1 Thursday, 17 August 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.15 a.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning, Mr. Licina. Once again I remind you
7 that you are bound by the declaration that you made on the first day to
8 tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the truth. Thank
9 you very much.
10 WITNESS: RATKO LICINA [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Black, good morning.
13 MR. BLACK: Good morning, Your Honour. May I proceed?
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may. Thank you.
15 MR. BLACK: Thank you.
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Black: [Continued]
17 Q. Good morning, Mr. Licina. Actually if you'll --
18 A. Good morning.
19 A. -- bear with me, there is one procedural, technical thing that I
20 would like to raise before I get started so I don't forget it.
21 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, it deals with Exhibit 881 which was
22 admitted yesterday. The court officer and case manager brought to my
23 attention that a redacted copy needs to be -- needs to replace the
24 unredacted version. It's just a few lines at the top because of the
25 source of this document. It's in e-court. Everything is ready. I just
1 wanted to put it on the record, and if Your Honours approve of that then
2 the court officer will make the necessary change to -- to document --
3 excuse me, Exhibit 881.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the necessary be done to Exhibit 881, to make
5 sure that we have a redacted version. Thank you very much.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Black. You may proceed.
8 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. To begin with I'd like to go back, I hope briefly, to the issue of
10 the speech by President Tudjman which we discussed yesterday.
11 Yesterday, I believe -- well, you said that -- you testified that
12 you do remember seeing and hearing that speech and I just wonder if you
13 can describe to me, as best you can, what it was that you think you saw
14 and you think you heard.
15 A. This was a specific sentence. Of course, I didn't attempt to
16 memorise all speeches of Franjo Tudjman but this particular sentence was
17 as follows: There would have been no war had Croatia not wanted one. I
18 am quite familiar with this sentence. It was frequently repeated in
19 various programmes, TV broadcasts. I wasn't referring to a particular
20 speech. I was referring to this particular sentence.
21 Q. Okay. My question wasn't very well put. I was actually wondering
22 if you could describe where he was or who he was with? Was he standing
23 alone? Was he standing with someone else? Is there any detail like that
24 that you remember about what you think you saw and heard?
25 A. An excerpt from one of his speeches. I don't know it's a speech
1 or an interview. I don't know, but the sentence was very recognisable.
2 It was repeated in many TV broadcasts. So I'm actually speaking about the
3 particular sentence that Franjo Tudjman said that there would have been no
4 war had not Croatia wanted one. There is such a sentence that he stated
5 publicly. It exists.
6 Q. You've made very clear what you think the sentence was --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, sorry, Mr. Milovancevic. Yes,
8 Mr. Milovancevic.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I do have an objection,
10 Your Honour. I would like for the Chamber to maintain order in the
11 courtroom. Many times I have refrained from making this suggestion. My
12 learned friend Mr. Whiting shakes his head, he's making grimaces with his
13 face, he's laughing. He's sitting between the Prosecutor who is
14 conducting the cross-examination and the witness. So in any case this is
15 something that disturbs me. Mr. Martic also has asked me as his Defence
16 counsel to draw the counsel's attention to this particular thing. We
17 never grimaced. There were a lot of questions which bordered on the
18 ridiculous but we kept our composure, so we would like to ask our
19 colleague, Mr. Whiting, to refrain from such conduct. He is constantly
20 doing this so I would like to ask the Trial Chamber to intervene.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic, for saying
22 so but before I ask Mr. Whiting to say anything I would like to assure you
23 that this Chamber does its very best to maintain order in the courtroom.
24 Yes, Mr. Whiting?
25 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, if I've reacted, it's been
1 unintentional. I apologise. I don't think it's been constant at all but
2 I'll certainly take care to pay attention to that.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much for the apology, Mr. Whiting,
4 and I hope you can make sure that it doesn't occur, if it did happen.
5 Thank you very much.
6 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. Mr. Licina, before the interruption, you had made clear what you
8 think you remember as far as the statement and I'm really interested in
9 anything else that you remember, especially visually. Can you give us any
10 context? Was he -- was he standing alone or was he standing with others?
11 Or was he sitting? Any visual clue like that? Can you remember anything
12 about President Tudjman when he was making this statement that you think
13 you saw?
14 A. I remember visually that he was on the screen. I don't know if he
15 was by himself but actually I'm pretty sure that he was by himself. How
16 can I put it? It was a sort of close-up of him. That's what I recall
18 Q. And if you can't remember any more, that's fine. I don't mean to
19 push it but can you remember anything about how he was dressed? Was he
20 wearing -- could you tell if he was wearing a coat, was he outside, was he
21 in a shirt, did he have a tie on? Anything like that that you can
22 remember? Just do your best.
23 A. I assume that he was wearing just regular clothes that people wear
24 on such occasions.
25 Q. Let me interrupt you. I'm not asking to you assume or to guess or
1 anything. I want to know what you remember.
2 A. Just as I said, I remember, as far as I can recall, that the
3 statement was broadcast on television, there was a close-up of Franjo
4 Tudjman. I assume that if he's giving a statement like that he's probably
5 wearing just standard clothes.
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. He was probably not wearing his pajamas. I don't know.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you remember on what occasion this was?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, as I said, I don't
10 remember the specific speech. It's one sentence that was later frequently
11 used in different TV broadcasts. There were a number of occasions when
12 this was played.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You may proceed, Mr. Black.
14 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Did you ever see the whole speech or did you just see a clip of
16 this sentence?
17 A. I don't know. It's possible that I did see the entire speech but
18 the -- this particular sentence stuck to my mind. This is what I
19 remember, the sentence was memorable. I don't need to recall all the
20 speeches by Franjo Tudjman.
21 Q. I'm not asking you about any other speech except for this one and
22 I'll just ask you one more time and then we'll move on. I don't want to
23 you guess. I don't want you to assume. Is there anything else, any other
24 detail that you remember about this speech? If there is not, then we'll
25 move on but if there is something else, tell me now.
1 A. This was a memorable sentence. I don't recall any other things
2 right now.
3 Q. Okay. Thank you.
4 MR. BLACK: The Defence last night - I got it this morning but I
5 think it was sent to us last night - has provided us with a newspaper
6 article from the Serbian newspaper, Vesti, which is dated the 16th of June
7 2006 and I want to show you that article now. So with the assistance of
8 the Court usher, please. I apologise, 16th July. I accidentally said
9 June. But that was an error, the 16th of July 2006. Could I have the
10 assistance of the Court usher to hand him a copy of this, please? I'm
11 sorry, we just got it Your Honour, so this is not in e-court but I have a
12 copy in B/C/S for the witness and then actually I do have an English
13 translation, partial translation which was provided to us by the Defence
14 and so I give copies of that for Your Honour if it's helpful.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Black. Now, you say this
16 is a newspaper cutting from -- that you received yesterday?
17 MR. BLACK: That's correct. After our discussion of this speech
18 the Defence e-mailed us this newspaper article with the translation.
19 Q. Mr. Licina, again I have the problem that I'm not familiar with
20 the Cyrillic alphabet so it's not clear to me where on this page the quote
21 is but do you see a quotation of President Tudjman giving a speech on the
22 24th of May 1992? Do you see that on this page?
23 A. Yes, yes. It's in the last column. It's about halfway down the
24 column, starts with quotations, there would have been no war had Croatia
25 not wanted it.
1 Q. All right. And you can actually -- we can see it because you see
2 the date 24 May 1992, right? That can help us locate it, right about
3 where you were pointing; is that right? Do you see that date there, 24
4 May 1992 in that same column where you just indicated?
5 A. Yes. It's an interview, I don't see with whom, and the speech is
6 dated on the 24th of May. Whoever is giving the interview dates the
7 speech because I see that there are questions and answers. It's an
8 interpretation, so --
9 Q. Okay. So this is -- this is an interview with someone and that
10 someone is then recalling this speech and giving their version of the
11 speech; is that what is contained on this page?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Could you --
14 A. Yes, yes. He's quoting here.
15 Q. Okay. Could you read out that quote which is attributed to
16 President Tudjman?
17 A. "There would have been no war had Croatia not wanted it."
18 Q. And it continues, doesn't it?
19 A. "However, we estimated that we can get the independence of Croatia
20 only by war and that is why we conducted a policy of negotiations but
21 behind the negotiations we also prepared for armed conflict." Do you want
22 the whole quote? Shall I read the whole quote?
23 Q. Please.
24 A. I'm going to read the whole quote again. "There would have been
25 no war had Croatia not wanted it. However, we assess that only we can
1 fight for the independence of Croatia through war. That is why we
2 conducted a policy of negotiations and after that, behind those
3 negotiations we formed armed units. Had we not done that, had we not done
4 that, we would not have reached our objective. It would have been
5 possible to avoid war had we given up on our goals, the independence of
6 our state but this is something that we did not want at the cost of our
8 Q. Now, reading this, are those the words that you think you heard
9 Franjo Tudjman say?
10 A. Probably yes, but this is somebody's quote, given in the
11 interview. Yes, I assume that that's what that is.
12 Q. Okay. Does this affect your opinion on the date? Do you think
13 that maybe the speech that you think you saw or heard was in May 1992 or
14 do you still stand by your testimony yesterday that it was later than
15 that, 1995 or 1996?
16 A. I said that I heard that speech in 1995 or 1996. So it's
17 possible. I cannot definitely ascertain the time of that speech. What I
18 was talking about was precisely that sentence. That sentence was used a
19 lot. You could have heard it even over these past few years. It appeared
20 on television. I indicated the time that I heard that sentence.
21 Q. Okay. So you're saying that it's possible that you saw or you
22 think you saw or heard this clip in 1995 or 1996 but it was really
23 something that was said in May of 1992? That's possible?
24 A. It's possible, yes. It's possible.
25 Q. And what you remember seeing or hearing, was it always the same
1 clip or was it different versions? It was always the same clip, I guess,
3 A. Yes. Mostly it was this excerpt, that there would have been no
4 war had Croatia not wanted it.
5 Q. Okay. Thank you for your help and your patience on this issue.
6 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, could we exhibit this newspaper article,
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the newspaper Article please be exhibited.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will become Exhibit number 884.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
11 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. This doesn't need to have an
12 ERN number and all those things but I'm sure between the Prosecution and
13 the Defence we'll see that that gets done. Since it was provided by them
14 they may want to do it but we are happy to do it. Anyhow we will take
15 care of the technicalities, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
17 MR. BLACK:
18 Q. Thank you, Mr. Licina. And now I'd like to return just briefly to
19 the issue of United Nations Security Council resolutions, and I'd like to
20 show you one more such resolution. So if we could see on the e-court,
21 please, a document bearing the ERN 00086197 to 6199, please. Again
22 unfortunately I don't a translation of this into B/C/S so it will just be
23 the English that we see but it's a Security Council resolution, number
24 871, which was adopted the 4th of October 1993.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you waiting for something, Mr. Black?
1 MR. BLACK: Yes, Your Honour, I don't have it on my screen yet.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Oh, we've had it for quite sometime.
3 MR. BLACK: My apologies, then. There, it just came up.
4 Q. Mr. Licina, do you speak and read any English at all?
5 A. I can use a little bit of English but I don't really know it that
6 well, no.
7 Q. My apologies for not having this in your language. Let me just
8 read out for you a couple of relevant parts. In paragraph 3 of this
9 resolution from October 1993, the Security Council says, "It condemns once
10 again continuing military attacks within the territory of the Republic of
11 Croatia and the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and reaffirms its
12 commitment to ensure respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity
13 of the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the
14 former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia where UNPROFOR is deployed. Then at
15 number 4 it reaffirms the crucial importance of the full and prompt
16 implementation of the United Nations peacekeeping plan for the Republic of
17 Croatia including the provisions of the plan concerning the
18 demilitarisation of the United Nations protected areas and it continues it
19 then it calls on the signatories on the plan to cooperate in its full
20 implementation. In number 6 it calls for an immediate cease-fire
21 agreement between the Croatian government and the local Serb authorities
22 in the UNPAs, and then at 7 it stresses the importance it attaches as a
23 first step towards implementation of the UN peacekeeping plan for the
24 Republic of Croatia to the process of restoration of the authority of the
25 Republic of Croatia in the pink zones. Then it continues a little bit.
1 First, Mr. Licina, this is another example of the Security Council
2 condemning attacks by Croatia in the UNPAs and near the UNPAs; is that
4 A. This is an example when the Security Council again condemns but
5 takes no other steps, even though a number of crimes had taken place. I
6 would like to stress that there were no only crimes committed in the pink
7 zones. At the time of the aggression in the Maslenica area there was an
8 incursion of Croatian forces and 22 soldiers of the RSK were killed in the
9 Mali Alan sector. This was not in a pink zone but it was in the UNPA
11 Q. Another part of this document -- well, not another part, one of
12 the parts we read, reaffirms the Security Council's commitment to ensure
13 respect for the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the Republic
14 of Croatia. And that's because from the international recognition of
15 Croatia, at least at that point in 1992, the Krajina was always viewed by
16 the international community as part of Croatia, wasn't it?
17 A. Resolution 743, according to which the UNPROFOR forces came to the
18 area of the RSK, was higher by force than these other resolutions.
19 Resolution 743 talked about there being no prejudice for a political
20 solution, that a political solution would be reached by accord, but
21 Croatia violated these agreements and the activities of the UN just boiled
22 down to resolutions such as this one.
23 Q. Do you know the date of Resolution 743? Do you remember about the
24 month, for instance?
25 A. Resolution 743 is the Vance Plan. I think that it went into force
1 in 1992, if I'm not mistaken.
2 Q. Right, but after the international community recognised Croatia,
3 from that point, certainly, although there was -- they said that they
4 weren't going to prejudice any political outcome, they always considered
5 Krajina as part of Croatia, didn't they?
6 A. Resolutions that are of lower rank conflict with Resolution 743 on
7 the basis of which the UNPROFOR forces came to the RSK territory.
8 Q. You don't have basis for this claim that one resolution is of a
9 higher or a lower rank than another resolution by the same Security
10 Council, do you? That's just your opinion of those resolutions. You
11 would like that one to have more force than the others.
12 A. Resolution 743 was accepted by all the interested parties. Had it
13 not been so, then there would have been no pressure for the Serbs to
14 accept some aspects that were not favourable for them. So in that
15 context, resolution 743 was more important and it did have its political
16 weight or significance.
17 Q. Right, but in terms of the significance of the resolution, one
18 resolution versus the other, they had the same weight, don't they? What
19 you're talking about is the Vance Plan as an agreement between parties.
20 But the resolutions all have the same weight, don't they?
21 A. They don't have the same weight. Resolution 743 is the
22 implementation of the Vance Plan so they do not have the same weight. I
23 cannot agree with that assertion of yours and I stand by what I have said,
24 that Resolution 743 has a greater degree of weight than the others.
25 Q. Another thing that we see in this Security Council resolution, as
1 well as the two that we saw yesterday, is that it calls on the parties,
2 including especially the Serb side, to demilitarise. That was one of the
3 things that the Security Council repeatedly insisted on, isn't it?
4 A. Yes. It turns out that you carry out an aggression on an area,
5 you carry out a massacre, and then after that you seek demilitarisation.
6 I think that is cynical.
7 Q. I'm actually focused on the Serb side because there is - I think
8 you may have talked about - part of the Vance Plan was this idea that the
9 Krajina -- the Serb entity in Krajina had to demilitarise, wasn't supposed
10 to have long-barrelled weapons, for instance. You're familiar with all
11 this, right?
12 A. The demilitarisation process of the Krajina had not even started
13 when the first aggression took place. The deployment of the UNPROFOR
14 forces was not completed when there was aggression in the area of the
15 Miljevac plateau. How can you build confidence and embark on any kind of
16 political negotiations if the other side is absolutely breaking faith?
17 Q. I'm going to interrupt you there. I think you've answered the
18 question and you keep turning the focus back to the Croatian side but the
19 Serb side never complied with those demilitarisation provisions, did it?
20 A. Had we been demilitarised, then even more of us would have been
21 killed than actually were killed. I don't know what you mean, we should
22 have demilitarised and then we would have been slaughtered in the same way
23 that we were slaughtered in World War II?
24 Q. I'm not asking you whether you should or shouldn't have. I'm
25 saying, there was a plan. I'm just wanting you to confirm that the Serb
1 side never complied with that. You never complied with the
2 demilitarisation provisions, did you?
3 A. Those two things are very closely related. You cannot view those
4 things separately. Croatia was the first to begin violating the
5 agreement. It carried the aggression out first.
6 Q. You have made clear that -- about the Croatian aggressions but
7 just answer me: In the context which you've already given, did -- the
8 Serb side never complied with the demilitarisation provisions, did it?
9 Just answer that question. You've given your explanations about the
10 context but answer that question.
11 A. Up until then we were at war and, naturally, confidence is
12 something that has to be earned in order to achieve anything. Croatia
13 provided no grounds to embark on negotiations and to conclude any kind of
14 agreement. So in that position, the Serbs were right not to disarm
15 completely. I assert that had the Serbs disarmed totally, the situation
16 would have been worse. There would have been even more casualties.
17 Q. You've given the speech but I think in there you said the Serbs
18 were right not to disarm completely. So you're saying the Serbs did not
19 comply with the demilitarisation provisions. Just answer that question,
20 please, and we'll move on to the next one.
21 A. Mr. Black, you are taking one thing for another. I gave you very
22 clear answers to your questions. The deployment of the UNPROFOR forces
23 hadn't even started when Croatia violated the agreement. That question
24 would make sense had there been a year or two of peace, had there been a
25 certain period of time, and then the Serbs had not disarmed themselves.
1 However, there wasn't really that much time that had passed and the things
2 that happened, happened. So --
3 Q. You've given your explanation now four or five times but you won't
4 answer the question. The Serb side did not comply with the
5 demilitarisation provisions, did it?
6 A. I gave you a very clear answer to your question.
7 Q. No, you have not?
8 A. Very clear answer, yes, I have.
9 Q. A clear answer would be yes or no.
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object to this
11 type of terror imposed on the witness. The Prosecutor needs to have
12 during cross-examination the response that the witness gave during the
13 examination-in-chief. During examination-in-chief the witness explained
14 that the Serb Territorial Defence presented its heavy weapons under double
15 key to the UN, the tanks, the mortars, but this is another question; we
16 are talking about different things. So let the Prosecutor ask whether he
17 abides by what he said during his examination-in-chief.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't understand what you are saying,
19 Mr. Milovancevic. What does the lock and key got to do, and the weapons?
20 The question put to this witness is simple and straightforward. Did the
21 Serb side comply with the demilitarisations? This witness is refusing to
22 answer that question. I don't know what you're talking -- I don't
23 understand your objection and I would like to ask Mr. Black to respond but
24 I must understand what I'm asking him to respond to.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness
1 responded to the question by the Prosecutor repeating the same answer
2 several times. The Prosecutor can be satisfied or dissatisfied with that
3 answer but the witness did not back down from what he said during the
4 examination-in-chief. The Prosecutor is questioning the witness about
5 specific situation which happened a year or two years after the
6 implementation of the Vance Plan started and the Prosecution and the
7 Defence both used here resolutions of the UN Security Council where it is
8 stated that the SAO Krajina weapons were placed under double lock and key
9 of the United Nations. But now, the witness has talked about some
10 violations and now based on the answers the Prosecutor is developing some
11 new theories that the Serbs did not disarm. I don't want to comment.
12 This is the right of the Prosecution. But the Prosecutor cannot be
13 allowed to harass the witness.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you have any reply?
15 MR. BLACK: I do have some reply, Your Honour. The first thing I
16 would say is, this is at least the second time where -- when a witness has
17 refused or been unable to answer a question where counsel has taken to his
18 feet and tried to give the answer for the witness. That is not an
19 acceptable form of objection, I would say, but I won't take that any
21 As far as I can see, the witness has not answered my question. I
22 put it to him several times. What he does is give a speech or some other
23 kind of explanation but he never answers the question, Your Honour. I
24 certainly will try to tone down -- take it down one step because I don't
25 want to be seen as being overly harsh on the witness but I think the
1 Prosecution is entitled to an answer to this question.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Objection is overruled.
3 Answer the question, sir. The question is simply the Serb side
4 did not comply with the demilitarisation orders, did they? Yes or no is
5 the simple answer. We don't need a --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Serbian side started the process
7 of demilitarisation and the Croatian side interrupted it with its
8 aggression against the territories of the Krajina.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm afraid that's not an answer to the question
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't understand, Your Honour, why
12 it is not an answer. I said that the Serbian side had commenced
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm asking you did the Serbian side comply with the
15 demilitarisation order? A simple answer to that question is either a yes
16 or a no. No need for a speech.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In that case, the answer is yes.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
19 Have you got the answer, Mr. Black? He says yes they did comply
20 with the demilitarisation order.
21 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Black, if you will, before you -- I don't
23 know if you're going on to another area but there was a question that
24 arose during the course of your more recent cross-examination that cropped
25 up in my mind that I wanted to get on the record, on the transcript, from
1 the witness. Are you going to go on with this area or were you moving on?
2 MR. BLACK: I was just about to move on, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: So could I just please ask this question of the
4 witness? Thank you.
5 Mr. Licina, now, you had spoken in examination-in-chief and you
6 repeated it during cross-examination by Mr. Black, that you considered in
7 part that the UN Security Council was ineffectual and that they merely put
8 out condemnation after condemnation without taking any steps or sanctions
9 against Croatia. Now, in your mind, addressing the situation, what steps
10 ought to have been taken and what sanctions should have been employed
11 against Croatia in the circumstances? What is it that should have been
12 done, based on your position, based on the Serbian position? What should
13 have done that was not done in the circumstances?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Security Council
15 should have done all in its power to prevent such things from happening.
16 What are the instruments at their disposal? I don't know, I'm not an
17 expert but I know that there is a variety of forms of pressure, from
18 sanctions, of this and that nature. I'm telling you I'm not a specialist
19 but it is a fact that Serbs no longer exist in that territory. That
20 territory has completely been ethnically cleansed from Serbs.
21 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you.
22 Thank you, Mr. Black.
23 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. Could this Resolution 871
24 which is on our screen please be given an exhibit number and be admitted
25 into evidence.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: The resolution 871 is admitted into evidence. May
2 it please be given an exhibit number.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will become Exhibit number 885.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
5 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Mr. Licina, I'm moving to another subject now. In response to
7 questions from the Defence counsel, you said that you were aware of no
8 parallel structure in the Krajina in 1990, 1991, in the years after that,
10 A. Yes, that's what I said.
11 Q. Do you accept that in -- especially in 1990 and 1991, Serbia
12 provided significant amounts of support to the Krajina, to the RSK, in
13 terms of weapons and equipment, personnel, and other kinds of support?
14 A. No. I cannot accept that.
15 Q. So you're not aware of any -- any logistical kind of support that
16 Serbia provided to the SAO Krajina or the RSK?
17 A. The support was almost reduced to statements and speeches. People
18 who were natives of the area and people who had family ties came back
19 because it was normal for solidarity to exist on the part of such people.
20 We are fellow countrymen. But nothing of the kind you're talking about.
21 Q. So you're not aware of any kind of provision of weapons or
22 provision of military support, you're not aware of anything like that?
23 A. No. As I said in my examination-in-chief, only for instance from
24 the depot in Sveti Rok when we lifted the blockade. The mines and
25 explosives from there were withdrawn by the JNA to some other location and
1 we were members of the JNA. That has nothing to do with Serbia.
2 Q. Are you aware -- and were you aware then -- that Serbian Krajina
3 leaders including Mr. Martic had frequent and close contacts with some
4 Serbian leaders from the -- from Yugoslavia, including, of course,
5 Slobodan Milosevic, Jovica Stanisic, Frenki Simatovic. You're aware that
6 there was close and frequent contact between the Krajina leaders and those
7 people, correct? If you're not aware of it, then just say so.
8 A. As for contacts with Slobodan Milosevic, it was what you could see
9 on television. As for Stanisic and Simatovic, the only link I can make is
10 that both of them had family ties with our area. Stanisic's wife and
11 Stanisic's -- and Simatovic's wife were natives of the area. Simatovic's
12 wife is from Devrnjak [phoen] near Gracac so that was a family tie for
14 Q. Aside from the family ties you're not aware of any official or
15 political activity by Stanisic or Simatovic in the Krajina?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Okay. Well, if you don't know anything more about it, then I'll
18 move on to another subject.
19 At the end of your direct examination, you relied on some figures
20 from an organisation called Veritas. Do you remember talking about that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. That organisation is based in Belgrade, correct?
23 A. That organisation was set up in 1992 or 1993, I don't remember, in
24 Knin, and it now has headquarters in Belgrade, yes.
25 Q. And the head of the organisation is Savo Strbac, correct?
1 A. You're right.
2 Q. Savo Strbac has publicly defended the innocence of Milan Martic,
3 even go so far as to say that the shelling of Zagreb cannot be considered
4 a crime. Are you aware of those public statements?
5 A. I don't remember but it's possible that he made a statement like
7 Q. Okay. I'd like to hand you a copy of a newspaper article, again
8 this is something which I don't yet have a translation in B/C/S.
9 Actually, I have copies for the Chamber. I'll just read out, Mr. Licina,
10 the quotation here. It's towards the bottom of this article. This is an
11 article, by the way, dated the 16th of May, from the SRNA news agency in
12 Bijeljina, and it says, "If Martic issued an order to shell Zagreb, that
13 means he did so out of extreme need, in order to eliminate the
14 simultaneous and obvious danger to the people of Western Slavonia which
15 cannot be considered a criminal act."
16 And that's Savo Strbac talking. Did you ever hear any statements
17 like that from Mr. Strbac?
18 A. I don't remember but he could have said that. I don't remember
19 this specific statement but I'm not saying he was incapable of saying
21 Q. Well, I'll put to you, then, that relying on figures from
22 Mr. Strbac, that's not a very objective source, is it? Someone who has
23 come out publicly in defence of the accused, Mr. Martic.
24 A. From what I know, the figures of Savo Strbac on casualties and
25 victims are certainly smaller than Serbian casualties because he comes
1 from Gracac municipality and I know that in that municipality, 500 people
2 got killed in that municipality. I think Strbac has a lower figure. In
3 Veritas's documentation --
4 Q. Thank you. I think you explained those figures earlier on; I
5 won't ask you to repeat them.
6 MR. BLACK: Your Honours, could this be admitted into evidence,
7 please, this article?
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
9 please be given an exhibit number.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will become Exhibit number
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
13 Yes, Mr. Black?
14 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Mr. Licina, I'm nearly finished with my questions. You're a
16 member of the RSK government in exile still today, right?
17 A. Yes. We started working again on the 26th of February last year,
18 and I'm one of the ministers of this cabinet in exile.
19 Q. Slobodan Jarcevic is another member of that government in exile;
20 is that right?
21 A. Slobodan Jarcevic is an adviser to the government.
22 Q. Okay. Thank you. And Milan Martic is still the president of that
23 government in exile, right?
24 A. Milan Martic is the president of the Republic of the Serbian
1 Q. And your government in exile is the government of the RSK, right?
2 That's your position, anyhow?
3 A. Yes. Yes. The first minister is Mr. Milorad Buha.
4 Q. And the goal of your government in exile, I take it, is to
5 re-establish the RSK in Croatia, where it was declared in 1991, right?
6 A. The objective of our government is to redefine Croatia. The
7 objective of our government is for the refugee Serbs from Croatia to come
8 back, over 600.000 of them. Another objective of the exile government is
9 to reclaim 50.000 Serbian flats, to rebuild Serbian houses, to reclaim
10 various rights of the Serbs and get compensation for Serbs of over 60
11 billion euros in indemnities, and to restore for the Serbs the status of a
12 constituent people.
13 Q. And also, to re-establish the RSK, right? That's why you're a
14 government in exile, not just some non-governmental organisation. You're
15 saying you're the government. You want to re-establish that political
16 entity, right?
17 A. We set to ourselves the maximum ambitious objectives and what time
18 will bring and what we will be able to do, we will see. In politics,
19 everybody sets maximum goals and achieves as much as they manage.
20 Q. Okay. And among those maximum ambitious objectives that you've
21 set for yourself is the re-establishment of the RSK, right?
22 A. That's one of the objectives.
23 Q. Thank you. I'd like to show you on the e-court system a document
24 with the ERN 06030297 to 0301. This is actually a document that contains
25 both an English and B/C/S version in the original. It's not a translation
1 that we've done. If we can just look at that first page, perhaps. The
2 witness as well, because I don't know that the address appears in the
3 B/C/S version.
4 But Mr. Licina, this is a letter -- actually, if we could turn to
5 the last page real quickly. I'd like to see who signed this.
6 A. I have that in English.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. I see it in English here.
9 Q. Thank you. Hopefully it just turned to the last page which is in
10 B/C/S. It's actually -- it's a letter in two languages so it starts in
11 English and the last few pages are in B/C/S?
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour?
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Excuse me, since Mr. Licina
15 just said the text was in English, the Defence has a copy of this in
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see it now in B/C/S on the screen.
18 It's all right.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I just wanted to help.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic.
22 MR. BLACK: I appreciate that. Maybe it would be easiest if I get
23 him a hard copy. I'll see if I have one. It will only take me two
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: He's got the B/C/S on the screen.
1 That's correct, Mr. Licina; is that correct? You've got the B/C/S
2 on the screen?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
5 MR. BLACK:
6 Q. Okay. Thank you.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. If we could just flip again to the last page of the B/C/S, I just
9 want to see who this letter is from. It just appears -- that's you,
10 right, Mr. Licina? Ratko Licina, that's who is the author of this letter?
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 Q. Okay. And this is a letter -- perhaps now if we'll turn to the
13 first page of the document, this is a letter that was actually sent to the
14 United States of America House of Representatives; is that right?
15 Actually --
16 A. Just raise it a bit, to Frederick Peterson, right?
17 Q. That's correct. And on the first page which is in English but it
18 shows -- I can just read it to you. It says, "Mr. Frederick Peterson III,
19 JD, Senior Policy Adviser, US State House Representative, Washington DC."
20 Do you remember this letter that you sent to him in October of
22 A. Yes, I know that.
23 Q. I just want you to look at a couple of passages. The first one is
24 in that first paragraph which you see on your screen now. I'll just read
25 out a sentence. Following along with me. It says, "We hope that you will
1 contribute so that the revealed truth helps to remove the world's
2 informative blockade about the suffering of the Serbian people --
3 suffering which is incomparably bigger than the suffering of Albanians in
4 Kosovo, Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatians in Croatia."
5 And then a little bit further down in the second paragraph after
6 it says, "Dear Mr. Peterson" again, it says, "The biggest ethnical
7 cleansing on the Balkans was performed on Serbian people -- 80 per cent of
8 Serbs from Croatia and the majority from Kosovo and Metohija was exiled."
9 And then if we skip down a couple of paragraphs, you'll have to
10 turn to the next -- actually, there is one that starts with, "the
11 suffering of Serbs in Croatia is even bigger." Do you see that there,
12 Mr. Licina?
13 A. Can you just zoom in a bit? It's page 4. Does it say 4?
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] If we mean the same sentence,
15 it's the end of page 3 in B/C/S, judging by the words quoted by the
17 MR. BLACK: I'm grateful.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
19 MR. BLACK: Actually I'll just read out --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I still see page 4. And I need 3, I
22 MR. BLACK: That's right.
23 Q. It starts at the beginning, the bottom of this page and it will
24 continue on to the top of the next page. Just led me read out. It
25 says, "Suffering of Serbs in Croatia is even bigger. Nor in this country
1 is respected private property. Croatia has retrieved citizenship from
2 Serbs and the status of constitutional population. Croatia was two
3 nationalities, a state: vote in parliament took away the right of
4 citizenship from Serbs." And it goes down, at the end of this paragraph
5 where it says, "The same injustice to Serbs is repeated now in The Hague
6 Tribunal because in the accusations against Serbs, it is written that
7 Serbs have 'participated in aggression to Croatia or Bosnia and
8 Herzegovina.' Injustice will be even bigger if the Tribunal cedes some
9 cases against to Croatian or Bosnian courts as it has been announced.
10 Serbs have been the owners of a land in the Republic of Serbian Krajina
11 (UN protection zones) too but the world's medias presented those Serbs
12 also as aggressors."
13 Is that -- is that a pretty close translation, at least?
14 A. It's not that statehood was taken away from Serbs that their
15 status of a state-forming constituent nation, and it says Serbs could not
16 have been aggressors in Bosnia and Herzegovina as they were portrayed. I
17 think those are the two inaccuracies.
18 Q. Thank you. You still hold all these views today, right? You
19 stand by what is written in this letter about the suffering of the Serb
20 people and the biggest ethnic cleansing in the Balkans against the Serbs?
21 A. Absolutely, I stand by it. I don't see that any of that has
23 Q. Your positions on this really haven't changed at all since 1990,
24 1991, 1992, since that time. You still hold basically the same views now
25 as did then, don't you?
1 A. Yes. And I think that is consistent on my part.
2 MR. BLACK: Could this be admitted into evidence, please,
3 Your Honour?
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
5 please be given an exhibit number.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will become Exhibit number
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
9 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Thank you, Mr. Licina. I have no further questions for you.
11 Your Honour, I believe it's time for the break, in any event.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Black. That's a very
13 timely ending.
14 We will take a break and come back at quarter to 11.00.
15 Court adjourned.
16 --- Recess taken at 10.15 a.m.
17 --- On resuming at 10.46 a.m.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Re-examination by Mr. Milovancevic:
21 Q. Mr. Licina, the Defence has a few questions for you relating to
22 some of the questions put to you by the Prosecutor. One of the last
23 questions put to you referred to the government in exile. You explained
24 that you are a member of that government. Do you remember that?
25 A. Yes.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphones for the witness, please.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Can you remind us when you left the Krajina?
4 A. I left Krajina in August 1995. I think it was the 5th or the 6th
5 of August.
6 Q. And the reason you left the Krajina was?
7 A. The reason why I left Krajina was the aggression by Croatia on the
8 Krajina region, the region of northern Lika, Kordun, Lika and Banija
9 specifically, and that operation is known as Operation Storm.
10 Q. Thank you. What happened to the members of the assembly of the
11 RSK? You mentioned them in relation to the government in exile. Did they
12 stay in Krajina or did they also leave?
13 A. I was one of the deputies of that assembly myself that was elected
14 in late 1993. And, yes, all the deputies of the RSK assembly left the
16 Q. In your responses during the examination-in-chief and also in
17 relation to this topic of the government in exile, you explained that you
18 lived in Gracac. Can you tell us where you lived in Gracac and did you
19 own any property?
20 A. I lived in Zagreb up until 1990, then I returned to Gracac. I
21 returned, we had a flat, my mother had a flat in Gracac.
22 Q. Do you still own that apartment?
23 A. No. All the apartments owned by the Serbs have not been returned.
24 Actually, 50.000 Serbs had tenant rights to the same number of apartments
25 and this right has now been denied to them. The Croats managed to secure
1 their ownership rites to these apartments but not the Serbs.
2 Q. I have one more question. You are now in Belgrade. Do you have
3 an apartment in Belgrade now? What is your status there?
4 A. Yes, I'm living in Belgrade. Specifically I live in Zemun and I
5 don't own my own apartment. I am renting an apartment.
6 Q. 11 years after Storm, are you a citizen of Croatia, Serbia or of
7 any other country? What is your status? Could you please tell us?
8 A. I have the status of a refugee in Serbia. I am not a citizen of
9 any state.
10 Q. Thank you. We have now finished with this topic of the government
11 in exile, Mr. Licina.
12 I'm going to put some other questions to you regarding
13 Mr. Raskovic. You recall that my learned friend from the Prosecution, in
14 the cross-examination, showed you excerpts from the book, "Crazy Land" of
15 professor academician, Raskovic. Do you remember that?
16 A. Yes, yes, I do.
17 Q. Do you recall that the Prosecutor also showed you an excerpt of
18 the text citing Mr. Raskovic about how the Ustasha movement is a rational
19 delirium, do you recall that?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. The Prosecutor also showed you a text in which Mr. Raskovic,
22 continuing with this remark, says that the Ustashas as early as 1940,
23 planned the destruction of the Serbs and they listed all the pits in
24 Croatia. Do you recall that sentence?
25 A. Yes, yes.
1 Q. In relation to that, can you tell us what these pits are in
2 Croatia? Are they holes, pits, hollows dug by people or what are they?
3 A. The pits are places in Croatia where executions were carried out
4 and Serb bodies were thrown in during World War II. There are many such
5 pits. One is close to where I live. It's called Turcic. One of the most
6 famous of these or notorious of these pits is a pit called Jadovno but
7 there are many others.
8 Q. So did Mr. Raskovic speak the truth about this when he wrote that
9 these pits were also dealt with in the planning process of genocide? Do
10 you agree that these pits existed where bodies of people were thrown in?
11 A. Yes. I agree with what Mr. Raskovic said. I think most people
12 know about this and they would agree with him.
13 Q. Could we look at Exhibit 65 ter 298 on the monitor? It's a map.
14 It's probably been given an exhibit number but I don't have that number
15 available right now so perhaps we could have that on the monitors, please.
16 Could we please zoom in on the lower right quadrant of the map? Could we
17 look at the entire green area, please?
18 A. It's a bit yellow, actually.
19 Q. Yes, yes. That's right. This is a document used before this
20 Trial Chamber. Could you please read what it says in the upper right-hand
21 corner, Mr. Licina?
22 A. It says, "Map of the Ustasha genocide of the Serbian people in the
23 territory of the Independent State of Croatia from 1941 to 1945."
24 Q. Can we scroll the map up a little bit so that we can see the key?
25 Actually, could we scroll down - I'm not sure if I'm giving the right
1 instructions - so that we see the bottom of the map? On the left side, it
2 said, "key." Could you please read us the elements of the key?
3 A. The locations of the Ustasha genocide were marked.
4 Q. Mr. Licina, when you read the text, the text is next to a marking.
5 So can you please tell us what marking you see and the text?
6 A. The first little circle says that these are locations of Ustasha
8 Q. Continue, please.
9 A. Then there is a sort of larger encircled space. It says, "Areas
10 where there was mass genocide carried out of the Serbian people." Then I
11 can't really see it so well but these look like blue arrows or something
12 like that. "Concentration and collection camps." Then there is a larger
13 black spot, "Pits where Serbs were thrown." Then there is a red triangle
14 next to which it says, "Wells where Serbs were thrown in."
15 Q. Thank you, Mr. Licina. Can we look at the map again on the
16 monitor, the map that is just above the text and the legend, the key?
17 Thank you. Do you see these small dots on the map? Do you see these
18 bigger black dots on the map? Do you see the red try angles? Actually
19 the markings whose definitions you read in the key?
20 A. Yes, I see that.
21 Q. What does this map in front of you represent? Do you recognise
22 this territory?
23 A. According to what I can see, this is the territory of the
24 Independent State of Croatia from World War II. It encompasses the
25 territory of the former socialist Republic of Croatia and the territory of
2 Q. Thank you. On the right-hand side, there is some writing and it's
3 quite small. I don't want to make you read that from the screen. It's
4 quite small. I'm going to read it, so if you can perhaps follow. The
5 text says, "The German authorised general in the Independent State of
6 Croatia, Edmund Gleise Von Horstenau, who is a historian, writes that 'the
7 Ustashas claimed that 1 million Orthodox Serbs were slaughtered, children,
8 women, and the elderly,' and that, according to him, 'this is exaggerated,
9 because, on the basis of reports received, the number of those slaughtered
10 was actually three-quarters of a million.'" Is this what it says in this
11 text, Mr. Licina?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Under that, it is said that the author who drafted this text,
14 Mr. Miletic, did that in his book, The Ustasha Death Factory: 1941 to
16 A. Yes, that's what it says.
17 Q. I have one question in relation to this text that I read to you,
18 Mr. Licina. Can you please tell us what three-quarters of a million is,
19 what number is that?
20 A. When you calculate three-quarter of a million is 750.000.
21 Q. The envoy of Hitler's Germany in the Independent State of Croatia
22 says that in the territory of that state from 1941 to 1945, 750.000 people
23 were slaughtered. Is he using the correct term when he says slaughtered?
24 What do you mean about that?
25 A. As far as I know, yes, he's using the correct term. He's using
1 the term, "had their throats cut." According to what I know, the Ustashas
2 in the camps and next to the pits cut the throats of people. That's how
3 they executed people. There were also cases when there were sort of
4 competitions between Ustashas who would cut the throats of more people in
5 a certain period of time.
6 Q. Thank you. We don't need to use this map any more.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before you carry on, Mr. Milovancevic, can you
8 just remind me, do we have this map in English? The English version?
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is Exhibit
10 number 492. I'm sorry I did not give you the reference to the English
11 text because the -- because we were using the actual map but if necessary,
12 I can provide that for you.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I've just been told there is an English copy of
14 that map. Thank you very much.
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation].
16 Q. Mr. Licina, you saw many dots on this map. These are locations
17 where, according to this map and according to what you said, Serb bodies
18 were thrown in. Mr. Raskovic talked about that in his book, "Luda
19 Zemlja," "Mad Country." In the paragraph shown to you by the Prosecutor.
20 Do you agree with that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. The Prosecutor was particularly interested in the use of the term
23 or the sentence, "The Ustasha movement is also a rational delirium." Do
24 you recall that sentence?
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 Q. You answered that Mr. Raskovic was a neuropsychiatrist by
2 profession, that he was probably doing that from a professional aspect.
3 So could we now please look at Exhibit 874 on our monitors? And that is
4 the text, "Mad country," by Mr. Jovan Raskovic. Could we please look at
5 page 1? And it bears the indication 92927454. This is the B/C/S version.
6 In English, it's also on the -- page 1. It's the next page after the
7 title page. Could we please look at that on our monitors?
8 The Prosecutor pointed you to the paragraph before last on the
9 left side and it's on this side of the B/C/S text, and it says, "The
10 Ustasha movement is also a rational delirium." Do you see that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. This part of the text was translated into English.
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise to Your Honours and
14 to my learned friends from the Prosecution because I do not have the
15 translation of the paragraph above the one that was shown to you. In that
16 part, Mr. Raskovic explains what rational delirium is and how it is
18 Q. So could we please have you read that text? It's a little bit
19 longer. Could you please read it slowly so that the interpreters could
20 translate that and then we will present that as an exhibit and after that
21 we are going to look at the English translation. Go ahead.
22 A. "From ideology. Ideology forms and creates a rational delirium.
23 It is a form of fantasy which is directed, that is how there was rational
24 delirium in Nazi-ist ideology. In order to implement it needed to be
25 rationalised. Irrational delirium would be very ineffective. If the task
1 was to destroy Jews and Slavs, then that delirious idea had to be given a
2 rational form in order to be able to implement all of that. First,
3 victims needed to be prevented in one way and they needed to be stripped
4 of their human characteristics and thus create conditions for their
5 destructions. In the slaughterhouse and the concentration camp, this
6 delirious basis was rationalised, chauvinism and racism used to a large
7 extent rational delirium because rational delirium is very - quote,
8 unquote - useful to the masses. What is happening now in Kosovo and
9 Metohija (rapes, all the aggression towards neighbours, all those
10 inappropriate things, all the shame) are all actually rational delirium."
11 Q. Thank you. I don't know if it's technically possible for this
12 part of the text that you read, since we only have the B/C/S text, if you
13 can circle that with a pencil. If possible, could the usher please help
14 you to do that.
15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I have read? Is that what you
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation].
19 Q. Yes, that's right, Mr. Licina.
20 A. [Marks]
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, I know that the interpreters
22 interpreted what the witness was reading but do we have a translated
23 portion, a translated version of that portion that you read, because I
24 couldn't see it on the English version when I was listening to the witness
25 and the English version is only two pages.
1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is exactly
2 what I tried to explain. My learned friend, the Prosecutor, showed the
3 witness some other sections of the text and they were translated. This
4 section of the text that is circled now is just above the text used by the
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that portion. I understand that part.
7 I understand you. My question to you is, do you have a translated version
8 of the portion that you now used today?
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't have it at
10 this moment. I wanted just to have this part of the text marked and we
11 will provide the translation in due course. That is, as soon as we can.
12 That's all I wanted to ask.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's what I wanted to ask you to do. Thank you.
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 Q. Just one question before I tender this part of this statement to
16 be exhibited as a Defence Exhibit. When you said that Mr. Raskovic spoke
17 about the rational delirium as an expert, as a psychiatrist, when you were
18 responding to the Prosecutor's question whether you thought that it could
19 be an explanation, is this what explains your answer?
20 A. Yes. We see a lot of specialised terminology here. This text
21 practically is targeted at experts more than a broader public.
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can this be
23 exhibited as a Defence Exhibit and can we give it a number, please?
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: That portion of the document is admitted into
25 evidence as an exhibit. May it please be given an exhibit number.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number 888.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. We don't need this
4 text on the monitor any more.
5 Thank you, Mr. Usher; I believe we have dealt with this.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, I'm advised that that image has not been
7 saved because of a technical problem.
8 Thank you very much.
9 You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Mr. Licina, regarding the questions asked of you by -- concerning
12 Mr. Raskovic, this text and some other speeches, my question is: You were
13 a member of the executive board of the party, even the main board of the
14 party, I suppose you met with Mr. Raskovic, and I want to know on the
15 basis of what you know of him, of his public and political life? Could
16 you draw the conclusion that he was a nationalist, a Serb nationalist?
17 A. I don't know in which sense you mean this term, Serb nationalist.
18 In a positive sense, yes.
19 Q. Maybe I was not precise enough. When I said nationalist, I meant
20 the possibly extremist attitude that is expressed as hatred towards other
21 ethnic groups.
22 A. You mean as a chauvinist.
23 Q. Yes, as a chauvinist?
24 A. Then no, Jovan Raskovic could by no means be called a chauvinist.
25 As far as I know, his wife was a Croat and he often emphasised that point
1 in his speeches. And what we actually called Mr. Raskovic was Serbian
3 Q. Thank you. Let us move to another subject, namely the commitments
4 of the HDZ expressed in its platform and its statute. Do you remember the
5 Prosecutor's questions about that?
6 A. Yes. I remember too.
7 Q. Can we see on our screens Exhibit 873? That is a document of the
8 Croatian Democratic Union from 1990.
9 This document was seen by all of us, including you, yesterday.
10 The Prosecutor put this document to you.
11 A. Yes, twice, as I remember.
12 Q. Thank you. Could we see page 8 in B/C/S? In English it's page 7.
13 In the left side of the text, in B/C/S, we see on the monitor, can we zoom
14 in on the left hand bottom corner? There we see the Roman numeral 2 and
15 the subheading reads, "About the unequivocalness of the programmes.
16 Objectives of the Croatian Democratic Union." The last paragraph in this
17 paragraph is, and reads, I'll read it. It's difficult to follow because
18 it moves on to the other page, "This proceeds from the very fact that this
19 programme and policies are being built by us, apart from the general
20 democratic principles of modern civilisation, on the three major
21 components of the recent Croatian history, on the Starcevic Croatian
22 historic state," right?
23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's request we have not finished
24 interpreting the excerpt. Can we please stop with the question now.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Milovancevic, the interpreter just asked
1 you to hold on a little bit there. They have not finished interpreting
2 the text of that document you are reading.
3 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I apologise for the interruption. If we
4 are going to read at length from this, I do have two extra copies that
5 perhaps could be given to the interpreters. It might help their tasks. I
6 don't know if that's helpful or not.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: It may very well be helpful because the
8 interpreters is not exactly the same as here as I understand it means the
9 same thing but the words are not the same and it makes it a little
10 difficult even for us to follow where they are.
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I avail
12 myself of this opportunity to ask the interpreters to always caution me
13 when necessary. At some points, I lose track of the fact that I may be
14 too fast.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: They always do. May we ask you, in return,
16 Mr. Milovancevic, to try to always remember not to be too fast? Thank
18 JUDGE HOEPFEL: This piece we read or interpreted before is on
19 page 7 of the English version and it is paragraph 3, for the interpreters.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Does the Trial Chamber want to have it read now?
21 Or is the text enough?
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Maybe if -- no. The text will be enough. Thank
23 you so much.
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Can you tell us, please, Mr. Licina, since you did mention Ante
1 Starcevic as a Croatian politician, what was his attitude towards Serbs?
2 Do you know anything about that?
3 A. Ante Starcevic was a Croatian politician of the 19th century, if I
4 remember correctly. He led the Croatian Party of Rights and otherwise he
5 was known for his very rigid attitude towards Serbs. There was one
6 quotation from his works saying that they are dogs that need to be axed
7 down. He simply thought there existed no Serbs in that territory.
8 Q. We saw that Mr. Tudjman based the programmed objectives of the HDZ
9 on his views, Starcevic's views, but we will go on reviewing the
10 programmed goals of the HDZ. In the last paragraph on the monitor now in
11 front of you, the end of the right-hand side, which is page 9 in B/C/S, in
12 English it's pages 7 and -- in fact the last paragraph on page 7, and it
13 goes on, on page 8. I hope I have identified this portion of the text
15 Mr. Licina, could you please read for us in this paragraph from
16 the second sentence? We need to show on the monitor page 10 in B/C/S.
17 The sentence begins, "At the same time they are forgetting."
18 A. You want me to read it?
19 Q. Please.
20 A. "At the same time, they are forgetting that the NDH, the
21 Independent State of Croatia, was not just a quisling creation and a
22 fascist crime but also an expression of both the Croatian historic
23 aspirations for an independent state but also the realisation of these
24 aspirations on the part of international factors, in this particular
25 case Hitler's Germany, that created a new European order on the ruins of
1 the Versailles order. Therefore, the NDH was not merely a mere whim of
2 the powers of the Axis but also a result of quite defined historic
4 Q. In your answers during examination-in-chief, when you mentioned
5 the speech of Mr. Tudjman at the Vatroslav Lisinski hall, did you mean
6 this text?
7 A. Yes. Precisely. This speech was held in the Vatroslav Lisinski
8 hall, namely the founding assembly of the Croatian Democratic Union, HDZ.
9 Q. In this text, Mr. Tudjman, and that is the gist of this sentence,
10 it says, "At the same time, they are forgetting that the NDH was not just
11 a quisling creation and a fascist crime but also an expression of the
12 historic aspirations of Croatia."
13 Now, is this the same Croatia that we saw marked with those pits
14 in the form of triangles and black dots?
15 A. Yes. That's the only state during the Second World War, apart
16 from Hitler's Germany, which had concentration camps.
17 Q. Thank you. Picking up on the questions of the Prosecutor as to
18 whether the HDZ was a democratic party or whether it expressed its
19 xenophobia and also questions about its aspirations, let us look at page
20 39 of this document. In English it would be page 34. When we see it on
21 the screen, you will see that it is an electoral proclamation of the HDZ
22 to the citizens of Croatia and the entire Croatian people. So it's page
23 39 on B/C/S. In this part of the text, we also find the portion put to
24 you by the Prosecutor, the portion that speaks about what one gains by
25 giving one's vote to the HDZ. There are 27 or 28 points here, and it's
1 somewhere here.
2 A. You mean this, voting for the HDZ, you are voting for?
3 Q. Please, look at -- read for us, in fact, points 1 and 2.
4 A. "Voting for the HDZ, you are voting for, 1, the incontestable,
5 non-transferrable, interminable and indivisible sovereignty of the
6 Croatian people, in keeping with the general achievements of modern
7 humanity and with the Charter of United Nations. 2, for the current and
8 inalienable right of the entire Croatian nation within their historical
9 and natural borders to self-determination after secession and to" -- can
10 we see the entire page and zoom it in? "To self-determination up to -- up
11 to secession and to contractual arrangements of relations with
12 neighbouring nations in the present SFRY and Europe."
13 Q. From these provisions of this proclamation that you've just read,
14 does your knowledge, while you were in Zagreb, that in Gracac and its
15 territory of SAO Krajina, does your knowledge confirm that one of the
16 programmed objectives of the HDZ was to ensure sovereignty for the
17 Croatian people?
18 MR. BLACK: Objection, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Black?
20 MR. BLACK: I'm sorry, I refrained from the last two questions or
21 two questions before this that I think were leading but this -- I think
22 this is a leading question, Your Honour. He could get the answer in a
23 non-leading way.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I do not want to
1 ask leading questions. Maybe they appear so and if they appear so, then I
2 will rephrase.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is a leading question, Mr. Milovancevic. Yes,
4 you must withdraw that question and rephrase it.
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I will withdraw the question
6 and rephrase.
7 Q. The question is: In its electoral proclamations, did the HDZ
8 advocate gaining sovereignty for the Croatian people?
9 A. As we see from this proclamation, yes.
10 Q. Can we now look at item 14 of this proclamation? What else are
11 you voting for by voting for the HDZ, according to this electoral
12 proclamation? It's a very brief sentence.
13 A. Number 14, "for integration of Croatia with Europe, a Croatia as a
14 sovereign and modern state."
15 Q. What was one of the main goals of the HDZ and their policy at the
16 time, including the pre-electoral rallies?
17 A. It is clear from this proclamation of theirs, as well as from
18 their pre-election rallies, that their platform primarily was to rearrange
19 the then federal state or rather to secede from Yugoslavia, and they also
20 wanted to do away with the rights of Serbs, the right to their statehood
21 within the boundaries of Croatia and subsequently within Yugoslavia.
22 Q. We can now remove this document. During the cross-examination,
23 the Prosecutor asked several questions concerning the declaration adopted
24 in Srb dated the 25th of July 1990, do you remember that?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Could we please have that declaration on the monitor? This is
2 Exhibit 141. While we are waiting for the document, I wanted to ask you
3 this: And perhaps you can provide us with a brief answer. According to
4 your knowledge, the Yugoslav constitution, back in 1990, did it foresee
5 the right of individual peoples to self-determination?
6 A. Yes, it did.
7 Q. According to the Yugoslav constitution which peoples, which
8 nations, have that right?
9 A. The Serbs, Croats, Slovenians, Macedonians, Montenegrins, and the
11 Q. Am I correct if I state that now you've numbered the Yugoslav
12 nations which had the right to self-determination?
13 A. Yes, not individual citizens but the various nations.
14 Q. Could you please look at the text of the declaration before you
15 and read the third paragraph within item 1?
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which declaration are we now reading,
17 Mr. Milovancevic?
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is the
19 declaration from Srb adopted at the Serb meeting there on the 25th of July
20 1990, which is Exhibit -- and this is in front of you -- that is Exhibit
21 141. It has been admitted, and the Prosecutor asked several questions of
22 the witness concerning the declaration.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
24 Q. This declaration on the sovereignty and autonomy of the Serb
25 people, what does it state in its third paragraph of item 1?
1 A. I don't have that on the screen.
2 Q. Could we have page 1 of this declaration, and it is item 1, its
3 third paragraph. The text begins with, "One cannot"?
4 A. "One cannot choose the type of Yugoslav federation without the
5 participation of the Serb people in Croatia and this particularly goes for
6 situations of legitimate secession. Nations secede, not states."
7 Q. You were asked yesterday by the Prosecutor whether you believe
8 that the Serbs in Croatia had the right to veto Croatia's secession. To
9 go back to that topic, I wanted to ask you this: Do you believe that the
10 Croatian people in the then Socialist Republic of Croatia had the right to
11 secede and did they have the right to their own state?
12 A. We never tried to deny the right of the Croatian people to
13 self-determination. That was never in dispute.
14 Q. Do you believe that the Serb people have the same right?
15 A. By the same token, yes. The Serbs had the right to self
17 Q. Just a minute ago, we saw the electoral proclamation of the HDZ,
18 inviting the citizens of Croatia to give their votes to the HDZ to
19 establish the independent Croatian state which would secede from
20 Yugoslavia. Is this how you interpreted the text of the proclamation?
21 A. Yes. If we take a look at the proclamation --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, once again you are leading. You
23 are telling him the answer and having told him the answer you say, "Is
24 this how you interpret it?" And while we are at it, Mr. Milovancevic, and
25 I don't want to interfere with your re-examination, I hope if you could
1 try to stick to clarifying issues that were not clear rather than
2 re-examining him as if you are leading him in chief again. But please
3 don't lead.
4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. You just told us what you thought was the goal of the HDZ policy
6 as regards Croatia, stemming from their proclamation. Do you remember
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. Do you believe that the rights of those who wish to leave a
10 certain country carry more weight than the rights of those who wish to
11 stay, to remain within? What is your view?
12 A. The rights have to be balanced of both those who wish to leave and
13 those who wish to stay, and as was actually foreseen by the federal
15 Q. The third paragraph of item 1 of the declaration you've just read
16 out, does that set out or define an attitude different from the one you
17 just stated?
18 A. I believe it tallies with what I've just said.
19 Q. Thank you. This concludes this particular topic, Mr. Licina.
20 During your -- yesterday's testimony you were shown a part of your speech
21 given at the assembly of the Republika Srpska Krajina which was held in
22 Beli Manastir; do you remember that?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. Do you remember that on the monitor you circled a sentence in
25 which you mentioned Ustashas three times?
1 A. Yes, I do remember that.
2 Q. Do you remember being asked by the Prosecutor about your use of
3 terms from World War II in 1990 and 1991, precisely by mentioning the word
5 A. Yes, I do remember that.
6 Q. Could we now please see a video footage prepared by the Defence?
7 [Videotape played]
8 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'm sorry, could that be repeated because at
9 first it only came partially on the screen so I was not really able to see
10 all of it.
11 [Videotape played]
12 "... [indiscernible] co-leader of the Croatian death squads was
13 Branimir Glavas. Unlike more discreet members of the ruling HDZ party,
14 Glavas made no secret of his identification with the World War II Croatian
15 Ustashas as he welcomed returning Croatian prisoners of war. While some
16 French --"
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Microphone not activated]
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. It is a short
20 footage. And I would like to lend a hand to the Chamber and to the
21 witness so as to be able to understand what the aim of my question is.
22 Could we have the usher distribute the copies of this text uttered
23 by a person in the footage? Perhaps you could give that to the Chamber
24 and to the OTP.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters be given a copy as well?
1 Thank you.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] It is just a very brief
3 passage. It is one sentence only, and perhaps the interpreters will do
4 without the text.
5 Q. Mr. Licina, do you see the date on the screen, the date of the
7 A. As far as I can see, it is the 9th of August 1990.
8 Q. In front of you, on the screen, there is a flag. Can you tell us
9 what or whose flag that is?
10 A. It is the Croatian flag with the -- their coat of arms, identical
11 to the one used during World War II. It is the same as the Ustasha flag.
12 Q. When you say this is the Croatian flag with the coat of arms, why
13 do you specify that? Why did you describe it in that way?
14 A. Because we see the coat of arms in the centre of the white
15 portion. It's a chequerboard and the difference between the Ustasha coat
16 of arms and the one used nowadays is that the Ustasha coat of arms began
17 in the upper left corner with the white square.
18 Q. When did this particular flag begin appearing in the territory of
19 Croatia and what did the previous flag look like?
20 A. The previous flag was the same in terms of colours, but the
21 official socialist Republic of Croatia flag had the five-pointed star in
22 the middle.
23 Q. In this footage, you saw a person uttering a sentence. Do you
24 remember what he said? Could we play this again so as to be able to see
1 [Videotape played]
2 "... identification with the World War II Croatian Ustasha as he
3 welcomed returning Croatian prisoners of war. While some French --"
4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Black is on list feet.
6 MR. BLACK: I apologise for the interruption. I notice that there
7 is no date at the time when he's making the speech. The date seems to
8 come from the shot of the flag but it seems that we have several different
9 events put together. So if we could have a date and maybe a source for
10 that, the clip where the person is actually speaking, that would be
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe I can.
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, these were
15 precisely the questions I wanted to ask of the witness, and I will try to
16 have that clarified by the witness himself, in particular the question to
17 the Prosecutor's -- the answer to the Prosecutor's question, and then the
18 Defence may provide further clarifications if necessary. Thank you,
19 Your Honour.
20 Q. What did this gentleman say? Do you remember it? Can you
21 paraphrase it?
22 A. I remember. There is Branimir Glavas. Branimir Glavas used to be
23 a highly positioned person within the HDZ, and at the same time he was in
24 the parliament when I was in the Croatian parliament as well. He was one
25 of the deputies. This footage in which he said, "Feel free to say that
1 you are Ustashas because you indeed are and welcome to your state," I am
2 pretty sure that this was at an exchange of prisoners. I believe this was
3 in 1991, around Vukovar or Osijek, because at that time he was in that
4 area. As far as I know, he also has a high position in Osijek nowadays.
5 Q. Am I right to say that we can see this Branimir Glavas in the
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, ask him to show you Mr. Glavas.
8 Don't say, "Am I right," because you're going to lead.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I
10 withdraw my question.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Carry on.
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. The person addressing these people spoke to them as they were
14 moving in a column. Who were they?
15 A. As I said previously, this was an exchange of prisoners during the
16 conflict. These were Croatian prisoners exchanged for Serbian prisoners
17 and they were crossing over to the Croatian territory. Branimir Glavas
18 welcomed them with the following words, "Feel free to say that you are
19 Ustashas because indeed you are and you are now back home. You are in
20 your own state."
21 Q. Did you see this footage for the first time or were you able to
22 see it sometime earlier?
23 A. Yes, I had seen it before.
24 Q. Where was it broadcast?
25 A. On many TV programmes. On both Croatian and the RTS television,
1 one could see this footage often, and this precedes my speech we discussed
2 that occurred in 1993. This is a high Croatian official who confirmed
3 that, indeed, they were Ustashas.
4 Q. Do you know what is happening in Croatia with Mr. Glavas today?
5 A. As far as I know, there is a trial underway in Zagreb relating to
6 the killings of Serbs in the Osijek region, because he was in charge in
7 that area.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to
10 have this video footage tendered into evidence, please.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: The video footage is admitted into evidence. May
12 it please be given an exhibit number.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will become Exhibit number 889.
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. We do not need to
15 see the footage any more.
16 Q. During yesterday's cross-examination, my learned friend from the
17 Prosecution showed you a document that is one page of the Vreme magazine
18 and the date in the lower left-hand corner was the 27th of January 1992.
19 On that page, you see the text that Jovan Raskovic talked about. There is
20 one sentence, "I feel responsible because I carried out preparations for
21 the war even though I did not do that voluntarily." Do you recall that
22 one sentence?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Could we look at this page of text on the monitor, please? This
25 is Exhibit 879.
1 Do you recognise this text?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. In the right-hand column, there is a second photograph. It shows
4 a man with a beard. Do you recognise that man?
5 A. Yes. That is academician Jovan Raskovic.
6 Q. Thank you. On this page, please look at the first column to the
7 left. We don't see all of it. Can we see the beginning of the left
8 column and also this photograph? That is right. Could you please zoom in
9 a little bit of the -- on the photograph that is in the left-hand column?
10 The text is in B/C/S. We do not have a translation.
11 Mr. Licina, could you please tell us what it says above this
12 photograph? And what it says beneath the photograph?
13 A. Below the photograph it says, "Marko Perkovic Thompson, Croatian
14 guard and composer."
15 Q. Did you hear of such a person?
16 A. Yes, I've heard about Thompson. I've heard of him, yes.
17 Q. Who is he and what is he wearing? Could you please describe that?
18 A. He's wearing a uniform. His nickname, Thompson, is something that
19 he got because of the weapon that you can see him carrying in his arm.
20 Q. Since we don't all have to know what a Thompson is, could you
21 please tell us what is a Thompson?
22 A. Thompson is an automatic weapon. It's an automatic rifle. It's a
23 little bit old in manufacture.
24 Q. Could we now look at the photograph -- the text underneath the
25 photograph, please? Thank you. We can stop here. Could you please read
1 the title in quotes, in the bold letters?
2 A. "Fighter from Cavoglava."
3 Q. And what does this title indicate to you?
4 A. This is a term that was used for Ustasha soldiers, Bojovniks in
5 World War II.
6 Q. Thank you very much. Underneath that text, there is the first
7 line of text. Could you please read that?
8 A. The first line reads, "za dom -- spremni," "ready for the
10 Q. Can you please tell us if you've heard of that expression and what
11 does it mean?
12 A. The expression, "za dom -- spremni," is a term used by Croatian
13 Ustashas. It was a greeting, just like German Nazis greeted one another
14 with "Heil Hitler," the Croatian Ustashas greeted one another by using the
15 term, "za dom -- spremni."
16 Q. Underneath that text, "za dom -- spremni," about the middle of the
17 text, there is a piece of text that says, "Thompson is hitting and also
18 the Kalashnikov." Is this a poem?
19 A. Yes, this is a poem because he's a poet of sorts and it says, [No
21 THE INTERPRETER: It is a little bit hard to translate this poem
22 by sight.
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Could you please explain to us what this band of Chetniks is and
25 what is this justice that's going to get to them, to Serbia?
1 A. Cavoglava is an area that is very close to the RSK, and in this
2 text, the locations of Baljci and Mirlovici are being mentioned. These
3 are actually Serbian last names that bordered on this territory, so he's
4 sending a message from the border areas to Serbs and he's talking about
5 their closest neighbours.
6 Q. Could you please read the part of the poem above that so that it's
7 a little bit closer, so that we understand a little bit more what it says?
8 A. The witness quotes the poem in Croatian.
9 Q. And then it says we will reach you, even in Serbia. Could you
10 please read the very end of this text? Can we look at the end of this
11 text that is in the text box. The text is in parentheses.
12 A. The poem Bojovnik from Cavoglava last week was declared as the
13 most popular patriotic number in Croatia last week on the Croatian radio
14 programme, the Split Studio.
15 Q. Thank you. I would like to have this document, this column,
16 marked with a separate number and could we please tender that as an
17 exhibit? We will get a translation of this poem and I would like to seek
18 the Chamber's understanding. I didn't have too much time and there were a
19 lot of documents I had to cover stemming from the cross-examination.
20 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, this whole document is in. If they want
21 to certainly no problem to translate -- for them to get a translation of
22 the poem part as well as we will get the translation of the other part but
23 I don't think it needs to be a separate exhibit unless the Chamber feels
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you happy with that arrangement?
1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. This is logical,
2 Your Honours. Yes, I agree. I actually forgot that this document has
3 already been tendered. It's fine, thank you very much, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Maybe what could be done is to circle that poem and
5 save it now this time with the poem circled just to remind ourselves that
6 that's one of the things that needs to be translated. Does that make
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if we are circling
9 this part of the text and in order to avoid misunderstanding, maybe it
10 would be good then to have that as a separate exhibit, the circled text,
11 because below that there is also the date as well as the indication which
12 magazine this was published in and so on.
13 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And may I take the opportunity to ask about the
14 nature of this magazine? What kind of magazine is it and where was it
15 published? Can you explain that? Can you explain that, Witness?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could we scroll this up a little
17 bit? If I'm not mistaken -- can we scroll up? I think this is the
18 magazine Vreme. This is a Belgrade weekly. Can I just look at the date,
19 please? Can you scroll up, please? Yes, the 27th of January 1992.
20 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you very much.
21 Please, Mr. Milovancevic.
22 MR. BLACK: If it's of assistance, Your Honour, maybe the easiest
23 way is the Prosecution -- we will ask for a translation of all the text on
24 this page and that way this could just stay in as one exhibit as it is now
25 and we'll have a translation of all the words on the entire page. If
1 that's easiest. I just offer it as a possible solution but I'm happy with
2 whatever Your Honour prefers.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Excepting that the middle column has not been dealt
4 with in this Court.
5 MR. BLACK: Your Honours, we will have translated -- we could have
6 the whole page translated for completeness or we can have the column that
7 the Prosecution referred to as well as this entire box that contains the
8 poem. We can do that and it will just be excerpts from that page. If you
9 prefer, the Prosecution will request that translation.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Okay. So be it. So we can
11 get the document off the screen now without giving it any exhibit number.
12 JUDGE HOEPFEL: May I say I don't think we don't have a
13 translation of the right piece also.
14 MR. BLACK: That's right, Your Honour. It's been requested but
15 we'll modify the request so that it --
16 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I do need a clarification as well of the
17 transcript. At page 55, line 5 it says "the poem last week was declared
18 as the most popular patriotic number in Croatia last week on the Croatian
19 radio programme, the Split Studio." Is that the poem or the poet? "The
20 poem last week was declared as the most popular patriot."
21 THE INTERPRETER: It was the poem, the word "number" refers to the
22 poem, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Does that mean that the poem is a patriot?
24 THE INTERPRETER: Patriotic poem.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
1 You may indeed proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
2 I beg your pardon. Would that be a convenient moment? Thank you
3 very much.
4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm planning to move to a
5 different topic any way, Your Honour, so this is a good time for a break.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. We will then take a break and
7 come back at half past 12.00. Court adjourned.
8 --- Recess taken at 12.00 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Milovancevic.
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Mr. Licina, we are going to move to another topic that was covered
13 by the Prosecutor. Do you recall that my learned friend from the
14 Prosecution asked you about your stay in Zagreb at the Assembly of the
15 Republic of Croatia in your capacity as a deputy in late August 1990?
16 A. Yes, I remember that.
17 Q. Do you remember that he showed you newspaper report referring to
18 your participation in the work of that assembly session and that he showed
19 you the text that you actually -- that was your address, that related to
20 the Serbian and Croatian people?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Could we look at Exhibit 880 on our monitors, please? Until we
23 see the text, can you please just listen? I'm going to remind you that
24 this text was published in the Croatian newspaper, Vjesnik, on Saturday
25 the 25th of August 1990. Can you tell us, Vjesnik, where is that
2 A. Vjesnik is a Zagreb daily. It's published in Zagreb.
3 Q. I have not turned my monitor on and I'm waiting for the text to
4 come on now. I understand that. You can see this text in front of you
5 now, the heading -- can you please read the heading above the -- this is
6 the subheading.
7 A. "Extraordinary session of the Croatian assembly."
8 Q. The third vertical column from the left to the right contains the
9 text showed to you by the Prosecutor; is that correct?
10 A. Yes, but could we please zoom in on that part?
11 Q. It's the middle part of that column. Excellent, excellent.
12 A. The subheading is opposition as an operetta set.
13 Q. Now you are talking about the political entities, the Croatian and
14 Serbian people as political peoples. Could you please read the last
15 sentence of this section in the middle column? You read the part that
16 related to the Croatian and Serbian political people, that they formed a
17 little bit later according to Starcevic's political projects. Could you
18 please read the continuation of that sentence?
19 A. "The Serbian political people should have the same right as the
20 Croatian people in this republic," and then in these -- in the parentheses
21 it says, "assembly deputies began the Serbian political people should have
22 the same right as the Croatian people in this state," and then in
23 parentheses it says, "the assembly members began to boo and whistle
24 following these remarks."
25 Q. Could you please tell me if that is what you said on that
2 A. Yes. This quote has been correctly conveyed. It's exactly what I
4 Q. And was it correctly reported that you, as a member of the
5 Croatian assembly, a Croatian deputy, you were booed by the Croatian
6 assembly members?
7 A. Yes, that is correct. Also, the same experience, my colleague
8 Radoslav Tanga had the same experience in September when a briefcase was
9 actually thrown at him in the assembly.
10 Q. I'm going to ask you now to read the next paragraph. It begins
11 with the subtitle, "Night refugee columns recall war." Could you please
12 read this text to the end, that is on this page?
13 A. Could you please scroll the text up?
14 Q. And could we also zoom in on the end of the third column? Can you
15 scroll in the opposite direction? Scroll down, please. Could you read
16 that part of the text?
17 A. From my name onwards?
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. "Ratko Licina went on to say that the Serbian political people
20 would have all the rights if this republic were historical and democratic.
21 However, it's neither historical nor democratic. If anybody attacked
22 democracy in these territories of ours, then that would be the state with
23 all of its police states. The democratic right of the national Serbian
24 plebiscite was -- in response to that there was the force of the state
25 apparatus directed at it."
1 Q. All right. We will no longer be needing to read any more from the
3 Did you actually say what you are allegedly quoted as having said
4 here, Mr. Licina?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. When you were speaking at the assembly, as a deputy of that
7 assembly, is that -- were you speaking the truth then?
8 A. Yes, I was.
9 Q. That was on the 25th of July 1990. Were there any reactions to
10 your speech by the Croatian parliament or maybe other authorities in terms
11 of finding a solution to the problem?
12 A. The Croatian authorities did not attempt to solve any problems.
13 Problems, on the contrary, continued to grow and as for reactions in the
14 Croatian parliament itself, they were described here and this went on
15 throughout my speech.
16 Q. Mr. Licina, does this sentence mean anything to you, I am happy
17 with that my wife is neither a Serb nor a Jew?
18 A. I am familiar with the sentence. It was uttered by Franjo
20 Q. Can you tell us approximately when he uttered it and what capacity
21 he had at the time?
22 A. I think he was already elected at that time as president of the
23 Republic of Croatia, the then socialist Republic of Croatia.
24 Q. My learned friend from the Prosecution asked you several times
25 whether the Serb people in Croatia had their fears stoked by the new
1 Croatian authorities.
2 A. Their fears were stoked by the Croatian authorities with their
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Hold it. Mr. Black?
5 MR. BLACK: I apologise, Your Honour, I don't know if it's an
6 objection. I think it may be an interpretation error. I'm not sure --
7 what we heard, what was translated into English, is that the Serb people
8 in Croatia had their fears stoked by the new Croatian authorities.
9 Perhaps counsel said Serbian authorities. If he said Croatian
10 authorities, then that -- I certainly didn't ask him that. That would
11 misstate the record.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic? Is it Croatian authorities or
13 Serbian authorities?
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just a brief
15 remark. We -- can we remove this text from the screen. I asked whether
16 the then Serbian authorities stoked the fears of the Serb population,
17 their fears from the Ustasha movement and the new Croatian authorities.
18 Q. Did Serbian authorities -- did anything to inflame the Serb
20 A. The Serbian authorities did not stoke the fears of the population.
21 They just portrayed the political developments exactly as they happened,
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you. I
24 have finished with my redirect. I have no further questions for
25 Mr. Licina.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic.
2 Questioned by the Court:
3 JUDGE HOEPFEL: As long as we have this document on the screen,
4 may I, Mr. Licina, ask you about the last paragraph?
5 A. I'm sorry, it's no longer on my screen, if we can put it back.
6 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Then ask what you said and -- so I can read that.
7 You talked about the referendum and the plebiscite of the Serbian people
8 in the Krajina showed, it says, you said, according to this document that
9 the Serbs in Croatia are both for Croatia and for Yugoslavia. Democracy
10 allows various options. Can you explain --
11 A. I think that's somewhere at the bottom of the page, which is not
12 shown on the screen. It's towards the end of the whole speech, I believe.
13 JUDGE HOEPFEL: It was -- in your concluding remarks you said
14 that. Could you comment in a short way? Did this refer also to what
15 originally in the assembly of Srb, the declaration said? Was it also
16 originally, according to the declaration of Srb, one of the options for
17 the political future of the Serbs in Croatia, to have a -- to live in a
18 common state with the Serbs within the borders of the former socialist
19 Republic of Croatia?
20 A. Yes, Your Honour. The fact is that we were working for the
21 survival of the federation and, failing that, we advocated only a form of
22 cultural autonomy. If there should be a rearrangement of the state then
23 we would have wanted a greater degree of autonomy. I have already stated
24 in this speech that we were both working for Croatia and for Yugoslavia
25 because at that time Croatia was a state of both the Croatian and the Serb
2 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes, but we discussed that already yesterday. Now
3 you expressed again something like a preference between these two options,
4 a federation and confederation. You remember yesterday? But as you said
5 it in the Croatian parliament and, as I understand it from the declaration
6 of Srb, these were two equal options, separate, independent state of
7 Croatia within the borders of the socialist Republic of Croatia and from
8 the Yugoslavia federation. Do I understand that correctly?
9 A. No. We were talking about the attitude of Serbs in Croatia
10 towards the state of Croatia and how that would change in various options
11 of the resolution of the crisis. If the state should remain a federation,
12 we wanted cultural autonomy. If it is a confederation, we wanted
13 territorial autonomy. And in case of secession, complete secession, then
14 we wanted equal rights in terms of self-determination, as the Croats had.
15 JUDGE HOEPFEL: That is now a complicated sentence. In case of
16 separation, we -- as you said that also in the parliament, you wanted the
17 same rights as the Croats but not in terms of self-determination. Leaving
18 that apart, the right to a secession, don't the Croats enjoy the same
19 rights as the Serbs enjoy? Don't they enjoy the same rights as the Croats
20 within the state of Croatia, under the Croatian constitution of December
22 A. Under the constitution of December 1990, the Serbs no longer had
23 the same rights. The only ones who had sovereignty vested in them were
24 the Croats, the Croatian nation, because the new constitution defined
25 Croatia as the state of the Croatian people. In all the prior
1 constitutions, on the other hand, it stated that Croatia was a state of
2 the Croatian people and the Serbian people in Croatia.
3 JUDGE HOEPFEL: May I ask you, you stated in this new Croatian
4 constitution, the Serbs were and are regarded a minority, not a nation.
5 Is this your interpretation or is it expressed in the said constitution,
6 that Croats -- that the Serbs are called a minority?
7 A. In that constitution, it is clearly stated that Croatia is a state
8 of the Croatian people, full stop.
9 JUDGE HOEPFEL: It doesn't mention --
10 A. Serbs as such are not mentioned.
11 JUDGE HOEPFEL: You think they are not mentioned at all, you want
12 to say? They are also not mentioned as a minority or as a nation?
13 A. No. In that provision, in that paragraph, Serbs are not mentioned
14 at all.
15 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Maybe in another paragraph or another provision,
16 but that doesn't import right now or just a general explanation, please.
17 Are the Serbs regarded as a minority, expressly, in the constitution?
18 A. Serbs are not referred to anywhere, Serbs as such. Only Croats
19 are mentioned as a constituent nation, nothing else.
20 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
21 A. When minorities are dealt with, there is no reference to them
23 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. In your studies in Zagreb, when you
24 studied economy, economics, did you have law classes as well?
25 A. As for a course in law, there was only one subject in the
1 curriculum but that was back in secondary school.
2 JUDGE HOEPFEL: No, I didn't talk of the secondary school but of
3 the university study of economics. Do I understand you correctly, you
4 didn't have any legal subjects?
5 A. No, no.
6 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Okay. So I've finished that point. May I go back
7 to that constitutional issues but not in a too technical way? As to the
8 former constitutional order of the socialist Republic of Croatia, are you,
9 Mr. Licina, aware of how the coat of arms of this former socialist
10 Republic of Croatia looked like? You commented today in the
11 re-examination on the flag but let's talk about the coat of arms. We saw
12 it on a document on Monday. It was the document legitimising your party,
13 and on the upper left corner there was this coat of arms but it was very
14 small and black and white only. So in the B/C/S original, we could see it
15 but could you explain a little better how this coat of arms looked like?
16 A. The coat of arms of the socialist Republic of Croatia, if I
17 remember well, was edged with wheat and at the top there was a
18 five-pointed star, and in the middle, there was a picture of this Croatian
19 chequerboard emerging from the sea. It's just the layout of red and white
20 spots. It's not the same as the recent chequerboard flag, as the Ustasha
21 chequerboard flag.
22 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And the chequerboard flag of today of the Republic
23 of Croatia, is it the layout of the socialist republic's chequerboard
24 symbol or of the Ustasha symbol?
25 A. The current layout is the same as in the one of the socialist
1 republic. But the general appearance is different.
2 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you very much. And the origin, can you tell
3 us a little bit about the origin of this chequerboard symbol. That was
4 not in the Ustasha time, I suppose, so since when, to your knowledge, has
5 this chequerboard symbol in history been used?
6 A. Your Honours, I am not a historian by training and I cannot give
7 you that information. I know that the chequerboard appeared also in some
8 form in the coat of arms of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia before the Second
9 World War. It was one of the coat of arms. Whether it appeared in later
10 periods, I don't know. I really can't tell you about things I don't know
11 anything about.
12 JUDGE HOEPFEL: I have one question again to the referendum of
13 August 1990. You said this referendum was held, I quote, "In all Serb
14 municipalities where Serbs were in power." But then you also mentioned
15 large cities, in particular Zagreb, and that Serbs were being prevented by
16 force from voting. So who held actually this referendum, and in what
17 parts of Croatia?
18 A. That's correct. The referendum was declared. In fact it was a
19 public vote, not a referendum. It was declared on the whole territory of
20 Croatia, in all places where we were physically able to conduct it, in
21 places where Serbs were a majority it was organised by municipalities, and
22 the Serbian Democratic Party or some Serbian societies, cultural
23 societies, organised it in places where Serbs were a minority. It was
24 organised in so-called urban areas of Croatia where Serbs were in the same
25 numbers as in Krajina. According to our figures there were around 100.000
1 Serbs in the area of Zagreb alone.
2 JUDGE HOEPFEL: I asked you who held this referendum or this
3 initiative, however we want to call it. So it's the Serbian Democratic
4 Party who held that? Is that true?
5 A. No. The referendum was declared by the Serbian National Council.
6 JUDGE HOEPFEL: So it was declared by the Serbian National
7 Council, to be held in all Croatia?
8 A. Yes.
9 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Well, I'm sure that that was then a little
10 difficult to organise that in places outside the SAO, but -- and then what
11 would you regard it, in your eyes, the legal nature of this referendum?
12 And to whom, lastly, was it addressed?
13 A. Your Honour, as I said earlier, I think it was back in
14 examination-in-chief, the purpose was to show the will of the Serbian
15 people. At the time Croatian authorities were trying to portray it as the
16 opinion of only a minority of Serbs as represented by five MPs in the
17 assembly. Our intent was to show that the majority of Serb people in
18 Croatia supported that position, and the public vote did indeed show it.
19 JUDGE HOEPFEL: To whom did you want to show that? I asked you,
20 to whom was it addressed. To whom did you want to show that?
21 A. To everybody, the Croatian authorities, the international public,
22 everybody. A certain crisis had started. It was already underway. And
23 what was in issue was whether it was just a minority within the Serbian
24 population that held that view, and the public vote or the referendum
25 showed that it was the position of the majority of the Serbian people in
2 JUDGE HOEPFEL: What exactly do you mean was the opinion of the
3 majority of the Serbs in Croatia?
4 A. With this public vote of the 19th of August, the Serbian people
5 voted for Serbian sovereignty and Serbian autonomy, in the degree
6 discussed before.
7 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. And I suppose you presented this
8 result also to the parliament in Zagreb in a formal way, or did you just
9 mention it in this speech we saw?
10 A. Yes. Those figures were presented in the Croatian assembly as
12 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Was it addressed to the Serbian Assembly -- to the
13 Croatian Assembly as a petition or whatever or what was the legal nature
14 in relation to the Croatian parliament?
15 A. I can't remember how that technical arrangement was made, how it
16 was practically done, but -- I can't tell you now, but I know that the
17 Croatian assembly was informed about this public vote.
18 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And then if I remember correctly, you said you
19 went to this session of the assembly alone, without the other deputies of
20 your party; is that correct? And how many of the deputies again were of
21 your party members of the parliament?
22 A. Five.
23 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Why didn't all of the five go there? Could you
24 summarise the reasons for that?
25 A. As far as I remember, some people were afraid to go there.
1 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Okay. And now, as to your function as a deputy in
2 the Croatian parliament, how long did you -- have you been this
3 representative, technically?
4 A. Technically, formally speaking, until the next elections in
5 Croatia. I don't remember when they were held because we no longer
6 participated but my last actual attend dance was in December of 1990.
7 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Did you receive also some salary throughout that
9 A. I don't think so. Later on I began receiving salary but not the
10 salary per se but some expenses were paid out, since we came infrequently.
11 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. And now, as a last question, may I ask
12 you, how did you get to know the accused, Mr. Milan Martic?
13 A. As far as I can remember, I met President Martic soon after I went
14 to the parliament. We met several days later in Knin, and that's when we
15 were introduced to each other.
16 JUDGE HOEPFEL: So when about, in which month of which year?
17 A. It was at the end of August or in early September 1990.
18 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Licina.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Judge.
21 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Just a few questions. Some of them will touch
22 on the same area as Judge Hoepfel has been questioning you in respect of,
23 Mr. Licina. But for my education, you mentioned being a deputy in the
24 assembly. What exactly is this office, a deputy what?
25 A. Your Honour, I'm not clear who you have in mind or which assembly
1 exactly because I was a deputy with several.
2 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: In the Croatian assembly. You were a member and
3 you were -- the term "deputy" is also referred to. Now, I can
4 understand "member" but "deputy"? What functions would a deputy perform?
5 I'm interested to know.
6 A. In the Croatian parliament, I was elected a deputy, or a member.
7 A member of one of the three councils of the parliament, the municipal
8 council, the council of municipalities and another two. I was elected a
9 member to the Croatian parliament within that council of municipalities
10 for the municipality of Gracac. That was the only title I had in the
11 parliament, the only function.
12 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Very well. Thank you. And you have stated that
13 in the Croatian constitution, the new Croatian constitutions --
14 constitution, rather, Serbs were not specifically referred to anywhere; is
15 that correct? That is your evidence?
16 A. Yes.
17 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: What I would like to find out from you, you have
18 said you're not a lawyer, you didn't study law, but you have given
19 evidence in relation to the constitution, so I'd like to find this out
20 from you: Is there anything in the constitution that prevents an
21 interpretation that where the word "Croatia" or "Croatian" is spoken of,
22 it does not include persons of all ethnicities, of all ethnic groups, that
23 is Croatians as well as Serbs, and any other ethnic groups? That's what I
24 want to find out from you, you having said that Serbs are not specifically
25 referred to.
1 A. Yes, Your Honour. In order to have something put the way you put
2 it, then it should have been stated that the Croatian state was the state
3 of Croatian citizens. That would have been the correct way. But the way
4 it was formulated, as a matter of fact, was that the Croatian state is the
5 state of the Croatian people. Therefore, the first interpretation should
6 have included Croatian citizens.
7 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: So your understanding of the word "people" is
8 that it would exclusively mean persons who were ethnic Croats? Is that
9 correct? That's what you're saying?
10 A. Yes. Otherwise it should have been put, "the citizens of
12 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: All right. Thank you very much. No further
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just take off exactly from where
15 Judge Nosworthy left off, would the term "Croatian people" also not refer
16 to the people of Croatia?
17 A. No. Explicitly it is put the way that it is actually the Croatian
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what is the difference between Croatian people
20 and the people of Croatia, in meaning?
21 A. It should read, "The citizens of Croatia." If we say Croatian
22 people that means only ethnic Croats.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Please try to focus on my question. I know what
24 you say it should read. My question to you is, what is the substantive
25 difference between Croatian people and people of Croatia? Even
1 linguistically, what is the difference?
2 A. When we talk about Croat people, these are ethnic Croats, and the
3 people of Croatia need not be only from the -- from within Croatia,
4 whereas the people of Croatia live within the boundaries of Croatia.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Licina, please listen to my question. I'm not
6 talking about Croat people. I'm talking about Croatian people and the
7 people of Croatia. What is the difference between those two terms?
8 A. In the then Serbo-Croat language, the term "Croatian people" must
9 be ethnic Croatian, and the citizens of Croatia or the people of Croatia
10 includes everyone living in Croatia. This is as good as I can put it in
11 linguistic terms, although this is my interpretation of it.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you for your answer.
13 In your evidence, and I think this was -- it may have been
14 during -- no, it was during your evidence-in-chief, you said that
15 barricades were a logical defensive measure and hence they threatened
16 nobody. You remember that?
17 A. Yes.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: And do you remember that you were saying that
19 these -- you were not party to the establishment of these barricades
20 because they sprung in an unorganised fashion by civilian people. When
21 you nod, it is not recorded on the transcript that you are answering, so
22 if you nod, please say something also to indicate your nod.
23 A. Your Honour, I was waiting for the interpretation. As I said, we
24 didn't participate in the setting up of barricades. They simply sprang
25 up. As for myself, I returned from the -- from Zagreb at the time by
1 which the barricades had already sprung up.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that. Okay. Now, my question to you,
3 then, is: If you didn't participate and they were not organised
4 officially, how do you know that they were established with a defensive
6 A. I know that because at that time I resided there. I had regular
7 contact with the people there. I knew how they felt, and it was clear to
8 me why they put up those barricades. They were created out of fear, as a
9 way of protection against a possible attack against those areas.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: And at that time, when these people did that, as
11 you say it was not organised by the authorities, obviously they were
12 taking the law into their hands, were they not?
13 A. I wouldn't exactly describe that as such. It was a reaction out
14 of fear but certainly one could interpret it the way you did.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah, but are you saying that, if I were a citizen
16 of The Hague I could just go outside and start stopping cars without
17 sanction from the local authorities to do so? And that would not be seen
18 as illegal?
19 A. I see it in a different way. A citizen of The Hague -- of course,
20 the authorities should sanction any such behaviour in which anyone puts up
21 a barricade but the context was completely different there and then, in
22 terms of security and politics. It is a very different context from the
23 one that you've just described, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: We can go back to that context. Who -- who, in a
25 state, is responsible for the security of the citizens, the individual
1 members of the citizen or the individual members of the citizen -- I beg
2 your pardon, individual members of the state or is it them through
3 governmental authorities?
4 A. Of course authorities are responsible but, in this case, the
5 authorities behaved in an opportune way.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Why? Why did they behave in that way?
7 A. I had the Croatian authorities in mind. They became -- they
8 behaved adventuristically. They started disarming police stations and
9 this caused unrest. It was a gung-ho --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm having in mind the Krajina authorities, the SAO
11 Krajina authorities. They are in control of this area. People are -- the
12 citizens are just mushrooming with blockades, and they don't seem to be
13 taking any action to stop this apparently illegal action.
14 A. Your Honour, at that time there was no Krajina. It was the 17th
15 of August and the SAO Krajina was formed on the 19th of December. There
16 was no Krajina. There were only Serbian municipalities.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Now, let's then go to -- sorry. You
18 say this was in August, 17th of August. You testified that -- in terms of
19 Exhibit 141, that that -- the declaration by the Serb people on their
20 sovereignty and autonomy was adopted at an assembly held in Srb on the
21 25th of July 1990, am I right? From that day on, based on that
22 declaration, how did the Serbian people regard the government to be run in
23 the area where they declared their autonomy and sovereignty?
24 A. The Serb Assembly in Srb was a great national rally. It was used
25 to found the Serb National Council as its executive body. However, at
1 that time, Krajina wasn't marked off and wasn't carved out of Croatia.
2 This was only to declare the will of the Serbian people as regards their
3 sovereignty and autonomy. And the other thing happened some 20 days
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: My question still stands: How did the Serbian
6 people then anticipate government to be run in the area where they have
7 declared their sovereignty and autonomy, whether or not that area is
8 designated by a name, SAO Krajina, or not? But where are they having this
9 sovereignty and where are they having this autonomy? It cannot be in the
10 air, can it?
11 A. The proclamation or the declaration defined the Serb people as a
12 sovereign people in the entire territory of the Republic of Croatia. As
13 of the moment when the central republican authorities introduced any
14 changes, as of that moment, the area was to be defined. But at that time,
15 the Republic of Croatia was still part of the Socialist Federal Republic
16 of Yugoslavia.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: There is something I do not understand. You say
18 the proclamation defined the Serb people as a sovereign people in the
19 entire territory of the Republic of Croatia. I thought it was also your
20 evidence that your declaration included a rejection of the constitutional
21 amendments by the Croatian parliament. Am I right? You stuck to the old
22 constitution and not the new one.
23 A. You're correct. Until then, the Serbian people were a sovereign
24 people. With the new laws in Croatia and the new amendments to the
25 constitution, everything was moving along the line of taking that
1 sovereign status away from the Serb people. At the assembly in Srb, the
2 Serbian people declared their sovereignty and they rejected such policies
3 and attitude of Croatia. We still abided by the positive regulations and
4 laws of Croatia but we rejected those which denied our sovereignty.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Therefore, you saw yourself having a certain set of
6 rules that governed the areas where the Serb people were staying in
7 Croatia, which rules were distinct from the rules set up by the Croatian
8 parliament, is that not so? When I talk of rules, I'm talking of laws of
9 the government.
10 A. What you say is correct only to the extent in which the Croatian
11 state attempted to take away our right to be sovereign. We wanted to
12 retain that and it was our right to be a sovereign people within that
13 republic. We simply reacted after some political moves by Croatia. Their
14 moves came first.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I invite you once again to listen closely to my
16 question and let's take it one step at a time. Let's not go back once we
17 have passed the stage. I understand that you are saying the Serbs had
18 problems with the way the Croats were taking their rights away. I'm
19 saying, as a reaction to that, you had an assembly on the 25th of July
20 1990 in Srb. You made a declaration of autonomy and sovereignty, and that
21 declaration rejected the newly amended constitution of Croatia. Isn't it
23 A. The declaration rejected the amendments and not the constitution
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's what I mean. Fine. To the extent that you
1 do not subordinate the Serb people to the newly amended constitution, as
2 amended, to that extent, you then had to replace the rejected constitution
3 with a set of rules that governed the Serbs.
4 A. We applied the laws that were in place until that moment, and the
5 constitution, and we chose not to implement the newly adopted amendments.
6 So we focused on the very amendments and certain pieces of legislation.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: But to the extent that you adopted the law that was
8 applicable up to that stage, it was a law as the Serb people have adopted
9 it. It's now going to be implemented by the Serb people, not by the Croat
10 people, because some other parts of the Croat law the Serb people don't
11 want. Am I right?
12 A. You are right. We didn't want to deny the Croatian people their
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sure. Now, if I am right, and it means that where
15 the Serb people were, the laws were being implemented by the Serb people,
16 whether it is the acceptable part of the Croatian constitution or the
17 replacement of the rejected part, that law is now being implemented by the
18 Serbs - is that not so? - because they are now sovereign and autonomous of
19 the Croatian government.
20 A. The Serb people were sovereign all along. Through this
21 declaration we mainly tried to preserve our sovereignty.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand all that, but now that you have
23 preserved it by way of this declaration you now implement your own laws.
24 Am I right? It's a very simple question, Mr. Licina.
25 A. At the time we did not put any laws into force. The only document
1 that came out of that was the declaration. We didn't pass any new laws
2 between the 25th of July and the 17th of August 1990. It was only the
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Licina, I understand that. All I'm saying is
5 that whatever laws were applicable in the area occupied by the Serbs,
6 those laws from the 25th of July 1990, were now being implemented by the
7 Serb people. Is that correct or is that not correct? I'm asking you a
8 question. I would like you to clear me here.
9 A. That is correct. We only chose to an abide by the old affirmative
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, if that is correct that these laws, whatever
12 the laws were where they were, were being implemented by the Serb people,
13 my question is: When the citizens of these areas that are occupied by the
14 Serbs and those citizens who were not in control decide to set up
15 barricades, what did the implementers of the Serbian law in those areas
16 then do about this apparent illegal activity on the ground?
17 A. Your Honour, at that time, there were no Serb institutions in
18 place. They were in the process of formation. They started existing
19 basically as of December. I understand the gist of your question, but
20 this was a turbulent time and some things were probably illegal, whereas
21 others were legal, but this was quite a specific situation. That's what
22 I'm trying to explain.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. I hear what you say.
24 Now, at that time, before you established legal institutions and
25 having declared and reaffirmed your sovereignty and autonomy, who took
1 responsibility for law and order in these areas where the Serbs were
2 living? That is between the 25th of July 1990 and December when you
3 established some institutions. Who was taking responsibilities for the
4 law at that time?
5 A. At the time, the local authorities were responsible, the
6 authorities in municipalities.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: And who were the local authorities in
9 A. Yes. To a certain degree, but also the Croatian authorities were
10 responsible. There was a sort of joint, co-responsibility there.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: But you -- the assembly had rejected the Croatians
12 now. You are now -- have asserted your own autonomy and your sovereignty.
13 Now, the local municipalities, the local authorities that you referred to
14 as municipalities, these were not the authorities that set up the
15 barricades, according to your evidence; is that correct?
16 A. Yes, you are right.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: And these local municipalities, am I right to
18 venture that they were in the control of Serbs, particularly these
19 municipalities that finally formed the SAO Krajina, because this is where
20 the barricades, I suppose, were established?
21 A. Your Honour, what you are explaining to me actually it's a matter
22 of the formation of dual authorities. So you're setting off from the 19th
23 of December. On the 19th of December, the SAO Krajina is forming its
24 authorities. In December the Republic of Croatia adopts its constitution
25 without the Serbs. Up until that time the constitution still included
1 Serbs. So there was no need for the Serbs not to recognise such a
2 Croatia. But the declaration of the assembly in Srb proclaimed that if
3 any constitutional changes took place leading to an eventual loss of
4 constitutivity, then the amendments to the constitution would mean that
5 there was a loss of sovereignty. Certain amendments did not actually
6 imply a loss of sovereignty. But this loss of sovereignty did take effect
7 after December.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: I plead with you. Let us stay consistent. You
9 have said to me those were turbulent times and the context was different,
10 it couldn't be the same as in The Hague. You have said to me that because
11 of that turbulence, things didn't always go right. Now, surely, the
12 fundamental cause of the turbulence here, or the fundamental result of the
13 turbulence, is that the Serb population is rejecting any authority by the
14 Croat government and, therefore, it becomes inconceivable to expect that
15 the Serb people would accept any authority by the Croatian government.
16 You've walked out of their parliament. You don't want them. You've
17 rejected them. Now, somebody must fill the vacuum. Now there is a
18 governmental vacuum between the 25th of July 1990 and the 5th of December
19 when you adopt your institution, physically, on the ground. Somebody must
20 take responsibility for law and order in the areas that are controlled by
21 the Serbs now, where the Serbs have now reaffirmed their sovereignty and
22 autonomy. Now, you've told me it's the municipalities. It cannot -- you
23 can't reaffirm your sovereignty and autonomy and still expect joint rule
24 from the person that you are affirming yourself against. I expect that in
25 the spirit of this affirmation, you would assert your authority over the
1 area that you rule. Isn't that logical? Isn't that consistent with
2 your -- the whole initiative?
3 A. Your Honour, I left the Croatian assembly on the 24th of December
4 1990, the day before the constitution of Croatia was adopted. Up until
5 that time, Croatia was a state of both the Croatian and the Serbian
6 people. With the adoption of the constitution in December 1990, it
7 definitely ceases to be a state of the Serbian people. The declaration
8 from the Srb assembly declared that if this were to take place, then Serbs
9 would form their own autonomy. They did not form their own autonomy until
10 the 19th of December, on the eve of the adoption of the new Croatian
11 constitution. Up until that time, there was no autonomy. Up until that
12 time, in accordance with that proclamation the Serbs had cultural
13 autonomy, as we called it. That was the aspiration that we are in favour
14 of our own script, our own language, and so on. Up until that time we did
15 not wish to break off from Croatia. But we said that if there was to be a
16 separation, then there would be autonomy. If Croatia were to adopt a
17 constitution in which the Serbs would not be a constituent people, then
18 the Serbs would in the territorial sense, declare autonomy.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are moving far away from my question. Let me
20 try and put the question differently. How did you expect the Croatian
21 authorities to come and maintain law and order in an area occupied by a
22 Serb population that has declared itself, on the 25th of July 1990, to be
23 rejecting the very laws that the Croatian authorities would have to
24 implement in this area of the Serbs?
25 A. Your Honour, the declaration from the Srb assembly was not
1 something whereby the Serb people declared themselves as something. They
2 just affirmed something that already was in existence, the autonomy. So
3 the Srb assembly declaration states that in the event of the new Croatian
4 constitution not being the state of Serbian people as well, in that case,
5 Serbs would have their own autonomy. This is quite clear.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'll abandon that issue at this point and ask you
7 the next question.
8 Your evidence has been to the effect that Croatia could not decide
9 to secede from the SFRY without the consent of the Serbs, could not
10 legitimately do so without the consent of the Serbs who are in Croatia.
11 Is that a correct interpretation of your evidence?
12 A. Yes. The Serbian people is one of the two constituent peoples so
13 its agreement is required.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Therefore it was wrong in your interpretation of
15 the Croats to try to secede from the SFRY without the necessary consent of
16 the Serbs. Am I right?
17 A. No. We are not disputing the rights of the Croats as a people to
18 secede or to embark on self-determination. That is their right. We never
19 disputed the right of the Croatian people to self-determination. All we
20 were doing is seeking the same right for ourselves, nothing more.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, no. You don't understand. The Croatian people
22 want to take Croatia, the land, out of the federation of the Socialist
23 Republic of Yugoslavia. Am I right? Am I right?
24 A. Representatives of the Croatian authorities, yes.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: And in this country, this portion of land called
1 Croatia, there are also Serb people who are citizens of Croatia, and
2 without whose consent this decision to take Croatia out cannot
3 legitimately be taken, am I right?
4 A. Yes. You would have the same case in Belgium, for example.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: And this is so because both Serbs and Croats are
6 constituent nations within Croatia; is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: My question to you, then, is: How do the Serbs
9 establish an SAO Krajina without the consent of the Croats? You're doing
10 exactly the same thing that you are accusing the Croats of having done
11 vis-a-vis the SFRY. Why do you do it and not seek the consent of the
12 Croats to establish the SAO Krajina?
13 A. Your Honour, if it were to be that way, then we would be going
14 around in circles. The rights of one people and the other people both
15 exist, the right of the Serbian and the right of the Croatian people. We
16 are not disputing their rights. In that case, Croatia as such would need
17 to re-compose itself.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. That's the end of my
19 questions. We'll adjourn. We'll come back tomorrow morning. Tomorrow is
20 Friday. Is it in the morning?
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just one thing,
22 very briefly. Mr. Licina's departure has been postponed on a number of
23 times. The Victims and Witnesses Unit has postponed his flight twice
24 already. According to the information of the Defence team, Mr. Licina is
25 due to leave tomorrow afternoon. Since the Chamber has finished asking
1 its questions, I'm just going to say that the Defence has no questions
2 arising from the questions of the Judges. I don't know if the Prosecution
3 has questions arising from your questions. I apologise to the other side
4 but I'm just making a best attempt to complete the examination of the
5 witness today so that we would not need to postpone his departure
6 tomorrow. I'm just trying to save expenses for the Tribunal and just to
7 let you know what the situation is at the same time.
8 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I'm afraid I do have a few questions but
9 I don't think it would cause him to miss a flight in the afternoon, by any
10 stretch of the imagination.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Unfortunately the Prosecution has some questions to
12 put and unfortunately we can't go much further. Judge Nosworthy must be
13 back in court at quarter past two, unfortunately, so we've got to release
14 her. But as the Prosecution says, they will finish very early tomorrow.
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you. I'm
16 very grateful. I just wanted to inform you of the situation. That is
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Court adjourned. Come back tomorrow
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,
21 to be reconvened on Friday, the 18th day of August,
22 2006, at 9.00 a.m.