³⁵⁸¹³

Tuesday, 8 February 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Before you recommence your examination-in-chief, Mr. Milosevic, may I remind court-assigned counsel and yourself of the Prosecution's motion concerning the recalling of the witness Ivan Kristan and to remind you that it is still open to you to make a response to that motion if you wish.

MR. KAY: I've actually drafted it and e-mailed it to Ms. Higgins yesterday but failed to attach it, a frequent failing of mine, so it will be filed later on today.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Kay.

WITNESS: MITAR BALEVIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kristan --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Balevic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Balevic, rather, you remain subject to the declaration that you made.

Mr. Milosevic, you may start.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] We left off before the break with some data in tab 4. ³⁵⁸¹⁴

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I should like to mention to you, Mr. Robinson, that the white books that we mentioned and that you marked for identification, I did believe that they had already been introduced as exhibits, but then I shall be tendering them, since they haven't, through the next witness. I have the grounds and foundation to do that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So without going into establishing or, rather, going into those exhibits now, Mr. Balevic, bearing in mind the situation that prevailed in Kosovo, you were there at the time and you're well aware of it, I should like to say that from the beginning of 1995, as it says in this book, that Albanian terrorism began from 1998 -- 1995 to 1998. And on page 4, paragraph 4, it says: "From the beginning of 1995 to the end of 1998, Albanian terrorist bands or groups carried out 1.484 --" "Between early 1995 and the end of 1998, Albanian terrorist gangs mounted a total of 1.845 armed attacks on both members and installations of the Serbian Ministry of the Interior," et cetera, et cetera. And in the following paragraph, it says that 364 people were killed. Among them were 122 police officers, 242 citizens of Kosovo and Metohija, 97 of whom were Albanians. And at the same time, 605 people were injured, whether seriously or lightly, et cetera. And it also says that 249 people were abducted.

Now, my question to you, Mr. Balevic, is this: Who were the victims of the Albanian terrorists in Kosovo and Metohija during the material time, the time you are testifying to, or to be more specific, 1995 when the KLA appeared with all its activities up until the end of ³⁵⁸¹⁵ 1999?

A. Mr. President, the victims of Albanian terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija, and that's what this book talks about, the passage you read out, were not only the Serbs and Montenegrins but also the Albanians and other people who were not Albanians. Unfortunately, after the signing of your agreement on the 13th of October with Holbrooke, according to these facts and figures, about 50 Albanians were killed and 27 kidnapped. I'm going to quote one example, the killing of -- in Novo Selo near Vucitrn in June 1998 - I think it was 1998 - of Zejnula Bunjaku just because he was married to a Serb woman.

According to this information, it also says that more than -- more Albanians were killed than -- from their -- from the hands of their compatriot terrorists than were killed during the whole war, and a lot did lose their lives during the war. And I'm sure you all know or, rather, that you know of one case in point, and that was on the 14th of April, if my memory serves me, on the road between Prizren and Djakovica. I think the village's name was Bistrazin, when a column was bombed, a column of Albanians and about 100 Albanians were killed as a result. So that large number of Albanians were killed -- more Albanians were killed at the hands of the terrorists than in clashes with the state police, in fact.

Q. You mentioned just now what happened after the agreement between myself and Mr. Holbrooke. Despite that agreement and the agreement reached that a verifying mission should come in, did the attacks by Albanian terrorists continue in Kosovo and Metohija?

A. After your agreement with Holbrooke -- actually, this just meant ³⁵⁸¹⁶ an agreement for the Serb side, was binding on the Serb side for the army and the police, which on the 26th, the Yugoslav army began to go back to barracks, and all 20 remaining checkpoints were abolished, disbanded, so that Serbia or, rather, the state, the army and the police complied with what you undertook to perform under the Holbrooke agreement, but unfortunately, the other side did not comply. Quite the contrary; they received support and a free reign to carry on even more violent terror against the Serbs and Montenegrins, and this was confirmed by the killings that took place afterwards. And the mass exodus. People were leaving en masse more so than before the agreement. And then the other crimes against the Serbs, Montenegrins and indeed Albanians that they committed.

Q. Very well, Mr. Balevic. Let's now move on briefly to another matter. I'm going to ask you about just some events which you yourself were able to witness, I believe. You're not from Pec yourself, but you know the family -- the Trifovic family from Pec very well. What happened to them on the 14th of December, 1998? What happened to that family?

A. Yes, I do know the family well. The Trifovic family, we have some Kumship relations. They were godfather or parents to one of my cousins. There were four brothers and they worked in the railway company where I was the manager. I don't know the young men who lost their lives, but I do know the family, and I knew the father of the boy Dragan Trifovic, and his name was Vojin, and it is the grandson of Dusan Trifovic. The tragedy that befell that family, according to what I had heard because I went to pay my respects and condolences, I wasn't able to go to it the funeral myself because the roads were blocked so you had to go through Kosovska ³⁵⁸¹⁷ Mitrovica, Crna Gora and Rosanj, anybody wishing to go attend the funeral, and the official people went by helicopter from Pristina to Pec to attend. But according to what I was told and what I heard and what I learnt from friends and family who attended the funeral themselves, and from other people too, there was such a lot of sadness, it was such a great tragedy that if we were to compare it, we can say it was like the execution of the pupils in Kragujevac, of schoolchildren in 1991 but not by virtue of its mass character.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Please just tell us what happened to the family.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I'm sorry. The terrorists mowed them down in the Panda cafe while they were sitting and relaxing. A band of them entered, four or five of them, and shot them down. They were bullet-ridden, and the bodies were completely mutilated from the bullets in this cafe, the Panda cafe. And it is interesting to note that a student by the name Ivan Radovic who was killed on the occasion as well whose father subsequently, Bogdan Radovic, was kidnapped and his fate is not known, and his uncle Milos Radovic from Vitomirica in his -- was killed in his own house, in his own home because he didn't want to leave his home and move out, and he was killed because he was a Serb. So that was done by a group of terrorists in the Panda cafe where they were sitting quietly. They were mowed down by firearms, bullet-ridden.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Balevic, you yourself saw the aftereffects of the Galerija tragedy in Pristina, Cafe Gallery in Pristina. What do you know about that? ³⁵⁸¹⁸

A. The crimes committed on that territory of Pristina were numerous. There were many more of them. This was one cafe that was located in the centre of town, close to the electrical distribution company building, where once again a terrorist group stormed the building and opened up fire, a burst of gunfire, wounding seven young men. I came the next day, the following day. I wasn't able to go there that very night. I didn't dare go because there was a security hazard, and I saw that there were pools of blood all over the place, shattered glass, shattered furniture, tables and chairs. It was terrible sight to behold. Unable to describe the horror of it after that terrorist attack.

Q. Mr. Balevic, you've just described to us some of the things that you talked about; two attacks on premises where the owners were Serbs and the victims were Serbs. Do you happen to remember an attack on the premises of an Albanian, owned by an Albanian?

A. Yes, Mr. President, I do. A grocery store that was owned by Enver Shala, for example, in the Dijana [phoen] settlement, near the new market, Nova Pijaca, across the road from the post office. On the 6th of February 1999 it was blown up. There was a large explosion. It was blown up and Enver Shala, the proprietor of the grocery store, was killed and two of his workers, employees. The explosion was so strong that the windows were shattered on the post office building which was across the road, about 100 metres away from the grocery shop itself.

Q. Tell me now, please, Mr. Balevic, how did this affect you? When I say "you," I mean the Serbs and Montenegrins living in Kosovo and Metohija. How did you feel when you heard about the crimes committed in ³⁵⁸¹⁹ the village of Klecka, Djordjeni [phoen] near Decani, not far from the bauxite mine near the source of the river Mirusa, for example? What effect did that have on you?

A. Well, those are the most terrible executions sites in Kosovo and Metohija. Klecka, for example, was terrible and had the effect that it speeded up, accelerated, the exodus of the Serbs and Montenegrins and not -- the non-Albanian population loyal to the state of Serbia who had good relations with the Serb population, they continued to leave the area, to move out. Security was taxed to a maximum. General jeopardy. There was no safety and security over there regardless of the authorities that remained.

Klecka, and you can see this from the documents and information, was a stronghold for the terrorists, and according to our information or, rather, the information -- official information from the SUP of Pristina, provided by the SUP, there were about 150 terrorists and 22 Serbs were killed on that occasion, but the order of the killings was such -- actually, they had a warehouse there and a prison there and a crematorium of an -- unprecedented since World War II, and I don't think that history will ever see the likes of that again because I'm sure the international community will never allow anything like that to happen. These people were first tortured and then they were killed, and then they were tied with wires and taken off to the Klecka crematorium. Not all the bodies were burnt, whether because there was not enough space in the crematorium or because the temperature hadn't been set properly, so parts of the mutilated and semi-burnt bodies were found dug near the crematorium with ³⁵⁸²⁰ their legs tied with wire. And this is confirmation and proof. And this is something that the international journalists were able to learn, and that was the official statement made by the Pot Parol [phoen] of the SUP of Pristina, Bozidar Pilic.

The other execution site or crime site for the Albanian people was Glodjane because they were killed there. It is between Decani and Djakovica. That's where it is located, that crime spot, where about 40 dead bodies were found. 20 were buried. They were unidentified bodies, 12 were identified bodies, and the secrets of the Radonjicko lake will never be uncovered and how many bodies there are in the lake there. There were young people there -- children, in fact, from the age of 8 upwards -- and it is claimed --

MR. NICE: Interrupt for a minute. I have no idea what the witness's source of this information for this material is. It's all extremely detailed. It's unlikely I shall be able to deal with it in cross-examination, and in any event it's probably not relevant. I'm not going to object to it's being given but I ought to explain my position right away.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice. And, Mr. Milosevic, I didn't stop the witness, but I've already made it clear that I don't like long narratives. You ought to be asking the witness specific questions. For example, you could have asked him about the second alleged execution site. So please bring this narrative to a close as quickly as possible, Mr. Balevic, and then we'll have another question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. ³⁵⁸²¹

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Balevic, just complete what you were saying about the second execution site or crime site. You said that some dozen people were killed there. Tell us who those people were and what information you have about that.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I have not come here to tell you stories, nor is that my wish, but unless I tell narratives at length, I'm afraid that you won't be able to understand what these execution sites mean to the Serbs.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Balevic, I have stopped you. You will follow my instructions and the evidence will be given in accordance with those instructions. It's a matter of how the evidence is given not the evidence itself. I don't like long narratives because it's difficult to understand. I like questions and short answers.

Go ahead, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Balevic, how many people were killed at that second execution site or crime site? And you spoke about the village of Djakovica.

A. About 40 were established and they say that there were six more burial sites that have not been uncovered yet. Amongst them there are Albanians. Twelve were buried and identified at Djakovica, and 20 remain unidentified bodies, and those are the official data sent out by the chief of SUP.

Q. And what about the third execution site that you mentioned a moment ago? Just briefly, please. ³⁵⁸²²

A. The bauxite mine where five dead bodies were found. There were more, but the others were not uncovered.

Q. Mr. Balevic, you are from Kosovo Polje yourself. Tell us, please, what happened with the vice-president of the Municipal Assembly of Kosovo Polje, Zvonko Bojanic on the 18th of December, 1998.

A. Vice-president Zvonko Bojanic was killed. He was kidnapped on the 17th, killed on the 18th of December, 1998 in a violent way. Terrorists stormed his house, took him outside, tied up his brother. Another relative who was there, a woman, was shut up. They took him off in a Mercedes, looted the house, took all the valuables, the gold, the jewellery, and everything they were able to take, and took him off in the direction of Lapusnik. And according to the reports, he was killed near Careva Cesma and the dead body, mutilated, was found. He was so mutilated that not even his mother would have recognised him.

Q. Do you have any knowledge about the reactions on the part of our forces of the interior, the interior forces with respect to these terrorist attacks? And I'm talking about your personal knowledge.

A. My personal knowledge is this: Our forces, that is to say the state forces, when I say "our forces," the state forces of Serbia, responded to the attacks, and I personally toured and visited our bases. That was in Lapusnik, Olovac, Crni Luk, Malisevo and Podgradje. I have proof and evidence of where I was, the tour I made. And they convinced me that they were able to have law and order prevail. And I should also like to confirm that at the railroad crossings on the 3rd of May -- 23rd of May, 1993, there was a classical ambush in which two policemen were killed ^{35823 BLANK PAGE 35824} and five wounded, whereas on the 28th of February, 1998, in the village of Likosane, four people were killed, four policemen, two were wounded from an ambush. And this confirms and shows that killings took place from an ambush and our organs, the state organs, had to respond by opening fire when the need arose.

Let me also add this: When Zvonko Bojanic was killed, I omitted to say that a minute ago, the village of Vasiljevo was surrounded in order to catch a terrorist, and the commander, who was nicknamed Sultan, was there, and he held the village under siege, but the order came that the forces were to withdraw and not to attack the village and not jeopardise the lives of the inhabitants.

Q. Tell me, please, what was the behaviour and conduct -- and may I just put something right. A moment ago, on the 23rd of May, 1993, I think it should be 1998. Did you mean to say 1998 when you spoke about that railway crossing?

A. The 23rd of May, 1993.

Q. I understand, and the other incident took place in 1998?

A. Yes, that's right. They were different periods. I was just telling you about the killings; 1993 and 1998.

Q. Tell me, please, what did you personally, and according to what you learnt, know about the behaviour of our army and our police force and our security forces vis-a-vis the civilian population?

A. According to my knowledge and what I saw and what I became convinced of is that our forces never attempted to jeopardise the population, the Albanian population, except what happened when they were ³⁵⁸²⁵ attacked, except when under attack from an ambush or from sniper fire when they responded, fire meeting fire.

Q. Mr. Radovic [as interpreted], would you answer my question, please. I did not ask you how they reacted towards the terrorists, what their reactions were there when they shot at them. What I'm asking you is what was the relationship toward the civilian population. So not those who were shooting at them.

A. Mr. President, they were protecting and indeed protected equally the Albanian people and the Serb and Montenegrin inhabitants without any differentiation between the two groups.

Q. At one of the meetings that you attended by virtue of your office and post in Pristina at the time when terrorism escalated, and that meeting was also attended by high-ranking state and party officials coming in from Belgrade. They were the top state and party leaders, in fact, of their day and they had come in from Belgrade. To the best of your knowledge with respect to the measures, anti-terrorist measures, what was said at the meeting of the provincial board, the meeting that you attended yourself?

A. It was an expanded meeting of the provincial board, Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. When did the meeting take place?

A. I'm sorry, I can't remember. I didn't make a note of the date.

Q. Well, tell us roughly.

A. Roughly prior to the war, just before the beginning of the war, which would make it towards the end of 1998 or thereabouts, but as I say, ³⁵⁸²⁶ I didn't make a note of the date so I don't want to guess. There were several such meetings, in fact. That was the last one, which would make it the end of 1998. And at that meeting, among other things, calls were made for and let me say that Milomir Minic attended the meeting, Gorica Gajevic, too, Tomic, Dragan, Sainovic and others - I don't remember their names just now - but they demanded the liquidation of Albanian terrorism, that the state should liquidate Albanian terrorism. And that was not only brought up at that meeting. You received an official letter from the funeral of the young man in Pec, six of them, from the wives and mothers of Pec, to put a stop to Albanian terrorism. They got together and wrote you an official letter as president of the Municipal Board of Klina, that terrorism should be stopped, and many others, too.

Q. I understand that, Mr. Balevic, but tell us what the relationship was towards the citizens of Kosovo and Metohija themselves. When I say "citizens," I mean both the Serbs and the Albanians and Montenegrins and Turks and everybody else living there. What was the relationship and attitude of the state leadership and provincial leadership towards the general inhabitants?

A. Well, linked to that question and the answers that we were given, this is what we were told: They said that there would be a political settlement to resolve the crisis in Kosovo and Metohija and that there cannot be a frontal attack which would jeopardise innocent citizens because the terrorists would take them as a human shield, and that was the response, that was the answer. And that is why the Serb -- the Serb ³⁵⁸²⁷ people were not happy to see that terrorism had not been liquidated yet in Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. And what can you tell us about this famous humanitarian or infamous catastrophe and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and Metohija? What is your knowledge about that?

A. My personal knowledge, and I'm talking about Pristina, and I'll tell you something further afield as well but this is my personal knowledge: Ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and Metohija was the ethnic cleansing of Serbs and Montenegrins and that ethnic cleansing took place throughout the 20th century. The columns of Albanians that I came across in Pristina, for instance, were such that they did not look to me as if they were refugee columns at all because they were going by slowly past the railway station, the bus station, carrying small bags. They didn't look the way that Serb columns looked. So these columns to me appeared to be sort of construed, manufactured columns, staged columns to look like refugees.

I spoke to many Albanians, and I tried to prevail upon them to go back home. I did not succeed. But the answers I was given from them, they said we have to go. There was no other answer that I received. So the ethnic cleansing of Albanians or any policy along those lines, to the best of my knowledge, simply didn't exist, and I can confirm this by presenting you with a piece of information.

Q. I don't know what information you mean.

A. Well, I'll give it briefly. Pristina, for example, before the war had 240.000-odd inhabitants. Of that number, 44.000 [Realtime transcript ³⁵⁸²⁸ read in error"^"] were Serbs and Montenegrins. Today Pristina numbers over 500.000 inhabitants, of which 120 are Serbs. So who was ethnically cleansed there? See for yourself. You can see that it was the Serbs who were ethnically cleansed.

Q. Very well. Now, Mr. Balevic, from the facts and figures that I have, or information I have, I can see that you personally at the railway station in Pristina, between the 25th and 30th of April, 1999, took care of --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the transcript doesn't --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The transcript doesn't show the number of Serbs that the witness said were there prior to the conflict. It says Pristina before the war had -- of that number --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, about 44.000. I apologise. 44.000. I apologise, Mr. Robinson, for that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It's not your mistake, Mr. Balevic, it's just that there was a slip in the transcript. You gave us the correct figure, I believe. Now, tell us what happened at the railway station in Pristina between the 25th and 30th of April, 1999.

A. There were several hundred Albanians there. We didn't count them all but I was informed by the office and the staff. I was present at the staff for taking in refugees from Srpska Krajina. Dragan Pelevic [phoen] was his name. And our warehouse was close by the railway station, our food warehouse for the refugees coming in from Republika Srpska. We were ³⁵⁸²⁹ told that there were several hundred Albanians there at the railway station, women and children, and I issued him an order to take from the warehouse which stored food for refugees, to take the food necessary - bread, tins, biscuits, milk - and to distribute it among the Albanians there. That is what he did and he kept taking food there for three days, for as long as they were there. I don't know where they left afterwards. Now, when I asked him whether they were receiving food, most of them were receiving food. Some refused to receive food, but he noticed that they took food from others afterwards, so that we assisted and helped out those Albanians, not refugees, Albanians who were at the railway station at Pristina.

Q. All right. So when you saw to those Albanians at the railway station in Pristina, tell me, please, did anybody force them to board the trains and leave Pristina at all? Was there any police there exerting pressure under -- over them?

A. No pressure was brought to bear against the Albanians at the railway station there. Now, how they were brought there I don't really know but there was no pressure being exerted. And let me tell you something else that I think will be interesting for you. I was a member of the management board of the Kosmet Tours company, which was the transporter at Kosovo and Metohija because they no longer transported things abroad, but Ivan Ivancevic called me up and said the Albanians keep coming in and asking for buses to take them to Skopje and Prizren, probably further on to Albania, I assume. And this is the answer I gave him: I said, Ivancevic, don't you and I be factors who are going to ³⁵⁸³⁰ accelerate the exodus of Albanians, moving out of Albanians. He rang me up the next day, said they are very persistent, they want to pay me, and I gave him the same answer I gave him the first time: Don't let us speed up this process. And then when I went to see him in his office later there was an Albanian by the name of Coca there. I repeated what I had said and I -- afterwards, I left the office and I said, well, you can do what you like but my advice to you is not to do that. Don't engage in things like that, and I'm sure Ivancevic will bear me out.

Q. Very well. Now, do you have any knowledge at all about people expelling Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija and sending them to Macedonia, for example? Because you were head of the railway system in Kosovo and Metohija, you occupied that kind of post, so during that time, the time of the NATO aggression, the bombings, did anybody send Albanians to Macedonia or Albanian?

A. I have no such knowledge and information, nothing about that. In my own building, the building that I lived in, there were four Albanians and three Serbs, for example.

Q. Do you want to say that there were four Albanian families and three Serbian families?

A. Yes, that's right. Four Albanian families and three Serbian families living in my residential building. Three of the families went off. They left somewhere, but they returned the same day, the very same day when our country was bombed, which means that they were somewhere nearby. They hadn't gone far off. And as their neighbour, I protected their apartments because there were Serb bandits and criminals that ³⁵⁸³¹ engaged in unauthorised activities, but unfortunately, they destroyed my flat. They looted my flat. So that was how they repaid me. Not all of them but just several of them. And I don't have any information about any pressure brought to bear against them and forcing them to leave by the police or anybody else.

Q. And what happened after the arrival of the international forces in Kosovo and Metohija, for example? How long were you -- did you stay there for?

A. I stayed until the 26th of June in Kosovo and Metohija, and after the arrival of the KFOR forces, we Serbs and Montenegrins and Albanians, except the terrorists, of course, expected that the KFOR forces would ensure peace, freedom for the entire area and all the population there, that they would bring law and order. They came in with great pomp and ceremony. They were greeted with flowers and flags. I don't mind this, that was quite all right. But this was a sort of a foretaste that things would not end well. Unfortunately, when the forces arrived, what happened was that people continued to leave and the terror against the Serbs and Montenegrins continued in the presence of those forces, and there is a lot of evidence to bear that out and I shall be going into that later.

Q. Well, what did you want to tell us in connection with that? But just briefly, please. Go ahead but briefly.

A. Well, at the moment the KFOR forces entered -- and I don't remember the exact date, I think that it was around about the 10th, but I don't remember exactly. Anyway, when the forces arrived, the Serbs and Montenegrins continued to leave the Prizren area of Suva Reka because our ³⁵⁸³² forces had to withdraw from that area and the KFOR forces took over. But the exodus of the Serbs and Montenegrins continued and can -- I can tell you something more about their leaving, that exodus, if you wish.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You say when the KFOR forces arrived, "the Serbs and Montenegrins continued to leave the Prizren area because our forces had to withdraw and the KFOR forces took over." But I don't quite understand why the Serbs had to leave because the KFOR forces took over and your forces left the area. Could you explain that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can. Mr. Robinson, our forces left on the 26th of June. The police and army returned to their garrisons. No. After the signing of the agreement, but they left at the end of June, because the KFOR forces did not protect them from terrorism, the torching of houses, and the exodus of Serbs and Montenegrins. It was continued. This process continued. So that is the difference between the period when our forces left and the forces of KFOR came on the spot, so that the Serbs and the Montenegrins did not have any protection. They did not enjoy any protection. And according to my information and what was heard at the time, the KFOR forces were predestined to protect the Albanians, whereas we expected them to offer protection to the Serbs, Montenegrins and Albanians. The Serbs were not protected, and the process of their exodus and the torching of looting continued.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me this now, Mr. Balevic: The Albanian terrorists, the KLA, continued their rampage before the eyes of KFOR.

A. Yes, with unabated violence. Even more so in fact than was the ³⁵⁸³³ case previously.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... in the form of a question. It's a comment at the least.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. You made something in the manner of a comment. Continue.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. [No interpretation]

A. [No interpretation]

JUDGE ROBINSON: We're missing the translation now.

THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the English booth now?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I'm now hearing the English.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Where do you live now, Mr. Balevic?

A. I now live in Krusevac. I'm a displaced person. I'm a refugee from Kosovo, because there were 12 other Balevic families, over 60 members of the family left Kosovo, and we live in Krusevac.

Q. Where do your family members live?

A. They're all over the place from the south of Serbia to Banat, Belgrade and Nis.

Q. What did you leave behind in Kosovo and Metohija? When I say "you," I'm not referring only to you personally but members of your family.

A. Everything. The members of my family left their apartments. I sold my apartment for peanuts because I simply could not live there. And, for example, in my daughter's apartment there is an Albanian living there ^{35834 BLANK PAGE 35835} who won't leave it. Everything was razed to the ground in other places, especially Milorad and Obrad. Then the graves of my parents are there, of my uncles, my brothers. My youth remained there. Everything I created, everything I did, it's all there where I lived before.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, let him tell us, when did he leave? When precisely did he leave Kosovo?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the 26th of June, 1999. Before that, I left Pristina on the 19th. I fled to Kosovo Polje to stay with my daughter, because the Siptar whose shop I kept, Fadil Islami, he gave me his besa. That's what the Albanians call their word of honour. He asked through my son to give him the key to my apartment. I took his word. However, unfortunately, he destroyed everything and he took everything away, including family photographs, in order to prove how loyal he was to terrorism rather than to good neighbourly relations.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. These decades of your life there and your social activity in Kosovo, but over all that time what were your relations like with other Albanians? With your neighbours, people you worked with, with whom you communicated in everyday life, what kind of relations did you have with them?

A. It is my assertion that you will not find an Albanian who will say anything negative about my behaviour except for those who are malicious, that I was always in favour of good neighbourly relations between them and my family and my relatives and our community in general. That is what I can say for my part. There were very good relations from the other side ³⁵⁸³⁶ too. I have to say that. However, later on, when terrorism came to the fore and these claims for having Kosovo turned into a republic, then all these relations were disrupted and became untenable.

Q. You had friends among the Albanians; yes or no.

A. Yes.

Q. You had friends among the Albanians.

A. I had many friends among the Albanians. They condemned this, although not publicly. Some actually spoke out in public, too. Perhaps I could mention their names but I think there is no need for me to mention that here for the sake of their safety. They condemned this kind of behaviour, but they had to obey the orders issued by their leaders.

Q. All right. Since you had Albanian friends, how are your friends doing? Do you know how they reacted to the fact that you had to move out of Kosovo?

A. They said, Mitar, you're good neighbour, you're a good friend, you're a good man, but you're a Serb and you have to leave Kosovo and Metohija. Quite a few things were ascribed to me because I chaired the meeting of citizens in Kosovo Polje but primarily because I'm a Serb or, rather, Montenegrin. That's it.

Q. All right. When you left on the 26th of June, 1999, was that the first time that you had to leave Kosovo and Metohija?

A. Mr. President, can I just say something? When KFOR came -- can I just say this very briefly? Serbs and Montenegrins moved out in six different directions. These were streams of persons who were moving towards -- from Pec to Montenegro, from Klina to Mitrovica, from Kosovska ³⁵⁸³⁷ Pomerje [phoen] to Bujanovac, from Prizren to Mitrovica, from Kosovo Polje to Merdari and Nis. These were long columns, I have to point that out, and this is after the arrival of KFOR. Could you please repeat the question that you really wanted me to answer. I'm sorry.

Q. You said you moved out on the 26th of June, 1999. Was that the first time you had to move out of Kosovo and Metohija?

A. Unfortunately, this is the second time I had to do that. In '41 I lived in Budoslav [phoen], the municipality of Klina nowadays when everything was burned down, destroyed. With my family I had to move to Pec, but I got to Albania and I was also arrested and I was sent to prison by some kind of Skender division.

Q. How old were you then?

A. I was 13 at the time.

Q. Can you make any comparisons between those who expelled you in 1941 and those who expelled you in 1999 in terms of the resources they had, the way they behaved?

A. When the first onslaught came in 1941, when the Italian, German and other occupation forces came to the territory of Kosovo and Metohija then, so during this first onslaught there were torchings, killings, lootings, expulsions, rapes too, but sporadically. However, in terms of the method used and the brutality involved, it differs from the terror against the Serbs and Montenegrins in the period that came after that. It was more massive, it was more cruel, it was more -- it was worse.

Q. Are you going to go back to Kosovo, Mr. Balevic?

A. I'm going to go back. Not only I but all members of my family and ³⁵⁸³⁸ all Serbs and Montenegrins when a proper government is established there. The rule of the Republic of Serbia, when peace is ensured, equality for all citizens who live there, because Resolution 1244, unfortunately did not manage to secure that. And I think that this Resolution should be written in black letters for Serbs and Montenegrins. So it's not only I who is going to return. All Serbs and Montenegrins are going to return once there is an authority that can ensure peace and order.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Balevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no further questions, Mr. Robinson.

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

Cross-examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Mr. Balevic, putting it very shortly and subject to your last observations about people who you knew on a personal basis, your testimony over a couple of days has been highly critical of Kosovo Albanians. Would that be fair?

A. No, that would not be fair. You are saying that, and I do not accept that. I was critical towards terrorists who were ethnic Albanians, not towards ethnic Albanians as such, the Albanian nationality. I never linked it to that because Serbs can live with ethnic Albanians, can go on living with ethnic Albanians. So your statement is incorrect.

Q. Very well. You have so far, I think, said nothing or almost nothing critical of the behaviour of Serbs individually or collectively. ³⁵⁸³⁹ Is that a fair representation of what you've told the Judges?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you accept that in the area where you were living Serbs committed any wrongs? "Smetkopje" [phoen], to use the word "crimes," but do you accept that the Serbs committed any wrongs against the Kosovo Albanians, or are the Serbs blameless?

A. Yes. There were Serbs, but unfortunately they are not Serbs. These were Serb bullies, Serb bandits, Serb criminals, Serb drunkards who committed misdeeds that do not belong to the Serb people. There were torchings of Albanian houses. Albanian shops were looted. For example, one street in Pristina, which is called Peyton Place, that is what people call it, quite a few Albanian shops were torched there but also some Serb shops. In Gagani [phoen], my neighbourhood, also some shops were looted. I tried to defend, during the day, one shop, but I almost lost my life in doing so. So it did happen. We condemned that. We the Serb people condemned that, and there were arrests by the MUP authorities. There will be testimonies to that effect from the MUP authorities.

Q. Do you accept that there were killings of Albanians by Serbs?

A. No. I'm not aware of any such cases.

Q. And --

JUDGE BONOMY: I wonder if I can ask a question. When you say, Mr. Balevic, that there will be testimonies to that effect, that's about arrests from the MUP authorities, what do you mean by that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, probably there will be witnesses here who will confirm how many proceedings were instituted ³⁵⁸⁴⁰ against those who were involved in destruction, in the looting of Albanian shops and torching of Albanian shops. There will probably be witnesses and also there will be statistics to show how many people were detained at the SUP and how many charges were brought against people. I can refer to the name of the head of the MUP at that time --

JUDGE BONOMY: So you obviously have knowledge about the preparation of the case and the evidence that is to come later in the case; is that right?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no. It's just my assumption that I'm not the last witness who is going to testify about Kosovo and Metohija in the Defence of President Milosevic. There will be witnesses who will confirm that.

JUDGE BONOMY: No. I mention the point because I see that you spend a great deal of time reading from papers in front of you, and I wonder if you had some document that you constantly were reading to us.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are documents that you admitted into evidence. I don't know if they were translated. In these documents, everything that I said is written down. I spoke mainly about Pristina. And as far as I know, this was -- this document was admitted here and part of it was translated too. I know that for a fact. Now, whether you are going to value my testimony properly or not depends on your own willingness.

JUDGE BONOMY: Am I mistaken in thinking you have some handwritten notes in front of you which you refer to a great deal? No, not that document. Other papers that you have actually lying in front of you at ³⁵⁸⁴¹ the moment.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are notes from this document, from this Sleepless Night that you have reserved. Then also the Crazy Country of Serbia, a document that you also received. I just made notes so I could answer your questions and the questions of the accused faster and more efficiently.

MR. NICE:

Q. I think what His Honour wanted to know is whether the documents lying under your left hand right now are documents from which you were reading when giving evidence. Yes or no.

A. Yes.

Q. No, under your -- yes. When were those notes prepared?

A. After the questions that were put here from the very beginning and when I heard that these documents were admitted into evidence by this Court.

Q. Do the notes that you've got in front of you reflect in any way the very general evidence you were giving today about the suffering of Kosovo Albanians?

A. No. I talked about the suffering of the Serbs and Montenegrins, not the Kosovo Albanians. You've made a mistake in that respect.

Q. My error entirely. Thank you for correcting me. Did you have the opportunity of reading from those notes when you were talking in very general terms about the suffering of the Serbs and Montenegrins?

A. No. I knew that by heart. I didn't need any notes. I just needed to register the dates involved, because dates involve numbers. I ³⁵⁸⁴² know everything by heart. I remember things very well, but dates are not easy to remember. It's probably not easy for you to remember such things either.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm sorry I not to have alerted the Court to the reading of documents today. I had been alive to the issue on the last occasion but I didn't have a sight line this morning as to what he was doing.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Do I understand that the notes were prepared after the break, after you last gave evidence, Mr. Balevic? Notes from which you --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. Please, I have to give you an answer. Mr. Nice has been putting some questions in a rather provocative manner. I have your own instructions here as to how testimony should be given, and on page 8, item 1, item 1, subparagraph (B), it says -- please allow me to read this. "A witness is physically present in the courtroom and shall tell the Judges what he or she heard or saw or what he or she knows about the events that he or she is being questioned about." I have honoured this, and on the basis of this I have the right to testify about what I saw, what I heard, and what I know, and I have the right to do so unless you refute these instructions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: If you are reading from notes, the Court should be apprised of that. Mr. Milosevic knows this. We will have to determine what weight to attach to the evidence in the light of that.

JUDGE BONOMY: The reason I've raised this, Mr. Balevic, is that the first day that you gave evidence, which was the 25th of January, I ³⁵⁸⁴³ noted that you never look up when a question is asked and you're answering, and I noted it again today. You never look at anybody. You've begun to do it now, now that questions are being asked that perhaps you weren't quite aware would be asked, and it's much easier, I think, for a Judge to assess a witness if he can have some sort of eye contact with him or some reaction from him in the course of evidence, and unfortunately, much of your evidence was a sort of monotonous apparent recitation of what appeared to be documents in front of you. So it's only right that you should have an opportunity to comment on this because it may at a later stage affect my assessment of your evidence.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please, sir, Mr. Bonomy, what is your question, what is your comment, and what is a statement that you're making? Could you please distinguish between all of these things for me. If you're talking about my demeanour, about my behaviour, about where I'm looking at, I don't know what to say. Do you prefer witnesses who look you straight in the eye or those who don't?

JUDGE BONOMY: I'm now alert to the fact that you are responding to the person who is asking you the questions. You've done it with Mr. Nice. You've done it with me. But during the course of your evidence, both on the 25th and today, I particularly noted that you spent your time looking down at the desk in front of you from which I was able to see today that meant that you were reading, and I wonder if in fact you were also reading on the 25th.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well -- ³⁵⁸⁴⁴

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I was. It's just a reminder for me. It's not that I was reading. I repeat: What I read as a reminder is in the documents that you have admitted. You can check that.

JUDGE BONOMY: It's important for me to know that that's what you were doing so that later I can factor that into my assessment of your evidence and bear in mind that the reason that you were looking down is that you were reading which may mean it's entirely innocent or it may mean something else. I have to assess that later in the context of all the evidence and I just wish to give you the opportunity to explain the extent to which you were relying on notes that you had made before you gave evidence in court.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you for having said that, but I looked down even when I was not reading. I don't always have to look up, do I?

MR. NICE:

Q. And just one point arising from the questions you've recently been asked, Mr. Balevic. At one point when you were dealing with Serbs the accused corrected your answer by saying, "Did you mean to say four Serb families?" and you accepted his correction. Were you and he speaking in any sense from a prepared script of your evidence? Just yes or no.

A. No. No.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I intervened because sometimes in our country people say "three Serbs, four Albanians" but ^{35845 BLANK PAGE 35846} they're actually referring to families, and that is not readily understandable from your point of view, and that is why I asked him to explain this, three Serb families and four Albanian families. You will assume that in an apartment building there aren't three Serbs and four Albanians living there. It's families, really, so it's not the right kind of communication. I simply wanted to clarify that to make it clear, nothing more than that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice. I think we can move on now.

JUDGE BONOMY: Before you do, just let me make it clear. There is nothing in principle wrong with reading from a prepared script as well, knowing the context of this particular trial. The real issue for me is that I would like to know the extent to which that's actually happening. And I think there's been a degree of reading in this instance that we weren't alerted to.

And it would be helpful, Mr. Milosevic, if notes are being used by the witness, that we are actually alerted to that in the course of his evidence.

MR. NICE:

Q. Let me look at another document while we're on this general topic --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, I did not have the impression that Mr. Balevic was giving answers by reading. I think that even if he does have a little piece of paper in front of him, that is all too modest to cover the entirety of his statement. From what he said just now, it was my understanding that he wrote down some dates because he's ³⁵⁸⁴⁷ 75, after all, and he cannot remember each and every date off-the-cuff. He wrote down some dates, but he testified about matters that he knows about, not -- he wasn't involved in reading.

MR. NICE: If the witness can have a look at the Serbian version of this. And if the usher, Mr. Prendergast, would be good enough to place the English version on the overhead projector. We needn't spend very long with it.

Q. This is a document, is it not, page 1, Mr. Balevic, About Us. It's about an organisation called Freedom, or Sloboda. Yes?

A. Yes.

Q. And if we turn on the English version to the third page, you'll see that the National Committee for the Liberation of President Slobodan Milosevic has managing board members. Are you a member of the managing board? You're marked as number 5, but that's alphabetical. Mitar Balevic, pensioner from Kosovo Polje.

A. I'm sorry, what's the page that you're reading from?

Q. In your version it will be --

JUDGE KWON: The second page.

MR. NICE: The second page, is it?

Q. Yes, the second page where we see your name listed.

JUDGE KWON: Number 6.

MR. NICE: Your Honour has detected an error in the translation, I think.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the first time I see that I am a member of the managing board. ³⁵⁸⁴⁸

MR. NICE:

Q. It doesn't say that. Doesn't say that. It simply says that those marked in red were members of the managing board. We only have it in black and white, and I'm asking, were you a member of the managing board?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. That's fine. If we go to the second page in the English version, and it will be part way down the first page in your version, we find amongst entries these two. A little bit lower down, please. "Freedom/Sloboda because of his brave and dignified attitude and by not recognising the aggressor Tribunal, Slobodan Milosevic once again stood up in defence of our national and state interests, in defence of freedom of each of us, in defence of all peoples."

And then it goes on to say that: "The society will gather all freedom loving people and patriots and organise, encourage and support all actions for the liberation of President Slobodan Milosevic and for termination of The Hague inquisition ..."

Are those two expressions or views that you adopt?

A. When I said that I was not a member of the managing board, I did not say that I was not a member of this association, because this association Sloboda, Freedom, is one thing, but I'm also a member of the Socialist Party of Serbia, and its president is Slobodan Milosevic. What is written in this programme is something that I as a member of this association support because I was present when it was being adopted.

Q. In assessing your evidence, are you facing a Court that you regard as an aggressor Tribunal? I need to know. We need to know. ³⁵⁸⁴⁹

A. No, I didn't say that. I never read this programme, and I never saw where this was written, that this was an aggressor Court. I have my own opinion of you, and I keep it to myself.

Q. You see, I can't help --

A. And I know that it was established for the former Yugoslavia. I know that, and I'm also aware of these instructions of yours.

Q. You know, don't you, Mr. Balevic, that the proper form of address of a Judge sitting in Court is "Your Honour," and I can't help but notice - everybody will have noticed - that you have been allowed to follow the accused's habit of addressing the Judges incorrectly by their surnames while you address the accused as "Mr. President." Just help us, are you prepared to continue with your evidence using the correct form of address for the Judges of this Court or not?

A. I am prepared to use the same words that I used until now, and these are the same forms of address that were used by many statesmen who came here to testify before I did. They said "sir" rather than "Your Honour."

Q. Very well. I'm sure it's a matter for you to choose. Let's go back to this morning's evidence, and we'll have a look at another exhibit before we go back and start with things chronologically. Can we have a look, please, at Exhibit 106, which is the "As Seen, As Told" book prepared by OSCE.

And if Mr. Prendergast could put it on the overhead projector at page 235, and anybody who has it may also want to have their finger in, I think, page 350, which is where the foot or end notes can be found. ³⁵⁸⁵⁰ Mr. Balevic, this is an exhibit in the case, and it contains a summary of findings by the OSCE in respect of Kosovo Polje. I'm going to read just a few passages from it, and I want your comment on whether the report is accurate. Do you follow?

A. Well, I'd have to read this first, all of this that is written here. There is a lot to be read here, and I'd have to read it in order to be able to give you an answer. Perhaps you could read it out for me, because you have better facilities for organising that so that I can hear it in Serbian. Please go ahead.

Q. Left-hand column, towards the bottom of the page, please. We see here a summary, picking it up at the -- towards the conclusion of the first paragraph: "In the second half of June 1998, the UCK occupied the coal mine in Veliki Bulatovac [phoen] and the village of Arde [phoen] or Harde [phoen] Obilic." Is that correct? Just yes or no.

A. As far as I know, yes.

Q. "On the 22nd of June, nine Serb employees of the coal mine were abducted on their way to work." Correct or incorrect?

A. Correct.

Q. "VJ and police attacked the UCK shortly afterwards. At that point almost all the inhabitants of nearby villages fled, either westward to the Drenica region or east to Prizren." Correct?

A. I am not aware of that.

Q. "Villagers also stated that in 1998, around 700 Kosovo Albanians had lost their jobs in the coal mine and were replaced by Serb workers." Correct? ³⁵⁸⁵¹

A. I'm not aware of that, and I assume that it's not correct. They left their jobs of their own free will in order to change the ethnic pattern of the population and of the work-force.

Q. So you accept, do you, that there was a change of employees, but you say there must have been an ethnic redistribution purpose behind it. Is that what you're saying?

A. No, no, no. That's what you're saying. The Albanians left their jobs in order to draw the attention of the international public to what they viewed as an injustice towards them, and they wanted to say that the situation was unfavourable for the Albanians because there were more Serbs employed than Albanians. Now, that is what I said. I disagree with what you said.

Q. Very well. So -- and was it your recollection at the time that people were giving up paid employment in their hundreds for this particular purpose? Is that really what you're saying?

A. They were leaving or giving up, I repeat, in order to draw the attention of the broader public to this injustice, and they had to leave their jobs because they were ordered by those who gave them orders at the time to do so, by those who pursued their policies then. Nobody made them leave their job on the part of the state authorities. There's not a single document that would corroborate that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're saying the whole thing was staged.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely. Absolutely correct.

JUDGE BONOMY: You suggest it was staged by whom?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You'd have to ask the Albanian ³⁵⁸⁵² leadership that, those who were in charge of the Albanian organisations there at the time.

JUDGE BONOMY: So you're talking about a form of peaceful protest. Not terrorist motivated but peaceful protest.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Leaving the workplace was done arbitrarily by the Albanians. I have been repeating that for -- I've been repeating that several times now. Please accept my answer. They were doing this on purpose in order to draw the attention of the international public to this injustice brought against them and they wanted the Serbian state to suffer the consequences of that. To be quite clear: It was not official policy to have Albanians leave their jobs.

MR. NICE: Your Honour's light's on.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Balevic, you see, you ask us to accept your answers, but you must understand that the purpose of giving evidence is to have your evidence tested, and let me just remind you of what you said in the last few answers.

His Honour Judge Robinson asked you if the whole thing was staged, and you said absolutely, absolutely correct. The next question, which logically follows, from His Honour Judge Bonomy was, by whom? And then you're unable to answer. So help us, please. What is your source of information whereby you were able to say to His Honour Judge Robinson that it was absolutely correct to say that it was staged? Where's your evidence? ³⁵⁸⁵³

A. The evidence is that the Albanians had no reason to leave their jobs, because no pressure was brought to bear against them.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... look at a few more passages of this summary.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I was wrong when I gave the page for the footnotes. The footnotes can be found, if anybody has it, on page 238. I'm sorry I not to have alerted the Court to bringing the document in in advance but we can keep our finger in both places. Back, Mr. Prendergast, please, to 235.

Q. It says this: "Police and VJ maintained intensive controls at checkpoints. At Grabovac, there was repeated looting of Kosovo Albanian property, continuing through to the end of 1998, and the police reportedly failed to investigate complaints of such crimes. One villager was reportedly killed in October 1998 when he attempted to return to Grabovac." And this is something provided by the Pristina Outreach offices report.

Now, I go back. Looting of Albanian property towards the end of 1998. True or false, or don't you know?

A. I don't know about that.

Q. One villager reportedly killed in 1998 trying to return to Grabovac. True or false or don't you know?

A. I don't know about that either.

Q. You see, because I'm going to suggest to you that this is an entirely balanced report, you'll be interested to hear the next sentence, which says this: "The UCK remained present in the mountains on the ³⁵⁸⁵⁴ western edge of the municipality, although according to the villagers the local population did not support them."

Well, is that true? Was the UCK there on the edge of the municipality, not receiving support from local villagers?

A. I don't know on the basis of what you are making these assertions. I don't know about this, because I was not such a high-ranking authority to be touring the mountains and other places where the KLA were. I didn't dare go to places like that, so I don't know about this. But of course you can assert this. That's for you to say.

Q. Mr. Balevic, let me just remind you, in answer to the accused, you gave the most wide-ranging account of crimes committed against Serbs and Montenegrins, and do you remember I stood up at one time and said I don't know what the sources are, I don't know that it's relevant, but I'm not going to interrupt. So you were allowed to give this wide-ranging account of Serb suffering.

Now, I've asked you for your knowledge or ignorance of things that happened in your own town and in your own municipality, a municipality, incidentally, that you were instrumental in setting up, as we may discover. No knowledge of the events to which I have referred at all, or is your memory selective, Mr. Balevic?

A. Whether my memory is selective or not is a provocative question, I think, Mr. Nice. I'm 76 years old. I think that you should behave properly towards me, and I ask the Presiding Judge Mr. Robinson to protect me.

I think that what is being said is exaggerated in terms of ³⁵⁸⁵⁵ Albanian suffering, and I do not know about the suffering that you have been telling me about.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me assure you that you will be protected if it is necessary.

MR. NICE: Thank you, Your Honour. If the usher could turn to the --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Mr. Robinson, but I believe that it is totally wrong to speak about my selective memory at the age of 76. I find that highly offensive, and I'm a witness here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: There's nothing improper in the question.

MR. NICE:

Q. Top right-hand column, please, if we may. This same analysis of material says -- deals with the demographic composition of Kosovo Polje as one of the only sizable towns in Kosovo where Albanians were in a minority, deals with the location of the railway line with which you are of course familiar, and then says this: "Near this railway line, many internally displaced persons from Pristina witnessed abductions, executions and the burning of bodies from March to May of 1999." So before you left the area. And if we go, please, to footnote 5 on page 238, we'll see that the person who wrote this, or the people who wrote this, Mr. Balevic, relied on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 witnesses.

Now, you've been given an opportunity to identify your sources. Here is a document that is sourced, and it says that near the railway line, executions and the burning of bodies were witnessed from March to ^{35856 BLANK PAGE 35857} May of 1999. True or false or do you say you don't know?

A. I don't know about that. What I see here is written in English, so I don't know what is written here at all. If you want me to read something, give it to me in Serbian. Or maybe I'm wrong, maybe I should learn English. So I don't know about what you've read out to me just now, because had I known about it, I would have told you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Didn't you hear it in Serbian? Wasn't it translated?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I heard it, and I said that I don't know about this. But I'm talking about actual reading. But, no, I don't know about this.

MR. NICE:

Q. So it might have happened, as reported here, that there were abductions, executions, and the burning of bodies between the start of the bombing by NATO and May, which was before the time when you left the area. It may have been those things happened; correct?

A. Yes, but until the 19th of June, I lived in Pristina, not in Kosovo Polje. You got that wrong.

Q. Not very far away. And are you suggesting that you were in some way hermetically sealed from information coming from fellow Serbs or from Albanians?

A. No. I didn't have the opportunity of following what was going on in the territory around the railway because I lived in Pristina from 1980 until the 19th of June, 1999. So I could not follow what was going on there. Also, movement was very dangerous for us at the time, for Serbs ³⁵⁸⁵⁸ and Montenegrins, that is.

Q. May I ask one last question?

JUDGE ROBINSON: One more question before the break.

MR. NICE:

Q. And again, you see, Mr. Balevic, it's just to suggest to you that the summary I'm reading to you has the characteristics of being fair. In the next paragraph deals with the presence of the OSCE/KVM and then says this: "The most prominent incident was the killing of the Serb deputy mayor of Kosovo Polje on the 17th of December, 1998. He was reputed to have been a 'moderate' Serb who did much to improve the conditions of Kosovo Albanians."

It then goes on to say, "From January to March 1999, several killings and abductions in the area were reported to KVM, the victims coming from both the Serb and Kosovo Albanian communities" And that is, as we can see, sourced in various documents and individuals. Does the report there seem to have got it right about the deputy mayor and the suffering by death of Serbs and Kosovo Albanians?

A. I attended the funeral of that vice-president of the municipality, and I gave a statement how he was killed. As for the rest that you have been asserting from this indictment of yours, I don't know about that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Balevic, we are going to take a break now for 20 minutes. We are adjourned.

--- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Please continue, Mr. Nice. ³⁵⁸⁵⁹

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Balevic, you've -- as you've explained, been around for a long time, you've been involved in politics. We're going to discover that you've been described by Mr. Dizdarevic as at one time seeming to be a moderate.

In your evidence, you used the word "Siptar." You know perfectly well how that word is regarded by Albanians. Indeed, it was a word that was banned from official use in 1968. Why did you use it?

A. Mr. Nice, this is the first time that I'm hearing that Dizdarevic seen -- referred to me as being moderate, and I thank him for that if he can hear me.

Now secondly, the word "Siptar," I used it just by the by. I had no ill intent. And up until 1968, they were called the Siptars by the Serbs and Montenegrins, but after that the Serbian dictionary was corrected on that point and no longer recognised the Siptars but referred to them as the Albanians. So that was a slip of the tongue on my part.

Q. But a slip of the tongue going back 37 years to a previous politically acceptable vocabulary. Does this reflect the way you ordinarily describe Albanians, Mr. Balevic, that it should slip out in a court of law?

A. Up until then when this was proscribed, that is to say when the new -- they began to be referred to as Albanians, everybody in Kosovo, in the state leadership and in the Serbian leadership, always used the term, or mostly used the term "Siptar," "Siptar." So that did not mean any special form of derogatory term or any insult like that, but once it was ³⁵⁸⁶⁰ changed we accepted that. So there were no political background to that. We referred to them as Siptars, but without deriding them by doing so.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Balevic, is it your understanding that today an Albanian would be offended by being referred to as a Siptar?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably.

MR. NICE:

Q. Thank you. Mr. Balevic, I'm going to go back in time, but in going back in time I pass over, as it were, your career on the railway. Just one question about that. Was there a type of train in use and purchased by your railway called a Kennedy train?

A. No.

Q. Was there an inquiry of --

A. Let me add something to that. If you mean a locomotive which -- or locomotives which were procured from Canada, diesel locomotives, then they were referred to as Kennedies because that's where they came from, but not a train. Not a train on the territory of Kosovo and Metohija was called a Kennedy train.

Q. There was an inquiry, was there, into the acquisition of those engines?

A. Not in Kosovo and Metohija but at the top of the Yugoslav railways, yes.

Q. Yes. Were you one of the people into whom that inquiry was launched?

A. No.

Q. Were you named in the inquiry at any stage? ³⁵⁸⁶¹

A. No.

Q. Are you sure about that?

A. Sure.

Q. I may return to that at a later stage.

A. You return to it.

Q. As to matters of history, Mr. Balevic, you'll understand that the Prosecution nor, I suspect, the Court, has no need to or interest in any final resolution of historical issues, but this much you can confirm for us: The view of comparatively recent history since the Second World War that you have given is a Serb view, and you will know that there is a contrary view held by Kosovo Albanians; correct?

A. And what is your question here?

Q. First that there is contrary body of opinion to the Serb view expressed by you. Am I not correct?

A. What their contrary view is is a question you're going to have to ask them and so forth. Now, what views they had, and opinions of the Serbs they had, they confirmed that since 1941 onwards. Part of the Albanian people, that is.

But I'd like to say something else here at this point. In your indictment, the so-called Kosovo indictment, you wrote paragraph 73 or 75 that Yugoslavia was formed after World War II. Yugoslavia was established after the First World War.

Q. I'm sure it's helpful for us to know the degree of your detailed knowledge --

A. Yes. ³⁵⁸⁶²

Q. -- of the indictment, but we'll do better if we move along by question and answer. And I want to establish that --

A. Yes, and --

Q. I want to establish that there's a contrary --

A. I'm going to give you an answer to that. There is a contrary opinion, but they had no reason -- the Albanians had no reason to have contrary opinions to those that the Serbs held because they enjoyed all rights. And in the state leadership from 1945 to the downfall of Yugoslavia, the Albanian leadership was represented there in the Presidency, in the first and second Presidency, in the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, and they enjoyed all rights. Therefore, they had no reason for any contrary opinions.

Q. I'm going to give you -- I'll explain exactly why in the next question but one, but I'm going to give you this chance: Men like Ibrahim Rugova or Mr. Mrovci or Veton Surroi, they are not men whom you would wish to characterise as men of violence, are they? They're men of peace.

A. No. Had they supported peace, they could have prevented the kind of terror that we saw in Kosovo and Metohija. And Ibrahim Rugova, in one of his statements when the KLA was first formed, he said that it was a minor organisation, that he didn't know about it, but Adem Demaci refuted that. So had Rugova wanted to, and his followers in the leadership, we wouldn't have seen the kind of terror enacted in Kosovo and Metohija towards Serbs and Montenegrins that we did.

Q. Very well. That's your view. Now, in the same way that we looked at -- ³⁵⁸⁶³

A. That is my observation and my answer to your question.

Q. In the same way as we looked at a document to see whether it provided a fair and balanced view of matters within your knowledge, and in light of some of your evidence, I want you to help us with a view passages from a report that's been prepared for the Court by an expert called Audrey Budding. And first of all, we'll be going to -- in order to make it shorter, we'll go straight to page 11 in the English, and I want to see if Audrey Budding's summary of matters is one that you can accept as being accurate.

And this will be at page 9, I think of the B/C/S version. Because you've said various things about population movements, and Audrey Budding, on page 11 in the English, and it will be, I think, just towards the end of page 8 in the B/C/S, says this: "Kosovo saw its total population increase between a census --"

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us get it on the ELMO.

MR. NICE: I'm sorry, yes, of course. On the ELMO, please. Page 11, and --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we have it.

MR. NICE: I'm sorry if Your Honours hadn't been alerted to bring it in. My error if so. That is, if you prefer to work with hard copy documents.

Q. Yes. "Kosovo saw its population increase between a census performed in 1939, 645.000-odd inhabitants and the first post-war census in 1948, 727.000-odd. The total increase in Kosovo's population actually reflected two separate trends: An absolute decrease in the Orthodox ³⁵⁸⁶⁴ population and an absolute increase in the number of Albanians. The dimensions of each trend are subject to some interpretation because the two censuses are not strictly comparable. Allowing for varying assumptions about the rate of natural population growth in this period, French social geographer Michel Roux believes that the approximate upper limit for the number of Serb and Montenegrin expellees is 36.000, a figure relatively close to the April 1944 calculation of a senior German official in Belgrade that 40.000 Serbs and Montenegrins had been expelled since 1941. Roux calculates that even on the assumption of zero natural population growth among the Kosovo Albanian population in this period, the demographically possible upper limit of Albanian immigration would be around 104.000. Claims that 200.000 or more Albanians immigrated, Roux argues, are incompatible not only with Yugoslav population figures, but with Albania's own demographic development."

So in a reasoned passage, drawing on available expertise, draws to our attention that the maximum figure of 104.000 is sustainable. Do you accept that analysis? Because you've given figures about population movements.

A. Firstly, Mr. Nice, you have mentioned so many figures that even if I were a computer, I wouldn't have been able to take it all in and give you an answer. Secondly, I didn't analyse the material presented by the lady you mentioned. That is an historian's task. And I didn't say anything with regard to population movement. I just presented the facts. So I cannot comment on what the lady says, but I claim that from Kosovo and Metohija, over 200.000 Serbs left, and there is official data that you ³⁵⁸⁶⁵ can find if you're interested in that. Otherwise, I'm not able to comment further because I'm not aware of these facts and figures and the statistical data that you brought up here.

Q. We'll come to all that perhaps a little later, but since you mention it, what's the official data that you've relied on, and have you brought it with you?

A. No, I haven't brought it with me. The data does exist. The documents exist in the state organs of the Republic of Serbia. Many books were published in the commissariat. You will be able to find it, but I don't have that data and information with me or on me.

Q. Very well.

A. And I assume that your accused, Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, must have those facts and figures himself.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, are we talking about the same thing here?

MR. NICE: No, we're talking about immigration as opposed to emigration.

JUDGE BONOMY: But the figures you've quoted from the report deal with the period before 1948; is that correct?.

MR. NICE: Yes, 1939 to 1948.

JUDGE BONOMY: And when the witness talks about 200.000, is he not talking about a later period?

MR. NICE: He is talking about a later period, and we'll move on to that, I hope, very swiftly.

Q. I want from you from time to time, if you will help us, some confirmation of facts in case they become relevant later, not necessarily ³⁵⁸⁶⁶ with any extensive answer. But just as a matter of history, it was in 1950 that Yugoslavia broke its ties with Albania; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. It was in 1956 that there was a campaign to collect weapons from Albanians organised by the secret police of the former Yugoslavia and that as a result of that, or at the time of that, thousands of Albanians fled to Turkey; is that correct?

A. Disarmament and collection of weapons was not done by the secret police. It was an order by the organs of authority at the time, and it's true that the weapons were collected in Kosovo and Metohija. It is also correct that a number of Albanians left and went to Turkey. I don't know what the figure is or the reason they left. I don't claim that it was -- I don't know whether it was because of any violence in the collection of weapons.

Q. The same year there was the trial of Kosovo Albanians on the grounds that they were acting as spies for Albania. Many long prison sentences of up to 12 years were imposed, and all the people concerned were later acquitted. As a matter of fact, correct?

A. I'm not aware of that trial and the details of it and what actually happened, so I don't think I can answer that.

Q. You mentioned Adem Demaci. He features, first of all, is this correct, in the 1960s with a movement for unification of Albania, having some few hundred members at that time?

A. Well, I know that he was convicted and served a term in prison, how much, I don't know, and that he was working on a movement directed ^{35867 BLANK PAGE 35868} against the system itself and the order in Kosovo and Metohija itself. I don't know what it was called, but he was found guilty of that.

Q. We would then move to the critical date of 1966, which you have yourself identified as critical, and we've already discussed. You expressed yourself in these terms about the removal of Rankovic. You said, "Another terrible event in 1966 for us Serbs and Montenegrins, the Communists, because the 4th plenary session was held, the infamous one where Rankovic was removed from office and expelled from the party." And then you said this: "That was the crash of the security network for Serbs and Montenegrins." And that was an answer you gave almost without being asked about it specifically.

That reflects, does it not, the emotional response even today of Serbs to what happened in 1966; correct?

A. Please. I said that by replacing -- that the replacement of Rankovic was the crash or fall of the security system in Kosovo and Metohija for Serbs and Montenegrins, and I confirm that today, because at the time, we saw Albanian nationalists come to power in the organs of SUP, like Dzevad Hamza and others, whereas all the other Serb leaders were replaced from the security organs, organs of the interior.

Q. I want to read you one footnote --

A. And may I be allowed to add something with respect to Rankovic? During Rankovic's day, Rankovic's rule, there was something called Goli Otok, Grgul [phoen] and Bileca, Goli Otok being an island where tens of thousands of Serbs and Montenegrins were sent to. And I don't know whether there were as many as three Albanians who stood up to the policy ³⁵⁸⁶⁹ of Tito supporting the policy of Russia and Stalin. So Rankovic, he knew about these camps, Goli Otok and the others, but he remained loyal to the end and never wanted to say a word against the person who had him replaced.

Q. Look, please, at -- on the overhead projector, a footnote to an existing exhibit. The exhibit is Exhibit 801, the ICG report. And if we can just put footnote 90 -- 70, and I'll read it slowly to you, please, Mr. Balevic, and ask for your comment as to its accuracy. "Aleksandar Rankovic --"

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The translator said a report by the ICG, in those words. The witness doesn't know what ICG is at all, I can guarantee that. So could you translate. What does ICG mean? What's it about? It's not a mistake on Mr. Nice's part that he is speaking English, but when the interpreter says ICG, they must assume that the witness does not know what ICG is or stands for.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, can you help us?

MR. NICE: If it is a mistake at all it is my mistake and I am quite happy to identify the body that prepared the report, the International Crisis Group, and there is now a B/C/S version of the page before the witness for him to follow the footnote in his own language.

Q. The footnote reads, in English: "Aleksandar Rankovic was vice-president of Yugoslavia and regarded in some quarters as heir-apparent to Tito. He headed the Yugoslav security police. The UDBA was responsible for serious abuses of the Albanian population. On the ³⁵⁸⁷⁰ pretext of suppressing Albanian irredentism, UDBA put pressure on Albanians to emigrate. Between 1954 and 1957, some 195.000 Albanians left Yugoslavia, and by the time of Rankovic's dismissal, the figure had reached 235.000."

This is a document we've looked at. We know the nature and general terms of its sources. But tell us, Mr. Balevic, is what is recorded here correct; 195.000 Albanians leaving between 1954 and 1957?

A. I don't know where you get those figures from. The figure is not correct, and you can check that out in the official statistics for Kosovo and Metohija, which I'm sure still exist. And I state that that is not the correct figure. And it is true that Rankovic for a time was the head of state security in Yugoslavia. However, the figures that you have presented, there is no evidence of them being true. I don't think they are correct. Because had that been so in the space of three years, the Albanians would have disappeared from Kosovo altogether.

Q. What about the record there of the Yugoslav secret police being responsible for abuses of the Albanian population? You see, you come to us and you are of great assistance because of your experience and indeed your age. You've got a long memory. So tell us. This is correct, isn't it, that Albanians were suffering in the way described?

A. Please. I don't know whether you drew that conclusion from one of my answers when I said that during Goli Otok, when Rankovic was the head of UDBA, there were over 40.000 Serbs and Montenegrins, not a single Albanian. And the UDBA protected all the nations and nationalities, ethnic groups, all citizens on the territory of the country regardless of ³⁵⁸⁷¹ what ethnicity they were, but it was against those and arrested those who wanted to overthrow the regime and who opposed the regime.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, I'm sure it's me but I'm desperately in need of assistance on what this is relevant to in the indictment.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, it's right to, I think, inquire. The witness has given a long history. I made it clear resolution of the history is not, of course, our function or the Court's function. My concern is to ensure that there is recognition of the existence of contrary views, but more, it's to ensure that the Court can be satisfied insofar as it needs to in due course that expert material coming the Court's way is reliable. And so with the questions that I've just asked by way of preliminaries, and we're moving on quite rapidly to the time of the 1987 meeting, but before we get there, I was going to ask for this witness's comment on another short passage of Audrey Budding's report. I hope that that will be helpful to the Chamber, because for this reason: It seems to me, and I'm open to correction, that although the Chamber doesn't need nor want to make any final decisions about these historical matters, it certainly needs to know the broad parameters within which different theories exist, and if it has an expert, it needs to know if that expert appears to be reliable.

Q. And can we, with that in mind, go to page 21 in the English of Audrey Budding's report, which is page 16 in the B/C/S. And you see, Mr. Balevic, the expert who has reported on matters for this Court -- or for the Prosecution in giving evidence to this Court, says this at the foot of page 21, please -- actually, in the middle of page 21: "National ³⁵⁸⁷² questions had received only glancing attention at Brioni, but took centre stage at the League of Communists Plenum. (Reserving the accusations of Serbian nationalism for a Serbian party forum was in keeping with the principle that each party should fight nationalism 'in its own house.')" And then that takes us to footnote 90. I'm not sure if the footnote's been copied in B/C/S, but it's footnote 90, and she there says that the matters that the witness spoke about himself, she says that, "It was for the same reason that each --" footnote 90. Sorry. It's on page 81.

"It was for the same --" Further down, please. Footnote 90. "It was for the same reason that each of the positions Rankovic vacated upon his fall was filled by another Serb ... Casting Rankovic as a Serbian nationalist ultimately encouraged Serbs themselves to see his fall in national terms."

That's probably all I need read. Does that both reflect the evidence you gave, Mr. Balevic, and --

A. The fourth plenary at which Rankovic was replaced, and according to your observation or, rather, your question, that that was the only time when the national question was raised and that it was devoted to the national question. The fourth plenum was the crash of the national question, the question of Serbs and Montenegrins in Kosovo and Metohija. I don't know who replaced him, but I assume it was a yes-man who was ready to implement what Rankovic was not prepared to.

So the League of Communists, to which I belonged, fought against all forms of nationalism which upset brotherhood and unity in Kosovo and ³⁵⁸⁷³ Metohija, and therefore, they fought against Serbian nationalism by the same token.

Q. Just to stick with His Honour's question of me and to focus on the evidence you've given, it's what happened in 1966 and thereafter that lay behind the actions that you and your fellow Serbs took and of which you've told us starting at the beginning of the 1980s and concluding after the Kosovo Polje meeting at the end of 1998; is that right? This event in 1966 is part of the driving force that led to the action of Serbs between 1980 and 1988 in Kosovo?

A. In 1966 events, and that were to be borne out by the 4th plenum, it was the motive force of the break-down of the security system and the more massive exodus of the Serbs and Montenegrins from Kosovo and Metohija. It was because of this exodus and because their security was jeopardised that the Serbs took measures and sought resources to enable themselves to remain there and for their salvation. They knocked on all the doors, but they didn't take on any policy of this kind towards the Albanians.

Q. Very well.

A. Or any Greater Serbian nationalism.

Q. I've put my case to you in print general terms. A couple of detailed matters and then we'll get to particulars. One of the things you told us in evidence on the 25th of January, the way I have at page 37, was, in dealing with the history of the good fortune of the Kosovo Albanians, you said that university teachers, I think, were hired not for the sake of giving them -- sorry, Albanian ³⁵⁸⁷⁴ professors were hired, but not for the sake of giving them employment. They were hired, you said, in order to indoctrinate young Albanians against living together with Serbs and Montenegrins. That was your specific suggestion.

Now, first of all, where's your evidence for that, that the hiring of Albanian professors was specifically aimed at separating the ethnic groups in Kosovo?

A. You have a document that was translated, Sleepless Nights, and you will see what Professor Milanovic had to say, a distinguished professor from the University of Pristina. If necessary I can find it and read it out. He confirmed that in his speech, and we felt that at this meeting that was held during the night between the 24th and the 25th of March, 1987 about the indoctrination of Albanian students and about the Albanian professors coming. That is what is written in this document that you have in the translated version. Professor Milanovic.

Q. Such things were said on the night of the 24th and 25th, and it may be - we'll discuss this later - that there was an element of stage management about what was said, and that's going to be my suggestion to you. Did Professor Milanovic give the source of his observation about the purpose of professors coming to the university in Pristina or was it just a broad assertion not rooted in research? Tell us.

A. I am saying what he said. Now, what the sources of his information are is something that you would have to ask him.

Q. So although you made this assertion to this Chamber, you have absolutely no material, apart from one speech that you happen to have ³⁵⁸⁷⁵ heard on the night of the 24th, 25th of March, 1987; correct?

A. Not correct. The demonstrations of Albanians, of young people in the streets, starting from '68 or, rather, first in '67 and the first few months in '68 and then all the way up to '81, all of that confirms what I said, that there was a considerable degree of indoctrination among them, because during the first months of 1978, in the territory of Kosovo, there were people shouting in favour of NATO. There were American flags, and Fadil Hoxha, Dzevad Nimani headed the column, and Ymer Pula. So that is a corroboration of the indoctrination of young people --

Q. Very well.

A. -- and the demonstrations in 1968. The allegation was made that all of this was due to poor food at student dormitories, and that's not true. It was this indoctrination.

Q. That's in 1981, and we'll come to that if necessary. But please would you just again, for the same purpose, look at what in your version of Audrey Budding's report is page 32, and if Mr. Prendergast will put page 30 on the overhead projector.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I did not interrupt Mr. Nice in the wish to hear what all of this would lead to. However, may I remind you that when I started putting questions to Mr. Balevic, I pointed out that I did not wish to ask him about historical facts but, rather, about his own knowledge from the period involved. So he testified about his own knowledge. I think that it is improper to give him an expert report, ³⁵⁸⁷⁶ Mr. Nice's expert, Ms. Budding, for him to give answers to it. He's not an historian, he's not a demographer. He cannot give such answers, especially because, as you know, I insisted that he only speak about his own personal experience, and that's what he did.

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

MR. NICE: Your Honour, can I deal with that, because it's actually a matter of considerable importance.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: This witness has given a very broad, a very one-sided on one view account, highly critical of and indeed arguably offensive to one of the ethnic groups living in Kosovo. He was led to most of those answers by the accused. I am exploring to the extent that I judge desirable or necessary the degree to which his answers are founded in either research or experience or some other reliable source. On this particular topic, we've now had his answer on how reliable his source is and what his sources are, and it must be proper for me to show him other evidence in the case and to ask him if he has any real evidence to counter it. That is one of the standard and proper purposes of cross-examination, and not to do it would arguably be not to put my case. So I would seek now to put the short passage on page 30 that deals with this topic --

JUDGE ROBINSON: We're going to consider this submission.

JUDGE BONOMY: But if you follow the line that the accused has just presented, that what he will rely on is the knowledge that the witness has of events in Kosovo, then where does this take us quite apart from whether it might be justified because he answered a question at some ³⁵⁸⁷⁷ stage in his examination-in-chief that might have a bearing on Audrey Budding's report? What's the point? He's not an expert. We're not going to reach any conclusions based on his view of this stage of history and listening to a lecture and hearing about how students behaved at the time. On the other hand, he's tried to give sweeping statements about events closer to the time or at the time that are relevant to the indictment, and I would have thought that challenging the basis for these statements might have been much more helpful to us than the basis for his perhaps criticism of historical opinions expressed by others.

MR. NICE: The answer to that, Your Honour, is twofold. One, of course I've missed out a great deal of material that he's given that is contentious in the history, but there is a limit to how much it would be proper to leave it all go when there is indeed material of an expert nature before you to the contrary effect.

Second, when we come to the events of 1980 to 1988 and then on into 1989, the background will be important both to understand, as I will suggest through this witness, what this witness and others were doing, and indeed important for the Court to follow when it hears the way we put our case about the accused, which I will be able to put partly through this witness, indeed significantly. But to some degree I do need the background facts.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, we think there is some merit in the submission from the accused. At the same time, we understand that you want to put your case through the -- through this witness, and we think if ^{35878 BLANK PAGE 35879} that's what you want to do, you should do that directly, and if it is necessary, then you can return to the historical matters.

MR. NICE: As Your Honours please. The -- as Your Honours please. I'll get on with it and deal with it on that basis, but I should make it clear because I think there is a difference of -- arguably a difference of view at the time moment.

Although it would be the Prosecution's case that the accused has led far, far more evidence of history than is truly of value to you, and we've not dealt with most of it, nevertheless, the Prosecution takes the view that understanding the history from certainly 1966 or 1968 or 1971 or thereabouts onwards is probably important for an understanding of everything that happened thereafter, and to that extent --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I would say it's certainly important.

MR. NICE: And to that extent where issues are joined from those dates onwards, I would be grateful for an opportunity to explore them as briefly as I possibly can. But, Your Honour, I'll deal with the university matter simply in this way --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Part of the question, Mr. Nice, is whether this is the appropriate witness to put that to.

MR. NICE: On that topic, Your Honour, my problem is this -- not problem. My position is this: I frequently take the view, or may take the view that witnesses may be going outside that for which they are properly to be called, but I don't want to be seen to be trying to shut evidence out too often or too extensively, and also it's quite difficult, particularly with a litigant in person, to address these matters ³⁵⁸⁸⁰ compactly. So we let a lot of evidence in.

I'm quite happy to take a more restrictive -- or to attempt a more restrictive approach, but I've got a suspicion the Chamber would find that wearying, but I'm quite happy to do that.

Shall I move on with this particular topic?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Balevic, the university position and the lecturers coming from Albanian is as simple as this, isn't it: That a number of lecturers came to Kosovo in the 1960s and later when the university became fully independent in 1970, and this led to an explosion of education and an increase in education among Kosovo Albanians, and the Serbs didn't like it.

A. What is your question? The Serbs didn't like that?

Q. The Serbs didn't like the Albanians becoming over-educated. That's the question, and then I'll follow up with another one.

A. Not correct.

Q. And one of the reasons they --

A. The education of the Albanians did not bother Serbs, but through regular channels and so on. You have to read the speech made by this Milanovic, who established that people got doctorates there in English literature before a commission and not a single member of the said commission knew a word of English. Read that. It's in the book. And he quotes an Albanian professor. Serbs were not bothered by education through normal schooling and according to the regulations prescribed by ³⁵⁸⁸¹ the state.

Mr. Nice, I did not make sweeping statements, as you put it, in a one-sided fashion and insulting to a particular ethnic group. I'll tell you once again: I have a high regard for ethnic Albanians, but I talked about Albanian terror and about Albanian terrorists. What happened before and after KFOR came, when buses were blown up, when people were executed and --

Q. I'm going to cut you short --

A. Thank you. Cut me short, but you made me give you this kind of answer. I'm sorry, sir.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... answer the questions. And the reason that the Serbs didn't particularly want the Albanians to become educated is this, in part: Before 1966 Serbs occupied a disproportionately large number of important and influential positions in Kosovo compared with their ethnic proportion but after 1966 and the fall of Rankovic and the loss of Serb authority, Albanians took more, a larger percentage of the important jobs and this, along with their increasing education, was something that was not acceptable to or liked by the Serbs. Isn't that the truth?

A. Albanians even before the 4th plenum, before 1966, held certain positions. After that plenum, they took over the leadership of Kosovo and Metohija. They held the highest offices in Kosovo and Metohija, including the police, the courts and other organs that were of high importance for Kosovo and Metohija, but they did hold high positions before 1966, too, and I do not accept that they were not represented. ³⁵⁸⁸²

Q. Let's now, then, move on beyond 1981, because we've dealt with other witnesses with those demonstrations.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice, as he put it, is trying to establish the reason why the Serbs did not want the Albanians to be educated. That means that he takes as a point of departure an assumption that Serbs did not want Albanians to be educated, and that is totally incorrect. He cannot base his questions on an assumption that is wrong, quite simply.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, these are matters that you can take up later when you have an opportunity to re-examine.

MR. NICE:

Q. Let's now move beyond 1981, and before we come and look at the activities of you and the others whom you've spoken of, I want one general point for you to deal with.

By the 1980s, had this position been achieved in Kosovo amongst the Serbs, namely that every incident involving, for example, a Kosovo Albanian and a Serb would be characterised or instrumentalised as something to do with politics, whereas it was simply an incident of ordinary life? So that, for example, was it not the case that the suggestion was abroad for long enough that there were a lot of rapes by Albanian men on Serb women committed with a political purpose?

A. Ordinary incidents were never treated as political incidents, only those that deserved to be viewed as political incidents. As for rapes, ³⁵⁸⁸³ you have it all written here; committed where, when, by who, and these are official records.

Q. But that is --

A. That is in the book Sleepless Nights.

Q. But the problem with that, and we can look at it if time allows and if the Court allows me to do it, the problem with that was that there was an inquiry into the incidence of rapes conducted by, amongst others, Sergej Popovic [phoen], but by Serbs, and it was recorded that the incidence of rapes on an interethnic basis was lower than average and therefore of no significance politically at all. And do you know of that report?

A. I do not know of that report that has to do with rape. I never investigated such matters. I really don't know anything about that.

Q. Very well. I put my case on that, and I'm now going to move to what you said on page 43 of the transcript on the 25th of January, where you describe the establishment -- where you describe the establishment of a body. Would you like to tell us what the body was called.

A. Could you put a question to me? I mean, what is the body that you're asking me about? Could you put a specific question? What are you asking me?

Q. The gatherings that started in 1981 which led to delegations going to federal organs becoming a mass movement undertaken by Serbs and Montenegrins who went from Kosovo to sort out their problems was led by a limited number of men and had a name, didn't it? You were one of the men. What was the name of the organisation? ³⁵⁸⁸⁴

A. I was president of the regional conference of the League of Communists of Kosovo Polje, and later on president of the Municipal Committee of the League of Communists in Kosovo Polje. During the time of the meeting in Kosovo Polje I was president of the regional conference and I did not belong to any group of nationalists. The rallies held in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija, the protest rallies and the delegations that were sent, that was the only means that could be resorted to in order to ensure the survival of the Serb people in Kosovo and Metohija because the state of Yugoslavia and the then authorities in the Republic of Serbia, not to mention Kosovo and Metohija, did not take any measures to save the Serb and Montenegrin people. So we did not belong to any kind of groups that you are talking about, and you cannot put words to that effect into my mouth.

Q. The men Grujic, Tusko Ristic [phoen], Kosta Bulatovic, Bosko Budimirovic [phoen], Bogdan Kecman, and Miroslav Solevic, together with, for some of the time, Zvonimir Trajkovic were the leaders of the Serbs from Kosovo, weren't they?

A. They were the proponents and the organisers with the help of the people because the people supported them. And then there was the so-called petition 216 of the Kosovo Serbs. As I pointed out earlier on, they worked on organising Serbs and Montenegrins into delegations and at rallies in order to strive for their very survival. Therefore, they cannot be called nationalists. Perhaps individuals said something in -- at particular points during the discussion, but something had to be done to save the people. ³⁵⁸⁸⁵

Q. That's -- so we've now identified. There was a group that was running this, and you became a part of that group, didn't you?

A. No I did not become a member of that group. I was secretary -- rather, president of the regional conference of the League of Communists and president of the Municipal Committee of the League of Communists, and I repeated this to you time and again. And this was a movement. I was not a member of that movement, I was in official politics, but I belonged to this movement, this mass movement of Serbs and Montenegrins for saving Serbs and Montenegrins in Kosovo and Metohija. It was a mass movement. I was not a member of any group, and they were not nationalists.

Q. And you went with that group certainly on one occasion to Belgrade when you saw Dizdarevic, because he's recorded it in his book. That was in 1987, January or February. That's right, isn't it, that you went with those leaders to Dizdarevic?

A. It is correct that I was received by Dizdarevic. I don't know who was there at the time, which leaders. That's probably in the book. I would like for you to see who was on the delegation, and perhaps you can challenge what I'm saying now but I think that as for these leaders, as you call them - you call them leaders and I disagree with that - I don't know if there were one or two of them, you should really check this in the book because I haven't read the book, actually.

Q. Let's deal with the group overall. The group started at the beginning of the 1980s. It worked its way through to the important events in the early part of 1987. It stayed in existence until the end of 1988 when it was disbanded. Am I right that it was disbanded at the end of ³⁵⁸⁸⁶ 1988?

A. I don't know when this group was disbanded, when it stopped working. I did not really register these dates. I don't know.

Q. I'm going to suggest to you that that's not an honest answer and it can't be, because this group has been written about by people like Solevic in detail and by others, and you knew that it was disbanded at the end of 1988 by this accused, don't you?

A. I assert that what you are saying is not truthful and sincere. I don't know when this group was disbanded and when it stopped working.

Q. Very well. Just tell me, Vojislav Vucinic, who was he?

A. This was also a man who belonged to those persons who led the people, and one of the proponents of petition 216 together with Kosta Bulatovic, and they were getting people to sign the petition. Otherwise, he was a railways conductor.

Q. Precisely. Like you, he worked on the railways and travelled on the railways. Was he the person who communicated between your group or the group and Belgrade on a regular basis?

A. I know that he did what many people did in the interests of Serbs and Montenegrins, that is to say the non-Albanian population that was threatened. What kind of communications he had and with whom is something that he did not report to me about, and I cannot say anything about it.

Q. Before the accused came to see the Kosovo Serbs and others at Kosovo Polje in the beginning of 1987, had he been in touch with your group, directly or indirectly, through someone like Vojislav Vucinic?

A. I first heard of Slobodan Milosevic when he became president of ³⁵⁸⁸⁷ the Central Committee, and my first contact was when I called him on the 16th of April, 1987 -- or the 17th, after the rally held before Zoran Grujic's house, when I called him and asked him to come. That was my first contact with him. I called him as the president of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Serbia, and I took a great responsibility upon myself in this way. And Azem and the likes of him, wanted to expel me because of it. Now, whether anybody else had contacts with him before that is something that you will have to ask other people.

Q. As to the meeting on the 20th and the 24th and 5th of April of 1987 for which we've seen a video and for which you've brought records, I have some propositions to put to you, and I'd like your comments on them. Until this meeting, or until shortly before this meeting, maybe, the accused had shown no interest in Kosovo, to your knowledge.

A. I didn't say that. That is your arbitrary observation.

Q. Can you tell us, then, please, what documented interest in Kosovo had the accused shown before he was invited to come to the first of those meetings in April 1987?

A. I don't know. I said I heard of him when he became president of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Serbia. Now, before, what he was before, I don't know. You would have to ask your accused Mr. Milosevic that.

Q. And indeed the point you make is one that the Prosecution really accepts, that he showed no particular signs of leadership or seeking to lead the country until shortly before this period, did he? He wasn't known as a man seeking leadership of his country. ³⁵⁸⁸⁸

A. From the moment we in this specific case linked to the Kosovo Polje meeting, that is to say I addressed the president of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Serbia who was the president, Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, and his arrival, my -- the only person who found the courage and capability of tackling the problem with the situation that prevailed, with the drama that was unfolding for the Serbs and the Montenegrins in Kosovo and Metohija was him. And from that time on, he had -- he understood what we meant. Our meetings in Kosovo Polje were not a support to Slobodan Milosevic but a support to the struggle for the survival of the Serbs and Montenegrins in Kosovo and Metohija, and as luck would have it, Slobodan Milosevic was there who was the only man who had the courage to take upon himself the responsibility of solving and tackling the problem of life together for Serbs, Montenegrins, and anybody else in Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. Between the first meeting on the 20th and the second meeting on the 24th, did his secretary Mico Koljevic [phoen] come down to see those of you who were leading these meetings and organise how they were being conducted?

A. No, I don't remember that, the meeting that you're referring to. I had a meeting with the regional conference. I organised that, the one on the 24th. Contrary to the decisions made by the provincial and municipal boards who demanded that it be an active and with 20 people taking part in the discussions. So this is the first time I'm hearing about Mico Koljevic having arrived. I don't know. I don't remember that. There's no reason why I shouldn't tell you if I knew. ^{35889 BLANK PAGE 35890}

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... you know the secretary Mico Koljevic, don't you?

A. I can't remember who the man is, to be quite frank. I can't remember. Many people came during that period of time, especially after the advent of Slobodan Milosevic, but I can't remember everybody who came and marched through Kosovo and Metohija --

Q. And --

A. -- to help us, to help us with our survival. I really can't say. I can't be precise on that matter. I just don't remember Mico Koljevic for the time being.

Q. And that second meeting that's been elaborated on by you in evidence at some length was to a significant degree stage managed for a purpose, including by the preparation of the bricks to be thrown at the police in order to create the sort of problem that the accused could then go out and apparently solve. True or false?

A. Not true. That is a complete fabrication and false.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just technically speaking, in the transcript here it says Mico Koljevic. It was Mico Jakovljevic. Mica Jakovljevic, and Mica Jakovljevic was never my secretary. That's the second point. So the man we're talking about here is Mica Jakovljevic, and he was one of the executive secretaries of the Presidency of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Serbia and most probably, like many others, he came and went, went to and from Kosovo. ³⁵⁸⁹¹

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you for the correction.

MR. NICE:

Q. And you see, Solevic has written about this, or been interviewed about this in various places. Have you never read his accounts?

A. I've never read what he said nor do I know what he said.

Q. I can give you an opportunity to consider that perhaps a little later, but help us with this: Is it not right that that meeting, the demonstrators for that meeting included men armed specifically with pistols and being 2 or 300 men, young men, who would be in a position to fight the local police? True or false.

A. False. I state that it is false.

Q. When the accused arrived, was there a problem with changing venue from one hall to another?

A. You've mixed up the dates there. I'm going to have to correct you on that score. The first meeting at which Slobodan Milosevic, that is to say the president, was invited to attend was the meeting in front of the primary school called Aco Marovic in Kosovo Polje. And the second meeting, and that's the meeting -- the one held in the Aco Marovic school building was supposed to have been held in the ZTP building at the railway station, the railway station hall. It was the largest hall. Because people thought that the discussion would be better there, better premises. But when the Serb people learnt that Slobodan Milosevic was due to arrive, then people came in from all parts of Kosovo and Metohija, because you can't hide anything in Kosovo and Metohija. There were streams of people coming in, a large number of people, so that it was physically impossible ³⁵⁸⁹² to hold the meeting in the hall, but we went from the railway station building together, Slobodan Milosevic and all of us, and held the meeting in front of the primary school building in Kosovo Polje. And the decision was taken there whereby the inhabitants from Kosovo and Metohija, Serbs, Montenegrins, and jeopardised Albanians should pick their delegates to attend the meeting to be held on the 24th in the Cultural Centre called the Brata Krajnovic [phoen] Cultural Centre.

Q. And that centre was convenient to where the lorry was parked with the stones for use in throwing at the police in order to create the disturbance that the accused could then go out and quell; correct?

A. Mr. Nice, you can think up whatever you like, that there were tank units there or whatever. I claim that that is completely untrue and incorrect. There was no truck, no lorry of any kind. That is just an arbitrary observation that wishes to diminish the importance of the meeting that was held there.

Q. As to the meeting itself, there was a large degree of preparation and orchestration of the speeches that were delivered, orchestrated by you and -- not necessarily by you individually but by your colleagues; correct?

A. What speech are you referring to?

Q. The speeches in the hall.

A. Because there were many speeches delivered.

Q. Yes. They were orchestrated. They were planned. They were anti-Kosovo Albanian, and that was by organisation.

A. Please be specific. Whose speeches? Which speech was organised ³⁵⁸⁹³ and orchestrated in advance?

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... it in this way: We've looked at a video, haven't we, of some of the speeches of that however many hour session it was.

A. I don't have the right to ask a question, but I should like to observe this: What speech do you say was orchestrated in advance? Which one?

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think you have to be more specific so he can answer the question.

MR. NICE:

Q. This is the problem: The speeches we've looked at come on a videotape, and I want to know by whom the videotape was prepared. Was it prepared by the police, the DB police?

A. I state that not a single speech that was delivered there, that I myself did not contact anybody there nor take part in any of that. They were all delegates from all parts of Kosovo and Metohija, would take me five days' holiday to tour them all. Everybody had a speech of their own that they wished to deliver. So it is not true. It is false that any speech was organised and prepared by the police or whoever, that they took part in compiling it. I presented my own speech there. I compiled the speech. It was looked at at the regional conference, but otherwise your observation is simply not true.

Q. And Azem Vllasi, who has also written about this, and other Kosovo Albanians were intimidated from speaking by the organised presence that had been made available for this accused to listen to and to address; ³⁵⁸⁹⁴ true?

A. Firstly, Azem Vllasi was never afraid in his speeches. He always spoke from a nationalistic standpoint. He was never afraid of the consequences of delivering such a speech. And one such speech was the one in June 1985, when the column of Serbs started out from Klina and Patos [phoen] and there was no electricity for 41 days. And there was a police cordon which prevented the Serbs leaving the area and going to Belgrade. So not a single Albanian was afraid of anything. There were two Albanians who took the floor, but there were others there although they didn't speak on the occasion.

Q. At the end of the meeting, and I want to deal with the meeting comprehensively although in summary, at the end of the meeting the accused -- needn't trouble with that. At the end of the meeting, Azem Vllasi and the others in authority did review the complaints that had been made at the meeting, didn't they, in a responsible way?

A. I'm not aware of --

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... comments by --

MR. NICE: By the various speakers.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not aware of the fact that they assessed those speeches, that they complained about them and had their complaints about what was said. I can't say. They should have done that before. They should have assessed the complaints made by the Serbs and Montenegrins and all the speeches they held before that, but they weren't interested in anything like that. ³⁵⁸⁹⁵

MR. NICE:

Q. I see. So that your approach to this meeting is that it wasn't a meeting to resolve a problem because you're convinced that they were never going to resolve the problem; is that right?

A. The object of that meeting was for us to present the problems, to set forth the problems that were facing the Serbs and Montenegrins in Kosovo and Metohija; their drama, the persecution, the terror exerted against them. And 76 participants took the floor and spoke at the meeting, and the meeting went on for 13 hours. So the aim was to inform not only Slobodan Milosevic but him firstly as president of the Central Committee but the whole of Yugoslavia and the broader international community as to what was happening to the Serbs and Montenegrins in Kosovo and Metohija who did not merit this, deserve this at all because the Serb people were never conquerors, were never conquerors.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, we're at the time for the break. We will adjourn now for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.16 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.43 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. Staying with the meeting and its aftermath, Mr. Balevic, one of the things you told us on the 25th of January, when speaking of the accused coming to these meetings, was that, "It could have been some other person, some other Milosevic, but you were there. You happened to be there. So we invited you. You accepted our invitation." ³⁵⁸⁹⁶ And that's what, looking back, is the truth, isn't it? There was a movement of Serbs in Kosovo led by the people we've identified - I've identified - and it needed a leader. The accused answered your invitation and took the opportunity to become the leader of the Serbs. Isn't that correct?

A. No, that's not correct. He supported, listening the whole night about the terror against the Serbs and the laments and all the sadness of it. He listened to that on the 24th and the 25th and then he did what he could do to save the people of Kosovo and Metohija. The object was not to proclaim him a leader.

Q. No. He saw the opportunity for leadership by leading the Serbs of Kosovo and he took it, and for a time he seemed to be serving the interests of the Serbs of Kosovo well. Isn't that correct?

A. He never took any opportunity. He just stood at the head of the struggle for the salvation of the Serbs and Montenegrins. That's my observation. And you can ask President Milosevic the same question you just asked me.

Q. What would you think of this description by one of your colleagues in that organisation or in that grouping: "He entered the hall as the president of the Central Committee. He left a leader of the Serb nation. We asked for a leader and we got a Tsar." Does that describe what happened at that meeting?

A. No. I don't know which colleague said that. We didn't ask for a leader, neither did we get a Tsar. We asked for a president, and the president came forward. ³⁵⁸⁹⁷

Q. Let's move on before we review events generally. You seem to be saying something about to whom the words "you will not be beaten" was said and it was only to a small number of people on either side. I didn't quite understand that. To whom were these words being said?

A. You understood me well, then, but not now. They were said -- well, just a few people standing round could have heard those words.

Q. You know, and we can see this in due course from the head of the television company concerned, that those words were put out on every channel that night or all the major channels that night and on every news time, weren't they?

A. Well, what does that mean? What answer do you want me to give?

Q. Those words, and I've already raised with you the possibility that the whole thing was in some way rehearsed or planned. Those words were the lead news item on the news programmes that night, all over the former Yugoslavia, or certainly all over Serbia, and the use of those words generated Serb nationalist feeling, didn't they, the broadcasting of those words?

A. I stand by what I said on the 25th of January, that the words that he said on that occasion could just have been heard by a small circle of people. Now, how this was commented and broadcast over television I really can't say. It's not up to me to make an assessment of that. But I claim that it was not addressed in order to be abused at all and that nobody in Serbia and Montenegro or, rather, that criminals, that people shouldn't be beaten, and so on.

Q. You know the man Dusan Mitevic? ³⁵⁸⁹⁸

A. Yes, I do know him but I never had any contacts with him.

Q. It was his television company, amongst others, that put the programme out.

MR. NICE: And incidentally, Your Honours, his interview in The Death of Yugoslavia film is already an exhibit put in by Mr. de la Brosse.

Q. Let's move on. After this meeting in April of 1987, as you know, various people lost office and the accused became president of the -- in place of Stambolic, didn't he?

A. Yes, he did come. But as far as cadres policy, personnel policy that was waged in the party leadership, I really don't know. It wasn't accessible to me. I was a small man, a small leader of a committee and I don't know that.

Q. But even so, you'll know as a member of the Communist Party and subsequently, as we're going to discover, a member of the SPS, you know the general important events, and one of the other important events was that a man called Dragisa Pavlovic was defeated in the Serbian Communist Party, was he not, and turfed out of office?

A. Yes. I just know when he was replaced.

Q. And he was the man who had criticised --

A. But --

Q. He criticised this accused for what he said in Kosovo Polje and not pursuing to the end the line of brotherhood and unity which was then, it may be thought, holding the former Yugoslavia together, or capable of doing so. ³⁵⁸⁹⁹

A. I cannot accept your assertion that you're highlighting that Slobodan Milosevic, the president, did not keep the brotherhood and unity line. He confirmed it at his speech in Gazimestan, the cultural centre there, and this was seen there, too, on the 25th of January. As to the replacement of Dragisa Pavlovic and other functionaries, please understand me; I was neither present nor do I know about it. I just heard that news, just like everybody else, on television.

Q. Going back to the words "You will not be beaten," if they were intended, as you were suggesting, for a narrow audience, could you confirm this: At the various demonstrations against this accused in the 1990s when Serbs themselves were facing his police and it may be the army, did they not then shout out in their own defence that he had told them that they would not be beaten? Was that not a regular occurrence in the 1990s, that they shouted this, or some of them shouted back this phrase to him?

A. That was an abuse of the words he addressed, which was later used and abused --

Q. So how come, then --

A. -- by the opposition. It wasn't that this was said in the way that the individuals harnessed this to their own purposes and for promoting themselves.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, were the words "You will not be beaten" or "You will not be beaten again"?

MR. NICE: I think the second rather than the first.

JUDGE ROBINSON: They're slightly different connotations.

MR. NICE: ^{35900 BLANK PAGE 35901}

Q. But we come to 1988, and your grouping or the grouping of people led by those we've identified remained in existence, and tell us, please, what it did in 1988.

A. I'm not aware of what it did in 1988. I've already said that I was the party secretary officially, but I wasn't with that group and I don't know what it did or did not do. You will have to ask them that. What were you saying?

Q. Were you still working for the railways?

A. No. I retired.

Q. Do you know who --

A. And I retired as party president in 1990 in Kosovo Polje. I think that I might have stayed on for a few more days, but in 1989 I took up my duties as party president.

Q. So as a functioning local politician, you know that during 1988, groups of Serbs were sent to various places to demonstrate, weren't they?

A. Not to demonstrate. They went in various ways to seek support and the salvation of the Serb people in Kosovo and Metohija. They went to all the federal organs, to the Assembly, to the Presidency, they travelled to Montenegro, but they didn't come across support to save them and to support the Serb people and introduce law and order into Kosovo and Metohija. Had that happened, none of what happened later would have come to pass. The only people who supported them was the church and later the arrival of Slobodan Milosevic, of course.

Q. Mr. Miroslav -- Miroslav Solevic, one of the principal leaders of this group, any reason that you can think of why he should give a false ³⁵⁹⁰² account of the history of these matters?

A. I don't know about that. You will have to call Solevic and have him explain it to you.

Q. I'm asking you. I'm asking you, Mr. Balevic.

A. I don't know about that. I had no contacts with Solevic after I left Kosovo and Metohija, and I never read his books, so I don't know.

Q. Your group, this group of which you were an active member in April of 1987, in the account of others who led it, had become an important instrument in the hands of this accused, which is why I'm pursuing it with such -- in the detail I am. You had become an important instrument in his hands, and as a reflection of that, it was the demonstrations of this group that led to the overthrow of the government in Vojvodina and to the government in Montenegro. Correct or incorrect?

A. Again, I'm giving you an answer. I never belonged to any kind of group, and I was not involved in any kind of grouping. Please don't ask me that way again because I'm not going to answer. I was not an instrument in the hands of Slobodan Milosevic. I was president of the party, of the League of Communists, and later the SPS, and I'm proud of that because I worked in favour of the brotherhood and unity of the different peoples of Kosovo and Metohija. You said that the leadership was replaced or removed in Kosovo and Metohija and in Vojvodina and whatever else you said. We did not remove them. It is their own negative policy that removed them.

Q. You sent demonstrators to do whatever they did, sometimes with some violence, and they brought those governments or administrations down; ³⁵⁹⁰³ correct?

A. Not correct.

Q. Not only --

A. Not correct.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. Not correct. We were not sending any demonstrators anywhere. These were peaceful gatherings, rallies without a single incident. There was not a single incident there. There was not a single negative nationalist slogan there. These were peaceful meetings and rallies in favour of the survival of the Serb people in Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. So did you go on these meetings yourself that you can say they were peaceful without nationalist slogans?

A. No. I attended one rally, the one in Nis, and I can make assertions in that respect. I did not attend others, but I know others who went to other meetings and rallies. They are my friends, comrades, and this was also shown on television. There were no slogans against the Albanian people.

Q. In the same way as I suppose you will say that there were no nationalist slogans at the Gazimestan event in 1989.

A. I'm going to give you the same answer.

Q. We'll come to that shortly, but just to stay with 1988 and 1989, is it right that your group or this group was prepared and in a position to overthrow the Bosnian leadership in the same way as the Vojvodina and Montenegrin leadership had been approached? Is that right?

A. Not right. ³⁵⁹⁰⁴

Q. But that it was the accused who, on this occasion showing his control of your group, said no and linked his refusal to surrendering Jajce for some reason.

A. I don't know what your accused, President Slobodan Milosevic, said, but my assertion in response to your first question is that it is not correct. That is to say we did not overthrow any Bosnian leadership or whatever.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, the matters I've been asking questions of are matters I would prefer to put to the witness through the medium of, in this case, newspaper articles where interviews with individuals concerned are set out and would regard it as a fairer method so that he can see the basis on which I'm asking the questions. I'm in Your Honours' hands.

JUDGE ROBINSON: How many?

MR. NICE: There are three altogether. Quite short. One interview over three days.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Would you bear in mind that he has denied being a part of any group.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, it's denied being part of the group. He's also essentially involved in the 1987 event, he's in political office. He's shown extremely broad knowledge of matters other than the matters that I'm asking him about, and I would prefer, with Your Honours' leave, to be able to show him the material that underpins my questioning him.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Show him first.

MR. KAY: Can I raise an objection to this? ³⁵⁹⁰⁵

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. KAY: Because what is happening is in fact another route to try and get evidence before the Trial Chamber that's not adopted by the witness so that the Prosecution have a further platform of evidential material. The witness can only speak from his own knowledge and what he personally knows, which has been the basis for him being called as a witness. That's been reaffirmed on several occasions. To put materials of statements said by other people on other occasions that he's not a party to serves no evidential purpose with this witness. What is then being achieved if material such as this is put before the Trial Chamber? In our submission, it doesn't advance the case any further at all.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mustn't we see first the witness's response?

MR. KAY: Questions have been asked. The way to do it is to ask the question and if it is adopted or it has some sort of basis or relevance, then it can go forward from there, but the technique that's been used is that the document goes in, we go through it wholesale and then he says, "Well, I don't know anything about that. It's nothing to do with me," and then the Trial Chamber's left with the position of having spent half an hour on some document that the witness has denied in the first place or has not adopted in the first place.

JUDGE KWON: Whether it is right or wrong, has it not been our practice, be it Defence or Prosecution?

MR. KAY: Well, no, not in those -- those terms. There were many rulings during the Prosecution case when the ruling was, "Well, he doesn't know about that. Your turn will come to call your evidence," was the ³⁵⁹⁰⁶ frequent ruling by Judge May in the first phase of the case, the Prosecution case. What is being undertaken here is the same technique but they've had their case. They have had their chance to put their case on the indictment.

JUDGE KWON: We are not going to admit those documents. Is there any danger to put to the witness when the witness is able to cope with it?

MR. KAY: That can be done but that has not been the technique that has been employed. In my submission, we haven't done it in a brief, simple way such as that. We've gone into a rather elaborate reading through screeds of material said by someone else on some other occasion that gets on the record and creates an impression within the Prosecution case that they wish to serve to the Court rather than dealing with the witness as a witness and what he has to say about the matters he gave evidence upon.

In cross-examination, of course, under the Rules you ask questions on matters raised by the witness, and this is a departure from that technique.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, if I may comment on that or answer that. It certainly isn't outside of what the witness has given, and in any event, I'm allowed to go outside if it relates to my case. He's given a lot of evidence about this meeting in more detail than we covered it in our case. The -- the accused is entitled to do that and it's then my duty to meet it and to deal with it. And there is a great deal of material going to show that the way this witness has characterised this meeting, the way this witness has characterised the activity of the men involved in ³⁵⁹⁰⁷ this meeting may be wrong. It's absolutely my duty to ensure that the Chamber has the best material, and in the real world of this type of case artificially to shut out a body of interview material would be harmful to the truth-seeking function that we're all engaged in. And I would invite the Chamber -- incidentally, I should say that after the newspaper articles there are also some tape recordings of various of the people we've referred to saying things directly to the camera about what they did.

Now, it would be entirely artificial to exclude that from your consideration when they are men involved with this witness in the things that he was doing at the time. For example, on the stone -- the stone-throwing incident. There is the clearest admission or explanation by Solevic of exactly what was going on.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is he involved in any of the interviews?

MR. NICE: Solevic is fully interviewed in Death of Yugoslavia, the transcript is available, and there's an extract which says exactly what they were doing with the stones and how they were setting it up.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, the witness.

MR. NICE: I'm sorry. The witness, he's not, no. No. He was not involved, but these were the people with whom he was associated.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll consider.

MR. NICE: Thank you.

MR. KAY: Just one matter in reply because it is relevant to this. The way to do it is to produce the material from the case they called, if it's relevant to the indictment, and put that material to the witness, ³⁵⁹⁰⁸ because then that is the foundation of the indictment in the Prosecution case. That is what has to be met. Mr. Nice doesn't have to meet a case at all. That's topsy-turvy. That's not how the trial is being run. He doesn't have to meet a case. He has to put a case and he puts the case from his evidential material that he's called in his phase of the trial. That's what should be put to the witness.

MR. NICE: Really, I'm sorry, I must explain to my learned friend through the Court -- I know, but this matter was discussed in Mr. Kay's absence last week and therefore it was - I think it was last week or the week before with Ms. Higgins - and it was fully explored why in the particular circumstances of these trials where cases can be broadened the position just simply isn't like an ordinary domestic trial, and the matter is on the record. That's enough for me.

MR. KAY: I did read the transcripts and was fully briefed as to what was said.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, this is certainly troubling me. It troubled me before. It may in fact never have been dealt with in the life of the Tribunal, but you're really making no bones about it that what you're trying to do here is introduce material which you have got a fair idea the witness isn't going to accept, but you're going to invite us to treat it as positive material in support of your case at a later stage. Now, that is not consistent with the adversarial presentation of a case. That's not to say it's not necessarily the procedure that should be followed here, because we're facing up to perhaps an unusual situation in ³⁵⁹⁰⁹ that we have a very substantial body of material, a lengthy case, and a Prosecution finding that perhaps there is material that would assist the Trial Chamber that wasn't presented in the course of the Prosecution case. So we may be dealing here with two separate issues which require to be considered in two separate ways. One is the use of the material as cross-examination fodder, as it were, because you want it to prompt the witness and see if you can get him to accept something. But separately, you're blatantly, I think, offering it as positive evidence in support of your case whether he accepts it or not.

Now, can you assist me on any authority --

MR. NICE: First --

JUDGE BONOMY: -- within the Tribunal that gives us guidance on how to deal with this situation other than on purely adversarial terms?

MR. NICE: I think it would be helpful if I take Your Honour's I think possibly three points in reverse order.

The structural problems we face in this case now, but in this type of case generally, is the one to which I referred a couple of weeks ago and is going to recur and recur, and it is that the Prosecution advances its case at a particular breadth or narrowness appropriate to the position it finds itself in at the time it launches the case. The accused, in either cross-examination --

JUDGE BONOMY: I think -- I am clear about the strategical difficulty. It's how you deal with it that's my problem.

MR. NICE: So that the broadened case is something for which I can't complain about the accused and I don't seek to stop him if he says ³⁵⁹¹⁰ not just that this meeting happened but it is a reflection of the highest principles of democracy and everybody was behaving impeccably, and so on. In our judgement, we then have to meet that as an issue to an extent yet to be identified.

First, and then I come back because I suggested it may be two or three points. That's the first point.

The other point divides, as I think Your Honour pointed out, into two. It's unfortunate that the witness is here, but I don't seek to waste time by making this point in his absence.

There can be witnesses and there may be many of them in this case on both sides who are never going to budge an inch from a particular position, and the Chamber's going to be assisted in cross-examination on issues of credibility by the knowledge that there is a body of material contrary to the stated position of the witness. And so one of the values of material of the kind that I'm seeking to explore with this witness is effectively a credibility issue for him. It is, it may be thought, hard to value somebody at a hundred per cent of what he says if you find that there are recurring, repeated reports of others close to the events, associates of him and so on, saying entirely different things whether faced to the camera or in newspaper interviews over several days. And in the real world, it would be -- this is the real world, but in the real court world that these trials compel us and require us to live, it would be quite unrealistic, in our submission, for you to shut yourselves out from that material for that purpose.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, one disadvantage of that procedure, it ^{35911 BLANK PAGE 35912} seems to me, and this arises from the adversarial system, is that the accused will not have an opportunity to cross-examine the persons who made those statements.

MR. NICE: Absolutely true, and that's a reality of having no hearsay rule, which we don't have. We don't have a hearsay rule. Material is prima facie admissible. And it is your functions, difficult but nevertheless regular in these courts, to weigh the value of the material.

The third potential value of material like this is that it may actually go to prove the assertions that are made. That of course is much less likely something I'm going to press if at all on the basis of mere newspaper reports or even television interviews, if the material stands alone. But of course if there's other material available to the same effect, or if the witness acknowledges part of the hearsay material, why, then the position is different and it does become evidence of the assertion that is made.

Now, it seems to me that is a, I hope, fair and candid analysis of the position we're in, and Your Honour used the word "blatant" but straightforward is, I hope, the way I would describe it. I haven't thought to dissemble in any way what I'm doing, and with this particular witness, knowing that in the last few weeks you've become more concerned, particularly His Honour Judge Bonomy, about this evidence. I started off with some propositions and then explained what I was going to do. And incidentally, on The Death of Yugoslavia video, what we've done is prepared an extract, stripping it of all commentary so that all ³⁵⁹¹³ you have on this very topic of this meeting is the extracts from interviews with various participants whose full transcripts are, of course, always available.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Your basic legal argument for its admission is that under 89(C), all evidence is admissible if it is relevant and probative.

MR. NICE: And it is relevant and probative on a common sense basis. On a legal basis, at least for the first of my two purposes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And this notwithstanding that the particular witness to which the material is put does not adopt.

MR. NICE: We don't know if he's going to in part or whole, but if he doesn't it's still of value because, of course, newspapers are prime facie self-producing documents, and a video of somebody -- a video of somebody who the witness will inevitably recognise, because the people on the video are Stambolic, Solevic, Vllasi, I'm trying to think whoever else, maybe one or two others, are all people he will recognise. And that is, in our respectful submission --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Judge Kwon reminds me that in the Prosecution case, in some instances the accused was allowed to put the particular newspaper article or whatever it was but it wasn't admitted if the witness had no connection with it. In other cases, he wasn't allowed to put it at all. As Mr. Kay said, he was told his turn would come.

MR. NICE: And as I've made clear before, the difference there is his turn may come comes with the certainty that his turn will come. In our case with a broader -- ³⁵⁹¹⁴

JUDGE ROBINSON: You don't have another term.

MR. NICE: With the broader case to confront, we don't know that we'll have another turn. Just to give an example, on -- of these witnesses, potential witnesses who deal with this matter, and we respectfully suggest that this is actually quite an important matter. I think Mitevic is, I think, no longer with us. He's the television man. Stambolic, of course, is dead. Solevic is alive but who knows whether he's susceptible to compulsion. Vllasi is somebody who you know I've been suggesting is somebody on list B right from the beginning of the case and I suspect would be available, and I can't remember whoever else there is. And there is Dizdarevic as well. He certainly is alive. He's written a book.

So that from this passage of the expanded case of the accused alone, there could be as many as three witnesses who we would seek to call. Possibly more. And of course a further and very valuable function that having the material presented through the witness to the Court as a legitimate part of cross-examination is that the Court will be better in a position to decide in due course which of these witnesses, if any, it wishes to hear from.

I go back to my earlier basic position, that of course material of this kind, not adopted, not supporting other live evidence, although technically I could seek to rely on it, I don't think there's any chance I would do so, not for the establishment of its truth. But would I rely on it to go to show that the witness is somebody about whom the Court should have some credibility concerns? Most certainly I might, and in our ³⁵⁹¹⁵ submission, that would be a proper thing to do.

So I don't know if that answers His Honour Judge Bonomy's concerns in order or reverse order.

JUDGE BONOMY: What it does do is suggest that there isn't any law on the matter.

MR. NICE: I'm sorry, the question on the law. We haven't done a recent check, and, no, I don't believe there is any law. I'll correct myself overnight if I may. And of course any material looked at between now and then could be set one side mentally if I turn up an authority contrary to my position. And finally, on the law, I think, as I know I made clear in the filing that we made at the beginning of the year about exhibits, the rulings during the Prosecution case had some -- some irregularities. Inevitably, in cases of this sort, total consistency was not possible, but I think Your Honour is right that sometimes the documents went in to be looked at and sometimes they didn't, and I would ask that in the -- this part of the case it's very important they be looked at.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's a very important legal issue as to the applicable law in the Tribunal, and part of the problem, I think, relates to what is the applicable law for the Tribunal. We have said that it is sui generis. Some people say it is an amalgam of the two legal systems. But here we dip into the civil law system for the substantive Rule, which is in Rule 89(C), which says that all evidence is admissible if it is relevant and probative.

But it seems to me, Mr. Kay, that to deny its admission on the ³⁵⁹¹⁶ basis that the evidence is not adopted by a particular witness we are dipping into the adversarial system.

MR. KAY: In fact it's not hearsay at all. It's nothing to do with hearsay, this material. It fails the probative and relevance test.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's not --

MR. KAY: And phrases such as "expanded issues" on a case like this fill us with dread. The trial should be on the indictment and the case called by the Prosecution. All trials work that way, be they under the civil code or the common law code. And the point is here that the accused is meeting a case on the indictment that was brought against him and a Prosecution case of 300 days, but then coming back is cross-examination on the issues raised by this witness in relation to the indictment, but on top of that something else that fills me with dread is this phrase "there's a body of material out there that you should be aware of." Well, I'd hate to be put on trial in relation to a system of justice that had a body of material out there that the Judges should be aware of but I don't have to face and deal with.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice may want to reconsider that. But you say that the evidence is neither relevant nor probative.

MR. KAY: Exactly. It's nothing. It's on the indictment.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice says it may go to credibility.

MR. KAY: It may go to credibility, he says. That's a very wide phrase over -- What status does the material have? He can put a question, the witness not adopt it or it be denied. Then what is the material? Our submission is this; that it is used in these trials, and as ³⁵⁹¹⁷ a trial lawyer I can see it happening day in and day out in this Tribunal by the Prosecution as a vehicle of introducing extra material against the accused that he's simply unable to deal with. And that's why it fails the probative and relevance test, because it simply comes from nowhere. It's not based on the case which he has to meet which ended on the 25th of February, or whatever the date was, in 2004. It's extra material that is being adduced that was not part of the case on the indictment.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me hear from -- Mr. Milosevic, do you have anything to say on this, any submissions on this issue?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, this propaganda BBC broadcast that Mr. Nice constantly refers to is the turning point for all Mr. Nice's theses. Of course in addition to various interviews given by my political adversaries, and I don't think that's serious, although a farce, of course, isn't something that is serious ever and nothing highly respected either. They are part of the real world but as a caricature. So I think we lack seriousness if we keep going back to some propaganda broadcasts and some statements made by my political adversaries who knows how many years later, post festum, after the events. But I don't mind. You can do what you want. You can show whatever you like here, call whomever you like as a witness here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I'm sorry, Your Honour, but there is one point I really must make, in two parts. I'm grateful to one of my colleagues who reminds me, I'm sure I didn't tell you this at the beginning: Apparently Vllasi was originally rejected as a witness by the Chamber or indicated as being ³⁵⁹¹⁸ rejected because he was covering a period of time, the 1980s, rather than the more relevant time, and that, of course, was the way the case was constructed and accepted.

The Chamber will remember that when the accused's list of witnesses came in, we raised on general admissibility grounds some of the witnesses who were extending the history to earlier period and suggested that they shouldn't be called at all, or alternatively that their evidence should be confined, and our motions were rejected because the Chamber said, well, you've put in evidence of background through various witnesses and therefore it's only right and fair for him to do the same. So the case has expanded. And we make no complaint of Your Honours' rulings because we were, in advancing the motions we did, testing to see how far Your Honours, having heard the case, wanted the case to be developed if the accused was so minded.

But so when Mr. Kay says -- and if I used the phrase "out there," this is a terrible slip for which I hope -- which I can, I hope, be forgiven but it's not a question of a case out there, material out there, it's a question of material that's either been served probably already as 68 material or otherwise or is available. I can't speak for every piece of material but most of this stuff has been served already. It's material that it is necessary to explore given the broadened case. So that's the only point I want to make.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Ultimately, of course, we do have --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... -- material ³⁵⁹¹⁹ and it is ultimately what is in the interests of a fair trial. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Mr. Nice, if you could you remind us of the reason why Mr. Vllasi was rejected. Was it not because the Kosovo case was completed?

MR. NICE: Yes, I'm afraid I -- it was mentioned several times and he was one of the earlier witnesses we notified as a witness the Chamber might like to hear. I'll need to research the whole history of him to get it completely right, but it may well be that our first ability to invite you to consider him came after the close of the case, but there it is. That's the best I can do at the moment. I'm sorry not to have the rulings at my fingertips, but I think there were two or three times he was mentioned.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you wanted to say something?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The comment made by Mr. Nice when he said that I have expanded this to the '80s is unacceptable, because the events in Kosovo Polje are mentioned as some kind of arch proof in Mr. Nice's presentations. My speech at Gazimestan, for example, was an event that is being manipulated more than any other. So it wasn't I who introduced that, it was an event that was introduced at the very beginning, in the opening statement made by the opposite side over there. So I don't know what can be more reasonable than what we did during this witness's testimony who was there. He presided over the meeting at Kosovo Polje. He was at Gazimestan himself. What could we have done more but ³⁵⁹²⁰ present an integral text of the videotape that has been translated, and I don't suppose anybody needs to be told what somebody wanted to say by what they in fact said. Can anything be more comprehensive, clearer, and more complete than what we have offered? Both my speeches were broadcast here, were played here, both the television tape from word to word. No -- nothing was abridged. It was presented word-for-word. So I don't know whether anybody needs to brainwash you and tell you what was actually said or what happened there if you've had a chance of seeing all this for yourselves here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, put it to the witness and let us see the witness's reaction to it and then we'll make a determination on the basis of that.

MR. NICE:

Q. The newspaper Borba for the 9th of February, 1993 is the date of the interviews.

And Mr. Balevic, if you'd be good enough, please, to look at the interview of the 9th of February of 1993. A few passages have been translated because it's not necessary to translate all of them. And it's an interview by the late Slavko Curuvija and Milica Kovacevic with the interviewee Miroslav Solevic, headed "We were Milosevic's instruments." And the passages that you'll see marked with sideline markings, Mr. Balevic, include the following: First a matter of history -- not history, of fact that I haven't asked you about but I'd like your ³⁵⁹²¹ assistance with, and it's on the left-hand side of the first -- of the first page for you, at the bottom. Asked and then Milosevic emerged. Solevic says, "Before becoming president of the party committee of the city of Belgrade, Milosevic had been nothing but an ordinary party clerk. It was only after he had come to the said position that he probably realised what fools he had been surrounded with and how easy it was to snatch power ..."

Then he says this: "At the beginning of 1985, at the time when he was already the president of the party committee of Belgrade, Miodrag Vojunovic [phoen], Doko Komad [phoen], and I asked to be received by Milosevic. He didn't receive us. The very same Milosevic!" And he goes on to give an explanation.

Were you aware, Mr. Balevic, that your colleagues, or at least Solevic, I don't know whether you regard the other two as your colleagues, but Solevic had asked to be received by the accused in 1985 and had been refused?

A. No, I am not aware of any of that, nothing about Solevic or any of the others you mentioned. I hear this for the first time that he didn't receive them and all the rest of it.

Q. Over to the next column, and still on the first page of the English, at the foot of the page, it says: "As a matter of fact, he was in Kosovo Polje twice in April of 1987. First time it was after a telegram that we had sent. We had asked that Kosovo Polje be included in his itinerary by all means, so he came. It was just as you described ... In the beginning, a group of four or five hundred people would gather, but ³⁵⁹²² later, no sooner had we reached the playground there were five thousand of them."

Do you accept the accuracy of that?

A. No. Please. I don't wish to comment what Solevic said or didn't say because we parted ways, ideologically speaking, after the events in Kosovo and Metohija. He went one side and I remained on the SPS positions. So I don't wish to comment any statements he made and I don't in fact know what he said. So if, Mr. Nice, you start using newspaper articles, then I can bring you so many articles in here that you would need three days and three nights to examine me on them.

JUDGE BONOMY: That didn't seem to me to be an answer to the question, with respect. You were asked, Mr. Balevic, if what was said there was accurate, that Mr. Milosevic was in Kosovo Polje twice in April. The first time it was after a telegram that had been sent. "We had asked that Kosovo Polje be included in his itinerary, by all means, so he came." Is that accurate?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You didn't say that, because that's all you were asked.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, sir, but he is using articles. The Prosecutor is using articles. I can bring in thousands of articles. So I can't say what was correct in the articles and what wasn't. I haven't read them all. But yes, it's true that he was there twice, the first time on the 20th, the second time on the 24th. I've said this umpteen times here and it has come up on the transcript, so I don't ³⁵⁹²³ know why the question in the first place.

JUDGE BONOMY: That's not what you were asked. You were asked a specific question so please answer the questions that are put to you and we'll make some progress.

MR. NICE: Grateful to Your Honour.

Q. The second page in your version, please, Mr. Balevic, and at the foot of our page, Mr. Solevic expressed this view in answer to a question, "What kind of relationship did you have with Milosevic after the 8th session?" And he replied: "After that moment, Milosevic started consolidating his own power. After that moment, you could not have an isolated view on us without taking Milosevic into account. We had become an instrument of his power. We had thought that with him we could solve everything that we wanted, and he had counted on us being those he could use to exterminate all the mice that were in his way. He got the better calculations. We did not."

Now, do you agree that for the period of 19 -- the end of 1987 and into 1988 the body of Serbs in Kosovo who were responsive to the instructions of the men I've identified as the leaders of this group and who, with you, organised the 1987 meeting, were integrated with the political developments of this accused?

A. You'll have to call that group for an answer. I cannot provide you with one because I'm not aware of it. I don't know what the relationships between Solevic and Milosevic were. You can ask Solevic that. Bring him here, and the president is here so he can answer for himself. So I don't know what their relations were like. ³⁵⁹²⁴

Q. Mr. Balevic, you have said on many occasions you are unimportant. On other occasions you've explained your political history and how you chaired the meeting in 1987 and of how you receive important visitors at Gazimestan in 1989. Let me ask you again: The group of which you had been a party and of which you must have been aware was important to this accused, wasn't it?

A. And I'll answer again I did not belong to that group, and the guests to Gazimestan, I was just the technical host and received them that way. I wasn't vital anywhere. I said I wasn't vital for cadres policy personnel policy at the top in the central committee, but I was vital as president of the party in Kosovo. So that's what I meant.

Q. Let's look at a couple of entries on the next newspaper article, which is for the 10th of February, and you'll again see these marked. But if you go, I think, to the bottom -- in your case -- sorry. In the English to the middle of the page. I'll omit the first one. And in your page, Mr. Balevic, to the bottom left-hand corner, in answer to the question, "It's well known what happened in Novi Sad," Solevic said this: "Other things are known, too. The rallies started and brought down the leaderships of Vojvodina and Montenegro. We had prepared everything to overthrow the Bosnian leadership too. We thought that the thing could be carried out the easiest over there. But Sloba and Serbian leadership asked us to give up Jajce. It was a mistake that he stopped us. He could, as he had done up to that point, played dumb at their pressure, until we wipe off Bosnia."

Now, were you aware -- you were aware, I must suggest to you, of ³⁵⁹²⁵ the rallies that were going out because these rallies are the demonstrations in Vojvodina and Montenegro, and you spoke yourself of people from Kosovo going to Montenegro and I think to Vojvodina, so you must have been aware of these rallies; correct?

A. Yes, I was aware of the meetings, the rallies, but your question as asked, I'm not aware of that nor did I read Solevic's interviews. I didn't know that they went to Novi Sad to overthrow the government. They were spontaneous organised rallies, organised by the people of Serbia to support us in our struggle for their survival. So I'm not aware of that comment of his so I can't really comment.

Q. If you would be good enough to go to the next question, which reads -- the next highlighted passage, which reads: "Don't you have an impression, looking back from the present moment, that in 1988 you were used as an instrument, not to say abused, by Milosevic?" Solevic answers: "Only later it became a parade." And then asked, "How did the rift happen in the rally staff?"

And I remind you, Mr. Balevic, that you have said you parted company with Solevic at the end of 1988, I think you said. So Solevic's view of the disintegration of the rally staff is this: "I wanted to dissolve our rally staff. No decision could be taken without Kosta, Bosko, Dusko Ristic, and me. However, Milosevic said - no!, but only a month later Milosevic said: Dissolve it now. And we dissolved it. "Milosevic himself said that?

"Yes. And we were called to come to Belgrade to be told that at the end of 1998." ³⁵⁹²⁶ Now, think back and tell us, was this grouping of people, the rally staff, sending people out as demonstrators, was it subject to the control of this accused at the end of 1988?

A. You, Mr. Nice, keep insisting upon saying that I was a member of the group to which I did not belong. I belonged to the mass movement of Serbs and Montenegrins as a politician in daily politics, so I'm not aware of any talks, as to when Milosevic said this or that, that he wanted it to dissolve or not dissolve, and I don't wish -- I cannot given an answer and I don't wish to comment because I don't know..

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, we have to stop. We can't encroach. We are going to adjourn now.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one comment, if I may.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice is taking this approach: He says that what he is presenting here is the truth and that the person speaking is well-informed. Now, I don't want to ascribe any ill-intention of any kind to Mr. Solevic, however, Mr. Nice has studied my biography very closely and I think he has noted it down somewhere and he knows full well that what it says here when it says that I was a party official until 1984, he would have to know that that is not correct, because until the end of 1983, I was president of the Belgrade bank, the largest Yugoslav bank, and before that for many years I worked in the bank and in the commercial sphere generally.

So if we take just this fact alone that he operates with is an incorrect one. And since Mr. Nice does have my CV and as he must compare ³⁵⁹²⁷ what it says there and what it says here, and then he'll be able to establish that his premise, the one he starts out from, is incorrect, I don't know how he can conclude that all the rest of it is correct, whereas these are material facts we're dealing with, so it's not a value judgement of any kind, it's facts, the facts of what happened, and Mr. Nice has those facts at his disposal but he is using it, he is using this material and knowing full well that certain elements in that material are incorrect.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. You'll have your turn. We are adjourned until tomorrow morning at 9.00 a.m..

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

February, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.