⁴⁴³²¹

Tuesday, 20 September 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, before re-examination begins, I seek leave to ask to reopen cross-examination for the purposes of asking just a few questions of this witness. Can I explain the context? With witnesses of this kind, Pauk is always a very major influence in when cross-examination should conclude. As I indicated last week, a whole range of issues were necessarily dropped because there was never going to be time. On review, it looked as though there may have been about three topics which can all be susceptible to basically about one question, or two questions each, where it would probably be fair to join issue with the witness and to explain what the Prosecution's position on those very short topics are.

I'll explain what they relate to. The first meeting of the witness with the accused, the conduct of Seselj's men, which he said was always proper, and the training camps at Bubanj Potok and Golubic and to whom they were responsive. But each of them is a very short topic. Before I invite the Chamber to decide on my application, can I make this point as well: This witness made a range of observations about people who had been witnesses in the case, Vasiljevic, Dulovic, Anastasijevic, amongst others, I think, which were not put to those ⁴⁴³²² witnesses. In some cases, it's been possible to have reactions from the witnesses, although not to explore those reactions in full, again for want of time.

My present intention in respect of those matters that were advanced in evidence and are now the subject of response from those witnesses is to put the responses in the form of 92 bis statements and to serve them for consideration as rebuttal. But where matters of -- the matters raised against Vasiljevic were very serious. They weren't put to him in detail or I think sometimes simply at all in cross-examination. And the Chamber may decide in due course that it's appropriate to have that material before it in the form of rebuttal. But that's part of the topic. The real request at the moment is to be asked -- to be granted leave to ask probably about half a dozen questions, one of which would involve looking at one of the extracts from the witness's book, which I actually thought I had put in, but I'm assured I hadn't. But it wouldn't take very long.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll consider it.

[Trial Chamber deliberates]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, any comments on this?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, I have nothing against Mr. Nice asking questions which he omitted to ask in the cross-examination.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well, Mr. Nice. We'll allow you.

MR. NICE: I'm much obliged and I shall be extremely brief. If we can first of all distribute the one document from the writings of the witness that I'd like him to look at. It relates to his account -- ⁴⁴³²³

WITNESS: VOJISLAV SESELJ [Resumed]

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

Q. Mr. Seselj, this relates to your account of your first encounter with the accused which you've said was in 1992, April or May of 1992, you said was purely formal in its context. Would you look, please, at this extract from your book, "Serbian Ceausescu Couple," published in 1995. And if you'd be good enough, please, to go in the original-language version, your page 158, you'll see two sidelined passages.

MR. NICE: And if the Chamber would be good enough to look at the English-language version, if they still have the document. It's 46 --

THE INTERPRETER: What's the tab?

MR. NICE: -- in the list.

THE INTERPRETER: What is the tab number, please?

MR. NICE: 46d.

Q. We see the two sidelined passages marked, say the following. The first one says: "Milosevic stood up and said it's an honour to meet you. On my behalf I said my respects, Mr. President. We shook hands and I immediately went further."

And then further down the page, relating to the same event which we can see, I think, is chronicled by you as May 1992, you say: "Milosevic asked us, the Radicals, to send more volunteers across the Drina, and in exchange, promised adequate supplies of arms, uniforms, and means of transport. This collaboration worked well until September 1993." ⁴⁴³²⁴ Mr. Seselj, is the position that your first meeting with this accused was not just formality but involved his requesting you to send volunteers in exchange for arms?

A. First of all, Mr. Nice, you didn't understand the text itself. This is a question of two meetings here. The first meeting is the one that I described in detail, in April 1992, at a meeting of the National Assembly, or popular Assembly, at which Mr. Milosevic was present sitting in the first row when I arrived. So it was just a matter of shaking hands.

However, there's a remark here which you omitted to read out, which follows on immediately after what you said. It said: "Members of the Socialist Party of Serbia, even from the closest leadership were convinced that for a long time we were having meetings at all political moves I was making in direct agreement with their leader." You see, here we're talking about a mystification that's going on. This really was the held opinion of the public, what the public thought. And many newspapers wrote about it as well. Usually of the opposition regime. However, all the conclusions were drawn from one single fact, and that is that by having been elected national deputy, as the only deputy of the Serbian Radical Party in the National Assembly, that I quite literally, in the verbal duels, toppled the whole of the pro-western opposition. That's the first point.

Q. We can have the whole passage translated, of course. But even if your first encounters were split as between April and May, and it may be elsewhere in this book, you put it at 1991, but nevertheless, stay with ⁴⁴³²⁵ 1992, is it right that at the main meeting, so a very early meeting, you were asked to send volunteers in exchange for arms?

A. It doesn't say 1991 anywhere.

Q. Is it right that you were asked to send volunteers in exchange for arms and uniforms and means of transport?

A. No, that is not correct. Because at that meeting, we only discussed the forthcoming federal elections. However, you must have -- you ought to have given the Trial Chamber the full information. What does this text represent? Let's look at that first. Take a look at the title of this text, to begin with. In the title it says the following: "I dream every night that they are executing Sloba Mira on Dedinje and how Desimir Tosic is being eaten by a viper -- wild boar." This is the text that I wrote in the central prison in Belgrade while I was there for four months, and I took it out of the prison illegally and published it in the Novi Sad Svet newspaper. And I insist that the introductory part of this text be read out and then everything will be clear to one and all. It's just half a page, Mr. Robinson, if you have nothing against me doing that, and then things will be quite clear.

MR. NICE: As far as I'm concerned, I've achieved the purpose I want, which is to have the recording of what's on the page that we've looked at, the second of the two extracts. Other matters could probably be a matter for re-examination. I'm quite content that the passage that the witness wants dealt with can be the subject of translation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj, we would not have you read that. The accused may re-examine you in relation to that part. ⁴⁴³²⁶

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I'm much obliged.

Q. Mr. Seselj, the second thing I want to ask about is this.

MR. NICE: May this document be admitted, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE REGISTRAR: That will be 920.

MR. NICE: Thank you.

Q. The second point I want to ask you about is this: You've spoken in general terms about the behaviour of your Seselj's men. A witness before this Court, C-57 of the JNA, who fought alongside your men, gave evidence to the following effect, and I'll summarise it in five phrases: That they didn't recognise the authority of commanding officers; that they were a gang of thugs; that they looted when in Luzac; that one of their number cut off the ear of a prisoner, or both ears of a prisoner in Luzac; and that then, later, in the course of the exercise at Vukovar and at the surrender of Borovo Komerc shelter, Seselj's men were seen to be or calculated to be cutting off fingers, to rob corpses of jewellery, and to extract teeth from mouths, and were seen at that site to be beating men. So those are the allegations specifically made against Seselj's men by a witness in this case, C-57. Do you have any comment on that? Are those allegations true or may they be true?

A. Those are terrible fabrications. And many of your false witnesses try and do that. The members of my expert team warned me because I couldn't see it clearly on the screen in front of me, but they warned me that that alleged soldier, the JNA soldier who gave you the statement on the piece of footage that you've shown and spoke about Virovitica, Ogulin, ⁴⁴³²⁷ that border, had his wedding ring on his left hand.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... is a protected witness, so, Mr. Seselj, be careful before you say anything that has the purpose or the effect of allowing any part of recognition by others of -- identification of others of whom he is. Please carry on.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj, you heard that. The witness is protected, so don't say anything that would reveal his identity.

MR. KAY: I think the witness is referring to the video clip we had last Friday of the film in Vukovar, and the --

JUDGE KWON: Spoke in English.

MR. KAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no intention of disclosing the protected witness, nor do I know the name of that witness. The witness is just a code number for me. I'm saying that his testimony was false. Now, the fact that I say that his testimony is false does not mean that the whole of Serbia will recognise him as being a liar and saying that's probably the one, he's a liar, he's telling terrible lies. Secondly, the soldier who was shown here is wearing, as I said, his wedding ring on his left hand. A wedding ring is a ring which symbolically shows that somebody is married, has entered into matrimony, a man or a woman. With Orthodox Serbs, that ring always, in all cases, is exclusively worn on the right hand. Now, the fact that that soldier had his wedding ring, wedding band on his left hand says that he's not a Orthodox Serb, that he is a Catholic or something else. And secondly, it is absolutely impossible for a JNA unit to have marched through Vukovar in ⁴⁴³²⁸ the way that those people marched after the liberation of Vukovar, except if that was improvised by somebody for the purposes of the television camera and having it filmed. That's what I wanted to say. And secondly, if it's true that someone's ears had been cut off and that person survived having had his ears cut off, then it is very easy to find that Croat or Muslim who the Seselj men allegedly cut off his ears and bring him into court and show him. And then he can say: "My ears were cut off by so-and-so."

This is just imagination, everything fabricated, that they cut fingers off corpses. When post-mortems were conducted, one would be able to see whether teeth were extracted or fingers cut off. These are all stories dating back to World War II and the things that the Ustashas did to the Serbs during World War II.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker kindly be asked to slow down, thank you, for the benefit of one and all.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj, thank you, and the interpreters are asking you to slow down for the benefit of one and all.

MR. NICE:

Q. Clarification, Mr. Seselj. The person you say had the wedding ring on the left hand, was that the person who was speaking in the English language or was it one of the others?

A. Yes. It was that alleged Chetnik of yours who spoke English.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, the witness has connected the conduct alleged through C-57 with what was on the screen, but he hasn't necessarily answered the question. But I've given him a chance to do so. ⁴⁴³²⁹

Q. And my last question relates to the two training camps that you say your men were trained at, Bubanj Potok and Golubic. It's right, isn't it, that Bubanj Potok was never a JNA camp; it was a DB camp under the MUP; and that Golubic in Knin was a training camp where Captain Dragan operated. So that neither of these training camps was in fact a JNA camp; is that correct?

A. It is not correct. First of all, in Bubanj Potok, as far as I know, there was never any training there. Bubanj Potok was exclusively a JNA barracks, and that was the collection point for the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party. That is where the volunteers went, that is where they received their war deployment papers, their uniforms. Sometimes weapons, but not always. And then they were driven to the front, where they were most needed.

Now, as far as the camp in Golubic, the training camp in Golubic was concerned, I was never there, I have to say. But I don't think that that was within the frameworks of the JNA but the police of Srpksa Krajina. But I'm not sure about that. I don't have any set information about that. Because I know that the JNA officers were very much against Captain Dragan because of his bombastic statements made to the public that he tried to interfere in their affairs and business. And Captain Dragan, at the request of JNA officers, was dismissed from Knin, sent out of Knin, before the combat had actually finished. And he returned subsequently in November to topple Milan Babic.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I've made the points I wish to make.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So I answered your first question as ⁴⁴³³⁰ well by asserting that it was a complete fabrication, that statement made by your witness, what did you say, C-65 or whatever. It is a terrible falsehood.

MR. NICE: I've made the point, so that I can now honourably present the points in closing arguments. And one other point that I meant to raise last week is this -- with the Chamber.

The Chamber has had a large number of extracts from the interview of this witness with the makers of the Death of Yugoslavia film. For the most part, they're not taken from the film; they're taken from the interview itself. The full transcript of that interview is of course available, as is I think the interview itself. We know that the transcript provided by the makers of the film would, before being really acceptable here, require retranslation. But it occurs to us that it might be helpful for the Chamber, I make this application, to have the whole of that transcript available, subject, of course, to it being properly interpreted or translated by CLSS here.

I've tried to extract from it points that are of particular pertinence and value at this stage, but there may well be other points that will become relevant and of value, and for that reason, it's my submission that the whole of the tape, in light of the large number of parts that have already gone in, will be of assistance to you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I think that that request is unacceptable. Mr. Nice had the possibility of showing the witness portions and extracts which he considered to be relevant. And the witness, and that is fair play towards the witness, then has the ⁴⁴³³¹ opportunity of explaining what he's been asked and give a response and answer. What Mr. Nice is now asking is to have the transcript of the interview admitted, which was not shown the witness and to which the witness has no possibility of making a response or giving any kind of explanation. And I consider that to be unacceptable. If Mr. Nice wishes to tender into evidence other extracts from the transcript, let him show them to the witness, let him put them to the witness and ask him questions. Because the question arises of why he showed portions of the transcript if he didn't indeed expect an answer from the witness. But I think that he doesn't like the responses and answers he has been given, and then he's trying to have the transcript admitted without giving the witness an opportunity of answering what he is showing. That is highly improper and I'm against having anything admitted into evidence which was not put to the witness.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: We consider, Mr. Milosevic, that there is merit in your response. The motion is refused.

MR. NICE: I'm grateful to the Chamber for allowing me to ask those additional questions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, re-examination to continue. I have to say, Mr. Milosevic, that I understand Mr. Delic is waiting anxiously in the wings to resume his testimony.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. That's what I understood. So I'll do my best to be as expeditious as possible. Unfortunately, I do still have a number of questions which I cannot drop. ^{44332 BLANK PAGE 44333} Re-examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

Q. Mr. Seselj, over the past few days, including this morning's session, you have provided an explanation of the reasons and the emphasis of your statements and the contents of your statements against me and against my wife. I'm not going to go back to that, because I consider that you have explained that sufficiently.

Now, my question to you is this: Bearing in mind all the statements you made over all the years that you mentioned and were mentioned indeed by Mr. Nice himself, my question is this: What kind of relationship did we have, the relationship between us, and what did these statements and attacks testify to? Were relations as tense as Mr. Nice was showing here for days? Did it allow us to have any kind of relationship or any kind of conspiracy, or did our relationships, as they stood, exclude any possibility of that kind?

A. They absolutely excluded any such possibility. Our relationship, from 1993 and the whole of 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, were the relationship of open hostility. There was open hostility between us. Constant conflicts in which nobody minded what they said in this battle. Of course, you didn't take part in those conflicts. You tried to avoid them. And I don't think you ever uttered my name in public in all those years. But that is why your people, your men, the men from your party, the high-ranking functionaries, did take part in that conflict and clash, and in fact it was through them that I attacked you as the party leader, you being the party leader and the number-one man of the regime. So it is quite impossible that there was any conspiracy or ⁴⁴³³⁴ collaboration between us, and collusion, because we didn't even know each other before those years.

Q. A moment ago, you quoted the excerpt that Mr. Nice had failed to quote, where it says that members of the Socialist Party, even the closest leadership, were convinced that we had been meeting for a long time previously. But you didn't go on to quote the end of that paragraph and the last sentence, in fact, where it says: "And actually, there were no indirect contacts either."

A. That's right. No contacts whatsoever, of any kind. However, there was an intrigue in 1991 when I won all out at the additional elections for the National Assembly in Rakovica, by winning more votes than all the other candidates put together. One of the candidates was your party candidate. He came second. Then a democratic party candidate, one of the greatest Serbian writers of all time, Borislav Pekic. He came third. The candidate of the renewal movement came fourth. And at that time, my political adversaries dispersed an intrigue in the media that your party was actually pleased that I had won at the Rakovica elections, that it suited your purposes, and that it suited my settles of accounts with the pro-western opposition.

Now, your -- it might have suited your party that I settled accounts with the pro-western opposition, but it certainly couldn't have suited your party to see my all-out election over your candidates. Quite simply, you didn't have a candidate who could have fought against me, had you nominated Borislav Jovic forward, I would have beat him too, with an overwhelming majority. ⁴⁴³³⁵

Q. Very well, Mr. Seselj. You have answered that question very clearly, whether it could have been any kind of collusion, any collusion and collaboration in our relationships or any kind of cooperation between us or quite the contrary. You've answered that, that they excluded any possibility of collusion, and you said they did exclude any possibility of that kind.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, please omit the comments. Just put your questions to the witness.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Seselj, after having quoted statements of yours for weeks, did Mr. Nice actually undermine his own thesis about joint criminal enterprise among us or did he perhaps strengthen it in that way?

JUDGE ROBINSON: I stopped that question, Mr. Milosevic, and you know the reason.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, the problem is that you cannot have the best of both worlds. On the one hand, that Mr. Seselj attacked me all the time, and that on the other hand, we were involved in a conspiracy of our own. And even resorting to the most derogatory terms.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, utilise your time well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Seselj, Mr. Nice said that you had great access to the media and that you were in my favour. Those were his words. Tell me, Mr. Seselj: Until you appeared as a candidate in the presidential elections in 1990, did you have any kind of wide access to the media?

A. No. Throughout 1990, I absolutely had no access to the media, not ⁴⁴³³⁶ to a single TV station. In the election campaign, that was the first time when I appeared on state television. So what was under state control was totally unaccessible to me.

Q. So you first appeared on state television when, as a presidential candidate, you were allotted a certain amount of time, in accordance with the rules of the presidential elections, that every candidate should get a certain number [as interpreted] of time on air?

A. Yes. The state television could not avoid that. But only about ten days before that, I left prison. It was from prison that I put up my candidacy for president of the Republic.

Q. My question is whether all presidential candidates had the right to equal time on television or whether you were privileged from that point of view.

A. All candidates, and as far as I can remember, there were over 20 of them, had exactly one hour each on state television, whereas the order in which they appeared was decided by a lottery.

Q. During the election campaign, did the majority of the voters become familiar with your political programme and ideas?

A. No. In the daily press, they could read about various incidents that led to my arrests. That's what most of them could read about. In that year, I was arrested about 15 times, and three times I was sentenced to a term in prison.

Q. All right. Mr. Seselj, in response to Mr. Bonomy's question as to whether the indictment stating that all the participants in the joint criminal enterprise acted together, Mr. Nice says that he sticks to what ⁴⁴³³⁷ the indictment said, that we did work together, not on our own. I don't know if I understood what he said. He can correct me if I misunderstood him. But after all, we can look at the transcript. So did we work in collusion or on our own?

A. That is absolutely impossible. By definition, collusion means --

Q. Wait a moment. Let's just look at something. In relation to this, because he answered Mr. Bonomy's question and he says that he still stands by what was stated in the indictment, that we acted in collusion. For example, if we look at paragraph 16 of the Kosovo indictment, when referring to the perpetrators, it says --

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please slow down.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Please slow down, Mr. Milosevic. A request from the interpreters.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Nice reduced the indictment to acting in collusion. Could you please tell me whether, to the best of your knowledge, I and the remaining four persons mentioned, Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic and Stojakovic were acting in collusion, regardless of whether we're talking about legal activities or the commission of crimes. So how did we deal with the crisis in Kosovo and Metohija and how did we come to the situation there, or what were we doing? Were we doing something legal or were we acting in an underhanded way?

A. Collusion is impossible. Collusion is possible only when you're doing something illegal or semi-legal or something that is not morally ⁴⁴³³⁸ proper or something like that. In this case, it is top state officials who had similar or identical tasks, and their high office made them cooperate.

Q. All right. Do you have any direct knowledge about this, how each and every one of us, not to mention all the names again, all the persons who were mentioned by Mr. Nice, and I, how did every one of us come to the office from where we operated?

A. Through elections, direct or parliamentary elections. But everyone was elected through parliamentary elections.

Q. All right. What were the rights and responsibilities that every one of us had? Did any one of us go beyond our authority? Did we use this authority and these powers in an impermissible way?

A. There is not a shred of evidence of overstepping authority on the part of any one of the top state officials that you mentioned. There is not a single shred of evidence that anyone used his power in an illegal way. And there is no evidence of abuse of power. Everyone carried out their duties in accordance with the law and constitution. If they were not doing so, they would be committing a crime.

Q. Mr. Seselj, if we acted within a constitutional framework and within the scope of the legal authority we had in terms of the office we held and the office is something that we got through democratic elections?

A. The authors of the indictment think that if Serbs are trying to defend their country and their people, then they commit a crime. And their organised defence of their country is a joint enterprise, a priori. That's how I see it. Serbs do not have the right to defend themselves, ⁴⁴³³⁹ Serbs do not have the right to preserve their state, their people, they don't have the right to defend themselves from crime, et cetera.

Q. Tell me, Mr. Seselj: I'm going to use a particular expression now. This expression used in the indictment "in concert with" and "in agreement with," do you think that they mean the same thing in the Serbian language?

A. No. It is quite different in the Serbian language. If you say "in concert with," or "in collusion with" and on the other hand, "in agreement with."

Q. You probably know the official languages are English and French for authentic documents that are presented here. So in the English text it says: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]... while in the French it says [Previous translation continues]... So in both languages that is what is said. In the Croatian and Bosnian indictment, it says: "In agreement with [B/C/S spoken]." Whereas in the Kosovo indictment it says [B/C/S spoken]. So the same word is used in English and in French in all the indictments. However, in the B/C/S version, the translation differs.

JUDGE ROBINSON: These are questions relating to interpretation and I don't understand how it is proper to put them to this witness. This is not the avenue for raising issues of that kind.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm asking the witness because when I'm putting a question to him, he has to understand what it's about and I have to understand it. He says that "in collusion with" and "in agreement with" cannot mean the same thing. ⁴⁴³⁴⁰

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you're coming close to asking the witness about legal matters, which are properly the province of the Chamber. You're not allowed to put to the witness questions which the Chamber will ultimately have to answer itself.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Seselj, did you take part in any kind of reaching of agreement with me or other persons mentioned in that document, reaching any kind of agreement, particularly achieving anything that could be called joint criminal enterprise? It's a direct question and it pertains to you directly.

A. Throughout the war, Mr. Milosevic, we had daily consultations, practically every day. Perhaps we met at least three times a week. However, the subject of our talks, consultations, and agreements was never based on any intention to carry out any kind of criminal offence. That is what I state with full responsibility. All our agreements were aimed at strengthening efforts to defend the country. The economic power of the country, to defend the standard of living in a state of war, to provide water and other supplies, to ensure proper hygiene, et cetera. In a situation of war, it all functioned very well. It functioned better than it did in peacetime, which shows how highly organised we were. However, there was no criminal organisation, no organisation of a criminal nature. I am witness to the fact that several times you insisted on strict adherence of the law to protect civilians of any ethnic background and to prevent the commission of any crimes in a situation of ⁴⁴³⁴¹ war.

All of those who were in contact with you during those days, during the war, can testify only to what I've said just now. There is no other possibility.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, since Mr. Nice is accusing me that I worked in collusion or in agreement with - so let us leave the vocabulary aside now - with some persons known and unknown, I believe that it is his duty to disclose the identity of these persons so that I would know how to respond. That should not be a problem for him, because he says persons known. As for persons unknown that he refers to, could you please explain this to me? How can I defend myself from accusations, not only I, but whoever acted together with me? But obviously Mr. Nice even doesn't know who it was that I acted with, so he's referring to persons unknown. I expect you to explain that. As for the persons known --

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's a traditional method of drafting indictments to speak of persons known and unknown. It all depends on what arises in the evidence. We will look at the evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Seselj, Mr. Nice established here that the term "the Republic of Dubrovnik" was taken from the terminology that was used by the Serb authorities, and then he mentions the testimony of Pero Poljanic, the ⁴⁴³⁴² former mayor of Dubrovnik, and in his transcript there is no mention of that, that this was used by the Serb authorities. So did the Serb authorities ever use the term "the Republic of Dubrovnik"?

A. No. That term was only mentioned by the opposition, wishing to have a renewal of the Republic of Dubrovnik. Not a single state official of the Republic of Serbia ever stated those two words, "the Dubrovnik Republic," nowhere, at no time.

Q. When Mr. Poljanic testified, he said that at the head of this committee was Aco Apolonijo, a Croat, and for many years he was the public prosecutor in Dubrovnik.

A. I wish to correct you, Mr. Milosevic. I'm convinced that this Aco Apolonijo was a Catholic Serb, not a Croat, like all the old Dubrovnik families, they're all Catholic. But they're Serbs and they're proud of their Serbdom. Later on, being Croats was imposed on them by force.

JUDGE BONOMY: When you refer to the opposition using the expression "Republic of Dubrovnik," do you mean yourselves, the Serb Radical Party?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Of course, Mr. Bonomy, I'm referring to myself and I've already said so. But now that you've asked me, I owe you an answer from last time --

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you very much.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So what it says here, what Mr. Nice said that: [In English] "Terminology used by the Serb authorities," [Interpretation] ⁴⁴³⁴³ That's incorrect. It's not even what was stated by Pero Poljanic. Here, Mr. Seselj, you spoke of the difference between the JSO of the MUP of Serbia, that was called the Red Berets, that was established in 1996, and other units that were also called the Red Berets, one of which was established in Krajina in 1991.

In order to verify what you said, I'm going to read out part of the transcript from the testimony of witness Dragan Vasiljkovic, Captain Dragan, when he testified here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, what is the point of this reading? What is the question that you want to put?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I want to ask Mr. Seselj this, his explanation, the quotation that Mr. Nice uses so often, the quotation of Mr. Simatovic from 1997. Does it coincide with the explanations given by Captain Dragan? I think that's very important.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj is not in a position to answer that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Vasiljkovic, when he was explaining this here, said exactly the same thing as Mr. Seselj, the taking over of traditions and --

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's for the Chamber to make up its mind about those matters, Mr. Milosevic, not Mr. Seselj. Mr. Seselj is a witness. He's not the judge here.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that's precisely what I'm asking him. Does what he know coincide with the knowledge of that person, who was on the spot and who testified here?

JUDGE ROBINSON: No. That will not be allowed, and I've explained ^{44344 BLANK PAGE 44345} why. Please ask another question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. During your cross-examination, Mr. Seselj, reference was made to Ustasha crimes. You spoke about Ustasha crimes from the World War II and the genocide against Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia. You were even asked by the Chamber to clarify certain terms. Let me quote to you from a statement by the Wiesenthal Center which calls the Ustasha camp of Jasenovac as follows: "Jasenovac was the largest camp in Croatia --"

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, what is the question that you wish to put?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is it approximately the same as the explanation you gave when cross-examined by Mr. Nice, namely --

JUDGE ROBINSON: No. Mr. Milosevic, you're on very slippery ground here. You're not performing well the task of re-examination, the principal purpose of which is to seek to rehabilitate your witness in areas where you feel that his testimony may have been damaged, his credibility may have been damaged by cross-examination. It's not an opportunity to go over matters and to present your case again. It must relate to matters that arise out of cross-examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I think it follows directly from cross-examination and from the questions asked by Mr. Nice, as well as questions asked by you regarding the definition of "Ustasha," because in some of his questions, Mr. Nice identified Ustashas and Croats, whereas Mr. Seselj clearly distinguished between those two. So I want to ⁴⁴³⁴⁶ ask him: Is that the notion reflected in the documents of the Wiesenthal Center that coincides with his own definition? So it reinforces what Mr. Seselj says and undermines the claims of Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I fail to see how we can be having this sort of quasi-expert -- at this stage. There must be a limit.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I'm not allowing that. Please ask another question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Robinson. Mr. Nice accused Mr. Seselj of instigating hatred. He said that the reactions of Serbs in Krajina in 1990 and 1991 were the results of his speeches and similar speeches by other politicians from Belgrade, rather than the real fear that prevailed there. So I hope you will not object to this question, since Mr. Seselj spoke about this.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I will tell you what David Owen, who testified here, in his book "Balkan Odyssey" that was exhibited here, stated on page 34, paragraph 3. Can I read that or will you not allow me even that much?

JUDGE ROBINSON: To what end? What is the question?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, for the purpose -- I want to establish the exact cause of their reactions of Serbs in Krajina, Western Slavonia, Eastern Slavonia. What was the primary source of their fear? That's what I want to establish. Because Mr. Nice claims that Belgrade media, and this witness personally, unjustly spread fear and hatred, so that Serbs rose up in arms. That's the claim. That's the case of the Prosecution. ⁴⁴³⁴⁷

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, then simply ask him if he can say what was the cause of their fear.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right, Mr. Seselj, since they won't allow me to quote either Wiesenthal or Lord Owen, I will ask you the way Mr. Robinson suggests. What was the reason for such a situation?

A. The reason always lay in the conduct of the Croatian leadership, that is, the Tudjman regime. Both political moves or military moves by the Serbs, they were all caused by Tudjman's behaviour. Even the crimes were never committed spontaneously by the Serb side. They were always a reaction to a previous Croatian crime.

I have an article here from a newspaper that I can give to the Trial Chamber, which says that in October 1991, Croats killed --

JUDGE ROBINSON: We have the answer to the question that Mr. Milosevic has raised.

And Mr. Milosevic, Lord Owen's article and the statement that you refer to, the opportunity for you to refer to that will be in your closing address or in your brief.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Seselj, this fear that was created, fear of a repeat of genocide, was it based only on the memory of the Second World War or was there prior to that a return of Ustasha emigres, Sarinic and others, and did the Serbs associate the new Croatian regime with the previous Ustasha regime?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the manner in which you have put ⁴⁴³⁴⁸ the question makes it a leading one, "Or was there prior to that a return of Ustasha emigres, Sarinic and others." You have to reformulate the question in a manner that is not leading.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Let me put it in a non-leading way. Was it just a fear of a repeat of the events from the Second World War that caused the reaction of the Serb people at the time, or were there some tangible facts that caused this reaction?

A. What happened in World War II constituted a terrible collective experience for the Serb people. But fear among them was caused by Tudjman's statement that the Independent State of Croatia had been an expression of historic aspirations of the Croat people. It is a fact that Ustasha emigres who had been abroad for dozens of years came back and came to the highest offices. There were also specific moves of the Croatian government directed at Serbs.

I have another thing to say. Svetozar Livada, a famous Croatian sociologist and demographer compiled a study concerning the fate of Serbs in Croatia that was done for the Office of the Prosecutor. And I have here an article about that study, from which we can see how the Croatian government treated the Serbs. He established, by accurate, empirical methods, that 150.000 Serbs had been brutally expelled from Croatian towns where there had been no military action whatsoever. 25.000 Serb flats were seized and confiscated. That all happened in 1991, before the war.

Q. To make it clear that it was not linked to the Second World War, that happened in 1990? ⁴⁴³⁴⁹

A. This study is being concealed by the Office of the Prosecutor, because it exposes their case as a lie. I just started to speak about the crime in the Pakrac valley --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I'm beginning to form the conclusion that you have exhausted all the useful questions that you have for re-examination. I don't see the direction at all of this re-examination. You seem to think that re-examination must be of a certain minimum length. I am not accustomed at all to re-examination lasting half an hour, 40 minutes, 50 minutes, and over. You have one or two points to re-examine on, five or ten minutes, and you finish. I have the duty to see that the time of the Court is used profitably, and I'm really beginning to doubt whether you have any more useful questions to put to this witness in re-examination. So I'm just going to get the view of my colleagues on this matter.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have very useful questions.

[Trial Chamber deliberates]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. You must put questions to the witness that are useful, that are helpful. Don't go over matters that the witness has already clarified. I've already told you in my -- re-examination is 10, 15 minutes, no more.

JUDGE BONOMY: I take it, Mr. Nice, the study referred to has been disclosed.

MR. NICE: I'm told it's been disclosed, then I suppose the answer is yes. But I'm not sure about it and I don't have the material available at the moment to check. But I will check. But in any event, this is not ⁴⁴³⁵⁰ an opportunity or a time for the accused to be trying to get in material that would be expert in nature, if admissible at all. But I'll find out whether this one has been produced and come back to you on it. And of course if the accused wants to tell us that it was provided by us, and when, then that will help us in our research. But neither Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff nor I at the moment has any recollection of it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. We will try to establish when this was provided. Maybe Mr. Seselj knows.

A. The study by Svetozar Livada was done this year. It was so fresh that Mr. Nice should know.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I appreciate fully what you are saying, and I would be very happy if I could finish my re-examination within ten minutes. But as far as I understand, re-examination must cover those points of cross-examination, selected points that are considered to be important, that I consider to be important, points on which I have to refute the Prosecution.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Not really. I mean, I think it depends on whether you think the witness needs to be rehabilitated. You are not obliged, and this may be the mistake, you should not feel obliged to respond to every point raised by the Prosecutor. In fact, if this were a trial with a jury, if this were a trial with a jury --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Far from it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- you would be giving the impression to the jury that the Prosecutor has done well in his cross-examination by spending so ⁴⁴³⁵¹ much time on re-examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Well, juries are not professional, unlike you, so there is no such danger here, Mr. Robinson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Just a few more brief matters we have to cover. Mr. Nice quoted one of your texts addressed to pan-Islamists in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Mr. Nice claimed there were no pan-Islamists at the beginning of the crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Do you know, maybe, was Alija Izetbegovic a pan-Islamist?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know what he was in 1941?

A. He was a member of the terrorist organisation called the Young Muslims, and that's why he spent several years in prison. I don't know exactly how many.

Q. Do you know about the Handzar Division and the fact that it was rehabilitated, or rather, restored to existence before the war began?

A. I have here the cover page of a Sarajevo magazine called Vox, 1991. As far as I know, the first conflicts arose in March 1992. That is true. However, later on, that unit was not called the Handzar Division any longer for fear of misunderstanding among the public. They called it the Green Berets. There was the official name for their unit. However, the people who made up or people who established that unit called it the Handzar Division amongst themselves.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we put this on the ELMO so that the witness can read the date and see briefly what this is about. ⁴⁴³⁵²

JUDGE ROBINSON: Would the usher please put it on the ELMO.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Would you just read what it says on the cover page, on the front page of this Sarajevo magazine called Vox, read the date and describe what you see?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, this is all premised on the fact that I'm supposed to have claimed that there was no pan-Islamists at the beginning. Lots of things were said in the course of cross-examination, but I'd be grateful to be referred to the line and page of that observation. I don't recall with my recollection. Maybe there was some misunderstanding. Maybe the suggestion that I said such a thing is being used as a premise for getting in something that would otherwise be quite inadmissible.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, are you in a position to refer us to the cross-examination?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, I'm not able to do that, no. I have not made a note of that. But I have made a note of this as, what shall I call it, a radical and flagrant untruth presented by Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: As I say, I don't have any recollection of saying anything like that. It wouldn't have been my purpose to say any such thing.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Judge Kwon is ...

JUDGE ROBINSON: We have located a question you asked, Mr. Nice: "Could the Bosnian pan-Islamists fight a war against us Serbs?" That's a quotation from his book. ⁴⁴³⁵³

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But Mr. Nice asked me whether it was possible that at that time already there were pan-Islamists in Bosnia, with respect to the fact that in the rest of the world they started to jeopardise it later on. I remember the substance of his question very well, and that was it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'll allow the question, yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, we've just had a quotation from Mr. Robinson, whether they could have waged a war against the Serbs. Now, what date is that? When was it established?

A. This is the Sarajevo paper called Vox, which was printed and published in October 1991, that is to say, far before the real war in Bosnia-Herzegovina was unleashed. On the title page it says: "The Handzar Division is ready."

And next to that it says: "The Fourth Reich is coming." And then in German, the word "willkommen" welcome.

Now, this drawing shows a members of the Handzar Division, the SS marku Handzar Division, it's the SS Hitler division, marku, with a big knife stuck to his belt and underneath the cut-off heads of four Serbs. The one to the left is Radovan Karadzic's head. The one to the far right is my own severed head. And the two in the middle -- I can't recognise them just now. But anyway, that is it. And that was published in Sarajevo six months before the beginning of the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Seselj. ⁴⁴³⁵⁴

JUDGE BONOMY: What has that got to do with pan-Islamists?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Hitler in World War II, for example, had ambitions of using the pan-Islamic factor and harnessing it to his own ends. And therefore he set up the SS Handzar Division in Bosnia for that purpose, and in Kosovo and Metohija the SS Skender Beg Division of Albanians. And he personally, the Jerusalem --

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Seselj, hold on.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The mufti of Jerusalem personally --

JUDGE BONOMY: The two ideas are surely mutually inconsistent, the idea of being manipulated by Germans, on the one hand, and on the other hand, having the ambition of pan-Islam. They don't match each other.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it does go hand in hand, Mr. Bonomy, but you don't have the information. The mufti of Jerusalem personally, and his name was al-Husseini, during World War II came to Bosnia and dealt with business related to the establishment of the SS Handzar Division. And Hitler at that point in time considered that the Nazi factor could find its ally in the pan-Islamic factor. That is very highly consistent. But you don't have the patience to hear my detailed explanations about it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj, you've already had occasion to speak of your pedagogic tendencies, which have to be restrained here. Mr. Milosevic, I'm not satisfied with the way the re-examination is being conducted.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The expression "restrain" here has a ⁴⁴³⁵⁵ rather negative connotation when translated into the Serb language. So I'd like to ask you not to use it perhaps. Perhaps it was the interpreter.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj, it doesn't have any unfortunate connotation in English.

Mr. Milosevic, let me hear a question that is useful, that will advance your case, that is profitable, and that shows that you're using the Court's time well. Otherwise, I'm going to consider seriously terminating the re-examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. We won't continue that topic, Mr. Robinson, although I presented here the oath taken by the Young Muslims before the war and the Islamic declaration by Alija Izetbegovic which was republished in 1990, and I quoted some of the passages from the declaration. So it's quite clear what this is all about.

MR. NICE: For the record, I've finally been able to search LiveNote for pan-Islamists, and as far as I can see, there was never any question of mine framed in the way that the accused summarised it. All the references to pan-Islam came from this witness, one I think was a question from the Bench and otherwise it was him speaking. So it really is very unfortunate to see a great passage of evidence which is likely to be inflammatory, again when reported locally. The Chamber has to have this in mind. Put in now, I invite the Chamber frankly to bring this re-examination to a rapid close.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, your next question, and I'll be monitoring it very carefully. ^{44356 BLANK PAGE 44357}

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Nice uses the term -- or rather, to show Serbian aggressivity, quoted a song that came from the football stadiums, and nobody could take it seriously, I don't think, at all. And as a protagonist of --

MR. NICE: And -- I'm not going to make a comment myself.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, but I'm going to ask --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: It is really trite of this -- silly of this accused to try and put in comments like that. The consequence of the sorts of songs that we've heard spoken of are a matter of evidence for others, not for him.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I'm giving you one more chance, one more question. If it is not a useful question, then the Chamber will terminate the re-examination. We're wasting time.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Robinson. Does that mean that I can't ask him about those songs which Mr. Nice did ask about in the cross-examination?

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, there is nothing to be gained from that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation].

Q. Mr. Seselj, on many occasions, or a number of times, we identified here and didn't identify what Croats were and what Ustashas were. Do you remember the position by the founders of the Serbian Democratic Movement, or rather, Professor Raskovic, one of the founders, who said that we are not against the Croats but we are against the Ustashas? And that was his ⁴⁴³⁵⁸ basic position in setting up the party.

A. Yes. And I quoted that position of his I think on the first day of my testimony here. And he kept repeating that. He said that the Serbs and Serbian democratic movement had nothing against the Croats, that they are against the Ustashas, and he insisted upon that differentiation. And this did make a clear distinction between the two.

Q. Mr. Seselj, Mr. Nice here introduced a number of documents which he had received from the government in Belgrade at his request that all documents be provided which mention or which are linked to 1995 and which mention Srebrenica, and I wanted you to take a look at those documents. I'd like you to look at them now, perhaps.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could somebody help me here and provide copies for Mr. Seselj?

A. If this is what Mr. Nice provided, I have this. I've saved it. It says here: "The command of the 1st Army report dated 1995," and they were given everything from 1995; is that right?

Q. Yes.

A. The 13th of April, 1999. I have all those documents. I haven't thrown them away.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters please have a reference. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The interpreters are asking for a reference so that they can follow the evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This 03577655, ERN number, your number. And then there are more documents. There are a number of pages. ⁴⁴³⁵⁹

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice can help us with the reference.

MR. NICE: While I'm doing that, just as a matter of practice, the witness said he had saved this document. I don't know if he means saved it on his desk, but of course when documents are provided to witnesses, they are for use in court, and the practice should not be that they take documents away with them, not least because the documents may be sensitive or protected. I don't know whether he meant that and I'm not seeking to sanction him. I'm checking on the practice. Because of course documents shouldn't be taken away from court.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj, I think, understands that.

MR. NICE: Exhibit 916, 916.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Exhibit 916. Thanks, Mr. Nice.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First, Mr. Robinson, nobody told me that I ought to return the documents. I threw the unimportant ones away after my testimony on a daily basis, and the ones that I consider to be more important, I kept them. I wasn't able to carry all the material in my bag. So what is Mr. Nice talking about when talking about sanctions? You know that I become afraid very easily and he's going to instil fear in me straight away. Well, I'm not going to return -- I can't return the documents unless the Trial Chamber instructs me to do so. Nobody can seize them from me unless the Trial Chamber orders me to return them. But it doesn't say that they are protected documents or confidential documents in any way. And had no mark of confidentiality on them except for the markings from Belgrade. ⁴⁴³⁶⁰

JUDGE ROBINSON: You must understand, and I think you understand, you are not to keep the documents. Leave the documents. The documents are in the custody of the Court. So the witness is not to take them away.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Why didn't you tell me that on day one, Mr. Robinson? Nobody told me that, ever. I took the documents away. I threw some away. I made a selection. And you're telling me this now, when everything is over. I really don't understand.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I regret that, Mr. Seselj. You're so learned, I thought you would have known that.

MR. NICE: There's a problem that the witness incidentally publishes large numbers of court documents on his website. Maybe a specific order ought to be made that he is to do nothing further with and to return existing copies he has of exhibits.

JUDGE BONOMY: I can't for the life of me understand why any witness would think he had any right to take anything he was given in court out of court.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Let us -- Mr. Seselj, do you have documents that you have taken out of court? If you have such documents, you must return them.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do have some documents which I took with me and carried around with me from the time that Mr. Nice provided me with them. They are the set of documents with respect to the request made to the authorities in Belgrade for assistance, request for assistance, to be provided with the documents, and what the authorities from Belgrade sent. And that's all I have with me. Other material which ⁴⁴³⁶¹ are photocopies of my books, I generally threw away, although I like one of the photographs a lot and kept that one.

But this is what might be stamped "confidential," but then that should be stated and said. I don't know how long my testimony -- I didn't know how long my testimony would last in respect to each of these documents.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You have heard what I have said. If you have taken court documents, you must return them.

Let us proceed.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Seselj, we're just going to go through this before we move on to the documents. Or rather, let me ask you this: To the best of your knowledge about the situation of our country at the present point in time and the authorities there, can we reasonably assume that everything requested by that opposite side there --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, this is provocatively leading and inappropriate. We are coming to the break, and you will not be allowed to re-examine beyond the break. That's in two minutes, two or three minutes. You're clearly running out of steam.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. I have a lot more material, Mr. Robinson, and I have very concrete, specific questions to ask the witness, which Mr. Nice omitted to ask him.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Seselj, you can see these documents. Here we have a report by the command of the 1st Army, which relates to the 13th of April, 1995. ⁴⁴³⁶²

A. Yes.

Q. Can we see here the state in the border belt, that is, the heading? Can you see that heading? And then we go the border with Romania, the situation on the former -- it says territory, border with Romania, border with Hungary, border with Serbian Krajina, under D, the border with the Republic of Croatia, and E, border with Republika Srpska.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, is there any difference in the treatment of all these borders from the aspects of the military authorities?

A. The treatment of all these borders from the aspects of the military authorities is identical. They are treated in the same way. The borders towards Republika Srpska as indeed the borders towards Romania, Hungary, and other countries.

Q. And what does it say in the last paragraph under E, borders towards Republika Srpska, for example? Read that out to us.

A. "The forces of the Army of Republika Srpska --"

Q. Not that. I meant the last paragraph.

A. I see, the last paragraph. "Activities of the -- intensive activities of the UN alpha monitoring mission were focussed on covering the border crossing with Republika Srpska, monitoring of the Drina River, and the way the SRJ decision, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia decision on closing the border with Republika Srpska were being introduced."

Q. I'm not going to dwell on this any longer, this particular document. So this is the time when there was a monitoring mission there. Please look at the next document now of the command of the 1st Army, dated ⁴⁴³⁶³ the 7th of June, 1995.

A. Yes.

Q. We have here in paragraph 1 a statement to the effect that two tank shells fell in the area of Mali Zvornik. So that's right on the border. And nothing else of any particular significance. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. The most interesting document that Mr. Nice provided here is the document of the command of the 2nd Army, dated the 17th of July, 1995. That is the time when what happened in Srebrenica had already happened.

A. Yes.

Q. Gentlemen, the 2nd Army includes the south-western part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, doesn't have a border towards Romania or Croatia. It has a border towards Albania and Republika Srpska. So you have here the situation in the border area towards Albania and Republika Srpska. So 1.1. The Republic of Albania. It only indicates some smuggling or whatever else is established, so we're going to skip that.

And what is the section about Republika Srpska say?

A. General Bozidar Babic, as Commander of the 2nd Army, tells the General Staff the following: In the former territory of Republika Srpska, in the area of Gorazde, in the second half of May, the situation was getting worse, especially after the withdrawal of UNPROFOR members from the observation posts, which Muslim forces used to take over the facilities south-east from Gorazde, the village of Gornje Kolijevke, the village of Pagani, Samari, feature 586, elevation .586, where they are ⁴⁴³⁶⁴ still located.

In the second half of June, around the Muslim enclaves in Eastern Bosnia, on the foreign territory combat operations were carried out every day. On the 26th of May, 1995, the Muslims from the Zepa enclave, with five to ten soldiers, formed a border post in the area of Zibine, elevation 8939, and Trnovac, elevation 989 on the foreign territory of the border post Jagostica, and from these observation posts they were observing our territory every day."

Q. So this is the army whose area of responsibility includes the entire border area on the banks of the Drina River, to the west are the enclaves of Zepa and Srebrenica.

Mr. Seselj, what did our military organs learn about the situation in the enclaves and what is contained in these documents?

MR. NICE: The witness, I think, told us about his movements in and out of gaol in 1995. He's asked extensively for documents upon which he had relied to give you the generalised and exculpatory account of Srebrenica and said that these documents were, so far as he could see, documents he had never seen before.

So where are we going with this? Is this re-examination on the documents or is this some kind of repeat examination on what he's heard by way of, so he tell us, generalised hearsay for events in Srebrenica? What value can it conceivably be?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is only examination on the documents that Mr. Nice tendered here. So the most authentic document, the document of the command of the 2nd Army, in whose area of ⁴⁴³⁶⁵ responsibility is the border area towards Republika Srpska. And on the other side, are those enclaves. So this document shows what our army knew at that time about those events. And it can be seen that they knew nothing.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But that is in the document. We'll see that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In the document, they write about what they know. The commander of the army informs the General Staff about everything they know from the border area facing Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and so on. So obviously, they did not know about what was going on in Srebrenica except for what is referred to here.

MR. NICE: That seems to be the comment, and the accused is of course missing the point, either intentionally or accidentally, not being a qualified lawyer as advocate, that these documents were presented to show the limit of provision by the authorities in respect of the request for documents relating to the Srebrenica period, and for the purpose of seeing if they were some of the documents upon which this witness had relied. Having had his answers on that second point, it's doubtful whether he can serve any purpose by going through these documents in the way --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I agree. We'll not hear it. It's 25 minutes to 11.00. Mr. Milosevic, I'm going to consult with my colleagues in the break about your re-examination. How many more questions do you have?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I have about ten or so questions left, and I consider them to be most important.

[Trial Chamber deliberates] ⁴⁴³⁶⁶

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we'll sit for another five minutes and then that will be the end of the re-examination. With the indulgence of the interpreters.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know. I can't manage to finish within five minutes, Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I'll not allow you more than five minutes, so please start.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please look at the next document, Mr. Seselj. That is a report on the work of the monitoring mission, the command of the Uzice Corps.

A. Yes.

Q. What does it say here? From the conflict in Eastern Bosnia broke out in the enclaves of Zepa and Srebrenica, Bajina Basta considerably reduced its activity, et cetera, et cetera, and then does it not explain --

JUDGE ROBINSON: This is not useful. We have the document here. We can read it. It's not the purpose of re-examination.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Seselj, what about the next document of the information department of the General Staff that gives information about the current military political and security situation? Does it refer to Zepa and Srebrenica at all or the position of the FRY in relation to that?

A. Yes. In the third paragraph. Even an assessment is provided, according to which the attacks and takeover of Srebrenica and Zepa were measured only in relation to military results, but they had great ⁴⁴³⁶⁷ political damage --

Q. Great political damage, et cetera.

A. Yes.

Q. On the next page, the third paragraph from the bottom, it says something about the position of how right the position of the FRY was to end the war and accept peace initiatives and plans as totally justified and correct, taking into account the interests of all the sides that are involved in the conflict.

Next?

A. Therefore, it is quite understandable that all attempts to involve Yugoslavia in the conflict lead to a catastrophe of the Serbian people.

Q. And on the last page?

THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters please be given time to find it.

A. This is information signed by Slavko Krivosija.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The next one, again of the command of the 2nd Army. The situation towards the Republic of Albania and then towards Republika Srpska. On the 16th of October, 1995. What does it say towards the Republika Srpska?

A. "In the border area --"

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, this is pointless. The re-examination --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- is concluded. We adjourn now for 20 minutes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, Mr. Robinson, I have to put ^{44368 BLANK PAGE 44369} a question to Mr. Seselj in relation to the document provided by Mr. Nice and that has to do with his statement. That is a very important question, a very important one.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Why didn't you put it before?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, because I'm taking a particular order in which I worked, Mr. Robinson. I don't understand why you're limiting me in this way. Mr. Nice spent far more time here quoting paragraph 25 from this document of the Serb Radical Party, in relation to Albanian separatists and so on.

JUDGE ROBINSON: One last question. One last question and then we adjourn.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Seselj, please, take Exhibit 911.

A. What's that?

Q. That is your speech in the parliament, in the Assembly, on the 7th of April, 1992. And Mr. Nice's assertion that that was the cause for expelling Croats. And you explained that not a single Croat was expelled from Serbia, which is correct, but he said that that was the policy that prevailed at that time in Serbia.

A. I don't have the speech in front of me now, but I remember very well that the president of the National Assembly reacted to it, Aleksandar Bakocevic, and that he disassociated himself from the substance of that speech.

Q. I'll give you a copy of the speech. Your speech first and then what the president of the National Assembly said. ⁴⁴³⁷⁰ And while the usher is taking this to you: Is it customary for the president of the National Assembly to make comments on speeches made by MPs?

JUDGE BONOMY: This point was made in the course of the cross-examination. This is where the speaker reprimands or tries to reprimand the witness. And we've got the point already.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Judge Bonomy. I'm terminating the re-examination now, Mr. Milosevic. We'll adjourn now for 20 minutes and then we'll have your next witness.

Thank you for coming to give evidence, Mr. Seselj. The evidence is concluded and you may leave.

[The witness withdrew]

--- Recess taken at 10.44 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.08 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, yes.

MR. NICE: A couple of matters arising from the testimony of the last witness. There was reference to a report served on the accused by the Office of the Prosecutor. We've investigated that, and the name is just one syllable different, not that we would have, I suggest we would have remembered the name even if it had been correctly spelled. It's Svetozar Livada and a statement from that person was taken in fact not by the Milosevic case team or indeed the Seselj case team. I think by another case team, but under the usual cautious steps we take to deal with material that may be Rule 68 in part or whole, it was served on the ⁴⁴³⁷¹ accused in May of this year.

The second point arising from the evidence of this witness: The Chamber asked me last week a question about any duties on Serbia to investigate Srebrenica, and I omitted one point that the Chamber might have wanted to have in mind, and that is that as from the 1993 resolution of the United Nations, which is in evidence, and I'll find the number of it, if necessary, there was a duty on all the parties, and particularly the FRY, to have regard to what was happening or possibly going to happen in Srebrenica. And then the Chamber will probably remember that Jovanovic was asked about and gave evidence about letters that he sent to a number when at the United Nations, in one of which he sought to blame the Bosnians themselves for what had befallen them, a letter I think which he perhaps subsequently disowned or abandoned in part or whole. And in the course of that evidence - again, we can find the detail, if necessary - the Chamber may recall that he explained how he had relied upon information coming from the RS to justify the letters that he sent. So that's the beginning and end stages of another possible process of duty for -- process whereby duty fell on the Serbs to investigate Srebrenica.

Your Honours, before Delic is recalled for re-examination, General Delic, two things about him. First, the Chamber will know from filings that there are applications in respect of documents that he might be able to assist with. Of course, they aren't yet here, if any are going to be ordered. And that's simply a problem that --

[Trial Chamber and legal officer confer] ⁴⁴³⁷²

MR. NICE: Simply a problem that may mean that the Chamber would want to be cautious about saying that he's finished with for good, because he may be the subject of an application for recall. And more specifically worrying or concerning is this: The Chamber will recall that a very large quantity of the material he has sought to produce in evidence was material produced for something called the VJ Commission. And the Chamber will remember, because this is in evidence, that was a body that was abolished almost immediately on the ascension to office of minister of defence by Boris Tadic in the spring of 1993, with comments on the nature of and it may be integrity of that particular body. The Chamber may recall that we were going to make efforts to have before you for the re-examination of this witness the documents held by the authorities into that -- relating to that VJ Commission, dealing both with its creation, and more particularly, with the reason for its ending in the way that it was ended, by then Minister of Defence Tadic. Now, the history is extremely unfortunate. A request, an urgent request, was made on the 6th of July by the Prosecutor herself to the relevant minister, and an earlier response was received to the effect that the documents concerned dealing with that commission were being pulled out and produced on the 7th of July. They were the subject of repeated requests for processing, with various explanations, if explanations is the right word, being given for how documents produced on the 7th of July, limited in number, were not being produced to this Court for its use with a witness who was coming back.

Eventually, last week, the position was made clear that if these ⁴⁴³⁷³ documents weren't available, why, then, of course it might not be possible to conclude with the witness's evidence, i.e., to put it another way, delaying the production of the documents until after he had given his evidence might not, in a sense, dispose of the matter. Finally, and in response to the repeated pressure that's being put on the authorities by us through our local office and otherwise, we were told the documents were provided yesterday afternoon, and they are in the process of being faxed to this Court now. So two and a half months has passed since an urgent request was made and apparently positively responded to by the authorities. And we will have the documents to peruse sometime this morning or this afternoon or tomorrow. We don't know what, if anything, they will provide by way of potentially useful material for the Chamber or what they might provide us if we were minded to seek leave to ask further questions of the witness. It is extremely unfortunate. The Chamber will recall that the VJ Commission documents, the documents the production of which I challenged -- the production of exhibits of which I challenge on the ground on the grounds that they were not contemporaneous, they may of course have been distributed for oblique purposes, the documents going to show the composition of the VJ Commission, instituted as I believe it was by Pavlovic, with other members of the high authorities, either before this Court in other trials or implicated in various ways, being just one of its characteristics. So Your Honours, I'm afraid I would violate the Chamber to be alert to the possibility that although this witness may give some evidence in re-examination today, it may be the case that I will be asking for him ⁴⁴³⁷⁴ to be brought back on a subsequent occasion to deal with VJ Commission documents and/or with other documents that may be produced.

JUDGE ROBINSON: If the Chamber agrees.

MR. NICE: Of course if the Chamber agrees. But, Your Honour, these are serious matters. In relation to the application for documents, the Chamber knows the Prosecution's position on how cooperation has or more particularly not taken effect. It was perfectly apparently that Delic had access one way or another to documents on a far more generous basis than that which is said to be possible in filings with this Chamber. So that's one point. And these are documents, if they are now available and can be produced, that may be central to various of the issues of his evidence. And as to the commission documents themselves, they go absolutely to the issue, challenged from the beginning by the Prosecution of whether his proposed exhibits should be exhibited at all.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I'll bring you up to date with position on commission documents as they come and as we are able to scan them.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness be brought in. Mr. Milosevic.

[The witness entered court]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] For the transcript, I want to object very strongly to your decision to stop the re-examination of witness Vojislav Seselj. It's not the first time you do it. You did the same thing with General Obrad Stevanovic, and now you've done the same thing with Vojislav Seselj. I had an entire series of questions left for him. ⁴⁴³⁷⁵

JUDGE ROBINSON: And I want to make it absolutely clear: I will do it again. I will do it in relation to this witness if you do not use the time of the Court profitably. I'm very upset with you. So if you re-examine in that same manner, your re-examination is going to be terminated.

WITNESS: BOZIDAR DELIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter]

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

Mr. Milosevic, you may -- Mr. Delic is not hearing the translation. Yes. I was saying that you remain subject to the declaration that you made.

And Mr. Milosevic, you may begin the re-examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before I begin my re-examination, Mr. Robinson, regarding the comments made by Mr. Nice prior to this concerning documents received by the authorities in Belgrade, I wish to have an explanation as to whether I have received those documents as well, and will they be the subject of some additional examination by Mr. Nice during this particular stay of the witness in The Hague, or will he be asking to recall him?

JUDGE ROBINSON: The position is that Mr. Nice will make his mind up as to whether he wishes to apply to the Chamber for further cross-examination of the witness. The Chamber will then decide that issue. If the Chamber grants such an application, then, naturally, you would be able to re-examine on that, if re-examination is necessary, and ⁴⁴³⁷⁶ you will then be entitled to see all the documents used in cross-examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Re-examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

Q. [Interpretation] Then to begin with, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that on the 15th of September, that is, at the end of last week, I received a communication from Mr. Nice. It contains, as it says here, witness information provided by Paddy Ashdown on the 24th of August this year. I don't know if the witness is in possession of this information or not. I see him shaking his head, meaning no. It has to do, though, with the part of the testimony of General Delic where he denied that Paddy Ashdown could have physically been able to see the things he claimed to have seen from the place where he was at the time. Since the witness hasn't seen this information --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, do you want to have that document passed to the witness in order to ask a question, or do you want to have it put on the ELMO? What's your position?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I suppose that the document is only in English. If there is a Serbian version, then I would like it passed to the witness. If it hasn't been translated, then perhaps it should be put on the ELMO so that the witness can have read to him the important parts, skipping all the points regarding procedure.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Ms. Dicklich personally provided the accused with a version in B/C/S this morning. ⁴⁴³⁷⁷

JUDGE ROBINSON: You heard that, Mr. Milosevic. You were provided with a B/C/S version by Ms. Dicklich personally. Am I to thank her on your behalf?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You can do that. But I didn't review it in detail, because the front page is the same, and I didn't know that what she gave me was a translation. But obviously we do have a translation now.

Could the witness have this document?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You don't have a copy, do you? All right.

Re-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] That's the statement of Mr. Ashdown. General, could you start reading from the fourth paragraph, because the first three paragraphs are not so important to the questions that I'm going to ask.

JUDGE KWON: If the B/C/S version could be handed over to the witness and put the English version on the ELMO, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Here's the English version. Now I'm left without either.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's an unusual position for you, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, would you kindly read from the Serbian text the last three paragraphs.

A. "In relation to my testimony concerning my observations on ⁴⁴³⁷⁸ Tuesday, 23rd June 1998, from a monitoring point above Gegaj, Kosovo, the grid reference from which these observations were made was approximately 34T DM359982. From this position, I could see the area south of Junik, including the villages of Molic, Brovina and Ponosevac. I could see two roads from here, the road along which Molic, Brovina and Ponosevac are located and a road to the east on which the villages of Novokaz, Berjah and Stubla are located. I saw tanks situated along the latter road shelling the village on the former road.

In relation to my testimony concerning my observations on 27 September 1998, from a position close to Studencane, Kosovo, the grid reference from which these observations were made was approximately 34T DM804898. From this position I could see what I described as the Dolje Blace feature. This feature runs between grid references 34T DM915954 and 34T DM888968.

In relation to my testimony concerning my observations from a position close to the village of Pecani, Kosovo, on 28 September 1998, I estimate the grid reference from which these observations were made to be 34T DM863920. From this position, I testified that I could see the villages of Budakovo which is at grid reference 34T DM945891, Macitevo, Gornji Krusico which is at grid reference 34T DM944902, and Krusico."

Q. Before I start questioning you, General: In the first paragraph, it says the village of Gegaj, Kosovo. Is this village in Kosovo or in Albania?

A. It's in Albania, of course. I have to say one more thing at the outset. In order to be able to answer any question regarding this, I need ⁴⁴³⁷⁹ some time, because grid references indicated here belonged to a totally different system of coordinates, which means I need maps in order to find these elevations on the ground. I could certainly not speak about it today.

Q. General, I received from my associates a review of visibility from various points around Gegaj village on the Orahovac-Suva Reka axis. It was prepared from the experts from the Military Geographic Institute. Could you explain that, because Mr. Nice insisted on this point.

A. Certainly. But I would like --

MR. NICE: I'm not sure where we're being done preparatory to the witness coming to be able to be in a position to give a review of documents that apparently have just fallen into possession of the accused. I invite the Chamber to clarify matters.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think it relates to the issue as to whether Mr. Ashdown was in a position to see what he said he saw.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes. But it's the reference to a whole new series of documents coming from associates, prepared by experts. I can't see the way this can come in in re-examination, and I'm a little concerned about the fact that the witness appears to be already in a position to deal with them. That I don't understand, but maybe I'm missing the point. Of course in re-examination, there's no way he can know about these things in advance.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can certainly speak about anything that has to do with military topography. I can also comment on this document related to Lord Ashdown. But you have to understand that he ^{44380 BLANK PAGE 44381} provided certain coordinates here. I don't have maps here. I don't have the equipment to measure coordinates, and I cannot determine where these points are. That's the only problem. Otherwise, it's not a problem to calculate. It's pure mathematics. Once I make the calculation, I would be able to see those points on the map and express my view as to what Mr. Ashdown was able to see or not. But I need time to transfer these grid references to our system of coordinates, and I need maps.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, it's not clear to me what the question that you're seeking to put relates to. Is it to Paddy Ashdown's statement, the portion of his statement which was put on the ELMO, or is it in relation to a new set of documents that you are seeking to introduce, documents that you received from your associates?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I wish to remind you that we have had testimony by Paddy Ashdown concerning what he was able to see from various observation points. The witness, in his turn, had explained that Mr. Ashdown could not have seen those things from those points. Then we received the additional explanation --

JUDGE ROBINSON: We are familiar with the history. But what is it that you're seeking to do? Are you now seeking to put in documents which you said you received from certain experts?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Those are not new documents. They are just more precise, better documents. And in view of the shortness of time and the fact that Mr. Nice wanted the witness to find something on the map and mark the map, and that it was a very improvised exercise, I had three different pictures of various axes around Junik and ⁴⁴³⁸² the cross-section of the relief on that axis. All that was derived from the relief, from the computer. It was done properly and in a way that shows exactly where these points are. So I want Mr. Delic to look at these maps when we place them on the ELMO, and they were prepared by the military institute. And Mr. --

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... Mr. Milosevic.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, has Mr. Delic already seen these documents?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] These documents?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, the documents which you are now seeking to put.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, he hasn't. I have no capacity to contact Mr. Delic. This is something that my associates obtained from an expert institute. These are 3-D pictures of all these axes indicated in the testimony of Mr. Ashdown, and the additional statements introduced by Mr. Nice. So this is a very precise calculation. Instead of the improvisation we had last time, we have 3-D computer designed picture now.

MR. NICE: My submission, this material shouldn't go forward at this moment.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Why not?

MR. NICE: Because it's expert material that's being produced through a witness in re-examination. How can that help? Let me explain -- let me remind the Chamber of what the position ⁴⁴³⁸³ is. Lord Ashdown gave evidence of what he could see and spoke of his approximate position. He wasn't challenged then on visibility issues at all. Nothing was put to him to suggest that his evidence, which of course had been disclosed in advance in the statements in the usual form, was disprovable on these particular grounds. It may have been challenged in general grounds, but I don't think it was challenged on the grounds of you couldn't see what you said you could see from there. It doesn't matter if it was challenged, because that's the way the evidence left. This witness came, without advance notice to us, of course, and said, Well, from this approximate position you can't see this and you can't see that.

That was then dealt with by our obtaining reactions from Lord Ashdown, in as much detail as we could in the circumstances, through maps, which the witness was invited to mark and which Lord Ashdown and others marked and prepared, for the purposes of cross-examination. The issue was clearly one that might rumble on, and so Lord Ashdown was invited to and did provide a further statement which was served on the accused. There's another statement forthcoming when it's ready - it hasn't yet been finally prepared - which contains -- which has attached to it a video showing what can be seen from the particular grid reference points to which Lord Ashdown refers. And of course, it will be my application that this material can go in in re-examination.

Now, that's -- in rebuttal, I'm so sorry. In rebuttal. So that's the present and prospective evidential position in accordance with the normal rules of court and the normal order of calling evidence. ⁴⁴³⁸⁴ For the accused to be able to put through this witness in re-examination what is apparently expert material of a kind that has not been the subject of any advance notice that an expert report is to be forthcoming and is not to be supported by the witnesses themselves seems to me to be valueless. I can't cross-examine on it. I can do nothing about it.

It's the accused through this witness who has raised this issue by taking by surprise the Prosecution with the assertion that these things simply couldn't be visible from that vantage point, without serving expert evidence in advance. We've reacted to it in various ways but to the limit of our ability and we're now in a position to serve rebuttal evidence. If this accused wishes to add to the evidence on this topic by experts, he should call the experts, and then I can deal with it. I have the expert report in advance, I can see what it shows by way of photographs, videos, grid references, I can make my inquiries and either accept or challenge the answers. Coming in through re-examination, I can do nothing.

MR. KAY: Can I just raise a matter? The Court will recollect the cross-examination in which sketches and topographical drawings were put in by the Prosecutor to the witness, and he was told to deal with them. And he responded accordingly, saying that these landmarks identified by Lord Ashdown could not be seen. So in a sense, the Prosecution have caused this issue to be raised in the trial by the production of documents by them which the Defence is seeking to deal with, and said at the time that they would deal with, by obtaining material from a geographical institute, giving the contours of the land. And that was the suggestion that came ⁴⁴³⁸⁵ from the witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What about the procedural point that Mr. Nice makes in relation to notification for expert evidence?

MR. KAY: The witness is in fact an expert. He's told us that there's probably none better at looking at maps than him, and I think he's taken us through enough maps in the course of his testimony for that foundation to be justified. And he is seeking to deal, through his own evidence, which has been challenged by the Prosecution, of matters that they indeed raised in cross-examination, which doesn't seem to be objectionable. It's probative and relevant. Like many witnesses, he has an expertise in the subject about which he is talking. He's a witness of fact, has been to the area, and happens to have a particular skill which he says justifies his conclusions and the evidence that he has given to the Trial Chamber. It seems unduly onerous to have to go to someone once removed from him to start the process and argument all over again when he is plainly the party who has been challenged by the Prosecution over his evidence and can deal with it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I be allowed to add something here? Please bear in mind the fact that General Delic testified about the events in the area of his responsibility, which is very well known to him, and that these three-dimensional images which I wish to offer relate to parts of the area of responsibility that he was in control of, which he knows well about and which were mentioned by Paddy Ashdown. And the witness explained that Paddy Ashdown could not have seen those places from the points that he was standing at. ⁴⁴³⁸⁶ So we had the insinuations made by Mr. Nice when he asked the witness to draw in pencil where and what could be seen. We now have a three-dimensional image taken off the computer of the terrain that the witness testified about and challenged Paddy Ashdown's testimony. So I do not see why we need an improvisation which, at the request of Mr. Nice, the witness prepared and drew, without looking at a professional, three-dimensional photograph of the lie of the land at each of these individual localities that we're talking about. So how can that do any harm? Something that is more precise be less important from something that is less precise?

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, at first sight, this seems a very pertinent piece of evidence to bring. But it seems to me this isn't the way to do it. The way to do it is to bring the person who did this. Because we've got a dispute between two witnesses. And if you bring a third person in to look at it from a particular point of view, that would be very helpful to the Trial Chamber. But simply to ask this witness about something he had no hand in doing seems to me pretty pointless, and even beyond that, unfair, if it's then not open to the Prosecution to challenge it, because of the way in which it's been presented.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson --

JUDGE KWON: The feature was --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Judge Kwon is speaking.

JUDGE KWON: I remember some picture of topographs which was put ⁴⁴³⁸⁷ to the witness, was prepared by an expert on the part of the Prosecution.

MR. NICE: There were a series of documents that were produced.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: There were a series of documents that were produced. First of all, he was asked to mark a map. He found the first map unacceptable. He was given a range of maps. He eventually marked another map. That, I think, if my recollection is correct, was then made available to Lord Ashdown, and he prepared one chart in hand, looking at the maps himself, and a further chart was prepared by Phil Coo, the military expert who had given evidence on behalf of the Prosecution, again to show lines of sight from estimated positions identified by Lord Ashdown.

I think that's as far as it went. And so that's as far as it goes in the production of expert material. But this, of course, was in cross-examination, which is different from re-examination. And I'm plainly entitled, when an issue is raised like this, to put what would be my case at the next stage, if it's granted, of the calling of evidence. That was not accepted by the witness, and so we've moved on to gather further expert evidence. And it seems to me, with great respect, that what's being planned is simply unhelpful and not going to take us anywhere further unless dealt with properly.

[Trial Chamber deliberates]

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, may I be allowed to say something?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a moment, Mr. Delic. ⁴⁴³⁸⁸

[Trial Chamber deliberates]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, at this stage, we'll take a procedural approach to the issue. The witness has said he's not in a position to deal with Mr. Ashdown's statement. So we'll wait until tomorrow, let him have this evening to look at Paddy Ashdown's statement, and then tomorrow we'll deal with the question of the admissibility of the documents that you are seeking to put in.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, can I ask you to agree to allow me to give the witness this three-dimensional image, because he has Paddy Ashdown's statement, that it be accompanied with this three-dimensional image. They are geographical maps. There's nothing else there, no other explanations except the maps themselves.

JUDGE BONOMY: Is there any reason why that shouldn't be done, Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: No.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. That may be done.

MR. NICE: Presumably, I'll get a copy as well.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just to draw your attention to the fact that apart from the images, there is a table of visibility and audibility, the topographical data, military topographical data of the General Staff of 72 to 79. So the relevant document is that, apart from the photographs, and the photographs are in colour. Here you have them. And I should like to ask my associates to provide a set of those images to Mr. Nice and to you yourselves in the Trial Chamber.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's very gracious of you, Mr. Milosevic. ⁴⁴³⁸⁹ Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But to be absolutely fair to the witness of Mr. Nice's, Mr. Ashdown, I would like this to be placed on the ELMO as well. It is Birmingham Post, September the 2nd, 2005, and a Friday. That's the date. An article appearing in the Birmingham Post, mentioning the fact that Paddy Ashdown was an agent of MI 6. So perhaps Mr. Ashdown --

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is this, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's an article from your own newspapers, an article from your newspaper.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is this relevant to?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's relevant to the fact that Paddy Ashdown, quite obviously, supported the terrorists in Kosovo and Metohija, as indeed today he is supporting all those events in Bosnia-Herzegovina which are to the detriment of the Serb people in Republika Srpska, and is creating them, not only supporting them.

JUDGE BONOMY: While it might not be obvious, I have exhibited a great deal of restraint this morning. I would have brought the re-examination of the last witness to an end earlier than it was brought to an end. And it seems to me this is another obviously blatant attempt to abuse re-examination. And I will be for bringing this one to an end also if the abuse continues.

MR. NICE: I'm grateful for Your Honour's observations. I remind the Chamber that these proceedings are serving oblique purposes by their publication elsewhere. But those are purposes that may have dangerous and ⁴⁴³⁹⁰ serious consequences, and that must be borne in mind, in our respectful submission.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, proceed to another question. Bear in mind my observations earlier about terminating re-examination, as well as the remarks just made by Judge Bonomy.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I would have to bear in mind what Mr. Nice said too, so I can respond to that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, when you testified about air support of NATO planes to KLA terrorists, which were active on the ground, Mr. Robinson was particularly interested in this collaboration between the KLA and NATO. Namely, on page 41978 of the transcript, you will be able to find the following words by Mr. -- uttered by Mr. Robinson. So it is 41978, the transcript page.

"[In English] It really is a question that has fundamental legal implications for the case, because if that is so, the nature of the conflict is changed. You have a group of states whom you say are acting with terrorist forces, and in my view, if you are responding to that attack, that implicates Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and that's why -- that's the importance of that question." [Interpretation] My question to you, General, is this: With the state organs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including the army of Yugoslavia, the Ministry of the Interior, as well as with the population of our country, was there the general view that our army and police were acting in self-defence? Was that the general view that was held by ⁴⁴³⁹¹ these --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you are moving in the same direction as you were this morning. You very well know you cannot ask the witness that kind of question. That's a legal issue.

JUDGE BONOMY: There are two possibilities here: Either you're incapable of conducting this re-examination or you're deliberately abusing the privilege. The first one could be resolved by inviting Mr. Kay to deal with it, and then we might get some sensible questions. And the second one can only be resolved by bringing it to an end.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, very well. I can reformulate the question. The General is testifying --

JUDGE BONOMY: It's pointless to rephrase a question that has been put in those terms. The whole purpose has been destroyed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, then. Mr. Bonomy, would this be a suitable question, if I say -- if I ask whether the state organs, including the army and the Ministry of the Interior and the population, held the general view that there was an aggression being exerted against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's equally impermissible, equally impermissible.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, all right, then. Are you going to tell me this is impermissible too, for me to ask the witness whether the word "aggression" was used in official and unofficial terminology and to what extent, during the aggression exerted by NATO against Yugoslavia? Is that impermissible too? ^{44392 BLANK PAGE 44393}

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the point of that question? What's the point of it?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the point of it is in the fact that in what you describe very well, Mr. Robinson, yourself, that it was a question of a joint effort against Yugoslavia -- an attack against Yugoslavia by the KLA bands in the territory and by NATO itself.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The factual basis for that kind of submission from you on self-defence has already been laid through this witness and others. You can't get anything more from this witness. He can't tell you whether you're acting in self-defence. That's a legal issue. That's a matter for us. It's a matter for you to make submissions on in your address and in the legal brief that you will present. This witness can't help you on that issue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Can the witness help, then, with regard to the following fact: Since he was commander of the units in the area of responsibility in the part of the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia facing Albania, can he testify to military intervention coming from Albania, as well as -- intervention that was carried out by NATO and Albania? Can he answer that question?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. But you should be more specific.

JUDGE BONOMY: Are you saying that that's something that he hasn't already given evidence about?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He has given evidence about many concrete events, many concrete events that corroborate that. I'm asking him about his knowledge in general, about the foreign factors acting in ⁴⁴³⁹⁴ conjunction, that is to say, the Republic of Albania and NATO troops on its territory.

JUDGE BONOMY: In my opinion, that's not appropriate re-examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, in Article 3(G), there is the following definition of "aggression": "[In English] Armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries which carry out act of armed force against another state of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above or a substantial involvement therein."

[Interpretation] So this is a very important question that I am asking General Delic about, and I add the following: From when was this form of aggression applied against the FRY?

MR. NICE: I'm afraid I'm lost, really. I don't know what he's talking about. I don't know how he says it's relevant. And I don't know where the premise is that there was aggression applied against the FRY. Very mysterious to me. It seems to be irrelevant and should be eliminated from the re-examination. The accused should be invited to move on or stop.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, there is merit in that submission. We have evidence on this issue already. These are matters that you have already raised. And it's not appropriate for re-examination. So move on to another issue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, Mr. Nice showed you a letter of General Perisic sent to ⁴⁴³⁹⁵ me. I'm not going to qualify it in terms of whether it's true or not, but what is referred to are certain abuses of the army, illegal command, imposing martial law, et cetera. Could you please explain the rules of service of the army of Yugoslavia that you mentioned in response to these assertions made by Mr. Nice.

If you do not remember exactly what this was about, I can jog your memory. If you do remember, you can say that you remember and you can explain.

A. Yes, yes, I remember. Mr. Nice showed me this letter. And the essence of this letter was that Mr. Perisic believes that the units of the Army of Yugoslavia could not have been used in peacetime without imposing martial law in order to resolve the very difficult situation in the area of Kosovo and Metohija. Even then I referred to the rules of service.

Q. Could you please pause for a moment. Could you explain, General, what the rules of service are.

A. That is one of the basic documents of the army, based on the constitution, on the law on the Army of Yugoslavia, which regulated the entire life and work of the army and how the army would act in different situations. That would be the briefest possible explanation.

Q. Thank you. Please proceed now.

JUDGE BONOMY: Do we know the exhibit number of the rules of service?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is this in evidence, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope it is, but I'll have to check. I cannot say now off the top of my head. I have not brought in ⁴⁴³⁹⁶ that huge bundle of documents that he had in front of him while testifying, so I'll check during the break.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you should know this. This is something that you are putting to the witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What I've put before the witness are the allegations made by Mr. Perisic, and I asked him to comment upon that and to assess how truthful those allegations are.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But I asked you whether the document was in evidence, and you are not in a position to say.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe that it has been admitted into evidence, Mr. Robinson, but as I've said, I'm going to check. I cannot be certain of it.

MR. KAY: Rules of service for security organs of the armed forces of the former Yugoslavia came in through the witness Mustafa Candic, Exhibit 350, tab 2, but it's security organs.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kay. What is the specific question you're putting to the witness?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. My specific question to the witness is whether it was possible to use the units of the army without imposing martial law, in cases of terrorism or securing communications, that is to say, the functioning of normal life on the ground. Because that was the point, that martial law would have to be imposed so that anyone could use the army.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I'll allow the witness to answer that, if he can. ⁴⁴³⁹⁷

A. As for the rules of service, I know that at the request of the OTP, I got my own rules of service out and sent them to the commission for cooperation. So it should be here. When we talked about this, Mr. Nice referred to the exact article in the rules of service pertaining to this question. I can just say that this subject matter is regulated through 470 and 473, specifically, those rules. If necessary, I can read them out. I would like to read Rule 470, only the relevant portion pertaining to this subject matter, as well as 473.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters please have the copy placed on the ELMO.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute, please. The interpreters are asking for a copy to be placed on the ELMO. Would the usher see to that, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am quoting 470: "In addition to their regular tasks, the units and institutions of the army can be used in peacetime for the protection of people and property from natural disasters and other calamities; ensuring public communications and facilities of particular importance for the defence of the country; keeping law and order at big celebrations and parades; struggle against renegades, sabotage, terrorists, and other hostile or enemy armed groups; preventing and eliminating an emergency situation."

So I referred to one subparagraph which is further elaborated in 473. And 473 reads as following: "The units of the army can be used in the struggle against renegades, sabotage, and other hostile groups."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice. ⁴⁴³⁹⁸

MR. NICE: Just to clarify the history. I've been able to find the reference to rules of service, and I did indeed refer to Article 470, and I drew that reference at that stage from the witness's thesis that I had read. And I explained to him that I was reading it -- I was quoting it from his own thesis to him. Now, whether we've got the original rules of service in full as part of Mr. Coo's report, we're checking, and we'll have a result, I hope, by the end of the break.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Milosevic, a question now on the rules. The witness has read the relevant sections.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I haven't finished.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay, then.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He didn't manage to finish the next article, because Mr. Nice interrupted.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]: "i.e., to prevent and eliminate a state of emergency according to the decision of the president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, or rather, the Supreme Defence Council. In order to use the units of the army, in order to carry out the tasks from this article, such an order will be issued by the chief of General Staff. When renegade, terrorist, sabotage and other enemy armed groups attack a unit or institution, the commander --"

THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Milosevic please wait for the interpretation to finish.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the interpreters are asking you to wait for the interpretation to finish; in other words, to observe the ⁴⁴³⁹⁹ pause between answer and question.

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note that the General was reading the text very fast.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, is it correct what General Perisic mentioned in his letter, that the army cannot be used before a state of emergency is proclaimed, or is that not true?

A. That is absolutely not true. And any professional soldier knows that.

Q. Thank you. General, I have the reference here.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, tab 628.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You explained the chain of command of the army of Yugoslavia, the 3rd Army, the Pristina Corps, and your brigade. Could you please explain from that tab the organisational structure of the reinforcements of the Pristina Corps.

A. There is a schematic here of the organisational structure of the Pristina Corps in peacetime and in wartime. You referred to reinforcements, and reinforcements relate only to a state of war. So then I explained only that schematic.

Q. Only that schematic.

A. The corps is headed by its commander. He has his staff that is commanded by his deputy, or rather, the Chief of Staff. It includes the command, the electronic surveillance company, the squad for communication with aircraft. Then there is the next one, the department for information ⁴⁴⁴⁰⁰ and psychological and propaganda activities, headed by his assistant commander for morale. The military orchestra is linked to that, and also another unit that exists only in war.

Then there is the department for security, which is headed by his assistant commander for security, and the 52nd Battalion of the Military Police is directly linked to that.

Then there is the organ for legal matters and to it are linked the military court and the military prosecutor. Then there is a sector for personnel, headed by his assistant commander for personnel, and then there is the organ for logistics.

As for subordinated units, the Pristina Corps had its brigades, namely, the 78th Motorised Brigade. I think it's not necessary for me to read out all its three motorised battalions and --

JUDGE KWON: I think we are looking at page 13 of that document.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Serbian version is page 9. So all the motorised brigades have the same composition, three motorised battalions, an armoured battalion, a howitzer division, 122-millimetres, a mixed anti-armour division, an artillery battalion of the PVO, an engineering battalion, and a logistics battalion. That's the kind of structure that the 125th Motorised Brigade has, my brigade, the 549th Brigade, while the 354th Infantry Brigade has a different structure. Three infantry battalions, the 354th detachment, a howitzer division, a 105 millimetres --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Presiding Judge, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, where are we heading with this? ⁴⁴⁴⁰¹ Where are we going?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll explain it to you very briefly now. I wanted General Delic to explain all the reinforcements of the Pristina Corps. I want to put a question to him: Whether this diagram contains all the reinforcements of the Pristina Corps, that is to say, all reinforcements that could have been present in Kosovo and Metohija. That is the answer I was looking for.

Then I want to ask about statements made by a Prosecution witness, or rather, Mr. Nice's witness, about certain formations that were not contained in this diagram. I wanted the witness to explain that to me. So I want to refute the assertions made by the other side. I didn't want to put a leading question to him, so I asked him to mention all the reinforcements of the Pristina Corps here. However, since you've asked me what I intend to do with that, I have to say what I'm going to do with it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll come to that after the break. We'll break now for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.21 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.48 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: A couple of administrative matters. The photographs provided this morning have no accompanying explanatory statement and are effectively not capable of sensible interpretation, either as to why particular positions have been chosen for apparent lines of sight or what is revealed. And of course, there's no explanation as to who conducted ⁴⁴⁴⁰² the exercise, and so on.

Without prejudice to the fact that I would object to the production of material of this kind through this witness in re-examination, if the accused has an explanatory statement and he wants me to look at it, I will do my best to find the time and the resources to do so this afternoon. But as it is, it's just maps that really we can't deal with as they stand.

The second point, separate from the first, relates to rules of service. No, we don't have the document. It was referred to only in the thesis. The Chamber may recall that the cross-examination in respect of rules of service was to the effect not accepted at full value by this witness, that they were a secret document signed by this accused and issues between the Prosecution and the Defence may in due course include whether these so-called rules of service had any constitutional power when measured against the constitution which limited the authority to use the army other than in a state of emergency or in time of war. So that we don't have them. They haven't been produced by the accused, although they were relied on and referred to by him in evidence in chief. So if he wants them before the Chamber, he's going to have to do something about it, or we may do something about it. But in any event, their constitutional position may be the necessary subject of further evidence.

Finally, the documents I referred to before the witness came in this morning are being looked at at the moment, and I expect that whatever other application I may make, I will want to ask some questions at the ⁴⁴⁴⁰³ very least arising from what I will know of those documents by tomorrow morning, with the Chamber's leave.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Milosevic, can you provide information about the documents that you just passed on before the break by way of explanation? Indeed, that would be helpful and relevant in relation to the issue of admissibility.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The witness says he doesn't know what's on these maps, or rather, Mr. Nice says he doesn't know what's on these maps. Each one of those 3-D presentations has a title. I just gave them to the witness, so I don't have them before me anymore. But on most of those photographs, they were prepared by the military geographical institute. So by professional geographers who were able to make these photographs and who are able indeed to provide a 3-D picture of every part of the terrain. And they can withstand verification by any expert. If Mr. Nice doubts it, he can get additional expertise. Secondly, below every photograph there is a diagram showing differences in altitude and the line drawn by these differences in altitude. And where these lines are interrupted. So we can easily see whether, from that point shown on the photograph, you can see another point.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. We will look at that issue tomorrow.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have another question, ^{44404 BLANK PAGE 44405} Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Nice mentioned some sort of secret document that I signed, allegedly. Since I don't know what that could be, and Mr. Nice seems to know, I would like to have it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is this? What document is this?

MR. NICE: This was explained by cross-examination through the witness to the accused, had he been attending. The rules of service on which this witness has relied for intervention of the army in Kosovo and civilian matters outside a state of emergency or times of war, signed by this accused. The suggestion to the witness that it was a secret document met with a response by him to the effect that it was at the lowest level of secrecy, or whatever it may be, the issue between the parties may be, or an issue between the parties may be whether this document, apparently signed by this accused, but so far not produced by him, although he got the witness to rely on it on several occasions, an issue may be whether it has any constitutional power, given the superior constitutional power of the constitution itself, which says when an army may be used. So the accused knows perfectly well what I'm talking about. If you look at the LiveNote transcript, there are a very large number of questions and answers by him and the witness on this topic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well, Mr. Milosevic. That's the information in relation to that document. Let us proceed with the re-examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I must say, Mr. Robinson, that this information means nothing to me, because I'm not aware of any secret document to which this witness referred to. ⁴⁴⁴⁰⁶

JUDGE ROBINSON: The rules of service document that Mr. Nice is referring to.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The rules of service are not a secret document. They're just marked "not meant for publishing," but they're not a secret to any member of the army of Yugoslavia. It's not a secret document.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, I asked you to describe the composition and the reinforcements of the Pristina Corps, and you were justified in describing only the part of the document that refers to wartime, because only in that situation does the corps have reinforcements. Did you finish?

A. I left off with this organic unit. 15th Armoured Brigade, 243rd Mechanised Brigade, 159th Anti-aircraft Unit, reinforcements, Military Police Battalion of the 1st Army. That's only one company of the military police from a battalion from the 1st Army. 252nd Armoured Brigade from the 1st Army. A Tactical Group, 252, from the 1st Army. That was in fact part of this 252nd Armoured Brigade, one battalion. 1 Motorised Brigade from the 2nd Army, 7th Infantry Brigade from the Nis Corps, which belongs to the 3rd Army, 175th Infantry Brigade from the Nis Corps, and Combat Group 211 from the Nis Corps.

So the units that I just enumerated were reinforcements to the Pristina Corps. Parts from the 1st Army, parts from the 3rd Army, and only one from the 2nd Army.

Q. All right. Nike Peraj, a Prosecution witness, testified here. I ⁴⁴⁴⁰⁷ asked questions about his testimony of other witnesses, but now you. He speaks about paramilitary formations in Kosovo and Metohija and even one brigade from Republika Srpska which he says arrived with tanks. Do you know anything about that? Because that allegedly happened on your territory.

A. That was my zone, and especially Djakovica. You know that I was born there. First of all, it was not possible for any brigade of that kind to be there, especially not from Republika Srpska. I think you asked me about that even last time. Tanks were mentioned, tanks from Republika Srpska. It is simply impossible that any unit outside what I describe right now was present on the territory of the Pristina Corps or the territory of my area of responsibility.

I must say, Nike Peraj is not a professional military officer. He did not graduate from the military academy. His competencies are very limited because he practically didn't finish his higher education. He served for ten years in another area where I worked as a lecturer.

Q. This is an operation that started in October/November 1998, he says, and practically ended in January or February. Since the OSCE mission was on the ground at the time monitoring all activities, and their reports don't reflect anything of the kind, is it possible that this mobilisation operation took place?

A. The OSCE monitoring mission knew everything, down to the last soldier, down to the last weapon, how many troops there were on the ground, including all barracks, all deployment points. So this is absolutely untrue. The first mobilisation happened in February and only ⁴⁴⁴⁰⁸ related to anti-aircraft defence units. So there was no mobilisation prior to February. And even in February, only anti-aircraft defence units were mobilised.

Q. You were familiar with the methods of work of the OSCE mission and you were in contact with them. Would they notice this mobilisation that Peraj refers to or could it have passed unnoticed by them?

A. I was frequently in contact with the head of the Operations Centre 1, Mazovjev [phoen], I think his name was. And six of my officers had the exclusive job of maintaining daily contacts with the mission. If you want me to tell you what it looked like in practice, I will. Every day, in front of my barracks, that has two entrances, at the front and at the rear, there were yellow OSCE vehicles observing the barracks and monitoring all entry and exit. If one vehicle should leave the barracks, that vehicle was followed, to see where it was going. And you can see from all the documents in my tabs that we had the obligation to notify to the mission in advance every departure, every movement, even if it only concerned a soldier who was going on leave. And if you want me, I can find a specific document in one of my tabs to give you an example.

Q. Is it necessary to give a specific example, Mr. Robinson?

JUDGE ROBINSON: No.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] Very well.

Q. This same witness, Peraj, claims in his statement that in the area Djakovica there were over 170 tanks and that there were ten tanks in Djakovica that belonged to your brigade. Is this correct? And if so, why ⁴⁴⁴⁰⁹ so many tanks in the area of Djakovica?

A. In which period, Mr. Milosevic?

Q. During the war, General.

A. My brigade has a total of 31 combat tanks. It's a motorised brigade and has 31 combat tanks. The next one, 125th Brigade, based in Kosovska Mitrovica, had an armoured battalion in Djakovica, and they too had 31 combat tanks. 243rd Mechanised Brigade had about 60 or maybe 63 tanks. And the 15th Armoured Brigade from Pristina had the same amount of tanks. That means that even if we had assembled all the tanks that existed in the Pristina Corps and put them in Djakovica, we wouldn't have the number the witness claims we had.

Secondly, following orders from the command of the corps, three of my tanks had to be placed in the platoon in Duzine village, west of Djakovica. I can show you on the map. And the orders also stipulated that another three tanks had to be in another barracks of my battalion, in Djakovica. That's a total of six. Three tanks from the 125th Brigade were in Ponosevac and three were in Junik. In end 1998, my tanks were pulled back to Prizren, into my combat group. So that at the beginning of the war, the closest of my tanks facing Djakovica were in the area of Kusni Has village. That is south-east of Djakovica, at a distance of 10 to 12 kilometres. So none of them were in the area of Djakovica. To cut a long story short, what this witness says about tanks is pure invention.

Q. He says that --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice is on his feet. ⁴⁴⁴¹⁰

MR. NICE: We're spending quite a lot of time on this. I've been a little bit concerned from the beginning to know how exactly it arises from cross-examination. I'm not sure whether it does or it doesn't. I've always been trying to find out what degree the accused putting up a straw man to knock down, i.e., to what degree what is said about the deployment of tanks is actually different in substance from what the witness Nike Peraj said. I'm not sure that this is proper matter for re-examination, but it's taken a great deal of time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I agree. I'm not sure whether it arises, Mr. Milosevic, but you have spent enough time on it. So move on to another question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] All right.

Q. My next question has to do with mobilisation. The same witness, Peraj, claims that mobilisation was handled for the army of Yugoslavia by a certain person M. The rest is unintelligible.

MR. NICE: To what issue in cross-examination is this next passage of questioning going to relate?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Answer that question, Mr. Milosevic. To what issue in cross-examination does this relate?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice questioned the witness about the forces available to the brigade headed by the witness, commanded by the witness, and that's in relation to this demand made by Mr. Nice. And he was the one who put witness Nike Peraj on the stand to testify in favour of his case, and I think this questioning is absolutely justified. This testimony does relate to the area of responsibility of Mr. Delic. ⁴⁴⁴¹¹ That is not in dispute. And courtesy of my liaison officer, I also have the statement of witness Nike Peraj where all the passages quoted in my questions are contained.

JUDGE BONOMY: Which witness is he talking about?

JUDGE KWON: I remember Mr. Nice put several questions in relation to Mr. Peraj but I'm not sure whether this topic specifically was raised or not.

MR. NICE: Neither am I, Your Honour. My microphone is not working. Neither am I.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well, Mr. Milosevic. Deal with it briefly.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, we were talking about the mobilisation. Could you explain who effected the mobilisation for your unit?

A. For my unit, the mobilisation was carried out by the military department of Prizren and Leskovac. So for part of the reserve force from the territory of the Prizren municipality, Orahovac and Suva Reka, it was done by the Prizren department, with its branch offices in these places. And for the reservists, to replenish the Leskovac municipality Lebane and so on, it was the Leskovac military department which was in charge of that. And the military departments are linked to the military districts. That is common knowledge. And in actual fact, they were within the army system. Nobody from outside could have conducted the mobilisation, not only for the purposes of my own unit, but for any other unit either.

Q. General, did you happen to know General Micunovic who worked in the military department? Do you know why he was arrested at the beginning ⁴⁴⁴¹² of May?

A. Yes, I do know Major Micunovic. He was from Djakovica, the village of Korenica, in fact. I knew him personally. We didn't see each other often. He was the commander of the 53rd Border Battalion at one point and after that he worked in the military department. And during the war, during the war he was the commander of the 113th Military Territorial Detachment from Djakovica. And a company of that detachment was attached to my own brigade. So that I do know him, yes.

Q. Nike Peraj said that Micunovic engaged in impermissible actions or business. Is that true or not?

A. I don't know what you mean. What impermissible business? I don't know anything about that. All I do know is something quite different linked directly to the service and the performance of his duties. I don't know what Nike Peraj had in mind specifically when he said that.

Q. Nike Peraj said that Micunovic was arrested at his paragraph 52 of his statement. He stayed there just three days, and that he heard about the arrest from his brother. He was an army -- soldier in the army of Yugoslavia. And that Micunovic allegedly was released, thanks to the personal intervention of Seselj and Arkan.

A. Well, that's to say the least quite ridiculous. Micunovic was replaced from his duties as commander of the military territorial detachment. I think it was sometime in mid-April. And he was replaced because he did not provide security for the unit. Because he did not invest sufficient effort in seeing that his unit was entrenched in its defence area. And he wasn't arrested, and he was placed at the disposal, ⁴⁴⁴¹³ as far as I can remember, of the forward command post of the Pristina Corps in Djakovica.

Q. Yes. I just wanted to hear that this wasn't correct either, what this witness testified to as before. And this witness says that it left the Djakovica area before the NATO attack and that it planned its operations from Albania?

MR. NICE: I am sure that -- I'm almost certain I asked not a single question about Micunovic of this witness or this part of Peraj's evidence, which comes incidentally, to remind us, in the form of 92 bis statement with cross-examination allowed.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Move on to another topic.

MR. NICE: And the problem really is that at the end of the whole case, if we have large passages of re-examination that should have been led as examination-in-chief and thus signalled for possible cross-examination, but there's been no cross-examination, probably the evidence is valueless because it's never been tested. And this is one of the real problems. Whether we can ever distinguish what is and what isn't properly within re-examination of a particular witness is uncertain, but it would be a huge exercise, in light of the way the accused does it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the re-examination is, of course, as you know, confined to matters arising from cross-examination. Mr. Nice may, in cross-examination, refer to a particular Prosecution witness, but that doesn't let in, in re-examination, all of that witness's evidence. It only would let in that part which was referred to in cross-examination. So let's move on. ⁴⁴⁴¹⁴

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, during the cross-examination, you mentioned direct cooperation between the KLA and NATO, and in addition to your personal experience, you provided certain documents, in tabs, let me see, 620 to 623 inclusive. Is that so? And would you like to add anything on the subject, any other evidence and proof confirming that collaboration?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, this is a matter in which I am interested. During cross-examination, as you say, he mentioned direct cooperation between the KLA and NATO. And you're now asking him for additional -- any additional information he has on that. But to what end? For what purpose? And how does it arise? It's something that has already been dealt with. The witness has already given evidence on it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I will just focus, then, on the question raised by Mr. Bonomy as to whether in this operation, in addition to air support, there was the participation of ground forces belonging to American units.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. What can you say about that, and have you heard of the Atlantic Brigade, so-called?

A. Yes, I do remember that Mr. Bonomy was particularly interested in hearing about, in addition to the air campaign, whether there was any ground campaign afoot. There was direct cooperation, there was direct cooperation and operations on the part of a strong unit, an operative group called Jastreb which had radars for the detection of our artillery, and it was preparing goals for the air force and helicopters and provided ⁴⁴⁴¹⁵ that information to the KLA, and he speaks about that on a number of pages, or rather, Mr. Wesley Clark writes about that. And as far as the unit you mention, the Atlantic Brigade, there's a whole book written about it. It was a unit which was composed of Albanians who were born in America.

Q. So you mean Americans of Albanian descent or origin, is that what you mean?

A. Yes. Albanians who had established that unit in America. In the month of April they arrived, and that's what it says in the book. They arrived in April, on the territory of Albania, that is, where they received all their equipment and weapons. And they participated in this last operation, the Strela, or Arrow Operation. After that, they reached Pristina, and they were demobilised there and then they went back to America. So that is the Atlantic Brigade that is mentioned. It's mentioned in several places. And they had -- they were well armed and they had American --

JUDGE ROBINSON: What was the strength of this unit?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it was about 400 men, 400 men-strong, approximately.

JUDGE BONOMY: Both of the Jastreb Unit and the Atlantic Brigade, you would be unaware of at the time the events were occurring.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter's note Jastreb Unit being Hawk Unit.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as the Atlantic Brigade was concerned, we knew about it. As far as the hawk group, or Jastreb, we ^{44416 BLANK PAGE 44417} didn't know that was its name, but we did know that a unit was in existence which followed our connections and the work of our artillery. So it was a unit with radar to detect artillery. We didn't know that its name was Hawk, the Hawk Operative Group.

JUDGE BONOMY: Where did you engage the Atlantic Brigade?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the Atlantic Brigade, you have it mentioned in a number of places.

JUDGE BONOMY: Where did you encounter them? Where did you engage in combat with them?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was the battle at Mount Pastrik, within the framework of the Arrow Operation, or Strela, in translation, from the 26th of May up until around the 9th of June.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And who were they fighting with? Who were they assisting?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Directly with -- well, they were directly with the KLA, and they were fighting against my unit. That means that that unit was along my axis, on Mount Pastrik.

JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, I'm now confused. I thought this was a unit of 400 people that was identifiable. But are you now saying they're simply mixed with KLA terrorists?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, they weren't mixed with them. They were a unit that was completely separate from the KLA. But they had on one shoulder the American flag and on the other shoulder the KLA insignia. So they were American citizens of Albanian origin. And if you would like me read out to you several sentences written by a member of ⁴⁴⁴¹⁸ that brigade, and he wrote something in his book when he returned to America.

JUDGE BONOMY: I really wanted to know what your personal knowledge of them was, and I thought that's the basis on which you were answering.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, my knowledge is that that unit fought directly against me, against my unit. So Pastrik wasn't an area where I was not; it was where I was. I was constantly in my unit fighting on Mount Pastrik.

JUDGE BONOMY: I thought that's how you were trying to answer, and then when you referred to books -- I'm not really particularly interested in your knowledge gained by books. I'm interested in what I thought you were telling me, which was your own personal experience. And that's why I would rather confine my inquiry to what you personally know. And I understood you to be telling me that.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time, I didn't know how many of them there were. I learnt their numbers from reading the book.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Delic, did you say that they participated under the American flag in the Arrow Operation from the 26th of May to the 9th of June? Is that what you said a moment ago?

A. Yes. They took part under the American flag and they had the American flag on their uniforms.

Q. And that operation stood from the 26th of May, 1999; is that ⁴⁴⁴¹⁹ right?

A. Yes. From the 26th of May until the 9th of June, to the end. But the intensity of the fighting after the 5th of June abated. The worst battles went on on the 27th, 28th, and 29th of May, as well as the 30th and 31st, right up until somewhere around the 5th of June.

Q. All right. And what depth had they reached in our territory?

A. Well, in view of the fact that it was a surprise attack on their part, they managed to penetrate to within a depth of one kilometre, along one axis, perhaps a little more than a kilometre in some areas. In other areas it was just 500 metres in depth. But after two days, we managed to push them out, all these forces, outside, we pushed them out of our territory.

Q. Thank you, General.

A. Jamie Shea spoke about that, about those battles and that fighting, and that in the course of one day, for instance, one whole battalion was destroyed, numbering about 800 soldiers, and that the KLA forces had succeeded in arriving at the immediate vicinity of Prizren, to the left banks of the Dim [phoen] River.

Q. And that wasn't true, was it? It wasn't correct?

A. No, none of that was correct.

Q. Thank you, General. Now, General, Mr. Nice, on several occasions, asked questions linked to --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: Again, this re-examination has got to be looked at, I think, quite carefully. The accused asked the witness a question about ⁴⁴⁴²⁰ direct cooperation between the KLA and NATO, and asked -- then there was a question as to whether that was the right way to deal with it. And then he asked a question -- yes. He asked a question using the words "Atlantic Brigade." And then we've had the following answer. Now, it may be the effect, it may even be the purpose, to show that there was a connection between the Atlantic Brigade and NATO. This matter hasn't been explored earlier, and I'm not sure that there is thus from the witness any evidence as to that connection. I'm not taking a technical point. I just want to know what he says, if he's got it, the evidence of that connection is as opposed to the Atlantic Brigade being, as it may be, expatriates choosing to fight or be involved in the Albanian cause. So at the moment I'm unclear as to what he's saying.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll have to make of the evidence what we will.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May be you allowed to --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think we must move on. Do you want to clarify something?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to read three sentences out in order to clarify something. May I be allowed to read out three sentences?

Mr. Clark writes about the struggles against my unit and he does so over 50 pages. And all I want to do is read one excerpt. It says: "On Monday morning we started receiving information to which the KLA was resisting Pastrik."

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please slow down.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Did you hear that, Mr. Delic? The interpreters ⁴⁴⁴²¹ are asking you to slow down.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]: "At 1.00, please report to me of what you will do to help the KLA to retain the peak of the mountain, that we must not lose control of the mountain. We will not -- we don't want to have Serbs on top of that mountain. We will have to pay with American blood for the top of that mountain if we fail to help the KLA now to retain control of it. That is my priority, my number one priority." And in another place, a little lower down, he says the following: "Wake some people up and get permission for us to ruse cluster bombs and help Michael Short to get B51 planes for the battle against Pastrik."

And he goes back in many places, Mr. Clark does, to that section and that topic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What page is that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was page 371 of Wesley Clark's book "Modern Warfare."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one objection in relation to what Mr. Nice said. He explained that the witness was talking about Albanian emigrants. If American citizens were to be treated that way, then everybody would be somebody's emigrant. The witness spoke very clearly here about American citizens who fought under the US flag and broke into the territory during this operation that started on the 26th of May, 1999. Very specifically.

May I proceed, Mr. Robinson? ⁴⁴⁴²²

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, the case of the accused consistently has been of assistance from NATO to the KLA. You dispute that?

MR. NICE: I want to know exactly what's being said in relation to a topic like this, in order that I can either concede it or indicate that it's not conceded. So when the -- when we hear about the Atlantic Brigade for the first time in re-examination with this detail, or the Jastreb Brigade, I'm not in a position to make a comment until I know the detail of what's being suggested. My initial understanding, but I'm prepared to review the position, is that this is expatriates in America --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I wasn't referring to that. The passage from Mr. Clark's book.

MR. NICE: The passage -- again, I shall have to have a review of that in detail and see what its content is.

JUDGE ROBINSON: "You will have to pay with American blood," that content, "if we fail to help the --

MR. NICE: You see, again --

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- KLA."

MR. NICE: Yeah. The accused summarises what the witness has said. He may be right, but I'm just trying to find it, that this witness has said something very clearly about --

JUDGE BONOMY: I've looked -- I think that was prompted. The witness said that they were wearing American flags on their shoulder, but then the accused put it to him that he had said they were fighting under the American flag, which I don't think he had said at that stage.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I'm not concerned -- I'm only concerned ⁴⁴⁴²³ when these issues are raised to ensure that there's a fair and accurate record of the evidence that the witness is trying to give, as opposed to things that are led to him by the accused, so that I can react to them. I'm certainly not remotely interested in obscuring any involvement of NATO or any other country, because we have no interest in that, obviously. But I just need to know the detail first. I will try overnight and discover whether I'm in a position to say something positive one way or another about the assertions that have been made, but it did not seem to me the witness had said that which the accused had said about United States citizens.

Thank you.

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

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I hope that Mr. Nice is not challenging the fact that Wesley Clark wrote what the witness quoted just now and he's not challenging the fact that Wesley Clark fought under the US flag.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General --

A. May I just show a photograph, please, of the members of that brigade? And may I just read two sentences out?

Q. All right. Place it on the ELMO, please.

A. It's in the English language, what is written here, showing people on the terrain and also how they were sent away from America. On the first picture, we see the effect. One of the members of that brigade, ⁴⁴⁴²⁴ whose name is Florim Jaqici [phoen], is showing the effect of the special weapons that were brought from America, 20-millimetre sniper rifles. On the second picture, Linda Muriqi Florim, Liqi [phoen] and Florim's mother in front of, et cetera, et cetera, before the send-off. And you see the caps there too.

Third picture, two Atlantic Brigade volunteers posing with the American .50-calibre sniper rifles in northern Albania. That is --

Q. Spring 1999?

A. Spring 1999. And another thing I wanted to read from here. It says: "We left New York on the 17th of April and arrived to Durres in Albania, where we got special camouflage uniforms with KLA insignia and the American flag on the sleeves. We were taken on buses to the KLA camp, which was far in the north of Albania, where we had intensive training for several weeks. The instructors were specialists from Holland, Britain, Israel, and Norway.

"On the 26th of May, the Atlantic Brigade was called into action and took part in an offensive which later on proved to be a turning-point in the war. Arrow was the code-name for the operation. Was the first offensive against the Yugoslav forces, carried out in coordination between the US forces and NATO."

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction. KLA and NATO.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The text was published in the New York Post on the 24th of June, 1999, and it is entitled "Struggle Against Local Soldiers Who Were Prevalent." This is a copy from the book, and that is in English. The Atlantic Brigade is the name of the book. ⁴⁴⁴²⁵

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Next question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. We have very little time left today, so then only a few very brief questions. The rest I will have to leave for tomorrow. General, Mr. Nice put several questions to you related to your final paper at the National Defence School. When did you attend that school?

A. I attended the National Defence School from the 2nd of September, 1996 until the 27th of July, 1997.

Q. How was it decided that you would deal with that topic that you actually dealt with, since he asked you about certain theses contained in your paper?

A. I haven't got my paper here, but it was the administration of the school that gave me the topic. Bosko Antic, who was then a colonel and later an admiral, was the person who signed the decision stating that I would deal with that subject.

Q. Did you have a mentor when you worked on that paper of yours? And who was that mentor?

A. Yes. My mentor was one of the best generals at the time, the generals of the Army of Yugoslavia, Major General Vukadinovic, Momir. At that time he was Chief of Staff of the Pristina Corps. After that he was commander of the Belgrade Corps and later the Chief of Staff of the 1st Army.

Q. Tell me: How was your paper received, and who graded the paper in the School of National Defence? ⁴⁴⁴²⁶

A. All papers in the school are graded by a commission, consisting of professors from the School of National Defence. The chairman of the commission that graded my paper was Colonel Petrovic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Nice particularly highlighted the position from General Delic's paper, that the high birth rate of Albanians in Kosovo was politically motivated. So I wanted to ask him where he received information of that kind, and it also has to do with how he dealt with the subject, what the commission was, who gives him this subject to deal with, and so on.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The chairman of the commission was Colonel Petrovic, and the mark was an excellent one. So that was the grade I received.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now please answer the question that I put earlier on when explaining this to Mr. Robinson in response to his question. Since Mr. Nice particularly emphasised the position upheld in your paper, that is to say, that the high birth rate among Albanians in Kosovo was politically motivated. Where did you get this information and what can you tell us about this?

A. All this information was obtained from relevant scholarly work. If you looked at my paper, you will see that I used between 60 to 70 scientific papers when writing my paper. I used the statistical yearbook of Serbia, then also Professor Dr. Macura. ⁴⁴⁴²⁷

Q. That's our best-known demographer and a member of the Academy of Sciences and Arts, Macura.

A. Yes. So it's not that I came to that conclusion that there was a high birth rate. If there were to be the same kind of high birth rate in Albania, then we could say that I could agree with what Mr. Nice said. But the same people, the same ethnic group, lives in Albania too, and their birth rate is many times lower. It is more or less at the level that prevails in other neighbouring countries. But in Kosovo it's extremely high.

So I took all of that from the relevant material. Also I had the following information: In order to double the population of Kosovo and Metohija, 29.5 years were needed, that is to say, the Albanian population. And in order to double the Serbian population, 675 years would be required. I'm not sure whether it's 675 years exactly, but at any rate, it's over 600 years. I refer to that in my paper. The basis of my work concerning anti-terrorist fighting is an American rule and their doctrine of low-intensity conflicts. It's an American rule, FM-100-5. And I used another American rule. It's written in the bibliography of my paper. I think it's FM-19-30, and it has to do with civil unrest. That's what it's called. So I used that. And I used experience from Israel too. But it was FM-100-5 that was the basis.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we are at the end of the day's hearing. We'll adjourn and resume tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.

MR. KAY: Your Honour, before we go, it's just a clearing up exercise in which I'm helped by Ms. Dicklich concerning three tabs of the ⁴⁴⁴²⁸ Seselj exhibits, tabs 9, 11, and 29, which were referred to but weren't formally on the record made exhibits. I don't know whether the Trial Chamber wanted to go and consider the matter. 9 and 11 concern the issue of Stane Dolanc, and 29 was a Srebrenica statement concerning the Pauk group.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. We'll look into that. Thank you, Mr. Kay.

We'll adjourn and resume tomorrow morning at 9.00 a.m.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, please, in order to be able to carry out this task that I've been given, I need some A-3 and A-4 paper, a ruler, and magic markers, if possible, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The Court deputy will see to that. Thank you.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 21st day of

September, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.