Milosevic Transcript 2005-02-16

³⁶²⁵⁹

Wednesday, 16 February 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are we in private session?

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted) ³⁶²⁶⁰ Page 36260 redacted. Private session.

³⁶²⁶¹

(redacted)

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

WITNESS: VLADISLAV JOVANOVIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, have you completed your examination-in-chief?

THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]

JUDGE ROBINSON: There is no interpretation.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe I need another half an hour for examination, approximately.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Half an hour? Yes. Try for 20 minutes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will do my best. I will try to conclude as soon as possible.

Examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Jovanovic, the period when the terrorism escalated in Kosovo in 1998 and until the end, at that time you were head of the Yugoslav mission at the UN?

A. That's right.

Q. Please tell us, Kosovo as an internal issue of a sovereign state, ³⁶²⁶² Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, how was that issue internationalised? How did it reach the Security Council's agenda?

A. Kosovo reached the Security Council's agenda through the Contact Group, which was established for Bosnia and Herzegovina, however in 1997 started looking into the situation in Kosovo and Metohija. We objected to that, however, the answer was that the Contact Group could look into and discuss any issue it wanted. As the practice of the Security Council was to get the views of the Contact Group prior to the issue being put on the agenda of the Security Council, all of these issues were discussed there first and then permanent members and later on also temporary members of the Security Council took into account and complied with the opinion of the Contact Group, which we opposed. We protested concerning that, however, they disregarded that protest of ours.

Q. When you lodged protests, did you point out that that was a violation of the principle of the UN not to discuss internal issues of one state?

A. Yes, we did. We expressed our opposition to that, but as I've already said, the Contact Group believed it was entitled to discuss about the internal issues of our country. And after that initial occasion, they simply introduced it into the regular practice of Security Council through the back door, and from then on it became a regular practice.

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, you as head of the Yugoslav mission at the UN received numerous documents about the crimes committed by the terrorist organisation called KLA against policemen, civilians, and so on throughout 1998 and 1999. Did you receive such information? ³⁶²⁶³

A. Yes, we did receive that information on a -- I would say a rather regular basis. Based on the instructions we received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we would forward that information together with my supporting material to the Security Council and ask that that be registered as the UN documents.

Q. Was that done?

A. Yes. Whenever there was such an order, it was done in accordance with that procedure.

Q. Did you also receive documentation of our government pertaining to the NATO aggression against our country?

A. Yes, we did. And we applied the same procedure, because we would inevitably always receive instructions to forward that documentation to the Secretary-General and request that it be registered as the UN documentation.

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, in order to save time, I would like to point to you that in tab 28 - and you gentlemen as well - in tabs 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34.

Therefore, in tab 27 [as interpreted], we have a document entitled "Terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija and Albania." If you turn the page, if you turn the first page dated September 1998, you can see that the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the agency that issued it.

JUDGE KWON: I think it's in binder 2. Tab 28.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, what binder is this in; 1 or 2, tab 28? Is it tab 28 or tab 27?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 28 up until 34. So tabs -- seven ³⁶²⁶⁴ tabs containing documents. I assume that Mr. Jovanovic has the same copy as you do. I don't know if it's binder 1 or 2. It's not marked in my notes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is marked as tab 1 in my notes.

JUDGE KWON: In binder 2.

JUDGE BONOMY: Binder 2 is not headed Terrorism. It's --

MR. KAY: Tab 30.

JUDGE BONOMY: It's tab 30, is it?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Tab 34 is Terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija, and it contains the documents of the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I suppose that in order to be as rational as possible in our use of time, Mr. Robinson, we could cover all these documents now.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, these documents of the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, are these documents that you distributed in your capacity as the Yugoslav ambassador to the UN to other officials of the UN?

A. Yes. This was sent to the Secretary-General, and in addition to that, we also send these documents to certain members of the Security Council.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Following this, from 28 until tab 34, first we have NATO Crimes in Yugoslavia, documentary evidence, 24th of March to 24th of April. And then the next one is NATO Crimes in Yugoslavia, documentary evidence, 25th of April, 10th of June. Then we have the next one, Terrorist Acts of Albanian Terrorist Groups in Kosovo and Metohija, documents and evidence, 1st of January, 1998, to 10th of ³⁶²⁶⁵ June, 1999, part 1. Then we have that same title in the following book, part 2. And then we have Crimes Committed by Albanian Terrorists in the Territory of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo since the 10th of June, 1999, documents and evidence, part 1. And then we have that same title part 2.

So these are all documents containing facts, photographs. Therefore, this is the documentation issued by official agencies of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia sent to the UN and its officials via this witness who was Yugoslav ambassador to the UN.

I ask that these seven documents be tendered into evidence. And let me just note that, as Mr. Kwon said, these documents were previously marked for identification. I referred to these documents during my various statements and opening statement, and this witness, through his official channels, forwarded these documents to various UN bodies and officials. Therefore, I ask that this be tendered into evidence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, let me understand. These are documents that would have been prepared by government agencies.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Certainly. These are official documents. You can see that it says Ministry of Foreign Affairs here. This ministry published these documents for these purposes precisely. And all of these documents were transferred to UN officials by this witness while he was ambassador there.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So all information would have been collected by government agencies on behalf of the government.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, by government agencies, by ³⁶²⁶⁶ citizens in the field. All of these documents, photographs. I don't know whether photographs were taken by government agencies or perhaps by some teams who were in charge of that, however, you can see the documents, names of the people, photographs, events that were documented; everything else that accompanied these events. You can see that there are plenty of photographs here. All of the events are described as well. There are many documents attached.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, may the position about the production of these exhibits be reserved until I've asked a couple of questions about it? Unless you want to hear an argument now. I'm in your hands.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I was really doing some of your work when I asked you those questions, because you really need to lay a better foundation than you have done so far for the admission of the documents. I've asked you how the information was collected. That's the kind of questions that you need to put to the witness. How they were transmitted to the witness, and then what he did with them.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I wanted to save the time. The witness is very well familiar with the contents of these documents. I can cover with him every book and it will take several hours. However, I wanted to be as efficient as possible, because these are documents issued by official government agencies. And this witness in his official capacity sent these documents to the UN officials; Secretary-General and other UN bodies. This is why I asked that they be exhibited. If you want me to cover all of these documents in their entirety, I'm prepared to do that. ³⁶²⁶⁷

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, Mr. Milosevic. Just by asking three or four questions of the witness you can lay the foundation for their admission.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, how did you come to have these documents?

A. These documents were sent via diplomatic couriers or via mail. I don't think we used mail because it wasn't reliable, so they must have arrived via diplomatic couriers. Immediately upon receipt of these documents we would forward them to the United Nations and a number of officials and agencies in New York. Our aim was to inform the public, which was poorly informed about the events in Kosovo and Metohija, the public in the US, about the actual situation in Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, every time you received some of these documents, did you make sure that you familiarised yourself with the contents of these documents?

A. Yes, certainly. I can't say that I studied every word of these documents. However, I went over them, compared them to the photographs that looked very shocking, and I could see that these documents are very concrete because they listed names, last names of the victims, as well as sites where these events took place.

Q. Even before these documents arrived, did you receive through regular communication with the ministry from Belgrade information about the events as they were unfolding chronologically?

A. Yes. We received that information as well, and we would always forward it to the president of the Security Council or Secretary-General, however, more often to the president of the Security Council, asking that ³⁶²⁶⁸ it be distributed to other members of the Security Council because all of this had to do with the regular issues on the agenda of the Security Council.

Q. These documents that you received after and the information contained in them, was it in accordance with what you learned later?

A. I'm sure that they were in accordance, because we could compare that and the information that arrived subsequently.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, should we cover now each book individually?

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, no. Judge Bonomy.

JUDGE BONOMY: It's necessary, I think certainly for me, to know how these books were compiled and what the sources of the information in them were. It's not so much what you did with them that's the issue, it's how they were made up, so that we can see -- to help us to consider what value to place on them if they are to be admitted. Now, do you know how they were compiled?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know specifically, but it was clear to me that they were collected on the basis of a series of statements and stories told by the victims and investigations on the spot by the competent authorities and a series of photographs taken on the spot by private individuals or anybody else who happened to be there or the judiciary, members of the court who took part in the investigation. So as I was in New York, I can't tell you what actually happened in Yugoslavia.

JUDGE BONOMY: That's what I thought was the position, Mr. Jovanovic. So you were effectively the postman delivering these ³⁶²⁶⁹ ^{BLANK PAGE} ³⁶²⁷⁰ documents and making sure they got proper attention at the New York end, but you had no responsibility for actually compiling the documents themselves?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No. But I wasn't only a postman either. I interpreted the information in my numerous meetings and encounters with colleagues, members of the Security Council, and the media.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You were an ambassadorial postman. Would it --

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: My only observations in light of the material that's been elicited by questions from His Honour Judge Bonomy is that in broadly similar documents, "As Seen, As Told" or "Under Orders," evidence was given directly to the Chamber by either the compiler or the person in charge of compilation of the book who was able to speak personally and in respect of the supervision of others as to the methodology of preparation and therefore as to its reliability, in one or both cases the authors having spoken of their methods of verifying the accuracy of the documents concerned, so that this document falls into a different category.

MR. KAY: Can I intervene?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. KAY: As it's so often the right questions being asked and even this witness, who may have been a postman, but he looked at the material and would be able to recognise the documents. They're from public documents. They're autopsy reports, they're court investigative ³⁶²⁷¹ statements. It's actually better material than "As Seen, As Told" because it's the official documents within the FRY system that would have been put together as part of any crime scene analysis that has been compiled here to produce the evidence. So they largely come from Ministry of Justice reports or police reports, pathologist reports, and are based on I'm going to say government. I'm looking for the relevant state department's materials. And so in that context they are official documents that have been put together by some agency.

It's a question of the right questions being asked.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm going to ask Mr. Milosevic just illustratively to take us through some of the information in the documents. Just say three or four so we can see what they are.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Robinson. I shall be happy to do so. I'd just like to draw your attention to what Mr. Nice said a moment ago. This is far more important and much more valid evidence than the book "As Seen, As Heard" [as interpreted] written by different authors. These are official documents by the authorities who were in charge of conducting investigations and establishing what had happened in the field, that is to say the organs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia.

And by way of an example, here we have one. Take a look at the first book, NATO Crimes in Yugoslavia, for instance, documentary evidence, 21st of March to the 24th -- or, rather, 24th of March to April 1999, and if you look at page, for instance, page 32. It follows the photographs, ³⁶²⁷² the set of photographs. Or, for example, after the first set of photographs --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Page 32.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, you can take a look at page 21. After the first set of photographs. I don't know if you have the photographs. You can see a human hand, a severed head of a man who was killed. On page 21 you can see that this is an official document. It says the Republic of Serbia, Ministry of the Interior, Secretariat of the Interior in Djakovica, the dispatch number is 2583/99, the date is the 14th of April, 1999, Djakovica. Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia is the addressee. Criminal police, HQ, police HQ, Operations Centre. Well, I can read it out in English to make it easier on the interpreters. It says: "Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia, Criminal Police Headquarters, Police Headquarters, [In English] Operations Centre Belgrade, Ministry of the Interior Headquarters Pristina." [Interpretation] And then it says, "On the 14th of April, 1999, between 1.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m., [In English] the criminal NATO forces committed an air assault on a column of refugees --"

THE INTERPRETER: A little slower, please, regardless of the language. Thank you. A little slower, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic, you're getting carried away. You're getting excited, and you're going too fast for the interpreters.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Anyway, this is an official letter naming the people identified on the spot, and it says: ³⁶²⁷³ "Martin Hasanaj, Lek Hasanaj, Salji Djokaj, Skendi Djokaj," et cetera, et cetera.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic. Let's move to another one. I have seen this one.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please. It was signed by the superintendent Colonel Milan Kovacevic, secretariat superintendent. So this is an official letter preceded by photographs. And then if you turn the page, you will see the same thing. To the Ministry of the Interior, from Pristina, et cetera, et cetera, and an explanation. The document was signed this time by Colonel Milovan Kovacevic. And the following document on page 25 was signed by Lieutenant Colonel Milan Stanojevic, and it says what happened in the village of Madanaj. 19 persons were killed, six persons wounded. And then he goes on to explain what happened near the village of Meja, the Terzijski bridge, the village of Meja, Terzijski bridge, and the village of Gradis. Then page 26, a report on the on-site forensic technical investigation, signed by forensic technicians Veselin Vesovic, Ljubisa Djordjevic, Nebojsa Vuksanovic, Nebojsa Avramovic, and then an explanation of what happened there, and this is followed by a set of photographs pertaining to all of that.

I happened to open the page at page 32, the document at page 32, and there, too, you can see what was going on. NATO strike on the Prizren-Djakovica road. It says enclosure on-site inspection, topographic map, photographic and technical documentation of the site, forensic technical report, and so on and so forth. ³⁶²⁷⁴ Then you have some maps. And if you turn the page there to page 34, once again a report. The signatures. So we're dealing here with these. A series of photographs next. Signatures again.

JUDGE KWON: And if you look at the preface, the preface was written by minister of foreign affairs, and it says that it was --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Correct.

JUDGE KWON: "The aim of this book is to present to the international public the evidence about crimes." So having read that, I think Mr. Jovanovic can explain the purpose of this book and the way of compilation, since you are in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, even though you were in New York.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovanovic wasn't the foreign minister. He was the head of the Yugoslav mission to the United Nations. Before that he was the foreign minister.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The foreign minister was also a man named Jovanovic but his name was Zivadin Jovanovic and he wrote the preface with the intention of informing the world public who was overly bombed and supersaturated with one-sided presentations of the NATO aggression and the development of events over there. So they wanted to inform the world public with the specific concrete findings of the competent authorities so that they could gain a true picture of what was happening in Yugoslavia as the result of the NATO bombing. And that preface of his is something that is logical to my mind because it is a book compiled by the Foreign Ministry, and he as minister said a few words by way of explanation what it was all about in the preface. ³⁶²⁷⁵

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, you indicated earlier that you had some questions to ask in relation to the admission of these documents.

MR. NICE: Most of them have effectively -- most of them have effectively been raised by His Honour Judge Bonomy, and it seems to me the conclusion that one could draw is that this witness has no firsthand knowledge of the contents and was not involved directly in the preparation and did not supervise the preparation of the book. That makes it different from "As Seen, As Told" or from "Under Orders." It's also, of course, different in that the participants in the compilation of the book may be thought to have been those with an interest and not those who were disinterested in the way that the contributors --

JUDGE ROBINSON: All of that goes to weight. That's why I asked him earlier -- remember I asked him if it was collected by government servants of different agencies.

MR. NICE: Those are the points I would have sought to have pressed home through cross-examination. I don't desire to take more time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We could mark it for identity, and Mr. Milosevic, and it would be then in your interest to bring a witness who could speak to the manner of compilation so that we would be able to attach more weight to it than we can now. Because it wasn't compiled by the ambassador or under his supervision. It was compiled under the supervision, no doubt, of somebody working in the Ministry of the Interior. So if you were to bring that witness from the Ministry of the Interior who supervised the compilation, it would enhance the weight that ³⁶²⁷⁶ the Chamber would be able to attach to the information and would meet some of the arguments raised by the Prosecution --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- [Previous translation continues] ... and so on. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, before you make a ruling, open page 56, for example, please. I don't know --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Which volume? Which volume?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The same volume. I'm taking this as an example. Turn to page 56. Be so good as to turn to page 56, please. I don't know which official of the ministry you need to give weight to this.

This provides -- this sets out the investigation report "[In English] Made on April 6, 1999, by Investigative Judge of the Aleksinac Municipal Court relating to the bombing of Aleksinac by NATO war planes on April 5, 1999, which caused the death of several persons, serious and minor injuries of several persons, and extensive material damage." [Interpretation] And then it says here present on behalf of the Court [In English] Court Clerk, President of the Court, District Attorney's office, Forensic Technician, Expert Consultants. [Interpretation] And so and so forth. And then you have description of the scene. And it goes on to explain which houses were targeted, who the proprietors of the houses were, which streets, the street numbers of the houses, and a whole page devoted to the figures, the number of houses, the owners who were hit, the houses who were hit. ³⁶²⁷⁷ So these are documents, authentic documents, authentic reports by the court organs. I assume you really don't need an official from the ministry to explain any of this, how this information was gathered. These are official facts and figures compiled by the courts, the police, the state organs of Yugoslavia, and I can just make -- add this: Each of these documents, and there are thousands of them in these books, can be a separate exhibit in itself and proof in itself. If you want me to go through them one by one and turn them all into exhibits, I'll be happy to do so, it won't be difficult for me.

For example, if you look at the Aleksinac report for which Mr. Nice said that the barracks were targeted whereas here we can see all the houses, the residential apartment buildings in the centre of Aleksinac were targeted and destroyed should be a separate subject. I don't -- I didn't think that weight was given by the form it was packed up in. But if you would like, I would turn all these books into thousands of exhibits and then you can see for yourselves. But if you want to reject court documents of what actually happened, then go ahead and do so, but then that speaks of something else, doesn't it, that we're not talking about the Ministry of Foreign Affairs here. These are documents, court documents and other documents of state organs with documents provided and attached with the findings attached.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, as you said, there are thousands and hundreds of documents here. Are they all official documents, documents of ministry? How can you verify that? There's so many.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, then I'm going to turn them ³⁶²⁷⁸ into 1.000 exhibits and I'm going to verify all of them. That's no problem whatsoever, because in the book they were published. I mean, the contents of these documents. We're going to take the photocopies of these documents, we're going to take the findings of experts, of forensic experts, of court authorities, and we're going to exhibit all of them. If you want me to do it that way, I'm going to do it that way. No problem whatsoever.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, please try to understand at least my concern about the way in which this is being presented. This witness has told us all he obviously can about these documents, and that's fine, because it's important to demonstrate that they got to the United Nations and they were a representation of a case being made on behalf of your country to the United Nations. But there's a large volume of material here, and it's your job to present it in a form which will enable us to give it the maximum weight. This is obviously important material, if you can justify presenting it in a proper way.

Now, what I need to know is how it was compiled. Because a lot of it is summaries of events. They're not all official documents. Perhaps the majority are, I don't know, but it's obvious they're not all official documents. So we need to know how this exercise was carried out and how in general we should approach our consideration of it. And all that needs is a witness from one of the ministries who was responsible for compiling this or supervising its compilation to come and tell us about it. At the moment, all that's happening is time is being wasted in relation to the evidence of an important witness who really can't add ³⁶²⁷⁹ anything on this particular material. So there will be a way of doing it. It could even be done in writing. Either that or by a statement subject to cross-examination or something of that nature. There are many ways of introducing this material in the right form without taking up the time of witnesses who can't really speak to it. And I need to be addressed, before I'm prepared to accept that it should be admitted, to hear evidence about the way in which it was put together.

[Trial Chamber confers]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We are deliberating, Mr. Milosevic.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, could you take a look at tab 30, tab 30, page 259. On the left side, on page 258, it says that it's a report on ballistic expert examination, but on page -- from page 209 [sic], there are a number of paragraphs which summarise Albanian terrorist attacks. Is it a summary done by whom or whether they are official documents?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me just have a look, from 209.

JUDGE KWON: 259.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Oh, 259. Yes, 259. All right. 259, then. Oh, the numbers are 665, 666, 667. Events that were registered by the official authorities. But there's something wrong. It cannot start from 665. And then further on -- then 664 must have been the previous event. These are events that were registered by the authorities in charge. This is not information from the newspaper. They are supported by documents that are held by the competent agencies. So these ³⁶²⁸⁰ ^{BLANK PAGE} ³⁶²⁸¹ are not summaries, these are descriptions of specific events. Look at 665: "In the night of the 17th and 18th of November, 1998, Albanian terrorists fired several shots from automatic weapons towards the garage and repair service in Pec, property of Ali Berisha, born in 1934, hitting the facility with 22 bullets."

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, it's not clear from the document itself who compiled this paragraph, from where. So you can call a witness who is able to answer these kind of questions, which no doubt will strengthen your case.

JUDGE BONOMY: And probably one witness could cover all the binders by telling us how this job was done. Otherwise, we're left to fish around and try to -- and indeed we would be required to speculate to some extent, which is inappropriate.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I find this very useful what you've been saying now, because it's obvious that importance is not being attached to substance. It is the form that counts, to give it an acceptable form.

Mr. Kwon, you opened this book now, Terrorist Acts by Albanian Terrorists and Terrorist Groups in Kosovo and Metohija, documents in evidence from the 1st of January, 1998 to the 10th of June, 1999. All of this information is supplied by official authorities. Then I also opened the first book about NATO crimes --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the passage to which Judge Kwon refers, there is nothing there to say how it was compiled. You cannot yourself give evidence. I've told you that before. There's absolutely ³⁶²⁸² nothing on that page to show where that information came from, and that's the point that Judge Kwon is making, and Judge Bonomy.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well. You're going to get all of these books, all of these documents as a separate exhibit with court reports. There's going to be several thousand of them, and then we're going to look at them, because you yourselves insist on it. I assume that you're going to give me sufficient time for it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: If you wish to be silly, that's your business, but don't waste the time of the Court.

JUDGE BONOMY: Behaviour like a spoiled child is quite inappropriate in a forum such as this.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We are discussing an important matter of the weight that we will be able to attach to these thousands of pages, and the point is that we will be able to attach little weight to it if we don't know how it was compiled. So there's no point behaving in this silly fashion. I will not tolerate it.

JUDGE KWON: I think court-assigned counsel or the associate can assist you in this matter.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll mark these documents for identification, and the Court advises Mr. Milosevic to produce a witness who can give credible testimony as to how the information in these documents was compiled.

Do you have any further questions of this witness?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course I have more questions, ³⁶²⁸³ Mr. Robinson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, in paragraph 96 of the Kosovo document, it says -- or, rather, there is reference made to Resolution 1160 and then 1199 of the Security Council. The other ones are not mentioned. I'm going to read part of this paragraph out to you. It says: "In response to the intensifying conflict, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1160 in March 1998 'condemning the use of excessive force by Serbian police forces against civilians and peaceful demonstrators in Kosovo,' and imposed an arms embargo on the FRY. Six months later, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1199 (1998) which stated that 'the deterioration of the situation in Kosovo, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, constitutes a threat to peace and security in the region.' The Security Council demanded that all parties cease hostilities and that 'security forces used for civilian repression' be withdrawn." So, Security Council Resolutions about Kosovo and Metohija, because this paragraph doesn't show that, do they refer to terrorist activities? Do they condemn them? You were there then, you followed these events. You received all these Resolutions. Tell us as briefly as possible in response to my question whether Security Council Resolutions about the situation in Kosovo and Metohija, do they mention terrorist activities and do they condemn them?

A. When the situation in Kosovo was discussed and during the NATO aggression, there was a total of four Security Council Resolutions. In all of them, there is explicit condemnation of terrorist acts and ³⁶²⁸⁴ terrorism, or they call upon the Albanian leaders to do their best to have such activities stopped.

In addition to these Security Council Resolutions, in one of the Resolutions of the General Assembly terrorist activities were also condemned, also, there were some reports of the Secretary-General of the UN that were submitted to the Security Council that indicated terrorist activities of the KLA in Kosovo vis-a-vis civilians, both Albanians and Serbs.

Q. All right. Tell me, since you were in New York then and since you followed all the reactions, was the KLA qualified as a terrorist organisation; and if so, by who?

A. The KLA was first placed on the State Department list as a terrorist organisation. In all fairness, at that time it was not known as the KLA, but the terrorist groups that were operating at the time, much less then than later on, were considered to be terrorist groups. This was in 1997. In 1998, they were treated as a terrorist group. And I think that Ambassador Gelbard, if I remember his name correctly, was the one who sometime in February that year called the KLA a terrorist group beyond any doubt.

Later on, this terrorist group or organisation grew into the so-called Freedom Fighters, and during the NATO aggression they became the infantry of NATO in Kosovo and Metohija and in Albania from where they carried out incursions into the territory of Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. Whose perception was this that the terrorist organisation of the KLA was -- became Freedom Fighters? ³⁶²⁸⁵

A. This was under the influence of the US government primarily and NATO. They were representing this terrorist group as the so-called protectors of the Albanian people that were threatened, as was said, and then they were accepted as Freedom Fighters.

I omitted to mention that Ambassador Richard Holbrooke established the first contact with them. I think this was in 1998 when he visited one of their bases, crossed his legs, sat and talked to them and practically legalised them in this way.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think you're probably giving some of the answers that I wanted, but you said that the KLA became the infantry of NATO. Could you explain that? How did they become the infantry of NATO?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Soldiers of the UCK frequently crossed from Kosovo to the territory of Albania and vice versa. And at the time when the bombing was the fiercest in an area called Kosara, which is on our territory, these UCK units attacked numerously Yugoslav border, across the border, and that was followed by a synchronised NATO action which targeted our soldiers who had left their shelters in order to protect the borders from armed attacks. There are many statements in the press about that, and this is not something that NATO kept quiet either. On the other hand, the UCK soldiers were exposed to --

JUDGE ROBINSON: The sequence of KLA attacks followed by NATO bombing suggested that there was some collaboration between NATO and the KLA. Is that what you're saying?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is what is stated by some leaders of the UCK or KLA, as it is called. Later on, in their books they ³⁶²⁸⁶ wrote that the goal was to get Yugoslav Serb soldiers out to a clear terrain where they would be easily targeted by NATO planes. This is what was publicly stated. A lot of our soldiers were killed in the process of that action.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That is the basis, that is the sole basis for your conclusion that there was collaboration, the sequence of KLA attacks followed by NATO bombing. I mean, do you have any other evidence to support what is obviously your thesis that there was some collaboration between NATO and the KLA?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were several reports in Western media. This is not something that was kept silent, kept quiet. President Clinton, in honour of what he did for Albanians and Kosovo, had a main square in Pristina named after him, and also several other places.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A monument was built in his honour as well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, you were in New York at the time, so please tell us, did NATO receive any kind of approval, indirect approval even, for its aggression against Yugoslavia?

A. No. They didn't even try to get an approval because they knew that one -- at least one of the members of Security Council would veto it. This is why they proceeded into the action without applying to the Security Council at all. Leaders of NATO countries later on tried to justify this by saying that in previous Resolutions of the Security ³⁶²⁸⁷ Council, Chapter VII had been mentioned. However, these were very unconvincing arguments, analyses that could not be supported by the Charter or other documents and that were really not taken seriously by anyone, even in Western countries.

In a series of reports issued by -- or statements given by President Clinton and various other NATO and Western leaders, they always availed themselves of some new arguments. They never insisted on the same arguments. So that initial thesis that justified this action was not acceptable even to those who advocated it initially.

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, based on the assessment, evaluations of foreign diplomats that you came across at the UN, please tell us whether the authority of the UN was destroyed as a result of this NATO action.

A. Undoubtedly it was. When I gave a speech at the UN and when I compared this case to the --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: We're not concerned, as I think Your Honour Judge Robinson said yesterday, with the international community's behaviour and response, and as I've said on several earlier occasions, the accused is using his opportunity to ask questions as a way of advancing political positions and propaganda.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Next question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I'm asking the witness about a speech he gave at the Security Council. Therefore, this is not an academic issue --

JUDGE ROBINSON: The question that you asked is whether the ³⁶²⁸⁸ authority of the UN was destroyed as a result of this NATO action, and that is totally an irrelevant matter. So move to the next question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well, Mr. Robinson. The crimes of NATO are not relevant for you. This is just --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I've cut you off.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, what did you say in your speech given before the Security Council?

A. I informed them that on the 24th, on such-and-such time, an aggression against Yugoslavia had commenced, that it had no basis. It was not based on anything that was written in the Charter of the UN and that the Security Council was the only one that could authorise the use of force against another UN member state. I gave figures about casualties, and I warned that this was a heavy blow to the UN because an armed action was being carried out against a UN member state without the approval of the Security Council, which is the only body authorised to authorise such use of force.

And then I said that if such an action is being allowed, then we should ask ourselves who is going to be the next target. I reminded them of the sad fate of the League of Nations and the case of Italy and the then Abyssinia --

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's irrelevant. Move on to an issue that's relevant. And you should now be concluding your examination-in-chief. This witness has been here from Monday. We are now at Wednesday. ³⁶²⁸⁹

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, please take a look at tab 17.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope, Mr. Robinson, that you will not decline my request to have this exhibited.

JUDGE ROBINSON: In which binder?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, tab 17. I have just one single binder. Therefore, I can't tell you whether it's binder 1 or 2 in your document. However, it's tab 17. This is a document providing the definition of aggression. And in the footnote it says: "Official Records of the General Assembly, the 29th session..." Therefore, this is an official text --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Tab 17?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right. And this is the document that brings the definition of aggression.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, Mr. Milosevic, if you wish, you could call me as a witness. I was involved in the negotiations that produced that definition in 1974. But do you need this?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Do I need you to testify? I suppose that you've already testified.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... of aggression.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that it is necessary to have it introduced into evidence, because this institution of yours is constantly declaring itself not to have jurisdiction over the crimes committed by Western powers in the territory of Yugoslavia so you should ³⁶²⁹⁰ change the name of the institution.

MR. NICE: May I make some observations. I think the accused is going far too far. We divide up the two things that have happened recently. Were it to be relevant for the Chamber to consider the definition of aggression, that would be a public document that wouldn't be to be produced in the course of these proceedings. It would simply be available.

Second, the accused's questioning and his attitude to the Court is a matter that the Court, in our respectful submission, could view very seriously. Freedom of expression granted to an accused representing himself is one thing; to be contemptuous of the Court is entirely something else.

Now, we recognise that this accused has no respect for the Court - he's made that clear - and may be untroubled by any sanctions of a conventional kind that the Court could impose on him, but we also recognise that this accused now understands that the Court has the ability to curtail the amount of time in which he may present his case, and it would be our submission that the Chamber could start the process of considering docking time, reducing time when the accused behaves as offensively to the Chamber as he has started to do today.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we'll not admit this. Every student in law, international law, knows about the definition of aggression. It is something that you can refer to in your closing address, if you wish.

If you do not have any more questions, I will terminate your ³⁶²⁹¹ ^{BLANK PAGE} ³⁶²⁹² examination-in-chief.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have several more questions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Not several more.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jovanovic --

JUDGE ROBINSON: If you continue to ask questions that are not relevant, I'm going to terminate your examination-in-chief, so bear that in mind.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Robinson. I suppose that it is relevant what is stated in count 99.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I will read it out, Mr. Jovanovic, the very end of this paragraph. It pertains to Rambouillet, and the last sentence goes as follows: "Despite intensive negotiations over several weeks, the peace talks collapsed in mid-March 1999."

Are you familiar with these intensive negotiations which collapsed in mid-March 1999?

A. Yes, I am familiar with them based on my following of the Rambouillet peace process while I was in New York and based on the reports we regularly received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Based on that, I know that there were in fact no negotiations at all, rather, mediating activity on behalf of members of the Contact Group, Ambassador Hill, and so on. And there were no contacts between the representatives of the UCK and our delegation. No agreement was reached on that score. Just one agreement was reached, and that was the agreement reached by ³⁶²⁹³ representatives of non-Albanian ethnic communities in Kosovo and our government. Everything else cannot be called an agreement but, rather, some contacts and documents signed by members, representatives of the UCK and representatives of the Contact Group.

Q. You as an experienced diplomat, what do you say about the statement here that the peace negotiations collapsed in mid-March 1999? If the peace negotiations collapsed, then how come these agreements were reached?

A. That's precisely what I tried to explain. They collapsed because no agreement was reached between main sides, main parties invited to negotiations. The only agreement that was reached, this so-called interim agreement on peace and self-government in Kosovo is the agreement signed by the representatives of the Albanian side. And this agreement was witnessed by several members of the Contact Group. However, this is not an agreement either in political or legal sense.

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, just one more question to you. You have vast experience. You spent many years in foreign service. So please tell us, do you know something about the International Crisis Group? Just say yes or no.

A. Yes.

Q. What do you know about the International Crisis Group? Very briefly, please, because we're about to finish.

A. What I know has to do with us, Kosovo and our region. This group in that respect was and remained quite active, and it took positions which were practically always against the interests of Serbia and Yugoslavia and ³⁶²⁹⁴ favoured the idea of independent Kosovo and Metohija, or at least its breaking away from Serbia and Yugoslavia. They mentioned or brought up several arguments in favour of that, which is not surprising, because the founder of that group, Mr. Morton Abramowitz who, inter alia, was an advisor and then -- advisor to the Albanian leaders in Rambouillet, showed bias and prejudice in that respect.

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Nice, we'll just take the break now.

MR. NICE: Certainly, Your Honour. I was wondering if I might just have two minutes of Your Honours' time after the witness has withdrawn. Nothing to do with the substance of his evidence but it may be helpful if I explain something.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Jovanovic, you may leave now. We're going to take a break.

[The witness stands down]

MR. NICE: Your Honours, just this: Recently we've seen, of course, the calculation of time that's passed so far where we, in accommodation with procedural matters, exceeded the two-thirds period of time. We've also now received a list of witnesses from the accused. That causes me considerable concern for the following reason: By my calculation and assuming we're able to keep to the two-thirds limit, the list of witnesses would take us I think to June, or thereabouts. That's my calculation. And yet, although there are some crossover witnesses, he's still dealing with Kosovo. I am concerned for the following reason ³⁶²⁹⁵ that I set out in earlier argument and indeed in writing, that in the Prosecution's case, when given time limits, the accused habitually asked questions that seemed not to be the point until towards the end of the allotted time and then would raise clearly relevant matters, almost compelling the Chamber to grant him an extension of the time limit. I've expressed the concern that he may take the same attitude generally in relation to the conduct of his defence.

With that in mind, I'm as determined as I can be to accomplish cross-examination briefly. Thus, for example, the latest proposal that I've put in place for this witness, to make documents available to the witness ahead of cross-examination, which I hope - we'll have to see - may speed the process. Inevitably with witnesses like this where we can't approach them surgically, we don't have a detailed statement, if we are to deal with all the evidence they give coming completely as a surprise for the most part and the case that we have to put, the two-thirds time limit would not be possible.

I'm going to be selective. Again I've heralded this before, and necessarily so, with this witness and indeed with all witnesses, and I would simply ask the Chamber's understanding of that, where I seek to put in exhibits comparatively swiftly and recognising the fact that I will not be able to put all of my case to such a witness as this as the Rules require me to do. I'll be selective.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Well, that's a matter for you, Mr. Nice. The Chamber is concerned about the use of time, and it's a matter which we have under consideration, and we'll be issuing an order shortly in ³⁶²⁹⁶ relation to the matters that are relevant to that issue. But we are very concerned about the use of time.

We will take the break now for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.

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

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, I'm going to ask you no questions about the content or substance of the white books, but we've seen the very detailed way in which they are prepared with resources you've described. Can you tell me, please, is there a similar document of research into the killing and expulsion of Albanians from Kosovo?

A. Of course there is but they're not documents that came to me, nor did I further those documents to anybody else. Those documents were written by the people and the organisations which were mostly favourably disposed towards the Albanians and --

Q. I'm going to cut you short. Your government's resources were deployed, as we can see, to prepare a detailed analysis of what it was said was done against them.

You all knew of the allegations made about expulsion and killing of Kosovo Albanians, who Serbia regards, as you will tell us, equal citizens with Serbs.

Can you tell us, please, why there was no similar analysis prepared in respect to the killings and expulsions?

A. As far as I know, in the white books there are a lot of names of ³⁶²⁹⁷ Albanians and other non-Serbs who were the victims of different terrorist action in Kosovo and Metohija. So this isn't only the protection of Serbian victims but all the victims of the KLA.

Q. Very well.

A. And the Yugoslav authorities were able to do so more and better than others because they were on the spot, and they had access to firsthand information.

Q. Very well. Can you just help us so that we can research it. Which book are we going to find the evidence of the killing of the Kosovo Albanians, which of the white books are we going to find evidence of the killing of Kosovo Albanians by Serb forces, please?

A. I'm talking about the killing of Kosovo Albanians by the terrorist organisation the KLA, and their names can be found there. Now, as far as the killing of Albanians by the police or army, they were killed in the fighting, in battle, and they were members of the KLA mostly. If there were civilian casualties in those conflicts anywhere, then that was regrettable, but it was not the aim of the operation to --

Q. Last question on this topic, broad topic. Serbia has known since the late summer of 1995 of allegations about Srebrenica. Has it ever used its resources to prepare a report like the report in the white book dealing with the deaths of all those people in Srebrenica? Has it? And if not, why not?

A. Well, you know that from the 4th of August, 1994, a cease-fire -- or, rather, a cessation to all economic and other relationships with Republika Srpska were set into motion, and so an insight into what ³⁶²⁹⁸ happened there was very limited and small. So the fact -- this fact and this situation went on to the Dayton process up until the time when the leadership of Republika Srpska accepted that President Milosevic should speak on behalf of all of them at Dayton. Up until then, access to information and the possibility of influencing the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina at all was for us very limited.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... what if any inquiry of the scale of the white book has been done for Srebrenica? None?

A. I can't know that because I wasn't in the country at the time. I was in New York. And on the other hand --

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, is that a serious answer? You in New York dealing on a daily basis with allegations made about the former Yugoslavia, about Serbia, about Montenegro, you wouldn't know, you couldn't know whether a proper inquiry into Srebrenica had been conducted?

A. Srebrenica is on the territory of another state. That's where it's located. And that territory was placed under some kind of protectorate after the Dayton agreement. And international armed forces came in, and they continued to be in authority there, in charge of analysing and investigating and managing that state. We didn't have any organs ourselves or the possibility of inspecting and analysing anything and arriving at evidence in that country on the basis of which we would be able to compile a book later on.

Q. So you did know that no such book had ever been made.

A. I haven't heard about it. Perhaps it was made, but I never heard of one being in existence. ³⁶²⁹⁹

Q. I hope you had an opportunity since yesterday to look at some of the documents, or indeed all of the documents, provided to you in the files. Have you been able to do that?

A. I have to say that yesterday I agreed to take on those documents, believing them to be few in number. However, I was given two large books like two Bibles, and it is impossible for one man to even leaf through them let alone read through them in such a short space of time. But despite that, I did do my best to become acquainted with their contents, and I noticed that there were a lot of records and minutes from the meetings of -- and sessions devoted to the coordination of foreign policy. The document is a secret one, and I personally am not prepared to discuss it until I have been lifted from keeping the -- the ban from keeping state secrets is lifted, until it was waived.

Q. That was an observation you made almost immediately yesterday when you were confronted with the possibility of being asked to look at documents. Was that an answer you came prepared to give?

A. No, because yesterday's answer was to the Honourable President of the Trial Chamber, and I asked whether there were any state secrets in the document. I was assured that there were not. But when I looked at the text I saw that a considerable portion of the text were minutes or records from meetings of the Council for Coordinating Foreign Policy, which in other words, were documents of high state sensitivity, top secret.

Q. These documents, Mr. Jovanovic, I must tell you have been provided without complaint by the government for use in these proceedings without any protective measures. I'm going to ask you questions about passages of ³⁶³⁰⁰ those documents, and I'm going to ask you to answer them.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, it is an extraordinary proposition that this witness should now claim some limitation on giving evidence without having given advance notice, but we'll see how we go.

Q. Before I come to those documents, Mr. Jovanovic, just this: There are about four topics, or three topics, and that's all I want to deal with with you.

The first topic is the authority of the accused. The second topic is crimes or apparent crimes that were committed and the knowledge that was gained by you and by the accused of those crimes.

The third topic is this, and I'll put it in the form of a question: It's right, as all these documents show, that throughout the period of negotiation and throughout the wars a prevailing ambition of all of you, the accused and you and other Serbs, was to achieve, in the end, a state where all Serbs could live together; correct?

A. That is completely incorrect, an incorrect approach, an incorrect thesis, and more even incorrect conclusion. Why? Because from the beginning we made efforts to preserve Yugoslavia, the kind of Yugoslavia that existed before the crisis. And when the crisis came about, we did our best to preserve at least those parts of the republic that had not come out in favour of independence. So this was an ongoing continuous process. And when they came out in favour of independence, that is to say Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, when they gained international recognition, even before that and in the declaration adopted together with ³⁶³⁰¹ the constitution, we expressly stated that we had no territorial pretensions and claims on those territories.

Q. You see, I've described this for the purposes -- using a neutral term. I'm not going to use "Greater Serbia" for the moment or "All Serbs in one state." I'm saying this was a prevailing ambition. In light of your answer, please tell me this: Did you personally, genuinely, seek for a multi-ethnic arrangement regardless of any domination by or co-existence with Serbs? Is that what you sought personally?

A. You mean Bosnia-Herzegovina or the whole of Yugoslavia?

Q. The whole of Yugoslavia.

A. Our position was one of principle and firmly based on the constitution and its provisions and the free determination of all the nations that formed the first country, which was the country of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. So what was important for us was that this common state was the best for all, because all of us were there together, and all of us were great.

When they started leaving, they became small and depended on others and faced a series of problems that this brought with it.

Q. Given that the former Yugoslavia was going to disintegrate, did you have any personal desire to see a migration of ethnicities back to their mother countries so that you could have ethnically pure or ethnically dominated states? Did you, Mr. Jovanovic?

A. We could not have desired that, even if people thought so, because Serbia itself was multi-ethnic. And after the break-up of Yugoslavia, it ³⁶³⁰² ^{BLANK PAGE} ³⁶³⁰³ is the sole republic that remained multi-ethnic to the end. And our sole aim was to preserve that state because it suited everybody best and was best able to solve the problem of having all people live in one state and not in a number of separate states.

This is a natural position, a very humane one, so it cannot be challenged, and people can't say that we had ambitions at appropriating anything or forcing anybody to do anything.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, files provided to the Chamber and the witness and the accused yesterday have the same tab numbering system. The difference being that, of course, in the witness's, and the accused's indeed volumes, existing exhibits were included whereas it was only additional or new potential exhibits that were included in Your Honours' binders. So when I refer to, for example, tab 15, as I now do, it's a document not in your volumes. It's an existing exhibit, and I'm going to ask the witness, please, if he would be so good, as he may have looked at these documents and become familiar with them, to take the volume of his documents and go to tab 15, at page 89.

I'd ask Mr. Nort, the usher, please, to display what is page 92 and then 93 on the overhead projector.

This is the --

JUDGE BONOMY: Which one?

MR. NICE: It's the shorthand notes for the Council for Harmonisation held on the 9th of January of 1993.

JUDGE BONOMY: Are there copies for the Trial Chamber?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, we discussed this in advance, and it ³⁶³⁰⁴ seemed preferable, given the volume of material and given that of course the Chamber may have been working on its own versions of these documents, simply to identify them.

Q. Now, what we're looking at here, Mr. Jovanovic, is the shorthand notes from something called the Council for Reconciliation on the Stands of State Policies. That's the way it's described. On the 9th of January. I needn't take you to cover page although we can see that, apart from yourself, it was presided over by Dobrica Cosic, the accused was present, as was Mr. Bulatovic, Mr. Djukanovic, Mr. Krajisnik, General Mladic, and others.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I should first like to address the Honourable Trial Chamber and remind them that these documents are of a very sensitive nature, and that I have not received a waiver from disclosing state secrets. If I was able to receive guarantees from the Trial Chamber that I would not be persecuted by -- prosecuted by my government, I could answer and respond to them, but I'm afraid that someone in my government might criticise me for responding or that I might be legally prosecuted for doing so.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, just remind us of the history behind this exhibit. It was exhibited --

MR. NICE: The history behind this exhibit is that it was -- this particular one was provided voluntarily in answer to a request by the state, Serbia and Montenegro, without any suggestion of restriction on its use. And further, just to deal with the witness's observation, waivers are required for state and military secret, and this document is in fact ³⁶³⁰⁵ headed "Strictly confidential." But even if there were any argument about there being state and military secret contained within it, that is clearly waived by the provision.

Serbia and Montenegro knew perfectly well that these documents were for public use. Indeed, nothing could have been clearer because they took a slightly different view in relation to another series of documents and indeed have obtained rulings from the Chamber which reflect their limited concern, which was a concern of a state nature. It's never been suggested that individuals can't be allowed to speak about them.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Through which witness was this tendered?

JUDGE KWON: Lilic.

MR. NICE: Yes, Lilic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Lilic. He had a waiver.

JUDGE KWON: Yes.

MR. NICE: Yes, he had a waiver. He was the first one with a waiver. He produced them, but he didn't discuss them. We looked at one passage of one of them with him, and the reason he didn't discuss them was all to do with want of time. But --

JUDGE ROBINSON: But he had a waiver in respect of --

MR. NICE: All documents.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- which would have included this one. Which would have included this.

MR. NICE: Probably, yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay?

MR. KAY: Waivers, of course, go to the individual, and the point ³⁶³⁰⁶ that arose during the Prosecution case, if I can say this to assist the Trial Chamber, as this developed and Lilic became a witness, it was clear that he would be revealing matters that would otherwise be considered in terms of a government to be confidential state secrets. And to avoid any personal issue, great steps were taken to enable him to testify on such matters but with a waiver that was personal to him. The waiver, of course, doesn't go in relation to the use of the document. The waiver relates to the individual. And that should be something that is considered in relation to this witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The question then is whether there is anything in the document which would expose the witness to criminal charges and in respect of which a waiver would be needed.

MR. KAY: We won't know that until we get to a position where such an issue arises.

JUDGE BONOMY: How could that issue possibly arise in relation to a document that was willingly released by the government of the country?

MR. KAY: The document may be released without condition, but if the answers of the witness refer to matters outside the document as a result of the question, then of course there may be an area there that would be properly categorised as state secret.

JUDGE BONOMY: But that issue has got nothing to do with the document. That's a broader issue about whether the witness should have got a waiver before coming to give evidence.

MR. KAY: That's right. That's why I'm raising it, so that the Court is aware, so to speak, of the full issue. Mr. Nice has addressed ³⁶³⁰⁷ you in relation to the document, but the issue that also has to be considered is the position of the individual. And I raise this having been involved with these matters myself some months ago in relation to the production of witnesses.

MR. NICE: Can I just make a point? This is a fully public document. People have had access to this document and been able to print it publicly, if they had wanted to, for months or it may be years. And of course -- my learned friend overstates it in his analysis of sensitivity in any event. It's only state and military secrets, I think, that are covered in any event.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's a public document, is it?

MR. NICE: It's not a public document; it is by virtue of being in this trial because publicly filed documents can be obtained by anyone.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Jovanovic, we have attended to the concern that you have expressed, but in our view nothing arises in this document that would expose you to the danger you have identified, so answer the question.

MR. NICE: Thank you very much.

Q. If Mr. Nort has the bottom of page 92 on the overhead projector, we see a contribution at the foot of that page, please, Mr. Nort, further up - thank you - from yourself. And you say this: "As far as the name is concerned, despite the resistance they've been offering against the state, I have the feeling that that possibility has not been laid out. I think we should insist in Geneva that everybody has the right to call himself by ³⁶³⁰⁸ the name that suits him," this is for context, Mr. Jovanovic, "unless we cannot all be called confederal units, which would be the maximum. All the more so if it is completed by guarantees that we're going to give them concerning human rights. We must clearly, comprehensively and generously guarantee them that the enclaves within the provinces, that is to say within the confederal unit, would be fully protected and that the refugees would have the right to turn and be compensated for the destroyed property, et cetera."

Thus far very good sentiments. But I want you now to read on what you said:

"It will not work out because the natural migration towards the mother country would follow. Nobody has ever paid the war reparation anywhere, so I'm sure it will not happen here either. However, we have to make the comprehensive and generous gesture. Therefore, we must give a guarantee at the humanitarian aspect. We must guarantee that the non-existential creation called Bosnia would be held in such non-existential condition for many years. That should divert fears that the creation of Greater Serbia is ahead."

What you're revealing there is that what you say in public is one thing, and it doesn't interfere with your underlying ambition that states should be joined up -- Serb states should be joined up in due course. Am I right?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to repeat what I said to the President of the Honourable Trial Chamber. I was given assurances that I would not have to face any unpleasantness when I went back to my ³⁶³⁰⁹ country, but I did not receive personal permission to comment documents of top state importance. Mr. Lilic received a waiver himself personally. I have not.

I honour this Trial Chamber very much and your assurances, but I don't know whether they will be sufficient for my government to let me say what you would like to have me respond to.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But there is nothing in the answer that you could give to this question that could expose you to any danger. It's really a straightforward question.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that is true, and I don't mind answering, but this is a question on the -- based on a document which is a state secret. It was provided to the Court because the Court asked for it. But had I been told beforehand that I would be discussing this --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I'm very aware of the consumption of time. I've made my position clear. I'm giving this witness the chance to comment on matters that go directly to his credit. If he chooses not to do so, I'm going to move on because I see the clock ticking. He doesn't want to answer.

Q. Could we go, please, to your tab 16, Mr. Jovanovic, and perhaps --

A. No, I'm not afraid of answering. I can answer you, but I wanted to give that caution. I don't want to have any repercussions when I come home. I'm not sure they'll turn a blind eye to it. And I see no difference between what was said here and what we strove for, because this was preparation for negotiations and discussions in Geneva, as far as I ³⁶³¹⁰ understand it. I haven't been able to read the whole text, just the portion read out by you.

And in Geneva, they will be discussing different types of organisation for the three communities in Bosnia-Herzegovina stemming from the confederal one and down to the cantonal ones. And we're discussing what could be the maximum aim of the Bosnian Serbs. And of course those who always opted for remaining in a joint state adhered to the maximum goal; that is to say that Bosnia and Herzegovina should become a confederal state.

So we reviewed this question in different ways. We looked into the ways and means, and we wanted to quell them and tell them they would not be separated from a joint state.

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, that's a long answer but what I directed your attention to was the reference to natural migration, to no one paying for war reparation, having to make a gesture and guaranteeing the non-existential creation called Bosnia for years to avoid people worrying about Greater Serbia.

My suggestion to you is that that reveals what your real ambition was. Am I not right?

A. No, you're not right, not at all right, because it was contrary to what was said. It says here that we should insist upon the humanitarian aspect and allow people freely to decide where they're going to live. So not to quell them but to allay their fears. And as this Greater Serbia seems to be the bogeyman which was proliferated and fear instilled in people, this is precisely the reason why we wrote this down or said what ³⁶³¹¹ we said.

Q. Your tab 16, please, Mr. Jovanovic. And if you'd be good enough to turn in it to page 19. And in the English version, if --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I just be of assistance to what Mr. Jovanovic said? Mr. Jovanovic said to use the term "odvratiti," "deter," and he repeated the term that he used and that is said in the minutes and transcript. Last page, page 89.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, exhibit number?

MR. NICE: For the forthcoming -- oh, yes. Your Honour is absolutely right. Can -- of course we don't have to -- the one you've just been looking at was --

JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, I can get it in the index.

MR. NICE: Was Exhibit 469, tab 40. The present one is 469, tab 39.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, let me just -- it was a correction that you were making, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wanted to inform you that Mr. Jovanovic used the same term he used, which was "odvratiti," "to deter," and not "quell" or "calm."

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's true. In the English translation it says to calm or quell, whereas I said "odvratiti," meaning "deter."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. ³⁶³¹²

MR. NICE:

Q. The next exhibit, 469, tab 39 -- tab 39 but in your bundle tab 16, Mr. Jovanovic, page 19.

Now, this meeting was on the 21st of January. Where were these meetings typically held? It doesn't say. Were they held at Dobranovci or Belgrade or where?

A. I can't remember exactly. I do remember one in Belgrade and I think I attended meetings in Belgrade alone, but quite possibly I might be mistaken in that.

Q. Again, the usual attendees including Karadzic and Mladic, Krajisnik, various other people but we haven't time to go through that in detail. On page 19 this is your contribution, Mr. Jovanovic. Starting at the second paragraph: "Therefore, the territorial link with Serbia --"

JUDGE KWON: Make sure the witness is following.

MR. NICE: Certainly, yes.

Q. It's your page 19, and the second paragraph, starting with the word "therefore," or starting with the concept "therefore." "The territorial link with Serbia and Montenegro, in other words with Yugoslavia, has to be ensured in an indisputable way which is not transitory. But, what is more important is to make the territory that we get nationally homogenous as soon as possible, but not by means of ethnic cleansing and so on. Ethnic cleansing are -" and the translation is "palm-offs. So we should give the peacetime process of exchange of inhabitants, in other words, migration and immigration, which will flow. What is important is that life in that future Bosnia becomes impossible ³⁶³¹³ ^{BLANK PAGE} ³⁶³¹⁴ and that everybody understands that individually, that they rush off to their original provinces. This is a strategic goal to which we should aspire, and which should be achieved.

"Once this has been achieved, as the democratic party would say - 'It is ripe.' It has not been ripe for them, but it should be so for us. Everything else is then a matter of technique, including the break-up of Bosnia into three parts.

"But, if they were to prevent that, then the whole idea would be brought into question. If on the contrary, freedom of movement would bring freedom of settlement and the mixing of the composition of the population to our disadvantage, then this what has been gained would gradually erode and we would basically lose everything in the future. Therefore, this should be a goal: Not to change the topic of discussion to the fact that a large number of Serbs have stayed on in foreign provinces. We should grasp the territories capable of functioning and then encourage the migration of our peoples in the direction of our provinces and others toward theirs.

"How to do that, that is the thing to be wise about? But, this should be, in my opinion, our guiding thought. If this could be achieved, it could be so as soon as a couple of years time." Now, Mr. Jovanovic, I go back to my original questions. Tell us, please, candidly: The ambition was by one means or another to ensure that all Serbs lived together in a single unit. Yes or no.

A. First of all, in the translation it says that this is the break-up of Bosnia. The original says the breaking of Bosnia into three parts. So ³⁶³¹⁵ it remains as a state, but it consists of three cantons. So that's quite different.

And this was done in such a way so as to deter any kind of thinking that would lead to violent solutions or something that would be violent resettlement of the population. Bosnian Serbs should be deterred from such thinking, and they should believe the laws of life that they would regulate themselves. They would do what suited the people -- what would suit the people in the Bosnia that would come, without so-called ethnic cleansing, and the population would move to the areas where they wished to live, of course pursuing an economic policy that they would --

Q. In my original questions, of course I said nothing about violence, I said nothing about immediacy. I said was there an ultimate objective? I used a different word. You denied all of those things and denied wanting to live in a single Serb or essentially a mono-Serb state. Can you explain to the learned Judges, please -- and it's at page 19, where you say that: "Life in the future Bosnia should become impossible and that everybody has to understand they have to rush off to their original provinces, and that's a strategic goal." Can you explain that to us so we can fit it with your evidence.

A. That is what would happen in Bosnia-Herzegovina irrespective of Serbia and Montenegro. That is to say, in a future Bosnia-Herzegovina as an independent state, there would be these three ethnic entities or, rather, entities in accordance with agreements that would be reached, and one ethnic people would be a majority and each of them respectively. This is not a pledoyer for grabbing Bosnia and attaching it to ³⁶³¹⁶ Serbia.

Q. I want you to -- I'm going to ask you one more question and we'll move on, but before I ask you the question, I want to -- if Mr. Nort would put page 20 on the overhead projector and the foot of page 20. Immediately, almost immediately after your contribution at this meeting with Mladic, Karadzic, and all the others there, Karadzic said this: "I think that this which Jovanovic is --" have you found it? I'm so sorry. It's about in your -- it may be 20 or it may be 21. And it's Radovan Karadzic saying: "I think this which Jovanovic is talking about." Do you have that?

A. I see that, yes.

Q. "I think that this which Jovanovic is talking about, has already happened to a huge extent. There was fifty-fifty of us in Zvornik. The number of inhabitants of Zvornik is now the same, approximately 50.000, and they are all Serbs. More than 24.000 Serbs from Zenica and Central Bosnia have arrived and stopped in Zvornik: If only Serbia would help us by not accepting refugees which it does not have to accept ..." Now, he was describing massive ethnic movements to achieve Serb domination of an area, wasn't he? Yes or no.

A. That is the position that Mr. Karadzic was presenting, and I have nothing to do with that.

Q. Then we come back to my last question to you about your own contribution in a meeting attended by all these individuals. At the foot of page 19, and it will be -- sorry, I should have checked myself. In your case it is at page 20, third paragraph, and then it's about four ³⁶³¹⁷ lines down.

This is you speaking, Mr. Jovanovic: "Therefore, this should be the goal: Not to change the topic of discussion to the fact that a large number of Serbs have stayed on in foreign provinces; we should grasp the territories capable of functioning and then encourage the migration of our people in the direction of our provinces, and others towards theirs." Explain to me, please, and to the Judges how your proposition differs from what Karadzic has just described or was about to describe?

A. I'm sorry, I haven't found the exact passage. What's the page? Is it 19 or 20?

Q. It's, I think, 20, and I think it's the third paragraph, beginning "Ali ako ..."

A. Yes. This is a view of a peaceful development in Bosnia-Herzegovina, not violence and not by exerting physical force over other persons. This is a way of allaying the fears of the Bosnian Serbs that they would not remain a minority in their entities, that life would take its own course. And some people would go to their own entities, and other people would come to other entities.

Q. So it's --

A. These remarks are aimed at allaying the fears of the Bosnian Serbs and that they should not worry that they would be outvoted in their own cantons.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just in order to be fair to the ³⁶³¹⁸ witness, since we are now on page 20 of the Serb version of this paragraph, the interpretation that I heard here, and it's in the transcript towards the top of page 20, when he mentions ethnic cleansings, I heard Mr. Jovanovic saying ethnic cleansing should be abandoned as such, and what he said here was -- what it says in the text here is "ethnic cleansing is something that is being planted." "Ethnic cleansing is something that is being planted." That's what it says. And in the interpretation I heard that it is being given up on, as if he thought that it was a good thing and that it was being pursued and then should be given up.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Exactly.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I didn't see that in the transcript, but perhaps it has gone. Anyhow, thanks for the explanation, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. NICE:

Q. You see, now that you have acknowledged that what you said in that meeting was to the effect I suggested, the position is quite simply this, Mr. Jovanovic: You didn't tell the truth when I asked you about your personal intentions right at the beginning of the questioning, did you? Because you didn't acknowledge that you had personally the desire to see ethnic migration of this kind or anything like it.

A. No. That's what I'm saying now, and I never thought any such thing. It was a question of preventing ethnic cleansing and forcible transfers of population from one area to the other. And what is indicated here is to turn to life itself, life in the future and that life would take its course and determine who is going to live where. ³⁶³¹⁹ I stand by what I said, that I was always opposed to any kind of physical action against the free will of the population in any area.

Q. My suggestion to you is that you shared an identity of interest with the Bosnian Serbs and were prepared to defend them in their actions. True or false?

A. I was prepared to defend their right to self-determination and a free and equitable life in Bosnia-Herzegovina. What Bosnia would look like depended on them and others who lived there. I was opposed to physical action that could mean ethnic cleansing or another kind of violence that would be carried out in any part of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

MR. NICE: The next passage of evidence must start in private session in accordance with the Court's ruling.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, private session.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted) ³⁶³²⁰ Pages 36320-36325 redacted. Private session.

³⁶³²⁶

(redacted)

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are we? We should be in private now, too, for ³⁶³²⁷ this discussion.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted) ³⁶³²⁸

(redacted)

[Open session]

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, from sources of information, did you, at tab 20, paragraph 7, learn of condemnation of the conduct of the Serbian side in respect of events that had then happened?

A. We learned about that from this dispatch, from this cable, and also from --

Q. Don't identify --

A. I apologise, yes. So we learned from public statements condemning the conduct of Bosnian Serbs.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, may the exhibits I propose to produce, with leave of the Chamber, be given an exhibit number and then we can deal ³⁶³²⁹ with them tab by tab.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. What is the exhibit number?

THE REGISTRAR: That will be 826, yes.

MR. NICE: Thank you. And I ask that tab 20 be admitted.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. Can we go to tab 21, please, Mr. Jovanovic, and if you would be good enough, please, to look at the first page and the paragraph 1, second paragraph. Was there information about the Bosnian Serb paramilitary forces being required to cease attacks on Srebrenica and the SFRY to stop supplying Bosnian Serb paramilitary forces with weapons and military equipment? Just yes or no, please.

A. Yes. That is requested here. All I know is that President Milosevic himself attacked -- condemned attacks on Srebrenica and thought that was impermissible. As for the other issues of military nature, I really wasn't kept abreast of that. I wasn't informed about that, so I can't tell you anything specific. But I can say that we helped. We provided moral assistance and material assistance to our people in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Q. In the English version of tab 21, at page 3, at the top of that page, and in your version, Mr. Jovanovic, at the top of the second page, were the Bosnian Serbs condemned for attempting to evacuate civilians from Srebrenica and from other parts of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

A. What is your question, please?

Q. Did you learn information to the effect that the Bosnian Serbs ³⁶³³⁰ were condemned for attempting to evacuate civilians from Srebrenica and from other parts of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

A. Based on this information, there is a mistake here where it says to evacuate civilians, because that town was not taken. It was only attacked. As I said, this attack was very severely condemned by us, by Mr. Milosevic, and that was conveyed to the leadership of Republika Srpska, and they were asked to seize it immediately.

Q. Page -- page 3 for you, Mr. Jovanovic, and page 5 in the English. Just over halfway down the English page, and halfway down your page, Mr. Jovanovic. Second sentence of the paragraph. Did you receive information that the Serbian leadership had given assurances to the Russian officials that their army would not enter the town? Did you receive such information?

A. Only based on this document. As for the situation on the ground, I really wasn't informed. I didn't follow that closely.

Q. Very well. You understand, Mr. Jovanovic, the questions are about the information coming to you and they're limited to that at this stage.

MR. NICE: Tab 21, with your leave, Your Honours.

Q. Tab 22, please. And of course the Chamber can see the dates as we move through, but ...

Tab 22, please, Mr. Jovanovic, and it's the first page for you and it's the third paragraph for the English readers. With the proclamation of Sarajevo as a protected zone, did you learn information that the Bosnian Serbs were warned to withdraw their forces to a certain distance to avoid threatening the zone? ³⁶³³¹

A. We received that information through this document, but apart from that, I wasn't informed about other developments. I know that --

Q. Very well.

A. -- the shelling of Sarajevo was something that was constantly condemned by our government.

Q. Page 2 in the English, and I think it's the end of page 1 for you, Mr. Jovanovic. And in the English, it's the third line. Did you receive information of an official kind that ethnic cleansing and any sort of partitioning of Bosnia-Herzegovina was being condemned?

A. Yes. Based on this document, we condemned it too. We condemned any kind of ethnic cleansing, and we supported the unity of Bosnia-Herzegovina, not its disintegration. At the same time, we worked with other international representatives on constitutional principles for creating Bosnia as a confederation or --

Q. Sorry.

A. -- another form of state.

Q. Tab 22, if you please. Tab 24 comes next. Tab 23 is void. Tab 24, the Chamber will observe the details at the top. The distribution list is similar. This is information coming to you from elsewhere, but it was information about the key significance -- sorry, it's page 1 of the English, the first substantive paragraph; and it's in the Serbian, likewise the first substantive paragraph.

Did you receive information about the symbolic significance of ³⁶³³² Sarajevo being of the essence to Bosnia-Herzegovina? Without it, its identity or its sovereignty being lost?

A. We learned, based on this document and also based on the discussions we had with international representatives. At the same time, this was our position. We were constantly opposed to the shelling. In Dayton, Mr. Milosevic put this into practice by saying that the entire Sarajevo ought to belong to Bosniaks, to the Muslim part of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Q. I'm going to divert from the particular topics of the documents just for one or two questions because they come at the right sequence. Who was paying for the Bosnian Serb army, Mr. Jovanovic?

A. I'm not aware of that. I did not deal with military issues in any way, nor was I informed about it.

Q. You were a foreign minister. You were later the representative at the United Nations. You obviously followed this trial. You've spoken extensively about this Tribunal, and we may have time to look at that. Are you telling the Chamber that you have no idea whether Serbia assisted financially with the Bosnian Serb army?

A. I know that we provided material including financial assistance to the Bosnian Serbs in all aspects of their lives. Now, as for the salaries of officers, I don't know about that specifically. I heard that that was the case. I heard it not only at this trial but in other places as well, although I have no information myself about that.

Q. When did you first hear about it then?

A. Not that long ago. I didn't know about that earlier. ³⁶³³³

Q. You see, what I want you to help us with is this: If there was such condemnation of the attack on Sarajevo, why wasn't the supply line of money and offices simply cut off by this accused? Can you help us?

A. We as the parent state could not abandon our people to their fate. We could not allow them to die of hunger. This is something similar to what Croatia did with respect to Herceg-Bosna. Therefore, to cut the assistance would have been inhumane.

However, on the 4th of August, 1994, we did something similar to that, although the ban did not apply to assistance in terms of food, medication, and clothing.

Q. Does your last answer mean that you understood and knew at the time that the Bosnian Serbs were getting military assistance in the form of officers, money, and armaments? Yes?

A. I did not have any firsthand information about that. All I had were things I heard from other people about financial assistance. I did not have any other information, nor was any information to that effect provided to me.

Q. Do you accept -- you see, you told us that the accused condemned the years of attack on Srebrenica. You speak of humane assistance. What about the humane problems of the thousands of Muslims who were killed in Srebrenica? Can you help us with why support wasn't cut off when it could have been?

A. If you refer to the fall of Srebrenica in 1995, or perhaps you're referring to the attacks on Srebrenica in 1993, I'm not quite sure. If you're referring to Srebrenica in 1995, then that was an atrocious ³⁶³³⁴ massacre. As far as 1993, as far as I know, Srebrenica did not fall then. It was only under attacks. And naturally, in the course of those attacks there were casualties on both sides.

President Milosevic, the governments, both the federal and republican governments condemned attacks on those protected areas. I have to say that the protected areas were never clear as a concept, and they were never really demilitarised. First in Srebrenica, because there were cases there that Muslim soldiers stormed Serb villages and committed grave crimes there. Therefore, the concept of protected areas wasn't clear enough.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We're past the time for the break. I should say that the tabs and the index are to be under seal.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes. And I think -- had I already produced tab 22? If not, may I do so?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: 24. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We are adjourned for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.19 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.44 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, when we broke, I think you were seeking the admission of --

MR. NICE: Tab 24.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- tab 24. The Court deputy wasn't certain about it.

MR. NICE: Thank you to Your Honour and the Court deputy. Your ³⁶³³⁵ ^{BLANK PAGE} ³⁶³³⁶ Honour, I'm going to miss tab 25. It's a document we've looked at with another witness.

Q. Tab 26, please, Mr. Jovanovic, and it's a short document for you to look at. It's the first paragraph in each version. Did you receive information about 120-millimetre projectiles being fired on Sarajevo from Bosnian Serb positions, followed by UN overflights?

A. I did not. I was not kept abreast of information of that nature, of military nature.

Q. Very well.

MR. NICE: If Your Honours will perhaps be good enough to look at the second page, document in English.

Q. And if the witness would be good enough to look at the second page of his. Thinking back, please, Mr. Jovanovic. This information came to you, didn't it?

A. It did, but I'm afraid that at the time, I was not in the country. I had a long tour of African countries. But even had I been present, had this information reached me, this would not have changed anything because this was just one of numerous informations -- information that came in from various sources discussing the situation in Bosnia.

Q. You can confirm that this information came into the Foreign Ministry and was available to the government? Yes?

A. Certainly, if this is marked here.

MR. NICE: Exhibit 26 -- tab 26.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: May we lay on the overhead projector briefly tab 27. ³⁶³³⁷ Your Honours, just give me one minute.

Q. The next document is -- the document on the overhead projector we see goes back, and it has its relevance really now. This is dated the 16th of April of 1993, and it's a Resolution of the Security Council. Do you recall this Resolution, please, Mr. Jovanovic?

A. I can't say precisely, because this was 15 years ago and there were many such Resolutions.

Q. Yes.

A. I know that the Security Council followed very closely the situation and adopted various documents about the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Q. Is what we see here under the heading "Taking note," is that "the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro should immediately in pursuance of its undertaking take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of the crime of genocide." Do you remember that extraordinarily strong decision being taken in respect of your country? As foreign minister, you must have been aware of it.

A. Yes, certainly I was familiar with this dispatch, although I can't remember when it was adopted exactly.

Q. And under the heading "Concerned," do you see a reference to "concerned by the pattern of hostilities by Bosnian Serb paramilitary units"? Do you remember that concern being expressed?

A. As far as I know, concern was frequently expressed, not only on that occasion. That became quite a regular practice, to mention these forces in such documents and to condemn their conduct. ³⁶³³⁸

Q. And before I return to the sequence of information material that we've been covering, just tell me this: As foreign minister for Serbia or of the Federal Republic of Serbia and Montenegro or Yugoslavia, there could be no justification in 1991, could there, for the accused to establish paramilitary forces himself? Could there?

A. I am not familiar with any paramilitary forces established that year in Serbia.

Q. Were you aware of forces that came to be known as the Red Berets?

A. I am familiar with them, but I have to say that it was not until my return from New York that I became familiar with their names. Prior to that, I did not follow their activities, nor did I know them under that title. As far as I know, they were created much later.

Q. This is going to be a matter for the Trial Chamber to decide. If paramilitary forces were established by this accused in 1991 and used outside Serbia and Montenegro, were you ever informed of that, you as a member of the government?

A. As far as I know, these forces were not established in 1991 but later, in 1996 or around that time. On the other hand, I've already said that I was not kept informed about any military issues, nor did I follow those issues closely.

I know for a fact that there were no paramilitary formations in Serbia in 1991 except those belonging to various political parties, and those formations acted under the control of the JNA.

Q. Tell me, as foreign -- looking back at the screen and seeing that in April 1993 the United Nations reaffirmed -- under "Reaffirming the ³⁶³³⁹ sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina," you as foreign minister, does that mean that you owed duties in relation to this sovereign state in your capacity as a foreign minister?

A. Certainly. And we confirmed that through documents and early statements and also in all of our contacts with international intermediaries. We confirmed that the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina ought to be constitutionally structured as an independent state, and we never challenged that identity or independence of that state.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... Mr. Jovanovic. Should you, as a foreign minister with those duties, have been informed of the military activity, if any, of Serbia through paramilitaries or otherwise on that foreign state? Should you?

A. I don't know whether there were such activities. I don't think there were, because Serbia was not a party to a war, nor did it send its army --

Q. You've told us you're a life-long diplomat. You've been a politician for several years as well. Please tell the Chamber: If one state sends military forces to another state, is that something of which the foreign minister and the Foreign Ministry needs to be aware? Yes or no.

A. I don't know that Serbia sent its army or parts of its army to another state.

Q. And I have barely time to wait for the answers. We'll move on -- if they're not going to be given. ³⁶³⁴⁰ We'll move on, please, to tab 28. And again, did you receive information -- second paragraph on the first page of each version. Did you receive concern expressed about the prevention of the formal functioning of Sarajevo airport, the suspension of humanitarian aid, a result of efforts by Bosnian Serbs? Did you?

A. I probably received it if I was in Belgrade at the time, but let me stress once again, because of the interruption of all economic and political relations with Serbia and Yugoslavia at that time, we didn't have any contacts, and we weren't able to exert any serious influence.

Q. Tab 29 I don't have time to deal with in detail. I may, I suppose, come back to it.

Just help us: On the 5th of May, 1995, where were you? You tell us you were out of the country at the beginning --

A. Yes, probably. Well, I was during the summer absent during the summer. I can't from this point in time remember where I actually was. I might have been in Belgrade.

Q. Speaking to the accused by telephone from time to time?

A. Yes, briefly, and not that often.

Q. I may come back to that.

MR. NICE: May tab 28 be admitted, please?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. Tab 30, please. Did you receive information - and the Chamber will notice the dates - did you receive information, tab 28, first paragraph -- ³⁶³⁴¹

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is it --

MR. NICE: Tab 30, Your Honours. My mistake. Tab 30.

Q. Did you receive information about condemnation of the Bosnian Serbs about an attack over the protected zone?

A. If you're asking me, then certainly I did, because I was mentioned here, and I repeat that our position was that the protected areas must not be attacked, nor must they be used for --

Q. [Previous translation continues]... Mr. Jovanovic. Page 2 of 3 for the English readers, and page 2 for you, Mr. Jovanovic, paragraph 3. Did you receive information that Great Britain was asking the Serbs to stop shelling activities, welcoming the efforts invested by this accused and General Smith?

A. Probably that's how it was, as it says here, but from this point in time, I can't remember.

MR. NICE: May tab 30 please be admitted?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: Thank you.

Q. Tab 31, please, Mr. Jovanovic. Did you receive information - there's a single paragraph here - that Sarajevo had been deprived for many months of supply and there was a fear of unpredictable consequences and of armed conflict with the Republika Srpska?

A. It says here that I was, and I certainly was, although once again I probably wasn't there, but that's not important. And I'd like to stress again that at that time --

Q. Thank you. ³⁶³⁴²

A. -- we had cut off relations with --

Q. Very well. Tab 32. The Chamber will observe a different location and will have the date in mind.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Do we have a translation of that?

MR. NICE: I'm sorry if Your Honours haven't received it. Yes, we do. It's with your staff, I think. It's one of the last --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. I think it's the second one.

MR. NICE: Slightly different appearance. I suppose different translation staff dealing with it.

Q. At tab 32, different source of information. Were you aware that a potentially friendly source was -- this is the second bullet point, fourth line, in both cases on the first page. Were you aware that a friendly source was -- well, friendly contact was pressing you to convince Pale to give up the blockade of Sarajevo?

A. Well, I can't remember exactly, but probably that was it. A lot of time has gone by, of course, but let me stress once again that we always condemned the siege of Sarajevo, and we always did our best to help to open the corridor for humanitarian aid and other assistance but we had no contacts.

MR. NICE: May tab 31 and 32 be produced?

JUDGE KWON: Have we dealt with tab 30? Yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. Tab 33. And the Chamber will note the date. Did you receive information about Bosnian Serbs opening tank fire on Srebrenica, the loss of life and with wounded, and shelling Srebrenica and the 8th and 9th of ³⁶³⁴³ July?

A. Well, just on the basis of this document, but some personal knowledge, no, we didn't have any.

MR. NICE: Your Honours will, if you turn to page 3 at the foot, see -- and then on page 4, see matters of obvious interest. I won't deal with it in open session.

May tab 33 be produced?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. Tab 34. There is now, of course, a flurry of activity.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't understand what Mr. Nice wants the witness to answer with respect to all these tabs. All he is doing is including and tendering documents which, according to their contents, he doesn't use them as raising questions and doesn't allow for the witness to answer. This is just routine information which in my opinion have no value at all for what he is trying to prove, no probative value at all. Without going into the contents, all he can do is tender them as part of the exhibits.

MR. NICE: If the accused wishes to admit all these exhibits, all the code cables as documents of information coming to this witness and also to the accused, I'm only too content to use my limited time for another purpose.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think what he's seeking to do is to utilise the ³⁶³⁴⁴ witness's information, information that was available to the witness by virtue of his official position to confirm as a matter of fact information in the tabs, and then it becomes evidence.

Mr. Nice also indicated that if you weren't challenging the information in the documents, then he would be -- he could expedite the proceedings appreciably.

MR. NICE: And I make it plain, I'm always happy to discuss matters with the accused or with his representatives at any time they want to, and if the accused would like me, in general terms, to seek admissions with his associates, I'm only too delighted to do so but I understand that such communication has been effectively -- for these purposes has been effectively ruled out.

Sometimes, Your Honours, one is able to say that silence assent, but I fear on this occasion it may not be.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Proceed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, of course we cannot say that certain information is not being challenged because in one of these tabs, for instance, it is said and claimed that Yugoslavia should cease to assist paramilitary formations of the Bosnian Serbs. Yugoslavia never helped anybody's paramilitary formations. So Yugoslavia did and Serbia did help Republika Srpska and the army of Republika Srpska, but never paramilitary formations. Therefore, there are things to be challenged.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That is a matter that you could raise in re-examination. ³⁶³⁴⁵ Was that specifically put to the witness, that question, the question of assistance --

MR. NICE: It's only the information that was coming and I can't remember now if that's one of the bits I've read out or not. Yes. That -- that -- sorry.

JUDGE BONOMY: I take it, Mr. Nice, all that's happening here is you are identifying what material was brought to the attention of this witness and hence the government.

MR. NICE: Absolutely.

JUDGE BONOMY: And whether or not it's accurate is plainly, in many instances, a matter in dispute, and it makes no difference to the status of that dispute if the accused was simply to acknowledge that these documents were brought to his attention, and that's all that you are doing at this moment.

MR. NICE: Your Honour is absolutely right. It's going to serve an additional function in relation to a question I ask of this witness, but on the principle problem, as I explained in my preparatory remarks, yes. So it's up to him if he wants to admit them.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Do you expect me to say? Well, these documents are being tendered by Mr. Nice, not myself. As far as I'm concerned, these are routine informations, hundreds of like coming in every day. So I don't see any importance in them for what Mr. Nice is trying to prove.

JUDGE BONOMY: But, Mr. Milosevic, if you were simply to acknowledge that that was the case and accept it, then we could spend time ³⁶³⁴⁶ ^{BLANK PAGE} ³⁶³⁴⁷ with the witness - as could you - spend more time with the witness exploring the facts that lie behind them or within the documents. But because of the way courts work, it's necessary for this exercise to be done.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I'm afraid the accused's attitude is as it is, and for the avoidance of any doubt so he can understand the position, it will be our case in due course that this is the very best level of information of this type, whether reliable or not, being, of course, for others to decide.

I think I'm up to tab 34.

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, if you could look at that, please. Did you receive in tab 34 information, paragraph 1, that the Bosnian Serbs were being asked to stop their offensive, the date will be before the Court, and to withdraw from Srebrenica? And if you turn to page 2 in the --

A. I don't know what page.

Q. Tab 34, page 1, paragraph 1, line 2.

A. Yes, yes.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... on page 2 at -- and in --

A. [In English] Yes, I've got it.

Q. And in the Bosnian -- in the Serbian, I beg your pardon, on the -- I think the bottom of the first page, or of the second page. Did you receive information about the threat to execute 30 Dutch soldiers, and after the Serb --

A. [Interpretation] We couldn't learn that -- receive that information from anyone because we didn't have any contacts with the ³⁶³⁴⁸ leadership of Republika Srpska, neither did we in any way control the development of the situation there at all. But from this tab, we can see that it is addressed to me, so we could only learn about it on that basis.

Q. Tell me, at this time, where were you?

A. I can't say for sure, but quite possibly I was absent, because usually I would travel during the summer. But I don't know for sure.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... this is an absolutely critical time for the history of this war. Think back, please, and you tell us where you were.

A. Unfortunately, I can't remember exactly, because I visited many countries during the summer in 1993, 1994, and 1995. So quite simply I can't remember. I could if I had some documents to remind me from that time.

Q. Help me with this: The events that are being covered in these cables are events of the gravest kind. You're a government minister. When did you first discuss them with the accused, these events?

A. When we learnt through the press that Srebrenica had fallen.

Q. Through the press --

A. It was a surprise, and of course we didn't condone it, but we didn't have the possibility of talking about that with the leadership of Republika Srpska. So I can't tell you more than that. I wasn't kept informed.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... learn of it through the press, please, that Srebrenica had fallen?

A. Well, I can't say exactly. Probably several days, depending on ³⁶³⁴⁹ what the press reported. I don't think a lot of time went by.

Q. And when you learnt about it, did you have a face-to-face meeting with the accused? Pretty important matter. Did you?

A. I saw him whether in connection with that or in connection with other matters. I know that he was very surprised and that he was very angry. His reaction was one of anger. Not only because it was a protected area which had to be respected, but also because the army of Republika Srpska did it of its own bat.

Q. What did he tell you about his telephone conversations with Mladic?

A. We didn't discuss that at all. It never came up.

Q. Did he say anything about efforts that he made to dissuade Mladic?

A. I don't think we discussed that. Possibly he did try to dissuade Mladic but I don't know about it because we didn't discuss that.

Q. Give us an idea of the government of which you were a part and the seniority of members. In some governments the foreign minister's pretty near to being the second to top dog, the second most important person. In your government where did you, as foreign minister, rank? Pretty important?

A. I can't say that for myself. No minister can. No minister can say he was important, but he did his best to be important through his contribution. And I was directly responsible to the Prime Minister Kontic, and I had contacts with the president of Yugoslavia as well, and President Milosevic at that time was the President of Serbia. So I wasn't his immediate second, the second man. But of course we did meet and ³⁶³⁵⁰ exchange views on certain matters and on some situations that were ongoing.

Q. Very well. Tab 35, please.

MR. NICE: Tab 34, may it be admitted?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: We come to tab 35, already go on the -- no. Rapidly on the overhead projector, please.

Q. Were you aware contemporaneously by our Exhibit 547, tab 33, that on the 12th of July the United Nations Security Council condemned the offensive by Bosnian Serb forces against Srebrenica and, in particular, the detention of Bosnian Serb forces -- by Bosnian Serb forces of UNPROFOR personnel? Were you aware of that on the same day, the 12th of July?

A. If not that day, then probably the next day.

Q. Thank you.

A. Because this paper arrived with some delay.

Q. Tab 36, please. This is -- if you look at tab 36, this comes from a different source. And did you learn information - and it's differently presented so we have the advantage of paragraph numbers - that a man called Pejanovic -- now, you know Pejanovic, don't you? You know who he is. You'll see him at the end of the paragraph 2.

A. I met him.

Q. Yes.

A. I met him once in Geneva. He was a member of the delegation of Bosnian Muslims, but we didn't talk.

Q. Bosnian Muslims? ³⁶³⁵¹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I don't understand or, rather, I can't find my way around these paragraphs. Is he -- is Mr. Nice talking about tab 36? Is that it?

MR. NICE: I'm talking about tab 36. And if the accused goes to the foot of the first page, he'll see as part of the paragraph 2, "Zbog aktuelnosti prvi blok."

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I've found it.

MR. NICE:

Q. Is Pejanovic a Bosnian Muslim or a Bosnian Serb?

A. I think he's a Serb.

Q. Now, he was one of those unusual Serbs who pressed not the Serb cause but the multi-ethnic cause in Bosnia, didn't he? He wasn't interested in separation. He was interested in continued integration of all the ethnic groups; correct?

A. I don't know what he wanted to be. I know that he was one of the Serbs that remained in the Presidency led by Mr. Izetbegovic and that he was very consistent and fervent in supporting his policy and stands in respect of the Bosnian crisis.

Q. This is a man who we can see on page -- English page 2 and, as I say, at the foot of page 1 for you. This is a man of a different thought pattern from the SPS, who presented -- who said that things were happening that were the last moment to wake up -- I beg your pardon. The last moment to wake up the conscience of mankind.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. ³⁶³⁵²

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The SPS is the abbreviation for the Socialist Party of Serbia. I see nowhere here any mention of the Socialist Party of Serbia.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What paragraph is this, Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: It's not mentioned at all. I mentioned SPS. I should have said SBS. SDS. I beg your pardon.

Q. Let's get back to the point, Mr. Jovanovic. Here you received information on the date given from this man that it was the last moment to wake up the conscience of mankind.

If we go to paragraph 3, line 3, we see an estimation of what he proposed.

A. Is that a question?

Q. Yep. Just yes or no.

A. What I want to say is that our position was full support to the plan of the Contact Group and condemnation of all furtherance of war in any of its shapes or forms, and that we repeated this for a year prior to that, so that no hostilities in Bosnia or any armed conflict can be ascribed to our intentions, because we were against hostilities as a whole and asked that they be stopped in all directions and everywhere.

MR. NICE: Your Honours will also see paragraph 4 at the foot of page 2. Too much detail maybe for open session, but I ask that this document be admitted. It's clear that it arrived. Tab 36.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. Tab 37, please, Mr. Jovanovic, a shorter document from a different ³⁶³⁵³ source. Its date will be noted.

Now, then, you've told us that you learnt about the fall of Srebrenica from the newspapers. Take your time, please. Look at the document. Look at the second page of the document, and tell the Court on which day information must have come to you and to this accused about the fall of Srebrenica.

A. I can't tell you exactly. It is the first information that reached us, and for us it was astounding. We were terribly surprised, and we didn't expect this move on the part of Republika Srpska with respect to that particular town. And we learnt about it when the information reached us.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, could I have private session for just a minute, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, private session.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted) ³⁶³⁵⁴

(redacted)

[Open session]

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, you and this accused were aware of the fall of Srebrenica not later than the 13th of July; correct?

A. That's roughly how it would be.

Q. Roughly or certainly?

A. Well, I think since the following day we received these telegrams that it was the 13th of July, but quite possibly there might have been a delay of half a day or one day.

MR. NICE: Can the reference be redacted.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Redact that, please.

MR. NICE: Tab 37, please, Your Honours.

Q. We move on, then, to tab 38. On this occasion, a slightly longer document. If we look simply at the page 1.

Did you become aware, line 3 of the first substantive paragraph, that emphasis was being placed on the request that Bosnian Serbs should stop their offensive and withdraw from Srebrenica as well as to liberate unconditionally UNPROFOR members?

A. We learned that from this document that arrived. We heard -- ³⁶³⁵⁵

Q. Thank you.

A. -- that such a request had been formulated.

MR. NICE: Tab 38, please, Your Honours.

MR. NICE:

Q. Tab 39, Mr. Jovanovic. Different source, different --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, Mr. Robinson. What is the point of asking this witness whether he knew that in the content of a UN Resolution that is being discussed here, of the Security Council Resolution, this was being discussed or mentioned? Is this something that can be used here? When one receives information as to what a draft Resolution of the UN says from sources that are supposed to inform their relevant ministry about this? Please, where does the relevance of this lie? A UN Resolution is a public document. UN Resolutions as such are public documents.

MR. NICE: The accused is raising matters that shouldn't be raised in public.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We'll have to redact that -- those references.

MR. NICE: And second, these interventions of his, which are not single, have the effect, if not the purpose, of taking time; and third if he wants to admit the material, I'm still open to that admission. But otherwise, I must press on and get to the end of this exercise, which won't take very much longer, but it will, I'm afraid, take a bit of time. Can we go to tab 39, please, if 38 has been admitted.

Q. 39. 39. Did you receive information about the Bosnian Serbs, ³⁶³⁵⁶ third line, firing 22 missiles towards Potocari where Dutch troops and refugees were located, and an estimation of 25 or 27.000 refugees, matters of that sort, heading towards the direction of Tuzla. Did you receive that information?

A. It says here that I received it. It says so in the heading and it's probably correct. Or, rather, that it was sent to me.

Q. Very well.

MR. NICE: May that be admitted, please? Tab 40.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: Tab 40. The Court will see the date.

Q. Did you receive information -- on the second substantive paragraph, did you receive information on the condemnation of the activity of the Bosnian Serbs? And at page 2 in the English and at page 2 in your version, Mr. Jovanovic, in the middle of the page, did you receive information that a sometimes friendly country, or thought to be a friendly country said that the occupation of Srebrenica started a new phase in the conflict?

A. I haven't had the opportunity of reading this document so that I could follow exactly what you know from your own reading, but it is indicated here that I am one of the recipients, so I assume that it had reached me.

Q. And also on the same page, did you receive information which the Court can see at the foot of page 2, did you receive information about the attitude of Russia?

A. If we received this document, then we had to receive everything ³⁶³⁵⁷ ^{BLANK PAGE} ³⁶³⁵⁸ that this document contains, including that.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... 40, if the Court pleases.

Q. Tab 41, please, Mr. Jovanovic. From another source. Did you receive information about the extension of Serb aggression on the civil population of Srebrenica? With reference to public media broadcasts of the suffering of civilians and reference to the helplessness of the Dutch Blue Berets.

A. It says here -- I mean, my name is also written down here. That means that it reached me as well.

Q. Come on, think back, Mr. Jovanovic. We are dealing with the most grave alleged crime since the Second World War, and I want you to tell this Court if you, foreign minister of one of the countries said to have been involved, received information about it. Are you going to retreat to saying, "If it's in the document, then I must have done," or are you going to tell us what your active memory was -- is?

A. I did not know anything more about this tragic event than what the newspapers said and what arrived in this way. Of course these were shocking news, but I always had to take them with a grain of salt before receiving authentic information that that was correct, before I received another type of confirmation. No confirmation arrived, at least not while I was minister. So this entire situation regarding Srebrenica was in the dark, as far as I'm concerned.

Q. You've only taken a sentence or so from each of these documents but you've had a chance to see them and you can have a look at them ³⁶³⁵⁹ probably over the weekend. They contain a lot of information. What more did you want? And why was it necessary to take a grain or might it have been a kilogramme of salt with them? Tell us, please.

A. Because the Bosnian Serbs, although they were condemned from many quarters, often rightly so, they were also being blamed for things that they were not guilty of. As Vaso Miskin, Markale 1, Markale 2, and this attack against them concerning Srebrenica is something that I personally had to receive with shock, of course, but then on the other hand I wanted to get some kind of confirmation that that is exactly what happened, that it wasn't a kind of campaign again.

Q. Did you ring up Mladic?

A. I didn't.

Q. Why not? You tell us that you wanted to know the truth. What efforts did you make to find out? Thousands of people died at Srebrenica, Mr. Jovanovic. You were the foreign minister. What efforts did you make?

JUDGE ROBINSON: To do what?

MR. NICE: To find out what had happened.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, I did not have any telephone or other contacts with General Mladic except that I saw him a few times at some meetings that he had been invited to. For the most part it was meetings with international intermediaries but we never talked about the situation there. I was not an interlocutor of his and I did not have enough knowledge to discuss such matters. On the other hand, I was waiting for the matter to be clarified, to be confirmed from several source so that I could take it as an indisputable fact. ³⁶³⁶⁰

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I'm afraid I will have to detain the witness until next week, obviously, but in order to just see where we've got, where we eventually get to with the witness and to use the next ten minutes in a slightly different way, I wonder if the Chamber would be good enough to go to tab 55.

Q. And I wonder if you, Mr. Jovanovic, would go to tab 55 as well. In light of your protestations about how concerned you were and what efforts you made, and we'll come back and have a look at the rest of the information coming to you.

Sorry, tab 55. My mistake. I should have taken you first of all to tab 52.

Now, tab 52, which can go on the overhead projector, if you've got a copy, comes a little bit later. It comes in November of 1995. And it's a document that you sent, a letter that you sent as by then the charges d'affaires of Yugoslavia.

A. Yes.

Q. See what it says. Next page, please, Mr. Nort. You said this: "The claims that the Yugoslav army had either directly or indirectly taken part in the operation for the liberation of the Muslim military stronghold of Srebrenica in July 1995 are completely unfounded.

"Such falsehoods, as well as untrue allegations of the existence of prison camps for the Muslims in the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, are part of well-known campaigns always launched at crucial moments when peace in the war-torn regions of the previous Yugoslavia is ³⁶³⁶¹ about to be reached.

"... It is obvious -- on this occasion it is obvious that what is at stake is an attempt to exert pressure on the Serb side during the peace process and negotiations in Dayton since not a single member of the Yugoslav army participated in the battles around Srebrenica and there are no camps for Muslim prisoners ..."

Next paragraph. We come back to what you've already been telling us about.

"Yugoslavia urges and supports the investigation of war crimes ..." Next sentence: "The latest campaign by Western media, which accuses only the Serbs without any proof does not contribute to this goal, whose aim is a propaganda war which is hardly a necessary element for conducting peace talks in Dayton."

And then you wrote this: "Lacking an opportunity to orchestrate a third Markale incident, the forces that obviously do not seek peace are spreading this disinformation in order to divert the attention of the world public from Yugoslavia's constructive and peaceful policy, thus diminishing the prospects of a positive outcome ..." Is that still your view?

A. That's not my view. That is the view of the federal government that sent this statement, along with instructions that it be forwarded to the president of the Security Council and to have it circulated as a Security Council document, and I carried that out.

Q. Then just one point on this one before we turn to the next document, which I will just get done in time. First paragraph, second ³⁶³⁶² line. What's this liberation about? Who is being liberated? Twenty or 30.000 Muslims who were driven out or killed? Who is being liberated?

A. Are you asking me?

Q. I am asking you.

A. It is not my paper. It's paper of the federal government.

Q. Any idea who --

A. I think that it's a question of expression. It would have been more precise to say "the taking of Srebrenica," not "the liberation of Srebrenica," because there were -- there were, though, a great many Serbs there, not only Muslims.

Q. Tab --

JUDGE KWON: Where can you find those words?

MR. NICE: First paragraph. First paragraph.

JUDGE KWON: Oh, yes.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

MR. NICE: Can we please -- and may that tab 52 as well as the original -- tab 41 I've missed, tab 41 and 52.

Can I take you --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: Can I take you in the remaining five minutes, if I have five minutes --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Three minutes.

MR. NICE:

Q. To tab 55. Tab 55, please, Mr. Jovanovic. And I provided you with it overnight. I kept nothing back from you. And this is a letter ³⁶³⁶³ you wrote on the 18th of December. And we'll just look at two parts of it. It's a letter that you wrote to the United Nations, and on the first page -- no, next page, please, Mr. Nort. Foot of the first page. Foot of that page. Push it up. Thank you. Up. Right. Thank you very much. "I would like to draw your attention to the following facts which are based on the reports provided by the official authorities of the Republika Srpska. These reports, which may be verified, strongly contradict the above allegations and are intended to shed new light on the events in question."

Next page, please, Mr. Nort. I don't have time to do paragraph 1, A, B, C, D and E, but let's look at paragraph 2. "Immediately before the takeover of Srebrenica by the army of the Republika Srpska, disorders and conflicts within the Bosnian Muslim army in that enclave erupted. In the clashes that ensued, those units that wanted to continue fighting were mercilessly killing those who wanted to surrender and were favour of cease-fire. Since the units of the army of Republika Srpska did not have access to those areas at that time, it was only after the fall of the enclave that the bodies of Muslim fighters and civilians who died as a result of the infighting were discovered. This situation was abused by the Bosnian Muslim government to further its propaganda campaign of the alleged mass killings and disappearance of Muslims from the area."

Mr. Jovanovic, you know of the admissions that have been made by the Republika Srpska publicly in recent months about 7.000 dead. Now, can you help us, please, with how you came to write that paragraph, blaming ³⁶³⁶⁴ the Muslims for their own deaths? Because just to remind you, this isn't a letter that comes from the government; this comes from you.

A. May I explain straight away? This is an omission, an omission on my part, because this document was not intended for the Security Council at all. It was intended for head of the Russian mission who, it so happened, was then president of the Security Council as well. The point was that he knew that soon a Security Council session would be held precisely dedicated to Srebrenica, and he asked us to give him any kind of information about what had happened there. I asked my Foreign Ministry for this information, and after a long time and after a lot of insistence, instead of information, I got the information that the leadership of Republika Srpska had sent. It was a rather long text. Then at the senior staff meeting of our mission, I told my deputy chief of mission to translate those parts that seemed logical to him and to send them, of course with my signature, to the head of the Russian mission so that, if he wished, he could use some of it in his speech there. However, my deputy chief of mission misunderstood this, that he was not supposed to send it to him in his capacity as president of the Security Council but rather in his capacity as head of the Russian mission. I signed this hastily because I didn't have time to check out before that whether he had done this properly.

Proof of this can be found with all the members of the staff of the mission then. The following day everybody realised what happened. My omission was obvious and I was wondering after that what to do, whether to withdraw this or to let things go as they were. Unfortunately, this had ³⁶³⁶⁵ already been circulated, it had produced a certain effect, and in this vacillation as to what I was supposed to do, I let things go along the way they did, and I'm sorry about the omission.

Q. My last question for today, with His Honour's leave, is this: I don't accept, on behalf of the Prosecution, your account of writing a letter like this by accident. You remember I asked you earlier whether you and the Bosnian Serbs had an identity of interest? I'd like you to think about that question again, because my suggestion to you is that you plainly did. Do you accept that?

A. First of all, I do not accept that I did this with intent. There were four people who were with me then who can confirm that it was a mistake. If you wish, I can give you their names.

MR. NICE: I'm sorry that I haven't been able to finish today. I had very much hoped to. Had it been possible to put in the documents by admission, I might have done so.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We will have to adjourn now and we'll have to resume next Tuesday at 9.00 a.m.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 22nd day of

February, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.