1 Wednesday, 12 December 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you please
7 call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, and good morning, Your Honours. This
9 is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you,
11 Mr. Registrar.
12 I would like first to welcome everyone in this courtroom,
13 Prosecution, Mr. Seselj, our witness, as well as the interpreters and all
14 our technical staff.
15 Before giving the floor to Mr. Seselj, who would like to take the
16 floor regarding two topics, two housekeeping matters, I would like to say
17 that later, once the Dragomir Milosevic judgement is rendered, we will
18 move to Courtroom I. And we can also work until 2.45 p.m. Yesterday we
19 were a bit late. We were an hour late. I hope the Prosecution will speed
20 up, and that way Mr. Seselj would carry out his cross-examination as
22 I would also like to tell Mrs. Dahl that you told Chamber -- the
23 Trial Chamber that you wanted to tender a number of documents regarding
24 the various speeches and interventions of Mr. Seselj, the list of which is
25 in a summary chart. The rule here is as such: A document can be tendered
1 and admitted when a -- when a witness has recognized the document. This
2 is the general principle. And the case -- this also is confirmed by the
3 case law of the appeals and -- allow to admit a number of exhibits that
4 have not been shown to a witness. If these -- and this will apply in the
5 case here because these are speeches of Mr. Seselj. But there needs to be
6 a written submission. And Defence, i.e., Mr. Seselj, must be able to
7 comment on this. And then the Trial Chamber will render a written
9 Mrs. Dahl, I hope you see -- this is what I had to say.
10 Mr. Seselj.
11 MS. DAHL: Your Honour. Your Honour, before we turn to
12 Mr. Seselj's housekeeping matters, I'd like to be recognized so I respond
13 to what you just said.
14 I have two brief points. First, I acknowledge your request that
15 the Prosecution speed up. The inference that people may draw from that is
16 that there is some fault to be attributed to the Prosecution for the use
17 of time yesterday. I wish to indicate that if there is any reason for the
18 length of time yesterday went, it has to do with housekeeping and lengthy
19 speaking objections by Mr. Seselj. I do not wish to get to the end of the
20 case and find that things have proceeded longer than expected and then to
21 have some adverse inference drawn against the Prosecution in the
22 presentation of our case. We are proceeding with all deliberate speed and
23 efficiently using our time.
24 With regard to the documents uttered by Mr. Seselj, I provided him
25 a list of what we wanted to admit to see whether he had objections. I
1 understand you're requesting a written motion through which to tender
2 those documents. I will prepare that for you. I will not have it, of
3 course, tomorrow morning, when I had intended to offer the documents in
4 for admission.
5 I also wish to state that I disagree with your explication of the
6 law on how documents are admitted. I understand that bringing them in --
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Dahl, I'll just stop you
8 here. Whether you agree with me or not, this is not my problem. If
9 you're not -- if you don't agree with me, you can ask for a certification
10 of appeal.
11 You can sit down.
12 Mr. Seselj, you have the floor.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, I first have to deal with
14 these two issues very briefly and then the next three, very briefly.
15 Mrs. Dahl, as the Prosecutor, does not have the right to object
16 about my yesterday's objections, because they were all justified. She
17 would be entitled to complain if I had made unjustified objections just to
18 take up time. Since all my objections were justified, she has no right to
19 complain whatsoever.
20 Second, I received a list of those exhibits from the Prosecution
21 that are tendered, but I received only part of the exhibits yesterday.
22 The Prosecution said I would receive the rest today. Most of those
23 documents are such that I would have no objection to them being admitted;
24 however, there are some documents to which I would not agree, and I will
25 state my reasons tomorrow, because the Prosecution said they will be
1 discussed tomorrow. Today I'm not prepared.
2 Those were those two things.
3 I have already said to the representative of the Registry my two
4 objections, but I have three. The third did not have to do with the
6 First of all, the public nature of this trial is jeopardized
7 because there was no broadcast yesterday on the Internet. Every time I
8 appear in the courtroom, there's always some problem with the Internet. I
9 made two submissions indicating the falsifying of transcript, the
10 intentional falsifying of the transcript, and the extremely bad
11 interpretation. Now my associates cannot follow the Internet broadcast
12 and it is a big question how I will be able to find errors in the
13 transcript in the future. I know that the world public is very
14 interest -- has a great interest in this trial.
15 Second, concerning the trial. I asked the Registry that in the
16 break between two sessions I should be able to use the telephone in my
17 room, like Mr. Milosevic did. They had promised me that, but now I don't
18 have that possibility, so they broke their promise.
19 Now, in the breaks, I need to call my associates, who might be
20 able to hear the Internet broadcast, to hear their proposal, new
21 information, suggestions, et cetera. This way I am isolated, lonely here.
22 Between two sessions I have no opportunity to do anything, and I need to.
23 And third, yesterday I received from the Prosecution, with
24 confirmation 139, some documents about Mr. Oberschall exclusively in
25 English. It's absolutely useless to me. I have no translations in
1 Serbian. In the opening statement, the Prosecutor said that they provided
2 these documents as a response to the decision of the Trial Chamber. I
3 never heard of such a thing. How can one respond to the decision of the
4 Trial Chamber? I heard of appeals being made, given a certification, but
5 to reply to a decision of the Trial Chamber, I never heard of that before.
6 This was probably made available to you in French and in English. It was
7 given me in English. It is useless to me, and I cannot state my opinion.
8 There are 10 to 15 pages here -- I don't know.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. I'll be very quick.
10 Regarding the Internet first. You are right. I have checked
11 lately, and it -- whether it worked, and it -- I was told it did not work.
12 I asked why, and I still haven't been given the reasons. So just like
13 you, I'm starting to wonder whether somebody isn't doing this on purpose
14 to block your Internet transmission, because this is quite unacceptable.
15 Supposedly for a technical problem that's been going on for weeks, we have
16 no Internet broadcast and there are no solutions.
17 Regarding the phone now. Mr. Registrar will do what is necessary,
18 since Mr. Milosevic could talk to his associates, you should be allowed to
19 do this too.
20 Now, thirdly, regarding the documents that you obtained in
21 English, you were supposed to get them in your own language, of course.
22 We handed down a decision on November 30th, 2007. And for very obscure
23 reasons this decision was not translated. It seems that the translation
24 department made a mistake as to the deadline for translation. And we
25 asked Prosecution to identify the questions and to disclose to Trial
1 Chamber and to yourself all required documents. So you have -- this is
2 why you have them, but I guess they didn't have time to translate them in
3 your language.
4 So now you have the reason. I'm sure that Mrs. Dahl has something
5 to add to confirm this.
6 Mrs. Dahl.
7 MS. DAHL: First I want to respond to Mr. Seselj's statement that
8 we did not provide him with the exhibits that we intend to tender
9 tomorrow. That is simply not true. We gave him a list of the subset of
10 the exhibit list. All of the exhibits have been disclosed to him already.
11 As a courtesy, we are reprinting exhibit binders. That is a tremendous
12 production load. And rather than taking the information we gave to
13 Mr. Seselj regarding the exhibit list in the format that we could produce
14 it, he rejected it. So he is depriving himself of the information that is
15 available to him.
16 There is a significant problem that needs to be resolved. We will
17 start first with the Registrar. Mr. Seselj needs additional facilities
18 for his self-representation in the form of a qualified language assistant.
19 We, the Prosecution, work in the official languages of the --
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Dahl, we're not going to
21 deal with this problem. The Trial Chamber knows it inside out.
22 We did note that the Prosecution was supposed to give all
23 documents to the accused in his own language. Don't talk about a language
24 assistant. He's supposed to get the documents in his own language. If he
25 does not get them --
1 MS. DAHL: That is not what I understood the order to say. You
2 asked me to give him essentially an outline of my direct examination,
3 which is unheard of in this Tribunal that the Prosecution has to give the
4 accused a list of the questions he's going to ask. I thought it would
5 help move the examination along. I did not see any reason to quarrel with
6 the order, and I did it to the best of my ability. I cannot prepare for
7 trial and absorb the burden of translating for Mr. Seselj material to work
8 in court. That is not the Prosecution's obligation, to translate, to
9 serve as his trial assistant, to translate, to enable him to work in the
10 official languages of this Court.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Dahl, when you have
12 documents, you must send them to the translation department and the
13 translation department will then send the documents to him once
14 translated. I'm not asking you to translate them. If you can't translate
15 them yourself, give them to the translation department. But Mr. Seselj
16 must be given the documents in his own language. Notably if it is a
17 document that you're going to use when the witness is here. If the
18 document is not translated, you will have a problem.
19 So later on, if you have exhibits that need to be disclosed to
20 Mr. Seselj - and they might be after some kind of proofing - give them to
21 the translation unit and the translation unit will send them to Mr. Seselj
22 once translated.
23 Then you're talking about tomorrow. Both of you are talking about
24 tomorrow. But I had understood that yesterday was your day; today was
25 Mr. Seselj's day; and tomorrow there was supposed to be another witness,
1 and he's not going to be there. So why are you talking about tomorrow?
2 Normally everything is supposed to done by tonight -- by today.
3 MS. DAHL: This concerns the exhibits that were authored or
4 uttered by Mr. Seselj. That's what is intended for tomorrow.
5 I think before you --
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is on -- what's going on
7 tomorrow? What's going on tomorrow?
8 MS. DAHL: Tomorrow I had intended to publish the exhibits that
9 Mr. Seselj has no objection to entering into evidence and to move those
10 over his objection that the Court finds relevant and probative. What
11 you've told me this morning, though, is that you would like an additional
12 written motion so that you can take that under advisement.
13 I wanted to make sure, though, that we hear from the translation
14 department about their ability to comply with what your direction is,
15 because I think that it places an unreasonable burden on them and that the
16 burden belongs to Mr. Seselj, consequent upon his decision to represent
17 himself, and that the Registrar should give him a language assistant to
18 help him make access to documents in the official language of this
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. So regarding tomorrow,
21 it -- tomorrow you wanted to do the necessary regarding these documents.
22 But normally tomorrow there will be no hearing, unless you can find a new
23 witness, because we will finish with this witness today. It's already
24 9.20. We must absolutely move on. And you have the floor for the --
25 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have something to say and to
1 add. I would like to ask the witness [as interpreted] to not get into
2 useless controversies. Notably, when he was saying that Mrs. Dahl raised
3 an objection against his own objections.
4 Mr. Seselj, I really have not understood that in the -- in a
5 similar way, just explained -- she was just explaining why her in-chief
6 was longer than expected yesterday. That's all. I mean, in the interest
7 of justice and in your own interest, you should -- we have to be able to
8 make headway without useless controversies.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, I absolutely agree with my
10 fellow Judge. There should be no controversy in this courtroom.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, I have to respond to that.
12 It seems that the interpretation you are getting is really a disaster. I
13 was saying here something about the document of the Prosecution, which
14 says that this is the response to the decision of the Trial Chamber
15 regarding the status of Witness Oberschall. I never heard that a response
16 may be made to a decision of the Trial Chamber. That's the gist of what I
18 As for my yesterday's objections, I only said that they were all
19 justified and that I did not waste time.
20 And third, this list of exhibits, the Prosecution first gave it to
21 me in English, so I wrote a letter to Mrs. Dahl and requested them in
22 English [as interpreted]. Last Monday I got them in Serbian. Yesterday I
23 received the first box of documents. Mrs. Dahl says that it is a matter
24 of courtesy on the part of the Prosecution that documents are delivered
25 again, served again, just before they are used. It's not a courtesy. It
1 is an obligation that you imposed on the Prosecution that before a witness
2 is heard, the documents have to be provided again.
3 Why would I otherwise take a list of 15, 20 pages and then look
4 all across my archive to find these documents? It would take me two or
5 three days. It's normal that they serve them again. It's done in every
6 other trial. Binders are made just before a witness appears and submitted
7 to all parties. It was not avoided in any other trial. It's not a
8 courtesy. It's an obligation. Of course I had received those documents
9 before. But just before they are used, the Prosecution has to select them
10 and make them available to me. It's done everywhere.
11 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, I don't -- I misspoke. You did order us
12 to do it. However, it is the exception in the trials in this Tribunal.
13 It is only this case and the other case that you preside over where
14 people -- the Prosecution is required to create paper witness binders.
15 Every single document that we will bring up in court is available in --
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but that's the way it is.
17 And you have to comply with this.
18 Now, please continue with your in-chief.
19 WITNESS: ANTHONY OBERSCHALL [Resumed]
20 Examination by Ms. Dahl: [Continued]
21 Q. Good morning, Dr. Oberschall. I'd like to return to the
22 discussion of the examples you coded concerning Mr. Seselj's call for the
23 expulsion of civilians during the war.
24 May I ask you, please, to turn to example number 100. That is
25 Marked for Identification Exhibit P3. The English e-court number is at
1 page 152, and the B/C/S page number is at 138. This is the record that
2 begins: "In this village, too, in Hrtkovci, in this place in Serb Srem,
3 there is no room for Croats."
4 Have you found that record?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Reviewing the record, could you identify how you coded the record.
7 A. I coded it as "expulsion/exchange of population" and also
9 Q. Can you indicate what part of the text you found to constitute a
10 call for expulsion or exchange of population.
11 A. Well, the very first sentence reads: "There is no room for
12 Croats." Then four lines down: "All the rest must clear out of Serbia."
13 And: "We will drive them to the border of Serb territory and they can
14 walk on from there if they do not leave before on their own accord."
15 Q. What is the date of the utterance of this speech?
16 A. I think it's May 6, 1992.
17 Q. Let me ask you to turn the page to example number 101.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did you find in this record additional examples of calls for
21 A. "You will promptly get rid of the remaining Croats in your and
22 surrounding villages." I think that's pretty clear.
23 Q. Is that from the same speech that we just heard an excerpt of?
24 A. Yes, May 6, 1992.
25 Q. Now, let me ask you now to go to example 141, which is at e-court
1 page 212; in B/C/S it's at page 189. This is from a radio broadcast in
2 October 26, 1993.
3 A. I've got it.
4 Q. Can you identify what portion of the text you coded as "expulsion
5 and exchange of population."
6 A. Okay. Well, the very first sentence says: "We insist that a
7 civilised exchange of the population be carried out with Croatia," and
8 goes into two reasons. One, that Tudjman expelled 300.000 Serbs and the
9 other one, because in World War II, 500.000 Serbs -- I'm sorry,
10 Ante Pavelic settled some of the worst, he says, Ustasha from Western
11 Herzegovina in towns in Vojvodina, and he gives examples of particular --
12 particular groups.
13 Q. Which towns was he referring to?
14 A. Slankamen, Hrtkovci, Petrovaradin, and elsewhere.
15 Q. And what did Mr. Seselj say should happen there? Or what is he --
16 I'm sorry, let me rephrase that. What is he explaining about what he had
17 previously advocated in those towns?
18 A. Well, he says: "We advocated an exchange of population there;
19 namely, that the Croats return to their original homes" - I suppose he
20 means where they lived before World War II or during -- or up to World War
21 II - "and that the Serbs who had already been expelled by Tudjman move
22 into their apartments, that they exchange homes and apartments, and that
23 process has been completed, in my view." So he's talking about something
24 that has happened.
25 Q. Can you -- I want to turn now to the effect of propaganda as a
1 tool of mass persuasion.
2 A. Mm-hm.
3 Q. We touched briefly on this yesterday. How does -- can you briefly
4 summarise, how does propaganda work?
5 A. Well, propaganda works by -- propaganda is a technique of
6 persuasion that is based on emotional appeals and on basically a -- a
7 sense of -- creating a sense of threat against -- against people, who then
8 become anxious and filled with fear, and who then demand that this threat
9 be removed. And, of course, political leaders come and say that, We are
10 here to protect you and to remove that threat. Give us your vote, enlist
11 in our armed forces, and we will do it for you.
12 So through negative stereotyping, through generalisations, appeals
13 to victimhood, creating a sense of threat, the -- on -- on the positive
14 side, you create a demand for action, including violent action; and on the
15 negative side, if you deprive the adversaries and the opponents of access
16 to the media, basically they do not get access to two sides of an -- of an
17 argument and of the reasons for undertaking certain actions. And if you
18 repeat this often enough in the context of this threatening situation,
19 they will be persuaded.
20 Q. Is the audience an important component of propaganda discourse?
21 A. Yes. I mean, what we've been talking about, there's a -- in
22 discourse, there's a messenger, there's a message, and there's the
23 audience that is supposed to be persuaded. Now, the messenger in this
24 case we're discussing is Dr. Seselj. The message is what I have content
25 analysed, and we've been, you know, discussing details of it as to how I
1 went about doing it and what he said in various settings.
2 Now, all of that is not for the amusement of anybody; it's to
3 persuade them in a political sense to give them -- to -- the audience will
4 vote for him, vote for his political party or people who are the leaders
5 of the political points of view that he represents. And that is, sort of,
6 say, the final chapter in this drama is how the audience reacts to all
7 this propaganda.
8 Q. Well, let me turn to some video-clips now. You mentioned access
9 to the media. What's the importance of re-broadcasting by newscasters or
10 the media of speeches by political person -- persons speaking in -- about
11 political issues of the day?
12 A. Well, I -- I didn't quite understand that.
13 Q. What's the importance of access to the media and the re-broadcast
14 of speeches by a politician?
15 A. Well, I have shown material here based on research done by Serb
16 political scientists during this time that the Milosevic and affiliated
17 nationalist political parties and leaders, like Dr. Seselj, except for a
18 brief period of time when he and Milosevic didn't agree, they had about 90
19 per cent of the television audience and not quite as much, in terms of the
20 total audience, for -- for political messages, were really in the hands
21 of -- of, I would say, the -- Milosevic and other nationalist groups, like
22 Dr. Seselj and his -- and his Radical Party, which is enormous. I mean,
23 it's not quite what the Soviet Union had under Stalin, and so on, which is
24 much closer to 100 per cent. But 90 per cent is a -- is a big number.
25 And especially since this number was really close to 100 per cent when it
1 comes to the population of Serbia living outside of the capital, Belgrade,
2 where there was a more limited pluralist opportunity for the opposition to
3 voice their views.
4 Q. Now, let me turn to a news programme by Serbian television Studio
5 B, that is dated November 6, 1991. This is 65 ter number 6034. And it's
6 a report on volunteers signing up at the Radical Party office, followed by
7 a speech given by Mr. Seselj.
8 [Videotape played]
9 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] For the final liberation of Vukovar.
10 In response to the question whether volunteers would be sent to Grubisno
11 Polje, one of the volunteers said that Vukovar was a priority and only
12 later the other areas. This is what Branko Vasiljevic told us.
13 How old are you?
15 Where are you from?
17 Where have you set out?
18 I have set out to help my brothers.
19 Are you alone?
20 No. I have two sons.
21 Are they here as well?
22 They came 10 or 15 days ago. One is in Borovo and one in Knin.
23 Blood runs thicker than water.
24 Mr. Seselj made a speech in front of the group of volunteers and
25 said: "God bless you, heroes, volunteers. God bless you too. Brother
1 Serbs, Serb Chetnik heroes, you are going to the new war today. Today you
2 are going to liberate Serb Vukovar and defend Serb Slavonia. You are
3 going to join hundreds and thousands of our volunteers. You are leaving
4 from all parts of today's reduced Serbia to restore the glory of Serbian
5 arms and the Serbian army. You are going to cooperate with the Yugoslav
6 army because it is our army. It is, first of all, our army in terms of
7 the officer cadre and its fight for Serb territories.
8 Mr. Seselj finished with the following words: "Good luck, guys.
9 See you in Vukovar." These words of Seselj's mean that he, too, will join
10 the volunteers of the Serb Radical Party remains to be seen.
11 MS. DAHL:
12 Q. Dr. Oberschall, can you describe the effect of Dr. Seselj's
13 discourse on his audience -- oh, first can -- did -- in the course of
14 studying his materials, did you identify his targeted audience?
15 A. I thought these were volunteers that his party -- that he and his
16 party organised, I think in Belgrade, for the purpose of, you know,
17 training them and sending them to the Vukovar front, really.
18 Q. In looking for the effect of propaganda on the audience, how
19 important is it -- or first, is it important to identify speech patterns
20 or repetition of ideas articulated by the audience?
21 A. Well, yes. I mean, what you see in this -- in this video is a
22 very close relationship that he has to the volunteers. They listen to
23 him. They repeat some of the reasons and phrases that he uses. And you
24 can also see him as a -- in a -- in a leadership position. I mean, he's
25 the important person who has organised and motivated these volunteers.
1 They listen to him and they -- and they follow his guidance. And it's --
2 you can see how he stands there talking to the volunteers as they go off
3 to Vukovar.
4 Q. Okay. Let me now turn to another video-clip.
5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Would you like to have a number
7 for this video-clip we've just seen?
8 MS. DAHL: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. I'd like to move that video-clip
9 into evidence.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P17.
11 MS. DAHL: This next clip is 6058 on our 65 ter exhibit number,
12 and it is two clips. One is -- this is dated May 13, 1993, produced by
13 Srpska Radio Television. And it's a report on the Serbian Radical Party
14 leadership visiting Banja Luka.
15 [Videotape played]
16 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] There are no borders among Serbs, as
17 was said. There are no frontiers, as was said in Banja Luka. The
18 Republika Srpska and Republika Srpska Krajina are the pride of all
19 Serbdom. The Serbian people west of Drina is a victor in the battlefield
20 and cannot lose the battle at the green negotiating table, as their
21 enemies and foreign agents would desire. The Drina will never be a
22 border, since the Drina is a river running through the centre of Serbia,
23 said Vojvoda Seselj.
24 Drina will never be the border. Drina is a river running through
25 the centre of Serbia. Muslims and Croats do not represent a threat to us
1 for a long time already. Only brothers and sisters Serbs, there should be
2 no hesitating, waiting, or truce. The next time they strike, we should
3 finish them off so they never strike back again.
4 MS. DAHL:
5 Q. And let me follow that with clip B from the same -- this is a --
6 I'm sorry, before we do that --
7 [Videotape played]
8 MS. DAHL: Let's pause that, please.
9 Let me move that one into evidence.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit -- Your Honours, Exhibit
11 number P18.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have an objection. The date of
15 this rally should be referred to.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Do you have the date?
17 Mr. Seselj must know, but for the record, what is the date of that
19 MS. DAHL: I'll repeat the date. It is May 13, 1993.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 MS. DAHL:
22 Q. What aspects of propaganda, Dr. Oberschall, did you hear in that
24 A. Well, this is a -- actually, a very good example of the threat
25 removal; that is to say, he says, We've been threatened. We might be
1 threatened again. And I guarantee you we will remove the threat. That
2 was the -- in the speech that he gave from the podium, was pretty standard
3 threat and threat removal kinds of -- kinds of discourse.
4 Q. Let me show you another speech. This one is from April 14, 1992.
5 It is clip B from 65 ter number 6058.
6 [Videotape played]
7 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] We, the Serbian radicals, swear once
8 again here before you that we will not allow the Drina to be the border,
9 that Drina will be the river running through the centre of Serbia.
10 Brothers and sisters Serbs, with joint forces, with our harmony and unity,
11 we will unite the Serbian territories and create a Greater Serbia. And
12 now, Serbian brothers and sisters, let's go peacefully and proudly to the
13 Serbian Drina, to the Sepacki Bridge.
14 And at the end we have to say the people were today honoured to be
15 protected at the Drina Bridge by strong police forces. Truly a real
16 people's police.
17 MS. DAHL:
18 Q. What aspects of propaganda can we see in this speech?
19 A. Well, may I say, first of all, that in the previous clip and in
20 this clip you see the extraordinary influence and popularity that
21 Dr. Seselj has. He's got thousands of people who come out to hear him.
22 They cheer him. He's the centre of -- of attention. They listen to him.
23 And I must say I'm a bit envious. I used to lecture to 40 and 50
24 students, and here he is, you know, with thousands listening and cheering
25 to him, which never happened to me. But then I was not a politician.
1 But in any case, on the -- on the substantive end, it's -- the
2 second clipping shows, first of all, his view of Greater Serbia and
3 basically arbitrary removal of -- of -- of international borders as a way
4 of achieving this, because after all, the Drina is an international border
5 at this particular time. And the second thing is the intimate
6 relationship between advocacy and action, because he not only talks about
7 removing the Drina border but symbolically he and thousands of others walk
8 down to the river and the -- and -- and the bridge and they actually cross
9 this border and sort of symbolically say it doesn't really exist. We're
10 all part of the same Greater Serbia.
11 So it's a very impressive kind of event, in terms of visual image
12 and propaganda and rhetoric.
13 Q. Based on your study of mass persuasion through the media, what
14 could one expect from the re-broadcast of such speech or political rally
15 as we just saw?
16 A. Well, a fundamental principle of effectiveness of propaganda is
17 repetition. So the more often you repeat the same thing in speech, in --
18 visually, or you -- you actually symbolically re-enact something, the more
19 persuasive it becomes. Again, absent some kind of a organised opposition
20 that tells you that there are other ways of dealing with this -- with
21 these issues.
22 So, yes, repetition, re-broadcast, rephrasing, these are known and
23 very effective tools of propaganda.
24 MS. DAHL: I'd like to move into evidence the last clip.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, just an objection.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Go ahead.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'd like to apologise if I did not
3 hear this right. Could Ms. Dahl please repeat the date of this speech.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I thought it was the 14th of
5 April, 1992.
6 Is that right?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's a lie, Judge. This is the
8 well-known rally in Loznica against the blockade of Republika Srpska that
9 was imposed by the Milosevic regime. This is a speech from 1995, when
10 Republika Srpska was under a blockade. I am leading a mass of people to
11 symbolically break through that blockade.
12 You see what the Prosecution is resorting to?
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl, what about the date?
14 There must be a mistake. I don't know.
15 MS. DAHL: I'm relying on the records I've prepared, Your Honour.
16 I will do some research afterwards and submit the report to the Chamber in
17 support of -- if we can mark that for identification for the time being,
18 then we can move on.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, please. An MFI number.
20 THE REGISTRAR: MFI P19.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very quickly, sir, just a
22 follow-up question. We have just seen two video-clips in which there is a
23 political -- a politician meeting with people, shaking hands, being
24 applauded, making a speech. Nowadays these images can be seen anywhere in
25 the world. We have politicians meeting prospective voters. They get
1 applause. They shake hands, and their words are basically the same as the
2 one we have just heard. So my question, because I do not want to be a
3 victim of any kind of propaganda either: What kind of inference do we
4 have to draw with regard to the media today, in this modern day and age?
5 I mean, 1992, that's not the Middle Ages, is it? Is that a usual
6 technique for a politician who is on tour who is holding speeches? As far
7 as you can see, is that something that is to be condemned? Is it normal?
8 What do you think?
9 THE WITNESS: Well, of course this is what politicians do. They
10 go on tour. They make speeches. But I think I've also pointed out to you
11 that when you're talking about France or -- or Germany or Britain or
12 Switzerland, and so on, there's a political opposition that also goes on
13 tour. They also have speeches before audiences. Their message is
14 broadcast on all kinds of channels, media channels. And the people who
15 these messages are addressed to have all this other information coming to
16 them. But in this particular case, as I've indicated to you, the --
17 pretty much 90 per cent of especially the television coverage was really
18 just on the nationalist side. In -- in Republika Srpska, it was actually
19 100 per cent, because they shut down the TV transmission towers for the --
20 for the -- for the Bosniaks altogether.
21 So we're in a very different situation from this deliberative
22 discourse, where you see -- you're exposed to, so to say, all sides.
23 The other thing I would point out to you is that what Dr. Seselj
24 suggests by walking across this international border and -- and
25 essentially symbolically saying it doesn't exist because the Greater
1 Serbia does not recognize these -- these -- these boundaries, it would be
2 very unusual for a German Chancellor to walk into Strasbourg and declare
3 that the border of Alsace is different -- the border between France and
4 Germany is different and Alsace already now somehow reverts back to or
5 should revert back to Germany, instead of being part of France. And
6 that's sort of the equivalent of what is being done here.
7 So I don't think any Western politician in this democratic setting
8 would do such a thing, and it would be really looked upon as ridiculous
9 and absurd, as unacceptable.
10 MS. DAHL:
11 Q. Would it be considered a -- a provocation or an aggressive move
13 A. Well, the audience, both in Republika Srpska and in -- and in
14 Serbia, has been exposed to these messages now for four, five years, and
15 for them it's pretty much par for the course. There's nothing surprising
16 any more about it. So would it be considered provocative for the -- for
17 the Bosniaks? Yes, extremely provocative, if you declare that the country
18 really doesn't exist, doesn't have any borders any more.
19 Q. Now, let's turn now to a video-clip of a volunteer after the fall
20 of Vukovar. This is 65 ter exhibit number 6032.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Which date, please?
22 MS. DAHL: I have this dated after the fall of Vukovar, November
24 [Videotape played]
25 MS. DAHL: I'm sorry.
1 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] This is rather unusual.
2 MS. DAHL: I'm pulling the wrong one. This is before the fall of
4 [Videotape played]
5 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] I'm a mother of two small children.
6 Where are you from if.
7 From Pirot.
8 Who old are you?
9 33. Well, when I watch television, I see what's going on and I
10 want to help. And it's worth sacrificing my life.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, this is footage from
12 Belgrade, not from Vukovar. This really makes no sense. It's all wrong,
13 what the Prosecutor is doing. This is the departure of volunteers from
15 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, I'm sorry, I introduced it incorrectly.
16 This is from a documentary film about Vukovar that depicts the departure
17 of volunteers from Belgrade before the fall. Mr. Seselj is correct. I
18 have another clip about volunteers in Vukovar after the fall, which comes
19 up next.
20 So let me begin again. This is 65 ter exhibit 6032.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just one remark. You are
22 speaking about volunteers. We have just seen a lady who seems to be the
23 mother of two children, who's 32 or 33 years old. She doesn't say that
24 she's a volunteer from such-and-such a group. This is just what I wanted
25 to point out to you.
1 Please proceed.
2 THE WITNESS: Can I make a statement?
3 She is dressed in a military outfit which the volunteers actually
4 dressed in. She's not dressed in street clothes. She's not going there
5 to do some -- to take her children to school. I mean, she's boarding the
6 bus that the volunteers are taking to Belgrade. That's why
7 Madam Prosecutor said that she's a volunteer.
8 MS. DAHL: Let me -- let me play the clip again.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let's not waste time, Judge. Let's
10 not waste time. This really is a volunteer, a volunteer of the Serb
11 Radical Party. That, this woman is, and I'm not challenging it.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's go ahead.
13 [Videotape played]
14 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] This is rather unusual. A young
15 woman going to war. Is it or isn't it? What do you think about that?
16 I don't think it is. We need to answer the call to arms. I'm a
17 mother of two small children.
18 Where are you from?
19 I'm from Pirot.
20 How old are you?
22 What made you decide to go?
23 Well, when I watch television I see what's going on and I want to
24 help and it's worth sacrificing my life for this here Serbia of ours.
25 MS. DAHL: I'd like to move that clip into evidence, please.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P20.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, again, the problem is that
4 there is no date here. You saw a clip of seeing off volunteers a few
5 moments ago where I spoke. This is a sequel to that. And you saw in the
6 first video-clip that there was an interruption and a part of my speech is
7 cut off where I am telling the volunteers how they are supposed to treat
8 prisoners of war, civilians, women, and children at the front line, where
9 they fight. This was tendentiously omitted.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. The date of departure of
11 this lady, do you have it?
12 MS. DAHL: I will look in our evidence collection and see if I can
13 get a more specific date. Often we've been able to obtain a video from
14 outside sources, that is, segments, so I'll see if I can get more precise
16 And the next video-clip, I also don't have a more precise date.
17 I'll see what I can find. It was from a documentary film maker who
18 testified. It's related to material that's already been admitted to
19 Dr. Seselj's testimony in the Milosevic case. This is 65 ter exhibit
20 number 6012, clip A.
21 [Videotape played]
22 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] Chetnik, Chetnik, remember that.
23 MS. DAHL: I want to put the three clips together as one exhibit,
24 so I'd like to proceed to another clip from that video, clip B.
25 [Videotape played]
1 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] From Nis, a Chetnik. Seselj's
2 party. If you heard. We are liberating. The JNA is doing nothing,
3 nothing. Well, the volunteers and Chetniks were sent in to the worst
4 operations when it was necessary. At one stage they withdraw. We are
5 left alone on the battlefield together with the locals.
6 This was always Serbia and the communists --
7 Wait a second.
8 And the communists, they laid down the borders in 1945 and all of
9 this is their fault. Tito's generals are -- Tudjman is one of Tito's
10 generals, Anton Tus is as well.
11 Well, our aim was to defend Serbdom orthodoxy. As far as I'm
12 concerned, what those people from the Tribunal in The Hague and the
13 journalists -- as precisely what that meant -- well, they asked if I'd go.
14 Yes, again, I would again defend Serbdom and orthodoxy. Those are goals
15 higher than my single life. The Serbs were exposed to genocide there
16 during the Second World War. Vukovar is a story unto itself.
17 MS. DAHL: The last clip in this composite exhibit is clip C.
18 [Videotape played]
19 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] It will be Serbian, ours. There
20 will no longer belong -- it will no longer belong to Ustashas. There will
21 be no more fascists. We will no longer allow it. For 50 years we
22 suffered it and didn't say a word. We waited and they hated us. It's
23 enough now. It's the end. We can only fight with them.
24 [In English] They kill our children. We have never seen the kid
25 of two years old with head -- the head of the kid is on the pick, you
1 know, and here the pick is on the kid's body. You know what that mean?
2 Have you seen that? No? That people, we discuss? Never. Only fight to
3 the end, to the last. The last bullet, the last Ustasha. You know?
4 That's everything.
5 MS. DAHL:
6 Q. I want to focus on the ideas articulated by the people whose clips
7 we just saw. Can you pull out some examples of where Dr. Seselj's message
8 has been repeated or replicated in these individuals.
9 A. Well, they -- they pretty much, so to say, repeat what he's been
10 saying for -- at this time, for at least about a year, if not more, in
11 terms of the victimhood of the -- of the -- of the Serbs, the threat that
12 the others -- other groups represented to him, and linking that to -- to
13 actual action, removing the threat by -- you see them armed there in
14 Vukovar. They've been doing the fighting. So they translate these
15 political ideas and -- and propaganda into action.
16 And the -- the young woman who has the two children, the --
17 actually says that she saw what was happening in Vukovar on TV. Before
18 that, we had a clipping of a -- of a man who was about, I think he said it
19 was 57 years old, from Nis, and he also wanted to enrol in the fighting
20 forces to -- you know, to save Vukovar because of what he had seen on TV.
21 And that's -- that's kind of unusual that people -- women with
22 small children and an older gentleman should want to become a volunteer in
23 an -- a military operation. I mean, it -- it shows the effectiveness and
24 the power of television in -- in persuading people.
25 I might -- I might add that I just notice that in my report I also
1 quote Dr. Seselj on the effectiveness of television. This is in a --
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, please, you are very
3 quickly drawing conclusions. We've just seen the three sequences, A, B,
4 and C, of clip number 6012. And you seem to infer and say that people are
5 saying all this because Mr. Seselj gave all these speeches. When I listen
6 to you -- while I was listening to you, I was wondering, what is the
7 substance of what these people are talking about? They're talking about
8 crimes that occurred during World War II, crimes committed by Ustashas.
9 They must have -- Ustashas. They must have learned that maybe through
10 Mr. Seselj, but maybe also through their family and school, education,
11 history lessons. I don't know.
12 We also see a so-called soldier talking about the head of a child,
13 this and that. I mean, this is not Mr. Seselj who told him all this,
14 about the head of a child. But you seem to immediately -- to
15 automatically connect what you see on these videos to Mr. Seselj.
16 And listening to you, I was trying to remember what happened in
17 your country after September 11th. You know, where Fox News and CNN were
18 interviewing people who were saying, Well, they were ready to take up arms
19 and fight the terrorists. They weren't saying that they wanted to do this
20 because they had heard the President's speech or a politician's speech.
21 So on this testimony that we have on video, could you tell us what
22 is -- what comes from -- what is the contribution of Mr. Seselj and what
23 is the contribution of what they saw on TV. We would have to prove here,
24 to demonstrate that the accused controlled the media and the TV. But you
25 seem to put this aside and immediately, just automatically state that this
1 is the consequences of his words, of the words of the accused.
2 So could you please shed some light on this.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes. Well, we can't really separate the -- you
4 know, the influence of a whole bunch of people who are using basically the
5 same kinds of propaganda, nationalist ideas, proposals for action.
6 There's -- there's a lot of them at this time. In fact, there's a lot of
7 them on the Croat side as well. You know, from the -- from the other
9 But what I'm -- what I am saying is that within this discourse of
10 nationalism, Dr. Seselj actually has a lot of access and exposure in the
11 mass media and he keeps repeating the same message and he has kind of, I
12 would say, almost a privileged position, in terms of disseminating this
13 message. It's true other people are also doing it. They also have access
14 to the mass media. I don't think to the extent that Dr. Seselj did. And
15 furthermore, we have seen from the clippings that he talks directly to the
16 volunteers. So it's not just a question of the mass media. It's a
17 question of personal relationship that he has. He talks to them before
18 they board the bus to Vukovar; he talks to them when he visits Vukovar.
19 They repeat what he has been saying and what they've been hearing.
20 So, yes, the degree of proof that you wish that you could do in
21 some kind of a science, a natural science, does not exist here. I -- I
22 completely admit that.
23 MS. DAHL:
24 Q. In Professor Seselj's discourse, when you studied his texts, did
25 you find examples of conciliatory or willingness to compromise in his
1 political objectives?
2 A. There -- there were a few passages that would -- that would
3 indicate that. And in fact I've quoted some of them and I cited some of
4 them, but they are definitely outnumbered and overwhelmed by the -- more
5 of a no-compromise sort of position that he takes, on borders, on Greater
6 Serbia, on the status of Serbs who live outside of Serbia, and on all
7 things that have to do with the fighting and bringing it to an end. And
8 I -- I can actually quote some numbers for you later on, if you wish, in
9 my summary of the content analysis on precisely that point.
10 Q. Let me ask you when we take the break if you could put together
11 the summary and then we'll return to that, because I don't want to take up
12 the time --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. -- looking for the figures.
15 In political discourse, is there a risk associated with taking a
16 position of a compromise --
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. I would like the
18 registrar to tell us how much time the Prosecution has already spent.
19 But you can continue. You can continue and I'll tell you how much
20 time you've already spent. But continue, please.
21 MS. DAHL: Let me return to my question.
22 Q. In political discourse, is there a risk associated with taking a
23 position of no compromise?
24 A. Let me answer it this way: That Dr. Seselj pretty much takes that
25 position over the period that we -- that I examine his content analysis.
1 Now, there -- there are other prominent political leaders at this
2 time who started with the position -- the -- the kind of nationalist
3 position and the -- the no-compromise position that Dr. Seselj took
4 throughout this time, but when they realized that this was leading into
5 civil war and all this armed conflict and -- and so on, they -- they drew
6 back and they -- they changed their views. And they were much more
7 willing to say, Well, maybe compromise is a good idea, because we don't
8 want this kind of civil war.
9 And his rival, Vuk Draskovic, was one of these people. At -- at
10 one time he was even a more -- in 1990, more popular nationalist fire
11 brand than Dr. Seselj, and, of course, they were political rivals, but
12 Vuk Draskovic, shortly after all these wars started, these killings
13 started, sort of drew back and -- and changed his position on them, and he
14 wanted a -- I don't say he became a pacifist, but he certainly became
15 anti-war and he wanted to stop this whole -- you know, this whole
17 So it's -- it's not an inevitable position. And at that time,
18 taking a no-compromise, as Vuk Draskovic did change his mind on that, yes,
19 it was a political liability, because the public by that time had become
20 very nationalist and a substantial part of it was in fact for the war, but
21 not all of them, of course, by any means. So yes, there was a political
22 risk in -- in making this change.
23 Q. And let me, as a matter of housekeeping --
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. For your
25 information, Mrs. Dahl, you have used up three hours and 15 minutes. You
1 have 30 minutes left. You could continue until 10.40 and end at 10.40,
2 just before the break. So you have 30 minutes.
3 MS. DAHL: Let me move into evidence composite exhibit 6012, which
4 is clips A, B, and C.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P21.
6 MS. DAHL: [Microphone not activated] I'd like to sum up your
7 testimony --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
9 MS. DAHL:
10 Q. I'd like to sum up your testimony, Dr. Oberschall. Can you
11 present a summary of your -- the findings of your research.
12 A. Yes. Actually, they -- they come on page 38 and 39 of my expert
13 report. And I will summarise it now. That is, we've -- I've looked at,
14 first, 244 media messages of Dr. Seselj in the years 1990 to 1994. And we
15 looked at his view of relationship between Serbs and -- political
16 relationships between Serbs and non-Serbs in this -- during the Yugoslav
18 Now, he emphasised the victimisation of Serbs by other peoples and
19 states and -- and outside states in ex-Yugoslavia, foreign states,
20 international organisations. There are 40 victimhood and victimisation of
21 Serbs' messages in the total of 242.
22 He mentioned and repeatedly mentions that Serbia is threatened and
23 surrounded by enemies, foreign states, neighbour peoples, even internal
24 traitors who are Serbs, all of whom want to weaken the Serb state and the
25 Serbs by dismantling the territory of Serbia and diminishing numerically
1 the -- the Serb people.
2 There are 42 threats against --
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Judge, there's no point
4 in having the witness read -- read his report, if he can speak freely or
5 interpret or tell us something new, but it really makes no sense to him to
6 read the report.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you please try to answer
8 the questions and really give us a summary of the conclusion, as Mrs. Dahl
9 asked, not read your report. We've read your report. We -- Mr. Seselj
10 read it. I read it. We've all read it. But for the transcript, please
12 THE WITNESS: The reason I'm referring to is simply that the
13 content analysis I did is actually quantitative. It mentions numbers. I
14 can't remember all these numbers, you know, by heart. But let me just say
15 there's extraordinary large number of victimhood and victimisation
16 messages, threats against Serbs messages, no compromise on any kind of a
17 conflict management of the political and -- and ethnic conflicts that
18 exist at this time. There's some very vivid violent images and statements
19 about action to be taken, like the amputation of Croatia; another
20 favourite phrase of Dr. Seselj is "rivers of blood will flow," which is
21 extremely, extremely violent. There's large doses of justification for
22 coercion and violent actions, such as the "rivers of blood will flow."
23 And there's a lot of mentions and -- and references to the Serbs being a
24 glorious nation that has some kind of a privileged standing among all the
25 other peoples of Yugoslavia, who somehow are artificial creations of
1 scheming politicians and -- and history, and what have you, and have no --
2 and the Serbs having greater rights to create this Greater Serbia at the
3 expense of these other peoples.
4 And finally, there's a very heavy dose of misinformation,
5 falsehood, I would say even outright lies, in the -- in the statements,
6 messages that -- that I've examined, and, of course, that's very much--
7 the heart of propaganda is the misrepresentation of fact and history.
8 And what it amounts to is a -- a justification for xenophobic
9 nationalism and extreme actions and justifications for these actions and a
10 rejection of non-violent conflict management of these political and -- and
11 ethnic conflicts and the differences between these groups, which in fact
12 occurred in -- at this time, where it was actually happening in the Soviet
13 Union as it was falling apart, where except for one secession in Chechnya
14 and one conflict in Nagorno-Karabagh, this whole big, huge empire
15 separated into 17 states in a -- in a fairly peaceful fashion.
16 MS. DAHL:
17 Q. Can you explain some more about the alternatives to a violent
18 renegotiation of a constitutional framework that you studied and discussed
19 in your report.
20 A. Yes. I repeatedly -- well, the -- the case of the Soviet Union is
21 actually a very good example, because, first of all, the Serbs and the
22 Russians considered themselves as allies and have throughout history, but
23 they -- they handled the break-up of their countries, their states, in a
24 very different way.
25 Huge Russian minorities exist in the Baltic countries, in the
1 Ukraine, in the Central -- in the Central Asian republics, in the same way
2 that Serb minorities existed in Croatia and in -- in Bosnia. But the --
3 the peoples in the Soviet Union as they broke up into 17 -- I think it was
4 17 different states, decided not to re-draw every border that had existed
5 since, really, the 1919 constitution of the Soviet Union, which if they
6 had done what Dr. Seselj suggested and every other group would have done
7 the same, of trying to re-draw the borders and expel people from one --
8 one place to another place to -- to match the new borders, it would -- you
9 would have had about a dozen civil wars going on in the territory of the
10 Soviet Union at the same time. But they didn't do this. And they settled
11 the question of how to break up a state and the new constitutions and the
12 rights of peoples living in them, regardless of whether they're minorities
13 or majorities, in a totally different fashion, and by and large in a -- in
14 a peaceful fashion.
15 So there was this model that was actually going on at the same
16 time as the break-up of Yugoslavia was going on, but there are other -- I
17 would say there -- at this time also what was going on is the civil war in
18 South Africa between the African National Congress and the government of
19 South Africa was going on and had been actually going on for a decade. It
20 was a violent kind of insurgency. There was tremendous animosity between
21 the different groups and -- had actually been going on for -- for quite
22 some time, yet the political leaders on both sides saw that instead of
23 destroying their country, they had to sit down and come up with a new
24 constitution that admitted the equality of all these racial and ethnic
25 groups on an -- on the basis of equality and they reached a power-sharing
1 deal. And South Africa is a well-functioning country right now.
2 And I would say on a -- on a grade of difficulty, if -- if as an
3 outsider you look at how difficult it is to make people live together
4 peacefully, I would say South Africa would be a much more difficult case
5 and internationally most of the people who were experts on Yugoslavia
6 thought that, you know, the -- the Croats, Serbs, Muslims, and everybody
7 would sort it out in a fairly peaceful fashion. That didn't happen. And
8 certainly the Soviet Union was looked upon as a higher risk case than --
9 than Yugoslavia.
10 So yes, I make these comparisons and I think their appropriate,
11 because leadership, political leadership has a lot to do with what happens
12 in a country.
13 Q. We had talked yesterday about the term "xenophobic nationalism."
14 Could you contrast and discuss in closing the notion of civic nationalism
15 and what are the predicates regarding the treatment of ethnic and
16 religious groups within the umbrella of civic nationalism.
17 A. Well, in -- in civic nationalism as sort of the foundation of a
18 state, you start with the individual who has some basic equal inalienable
19 rights, compared to everybody else who lives in that territory. And
20 building from that, if there are particular groups with a different
21 language of religion or cultural tradition, depending on their size and
22 how dispersed or concentrated they are, as, for instance, in Canada, the
23 French -- the French-language people, the Quebecois, you create a federal
24 state or you create an autonomous region, you give them cultural rights.
25 You make sure that they're a political representation in the -- the
1 federal legislature is -- is adequate. You give provisions in the
2 constitution that prevent majority from changing these arbitrarily unless
3 there's consent by a substantial part of the minorities. In other words,
4 there are precedents available, the South African constitution, the --
5 there are many others, the Indian constitution, the -- right now, the
6 North -- Northern Ireland Peace Agreement is also based -- on this -- on
7 this idea.
8 Now, Dr. Seselj advocates another -- and believe you me, there's
9 nothing wrong with nationalism. It's how you -- how you implement it in
10 terms of a constitutional structure, the political rights of minorities,
11 and the equality of citizenship. But if you start with the notion that a
12 nation is privileged and other groups are not because they're artificial
13 or they haven't had a -- a medieval history of -- of -- of a state or
14 they're not speaking a language that's different from some other language
15 sufficiently to be a separate language, or any other criterion, this is
16 another way of building a state, and no matter what you -- you do or say,
17 you end up with a privileged group and other groups that are minorities
18 which are threatened or at least concerned about what's going to happen to
19 them within that.
20 I might say that the -- the great proponent of -- and the first
21 theorist of civic nationalism was a French historian who gave a famous
22 lecture at the Sorbonne in 1882, "Qu'est-ce qu'une nation?", and a lot of
23 our political theories and views about it come from this source, as
24 elaborated and implemented in -- in different contemporary settings.
25 Q. So unless I've missed something in particular that you think that
1 the Trial Chamber would need in addition to your written report, I will
2 conclude my examination. I'm not recalling -- well, I think we did move
3 everything that we played into evidence.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. We will now have a
5 break, a 20-minute break.
6 Mr. Seselj, regarding time, we will resume at ten to 11.00. We
7 will go for an hour and a half, have another 20-minute break, and resume.
8 Theoretically, until 2.45. You might not have your three hours and 45
9 minutes that you're entitled to.
10 If you wish to use up the three hours and 45 minutes, we'll have
11 to resume tomorrow. Our problem is that Judge Lattanzi will not be here
12 tomorrow morning. So could you please be brief and short in your
13 cross-examination as much as possible. We could finish on time and finish
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] With the best of my will, it's
18 simply impossible. I have really have plenty of reasons for my
19 cross-examination to last three hours, 45 minutes. And I also have the
20 intention of requesting from you that those 20 minutes you owe to me from
21 that day when you asked me to shorten my opening statement, my statement
22 of the accused, you said, remember, that you would give me those 20
23 minutes some other time. I intended to ask for those 20 minutes now,
24 because Mr. Oberschall is a very important Prosecution witness.
25 So we will certainly have to work tomorrow, but I hope that your
1 other colleague will be present tomorrow.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. But our other colleague
3 will be here tomorrow.
4 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, I have a correction for the -- the
5 transcript. In line 9 -- I mean, page 9, line 9, I understand Judge
6 Lattanzi said "the accused" and not "the witness." In the context, "I
7 would like the accused not to get into useless controversies" and I'd like
8 to verify the translation in the transcript.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
10 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I've just been told by the
12 registrar that we can move to Courtroom I but we might need 30 minutes.
13 So we shall resume at 11.00 sharp.
14 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We have resumed our
17 hearing. We're going to start with the cross-examination.
18 I give the floor to Mr. Seselj. Please proceed. Your time starts
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Sorry. I cannot hear any
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I was saying to you
23 that you can start.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
25 While I get all my papers out, I'm going to put a preliminary
1 question to Mr. Oberschall.
2 Cross-examination by Mr. Seselj:
3 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Oberschall, do you know that during the
4 course of 1993 and 1994 I was violently opposed to Slobodan Milosevic and
5 his regime?
6 A. Yes, during part of that, you and he became rivals.
7 Q. Not "during part of," from mid-1993 and throughout 1994. Let us
8 be very specific on this. Of course, in 1995 and 1996 and 1997 as well.
9 Do you know that?
10 A. What happened in 1995, 1996, and 1997?
11 Q. I was also against him. Nothing changed. Do you know that?
12 A. That's not really true. That is to say, you were divided on some
13 things, but you were actually quite cooperative on other things.
14 Q. What kind of cooperation did we have from 1993 to 1998? Tell me
16 A. President Milosevic -- Milosevic and you divided on the question
17 of essentially what to do about the Bosnian war. And he was responding to
18 the sanctions which were -- which were hurting Serbia, and he wanted some
19 kind of a settlement, which in fact occurred after end of 1995 in -- in
20 Dayton. And, of course, you were opposed to that. You were opposed to
22 Q. That is not an answer to my question. Mr. Oberschall, I want you
23 to give specific answers to all my questions. My question is --
24 MS. DAHL: Objection, Your Honour. The witness has answered the
25 question. If Mr. Seselj is not satisfied with the answer, that is not a
1 basis to berate the witness.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, the accused put a
3 question to you on the conflict he had with Mr. Milosevic, and he wanted
4 you to say what the reasons were, as far as you knew, for this opposition.
5 That's a major point. Do you know that or don't you?
6 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I understood that he asked the
7 witness what kind of cooperation there had been, not so much the conflict
8 but the cooperation between 1993 and 1998, what kind of cooperation was
9 there between the accused and Milosevic.
10 THE WITNESS: Basically Milosevic and -- and his party and
11 Dr. Seselj and the Radical Party were on the nationalist end of the
12 political spectrum, and they were both opposed to the liberal democratic
13 parties and forces that were contesting both of them, as a matter of fact.
14 It didn't matter who was in power and what positions they had. The
15 liberal democratic opposition contested this -- the Seselj/Milosevic part
16 of the political spectrum. And Seselj and Milosevic agreed to --
17 however -- whatever differences they had amongst themselves, they -- they
18 agreed to oppose the -- the liberal and the democratic parties, whatever
19 they -- they had a number of different names and coalitions and -- and so
20 on, which formed, and whatever you want to call it. They were opposed by
21 the nationalists. There were these two really large political groups
22 opposed to one another, whatever internal differences there were.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 Mr. Seselj, proceed.
25 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
1 Q. I want you to give a specific answer to my question, to tell me
2 exactly what was this form of cooperation that existed between me and
3 Milosevic from mid-1993 until the beginning of 1998. One specific form of
4 our cooperation.
5 A. I -- I didn't come here to -- and I didn't review the -- the
6 history of the political parties and -- and specific -- specific events.
7 I didn't prepare for that, so I'm not prepared to answer any specific
8 question about it.
9 Q. Then I'm right, when I say, Mr. Oberschall, that you have no idea
10 about political developments in Serbia during those years; right?
11 A. That's not true. In fact, in my expert report I cite the -- the
12 studies that have been done about election and election results, public
13 opinion studies on precisely these questions of the nationalists versus
14 the liberal democrats, and it's -- it's all in my report.
15 Q. I'm not talking about your report now. A few moments ago here
16 before the Trial Chamber you stated that in the period from 1993 until
17 1998, with regard to some questions I cooperated with Milosevic and I was
18 divided on other questions. That is what you said here right now. Isn't
19 that right?
20 A. Yes, I said that.
21 Q. And you have no idea whatsoever about anything specific that my
22 cooperation with Milosevic during those years consisted of.
23 MS. DAHL: [Previous translation continues] ... Objection. This
24 is --
25 THE WITNESS: I already answered this question.
1 MS. DAHL: -- repetitive.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment.
3 Witness, I'm trying to understand your answer with regard to the
4 question put to you. First you said that from 1993 to 1998 Seselj and
5 Milosevic did cooperate. The accused asked you in what regard there was
6 cooperation, so this is a very specific question. Can you answer it or
8 THE WITNESS: As I indicated to you, I didn't prepare for this --
9 for this -- for this examination or cross-examination a history of the
10 political parties and relationships between Seselj, Milosevic, or anybody
11 else during this period. A simple matter to -- to look it up and to, you
12 know, go into the news reports, and so on, and analyses, but no, I don't
13 have it on my fingertips.
14 I've described to you the general politics at this time, which
15 involved two blocs, whatever their internal differences. One is the
16 nationalist and the other one is the liberal democratic side of the
17 political spectrum.
18 Now, the nationalists, whatever differences they had, they
19 cooperated with one another, you know, opposing. They differed on foreign
20 policy. They differed on some other matters. But they all agreed to
21 oppose the liberal and the democratic bloc, in elections, in election
22 coalitions, in running -- naming candidates. But no, I cannot name
23 particular names and events which is what you asked me.
24 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Mr. Oberschall, I hope that somebody familiarised you here with
1 the fact that I have the right to challenge your credibility as a
2 Prosecution witness or Prosecution expert witness. Is that right?
3 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, I --
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment.
5 Ms. Dahl.
6 MS. DAHL: I stand corrected. It was a question.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. What did you want to say?
8 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, the interpretation of Mr. Seselj's
9 question appeared to not be a question until he concluded it with a
10 fragment, so I withdraw my objection.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I hope that Ms. Dahl is not
13 going to do gymnastics here any more and just jump up at any point in
14 time. She has to listen to things first and hear them out.
15 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Did you understand me, Mr. Oberschall?
17 A. Yes, you can ask me questions, of course.
18 Q. Yes. And I want to challenge your credibility as an expert.
19 How can an expert state that from 1993 until 1998, I cooperated
20 with Milosevic and cannot give a single indicator of that cooperation?
21 Explain that to me, please.
22 A. Well, I just did. First of all, I didn't say that from 1993 to
23 1998 you cooperated with Milosevic. That's not what I said. I said that
24 during part of that time you were extreme rivals, actually, for political
25 office. I also said that during other times -- I didn't say you
1 cooperated on everything. I said that you saw eye-to-eye and you followed
2 kind of the same political line, especially in how to handle and oppose
3 the liberal democratic opposition in Serbia. And that's what I said, and
4 I stand by it.
5 Q. Mr. Oberschall, at the time when I was a university professor,
6 when a student would in response to my direct questions give this kind of
7 a nebulous answer, he would immediately be failed in that exam. That is
8 what I did as a professor before I became a convict here in The Hague. Do
9 you agree with me?
10 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, I'm sorry, this is improper
11 cross-examination. Mr. Seselj is making a short speech that is not
12 directed at Dr. Oberschall's testimony or credibility, and then asking him
13 whether or not he agrees with that, that is improper, and I would ask that
14 you instruct Mr. Seselj to direct his cross-examination in a way that
15 moves the case forward.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I must say, Ms. Dahl, that I do
17 not agree with your point of view. Mr. Seselj tackled the issue of
18 credibility; therefore, regarding the issue of cooperation, he asked the
19 witness what made him say that there was a cooperation between the accused
20 and Milosevic, and the witness explained that he couldn't answer as to the
21 merits and therefore he recognized, admitted that there were moments -
22 this is what I can see in the transcript - when both were rivals.
23 There's one thing I don't like. I don't like to have useless
24 objections that are a waste of time. We, the Trial Judges, will have to
25 make a final determination on the contents of the report. Objections are
1 a waste of time, and you won't find any trace of them in the final
2 judgement. So I do invite all to only raise objections when they are
4 We are now at a stage when the accused is assessing or checking
5 the credibility of the witness. Let him ask the questions. When
6 Mr. Seselj calls his witnesses, you'll do the same.
7 Anything to add?
8 MS. DAHL: Yes, Your Honour. I'm sorry, it was unclear. My
9 objection concerned the accused's recollection of what he did when he was
10 a university professor and whether he would fail a student for giving a
11 nebulous answer. That was my objection to that particular question, not
12 the other ones to which you referred.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Seselj, please
14 continue and tell us. What you were doing when you were a university
15 professor, it might be interesting, but not so much here.
16 Yes, witness.
17 THE WITNESS: I think I give a specific example of -- of
18 cooperation, which actually is mentioned in my expert report, and I
19 believe it was in the election of 1996 when Dr. Seselj, I believe, was
20 running -- I don't know if it was for president of Serbia or the whole of
21 the federation, but at that particular moment he was given full access to
22 the Serb television and the Serb media and he actually got a majority of
23 the votes but not a -- a plurality of the votes but not a majority of the
24 votes. But then there was a falling-out between the two of them and the
25 Milosevic party decided to run a candidate against Dr. Seselj from their
1 own party. His name was Milutinovic, I believe. I'm quoting from memory.
2 And at that point, because the -- because the Milosevic regime wanted
3 Milutinovic to win, they cut off access to television to Dr. Seselj, and
4 in fact they did a lot of negative political coverage on TV, and this was
5 only three weeks between these two elections, and he lost something
6 like -- I don't know the exact number. Something like 20 to 40 per cent
7 of his previous votes were now diminished and went to Milutinovic. So
8 when they cooperated, three weeks later they didn't cooperate. This is
9 sort of a good example also of the effects that rivalry, versus
10 cooperation, has in terms of the influence on -- on -- on the -- on the
11 voters in Serbia. That's -- to me that's a good example.
12 And you have the details and the exact numbers are actually in my
14 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Oberschall, obviously you have no idea, do you? In 1996,
16 there were no presidential elections. What presidential elections are you
17 talking about in 1996?
18 A. Well, I can go into the report and dig out the exact date for the
19 election. And as I said to you, I wasn't sure whether it was elections
20 for the Presidency of Serbia or for the Presidency of the whole
21 federation. There were many elections at this time. In any case, it was
22 a crucial election in which you were -- ended up running against
23 Milutinovic. And when the Serb media, which were controlled by Milosevic,
24 were shut off and reported on you negatively, you lost -- again, the exact
25 numbers are in my report. It was between 20 and 40 per cent votes. You
1 got less votes. And there was only three weeks before -- between the two
2 elections. And that's what I'm referring to.
3 Q. Mr. Oberschall, I am saying that you have no idea whatsoever. In
4 1996, there were no presidential elections. However, presidential
5 elections were held in 1997, presidential elections in Serbia, that is.
6 What is an example of cooperation for you at these presidential
7 elections? The fact that I had access to the media, state media,
8 independent, pro-Western, is that a form of cooperation that would be an
10 A. Yes. Any time that a regime allows political leaders to have
11 access to the state media that it controls, that's definitely a form of
12 cooperation. I mean, all the testimony here was how powerful the effects
13 of television are on influencing people, so access is definitely a form of
15 Q. Mr. Oberschall, you are avoiding an answer to my question. If the
16 presidential elections in France, the candidate of the regime and the
17 candidate of the opposition have access to the media, to state media and
18 private media, is that a form of cooperation between the regime and the
19 opposition in France, or is that something that is natural and normal and
20 that has to be allowed?
21 A. Yes. Well, the political regime and system of France and of
22 Serbia at this time were very different, and the difference being that in
23 a democratic country the opposition has access to the state media and also
24 other media; whereas, that was not the case in the -- in the -- in the
25 Serbia that we're talking about in the middle 1990s. And I've indicated
1 in my testimony that studies done at the Institute of Political Studies in
2 Zagreb, in Belgrade, by -- by Serb researchers indicated that about 90 per
3 cent of access to television was completely controlled by the Milosevic
5 Q. Mr. Oberschall, do you know who else was an opposition candidate
6 at the presidential elections in 1997 except for me -- or rather, in
7 addition to myself?
8 A. Well, again, I -- I mention it in my report, and it's a simple
9 matter of looking it up. I think his name was Lilic, but I'm not sure.
10 There were others. There was a whole -- you know, if you -- if you --
11 excuse me. I haven't finished yet.
12 If you want to get all this detail, there's a -- an authoritative
13 book published by Goati on all the elections in Serbia at this time, and
14 they will list exactly who ran, what votes they got, whether they were a
15 legislative or a -- or a presidential election, and all the different
16 circumstances surrounding it.
17 Q. Mr. Oberschall, although you are 20 years older than I am, I have
18 still read more books than you have. Do not direct me to literature.
19 Give me a direct answer. Who in addition to myself was an opposition
20 candidate in these elections?
21 A. Well, I just gave you an answer.
22 Q. Your answer was Zoran Lilic. Zoran Lilic was a regime candidate.
23 He's a member of Milosevic's party, and Milosevic made him run for
24 president because Milosevic moved to another post before that. You have
25 not answered me. You have not given me an answer because you don't know.
1 Let us move on. You're wasting a lot of my time.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In the course of the elections,
3 the elections that took place on the 5th of October, 1997, you say that he
4 got 1.734.000 votes. Lilic, his opponent, got 1.475.000 votes. The
5 accused Seselj has just said that he at the time was the candidate for the
6 opposition, whilst Lilic was Milosevic's candidate. Now, are these
7 results in compliance with what you say? Because since he was a candidate
8 for the opposition, he could not control the media, could he?
9 THE WITNESS: He wasn't a candidate for the liberal democratic
10 opposition. As I said, the nationalist bloc had a majority of the votes,
11 so oftentimes when they ran the top person might be a Radical Party
12 person; the second one would be a -- one from Milosevic's party; and the
13 other candidates would come in third, fourth, or fifth; and then there
14 would be a run-off between the two top candidates, who were rivals, yes,
15 but they were in the same nationalist bloc. So it wasn't like a -- one
16 nationalist running against one liberal democrat, but two competing
17 nationalists running against one another.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
19 continues] ...
20 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Oberschall, I insist that you give me an answer. In these
22 presidential elections, who was a candidate of the liberal democratic
23 opposition, as you've been calling them? Did the liberal democratic
24 opposition have a candidate of its own? Did they?
25 A. Well, at -- at various times they ran candidates for -- at
1 different levels, the Assembly, the Presidency, the Belgrade Municipality.
2 You know, there was a number of -- a different number of them, and
3 different times they formed different coalitions of liberal democratic
4 parties. Again, I don't see how the history of the internal politics of
5 Serbia after 1994, which is the period that ends my content analysis, has
6 really anything to do with what this Court has been and I have been
7 dealing with.
8 If you're interested in the detail, you can look it up in all
9 kinds of publications, which -- if I had known that Dr. Seselj was going
10 to ask many questions about it, I would have looked it up and, you know,
11 prepared myself for it. There's lots of things that I -- I have to
12 consult before I can give an authoritative testimony about it. It's not
13 in my mind currently all the time. I wouldn't expect anybody else to be
14 that way.
15 Q. Mr. Oberschall, it is not my intention to gain knowledge from you.
16 It is my intention to prove that you know nothing and that you are just
17 speaking off the top of your head. Just confirm that you don't know who
18 the candidate of the liberal democratic opposition was in the presidential
19 elections in 1997. You don't know; right?
20 A. No.
21 Q. You don't know?
22 A. I can look it up to --
23 Q. You don't have to look it up. You don't have to look it up. I'll
24 tell you. It was Vuk Draskovic. He was excluded already in the first
1 Who had more access to the media, state-owned, opposition, and the
2 so-called independent? Vuk Draskovic or I, in the first round?
3 A. I don't know. I haven't seen any studies done on this.
4 Q. There is literature. There is data in the literature. Studies
5 were made and they show that Draskovic had incomparably more access to the
6 media than I.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, please.
8 THE WITNESS: Fine. Why don't you enter it into the record?
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, please focus your
10 questions on the relevant period in the indictment. Here we're talking
11 about 1997 elections. It might be very interesting, but the Bench is
12 interested in what happened in 1991, 1992, 1993. Everything is
13 interesting, of course, but we don't have much time, so please focus.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, Judge, allow me to topple
15 the credibility of this witness and then I don't even have to move on to
16 that relevant period. When I have convinced you that this witness has no
17 credibility at all, why would I question him further? He said twice that
18 I cooperated with Milosevic from 1993 to 1998, and he was unable to
19 produce a single detail. It's not my fault. I'm looking for his
20 weaknesses, and I'm trying to topple him completely as a witness and as an
21 expert. Let me do it the way I conceived.
22 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Mr. Oberschall --
24 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, according to me,
25 you're entitled to challenge the quality of this witness as an expert.
1 You have this right, but it only deals with the relevant period, from
2 1992 -- 1991 to 1994, if I'm right. So he could be an expert, if you
3 cannot succeed in your endeavour -- he could very well be an expert of
4 that period and not an expert of the following period, which is why the
5 Presiding Judge just asked you to focus on the relevant period. Thank
6 you. And please comply with what I have just said and what the Presiding
7 Judge has just said.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Madam Judge, thank you too for this
9 caution, but I want to draw your attention to the fact that I have the
10 right in cross-examination to test the credibility of any witness or
11 expert, also on the basis of facts that concerned his primary school
12 education. Everything is possible there. I don't need to tell you that I
13 have a precious precedent. The way of cross-examination in the trial
14 against Oscar Wilde. I haven't yet reached that degree. Maybe at some
15 point I will. It won't be needed, however, for Mr. Oberschall and I don't
16 need to be cautioned in this way. Mr. Oberschall has already shown that
17 he's talking off the top of his head, without really knowing the facts.
18 That's why I'm testing his credibility and challenging it.
19 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
20 Q. In the first round, Lilic got the most votes. I was in second
21 place. Draskovic was cast off as the third. So in the run-off, there was
22 Lilic and I. What -- do you know what happened later, after that,
23 Mr. Oberschall, when the socialists put up Milan Milutinovic as a
25 A. It really is -- concerned the -- a time period that is not covered
1 by my content analysis and the Honourable Judge has actually said that you
2 should not really ask me questions about that.
3 Q. All right. That means that you don't know that a special envoy,
4 Mr. Gelbard from the US came to Belgrade and told Milosevic that all means
5 are permissible against Seselj. You don't know that, do you?
6 A. It's of no interest to me whatsoever. I have nothing to do with
8 Q. All right. It's no interest to you. But do you know that the
9 envoy in Belgrade, thanks to American support, agreed to falsify the
10 results of elections when the main candidates were Milan Milutinovic and
11 I. Do you know that? With the American support, the elections were
13 A. Well, you claim that, and, of course, you can say a lot of things.
14 You -- you, in fact, said that politician engages in propaganda and it's
15 full of lies, and it's very hard to tell when you're telling the truth or
16 when you're making propaganda. So if you want to document that and
17 introduce it to the Court, or whatever the -- the procedure here is,
18 that's fine with me, but I have no comment on, you know, these kind of
19 rumours and opinions.
20 Q. Mr. Oberschall, it's a notorious fact in Serbia and any of your
21 associates from Belgrade could have told you that, if you had made the
22 inquiry. But let us leave that aside.
23 In your report here, you dealt with the issue of propaganda and
24 you gave a narrow definition of "propaganda" as a technique of persuasion,
25 calling on emotion. Do you know that propaganda, among other things, is
1 also a means of political manipulation?
2 A. Yes, it's a -- it's a technique of -- of -- of political
3 persuasion and -- and manipulation based on a disregard of facts and --
4 and the truth. And I -- actually, I gave that definition, I think, on
5 page 2 of my expert report.
6 Q. Please give me brief answers, because time is precious to me.
7 Do you know that in 1994, for violations of parliamentary
8 procedure by the president of the Federal Parliament, several incidents
9 occurred in the Assembly of Yugoslavia, the Federal Assembly?
10 A. And what incidents are you referring to? There are a lot of
11 incidents happening all the time in the Federal Parliament.
12 Q. I mean 1994, when after several such incidents I was arrested.
13 And sent to gaol for four months. Do you know that?
14 A. Is -- is that the incident where you attacked a journalist and --
15 and threatened him, or is that another incident?
16 Q. When did I attack a journalist in the Assembly? Please don't make
17 things up. It was an incident involving the security detail in the
18 Parliament when the president of the Parliament ordered that one of our
19 MPs be thrown out after that MP had poured water on the Speaker of the
20 Parliament. You know that. That's the incident I'm talking about. You
21 were in Belgrade three times. This is still the subject of many stories.
22 A. Well, I'm not -- I wasn't in Belgrade to collect stories about
23 anything. I'm -- I mean, I'm -- I'm doing real research. And I was in
24 Belgrade only once, and this particular incident and what you did and what
25 you didn't do with a journalist, that wasn't the -- you know, my main
1 concern. I was -- I was much more concerned with the much broader picture
2 of collective violence in Croat-Serb war, in the Bosnian situation, and
3 how to resolve these differences through some kind of a peaceful means.
4 That was the focus of my research, and not particular speeches you made or
5 didn't do or what you said to journalists, and so on.
6 Q. All right. In your report, you stated that I was a significant
7 political leader. If I was that significant, then the fact must be also
8 significant that from end September 1994 until end January 1995, I was in
9 Milosevic's gaol. Do you know that?
10 A. Yes, I know that.
11 Q. All right. Thank you for that brief answer.
12 Are you aware that the Milosevic regime in 1994 imposed the
13 blockade on Republika Srpska, possibly with a "yes" or "no." Preferably
14 with a "yes" or "no."
15 A. There were debates and proposals and issues that had to do with
16 how Milosevic was going to influence or even coerce the Republika Srpska
17 to follow his kind of way to resolve the Bosnian war. Yes, there were
18 such discussions going on. Yes.
19 Q. All right. Are you aware that in the spring of 1995, when I got
20 out of prison, I convened a rally in Loznica to protest this decision of
21 Milosevic's? You saw that rally some time ago earlier today.
22 A. Yes, we showed that rally on the TV or monitor.
23 Q. And after that rally, we marched to the Drina River. There were
24 around 10.000 people, and that was shown as well.
25 Let us just note that, and then I'll ask you the question.
1 A. What question?
2 Q. So you don't contest this. Milosevic sent 1.000 special policemen
3 to the Drina River to stop us, but when they saw our numbers, the police
4 divided their ranks to let us through.
5 Now, here's the question: You saw a moment ago --
6 A. I -- I really don't know how many policemen Milosevic may have
7 sent or -- or were there. I -- I just simply don't know that.
8 Q. Never mind. Maybe there were 980. The number doesn't matter.
9 This is the question: You were a witness here that the Prosecutor
10 was showing this video-clip, claiming that it was footage from 1992. Is
11 this an obvious example of propaganda-driven manipulation, political
12 propaganda manipulation for the purpose of extorting a conviction in this
13 trial? Answer that.
14 A. I really have a more simple common-sense interpretation that when
15 one handles a lot of documents, occasionally one makes a mistake in terms
16 of numbers and dates and -- but that gets rectified when it's -- when it's
17 noted, and that happens in any kind of a proceeding, judicial or -- or
18 otherwise. So I don't see anything sinister about it.
19 Q. But as an academic, you should know that science fears conclusions
20 based on common sense. Conclusions based on common sense often led
21 science astray. You know that as an academic.
22 A. Well, you know, I'm not prepared here to debate with you about the
23 philosophy of -- of science and such other matters. I wish you would
24 concentrate on the work I've done on content analysing your speech, which
25 is what I came to -- to testify about, and not to talk about the
1 philosophy of science. I mean, I'd like to do that in a cafe after these
2 proceedings are over, but I don't see any purpose in doing that now.
3 Q. Mr. Oberschall, you are a Doctor of Philosophy, you have a Ph.D.
4 in philosophy, don't you? Am I right? Why are you avoiding a
5 philosophical debate in the part of cross-examination when I'm testing
6 your credibility? We both have a Ph.D., and as a much more capable, more
7 educated man, I am testing your credibility. That's my entitlement.
8 A. Fine. If you want to use up your time and discuss with me the
9 philosophy of science, I'm glad to do that. This is actually an
10 interesting topic, but that's not what I'm here for.
11 Q. Where were you born, Mr. Oberschall?
12 A. 1936.
13 Q. Please, Mr. Oberschall, I asked where were you born, and you're
14 telling me when you were born.
15 A. Budapest, 1936.
16 Q. What is your nationality?
17 A. United States of America.
18 Q. I'm not asking you about your citizenship. By ethnicity, are
19 your -- are you a Hungarian or something else? What is your origin?
20 A. The origin -- by origin, I'm Hungarian. Right now I'm an
22 Q. That is your citizenship, but your nationality is Hungarian. That
23 doesn't matter really today, but I finally got an answer to that as well.
24 In 1958 you majored in physics, didn't you?
25 A. That's right.
1 Q. And in 1962 you got a Ph.D. in sociology.
2 A. That's right.
3 Q. Isn't that a bit unusual that somebody who majored in physics
4 should then go on to get a Ph.D. in sociology?
5 A. Not at all. Actually, my advisor, who actually created the whole
6 field of mass communications, whose name was Paul Lazarsfeld, had his
7 first degree in Vienna in -- in physics and -- and he became a
8 sociologist, and I studied under him. So there is nothing unusual about
10 Q. What requirements did you have to meet in order to get that Ph.D.
11 in sociology?
12 A. Well, I had to take a certain number of -- of courses in the
13 graduate faculty at Columbia university, some of which were the ones that
14 I'm using now in my position here as an expert witness on mass
15 communications, content analysis. We also had to get certain grades in
16 these -- in these courses. We had to write a Ph.D. dissertation. We had
17 summer training in various research -- on various research projects. And
18 those are the requirements.
19 Q. What is the subject of your Ph.D. dissertation? Briefly, please.
20 A. The subject of my Ph.D. dissertation is on the history of social
21 research on -- in -- in Germany in the latter part of the nineteen and
22 early twentieth centuries.
23 Q. While you were studying physics, you also read certain subjects
24 related to maths, didn't you?
25 A. To -- to what? To ...?
1 Q. Mathematics. In studying physics, you also studies mathematics.
2 Mr. Oberschall, do you know what an imaginary number is?
3 A. Well, sure. We call them complex -- functions of complex
4 variables. Yes, they're -- they're used to solve certain equations in the
5 calculus. So what, are we going from the philosophy of science to
6 mathematics now, Mr. Seselj, Dr. Seselj? I mean, what is this getting to?
7 I mean ...
8 Q. Yes.
9 A. Yeah. Okay.
10 Q. Well, I'm showing that you don't know what an imaginary number is.
11 An imaginary number is the root of a negative number. For instance, the
12 root of 4 -- the square root of 4 is 2; whereas, the square root of minus
13 4 cannot be 2. It's written as 2i in mathematics. Is that correct?
14 A. That's what I said. Complex numbers are --
15 Q. No, that's not what you said. You don't know it, so you try to...
16 Just one more question from physics. Do you know what Avogadro's
17 number is?
18 A. No, I don't.
19 Q. You don't know. And which number of atoms are contained in 1
20 gramme of any element? 1 gramme of mass in any element?
21 A. Oh, I don't know.
22 Q. You don't know. Fine. So we see that you are no physicist and
23 then you had to move on so sociology.
24 Let's move on. Mr. Oberschall --
25 A. Can I make an interjection here? May I?
1 Q. No, you cannot until I ask you a question. When I ask you a
2 question, then you will be able to.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Oberschall, go ahead. Do
4 your interjection. Maybe you're a bit surprised by these questions, but
5 this is a adversarial procedure, common law, so Defence has the right to
6 ask questions to check the credibility of a witness using the resume
7 provided by the Prosecution, and on your resume I see that you have a --
8 in 1958 you obtained a physics bachelors and then a sociology in 1962, a
9 sociology degree in 1962, and so the accused is trying to check that your
10 diplomas do correspond to something. If they don't correspond to
11 anything, he may challenge your technical competence.
12 What do you have to say?
13 THE WITNESS: Well, what I have to say is that Dr. Seselj has a
14 very different view of what learning and education is really all about.
15 He seems to think that a whole bunch of facts that are memorised
16 constitute knowledge. And in fact when he started asking me questions
17 about Serb politics in the, you know, 1990s, and so on, he also seems to
18 think that just memorising a whole bunch of facts is what we refer to as
19 "knowledge"; whereas, what they teach you at my university, Harvard
20 University, where I got a doctorate in physics, is a way of thinking the
21 main principles of a discipline. And then they tell you if you're
22 interested in looking up certain facts, Here are the handbooks. Here are
23 the sources that you go to. And those facts keep changing as science
24 advances. So his way of testing my knowledge is sort of old-fashioned
25 early nineteenth century stuff and not contemporary philosophy of science
1 and --
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will take note of this.
3 Mrs. Dahl.
4 MS. DAHL: I just wanted to note that Mr. Seselj's examination is
5 not a traditional adversarial common-law cross-examination, not any that
6 my training and background make me familiar with.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, please, go to the
8 point. Please.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope, Judge, that this extensive
10 monologue by Mr. Oberschall will be deducted from the time available to
12 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
13 Q. These are basic categories without which one cannot speak about
14 any knowledge in physics, not even methodology of physics is possible
15 without knowing this.
16 Mr. Oberschall, when did you get the assignment from the
17 Prosecution to prepare your expert report?
18 A. It's been several years. I -- I forget now. Maybe three and a
19 half years. It's been a long time, to tell you the truth.
20 Q. All right. It doesn't matter particularly. You probably drew up
21 some sort of contract with them, I suppose, about your expertise, or was
22 it an order? What was it?
23 A. Well, they asked me whether or not I was competent to do a content
24 analysis of your -- of your statements, speeches, and all of the material
25 that I've in fact content analysed, and I said yes. I know -- I know how
1 to do this. I know how to do this. I've written about the break-up of
2 Yugoslavia, the Bosnian war especially, so I -- I had some knowledge of
3 the subject matter. And -- yes.
4 Q. Mr. Oberschall, I'm not testing your credibility any more. Now we
5 are doing something different. No need to justify yourself. I want to
6 know what kind of material and what volume of material the Prosecution
7 provided you with at that time.
8 A. Well, after I agreed to do this and they agreed that I should do
9 it, they sent me CD-ROMs of all your published -- or some of your
10 published, not all of your published, volumes which were available in that
11 form. And that's sort of the raw material from which the content analysis
12 was done.
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. And since it wasn't translated into English, I had to hire a -- a
15 Ph.D. candidate, a graduate student, Miss Bela Marovic -- Bela Maric.
16 And --
17 Q. You stated that in the report. No need to repeat. At that time,
18 did the Prosecution give you a text numbering 400 pages titled
19 "Notification by Dr. Seselj of Special Defence," from September 2003? Did
20 you get that?
21 A. From September 2003?
22 Q. Yes, September 2003. I provided that to the Prosecution as
23 notification of my special defence, special form of defence. You didn't
24 get that, did you?
25 A. No. I got the indictment that the Court served on you, and I
1 don't recall that particular document.
2 Q. All right, Mr. Oberschall. Yes, you do not recall because you did
3 not receive it.
4 Did you ever see my book "The Hague dossier of a war criminal --
5 or rather, a person blamed as a war criminal"? I'm showing it to you
6 right now. You've never had this in your hands?
7 A. No, I don't think so.
8 Q. Right. Now, why am I asking you this? I published that
9 400-page-long notification in this book because my associates in this
10 paper collected an enormous number of my speeches where I ask for respect
11 for international humanitarian law, proper behaviour towards prisoners of
12 war, proper behaviour towards women, children, civilians, and so on. So
13 they never submitted that to you; right? You never had this material in
14 your hands?
15 A. The only material that I was asked to examine --
16 Q. Mr. Oberschall, time is precious for me. Please, please, I know
17 what you got. You told me. But you never got this; right? Now I'm
18 interested in what it is that you did not get, not in what you did get.
19 You see? This is not against you. You don't have to make excuses for
20 yourself. You don't have to defend yourself.
21 Let us move on to the next question.
22 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, I'd like the witness to be able to answer
23 the question that was put to him. I believe, if the translation is
24 correct, that Mr. Seselj interrupted the witness's opportunity to answer
25 the question what material he was asked to examine.
1 THE WITNESS: I was asked to examine material that related to
2 Serb/non-Serb political relations during the period 1991-1994. I was not
3 asked to examine what your ideas were on agricultural policy, on the
4 tariffs, on other kinds of other things, what you thought about the Court,
5 and -- and many other topics, I'm sure, on which you have spoken and
7 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Mr. Oberschall, it seems that you don't understand this procedure.
9 Never mind. I don't hold it against you at all. And all of this is not
10 against you. This does not throw any negative light on you, what I'm
11 going to ask you right now.
12 Did the Office of the Prosecutor make available to you three
13 papers that I submitted dealing with hate speech in the West, hate speech
14 by different Western statesmen and journalists, in Croatia and in the
15 Muslim part of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Did you ever receive these three
16 papers? I also handed that in as a form of special defence. This was
17 done by Dejan Mirovic, one of my experts, with a group of co-workers.
18 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, can we ask Mr. Seselj to be more specific
19 with regard to the document references, for instance, what date he
20 submitted them, because I'm not able to identify that without some
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj, could you be
23 more specific as to these papers.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, you have them in an
25 abbreviated form, the one that I submitted as requested by you, in terms
1 of special defence.
2 THE WITNESS: What I received from you and I read very carefully
3 is sort of a 160-page rejoinder that you and your research staff gave to
4 my expert report. And in that rejoinder there's a great deal of material
5 that you've just described about hate speech, about -- so I -- I know --
6 whether or not it's the particular papers, I have that. I've looked at
7 it. Yes.
8 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Yes. Yes. No. You got my first rejoinder to your expert report,
10 but you did not get the addendum to the second part of your expert report.
11 I submitted that on the 26th of November, 2007. There is no way you could
12 have received that; right?
13 But I'm not asking you about that. I'm talking to you about three
14 expert reports or papers on hate speech. You never received that. What
15 about my book "The Vatican anti-Serb instrument Franjo Tudjman"? That's a
16 book of mine. It's 1.000 pages long. Did you have that in your hands?
17 A. I don't think so, no.
18 Q. You didn't. Don't be afraid. I don't think you had it. Anyway,
19 in this book I published this paper about hate speech in Croatia in the
20 relevant period. You did not have that in your hands and you could not
21 compare that to the excerpts from my speeches that you provided your
22 expertise on.
23 Mr. Oberschall, did you ever have in your hands my book "The
24 American anti-imperial instrument Alija Izetbegovic"?
25 A. No.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Anti-Serb instrument. Interpreter's correction.
2 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
3 Q. It deals with hate speech by Muslim politicians in
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina and their media, the thesis being that it is far more
5 pronounced on their part if there is any on my part. I don't hold it
6 against you. If nobody gave it to you, nobody gave it to you.
7 Mr. Oberschall, did the Prosecution provide to you three papers of
8 mine on special defence in which on 4.000 pages I deal with the thesis
9 that it was the Popes of Rome, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are the main
10 culprits for the war in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, and they
11 are the guiltiest of all for all the war crimes that took place. Now never
12 got that; right? Let me cut things shorter for you and make it easier for
14 A. And I'm really grateful I didn't get it, because, you know, I read
15 other fiction, not this kind of thing that you write.
16 Q. Oh, so that is fiction that the Popes are the main criminals? You
17 consider that to be fiction? You consider that to be fiction?
18 Mr. Oberschall, did you ever have in your hands my book "The
19 devil's apprentice, the criminal Pope John Paul II"?
20 A. No.
21 Q. All right. Mr. Oberschall, did you ever have in your hands
22 "Pontifex Maximus of the Satanist church, John Paul II." Did you ever see
23 that book of mine?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Did you ever have in your hands "The Anti-Christ apostle,
1 Benedict XVI"? No? You never had that in your hands?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Did you ever have in your hands my book "Rome always thirsty for
4 Serbian blood"?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Mr. Oberschall, did you ever have in your hands my book "The
7 Vatican, the nest of Satan"?
8 A. No, none of those books I've had. I'm sure you have a lot of
9 those books. None of them I've had.
10 Q. You did not have any one of my books in your hands? Not a single
12 A. Only the ones that were sent to me on the CD-ROMs, which, were, I
13 think, the 41 volumes.
14 Q. Mr. Oberschall, you say that my accusations against the Vatican
15 and the Popes of Rome are fiction, and, of course, you do not know that in
16 these books I published papers on special defence in which I collected
17 scientific analyses of foreign - that is to say, Italian, French, English,
18 American, and other authors - and Serbian authors about the criminal role
19 played by Popes of Rome. You don't know about that?
20 A. Dr. Seselj, since, you know, we are both Ph.D.s and we're both
21 ex-professors, I'd like to know whether the Vatican opened its archives to
22 your researchers so that, you know, you could extract all of that
23 information to -- to make a case. Did the -- did the Vatican open its
24 archives to you so that you could do research on what they really did? I
25 mean, I -- I'd like to know that. It's -- it's -- it would be a very
1 interesting development in the way the Vatican handles its -- its
3 Q. Mr. Oberschall, I'm the one who's putting questions to you, not
4 you to me. However, since I find you to be a very likable man, I am going
5 to answer you. It's not that my researchers researched this. They drew
6 on the books of most renowned world authors. They got the relevant
7 portions and they created a volume of 4.000 pages; Elena Bozic-Talijan and
8 Zoran Krasic did that. And the OTP has had this material for the past two
9 years. However, this is just for the sake of your information.
10 Since you did not read any one of my books in their entirety, you
11 certainly did not read the book entitled "The ideology of Serb
12 nationalism"; right? It has over 1.000 pages. It's over 1.000 pages
14 A. This -- this could have been one of the books that was on these
15 CD-ROMs that we actually examined. I'm not sure. I mean, I don't have
16 the memory of all these titles in my -- in my head. But if it -- if it
17 relates to events between 1991 and 1994, in terms of your political
18 activities, then we probably had that book. I mean, I don't have in
19 memory 41 titles --
20 Q. You know why this book is important? This book does not talk
21 about my political activities. It supports from a scientific point of
22 view my assertions regarding historical facts that you consider to be
23 untrue in your expert report. I am drawing on sources here, well-founded
24 sources. That is the core of the matter. And now I see that you haven't
25 seen that.
1 What about "The Roman Catholic criminal project of the artificial
2 Croatian state," that book of mine? Have you ever had a look at that?
3 A. No.
4 Q. No. Mr. Oberschall, in that book, on 1.000 pages - and I wrote it
5 as I was sitting in prison here over these past five years, here in The
6 Hague - I proved scientifically that present-day Croats are an
7 artificially created nation on the part of the Catholic Church. And in
8 one sentence in your report you say that is not true. You did not go into
9 the arguments that I presented at all. In your view, it is impossible for
10 the Popes of Rome to be criminals. And I am presenting evidence to the
11 effect that for the past 1.000 years the Popes of Rome were as a rule
12 criminals, including this Pius XII or whatever, who is called a criminal
13 even in science.
14 Now, what am I proving to you through this? Mr. Oberschall, I am
15 showing to you that we are worlds apart, we are two different worlds. You
16 are burdened with stereotypes, and for you the Pope is something positive.
17 Are you Catholic, Mr. Oberschall?
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, put a question. The
19 way I read what you have just said is a statement, rather than a question,
20 so based on the books you have written, put questions so that he can
21 answer and say whether he knows or not. Otherwise --
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Judge.
23 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
24 Q. The question I put was whether Mr. Oberschall is a Roman Catholic,
25 in terms of his religious background. I have the right to put that
2 MS. DAHL: Objection, Your Honour. I think he's out of bounds
4 THE WITNESS: Well, I -- I have no problem answering that I don't
5 practice any religion whatsoever. I mean, I'm a secular.
6 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Very well. That's an answer too. I'm not opposed to that. That
8 is your conviction. But I was interested in knowing.
9 Mr. Oberschall, now up until the break, since I used up a lot more
10 time than I had planned to, we are going to deal with a question from this
11 last addendum of yours that I received on the 7th of December. This is
12 the addendum to your report.
13 On page 1, you respond to my first official notification regarding
14 your report, and you say -- and you are right on that -- that among the
15 categories that you codified, there is no category of hate speech. Right?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And do you know that the indictment against me is based to a
18 considerable degree on me having committed grave war crimes through hate
20 A. That's -- that's not my business. I'm an expert here to -- it's
21 not for me to decide what the indictment says or doesn't say.
22 Q. Of course.
23 A. I'm doing the content analysis. Hate speech -- excuse me, I
24 haven't finished. Hate speech is used in the -- in the media and in
25 conversations in a very vague unspecific way. And if you're going to do a
1 serious content analysis, you have to be much more precise about exactly
2 what you're saying and what the content is. And that's why I produced the
3 categories at the -- that you can read, that we have read, for -- for the
4 content analysis, and that's how I -- I coded you.
5 My testimony here yesterday and even in the beginning of today
6 very strongly indicates that as far as social psychology and social
7 science is concerned, threat speech is what is really important in getting
8 people to act.
9 You raise a consciousness of threat against a group that creates
10 fear and anxiety and the demand for action, and usually hate comes after
11 horrible actions have been committed and it makes conciliation conflict
12 management more difficult when people hate each other. But the crucial
13 part of the propaganda that sets in motion actions is actually the threat
14 speech. And I've illustrated with particular statements, through
15 video-clips, and also in the content analysis that your nationalist
16 rhetoric was very heavily filled with threat speech. And so me, as an
17 expert, that is the important part of-- of -- of how to explain actions
18 that are hostile, aggressive, violent.
19 Q. Mr. Oberschall, there is no need to provide these long
20 explanations that are no answer to my question. Do you know that the
21 Council of Europe gave a specific definition of "hate speech"? Do you
22 know that?
23 A. I -- I don't know what the Council of Europe's specific definition
24 of "hate speech" is. I've looked at some of what US law and British law
25 says, but the Council of Europe, I don't know.
1 Q. And do you know -- well, you'd have to know about that as an
2 expert. You were supposed to read up on that, but I'm not going to teach
3 you. Do you know about British jurisprudence and how hate speech was
4 brought into it as a category?
5 A. You mean --
6 Q. There was an extensive debate on that in the House of Lords with
7 regard to that law that dealt with hate speech. Do you know anything
8 about that?
9 A. You mean -- you refer recently to the -- the -- still during the
10 Blair government's introduction of a bill in parliament. It was about
12 Q. No.
13 A. Is that -- because there was debate on exactly what is hate speech
14 and what is incendiary statements. And Lord Hoffmann in the House of
15 Lords actually made a very impassioned plea in opposition to the Blair
16 government's position. I know that debate. I don't know what debate
17 you're referring to.
18 Q. Yes. But the first debate was in the 1980s, and that is when hate
19 speech was restricted only to racial hatred. And it was defined that hate
20 speech can constitute -- or rather, hate speech can, for example, be a
21 differentiation between and among races, saying that one race was superior
22 to another, and that is prohibited, that kind of hate speech. That is
23 from the 1980s.
24 In America, too, as far as I know, that is what all this
25 insistence is based on; that is to say, to make hate speech punishable.
1 Right? So hate speech is not a threat. Hate speech is not aggression.
2 It is an attempt to make a biological distinction between and among races,
3 saying that one race is superior to another. That is the experience of
4 Hitler's Germany. Are you aware of that?
5 You're not a lawyer and you do not really know about legal
6 categories, do you? Mr. Oberschall --
7 A. No, I'm not here as a lawyer and I'm not here to -- to make --
8 give judgements or make -- give my testimony about legal distinctions and
9 categories. I'm not here for that purpose.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Oberschall, the accused
11 asked a question that may prove relevant in this case. You may be able to
12 answer it, or not. That's his -- that's what he says, of course. The
13 Trial Chamber will check. But he says that the hate speech, in his view,
14 aims at making a biological differentiation based on races and it has
15 nothing to do, he says, with a speech in which there is a content of
16 threat. Do you agree with him or not, or are you not in a position to
18 THE WITNESS: It may have been true in the -- in the 1980s, but
19 what -- what is hate speech in more recent legislation, both in the United
20 States and in Britain, and maybe elsewhere too, involves other elements.
21 But I'm not -- I'm not an expert in the history of hate speech and how it
22 has been defined.
23 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Let us be more specific on this. This kind of a definition of
25 hate speech did exist before the recommendation of the Council of Europe a
1 few years ago. Let's be clear on that. So the recommendation of the
2 Council of Europe made this very specific, but I was already in prison by
3 then if I remember correctly.
4 When you analysed parts of my texts, you specified that I deal
5 with the glorification of an accepted group. Is that right? That is
6 point number 1.
7 In the American legal system, is that prohibited? What -- what is
8 it that you bear in mind, the First Amendment?
9 A. It's not prohibited --
10 Q. Your answers matter a lot to me, and it's not against you. You
11 seem to be so defensive. I don't intend to attack you any longer. I had
12 to attack you at first. Relax a bit now. But please give me specific
13 answers to my questions.
14 In the American legal system --
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]
16 ... Ms. Dahl.
17 MS. DAHL: I'm sorry, but working in three languages, as we are
18 now, I need to try to protect our transcripts, and I would ask that
19 Mr. Seselj be asked to allow enough time for translation before the
20 question and answer continues.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Dahl, with regard to you,
22 you have to do that, but, of course, the main warrants are the Judges, so
23 that there's no confusion in the minds of those who may be listening to
24 these proceedings.
25 You say that there may be a problem regarding the transcript? On
1 what point exactly?
2 MS. DAHL: In the last several questions, I believe that
3 Mr. Seselj is able to understand the witness's answer in English and so
4 that -- he begins to talk before the transcript of Dr. Oberschall's answer
5 is completed. And so I'm getting brackets in place of his answers.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Indeed.
7 Mr. Seselj, let the witness finish before you start with another
8 question; otherwise, it won't appear in the transcript.
9 But please put the question again.
10 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
11 Q. In the American legal system, is it prohibited to deal with
12 stereotypes when there is public speech by statesmen, journalists, other
13 public speakers? Is that prohibited through criminal law, or is it only
14 subject to scholarly criticism?
15 A. Dr. Seselj, you seem to be under the -- under the false impression
16 that I am trying to abridge free speech, your free speech, or any
17 political free speech. All of these things that I've listed here that I'm
18 content -- coding for content, "glorification, negative stereotyping,
19 mention of internal threats, advocates and expects violence," these are
20 all protected by free speech. I'm not -- I'm not making the argument
21 that -- that your speech should be abridged or any such speech should be
22 abridged. I'm not saying anything like that. That's not what my content
23 analysis is about. And, in fact, I don't even have a category that says
24 "hate speech."
25 If you read my report, I specifically say -- I specifically say --
1 Q. What do you mean?
2 A. I specifically say that you do not use racial categories the way
3 the Nazis did in your political discourse, and that is why I have -- even
4 though I have the category "dehumanisation," which corresponds to that, I
5 have not checked you off on any of your speeches in this category, because
6 you simply are not falling into the Nazi kind of racial hate discourse.
7 Q. Mr. Oberschall, well, yesterday I commended you here. I said that
8 you were precious to me as a Prosecution witness. Don't defend yourself
9 any more. I am so sorry that I didn't get ahold of you before the
10 Prosecution did. We would have had perhaps a more successful cooperation
11 with regard to these matters. You are right. Don't defend yourself.
12 Stereotypes are not prohibited.
13 Now, threats, unless it's a threat to an individual person, say
14 the gentleman saying next to me. Say I threaten him that I'm going to hit
15 him or that I'm going to slap this other gentleman. No, if it's not a
16 question of such individual threats, but general threats. For example,
17 when the American President threatens to attack Iraq and he does attack
18 Iraq and he kills 100.000 Iraqis, 200.000 Iraqis, and so on and so forth.
19 These general threats, are they punishable by American law, to the
20 best of your knowledge?
21 A. No.
22 Q. They're not. Thank you, Mr. Oberschall. We have this excellent
24 In the American legal system, is advocating violence prohibited?
25 For example, the American President, President Bush -- Judge, let me just
1 deal with this quickly and then I'm going to move on to something
2 different after the break.
3 When the US President, President Bush, advocates the bombing of
4 Iran on false accusations, that Iran is making an atomic bomb, the
5 intelligence agencies are saying that in 2003 Iran stopped working on this
6 project. Is that advocating violence?
7 A. Certainly it's advocating. Bombing is violence. But it's -- of
8 course, it's not -- he's saying that's a possibility. He doesn't say it
9 has to be done. But it's a possibility, an option.
10 Q. But we see, in using the example of Iraq, that this possibility
11 was actually carried through, on the false accusation that Saddam Hussein
12 has -- had weapons of mass destruction, Bush attacked Iraq, destroyed
13 Iraq, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, liquidated Saddam Hussein,
14 and after that we find out that there were no weapons of mass destruction.
15 Aren't these the actual facts?
16 MS. DAHL: Relevance.
17 THE WITNESS: I'm not here to really talk about contemporary
18 history --
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. There was an objection
20 that was raised.
21 Mr. Seselj, following your question, the Prosecutor is saying this
22 is not relevant. Could you tell us what the relevance of your question
23 is. [No interpretation]
24 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Well, let me repeat the question briefly. Does the American legal
1 system prohibit advocation of this type of violence? Is it forbidden for
2 someone to appear on television and say Iraq or Iran should be bombed?
3 A. No, it's not forbidden --
4 Q. Thank you, Mr. Oberschall.
5 I suppose you heard about Zbigniew Brzezinski advocating that
6 Russia should be divided into three or four states. Do you know about
7 this advocacy of his?
8 A. I've followed Brzezinski -- he was actually one of my professors
9 at Harvard. And I've followed his career and his pronouncements. I don't
10 recall him saying anything like that. I don't know what it has to do with
11 what we're doing here in this courtroom, but no, I haven't heard him say
13 Q. He published a book about that. But never mind.
14 In the United States, is that kind of public advocacy of violent
15 changes of state borders punishable? That's my question. For instance,
16 if an American politician says that Iraq should be divided into three
17 states: Kurdistan, Shiites Iraq, and Sunni Iraq?
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please answer the question, and
19 then we'll have a break. Right after the question -- you've heard the
20 question, please answer it and then we'll have the break.
21 THE WITNESS: You can advocate in American political discourse any
22 kind of state change, boundary change, change in international relations,
23 war policy, or -- or anything like that.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Please. One brief
25 question. Just this one, please, Judge.
1 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
2 Q. In the American system, in your opinion,, would I be able -- would
3 I be held criminally responsible for any fragment, any passage from my
4 speeches that you analysed? To the best of your knowledge.
5 A. Well, the -- the context is important here. If you're in a war
6 zone, there's armed conflict going on, civilians are being killed, and you
7 make a speech to your men in which you say, you know, Continue, take,
8 displace, get rid of them, instead of saying, Stop. That is to say, if
9 you advocate violence in a dangerous situation where civilians,
10 non-combatants, are at risk and are being killed, yes, then there's
11 grounds for prosecuting you under existing law. If you say it on TV in a
12 non-combat kind of situation where -- you know, where there's no actual
13 killing going on or about to go on or a high risk of such violence, then
14 you are absolutely free to say anything you wish.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Let's have a break.
16 We'll have a longer break than usual, at the request of the interpreters,
17 and we will resume at five after 1.00 and we will continue until 2.30,
19 --- Recess taken at 12.35 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 1.06 p.m.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The hearing will
22 resume, and I will give the floor to Mr. Seselj.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope it's good now.
1 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Mr. Oberschall, you gave me a pretty satisfactory answer to my
3 last question; namely, for -- for speech to be legally punishable, it has
4 to be made directly in a spot, in an area that make it a risk, a
5 possibility of crime, when it -- where it can lead to crime. Is that
7 A. Is -- is that what I said?
8 Q. Well, I just summarised in two or three words what you explained
9 at great length, so I would have to be in an area, in a locality where
10 combat is going on, and then my speech would have to incite somebody to
11 commit a crime. That is the gist of what you said. I cannot tell you
13 My question was: When in the American legal system - I'm
14 simplifying my question now - when would speech be punishable as such?
15 MS. DAHL: [Previous translation continues] ...
16 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
17 Q. If you forgot what you said, let's move on to another question.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl.
19 MS. DAHL: I think this is asking for a legal question and
20 Dr. Oberschall's expertise is as a political sociologist, and I think this
21 is --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If he cannot give a legal
23 answer, he'll say "I don't know." If he has some knowledge on legal
24 matters, he can say "maybe I can answer." It's up to you.
25 Mr. Seselj asked a question. What is your answer?
1 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I need to say that here this --
2 this is -- we're talking about a specific jurisdiction here and not other
3 jurisdictions and not international law. We're not dealing with
4 international law here.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you answer, please.
6 THE WITNESS: I'm not a legal expert and I'm not here to testify
7 on such fine legal distinctions. And I -- I merely said what an ordinary
8 citizen following, you know, current events and debates on these questions
9 would -- would tell you, but I'm not a legal expert, no.
10 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Oberschall, I'm asking you about your knowledge. You are a
12 professor at an American university and you should be a very educated man
13 and very familiar with public affairs. The last thing you said goes to
14 incitement of crime. You don't have to know the legal definition, but I
15 am summarising what you said, which you perhaps forgot. However, I have
16 new questions for you. Please listen to me carefully now.
17 Let us distinguish between events in the Serbian Krajina, in
18 Croatia, and events in Serbia and in events in Bosnia and separate them
19 from the events in Hrtkovci, Vojvodina, et cetera. So let's look at these
20 two things separately. There's one war between the Serbian Krajina and
21 Croatia. Another thing is the war between the Republika Srpska and the
22 Bosnian federation, and the events in Serbia and Vojvodina are yet a third
24 Now I'm asking you only about events in the Serbian Krajina, in
25 Croatia, and the Republika Srpska and in the Bosnian war. I'm asking
1 you: Did you anywhere in my speeches, in my articles, anywhere, in any
2 public appearance, find a passage where I advocate killing prisoners of
4 A. No, killing prisoners of war, you don't advocate that.
5 Q. Thank you. Did I at any time in my speeches advocate killing
7 A. Well, you know, you say things like "amputate" and "blood will
8 flow," and you use this kind of language. A lot of people, including
9 myself, interpret that as violent actions against a -- an entire group of
10 people. In this case, you know, Croats, or whoever -- whatever the
11 context was. So I -- I didn't say it was an illegal speech or I didn't
12 say you didn't have a right to say those things. What I coded that kind
13 of thing is "advocates and expects violence," and that's what I was asked
14 to do, to content analyse your speech, not to pass on the legality of it
15 or anything like that.
16 Q. You're evading the answer. There is legally authorised violence
17 and unauthorised violence, and from my speech about rivers of blood, you
18 can conclude that I, as a person, am bloodthirsty, but that I talk about
19 rivers of blood does not mean that I am inciting anyone to kill civilians.
20 Am I clear now? This is not a legal issue. This is an issue of social
21 and political psychology.
22 A. Well, when you say "rivers of blood will flow," I -- I don't
23 interpret it as slaughtering pigs and -- and goats. I mean, I think
24 you're referring to human beings. So I'm -- that's -- that's my
25 interpretation. You're not talking about animals that are going to be
1 eaten and butchered.
2 Q. Mr. Oberschall, you do not know Serbian literature and Serb heroic
3 epics that are full of passages about blood flowing, but it's about blood
4 flowing in war. Two armies clash on the battlefield and blood flows in
5 rivers. We have a whole cycle of these Serb popular epics that talk about
6 that. It's one thing to talk about blood flowing in rivers, and it's
7 another thing to say, "Go on. Kill Bosnian or Croat civilians." Whose
8 blood is it about? The blood of soldiers in the battlefield. Is that
10 A. Well, that's what you say. But if you look at, actually, the
11 military events, both in the Croatian and the Bosnian war, most of the
12 blood that was flowing was not that of soldiers but of civilians.
13 Q. And would you agree that blood of civilians flowed in rivers on
14 both sides?
15 A. Yes, it flowed on all sides.
16 Q. Mr. Oberschall, did you find any excerpt from any text where I
17 would be advocating the killing of women and children or inciting anyone
18 to do that?
19 A. No, you didn't say it in so many words. I don't recall any
21 Q. Yes. Mr. Oberschall, you, as an intellectual, should know that
22 there is a great number of judgements of the Supreme Court of the United
23 States clearly defining what kind of instigation or incitement has to
24 exist to make an act punishable criminally. It has to be direct and
25 immediate. Do you know that?
1 A. I've already said to you and the Court that I'm not a legal
2 expert. If -- if you want to have testimony about the -- the -- you know,
3 the constitutional history of how these legal terms are defined in the
4 case law, you should get a -- a lawyer here to testify whose expertise it
5 is. It's not mine.
6 Q. All right, Mr. Oberschall. When you were doing your expertise,
7 you did not put into your computer programme, into your search engine,
8 attitude toward civilian, attitude to prisoners of war, attitude to the
9 women and children of the opposing side; right?
10 A. No. All we did put into the search engine was "Serb,"
11 "Croat," "Muslim," "Albanian," in the -- in the right languages. That's
12 what we searched for. Passages that deal with Serb/non-Serb political
13 relations. We didn't search for anything else, the weather, women, old
14 people, tariffs, agriculture, nothing like that. Just -- just those
15 top -- just those key words.
16 Q. Very well, Mr. Oberschall. I asked you this to let everyone know
17 that you did not get hold of a single statement of mine where I advocate
18 honouring international humanitarian law, humane treatment of civilians,
19 women, children, and elderly of the other side, et cetera.
20 Mr. Oberschall, in your searches of my texts, did you find
21 anywhere a passage where I would advocate, incite, or instigate to
22 unlawful detention? So I'm talking necessarily about civilians. Only
23 they can be unlawfully detained.
24 A. You mean taking hostages?
25 Q. Taking hostages as well, unlawful arrests, or any other way. Any
1 other way that can be used to unlawfully detain civilians, that is,
2 without a court decision.
3 A. I -- I don't recall -- I don't recall any such passages.
4 Q. You don't recall because it doesn't exist.
5 Did you find anywhere in my texts a passage where I advocated,
6 incited, or instigated torture, any form of torture?
7 A. Torture? No.
8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Oberschall. Did you find anywhere in my texts a
9 passage where I advocated, incited others, or instigated cruel treatment?
10 A. Well, it depends on what you mean by "cruel treatment." We had a
11 long session last -- yesterday, actually, on expulsion and exchange and
12 ethnic cleansing of -- of populations, and, you know, your advocacy, your
13 views on that point. And I would say that's cruel treatment of people not
14 in the sense of a narrow definition of "torture" --
15 Q. Mr. Oberschall, we had agreed at the beginning of this session to
16 distinguish everything that happened in Vojvodina from what happened in
17 the Serbian Krajina, Croatia, Republika Srpska, and Bosnia and
18 Herzegovina. Do you remember? So this exchange of population that
19 relates to Vojvodina, let's leave it aside completely for now. We'll come
20 to that later.
21 Let me tell you, for instance, what cruel treatment is. Rape is
22 cruel treatment. For example, because there is no precise definition of
23 rape in the international law of warfare, it comes under the category of
24 "cruel treatment." So did you encounter anywhere any advocacy on my part,
25 incitement, or instigation to cruel treatment?
1 A. Like rape?
2 Q. Like rape, let's say, or any other form.
3 A. No, you did -- no. You did not advocate rape, no.
4 Q. Did you find anywhere, with the exception of Vojvodina, any
5 appearance or text of mine where I advocated that anybody should be
6 departed from the Republic of Serbian Krajina, Republika Srpska, of
7 Croats, of Muslims, anyone? Did you find anything like that? Forget for
8 a moment Vojvodina and Kosovo. I just need you to --
9 A. Why should I forget Kosovo? I mean, that's part of Serbia and --
10 Q. Mr. Oberschall --
11 A. Many times you advocated -- you practically advocated that
12 everyone who's an Albanian should somehow get out of there and go back to
13 Albania or some other refugee camp --
14 Q. [No interpretation]
15 A. -- run by the United Nations.
16 Q. Mr. Oberschall, wait till I get indicted for Albanians or
17 something. Albanians are for the time being not in my indictment. I
18 haven't been charged with that yet.
19 I'm asking you specific questions, and I want a specific answer.
20 Did you find it anywhere that I advocated deportation of Croats from
21 Serbian Krajina or deportation of Muslims and Croats from Republika
22 Srpska? Here. It's a specific question.
23 A. I would really have to look through the records that I -- that I
24 coded, some 30-and-some records to see exactly what you said at the
25 particular dates that you were active in the -- in the Krajina. I can't
1 produce it from memory, but we have the quotes in my expert report.
2 Q. Yes. But in your expert report, there is no mention of that.
3 There is no quotation. It seems I've read your report more carefully than
4 you did. I claim that there is no mention of that, and you find it now in
5 the expert report where it is, but please don't take too much of my time
6 leafing through. You don't know of a single such example. And that's a
7 statement I'm going to make. Let's move on.
8 A. I said --
9 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, Mr. Seselj is mischaracterising the
10 testimony, and he's asked --
11 THE WITNESS: Exactly.
12 MS. DAHL: -- Dr. Oberschall to look in his report to find an
13 accurate answer to the question, and I request that he be given the
14 opportunity to do that. Perhaps if Mr. Seselj wants to concede that the
15 information is there and that the report speaks for itself, we can
16 conserve time, but the witness should be given the chance to get the
17 accurate information that he has in his report.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Let's go briefly over
19 this. This is the problem. The accused Seselj is asking you whether in
20 his speeches or in his texts he mentioned at any time deportation. That
21 is the question. It's very simple and straightforward. So deportation
22 either of Croats or Muslims.
23 So in your report, was this noted that at one point in time, on
24 such a day, in such a speech the -- there is mention of deportation?
25 THE WITNESS: There's many mentions of deportations, and I quote
1 from some of these texts. Right now from memory, I can't sort out whether
2 they referred to Croats or Serbs in particular parts of the Krajina or --
3 or Vojvodina, but, you know, if the Court wants me to provide this
4 evidence, I can sit down tonight and read through the records and -- and
5 give you a full documentation and give the answer.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, we have the report and we
7 can do the same exercise.
8 Please proceed.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, I absolutely don't care what
10 Mr. Oberschall is going to say tomorrow. I know for a fact that there is
11 no example whatsoever of my advocacy of deportations, speaking of Muslims
12 and Croats from Croatia, or Republika Srpska, that is, from the Serbian
13 Krajina in Croatia.
14 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Now, Mr. Oberschall, did you find it anywhere in my texts that I
16 advocated forced transfer of population within the Serbian Krajina or
17 within Republika Srpska?
18 A. Within the Krajina itself?
19 Q. Yes. "Forced transfer" means within the borders of one state,
20 because "deportation" means transfer from one state to another state, to
21 explain to you the finer legal points.
22 A. Again, I mean, we -- I found in the content analysis a lot of
23 mentions of deportations. I would have to look at the specific quotes and
24 dates to -- to identify those that refer to what Dr. Seselj just referred
25 to as "deportations within the Krajina." I -- offhand I can't-- it would
1 take -- it would take a lot of time to go through this now record by
2 record, and I'm quite willing to submit in writing after looking at it,
3 after the conclusion of this session, to give you a specific answer.
4 Q. Mr. Oberschall, at least in my trial you will never again have the
5 opportunity to make any written submissions. You've already made all you
6 are ever going to make. You have already had several years to prepare for
7 this trial, and now I'm finding out before this Trial Chamber whether you
8 prepared well or not.
9 When the water goes under the bridge, it never flows back in that
10 same water.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Dahl.
12 MS. DAHL: Objection. This is not a question. It is a lecture to
13 Mr. Oberschall about whether or not to answer the question in writing that
14 he's been put to in the courtroom. It's improper cross-examination.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, please ask
17 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Oberschall, did you anywhere in my texts related to the same
19 areas, Serbian Krajina, Croatia, and Republika Srpska and Bosnia, any
20 examples where I would advocate, incite, or instigate to wanton
21 destruction of villages in populated areas and devastation that is not
22 justified by military need? Did you find anything of the kind anywhere,
23 from what you remember?
24 A. I -- I don't really know quite what you mean by "not justified by
25 military -- by military need." I mean, that's a very loose term. But I
1 would say in general, no, you didn't -- you know, you didn't do a sort of
2 a Genghis Khan act and say we have to destroy everybody and kill everybody
3 and rape everybody and so on. You didn't do that, no. In the text that I
4 looked at, you didn't do that.
5 Q. Thank you, Mr. Oberschall, and thank you for having been concise.
6 Mr. Oberschall, in my texts, in my public speeches, in my written
7 texts, anywhere, did you find me instigating, inciting destroying
8 religious buildings or educational institutions; that is to say, churches,
9 mosques, schools, and so on and so forth?
10 A. There wasn't any in my content analysis.
11 Q. Thank you, Mr. Oberschall.
12 A. There were other things, though, that were quite objectionable,
13 but they refer mostly to the Albanians in Kosovo. But do we go into that
14 or not?
15 Q. Leave Albanians aside. Never mind the Albanians. Now, we are
16 going to have big flows of blood, rivers of blood on account of Albanians.
17 If they take Kosovo away from us now, blood is going to flow in streams,
18 for hundreds of centuries --
19 MS. DAHL: Objection, Your Honour. This is absolutely improper.
20 This is improper for Mr. Seselj to make threats of violence against
21 Albanians in connection with the current political question being debated
22 in Serbia.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Prosecutor says that you
24 are making threats. What can you say to that?
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, I am reacting to the witness
1 bringing up the question of Kosovo yet again. I cautioned him several
2 times that Kosovo is not part of my indictment, and my questions have
3 nothing to do with Kosovo whatsoever. How can I stop his speech about
4 Kosovo when he is wasting my precious time?
5 Stop, Mr. Oberschall, don't refer to Kosovo any more. When they
6 indict me for Kosovo in some other trial, then you can talk about Kosovo.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Oberschall, the accused is
8 not charged in the indictment with issues related to Kosovo; therefore,
9 any mention, unless he wants to put questions regarding Kosovo to you --
10 but if that is not the case, do not mention that topic.
11 Let us remain focused on the report.
12 Mr. Seselj.
13 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Oberschall, in excerpts from my speeches, did you find me
15 anywhere advocating the plunder of public or private property or me
16 instigating others to carry out that robbery?
17 A. Well, in your -- in your -- some of your statements, you certainly
18 describe and refer to a lot of plundering and robbery of private and
19 public property that was going on during ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. You,
20 of course, always say, when you describe these events, that Milosevic and
21 the army and the Defence Ministry forces and the special forces were doing
22 it but your volunteers were not doing it and that you were telling them
23 not to do it. Frankly, should we believe that? I mean, that's what
24 you're saying. Was it true? But it's -- but that's what you were saying.
25 And then that is in the statements that I content analysed.
1 Q. Mr. Oberschall, you're not expected to believe or disbelieve
2 something here. You're just supposed to confirm or challenge some factual
3 allegations. Now you've moved a step ahead. You establish that I
4 criticised others for having plundered private or public property, and you
5 do not have a shred of evidence of me advocating that plunder. Am I
6 right? Am I interpreting your words right now?
7 A. Yes, you were accusing others, a lot of others, doing that.
8 Q. All right. Let's not waste any more time on that issue.
9 Mr. Oberschall, in the excerpts from my speeches, did you find any
10 case when I advocated the commission of inhumane acts in the territory of
11 Republika Srpska or the Republika Srpska Krajina? Any kind of inhuman
13 A. Republika Srpska and Republika Srpska Krajina?
14 Q. You didn't. You didn't. There is no such thing. That's why
15 you --
16 A. No, let me -- can I say something? Again, I mean, I would have to
17 go through those specific statements about ethnic cleansing and figure out
18 in terms of the date and their location whether or not they refer to
19 Republika Srpska and Republika Srpska Krajina. I'm not -- I can't on the
20 top of my head answer that question without referring back into my report.
21 Q. You're an expert --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, in this regard.
23 Since the accused puts question as to what he may have said in his
24 speeches and writings, with regard to the crimes referred to in the
25 Statute, I was looking at your method of analysis, and I wondered about
1 this, why did you not add some columns that would be more specific? For
2 instance, deportation, change of population, shift of population, rape,
3 murder, cruel treatment, and then you could have ticked where appropriate.
4 Did you not think of that sort of methodology?
5 THE WITNESS: Well, we had a way of cross-examining the -- the
6 group and what was happening to it. For instance, ethnic cleansing,
7 referring to these various people. And had I known that I would be
8 cross-examined on it -- I didn't think it was important as to which group
9 in a particular group was being referred to by Dr. Seselj. But had I
10 known that, I could have used our software to do that analysis. It's just
11 that I didn't know I was expected to talk about this.
12 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, for the Chamber's edification, there are
13 415 records, and I, as part of our legal analysis, have superimposed on
14 that the elements in the indictment, and I can provide that kind of
15 graphic analysis with the counts in the indictment and the relevance of
16 the individual records to that. I considered that would be part of our
17 submissions in summation of the evidence that we've led and how it relates
18 to the charges in the indictment.
19 If that would assist the Chamber in determining the admissibility
20 of the records analysed by Dr. Oberschall and his report, I'd be happy to
21 submit that to you now, as opposed to later.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] At any rate, I raised the
23 question with the expert, and he answered it.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, counsel for the Prosecution
25 cannot now add on something to what the expert is saying. When I
1 re-examine Ms. Dahl, then she can say what she has to say. This will
2 never be the case in this particular case - maybe in some other
3 proceedings - because I have charged her. But now I am asking this
4 witness -- this expert witness questions, and he is supposed to go on
5 talking about this, because he dealt with my case for years.
6 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
7 Q. In my texts, Mr. Oberschall, did you find any reference to my
8 advocating in the territory of Republika Srpska or the Republika Srpska
9 Krajina any kind of persecution on ethnic, racial, or religious grounds?
10 What does persecution mean? Layoffs on account of the fact that
11 somebody is a Muslim or a Catholic, or somebody being forbidden to buy
12 certain supplies in a store because they belong to a certain ethnic group
13 or religious group. Any kind of persecution, that is to say,
14 discrimination. If somebody is an inhabitant of Republika Srpska or
15 Republika Srpska Krajina and if they belong to a different ethnic group,
16 if that person differs ethnically from Serbs, did I advocate
17 discrimination against such persons? Have you come across any such thing?
18 A. You mean things like employment discrimination?
19 Q. Employment too, yes.
20 A. I didn't -- well, we weren't looking for that, but I wasn't -- I
21 didn't see in your texts anything about employment discrimination.
22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Oberschall. This concludes the set of questions
23 that I had with -- that have to do with Republika Srpska and Republika
24 Srpska Krajina.
25 Now we are moving on to what happened in Vojvodina.
1 Mr. Oberschall, you deal with a great many excerpts from my speeches where
2 I advocate deportation of Croats from Vojvodina, exchanges of population,
3 exchanges of property, and so on. Is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. There is a considerable number of such examples. And I am not
6 denying that. That is true.
7 Did you notice -- did you notice that all these examples date back
8 to a period that involves three or four months in 1992?
9 A. I'm not sure that they all date to -- to that particular period.
10 I'd have to check that.
11 Q. All right. You are not able to answer this question.
12 Mr. Oberschall, you say in several places that I say that Tudjman
13 expelled 200 or 300 thousand Serbs from Croatia. Is that right?
14 A. That's what you say. Whether it's true or not, it's another
16 Q. You did not even try to establish whether that was true or not;
18 A. I -- I have -- well, these -- the numbers have -- have really not
19 been established by -- by an authoritative source. I -- I would think
20 that this Tribunal in some of its prosecutions would end up coming up with
21 probably the best numbers that -- that we can have.
22 The way you use numbers in other contexts leads me to be very
23 skeptical about the numbers. But I don't think the numbers here really
24 matter that much. We can divide them by 10; we can divide them by 5;
25 maybe we can even multiply them by 2. I mean, there's terrible injustices
1 being committed, yes.
2 Q. Mr. Oberschall, don't give answers to questions I've never put to
3 you. You could have gotten the figures from the statistics office. There
4 are lists of refugees that were revised several times. You didn't ask for
5 any of that.
6 Have you heard of Professor Svetozar Livada?
7 A. No.
8 Q. That is a professor of the University of Zagreb who published a
9 few study papers on the expulsion of the Serb population from Croatia.
10 You should have consulted him. The Prosecution has used his analyses.
11 Let me tell you one more thing. No one was tried before this
12 Court for the expulsion of Serbs from Croatia in 1991 and 1992, and I am
13 being tried because only a few thousand Croats left and none of them were
15 Mr. Oberschall, do you know that in Serbia at the end of May 1992
16 there were elections that were held? This is 1992.
17 A. I have no reason to believe that they were not held, if you say
19 Q. Yes. But you don't have any knowledge of them being held either;
20 isn't that right?
21 A. Well, if I want to check on Serb elections, I go to sources like
22 Goati and I find out who ran against whom, what the political parties
23 were. This is not something I carry in my head all the time. Why should
25 Q. Mr. Oberschall, these were very important elections. These were
1 the first elections for the Parliament of the Federal Republic of the --
2 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia after it was constituted in the spring of
3 1992. You would have to know that as an expert for that period of my
4 activity. You appear here as an expert witness and you don't know about
5 these elections.
6 A. I didn't say I don't know about the elections. There were
7 elections going on all the time, many different elections. If I want to
8 find out something about a specific elections, I know the source to turn
10 Q. Mr. Oberschall, that is not an answer to my question. You had
11 very narrow excerpts of my speeches made available to you. To be aware of
12 the broader political context in which I speak, you would have to look
13 that, in terms of Croats in Vojvodina; isn't that right?
14 A. Yes, I -- I read up, actually, on what was happening in -- in
15 Vojvodina and throughout the period 1991 to 1993. I read a number of
16 things both on the military and on the political front, both in Bosnia and
17 in Serbia. Yes, I -- I looked at that material very carefully.
18 Q. All right, Mr. Oberschall. You mentioned during the course of the
19 examination-in-chief my speech from Hrtkovci on the 6th of May, 1992.
20 Isn't that right?
21 A. Yeah, if it's in the -- if it's in the records and the examples
22 that I content analysed, then they're there. In your speeches there, yes.
23 Q. Of course it's there. Of course it's there.
24 On what occasion did I make that speech?
25 A. I don't know what speech you're referring to. I mean, can we go
1 to a particular record or an example where -- that we're discussing? I
2 mean, you're asking me how --
3 Q. Mr. Oberschall, this is my renowned speech, the one I made on the
4 6th of May, 1992 in Hrtkovci, and this entire section of the indictment
5 for Vojvodina is based on that. That is the key speech, the fundamental
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Dahl.
8 MS. DAHL: Dr. Oberschall asked for a record reference in order to
9 be able to discuss a particular aspect of his report, and I'd like to ask
10 the accused to please give Dr. Oberschall the record reference so that we
11 can hone in on his question.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj. You're
13 referring to a key question, that speech of the 6th of May, 1992. In the
14 expert's report, on -- in which page are we going to find this?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This morning, during the
16 examination-in-chief, from 9.00 until 10.30. What page? Believe me, I
17 don't want to look up the page. There is no reason for me to do that.
18 That is the key speech that the indictment is based on. I'm now going to
19 ask Mr. Oberschall about what it is that he concluded about my speech. I
20 just want to check whether he read that speech of mine in its entirety.
21 It is contained somewhere else too, but that I'm going to tell him later.
22 THE WITNESS: Well, if you -- if you're asking about my content
23 analysis of your speech, you're referring to a particular statement. I
24 content analyzed something like 400 records. I don't know them by heart.
25 If you tell me where this statement that you made or statements that you
1 made from that speech are and how I coded them, I would be glad to do it
2 by referring to it. It's not fresh in my memory. I can't do that just
3 without seeing the text.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, if I understand you
5 properly, at this juncture, when Mr. Seselj talks about the 6th of May,
6 1992 speech in Hrtkovci, this doesn't cause any immediate reaction. Is
7 that right? Because you mix it up or it is mixed in the 400 other
8 documents. Is that right?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, it's -- it's in them.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge. At that point in
12 time, I could not think of such a clever question. With that question of
13 yours, you replaced the ten questions I want to deal with after that.
14 Yes, this does show the competence of the expert.
15 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
16 Q. The Prosecution has my entire speech, Mr. Oberschall. And this
17 speech was publicised in several times; the last time in my book "The
18 devil's advocate, the criminal Pope of Rome, John Paul II." So if you had
19 looked for it, you would have found it. You could not have written your
20 expert report without having the text of all the speeches of the rally in
21 Hrtkovci. Right? Because that was the key rally for the indictment.
22 A. Well, if you -- if you give me the speech and give me a little
23 time, I'll content analyse the whole thing for you right now. I don't
24 have any problem doing that, as long as it's in English.
25 Q. I'm not giving you the tiniest bit of time. Not a bit of time,
1 Mr. Oberschall, because practically you had to know that speech of mine by
2 heart as an expert who came to testify here about my advocacy in favour of
3 Croats being deported from Vojvodina. I'm not giving you a single bit of
5 MS. DAHL: This is not cross-examination, Your Honour. This is
6 arguing with the witness. We didn't ask Dr. Oberschall to focus his
7 analysis on the indictment or to cherry-pick the speeches to try to help
8 us prove the case. We gave him 44 volumes of material and he made a
9 search for key words and phrases and analysed those parts of the speech,
10 in terms of propaganda, threat discourse, sending threat messages, and all
11 of the themes that we've talked about for two days. But this is not
12 proper cross-examination.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed, Mr. Seselj.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is very proper
15 cross-examination, but Ms. Dahl hasn't managed to learn that yet. I'm
16 going to teach her, and soon at that.
17 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Oberschall, the speech made in Hrtkovci was a pre-election
19 speech, and from the content you could have --
20 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, I'm objecting to the discourse in the
21 courtroom between -- Mr. Seselj should not direct his comments to me
22 directly. He should not threaten me. He should not indicate what lessons
23 he wants to teach me. It is going to be a very long trial if I am going
24 to be made to be battered by his discourse here. This is
25 cross-examination of a witness, not attacking the Prosecutor.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, refrain from
2 addressing or challenging Ms. Dahl. You may think that the Prosecution
3 did not do their work properly or not thoroughly enough, but do not attack
4 her personally.
5 It is not necessary. As if she would attack you -- if she were to
6 do so, I would say exactly the same. .
7 Let us continue, though, because this is an important topic.
8 Please proceed with your questions.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, first of all, I issued no
10 threats to the Prosecutor. It was just a promise, rather, because from my
11 way of cross-examining witnesses during the following months and years,
12 she will learn a great deal. That is my profound belief. And I have the
13 right to say that after the many inappropriate interventions she made
15 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Oberschall, therefore, you do not know that I made a
17 pre-election speech in Hrtkovci in May 1992. You did not know about that;
19 A. I didn't know it was a pre-election speech, no.
20 Q. Yes. Thank you. You didn't know that because you did not have
21 the text of the entire speech; right?
22 A. No, I -- I only had the -- the experts that our search produced,
23 which dealt with relations between Serbs and -- and non-Serbs. At that
24 time, in that particular place I thought that that was probably the most
25 important part of that. That's what we picked up and analysed.
1 Q. Yes, Mr. Oberschall, you are quite right, but I am saying that
2 your methodology was not appropriate. Did you notice, on the basis of
3 these speeches of mine that you analysed, or parts of these speeches that
4 you analysed, that in all of these speeches I either set out a programme
5 as to what we radicals are going to do once we come to power after the
6 elections or I call upon the existing authorities to do that, to carry out
7 an exchange of population, to deport Croats, to apply the principle of
8 retorsion, and so on and so forth? On the basis of these excerpts, could
9 you gain knowledge to the effect that all of my speeches are either a
10 promise as to what we are going to do once we come to power or a request
11 for the current authorities to do the right thing, to make it possible for
12 Serbs to move into Croat houses, to apply the principle of retorsion, and
13 so on and so forth? Could you come to that conclusion on the basis of
14 these fragments?
15 A. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to conclude. Yes, you -- you
16 talked about all those topics that you mention, and some of the statements
17 that I content analysed do cover all those topics, yes.
18 Q. Yes, but it's not only topics --
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj. Let me react to
20 your answer and to the question, which is at the very heart of the matter.
21 When somebody makes a speech, that person is either in a position
22 of being a decision-maker or is a potential candidate in order to become a
23 decision-maker. If we are talking about a pre-election speech, you have
24 candidates who are not going to be decision-makers and those who are in
25 power who make the decisions. Would you make a distinction as to the
1 contents of speeches, depending on the precise situation the speaker finds
2 himself in, between the fact of being a decision-maker or a potential
4 THE WITNESS: Well, of course, if you are in a position of
5 authority, then you can -- you can implement some of the -- some of the
6 programme or policies that you advocate. If you're not in a position of
7 authority, you -- you can't immediately do the same thing, because you
8 don't have the authority. As I see it, Dr. Seselj, when he was a
9 candidate for various offices, was already a member of the legislature.
10 He was the head of an important political party that was at times in
11 coalition with the existing Milosevic government. So he was in a position
12 of authority.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I see. In order to gain time,
14 if you are a member of the legislature, you can be a decision-maker. But
15 if you are in a minority party, you are not a decision-maker, are you?
16 THE WITNESS: No, but you can be in a coalition that is part of
17 the governing coalition, or that goes along, or that, you know, has
18 cabinet posts in a coalition. So, yes, all these things are important,
19 Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [No interpretation]
21 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation].
22 Q. Mr. Oberschall, it is correct that during the second period I was
23 in a coalition with Milosevic's Socialist party of Serbia, but do you know
24 from when until when?
25 A. No, I don't know the exact dates.
1 Q. Well, I'll tell you. From the 24th of March, 1998 to October
2 2000. Did you know that before?
3 A. Well, that's what you say.
4 Q. I claim and state that that is the only period where I entered
5 into a coalition with Milosevic's party. And we have no -- and you have
6 no proof to prove otherwise. You just haven't got any evidence to prove
7 otherwise. At the time, I was the vice-president of the government of
8 Serbia, the vice premier.
9 A. We already had this morning a number of statements which I refer
10 to in my expert report that during a much earlier time than March 1998,
11 you had really privileged access to the Serb television, state television
12 and media, and that was part of a political deal between you and
13 Milosevic. Now, you can say you might not have had a formal position with
14 a title in -- in the government, but we're talking here about political
15 alliances and -- and political coalitions, and that gives you power,
16 sometimes even more power than if you're a minister or vice-president, or
18 Q. On the basis of what research, Mr. Oberschall, did you arrive at
19 the knowledge that in 1992 I had a privileged position in the regime
20 media? What research was that?
21 A. It was research -- you know, you say 1992. This was research done
22 in Belgrade by people who did media research of all media, TV, magazines,
23 newspaper, radio, and so on. And I could actually, from this research, in
24 my expert report -- there's actually several pieces of research that were
25 done on the -- on the Serb media, and -- and your access to them. So
1 that's in the report.
2 Q. Why are you thinking up all these things for 1992, the research
3 for 1992? Why are you inventing all that when it's quite obvious that you
4 have absolutely no idea of any research of any kind? Why are you
5 inventing that, and there's none of that in your report either.
6 A. That's what you're saying. But if you read my report, you will
7 see it. It's all in there.
8 Q. All there is is your assertion that I was privileged and nothing
9 else. There's nothing else written down like that.
10 Mr. Oberschall, do you know that in 1992 in Belgrade a book was
11 published, "The screening of the elections," and the authors of that book
12 are two women, Milivojevic and Matic are their surnames. Mrs. Milivojevic
13 is now a professor of political science at the Belgrade University and it
14 was the magazine Vreme that published the book. And it was financed by
15 Soros, the US Intelligence Agency, other Western services and foundations.
16 Have you ever heard of that book, "The screening of the
17 elections," "Ekranizacija Izbora"? You don't? Fine.
18 A. Well, I don't read things about alleged secret plots and, you
19 know, paranoic kinds of reports about what happens in politics and in back
20 rooms and so on. I go by evidence. And there's a lot of stuff that I
21 just can't get into, because it's -- it's really not -- it's not really
22 factual. It's just imaginative.
23 Q. Mr. Oberschall -- Mr. Oberschall, if you had a keener
24 intelligence, you would know that --
25 MS. DAHL: Objection, Your Honour. --
1 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation].
2 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I here am not mentioning
3 foreign services.
4 There's no grounds for objection here, no grounds.
5 MS. DAHL: There's no grounds to insult the witness. This is
6 improper cross-examination. And I ask that you curtail the examination,
7 because it is improper.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, please do not tell
9 the witness that he is more intelligent, or this or that. We are not here
10 to say anything about intelligence, neither you or I or anyone.
11 THE WITNESS: May I --
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, I here before you and your
13 colleagues only mention research on the representation of political
14 parties and the presidential candidates in the media dating back to 1992,
15 which was conducted in Serbia, and in order to show just how unbiased
16 those results were, I am giving the background information, who printed
17 the book, who financed it, and so on and so forth. So I am moving to the
18 advantage -- I am speaking in favour of the unbiasness of those facts,
19 because it was the opposite side, the enemy side that printed it, so it
20 doesn't matter whether I'm right when I speak about the CIA, Soros, or
21 whatever, although I am right in what I say about them. But the important
22 thing is that the book is unbiased, it is not prejudiced, and it shows
23 that the Serbian Radical Party and I, personally, were least represented
24 in the media compared to all the other parties and sides.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, this -- I'm not
1 criticising the question, but if this book, the reference of which you
2 gave us - and it's probably an interesting book - but if this book was not
3 read by the witness, that has nothing to do with the intelligence of the
4 witness, of course.
5 Witness, you wanted to say something?
6 THE WITNESS: I'm embarrassed to say, but I have to take a
7 two-minute break in the toilet, if -- if it's possible.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Let's take a five-minute
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, please may I remain in the
11 courtroom? Because I can't keep carting my things off and bringing them
12 back if it's just for five minutes. May I be allowed to stay in the
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Go ahead, and we'll come --
15 we'll wait here in the courtroom.
16 [The witness stands down]
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [No interpretation]
18 JUDGE LATTANZI: [No interpretation]. [Interpretation] -- to
19 contest the quality of the expert.
20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters were not listening because we
21 thought it was a break. Sorry.
22 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I was saying the following:
23 Mr. Seselj, you're entitled to proceed with your cross-examination, ask
24 questions, and provide the Trial Chamber with all elements so that it can
25 make a decision as to the expert quality of the witness or not, but you
1 cannot assess or draw any conclusive assessment as to the quality. This
2 is up to the Judges to do this. And you cannot either make any direct
3 assessment of the personality of the witness. Do not do this, please.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mrs. Lattanzi, I understand you
5 completely, but allow me not to accept what you've just told me. And I
6 would like you to look at practice, the Anglo-Saxon practice of
7 cross-examination, especially the examination in the Oscar Wilde trial and
8 also practice in cross-examination conducted by Prosecutor Geoffrey Nice
9 in the Milosevic trial. I am far more lenient, Mrs. Lattanzi, far more
10 lean and mild. And I find this witness so likable that I am extremely
11 mild towards him, and I promise you that I'll be much sharper to other
12 witnesses. That's my right.
13 [The witness entered court]
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You must try to be moderate at
15 all times.
16 Let's resume, please.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, that's not in my nature to be
19 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Oberschall, you mentioned the force of my political party, the
21 Serbian Radical Party --
22 MS. DAHL: [Previous translation continues] ... I need to -- to
23 interject about what Mr. Seselj's nature, his natural tendencies has to do
24 with his ability to represent himself. And if he is unable to effectively
25 comport himself in compliance with decorum, respect, and dignity towards
1 witnesses, if he is unable to restrain what he calls his "nature," then he
2 needs a lawyer to be appointed to represent him, because he cannot use his
3 right of self-representation and his nature to abuse witnesses, to abuse
4 this Court, to abuse me. His cross-examination must be incisive, careful,
5 and appropriate.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, follow the rules.
7 You cannot abuse witnesses. Witnesses are trying to answer your
8 questions. Of course you have the right to challenge their credibility
9 and test their credibility, but do not make any personal judgements. This
10 is not appropriate.
11 You told us that maybe it's your nature to get into that. Well,
12 refrain yourself from it. This is in the interest of all and in your own
14 Substance is of the essence and substance only.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, if I consider that the
16 witness is lying, then I have every right in the middle of this courtroom
17 to say so, to tell him he's lying during the cross-examination. So please
18 do not restrict my rights. Several times here I have found that the
19 witness was lying, and you are witnesses to that, and so with
20 interventions like this, Mrs. Dahl is actually trying to turn this trial
21 into a circus. She doesn't like my cross-examination, the way I do it.
22 Well, I prepared it in the way that I knew she would not like to begin
23 with, so you can caution her not to make inappropriate remarks and the
24 threats, to take away my right to defend myself? That's ludicrous.
25 Who can do that? Who can curtail that right?
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, my fellow Judge told
2 you earlier that you are entitled to many rights in cross-examination.
3 You are entitled to ask questions, but you just said something extremely
4 serious. You're saying the witness is lying. The witness is under oath.
5 Lying is a serious offence when you're under oath. So you can't just say
6 that outright if you cannot demonstrate it and prove it. Otherwise, you
7 could just say that everyone's lying.
8 Let me remind you that contempt of court -- perjury, you know, is
9 something that could lead to seven years in gaol. So be very careful with
10 what you're saying. Sometimes I think you're going -- saying things that
11 go beyond what you're thinking, when you're saying that the witness is
12 lying, well, he might be lying, but prove it. Just don't say it outright.
13 Mrs. Dahl.
14 MS. DAHL: I wanted to echo what you just said. The credibility
15 determinations are reserved for this Trial Chamber, and the personal
16 opinions of the accused are not appropriately expressed towards the
17 witness in the courtroom, proper cross-examination should be designed to
18 indicate whether there is bias, mistake, or malice, but hurling invectives
19 at the witness or calling him a liar is not proper.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, if you want to
21 demonstrate that the witness is lying or making errors, do this, but do
22 not fly off the handle. And demonstrate what you are trying to say and
23 demonstrate your theory. And if you cannot demonstrate and prove what you
24 are putting forth through your questions, then we're losing -- we're
25 losing -- we don't know where we're going any more. And just before this
1 incident, we were dealing with a problem of substance. And I would much
2 rather spend time on substance than waste time on anything -- of course,
3 you are right to try and demonstrate that the witness is lying, but be
4 scientific in your demonstration. It's not because the witness has not
5 read a book that he's lying. Maybe he just didn't read this book because
6 he thought the book was of no interest, which doesn't mean he's lying, of
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, the witness here said in
9 front of you that it was on the basis of some sort of research in Belgrade
10 that he established that in 1992 I had a privileged position in -- by the
11 ruling regime media, and that kind of research just doesn't exist. So
12 how, then, can you qualify the witness other than the way I did? Tell me,
13 please -- that means I'm right.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You've heard what was said
15 regarding research done in Belgrade in 1992, on the role he played in the
16 media. So was there research; yes or no? Could you please give us some
17 enlightenment on this.
18 THE WITNESS: Yes, there was research. I have an entire section
19 of my expert report on the Serb media, on the Serb media's role in the --
20 in the elections in the early 1990s. And I cite, you know, several
21 sources on this. And it's just a matter of turning to those pages. You
22 want me to do it? I can read it. But you can read it. He can read it.
23 Everybody can read it.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you're saying that there was
25 research done.
1 Let's continue now.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes.
3 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
4 Q. And I state that the only research was the research I mentioned
5 for 1992. Now the witness says there was. I don't see it.
6 Mr. Oberschall, you mentioned here that my political party had a
7 significant role in the political life of the country at the time I held
8 the speech -- gave the speech in Hrtkovci. Right. Now, how do you
9 measure the importance of a party in a country's political life?
10 A. I -- I wasn't asked to measure the importance of any political
11 party. That wasn't really part of what I was doing here. I was analysing
12 your political discourse and evaluating or coding it on these kinds of
13 themes and techniques of propaganda. I'm not -- I'm not here to testify
14 about the political parties and coalitions in -- in any kind of a detailed
15 fashion. It wasn't part of my assignment.
16 Q. But why are you then saying that my party and I had a significant
17 role in political life if you didn't measure that as -- as a sociologist
18 by empirical measurement?
19 A. I actually indicated in the section on elections and so on, as to
20 the number of votes that you got and that other people got in certain --
21 in certain elections, and that certainly is one way of measuring political
22 influence. But that wasn't part of the central part of my assignment.
23 You know, if you want more detail on that, it's -- it's all documented.
24 It's available in Goati's book on -- on Serb elections in the 1990s. And
25 I quoted from it to -- to make certain points, but it wasn't part of my
1 overall analysis.
2 Q. Mr. Oberschall, we're talking about the rally of the Serbian
3 Radical Party in Hrtkovci and what I said there on the 6th of May, 1992.
4 Now, do you know how many deputies the Serb Parliament has, how many
5 members of parliament?
6 A. No, I can't give you the exact number.
7 Q. I'll tell you straight away. 250.
8 And do you know on the 6th of May, 1992, at the time of the rally
9 in Hrtkovci, how many members my party had in the Serb Parliament, how
10 many deputies?
11 A. No, I can't give you a number.
12 Q. But you're an expert, Mr. Oberschall. Try and remember. Think
13 about it. I have to insist.
14 A. Well, let me tell you, Dr. Seselj - and this has come up again and
15 again - that you think an expert has to have, you know, an encyclopaedic
16 mind filled with a lot of facts, and if he can spew forth statistics, that
17 makes him an expert.
18 My view, and that of many other people, is that what an expert is
19 is somebody who's knowledgeable in a certain area, who's worked in a
20 certain area. And if you want detailed factual knowledge on a certain
21 topic, the expert knows where to get it and he gets it and he uses it
22 appropriately. And that's what I'm here for, and that's my role. I'm not
23 an encyclopedia. If you -- if you want to know all those details, you
24 know, go to Google or consult some -- some big encyclopaedic source. I'm
25 not an encyclopedia. I'm an expert.
1 Q. You see, Mr. Oberschall, I'm an encyclopedia, a universal
2 encyclopedia, law, politics, sociology, physics, chemistry, mathematics,
3 psychology, even biology. I know it all. What I can do? I know it all.
4 Mr. Oberschall, as an expert you said that my political party --
5 MS. DAHL: Your Honour --
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There's no sense in this, Judge.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Dahl.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] To be interrupted all the time.
9 MS. DAHL: I'm sorry, I can only raise an objection when I get the
11 It is not proper cross-examination to boast about one's professed
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You said this already.
14 Mr. Seselj, you were talking about the 250 members of parliament
15 and you were asking the witness how many members of parliament were in the
16 SRS, came from SRS. It might be interesting for the Judges to know. So
17 just tell him: If I told you that there were so many -- that's how you
18 should ask the question. Otherwise, I'll never know the answer.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one person, I myself, nobody
20 else from the Serbian Radical Party was in the Serbian parliament, just
21 me. And there were 250 seats.
22 Now, an expert who doesn't know how many deputies we had claims
23 that we were highly influential in the country's political life. That
24 makes no sense at all. So that's why I asked my question, Judge, and
25 that's why I continue to challenge the credibility of this witness.
1 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Mr. Oberschall, let's now move on to your main report.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before moving to the report,
4 Mr. Seselj just said one thing. He said that he was alone in Parliament.
5 So being alone in Parliament, does that have any consequences as to the
6 power he may have in terms of decision-making? If you had known that,
7 would you have -- could this have changed anything?
8 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not sure that it's really true. I mean,
9 it's hard for me to believe that --
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Apart from the assumption that
11 it would be true. Maybe he's lying. But I don't see why he would lie
12 here, to the Bench.
13 So start from the assumption that he was alone in Parliament at
14 the time. What conclusions can you draw from this?
15 THE WITNESS: Okay. That -- the conclusion I draw is contingent.
16 If -- if -- if he's elected just from one constituency, I don't know, in
17 Belgrade or someplace with 20.000 votes going to the Radical Party and
18 he's a deputy, that's one thing. And -- you know, in 250 seats for the
19 whole of -- for the whole of Serbia, then that would not make him an
20 important political actor. But as far as I can tell, the Serb Radical
21 Party, his party, got several hundred thousand votes in -- in all of these
22 elections. I know that somewhat later he got -- he and his party got
23 about a million votes out of something like 3 or 4 million. So whether or
24 not you are alone as to represent your party if you've got 20 -- 20 per
25 cent of the total country's vote, it makes you an important political
1 actor, yes.
2 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Oberschall, in any research in the field of social sciences,
4 whether histriography, sociology, and even psychology, especially social
5 psychology, and so on and so forth, it is important to have certain time
6 coordinates. Isn't that right?
7 Now, I'm asking you what the force of my political party was on
8 the 6th of May, 1992. And you are telling me what happened in the coming
9 years, in the years to follow, how many votes we had.
10 In 1992, May, we just had one deputy.
11 MS. DAHL: Objection. Compound question. Mr. Seselj needs to ask
12 one question at a time and allow the witness to answer the question.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, please try to ask
14 short questions with -- that require short answers. Otherwise, if it's a
15 compound question, we're going to get lost.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, my question is a very simple
17 one. I am warning the witness. I am telling him to look at the time span
18 that he's talking about, the 6th of May, 1992, the Serbian Radical Party
19 had just one deputy in the Parliament of Serbia. In December 1992, it had
20 73. But that was seven months later. So I'm talking about the time in
21 which I advocated the deportation of the Croats.
22 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
23 Q. You state that we were a serious political factor in the political
24 life of Serbia, and I'm challenging that, and you don't have a single
25 argument to back up your assertions. Isn't that right? You don't even
1 know that we just had one deputy in the parliament.
2 MS. DAHL: Objection, Your Honour. This is a speech followed by,
3 I'm not sure what, Your Honour, but it's not proper cross-examination.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Seselj, your
5 question is too long. The question is a speech.
6 Let me tell you how the question should have been put to the
7 witness. This is what you should have asked the witness: During the May
8 election the SRS had one deputy. At the next election in December the SRS
9 obtained 73 seats. So now that you are making a judgement on the power of
10 the SRS, were you able to make a difference between May and December? And
11 if you had made a distinction between what was the case in May and what
12 was the case in December, would that have changed anything?
13 THE WITNESS: Well, there was a tremendous change, from 1 to 73.
14 I mean, it's -- that's a tremendous change in -- in terms of a 250-seat
15 Parliament. And, let me see, the ... And yes, I was not aware of the fact
16 that on the 6th of May, 1992 the Serb Radical Party had just one deputy,
17 Dr. Seselj. I didn't know that.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, allow me. Just a small
19 correction. I was elected at the additional elections into the Serbian
20 Parliament in June 1991, and until December 1992, I was the only MP from
21 my party to the Parliament of Serbia. However, in May 1992 the elections
22 were not into the Serbian Parliament; they were into the Federal
23 Parliament. I believe that this precision is needed.
24 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
25 Q. So at the time of the speech in Hrtkovci on which this entire
1 segment of the indictment is grounded, we had no more support than that.
2 Mr. Oberschall, you said you studied the events in Vojvodina. I
3 suppose you know the events in that territory well. Give me a direct
4 answer to this question: Were there any attacks on Croat civilian
5 population in Vojvodina?
6 A. I believe there were. The -- there was a report by
7 Tadeusz Mazowiecki who was working for the United Nations -- United
8 Nations agency looking at human rights and -- and other violations in --
9 in all of the former Yugoslavia, and several of those reports refer to
10 what was happening in the Vojvodina just about at this time, and there --
11 there are many examples there of -- of people threatened, of people
12 fleeing for their own safety, of -- you know, and other violations of
13 human rights, and that's -- that's all been very well documented. So I --
14 yes, that's what I've looked at.
15 Q. Mr. Oberschall --
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, we have to finish
17 for the day. It is indeed 2.30. The interpreters seem to have problems.
18 We shall resume tomorrow at 9.00 for you to complete the
19 examination-in-chief. You have used so far 2 hours and 35 or 40 minutes.
20 I don't know exactly now, but I'll tell you tomorrow first thing in the
22 We shall reconvene tomorrow at 9.00. The sitting is adjourned.
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.33 p.m.,
24 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 13th day of
25 December, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.