1 Wednesday, 16 January 2008
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 8.30 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, please call the
7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, and good morning, Your Honours. This
8 is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar. Good
10 morning to you, Ms. Dahl, to Mr. Seselj and to all the people in the
12 Before giving you the floor, Ms. Dahl, because I think you wanted
13 to say something, let me say two things. First, Mr. Seselj, you have now
14 available to you a fax and a telephone line. We're going to have a break
15 at 10.00, and then you'll have somebody who's going to explain the way it
16 works to you. We'll have a 30-minute break then because we were told we
17 need at least 30 minutes for all this to be done. This is what I wanted
18 to say first.
19 Secondly, as to the time for the examination-in-chief by the
20 Prosecution, we discussed this matter among Judges and we can now tell
21 you, Ms. Dahl, that you have already used up three hours. You get another
22 two hours. You'll have five hours in all. So in the two hours remaining
23 to you, if you wish to introduce new documents, please focus on them and
24 focus on what is essential. This is what I wanted to tell you.
25 You wanted to tell us something, didn't you?
1 MS. DAHL: Yes, Your Honour, I'd like to go into private session.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Private session, please.
3 MS. DAHL: I would like to -- oops.
4 [Private session]
11 Pages 2388-2404 redacted. Private session
1 [Open session]
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing is resumed. We're
3 in open session. I will give the floor to Mrs. Dahl for the
5 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, I would like to present the witness with
6 his 89(F) statement from 2006 so that I can preserve the record in the
7 event that we are permitted to appeal the decision on the Prosecution's
8 consolidated motion regarding witness statements. There's prerequisites
9 for the admission, and I'd like to begin by satisfying that. I wanted to
10 like to let you know, in light of the discussion yesterday about using the
11 statement, that I would be doing that. So I would like the registrar to
12 bring up the 89(F) statement.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President --
14 MS. DAHL: It's document number 07044.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I oppose this attempt made by the
17 Prosecution because this is not the statement that was written by
18 Mr. Stoparic. This is a statement that was written by OTP officials and
19 it was just handed over to him to sign. Now the Prosecution would like to
20 suggest things in different ways, to lead a witness through the statement
21 and to make him confirm what is stated there, while a witness should
22 testify only extemporaneously unless he took notes during the course of
23 the war. He should give answers from his own head, not on the basis of a
24 statement taken by the Prosecution.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
1 continues]... independently of what Mr. Seselj just said. When you -- at
2 line 23 when you talked about the statement -- 89(F) statement I was
3 wondering what you were talking about and what you were looking for
4 exactly. Let me explain exactly.
5 The Trial Chamber issued a decision according to which we would
6 have a viva voce procedure. You're asking questions, the witness answers
7 the questions. As a consequence of this, the statement is not admitted in
8 the framework of this procedure. Of course later on you can submit a
9 motion saying that in the interests of justice this statement should be
10 admitted, but you can do this only afterwards. However, you are entitled,
11 and I told you this yesterday, this is in accordance with the case law of
12 the Appeals Chamber, you can submit a -- you can present the
13 declaration -- the --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You can present the statement to
16 the witness in order to refresh his memory. You may think that his memory
17 is not very good and then in order to refresh his memory show him the
18 statement and say, Look at paragraph X, you signed the document, you said
19 it was accurate at the time, and I would now like to know whether you can
20 give us explanations on this.
21 Now, as far as I'm concerned, and I don't know exactly what my
22 fellow Judges think regarding this issue because we did not consult, but
23 as far as I'm concerned, it's out of the question that this statement be
24 admitted according to Rule 89(F). This is my position. Of course you may
25 show the statement to the witness telling him, On such and such year you
1 said this and what would you say now. You can do this. This is as far as
2 you can go.
3 Now, regarding what Mr. Seselj says, the fact that he raises an
4 objection and he's against the admission because the statement was made by
5 the OTP, well, this is not enough. It is true that it is the investigator
6 who drafted the statement, but the statement has been signed and by
7 signing the document the witness certified and authentified what was in
8 the statement. In any investigation the witness is told what -- is read
9 back his statement in his own language. So this is my answer.
10 Mrs. Dahl, you may display the statement on the screen and you may
11 ask him your question relating to a specific paragraph.
12 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, what I would like to do is demonstrate the
13 satisfaction of the prerequisites under Rule 92 ter (A)(iii) so that in
14 the event we are permitted an interlocutory appeal of the decision that
15 the requirements under the rule for admission of the document have been
16 met while the witness is here and it's foundational questions that I want
17 to put to him to demonstrate whether -- it's to preserve the issue --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Dahl, let me answer.
19 Article -- Rule 92 ter as it is was introduced during a plenary assembly
20 at my request. I am the father, if I could say so, of this 92 ter rule,
21 so I know about this. Now, regarding 92 ter (A), the trial may admit,
22 there is a "may" here, so it has discretion here and it can use its
23 discretion, and the Appeals Chamber has nothing to do about this. So
24 you're talking about the Appeals Chamber, but the Trial Chamber may
25 with -- at its discretion do what it wants.
1 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I would like to add that 92 ter
2 does not involve a viva voce witness for which there's an
3 examination-in-chief. The only thing you can do with Rule 92 ter is ask
4 questions just to explain some details. So it is a completely different
5 situation than the one we have here. Therefore, I don't believe that Rule
6 92 ter could be applied here.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Dahl, please resume.
8 MS. DAHL: Is it the Chamber's ruling that I may not ask the
9 foundational questions of the witness regarding his attestation of this
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You may ask questions on the
12 statement in order to refresh his memory. Yesterday for three hours you
13 asked a number of questions, and according to the answers given you noted
14 that there were some changes maybe in the answer given in relation to what
15 had been signed in the statement at the time. So there on these matters
16 you may ask new questions with this statement, but only to refresh the
17 memory of the witness. However, if you would like to deal with topics
18 that are in the written statement, for example, with the Skorpions without
19 showing the written statement, you can do this, of course, that's an
20 in-chief, that's an examination-in-chief per se.
21 MS. DAHL: I would note that it's our submission that the scope of
22 examination allowed when a witness statement is admitted under Rule 92 ter
23 allows a witness to also testify in viva voce and that that rule has been
24 applied in that manner in this Tribunal with some variations and
25 consistencies, and I understand that's a point of disagreement by the
1 Bench and you've ruled that I should not attempt to qualify the statement
2 for admission under Rule 92 ter.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sorry, I don't think this is what we have said,
4 and I think we stand united in the Presiding Judge's observations. This
5 is -- the question that you have raised is the question of the admission
6 of the statement as such. As far as questions relating to the foundation,
7 if there are any inconsistencies between what the witness has previously
8 stated in his statement and what he testified yesterday, then you may
9 clarify these questions, but other than that, admission of the statement
10 as such is out of the question.
11 MS. DAHL: I understand that. I want to make sure that if that
12 decision is overturned that I am not left in the position of having failed
13 to demonstrate the foundational requirements for admission so that at a
14 later point in time the statement can be considered as evidence in the
15 case in chief.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If the Appeals Chamber
17 eventually said you were right - it may happen, who knows - then you could
18 always ask the witness to come back and ask him questions on the
19 foundation if you're granted -- your motion is granted by the Appeals
20 Chamber. But all three Judges explained their opinion and they are all --
21 they're all agreeing. This written statement cannot be admitted.
22 MS. DAHL: I understand that and I'm not presently seeking its
23 admission. I'm simply trying to lay the foundation so that I can satisfy
24 the requirements if that request is made at the conclusion of his
25 testimony, for instance, because I fear that the effect of the ruling
1 limiting the amount of time that I have to examine the witness will
2 preclude me from going through all of the documents that he has commented
3 on and which are attached to this statement to allow the admission of
4 those documents.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, I don't really want to
6 give you any advice, but it is true that I was a Prosecutor at one point
7 in my life, but technically things are very simple. If you want to deal
8 with a specific topic, ask him a question on this topic. Say, Sir, you
9 were here at this moment, what happened, tell us? And then you have your
10 answer. And then you show your document and say, Well, I'm going to show
11 you a document and so forth and so on. This is the way to proceed.
12 MS. DAHL: We have the document on the screen presently and
13 we're -- this is ...
14 WITNESS: GORAN STOPARIC [Resumed]
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 Examination by Ms. Dahl: [Continued]
17 Q. Mr. Stoparic, can you identify the document on the screen, it's
18 Exhibit 07044?
19 A. I see the first page of something here that is supposed to be my
21 Q. Looking on that, do you see your initials at the bottom of the
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And let me ask you to turn -- the registrar to turn to page
25 number -- it's the ERN 06031374, and I'll give you the e-court number in a
1 minute, page 39 in e-court in the B/C/S version. It's page 34 in the
2 English version.
3 Is that your signature?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did you review the document before signing it?
6 A. I probably did.
7 Q. You don't recall whether you reviewed it?
8 A. I didn't say that I don't recall. I'm saying that since I signed
9 it, it was probably read out to me or I read it myself.
10 Q. Can you look through and indicate whether your initials appear on
11 the bottom of every page? I'll give you the paper copy to allow you to
12 review that.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge. Judges, Ms. Christine Dahl
14 is not following your instructions at all. It seems that she wants to
15 cross-examine the witness now. She is not entitled to cross-examine the
16 witness. If I understood your instructions correctly, she is supposed to
17 put questions; and if she's not satisfied with the answer, then perhaps
18 she can remind the witness that he had also said something else or that he
19 had said something different. What she is doing now is cross-examining
20 the witness. Who knows what kind of a state the witness was in when he
21 signed this piece of paper? His signature on this paper doesn't mean a
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Your objection is overruled,
24 Mr. Seselj. We have a list of documents, exhibits, starting with number
25 733, which is a video which was shown to the witness. And in the last
1 column regarding this video I say, I recognise volunteer, person I cannot
2 name, don't remember the name. So there are documents that he has seen
3 and recognised, and on the right-hand side -- right-hand column we have
4 the position of the witness regarding a number of documents. For example,
5 for this video 733 he says, I recognised the Chetnik flag without
6 precluding the -- Mrs. Dahl is just asking the witness whether he has
7 recognised the documents.
8 You can continue, Mrs. Dahl.
9 MS. DAHL:
10 Q. Let me return to my question and ask Mr. Stoparic to please look
11 at the document and confirm that his initials appear at the bottom of each
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please answer.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I recognise my initials. I am
15 familiar with this document.
16 MS. DAHL:
17 Q. Let me ask you to turn to the chart that's below your signature
18 line that lists videos, photographs, and then followed by exhibits.
19 MS. DAHL: It's at page 40 in e-court, page 35 in English.
20 I would note, for the record, that this table was created with
21 exhibit numbers applied before the Pre-Trial Judge required a re-numbering
22 of the 65 ter exhibits. I've prepared in the Court binder a table that
23 includes the old number and the new number to assist. I didn't consider I
24 should change the original document, but I did create a sheet for you to
25 see which is which, and I can reproduce the chart for you if you want to
1 use it with the new exhibit numbers separately. That is included as the
2 witness statement in the annex to our consolidated motion. It includes
3 the reference key for the different exhibits.
4 Q. In preparing the table of exhibits, were you shown these
5 documents, including the videos and the photographs listed in the chart?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Are the comments on the far right-hand column your comments about
8 the documents, videos, and photographs?
9 A. Well, I can't really take up that much time now. I can't read
10 each and every one of these comments before I have a look through the
11 entire document, but these should be my comments in relation to the
12 documents that the investigators showed me. Most of the documents are
13 documents that I then saw for the first time in my life. Yes, well, it
14 should be my comments. I can't really read all of them now.
15 Q. Is there anything that you're looking at now that makes you think
16 that something was put in there that wasn't your comment?
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl, there are many
18 documents. You could select out of them some that could be submitted to
19 the witness and you could ask questions on them.
20 MS. DAHL: That's what I'm turning to, Your Honour. I just wanted
21 to make sure that there wasn't an insinuation that we had somehow put a
22 comment that we ascribed to him that he didn't actually make. And in
23 answering my question the witness said "probably." So I want him to
24 confirm that he's had an opportunity to look at this chart and that it
25 accurately reflects the comments that he made about the documents.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, I have an objection. An
2 examination-in-chief cannot be carried out in this way. First of all, the
3 Prosecutor has to show the witness each and every one of these documents
4 in the courtroom once again and then we have to hear his comments. Then
5 if the witness gives a comment that is different from the one he had given
6 previously, then the Prosecutor can jog his memory rather than say en bloc
7 there are many pages here, is this yours, how can he --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That's what the Prosecutor is
9 going to do. She's going to submit documents. So wait for her to do her
10 job. She's going to submit documents.
11 MS. DAHL: So can I ask the witness to answer my question, please.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So before the documents are you
13 submitted to you, Witness, you can answer the question.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can remember, the
15 question was whether what we see here are my comments in relation to
16 certain documents, and I said I assume that that is the case because I
17 cannot read each and every one of them individually now, it would take up
18 a lot of time. I have no reason to doubt that these are my comments.
19 MS. DAHL: Let me ask the witness to turn to 65 ter Exhibit Number
20 00657. It should be displayed on the screen.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In your binder which tab is it
22 under or under -- what is the number of that document?
23 MS. DAHL: It's at tab 9, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
25 MS. DAHL:
1 Q. Can you tell me what this document is, please.
2 A. It's hard to read it on this.
3 MS. DAHL: Can I ask the registrar to zoom out a little bit so the
4 witness can see the entire document including the seal and the signature.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I believe you have this
6 document in the binder. Mr. Usher's going to help you, because this
7 document we see on our screens is also in the binder. So it is tab 9,
8 Mr. Usher.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it's much better this way.
10 I've read it.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please put the question.
12 MS. DAHL:
13 Q. What is the document? Let me start by -- who signed it?
14 A. Mr. Ljubisa Petkovic signed it.
15 Q. What's the date of the document?
16 A. The 9th of November, 1991.
17 Q. And to whom is the document addressed?
18 A. To the commander of the Leva Supoderica Detachment.
19 Q. What is the request being -- the direction being given by the
20 author of the document to the commander?
21 A. It says that all the volunteers sent by the Serbian Radical Party
22 are being put under your command, that is the commander to whom the letter
23 is addressed or the document, the commander of the volunteers is Slobodan
24 Katic from Belgrade, who is an experienced fighter. He has been appointed
25 their leader.
1 Q. Is that the same Slobodan Katic that you mentioned in your
2 testimony yesterday?
3 A. I know only one Slobodan Katic, yes, that's him.
4 Q. And what is the agency or the organization that sent the letter?
5 A. This letter was sent by the War Staff of the Serb Radical Party,
6 and the signatory is the chief of the War Staff, Ljubisa Petkovic.
7 There's also a note here which says: "The letter should be read out loud
8 in front of all the fighters."
9 Q. Is there a seal on the document?
10 A. Yes, it's the seal of the Serb Radical Party, or rather, the Main
11 Staff of the Serbian Radical Party.
12 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, do you wish me to move the documents into
13 evidence as we proceed or do you want me to wait until the end?
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment. Yes, you can, but I
15 have a question of the witness because this is a very crucial document
16 which is part of your pre-trial brief as being one exhibit in support of
17 your case. Therefore, this is worthy of a very thorough examination. I
18 have, therefore, very specific questions for the witness on this
19 document. As you said, it is addressed to the commander of the Leva
20 Supoderica Detachment. The title is very clear because it
21 says: "Commander." In this document it is explained that Mr. Katic is an
22 experienced soldier from Belgrade is appointed commander of volunteers
23 in -- of the volunteers in Vukovar. I'm going to put a very specific and
24 technical question.
25 This commander of the volunteers, in your view, is he the
1 commander of the group of volunteers from Vukovar? Is he going to be the
2 commander or is he going to be the commander of the unit, of the Leva
3 Supoderica unit?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Judge, sir, you're referring to the
5 new commander, the experienced fighter Slobodan Katic, who is being
6 nominated as the commander, he's being proposed.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is suggested that he should
8 be the new commander of the Leva Supoderica Detachment. Is that the way
9 you understood it?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The letter is addressed to the
11 current commander of the Leva Supoderica Detachment and the recommendation
12 is that a man is being sent who is to be appointed commander of the
13 volunteers in the Vukovar TO. It doesn't have to mean that he should be
14 the commander of the Leva Supoderica Detachment. There were other
15 volunteers within the TO.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You already gave an answer to my
17 question. He is going to be appointed commander of the volunteers of the
18 Vukovar TO.
19 Second technical question: In the second paragraph --
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, sir, I have an objection --
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Mr. Seselj. There
22 can be no objection when a question is put by a Judge, that's the first
23 thing. Secondly, as part of the cross-examination you'll have the
24 opportunity to come back to this issue. The witness has just told us that
25 Slobodan Katic, in his view - he may be wrong but that's what he says - is
1 hereby being appointed of the -- as commander of the volunteers of the TO
2 in Vukovar. If you don't agree with this, when you cross-examine him you
3 can raise questions on this.
4 Second question I want to put. I see the second paragraph that
5 Mr. Vakic from Nis is going to be appointed the commander of the
6 volunteers from Nis. Is this the way things happened?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It says here, Your Honour, that he
8 will be appointed platoon commander or platoon leader of the volunteers
9 from Nis, so he's not going to be the detachment commander but, rather, a
10 platoon commander.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Fourth paragraph, this is
12 of particular interest to me. Indeed this War Staff of the Serbian
13 Radical Party states that the commander of this unit is to issue to all
14 volunteers a certificate, and everything is described. We should have the
15 date the person enters the unit, et cetera. This procedure as described
16 in the fourth paragraph, was it applied?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's the normal procedure.
18 Without this certificate, a participant in the war operations cannot prove
19 that he was a participant. He needs it if he's wounded, he needs it to
20 get his salary or to prove that he's a war invalid.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, do you have a mention of
22 this certificate in the military booklet - we saw an example of that
23 through yours - or is it to be found in another document?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It has the same purpose. The
25 military booklet has only four columns and they were not sufficient. The
1 certificate had the same significance as the stamp in the war booklet in
2 war. It's proof that a certain person spent a certain period of time in
3 that unit.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can you explain to me why in
5 your military booklet we see nothing about Vukovar in your case? Because
6 you were in Vukovar, you may have participated in combat action. How is
7 it that there is no mention of it in your military booklet?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I received a
9 certificate issued to me by a major, and his name eludes me at the moment,
10 in Velepromet with the approval of the commander of Leva Supoderica saying
11 that from such and such a date to such and such date I was a member of
12 Leva Supoderica within the 1st Guards Brigade. At one point the technical
13 service of the 1st Guards Brigade brought salaries to Vukovar and
14 distributed them to the fighters, but many of us were on leave at that
15 time. So when the salaries were distributed they didn't leave the rest of
16 the money there, they sent it back to Belgrade. On one occasion about a
17 month and a half after that I happened to be in Belgrade, so I dropped in
18 in the barracks in Topcider. I went to the command of the guards
19 brigade. I asked for Captain Radic and Zirojevic. Zirojevic was there,
20 he took me to an officer who was in charge of these technical matters, and
21 he issued to me the salary that I earned in Vukovar, but I had to leave
22 that certificate with him as proof.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
24 continues]... ask questions before I give the floor back to Ms. Dahl. In
25 this document it can be seen that the commander of the Nis section has
1 been suggested as -- was suggested to the commander of the detachment to
2 be appointed as a commander of the Nis platoon. As far as you are
3 concerned, was there a similar document made out for you asking for the --
4 or asking of the detachment commander for you to be appointed a platoon
5 leader? It may be so, it may not be, I don't know. What do you think?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yesterday I think I explained how I
7 became a platoon commander. On my arrival in Vukovar and joining the Leva
8 Supoderica Detachment I was already a squad leader or squad commander.
9 After the first action we had in Vukovar when my platoon commander
10 disappeared in that action, he went missing, I assume he was captured and
11 killed. He was a lieutenant. And then at the proposal of my fellow
12 soldiers in the platoon, I was appointed platoon commander.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
14 continues]... very last question which will encapsulate the whole issue,
15 the whole problem. In this Leva Supoderica Detachment there were various
16 platoons, you were heading one of them. With regard to the volunteers, as
17 far as you know, were all platoon commanders appointed upon this being
18 proposed by the SRS War Staff or were there situations such as yours, for
19 instance, in which a platoon commander would be appointed by other -- by
20 the other soldiers? Because, for instance, a sergeant disappeared, which
21 was your case, without any intervention by the SRS, by the Serbian Radical
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my personal opinion is,
24 and I'm most convinced, that the War Staff and the Serb Radical Party did
25 not concern itself with who would be a squad or a platoon leader. They
1 could nominate a commander, but it was his problem how he would organize
2 his unit, what people he would replace, dismiss, or promote, and this is a
3 proposal. Probably this man had certain merits and he was being proposed,
4 but it was not the usual practice for a squad or platoon leader to be
5 nominated by the War Staff.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
7 continues]... in this time, Ms. Dahl, but this document which is part --
8 or is mentioned in your pre-trial brief really deserved being looked into.
9 MS. DAHL: May I tender the document into evidence, please?
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] With regard to the admission,
11 the registrar is first going to give a number for the booklet, yesterday's
12 booklet, and then we'll have a number for this document. And if this way
13 of going about it turns out to be too complicated, we'll do it otherwise.
14 Two numbers, first for the military booklet and then for this document.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, sir, I have an objection. I
16 think that not a single document can be entered into the file and admitted
17 into evidence until the examination is over because the witness has now
18 only expressed his opinion on the contents of the document but he has not
19 confirmed its authenticity or told you that he has ever seen it, so I
20 think Your Honours have to wait for the cross-examination in order to see
21 whether the document may be admitted into evidence or not.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber has now
23 decided a number will be given if after the cross-examination or during it
24 you think that there is no probative value, that it is a forged document,
25 you may ask for the document to be removed, but it's going to be given a
1 number for the time being. And you're right, you will cross-examine, and
2 if you think that this document should not be admitted you can say so
3 then. But provisionally speaking, since this document has been submitted
4 to the witness, it can be given a number.
5 So two numbers for the registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honours. The 65 ter number,
7 number 32, that's the military booklet, will be MFI P22 and the current
8 document will be MFI P23.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed.
10 MS. DAHL:
11 Q. Was Slobodan Katic a Chetnik commander?
12 A. One might say that he was, yes. Well, a Chetnik commander, a
13 commander of volunteers.
14 Q. Okay. Let me ask that we turn next to tab 16 in the Court binder,
15 65 ter number 00764. I'll ask that the registrar give the witness a paper
16 copy for ease of reference.
17 With reference to 65 ter number 764, can you determine from the
18 face of the document who issued it or which agency -- I'm sorry, which
19 agency issued it.
20 A. It says here it was issued by the Serbian Radical Party and signed
21 by the chief Ljubisa Petkovic. I believe he was the chief of the War
22 Staff or Crisis Staff, whatever it was called.
23 Q. Is there a seal from the Serbian Radical Party on the document?
24 A. Yes, yes.
25 Q. What's the date of the document?
1 A. The 5th of December, 1991. Yes.
2 Q. Can you tell me whether this is a -- what this list is?
3 A. As far as I can see, it's a list of men, volunteers, with their
4 date of birth, place of birth, occupation, from when they were engaged in
5 the Territorial Defence, and what duty they performed there.
6 Q. Do you recognise whether or not it is a list of War Staff
7 members? Take a look at the names of the individuals who are listed. And
8 I'd like to ask you to answer that based on your knowledge of these
10 A. Ljubisa Petkovic, son of Dusan, he was in the War Staff, but,
11 Madam Prosecutor, I have tell you that I don't know who the members of the
12 War Staff were. I don't know what their names were. I know about Ljubisa
13 Petkovic and Zoran Drazilovic. As for the others, they may have been
14 added on or replaced but I couldn't tell you. I can't look at this list
15 and say, Yes, these are the members of the War Staff of the Serb Radical
16 Party except for Ljubisa Petkovic.
17 Q. Will you familiar with documents issued by the Radical Party's War
18 Staff during the war?
19 A. On several occasions I did see something, some documents in
20 Kameni's staff, but they were either -- they referred either to prizes to
21 be given or to proposals of some sort. I never felt that the War Staff
22 was duty-bound to issue orders ordering war actions. I don't think they
23 had the right to do that. I don't think they could do that, propose to us
24 how we should behave. They might, for example, collect some help we
25 needed, cigarettes, underwear, and such-like, things we couldn't get on
1 time from the JNA. I saw some trivial documents of that kind, but I don't
2 remember them in detail. Madam Prosecutor, I never entered into any kind
3 of conflict with my commander and I never dabbled in matters that were
4 none of my business, so I couldn't tell you.
5 Q. What kinds of activities did the War Staff organize with respect
6 to volunteers?
7 A. What I know is that they organized gathering volunteers and
8 sending them on to a JNA unit. If we're talking about 1991 and Vukovar,
9 then to Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem under the command of a JNA
10 unit or brigade which was there on that terrain. Many people from
11 Republika Srpska, and later on from Croatia or the Krajina, applied.
12 Local commanders could do that. I saw some of your documents which show
13 this, so they could organize us, send us out into the war theatre, and
14 while we were there they could send us assistance. They could also give
15 us legal assistance if we were wounded, if we had any problems in claiming
16 our rights from a hospital or somewhere, they could help us to solve the
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, while listening to you
19 I have a problem with this document, and I'm going to ask you about it.
20 Your answer's important. There's a list of people, you only know two of
21 them, Petkovic and Drazilovic, fine. But while looking at this list of
22 people, I note that this is a list that seems to come from the Serbian
23 Radical Party. Now, when I see the qualifications of people, I see that
24 Mr. Petkovic has been part of the Territorial Defence of Western Slavonia
25 since October 25, 1991, and then in brackets it says "(Chief of War
1 Staff)." Very well. It's the same for all the others, they all belong to
2 the Western Slavonia Territorial Defence. This is what is written on this
4 Here's my question: According to you, is this a list of people
5 who are part of the War Staff of the Serb Radical Party that have
6 positions within this party or is it a list of people who are part of the
7 Western Slavonia Territorial Defence who may also be member of the Serb
8 Radical Party, with the specific point being that the number one seemed to
9 be the Chief of the War Staff and also is from the Radical Party. So how
10 do you interpret this document exactly?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It says quite clearly in this
12 document all the details there, first name, last name, father's name, date
13 and place of birth, civilian occupation, and then it says: "In the
14 Territorial Defence since the 25th of October, 1991," I'm referring to
15 Mr. Ljubisa Petkovic, and then in brackets it says: "(Chief of War
16 Staff)," so what duty he performed in the War Staff, but for each one it
17 says here when they joined the Territorial Defence of Western Slavonia or
18 it says here just Slavonia. So they may have participated in the
19 Territorial Defence but it says here only when they joined and it doesn't
20 say until when.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
22 Mrs. Dahl.
23 MS. DAHL: [Microphone not activated].
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, we need an MFI document --
1 MFI number for this document.
2 THE REGISTRAR: [Previous translation continues]...
3 MS. DAHL: [Microphone not activated].
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, counsel.
5 MS. DAHL: I would like to turn to what's in the court binder.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you please
7 repeat the number because it was not recorded.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, MFI P24.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, for your
10 information, number MFI P24 is a provisional number. After the
11 cross-examination this number may become final, depending on what will be
12 said and depending on the Trial Chamber's decision.
13 Mrs. Dahl --
14 MS. DAHL: Your Honour --
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may, briefly. I'm afraid there
16 might be some confusion. This document mentions Western Slavonia. This
17 witness was in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem. These are two
18 territories several hundred kilometres distant from each other. This
19 witness was not in Western Slavonia. I'm just saying this to avoid
20 confusion. You may do what you like about it.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You can look into
22 this during your cross-examination.
23 Mrs. Dahl, please resume.
24 MS. DAHL: I would just like to point out that we will have other
25 witnesses who can discuss the content of the document.
1 I'd like to turn next to what is in Court binder at tab number 17,
2 that's 65 ter number 770, and I'll hand the witness a paper copy.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I didn't hear the tab number.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Tab 17.
5 Mrs. Dahl.
6 MS. DAHL:
7 Q. Mr. Stoparic, can you take a look at the document and tell me what
8 it is?
9 A. Here we see a request by the Chetnik commander of Vukovar,
10 Slobodan Katic, from Zemun addressed to the Chief of the War Staff,
11 Ljubisa Petkovic, and he is proposing that certain people be promoted.
12 Reading this list it says: To the commander of -- Milan Lancuzanin,
13 a.k.a., Kameni; Predrag Milojevic, commander of the 1st Assault Platoon;
14 Milosav -- Milovan Tomic - I know this man, he arrived after the fall of
15 Vukovar, but he asked for this promotion - "Vujovic Miroljub," who was not
16 a member of Leva Supoderica, he was the commander of the Territorial
17 Defence of Vukovar, and it says so here. Then Stanko Vujanovic, chief of
18 TO in Vukovar. In other words, he's proposing that these people be
19 promoted or rewarded in some way. They were not all members, either of
20 the Radical Party or of Leva Supoderica. So in my view it's quite normal
21 for Katic to make this proposal.
22 Q. What's the date of this document?
23 A. Just a moment. The 9th of December, 1991, yes, Vukovar was
24 already in our hands there, it had already fallen.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have an objection. For the sake
1 of the public, the contents of the document have to be made public. It
2 says here that Katic is asking Ljubisa Petkovic to propose to someone, it
3 doesn't say to whom, but it should be said precisely for the sake of the
4 public. He's asking that Ljubisa Petkovic propose. It's not Katic who's
5 making the proposal.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I had noticed this.
7 Witness, please, this document bears a stamp coming from the
8 Vukovar municipal Territorial Defence. We agree. This is not a document
9 coming from the Serb Radical Party. Secondly, I notice that Mr. Slobodan
10 Katic seems to be the captain -- seems to be a captain within the
11 Territorial Defence of Vukovar, and he's asking Petkovic and Rankic to
12 promote a number of people. Is this how this document should be
13 interpreted? Unless I'm wrong.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right, that's right.
15 Slobodan Katic informs -- or rather, he proposes to Ljubisa Petkovic that
16 Ljubisa Petkovic propose further on at higher instances these particular
17 persons for a promotion.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This seems to mean
19 that all these people, Lancuzanin, Tomic, Milojevic, and so on, are people
20 who belong to the Territorial Defence of Vukovar?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by the date we can see
22 that Vukovar had already fallen. After the fall of Vukovar the 1st Guards
23 Brigade withdrew from Vukovar and the Leva Supoderica Detachment was
24 disbanded. The manpower who were from Serbia were returned to their homes
25 or perhaps sent further on to other territories for war operations, and he
1 with the rest of this detachment of Leva Supoderica was attached to the
2 Territorial Defence of Vukovar.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So the added value
4 you're providing us is that Vukovar fell -- had fallen at the time and
5 that the situation as it is after December 9, 1991. Thank you.
6 MS. DAHL:
7 Q. To whom would Mr. Petkovic or Mr. Rankic propose these individuals
8 for promotion?
9 A. If these people were supposed to be promoted in terms of military
10 rank, then probably with the representatives of the Yugoslav People's
11 Army, they would submit a proposal to the representatives of the Yugoslav
12 People's Army. I don't see who else. Who else can give them a military
13 rank? Who else can promote them except the JNA or the Territorial
15 Q. What's your understanding of the role or authority of a Chetnik
16 commander in Vukovar?
17 A. You see, this was typed out by Mr. Slobodan Katic. He himself
18 calls himself a Chetnik commander and a captain for Vukovar. I doubt that
19 he has a particular document stating that Chetnik commander, captain for
20 Vukovar, and Vukovar is not such a small town to have a captain heading
21 it. He calls himself a Chetnik commander, captain. He considers himself
22 that, but believe me that in terms of official procedures, nobody would
23 have written this that way. He's simply writing it that way because he's
24 sending this letter to Ljubisa Petkovic in the War Staff and, quite
25 simply, this is the way the man writes this. He calls himself a Chetnik
1 commander, captain for the town of Vukovar, which is not to say that that
2 was his position in Vukovar, the Chetnik commander. It's not that he had
3 a document stating something like that.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have a follow-up question
5 after Mrs. Dahl's question. As of -- at that date, who headed the TO of
6 Vukovar, do you know?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From this date, yes, the 9th of
8 December, 1991, I know of the commander during the war and after the war
9 of the TO -- I mean at least at first during the first two or three months
10 after the fall of Vukovar it was Miroljub Vujanovic -- Vujovic, Miroljub
11 Vujovic. I always confuse him and Stanko Vujanovic. Miroljub was the
12 commander of the Territorial Defence.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So tell us, if Mr. Miroljub
14 Vujovic was commander of the TO, why isn't he is charge of promoting the
15 people who are under his orders? Why does he have to go through Petkovic
16 for that? What presented Mr. Miroljub Vujovic from promoting X, Y, or Z?
17 And something that probably everybody noticed that Mr. Kameni ends up here
18 in the Territorial Defence. Since he is listed here as a person for which
19 a promotion is requested. So can you shed some light on this, please, or
20 isn't it the fact that the Leva Supoderica was just part and parcel of the
21 Territorial Defence?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Why commander Kameni is on the list
23 of the Territorial Defence, I explained that a few moments ago. At this
24 point in time we're talking about the 9th of December, 1991. At this time
25 there is no intensive fighting. Vukovar had been liberated. Kameni
1 disbands Leva Supoderica quite literally. People go back to Serbia,
2 people who were volunteers, and for the most part the volunteers were from
3 Serbia. They go home on vacation, even the 1st Guards Brigade withdraws
4 and Leva Supoderica no longer exists as such. They join and he himself is
5 duty-bound to join the Territorial Defence of Vukovar. I don't find
6 anything strange there. There is no longer a war, he is no longer within
7 the 1st Guards Brigade and he is not the commander of Leva Supoderica, he
8 is with the Territorial Defence now.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. For the transcript,
10 as of December 9, 1991, following the fall of Vukovar, the Leva Supoderica
11 Detachment was disbanded, people who were part of it go elsewhere, which
12 is why Kameni then ends up in the Vukovar Territorial Defence. This is
13 how you interpret the situation?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This date is not the date when Leva
15 Supoderica was disbanded; that happened before. These people went home
16 before that. Milan Lancuzanin --
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When was it disbanded, if you
18 remember, please?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Immediately after the fall of
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
22 Mrs. Dahl --
23 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Microphone not activated].
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
25 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a question. After this
1 disbandment, the TO still existed?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course. Combat operations are
3 still taking place, but not in town, outside town.
4 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] But the Territorial Defence is
5 under command -- the command of the JNA?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] While the JNA was there, yes, yes,
7 it was under the command of the JNA.
8 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Dahl, you may resume.
10 MS. DAHL:
11 Q. To your knowledge, did Commander Katic come from Belgrade with SRS
13 A. Yes, but at this point in time he voluntarily stays in the
14 Territorial Defence of Vukovar. That is the way it seems.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This issue of volunteers, it
16 really is heart of the matter. You did your military service in the JNA,
17 you were an officer, apparently you had some responsibilities, even if it
18 was at a limited level. You are the first witness, there may be others,
19 but since you are the first witness I'm going to raise the question with
21 In 1991, back then, the status of people like you, what was it?
22 Was it that they had because of problems connected with the events and the
23 war, did they have to be in the army or could you be a civilian without
24 necessarily being forced to be in the army? Or still were all civilians,
25 say from 18 to 65 years of age, could they all be called up as soldiers?
1 What can you say about this?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Civilians from the age of 18 -- no,
3 19, 20, up to the age of 50 could have been called up by the military or
4 they could have joined a unit voluntarily. However, that is only if they
5 were able-bodied for military service and if they had served their
6 military service while they were young. If a medical commission had
7 declared them incapable of --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So in your view, in 1991 all
9 civilians from 19 to 50 years of age could be called or drafted to serve
10 in the army. However, if they were not called they could be volunteers in
11 order to join the army, provided they met certain conditions. Is this how
12 the situation was back then?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Able-bodied military-aged men could
14 have been called up to the reserve force of the JNA or the TO or the
15 reserve police force. Also, they -- if they had not been called up and if
16 they feel they were needed to go out there to take part in the defence,
17 they could have volunteered to go there. That is how it functioned.
18 According to our constitution, that was quite legal.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So based on the constitution and
20 individuals aged 40 who had not been called up by the army was free to
21 stay at home, doing his business quietly, but for some unknown reason or
22 his own reason he could think that he would be a volunteer and join the
23 army. Is that so? Is that how the situation was?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that person could have become a
25 volunteer at any moment; however, there is another thing --
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, it's not that they could
2 become volunteers because that means that the one deciding to volunteer,
3 that carries an intention, a will. I'm asking about from the point of
4 view of the authorities, the military authorities or the political ones.
5 That's the relation between the authority, the political authority and the
6 citizens of the country. In 1991 was it so that the army could tell any
7 given citizen that they should join the army and then not call up the
8 individuals, but the so-called volunteers could of their own accord decide
9 to join the army, so turn to the army to say, I want to fight, I want to
10 be a volunteer. When I say "individuals," I mean men and women alike.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll give you a very simple
12 explanation now. I see where the problem lies. The army has its own
13 policy of recruitment and its own way of doing things, and they know when
14 they need or do not need smaller or larger groups of reservists. A
15 volunteer could be equal. There is no difference. One always
16 said "volunteers," a volunteer volunteered, whereas a reservist had been
17 called up. That's the only difference. Later on everything was
18 different. When taking in volunteers the organization that takes in this
19 volunteer is duty-bound to look at your military booklet to see the rubric
20 that is called collection point, that is to see whether in your military
21 booklet you have already been designated a reservist, whether you had been
22 designated a reservist but simply had not been called up yet. If you did
23 have a collection point, that is called war assignment, then you were not
24 accepted as a volunteer; however, a person who did not have a war
25 assignment could have joined the volunteers.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] My question was a very important
2 question, like all the questions I put. You now speak about the
3 reservists. This issue of the reservists, if you have a volunteer does he
4 or she become automatically a reservist? Meaning that they could be
5 called at any time to fight, could be called by the JNA or by the TO? So
6 there it is. Can you answer this question. And then if I understand you
7 properly if, for instance, this volunteer is a supporter of the Serbian
8 Radical Party, the SRS is going to check that that person has the status
9 of a reservist in order to trigger his assignment to a unit. Is that how
10 the system worked because this would have had a whole host of
11 consequences. So we has Judges must be very clear on this. Can you make
12 that more specific to me.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Yugoslav People's Army at any
14 point in time could carry out a mobilisation and get a certain number of
15 reservists for themselves that they would later on send out to various
16 assignments. People who had not been called up to join the reserve force
17 at that point in time and are able-bodied and are military conscripts,
18 they can have war assignments designated in their military booklets. They
19 should not volunteer because it is possible that they would be called up
20 at some point in time as reservists, so people who organized volunteers
21 and sent them likewise to the JNA always had a look at this. They checked
22 whether you as an individual had a war assignment; if you did, they could
23 not send you to the volunteer unit. Regardless of whether it's a
24 volunteer unit or not, it has identical rights and responsibilities like
25 reservists. If you look at military -- if you look at my military
1 booklet, you will see what my wartime assignment is. That is how it
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, I think that Ms. Dahl
4 listened to you carefully because what you said seems to me absolutely
6 Please proceed, Ms. Dahl. I was bound to address these issues
7 because they are at the very heart of the matter.
8 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, I welcome the questions from the Bench to
9 satisfy information needs that you might have, so I thank you.
10 Q. Could you discuss your decision to volunteer with the radicals and
11 how that came about?
12 A. When I became a member of the Leva Supoderica Detachment I was not
13 sent from Belgrade like some of the members of the Leva Supoderica
14 Detachment that had already been established by then. At first I
15 registered as a volunteer with the Territorial Defence of Slavonia,
16 Baranja, and Zapadni Srem, I took part in combat operations for two weeks,
17 and then I joined Leva Supoderica. I went to Belgrade, in Belgrade
18 Ljubisa Petkovic sent us to Bubanj Potok. In Bubanj Potok we were
19 trained, we were equipped, we had drills, we had target practice, and then
20 we were sent to the place where we would be engaged in combat operations.
21 If I understand you correctly, you asked me what led me to do
22 something like this. You see, I took part in the fighting in Vukovar with
23 the members of the volunteers of the Serb Radical Party. Although I'm a
24 witness here and although I mentioned the names of individuals who engaged
25 in deviant behaviour, those names cannot be added to the names of
1 honourable Serb soldiers. However, I have to tell you that an enormous
2 number of people were honourable, brave, courageous soldiers. And as we
3 say in Serbia, among wheat there is -- there are always some grains that
4 are not good. I mean, there can be some crazy men who did do some things
5 somewhere, but I cannot say that the Leva Supoderica Detachment did this
6 in an organized and constant fashion. These were individual cases that
7 led to these atrocious crimes. Also, these crimes were committed on the
8 other side. The Croats were no less -- well, all of it was the same.
9 So I trusted the people I fought with. I trusted Mr. Seselj in
10 the Serb Radical Party. I liked the programme. I liked their
11 presentation. I liked the programme, and I believed, like the Serb
12 Radical Party programme believed, that we should defend our interests and
13 everything; that's why I joined.
14 Q. Who was in control of Bubanj Potok and provided the training you
15 just mentioned?
16 A. Bubanj Potok was always under the control of the JNA. Later on
17 the Army of Yugoslavia, now the Army of Serbia. This was a military
18 facility, it was under the control of a brigade commander who was in
19 charge of that facility or I don't know who. As for training and
20 equipment, it was the JNA officers who trained and equipped us there.
21 Q. Before you volunteered with the Territorial Defence, you attended
22 the rally by Dr. Seselj in Sid; am I understanding correctly?
23 A. I said that I attended this rally at a football stadium, but I
24 also said that I don't know whether it was beforehand or afterwards. It
25 was a long time ago. Now, was it before I had already taken part in the
1 war or after I had taken part in the war, I really -- well, I think I've
2 told you many times that I have a problem with dates and, quite simply, I
3 do not remember them.
4 Q. Well, let me ask you to look at paragraph 55 of your 2006
5 statement so that you can refresh your recollection. It's at -- I'll pass
6 you the paper copy for your convenience. It's 65 ter number 7044,
7 paragraph 55.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Does that refresh your recollection about when you attended the
11 A. I've already said that it was the summer of 1991. That is to say
12 that that's what I said then, but I still cannot assert that that is
13 absolutely correct.
14 Q. Do you recall the speech that Mr. Seselj made?
15 A. At that time Mr. Seselj made a speech -- it was always the same
16 one, regardless of whether it was held in Sid or in Krusevac. At that
17 moment it was based on the social-political situation that we had, that
18 there was an imminent threat of war, the war had already started or had
19 already started, and then the HDZ, the Croatian democratic community --
20 well, during those several months it was identical, regardless of where it
21 was held. We've already discussed this paragraph. We've talked about it
22 with you.
23 Q. Did Mr. Seselj advocate a solution for the residents of Croatian
25 A. In what sense? That they should leave Serbia?
1 Q. Was he making suggestions about expelling Croats?
2 A. At that moment he did use some similar terms, but at that moment
3 he had to -- well, didn't have to, but he said that and there was an
4 enormous number of refugees in Serbia by then. I cannot quote Mr.
5 Seselj. Later on he did advocate some principles of retortion, but I
6 cannot --
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Apparently you are somebody who
8 listened to Dr. Seselj's speech. We'll see other videos, but that's not
9 the issue right now. You were there during the summer of 1991 in this
10 village of Kukujevci, sorry if I don't pronounce properly. Could you tell
11 the Judges whether based on your memory -- what was the tenor, the
12 contents of the speech? What did he say precisely? What is your
13 recollection of what he said?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you've just said that
15 it was the village of Kukujevci in the summer of 1991. He was not in the
16 village of Kukujevci in the summer of 1991, he was there much later. He
17 visited the village of Kukujevci I think that when the war in Croatia was
18 already over or there was some kind of stagnation at a particular level
19 but --
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
21 continues]... did you hear a speech by Mr. Seselj? Say yes or no.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what I'm trying to tell
23 you, that I heard about this in Kukujevci.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When was it exactly?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Was it a speech made as part of
2 a political campaign or as part of another setting?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Possibly it might have been within
4 presidential elections or something else. Quite simply, the village of
5 Kukujevci was in -- was of interest because there had been an exchange
6 carried out. People who lived in Kukujevci had exchanged their houses or
7 apartments with Serbs from Croatia. That was a good example of
8 Croatians -- Croats having exchanged their houses.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Try and tell us -- well, 1991, I
10 would not be able to recall anything that was said by somebody in 1991,
11 but maybe your memory's better than mine. Try to tell us what struck you
12 in Mr. Seselj's speech.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can say - I can't quote him - but
14 I can say how I felt after hearing Mr. Seselj's speech and what I
15 thought. That's how I can best describe what he said. As a listener, he
16 warned me of the danger of the resurrected Ustasha - I'm using my own
17 words now, Your Honour - who had risen like vampires from the grave. He
18 spoke of the threat of a new genocide. He said we were under threat, that
19 there were actual situations which had already led to murders and
21 Listening to Mr. Seselj I concluded that that was actually the
22 situation, and as a man, a Serb and a citizen, I had to play an active
23 role. I would have to participate sooner or later. I didn't think it
24 would be the very next day. And let me stress that it was not
25 Mr. Seselj's speech alone that prompted me to become a volunteer. Quite
1 simply, listening to his speeches at the time, I came to understand
2 certain matters in my own way.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is your recollection?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was in 1991.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
6 Ms. Dahl -- Ms. Dahl, I'm being told -- time flies.
7 Unfortunately, time does pass and we are under some time constraints.
8 We're going to have a break, it will be a 30-minute break so that
9 Mr. Seselj can check the fax machine. We shall resume at 11.30.
10 --- Recess taken at 11.02 a.m.
11 --- On resuming at 11.41 a.m.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing's resumed, somewhat
13 belatedly because Mr. Seselj was expecting a fax.
14 Mr. Seselj, tell your associates to send faxes early in the
15 morning to avoid this kind of situation where you have to wait for the fax
16 machine to give you copies during breaks, especially if you're expecting
17 80 or 100 pages. So please instruct your associates so that they take
18 into account the fact that we have breaks that last at most 20 minutes or
19 within 20 minutes you have to go to the fax machine and look at documents.
20 Do your best.
21 We will resume. In theory we finish by 12.30, so you should
22 finish by 12.30, if you can.
23 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, I'd like to tender Exhibit 770, that 65
24 ter was the last document we were discussing regarding the request from
25 the Territorial Defence for promotion of Chetnik commanders.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be MFI P25.
2 MS. DAHL:
3 Q. Mr. Stoparic, before the break we were discussing the speech at
4 Kukujevci and also the speech in Sid, and I want to turn your attention to
5 the speech in Sid. Did that speech -- can you describe the manner in
6 which Mr. Seselj gave the speech, his manner of speaking?
7 A. To the best of my recollection, the first time I heard Mr. Seselj
8 speak was at the Radnicki Football Club in Sid, I think almost all the
9 citizens of Sid were there, and the manner in which Seselj spoke -- I'm
10 not sure I understand your question properly. We all know how Seselj
11 interprets speeches. You want me now to describe this?
12 Q. Yes. Was he loud or soft? Passionate? Withdrawn? I'd like you
13 to describe the manner in which Mr. Seselj gave his speech.
14 A. Mr. Seselj speaks loud, he is passionate in his speeches. You
15 yourself have had the chance to see how Mr. Seselj speaks. You can't
16 expect me to find the words to describe this. Quite simply, as a listener
17 you find him interesting. He's an interesting speaker. He knows how to
19 Q. From your observations of the people there and the volunteers you
20 later served with, did Mr. Seselj's speech influence people's decision to
21 go volunteer at the war front?
22 A. Well, whether he affected the decision a hundred per cent, I don't
23 know, but they could find inspiration or -- well, not inspiration but how
24 can we say that? In Serbia our eyes were opened, quite simply. Everyone
25 had their own version and everybody experienced it in his or her way so
1 that the speeches were of a nationalist nature and that was fashionable at
2 the time in our political life, it wasn't only Seselj who spoke like that,
3 so that we as listeners and citizens liked hearing this.
4 Q. Was he urging people to volunteer for the Yugoslav Army, directly
5 to them?
6 A. I can't quote Mr. Seselj. I can't say whether he said, I invite
7 you all right now after this conversation to go to the Territorial Defence
8 and apply and volunteer. I can't say that, but he explained the
9 historical situation, he explained the kind of dangers facing us. So if
10 you were the least bit patriotic, you would conclude that it was your duty
11 to take part. Some were fit to take up weapons, others to take up a
12 pencil, but quite simply I personally found that he awoke in me my
13 nationalist consciousness, not only he, I repeat, but Mr. Seselj and his
14 speeches played a good part in that.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You said that it woke your
16 nationalist consciousness. Could you tell me what nationalist
17 consciousness is in your book?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, before that, while I
19 was a pupil in primary and secondary school, we learned parts of history
20 in the way it was written according to me the winners of World War II.
21 And in our case it was the Partizans or the national liberation movement
22 under the leadership of the Communist Party and Josip Broz Tito, so that
23 in everything we studied, not only citizens of Serbia but all the citizens
24 of the former Yugoslavia, we did not learn a lot about nationalism in our
25 own histories.
1 We did learn a definition of nationalism provided by the
2 communists. Nationalism was a taboo subject. In 1991 or as early as 1990
3 people spoke up who presented history in a different way, and I saw this
4 as having a realistic foundation. Because in the history I learned at
5 school the Chetniks and the Ustasha were treated in an identical way.
6 They were seen as identical, as enemies, both sides, but we know that the
7 Ustasha were given their own state, they had concentration camps, and so
8 on, whereas the Chetniks had none of that in World War II. So that
9 identifying those two movements as identical was not in my view
10 realistic. And in 1990/1991, a number of people turned up who told us
11 that this was not the case. I as an individual, I can't speak for others,
12 I thought that this was realistic.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Previous translation continues]...
14 MS. DAHL:
15 Q. I want to turn your attention to the speech in Kukujevci that you
16 attended. What was, to your recollection, the core of that speech?
17 A. It's very difficult for me now to recall on what occasion he
18 spoke, whether it was an election campaign or just a visit. The venue was
19 chosen, Kukujevci, that is, because as I said, the majority of the
20 Croatian population that had lived in Kukujevci before that time had
21 exchanged their houses with the Serbs from Croatia. At the point in time
22 when Mr. Seselj visited that village and gave his speech, there were many
23 new villagers and he addressed them. As far as I can recall, he spoke on
24 topics that these people were interested in. They had changed states,
25 they had changed houses, the war was still going on, I think.
1 I've told you many times, Madam Prosecutor, that I'm not good at
2 dates. I don't have a good head for dates so I don't even try to remember
3 them, so I can't really pin-point the time, but it wasn't 1991 or 1992.
4 It may have been 1993. It was when people had already exchanged houses
5 and arrived there and the topic of his speech was in line with that. I
6 can't remember literally what he said. I found all of Seselj's speeches
7 at the time interesting. They all had a beginning and an end and a story
8 that explained things to us. I simply think that the topic of that speech
9 was concerned with the issues that the Serbs who had exchanged their
10 houses with Croats were interested in. But I can't say that with
11 certainty because it was so long ago. At that time I participated in
12 that, I assisted with providing security in front of the Municipal Staff
13 of the Radical Party in Sid.
14 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a question. This village
15 of Kukujevci, was it a village which was before, during, or after the war
16 also inhabited by Croats?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The majority of the population had
18 been Croat, I think more than 90 per cent before the war, before 1991.
19 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter is not sure of the percentage.
20 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] In Mr. Seselj's speech, did he
21 make any reference to the need for the Croats to leave the village, for
22 them to leave Serbia?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj at that time in this
24 village addressed the majority Serbian population which had in the
25 meantime exchanged their homes and their houses with the Croats. The
1 Croats had already left the village of Kukujevci, exchanged their houses
2 with those of Serbs, and gone to Croatia. So at the time he spoke, he was
3 addressing the Serb majority because the Croats were no longer present in
4 those numbers. Whether he spoke about --
5 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] You've said this already in
6 answering one of the Prosecutor's questions. Now I'd like you to answer
7 my own question. Did he speak to the fact that Croats should have left --
8 I mean the Croats who were still there, that they should have left,
9 abandoned the village and as -- generally that the Croats should leave
10 Serbia, the territory, the Serbian territory?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj in some of his addresses
12 was in the habit of saying that certain Croats were duty-bound to leave
13 Serbia. He was referring to Croats who had participated in the war. It
14 was not impossible for a Croat already living in Serbia not to have left
15 through certain channels to Croatia and join the ZNG and participate in
16 the war as a ZNG member. When he --
17 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Therefore, during this specific
18 speech, I'm not talking about speeches in general, in this speech did he
19 make any reference to that or not?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember. Maybe he didn't
21 because the exchange had already taken place in that village.
22 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Therefore, what you stated in the
23 witness statement was an incomplete or erroneous memory?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not saying it's impossible that
25 Mr. Seselj in his address to the people mentioned the need for exchanges
1 of houses, for Croats to move to Croatia and Serbs to come there, but I
2 cannot assert with certainty that it was at that time in Kukujevci that he
3 said that in that way. Quite simply, I do remember such statements made
4 by him, but now I cannot say that he said that at that particular point in
5 time because it's confused in my memory.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You mentioned exchanges of
7 houses. Could you be more specific. Did Serbs and Croats agree with a
8 view to exchanging houses? For instance, did Serbs buy Croat houses for
9 Croats to go back to Croatia or was there a forced exchange in which it
10 was made clear to the Croats that they had to leave the village so that
11 the Serbs then in Croatia could come to the village? There are many
12 possibilities. You seem to have been in this village since you were in
13 charge of taking care of the security during the speech in the village.
14 So what can you say about this?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, at the time when the
16 trial started and when the Croats in -- or rather, the procedure, the
17 process started, when the Croats in Kukujevci expressed a desire to go to
18 Croatia an agency called Lasta was opened, first in Kukujevci and then in
19 Sid which dealt with these matters --
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
21 continues]... extremely important. You are saying that at the time when
22 this issue was addressed there was an agency that settled in the village.
23 Was it a real estate agency or was it a government agency?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The owner of the agency was a Serb
25 who had come from Croatia. He was probably a lawyer by occupation. He
1 opened an agency called Lasta, one in the village of Kukujevci, one in the
2 village of Sid. Through that agency many carried out exchanges. As for
3 forcible exchanges, something that might appear to be forcible exchanges
4 happened later on when Krajina fell under the pressure of the Croatian --
5 the so-called Croatian military Operation Storm and a vast number of
6 refugees from that area passed through the village of Kukujevci and they
7 were sent on to Western Srem, Slavonia, and Baranja, and they passed
8 through that village. Some of them entered Croat houses. At that point
9 the Croats moved out and went to Croatia, and later on they agreed with
10 the people who had moved into their houses and they legalised the
11 exchange. That was the only thing I remember that might resemble
12 something done by force because a huge group of refugees arrived in the
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Listening to you, prior to
15 Dr. Seselj's speech there was an agency that set up in Kukujevci and
16 there's also one in Sid. Sid is in Croatia or where is it?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sid is in Serbia and the village of
18 Kukujevci is in the Sid municipality. It's a local commune which was part
19 of the Sid municipality. Those two agencies were owned by one and the
20 same man, but they were in two locations.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And let me respond, the Lasta agency
24 was opened before Mr. Seselj gave his speech in Kukujevci.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So this agency has two offices,
1 one in Sid, the other in Kukujevci. It is then going to settle the issue
2 of apartments by offering to Croats to leave their houses, but then Croats
3 leaving their houses, are they going to sell them? What are the offices
4 going to do?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know whether the agency
6 knocked on people's doors, going house to house, whether they did it in
7 some other way, I can't tell you. To me it seems reasonable to assume
8 that the Croats wanted to leave and that they welcomed the agency. The
9 agency established contacts and searched for appropriate houses of
10 approximately equal value so that they could be exchanged, a house from
11 the village of Kukujevci with a house somewhere in Croatia.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So either people would sell or
13 houses would be exchanged?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...
15 there was an exchange.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And this was known to everybody?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay.
19 Ms. Dahl.
20 MS. DAHL:
21 Q. I want to return to your testimony where you said you couldn't
22 remember the content of Mr. Seselj's speech in Kukujevci. Can you please
23 look at your statement and read to yourself paragraphs 60, 61, and 62.
24 This is 65 ter number 7044.
25 A. Yes, I've read it.
1 Q. Does reviewing your statement refresh your recollection?
2 A. Mrs. Dahl, I don't want to sound like someone who has learned
3 something off by heart. I didn't read this before the hearing to jog my
4 memory, so I'm trying to ask -- I'm trying to answer your questions now to
5 the best of my recollection as I remember them now. I can't use the same
6 words when describing an event at different points in time. I'm trying to
7 give you the main gist of what happened. Everything I've read here agrees
8 with what I've just said answering your questions and the questions of the
9 Trial Chamber. Quite simply, there are more details in the statement.
10 Mr. Seselj's rhetoric was the same.
11 Q. And is it correct to say that the core concept of his rhetoric was
12 expulsion of ethnic Croats and the achievement of a concept of Greater
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Leading question, Mrs. Dahl.
16 This is a leading question, Mrs. Dahl. Could you please reformulate,
17 rephrase your question. Asking him what Mr. Seselj said.
18 MS. DAHL:
19 Q. What was the core concept behind Mr. Seselj's speeches that you
21 A. Mr. Seselj spoke -- you probably are referring to the concept of a
22 Greater Serbia. He even determined the borders which, according to his
23 research, were the Serbian ethnic borders. I know, Madam Prosecutor, how
24 it affected me. I cannot know how it affected a Croat listening to
25 Mr. Seselj's speech. I believe that a Croat might have been frightened by
1 the speech. I can't know what was in the heads of people who were not
2 Serbs and who heard Mr. Seselj's speeches. That may have been your
3 question, I'm not sure. The concept of a Greater Serbia is something
4 that's in the party platform of the Serbian Radical Party, and many people
5 in Serbia are aware of this.
6 Q. And what are the political borders that Mr. Seselj was advocating?
7 A. They're not political borders, they're state borders, territorial
8 borders. Maybe it was interpreted as political borders. It was Serbia,
9 Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, parts of Dalmatia, Lika, Banja,
10 Kordun, Western Srem. He explained this by mentioning the
11 Karlobag-Karlovac-Ogulin-Virovitica line. I am not sure I remember it
12 correctly, but that was the ethnic territory Dr. Seselj believed belonged
13 to us Serbs.
14 Q. And where does the Karlobag-Karlovac-Ogulin-Virovitica line go
16 A. All the towns you listed are in Croatia from the Primorje region.
17 So Dalmatia is in there -- well, look at it on the map. I can't really
18 say that off the top of my head in geographical terms, but all of these
19 towns are in the present Republic of Croatia.
20 Q. Okay. Let me show you 65 ter number 7008. I'm going to pass
21 it -- it's in the map book, the court binder at map 7.
22 MS. DAHL: If I can ask the registrar to give the witness the
23 paper copy.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Is it in your binder?
25 MS. DAHL: No, Your Honour. It was in the map binder, so we'll
1 put it up on the ELMO so you can see it.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Place it on the ELMO, please.
3 THE WITNESS: What is question? [Interpretation] What is your
5 MS. DAHL:
6 Q. Can you look at this and say whether, with your understanding of
7 what Mr. Seselj was advocating, if this shaded area represents the Greater
8 Serbia border?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Would you indicate for the Judges where the
11 Karlobag-Ogulin-Karlovac-Virovitica line is?
12 A. Karlobag-Ogulin-Karlovac-Virovitica, that would be that line, that
13 would be the border.
14 Q. And you referred to a man who opened a real estate agency called
15 Lasta. Was he associated with the Serbian Radical Party?
16 A. He was a member of the Radical Party in Sid and, to start with, he
17 was only a sponsor because he earned a certain amount of money through his
18 agency, through his work as an agent. He earned a percentage. So he
19 sponsored the Municipal Staff in Sid to start with. The Municipal Staff
20 had certain expenses and he was one of their sponsors. Later on he was a
21 member of the Serb Radical Party in Sid.
22 Q. And is it your understanding that he had a financial interest in
23 persuading people to leave and exchange their houses?
24 A. Well, I said a few moments ago that I don't know whether he went
25 from one house to another and contacted people or whether people contacted
1 him asking for his assistance. It's a privately owned agency so he did
2 have a personal interest because that's the way he earned money.
3 Q. Now, referring to the Kukujevci speech, was Mr. Seselj advocating
4 the cleansing or expulsion of Croats from the entire area of Srem?
5 A. Now, whether he said that, whether he put it that way, in the
6 village of Kukujevci is something I cannot tell now. I can only assume
7 that he did present one of his thesis that Croats should leave Serbia,
8 live in their own land of Croatia because it was clear to all by then that
9 there could be no more life together. Now, I cannot say that he said it
10 at 10.15 at the square in the village of Kukujevci. I don't know,
12 And once more, may I highlight that at the time when Mr. Seselj
13 made his speech in the village of Kukujevci I was authorised by the
14 Radical Party of Sid to help because this was a legal gathering. It was
15 registered with the Ministry of the Interior, but we helped them with
16 providing security. So as for part of my stay at this rally, I was quite
17 busy with that task of mine, to help with the security there. So it's not
18 that I always paid attention to what Mr. Seselj was saying in his speech
19 and perhaps that's why I don't remember some things and on the other hand
20 it's been a long time.
21 Q. Was it your understanding that Mr. Seselj has approved of the
22 departure of Croats from that town?
23 A. Well, he approved that because he publicly advocated the principle
24 of retortion and he asked the authorities in Serbia to do that. He
25 agreed, yes.
1 Q. Can you explain what you mean by -- when you're using the
2 word "the principle of retortion"?
3 A. Well, that's simple. It is well-known that an enormous number of
4 Serbs were expelled from the territory of Croatia to Serbia. An enormous
5 number of Serbs from areas of Croatia where there had never been any
6 combat operations had left. There can be a village, say, like Kukujevci,
7 there are no combat operations, but say Serbs lived in that kind of
8 village in Croatia and then we were supposed to respond in the same way.
9 Perhaps I don't understand it right, but that is the way I understand
11 Q. With respect to what you know about Croats who left the area, did
12 they leave because they felt their lives were in danger?
13 A. They had that feeling, yes. Nothing surprising. They had that
14 feeling. We are two peoples at war already, and this war was assuming a
15 religious proportion too, the Orthodox against the Catholics, and the
16 Serbs living in Zagreb had the same feeling. Perhaps it seems strange to
17 you, but it's quite a normal phenomenon to me in that kind of environment,
18 that somebody fears for his or her life and wants to go to a state that he
19 considers to be his mainstream state, the Croats to Croatia, the Serbs to
21 Q. Are you aware of Croat persons who were swindled in the process of
22 exchanging their homes?
23 A. On one occasion a Croat from my street moved to Croatia in that
24 way and another man came to his house. Later on when the situation calmed
25 down, when people from Croatian started coming to Serbia again and vice
1 versa, he came to see his old neighbours and he said that he was
2 dissatisfied with that exchange. Also, many Serbs in Kukujevci, Gibarac
3 and Sot said that they were also dissatisfied with what they had left and
4 what they got here. So there were such feelings on both sides.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you are mentioning this
6 example of a neighbour. Well, my attention was drawn by the fact that you
7 just said he was dissatisfied with that exchange. So my conclusion is
8 that this Croat left for Croatia, obtained an apartment over there, but
9 finally felt like he'd been -- well, he was very dissatisfied with that
10 exchange in the end. Is that what you meant?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. In that way he spoke to us as
12 his old neighbours that he was dissatisfied in terms of financial
13 resources and probably he meant his overall situation in Croatia. I did
14 not put any more in-depth questions to him. I just listened to him for a
15 few moments and I left.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But do you know how
17 all this occurred? When he left for Croatia, it's the Croats who gave him
18 an apartment or is it with the money he obtained when he left his house,
19 his villa, that he was able to buy a house or was everything organized by
20 the agency, which means that it's the agency that would have found a house
21 in Croatia and that told him, Go there and a Serb living in Croatia will
22 take your place here. Is that how it happened?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It worked only in one way. Only the
24 owner of the house -- of a house of a Serb from Croatia could enter the
25 house of a Croat from Serbia who wanted to exchange houses with him. Now,
1 whether they would add some extra money, that depended on each and every
2 individual contact contract. I don't know. The Lasta agency had its
3 office in Sid, in Vukovar, in Vinkovci, that's how they worked, and they
4 got certain percentages depending on their estimate of the value of the
5 real estate involved. So a Serb from Croatia entered in that way the
6 house of a Croat from Serbia and vice versa and they signed the relevant
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] To your knowledge, in the
9 village how many Serbs came and how many Croats left? Could you give us
10 an estimate?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the territory of the municipality
12 of Sid where I'm from, Kukujevci were not the only village where there
13 was -- where there were Croats. There's Gibarac and Sot. However, we
14 always considered that to be Croat-populated villages before the war and
15 now they are Serb populated, the majority is Serb and there is a very
16 small percentage of Croats. The same thing happened in the town of Sid
17 afterwards as well, people exchanged houses like that neighbour of mine.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In figures, how many left? 5?
19 10? 50? 100? Can you give us a figure?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know how many inhabitants
21 lived in the village of Kukujevci only, for instance. However, I believe
22 that before the war the village of Kukujevci was pretty big and it must
23 have had a population of over 2.000. 90 per cent of all families
24 exchanged houses and went to Croatia.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So 90 per cent of
1 these 2.000 inhabitants left. Apparently 10 per cent stayed. Did any
2 Croats stay?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, some Croats stayed too. People
4 who were neither Serbs nor Croats stayed too, people who were Slovaks or
5 Ruthenians, but some Croats remained too, of course.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Now, let's take the
7 situation of a Croat that stays because he does not want to leave for
8 Croatia. How did -- what happened then? Was everything okay or was this
9 person under threat? Was there pressure exerted on this person or did
10 life just go on as it did before?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, his old neighbours had left
12 and new neighbours came, people who were Serbs from Croatia with very ugly
13 experience, both of them. But as far as I know it's the police that took
14 care of this. Now, individually what the experiences of all these
15 remaining Croats were, I cannot say. Probably it wasn't very pleasant for
16 them, but later on they probably got used to each other. I don't know.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Dahl, you may resume.
18 MS. DAHL: First I want to tender the map that we displayed on the
19 ELMO, it's Exhibit Number 7008.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Number, please.
21 THE REGISTRAR: MFI 26.
22 MS. DAHL:
23 Q. Mr. Stoparic, are you aware of activities by the radicals to
24 intimidate ethnic Croatians in order to encourage them to leave the
25 Vojvodina area?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Objection. This is a
2 leading question because the Prosecutor is implying that indeed there had
3 been such situations and now she's asking the witness whether he knew
4 about that. First she should ask whether there were such situations, and
5 then if so, whether he knows of any particular examples.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Dahl, be careful when
7 addressing the question and first be very general and go details. If you
8 go into details immediately then it will end up with a leading question.
9 MS. DAHL:
10 Q. Are you aware of any activities by members of the Radical Party to
11 encourage Croats to leave the Vojvodina area?
12 A. I cannot talk about the area of Vojvodina, but I can talk about
13 the territory of my municipality that is in Vojvodina. Certain members of
14 the Serb Radical Party as well as others had certain activities in
15 Kukujevci, Sot, Gibarac. However, these activities quite simply -- well,
16 they went to cafes in some of these villages, sometimes threatened some of
17 these people. Quite simply, the Croats themselves withdrew and created
18 their ghettos in a way. Many armies passed there -- well, I mean, I'm not
19 saying armies, different units were passing there through the village,
20 different people who were resting from the front line in Sid. I know of
21 some cases when people went out and mistreated certain individuals.
22 Sometimes the police did intervene, sometimes they didn't.
23 Now, if a citizen saw himself to be a victim of verbal assault, I
24 don't know whether he'd call the police and then I don't know whether the
25 police reacted. There were such cases. Then there were cases of persons
1 who had already exchanged houses, Serbs who were already living in that
2 village, and there had still been a large number of Croats left and then
3 they contributed to intimidation, as you call it, or whatever, then a lot
4 of the Croats moved out. Well, that is punishable by law, but quite
5 simply no one really paid much attention to that. Somehow all of us in
6 our heart of hearts wanted these Croats to leave. So when we talk about
7 people who behaved in an arrogant manner or committed verbal assaults
8 against Croats, yes, there are members of the Radical Party among them,
9 but others too. And usually say two days after people would hear of an
10 incident, then usually the citizens would always ascribe that to the
11 radicals and I don't know why.
12 In -- it was Milenko Petric who was in the leadership of the Serb
13 Radical Party in Sid at that time. He did not have the capacity of
14 carrying out a selection among his members. All of this in a way got out
15 of control, and I also don't think that there was any channelling in the
16 sense of people directing others to do things like that. Quite simply
17 people would go out and do it.
18 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, I want to go into private session to ask
19 the next question because I believe it will elicit a --
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Private session, please.
21 [Private session].
11 Pages 2460-2462 redacted. Private session
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are now in open session.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, as to the time you are
22 asking to get, let me say this in open session. Initially you asked four
23 hours under a Rule 92 ter proceedings. We decided to go for the viva voce
24 testimony. Based on that, we started on Tuesday and you told us you
25 needed eight hours. We said to you, We'll see depending on the beginning
1 of this testimony. You started.
2 After discussing the issue the Judges decided to give you five
3 hours. Therefore, this morning when we started you had already used up
4 three hours. You had two hours left. So in all you've already used four
5 hours and a few minutes. I made a minor mistake thinking that we were
6 finishing by 12.30, but I was wrong. We finish at 1.15, so we've
7 basically got over 45 minutes left. This means that you could finish the
8 examination-in-chief at 1.15 because you would have basically used up your
9 five hours. Of course, granted the Judges put questions. But when we put
10 question it's not sort of debitted from your time. So when I say that
11 you've used up four hours and a few minutes, that's your time, not ours,
12 not mine.
13 As to the time, as per Rules we can control your time. Questions
14 can be -- or requests can be made by the Prosecution, decisions are made
15 by the Judges, because we also have to make sure that we have a speedy
16 trial, that useful questions be put, and we must make sure that we are
17 efficient in the way we manage the trial proceedings.
18 So you basically have nearly 45 minutes left, so please proceed
19 with your examination-in-chief.
20 MS. DAHL: Let me go back into private session then, please.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Private session.
22 [Private session]
11 Pages 2465-2476 redacted. Private session
19 [Open session]
20 MS. DAHL:
21 Q. Let me restate the question --
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
23 MS. DAHL:
24 Q. Was the SCP part of the Serbian Radical Party?
25 A. What I know about the Serbian Chetnik Movement and Mr. Vojislav
1 Seselj and probably a group of his friends, they wanted to register a
2 political party under this name but were unable to, probably because of
3 the name, but the Serbian Chetnik Movement later on when the political
4 party was registered under the name of the Serbian Radical Party according
5 to the statute and all the then-documents I was able to read it was
6 registered as a section of the Serb Radical Party. And in Sid Milenko
7 Petric wanted to register something else, something smaller, to be called
8 the Sokola Association for young people, for children, but I don't know
9 whether this ever happened, whether it ever came to life. But the Chetnik
10 movement was registered as a section of the Serbian Radical Party.
11 MS. DAHL: Let me ask the witness to look at 65 ter Exhibit Number
12 83, it's in tab 2 of the Court binder, and I will ask the registrar to
13 give the witness a paper copy in his language.
14 Q. Can you tell me what that is?
15 A. Well, it says here what this is, it's the political programme of
16 the Serbian Chetnik Movement.
17 Q. Were you in 1991 and 1992 familiar with the political platform of
18 the Serbian Chetnik Movement?
19 A. Every office of the Serbian Radical Party, whether in Novi Sad or
20 in Sid, had its library as it was called, various books on book shelves,
21 and these would always include the political programme not only of the
22 Chetnik movement but also of the Serbian Radical Party, the statutes, and
23 so on. And if you wanted to become a member you were able to peruse these
24 books before filling in your application form. I can't say whether I read
25 this in 1991 or 1992. I don't know exactly when I read it.
1 Q. Would you look at paragraph 1, please, and read that aloud?
2 A. Paragraph 1: "Renewing the free, independent -- the restoration
3 of a free, independent, and democratic Serbian state in the Balkans which
4 will include all Serbian people and all Serbian territories. Meaning
5 that," it's not very legible here. "In addition to the present Serbian
6 federal unit which has been imposed on us, within its borders it will also
7 include Serbian Macedonia, Serbian Montenegro, Serbian Bosnia, Serbian
8 Herzegovina, Serbian Dubrovnik, Serbian Dalmatia, Serbian Lika, Serbian
9 Kordun, Serbian Banija, Serbian Slavonia, and Serbian Baranja," yes.
10 MS. DAHL: I'd like to move the document into evidence or have it
11 identified for --
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Number, please.
13 THE REGISTRAR: [Previous translation continues]...
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, I have an objection. I think
15 this cannot be automatically admitted into evidence without the Prosecutor
16 explaining what sort of document this is. This is a political programme
17 of the Serbian Chetnik Movement before the Serbian Radical Party was
18 founded and it was published in the first issue of the journal Greater
19 Serbia or Velika Srbija in July 1990.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You gave us information on the
21 background of this document. Could we please have a number because it was
22 not recorded on the transcript.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, MFI P27.
24 THE ACCUSED: Judge, one more point, a very important one. The
25 Serbian Radical Party was founded on the 23rd of February, 1991. Should I
1 repeat what I've just said? The Serbian Radical Party was founded on the
2 23rd of February, 1991, and adopted its programme and statute. It took
3 over all these provisions from the Serbian Chetnik Movement, but this
4 programme was no longer valid because it was replaced by the programme of
5 the Serbian Radical Party from February 1991. The Prosecutor did not say
6 where this document comes from and from what year it dates.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
8 continues]... we understood. You're saying that the document which is --
9 has been admitted under the MFI P27 is a document that is earlier -- that
10 was drafted earlier than the radical Serb party that was created on
11 February 23rd, 1991, therefore this document was drafted before the
12 Serbian Radical Party was actually set up. Thank you.
13 Mrs. Dahl could have told us where this document came from. Maybe
14 she went a bit hastily over this.
15 MS. DAHL: [Previous translation continues]...
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Dahl, it's time to finish.
17 As I told you earlier, the three other -- the three Judges must sit on
18 another trial, so what do you want to add?
19 MS. DAHL: That I'd like to complete the examination tomorrow
20 within the time that you gave me before I understand that you rejected my
21 request for more time.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. According -- you have ten
23 minutes left.
24 MS. DAHL: Well, I understood that we were finishing at quarter
25 after. No.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's 20 after.
2 MS. DAHL: I'm sorry, we'll finish at half past or are we going
3 out of session now?
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Definitely we're going to
5 adjourn because it's time.
6 MS. DAHL: [Previous translation continues]...
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing is -- stops at
8 1.15. You'll have ten minutes tomorrow morning and then we'll give the
9 floor to Mr. Seselj for his cross-examination.
10 Witness, we will meet again tomorrow at 8.30.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.18 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 17th day of
13 January, 2008, at 8.30 a.m.