1 Wednesday, 30 January 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 8.30 a.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 WITNESS: YVES TOMIC [Resumed]
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, kindly call the
10 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you and good morning, Your Honours. This is
11 case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
13 Today is Wednesday, the 30th of January, 2008. Good morning,
14 Witness. Good morning, Ms. Dahl. Good morning, Mr. Seselj, and my
15 morning greetings to all the people helping us.
16 Before I give the floor to Ms. Dahl for her to proceed with the
17 examination-in-chief, I'd like to turn to Mr. Seselj on two points. The
18 first one has to do with the objection he has raised. The second has to
19 do with the tone or volume of his voice. First of all the objections.
20 As you know, Mr. Seselj, objections are allowed, especially so in
21 common law trials. Why so? Because as a rule in common law countries,
22 you have a jury that expresses guilt or innocence. The Judge is only
23 there as an umpire, as an arbiter. It is the jury that decides on the
24 qualification of an offence to see whether an accused is guilty or not,
25 and these are juries made up of citizens. Therefore, one should not use
1 or influence their point of view or feelings through biased questions.
2 Therefore, when there are leading questions, parties can raise objections.
3 But the difference there is between such common law countries and this
4 International Tribunal is that this International Tribunal is made up of
5 professional Judges. You have a Bench of three Judges who each are very
6 experienced in international trials. They have sat in several trials
7 already. Therefore, if for some extraordinary reason there was a leading
8 question that was put, the Judges would immediately realise that and they
9 would automatically reassess the scope of the answer taking into account
10 the leading aspect of the question. Therefore, if there were to be a
11 leading question, trust the Judges. They will see it is a leading
12 question. In this way, we can save time.
13 More often than not, and this is my experience that shows it, when
14 there is a leading question it means that the one putting the question is
15 trying to save time. He is trying to do well. He does not want to
16 manipulate Judges. More often than not the main reason being that one
17 wants to proceed swiftly, thereby sometimes having to put leading
19 This has to do with objections. If you have a basic objection to
20 raise, do so, but when it deals to borderline questions, do not, please,
21 intervene too often. And everything I'm telling you today should not be
22 understood as a reproach, criticism. It's more of an advice so that the
23 trial proceedings can unfold as smoothly as possible for everybody's sake.
24 Second point, the tone or volume of your voice. You have said so
25 yourself, you are very loud. That's your past, your childhood. You said
1 so yourself, the fact that you were a lecturer, a professor, a university
2 professor, and when you teach you have to speak to students, and when you
3 have many of them you have to raise the volume of your voice. And you
4 were also a major political figure so used to holding speeches where voice
5 is a support to those who are supposed to hear you. But this is a small
6 courtroom. We're not far from one another. We're just a few metres away
7 from each other so we can hear each other. So it might be good if you
8 could lower your voice and have less decibels. I watched a few videos
9 disclosed by the Prosecution in their many submissions when you give
10 interviews to journalists; you did not raise your voice. So I wondered,
11 When he speaks to a journalist he speaks calmly. Why can't he do the same
12 in the courtroom?
13 So try to speak more softly. That would be a plus for everybody.
14 Let me give you an example. Yesterday, for instance, you spoke
15 about two events in particular. As to the first one, you challenged the
16 facts or the authenticity of a document. You said that the Communists had
17 forged this directive of December 1941 - this is what I'm quoting from
18 memory - and you said that in a very loud voice. And at the very end of
19 the hearing Ms. Dahl gave us this document I'm showing you, and equally
20 you intervened and in a very loud voice you asked where the document came
21 from. You used the same tone for these two events. Of course, one was
22 important. It is the issue of whether a document is a fake or not. The
23 other one was not so important, because this was about the provenance of
24 this document.
25 By using the same volume or tone of voice for the essential and
1 what is not essential, it might prove difficult for Judges to sort the
2 grain from the chaff. For instance, when somebody speaks calmly and then
3 all of a sudden raises their voice one can wonder if something important
4 is happening. But when the tone is always loud, the listener may find it
5 very difficult to see what is essential and what is not essential.
6 This is what I wanted to tell you for us to try and work as best
7 as we can so that the atmosphere is the best possible in the courtroom and
8 also so that we can really go to the crux of the matter, to the merits of
9 the case and not just issues of procedural nature which are a waste of
10 time. I've said that on several occasions. The trial -- or the judgement
11 will not be about the procedure but about the merits of the case. That is
12 what is important to me, to all of us, and should be important to all of
13 us. So let's go to the substance, and let's try to avoid wasting time on
14 procedural issues.
15 Now, regarding your voice, do your best. This is what I wanted to
16 tell you. I don't know whether you wanted to say something, Mr. Seselj.
17 Otherwise, we can proceed with the examination-in-chief.
18 Yes, Mr. Seselj.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, first of all, I have
20 three points to make. First of all, I think that you should take into
21 account all my procedural objections and all the objections of Mrs. Dahl
22 in the course of the proceedings so far. This is only the third witness
23 so far, and you will see that my objections were far more appropriate than
24 those of Mrs. Dahl.
25 My interventions were mostly justified. It happened for the first
1 time yesterday that you told me on two occasions that they were not
2 justified, whereas in most cases Mrs. Dahl's objections are not
4 Secondly, leading questions are not allowed in common law or
5 continental law, and they're not allowed in this Tribunal either, and they
6 were not permitted in any cases tried so far. The fact that Defence
7 lawyers are afraid of opposing the Prosecution, and this is a major issue
8 which will go down in the history of world jurisdiction in a negative
10 As for the tone of voice, it is impossible to control a person's
11 individuality. I am doing my very best now to keep my voice down, but at
12 times I react in the natural way I would in my daily life. You may have
13 watched an interview with a journalist when I spoke very quietly. Maybe I
14 was tired. Maybe it happened when I was sick or after several nights
15 without sleep. You could have had somebody in the courtroom who can't
16 speak properly, who mutters and still you have to listen or you could have
17 someone who speaks very quietly and you can't hear him or somebody who has
18 been operated on and he needs an aid. And this is again can be
19 unpleasant. This is something very specific to each individual.
20 I will say again I shall do my best to keep my voice down, but I
21 am still quite confident that the technical services can find a solution
22 by adjusting the microphones.
23 And a third point which is very important. This witness is not so
24 important for me. He's a member of the Prosecution team. He has been
25 engaged by them for four years and therefore he is biased, but imagine if
1 you were to lecture me this way in front of an ordinary man and then you
2 reduce my authority in front of him. Judge May did this very frequently
3 in Mr. Milosevic's trial. He attacks him in the presence of the witness
4 and then the witness gives himself the liberty to act in an inappropriate
6 I don't think it's fair for me to be lectured in the presence of
7 the witness unless there is real cause during the proceedings. So I will
8 leave aside this witness who is a member of the Prosecution team, but in
9 the future if you have any advice or criticisms of this kind, please do so
10 in the absence of the witness.
11 Of course this is something I cannot prevent you from doing. You
12 are fully entitled to it, but I don't think it's fair.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Apparently Ms. Dahl
14 used one hour and 34 minutes. This is what I was told by the registrar.
15 You have the floor, Ms. Dahl.
16 MS. DAHL: Thank you, Your Honour. I want to follow up on the
17 document we gave out yesterday in the Serbian language that you mentioned
18 in -- that your advice to Dr. Seselj. It bears registration number
19 06198785, and I'd like to have this marked, please.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be MFI P149.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. The document without a
22 title cannot be identified -- marked for identification unless it has a
23 title, the author, the date, the publication, and place of publication.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Dahl, will you tell us
25 where this document comes from? Where does the document come from,
1 Ms. Dahl?
2 MS. DAHL: Of course I'd like Mr. Tomic to tell us since it was
3 material that he provided. What I have here is a two-page document. It's
4 an excerpt from an a book by Djuro Stanisavljevic, pages 96 and 97 in the
5 Serbian language.
6 Examination by Ms. Dahl:
7 Q. Mr. Tomic, can you tell me what this excerpt is from?
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, please tell us, Witness.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a text by
10 Djuro Stanisavljevic, dealing with the development of the Chetnik Movement
11 in Croatia in 1941 and 1942. It was published in Istorija XX. veka. So
12 this is a compilation of academic work, and it was published in 1962 in
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you give the name again,
15 spelling it of this journalist?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He's an historian.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But in the English text it says
18 journalist. He's a historian.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And what is his name because the
21 name was not spelled out.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Stanisavljevic.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We can see the name at the very
24 top in the left corner. Now, what is the title of the publication?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You can see in the -- on the top of
1 the second page. The emergent and -- of the Chetnik Movement in Croatia
2 1941, 1942.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I hope that Mr. Seselj is
4 satisfied with this answer.
5 A technical question to Mr. Seselj.
6 Yes, Judge, I was going to say that.
7 When was it published? This book was published in 1962, wasn't
9 Mr. Seselj, when an MFI number is given, it means that the
10 document is not admitted because some things fail yet. For instance,
11 there's no translation or we don't have this type of information yet.
12 This is what I wanted to tell you, to inform you. The same will apply for
13 you when you present documents. If there is no translation or if there
14 are certain things that fail, that are missing, you will be given an MFI
15 number for the document.
16 Please proceed, Ms. Dahl.
17 MS. DAHL:
18 Q. Did you rely on this text of the emergence and development of the
19 Chetnik Movement in Croatia, 1941 to 1942, in the preparation of your
20 analysis and report?
21 A. Yes. This is one of the sources I used about the Chetnik Dinaric
22 division inasmuch as there is an analysis and presentation of the
23 political programme drafted in March 1942 by this division in this
24 document. So you have parts of it in these two pages.
25 Q. This -- this book appears in your bibliography, am I correct?
1 A. It is correct.
2 Q. And if you can look at your footnote 97 of your report. Can you
3 tell me whether this text is the one that you have quoted?
4 A. Indeed.
5 Q. With regard to the reputation of Chetniks and their combat during
6 World War II, can you advise the Chamber what that reputation was and
7 whether it was a matter of common knowledge in society?
8 A. When massacres were committed, violent acts were committed and
9 harm was done to individuals. This being said, you must remember this is
10 also quite a pitiless civil war in which each party committed abuses.
11 There are numerous examples both with the Chetniks but with the Croatian
12 Ustashas and with the Communist Party, but it is true that there was
13 particular violence on the part of the soldiers of the Ravna Gora
14 Movement, so much so that Dragisa Vasic, who was one of the idealogues of
15 the movement, he was the number two between '41 and '43, and he complained
16 to Mr. Mihajlovic about it. There was some behaviour that would shock
17 even the leaders of the movement.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you have just addressed
19 the issue of what happened during World War II. Through your report but
20 also through witnesses we have heard already on several occasions the
21 issue of the Serb victims during World War II has been addressed.
22 Based on your study, could you tell us how many Serbs were killed
23 during World War II?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There's not total agreement as to
25 the number of victims during World War II. We had official figures
1 provided by the Communist regime, that of 1.700.000 victims, but some
2 researchers later on doubted those figures, and based on pre-war
3 demographic figures and statistics, taking into account a potential
4 demographic developments between the '30s and post-war period they came to
5 other figures.
6 For instance, Bogoljub Kocevic, he's a Serb and he provided a
7 higher -- a figure of above 1 million victims, and Mr. Zeljevic, a Croat,
8 carried out a similar study and came to the same conclusion.
9 One assumes that the Communist regime wanted to inflate the number
10 of victims in order to obtain as much reparation, compensation from the
11 Germans after the war, and there was no census or no counting of the
12 victims after the war. It only happened in the '60s. Only then did the
13 authorities look into the matter. That is 20 years after the war, or they
14 came to a figure of 600.000. So it was not completed work.
15 If I take Bogoljub Kocevic's figures one thing is certain, the
16 Serbs were the main victims in Bosnia-Herzegovina because they represent
17 more than half of the victims in Bosnia and Herzegovina which was part of
18 the Independent State of Croatia then. Equally in Croatia, a good part of
19 the victims were Serbs.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Which is the sort of the lower
21 and the higher figure. What kind of bracket could you give us?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For the Serb victims -- you mean for
23 the whole territory? So if you take as a point -- starting point of 1
24 million -- I can't remember the figure exactly. Close to half. I have to
25 check in Bogoljub Kocevic's book. I can't right now remember this figure.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Based on what you say, there was
2 1.700.000 and then other studies speak of 1 million victims. So the lower
3 figure would be more or less 1 million and the higher figure would be
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For all victims, all nationalities
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And what was the overall
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] About 14 million inhabitants.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Was it only for all of Serbia or
11 was it for the entire Yugoslavia?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For all of Yugoslavia, all
13 nationalities included.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So we could assume 1 million out
15 of 14 million inhabitants.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Roughly so.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Please proceed.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Interpretation] Witness, please, among the
19 victims do we know how many civilians there were compared to the number of
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's difficult to assess because the
22 Kingdom of Yugoslavia was totally disbanded, broke down into several
23 states. Sometimes you have regular armies, or sometimes you have armies
24 of partisans of resistance. Not all the combatants were registered be
25 that the Yugoslav army in the homeland, the Ravno Gora. It was difficult
1 to count the number of fighters, and it's difficult to give an exact
2 figure because of the situation of a civil war.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So when you have such figures or
5 this ratio of 1 in 14 inhabitants who was killed, did you try to compare
6 this ratio with other tragedies that occurred in other countries or is
7 Yugoslavia something quite remarkable, as it were, in this ratio of killed
8 to inhabitants?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is certain that Yugoslavia was
10 one of the countries that was hardest hit by World War II. It has -- it
11 is one of the countries with the highest number of victims together with
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And through all the books that
14 you were able to read by Serb or Croatian authors, or other origins, did
15 this event create a profound trauma within the population, and is it so
16 that everybody would still speak about it years later?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is certain that these events
18 traumatised all the populations that were hit by the conflict. Indeed,
19 there were victims on all sides. Of course more so among certain
20 nationalities, but it is true that the Second World War put an end to a
21 certain lifestyle. Until then there was some tolerance among the groups,
22 and this conflict did create a rift between the various populations, Serb,
23 Croat, and Muslim.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This may help us see
25 it more clearly.
1 Please continue, Ms. Dahl.
2 MS. DAHL:
3 Q. In your research regarding the wartime activities of
4 Commander Djujic, did you determine the number of deaths in the Second
5 World War that he was considered responsible for?
6 A. The commission entrusted with studying the war crimes committed
7 during the war in Yugoslavia established the figures, and he was accused
8 of the deaths -- of being responsible for the death of 1.800.000 people.
9 I'm sorry, that's a mistake. In relation to the total number of victims,
10 1.800 victims, and his unit intervened in specific areas of the country.
11 1.800, yes.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter apologises.
13 MS. DAHL:
14 Q. Now, did Commander Djujic make a pronouncement regarding the
15 unification of Serb lands in 1989?
16 A. In 1989 he declared that the Serb lands should be retaken control
17 of, referring to the western Serb lands that were situated in Croatia.
18 Q. Where was he when he was making this pronouncement?
19 A. I'm not quite sure.
20 Q. In what country was he living at the time?
21 A. In the United States.
22 Q. Now, where was it that Commander Djujic appointed Dr. Seselj a
24 A. That is true. In June --
25 Q. Was his pronouncement in connection -- I'm sorry, I interrupted
1 the interpretation.
2 A. -- 1989.
3 Q. Was that pronouncement regarding the unification of Serb lands
4 made in connection with his proclamation of Dr. Seselj as a Vojvoda?
5 A. Yes, indeed. It was when Mr. Seselj held several speeches in the
6 United States representing his political programme and in continuity of
7 all those events. This contact was established between Mr. Seselj and the
8 Chetnik Movement in emigration.
9 Q. When we began yesterday, I had asked you to look at the document
10 in your binder labelled as 167. Can you turn to that now?
11 For the record it's been marked as P140.
12 In the first paragraph does Dr. Seselj identify whom he considers
13 to be the eminent predecessors of the Serbian Chetnik Movement?
14 A. At the beginning of this proclamation it is stated that the
15 efforts should be continued of our predecessors, and the names are
16 mentioned of General Draza Mihajlovic, Dragisa Vasic, and
17 Dr. Stevan Moljevic. And once again the Chetnik flag should be hoisted on
18 all Serb lands. So three names are mentioned here.
19 Q. I'm sorry.
20 A. Draza Mihajlovic, who was the military leader of the Ravna Gora
21 Movement, the Supreme Commander, and the defence minister of the Yugoslav
22 government in exile, and Dragisa Vasic and Stevan Moljevic were the two
23 leading ideologues of the Ravna Gora Movement.
24 Q. Was General Mihajlovic subjected to a war crimes trial after the
25 Second World War?
1 A. Yes, he was convicted and executed in 1946.
2 Q. Let me take you to the beginning of the creation of the Serbian
3 Chetnik Movement.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please. You said
5 that General Mihajlovic was sentenced to death. That is what I heard in
6 French. Here in French it says he was executed. Was he executed?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Who was he sentenced by?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By the new Communist regime who --
10 which organised a trial which was hardly fair.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And what was he accused of in
12 the indictment, if you know?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of having collaborated with the
14 Germans and the Italians and of having fought against the liberation
15 movement led by the Communist Partisans. So he was charged with several
16 crimes at the time.
17 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] He was not sentenced for war
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, in fact for war crimes.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Was he alone in this trial or
21 were there others?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. There were other leaders and
23 officers in the movement. There were also persons who were sentenced in
24 absence and who were not arrested by the Communists. For example,
25 Slobodan Jovanovic who was prime minister in '42 and '43. He was
1 sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment.
2 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] By the Serb jurisdiction in
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. This was a Yugoslav Tribunal, a
5 federal one. I can't give you a precise answer, but the scope of the
6 problem related to the whole of Yugoslavia. So it was the central
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam.
9 MS. DAHL:
10 Q. At the bottom the proclamation can you read the inscription above
11 Dr. Seselj's signature?
12 A. "The president of the patriotic central administration of the
13 Serb Chetnik Movement, Vojvoda Dr. Vojislav Seselj."
14 Q. Does the slogan of the Serbian Chetnik Movement appear above -- in
15 the prior paragraph?
16 A. Yes. There are a few slogans which are traditional. "Freedom and
17 death. Ravna Gora must win." And then "With faith in God for the King
18 and homeland." "Serbia is eternal for as long as its children are loyal
19 for the resurrection of Serbia, of free Serbia."
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When it says "For the King,"
21 somebody who does not -- is not familiar with the facts may think that it
22 was a royalist movement.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time Yugoslavia was a
24 kingdom, so it was a royal army that was loyal to the King at the time.
25 Therefore, the movement in most of its programmatic declarations referred
1 to the King, the Karadjordjevics.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But the 18th of February, 1991,
3 the date of the document, was the monarchy still in existence?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it wasn't.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, why then is there a
6 reference to the King?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is a reference to the King
8 because the Ravna Gora Movement was in favour of the monarchy and a
9 parliamentary democracy. So a parliamentary monarchy, because
10 Aleksandar Karadjordjevic was living in exile, and it was not possible to
11 bring him back while Slobodan Milosevic was in power.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Aleksandar Karadjordjevic was
13 living where, in the United States?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. He was living in Great Britain.
15 MS. DAHL:
16 Q. Did Commander Djujic have a view on the restoration of the
18 A. He remained loyal to the monarchy, and he wished to see the
19 restoration of the monarchy in Yugoslavia.
20 Q. Did Dr. Seselj have a view on the restoration of the monarchy in
22 A. At the beginning Mr. Seselj was favourably inclined towards the
23 restoration of the monarchy. That is in 1991, 1992. One notices that he
24 puts a distance between him and the monarchy, and he mentions the
25 possibility of organising a referendum on the question, that is the return
1 of the monarchy, that this should be put to the citizens. And I think
2 that he was severely critical of the successor to the throne. He didn't
3 think that he would be capable of defending his policies.
4 Q. Did the divergent views between Commander Djujic and Dr. Seselj
5 cause problems between them later on?
6 A. The relations became problematic after Vojislav Seselj supported
7 informally the powers that be at the time that was led by the
8 Socialist Party of Serbia to such a point that -- that some called him the
9 Red Vojvoda. And Momcilo Djujic disassociated himself from
10 Vojislav Seselj at that time, and a statement in the Serbian press at the
11 time was issued in which he said that Vojislav Seselj had betrayed the
12 monarchy and was collaborating with the Socialist Party that was in power
13 at the time.
14 Q. What happened to Dr. Seselj's title as a Vojvoda?
15 A. It was withdrawn, if I am not mistaken, in 1998. Momcilo Djujic
16 regretted the choice he had made in 1989.
17 Q. Let's turn back to the creation of the Serbian Chetnik Movement.
18 Can you identify how the Serbian Chetnik Movement was formed?
19 A. At the beginning Mr. Seselj formed a party under the movement of
20 the Free Movement of Serbia, and within this organisation there were other
21 parties and movements of the same orientation, one might say. There was
22 Srpska Narodna Odredna, the Serbian Renewal Party formed also in 1990, and
23 Vuk Draskovic was one of the Serb intellectuals who helped rehabilitate
24 the Ravna Gora ideology. And then there was the SNO, and he will
25 associate himself with the Serbian Liberty Movement to form the Serbian
1 Renewal Movement in March 1990.
2 Then very quickly after that differences appeared between
3 Vuk Draskovic and Vojislav Seselj, and at a meeting of the leadership of
4 the movement, of the Serbian Renewal Movement, Vuk Draskovic was expelled
5 from the party, but he wouldn't agree to that and there was a separation,
6 a split, and Vojislav Seselj, within the Serbian Renewal Movement, will
7 form the Chetnik Movement in June 1990. And from that moment on, there
8 was a certain stability within this movement under his leadership. There
9 was some tension at first, but later on the leadership stabilised the
11 Q. Briefly can you describe the platform of the Serbian Renewal
12 Movement with respect to territories in the west of Yugoslavia where
13 crimes were committed against Serbs during the Second World War?
14 A. The programme of the Serbian Chetnik Movement envisaged the
15 restoration of Serbia within ethnic borders, and this would include
16 Macedonia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Dubrovnik, Dalmatia, Lika, Kordun, Banja,
17 Slavonia, the region of Baranja. Therefore, roughly speaking the
18 territories that were affected during the Second World War, that is where
19 the Serbs were victimised in the regions, that is the military borders,
20 the Krajinas, which included Lika, Kordun, Banja.
21 Q. Would you compare, please, the party programme of the
22 Serbian Chetnik Movement with regard to the creation of Greater Serbia?
23 A. I didn't quite understand. What should I compare?
24 Q. Would you compare that programme with the antecedent from the
25 Serbian Renewal Movement. Was it the same? Was it more specific? Was it
1 different? How do they compare?
2 A. It is perhaps more precise regarding the definition of
3 territories, but globally the two movements envisaged the same thing, that
4 is the creation of a Greater Serbia. The Serbian Renewal Movement placed
5 greater emphasis on the Serb victims during the Second World War, which
6 would later on be done also by the Serbian Chetnik Movement.
7 Q. Let me ask you to look at what is in your binder as tab 83, and
8 it's been marked previously as P27. This is the political platform of the
9 Serbian Chetnik Movement. Let me ask you to look at paragraph 1 of the
10 first page.
11 Does that paragraph define what would be the borders or the
12 territories of a Greater Serbia?
13 A. Yes. It's a definition of the territory of so-called Serbian
14 territory that should be part of the Serbian democratic state in the
16 Q. Is this the same programme statement that you have quoted in your
17 report at page 81?
18 A. Yes, that is in fact the case.
19 Q. Let me ask you to look at paragraph 20 of the programme statement.
20 What does paragraph 20 concern?
21 A. It has to do with the so-called revolt of the Kosovo Albanians and
22 of the way of putting an end to it, because at the time there was much
23 dissatisfaction amongst Kosovo Albanians because the autonomy they had
24 within Yugoslavia had been reduced. In the spring '89 there was an
25 amended to the constitution of the Republic of Serbia that was introduced.
1 Q. Can you --
2 A. So the Serbian Chetnik Movement suggested a certain number of
3 solutions to put an end to this Albanian rebellion, because in the spring
4 of '89 there were numerous demonstrations by Kosovo Albanians. So the
5 Serbian Chetnik Movement wanted to suppress the autonomy of the province
6 and to expel 360.000 Albanian immigrants from Yugoslavian territory. They
7 had entered Yugoslavia after the 6th of April, '41, 1941.
8 Q. Can you read the first step regarding expulsion of Albanians.
9 A. "Immediate expulsion of the 360.000 Albanian emigrants and their
10 offspring; delivery of all those who arrived in Yugoslavia from Albania
11 after the 6th of April, 1941 to the United Nations High Commission for
12 Refugees, as there are so many infinitely richer, vaster and unpopulated
13 countries than Yugoslavia, so let them receive these emigrants, and let
14 them show the humanity."
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, what happened on the
16 6th of April, 1941?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In fact, that is the date when
18 Germany and its allies attacked Yugoslavia.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And when Germany attacked
20 Yugoslavia, was there an influx of Albanian emigrants?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The question was -- the country was
22 broken up and a great part of Kosovo became part of Albania that was under
23 Italy. The number of 360.000 Albanians who apparently -- who settled in
24 Kosovo at the time is fairly extravagant figure because the population of
25 Kosovo itself at the time, according to the '31 census, the population was
1 550.000. In 1939 there was a census, a purely regional one and there were
2 about 670.000, and in 1948 there were about 720.000 inhabitants. So the
3 figure 360.000 added to the total number of the population in 1939, would
4 result in a figure for the population which is far larger in '48. So they
5 must have taken into consideration Serbs who left Kosovo during the
6 Second World War and of the victims of the war.
7 So the official figures, the Yugoslav official figures from the
8 Federal Ministry of the Interior, from a report that was made public in
9 December '88, mentioned 15.000 citizens of Albanian origin who had settled
10 in Yugoslavia between 1941 and 1948 -- 1988. And for the Second World War
11 period, in Kosovo they said there were 3.000 Albanians who were born in
12 Albania and who had settled in Kosovo, and about 500 Albanians who were
13 born in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia that they left this kingdom before the
14 Second World War and settled in Albania and returned to Kosovo between
15 1941 and 1945.
16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Witness, Milosevic in his
17 decision to reduce the amount of autonomy granted to Kosovo, was he
18 influenced when doing this by Mr. Seselj's party's programme, at least as
19 far as the Albanian question in Kosovo is concerned?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think so. Having said that,
21 the Serbian Chetnik Movement programme is far more radical than the
22 programme followed by the Serbian authorities at the time.
23 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] An additional question. As for
25 the Kosovo Albanians, the ones who arrived after the 6th of April, 1941,
1 with the passage of time and after 1945, '46, and up until 1991, did they
2 have papers? Did they have nationality? What was their status exactly?
3 Were they still considered to be there illegally? Was the status legal?
4 Did you look into the legal situation, their legal status?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, after the war they were
6 considered to be refugees, some of them at least. There were several
7 waves of immigration. The first wave took place during the Second World
8 War and then in the 50s there was a second wave of Albanian immigration.
9 The Albanians came from Albania and they were fleeing the Enver Hoxha
10 regime. As far as the Albanians born in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia are
11 concerned, Albanians who had left Yugoslavia after the Second World War,
12 they had lost their Yugoslav nationality. They had been stripped of their
13 Yugoslav nationality when they settled in Kosovo. Kosovo was then part of
14 Albania but Kosovo became part of Yugoslavia again at the end of the
15 Second World War, but they were no longer citizens of Yugoslavia. So
16 their status was regulated after the war and several hundred of them
17 maintained the status of refugees. There are about 700 of them who had
18 the status of refugees in 1988.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I've understood you
20 correctly, some still had the status of refugees, but a certain number had
21 Yugoslav nationality.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Their situation had been
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So they were Yugoslav citizens.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. They had become Yugoslav
2 MS. DAHL:
3 Q. Were you able to determine an official figure of the number of
4 persons from Albania living in Yugoslavia from 1941 until 1988?
5 A. There is a list. The federal authorities at the time had a list
6 of a -- of 11.000 names, of about 11.000 names but they thought that an
7 additional 4.000 had settled down in Yugoslavia during the period in
8 question. So that would be a total of about 15.000 individuals.
9 At the time when these figures appeared in the press in
10 December'88, these figures weren't contested in Belgrade in Serbia. And
11 it's difficult to imagine that these -- that this figure has
12 underestimated the number of Albanians from Albania who settled in
13 Yugoslavia since there was a police control in Kosovo after the war. So
14 the Communist authorities were in power in Yugoslavia in the spring of
15 1945. There was an Albanian rebellion which provoked a Yugoslav army
16 reaction at the time, and when Yugoslavia broke with the Soviet Union,
17 Enver Hoxha's Albanians supported Stalin rather than Tito and the
18 Albanians were perceived as potentially dangerous elements, so the police
19 did control the Albanian population at the time, and one might assume that
20 this sentence is fairly precise.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I will go back to the platform
22 now, the political platform of the Serbian Chetnik Movement. The document
23 we have before us, well, what strikes me is that at the very beginning of
24 the text one refers to the restoration of the liberty, independence, and
25 democracy. The question of "territory" is dealt with later. The entire
1 document or other items in the document concern restoring the market
2 economy, the legal system, the judiciary, and paragraph 20 mentions the
3 Albanian issue.
4 The Prosecution emphasises the issue of territory, and you, as our
5 expert today, what would you say that the main objective of this political
6 platform was?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, at the time the -- Yugoslavia
8 was breaking up, so the debate was about the future of the country, about
9 how to reorganise the country, and so the Serbian Chetnik Movement
10 situates itself within this context and presents its own vision of the
11 future of Yugoslavia and it's the Serbian national question that dominates
12 all political debates at the time. It's the main issue at the time.
13 The Serbian Chetnik Movement was created in June 1990. The --
14 Croatia was already experiencing certain tensions between the -- its own
15 political authorities and its local Serb population. And as of June 1990,
16 the -- Slobodan Milosevic and Borisav Jovic, who at the time was the
17 president of the Yugoslav Federation, had the idea of cutting off Croatian
18 territory. So it was a natural question that predominated and if Slovenia
19 and Croatia were to become independent it was thought at that point in
20 time Croatian Serbs should exercise their right to self-determination.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can we see this in the document
22 what you have said? Is there clearly stated in the document?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm explaining a few things about
24 the context, but as for the political programme, there can be certain
25 basic principles that perhaps are not respected by the parties in
1 question. When you have a political programme certain things are carried
2 out, others are not. So item 1A, under item 1A you can see this intention
3 to create a Greater Serbia which would include territory outside of
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
6 MS. DAHL:
7 Q. I notice that the platform includes the phrase "Restoration of a
8 free, independent, and democratic Serbian state in the Balkans." What is
9 the implication from the use of the word "restoration"?
10 A. Well, a restoration implies that this state already existed in --
11 within certain borders. The state of Serbia, such as it had existed since
12 the beginning of the nineteenth century.
13 Q. Had there ever been a state of Serbia as described in paragraph 1
14 in history?
15 A. Including all these territories? No. No.
16 Q. Let me go back to paragraph 20 and ask you whether the platform
17 includes a declaration of a state of war in Kosovo.
18 A. In fact this is one of the measures envisaged.
19 Q. How long did the Chetnik Movement -- yes.
20 A. For a period of less than ten years.
21 THE INTERPRETER: For a period of at least ten years, interpreter's
23 MS. DAHL:
24 Q. Did the Chetnik Movement take a position with respect to the
25 functioning of civilian authorities in institutions in Kosovo?
1 A. It was a matter of -- of suppressing all the civilian authorities.
2 Q. Did the Chetnik Movement take a position with regard to
3 establishing a separation zone or a buffer zone between the Albanian state
4 and Serbia?
5 A. The programme mentioned a buffer zone at the border with Albania
6 and would extend for -- to a depth of 20 to 50 kilometres, and given its
7 strategic importance for the defence of the country, it -- there shouldn't
8 be any Albanians in that stretch of territory.
9 Q. What would be done with Albanians found in that territory when the
10 zone would be established?
11 A. Well, it says that they should be moved, so perhaps they were part
12 of the 360.000 Albanians who were supposed to depart.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Why do you say they should have
14 been moved and also receive financial compensation? Why didn't you say
15 that as it says in the text? You didn't mention the compensation.
16 Because that changes everything. It's not the same thing, moving people
17 and not giving them anything, and moving people and providing them with
18 financial compensation.
19 MS. DAHL:
20 Q. Did the Chetnik Movement take a position about Albanians with
21 Serbian citizenship residing abroad who are involved in a separatist
23 A. Well, they wanted to withdraw their Yugoslav nationality and ban
24 them from returning to Kosovo, to Yugoslavia.
25 Q. Did the Chetnik Movement take a position about social welfare
1 benefits for persons in Kosovo?
2 A. They wanted to suppress all forms of social aid since at the time
3 they believed that there was a "rampant" demography amongst the Albanians.
4 They wanted to put an end to this river of demographic growth.
5 Q. Are you referring to the assertion that those in Kosovo were
6 enjoying a high birth rate?
7 A. Well, it was a reality. Indeed the birth rate of Kosovo Albanians
8 was the highest in Yugoslavia. There was a growth of the Albanian
9 population that was much higher than that of the local Serbian population.
10 Q. In the last paragraph does the Chetnik Movement take a position on
11 whether elections should be held?
12 A. The programme indeed states that there can't be any elections to
13 be organised in the territory of Kosovo as long as the ethnic structure of
14 the population is not brought back to the levels of the 6th of April,
16 Q. Can you state whether this aspect of the Chetnik programme
17 continued into the Serbian Radical Party?
18 A. Later on when the Serbian Radical Party was founded in February in
19 1991, all this programme, all the points related to Kosovo was taken up
20 and further developed. In fact, many of the points of the Chetnik -- the
21 Serbian Chetnik Movement programme are to be found in the programme of the
22 Serbian Radical Party in February 1991.
23 Q. Before we turn to that, was Dr. Seselj able to register the
24 Serbian Chetnik Movement as a lawful political party in Serbia?
25 A. In late July 1990 there was an application for registration that
1 was filed by the leadership of the Serbian Chetnik Serb, but it did not
2 achieve its goal because early in 1990 the authorities said that they
3 would not register this political movement because it was associated with
4 their Chetnik Movement of the Second World War, and the leaders of the
5 Chetnik Movement had been convicted for war crimes by the Yugoslav
6 judiciary in '46. This might have shocked the public opinion, the local
7 public opinion.
8 Q. Let me ask you to turn to tab 94 in your binder. That's the 65
9 ter exhibit number.
10 Can you look at the headline of the reprint and tell me what it
12 A. "An interview with Vojislav Seselj, a new Chetnik Vojvoda."
13 Q. At the back of the article is there a date indicated and a
14 publication? In the Serbian version it would be on the page 21.
15 A. This interview was published in the Slovenian weekly called
16 Mladina on the 8th of August, 1990.
17 Q. And what was Mladina?
18 A. Mladina is a weekly. It was in fact the organ of the youth
19 organisation in Slovenia. It was very critical especially in the second
20 half of the '80s with the then Yugoslav army.
21 Q. For the Chamber's and Dr. Seselj's reference, that is reprint I
22 have taken from his book "Politics as a challenge of conscience,"
23 published in 1993 in Belgrade, and I'd ask that the document be marked,
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be MFI P150.
1 MS. DAHL:
2 Q. Can you read out the first question and answer.
3 A. "Question: Do you think that your acts are leading to an
4 agreement between the Croats and the Macedonians?"
5 Q. Now, before the journalist's question there was a statement
6 regarding activities by Dr. Seselj at a monastery. Can you read that
7 statement, please.
8 A. "With Vojvoda Seselj, we met him the last time when he was moving
9 the plaque away in the Macedonian monastery Prohor Pcinjski not far from
11 Q. What happened then?
12 A. The interpreter had not finished so I didn't hear your question.
13 Q. What did Dr. Seselj do at the monastery?
14 A. So this happened on the 3rd of August, 1990. Vojislav Seselj,
15 together with members of his party - I believe there were over 40 people -
16 they went to this monastery, Prohor Pcinjski, which at the border between
17 the Republic of Serbia and Macedonia. This monastery is known as a place
18 where the Macedonian Communist parties and movement decided to establish
19 the Republic of Macedonia and thereby contributing to the Macedonian
20 nation to be recognised.
21 The Serbian Chetnik Movement thought that it was some kind of
22 desecration to put a commemorative plaque about this event of the
23 Second World War. This plaque was then removed by force by the members of
24 the Serbian Chetnik Movement.
25 Q. Can you now repeat the question and answer now that we have the
1 context for the question.
2 A. "Does it seem to you that through your acts you are paving the
3 road towards agreements with the Croats and the Macedonians?"
4 Q. How did Dr. Seselj answer that question?
5 A. "I don't know what we should negotiate about with the Slovenians
6 and Macedonians, and especially with the Macedonians who are an invented
7 people. There can be no negotiations with them. Macedonia was part of
8 Serbia even before the creation of Yugoslavia, and it was an
9 internationally recognised country."
10 Q. What was the journalist's follow-up question and answer?
11 A. "And what if the Macedonians do not accept their country being
12 part of a Greater Serbia?"
13 And the answer?
14 Q. Yes, please.
15 A. "Well, let them move out then."
16 Q. What was the exchange that followed that answer?
17 A. "Are you afraid of war?" The answer: "With whom?"
18 Q. When the journalist suggested perhaps "With the Croats, for
19 instance," what did Dr. Seselj say?
20 A. "With the Croats? Well, when -- when have they fought? All they
21 can do is talk a lot, raise a lot of dust, make a fuss, and that is all."
22 Q. In this interview did Dr. Seselj articulate the borders of
23 Greater Serbia?
24 A. He does mention in answering the next question: "The borders of
25 Serbia, Karlobag, Karlovac, the Kupa River, and Virovitica."
1 Q. Did Dr. Seselj express an opinion on the need for a transitional
2 period and a national army?
3 A. He's against any transitional period. He is of the view that it
4 has to be created very quickly.
5 Q. Did the journalist question Dr. Seselj about the new name of his
6 political party then, the Serbian Chetnik Movement?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What was the question asked?
9 A. "You shouldn't think that this hasn't been thought through. Don't
10 you think it's a lack of reflection to call your party the Serbian Chetnik
11 Movement considering the opinion formed with regard to the Chetniks?"
12 Q. And what was Dr. Seselj's answer?
13 A. "I think that such a name evokes only the best associations among
14 the Serbs, because the Chetniks have always been fighters for freedom and
15 for the defence of the homeland."
16 Q. What happened when Dr. Seselj was not able to register the
17 Serbian Chetnik Movement as a legal political party?
18 A. Well, for this organisation it was difficult to do anything,
19 including to organise public gatherings since the authorities could easily
20 ban such gatherings because this movement had not been legally, officially
21 registered. But this did not prevent the Serbian Chetnik Movement from
22 organising various gatherings in spite of their prohibitions that had been
24 This movement finds itself in a difficult situation. It is not
25 registered. Therefore, it is difficult for it when the first elections
1 are about to be organised in December 1990 in Serbia. So Mr. Seselj
2 cannot run as a candidate for the Chetnik Movement to the presidential
3 election. He will run as an independent candidate based on a group of
4 citizens, even though indeed all his speeches show that as a candidate he
5 does -- he did represent at the time the Serbian Chetniks. So the way out
6 is to create the Serbian Radical Party in February 1991. Under this name
7 of the Serbian Radical Party, this party will be acknowledged by the
8 authorities in March 1991.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] With your help, I'd like to find
10 an answer to the following question I have in mind. This is an interview
11 which deals with the end with the independence of Slovenia. At the time
12 were there Serbs in Slovenia?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very few. There were many Serbs who
14 had come to the republic to work, but there's no population --
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] How many in percentage?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know exactly but very few.
17 Some thousands. But Slovenia was the most homogeneous republic,
18 nationally speaking, so it basically had no problem with national
19 minorities both for the powers that be in Belgrade but also for the
20 nationalists in Slovenia was no problem. And Milosevic thought that he
21 could let go of Slovenia as quickly as he could in that way because there
22 was no territorial claims between Serbia and Slovenia. In this way,
23 Serbia could then resolve the territorial issues with the other republics.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But the fact that Slovenia would
25 become independent, would be let go, was that not opening Pandora's box in
1 which other countries like Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina would sort of
2 rush into?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. If you let go of one country,
4 that opens the way, the door for other proclamations of independence.
5 Indeed it did favour other republics to leave Yugoslavia since one
6 republic had been let go. But Milosevic's will was in fact to have
7 Yugoslavia comprising all the other republics.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This journalist who hears this
9 answer about the independence of Slovenia finished the interview with the
10 following question: He asked him what he thought of the idea of a
12 What do you think of this question as it was put? Was the
13 journalist not surprised by the fact that this independence would cause no
14 problem, because he asked whether there could not be a confederation, like
15 Slovenia plus Yugoslavia.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time when there is a mention
17 made of confederation, it would include the six republics of the
18 Yugoslav Federation, but the free elections had already taken place in
19 April 1990 in Slovenia. This is now in August following the elections,
20 and there are powers in place that are more in favour of a Yugoslav
21 confederation. But in fact Yugoslavia was already a sort of
22 confederation. Formally it was a federation, but the powers of the
23 republics were already quite important with important prerogatives, and
24 there was a rather weakened central federal power which brought certain
25 international organisations like the International Monetary Fund to sort
1 of try and organise a federation to try and repay the debt. So already we
2 were in a confederal context.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have just said something
4 that may not be relevant but in my view could have some impact on the
5 future. You said that the federal power was weak. Could you be more
6 specific about it?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As of the end of the '60s and in the
8 early '70s, the Yugoslav Federation was reformed. It gave a great deal of
9 autonomy to the republics. This reform of the federation went
10 hand-in-hand with the reform of the league of the Communists in
11 Yugoslavia, and eventually each of the leagues in each of the republics
12 became more or less autonomous. In other words, the Congress of the
13 League of Communists of Yugoslavia had to take into account the decisions
14 made by each of the Congresses of the republican league. So you had
15 federation or a confederalisation at the level of the state but also at
16 the level of the party.
17 Each of the republics had their own economic policies. They could
18 make debts with foreign banks. Each republic had its own system of
19 Territorial Defence. So at the federal level you mainly at the central
20 level you had the Yugoslav Army that had remained a federal army, but when
21 it came to external relations --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I don't know whether you have
23 knowledge about economic matters, but now you tackle the issue of debts
24 for each of the republics, but wasn't it Belgrade central bank that would
25 make sure that the monetary system could continue?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It was the central bank. But
2 after that at political level many decisions were made at the level of the
3 republics without there being any real sort of cohesion with the central
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We're going to have
6 to have a break. It's 10.00. We shall reconvene in 20 minutes' time.
7 --- Recess taken at 10.02 a.m.
8 --- On resuming at 10.26 a.m.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing's resumed.
10 Ms. Dahl, please proceed.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Interpretation] Can I ask something of the
12 witness? Sorry, Ms. Dahl.
13 What was the reason for maintaining the structure of the Yugoslav
14 confederation when all the republics wanted to become independent?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I pointed out earlier on, I said
16 that there was a trend towards confederalisation of Yugoslavia since the
17 late 1960s, a series of reforms materialised in the change of the
18 constitution in 1974.
19 In 1990, 1991, Croatia and Slovenia are the two republics to
20 advocate this concept of confederalisation of Yugoslavia while Serbia at
21 the time was against this process and wanted, rather, that the central
22 power be strengthened. So we have basically two main options that oppose
23 each other. There is this project of advanced confederalisation advocated
24 by Slovenia and Croatia and on the other hand, a process of
25 re-centralisation advocated by Belgrade.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Interpretation] Thank you. Another question
2 regarding the Chetnik Movement: What was the reason why the movement was
3 not officially recognised?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The very name of the movement had
5 the word "Chetnik" in it which meant that there was a connection with the
6 Chetnik Movement of the Second World War, and it was deemed that this
7 could be shocking for those who had participated in the national
8 liberation war on the side of the Communist partisans who took power in
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Interpretation] So, basically, it was for
11 ideological reasons?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it was held -- you have this
13 decision that says the Second World War Chetnik Movement has been
14 disbanded, that its members -- its leaders had been convicted and that
15 therefore the new Chetnik Movement could not be recognised; so basically
16 for ideological reasons, indeed.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl.
19 MS. DAHL: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Before the break we were discussing the failure of the Chetnik
21 Movement to get itself registered. Did that preclude Dr. Seselj from
22 participating himself in the elections in December 1990?
23 A. No. As I said earlier on, he ran as a candidate proposed by a
24 group of citizens. The problem was that he was convicted in October to a
25 sentence -- a prison sentence of some 15 days, if I'm not mistaken. So he
1 didn't have that much time to prepare for the election campaign.
2 Q. What position did Dr. Seselj take in the election campaign
3 regarding Croatia seceding from the republic?
4 A. Well, at the time he presented the main ideas of the
5 Serbian Chetnik Movement. This idea was that in the event of the
6 independence of Croatia, the territories populated by Serbs must be
7 removed from that republic, detached from it with the idea of establishing
8 the western border of Serbia on the line
10 Q. Have you quoted Dr. Seselj's campaign positions in your report?
11 A. I can't remember exactly.
12 Q. Let me ask you to turn to page 83.
13 A. Yes, there is a quotation dating back to the time of the election
14 campaign which tallies with what I've just said. It is a warning to the
15 Croats and more specifically to the political chief of the time in
16 Croatia, Franjo Tudjman.
17 Q. And what did Dr. Seselj say?
18 A. In a nutshell, he says that the Croats can separate themselves
19 from Yugoslavia. They can create an independent state, associate
20 themselves with another state, but they must know that at no cost or
21 unless there are -- there's new blood or further rivers of blood, they can
22 take away from us any part of the territory that contains Serbian
23 villages, Serbian mass graves, sites where Serbs were massacred, pits that
24 were -- Serbs were thrown in. They will never allow camps where Serbs
25 were imprisoned such as Jasenovac or Serbian churches that were destroyed.
1 We will never allow this, he said. So that's this idea that if Croatia
2 became independent the Serbs could exercise their right to
3 self-determination, the Serbs living in the territory of Croatia, that is.
4 Q. Does Dr. Seselj consider that Croatia has a basis for becoming an
5 independent state?
6 A. In most of his statements Mr. Seselj expresses a will to present
7 the Croats as being weak, being cowards, basically as not having a very
8 strong statehood tradition.
9 Q. I'm looking at page 84. Have you quoted a particular description
10 that Dr. Seselj used in this campaign?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can you read that out at the bottom of the page, beginning "The
13 Croats are not a historical nation."
14 A. Oh, yes, I see. "The Croats are not a historical nation.
15 Consider the Czechs and the Germans, for instance, Czech is synonymous
16 with coward, while the Germans are a warrior nation. The same goes for
17 the Serbs and the Croats. The Croats are a depraved nation. I have yet
18 to meet a decent Croat."
19 This is an interview that was given to Tanjug, the main Yugoslav
20 press agency at the time, and this interview was later published in the
21 Red Tyrant from Dedinje, a book that was published.
22 Q. Who is the publisher of that book?
23 A. This is ABC Glas, it's a publishing house that published all the
24 works by Mr. Seselj.
25 Q. In Dr. Seselj's campaign for the 1990 election, did he use his
1 view of the negotiations for the Treaty of London to justify his
2 territorial positions?
3 A. Indeed. I noted that there's -- he keeps having this reference to
4 the Treaty of London of 1915 since 1989 which is supposed to trace the
5 western borders along the Karlobag-Virovitica line and this assertion was
6 repeated on several occasions. This western border is part of
7 Vojislav Seselj's discourse, and it's an important one at the time.
8 Q. Let me ask you to look at your map number 10 which we've marked as
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please, before we
11 look at map number 10. We were at page 84 in your report and you thought
12 it useful to indicate in your report -- to mention this interview with
13 Radio Kakaj [phoen] in 1991. This was published in a book he wrote with
14 the title "Brankovic came out of his grave," published in 1994.
15 This is a rather lengthy text written by Mr. Seselj himself, and
16 it seems to say the following -- with your help, I would like to
17 understand what he meant to say.
18 His premise was that Yugoslavia had stopped existing and ceased to
19 exist, and he added "Only Serbia will remain." So this sentence conveys
20 the impression that the Yugoslav state, as it existed at -- ceased to
21 exist since Slovenia had become independent and Croatia was on the
22 horizon, and he added this: "Serbia will remain. The Kingdom of
23 Yugoslavia is the legal successor," he said, "of the Kingdom of Serbia."
24 And he proceeds in his legal demonstration saying this: "Only Serbia as a
25 state can be the legal successor of Yugoslavia."
1 And of course this is his Yugoslavia, he says: "There is no
2 Yugoslavia any longer since Yugoslavia no longer existed as it became
3 Yugoslavia in 1945. Now we have the Kingdom of Serbia," he said. And he
4 proceeded with this analysis by saying this: "In accordance with the
5 provisions of the Treaty of London --" this is just a hypothesis he put
6 forward, he said, it was possible to have a western border for Serbia.
7 And I think every word counts here. He says this: "It can, and when you
8 say it can, it's just a hypothesis. It's not something that you impose."
9 And he says: "It can follow the Karlobag line if we want it to be a
10 historical and strategic border." I think this sentence says it all.
11 In his view he observes that there is no Yugoslavia any longer,
12 then that the Kingdom of Serbia or Serbia must be the successor unless, of
13 course, there was a new King, but then the legal basis, in his view, would
14 be this famous Treaty of London of 1915.
15 And in a second stage he expresses the idea of this border
16 Karlobag-Ogulin-Karlovac-Virovitica. So I see that as a hypothesis in his
17 view. And he added this, he said: "If we want it to be an ethnic,
18 historical and strategic border."
19 So this is my reading of it. In your view, what did he mean in
20 saying so?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time this was an interview
22 given in September 1991. Yugoslavia was then not totally disbanded or
23 dismantled, even though Croatia and Slovenia had proclaimed their
24 independence, but this is an ongoing process controlled by the European
25 Community of the time, and the independence will only be acknowledged in
1 early 1992, at least for Croatia. I think it's January 1992 when Germany,
2 among other countries, decided to recognise the independence of Croatia.
3 Therefore, Yugoslavia has not totally disappeared at the time, and
4 it is said here that this western border can be -- it's one of many
5 quotations in which things are less presented as hypothesis than in other
6 texts you can read that the western border must be that. So this is one
7 in scores of quotations you could find in all the interviews Seselj gave.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you say that there are
9 quotations that are much more affirmative.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Whilst acknowledges -- one
12 acknowledging that here it is presented in the form of a hypothesis.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But you said this
15 interview was given in September 1991, and in his statement he says the
16 moment Yugoslavia ceases to exist because there's an ongoing process.
17 That is what he says.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right, when Yugoslavia
19 ceases to exist. And obviously we are approaching the end of Yugoslavia.
20 But before Yugoslavia was formed, there were two independent states only.
21 That is Serbia and Montenegro that were recognised by the Congress of
22 Berlin in 1878.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I come back to Croatia very
24 quickly. This thesis that it is not a nation, that it is not a state, he
25 raises the issue by saying we will see -- we see the concern of the
1 international community to regulate Croatia. He envisages several
2 hypotheses. He says that perhaps the Italians, maybe the Austrians, maybe
3 the Hungarians. He envisages various things, but he is not determined
4 regarding the existence of this Croatian state.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But Croatia should be formed outside
6 this western frontier line, Karlovac-Ogulin-Karlobag-Virovitica. It
7 doesn't -- he doesn't concern himself with what will happen behind that
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But to the extent that he says
10 that this line which is of concern to Croatia, of course, but he says in
11 his speech that there is no Croatian state and if there is no Croatian
12 state then one can wonder what he actually meant. What do you think about
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Republic of Croatia was a
15 component of the federal state, but he is contesting that.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Republic of Croatia at the
17 time was one of the republics of the federation. It is an administrative
18 entity in a sense from the international standpoint. The Republic of
19 Croatia at the time was not internationally recognised. It was
20 ex-Yugoslavia that was internationally recognised.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but this process that is
22 ongoing is going to define the rules for the recognition of the components
23 of Yugoslavia. The Badinter Commission is establishing criteria for
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but at the moment he's
1 speaking the Republic of Croatia was still not recognised; is that right?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was one of the republics of
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. We are in agreement, yes.
5 But judging by what he says, though it was one of the republics of
6 ex-Yugoslavia from the point of view of a state he's contesting the notion
7 of state and even of a nation. He says the Croats are not an historic
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In many of his writings and his
10 statements he ignores the fact that the Croats had a state in the
11 Middle Ages. They were part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, yes, and the
12 Croatian state of the time was integrated with Hungary and that was the
13 case until the First World War.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. But he says that in 1102
15 it was a state, he said that. He says since 1102, the Croats never had a
16 state, which means that before that they did have one. And in his view
17 between 1102 and 1991, there was no state in the sense of an
18 internationally recognised state.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Kingdom of Croatia was at the
20 time a component of the Kingdom of Hungary, yes.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I am asking you
22 these questions because you are the expert and not me, and I am trying to
23 understand the meaning of what he wrote in order to integrate all this
24 into a much broader scope, and that is the indictment.
25 MS. DAHL:
1 Q. Let us go to your map number 10, which has been previously marked
2 as P148.
3 Looking at the western borders in the political context in which
4 this map was published in August 1990, can you draw a conclusion whether
5 or not those borders could be achieved peacefully?
6 A. With difficulty, in view of the fact it is including territory
7 with non-Serb populations which enter in the concept of a Greater Serbia.
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina is populated by Bosniaks, Muslims and Croats. In
9 Macedonia there is the Macedonian nation. In any event, people who
10 defined themselves as being Macedonian and which would not fit into the --
11 which would not accept the ideology of Greater Serbia, the more so in view
12 of the memories from the Second World War this concept had meaning for --
13 certain meaning for some people evoking conflicts. It is not a project
14 that non-Serb populations could adhere to of these regions.
15 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes, but from his standpoint he
16 is saying that there is no national consciousness on the part of the
17 Croats. He's denying the nationhood of the Macedonians. In his point of
18 view, these people, in particular the Croats, are not going to fight
19 because they're not warriors, they are Croats. Therefore, in the light of
20 these -- this discourse, I still cannot see that the means of getting hold
21 of this territory would be military means.
22 Could you elaborate on this particular point and provide some
23 clarification, please?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we take the example of Bosnia and
25 Herzegovina, in Bosnia and Herzegovina there are three ethnic communities,
1 the Bosniaks, the Muslims, the Serbs, and the Croats. The Serbs who until
2 after the Second World War were -- had a relative majority moved from the
3 first place to the second place, the Muslim group becoming the
4 predominant, the largest ethnic community.
5 So we have a territory with mixed -- with a mixed population, and
6 their views of the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina are not identical, and
7 the Croats of Bosnia and the Bosniaks of Bosnia do not accept the idea of
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina being included in a Greater Serbia. So I don't see how
9 this objective could be achieved, because each national community had its
10 own national project, and these were competing projects frequently.
11 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] That is your opinion, but from
12 his point of view I would like to know what the means are. Did he
13 envisage military means or proceeding from his viewpoint, which may be
14 erroneous but that was his point of view, could he have envisaged a path
15 that would be a non-military path?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In 1990 we can see that Serb
17 volunteers are beginning to be organised and sent to Croatia. So the
18 Chetnik Movement itself has a military dimension to it in the sense that
19 creating a party called a Chetnik Party, this very word meant a military
20 activity, and to resolve this question when the Chetnik Movement became a
21 component part of the Radical Party, so it was no longer a purely
22 political party. In spring 1991, we see volunteers being sent by the
23 Serbian Radical Party. So there were military activities undertaken
24 within the Republic of Croatia.
25 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have another problem at this
1 stage. I would like to ask you whether the Chetnik Movement had this
2 military dimension and these war-like intentions only when there was
3 already a war-like situation as there was during the Second World War, and
4 this entailed their active participation in the war, or in the spring of
5 1991, yes, there already was a conflict in ex-Yugoslavia, and therefore
6 whether outside a conflict that had already started he may have
7 nonetheless envisaged other means, other methods of -- of gaining control
8 of these territories.
9 That is just what I wanted to clear up.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] May I follow up to this
11 question, which is a fundamental one and a very important one, and I thank
12 the Judge for putting it.
13 In the position of Mr. Seselj and his political party, was the
14 objective sought or could the objective sought have been achieved by
15 political means or, in your own view, this could only be achieved by
16 military means?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On several occasions he says that
18 there can be no negotiations with the Macedonians or the Croats, which
19 limits the possibility of negotiation. From the moment one wishes to
20 include in Greater Serbia territories which are populated by minority
21 Serbs in Western Slavonia, the Serbs only represented about 25 per cent of
22 the population. Clearly there cannot be adhesion of the non-Serb
23 population there to this project of a Greater Serbia. You cannot achieve
24 such a project which is being addressed mainly to the Serbs without
25 involving the adhesion of non-Serb populations.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I understand what you're trying
2 to tell us, but we are faced with the following problem: Before the years
3 when the conflicts broke out in this region there was ex-Yugoslavia which
4 functioned under a Communist regime where Serbs, Croats, Muslims lived
5 apparently on good terms. Then comes the "dismantling" of ex-Yugoslavia.
6 Some people like him and others are going to raise the national issue, and
7 this national issue can have political solutions or military solutions,
8 and our concern is to find out whether when -- when he made this map, when
9 he held these speeches and when he formed the Serbian Radical Party, was
10 the military option the only option, or perhaps there may have been other
11 options and specifically the Badinter Commission option which we'll have
12 this issue of a referendum in Bosnia and Herzegovina and to see what they
13 wanted or not.
14 The question is whether a democratic means could have been the
15 follow-up to this political programme. The Chetnik Movement did have a
16 military connotation at the beginning, but as my colleague said so well
17 this was the case during the Second World War but in 1990, 1991, and 1992,
18 there's no worldwide conflict ongoing, and therefore are you almost
19 certain that this could only be resolved by military means and that
20 political means, the method of self-determination, referendum, elections,
21 could not have perhaps allowed the implementation or realisation of a
22 Greater Serbia?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I know myself is that as of
24 1989 when Mr. Seselj was in the United States, he mentions the idea of the
25 amputation of a part of Croatia and punishing the Croats for the crimes
1 they committed during the Second World War. Therefore, this idea of
2 amputation of Croat territory existed already then.
3 Then there are several processes that are ongoing in Croatia.
4 There is a Serb population that started to mobilise itself already in 1989
5 in the context of the celebration of the 600th anniversary of the Kosovo
6 battle. Then there were the parliamentary elections of April 1990, which
7 brought to power the Croatian Democratic Community, which is a nationalist
8 party, which is going to call in question the position of the Serbs within
9 Croatia to the extent that the Serbs who were considered a constituent
10 nation of the Republic of Croatia are going to lose that status and become
11 a simple national minority. And therefore, from that moment on there is
12 a -- a will on the part of the Serbs in Croatia to detach themselves from
13 Croatia and to detach a part of the territory in which they are more or
14 less the majority.
15 The Republic of Croatia and their authorities react and hence all
16 the incidents around the police stations, which both parties wish to take
17 control of. And in the spring of 1991, there's a deterioration of the
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And this deterioration of the
20 situation that you have just referred to, we can understand it from the
21 standpoint of the Serbs of Croatia who are seeing what is happening, but
22 how does this directly affect Dr. Seselj?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the moment there is tension, he
24 sends volunteers or units of volunteers belonging to the Serbian Radical
25 Party to Croatia, to Slavonia, and there are the first conflicts in the
1 beginning of May 1991 in the small location called Borovo Selo, and it is
2 in this context that his volunteer units intervene.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So he sends them either as
4 defenders or in an offensive sense? In a defensive or offensive sense?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my view there are both aspects.
6 In his speeches he speaks of defending the Serbs from the new Croatian
7 authorities, but behind that there is a political will to redefine the
8 frontiers of this region, and therefore to make efforts to achieve or to
9 approach the line defined by his programme and that is
10 Karlobag-Ogulin-Karlovac-Virovitica. But this policy, this objective is
11 also shared the League of Communists of Serbia which in July of 1999
12 became the Socialist Party of Serbia, and there are many actors at various
13 levels in the party to have control over the security services, the police
14 and the army, and others like the Radical Party who are sending units of
15 volunteers to Croatia. There is a kind of convergence from the moment
16 that Croatia declares its independence. There is a will to detach a part
17 of the territory of Croatia that is inhabited by Serbs.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Listening to you about the
19 amputation of part of Croatia, it is apparently the Croats who began. It
20 is not the Serbs and Croats who generated the incidents first. Will you
21 please explain that?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The tensions started in '89 when
23 they're celebrating the 600th anniversary of the Kosovo battle. In Kosovo
24 itself there was large gathering. Slobodan Milosevic held a speech that
25 has become famous. But in July '89 there was a large gathering of Serbs
1 in the Krajina region. Many Serbs from other republics, from Bosnia,
2 Serbia arrived. They came there. They were there were about 60.000
3 persons who gathered there, and this gathering, the idea of a Greater
4 Serbia within -- of a Serbian entity within Croatia was mentioned.
5 In the Chetnik immigration press, reference was made to a Serbian
6 entity within Croatia, to the creation of such an entity, and as of that
7 point in time tension developed between the powers or authorities in
8 Croatia and part of the Serbian population in Croatia. In '89 elections
9 hadn't been held yet and Tudjman wasn't yet in power.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And my last question before I
11 give the floor back to Ms. Dahl. If the former Yugoslavia had simply been
12 replaced by a Greater Serbia, well, was this something that could have
13 been carried out or not?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, one should bear in mind
15 something very important. Serbia is one of the most heterogeneous
16 republics in the former Yugoslavia. According to the figures, in 1991
17 there's about 60 per cent of Serbs in Serbia. It's a small percentage in
18 comparison to Slovenia, for example. So if you create a Greater Serbia,
19 the proportion of Serbs will diminish significantly. If you take these
20 borders here, you can't be sure that the Serbs would be in the majority in
21 such a state. So if one wants to create a Greater Serbia, it's not to
22 have the Serbs as a minority in such a Serbia. There were 66 per cent of
23 Serbs in Serbia at the time.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So if I understand things
25 correctly, this Greater Serbia could never have been within the borders of
1 the former Yugoslavia. It would have had to be a state the size of which
2 was much smaller.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Greater Serbia excludes Slovenia,
4 and it only has in mind a smaller Croatia. But if you have a look at the
5 map, it's the -- represents all of Yugoslavia without Slovenia and part of
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Judge Antonetti, please.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Microphone not activated]
9 MS. DAHL:
10 Q. Let me bring up a map that illustrates the KOKV line. It's map
11 number 5 in our map book with the ERN number 06046937. I'll give you the
12 65 ter number in just a moment. It's at 7006.
13 Mr. Tomic, can you identify the red border that surrounds the
14 republics on this map?
15 A. This map is more precise. It shows Greater Serbia in greater
16 precision than was the case in the journal of the Serbian Chetnik
18 MS. DAHL: Can we have the map given an exhibit number, please.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P151.
20 MS. DAHL:
21 Q. So to --
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have an objection, Your Honours.
23 This is a case of evident falsification, this map of Greater Serbia comes
24 from the London Times. It's not from the journal Velika Srbija, the
25 Greater Serbia. The Karlovac-Virovitica-Karlobag line is depicted
1 differently in Velika Srbija. I don't mean the other map because that was
2 a clumsily drawn map for the title page of the second issue of
3 Velika Srbija but the Prosecution does have an original map of
4 Velika Srbija, Greater Serbia, from the journal Velika Srbija or rather,
5 Greater Serbia.
6 MS. DAHL: Let's look at map number 6 then.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute.
8 Witness, this map is from The Times. It has been contested. Its
9 lines -- the lines drawn have been contested. What would you say?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This map appeared in -- the map in
11 Velika Srbija is more of a drawing. It's not a very precise map if you
12 compare it with a geographic map compiled in accordance with the rules.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But the map we have in front of
14 us, the map that is being contested, this map which is also called a map
15 of Greater Serbia, does this map correspond to the map that was published
16 in the Radical Party's publication?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if Karlobag is the point of
18 departure and if we pass through Ogulin and Karlovac and then Virovitica,
19 then the problem is -- although I had can't see everything very clearly on
20 the screen, I can't see the names of the locations, but if that is the
21 route that the line follows, the line at the west that the Chetnik
22 Movement designs, yes.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, please instruct the
24 Prosecution to show you the original map of Greater Serbia from our
25 journal. Sisak is included in Greater Serbia in here, and that's not the
1 case in that -- in the other map. And many other places. This is an
2 inauthentic map. The Prosecution has the original map from our journal.
3 They have the original map but not the drawing that resembles a caricature
4 that they were using a minute ago.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl, apparently the
6 Prosecution has the original map in its possession.
7 MS. DAHL: Let me ask the registrar to bring up the Exhibit 2 --
8 7007. I'm sorry. It's map number 6 in the book.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Which is the original map,
10 because Mr. Seselj is asking us to show the original map that appeared in
11 the publication.
12 Is this the map in question?
13 MS. DAHL: Let me ask Mr. Tomic.
14 Q. Can you identify this map?
15 A. Yes. This looks like the map that appeared in Velika Srbija.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But I'll put the question to
17 Mr. Seselj.
18 Is this the map that appeared in the publication, the map that we
19 can see on the screen?
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. This is the original map,
21 although it seems a bit stretched here. It must be something that's been
22 done deliberately, but the projection -- in terms of its projection it
23 seems a bit stretched, but it is the original map.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So this is the
1 Ms. Dahl.
2 MS. DAHL:
3 Q. So to return to the questions that the Bench was asking you, if
4 the borders of Serbia were expanded along the line indicated in this map
5 of Serbia, what would happen to the proportion of the population that is
6 Serb if the inhabitants all stayed in their -- their places of residence?
7 That is to say, if there were no population expulsions or exchanges upon
8 the redrawing of the borders to correspond with what Dr. Seselj advocated.
9 A. Well, I think one should have all the right statistics, carry out
10 a detailed examination, take into consideration the census of 1991 or even
11 better the census of 1981, but I believe that the Serbs in this
12 Greater Serbia wouldn't have been in the majority, or they would have
13 barely been in the majority. They would have had about -- they were
14 the -- represent about 50 per cent of the population, because in
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina the Serbs represented about 33 per cent of the
16 population. The Muslim Bosnians and the Croats were in the majority. And
17 in addition --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I apologise for interrupting
19 you, but you're saying something that is quite important here that
20 shouldn't escape anyone's attention. You have just said, if I have
21 understood you correctly, when looking at the map we have before us, the
22 so-called map of Greater Serbia as seen by the Radical Party, well, you
23 have said, if we have a look at the demographic composition of the
24 inhabitants inhabiting the territory of this map, well, in your opinion
25 you would say that the Serbs wouldn't be in the majority.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It would be about 50 per cent. So
2 they would barely be in the majority. I can't give you a precise answer.
3 You should take into consideration censuses of each and every
4 municipality. But the Serbs weren't in the majority in Bosnia and
5 Herzegovina, and they weren't in the majority in Macedonia, because the
6 Macedonians, the Slavs in Macedonia say they're Macedonians. There are
7 several thousand Serbs in Macedonia.
8 In this state, well, within the borders you also have Croats in
9 Slavonia and in Krajina. So in fact on the basis of the figures that
10 appeared in certain studies, I can't give you precise references, but on
11 the basis of these studies I think it's quite clear that the Serbian
12 population would represent about 50 per cent of the total and that would
13 pose a problem in Greater Serbia because could the Serbian nation find
14 itself in such a weak position.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This notion of a Greater Serbia
16 if you have a look at the territorial aspect of this notion without
17 thinking about ethnic groups, well, in that case could there be a
18 Greater Serbia, although in purely territorial nature. The ethnic
19 composition would be such as it was. You would have 50 per cent of Serbs
20 and 50 per cent of non-Serbs. Or, and this is the Prosecution's case, the
21 Greater Serbia such as it is represented in the map, would this
22 Greater Serbia only be feasible if there were population movements, if the
23 population was moved?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Movements in 1991, for
25 example, there were population movements that were envisaged. In numerous
1 interviews given to the press, Mr. Seselj mentioned the idea of moving.
2 The Serbs would be behind the Karlobag-Ogulin-Virovitica line, so that
3 concerns Serbs living in the Zagreb and Rijeka region. In his opinion
4 they couldn't continue to live in an independent Croatian state. As a
5 result they would have to be moved to the interior of Serbia and there
6 should be an exchange of population with the Croats from Serbia.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What you have just said is very
8 important. What he said is that on the basis of the Serbian situation in
9 Croatia, these Serbs in Croatia should go to the Greater Serbia and this
10 would be done by organising an exchange. Croats from the Greater Serbia
11 would leave. They'd be forced to do so or would they do so voluntarily or
12 they wouldn't leave? What would be the case?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, when you live in a certain
14 place and if you're quite well there, you don't want to leave the place.
15 You have your personal and professional life there, your family life there
16 so this process can hardly be a process that most people would accept,
17 this process of having a population exchange.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That's your conclusion then.
19 Such a transfer, such an exchange would only be problematic, because force
20 would have to be used to move the population.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A population exchange, well, if it's
22 defined -- who defines it? Is it an agreement between states? Is it the
23 politics of fait accompli?
24 In 1991 in an interview this idea was mentioned, this idea of a
25 population exchange. Seselj mentioned 200.000 Serbs in Zagreb and 30.000
1 in Rijeka, they could no longer live in a Croatian state. They would have
2 to be moved to Serbia and then you would have to organise an exchange of
3 population, send Serbs to the Greater Serbia and the Croats to Serbia.
4 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a problem with regards to
5 your observation on the Greater Serbia as devised by Mr. Seselj and also
6 about the ratio of Serbs that apparently would have made up this
7 Greater Serbia, some 50 per cent. When you mentioned this percentage, do
8 you have in mind the Orthodox Serbs or do you also have other Serbs in
9 mind of other faith?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have in mind the people who
11 identified themselves as Serbs during the census, because the people were
12 asked for their nationalities. So one should not define for them what
13 nationality they are. They self-identified. They self-defined their
14 nationality. So I take account of the census carried out by the state
15 authorities in which people clearly identified their national belonging.
16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] And I have a question regarding
17 Bosnia and Herzegovina. Were there Serbs who identified themselves as
18 being of Serb nationality, or did they identify themselves as Bosnians?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Bosnia the three nations, the
20 Serb, Croat, and Muslim, were regarded as the constituent peoples of the
21 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. So they identified themselves as
22 being Muslim, then Muslim nation was the official name. So they were
23 either that or Croat or Serb, but other could also say they were
24 Yugoslavs, and there were other smaller national groups within Bosnia and
25 Herzegovina. So at the time there is no super national Bosnian identity
1 as it were.
2 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] So in your calculation to arrive
3 at 50 per cent of the Greater Serbia, you also include the Bosnian Serbs?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Who had chosen to identify
6 themselves as such?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, because I take into account the
8 people who declared they were Serbs in -- during the census in all these
9 territories mentioned here.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Apparently there are two census,
11 one in 1981, another one in 1991.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Yugoslavia every ten years, in
13 the first year of each ten years. So you had '61, '71, '81, and '91.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. In 1981 when there
15 was a census in the former Yugoslavia, was there also a Yugoslav
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you roughly, as far as you
19 remember, remember the ratios?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were not so many Yugoslavs.
21 Those who declared they were Yugoslavs came from mixed families, mixed
22 couples. So they were more numerous in some areas where you had mixed
23 population as was the case in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but that has to be
24 checked. I can't remember all the figures, all the -- all the population
25 ratios. It was some 5 to 8 per cent depending on the area.
1 But the Yugoslav national identity was never supported by the
2 communist powers. It was about identifying national identities,
3 Slovenian, Muslim, Croat, Macedonian, Montenegrin, but they didn't want to
4 create a Yugoslav nation as was the case in the first Yugoslavia because
5 they thought that this idea -- that was the point of view of the Communist
6 rulers at the time. They thought that that would go more towards the
7 interest of the Serbs who were more numerous within in Yugoslavia.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This 1981 or 1991 census within
9 Yugoslavia, what was -- what were the percentages?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Yugoslavs --
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, the Serbs.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Some slightly over 30 per cent, 36
13 per cent, I believe.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thirty-six per cent. As to the
15 remainder, how many Croats, for instance?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that in the first Yugoslavia
17 they amounted to some 22 per cent so it could be 18 to 20 per cent.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And the Muslims?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I couldn't give you any precise
20 figure. I think there was 44 per cent in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time.
21 There are also Muslim Slavs in the Republic of Serbia, in the Sandzak
22 area, for instance, in particular. Some 2 million inhabitants in Bosnia
23 and Herzegovina. So 1.8, 1.9, but, you know, I can't remember all the
24 figures because we covered a very long period and you'd need to have
25 statistical charts to be really -- to work properly.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If you feel, Mr. President, that my
3 objection is inappropriate, I will withdraw it immediately, but I must
4 draw your attention that the Prosecutor, with the help of the witness, is
5 confusing you. This is the ideal projection of Greater Serbia. These are
6 territories where stokavian is being spoken excluding the Albanians and
7 the Hungarians. When I advocated exchanges of population, this related to
8 the existing Serbia and the existing Croatia. They are confusing you and
9 I think they're doing so on purpose.
10 This is the ideal projection, much larger than Republika Srpska
11 and the Serb Krajina. There would be more than 2 million who declared
12 themselves as Muslims and more than 2 million who consider themselves
13 Croats and I consider them to be Serbs of Catholic faith. This is just
14 the ideal projection.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The accused Mr. Seselj has just
16 expressed his point of view regarding the population issue. What do you
17 have to say to this?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If this is supposed to be the place
19 where stokavian is spoken, I think cakavian is spoken in Dalmatia, in
20 Split and above. I think I heard cakavian being spoken below the Karlobag
21 line and the Dalmatian coast. So it's not just the stokavian area that is
22 shown here or where stokavian is spoken.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will have an opportunity to
24 go back to this later on.
25 Please proceed, Ms. Dahl. Yes. We'll have an opportunity. You
1 can proceed Ms. Dahl.
2 MS. DAHL: Thank you, Your Honour. Let's have a P number --
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Witness, I have a
4 question because you understand that we did take up a lot of time, but it
5 was necessary to do so. Obviously we're not going to finish your
6 testimony this week. Can you come back on Monday?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Oh, sorry, sorry. I said
9 Monday. I should have said Tuesday.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
12 MS. DAHL: May I please have a P number for the map which is
13 map 6, 65 ter Exhibit 7007.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P152.
15 MS. DAHL:
16 Q. Very briefly let's look at P26, which shows the Greater Serbia
17 border imposed on the ex-Yugoslavia republics. Let me ask Mr. Tomic if he
18 can confirm the outlines on this map.
19 Mr. Tomic, looking at this map can you confirm whether the borders
20 illustrated here in the red shading conform to the map of Greater Serbia
21 published by the Serbian Chetnik Movement?
22 A. They appear to be very similar.
23 Q. To avoid any doubt, has there ever been a western border
24 historically through Karlobag, Ogulin, Karlovac, and Virovitica?
25 A. Part of this boundary was in -- a boundary in the 16th and 17th
1 centuries between the Austrian Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Karlobag as
2 is indicated by the name Karl comes from Charles of Habsburg and Karlovac
3 is also a fortified town created in the 16th century, so that's the same
4 root, you have Karl as in Charles, but we are in the area of the military
5 boundaries. But at the time the line was not totally identical, at least
6 up to Karlovac. Then I can't guarantee that it was exactly the same
7 further north.
8 Q. Now, in the period of time between 1990 and 1993 when Dr. Seselj
9 was advocating this configuration of a Greater Serbia, did that concept
10 enjoy popular support by persons who did not identify themselves as Serbs?
11 A. I don't think that members of national minorities of other
12 non-Serb communities would have supported such a policy. Of course there
13 may be cases, isolated cases of individuals who may be from a minority
14 group or support this policy, but often they're very connected to Serbs.
15 They live in symbiosis with the local Serbian population so they're very
16 close to Serbs. But this policy can only be supported by Serbs. I can't
17 see any other popular support for it coming from non-Serb populations in
18 the area.
19 Q. Would you say the Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina welcomed the
20 idea of a homogenous Greater Serbia?
21 A. Are we talking about 1990, 1993?
22 Q. Yes, that period of time.
23 A. It may be that some Muslims may have expressed themselves in
24 favour of the project, but there wouldn't be many of them. It would
25 remain very much a marginal phenomenon.
1 Q. Let us turn --
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In this respect when Mr. Seselj
3 testified in the Milosevic trial and this testimony has been admitted to
4 our case file because it was so decided by the Trial Chamber, Mr. Seselj
5 quoted many Muslims who actually identified themselves as Serbs. Are you
6 aware of very well-known individuals of Muslim intellectuals who before
7 regarding themselves as Muslim would say they were Serbs?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was roughly the case until after
9 the Second World War when the Muslim nation was not recognised. So the
10 Muslim Slavs would identify themselves as not being determined or some
11 would indeed say of themselves that they were Croats or Serbs of Muslim
12 faith. But the bulk, the majority of Muslim in Bosnia-Herzegovina said
13 that they were not determined or undecided.
14 There may be a minute portion of them who would have identified as
15 Serbs or Croats depending on the local position, the local history, or the
16 family history. Most intellectuals of repute, Bosnian Muslims of the
17 time, would support the SDA, Alija Izetbegovic's party, or possibly other
18 parties, the one that is later to become the social -- the democrat -- the
19 social democratic party coming from the League of Communists in
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
22 MS. DAHL:
23 Q. Let us return to the creation of the Serbian Radical Party in
24 1991. Let me ask you to turn to tab 144 in your notebook.
25 To summarise briefly for the Chamber, this is a compilation of
1 materials reprinted in one of Dr. Seselj's books, and I would like to draw
2 your attention to the founding Assembly speech, the manifesto, and the
3 basic programme as well as the statute.
4 Can you briefly describe what led to the decision by Dr. Seselj to
5 form the Serbian Radical Party in 1991?
6 A. Two points need to be made that I mentioned before. There was the
7 Serb Chetnik Movement that was not recognised by the authorities of the
8 country, and this was a problem for the extension and development of the
9 movement, and in addition there was the popular Radical Party which was
10 formed at the time of the introduction of a multi-party system, and it was
11 divided as of 1991 because it was not elected to the Assembly of Serbia.
12 So Vojislav Seselj is going to come to an agreement with one of
13 the leaders of the People's Radical Party, that is Tomislav Nikolic in
14 order to form together -- for them to form together a new political party.
15 At first they were going to keep the name People's Radical Party, but at
16 the founding Congress the party will be named the Serbian Radical Party.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have mentioned a name that
18 is quite well known, on line 65. You mentioned the name Tomislav Nikolic.
19 Who was he?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He originally lived in Kragujevac
21 and at the time he was member of the People's Radical Party and later he
22 was to become one of the main leaders of The Radical Party, and today he
23 is the vice-president of the Radical Party.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And what was his training? Is
25 he a lawyer, a university person?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think so. He is not a
2 jurist. I have forgotten what his profession is.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And when this party was formed,
4 was he a strong figure in the party?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The People's Radical Party was a
6 well-known party at the time, because it was one of the main parties at
7 the end of the 19th century, and up to the 20s in the Kingdom of
8 Yugoslavia as well. Having said that, it is a party that did not succeed
9 in imposing itself at the first free elections in Serbia in December 1990.
10 I don't know enough regarding the situation within that party, and I think
11 after the elections it split up and formed sections, and a certain section
12 joined with the Serb Chetnik Movement to form the Radical Party.
13 It was a marginal entity because it was not voted into parliament.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 Ms. Dahl.
16 MS. DAHL:
17 Q. Looking at Dr. Seselj's speech at the founding Assembly, can you
18 identify what commitments Dr. Seselj makes clear with regard to the
19 parties' positions?
20 A. What page are you referring to, please?
21 Q. I'm sorry, I took the Serbian text out of my binder. It's at page
22 6 of the English translation, and it's in all capitals, "What are our
23 commitments." And Dr. Seselj's speech appears under CVII, under the
24 caption "In his second address to delegates and guests Dr. Seselj
25 said ..." If I can get my assistant to help with the Serbian text, I can
1 point you to the precise page.
2 Have you located the passage?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. What are the commitments that Dr. Seselj makes as part of the
5 Serbian Radical Party?
6 A. He wishes to continue the activities of the Serbian People's
7 Radical Party formed in 1881 and which was founded by Nikola Pasic and was
8 the leading party at the time. He was one of the main leaders of the
9 government in the Kingdom of Serbia, later the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and
10 he claims that the programme of the Serbian Radical Party is identical to
11 that of the party founded by Nikola Pasic in 1881.
12 Q. Is it in fact?
13 A. The preamble of the two programmes were indeed identical. In the
14 preamble mention is made of the objective of unifying the Serb people at
15 the time. However, in view of the political reality of Serbia at the end
16 of the 19th century and Serbia at the beginning of the '90s, it cannot be
17 identical because the demands made by the Radicals in 1991 cannot be the
18 same as those of the Radicals in 1881.
19 Q. [Microphone not activated]
20 A. But I would say that the programme drafted on the basis of the
21 People's Radical Party of 1881, the essential elements are to analyse the
22 Serbian Radical Party one would need other documents there -- which are --
23 and I think there are -- such as the declaration of the Radical Party is
24 more important, which takes up much of the programme of the
25 Serb Chetnik Movement.
1 Q. Well, let's turn to part CXI that begins, "Manifesto of the
2 Serbian Radical Party." It's several pages further in the text you have
3 in front of you.
4 Looking at this manifesto, how does the manifesto of the
5 Serbian Radical Party compare to that of the Serbian Chetnik Movement?
6 A. At the beginning of this statement it is asserted that the
7 Serbian Radical Party, true to the tradition of Radicals or the
8 Radical Movement founded by Nikola Pasic, and then the programme itself,
9 it is very similar to that of the Serbian Chetnik Movement. There were
10 some points that were added to correspond to the political realities of
11 the times.
12 Q. Looking at paragraph 1 of the manifesto, does it articulate the
13 unification of Serbian lands?
14 A. The first article, in fact, is identical to the article of the
15 Serbian Chetnik Movement. It mentions the same territories that were
16 indicated previously.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I note that the monarchy is
18 referred to under point 3. What do you say to that?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Points 2 and 3 were added in the
20 programme of the Serbian Radical Party, and these are two new points in
21 relation to the Chetnik Movement, because the Chetnik Movement was not --
22 was devoted to the monarchy, and this was not fully taken into account.
23 And an important point is the point regarding the referendum.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Moving on from this question
25 very quickly. The question of the monarchy, in my view, appears to have
1 been taken into consideration by the Serbian Radical Party. It is
2 indicated in its programme.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The monarchist tradition is taken
4 into consideration, but they say that a referendum needs to be organised,
5 and this is what happens in most countries which decide to take such a
6 step. But at the time, Vojislav Seselj was far less inclined towards the
7 restoration of the monarchy because he didn't trust
8 Aleksandar Karadjordjevic who, according to him, had a tendency to put on
9 the same footing the Ustashas and the Chetniks during the Second World
10 War. So he didn't see him as somebody who would sufficiently defend the
11 Serbian national cause. He saw him to be too liberal and who wouldn't
12 give sufficient support to this movement.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but within this
14 Serbian Radical Party, Dr. Seselj, was he the alpha and omega of the party
15 or were there other persons who could say we want this question of the
16 monarchy to be included in the programme. And as he was not, perhaps, the
17 alpha and omega he would have accepted this being included in the text.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think there were criticisms that
19 were taken into consideration, criticisms even among former Chetnik
20 fighters in the United States. They felt that he wasn't sufficiently
21 defending the monarchy and the royal Karadjordjevic family and these
22 elements were taken into consideration.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Who were the other families,
24 Obrenovic and Petrovic?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Obrenovic was one of the
1 dynasties ruling in Serbia in the 19th century but after the assassination
2 of the King in 1903, the Karadjordjevics took over and it is the
3 Karadjordjevics who have claims on the throne. The Petrovics are the
4 royal family of Montenegro.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] My colleague is telling me that
6 it is time for the break. We will now have a 20-minute break.
7 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, may we mark this with a P number before we
8 leave so we can clean up that last detail.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, MFI P153.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you tell me, please,
11 Your Honour --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone is not on.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- could you please let me know
14 whether I will be able to start my cross-examination today?
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please. First we
16 need to have the number clearly indicated on the transcript. Could the
17 registrar please repeat it. Give us the number once again, please.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, MFI P153.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Dahl, you have one hour
20 seven minutes left, so when we resume, this means that Mr. Seselj will not
21 be able to begin before tomorrow. So we meet again in 20 minutes.
22 --- Recess taken at 11.53 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 12.12 p.m.
24 [Witness not present]
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The hearing's
1 resumed. I'm going to give you the floor in a moment, Ms. Dahl. Could
2 you finish it all by 1.15? That would be great. I'll make an effort not
3 to ask any more questions myself so that you can use this full hour and
4 the seven minutes left to you.
5 MS. DAHL: I will endeavour to do that, but I wanted to reiterate
6 that I welcome the Bench's questions and wish to satisfy every curiosity
7 you may have about the case and the evidence that supports it.
8 Two brief matters regarding the conduct of the case. Further to
9 your instruction to indicate to Dr. Seselj whether or not there were areas
10 on which the parties could agree and eliminate the necessity for the
11 presentation of evidence, I sent a letter to Dr. Seselj on 3rd of January
12 with an invitation to meet and a list of proposed agreed facts. I also on
13 7 December 2007 sent a list of documents authored by or uttered by
14 Dr. Seselj with an indication that I would like his position of whether he
15 objected or agreed to their admission into evidence. I am preparing the
16 written motion and would like to be able to state his position. To date I
17 have received no response to either of these letters and would like to
18 avail myself of the good offices of the Chamber to have an exchange of
19 information with Dr. Seselj on these two topics.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, very briefly. You
21 know that I had invited both parties to come together to try and agree on
22 specific items to save time.
23 Ms. Dahl said that she sent a letter on the 7th of December to you
24 and she has not yet had an answer.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, you issued an order
1 as the Pre-Trial Judge in mid-October, as far as I can remember. So that
2 was 20 days -- over 20 days before the beginning of the trial. I was
3 waiting for Ms. Dahl to contact me. She didn't do so. The trial started
4 on 7th of November.
5 Ms. Dahl's letter and the suggestion -- together with the
6 suggestion of the facts she thought weren't in dispute I received on the
7 3rd or the 4th of January. So that was two and a half months after you
8 issued your order. So I now have the right to wait for two and a half
9 months before I respond to Ms. Dahl.
10 Naturally I'm joking to a certain extent. Don't hold this against
11 me. The case started on the 7th of November. Ms. Dahl and I are now in
12 the arena and now only one of us can be knocked out in the arena. There's
13 nothing that has to be agreed on. She had her opportunity, as did her
14 predecessors. That was the case for four or five years almost. Much
15 could have been agreed on. She, too, could have given up on many
16 accusations in the indictment and that would have been possible had she
17 examined many of the documents I had. This would have saved the
18 Prosecution and the Court much time, but the Prosecution didn't want to
19 proceed in this way, although I kept the door open for her for four
20 years. But since nothing was done I believe that that concludes the
22 We're now in the ring and we should now see the arguments each
23 party has to present. She's going to be in a more difficult position now
24 because she wasn't in a position to check up certain things by confronting
25 me directly but it's not my fault. So I don't know what we could now
1 discuss given that the trial has already commenced.
2 And secondly, I don't have time for discussions of any kind. I am
3 now involved in preparing for each and every day of the case, so I don't
4 know what there is to discuss.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very briefly. Well, it so
6 happens that you wear two hats. You are an accused, but you are your own
7 lawyer. So you are also a Defence counsel. In trials before this
8 Tribunal, Defence counsel meet with the Prosecution in corridors. They
9 discuss. They try to agree on specific points.
10 This was my concern. I wanted a dialogue to take place. Of
11 course each party is free to maintain their position, but sometimes you
12 can have a fruitful dialogue. There can be good surprises at the end of
14 Indeed at the time when I launched the idea, you had said nothing
15 against the idea of a meeting, and then the Prosecution took some time. I
16 was surprised by that, because I'd asked them what they were doing, and I
17 hadn't had an answer at the time. Apparently now the response came on
18 the 7th of December.
19 So you've received a letter. It's up to you now. My only part in
20 this is to facilitate the contacts between the two parties. If there
21 cannot be any dialogue, well, so be it. At least I would have done my
22 level best.
23 This is what I wanted to say in this respect.
24 Yes, Ms. Dahl?
25 MS. DAHL: I understand Dr. Seselj's position to be that he is no
1 longer willing to meet on the question of exhibits to be tendered that
2 were authored or uttered by him. I presented a list and I would be
3 grateful if he would indicate whether he has an objection to their
4 admission, and if so, the nature of the objection so that we may attempt
5 to resolve them. That is something that he can do entirely in writing and
6 I would welcome his annotation on the list itself.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj. There's a host
8 of documents concerning you that you authored. If there is no objection,
9 just say so, and this way Ms. Dahl can at some point ask the documents to
10 be admitted. She'll name all the exhibits saying that she got your
11 approval on them. It's just as simple as that, especially because there
12 are many documents from the Serbian Radical Party or written by you. So
13 let's try to save time.
14 Yes, in this respect do you have anything to say?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, first of all I'd like
16 to correct something. We're not talking about the 7th of December but
17 about the 3rd of January. That is the date of Ms. Dahl's letter addressed
18 to myself. So it's over two and a half months from the time you issued
19 your instruction.
20 As far as these documents are concerned, Ms. Dahl sent me the
21 documents before the expert witness --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl is on her feet. If I
23 understand well, she sent you a letter on the 7th of December, but you got
24 the translation only on the 3rd of January. Is that so, Ms. Dahl?
25 MS. DAHL: No, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can you be more specific?
2 MS. DAHL: Two letters, two topics. December 7, exhibits; January
3 3rd, the meeting on agreed facts. Both were presented to him in a
4 language that he can understand.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So there were two letters, one
6 on the points of agreement and the other on documents, exhibits.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think we have now dealt with that
8 suggestion on agreed facts. Nothing has been agreed on, so everything is
9 in dispute. So I would now just focus on this second issue.
10 Prior to hearing the witness Oberschall on the 7th or 8th of
11 December, I received five binders, as far as I can remember, in which
12 there were documents and I received a cover letter from Ms. Dahl in which
13 she informed me that after the hearing of the witness Oberschall, which
14 was to cover Tuesday and Wednesday, after this hearing on Thursday she was
15 going to suggest that the documents be admitted into evidence. I
16 immediately answered her letter and asked for a binder of those documents
17 in the Serbian language because I had that list in English alone. She
18 subsequently sent me the documents in the Serbian language. I brought all
19 the documents into the courtroom with me. You saw the guards carrying
20 four large boxes into the courtroom, I think. However, there was no
21 time. After the hearing of the expert witness Oberschall, you put an end
22 to the hearing.
23 I don't think a single document can be tendered into evidence if
24 it is not in accordance with the Rules, if there is no discussion. Each
25 document has been identified here in the courtroom and it is then admitted
1 into evidence, which means that I have the right here in the courtroom to
2 express my position with regard to each and every document. I examined
3 the documents, and I could agree to having two-thirds of the documents
4 being admitted into evidence because we are dealing with photocopies and
5 translations of my books, but there is more or less a third of the
6 documents whose admission into evidence I would oppose. Each of these
7 documents should at least be mentioned in the courtroom. We can't have
8 them admitted into evidence as a block without respecting the Rules. We
9 should go through each document, and if there's nothing to contest I'd say
10 I agree to this. If there are any objections, I would tell you why I
11 object to having a document admitted into evidence. I think this would be
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl, how about this as a
14 solution: You could reorganise the list of documents, those that are not
15 challenged, those of the Serbian Radical Party, those of Mr. Seselj, for
16 instance, and in that list you would give the names of witnesses that will
17 come to testify and to whom the documents will be submitted. In this way,
18 Mr. Seselj will have the list with the witnesses and the documents, and
19 we'll know that this or that document will be submitted and he can express
20 himself. For all the documents that he agrees to, they can have final
21 numbers, but of course you will have to submit them to the witnesses and
22 as part of his cross-examination he could also introduce them.
23 Yes, Mr. Seselj.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I must just say the following before
25 Ms. Dahl takes the floor. We're not discussing documents that the
1 testimony of certain or individual witnesses refer to. We're talking
2 about documents that are admitted into evidence without witnesses giving
3 testimony. That's how I understand the matter. So most of the documents
4 aren't documents I would contest but I have to express my position on each
5 document and the name of each document has to be referred to, mentioned
6 here in the courtroom, but you should tell me when we would be doing this
7 so I can bring the full set of the documents. It's not necessary for
8 Ms. Dahl to send me the list again. I have the list in the Serbian
9 language. So you can just specify a date.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj. We have a lot
11 of documents, documents that shouldn't be contested because you yourself
12 drafted the documents, but what you are requesting is the possibility of
13 asking questions on the basis of these documents. That's fine and that is
14 why I'm saying that Ms. Dahl should just compile a list of the documents
15 and for each document she should mention the name of the witness who will
16 be appearing and then you will have a method of controlling everything.
17 That's what I wanted to say. And this would enable us to save
18 time. We would be able to give the documents numbers. The documents
19 would be admitted unless there are false, inauthentic documents that you
20 might contest. But that's for you to do.
21 Ms. Dahl, try to carry out the operation once more, compile a new
22 list, mark the witnesses who will come for certain documents, send it to
23 the accused. We'll wait for reply and that will enable us to save time
24 because each time we have a document the registrar has to stand up and
25 give it a number, et cetera. We could have just one operation. So if we
1 have now covered that matter, we can call the witness into the courtroom
2 so that we can continue. Please call the witness into the courtroom.
3 MS. DAHL: In the meantime, Your Honour, my intention was to have
4 us work as professionals, to have Dr. Seselj indicate what of the various
5 own statements of his own he does not contest. I don't believe that there
6 is any question regarding authenticity or relevance, and I'll be happy to
7 try to match the documents with particular witnesses, but in the first
8 instance it would be helpful if he can simply identify those to which he
9 does have some objection to their admission or which would be able to be
10 tendered by his consent.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But to do so he needs the full
12 list, the names of the witnesses, et cetera.
13 [The witness entered court]
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that a problem appears here
16 when we try to see how we could proceed. I think that Ms. Dahl wants me
17 to express my position in writing, and I want to express my position
18 orally in the courtroom. I want to have each document in my hands and say
19 I agree with this, I agree with this, I agree with this, I don't agree
20 with this one because of the following reasons. That's why we disagree.
21 Such an important matter shouldn't be left to an exchange of
22 correspondence. This has to be done here in the courtroom.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, if necessary this can be
24 done in the courtroom. You'll have the list and on a given day I'll give
25 you the floor and you'll say document X -- I agree with document X, I
1 don't agree with document Y, et cetera, et cetera. And if you say that
2 you agree with a certain document, we'll ask the registrar to give that
3 document a number.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All I need is to be informed a day
5 in advance that we'll be dealing with the matter on a given day and then I
6 can bring the documents with me to the courtroom.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but you will have a list.
8 You should be provided with a list of the documents. You'll have a column
9 for the witnesses. If necessary, you'll have reference to the relevant
10 paragraph in the indictment, and if you agree, you'll say, For number 1, I
11 agree; number 2, I agree; number 3, I don't agree, et cetera, et cetera.
12 So that's how we'll proceed.
13 Ms. Dahl.
14 MS. DAHL: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Mr. Tomic, let me ask you to return to the statute of the Serbian
16 Radical Party that we were discussing prior to the break. If you continue
17 forward in the reprint, you will see it under CXIII. Can you describe for
18 me the purpose of a political party statute such as this?
19 A. Well, the statute defines the internal organisation of a party
20 from its base to the peak. It refers to the party's direction, the
21 direction the party will be following. It refers to the body that will be
22 leading the party and right up to the local committees of the Serbian
23 Radical Party. So it concerns the internal organisation. This document
24 concerns the internal organisation of the party.
25 Q. Did the Serbian Radical Party set up related branches outside of
2 A. In fact, there were branches of the Serbian Radical Party in
3 Croatia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and as of '93, 1993, there were
4 such branches in Montenegro, too.
5 Q. Was that statute registered by the authorities in Serbia in 1991?
6 A. The statute of the Serbian Radical Party, yes, but I think that
7 each branch had to register with the local authorities because we had the
8 Serbian Radical Party of the Krajina Republika Srpska and then the Serbian
9 Radical Party of the Republika Srpska. So each branch had to register
10 with the authorities in the local regions in question.
11 Q. Did Dr. Seselj articulate the programme of the Serbian Radical
13 A. I don't understand the question when you say articulate the -- the
15 Q. I'm sorry. Was there a programme that defined the objectives of
16 the Serbian Radical Party?
17 A. There was the declaration that we referred to a while ago. Apart
18 from the official programme they referred to the Radical Party of 1881.
19 Q. What were the objectives of the Radical Party as it constituted
20 itself in 1991?
21 A. Well, more or less the same objectives as those that had been
22 established by the Serbian Chetnik Movement, because many of the elements
23 of the programme had been taken over without amendment of any kind from
24 the Serbian Radical Party. So the idea was to establish a Greater Serbia
25 which would include all the elements that we have already discussed, would
1 include a state of a rule of law, market economy. There were similar
2 ideas about finding a solution to the Kosovo question.
3 There was certain additions, nevertheless, in relation to this
4 issue. For example, one of the additions was that they suggested that
5 have in the Kosovo region, in the region of Kosovo and Metohija, all the
6 military academies and all the police academies. They were to be located
7 in that region so that the tens of thousands officers and non-commissioned
8 officers and policemen and family members could settle down in the Kosovo
9 area. So this was an idea that was referred to when Mr. Seselj went to
10 the USA and when he held his conferences there in order to introduce his
11 political programme.
12 This was mentioned already in 18 -- in 1989. It wasn't in the
13 Chetnik programme of June 1990. This is important because we can see that
14 it was matter of reinforcing the Serbian population of Kosovo by
15 establishing administrative bodies or institutions there. It was a way of
16 modifying the ethnic structure of the population of Kosovo.
17 Similarly, he encouraged settlement in Kosovo by mentioning higher
18 salaries for those who would find employment in that region.
19 Q. What became of the Serbian Chetnik Movement upon the creation of
20 the Serbian Radical Party?
21 A. The Serbian Chetnik Movement wasn't disbanded when the
22 Serbian Radical Party was established in February in 1991. It became a
23 section of the Serbian Radical Party as well as the organisations that
24 collectively belonged to the Serbian Chetnik Movement. In particular I
25 have in mind the Serbian Cultural Club. But this section that became part
1 of the Serbian Radical Party is not defined in the statute of the party,
2 at least not in the published versions.
3 Q. What does it mean to have collective memberships within the
4 Serbian Radical Party?
5 A. Well, for example, the Serbian Cultural Club which was refounded
6 in September 1990, two days after its foundation it decided to join the
7 Serbian Chetnik Movement as an organisation, as a collective. So that
8 means all the members of the club became members of the Chetnik Movement.
9 But the structure itself remained intact. It wasn't disbanded. It was a
10 collective way of joining this body. Further, Serbian Cultural Club was a
11 section of the Serbian Chetnik Movement.
12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] This collective membership, was
13 it just a way for the individuals to join this association or was it in
14 fact a matter of individual membership but also a matter of the entity
15 becoming a member?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All the members of this organisation
17 decided to join this body. They decided that their organisation should
18 join the Serbian Chetnik Movement. So when the Serbian Radical Party was
19 established, these organisations were maintained, but they became sections
20 of the Serbian Radical Party. So the sections which involved with each
21 other but if you have a look at the founding congress of the Serbian
22 Radical Party you might think that it's the first congress of this
23 political organisation, but in the way in which it was presented by the
24 radicals, it was, in fact, the second congress of the movement because the
25 founding congress should be taken into consideration. So this shows that
1 there was a political continuity of Vojislav Seselj. The history of the
2 Radical Serbian Party is the history of Vojislav Seselj's movement through
3 the Chetnik Movement established in 1990. There is continuity of the
5 What also seems important me with regard to the additions to the
6 programme of the Serbian Radical Party is the following: Item 8, which
7 concerns settling members of Serbian ethnic minorities from neighbouring
8 states in Serbia, for example, from Hungary, Bulgaria and Greece. There's
9 also an item that concerns settling Serbians who live west of the
10 Karlobag-Ogulin-Virovitica line. This line is in the programme of the
11 Serbian Radical Party and this ties up with what I said earlier on. They
12 wanted -- they had the will to settle Serbs who lived to the west of this
13 line in Serbia.
14 MS. DAHL:
15 Q. Let me ask you to look at the document --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
17 MS. DAHL:
18 Q. Let me ask you to look at the document that appears at tab 262.
19 This is an interview with Dr. Seselj published in Revija 92, which he then
20 reprinted in his book entitled "Destruction of the Serbian national
21 being," and I believe the interview date was 31 May 1991.
22 Now, in your report you discuss how Dr. Seselj organised -- I'm
23 sorry, how the Serbian Radical Party organised volunteers when armed
24 incidents broke out in Croatia. Looking at this interview can you
25 summarise what Dr. Seselj about his volunteers?
1 A. I'm not sure I heard the correct number of the exhibit. 262 or
3 Q. 262. Can you explain how Dr. Seselj -- I'm sorry, can you
4 summarise how Dr. Seselj explained his Chetnik detachments and how they
5 were being deployed?
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The document is 262, madam,
7 isn't it?
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Judge, please.
9 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I apologise for interrupting you,
10 but I'm trying -- I'm looking for item 8 the witness referred to.
11 Page 82, line 14. And I can't find it and it's quite important in my
12 opinion. I would like to see that item. Could one give me the precise
13 references? It was the previous document, but I can't find it.
14 MS. DAHL: That would be 65 ter Exhibit number 144.
15 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes, but the page, please,
16 because I can't find it.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 10.
18 MS. DAHL: For the record --
19 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
20 MS. DAHL: That is paragraph 8 that -- for the record, that
21 appears within the manifesto of the Serbian Radical Party.
22 May I proceed, Judge Lattanzi?
23 Q. Okay. Let's turn back to the interview with the journalist. Can
24 you look at the end of the document and indicate who the journalist --
25 where this interview was being conducted?
1 A. This is Revija 92. The author is Dusan Milovanovic; is that
2 right? 31st of May, 1991. The 31st of May, 1991.
3 Q. Now, the journalist asked Dr. Seselj how the volunteers were
4 organised and on which principle they were acting. Can you summarise
5 Dr. Seselj's position on forming units that went into Borovo Selo?
6 A. I can say something that I said in my report, but I didn't study
7 the military aspect of the organisation of the Serbian Chetnik Movement.
8 That interested me a little less than the subject that I was working on,
9 but there was a link between the Ravna Gora Serbian Chetnik Movement in
10 the US and Serbian Chetnik volunteers who were sent to Croatia.
11 It was interesting to point out when there was the conflict in
12 Borovo Selo at the beginning of May 1991, after the incident the
13 Vojvoda Momcilo Djujic decorated some of the fighters.
14 So --
15 Q. How did Dr. Seselj describe himself with respect to those
17 A. He was the military leader. He was a Vojvoda. He was the Vojvoda
18 in the homeland as he had been described at the time.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] These decorations - that makes
20 one thing of chocolate medals - these decorations the party provides, it
21 had no legal status. The party would decorate them.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was the Chetnik Movement that
23 decorated them.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As would be the case with any
25 other kind of association that awarded members of the association by
1 giving them a certificate, a medal or something else.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were given ranks, not just
3 decorations. One could have been nominated or appointed as a Vojvoda or
4 Major. There was a rank.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There was a rank.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, there was a rank. In this case
7 Mr. Todosijevic who participated in the fighting in May 1991, was given
8 the rank of Major, I believe.
9 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] All these volunteers who were
10 admitted to the army, well, did their military leaders maintain these
11 ranks when this took place?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I haven't studied the military
13 aspect of the Serbian Chetnik Movement. I kept to the ideology of the
14 political programme, but later in Croatia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina
15 Vojvodas or military leaders were nominated within the movement itself or
16 at least inside the Serbian Radical Party.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But my colleague's question was
18 more precise. She wanted to know whether the ranks conferred by the
19 Serbian Radical Party had an effect of any kind on the JNA, the Yugoslav
20 People's Army, because they were, it seems, under the JNA, but could they
21 have been majors, et cetera, but simple soldiers in the JNA?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were parallel structures in
23 the JNA. They were supposed to become part of the global military
24 operations. They acted as a form of support. They supported operations,
25 but that didn't mean they didn't have their own parallel organisations,
1 organisations parallel to the JNA.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What allows you to say that they
3 had a parallel organisation?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, since Momcilo Djujic, the
5 Vojvoda, first conferred ranks and gave decorations, we're dealing with a
6 framework that has nothing to do with the JNA. It was the
7 Chetnik Movement for the emigration in this case, but as soon as there are
8 policies pursued by Momcilo Djujic and Vojislav Seselj, well,
9 Momcilo Djujic no longer continued to confer such ranks. This was done
10 within the Serbian Radical Party and the Serbian Chetnik Movement.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The question put to you by my
12 colleague is somewhat different. We want to know whether the fact that
13 these ranks were conferred by the Serbian Radical Party on certain
14 individuals had an effect of any kind on the JNA, on the Yugoslav People's
15 Army. Did it have an effect of any kind or did it have no effect
16 whatsoever? Perhaps it's a technical question and in that case you can
17 just say, I can't answer the question but perhaps you can; but if you can,
18 try and provide us with additional information.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't provide you with a precise
20 answer to that question.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may aid you, if that means
23 anything. We're dealing with events before the 1st of August, 1991. That
24 was before the JNA had become involved in an armed conflict with Croatian
25 paramilitary formations. Vojvoda Djujic sent a letter in May, and as a
1 sign of recognition he conferred ranks on some individuals. The JNA
2 entered the war on the 1st of August. That was when our volunteers went
3 to serve in the JNA or, rather, when our volunteers went to serve in the
4 JNA as volunteers this was no longer an issue.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You've heard what Mr. Seselj has
6 said. Dr. Seselj says that the ranks conferred upon these individuals
7 were conferred upon them before they had become part of the JNA.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the beginning.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, at the beginning but our
10 question is later on. You can't answer that.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I have said I didn't deal with
12 specifically military questions. I was concerned more with political
13 questions and with the Serbian national ideology; so I didn't look into
14 this aspect in detail.
15 MS. DAHL:
16 Q. And the Serbian text on page 226, can you read out the first full
17 paragraph where Dr. Seselj says what he did with volunteers of the
18 Radical Party?
19 A. You're asking me some very delicate questions. In any event, it
20 is possible for our Chetniks to be in good form and to check out their
21 military knowledge everywhere.
22 Q. I'm sorry, I'm seeing that you have gone lower on the page. I'm
23 referring to Dr. Seselj's statement that he formed the units on the spot,
24 finishing with his statement that he is their Supreme Commander.
25 A. I've found the paragraph now. "We formed the units on the spot.
1 Detachments or other units were formed where the Chetniks needed to act
2 and where we were requested to do so. We did not go anywhere against the
3 will of the Serbian population. We also have detachments of volunteers in
4 various areas of Serbian Krajina, Western Srem and Baranja. We either
5 sent them from here, from this reduced Serbia, or from the Chetnik
6 organisation in the field, from among the Serbs who live there. In Bosnia
7 and Herzegovina, for example, there was no need to send the Chetniks from
8 Serbia. We have a Chetnik command in Romanija, a strong Chetnik movement
9 in North-eastern Bosnia, and in Eastern Herzegovina. We, of course, have
10 the Supreme Command, and I am the Supreme Commander."
11 Q. How do you interpret Dr. Seselj's statements about the military
12 activities of his political party?
13 A. We can see that -- that various units were formed consisting
14 either of persons living in the region, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, for
15 example, or by forming units of Serbian volunteers in Serbia proper.
16 MS. DAHL: May I have a P number for 65 ter Exhibit 262?
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit number P154.
18 MS. DAHL:
19 Q. Would you consider this combination of Dr. Seselj's political and
20 ideological and apparent military leadership typical for a Chetnik
22 A. I'm afraid I haven't understood your question very well.
23 Q. Historically, did Chetnik commanders exercise a trilogy of
24 leadership, that is political, ideological, as well as military
1 A. In this particular case, yes. We are in a rather ambiguous
2 situation. A political formation leads -- fits into a military tradition
3 so that the party acts on two fronts. It is not a question of a simple
4 political party. It has a pronounced military dimension as well that has
5 to be taken into consideration.
6 Q. In your report you summarised some of Dr. Seselj's political
7 proposals during the war concerning exchange of population. Can you
8 briefly summarise the views that you found in researching his political
10 A. There are various occasions in interviews with the press in 1991
11 and 1992 when reference is made to population exchanges between Croats and
12 Serbs, Croats and Serbia and Serbs in Croatia. For example, in 1991,
13 Vojislav Seselj declared that a hundred thousand Croats should leave
14 Serbia so that Serb refugees from Croatia can be settled there. These
15 positions were repeated in 1992, including in the National Assembly of
16 Serbia on the 1st of April, 1992, when exchange of populations was
17 presented as a positive measure. And in his speech, he declared, "We're
18 going to expel Croats from Serbia."
19 Q. What happened after Dr. Seselj advocated that solution for the
20 Croats in Serbia?
21 A. This proposition, this measure, considered the Croats of Vojvodina
22 principally, because that is where they are most numerous. And also in
23 the region of Srem there was some tension in the spring of 1992.
24 Q. Would you reproduce Seselj's speech in the National Assembly of
25 Serbia on the 1st of April 1992 in your report?
1 A. It is stated he declared --
2 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] On page 89, line 24, the witness
3 spoke of measures of reprisal, not positive measures. Measures of
4 reprisal. I am not very familiar with the English language, but I don't
5 think that the translation was correct.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You said they were measures of
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were presented as such by
9 Vojislav Seselj.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
11 MS. DAHL:
12 Q. Would you read -- would you please read into the record the
13 excerpt of Dr. Seselj's speech to the National Assembly of Serbia on 1st
14 of April, 1992, that you have placed in your report.
15 A. "One other thing. If the Croats are expelling the Serbs in such
16 huge numbers from their homes, what are the Croats here in Belgrade
17 waiting for and those throughout Serbia? An exchange of populations just
18 as Tudjman has chased the Serbs from Zagreb, we will expel from Belgrade
19 the same number of Croats. When a Serbian family from Zagreb arrives,
20 they will live in the home of Croats from Belgrade in return for the keys
21 to their home in Zagreb, an exchange."
22 Q. Was this understood to be a voluntary or an enforced exchange of
23 populations? And we're referring now to page 89 of your report in the
24 English translation.
25 A. According to the terms used, it -- one could say that it was more
1 of a forced exchange.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That is something that attracts
3 my attention. In his speech, he speaks of keys, the keys to the home in
4 Zagreb, an exchange. So there is an exchange of keys. A family A will
5 take the apartment of family B, and family B will take the apartment of
6 family A. So there is an exchange of keys. And this exchange, according
7 to what I read, is not being done with the help of a soldier with a rifle
8 behind each individual. According to what the sentence says, family A
9 which comes from Zagreb to Belgrade, for example, takes the keys of an
10 apartment in Belgrade and hands over the keys of their apartment in Zagreb
11 to the Croat family which leaves Belgrade to go to Zagreb. If the words
12 have any meaning.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It says as many Croats that we will
14 expel from Belgrade, which means that the Croats of Belgrade have no
15 choice. They will be forced to leave.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is stated in the Serbian
17 language? Is it the word "chase out" that is used?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Isterati" or "expel," perhaps.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you say that the word
20 "chased" means that there was forced, that the expulsion was forced.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It doesn't appear to be a peaceful
22 process. During the census in 2002, 8.000 Croats are living in Belgrade,
23 mostly mixed couples. Would these people have had a choice? I really
24 don't know. I don't think any -- these people had any choice. It was
25 imposed upon them.
1 MS. DAHL:
2 Q. Did Dr. Seselj maintain cooperative or otherwise relations with
3 political parties in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war?
4 A. The Serbian Radical Party supported the Serbian Democratic Party
5 of the Serb Republic of Krajina, the SDS and the branch of its party
6 created in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Therefore, the intentions of the
7 Serbian Radical Party was not to compete in electoral or political terms
8 with those parties because it felt that these organisations were defending
9 the Serbian national cause very well, so they were allies and supporters
10 amongst themselves.
11 Q. Are you aware -- aware of instances where Dr. Seselj met with
12 Radovan Karadzic?
13 A. That happened. I can't remember exactly when but there were
15 Q. What is Dr. Karadzic's relation to the SDS?
16 A. These were relations that were developed in the context of the
17 war. At the time, the Serbian Radical Party was extending military
18 support by sending volunteers to Bosnia-Herzegovina.
19 Q. Can you describe some of the political and ideological
20 similarities between Dr. Karadzic and Dr. Seselj?
21 A. One cannot say that there was an agreement regarding the creation
22 of a state that would assemble all the Serbs. In that they were agreed,
23 but on the ideological level there were differences, because in 1991,
24 1992, Radovan Karadzic did not exclusively refer to the traditions of the
25 Ravna Gora Movement.
1 Q. What did Dr. Karadzic advocate with regard to the non-Serb
2 population in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
3 A. The wish of the Serbian Democratic Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina
4 was to create a Serbian entity within Bosnia-Herzegovina.
5 Q. And with regard to the non-Serb civilian populations, were they
6 included in that?
7 A. One has to state that the non-Serb population was chased out from
8 numerous locations within that entity that is Republika Srpska.
9 Q. Let me ask you to look at 65 ter number 237, and in the interest
10 of time this is another reprint from a book by Dr. Seselj. It's an
11 interview of him for ON magazine entitled "Chetnik revenge will be blind."
12 Dr. Seselj reprinted it in his book, "Politics as a challenge to the
14 Does this document appear to be as I've described it?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Have a P number, please.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Exhibit.
18 MS. DAHL: 237.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P155.
20 MS. DAHL:
21 Q. Looking at the text of the interview, it appears the journalist
22 asked Dr. Seselj about having met with Radovan Karadzic while he was in
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think that the
25 Prosecutor should give us the date of that interview, because there's no
1 point discussing the contents if we don't know the date.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. What is the date, madam,
3 please, if you have it.
4 MS. DAHL: I believe the interview was May 24, 1991.
5 Q. If we turn to the last page of the reprint can you indicate,
6 Mr. Tomic, who the journalist was, the newspaper and the publication date
7 of the interview?
8 A. It is the journal ON, and its issue of the 24th of May, 1991.
9 Q. Did Dr. Seselj indicate the position with respect of the
10 Serbian Radical Party vis-a-vis the policies of the Serbian Democratic
11 Party in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
12 A. He mentions the meeting with Radovan Karadzic during his visit to
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the Chetnik command is set up in the region of
14 Romanija, and he mentions a meeting with the Chetnik commander in this
15 region, which is east of Sarajevo, but I don't see the point regarding his
16 position. He keeps repeating his intention of amputating part of Croatian
18 Q. Let me turn your attention to the answer to the second question at
19 the beginning of the interview. I believe it's on page 58 of the Serbian
20 text, that starts "I already scheduled some rallies in Sarajevo," and it
21 continues on to describe his meeting with Radovan Karadzic. Does he
22 indicate whether the Radical Party supports the policies of Dr. Karadzic's
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have another general objection.
2 You have probably noticed almost all day today the Prosecutor is dealing
3 with documents which are not relevant for the indictment period. If this
4 doesn't bother you, it doesn't bother me at all, certainly.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but I think the Prosecutor
6 has to set a basis.
7 It is time to finish.
8 Mr. Witness, you were asked a precise question. Will you please
9 answer it? Would you read the sentence, please.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The letters are very small, and I am
11 having problems with reading it.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Perhaps it will be best that we
13 come back to this issue tomorrow.
14 Madam, I think we -- I thought we could have finished with you
15 today, but you have another 35 minutes left tomorrow. We will begin with
16 you tomorrow, and after that Mr. Seselj will start his cross-examination.
17 So we will meet again tomorrow at 8.30.
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.16 p.m.,
19 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 31st day
20 of January, 2008, at 8.30 a.m.