1 Wednesday, 18 October 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon, Witness. Once again, the Chamber
7 takes this opportunity to remind you that you took an -- made an
8 undertaking at the beginning of your testimony to tell the truth, the
9 whole truth, and nothing else but the truth, and that you are still bound
10 by that declaration, okay? Thank you very much.
11 Mr. Black.
12 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. At the end of the day
13 yesterday, we were getting close to my cross-examination and I put a
14 question about Exhibit 391, which it might be useful to bring back up on
15 to the e-court. This was a cable from the 3rd of August, 1995. I put a
16 question to the witness, which I'll just go back to so that it's clear. I
17 said: "That's true, isn't it, that in substance the RSK position had not
18 changed on August 3rd?" And that's a reference, actually, to paragraph 7
19 of this document, which I believe we -- I don't remember if we have this
20 in B/C/S and in English, but anyhow it's paragraph 7.
21 Mr. Milovancevic, for the Defence, objected saying that the
22 Prosecution was misusing facts, and he said, and this is at page 9612,
23 line 1, he says: "I oppose this methodology of work, Your Honours. We
24 have established this to be an untruthful paragraph, this number 7, and
25 Mr. Galbraith has himself said that he laboured under a misconception and
1 conveyed that information to the English ambassador under that
2 misconception." And he goes on to say: "That is completely
4 Your Honours, having looked at the transcript, I know the Defence
5 also has pages that they want to point you to, but I think the most
6 relevant passage is at page 3831 of the transcript, and this is the
7 cross-examination of Ambassador Galbraith, and it's crystal clear, in our
8 submission there, Your Honours, that the point at issue was whether or not
9 Mr. Perina from the US embassy had gone to speak with Mr. Milosevic, which
10 is something that's dealt with in paragraph 8, not paragraph 7 of the
11 document. And Ambassador Galbraith explained how his information at the
12 time is reflected in this memo. He later learned that Mr. Perina was
13 unable to go and meet with Mr. Milosevic. This was dealt with, perhaps,
14 on cross-examination, but certainly on cross-examination I think that
15 issue is cleared up. But there is absolutely no indication on the record,
16 in our submission, that would question anything in paragraph 7.
17 So we reject the allegation that we're proceeding by unacceptable
18 work and we think that the Defence objection is just unfounded.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I just address this point before you sit down:
20 Supposing that there was truth in that Mr. Galbraith had considered that
21 he laboured under a misconception, would there be a basis for this
23 MR. BLACK: There might be a basis that I was misstating the
24 evidence if it had been established on the record that this document was
25 inaccurate and I had put it to the witness as something that's accurate.
1 I was working from the document. I think it would be a fine line there,
2 Your Honour. But I don't think we have to address that, because there is
3 no evidence to indicate that.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I would like to have it addressed, because I would
5 think that, if I ask a witness, "Is this pen black or white," and he says,
6 "It is white" and it turns out that it's black, does that preclude me
7 from asking the following witness the same question?
8 MR. BLACK: No. You're absolutely right, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: This is the basis of my question.
10 MR. BLACK: I understand. I hadn't looked at it quite in that
11 way. But you're right. Certainly, especially having a basis such as we
12 have in this document, even if another witness had called into doubt the
13 document, we would still be entitled to put the position to this witness
14 or any other witness.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: So Mr. Galbraith's views are his views, but this
16 document still stands as it stands and you can still put this document to
17 another witness.
18 MR. BLACK: That's correct, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's the point I'm asking.
20 MR. BLACK: And, in fact, Mr. Galbraith didn't -- just to make the
21 point so it's clear: Mr. Galbraith didn't question anything in paragraph
22 7, just so that's clear as well.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
24 Do you have any response, Mr. Milovancevic?
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, very briefly.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] The gist of my objection was
3 not whether paragraph 7 of the document was correctly interpreted, but the
4 whole document of the English ambassador was based on the misinformation
5 supplied by Ambassador Galbraith, which he confirmed in these
6 proceedings. All the conclusions from that document have been derived
7 from paragraph 1 of this document, which is the basis for the whole
8 document, to the effect that Milosevic had been briefed or contacted by
9 the US on Galbraith's discussion with Babic, and all the questions put to
10 the witness stemmed from that. And that was that Serb side had not
11 changed their attitude and did not accept the negotiations because
12 Milosevic had convinced them to do so, and at the same time Milosevic was
13 allegedly informed by the ambassador, which is incorrect, and Galbraith
14 confirmed that. And the witness was faced -- was not faced with the
15 information that Galbraith wrongly advised the English ambassador, which
16 means that the whole logic is warped, stemming from this document, which
17 was based on paragraph 7.
18 I was, in principle, against the usage of this document for things
19 that the Prosecutor wishes to confirm, because you cannot build a truth on
20 the basis of a false document. And from the person who provided the basis
21 for this document, Mr. Galbraith, during examination and
22 cross-examination, we heard confirmation that he worked under a
23 misconception; that Mr. Milosevic had been informed of all this.
24 I'm against the methodology, the concept of questioning. I'm not
25 saying that my learned colleague wanted to misinform me, the witness, or
1 you. I am against this principle. This is a principled objection. This
2 document, in our view, in terms of verifying what was going on, is hardly
3 to be used, Your Honour, because Mr. Galbraith discredited it post festum;
4 not before it was drafted but 11 years after the fact. And not only the
5 pages 3877, but also 3829 and 28, during the examination and
6 cross-examination of that witness.
7 This was the gist of my objection. I didn't say that one sentence
8 from the document was misrepresented. I respect my learned colleague. I
9 don't believe that he would do so wilfully. I meant the whole document.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, I note one point: One, you have
11 moved away from the way you objected yesterday; secondly, I just wanted to
12 say to you that what you are now saying, I think, is more appropriate at
13 argument time. You are arguing. Thirdly, I want to say that this
14 document, to my knowledge, has been admitted as an exhibit. I think it is
15 called exhibit 391. And if it is 391 -- if it is an exhibit -- this
16 argument that you are raising should have been raised at the time of
18 I wonder whether it would have been successful even at that time,
19 because you are dealing now with the probative value of this document,
20 which is something that the Chamber will deal with at the time of
21 assessing the weight to be attached to it. And I don't know how you can
22 now stand up today and say an admitted exhibit may not be used in the
24 Having heard you having said that, for those reasons I overrule
25 the objection.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed.
3 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. And I know you've just ruled,
4 and I won't go into argument, but I would just say that we have a totally
5 different view of what happened in that cross-examination. We think that
6 Mr. Milovancevic's view of this document and that cross-examination is
7 totally inaccurate. But I won't go any further into it.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you for not going into it.
9 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. I just wanted that to be
11 WITNESS: WITNESS MM-117 [Resumed]
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Black: [Continued]
14 Q. Witness, I realise this is now -- we've been talking about
15 procedural issues for a while.
16 Now, on your screen you have this paragraph 7, and I just want to
17 put the question to you one more time because you didn't get a chance to
18 answer it yesterday. It's true, isn't it, that in substance, the RSK
19 delegation did not change its position on August 3rd, 1995; right?
20 A. Mr. Prosecutor, you're absolutely wrong. I am very glad that I'm
21 allowed to answer this question. If you could scroll up to the letterhead
22 or the beginning of the document, please.
23 MR. BLACK: I think you'll have to go back a page to the first
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the first page, please.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it possible to get an English -- okay, I'll try
2 and ...
3 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, this is an original -- it's a document
4 that's originally in English, and so the B/C/S, so that the witness can
5 see it, is on the main screens, whereas the English will be available on
6 your private screens.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated].
8 MR. BLACK:
9 Q. Witness, go ahead.
10 A. Thank you. A bit up, please. I insist on the time this document
11 was sent, this cable, when it was sent -- I can't see that now. Maybe you
12 could scroll up a bit to the very top of the page. Now I can see that.
13 The document states: "3rd of August, 1300 hours." I've informed
14 in August this court that the negotiations at Geneva started at 10.00.
15 Separate talks -- Mr. Stoltenberg first spoke to the Croatian delegation
16 at 10.00, and then at 10.40, with the Serbian delegation. Then he had
17 some consultations, and sometime around 12.40, he came back to talk with
18 the Serbian delegation. Mr. Mile Novakovic expressed the position of the
19 of the delegation of the Serbian Krajina, and Mr. Stoltenberg then
20 expressed his views on these concrete questions. I can say which they
21 were. And then at 12.40, Mr. Stoltenberg came back to us and then we said
22 that we absolutely accepted his proposals. This cable was sent at 1300
23 hours. Maybe whoever reported on developments could have meant those at
24 10.00 a.m. when the -- and 10.40 [as interpreted] when the Serbian
25 delegation expressed their position.
1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we were talking
2 about 12.40 and then "10.40" is mentioned as the time when Stoltenberg
3 came back to our delegation. I believe that the witness said some other
4 time. After 12.40, you can have only 1340 or 1440. Now, it was --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just a second --
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] -- 1440.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated].
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. What Mr. Milovancevic's point is -- do
10 you pick it up, Mr. Black?
11 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I take it to mean that there was -- that
12 he thinks there may have been a translation error that's showing up on the
13 transcript. Maybe we could -- if the witness could briefly give us that
14 time chronology again. That is what I understand to be the issue.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, but then he ...
16 MR. BLACK: Actually, I have to -- we certainly didn't -- I didn't
17 hear "1340" or "1440," and I'm not sure if Mr. Milovancevic is saying that
18 those are the times he used. But the question is whether he said 10.40 or
19 some other time, at line 13 of page 7, I think.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness slow down, please;
21 interpreter's note.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Witness, you are asked to slow down when you
23 speak. You see, when you -- I don't want to go to Mr. Milovancevic
24 because then he's beginning to testify and I don't want him to testify.
25 Maybe I should ask the witness to look at the transcript, if he's able to
1 see it -- at least he can look at the times and tell us if there is any
2 time there that he didn't mention that -- that he mentioned and has not
3 been translated, and then he can correct it.
4 MR. BLACK: Unfortunately, Your Honour, I think technology doesn't
5 allow us to do that because we can't stop the LiveNote on his screen the
6 way we can stop ours. So I'm open to any suggestions, but I think the
7 easiest way would be for him to give that chronology again.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated].
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: I beg your pardon. This finger.
11 Do you know- - can do that again? Thank you so much.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With pleasure. Talks of the
13 Croatian side and the Serbian side were supposed to start at 10.00, with
14 representatives of the international conference for former Yugoslavia,
15 headed by Mr. Stoltenberg. They started by Mr. Stoltenberg first speaking
16 separately with the Croatian delegation. What they discussed, it is not
17 known to me.
18 After that, at 10.40, Mr. Stoltenberg -- I know, because I have
19 notes from that meeting. I know the chronology. At 10.40 Mr. Stoltenberg
20 discussed with the Serbian delegation. Briefly, positions were expressed
21 of the Serbian side, but just general information, because the first two
22 talks were meant to be general. Then after that, Mr. Stoltenberg, around
23 11.50 -- I can consult my notes, if necessary; I've got it in my notebook,
24 if necessary.
25 Sometime before 12.00, Mr. Stoltenberg discussed matters with us
1 again. At 1340 talks were resumed when Mile Novakovic, following the
2 situations expressed previously by Mr. Stoltenberg -- so following
3 previous remarks of Mr. Stoltenberg, Mr. Mile Novakovic expressed the
4 views of the Serbian delegation. After that, Mr. Stoltenberg said that he
5 would be talking to the Croatian side and come up with a joint proposal.
6 And at 1445, on the 3rd of August, Mr. Stoltenberg had another
7 meeting with the Serbian delegation and he expressed or put forward a
8 proposed agreement, as I said, which would entail talks on the re-opening
9 of the pipeline on the 8th, the railways on the 9th, resumption of talks
10 at Knin on the 10th of August, and on the 17th of August in Zagreb. And
11 after that, the first meeting, joint meeting, was with the Croatian
12 delegation where Mr. Stoltenberg put forward his proposal. We agreed with
13 that proposal, but Mr. Ivic Pasalic, who headed the Croatian delegation,
14 said that they had come to discuss other matters, the matters of peaceful
15 reintegration of Krajina, and that they were seeking answers to that
16 question and that they couldn't discuss other matters.
17 The document, Mr. Prosecutor, that you presented here is dated
18 1300 hours. At 1445, the Serbian delegation as such fully accepted
19 Mr. Stoltenberg's proposal; and before that, we had exchanged views and
20 announced that we would be determining our position.
21 So I can state with a hundred per cent responsibility that this is
22 incorrect that Mr. Stoltenberg had reported this, what is written in this
23 document, because this is not truth. From the Brioni transcripts, the
24 transcripts that cover the work of the Security and Defence Council of
25 Croatia --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are we still answering the question that you put,
2 Mr. Black?
3 MR. BLACK: Up until now I thought that he was. When he goes into
4 Brioni, then maybe we've gone beyond it.
5 Q. Witness, you've explained to us how you say the chronology went.
6 But the fact of the -- and you say that you agreed to further talks on
7 certain days. But the fact is that the RSK had no change in position on
8 the substance of any of these issues; isn't that right? On whether or not
9 they were willing to open up the pipeline, the substance of the RSK
10 position did not change on August 3rd?
11 A. No, you are not right. You are absolutely not right.
12 [Prosecution counsel confer]
13 MR. BLACK:
14 Q. Witness, sorry for the interruption. I just want to get clarity
15 on this before I can finally move away from this. You talked about
16 general discussions in the morning and things like that, and here in
17 paragraph 7, it says quite clearly that there was no indication from the
18 RSK delegation of any shift in their position, and then the last sentence
19 says: "They seem to have no new instructions."
20 Do you agree with me that what's written here in paragraph 7 is
21 inconsistent with what you've said? The two don't mesh together; is that
23 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Mr. Black, of which sentence are you speaking?
24 MR. BLACK: The last sentence in paragraph 7, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, during this testimony,
2 I have not asked for your protection because I understand certain
3 processes; however, anyhow, I should like to request --
4 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Are you referring to what I said before with
5 protection or whatever?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, I apologise.
7 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Okay. Go on.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just a very brief sentence.
9 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Keep it short.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I will be short. The matter
11 is, what I have given very clearly by hour and by content, what had
12 transpired in Geneva, and that the Serbian delegation had accepted what I
13 said. Mr. Prosecutor is repeating time and again that they didn't, and I
14 should like to ask for some respect for the dignity of my person. There
15 is no need for me to keep repeating the same things.
16 I have given you, Mr. Prosecutor, factographically the minutes --
17 the hours and minutes when things happened, the exact time. It is only he
18 who wants to have the sword in one hand, the scales in another hand, and
19 the blindfold taken off from his eyes, can behave in the way you are.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, you are asking for protection from the
21 Bench. I guess the question put to you was: You will accept that the
22 content of paragraph 7 of this letter is different from the position as
23 you state it. And I think you could just easily say yes or no. But yes,
24 I will accept that it is clear to the beholder that the two are
25 different. I'm not quite sure whether there's much purpose that is being
1 served by asking that question. But, again, the answer is simply, "Yes,
2 the two are different, my position and the position of the letter are
3 different." And that's it.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I didn't say that they
5 were different but that the truth is that it had happened the way I said
6 it had happened.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: But listen to me. Listen to me. I'm telling you
8 what the question was and the answer to that -- the appropriate answer to
9 that question was, "Yes, they are different." The question to you was:
10 "Would you agree with me that what you say today is different from what
11 is said in paragraph 7 of the letter?" "Yes, they are different." Isn't
12 it so? Because you say in the -- the position is not as it is stated in
13 the letter; the position is as it is stated by you. That's the long and
14 short of it. You know, you really didn't need any protection from that
15 kind of question. But I agree that it was a tautologous question, given
16 the answer that you gave.
17 You may proceed.
18 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. Does the witness need to
19 answer the question or ...
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you insist on an answer.
21 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I appreciate the guidance from the
22 Bench. It's harder sometimes from here to know when things have reached
23 that level of clarity, and I think you've just indicated to me that it's
24 time to move on and that things are clear enough, and I'll do that. So
25 there's no need to insist on this question, I think.
1 For the last couple of questions could we go into private session,
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.
4 [Private session]
11 Pages 9629-9635 redacted. Private session.
13 [Open session]
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
16 Yes, Mr. Black.
17 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. That completes my
18 cross-examination. No further questions at this time.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Black.
20 Mr. Milovancevic.
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your
23 Re-examination by Mr. Milovancevic:
24 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, pursuant to rules governing the
25 proceedings, the Defence may now put some additional questions to you.
1 Please be mindful of the need to make breaks between the question and the
2 answer because of interpreters.
3 Do you recall the Prosecution asking you about the removal from
4 Borislav Mikelic's government?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do you remember that, in answering his question, you said to my
7 learned colleague that you were consistent in enforcing the government's
8 policy with a view to combat, smuggling, and all forms of crime?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. I failed to switch my microphone off, although your answers were
11 very brief, but I will bear this in mind.
12 So could you tell us, what was the position of Prime Minister
13 Mikelic towards the fight against crime in a situation where, you say, it
14 was were consistent in enforcing the government's policy? Why did he
15 remove you from office?
16 A. I said, asked by the Prosecutor, that, in principle, allow it for
17 those who appoint people to seek their dismissal. I did not agree with
18 the reasons and the grounds. The grounds were that we were consistent in
19 the fight against crime, but for political reasons Mr. Mikelic wanted my
20 removal and the political reasons were more connected with his attempts to
21 -- in the territory of Western Slavonia and Baranja -- may I?
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry. You may. Thank you.
23 A. So the situation was that Mr. Mikelic attempted, pursuant to his
24 reasons, to forge a better relationship with the Slavonia-Baranja
25 leadership rather than the person who enforced the government's decisions
1 and policies. This was unprincipled, but these were the reasons. And in
2 that action, which was the direct pretext for his action, we were very
3 successful and large quantities of smuggled goods, not only in the area of
4 Slavonia and Baranja, but also in the areas adjacent to Croatia and the
5 Bihac region were seized, and that many smuggling channels were disrupted.
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Thank you. Do you recall that the Prosecution confronted you with
8 Mr. Martic's position from an EC Monitoring Mission cable which quoted the
9 disposition of Mr. Martic who supported you as an honest person and he
10 expressed his disagreement with your removal?
11 A. Yes, I do recall. Mr. Martic insisted consistently on the fight
12 against crime, and, in this sense, he provided concrete support, when an
13 action was taken in 1994 to apprehend criminals, murders perpetrated
14 during the former Yugoslavia, arraigned some 100 people; and on the basis
15 of his consent, this action was undertaken. Some 120 criminals were
16 arrested. There were objections of a procedural nature that should not
17 have been done without court orders.
18 Maybe the method, as such, was legally questionable, but the
19 result was evident. And particularly in Banja and Kordun, we introduced a
20 greater level of law and order and we eliminated some individuals who had
21 mistreated the local population.
22 Q. Thank you. Now we are going to broach another topic. You
23 remember Mr. Prosecutor asking you whether the leadership of the Republic
24 of Serbian Krajina expressed their desire in public for the RSK to unify
25 with Serbia.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you recall, in response to the Prosecution's questions, that
3 you explained that the government had considered other options that the
4 Serb government concluded some economic agreements?
5 A. Yes, I did. Throughout the time of war, we conducted negotiations
6 and talks, both with the representatives of the International Conference
7 on the Former Yugoslavia and with the Croatian side.
8 Q. Since His Honour Moloto and the Prosecution understood your answer
9 differently, that answer concerning the consideration of other options
10 other than a unification with Serbia and Montenegro, could you explain
11 those options that you never expressed in public as leadership.
12 A. I couldn't speak in great detail about that because other people
13 were in charge of that. But what was evident and what was discussed is
14 the following:
15 Under circumstances, when Croatia was constantly breaching the
16 Vance Plan and when the international community and UNPROFOR were not
17 fulfilling their mission, and in circumstances where Yugoslavia, as a
18 guarantor and a signatory of the Vance Plan was not performing their
19 protective function, it was politically relevant for representatives of
20 the Krajina authorities to discuss all possible matters with international
21 representatives. First and foremost, it went for possibilities under the
22 Vance Plan which did not prejudge political solutions that could be
23 considered as political solutions for the Serbs in Krajina.
24 Q. Thank you. Were these possibilities or options that which were
25 not expressed in public to the Serbian public in Krajina? Did you mean
2 A. Yes, this is exactly what I meant.
3 Q. Thank you. Also, in answering Prosecution's questions about this
4 matter, you said that the re-opening of the motorway and the
5 re-establishment of economic ties could have influenced the outcome and
6 the solution of the political crisis and improvement in general
7 relations. How did you mean that?
8 A. It could influence matters in such a way where gradual resolution
9 issue by issue would bring us closer to a final solution. Nobody at the
10 time could propose a final solution; if they could, they would have done
12 There are two or three options whenever one negotiates, and there
13 was some rapprochement between the issues which is necessary. The Serbian
14 side, Krajina side, wanted such rapprochement in the best interests of the
15 Serbian people, without negating the interests of the opposite side.
16 Q. Thank you. Let's broach yet another subject. Do you recall the
17 minutes of the meeting of Mr. Martic, Minister of the Interior, with
18 Mr. Cedric Thornberry, Deputy Commander of UNPROFOR? You were asked by
19 the Prosecution whether you would verify the accuracy of those minutes.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In one of your answers, you said that you knew the person who took
22 the minutes, that you recognised his name, and that you believed that the
23 minutes were accurate because you knew that person who drew the minutes.
24 Do you recall that?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. What do you know about the person who kept the minutes? And what
2 is it that convinces you that the minutes are correct or accurate?
3 A. Stankovic Milenko was the secretary in the cabinet of the
4 minister; then he worked for President Martic. He was in charge of,
5 responsible, delicate police matters in Zadar before the war in police.
6 As such, through his merits, he confirmed that he was very truthful, and
7 there would be no reason for him to state in the minutes something that
8 did not transpire. He was morally clean.
9 Q. Do you believe, given that person is morally clean, that you could
10 verify the accuracy of his minutes?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Thank you. The next subject we're going to dwell on is the
13 Vance-Owen Plan, and the document that the Prosecution confronted you
14 with, where Mr. Martic and other leaders of RSK were appealing on the
15 leadership of the Republika Srpska to reject the Vance-Owen Plan. Do you
16 remember that you were confronted with this issue?
17 A. Yes, yes.
18 Q. Do you know whether Republika Srpska accepted the Vance-Owen Plan?
19 A. I cannot recall right now, really. I cannot really. I believe
20 yes, but I'm not sure.
21 Q. Does the mention of sanctions imposed by Serbia against the
22 Republika Srpska mean anything to you?
23 A. Yes, yes.
24 Q. Do you know why Yugoslavia imposed sanctions against the Republika
25 Srpska within the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
1 A. You reminded me now that the Vance-Owen Plan was not accepted, and
2 this is why Serbia imposed sanctions against the Republika Srpska, which
3 had drastic consequences on the status of the Republic of Serbian Krajina,
4 because normal communication, trade connections, were disrupted between --
5 between these two countries, with the only country that we could have
6 trade relations, and that was Yugoslavia.
7 Q. Was the fact that Yugoslavia and Serbia had imposed sanctions on
8 the Republika Srpska of the Serbian Krajina for failure to accept the
9 Vance-Owen Plan, does that mean that Yugoslavia had a different attitude
10 to the Vance Plan relative to Mr. Martic and the leadership of the
11 Republika Srpska?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Thank you. I do not have any more questions related to this
14 particular topic.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before you leave this topic, Mr. Milovancevic,
16 for my own edification, in this last question that you put, when you say:
17 "Was the fact that Yugoslavia and Serbia had imposed sanctions," which is
18 Yugoslavia and which is Serbia? What do you refer -- what do you mean
19 by "Yugoslavia" and what do you mean by "Serbia"? What constitutes each
20 one of those two?
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't want to
22 be wrong. Did you address this question to me?
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Maybe the witness can tell us, because he answered
24 you so he must have answered your question. Can the witness explain --
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- the difference between Yugoslavia and Serbia in
2 the context of the time when this question was put, you know. In history,
3 at that time, what was the difference between the two?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this would require
5 my -- some thought on my part. In 1992 the SFRY changed it name to the
6 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and when it changed its name to Serbia and
7 Montenegro, I believe -- well, I think I cannot recall that date, but it
8 is the same thing. The fact is that Serbia, or rather, the Federal
9 Republic of Yugoslavia, which was then in existence, imposed sanctions on
10 the Republic of the Serbian Krajina which negatively and directly
11 negatively affected the status of the Republic of the Serbian Krajina.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: You haven't heard my question. My question simply
13 is: What area, geographically speaking, constituted Yugoslavia and what
14 area constituted Serbia, at that time in history?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time, the Federal Republic
16 of Yugoslavia consisted of two republics: Serbia and Montenegro. The
17 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was the one that imposed the sanctions.
18 Serbia is a component part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as one
19 of its two constituent federal units.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated].
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: I beg your pardon.
23 When the question was put, Yugoslavia and Serbia, actually it
24 meant Yugoslavia and part of Yugoslavia imposed sanctions.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Yugoslavia, as a
1 whole, imposed the sanctions, as a state.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yugoslavia as a -- I'm just sort of understanding
3 the language of that sentence, "Yugoslavia and Serbia imposed sanctions."
4 Now, you say Serbia and Montenegro constituted Yugoslavia. Now, the
5 question was "Yugoslavia and Serbia." In other words, it says that
6 Yugoslavia and its Serbian part, part of it called Serbia, imposed
7 sanctions. Is that how it should be read?
8 THE WITNESS: [No verbal response].
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. I see you're nodding your head. Do you
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I agree, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
13 JUDGE HOEPFEL: May I also ask, because you answered that question
14 which was referring to Yugoslavia and Serbia, as Mr. Milovancevic said,
15 who imposed the sanctions?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
17 did, as a state. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
18 JUDGE HOEPFEL: So you were not very exact in answering the
19 question, were you?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe, Your Honours, that I
21 said "Yugoslavia." Maybe --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which means it was not correct.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which means it was not correct.
25 JUDGE HOEPFEL: The question was referring to Yugoslavia and
1 Serbia, and you answered with "Yes." If you would have been correct,
2 according to your new answer now, you would have had to say, "I have to
3 divide this question into two parts." Referring to Yugoslavia, it would
4 be yes; and Serbia was not involved in those sanctions. Is that correct
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, from the aspect of the
7 country which had the right to impose sanctions, you are quite right. But
8 given the fact that Serbia was a component part of the Federal Republic of
9 Yugoslavia, that -- yes, but you are right.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: But Serbia as a republic never imposed those
11 sanctions. It was part of the decision of the Federal Republic of
12 Yugoslavia; that's where the decision came from.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
14 JUDGE HOEPFEL: It could have been different. Also there are
15 federations in the world where also the parts of the federations, like
16 republics in a federal system, have certain powers also in regard to
17 external relations. So it's not self-understanding, self-explanatory,
18 okay? Please -- I'm done, yes.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, you may proceed.
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
21 Q. At the time when the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia imposed
22 sanctions on the Republika Srpska because of its rejection of the
23 Vance-Owen Plan, can you tell us who the president of Serbia was?
24 A. It was Mr. Slobodan Milosevic.
25 Q. Thank you. And another question associated with this topic - and
1 that, I believe, will bring us to the conclusion of our first session
2 today - did Serbia respect the decision of the Federal Republic of
3 Yugoslavia on the sanctions and did Serbia also implement those sanctions?
4 A. Yes, to the full, and that was specifically felt on the territory
5 of the Republic of the Serbian Krajina.
6 Q. Thank you. Now we shall move to another topic. We still have
7 another minute; let us use it.
8 Do you remember that my learned colleague the Prosecutor,
9 Mr. Black, asked you whether Mr. Martic was in favour of a war option and
10 against negotiations?
11 A. I do remember that.
12 Q. Can you tell us, until what time -- from which time to which time
13 was Mr. Martic the Minister of the Interior of the Republic of the Serbian
15 A. Mr. Martic was the minister of the interior of the Republic of the
16 Serbian Krajina from mid or beginning of 1991 up until the elections in
17 the Republic of the Serbian Krajina held in the beginning of 1994.
18 And, concretely, the cabinet of Mr. Mikelic was formed on the 20th
19 or 21st of April in 1994, and consequently that is when his prime
20 ministerial function ceased, although he did perform some presidential
21 duties before that.
22 Q. Thank you. Another short question: When was Mr. Martic actually
23 elected president of the Republic of the Serbian Krajina?
24 A. I do not know the exact date, but it was at the elections in the
25 beginning of 1994.
1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that it
2 is time for our break.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are quite correct in your belief,
4 Mr. Milovancevic. We will take a break and come back at 4.00.
5 Court adjourned.
6 --- Recess taken at 3.30 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 3.59 p.m.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
10 Q. Before the break, Mr. Witness, we spoke about the functions of
11 Mr. Martic in the period from 1991 to 1994. When Mr. Martic was the
12 Minister of the Interior, did the Republic of the Serbian Krajina have a
13 government, an assembly and a president?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Under the constitution and the laws of the Republic of the Serbian
16 Krajina, and according to his actual powers, was Mr. Martic the man who
17 did the decision-making on war and peace and on foreign policy?
18 A. No, certainly not.
19 Q. Did Mr. Martic, as Minister of the Interior, accept the mission of
20 the UNPROFOR? And what was his attitude towards the UNCIVPOL and the
21 UNPROFOR soldiers?
22 A. Mr. Martic accepted the mission of the UNPROFOR. I've already
23 stated before, he was the one who very much influenced the people to
24 accept the Vance Plan. And his attitude towards the civilian police, the
25 CIVPOL, was that we should have as close cooperation with them as
1 possible, and to that effect there was a special document drawn up which
2 regulated relations between the police of the Republic of the Serbian
3 Krajina and the UNCIVPOL.
4 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Excuse me, Mr. Milovancevic, did I understand
5 correctly that the witness said first Mr. Martic certainly did not take
6 part in decision-making on war and peace and on foreign policy, and then
7 say he was closely involved in this UNPROFOR and UNCIVPOL issues? Doesn't
8 that mean he, in fact, was involved in foreign policy? Or was this
9 something which has nothing to do with decision-making on war and peace
10 and on foreign policy?
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, Judge
12 Hoepfel. With your permission, I shall ask the witness about that and
13 have him respond.
14 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes.
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. When you say -- Witness, when you say that Mr. Martic was in
17 favour of cooperation with UNPROFOR and UNCIVPOL, what domain of
18 cooperation? What level of cooperation do you mean? What are you
19 referring to?
20 A. As the Minister of the Interior, he normally regulated --
21 determined the relationship with the members of the UNPROFOR and UNCIVPOL,
22 and to that effect instructions were issued spelling out the mode of
23 cooperation in detail. This was a document describing that the organs of
24 the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbian Krajina should be
25 at the disposal of the CIVPOL members in sense of control, that they can
1 have their people as observers in the public security stations, and also
2 in the sense that they had the right to act in response to complaints of
3 all citizens of the Republic of the Serbian Krajina, including those of
4 Croat ethnicity, and to submit such complaints to the public security
5 stations, pursuant to which they should proceed with their operative
7 Q. Thank you. Am I right to interpret, to understand, your answer,
8 the one that you have just given us, as an endeavour and a desire on the
9 part of Mr. Martic to cooperate with the UNCIVPOL in keeping with the
10 Vance Plan and within the ambit of his duty?
11 A. Yes, that's precisely it.
12 Q. You cooperated with Mr. Martic for a number of years. Can you
13 tell us whether he supported the peace mission of the United Nations in
14 the area of Yugoslavia, or was he a person, a man, in favour of the war
15 option in contrast to that?
16 A. Mr. Martic throughout that period absolutely supported a peaceful
17 resolution of the conflict and cooperation with international
18 organisations, but he insisted, as a man of principle, that the
19 international community, too, i.e., the other side, undertake the
20 obligations, the commitments, sought of them.
21 In that sense, he could never be a man in favour of war, but quite
22 the contrary. But he would also say that, if need be, to take up arms to
23 defend the lives of Serbs, to life and freedom, that is something that he
24 certainly did.
25 Q. Thank you. Are you familiar with the Zagreb agreement on the
1 cessation of hostilities and separation of forces from March 1994?
2 A. Yes, I am.
3 Q. Thank you. Did you hear about the -- or have you heard about the
4 economic agreement for the opening of the highway and measures for the
5 restoration of economic confidence between the Republic of the Serbian
6 Krajina and Croatia, with the mediation of UNPROFOR? That is November and
7 December 1994.
8 A. Yes, I have.
9 Q. Did Mr. Martic -- was Mr. Martic in favour of you going to
10 negotiate in the afternoon of the 1st of May, 1995, at Pleso with the
11 purpose of a cessation of hostilities?
12 A. Yes, he absolutely was in favour. And I went for those talks in
13 his name, on his behalf.
14 Q. Did the Republic of the Serbian Krajina accept, on the 3rd of May,
15 1995, the offer given by the international community for a cessation of
17 A. Also on the 1st, already on the 1st, at the talks in Zagreb, the
18 Serbian party, the Serbian side, accepted the agreement on a cease-fire
19 which was not accepted by the Croatian side. Mr. Mikelic proposed that
20 the cessation of hostilities take place at 1200 hours on the 1st -- at
21 2400 hours, excuse me, on the 1st of May, and this was later confirmed by
22 the Serbian side.
23 Q. Thank you. You said that on the 3rd of August, 1995, in Geneva,
24 as a member of the delegation, you accepted the full -- the entire offer
25 of the international community for the resolution of the crisis in the
1 relations between the Republic of the Serbian Krajina and Croatia, which
2 was tabled by Stoltenberg. Do you remember that?
3 A. Yes, you are quite right there.
4 Q. At the time when all these agreements were concluded, what post,
5 in the Republic of Serbian Krajina, was held by Mr. Martic?
6 A. He was the president of the republic.
7 Q. Did he support the conclusion of these agreements - do you know
8 anything about that - of all these mentioned agreements?
9 A. I was precisely given instructions from him to opt for adopting,
10 accepting, agreements which would be in keeping with a universally
11 accepted solution, and we did so in relation to those offered to us by
12 Mr. Stoltenberg at the talks in Zagreb, and he was in favour of such
13 agreements, in other words. During these meetings we had contacts, both
14 in Geneva as well as when we were at Pleso airport, and he gave his
15 approval for what we were to sign.
16 Q. I shall ask you a question which, at first glance, might be
17 superfluous. But, in view of a question by my colleague, I shall insist
18 on it. Can one say that Mr. Martic was against negotiations and a man in
19 favour of war?
20 A. Mr. Martic certainly was not against negotiations. He was for
21 negotiations, and he certainly was not a person -- a man in favour of war
22 but a man who insisted on a just solution, on the universal right of all
23 the peoples in the area of the former Yugoslavia.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we take a look on the
1 monitor at the first page of Exhibit 391. This is a cable of the British
2 embassy or ambassador from the 3rd of August, 1995.
3 Please, let us take a look at paragraph 3, if it can be seen in
4 the B/C/S version on page 1. So paragraph 3. In the B/C/S version, part
5 of the paragraph is located on this page. And may I remind the Chamber
6 that in the English version, paragraph 3, which I'm focussing on, is
7 located on the second half of the first page.
8 Q. I will read it out to you, Witness, under 3. Galbraith explains
9 the facts of life to Babic, and he said that "in American opinion, Croatia
10 will launch an offensive against the Krajina in the next couple of days."
11 This is stated in the first two rows.
12 Then, in the first part of paragraph 3, Galbraith said that, "in
13 order to avoid war, it is necessary for Knin today, on the 3rd of August,
14 at the latest, to announce" - and then it says under item 5 within
15 paragraph 3 - "to announce their urgent wish and readiness to enter talks
16 on the political solution of Krajina as a part of Croatia --"
17 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters don't have the English version.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Do you see that on your screen?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You answered that at Geneva, after several contacts with
22 Mr. Stoltenberg, that you accepted everything that Mr. Stoltenberg offered
23 on behalf of the international community. Do you recall that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You stated that, after your acceptance, the Croatian
1 representative stated that he didn't want to discuss those matters; that
2 they were interested in prompt integration of Krajina into Croatia. Do
3 you recall that?
4 A. Yes. I can also state that this was confirmed in subsequent texts
5 and transcripts of the Croatian government in the Brioni transcripts,
6 where it is stated, on the part of Mr. Sarinic, that the Croatian
7 delegation was tasked with a failure of the talks. In the Brioni
8 transcripts of a meeting of the VONS, President Tudjman, pursuant to this
9 transcript coming from Croatia, said that Croatia would send a delegation
10 to Geneva pro forma so that the international community cannot object to
11 that, but that the matters would be resolved in another manner.
12 Q. Thank you. Do you recall, in replying to my question and replying
13 to my learned colleague's question, did you not say that on the evening of
14 the 3rd of August, 1995, in Geneva, after the Krajina side accepted the
15 proposals and after the Croatian side rejected them, you received
16 information that Croatia was about to attack on the following morning?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What we just saw in the cable of the British embassy and the
19 request under 5 by Mr. Galbraith, is it identical to what the Croatian
20 delegation demanded of you at Geneva to accept reintegration demands
21 coming from them?
22 A. Let me take a look at item 5 first.
23 Q. I mean item 5, under paragraph 3. My apologies.
24 A. Could you please state your question once again. I was
25 disorientated at the time.
1 Q. I apologise. Was the alleged demand or condition, stated by
2 Galbraith, for avoiding the war exactly the same as demanded by the
3 Croatian side at Geneva?
4 A. No. It states here that readiness had to be announced to start
5 talks. There's no need for me to re-state that we were ready. But the
6 Croatian side wanted peaceful reintegration to be kicked off, so we take
7 the Croatian constitution, and for the so-called paramilitary formation to
8 be disarmed, and some other matters. And in this sense, he read President
9 Tudjman's letter, which enumerated all these matters that they had to
11 Q. Despite the fact that you accepted all the international
12 community's demands, Croatia attacked -- started Operation Storm next day,
13 A. Yes, exactly.
14 Q. Thank you. The last question: Would you agree with an impression
15 that the activities of Ambassador Galbraith was tainted by lies and
16 stained by the blood of the Serbian people of Krajina in Croatia?
17 MR. BLACK: Objection.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, before I hear anything, I rule
19 that question out of order, and it is very unethical for you to make that
20 question. Whose impression that? That's your impression. That's ruled
21 out of order, sir. Don't answer me on that question. You're ruled out of
22 order -- that question is ruled out of order.
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I hope you're not going to address me on this
25 point; I've ruled on it.
1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to say that
2 my question may be allowed or disallowed, and you should, as a Presiding
3 Judge, rule on that. Whether my question is unethical or not, maybe you
4 should not act as a representative of Mr. Galbraith, as his advocate. I
5 have no other questions.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, what do you mean, I'm acting as a
7 representative of Mr. Galbraith?
8 THE INTERPRETER: Correction: Advocate of Mr. Galbraith.
9 Interpreter's correction.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: An advocate of Mr. Galbraith. What do you mean by
11 that? You're starting another thing now.
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I only meant to your assessment
13 that my question was unethical. My question was concrete, to the point,
14 and can be either allowed or disallowed, and nothing more or less. The
15 Prosecutor -- Defence counsel protects the dignity and integrity of his
16 witness. You can dub my question either appropriate or inappropriate.
17 But, with due respect, I would not like to have my question characterised
18 as whether it's ethical or not. I am asking about his impression about
19 the actions of a representative of a world power in a region engulfed in
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, whose impression is this that you
22 are putting to the witness? Whose impression is this you are putting to
23 the witness? Your question was -- let me get your question. Just give me
25 "Q. Thank you. The last question: Would you agree with an
1 impression that the activities of Ambassador Galbraith was tainted with
2 lies and stained by the blood of the Serbian people of Krajina in
4 Whose impression is that? Because I've been warning you right
5 through this trial to put questions to the witness and not to testify and
6 ask him to agree to testimony by you. Now, whose impression is that,
7 Mr. Milovancevic?
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will be very
9 precise in my answer. This is an impression of a large part of the Serb
10 population who were shocked with the photo of Mr. Galbraith on a tank in
11 Croatia at the time while peacekeepers were in that area. He was
12 supporting Croatia's war option.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm going to ask you to stop. You have not asked
14 this witness about a photo of Mr. Galbraith, number one; number two, the
15 large portion of the Serbian people that you are talking of have not been
16 here to testify, to tell us that. It is not for you to put your
17 impressions to the witness; it is for this Court to get the impressions of
18 the witness. And that is what I meant by your question is unethical. It
19 is unethical because it is leading. And I repeat: It is unethical. And
20 I want to say to you that I take umbrage with you saying that I'm an
21 advocate of Mr. Galbraith.
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am satisfied and
23 I am very grateful for this explanation. I did not say that it was, but
24 that you should not be an advocate. And since you --
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: You really are turning -- you're curdling my blood
1 now. The sooner you stop, the better.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
3 The Defence is finished with the re-examination.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Say what you like.
5 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes. Before this document is taken from the
6 screen, there is something which I wish to clarify in relation to
7 paragraph 3. But before that, I need to know, is the original of this
8 document in English?
9 MR. BLACK: Yes, it is, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Well, then, the question wouldn't pertain. I
11 thought, in relation to paragraph 3, where it says: "Galbraith set out
12 the facts of life of Mr. Babic," because I know and understand the facts
13 of life to mean something different, I thought it was a mistranslation.
14 But I think I understand the context and what it is saying now.
15 Thank you very much. Sorry to be humourous.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any questions, Judge?
17 JUDGE HOEPFEL: No questions.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any questions, Judge?
19 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: No questions, Judge. No, thank you.
20 Questioned by the Court:
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Witness, may I ask you a few issues. In your
22 testimony you mentioned or you -- on several occasions referred to crimes
23 that were committed in villages along or at the demarcation line. Do you
24 remember that?
25 A. Yes, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you able to tell us which villages these are?
2 A. I cannot recall all these names, but these were border areas,
3 marginal areas.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just give those that you can remember.
5 A. Your Honour, you are asking me to say something that I cannot say
6 at this moment. After 15 years, with all due respect, I could not recall
7 those names. If you were to list me some names of villages, I could maybe
8 recall them, because these powers are more ready at hand. But I could not
9 really decidedly state --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't know the villages of Croatia and I do not
11 know where the borderline were. You told us that these crimes took place
12 on the borderline. You should be able to tell us at least four, five, ten
13 villages that were on the borderline where you say these crimes took
14 place. You have been remembering for the last three days, you have been
15 remembering events that took place 15 years ago. Now, these villages were
16 there 15 years ago. They have not moved away. They're still there, for
17 the last 15 years. And I'm sure you can still remember them.
18 A. Your Honour, when I spoke about developments, I'd never mentioned
19 names of villages. I could not really state which villages were
20 involved. I could not really say which villages were really in the --
21 close to the demarcation line. And I don't want to err and I'm sure that
22 you don't want me to be mistaken.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't want you to err and I don't want you to be
24 mistaken; indeed, you are very right. But it becomes very difficult to
25 accept your answer that these crimes took place along the demarcation
1 lines if you can't tell us where the demarcation lines were.
2 A. Your Honour, I did not say that I cannot say where these things
3 happened at the demarcation line, but I said that I cannot list the
4 villages there. I can say that in the area of Oklaj there were such
5 murders taking place, in the Promina region. But which villages and
6 hamlets were the venues, I cannot say. I know that there were murders;
7 they were processed and two persons, Serbs, were indicted. They were
8 military personnel. And, in this respect, organs of the interior
9 undertook the necessary actions. Some murders were left unresolved, but
10 we had criminal charges brought against some perpetrators, Serbs, on the
11 Serb side. I meant the area of Promina.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're not answering my question. You told us
13 you're not able to answer it; I think that's it.
14 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Now, after a while the witness remembered that
15 there was something in the area of Oklaj, and then you said -- was that
16 now a correction when you said "I meant the area of Promina"?
17 A. No. This is the same area. Promina/Oklaj is part of the same
18 territory which contains a number of villages. But that area is called
19 both. This is the area between the municipality of Drnis and the
20 municipality in the direction of the Krka river. If I had a map, I could
21 point it out to you. It's difficult to explain.
22 JUDGE HOEPFEL: It's not necessary, but describe a little bit the
23 case, just in one or two sentences, please.
24 A. There were several people who were murdered --
25 JUDGE HOEPFEL: How many is "several"?
1 A. I cannot tell you the exact number. Five or six -- between five
2 and seven. I cannot tell you the exact number. But what I do know for a
3 fact is that when these murders were reported to us, the organs of the
4 interior, together with military organs, went out on the scene to
5 investigate for an on-the-site inspection, on-site inspection, and then
6 criminal complaints were filed against a person -- I'm trying to recall --
7 against two persons, in fact. I believe there was a Mr. Subotic. Subotic
8 was among the accused. But criminal complaints were filed against two
9 persons. Well, I believe -- well, I apologise. That's it.
10 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Very early in your evidence - I'm not able to give
12 you the citation - you mentioned the training of the special purpose
13 police, you know, you called them -- you said professional training was
14 taking place, and you said professionals were trained from neighbouring
15 countries, Serbia; Banja Luka, Golubic, in the training centre there. And
16 you said Krajina citizens trained in Belgrade. Do you remember that piece
17 of evidence?
18 A. Your Honours, I do not believe that I said it in that way. I said
19 that the police of the Krajina had personnel problem. We were just short
20 of staff, and therefore a lot of effort needed to be invested in order to
21 properly do police work. And in order to overcome that shortcoming, to
22 make up for the lacking personnel, the training centre in Golubic opened a
23 school to educate, either by way of training courses over a number of
24 months, personnel to do police work. And professionals came to work in
25 that school in Golubic only from Krajina, in all fairness, but a part of
1 the crime technicians, that weekend school, went for their schooling to
2 Banja Luka for criminal technical work. And also the Krajina leadership
3 asked the authorities --
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sir, I'm going to have to interrupt you because
5 you've gone far away from what I was asking you. That's not what I said,
6 and I'm trying to find the proper page of the transcript. It was at page
7 35, lines 22 to 25 of the transcript on the 13th of -- what am I looking
8 at? Sorry. No. I'm sorry, it's --
9 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, if I can maybe be of assistance. The
10 page numbers have been updated since then --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I know.
12 MR. BLACK: -- and I think it may be on page 9352. I'm not sure
13 that's the passage Your Honour is referring to, but I believe it is.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Page 9352. Let's just look.
15 What date was that, Mr. Black?
16 MR. BLACK: On the 13th of October, which was Friday, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: My problem is now I'm on the 13th here, but my
18 pages are not in the thousands. I'm at page 93, not 9352, unless
19 technology's playing marbles with me. Have you found it? Yes, 93. The
20 pagination on my ...
21 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Right. That's good. Now I've got it. The
23 pagination has not changed. It's page 35 from line 20. And I'll quote to
24 you what was said in English when your testimony was recorded:
25 "Assistance was sought from neighbouring countries, from Serbia,
1 but unfortunately the information was not forthcoming. Some of our staff,
2 however, were trained in Banja Luka, some in Golubic, in the training
3 centre there, and some citizens from the Krajina who had been trained in
4 Belgrade were sought. They were asked to return to the Krajina and work
5 there, so there were many problems which had to be withstood and it was
6 very difficult to work in those circumstances."
7 Do you remember that testimony?
8 A. Yes, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: My question now to you is: What assistance was
12 sought from which neighbouring countries?
13 A. Your Honours, assistance was sought from the Republika Srpska in
14 training personnel, teaching personnel, and assistance was also requested
15 from Serbia, also in teaching personnel. And I think that, not having
16 been in my competence, that we also asked that skilled, qualified workers
17 of the Ministries of the Interior from those countries be sent to help out
18 and work in the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of the Serbian
19 Krajina. So we are talking exclusively about personnel to do police work;
20 first, to train personnel and, secondly, to help establish the police
21 departments in the Krajina.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now are you saying Republika Srpska and Serbia are
23 neighbouring countries? Aren't they the same country? Weren't they the
24 same country as Yugoslavia?
25 A. Your Honours, Republika Srpska was separate. Previously it used
1 to be part of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of
2 Yugoslavia, initially the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, was
3 one state. So, therefore, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was one
4 state and Republika Srpska was another.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Tell me, was the RSK a separate country from
7 A. Until 1992, until April - and I believe the date is the 21st of
8 April, but I can't be sure of that and I cannot say that with precision -
9 there had existed the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. With that
10 date, the 21st of April, 1992, the Socialist Federal Republic of
11 Yugoslavia ceased to exist and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was
12 established. Until that date, the Republic of the Serbian Krajina had
13 been part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the organs
14 of the SFRY treated it as such. After that, the Republic of the Serbian
15 Krajina was a separate whole, i.e., Yugoslavia, the Federal Republic of
16 Yugoslavia, did not consider that there existed continuity with that
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm going to ask that you: Please answer me very
19 briefly. Where an answer of yes or a no would suffice, please just give
21 Do I understand you to be saying, when you talked about
22 neighbouring countries, you were referring to former parts of the Federal
23 Republic of -- Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia? You're not talking about
24 countries outside the former SFRY. Is that what you are saying?
25 A. Yes, that is what I'm saying, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Just for clarification, may I ask how to
2 understand your statement that Republika Srpska used to be part Bosnia and
3 Herzegovina? What should that mean?
4 A. I just wanted to say, Your Honours, that to portray, in a
5 picturesque way, that the then Bosnia and Herzegovina consisted of two
6 parts - one part being Republika Srpska and the other part being Croat and
7 Bosniak controlled territory - in that sense, there was a clear division
8 of political and legislative authority to the Republika Srpska and that
9 other part which, today, comprised the single territory of the present
10 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
11 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. I didn't want to go so much into
12 details, but as is well-known, Republika Srpska is one of the entities
13 within Bosnia and Herzegovina; therefore, I was quite surprised by this
14 statement. But I'm done.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, you also testified that the special purpose
16 police were established in accordance with the Vance Plan on decision of
17 the Federal Secretariat of the National Defence of the Socialist Republic
18 of Yugoslavia. Do you remember that testimony?
19 A. Yes, Your Honours. I believe, however, that I said that I didn't
20 know whether it was the Federal Secretariat or the chief of the General
21 Staff. But it was the SFRY that had taken that decision, in any case.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Now, did I understand you correctly to
23 say that the duty of the -- yes, the duties of the special purpose units,
24 as established as a result of the Vance Plan, were to deal with public
25 security, administration, state security administration, and special
1 purpose police units -- well, I'm not quite sure. Is that -- did I
2 understand you correctly or am I wrong in understanding you as saying
4 A. Your Honours, what I said was that special purpose police units
5 had one of the tasks which is normally carried out by the police, which is
6 securing the border, and they insisted more on that rather than doing
7 classical or traditional police work, beat work, et cetera, which was in
8 accordance with the Vance Plan which sought the disarmament of both
9 sides. And the Serbian side did it in this way. But in order to protect
10 its border from infiltration by undesirable elements, it deployed its
11 police forces there, of course, regulating the kinds of weapons that they
12 could wear -- bear. But it was definitely in accordance with the Vance
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. I appreciate that
15 clarification. Now, you testified further that these special purpose
16 police units in that form and doing that function ceased to exist on the
17 27th of November, 1992. Am I right?
18 A. Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, we have seen today that beyond that date of
20 the 27th of November, 1992, there were still units that were called
21 special purpose police, and you have explained that they were a different
22 type of special purpose police. My question to you now is: What was the
23 function and what were the duties of the special purpose police after the
24 27th of November, 1992?
25 A. Your Honours, what I wished to say was that the special police
1 units did one kind of work, and special units, as they were designated,
2 were part of the regular force of the Ministry of the Interior and they
3 did work -- let me try to explain this by an example. There is an
4 important sports event, and the police -- the special police would be
5 engaged with their horses and other equipment to secure the event. If
6 there was a political gathering, they would be asked to secure it. If
7 there was a certain form, a graver form, of disruption of public law and
8 order which most of the regular police force was not equipped and trained
9 to deal with, these units would be called in. And these are special
10 police units that exist in all the countries of the world in peace and in
12 That is why I said, when the Prosecutor asked me this question,
13 that such units existed in 1992, 1993, as well as 1994, as a regular
14 structures, as a regular part of the units. They were special because
15 they did this particular kind of work. Perhaps their designation does not
16 correspond to what is customary in other countries, but these were members
17 of the regular police, regularly employed with the police, regularly
18 receiving their salaries from the police, and doing this kind of work, as
19 I've just described.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're confusing me, actually, now because you
21 started off by saying: "What I wished to say was that the special police
22 units did one kind of work, and special units, as they were designated,
23 were part of the regular force ..."
24 Now, is there a difference between special police units and
25 special units? Now, if you look at that page, 51, lines 7 to 8, that's
1 where you mentioned special police units and special units. Is there a
2 difference between those?
3 A. Your Honours, I shall try to explain this in the following
4 manner: At the helm of the special police units was the administration
5 for special police units, headed by Mr. Djukic. And the special units
6 that we are talking about were part of the Ministry of the Interior
7 organs, law enforcement organs. Let me find the right designation. So we
8 have an administration for the special police units and the public
9 security administration, the latter including the Secretariats of the
10 Interior, which also included smaller units of 30 people in the public
11 security stations which did this kind of work. And the special police
12 units have their separate administration which did this other kind of
13 work. As part of the Ministry of the Interior there was a third
14 department which was the state security administration, which had its own
15 person in charge at its helm.
16 So these are two completely different groups of special units.
17 The ones that we are discussing here and that the Prosecutor asked about,
18 these are normal units within the framework of the Ministry of the
19 Interior's organs for maintaining law and order. They were in all public
20 security stations, numbered up to 30 people, and did the work which I
21 talked about.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: You've confused me further. There's a reference --
23 there's a sentence here where you say: "So these are two completely
24 different groups of special units." Do I understand you to say, when one
25 looks at the entire police force of the RSK, there would have been what
1 are called regular police, without the name "special" before their name;
2 then there would be two types of special police units over and above?
3 Because you're saying here that these are two completely different groups
4 of special units, so there were more than one type of special unit.
5 A. Your Honour, I believe that the confusion stems from the fact that
6 they have similar titles. Special police units --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just give me the distinction between the two --
8 [microphone not activated].
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Only in 1992 we had a directorate
11 for special units of police headed by that person within the Ministry of
12 the Interior. And throughout, we had a public security directorate which
13 had Secretariats, seven of them, of the Interior, which had sessions of
14 the public security. And within the regular force we had a specially
15 trained group of people who were tasked with the graver crimes, and to
16 that sense, they were special units.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: What were their functions, these special units,
18 these special types?
19 A. For instance, when public events were taking place, where public
20 order and -- public order and law could be jeopardised, they would be
21 engaged. At high-profile sports events, they would be there. If there
22 were arrests of certain groups of perpetrators that may use weapons, they
23 were used because of their special training. If infiltrated groups had to
24 be fought, they would be in charge of such tasks, and they would be
25 performing these tasks because of the shortage of personnel doing regular
1 police work.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do I understand you to be saying that your regular
3 police and your public security police were not able to do that kind of
4 work at sports events, and that there had to be this special type of unit
5 that was specially trained to deal with sports events and infiltrating
6 groups and all those? Because the -- and the public security police were
7 not able to do that. Is that what you're saying?
8 A. Your Honour, the criminal investigation work -- technician's work
9 can be done by a criminal investigation technician --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Answer the question: Yes, that's what I'm saying;
11 no, that's not what I'm saying. A long explanation is going to confuse me
12 further and I'm going to get more questions to put to you. Is that what
13 you are saying or is that not what you're saying?
14 A. Your question points out a lack of understanding --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Answer my question.
16 A. I'm very careful in choice of words. I'm answering to your
17 question. You do not understand the formations of the police structures.
18 Security at The Hague is performed by special police, not regular police;
19 the same goes for other activities. When we talk about protecting a
20 certain person, special forces are there, not regular police, although
21 they are all members of the police. What I'm talking about is a special
22 group of people who are trained to overcome more difficult tasks. And
23 since we did not have enough people, they had to perform other functions,
24 as I said.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm asking you these questions precisely because I
1 don't understand, and the more I ask you, the more I fail to understand.
2 You have now told us that you have public security police, you have two
3 types of special units, and I'm asking you a very simple question. I'm
4 not asking you about The Hague; I'm asking you about the RSK. I'm asking
5 you a very simple question. Are you saying to me: These public security
6 police and the regular police, who went by a name that had no "special"
7 before their name, were unable to control law and order at sports events
8 to the extent that a special unit had to be set up especially to do that,
9 to deal with sports events and to deal with infiltrating people, groups,
10 as you said? And your answer to that question is either yes --
11 [microphone not activated].
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- or no. I'm sorry.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know how to answer your
15 question, Your Honour, because there is a certain lack of understanding on
16 how we functioned. You are talking about regular police and public
17 security police. All police are regular. I don't know what you mean by
18 the term "regular police" and the term "special police." Are you talking
19 about special units of the police or are you talking about police which
20 maintained public order and law; the administration of special police
21 or -- I'm really not clear what your question is.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: The question originally had to do with the special
23 purpose unit that you testified about, and I'm asking you -- you said to
24 me: They ceased to exist as people who were controlling borders on the
25 27th of November, 1992, and my simple question to you, which you have not
1 been able to answer, is: What were their functions after the 27th of
2 November, 1992? Can you answer that? And stop making a fool of me.
3 A. Your Honour, that was never my intention and I'm --
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Be frank with what you're saying.
5 A. Now you've put forward a concrete question. The units that were
6 disbanded on the 27th of November, 1992 --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I asked you this question a long time ago, this
8 question, and you didn't answer it. Don't say: "Now you've asked a
9 concrete question." You're making a fool of me. I'm not a crazy man.
10 Just answer my question and stop commenting on it. What was the function
11 of these special purpose units that stopped existing on the 27th of
12 November, 1992, as border police?
13 A. As was said, on the 27th of November, 1992, these units were
14 disbanded and, as such, never -- did not exist.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: What were their functions? You have told us that
16 they continued to exist. You have been shown documents here today that
17 they existed in 1993, documents signed by you. What were their
18 functions? Can you please tell us. And if you don't know, say you don't
20 A. Your Honour, I would like to ask you this: I said that these
21 units ceased to exist after that date. They did not exist and had nothing
22 to do with the units that I'm discussing.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You obviously don't want to
24 answer that question.
25 Any --
1 JUDGE HOEPFEL: I became curious.
2 There is obviously a difference between a sport event and fighting
3 infiltrated groups. Are you stating these were two businesses of the same
4 kind of units; and if yes, give an example of such a sport event. One
5 example is enough.
6 A. Your Honours, in the Republic of Serbian Krajina, we had everyday
7 activities. We had a football league, a basketball league, and other
8 leagues, and at such events these units would be involved.
9 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And these were the same units that would be
10 involved in fighting infiltrated groups?
11 A. Unfortunately, yes, because we were short of staff so that we
12 couldn't have dedicated groups for these two tasks.
13 JUDGE HOEPFEL: How many officers and other employees were part of
14 these special units?
15 A. Your Honour, at public security stations at the municipal level,
16 we would be up to 30 people; at places 15, 30. On average, there would be
17 30 such people.
18 JUDGE HOEPFEL: It's okay.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: These special units or special purpose units,
21 how were they dressed? Were they dressed the same as the regular police?
22 What type of uniform did they wear, including insignia, if any, and
23 headgear, if any?
24 A. Yes. They had the same uniforms, blue uniforms. And when we
25 would -- they would perform a task against an infiltrated group, they
1 would use and wear police fatigues, camouflage fatigues, because of
2 working out in the terrain.
3 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Any headgear? Caps? Berets?
4 A. The same headgear as all members of the police.
5 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Being? [Realtime transcript read in
6 error "green"]. I said "being," meaning what was the headgear? Not
7 green; b-e-i-n-g.
8 A. Caps worn by organs of the interior. There were berets slanting
9 to the side with the emblem of the Ministry of the Interior. For a short
10 time, they used to wear the Tito's -- so-called Tito's cap. But they wore
11 the same caps with the same insignia. There were no special insignia, if
12 you meant that, Your Honour, which would indicate that they were from
13 special units.
14 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: What was "the same insignia" you're speaking of?
15 A. On the left-hand sleeve, the emblem of the Ministry of the
16 Interior of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, and on the cap an identical
18 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you very much, Judge.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any questions arising, Mr. Milovancevic?
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
21 Further examination by Mr. Milovancevic:
22 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, concerning the question asked by
23 honourable Judge Moloto concerning the possible difference between special
24 units of police and units of special police, could you tell us which
25 sections existed within the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of
1 Serbian Krajina?
2 A. We had public security administration and state security
4 Q. Thank you. So the Ministry of the Interior was divided into two
5 administrations: public security and state security. Would we be much
6 mistaken if we were to identify these as administrations?
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Don't prompt the witness.
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will
9 withdraw this question. I don't want to cause confusion.
10 Q. Sir, the public security administration or department, what was
11 its tasks?
12 A. Public security maintained public law and order.
13 Q. Thank you. And the state security department, what were its
15 A. State security performed tasks, security tasks, collection of
17 Q. Thank you very much. That's enough. How was the police organised
18 within the department of public security?
19 A. Within the public security department, the police was organised
20 into Secretariats of the Interior. There was seven of them: Baranja and
21 Beli Manastir for Eastern Slavonia in Vukovar; for Banja at Glina; and in
22 Vojnic for the area of Kordun; and Korenica for Lika; and at Knin for
23 Dalmatia. And within the Secretariat of the Interior, there were
24 competencies of public law and order and fight against crime --
25 Q. Thank you very much. That's enough.
1 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Witness, didn't you skip something? Before you
2 mentioned the directorate, the public security directorate, which had
3 secretariats? These were the secretariats you just were mentioning; no?
4 So you should mention this public security directorate; no?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not understand your question.
6 Public security, I mean. The public security -- may I?
7 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Public security administration had
9 within its ambit secretariats -- I skipped one for Western Slavonia. It
10 was located at Okucani, and they were in charge of public security tasks.
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if, by your leave,
12 I may ask a couple of questions to close the book on this issue.
13 Q. Below the level of secretariat, what organisational units there
15 A. Public security stations and police stations were below the level
16 of secretariat.
17 Q. Therefore, the public security administration consisted of the
18 Secretariats of the Interior, public security stations, and police
19 departments. Have we cleared this issue?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Thank you. When you talked about special units of the police, the
22 units that my learned colleague Black pointed out for you in the 1994
23 document, to which department were they attached?
24 A. They existed in the public security department, in the
25 Secretariats of the Interior, i.e., in public security stations.
1 Q. Did you, in responding to the questions of His Honour Judge Moloto
2 and previously of the OTP, explain the role, the task, of these special
4 A. I hope that I have.
5 Q. Thank you. Another question regarding special police units: What
6 is the total number of the members of these special police units in the
7 entire territory of the Republic of the Serbian Krajina? You said how
8 many had been there in the different secretariats. What was their overall
9 number in the territory of the Republic of the Serbian Krajina?
10 A. I could tell you that the Secretariat of the Interior of Knin, in
11 1992, if I recall exactly, had about 1.100 members of the police, of which
12 the number given by Mr. Prosecutor, 90 or 100, I believe, was in each
13 public security station, but the number varied. And at the level of the
14 Republic of the Serbian Krajina, that number was always under 1.000.
15 Q. Thank you, Witness, that will suffice. You said a while ago that
16 in the Ministry of the Interior there existed two departments, that of the
17 public security and the other one of state security. Tell us, under whose
18 jurisdiction, under whose competence, in the course of 1992, from April to
19 November, were the special police units?
20 A. Special police units of the -- were outside the public security or
21 the state departments. This was a special department or administration
22 then formed by Yugoslavia, but they pertained, in terms of structure, to
23 the Ministry of the Interior.
24 Q. Was this administration for the special purpose units -- police
25 units in existence only from April to November or did it also exist later?
1 A. It was in existence only from April to November and not later.
2 Q. You said that under that administration were eight brigades. What
3 would be the total strength of the full complement of those brigades of
4 special police units, that is, from April to November 1992?
5 A. It would be from 16.000 to 18.000.
6 Q. You said that those units started to be formed, and that from
7 April, four brigades were set up; and that before they were brought up to
8 full complement, they were disbanded in November 1992. Do you remember
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. After November 1992, did they exist at all, these special police
12 units, as part of this administration or directorate?
13 A. On that date, the administration was dismantled and no such units
14 existed anymore.
15 Q. And my last question: These special purpose police units, the
16 total number of which was up to a thousand in all the Ministries of the
17 Interior, were they identical to these special purpose units and this
18 administration which was in existence from April to November 1992?
19 A. Understandably no, and not, because they were under different
20 superiors. One was within the public security department and the others
21 were under this special administration for special purpose units.
22 Q. You said that the PJM, the special purpose units, which existed
23 from April to November, they were border police and they only did border
24 police work. Do you adhere to that position?
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] That concludes my questioning
3 of this witness.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think this would be a convenient time to take the
5 break, and we'll come back at quarter to 6.00 for you to ask your
6 questions, Mr. Black.
7 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I have no questions arising, so as far as
8 I'm concerned, we can let the witness go.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: In that event, thank you very much.
10 Witness, thank you for coming to testify. We appreciate the time
11 you took to come to the Tribunal. This brings us to the end of your
12 testimony. You are now excused. You may stand down.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. All the
15 [The witness withdrew]
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Court adjourned. Come back at quarter to 6.00.
17 --- Recess taken at 5.16 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 5.45 p.m.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before we call the next witness, a few
20 housekeeping matters.
21 Yesterday I mentioned the problem of communication between
22 Mr. Martic and the Defence team, and I also indicated that it is not the
23 intention of the Trial Chamber to interfere with the duties of the
24 security officers. If, indeed, it is their instruction not to move away
25 from Mr. Martic, then we cannot ask them to deliver notes.
1 I hope that what I'm going to propose will help us alleviate the
2 situation. May I suggest that if Mr. Martic has any note to pass on to
3 his team, if he can just raise his hand. I'll try to keep a watch on
4 him. And then may I ask, Mr. Milovancevic, that Mr. Perovic picks up the
5 document from him and passes it on to you. Would that be okay?
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Thank
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
9 Then the next point I want to talk about is saving time. Once
10 again, we have spent more than 200 per cent of this last witness's time.
11 I understand that part of the time was taken up in very long arguments on
12 issues that were procedural or objections, what have you. In order to try
13 and minimise that waste of time in discussing procedural issues, I want to
14 suggest that any issue that any party wants to raise be raised by way of a
15 written motion; the other party must respond; and the Trial Chamber will
16 give its decision without any discussions in court.
17 As to objections, I want to suggest that, as much as I may be
18 mindful of the procedure here, I would like to suggest that the objector
19 objects, puts all his relevant arguments based on the objection in that
20 argument; the opposite side answers; and the original objector replies
21 without bringing in new argument, dealing just with that reply and not
22 repeating what the objector had said in the original objection, just
23 answering specifically to the arguments of opposite side; and after that,
24 no further arguments. Then after that, the Court will rule. That such
25 arguments be very concise and not be long-winded.
1 May I also suggest that, once again, to save time, when we deal
2 with re-examination, when a witness has testified and given his version
3 and a different version was put to him in cross-examination, there is no
4 need to get the witness to re-hash the original version. It is on the
5 record. We know that's the position. We know that the different version
6 was put to him, but we know the stand of that witness on that point. To
7 get the witness to say, again, what he said is really just wasting time,
8 because it doesn't matter how many times you say the same thing, we have
9 heard it, and it doesn't go -- sink any deeper simply because it is
10 repeated over and over again. Let us please try to stick strictly to the
11 questions of clarification; that's what the purpose of re-examination is,
12 just to clarify issues that were not clear, not to repeat the evidence.
13 I hope that that explains and clears the point, and that way we
14 can save more time.
15 Anything that anybody wants to say, starting with you,
16 Mr. Whiting?
17 MR. WHITING: No, thank you, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
19 Mr. Milovancevic.
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] No, thank you, Your Honour. We
21 are agreeable.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
23 Any housekeeping issues that any of the parties would like to
25 MR. WHITING: No, thank you.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic? Thank you very much.
2 Next witness, Mr. Milovancevic.
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my colleague,
4 Mr. Perovic, will be questioning the next witness.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
6 Mr. Perovic. And now that, Mr. Perovic, you will be leading the
7 next witness - thank you very much, Mr. Perovic - may I suggest that you,
8 Mr. Milovancevic, will then do the job that I suggested Mr. Perovic does
9 with respect to picking up notes from Mr. Martic.
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Certainly, Your Honour. Thank
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
13 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I should like to invite
14 Borislav Djukic as a witness for the Defence.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is his name again? Okay.
16 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Borislav Djukic.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Perovic.
18 JUDGE HOEPFEL: This is number MM-124; is that correct?
19 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honours,
21 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. That makes our life easier now.
22 [The witness entered court]
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the witness please make the declaration.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
25 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. The witness may be seated.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
4 Mr. Perovic.
5 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
6 WITNESS: BORISLAV DJUKIC
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 Examination by Mr. Perovic:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Good evening, Mr. Djukic.
10 A. Good evening.
11 Q. I shall now proceed with your examination-in-chief as one of the
12 Defence counsel of the accused, Milan Martic, according to the Rules of
14 Before I start the actual examination, I should like to tell you
15 that I expect you to reply to my questions, which I believe will be short
16 and precise, I should like to tell you that I expect you to reply in the
17 same manner. And may I also ask you, after having heard my question in
18 its entirety, to make a short pause before answering in order to avoid
19 overlaps between question and answer so that the interpreters can do their
20 part of the work. I hope that you have understood me.
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] If my learned colleague, the
23 Prosecutor, has nothing against this, I should like to lead the witness
24 through the biographical data in order to save time.
25 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, with respect to the biographical data,
1 I have no objection.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Whiting.
3 Yes, Mr. Perovic.
4 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Colleague Prosecutor.
5 Q. You are Borislav Djukic?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. General Major, retired, of the Yugoslav People's Army. You were
8 born on the 21st of September, 1948, in Gornje Vodicevo, the municipality
9 of Novi Grad, the former Bosanski Novi. Is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. That is today's Republika Srpska, the former Yugoslav Republic of
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You finished high school, the military academy of the ground
15 forces in 1971, and the command staff school of tactics in 1984 --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- and the command staff school of operations in 1978.
18 You worked in the former republics of the SFRY, Macedonia,
19 Croatia, Montenegro, and Serbia. You discharged commander's duties, the
20 commander of a battalion and of a brigade; the chief of administration of
21 special police units in the Republic of Serbian Krajina; and the Chief of
22 Staff of the Serbian army of the Krajina; as well as duties of chief of
23 security of the regiment of the brigade in the command of the military
24 naval sector of Boka.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. In 1988, you assumed the post of commander of the 221st Motorised
2 Brigade of the 9th Corps of the Military Naval District, and you remained
3 on that position until April 1992. Would you like to add anything to
4 these data or do you consider them to be sufficient?
5 A. I consider them to be sufficient.
6 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us what the military district -- Military
7 Naval District encompassed in the geographical sense.
8 A. The Military Naval District encompassed a part of the aquatorium
9 of the Adriatic Sea, from the Slovenia, literally on the north, up to the
10 estuary of the river Dujana, in the south near the city of Ulcinj; and it
11 also covered a part of the hinterland of the territory of Yugoslavia with
12 a greater depth. As far as Bosnia and Herzegovina is concerned, that
13 means the city of Trebinje; as far as Croatia is concerned, that is the
14 Dalmatian plateau, with the northern-most city of Knin.
15 Q. This Military Naval District encompassed the 9th Corps, which was
16 headquartered at Knin; that's correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Where was the command of the Military Naval District that we're
19 talking about?
20 A. The command was headquartered at Split.
21 Q. Thank you. Could you tell us something about the ethnic
22 composition of the command of the Military Naval District. What was the
23 ethnic composition of that command?
24 A. At that time the ethnic composition was as follows: The commander
25 of the Military Naval District was Admiral Bozidar Grubisic. Later he was
1 replaced at that post by Admiral Mile Kandic --
2 Q. Just a second --
3 A. Bozidar was a Croat.
4 Q. Just a moment. We are talking about 1990.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. At that point in time, the commander of the Military Naval
7 District was Admiral Bozidar Grubisic?
8 A. Bozidar Grubisic, Croat; later he was replaced by Admiral Mile
9 Kandic, a Serb.
10 Q. Can you cite anyone else?
11 A. Within the command, the Chief of Staff Jozo Herceg; he was an
12 admiral, a Croat. The morality assistant was Jovo Popovic, a Montenegrin.
13 The assistant for logistics was Admiral Matosevic Martin, a Croat. And in
14 the subordinated command post --
15 Q. Just a second. We are going to come to that.
16 A. Good.
17 Q. Could it be concluded from what you told us that the composition
18 of the command of the Military Naval District was a multi-ethnic one?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You mentioned commands of the subordinated units of the Military
21 Naval District. What was the structure of the commanders of those
22 subordinated units; do you remember?
23 A. Yes, I do. Among those subordinated units, there were three
24 military naval sectors and storm units within the fleet, a command corps,
25 and logistics headquarters which had smaller logistics units.
1 At the sector level, the commanders were as follows: The 9th
2 Military Naval Sector at Boka was commanded by Krsto Djurevic; he was
3 captain. After the disorder in Yugoslavia, he was replaced by Admiral
4 Jokic, Miodrag. Commander of the Sibenik sector, or the 8th, was Admiral
5 Djuro Pojer; he was a Croat. He was replaced by Marko Sunaric; battleship
6 commander, also a Croat. The Pula sector commander was Marjan Pogacnik,
7 an admiral. He was replaced -- he was a Slovene. He was replaced by
8 Admiral Vlado Barovic, a Montenegrin, and subsequently he was replaced in
9 turn by Admiral Dusko Ratkic. Commander of the 9th Corps --
10 Q. One moment. We will come to that. So from what you said --
11 A. It was multi-ethnic, all these units.
12 Q. Just a second. Wait for the question, and please do make a pause
13 between question and answer. So from what you've just said, I can
14 conclude that the ethnic composition of the subordinated commanders was
15 also a multi-ethnic one. Would that conclusion be an accurate one?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
19 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. You mentioned the ethnic composition of the command of the 9th
21 Corps. Could you briefly tell us what you meant.
22 A. Commander of the corps, Tomislav Trajcevski, again a general, was
23 a Macedoniain. Chief of Staff of the corps, General Janez Rebolj, a
25 The organs within the corps: Assistant for morality, Mensur
1 Hasotic, a colonel, a Muslim. Assistant for logistics, Mirko Bjelanovic,
2 a colonel, a Serb, replaced later by Colonel Bajic, a Serb, and Bajic was
3 replaced by Colonel Kosta Novakovic, a Serb. Head of the technical
4 services, Mico Orovic, a Montenegrin. Chief of the medical staff, Hozo
5 Dzemail, a Muslim. Then Adilovic Adil, a Muslim. Chief of engineers,
6 Stjepan Strbac, a Croat. Artillery, a Croat, Separovic Marko. Then
7 artillery rocket and anti-aircraft, Mr. Srvelija Vlado, a Croat. And so
8 it goes. A multi-ethnic composition of the corps command.
9 Q. So this was the layout and the composition of the corps that you
10 were part of as the commander of the 221st Motorised Brigade. Is that
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. We are talking about 1990. Is that correct?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. Did this situation change at a certain point in time, I mean the
16 ethnic composition?
17 A. That situation changed in the latter part of the 1991, when, at
18 the request of the leaderships of the then-Republics of Yugoslavia, a
19 large number of officers joined the then-paramilitary and parapolice
20 forces. Later on they became part, after independence, of their armed
22 Q. When you talk about these officers, what was the ethnicity of
23 those officers?
24 A. I mean Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, and Albanians, and Muslims,
25 of course.
1 Q. In the command of the 9th Corps, were there any officers who were
2 not Serbs who remained; do you recall?
3 A. Some officers within the corps command, Colonel Ivan Mijatov,
4 Srvelija Vlado, a Croat, et cetera.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
7 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. From September 1988 to the end of April 1992, you held the post of
9 the commander of the 221st Motorised Brigade. Is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Could you tell us a bit about the 9th Corps. It was headquartered
12 at Drin?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. What was the size, the strength, of the corps?
15 A. It was one of the smallest corps in the Yugoslav People's Army.
16 Q. Just a second. What was the strength, the number of troops and
18 A. Rank and file numbered between 2.000 and 4.000.
19 Q. In geographical terms, what did the corps encompass? Which zone?
20 A. It was limited in the zone between the rivers of Zrmanja and the
21 river of Krka, the so-called Dalmatian plateau, with the municipalities of
22 Obrovac, Zadar, Benkovac, Knin, and Sinj in the depth of the territory.
23 And in August 1991, the municipality of Sinj was excluded and the
24 municipality of Gracac, in Lika, was included. And I forgot to mention
25 the municipality of Drnis as well.
1 Q. Thank you. During 1990, did the 9th Corps have any special tasks,
2 apart from its regular activities; and, if you can remember, if so, which?
3 A. It had several tasks. One of them is to place Territorial Defence
4 arms and weapons into warehouses of the JNA, and that corps was in charge
5 of that and responsible for that. A corps also was, because of the very
6 complicated political and security situation, obtaining to strengthen the
7 security of and protection of all military facilities within its zone.
8 And, of course, there were requests to intensify the training and call-up
9 of reserve forces at the time to perform certain tasks which were
10 envisaged by battle instructions.
11 Q. Thank you. Pertaining to that, were these tasks concerning the
12 training of reserve forces realised, implemented? I'm talking about
14 A. They were not enforced in full because there had come demands from
15 leaderships of certain republics, such as Slovenia and Croatia, for the
16 reserve force not to heed call-up for drills and mobilisation exercises.
17 And they demanded that if certain people were to respond to such calls,
18 they would provoke incidents within our units. And at that time we also
19 experienced some problems in terms of ethnicity and multi-ethnic
20 composition of JNA units.
21 Q. Thank you. Which tasks did you, as the commander of the 221st
22 Brigade, perform until the 28th of April, 1992?
23 A. My first task was to buff up the security of military facilities.
24 The second task, pursuant to the superior command's orders, was to create
25 buffer zones and to prevent multi-ethnic or inter-ethnic conflicts within
1 the zone of the corps.
2 Q. Just a moment. Which year are you referring to?
3 A. 1991. Later on I was tasked with razing the blockade of certain
4 barracks and military facilities in the garrison of Sinj and the garrison
5 of Sibenik.
6 Q. Which period?
7 A. 1991. After that, I was tasked with securing the withdrawal of
8 JNA personnel, the weapons and vehicles, and the members of their families
9 from the Sibenik garrison. And the last task that I performed --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let him finish answering the question.
11 A. -- and the last task that I was engaged in is to prepare the
12 premises to accept the deployed military -- international and military
13 first observers and then troops, peacekeepers; and that was the last task
14 before the withdrawal of the JNA, which was set at the date of the 19th or
15 20th of May, 1992.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated].
17 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, your microphone.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. I just want to get clarity. Did you raze
19 the blockade of the barracks and military facilities in the garrison of
20 Sinj, even though Sinj had been now excluded from your zone?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not at that time. Sinj was taken
22 out from our -- from our zone at the moment when we withdrew JNA units.
23 We had three units stationed: the engineering regiment; the 316th
24 Brigade, as part of the 9th Corps of the JNA; and we had a communications
25 and signals regiment under the Military Naval District. We lifted the
1 blockade and withdrew those units at the end of August 1991. And from
2 that point onwards, Sinj was excluded from our zone, and the municipality
3 of Gracac entered the zone of our operations. We had the 316th Brigade
4 was renamed into the 9th Infantry Brigade which was then quartered there.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Perovic.
6 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I believe
7 that there was a lapse by the witness. He said 1992 as the year when the
8 razing of the blockade of Drnis was taking place.
9 Q. When was it?
10 A. In September 1991 was the blockade in Drnis lifted.
11 Q. Thank you. Now we are going to broach another subject --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Wait a minute. Then my question still stands.
13 According to his answer, he says: "In August 1991, the municipality of
14 Sinj was excluded and the municipality of Gracac in Lika was included."
15 Now, if the blockade was razed in September, that was after Sinj had been
16 excluded already.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, in September, in September.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: What happened in September?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The lifting of the blockade was
20 carried identity in September.
21 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Which blockade? [Realtime transcript read in
22 error "that's okay"].
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that, hence my question. The lifting
24 of the blockade happened in September 1991, but Sinj had been excluded in
25 August, the previous month. So by the time you lifted the blockade on
1 Sinj, Sinj was no more a part of your zone. That was my original
3 JUDGE HOEPFEL: I would have to correct the transcript. I said
4 "which blockade" in page 76, line 25.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's the blockade of Sinj, of the garrison in
6 Sinj, that he testified about. Let's not get into a discussion between
7 you and I.
8 Do you understand my question?
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Presiding Judge.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: I beg your pardon.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The lifting of the blockade, the
12 final, was done in September 1991; at the same time, the lifting of the
13 blockade of Sibenik was carried out in September 1991. Military
14 equipment, weapons, and personnel were being withdrawn from Sibenik until
15 the 25th of December, 1991, and the withdrawal of our weapons and other
16 property from Sinj was done sometime earlier, until the end of September
17 and the beginning of October, that year.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you understand my question, Mr. Perovic? Maybe
19 you can clear it for us, if you understand it. My question is: The
20 municipality of Sinj was excluded from his zone in August 1991. He went
21 and lifted the blockade of Sinj in September of the same year when -- by
22 September, Sinj was no more a part of his zone. And now I just want him
23 to confirm that, yes, he did that notwithstanding, or is there an
24 explanation why he went beyond his zone. That's all I want to understand.
25 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Did you understand the question?
2 A. Yes. Perhaps there was a slight slip of the tongue. We started a
3 deblocking, the lifting of the blockade, already in August, because of the
4 situation which obtained in Sinj, and ended the lifting of the blockade in
5 the month of September. And the moment we had pulled out our personnel
6 and equipment and materiel, Sinj ceased to be a part of the zone of
7 responsibility; not mine but that of the 9th JNA Corps. The 9th JNA Corps
8 was given Gracac, a new zone, where using the equipment and materiel that
9 had been was pulled out was forming the 9th Brigade, which is sometimes
10 referred to as the 1st Brigade in some cases. I believe that I've been
12 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Is this, Your Honour, an answer to
13 your question?
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is an answer to my question. Thank you so much.
15 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, if I may, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I
16 have a -- I didn't want to interrupt Your Honour, but I have to seek a
17 clarification. At line 10 of page 76, Mr. Perovic said: "I believe that
18 there was a lapse by the witness. He said 1992 as the year when the
19 razing of the blockade of Drnis was taking place." And then the witness
20 answered: "In September 1991 was the blockade in Drnis lifted."
21 Now, according to the transcript, that's the first reference of a
22 blockade of Drnis. It comes from Mr. Perovic. And I don't know what
23 that's about, whether Drnis is being used interchangeably with Sinj or --
24 but if that, perhaps, could be clarified.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Perovic, you understood that?
1 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I understand.
2 Q. Mr. Djukic, was it in the same operation, when Sinj was deblocked,
3 that the military facility in Drnis was also free from blockade?
4 A. Yes. Two military installations were deblocked there; namely, the
5 depot, the warehouse at Zitnic, where mines and explosives were, and the
6 Trbovnje barracks, where were the -- where was the 55th rocket technical
7 base which housed ship-to-ship rockets, anti-ship mines --
8 Q. Just a minute. Can these facilities be associated with Drnis?
9 A. Yes, yes. One of them is just behind Drnis municipality, or
10 rather, towards the sea, toward Sibenik.
11 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Colleague Prosecutor, have we
12 clarified this possible misunderstanding?
13 MR. WHITING: Yes. Thank you.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Whiting.
15 Thank you, Mr. Perovic. You may proceed.
16 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 Q. Tell me, Mr. Djukic, when did Croatia declare the JNA officially,
18 so to speak, as a hostile entity? Do you remember the date when that
20 A. It officially proclaimed the JNA to be hostile on the 23rd of
21 March, 1991.
22 Q. What followed immediately after that?
23 A. Immediately after that there ensued blockades of military
24 facilities, of barracks, the cutting off of electricity supplies, water
25 supplies, telephone lines; and then that scenario was further elaborated
1 into armed attacks on military facilities and on members of the Yugoslav
2 People's Army.
3 Q. Thank you. And, in that connection, another question: At that
4 point in time, that is to say, in the spring of 1991, what internationally
5 recognised state existed in the area, in that area?
6 A. I believe -- I think that only the SFRY existed as an
7 internationally recognised state.
8 Q. And what regular armed forces existed at that moment?
9 A. The only regular forces which existed at the time were the armed
10 forces of the SFRY, which consisted of the Yugoslav People's Army and the
11 Territorial Defence.
12 Q. Thank you. Do you know anything about the organising of Croatian
13 voluntary detachments? Who was doing that, and on what grounds?
14 A. I know something about it. Croatian voluntary detachments started
15 to be organised immediately after the multi-party elections, when the
16 Croatian Democratic Union, as a political party, won the elections in
17 Croatia and established its government. These detachments were
18 detachments of the party, of the Croatian Democratic Union party, a
19 political party, in other words; and their official designation in
20 Croatian was detachments or Croatian units of the people's protection.
21 Q. Thank you. In terms of their structure, were those detachments
23 A. These detachments consisted exclusively of members of the Croatian
24 Democratic Union. They were mono-ethnic, composed solely of Croats, and
25 regrettably there were many members with a criminal record in them.
1 Q. Thank you. Mr. Djukic, prior to these mono-ethnic units or
2 detachments, what kinds of units did there exist in the territories of all
3 the former republics of the former SFRY?
4 A. There existed the Yugoslav People's Army, as a multi-national
5 structure, which was actually the forgery of the brotherhood and unity of
6 the nations and nationality of Yugoslavia; and there existed the
7 Territorial Defence units, the highest instance in which were the republic
8 and Territorial Defence staffs; and there existed zonal and municipal
9 committees or staffs.
10 Q. Thank you. When we talk about Territorial Defence as one of the
11 components of the then-armed forces of the then-SFRY, were the Territorial
12 Defence units mono-national or mono-ethnic or multi-ethnic?
13 A. They were multi-ethnic.
14 Q. Thank you. Could you tell us, what do you know about the National
15 Guards Corps? How did it come into existence, and under whose command was
17 A. The National Guard Corps came into existence, composed of these
18 voluntary units, units of volunteers, and members of the Ministry of the
19 Interior of the Republic of Croatia. At that time --
20 Q. Just a moment.
21 A. At that time it was formed as a paramilitary organisation or
22 formation in Croatia. Its review was carried out by the President of
23 Croatia, Mr. Franjo Tudjman, in person, on the 28th of April, 1991.
24 Q. Thank you. From the standpoint of the constitution of laws -- of
25 the law on national defence, what character did the National Corps units
2 A. At that time they had the character of a paramilitary formation in
3 the territory of the SFRY.
4 Q. Thank you. Do you know in which way these paramilitary and
5 parapolice forces in Croatia were armed? Do you know anything about that?
6 A. On the basis of the information that we had, and my superior's -
7 especially the authorised organs, namely, the security organs had such
8 information - on that basis I know this: They obtained a part of their
9 armament by taking them from the military depots of the JNA and the
10 Territorial Defence by force.
11 Another part of their weapons was obtained by importation without
12 there being any decision by the federal organs, and they imported them
13 from the following countries: Germany, Hungary, Austria, Spain, Bulgaria,
15 And in that context, I am also aware of the following facts: The
16 then-Minister of Defence, General Martin Spegelj --
17 Q. The Minister of Defence of Croatia?
18 A. Yes, of Croatia. Already on the 10th of October, 1990, concluded
19 an agreement, a contract, in Hungary, according to the information that I
20 had, about 192 -- worth $192 million, for the procurement of equipment and
21 military hardware -- military equipment from Hungary, about 60.000 to
22 80.000 Kalashnikovs and other pieces of equipment; automatic rifles, in
23 other words. This equipment was imported into the territory of the
24 Republic of Croatia in different ways, by trailer-trucks, through
25 different organisations, by agricultural aeroplanes --
1 Q. Excuse me. In different ways, you say. Were all those ways
2 unlawful, illegal?
3 A. All those ways were unlawful and illegal.
4 Q. Thank you. Do you know anything about whether these paramilitary
5 and parapolice forces in Croatia attacked units and facilities of the
6 Yugoslav People's Army?
7 A. Yes, they did. There were a number of attacks. Initially they
8 attacked individual columns or patrol vehicles. Officers were arrested,
9 detained; their arms, their weapons, were seized. And later, they
10 organised attacks on military transport convoys. They seized weaponry,
11 about which there exists official information and memoranda of the
12 Ministry of Defence and notes sent to the Ministry of Defence of Croatia.
13 Q. Thank you. We have seen some of those documents; that is why I am
14 interrupting you.
15 Tell me, Mr. Djukic, what do you know about the arming of
16 paramilitary and parapolice forces in the zone of responsibility of the
17 9th Corps of the JNA, the 9th Corps of the JNA's zone of responsibility?
18 Are you aware of any instances of illegal arming; and if so, which?
19 A. Well, I would start with the territory of Sinj, for instance. I
20 know, for example, that Mr. Branislav Petricevic, through a trading
21 organisation called Sport, from Split, obtained a large quantity of
22 hunting rifles which were then distributed to members of voluntary
23 detachments in the territory of Sinj. I also know that in the territory
24 of Split, they were arming from a warehouse which they had set up at the
25 end of 1991 or 1990, in October, in Mostine, a place called Mostine,
1 where, according to our information, as far as I can recall, on the 11th
2 of October, a large quantity of armaments arrived. And at the end of
3 October there arrived Slovenian-produced weaponry to the same place, and
4 these were automatic rifles.
5 At that same time and later, the arming started of voluntary
6 detachments and the setting up of such detachments as well so that, in the
7 territory of the zone of responsibility of the corps, there were formed a
8 number of such units of different structures.
9 Q. Thank you. I should like to ask you what do you know about the
10 MUP, the Ministry of the Interior, of the Republic of Croatia? What was
11 the MUP in 1990, the MUP of Croatia?
12 A. The MUP of Croatia, in 1990, according to the official data which
13 I had --
14 MR. WHITING: Excuse me.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry.
16 Yes, Mr. Whiting.
17 MR. WHITING: I'm going to object because, as far as I can tell,
18 there are no topics on the 65 ter summary pertaining to 1990.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: There are no topics?
20 MR. WHITING: On the 65 ter summary that pertain to 1990. And I
21 don't think that there is any -- I don't think even -- I'm not sure about
22 the MUP of Croatia, whether it's referenced, but certainly not with
23 respect to 1990.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Perovic.
25 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] In order to avoid misunderstandings,
1 I shall reform -- rephrase my question, if you will allow me, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Perovic, you may proceed.
3 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Mr. Djukic, let us not tie ourselves to 1990. What do you know
5 about the Ministry of the Interior of Croatia?
6 A. Well, the Ministry of the Interior of Croatia, according to
7 official data, had about 17.000 members. After the issuance of the order,
8 or rather, decision by the president of the SFRY on the 9th of January,
9 1991, on the disarming of all paramilitary and parapolice forces in the
10 territory of the SFRY, the then-current president, president in office, of
11 the Presidency of the SFRY, Mr. Stipe Mesic, went to Zagreb, asked for an
12 extension of the deadline. The deadline had been the 20th of January.
13 And then, together with Minister Boljkovac they organised the
14 replenishment, the manning, of the police of Croatia, distributing some
15 54.000 official badges so that the MUP of Croatia at that time grew to a
16 number of around 71.000.
17 Q. Why was this done? What does this mean?
18 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry. I'm sorry to interrupt. Unless I'm
19 mistaken, this also -- I don't think this appears on the 65 ter summary.
20 I could be wrong, and if -- I'm happy to be corrected if Defence counsel
21 can point us to the relevant paragraph.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Perovic.
23 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in the summary there is
24 a part of which pertains to the arming of paramilitary and parapolice
25 units and forces in Croatia. And by that I mean that what we are
1 discussing with the witness falls within that definition, under such
2 paramilitary or parapolice forces.
3 MR. WHITING: [Microphone not activated]
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
5 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry.
6 That appears to be a reference to paragraph 4, but what I
7 understand these questions to be about is not parapolice or paramilitary
8 but about the police of Croatia. And this information is not included on
9 the 65 ter summary.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not quite sure by what you mean by paragraph
11 4. Are you referring to the paragraph that starts: "Soon after there was
12 the brigade itself, as well as other JNA units, it became subject of
13 attacks ..." is that the fourth paragraph in the summary of this witness?
14 MR. WHITING: Yes, Your Honour. I have a version where the
15 paragraphs are numbered, and that's it. Yes, Your Honour, thank you.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, that paragraph goes on to say: "Croatia was
17 illegally arming its paramilitary and parapolice formations."
18 MR. WHITING: That's correct. And the questions now are about the
19 police, not about parapolice or paramilitary; it's about the MUP of
20 Croatia and about the arm -- about the forces -- about the MUP of Croatia
21 and -- well, that's what it's about. And I don't think that's covered by
22 paramilitary and parapolice, but maybe I can stand corrected on that.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. I'm the least one to know about that, and I
24 would hate to go back on my guideline of allowing Mr. Perovic to speak
25 further now. But I need to know -- it seems as if you're talking about
1 police, Mr. Perovic, and not paramilitary and parapolice formations. This
2 is the nub of the objection; that you are mentioning nothing about the
3 police themselves, the MUP.
4 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, for me to be able to
5 respond to my learned friend, I would have to run the risk of testifying,
6 and you pointed out correctly that I may be put in a position to testify.
7 If you allowed the answer to my question, which was interrupted by
8 my learned friend, then we would receive information to clarify the
9 situation; meaning why I believe that this situation may be covered by the
10 summary, 65 ter summary.
11 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, if Mr. Perovic believes, as he says,
12 that it's covered by the summary and that the information that's going to
13 be elicited is covered by the summary, I'm happy to let him continue.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may continue, then, Mr. Perovic.
15 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
16 I'd like to thank my learned friend.
17 Q. Mr. Djukic, you said that, in the span of those several days, the
18 Ministry of the Interior of Croatia grew from 17.000 to more than 70.000
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. My question was: Why was this done? What was created by doing
23 A. What was created by doing so was paramilitary forces of Croatia;
24 to wit, that large number of police members and detachments that are
25 mentioned were the precursors of the ZNG [Realtime transcript read in
1 error "JNA"]. This was the gist of it.
2 Q. Thank you. What happened later on in Croatia after that, what you
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I know there's a correction that's going to take
5 place later. I heard the translation say that was "the precursors of the
6 ZNJ" and I thought it was supposed to be G, but now we've got JNA.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: G, ZNG.
8 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour,
9 ZNG, the National Guards Corps; that's what we are talking about.
10 Q. Therefore, after such ballooning of the MUP in Croatia, what
11 happened next when it comes to MUP forces?
12 A. First, members of the Croatian MUP of Serb ethnicity were
13 expurged, they were dismissed; and then staffs of Territorial Defence in
14 Croatia started dismissing officers and employees of Serb ethnicity. And
15 then later on, MUP forces started attempting to establish throughout the
16 Croatian territory mono-ethnic police stations manned exclusively by
17 Croats, and they started disarming police stations which existed in
18 localities which were majority Serb populated and which housed Serb
20 Q. Could you cite a couple of examples of such municipalities.
21 A. In concrete terms, Pakrac first; then Borovo Naselje; then Titova
22 Korenica; Benkovac, Obrovac; Petrinje; Glina; Kostajnica; Dvor Na Uni; and
23 the attempt at Knin.
24 Q. You said attempted disarming of Knin, what does this mean?
25 A. After disarming police - or the SUP as we called it police
1 station - of Benkovac on the 17th of August of 1990, MUP forces, Croatian
2 MUP forces, sent several convoys of MUP members in vehicles with three
3 helicopters on the 19th of July, 1990 --
4 MR. WHITING: Okay, I'm --
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- To disarm the station --
6 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry to keep doing this, but it's the only
7 way. Again, this is not on the 65 ter summary. There's nothing about
8 1990 on the 65 ter summary, and we keep -- the questions keep going back
9 to 1990.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any response, Mr. Perovic?
11 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] I will withdraw my question, Your
12 Honour. Much has been said about it during previous testimonies.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Perovic.
14 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Djukic, did you know the deployment of paramilitary and
16 parapolice forces of the Republic of Croatia within the zone of
17 responsibility of the 9th Corps? Where were they deployed mainly?
18 A. These forces were mainly deployed in places which were Croat
19 populated --
20 Q. Thank you. Let us skip enumerating all these places. What I'm
21 interesting in is, for instance, the village of Kijevo, how many members
22 of the paramilitary and parapolice forces were there, to your knowledge?
23 A. From April 1991 there were 50 members of parapolice forces at
24 Kijevo. This was a newly established police station, and they established
25 18 such police stations; two of them were newly established within the
1 9th Corps area of responsibility in Kijevo and the Liseni Ostrevicke
3 Q. Did that complement grow over time?
4 A. Yes, it grew. They started mobilising, bringing in, and it grew
5 to 150 in Kijevo; and from the neighbouring village of Majovica they
6 transferred from 150 to 200 members to buff up the Kijevo contingent to
7 provoke incidents and to create psychosis and tensions in that area.
8 Q. You, as the commander of the 221st Motorised Brigade, what was the
9 task of you in your capacity?
10 A. At that time I was tasked with establishing a buffer zone between
11 the villages majority populated by Serbs and those majority populated by
12 Croats. I established six such buffer zones in the areas that were
13 designated and that I was ordered to create.
14 Q. Thank you. What were those buffer zones? What was the purpose of
16 A. The main purpose was to pre-empt inter-ethnic conflicts, and this
17 was the main task of the JNA in that area first and foremost.
18 Q. Thank you. Do you remember when did the four mixed tactical
19 groups were created, when they were created?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Whose -- on whose command?
22 A. The newly appointed commander of the corps, General Spiro
23 Nikovic. That order was issued on the 16th of June, 1991. He used such
24 four tactical groups out of the whole corps and designates the creation of
25 buffer zones as their main task within the corps area of responsibility.
1 Q. Thank you. Did you head one of such tactical groups and which?
2 A. Yes. I headed the 1st Tactical Group and had to create buffer
3 zones in the Sinj-Knin and Drnis-Knin areas.
4 Q. Thank you. Who was your deputy or officer in control, if I may
5 say so?
6 A. Deputy is one thing. That was a deputy of a brigade command, and
7 controlling officer was Colonel Separovic, a Croat. Just to explain. If
8 the tactical group commander was a Serb, then the controlling officer was
9 a Serb, and vice versa.
10 Q. Thank you. Who was the commander of Tactical Group 2?
11 A. They were -- they were changed. At one time it was Colonel
12 Mijatov, a Croat; he who was replaced by Ivan Lacic, another Croat. And
13 their controlling officer was a Serb. And I believe that for 3rd Tactical
14 Group, the controlling officer was Colonel Terzic; commander was Srvelija,
15 a Croat, in the same vein.
16 Q. So this principle when a commander of a tactical group is a Serb
17 or a Croat, for the controlling officer be of that other ethnicity, ethnic
18 group, was consistently applied?
19 A. Yes, in full. And it was applied for that reason, for the orders
20 of the superordinated command to be implemented in full in keeping with
21 the orders and for those units to act in accordance with the tasks that
22 they were given.
23 Q. Thank you. What did the role of the 9th Corps units boil down to,
24 that was July 1991?
25 A. The basic task of the 9th Corps was to prevent inter-ethnic
1 conflicts within the zone of responsibility of the corps.
2 Q. Thank you. Can we say, without running the risk of being
3 mistaken, that you were some sort of peacekeepers in that region?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Could you explain that a little more. As you were
7 saying you headed the 1st Tactical Group and exercised this function of
8 this buffer forces in the Sinj-Knin and Drnis-Knin areas. This is what
9 you said. Could you describe it a little better for us. What does it
10 mean in -- the Drnis-Knin and Sinj-Knin areas on -- along these roads
11 between Drnis and Knin and Sinj to Vrlika and Knin, or what is this
12 areas? What do you mean?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My task was the direction that I
14 explained, and my forces were deployed between the settlements of --
15 between Vrlika, Lelaci [phoen], and Kosorska Greda were at Vrlika, and in
16 the hinterland of Vrlika, Lelaci, et cetera. These were Croat-populated
17 village, and beyond them were Cetina, Gornji and Donji Civljani, which
18 were purely Serbian villages. A high degree of tension was created there
19 and our forces were deployed between them. Next -- beyond these villages
20 is the village of Kijevo, so our buffer zone ran up to Kijevo.
21 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And how about Civljane?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Civljane, one direction is the
23 village of Cetina, upper and lower Civljane, Gornji and Donji Civljani;
24 that's one direction. The buffer zone was before -- between those
25 villages and Vrlika-Lelaci-Kosorska Greda; that's one group of villages.
1 The second buffer zone, if you permit me, was between the villages of
2 Civljani, Gornji and Donji, and Cetina, and beyond them is the village of
3 Kijevo as a Croat-populated village. The third buffer zone is between the
4 village of Kijevo and the village of Polace. Polace is a Serb village,
5 purely Serb village. There were high tensions there as well because those
6 Serbs at Polace had experienced genocide during World War II. In a single
7 day in 1941, 43 inhabitants were killed --
8 JUDGE HOEPFEL: No history, please, just describe your --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It comes to Drnis. We had a line
10 between the village of Vrbnik and some other Croatian villages, Oklaj,
11 Senkovci, this -- the area of Promina, this was one line. The second line
12 was between the Drnis municipality villages of Siveric, Drnis itself, and
13 the village Kricke, and Kadina, Glavica, which separated the village of
14 Teplja, as a Serb-populated village, Mioci and Bioci villages. That
15 buffer zone was the longest of them all.
16 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And what should we -- how should we picture such a
17 buffer zone? Is this occupying a certain area or what do you mean by
18 buffer zone?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We did not occupy ground; we
20 deployed JNA units and forces. At the borders of those villages, at the
21 limits of the villages -- and by being deployed with men and materiel and
22 weapons, were there to pre-empt any incursions from either side, looting,
23 armed conflict, or any type of an incident. And by being deployed and
24 through our tasks, we were successful at -- in pre-empting such incidents.
25 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you very much. I'm done.
1 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that we've
2 reached the end of business today. I will resume my examination tomorrow.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Perovic.
4 The matter will stand adjourned to tomorrow at quarter past 2.00
5 in Courtroom II. Court adjourned.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.01 p.m.,
7 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 19th day of
8 October, 2006, at 2.15 p.m.