1 Tuesday, 15 August 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic.
7 WITNESS: RATKO LICINA [Resumed]
8 [Witness answered through interpreter]
9 Examination by Mr. Milovancevic: [Continued]
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you proceed, Mr. Milovancevic, can I just
11 -- I'm sorry to do this to you. May I just please warn the witness.
12 Mr. Licina, yesterday before you started your testimony you made an oath,
13 or rather, a declaration to tell the truth, nothing else -- the whole
14 truth and nothing else but the truth. You are still bound by that
15 declaration to tell the truth, nothing else but the truth. Thank you very
17 Yes, Mr. Milovancevic. You may proceed.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. Good morning, Mr. Licina.
20 A. Good morning.
21 Q. The Defence will continue with your examination-in-chief. I will
22 ask you once again to think of the interpreters and to speak slowly so
23 that the interpreters can keep up, and to avoid overlapping between my
24 questions and your answers. Thank you.
25 Yesterday, Mr. Licina, you explained that you were a member of the
1 assembly, first of all of the SAO Krajina and then the Republic of Serbian
2 Krajina, throughout its existence. Did I understand you correctly?
3 A. Yes. I was a member of the assembly of the SAO Krajina and of the
4 Republic of Serbian Krajina, and after the elections of 1993, I was a
5 deputy in the assembly of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. That was after
7 Q. In this period, while you were a deputy, did you hold any
8 positions in the main executive board of the Serb Democratic Party?
9 A. Yes. I continued to be a member of the main executive board, and
10 I haven't said yet that in the assembly I was a member of parliamentary
11 committees for defence and security and for information.
12 Q. Can you tell us what organs of authority existed on the territory
13 of the SAO Krajina and afterwards the Republic of Serb Krajina. I am
14 bearing in mind the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches, if
15 they existed.
16 A. On the territory of the SAO Krajina, there were the legislative,
17 executive, and judicial branches of government. There was the assembly,
18 the government, and the courts that existed in the SAO Krajina
19 respectively. After 1991, after the 19th of December, 1991, when the
20 Republic of Serbian Krajina was formed, there were also the legislative,
21 executive, and judicial branches of government. There was the assembly of
22 the Republic of Serbian Krajina which was the legislative branch, then
23 there was the president of the Republic of Serb Krajina and other bodies
24 of the executive, and then there was also a system of courts.
25 Q. As you mentioned the government of the SAO Krajina and then the
1 Republic of Serbian Krajina, or the executive branch, what were the main
2 ministries? Can you enumerate at least some of them?
3 A. The government of the SAO Krajina, and later on the Republic of
4 Serbian Krajina, had all the standard ministries that exist in all
5 countries; the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of the Interior, the
6 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Information, the Ministry of
7 Trade, all the usual ministries.
8 Q. From 1991 to 1995, you were a deputy in the assembly. Do you know
9 whether the government of the SAO Krajina and then of the Republic of
10 Serbian Krajina had any sessions, whether it operated, and whether the
11 Prime Minister carried out his job?
12 A. Throughout the period from the 19th of December, 1990, when the
13 SAO Krajina was established, until the 4th of August, 1995, the government
14 worked normally. It had its sessions, it adopted decisions, it tabled
15 bills in the assembly, just like any other government anywhere.
16 Q. Thank you. As you held an important political office in the Serb
17 Democratic Party on the one hand and as you were a deputy in the assembly,
18 first of the SAO Krajina and then of the Republic of Serbian Krajina on
19 the other hand, can you tell us whether, apart from the regular government
20 organs, the official ones, there was a kind of parallel secret or
21 clandestine organisation or programme aimed at perpetrating crimes and
22 mistreating the Croatian population, persecuting, incarcerating and
23 killing the Serbian -- the non-Serbian population? Did this exist on the
24 territory of the Krajina as a kind of parallel system?
25 A. I assert decisively that there was no plan, no secret criminal
1 organisation or anything of the kind you've described. My answer is no.
2 Q. When yesterday we followed the chronology of events, we arrived at
3 the end of 1991. We mentioned the conflicts on the territory of the then
4 Yugoslav Republic of Croatia. Do you know in what period of time UNPROFOR
5 was deployed and the so-called Vance Plan was implemented?
6 A. The negotiations concerning the Vance Plan, in order to limit them
7 in time, took place in late 1991, in November and December, 1991, and in
8 early 1992. As far as I can recall, the final result was the adoption of
9 the Vance Plan and Resolution 743 of the Security Council, whereby
10 peacekeeping forces of the United Nations were deployed. They were
11 referred to as UNPROFOR. As far as I can recall, their deployment began
12 in March, 1992, and this went on for several months until the deployment
13 was complete, in four sectors; north, south, east and west, I think.
14 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us, Mr. Licina, whether the organs of the
15 SAO Krajina, the cabinet, the assembly - and I wish to explain right away
16 that I am referring to the organs that existed on the ground - some people
17 call it the so-called SAO Krajina, but in any case, there were organs
18 operating on the ground, and I want to know whether the organs of the SAO
19 Krajina and the Republic of Serb Krajina, at the time the peacekeeping
20 forces arrived, respected, complied with, and implemented the UN
21 resolution and the Vance Plan. Do you know anything about this?
22 A. As far as I know, all the elements of the Vance Plan were
23 respected by the Republic of Serb Krajina. When some people say the
24 so-called organs, I wish to say that the previous state of Croatia was
25 practically divided into two. The two nations had created two states, in
1 fact, one of them, however, was not internationally recognised but the
2 Republic of Serb Krajina was in fact a state. It had its executive,
3 legislative, and judiciary government; it had its territory which it
4 controlled; it had all the characteristics of a state.
5 Q. In view of your reply, the then Republic of Croatia was recognised
6 in January, 1992. Can one call that the so-called Republic of Croatia in
7 relation to Yugoslavia?
8 A. Yes. One could apply the same criterion and refer to it as
9 so-called. The difference was that the Krajina controlled the territory
10 it considered its own, whereas Croatia was not in control of the territory
11 it considered its own at the time, so it was questionable whether it was a
12 state in the full meaning of the word.
13 Q. Thank you. Do you know whether the Territorial Defence of the
14 Republic of Serb Krajina put its weapons under a double key in
15 UNPROFOR-controlled warehouses?
16 A. I am aware of this, yes. This is correct. So-called blue
17 battalions were established under Resolution 743. Only police forces
18 could exist under that resolution, so the so-called blue battalions were
19 established. Most of us then left the army. We were no longer in the
20 military, no longer carrying weapons.
21 Q. When the UN troops arrived, the Territorial Defence of the
22 Republic of Serb Krajina, or its army, did it have heavy weapons, heavy
23 artillery, mortars and so on, and were these heavy weapons put in
25 A. Yes. Heavy weapons were put in warehouses, although very soon
1 Resolution 743 and the Vance Plan were violated. All the UNPROFOR forces
2 hadn't even been deployed yet when the Vance Plan was violated and there
3 was an attack in Dalmatia; more precisely, on the Miljevac plateau. This
4 happened in June, 1992.
5 Q. The Miljevac plateau which you mentioned, was it supposed to be
6 under United Nations protection?
7 A. Yes. The Miljevac plateau was an area which, according to the
8 plan, was supposed to be protected by UN forces. Croatia, however,
9 carried out an aggression on this area. As far as I know, about 150
10 people were killed there.
11 Q. In connection with this operation by the Croatian army on the
12 Miljevac plateau, do you know whether the Security Council passed any
13 resolutions in this connection?
14 A. I don't recall the resolution or that there was a resolution. I
15 know that some warnings were issued, but Croatia was encouraged by this to
16 continue violating the Vance Plan and Resolution 743, so there was only an
17 oral reprimand.
18 Q. Did the Croatian forces withdraw from the Miljevac plateau where
19 they had arrived in violation of the agreement?
20 A. As far as I know, they didn't. There was more than one such
21 incursion before the final attack and occupation of the Republic of Serb
22 Krajina in Operation Storm. I know that the police and military forces
23 never returned to any area where there was an incursion, and there were
24 other such incursions in September, 1992, in Miljevac Polje [phoen], then
25 in Maslenica in January, 1993, in the Medak pocket in September, 1993, and
1 later on, there was Operation Flash in Western Slavonia in 1995.
2 Q. Did the UN peacekeeping forces, the blue helmets, have an
3 obligation to protect the entire population in the UN protected areas and
4 free them of fear of an armed attack? Did they have such an obligation or
6 MR. BLACK: Objection. Leading question, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Leading question, Mr. Milovancevic.
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I asked the
9 witness whether there was or was not such an obligation. We can
10 reformulate the question but ... I will do that if Your Honour so
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: You dispute that you made an objectionable
13 statement. If you want to rephrase, are you admitting that you made an
14 objectionable statement? If you do, then you've got to withdraw the
15 previous one and then rephrase. I'm not sure whether you are saying
16 you're admitting or not admitting.
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in order to gain
18 time, I withdraw this question and I will rephrase it.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I don't wish to be seen as
21 putting leading questions.
22 Q. Mr. Licina, the resolution of the Security Council under which the
23 UN forces arrived on the territory of Yugoslavia contains several
24 elements. Did any of these elements contain an obligation relating to
25 protection of these areas?
1 A. To the best of my knowledge, and in view of the way in which the
2 arrival of the UN peacekeeping forces was received, it was explained to us
3 - and that was our understanding of the resolution - that the
4 peacekeeping forces were supposed to give full protection to the
5 population in the areas where they were deployed. That was the area of
6 the Republic of Serb Krajina, divided into those four sectors, as they
7 were called then.
8 Q. And in your opinion, did the UN fulfil its obligation, for
9 example, in the Miljevac plateau?
10 A. It's evident that the UN peacekeeping forces did not fulfil this
11 obligation, and not just in the Miljevac plateau but in any of the later
12 Croatian offensives. Terrible crimes were committed, large numbers of
13 people were killed in all these Croatian aggressions. The peacekeeping
14 forces would turn up after a Croatian aggression as a kind of buffer zone,
15 when we had practically already been expelled from those areas. For this
16 reason, I feel that the peacekeeping forces failed to comply with their
17 obligation contained in the resolution.
18 Q. There is an important question in these proceedings and that is
19 the question of long-barrelled weapons, automatic rifles, which the police
20 of the Republika Srpska Krajina or the SAO Krajina carried. Can you
21 please tell us why the SAO Krajina police had automatic rifles in spite of
22 the fact that there were troops in the protected zone of the UN? There
23 were 11.000 of such troops.
24 A. Like I said, the peace forces began to deploy in March, 1992, and
25 this deployment took several months to be completed. The deployment was
1 not completed, of the peacekeeping forces, when they were already some
2 violations of the plan and the violations of the resolution by an attack
3 on the Miljevac plateau in June, so not a full three months later. The
4 peacekeeping forces had still not deployed, we had placed our weaponry
5 under lock and key, so in that situation it would have been absolute folly
6 to disarm completely. It was quite logical to keep the long-barrelled
8 Q. Mr. Licina, in spite of this aggression on the Miljevac plateau,
9 you mentioned several other major activities by the Croatian armed forces
10 in the UN protected zones. Other than those large actions, which had
11 their names, these aggressions, were there any other conflicts? And if
12 so, when, and how many? Do you know anything about that?
13 A. There are four major Croatian offensives that are known: The
14 Miljevac plateau, Miljevac Polje was a slightly smaller action. After
15 that, in January, there was Maslenica -- in January, 1993. In September,
16 1993, there was the Medak pocket in the Lika area; and in May, 1995, there
17 was Operation Flash in Western Slavonia. Other than that, there were
18 constant separate attacks, but we remember this as four major offensives.
19 Constantly, from the fighting at the Miljevac plateau until the occupation
20 of the Republic of Serbian Krajina in August, 1995, there was constant
22 Q. When you talk about this question, this constant fighting, can you
23 tell us whether this is something that you experienced personally or was
24 this something that you received as a member of parliament or in some
25 other way? What is your source of information? You say that you were in
1 Gracac. The Republic of the territory of the SAO Krajina is much larger
2 than the place where you were.
3 A. As a member of parliament of SAO Krajina, of course it's natural
4 that I was informed about these things. As far as my personal
5 experiences, there were such cases in my municipality every day. The
6 municipality of Gracac is small in territory but it has 13.000 -- its
7 population is about 13.000. In the war it lost about 500 of its
8 inhabitants, so I did have plenty of occasions to attend funerals. I knew
9 most of these people. So I did have a lot of information about these
11 Q. Do you have information about how it was possible that the
12 Croatian soldiers, police, simply crossed the line of separation, entered
13 the UN protected areas, in circumstances when there were about 10 to
14 11.000 soldiers out in the field? How was something like that possible?
15 What were these other soldiers doing? What was happening to them? Do you
16 know anything about that?
17 A. According to my information, they stood at the sidelines. When
18 you ask me this, it's not clear to me how this is possible. This is
19 something that should not have been possible, but evidently it did happen.
20 It's one thing what was actually signed, what was on paper, and what the
21 top organ, the Security Council of the United Nations, declared, and it
22 was quite another thing what was happening in the field.
23 Q. As for what was happening in the field, there are many UN
24 documents as well as documents by the UNPROFOR civilian police about the
25 suffering of the Croatian population in the area of the SAO Krajina, for
1 which the police forces of SAO Krajina are charged. Can you tell us
2 anything about that?
3 A. I have information about that from the newspapers. I know that I
4 think Franjo Tudjman - and I have that here in the text - that Franjo
5 Tudjman said that Croatia lost 13.000 -- no, 10.000 people, that there
6 were 10.000 victims from Croatia. But no Serbian casualties were given
7 there. So when he spoke about casualties and victims, he was talking
8 exclusively about Croatians. If you look at the number of the population,
9 proportionally, of Croatia and Krajina, the ratio of the victims is three
10 times greater on the Krajina side.
11 Q. When I mentioned the UNPROFOR report, is it true that the army of
12 the Republika Srpska Krajina and its police had a plan and tortured,
13 killed, and detained the Croatian population deliberately?
14 A. I'm not aware of any such case. I have not heard about anything
15 like that.
16 Q. You mentioned several attacks on the UN Protected Area. Can you
17 tell us whether in that period, from late 1991 and early 1992, when the
18 resolution on the mission of the United Nations in Yugoslavia was adopted
19 and until Operation Storm, was there any assault operation carried out by
20 the army or police of the Republika Srpska Krajina against the Croatian
21 side whereby it would have to cross the line of separation?
22 A. As far as I know, the army of the Republic of the Serbian Krajina,
23 the police - so the police and the army as regular forces of the Republic
24 of Serbian Krajina - in that period did not carry out any assault
25 operations. No advance was made in that sense. The only thing that
1 happened was the aggression on the territory of the RSK.
2 Q. You mentioned the Miljevac plateau in January, 1993. You
3 mentioned also the Maslenica operation and the Medak pocket. Can you tell
4 us what the position was of the civilian population in that area, in the
5 areas that were attacked by the Croatian army?
6 A. In the operation on the Maslenica bridge in Ravni Kotari, there
7 was a major pogrom of the civilian population in Ravni Kotari, in the
8 villages of Smokovic, Kasic, and others. In this operation, I think that
9 there were about 300 casualties. At the same time, when this operation in
10 the Maslenica area was being carried out, there was also a terrorist
11 incursion in the Gracac municipality area, in the sector of Mali Alan
12 [phoen]. I think that that location is called Egeljac. Croatian forces
13 entered that area, they intercepted a truck full of soldiers of the RSK,
14 and they carried out a bestial crime in which 22 soldiers were
15 slaughtered. Their throats were cut. It was an evident killing. Later,
16 during the post-mortem, it was established that the cause of death was a
17 cold weapon.
18 Q. What happened to the property, the houses, the churches, in the--
19 belonging to the Serbian population in the villages that were attacked by
20 the Croat forces?
21 A. The Serb property was looted, robbed, burned, and buildings were
22 also treated in the same way as well as church property, Orthodox church
24 Q. Do you know if the Security Council reacted in any way to this
25 operation in the Maslenica area and if the Croat side suffered any
1 consequences because of that?
2 A. As far as I know, there were no consequences for the Croatian side
3 regarding this matter. It all once again boiled down to a very mild
4 warning, and Croatia, with such an approach by the United Nations, was
5 practically encouraged to continue with more crimes against the people of
6 the Republika Srpska Krajina.
7 Q. Do you know where the Medak pocket area is, which villages make up
8 that area and what happened in September, 1993?
9 A. I know the Medak pocket. It is located practically in the
10 territory of the Gracac municipality. These were Serb villages that had
11 joined the Gracac municipality. This is something that I spoke about
13 Q. Was this a protected area, area under the protection of the United
15 A. Yes. It was under the protection of the UN peacekeeping forces.
16 These are villages Divoselo, Pocitelj, Ornice, and Citluk.
17 Q. What happened in that area? Do you have information about that?
18 A. Since at the time --
19 MR. BLACK: Objection. I'm sorry for the interruption, Your
20 Honour. I didn't object to this previously because I thought it may be a
21 short topic, but I wonder what the relevance of all this is, especially if
22 -- you know, if the witness wants to mention that there were these
23 incursions, I don't object to that, but the details of what happened to
24 the civilian population, and the details of attacks, Croats versus Serbs,
25 I don't see how that relates to the charges in the indictment.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] The testimony of this witness
3 is something that the Defence is using to point to the nature of reports
4 of the United Nations that were sent to the Security Council, in which
5 there is very little or there are practically no details about what was
6 happening in the UN protected zone in situations when there was enormous
7 suffering by the civilian population. One-sided reports were being sent,
8 in the opinion of the Defence. Of course, we cannot comment on that but
9 we would like to present the actual situation in the field. And we think
10 that this is a very relevant question because it also connects to the main
11 point of the Prosecution about the joint criminal enterprise.
12 And this testimony could be an answer to many matters initiated by
13 the Prosecution in their case. It has to do with the weaponry amongst the
14 Krajina Police, the presence of the military in Krajina, the conduct of
15 the UN forces, so the conduct of all the parties. So the Defence disputes
16 the position of the Prosecution on these matters and believes that UN
17 reports were not objective and that they were partial. In order to
18 substantiate these claims, it's necessary to put to the witness question
19 about the key events which were even registered in some UN Security
20 Council resolutions.
21 MR. BLACK: If I could respond, Your Honour. If the point were to
22 impugn the United Nations reports, why haven't we seen any United Nations
23 reports? These reports exist. We have some, many have been disclosed to
24 the Defence. But they don't use them. The Defence prefers to put on its
25 case by having witness talk about things, about speeches, about reports.
1 We never get to actually see those reports. I suggest that what is really
2 going on here is that, as usual, the Defence is trying to focus on the
3 actions of the Croatian forces instead of focusing on the crimes charged
4 in the indictment. If they are really attacking the UN reports, I think
5 we should see those reports.
6 As to the relevance of this material to the JCE, I think that's
7 minimal at best. The Prosecution's case is that the JCE was formed
8 certainly by 1990, 1991. All of these matters are later than that, Your
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Black, I thought -- I don't know. My -- let me
11 put it this way: The Defence has really never declared what their defence
12 is in this case. We've just been trying to read it in between the lines.
13 But what you allege is what they are trying to do, namely to show what the
14 Croats did the Serbs, is consistent with what they have been doing from
15 the beginning, and this Tribunal, or rather, this Chamber has tried to
16 find out exactly what the defence is, and without being told by the
17 Defence, it becomes very difficult to know whether any question is
18 relevant or not relevant. But to the extent that the Chamber has been
19 able to read in between the lines, that seems to be the defence of the
20 Defence: You did it, we did it too.
21 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, our position is that that -- it may be
22 their defence, but it's not a legally valid defence. The fact that they
23 did it too cannot possibly affect Mr. Martic's criminal responsibility for
24 the crimes alleged in the indictment.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: But then, if I rule in your favour, then they must
1 close their case. There is nothing else to tell us.
2 MR. BLACK: They would either have to close their case or find a
3 legally justifiable Defence because there is no sense in having 260 more
4 hours of a Defence case on a defence that is not a defence, it has no
5 legal bearing on the case, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is this argument not a little too late in the day?
7 MR. BLACK: I've tried to object as we went along, Your Honour. I
8 think Mr. Whiting and other members of counsel have objected to these very
9 types of questions. Whenever the questioning on cross-examination went to
10 crimes against Serbs by Croats, or went beyond the allegations in the
11 indictment, we've tried to object without being overly -- trying not to
12 disrupt the flow of trial, Your Honour, but we have objected to this
13 constantly throughout the trial.
14 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Black, there might be a further point,
15 though, because, as Mr. Milovancevic has said, when the Prosecution's case
16 was continuing, there was evidence coming from Prosecution witnesses
17 concerning the Vance Plan and surrounding circumstances, and the UNPROFOR
18 forces, and it gave a particular perspective that could have been said to
19 reflect that the Serbs were the aggressors and the Croats were the persons
20 who were on the receiving end, and it did lend a different perspective
21 that was consistent with the Prosecution's case. I believe that what
22 Mr. Milovancevic is saying, while that factually was incorrect, it is
23 irrelevant in determination of the issues and what we the Defence are
24 attempting to do now is to give you, from our position, the correct view
25 to show that the Serbs were not in fact the aggressors and that it was the
1 Croatians in those circumstances. So there was -- there would be a point
2 of relevance. I think it extends beyond the mere you did it to us, we did
3 it to you. So from that perspective, I would say that there is relevance,
4 and at the end of the day, it would be part of what would be before the
5 Court in resolving certain issues that are necessary to determine the
6 guilt or innocence on to those relevant counts in the indictment. So that
7 would be my own perspective.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just wanted to add that, from the point of view of
9 the Defence - and again this is what one would try to read in between the
10 lines - that it's some kind of self-defence. That's -- so whether it is,
11 we will find out at the end, but this is how I read it as it goes.
12 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I would agree also. Thank you, Judge Moloto.
13 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, could I have just a few seconds to confer
14 with counsel?
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: By all means.
16 [Prosecution counsel confer]
17 MR. BLACK: Could I briefly respond, Your Honour?
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, you may.
19 MR. BLACK: The first point is hopefully to clarify. The
20 Prosecution case has never been that the Croatian side does not violate
21 the Vance Plan or that there was not a military conflict, including in the
22 pink zones, which are the areas that are being discussed here. We have
23 tried to focus on the treatment of Croatian civilians within the territory
24 of the RSK. That's been the focus of our case. And I think most
25 importantly, self-defence is not a defence to war crimes and crimes
1 against humanity against those Croat civilians in the RSK. That I think
2 is clear from the jurisprudence which I believe we've cited in a filing,
3 and of course the parties will cite in their final briefs, but whether or
4 not this whole discussion -- I accept that it has some -- it does have
5 some relevance to the Vance Plan, and if that's the -- if that's the
6 reason for putting this forward, certainly I accept that it has some
7 relevance, although I would question the devotion of so much time to this
8 which is really -- it's a very, very marginal matter, has limited or no
9 significance to the Prosecution case, and we did not -- it was never part
10 of the Prosecution case that the Croatian side did not violate the Vance
12 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I would agree with you, Mr. Black, save and
13 except that quite a bit of evidence has come before the Court on the
14 Prosecution side, factually, and as that is the case, I think it would not
15 be in the interest of justice in my own view - I do not know if my
16 brothers would agree with me - to then limit the Defence when the
17 Prosecution has, if even incidentally to the several legal issues, it has
18 led quite a bit of evidence for the Defence to contradict. So as that was
19 part and parcel of the Prosecution case, I do believe that, in fairness,
20 in the interest of justice and a fair trial, that correspondingly,
21 howsoever, the Defence itself must now be given the opportunity to air
22 these issues and to respond and to put before the Trial Chamber what it
23 considers is its own case and its own responses to the facts. So from
24 that perspective, whilst acknowledging your position as to how your case
25 was structured and how it was placed before the Trial Chamber.
1 MR. BLACK: Thank you.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Once again -- excuse me. I just want to add a
3 little point here. No matter how insignificant a point may have been from
4 the point of view of the Prosecution, it is up to the Defence to interpret
5 it, and if from their perspective it's an important point, they must be
6 given an opportunity to deal with it.
7 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. I won't take any more time.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. The objection is overruled.
9 Mr. Milovancevic, you may proceed.
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Mr. Licina, you said that the Medak pocket area was under the UN
12 protection. What happened to the population during the operation called
13 Medak pocket? What happened to the Serb civilian population?
14 A. As I've said previously, the Medak pocket covers the four villages
15 that I enumerated, with other hamlets. In September of 1993, there was an
16 incursion of Croatian forces. As I remember, even based on the reports of
17 General Jean Cot, who was a member of the UN peacekeeping forces, in that
18 area, after the Croatian operation, nothing living was left. Everything
19 was destroyed. The soldiers, civilians, and animals were killed, and that
20 whole area of Medak pocket was basically an area of scorched earth.
21 Q. Mr. Licina, do you know whether there were any negotiations
22 between the RSK representatives with the Croatian side, any negotiations
23 that were facilitated either by UNPROFOR or international negotiators?
24 A. As far as I can remember, usually during the negotiations held
25 between the Serbian and Croatian side, it was precisely then that such
1 incursions occurred. If I remember well, the then Prime Minister, Djordje
2 Bjegovic, was taking part in negotiations in London or some place else
3 precisely during the time when the Medak pocket operation was carried out.
4 And I need to add that there were some 100 people killed in the Medak
5 pocket area. These people are mostly from my municipality, Gracac
6 municipality, and Donji Lapac municipality, so that means that I knew
7 personally quite a number of victims.
8 Q. Do you know anything about the so-called Zagreb agreement? Do you
9 know what provisions it had? The agreement I think was concluded on the
10 29th of March, 1994.
11 A. Yes. The Zagreb agreement was signed in 1994. It regulated the
12 early stages of economic cooperation between the Serbs and Croats. I
13 think that it regulated the use of highway and gas pipeline, if I'm not
15 Q. I had in mind a kind of a military agreement which stipulated the
16 separation of forces. You were referring to an economic agreement. Do
17 you distinguish between the two?
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, you can't do that. I'm sorry.
19 The witness has given you an answer. It's an economic cooperation. What
20 does military agreement come into it? Are you not -- do you want to take
21 the stand? He's answered you. What you had in mind, you keep in your
22 mind. Carry on with the economic cooperation.
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I understood, Your Honour,
24 thank you.
25 Q. Now that you've mentioned the economic cooperation, Mr. Licina,
1 were any provisions on economic cooperation implemented?
2 A. As far as I remember, the highway was opened for traffic in
3 Western Slavonia. And the Zagreb agreement had a number of levels. One
4 of them was the economic one, and then there was the military aspect.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm going to deny you talking on the military
6 agreement part of it. Okay? Deal with the economic agreement.
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Mr. Licina, where were you in May of 1995?
9 A. In May of 1995, I was in Gracac.
10 Q. When you mentioned the Operation Flash, can you tell us, what was
11 your source of information concerning that operation, and can you describe
12 to us briefly what happened and in which area?
13 A. As I've told you, I was a member of parliament and a member of the
14 security board. In May of 1995, there was an incursion of Croatian
15 forces, which was another aggression of Croatia carried out against the
16 RSK and yet another violation of the Vance Plan. They made an incursion
17 into the territory of Western Slavonia. I believe it was Sector West.
18 They completely cleansed out ethnically the municipalities of Pakrac and
19 Okucani, and there was a pogrom in Western Slavonia in 1991 as well, at
20 which time the Serbs were cleansed out of the area of Grubisno Polje,
21 Podravska Slatina, and Daruvar, which is to say that the whole area was
22 cleansed out of Serbs, which carried with it quite a lot of victims.
23 Later on, we learned that many victims were burned in caves in Sisak and
24 other places. However, this is all second-hand information, as far as I'm
1 Q. When the police and other forces attacked Western Slavonia, was
2 that area under the UN protection?
3 A. Yes. At that time, that area was under the control of the UN.
4 This came after the political turmoil which surrounded the so-called Z-4
6 Q. Did the Croatian army and police ever withdraw from Western
7 Slavonia? They attacked the UN protected area, they killed civilians.
8 Did the Security Council react to such a grave violation of international
10 A. I'm not aware of that. Once again I think there was a verbal
11 reprimand; however, Croatian forces remained there and were basically
12 given green light to carry out the later aggression against the RSK in
13 August of 1995.
14 Q. Are you familiar of any -- familiar with any aspects of the Z-4
15 plan? When was it drafted and what was its fate?
16 A. This plan originated in late 1994 and early 1995. The Z-4 plan
17 was offered earlier, back when -- in 1992, Croatia, under pressure from
18 international community, came up with a proposal to redefine Croatia. I
19 think that they had a constitutional law on establishing counties of Glina
20 and some other counties, and then this plan was just renamed into the Z-4
21 plan and was offered to the Republic of Serbian Krajina later. This,
22 however, was happening at the same time when the mandate of UNPROFOR was
23 extended. President Martic at that time informed us, saying that the plan
24 would be discussed when the status of UN forces was going to be discussed,
25 and that was completely logical at the time.
1 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Before you proceed, who is President Martic?
2 Mr. Licina, could you please answer this question? I don't know if the
3 evidence has been led before and I missed it. I'm so sorry.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Milan Martic was elected president
5 in 1994, in January, if I'm not mistaken, and he's present here in the
7 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you very much.
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. In relation to the question put by Her Honour Nosworthy, you said
10 that Martic was elected president. President of what?
11 A. He was elected president of the Republic of Serbian Krajina.
12 Q. Thank you. Do you know whether there were any Serb victims in
14 A. As far as I'm aware, there were a large number of victims in
15 Western Slavonia.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: It's Western
17 Slavonia, not Krajina.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We have a report of the Veritas
19 centre detailing that there were about 1.000 victims, or missing persons.
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Do you know whether the exact number of victims was ever
23 A. The exact number of victims was never established. We, as the
24 government of the Republic of Serbian Krajina in exile, have some figures
25 which we received from the documentation and information centre Veritas.
1 These are victims and these are the people who were reported as missing by
2 their family members, so this is quite beyond dispute, and Veritas uses
3 the number of 6.500 of those who were killed or went missing.
4 Q. You are referring to the number of 6.500 of those who were killed
5 and gone missing. During which period of time?
6 A. From 1991 to 1995, in the territory of the Republic of Serbian
7 Krajina. These are the citizens of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. As
8 this was taking place, we recorded the names of these people as those who
9 were victims.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is centre Veritas?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The documentation and information
12 centre Veritas is a non-governmental organisation collecting information
13 about the victims in the territory of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. It
14 is headed by Mr. Savo Strbac.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: And does your information that you have just been
16 giving us emanate from that source, from that organisation?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. What I just said, yes.
18 However, based on our information, the number of victims is even greater.
19 However, in view of the circumstances under which we conduct our work, it
20 was impossible for us to collect the precise information because our
21 people are living everywhere throughout the world. The family members
22 would come to the Veritas centre and report their relatives as missing or
23 killed. This is the basis on which this information was compiled. Since
24 the centre was established back in 1992 or 1993, that means that it was
25 operative during that period of time and information was collected at the
1 time, and then later, also it was done regarding the events in 1995 in May
2 and in August.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, how -- in what form did you receive this
4 information from Veritas?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the form of charts. I have one
6 such chart here with me. They have regular bulletins that they publish.
7 As far as I'm aware, the documentation and information centre Veritas has
8 good cooperation with this Tribunal and it sends its reports regularly to
9 the Tribunal.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
11 Yes, Mr. Milovancevic. Please proceed.
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. You mentioned the Operation Storm, Mr. Licina. What does this
14 term denote?
15 A. The Operation Storm denotes an aggression of Croatian army on the
16 territory of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. To be more precise, the
17 territory of the old SAO Krajina, which is Northern Dalmatia, Kordun,
18 Lika, and Krajina. This operation started in August of 1995.
19 Q. Can you tell us, what was the outcome of that operation?
20 A. The outcome of that operation is definitely the greatest case of
21 ethnic cleansing in Europe after the Second World War.
22 MR. BLACK: Objection, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Black?
24 MR. BLACK: I'm sorry to interrupt the witness. At this point I
25 have to object. This is August of 1995. Your Honours, I believe, have
1 already ruled that whatever happened to Serbs, whatever was done to Serbs
2 by Croatians in Operation Storm is not relevant to this indictment. It
3 can't even be self-defence because it happens after all of the alleged
4 crimes in this indictment. There is no basis for this, Your Honour, in
5 our submission; it's simply not relevant to the case.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the indictment
8 covers the period from 1991 until the end of 1995. Mr. Martic is charged
9 in this indictment for participation in joint criminal enterprise
10 throughout that period of time. Earlier, when objecting earlier, my
11 learned friend explained that this was the joint criminal enterprise
12 carried out in the period 1991 to 1992. If they wish to amend the
13 indictment, then I would be very glad to hear that. However, the
14 indictment states that the joint criminal enterprise period was in place
15 throughout the end of 1995. During that period of time, there were some
16 events which happened which are mentioned in their indictment. In the
17 final paragraphs of the indictment, 69 and 70 - I may be wrong about the
18 number of the paragraph - they mention the Operation Storm and they say
19 that by means of that operation, the Croatian government established its
20 authority in the territory of Krajina. This act, which was an attack
21 under the UN protected zone, the Prosecutor described this as an event
22 where the civilian population withdrew with the military and we wonder how
23 come they withdrew with the military? This is something that we disagree
24 with in the indictment. This is one of the key issues that we disagree
25 about, and by omitting precisely such issues, they come to some other
1 conclusions with which we disagree as well. Once again, for the umpteenth
2 time, the Defence has to prove that it would be incredible and naive for
3 us to defend a crime with another crime. This is not the strategy of our
4 defence, no. The Defence is trying to show that there existed throughout
5 the time a joint criminal enterprise on the Croatian side and that the
6 Serbian population from the beginning to the end only tried to protect
7 itself and that, despite the United Nations, the outcome was a Serbian
8 exodus. The events are portrayed in a different manner here. Whether
9 there were any individual crimes throughout that period of time, that's
10 another issue. Maybe the Prosecutor can give us example of a war where
11 there were no individual crimes. Now we are discussing a topic which
12 arose on the basis of the indictment.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I just ask, Mr. Milovancevic, that when you
14 deal with an objection, please try to focus on the objection and don't
15 deal with the entire case. But I've heard what you said. Yes, Mr. Black?
16 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. If I could respond briefly.
17 The first point is Defence counsel has made reference, I believe, to
18 paragraph 78 of the indictment. There is a reference to Operation Storm.
19 As I read it now, at no point does the Prosecution describe this as an
20 event where the civilian population withdrew with the military. That's
21 not something that we represented in the indictment, which is what Defence
22 counsel says at line 18 of page 26. Operation Storm is mentioned in the
23 additional fact section of the indictment because obviously that was when
24 the RSK ended, but the last -- and it's quite right, Defence counsel is
25 right that the indictment period extends up to December, 1995. That is
1 mostly done to reflect the possibility of 7(3) liability extending, the
2 failure to punish, even after criminal incidents, but the last criminal
3 incident alleged in the indictment is the 3rd of May, 1995, the shelling
4 of Zagreb. I cannot understand how Operation Storm could justify any of
5 those incidents, the shelling of Zagreb or any incident before, nor do I
6 understand how a Croatian operation in August, 1995, has a bearing on the
7 JCE, even if it did extend to the end of 1995, as alleged in the
8 indictment. The Prosecution has no intention of amending its indictment
9 to shorten the period of the JCE. What I said, or meant to say before, is
10 that it's been clear from the Prosecution case that the JCE was in place
11 by 1990 or 1991, therefore it could not have been a response to events
12 that happened in 1993 and 1994 and 1995. If the Defence case is to allege
13 a Croat JCE, I would suggest that's another case, not this one.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Chamber will rule on the objection when we come
16 back from the break.
17 Can we come back at quarter to 11.00.
18 Court adjourned.
19 --- Recess taken at 10.15 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.
21 JUDGE HOEPFEL: If I may ask you, Mr. Milovancevic, how much
22 further -- yes. Mr. Milovancevic, how much further do you intend to
23 address these issues related to Operation Storm for the establishing --
24 for establishing your case?
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, very briefly and
1 very concisely. Very briefly, very concisely, and the Defence has more
2 than one task in this respect. One of these is to check what the OTP
3 expert Mr. Grujic has said about the number of victims. These statements
4 are drastically different from the facts that the Defence has at its
5 disposal, and we wish to point to the actual state of affairs.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Your question, Mr. Milovancevic, was what was the
8 outcome of the Operation Storm.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, when you talk about the number of victims, are
11 you talking about number of victims during Operation Storm?
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour.
13 The number of victims in the findings of the expert is part of the
14 information presented to the Chamber, and I want to see with this witness
15 whether it's part of the information presented by the witness here.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: The question is then allowed. The objection will
17 be overruled.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. Mr. Licina, can you briefly tell us what the outcome of Operation
20 Storm was with respect to the civilian population on the territory covered
21 by that operation?
22 A. As I said previously, Operation Storm completely ethnically
23 cleansed the areas of Northern Dalmatia, Kordun, Lika, and Banija of the
24 Serb population. There were some 250.000 refugees. As for victims,
25 according to the information I have, there were over a thousand. I don't
1 have the precise number in my memory. A hundred -- no, 1.909, according
2 to the Veritas information. This is confirmed by my own experience. I
3 said previously that Gracac municipality, in this war, suffered 500
4 casualties. About 200 of these were in Gracac municipality alone. Gracac
5 municipality is one of 15 municipalities affected by this operation. This
6 illustrates the extent of the crime that was perpetrated here.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I just state a concern, Mr. Milovancevic. I
8 see Mr. Licina has a blue-looking plastic in front of him which seems to
9 be a document cover. And he keeps looking at it. I'm not quite sure what
10 is happening. I would have thought that he's testifying from memory. I'm
11 not quite sure what the status of the document he keeps on looking at is.
12 Are you able to clarify this?
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Licina, you heard His Honour's question, the question by the
15 Presiding Judge. You said that you had some information at your disposal.
16 Can you tell us what is in your blue file?
17 A. As I said previously when talking about the Veritas documentation
18 and information centre, which deals with victims on the territory of the
19 Republic of Serb Krajina, this is an excerpt from the Veritas bulletin.
20 It's true that I am testifying according to memory, but I cannot keep all
21 the numbers in my head, which is why I brought this along, in order to
22 refresh my memory as far as numbers are concerned.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are not allowed to use a document which has no
24 status before this Court to refresh your memory and you're not testifying
25 as an expert witness, are you?
1 He's not testifying as an expert witness, Mr. Milovancevic; am I
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour. I
4 will ask the witness not to use this document. He has just taken it out.
5 He took it out when he started discussing the numbers of victims. This is
6 the witness's own documentation, which we are neither using nor tendering
7 at this point in time.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's precisely why it should not be used. Can
9 you put it in your bag, please, Mr. Licina. Thank you very much.
10 You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Mr. Licina, where were you on the 4th of August, 1995, the day
13 Operation Storm started?
14 A. On the 4th of August, 1995, I was in Gracac. That morning, the
15 shelling began. As far as I can recall, at about 5.00 in the morning.
16 That was when the attack began. As I learned later, this was an all-out
17 Croatian attack on the Krajina, the first axis of attack taken by the
18 Croatian forces.
19 Q. Mr. Licina, please, as we are now not going into the details of
20 the operation, I wish to ask you not to continue with this in order not to
21 take up time, but all I want to know is your experience. Can you tell us
22 whether Gracac was both a town and a municipality in the UN protected
23 areas and whether there were any military facilities. Because you say
24 there was artillery fire on the town in the morning.
25 A. Gracac was one of 27 municipalities in the Republic of Serb
1 Krajina. It's in the area of Lika. The town of Gracac is the seat of
2 Gracac municipality. In the town itself, there were no military forces
3 or any military facilities. Our closest forces were some 15 or 20
4 kilometres away from the town in the areas of Mali Alan, Metka, and so on.
5 Q. And who opened artillery fire? You say shelling began. Who
6 opened fire on that town and other towns?
7 A. It was the Croatian army, the Croatian forces. The shelling of
8 Gracac -- well, Gracac had been shelled before this, but that day was the
9 most intensive shelling. Gracac had been shelled continuously for months
10 before that.
11 Q. I'll just put one more question to you about this. What happened
12 to you and the civilian population?
13 A. Like most people from the Krajina, in those few days I was part of
14 the column leaving for Serbia. We left because of the pressure of the
15 Croatian aggression. To the best of my knowledge, about 250.000 people
16 left. And a huge area was completely ethnically cleansed. This was the
17 end of a series of events which had lasted for a little under five years,
18 during which over 600.000 Serbs left Croatia. An entire nation was
19 ethnically cleansed from a state.
20 Q. Mr. Licina, with respect to the Vance Plan which we mentioned, the
21 resolution by which this plan was adopted and UN troops deployed on the
22 territory of Yugoslavia was Resolution 743, as you said. Do you know
23 whether the Croatian side accepted the Vance Plan, and was the Croatian
24 side obliged to comply with it?
25 A. Yes. It was. Because the Croatian side also agreed to it. It
1 was only after the agreement of both sides that the resolution began to be
2 implemented. It was, however, broken by the Croatian side very soon, only
3 a few months after the deployment of the UN troops. I have already
4 mentioned the events on the Miljevac plateau.
5 Q. When you say that all this ended with Operation Storm, my next
6 question is you mentioned the number of 650 --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 6.500.
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. -- people who were killed in this period between 1991 and 1995.
10 Does this number of 6.500 people killed also include those killed during
11 Operation Storm?
12 A. Only in part. As I said, the documentation and information centre
13 Veritas collected this information by interviewing members of families of
14 people who were killed or missing, who came to the Veritas centre to
15 report this. There was also a large movement of our people who went to
16 third countries. So I believe this information to be incomplete. I think
17 the numbers are higher.
18 Q. I'm asking you this because there was an official of the Republic
19 of Croatia who testified here, Mr. Grujic, who in his expert testimony
20 said that there were 302 Serb victims in the territory of the RSK.
21 A. Does this refer only to the Storm Operation or --
22 MR. BLACK: As I recall Mr. Grujic's testimony, and I hope counsel
23 will correct me if I'm wrong and point me to the transcript, he did not
24 say there were only 302 Serb victims to Operation Storm. What he said was
25 -- I think he referred to that number as some that he was aware of, but
1 he made no representations as to the entire amount of victims.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Prosecution
4 provided the parties and the Chamber with an expert finding where it is
5 explicitly said that there are 302 Serbian victims and about 4.150 persons
6 whose identity and ethnicity were not established. The Defence has tried
7 to test this question by putting questions to the expert, but we didn't
8 get an answer other than getting an additional explanation that some
9 people were later exhumed and identified, but the identification process
10 was not completed, so it is not known who these persons are. This is why
11 I am discussing these figures which seem to be drastically different from
12 the testimony of this witness.
13 I'm just trying, at least, to make a very brief comparison. This
14 is why I put this question to this witness.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: My problem is that this witness has already said
16 that he believes the information that he has to be incomplete, that he
17 thinks the numbers are higher. And your question related to the number
18 6.500 dead, dead people, which, according to your question, as I
19 understood it, are not entirely from Operation Storm. You asked the
20 question, "Does that number include the number killed in Desert Storm
21 [sic]." Maybe you can ask the witness how many, according to him, were
22 killed in Desert Storm, if he knows.
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will put the
24 question in such a way. I think that perhaps you didn't quite understand
25 what I was asking. So to avoid providing an explanation, I'm going to put
1 the question in such a way that the witness can answer. With your
2 permission, Your Honour, may I continue?
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Continue and let's hear what you're going to say.
4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Licina, can you tell us, what is the information that you have
6 at your disposal about the number of casualties amongst the population of
7 the Serb ethnicity in Operation Storm?
8 A. The information that I have is 1.900 casualties. This number that
9 I mentioned, 6.500, refers to the overall casualties throughout the war,
10 produced by the Veritas centre. Earlier I said that only in the territory
11 of my municipality about 200 people were killed during Operation Storm.
12 Q. Mr. Licina, when you refer to 6.500 victims, are you talking about
13 Serbian victims in RSK territory? Is this clear?
14 A. When I talk about casualties, 6.500 casualties that the Veritas
15 centre reported, I'm talking about casualties who were citizens of the
16 Republic of Serbian Krajina. We did not split these by ethnicity.
17 Q. Are you now a refugee by status, Mr. Licina?
18 A. Yes, I am.
19 Q. Other than you, are there any other persons of Serb ethnicity who
20 fled during Flash and Storm who still have that status?
21 A. Like I said before, over 600.000 people fled the territory of
22 Croatia, primarily Serbs, people of Serb ethnicity, who found refuge
23 mostly in Serbia, Republika Srpska, and other countries. In the meantime,
24 the state of Serbia defined the status people had to have identity papers
25 issued in order to get a job and for other purposes. So at the moment,
1 only 7.000 people have status refugee, of refugees, although the other
2 people who were issued with identity papers are still practically refugees
3 because they did not manage to secure their other rights.
4 Q. You're saying that when they received their new identity papers in
5 another country, they lost their status of refugees, although they still
6 remain in that status?
7 A. Yes, that is true. They lost their status, so the official figure
8 of the number of refugees in Serbia today is 107.000, but I think there
9 are at least three times as many people who are actually refugees but they
10 had to take out new identity papers because of jobs, because of property
11 issues, and so on.
12 Q. Mr. Licina, I have some other questions before we finish. At the
13 beginning of your testimony you explained the attempt by political
14 representatives of the Serbian people in Croatia to resolve the status of
15 the Serbian people in Croatia in a legal way, something that would also be
16 covered by constitutional articles, but it has been said that the Serbian
17 population was frightened by genocide, that their fears were incited
18 through the media, through speeches of politicians, various newspaper
19 articles, and writing.
20 MR. BLACK: Objection, Your Honour. I don't see a question here.
21 I see a speech. It seems like Defence counsel is testifying. Perhaps I'm
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have that problem, Mr. Milovancevic, and you're
24 beginning to talk about genocide and other fears. I'm not quite sure
25 whether you're asking a question or what you're doing.
1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will put a very
2 short question to the witness so that I would not make such an impression,
3 if you allow me.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: That would be very helpful. And while we are at
5 the question of short questions, may I just also ask the witness to give
6 short, concise answers to the question. I've been trying to hold myself
7 from saying so, to allow you to say what you have to say as a witness, but
8 most of your questions [sic] are also very lengthy and go far beyond what
9 is asked. The details, if your counsel wants them, he will get them by
10 asking follow-up questions. Try to concentrate on the question and answer
11 the question. Do the same, Mr. Milovancevic. Thank you so much.
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, thank you, Your
14 Q. Mr. Licina, you were a high official of the SDS. You were a
15 member of parliament throughout the time you were in the territory of the
16 Republic of Serbian Krajina since the beginning?
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: I must interrupt you once again, Mr. Milovancevic.
18 All that is already on record. We know he was a high official and just
19 put the question so that your question is short. Don't prefix it with a
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Mr. Licina, at the party and state level, at the RSK, in the
23 activity of the organs, was there any false fear created by them amongst
24 the population of the danger of genocide or the allegedly dangerous
25 Ustasha or non-Ustasha state?
1 A. No organ ever, either of the SDS party or of all the other state
2 organs of the RSK and the SAO Krajina, ever generated fear. What it was
3 actually about were actually facts that were evident to all. Croatia,
4 without the Serbs, embarked on a redefinition of its state. It redefined
5 its constitution without the agreement of the Serbs, and the Serbs were
6 absolutely forced to make their own political moves. All the moves made
7 by the Serbian leadership in Krajina were forced as a result of the
8 activity by Croatia, such as the forming of the SAO Krajina, which was
9 done when the Croatian constitution was adopted. The referendum in
10 Krajina was held at the time that Croatia had its referendum on secession
11 from Yugoslavia. Croatia violated all international laws with these major
12 offensives and attacks on territory that were under the protection of the
13 United Nations.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Again, Mr. Licina, your answer to the question is
15 contained in the first sentence. Then you made another 11 to 12
16 sentences, which really don't answer the question. So what I'm trying to
17 suggest to you, listen to the question, answer the question. If any more
18 detail is required of you, the counsel will ask you questions. We are
19 trying to finish this case as soon as we possibly can and if we are going
20 to be listening to long speeches that are not answers to questions, we are
21 not likely to finish.
22 Yes, Mr. Milovancevic.
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have completed
24 my examination-in-chief. I have allowed the witness to finish these few
25 sentences, considering that to be an explanation of what he said in the
1 first sentence. Thank you very much, Your Honours. And I thank the
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
4 Mr. Black?
5 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. Before I start, Your Honour,
6 I would like to register a complaint, in a sense. A great deal of what
7 this witness has testified about is not contained in the Rule 65 summary.
8 What we would request is in the future, if there is also going to be
9 additional information which is not contained in the Rule 65 ter summary,
10 that we could have supplemental information sheets. Your Honours may be
11 aware or may recall that that's what the Prosecution does during its case.
12 Of course, it's slightly different circumstances. The Defence has a
13 statement, et cetera. But when we interview the witness again and meet
14 with them for proofing, if any new material comes out and we realise new
15 material is going to be addressed in court, we provide that ahead of time
16 to the Defence, and we would ask that a similar practice be adopted by the
17 Defence to help us prepare, essentially, for cross-examination.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: You heard that, Mr. Milovancevic?
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] It is also in our interests to
20 behave in the same way, and we are absolutely in favour of having the
21 proceedings conducted in the proper way, absolutely, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it correct that you asked questions that you
23 didn't -- on topics you hadn't mentioned in the 65 ter summary?
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. We kept to
25 the topics that we mentioned in our summary.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's a point of -- that's a disputed point now.
2 We'll have to have a look at the summary.
3 MR. BLACK: Would you like me to go through it, Your Honours? I
4 hope my memory serves me. For instance, I do recall at least one mention
5 of Mr. Martic as being the president, his position on the Vance Plan. I
6 think Her Honour Judge Nosworthy asked a question about that. Mr. Martic
7 is mentioned nowhere in the 65 ter summary.
8 There were questions about the different organs of the RSK
9 government, the different ministries, judicial branch, et cetera. Nowhere
10 does that appear in the 65 ter summary.
11 The Vance Plan is mentioned only in passing when it says in June,
12 1992, several months following the adoption of the Vance Plan, there was a
13 massacre in Miljevac plateau. That's the only reference to the Vance Plan
14 and yet there was quite a bit of discussion of the Vance Plan. Also, you
15 remember the Defence counsel said one of their main points was to show
16 that UN documents were not accurate. I don't see any reference to any UN
18 Another problem, Your Honour, it may be part of the confusion or
19 misunderstanding between counsel, is that although these are the revised
20 65 ter summaries, there is a lot of statement of topics. For instance, it
21 says the witness sets out facts on the arms supplied to the Croats. What
22 we heard about was Spegelj, and we heard about different things about
23 arming, but that's not mentioned in the 65 ter summary. What we have is a
24 reference to the topic of arms supplied to Croats.
25 Those are just a few examples, Your Honour. If you want a
1 comprehensive review, I think I would have to take more time maybe at the
2 break to list them all out, but I think the point is made there were a
3 number of topics that weren't addressed in the 65 ter summary.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you have any response to that, Mr. Milovancevic?
5 Maybe my brother and sister might have copies, but I personally don't have
6 a copy of the 65 ter statement at this point in time.
7 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I do have one copy, if that would be of
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: I've received a copy. Thank you.
10 MR. BLACK: Okay. Thank you. I guess it's not necessary.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't see any reference to Operation Storm in
12 this summary, Mr. Milovancevic. On the contrary, I see a reference to
13 Operation Flash.
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence
15 believes that it did not exceed in any question the gist of the
16 information it provided to the Prosecution. It did mention a whole series
17 of topics to be dealt with with this witness. The answers of the witness
18 are impossible to predict fully so that the answer would then be able to
19 be incorporated into the information that we provided to the Prosecution.
20 The Defence believes that as far as the information it provided to the
21 Prosecution, it did stick to the main essential topics that were mentioned
22 in the summary.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Chamber has just made you aware that there is
24 no reference to Operation Storm in your summary and there was an extensive
25 cross-examination -- leading by you on Operation Storm. I don't intend to
1 take this matter any further. That point alone justifies the Bench in
2 reiterating the request of the Prosecution, by way of a warning to you,
3 that if you intend going beyond what is in the 65 ter summary, please
4 supply subsequent summaries to cover the topics you intend to cover, and I
5 think that must close the point at that point.
6 Any cross-examination?
7 MR. BLACK: Yes, Your Honour, thank you.
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Black:
9 Q. Good morning, Mr. Licina. We have quite a lot of ground to cover
10 so I would ask to you follow the same practice; if you could just listen
11 closely to my question and focus your answers on my questions. Do you
12 understand that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You remember yesterday you spoke about the HDZ as a Croatcentric
15 and Serbophobic party. Do you remember that?
16 A. Yes. I wasn't saying that only about the HDZ but also about the
17 other Croatian parties.
18 Q. Okay. Well, let me focus just for a moment on the HDZ.
19 MR. BLACK: If I could see on the e-court, please, a document
20 which -- I believe we've managed to get all the documents in e-court
21 thanks to a lot of hard work on the part of Ms. Walpita, which I
22 appreciate very much. I hope it's there. The ERN in B/C/S is 00440884 to
23 0809, I believe. The English translation is 03017013 to 7055. And I
24 think because it's a fairly lengthy document, if with the assistance of
25 the usher I could give a B/C/S copy to the witness, it might make this go
1 quicker. Thank you.
2 Q. Mr. Licina, while we wait for this to come up on our screen, this
3 is material relating to the first general assembly of the HDZ in Zagreb in
4 1990. That's right -- isn't that right?
5 A. Yes. That is what it says on the cover page. That's how it
6 should be.
7 Q. I'd like you to look in particular, if you'll turn to -- you'll
8 see it's page number 22 in the B/C/S version.
9 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, it's on page 17 in the English.
10 Q. Mr. Licina, here is where appears the Statute of the Croatian
11 Democratic Union. Do you find that?
12 A. Yes, yes. I've found it.
13 Q. Thank you. If you could just flip to Article 10, please. It's
14 actually Article 10.2. This is one of the reasons for and principles of
15 the HDZ.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. I'm just looking at the e-court screen. This should be on page 23
18 at the bottom, it shows of the B/C/S, just so we could get on to the right
19 page, but I believe you have it before you. There it says that one of the
20 reasons and principles of the HDZ is to further the transformation of the
21 Republic of Croatia into a democratic parliamentary multi-party state that
22 shall guarantee and ensure all the basic rights and liberties of every
23 citizen, irrespective of the race or nationality or religious persuasion,
24 political views and belief, of gender or of status of that person. That's
25 what it says there; isn't that correct?
1 A. In Article 10.2 that's what it says. However, in 10.1 it says
2 that they are going to strive for securing the right of the Croatian
3 people for self-determination and to establish the independent state. So
4 these two articles actually rule each other out.
5 Q. Well, there is nothing in this document that says that that's the
6 case, is there? It doesn't say that 10.1 rules out 10.2. That doesn't
7 make any sense, does it?
8 A. It makes sense because Croatia, up until then, was a state of two
9 constitutive peoples and by that very fact, if 10.1 were to be
10 implemented, thereby the rights of Serbs would be cancelled out. So 10.2,
11 then, would be brought into question.
12 Q. Well, we'll talk about that more later but there is nothing in
13 Article 10 here that you see that is Serbophobic, is there?
14 A. It -- you can interpret this item clearly that there is
15 Croatocentrism, the placing of the Croatian people in the centre.
16 Q. We might look at it later but the Statute of the SDS also
17 specifically mentions the Serbian people; isn't that right? Is the SDS a
18 Serbocentric party, according to your view?
19 A. No, no, because in the SDS statute, the rights of the Croatian
20 people are never disputed. We did not dispute the right of the Croatian
21 people to self-determination, but we also wanted to have the right to
22 self-determination for ourselves.
23 Q. And that's exactly the same as -- it's very similar in 10.2 where
24 it says that will guarantee and ensure all the basic rights and liberties
25 of every citizen. It says that right there, doesn't it?
1 A. Yes. But I'm going back to 10.1 again, where the secession of
2 Croatia is being sought, and the secession of Croatia could not be carried
3 out without the agreement of the Serbian people. The Serbian people did
4 not agree to the secession of Croatia. The two people needed to reach
5 accord on that, and that is why, in this approach, the rights of one party
6 were being disputed or violated or suppressed.
7 Q. You equate the HDZ emphasis or the support of Croatian
8 independence as Serbophobic. Those things, to you, are the same thing,
9 aren't they?
10 A. I spoke about Serbophobia of the HDZ when I spoke about the
11 pre-election campaign, in that context, the messages sent by the HDZ in
12 the pre-election campaign were definitely Serbophobic.
13 Q. Let's move on in this document a little bit. Please look at
14 Article 15.
15 A. Of the statute?
16 Q. Yes, that's correct. Just a few Articles down from where you were
17 just looking. There it says that -- essentially I'll paraphrase because
18 the grammar is odd. It says the HDZ may join as members all persons of
19 age who agree with the HDZ programme, principles and statute. There is
20 nothing there that says you had to be a Croat to join the HDZ or that
21 Serbs couldn't participate in HDZ. Nothing to that effect, is there?
22 A. And I didn't dispute that at all, so I don't understand your
24 Q. Please go further on in the document. Actually, after the end of
25 the Statute. And there is a message to the citizens of Croatia and to the
1 entire Croatian people.
2 A. Which page?
3 Q. I believe it's page 39 in the B/C/S version. It's page 34 in the
4 English translation. Do you find that?
5 A. Yes. The election declaration.
6 Q. Right. That was my next question. This actually -- this is an
7 announcement specifically referencing those elections that you just
8 mentioned, correct? It says that in the first line.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And then further down the page, it says, "Voting for the HDZ, you
11 are voting for," and then it gives a number of bulleted points. I want
12 you to look at number 4. This says, doesn't it, that voting for the HDZ
13 is a vote for transformation of Croatia into a democratic multi-party,
14 parliamentary state based on the observance of human rights and liberties
15 of all its citizens. That's what it says, doesn't it?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Number 6 it says a vote for the HDZ is for the full and real
18 equality of all citizens of the Republic of Croatia, irrespective of their
19 nationality - Croatian, Serbian, Italian, Jewish or other - for equal
20 rights of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Islamic, and any other religion
21 and of all the ideological persuasions. It says that, doesn't it?
22 A. Yes. But I'm not discussing any manifestos or official documents.
23 I spoke about what was taking place during the pre-election campaign. I
24 spoke about the statements of the HDZ officials, and I spoke about their
25 pre-election campaign. This is what I was describing when I said that
1 that was Serbophobic.
2 Q. And in this declaration, which was part of the pre-election
3 campaign, there is nothing Serbophobic there, is there?
4 A. That's a relative issue, what you're saying. There is nothing
5 Serbophobic in the meetings. For example, there was a meeting between
6 Tudjman and Raskovic. But you can't pull things out of context in order
7 to create the whole picture and you need the whole picture in order to
8 assess the work of a political party.
9 Q. Let me turn you to another subject. Also yesterday you mentioned
10 a few statements, or alleged statements, by Stjepan Mesic. One about,
11 "All Serbs would be able to fit under one umbrella." Do you remember
12 saying that? Do you remember attributing that statement to Stjepan Mesic?
13 That's at transcript 33 and 34, if that's of assistance to Defence
15 A. Yes. As far as I remember, I can't be fully precise about it but
16 that statement was given either in Brinj or in Gospic. At any rate, in
17 Lika. And that was the statement that I quoted and that was the meaning
18 of it, that all Serbs would fit either under one umbrella or under one
19 plum tree. That was the essence of it, and it was mentioned in various
20 meetings and gatherings. I just quoted that one example.
21 Q. Did you ever hear him state these words? You've now given two
22 different versions of what he just said but did you ever actually hear
23 this statement?
24 A. I'm mentioning two different versions but the meaning is the same.
25 When I say fit under one plum tree, that means just that, that there would
1 be so many of them that they would be able to fit under one tree, or under
2 one umbrella. I heard that because that was reported in the media. It
3 was widely known. As I said to you, one could witness such atmosphere. I
4 myself was living in Zagreb at the time and I attended many party
5 gatherings back in 1989 and 1990.
6 Q. My question was did you hear or see Stjepan Mesic say those words,
7 this statement that you're referring to?
8 A. As far as I remember, this statement was broadcast on television.
9 There were excerpts from the speech on television.
10 Q. Are you sure or are you just guessing? Do you remember seeing and
11 hearing this speech?
12 A. I think that I remember, yes. I'm quite sure of it.
13 Q. Well, the reason I ask that is because he never said that. He
14 never made the statement. Stjepan Mesic never said those words, did he?
15 A. Please don't put in my mouth something that I didn't say. So
16 don't say, did he? I was called here to come and tell the truth, to tell
17 about what I heard and what I saw. And this is what I know.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: The answer is simple, Mr. Licina. Did Mr. Stjepan
19 make that statement? That is the "did he" at the end of the question is
20 neither here nor there. Just answer the question.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since this took place some 15 years
22 ago, as far as I can remember, my answer is yes. This was in 1990 in the
23 pre-election campaign. I'm not sure about the place, whether it was
24 Gospic or Brinj, but it was one of these two towns.
25 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: And did you actually witness it, that is see it
1 on television, or did you hear it specifically of your own --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I saw it on television.
3 MR. BLACK: May I continue, Your Honour?
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may.
5 MR. BLACK: Thank you very much.
6 Q. Mr. Licina, there was another statement which you attribute to
7 Stjepan Mesic. You said on page 34 of the transcript yesterday that his
8 second statement was to the effect that the Serbs could only take with
9 them as much soil as would be stuck to their shoes.
10 Do you remember testifying about that?
11 A. Yes, I remember that.
12 Q. Do you remember what his precise words were or do you have
13 different versions of this statement as well?
14 A. The only difference in two versions has to do with the specific
15 name of the footwear. He said "opanci," and the meaning of it was
16 derogatory because this is the type of footwear normally worn by farmers
17 or peasants, and this was yet another insult addressed to Serbs.
18 Q. You say the only difference is two versions, so are you saying
19 that you also heard two versions of this statement?
20 A. No. It's not that I heard of two versions. I heard only of one
21 and the word used was "opanci," referring to the footwear. It wasn't
23 Q. Did you actually -- you saw and heard Stjepan Mesic, be it on
24 television or in person, I'm not concerned about that, but you saw or
25 heard him say those words, this statement you're talking about?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Because in fact Mr. Mesic has explained to this Tribunal that what
3 he in fact said was that Serbs did not transform Croatia into Serbia just
4 by bringing Serb land on their shoes. That's something very different,
5 isn't it?
6 A. No. Stjepan Mesic said precisely what I told you, that the Serbs
7 could take only as much soil as could be stuck on their shoes, "opanci,"
8 and that meant that the Serbs had come to Croatia from elsewhere, which is
9 not true, because the Serbs had always lived there in the territory of
10 Croatia. They hadn't arrived there from some place else, even though that
11 was the impression that they tried to create, because they wanted to
12 convey to the world that these were aggressors who had come from
13 elsewhere. As far back as I can remember, all my ancestors had always
14 lived there, and the same applies to all of my friends. This statement,
15 however, was meant to create an impression that these people were the
16 aggressors who needed to be expelled.
17 Q. Let me turn to another subject now. It's one that you raised
18 earlier and it's this difference between a constituent nation and a
19 minority. Do you remember Her Honour Judge Nosworthy asked you a question
20 about this yesterday. Do you remember that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And at page 71 of the transcript yesterday, you gave this
23 explanation. You said, "Had they -" meaning the Serbs - "been a minority,
24 then the situation would have been different. Then they would have not
25 had all the rights, and there could have been a secession without approval
1 of the Serbs. However, if Serbs are a constituent nation, then their
2 consent is required for secession because a nation -- because a nation
3 comes before a public -- republic. That is the essence of that." Do you
4 remember saying that?
5 A. Yes. I said that it is a nation, not a republic, that has a right
6 to sovereignty, and it was the Serbs and Croats who were two constituent
7 nations who were entitled to sovereignty. If they lost the status of
8 constituent nation, then the situation would be different and the Serbs
9 would no longer have the right to decide about their fate.
10 Q. Well, that's the only consequence of this change in the
11 constitution, right? The only consequence of making Serbs a minority is
12 that you lose the right to veto secession, correct?
13 A. This is the mother of all issues, and this is the essence of the
14 conflict, both the political and, as it later turned out, the military
15 one. So this could not be reduced to a minor issue. This is the key
16 issue in this entire process.
17 Q. Under both the Yugoslav and the Croatian constitutions, minorities
18 enjoyed protection of all basic human rights; isn't that correct?
19 A. I'm not discussing human rights here. I'm discussing national
20 rights. The national right of Serbs was threatened, and also their human
21 rights were at risk. After losing their national rights, they lost their
22 human rights as well. We had bad memories from World War II. Thus our
23 reaction was quite logical.
24 Q. In a second I'll get into the connection between World War II and
25 the 1990s according to you, but you do accept that the Serbs constituted a
1 numerical minority in Croatia, don't you?
2 A. I said yesterday that before the Second World War, Serbs
3 constituted 37 per cent of the population of Banovina Croatia. It was the
4 genocide that reduced their percentage to 12 per cent after the war.
5 Also, some Serbs declared themselves later as Yugoslav, thus further
6 reducing the percentage of Serbs by three times. Thus, it was logical for
7 Serbs to defend their status as a constituent nation because they had a
8 very bitter experience from World War II. As to what had happened to
9 them, when they were reduced down to a minority, it was an open season on
10 Serbs. Over 1 million of Serbs were killed during World War II in various
11 Ustasha camps. They were buried in pits and so on.
12 Q. Mr. Licina, you're quite far from my question. You accept, do you
13 not, that Serbs constituted a numerical minority in Croatia. Whether it's
14 37 per cent or 12 per cent, in terms of numbers, Serbs were a minority;
16 A. The Serbs were not a minority. They were a constituent people.
17 Therefore, I will not accept that the Serbs were a minority. Similarly, I
18 do not wish to say that Croats were a minority either. None of us were a
19 minority. Once you reduce the status of a nation down to a minority, then
20 there is a constitutional meaning to it and just discussing figures
21 doesn't mean much.
22 Q. Okay. Well, putting aside the constitutional meaning and just
23 discussing figures, do you not accept that the Serbs constituted
24 numerically a minority in Croatia? Just answer that question.
25 A. That was questionable too. There is data produced by Professor
1 Slobodan Komazica who wrote an academic paper on this about the reduction
2 of the number of Serbs in Croatia from long time ago. So that is
3 questionable too.
4 Q. Now about --
5 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Is the professor contending that there were more
6 Serbs than Croatians, for example?
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: -- the majority, because the simple question
9 that has just been asked is do you accept the fact that there were fewer
10 Serbs, that they were lesser in number? And to me, I do not see why
11 you're procrastinating. Please go to the question directly and answer it
12 once and for all. You have to confront it.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The number of Serbs in Croatia was
14 reduced by means of genocide during World War II, and the result of the
15 genocide can never be accepted. Therefore, I cannot discuss it in those
16 terms. I can only tell you about the figures in the formal sense. There
17 were 12 per cent of Serbs out of the total population in Croatia. So,
18 yes, that is the figure, but the Serbs were a nation.
19 MR. BLACK:
20 Q. Mr. Licina, this is one of the ongoing themes of the SDS not only
21 in 1990s but today, that whenever you're asked questions about Croatia in
22 the 1990s you constantly try to turn the focus back to World War II.
23 Isn't that a theme that was used repeatedly by the SDS?
24 A. Mr. Black, we have bitter memories. Great victims, great losses,
25 and, yes, this issue is very close to our heart. There isn't a single
1 family who didn't lose somebody in World War II, so we have to pay tribute
2 to those victims. We cannot forget that, just like the Jews always
3 mention their victims in World War II, the Serbs have an equal right to
4 mention their victims.
5 Q. No one disputes --
6 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: One moment please. Mr. Licina, Mr. Black, I'm
7 sorry to interrupt you. I do wish to consult the Presiding Judge and the
8 other judge in a matter. Thank you.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Licina, and Mr. Black, if you will, I have
11 consulted with the learned Presiding Judge and the other judge, Judge
12 Hoepfel, and the record should show that in respect of the question put by
13 Mr. Black, as to the numbers of Serbs and whether they were in a minority
14 at the relevant time, the record should disclose that the witness refuses
15 to answer the question.
16 MR. BLACK: Thank you very much, Your Honour. I'll proceed to the
17 next question.
18 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's just interrupt you once and for all. Can I
20 just ask a question to the witness.
21 Mr. Licina, at page 52, paragraph 2 of the transcript today, you
22 said, "Thus it was logical for Serbs to defend their status as a
23 constituent nation because they had a very bitter experience from World
24 War II," and you continued to carry on in that theme. My question to you
25 is: Did the Serbs do what they did during 1991 to 1995 because of their
1 bitter experience in World War II? Just say yes or no.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Serbs didn't do anything bad in
3 this war. The Serbs simply defended themselves.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're not answering my question. My question to
5 you is, and I'll ask you it again: Did the Serbs do what they did during
6 1991 to 1995 because of their bitter experience during World War II? Is
7 that how you explain the conduct of the Serbs during that period?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. You may proceed, Mr. Black.
10 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Mr. Licina, the Albanians in Kosovo, for example, were a minority
12 and they were never given nationhood status. Isn't that right?
13 A. That is true, but Albanians could not have been given the status
14 of a nation because they have their own mother state, Albania. In the
15 former Yugoslavia, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, it was
16 the Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Macedonians, and Muslims and Montenegrins who
17 were the constituent nations, according to the constitution.
18 Q. But with the break-up of Yugoslavia, the Croatian -- the Croatian
19 Serbs and the Krajina Serbs in particular, they have their own motherland,
20 too; Serbia. Isn't that right?
21 A. That's not true. That's not true because the Serbs in Croatia
22 were a constituent nation. The Serbs were a constituent nation at the
23 level of the entire Yugoslavia. It was Yugoslavia that was our state.
24 Q. But with the break-up of Yugoslavia, and the secession of Croatia,
25 then it makes sense, doesn't it, that the Serbs would be a minority
1 because they had their motherland in Serbia; isn't that right?
2 A. That doesn't make sense because the Serbs were a constituent
3 people in Croatia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well. They had the
4 right to sovereignty, which was guaranteed to them by all constitutions
5 from the Second World War to 1990. Finally, in World War II, the Serbs,
6 up until 1944, constituted 90 per cent of the anti-fascist forces in
7 Croatia -- rather, in Yugoslavia. And the same applied in Croatia. As a
8 result of which the Serbs were granted the status of a constituent nation,
9 both in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. They were entitled to sovereignty
10 in the territory of all of these republics within Yugoslavia. Serbia
11 cannot be a mother state of Serbs from Krajina because we had not come
12 there from Serbia. No; we had lived there always.
13 Q. Well, that's not the test, when you came there, because you don't
14 dispute that the Albanians had lived in Kosovo for all that time, or do
16 A. Yes. They did, but they were a national minority. They had their
17 state; Albania.
18 Q. Just one more question and I'm going to move away from this topic.
19 The Serbs were allowed to vote in the referendum on Croatian independence,
20 weren't they?
21 A. The Serbs were banned from organising their own referendum back in
22 1990, so it's quite cynical to say that the Serbs were allowed to have a
23 referendum within Croatia. They attempted to prevent, to block, the Serbs
24 from expressing their will in August, 1990.
25 Q. Again I'm going to ask you first to focus on my question. Serbs
1 were allowed to vote in the referendum on Croatian independence, weren't
3 A. I already answered your question.
4 Q. No, you didn't answer it. They were allowed to vote in the
5 referendum on Croatian independence, weren't they?
6 A. The Serbs, as a constituent nation, scheduled a referendum in
7 August, and this is something that the state of Croatia tried to prevent.
8 So it wasn't acceptable for the Serbs to vote in a referendum where
9 numerically they would have been outvoted. Thus, it is quite cynical to
10 claim that the Serbs were allowed to vote.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Licina, were the Serbs allowed to vote in the
12 Croatian referendum?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The referendum on Croatian
14 independence wasn't organised in the entire territory of the then Croatia.
15 Thus, only some of the Serbs, only part of the Serbs, were able to vote in
16 the formal, legal sense.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Licina, I'm not asking you whether the Serbs
18 were able to vote. I'm asking you were the Serbs allowed to vote in the
19 referendum, the Croatian referendum on independence?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Formally, yes, but practically no.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Licina, were the Serbs allowed to vote in the
22 Croatian independence referendum?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I've already answered this
24 question. The Serbs as a nation were prevented from expressing their
25 will. Serbs as citizens would have been outvoted because of their
1 numbers. The Serbs did not go and vote at that referendum although
2 formally they were allowed to go and vote.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Licina, I'll ask you for the very last time.
4 Were the Serbs allowed to vote in the Croatian referendum on independence?
5 The answer to that question is either yes or no.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Formally, yes.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: The -- will the record show that you have once
8 again refused to answer the question.
9 I think this may be a convenient time to take a break. We come
10 back at half past 12.00.
11 --- Recess taken at 12.03 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 12.32 p.m.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Black, you may proceed.
14 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Mr. Licina, let me go to one aspect of what you said yesterday
16 that relates to these amendments to the Croatian constitution and see if I
17 understood you correctly. I believe you said that the amendments to the
18 Croatian constitution were adopted in July, 1990; is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And then you suggested that the Serbs reacted to that by creating
21 the Association of Municipalities of Northern Dalmatia and Lika; is that
23 A. No. The Association of Municipalities was formed by the Serbs in
24 June, whereas the reaction to the amendments to the constitution was
25 reflected politically in the Serb Assembly or the Serb gathering in Srb.
1 Q. Okay. Thanks for that clarification. The real purpose, then, of
2 creating the Association of Municipalities of Northern Dalmatia and Lika,
3 that was a move toward ethnic separation by the Serbs even before these
4 amendments to the constitution; isn't that right?
5 A. No. That's not correct. The Association of Municipalities was an
6 Association of Municipalities with interests in common, and that was not
7 the significance. The municipalities that formed the association are
8 three adjoining municipalities, and they had much in common, in any case.
9 There was already a blockade by the central republican government, and it
10 was quite logical for these municipalities to form an economic
12 Q. Well, looking at your answer, you seem to give two different
13 responses. You say, no, it wasn't about ethnic separation, but then you
14 say that there had been a blockade by the central republican government
15 and it was logical for them to form an association. So I don't understand
16 what you're saying. Was this a response to Croatian activities or was
17 this a move by the Serbs on their own, seeking ethnic separation in June
18 of 1990?
19 A. The Serb Democratic Party proclaimed its political goals,
20 advocating different degrees of Serb autonomy. The first degree was
21 cultural autonomy. This implied associations of municipalities. For your
22 information, most of the municipalities inhabited by Serbs were considered
23 less developed municipalities. That's how they were treated in the then
24 Croatia. And so logically they were oriented toward one another. They
25 had been neglected by the Republic of Croatia and it had a cultural and
1 economic significance for these municipalities to associate.
2 Q. And these municipalities were Knin, Benkovac, Gracac, Donji Lapac,
3 Obrovac, and Titova Korenica; that's right, correct?
4 A. At first it was Knin, Gracac, and Donji Lapac, and the others that
5 you mentioned joined later on. These were also territorially adjacent
6 municipalities so that together they formed a territorial whole.
7 Q. And by June of 1990, all of those municipalities that I mentioned
8 were part of the Association of Municipalities, correct?
9 A. No. That's not correct. The decision to establish the
10 Association of Municipalities took place at the end of June, and the
11 Association of Municipalities of Northern Dalmatia and Lika was
12 established by the three municipalities which associated in late June.
13 The other municipalities joined later on, during the summer and autumn,
14 and I can't recall the precise dates.
15 MR. BLACK: Could we see Exhibit 140 on the e-court, please.
16 Q. It should appear on the screen in front of you in just a moment,
17 Mr. Licina.
18 If we could just zoom in slightly on the top half of that
19 document, please.
20 Mr. Licina, looking at the screen in front of you, you recognise
21 this, don't you, as the decision on the establishment of the association
22 of municipalities?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And it's dated the 27th of June, 1990. Do you see that?
25 A. Yes. As I said, the end of June.
1 Q. If we could scroll down, please, so we can see all of Article 1.
2 Right there is good.
3 The second paragraph of Article 1, Mr. Licina, says that the
4 regional Association of Municipalities of Northern Dalmatia and Lika
5 includes the municipalities of Knin, Benkovac, Gracac, Donji Lapac,
6 Obrovac, and Titova Korenica; correct?
7 A. Yes. But for this decision to be valid, it had to be confirmed by
8 each individual municipality. What I'm saying is that Knin, Gracac, and
9 Donji Lapac were the first three municipalities to issue this decision,
10 and the others then approved the decision later on. I'm not denying that
11 they were all members of the association, but the association was fully
12 formed only once each particular municipality had issued this decision.
13 They had to verify the decision. Each individual local assembly had to
14 verify the decision.
15 Q. So what you're saying is that it was ratified later by the
16 municipalities but in fact the decision, as we saw, was on the 27th of
17 June, 1990, for all of these municipalities to form part of the
18 Association of Municipalities; isn't that correct?
19 A. Yes, that's correct, but I repeat: The decision entered into
20 force when the first three municipalities ratified it, whereas the others
21 joined later on, but --
22 Q. Mr. Licina, I think you've said that. I'm sorry for interrupting
23 you, but we need to focus and there is no need to repeat things which
24 you've already testified about.
25 All of these municipalities later joined the SAO Krajina and then
1 the RSK; isn't that correct?
2 A. These municipalities formed the SAO Krajina. They didn't join it.
3 The assembly of the Association of Municipalities transformed this into
4 the SAO Krajina. They were the founders of the SAO Krajina.
5 Q. And they later, all of these municipalities, pertained to the
6 RSK. Isn't that also correct?
7 A. All these municipalities, as the SAO Krajina, actually were united
8 with the Serb district of Western Slavonia, Baranja and Srem and the other
9 Serb district so that these three the regions together formed the Republic
10 of Serb Krajina.
11 Q. In other words, your answer is yes?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Please, again, just focus on my questions and give an answer
14 that's complete but concise. Please try to do that. Do you understand?
15 A. Yes. I am giving you concise replies but I have to explain. When
16 you say "joined," they didn't join it, they formed it. I had to give you
17 an explanation.
18 Q. Again I'll put it to you, sir, the real purpose of this
19 Association of Municipalities was taking a first step towards a separate
20 Serb state; isn't that correct?
21 A. That's not correct.
22 Q. First, they had the Association of Municipalities, then the SAO
23 Krajina, and then the RSK. Those were all logical steps towards a
24 separate Serb state; isn't that right?
25 A. The political moves of the Serbs in the Krajina were conditioned
1 by the political moves of Croatia. We only carried out political moves by
2 which we protected our rights. Therefore I see no logic in what you're
3 saying. The fact that these municipalities were part of this doesn't mean
4 anything. I'm speaking of the political concept.
5 Q. Let me ask you about a different political move, let's say. On
6 the 18th of July, 1990, you and Vojislav Lukic, President of the SDS
7 municipal board, went to the Gracac Public Security Services, didn't you?
8 A. That is not correct. Vojislav Lukic was the president -- was not
9 the president of the municipality, and it was the 17th of August, 1990. I
10 was the president of the municipal board of the SDS and a deputy in the
11 assembly, and Vojislav Lukic was the president of the municipality. And
12 this was in the night between the 17th and the 18th.
13 Q. You're quite right. Thank you for correcting me about the
14 position of Mr. Lukic. But you did in fact go to the Gracac police
15 station on that date?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. BLACK: If we could see on the e-court, please, a document
18 with the ERN 02663436A. It's the bottom half of a newspaper that's been
19 photocopied. The English translation is ET 02663436 to 3436A. If we
20 could please see that on the screen.
21 Thank you. If we could focus in on, I believe it's the second
22 column at the bottom there of what's seen on the screen. Yeah. Thank
24 Q. Mr. Licina, I don't know if you can read that. Let me read to you
25 what it says and you can follow along and tell me if it's correct. It
1 says that you and Mr. Lukic and Dr. Gacesa [phoen] visited the Gracac SJS
2 to make the employees of that station sign the statement dated the 1st of
3 October saying that they would not obey the orders of the Republic of
4 Croatia Ministry of Interior since they are, in their opinion, aimed
5 against the Serbian people and the inhabitants of Gracac. And that's
6 correct, isn't it, that you went there in order to make the policemen sign
7 a statement that they would disobey the orders of the Croatian Ministry of
8 the Interior?
9 A. No. That's not correct. As far as I can see, this is an excerpt
10 from the Croatian newspaper called Vjesnik. As I said during the
11 examination-in-chief, on that day I arrived from Zagreb, I went from
12 Korenica to Gospic, and this was in the late evening, and when I was there
13 with Vojislav Lukic, Mr. Gacesa was not present, and we were in the
14 public security station because the then minister of the interior, Josip
15 Boljkovac, was asking for talks through a special police line, which is
16 why we went to the public security station.
17 MR. BLACK: One technical issue. I don't know if Your Honours are
18 able to find the translation. We got it very late, so it's possible it's
19 not on e-court. I apologise. We will get it into e-court as soon as it's
21 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Mr. Black, an additional question is the date of
22 this Article. On the e-court system it's dated with 18 of July and the
23 witness corrected your question by speaking of August. Could we clarify
25 MR. BLACK:
1 Q. Witness, do you remember the date of this visit to the Gracac
2 police station?
3 A. Yes. I remember very well. This was the 17th of August, two days
4 before our referendum of the 19th of August. Therefore I'm sure that it
5 was the 17th of August, not July. As far as I can see, this is from a
6 newspaper, so probably there is a mistake there. I am quite certain that
7 this was the 17th of August.
8 Q. You were not in the Gracac police station in July; is that right?
9 A. Up to the 17th of August, I was in Zagreb. On the 17th of August,
10 I travelled from Zagreb. I had had some party duties to perform in
12 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I'm afraid at this point I can't,
13 independently of what the witness says, verify the date of the article. I
14 will get that done and report back tomorrow. I apologise.
15 Q. Mr. Licina, I put to you that this incident did in fact happen,
16 that you did ask the policemen in Gracac to disobey the orders of the
17 Croatian minister of the interior. Isn't that correct?
18 A. No. In the course of the day, or rather, the evening before, in
19 the night between the 16th and the 17th, weapons had been taken from the
20 Gracac police station and the citizens, as a result, were very disturbed.
21 There was a gathering -- I'm telling you now what I learned later on from
22 my fellow party members, because I wasn't there. I arrived in Gracac in
23 the evening of the 17th. It was about 10 p.m. So I wasn't there during
24 the day but only in the evening. After that, I went to the municipality
25 and I think that this conversation with Boljkovac took place after
2 Q. If you weren't there, I won't take it any further at this point.
3 Let me ask you now about the Serb Assembly in Srb on the 25th of
4 July, 1990, which you've mentioned. It's correct that that assembly was
5 attended by some 100.000 Croatian Serbs; isn't that right?
6 A. At that assembly, there were 100.000 Serbs from Croatia, not
7 Croatian Serbs.
8 Q. And the assembly passed a declaration on the sovereignty and
9 autonomy of the Serbian people, correct?
10 A. Yes. The assembly in Srb issued a declaration on the sovereignty
11 and autonomy of the Serb people and formed the Serb National Council as
12 its executive organ.
13 Q. And you yourself were present at this assembly, weren't you?
14 A. I was there personally and I was elected to the Serb National
16 MR. BLACK: If we could see Exhibit 141 on the e-court, please.
17 Q. Mr. Licina, you recognise this, don't you, as the declaration on
18 the sovereignty and autonomy of the Serbian people adopted at that
19 assembly on the 25th of July, 1990?
20 A. Yes, yes.
21 Q. And in paragraph 1 there, it says the Serbian nation is, in
22 accordance with its geographic, historical, social and cultural
23 characteristics, a sovereign nation with all the rights entailed in the
24 sovereignty of a nation. And then in the second paragraph, right below
25 that, still in number 1, it says, "The Serbian nation in the SR Croatia is
1 fully entitled to opt for a federate --"
2 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the reply.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you scroll it up a little
4 bit. A little more, a little more.
5 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Mr. Licina, for pointing that out. I'll
6 start again on the second paragraph. You'll see there that it says: "The
7 Serbian nation in SR Croatia is fully entitled to opt for a federate or
8 confederate system of state government, either jointly with the Croatian
9 nation or independently." That's what it says, doesn't it?
10 A. Yes, yes.
11 Q. And those are references towards not just Serb sovereignty but the
12 possibility of Serb independence, aren't they?
13 A. The Serb people proclaimed its desire to remain in the common
14 state. Therefore, the Serb people does not deny the Croatian people the
15 right to have a state, but on the other hand, they demand the same right
16 for themselves. They only want the same right that the Croatian people
17 have; nothing more.
18 Q. So you're demanding the right to have a separate Serb state.
19 That's what you're saying here in this declaration. You and the other
20 people present at this assembly in July of 1990.
21 A. No. We are asking for Croatia to remain in the common federal
22 state, in which case we advocate cultural autonomy for the Serbs.
23 However, if the character of the federal state is changed, we want the
24 next degree of rights, depending on whether it's confederation or
1 Q. Sir, you seem to be talking around the answer but what you just
2 said, this includes the idea of secession, of Serb secession from Croatia,
3 right? That's what is at issue in this declaration as one of the options
4 on the table.
5 A. No. For the Serbs to secede, it's first necessary for the Croats
6 to secede from the joint state. We didn't want any kind of secession,
7 either the one or the other.
8 Q. In fact, you did want secession, didn't you? The Serb leadership
9 already in July, 1990, was looking towards the time that they could have a
10 Serb state separate from Croatia. That's correct, isn't it?
11 A. No, that's not correct. That's not correct. Let me go back to
12 the key point. The Serb nation is a constituent nation in Croatia and has
13 the same rights as the Croatian people. We do not deny anything to the
14 Croatian people but, by the same token, we don't want any of our rights to
15 be taken away from us. All our political moves were conditioned by the
16 political moves of the leadership of the Republic of Croatia. You cannot
17 look at it outside the overall context. You have to see the whole picture
18 to reach certain conclusions.
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Milovancevic?
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I have an objection. I have
22 been refraining up to this point from putting it forward. The Prosecutor
23 has the right in cross-examination to put leading questions, but he
24 doesn't have the right to disinform the witness. Let him put the whole
25 document to the witness. Underneath Article 1 there is Article 2, which
1 says that the Serb people have the right to autonomy. In spite of Article
2 2, which is only two lines below, the Prosecutor is pressuring the witness
3 and leading him to an erroneous conclusion. The document has already been
4 presented to the Chamber and the witness has spoken very precisely about
5 this document, particularly about the autonomy. Of course, the Prosecutor
6 does have the right to press the witness, but not to deny the witness the
7 entire text of the document.
8 MR. BLACK: May I respond, Your Honour, briefly?
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
10 MR. BLACK: First of all, this seems like an issue for
11 re-examination. It doesn't really seem to be an objection. But -- and
12 that's my response, Your Honour. And I'm happy to talk about Article 2 of
13 this document, if I may proceed.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: The objection is overruled. You may proceed.
15 MR. BLACK: Thank you.
16 Q. Mr. Licina, Defence counsel has asked that we look at Article 2 of
17 this same document.
18 A. Could we scroll up -- down. Yes, very well.
19 Q. Is there anything here in this document that gives the explanation
20 that you have just given about how you don't take any rights away from the
21 Croats, you just want the same rights that they have been given, or they
22 assert for themselves?
23 A. Well, there is a full explanation here, in fact. I can read it
24 out. It says, based on its sovereignty, the Croatian people in Croatia
25 have a right to autonomy. The content of that autonomy will depend on
1 whether Yugoslavia is organised as a federal or confederal state. The
2 content of the autonomy will depend on whether the order of Yugoslavia is
3 federal or confederal. In conditions of a federal state, the Serb people
4 have a right to use the Serb language, the Cyrillic alphabet, school
5 curricula, and so on. So this is purely cultural autonomy, nothing else,
6 in case there is a federation. And there is a very clear explanation of
7 what I said previously, that all our moves were conditioned by the moves
8 of the Croatian state leadership.
9 Q. It doesn't say that anywhere in here, does it, that the Serb moves
10 were conditioned by the Croatian moves. That doesn't appear in Article 2
11 or anywhere else in this document, as I see it.
12 A. It appears in Article 2, in paragraph 1, in the second sentence,
13 where it says the content of the autonomy would depend on the federal or
14 confederal order of the future Yugoslavia. So it does depend on that, and
15 this is very clearly stated.
16 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, at this point I'd like to show something
17 on the Sanction.
18 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Please let me first ask something to this
20 Mr. Licina, did this proclamation express in any way what you
21 first said, that your desire to remain in the common state? Was this
22 expressed here?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes, it was expressed
24 just by the fact that the political position of the Serbs was defined;
25 what their position was on autonomy, how they would relate to the future
1 order, both of Croatia and the future order of the federal state. So all
2 of that is expressed. This sentence explains it all, that it would depend
3 on -- the content of the autonomy would depend on the federal or
4 confederative order of Yugoslavia. So that would be item 2, the first
5 paragraph, the second sentence.
6 JUDGE HOEPFEL: I can't really see in this sentence an expression
7 of the Serb desire to remain in a common state. Or can you help me
8 finding that?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Reflected in the aspiration of the
10 Serbs for a federal order, the Serbs were not asking for anything more
11 than cultural autonomy if the state should remain a federal one. I think
12 that that is what it says as the paragraph continues. Actually item 2,
13 paragraph 2, conditions of the federal state order. The Serb people then
14 declare what they would need to have in the event of a federal order or a
15 confederal one. Since the state at the time was still a federal one, this
16 is then what we were in favour of, as it is stated here.
17 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Please help me. I still don't understand you,
18 because if you read further on in the paragraph 4 of this Article 2, it
19 speaks of the other option of the confederate system, and is there any, if
20 not desire, then at least preference expressed in this proclamation? Then
21 you can show me that.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Then, when this declaration was
23 drafted, the state was still a federal state formally. I don't see
24 anything disputable in item 4, and --
25 THE INTERPRETER: The witness quotes from the paragraph.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because in that case, the state
2 would need to be recomposed. So then the Serbs, as part of the Croatian
3 federal unit which defines its status as a confederal one, would also have
4 to reformulate their own status within that state. It's quite logical.
5 Because first of all, the Serbs were in favour of a federal order. Should
6 such an order be changed, then it was logical that the Serbs would need to
7 protect themselves, to raise the level of their status to a higher level.
8 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Witness, I didn't ask you for telling me what
9 would be logical and what I would then have to conclude from your saying,
10 but could you please answer my question. Is there any preference between
11 the two options, federation or confederation, being expressed in this
12 proclamation? And if yes, in which sentence, in which words do you find
13 that expression of this desire or preference, at least? Please answer
14 clearly and short.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As a formal minority in terms of
16 numbers, we had to be in a position to protect our national rights, so it
17 was logical in that situation, or in that constellation of forces, for us
18 to take the position that we did. Yes. It's clear, it's clear to me.
19 JUDGE HOEPFEL: That was not what I asked you. Something about
20 logic. But you -- first you said something about a desire to remain in
21 the common state. Is this desire being reflected in the wording of this
22 proclamation from Srb not? Yes or no. And if yes, then where, in which
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The declaration proclaims our
25 position on what our position or the position of Serbs within Croatia
1 should be. What the position of Serbs should be in Croatia if Croatia
2 would remain a federal unit, and what the position would be if it became a
3 confederal unit. We were in the position of adopting that in that
4 particular form at that time. I do not see anything here that would
5 indicate that we wished to secede from Croatia. Item 2 first cites the
6 desire --
7 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Witness, please answer my question. I didn't ask
8 you if there was anything expressed about a wish to secede but about a
9 wish, about a desire, to remain in the common state.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not explicitly stated in the
11 text but the entire text is --
12 JUDGE HOEPFEL: That's enough. Thank you.
13 Please, Mr. Black.
14 MR. BLACK: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
15 If we could watch a short video clip on the Sanction, please. And
16 this is actually from Exhibit 497. It's an interview with Mr. Martic. As
17 usual, I'm not sure which button we have to push. Could we broadcast the
18 Sanction, please. Okay. It looks like the same e-court button as usual
19 would get us the video. And if we could play that video now, please.
20 [Videotape played]
21 MR. BLACK: Well, Your Honour, we seem to have a technical
22 problem. Have we changed to Sanction in the audiovisual booth? Is
23 everything ready to go in there?
24 I apologise, Your Honour, could I take 30 seconds to try to see if
25 I can resolve this?
1 I apologise, Your Honour. There seems to be an issue with our
2 computer, so I'll skip it and come back to it.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's fine.
4 MR. BLACK: Thank you. Perhaps I'll wait just a second to see if
5 we have a resolution.
6 I'll move on, Your Honour. I'm convinced now it's a problem with
7 our computer here, not with the audiovisual or the e-court.
8 Q. Mr. Licina, sorry for that distraction. Because of that, I'm
9 going to leave that topic now and maybe come back to it a little later.
10 But let me ask you now about the 17th of August, 1990, the so-called log
11 revolution. You remember that you suggested yesterday that Croatian
12 actions on that day were intended to prevent the Serb referendum. I think
13 you said that also today. Is that your position?
14 A. You said the 17th of August, 1992, but it was actually 1990.
15 Could you please repeat your question.
16 Q. It could have been a misstatement, but I do mean the 17th of
17 August, 1990. And yesterday you testified that there were Croatian
18 movements - I think you said you saw an APC - and that those movements
19 were designed to prevent the Serb referendum. Do you remember telling us
21 A. Yes. On the 17th of August, I saw personally, because on that day
22 I was travelling from Zagreb to Gracac, I saw in Korenica, which is about
23 70 kilometres from Gracac, I saw Croatian --
24 Q. Sorry, I don't need you to repeat what you said before. I just
25 want to know if you remembered the topic, and you do remember the topic.
1 But the Serbs actually did hold their referendum as scheduled, didn't
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So the Croatian operations did not prevent the Serb referendum.
5 A. The Croatian operations would probably have prevented the
6 referendum had the army not reacted by having a plane of the JNA turn back
7 a Croatian MUP helicopter that had set off in the direction of Benkovac,
8 and had it not been for the Serb self-organising and the barricades, there
9 probably would have been an incursion into the Serb municipalities.
10 Q. The Croatian government activity on that day, it was -- had
11 nothing to do with the referendum, did it? It was about taking control of
12 weapons, weapons that it perceived as being threatened by the Krajina
13 Serbs; isn't that right?
14 A. No. It's not right. There were two processes at that time. One
15 of them was the forming of new police stations that I talked about in
16 places where there was a Croatian population, but which were within
17 municipalities where the Serbs had local power and local parliaments. At
18 the same time, there was a confiscation of weapons from the police reserve
19 forces and from the police stations in the centres of those
20 municipalities; Benkovac, Obrovac, Gracac, and the others.
21 Q. I'm not sure what the forming of new police stations has to do
22 with this, but the Croatian operations on that day were about seizing
23 weapons from police reserve forces because they thought that the Krajina
24 Serbs wanted control of those weapons; isn't that right? That's what the
25 Croatian operations were about on the 17th of August, 1990. Nothing to do
1 with the referendum.
2 A. No. What you have said is not correct. I am going back again to
3 the following. There should be a complete picture. At the same time, new
4 police stations were formed. Until that time, police -- we are talking
5 about places where there were no police stations and there was no need for
6 these police stations to exist. Then also the police stations that
7 already existed were being disbanded and weapons were being confiscated
8 from those police stations. This was happening on the eve of the
9 referendum. So when you put those two things together, then you can see
10 what was actually going on.
11 Q. About the new police stations, you know, yesterday you mentioned
12 these a couple of times and you said they were illegal, but these were
13 Croatian police stations on Croatian territory. They were perfectly
14 legitimate, weren't they?
15 A. They were not perfectly legitimate because those police stations
16 were formed only in Serb municipalities. There were no new police
17 stations being formed, for example, in the municipality of Varazdin, for
18 example, and in some village within the municipality of Varazdin. There
19 was no police station being formed in the municipality of Cakovec, but new
20 police stations were being formed in Serbian communities and that is how
21 they had that political context.
22 Q. And the reason they were being formed in these Serbian
23 municipalities was, number 1, to protect the Croat population, and 2, as a
24 response to the Serb organising that we've been talking about. That's why
25 those new police stations were formed and that's why they were justified.
1 Isn't that correct?
2 A. No, it's not correct, because there were no threats coming from
3 the Serbs. There were no killings. I mentioned earlier during the
4 examination-in-chief that until the Sveti Rok barracks was de-blockaded,
5 up until that time, five citizens of the Gracac municipality were killed.
6 Therefore, they were those who were generating the crisis. There were no
7 attacks on our part. At the same time, there was an attempt to prevent
8 the legally elected municipal organs from having free passage in that
9 area. They were not able to move around freely.
10 Q. Let me turn to another thing that you said about the 17th of
11 August, 1990. Is it your position that these barricades were erected at
12 the same time through so many parts of Serbian Krajina, and this was all
13 spontaneous, without any organisation? Is that your position? Because
14 that's what you've suggested yesterday and today.
15 A. Yes. It was a spontaneous thing, and in order to illustrate that
16 the barricades did go up spontaneously, we actually had a problem to
17 communicate amongst the municipalities. There was -- it was not easy to
18 communicate between the municipalities of Gracac and Knin. So the people
19 erected those barricades spontaneously. If you were travelling from
20 Gracac to Knin, you would come across four or five such barricades that
21 the people put up. This happened in other places as well. Had there been
22 any organisations, then the barricades would have been only on the
23 outlying areas of those territories, but they were not. Actually, they
24 cropped up all over the place.
25 Q. I'm not sure I understood you. Are you suggesting that the
1 barricades were erected to improve communications or that they were a
2 barrier to communications? I just didn't understand your response.
3 A. The barricades were erected on self initiative and because of the
4 fear of the people. Before I said that the Serbian people had strong and
5 painful historical memories and it just reacted in a logical way. It was
6 also an impulsive reaction in a way.
7 Q. You know, don't you, that Petar Gracanin, the Serbian minister of
8 the interior, later publicly took credit, let's say, for suggesting the
9 idea of putting up barricades at this time. You're aware of those
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Milovancevic?
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, an objection.
13 Mr. Gracanin, Petar Gracanin was a general. He was not the Serbian
14 minister of internal affairs. He was the federal secretary for internal
15 affairs. He was the minister of the interior of the state of Yugoslavia.
16 MR. BLACK: I accept the correction, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. But so it was not an objection, it was
18 a correction, Mr. Milovancevic, was it?
19 You may proceed, Mr. Black.
20 MR. BLACK: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. I apologise for the
21 misstatement there.
22 Q. But you're aware of those statements where he said he had taken
23 credit, or he said he had suggested these barricades be erected? You're
24 familiar with that?
25 A. I don't know. There were many statements but these were made by
1 politicians who at a certain political moment want to make themselves seem
2 important. But I'm not aware of any, no.
3 Q. Are you suggesting that politicians with certain political motives
4 can't be reliable, can't be trusted? Is that what you're saying?
5 A. I am not suggesting that, but no one can be said to have given an
6 exact statement every single time. I can't say that I have heard it.
7 It's a question of perhaps when he said it. As far as I know, he had
8 nothing to do with that.
9 Q. Okay. But you do know that police, Serbian police, manned many of
10 the barricades. You accept that, don't you?
11 A. No.
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour. I
13 don't know what Serbian police my learned friend from the Prosecution is
14 talking about. This is a territory of the Republic of Croatia, a federal
15 unit within Yugoslavia. All the police on Croatian territory belong to
16 the Ministry of the Internal Affairs of Croatia. There was no Serbian
17 police on the territory of the Republic of Croatia. When there were some
18 problems, then they would manifest in areas that were with a majority Serb
19 or a majority Croat population. This naming of the police in such a way
20 is quite contrary to the actual and official names of those police forces.
21 MR. BLACK: I withdraw the question, and may I rephrase it,
22 please, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may.
24 MR. BLACK:
25 Q. You do know, Mr. Licina, that police of Serb ethnicity manned many
1 of the barricades on August 17th of 1990. You know that, don't you?
2 That's a fact.
3 A. I'm not aware of something of the sort. I know that the
4 barricades were a result of self-organising. If there were some policemen
5 present, then they were present there in their capacity as local
6 residents. They had not come from somewhere else. I can't affirm that
7 there was a policeman at every barricade, but I can tell you that there
8 was no pre-organising involved in that.
9 Q. You know about the defence staff that was formed on the 17th of
10 August, 1990, to organise these barricades and other activity. You've
11 heard of that defence staff which later became the Council for National
12 Resistance, right?
13 A. I'm not aware of that.
14 Q. Well, let me show you a document.
15 MR. BLACK: If we could have that on e-court please. The ERN is
16 02163347 to 3352.
17 If we could just briefly see the last page of this document,
19 Thank you. If we could scroll down to the bottom.
20 Q. Mr. Licina, you recognise the name on the left there, Zdravko
21 Tolimir, don't you?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And he was in fact the head of the JNA security organs at
24 sometime, maybe not in September of 1990, but he was part of the JNA
25 security organs; is that right?
1 A. As far as I remember, Zdravko Tolimir was one of the officers in
2 the Knin Corps. That's all I can tell you about him. Back in 1991. I
3 don't know about 1990. And I don't know -- or rather, I think that he
4 went to Bosnia after this.
5 Q. Okay. And just for clarity, when you say of the Knin Corps,
6 that's the Knin Corps of the JNA, correct?
7 A. Yes, the Knin Corps of the Yugoslav People's Army, the JNA. I
8 remember that he was one of the officers. I don't know him personally,
9 I'm familiar with his name, and I think that later on he was in the army
10 of Republika Srpska, but I'm not sure.
11 Q. That's sufficient. Thank you.
12 Just before we move away from the last page, it basically says
13 here that he took this statement, correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Thanks. Now if we could look at the first page again of this
16 statement, and if we scroll down a bit, the person giving the statement
17 says that he was an employee of the Knin centre for informing. Do you see
18 that there? The Knin informational centre, I guess that's what that
19 means; is that right?
20 A. That's what it says there. Yes. That's what it should be based
21 on what is written here.
22 Q. Okay. And further down, it says -- it actually talks about him
23 being at that centre on the evening of the 17th of August until the
24 morning of the 18th of August, 1990. Isn't that correct?
25 A. This sentence, I remember these events well. Is that what you had
1 in mind? Yes.
2 Q. Exactly. If we could scroll down a little more, and next he goes
3 on to say that he is aware that the staff for defence of Knin was formed,
4 and then he says later on it was later renamed the Council of National
5 Resistance. Does that spark your memory? Do you remember now about this
6 Council for National Resistance that was formed on the 17th of August,
8 A. I'm not familiar with the staff. What I can see here is that this
9 is a statement of a gentleman who is currently in Croatia. I think he's
10 actually an official of a Croatian party. Maybe even in Knin.
11 Q. This statement was given to the JNA, correct? It wasn't given to
12 the Croatian authorities.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And what it says here is correct, right, that there was a staff
15 for defence of Knin created and it was later renamed the Council for
16 National Resistance; and furthermore, it was headed by Milan Martic. This
17 is all correct, isn't it?
18 A. This is the statement of that gentleman. I can't confirm whether
19 it's true or not. This is his statement. I know nothing about this so I
20 can't confirm it either as accurate or not. Given his current political
21 activities, I would take it with a grain of salt.
22 Q. Let me just point you to a couple of other things and see if you
23 know anything about these other statements. Maybe you don't.
24 Further down, on page 3 of the English, which I believe is also
25 page 3 of the B/C/S, if we could skip ahead to that page 3, it's that top
1 paragraph there, I think, although I don't read B/C/S so it's a bit of a
2 -- no, that's not -- it's the next paragraph down. Thank you.
3 It says there that communication -- and this is talking about the
4 17th of August, 1990. It says communication is mainly with SDS activists
5 and other people from municipalities who were engaged in self-organising
6 of citizens for resistance in the event of an attack by MUP forces. In
7 such a centralised system of operation, all information would be sent to
8 Knin. Now, that's accurate, isn't it? You accept that?
9 A. I'm not accepting anything. This is just a statement given by a
10 man. You are putting a statement to me, a statement that somebody gave to
11 a JNA organ. The fact that he gave a statement doesn't carry a meaning.
12 It doesn't mean that this is true. It just means that this is his
13 statement. I cannot confirm it because I know nothing about it.
14 Q. So you know nothing about the organisation that was going on in
15 Knin, you know nothing about events in Knin or in Golubic on the 17th of
16 August, 1990?
17 A. No, no.
18 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, at this point I would move this document
19 into evidence, please. Could it be given a number and admitted into
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
22 please be given an exhibit number.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, the document will become Exhibit
24 number 872.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
1 MR. BLACK: While I'm at it, Your Honour, I'm reminded that I
2 neglected to ask for admission of the first document that we looked at,
3 which is the HDZ document. It's the one that bears the ERN 00449884 to
4 9904, I believe. And the English translation starts at 03017013. I would
5 ask that that document also be admitted into evidence, please.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: May that document with that ERN number please be
7 admitted into document -- into evidence and be given an exhibit number.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, the HDZ general assembly material
9 will become Exhibit 873.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
11 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Mr. Licina, actually before we move away from this statement here
13 taken by Tolimir, I just want to ask you a couple more things and see if
14 you know about this because it's actually after the 17th of August, 1990.
15 If we could turn to page 4 of the document, please. It's the
16 bottom paragraph in B/C/S. It's about the middle of the page in English.
17 Mr. Licina, here it says: "Concerning illegal arming of citizens, I can
18 say that it is widespread. I know that about 1300 guns and 400 pistols
19 have been infiltrated into the Knin and Obrovac municipalities. I know
20 that 600 guns have arrived in Strmica. I think it was between the 15th of
21 October, 1990, and the 19th of October, 1990." And then it says, "They
22 came from a factory of RO Sport from Belgrade which runs a business in
24 That's true, isn't it, that there was -- there were arms coming in
25 from Serbia and other countries and being distributed to Serb -- citizens
1 of Serb ethnicity?
2 A. I never heard of anything of the sort. The weapons that were
3 present at the barricades were personal weapons of the people there;
4 hunting rifles. Some people were just armed with stones. I can't comment
5 this. This is a statement provided by somebody to a military organ,
6 nothing more than that.
7 Q. Okay. I'm just asking what you know based on some statements that
8 are here, but I'm interested in what you know.
9 If you look at the next page, page 5 -- actually, it's page 6 of
10 the B/C/S. This statement also says that citizens were given weapons from
11 the Knin SJS reservists, and it says those weapons were handed out on the
12 17th of August, 1990, after the Knin SJS warehouse was broken into. I
13 know you said you weren't there, but you heard about that, didn't you?
14 You heard about police reserve weapons being distributed to Serb citizens?
15 A. No. I never said that I heard that the weapons had been
16 distributed to Serb citizens. I don't remember ever stating something
17 like that. I know that the weapons were --
18 Q. I apologise for the interruption. I'm not saying that you have
19 stated this. I am saying you heard about that, didn't you? I'm asking
20 you. Didn't you hear about weapons from the police station? And not just
21 Knin's police station but other police stations, being distributed to Serb
23 A. No, no. I'm not aware of that.
24 Q. One other thing to see if you had heard of it, in the next
25 paragraph down, there is a mention of Simo Dubajic [phoen] and Milan
1 Martic handing out weapons. It says that people in town are openly
2 talking about this. Did you -- did you hear about that, about Milan
3 Martic participating in the distribution of weapons?
4 A. I have never heard of that. And as for Mr. Simo Dubajic, he was
5 quite an interesting figure, but I have never heard anything of this sort,
6 that it dates back to the Second World War.
7 Q. On -- just so I'm clear -- Did you want to say something that
8 dates back to the Second World War? It wasn't clear if we heard the
9 entire interpretation there.
10 A. No. Just about the name. Simo Dubajic was a well-known figure in
11 the Second World War. He was one of the well-known Partizan commanders
12 from the area.
13 Q. Okay. You think that's the same Simo Dubajic or a different one
14 or you just don't know, it was just the name?
15 A. The name sounds familiar. That's the only reference I have right
17 Q. Okay. Just so I'm clear, you were not personally in Knin or
18 Golubic on the 17th of August, 1990?
19 A. On the 17th of August, 1990, as I have said, I was in Zagreb up
20 until 2 p.m., and then I set out to Gracac, arriving there in the late
21 evening hours, maybe 10 p.m. So physically I was unable to be in Knin.
22 Q. Okay. Thank you for that. I remember you actually testified
23 about that before. Milan Babic was the president of the Knin municipality
24 at that time, wasn't he, in August, 1990?
25 A. Yes. And president of the Serbian National Council.
1 Q. He was also on the main board of the SDS with you, and he was the
2 president of the Association of Municipalities of Northern Dalmatia and
3 Lika. Isn't that also correct?
4 A. Yes. Member of the main and executive board and president of the
5 community of municipalities of Northern Dalmatia, Lika, and so on. He had
6 a lot of posts.
7 Q. Before I move away from the 17th of August, 1990, it's true, isn't
8 it, that after that date, Milan Martic was viewed as a hero to the Serb
9 people, based on his participation and his leadership in events on that
11 A. Milan Martic, viewed in the context of all of his activities, was
12 viewed as a hero in the Serbian Republic of Krajina. Over a number of
13 years. But I can't link him to a specific date.
14 Q. So you disagree with me that that really started on the 17th of
15 August, 1990. That was really the first date of his emergence on to the
16 scene as a Serb hero?
17 A. As far as I can remember, Milan Martic became known to the people
18 after he gave a statement to the Croatian television to a journalist
19 called Heni Erceg, I believe, when he said he wasn't going to put a
20 chequerboard symbol on his cap. I think that that was his statement and
21 this is how he became known to the public.
22 Q. Do you remember the date when Mr. Martic said that?
23 A. I think it was summertime of 1990.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I think we are at the end of the day.
1 I'll have to continue tomorrow.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before we leave, in case this document gets
3 off the screen by tomorrow, can I ask a question to the witness? Given
4 your position that the barricades were a spontaneous activity by citizens
5 in the Knin area and other areas, and in view of the position taken by the
6 author of this statement, what comment, if any, do you have on the
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't comment. Judging on the
9 basis of this, this is a man who is currently in Croatia and politically
10 active in a political party which represents itself as a Serbian party but
11 in my view isn't. As for there being no organisation, this is confirmed
12 by my earlier testimony. There were many barricades in our
13 municipalities. Had this all been preorganised, it would have been done.
14 These barricades would have been erected on the outlines of these
15 municipalities, as the Prosecution is trying to portray, but these
16 barricades were everywhere; between Lapac and Strbac, and they were
17 cropping up everywhere, and this proves that they were spontaneous,
18 because had it been preorganised, there would have been a system to it.
19 This was random. I had to travel to Knin a lot in that period of time
20 because a referendum was planned. And during those days, one would need
21 about five hours to travel between Gracac and Knin, and this is a trip
22 that normally takes one hour so we wouldn't be, on purpose, creating
23 problems for our own travel. It's just not logical.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Was the author of this statement in Croatia on the
25 2nd of December, 1990, when he made this statement?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know him personally. His
2 name appeared in the papers recently and I know that he's a president of a
3 party in Croatia now.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's not the question that's put to you. You say
5 you based your comment on the fact that this man is in Croatia, and I'm
6 asking you when he made this statement, at the 2nd of December, 1990, was
7 he in Croatia, if Croatia has anything to do with the content of his
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know the man. Therefore, I
10 can't know whether he was there or wasn't.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not asking you if you know the man. I'm asking
12 you if the man was in Croatia on the 2nd of December, 1990. Please try to
13 listen to the question and try to answer the question as succinctly and
14 concisely and comprehensively as possible.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very simply, I'm telling you I don't
16 know. I don't know the man, so I can't know about his whereabouts. I
17 simply don't know him.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Why do you tell us then that he's in Croatia? You
19 can't tell us about his whereabouts, but you've just told us that he's in
20 Croatia and that's why you dispute his statement.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I was saying is that he's in
22 Croatia now and that he's active in politics there now. He's a chairman
23 of a political party now.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: What has that got to do with a statement he made on
25 the 2nd of December, 1990?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I can just say that
2 there is a political continuity there.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then don't tell us irrelevancies if you don't know.
4 Okay? Now, are you suggesting that if these barricades had been organised
5 by somebody, they would not have appeared all over, as they did? They
6 appeared all over because it was spontaneous? It seems to me to suggest
7 the contrary to me.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it would be good if we
9 could take a look at the map of that area and then I would be able to
10 point out to you all the places where I know that barricades existed at
11 the time, and then you would be able to see the illogical aspect of this
13 The barricades were erected between two Serb municipalities, say.
14 Had there been a desire to organise this, and had it been planned in
15 advance, we would not have tried to erect barricades between our own two
16 municipalities. The barricades were erected basically next to all
17 villages, which means that people rose up in protest in a spontaneous way.
18 The mere location, placement of these barricades, illustrates the
19 spontaneous nature of this.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I thought you said that these barricades were all
21 over and spontaneous, which demonstrated that therefore they were not
22 organised. I'm trying to look at your text.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Everywhere within. Around and
24 within. The barricades were everywhere, not only towards the outside
25 world but only within the territory of Serbian municipalities. The
1 barricades were erected even inside the Serbian territory, which made the
2 traffic between two Serb localities difficult. Had there been a system
3 preplanned, then these barricades would not have been erected and there
4 were barricades erected between two Serb settlements which is an evidence
5 of this being a spontaneous process.
6 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Let me in this context ask you a short question:
7 In between a protest by whom? By local people of what ethnicity?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think I used the word
9 "protest." Maybe it was a mistranslation. It was a spontaneous process.
10 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Spontaneous process coming from whom; local Serbs
11 or Croats or both?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A spontaneous process among the
13 people in that territory. Mostly Serbs. But these barricades were
14 erected throughout these Serbian municipalities. When one travelled from
15 one Serbian municipality to another, one came across these barricades
16 which were erected next to all villages. This shows the spontaneity of
17 the process. It made our life difficult because we were in the process of
18 organising the referendum and it was difficult for us to communicate, to
19 travel between these settlements. The trip from Gracac to Knin, instead
20 of 45 minutes, took five hours. Had we really organised all this in
21 advance, we wouldn't have done it, because it was in our interest to
22 conclude business as quickly as possible.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm afraid, because of Judge Nosworthy's other
24 commitments this afternoon, we will have to adjourn. We will have to
25 resume tomorrow at 9.00 in the morning, the same courtroom. Hopefully we
1 can continue with the same topic.
2 Court adjourned.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.55 p.m.,
4 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 16th day of
5 August, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.