1 Wednesday, 6 February 2008
2 [Open Session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon. Mr. Registrar,
6 could you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you and good afternoon, Your Honours. This
8 is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. This is
10 Wednesday, February 6, 2008, and I welcome the representatives from
11 Prosecution, Mr. Seselj, and all the people helping us in this courtroom.
12 Regarding procedure now, I have a few items. First thing tomorrow
13 the hearing will start at 8.30. The registrar was told about it. So we
14 will start at 8.30 a.m., and we will run till 1.15 p.m., and we will be in
15 Courtroom III.
16 I will ask Mr. Registrar to move into closed session because we
17 have two decisions to render and we need closed session for that.
18 [Private session]
11 Pages 3192-3193 redacted. Private session
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
7 This has to do with the motion, Prosecution motion, to add 55
8 documents to the 65 ter list filed on December 24, 2007, and these are
9 documents that were included in the Theunens report.
10 Yesterday, I dealt with this, but I believe that we have to
11 rediscuss this issue because there are a few things I need to add.
12 Yesterday the accused obtained the translation in his own language
13 of the Prosecution's motion. During yesterday's hearing, Mr. Seselj, you
14 told us that you didn't have time to study this motion and look into it.
15 Now we have the following problem: Do you want to answer and reply to
16 this motion? Remember that the witness is scheduled to be -- to testify
17 next week. If you tell us you know verbally that you have read the motion
18 and that you have no objection to adding these 55 documents to the 65 ter
19 list, or if you actually object to this, then the Trial Chamber will be
20 able to rule very quickly on this, before the witness is actually called
21 next week.
22 So what's your position regarding this issue?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I oppose that motion
24 in principle in a manner that will not bring into question the scheduling
25 of Witness Theunens' testimony. The Prosecution engaged this expert
1 witness several years ago. They had these documents at their disposal.
2 They could have found them earlier. They waited for the last moment. In
3 my view this is unacceptable. However, if my objection or written motion
4 would bring into question the scheduling of lawyer Theunens' testimony,
5 then I will waive my objection. I believe Your Honour should reprimand
6 the Prosecution, but I do not want to obstruct the proceedings.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So verbally you're
8 telling us that in you're in opposition in principle, backing this by the
9 fact that the Prosecution had time to do this and did this at the very
10 last minute, and this is what you oppose. Further -- but on the other
11 hand you do not want to postpone the calling of this expert witness, so if
12 the Chamber rules to dismiss your opposition to this motion then you can
13 start cross-examination next week.
14 Is this what you actually wanted to say?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. You understand me correctly.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
17 Now, I have one final topic to address. This is an order to
18 clarify the two motions of the Prosecution dealing with the judicial
19 notice of documentary evidence issued by the Trial Chamber yesterday on
20 February 5, 2008.
21 Yesterday in its decision, the Chamber ordered Prosecution to
22 clarify its two motions requesting judicial notice of exhibits, asking it
23 to provide additional details, notably as to the relevance and to the
24 description of the documents involved.
25 The Trial Chamber notes that the accused has already answered to
1 these two motions on the judicial notice of exhibits. However, Trial
2 Chamber would like to remind Mr. Seselj that if he wishes to, he can reply
3 to this -- to the clarification made by Prosecution within the 14 days'
4 time limit which is provided for Rule 126 bis.
5 So let me sum this up. As you know, Mr. Seselj, Prosecution filed
6 two motions for the Trial Chamber to establish judicial notice of
7 documentary evidence which had already been admitted in other proceedings,
8 in other cases. The Chamber ruled yesterday, so you didn't obtain a
9 translation in B/C/S; but it was asking the Prosecution to provide
10 additional information on these documents regarding the relevance of these
11 documents, the description of these documents, the relationship of these
12 documents to the indictment and so on.
13 Now, the Prosecution is going to reply to our request in writing,
14 and when replying in writing you will be able to give us your opinion on
15 this, and you will have two weeks, 14 days, as of the moment when you
16 receive in your own language the reply made by the Prosecution.
17 Have you understood this? Yes?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I categorically
19 oppose this also. The fact that another Trial Chamber admitted certain
20 documents does not mean anything to you in principle in this trial. There
21 the Judges had other motives. The situation was different. The
22 confrontation between the Prosecution and the Defence was different.
23 There, perhaps, the Defence did not oppose such motions, so something
24 might have been admitted automatically.
25 There is no reason for the Prosecution not to tender these
1 documents in one of two ways in this trial. One is through the witness
2 testimony, and the other by tendering the documents directly as they have
3 already done with a number of exhibits I have not yet expressed my
4 standpoint about. And then that could be the fate of these documents
6 If the Prosecution feels that it's an argument in their favour,
7 namely that another Trial Chamber has admitted the documents, they are
8 wrong. It means nothing.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We have understood
10 your position, and it's extremely clear. So when the Prosecution will
11 file his reply and when you will obtain it in your own language, you will
12 have two -- 14 days as of that moment. If you don't answer on my [as
13 interpreted] 19 page 6 until line 9 page 7, we will have your official
14 position regarding this issue. So this is now on the transcript.
15 Let's now bring the witness into the courtroom, we will proceed
16 with the cross-examination. As soon as the witness will be in the witness
17 seat, I will give the floor to Mr. Seselj for his cross-examination.
18 I believe that you have about two hours and 15 minutes left.
19 Let me ask Mr. Registrar and the legal officer to confirm this,
20 and I will tell you exactly how long you have.
21 [The witness entered court]
22 WITNESS: YVES TOMIC [Resumed]
23 [Witness answered through interpreter]
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir. Please be
1 Very well. Good afternoon. The cross-examination is going to be
3 Mr. Seselj, you have two hours and 25 minutes left. You have the
4 floor, Mr. Seselj.
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Seselj: [Continued]
6 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tomic, we will now go in detail through this
7 allegedly expert report of yours. In the introduction which is on page 4
8 in the Serbian translation, you claim that the Serbian medieval state came
9 into existence in the Raska region. You therefore do not where and when
10 the first Serbian state came into existence; is that correct?
11 A. In the 10th century there were several Serbian states. They were
12 mentioned by Constantine the 7th in Verozinet [phoen]. He was the
13 emperor. He mentioned Nurdjana as its name, Travunija, Konavlje, the
14 state of Duklja as well, as well as a Serbian state headed by Ceslav.
15 Therefore, however, Serb historians are of the view that the true Serbian
16 state that is going to develop throughout history starts with Stefan
17 Nemanja, late 12th century.
18 Q. Which Serbian historian considers that the true Serbian state
19 begins with Stefan Nemanja? Give me his first and last name?
20 A. The history of Serbs of Vladimir Corovic, for instance.
21 Q. You didn't read that in Vladimir Corovic. You just think you did.
22 The first Serbian state came into existence as early as the 9th century.
23 You mentioned Constantine. I assume you understand his nickname was
24 Porphyrogenitus, and he was an historian. You didn't mention his nickname
25 which is very significant.
1 Do you know that the Serbian Neretian state, what territory did it
2 take up?
3 A. Previous answer, that's what I said earlier on. Present answer.
4 This small state was at the level of the Neretva River, the mouth of the
5 Neretva River. This state was known for its piracy activities. The
6 pirates of that state were very active in the Adriatic Sea being an
7 obstacle at the time to trade in Venicia.
8 Q. The Neretva was the southern border of that Serbian state. What
9 was its northern border, do you know?
10 A. At the time it is held that the boundary between the Serb and
11 Croat populations between the state of Nerevnja [phoen] and the Croatian
12 state was the Cetina river further north.
13 Q. The river Cetina by the town of Omis not far from Split, is that
15 A. I believe so. Indeed, further north of Split.
16 Q. Yes, yes. That's right. Mr. Tomic, you should have included that
17 in your expert report then. Do you know on what territory the Hum state
18 extended, the Hum Serbian state, also mentioned by
19 Constantine Porphyrogenitus as Serbian?
20 A. The Hum state the region of Herzegovina did not exist. We had
21 Zahumlje as a state at the time. There was also Travunija that
22 corresponds to the Trebinje area. Hum as a state would gather all these
23 territories later, but that name appeared only later.
24 Q. Mr. Tomic, you ought to know that the Hum state and Zahumlje are
25 one in the same thing. It's just a variation in the name whereas the
1 Travunija is a separate Serbian state. On what territory did the Serb
2 state of Travunija extend?
3 A. Roughly around the town, the present town of Trebinje.
4 Q. All the way to Boka Kotorska; right?
5 A. And if you go further south you have a small state, the state of
6 Konavlje south of Dubrovnik, basically, right to the mouth of Kotor.
7 Q. And Konavlje was a Serbian princedom; right?
8 A. That's the case against Constantine VII. These are small
9 principalities, states, that are regarded as Serbian states.
10 Q. As you recall, Constantine Porphyrogenitus said clearly that these
11 were in fact autonomous princedoms subordinated to the Archon of Serbia.
12 A. I cannot give you a precise answer.
13 Q. Did you read the original by Constantine Porphyrogenitus?
14 THE INTERPRETER: Breaks between questions and answers.
15 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Do you know the name of the work?
17 A. I did not read the original. However, I read books on the history
18 of the Middle Ages that referred to this document because this is one of
19 the rare documents providing information on the breakdown of peoples in
20 the area. This document is known as being "administrando imperio."
21 Q. Yes.
22 A. However, the Gretile [phoen] was about peoples, so there are two
23 different titles that are mentioned.
24 Q. You left out one thing because you didn't read the original by
25 Constantine Porphyrogenitus. He speaks of the Serb state, the Neretva
1 state which he even calls Pagania because that's where the Serbs were
2 baptised latest and then Humska, Zahumlje, Travunija, Konavlje, Diokvija
3 [phoen] or the Duklja state. However, in the background of all these
4 Serbian lands Constantine Trebinje said was the real Serbia. These were
5 all autonomous parts of that one single Serbia. You don't know of these
6 details, do you?
7 A. Besides all these small principalities, I mentioned the state of
8 Serbia. Ruled by Caslav, but the boundaries of that state were not known
9 in any detail. In history books, the boundaries of that state are
10 mentioned, but indeed they were not known in any detail towards the
11 mid-10th century.
12 Q. Do you know when Caslav restored the Serbian state, in what year?
13 A. Around 930, but I'm not a specialist in the history of the Middle
15 Q. You know enough. It was in 927. So you're not far off the mark.
16 But why was it necessary to restore the Serbian state at the time of
17 Caslav? What was it that happened before Caslav? Who conquered the
18 Serbian state?
19 A. Well, at the time the Byzantine Empire played a major part in the
20 Balkan Peninsula, but you also have the Bulgarian state but at the time
21 extended to a large part of the peninsula up to the area populated by
22 Croats in the north-west.
23 Q. Just before the end of the 9th century, Mr. Tomic, Bulgarians
24 conquered all Serbian lands and the Serbian state stopped to exist for a
25 while until 927 when it was restored by Caslav, and he managed to restore
1 the Serbian state because Bulgarians were pushed back by Byzantine. Those
2 are basics that you should have learned. Why am I saying this? Isn't it
3 quite obvious from all of this that if these were Serbian lands, the
4 Neretva state, Zahumlje, Travunija, Konavlje and Duklja, and if behind
5 them there is Serbia, the Serbian population lived there. Isn't that
7 A. This is indicated in the document by Constantine VII at the time.
8 Q. What was the first historical source mentioning Serbs in the
9 Balkans, the most ancient source?
10 A. Among the most ancient documents there are chronicles coming from
11 the Franks.
12 Q. Do you know what is the name of the chronicle, Frankish chronicle?
13 A. I know that the chronicle exists, but I don't know the name of its
14 writer. I didn't study this period in any detail. I know the chronicle
15 exists because the Franks controlled the territory that is today Croatia
16 at the time.
17 Q. Franks controlled Croatian territory and it stretched from the
18 river Cetina until north towards mount Gvozd that was the first Croatian
19 state, correct?
20 A. If we're talking about the 9th century, yes, but later on that
21 territory or state will expand under Tomislav in the first half of the
22 10th century.
23 Q. Up to what point did it stretch until -- under Tomislav?
24 A. Extended to the Panonia Plain but also included territory that now
25 represents Bosnia and Herzegovina.
1 Q. You mean to say the entire territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
2 A. I couldn't tell you exactly, but one thing is certain, this state
3 experienced a vast expansion at the time. At the time, the boundaries of
4 states kept moving, evolving, depending on the conflicts or as a result of
6 Q. Mr. Tomic, do you know who was the best Croatian connoisseur of
7 medieval history, especially Croatian history, his name, a renowned
8 Croatian historian?
9 A. One Klaic, I believe.
10 Q. Klaic is from 19th century. I'm speaking about modern times.
11 Nada Klaic, university professor in Zagreb. She's the best Croatian
12 historian for the Middle Ages, and she established that the Croatian state
13 stretched from Cetina river to Mount Gvodza that it stretched in this
14 period up to behind Livno and north to the Sava River. And when did the
15 Croatian state have the largest borders, do you know that?
16 A. I don't know exactly.
17 Q. In the 11th century under King Petar Kresimir IV. It reached
18 until Vrbas river in the east, in the north nobody knows for sure. They
19 say up to Drava River, directly to the Drava River through Croatian
20 Zagorje. You don't know that, therefore you know very little about
21 medieval history?
22 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Please avoid testifying yourself.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am not testifying, Madam Judge,
24 I'm just letting the witness know certain facts.
25 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I'm very sorry, but you are
1 presently testifying.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, you can deprive me of the
3 right to examine the witness. You can do anything. But I'm trying to
4 prove to you that this witness knows nothing and at best his knowledge is
5 very superficial.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, nobody wants to
7 prevent you from asking questions. However, as you know, these are
8 Anglo-Saxon proceedings. As part of cross-examination you're supposed to
9 ask questions. You're not supposed be a witness yourself. Therefore,
10 what you should have said is this: In the 11th century, if I were to tell
11 you that it is King Petar Kresimir IV, would you agree would me or not?
12 The witness can then answer that he agrees with you or doesn't, and then
13 you can go on.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's quite fair, Mr. President, if I
15 tell the witness you don't know that the Croatian state was the largest
16 under King Petar Kresimir IV and that it encompassed this and that. That
17 is a completely fair question in this procedure.
18 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Do you know under what church authorities Serbs were in the first
20 centuries of their existence in the Balkan Peninsula?
21 A. Under what church authorities?
22 Q. Well, it was all Christian faith. There was no -- there was no
23 split in the church. There were various archbishopries. That was the
24 only division to which our archbishopries did the Serbs belong in the
25 medieval times?
1 A. I don't know exactly as to this precise period.
2 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... that Serbs were in the Split
3 and Drac archbishopries. You don't know that, do you?
4 A. I do not research into the history of the church. I know that the
5 Serbian church was created in 1219 by Sveti Sava, St. Sava. As of that
6 period there was an Orthodox Serbian church that was created and will
7 expand towards the territories along the Dalmatian coast. That is where
8 bishopries were going to be created. There were only two of them back
10 Q. Mr. Tomic, you don't know church issues, and that's why you are
11 unable to write a quality expert report, because you don't know the
12 essential problem, the church problem, in the relations between Serbs and
13 Croat. You don't know that, do you? You're talking about St. Sava, who
14 appeared 200 years later. Centuries mean nothing to you, do they?
15 A. I know parts of the church history, but my report was not focusing
16 on this. It was focusing on the 19th and the 20th century, whilst you are
17 now going into detail into the Middle Ages, which is quite remote even
18 though the church dimension was a relevant one at a time when national
19 identities were going to be more strong in the 19th century. But in my
20 report I was not supposed to deal with the division of the territory into
21 bishopries in the 9th or the 10th centuries.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One clarification. Your title
23 is "The Greater Serbian Ideology in the 19th and 20th Centuries." That's
24 the title of your expert report. That was the focus of your report. It
25 may be that the witness should have gone back to the 9th century, maybe,
1 but apparently that was not his remit.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, you have an
3 introduction to this report which claims to provide basic information
4 about the latest Serbian history in the Balkans. The entire report
5 abounds in claims of this alleged expert that Serbs are Orthodox
6 Christians, whereas Croats are Catholics. I'm trying to prove that the
7 witness doesn't know anything about this, that Serbs belong to two
8 archbishopries, out of which one belonged to the split which was cast
9 Catholic, and the other was Orthodox, Drac.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that Serbian populations
11 especially from the Uklja [phoen] region that was later to be called Zeta
12 was under the influence of the Catholic church at least until the 12th
13 century Mihailo, who was the King of the Zeta or Uklja state who was
14 crowned by the Pope in the year 1077. That was after the schism of 1054,
15 and the founder of Nemanjic dynasty Stefan Nemanja was from that region,
16 and he was first baptised as Catholic, but later on he was rebaptised once
17 he became King in -- he was rebaptised in the Orthodox church in Raska.
18 At the time the Serbian populations of the various regional units were
19 divided depending on their religion, either Catholic or Orthodox.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, the accused is
21 criticising your report, and therefore I would like to put a question to
22 you. The scope of your report was the Greater Serbia ideology in the 19th
23 and 20th centuries, and I find that you do not really deal with the topic
24 of religion. Is it something that you did on purpose not to deal with
25 that particular topic, or did you think that it was totally irrelevant to
1 deal with the topic of Catholic, Orthodox, the impact of religion on
2 writings, on ideology, and so on and so forth? Is this deliberate on your
3 part, or did you estimate that it was totally irrelevant and useless?
4 Because what the accused is trying to do is to put this into another
5 perspective, in a religious perspective. He's going back to the 19th,
6 10th, 11th, and 12th century because -- it's because according to him, and
7 of course the Chamber will have to rule on it later on, it's because
8 according to him this is indeed very relevant, but why did you choose not
9 to deal with the matter?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's because in the main
11 documents where the programme for a Greater Serbia in the 19th century is
12 being formulated, this topic is not raised or dealt with, because at the
13 time the notion of language was much more relevant than the topic of
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. I understand what you
16 mean. I would like to know whether you had the opportunity to read some
17 of the works by Mr. Seselj.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] He wrote more than 80 books in
20 total. Did you read or see any of the books where he challenges the
21 Catholic church?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did, but these books were
23 published after the year 2000, including the book on the ideology of Serb
24 nationalism, a book dealing with the artificial nature of the Croatian
25 state with the criticism of the Vatican. I am a historian. I am
1 interested in chronology and what -- I was interested in were the ideas of
2 Mr. Seselj as they evolved throughout the 1980s and throughout the years
3 of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. What was drafted or written
4 later on by him, of course, can be relevant; but this was not directly
5 relevant to the period I was interested in. You cannot work without
6 historical perspective. That's why I decided to focus on what he had
7 written in the years 1980s and between 1991 and 1995.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 Mr. Seselj.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have to let you and
11 your colleagues know first of all that I'm trying to refute the theory of
12 the expert that Serbs are Orthodox and Croats are Catholic. I'm trying to
13 show through this debate that before St. Sava, the overwhelming majority
14 of Serbs belonged to the Roman Catholic Church. That is the point, the
15 main point, and I believe that is very important to my concept of Greater
16 Serbia even though other people may not advocate it in that way.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have not said anything contrary to
18 that. I said that at least to the 12th century what we can call the Serb
19 world populated by Serbs was a region where you found Orthodox to the east
20 and more to the west along the Adriatic sea. Catholics, Roman Catholics.
21 But later on the Orthodox church expanded to -- towards the regions
22 located next to the coast, and Catholic Serbs became Orthodox later on.
23 But up until the 20th century, there remained a population that is not
24 very significant but a population of Serbs who see them receives, well,
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So this is not in contradiction
2 with what Mr. Seselj told us earlier year on.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't see any difference between
4 what we say. I said that this was valid until the 20th -- 12th century.
5 Later on, once the patriarch of the Serb Orthodox Church was reinstated
6 between 12th -- 1257 and later on, the area of expansion was quite
7 significant, and when bishopries were created and churches were built in
8 areas where you didn't used to have any Orthodox churches before. Along
9 the coast you have an area under the influence of the Roman Catholic
10 Church, but throughout the Ottoman period, we find that the Orthodox
11 church gets stronger, grows stronger.
12 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
13 Q. In this period we are discussing, Mr. Tomic, there were no
14 inter-religious animosities. There was no opposition, confrontation
15 between Catholic and Orthodox people. There is no historical source that
16 they had any quarrel with each other because of faith.
17 A. At what period exactly, in the Middle Ages? Are we talking about
18 the 10, the 11th or the 12th century here?
19 Q. Yes. We're talking about the 10th and the 12th, all the way until
20 after the Turkish occupation.
21 A. There aren't any quarrels so to speak between the populations
22 except for minor wars between the various feudal leaders, but the
23 crusades, when the crusades go to Constantinople and Jerusalem and so on
24 and so forth, we find that the Crusaders committed crimes against the
25 local population. At the time then there is this religious factor that
1 comes into play in the conflicts, but that's a factor that is -- that is
2 exterior to the region as such.
3 Q. You just said two untruths, Mr. Tomic. The first untruth was that
4 there was a clash between Serb Orthodox and Catholic Serbs?
5 MS. BIERSAY: Objection, Your Honour.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's not what I said. I never
7 said that there was a conflict between Catholics and Orthodox.
8 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] That's what I heard from the
10 MS. BIERSAY: I think Mr. Tomic has addressed it, but we would
11 object to Mr. Seselj's characterisation of the witness's testimony as
12 untruth. That's for the Bench to decide.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It will be up to the Judges it
14 to decide, but in order to decide they need to be in possession of all the
15 evidence, of all the elements.
16 Please proceed, Mr. Seselj.
17 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Was there any time when there was what conflict between Serbs and
19 the Crusaders, Mr. Tomic?
20 A. I know that when the Crusaders crossed the Balkans, there was
21 violence against local populations. It's not something I studied in
22 detail, but quite possibly the Serb populations fell victim to such
23 actions at that time, but there were also meetings between the
24 Crusaders --
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I find that apparently the
1 Crusaders may have committed criminal actions according to you. And in
2 case that indeed happened, why? Why did it happen? Did these -- were
3 these action committed for religious reasons or for other reasons?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, for religious reason maybe,
5 but also for -- to loot the local areas or --
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Do you mean that the Crusaders
7 might also have been looters?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to what I read about that
9 period, yes, they sometimes committed such actions in the Balkan region.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, I'm drawing your attention to
11 the fact that the witness is only speculating about this. He has no
12 evidence that Serbs ever clashed with the Crusaders. He's just
13 speculating, guessing. He said so himself a moment ago.
14 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Tomic, do you know that the Crusaders' attack on Byzantium
16 helped Stefan Nemanja to make the Serbian state independent of Byzantium?
17 A. Yes, indeed at the time during one of the Crusades, there was a
18 meeting was Stefan Nemanja and Baba Hosa [phoen] of course there were
19 several crusades. I'm not a specialist in the matter of crusades. But I
20 know that it happened. Violence was committed against the local
21 populations, and it's quite possible that at some point these people
22 shared the same political objectives. It's quite possible.
23 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] If I understand correctly, the
24 witness is not talking about any kind of confrontation between the
25 Crusaders and the local Serb population. He just mentioned some crimes
1 that may have been committed by these people whilst they were crossing the
2 area. That's what I understood from what he was telling us.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Madam Judge, the point is that the
4 expert has no historical data to corroborate what he's saying. History
5 has recorded that the great Serb bishop Stefan Nemanja met Barbarosa at
6 his court. He extended hospitality to him and his army, and he used the
7 Crusaders to free Serb completely of Byzantine power.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mentioned that meeting but it was
9 only during one of the crusades. There were several crusades during the
10 Middle Ages and they were quite different. They did not happen in exactly
11 the same way every time, but once again this has nothing to do with the
12 topic of my report.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I'm aghast at the
14 level of your education. You seem to practically know everything about
15 everything. But the witness has just told us that this was not part of
16 his report, his review, and he may give answers on some areas but not on
17 everything. So you have to think in terms of your own interests. Do you
18 want to continue in that direction, or would you like to highlight for us,
19 the Judges, significant elements that would enable us to better understand
20 the situation?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have one more question to do with
22 the Middle Ages, and I believe it's very important. In fact, two
24 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation].
25 Q. The first is do you know, Mr. Tomic, how Byzantine writers treated
1 Bosnia? Who is it, in their opinion, that populated Bosnia? Whose little
2 state was it?
3 A. Talking about the 10th century, on -- based on the document of
4 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, at the time the Caslav, the Serbian state
5 extended to the current territory of Bosnia. And these were the Serbian
6 populations at the time.
7 Q. Have you heard of Kinnamos, an important Byzantine writer? What
8 does he say about Bosnia? Who lived there?
9 A. He talks about Serb populations living under -- on one of the
10 banks of the Drina River and in Bosnia as well, but what he also says is
11 that these populations, the populations living in Bosnia have their own
12 customs. He suggests then that there are differences between them and the
13 other Serb populations living on the other bank of the Drina.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But in terms of religion, in
15 terms of their faith, these populations living in Bosnia, what was their
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Bosnia was part of the -- all the
18 bishopries, Catholic bishopries at the time. Of course it's evolved
19 throughout the centuries, but this region was mostly under the influence
20 of the Roman Catholic Church. At the time, we talk about the Bosnian
21 Catholic church, and it seems that this church varied or was quite a bit
22 different from the Catholic church at the time. There were differences.
23 It was seen as heretical at the time, but once again, I'm not a
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me put a very specific
1 question to you. Was there a single mosque in Bosnia at the time?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course not because you had to
3 wait until the 15th century, the second half of the 15th century to see
4 the beginning of the Ottoman Empire in the region. In 1462 or 1463 Bosnia
5 became part of the Empire, and at the time there was no Islam or Muslim
6 faith in the region.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But at the time before 1462,
8 Bosnia was Serb, was it?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Bosnia was either integrated into
10 Serb states or other states, but as I said, the boundaries kept evolving,
11 changing throughout the Middle Ages, because there's a country that we
12 haven't mentioned much that's Hungary, and the Kingdom of Croatia, at the
13 beginning of the 12th century was integrated into Hungary, and Hungary
14 played a major part. Hungary tried to expand its boundaries towards the
15 south of the region. Hungary played a major part in the region.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But before talking about the
17 influence of Hungary, before Hungary incorporated these Bosnian
18 territories, my question is the following: Was Bosnia then -- was Bosnia
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that there was both Serb
21 and Croatian influence in the current north-west of Bosnia and
22 Herzegovina. That's a region where you had influences coming from Serbia,
23 from the east and from Croatia or Hungary to the west.
24 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Excuse me, but apart from the
25 so-called state influence, if I could say so, of course the states were
1 not the same as the ones we understand now in the modern sense, but what
2 we are interested in is the following: The people in Bosnia-Herzegovina,
3 were they Serbs?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that's quite difficult because
5 we don't have a census. They're -- they're feudal states, you know, and
6 there were documents produced by the feudal states, so we can work on
7 these documents. That's about it.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, those who lived in Bosnia
9 at the time, did they have -- did they speak Serbian? Was their language
10 Serbian? What about their religion, culture? I'm not mentioning the
11 influences, you know, as my fellow Judges mentioned, influences which are
12 influences from the states as we see them now, but regarding their
13 culture, their language, were these people -- let's take an example.
14 People living around Sarajevo at the time, were they really different from
15 those who lived around Belgrade?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well -- well, Belgrade was always
17 within the boundaries of the Serbian state in the Middle Ages, so it's not
18 a good example, I believe. However, a Bosniak state will be set up in the
19 Middle Ages and will start existing in the Middle Ages, and one of the
20 late last kings of Bosnia, Tvrtko, was crowned in the Orthodox tradition
21 in reference to the medieval Serbian state. But I believe that in this
22 area there are influences, all sorts of influences, Western as well as
23 Eastern. But I remind you I'm not a specialist of the Middle Ages. I'm
24 not an historian dealing with the Middle Ages. I haven't studied all
25 available sources regarding this topic.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Well, these questions that
2 you're getting both from the accused and the Judges, I'm sure you see the
3 purpose of all this. The question, of substance in the end, you know, is
4 to know whether at the very beginning, in the origin, Bosnia was Serb or
5 not, without taking into account the various influences that may have
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in the sources that we have of
8 that time dating back, it is mentioned as being a Serbian region.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
10 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Another issue is important to me, and I'm glad the witness now
12 confirmed that Bosnia according to his contemporary sources Bosnia was
13 Serbian, all the sources agree under which archbishopry was Bosnia in the
14 11th century and onwards? That's a very important question. Do you know
16 A. At the time I know that there was a rivalry between Dubrovnik and
17 Bar and Split, and I know Bosnia was integrated into the archbishopry. If
18 Dubrovnik was the seat of the archbishopry, I know at one point in time
19 there was a redefinition of the limits of the archbishopry. So it's
20 either Bar or Dubrovnik.
21 Q. You know some of these things, and you guess others. Isn't that
22 correct, Mr. Tomic? The Dubrovnik archbishopry at one point encompassed a
23 number Serb territories, but when was the Bar archbishopry set up, do you
25 A. I believe it's in the 11th century but I don't know exactly. I
1 remind you this is not my speciality. But this was a very important
2 element for each King, you know, to have a religious structure next to the
3 political structure in order to cover the territory that was controlled by
4 the King.
5 JUDGE ANOTNETTI; Yes, but at the time and in the Middle Ages in
6 Europe, wasn't political power under the influence of religion?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, of course, at the time, power
8 did come from God; so there tends to be a very great importance given to
9 everything religious.
10 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
11 Q. You said something correct a moment ago, namely in 1777, the Roman
12 Pope crowned Mihailo Vojisavljevic, son of Stefan Vojislav to be Serbian
13 King, you know that; but you don't that know ten years earlier the Pope
14 established the Bar archbishopry in 1767 [as interpreted]?
15 A. It's in the 11th century I had forgotten the exact year but I know
16 at the time there was a will, the kings of Zeta wanted to have their own
17 archbishopry they no longer wanted to depend from the archbishopry at
18 Romnic [phoen].
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There must be an error on line 3
20 and line 6. It's not 1767, it must be 1067 and 1000 -- it must be 1077.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
22 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Do you know which territory the Bar archbishopry covered when it
24 was established?
25 A. I believe that it covered the territory of the state of Zeta as it
1 was at the time and encompassed Bosnia.
2 Q. You say probably. So you're not sure. But you were correct. You
3 don't know all of it, do you, that it encompassed Duklja, Travunija, the
4 Hum land, and Bosnia. You gave a partial answer, but it's correct. What
5 was the official title of the Bar archbishop?
6 A. I don't know.
7 Q. You don't know that his official title was Primus Serbia? You
8 don't know that, do you?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Then you surely ignore that the current Bar archbishop is also
11 Primus Serbia by official title although he's an ethnic Albania?
12 A. [Previous translation continues] ... aware of this data.
13 Q. Had you dealt with the Serb history in greater depth, you would
14 know that. Mr. Tomic, as you erroneously stated here that the Serbian
15 state came into being, that it originated in the region of Rasa and you
16 said that it spread towards the south, Kosovo and Macedonia as it
17 developed. From whom did it take these territories, from what state?
18 A. Depends on the Byzantine Empire.
19 Q. Very good. At the expense of the Byzantine Empire. But what
20 people lived on the territory to which the Serbian state spread?
21 A. Well, there were Slavs and in the south Greek and Albanian, but
22 that's in the southern part.
23 Q. But you ought to know that according to
24 Constantine Porphyrogenitus only two Slavic people came to the Balkans,
25 the Croats and the Serbs. There are no third people, Slavs, right?
1 A. There are many more Slav tribes at the time, you know, but some
2 did attract attention more because probably they were more powerful or
3 more organised than others, but in the 7th century the Byzantines recorded
4 a few tribes. The Slavs went all the way down to Saloniki and each area
5 had the name corresponding to each tribe so there was quite a variety than
6 what Constantine seems to hint. But then after maybe there was several
7 tribes that came together. Serbs and Croat tribes sort of managed to
8 attract around them other Slavic populations.
9 Q. Why are you mixing up peoples and tribes? Don't you know that the
10 Serbs had more than one tribe when they arrived in the Balkans? Are you
11 aware of that?
12 A. Well, there could be several Serb and Croatian tribes, but there
13 could also be other tribes that were neither Serbs nor Croatians.
14 Q. But there are no historical sources referring to those other
15 tribes, only to Serb and Croatian tribes. Isn't that correct? There is
16 no historical source showing that any other Slavic people apart from the
17 Serbs and the Croats arrived in the Balkans. Am I right?
18 A. [Previous translation continues] ... Slavs settled in Bulgaria.
19 They became Bulgarians, but at first, you know, Bulgarians originated from
20 Asia Minor. They spoke Turkish but -- and there was a mix between these
21 people coming from Asia Minor and the Slavs. So these Asians became Slavs
22 so at the time we're not talking about Croats or Serbs you're just talking
23 about Slavs. What is called the Slavic invasion in the 6th and 7th
24 century doesn't only deal with the territories that will become Yugoslavia
25 later on. It also deals with the rest of the Balkans, the other side of
1 the Balkans.
2 Q. Do you know, Mr. Tomic, what two great Serbian tribes inhabited
3 Macedonia? What are the names of those two Serbian tribes that settled
5 A. [Previous translation continues] ... remember.
6 Q. You haven't heard of the Mijaci and Brsjaci, that those were two
7 Serbian tribes that settled in Macedonia? You don't know that, do you?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Very well. As you're a linguist --
10 A. I'm not a linguist.
11 Q. You studied Slavic languages as far as I know at University, at
12 that institute. Are you aware of the various dialects of the Serbian
13 language, the main ones?
14 A. [Previous translation continues] ... study languages at first but
15 then very quickly I oriented myself towards history, so I didn't go into
16 linguistics for example.
17 Q. So --
18 A. Well, there are various dialects, Stokavian, for instance. In all
19 this area a distinction between made between various ways of speaking.
20 Stokavian, Cakavian, or Kajkavian with variants for each of these
21 dialects. For instance, Ekavian, Ljkavian, and there are various
22 subcategories, subsets within one given dialect or area.
23 Q. As your knowledge of this is insufficient, I will ask you whether
24 I would be right in saying that Serbian, that is Stokavian, consists of
25 old Stokavian, middle Stokavian and new Stokavian. Am I right?
1 A. I happen to have read this. This is not unknown to me.
2 Q. Would I be right in saying that old Stokavian is spoken in
3 present-day Macedonia?
4 A. I couldn't tell you exactly. I'm not aware of it.
5 Q. Would I be right in saying that middle Stokavian is spoken in the
6 Prizren and Timok parts of Serbia and that it is referred to as the
7 Prizren Timok dialect?
8 A. I did not study linguistics in this respect, at this level.
9 Q. All right. But you have heard of new Stokavian; right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Would I be right in saying this new Stokavian is divided into
12 Ekavian, Ijkavian, as to standard languages, and Ekavian as a non-standard
14 A. I believe I read something to this effect.
15 Q. Mr. Tomic, didn't you have to know this if you wanted to write a
16 serious report on the idea of Greater Serbia, especially an idea linked to
17 an ideology on which I have imposed a personal stamp?
18 A. The language dimension was mentioned by me for the 19th century.
19 For instance, in the writings by Vuk Karadzic. At the time, it was a
20 dominant idea in -- among the Slavists. Be there from Cekjar [phoen],
21 from Slovenia. They're associated the Serbian nation with those who spoke
22 Stokavian. But this definition was provided by intellectuals and did not
23 rely necessarily on the real identity of the individuals living in those
24 various areas.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, we're now dealing
1 with very specific and very complicated issues of linguistics, and judging
2 by your questions it seems that Ekavian was the non-literary, spoken
3 language. All the things you say cannot be challenged by the witness nor
4 confirmed hundred per cent.
5 What do you want to establish in putting those questions? What do
6 you wish to show to us? Could you in one question to the witness help us
7 understand what you are trying to show us? In this way everybody would
8 save time.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, Mr. President, I wish
10 to prove to you that this witness is absolutely incompetent to testify as
11 an expert on these issues. For him to be an expert in this trial his
12 knowledge of these issues would have to be greater than mine. If I am a
13 full-time professor we would need an eminent member of the academy here
14 who would say he says this, this, this, and this and, that's his ideology.
15 Yet here is a man who is hardly qualified to be an assistant professor,
16 and he knows nothing. That's what I want to demonstrate to you. He's
17 worse than Oberschall. He knows nothing about anything.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But regardless of that, there
19 are things that he knows. For instance what he wrote about the 19th and
20 20th centuries. Now as part of your Defence you want to argue certain
21 things. For us to be able to understand your approach, you need to ask
22 questions that help us understand what you try to establish. I may be
23 wrong, I may be right, but I believe I understood that initially you
24 wanted to demonstrate that Bosnia was initially Serb.
25 Now, as to the language, you seem to demonstrate that in those
1 areas there are supposed to be Serbian or "Greater Serbia." All these
2 people at the time used to speak a language that was from the literary
3 point of view the Ekavian or an everyday language Ekavian. Is that what
4 you want to show? If that is so, put the question to the witness and he
5 can say, "I agree," or, "I don't agree with you."
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Not quite like that, Judge. My view
7 is that all Stokavians are Serbs and the witness knows that the greatest
8 Slavic scholars in the world advocated this standpoint in the 19th
9 century. Let me ask him now.
10 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
11 Q. You've heard of Joseph Dubrovski a Roman Catholic abbot Slavic
12 scholar; Safret [phoen] and Kopitar, Jernej Kopitar. Did all three of
13 these greatest Slavic scholars of the 19th century consider that all
14 Stokavians are Serbs, that Cakavians are Croats, and that Kajkavians are
15 Slovenes. Is that true?
16 A. That was indeed what the Slavists of the time thought. Those who
17 spoke Stokavian were according to them Serbs whether they be Orthodox,
18 Catholics, or Muslims. But this was a standpoint established on the
19 knowledge of the time. Later on, however, various national identities
20 materialised and focused on other criteria, not just a language one.
21 Those who spoke Stokavian among the Catholics are going to identify as
22 Croats and not Serbs.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, let's do it step-by-step.
24 You were answering a question and you said something important. Those who
25 spoke Stokavian, were they regarded as being Serbs? You seem to say that
1 in the 19th century this was not challenged. Those who would speak
2 Stokavian were Serbs. Is this what is to be understood by your answer?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, as a matter of fact we're
4 speaking about Slavists who are going to define national identities, but
5 this does not mean that the people involved, the populations were asked
6 for their matter. It's a definition from the top down.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but back in the 19th
8 century you have individuals. The names are to be found on line 2, page
9 33. These people seem to say that all those who speak Stokavian are
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That's the prevailing view
12 among the Slavists.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So this is the prevailing view
14 of the Slavists in the 19th century. You agree on that.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] At least this way we can make
17 headway. 1830s, 1840s, 1850s. This is confirmed then.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. We're going to try to
20 make headway.
21 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Now we're coming to the 20th century. Do you know who Aleksandar
23 Belic is? Have you heard of him?
24 A. I believe he played some part during the First World War, because
25 he was an historian, but I can't remember right now, but indeed it rings a
2 Q. The name is familiar to you, but you don't know that he was one of
3 the greatest Slavists of the 20th century; is that right?
4 A. I don't know about the 20th century. I'm not a linguist. I can't
5 tell you as an expert. You have to ask this of a Serbian linguist.
6 Q. Mr. Tomic, you don't know that Aleksandar Belic was also the
7 president of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences?
8 A. I do not know all the names of the presidents of the Serbian
9 science academy.
10 Q. You have never heard of Belic's greatest work, Slavic linguistics
11 in two volumes; is that right?
12 A. No, because I never studied linguistics. I studied languages. I
13 studied Serbo-Croatian at the time, that these were language courses. We
14 learned grammar, vocabulary, but we did not have any advanced linguistics
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You know that the science of
17 linguistics goes to the very heart of languages and makes it possible to
18 determine the origin of language.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do know some facets of linguistics
20 when they are linked to the national question, but it was not necessary
21 for me to go into each and every detail of this science. There was a
22 definition of the Serb nation on the basis of the Stokavian dialect. This
23 was an important data in my view, but it was not necessary to go into
24 every detail of this question. I know that at some point in time there
25 was a definition of the Serb nation on this criterion and that was enough
1 for me.
2 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
3 Q. You don't know, Mr. Tomic, that Aleksandar Belic proved that the
4 Stokavian or Serbian language belongs to the east Slavic group of
5 languages to which Russian, Ukrainian, bellow Russian, Bulgarian and
6 present-day Macedonian also belong, whereas Cakovski [phoen] as the
7 Croatian and Kajkavian as the Slovenia language belong to the west Slavic
8 group of languages which includes also Polish, Czech, and Slovak. You
9 don't know that, do you?
10 A. No. This is not now how I was introduced to Slav languages. I
11 was spoken to about eastern Slavic languages, Russian, Belorussian,
12 Ukrainian, and then you had eastern central languages and -- eastern as it
13 were. So besides Serb, Croat, but also Bulgarian. So these are the three
14 main families that were introduced to me that I'm aware of. I never heard
15 of any association of Serb or Serbian with Russian.
16 Q. Well, then, Mr. Tomic, how come I can understand everything a
17 Russian says and I can't understand what a Pole says? Isn't that odd?
18 A. [Previous translation continues] ... sometimes understand Polish
19 people. There are many common words in Slavic languages. They may be
20 pronounced a little differently in Polish. "Mleko," milk is the same in
21 basically all the Slavic languages. So if you make a bit of an effort you
22 manage to understand each other after all.
23 Q. Of course there are many words I will understand, but when a Pole
24 speaks to me in Polish I don't understand him, right? I need an
25 interpreter for Polish; right?
1 A. Polish is a bit more difficult because there are a lot of "Chur"
2 and "CH" sounds. It is much easier for a Serb to understand a Czech or a
3 Slovak rather than a Pole. Of course for a Serb it is easier to
4 understand a Bulgarian or a Russian. The Polish case is a specific
5 because you've got all the nasal sounds and therefore you may not have
6 that sounds to such an extent in other central and eastern Slavic
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, put your question so
9 that we understand what you're trying to demonstrate. We realise that
10 there are three families of Slavic languages. What are you trying to
12 Oh. The witness says there are three families. You say there are
13 two. Just try to have us understand what you're trying to prove.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Only two, but ...
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, are there two or three
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was told that there were three
18 families. That's what I was taught.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So there are three in your book
20 and two in the accused's book.
21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I'm so sorry, but I, too, learned
22 that there were three families.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So, Mr. Seselj, apparently there
24 are three families among the Slavic languages. You are of the view that
25 there are two. Can you, through a question, try to prove this?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, to avoid wasting time
2 questioning the witness, I can tell you. When Yugoslavia was created,
3 political measures were taken to create a third South Slavic groups of
4 languages, but linguistics shows that this is untenable. In linguistics
5 there is the eastern and western group, but now I've come to the place
6 where Mr. Tomic deals with linguistic issues.
7 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
8 Q. You mention here the agreement between a number of Serbian and
9 Croatian intellectuals from 1850.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Mr. Seselj. I'm
11 being told that we have to have a break. Your associates seem to be here,
12 and they should be coming into the courtroom later on. We are going to
13 have to explain to them how computers work, so apparently we're going to
14 have a 30-minute break. Indeed during the break they can be told how to
15 push the various keys so that also they understand how computers work. In
16 other words, we shall resume at quarter past 4.00 in the presence of your
17 associates, and I'll ask them to introduce themselves before you go on
18 with your questions.
19 Let's reconvene at 4.15.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If possible can they come and see me
21 for five minutes before that? I have to see them before they show up in
22 the courtroom, because I don't want to mess things up.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. No problem.
24 --- Recess taken at 3.48 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 4.21 p.m.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. The hearing is resumed.
2 I'd like to welcome the associates of Mr. Seselj, and I would like to ask
3 them to introduce themselves one after the other. Please give me your
4 names. Let me start with the one sitting on the right.
5 MR. KRASIC: [Interpretation] Judge, my name is it Zoran Krasic,
6 legal advisor to Dr. Vojislav Seselj.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Madam.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
9 MS. RAGUS [Interpretation] I'm sorry about this. My name is
10 Marina Ragus, case manager for Dr. Vojislav Seselj.
11 MR. VUCIC: [Interpretation] My name is Aleksandar Vucic, legal
12 advisor to Dr. Vojislav Seselj.
13 MR. JERKOVIC: [Interpretation] My name is Slavko Jerkovic, legal
14 advisor to Dr. Vojislav Seselj.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. As I said, I wanted
16 to welcome you to this courtroom. I'm sure that you were shown how these
17 computers you have in front of you work. If at any point in time you have
18 a problem, please notify us and the usher or registrar will come to your
20 We're now going to proceed with the cross-examination. I'm going
21 to give the floor to Mr. Seselj.
22 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Mr. Tomic, you stated that a number of Serbian and Croatian
24 intellectuals met in 1850 and agreed about a unified literary language.
25 Where was this meeting?
1 A. I don't remember exactly where it took place.
2 Q. Thus you don't know that it is the name of the venue that gave the
3 name to the agreement in Serbia and Croatian linguistics, and it's quality
4 the Vienna agreement?
5 A. Now that you mention it I remember, but it just escaped me a
6 little while ago.
7 Q. And do you know what literary language the Croats had before the
8 Vienna agreement?
9 A. In the years 1830, 1840, in the Slavonian and Croatian territories
10 various languages were used. The official language for quite some time
11 was Latin in the Croatian parliament. German was also widely used in
12 Zagreb. It's called Agram as well under its German name, talking about
13 the city of Zagreb. And in the years 1830 to 1840, the movement of -- the
14 national movement is called Illyrian. That's the way the language used at
15 the time is also called, and the actors of this Illyrian movement decided
16 to adopt the Stokavian language in their publications because many more
17 people used to talk that dialect than the other two. Kajkavian or
19 Q. Mr. Tomic, in which language did the Illyrian movement start to
20 publish its books, et cetera?
21 A. Ljudevit Gaj. He spoke German. His German was fluent. He spoke
22 German fluently. And amongst the most influential people in that movement
23 Ijekavian was the prevailing language, but very quickly they decided to
24 adopt the Stokavian dialect.
25 Q. And in which areas was Kajkavian spoken?
1 A. The areas where Kajkavian was spoken were the areas around Zagreb,
2 roughly, but if you look at the map to see where these -- where Kajkavian
3 was spoken, it goes up to Sisak, if I'm not mistaken, remembering the maps
4 I've seen, the maps where you see where Kajkavian, Cakavian, or Stokavian
5 were spoken. But usually it's the districts around Zagreb that are
6 defined as such.
7 Q. If you know that Hungary as it was then was divided into counties
8 and Croatia was part of Hungary, in what three counties was Kajkavian
10 A. There was Zagreb itself, and I don't remember the names of the
11 relevant administrative units.
12 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... that those were Zagreb,
13 Krizevac and Varazdin counties? You don't know that, do you?
14 A. I did not remember, but, yes, indeed these were the three regions.
15 But if I remember the maps I reviewed in various books dealing with that
16 issue, the area went beyond the area where Kajkavian was spoken, went
17 along these three Zupanja.
18 Q. In the first half of the 19th century, did Croatian national
19 consciousness exist in any way in Slavonia whatsoever?
20 A. At the time if you look at the current territory of Croatia, the
21 same territory was divided into various parts. On the one hand you had
22 Dalmatia. Dalmatia came under the authority of Vienna. And then you had
23 Croatia and Slavonia that came under the authority of Budapest. These
24 territories were divided. They would later become part of Croatia. At
25 the time there was no real Croatian identity because the areas where the
1 Croatian population lived were divided. There was no national identity
2 amongst all these populations. In Dalmatia people would see them receives
3 as Slavs. It's only in the second half of the 19th century that the
4 Croatian and Serb nationalities started to come to the fore, but in
5 Croatia and Slavonia faster, it went faster.
6 Q. Who led the systematic imposition of Croatian national
7 consciousness in Slavonia in the second half of the 19th century?
8 A. I don't understand your question.
9 Q. Well, since in the first half of the 19th century Croatian
10 national consciousness did not exist, it had to be implanted in some way.
11 Somebody brought it into Slavonia if it did not originally exist there.
12 Who brought it there?
13 A. I have no idea whom you're referring to.
14 Q. Well, you should know that those were Joseph Strossmayer and
15 Franjo Racki. Do you know what their main theory was and how they managed
16 to Croatise Slavonia?
17 A. These two individuals are part of the Yugoslav movement in
18 Croatia. They spoke -- they spoke in favour of the Serbian and Croatian
19 getting closer in the political and cultural areas. Strossmayer and
20 Mihailo, the Prince of Serbia, came together, and at the time they decided
21 that Serbia would become part of Bosnia and Herzegovina in a first stage,
22 and the second stage of this cooperation would be an association between
23 this state of Serbia and Slavonia and Croatia at the end of the '60s.
24 That's when it happened. Strossmayer and Franjo Racki are major players
25 in this thing, in the formulation of the unification of Southern Slavs.
1 Strossmayer set up an academy of science, the Yugoslav academy of sciences
2 where this project was given shape.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, I need an extension of an
4 hour, because this expert keeps wasting my time answering questions I
5 don't ask. I ask him, for instance, what the main theory of Strossmayer
6 and Racki was and he tells me the whole story of the two of them which is
7 partly correct more or less, but he doesn't answer the question. Now I
8 have to repeat it again in order to get an answer.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I've identified a problem here.
10 Mr. Seselj is asking you who was at the beginning, at the origin of
11 Croatian national consciousness in Slavonia. Your tell him that you don't
12 know. Then he gave you the names of Strossmayer and Racki. Then you told
13 him that you knew these two individuals and that they worked in favour of
14 the Croats and the Serbs getting closer or together. It seems to me that
15 it's not exactly what the accused was expecting. That may explain why
16 he's slightly irritated to see that you do not answer his question.
17 Could you please give us some more information about the role
18 played by these two men in terms of the Croatian national consciousness in
19 Slovenia, or would you confirm that these two men were not advocating the
20 Croatian national consciousness in Slovenia, not at all, but that they
21 were advocating the bringing of Croatians and Serbs closer?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To answer your question, let me say
23 that historians recently, starting in the 1990s and up until now, some
24 historians believe that these two men wanted to Croatise the populations,
25 to convert the Orthodox Serbs to Catholicism. That was a hidden agenda,
1 however. That was never publicly proclaimed. Therefore, it's quite
2 difficult to work on that basis, on the basis of such an allegation,
3 because we have a lot of documents from these -- these intellectuals, from
4 their circle. And since -- since apparently -- if they had this hidden
5 agenda but if they never publicised it, what can we say about it? But I
6 believe that this allegation was made in a book about the history of the
7 Serbian people, a book publishing by Duskan Pospavelic [phoen]. In the
8 chapter dedicated to Strossmayer, that's what's said about this.
9 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] But you also spoke about the role
10 played about these two men in the attempts made to unify the Slavs from
11 the south. When you talk about unification here, was it a Croatisation or
12 a Serbianisation? I don't know exactly what word I should use. I hope
13 that you get my point.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time Strossmayer was more
15 interested in the cultural area, and he was -- he would leave to the Serbs
16 what was related to the political area. But also you have to take into
17 account the situation at the time. At the time the idea was to unify the
18 Serbs in the Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, or to unify them with Serbs
19 from Serbia.
20 The project as -- varied depending on the political situation at
21 the time.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed.
23 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
24 Q. There have, Mr. Tomic, you don't know that the main theory of
25 Strossmayer and Racki was that Serbs and Croats are one single people,
1 that the Catholics of that people are called Croats and Orthodox oriented
2 ones are called Serbs, but they belong to a single people.
3 A. Yes. At the time, this was an opinion that prevailed because some
4 say that Serbs is -- Serbian is the same as Croatian. I'm talking about
5 the languages. It was called either Serbian or Croatian.
6 At that time, people believed that Serbs and Croats were very
7 close to each other and that they were a part of the same nation, that
8 they were one, same nation, and that was the view adopted by
9 Djuro Danicic, a Serbian intellectual. He worked together with the
10 Yugoslav academy of sciences founded by Strossmayer. Djuro Danicic wrote
11 dictionary of the Serbian language or of the Croatian language.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In what year?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In 1857 it seems to me.
14 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
15 Q. And what about Strossmayer? When did he write his book?
16 A. 1850, 1860, 1870. He became part of the political life, because
17 he was a member of a popular party, the Narodna Stranka.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] To summarise, the main thrust of
19 Strossmayer's ideas was that the Serbs and the Croats were part of a
20 single people.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. He indeed believed that they
22 were very close to even other, these two peoples. But when you start
23 studying this ideology, then you realise that basically this is a plan of
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But how can you square the
1 circle? If the Croats were Catholic and the others were Orthodox, how can
2 you unify them?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I believe at the time religion
4 wasn't seen at the time as something that would divide people. Focus was
5 made on something that would bring people together. That was language.
6 So this is a population that lives in the Austro-Hungarian empire and that
7 is trying to get as much an autonomy within this empire. So either you
8 could have a third entity within the Austro-Hungarian because it's divided
9 into two part in 1867 and the purpose, the objective of the political
10 forces in Croatia at the time was to obtain maybe a third entity within
11 the empire that would have brought together all southern Slavs. That was
12 one of the scenario possible. The other one that had been envisaged was
13 the following: Depending on the relationship that local power in Croatia
14 could have either with Budapest or Vienna, then it could possibly unite
15 with Serbia. But this idea that Serbians and Croats weren't single people
16 is not an idea that you find only with these two people in the 19th
17 century. It's very widespread. Until World War I, many intellectuals
18 believed that this was one single nation.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But this nation is based on
20 language, not on religion since there are different religions.
21 THE INTERPRETER: There are differences, interpreter's correction.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's one of the main element.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But this concept at the time,
24 you know, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, isn't this an attempt to unify,
25 to create this third entity without having any regard to the differences
1 in religion in order to create an entity that would fit within the empire?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that Strossmayer would
3 rather have autonomy for an entity that would bring together all southern
4 Slavs from the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
5 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a question but -- okay. I
6 do understand this cultural unification and this movement for this, but
7 did they support themselves? Did they back themselves on common writers,
8 common works of literature? So did they consider -- did they take into
9 account what the Croats and the Serbs had written and the writings of
10 these two people?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, when Vuk Karadzic
12 re-established the Serbian literary language, then there was an agreement
13 to say that this was Serb or Croatian. That was in 1850. And then the
14 authors followed the advice of and the recommendations of these people.
15 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes, but you could say that this
16 was very -- this is very artificial. But before this actual operation
17 there were writers, and did people think that they were represented either
18 by one or the other writer from --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I haven't really gone into this. I
20 haven't really studied this in detail.
21 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Now I have to skip over a lot of my questions, because you are
23 intensively wasting my time.
24 You are speaking here of the Serbian cultural club --
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Seselj, when you dealt
1 with this question, what exactly was your point? Could you give us
2 another question so we could understand what your point is and what your
3 case is?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I tried, Your Honour, but the
5 witness is not responsive.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Formulate a question that could
7 summarise your case, and then he will say either yes or no, or I do know
8 or I don't know. At least we'll know. The Bench will understand what
9 your question is, we'll have a trace of your question, and we'll be able
10 to understand really what your point is.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will take another path in the same
13 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Do you know that the Yugoslav academy of art and science in Zagreb
15 published five volumes of private correspondence between Strossmayer and
17 A. Well, I know that there were collections of what they have
18 written. I don't really know the exact date of publication.
19 Q. It's a collection of letters. It's not their collected works,
20 which were never publish.
21 Are you aware that from their correspondence it is evident that
22 their basic idea was to use the Yugoslav idea to get all the Serbs to
23 convert to Catholicism?
24 A. I have not studied in detail the political action of these two
25 people, but I know in Serbia Vasilije Krestic highlighted this phenomenon.
1 However, I haven't looked into this in detail, but I know this is the
2 conclusion he reached in his work. This is an historian who research the
3 history of Serbs in Croatia.
4 Q. Is Vasilije Krestic today one the greatest living Serb historians?
5 A. I know it's an historian who works in the Serbian Academy of Arts
6 and Sciences. However, I don't know to what extent he's recognised by the
7 community of all historians in the country.
8 Q. As an historian you ought to know that. Have you heard of Slavko
9 Gavrilovic, another member of the academy?
10 A. No.
11 Q. You have never even heard of Slavko Gavrilovic a member of the
12 academy who dedicated his whole life to studying the life of the Serbs in
13 Slavonia and Serb-Croat relations. And who spread Croatian national
14 consciousness in an organised manner in the second half of the 19th
15 century through Dalmatia?
16 A. There was a politician called Pavinovic, who played an important
17 role. At first in Dalmatia there was a popular party that was created
18 Narodna Stranka that brought together Serbs and Croats. At the time it
19 was the Slav identity that was dominant in that area. But then Pavinovic
20 really defended the Croatian national interests and there was a split
21 between Split -- between Serbs and Croats from that moment on in the
22 party, in Narodna Stranka when Austria arrived in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
23 When Bosnia-Herzegovina became occupied by Austria, there was great
24 divergence of opinion between Serbs and Croats within this Narodna Stranka
25 and Divnovic supported integration of Bosnia-Herzegovina into Croatia and
1 Slavonia. But the creation of national identities and the consolidation
2 of national identities only occurred after 1860 -- 1870, interpreter's
3 correction. And in the late '70s, then there was the split and creation
4 of a specifically Serb party in Dalmatia.
5 Q. What was Mihovil Pavlinovic [phoen] by profession?
6 A. I don't remember.
7 Q. You don't know that he was Roman Catholic priest?
8 A. I know that in that party, among the Serbs and Catholic
9 representatives, there were also clerics who were involved in political
11 Q. Here you deal with the activity of the Serbian Cultural Club, and
12 you list the names of certain eminent intellectuals who were members of
13 the club. You say that the members of the club periodically gave lectures
14 on different topics.
15 In your view, was every lecture of every individual member of the
16 club something that expressed the standpoints of all the members of the
18 A. [Previous translation continues]... necessarily.
19 Q. On what basis did you describe the lecture of Vaso Cubrilovic on
20 the movement of Albanians, on moving out Albanians as the jointly held
21 standpoint of all the members of the Serbian Cultural Club?
22 A. It seemed to me that from the moment when a good number of
23 conferences were organised on the same topic which was nationalisation of
24 different regions like Kosovo and Vojvodina, and when we're talking about
25 nationalisation, here there's a reference to population transfer, forced
1 population transfers. Then in the spring 19 -- as of -- in the spring of
2 1937 there were a good number of conferences on the same topic, so it
3 seemed that the Serbian Cultural Club did not disagree with what was
4 discussed with -- in the framework of these conferences. The fact that
5 there were so many conferences does not mean that the solution that is
6 envisaged to solve the question of national minorities is disregarded.
7 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] What are we -- what time period
8 are we talking about now?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1937.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
11 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes. Are we talking about
12 society of nation? But there were populations movements under the
13 auspices of the League of Nations.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Furthermore, Vaso Cubrilovic was the
15 secretary of the Serbian Cultural Club. He's not an outsider or just a
16 member. He was on the board. So what he said had a lot of weight, just
17 because of the position he occupied. He was secretary general of this
18 Serbian Cultural Club.
19 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Did any other member of the Serbian Cultural Club at any time
21 express in public his agreement with the ideas that Vaso Cubrilovic put
22 forward in his lecture?
23 A. I did not find any trace that would make it possible to say that
24 such-and-such -- that the point of view of such-and-such could be
25 confirmed or denied. But as I said, you know, when I started testifying,
1 there was also an official policy going in that direction, which was to
2 reduce the weight of national minorities in Yugoslavia. So at the
3 political level you have convergence, and you also have this convergence
4 within the Serbian intellectuals regarding these -- what to do with the
5 national minorities.
6 In 1938 the Yugoslav government signed an agreement with the
7 Turkish government on the -- on the transfer of 200.000 Muslims to
8 Yugoslavia. This was not materialised, never came to anything, but there
9 were a number of conferences in 1937, for example, Djoko Perin, and Perin
10 published what had been lectured in conference what was a brochure and he
11 wanted to distribute this to all members of parliament at the time. So
12 there was this will to really pressurise politicians at the time in order
13 to -- through recommendations, but the Yugoslav government was -- wanted
14 -- was -- was of that opinion, you know, to try and reduce the weight of
15 national minorities in Yugoslavia.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction it was not to
17 Yugoslavia but from Yugoslavia to the Muslims that move.
18 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Where was this standpoint formulated in the Serbian Cultural Club?
20 You say it was the standpoint of the Serbian Cultural Club. Where was
21 this formulated? Nowhere; right?
22 A. Well, maybe the formulation is a bit awkward, but these positions
23 were not challenged at the time. As I said, you know, they were repeated
24 over and over. And these opinions were also repeated after World War I,
25 because some intellectuals who were members of the Serbian Cultural Club
1 joined the Ravna Gora Movement with the same ideas in mind. These were
2 ideas that were moving around, you know, in that -- in those circles.
3 They were not necessarily developed in the journal of the Serbian Cultural
5 Q. There is only one man who gave a lecture on the transfer of
6 Albanians. That's Vaso Cubrilovic. And then you claim that his ideas
7 were accepted by all the other members of the club, although the
8 standpoint was nowhere formulated, the members nowhere expressed their
9 opinion, and it was not confirmed in the Official Gazette of the club; is
10 that right?
11 A. Just one person who mentioned this, Djoko Perin also. I know this
12 topic of nationalisation of some of the regions was discussed in a number
13 of conferences. I believed that since the topic was studied under
14 different frameworks, it meant that there was agreement on the solution
15 envisaged to solve the problem of national minorities. Now, of course if
16 you read Srpski Glas, the problem is that Srpski Glas as a newspaper was
17 only issued two years later. It started being published two years later
18 in 1939, in November 1939. So I'm talking about conferences that were
19 held in the spring of 1937, and we don't have any echoes of those
20 conferences in the journal of the Serbian Cultural Club. If the journal
21 had existed at the time maybe these conference would have been dealt with
22 in the journal. But there's a shift in time here. There's a time lag.
23 Q. I think this is incredible, Judge. You see, he's not answering my
24 question at all.
25 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Who was Djoko Perin?
2 A. I think that he was an engineer in agriculture in Sarajevo. I --
3 this booklet exists. I looked at it. It was in a national library of
4 Serbia. He's mentioned in the work of Ljubodrag Dimic, an historian, who
5 devoted an entire chapter of his books to the Serbian Cultural Club.
6 Q. The name Djoko Perin might be a pseudonym, Mr. Tomic, couldn't it?
7 A. Well, I saw Djoko Perin on the booklet, on this brochure, and I
8 found it also in the study by Mr. Dimic. They seemed to contain
9 information to the effect that he was from Sarajevo. His identity was
10 specified on the brochure and he's even mentioned on the front of the
11 brochure. It was said that it had been published for the MPs of
12 Yugoslavia and senators of Yugoslavia.
13 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... agree that he was a very
14 marginal intellectual whom nobody knows anything about or almost anything?
15 A. It's obvious that he's not one of the main intellectuals in the
16 Serbian Cultural Club. He doesn't have the same reputation as Jovanovic
17 or Dragisa Vasic, the president and vice-president respectively. He
18 doesn't have the same profile at all, of course.
19 Q. So public speeches by two men, Vaso Cubrilovic and a non-entity,
20 Djoko Perin, are something that you identified with the policies of the
21 Serbian Cultural Club without any foundation whatsoever and without any
22 evidence; right?
23 A. I'm not the only one who arrived at this conclusion. Most of the
24 researchers who looked at the Serbian Cultural Club did see what kind of
25 solution was put forward in order to resolve the issue of national
1 minorities. I'm not the only one to conclude that.
2 Q. Who else arrived at this conclusion?
3 A. I have in mind the chapter in the book by Ljubodrag Dimic, in the
4 history of cultural policy in the first Yugoslavia and in the inter-war
5 period in three volumes.
6 Q. In his book does Ljubodrag Dimic claim that the Serbian Cultural
7 Club as a whole wanted to transfer the Albanians out of Yugoslavia? Is
8 that what you're claiming?
9 A. He may not have used those terms, but he did mention the national
10 programme and all the ideas that could actually make up a national
11 programme as they circulated within the Serbian Cultural Club, including
12 the idea of displacement of these populations.
13 Q. You're falsely ascribing this to Ljubodrag Dimic; right?
14 A. I wouldn't say so.
15 Q. The Serbian Cultural Club wanted there to be a Serb unit
16 established once the Croatian Banovina had been established. That was the
17 gist of what he advocated. Am I right?
18 A. As a matter of fact, this club was founded in January 1937. So
19 the initiative was probably started in December 1936. The idea of
20 creating a Serb entity within Yugoslavia only arose in August 1939,
21 because in the spring of that year, until the summer of that year 1939
22 there were negotiations between Dragisa Cvetkovic, the head of the
23 government and the leader of the Croat Peasants Party on setting up a
24 Banovina in Croatia. Only when this Croatian Banovina was established in
25 August 1939, only then was there a reaction by the Serbian Cultural Club
1 with a specific claim, which was to establish a Serb entity. Since there
2 was a Croatian entity, they wanted -- a Croatian entity, they wanted a
3 Serb entity within Yugoslavia. So that is two years after this
4 organisation was created.
5 Q. Are you aware that the members of the Serbian Cultural Club were
6 almost all Frankophile of a liberal orientation, that they were all
7 intellectuals and democrats, and there were many Freemasons among them?
8 Are you aware of that?
9 A. Indeed. At the time if you want to look into the composition of
10 the movement you cannot say of it that you would be fascist movement like
11 they were also at the time. Indeed often its members are in favour of
12 liberal democracy. But this being said, one of the main points put
13 forward by the Serbian Cultural Club at the time is that the foreign
14 influence on Serbian culture should be limited. So even though many of
15 the intellectuals in that club studied abroad, for instance
16 Slobodan Jovanovic, he studied in Switzerland and in France. There was a
17 will to basically only rely on Serbian national cultural values, limiting
18 the influence of Marxism, of artistic movements or trends such as
19 futurism, say the modernist trends of the time. But I would not indeed
20 say of that organisation that its part of the organisations that really
21 got more and more numerous in Europe. This is late 1930s. Like
22 fascist-type organisations.
23 Q. You are transposing things in the -- on the cultural scene, which
24 is the wrong place. You forget that the main orientation of the Serbian
25 Cultural Club was to oppose Marxist and fascist trends that were coming
1 from abroad. Marxism and Fascism were considered by them to be equally
2 dangerous enemies.
3 A. I'm actually referring to articles I was able to read in Srpski
4 Glas. Mention was not made of fascism, but the members of the club were
5 not in favour of Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany at the time.
6 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... fascism I also mean the Nazi
7 ideology. Nazism in the first place, perhaps. Were they all committed
8 anti-fascists as became evident in the war that followed?
9 A. I can't give you an answer for all but for a good part of them
10 they later -- some of the leaders were involved in the government in exile
11 or in the Ravna Gora Movement, which was indeed was a resistance movement
12 at the time.
13 Q. Is it the case that the establishment of Banovina Croatia was done
15 A. Since the 1920s there had been a claim on the part of Croats for
16 autonomy within Yugoslavia, and this question was an impediment to the
17 good functioning of democracy at the time, so much so that there was an
18 assassination in the Assembly of Yugoslavia, which led to a proclamation
19 of dictatorship in 1929. So the Croatian question did cause tensions
20 within Yugoslavia, and it took almost 20 years before a solution was
21 proposed to meet the specific claims and demands of the Croat parties at
22 the time.
23 Now, as to whether they complied with the constitution, I don't
24 know, but the powers at the time, we were close to war, this was 1939, and
25 it was important to resolve the Croatian question at all price so that
1 Germany or Italy would have no pretext for intervening. There was a need
2 for the largest unity possible in Yugoslavia in order to face the looming
3 threats at the time. At the time, we were in August 1939, a lot of things
4 have already happened in the area, happened in Austria and Czechoslovakia
5 so there is this threat looming on the Yugoslav authorities at the time.
6 Q. Which constitution was in force then?
7 A. This is the 1931 constitution, which was granted.
8 Q. And did this agreement violate that constitution?
9 A. Well, this agreement put into question the way the country was
10 organised administratively speaking.
11 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... prescribed by the
13 A. I am not aware of the -- every detail of the Yugoslav
14 constitution, but this agreement challenged the administrative
15 organisation of the country as it was at the time.
16 Q. Mr. Tomic, you have dealt here with the Chetnik Movement, and you
17 mentioned the assassination of the Croatian political leader and president
18 of the Croatian Peasants Party Punisa Racic in 1928 in the national
20 A. Yes, I made reference to that.
21 Q. Do you know about Bogdan Krizman?
22 A. He's a Croat historian.
23 Q. One of the greatest Croatian historians of the 20th century, do
24 you agree?
25 A. I can't answer this question, but he published numerous works.
1 Q. Do you know that his father Hinko Krizman was a deputy in the
2 National Assembly of the Kingdom of Serbs, Slovenes and Croats?
3 A. No, I didn't know.
4 Q. And did you know that Bogdan Krizman in one of his works describes
5 how his father had told him that priest Korosec president of the Slovene
6 popular party and Minister for Foreign Affairs had warned previously his
7 deputies who were sitting in their chairs in the parliament behind the
8 deputies of the peasant party to sit somewhere else that day?
9 A. I was not aware of that detail that I never saw in all the books I
10 have written about the history of Yugoslavia in the inter-war period.
11 Q. That's because you haven't read very valuable works, Mr. Tomic.
12 A. I'd say that's what you think.
13 Q. Have you heard about Vaso Kazimirovic?
14 A. I came across this name, indeed, but I couldn't tell you right off
15 the cuff who he is.
16 Q. Therefore you don't know that Vaso Kazimirovic published a history
17 of Yugoslavia between World War I and World War II in four volumes?
18 A. No.
19 Q. And that he, too, refers to the testimony of had Hinko Krizman?
20 You don't know that?
21 A. No, I don't know this detail.
22 Q. If you had known then you would have drawn the conclusion that
23 minister Korosec knew in advance of the assassination attempt at
24 Stjepan Radic and probably organised it himself?
25 A. Which part are you referring to?
1 Q. I have reached page 38 where you say that Punisa Racic shot
2 Stjepan Radic in the national assembly. It's 38 in Serbian. I have to go
3 faster because I have no time for all the questions I want to ask of you.
4 But I am finishing with this issue, and I'm moving on.
5 You stated here that the democratic party, too, between two wars
6 had its own Chetnik organisation. The radicals had one and the democrats
7 had one. The Chetnik organisation of the democrats was led by
8 Kosta Pecanac?
9 THE INTERPRETER: Speakers have to make a pause between question
10 and answer.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is indeed so.
12 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
13 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... assume when pauses are
14 observed. [No interpretation]
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Witness. Do pause
16 before you answer because not everything is recorded. Please answer now.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't remember that specific
18 detail still. Kosta Pecanac would create Chetnik units when the war broke
19 out in Yugoslavia, and he decided to collaborate with the Germans and was
20 in fact opposed to the Ravna Gora Movement. Besides some of the men who
21 fought within the Chetnik units will move to the Ravna Gora Movement
23 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
24 Q. You mentioned in the examination-in-chief that the word "Vojvoda"
25 means "military leader"; correct?
1 A. Yes, I mentioned "military leader."
2 Q. Do you know the difference between an army Vojvoda and a Chetnik
4 A. I know that this word was used in Chetnik units, which are
5 irregular military units mainly waging guerrilla war, but "Vojvoda" the
6 term was used to speak of senior officers of the Serb army. You had
7 Vjovod Putnik during World War I, for instance. Now, I couldn't tell you
8 the whole history of the use of that word "Vjovod" to qualify members of
9 the Serb army staff.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you're telling us
11 something that might be relevant. You told us that this word could also
12 be used, the word of "Vjovod," could be used to qualify senior officers of
13 the Serb army.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] During World War I, Vjovod Putnik
15 Micic was used. It was a term used in the army to be found in most of the
16 books dealing with the history of World War I. But now -- there we were
17 talking about the regular army, but that word was also used to qualify
18 irregular units. For instance, in early 20th centuries, as of 1903, there
19 was an organisation sending Chetnik units to Macedonia. This organisation
20 equipped itself with an Executive Committee in Belgrade, and it was that
21 committee that appointed the Vjovods of the units to be sent -- to be
22 established in Macedonia.
23 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Do you know which rank was equivalent to Vojvoda in the Serbian
1 A. I think it's the rank of general.
2 Q. General, but a five-star general.
3 A. I'm not aware of that detail.
4 Q. And do you know about a French general who became a honourary
5 Vojvoda of the Serbian army?
6 A. What -- when, in the 19th or in the 20th century?
7 Q. I'm talking about the time of the First World War. A very famous
8 French general.
9 A. Might have been Franchet-d'Esperey.
10 Q. Franchet-d'Esperey. He was a marshall, too, a five-star general.
11 A. I can't remember exactly. Yes, indeed, general or --
12 Q. As far as I know, he was a marshall, which in the French army
13 means a five-star general. He got the same title in the Serbian army. Do
14 you know that?
15 A. I didn't see it mentioned, but that would not be surprising given
16 the collaboration between the French and Serb armies at the time.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you give the name of that
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you spell it out for it to
21 be in the transcript.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Franchet-d'Esperey.
23 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Unlike the army Vojvoda, Chetnik Vojvoda was not a rank. It was a
25 title; correct?
1 A. Well, with regard to the Chetnik Movement, to these irregular
2 forces, the rules of appointment may have been different or may have
3 differed depending on the various constellations. I know that early 20th
4 century in the Chetnik Movement where the field of action was Macedonia,
5 the title was decided by the Executive Committee of the organisation.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before you go on, Mr. Seselj
7 I'm told by the registrar that you still have an hour.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Do you know that Chetnik Vojvodas even before World War I and
10 later could have the title of Chetnik Vojvoda and the army rank at the
11 same time?
12 A. Yes indeed. Some of the Vojvodas who were-- fought in the
13 irregular Chetnik forces were also officers of the Serb army.
14 Q. Have you ever heard of Major Tankosic?
15 A. Yes, Vojislav Tankosic is indeed one of the main Vojvod.
16 Q. How about Lieutenant Colonel Popovic.
17 A. Yes, yes he was also known as Vjovod Vuk.
18 Q. Chetnik Vojvoda; right. You do know something, Mr. Tomic. And do
19 you know that in World War I -- World War II there were Chetnik Vojvodas
20 who never commanded any Chetnik units?
21 A. It's quite possible that Vojvodas or people who were -- were
22 called as such before the war started, it's possible that these people did
23 not join the ranks of the Ravna Gora Movement. The Yugoslav Army in the
24 homeland. The historians who studied this do not see a direct link
25 between the Chetnik Movements of the inter-war period and the Ravna Gora
2 Q. I am asking you about the Ravna Gora Movement. Were there any
3 Chetnik Vojvodas who never ever commanded any Chetnik units?
4 A. I can't answer that question.
5 Q. Have you ever heard of Vojvoda Dobroslav Jevdjevic? Is he one of
6 those that never commanded any Chetnik units?
7 A. Dobroslav Jevdjevic was one of the Chetniks who was active in one
8 of the Chetnik organisations in the inter-war period together with Ilija
9 Trifunovic Bircanin. He was active in Dalmatia and Herzegovina.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You see, Judges, I'm asking one
11 question and the witness is replying to another. He's using up my time
12 and he's not answering. I'm asking him about World War II, the Ravna Gora
13 Movement and whether Dobroslav Jevdjevic as a Chetnik Vojvoda ever
14 commanded a Chetnik unit and he's telling me the life story of Dobroslav
15 Jevdjevic and what he did between the two world wars. How am I supposed
16 to get out of this vicious circle.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that he played a major role
18 in the wars that I mentioned I don't know if he was head of a unit but I
19 know he played a major part in terms of cooperation with the Second
20 Italian army. At that time in that particular area of Dalmatia and
21 Herzegovina, the Italian army was occupying the territory, and the
22 Italians had decided to support the Chetnik, and Dobroslav Jevdjevic was
23 the main contact of the main interlocutor of the Italian authorities.
24 Q. You know, I hope, Mr. Tomic, that the Ustasha right away in 1941
25 committed atrocious crimes against Serb civilians.
1 A. It's true.
2 Q. And do you know that the Italian army, as soon as it heard of
3 those crimes, came to the rescue of the Serbian people trying to save
5 A. The Italian army intervened to help the Serb refugees who were
6 fleeing before the Ustashas and the crimes they had committed.
7 Q. Are you aware that the Italian army, after its General Staff
8 learned of these crimes, decided to reoccupy the Independent State of
9 Croatia in its own zone of interest?
10 A. I know that in May 1941 there was an agreement with the Ustasha
11 authorities in Zagreb with respect to the occupation of part of Dalmatia
12 by Italy. The idea was to define what areas would be occupied. But I'm
13 not aware of anything related or any plan related to the total occupation
14 of the independent Croatian state that at the time included Croatia and
15 Bosnia and Herzegovina. I'm not aware of anything of the kind.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There's something that I do not
17 quite understand. In 1941 you had the Italy, Germany, all these countries
18 together, and apparently the Ustasha were on the side of the Germans. Am
19 I mistaken?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. They enjoyed the support of
21 the Germans, but before the war they were supported by the Italians.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But in 1941 they were also
23 together with the Germans?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With the Germans and the Italians
25 but the Italians at the time wanted to secure the territories they thought
1 should come back to them in Dalmatia along -- along the coastline, and for
2 them the Croatian state was an obstacle to their objectives in the region.
3 That's why they decided to call on the Chetniks in order to counter the
4 objectives of the independent Croatian state. The situation is rather
5 paradoxical. You have Italy that is supporting the Ustasha power in
6 Zagreb in 1941 but very quickly there is a high level of mistrust that
7 appears between the two parties and the second Italian army then supported
8 Serbian civilians in the areas it occupied, and the army, the Italian
9 army, supported the Chetnik Movement, armed the Chetnik Movement and used
10 the Chetniks to fight against the Communist resistance.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The situation was very complex
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it was.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We are trying to shed some light
15 on this situation.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm waiting for the interpretation.
17 Judges, I would like to explain to you briefly because I want this to be
18 clear to you and everyone else as well.
19 The Ustashas and Ante Pavelic will emigres in Italy. After the
20 Marseilles assassination attempt against King Aleksandar, Pavelic was
21 tried in France in absentia. He was convicted to death. And Mussolini
22 refused support to Ustashas and isolated Pavelic. Pavelic was a prisoner
23 in Italy and his main Ustasha leaders. Only in 1941 does Mussolini let
24 them leave Italy.
25 MS. BIERSAY: We object to the --
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Why do you object? Mr. Seselj
2 is trying to shed some light on the situation for the Judges, because the
3 Judges may be confused by this situation where three or four parties come
4 into play. So what do you base your objection upon?
5 MS. BIERSAY: It appeared to the Prosecution that Mr. Seselj was
6 testifying, and I believe the Court had already admonished him in that
7 regard and that was the basis for the objection, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. I get your point, but we
9 need additional information, and I believe that it's indeed very relevant
10 for us to find out that Ante Pavelic was detained in Italy to be then set
12 So, please, Mr. Seselj, complete your explanations.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may add, it is precisely the
14 Croatian historian Bogdan Krizman who wrote in five volumes the history of
15 the Ustasha movement. It's very objective and acknowledged in the world.
16 In Zagreb the Ustashas put themselves in the service of Germans,
17 whereas Italians withdrew from their occupation zone to the territory of
18 Italy. Zadar was Italy. They also held some other towns that were
19 directly annexed to Italy. The Ustashas had a free-hand in their own
20 territory and that's where the manslaughters began. After those
21 slaughters Italians renew the occupation of one part of the Independent
22 State of Croatia to save Serbs.
23 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj. Mr. Seselj, please.
24 This is all very interesting, but the way you should clarify all this is
25 by putting questions to the witness.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I had just started to do that. I
2 was about to ask the witness a question.
3 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Was that the reason, Mr. Tomic, why Chetniks started cooperating
5 with the Italian army?
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I let you answer,
7 Mr. Seselj has given us some data, information. Please answer now.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They first had contacts where --
9 with the first wave of refugees from the areas where massacres had been
10 committed. Then depending on the region, for example in Montenegro,
11 cooperation between Chetniks from Montenegro and the Italians started
12 after the conflict between the Chetniks and the Communist Party in
13 Montenegro. Contacts between them occurred in Montenegro but in Dalmatia
14 as well, and in the Lika region, part of the Krajina region. Contacts was
15 different between them depending on the region where it occurred.
16 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
17 Q. And was it the same in Herzegovina?
18 A. Part of Herzegovina was occupied by Italy.
19 Q. The Italian army returned there only after the Ustasha crimes.
20 Isn't that so? At one point the Italian army had left Herzegovina. Am I
21 right? And then the crimes happened. You don't know these things, do
22 you? Okay. I'm moving on to another question. I'm not going to insist.
23 So we agree that the Chetniks of Draza Mihajlovic cooperated with
24 Italians. Do we agree that the reason for that cooperation was that
25 Italians were helping Chetniks defend the Serb people from Ustasha crimes?
1 And the second reason was that Chetniks were helped to fight Communists?
2 A. Yes, that's -- corresponds to what happened.
3 Q. Do you have any information about the cooperation of Chetniks with
4 Germans, apart from the traitors that Draza liquidated himself like
5 Pecanac? Did Draza or any of his commanders cooperate with Germans?
6 A. I know that Draza Mihajlovic and some German officers had contacts
7 in 1940, but nothing followed up. But during the war at some times there
8 were contacts between enemy factions or -- which were enemy on paper. At
9 some point the Communists got in touch with the Germans asking them not to
10 attack them in 1943, because they were in a weak position or an
11 unfavourable position, and their point was as follows: They told the
12 Germans in Zagreb that the Communists were not attacking the German forces
13 but mostly the Chetnik Movement.
14 So as you can see, during the war negotiations took place
15 sometimes and of a very surprising nature between warring factions that
16 should have been opposed to each other but times they get in touch and
17 they have discussions.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But isn't there another reason
19 for that at the time? Was there a pact signed between Germany and -- by
20 Germany and Russia?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. We're talking about 1943. The
22 occupiers, the Germans, the Italians, and the Chetniks had attacked the
23 Communist Resistance Movement. They needed some time off the fighting,
24 and they had asked -- had asked a truce from the Germans. Yes, but indeed
25 the situation in the war is extremely complex.
1 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
2 Q. My question was -- you have wasted my time needlessly. Do you
3 have evidence of Chetnik cooperation with Germans apart from some sporadic
4 negotiations to exchange prisoners and trifles like that? Do you have
5 evidence of any important agreements between Chetniks and Germans about
6 military cooperation?
7 A. There was cooperation with the Italians but not with the German
8 armed forces.
9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tomic. I would love all your answers to be as
10 concise as this one.
11 You mentioned those March negotiation. They were in Zagreb,
12 right. Do you know that Tito sent three of his most important generals to
13 conduct those negotiations in Zagreb?
14 A. It's a well-know fact.
15 Q. Milovan Djilas, Koca Popovic, and Vladimir Velebit; right?
16 A. Yes indeed.
17 Q. Was it written black and white in that agreement that the main
18 enemies of partisans were Chetniks and they did not intend to fight the
19 Germans? Is that true?
20 A. That's what I said earlier on.
21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tomic. We need not spend any more time on that
23 You state on page 42 that Draza Mihajlovic did not launch any
24 important actions against the occupier; right?
25 A. That's correct. That was the strategy of that movement. After a
1 number of actions again the Germans, retaliation was extremely violent on
2 the German side, and they decided that it would be useless to provoke the
3 Germans needlessly, and they decided to wait for the most opportune
4 moment, i.e., the landing of the Allied Forces in the Balkans.
5 Q. That Germans prescribed that for every one of their soldiers who
6 was killed they would shoot 100 Serbs and for 1 wounded soldier, 50 Serbs.
7 A. I mentioned it in the first part of my testimony during
9 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... aware that the German
10 occupying authorities gave a reward of a hundred thousand Reichmarks in
11 gold to anyone who would help in capturing or killing Draza Mihajlovic?
12 A. It's correct. I saw this.
13 Q. Are you aware of any extensive Partisan action against the
14 Germans? Before the end of 1944 when everything was over already?
15 THE INTERPRETER: The answer was inaudible.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When the war started in Serbia,
17 Communist Partisans attacked the Germans on a few occasions, but quite
18 clearly throughout the following years it was more a civilian war between
19 the Ravna Gora Movement and the Communists. It was more a war of that
20 kind rather than a war against the occupying forces.
21 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Very well, Mr. Tomic. Let's cut things short. Do you know how
23 many SS divisions were formed by the Germans on the territory of
24 Yugoslavia during World War II?
25 A. [Previous translation continues] ... know the exact number.
1 Q. You don't know that they formed three SS divisions?
2 A. I know that there were some SS divisions that were formed with
3 Albanians from Kosovo and Muslims in BiH.
4 Q. In Kosovo there was the Skenderbeg SS division; right?
5 A. [Previous translation continues] ... true.
6 Q. In Herzegovina the SS Handzar Division was formed composing
8 A. [Previous translation continues] ... name of the division.
9 Q. Do you know what third division was formed a SS division?
10 A. Probably a Croatian division that was sent to the front to fight
11 in the Soviet Union.
12 Q. No. You don't know that Princ Eugen was formed out of
13 volksdojcer, the German, I think, minority in Vojvodina?
14 A. Yes, I did encounter that name.
15 Q. Do you know that that division committed the greatest crimes
16 against the Serb population?
17 A. In Vojvodina there were a lot of crimes that were committed
18 against Serbs either by the Germans or by the military forces from
20 Q. Do you know that that SS division, Princ Eugen was active on
21 almost the entire territory of Yugoslavia as the Volksdojcer spoke Serbian
22 so they were useful?
23 A. No. I have not studied the detailed role played by all these SS
25 Q. Are you aware that the Croats established the Croatian legion
1 comprising 10.000 soldiers and sent it to the eastern front under German
2 command and that it was broken up at Stalingrad?
3 A. This is a well known fact.
4 Q. You're aware of that. There's a article by Stevan Moljevic from
5 1941 which you ascribe to the entire Ravna Gora Movement; is that right?
6 A. [Previous translation continues] ... that I explained what
7 Stevan Moljevic wrote this in June 1941, he was not yet a member of the
8 Ravna Gora movement. He joined this Ravna Gora Movement in August.
9 However, this being said, he was appointed at the national Central
10 Committee, and he was one of the main ideologists of this Ravna Gora
11 Movement. So the idea that he developed in June 1942, he then defended
12 those ideas with the Dragan Mihajlovic and within the movement of Ravna
13 Gora. Most historians who study the platform of the Ravna Gora integrate
14 this document into the national platform of Ravna Gora.
15 Q. For it to be a national programme someone had to make it official
16 in the Ravna Gora Movement, not just historians. It's an individual act;
18 A. Those are individual proposals. The Ravna Gora Movement is not a
19 political party. This being said, even if this movement was linked to the
20 Yugoslav government in exile because the armed forces of the Ravna Gora
21 corresponded to the Yugoslav army in the homeland, the ideologists of this
22 movement who were members of the Central Committee had political
23 ambitions. The idea was to set up a new order within the Yugoslavia that
24 was to be after the war.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have to have a break, we will
1 break for 20 minutes and after the break, the registrar will tell me how
2 long Mr. Seselj still has.
3 --- Recess taken at 5.44 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 6.05 p.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing is resumed. I can
6 confirm to Mr. Seselj that he has 40 minutes left, but the Trial Chamber
7 will give him no additional time. The accused had four hours. Four
8 hours. This is all the -- this is all the questions of the -- answers to
9 the question given by the accused and what the Judges asked is not
10 deducted from this. So Mr. Seselj got four hours altogether. He still
11 has 40 minutes and only 40 minutes. So please try and ask only very
12 essential questions. Please focus.
13 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Tomic, you use Communist falsehoods here in an attempt to
15 prove that the liquidation of Muslim civilians on the territory of Foca
16 and the surrounding area by the Chetnik Pavel Djurisic was carried out
17 with the aim of implementing ethnic cleansing. Are you aware that that
18 crime was preceded by a heinous crime by the Ustasha which included many
19 Muslims against the Serbian population?
20 A. It -- this is retaliation that occurred after massacres that had
21 been carried out at the end of 1942. This being said, these are not
22 forged documents or falsehoods. These -- recently in Serbia there was a
23 debate as to whether or not the Chetnik Movement should be rehabilitated,
24 and the text was signed by some 20 historians to protest against this
25 rehabilitation and mentioned the number of 30.000 casualties for the
1 period going from January to February 1943.
2 In my report, I used the -- when I was using the conclusions of
3 Jozo Tomasevic, I mentioned 10.000 victims. And Kosta Nikolic answered
4 these historians, among others, you know, that there was an original of
5 the operations carried out by Pavel Djurisic mentioning figures that were
6 much lower than 30.000. And in the daily Vecernje Novosti of January 15,
7 2007 Kosta Nikolic is interviewed by a reporter of this magazine, Vecirnje
8 Novosti. There's -- I think there's only one document, but the Antun
9 Miletic and Vladimir Dedijer are two historians, you know, in one report
10 you talk about 400 Muslim fighters and thousand civilians as casualties,
11 and they believe that these two historians who studied this added one 0 to
12 obtain 10.000, so there was just not one report but two reports and when
13 you add the two reports that's how you come up with this 10.000.
14 So Kosta Nikolic is an historian who made a dissertation on the
15 Ravna Gora Movement, and he's one of the eminent -- most eminent --
16 eminently recognised historians in this speciality, and he contributed
17 greatly to the rehabilitation of this movement and he's not taking that
18 these documents are forgeries.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, you see how lengthy
20 the witness's answer to this question was. Almost all his responses are
21 as lengthy as this. You didn't want to extend my time. I take notice of
22 this, but my cross-examination has been systematically sabotaged in an
23 organised manner.
24 Q. Madam, please put the front page of this book Mr. Tomic refers to,
25 genocide against the Muslims in 1941 to 1945 by Vladimir Dedijer and
1 Antun Miletic on the ELMO.
2 Do we have it on our screens now?
3 That's the book, isn't it, Mr. Tomic? Just say yes or no.
4 A. I believe so given the title.
5 Q. Here now is page 31 of the preface to this book signed by Antun
6 Miletic. The marked part, the last passage, please read it in its
8 A. "The most credible evidence of the genocide and crimes committed
9 are the first and last names of 9.435 Muslims who were killed. If one
10 adds to this number, the names of those mentioned in the documents
11 presented, the number of dead is over 10.000, which is a contribution and
12 monument to the Muslims who had fallen mostly on a genocidal basis. This
13 is the only way to arrive at the truth. The effort is not in vain because
14 the victims deserve it."
15 Q. Are you aware that Dedijer and Miletic are highly respected
16 historians of a Communist provenance? Are you aware of this?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Are you aware that Antun Miletic is a colonel and a Croat?
19 A. That he's Croat, I can guess it. I didn't know that he was a
21 Q. He's still alive. He's now published volume four of his book on
22 Jasenovac. He says as you can see here that throughout the war 9.435
23 Muslims were killed, and when one adds up everything, he allows that the
24 number is over 10.000. Is that correct?
25 A. Those are the figures that are written, but it would be
1 interesting to know what period is involved here. Is it 1943?
2 Q. No. As the title of the book says, it refers to 1941 to 1945. I
3 assume you've read the book, Mr. Tomic.
4 A. [Previous translation continues] ... one of the book but it's a
5 few hundred pages long and just a few years later I can't remember all the
7 Q. This is the preface to the book where Antun Miletic summarises and
8 gives the overall figure.
9 A. [Previous translation continues] ... have to read it. When you're
10 talking about those 10.000 victims, you're talking January and February
11 1943. And there were other massacres.
12 Q. Mr. Tomic --
13 A. Between 1941 and 1944. There were other casualties. I believe
14 this is a figure that only deals with January but maybe --
15 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... other victims. Where? You
16 are lying intentionally, Mr. Tomic, aren't you, because you want to
17 represent the Chetnik Movement as genocidal. Isn't that right?
18 A. This is not what I'm saying in my report I said that the number of
19 victims that fell to the Chetniks was much lower than those who fell to
20 the Ustashas. I think I really made things very clear.
21 Q. And can you see from the previous passages that Antun Miletic also
22 mentions the Muslims -- Muslim victims killed by Ustasha and the
23 Communists and other Muslims? So this number does not refer only to
24 Muslim victims of Chetniks but also of the Partisans, Germans, Ustasha,
25 and everybody else who killed civilians. Isn't that clear from all this?
1 A. You show me a document, that's only an excerpt. I would rather
2 give my opinion if I had the entire introduction. But Tomasevic, like
3 others, basing themselves on the reports of Pavel Djurisic came up with a
4 figure of 10.000 for the operations that were in -- that occurred in
5 January and February 1943.
6 Q. You're making this up. You're inventing this because you're a
7 false witness, aren't you?
8 A. I don't believe so.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, why are you saying
10 that he's lying? It's easy. It's easy, you know, to say that and assert
11 that, but give us reasons. On those 10.000, he's giving us an
12 explanation. Either you like it or you don't, but this doesn't mean that
13 he's lying.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Nota bene here there's a list. The
15 victims were given names.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, sir, you put a question to
17 me, and if you want me, I will -- to I will reply, but don't take it from
18 my time. During the examination-in-chief and in his report, this witness
19 referred to the book "Genocide Against The Muslims," and you can see from
20 the title that the term genocide is being used in a political sense. It
21 doesn't correspond to the legal definition the word genocide because we
22 are where 9.435 Muslims have been killed in compared to 2 million Muslims
23 that's not genocide but it's true that Muslims were killed that the
24 Chetnik detachment of Pavel Djurisic killed Muslims is something I don't
25 deny. I do deny that it had anything to do with Draza Mihajlovic and the
1 overall policy of the Ravna Gora Movement. That's my explanation if you
2 want one.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, so what can you answer to
4 what has just been said?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in the archives that exist,
6 and these are operations that were carried out after orders, and in the
7 collection of work that was published in Yugoslavia, you can obtain in the
8 archives the orders that were given early in January 1943 as far as these
9 operations are concerned. This unit was under the command of
10 Pavel Djurisic and was integrated into the Yugoslav homeland army, and the
11 command of this unit was in Montenegro at the time. We're talking here
12 between spring 1942 and spring 1943. The command was around Kolasin, and
13 this unit was operating around Kolasin. So there is a geographical
14 closeness between the command of the units -- and the unit.
15 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Tomic, how far Kolasin is from Foca?
17 A. I don't know exactly but it's close. It's mountainous.
18 Q. Do you know that that is an area that's impassable, that you need
19 even today almost an entire day to reach Kolasin from Foca? Are you aware
21 A. Well, I know that it's mountainous, and it's -- maybe there aren't
22 many passes. I haven't been there. But the two areas are close from each
24 Q. Are you aware that the Ravna Gora Movement of Draza Mihajlovic
25 conducted a policy of brotherhood between Orthodox, Muslim, and Catholic
2 A. Draza Mihajlovic, not in 1941 and 1942, but during the war he did
3 talk to the Croats and the Muslims. But when you look at all the
4 documents, you know, articles in the press of the different units of the
5 Ravna Gora Movement, notably in the Ravna Gora journal, the one called
6 Ravna Gora, that the idea to have a Greater Serbia within a Greater
7 Yugoslavia is the main idea, and to expelling all non-Serb from it. Then
8 since the Ravna Gora Movement was in a difficult situation in the midst of
9 a civil war, it couldn't just, you know, have everybody on their back, all
10 the non-Serbs fighting against them, antagonising all non-Serbs, which is
11 why they approached the Croats and the Muslims, since the Communist
12 Partisans were able to attract these -- these Croats and Muslims into
13 their ranks.
14 So I would say this is -- this is something -- the Chetnik
15 Movement was faced with a difficulty and that was the way to bypass it
16 rather than wanting to really attract Muslims and Croats into the Ravna
18 Q. Are you aware that the vice-president of Draza's national
19 committee was a Muslim leader Mustafa Mulalic?
20 A. Yes. There are two people, the one you just mentioned, and Isman
21 Popovac [phoen]. These were two Muslims, members of the Ravna Gora
22 Movement, but they were very marginal. I mean, there weren't that many
23 Muslims in the Yugoslav homeland army.
24 Q. How many were there, in your opinion?
25 A. Few thousands, I believe. Potentially there were 360.000 men that
1 could be mobilised in -- to join this Yugoslav homeland army, but the real
2 combatants that had weapons were much less, some 30 to 40.000 only.
3 Therefore, I don't believe that there were that many Muslims. You know, a
4 few thousands, but they were in a minority compared to the other -- the
6 Q. Have you heard of the Chetnik commander Zvonko Vuckovic, who was a
8 A. Yes, this rings a bell, but I can't give a detailed answer.
9 Q. You don't know that he was one of the closest collaborators of
10 Draza Mihajlovic?
11 A. Yes, I've encountered that name, but I can't give you more
12 elements on his biography. I do know he was close to the command.
13 Q. You don't know that he emigrated to America after the war and
14 published his memoirs there?
15 A. That's possible, but I don't know this book.
16 Q. Have you heard of the Chetnik commander Nika Bartulovic from
17 Dalmatia, a Serb of the Catholic faith?
18 A. I also encountered that name, and it's true that in Dalmatia there
19 is a Trifunovic Barcinan who set up a committee bringing together Serbs
20 and a few Croats all with Yugoslavia in mind. So it is true in that area
21 there were Croats, but they were defending a Yugoslav political framework
22 and -- but they did take part in the Ravna Gora Movement.
23 Q. Do you know that Vojvoda Momcilo Djulic in the Dinara Chetnik
24 Division had two battalions of Serb Catholics from Primorje?
25 A. I know that there were several units, because his Dinara Chetnik
1 unit was made up from existing units in Western Bosnia and in Lika or
2 north Dalmatia, Northern Dalmatia, but I've never seen anywhere mention of
3 two battalions that would be specifically made up of Catholic Serbs.
4 Q. And yet you are prepared to take it for granted what the Communist
5 falsely said about the alleged crimes committed by Djujic.
6 A. When I was speaking about the victims, I realise on official
7 documents established by the commission who was in charge of establishing
8 war crimes. For instance, the Dinara Chetnik unit.
9 Q. Have you heard of Igor Grahovac?
10 A. I haven't finished my answer. Current answer, no.
11 Q. You haven't heard of Igor Grahovac. Igor Grahovac is a Croatian
12 historian who established and recently published in Zagreb, Croatia that
13 in World War II a total of 2.900 Croats were killed by Chetniks. That
14 means Ustasha killed in battle, perhaps members of the Home Guard,
15 civilians, any kind of Croats. The total number is 2.905. Are you aware
16 of that?
17 A. I'm not aware of his work but I can say that the Dinara Chetnik
18 unit was located in an area where Ustashas did not go to. They were
19 called by the Italians who would have made sure that the Croatian armed
20 forces could not penetrate that territory. So the main actions carried
21 out by the unit were geared towards the forces of the Communist Partisans
22 and the number of casualties that was established refers to fighting
23 against the Partisan forces attacking villages where there were Communist
24 Partisans, including in Western Bosnia. So there was no direct
25 confrontation between that unit and the Croatian population, because they
1 were in a so-called free territory with Italian support until September
2 1943, at least.
3 Q. Do you know of a single large-scale Chetnik crime against Croatian
5 A. Well, there was fighting in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia at the
6 time was part of the independent Croatian state, so there were Croatian
7 victims for -- especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina but not in Croatia as
9 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Fighters among the victims?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, fighting and less fighting so,
11 because in this context of a civil war, we've seen this, it does happen
12 that civilians be targeted by one or the other army.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This was a very precise
14 question. Do you know of any large-scale crime, something that would have
15 struck the public opinion at the time?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Regarding Croats, no, I have no
17 recollection. I didn't look so much into that maybe.
18 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
19 Q. But you did know how to condemn en bloc wishing to ethnically
20 cleanse Muslim and Croat territories. You seem to have studied here also
21 some of my speeches and writings, and you quoted from them. Is it correct
22 that from one programme to another and in many of my public appearances
23 there is constant repetition of one political goal, page 78, achieving
24 full national, spiritual, economic, and political unity of the Serbian
25 people, as well as mutual understanding and solidarity between Orthodox
1 Serbs, Muslim Serbs, Catholic Serbs, and Protestant Serbs.
2 Does that occur very frequently in my platform documents of the
3 Serb radical right party, the Serbian Chetnik Movement and my writings?
4 A. It was often repeated, but there are very few Protestant Serbs.
5 As to Muslim Slavs, who would declare themselves or identify themselves as
6 Serb, there were very few as well.
7 In 1948 when there was not yet a Muslim nation, there were some
8 70.000 Muslim Slavs that had identified themselves as Serb, so this is a
9 very small number. And there are also very few Catholic Serbs. So to
10 here highlight this aspect of the solidarity, why not. But indeed as to
11 the number of people who would identify themselves as Catholics or Serbs,
12 numerically speaking there are not very many of them.
13 Q. Is it obvious from my public appearances that in principle I'm not
14 very much interested in how people declare themselves. All Stokavian
15 Catholics I consider Serbs and all Stokavian speaking Muslims I consider
17 A. This is indeed your vision of the Serbian nation.
18 Q. Well, how could I then advocate the expulsion of people whom I
19 believe to be Serbs of other faiths? You mentioned my speeches during my
20 tour of the USA that were nationalist by nature.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You said that I was there and my travel was organised by the
23 Chetnik organisation of Vojvoda Djujic, but you don't know that my
24 official sponsor was the Serb National Academy Vuk Karadzic from
1 A. I wasn't aware of that detail.
2 Q. Do you know that I got a multiple entry American visa valid for
3 one year with an unlimited number of entries and exits from the USA?
4 A. I know that you sent several months in the United States, that you
5 went there on several occasions because you -- as of the time when you
6 could have a passport. That is only after 1986. Only then did you get a
8 Q. Do you know that the mayor of Cleveland, George Vojinovic, now
9 senator, handed me ceremonially a certificate, an award for human rights?
10 A. It is possible, but as I said, when I was answering the
11 Prosecution questions, at the time when you were a dissident of the
12 Communist regime many human rights associations, organisations in Europe
13 and the US had defended you at the time of the trial in 1984. So this
14 approach does not contradict all that.
15 Q. Well, it's obvious that my ideology was the same now only they are
16 a bit more developed now my views.
17 A. I would say in the early 1980s your ideas were not developed in
18 the same way as they were in the late 1980s. There was a development. It
19 was more systematic, and your writings were going more in depth on the
20 issue of the Serb national question.
21 Q. Yes, but when you say end of the 1980s, that's 1989. That's the
22 year of my tour of America.
23 A. Especially think of 1988, 1989, and 1989, because when you toured
24 in the US, you set forth a political programme, in fact, a political
25 programme for Serbia, and beyond that for the Serbian people living in
2 Q. Are you aware that at the time of my visit on the building of the
3 Cleveland Senate the state flag was hoisted and that award was given me
4 after that?
5 A. I wasn't aware of that.
6 Q. Do you know that in Washington I was received by the then-minister
7 for war veteran issues, Edward Darwinski?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Do you know that I was received at the State Department?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Do you know that I was received also by a group of senators and
12 members of the House of Representatives at the US Congress?
13 A. No.
14 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... know these things.
15 Therefore, my ideology was not questioned by the US authorities as long as
16 I was an anti-Communist. It became question when I opposed the American
17 policy in the Balkans.
18 A. Well, I would say that there is a lobby, tradition, and practice
19 in the US, so it's easy to meet with members of the Congress or the
20 Senate, especially when you have people who are of Serbian origin that can
21 facilitate the talks, but that doesn't mean that official power or
22 government approves. It is a practice that was studied by researchers in
23 sociology. It's this lobby practice, lobbying practice in the US.
24 Q. I never said they agreed with my ideology, but I was not a
25 questionable personality because of my ideology, regardless of lobbies,
1 not everyone can meet with an American minister, or congressmen or
3 A. I don't know exactly how this institution functions, but it's easy
4 to get in touch with members especially if you champion political and less
5 political causes.
6 Q. Do you know that the US President Harry Truman was posthumously
7 decorated General [as interpreted] Draza Mihajlovic with one of the
8 highest decorations in the US, legion of Merit.
9 A. Yes, I know.
10 Q. Do you know that it was only two years ago that this decoration
11 was handed to Gordana, Draza Mihajlovic's daughter?
12 A. Yes, I heard about it.
13 Q. Would American President Truman have decorated a war criminal as
14 Communist -- Communist painted Draza Mihajlovic?
15 A. Well, well the Americans did not conduct the same policy towards
16 the Ravna Gora Movement. At least they did not have it all the same
17 position as their -- as Great Britain, which ended up giving up that
18 movement in 1943, but it is a fact that Draza Mihajlovic was decorated
19 after World War II.
20 Q. In your expert report, you lied when you wrote that Vojvoda Djujic
21 stripped me of my title of Vojvoda, and you have never seen a document
22 that would be a foundation for that claim.
23 A. I relied on an article that was published in the daily Vecernje
24 Novosti that seemed credible to me.
25 Q. That means if we took everything that was published in the
1 newspapers about me and took that into account, I would be worse than
3 A. I would not say so, but it seemed to be reliable inasmuch as
4 Vojvoda Momcilo Djujic had shown that he was not satisfied with you.
5 Q. Do you know why a clash occurred between me and Djujic? Not
6 because of my cooperation between socialists. Do you know the real
8 A. I thought that this was an opposition regarding monarchy and
9 cooperation with former Serb Communists in power.
10 Q. Have you ever found any writing of mine or a speech in which I
11 speak positively of monarchy as a form of rule? You could have only found
12 passages where I say the people have the right to decide whether they want
13 a monarchy or a republic, but you could never have read anything written
14 by me speaking well of the monarchy.
15 A. Well, in your programme you speak about the monarchist tradition
16 which has to be entertained, but it doesn't mean that you were advocating
17 monarchy in Serbia because you gave a choice to the Serbian citizens
18 saying that a referendum could be held, but you were very critical towards
19 Aleksandar, the prince who was heir to the throne from the Karadjordjevic.
20 You thought that the national cause would make an equation between
21 Ustashas and Chetniks. And I found many statements showing this point of
23 Q. What matters to me is that you never found any passage where I
24 praised the monarchy as a phenomenon. Mr. Tomic, you probably know that
25 the Serbian Radical Party supported the decision of the Belgrade
1 authorities to return to the Karadjordjevic family their old court and to
2 allow them to live in Belgrade.
3 A. It was indeed envisioned by you, but that doesn't necessarily
4 mean, and you said so expressly at the time, it didn't mean all the same
5 that monarchy should be restored in Serbia. There is a difference between
6 the two. It's one thing to authorise the family to get their property
7 back, and it's another thing to restore monarchy.
8 Q. And you don't know that the conflict between Vojvoda Djujic and me
9 occurred when Djujic sent Dr. Milos Prica, an American Serb, to Belgrade
10 to become my main political advisor?
11 A. No.
12 Q. You don't know that in my first contact with him, I realised
13 Dr. Milos Prica was an American spy and rejected any possibility of him
14 becoming my advisor?
15 A. No, I relied on the information published by the press. I relied
16 on your own might writings.
17 Q. If you had read my books more carefully you could have found that
18 in several of my interviews, but you didn't.
19 A. No.
20 Q. Do you know that after that Vojvoda Djujic got Milos Prica,
21 Ana Mitrovic, and some other American Serbs to go to Biljana Plavsic to
22 become her advisors?
23 A. I'm not aware of these details.
24 Q. And you don't know that those people talked Biljana Plavsic to
25 betray Republika Srpska? You don't know that do you?
1 A. I can't say anything about this.
2 Q. Biljana Plavsic is now in a Swedish prison convicted of war
3 crimes, while Milos Prica, her advisor is now the ambassador of Bosnia and
4 Herzegovina to the United Nations in New York. You don't know that, do
6 A. I know that Biljana Plavsic is in Sweden, but I do not know this
7 gentleman Milos Prica.
8 Q. You could have heard only one thing, that Vojvoda Djujic, in one
9 of his statements to a Belgrade television called Studio B, said that he
10 would strip me of my title of Vojvoda and attack my verbally. And that
11 television crew was sent by Vuk Draskovic, who then held power in fell
13 A. I know that it was a television channel controlled by
14 Vuk Draskovic and the movement for Serbian renewal. I saw some interviews
15 of his in the Nin newspaper in Belgrade. There were other interviews or
16 reports in the press related to differences between you and him.
17 Q. Vojvoda Djujic, under American pressure, had to say that, but he
18 never stripped me of my title of Vojvoda. Do you know that?
19 A. I don't know if the United States brought pressure to bear, but on
20 several occasions in the Serb press he expressed his opinion.
21 Q. Do you know that there is no official document stripping me of
22 that title? It simply doesn't exist anywhere.
23 A. I know that there was a ceremony, but, yes, indeed I don't think
24 there is a specific document related to that.
25 Q. And the ceremony never took place anywhere, did it?
1 A. That's not what I read.
2 Q. Nice. You see, Vojvoda Djujic died at the age of 90 something,
3 but he was obviously in full possession of his mental capacities, and he
4 had partially to give in to US pressure but not completely. Is that
5 correct, Mr. Tomic?
6 A. I can't answer and say anything related to any pressure exerted by
7 the US authorities on this gentleman.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, will I have at least
9 until 7.00?
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, because you've used up all
11 the time that had been allocated to you. If you have one last question,
12 you may ask it, because I don't know, the Prosecutor may have additional
13 questions. If you have one last question to put to the witness, please do
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to ask two if you allow
17 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
18 Q. First, Mr. Tomic, you lied when you said that unofficially the
19 Socialist Party supported me and additional elections for deputy from
20 Rakovica. That's page 89 in Serbian. Correct? That they supported me
21 unofficially by giving me free access to official media. That means that
22 it's a natural and normal situation when I have no access to the media,
23 only that is normal. As soon as I have access to the media, that means
24 the authorities support me.
25 A. Your status changed in June 1991. You were elected as an MP. And
1 from that time on, you were in a position to intervene quite a lot at the
2 Serbian Assembly, and you published a compilation of your various speeches
3 at the Assembly. Further on, your speeches, what you said, was broadcast
4 by the Serb media.
5 Q. You, Mr. Tomic, deliberately created a confusion between the time
6 when the Serbian Radical Party was sending volunteers to protect Serbian
7 villages in Slavonia before the JNA interfered in the conflict when I put
8 myself forward as the commander of those volunteers with the time when the
9 JNA intervened in the armed conflict and the volunteers of the Serbian
10 Radical Party went there exclusively under the command of the JNA. You
11 deliberately made that confusion in your report and in your
13 A. The first --
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please. Please wait before
15 giving your answer, but this is indeed a fundamental question.
16 You've listened very carefully to this question. Please answer.
17 And let me remind you that this question is of the utmost significance,
18 and therefore the answer should be very thought out.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the spring of 1991, paramilitary
20 units were set up by political parties, the SNO, Srpska Narodna of Jovic,
21 Narodna Stranka is another party, and they also sent volunteers out. And
22 then you have the Chetnik Serb movement of the Serbian Radical Party in
23 the spring of 1991. In July of 1991, there was a session at the national
24 Serb Assembly related to national defence matters. It was held in closed
25 session this session, and during that session Mr. Seselj raised the issue
1 of these paramilitary units, because some combatants had already died,
2 casualties had been reported, and there were orphans and widows as a
3 result of this. Therefore, at the time the question was raised of the
4 incorporation or the integration of these paramilitary units as part of
5 the Territorial Defence of Serbia and also of some regions located in
7 Therefore, you have two stages here. In a first stage volunteers
8 are sent out by political parties. Each one of the parties is going about
9 it in its own way, and then after the summer, after July 1991, the whole
10 thing is reorganised. I'm talking about these volunteers being sent out
11 in the field. And these paramilitary units were then later on
12 incorporated in the Territorial Defence with a connection to the JNA.
13 This is something you can find in the book related to the various
14 speeches given by Mr. Seselj at the Serbian Assembly.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I -- just one additional
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just one additional question
19 following his answer and then we'll stop.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.
21 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
22 Q. After August 1992, do you have a single case where the volunteers
23 of the Serbian Radical Party went to the front line without being part of
24 the JNA until 19 May 1992, when the JNA under the ultimatum of the Western
25 powers who to retreat from Western Slavonia? Was there any case where we
1 sent volunteers independently without the JNA?
2 A. After this first stage that I explained previously, but let me
3 remind you that I am not an expert in terms of military affairs, but if
4 you look at the documents published by the party you see that they only
5 mention the involvement of volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party as
6 part -- or in the ranks of the Territorial Defence and the JNA.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In any case, we'll deal with
8 that matter again with the expert next week.
9 I'd like to turn to the Prosecution to ask if you have any
11 MS. BIERSAY: At this time we conclude our examination of
12 Mr. Tomic, and we would move for the admission of the exhibits that were
13 marked for identification, including his report.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Thank you very much.
15 Mr. Tomic, I would like to thank you on behalf of myself and my
16 fellow Judges to have spent these two weeks in The Hague. I wish you a
17 safe trip home.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 [The witness withdrew]
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yesterday you served on me, Judge,
22 your decision that you admit into evidence the report of expert
23 Oberschall, and in the decision it says that I do not oppose the
24 admission. I do oppose it with my previous responses, and I also oppose
25 this during cross-examination. Lest there occur a confusion now, I now
1 let you know that I oppose strenuously the admission of expert Tomic as
2 incompetent, unqualified, not objective, and very biased.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. The Chamber will consider
4 the matter, but we have to give a number, a temporary number to this
6 Please can we have a number, Mr. Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. The expert report of Mr. Tomic
8 will be marked for identification MFI P163.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 Tomorrow we have another witness. I'm not going to give the name
11 of the witness because protective measures have been granted. It's
12 Witness 004. This witness will testify with protective measures, and the
13 Chamber has decided to grant four hours to the Prosecution for the
14 examination-in-chief, and Mr. Seselj will have four hours as well. In
15 other words, tomorrow we'll have the examination-in-chief, and on
16 Monday -- no, no, not on Monday but on Tuesday we'll proceed to the
17 cross-examination stage. That's how things stand as for Witness 004.
18 It's 7.00 p.m. Let me thank everyone here in this courtroom and
19 I'm see you tomorrow at 8.30 a.m., 8.30 a.m.
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.59 p.m.,
21 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 7th day
22 of February, 2008, at 8.30 a.m.