1 Monday, 6 June 2011
2 [Rule 77 Hearing]
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.33 p.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours.
7 This is case number IT-03-67-R77.3-T, the Prosecutor versus
8 Vojislav Seselj.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Before I call for the appearances, I note for the record that we
11 sit under Rule 15 bis this afternoon, Judge Kwon being absent.
12 Yes. May we have the appearances, please.
13 MR. MacFARLANE: Thank you, Your Honours.
14 I'm Bruce MacFarlane, an attorney from Canada, and have been
15 appointed as the amicus curiae to prosecute the case. And with me this
16 afternoon and throughout these proceedings is Lori Ann Wanlin, also an
17 attorney from Canada.
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
19 And, Mr. Seselj, you --
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My name is Dr. Vojislav Seselj, a
22 university professor, and the principal enemy of The Hague Tribunal.
23 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Dr. Seselj. So noted.
24 Before we begin, can we go into private session. There is a
25 ruling the Chamber has to deliver.
1 [Private session]
11 Pages 138-141 redacted. Private session.
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. I have a question. I
5 asked you a minute ago if I may put the question.
6 JUDGE HALL: Please go ahead.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Judge, I would kindly ask you
8 to note that I had not asked for any protective measures to be granted.
9 Three years ago, I gave a statement which was verified by this
10 Court. There are other documents as well that contain my full name, my
11 address. And by virtue of this document, my name is now in the public
12 domain. I don't know why I should be now testifying under protective
13 measures, because everybody knows my first and last name. I don't see
14 any reason for that. So I disclosed this when I testified first.
15 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
16 Your observations have been noted, sir. And as I would have
17 explained to Mr. Seselj, who has called you as a witness, before you came
18 into the court, it is not for us to remove those -- rescind those
19 protective measures. They have been granted by another Trial Chamber in
20 other proceedings, and it is entirely possible that those protective
21 measures could be removed, but it would have to be done by the Chamber
22 who imposed it. Only that Chamber, at this point, is competent to
23 rescind those measures.
24 Before I invite Mr. Seselj to begin, I would point out - and you
25 having testified previously before the Tribunal, would be familiar with
1 the procedure - that the side calling you, in this case Mr. Seselj, would
2 begin by asking you questions, and after which Mr. MacFarlane, who is to
3 your left, would be -- sorry, to your right, who appears as the
4 Amicus Prosecutor in this matter, would have an opportunity to
5 cross-examine you. And the Judges may have questions for you at any
7 And with that, I would invite Mr. Seselj to begin.
8 Examination by Mr. Seselj:
9 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Mr. DS-1 - I have to address you in that way, completely contrary
11 to my will - can you tell me what is your profession?
12 A. I am a policeman.
13 Q. Did you work for the police during the war from 1991 to 1995?
14 A. Yes, I did.
15 Q. Were you ever a member of the Serbian Chetnik Movement or the
16 Serbian Radical Party?
17 A. I was a sympathiser of the Chetnik -- Serbian Chetnik Movement,
18 because it wasn't registered at the time. Later, I organised some of my
19 units. From the end of 1991 until the end of 1993, I was a member of the
20 Serbian Radical Party.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note: Could the speakers please
22 pause between questions and answers. Interpreters cannot cope at this
24 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Seselj and Mr. Witness, I would ask you to bear
25 in mind that what you say has to be interpreted. So in addition to
1 pacing yourselves so that the interpreters can keep up, allow a gap
2 between the question and the witness's attempt to answer.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
5 Q. You said that from 1991, autumn of 1991, until autumn of 1993,
6 you were a member of the Serbian Radical Party?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. During that period, did you have any position in the
9 Serbian Radical Party?
10 A. No.
11 Q. None?
12 A. No.
13 Q. And then in the autumn of 1993, why did you leave the
14 Serbian Radical Party?
15 A. I was expelled from the Radical Serbian Party in 1993.
16 Mr. Subotic wrote a letter to the leadership of the Serbian Radical
17 Party, accusing me of carrying grenades around Srebrenica, which is
18 absolutely untrue because that is something I never did.
19 Q. Now, let us distinguish two things. There was one accusation,
20 that you were walking around the town wearing a grenade at your belt?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And that was the reason for your expulsion from the party?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. But now you said that that wasn't true, that you didn't carry
25 this grenade, and that you were expelled for no reasons at all?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, let us leave aside the grounds of your expulsion, whether
3 they were justified or not.
4 JUDGE HALL: Please slow down so the interpreters can keep up
5 with you.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Hall, I thought that I slowed
7 down, but I will slow down even further.
8 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
9 Q. So we made the distinction between these two things, the reasons
10 for your expulsion and what you claim, that that was completely unfounded
11 because it was untrue and there was no reason for your expulsion. Do you
12 know that you can file a request for reconsideration of this decision
13 whenever you wish to do so?
14 A. I didn't do so.
15 Q. You were not interested in doing that?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Now, this decision about your expulsion, based on the accusation
18 that you walked around the town with a grenade at your belt, demonstrates
19 that the Serbian Radical Party was against the practice of its members
20 carrying any kind of weapons when in town?
21 A. Yes, that's correct. At the time, I worked as a policeman, and I
22 am familiar with the situation. I never saw a single member of the
23 Radical Party carrying a gun, a grenade, or any kind of weapon.
24 Q. Did you take part in the war in the former federal unit of
25 Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina?
1 A. Yes, I did.
2 Q. Did you ever go there as a volunteer of the
3 Serbian Radical Party?
4 A. Once.
5 Q. Where did you go?
6 A. To Skelani.
7 Q. Skelani, on the Drina?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. That's near Bajina Basta, if I remember correctly.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. On the other bank of the Drina River?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Where else did you go to the front not as a member of the
14 Serbian Radical Party?
15 A. I went to Slavonia and Bosnia on several occasions. I was in
16 contact with TO people, and wherever humanitarian need was required, that
17 was what we provided.
18 Q. How many times did you go to the front without the mediation of
19 the Serbian Radical Party?
20 A. Four or five times.
21 Q. This one time when you went in the organisation of the
22 Serbian Radical Party, where did you set off from?
23 A. From Belgrade.
24 Q. Do you remember where from?
25 A. I think that we reported at the Serbian Radical Party offices in
1 Ohridska Street.
2 Q. Was that the headquarters of the party?
3 A. I believe so.
4 Q. Did you see me then, on that occasion?
5 A. No.
6 Q. And where did you go after that?
7 A. We boarded civilian buses, and we went to Bubanj Potok, where we
8 were met by officers of the regular army, who gave us identical clothes.
9 Q. Could you explain to the Trial Chamber what Bubanj Potok is?
10 A. It's a military facility for training.
11 Q. Is it a barracks?
12 A. No, it's not a barracks.
13 Q. What is it, then?
14 A. It's a training exercise ground.
15 JUDGE HALL: May I have a moment, please.
16 We have the pseudonym sheet to which I referred prepared, which I
17 would invite the Usher to pass to the witness, and he can sign it if he
18 is satisfied that its accurate.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Judge, it is my first and last
20 name. But this "DS-1," do I have to sign that?
21 JUDGE HALL: That is the pseudonym that has been assigned to you.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Why?
23 JUDGE HALL: If you're satisfied with the date of birth and your
24 name, you may sign it.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do I have to sign it?
1 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Witness, I suggest you sign, not to waste more time.
3 A. I apologise for wasting time.
4 Q. The most important thing here for myself and the Judges is your
5 testimony here.
6 A. Yes, but this "DS-1," well ...
7 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, sir.
8 Show it to counsel.
9 So that should be entered as an exhibit and marked accordingly.
10 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit D1, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
12 Please continue, Mr. Seselj.
13 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Now, let's round off this introductory portion of the
15 examination. Answer this, please: During the war from 1991 to 1995, did
16 you ever meet me anywhere?
17 A. This is the first time that I see you close up.
18 Q. The first time in your life that you see me in person?
19 A. Yes. In this way, yes.
20 Q. Thank you. Tell me, when did you have the first contacts with
21 the representatives of The Hague OTP?
22 A. The first contact was in 2002, when Mrs. Natasa Kandic or - how
23 shall I call her? - she came to where I lived, the place I lived, and
24 asked me if I was so and so, and whether I had been to the war, and
25 whether I'd heard about you, and whether I'd heard about Milosevic, the
1 late president, and then she gave me -- well, actually, she threatened me
2 and said that an indictment would be raised against me at this Tribunal
3 if I failed to contact the investigators of The Hague Tribunal,
4 co-operate with them.
5 Q. And when did you have this contact with the investigators?
6 A. Soon after that, a man came to see me with a jeep, and he had
7 diplomatic number plates. I remember that. He introduced himself as
8 Paolo Pastore, and he took me to a location in Novi Sad, to an office
9 there of a lady lawyer, Olivera Franicevic was her name - and he
10 questioned me with regard to the battle-field and he wrote this down on
11 his laptop, and said -- and what is it he wanted to know?
12 Q. What else did he tell you?
13 A. He said that if I failed to testify in The Hague, that a criminal
14 report would be raised against me.
15 Q. Who were you asked to testify against in The Hague?
16 A. Against you.
17 Q. Only against me?
18 A. And against Slobodan Milosevic.
19 Q. I see. Now, could you explain what these threats involved? What
20 were they like?
21 A. Yes. But let me say that a few months before that, I had a very
22 serious operation, and half my abdomen was cut out, so I was in a very
23 poor state indeed. But, anyway, he said that they had all the proof they
24 needed against me or all the evidence against me, saying that I had
25 committed crimes on the territory of the Republic of Croatia and Bosnia
1 and Herzegovina that I know nothing about. And in the health state that
2 I was in, I accepted. I didn't know what else to do. I had nobody to
3 discuss this with, the authorities being what they were, so I agreed.
4 They were DOS authorities, so I agreed.
5 Q. Did you sign a statement of any kind?
6 A. Not at that particular moment, no.
7 Q. And when did you sign the statement?
8 A. They called me to come to Belgrade, and I was there for three
9 days afterwards, at the offices of The Hague Tribunal - I think that's
10 what they were - and for three days they wrote statements, because he
11 dictated. He said it wasn't essential for me to say that I had heard
12 anything. I heard things via television, the information media and in
13 the newspapers. What was important for him was that I should say that I
14 had seen it all, seen what he was writing and dictating.
15 Q. Well, can you tell us specifically what these events were,
16 whether they were real events or constructed events?
17 A. Well, specifically, I can give you the example of one particular
18 situation, and that was the sole time that I went to Skelani in the
19 Serbian Radical Party. He said, well, that you had issued some orders
20 that the Muslims and children in their cradles should be killed, that
21 everybody should be slaughtered, and that there were some police generals
22 there and things like that.
23 Q. When you went to Skelani, to the battle-front, was it your task
24 to protect the dam there?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. The dam on the Drina River?
2 A. Yes, that's right.
3 Q. Well, did you tell this man, Stocchi, how can I say that was the
4 order when there were no Muslims living there?
5 A. Well, of course I told him that, and the second instance was when
6 he mentioned the Catholic cathedral in Subotica, that it was mined.
7 Q. Well, was that in the statement, that I mined the cathedral or my
9 A. Yes, Mr. Paolo wrote that, although I didn't say that.
10 Q. Did it say that it was blown up?
11 A. Yes, that's what he wrote down. He said pursuant to your orders,
12 and that was the dictation he gave, that pursuant to your orders, members
13 of the Serbian Radical Party mined the Subotica cathedral, and I remember
14 that very well. However, I worked in the police force myself, and I
15 passed by the cathedral on a daily basis -- and the individual who did
16 that was not a Serb, to begin with. The cathedral was not mined. I
17 don't know if the doors were damaged, but that's all.
18 Q. Can you remember the Muslim who damaged the cathedral --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers kindly slow down and pause
20 between question and answer. Thank you.
21 JUDGE HALL: The interpreters are reminding you to slow down and
22 pause between question and answer.
23 Yes, Mr. MacFarlane.
24 MR. MacFARLANE: Thank you.
25 If I might intervene at this stage. I've not intervened at this
1 point because I recognised that the accused was leading through some
2 introductory materials. But it appears that he's now moving in another
3 direction. My concern is that I fail to see the relevance of the
4 evidence, in terms of the order in lieu of indictment. The factual
5 issues, the issues in this case, are not being touched at all by this
6 witness. And if the accused wishes to quickly move into areas that are
7 directly relevant to the order in lieu of indictment, that's fine, but
8 we're way off on the side, on an off-ramp.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. MacFarlane.
10 Mr. Seselj, I don't think that I could improve on the language
11 that Mr. MacFarlane has just used. So bearing in mind what this trial is
12 concerned with, could you confine the evidence that you are leading to
13 the issues in this.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Hall, I assume you have been
15 informed that I had planned 60 minutes for this witness. We've already
16 been talking for 10 minutes, and we're still on the introduction. Now,
17 for us to get through the basic subject of this trial exhaustively, you
18 have to be aware of the general circumstances. I did not dwell on
19 details. What I'm trying to do is to have a dialogue with this witness
20 and to paint a picture of the general circumstances to you, which are
21 extremely important; why, for example, it was so important for me to see
22 that the statement provided to me by this witness be made public, with
23 his agreement, of course. I think you ought to know all that so that you
24 can rule correctly in this case. Otherwise, there would be no need of
25 holding this trial at all. You could make your judgement and sentence on
1 the basis of general information. But I am getting to the crux of the
2 matter, but I do need to receive a bit more information.
3 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
4 Q. When you had this talk with -- this interview with Stocchi, how
5 did you feel?
6 A. Well, as I say, I was a sick man and I was under threat; the DOS
7 power and authority. I couldn't feel well.
8 Q. Did they offer you residence in a third country if you accepted
9 to testify?
10 A. Yes, of course, that I should confirm everything we'd agreed
11 upon, and if I did that, I would be taken to third countries.
12 Q. Did they accept that?
13 A. Yes, they did.
14 Q. And where were you?
10 Q. What was your testimony like in the Milosevic trial?
11 A. Well, it was like this: I was there. We had a month's
12 preparation, roughly speaking, telling me what I was to say in court.
13 And the agreement was that I should look at the Judge, Judge May, I think
14 his name was, and to the right of me we had Mr. Daniel Saxon, who gave me
15 signals. So sometimes I had to look to my right. And then if I wasn't
16 saying something that they expected me to say, they would interrupt the
18 Q. Well, did you testify truthfully in that trial?
19 A. No, I testified what had been written, so I testified falsely.
20 Q. Falsely? Were you forced to testify falsely?
21 A. Yes, I was forced to testify falsely.
22 MR. MacFARLANE: Your Honours, we haven't improved at all, and
23 now we're into testimony in another trial almost 10 years ago, with
24 allegations of signals from the Prosecutor. I really don't know where
25 this is going.
1 The issues for this case are clear, and they relate to protective
2 measures, and breaches of those protective measures, and a book that was
3 published. I urge the Chamber to direct the accused to ensure that his
4 questions and the answers are directed to those issues.
5 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Witness, you wanted to say something?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Judge.
7 Now that the gentleman said - I forget his name - said what he
8 just said, let me tell you one thing, something else that came prior to
10 First of all, I was treated here, and it was not suitable
11 treatment. They took me to a doctor who heard that I was a Serb and
12 didn't want to treat me, provide me with medical treatment. So under
13 threats from Daniel Saxon, Paolo Pastore Stocchi,
14 Ms. Hilary [as interpreted] and Richard Nice. The second time, they
15 pulled my teeth out here in The Hague and gave me Valium, and then they
16 interviewed me for Mr. Seselj and Milosevic.
17 I hope this will be made public, because so far I haven't had a
18 chance to say this in public.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, may I be allowed to say
20 something, please?
12 As I was about to say --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please. Microphone,
15 JUDGE HALL: Sorry.
16 Coming back to Mr. MacFarlane's objection, when --
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wanted to say something in that
19 Judges, you are here as the guardians of international justice.
20 And as the guardians of international justice, it is incumbent upon
21 you -- it is much more important for you to hear what the witness said
22 here loud and clear in this courtroom, where he said that he testified --
23 was forced to testify falsely in the Milosevic trial than this whole case
24 against me. That is a much more important fact, and I think you should
25 reject Mr. MacFarlane's interventions. Were he a real lawyer, he would
1 like to reach the truth, and not to have these petty intrusions.
2 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, Mr. Seselj, the case against you is a
3 discrete case, in the sense of the contempt we're dealing with. And
4 whilst I can understand readily that someone has a burning issue to say
5 something, there are other places and other forae in which they can say
6 it, if they wish to do so, without saying it here. And it's much better
7 to all parties we simply stick to what is truly relevant that you have to
8 extract from the witness by way of defence to this charge.
9 The other thing is this: that when two fluent people are speaking
10 one to the other, it's inevitable that you engage in a conversation, and
11 conversations get more and more rapid, and the interpreters are going to
12 left further and further behind. It's not easy, but please remember to
13 try and put a gap in between the questions and the answers, because at
14 the moment you're overlapping. And though the interpreters do a very
15 good job, miracles are outside their pay grade, I should think.
16 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Judge.
17 Yes, Mr. Seselj, please continue with your relevant questions.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I believe that my
19 questions so far have been more than relevant.
20 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
11 Page 158 redacted. Redaction Order.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And what was your monthly income in the Netherlands?
5 A. I believe it was around 700 Euros.
6 Q. On a monthly basis?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. But you had been provided with every other necessity; is that
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So two and a half thousand Euros. Do you remember what was the
12 average wage in Serbia in 2004 and 2005?
13 A. I do.
14 Q. How much?
15 A. Around 10 Euros.
16 Q. No, no, no, 2004 or 2005.
17 A. I don't know.
18 Q. So you fled Norway because you refused to testify against me?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. How did my team, supporting my defence, contact you?
21 A. After I returned to Serbia, I kept a sort of low profile, and I
22 had to do that primarily because of my illness and the operation that I
23 had undergone. But as soon as I was getting better and I was socialising
24 much with members of the Radical Party, I asked them to arrange a contact
25 for me with Petar Jojic from your Defence team. I knew him personally.
1 I called him, I told him who I was, and I offered to give a statement
2 because I wanted to tell everything that I'm trying to say today, but I
3 have been interrupted so many times.
4 I have this statement with me here, and I can present that to the
5 Judges. So that was the statement given on the 19th of April, 2008.
6 Q. You actually gave a number of statements to my Defence support
8 A. Yes, that's correct.
9 Q. Did you --
10 JUDGE MORRISON: Let's just clear up one point. I may be wrong
11 about this, and that's why I'm seeking the witness's clarification.
12 You've referred to somebody you've named as Mr. Richard Nice. Do
13 you mean that or do you mean Mr. Geoffrey Nice?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Geoffrey Nice, that's
16 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Did you, yourself, insist on having all the statements that you
18 gave to my Defence support team to be public?
19 A. Of course.
20 Q. And did you also appear in the Serbian print media in that
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Did you give interviews?
24 A. Yes, I did.
25 Q. Did you present the facts that we have highlighted here about
1 your false testimony in the Milosevic case, about the pressure for you to
2 testify falsely? Did you present all these facts in those interviews?
3 A. Yes, I did, but I provided more details.
4 Q. Those were extensive interviews?
5 A. Yes, they contained my full name.
6 Q. Can you remember any newspaper that you gave an interview to; for
7 example, "Pravda," the 28th of April -- 24 April, 2008.
8 A. Yes, and the Court can look at it and can see that my name was
9 disclosed in public.
10 Q. It is in the hands of the Trial Chamber to decide that.
11 Did you publish your interviews in the newspapers before your
12 statement given to my associate was published in one of my books?
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the speakers please
14 pause between questions and answers. It is impossible to interpret at
15 this pace.
16 JUDGE MORRISON: Mr. Seselj, the same point again. The
17 interpreters are complaining about the speed of the conversation, and
18 particularly the lack of a pause between the questions and answers. I
19 know it's easy to run away with this, and I know you're not doing it
20 deliberately, but make a conscious effort to slow down, please.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm going to repeat my question,
22 although I was convinced that I was speaking slowly enough. Now I'm
23 going to speak even more slowly.
24 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Did my associates ask you if you agreed for your statement, given
1 to my Defence team, to be publicised in one of my books?
2 A. Mr. Seselj, that's what I literally said to the Defence team. I
3 gave them permission to use it for any purpose that they would like to do
4 so. It could be used in newspapers, in your books, on the internet. So
5 I gave them a free hand as to the use of my statement.
6 Q. Now, your statements given to my team, were they written in such
7 a manner that they clearly indicate your will to be my witness, my
8 witness for the Defence?
9 A. That is correct. And any time in the future, should you need me
10 to come here, I'll do that.
11 Q. Did you refuse publicly to appear as a Prosecution defence
12 [as interpreted] against me?
13 A. Yes, I refused. I didn't want to do that at any cost.
14 Q. Did you use similar words when you appeared in public in
15 meetings, in rallies in Serbia, organised with a view to protecting my
16 legal rights?
17 A. I appeared, let's say, at at least 10 or a dozen meetings or
18 promotions of your books that were held in Serbia. In September of last
19 year, I wasn't able to attend because I had some heart problem, but via a
20 videolink, I gave a statement containing all my personal details, which
21 was watched by more than 7.000 people.
22 Q. When you appeared in the public for the first time with your
23 statements to the effect that you gave a false testimony in the
24 Slobodan Milosevic case under the duress and threats from The Hague OTP,
25 and when, for the first time through your newspaper interviews, you
1 imparted to the public that you had refused to appear as a false witness
2 for the Prosecution in the proceedings conducted against me, from that
3 moment on, that is to say, once your identity was disclosed by your own
4 volition, did you encounter any problems?
5 A. Never. I'm socialising with people and going out.
6 Q. Did you receive any threatening telephone or nuisance calls?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Were you or your family threatened in any way whatsoever, in the
9 street, at your work-place, anywhere, concerning your testimony?
10 A. Not on the part of the Radicals, but, yes, on the part of the
12 Q. What kind of problems did you have with the Tribunal?
13 A. In addition to my heart problems, because I have three bypasses
14 and had undergone other surgeries, the OTP people gave instructions to
15 the doctors in Sremska Kamenica to do the catheterisation of my heart,
16 which means to open up my heart, to insert a catheter into my heart which
17 had already been operated on.
18 Q. That is called ablatio, isn't that right?
19 A. I know it's called catheterisation.
20 Q. You heard I had undergone the same procedure last year?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to put a direct question to
23 you in order to avoid being suggestive. Would you agree that we
24 discussed in more detail your health condition in 2003 and 2004?
25 A. Okay.
1 Q. But before that, let me ask you this: Were you called to appear
2 as a witness of the Trial Chamber in the proceedings against me?
3 A. Several times.
4 Q. Did you agree?
5 A. No, I refused that, and I have papers to prove that. And I
6 refused every time they did so, and I'm going to do the same in the
8 Q. Now, if the Trial Chamber would allow me, you refused to become
9 as a Prosecution witness, but if I remember correctly, you did agree to
10 appear as a Trial Chamber witness. But after that, you were examined by
11 a medical commission, who stated that you were not capable of coming?
12 A. Maybe I don't understand all the terminology involved, but I
13 passed a message to Mr. Antonetti that it was only you who could call me
14 to appear as a witness. It was Judge Antonetti who ordered the medical
15 team to carry out a medical examination in order to establish my health
16 condition in Sremska Kamenica.
17 Q. And what did they find out?
18 A. They found out that I was incapable of appearing.
19 Q. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you agreed to testify via videolink,
20 but that was also banned?
21 A. Yes, I was prohibited from doing that as well.
22 Q. I hope we shall have enough time to go briefly through the events
23 that took place during your 18 months' stay in the Netherlands prior to
24 your testimony in the Slobodan Milosevic case. So I can speak openly
25 about all the ailments you're suffering from?
1 A. Of course.
2 Q. You don't mind at all?
3 A. No, I don't.
4 Q. On the 7th of February, you had a problem with a stomach hernia?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you were taken to a surgeon on the 7th of February, 2003.
7 The doctor decided that you needed an operation; is that correct?
8 A. Yes, yes.
9 Q. Then on the 14th of February, did you have severe pain?
10 A. I think that was a heart problem that I had.
11 Q. Was the emergency doctor called in?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. In order to facilitate this for the Trial Chamber, and also for
14 the Amicus Prosecutor, this is a review I received from the Prosecutor in
15 the main case. This is the information that I received from which I
16 extracted these basic facts, so you can check with the OTP whether these
17 facts are true or not.
18 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
19 Q. You also had an attack of anxiety on the 14th of September?
20 A. Well, that was all due to the heart condition.
21 Q. And strong analgesics were prescribed to you?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Then you had a gastroscopic examination?
24 A. Yes, of my stomach.
25 Q. On the 23rd of February, you had blood in your urine?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And your supposition was that that was caused by your left
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Then on the 24th of February, you visited a GP, who gave you a
6 referral for a urologist?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. On the 25th of February, you visited a urologist --
9 JUDGE HALL: Haven't we again moved into irrelevancies, in terms
10 of these issues?
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Hall, please trust me as if I
12 were the best lawyer at the high Tribunal. All of this makes sense, and
13 at the very end you will be sure to realise what the relevance and the
14 point is. Just please be patient, and you will see that I am right.
15 JUDGE HALL: I would only remind you that the 60 minutes you had
16 indicated you had for this witness, you have 25 minutes left. So if you
17 use more time than that, of course, it would have to be adjusted, in
18 terms of the other witnesses that you intend to call.
19 Yes, Mr. MacFarlane.
20 MR. MacFARLANE: I raise the same question of relevancy again.
21 But in addition, I have noted in the last 10 or 15 minutes that the
22 accused is increasingly leading the witness and providing a fair bit of
23 information to the witness in his questions. I'm sure that the Chamber
24 will give appropriate weight to that, but I'm concerned about that as
1 JUDGE HALL: Yes, that did occur to me as well, Mr. MacFarlane.
2 But inasmuch as the issues appeared irrelevant, it wasn't -- I thought
3 that he was leading up to something.
4 Yes, Mr. --
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Hall, this will definitely
6 bring us somewhere. These are the facts that can easily be verifiable in
7 the Tribunal against all the dates that I cited, so there is no leading
8 here. Who could have remembered all these dates? Neither the witness,
9 nor I. So all of this is noted down and contained in the Tribunal
10 documents. There is no dispute about that. We are not disputing any
11 facts or any hearsay that was mentioned in the testimony. All of this
12 has been documented and duly noted in the OTP and The Hague Tribunal
14 And I hope, Mr. Hall, that you are going to reduce the time
15 wasted by the Prosecutor's interventions. Otherwise, I won't be able to
16 finish my examination in 60 minutes.
17 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
18 Q. So 25th of February, an X-ray of your kidneys?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And your urine samples were taken?
21 A. [No verbal response]
22 Q. On the 26th of February, did you undergo gastroscopy?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Was a sample of the stomach taken?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Was it when those helico-bacteria were detected that caused
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Did you have presurgery examination on the 4th of March by an
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. On the 6th of March, were you told that you had a surgery
8 scheduled for the 19th of March?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And were you, indeed, operated on the 19th of March?
11 A. I think so, but I don't know about the dates.
12 Q. Did you complain on the 28th of March of pains in your legs?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. On the 31st of March, did they take out your stitches?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. The physician, on the 24th of April, did he consider that one of
17 your stitches had burst?
18 A. I don't remember, but probably, yes. I don't have any
19 documentation about that.
20 Q. On the 28th of April, did you have a cystoscopic examination?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. On the 20th of May, did you go and see the urologist once again?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. On the 16th of June, did you have severe toothache?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Did the dentist prescribe analgesics and penicillin?
2 A. I think so, yes.
3 Q. On the 24th of June, did the dentist extract the tooth in
5 A. Mr. Seselj, that's what I just said: Not just one tooth; more
7 Q. Well, he extracted one tooth and then had a plan for the rest of
8 your teeth?
9 A. Yes, and he pulled all my teeth out.
10 Q. Did you provide an electromyogram from Serbia, according to which
11 you suffered from polyneuropathy?
12 A. Yes, that is from -- poisoning from noxious matter.
13 Q. On the 24th of June, was another of your teeth extracted?
14 A. Well, I don't know whether he extracted them one by one or more
15 than one on one day. I can't remember exactly.
16 Q. Well, did you have even more severe problems after that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. On the 27th of June, did the dentist observe that when another
19 dentist extracted your tooth, your sinus canal was impaired?
20 A. Yes, but they skipped some data there, because they took me to
21 see a dentist here and he gave me Valium, he prescribed Valium, and then
22 pulled my teeth out.
23 Q. All right. Now, on the 1st of July, did the dentist extract --
24 remove your stitches and clean your other teeth, the rest of your teeth?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Did you have an EMG examination on the 2nd of July?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. On the 16th of July, did you again complain of toothache when the
4 dentist opened up the tooth that had created all the problems to begin
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. On the 7th of July -- or, rather, the 17th of July, did you go
8 and see the neurologist?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. He prescribed an anti-depressive, together with an analgesic; is
11 that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. On the 21st of July, did you have pain in your -- suffer pain in
14 your legs?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you were prescribed some pills?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. On the 5th of August, did you go to see an oral surgeon?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And he prescribed some antibiotics; is that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. For the sinus canal?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. On the 7th of August, did you go and see the oral surgeon again?
25 A. Yes, because my jaw was infected as a result of the
2 Q. Another dentist, on the 20th of August, did he prepare caps for
3 your teeth?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. On the 26th of August, did you go for an MRI examination in a
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. On the 2nd of September, did you go and see the oral surgeon
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And they took an imprint of your jaw and teeth for a prosthesis,
12 and then you went to see a neurologist because of back pains; is that
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. On the 10th of September, did you go and see a neurologist
16 because of poisoning by gas?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. On the 11th of September, did you go and see the dentist again,
19 who put a cap on your tooth?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. On the 17th of September, did you have another check-up at the
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. On the 23rd of September, did they extract your front teeth and
25 supply you with a prosthesis, with dentures?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Well, how was it, then?
3 A. As I said, there was allegedly a dentist here that they took me
4 to see, and he extracted all my teeth in the upper jaw at the same time,
5 not one by one. Then the wound was infected, and then another dentist
6 had to intervene.
7 Q. And then the dentures didn't agree with you, and they had to do
8 them again; right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. On the 20th of October, did you suffer strong pain and couldn't
11 get out of bed?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You were given medicaments again, analgesics, pills for your
14 stomach and something to calm you down?
15 A. Yes, it was because of my heart.
16 Q. And on the 20th of October, did you go and see the dentist again
17 because you had problems with your lower dentures, et cetera?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. On the 3rd of November, you had problems with rheumatism and had
20 a medical examination; right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. On the 13th of November, did you go and see a general
24 A. Yes, I did, I went to see a GP. I don't know what date that was
1 Q. On the 1st of December, did you start acupuncture treatment?
2 A. Yes.
3 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Seselj, when I last intervened, you indicated
4 you were leading us somewhere. I confess I'm still having difficulty
5 understanding the relevance of all of this.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please trust me this time,
7 Mr. Hall. And if it doesn't prove to be correct, then I won't do the
8 same thing with the next. But please bear with me for just a little
9 while longer. Do you agree to do so? You do agree, but unwillingly, I
11 JUDGE HALL: Please proceed.
12 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
13 Q. On the 3rd of December -- on the 3rd of December, did you undergo
14 acupuncture treatment again?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And then on the 8th of December again?
17 A. Yes, on several occasions.
18 Q. On the 15th of December?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And the 17th of December?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And then the Tribunal paid for two weeks of herbal treatment; is
23 that right?
24 A. Yes, with some Chinese preparations.
25 Q. On the 29th of November, once again, acupuncture?
1 A. Yes. It was a month-long therapy with several sessions.
2 Q. On the 17th of February, you underwent six more treatment
3 sessions, is that right, on the 19th of February, and then you asked for
4 more pills on the 24th of February before you were transferred to another
5 country; is that right?
6 A. Yes, they did provide me with some medicaments.
7 Q. On the 25th -- or, rather, on the 25th of March, did you go and
8 see the dentist again?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And this dentist checked your dentures and adjusted them so that
11 you felt better with them; is that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And he said that you had to be fitted with a new denture for your
14 lower jaw; is that right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. On the 6th of April, did you have some more problems? You
17 weren't able to sleep because you were suffering from pain in your legs?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did you have pain in your urinary tract?
20 A. I don't remember.
21 Q. And did you have an infection of some kind?
22 A. Possibly. I suffered from a cold, and possibly that, too, but I
23 can't remember.
24 Q. In April, May, and June 2004, did you undergo regular acupuncture
25 sessions again?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. On the 17th of May, did you go and see the dentist again?
3 A. Probably. As I say, I can't remember the exact dates.
4 Q. And did he devise a plan for you for the following month; to cap
5 your teeth, to adjust your dentures, and so on and so forth?
6 A. Yes, because I had problems with one of my teeth and the lower
7 dentures, so I had to go several times.
8 Q. On the 25th of June, did you collapse, did you faint, and your
9 wife had to call the emergency services?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You felt pain in your chest, in the heart area and the neck area;
12 is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. On the 26th of June, did you have a similar attack?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. On the 1st of June, were you provided and fitted with a new lower
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. On the 3rd of June, did you go and see the doctor again because
20 you fell off your bicycle?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Did you ride your bicycle in The Hague?
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 Q. Ah-hah, I see. Now, on the 7th of July, 2004, was your upper
25 denture adjusted again?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. On the 2nd of September, did you go and see the doctor again
3 because of your hernia?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. That, then, is a list of all your conditions and medical
7 Now, I don't know if you've followed my trial, but for a year and
8 a half I had great trouble here because they did not want to fit me with
9 a new cap and bridge for my teeth, and my root was infected and pussy,
10 and I have been suffering from that for a year and a half already here.
11 And have you heard just how many problems The Hague detentionees
12 have here at the detention centre? They try to save money and it's
13 difficult to see doctors.
14 Now, on the basis of this, you had privileged treatment, didn't
15 you, quite obviously?
16 A. As I said, yes, I had all this treatment.
17 Q. Does that mean, then, that The Hague Tribunal counted on your
18 false testimony in the Slobodan Milosevic trial a great deal, they set
19 great store by it?
20 A. Yes, but they didn't know about the fact that I presented in my
21 statements, while I was preparing for the Milosevic trial, during the
22 proofing sessions, I went out to light a cigarette. There was a break,
23 and Mr. Daniel Saxon was present, and so was Ms. Hilary [as interpreted],
24 I think her name was, and they said, Don't you worry, everything will be
25 fine. All you have to do is confirm you are a participant in the events,
1 and not say that you had heard about them or whatever. Milosevic won't
2 leave alive -- won't leave the prison alive, nor will Mr. Seselj.
3 I think that's enough of a threat, don't you?
4 Q. Now, is it clear to you that Slobodan Milosevic had only
5 10 per cent of this kind of medical -- had he had only 10 per cent of
6 this kind of medical care and attention, he would be alive today?
7 A. Yes, that's clear to me.
8 Q. So while they were counting on your false testimony, you were
9 given all this extra care?
10 A. Yes, but I didn't have a single document, so I couldn't leave.
11 Q. And when you refused to testify in my trial, then all you got
12 were threats, a series of threats; is that the truth of it?
13 A. Yes.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now, Mr. Hall, I hope you have
15 understood why it was important for me to present all these facts and
16 figures, and I have given all this information because of other people in
17 the Hague Tribunal, because of General Vladimir Lazarevic,
18 Jovica Stanisic, and many others who need medical care and protection
19 which is being mostly withheld. However, when it is in the interests of
20 The Hague OTP Office to provide the Tribunal with false witnesses for a
21 trial, then everything is possible and there's enough money for
22 everything. Jovica Stanisic can bleed the whole night in his cell
23 without anybody paying any attention whatsoever.
24 MR. MacFARLANE: Thank you, Your Honours.
25 At this point, we are hearing either submission or speeches,
1 neither of which are acceptable.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But I had to explain to you at the
3 end what the point was, because you had interrupted me a few times
4 because you didn't realise what I wanted to achieve. And I did, indeed,
5 achieve what I wanted, with the co-operation of this witness, of course.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Judge --
7 JUDGE HALL: You have used the forum of this trial to make a
8 number of suggestions and allegations and whatnot, which may have some
9 relevance elsewhere, but have nothing to do with the issues with which we
10 are concerned. And, therefore, there is nothing that this Chamber,
11 seized of the discrete question, as Judge Morrison has pointed out
12 earlier, can do about those matters. But you took advantage of the
13 forum, and it's gone out.
14 I would only remind you that when we take the break in four
15 minutes, you will have exhausted the -- the first break for the afternoon
16 in four minutes' time - we will be breaking for thirty minutes - you will
17 have exhausted the sixty minutes that you have for this witness.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. Hall.
19 I have just completed my examination-in-chief of this witness. I
20 have saved a few minutes which I will, hopefully, be able to use with
21 another witness.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I ask a question? I'm sorry.
23 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
25 What Mr. Seselj said about my health condition is true, but I
1 would like to mention another event which I think was very important.
2 During an examination in Zoetermeer, and I think it had to do
3 with the poison -- poison gasses, the doctor asked the interpreter
4 whether I was a Muslim. She shook her head. He asked whether I was a
5 Croat. She shook her head. But when she confirmed that I was a Serb,
6 the doctor says, Serves him right.
7 JUDGE HALL: Well, we're at the point where we're two minutes shy
8 of when we intended to adjourn, but it would be convenient to break now.
9 And Mr. MacFarlane would begin his cross-examination in 30 minutes, when
10 we resume.
11 --- Recess taken at 3.57 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 4.32 p.m.
13 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. MacFarlane.
14 MR. MacFARLANE: Thank you, Your Honours.
15 Cross-examination by Mr. MacFarlane:
16 Q. Sir, in your evidence, you indicated at an early stage that you
17 are a policeman?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. How long have you been a policeman?
20 A. From 1981 until 1995.
21 Q. And so you are no longer a policeman at the moment; you finished
22 that in 1995?
23 A. Yes. Voluntarily, of course.
24 Q. While you were a policeman in your home area, did you have
25 occasion to go to court to testify?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did it happen to be in connection with crimes that you were
4 A. Within the domain of police work; crime reports, misdemeanors
5 reports. It depends.
6 Q. And you would appear, much like we have here today, with lawyers
7 present and a judge or judges?
8 A. Similar. It's not quite this way. Those were regular
10 Q. Were you required to take an oath at the beginning of your
11 evidence or give a solemn declaration to tell the truth?
12 A. As a policeman, I spoke the truth, of course.
13 Q. But that wasn't my question. My question was: Were you required
14 to take an oath or to give a solemn declaration to tell the truth?
15 A. Well, it depended on the case involved.
16 Q. Based on your experience testifying in your home area, and that
17 on occasion you would be required to give an oath or to give a solemn
18 declaration, you would, of course, understand the importance of telling
19 the truth?
20 A. Of course, and I'm glad to be here today to be able to tell the
22 Q. When you testified in the Milosevic trial, you indicated that you
23 gave false testimony; is that right?
24 A. I testified as I was supposed to testify, as I was told to
25 testify, as I was taught to testify, as was written up for me.
1 Q. That, unfortunately, doesn't answer my question. My question is
2 whether or not you gave false evidence.
3 A. I was blackmailed with the possibility of charges being brought
4 against me in this Court. The second time, when I was called for
5 Mr. Seselj in 2005, I knew that no one could press charges against me any
6 longer, and that is why I was in a position to tell the truth. And I
7 have been telling the truth since the 1st of January, 2005; right?
8 Q. Well, regrettably, you are, for whatever reason, not answering my
9 question. My question is a very simple one, whether or not you gave
10 false evidence at the Milosevic trial.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Thank you. And in doing so, you recognised the fact that you
13 were deceiving the Court?
14 A. Well, sir, I explained to you a moment ago under which
15 circumstances I testified. And then when I heard that Mr. Seselj and
16 Mr. Milosevic would not leave this place alive, what else could I have
17 done? I simply had to, along with the circus that was organised by
18 Mr. Paolo Pastore. And Mr. Nice, when he came to Belgrade, he said, It's
19 a good thing that you signed this statement. There are charges against
20 you - against me, that is - and he said, These are irrefutable facts
21 against Mr. Seselj. However, I had no chance to defend myself, and I had
22 no one to turn to.
23 Secondly, you took away all of my documents when I came to the
24 Netherlands. I had no way of getting back to my own country.
25 Q. Unfortunately, you have a pattern of not answering my questions.
1 My question was a very simple one, and that was whether you recognised
2 that you were deceiving the Court.
3 A. I was aware that it was an agreement, not that I was deceiving
4 the Judges. How could I be deceiving Mr. Daniel Saxon when he taught me
5 what I was supposed to say? As for the Judge, I hope I'm not making a
6 mistake, it was Mr. May, he was the one who interrupted the proceedings
7 if anything went wrong, if you remember the proceedings. On my right, I
8 was looking at Mr. Daniel Saxon, who was nodding or shaking his head,
9 depending on whether it was right or not. Who was I deceiving? I was
10 deceiving Mr. Milosevic, if anybody, not the Court. That was the
11 agreement as it was at the time, as I understand it.
12 In my view, all of these charges were rigged. I'm telling you
13 that now.
14 Q. We'll get to that in a moment. I would like to ask you a few
15 questions about these signals that you talked about before. I had never
16 heard of these -- of this allegation before, and I'm interested in
17 getting a bit more detail.
18 You said that there were signals that were exchanged between you
19 and Mr. Saxon; is that right?
20 A. I would look at him, and he would either nod his head or shake
21 his head, yes, that's true.
22 Q. And when would he nod or shake his head; before or after you
23 answered the question?
24 A. After the answer. And I think that you have the recording, and
25 you can see it. You can see where I looked and in which direction. That
1 would be best, because that will confirm what I'm telling you now.
2 Q. Normally, when one thinks about signals, it's on the basis of a
3 plan that was developed before. Did you have any discussions with anyone
4 about the exchange of signals, including with Mr. Saxon?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. When did that take place?
7 A. During the proofing in the proceedings against
8 Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, when he stated that Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Seselj
9 would not leave this place alive.
10 Q. And what was the agreement that you say was developed between you
11 and Mr. Saxon?
12 A. I've already said. I'm going to repeat it once again. I looked
13 in the direction of the gentleman. I think he was sitting there. And
14 after my answer, I would look at him, and he would nod his head,
15 signifying that, Yes, you've said the right thing that you were supposed
16 to say, and that was it.
17 Q. Did you have any discussions with him after your testimony?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And when did that take place?
20 A. After the proceedings, after the proceedings were over. I mean,
21 after my testimony, sorry, after I gave testimony in this courtroom.
22 Q. You, in your evidence, outlined a series of steps that some of
23 the Prosecution investigators took, and you were critical of their
24 conduct. You've said you didn't have anybody to speak to about it. Did
25 you raise it with anyone?
1 A. Of course.
2 Q. Why do you say "of course"?
3 A. Yes, when I returned to Serbia.
4 Q. Who did you raise it with?
5 A. As I've already said, after my heart surgery, as soon as I got
6 better three or four months later, I established contact with the Defence
7 team of Mr. Vojislav Seselj in order to be able to tell the truth, to
8 have someone to tell the truth to.
9 Q. When did you first approach the Seselj team?
10 A. On the 14th -- or, rather, the 19th of April, 2008. A day before
11 that; say, the 17th. I don't know the exact date now. I do know when I
12 gave the statement.
13 Q. My understanding of the sequence is roughly this, and let me know
14 if you agree with me: that your first statement to the Office of the
15 Prosecutor was in July of 2002; the second was November of 2002; and that
16 you testified in the Milosevic case in June of 2003. Does that sound
18 A. The dates are right. I've explained that here. The first time
19 was when Mr. Paolo Pastore took the statement. The second statement was
20 when Mr. Nice came, and when he confirmed that these were irrefutable
21 facts and that my indictment is not going to be activated. You are
23 Q. Between your last substantial contact with the Office of the
24 Prosecutor, through testifying, until the time that you approached the
25 Defence, there is a lapse of about four years; isn't that right?
13 Q. I want to understand the sequence of events carefully. Your last
14 substantial contact with the Office of the Prosecutor was through
15 testifying in 2003, and then you approached the Defence in 2008; is that
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And you just said that the step that you took, as a result of
19 what you thought was misconduct, was to approach the Seselj team. So it
20 took you four years to do that?
21 A. I've repeated that a moment ago. Now you can tell me how a man
22 who had open-heart surgery can contact someone even during the course of
23 a year.
24 Q. I would just like to have an answer from you, though. It took
25 you four years before you raised it with anyone, namely, the Seselj team;
1 is that correct?
2 A. I'm telling you, time and again, Mr. Paolo kept saying that I was
3 in danger if I went back to Serbia, that they would kill me, that
4 operatives were looking for me in the field. I arrived from Norway to
5 Serbia in 2005 -- or, rather, to the border, where I was arrested because
6 of this passport with a changed identity. You changed my identity twice,
7 the first time in Holland, my first name and last name, and the second
8 time in Norway. And of course they arrested me, because in my passport
9 it said that I was banned from entering Serbia. Then I had heart
10 problems, then I had open-heart surgery or, rather, stints first after
11 the heart attack, and then constant problems until last year, the 19th of
12 September, when I had an intervention yet again, again a stint
13 implantation. You have all the medical documentation there. I submitted
14 all the documents to you.
15 Q. You've gone quite far afield from my question, so I'll take your
16 answer as a yes.
17 I would like you to ask you questions concerning the statements
18 that you provided to the Defence. It's my understanding that the first
19 one was in April of 2008 and the second one was in August of 2008. Is
20 that correct?
21 A. To the Defence of Mr. Vojislav Seselj -- Dr. Vojislav Seselj. I
22 gave the first statement on the 19th of April, 2008, and I would like to
23 give it to you. This is the original that was verified in court. If
24 you're interested, I can hand this over to you. It's my full name and
25 surname, my pseudonym in the Slobodan Milosevic proceedings and in the
1 proceedings against Mr. Seselj. That is the statement.
2 Q. At the moment, I'm tracking through the sequence of events. It's
3 my understanding that in October of 2008, you were directed by the
4 Chamber to appear in this Tribunal in November, and you did not testify;
5 is that correct?
6 A. I was undergoing this intervention then.
7 Q. And I understand further that the same thing occurred a little
8 bit later. You were ordered to appear in January of 2010, and you did
9 not testify?
10 A. Well, did you check what happened to me in January 2010? Do you
11 know what happened to me then? I submitted to you documentation about
12 that as well. There was this surgery at the Military Hospital in
13 January, because, basically, I could not move for three months. I know
14 that you were looking all over Serbia in hospitals for me. I know about
15 that. Then in June, you issued this order, against my will, on pain of a
16 fine of 100.000 dinars, so that my heart would be opened, against my
17 will. And the surgery followed after that.
18 Q. I would like to get a few things straight, though.
19 In responding to questions from Mr. Seselj, the accused here, you
20 indicated that you would not want to testify on behalf of the Chamber; is
21 that correct?
22 A. I don't understand. I can be a witness only for the Defence of
23 Mr. Vojislav Seselj -- Dr. Vojislav Seselj; nothing else. I can only be
24 a Defence witness; nothing else. Everything else is out of the question,
25 regardless of your threats and blackmail.
1 Q. Okay. Well, let's just confirm, then, your position. You're
2 saying you will not testify for the Prosecution, you will not testify for
3 the Chamber; you will only testify for Mr. Seselj. Is that right?
4 A. Right.
5 Q. You are, in essence --
6 A. There seems to be something wrong with this chair.
7 Thank you. It's fine, thank you.
8 Q. I just want to confirm what I understand from you, sir: that you
9 don't want to testify for the Prosecution, you don't want to testify for
10 the Chamber; you only wish to testify for Mr. Seselj. Am I correct in
11 saying that?
12 A. Correct, and I would like to ask you to withdraw this indictment
13 for revealing identity. The argumentation is here, facts that cannot be
14 refuted, but nobody wants to look at this. Could you please take a look
15 at what I've been telling you about?
16 Q. At the moment, I'm asking you questions, and I'm asking you to be
17 responsive to my questions.
18 You won't testify for the Chamber, you won't testify for the
19 Prosecution; you will only testify for Mr. Seselj. I suggest to you that
20 you have become a part of the Seselj team.
21 A. Correct. And I repeat, once again, exclusively for the Defence
22 of Mr. Vojislav Seselj.
23 Q. And as part of the Seselj team, you do not want to see anything
24 adverse happening to Mr. Seselj?
25 A. I am not part of that team. Mr. Seselj has his own team. Heaven
1 forbid that something could happen to him. I just want him to come back
2 to Serbia.
3 Q. Maybe there is something wrong with the translation, but I
4 believe that two answers ago, in response to my question, you said you
5 were part of the team.
6 A. Sir, I said that I addressed the team for the Defence of
7 Mr. Vojislav Seselj.
8 Q. My suggestion to you, sir, is that while you might not be part of
9 his expert team, you were a part of his supporters. Is that correct?
10 A. Well, in the future, if necessary. I am here to testify, to tell
11 the truth, and nothing but the truth, in the case of Mr. Seselj.
12 Q. I ask you to answer my question, though. Is it not accurate to
13 say that you're part of the supporters of Mr. Seselj?
14 A. Well, sir, the group that supports Mr. Seselj is about 3 million
15 or 4 million citizens of Serbia, at least, who share my views and who
16 feel the same way, if that's what you meant.
17 Q. And you're one of them?
18 A. Of course.
19 Q. Thank you. You would not want to say anything in this chamber
20 that would hurt Mr. Seselj; isn't that correct?
21 A. I don't know anything bad that I could say. You ask me, what is
22 this bad thing that Mr. Seselj ever did? I'm not aware of any such
23 thing. I just know that he's been here at the Tribunal.
24 Q. You've already indicated to us and confirmed that you have some
25 experience in not telling the truth before this Chamber?
1 A. Never in my life did I lie. This happened under your pressure,
2 your threats, and your promises; third countries, et cetera. I left all
3 of that, your money and everything. And also I confirmed that this is
4 the very first time I see Mr. Seselj in person. Do you understand that?
5 This is the very first time I see him in person.
10 No one could go anywhere. You have your own people everywhere.
11 The cathedral in Subotica, that it was blown up, 50 metres' high, the
12 cathedral is. And I was asked to confirm that? That's ridiculous.
13 Q. I can see that I'm not getting much in the way of answers from
14 you, so I'll move on. I would like to ask you a few questions in
15 relation to your first statement to the Office of the Prosecutor in July
16 of 2002.
17 And it's my understanding that you included in that statement
18 that you will testify only if you feel that your personal and family
19 safety would not be endangered. Do you recall that?
20 A. That's what the investigator said right away, that I would be
21 granted personal and family safety, and other things, change of identity
22 and things of that nature.
23 Q. So your family safety and your own safety was the subject of
24 discussion between you and the investigators; is that true?
25 A. No. Those were their words. They said that my family wouldn't
1 be endangered. My family wasn't in danger, and I was not endangered
2 either. I don't know from which side you thought the danger would come.
3 Q. From the time of your first contact with the Prosecution Office
4 in 2002 until the present time, have you ever been concerned about your
5 own safety or the safety of your family?
6 A. First of all, the truth is that the Prosecution contacted me
7 through Natasa Kandic, not the other way 'round, and I explained how it
8 all transpired.
9 As for the safety of my family, it was never in jeopardy.
10 Q. I'd like to perhaps refresh your memory on a couple of things and
11 take you back to October of 2002, in a meeting that you had with some of
12 the investigators.
13 Is it not true that you reported that a week after you had met
14 with members of the Prosecution Office, that Mr. Seselj spoke in
15 Parliament in Belgrade about an ex-policeman that gave a statement to the
16 Tribunal? Do you remember that?
17 A. I never said that.
18 Q. You don't --
19 A. I am not aware of that information, and I doubt that Mr. Seselj
20 would say something like that in the Parliament of Serbia.
21 Q. Do you recall, then, again with a view to refreshing your memory,
22 advising the investigators that two or three days after Mr. Seselj made
23 this comment in Parliament, that shots were fired at your house?
24 A. That's not true. I can tell you what really happened, and you
25 can find it in my statement.
1 First, Mr. Paolo took me to Novi Sad, wrote a statement on his
2 laptop, but I didn't sign it. Then for three days Mr. Paolo and another
3 German gentleman - I can't remember his name anymore - dictated it. Then
4 I was sent back home. And it is true that in the evening, somebody fired
5 a burst of fire from an automatic weapon, but I think that it has
6 something to do with you, not with Mr. Seselj. That was a way of
7 intimidating me, because first they said I would be indicted, I would be
8 jailed if I didn't testify as they wanted me to do, and finally these
9 shots were fired. On the 9th of January, a vehicle appeared with the
10 passport, and I was on my way to Holland.
11 Q. So you saw this as an active intimidation on someone's part?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. And is it not also true that as a result of that, you told the
14 investigators that you felt particularly vulnerable and feared for your
15 safety because of your co-operation with the Tribunal, and you feared
16 intimidation and retaliation as a result of that co-operation?
17 A. That's not what I said, not in those words. Of course, if
18 somebody fires at my house, normally, my family and I are in danger.
19 However, who fired those shots, I don't know. If I had any suspicions
20 about anyone, be it the Radicals or whoever, because I think that's what
21 you're aiming at, I would have reported this to the police. But you had
22 DOS in power at the time, who were allies of yours. But I am sure that
23 nobody from the Serbian Radical Party did that. I am 100 per cent sure,
24 just as I'm sure that it was your doing, that it was the way of
25 intimidating me.
1 Q. You kept one of the bullets that was fired, didn't you?
2 A. There were between 15 and 20 casings. One bullet penetrated.
3 Q. And you kept one of the bullets?
4 A. It stood there for a couple of days. But since I didn't need it,
5 I threw it away.
6 Q. So just to be clear, then, on your evidence: Despite what you
7 said earlier, on this occasion you did feel at risk and intimidated as a
8 result of the shooting at your house; is that true?
9 A. Well, you would have been concerned just as well if your house
10 had been shot at by somebody, and you would be concerned about your
11 family. But I'm telling you, again, who I think it was who did it, who
12 orchestrated this.
13 Q. I don't know why you're so reluctant to say that you felt
14 intimidated, and you asked me how I would feel. That's not in issue
15 here. I want to know how you felt. Did you feel intimidated as a result
16 of the shooting at your house?
17 A. Yes, I did say -- well, one thing is to be concerned, and the
18 other thing is to be intimidated.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. MacFarlane shouldn't
20 demonstrate any anger against the witness. He is in the service of
21 international justice, and his goal should be to find out the truth, not
22 to achieve the desirable result in this proceedings for the Prosecution.
23 JUDGE HALL: Please continue, Mr. MacFarlane.
24 MR. MacFARLANE: Thank you.
25 Q. I would like to turn to some material that's been already
1 tendered in these proceedings in the form of excerpts from a book, and I
2 have a few questions for you in relation to that. For the record, this
3 is Exhibit 55J and 55K.
4 I'm sorry, it's 55K and 55L. Thank you. My legal consultant has
5 just reminded me.
6 Sir, do you have both of those excerpts before you now?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And perhaps the Usher could assist you in directing your
9 attention, firstly, to Exhibit 55K, and, in particular, the first page of
11 A. Witness statement?
12 Q. Yes. I would like to draw to your attention the first couple of
13 paragraphs only. And do you see your name referred to there?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And in the first full paragraph, which sets out information
16 concerning identification card, and date of birth, and so on, can you
17 advise whether or not that information accurately describes you and
18 identifies you?
19 A. Yes, it does. That was my residential address at the time.
20 Q. What about the other information, in terms of occupation, your
21 ethnic affiliation, your --
22 A. It's all correct.
23 Q. Thank you. I just have a few more questions, sir.
24 In between the two statements that you provided to the Office of
25 the Prosecutor, one in July of 2002, one in November of 2002 --
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. -- given the improprieties that you told us about, why did you go
3 back the second time?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is a problem with the
5 interpretation. First, we have an interpreter stopping, finding the
6 right word. The other one is trying to whisper something to her. And I
7 believe that they should repeat this whole statement once again. I'm
8 talking about the interpreters.
9 MR. MacFARLANE: Perhaps it would be simpler if I asked the
10 question again and provided an opportunity for the witness to respond.
11 Q. We know that you met with the investigators with the
12 Prosecution Office in July of 2002 and November of 2002, so several
13 months went by in between those two statements. Given the improprieties
14 that you talked to us about, why did you go back a second time to meet
15 with the investigators?
16 A. I was invited to come to Belgrade in the same manner, because I
17 was told I had to come. You're asking me why, but look here, I have been
18 blackmailed with a fine of 100.000 dinars should I fail to appear.
19 Q. Well, let's talk about that a bit. You are an experienced
20 policeman. You know that what they were talking about was the penalty
21 for contempt. Why do you characterise that as blackmail?
22 A. It was a blackmail on their part.
23 Q. To outline the consequences of not telling the truth was
25 A. No. I was supposed to tell the truth that would suit you. Then
1 everything would be all right. However, if I told the real truth, then
2 probably an indictment would have followed, as I had been told.
3 Q. When the Chamber advised you of the consequences of not telling
4 the truth at the beginning of your evidence, would you see that as
6 A. No. I'm glad to be here today to tell the truth. I'm repeating
7 that once again. I could tell you a lot more things.
8 Q. Do you respect this Tribunal and its process?
9 A. Do I respect this Tribunal? No. And these proceedings have all
10 been engineered, particularly in the case of Serbs, and I stand by that.
11 This is an arm of the Americans.
12 MR. MacFARLANE: If I might just have a moment, Your Honour, to
13 check my notes. I believe I've completed.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If Mr. MacFarlane doesn't have
15 enough questions of his own, he may use my notes.
16 MR. MacFARLANE: It's quite all right. I have quite good notes
18 I believe that completes my questioning. Thank you very much,
19 Your Honour.
20 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
21 Yes, Mr. Witness.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I came here with
23 regard to the disclosure of identity and, of course, to tell you the
24 truth. I really don't understand why you're reluctant to take these
25 documents that contain irrefutable facts, the statements of the 12th of
1 August and the one from the April, and the fact that I was forced, with
2 the threat of fine, to do this. I brought all these documents with me;
3 also, an expert report of 10th of June. And I revealed my identity in
4 all of these documents.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat what he said
6 about the last date, 24th of April?
7 JUDGE HALL: The interpreters are requesting that you repeat the
8 last statement that you made, the last -- not the entirety, but the very
9 last portion.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When we spoke about the revealing
11 of the identity, I said that I brought an original statement of the 19th
12 of April, 2008, which was certified by a Novi Sad court. I voluntarily
13 disclosed my name and all the other particulars. Then I have a statement
14 from 12th of August, 2008, your directive for my health to be examined,
15 on pain of a fine to be imposed on me. So I have all my documents with
17 Since I revealed my identity to the public on the 19th of April
18 in the media, I would kindly ask you to acquit Mr. Seselj of this,
19 because he had nothing to do with that. Here it is.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Hall, I would like to pose a
21 number of additional questions.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE MORRISON: Mr. Seselj, the documents to which the witness
24 has just alluded, were you seeking their admission?
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the documents that the
1 witness is talking about have already been published in the book that I
2 am being tried for. The Usher has just given us these two statements
3 that he gave to my associates. However, should you need an original,
4 with the signature and the stamp of certification by the Court in
5 Novi Sad, you may have it. But since the Prosecutor did not contest the
6 authenticity of this document, it is up to you to decide. You may take
7 it, and, then again, you may not or you needn't.
8 I am here, being tried on the grounds that these are the
9 particular documents that I published. I never published any Prosecution
10 documents. All I published were the statements given by this witness to
11 my associates.
12 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, that doesn't exactly answer my question,
13 Mr. Seselj.
14 If you wish to tender those documents as part of your Defence,
15 and make such use of them as you would like to do so, that's entirely a
16 matter for you. But the documents really ought to come through counsel
17 or, in your case, self-representing accused, rather than through the
18 witness, himself. It's entirely a matter for you.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I didn't think it necessary
20 to tender them. If you would like to have them in evidence, then take it
21 that as of now, I am tendering them into evidence, because nobody has
22 challenged the authenticity of the documents that I published in the book
23 that I am being tried for.
24 This is an answer to your question. I don't know if I'm being
25 interpreted correctly or whether that created a kind of confusion.
1 So what I published in my book was never challenged by
2 Mr. MacFarlane as the statements given by this witness to my Defence
3 team. And I'm not talking about this witness only. I'm talking about
4 all the 10 witnesses.
5 I hope I was a bit clearer now.
6 JUDGE MORRISON: I hear perfectly what you're saying, Mr. Seselj,
7 but it's not for the Court to request evidence. It's for a party to the
8 proceedings to submit it for the Court if they think it's going to assist
9 in the determination of the matters that the Court has to decide. If
10 there's doubt in the matter, my advice to you would be to tender them.
11 That's entirely a matter for you, still.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will heed your advice, because
13 I think it is a benevolent one. But I'm now facing technical problems,
14 because whenever I want something to tender into evidence, I have to
15 provide a copy to the OTP, to you. Probably, a translation would be
16 needed. But in this particular case, everything has been translated, all
17 the statements stated and quoted if this book have been translated,
18 everything exists in the English, and nobody challenged the fact that
19 these witnesses, indeed, gave these statements.
20 And let's cut this whole story short. I would like to tender
21 this into evidence, if you would accept it, although had I really been
22 interested in doing so, I would have provided copies to you and the OTP
23 in good time. But I didn't consider that important enough.
24 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, what's really important, of course, is
25 that the information contained in the statements is before the Court. If
1 you are satisfied that it is already, and you feel that it's simply
2 duplicating matters, then my advice may not be as pertinent as it
3 otherwise would be. I think you see what I'm getting at.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I have already accepted your
5 advice. Therefore, the Usher can take these documents from the witness.
6 JUDGE HALL: Mr. MacFarlane, did you have a view, before the
7 Chamber formally admits -- decides whether to admit these documents as an
8 exhibit? Have you seen them?
9 MR. MacFARLANE: I was invited to by the witness. I haven't seen
10 them, so I'm not sure what the contents are. I don't have a particular
11 view one way or the other. If Mr. Seselj wishes to tender them and rely
12 upon them, then I'm not objecting.
13 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
14 Mr. Seselj, you have a right to re-examine the witness, and I
15 would remind you that re-examination is not an opportunity to re-open
16 your case in chief, but it must be confined to matters arising out of the
17 questions that the side opposite - in this case, Mr. MacFarlane - asked
18 in cross-examination.
19 So you may begin your re-examination now.
20 And I would inform the parties that because, as is well known, we
21 could not sit continuously until 7.00, when the Court rises for the day,
22 we intend to break at 5.35 for 20 minutes and then resume at 5.55 for the
23 final session of the day.
24 So you may begin. You have another six minutes before the break,
25 Mr. Seselj, to begin your re-examination.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will exclusively be dealing with
2 the questions asked by Mr. MacFarlane.
3 Re-examination by Mr. Seselj:
4 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
5 Q. The first question concerns the shooting in front of your house.
6 Is it true that this burst of fire was fired in front of your house while
7 you were being interrogated in Belgrade or in Novi Sad?
8 A. In Belgrade.
9 Q. So did that happen before your arrival in The Hague?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Does that mean that nobody in the Serbian public had any idea
12 that you were being proofed to appear as a witness in the Milosevic case,
13 or in my case, for that matter?
14 A. Absolutely no one.
15 Q. Was that the reason why you established a link between this
16 shooting with the Prosecution or people co-operating with the
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. All right. The first question: Do you know that the Serbian
20 public intensively followed the proceedings of Slobodan Milosevic, as
21 well as my own trial, because there was direct TV coverage?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. In the Serbian public, beforehand and now, was there a lot of
24 talk about many Prosecution witnesses providing false testimony here?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Are you aware of any example that anyone in The Hague Tribunal
2 testified in any case against accused Serbs as a Prosecution witness, and
3 that such a person later had some kind of trouble in Serbia?
4 A. Absolutely not.
5 Q. You do not know of any example?
6 A. I haven't heard of any, either.
7 Q. I'm interested in this question of oath. I think that your
8 answer was a bit clumsy, your answer provided to the friend of the Court.
9 Do you know that in the legal system of Serbia and the former Yugoslavia,
10 an oath never existed in the legal system?
11 A. Well, that's what I answered, as a policeman. He didn't
12 understand me.
13 Q. I think that you were not clear enough, and that's why I wanted
14 to make it clear. Is it correct that in the 1990s and for decades before
15 that, when a witness appeared in court, the only thing that would happen
16 would be that the judge would caution him or her that they have to tell
17 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
18 A. Exactly.
19 Q. And to say that they will be criminally liable if they perjure
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Did that mean that there was no oath whatsoever?
23 A. None whatsoever.
24 MR. MacFARLANE: Your Honours, the accused is leading the witness
25 to an extreme. He might as well take the witness stand himself. He's
1 placing all of the evidence and information that he wants into the mouth
2 of the witness. I've restrained myself from objecting before, but this
3 is extreme.
4 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
5 Mr. Seselj, you take Mr. MacFarlane's point that this is your
6 witness. You can't lead him. You can't ask questions in such a way that
7 suggests the answer. Ask him a question and let him give the
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Hall, this witness is not a
10 lawyer. He is a policeman, yes, but he could not express himself
11 consistently, from a legal point of view. However, any lawyer in Serbia
12 knows that until a few years ago, we never had the institute of witnesses
13 taking oath before testifying. This was introduced only seven or eight
14 years ago, ten maximum.
15 JUDGE HALL: You're giving evidence, Mr. Seselj. Ask the witness
16 the question in such a way that he testifies from his own knowledge and
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
19 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Anyone in Serbia and in the territory of the former Yugoslavia,
21 do they have any kind of regard for that kind of oath when they say, I
22 solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, and nothing but the truth?
23 Or, to put it very simply, does anyone consider that to be a real oath?
24 A. No. As a policeman, I know that there is no oath. The judge
25 does orally caution a witness that he or she has to tell the truth so
1 that criminal charges would not be brought against them, but there is no
2 oath of this kind when I worked.
3 Q. You didn't understand my question this time. There is a solemn
4 oath before The Hague Tribunal?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Let me explain the essence of my question to you now. And it
8 "I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth,
9 and nothing but the truth."
10 Does anyone from the territory of the former Yugoslavia, not only
11 Serbia, but all of the former Yugoslavia, consider that to be an oath, in
12 the true sense of word?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Is it the same thing when you say, I solemnly declare, or if you
15 say, I swear that I shall speak the truth?
16 A. It's not the same.
17 Q. That was the essence of my question. So does that mean that a
18 person who says, I solemnly declare, does not believe that he has sworn
19 an oath at all?
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. Also, you mentioned in one of your answers given to
22 Mr. MacFarlane this fear of yours --
23 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Seselj, since you're going on to something else.
24 This would be the time that we would take the break, and we will resume
25 in 20 minutes.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
2 --- Recess taken at 5.35 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 5.56 p.m.
4 JUDGE HALL: You may continue, Mr. Seselj.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
6 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
7 Q. In response to my last question, you said that no one in the
8 territory of the former Yugoslavia took the solemn declaration at the
9 ICTY as an oath. Does that mean, simultaneously, that whoever perjures
10 himself after giving this solemn declaration does not think that he has
11 actually perjured himself, provided false evidence?
12 A. I think it's a bad thing, what I did in the Slobodan Milosevic
13 case, but I was forced to do so.
14 Q. I am not asking you about that. It is obvious from your entire
15 statement that you were forced to do so. But you confirmed that the
16 public believes that there were many false witnesses who appeared here?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Some of those who said, I solemnly declare, et cetera, et cetera,
19 and then provided false evidence, do they believe that they committed
21 A. No.
22 Q. They believe that they did not commit perjury. You mentioned
23 2005 as well in one of your answers to Mr. MacFarlane. You said that
24 that was a cut-off year. You said the 1st of January, 2005. Was that a
25 mistake? Did you mean the 31st of December, 2005?
1 A. Yes, that's what I meant, but from the 1st of January.
2 Q. Did that pertain to the date from which it was no longer possible
3 to issue new indictments in The Hague?
4 A. Yes, that's what I meant.
5 Q. Is that something that made you relax, in terms of these
6 pressures from The Hague?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Can that be a reason why many other potential witnesses of the
9 Prosecution gave up on testifying and many of them joined my Defence?
10 A. Well, that's for sure.
11 Q. You believe that that is the reason?
12 A. Correct. I think that they were all blackmailed.
13 JUDGE HALL: You're leading the witness again, Mr. Seselj.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
15 Mr. Hall, I've just completed my re-examination.
16 JUDGE HALL: Before we release --
17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
18 JUDGE HALL: Sorry.
19 Before the witness is released, have you taken a decision on
20 these documents that he wished to volunteer?
21 Before you answer that, let me put you fully in the picture. If
22 they aren't yet translated into one of the two working languages of the
23 Tribunal, French and English, if your application is to have them
24 admitted, they could only be marked for identification at this stage.
25 But have you made a decision, before we release the witness?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I took Mr. Morrison's advice,
2 Mr. Hall, and I thought that I can formally tender it now. I'm sure that
3 it was translated years ago into the English language, because it was
4 part of my criminal complaint against Carla Del Ponte. Another friend of
5 the Court is looking at that criminal complaint. He was appointed about
6 a year ago, and he is supposed to complete his work by the 7th of October
7 this year.
8 So there is a translation into English. There is a translation
9 of all the text from the book into English. And then I suggest that the
10 Registry this for you so that it can be admitted into evidence. Frankly,
11 I didn't have it translated because I was sure that it had been
12 translated a long time ago.
13 JUDGE HALL: So we would mark them for identification and give
14 them an exhibit number with that MFI qualification.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Document 55J becomes D2, MFI'd. And 55L --
16 witness documents become D2, MFI'd, and D3, MFI'd.
17 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I also suggest that this witness's
19 statement that I handed over to you, according to Rule 65 ter, in a
20 preliminary way, be admitted into evidence as well.
21 JUDGE HALL: Just a moment, please.
22 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
23 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
24 The Court Officer has alerted the Chamber that some of these
25 documents name witnesses, so the documents would be admitted under seal.
1 Yes. There was something else you wished to say, Mr. Seselj?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just suggested that this
3 preliminary statement given by this witness, in view of his appearance in
4 these proceedings, that I submitted to you in accordance with
5 Rule 65 ter, that you admit that into evidence as well.
6 JUDGE HALL: Well, we have had the oral testimony of the witness,
7 and that is all that the Chamber requires.
8 Mr. Witness, we thank you for your attendance before the
9 Tribunal. You are released.
10 I believe because of the protective measures, we would have to
11 lower the shades in order for you to be escorted from the courtroom.
12 You wish to say something else?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
14 Just as I said, this is my request: to reject this indictment
15 against Vojislav Seselj. As soon as I go back to Serbia, and that's
16 another matter, I'm going to present my identity once again, I'm going to
17 make it known. I don't need these code-names, pseudonyms, whatever. I
18 have a name, I have my family.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have an objection to the
21 Mr. Hall, you said "oral testimony," and the interpreter said
22 "oralno svedocenja." It cannot be translated that way, it can only be
23 translated "verbalno svedocenja," because "oralno svedocenja" in Serbian
24 does not exist. Tablets can be taken orally, but testimony can only be
25 verbal, or viva voce, as one says in Latin.
1 JUDGE HALL: Well, let me correct myself for the ease of the
2 interpretation and the consistency of the two languages.
3 We have the viva voce testimony of the witness.
4 Thank you, Mr. Seselj.
5 So the witness may be escorted from the room once the blinds are
7 Mr. Seselj, do I correctly understand that your next witness,
8 there are no protective measures, if I'm looking at the order correctly?
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, no protective measures
10 are needed for him.
11 [The witness withdrew]
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I call Hadzi Zoran Drazilovic as
13 the next Defence witness.
14 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
15 [The witness entered court]
16 JUDGE HALL: Good evening to you, sir.
17 Can you hear me in a language that you understand?
18 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
19 JUDGE HALL: Would you please make the solemn declaration on the
20 card that the Usher has now handed to you?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
22 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
23 WITNESS: ZORAN DRAZILOVIC
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. You may be seated.
1 First of all, I would point out that the solemn declaration that
2 you have just made imposes upon you an obligation to give truthful
3 testimony before this Tribunal. And should you fail to do so, this
4 Tribunal is empowered, under the Statute which created it, to impose
5 penalties for perjury; that is, for false or misleading testimony.
6 Would you begin by telling us your name, please?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Zoran Drazilovic.
8 JUDGE HALL: What is your date of birth, and what is your
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was born on the 19th of May,
11 1947, and I'm a retired army officer.
12 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
13 You have been called in these proceedings by Mr. Seselj, who is
14 at your left, and he will begin by asking questions of you, after which
15 Mr. MacFarlane, who appears as Amicus Prosecutor, would have the right to
16 cross-examine you on matters arising out of your testimony-in-chief. And
17 then Mr. Seselj would have a right to re-examine you. And the Judges
18 may, at that point, or, indeed, at any earlier point, have their own
19 questions of you, arising out of what the parties have said.
20 Because of the time of day, I should alert you that in the
21 unlikely event that your testimony is not completed today, because the
22 Court would rise for the day at 7.00, it would continue at 2.30 tomorrow
24 And I invite Mr. Seselj to begin.
25 Examination by Mr. Seselj:
1 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Mr. Drazilovic, I have noted in the details that your name has
3 changed in the meantime. Your name now is Hadzi Zoran Drazilovic; is
4 that correct?
5 A. Yes, that's correct. But because that name is written in my old
6 passport, that is why I introduced myself in that way.
7 Q. You acquired this religious title?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And you have been very much devoted lately to religion, if I
10 understand correctly.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. When did you become a member of the Serbian Chetnik Movement?
13 A. I've been a member of the Serbian Chetnik Movement from its very
15 Q. And what about the Serbian Radical Party?
16 A. From the day it was founded.
17 Q. Did you perform any particular duties in the
18 Serbian Radical Party?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. Can you tell us which ones?
21 A. I was deputy chief for -- how is it called?
22 Q. Did you perform any duties first in the Crisis and then the
23 War Staff of the party?
24 A. Yes, yes.
25 JUDGE HALL: I'm sorry. Mr. Drazilovic, I must point out to you
1 that your evidence has to be interpreted. So before you attempt to
2 answer the question that Mr. Seselj poses, or, for that matter, when
3 Mr. MacFarlane's turn comes, allow a gap so that the interpreters can
4 catch up.
5 Yes, Mr. Seselj, please continue.
6 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Were you deputy chief of the War Staff?
8 A. First, I was deputy chief for Logistics. And after Zoran Rankic
9 resigned, I became chief for Logistics and deputy chief of the War Staff.
10 Q. While you were there, who was the chief?
11 A. The chief of the War Staff was Ljubisa Petkovic.
12 Q. After his resignation, did Zoran Rankic do anything on the staff?
13 A. No, he had no duties, and he came to visit us maybe two or three
15 Q. After his departure?
16 A. Yes, after his departure.
17 Q. What was the reason for the Serbian Radical Party to establish a
18 crisis staff? Can you please wait for the interpretation to finish.
19 A. The reason for the Serbian Radical Party to establish a crisis
20 staff was the following: A large number of Serbs, whole families, had
21 been expelled and were fleeing towards Serbia. They would arrive in
22 Serbia, and our job was to receive them, to provide accommodation for
23 them, to provide the basic necessities, such as food, footwear, clothes
24 and medicine, and to try to enroll their children in various schools in
1 Q. Where were these Serbs fleeing from?
2 A. From Croatia.
3 Q. Who decided to set up a crisis staff?
4 A. The decision to set up a crisis staff was taken by the
5 Serbian Radical Party or, rather, its main board.
6 Q. Did the Crisis Staff raise any funds?
7 A. That was strictly forbidden.
8 Q. Once the conflicts became widespread in this former Yugoslav
9 federal unit, did the Crisis Staff perform any other duties?
10 A. Yes, we did. We started sending volunteers to the most
11 endangered area. That was at the beginning. Most were the people who
12 were born there or who had families in those regions. That was one of
13 the jobs that we did.
14 Q. Where did we send them initially?
15 A. They would go to - what's it called? - the Territorial Defence,
16 and then the army accepted them and deployed them to certain areas.
17 Q. What was the official name of the army?
18 A. Yugoslav People's Army.
19 Q. Abbreviated "JNA"?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you remember exactly as of which date we started sending
22 volunteers to the JNA?
23 A. I believe it was in November 1991.
24 Q. Could it have been a bit earlier?
25 A. Possibly October.
1 Q. Do you remember what happened on the 1st of October, 1991?
2 A. There was a horrendous plight in and out of Vukovar.
3 Q. Do you remember the time when an immediate danger of war was
4 declared; do you remember the date?
5 A. No, I cannot remember.
6 Q. Could it have been the 1st of October, 1991?
7 A. I believe so, because that is when the JNA received our
9 Q. Who provided transportation for the volunteers to the
11 A. At first, this was done by the people who were on the ground, and
12 later on Croatia -- Serb associations from Croatia, and later from
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina, were the ones who provided vehicles, and the
14 provisional government of the Western Slavonia.
15 Q. And when did the JNA start organising transport?
16 A. After that, I believe.
17 Q. Did the MUP or the police of Serbia ever take part in the
18 transportation of volunteers?
19 A. As far as I can remember, the police did not participate in that.
20 Those were mainly privately-owned buses provided by local civilians from
21 the endangered territories, as well as the Serb associations from
22 Croatia, the Serb association from Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the
23 provisional government.
24 Q. Did anyone from amongst the Serbian political or police officials
25 of Serbia, the Republic of Serbian Krajina, or Republika Srpska, come to
1 the headquarters of the Radical Party?
2 A. Since I spent most of my time in the Crisis Staff, I never saw
3 any officials or politicians coming there.
4 Q. When did you have your first contact with The Hague
5 Prosecution Office?
6 A. My first contact with the OTP was immediately before you
7 volunteered to be transferred to The Hague.
8 Q. Who did you talk to at the time?
9 A. I talked -- Paolo Stocchi and Sabine Schulz. I may be mistaken.
10 Q. How did it come about, these contacts? How did that happen?
11 A. These contacts were established in the following manner: My
12 brother called me and told me that there was an Italian looking for me,
13 an Italian journalist - as he said, that's how he had introduced
14 himself - and that he wished to interview me. We always associate
15 interviews with journalists. I never thought that that could be an
16 interrogation. In fact, I learned only later that that was not to be an
17 interview with a journalist, but, in fact, the person looking for me
18 represented The Hague Tribunal Prosecution Office. As a member of the
19 Serbian Radical Party, I immediately went to the party HQ and reported to
20 my president, Dr. Vojislav Seselj, and told him that I had been called.
21 Q. What did I tell you on that occasion?
22 A. Mr. Vojislav Seselj told me the following, If they had invited
23 you, you should come -- you should go there and give them truthful
24 responses to whatever they ask you.
25 Q. And how did these investigators treat you?
1 A. When I came, I reported at the gatehouse. I told them my name.
2 They quickly came downstairs and took me to a small room, where there was
3 a desk with a computer on it. Sitting at the desk was Paolo Stocchi. I
4 sat opposite him, and on my right, Sabine Schulz sat, if I'm not
5 mistaken. She kept quiet the whole time. She didn't ask me any
6 questions, whereas the investigator, Paolo Stocchi, was very arrogant,
7 and he started asking me questions -- or, rather, talking to me. And
8 then he raised his voice at one point and told me that if I did not
9 co-operate with him, I would be jailed for seven years or so and that I
10 would have to pay an enormous amount of money as a fine.
11 Something happened to me at that moment. I became frightened. I
12 kept asking myself, Why would I go to jail, why do I have to pay a fine?
13 It was obviously his attempt to intimidate him [as interpreted], and he
14 was successful in doing so. Then he started asking me a whole lot of
15 various questions.
16 Q. What kind of questions?
17 A. He asked me the following: He said that he did know, but he,
18 nevertheless, invited me to come over and to confirm certain things for
19 which I was allegedly informed about. There were a lot of mistaken dates
20 or wrong names.
21 Q. Did he ask you anything about Western Slavonia?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Can you remember what?
24 A. Yes, he asked me about Western Slavonia. He was also rough in
25 his attitude, because he said that if I didn't confirm what he knew was
1 the truth, I would go to jail. He asked me about a group of - how was
2 this group called? - yes, the White Eagles, who had allegedly went with
3 us, according to him, to Western Slavonia. Since I was there every day,
4 I couldn't really remember this group joining us, because any group or
5 any individual, and I'm talking about volunteers, could have gone there
6 under their own arrangements.
7 Q. Tell me, was there any mention of people nicknamed Kvocka and
8 Sikirica? Were those the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party?
9 A. Yes, he asked me if we had Kvocka and Sikirica among our
10 volunteers, and I said, Yes, we do have Kvocka and Sikirica as our
11 volunteers, but those were their nicknames; those were not their family
12 names. Only a few years later, I realised that there were people from
13 Republika Srpska with family names like that who were convicted in
14 Bosnia. Sikirica was the man who got killed, and he was from the
15 surrounds of Aleksinac, and Kvocka was from Belgrade.
16 Q. Did Stocchi insist that you confirm that Kvocka was a policeman
17 in Prijedor, and Sikirica, who was also convicted here, was from Prijedor
18 as well?
19 A. Yes, he insisted on my confirming and admitting that those were
20 our volunteers. He didn't say, for example, the real name of Kvocka. He
21 exclusively referred to them by their nicknames. He only spoke of
22 Kvocka, and he insisted, to which I said, yes, those were our volunteers,
23 believing that he was talking, actually, about our volunteers who had
24 these nicknames, as many of us did.
25 Q. All right. Was there any discussion about the Detachment of
1 Leva Supoderica in Vukovar?
2 A. Yes, Leva Supoderica was discussed too. He also insisted that I
3 admit or confirm that the Leva Supoderica Unit was a unit of the
4 Serb Radical Party. That unit did exist in Vukovar, and that unit
5 consisted only of locals, people from that area that was called
6 Leva Supoderica. That is an area in Vukovar. Later on, when our
7 volunteers went to Vukovar, the army assigned them to different units,
8 and some of our volunteers probably went to that unit.
9 Q. Did he ask you about some Topola?
10 A. I said a moment ago that many of us had nicknames. Some people
11 had nicknames that showed the village or town or area that they were
12 from. It is possible that there was a person nicknamed Topola. However,
13 that man did not go to Western Slavonia through us, that is to say, to
14 Vukovar. He probably came with a neighbour or friend who was on leave,
15 and he went with him then. That happened often. When people went on
16 leave, on furlough, neighbours and friends would often accompany such a
17 person back into the field, and they'd stay there.
18 Q. Was there any reference to the rally of the Serb Radical Party in
19 Mali Zvornik?
20 A. Yes. Then he was rather rough and tough on me then. He was
21 forcing me to confirm that the rally of the Serb Radical Party in
22 Mali Zvornik was sometime in April - I cannot remember the exact
23 date - of 1992. There was a rally of the Serb Chetnik Movement, but that
24 was sometime in 1991; that is to say, much, much earlier.
25 Q. Did Stocchi offer you anything?
1 JUDGE HALL: Mr. MacFarlane is on his feet.
2 MR. MacFARLANE: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Same basic issue as before; we're so far afield from the issues
4 set out in the order in lieu of indictment that I don't understand why
5 the accused continues to be so far afield. It's not even on the
6 periphery. It's dealing with issues, perhaps, that might arise in his
7 main trial, and I can't help but wonder if he is seeking to establish a
8 record for purposes outside of these proceedings. In any event, I
9 continue to object on the grounds of complete irrelevance.
10 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Seselj, the objection, as articulated by
11 Mr. MacFarlane, it appears to us that you are so patently irrelevant that
12 if this is the only testimony that you have to elicit from this witness,
13 we would have no option but to prevent you leading further evidence,
14 because it is of no assistance whatever to this Chamber, seized of the
15 present matter.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Hall, you can do whatever
17 you please, but I think that these matters are very important for the
18 essence of this witness's testimony. This witness --
19 JUDGE HALL: I'm certain that you think so, Mr. Seselj. But, of
20 course, in the order of things, it is for the Chamber to rule on
21 relevance. And what I am saying, and I would repeat myself, is that if
22 you have no relevant evidence - by "relevant," I mean dealing with the
23 order in lieu of indictment, which is the only thing with which this
24 Chamber is concerned - then this witness cannot assist us.
25 Do you have any relevant questions of this witness?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I continue to insist on all my
2 questions being relevant, and I just have a few questions left. I will
3 be done in five or six minutes, so bear with me. But if you don't have
4 the patience to do that, then you can throw me out of this courtroom,
5 too. I can just walk out of here, if you wish. But if you have given me
6 five hours for presenting the Defence case, then let me use those five
8 Just imagine all the things that Mr. MacFarlane spoke about in
9 his opening statement. These were matters that were totally irrelevant
10 for this case.
11 JUDGE HALL: Proceed with your relevant questions, Mr. Seselj.
12 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
13 Q. My last question, which I would like to have answered, is whether
14 Mr. Stocchi offered you anything.
15 A. Something very interesting was happening. Although he was so
16 rough, and although his behaviour was so forceful, and these suggestive
17 answers that he was -- suggestive questions that he was putting, trying
18 to put answers into my mouth, he, nevertheless, tried to establish some
19 kind of relationship of friendship with me.
20 Now, what happened? A few very important things happened
21 that -- how should I put this? I was in a very difficult situation. It
22 affected me considerably, as a human being. It affected my life after
23 that as well. He offered to be my friend. He said that he and I could
24 go out together, that we could go to some hotel that had a restaurant
25 that was called Pecina, the Cave, and that I should bring some girls
1 there, and that that would be our friendship. That was the kind of
2 friendship that he had offered to me.
3 Another thing that he did was the following: At one point, he
4 started saying that I was very wrong about all of this, that I trust my
5 president, Dr. Vojislav Seselj, too much, so why am I saying that things
6 are in a certain way when Mr. Vojislav Seselj does not trust me at all,
7 does not have any kind of regard for me, and that, quite simply, I should
8 accept what he was saying to me and that I should say some things -- or,
9 rather, confirm some things that he had been saying all along; that he
10 said that such and such a person had done such and such a thing. Of
11 course, I refused that.
12 Q. When did you have your last contact with the representatives of
13 The Hague OTP?
14 A. I think that was in 2007. 2007, yes.
15 Q. How did you react then?
16 A. I was asked then to report to the Office of the Prosecutor for
17 War Crimes, and they are in my neighbourhood. I did show up there. And
18 who was there? Christine Dahl. I don't want to make any mistakes. Yes.
19 In some informal conversation that was an interrogation at the same time,
20 she made me an offer. She said that I can set an amount, that I can say
21 what I want. She offered that they would buy clothes for me. But the
22 most important thing was that she insisted that I be a Prosecution
23 witness, which I refused straight away, and I said that I could only be a
24 witness for the Defence of Dr. Vojislav Seselj. She repeated that
25 several times, but I said to her what I had to say and that I stood by
2 Q. When did you officially talk to the members of the team assisting
3 me and my defence?
4 A. I think that was 2007, if I'm not mistaken.
5 Q. How many statements did you give to my associates?
6 A. Again, I don't really want to make any mistakes. Two statements,
7 two or three. I do apologise. I may have made a mistake, but it's two
8 or three, I think.
9 Q. Were they certified in court, these statements?
10 A. Yes, all of them.
11 Q. Did you give your consent to have these statements of yours used
12 in public?
13 A. Yes. I gave my consent for all of these statements of mine to be
14 used in public, and it was an honour for me to have Dr. Vojislav Seselj
15 mention me in any book or whatever else was coming out in relation to all
16 of that.
17 Q. Did you give your explicit consent for your statements to be
18 published in my book? I don't want to mention the title of the book
19 because they are going to move into closed session straight away.
20 A. I have to repeat what I said. It was an honour for me to have
21 your -- to have my name mentioned in your books.
22 Q. Again, I'm asking you: Did you give your explicit consent to
23 have your name mentioned in my book?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did you refuse to be a Prosecution witness in the proceedings
1 against me, even on pain of a subpoena?
2 A. Yes, I refused.
3 Q. Did you refuse to be a Chamber witness in the proceedings against
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did the Trial Chamber ultimately give up on you testifying?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Was the Trial Chamber in a dilemma as to whether they would press
9 criminal charges against you or --
10 JUDGE HALL: Again, you're speeding up. The interpreters are
11 having difficulty keeping up with you.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now I'll speak slowly.
13 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Was the Trial Chamber in a dilemma as to whether they would press
15 criminal charges against you because you refused to testify, or did they
16 consider giving up altogether on your testimony?
17 A. It's probably the first one.
18 Q. A dilemma is either one or the other thing. Did they ultimately
19 give up on it?
20 JUDGE MORRISON: That's a rank leading question, and it calls for
21 speculation by the witness.
22 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] All right.
23 Q. Do you know when protective measures were dismissed in respect of
25 A. I think that happened four years ago.
1 Q. When protective measures were introduced, did anyone notify you
2 to the effect that protective measures would be introduced in your case,
3 and did they ask you anything about it?
4 A. No one informed me. No one asked for my consent for introducing
5 protective measures. When I was being interrogated and after these
6 interrogations, I did not receive a copy of anything, of anything that
7 had been discussed with me.
8 Q. Did you read those alleged statements of yours that you signed
9 before The Hague investigators?
10 A. Yes, I read them. It was usually five minutes before the
11 questioning would be over. I would be so tired and so annoyed, quite
12 simply out of control. Or, rather, they would let me read it, and that
13 would be it. When I asked that they give me a copy of my own, they said
14 that I was not entitled to one. Later on, I heard that I actually was.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have completed my
17 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
18 Mr. MacFarlane.
19 Cross-examination by Mr. MacFarlane:
20 Q. Sir, I'm interested in understanding --
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
22 MR. MacFARLANE: Sorry.
23 Q. Sir, I'm interested in having an understanding of the sequence of
24 events here, so I'd like to take you through the sequence over a period
25 of time.
1 It's my understanding that you provided a statement to the Office
2 of the Prosecutor in April of 2003, and that was your first statement to
3 the OTP. Is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I understand as well that you had quite a number of different
6 types of contacts with investigators with the OTP over a period of time,
7 perhaps as many as seven or eight; not necessarily leading to statements,
8 but, rather, contacts and discussions. Is that correct?
9 A. No.
10 Q. How many contacts do you think you had with the OTP?
11 A. I think from that date that you mentioned up until, say -- well,
12 it went on for four or five days, four days, five days. I came every
13 morning at 10.00, and we would be done sometime in the afternoon, after
14 having taken a short lunch break as well.
15 Q. Were there other occasions when you had meetings with
16 investigators of the OTP, aside from that one?
17 A. After that, there was another call a year or two later - I cannot
18 remember exactly - and, of course, this one in Belgrade four years ago,
19 the one that I've already mentioned.
20 Q. Perhaps I could refresh your memory a bit by referring you to a
21 statement that you gave on the 24th of January of 2007, and see if you
22 recall making this comment.
23 You were talking about your contact with Paolo with the OTP, and
24 you said:
25 "I just know that they told me that they were taking me as their
1 witness in the case against Vojislav Seselj. I found it strange that
2 whenever I talked to someone from the party, the next day they would call
3 me again for an interview. I tried to find out what they actually wanted
4 from me, but I noticed that strange things were happening, and I had to
5 take refuge in a monastery. But in the meantime, I visited them about
6 seven to eight times."
7 Do you remember that?
8 A. I don't remember that statement. It is possible that I said
9 that, but I really don't remember that. I did spend a lot of time at
10 monasteries, but not seeking refuge. Refuge from whom?
11 MR. MacFARLANE: I'd like to refer the Chamber to an exhibit.
12 It's Exhibit 55O, and we have copies here for the Chamber. This purports
13 to be a statement given by the witness in August of 2008, prepared
14 personally by him, but I'll ask him questions about that.
15 Before I ask questions of the witness on the statement, I would
16 ask that we go into private session.
17 JUDGE HALL: We move into private session.
18 [Private session]
11 Pages 227-229 redacted. Private session.
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
22 So we are about to take the adjournment until 2.30 tomorrow
24 And I would remind the witness that having been sworn as a
25 witness in this matter, you not have any communication with counsel for
1 the -- well, Mr. MacFarlane, on the one hand, or Mr. Seselj, on the
2 other. And, indeed, in any conversation that you have outside of the
3 courtroom, you cannot discuss your testimony.
4 So we will continue tomorrow at 2.30.
5 [The witness stands down]
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.03 p.m.,
7 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 7th day of June,
8 2011, at 2.30 p.m.