly, of the -- the three negotiators didn't sign either. The only people that signed, if you compare the signatures to the text a moment ago, was Petritsch and Hill. Mayorski never signed the agreement.

A. Well, from this piece of paper we can see that for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, nobody actually signed. For the Federal Republic of Serbia, once again you mean the Republic of Serbia.

Q. Yes, that's right. Nobody signed for the Republic of Serbia.

A. For Kosovo, as far as I can make the signature out here, this was signed by Rexhep Qosja and Ibrahim Rugova. I think the first might be Mr. Thaci. I'm not quite sure whose signature that is, whose handwriting. But you can see that it says Kosovo here, and not the Kosmet Albanians, but the entire area of Kosovo, the whole of Kosovo as represented just by the Kosmet Albanians. And witness -- this was witnessed by -- the signing ³⁵³¹⁶ was witnessed by, of the negotiators here we can just see Mr. Wolfgang Petritsch. He's the first signatory, and Mr. Christopher Hill coming next. Mr. Mayorski didn't sign this. He was in the hall where the signing of the agreement, the signing ceremony was organised in Paris, and when asked why he didn't sign, he said that it takes two to tango and that he can't sign something that does not represent an actual agreement but was the agreement of just one side, that is to say one side decided to agree with itself.

Q. Tell me this now, please. What kind of text did our state delegation sign then?

A. Our state delegation signed a text which it brought with it as its offer to the negotiations, and the structure of the text was the same structure to be found in parts of the political agreement in Rambouillet, and that's where we were able to incorporate our delegation's views. Of course, we didn't consider this to be final. It was just our offer, our proposal on the table as to what we felt should be incorporated into the agreement. And it relates to self-governance in Kosovo, which incorporates the basic elements of real self-governance for Kosovo.

Q. Just a moment, please, Mr. Markovic. We're now talking about tab 9; right?

A. Yes, tab 9.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just before we do that, Mr. Robinson, let me check whether tab 48, that is to say the last page with the signatures, showing the signatures of the Albanians and where you can't see any signatures of Yugoslavia or Serbia or Russia's signature, ³⁵³¹⁷ just Petritsch and Hill's signatures, has it been admitted into evidence, tab 48?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we can admit it. We admit it, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now to go back, Professor, to my question about the text, the kind of text that was signed by the state delegation. And we have before us tab 9. It says Agreement for Self-government in Kosmet. In Kosmet, as I say.

A. That was our proposal, the proposal of our delegation, which we brought with us on the 15th of March and handed it over to the negotiators as our proposal for discussion. However, the negotiators responded -- as I say, we introduced our interventions in the political part of the agreement, not the implementation of it. Because as I explained, the implementation of any of this was not adopted. But the gentlemen negotiators responded and said that a political agreement from Rambouillet is considered as having been adopted, that there can be no further discussion about it, no further amendments or changes can be introduced into it, that it is a final text, and that we now had to move on to implementation.

Now, we signed this agreement on the same day, the text of the agreement the same day that the Kosovo Albanians signed the other text, the text of the alleged agreement in Rambouillet, which was shown a moment ago. And here you can see the signatures. For the Republic of Serbia I signed it myself, Ratko Markovic. For the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ³⁵³¹⁸ it was Professor Dr. Vladan Kutlesic. For the National Community of Albanians it was Sokol Qusha.

Q. He was president the Democratic Reform Party of Albanians, wasn't he?

A. Yes, but at the same time he was the president of the National Community of Albanians.

Q. And then we also see the signature of Faik Jashari who was the president of the Kosovo Democratic Initiative. For the National Community of Serbs and Montenegrins Vojislav Zivkovic signed. For the National Community of Turks Zejnelabidin Kurejs and Guljbehar Sabovic signed. For the National Community of the Goranis, it was Ibro Vait. For the National Community of Muslims we see Refik Senadovic. For the National Community of the Roma we see Ljuban Koka. And for the National Community of the Egyptians, or rather, the Ashkalis, we see Qerim Abazi.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Professor, but this agreement that was signed, it is really signed by your delegation alone.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right, just our delegation, just as the other agreement had been signed by the others.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So it was really then just a political match of what you call the so-called agreement which was signed by Rugova on behalf of Kosovo. It was a counterpoise to that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, this can be called an agreement, too, with just the same legitimacy as you can call the other paper an agreement, the one signed by Mr. Rugova, by the same token. So that was signed by just one side, and this was signed by just one side. ³⁵³¹⁹

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And let's make ourselves understood, Professor Markovic. Is there any difference there? That is to say, my question is a very specific and precise one. What was signed by the delegation of the Kosovo Albanians was signed by the Albanians.

A. Right.

Q. And this was signed by both the Serbs, Montenegrins, Turks, Muslims, Goranis, Roma, and the representatives of the government of Serbia and Yugoslavia; is that right? So in that sense, do you see at least some difference between just having one national community sign and the signatures of the representatives of all the national communities, even if the representatives of the National Community of Albanians did not represent the majority of the Albanians or, rather, their political parties?

A. Of course. That difference is the result of the concept about the composition of a delegation, and the delegation of the government of Serbia was multi-ethnic in composition, whereas the composition and the members of the delegation of Kosmet Albanians was monoethnic, just a single ethnicity. So this is necessarily a result and consequence of the different concept. That became visible if you look at the membership of the delegations themselves.

Q. All right. Now, let's skip the representatives of the Albanians and Serbs in this delegation because you've already explained that they did not represent the most important Albanian parties, and the Serbian delegation is quite clear. Now, what about Zejnelabidin Kurejs, Guljbehar ³⁵³²⁰ Sabovic? Were they the prominent representatives of the Turkish community, for example? Were they the most prominent representatives?

A. Yes, indeed Mr. Zejnelabidin Kurejs was the head -- or rather, the president of the party of Turks. I don't know the full name and title of that party, but he was the president of the main Turkish political party in Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. So he was the leading personage in the Turkish community. Is that clear?

A. Yes, that's quite clear and that's how he took part.

Q. Now, what about Ibro Vait? He signed for the for National Community of the Goranis? Was he a leading personage of the Gorani community?

A. Yes, he was. And the national communities themselves represented their best representatives. They put their best men forward, if I can put it that way.

Q. And can we say the same for Raif Senadovic, Ljuban Koka, and Qerim Abazi and their standing in their own national communities? Would that hold true for them too?

A. Yes, absolutely so.

Q. I'm not going into what the papers wrote about them but their own positions, how their own national communities viewed them in their communities in Kosovo and Metohija.

A. Yes, in their national communities, they were the foremost political representatives and that's why they were given the mandate, whereas the papers considered that the representatives of the national ³⁵³²¹ communities should not be members of a national delegation. Of course, not all the newspapers but a part of the press.

Q. What part of the press?

A. You can find such statements to this day in various books written about Rambouillet. I was shocked to see how many books were written about Rambouillet, books numbering over hundreds of pages, as though written by Jules Verne, because imagination was used to quite an extent there, as nothing in fact happened in Rambouillet. So I don't see what gave rise to such voluminous material being written about Rambouillet. This was mentioned by certain media in the Republic of Serbia, and also authors of various books about Rambouillet inserted this objection to the composition of the delegation of the Republic of Serbia.

I have to state that I did not read the book by Mr. Wolfgang Petritsch. I don't speak German so I couldn't read it, but those books that I read in English and in Serbian all contain this objection to the composition of our delegation.

Q. I saw that as an advantage of our delegation, the fact that it contained representatives of various ethnic communities. So how can you explain this objection? Where does it actually originate from?

A. Well, the dominant belief is that Kosovo ought to be discussed by the representatives of Serbs and the representatives of the Albanians. So the very complex ethnic picture of Kosovo and Metohija is being simplified in this view and reduced to just two national communities which were confronted here, the Serbs and the Albanians. And you can see, based on the signatures of these leaders of various ethnic communities, that the ³⁵³²² ethnic picture was not a simple one in Kosovo. Our delegation believed that all of them, as residents of Kosovo, should take part in seeking a political solution to the situation in Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. Are you aware of the fact that members of the Turkish ethnic community in Kosovo attended school in Turkish, that they had their newspaper that was published?

A. The institute for textbooks of Serbia published textbooks in Turkish as well for children who attended Turkish schools, schools in Turkish. I'm aware of that.

Q. All right. Let us not digress any more. Let us return to the issue of this so-called agreement in Rambouillet that was signed just by the Albanian delegation. You said that this agreement was not a proposal of the Contact Group and the fact that it was not a proposal of Contact Group was the reason why the Russian representative refused to sign it. Now, please tell me this: If the agreement was not a proposal of the Contact Group, if this text was not proposed by the Contact Group, then who proposed it?

A. Well, I'm convinced, based on the role played by Madeleine Albright, that it was her personal proposal, proposal of her and her team.

Q. So what she promised to you when she said that you will have a brilliant future, if I can call it that, was actually something that was boiled down to this agreement; is that right?

A. Yes, precisely so. That threat of bombing was directly linked to the adoption or refusal to adopt the agreement. This is something that was stated by Mrs. Albright to our delegation when we met on the 14th of ³⁵³²³ February, 1999, in Rambouillet.

Q. You just told us a minute ago that all members of the delegation, representing all ethnic communities in Kosovo, were unanimous in your firm stance not to sign the text.

A. Yes. We were unanimous in that position for the simple reason that this text meant that the Albanian majority in Kosovo has its own state, whereas other ethnic communities could perhaps enjoy some protection as national minorities. Therefore, they were denied any participation in the government as we wanted it. And all of these ethnic communities make up a certain percentage in the entire population of Kosovo.

The principle that Albanians favoured meant outvoting of other communities, institutionalisation of the Albanian community in Kosovo and ensured their dominant role.

Another aspect of this agreement, this agreement that only contained declaratory statement on the respect for territorial integrity of Serbia meant that Kosovo just officially speaking was part of Serbia but there was no Serbia present in Kosovo, because Serbia had no power in Kosovo which was nominally its territory. That was another reason we refused to sign this agreement. Therefore, in the constitution of Kosovo, the state of Serbia was completely expelled from its territory with all of the instruments and attributes of its statehood.

Q. Professor Markovic, I believe that it would be interesting, in view of certain reactions that were present in the media concerning Rambouillet in those days, to see this leaflet in German that the ³⁵³²⁴ newspaper Borba received from its reader from Bonn. You can find this in tab 12.

THE ACUSED: [Interpretation] It has been translated from German to English, Mr. Robinson. This is the entire pamphlet.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. According to Borba this was circulated in Germany, and in this, would you please confirm to us that this pamphlet quotes authentically certain portions of that agreement that was offered for signature.

A. Well, this pamphlet contains excerpts from chapter 7, annex B. These are just excerpts.

Q. Very well. Under 1, it says: "The parties recognise the need for expeditious departure and entry procedures for NATO personnel," stationing of NATO personnel. Was that taken from the text? Is this the verbatim text taken out from the agreement?

A. Yes. All of these paragraphs were taken out of annex B.

Q. Very well. Item 2 states: "NATO military personnel shall normally wear uniforms, and NATO personnel may possess and carry arms if authorised..."

Then 3a: "NATO shall be immune from all legal process, whether civil, administrative, or criminal.

"3b: NATO personnel, under all circumstances at all times, shall be immune from the parties' jurisdiction in respect of any civil, administrative, criminal or disciplinary offences which may be committed by them in the FRY.

"4: NATO personnel shall be immune from any form of arrest, ³⁵³²⁵ investigation, or detention by the authorities in the FRY. "Item 5: NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters." And so on.

Then they go on to recognise the use of communication channels for NATO purposes upon simple request that it was needed for the operation. "The parties shall, upon simple request, grant all telecommunications services, including broadcast services, needed for the operation." And then they go on to speak about public roads and so on. So pursuant to the text of this agreement that was offered for your signature there, the entire territory of Yugoslavia, its airspace, its waters, telecommunication channels, radio, television, all public media, everything that exists under the heavens ought to be placed at NATO's disposal.

A. Yes. That's precisely where this Hamlet dilemma that our delegation faced lay. The dilemma was: Either you will be occupied or you will be bombed. That was the choice we had, the "choice" under quotation marks. That was the choice we had.

Q. And this pamphlet ends with a question in German, "Would you have signed this?"

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic -- Mr. Nice, do we have the full text of this agreement that was offered?

MR. NICE: I'm not sure. I was going to check that out.

JUDGE KWON: Exhibit 128. ³⁵³²⁶

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe that this has been tendered already.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. Exhibit 128, yes.

MR. NICE: In fact, yes, Exhibit 128, Your Honour is quite right, and we prepared it in advance against the possibility of its being used. While I'm on my feet, I notice the time. I've been informed that you're going to be informed in due course that this witness can't come back beyond tomorrow, something to that effect. He's already been in examination-in-chief somewhere between nine and ten hours. The amount of time left between now and the end of tomorrow is a fraction of that. In any case, Exhibit 128.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, when will you conclude your examination-in-chief? It has been fairly lengthy.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I've already told you that I initially envisaged this would last less. However, it has been going quite slowly, and I need just an additional few minutes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I could say, as a housekeeping matter, that the Chamber will periodically issue a record of the time that is being used by the parties, and we'll shortly issue the first one.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Professor, I take it that if cross-examination is not concluded by tomorrow, you would be available to come -- to return at some other time convenient to all the parties? The earliest opportunity would be better.

Mr. Milosevic, I'm sorry to interrupt with this but it's an ³⁵³²⁷ important matter.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've been here for two weeks now. I had exams scheduled for these three days, the day before yesterday, yesterday and today. It is very difficult for me to reschedule these exams because some students come to the exams who reside outside of Belgrade. I believed that I would conclude my testimony tomorrow at the end of business. I could not continue to delay the exams for another week, because the exam period is between the 15th of January to the 15th of February, and I have other engagements for the month of February. Therefore, I have taken upon myself quite a risk, and I have mistreated my students quite substantially by prolonging my stay here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think they will probably show some understanding, Professor. But, Mr. Milosevic, then you should have tailored your examination-in-chief to take account of that, because if the Prosecutor can't complete his cross-examination by tomorrow, for my part I'd find that entirely understandable. So let us continue, but bear in mind that as far as the Chamber is concerned, we would require the professor to be here to complete his testimony at some time, at some other time, if it's not concluded tomorrow.

And with that in mind, Mr. Milosevic, then obviously the quicker you conclude, the better.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I do not doubt the fact that neither the professor nor the students would mind if the professor had to come back for a day later on for Mr. Nice to complete his cross-examination. The other trip would be just for a few days, not a ³⁵³²⁸ prolonged one such as this one. And I believe that the professor would be able to schedule to return for a day. However, I am not allowed to have any contact with the witness while he's testifying, so I hope that he will bear this in mind.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor Markovic, very briefly, can we speak of negotiations in Rambouillet and the Rambouillet agreement at all?

A. I do not believe that we can. There were no negotiations whatsoever. There was simply some talks between the delegations and the mediators. The two delegations never met and talked directly. As for the agreement, I believe that there is no agreement at all either, because each agreement implies the consent of two parties, two wills. Here we have the consent of just one party, the expression of the will of just one side.

JUDGE ROBINSON: There is no need, Mr. Milosevic, to belabour that point. We have that point. It has been made --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Tab 35 is a text by Kissinger which speaks about the position taken by the country that had the leading role. Yes, that's right, 53. Page 2, third paragraph. Kissinger says: "Several fateful decisions were taken in those now seemingly far-off days in February [In English] when other options were still open. The first was the demand that 30.000 NATO troops entered Yugoslavia, a country with which NATO was not at war, an administrative province that had emotional significance as the origin of Serbia's independence. The second was to use the foreseeable Serb refusal as a justification for starting the ³⁵³²⁹ bombing.

"Rambouillet was not a negotiation - as is often claimed - but an ultimatum."

Is that roughly your conclusion as well, Professor?

A. Absolutely. Rambouillet was a one-sided dictate --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. That's a sufficient answer. Please move on, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor, I will put just one more question to you. In view of the passage of time, do you believe that it was a mistake to refuse to sign the agreement on the part of our side?

A. No, I don't believe that that was an error. First of all, the country was not occupied. Unfortunately, a lot of people have lost their lives, but we have kept our honour. Our country maintained its dignity, and the Serbs have history. They have, because they always cared about their honour and saving their face more than anything else. These are the principles that our delegation adhered to when it signed almost more than six years ago to sign this agreement which was a one-sided dictate.

Q. Thank you, Professor. I have concluded my examination. I have no further questions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Nice. Cross-examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Just before I turn to deal with the substance of my cross-examination and picking up on your last observation about loss of life being better than loss of dignity, which nationality was it in the ³⁵³³⁰ Kosovo conflict that suffered most? Was it the Kosovo Albanians that suffered for Serb dignity?

A. I think that the Serb nationality suffered the most, because the persecution of Serbs has been going on for decades.

Q. Forgive me, Professor. I'm sure you understood the question. In terms of loss of life or in terms of being forcibly moved from their properties, which nationality suffered most; Kosovo Albanians? Simple question.

A. I'm giving you a simple answer, but you don't like the answer. It is the Serb nationality, which chronologically speaking suffered for a much longer time because the slogan of the Albanians was that Kosovo could no longer be part of Serbia if there were no Serbs in Kosovo. That was the capital demand of the Albanians in Kosovo. They wanted a state of their own because there would be no Serbs left in Kosovo.

Q. It may be, Professor, that we're going to have a difficulty with my use of language. I'll try to make it simple. In the Kosovo conflict, did more Kosovo Albanians lose their lives than Serbs?

A. Mr. Nice, I did not count the victims. I cannot give you an answer to that question.

Q. Okay. So I'll come back to that tomorrow with the evidence to show the answer to the question. And I'm going to suggest that your answer to this Court right now was entirely less than frank. You know perfectly well whether more Kosovo Albanians or more Serbs died in this part of the conflict and you are declining to give straight answers. Now, let's go back to the beginning. You've been described by -- ³⁵³³¹

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, just let him -- since you have put that to him --

MR. NICE: Certainly.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- I think he should answer.

MR. NICE:

Q. The proposition, Professor, is that you're not giving a straight answer.

A. I'm saying that frankness is an interior feeling, and I don't see how Mr. Nice could have looked into my inside and seen what I thought inside, deep inside. Whenever I give an answer that does not suit Mr. Nice, he says that I'm not frank. He accuses me of not being frank. I'm giving him my opinion and everybody's entitled to his own opinion, and if there is a difference in opinion, that does not mean that I'm being less than frank.

Q. All right. Let's go back to the beginning. The accused described you in these terms in the course of the examination, that you are "without doubt the best constitutional expert on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. This is generally recognised. We can never question or challenge that. The answers are transparent."

There you are. "Without doubt the best constitutional expert on the territory of the former Yugoslavia." Is that how you regard yourself?

A. I don't know whether he said in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. It is not in my nature at all to compete. My own judgement of my own value is irrelevant. What counts is what others think and what also counts is the objective state of affairs. I do not regard myself ³⁵³³² that way at all.

Q. Because you've been extensively criticised by fellow academics for various other things that you've done in the last 15 years, have you not? Let's give you a couple of examples. Pavle Nikolic, for example, on your attempts to extend this accused's tenure of office. Do you remember his criticisms?

A. The term of the president is not ten years, it is five years, according to the constitution of the Republic of Serbia.

Q. What I'm saying is you've been criticised by academic lawyers for your performance as a lawyer. One of them, for example, is a Pavle Nikolic. Correct?

A. I don't know what you mean. I don't know which criticism you mean. In science and scholarly affairs, it is quite common to have disagreement and criticism. Very often we do not agree with each other. That is why science advances. If there was no disagreement, then science would not be advancing.

Q. I'll give you one other example by way of forecast of criticisms I'll lay before you in due course. Slobodan Samardzic of the Institute of European Affairs in Belgrade has attacked you publicly and extensively for the misuse of the constitutions that you've drafted, hasn't he?

A. This is the first time I've ever heard of it.

Q. Very well.

A. I never heard of it before. Could you please be so kind as to say where he said that and what was this abuse of the constitution that I carried out? ³⁵³³³

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, Mr. Nice is referring to an author and to a text by a particular author. Therefore, it would be his duty to place this text before the witness if he wishes to put questions in relation to that text.

MR. NICE: And I most certainly well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I most certainly will. I will do it in due time because I want to deal with things chronologically. I'm just at the moment exploring the accused's description of this witness as effectively unchallengeable as an expert. But I can just tell the witness this if he wants to research the matter overnight, and we can even probably provide him with a copy, but he will find the criticism of him and of his constitutions in a paper of the Institute of European Studies of Belgrade, headed Constitutional System of FR Yugoslavia, Principles and Contradictions. The date of the paper is not entirely clear, but we can provide him with a copy of it and he can read it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You should let him have a copy of it, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I will, and I will come to it in its appropriate place in my questioning.

Q. For reading later, Professor. Now, you told us a little bit about your history. We'll pick it up pretty nearly at the beginning of my questioning, but before we do, let's deal with things chronologically and look, first of all, at a little bit of the 1974 constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. While that's being prepared for me and for the overhead projector, ³⁵³³⁴ this: The Serbs regarded the 1974 constitution as something that damaged their interests; is that correct?

A. That's not what the Serbs thought. That is what scholars thought. There was unanimity practically among scholars that the 1974 constitution was the reason for all the crises that befell the Yugoslav federation.

Q. And -- very well.

A. Croats and Slovenes and Macedonians had equally poor opinions of that constitution. I can refer to several meetings where it was exposed to criticism from all quarters.

Q. Professor, I would be only too delighted to conclude your cross-examination by the end of tomorrow morning. To some degree, it's in your hands. If I ask questions that are susceptible to short answers and you give compact answers, we'll make more progress. I have your answer on the 1974 constitution. But Tito -- sorry.

JUDGE BONOMY: But, Mr. Nice, excuse me for interrupting just now, but this cross-examination has started off in a fairly antagonistic fashion, for reasons which I think I understand.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: But that can be counter-productive, I think, and the way the question was framed, in fairness to the professor, inevitably brought the answer it did because you couched it as Serbs, and his answer as well is much more widespread than that. So I think I can understand that, and therefore while I'm not criticising you, I think it's only fair for the Court to intervene if it feels the witness is unfairly criticised.

MR. NICE: Certainly. I actually thought my question was neutral, ³⁵³³⁵ but if it wasn't or if it didn't seem to be --

JUDGE BONOMY: It was not.

MR. NICE: I'll come back to that because it features in the -- in the next exhibit beyond the constitutions to which I'll turn.

Q. But, Professor, help me with this, please: So far as Serbs were concerned, and I am asking you to look at this from the point of view of the Serbs, Tito and his fellow leaders were regarded, were they not, as wishing to keep Serbia down, the famous phrase, "Weak Serbia, strong Yugoslavia"; is that right?

A. Well, that thesis was first disclosed by Lazar Kolisevski, one of Macedonia's political leaders.

Q. One of Tito's -- one of Tito's closest colleagues - Tito the Croat - was the Slovene Kardelj; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And he's also generally regarded as somebody who wasn't promoting the interests and the cause of the Serbs, particularly, for example, at the time of the 1974 constitution.

A. I would not put it that way. I have a different opinion. Edvard Kardelj was not a trained lawyer. In many of his views, he believed in utopia, and it was such solutions that were the main shortcoming of the 1974 constitution, and he was most directly involved in the writing of that constitution.

Q. You see, I'm going to be exploring the events that relate to the criminality, if any, as alleged of this accused, but I'm also going to be exploring your own part in it and therefore we must look at you as a man. ³⁵³³⁶ Your first book, I think, was dedicated to the man Kardelj; is that right?

A. No. I never dedicated any book to Kardelj. Edvard Kardelj --

Q. Very well. If I'm wrong, and I can't show you the document to the contrary, I'll withdraw it, but I'll come back to it if necessary.

A. Mr. Nice, you cannot show it to me because no such thing exists. But you have already broadcast that. That's already been heard. Please, no such thing exists. I never dedicated a book to Edvard Kardelj. I did quote Edvard Kardelj very often, because he was the main constitution-maker of Yugoslavia, starting from 1946 or, rather, the Foca annals and all the way up to his death. So that includes the constitution of 1974. He always provided the basic concept, he was the main author of the constitution, and he was behind the concepts of all the constitutions of the former Yugoslavia, but I never ever dedicated a book to him.

Q. Thank you. Let me just look because I think it's helpful if we take all the constitutions in their date order, just Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the 1974 constitution. It's on the overhead projector now.

A. Very well.

Q. Are you happy to follow this in English, Professor?

A. I can, but I do have the text in Serbian here.

Q. You've got the text in front of you. So the structure that may be helpful for the Chamber to have in mind is Article 3: "The socialist republics are states based on the sovereignty of the people and the power of the self-management by the working class and all working people, and are socialist, self-managing democratic communities of the working people and citizens, and of nations and nationalities having equal rights." ³⁵³³⁷ And then Article 4: "The Socialist Autonomous Provinces are autonomous socialist self-managing democratic socio-political communities based on the power of and self-management by the working class and all working people in which the working people, nations and nationalities realise their sovereign rights, and when so specified by the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Serbia in the common interests of the working people, nations and nationalities of that Republic as a whole, they do so also within the Republic."

And then the last section that it may be helpful for the Court to have in mind as it considers the arguments that you've been covering, Article 5: "The territory of the Socialist Federal Republic --"

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson. What's the question? I don't understand. Is Mr. Nice giving you instructions as to what you're supposed to take as argument or is he putting a question to the witness? What is the question after this quotation?

JUDGE ROBINSON: He's coming to the question. I don't think you have been fair. You have employed the same methodology of reading passages and then formulating the question after that, but it's now a quarter past twelve, and we'll hear the question when we resume in 20 minutes.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, I just noted Exhibit 128 contains only chapter 6 of the agreement. Could you look into the matter.

MR. NICE: Yes. The version of Exhibit 128 that I had - and I was able to check it - certainly has the passage set out in the German newspaper article. You can find it at page 588 in the page numbering of ³⁵³³⁸ the document, so that unless I've been provided -- and I've been provided with a copy of the exhibit as stamped, and unless for some reason less than the full document went in - and Ms. Dicklich shakes her head, this is the document that went in - you will be able to find the defendant's exhibit at page 588.

JUDGE KWON: Yes.

--- Recess taken at 12.16 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.43 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Please continue, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: And, Your Honours, to complete the position on Exhibit 128, Ms. Graham has been good enough to remind me or inform me that Exhibit 128 is a copy of the whole text of the Rambouillet agreement as found in a book of documents, The Kosovo Conflicts, A Diplomatic History Through Documents. It's not just chapter 6, even if each page says that at the top of it. We hope that this is a satisfactory version of the agreement, and we can investigate further through the UN website if you would prefer, but we believe this to be satisfactory.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. Back then, please, to the 1974 constitution, and I'm hoping really, Professor, to provide the Chamber with just an adequate frame of the various statutes in sequential order as we go through your evidence for me to make the points that I wish to.

But if the usher would be good enough, please, to come back to the page he was to the previous page so we can look at article 2 as well. ³⁵³³⁹ Previous page, article 2. No. Previous page. It's on the previous page, at the foot of the page, article 2. And that reads: "The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia consists of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Socialist Republic of Croatia, the Socialist Republic of Macedonia, the Socialist Republic of Montenegro, the Socialist Republic of Serbia, the Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, and the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo, which are constituent parts of the Socialist Republic of Serbia and the Socialist Republic of Slovenia."

So we've looked at that. This constitution -- we'll look at another section in a second, but just in a sentence so that we can understand your concerns, how does this truly disadvantage Serbia when the decision was made to compose it in this way? How did it actually disadvantage Serbia, so that the Judges can understand?

A. It is disadvantageous to Serbia in the following way: The autonomous provinces are represented in all the federal organs, apart from Serbia, as separate entities. In that way, Serbia was broken into three parts. They would not represented through the delegation of the Republic of Serbia but as independent delegations at federal level.

Q. Very well. The last section I want to look at, we may have looked at it already, is Article 5. If the usher would be so good. Article 5 shows us at the foot of the page on the left: "The territory of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a single unified whole and consists of the territories of the socialist republics. "The territory of a republic may not be altered without the ³⁵³⁴⁰ consent of that republic, and the territory of an autonomous province without the consent of that autonomous province. "The frontiers of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia may not be altered without the consent of that autonomous province. "The provinces of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia may not be altered without the consent of the republics and autonomous provinces."

So that the lawmakers in 1974 decided that the autonomous provinces should have these very considerable powers; correct?

A. Well, they do have very considerable powers. They have all the attributes of a state. They have legislative, judicial, executive powers, they have their own constitutional court.

Q. That was the decision of the lawmakers in 1974. And so that the Court can have the picture very rapidly but in a sense comprehensively, if we then look at the matching constitution of 1974 for Serbia. If that could go on the overhead projector. It's Exhibit 526, tab 1. We'll just have a look at a little bit of that.

We can see, if the usher would just take the English version, that these constitutions have preambles which at some stage it may be interesting to look at, so that, for example, on the second page, I think you'll see, of the preamble, second page, Usher, you'll see something that says paragraph 7 - thank you - paragraph 7, this is in the Serbian constitution: "The provinces are autonomous, socialist, self-managing, democratic, socio-political communities with a special ethnic composition and other specificities ..." ³⁵³⁴¹ And then under paragraph 8, third line: "... according to the principles of the agreement among the republics and autonomous provinces, solidarity and reciprocity, equal participation by the republics and autonomous provinces in federal agencies consistent with the Constitution ..."

And this is the sort of -- would this be right, Professor? It's this sort of power was disturbing to Serbs and Serbia?

A. I don't know which powers you mean.

Q. Well, under -- just looking at the preamble, under paragraph 8, I'll read it again: "The working people, nations and nationalities of the Socialist Republic of Serbia shall make decisions on the federal level according to the principles of agreement among the Republics and Autonomous Provinces, solidarity and reciprocity, equal participation by the Republics and Autonomous Provinces in federal agencies consistent with the Constitution ..."

So that there was a requirement for the making of decisions on -- according to the principles of agreement with an equal participation by the autonomous provinces. This was one of the things that Serbs in Serbia didn't like.

A. That precisely meant that the Republic of Serbia was reduced to the area outside the provinces. Serbia was where the provinces were not, because the provinces were independent entities in the federation. In that way, Serbia was not equal to the other republics, because it was not represented in the federation as a whole.

Q. If the usher would just turn on, to have a look at one other ³⁵³⁴² article of this Serbian constitution, in case we return to it. It's Article 146, 147.

And while that's being found -- there it is. Article 146 of the Serbian constitution said this: "The languages of nations and nationalities and their alphabets shall be equal. "Members of nationalities --" and you've explained for us the difference between nations and nationalities -- "Members of nationalities shall, in conformity with the Constitution and Statute, have the right to use their language and alphabet in the exercise of their rights and duties and in proceedings before state agencies and organisations exercising public powers."

And then under 147: "Members of other nations and nationalities shall have the right to instruction in their language in schools and other institutions of learning in conformity with the law and municipal statute."

So those were enshrined rights within the Serbian constitution for the use of language in education; correct?

A. Yes, precisely.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... take you through the development of these constitutions, those rights in education were later restricted so far as Kosovo Albanians were concerned. Would you accept that?

A. Until you prove that to me, I cannot accept it.

MR. NICE: The third constitution of this trio of constitutions that I want to look at, Your Honours, is not available to us at the moment ³⁵³⁴³ in the same format as the ones we've got at the moment, but it is available in a document that I'd ask you at the moment to look at and, at the most for the moment, mark for identification.

Q. Professor, there's a publication called Kosovo Law and Politics, published by the Helsinki Committee For Human Rights in Serbia. Are you aware of that document?

A. No.

Q. Very well.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, at the moment I simply invite you to look at the parts of it that deal with the constitution and other decisions that I don't have available at the moment elsewhere, and perhaps we can then review the position at the end of this witness's evidence. While they are being distributed, they are documents that contain a limited amount of commentary but extracts, not the full versions, extracts from a number of documents that may be of interest and value to us. Most helpful of the document is this, that it is published simultaneously in English and Serbian. So that if you look at the index first of all, you will see the first part of the index between pages 8 and 74 is in Serbian. Then on the next page we have the English, then Serbian, then English.

At the moment, just to look at the relevant constitution that I don't have elsewhere, if the Chamber will be good enough to go to page 39, and if the witness would be good enough to go to page 38, we'll see the preamble for the 1974 constitution of Kosovo. I don't need to take us through any part of that. ³⁵³⁴⁴

Q. If we then go, Professor, you, please, to page 40, the Chamber to page 41, and the overhead projector to page 41, we see general provisions applying in Kosovo. They can be read at leisure, but included at Article 4: "The nations and nationalities in the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo shall be equal in their rights and duties. "To ensure the equality of the nations and nationalities, their right to the free development and expression of national specificities, language, culture, history and other attributes shall be guaranteed." Then Article 5: "In the socialist autonomous province of Kosovo, the equality of the Albanian, Serbo-Croatian and Turkish languages and their alphabets shall be ensured.

"The implementation of this principle shall be regulated and ensured by the present Constitution and by provincial statute." So, Professor, we see in the constitutions of the Socialist Federal Republic and in the constitution of Serbia generalised rights in respect of language and education as an example. We see here in the Kosovo constitution a specific identification of the equality of rights for Albanian, Serbo-Croatian, and Turkish language and alphabets; is that correct?

A. Yes, and that's quite natural because the greatest degree of generalisation is the federal constitution, and lower down we come to the republican constitution and provincial one because it is in force for the province.

Q. Constitutional change in the laws left by the 1974 lawmakers, am I right in this - correct me if I'm wrong - constitutional change should ³⁵³⁴⁵ start at the top. It should start with the federal government, and it should make decisions on constitutional change; correct?

A. The federal state decides -- or, rather, as I said, the federal state decides upon amendments to the federal constitution. And if the federal constitution is amended, that entails amendments to the constitutions of the republics and provinces down the line.

Q. And indeed there would be a general requirement for the harmonisation of constitutions in line with any constitutional change by the federal government. Would that be correct?

A. Yes.

Q. I can now move rapidly through the history until we come to your own personal involvement. We've looked at very briefly, and I don't need to look at again, plava knjiga, the blue book, which was Defence Exhibit at tab 6. This was published in about March 1977; is that correct?

A. Yes, you're quite right.

Q. I think its author was a relation of the accused's wife. Is that correct? As a matter of history and fact.

A. First of all, the text was published at the time but not for public consumption but as a working paper, and the author of that text was not one single person, there were a number of them, and if you want, I can tell you who they were. And none of them, as far as I know, is related to the wife of Mr. Milosevic.

Q. Very well. No time going to be taken on that. And you appreciate, Professor, that the Prosecution in this case has no interest in the rights or wrongs of constitutional arguments or, ³⁵³⁴⁶ indeed, in the rights and wrongs in the parties. We are only concerned to lay out the history. So that when we look at the blue book, would this be a fair characterisation of the position as you understand it, having been given the book, I think you told us, by Mihailo Markovic: As early as 1977, Serbs were expressing their discontent with what the 1974 legislatures had provided?

A. First of all, I have to correct you. I received the book from Academician Kosta Mihajlovic and not Mihailo Markovic. And secondly, not the Serbs. It was a working body of the Presidency, the then Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Serbia, and in that working body, since you're insisting upon the blue book, there was Professor Najda Pasic from the political science faculty; Professor Slovatkovic [phoen], also from that faculty; Veljko Markovic -- Veljko Markovic, slower, thank you -- who was the secretary-general of the Assembly; then we had Milivoje Draskovic, who was the secretary, or rather, the minister for justice; Nikola Stanic, who was the chef de cabinet of the president of the Presidency of the Republic of Serbia; Milan Radonjic, who was a member of the Presidency. So that then was the commission which was set up in 1975 when Mr. Milosevic wasn't on the political arena at all. He wasn't a public figure at that time at all.

Q. I accept that and hadn't suggested otherwise, but help me with this: Had Kosovo Albanians, who had been given powers and the constitution that they had been given in 1974, were they expressing discontent with this constitution or was the discontent only coming from Serbia? ³⁵³⁴⁷

A. They, too, expressed their dissatisfaction, and in 1981, in fact, they staged an armed rebellion because they were not satisfied with being an autonomous province. What they wanted was to be a state. They were not satisfied with the solutions pursuant to the 1974 constitution, and that is why they held their uprising in 1981.

Q. Let's break that down into two parts, because I was coming to the 1981 incident or event. There was no question, was there, of Kosovo Albanians expressing discontent with the powers they had on the basis that they were inadequate. You're simply saying that they wanted even more. Would that be right?

A. They wanted Kosovo Republic, and their basic slogan at the demonstrations and rebellions was "Kosovo Republic." That was the slogan.

Q. And let's come to the 1981 demonstrations, or whatever it was. First of all, were you involved yourself in any way at that stage?

A. I don't where you mean was I involved. In public life or what?

Q. First of all, were you at Pristina when the incident occurred?

A. No. No, I wasn't.

Q. Did you have any teaching role in Kosovo in general or in Pristina in particular?

A. No, I did not, never. Only on one occasion, in 1999, on the 16th of January, I was the member of a commission for a doctoral thesis defence, and that was all I had to do in the educational sense at the University of Pristina.

Q. So your knowledge of the 1981 event is really the knowledge that anybody else had through reading newspapers, watching television, ³⁵³⁴⁸ listening to the radio?

A. Absolutely so. All my knowledge was the kind of knowledge that was accessible to all the citizens. And since it's been more than 20 years since then, that knowledge is no longer reliable. They are only my recollection of the events.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... trigger a memory of the events that's been before the Judges, this is the demonstration that was alleged to have started with a complaint by the quality of the soup by the students and developed into something else. Is that the one?

A. That's right. That's what the papers said. But as I say, I'm not an authentic eyewitness of those events. I didn't see anything. I wasn't there to see what happened. I learnt about it subsequently and not directly; indirectly.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know if I remember correctly myself, but as far as I recall, Professor Markovic didn't testify about the demonstrations in Kosovo at all.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It falls within --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All these years, 1971 and so on.

JUDGE ROBINSON: In my view it falls within the area of his testimony.

MR. NICE: I'm grateful and in fact he did mention them.

Q. But we'll move on, because in 1980 to 1985, you were passing from ³⁵³⁴⁹ being an extraordinary into becoming a full-time professor at the law faculty in Belgrade. Would that be an accurate picture?

A. Yes, yes. As I said, I was an assistant lecturer, docent, extraordinary professor, and then finally full professor.

Q. And then in 1986, as you explained to us, you became a member of the Commission for Constitutional Issues in the Assembly of the Republic of Serbia. In order to be a member of that commission, was it necessary to be a member of the Communist Party?

A. That's what I became as a representative of my profession. And we were invited to the Assembly of Serbia together by Branislav Ikonic, who was the vice-president, that is to say Miodrag Jovicic and myself, the two of us were asked to attend, and we were asked on that occasion to give them the benefit of our professional knowledge, to help the work -- the commission in its work. But Mr. Jovicic was disillusioned with the commission very soon and he left. But as I was a younger colleague and somebody with better nerves, he asked me to stay on and finish the job that we had started.

Academician Jovicic himself was never a member of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia.

Q. Were you?

A. I was, yes, I was a member of the League of Communists.

Q. Since when?

A. Since 1965.

Q. Had you been an active participant in Communist Party affairs since 1965? ³⁵³⁵⁰

A. No. I never held any position, not even at the university level, the level of the faculty of law. I was just a simple member.

Q. How, then, was it that you either got the flavour or the taste for or were invited to get involved in active politics at this, turned out to be critical, time, 1986?

A. Let me repeat: I did not become involved in politics in 1986. I became involved in the professional work of the Constitutional Commission. I became active in politics only in 1992, when I was elected as the federal deputy, deputy in the federal parliament, and then I took an active part in politics up until the year 2000 when, as I have already explained, I withdrew from political life once and for all and am now devoting myself to my professional work --

Q. Can we look --

A. -- in the academic realm.

Q. -- at an article you wrote, and I think the date is probably September of 1988, headed The People's Constitution. While it's being distributed and you're reminding yourself in general terms of the article as you look at it, the Chamber will recall that it's in 1986 that the famous -- famous memorandum was written. When did you first become aware of the existence of the memorandum, please?

A. Well, to be quite frank, I really can't pinpoint the time now, but it was when that whole affair was set out in the press. Before that, I never knew about it.

Q. And your involvement in or even near politics, is this what you're ³⁵³⁵¹ telling us as I can understand it, was limited to your membership of this Commission for Constitutional Issues; is that right?

A. Yes, you understood me correctly. I never held a public function until 1992. I was just a member of the Commission for Constitutional Issues, as I said.

Q. I want to look at a number of things that you said in this article in 1998. On the first page, and it's about three lines down, there's this passage: "Until recently, the say of those working in science and politics in Serbia was not fit to make even a single essential change in, as it seemed until recently, a conserved for all times constitutional system of Serbia."

Sorry, have you found the place, Professor? It should be at the first page.

A. No.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It begins on line 3, page 1. The last word is "do nedavno," the word, and we just have the first syllable of that word, "until recently."

MR. NICE:

Q. If you'd like to just pick it up from there and read it over to yourself.

Then the next sentence begins: "Those working in politics and experienced in the constitutional struggle lived the struggle as a struggle for their personal prestige and position, and they exercised the power which they possessed for the formal initiating of constitutional changes, the maintenance of their political careers, instead of using it ³⁵³⁵² for the struggle itself."

We've heard about something that goes by the name of the Bureaucratic Revolution. Just help me in this passage that I've read to you from your paper. Is that what you're describing?

A. I'm afraid I couldn't find the second part of your quotation. However, what I want to say is this: It was the first time ever that the amendments to the constitution included active representatives of the profession and of science and scholars. Up until then, including the 1974 constitution, constitutional amendments and preparations for amendments were done behind closed doors, always by politicians themselves, people from the realm of politics, and the main politician which stood at the held of constitutional change was Edvard Kardelj.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I assume there's been a mistake towards the end of Mr. Nice's question, because he says "[In English] something that goes by the name of the Bureaucratic Revolution." [Interpretation] I assume what he meant to say was Anti-bureaucratic Revolution.

MR. NICE: Absolutely correct, and I thank the accused.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice is indebted to you, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. NICE:

Q. And did that help, Professor? The passage that I've read, and that even if you had difficulty finding it, was that describing the Anti-bureaucratic Revolution? ³⁵³⁵³

A. Well, I don't know which paragraph you're referring to now because I failed to find that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I be of assistance, perhaps?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would be very grateful, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The seventh line from the top, after 68, 70, after the year 68, 74, it says political workers, et cetera, et cetera, viewed the -- line 7 from the top. From the beginning, line 7.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. The sentence does not give rise to an assertion that this is a programme for the Anti-bureaucratic Revolution. This is a pure statement of fact that the people working in politics have included into such a serious business that the constitutional changes were that they were including professionals from the profession, and that was the reason why so many professionals were activated and involved in this process at the time. I myself was almost 50 at the time when I became involved in public life, because that was the only time that people wanted to hear the -- what the professionals and scientists and scholars had to say. Otherwise you would go to prison if you said anything against the constitution and constitutional provisions. And as I said, in 1971, the journal was banned. Professor Mihailo Djuric went to prison and five professors were expelled from the university.

MR. NICE:

Q. Let's look at the next passage in, I think your 1988 account of then-recent history. "All those working in science, although science was proclaimed a subjective factor in our system, had the knowledge and the adequate understanding of the things, at least those who did not become ³⁵³⁵⁴ slaves of those working in politics, however, they did not have before as well as now the real power to start constitutional changes. Nonetheless, thanks to the change in the ratio of the political forces, when it comes to political changes and generally new political climate, those working in politics and science, each working in their own domain, from the moment when the proposal for change of the constitution of Serbia was formally submitted prepared the terrain for the say of the people on constitutional changes."

Now, does that passage, written in 1988, reflect in part the role that the Academy of Sciences' memorandum played in driving political change?

A. I didn't have in mind the memorandum in the sentence at all. All I had in mind was the fact that the debates on the constitution had become transparent. That is to say that the citizens, broad sections of the population, for the first time were able to hear what the dilemmas were with respect to the constitution and what the options were, what solutions could be chosen to tackle the constitutional crisis. And this means that the public at large was kept abreast of what was going on. Otherwise, beforehand, you could just read about it in some scholarly scientific journal and you couldn't adopt a critical position towards any of this before.

Q. Had you, by your participation on this commission, got to know a lot more about politics and to understand the way the world of politics was moving?

A. Well, I took part in politics as a professional, things that ³⁵³⁵⁵ related to my professional expertise. And throughout the time I was in politics, as I say, I did professional work, that is to say law. I dealt with law. I was in the government for the justice system, jurisdiction, jurisprudence, legality, legislation and so on, constitutional matters. So in politics I was always there as a professional. I didn't go beyond my profession. So I can't say that I know much about the powers of politics as such.

Q. Well, I may be going to challenge you on that in due course, but when you wrote this article in 1988, the Kosovo Polje incident of the accused's speech and its reporting in the media had occurred. Do you remember that?

A. Well, I remember at that well-known sentence. I don't remember the entire context. I wasn't there. I wasn't present, neither did the media go into the details. Were you aware and were you indeed in this article of yours writing about the development of direct action - I use a neutral term - direct action for effecting political change?

A. No. This is quite simply the view of a professional of the constitutional problem that loomed in the Republic of Serbia at the day. It wasn't an address to the public at all, it was just the presentation of a professional view by a professional.

Q. Let's look at the next bit, please. It reads as follows in the English, and I'm starting at a sentence that in translation says: "And, considering ..." and in your text you'll find it "i po svemu sudeci." On the first page still of your text --

A. Yes, yes I've found it. Thank you. ³⁵³⁵⁶

Q. "And, considering everything, that which they did not manage to do in regard to the constitutional changes, the people are now on the course of doing in a spontaneous action. That is the best proof of the ripeness for resolving of the constitutional issue. Is there a more ideal execution of constitutional authority in a democracy than it being spontaneously taken by the people? Today, in Serbia, the people themselves are beginning to execute the constitutional authority. Its formal executors are risking losing legitimacy if they do not translate in writing this living constitution of the people. Today, the entire Serbia is a legislature, a spontaneously convened constituent Assembly in a continuous session. In it, the people, in an immediate fashion, without intermediaries and interpreters of their desires, write their own constitution as a work of self-determination."

Now, we see in that passage references to spontaneous action and constitutional change. Were you there lending academic respectability to what I've called in the most neutral terms direct action and the use of force?

A. No. I note a fact here which no democrats can dispute, and that is this: The constitutional power, constitution giving power should be in the hands of the people, and the constitution should be an expression of the will of the people, and the most democratic way of adopting a constitution is to hold a referendum regarding the constitution. This was an informal referendum, and there was a uniform idea of how the 1974 constitution should be amended.

Q. You see, in the -- if this article was written in September -- or ³⁵³⁵⁷ published in September 1998, it was in the following months that there was the famous Yogurt Revolution. And you remember that?

A. I do, I remember that.

Q. It was called the Yogurt Revolution because all the demonstrators in Vojvodina who brought the downfall of the Vojvodina authorities had the same yogurt in their packed lunches, some of which they threw, suggesting that they were an organised group. That's the reason it's called the Yogurt Revolution, isn't it?

A. I truly don't know that detail. I have heard of the term Yogurt Revolution, and you just gave me an explanation why it is called that way.

Q. And my suggestion to you is that you were already rather closely involved in politics, whether through this commission or otherwise, because you seemed to be writing here about the validity of direct action. That's my suggestion to you. Would you accept that or not?

A. I would not accept it, not at all. My position is the result of the freedom of thought and freedom of scholarly work. I am taking advantage of my constitutional freedom.

Q. We look --

JUDGE BONOMY: Can I ask a question? The very first sentence, Professor, that was quoted to you in this last passage, "And, considering everything, that which they did not manage to do in regard to the constitutional changes, the people are now on the course of doing in a spontaneous action." What does that mean?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That meant that in many spontaneous gatherings, this conviction was expressed, namely that the -- that Serbia ³⁵³⁵⁸ was split into three separate parts, that it had lost its authority over its provinces, that it could not implement the self-organisation. The entire thing became an absurdity. The provinces which were within Serbia had turned against Serbia, so they represented Serbia in a different way within the federal organs than did the state delegations of Serbia proper. That constitution was already in force for 14 years, and therefore there was enough time for people to realise just how unjust this constitutional solution was.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, with the greatest of respect, that does not seem to me to answer that question. Read it again: "And, considering everything, that which they did not manage to do in regard to the constitutional changes, the people are now on the course of doing in a spontaneous action." This doesn't appear to be a reference to opinions or views, it appears to be a reference to action and the failure in the past to successfully take action.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the past, most likely because of political opportunism, the solution contained in the 1974 constitution, the federal constitution, was tolerated. And this solution was taken to even greater absurdity in the Serbian constitution that came after that. So in that sense, the political establishment that was in power at the time did not succeed in changing that. Most likely, as I've said, because of political opportunism.

After that, there came a spontaneous action of the people, of the residents against. It was turned against such a constitutional solution. There were gatherings. People were getting together in order to express ³⁵³⁵⁹ protest.

In addition to that, the scholars also believed unanimously that the solution applied in the constitution of Serbia was non plus ultra, that was a precedent that had not existed ever before and was expressed for the first time in that constitution.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. Next of the total of four passages I want to look at in this article is on our page 4, but for you, Professor Markovic, it's page 1181 at the bottom, and it's the second line from the top. In the English text, it's in the centre of the page, and if it's on display, it reads as follows -- yes, about four lines down on the screen: "There is no realisation of that what the people now seek without a radical constitutional change, and only two such changes are necessary. Firstly, that the regions be reduced to true autonomous units with autonomous domains set in the Constitution of Serbia (thus, taking away all the attributes of statehood from the regions). Secondly, that every direct institutional connection of the regions with the federation be severed, if the connection means granting equal vote to one Serbia and to the two regions in the federation, in conditions of consensual federalism (where thus Serbia has minus one vote)."

So you are here - it is your article - expressing the most, if I may suggest so to you, the most extreme position for Kosovo, namely that it has to lose all attributes of statehood.

A. I don't see. Where do you find me mentioning Kosovo at all in ³⁵³⁶⁰ this text? Please find the word Kosovo for me.

Q. Are you suggesting that you didn't have Kosovo and Vojvodina in mind when you wrote this?

A. Interpreted in that way, yes. Including Vojvodina, not Kosovo alone. The first and the second statement are true within the science of the constitutional law; general, obvious statements. The competence of the autonomous provinces I listed exhaustively, not in a general way, as is done with respect to the federation. In -- the autonomous provinces do not have the right to participate in the work of the federal organs in a federal state, and this is where the difference lies between a federal state and a state with a federal autonomy. This is an obvious conclusion that you can find in constitutional law. This is mentioned by Professor Patek [phoen] when he lists the qualities of federal states. One of those principles is participation, which is typical only for the federal state and no other form of state.

Q. Two questions: One an entire parenthesis I must deal with before I forget it. I think you said yesterday in the course of evidence that Vojvodina, like Kosovo, contained people seeking separatism in some way. Did you say that yesterday?

A. Yes. I even said that the then-representatives of political figures in Vojvodina were quite vociferous and aggressive in that respect, which is another proof showing that the Serbs have majority in Vojvodina. The absolute majority in Vojvodina is held by Serbs, and despite that, Vojvodina expressed tendency for separatism just like Kosovo did.

Q. Pause there if you would be so good. Expressed a tendency. Can ³⁵³⁶¹ you point me so I can just go and find it and confirm the accuracy of what you say. Can you point me to any Vojvodina politician or political party or event that was a move within Vojvodina for separatism? Can you help me?

A. At the time, there were no political parties at the time. We did not have a multi-party system then. However, those were the people who held public offices at the time within the province. In various professional journals and various dailies, in meetings of the Constitutional Commission, I witnessed daily their speeches and positions to that effect. Perhaps I could give you some names but I might err by mentioning some names and omitting some others. After all, this took place over 20 years ago.

Q. Well, if you think of something that can show that what you've said is accurate I would be grateful.

I come back to my previous question. You, an academic, as you explain you were, have taken a position adverse to the then constitutional rights and powers of both provinces that could not be more extreme. Would that be correct? Because you've sought to argue that they should lose all the rights that the 1974 constitution gave them.

A. There are two substantive mistakes in your question. First of all, I'm not an academician, nor have I ever stated that I was one. The second is that I did not state that all autonomous rights should be revoked but, rather, that the attributes of statehood. You can see in parenthesis "the revocation of all attributes of statehood from the provinces." Therefore, there were two substantive mistakes in your ³⁵³⁶² question.

Q. Very well. I'm going to cut one passage and go to the last. On our page 6, and on your page 1182 -- and in your version, Professor, it's about seven lines up from the end of the paragraph that's in the middle of that page. On the overhead projector, please, halfway down the page, the words "In conditions ..." A bit higher. Fine. Thank you very much. "In conditions of such constitutional isolation of a region from the Republic of Serbia, it is natural that Albanians in Kosovo gave a 'request Kosovo Republic', that they request for themselves an Albanian state in Kosovo as they are a majority from that self-sufficient area provided with all the state functions, and Serbs and other non-Albanian peoples are in a considerable minority. Albanians in Kosovo, the ones who are requesting that, are inspired exactly by the existing constitutional system of Serbia. It would have been hard to put such requests forward if Serbia on its entire territory was established as a unitary state." You recognise in this passage, don't you, Professor, that the powers were lawfully given by the lawmakers, and you can hardly blame the Kosovo Albanians for seeking that which they sought.

A. No. In this passage, I merely say that such constitutional solutions inspire separatism, give rise to it. Therefore, there is a very subtle difference between the province and republic which could turn province into the republic, and that was precisely what the Kosovo Albanians requested. They wanted to be a part of the federal state, a unit, and not an autonomous unit within the Republic of Serbia.

MR. NICE: May this article be exhibited? ³⁵³⁶³

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: And if the Chamber is sitting only to the normal time, I have one other question to ask, but if it is sitting beyond, I'll take a topic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: One further question.

MR. NICE:

Q. You told us -- and, Professor, I'm exploring your closeness to politics, and we're just reaching a period of particular materiality. You told us last week that in addition to drafting constitutions for Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, you drafted a constitution but are somehow disabled from telling us what that constitution was by an Official Secrets Act. We can take it in detail. For whichever this country is, is there really an Official Secrets Act that says the drafter or draftsmen of the constitution cannot be identified?

A. First of all, I didn't say that I wrote those constitutions. Based on the questions you could see that I took part in the drafting of these constitutions, so I was not the author.

Q. You told us on the day one, but indeed it was two, that you drafted them with, amongst others, Borivoj Rasua. Now will you please tell the Chamber what those constitutions were in each you lent a hand.

A. I don't know where you got the name of Borivoj Rasua. This is the first I'm hearing of it. I never mentioned that name.

Q. In which case, tell us what the constitutions were, please.

A. I took part in the sense I was a member of the commission for drafting the constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and ³⁵³⁶⁴ Republic of Serbia. I took part only in formulating revisionist procedures of the constitution of Montenegro. So I gave the solution, the proposal, and also the formulation for disbanding the Assembly of Montenegro -- dissolving the Assembly.

Now, let me give you a more detailed explanation, if it is at all relevant for this trial. The constitution is a very delicate issue. It is adopted by the Assembly. I only provided my professional expertise in the drafting of the constitution which was later on adopted by the Assembly. Nobody can claim authorship over a constitution, because constitution is passed by an Assembly. I simply took part in formulating some of its provisions. The constitution is always adopted by an Assembly.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... some involvement in Montenegro, but help me. Did you take part in drafting constitutional documents for the Republika Srpska?

A. No, never.

Q. The Republic of Serb Krajina?

A. The constitution of Republika Srpska or, rather, Bosnia and Herzegovina, is an integral part of the Dayton Peace Accords. So it would be pretentious of me to claim that I took part in drafting the Dayton Peace Accords.

Q. Did you take part in drafting documents of a constitutional nature either for the Serbs in Croatia or the Serb body in Bosnia way before Dayton in 1992? Did you?

A. I don't know that a constitution was passed in Republika Srpska ³⁵³⁶⁵ Krajina and in Republika Srpska. I just heard it from you for the first time.

JUDGE BONOMY: That --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wish you could show that constitution to me. As Lord Palmerston said, I would reward you well for showing me that constitution. I would like to see it myself.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, one more question or --

MR. NICE: Certainly.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- stop?

MR. NICE:

Q. Perhaps you could also look -- can we go back to the exhibit I produced just now, and perhaps you could look just at the last -- the last paragraphs of that for your comments as well, please. Do you have the document before you?

THE REGISTRAR: And that's Exhibit 816.

MR. NICE: Yes. Thank you.

Q. It's on the last page, and I'd like your comment on it. It's the last paragraph, that begins: "A question arises." So it will be on our page 11, the last page of the article for you. It says: "A question arises what will happen if the amendments of the constitution in Serbia cannot be carried out according to the constitutional procedure as set in its constitution?"

Have you found that?

A. Yes.

Q. "That depends on the political consequences which could be ³⁵³⁶⁶ provoked by that fact. If such a dilemma is established, it should be evaluated what will be given the priority - observing of the constitution or survival of the state. In such a situation, we are of the opinion that it should not be allowed by any means that the law should triumph even if that means the fall of the state: Fiat iustitia pereat mundus. A constitution is always a particularly political and not only a legal act, differently from the law. Constitution is always an expression of the ratio of political forces, and so it cannot be expected that the principle of legality would be to that extent strictly observed, as is the case with law. Disruptions of the constitutional continuity - the non-constitutional amendments of the constitution - in the world are a clear phenomenon --

A. Yes, frequent occurrence.

Q. "-- independent of the political culture of a country. In a changed ratio of political forces, why would a regulation, which is obviously a nonsense, be unalterable, and enjoy asylum, only because it is set in the constitution which is practically made unalterable. The criterion of constitutionality in democracies was always the will of the people and its great majority. A people are anyhow more important than a constitution."

This conclusion in specific terms says that the law will not triumph but the will of the people will, doesn't it?

A. Mr. Nice, I wrote this article in my capacity as a scholar, and I signed it in that capacity. Are you now accusing me or blaming me for my scholarly ideas? ³⁵³⁶⁷

Q. My question to you was and is: By this article and this part of the article, you are proposing - I didn't use that word but I do - proposing arguing for the supremacy of the will of the people over the rule of law, and nothing could be clearer.

A. The law can have supremacy only if it is an expression of the will of the people. Otherwise, it has -- it is not grounded. It has no foundation. And let me repeat once again that I wrote this as a scholar, not a political office-holder. At the time in 1998, I held no public office. These are my scholarly views and positions. And if you now take me to account for that, that means that we are returning to the times of inquisition.

Q. My suggestion to you is that it was your willingness to take, shall we say, a liberal view of the law that made you extremely useful to this accused over the decade that was to follow. You remained useful to him in various ways, as we shall see, throughout that period of time, turning the law not to the advantage of mankind but to the advantage of this single individual, the accused. Do you accept that you turned the law whenever you could to the advantage of this accused?

A. These are your qualifications, Mr. Nice. If that is your opinion, so be it. I will not interfere with that. However, I did not really expect you to state an opinion of that nature in a courtroom.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I think we'll have to take the break now. We'll break until tomorrow morning, 9.00 a.m.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, if it's not too much trouble, could you please establish whether Mr. Nice intends to conclude ³⁵³⁶⁸ his cross-examination tomorrow, because it is important for me to know that for my next witness so I can adjust my schedule.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I'm certainly not in a position to forecast that I will conclude tomorrow. I will certainly do my best, if I can, to conclude tomorrow, but there are a number of matters this witness has gone into of some detail, and what I propose to do so far as matters of law properly subject to legal expertise is concerned is to try and at least identify such issues as may be relevant to the Chamber through the witness and then we can discuss perhaps later whether further expert evidence is required.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, in that case, you should have a witness in readiness.

MR. NICE: I'm pretty sure I will take all of tomorrow.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It won't be necessary to have a witness in readiness for tomorrow.

We are adjourned.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.56 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the 20th day

of January, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.