⁴⁴⁰⁸⁸

Thursday, 15 September 2005

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, please continue.

MR. NICE: I'm in a position to distribute the extract from the book that the witness read from the overhead projector yesterday. If that could be distributed to the parties and the Court and given an exhibit number. The Court and the witness will recall this was the one where he spoke of sitting in the dock, keeping a chair free for the accused, asking how the accused could send him to The Hague without Bogdanovic, Kertes, Stanisic, Simatovic, Frenki, and others.

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number 900.

WITNESS: VOJISLAV SESELJ [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] Cross-examined by Mr. Nice: [Continued]

Q. And, Mr. Seselj, because we dealt with this a little bit quickly yesterday, how was it in 1994 - help us - that you could identify as potential candidates for trials at this Court, this accused, Kertes, Stanisic, Badza, Bogdanovic, and Simatovic?

A. Well, first and foremost, that is just a witty thing. It's a joke. It's -- I was trying to be funny. If he's sending me to The Hague, then I'm going to keep a chair in the dock for him. And then I also mentioned the names of all his political officials. So this is just a ⁴⁴⁰⁸⁹ political battle before the general public, who laugh, applaud, and consider this to be a good joke. Now you are looking at heated Serbian political life, and things of this nature in it, and treating it seriously. That's impossible. This was just a witticism, and that's how the entire Serbian public took it. I assume that it upset Mr. Milosevic at the time, that it annoyed him, and that was my intention, to annoy him, but it had no other purpose whatsoever.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... what you say. As to the material you produced over the weekend from various books, can I summarise the extracts that you've produced in this way: There were -- you did say things starting in the late 1990s, either 1998 or 1999, to the effect that the French intelligence were involved in or responsible for Srebrenica; correct?

A. Yes. To the best of my knowledge, as vice-premier of Serbia, the French intelligence service staged the massacre of Muslim prisoners of war in Srebrenica.

Q. Second: You produced no -- or you had copied and produced no reference to any of your writings where you say, at any stage, that the things you were saying about this accused in 1993 were false.

A. Yesterday I gave you a large number of excerpts from several of my books, and I explained that all of this was said in the heat of a political debate and as a propaganda war was going on. You keep dodging the issue. You don't want to present this to the Judges.

Q. Please listen to the question. You can point us to -- or can you, please, point us to one of your 60, or is it 80, published works in which ⁴⁴⁰⁹⁰ you say, well, in 1993, I said all these things that were entirely false about the accused Milosevic. He had nothing to do with sending volunteers here, there, or everywhere. He wasn't in charge. Is there anywhere in your writings that we can find your saying that? That's what we want to know.

A. First of all, speaking several years later about the things I said against Mr. Milosevic, I'm presenting a general position which includes all of the above. Now, what normal person or serious politician would go into the details yet again? I said it very concretely. The Ceausescu Couple, and then I deny it. I said The Red Dictator from Dedinje and then I deny it. So it's pointless. With a general assertion, I refuted all of it, not by repeating everything I said beforehand. Why would I repeat all of that if, in a general position, I simply refuted all of it?

Q. We have your answer. Thirdly: In all your writings --

JUDGE BONOMY: Is the answer that there's nothing in writing?

MR. NICE: That's how I understand it.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thanks.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, If we've missed something, I'm anxious to be corrected but that's why I asked the witness --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's not correct. That is not correct. That's not the kind of answer that was given. I said that it does exist in writing. But Mr. Nice doesn't want to recognise it as such. And he doesn't want to show you the excerpts that I gave you yesterday. He doesn't want to show them to you.

JUDGE BONOMY: So you say that there is an excerpt marked in the ⁴⁴⁰⁹¹ books that you handed over yesterday which clearly shows that you were misleading the public in your earlier statements in the early to mid-1990s?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Quite clearly, it shows that in all my attacks against Mr. Milosevic from 1993 to 1996, were made with a specific objective in mind, wishing to achieve concrete political effects in our conflict. That is to say that they refute a fact.

JUDGE BONOMY: The point is, though, that you've marked such a passage in the extracts that you gave Mr. Nice to copy yesterday?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, I marked everything. And this is the point. Let me jog your memory: In the Middle Ages, the scholars had a major debate on how many teeth a donkey has.

JUDGE BONOMY: I wish you would just answer the question. Are you saying that you marked a passage in one of the books that you gave Mr. Nice yesterday that deals with this question, that deals with a statement where you say clearly in writing that what you were saying earlier was just misleading and was political propaganda, or are you saying it's written somewhere else and we have to go and look for it and find it somewhere else?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: Is it the latter?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, everything is contained in the excerpts I provided yesterday. Precisely, that it was political propaganda --

JUDGE BONOMY: It's the former. You had marked the passage which ⁴⁴⁰⁹² makes it clear that you were making misleading statements earlier. You've marked such a passage for Mr. Nice to copy? Is that the answer?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. Seven or eight such excerpts.

JUDGE BONOMY: Seven or eight. Great. Now, Mr. Nice, are you going to give us copies of everything that was marked?

MR. NICE: I'm certainly happy for you to have copies --

JUDGE BONOMY: Are they going to be translated in some way?

MR. NICE: Well, at the moment, of course, we're working on draft translations. I'll redouble the --

JUDGE BONOMY: But we could order the translation, and then we'd be able to see exactly what's said.

MR. NICE: I'll review the material again this morning, or have it reviewed in light of the answer given, but as I understand the position from the first read, it was pretty well as I asked in the question. We'll look into that, Your Honour, and I'll come back to it perhaps after the break when I see what we've been able to achieve.

Q. The last question on the material you provided was this: You'll remember that I've been interested to discover from you whether there was any public acknowledgment by the authorities in Serbia of what happened at Srebrenica before the occasion when Erdemovic was interviewed by journalists and those interviews were going to become public. The date of all that is about the 21st of February, 1996. Have you produced in your writings anything that shows acknowledgment by the -- public ⁴⁴⁰⁹³ acknowledgment by the authorities in Serbia of what happened in Srebrenica before about the 21st of February, 1996?

A. You're now changing the subject. From July 1995, when the crime in Srebrenica was committed, until Erdemovic's arrest, I said nothing about it, because I didn't really have any particular knowledge. I heard bits and pieces, but it was not sufficient to speak in public. But this is a period of less than one year. I don't have any information to the effect that the authorities were speaking about it either.

Q. The simple answer is no, and we will come back to Srebrenica in due course. I just wanted to deal with the documents you produced. Very well.

Can we look at a few more things that you said. We'll start with -- this one is coming up. It's an extract from a book of yours, Radicals are for the Village, City and Honest Work, 12th of December, 1993. If you'd look, please, on page 91 of the B/C/S, and we have a short extract from the -- in the English, which is the second of the two marked passages on your page 91.

A. I'm sorry, what is this B/C/S that you refer to? I don't understand that word.

Q. Do you mean you don't understand the word as applied in this Court or that you choose not to say you understand the word? "B/C/S" is the term used in this Court periodically or regularly for a language spoken in parts of the former Yugoslavia. Did you not understand that?

A. You are inventing a new word for the Serbian language. Do you have any linguistic support for the claim you're stating? Please do not ⁴⁴⁰⁹⁴ insult my language. What exists is the Serbian language and what you're trying to impose is some name called B/C/S, and that is in contravention of all linguistic rules. Please do not insult my people and my language in that way. I speak the Serbian language and that's the only language that I understand. First you invented the Bosniak nation, now you want to invent the Bosniak language.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us move on.

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Seselj, you've been told before it's not for you to determine how questions are asked and answered, and by and large I've been using with you, I think, the words "the Serbian language." But it is the habit in this Court to refer to it as "B/C/S" for terms, I think, of political neutrality. I'm not sure why and I don't mind why. Your observation is, I think, noted.

Would you now please turn to page 91 of the document before you, in a language you understand. And will you look at the extract that's marked, and does it read -- the second of the two extracts marked --

THE INTERPRETER: Could we have a reference to the tab, please.

MR. NICE: 39.

Q. Does it read, speaking of a letter: "The letter was written in Slobodan Milosevic's cabinet. Milosevic called Martic, Hadzic, Bjegovic, and Mile Novakovic and forced them to sign that letter. He did not have to force Hadzic ..."

A. I am asking the interpreter to read the original.

Q. Well, then you read the original and we'll follow in English in ⁴⁴⁰⁹⁵ case there's any --

A. Of course I can read it. It's no difficulty.

Q. You do it, then.

A. In response to the journalist's question, which is not referred to here, and it has to do with a press release issued by Milan Martic and a group of leaders from the Serb Krajina that was referred to yesterday here, and then I responded to that by attacking Milan Martic. The journalist is asking me about that letter. We can't see the question here. And my answer to the question is: "Yes. The letter was written in Slobodan Milosevic's office. Milosevic called Martic, Hadzic, Bjegovic and Mile Novakovic and forced them to sign that letter. He did not have to force Hadzic, he signed immediately."

Bjegovic is also closely attached to the regime of the Socialist Party and now he is in this Serb Party of Socialists that the regime established in Krajina that has no stronghold among the population but it has direct regime support from here. Mile Novakovic, after these two fiascoes of his, especially the one from September, has his positions highly shaken in the Krajina. They were talking about his removal and everything was prepared for his removal. General Mile Mrksic was supposed to replace his as commander or, rather, chief of the General Staff of the Serb army. In such a situation, he also signed. Milan Martic hesitated. He opposed it for a while. However, as Milosevic presented him with an ultimatum and threatened him, he signed. As soon as he signed, he was bought, et cetera, et cetera.

Q. That's enough. Now, then, does that passage - and thank you for ⁴⁴⁰⁹⁶ reading the full part of it, not just the two short passages extracted - does that reflect the reality of the accused's authority over various people, but in particular, over Martic and Hadzic?

A. No.

Q. Is it something you just made up and put in a book?

A. I didn't just make it up. The truth is somewhere in the middle, and now I'm going to tell you all about it, Mr. Nice. First of all, Mr. Milosevic did have certain influence over these people. More over some, less over others. He did not have to influence some of them, because I had such a hostile relationship with Hadzic that he could barely wait to sign something like this. However, at this point in time what I have as a fact before me that Milan Martic, Goran Hadzic, Bjegovic, and Mile Novakovic, at the height of our clash - that is to say, between the Radical Party and the Socialist Party and Mr. Milosevic - they attacked us personally and the Radical Party. Now, I'm building an assumption. I don't know whether they went to see Mr. Milosevic. I never saw a meeting of that kind. I am just insinuating. I assume that that was done under his influence, et cetera, et cetera. So what I present in public is --

Q. It's very difficult for us if you speak at that --

A. I'm not shouting at all.

Q. Now, is this, then -- shall we just get to the end of the answer. You're building on assumption, you never saw the meeting, you made an assumption that they were under his influence and you wrote this down; is that right?

A. That is my assumption, that it was either Mr. Milosevic's ⁴⁴⁰⁹⁷ influence or the influence of his party.

MR. NICE: I'm not going to put --

JUDGE BONOMY: There's rather more said at the beginning of that answer, because it said: "I didn't just make it up. The truth is somewhere in the middle. First of all, Mr. Milosevic did have certain influence over these people."

MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes.

Q. His Honour reminds me that you acknowledge having some influence over these people. You acknowledge that Milosevic had some influence over these people, but as to the balance, you were building on an assumption; is that the position?

A. The very fact that they went public with a press release against me personally and the Serb Radical Party at the height of our conflict between us, on the one hand, and the Socialist Party of Mr. Milosevic, on the other hand, speaks in itself that they have taken one particular side. Then this Bjegovic, who was president of the Serb Party of Socialists of the Serb Krajina, I am saying that the regime formed it from here. That is an exaggeration. They were established with the support of the Socialist Party of Serbia, although they never had a stronghold there. They never liked the Serb Democratic Party.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please slow down. The pace is too fast.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj, the interpreters are asking you to slow down.

May I ask you, then: You have no specific evidence, then, that ⁴⁴⁰⁹⁸ Mr. Milosevic forced Bjegovic and Martic to sign?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I don't have any proof. But I am trying to discredit them politically by making these insinuations that they were under pressure, and I come out public with that. You understand: They attack me and now I retort: You did it because Milosevic made you do it. So this is a political battle.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And as for Martic, you have no specific evidence that Mr. Milosevic gave him an ultimatum and threatened him and then he signed.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No. No. I don't have any evidence. But, as you can see from this text, I'm now insinuating that there are differences among the signatories themselves, trying to sow discord among them. I say Hadzic could barely wait to sign something like that, Bjegovic must be a socialist, Martic was hesitating, he didn't want to sign it, but ultimately he did, and so on and so forth. So I have a front of political enemies before me. Now, in my political tactics, I'm trying to somehow break them up and I'm trying to make a difference among all of them. Like all the things they said about me. You haven't got that before you, because all of that are also fabrications, insinuations, et cetera. So I'm responding to their fabrications.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Seselj, at the beginning of that answer, when I think you were trying to give us a genuine account of your position and you weren't reflecting your earlier writings, you said that Milosevic's influence varied, according to the person. Now, looking at the way in which you then presented the individuals, can we take it that in your ⁴⁴⁰⁹⁹ opinion he had a very considerable influence over Hadzic?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I cannot say now that he had a very considerable influence over Hadzic, because I had had a hostile relationship with Hadzic for years by then, so he could barely wait to speak out against me. And also, he had an influence over Bjegovic, because it was with the support of the Socialist Party of Serbia that the Serbian Party of Socialists in Krajina was established. Milan Martic was my friend previously, but here he clearly opted against me in Mr. Milosevic's favour.

You know, political discourse does not always require concrete evidence for each and every detail, as is required in court proceedings. What is said in the heat of a political debate does not have to be identical to what is said in court proceedings. At least, that is my opinion.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please be asked to slow down.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I have to ask you again to speak more slowly. The interpreters have asked me to do that.

JUDGE BONOMY: I'm now in a position where I don't really understand what you're saying, because you started this exchange by saying: "First of all, Mr. Milosevic did have certain influence over these people," and that's the four named. More over some, less over others. And I was just trying to find out which one he had more influence over. Can you answer that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: Which one? ⁴⁴¹⁰⁰

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I'm telling you: He had the most influence on Bjegovic, because Bjegovic's Serbian Party of Socialists in the Krajina was established with the direct help of Mr. Milosevic's party.

JUDGE BONOMY: And what do you say was his influence over Hadzic?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in this specific case, Mr. Milosevic's interests to have support in his conflict with the Serb Radicals corresponded with Mr. Hadzic's desire to attack the Serbian Radical Party, because we were already enemies by that time. I don't know what his relationship with Mr. Milosevic was, because I was never present there. You're asking me the impossible, to explain to you the relationship between Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Hadzic. And I was in conflict with Mr. Hadzic from 1991 onwards and making only negative statements about him.

JUDGE ROBINSON: This excerpt, then, Mr. Seselj, is wholly unreliable as to the influence that Mr. Milosevic had over these persons, certainly in relation to Bjegovic. It indicates that he had to force him to sign the letter.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Bjegovic? No. It doesn't say anywhere that he had to force Bjegovic. It says that he had to force Martic. Mr. Robinson, it doesn't say that about Bjegovic. I say that he was very attached to the Socialist Party regime.

JUDGE BONOMY: Now, my -- please correct me if my recollection is wrong, but when we, in examination-in-chief, were considering the question of the involvement of other named persons in the indictment in the joint ^{44101 BLANK PAGE 44102} criminal enterprise, did you not say that there was no question of Mr. Hadzic being involved in any joint criminal enterprise with the accused?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said it was impossible that he participated in something with me, because we were constantly in conflict. And what I'm saying is that the accused was not in any kind of joint criminal enterprise. But, Mr. Bonomy, there's something else here: When Milan Babic was dismissed, it was Goran Hadzic who was elected the president of the Republika Srpska Krajina. And the authorities in Belgrade considered Hadzic to be a better solution than Babic, and that is a fact. It cannot be denied.

JUDGE BONOMY: I thought that your answer earlier had extended to saying there was no question of a conspiracy or joint criminal enterprise or joint action between the accused and Hadzic, and I note now you say that you were never there, so you don't know what the relationship between them was. Anyway, we can move on now. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I continue to assert that there was no joint criminal enterprise, absolutely, among the highest-ranking Serbian officials, there was no such thing. And I abide by what I said. However, here I'm demonstrating that the relations between Mr. Milosevic and each of these men was not of the same nature. He was closer to some people, more aloof from others. He treated some more correctly than others. And at the height of my conflict with Mr. Milosevic, I said this.

MR. NICE:

Q. And I have one question to put to you on this passage, and it's to ⁴⁴¹⁰³ reflect the Prosecution's case. Mr. Seselj, when you give the sort of detail that you give in this passage, discriminating between one individual and another, you're revealing that you're actually speaking on this occasion the truth, from which you now seek to hide by lying to this Court. That's our case against you as a witness. Do you follow?

A. Your case is false. I am saying here that I was attacking the signatories of a communique and of course making insinuations to a certain extent. There is something called the symbolism of political discourse. When one says "in Mr. Milosevic's office," it doesn't mean in his office literally. It means under his influence.

MR. NICE: May this document be exhibited?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: Thank you. Can it be given a number.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What's the number, please?

THE REGISTRAR: 901.

MR. NICE:

Q. If you'd look now, please, at a different exhibit. It's an existing exhibit. It's Exhibit 326, tab 11, a map of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, admitted through Babic, Milan Babic.

MR. NICE: If a copy could be handed to the Court and then to the witness.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I still haven't got a copy.

MR. NICE: There's a copy on the overhead projector. Perhaps you'd be good enough to look at that. That will be screened for you. If the usher would stay there, because I want him to do something for me in a ⁴⁴¹⁰⁴ second.

Q. The first and very general question is this: Looking at the borders of the Republic of Serb's Krajina, do they resemble or do they fit, to some degree, closely with the appropriate part of the border of the Greater Serbia for which you have always contested? Just yes or no.

A. Well, one can't say that it corresponds to the borders of Greater Serbia. The western border of Greater Serbia is the Karlobag-Ogulin-Virovitica-Karlovac line. However, this border is a little to the south of Karlobag, a lot more to the south of Ogulin. No, you can't say it's similar. What is the key difference? Formally, you can say that the western border it's similar. All of Central Slavonia is included in our ideological project of a Greater Serbia, and Slavonia was not part of Republika Srpska Krajina. In our ideological project, there is no gap here.

MR. NICE: Usher, would you be good enough now, please, to hand the map to the witness and place on the overhead projector the English document, which is the key on the map.

Q. Now, if you look at the key and just parts of it, we see that on this map -- this is a map of Ustasha genocide on the people of Serbia on the territory of the Independent State of Croatia, between the year 1941 and 1945. That's one of the inserts, I think. There's a reference to the German representative inviting the Ustashas, stating that a million Orthodox Serbs, children, women, and elderly, have been slaughtered. Then we see reference points to points of genocide committed by Ustasha, mass genocide on the Serbian people, and so on. All these things marked on a ⁴⁴¹⁰⁵ map published at the time of the existence of the Republic of Srpska Krajina.

Do you accept, Mr. Seselj, that focussing people's attention in the 1990s on these historic, tragic events, but historic events, served a purpose of inciting people to violence?

A. First of all, there's a forgery here. It wasn't the Ustasha who killed the people of Serbia. It was the Serbian people who had lived for centuries on the territory of the so-called Independent State of Croatia. That is an anti-Serb forgery, a major one. It's here at the beginning of this paper.

Secondly, until the year 1990, until the fall of Communism, the opening of Serbian mass graves from World War I had been prohibited. It was only when the nationalist parties won in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Muslim Party of Democratic Action, the Serb party, the HDZ, it was only then that conditions were created for the pits and other mass graves to be opened and given a properly burial to the remains of the Serbian civilians killed in World War II.

JUDGE ROBINSON: After that background and contextual information, would you please answer the question now.

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: World War II, not I.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am answering the question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Answer it directly.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In 1990 and 1991, Serbian mass graves from World War II were opened in order to give the victims a proper religious burial. That was the only reason. It wasn't a part of ⁴⁴¹⁰⁶ preparations for war.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'll put the question that Mr. Nice put to you, which is whether you accept that focussing people's attention in the 1990s on the historic, tragic events in the 1940s served the purpose of inciting people to violence. I've allowed you to set the context -- no.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay, Mr. Nice.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But I had to supply this explanation, Mr. Robinson, because without it my answer would not have been complete.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I allowed you to do so, but at a certain time we must get the answer.

MR. NICE:

Q. And did you feel free, Mr. Seselj, to speak whenever it suited you on these historic, tragic events, speaking of the Ustasha committing acts of genocide against the Serbs?

A. I personally expressed myself freely. But in the 1980s, there were threats of repressive measures by the regime, and I experienced many of these. Secondly, in 1990, Tudjman won in Croatia and he stated that he was continuing the traditions of that Ustasha regime.

Q. Please listen to the questions and answer them, if you can. Do you accept that returning people's memories to these events would serve the purpose of dividing society, making people feel more separate, creating, in a sense, a "them and us" society? Do you accept that's what doing this achieved? ⁴⁴¹⁰⁷

A. No. No. On the Serb side, no one drew attention to this in an organised way. First of all, the families of victims from World War II, as soon as the government changed, started organising themselves and started excavating the mass graves and burying their nearest and dearest, in real cemeteries, near churches and so on. This was not a manipulation of the victims. It was the first time people were free to bury the victims according to their moral, ethical, and religious norms.

Q. Finally on this general topic: Do you accept that the two types of events, taking people back to earlier suffering and where it happens, dividing people by creating a "them and us" culture, are two of the events which, when they coincide, can lead people all too easily to commit grave and sometimes genocidal crimes? Do you accept that?

A. That is not true. It's not true. In this war, there were no genocidal crimes, in this last war. Although you here have forged information about Srebrenica and tried to prove genocide, that is false and it will not hold water, at least not in the court of history.

JUDGE BONOMY: Can I be clear about one thing: The mass graves, you say, were opened in the early 1990s. Were they located in Bosnia?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. They were mass graves in Bosnia.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. Can we look -- take that document back. It's an existing exhibit. It doesn't need to be dealt with further. Can we look now at a cover page from issue 9 of 1990s Velika Srbija magazine, your party's magazine. ⁴⁴¹⁰⁸ Perhaps we can display one and a second on the overhead projector.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters have a tab number, please.

MR. NICE: Certainly. 46b. If we could just put the map on the overhead projector, please.

Q. This has a headline and a passage at the bottom. The headline reads: "From Ohrid to the beaches of the Adriatic, everywhere are the guards of General Draza!" Perhaps you'd just explain that to us briefly.

A. You can see that this is in verse. It rhymes. It is a folk song, two verses from a folk song. From Lake Ohrid to the beaches of the Adriatic, everywhere are the guards of General Draza. Do you want me to explain Serb folk poetry to you?

Q. I'm really more interested in the bottom left-hand entry. But before we come to that: The map that we're looking at is what? Is this the map of Velika Serbia?

A. Yes. This is the map of Greater Serbia.

Q. So this is a map that incorporates what others would say to be Bosnia and significantly large parts of what others would say to be Croatia?

A. First of all, why others? I say that this map includes Bosnia. It doesn't, however, include Croatia. These are Serbian lands. And it is the Serbian people who live here. Orthodox Serbs, Muslim Serbs, and Catholic Serbs. I explained that to you on the first day, and this map confirms what I said.

Q. Your definition that they themselves don't accept. The passage at ⁴⁴¹⁰⁹ the bottom reads whether from --

A. It says here: "Brother Serb, don't forget! These are Serbian lands!"

Q. Now, what effect did you intend to have on those who might read this magazine in 1990, by announcing that land regarded by others as definitely in other territories, Bosnia and Croatia? What effect did you intend to have by publishing a magazine with this on its, I think, front page, or wherever?

A. What you have shown here was on the back. But a similar map was published in another issue of the magazine on the front page. So you're not far wrong.

Secondly, I say here, quite clearly, or rather, we who edited the journal, said: "Brother Serb, don't forget!"

Thirdly, you say something that's definitely Bosnia and Herzegovina and that's definitely Croatia. But you should know that in history nothing is definite. Not even that Great Britain of yours is definite. Who knows what history will bring with it. But this is a solemn statement: "Brother Serb, don't forget! These are Serb lands!" This is what we are leaving as a heritage to our children and grandchildren. These are Serbian lands, and one day they should all be Serbia.

Q. In 1990, and you were publishing, being allowed to publish, material that would simply encourage people to go and fight, at the same time as you were saying things that would remind them of the terrible misfortunes of the Second World War. Do you realise how dangerous you ⁴⁴¹¹⁰ were at the time, Mr. Seselj?

A. No, I was not dangerous at all. I was representing a Serbian national value at that point in time, which many did not recognise but I was aware of.

Secondly, the year 1990 was a year where one could already sense the breakup of Yugoslavia. Slovenian separatism was on the rise. Tudjman was already in power. We established this journal in July 1990, and Tudjman came to power in May 1990. It is two months after Tudjman's rise to power that we established the journal "Greater Serbia." And thirdly, in the 1980s, before Mr. Milosevic came to power, the atmosphere in Belgrade was already somewhat more liberal. Vladimir Dedijer published a huge book, a collection of documents on the Vatican and Jasenovac. Milan Bulajic published several volumes of books about the Ustasha genocide. And then Antun Miletic, who is a Croat --

MR. NICE: May this exhibit please be produced.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, do you have the original of this volume?

MR. NICE: I'm not sure whether we've got --

JUDGE BONOMY: To get a proper view of the map. It's a very inadequate photocopy.

MR. NICE: I'll see if we've got a better version. I'll make an inquiry and I'll come back to it in a couple minutes.

THE REGISTRAR: The exhibit number, 902.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, if we've got an original, I'll ask that the original be produced, at least for the Court record.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. ⁴⁴¹¹¹

MR. NICE: Let's move on a little now to one or two videos.

Q. Vukovar, what was the justification for Serbs taking Vukovar? Just help us.

A. First of all, Vukovar was a Serbian town, always. Secondly, just before the war --

Q. What do you mean by that? What was its population at the time that it was attacked, in percentage terms?

A. Vukovar was not attacked. Vukovar was liberated.

Q. At the time it was liberated, what was its ethnic composition in percentage terms?

A. As far as I can recall - it's not 100 per cent reliable - neither the Serbs nor the Croats had an absolute majority. There was approximately an equal percentage of Serbs and Croats. And then there were some other nationalities. But neither the Serbs nor the Croats had more than 50 per cent.

Q. Were these real Croats who spoke the Chakavian or the Kajkavian dialect or were they phoney Croats who spoke the Shtokavian dialect but somehow thought they were Croats? What were they?

A. Phoney Croats, who spoke the Shtokavian dialect. And the centuries-long policies of the Catholic Church had deceived them into thinking they were Croats.

Q. The people who died and the people who were suffering in the course of being liberated were in fact, on your own reckoning, Serbs, but somehow they had to be punished or dealt with or killed, in some greater interest. They were actually Serbs. They didn't know it; they thought ⁴⁴¹¹² they were Croats. They were actually Serbs. So what is it that the Serbs are doing attacking other Serbs, on your understanding of history?

A. First of all, it wasn't the Serbs who were attacked. Croatian paramilitary units attacked the JNA barracks in Vukovar. That's how the conflict started.

Secondly, in Vukovar, Croatian paramilitary units of Franjo Tudjman turned up and started maltreating the Serb Orthodox population before the conflict broke out. They attacked Serb Orthodox villages around Vukovar, and you should know that in World War II, Bobota, a huge Serbian village, and many villages in the surroundings, were made Catholic by force in World War II in order to turn them into alleged Croats as well. The Serbs there were upset by the rise of Franjo Tudjman to power. Their existence was threatened. The Croatian paramilitary units were the first to attack. They attacked the JNA barracks in Vukovar, and that's how the conflict broke out. So it was not the Serbs who attacked; it was the Croatian paramilitary units.

JUDGE BONOMY: Do you go as far as to say that Tudjman also was a Serb who thought he was a Croat?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Tudjman is German by origin, and that's a well-known fact. His very name means "foreigner," Tudjman, "foreign man." That's his last name.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. If you'd look at -- we've got a transcript for the next short clip, please. ⁴⁴¹¹³ It's number 56, for the booth. If this could be distributed. This is on Sanction, I'm reminded to inform the technical booth. Shall we just play this.

[Videotape played]

THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "This is the strongest Ustasha stronghold. When Vukovar falls, the Ustasha will have no chance. It is understood that someone who came here to fight voluntarily, he knows why he has come and what he is fighting for. You don't have to persuade him to go into battle.

"We quickly gained this trust, and then the regime gave us a barrack in Bubanj Potok. They provided a whole barracks for SRS volunteers. And we gathered volunteers in Belgrade, here we would get uniforms for them, weapons for them, transport to the front, and so on."

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I was only really concerned --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Customary forgeries or falsifications on these BBC videotapes once again. Mr. Seselj never uttered the word "Serbia." Not once. And in the subtitles you saw the word "Serbia" repeated three times whereas Mr. Seselj didn't utter the word "Serbia" once in what he said. So I don't know how you can allow the use of forgeries of this kind from one day to the next. BBC's forgeries, falsifications are quite unbelievable. They're unbelievable.

JUDGE ROBINSON: If that is so, we are grateful to you for the correction.

MR. NICE: The Court will have in mind, since the difficulties ⁴⁴¹¹⁴ with the passages that are on the film, we've been having fresh translations done, and I'm concerned with the first passage that the witness will have seen. No reference to the word "Serbia."

Q. What you said, Mr. Seselj, as we can see, a head of a group of armed men initially, was that, "This is the strongest Ustasha stronghold. When Vukovar falls, the Ustasha will have no chance. It's understood that someone who came here to fight voluntarily, he knows why he has come and what he is fighting for. You don't have to persuade him to go into battle."

So help us, please: What were your men, Seselj's men who went to Vukovar, going there to do?

A. They went to fight for the freedom of Vukovar and to rout the Ustasha formations which had taken control of Vukovar. And the Ustashas are Croatian fascists.

Q. Do you remember I asked you right at the beginning of the time when I was asking you questions how you were going to discriminate between Ustasha and non-Ustasha, between civilians and non-civilians? How in Vukovar were the civilians to be protected, those unfortunate civilians who thought themselves to be Croats?

A. First of all, the JNA protected all civilians; Orthodox Serbs, Catholics, and everybody else.

Secondly, the Ustashas publicly and openly exposed themselves in Vukovar in what they called the National Guards Corps. So that was an Ustasha paramilitary formation belonging to Franjo Tudjman, completely illegally established. To the north of Vukovar, in Osijek, there was even ^{44115 BLANK PAGE 44116} a formation which existed which openly said of itself that it was Ustasha, and that was Glavas formation. They wore black uniforms, copied along the lines of the uniforms worn by the Ustashas during World War II. And the Serb people could differentiate between Ustashas and Croats very well. They never mixed the two up, ever.

Q. Were your men going there knowing that they were expected to kill people who they found there?

A. No. And I constantly held speeches sending off the volunteers from Belgrade. I said that -- told them how Serb soldiers should behave. They should behave courageously and bravely on the battlefield and I told them how they should behave towards civilians, prisoners of war, the wounded from the opposite side and so on and so forth, their code of conduct.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... use that term "cleansing." Any operation to cleanse an area of one ethnic group inevitably brings the risk of violence and death, doesn't it, Mr. Seselj?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Does he agree that there was an operation?

MR. NICE: No, not at the moment. That's a --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

MR. NICE: I'm coming to it later.

JUDGE ROBINSON: All right.

MR. NICE:

Q. But any effort -- let's assume --

A. You are intentionally -- do you wish me to answer, Mr. Nice, as far as the cleansing is concerned? You are intentionally falsifying facts ⁴⁴¹¹⁷ by confusing two issues: Military cleansing, or mop-up, military mop-up of the terrain, which is a completely legitimate and legal military operation, and ethnic cleansing, which is absolutely prohibited pursuant to international laws. So you are confusing and mixing up the issues, consistently, not only in this case but in many other cases too. The mop-up operation is an operation to -- or rather, cleansing operations are to deal with pockets of resistance that remain.

Q. Can we go back, then, to clarifying --

A. I assume you are following the interpreters, and they're not shouting, are they?

Q. Clarifying the position. We're dealing here with ethnic cleansing and I'll ask the question again, in case you didn't understand it. Any exercise of ethnic cleansing comes with the inevitability of violence and death, doesn't it?

A. If ethnic cleansing existed.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... what you mean by it existed. Ethnic cleansing happens, does it not, Mr. Seselj --

A. But you want me to state my views about what ethnic cleansing brings with it, and then you would go on to interpret my answer as saying that there really was ethnic cleansing. That is a trick you can play on small children. You're not on a par with me, Mr. Nice. You can't pull tricks like that on me.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... which, as you've been told, is your function. If somebody, a military leader or --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, Mr. Nice is asking ⁴⁴¹¹⁸ this question of the witness highly improperly. In his first formulation, he said "cleansing the terrain from members or of members of other ethnic groups." That was the formulation. The transcript has left the screen in that portion, but he said "cleansing the terrain of other ethnic groups." So his question, to start with, was wrong and improper. Nobody has heard of terrain mop-up or cleansing of other ethnic groups or nationalities.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Rephrase the question.

MR. NICE: I don't think there's any need to rephrase, in my respectful submission. The witness is declining to answer the question, but I'm going to ask it once more.

Q. If a military commander, Mr. Seselj, or even somebody having command over military forces not counting himself as a military commander, instructs people to engage in ethnic cleansing, he knows, does he not, that violence and death will follow?

A. Abstractly speaking, if we take it in the abstract, away from the facts, and reject the possibility that you are trying to abuse my answer, then yes, of course. If a military commander orders ethnic cleansing, he is conscious that that will lead to additional crimes. Anybody ordering ethnic cleansing. But you still have not, among the high-ranking Serb commanders, found a single one who ordered ethnic cleansing to be done.

Q. Anybody sent in to Vukovar, for example, to drive the Croats back to the Karlobag-Virovitica line would be being instructed to do something that was bound to bring violence and death; correct?

A. First of all, nobody received instructions to push back or drive back the Croats from the Karlobag-Virovitica line, but to rout the ⁴⁴¹¹⁹ Croatian paramilitary formations of Franjo Tudjman. Until the end of 1990, according to my information, the General Staff of the JNA was preparing a plan to completely rout Tudjman and to take control of Zagreb, to completely rout his paramilitary formations. Because the General Staff of the JNA wished the entire area of Croatia to remain within the composition of Yugoslavia.

You don't like hearing this from me. It doesn't correspond with what you wish to hear.

Q. May we now look at an extract, 56A. Have we got extracts?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you exhibiting the last document?

MR. NICE: Sorry. May I exhibit the last passage, yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What's the number for that one, the last one, 56?

THE REGISTRAR: Video clip, and together with the transcript, they will be 903.

MR. NICE:

Q. I'm going to play you now a short extract, a broadcast publication. It was first seen in the opening of this case, a long time ago, and hasn't been produced since formally. There's some singing by Chetniks on this. We're going to have the words that they said underneath in English, and I'd like you, please, to listen, if you can - it's probably a song you know or singing which you recognise - and tell us if what we've got in English, which I'll read over to you, is accurate.

[Videotape played] "The regulars were celebrating in the streets that they had fought for and singing a tribal song against the Croats." ⁴⁴¹²⁰

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't hear anything there.

MR. NICE: Try again, please.

[Videotape played] "The regulars were celebrating in the streets that they had fought for and singing a tribal song against the Croats."

MR. NICE:

Q. Is that a song that speaks of "Slobo sending a salad, there will be plenty of meat, we will slaughter the Croats"? Is that what they were singing?

A. First of all, that is a song which was first sung by football supporters at the end of the 1980s at football stadiums. This song might have been sung somewhere here, but you ought to see who did the singing and what the motives for that were. The song was not an official song, and it was never sung by the members of the Serbian Radical Party. And of course, there are all sorts of songs, there were all sorts of songs sung by all sides in the previous war, the last war.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Did it contain the words that the Prosecutor has put to you?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I heard better this next time, and yes, those are the words.

MR. NICE:

Q. And the "Slobo" to whom reference is made is whom?

A. You would have to ask those singing the song. I never sung a song like that in my life, so I cannot interpret for you this pseudo-national songs which belong to the dregs of society, don't they? So the people who ⁴⁴¹²¹ sang them can tell you. I never sang them. These are the dregs of the folk songs of society.

JUDGE BONOMY: Could you tell who we were looking at in the film?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You saw soldiers. We were looking at soldiers. Which soldiers, I don't know. I can't tell you that.

JUDGE BONOMY: Part of the JNA?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably. But what needs to be done is to identify who those were.

MR. NICE:

Q. Sorry, Your Honour. You say that. Didn't you see the flag they were looking at? We might have to go back and have a look at it. Would you like to have a look at the flag? Just tell us. We needn't even --

A. Well, it's the traditional Chetnik flag.

Q. Yes.

A. But one should bear in mind one fact here: After the breakdown of Communism, the pendulum that the communists had moved to one side for half a century by attacking the Chetniks as their ideological adversaries within the Serb people swung back to the other side. And in this war, we had the following fact: That practically all the Serb fighters were referred to as Chetniks, or other people considered them to be Chetniks.

Q. You see, this is the point, isn't it? I was going to come to this: These appear to be Serb Chetniks in the Serb Chetnik Party -- Movement, Serb Chetnik Movement. Remind us again: What was your connection to that?

A. First of all, the Chetnik Movement did not appear from the 1st of ⁴⁴¹²² August, 1991 anywhere as such on the fronts, on the front lines. When the Serb Chetnik Movement united, which was established in Serbia as a political party, with the bulk of the national Radical Party as members, it continued to work within the Serbian Radical Party, as a sub-organisation, which nurtured the freedom-loving traditions of the Serbian people. And in 1995, we disbanded the Serbian Chetnik Movement, giving the following explanation, and you can find that in one of my books, that explanation. We gave the explanation, and today all Serbian freedom lovers are considered to be Chetniks. And the Chetnik Movement is an all-Serb tradition and that no political party has the right to appropriate it. And here, you have no proof or evidence at all.

Q. These men described as the dregs of society would appear to be under the banner of the Serb Chetnik Movement at entry into Vukovar, wouldn't they?

A. No. First of all, this is not a flag of the Serbian Chetnik Movement, and nowhere on it does it say the Serbian Chetnik Movement. Take a better look at that flag, the banner. This is one of the -- one possible Serb banners, but not the flag of the Serbian Chetnik Movement. Secondly, you will see that all these soldiers, judging by their helmets, are JNA, which was not characteristic for the volunteers of the Serb Radical Party. They avoided wearing these helmets because there was the five-pointed star, red five-pointed star on the helmets and they preferred to go bareheaded. So somebody started singing that song spontaneously. I did not say that these were the people of the dregs of society. It was the song that was generated and came into being with ⁴⁴¹²³ these low-level society people and it was sung first of all by football supporters during these football matches. And you can see that everybody here is wearing helmets.

Q. A lot of beards, there's a man in the middle with the kokarda hat. Doesn't this all look to you like Chetniks of your group, of which you were the leader? Doesn't it? Commander, I'm reminded.

A. First of all, I wasn't a commander. And secondly, I was, in a sense, the leader of the Serbian Chetnik Movement. I was president of the Serbian Chetnik Movement, if you consider that to be a leader. However, here we're dealing quite obviously with a particular unit. The banner is not the flag of the Serbian Chetnik Movement. I can send you an original to have a look and see what it looks like, and that's not this flag. This is partially the Chetnik flag but it just says "freedom or death" at the bottom, as far as I can read. So it doesn't say the Serbian Chetnik Movement. While the Serbian Chetnik Movement existed, it said on the flag "Serbian Chetnik Movement."

Q. And you were, of course, the Vojvoda, weren't you? You've told us all about that.

A. I wasn't a Vojvoda, I am still a Vojvoda and will be a Vojvoda until the end of my life. I am very proud of having that title of a Serbian Vojvoda.

MR. NICE: Can I have that produced as an exhibit, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Is there a problem with the numbering of this?

MR. NICE: I don't think it's been exhibited. It was produced, I ⁴⁴¹²⁴ think -- it was screened in the opening, but it wasn't actually subsequently produced, so I think it hasn't been exhibited. So it needs an exhibit number.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's work on that basis. Please give it the next number.

THE REGISTRAR: The next number will be 904.

MR. NICE:

Q. We'll now look at another short extract, and I'll distribute the transcript.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Do we know where this footage was taken; what location, when, where?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: It's said by the reporting journalist, Martin Bell, to be at Vukovar. That's what we know.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Did that journalist tell you that the singing of that song was intentionally sung for the filming? That's possible too. It wouldn't be the first time that this song was requested. Because I can see that you had some very successful cooperation with journalists. So that is highly possible.

MR. NICE: The next extract, please -- next film, rather. And this is the journalist Baron van Lynden, from whom you've heard.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Are you asking me?

[Trial Chamber confers] ⁴⁴¹²⁵

MR. NICE: The next tab, Your Honours, has the voice and may indeed have the image of Baron van Lynden, who has appeared as a witness here, and he then sets the scene for what is more important, which is what the soldier says. Perhaps we can play that.

[Videotape played] "van Lynden: ... reached the hospital of ... the blood still fresh, were clearly murdered. If the ruins of Vukovar symbolise anything at all, it must be the hatred that still exists between Serbs and Croats, that lay dormant during 45 years of peace, has now expressed itself in a mutual commitment to war, a commitment which does not appear to have been satisfied even after three months of fighting here."

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not getting any interpretation.

MR. NICE: Can we go back to the beginning.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wasn't receiving the interpretation at all.

MR. NICE: My error. I didn't announce the tab for the interpreters. Number 57. So if they've found that, and if we can go back to the beginning. We should be able to provide interpretation for the witness, because I think Baron van Lynden speaks, I hope, at a comparatively moderate speed.

[Videotape played] "van Lynden: ... who never reached the hospital, or who, the blood still fresh, were clearly murdered. If the ruins of Vukovar symbolise anything at all, it must be the hatred that still exists between the Serbs and Croats, that lay dormant during 45 years of peace, has now expressed ⁴⁴¹²⁶ itself in a mutual commitment to war, a commitment which does not appear to have been satisfied even after three months of fighting here. And amongst the horror, there is the surreal incongruity of celebration. Extremist Serb militiamen and women, posing triumphantly for an end-of-battle photograph, before returning to a morning feast of music and laughter, fuelled by alcohol. The motto on their flag is 'Freedom or Death,' and they vow they will fight on.

"What, for you, do the Serbs need to take before the war is over? "The war will be over when we have our limits - Karlobag, Karlovac, Ogulin and Virovitica. All place where Serbian people live must be free, you know. We must clean up with the Croatians. "In the town centre other militiamen display an uncontrolled rejoicing, in a similar frame of mind."

MR. NICE:

Q. Now, a couple of questions. First of all, the flag. What do you say about the flag? Whose flag was that?

A. This is not the flag of the Serbian Chetnik Movement. This is a flag that was handmade by individuals who do not know exactly what Serbian Chetnik heraldics looks like. It could have been inspired by the Chetnik Movement, but he is still an ignoramus in that area. Secondly, the statement has been requested by your journalist, quite obviously. I would have liked to have heard it in the Serbian language. Was it originally given in the English or what?

Q. The first bearded soldier we saw, the heavily bearded soldier who crossed himself, would he, from his appearance, appear to be one of ⁴⁴¹²⁷ Seselj's men?

A. You mean looking at the beard?

Q. Yes.

A. I never wore a beard in my life. Or you mean because he's making the sign of the cross? Every Serb that is making the sign of a cross might be a Seselj man, or wears a beard must be a Seselj's man. That's not serious. This is the first time I see this man, so I can't say who he is or what he is.

As to the person giving the statement to van Lynden, it is possible to identify that person. And instead of van Lynden, you should have brought him in to testify, to say whether that statement was commissioned by the journalist or whether he was inspired by my slogans or what he meant by what he said.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, as, without a doubt, that person had to have given a statement in Serbian, we ought to hear what he says. We only had the translation, the interpretation from the English transcript, not the words of the witness, who allegedly is saying that in front of a television camera.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you think -- are you questioning the interpretation?

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note that the person was speaking in English.

JUDGE KWON: I think the soldier spoke in English. The soldier spoke in English, according to this video clip.

MR. NICE: Shall we play it again? ⁴⁴¹²⁸

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, let's hear that Serb Chetnik speaking in English, then. I'd really like to see someone like that and hear him, and I'm sure the viewers in Serbia will appreciate hearing a Serbian Chetnik speaking in English. Let's hear him.

JUDGE KWON: Shall we play it again?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's play it again.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't need the interpretation. Let me hear him in English.

[Videotape played] "Van Lynden: If the ruins of Vukovar symbolise anything at all, it must be the hatred that still exists between the Serbs and Croats, that lay dormant during 45 years of peace and has now expressed itself in a mutual commitment to war, a commitment which does not appear to have been satisfied even after three months of fighting here. And amongst the horror, there is the surreal incongruity of celebration. Extremist Serb militiaman and women, posing triumphantly for an end-of-battle photograph, before returning to a morning feast of music and laughter, fuelled by alcohol. The motto on their flag is 'Freedom or Death,' and they vow that they will fight on.

"Unknown soldier: No, it's not finished. "Van Lynden: What, for you, do the Serbs need to take before the war is over?

"Unknown soldier: War will be over when we have our limits - Karlobag, Karlovac, Ogulin, Virovitica. All place where Serbian people live must be free, you know. We must clean up with the Croatians. ^{44129 BLANK PAGE 44130} "Van Lynden: In the town centre, other militiamen display an ..."

JUDGE ROBINSON: There you have it, Mr. Milosevic, your Serb Chetnik speaking English.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, and I can see a Croatian flag that was unfolded at the end, and Mr. Seselj didn't comment on that.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the quality of the footage wasn't very good, but quite obviously he can't differentiate between a Croatian and Serbian flag. This whole video has been commissioned, the statement has been commissioned.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But the flag that was unfolded at the end had the chequerboard emblem, Croatian chequerboard emblem on it. This is all quite a circus.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your person found a Croat to give him the kind of statement that he wanted to hear to ascribe to the Serbs as being people who were ethnically cleansing the Croats.

JUDGE KWON: I thought they were just about burning.

MR. NICE: About burning the flag, yes.

Q. Now can I be allowed to ask the question to you, Mr. Seselj, please. You, I think, went to Vukovar after the events there, did you not?

A. I went to Vukovar after the liberation of Vukovar, to celebrate the first anniversary.

Q. You weren't there during the fighting, but you went there shortly --

A. I was there twice during the fighting. ⁴⁴¹³¹

Q. This soldier, who happens to speak in English, expresses the view that "War will be over when we have our limits - Karlobag, Karlovac, Ogulin, Virovitica." That sentiment, I suppose, would accord with your own desires, wouldn't it?

A. No. No. You're insinuating here. First you have to identify the soldier, and then let's see what he said and what his motives were. You know, this is as if you said he raped an unknown girl.

JUDGE BONOMY: That's not the question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The question, very simply, was whether the view expressed by the soldier that the limits for the Serbs should be Karlobag, Karlovac, Ogulin, and Virovitica, whether that accords with your sentiment. I have heard you express something very close to that, if not exactly the same.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am going to say something very similar to that several times, and perhaps even that itself. But I am never going to confirm for you that the opinion of this unknown soldier matches mine. Because I am interested in the motives for the statement he made. In the first part of his statement, there is a similarity with the ideology of --

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's a different issue. But it's time for the break.

JUDGE BONOMY: I just would like to be clear about one thing. It's not related to this passage, it's much earlier in your evidence, when there was reference to the early 1990s and the mass graves of Serbs being opened at that stage. And just slightly earlier in your evidence, you ⁴⁴¹³² refuted the suggestion that the killings, the genocide during the Second World War had been caused by Ustashas. Now, did I catch that correctly? You refuted that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. In the Second World War, the Ustashas, the Croatian Ustashas, carried out a genocide against the Serb people. You have the testimony of Hitler's envoy in Zagreb --

JUDGE BONOMY: That clarifies. I thought you had denied that, in fact, in your answer, but you now clarify that that was the position. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. Perhaps you got the wrong interpretation. I said that at this particular war, now, there was no genocide. Because I know the definition of genocide very well, from the international convention. This war that was waged now, in the 1990s, and there was no genocide then. There were different war crimes, but the crime of genocide was not committed. I was clear on that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think I know what Judge Bonomy is referring to, and I'll search it in the break. Let's adjourn for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, please proceed.

MR. NICE:

Q. The last question I wanted to ask you about the document we were looking at before the break - it's not shown on the overhead projector at the moment, but I can read it out to you - is this: A soldier in Vukovar at the time of the incident at Vukovar, the events at Vukovar, saying that ⁴⁴¹³³ all places where Serbian people must be free and saying, in English: "We must clean up with the Croatians" sounds to be a soldier who understands his mission to be to move Croats to the Karlobag-Virovitica line, doesn't he?

A. No. No. I think there's a problem involved here in the translation. And I need an interpretation of this. What it says here in the original: "[In English]... clean up with the Croatians." [Interpretation] I, who does not speak English, only a bit and only from time to time, I interpret this as meaning "we have to clear things up with the Croats." And what the interpreter interpreted for me here was: "We have to cleanse the Croats." Am I right? "We must clean up with the Croatians." I mean, you speak English better than I do, does that mean to settle accounts with Croats or --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you saying that what should be there is: "We must clear up things with the Croatians"? Because in that event, I think we should hear it again. It was in English.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have the English text right in front of me. It says: [In English] "Clean up with the Croatians." [Interpretation] And the interpreter gave me a different interpretation, "We have to cleanse the Croats."

JUDGE BONOMY: The point is well made, I think, but it's a matter for the Court to interpret in the light of the context in which it's said. And we could debate this forever. I take note of the comment Mr. Seselj makes, which has some foundation.

MR. NICE: I entirely agree. ⁴⁴¹³⁴

Q. But, Mr. Seselj, you see, if we look at the previous sentence, or the two previous sentences, a soldier identifying Karlobag-Virovitica borders and saying, "All places where Serbs live must be free, you know," sounds like a soldier whose mission it is to move the Croats back beyond that border. Do you not agree?

A. No. This doesn't sound like a soldier to me. This is an unknown soldier. Something like the tomb of the unknown soldier. I don't know whether he's a soldier, I don't know what his name is or why he made such a statement or for what purposes or what his motives are.

Q. Let's go back to the previous transcript but one, where you were speaking and you said: "It is understood that someone who comes here to fight voluntarily, he knows why he has come and what he is fighting for." And I gave you a chance to answer that, and my suggestion to you is that your soldiers in Vukovar knew that they were fighting for the cause that would push Croats, if successful, beyond that line, the Karlobag-Virovitica line. That's my suggestion to you.

A. No. The Croats, as a people, or rather, those who, though being Serb Catholics, declared themselves to be Croats, it's not them I was talking about. I was talking about Croatian paramilitaries. As for our line, Karlobag-Karlovac-Virovitica, it means that all Serb Catholics which were used to create Croats artificially over 100 years, they should live together with Serb Orthodox, Serb Muslims and all others. That is the core of my statements. I'm not going to refute a single statement of mine. But linking up my statements to statements made by an unknown soldier, then I'm not even going to -- I cannot confirm that for you, ⁴⁴¹³⁵ because it's impossible, that that unknown soldier is saying what I'm saying. Even if he repeats my words verbatim, I'm not going to accept it.

MR. NICE: May we exhibit, please, this.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: Thank you. Could I have a number for it.

THE REGISTRAR: That will be 905.

MR. NICE:

Q. I want you now, please, to view with us a short patch from an interview in August 1991. The transcript is coming.

THE INTERPRETER: Tab number, please?

MR. NICE: I'm sorry. 68. And this comes from TV Benkovac. I beg your pardon. This comes from RHT Croatian TV, I think. Let's play it.

[Videotape played]

THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Are your volunteers a legitimate army or do they fall within the category of paramilitary units? "We are not establishing any kind of paramilitary formations here in this narrowed-down Serbia. We are only gathering volunteers here and sending them where they are needed, to Serbian Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem and Serbian Krajina. And these volunteers place themselves under the command of local Serbian commanders living there and carry out orders regarding their activity on the battlefield. Therefore, we are not engaged in establishing any paramilitary formations and we are opposed to any kind of paramilitary formations.

"Are you commander of all those forces? ⁴⁴¹³⁶ "Yes, I'm the commander of all the volunteers over there. "And can you control the situation?

"Yes. I can. So far, I have always exercised control over the situation and all our volunteers are well disciplined. We do not have any problems with them. We prohibit the use of alcohol and only those who are capable of fighting, who are disciplined, who execute all tasks given to them, and who act valiantly towards the enemy. You will not be able to find any Croat who will complain about maltreatment, unless he had a weapon in his hand and was attacking Serbian villages. In particular, you would not be able to find a Croat woman or child who have been mistreated by the Serbs ... which is not the case with the Croats. The Croats are once again perpetrating awful crimes against the Serb civilian population."

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Seselj, you'll see that we set the particular passage in which we're interested in a broader context of your denying any intent to be involved with or to form paramilitary organisations and your assertion of the discipline of those in your volunteer forces. What I'm interested to know is this: You were asked the very simple question: "Are you the commander of those forces?" And you replied: "Yes, I am the commander of the volunteer forces over there."

Can you explain that to us, in light of your evidence to the Court?

A. I can. Of course I can, Mr. Nice, with great pleasure. You see that I give this statement in short sleeves, in a shirt. So it is ⁴⁴¹³⁷ summertime. You should have the date of the interview. Obviously you haven't got it. The interview was made right after the battle --

Q. August --

A. Let me explain this. You asked for an explanation. Please. This was made before the JNA was involved in armed conflicts. Perhaps it was aired only in August, but it had to be filmed by July, at the latest. Because after the battle in Borovo Selo, we sent several groups of volunteers to Borovo Selo and to the other villages, expecting Croat attacks and retaliation for the defeat they suffered in Borovo Selo. I state quite clearly here that I'm responsible for these volunteers. Perhaps "command" would be too strong a word. I cannot command them from Belgrade. But I explain here under whose command they are. I clearly state, though, that I bear responsibility for them and their behaviour. That would be the right way of putting it.

But that was before the JNA was involved in the conflicts. As soon as the JNA got involved in the conflicts, our volunteers only went into the JNA. So that had to be filmed by the end of July, at the latest. And I'm not denying at all that --

MR. NICE: Can that be exhibited?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE REGISTRAR: 906.

MR. NICE:

Q. Can we look, then, briefly, at -- this again is a television interview.

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could we please have a ⁴⁴¹³⁸ reference. Thank you.

MR. NICE: Number 66. Apologies. Just play that.

[Videotape played]

THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Wait a second! On those army helmets we ... you know what, guys. I'm used to everybody being silent while I am talking. Perhaps you still haven't developed this habit, but I have. We painted two-headed Serbian white eagles on the helmets, and the army officer, captain, major, commands our people. And by coordinated action, Kameni, our chief commander in Vukovar, plans the action in cooperation with the army major in the evening, and they carry it out the following day. Because of soldiers deserting from their units, the army did not have enough manpower to go from house to house and take it over, so our people did that. Army strikes with tanks, mortars, Howitzers, and our people go from house to house and conquer it. Don't you tell me now that this is a communist army. They took off the five-pointed star insignias and they did not ask us to take our cockades off."

MR. NICE:

Q. This is later in 1991, it appears September. Painting two-headed Serbian white eagles on your helmets. Why did your group do that?

A. First of all, this is not September. It can be November 1991, and obviously it's in Benkovac. It's the same footage that you showed yesterday, but it's a different part. This is my verbal duel with Captain Dragan. I think it's part of the same clip. So that's November 1991. First of all, you did not show it in its entirety. I am trying to ⁴⁴¹³⁹ persuade the soldiers here to wear helmets for the sake of their own protection. And these helmets that have five-pointed red stars on them should be covered by a two-headed white eagle, because that is the Serbian national symbol and has been so for over 1.000 years. But if a Serb puts a two-headed white eagle on his helmet, that does not mean that he belongs to the paramilitaries of the White Eagles, lest there be any misunderstanding. The white eagle is now the coat of arms of Serbia. Serbia had a communist coat of arms until only a few years ago and throughout 1991 we waged a campaign to get the communist red five-pointed star off the army insignia.

JUDGE BONOMY: Was there not a suitable Yugoslav, rather than Serbian, symbol that could have been put on the helmets of the Yugoslav National Army?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The two-headed white eagle was a Yugoslav symbol, between the two World Wars, of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

JUDGE BONOMY: I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. You did say clearly already that it was a Serbian symbol. That was why I asked the question.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, in order to be very precise about this: For over 1.000 years, a two-headed white eagle has been the symbol of Serbia. In the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, in addition to the cross, the coat of arms received, in addition to the Serbian white eagle, the Croatian coat of arms and the Slovenian coat of arms. So all of it put together was the coat of arms of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. When Yugoslavia was established after the Second World War, the white ⁴⁴¹⁴⁰ eagle was re-established. However, in 1991, we could not reach agreement, so we offered a compromise; to have insignia in the colours of the Yugoslav flag and to have that put on the helmets and caps of the army. However, that was not possible until Veljko Kadijevic was overthrown. He wanted a red star at all costs. The big problem was that not only our volunteers but many other soldiers did not want to wear helmets, so there were far more casualties than would have been the case otherwise, especially in the rocky terrain of Benkovac, because bullets would ricochet and --

MR. NICE:

Q. And the White Eagles paramilitary groups did wear helmets with white eagles on them; is that correct?

A. As far as I can remember, they didn't wear helmets. They were just called the White Eagles. That was their name, like the Yellow Wasps. The Yellow Wasps did not have insignia of wasps or wasps' nests, they were simply called The Wasps, The Yellow Wasps. Maybe you'd be interested in this, Mr. Nice, if I may tell you about this. Maybe you will find it interesting. Are you interested?

Q. [Previous translation continues]... topic, please. We see here in what you said that you speak of your commander in Vukovar, Kameni, he was a man with whom you were quite close, wasn't he? Did he become your bodyguard at one stage?

A. No. He was never my bodyguard. But he is a prominent commander from Vukovar. He became a member of the Serb Radical Party, and in the Serb Radical Party, I have the highest esteem for him and I consider him ⁴⁴¹⁴¹ to be a personal friend. He was never my bodyguard. Immediately after the war, he had two apoplexies and I think that his health is rather precarious.

Q. He was the commander at the time, and you make it clear that he had regular contact with the army majors and carried out the operations on a daily basis, following discussions with the army major in Vukovar; is that right?

A. Well, this is a story I'm telling in Benkovac, and it's not very precise. The point of the story is not to describe the situation in Vukovar, but to persuade people to wear helmets. Kameni was the commander of the Leva Supoderica Territorial Defence unit in Vukovar. When the Guards Brigade, the detachment, became part of that brigade, on the orders of the commander of the Guards Brigade, the fighters of the Serb Radical Party were sent to that detachment under the command of Kameni. And these are the facts as they stand.

Q. Just to try and get a feel for your position at the time. Here you are in November 1991 speaking for all the world, isn't it, as though you have a measure of command over your men? Do you not accept that that's the way it sounds, if you just look at that interview?

A. Well, it can sound that way, but that interview is from July 1991, at the latest.

Q. This interview, the one we've been looking at, you told us is in November, in Benkovac.

A. And where does it say here that I'm the commander?

Q. The way you demand silence, the way you tell people what to do. ⁴⁴¹⁴² Doesn't it look as though you have some command over your men? I'm just asking you.

A. In addition to what I was doing, persuading people to wear helmets, there was yet another problem. These volunteers who were there complained about some JNA officers. And I was convincing them that they have to be highly disciplined. And then they said that officer is a communist and behaves in such-and-such a way. Then I was trying to convince them that they had to be disciplined. So this is political activity on my part. And of course I'm used to having everyone keep silent while I talk.

MR. NICE: May that be exhibited, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE REGISTRAR: 907.

MR. NICE: Thank you very much.

Q. Will you look, please, at the following document. It's an existing exhibit, Exhibit 458, tab 20. And it's, for the interpreters, it's tab 60.

If you'd like to look at the original of this, please. Dated now the 9th of December, 1991, and it's from the Territorial Defence municipal staff in Vukovar, and it's a request that the Chetnik -- English version on the overhead projector, please, Mr. Nort -- the Chetnik commander of Vukovar, Captain Katic -- we'll get you another English version rather -- that's good. Katic, from Zemun, hereby asks the chief of the war staff, Ljubisa Petkovic, and his deputy, Zoran Rankic, from Belgrade, to propose the following warriors for promotion. Then there's a list: Milan ^{44143 BLANK PAGE 44144} Lancuzanin, Predrag Milojevic, Milovan Tomic, and so on. "Thank you in advance." And we see that those people who are requested for promotion come from the Leva Supoderica group, and so on.

A. First of all, that's not correct. There are only three men here from Leva Supoderica: Milan Lancuzanin, Predrag Milojevic, and Predrag Dragojevic.

Secondly, who knows what this piece of paper means? Was this really signed by Slobodan Katic? Slobodan Katic was the deputy of Milan Lancuzanin Kameni, as far as I can remember. He is now proposing promotions. What did he mean by that? He's the one who has to be asked about this. As for Milan Lancuzanin Kameni, I proclaimed him a Serb Chetnik Vojvoda in 1993. That is the rank of a Serb Vojvoda, a Serb Chetnik Vojvoda. He was a captain first class in the army. Now, whether this is an original document or not ...

Q. Ljubisa Petkovic and Zoran Rankic, are chief of the war staff, but that's the war staff of what? Just help us, please. It's the war staff of your party, isn't it?

A. Look, the war staff of the Serb Radical Party, where Ljubisa Petkovic was chief, he was vice-president of the party. But he's not being asked to promote anyone, because he cannot promote anyone. He is being asked to ask someone for these promotions. Who could that be? Somebody in the General Staff, whatever. Because all of these people were officers; reserve officers, active-duty-officers, I cannot say for sure. So they are asking the chief of the war staff to propose the following people for promotion. You really have to ask the people who wrote this to ⁴⁴¹⁴⁵ explain it. This is the first time in my life that I see this.

Q. But it shows, doesn't it, you see, an integrated connection between your party, the war staff of your party, and members of the Leva Supoderica group.

A. Well, I've told you that Milan Lancuzanin Kameni joined the Serb Radical Party during the fighting for Vukovar. The Serb Radical Party has not denounced him, or never will. It's not only members of Leva Supoderica who are mentioned here. There is the chief of security of Vukovar, one is the commander of the Territorial Defence, one is the chief of the Territorial Defence, one is the commander of the Petrova Gora detachment, and then again some chief of security, and so on. Of these eight men, only three are from the Leva Supoderica detachment.

JUDGE BONOMY: These men who held commanding or responsible positions, did they serve for longer periods than the brief periods you indicated that the volunteers generally served for?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These were not volunteers from Serbia at all. These are local people from Vukovar. As far as I know, not a single one of them, except for Slobodan Katic, who allegedly signed this -- Slobodan Katic is from Belgrade. All the rest are from Vukovar, as far as I know. Some of the names here aren't familiar to me.

JUDGE BONOMY: What about Petkovic?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Petkovic was the vice-president of the Serb Radical Party and the chief of its war staff. And he was our party's direct link to the General Staff.

JUDGE BONOMY: But you're not suggesting that these weren't ⁴⁴¹⁴⁶ volunteers from the Serb Radical Party, are you?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Who says they were? These are warriors. That's what it says here. Not a single one is said to be a volunteer of the Serbian Radical Party.

JUDGE BONOMY: So what basis would there be for the chief of the war staff of the Serb Radical Party to make a proposal that they should be promoted?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you see, the text was evidently written by an uneducated man, somebody with perhaps only primary or secondary school. That's evident from the way it's composed. Secondly, whoever wrote this knew that Ljubisa Petkovic had a direct link with the General Staff and assumed that he had the authority to propose promotions, if we are speaking of military ranks, because if this was a promotion to the rank of Chetnik Vojvoda, I assume it would say so here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Milosevic, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And the second is an original text. In the English translation, it says "The Chetnik commander of Vukovar." In the Serb original, it doesn't say "The Chetnik commander of Vukovar." It would say that. It says, however,"The Chetnik commander, the captain for Vukovar."

JUDGE KWON: Would you repeat your first point, because we didn't hear it because of no translation.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This first sheet of paper is ⁴⁴¹⁴⁷ supposed to be a translation into English, and it says: "The Chetnik commander of Vukovar," which would be [B/C/S spoken] in Serbian. In the Serbian text, however, it says: "The Chetnik commander, the captain for Vukovar." That's something completely different. There's no mention of the fact that he's some sort of Chetnik commander of Vukovar. These are two different things. This is a completely wrong translation.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I note the point. I think the matter is extremely minor, and it really doesn't bear on the question which I'm trying to get an answer to, which is that this clearly refers to the chief of the war staff, who the witness accepts is the chief of the war staff of the Serb Radical Party, making a proposal, or inviting, or being asked to propose warriors for promotion. Now, that all makes sense. He might actually be being asked to propose to the JNA that these warriors should be promoted. I see that. But what I'd like to know is whether they are volunteers of the Serb Radical Party, and that seems to be denied. So we can now move on, I suppose.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. It's not being denied. It's a fact, as far as I know, that not a single one of these men was a volunteer of the Serb Radical Party except for Slobodan Katic himself, who allegedly signed this, if he did. He was a volunteer of the Serb Radical Party. He came to Vukovar from Belgrade to fight. All the rest are local men from Vukovar.

JUDGE BONOMY: You are denying that the eight men mentioned there are Serb Radical volunteers, so I have that, thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me return to the point -- ⁴⁴¹⁴⁸

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I just wanted to return to the point made by Mr. Milosevic to check whether the word "captain" has been omitted. Can the interpreters help us? Mr. Milosevic said that it should read: "The Chetnik commander, captain of Vukovar."

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters do not have the original text in Serbian.

MR. NICE: Can it be laid on the overhead projector, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Is it says "Chetnik commander captain for Vukovar, Slobodan Katic."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. The question that I want your assistance with, Mr. Seselj: What, in December 1991, is such a person doing seeking authority from the chief of your party's war staff? Or not authority - support of this --

A. You can say support. He's looking for support. He's asking him to propose these people for promotion. You're asking me to explain a letter written by somebody else here. I can only interpret what the text says here. I'm seeing it for the first time. It says that he is requesting promotion for the following warriors. He doesn't even refer to them as volunteers. But Mr. Nice, I know for a fact that you have interviewed some of these people. You have their statements. The one whom you interviewed least --

Q. Can we look at another document, please, which is tab 62, and the existing Exhibit 643, tab 7, be laid on the overhead projector. If you'd ⁴⁴¹⁴⁹ like to take the original. This comes shortly before the last document, I think, just at the end of November. And from OGU command, Negoslavci village, it regulates the issue of re-subordination and a return to home units. And it says: "Further to the newly arisen situation and the order of the 1st Military District, I order withdrawal of the Leva Supoderica volunteers, dispatch of the Kragujevac Sumadinac detachment," and various other troop movements.

Then if we turn over in the English, and I think you go to the bottom of the page, you'll see it's signed by Colonel Mile Mrksic and it's copied, amongst other things, to the commander of the Seseljevci volunteers.

A. That is not a good translation, Mr. Nice. It doesn't say "withdraw," but "pull out," and "send into the composition of." So this is a redeployment, not a withdrawal. I have heard the interpretation that they are being withdrawn, but they are being pulled out and sent to another brigade.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... question that I'm asking you. It's addressed to the commander of the Seseljevci volunteers detachment. Now, if they weren't functioning as a separate body, who was this being addressed to, in fact?

A. Well, you see in point one it says the volunteer detachment, Leva Supoderica. That was its official name. Popularly, this detachment was referred to as Seselj's men, and when it says here "copied and delivered to the commander of the 'Seseljevci'" in quotation marks, it's actually the volunteer detachment called the Leva Supoderica that is being referred ⁴⁴¹⁵⁰ to. That was its official name. Unofficially, people called that detachment the Seseljevci because the majority of the men were volunteers of the Serb Radical Party. But this goes to confirm that it was under the command of the commander of the 1st Guards Brigade, because it was signed by Colonel Mile Mrksic.

Q. And were the Leva Supoderica entirely composed of Seseljevci or were there other troops in that detachment?

A. There were also local men from Vukovar, including the commander, Kameni. But most of them were Seseljevci. Well, I'll tell you how I interpret this document which I'm seeing for the first time. The commander of the Guards Brigade, who was also the commander of the south operative group, is withdrawing from Vukovar. The Guards Brigade in late 1991 withdrew from Vukovar, and he's issuing an order for the Leva Supoderica detachment to be pulled out of the 1st Guards Brigade and sent into the composition of the Infantry Motorised Brigade. It could be of the 12th Corps, I don't know what "12K" means. But this looks like an Infantry Motorised Brigade. So it is being pulled out of the 1st Guards Brigade and sent to be part of another unit. The Kragujevac detachment, popularly called the Sumadinac, was a detachment of the JNA that had arrived from Kragujevac, composed of permanent soldiers and reservists, and it is being sent into the first -- well --

JUDGE ROBINSON: We have your answer.

MR. NICE: Can we move on to something different. In fact, we're going to move back just a year in time, or a year and a little bit in time before we move forward. ⁴⁴¹⁵¹

Q. If you'd look at this, please, an extract from one of your books. This is from -- I'm sorry. It's tab number 74, and it, in a sense, brings us to Bosnia, because we're across the river from Zvornik, this was delivered at Mali Zvornik.

A. You've given me something else, something that refers to Kosovo, from the book "The Serbian Chetnik Movement," my speech made in 1990.

Q. In Mali Zvornik.

A. Mali Zvornik is not in Bosnia, Mr. Nice.

Q. Across the river. I've already said that. Now can we just concentrate on what you said in 1990. You'll see it marked on page 65 of the original text. Perhaps, to avoid any translation problem, you'd be good enough to read out what you say in March 1990 about Kosovo and Metohija -- August 1990.

A. First I have to tell you that Mali Zvornik is not across the River Drina. It's on this side of the Drina and it's an integral part of Serbia. You have to distinguish between Mali Zvornik and Zvornik. These have always been two separate municipalities, separated by the River Drina. I said in that speech: "Kosovo and Metohija are holy Serbian land. The Serbian people have fought wars a number of times in its history for Kosovo and Metohija, shed rivers of blood and a sea of human lives, and we, today's Serbians, will know how to appreciate this and we will shed new rivers of blood if need be, but Kosovo and Metohija will remain Serbian land."

That's what I said, and I abide by this today, I will advocate this until the rest of my life and as long as there is a single Serb ⁴⁴¹⁵² alive, the Serb people will not give up having Kosovo and Metohija as an integral part of Serbia. What I'm saying is that every Serb is prepared to die for Kosovo and Metohija.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We've had your answer.

MR. NICE:

Q. And although we're not going to produce the book, in fairness to you, there's been a consistency of approach, because right back in 1982, you were publishing in a book called "Self-reflection on a System and the Necessity for Change," you were publishing things about the forced evacuation of Albanians from territory that they occupied, were you not?

A. No, that is not correct. This is a paper of mine in which I advocate solving the problem of Kosovo and Metohija. But this is from the 1980s. This is my scholarly work, later published in the book "Democracy and Dogma." And what I advocate is to have the conditions created for 200.000 Albanians to move to Croatia, 100.000 to Serbia --

THE INTERPRETER: Sorry, to Slovenia, interpreter's correction. Could the speaker please slow down.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj, you are getting carried away. You're speaking too fast. The interpreters are asking you to slow down.

MR. NICE:

Q. Enough for the early 1980s.

A. It would be a good thing for Mr. Nice to show this excerpt from my text.

Q. If we have time and if I choose to, we may. But I'm just trying to say that you had a consistent position. ⁴⁴¹⁵³ I want you to focus now on what you tell us would be the effect in 1990 of saying anywhere in the former Yugoslavia that "We will shed new rivers of blood, if need be." What was the likely effect of that sort of rhetoric on your Serb audience, please?

A. First, for 50 years in Yugoslavia, it was said "We will shed rivers of blood for every foot of Yugoslav territory." That was the standard vocabulary in political life. "For every foot of territory, if need be, we will shed a river of blood."

Secondly, every country in the world is prepared to defend every last piece of its territory by all means. This is a freedom-loving phrase spoken here, which is standard, and has been in the national tradition.

Q. Are you genuinely and sincerely asserting to this Court that to promise the listeners or the readers rivers of blood as a result of the pursuit of their political ambition is a standard, freedom-loving phrase? Really?

A. Yes, especially with reference to Kosovo and Metohija. And I'm telling you, the vast majority of the Serbian people holds this position today. You will never wrest Kosovo and Metohija away from us. We will never be reconciled to this. We are ready to sacrifice ourselves again for Kosovo and Metohija as a nation, as we have done for centuries. This is simply holy land. Kosovo and Metohija is worth more than our continued existence as a people.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Why don't you put to him directly that it's the kind of language that would incite people to violence.

MR. NICE: I was going to ask one intervening question, with Your ⁴⁴¹⁵⁴ Honour's leave, and it's this:

Q. Whose blood should the reader infer would create the new rivers? Kosovar Albanians, Serbs, or both?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice is saying that Mr. Seselj promised rivers of blood to his audience. That doesn't follow from this quotation. He did not promise rivers of blood to anyone. He used the expression "promising" his audience rivers of blood.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It may be a question of language, but I don't see anything unfair in the way the question was put, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Seselj, can you answer my question? Whose blood would make these new rivers?

A. First, it was always Serbian blood that was shed, first of all, and then the blood of Serbian foes, the foes of Serbia, who tried to wrest Kosovo and Metohija away from us. Kosovo and Metohija are part of Serbia. And that is my threat to all future enemies, whether British, American, whoever turns up to take away Kosovo and Metohija from us. We will not give it up, regardless of our sacrifices. And in the Kosovo myth, in the Kosovo tradition, it's always Serbian blood that is referred to, first and foremost. There is a flower growing, a red peony, in Kosovo.

Q. This is 1990, the development of events and the involvement of the international community couldn't be known. Of course the Serbs had lost in Kosovo before, as we all know. But when you say something like this in ⁴⁴¹⁵⁵ 1990 to a Serb audience, you're inciting your Serb audience to think of killing other people, aren't you? Obvious.

A. No. You are falsifying this. This is not evident. I am inciting the Serbian people, if necessary, if somebody tries to wrest Kosovo and Metohija away from us, to sacrifice ourselves as a nation and to defend it, at all costs. Kosovo and Metohija is the very meaning of the existence of the Serbian people, and this battle is obviously not finished yet. If our generation does not finish it, it will be left for our sons, for our grandsons. But Kosovo and Metohija must remain in Serb hands, regardless of the victims that have to fall.

MR. NICE: Can this be admitted, please.

THE REGISTRAR: Number 908.

MR. NICE:

Q. If you'd like now, please, to look at another passage of yours. And we are coming to tab 74a, for the interpreters. We are still in 1991, although the topic is still Kosovar Albanians. This is from the book "Serbian Chetnik Movement," Programme Declaration of the Serbian Radical Party.

Incidentally, before I move on, and I'm very grateful to Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff for her recollection: The things that we looked at in the last exhibit, about rivers of blood and so on, did you say anything critical of Mrs. Plavsic for saying such things in your evidence here? We'll find it, if necessary, but do you recall saying something critical of Mrs. Plavsic for saying such things?

A. What Biljana Plavsic said was absolutely different from what I was ⁴⁴¹⁵⁶ saying.

Q. In what way?

A. In every possible way.

Q. Was part of what she said similar to what you said?

A. No.

Q. We may look it up. We'll come back to it if we find it. But now let's look at this document, the Serbian Chetnik Movement. If you would go, please, to page 275 in the text in the language you understand. We'll look at page 12 in the English. And it's paragraph part 25. To avoid problems with interpretation or translation, would you please read the first six paragraphs of part 25 to us.

A. This is the programme declaration of the Serb Radical Party. I have to say that first. It's the manifesto from 1991. In point 25, it says, inter alia -- I'm reading only what you marked, but I can read it all. I won't mind reading it all, if you want: "The stifling by all means of the Albanian separatist revolt in Kosovo and Metohija. In order to prevent a repeat of this revolt, we call for the urgent implementation of the following measures:

"The efficient prevention of establishment of any form of Kosovo and Metohija political territorial autonomy.

"To expel immediately all 360.000 Albanian immigrants and their offspring.

"To prevent all state financial subsidies to the Albanian national minority, and all funds earmarked earlier for that purpose should be redirected solely to the financing of the return of Serbs to Kosovo and ^{44157 BLANK PAGE 44158} Metohija.

"A state of war should be proclaimed in Kosovo and Metohija, all political activity should be suspended, and martial law should be introduced to last at least ten years.

"All organs of civilian authority and institutions there which are financed from the state budget and operate in Albanian, like the university, Academy of Arts and Sciences, and media and publishing houses should be dissolved immediately.

"All factories and other production plants which are uneconomic because of the systematic sabotage of Siptar employees should be closed down immediately and mothballed."

Do you want me to go on reading? I can go on.

Q. That will be satisfactory for the time being, thank you. If asked, how, did you explain, were the 360.000 Albanian immigrants, as you describe them, to be expelled? What was the mechanics you were going to use?

A. Well, for them to return to their country, Albania.

Q. What was the mechanics you were going to use? You must have thought about it, Mr. Seselj. You were allowed to publish this sort of thing. What mechanics were you going to use to get 360.000 people to move to Albania? Negotiation? Financial persuasion? Or force?

A. All these immigrants from Albania were in Serbia and in Yugoslavia illegally, and they would all have been expelled in the same way that Western European countries expel illegal asylum-seekers; some by plane, some by bus, and so on. All those who are on our territory illegally. ⁴⁴¹⁵⁹

Q. You understand the position: These are the people who you say had populated Kosovo and Metohija since the Second World War, so it included people who lived there for 40 years or thereabouts, and their children who lived there all their lives. And what were you going to do, give them court hearings and move them into detention centres while their claims for asylum or whatever else it might have been were dealt with, or were you just going to kick them out? Which?

A. First of all, this is a programme declaration of the Serbian Radical Party. What the Serbian Radical Party --

JUDGE BONOMY: Please answer the question. You've just been asked specifically how you would do it. Can you not turn to that very quickly and let's move, make some progress.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the same way, in the same way that Germany or France or England is expelling illegal immigrants, in that same way. The fact that their children were born in Serbia does not give them automatic right to Serb citizenship. They systematically came to populate Serbia. They acted from separatist positions, and that is the context. It is them who persecuted the Serbs over there and forced them to emigrate and leave.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Seselj, I, as a judge sitting here, do not know how any of the three countries you have named deal with the removal of immigrants. I don't know that. I'm not able to compare it with what you are intending. So please tell me what your plan was.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Our plan was that anybody who did not have Serbian citizenship had to leave the territory of Serbia, in ⁴⁴¹⁶⁰ Kosovo and Metohija, when it came to Albanian immigrants. Now, we're not here -- we did not develop technology here, the ways and the means, the technical means, and the local authorities would do that, or the authorities would do that once they came into power. But anybody without our citizenship would have to leave. Some people would leave by buses, planes, cars, ships, whatever.

MR. NICE:

Q. You see, before I come to put to you what I suggest is the truth about all this, Mr. Seselj, just let's remind the Court of what you told us and indeed what one of the journalists you're always attacking told us, Mr. Anastasijevic. This was at a time -- 1990, was a time when you were still in favour with the accused and you were allowed more access to state-run media than at other times; is that correct?

A. How far I was in favour with Mr. Milosevic in the 1990s is that his authorities put me in prison three times in 1990. That's what favour I enjoyed.

Q. I just want to emphasise it. The publication of this programme of your party is at a time when you were still in favour with him and were given plenty of access to the media. So that what you set out here in your party programme is likely to have been reflected on interviews and speeches on the television. Do you follow me? Am I right about that?

A. First of all, what kind of favour are you talking about? I was never in anybody's favour, or Mr. Milosevic's favour. On the 23rd of February, in Kragujevac, we proclaimed the Serb Radical Party, and immediately after that, we compiled this programme declaration. And in ⁴⁴¹⁶¹ the preamble, you can see that we did that on the basis of the programme and statute that was adopted in Kragujevac on the 23rd of February. What has that to do with Mr. Milosevic at all?

Q. [Previous translation continues]... answer the question. I'm going to suggest to you that your intention with these 360.000 Albanian immigrants, as you describe them, and their offspring, who had, many of them, spent their entire lives in Kosovo and Metohija, was simply to kick them out. By force. Am I right?

A. Yes. In a legal way. Force based on law.

Q. Where do we see the detail of that? Have you set out anywhere in your books or your programme the carefully regulated, internationally acceptable programme of court hearings, appeal hearings, and so on, to which these people would be entitled, and their children?

A. Well, that was implied, I assume.

Q. Was it?

A. In the frameworks of a society governed by law.

MR. NICE: May we exhibit this document and then look at another one.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE REGISTRAR: 909.

MR. NICE: The next document, which is tab 75, for the interpreters. It's another extract from Ustasha Phantasmagorias. And if you'd be good enough, please, to go to page 73, I think, in the original text, and if the Court would be good enough to go to page 13, at the foot. And perhaps Mr. Nort would lay the English text on the overhead projector, ⁴⁴¹⁶² and we'll read just a little bit more of the areas marked, sidelined for particular reference.

Q. This was an election campaign speech, you see, the kind that would be carried on TV, radio, newspapers. And picking it up at the full paragraph, it says: "You have heard the basic aspects of our national programme. You are probably interested in knowing what kind of programme we are advocating in relation to the definite stifling of the Siptar separatist rebellion in Kosovo and Metohija. The Siptars are behaving to our benefit. They vastly refused to be registered in the most recent population census. You know that a population census is an obligation stemming from relevant United Nations documents, and all countries are obliged to conduct a population census once every ten years." Would you like to read to us, to avoid any problems with translation, the next sentence, please.

A. "The Siptars have made our job easier. Those who boycotted the census are not our citizens and they do not have any reason to stay in our country. Simply, we shall surround them using the army and push them back across the border, to Albania. There will be a lot of noise in the West. They will make a lot of noise for a month or two, and eventually they will forget."

Q. So as between what you said in your election speech, of course it was to the electorate, what you told the Judges a few minutes ago about what was the implied legal system you were going to employ, which is the truth? Because they can't both be.

A. First of all, a moment ago, you had an official document of the ⁴⁴¹⁶³ Serbian Radical Party, and it contained what it contained. Now you have my individual speech, which isn't completely in keeping with the document of the Serbian Radical Party, for which the Serbian Radical Party could have punished me, but it did not. And I really did utter this, and there's no doubt about that. Now, you must differentiate between those two things, between an official document of the Serbian Party and what I said on one particular occasion.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... lots of times, Mr. Seselj. This is one we've got recorded in your book, and in your book you don't say, "I'm very sorry I said this."

A. Of course.

Q. Do you? You don't say you're sorry you promised the Kosovar Albanians that you would push them out by military force, do you?

A. To the present day, I'm not sorry for having said this in 1991.

Q. So despite what you said to this Court about five minutes ago or less, your actual intention in 1990, 1991 was that the Siptars, as you describe them, should be surrounded by the military and pushed out of the country in which they and their children have been living, many of them for all of their lives, and you did that because -- or you said that because you thought the West would make a bit of noise and then forget.

A. Well, you're falsifying matters again. A moment ago we had an official document of the Serbian Radical Party. If you have an official document of the Serbian Radical Party, then it is the official party policy, whereas this is my own statement. My statement is much sharper than the official policy of the party. All you can say is that. That's ⁴⁴¹⁶⁴ the only conclusion you can draw.

JUDGE BONOMY: I, unlike Mr. Nice, don't see any inconsistency between the two. Is there an inconsistency?

MR. NICE: Insofar as I thought that he had said in answer that the proper inference from the document was --

JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, yes. But the contents. There's no inconsistency between the contents of the document and what you actually said. One is the policy and the other is how you're going to implement it

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are inconsistencies, because the Serbian Radical Party never officially said anything of this kind. But I did personally.

However, Mr. Nice has made an oversight here. We are dealing with disloyal Albanians who refused to go to the population census and be recorded by the census. So you know what happens there. You know what it means to boycott a population census. It means so you can have the falsifications and forgeries from the previous census in '81 and have a wrong impression of how many Albanians there are in Kosovo and so that Albanian immigrants can falsely be considered to be citizens of Serbia. So a distinction is made here between those who responded and did their civic duty by responding to the census and the others who boycotted it. That this statement is too sharp, it is, but it was uttered from my lips, and you won't find it in the document of the Serbian Radical Party. There we have it. I assume that's clear now.

MR. NICE:

Q. You say "too sharp," but either your intention was to move them ⁴⁴¹⁶⁵ out by military force or it wasn't. And all we want to know -- at least, all I want you to help the Court with, is whether your intention was that they should be moved out by military force.

A. Here I state a position rhetorically, and I won't go back on that. But I can't confirm that that's the actual way that I would throw them out, because I was a little angry when I delivered this speech. There's a little anger due to the conduct of the Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija towards the Serbs living over there.

Now, what you want to do now, in a much calmer atmosphere, for me to repeat that word by word. No, I'm not going to do it. I am saying that I said this, it was a propaganda speech, motivated by some specific thing that was happening, event that was happening during that time, during those days.

Q. May we take it -- I was going to turn to Bosnia, but I'm just going to stick with Kosovo for a little bit, for one reason, in light of the time. There's something I want you to help us with. May we take it that your attitude to Kosovar Albanians starting as it did in the early 1980s, being expressed in your party's programme, and indeed in this speech in the early 1990s, can we take it that your attitude remained the same right through the 1990s?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The question is improper. Mr. Nice is asking the witness about the position towards -- the attitude towards Kosovar Albanians, whereas here we're quoting not the attitude towards ⁴⁴¹⁶⁶ Kosovar Albanians but illegal immigrants, which is quite a different matters. Kosovar Albanians are one thing, non-Kosovar Albanians who illegally immigrated into Serb is quite a different, and that's what we're discussing here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The question relates to Kosovar Albanians and the answer may be so confined.

JUDGE BONOMY: The point, I think, should be taken from the context of the document that we've been looking at, which talks about "the Siptars making our job easier. They boycotted the census." It doesn't say "illegal immigrants." Sorry.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But it says that they're not our citizens. Isn't that right, Mr. Bonomy? Otherwise, as far as the last question asked by Mr. Nice, I haven't forgotten it. The Serbian Radical Party, as far as I remember, had another document which had to do -- which was related to Kosovo and Metohija, and that was in September 1995, I believe. We published a memorandum about our vision of the way in which to solve the Kosovo and Metohija problem, and that was compiled by a working group on behalf of the Serbian Radical Party and was signed by the whole leadership of the party. It signed that memorandum.

MR. NICE:

Q. The Court will remember tab 30 of the witness's own exhibits, which is the speech given in March 1999 in Belgrade. And I don't have the bundle from which the witness was reading, and I don't remember whether he had a version of this in his own language. The Chamber will remember that the passage upon which we focussed was at page 5 in the English text, at ⁴⁴¹⁶⁷ the top. The witness will need a copy of the document. We've got one for him. Or if the accused or the assigned counsel have whatever he was reading at the time. Ms. Dicklich, as ever, has found one. This is several years later, 1999. We'll just play it on Sanction, please, for the audiovisual booth. Let's play the short extract that we have of this speech. We don't have all of it.

[Videotape played]

THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "If it comes to bombing by the NATO pact, if it comes to an American aggression, we Serbs will suffer significant casualties, but there will be no more Albanians in Kosovo."

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Seselj, you'll remember being asked by the accused about that passage, and you took us --

A. Yes.

Q. If you now have the text in front of you, which we have on English page 5, you sought to explain to us how and why it would be that there would be no Albanians in Kosovo. And I'd like you, in a calm voice, please, to find us whereabouts in this text the Albanians could interpret your words other than as words that would promise violence to them and forced expulsion, at the least.

A. Right in the previous paragraph, and I'll read it out to you: "We Serbs are a peoples with democratic traditions. We are divided ideologically, politically in different ways. But when it comes to the fatherland, there is no division. Let us see which Serb can sign an agreement for foreign troops to come onto our territory. Let us see which ⁴⁴¹⁶⁸ Serb is ready to sign the separation of Kosovo and Metohija from the legal system of Serbia. We, the Serbs, as a democratic nation, have many times offered to the Albanians the highest degree of autonomy, cultural autonomy, for them to live as loyal citizens, for them themselves to be able to regulate their health system, education system, information system, et cetera. But they do not want to. All they want is secession, and to secede they will not be able to do that alone. They are conscious of that so they count upon the Americans, that the Americans will fight their battle for them in the Balkans from this position. I would like to tell them, and this isn't a message of the Serbian Radical Party alone, I am convinced it is a message from the entire Serb people: The Albanians will have a chance only if they orient themselves towards a peaceful, democratic, political road of dialogue."

And then the quotation that you showed us a moment ago. I can read that out too again, if you so desire. "If there is bombing ..."

THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters have the reference on the ELMO, please. Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. Would you read -- read the quotation, but then read the next couple of sentences on the next paragraph.

A. "If there is bombing, in the event of a NATO bombing, in the event of an American aggression, we Serbs shall perish in quite large numbers, but there will be no Albanians in Kosovo. Surely the Americans do not believe that if they attack us, we will allow armed bands and disloyal citizens behind our backs who can hardly wait to stab us in the back. We ⁴⁴¹⁶⁹ will not allow that, and let them see what to do with them afterwards."

Q. Take us to any other passage that you want to. Why would there, on the passage we've looked at, why would there be no Albanians in Kosovo?

A. If an American aggression comes about, and bombing, then they will suffer first and then the Serbs too.

Secondly, we have the experience of the bombing of Republika Srpska with depleted uranium. You now have occasions of Albanian children born with two heads and other genetic deformities. Third, I state that we won't allow any armed bands to stab us in the back.

Q. We had all that material before, but I'm just trying to see how a Kosovar Albanian, hearing what you say, would have any other impression than that they were about to be kicked out. Can you explain that to me?

A. Well, if I tell them that the Albanians have a chance only if they opt for a peaceful, democratic, political way of dialogue. Otherwise, there will be war, and war brings suffering and destruction to everyone. And mostly to them in Kosovo and Metohija. I assume that's quite clear.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, with that answer, we take the break for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.19 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.42 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Seselj, we went from 1991 to 1999 for reasons of Kosovo collection. I'm going to go back to 1992. And a general point I want to ⁴⁴¹⁷⁰ make to you and through you is this, that -- and we're only interested in not in your case, we're interested in the society in which you were operating and what you were allowed to do. And the position is that you were allowed to instil hate through messages of what would happen to other ethnic groups right through this period of time. That's the proposition, so that you can know what we're looking at. I want to look at three or four exhibits, very quickly, for want of time.

For the interpreters, the first one will be 23g -- I'm so sorry. Before I move on, I hadn't asked for admission of the latest exhibit before we turned to tab 30 in the witness's bundle. That's the second extract from Ustasha Phantasmagorias. May it be given a number?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE REGISTRAR: 910.

MR. NICE: Thank you. For the interpreters' benefit, we now go to 23.g.3. In the English on the document coming your way, it's page 6 of 8. On the original, it's page 174 and 175.

Q. This, Mr. Seselj, was a speech in Belgrade, speech of the deputies. So this is in parliament, I think, or the Assembly. And the first extract reads as follows. It's on page 6. "Let me reiterate: We are going to expel the Croats --" Have you found it?

A. Yes, I have

Q. "We are going to expel the Croats, exercising the same right that Tudjman has exercised to expel the Serbs. You can do your research in Zagreb and find out what this right was, since you have not yet raised a single voice of protest against Tudjman's crimes, against the expulsion of ^{44171 BLANK PAGE 44172} Serbs and everything else that is happening on the territory of Ustasha Croatia, primarily genocide against the Serbian people. We are not going to resort to genocidal activities, because it is not in the blood of us Serbs. We are not going to start killing you, of course. We are simply going to pack you into trucks and trains and let you manage in Zagreb." And then the passage about giving address of abandoned Serbs homes.

If you turn to the second passage on the 7th of April, 1992 --

A. Why don't you read that, Mr. Nice? Read everything that's being marked, or let me read it.

Q. The second passage. You can -- I'm just going to ask you the question, then you can deal with it as swiftly as possible. 7th of April, 1992, at page 7: "Ladies and gentlemen, people's deputies, this storm in a teacup following my personal demand, which was also the Serbian Radical Party's demand, to exercise retaliation measures and let the Croats move out of Serbia, because of the fact that a great number of Serbs has been forced to move out, has only strengthened my belief that the demand is fully correct.

"The mere fact that the fiercest reactions to it have come from the traitor-like political parties in the Serbian public, only strengthens my determination, and as for those traitor-like political parties and their leaders, such as one of their representatives who spoke here just now, perhaps the best solution - if they pity the Croats so much - would be simply putting them on buses and trucks and taking them to Zagreb." Now, here in the Assembly, twice, clear indication of forced ⁴⁴¹⁷³ transportation of Croats. Is that correct? That's the sort of thing you were allowed to say and did say?

A. First of all, I was not "allowed" anything. It was my right to say it. And no one could deny me that right. I was speaking here as a deputy. But because your interpretation is incorrect, I will read out both passages in their entirety, if the Chamber does not object.

Q. Time is limited. Can you explain the error, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj, just concentrate on what you think was omitted.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in the first passage, Mr. Nice, although it's marked here in the document, he read out my message to the Croats. He omitted the following: "You will even get the addresses of abandoned Serbian homes, houses, flats. You can move into those. The furniture has been left there too, and you can take from here whatever you like, everything you need." Mr. Nice omitted to read this on purpose.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You say that gives it a different slant? Do you say that that omission, the words omitted which you have just read, gives it a different slant? If so, what is that perspective?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, because when Tudjman was expelling the Serbs, several hundred thousand Serbs, he did not allow them to take their basic necessities with them. They left their houses with the furniture inside and all their belongings. However, although advocating retortion, I said that they could take with them whatever they wanted. This went on for a few months. Serbia was overwhelmed by a wave ⁴⁴¹⁷⁴ of Serb refugees and expelled Serbs. The Serb Radical Party --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Where were you at, Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: He wanted to correct some translation point on one of the other sections and I've asked him to deal with it quickly.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. What's the other translation point you want to say, Mr. Seselj?

A. You omitted to read, when I'm telling the Serbian traitors to go to Zagreb, the following: "There they have democracy. There they will live a good life. What can they expect here in Serbia? The standpoint of the Serbian people is evident, and the enthusiasm with which they met this proposal." I'm addressing the Serb traitors now. "What do they want with the Serbia which doesn't understand them? Go to Tudjman." So this is really my settling of accounts with the opposing parties at the rostrum. The facts are that the Serb Radical Party was in favour of the principle of retortion. That is correct.

JUDGE BONOMY: And does "retortion" mean forced removal, which was the question you were asked?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Retortion means retaliation. If Tudjman expelled the Serbs, then Serbia should expel the Croats. That's retortion.

JUDGE BONOMY: That's your view, is it? You're espousing -- no matter how innocent the people might be living in Serbia, they should just be forced out because of the conduct of Tudjman?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, that is the standpoint ⁴⁴¹⁷⁵ of the Serb Radical Party, and it is limited to a few months.

MR. NICE: Your Honour --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But I'm confirming what actually happened, because I'm telling you the truth.

MR. NICE: A number for this one.

THE REGISTRAR: 911.

MR. NICE:

Q. Quite rapidly the next one, just to highlight the same point, short extract, 23f.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There's another thing that's important here, if I may say so. May I, Mr. Robinson? I am speaking here as a member of parliament of the opposition of the Serb Radical Party, and no one can either permit me or prohibit me from saying this in the National Assembly. Because I see what Mr. Nice is trying to imply, that I was allowed to say this by Mr. Milosevic. But what can he have to do with it? If this is illegal behaviour, then it's my illegal behaviour and the illegal behaviour of my party. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Milosevic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I was going to ask you to clarify that, so far as your case is concerned. Are you asking the Chamber to draw an inference from these speeches made by the witness, in parliament and outside, espousing the forcible removal of Croats, are you asking us to draw the inference that the same sentiments were held by members of the joint criminal enterprise, including Mr. Milosevic?

MR. NICE: That may well be an inference we'll invite you to draw, ⁴⁴¹⁷⁶ but at the moment, and through this witness, I'm restricting my questions somewhat to the proposition that he was in a culture where he was permitted to say these things by the authorities, and we've gone into the ups and downs of his relationships with the accused, and where he and indeed the accused would know that the permission to say these things creates the circumstances in which these offences would be committed. And may I remind the Chamber of the evidence we had from Mr. Zwaan about the mechanisms of genocidal-type crimes. So that there are two significances: Putting it at its lowest, it's that this material was regularly available in the regime operated by this accused, and that's extremely important in itself. The next upstage of inference is something we may invite you to draw separately.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I will have to consider that carefully.

JUDGE BONOMY: On this particular occasion, he is rebuked by the chairman of the Assembly for what he is saying, because what he is saying is contrary to the constitution.

MR. NICE: Yes. May we look next at this short extract from "Politics as a Challenge of Conscience," published in I'm not quite sure when. But the interview is the 22nd of April, 1992.

Q. If you have that, Mr. Seselj, just the short passage that's got a mark down the side of it. You gave this speech: "I would expel the Croats for several reasons. First and foremost, because the Croats are extremely disloyal as inhabitants of Serbia, because the vast majority of them are members of the HDZ or act as foreign collaborators, and that they're doing everything they can to destabilise the internal situation in ⁴⁴¹⁷⁷ Serbia. In addition to that, the Croats have proved to be direct collaborators of the Ustasha, they made possible the transfer thereof from Vukovar to Hungary via Backa. Furthermore, we must apply the measures of retaliation against the Croats because Tudjman has expelled 160.000 Serbs."

The only question I want to ask you about this passage is this: Here you seem to be referring, without distinct or discrimination, to all the Croats. And this book was published in Belgrade in 1993.

A. No, I'm not referring to all the Croats, only those Croats who live in Serbia. And I am describing the characteristics of these Croats whom I wish to have expelled.

Q. Is there any Croat living in Serbia and attending to this speech who --

A. No.

Q. Please listen. -- would understand you to be saying that you would expel the Croats, just generally? As it reads, Mr. Seselj --

JUDGE BONOMY: He's agreed. He's agreed with your proposition. The Croats that live in Serbia should all be expelled. That's what he's just said.

MR. NICE: Can this be exhibited, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I'm saying here is, you see, what you didn't read out: "We have to apply measures of retortion toward the Croats because Tudjman has expelled 160.000 Serbs." I go on to say: "That's the number officially registered, although we assume the number is twice as large, because many Serbs have ⁴⁴¹⁷⁸ not registered as refugees but are staying with friends and relatives. Also, many Serbs have fled from Croatia to third countries, and these Serbs have to be given accommodation, jobs, and they have to be provided for. We don't have enough money to build new residential buildings, factories, workplaces, and so on."

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number 912.

MR. NICE: Next one, a short video, 23.g.2, for the interpreters. Now concerned with Hrtkovci in Vojvodina, from which people believing themselves to be Croats left.

Q. It's right, isn't it, Mr. Seselj, that those people who believed themselves to be Croats left after a speech of yours on the 6th of May, 1992?

A. Not a single Croat was expelled from Serbia. A certain number of Croats did leave, but all of them previously exchanged their property with Serbs who had been expelled, through the courts. And the Roman Catholic Church mediated in this exchange of property. Through their channels they would first establish whether the abandoned Serbian property in Croatia was intact, and only if it was would an exchange contract be signed. My attitude is one thing, and the fact that no one was expelled from Serbia is another thing. But that I advocated the principle of retortion, that is a fact, in response to what the Tudjman's regime was doing.

Q. You read the names, some of those who had to go, and here's your explanation on the television for what you were doing.

[Videotape played] ⁴⁴¹⁷⁹

THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "... they're lying, and I will prove they are lying. In Hrtkovci, I did not call out the names of Croats ... from Hrtkovci who went to Croatia and were serving in the Ustasha National Guard Corps."

MR. NICE: I'm just going to start this again.

[Videotape played]

THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Another thing, regarding what is in the indictment, they are lying and I will prove they are lying. In Hrtkovci, I did not call out the names of Croats who should be expelled, but I read a list of Croats from Hrtkovci who went to Croatia and were serving in the Ustasha National Guard Corps. There were no expulsions, and regarding my statements, I was not making them as someone from the government, but as someone from the opposition."

MR. NICE:

Q. Were you reading out those names, whoever they were, to encourage others to leave?

A. I never read out any names, but the activists of the Serb Radical Party who spoke at the meeting before me read out a few names of Croats who had left Hrtkovci to go to Croatia and become members of the National Guard Corps.

Q. You said you read out a list of names, unless I misunderstood it. Did you or did you not read out a list of names?

A. Why are you so impatient? It wasn't I who read it out. A member of my party did. But it comes down to the same thing, because I was standing next to him when he was reading them out. I don't have time to ⁴⁴¹⁸⁰ go into details here when I'm explaining things. But I do stand behind that list. It was read out by a member of my party who was standing next to me. We have a video of the rally in Hrtkovci, and I published the entire contents in the book "The Devil's Apprentice, the Criminal Pope John Paul II." Your colleague had the book in her hands, because I handed it over to the Trial Chamber on another occasion. So she has the whole contents of that rally. And when a member of my party read out that list, it comes to the same thing as if I had read it out.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... Mr. Seselj. We have the answer.

MR. NICE:

Q. So what was the likely consequence of reading those names out, then? That people would stay there or that they'd leave?

A. But these people had already left, whose names were read out.

Q. Tell me this: Was it supposed to be done in a civilised way, this removal of people from Hrtkovci, on your interpretation of the word "civilised"? Was it?

A. I'm surprised you haven't got this text, or a video of that rally, and then we could discuss specific facts. This was a pre-election rally. I was promising what we would do if we came to power. We will give those Serbs who had fled the addresses of Croats so that they can apply to them and say: Our property is over there, yours is over here, let's exchange it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Slow down, Mr. Seselj.

MR. NICE: ⁴⁴¹⁸¹

Q. And indeed, what happened to those who didn't want to exchange? They'd have to go in any case? The border was going to be closed, that sort of thing. Did they have to go?

A. Nobody left without previously exchanging their property and having the exchange registered by the court. And regularly, the Croats from Serbia got hold of property of a greater value than the property they left. There is not a single Croat you can name who was expelled from Serbia.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, may that one be exhibited. And then I just have one more on this topic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. 913.

MR. NICE: Thank you very much.

Q. Would you now, please, Mr. Seselj, look at this extract, 23.g.3.4. It's a longer extract. I'm only going to take a short part of it. Re-examination can take more, if necessary. But this comes from a book of yours. And on your page 701, we can see the extract. If you go over, please, to page 280 - sorry - in your text, we see, and this is speaking about Hrtkovci, a civilised exchange of population, you said this: "It was supposed to be done in a more civilised way than it was actually carried out, but in any case, we are satisfied with the results. Thousands of Serbian families were accommodated in some extent, they were given houses and apartments in Hrtkovci (present-day Srbislavci)." What was it that was less civilised than planned? Please tell us.

A. There were incidents here and there, because a large mass of Serbian refugees arrived in Serbia, most of them in Vojvodina. They ⁴⁴¹⁸² turned up in large numbers in places where Croats lived. There was sporadic incidents that occurred, which we condemned and which we did not accept. But in a heated atmosphere, it was impossible to avoid them. Mr. Nice, I would like everything that you marked to be read out.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... warmed up the atmosphere if it wasn't you?

A. No. We did not warm up an atmosphere that would create incidents.

Q. Did you or did you not turn up the temperature by your inflammatory speeches? Please help us.

A. We did not heat up incidents. What we advocated was for the Serbs expelled from Croatia to exchange their property with the Croats from Serbia. You can see that in all of my speeches.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, can that be exhibited, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were a few incidents where the police intervened, and the perpetrators were convicted. I know of two cases where perpetrators were convicted.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We have the answer.

THE REGISTRAR: The number will be 914.

JUDGE ROBINSON: 914.

MR. NICE: Let's move now not to Srebrenica 1993 but to Srebrenica 1995.

Q. Remind us, please, your position in society in 1995. What were you doing then?

A. In 1995? In 1995 I was a convict, under the government of Mr. Milosevic. ⁴⁴¹⁸³

Q. For how long?

A. New Year's found me in prison. I was there for a total of four months. I was released on the 9th of January. And on the 3rd of June, I was arrested again, in Gnjilane, with my closest collaborators, and spent another two months in gaol.

Q. Now, you have told us all -- not all that you know, but you've told us what you say you know about events at Srebrenica; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. As deputy Prime Minister later on, you worked on the issue intensively, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you told us already --

A. Yes.

Q. You told us already only a thousand people killed. I say "only" a thousand people killed, and the French intelligence behind it. I think I asked you last week whether you could point us to any documents, that is original documents, and the answer, I think, is that you couldn't; correct? Original documents to support your suggestion about the French intelligence involved --

A. Now I can, Mr. Nice. I can't show you the document, but I can tell you where you can find it: In the Dutch parliament. A document was submitted in which, according to the estimation of the Dutch officers, it is said that about a thousand Muslim prisoners of war were executed. That was the official information I received as deputy Prime Minister from our competent services. But I don't have this document in my hands now. ⁴⁴¹⁸⁴

Q. Tell us, please, as deputy Prime Minister, apart from that document that you've identified now, tell us, please, what were the inquiries that were made into Srebrenica, as you understand it; starting when, by whom they were made, what reports they generated.

A. I can't talk about the work of the investigating organs. You have seen a document here relating to Erdemovic. What I can tell you is what I personally, on my own initiative, did, as the deputy Prime Minister, and what I did before I became deputy Prime Minister, in order to learn, in as much detail as possible, about the events in Srebrenica. As deputy Prime Minister in charge of the economy and finances, I was not in charge of the judiciary. That was not my portfolio, so I could not go into its work directly. However, as deputy Prime Minister, I did everything I could to learn as many details as possible about the events in Srebrenica.

Q. This is what you told us before, but I actually want an answer to my question, first of all, and then I might ask you another question about the answer you've given, or the things you've said. It's not an answer. What inquiries were made into Srebrenica at the time? When, by whom, what reports were generated? A simple question for a man in government. Tell us.

A. As deputy Prime Minister, I was informed by the State Security Service about its efforts to learn the full truth about Srebrenica. In the government, we had a regular system of informing the Prime Minister and deputy Prime Ministers. We had daily information, periodic information.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... Mr. Seselj. Hold your horses, ^{44185 BLANK PAGE 44186} as they say. Steady on. You were informed by the state security about its efforts to learn the full truth. Right. What were the State Security Service's efforts to learn the full truth, and what reports did it generate, if any?

A. What the efforts were and what they did is something that the State Security Service did not inform us of. These daily reports were one to three pages long, about different events. Sometimes the sources were under code and sometimes the source was general information. I cannot go into the methodology used by the State Security Service to gain information. However, I was informed of the results by that service.

Q. Why not?

A. What do you mean, why not?

Q. Why can't you go into the methodology and tell us what they did? If you want to tell this Court --

A. How would I know that? Mr. Nice, we received these reports from the SDB unsigned, and they were marked "strictly confidential" and they were under seal. They were in a closed envelope and we were told to send them back as soon as we'd read them, on the same day. These reports were not kept in the government offices, they were sent back by courier on the same day. You don't imagine that the State Security Service was free with its information, giving it to all and sundry in the government. How could it survive if it had done that? How could it have survived as a service.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues]... or at least place it on the overhead projector, which is I think what we're going to do.

Q. This is a document from the Office of the Prosecutor, where we ⁴⁴¹⁸⁷ have requested -- it's in English. It has to be in English. We've requested the government of Serbia and Montenegro, in November 1993, after you were surrendered here, to supply all documentation and reports and memoranda, whenever prepared, which refer to the situation in and around Srebrenica between the 1st of April and the 31st of December, 1995, including and originating from the General Staff of the army; the federal Ministry of Defence; army intelligence; RDB and RJB of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia.

On your evidence, if there were any intelligence reports prepared in relation to Srebrenica, they should have been provided pursuant to that Request For Assistance, shouldn't they?

A. First of all, Mr. Nice, I'm not quite clear on who I was turned over to. You say I was turned over to someone. Who to? That's the first point.

Now, the second point is: These documents of the State Security Service existed at the time when I was vice-premier. What their fate was after that, I don't know. I know about just one piece of information, and that is that a vast quantity of documents belonging to the State Security Service after the 5th of October 2000, was burnt, in the Institute for Security in Belgrade. That news reached me. Now, what was burnt and how it was burnt, how would you expect me to know that? And today, in power, are your people in Serbia, the people you like. So how come they won't do you a favour? I can't answer this question, because people who are your bosses put people in power in Serbia and they don't want to comply with your requests. What do I have -- do I have anything to do with that? ⁴⁴¹⁸⁸

Q. [Previous translation continues]... answer to the question, please. If your evidence is correct, and subject to what you've said about it all being burnt and destroyed, the evidence is correct, if your evidence is correct, this document should have brought forth some reports, shouldn't it? Because you're saying that you saw reports that enabled you to come to this Court, and on the solemn declaration, told the Judges that, apart from the thousand prisoners of war who died as a result of the behaviour of one sabotage detachment, nothing else happened, and what did happen was a result of the French. So there should be some material, shouldn't there?

A. No. Why would that have to mean that? Had I, on the 17th of November, 2003, by any chance been president of the federal government and had I received this letter from you, I would have responded and told you that we didn't want to cooperate with you and weren't going to supply you with anything. That would have been my answer to you had I been the Prime Minister.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Seselj, you've presented a version of events at Srebrenica. It's important, I think, that we consider absolutely everything we can lay our hands on that might support that version of events. And what the Prosecutor is trying to do is identify what exists, what material exists to support that. Now, do you not also see it as in everyone's interest connected with the former Yugoslavia to present material which might support that version?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Bonomy. However, he's asking me the wrong questions. They are more provocations and make me ⁴⁴¹⁸⁹ defiant rather than get an answer from me. If he doubts that I had the documents in my hand, then he should say so, say that he doubts that. If he believes that I have those documents in my hands, then I can talk, to the best of my recollections, talk about the contents of some of those documents, but I can't jump out of my own skin and explain why the federal government failed to send him anything.

JUDGE BONOMY: He's trying to refine the material, and I have to express concern about the answer you gave, that if you had received that document, which is in standard terminology, you would have said that you didn't want to cooperate and you weren't going to supply anything. What sort of attitude is that for a responsible politician to take?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was in the conditional, Mr. Bonomy. Had I been president of the federal government at that point in time. That was the condition. Then my stand would be that this Tribunal was illegal and that I don't want to cooperate with them. Had I been present. But unfortunately, I wasn't Prime Minister. So that's one position. Let's leave that aside for the moment and look at the second point.

I say that our services, security services, dealt with the problem in Srebrenica and that they investigated what exactly happened in Srebrenica. That's what I assert. You can believe me or not believe me. What can I do? I can't change my position on that.

JUDGE BONOMY: I understand that. But is there nothing you can point us to that we can perhaps put our hands on that will support the account you've given? ⁴⁴¹⁹⁰

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, you can check this out in Serbia. You have sufficient resources. The Prosecution has sufficient resources and agents of its own, so you can check out and see whether the security service and, to a very small circle of top-ranking officials, sent daily reports about various information that it came by. That is something that can be investigated, checked out. This type of communication did in fact exist. Then there were periodical reports, and from time to time we would receive from the military intelligence certain reports if they considered it to be important for the government of Serbia as well. And that's how we received information about the fact that Momcilo Perisic and Jovica Stanisic were recruited to work from the CIA. We received that from the army, a report to that effect, from the military intelligence. I don't know if it's true or not. But I had in my hands a piece of paper and read it. On the basis of that, we decided to dismiss and replace Stanisic.

JUDGE BONOMY: We're not really discussing that at the moment, Mr. Seselj. We have your account and we have a note -- or I note well the material you say that account is founded on. It's to see if there is anything else that is actually tangible that can be -- hands can be laid upon. And it seems that your answer is you don't know of the existence of any such material. And I take it - and this is a question - I take it that there never was a transparent inquiry in Serbia into the events in Srebrenica.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, pursuant to the laws of Serbia, an investigation is conducted by the court, and the police ⁴⁴¹⁹¹ services - the civilian police, the military police, the secret service and so on and so forth - what they deal with is the gathering of information. The gathering of information is not an investigation. That information has different degrees of reliability. Sometimes you say the source is reliable. Then they tell us that the source is relatively reliable. Sometimes unreliable. Sometimes reliable, sometimes not reliable, partially reliable, partially unreliable. Those are the different degrees and qualifications of each piece of information.

JUDGE BONOMY: But my understanding is that the investigation having been carried out, at a later stage there was a change of face and a decision to release people that you say were involved. So there's never been a sort of open and public examination of the issue in Serbia.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] An investigation was launched officially when we had something in our hands, and we had the suspects, like Pelemic, Petrusic and so on. Five of them, I think there were, five suspects. I can't remember now. Then the investigation was launched sometime at the beginning of the year 2000, if I remember correctly. That's when we had something tangible in our hands. The investigation is a highly complex one. Some knowledge and information was made public. Mr. Nice here has confirmation that I spoke about that far earlier than the federal minister did about those things. Not all the details, but some points. He can see that from those books here. Now, we are conducting the investigation and we want to bring it to an end and have a complete investigation and to prosecute the authorities, change -- there's a putsch, a coup d'etat, these people are ⁴⁴¹⁹² suddenly released from prison and symbolic sentences are meted out to them just for the time they spent in prison so the government did not have to pay remuneration to them.

JUDGE BONOMY: I didn't mean you just to repeat what you've said. I fully understand that.

That's all I need to ask, Mr. Nice..

MR. NICE: May the Request For Assistance be given an exhibit number.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE REGISTRAR: 915.

MR. NICE: May we now distribute the next document, which is, for the booth, it's 120, tab 120. And it comes with documents attached. This is their response, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Serbia and Montenegro. And it lists nine documents, a report from the 1st Army Command, second report from the 1st Army Command, periodic report from the 2nd Army Command, a report from the Uzice Corps, information from the VJ General Staff administration, periodic report from the 2nd Army Command, daily report from the 10th Counter-intelligence Group, document from the VJ administration, document from the VJ administration.

Q. We've got the documents there if you want to look at them. I don't want to take the time now. And we have the index. Is any of these the document or a document on which you relied when you told the learned Judges what your account of Srebrenica is?

A. I don't believe that there were any of these documents, because what we received were not reports of this nature. What we received was ⁴⁴¹⁹³ processed information, which means information -- it's like this: We would get two pieces of paper, for example, or three pieces of paper, and then on half a page you would have one process or a recap of a piece of information. The next page would be a piece of information on quite a different matter, and so on and so forth. But we never received any military documents of this kind.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, is this request in November 2003 the first request the Prosecution made for this material?

MR. NICE: I can't say whether it's the first request of that kind, I can check that, but it's the first request signed in this series of requests.

JUDGE BONOMY: Indeed, were you not in a position to make these inquiries much earlier?

MR. NICE: Yes. I think there are much earlier paper trails in which there was further detailed requests.

If you look at the next response to this - can we have 121, please, tab 121. Thank you very much.

I'm sorry, can the last one be admitted. It's the only documents that have been provided.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: What's the basis for admitting this?

MR. NICE: Two bases, really. First of all, documents, I think, from governments may be produced without the technicality of an identifying witness from time to time, and helpfully. And indeed, as part of that first answer to Your Honour's question, our inquiry is indeed the ⁴⁴¹⁹⁴ inquiry that His Honour Judge Bonomy, namely we simply want to find out through the witness by reference to other inquiries we've made what it is said is available.

The second part is that the witness has said he was shown certain documents. We are trying to find out through his various answers what documents he maintains existed that enabled him to form an opinion. He's now looked at this index, he hasn't looked at all the documents, but expressed the provisional view that these are not they. That's, therefore, quite significant and important. Indeed it founds, no doubt, the possibility of further application for further documents. But as it stands, it's part of the general exercise to see what it has been said exists in relation to this topic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't understand the second part of the answer, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: The authorities have produced --

JUDGE ROBINSON: If he says that these are not the documents, how then does that become some kind of a basis?

MR. NICE: Oh, it identifies -- I suppose it further identifies the category of documents upon which he says he is relying. It also shows that he didn't rely on these documents insofar as they contain anything even potentially relevant. It's all part of presenting to you through this witness, as we're entitled, indeed sensibly obliged to do, the picture which we will in due course argue, absent further provision, that either nothing helpful or explanatory existed --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I understand what you're trying to do. It's just ⁴⁴¹⁹⁵ that --

JUDGE KWON: I wonder whether the Defence would oppose --

MR. KAY: Well, this witness was in custody when this request was sent here, so I don't see how he can take this any further at all.

JUDGE BONOMY: It's surely impossible to understand the answer to the question unless you have this document there. It's not one of these documents that is going to be used in some sense to test credibility, reliability, or supplement the Prosecution case. It simply enables us to see that when a request was made, and it was answered - and I take it you accept that this is the answer that's been presented by a responsible prosecutor - that when the answer was given, it didn't include anything that the witness has been referring to. And that seems to -- it seems to be necessary to make that clear.

MR. KAY: I don't think it's something that he can help at all upon in relation to this. It's to the government of which he was not a member of in relation to this particular government at this time. It's material arising after he's in custody here. Surely we're better off dealing with more relevant and pertinent material arising from the time when he had any kind of responsibility or authority to deal with any kind of request.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, on this matter?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The material sent from Belgrade at the request of Mr. Nice is from material which originate from military archives. And what Mr. Nice says, that there's nothing here that would be ⁴⁴¹⁹⁶ potentially relevant about Srebrenica, is not true, is not correct, because in this document there are several documents within this one. You have the report by the command of the 1st Army, for instance, which comprises all the areas, then the border towards Republika Srpska Krajina, then towards Republika Srpska, which lists the activities of the Monitoring Mission, the United Nations, Alpha [phoen], and so on, and everything else that was happening. But that is 1995, and the month is April.

After that -- this is a voluminous document, a regular military document. After that, you have the 7th of July, for instance, where certain reports are also shown. And what can be seen from our territory, some shells fell on our territory, and so on and so forth. And here we can see from this that our authorities didn't have an insight at all into what was happening across the border, and that the reports report about what is happening on our side. Because certain shells seemed to be falling on our side. So had they had an insight and knew what was going on across the border, they would have written that down. That's why it's relevant.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Do I understand you, then, that you would have no objection to admission of this document? Because it contains relevant --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no objection to admission of this document. Take a look at this, Mr. Robinson, please. You have the command of the 2nd Army, for example, on the 17th.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll admit it then, on that basis.

MR. NICE: Can I complete this short part of the paper trail. ⁴⁴¹⁹⁷

THE REGISTRAR: That will be 916.

MR. NICE: Can we look at the next one, please, which is Supplementary Request For Assistance, tab 121, for the interpreters. And if we can distribute that. It's already been distributed.

Q. This, you'll discover, on reading, Mr. Seselj, notes the earlier response, observes that the initial request was sufficiently broad to cover a number of state institutions. It goes on to say that: "In order to provide the Trial Chamber with a full and proper account of efforts made by the Office of the Prosecutor to secure relevant and probative evidence for the above-mentioned Prosecution, and to leave a transparent record of the efforts undertaken by the Office of the Prosecutor ... the Prosecution seeks an explanation as to the steps taken fully to comply with the original Request ... and to state the names of the institutions canvassed and comprehensively document in writing the steps taken." If we can just have that there and then turn, please, to the last of these documents, which is tab 122, for the interpreters. The response came on the 4th of November --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute, Mr. Nice.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please go ahead, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. This document, dated the 4th of November, notes the supplementary request and says in the second paragraph that: "Acting upon the request from the OTP, it's forwarded the subject request to Ministry of Defence of Serbia and Montenegro, Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of ⁴⁴¹⁹⁸ Serbia, and has received replies from the named authorities that they have no other knowledge of the events related to Srebrenica except that which has already been provided."

It goes on to say that: "The Srebrenica Commission of the Republika Srpska government has applied to Serbia and Montenegro with a similar request, and in response to this, the ministry has requested subject documentation from a wider circle of institutions. The reply received consisted only of the documentation we had already received, provided to the OTP."

So what it comes down to is that the nine documents originally provided, Mr. Seselj, are all that the authorities have provided us. And there's one other point beyond those points that I was making to the learned Judges when they asked me for the relevance of this material, and it's a point that I should have made earlier, and I'm obliged to Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff to ensure that I'm making it now. Is the proper inference that the Judges should draw from the fact that this nine documents are the only documents that were provided, that your account of there being other documents is simply not true? Do you see what I'm saying?

A. I do see what you're saying. Perhaps they don't exist any more. But I claim that I had in my hands several different types of documents in which our security services deal with the question of Srebrenica. Whether they exist today or not is another matter. That there were daily reports, that there were periodical reports, that there were analytical reports, that is to say an analysis of the overall event, that is a fact. ⁴⁴¹⁹⁹ Now, if they no longer exist, if Vuk Draskovic tells you, as the minister, that they don't exist any more, then --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. We have the answer.

MR. NICE: May those two documents be exhibited, on the same basis?

[Trial Chamber confers]

MR. NICE: I've got one short topic to deal with, with your leave, before we break.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll consider this overnight, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And one more question before the break.

MR. NICE: A short point.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. Can we just look at that photograph from the ... I'm going to show you -- put on the overhead projector a still from the Skorpions video, Mr. Seselj. Just look at it, please. That's a still from the video that it is said shows young men being taken from an area near Trnovo, originating from Srebrenica, to be executed. Can you now, please, look at this document, which is one of your filings to this Court.

MR. NICE: And can that go on the overhead projector and he have the original.

Q. This is what you said to this Court, Mr. Seselj, in respect of ⁴⁴²⁰⁰ that video. You spoke of Natasa Kandic and you said: "She is also known to the Trial Chamber as the person who submitted to the Office of the Prosecutor the rigged 12-minute film with scenes of people being shot, allegedly in the vicinity of Trnovo, represented as if they related to Srebrenica. If the footage had been shown in full, one would have seen how the supposed victims stand up and their hands are untied. The Office of the Prosecutor has not shown the footage in full deliberately, even though it knows well that this is doctored footage shot by two cameramen on the basis of a special film script. The Office of the Prosecutor is aware of this doctoring as it is in the possession of the complete footage, which is precisely why it has not requested that it be included in the evidence, as this would expose the fraud." Mr. Seselj, of those men walking up that hill, three at least have been identified by their relations. Would you now please tell us on what basis you say that film, which was screened extensively in Serbia, is a fraud. What's your knowledge and evidence for making that assertion in relation to these people whose bereaved families have been able to identify their sons?

A. First of all, this was prepared by the expert team helping in my Defence. I signed the document that they sent me from Belgrade. The object of this document -- just wait a minute, please, so that I can explain what this is about. I'm not giving up. I'm not not going to answer. Let's see what this is about first.

This is my submission informing the Prosecution, in conformity with Rule 67 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, of the intention to ⁴⁴²⁰¹ present a separate defence, a special defence. And in my submission, I am trying to disqualify one of the witnesses who was not a protected witness, by the way, Dr. Zoran Stankovic, general and former head of the VMA, Medical Military Academy. There's no need for me not to mention his name because he's not a protected witness. So I charged my expert team to find testimony and evidence which morally discredit him as your potential witness. My team members came to the -- came by the information that this video was rigged. On the basis of what? I'll tell you. Who would be as stupid as have a group of Muslims captured in Srebrenica, driven to Trnovo, almost 200 kilometres away from Srebrenica, and then to execute them there and then to film their execution? Do you know where Trnovo is? Trnovo is right the other side of Sarajevo. To get to Trnovo from Srebrenica you have to go to Bratunac first, then Vlasenica, then Han Pijesak, then Sokolac, then to Pale and right across the Trebevic mountain by roundabout way to Trnovo.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I've given you, as is customary, time for putting the matter in context. Please answer the question now.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Which question?

MR. NICE:

Q. What is your knowledge and evidence for making the assertion that this film is rigged, a forgery?

A. Members of my expert team have proof and evidence, and I shall present them to the Prosecution once I receive them. Because they didn't write this off the top of their head.

Q. Is it your case, then, that these young men shown in this film are ⁴⁴²⁰² still alive and is that what you want people to believe?

A. I don't know that. I cannot know that. But I am asserting that the filming of the execution was improvised. That's what I am stating and claiming, and that that was done for somebody's propaganda needs. That's what I'm claiming too.

And thirdly, I still do not have a privileged television communication with my legal advisors and members of the expert team for the preparation of my defence. I still cannot have confidential conversations with them, so I have not been provided with many pieces of information. Perhaps they have this complete footage.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, what's the date on the submission, the filing?

MR. NICE: It's September 8th of this year.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. The 29th of August this year. And this was sent me in the month of July. And as I was blocked, contrary to the war, the post wasn't -- I didn't receive any post for two months, and this arrived in The Hague in the course of July.

MR. NICE: I was going to ask him two questions, if I may, which -- I'll identify the questions and the Court can decide if they can go to the witness. One is can he identify the evidence and make it available to us tomorrow or tell us how he can get it. And the second thing is: Does he have, so that we can see it, a video of his speech at Hrtkovci? Again, it would be helpful, if he has it here in The Hague, if he could bring that with him tomorrow.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will -- the videotape of my speech ⁴⁴²⁰³ in Hrtkovci I do not have here with me. Members of my expert team do have it in Belgrade, however. Here I have the integral text of the rally published in the book "The Devil's Apprentice, the Criminal Pope John Paul II." And a few days ago, I handed over similar document to the Prosecution in which I deal with the case of Natasa Kandic and her amassment of false indictments against and accusations against the Serbs. And there is a series of pieces of evidence there, and in that context you can view the question of this videotape which she allegedly arrived by and how she arrived by it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll adjourn now and resume tomorrow, 9.00 a.m.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday, the 16th day of

September, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.