DR. MIHAJLOVIC CONCLUDES HIS TESTIMONY, AND THE TRIAL ADJOURNS FOR THREE WEEKS
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - December 17, 2004

Written by: Andy Wilcoxson

In the tribunal’s final day before the three week Christmas adjournment. Dr. Kosta Mihajlovic concluded his expert testimony at the trial of Slobodan Milosevic.

Dr. Mihajlovic, one of the authors of the 1986 draft memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, testified that the memorandum was written as a warning to the Serbian leadership and that it was not intended to be a public document.

Mihajlovic said that the Memorandum was intended to wake up the Serbian political leadership, who he said was unaware of the magnitude of the crisis the country was in. The memorandum was not a plan for “Greater Serbia,” according to the witness.

Dr. Mihajlovic corroborated the testimony of Mihajlo Markovic, who also co-authored the memorandum. Both men have testified that the publication of the memorandum was not authorized. Mihajlovic claimed that it was leaked to the press in 1986 after being sent to Professor Jovan Djordjevic for comments.

In spite of the fact that the Academy of Arts and Sciences did not publish the document or authorize its release, it was used as a pretext for attacks on the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences.

According to Dr. Mihajlovic, the attacks were unjustified because the memorandum was only a warning that measures should be taken. Mihajlovic claims that the document merely “insists on the political and economic equality for Serbia and nothing more than that.”

In the cross-examination, Mr. Nice tried to challenge Mihajlovic’s version of events. Nice alleged that there was a conspiracy to release the document. Mihajlovic denied the prosecutor's claims and insisted that the Memorandum “found itself in the public domain by accident, contrary to the wishes of its authors.”

The Prosecutor unsuccessfully sought Mihajlovic's agreement that Milosevic implemented policies because of the memorandum. Mihajlovic did not believe that the memorandum particularly influenced Milosevic.

Mr. Nice spent a good portion of his cross-examination wasting time reading out passages from meetings that the witness was not present at, or could not remember.

Mihajlovic was, however, present at the Karadjordjevo meeting between Milosevic and Tudjman. The prosecution claims that the two leaders entered into a conspiracy to carve up Bosnia between Serbia and Croatia at this meeting. Both Tudjman and Milosevic are on record denying this, and Dr. Mihajlovic also denied that this was the case. He said that the meeting was held in relation to the crisis that the Krajina Serbs were facing, not to plan some sort of division of Bosnia.

Nice tried to put to Dr. Mihajlovic that it had already been proven that there was an agreement between Milosevic and Tudjman to carve-up Bosnia. One of the witnesses that Nice mentioned was Tudjman’s Cabinet Chief, Hrvoje Sarinic.

Nice’s claim that Sarinic had testified to an agreement between Milosevic and Tudjman to carve-up Bosnia is simply untrue. The prosecutor is putting words into the mouth of his own witness.

Sarinic’s testimony was that the Karadjordjevo meeting concerned Krajina. He did not even hear the word Bosnia mentioned at the meeting. He said that Tudjman mentioned Bosnia later on, but that there was no agreement with Milosevic to carve-up Bosnia.

Mr. Nice was simply inventing “evidence” in order to throw-off the witness, and mislead the court. This is rapidly becoming a standard practice for the prosecution. Yesterday it was the so-called “Greater Serbia” map, today it was Sarinic’s testimony concerning Karadjordjevo, and these aren’t the only examples. Mr. Nice’s conduct is simply malicious. If he were practicing law in a real court he would be subject to criminal prosecution.

With the conclusion of Dr. Mihajlovic’s testimony, the trial adjourned for the Christmas break. It will resume again on January 11, 2005.
 

# # #