1 Wednesday, 16 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: Good morning, all. Mr. Black, I guess you are
7 still busy. We were talking yesterday before we broke off, if I can just
8 -- there was an issue we were talking about yesterday.
9 WITNESS: RATKO LICINA [Resumed]
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 MR. BLACK: At the very end, Your Honour, I believe we were
12 talking about the idea that the barricades were spontaneous and whether
13 they were everywhere, and Your Honour indicated that you would like to
14 start up there again. I don't know if you have more questions on that
15 topic this morning.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, just maybe to reiterate the question that I
17 put to the witness yesterday to say that at the end of the day yesterday I
18 picked up that you are now saying that the barricades were between two
19 villages. Previously you had said they were all over, and that because
20 they were all over, they were spontaneous. I just want to get what
21 actually your position is. Were they between two villages or were they
22 all over? And whether they were all over or between two villages, how
23 does that make them spontaneous necessarily?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's possible that
25 there's an interpreting mistake. I thought, actually, that the barricades
1 were on the inside and towards the outside. So somewhere on the outlying
2 areas but somewhere also within that area, between our municipalities and
3 settlements. That's what I was talking about. If the barricades hadn't
4 existed between the different places, then it could have been something
5 that had been thought out in advance. If they are within the area that is
6 ours, it makes no sense for them to be organised. They would be making
7 problems for themselves in that way. This is what I meant when I was
8 describing that.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: What problems would they be making for themselves?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There would be a problem in reaching
11 the different places in the communication. I already mentioned the
12 problem between Knin and Gracac. These municipalities border on one
13 another. There were several barricades, so we had a problem, and they
14 also had a problem in getting through. Knin, Gracac, Lapac, and the other
15 municipalities also had a problem with passage and communications at that
17 If we could see a map, perhaps I could point to some locations
18 that could illustrate what I'm talking about.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's not absolutely necessary. Okay. Thank you
20 very much. I'll leave the point at that point. Yes, Mr. Black.
21 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Black: [Continued]
23 Q. Good morning, Mr. Licina. I have some more questions for you
24 today. And I'll start on the same topic.
25 A. Good morning.
1 Q. Because, in fact, there was a Croat population in this area and
2 the reason there were internal barricades also was to restrict the
3 movement of the Croat population. That's right, isn't it?
4 A. That is not right. There is no Croatian village between Knin and
5 Gracac. So that is not correct. This is exactly what I was talking
6 about. The barricades were around each village practically. That's what
7 I'm saying. It had nothing to do whether the village was Serbian or
8 Croatian. That's why I said that it would be good perhaps to look at the
9 map so I could show you where all these barricades were.
10 For example, between Knin and Gracac there are no Croatian
11 villages, but there were barricades put up in that area between Knin and
13 Q. You say it had nothing to do with whether the village was Serbian
14 or Croatian, but that's not right. There were no barricades around the
15 Croatian villages, were there? Only around the Serb villages.
16 A. I don't know which villages had barricades specifically. They
17 were all over the place. Barricades were all over the place, but it had
18 nothing to do with it whether a village was Serbian or Croatian. I am --
19 I disagree with you that the barricades were erected around Croatian
20 village to protect themselves from the Serbs.
21 Q. That --
22 A. Barricades were erected all over.
23 Q. My point was not that barricades were erected around Croatian
24 villages to protect from the Serbs. My point was that the Serbs were
25 erecting barricades so they could keep control of who was moving in the
1 territory, specifically Croat population as well as any Croatian movement
2 from the rest of Croatia. That's why the barricades were erected; right?
3 A. No, that is not right. The Serbs, the Serb population, erected
4 the barricades out of fear and for protection because they were afraid
5 that there would be incursions into the village -- villages.
6 Q. Yesterday, we talked a little bit about these barricades and you
7 said you'd had to go to Knin after the 17th of August. So you yourself
8 saw several of these barricades. That's correct?
9 A. On the 19th of August, as we know, was our referendum. So it's
10 normal that there was movement between the municipalities, because the
11 referendum was under way. So I was on the road and I did have the
12 opportunity to see where the barricades were. I had to take detours. I
13 had to take side roads because --
14 Q. Sorry to interrupt but you answered that question just by saying
15 yes. You don't need to repeat what you said yesterday or the day before.
16 And I had asked you yesterday -- I realised last night that I asked you
17 specifically about barricades on the 17th of August, 1990, and about
18 whether you knew that police had manned these barricades, but now I'm
19 asking you about after the 17th of August, 1990, when you saw barricades.
20 You did see that there were police or reserve police manning those
21 barricades; is that right?
22 A. No, I don't recall seeing police.
23 Q. You do remember seeing men in uniform; correct?
24 A. No. All the people that I saw were people in civilian clothes.
25 Q. Did you ever see any of the barricades on TV or did you only see
1 the ones that you saw personally?
2 A. I probably saw that on television as well. I also saw some for
3 myself, and that's what I'm talking about. That's where the civilian --
4 people in civilian clothing were.
5 Q. So none of the barricades you saw on TV or personally there were
6 men in uniform manning those barricades?
7 A. I didn't see people in uniform.
8 Q. And I suppose you also didn't see people carrying automatic
9 weapons. You only saw hunting rifles. Is that what you said yesterday?
10 A. Yes, hunting weapons, personal weapons. Actually, there was a
11 large number of unarmed people.
12 Q. Another thing you said yesterday on this same general topic was
13 that you thought that the Croatian operations would have prevented the
14 Serbian referendum had the army - by which you meant the JNA - not reacted
15 by having a plane of the JNA turn back a Croatian MUP helicopter that had
16 set off in the direction of Benkovac. Do you remember telling us that?
17 A. Yes, I remember saying that.
18 Q. You know that Borisav Jovic was the president of the Presidency of
19 the SFRY at that time of -- of Yugoslavia in August of 1990; correct?
20 A. As far as I can recall, yes, that is correct.
21 Q. And he is --
22 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Licina and
23 Mr. Black, but I seem to be getting a feed from the B/C/S translation
24 somewhere on the line. I don't know what the technical problem is.
25 MR. BLACK: I hear it too, Your Honour. I think it may be that
1 the witness's microphones are picking it up from his headphones.
2 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Okay. Thank you.
3 MR. BLACK:
4 Q. Mr. Licina, is the volume okay on your headphones? If it's too
5 loud or too quiet, please tell us and we can adjust that.
6 A. It's okay now. It's okay.
7 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you very much.
8 MR. BLACK: Thank you.
9 Q. And my next question, Mr. Licina, was just to confirm: Borisav
10 Jovic was a Serb; correct?
11 A. Borisav Jovic was a member of the Presidency of the SFRY from the
12 Republic of Serbia.
13 Q. And Veljko Kadijevic, another Serb, he was the Serbian secretary
14 for national defence and the head of the JNA Main Staff at that time;
16 A. No. He was the secretary of national defence of the federal
17 state. He wasn't the Serbian secretary. He was the federal secretary for
18 national defence in the federal government. So he was a federal minister.
19 Q. Thank you for the correction. And you know that Borisav Jovic
20 published a book of sort of his diary, his memoirs from the war. Are you
21 familiar with that book?
22 A. I know that the book was published, yes, but I didn't read it.
23 Q. Okay. Well, that -- in that book Jovic says that Kadijevic told
24 him that JNA planes never took off on that day, around those days, and
25 that the Croatian helicopters were ordered back because they basically
1 deviated from their approved course. Do you accept that, what Jovic says
2 that he heard from Kadijevic?
3 A. I don't know. I can't confirm that. I haven't read the book.
4 This is something that Borisav Jovic said.
5 Q. Well, if that's true, if what he says is true, then your
6 explanation for why the Croatians were unable to stop the referendum
7 because of this incident with the helicopter, well, that's just not
8 accurate, is it?
9 A. This is something that I heard about the helicopter that was
10 turned back. I cannot comment on a statement by Borisav Jovic. This is
11 something that he said. You have to ask him about that.
12 Q. Okay. I'm going to move to a different topic now, and it's also
13 one we discussed yesterday --
14 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'm sorry, does the witness accept that it's
15 true or not true? I'm not quite certain what to make of that answer. I
16 thought that was the gist of your question.
17 MR. BLACK: Perhaps I'll put it again.
18 Q. Mr. Licina, it wasn't clear from your response: Do you accept or
19 do you not accept that the JNA planes never took off and that the Croatian
20 helicopters turned back for other reasons?
21 A. I repeat: I did have such information. The statement by Borisav
22 Jovic is his statement. I cannot confirm it or deny it. I don't know
23 what was happening at the Presidency.
24 Q. So your answer essentially is you don't -- you don't know whether
25 that's true or not.
1 A. No, I don't know what was happening at the Presidency and what the
2 relations were between Borisav Jovic and Veljko Kadijevic, what their
3 mutual orders were. I mean, I had no access to such information. I'm
4 only talking about things that I know or that I heard.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we interrupt you, Mr. Licina. Excuse me,
6 Mr. Black.
7 Mr. Milovancevic?
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor is answering
9 instead of the witness. The witness said, "I heard that planes
10 intercepted a helicopter. As to what Mr. Jovic said and what was
11 happening at the Presidency is something that I don't know." And the
12 Prosecutor is turning this answer by the witness into an alleged answer or
13 response the witness that, according to the witness, he doesn't know what
14 was going on. It's the wrong presentation of the witness's answer.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes -- I hear what you said, Mr. Milovancevic, but
16 I'm not quite sure I understand what your complaint is, because the
17 witness clearly now says for the first time, which he didn't say
18 yesterday, that his allegation about a JNA plane turning a Croat MUP
19 helicopter is hearsay. Equally what he now hears about what Borisav said
20 in his book is equally hearsay. He's prepared to accept the hearsay he
21 heard. He's not prepared to comment on the hearsay he hears on the book.
22 I'm not quite sure what actually your complaint is, and I thought this is
23 the root that --
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness is
25 explaining precisely that he doesn't know whether what Mr. Jovic is saying
1 is hearsay. He said, "I heard that this was said. As to what Mr. Jovic
2 himself said, I don't know because I wasn't at the Presidency." So the
3 Prosecutor cannot derive from that something that the witness didn't
4 actually say.
5 In order to understand this situation, it's important what the
6 Prosecutor is telling the witness in the question, that the helicopters of
7 the Croatian MUP were turned back. How can the helicopters that were
8 moving along the corridor be turned back? The only way -- they're not
9 going to receive a note telling them to go back. The only way is for them
10 to be intercepted and to be told to go back because they are in a space
11 where they are not supposed to be.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Maybe you understand, Mr. Black. Would you like to
14 MR. BLACK: I'll try, Your Honour. For one thing, I assume that
15 those helicopters, like the other ones I'm familiar with, have radios.
16 It's not necessary to pass notes to inform them that they need to come
17 back to where they took off from. But the main point is he objects to me
18 -- I think the objection is to me asking the witness, "So then you're
19 saying you don't know," and that's exactly what the witness said. He said
20 he doesn't know whether it's true or not, and that's also what Defence
21 counsel said is that the witness said he doesn't know. I don't see
22 anything objectionable about that question, and it was to clarify the
23 answer to my original question, which was do you accept or don't you
24 accept, which is the point of cross-examination, to ask him questions
25 about whether he accepts these things.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, I thought you wanted to say something.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you allow me to
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Respond. Sorry, Judge.
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] In his testimony about this
6 incident, the witness said, "I heard." He was very specific during the
7 examination-in-chief and during the cross-examination. "I heard that this
8 happened." At no point did he say, "I don't know if that happened or if
9 it did not happen." He said, "I heard that the Croatian MUP helicopters
10 took off." The Prosecutor confirms in his question that they did take
11 off, and then the witness said, "And I heard that they were turned back by
12 an intervention of the air force." All he said was what he had heard.
13 Whether this happened or not is something that the Prosecutor can ask the
14 witness and not just draw conclusions.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is the conclusion that the Prosecutor is
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Only the ones that suit them,
18 Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Identify the conclusion that you are saying -- you
20 are objecting to that he has drawn, because then I must rule that
21 conclusion out of order. But if you just --
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I
24 In the examination-in-chief and during the cross-examination, the
25 witness said those days, on the 17th of August, there was talk that the
1 Croatian MUP helicopters had taken off and that they were turned back by
2 the federal aviation of the JNA, and that is the course of the
4 The assertion by the Prosecution that the witness stated that he
5 does not know whether this happened is something that is just an opinion
6 of the Prosecutor. It's not actually the words of the witness.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: But now I'm not quite sure I know what you are
8 trying say, Mr. Milovancevic. This witness, I think, just said now that
9 he doesn't know. He has heard -- he had heard that the military
10 intervened and turned the helicopter back. But he is here. We can find
12 Did you hear or did you not hear about this incident of the
13 helicopter being turned back?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I heard about this
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
17 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Mr. Licina, can you explain to us from whom you
18 heard that.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was something that was reported
20 in the media, also in conversations with other people from the party
21 leadership. This was a very topical subject during those days. It was
22 logical that we would discuss something like that. This is something that
23 caused a lot of upset. Normally I don't know what happened in flight
24 control or in the airspace, or what was happening in the aeroplane. Of
25 course I couldn't know something like that.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: But the specific question by the Judge is who told
2 you that? You said you discussed it and it was topical. Who did you
3 discuss it with?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot remember specifically with
5 whom, but I know that it was a topic that was discussed during those days.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. I'm not quite sure I understand --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- the Defence's objection. I'm not able to rule
9 because I'm not quite sure what conclusion it is that the Prosecution is
10 alleged to have come to. Maybe I just did not understand the proceedings
11 at this stage. I'll have to listen again.
12 May you proceed, Mr. Black.
13 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Mr. Licina, you were just asked by His Honour Judge Hoepfel about
15 how you -- who you heard this information from, and in fact you obtained
16 this information much in the same way that you obtained a lot of the
17 information that you've given here, which is that you either saw it on the
18 news or you heard it from other people in the party or other people in
19 your circle, social and political circle; isn't that right?
20 A. Yes. It was the only way, at the time, to get such information.
21 I don't see any other way of getting information like that.
22 Q. And -- and for both this fact and some others you didn't have
23 first-hand, personal -- you're not saying that you saw this or you had
24 first-hand information. You're just saying what you heard from other
25 people and from the media; correct?
1 A. First-hand information is something that only the pilot himself or
2 flight control would have. So it's logical that the information I would
3 have would be hearsay.
4 Q. Right. But you agree with me, don't you, that Jovic and Kadijevic
5 are more likely to know what was going on there than you did. They were
6 likely to have more information about this incident than you had; correct?
7 A. That's up to them. It's their statement. I don't know what they
8 knew and what they stated, or whether it's true what is said in the book.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic.
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I refrained from
11 intervening, but what my learned friend the Prosecutor is doing now is
12 improper. In its to date work, the Prosecution mentioned -- I'm just
13 speaking at the top of my head now, but 100 -- page 188, and the title is
14 the 17th of August, 1990. This is from Mr. Jovic's book. The Prosecution
15 presented quotes from Mr. Jovic's book during these proceedings where
16 Mr. Jovic cites a complaint by Croatian president Mr. Tudjman that two
17 planes intercepted Croatian helicopters, and he considered that to be an
18 attack on Croatia. And then in text after that, it is stated what the
19 Prosecutor is presenting to the witness now.
20 Perhaps my learned friend can show the witness the relevant part
21 from the book, lay the grounds for that question, and then he can put the
22 question to the witness. I cannot conduct the cross-examination myself.
23 The Prosecutor needs to check his information. If he's referring to a
24 book that has already been used in these proceedings, then he needs to
25 present that evidence in the proper way. Right now I don't believe that
1 he's doing that.
2 The gist of my objection is that the Croatian president, Tudjman,
3 asserted that JNA planes intercepted Croatian helicopters, and that is the
4 reason why Mr. Jovic commented that incident in Croatian airspace at that
5 time. My learned friend from the Prosecution is now trying to question
6 the witness about how Mr. Jovic and Mr. Kadijevic are characterising that
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, just without giving me all this
9 history, can you just tell me what your objection is in one sentence.
10 I'd like to be able to say to Mr. Black what your objection is. I still
11 don't understand. What is your objection?
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] My learned friend from the
13 Prosecution is not showing the relevant text from the book to the witness,
14 and he is representing the -- what is written in the book incorrectly.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. That is much clearer than
16 that whole long story that you told me that I didn't understand.
17 Mr. Black --
18 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- would you like to respond to that objection?
20 MR. BLACK: I would like to respond to that, Your Honour. It
21 seems to me that if Mr. Milovancevic wants to look at another portion of
22 the book, he can do that on re-examination, but he has accepted that I
23 correctly characterised the part of the book that says exactly what I've
24 just been discussing, which is at page 160 in English, 178 in B/C/S. This
25 is Exhibit 476 in evidence. The English ERN is 03022976. In B/C/S it's
1 01157839. That's the basis for my line of cross-examination. If he wants
2 to look at other parts of the book, then I think he should do that in
3 re-examination but otherwise I don't -- I don't see anything objectionable
4 in my line of questioning, Your Honour. I hope I've understood the
5 objection correctly.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: As I understand --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. As I understand
9 Mr. Milovancevic, he would like you to show the witness the text.
10 MR. BLACK: Very well. I'm happy to do that, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
12 MR. BLACK: Could we see Exhibit 476, please, on the screen in
13 e-court. And again, if it's helpful, the passage I'm interested in is
14 found on page 160 of the English, 178 of the B/C/S, and that's the part --
15 the numbers at the bottom of these photocopied pages. If it's of
16 assistance, the English ERN is 03022976, and the B/C/S is 01157839. It
17 may take a second to find this, Your Honours, because the -- because these
18 are excerpts of the book the numbering -- the e-court numbering is
19 slightly different, so I think it will take them a second to find the
20 correct pages.
21 If we could scroll down a bit.
22 Q. I don't read B/C/S, but, Mr. Licina, maybe you could help us. Do
23 you see on there the paragraph that begins, "Just as Pera Gracanin is
24 leaving, Tudjman calls me up." Do you see that?
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated].
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: This microphone doesn't switch on when I press it.
3 Okay. It's on now. Thank you.
4 Are we going to see the English?
5 MR. BLACK: I hope -- I think the Court officer is working on it,
6 and the usher are working on it right now, Your Honour.
7 I think we have it now. Are you able to see it, Your Honour?
8 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes.
9 MR. BLACK: And perhaps I'll try to read out this entire passage
10 to make sure that I'm capturing everything Mr. Milovancevic has also
11 referred to.
12 Q. Please follow along, Mr. Licina. "Just as --" And these are the
13 words of Borisav Jovic: "Just as Pera Gracanin is leaving, Tudjman calls
14 me up. Very upset. 'I beg of you, this is impermissible, we are the
15 democratically elected government or are we not? We're not being allowed
16 to exercise our legitimate authorities ...!'
17 "'What's wrong?' I ask him." I won't give the quotes any more.
18 "Some MiG fighters intercepted two of our helicopters and forced
19 them to turn back and land --" this is Tudjman talking now -- "tanks are
20 moving toward Croatia from Slovenia ... This is a scenario drawn up in
21 Belgrade for overthrowing the legal Croatian government ..."
22 And then Jovic comments on that. He says: "I barely got him to
23 shut up. It is good that he's afraid. I promised him that I would look
24 into the matter and get back to him."
25 And here's the part that I was focussed on: "A conversation with
1 Veljko Kadijevic revealed that almost none of this is true. The MiGs did
2 not take off, the helicopters were returned by telecommand because they
3 had deviated from the approved course ..." That's what it says there in
4 Mr. Jovic's diary, doesn't it?
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Maybe it would help just to complete that
6 sentence, to read that sentence to the end.
7 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 That last sentence continues, after a semicolon: "... the reports
9 of tanks from Slovenia are completely false."
10 Should I continue with the paragraph or --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's fine.
12 MR. BLACK:
13 Q. I've read that out correctly; isn't that right, Mr. Licina?
14 That's what Borisav Jovic says about this incident, this alleged incident.
15 A. Mr. Jovic states here that he had been called by Mr. Tudjman, and
16 such reports were circulating on Croatian TV anyway.
17 Q. Focus on my question. What I read out is what appears here in the
18 book, in the B/C/S version. That's correct; right?
19 A. Approximately, yes.
20 Q. The translation may be slightly different, but that's what it says
21 there. And you -- you must accept, don't you, that Jovic and Kadijevic
22 were in a better position to know about this than you were?
23 A. Yes, but Tudjman seems to be saying here the same thing that I
24 said. I don't know who is telling the truth here, but that's the
25 information circulated by Croatian media at the time, and we were only
1 able to follow the electronic media of Croatia, and that was the kind of
2 report we were getting.
3 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I don't have any more questions on this
4 particular topic. Unless you do, I'll move on to another topic.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't.
6 MR. BLACK: We're done with that document on the screen now.
7 Q. Mr. Licina, now let me go back to another topic we talked about
8 yesterday and ask you a quick question on this. This is again on
9 constituent nation versus minority. You remember our discussion about
10 this. And you remember saying - correct me if I'm wrong - but that the --
11 as a nation the Serbs essentially had a veto on the right of Croatia to
12 secede. They had a voice. They could stop that process. Is that what
13 you were saying yesterday?
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Milovancevic?
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm not opposed
16 in principle to giving the Prosecutor the right to interpret statements
17 made by the witness, but what he just said is totally contrary to what the
18 witness had stated. The witness never said that. I'm not going to say
19 what the witness actually said, but only to avoid making suggestions or
20 suggestive interpretations before the witness.
21 What the witness talked about was the right to self-determination
22 and the right to decision-making. He didn't talk about secession at all.
23 He didn't talk about any unilateral acts.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I agree with you that if Mr. Black is going to
25 interpret the witness, he must correct -- he must interpret him
1 correctly. But let's read what he asked.
2 "Mr. Licina, now let me go back to another topic we talked about
3 yesterday and ask you a quick question on this. This is again on
4 constituent nation versus minority. You remember our discussion about
5 this. And you remember saying - correct me if I'm wrong -" He's saying
6 -- he's admitting that he made a mistake and he's asking to be corrected.
7 So it's open to the witness to correct him, and I think -- let's listen to
8 what the question is saying before we stand up to object.
9 Now, Mr. Licina, if the question put to you by Mr. Black was
10 wrong, please correct it and answer it. By "wrong" I mean if it misquoted
11 what you said yesterday.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So the question was what I
13 considered under the term "constituent nation"?
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: The question was: Is it not so that the Serbs had
15 a right of veto in the event Croatia wanted to secede? That -- I'm
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that's not correct. Serbs had a
18 right, as a constituent nation, to self-determination. A nation had a
19 right to self-determination. That is, constituent nations had that right.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I -- let me understand you. I understand the
21 concept of nation. I'm not sure that I understand it the way you put it,
22 but let -- I'm talking now about -- was it called a republic or was it
23 called a province? Croatia as a province of Yugoslavia, or as a republic,
24 a constituent Republic of Yugoslavia. If that republic wants to secede,
25 would any of the constituent nations constituting that republic have a
1 right of veto?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in the Socialist
3 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, sovereignty was not vested in republics
4 but in constituent nations. That was written into the constitution.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
6 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I think I can clarify. I'll go straight
7 to the transcript on this.
8 Q. Mr. Licina, yesterday I in fact asked you about something that
9 you'd said before, and this is on page 50 of yesterday's transcript, and I
10 asked you about something you said actually on page 72 of Monday's
11 transcript, and this was about constituent nation versus minorities and
12 the consequence of making the Serbs a minority rather than a constituent
13 nation. And you said: "Had they been a minority, then the situation
14 would have been different. They would have not had all the rights and
15 there could have been a secession without approval of the Serbs. However,
16 if Serbs are a constituent nation, then their consent is required for
17 secession because a nation comes before a republic. That is the essence
18 of that."
19 You remember saying that, don't you?
20 A. Yes. That's completely in keeping with what I've just said. It
21 is nations that are constituent, not republics.
22 Q. Okay. And I want to focus on this one sentence that you say
23 here: "If Serbs are a constituent nation, then their consent is required
24 for secession." That's your position, right; that the Serbs have to
25 consent or Croatia can't secede. That's what you're saying.
1 A. No. I was trying to say something else. Hypothetically, if both
2 nations within Croatia agreed to go forward with secession, that was their
3 right. But it was also the individual right of each of those nations to
4 decide in what kind of state they wanted to live without prejudicing the
5 rights of the other nation.
6 We did not try to prejudice the Croats' right to
7 self-determination. We just insisted on our own right to
9 Q. So you're saying that Croatia had the right to secede. That's
10 what you've just said. Is that right?
11 A. No. I did not say that. I said the Croatian people had that
12 right, but not Croatia as a republic, because Croatia was a republic of
13 two nations. And that was the kind of issue that required the -- the
14 agreement of both nations. If -- that such an agreement was impossible,
15 then the republic had better change.
16 Q. Are you or are you not saying that the Serb Nation had to approve
17 for Croatia to secede? You've given both answers, but which is your
19 A. The Serbian people did not question the Croatians' right to
20 self-determination. They just wanted the same right for themselves.
21 Q. Let me interrupt you. I'm talking about the Croatian republic,
22 not the Croat people or Croatian people. I'm talking about the Croatian
23 republic. Did the Serb nation have the right to veto or give consent to
24 Croatian secession from Yugoslavia? That's my question. What's your
25 position on that?
1 A. The Croatian republic was the state of the Croatian people and the
2 Serbian people in Croatia. Sovereignty was vested in nations, not in
4 Q. Would you please answer my question. Could Croatia secede without
5 Serbian approval? Without the approval of the Serb people in Croatia?
6 Yes or no.
7 A. I think I gave you a very clear answer. I don't know what remains
8 unclear to you.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just answer it, if you did.
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, excuse me. May I
11 intervene? This is a rather complex constitutional matter but it's not
12 beyond understanding. If the Prosecutor is asking the witness what kind
13 of right we are talking about, it's the right of nations to
14 self-determination, then it would be logical for him to quote the specific
15 constitutional provision. I'm trying to say one thing, Your Honour. The
16 question, the way it was put, is a trap. The constitution of Yugoslavia
17 envisaged the right to self-determination for every nation, and that's
18 what the witness is talking about. However, it was the constitution of
19 Yugoslavia, not the constitution of Croatia. Croatia was supposed to
20 observe the constitution of Yugoslavia. There was a procedure for
21 self-determination and that procedure was not observed.
22 The way it was put, the question leads to a wrong answer because
23 it is not in line with the existing constitutional arrangement, and the
24 Prosecutor is making the witness give answers that are not understandable
25 to the Trial Chamber. In fact, I'm trying to point out a problem. This
1 is not a word game. This is not a matter in which one can answer yes or
2 no. If one is seeking a yes or no answer, then one must proceed from
3 constitutional provisions. Mr. Licina is not a lawyer, and he's not a
4 constitutional expert, but his opinion on these matters is completely
5 irrelevant, legally speaking. Mr. Licina is being asked to talk about
6 constitutional matters and legal matters that he did not study. They were
7 not included in his training. What is being sought from him, in fact, is
8 a political position, and he is giving it. And Mr. Licina is, anyway,
9 quoting the constitution correctly. But the Prosecutor is not showing any
10 respect for the supreme legal act of a country when he's putting his
11 question. He's totally misleading the witness.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think you must stop now. Mr. Milovancevic, thank
13 you for your long story, but I just want to say to you when you do object,
14 I would like you to please object appropriately. There is -- all the
15 allegations you are making here are not correct. Mr. Black quoted from
16 the transcript of yesterday what the witness said. We are not a
17 constitutional law class here. We are just listening to evidence. That's
18 all. And what the question -- what question is being put to this witness
19 emanates from what this witness said himself yesterday. It has nothing to
20 do with constitutional law. It has nothing to do with the constitution of
21 the federation of SFRY or the constitution, if any, of Croatia. It's just
22 got to do with the testimony of this witness that he made yesterday.
23 Now -- and to suggest that the witness is being trapped or being
24 asked constitutional questions is just not correct. He's being asked,
25 "You said yesterday that Croatia cannot secede without the consent of the
1 Serbian people in Croatia," and he just wants to establish that's his
2 position. That's what he said yesterday. It was quoted. Unless you say
3 he misquoted, I'm sorry, I cannot even -- I don't even want to hear his
5 Do you have anything to say? And briefly.
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the reason for my
7 intervention was the fact that, during examination-in-chief, the Defence
8 asked this witness what --
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... we are going
10 to what this witness said yesterday that was quoted by Mr. Black. Is it
11 wrong? If it is wrong, fine. Then Mr. Black must apologise and we'll
12 censure him if he's misquoting it.
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Black sought an answer and
14 got it. Today, the witness repeated the answers he gave yesterday and the
15 day before yesterday.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: What answer did he seek and what answer did he get?
17 What is the question and what was the answer? And where is the answer on
18 the transcript?
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] The question was about the
20 status of constituent nation, and the witness repeated his answer that
21 sovereignty in Yugoslavia was vested in nations and not in federal units,
22 that is, republics.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: But that's not Mr. Black's question. Mr. Black's
24 question is: "You said yesterday that the -- Croatia could not secede
25 without the consent of the people of Serb ethnicity who live in Croatia.
1 Is that still your position?" That is the question.
2 Having quoted what he said yesterday, he's saying, "Is that still
3 your stand?" That's all the question there is. It's not a constitutional
4 law question. It is not what you are saying he asked. Unless I'm
5 misinterpreting your question.
6 Is that question unfair? "Is it still your stand that Croatia
7 could not secede unless the Serb people in Croatia consented?" That's the
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] The witness answered that
10 question, and the Prosecutor is asking him the same question for the fifth
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: What was his answer, and where were the first four
13 times? The question is, "Is that still your stand?" Because he has given
14 two versions now.
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Prosecutor is
16 questioning this witness concerning an issue of the constitution that the
17 witness had referred to before.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: I've just told you what the question was, and I'm
19 asking you what was the answer by the witness to that question, "Is it
20 still your stand?" Now, you're going back to analysing the Prosecutor's
21 questions. I've told you the Prosecutor's question had nothing to do with
22 constitutional law. It had to do with this witness's testimony.
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] If the Prosecutor insists on
24 the witness's opinion, then let the witness say it for the fifth time, but
25 it --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ...
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] But the essence of my
3 objection, Your Honour, the essence of my objection is this: The
4 Prosecutor is commenting upon the issue of the constituent character of a
5 nation, and the witness is giving him an answer in keeping with the then
6 existing constitution.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Prosecutor is not commenting. The Prosecutor
8 is asking a question. He's not commenting upon any issue. He's asking a
9 question. "Is it still your stand that Croat Serbs must consent before
10 Croatia can secede?" That's the question. That's not a comment. Thank
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I
13 understood you, and I agree, and I think the witness can answer.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Will you please answer the question, sir. If you
15 want to be reminded the question, you will be reminded.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since the Serbs were one of the two
17 constituent peoples or nations, their consent was necessary for Croatia's
18 secession. In other words, without Serbs, Croatia could not go forward
19 with its secession.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you happy with the answer?
21 MR. BLACK: Thank you. I can go from here, Your Honour. Thank
22 you. But I would just say, Your Honour, before I continue with the
23 questions, that it's very difficult for me to respond to any objection,
24 which I'm not doing now, when they're constantly shifting objections. And
25 also I object to Defence counsel testifying when the witness either can't
1 or refuses to give answers. It's not proper for Defence counsel to step
2 in and give what he wants the answer to be.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: I hear what you say, and that's why I tried to say
4 to Mr. Milovancevic we are not in a constitutional law class here and he
5 must not turn the question into what he thinks it should be.
6 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. And I would say, as I
7 continue, that this witness did testify about a number of
8 constitutional-type issues and that's exactly why I'm going into this on
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
11 MR. BLACK:
12 Q. Mr. Licina, you've now just said that without Serbs Croatia could
13 not go forward with its secession, and that's the same as saying that
14 Serbs have the power to essentially veto the secession of the Croatian
15 republic; right? That's what you're saying.
16 A. It's not the power. It's just a Serbian right within Croatia, the
17 right of Serbs as one of the two constituent nations.
18 Q. You say it's the right but not a power, and you say that because
19 in fact there was no provision of the 1974 Croatian or Yugoslav
20 constitution that gave a mechanism for the Serbs to prevent this kind of
21 secession. There was no mechanism by which the Serbs could exercise this
22 right, was there?
23 A. You are not correct on that. There was a mechanism and there was
24 a commission called the Commission on the Equality of Nations and
25 Minorities, or ethnicities, within Croatia, and that commission had to
1 deliberate on all issues that touched upon the equality among nations and
2 ethnicities, and all its decisions had to be taken by consensus. The new
3 Croatian authorities failed to elect that commission in due time, and in
4 that way they failed to observe the rules. They went around certain
5 regulations and this rule was violated.
6 Q. And your position is that this commission had the final say about
7 even issues like secession. This commission had to approve this -- you
8 know, commission with both ethnicities had to approve or Croatian could
9 not secede. That's your position?
10 A. Yes. Since the Croatian parliament did not have the Chamber of
11 Nations, it was precisely this commission that was authorised to deal with
12 these issues.
13 Q. Was this commission -- does this appear in the constitution? Was
14 this something that was required by the constitution or this was just part
15 of the internal workings of the Croatian parliament?
16 A. I think that this is regulated by legislation. I'm not sure. I'm
17 not a lawyer, but I think that it was regulated by legislation.
18 Q. But you don't really know because you're not a lawyer.
19 A. No, I'm not a lawyer. But since I was a deputy in the Croatian
20 parliament, I know that this commission did not exist up until that time.
21 Q. Had the commission existed before? And, if so, when did it stop
23 A. The commission existed up until 1990, up until those elections.
24 In accordance with the rules of Procedure of the parliament, it was
25 supposed to be established at the constituent session. The Croatian
1 parliament was constituted on the 30th or 31st of May, 1990, which is when
2 all boards and commissions of the parliament were established. However,
3 this particular commission was not established, and it was not until
4 mid-December of 1990 that it was finally established.
5 Q. Sorry -- now, to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, you're
6 now saying that it's this commission, the failure to form this commission
7 is what meant that the Serbs couldn't exercise their veto over the
8 secession of the Croatian republic. That's what you're saying?
9 A. Mr. Black, this was not just an ordinary failure. If all
10 commissions and boards of the parliament establish, except for this one,
11 this one which is extremely important, which plays a key role in these
12 issues, then I don't think this is just a mere failure or omission. I
13 think that this speaks of a clear intent.
14 Q. That's your point of view both personal and political; right?
15 That is your point of view, your opinion.
16 A. This is my position, and that was the position of all Serbs, the
17 majority of Serbs.
18 Q. And your position and the position of all Serbs was, therefore,
19 that a numerical minority of Serbs acting through this commission should
20 have been able to stop the efforts of the entire Croatian republic to
21 secede from Yugoslavia. That was your right and that's the way it should
22 have been. That's what you insisted on.
23 A. I don't perceive Serbs as a numerical minority. I perceive Serbs
24 in Croatia as one of two constituent nations.
25 Q. Well, we've been through that, and I think we're going to move on
1 to the next -- the next topic.
2 You remember yesterday when we talked about the Serb Assembly in
3 Srb on the 25th of July, 1990, and you told us - and I can find the
4 transcript if I get this wrong, so let me know - you told us that was not
5 about independence. Do you remember that?
6 A. The Serb Assembly in Srb on the 25th of July, 1990, was the
7 largest political gatherings of Serbs up until that time. It had nothing
8 to do with independence. It was about the -- adopting the declaration on
9 sovereignty and autonomy.
10 Q. I'd like to show you a video clip, and it's from Exhibit 497, but
11 we'll have to show it on the Sanction, of course, because it's a video.
12 If we could please switch to Sanction. And if Ms. Walpita could broadcast
13 Sanction. Okay. If we could play that first clip from V000-6690, please.
14 Just watch this, Mr. Licina.
15 I think the e-court button should still work for this. We're
16 hoping that the technical issues from yesterday have been solved.
17 [Videotape played]
18 MR. BLACK: I think that was sufficient.
19 Q. Mr. Licina, Mr. Martic is exactly right, isn't he? That was the
20 first attempt of creating a self-reliant and independent state.
21 A. No. President Martic just gave his interpretation here. He
22 speaks of some kind of a continuity. He speaks about this being some kind
23 of a beginning. However, we cannot say that this was the beginning of a
24 creation of a state. You can't find this in any of the documents. Look
25 at the declaration which was adopted at this Assembly. No independence
1 whatsoever is mentioned there, no secession.
2 Q. Well, put aside the issue of what's in the documents. What about
3 reality? The reality of the fact is exactly as Mr. Martic says, that this
4 was the first attempt of creating a self-reliant and independent state.
5 That's true, isn't it?
6 A. No, Mr. Black, that's not true. At the Assembly in Srb, Serbian
7 National Council was founded and the declaration on sovereignty and
8 autonomy of Serbian people was adopted. I don't see how this has anything
9 to do with independence or secession. Everything that happened later was
10 a product of the conduct of the Croatian state.
11 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I believe we have about three minutes
12 left but I'm about to go into a larger topic. It might be a convenient
13 time to break right now, if that's acceptable to Your Honours. We can
14 even start five minutes earlier. Am I right about the time? We usually
15 stop at 10.15, correct?
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are right about the time; we usually stop at
17 10.15. We will take those extra minutes as a bonus. So we'll take a
18 break and come back at quarter to.
19 Thank you, Court adjourned.
20 --- Recess taken at 10.09 a.m.
21 --- On resuming at 10.47 a.m.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Black.
23 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. Mr. Licina, yesterday we talked a little bit about the HDZ, which
25 was a Croat party in Croatia, as you said. Now I'd like to ask you some
1 questions about the SDS, your own party.
2 Jovan Raskovic was the founder of the SDS in Krajina; is that
4 A. Jovan Raskovic was the president of the Serbian Democratic Party
5 and one of the founders.
6 Q. Okay. And he was the president essentially from the beginning,
7 from the founding of the party; is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Am I correct that he was -- he was relatively moderate in his
10 views? He wasn't seen at the time as particularly extreme?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. In fact, he was actually kind of ousted from the SDS leadership
13 around July of 1990 or thereafter because he spoke with Tudjman, and that
14 was the time the SDS was becoming more radical; is that correct?
15 A. No. That didn't happen in July of 1990.
16 Q. When did that happen, if you remember?
17 A. Jovan Raskovic was never ousted from the SDS. He led it
18 throughout the time. It was just that Milan Babic split with some of the
19 members and created a new wing of the party. I think it was in late 1991
20 or something like that.
21 Q. Okay. Well, let me focus for the time being on Raskovic, and I'm
22 just going to ask -- well, it's true that Jovan Raskovic used pretty
23 extreme language at times in 1990 and 1991. That's true, isn't it?
24 A. That's not true, no. To my knowledge, Jovan Raskovic never used
25 any radical or extreme language. He was an academician and a physician, a
1 psychiatrist, and he was seen as a representative of the people. That's
2 how we perceived him.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Black, perhaps between you and the witness
4 might understand what extreme language means. That's more of an
5 evaluative term and what is extreme to you may not necessarily be extreme
6 to me. Is it possible for you to say exactly what it is that he said, and
7 let's find out and maybe compare it to what he said earlier that you
8 regard as mild so that the Chamber can see what is meant by extreme here.
9 MR. BLACK: Absolutely, Your Honour. You anticipated my next
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
12 MR. BLACK: If we could please see on the e-court a document
13 bearing the ERN 02927453 to 7457. The English translation is those same
14 numbers preceded by the letters ET.
15 Q. Mr. Licina, as we're waiting for this to come up on the screens in
16 front of us, you're aware that Jovan Raskovic published --
17 A. It came up, but in English.
18 Q. Okay. Thank you. Hopefully we can rectify that.
19 I don't have it at all on my monitor, actually, in any language.
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Defence doesn't have it either.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have it now in Serbian.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you check that the Defence has it too?
23 MR. BLACK: There is a possibility that we could still be on
24 Sanction as far as the audiovisual goes. No, apparent -- here we go. We
25 have it all sorted out. Thank you very much.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
2 MR. BLACK:
3 Q. And if we could turn to the second page there on the B/C/S
4 version. This is still the first page of the English translation. These
5 are -- Mr. Licina, these are a number of excerpted pages from a book
6 published by Jovan Raskovic in 1990 called "Crazy Land." Have you heard
7 of this book before?
8 A. Yes, I have.
9 Q. Let me read out to you -- if we could scroll down slightly on the
10 page in B/C/S. Just follow along. I'm going to read a selection from
11 Mr. Raskovic's book. It says: "The Ustasha movement is also a rational
12 delirium. Already in 1940, when Ustashas were planning the destruction of
13 the Serbs, they made exact geography of all the pits on the territory of
14 the NDH," which refers to the Independent State of Croatia. "Not only did
15 they do this but they also calculated the dimensions of the pits and
16 determined how many bodies of children and women would fit in each pit.
17 In that way they knew exactly what and how much they could 'do.' The
18 delirium of the slaughter and genocide that took place in 1941 against the
19 Serb people was a rational delirium, and that is why it had such an
20 epochally high 'score.'"
21 The next paragraph, I'll read that out as well. It says: "The
22 delirium of the Mass Movement in Croatia in the seventies had rational
23 programs but it was stopped on the political level. If it had not been
24 stopped on that level, that delirium could have probably been realised,
25 and it would have become a murderous delirium. It would have been
1 murderous because it was anti-Serb, genocidal - and it was stopped in the
2 phase of the political genocide against the Serbs. But, there is a short
3 way between the political and the real genocide."
4 Now, Mr. Licina, looking back, do you recognise that publishing
5 works like this in 1990 was likely to have an adverse effect on Croat-Serb
7 A. This book, this text was published by Jovan Raskovic not -- in his
8 capacity not only of a politician but also a psychiatrist. And as far as
9 I can tell, this represents a kind of a professional text. I don't see
10 any problem in it.
11 Q. Okay. Well, Jovan Raskovic was, as you said, the president of the
12 SDS and one of its founders and really the leader of the SDS. You accept
13 that this book was widely read at the time, in 1990 and thereafter, don't
14 you? This was an important statement.
15 A. Jovan Raskovic is an academician. He was a psychiatrist, a
16 scholar, and this book had more of a scholarly dimension than a populist
17 one. It was widely read in scholarly circles but not by general public.
18 These are not topics generally discussed by ordinary people. The majority
19 of them don't even understand half of these terms.
20 Q. Well, the majority of the people came to understand, if they
21 didn't understand before, the term "Ustasha" and the term "genocide,"
22 didn't they? Because these were terms that the SDS leadership, including
23 Mr. Raskovic, pounded into them in 1990 and 1991, and thereafter as well.
24 A. Ustashas and genocide is something that happened. These are not
25 invented things. So I don't see a problem there. To this day we have
1 painful memories of that. Something resembling that surfaced again, and I
2 don't see what is problematic about mentioning it again. It was logical
3 to mention it. And this is a scholarly text written by a professional
4 within the professional domain. That was the content of the book.
5 Q. Right. A professional who was also the president of the SDS;
7 A. He was president of the SDS, but he was also an academician and a
8 psychiatrist, and that was the source of his income, not politics.
9 Q. I'd like to look at another -- another passage from this book.
10 I'm just trying to find it for you in the B/C/S. He makes a reference to
11 Kosovo, so if you see that there, please help me find it. It's a
12 paragraph that starts: "You can't find many nations in the world except
13 the Jews, Armenians and Gypsies ..."
14 Are you able to see that on that page anywhere, Mr. Licina?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Could we turn to the next page, please.
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may be of
18 assistance. It's page 208 in the B/C/S version. I don't know if this is
19 what my learned friend had in mind.
20 MR. BLACK: Yes. I'm extremely grateful.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
22 MR. BLACK: Yes. And if we could scroll down to the bottom of
23 that page. Right.
24 Q. Mr. Licina, please follow along. It's actually a little further
25 in that paragraph, and it starts there the first two words on the bottom
1 of the page and then we will have to scroll up to the top. And it says:
2 "Suffering of the Serbs was a rule of history. The only thing that has
3 been happening to the Serbs from the battle of Kosovo until the present
4 time was a huge suffering. Only God's justice saved the Serbs from
5 annihilation and from complete disappearance of the Serb name. In every
6 century hundreds of thousands or millions of the best among the Serbs
7 dedicated to their faith and nation were paying their dedication with
8 their lives. The Serb nation has been undergoing destruction for six
10 Now, those were the views of the -- one of the founders and the
11 president of the SDS. Do you share those views? Did you share them then,
12 and do you share them now?
13 A. Absolutely. Both then and now I adhere to these views. The Serb
14 people have been destroyed through the centuries, and it is normal for us
15 to speak up about that. Can you imagine what would happen, how terrible
16 it would be if the Jews were forbidden to speak of Holocaust?
17 Q. Yes. No one is suggesting you should have been forbidden to speak
18 of it.
19 You said -- actually, I don't see it in the transcript, but in
20 fact you and other Serb leaders, especially in the SDS, you emphasised
21 this suffering of the Serbs in order to galvanise the Serb people, to get
22 their backing in your political moves, including seeking a separate Serb
23 state; isn't that right? That was of the point of constantly these
24 references to Serb suffering.
25 A. No, that was not the point. Any regular Serb will tell you the
1 same thing that I am telling you. We have preserved our tradition, the
2 tradition about the battle of Kosovo. It's a national myth on which the
3 Serb nation was built. In our activities, at least in the beginning, in
4 our political activities there was no mention of secession. All we wanted
5 to do was to fight for the rights of the Serbian people.
6 Q. And let me focus still on these kind of statements. You as a Serb
7 politician, you knew that by generating fear in the Serb population by
8 references to genocide and Ustasha, and then also emphasising Serb
9 suffering, you knew that this was a way that you could win the support of
10 the Serb people. That's why these kind of things were referred to by Serb
11 politicians. Isn't that right?
12 A. No. You are not right. All we did was refer to Serb history.
13 Unfortunately, Serbian history is what it is. It's bloody with a lot of
14 casualties, and how could anybody have the right to deny us to talk about
15 that? This is something that everyone talked about.
16 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, could this document be put in evidence,
17 please; given a number and admitted into evidence.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
19 please be given an exhibit number.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document will become Exhibit
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
23 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. I'd like now to show another clip. This clip is part of the video
25 marked V000-5875. And we'll show this again on the Sanction. So if we
1 could move to the Sanction system. Okay. Everything seems to be ready.
2 Mr. Licina, this is from a documentary entitled "Neighbours," and
3 as you'll see here, I believe in the first frame, this is footage from a
4 rally on the 17th of August, 1990. And could we go ahead and see the clip
5 now, please.
6 Your Honour, it seems all we do is sort out problems with
7 Sanction. If I could have a few seconds to try this again.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: You have.
9 MR. BLACK: I think we've got it sorted out, Your Honours. If we
10 could now watch the clip.
11 [Videotape played]
12 MR. BLACK:
13 Q. Mr. Licina, you would accept at least that there was extreme
14 language, comments, remarks being made by SDS supporters, and in that case
15 kind of encouraged by Jovan Raskovic; right? Or do you find that those
16 chants by the crowd in the video were justified?
17 A. I don't know what you mean when you say "SDS supporters." What I
18 see here are people who are chanting slogans, but I don't know if they are
19 SDS supporters. I also see Jovan Raskovic, who is telling them not to ask
20 him to give them weapons.
21 Q. What does he mean when he continues and says, "... but if you need
22 weapons, you'll probably find someone who will give them to you"? What do
23 you understand him to mean there?
24 A. I don't know what he meant. I am not about to guess what he meant
25 to say by that. I don't know.
1 Q. Well, just give me your opinion. In your opinion, was he
2 discouraging those people?
3 A. I think that this is footage taken during one of the crises, and
4 if I remember correctly, this is a propaganda film by the Croats, called
5 "Neighbours," and what they did is take excerpts, and then by putting
6 together certain excerpts out of context, a certain story was presented.
7 This is typical propaganda material. So I really cannot comment about
8 something that is -- well, this is really taken out of context.
9 Q. Okay. Give me the context. Explain how it's justified when the
10 crowd chants, "We will kill Tudjman. We will kill the Ustashas," and
11 Jovan Raskovic says, "Well, don't ask weapons from me, but somebody else
12 I'm sure can be found to give you weapons." Give me the context that
13 justifies that.
14 A. I cannot give you a context because I am not able to hear the
15 entire speech. So I cannot really comment on just a segment. It's just a
16 sentence from a political speech.
17 Q. Well, what -- this -- according to the documentary, this is a
18 speech given on the 17th of August, 1990. Was there anything in the
19 circumstances that you think justifies the chants of the crowd and
20 Raskovic's interaction with them?
21 A. Thank you for mentioning that. If this was on the 17th of August,
22 did it take place somewhere in Dalmatia, for example? If it was on the
23 17th of August, was this in Dalmatia? I think judging by the way the
24 people there are speaking, this was then somewhere in Dalmatia, in the
25 area of Benkovac during one of the major crises. I think we spoke about
1 that period. It was a time of confiscation of weapons, takeover of police
2 stations. It was a time of high tension and great fear amongst the
4 Q. And this rally wasn't even that unusual in the kind of views being
5 expressed by the crowd there at that time. That was not just limited to
6 this rally but other rallies at that time. Is that what you're saying?
7 A. No. This was a rally that was like that. Rallies differed from
8 one rally to another. You cannot say that every single rally was like
9 this. This was a rally at a very stressful neuralgic time. Therefore
10 it's one thing to take it out of context and to present that as the manner
11 of the political activity of the SDS. After all, this is a meeting after
12 the SDS elections, so there is no sense for the SDS to be promoting some
13 sort of its own programme at rallies like that. This is probably just
14 some kind of gathering after that. This is not a political rally as such.
15 Q. Well, the SDS didn't cease to function as a political party after
16 the elections. That can't be what you're saying.
17 A. No, no, that's not what I'm saying. But this is not an election
18 rally so that there would be something like the political programme being
19 presented. This seems to me some sort of a protest at the time when there
20 was a crisis, and it's quite a different tone that such a meeting would
21 have compared to other political rallies.
22 MR. BLACK: Could this clip be admitted into, please, and given a
23 number, Your Honour? It also does have a transcript which we'll put in
24 e-court along with the clip.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: The clip is admitted into evidence. May it please
1 be given an exhibit number and, if possible, can we also give an exhibit
2 number to its transcript.
3 MR. BLACK: I think the practice with other clips is to have the
4 same number and they'll both appear there, Your Honour. But however it is
5 best for the court officer.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: The court officer will know what to do.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will become Exhibit number 875.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Thank you very much.
9 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. Mr. Licina, it wasn't just Jovan Raskovic who made these kind of
11 statements. Other SDS leaders also -- well, in that case it was the
12 crowd, but other SDS leaders used words like "Ustasha" and "genocide" and
13 used that kind of language, didn't they?
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I must object.
15 The excerpt, we heard only one sentence by Mr. Raskovic: "Do not demand
16 weapons from me. If they are needed, somebody will be found to give them
17 to you."
18 Mr. Raskovic did not mention Ustashas. The Prosecutor seems to be
19 suggesting that Mr. Raskovic himself mentioned killings, Ustashas, and so
20 on, but this is quite incorrect. He did not say anything like that.
21 MR. BLACK: If I could respond, Your Honour. What I said was -- I
22 corrected myself. I said, oh, in that case it was the crowd, but other
23 SDS leaders used words like "Ustasha" and "genocide," used that kind of
24 language. So I absolutely accept that Mr. Raskovic did not use that
25 language in the clip, but that wasn't my question, at least my intended
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: But be that as it may, the Exhibit 874, doesn't it
3 mention Ustashas?
4 MR. BLACK: Yes, it did, Your Honour, and that was the basis for
5 me saying that was the crowd had mentioned "We will kill the Ustashas."
6 That's what I was segueing from.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
8 MR. BLACK: As well as the prior exhibit also referenced
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, are you happy with that
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. You may proceed, Mr. Black.
14 MR. BLACK: Thank you.
15 Q. Mr. Licina, the question was - and I'll try to say it more clearly
16 - and let me take someone specific. Milan Babic, who was a member of the
17 SDS and the Serb leader in Krajina, he used words like "Ustasha" and
18 "genocide" in his public statements, didn't he?
19 A. I don't know if he used those terms when he was making his
20 appearance. He probably did. I don't know. But these terms "Ustasha"
21 and so on were used. I don't see anything disputable about that.
22 Q. And you yourself used the term "Ustasha" in public addresses,
23 didn't you?
24 A. I did not use it in a public address. I used it in a specific
25 case. If it referred to Ustashas, then I would speak or use the word
1 "Ustashas." Just to remind you, Ustashas are a Croatian force during
2 World War II.
3 Q. But you actually also used "Ustasha" to talk about Croatians or
4 Croatian forces in the 1990s, didn't you? And you did so publicly.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The witness said
6 fascist forces in World War II.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. I didn't use that term. I
8 used the term "Ustashas" in a specific context. When Ustashas were
9 discussed, that was the term I used. I mean, when that was the topic of a
10 discussion, I had no choice but to use that term. What else could I do?
11 Q. You're saying now that you only used the term "Ustasha" to talk
12 about fascist Croatian government authority in World War II?
13 A. Croatian fascists. Croatian fascist forces in World War II.
14 MR. BLACK: Could we please see on e-court a document with ERN
15 02169807 to 9808. And we need to make sure we change back from Sanction
16 to e-court. Thank you.
17 And, Your Honours, this is a document that I do not believe we
18 have an English translation for, so we'll just have to use the B/C/S.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Those of us who are limited in language --
20 MR. BLACK: That includes me, Your Honour. What I planned to do
21 was ask the witness to read out the particular passage and then the
22 translation will tell us what it says.
23 Could we please scroll down on the page. There, I think, is
25 Q. Mr. Licina, the -- look at that last paragraph that's visible
1 there. I can even tell you -- could you please read out the last three
2 sentences, or at least that third sentence from the end.
3 A. Which paragraph again?
4 Q. Actually, it just kind of moved. Before we get there, if we could
5 scroll up a bit more -- sorry, scroll to the top for a second. I'll ask a
6 question before we get to the specific quote.
7 This is -- this is you addressing the first session of the RSK
8 parliament in October of 1993; correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. Thank you. If we could scroll back down. It's --
11 unfortunately, I can't even tell you what the first word -- right now it's
12 the last paragraph that's visible there at the bottom of the screen. The
13 last full paragraph. That one. If you could -- now it's sort of in the
14 middle of the screen. You can probably see the word "Ustasha" in there a
15 couple of times. Could you read out the sentence in which the word
16 "Ustasha" appears.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which one is that?
18 MR. BLACK: He should know, Your Honour, not us.
19 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: We'd like to identify it as well, though.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Because I want to make sure I'm on the same
21 paragraph that you are.
22 MR. BLACK: Okay.
23 Q. Do you find that sentence, Mr. Licina?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Could you read it out and then afterwards I'll have you circle it
1 so that we know which one you're going to. For the time being, please
2 just read it out loud.
3 A. Like this: It's a document that is my speech at the Assembly in
4 Beli Manastir in 1993, after the attack on the Medak pocket by Croatian
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you reading?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm going to read now.
8 MR. BLACK:
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. I am reading now. I'm going to read now -- the whole paragraph,
11 or that sentence, "As for ..."?
12 Q. Just that one sentence, please. We'll start with the sentence and
13 then if you feel it's necessary to read the paragraph for context, then
14 you're more than welcome to do that.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "As for the Ustashas who left at
16 6.00 and arrived at Sitnik at 8.00, the Ustashas were not stopped. They
17 stopped by themselves. There is no need for anybody to grab a credit for
18 stopping someone and in what way. No. They simply stopped."
19 Q. Okay. That's not a reference to World war II, is it? That's a
20 reference to 1990s.
21 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not understand whether the
22 witness said yes or no.
23 MR. BLACK:
24 Q. I'm sorry, we just didn't -- we didn't pick up your response,
25 your answer to that question. This was not a reference to World War II,
1 was it? It was a reference to the 1990s.
2 A. This took place after the Croatian attack on the Medak pocket in
3 1993. It's the Assembly in Beli Manastir. That's what it says at the top
4 of the page. It's the Beli Manastir Assembly following the Croatian
5 attack on the Medak pocket when about 100 people were killed in the area
6 of the Donji Lapac and Gracac municipalities.
7 Q. And your references here to Ustasha do not refer to World War II,
8 they refer to that that you've just described; right?
9 A. It refers to the same acts as the ones committed by the Ustashas
10 in World War II. Four Serbian villages were completely ethnically
11 cleansed, burned down. Everything was killed, including the -- the
12 domestic animals.
13 Q. See if you can answer my question. This is not a reference to
14 World War II, is it? It's a reference to Croatians or Croatian forces in
15 1990s. In 1993, I think you said.
16 A. Yes. Yes, it refers to the Croatian forces in 1993 which did
17 this. And the forces that did something like that I would call the same
18 thing now, today. Somebody who committed such a bestial act is the same
19 as the Ustashas in World War II.
20 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, could this be admitted into evidence,
21 please. And what I'll do is request -- oh, actually, would you like me to
22 have the witness circle the sentence or is it --
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: It would be very helpful.
24 MR. BLACK:
25 Q. With the assistance of the court usher, Witness, we're just going
1 to, just for the benefit of those of us who don't speak your language, if
2 you could just use the pen that's given to you by the usher and just
3 circle at least the paragraph where you've read from, that reference to
5 A. [Marks].
6 Q. Thank you. And did -- correct me if I'm wrong, you've then
7 circled -- is that the sentence where the reference is? I just want the
8 record to be clear.
9 A. Yes. This is the sentence in which Ustashas are mentioned three
11 Q. Okay. Thank you. And since it's Cyrillic script, which is a
12 little unfamiliar for us, could you circle the word "Ustasha" each of the
13 three times it appears so that we can see how that looks in Cyrillic
15 A. [Marks].
16 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Licina.
17 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, then could this view please be made
18 another exhibit.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.
20 MR. BLACK: It needs to be saved and then it becomes an electronic
21 exhibit like that.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: We'll do that. Shall we at some stage get a
23 translation of this?
24 MR. BLACK: Yes, Your Honour, we'll request a translation and put
25 that into e-court along with it as soon as we get it.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. May this document please be
2 given an exhibit number. It is admitted into evidence.
3 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this will become
4 Exhibit number 876.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
6 MR. BLACK: Actually, Your Honour, just for my clarification is
7 876 the image or is that the full document? I didn't make it clear.
8 There needs to be two different exhibits.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: There's no way you can admit into evidence the
10 quotation without the document, can you?
11 MR. BLACK: No, Your Honour. The problem is, and I think it's
12 just a technical one, is that in order for them to capture the fact that
13 the witness has circled the sentence and the words, that image on our
14 computer has to be saved and become an exhibit so we have that for the
15 future. So that should be one exhibit, and then the entire document where
16 the whole document shows up, that should be another exhibit, I think. If
17 that's acceptable to Your Honours.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. So what is it you want to be Exhibit 876,
19 just this image and not the entire document?
20 MR. BLACK: I'm in your hands whichever one is which. Whichever
21 is simplest.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're the dominus litis.
23 MR. BLACK: Okay. Why don't the whole document be 876, and then
24 this screen view can be the next exhibit number.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
1 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: The whole document, then make it 876, and the image
3 on the screen, make it the next number.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, so the marked document will become
5 Exhibit number 877.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: That page. Thank you very much. And then so that
7 we can use this 876 immediately, Mr. Black, perhaps you then must move
8 that the entire document be admitted into evidence as -- or has it been
9 admitted? Okay. Fine. It has already been admitted. Thank you so much.
10 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Mr. Licina, you just explained that you think that people who
12 committed the kind of acts that you referred to, they also deserved to be
13 called Ustashas; right? Is that -- am I understanding you correctly?
14 A. Absolutely.
15 Q. And in fact, that was sort of the practice among SDS officials and
16 other Serb leaders, was if you felt it justified, you would use the word
17 "Ustasha" for Croats or Croatians or the Croatian authorities in the 1990s
18 even though that's obviously a different thing than the government from
19 World War II; right?
20 A. No, that's not right. This is a speech from the Assembly session
21 of the Republic of the Serbian Krajina in Beli Manastir, which was held
22 after the Croatian attack on the Medak pocket. In that Croatian
23 aggression, many of my friends were killed, acquaintances, and it's normal
24 that the people who could do something like that I would call them
25 Ustashas. How else could I call them; brothers, friends?
1 Q. My question is not just about that particular instance but in
2 general in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, in that time, SDS leaders, SDS members,
3 yourself included, used the word "Ustasha" whenever you felt it was
4 justified. It didn't have to refer to World War II; right?
5 A. No, no. That's not right. In this case it's more than justified.
6 I have very clearly answered how and why I happened to use that term, and
7 once again I will call the people who committed that Ustashas here before
8 this Tribunal. I have no other term to describe them, but I do not wish
9 to generalise in that way.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Licina, the question is not in this case. This
11 case has been dealt with, the case of your speech in 1993. The question
12 is this term was used, generally speaking, among SDS members in reference
13 to Croatian people. Is that so or is it not so? I think the question is
14 simple enough to answer on a simple yes or no basis.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll give you a very simple answer:
16 No, we did not use such terms. We used them only in such extreme cases.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
18 You may proceed.
19 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. Actually, if we could see
20 another video clip now on the Sanction. This is from V000-3865.
21 Q. And, Mr. Licina, this, I believe, is a speech given on the 25th of
22 July, 1991, by Jovan Raskovic.
23 So if we could broadcast the Sanction, and just watch on your
24 screen, please.
25 [Videotape played]
1 MR. BLACK:
2 Q. Mr. Licina, this is July, 1991, and Raskovic is essentially
3 calling for violent resistance by Serbs against what he calls a genocidal
4 Croatian state. Do you still deny that SDS leaders were using very
5 provocative language?
6 A. I do deny. We can see it clearly here. Jovan Raskovic says if
7 two Ustashas show up, to take them to the pit and kill them there.
8 Because such cases did happen in Second World War. People were tied up
9 and two or three men would kill them while they were standing over pits.
10 So he was just saying that they should not walk to their graves alone.
11 They shouldn't walk to the pits on their own. I don't know what you mean
12 by this question.
13 Q. Well, this is just part and parcel of the Serb and the SDS
14 propaganda that's trying to equate events in 1990s with World War II in
15 order to cause fear in the Serb population, fear of Croats and Croatians.
16 Isn't that right?
17 A. This is no propaganda. In World War II, a million Serbs lost
18 their lives. In this war, almost a million Serbs were expulsed --
19 expelled. What is the difference? Croatia is an ethnically cleansed
20 state. What were we supposed to do, throw flowers on them?
21 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, could this be made an exhibit, please.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: The clip is made an exhibit, admitted as an
23 exhibit. May it please be given an exhibit number.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will become Exhibit number 878.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
1 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. And I'd just like us to look at one more document with regard to
3 Mr. Raskovic. And let me see if I can find the ERN. This is something
4 that had an ERN recently. I believe the ERN is 06030302.
5 While we're waiting for that, Mr. Licina, you accept at least that
6 the effect of this kind of language by the SDS and its leaders was to
7 cause fear among the Serb population. You accept that, don't you?
8 A. It's not he who caused fear among the Serb population. It was
9 their experience. The Croatian policy during World War II was to convert
10 one-third of the Serbs, to kill one-third of the Serbs, and to expel
11 another third. 67.000 were killed in this war; around 10.000, according
12 to our information, were converted only in the parish of Zagreb. So the
13 principle is exactly the same. And many more were expelled. You seem to
14 be saying that people were made afraid by this speech. They were not.
15 They were made afraid by what was going on, by what was happening to them.
16 Q. If we could scroll down on the page that you see in front of you
17 have. This is -- that's perfect. That's a quote of Jovan Raskovic and
18 was published on the 27th of January, 1992, in Vreme magazine. Do you see
19 there it has Jovan Raskovic in sort of big letters on the right side of
20 the page?
21 MR. BLACK: Again, Your Honour, this is another document that
22 translation has been requested but we don't have it yet, so we'll have to
23 ask the witness to assist us again.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
25 MR. BLACK:
1 Q. Mr. Licina, if you find that -- that's plenty of focus there, I
2 think. Could you read out what Jovan Raskovic says in this interview,
4 A. Jovan Raskovic said in a Jutel programme, "I feel responsible
5 because --"
6 Q. I apologise. It's simply a technical thing. The interpreters are
7 going to have to keep up with you as you read, so please try to make an
8 effort and read slower than usual. Thank you.
9 A. "In a weekly television programme on Jutel television, Jovan
10 Raskovic said: 'I feel responsible because I have made preparations for
11 this war, although those were not military preparations that I made as
12 somebody who sees war as a solution, but if the emotional fire had not
13 been stoked among the Serbian people, even that would not have come to
14 pass. In fact, my party and I personally just ignited the fuse of Serbdom
15 but not only in Croatia.'"
16 Q. I think that's far enough. Even Jovan Raskovic recognised the
17 impact of the kind of statements made by him and by the SDS on the Serb
18 population. He recognised it. Do you still deny that it had that effect?
19 A. I think Jovan Raskovic stated this just before he died, and in
20 some ways he must have been disappointed, I believe. When he says that
21 his party ignited the fuse of Serbdom, I don't see what kind of problem
22 you have with that.
23 Q. I'm not saying I have a problem with it, but it's true, isn't it?
24 A. Yes. The Serbian Democratic Party ignited the fuse of Serbdom in
25 the area of the former Republic of Croatia at that time.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, could this be admitted into evidence as
3 well, please, and we'll provide the translation as soon as we receive it.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: This document is admitted into evidence. May it
5 please be given an exhibit number and may a corresponding number be given
6 to the translation as and when it is received.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document will become Exhibit
8 number 879.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
10 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Mr. Licina, let me -- let me change topics a little bit now.
12 Yesterday, kind of chronologically we'd gotten up to about August of 1990.
13 I'm going to continue from there for the time being. On the 25th of
14 August, 1990, I believe you testified on Monday that you attended a
15 session of the Croatian parliament. Do you remember that?
16 A. I don't remember exactly on the 25th or on the 26th of August,
17 but, yes, that was it.
18 Q. Okay.
19 MR. BLACK: If we could please see on the e-court a document, it's
20 a newspaper article, and it bears the ERN 02664600.
21 If we could enlarge that a bit to focus in on the third column.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
23 MR. BLACK: Thank you. If we could enlarge a bit to focus on the
24 third column, and maybe even a little bit more. If we could focus in. I
25 do have an English translation but I want to make sure the witness has the
1 ability to follow along. I think that's --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just a tiny bit more. Could you
3 raise it a bit, please. Upwards. No, no, no. It's okay now.
4 MR. BLACK: Thank you.
5 Q. As -- as depicted in this article, Mr. Licina, you attended this
6 session in essence to explain why the other SDS parliamentarians did not
7 attend. Is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. According to this article, a little ways into that first
10 paragraph, it says -- and this is attributing words to you. It says that
11 you said: "A Serbian populace in Croatia is a political population older
12 than the Croatian political population. It's easy to find historical
13 evidence about the existence of Serbian parties in Dalmatia while it was
14 still under the strong arm of Venice. The same goes for Slavonia where
15 there were also Serbian parties while it was under the rule of the Vienna
17 And then you say: "Croatian political population is formed
18 slightly later in accordance with political projects by Starcevic."
19 Now, that's a reference to the Ustasha leader Ante Starcevic; is
20 that right?
21 A. No, it's not the Ustasha leader Ante Starcevic who is mentioned.
22 It is Ante Starcevic, leader of the Croatian Party of Rights from the
24 Q. Okay. Thank you. So you're saying --
25 THE INTERPRETER: The 19th century. Interpreter's correction.
1 MR. BLACK:
2 Q. And what was -- how would you characterise the political viewpoint
3 of that person, Ante Starcevic, then? Was he also a Croatian nationalist
4 or a fascist leader even though he wasn't part of the Ustasha movement?
5 A. Ustashas and fascism appeared actually 10 years later or so, but
6 Ustashas drew a lot in terms of ideology from ideas of Ante Starcevic. I
7 cannot say exactly -- it's exactly the same thing because they did not
8 exist at the same time, but Ustashas did find inspiration in the Croatian
9 Party of Rights. This requires a knowledge of history to some extent.
10 Q. Okay. I think I understand your explanation. And my point really
11 is that here on -- in August of 1990, you're insinuating that Croatian
12 political identity essentially springs from fascism, or at the very least
13 the ideas of Starcevic. Before that there really was no Croatian
14 political identity. That's what you're saying.
15 A. No. I'm just saying which of the two peoples in Croatia were
16 older, politically speaking. It was the Serbs. Serbs had a state
17 earlier, had one form of political entity in the Austro-Hungarian monarchy
18 in which they were given a military krajina, that is a border area, before
19 Croatia ever existed.
20 Q. Okay. Sorry to interrupt. We didn't need another history lesson
21 about the Serb people. But you were basically saying that Croatian
22 people, their political identity begins with Starcevic, with his ideas in
23 the 19th century. That's what you were saying right there; right?
24 A. If you're talking about Croatian political organisation, then the
25 answer is yes, it did begin with Starcevic in terms of defining the
1 Croatian national platform.
2 Q. A little further down in this article - we'll have to scroll down
3 - you see another sort of heading there which I believe says "Night
4 refuges a reminder of war." Do you see that?
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. BLACK: And actually, that continues on to the next page in
7 B/C/S, but this is a photocopy of the top part and the bottom part of a
8 newspaper page. So if we could go to the next page in the e-court,
10 Can we go -- there's only one page in -- perhaps we can -- I have
11 a hard copy, if we can put it on -- give it to the witness. I'll read it
12 out in English, but I just want to make sure the witness is able to see.
13 Sorry for the delay, Your Honours. I just want to make sure he's
14 able to follow along.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: What page are we supposed to be at?
16 MR. BLACK: This is -- on the English it's the bottom of page 1 of
17 the translation, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
19 MR. BLACK:
20 Q. And if you can find where I'm reading there, Mr. Licina, just
21 please follow along. It says, and this is a reference to a gathering of
22 signatures to expel some academy members, including --
23 A. I'm not hearing you so well any more. It may be something wrong
24 with the headphones.
25 Q. Okay. Thank you for mentioning that. We'll try to resolve that
1 right now.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: As you resolve that, can you also point us,
3 Mr. Black, to exactly where you are reading. I've got the bottom of page
4 1, and the last paragraph starts with: "This, Ratko Licina said, which is
5 still happening to the Serbian people in Sibenik and in --"
6 MR. BLACK: That's exactly where I'm going to read from.
7 Q. Can you hear me better now, Mr. Licina?
8 A. Yes, yes.
9 Q. Thank you. Before I start reading, let me just say, there's a
10 reference here to gathering signatures for a petition to expel academy
11 members, including Jovan Raskovic. Could you just explain in one or two
12 sentences what that was all about? Do you remember that?
13 A. Yes, I know. Signatures were being collected for Jovan Raskovic
14 as president of the SDS; for Branko Popovic, general secretary; and Marko
15 Dobrijevic, organisational secretary of the SDS. Those people were living
16 in Sibenik, and signatures were collected for expulsion from Sibenik. And
17 when you are expelling people from their birthplace, there's no other name
18 for it than fascism, and that's why I called it fascism. It's linked.
19 Q. How can there be a petition for expulsion of someone from their
20 town? Who is doing this petitioning? I don't understand. You'll have to
21 explain to me what was happening there.
22 A. It's the Croats from Sibenik and Sibenik area who organised this.
23 The Croatian authorities in Sibenik. It was some sort of a petition. It
24 was a horrible thing.
25 Q. And so I understand it, they were basically collecting signatures
1 saying that those people needed to leave the town that they lived in. Is
2 that what you're saying? Sort of citizens collecting signatures; is that
4 A. Correct. Yes. Yes. It was horrible. I don't know how else --
5 what else to call it but fascism.
6 Q. And in the last sentence of that paragraph, you say, don't you:
7 "After 2.000 years, this is an act of genocide and a genocidal relapse of
8 one policy." You actually equate this gathering of signatures -- you say
9 that that's genocide, don't you?
10 A. It's -- expelling, exiling people from a town is a form of
11 genocide, yes.
12 Q. And this is just one example of something that the SDS did a lot
13 in 1990, which was take some political move by the Croatian side and label
14 that as genocide. That was something that the party did regularly; isn't
15 that right?
16 A. That's not right. The party didn't do that on a regular basis.
17 The party did that in cases when Croatian authorities made moves that
18 deserved to be characterised in that way. Whenever Croatia made a move
19 that was fascist and Ustasha in nature, we called it that. We just called
20 a spade a spade. We did not use that term constantly.
21 Regrettably, there was more than enough cause for using that term.
22 Q. So you don't see any difference between this kind of political
23 move, reprehensible as it may have been, and genocide. You still to this
24 day equate those things.
25 A. I believe that that move was fascist and genocidal. I believe it
1 to this day, and I see no reason why I should not call things by their
2 name. What do you mean? Do you mean that by calling it genocide I am
3 making a graver violation than the people who originally made that step?
4 Q. It's not a question of comparing your violation with someone else.
5 The point is, by calling this genocide, you and other Serb leaders were
6 exaggerating the situation. You were trying to draw comparisons with
7 World War II in an effort to create fear among the Serb population.
8 That's what it was all about, wasn't it?
9 A. It's not true, Mr. Black. I'm talking about a specific case, the
10 expulsion of three men, and that was a fascist move, and I'm prepared to
11 say it in these words to this day. I don't see what the problem is. What
12 would you call it? Was it a tourist package tour for them?
13 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, could this be admitted into evidence,
14 please? And we're also done with the ELMO. I know it's difficult for the
15 witness to see me the way the ELMO is now, so if we could lower it.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. The document is admitted into
17 evidence. May it please be given an exhibit number.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number 880.
19 MR. BLACK: Thank you.
20 Q. And, Mr. Licina, just one last question about that topic, although
21 we're done with that document. That was the last time you appeared in the
22 Croatian parliament; is that right?
23 A. The last time I was in the Croatian Assembly was on the 24th
24 December, I believe, 1990. I think that was the last time.
25 Q. Okay. Thank you.
1 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, for the next topic I'm going to have to
2 probably look at a document, so perhaps this is a convenient time to take
3 the break now even though it's minute early.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sure many people are grateful to your way of
5 doing things today. We'll take the break and come back at half past
6 12.00. Court adjourned.
7 --- Recess taken at 11.57 a.m.
8 --- On resuming at 12.32 p.m.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Black.
10 MR. BLACK: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
11 Q. Mr. Licina, continuing more or less in chronological order, just
12 one or two questions about Plitvice. You remember you testified on Monday
13 briefly about events in Plitvice in late March of 1991.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry to interfere. Are we done with this
16 MR. BLACK: Yes, we are, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
18 MR. BLACK:
19 Q. Mr. Licina, what you said about Plitvice - and this is at page
20 6417 of the transcript - is that Croatian -- "Croatian police forces made
21 a raid in Plitvice. They were disguised as Italian tourists."
22 And that's what you say was what started the conflict in Plitvice,
23 that clash in particular at Plitvice; is that right?
24 A. I said they made an incursion in the Plitvice area. They didn't
25 come with their proper insignia, no. They came dressed as civilians, they
1 changed their clothes overnight, and then clashes erupted. It's a bit of
2 an unusual manner for them to arrive.
3 Q. Okay. Well, the clash in Plitvice was actually because a Serb
4 patrol entered the area. That was the real sort of spark to the fighting
5 in Plitvice. Isn't that right?
6 A. No. That's not correct. At the time, Plitvice was located in
7 Korenica municipality, which was part of the SAO Krajina, which means that
8 it was the Croatian forces who came to that area, not the Serbs. The
9 Serbs had already been there.
10 Q. Well, in March, 1991, Plitvice was part of Croatia; right? It may
11 have been within the boundaries of what had been called the SAO Krajina,
12 but it was part of Croatia; right?
13 A. At the time, Plitvice was a part of SAO Krajina. At the time, SAO
14 Krajina was declared on the 19th of December, 1990, and Plitvice were --
15 was within SAO Krajina, and SAO Krajina had declared its autonomy in that
16 area. And, yes, they accepted that they were part of Croatia, however,
17 they declared that only Croatian laws which did not -- which were not
18 adverse to Serb interests were to be applied.
19 Q. So the answer -- the short answer to my question is yes, that was
20 part of Croatia.
21 A. Yes, up until May, 1991.
22 Q. Let me ask you about another place where there was fighting, and
23 this is Lovinac. Do you remember also talking about Lovinac in your
25 A. I spoke about Lovinac, yes. But that was in September, the second
1 part of September, 1991.
2 Q. There were actually at least two different attacks on Lovinac in
3 1991; one in August and one in September, right?
4 A. I don't remember any attacks in August. This was not an attack,
5 as I said in my evidence. In September, the command of the Knin Corps
6 ordered that the barracks be freed so that the Gracac Brigade within the
7 Knin Corps embarked on an operation to lift the siege of the barracks in
8 Sveti Rok.
9 Q. You testified about yesterday so there's no need to repeat that,
10 but on the issue -- in the month of August, let me somehow you Exhibit 38
11 in this case.
12 MR. BLACK: If we could see that on the e-court, please.
13 Q. Mr. Licina, this is -- this is a document dated the 6th of August,
14 1991, and it's from the SAO Krajina TO. Isn't that right?
15 A. It says in the heading "Serbian Autonomous Region Krajina, the TO
16 staff of SAO Krajina." That's what it says.
17 Q. Thank you. And if we could scroll down. Thank you.
18 And you'll see there in one of the -- I guess it's the second
19 paragraph, it says: "There was an armed clash between our forces and the
20 Ustashas in the village of Lovinac in Gracac." You see that; right?
21 A. "In Gracac, in the village of Lovinac, an armed conflict erupted
22 between our forces and Ustashas." That's what it says. From Gospic
23 towards Gacice the tanks set out in order to establish a buffer zone.
24 Q. Do you refer now that there was fighting in Lovinac in August of
1 A. No, I don't remember that. I'm giving evidence about the events
2 in which I participated. I took part in the deblocking of the barracks in
3 September. Now, as to whether there were fights earlier, I don't know.
4 Q. I'd like to remind you of something that you said actually in your
5 testimony on Monday - and this is at page 67 of Monday's transcript - when
6 you were talking about Lovinac, and I'll read a few sentences to try and
7 give context. You say: "... a police station was set up and we had no
8 passage through part of our municipality.
9 "Let me emphasise that as you go from Lovinac towards Gospic
10 there is a line of Serb villages that also conducted a referendum in June
11 and July concerning their joining to Gracac."
12 And you said: "This was a completely legal referendum, and Gracac
13 reacted positively to their referendum. And after the legal term, the
14 legal delay, expired, those municipalities became part of Gracac."
15 And this is another important part. It says: "However, we could
16 not function as a single municipality because you couldn't reach one part
17 of that municipality from another part."
18 What you were talking about there, right, was that Lovinac was a
19 Croat village and it divided Serb -- one Serb part of Gracac from another
20 Serb part of Gracac. That's what you were saying. Do I understand you
22 A. No. Simply we had no access to the territory of the entire
23 municipality. Lovinac had its elected representatives in the Gracac
24 Municipal Assembly. It's quite a different matter that they chose not to
25 participate. It was their decision to walk out on the first day. The
1 door was always open for them. However, they chose not to participate in
2 the work of the local Assembly.
3 Q. Maybe you misunderstood me. When you said you couldn't reach one
4 part of that municipality from another part, that wasn't about political
5 stuff. You were talking about physically there was a division between
6 parts of the municipality because of this Croatian village of Lovinac;
8 A. There were four Croatian villages through which there was no
9 passage. We always considered them integral part of the municipality.
10 That was an integral part of Gracac municipality. We didn't divide it
11 into Serbian part or Croatian part. All of that was Gracac municipality.
12 I don't see things the way you're trying to portray them.
13 Q. Well, I don't dispute that you saw it all as one municipality. In
14 fact, that was precisely the reason why Lovinac was attacked, wasn't it,
15 to join those Serbs lands, to make the municipality one without a Croatian
16 village obstructing communication between the Serb parts.
17 A. That's not correct. As I have stated in my evidence in chief, the
18 unblocking of the barracks was carried out. The forces which were in
19 Lovinac presented a threat to the barracks in Sveti Rok, so what we did
20 was to lift the siege of the barracks in Sveti Rok. We didn't do it on
21 our own initiative, no. We followed the order of the Knin Corps. The
22 brigade was duty-bound to carry out the order.
23 Q. Do I understand you now to say that, on orders from the JNA, you
24 -- I'll withdraw that. Let me see if I understand your response.
25 You said the forces which were in Lovinac presented a threat, and
1 you say to the barracks in Sveti Rok. Which forces?
2 A. As I have said in my evidence in chief, at the time many barracks
3 throughout Croatia were placed under siege. We spoke about that, how the
4 supply of water, electricity, and everything else was cut off, people were
5 killed and so on. One of such barracks was the one in Sveti Rok.
6 Q. Right. But why does -- why does -- if there was a blockade of the
7 barracks in Sveti Rok, that doesn't justify the attack on Lovinac, does
8 it? Lovinac was attacked because it was a Croatian village and you wanted
9 to join up the entire municipality.
10 A. That's not correct. We set out to lift the siege of the barracks.
11 That's very clear. The barracks was in Sveti Rok. The forces that were
12 there attacked the barracks, and the command of the Knin Corps ordered the
13 Gracac Brigade to lift the siege of the barracks in Sveti Rok. I don't
14 see what's unclear about it.
15 Q. And that, you said --
16 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Might I ask a question at this stage?
17 MR. BLACK: Please, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Where is Sveti Rok in relation to Lovinac?
19 Could you please answer, Mr. Licina.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can. If you have a map, I
21 can show it on the map. These are four villages, one next to the other,
22 and they lie in close proximity of each other.
23 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: So one would be immediately next to the other in
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. In proximity. Not just
1 Lovinac but it's Lovinac, Sveti Rok, Licko Cerije, and Recica. These four
2 villages were next to each other and they represented an area, a small
4 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you very much.
5 MR. BLACK: May I continue, please?
6 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Please do continue.
7 MR. BLACK: Thank you.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: And if you can refer us to a page - I see you have
9 an atlas - that would be more helpful.
10 MR. BLACK: Yes, if it's any assistance, Your Honour, it's page
11 25, and it's kind of in the top portion of square D2. You see "Sv. Rok,"
12 which is abbreviation for Sveti Rok, and then across a road Lovinac, in
13 that area.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated].
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
16 MR. BLACK: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I was just mentioning, in
17 case it's confusing, that Sveti Rok appears as "Sv. Rok." It's just the
18 abbreviation. I probably made it more confusing than it was before. I
20 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Could we please, Mr. Licina, get the repetition
21 of the fourth village, rather? We have Lovinac, Sveti Rok, Recica, and
22 there is a fourth one, I think you mentioned, which we don't have the name
23 of. If you could repeat it, we would be grateful.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Licko Serija and Recica. Licko
25 Serija and Recica. So when you leave from Gracac, first you reach the
1 village of Stikada, and then Recica, Licko Serija, and then Sveti Rok to
2 one side and Lovinac to the other side.
3 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you very much.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome. Transcript says
5 "Serija." It should be spelled C-e-r-i-j-e. Licko Cerije.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You may proceed, Mr. Black.
7 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. Mr. Licina, I'm going to move to a different topic now, and it's
9 something I believe you mentioned in your direct examination. You
10 referred to this speech, you say, by Franjo Tudjman in which he said that
11 there would have been no war if Croatia had not wanted war. Do you
12 remember testifying about that?
13 A. Yes. Yes. I remember that. As far as I'm aware, that was
14 uttered after the war had ended, either in 1995 or 1996. It could have
15 been an interview or one of his public appearances. It was one of his
16 well-known statements that there would have been no war had Croatia not
17 wanted one.
18 Q. The Defence has referred on other occasions to a similar comment,
19 saying it was in May, 1992, in Ban Jelacic square in Zagreb, after Croatia
20 was recognised by the international community, I think it was. Is that
21 the same speech or are you thinking of a different occasion?
22 A. As far as I'm aware, I think that this speech was given after the
23 war had ended. I'm not fully sure, but I think so. It's quite a
24 well-known speech. It must exist somewhere in the archives.
25 Q. Well, I'd like to show you -- well, actually --
1 MR. BLACK: If I could just have a moment to confer with counsel.
2 [Prosecution counsel confer]
3 MR. BLACK: I apologise for the interruption, Your Honour. If we
4 could see on the e-court, please, a document bearing the ERN R0309735.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we do that.
6 MR. BLACK: Yes.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry to do this to you. I'm always not up to
8 speed. This document dated the 6th of August, 1991, has it been given an
9 exhibit number or you don't want it in evidence?
10 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, that's been previously marked as Exhibit
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is Exhibit 38. Thank you so much. Thank you
13 very much. Then we can see the ERN number that you are raising.
14 MR. BLACK:
15 Q. And I'm sorry we don't have this in B/C/S. We only have it in
16 English. I'll have to read out the parts, Mr. Licina, and you'll have to
17 listen to me.
18 Now, just to begin with, this is about a speech given by Tudjman
19 on the 24th of May, 1992, in Zagreb at a public rally. And the second
20 page - if we could please turn to the second page there - the second
21 paragraph. I'm going to read out this paragraph and tell me if it's the
22 same one that you're thinking of. It says: "Some people and individuals
23 in Croatia, and particularly in the world who were not Croatia's friends,
24 used to say that the war was unnecessary, that we were to blame for it. I
25 used to say, and I also can say now: Yes, the war would have been
1 unnecessary had we given up our goal of creating the independent and
2 sovereign State of Croatia."
3 Now, based on what I've said so far, is this the same speech that
4 you're thinking of, or this something different?
5 A. As far as I'm aware, the statement was verbatim as follows:
6 "There would have been no war had Croatia not wanted one." I know that
7 he gave a lot of speeches, but this was quite a memorable statement.
8 Q. Did you -- did you see this or was this another thing that you
9 read a quote in the newspaper? Did you see and hear President Tudjman
10 state these words on television?
11 A. I saw that on television, yes. Yes. It was broadcast. It was
12 even re-broadcast many times.
13 Q. Well, let me continue with what is said here. He continues to
14 say: "Our proposal was to achieve the goal without war, to resolve the
15 Yugoslavia crisis through the transformation of the federation in which
16 nobody was happy, least of all the Croatian people, to resolve the crisis
17 by creating a confederation of sovereign states, in which Croatia would
18 have been sovereign, with its own army, currency, and diplomatic service.
19 They refused to accept it. They complained that we were threatening the
20 Serbs in Croatia, which was a lie, because we guaranteed them all rights.
21 It became high time for us to say: Enough. Nobody will be the master in
22 Croatia except the Croatian people themselves."
23 And he continues in the next short paragraph: "We prepared
24 ourselves for the realisation of our goal, if possible by peaceful means,
25 but if not, then through war. And we won the war."
1 Mr. Licina, does that jog your memory? Is that what you saw? Is
2 this the speech that you're referring to?
3 A. I quoted the words verbatim, at least as far as they are familiar
4 to me. As for the guarantees that he gave to the Serbs, what that boiled
5 down to is that more than half a million of Serbs had been expelled, that
6 a huge number of houses were burned down and destroyed, that Serbs were --
7 were forced to convert to Catholicism, and many other things.
8 Q. It doesn't say any of that here; right? That's your
9 interpretation. What it says here is, "We guarantee them all rights."
10 That's what he says.
11 A. That's what he said, but we can see how these rights were
12 implemented. It is very clear how these rights of Serbs were put into
14 Q. And it's clear from this passage that I read to you that, at least
15 in this speech, Tudjman wasn't saying that they wanted war. He said just
16 the opposite, that they wanted to achieve their goals without war but then
17 eventually there was a war. That's what he's saying, not that they wanted
18 war; right? That's what he says in this speech.
19 A. You took one of his speeches for example. I don't know what it is
20 about, but it is clear that they wanted the war. It is clear that he
21 stated what he stated. And also, we are all familiar with the results.
22 In our speeches we also called for peace. In my speech in the
23 parliament I also urged for there to be a dialogue, and Croatia failed to
24 respond to that appeal that I made on the 25th of August.
25 Q. I think you've answered the question.
1 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, could this be admitted into evidence,
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
4 please be given an exhibit number.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number 881.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
7 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Licina, I still do not believe you have
8 addressed the question, the substantive question of Mr. Black, which was
9 whether or not you accept that these excerpts, these portions that were
10 read, they are the same speech or the same statement made by Franjo
11 Tudjman that you were specifically referring to. I have not got an
12 understanding as yet as to whether you accept that fact or whether you do
13 not, and I want to understand clearly. Could you be so kind as to go more
14 specifically to it. Thank you.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on what I can see here, this
16 is not the same speech. Perhaps a similar, but not the same.
17 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you very much. Thank you.
18 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. And if I could just take this
19 opportunity to show why it's a problem that we have not yet received the
20 documents mentioned in the Defence opening. We haven't received, although
21 and this is a perfect example, at page 6.029 of the transcript, of the
22 Defence opening, there is a reference to a May, 1992, speech by Tudjman in
23 the centre of Zagreb that's precisely this, which we've heard about on
24 several occasions. We've never been given that Defence exhibit, which is
25 presumably ready available, even though it was mentioned in the opening,
1 and then now the date of the speech changes, apparently until after the
2 war. So until they give us what they need to give us under the rules,
3 we're kind of shadow boxing here, and I hope that will be resolved next
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: But that raises a very serious problem, because
6 next Wednesday this witness will not be here.
7 MR. BLACK: That's correct, Your Honour, and that's why I put this
8 speech to him. If we can later on resolve that this is the speech that's
9 been addressed at the time.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, I am afraid we are now not able
11 to proceed with the proceedings unless we get these lists. I mean, unless
12 you are prepared to bring this witness back for further cross-examination.
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, what the Defence
14 stated in its opening statement is one thing. It's one matter. The
15 testimony of Mr. Licina is another. I asked him if he had heard about the
16 speech. He explained what he had heard and when. He gave a very concrete
17 explanation about that.
18 As far as our obligations are concerned, we have a deadline until
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Milovancevic, but you must appreciate the
21 difficulty in which now the entire trial is landing. Unless -- you have
22 asked him and he told you what he told you about the speech. You have
23 alleged that there is a speech made on the 24th of May, 1992, a copy of
24 which you have not provided to the Prosecution. You now have a witness
25 who is testifying about a speech that was made on the 24th of May, 1992.
1 They don't have the speech, a copy, to check with this witness whether
2 that is the speech.
3 This is a real problem, and the only way we can resolve this
4 problem, if we have to wait for the 23rd of August, is for you to bring
5 this witness back for further cross-examination by the Prosecution, and
6 that lengthens again the time available for the Defence case.
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with all due
8 respect, I cannot agree with you that the witness testified about the
9 speech of the 24th of May. The Prosecutor presented a document of the
10 24th of May, 1992. The witness, during the examination-in-chief, talked
11 about his knowledge in relation to 1995 or 1996. These are two different
12 things. Also, the witness explained today that there were several
13 speeches similar to this one.
14 I don't see the problem at the moment with this speech of the 24th
15 of May. In response to an explicit question by the Prosecutor, the
16 witness explained that the speech that he was referring to is not the one
17 that is being shown to him now with this document. That it's similar but
18 that it's not the speech that he testified about.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think you're going to have to help us here,
20 Mr. Black. You're talking about a speech referred to in an opening that
21 is supposed to be a speech of the 24th of May, 1992, and now you've got a
22 speech of 24th of May, 1992, it doesn't seem to be the same as the one.
23 Can you just sort of elucidate that point.
24 MR. BLACK: Yes, Your Honour. I think I can -- I hope I can help
25 explain this. This is the first time it's ever been suggested that there
1 was more than one speech similar to this. Up until this point it's always
2 been about this speech by Tudjman, this famous speech. As the witness
3 says, it was famous. It was re-broadcast many times. Always one speech,
4 one famous speech by Tudjman.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: And according to the Defence, when was that speech
7 MR. BLACK: In the opening they say that speech was made in May,
8 1992. Then the Prosecution, on the basis -- because we didn't receive any
9 speech even though it was mentioned in the opening, then the Prosecution
10 discloses to the Defence a speech we find from May, 1992, and now there is
11 more than one speech, or the speech didn't happen in May, 1992. That's
12 the problem, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: When you disclosed that speech to the Defence, what
14 was the reaction of the Defence? Did they say, no, unfortunately, that's
15 not the speech that we're talking about?
16 MR. BLACK: No, Your Honour. We received no response that I'm
17 aware of.
18 Your Honour, I'm prepared to proceed, but this is a good example
19 of why we need those documents as soon as possible. And this particular
20 document, this speech, if it's as famous as everybody says it is, it
21 should be readily available. They could provide it to us tonight and we
22 could discuss it tomorrow in court. I don't think it's something that
23 needs to wait until next week if it's really such a well-known thing.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sure you can do that, Mr. Milovancevic.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you gave us the
1 deadline until Wednesday. This is a completely different question from
2 the situation that we have in the courtroom right now. I just wanted to
3 respond. Please allow me, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Don't speak about the deadline, then, because I'm
5 talking about the speech. And if you want to respond -- I'm trying to get
6 you to be relevant here, Mr. Milovancevic. You are talking about
7 deadlines. We have given you -- you were supposed to file these things on
8 the 5th of July. You didn't. You were supposed to file them on the 14th
9 of July. You didn't. You were supposed to file them on the 17th of
10 July. You didn't. You filed them on the 19th and you still didn't file
11 all of them. Why suddenly must we now stick to the 23rd of August simply
12 because that's the date that you now say that you are given when you have
13 been shifting dates like this? We have been accommodating you. We're
14 trying to solve a problem here where cross-examination is in progress,
15 documents are not ready for this current cross-examination, and we need
16 those documents. And don't then shift me to 23rd of August. I'm trying
17 to find a way that you can give us this speech if you have it, even if
18 it's not translated, and then we can see how it can get translated.
19 Now, henceforth speak relevantly and concisely to the point at
20 issue. You may proceed.
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the question here
22 is the question of the speech, and this is an indisputable fact as far as
23 the Defence is concerned.
24 As far as the deadlines are, the Defence has been put into the
25 situation -- because of the rhythm of the hearings, has been placed in a
1 situation where it cannot fully meet its obligations. We are putting our
2 utmost efforts to --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, would you please speak to the
4 issue. The rhythm of the trial is when the trial goes to trial the
5 expectation is it goes on to trial every day unless there are
6 circumstances that stop it. That rhythm doesn't change because somebody's
7 not ready.
8 Now just forget about the rhythm. Tell me whether you do have the
9 speech, translated or not translated, that we can give to the Prosecution.
10 I'm asking for that speech only. I'm not asking for other things that I
11 said you must give on the 23rd of August.
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this speech is
13 something that I do not have in the courtroom at this moment, either
14 translated or the original version. I didn't use that speech as an
15 exhibit in the examination-in-chief. I didn't even present it to the
16 witness. The Prosecutor did. It's up to the Prosecutor which documents
17 he's going to use for the cross-examination. It's not my fault that he is
18 using this speech when the witness is talking about a speech from 1995 and
19 1996. There is a substitution of topics here in this case. It's true
20 that the Defence has not presented all the documents that it mentioned in
21 its opening statement, so we would not be self-critical if we were to deny
22 that, Your Honours, but we are not talking now here about the speech that
23 we used.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: That is precisely why there is a substitution of
25 speeches, because they are now going on a witch hunt. They don't know
1 what speech you are talking about in your opening statement, so they don't
2 know what to ask this witness about. They know that there was a reference
3 to a speech in May. One speech. They have a speech in May. One speech.
4 You say that's not it. Your client says -- your witness says that's not
5 it. Now they say what -- which is it? And that's why the Bench is asking
6 you the questions that it's asking you.
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I understand your
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, but then don't deny that the fault lies at the
10 foot of the Defence for not providing all the documentation that the
11 Defence relies upon. If you had given that, it would be easy for a
12 3-year-old to know that the speech that he's raising is not it. The
13 speech that is relevant is the speech that you will have given a copy of.
14 You haven't given a copy of that speech.
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know if I
16 was precise enough. During the examination of this witness --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are imprecise every step of the way,
18 Mr. Milovancevic. That is why we have speak in the manner in which we are
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with all due
21 respect, I'm trying to understand whether you wish to understand me or
22 not. I'm speaking very clearly, and I'm trying to say that I did not use
23 that document used by the Prosecutor during the examination-in-chief of
24 this witness. The Prosecutor can choose any document he wishes to use
25 during the cross-examination of the witness.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Indeed. Indeed. And he has chosen this speech.
2 Why? Because Mr. Milovancevic, in his opening statement, referred to a
3 speech of May, 1992, and because he doesn't have a copy of that speech,
4 and he now comes across a speech of May, 1992, and he wants to check with
5 the witness, Is this the speech that you possibly could have been
6 referring to? That's the reason he does so. And there's a bit of logic
7 in that, isn't there? Surely if you had given him the copy of that
8 speech, he wouldn't have produced this one. He would have produced the
9 one you'd given him a copy of, and the dispute would not be there.
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I understand the
11 problem. The Defence is trying to find the television broadcast of that
12 speech -- not the transcript but the actual footage, and then we will
13 transcribe it and translate it and present it as a transcript. We are
14 trying to link those two things up so that we don't just have a
15 translation of something that was allegedly said when there is actual
16 footage of that. We were informed that there is footage of the speech,
17 and we are now looking for it. And simply that is taking longer, so we
18 are unable to meet the deadlines. We are on this question, though.
19 If the Trial Chamber instructs us, then we can recall this
20 witness, if necessary, if we cannot resolve that in any other way.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Why didn't you give that explanation at the
22 beginning to stop all this tempest?
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was just saying
24 what seemed relevant to me at the time that I was providing the
25 explanation. I was just talking about things the way I understood them.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then you misunderstood them and it became very
2 imprecise. This is the first time I hear you giving me an explanation on
3 this issue why you're not able to give the speech and why we are in the
4 situation in which we find ourselves. That's all the explanation I was
5 asking for, Mr. Milovancevic. I ask you once again to please listen to
6 questions that come from the Bench and answer the questions as they are
7 put to you without -- without trying to embellish the answer with other
8 things that are irrelevant to the issue.
9 Now --
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [No interpretation].
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Black, while we are dealing with this issue, I
12 would like to resolve this problem. When you get a copy of the statement,
13 will you still need this witness?
14 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, it's hard to know without seeing what it
15 is, I'm afraid.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. I'm going to make the following order,
17 Mr. Milovancevic: You shall avail this witness if and when the
18 Prosecution should need him for further cross-examination. Thank you.
19 You may proceed, Mr. Black.
20 MR. BLACK: Thank you very much, Your Honour. And I would just
21 say it seems from what Defence counsel has stated that perhaps it's the
22 case that they now have a transcript but they're waiting for the TV
23 footage. We would be happy to have the transcript if they have something
24 now. Again, in the opening, at least it appears from the transcript that
25 he was quoting from something. So that seems to suggest that he had some
1 kind of document that he could quote from. If that's a transcript, we
2 would be happy to take that now, in the meantime, until we can get the
3 video of this.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: And we can play that thing now and it can be
5 interpreted by interpreters.
6 MR. BLACK: No, I'm sorry, Your Honours. What I'm --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: The transcript.
8 MR. BLACK: Let me find the words of Mr. Milovancevic.
9 JUDGE HOEPFEL: It's on page 6029, line 16 and following.
10 MR. BLACK: That's correct. And there it seems like he's quoting
11 from something in the Defence opening, and then today, at page 80 of the
12 transcript, he says: "The Defence is trying to find the television
13 broadcast of that speech -- not the transcript but the actual footage, and
14 then we'll be able to transcribe it and translate it ..." If that means
15 that they have a transcript now, we'd be happy to have that while we wait
16 for the video.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you have the transcript, Mr. Milovancevic?
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have a series
19 of documents, books, notes, statements by some people that refer to this
20 speech. We don't have the direct transcript at this point in time. We do
21 not have a transcript of the entire speech. We do have some things that
22 we can give to the --
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... play the
24 actual thing? You see, this is the imprecision that I'm complaining
25 about, Mr. Milovancevic. You've got to say what you mean.
1 You've now given the impression that you do have the transcript
2 but not the actual footage. Suddenly now you don't have this transcript.
3 What must this Bench believe from what you tell us?
4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I did not say I
5 had the transcript. I explained that --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's go to the record and find out what you said.
7 I just don't want to make allegations that -- you said -- Mr. Black, you
8 said line --? Page 80, line --?
9 MR. BLACK: Line 12, Your Honour. That's what I was referring to.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, Mr. Milovancevic, you are saying here, page
11 80, from line 10: "Mr. Milovancevic: Your Honour, I understand the
12 problem. The Defence is trying to find the television broadcast of that
13 speech -- not the transcript but the actual footage, and then we will
14 transcribe it and translate it and present it as a transcript. We are
15 trying to link those two things up so that we don't just have a
16 translation of something that was allegedly said when there is actual
17 footage of that."
18 Now, what is this translation that you have of something that you
19 don't have the footage of?
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm just repeating
21 once again what I already said. We have excerpts of the speech, reports
22 in various places. We do not have a transcript of the speech. And I said
23 that it was our goal, since we did receive information that the speech can
24 be found, that there's video footage of the speech, we're trying to obtain
25 the video footage, to transcribe the entire speech, and then we would
1 present the whole thing to the other side. This is what I was talking
3 I wanted to tell you one more thing. In my opening statement, I
4 did speak about the speech, I did mention it, but I also indicated that
5 the evidence presented by the Defence through witnesses and other ways
6 this will be shown, but this does not have to mean the broadcast of the
7 speech itself or the presentation of the transcript. One of the ways
8 could be to ask the witness about it.
9 I asked this witness whether he knew about the speech from the
10 24th of May. He said he didn't know anything about it but that he was
11 aware of speeches from 1995 and 1996.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you able to supply the excerpts that you say
13 you have in the various reports?
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] We received a deadline for that
15 until the 23rd, Your Honour, and I believe that we will find that until
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: You have received a deadline to give the full
18 speech. I'm asking you now if you have excerpts that you say you have in
19 various reports, Mr. Milovancevic. Can you please be logical and
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have 100.000
22 pages of material in the office, and we are selecting from the material
23 some things that are important to us. It's not easy to find one's way
24 around. I don't have the excerpts here with me because I did not think
25 that it would be necessary to present them to the witness.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's the answer I want. Just tell me you don't
2 have the excerpts. That's the simple question I was asking you, and I
3 don't want to know about the 100.000 pages that you have in your office
4 and the deadline of the 23rd. Please learn to stay relevant when you
5 answer questions. I really -- my patience is running out now.
6 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Milovancevic, I think you will agree that
7 what is at issue here essentially is the identification of a particular
8 speech by Franjo Tudjman and a particularly material portion of his
9 speech. Now, I do recall that during the course of the cross-examination
10 of the Prosecution witnesses you put the fact of this statement, this
11 material statement, to several Prosecution witnesses, and you
12 contextualise it in putting questions concerning the speech to various
13 Prosecution witnesses. Did you not at that time put a date to the
14 witnesses, and was this date a date other than the 24th of May, 1992,
15 because maybe the record itself of your cross-examination could shed
16 further light.
17 I wonder if perhaps Mr. Black could assist on this, but that would
18 throw further light in helping to identify and contextualising
19 specifically which particular speech he's referring to, because I would
20 think in cross-examination you would have the date as a material thing to
21 place the speech and contextualise it. No?
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honour.
23 You're absolutely right. During cross-examination of Prosecution
24 witnesses, I did present the speech of the 24th of May on Ban Jelacic
25 square and the quotation by Tudjman that there would have been no war had
1 Croatia not wished that. I did present that to the witnesses, and I asked
2 them whether it was correct if they heard such a speech, and we got our
3 answers. That would be the answer to your specific question, yes. It is
4 not beyond -- it is beyond dispute that I did put such questions to
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
7 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Very well, Mr. Milovancevic. Then I'm compelled
8 to go on to ask you the next question: When this witness responded in
9 cross-examination by Mr. Black, and indeed I believe in chief by you,
10 concerning this statement of Mr. Tudjman, did you not at that time
11 understand him to be referring to a speech made, as you had suggested to
12 the witness in your own cross-examination of the OTP witnesses, a speech
13 made on the 24th of May, 1992? And I believe your answer must be in the
14 affirmative unless we're all very greatly mistaken. We're compelled to
15 that conclusion. Would you not agree? Yes.
16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] No, no, Your Honour. You are
17 not wrong. You are absolutely right.
18 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes.
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I asked the witness here
20 whether he heard the -- about the speech on the Ban Jelacic square, and
21 the witness said that he had heard of some later speeches. He answered
22 that he heard the speech in 1995 or 1996. That's the problem. The
23 problem is in the date. So I didn't press further on that.
24 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: So what --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
1 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: What you -- what you will produce to us, then,
2 would be the speech concerning the 24th of May, 1992, or the speech
3 concerning what the witness is saying in 1995 or 1996? Because I think
4 what we're faced with is a previous inconsistent statement essentially.
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence is
6 obliged to, and I understood it to be my task, to try to show that
7 Mr. Tudjman spoke like that. So now we have to try to find this speech.
8 We are going to try to find this footage so that we can present it to the
9 Trial Chamber.
10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: What I was trying to understand from you --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
12 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: -- this speech that you would be -- I'm so
13 sorry. Thank you very much. This speech that you will be searching for,
14 would the relevant date that you yourself are searching for, would it be
15 in 1995 or 1996 or would it be in relation to the 24th of May, 1992?
16 Because to me that is a very material issue at this point, in
17 identification. Because if you are going to be searching for the speech
18 of the 24th of May, 1992, then it would be quite different from if you
19 were searching for the one of 1995 or 1996, as I see it.
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I understood His
21 Honour Judge Moloto and my learned friend from the Prosecution that the
22 Defence is obliged to find the speech of the 24th of May, 1992, in any
23 case. It is in the interests of the Defence to find the other speeches
24 too, and we think it's important that we do find those speeches and
25 present them in these proceedings.
1 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Very well. Thank you. I don't think I can take
2 it any further, Mr. Milovancevic.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have -- I have questions arising from Judge
4 Nosworthy's questions to you, Mr. Milovancevic.
5 You say you asked this witness if -- if he was aware of this
6 speech made in May, 1992, and he said, no, he's aware of speeches that
7 were made in 1995 and 1996. Did this witness also say to you, in answer,
8 that the speeches that he's aware of, of 1995 and 1996, in those speeches,
9 too, Mr. Tudjman said there wouldn't have been any war if Croatia didn't
10 want to? In other words, what I'm trying to establish is is there a
11 possibility that these alleged words were uttered on more than one
12 occasion? Is that how he answered you?
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I put one question
14 to him on this speech and the witness answered that he heard the words
15 that he quoted but that this was in 1995, 1996. And after that, as far as
16 I can recall, the Defence --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did he hear these words in a speech in 1995, 1996?
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, that's what the
19 witness said.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: So this is another speech in 1995 or 1996 that you
21 know nothing about but that the witness may possibly know about in which
22 the same words are alleged to have been said by the same speaker, as was
23 said in 1992? Thank you very much. We have cleared that point.
24 Mr. Black.
25 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. One -- just, no, before I
1 proceed, there was a question from Her Honour Judge Nosworthy whether this
2 had come up in cross-examinations, and I just point out at transcript 599
3 and transcript 1247. Those are two occasions. I'm not sure that was all
4 the occasions, but it was two occasions.
5 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: When the 24th of May was put.
6 MR. BLACK: I believe May, 1992.
7 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Very well. Thank you, Mr. Black.
8 MR. BLACK: The point that my colleague urges upon me is that he
9 must have had a basis for cross-examining at that time, and so he must --
10 and he's made references to -- I don't know if it was news reports or
11 books, but some places that say what he thinks was said in May, 1992, we
12 don't have that yet. We don't see why we couldn't have that today or
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: At some stage, I'm sorry, I should have actually
15 given Judge Hoepfel an opportunity to ask the question. He had asked --
16 Judge Hoepfel was asking. Mr. Milovancevic indicated that he doesn't have
17 those excerpts here in court. Does this mean they can be brought
18 tomorrow? And I think that's the question that Judge Hoepfel wanted to
19 ask you, Mr. Milovancevic.
20 Can you -- are you able to give these excerpts from which you were
21 quoting tomorrow? Please listen to me: Excerpts. Not the speech.
22 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Exactly. This is what I wanted to ask you.
23 Several excerpts, you said.
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, looking at the
25 clock, we are near the end of today's proceedings. I will do my utmost to
1 bring those excerpts tomorrow morning. I'll do my best.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
3 Mr. Black, would you like to proceed.
4 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Mr. Licina, let me turn your attention to another topic that was
6 addressed in your direct examination, when Defence counsel was asking you
7 questions. You talked to us about Miljevac plateau, Maslenica, and the
8 Medak pocket; correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you said, for instance, at transcript 6 and 13 of yesterday,
11 you said that the UN failed to condemn these attacks by Croatian forces
12 and that in a sense that "practically encouraged" the Croatians to
13 continue with these attacks.
14 A. I said that mild condemnations were expressed, but Croatia did not
15 suffer any sanctions because of that. Perhaps there was some form of
16 criticism expressed, but no sanctions. And Croatia did not withdraw from
17 those territories.
18 Q. Well, let me -- let me look at one United Nations document. It's
19 the ERN 00086197 to 6199. We'll look at three United Nations resolutions
20 on this issue. This is the first.
21 A. Is there a Serbian version?
22 Q. No, there is not a Serbian version.
23 MR. BLACK: I gave the wrong number, Your Honour. I'd like to
24 look first at DK003830 to 3831. I apologise for the mistake. It's a
25 different UN resolution. In fact it's United Nations Security Council
1 Resolution 762 from the 30th of June, 1992. That's the one I'd like to
2 look at, please.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, is it 763 or 762? In the
4 transcript I see 762, but in my headset I just heard 763.
5 Q. 762. Thank you for the clarification.
6 If we could scroll to the bottom of that page, please. At point
7 number 2 there, the United Nations Security Council: "Urges all parties
8 and others concerned to honour their commitments to effect a complete
9 cessation of hostilities and to implement the United Nations peacekeeping
10 plan." And then if we could turn the page, please.
11 Paragraph 3 continues: "Also urges, in accordance with paragraph
12 4 of Resolution 727 (1992), the government of Croatia to withdraw its army
13 to the positions held before the offensive of 21 June, 1992, and to cease
14 hostile military activities within or adjacent to the United Nations
15 Protected Areas."
16 And then point 4 there, just briefly, it: "Urges the remaining
17 units of the Yugoslav People's Army, the Serb Territorial Defence forces
18 in Croatia, and others concerned to comply strictly with their obligations
19 under the United Nations peacekeeping plan, in particular with regard to
20 the withdrawal and the disarming of all forces in accordance with the
22 Now, here already on the 30th of June, 1992, you see the Security
23 Council calling on Croatia to withdraw and to cease hostile military
24 activities in or near the UNPAs; correct?
25 A. That's correct, but Croatia did not act upon this. And it was not
1 sanctioned, it was not penalised for such a flagrant violation of
2 international law.
3 MR. BLACK: Thank you. Your Honour, could this be admitted into
4 evidence, please.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
6 please be given an exhibit number.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number 882.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
9 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. And if we could see another United Nations Security Council
11 resolution. This one has the ERN DK00-3845 to 3846. This is Resolution
12 802 from the 25th of January, 1993.
13 If we could scroll down, please, where it says "deeply concerned."
14 There. That's fine.
15 Mr. Licina, here the Security Council says that it was: "Deeply
16 concerned by information provided by the Secretary-General to the Security
17 Council on 25 January, 1993, on the rapid and violent deterioration in the
18 situation in Croatia as a result of military attacks by Croatian armed
19 forces on the areas under the protection of the United Nations Protection
20 Force ..."
21 And then it says it: "Strongly condemns those attacks which have
22 led to casualties and loss of life in UNPROFOR, as well as among the
23 civilian population."
24 Here the United Nations Security Council is strongly condemning
25 one of those Croatian attacks; isn't that right?
1 A. It's exactly what I've been testifying about. Croatia committed
2 aggression after aggression on the territory of the Serbian Krajina, a
3 territory protected by the United Nations, whereas the Security Council
4 reacted only with strong-worded communiques and nothing else. I agree
5 with what you just read. It's correct what you read. However, Croatia
6 did not suffer any sanctions on that occasion. I'm not saying the
7 resolutions were not issued, but there was no practical result, practical
8 outcome of these resolutions. You saw that there was one resolution in
9 June, 1991. The same thing happened in January, 1992, and again the
10 Security Council gave them a rap on the knuckles. I'm not saying the
11 resolutions did not exist, but they produced nothing in practice. The
12 only result was another aggression against another territory protected by
13 the United Nations. That's what I'm saying.
14 Q. And what you said yesterday, or perhaps it was the day before, was
15 that it -- "The UN practically encouraged" these Croatian operations. But
16 that's not right, is it?
17 A. If after the first aggression against the UNPA Croatia did not
18 suffer strong sanctions and was not punished, it was natural that their
19 authorities, their government, saw it as an encouragement for further
20 aggressions, because they did not -- they were not subjected to any
21 stronger sanctions than a reprimand by the United Nations. Did peace
22 troops come to Zagreb? Did anything else happen? No. It just remained
23 an empty word on a paper.
24 Q. Well, in fact, peace troops came to the -- they were already in
25 the United Nations Protected Areas; right? Croatia already had a United
1 Nations peacekeeping force on its territory. Isn't that right?
2 A. There were peacekeeping forces in the territory of the Serbian
3 Krajina. Croatia committed an aggression against that area protected by
4 the United Nations. In fact, several aggressions. And each time the only
5 response to that were these resolutions. Croatia was not subjected to any
6 other sanction. That's what I'm saying. And if we go on this way, it
7 will go on until tomorrow.
8 Q. None of these places -- well, all of these places, Miljevac
9 plateau, Maslenica, Medak pocket, those were the so-called pink zones.
10 They weren't inside the United Nations Protected Areas, were they?
11 A. That's not true. Those areas were also protected by the United
12 Nations. There were UN troops in Medak and that area was certainly
13 protected by the UN.
14 Q. There were -- let me interrupt you. There were -- there may have
15 been UN patrols there, but these were areas that were part of Croatia.
16 These weren't part of the SAO Krajina. These were areas that it was
17 always stated that Croatia would reassert its control over these so-called
18 pink zones. Isn't that right?
19 A. No, that's not true.
20 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I'm out of time for today. May I admit
21 this into evidence and then that will be it for today.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
23 please be given an exhibit number.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will become Exhibit number 883.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
1 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. The Court will now adjourn
3 for the day. We'll reconvene tomorrow at 9.00 in the same court. Court
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,
6 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 17th day
7 of August, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.