1 Monday, 16 October 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon, everybody. Out of an abundance of
6 caution, may I request that we move into private session?
7 JUDGE MOLOTO:
8 [Private session]
11 Pages 9412-9414 redacted. Private session.
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
14 Yes, Mr. Whiting.
15 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 I just would note two things. The first with respect to timing is
17 that, as we understand it, after this witness finishes, we've been told
18 about the next eight witnesses that are coming, and of those eight
19 witnesses, four of them we have been told will testify pursuant to 92 ter,
20 which is the old 89(F). It's -- it is, to be fair, the last four of the
21 eight, as I understand it. And of those four, there has been a motion
22 filed with respect to one, which the Court referenced, and we have also
23 received a statement - and I put "statement" in quotation marks for the
24 moment, and I'll explain that in a moment - of another of the four. And I
25 had understood that the Defence was going to file the motion with respect
1 to that other one yesterday but I'm not sure if that's been done. But
2 that leaves two outstanding in the next batch of eight and -- that we have
3 not received any kind of statement for, and there is an urgency to get
4 those statements because we need to prepare the cross-examinations of
5 those witnesses, particularly since these four are going to be one after
6 another, so it's going to be one cross-examination after another. So
7 obviously we will have to prepare ahead of time for that because we'll
8 have not a lot of time between witnesses to prepare. So just to underline
9 that point that we do need those statements.
10 The second point, the second thing I wanted to say, and we were
11 actually intending to file something written with the Trial Chamber about
12 this tomorrow and we may still do so, is the -- we have been talking about
13 witness statements and the rule, 92 ter, talks about witness statements,
14 which I understand to mean in the jurisprudence of the Tribunal generally
15 to mean a signed statement by the witness. What was attached to the
16 motion filed I believe Friday with respect to the one witness that Your
17 Honour referred to was not what I would call a witness statement. It was
18 not signed, there was no indication of the circumstances of how the
19 statement -- the information was taken, was there an interview, was it
20 written by the witness, there was none of that information, and that does
21 cause us a little bit after concern. It's just a long summary. And I
22 think we are entitled and the rule contemplates that we be provided a
23 written -- a signed statement of the witness with information about how
24 that statement was taken. Otherwise, it leaves us very much in the dark
25 about who wrote that statement and under what circumstances and how it
1 came to be. Fine, the witness comes into court and says, "Yes, this is
2 what I would say," but I think we need to know more than that about how
3 the statement was generated before we can deal with that witness.
4 So it seems to me that right from the start, when these statements
5 are provided to us, when they are filed, that information should be
6 included and they should be signed statements, and we should also receive
7 the B/C/S version of the statement, which I assume is the original. We
8 are getting these translations but not the B/C/S original. Whatever that
9 is, whether it was written by -- and we've heard various ways that these
10 statements have come into being, sometimes written by the witness
11 themselves, sometimes an interview by the investigator.
12 So I would make that point, and I don't know if it's necessary,
13 now that we've said it, to file something on it tomorrow, in response to
14 the first motion.
15 I also have another issue, a very brief issue to raise that's
16 completely unrelated, but I won't do that until we are finished with this
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, barring the point that you are making about
19 the statement being a signed statement, I'm not sure whether you would
20 like to hear Mr. Milovancevic once more on when and how and -- when he
21 hopes to file these documents. I think he has made his point.
22 MR. WHITING: Yes. I have no need for that, Your Honour. I've
23 understood what Mr. Milovancevic has said and --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: All right. Or we can raise with him,
25 Mr. Milovancevic, apparently your 92 bis statement has to be a statement
1 that's signed by the witness or the witness statements must be statements
2 that are signed by the witness. And apparently you're supposed also to
3 give the original B/C/S version. I haven't sort of studied the rule
4 sufficiently to be able to say yes, that's the position, or no, that's not
5 the position. But I don't know whether you do have any comment strictly
6 on just those two points, the B/C/S version and a signed statement.
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, permit me to do
8 this after the break, after I've consulted with my team. Statements in
9 B/C/S exist. I understood the question and I understand what my learned
10 friend is after. But let me consult with my team colleagues and let us do
11 this after the break.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not quite sure what it is you want to consult
13 with. All I want to find out from you, do you accept that indeed you owe
14 your learned friend a B/C/S version and that you owe him a signed
15 statement, and if you do accept those you've just got to tell us whether
16 you think you can provide those without having to consult during the
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Your Honour, this
19 is -- this I take as normal to have a B/C/S statement and a translation
20 into English and for that statement to be signed.
21 But let me consult with the Defence team on how this is done so
22 that I'll be in a position more precisely to tell you when and how we are
23 going to proceed.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic. We will hear from you
25 after the break.
1 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, and there was a third thing with
2 respect to the statements and that is the circumstances under which they
3 were taken, were they -- was it an interview, was it a -- did the witness
4 write the statement himself, that kind of information I think is something
5 that should be included.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: You hear that, Mr. Milovancevic?
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I have heard Your Honour.
8 We interviewed all these witnesses. Maybe we have provided them
9 with information, and of course we are going to report to the learned
10 colleague about these circumstances.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
12 Are we done with housekeeping issues?
13 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry, Your Honour, just one more brief one
14 which is on an unrelated issue.
15 We received today a motion with respect to safe conduct of several
16 witnesses. The motion was filed confidentially, so I won't refer even the
17 numbers of the witnesses just out of an abundance of caution. But what
18 concerned us about this motion, and as Your Honours know, we have taken
19 the position that we will not oppose these motions as a matter of course.
20 However, there was something that stood out in this motion that caused us
21 concern which is there is an ex parte annex which provides information
22 about the witnesses. According to a footnote, it contains personal
23 information about the witnesses and that's all that it says.
24 It's not clear to us why that should be filed ex parte and on the
25 face of it, we think we should receive that annex filed confidential,
1 fine, but I don't see any basis in the motion for why it should be
2 ex parte and why we should not be permitted to see it. That's the only
3 issue I wanted to press. Perhaps there is a reason but it has not been
4 made apparent to us.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I personally haven't seen that motion.
6 Mr. Milovancevic?
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that we
8 respond after the first break with regard to this question as well.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
10 Are you happy with that, Mr. Whiting? Thank you very much. Is
11 that it, Mr. Whiting?
12 MR. WHITING: It is, thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
14 Any housekeeping, Mr. Milovancevic?
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, at this point, no.
16 Thank you.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. The next -- we can call the
18 witness in. I think also the witness comes in under private session
20 [The witness entered court]
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon, sir. May I remind you that you are
22 still bound by the declaration you made at the beginning of your testimony
23 to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing else but the truth. Is that
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Where are we? It's still
2 with you, Mr. Milovancevic. I'm sorry.
3 WITNESS: WITNESS MM-117
4 [Witness answered through interpreter]
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Examination by Mr. Milovancevic: [Continued]
7 Q. Mr. Witness, good afternoon. The Defence hopes that we will
8 complete your examination-in-chief during this session. Please keep in
9 mind our joint obligation to pause between question and answer for the
10 sake of the interpreters and please also bear in mind the protective
11 measures which have been established. And in the event you need to refer
12 to any functions that you performed or posts that you held, please
13 indicate that so that we could move into private session and I will of
14 course on my part bear that in mind. Thank you.
15 On Friday, as one of the last questions, we dealt with the topic
16 of negotiations on the possible -- on a possible cease-fire after an
17 attack by Croatian armed forces and units on the protected zone, the
18 protected United Nations zone in Western Slavonia. Do you recall that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You described that on the first day, the 1st of May, the
21 negotiations fell through, that you returned to Knin on the 2nd of May,
22 early on the 2nd of May by helicopter, and that in the afternoon on the
23 2nd of May an offer for a cease-fire was brought by international
24 intermediaries, that that offer was accepted by the leadership of the
25 Republic of Serbian Krajina, and that in the afternoon on the 3rd of May
1 the Croatian side as well accepted that cessation of hostilities
2 agreement. Do you remember that?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. As a participant in these talks on a cessation of hostilities, can
5 you tell us what information you have, what you know, about whether United
6 Nations forces, the UNPROFOR, the civilian police of the United Nations,
7 Mr. Akashi and other representatives of the international community,
8 whether they were aware of the sufferings of the civilian Serbs in Western
10 A. They had to be aware of the suffering of the population, of that
11 population, because they had their observers and forces in the territory
12 of Western Slavonia. Also, in later talks they pointed out that there had
13 been sufferings and that they were endeavouring to take proper care of the
14 civilian population.
15 Q. In these negotiations, did the Serbian side inform the
16 international community about the sufferings of the civilian population?
17 A. Yes. It was pointed out that large numbers of civilians have been
18 killed, that they were encircled and that they needed help. It was also
19 stressed that the -- that the Croatian forces, after the massacre of the
20 population of civilians in -- on the road, actually cleansed the highway
21 using water tank trucks of blood and every other trace of that crime.
22 Q. Thank you. You said that the activities of the Croatian army and
23 police in the area lasted for sometime after that, also after the
24 agreement, if I understood you correctly. Am I right?
25 A. Yes, that's right.
1 Q. Can you tell us whether anyone from the Croatian side, as far as
2 you know, had been indicted -- has been indicted because of the suffering
3 of the civilians, because of the massacres that had taken place?
4 MR. BLACK: Objection, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Black.
6 MR. BLACK: I object on the grounds of relevance. I don't think
7 this is relevant to our trial.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic? Relevance?
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] The highest possible relevance,
10 Your Honours. The highest possible. Because the Prosecution claims in
11 the indictment that operations in Western Slavonia by Croatian armed
12 forces lasted only for one day, and that Mr. Martic acted in retaliation.
13 The Croatian side, the Croatian president, the expert who featured in this
14 proceeding, actually said that according to them there had been at least
15 168 civilians killed, and therefore we are interested in hearing what the
16 criteria are for treating this particular issue, and what is the reason
17 for only Mr. Martic's being -- Martic being in the docket. And I should
18 like to be given also a reply to another question in that connection:
19 What objective in mind is this being done in this way?
20 By this question, I'm actually preparing the ground for a document
21 which we propose to introduce subsequently through this witness.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any reply?
23 MR. BLACK: Simply that nothing that counsel has said talks about
24 the relevance to this trial.
25 This is not the first time that we go down this road, Your Honour.
1 Defence counsel wants to change the focus of trial away from whether or
2 not Milan Martic is responsible for the crimes alleged in the indictment
3 to whether someone else is responsible for some other crimes. And those
4 are issues which my colleagues in the office deal with in other cases, and
5 there are other cases here in which those might be relevant, but this case
6 is about Milan Martic and his responsibility for what's alleged in the
8 By the way, the indictment does not say that Operation Flash only
9 lasted on one day. It says on the 1st of May, the Croatian army launched
10 an attack against Western Slavonia. It doesn't say in any, shape, or form
11 that it lasted only one day, so counsel is wrong on the specifics and I
12 think wrong also on the issue of relevance, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think the question is irrelevant. It's ruled out
14 of order.
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you take your
16 decision, but I should like to say something to respond to what my
17 colleague has said, but as you have taken your decision, I will not insist
18 that the Chamber decide on this issue and I shall proceed with my
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. What is your attitude, Mr. Witness, what is your position? You
23 held posts which enable you to give an answer to this question. Can one
24 at all accept the argument that there had been no proof of heinous crimes
25 in Western Slavonia. Observed from your aspect, this is something that
1 you should know. Can one say that there were no -- there was no proof?
2 A. No. One cannot say that. There was plenty of proof, and the
3 proof was also carried in the mass media and shown on television. And
4 when it was not only the Serbian side that showed them but also members --
5 representatives of the Helsinki board as well as -- Helsinki Committee as
6 well as Croatian media also showed those crimes.
7 Q. Thank you. Was this treatment of crimes in Western Slavonia --
8 actually, does this attitude to such crimes point to the position of a
9 part of the international community vis-a-vis events on a part of the
10 Republic of the Serbian Krajina and the Serbian population in that area?
11 A. It certainly does. The international community --
12 MR. BLACK: I apologise for interrupting the witness. I again
13 object on the grounds of relevance. I don't see what this has to do with
14 this case.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, I have a problem that when the
16 Court has ruled that a question is out of order, it becomes absolutely
17 disingenuous of counsel to reintroduce the same question in different
18 words. It's exactly the same point. And to prefix it by the witness's
19 attitude before you put the question doesn't change the nature of the
20 question. It's still the same question. This question is not relevant to
21 these proceedings.
22 If you want to know why Croats are not being charged, if they are
23 not being charged, I don't know, I don't control the cases, I think you
24 must then go to the main office of the OTP and find out from them why they
25 are not charging Croats. Here we are not dealing with the charge against
1 Croats. We are dealing with the charge against not even Serbians but
2 against one person, Milan Martic.
3 Now, atrocities that were committed by Croats will be charged in
4 cases that are dealing with those Croats here. And I think you've got to
5 bear in mind that here in this trial we are not looking at what Croats did
6 but we are looking at what Milan Martic did. And ...
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, allow me. With
8 all due respect, allow me to present a position which is different to
9 yours, Your Honour, Judge Moloto.
10 You decided -- you made a decision regarding my question, whether
11 the witness knew whether there had been any trials. But now I'm
12 discussing a much wider topic; that is, the attitude of a part of the
13 international community towards the Republic of the Serbian Krajina and
14 the Serbian population, a question of their political position to them
15 which is reflected and can be manifested in different ways, which is the
16 topic that I intend to deal with right now with the witness, because he
17 actually participated in the negotiations with the people concerned. The
18 international community thus can be right and then again it can be wrong.
19 What I'm trying to elicit from the witness is a position on that. What
20 was, what is the position of the international community towards a
21 specific issue. That position of the international community is something
22 that I'm logically interested in because one of the key topics that we
23 dealt with was the Vance Plan and its implementation. The Defence is very
24 much interested in whether the international community is implementing
25 consistently the Vance Plan or is it in breach of it.
1 So this is the line of questioning that I'm pursuing. I have
2 eliminated the question that you ruled on. I'm asking about the attitude
3 of the international community which can be manifested in different ways.
4 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I'm not sure I understand that response.
5 It seems to be that it may be an argument we hear from the Defence in
6 other submissions, such as the military expert report that was filed
7 recently, that it's not the Serbs who are to blame, it's the international
8 community that's to blame for events there. I don't think that is
9 relevant to this trial.
10 Frankly, I maintain my objection, Your Honour. I don't understand
11 the response.
12 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'm sorry, Mr. Black, is Defence counsel making
13 a challenge in respect of the credibility of members of the international
14 community? And statements made in the course of the trial as to a
15 particular state of affairs, and he's hoping to challenge the accuracy of
16 the state of affairs by seeking to undermine the credit of those members
17 of the international community. This is how I understand it.
18 Now, whether that is something that he's entitled to do, I think
19 I'd probably have to hear him further to be convinced that this is the
20 right way to go about it. And I do agree that it could effectively be
21 dealt with in address, because he has actually got the state of affairs as
22 known to his witness, as I see it.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. I hear what you say, Judge. My only problem
24 is that how do you undermine the credibility of the international
25 community here? How do you do that? Is that really part of their case?
1 Obviously, through his own witnesses, he knows he can tell us what
2 happened and as you rightly say in an address he can say, "This is what
3 happened, this is what the international community did, and therefore we
4 think they were not fair." But they are not on trial, the international
5 community. This is my problem.
6 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I think probably part of the difficulty is that
7 Mr. Milovancevic has not been specific and has not said in respect of X
8 witness, Y witness, Z witness, such and such has been said, do you agree
9 with that position and if not, why not? Which is a bit different. But to
10 put it in that general term I think is part of what is creating the
11 problem in the attack.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's the problem. That's the problem. And I
13 don't know how this -- how following this point of -- this line of
14 questioning advances the case of Mr. Martic or undermines the case of the
15 Prosecution. I really don't know how it does that, particularly because
16 we still don't know Mr. Milovancevic's theory of this case. We've asked
17 this from the beginning. He has refused to tell us. We don't know what
18 his theory of the case is. And it becomes very difficult to determine
19 questions of relevance when you don't know the Defence's theory.
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I can give you
21 much more direct answer than the one that I'm going to give but I'm
22 risking tampering with the witness, influencing the witness, but I will
23 say the following because the witness is present.
24 MR. BLACK: Sorry to interrupt, if the witness needs to be excused
25 for -- rather than say something that would risk influencing the witness I
1 think we should excuse the witness, if necessary, if it can't be said in a
2 way that doesn't carry that risk.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would you prefer that, Mr. Milovancevic? Would you
4 prefer that we excuse the witness so that you can explain your point
5 clearly? Because we really don't understand you, you know, and I think
6 for the Chamber to be able to rule on your -- on the objection, the
7 Chamber must understand exactly what your position is. And I think the
8 Chamber might as well order that the witness be excused for a couple of
9 minutes. We'll call him when we are ready.
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was just about
11 to propose that. Thank you very much.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're welcome, Mr. Milovancevic. Thanks for the
14 [The witness stands down]
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: I guess we were in private session for purposes of
16 excusing the witness. Thank you very much.
17 Yes, Mr. Milovancevic, just tell us exactly what your point is.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I shall endeavour
19 to be as brief as possible.
20 The basic thesis of the Defence is that the international
21 community is the chief provoker of the war in Yugoslavia, that it actually
22 instigated a war, that it conducted that war and controlled that war. The
23 only joint criminal enterprise which exists exists on the part of the
24 Republics of Croatia and Slovenia which waged, started a secessionist war
25 in order to gain independence and to secede from Yugoslavia.
1 In that light, the behaviour of the representatives of the
2 international community is of direct bearing on the events that the
3 witness is talking about. The witness talked about the operations in
4 Miljevacki plateau and Maslenica and he's now talking about a third one,
5 Operation Flash, and there have been no sanctions whatsoever for those who
6 did those on the part of the international community. What are we talking
7 about, Your Honours, are these double standards. These are the answers
8 that I'm seeking.
9 When I say the international community, I'm speaking about
10 influential countries which were influential in that particular point of
11 time in that particular area. And there are a number of relevant
12 documents that we talked about and which we challenge because reports to
13 the United Nations Security Council is not evidence, is not proof. It is
14 just a submission, an analysis, an estimate, of the situation in the field
15 which may or may not be correct. Whether the international community sent
16 truthful reports from the field is something that needs to be examined.
17 This witness also spoke about that. Mr. McElligott and his report about
18 the suffering of the Croatian population in the period from August 1992 to
19 May 1993 said in his report that these were untruthful claims. This is
20 what I'm talking about.
21 What happened in Western Slavonia is also an indicator of such
22 practices. The very fact that there is no persecution -- sorry,
23 prosecution today of such persons is actually indication of the position
24 of the international community in respect of those events.
25 How is it possible that Mr. Martic has been indicted for five
1 people killed in Zagreb whereas the other side killed 176 persons in the
2 operations in question? How is this possible? Is this a double standard,
3 double criterion? And we have documents corroborating that. That is why
4 I said all this. Of course, I cannot say there in front of the witness
5 and I can be said to be asking him a leading question, if I did that. But
6 I do wish to introduce some documents along this line of questioning
7 through this witness very shortly.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, if you say you're going to be
9 brief, please try to be brief.
10 Let me ask you just one question. Do you want these influential
11 international countries that you refer to to be tried? Is that what
12 you're saying? You would like those countries to be tried? You haven't
13 mentioned them by name but you talked of --
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you very
15 much for your -- for this question. I'm not the International Tribunal's
16 Prosecutor. This is not my purpose. I am defending Mr. Martic but I'm
17 demonstrating that the political attitude of certain countries may have
18 resulted --
19 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: There is a question I'd like to ask you and I'd
20 like to get down to the nitty-gritty, so to speak, with you:
21 Mr. Milovancevic, had the powers that be that you claim should have been
22 charged, let's take it academically and hypothetically that they had been
23 charged, as we stand here today, then what would your response be? How
24 would it affect your case? How would it affect the case for the
25 Prosecution had those persons in the international community that you say
1 are the provocateurs, how would it affect the Prosecution's case and your
2 case and the issues that this Honourable Trial Chamber has to decide,
3 those issue that is we have to decide? That's what I want to hear from
4 you because I do not comprehend.
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you.
6 Had those representatives of the leading elites who brought about
7 war in the former Yugoslavia been in the dock, I'm sure that Mr. Martic
8 would not have spent four and a half years here. He would have been a
9 free man because he's an innocent man, and this is what we are trying to
11 When we talk about the role of the international community, I'm
12 talking about support to illegal secession which is the plague of the
13 international order. The right to self-determination pursuant to UN
14 documents is not contentious, but to enforce that by arms runs counter to
15 international order, international law. Croatian leadership committed
16 this war against peace and enjoyed the support of certain international
17 factors. And this is what I'm saying and we are trying to demonstrate
18 that, and Mr. Martic and his people are a victim in all this.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, I still don't understand your
20 argument. Now, you say if those people were charged hypothetically,
21 Mr. Martic would be walking a free man. You said a little earlier,
22 Mr. Martic is being charged for killing five people in Zagreb, other
23 people have killed 160.000 people or whatever number you gave. Are you
24 saying that if those people had been charged with killing those 160,000
25 people, Mr. Martic would then have to walk free for having killed the
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. Martic did not
3 kill five people.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: This is what you said earlier. You said Mr. Martic
5 is being charged for killing five people in Zagreb. I'm saying --
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Because of the killing of them.
7 This is the distinction, because of the death of five civilians in Zagreb,
8 and this is not questioned at a moment when the military of the Republic
9 of Serbian Krajina conducted legitimate defence and at a point when
10 international community was mute, UN protected area is being attacked and
11 the UN was silent. When this happened in Bosnia the whole of the
12 Republika Srpska was bombed, Your Honour. I wonder whether it went -- was
13 done this way because Serbs had to be bombed --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me tell you one thing, Mr. Milovancevic, and I
15 think I would like to close this discussion because I think it's taken far
16 too much than it is worth.
17 As you've rightly referred to the international community and the
18 United Nations and the perhaps even this Tribunal as an agent of the
19 United Nations, is a much bigger organisation than the three of us sitting
20 here. We have been allocated one case, Mr. Martic's case. We are not
21 here to adjudicate on other cases that are not before us, cases of
22 international countries, of international communities. We are here to
23 adjudicate one case. And the questions that you are directing at why so
24 and so has not been charged and so and so has been charged, those are
25 political questions that you must ask the powers that be who have decided
1 what should be done and what shouldn't be done. We can only deal here
2 with one case at a time. If after Mr. Martic's case this court is given a
3 case to charge an international person, we will do so. And I just want to
4 say to you that what goes to the charge against those people has nothing
5 to do with what goes to the charges against Mr. Martic, and we would like
6 to deal with Mr. Martic's case here and now. Okay?
7 I'm going to give you three sentences to say and then [microphone
8 not activated].
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Go ahead.
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I agree with what
12 you said. I'm not saying that -- whether other people should have been
13 indicted or not. We are discussing whether this Honourable Chamber is
14 given a chance to get informed of the realistic real situation, military,
15 political, in the field so that they may conclude what were the
16 circumstances for certain developments and events, and this is what my
17 presentation goes for.
18 I'm not discussing whether you are trying this case. I'm talking
19 about certain other issues. Some witnesses have been introduced, some
20 materials were led, which in my opinion, in our opinion, run counter to
21 the realistic situation in the field, and which reflect a double standard
22 and different attitude towards the two sides in the conflict. If there is
23 a possibility for us to lead this information before you so that you may
24 conclude whether things were this way as presented by the Prosecutor or in
25 another manner, we are not dealing with charging the international
1 community. And this has gone far beyond what Honourable Judge Nosworthy
2 spoke about.
3 When I discussed about this, what would have happened had somebody
4 else been indicted, that's a hypothetical question, but it was in the
5 context of determining the general political, international, diplomatic
6 and military circumstances, and this is what I wanted to point out to the
7 Chamber. We've read many UN resolutions, documents, reports, as evidence,
8 and I believe it is possible -- it is necessary to judge their
9 objectivity. I'm not saying, and I cannot say, and I don't have the facts
10 that the whole of the UN has been inclined in this way but we do have some
11 documents and would like to lead them for you to make your conclusions
12 about them. And I am sorry that I took more than three sentences as
13 instructed by you.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: You need to do that to the extent that what you do
15 is relevant to Mr. Martic's case, Mr. Milovancevic, and if it is not
16 relevant, I'm afraid we cannot allow that.
17 You see, you keep talking of double standards, double standards on
18 whose part I don't know, and I'm not even in a position to answer the
19 question of double standards because what you are talking about is just
20 not before me.
21 All I want are facts related to the charges against Mr. Martic and
22 I would like you to tell me something that advances Mr. Martic's case or
23 undermines the Prosecution's case against Mr. Martic. Those are the two
24 things that will determine to a very large extent any relevance of what
25 you may bring about, and if what you bring about doesn't bear on either of
1 those two issues, then it doesn't become relevant.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I fully accept
3 what you're saying, with one remark.
4 The witness that was excused spoke that as a person involved in a
5 certain profession, had contacts with the civilian police and that's out
6 on the ground, he was told one thing and then to his astonishment he read
7 completely different reports that were sent to the UN Security Council.
8 So one question in context with the UN representatives in one way which is
9 favourable to the Serbs and then a report comes to the UN which is
10 completely different, and this is what I'm focusing on, which reflects the
11 position of the accused. This is what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to
12 link the defendant's position with that situation, and in this context, I
13 am mentioning double standards.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just ask the witness exactly what he knows about
15 what happened. Put that on the record. And then you can compare it with
16 any report that you want to compare it with, you know, rather than go the
17 way you were going. I think if you ask --
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm going to do that.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
20 JUDGE HOEPFEL: I would also regard that very necessary,
21 Mr. Milovancevic, that you are more precise in such questions and abstain
22 from any generalisations of the so-called international community, also
23 saying parts of this same international community. That is really not
24 possible to work in this way to ask questions like the one you asked when
25 the debate now then came up. This was: Was this treatment of crimes in
1 Western Slavonia actually -- does this attitude to such crimes -- there is
2 no English but this is what the transcript says, does this attitude to
3 such crimes point to the position of a part of the international community
4 vis-a-vis events on a part of the Republic of the Serbian Krajina and the
5 Serbian population in that area? That is impossible to answer such a
7 It's not a question of a political -- of a criminal procedure but
8 rather of a political discussion or debate. So please abstain from such
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just elicit facts from this witness,
11 Mr. Milovancevic, and all what we are saying in that sentence which Judge
12 has just referred to, you can keep it for argument. You can then say, "I
13 asked these questions, these were the answers, this is what the reports
14 say, I therefore submit that the international community exercised double
15 standards. You can do that at the time of argument.
16 Shall we call the witness? May the witness be brought in.
17 Just for the record, the question as formulated earlier is
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Before the witness is brought
20 back, maybe this is an opportunity for me to bring to your attention that
21 my learned colleague Black when asking the question that the international
22 community had accepted the intervention that we are discussing because of
23 the non-enforcement of the Vance Plan.
24 [The witness entered court]
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Witness, I'm going to continue with my questioning. I will ask
2 you a different question.
3 You attended or you said that you attended many meetings with the
4 representatives of the UNCIVPOL, that you attended such meetings on a
5 monthly basis to discuss contentious issues, et cetera?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What was the estimate and assessment of UNCIVPOL representatives
8 of the attitude of the MUP of Krajina towards the UNCIVPOL and the tasks
9 out in the field?
10 A. UNCIVPOL representatives an at such meetings expressed their
11 gratitude for the work of the organs of the interior of RSK in such
12 difficult circumstances. They also said that they were satisfied with the
13 cooperation and that there were certain incidents, maybe crimes, that had
14 to be resolved.
15 Q. Thank you. You saw a UN document about crimes against the Croats
16 in the south sector in August 1992, May 1993 period.
17 A. Yes, I do remember.
18 Q. Such a report submitted by a civilian police officer reflect what
19 was going on on the ground and what you discussed with them?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Thank you. That is enough.
22 Please, Mr. Usher, I would like you to distribute a document of
23 the Defence to the Chamber and the OTP. This is the document that we
24 submitted to the other party and the Chamber on Friday, but partially
25 translated. I believe that there are enough copies for the interpreters
1 as well.
2 This document is in B/C/S. It is minutes of a meeting of the
3 Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, Mr. Martic,
4 with the deputy commander of UN forces, Cedric Thornberry, which -- it is
5 submitted in the B/C/S version and there is a translation attached to it.
6 Sir, this reflects the minutes of that meeting. We translated in
7 such a way as to -- as for the pages in B/C/S and English match to -- for
8 easier referencing.
9 Witness, can you see that minutes are dated 14th of June, 1993,
10 and under 1 and 2, does it state that Milan Martic, Minister of the
11 Interior of RSK, is present, and under 2, Cedric Thornberry, deputy of the
12 UN forces commander?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Under 6, does it state that Sankovic, Milenko, Chief of Staff of
15 the Ministry of the Interior and the minutes taker is also present?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. I would like you to take a look at the last page of the document,
18 page 9. It states the hour when the meeting was concluded and who took
19 the minutes and it was -- it is signed. Can you read for us who took the
21 A. Milenko Sankovic kept the minutes and this is his signature.
22 Q. When you say that this is his signature, are you saying that you
23 know this person and that you know what his signature looks like?
24 A. Absolutely.
25 Q. Thank you. Let us now please take a look at page 3 of these
1 minutes. In the B/C/S and in the English, it is page 3. In the middle of
2 the page, the words of Mr. Thornberry are quoted, and he says: "I have a
3 question. Do you have any comments or objections regarding the work of
4 the civilian police?"
5 Do you see that?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. Under that, Mr. Martic's reply: "Not for the time being, except
8 that for -- that earlier, they took unto themselves the right to conduct
9 autonomous investigations without consulting us. We aspire to have the
10 rule of law, and it is not our intention to hide any crimes. You know
11 that the proceedings are being instigated and are being conducted against
12 those who have perpetrated crimes."
13 Do you see that, Mr. Witness?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now we have Mr. Thornberry's response to these words who says in
16 the next paragraph: "I asked this because our chief of police answers
17 directly personally to me. And they told me that we -- you have very good
18 cooperation. That they had very good cooperation. They told me that your
19 people respected the civilian police and not the military police. I'm
20 surprised about what you said about France and Germany. I don't know what
21 they are doing. It surprised me that they are offering suicidal advice to
23 Do you see this?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. When Mr. Thornberry says, "I ask this because our chief of police
1 answers directly to me," what chief of police is he referring to?
2 A. He's referring to the chief of the CIVPOL, of the civilian police.
3 I don't know who was that person at that particular point in time but that
4 is whom he means.
5 Q. So Mr. Cedric Thornberry, the deputy UN force commander informs
6 Mr. Martic here that the civilian police chief was directly answerable to
7 him and that he had been told that the cooperation was very good. Did I
8 understand this text well?
9 A. Yes. That is exactly what I've been saying all the time, that in
10 contacts with us, in meetings with us, civilian police representatives
11 expressed their gratitude to us for the activities that we were
12 undertaking in such complex circumstances which were a state of neither
13 war or peace. Very, very complicated situation.
14 Q. Under this we have Mr. Martic's words, in reference to
15 Mr. Thornberry's comment on Germany and France. Mr. Martic says: "You
16 said that Croatia would not attack us on the 22nd of January (1993)."
17 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters do not have a copy of the text.
18 This is a translation from the booth.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, do you have a spare copy for the
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
23 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'm sorry, Mr. Milovancevic, when did this
24 document come to your attention?
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge Nosworthy,
1 this document was in the possession of the witness present here and the
2 witness actually brought this document with him.
3 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: But Mr. Thornberry has not been confronted with
4 the contents of this document when he was here in the witness box.
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. Thornberry was
6 not here. Probably confused him with Mr. Kirudja, this other person.
7 Mr. Thornberry was not a witness in this case.
8 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: [Previous translation continues] ... my
9 apologies. I stand corrected.
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] We shall just -- I shall just
11 ask another question before the break.
12 Q. Mr. Martic responds to Mr. Thornberry and said: "You talked like
13 this, that Croatia would not attack us on the 21st and 22nd of January,
14 1993 ...
15 "I'm surprised that you don't know for Germany's and France's
16 approval given to Croatia for attack."
17 Is this correct, Mr. Witness?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Let us go to page 4 of the document. What did Mr. Thornberry have
20 to say to that. So we are talking about the deputy commander of the UN
21 force commander, of the peace forces of the UN. Mr. Thornberry at the top
22 of the fourth page says: "I must say that you are completely right."
23 Excuse me. "... that you are completely right. People lied to us then.
24 We didn't have any proof of that. We think that Croatia lost more than it
25 got from the attack on the 22nd."
1 To this, at the bottom of the page, Mr. Martic responds. That is
2 his last sentence: "We accepted the UN to work exclusively based on the
3 Vance Plan, which guarantees the most acceptable solutions. With this
4 resolution the Security Council is making us leave this area or pushing us
5 under the knives of the Croatian fascist government. I'm convinced that
6 with your just reporting, you can influence the decisions of the Security
8 And the response to that -- by Mr. Thornberry to that is: That is
9 hard; I would do that if that was possible."
10 Do you see that, Mr. Witness?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. What does the deputy of the UN force commanders say here? Did I
13 understand him correctly that it is hard for him to influence the reports,
14 the work of the Security Council of the United Nations when he's just
15 reports [as interpreted]?
16 A. Literally that is what he says.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] And Your Honours, I do believe
19 that it is time for our break.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: How much longer are you still going to be with this
21 witness, before we take the break?
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, five minutes, Your
23 Honour, another five minutes to the end.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Court will adjourn and come back at 4.00.
25 Court adjourned.
1 --- Recess taken at 3.29 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 4.00 p.m.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic.
4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Before the break, Mr. Witness, we showed you a part of this text
6 of this document, page 4, where Mr. Martic expresses the conviction that
7 Mr. Thornberry can influence the decisions of the Security Council with
8 his just reports, and Mr. Thornberry says that it is hard and that if that
9 were possible, he would do so.
10 Let us now look at page 5 of this document. At the top of the
11 document, in connection with this statement, Mr. Martic says: "Look at
12 Bosnia, everyone in the world claimed that the Serbs are aggressors, but
13 now there is shy information going around the world that the Croats and
14 the Muslims are fighting, too, and that a classic civil war is going on.
15 Also the world is starting to be aware that Serbs accept Croats and their
16 soldiers in Bosnia. The western media have committed an awful crime
17 against Serbs. They did not pass the truth to the world that the Serbs
18 are not aggressors, that the Serbs are defending themselves."
19 And to this, Mr. Thornberry says: "I understand you completely
20 and I cannot understand how was it that the western media reported like
21 that. We always also said the truth about refugees. The fact is that at
22 this moment the Security Council has a slightly more balanced position. I
23 think that the international community, too, is starting to get a clearer
24 picture, but I cannot pretend to say that they have an objective position
25 when they do not. Because of political propaganda, the international
1 community sees all Serbs as one. We who are here see that differently.
2 We have tried to explain all that but that is very difficult."
3 Do you see that, Mr. Witness?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. When Mr. Thornberry says that it is a fact that in the council
6 they have at least a slightly more balanced picture, what council is he
7 referring to?
8 A. The Security Council.
9 Q. Well, the UNPROFOR had 12.000 troops deployed in the territory of
10 the protected zones and 600 civilian observers, and then there were the
11 European monitors and every conceivable manner of technology of this
12 world. How do you explain the fact that in such a situation, no true
13 reports could have been submitted to the Security Council? What is the
14 cause of that, in your opinion?
15 A. This is a very important question for me, too, so by your leave I
16 shall be a bit more extensive.
17 My impression and my information is such that the international
18 community, namely the UNPROFOR forces, more specifically speaking, or
19 precisely speaking, never implemented a balanced and equal policy, an
20 even-handed policy towards the warring parties, and that is in keeping
21 with Mr. Thornberry's words, in fact, when he said -- no. Delete that,
22 when he said.
23 What can I substantiate that with? The following. This meeting
24 which is referred to in page 2, that was a meeting with Mr. Carl Bildt on
25 the 3rd of July, 1995. On page 2 there is an underlined sentence. Just a
1 minute, please. I apologise. I apologise. It is actually page 4, the
2 first paragraph, Mr. Thornberry says: "I have to say that you're
3 completely right. Then people lied to us. We didn't have proof of that.
4 We think, and this is something I'm insisting on now, we think that
5 Croatia lost more on the 22nd of January, 1993," and that is the attack on
6 Maslenica, than it gained. Why is this essential? Because Mr. Carl Bildt
7 used this same sentence at the meeting on the 3rd of July in Knin, and
8 Mr. Stoltenberg was also there, when he said that in the event of a new
9 attack by Croatia, Croatia would be gaining -- losing more than it would
10 gain, and that is why Krajina should be calm.
11 And this is confirmation of my thesis that the international
12 community, i.e., the UNPROFOR forces, rather insisted more on deadening
13 the forces of the Krajina so that no actions be undertaken in the Krajina,
14 especially in the defensive sphere; whereas on the other hand, it allowed
15 Croatia in breach of the Vance Plan and all other plans which required a
16 peaceful solution to do what they did. So that during those years, five
17 years, the -- Croatia undertook a number of military operations and
18 attacks in the Republic of Serbian Krajina, and we had no examples of the
19 Republic of Serbian Krajina launching any attacks against Croatian
20 territory, and Croatian-held territory.
21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Witness. Let us now look at page number 7,
22 speaking about the position of Croats, and it says, Minister Martic, the
23 third paragraph, or rather the penultimate and the ultimate paragraph.
24 Mr. Martic says to Mr. Thornberry: "Regarding the positions of the Croats
25 in the RSK, we are on our side doing everything to protect them from
1 bullets. We have the same positions when Serbs or Croats are endangered,
2 and as far as protection is concerned we make no distinction between them.
3 We are doing everything to protect all people regardless of their national
5 "If someone insisted to leave the area of the RSK, we have
6 nothing against it. They can go freely. It happened earlier, the Croats
7 who expressed the desire to move out signed statements to the effect that
8 no pressure had been exerted on them, but once in Croatia, they would say
9 the opposite, that they had been driven out."
10 And this continues on page 8. "The Croatian side is using this
11 for propaganda purposes."
12 And Mr. Martic goes on to say: "They really want to leave the
13 Krajina, I insist that their signatures be co-signed by your side, by the
14 United Nations, that is."
15 And then Mr. Thornberry replies to these words of Mr. Martic's,
16 and that is the penultimate paragraph on that page: "We can design the
17 procedure. I now accept your statement that you are protecting people in
18 very difficult conditions. It would be good if you could inform the
19 public more widely about your position on this issue."
20 Mr. Martic says: "That is what we are doing. Our public knows
21 that. We are on our part punishing criminals, whereas Croatia is
22 rewarding them on its territory." And then he refers to the case of the
23 murder of the Zec family which we have also discussed here.
24 Do you see this?
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, a redaction? I
1 mentioned the name of the witness. Can we have that redacted?
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: May --
3 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not say the name.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. May we redact that part where the name of
5 the witness is mentioned? I guess it will be mentioned in the B/C/S
6 broadcast so can it be redacted there?
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Positions expressed in this conversation by Mr. Martic. Did they
9 respond and correspond with what you knew, Mr. Witness?
10 A. Yes. I stated that on Friday in the same way that it is being
11 stated here in this document.
12 Q. Thank you. Now let us take a look --
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I do propose to tender this
14 document as a Defence Exhibit, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted as a Defence Exhibit. May
16 it please be given an exhibit number.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number 965.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
19 Are you -- when are you finishing, Mr. Milovancevic? We are now
20 15 minutes since the break.
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I believe in three minutes
22 time, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: You said five minutes before the break. We've got
24 15 minutes. Just move quickly, please.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you.
1 Q. I would like to invite Mr. Usher to distribute a document to the
2 Chamber and the OTP.
3 You spoke about the attitude towards your own population in the
4 RSK territory. Do you know whether the MUP, Ministry of the Interior of
5 the Republic of Serbian Krajina, whether they issued any press releases on
6 their attitude towards the entire population?
7 A. Yes. It was a regular occurrence.
8 Q. You have before you a document dated the very end of 1991. Do you
9 see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. This is a press release of the MUP. Do you see that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. I believe it's the third paragraph from the bottom of the page.
14 Please read it out. It's a part of a statement for the press where the
15 Ministry of the Interior addresses the public and indicates what kind of
16 an attitude should be adopted towards every member of the population when
17 it comes to their ethnicity. Can you see that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Could you read it out?
20 A. Yes. "Republic of Serbian Krajina together with the MUP
21 guarantees safety to all peoples in this territory and appeals on the
22 citizens with the aim of protecting the lives and property of people of a
23 different ethnicity. There is no ethnically pure countries in the world,
24 and I believe that we have the preconditions for peaceful coexistence of
25 the peoples of Serbian Krajina regardless of the current circumstances and
2 Q. Who is signed as the author of that statement?
3 A. Milan Martic, the minister.
4 Q. Is there a seal?
5 A. Yes, there is a seal.
6 Q. Is it his signature or was it somebody on his behalf?
7 A. Yes, I believe a deputy of his signed on his behalf.
8 Q. So Mr. Martic, as a minister, in the government, appeals to the
9 public to be tolerant in terms of ethnicity and to be -- to have their
10 appropriate conduct. Is it stated as so in the statement?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Finally, did you participate in the negotiations in Geneva on the
13 3rd of July, 1995?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did the delegation of the RSK accept all conditions of the
16 international community?
17 A. Absolutely all of them.
18 Q. Who brought these conditions to you?
19 A. Mr. Thornberry. Wait a minute. Yeah, Thornberry presented us
20 with those conditions.
21 There were three conditions. First, to open the oil pipeline on
22 the 7th of August; then until the 9th of August we can start discussions
23 on the reopening of the railway line; and that we conduct negotiations on
24 the Z-4 plan first in Knin and then in Zagreb on the 17th of August.
25 Q. Thank you. You mentioned Mr. Thornberry. Does the name
1 Stoltenberg mean anything to you? So on that occasion, do you mean
2 Mr. Thornberry or Mr. Stoltenberg?
3 A. I believe that Mr. Stoltenberg attended that meeting, but --
4 Q. You said Thornberry. Are you correcting your statement?
5 A. Yes. I'm correcting my statement.
6 Q. Did the Croatian side accept these conditions?
7 A. No. They did not. Their position was strictly to the effect that
8 what they insisted on was to start peaceful reintegration, as they called
9 it, immediately, for all arms to be laid down, for Croatian laws to be
10 accepted throughout Krajina and some other requests.
11 When Mr. Stoltenberg offered this solution, they said we have not
12 come here to discuss this. We take this as a negative response to our
13 question, and we deem these negotiations concluded.
14 Q. Thank you. What happened that evening? Did you receive any
15 information about that?
16 A. I don't know what you mean.
17 Q. On further developments?
18 A. Meeting was finished at 4.30 p.m. or maybe later, and after that,
19 we received the information that Croatia --
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. I was asked by
21 the people -- I said no, but by leaving the microphone open, I eliminated
22 the effect of distorting the voice of the witness, and this is my mistake.
23 I did not understand what you just asked me from the Registry.
24 THE REGISTRAR: I asked you if you wanted to be redacted, if you
25 want to ask the Judges to redact the whole part, because if you leave the
1 microphone open, everyone can hear the voice of the witness.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't want to
3 breach protective measures. Whatever is necessary to be done, I propose
4 it be done so that the genuine voice of the witness, which left this
5 courtroom, to be deleted.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're going to have to make a proper motion, a
7 proper request. You can't say whatever needs to be done. What is that
8 that whatever needs to be done? You either want a redaction or you don't
9 want a redaction.
10 Tell us what you want, Mr. Milovancevic.
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that part of the
12 text which was broadcast without the witness's voice being distorted, I
13 move that it be redacted, and it was broadcast without distortion because
14 my mic was on.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. So it's ordered.
16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Mr. Witness, did you receive that evening any information on
18 subsequent events while you were at Geneva?
19 A. Information that came were to the effect that Mr. Babic, as the
20 minister of foreign affairs, he was a Prime Minister of Krajina, that he
21 had accepted the Z-4 peace plan and, in discussions with Mr. Galbraith,
22 who was the then US ambassador, and after that, we prepared to travel
23 back, and in the afternoon we were told by a French colonel, who was in
24 our escort, that Croatia had attacked Krajina, which was proof enough for
25 me that the talks in Geneva were a way for Croatia formally to respect the
1 international community's request but in effect that they had prepared for
2 this attack and conducted it regardless of what would transpire at
3 Geneva,, which was a wilful breach of international obligations and the
4 international community's efforts to resolve this conflict in a peaceful
6 Q. How did the attack -- what was the label of that attack?
7 A. That was Operation Storm.
8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Witness.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I've concluded my examination
10 of this witness.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
12 What do you want to us do with this document that you showed the
13 witness, Mr. Milovancevic?
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you for
15 reminding me. I move to tender this as a Defence Exhibit.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. The document is admitted as
17 an exhibit for the Defence. May it please be given an exhibit number.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number 966.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
20 Mr. Black.
21 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Black:
23 Q. Sir, my name is Mr. Black. As you may have guessed, I'm one of
24 the members of the Prosecution team and now it's my turn to ask you
25 questions for a while. Do you understand that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, first of all, sir, let me just briefly say what I do not
3 intend to ask you about. You made reference in your testimony on Friday
4 to changes in the Croatian constitution in 1991 that made Serbs a national
5 minority rather than a constituent people. I believe you also testified
6 that Serbs initially sought autonomy within Croatia. I don't intend to
7 ask you any questions about those topics and it's not because the
8 Prosecution accepts what you had to say. It's simply that we have had
9 evidence about that in this case, and I'm going to try to focus my
10 questions on other aspects of your testimony. Do you understand that?
11 A. Yes, I do understand.
12 Q. Okay. Thank you.
13 MR. BLACK: Your Honours, could we go into private session?
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session?
15 [Private session]
11 Pages 9455-9470 redacted. Private session.
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
2 MR. BLACK: Thank you.
3 Q. Witness, we are back in open session now.
4 While we are on the issue of property, it's true, isn't it, that
5 in 1992 and 1993, there was widespread looting and seizure of property
6 which belonged to Croats who had fled the Krajina? That's correct, isn't
8 A. According to reports of the Ministry of the Interior for 1992, the
9 ministry brought 6.000 criminal reports which concerned among other things
10 looting, concerning crimes against the Serbs, but to a great extent it
11 refers to Croats being targets of such crimes.
12 Q. So I guess the answer to my question was yes, right?
13 A. The answer is how I gave it to you.
14 Q. Well, let me see if I can ask the question again and get you to
15 answer it, then. It's true, isn't it, that in 1992 and 1993, there was
16 widespread looting and seizure of property belonging to Croats who had
17 fled the RSK? Is that right or is it wrong?
18 A. There was looting. I cannot agree it was mass looting in the way
19 that you presented. When it comes to the extent of the overall looting,
20 it -- the number of such incidents was relatively low.
21 If I may say, I don't want to contest when you say describe things
22 that did occur, but let us be objective. There were incidents of looting,
23 targeted against the Serbs, and many of these incidents are more numerous
24 than those against the Croats. I'm not negating what you're saying but
25 let us not lose sight of the fact -- I don't want us to depict -- paint a
1 picture were there were no attacks against Croats but there were, but
2 incidents where Serbs were victims were far more numerous than those where
3 Croats were victims.
4 Q. Sir, we'll all be delighted if we can be objective here. That's
5 what we are trying to do. And you've insisted on this now and also in
6 your testimony on Friday, that there were more crimes against Serbs than
7 there were against Croats. I'm right, aren't I, that certainly from the
8 beginning of 1992 and through to August 1995, there were very few Croats
9 living in the RSK in comparison with the number of Serbs. There were many
10 more Serbs living there than Croats, right?
11 A. I agree.
12 Q. And so it stands to reason, doesn't it, that you might see even
13 more crimes with Serb victims than Croat victims just because of the
14 differences in population, right? If you were being objective.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Shaking your head and finger doesn't get recorded,
16 Witness. If you can say something, then we at least we can read it on the
17 record here. We will not be able to see your finger wagging or your head
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise. I noticed
20 the lapse of the Prosecutor that there were more crimes against Serbs than
21 Croats, but I wanted to indicate that I agreed with and I of course accept
22 your rightful remark.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, I wanted to indicate that I agreed with
24 what? That sentence became incomplete and then we, by a conjunction, we
25 lumped something else that had nothing to do with the first part of the
1 sentence. What did you agree with?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know what you
3 refer to.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I will record to you what how your answer was
5 translated to us. Your Honour, I apologise I noticed the lapse of the
6 Prosecutor that there were more crimes against Serbs than Croats but I
7 wanted to indicate that I agreed with and I of course accept your rightful
9 Now, I don't know what, agreed with what?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, through my gestures I
11 wanted to indicate that I agreed that I indicated that I mentioned,
12 noticed that the Prosecutor said that there were far more crimes against
13 the Serbs than the Croats, rather than the opposite given the number of
14 respective ethnic groups living in the RSK. He meant to say the opposite.
15 JUDGE HOEPFEL: I'm not sure the Prosecutor told you anything, but
16 the Prosecutor was referring to what you said yesterday or on Friday.
17 Wasn't it the case?
18 MR. BLACK: Perhaps the best thing is if I put my question again.
19 If it wasn't clear hopefully I'll straighten it out.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: That will be very helpful.
21 MR. BLACK:
22 Q. My question is this, sir: You've told us, according to you, that
23 there were many more Serb victims of crime than there were Croat victims
24 of crime. And my point to you is that that wouldn't be surprising at all
25 given the proportions of population because there were many more Serbs
1 living in the RSK than Croats, so the fact that you -- even if we accept,
2 as you say, that there were more victims who were Serb than Croat, that
3 doesn't necessarily suggest that Serbs were -- in proportion to their
4 population were more often victims than Croats. Actually, the opposite
5 was the case; is that right?
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: It would help by saying yes, it was right; or no,
7 it is not right.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Prosecutor, you were ambiguous
9 towards the end of your statement. I seek you to be more concrete. I
10 don't want to mislead you or give you a false impression of anybody. You
11 meant there were more victims -- crimes against the Serbs, that's true,
12 and Croats were less numerous and that the proportion is not that
13 significantly different.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: What was ambiguous now, now that you understand the
15 proportion? What was ambiguous? I'm not quite sure I understand what
16 needs to be clarified now here.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am not sure what
18 needs to be clarified. Mr. Prosecutor is here.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, no, no. You said that the Prosecutor is
20 ambiguous. You said: "Mr. Prosecutor, you were ambiguous."
21 Now, what is it that is ambiguous?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, what I found unclear was this
23 statement, namely if I were to say yes, the way I saw things, that would
24 mean that I agree that in reality there had been more or as the Prosecutor
25 likes to put it, the de facto there had been more crimes against the
1 Croats than against the Serbs, which is something that I cannot agree to,
2 in relation to the general number of criminal complaints dealt with by the
3 organs of the MUP.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then if you don't agree to it you just say you
5 don't agree with it. That's why you have a choice. You're not forced to
6 give one answer.
7 Mr. Prosecutor, can you put the question again and let the witness
9 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 I understand the witness, I think, perhaps to have answered the
11 first part of my question, which is -- or it was kind of agreeing with --
12 he already said about more -- he says that there were more crimes with
13 Serb victims than there were with Croat victims.
14 Q. So I'll just put the second part to you again. In proportionality
15 to their population, Croats were, let's say, more likely to be victims of
16 crime than were Serbs, right? Because there were far fewer Croats in the
17 RSK than there were Serbs.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that
19 this question is complete absolute speculation.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, this witness said much earlier
21 that there were more victims of Serb ethnicity than there were of Croats,
22 for whatever reason. He seems to have the answer, and so I'm sure he can
23 give us an answer here, too, as well. Unless you want us to accept what
24 he said earlier as speculation too. I don't think we can deal with it
25 that way.
1 Let him answer. Let him answer and tell us. If it's speculation,
2 let him tell us it's speculation.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that no legal system, a
4 system aspiring after regularity, can accept Mr. Prosecutor's statements
5 to the effect that because someone is in a minority, they have more
6 possibility --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I interrupt you, Witness? I don't think it's
8 for you to comment on the Prosecutor's questions. You just answer the
9 question. If you're not able to answer the question, say I am not able to
10 answer the question. If you disagree with the question, just say I
11 disagree with the question. It's not for you to -- you're here to answer
13 Mr. Prosecutor, will you put the last part of your question to the
14 witness again?
15 MR. BLACK: I will, Your Honour, thank you.
16 Q. Sir, again the question is: In proportion to their population,
17 Croats in the RSK were more likely to be victims of crime than were Serbs.
18 I don't say more likely in some kind of speculative way. I'm talking
19 about if you compare the numbers of Croat victims to the numbers of Croats
20 in the RSK, and then you compare the number of Serb victims to the number
21 of Serbs in the RSK, proportionally Croats were actually more likely to be
22 victims than were Serbs. Isn't that right?
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honours. This
24 is indeed a multiple speculation. Who will commit the crime, the army,
25 the police, the Territorial Defence? This is on a collision course with
1 logic, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Nobody is asking who committed the crime,
3 Mr. Milovancevic. You are now bringing confusion instead of -- and
4 causing a collision with logic, because you're now bringing in the
5 perpetrators and that's not part of the question.
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in that case, the
7 question is wholly irrelevant because the Prosecutor has to bear in mind
8 the points of the indictment, which says that the Territorial Defence and
9 everyone associated with Martic persecuted the Croatian minority, and we
10 are now dealing with the minority and majority. It is an incomprehensible
11 question, generally speaking.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, you don't jump from one ground of
13 objection to another depending on what answer you get, you know. You stay
14 with your objection and if the Bench rules, it rules. And Mr. -- just for
15 the record, the objection on relevance is overruled.
16 Will you please put the question to the witness again?
17 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: And can you spare us your interventions,
19 Mr. Milovancevic, which are intended to give an answer to the witness?
20 MR. BLACK: Let me just try to put the question to you one more
21 time, sir. And let me find it so that I can say it in just the same way
22 so there is no confusion.
23 Q. In proportion to their population, Croats in the RSK were more
24 likely to be victims of crime than were Serbs, weren't they? If you
25 disagree, say so; but if you agree with me, please say so.
1 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Excuse me, Mr. Black, you side "likely." It
2 sounds a little odd. We are talking about the past, so you mean it in
3 terms of statistics?
4 MR. BLACK: Exactly, Your Honour, thank you. That's very helpful.
5 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Otherwise it would sound like speculation but it
6 is a statistical --
7 MR. BLACK: That's exactly what I meant by "likely." Thank you
8 Your Honour.
9 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Risk.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you have an answer?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, this is a simple matter.
12 There were also Romanians, white Russians and other people in the Krajina,
13 and their numbers were even smaller. Does this mean that they were even
14 more in jeopardy? The numbers of the people really was of no relevance to
15 the number of victims of crime.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Witness, do you agree with the proposition by
17 the Prosecution or do you disagree with it?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. In keeping with what I've
19 said, no.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Now, why did it have to take
21 us something like 20 minutes to get an answer to this question? Thank
23 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. I know we've gone a few
24 minutes over the time for the break. Thank you.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: We will take a break and come back at 6.00.
1 Court adjourned.
2 --- Recess taken at 5.19 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 5.48 p.m.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Black.
5 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. And, Your Honours, earlier in
6 the day there was a suggestion that we would take up a couple of issues
7 after the break. And so what I thought I would do is try to leave five or
8 ten minutes at the end of the day, if that's acceptable.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: That would be appreciated.
10 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. I'll try to remember. Last
11 time I said that I forgot to do it.
12 Q. Witness, at the end of the last session, we were kind of -- we
13 getting a little bit bogged down and so I'm just going to take one minute
14 to kind of explain the procedure with you, because I think there is some
15 confusion and that's slowing us down.
16 You and I aren't here today to argue. You don't need to argue
17 with me and I'm going to try not to argue with you. My job here is to put
18 questions to you and your job is to try answer those the best you can.
19 And the lawyers, other people will have a chance to argue about all of
20 this stuff at a later and appropriate time in the proceedings. So just so
21 you understand that that's really what we are here to do is to ask and
22 answer questions and not to argue with one another.
23 Do you understand that?
24 A. I do.
25 Q. Okay. Thank you. Before we got distracted, I think you had
1 agreed with me to the very limited extent that you did agree that Croats
2 did -- were -- at least on some occasions victims of property crimes in
3 1992 and 1993 in the RSK; is that right? Have I understood you correctly?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. In particular, in Knin, around February of 1993, that was a fairly
6 common problem; correct? Property crimes against Croat property.
7 A. I don't think that it was the case in Knin. In Knin there were
8 the fewest such cases, i.e., problems. I don't say that there were not
9 any, but this was where the least number of such cases happened. This
10 referred rather more to the peripheral areas.
11 Q. Okay. And when you refer to peripheral areas, one example would
12 be Benkovac; correct?
13 A. When I say "peripheral," border areas. I'm more specifically
14 referring to the areas which were on the line of separation between the
15 RSK and Croatia.
16 Q. Okay. But you -- it's correct, isn't it, that there were also
17 cases of such crimes against the Croat property, let's say, on the
18 interior of the RSK, away from the lines of demarcation; that's the lines
19 of separation, right? There were such crimes in 1992 and 1993?
20 A. Yes, yes. Such things happened.
21 Q. And one thing that made this problem more difficult for Croats is
22 that in many cases property crimes against Croats were supported or at the
23 very least condoned by local police commanders; isn't that correct?
24 A. No. That is not correct. There was an express order to the
25 effect that the entire population had to be protected regardless of
2 Q. So -- I don't think we need to look at it, it's Exhibit 728 for
3 the assistance of the Defence and Your Honours. But if someone from
4 UNPROFOR was to state that the seizure -- looting and seizure of Croat
5 properties and food occurred often with the blessing of local militia
6 commanders, and that that was -- had increased significantly in October of
7 1992, for instance, you would disagree with that?
8 A. No. I would not agree with that. I would disagree.
9 Q. Crimes against the property of Croats, especially if unpunished or
10 condoned by the police as stated by the United Nations, that caused
11 tremendous fear for Croats who were still in the Krajina, and it also sent
12 a message to those Croats who left that they should not return to the RSK;
13 isn't that right?
14 A. It is quite certain that criminal offences do not augur for anyone
15 including Croats as in the case referred to by you.
16 Q. Okay. Thank you.
17 MR. BLACK: Could we go into private session for a few moments,
18 Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session?
20 [Private session]
11 Pages 9483-9485 redacted. Private session.
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
14 MR. BLACK: Thank you very much.
15 Q. Witness, I'm going to ask you now about a couple of passages on
16 the document that we have on our screen. If you could first look at
17 paragraph 4, the second part of that, if we could scroll up a bit. And
18 again this is in English, so I'll read out the part that I'm most
19 interested in. According to this ECMM report it says: "Mr. Mikelic" --
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, my learned
21 colleague, I apologise for interrupting you.
22 I don't know whether Mr. Martic receives this document in his
23 mother tongue. We have a problem if he does not. His Defence team
24 understands the language, English language, the witness can be shown this
25 document in English, but Mr. Martic has the right to know what kind of a
1 document is being presented to the witness.
2 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I certainly am empathetic with the
3 problem, but the way that things work in the trials here is that B/C/S is
4 not a working language so when we have these kinds of original language
5 documents in English it's often the case that we don't have a B/C/S
6 translation. That's why counsel is required to be able to speak in
7 English or French, one of the working languages of the Tribunal. So I
8 apologise that there are a number of documents I'm using today that we do
9 not have in B/C/S, and that's simply the practice to avoid translating all
10 these things is that if it's in one of the working languages of the
11 Tribunal we don't have necessarily a B/C/S translation.
12 And if I -- if Your Honour - sorry to rise again - but I'll read
13 out the pertinent passages which will be translated by the booths so
14 hopefully that conveys all necessary information to Mr. Martic. And if
15 not, his counsel, who understands the language, can help him with other
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] This is correct, what my
18 learned colleague says, but it seems that we have a problem with the
19 witness as well. (redacted)
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: I suppose the answer to that question is contained
3 in the previous answer given by Mr. Black. Would a translation from the
4 B/C/S booth for the witness also not be equally helpful? I know it is not
5 the full answer but we are being told that B/C/S is not a working language
6 of the Tribunal and that's why, and I'm looking at the rules here and
7 looking at Rule 66, which insists on documents that must be given to the
8 accused in his -- in a language he understands. I don't think this is one
9 of them. Surely the very reading of Rule 66 anticipates that there will
10 be some other documents that are not necessarily going to be in the
11 language of the accused. Because it specifies specifically that that
12 which must be given to him in the language that he understands. And if
13 you look at Rule 67 and Rule 68, and Rule 68 bis, all talk of disclosures
14 but all those disclosures are not within the meaning of Rule 66.
15 I think we have been going on along this line, Mr. Milovancevic,
16 and I think the Defence has also given documents that were only in English
17 and they have read these documents. How have you solved the problem with
18 the accused and the witness?
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it has occurred on
20 a couple of occasions but these documents were very rare. The problem
21 here is concerning the witness, for his benefit, his words are quoted
22 verbatim. I'm not sure to which extent he will be able to follow the
24 I'm going -- I'm talking about this general problem. I accept my
25 learned colleague's explanation concerning the accused, but for witness,
1 he would be put in a far more disadvantageous position if he cannot read
2 in his mother tongue something that he purportedly stated and is being
3 quoted as such. If he were to give a translation into B/H/S [as
4 interpreted] he would be able to detect whether it follows his usual
5 linguistic patterns, whether he does express himself in this way or not.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, I think a translation is given to him in
7 B/C/S in -- from the B/C/S booth, number 1. Number 2, I don't think the
8 rarity of documents in English is the issue. The issue is the issue of
9 principle, whether rare or many, if documents in English are not supposed
10 to be used, they are not supposed to be used, irrespective of how few they
11 may be. And the principle should apply equally to few documents as it
12 does to many documents.
13 But what else do you suggest we do, Mr. Milovancevic? (redacted)
24 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I've tried to do that and I'll certainly
25 try to adopt that in the future and hopefully that will address
1 Mr. Milovancevic's concerns.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Black. I thought this had been done
3 actually in this particular instance.
4 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, one --
5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we move into private session, please?
7 [Private session]
6 [Open session]
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
9 Yes, Mr. Black.
10 MR. BLACK: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
11 Q. Witness, I'm going to ask you about a couple of passages from the
12 document which is on our screen and I'll read them out to you, and again
13 I'm -- I know that it's a bit of a problem that you don't have this in
14 your first language, so if you have confusion or a question about what is
15 read out to you, please let us know and we'll clarify that so that you
16 know what the document says.
17 And the first part I'd like to point your attention to is the
18 second part of paragraph 4, and it's talking about something said by
19 Mr. Mikelic and here's what the paragraph says: "Mr. Mikelic, the new
20 Prime Minister, was quoted as saying, 'Our negotiating position is and
21 will be territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic of Serb
22 Krajina. The RSK will sooner or hater unite with the Serb republic and
23 Montenegro into a unified state.'".
24 And my question for you, sir, is: That was the position of
25 Mr. Mikelic and in fact the RSK government at the time, that the RSK would
1 sooner or later unite with Serbia and Montenegro, right?
2 A. In principle, no. Why not? If I -- may I explain why not? It is
3 beyond questioning that all of us wanted for the Serb question and issue
4 be resolved in a just manner, and one of the options was unifying with
5 Serbia and Montenegro and this is beyond questioning. But during a
6 certain period, what was expressed was a possible option for the conflict
7 to be resolved in another manner but given the pressure coming from the
8 public, we could not state that publicly, which means that no politician
9 in Krajina could opt for anything else although given the talks with the
10 international community, for that position to be expressed in public
11 before the grounds were prepared for such an expression. So we had to be
12 mindful of these things as well.
13 Let me be clear about it. Of course, it was beyond questioning
14 that the desire of most people was to unify with Serbia and Montenegro.
15 Other options being peaceful solution in accordance with the Vance Plan.
16 There were several options open to us.
17 Q. Okay. And I think I've understood you to say that the public
18 position was for unification with Serbia and Montenegro sort of for
19 political reasons, but behind the scenes there were other options being
20 considered by the Serb leadership. Is that what I've understood -- is
21 that -- have I understood you correctly?
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: I thought the opposite of that was the position.
23 The public position was we go for other options according to the Vance
24 Plan, but behind the scenes we really wanted to join with Montenegro and
1 MR. BLACK: Witness, perhaps you've heard -- I understood you in
2 one way and the Bench obviously understood you in another way. Can you
3 help us understand --
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Resolve our differences?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the way that you
6 understood it follows from my unclear statements. This is not the case.
7 I said that we, all of us, wanted to unify with Serbia and Montenegro, but
8 we concurrently worked on resolving the conflict in other ways. It would
9 be an illusion to expect at this point of time for the leadership, the
10 political leadership of Krajina that conducted these talks, to work on
11 just one option. It accepted other options and negotiated about them.
12 What I wanted to state is that we could not state such options
13 publicly, which does not mean that we wanted to circumvent the Vance Plan.
14 We wanted to enforce that plan to the benefit, peacefully to the benefit
15 of all the peoples in that area.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which is this option that you were not prepared to
17 state publicly?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are the options that were
19 linked to talks with Croatia about the pipeline, the roads, establishing
20 of other forms of cooperation, and we state -- we meant that time will
21 show which option would be the best one.
22 Requesting that Republic of Serbian Krajina unilaterally to be
23 annexed to Serbia --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are introducing pipelines now and roads. The
25 question was there were -- the options that we are talking about are two
1 here: Either to work on the Vance Plan, according to the proposals of the
2 Vance Plan, or to unite with Serbia and Montenegro. Which of these two
3 was the option that the Krajina officials were not prepared to state
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The option was to work in accordance
6 with the Vance Plan. In accordance with the Vance Plan.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: And which was not supposed to be mentioned
8 publicly? Can you answer that question?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What could not be mentioned publicly
10 is that the issue of the Republic of Serbian Krajina can be resolved in no
11 other way but through unification with Serbia and Montenegro because
12 majority of the people expected that.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's how I understood you.
14 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Sir, the position vis-a-vis the international community was also
16 always that the RSK insisted on a separate state as any solution to the
17 conflict; correct?
18 A. That was one of the most frequently referred to solutions. It was
19 not the sole one.
20 Q. Well, it was one -- it was the only one acceptable, really, to the
21 RSK leadership; isn't that right?
22 A. I just said something different. It was just one of the
23 solutions, the most frequent one but it wasn't the only one.
24 Q. Okay. Perhaps we will come back to that later on in my questions.
25 Let me ask you about one other part of this document while it's on
1 our screen and it's in paragraph 5. In there, this document says the
2 following. It says: "Mr. Babic later in a statement said that all
3 members of the government must persist in achieving the sovereignty of the
4 RSK and the right of the Serb people to self-determination and unification
5 with other parts of the Serb people."
6 And that's another reference to this same idea of unification;
7 correct? Unification with Serbia and Montenegro.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. I didn't hear an interpretation but I see it on the screen.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Yes.
11 MR. BLACK: I got it. Thank you.
12 Your Honours, could this be admitted into evidence?
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
14 please be given an exhibit number.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number 970.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
17 Yes, Mr. Black.
18 MR. BLACK: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
19 Q. Sir, while we are on this issue of joining Serb lands into one
20 state, that was Milan Martic's position at the time also, wasn't it, both
21 publicly and privately, he was a proponent of this idea of unifying Serb
22 lands into one state.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And for example, during the presidential elections in I guess
25 December of 1993 and January of 1994, Martic said that if he won the
1 election, he would "speed up the process of unification," and that he
2 would "pass on the baton to our all Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic."
3 You remember him saying those types of things about unification
4 with Serbia and Montenegro, don't you?
5 A. Well, I cannot remember that was literally so, but that he did
6 utter such a wish and that that was an objective, that is true.
7 Q. Very well. Thank you.
8 MR. BLACK: Could we move back into private session now for a
9 while, please, Your Honour?
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could the Chamber please move into private session?
11 [Private session]
11 Pages 9497-9511 redacted. Private session.
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.00 p.m.,
19 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 17th day of
20 October, 2006, at 2.15 p.m.