1 Wednesday, 16 July 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 8.31 a.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you please
7 call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you and good morning, Your Honours. This
9 is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 This is Wednesday, July 16, 2008, and I greet everyone here in
12 the courtroom. I welcome the representatives of the OTP; I welcome our
13 accused and our witness and everyone helping us.
14 Let's continue with this court session. We're in open session.
15 Mr. Marcussen, I believe that you have some 12 tapes left. Is
16 that it?
17 MR. MARCUSSEN: I think that's right. Maybe a few more, but that
18 will be about it, and we will simply proceed where we left off yesterday,
19 if Your Honours would like us to.
20 Your Honours will recall that we were in a segment of intercepts
21 which are relevant to the cooperation between people that are alleged in
22 the indictment to be in the same joint criminal enterprise. The exhibit
23 we would show first this morning is 65 ter number 637. It is an
24 intercepted conversation that took place on the 2nd of November, 1991,
25 between Radoslav Vukic and Radovan Karadzic. We submit that the
1 intercept is relevant in that it shows that Karadzic had communication
2 with the most senior JNA officers, Kadijevic and Adzic, and also is
3 relevant to the issue of Karadzic's --
4 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please continue. I apologise.
6 MR. MARCUSSEN: It is also relevant in that it gives an insight
7 into Karadzic's control over Serb-controlled municipalities, so therefore
8 goes to the whole issue of how the JCE operated.
9 So let's hear the tape now.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute, Mr. Marcussen.
11 This Vukic person, do you know who it is?
12 MR. MARCUSSEN: No, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We'll see later on.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is truly scandalous, that the
17 Prosecution is playing an alleged conversation between Radovan Karadzic
18 and a man who he does not know of at all. He just knows his name and
19 surname, allegedly. And this he uses as evidence to prove joint criminal
20 enterprise and certain objectives of that enterprise. I really do not
21 see how you allow this. I don't know -- I mean, he doesn't know and he
22 doesn't care about the fact that he doesn't know who this Vukic is.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
24 MR. MARCUSSEN: If I just repeat, the issue is not who the
25 speakers are, but what is being -- what it shows about Mr. Karadzic's
1 contacts with senior military officers and what he says about
2 instructions to municipalities. That's the point we are making. We had
3 this objection several times yesterday, and this is another example where
4 the interlocutors really doesn't really matter. It's what is being said
5 by Mr. Karadzic.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's listen to
7 this tape, and we'll see later.
8 [Intercept played]
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In addition to my standard
11 objections concerning the authenticity of the recording and the legality
12 of the wire-tapping, I think that counsel for the Prosecution would have
13 to prove in which way this conversation is relevant in this case.
14 Obviously, this has to do with mobilisation that is being carried out by
15 the JNA, and there are problems with mobilisation throughout Yugoslavia
16 The basic duty, according to the law, of all civilian authorities
17 and all political factors and political parties -- after all, you saw the
18 previous legal positions, what they said about the -- provisions, what
19 they said about the position of the League of Communists and all other
20 social political organisations, so it has to do with carrying out
21 mobilisation in a situation when an imminent threat of war had been
22 declared. And we saw on the basis of documents that it was already on
23 the 3rd of October that it was declared, and the conversation is taking
24 place in December 1991.
25 The Prosecutor is not able to prove the relevance or the
1 probative value of the document, even if it were to be reliable. He
2 cannot prove the authorship, the authenticity. He doesn't know who
3 Radovan Karadzic is talking to, if he talked to this person at all.
4 So, therefore, I think that since the Prosecutor does not have
5 any credible argumentation regarding the probative value of these
6 documents, so in the absence of these factors, I think these documents
7 quite simply cannot be admitted into evidence because in this way the
8 fairness of the trial is being impeded.
9 The fairness of the trial is also being infringed upon by the
10 fact that this conversation has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with
11 the Serb Radical Party or myself. These are conversations that were
12 construed in anticipation of Radovan Karadzic's trial.
13 Since The Hague
14 Radovan Karadzic alive, now they're trying to get this through a
15 different trial. They want to inform the public through this case what
16 it is that they had prepared for the trial of Radovan Karadzic, and now
17 we understand that on the basis of the transcripts yesterday and today.
18 See? See? See? He's interrupting me again. I don't think he
19 has the right to do that. If I don't have the right to interrupt him,
20 then he doesn't have the right to interrupt me.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please try not to overlap and
22 cut each other while you're talking.
23 Mr. Marcussen, what do you want to say after the comments made by
24 Mr. Seselj?
25 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, the accused has stopped making any
1 arguments relevant to the probative value of these documents. He's
2 making speeches about whether or not the Tribunal will ever be able to
3 arrest Mr. Karadzic or not and these sort of things. It is speeches to
4 the public. It has nothing to do with what we're doing here today.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's move into a
6 closed session for a few minutes, then.
7 [Closed session]
11 Pages 9434-9436 redacted. Closed session.
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: We are now in open session.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I must remind you, Judges, of
23 something that you are better aware of than I am; namely, that in
24 accordance with Rule 89 (C), you, as the Trial Chamber, can admit
25 evidence that is relevant and for which you believe have probative value.
1 Over here, one cannot speak of the relevance of the evidence
2 involved, and the need to ensure a fair trial goes far beyond the value
3 of this evidence in view of the illegal gathering of evidence, in view of
4 the suspicions regarding the authenticity of this, and the fact that all
5 of this was done by the other side, and for four years this evidence was
6 out of control, and we do not have any witnesses to testify how this was
7 gathered at the time when it was created.
8 We have a situation here where we are discussing something as if
9 that were truly reliable, and we have seen that this was created by an
10 illegal conspiratorial and terrorist organisation.
11 One must bear in mind the fact that the Trial Chamber is supposed
12 to ensure an efficient and fair trial and a trial in accordance with the
13 Rules. The piling up of this kind of evidence is in direct contravention
14 of the tenet of a free and fair trial.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you were right to
16 take the floor on this and to talk about our Rule 89 (C) and probative
17 value. You highlighted the fact that here we have evidence which is put
18 forth by the Prosecution in order to support its case. You're absolutely
19 right on this point, but remember that you are entitled -- well, you are
20 entitled to several things.
21 First, you are entitled to tell us this is not relevant. You're
22 entitled to say that the authenticity or reliability is doubtful, and
23 you're also entitled to say that according to you, there's no probative
24 value whatsoever. You're allowed to say all this right now, but you are
25 entitled to something else that is extremely important.
1 When your turn comes and when you present your own evidence, you
2 can introduce elements that can challenge the -- or even contradict the
3 Prosecutor's case. Just imagine, for example, that Mr. Karadzic is
4 somewhere, present somewhere, and that he can tell you in writing somehow
5 that this conversation had a very different meaning than the one alleged
6 by the Prosecution.
7 Secondly, this Mr. Vukic, if he's still alive - I have no idea
8 whether he's still alive - he could also be called as a witness by you
9 and say, "Yes, there was a conversation held that day," and that, yes, he
10 did have a lot of reservations as to what Karadzic was telling him, that
11 the next day he went and met with General Uzelac who told him all of this
12 was absolutely impossible, and so forth and so on.
13 Thirdly, you can also search for General Uzelac or Hadzic - I
14 have no idea where they are - so they can say that things didn't really
15 happen like the Prosecution alleged. That is what you're entitled to do
16 according to the Rules. That's our Rules.
17 In another system, in your system or my system, of course, things
18 would have gone differently. There would have been an investigative
19 judge that would have done all this prior work, that would have heard
20 Mr. Vukic to ask him what exactly happened, and so forth and so on, and
21 then during the trial we would have all the elements in our file. But it
22 doesn't work that way here. The Prosecutor presents and introduces his
23 own elements for his case; you introduce your own for your case. Judges
24 ask questions to the witness in order to try and sort things out and
25 reach the truth. That's how it works.
1 So what you said regarding the probative value is now on the
2 transcript. As you know, the probative value is determined at the very
3 end when we have all elements at hand. Right now, we have some elements
4 that have been -- some evidence that have been tendered, but they have to
5 be confronted with other evidence, and the probative value may be -- will
6 then be scored from poor to good. But we're not going to just base
7 ourselves on this document to say that the JCE was being implemented on
8 that very day. Of course not. We will need more evidence to support
10 But so right now we are in the first phase, the presentation of
11 the Prosecutor's case. You can make your own comments, and when your
12 time comes, you will be in charge of proofing the opposite, and then it
13 will be up to the Judges to determine what is the probative value of all
14 this evidence. Right now, no conclusion can be inferred whatsoever.
15 Let me consult with my fellow Judge as to the number we might
16 give to this exhibit. Before this, however, I believe that you want the
17 floor again.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I would like to draw your
19 attention to two other Rules. One was constituted through the
20 jurisprudence of this Tribunal, and that is the rule of best evidence.
21 On the basis of the jurisprudence of this Tribunal so far, the Trial
22 Chamber is duty-bound to ask both parties to proffer nothing but the
23 best, that is to say, the best evidence gathered through the proceedings,
24 regardless of whether it is the Prosecution case or the Defence case.
25 I think that the Prosecution has violated this several times during these
1 proceedings, and the Trial Chamber did not say anything to them about
3 Also, Rule 95 says that evidence that was received in an
4 unacceptable way cannot be taken in; that is to say, exclusion of certain
5 evidence. Even in France
6 obtained in a proper way. That is done in American jurisprudence and in
7 Italian jurisprudence. The 4th Amendment in the US does not allow
8 evidence that was gathered in an improper way. Not a shred of evidence
9 can be admitted if it was obtained through methods that cast a shadow
10 over the integrity of the proceedings or would seriously undermine the
11 integrity of the proceedings.
12 Therefore, it is quite clear in this case, on the basis of the
13 circumstances involved, that is to say, who produced this and under what
14 conditions and in which illegal way and what their objectives were, it is
15 clear that this kind of evidence cannot be admitted, especially not the
16 interpretations of someone who belongs to the other side in this war and
17 who had tasks within a conspiratorial organisation to produce
18 disinformation, to persecute political opponents of the regime of their
19 political party and so on. Not a single serious court of law would take
20 this into account.
21 That is what I wished to say.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I will be able to
23 address these two points actually immediately, but first I'll let
24 Mr. Marcussen say what he wanted to say.
25 Yes, Mr. Marcussen.
1 MR. MARCUSSEN: I'm quite happy for Your Honours to address this
2 without my comment. I would maybe just make one observation, then, about
3 this, and that is that if the accused -- he has now repeated an objection
4 he already made, but this kind of an objection as to the admissibility
5 because the evidence was obtained illegally should have been made before
6 we even started presenting this evidence. This is not the time to do it,
7 way into the presentation of individual exhibits, so we submit also for
8 that reason the objection should be dismissed.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I'm going to
10 address those two issues that you raised, but I will invert my answer. I
11 will first start with the latter, and then I'll address the first issue.
12 On the second issue regarding the illegality of wire -- or phone
13 conversations, in fact, which should not be admitted as evidence, you are
14 perfectly right when you talk about national jurisdiction. You mentioned
16 cannot be used in a legal proceeding. You are right. But in this
17 particular Tribunal, some Trial Chambers were already faced with that
18 problem. Some Trial Chambers deemed that it was nevertheless possible,
19 notwithstanding the conditions, which were either legal or illegal with
20 regard to the manner the wire-tap was obtained, that in the interest of
21 justice it would be better that what was said should be heard. There is
22 jurisprudence of this Tribunal but -- which does not mean that this
23 particular Trial Chamber will abide by that jurisprudence or will take
24 that jurisprudence into account.
25 As I said, a Judge here can also be independent and may also
1 decide independently. Otherwise, it does not mean that what we are going
2 to do is going to be the same as what was done already before.
3 Yes, my colleague would like to add something.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
5 The Chamber, too, has studied the American law on this point, and
6 it is not quite true to say that under American law, illegally-obtained
7 intercepts cannot be produced in court as judicial evidence. Indeed,
8 American law does provide for admission of illegally-made intercepts
9 under certain conditions, so it can be done.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. And just to add something
11 to what my fellow Judge said, you have to take into account that there
12 are two different types of wire-tap: A judicial wire-tap ordered by a
13 judge in a particular procedure, and there's also wire-tapping made by
14 secret services in brackets, which -- or inverted brackets, which act
15 abiding by various laws that regulate those types of wire-tap. And
16 there's also different wire-tapping, such as illegal, private
18 Now, when we are talking about secret services and their
19 wire-tapping, it must be verified or we have to check that they were made
20 legally. In the American law, we know that when it's -- when the matter
21 is related to terrorism, some decisions were taken. But now this Trial
22 Chamber has to realise that these particular wire-taps were ordered
23 legally or illegally. We will see this. We will determine that only
24 after we've heard all the elements adduced.
25 We take note of what you mentioned regarding the illegality or
1 legality of these wire-taps because you did intervene a couple of times,
2 and we take note of that. But now we would like to go back to the first
4 You are saying that the Prosecution can find other evidence other
5 than telephone conversations or wire-taps. What you say may be true, but
6 it also may be not true. If you have nothing better, according to the
7 theory of the best evidence is such that you have to use whatever you
8 have to use, but I believe the Prosecutor has other means other than
10 Secondly, let's not forget that the Trial Chamber can get powers
11 from the Rules. The Trial Chamber under Rule 98 of the Rules of
12 Procedure and Evidence may request on certain evidence some additional
13 evidence. Those are the powers that are bestowed upon the Chamber.
14 So the Trial Chamber must first decide and choose, if
15 notwithstanding the parties, it does also not have another role to play
16 other than completing the elements or the evidence which can produce
17 default, so the Trial Chamber may order technical expertise to check a
18 point. A Trial Chamber can also request from an amicus curiae to give
19 his advice. They can also call their own witnesses.
20 Purely theoretically, we could also request Mr. Karadzic to come.
21 We could also ask Mr. Vukic to come and testify. We could also order the
22 generals in question to come. So you can see that the Trial Chamber has
23 various means at its disposal.
24 A number will be given to this exhibit, but I would like to say
25 that it's not -- it doesn't mean that this evidence is automatically
1 accepted into evidence as very strong probative evidence, but this
2 exhibit will be admitted into evidence, and during the deliberations the
3 Judges will discuss this and will decide of its probative value.
4 So please give us a number, Mr. Registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit number P508.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I just say something else?
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, in relation to what
9 Mr. Marcussen said, that I was supposed to object earlier on, in terms of
10 the illegality of the wire-tapping, my entire cross-examination was
11 devoted to that. Yesterday, I pointed that out every time, and it was
12 Mr. Marcussen who said that it is being considered that my objection is
13 the same with regard to legality of wire-tapping, and let us move on to
14 other objections, and today he's saying that I am too late.
15 I would like to remind you, Judges, that in accordance with the
16 Statute of the International Tribunal, it is the Trial Chamber that is
17 the guarantor of the rights of the accused. There is no one else to
18 preserve these rights except for you. I can be screaming at the top of
19 my voice from over here; I can be complaining; I can be moaning, but I
20 cannot safeguard my rights unless they are safeguarded and guaranteed by
21 the Trial Chamber.
22 Reliability is an inherent and implicit component of any kind of
23 admissibility. What was produced by the enemy side in a civil war cannot
24 be reliable, and the service had already been divided along ethnic lines,
25 and one part of the service was working against the other part of the
1 former service. That's what they were doing all the time. Wire-tapping
2 was not legal because whoever did that did not want to ask the president
3 of the Constitutional Court, who was a Serb, to issue an order on this
4 wire-tapping, and that is why all the wire-tapping is illegal.
5 If these components, these elements of admissibility, are not
6 being observed, then the evidence cannot be reliable in any way. They
7 quite simply are not reliable, the evidence is not reliable, and the
8 Trial Chamber cannot admit it.
9 Now, if you are going to admit all of this into evidence and then
10 judge its probative value later on, then these objections of mine
11 certainly remain in the transcript, and you do whatever you please.
12 I think that the Prosecution is duty-bound to proffer the best
13 evidence possible. If they don't have the best evidence possible, then
14 they can proffer evidence that is less valuable but always has to be
15 reliable and relevant. There is no relevant proof here.
16 You know, if you were in a dilemma in terms of this being, say,
17 one of my wire-tap conversations and that directly has to do with me and
18 that you were in a dilemma, if you had to weigh the probative value and
19 the fairness of the trial, then that dilemma would be okay.
20 The wire-taps we heard so far have absolutely nothing to do
21 either with me or the Serb Radical Party. Therefore, you do not have
22 that kind of dilemma either. There is no dilemma between the necessity
23 of ensuring a fair trial and the necessity of ascribing probative value
24 to something that is unreliable in the first place. That is why my
25 objection was one of principle. But I'm not going to present it in this
1 form any longer. I'm going to stick to specific matters as the trial
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Your objection is
4 noted on page 17 and 18 of the transcript of today.
5 Let's now move to the hearing of the second tape, please.
6 MR. MARCUSSEN: Thank you, Your Honours.
7 The next intercept is 65 ter number 842. It is a conversation
8 which took place on the 10th of September, 1991, between Radovan Karadzic
9 and Slobodan Milosevic, and the intercept is relevant in that it gives
10 insight into the coordination between Mr. Milosevic -- President
11 Milosevic and Mr. Karadzic. You will see the mention of --
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please. We're
13 trying to find it. In what binder is it, please? I have 843. I have
14 414 before that, 842. Where is it, please?
15 MR. MARCUSSEN: Oh, sorry. It should be in binder -- it should
16 be in binder 1.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Binder 1 is divided into
18 various chapters.
19 MR. MARCUSSEN: Under tab number 6.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] oh, yes, yes, yes. It's the
21 penultimate document. Thank you very much. We found it.
22 MR. MARCUSSEN: Thank you.
23 So this intercept is being played because we submit it's relevant
24 to the issue of coordination between President Milosevic and Radovan
25 Karadzic, and you will see -- you will hear that there is mention of
1 Mr. Krajisnik and talk about him being sent to some international
2 organisations, and -- well, we would make submissions on what conclusions
3 might be drawn from this later on. It's not appropriate for me to make
4 it at this stage, but this is the relevance of the intercept, and we can
5 play it now.
6 [Intercept played]
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen.
8 MR. MARCUSSEN: I have no further observations to make on this,
9 so I think we can hand over to the accused.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Seselj.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, in connection with my
12 standard objection to the illegality of this wire-tap and my doubts about
13 authenticity, I would especially like to point out my objection as to the
14 irrelevance of this material. What can be more natural than that two
15 Serbian politicians discuss certain political moves with the intention of
16 agreeing on them? It's evident that their political moves are aimed at
17 preserving Yugoslavia
19 As for a joint criminal enterprise, it's those who are breaking
20 up Yugoslavia
22 truth as presented by the OTP is standing on its head, and it's high time
23 it stood on its feet and stood up straight.
24 The joint criminal enterprise was by the Croatian, Slovenian, and
25 other political leaderships, and not those of Serbia, Montenegro
1 those who were with Serbia
2 So this is absolutely irrelevant and especially in this trial.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
4 Very well. Can we have a number, please, for this document, this
5 exhibit, Mr. Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit number P509.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is the next cassette or
9 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, the next intercept is 65 ter
10 number 843. Your Honours, this is a conversation between President
11 Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic which took place on the 12th of December,
12 1991. The intercept is relevant, in our submission, again, to illustrate
13 the contact -- it's proof of the contacts between President Milosevic and
14 General Kadijevic and General Adzic, so it goes with the other intercepts
15 of that nature that I have discussed earlier.
16 The intercept is eight minutes and thirty-eight seconds long. I
17 would propose that we stop after the first five and a half minutes.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please,
19 Mr. Marcussen.
20 We've heard an intercept earlier, and it was 842. The
21 number P509 was given to this number. So 842, 509, and that conversation
22 took place on the 20th of December, 1991. Now, P843 bears the date of
23 the 20th of December, 1991, so it's on the same day. So I see "20th of
24 December, 1991," in B/C/S; I see "20 December 1991
25 would mean that on the same day they called each other twice. And the
1 conversation that we're just about to hear begins with, "Good evening,"
2 those words.
3 So, Mr. Marcussen, is there a mistake because you told us earlier
4 that this is an intercept that took place on the 12th of December.
5 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, I cannot find in the transcript
6 what date I said. I was reading out from a table, and indeed, that table
7 has a different date for the conversation.
8 But Your Honour is absolutely right. The heading of 842 has the
9 20th of December, 1991, as the date, so that -- I stand corrected on
11 On the same date, the intercept we're now going to hear is an
12 intercept of a conversation the same day, and indeed, we will have yet
13 another intercepted conversation dated the same day being played after
15 So on the 20th of December, there were a number of telephone
16 calls between Radovan Karadzic and President Milosevic.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That is a conclusion.
18 Mr. Seselj, yes.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm absolutely opposed to having
20 the conversation abridged. Three minutes longer is not a major waste of
21 time, but we have to hear each conversation as a whole. The first time
22 it was abridged by those who taped it. Then they threw out what they
23 wanted. We heard that. Then they sent these redacted versions to the
24 OTP, and now the OTP is trying to redact further.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Mr. Seselj.
1 On the intercept we have, it begins with "Good evening," and at
2 the end we hear -- we see "Goodbye, Radovan." So this is an integral
3 conversation. Nothing has been abridged unless part of the tape has
4 been cut. I don't know.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But the Prosecutor has told you
6 that he now wishes to shorten it from eight minutes to five minutes. He
7 wants to leave out three minutes. You may not have heard this, but
8 that's what he just said.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, we need to
10 listen to the entire conversation. This amounts to four pages of
11 transcript; is that right?
12 MR. MARCUSSEN: Yes, Your Honours. The accused makes two
13 allegations; one, that the intercept had been caught -- or somehow edited
14 before it was presented here in court, and then he's saying we're going
15 to cut it short here again.
16 The witness has been testifying about how these intercepts have
17 been provided in their entirety to the OTP. There's no basis for the
18 accused to make these allegations repeatedly here.
19 Now, we can -- I have no objection to playing the last three
20 minutes as well.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What the Trial Chamber would
22 like to hear is the beginning of the conversation, which starts with
23 "Good evening" and the entire conversation, which we have here.
24 MR. MARCUSSEN: Well, that's what -- I'm agreeing. Let's just do
25 that so we can move on further.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's hear it,
3 [Intercept played]
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I give the floor to
5 Mr. Seselj, I would like to hear the beginning of the tape again, please.
6 I would like the French booth to interpret the beginning, please. It
7 won't be long, and I shall say, "Stop," when the time comes, when the
8 calls with Kadijevic and Adzic are discussed.
9 [Intercept played]
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
11 I wanted to hear this again to highlight the fact that
12 General Adzic had a different view of the situation, different from
13 Milosevic's view or Karadzic's view, as can be heard in the conversation.
14 After that, I shall have a question of a technical nature to put,
15 but in the meantime let's hear Mr. Seselj's comments.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Along with my standard objections
17 concerning the illegality of the wire-tapping and my doubts as to
18 authenticity, I consider that this material has absolutely no relevance
19 to these proceedings. This is an alleged conversation between two
20 politicians who are exchanging opinions. One of them has certain
21 contacts with Kadijevic and Adzic. Evidently, these contacts are not
22 very close. What has to be explained is that they are talking about a
23 huge exodus of the Serbian people from Western Slavonia in December 1991.
24 The JNA ordered that one unit withdraw. This caused panic among the
25 people. The people withdrew after the army. They followed the army.
1 The largest part of Western Slavonia fell, and there was a huge massacre
2 of Serb civilians. The OTP was never interested in this because they
3 were only interested in killings of Croat civilians.
4 This did happen. I never denied it, but the OTP does not have a
5 balanced approach to this -- these wartime problems. The fact is that
6 there was a large-scale exodus and the army generals claimed that it
7 didn't happen, and allegedly Karadzic and Krajisnik discussed this
8 because they had nothing else to discuss. But the essence of their
9 conversation, the main point, is the search for a political solution to
10 the Yugoslav crisis. Without the agreement of the Serbian people, Bosnia
11 and Herzegovina
12 initiative was in action for Bosnia and Herzegovina to remain within a
13 rump Yugoslavia
14 first president of this rump Yugoslavia
15 there's no JCE here whatsoever.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen.
17 MR. MARCUSSEN: Well, I was going to object to the fact that the
18 accused again makes speeches and testifies rather than comment on the
19 relevance. He commented about OTP not being interested and this, that,
20 and the other. It's inappropriate, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's move into closed session,
22 please, for a few moments.
23 [Closed session]
11 Pages 9454-9456 redacted. Closed session.
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, you would like
1 this document to be admitted, would you?
2 MR. MARCUSSEN: Indeed, Your Honour, 65 ter number 843, we would
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, can we have an
5 exhibit number, please.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit number P510.
7 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, the final intercept -- sorry.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please.
9 Let's have the break now, because it's 10.00 since we began at
10 8.30. We'll have a short break now and resume in 20 minutes' time.
11 --- Recess taken at 10.00 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 10.24 a.m.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court is back in session.
14 We can now move to the next video -- it's not a video. An
16 MR. MARCUSSEN: Indeed, Your Honour.
17 As I mentioned, this is the last intercept from this segment
18 about JCE participants. It is 65 ter number -- well, it's 65 ter number
19 844, but in your binder it is found in binder 2, and it has number 7252.
20 It was thought that this was not on our exhibit list, but it was actually
21 there under the first number I indicated, namely, 844.
22 The intercept is from the early hours of the 20th of December, so
23 we should maybe have played this earlier, but we played them in the order
24 of exhibit numbers assigned. It's a conversation between Radovan
25 Karadzic and Slobodan Milosevic. It relates to the Martic incident which
1 there was another intercept played about last week, and again, the point
2 here is coordination between Milosevic and Kadijevic and how support is
3 being sent in, in light of the situation that has arisen, and Your
4 Honours will see that. As I said, the conversation is very early in the
5 morning. It seems to be at 2.00 in the morning that Karadzic called
7 Let's play the tape.
8 [Intercept played]
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Along with all my standard
11 objections, there is, again, the problem of irrelevance. You see here
12 both Karadzic and Milosevic, if the conversation is authentic - if, I
13 doubt - appear as peacemakers. They want a potentially terrible problem
14 to be resolved peacefully. They're searching for ways to get the army to
15 intervene to prevent this, by their influence, because a police where
16 Muslims predominated in Bosanska Krupa, in a village called Otoka,
17 arrested a colonel, a non-commissioned officer, and Milan Martic, the
18 chief of the Knin police. This was an illegal arrest. There was a
19 danger they might hand them over to the Croats, the Croatian separatist
20 regime in Zagreb
21 Had this problem not been resolved in a peaceful manner along
22 with certain suggestions from the top of the military, there would
23 certainly have been major bloodshed there.
24 What does this have to do with the joint criminal enterprise?
25 It's a peace initiative by Milosevic and Karadzic to solve the problem
1 and avoid bloodshed, and ultimately what does all this have to do with
2 me? Maybe I was that colonel over there, but I don't like this low rank.
3 I would like to have a higher rank, the one who was captured along with
4 Marka [phoen] Martic over there. So what is that doing in this trial?
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could we have a
6 number, please?
7 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number P511.
8 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, Ms. Biersay will be presenting the
9 intercept for the next two segments.
10 MS. BIERSAY: At this time, Your Honour, the Prosecution would
11 like to request closed session just to discuss a preliminary matter.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Closed session,
14 [Closed session]
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
24 Ms. Biersay.
25 MS. BIERSAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 The next segment, which consists of three intercepts, we believe,
2 is part of the evidence showing the level of communication between the
3 Belgrade SRS-SCP leadership and its volunteers in the field. The first
4 intercept that would be played will be 65 ter number 315, and it's dated
5 the 28th of June, 1991, and is listed as a conversation between
6 Darko Pesic and Zoran Rankic, a member of the SRS Crisis Staff.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Which binder, please?
8 MS. BIERSAY: It's in your first binder, Your Honour.
9 And the relevance as we indicated broadly is that this
10 intercept will show the degree of monitoring that the SRS headquarters in
12 So at this time we propose that we play 65 ter number 315.
13 [Intercept played]
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have to say a few things in
15 relation to this recording along with all the other suspicions and
16 objections I've already voiced so I don't have to repeat them time and
18 First of all, this has to do with two things; a party meeting, a
19 meeting of the main Board and the executive Board of the Serb Radical
20 Party in Belgrade
21 the local commune where we met practically throughout 1991.
22 Secondly, there is no dispute that Branislav Gavrilovic was a
23 volunteer of the Serb Radical Party in Eastern Slavonia in May, June,
24 July 1991.
25 Thirdly, this is allegedly a telephone conversation taking place
1 on the 28th of June, 1991. That is outside the time frame relevant to
2 the indictment. There either has to be an expanded indictment on the
3 part of the Prosecution or they have to give up on this.
4 And fourthly and most importantly, this witness confirmed that
5 Darko Pesic was a police provocateur. He was recruited by the secret
6 police to be active among the Serb Radicals.
7 I would like to invoke the jurisprudence of the European Court
8 for Human Rights. In Teixeira against Portugal -- versus Portugal
9 is a case from 1999. The number is 28 EHRR101, paragraph 35. It says --
10 it was established in this paragraph, rather, that evidence obtained
11 through police agents and provocateurs cannot be admitted without
12 violating the right to a fair trial. This police provocateur, Darko
13 Pesic, and we see exposed him very quickly, and you see that measures
14 against him were stopped already in July 1991; that is to say, he was
15 prevented from acting within the Serb Radical Party. We noted his
16 suspicious behaviour. Through frequent calls to party leaders, he tried
17 to arrange --
18 Again, she's interrupting me. Again, the Prosecutor is
19 interrupting me. I am explaining why this should not be in
20 evidence, because it has to do with a police provocateur, and we have
21 evidence to prove that. Recently in a newspaper interview, he admitted
22 that he was a police provocateur, and on the basis of Rule 68, the OTP
23 sent me a photocopy of that interview only the other day. This is not
24 testimony. This is the presentation of arguments as to why this is why
25 this recording cannot be admitted into evidence. It cannot.
1 Anything that was obtained through police provocation cannot be admitted,
2 apart from the fact that the entire conversation does not contain a
3 single thing that would contain any kind of incrimination.
4 It is no secret the Serb Radical Party in 1991 had its own
5 volunteers in Eastern Slavonian villages, and we discussed that when
6 Witness Theunens testified, so there's no dispute regarding that.
7 There's nothing troublesome about the content of the conversation. What
8 is troublesome is a conversation between a police provocateur and any
9 person -- that cannot be admitted into evidence. That is unacceptable in
10 accordance with the ruling of the European Court on Human Rights.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
12 Mr. Seselj, you have given us your opinion based on the
13 jurisprudence of the European Court for Human Rights.
14 I would like to move to closed session for a minute.
15 [Closed session]
11 Pages 9465-9467 redacted. Closed session.
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
1 Now that we are in open session, with regard to the admission of
2 the exhibit that was heard a few moments ago, the Trial Chamber decided
3 that a number, identification number, will be given to this exhibit; so
4 this exhibit is not admitted into evidence but will receive an MFI
6 Mr. Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be MFI P512.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed.
9 MS. BIERSAY: The next intercept will be 65 ter number 1053, and
10 we believe it's relevant, again, for the communications between the SRS
11 headquarters in Belgrade
12 of operational input that the accused had in the front line. And for the
13 Court, it's dated 21 April 1992
14 accused and Branislav Gavrilovic.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's hear it.
16 [Intercept played]
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I remember this conversation from
18 April 1992, but I am convinced that it has not been reduced in its
19 entirety. It is obvious that through this artificial interference, the
20 actual content of the conversation is being concealed. Linguistic review
21 would easily show that there were redactions.
22 You see that the tone would change every now and then, and the
23 sound spectrum is not level. Linguistically speaking, the conversation
24 sounds unnatural, incoherent, and unrelated. There are coherent things
25 that can be taken out of this, but obviously it has not been reduced in
1 its entirety.
2 Technically, you see that in the signals there are suspicious
3 interruptions, suspicious tones that do not appear in other
4 conversations, although the same wire-tapping equipment was used. There
5 are certain pauses or voids that are barely perceptible but perceptible
6 nevertheless. Also, there are abrupt changes in the frequency of sound
7 in terms of the background sound, and that is precisely what was being
8 concealed by this artificial interference. This is not a poor
9 connection. This is artificially-manufactured interference. The sound
10 levels are different, and at any rate, this has to do with the redaction
11 that was carried out.
12 I would be interested in what was stated in the parts of the
13 conversation that were taken out, and something was certainly taken out.
14 To tell you the truth, quite frankly, 16 years later I cannot deny -- I
15 cannot say exactly what I had said. I'm not denying that I said what is
16 stated here, but there were so many interventions carried out in the
17 conversation itself that from a legal point of view, it is unacceptable,
18 inadmissible as evidence.
19 I do confirm that I was asking to speak to Radovan Karadzic in
20 order to send assistance to the surrounded volunteers. 18 volunteers of
21 the Serb Radical Party in the month of April were surrounded near Palma
22 in Hrasno on the rim of Grbavica, and I indeed intervened then as I was
23 afraid for them. Afterwards, they were helped. They all got out of this
24 siege. None of them got killed. A few of them got wounded.
25 I just want to tell you that I do know what this is all about and
1 that I am "au courant" in terms of what had actually happened. So I am
2 not challenging that all of this did happen, but what I am challenging is
3 the authenticity of the recording.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's listen to
5 this tape again.
6 MS. BIERSAY: From the beginning, Your Honour?
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 [Intercept played]
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's go into closed session
10 for a few moments.
11 [Closed session]
11 Pages 9472-9475 redacted. Closed session.
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
7 The Trial Chamber will give a number to this audiotape.
8 Mr. Registrar.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P513.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can we hear the next tape,
12 MS. BIERSAY: We're now presenting 65 ter number 1172, which is
13 in your second binder, I believe, Your Honours. This is listed as a call
14 taking place on the 22nd of April, 1992, between Momcilo Mandic and
15 Igor, last name unknown. This is connected to the previous call where we
16 had Mr. Seselj telling Brne that he would -- he had been trying to call
17 the political leadership of the BiH with respect to getting the
18 volunteers out of the situation that they found themselves in.
19 In this call, we see that the BiH political and military
20 leadership took it very seriously, and so that is the relevance of this
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Biersay, I think you said that the
23 conversation was taking place on the 22nd of April.
24 MS. BIERSAY: Correct, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: The date is different in the transcript, in the
2 MS. BIERSAY: The Court is correct. On the transcript it is
3 listed as "21st April 1992
4 I have in the spreadsheet. Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
6 [Intercept played]
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The objection as to relevance must
8 be raised again. In this case, there is no doubt that these volunteers
9 were surrounded near the Palma
10 man speaking to Mandic said there were 11, but he didn't know the exact
11 number. He wasn't there. Gavrilovic -- Branislav Gavrilovic knew the
12 precise number. Evidently, someone from Pale ordered Mandic to intervene
13 and to have help sent to these people. As far as I know, Mandic was
14 already a Minister in the government of the Serbian Republic
16 What is relevant here, something that is not in dispute, need not
17 be proved: It's not in dispute that these volunteers were in Hrasno in
18 April, that they took part in the fighting, that they were surrounded.
19 It's not contested that I was informed in Belgrade that they were
20 surrounded, that I called Pale asking for assistance, so what is the
21 purpose of this material? There's no purpose at all. It is simply
22 adding more material to the record in order to burden the record.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, can we have an
24 exhibit number, please.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P514.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Next intercept.
2 MS. BIERSAY: Your Honours, we are now transitioning to the final
3 segment, which consists of five short intercepts, and this segment
4 pertains to the communication and coordination between the SRS and other
5 members of the JCE, particularly Mr. Karadzic, who represents the BiH
6 political leadership. And the first one is 65 ter number 229, and the
7 date listed is the 19th of May, 1991, and it's Branislav Gavrilovic
8 calling Darko Pesic.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In which binder is it?
10 MS. BIERSAY: The first, Your Honour. And, specifically, this is
11 relevant to show the organisation of the SRS in Sarajevo under the
12 leadership of Gavrilovic.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
14 [Intercept played]
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'd like to ask the Registrar
16 to move into closed session, please.
17 [Closed session]
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, your comments on
22 this intercept.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I am amazed by Madam Biersay
24 saying that this audiotape demonstrates the links between the activists
25 of the Serbian Radical Party and the party itself with Radovan Karadzic.
1 This is evidently about Branislav Gavrilovic, Brne, who after a time
2 returned to Sarajevo
3 organising a branch of the Serbian Radical Party on the territory of
5 Darko Pesic, on the 19th of May, 1991, is telling him that they
6 shouldn't discuss the details on the phone. That means that on the 19th
7 of May, he was not yet an agent provocateur of the State Security
8 Service. One can, although one need not draw this conclusion. He could
9 have become that on the 20th of May when he was arrested because
10 according to what he said in the media, he agreed to collaborate after
11 his arrest.
12 Thirdly, it should be borne in mind that on the 6th of May, 1991,
13 I was in Sarajevo
14 Djurdjevdan celebrations, and then I went down to Sarajevo, where a
15 Muslim-Bosniak organisation led by Muhamed Filipovic organised a
16 demonstrate against my participation in a television broadcast on
18 National Theatre. After that, there was an incident, and Aleksandar
19 Tijanic and the journalist, Madam Bobic, were almost lynched. They
20 escaped the angry mob narrowly; they had a narrow escape. I walked
21 through the place where there were demonstrations. I went to visit my
22 father's grave at Bare where he was buried, and only in the late
23 afternoon did I return to Pale from Sarajevo.
24 The Prosecutor can't keep interrupting me like this.
25 MS. BIERSAY: Your Honour --
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Ms. Biersay. You
2 think that this is not relevant, but I assume that if he's saying this,
3 he wants to establish a connection between his arrival and Gavrilovic's
4 call. So wait for him to finish. Like you, I didn't understand why he
5 said that, but he will certainly finish what he has to say.
6 MS. BIERSAY: I think my difficulty is in deciphering his
7 objections from his testifying, and this Court has repeatedly told him
8 not to testify. Now, if he's going into what he did, what he said, I
9 believe that constitutes testimony.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
11 Mr. Seselj, are you testifying or are you explaining to us in
12 what conditions this conversation was tapped?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am not testifying. I am proving
14 that this intercept cannot be relevant to this case. I am putting
15 forward facts. What happened in Sarajevo showed that in the Muslim part
16 of the public, there was huge animosity towards me personally and towards
17 the Serbian Radical Party. That's why on the 19th of May, 13 days later
18 -- because Gavrilovic went back to Serbia
19 little caution, they continued discussing the setting up of the party in
21 But let Mrs. Biersay tell us what is relevant in all this
22 concerning Radovan Karadzic and the links of the Serbian Radical Party
23 and Karadzic because she mentioned this before we heard the clip, and
24 this was her explanation as to why it should be admitted into evidence.
25 So where is Radovan Karadzic in all this and the links with him? I don't
1 believe that Branislav Gavrilovic ever spoke to Radovan Karadzic in his
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj explains to us that
4 a few days before the 19th of May, he was in Sarajevo. There were
5 demonstrations and so on, so it was difficult to set up a Serbian Radical
6 Party, which explains why Gavrilovic on the 19th of May calls up Pesic.
7 So he's answered part of your objection.
8 Now, at the beginning you explained that this enabled us to
9 understand the connection there might have been between members of the
10 joint criminal enterprise and Karadzic amongst others. Karadzic is not
11 mentioned in the intercept. Is that a mistake you've made, or is it
12 because at some point one refers to Pale?
13 MS. BIERSAY: That's correct, Your Honour. Our argument with
14 respect to the relevance pertained to the organisation of the SRS in
16 political leadership of the BiH, notably with Mr. Karadzic. There is
17 mention in this intercept of the need to coordinate with Pale, and as the
18 Court will hear as we play the following intercepts, these connections
19 become a little more firm.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Can we have an
21 exhibit number for this intercept, please.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There's something else I have to
23 say before you give a number.
24 There are different kinds of stupidity. Some kinds of stupidity
25 can amaze you. Some can cheer you up. Some you can find quite nice, but
1 some can drive you out of your skin. Some can make you nervous. The
2 headquarters of the Serbian Radical Party were in the Holiday Inn. In
3 1991, Pale was not the centre of the Serbian Democratic Party, nor was it
4 the centre of the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
5 Srpska. Pale was only a suburb of Sarajevo, part of the city of
7 time be a synonym for Radovan Karadzic.
8 Radovan Karadzic moved the headquarters of his party to Pale only
9 when armed conflict broke out in Sarajevo
10 Karadzic was firmly in Sarajevo
11 and Pale was not the symbol of his headquarters or the headquarters of
12 his party or anything else. Pale was a place where one of the municipal
13 boards of the Serbian Radical Party was to be established, just like
14 Sokolac. Pale and Sokolac are mentioned in the same context.
15 Well, this is the kind of stupidity that sometimes drives me out
16 of my mind.
17 MS. BIERSAY: Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay.
19 MS. BIERSAY: This is exactly the kind of undisciplined outbursts
20 and speech-ifying and testifying to which we have been repeatedly
21 objecting; and, secondly, Mr. Seselj's very desperate resort to personal
22 attack should not be tolerated by this Court.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay, Mr. Seselj of
24 course should not attack you in any way. You're quite right. But as far
25 as Mr. Seselj's objection is concerned, you were asked whether
1 Mr. Karadzic was mentioned in this intercept since his name is not in
2 there. You confirmed after I put the question to you that he is
3 mentioned on several occasions as part of his contacts with Pale. This
4 is mentioned on several occasions. Pale is mentioned on several
5 occasions, and now Mr. Seselj corrects us and says that Karadzic at the
6 time was not in Pale but in Sarajevo
7 if there is a contact with Karadzic, it's not in Pale. It's in Sarajevo
8 then. This is what he says.
9 Isn't there a confusion between Pale in 1992 and the situation in
10 1991? According to Mr. Seselj, Karadzic was in Sarajevo at the Hotel
11 Holiday Inn in 1991, if I have understood correctly.
12 MS. BIERSAY: Unlike Mr. Seselj, I am not testifying in this
13 proceeding. To the extent that there are issues that perhaps the witness
14 can clarify, I would suggest that we ask the witness, or we can proceed
15 with the other two intercepts to see if perhaps this will clarify
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's move back --
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's move into closed session
20 for a few moments.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Just in order to be --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's okay.
23 [Closed session]
11 Pages 9485-9486 redacted. Closed session.
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's have an exhibit number
10 first, please, Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 229 will be Exhibit number P515.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that when one of the
13 parties in the proceedings objects, then the Trial Chamber has to take a
14 position with regard to the objection. I objected to the announcement
15 made by Ms. Biersay that this recording shows that the Serb Radical Party
16 was directly linked to Radovan Karadzic in view of the JCE, and in a very
17 efficient way I refuted this. I would really like to hear the position
18 of the Trial Chamber with regard to this objection. Has the Trial
19 Chamber truly admitted this into evidence as proof of the link between
20 the Serbian Radical Party and Radovan Karadzic? Is that how it's been
21 admitted into evidence, or has it been admitted into evidence to the
22 effect that in Sarajevo
23 establishment of the Serb Radical Party there? I want to know in which
24 way this was admitted into evidence.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Seselj, the Prosecution announced that the
1 next and final batch of intercepts would be related to the issue of
2 communication and coordination between the SRS and other JCE members.
3 That's what Ms. Biersay told us. She also said that this link between
4 the SRS and other JCE members would become clear to us once we've heard
5 all the intercepts belonging to this last batch. So I suggest that we
6 wait until we have heard all intercepts, and then we will take a position
7 on your objection.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I would like to add
9 this: Your objection is raised before the Chamber because you feel that
10 if this exhibit is admitted, we agree with the case presented by the
11 Prosecution, which is not the case. It is not because an exhibit is
12 admitted in support of the Prosecution's case, that it is admitted, that
13 we will put too much weight on it. We can on a prima facie basis admit
14 an exhibit, but all of this will be weighed at the end of the
15 proceedings, and we will factor in all the other exhibits. It is a
16 matter of relevance and probative value and to state that the joint
17 criminal enterprise existed ever since the 19th of May, 1991, that this
18 is actually a fact. This is a piece of information that is being
19 provided by the Prosecutor, and this, if need be, will be corroborated by
20 other evidence. But for the time being, we have not drawn any
21 conclusions. It was so obvious that I didn't think it was necessary to
22 respond when you made your objection. It's not because an exhibit is
23 admitted that it corroborates the theory of the person presenting it.
24 Now, we have another intercept, Ms. Biersay, do we?
25 MS. BIERSAY: We do, Your Honour. I would propose that we play
1 the next two uninterrupted. That would be 65 ter number 279, which is
2 dated June 6th, 1991
3 Siljegovic - and I apologise for the pronunciation - and the second one
4 would be 65 ter number 286, which is dated the 7th of June, 1991, and
5 that is a conversation between Mr. Gavrilovic and Maja Gojkovic. So that
6 would be my proposal, to play them one after another.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
8 MS. BIERSAY: So now playing 65 ter number 279.
9 [Intercept played]
10 MS. BIERSAY: I'm now playing 65 ter number 286.
11 [Intercept played]
12 MS. BIERSAY: Your Honours, this one is approximately seven
13 minutes' long.
14 [Intercept played]
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, comments?
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'm going to present two
17 desperate objections, as Ms. Biersay qualifies them, because I seem to
18 look like a desperate person to her, not to them, who are all messed up
19 in their irrelevant evidence.
20 Obviously, Branislav Gavrilovic is talking about the split in the
21 Municipal Board of the Serbian Radical Party in Sokolac and that he had
22 won over a group that had been defeated there in order to take part in
23 the establishment of the Serbian Radical Party. As for the rest, this is
24 flirting. This is lovey-dovey talk between Gavrilovic and Maja Gojkovic.
25 The voices are so transformed, they don't remotely resemble their true
1 voices. However, if they are authentic, this is, first of all,
2 lovey-dovey flirting. I think it was a bit improper to present this in
3 court, because everyone is entitled to privacy.
4 Secondly, they mention Karadzic and Radovan [as interpreted] in
5 the conversation.
6 However, that in itself does not mean a thing.
7 You know, Branislav Gavrilovic at the time did not have the
8 possibility to reach Radovan Karadzic. I'm convinced of that, and
9 perhaps he felt the need to boast in front of Maja Gojkovic in order for
10 his authority to go up in her eyes because the Prosecution submitted to
11 me loads of their conversations, and they're probably not going to air
12 most of them here. The content is similar; it is of a love nature. We
13 have even more explicit love conversations between the two of them.
14 But what is relevant in all of this? What does all of this
15 prove? The Prosecution has to say why this is relevant. After all, even
16 if he did stop by and see Radovan and conveyed my greetings, what does
17 that have to do with anything? Why does that make it relevant?
18 Listen, I saw Radovan Karadzic several times, and that is no
19 secret whatsoever. There is no need for the Prosecution to prove that I
20 encountered Radovan Karadzic. However, why is this being -- please
21 caution Ms. Biersay that she cannot keep interrupting me all the time.
22 I'm not testifying. Everybody's testifying in this courtroom except for
23 me. I insist that it be said here why this conversation is relevant in
24 terms of proofing the existence of joint criminal enterprise. How is it
25 relevant? Perhaps because I conveyed my greetings to Karadzic, and I'm
1 not aware of that, and if Maja Gojkovic said to Branislav, "Say hello to
2 him," and did he meet up with Radovan at all? Even if he did, what kind
3 of evidence is that and for what?
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Your position is
5 now on the transcript.
6 Let's have two numbers, one for Exhibit 279 and the other one for
7 Exhibit 296, and then we'll have a break because it's time.
8 MS. BIERSAY: 286.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] 286.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter number 279, Exhibit P156;
11 and 65 ter number 286 will become Exhibit P157.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We'll adjourn for
13 15 minutes.
14 I'm looking at the clock. I'm a bit worried. Will we have time
15 after the break to finish these tapes? How many are left?
16 MS. BIERSAY: Two, Your Honour. They will take about five
17 minutes. With objections, I can't really say how long it would take, but
18 reasonably it shouldn't take more than ten minutes.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's try and
20 finish them in time, and we'll have a 15-minute break.
21 --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 12.19 p.m.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court is back in session.
24 Ms. Biersay, for the two last tapes, audiotapes.
25 MS. BIERSAY: Thank you, Your Honour. I will try to be as quick
1 as possible.
2 The last two intercepts pertain to the presence of SRS volunteers
3 first in and around Sarajevo
4 one pertains to their presence in Zvornik, and that's 65 ter number 266.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. Could you
6 repeat the numbers, please, because it was not recorded on the
8 MS. BIERSAY: Certainly, Your Honour. 65 ter number 1043, which
9 is in your binder 2, and that is dated April 1992, and it is a
10 conversation between Ilija, last name unknown, and Rade Ristic. And the
11 second and last one is 65 ter number 266, and that's also in your binder
12 2, and that is dated April 1992, as well, and it's a conversation between
13 Pejicic and an unidentified male. So just for efficiency's sake, I would
14 propose that we play them back to back, if there are no objections to
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
17 MS. BIERSAY: So now playing 65 ter number 1043.
18 [Intercept played]
19 MS. BIERSAY: And now playing 65 ter number 266, which is
20 actually dated June 1992.
21 [Intercept played]
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I heard that the Prosecutor said
23 that the first tape was of the 20th of April, 1992, and the second was
24 April 1992 without a date. Now, suddenly the second one is June. Could
25 the Prosecutor explain how this happened because information was given
1 pertaining to both tapes. Now, suddenly it's changed.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay.
3 MS. BIERSAY: I'm correcting my misstatement with respect to the
4 second one. The transcript reads that the conversation was conducted in
5 June 1992.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, another objection.
7 Why are we now putting together a conversation of the 22nd of April with
8 one in June, and it's not even the same participants?
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay, it's not the same
10 people speaking, but the same topic?
11 MS. BIERSAY: That's correct, Your Honour. It's the presence of
12 the SRS volunteers in these two areas. If the Court recalls, we had to
13 select from many, many intercepts, and this is what we've tried to do.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's listen.
15 [Intercept played]
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Firstly, as regards the first
18 conversation, with all my usual doubts and the challenges, this is an
19 event which is not in dispute, that a group of volunteers led by
20 Branislav Gavrilovic participated in the fighting for Hrasno in April
21 1992, and now two people of whom I've never heard of before mention this
22 in a conversation they have. It can have absolutely no relevance
24 And the second one is even more of a problem. Firstly, the date
25 is moot; June 1992. Secondly, it's moot that allegedly the driver,
1 driving the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party, if that's who they
2 are, because he calls them "Seselj's men," is driving them from Sarajevo
3 and his bus breaks down at Pilava, which is a small river which has its
4 source on the slopes of Trebevic, and the water from that stream goes
5 into the public waterworks, the city waterworks, and from there he's
6 supposed to drive them to Zvornik. And from this, the Prosecutor
7 concludes that these are Seselj's volunteers who are being taken from
9 that if this was a group of volunteers who had been in Sarajevo and
10 they're going back to Serbia
11 where the border crossing is, and probably this bus is taking them to
12 Zvornik where they will have other transport to Belgrade. And yet the
13 Prosecutor now is drawing the conclusion that this demonstrates the
14 participation of volunteers in Zvornik.
15 We have other evidence that in April 1992 there were SRS
16 volunteers in Zvornik, and I never challenged that; but that volunteers
17 went from Sarajevo
18 because the volunteers usually went to the front line for a month and a
19 half. Very rarely did they stay for several months, and then groups
20 would go home to take a bath, to take a rest, to get a change of clothes,
21 and so on. So they would stay there a month and a half at a time. So
22 impossible for them to be in Sarajevo
23 Zvornik, which is what the Prosecutor is trying to demonstrate through
24 this conversation of God knows what people and at what time.
25 The Prosecutor first said quite properly that this was in April,
1 if this was a transport and after the fighting for Grbavica, they were
2 going back to Serbia
3 it was in June. In June 1992, there was absolutely not a single SRS
4 volunteer in Zvornik, not a single one, absolutely not.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Your comments are
6 on the transcript.
7 Mr. Registrar, could we have two numbers for these two tapes.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. 65 ter number 1043 will be
9 Exhibit number P518, and 65 ter number 266 will be Exhibit number P519.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay, are we done with
11 this exercise?
12 MS. BIERSAY: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's move back
14 into closed session for a minute.
15 [Closed session]
11 Pages 9496-9499 redacted. Closed session.
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You have the floor,
5 Mr. Prosecutor.
6 MR. RINDI: Good morning. I will start by reading a short
7 summary of the witness evidence.
8 The witness was living in Zvornik together with his family when
9 the war broke out in the area in April 1992.
10 Between 15 and 20 May 1992
11 Technical School
12 witness was taken to the school late in the evening by an inspector of
13 the Zvornik police named Drago Djokic and two police officers dressed in
14 uniforms and fully armed.
15 The witness was subsequently --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Please read slower. Thank you.
17 MR. RINDI: Yes. I apologise.
18 The witness was subsequently taken to a big room in the school.
19 He was told to take off belt and shoelaces and put all his belongings on
20 a table. There, he noticed a man sitting, tied up in a chair four or
21 five metres away from him. His face was black and blue, and the witness
22 noticed wounds and bruises all over his body.
23 VS-1105 [Realtime transcript read in error, "1005"] was then
24 taken to another room in the same building. The room was completely dark
25 and was full of people who were all sitting or laying on the floor next
1 to the walls.
2 The following day, the witness was informed by a Serb police
3 officer that Serbian volunteers were using younger prisoners to load
4 stolen goods on trucks to be transported to Serbia. That same day during
5 the morning, the witness was able to recognise some of his acquaintances.
6 There were around 45 to 50 men in the room. In the room, there were also
7 two Serbs; one Seselj man, Sasa from Novi Sad, was there because his role
8 in killing a civilian at Zvornik in order to take revenge for the death
9 of a friend during the attack on Zvornik, and one member of the Serb
10 Territorial Defence from the village of Pilica
11 Other detainees told the witness about being tortured in camps
12 around Zvornik and being forced to loot. The witness learned that the
13 majority of the prisoners held at the Technical School
14 brought there from the Ekonomija camp.
15 The third day, the witness was taken to Atos [phoen] for further
16 interrogations. There, he was interrogated by Captain Crni.
17 VS-1105 was questioned for one hour and a half, and then two
18 guards escorted him to the SUP in Zvornik.
19 On the way between Captain Crni's office and the parking place,
20 two members of the Serb Territorial Defence hit the witness at the back
21 of his head. The witness fainted. As he woke up, he realised he was
22 laying on the ground and the two of them were urinating on his face.
23 After that, the two policemen took him to the SUP.
24 That day, the witness was eventually released and was able to
25 escape from Zvornik at the end of May 1992. He was detained at the
1 Technical School
2 During the conflict in Zvornik, the witness was able to observe
3 that the JNA commander for the whole region was Marko Pavlovic, whose
4 real name is Branko Popovic. He knew that he was the commander because
5 there were announcements on Zvornik Radio the whole time, informing the
6 population about the orders he was giving to the people of Zvornik. He
7 was also able to observe the presence of several volunteers and
8 paramilitary units in Zvornik during the conflict, among which SRS
9 volunteers, Zuco's Yellow Wasps, and a unit called Tujan Sinje [phoen],
10 led by Milan Ilic.
11 Officially, there was no branch of the SRS in Zvornik prior to
12 the war. There were some supporters of Vuk Draskovic's Serbian Renewal
13 Movement, but most of the Serbs were members of the Serbian Democratic
15 When the war broke out, almost all the local Serbs joined
16 Seselj's formations. The witness knew that the highest commander of
17 Seseljevci was Seselj in Serbia
18 Zuco the most, as he was the commander of the biggest unit. After his
19 release, the witness interviewed many survivors from Zvornik. Based on
20 his interviews, he believes that 4.500 people were killed in Zvornik.
21 The witness is also aware of the existence of a number of mass
22 graves in the Zvornik area which are described in his statement.
23 Your Honours, this concludes my summary.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Please proceed.
25 MR. RINDI: Thank you.
1 Examination by Mr. Rindi:
2 Q. Mr. Witness, did you give a statement in 1996 to representatives
3 of the Office of the Prosecutor?
4 A. Yes, yes, I did.
5 Q. And in 2005, did you certify this statement before the
6 representative of the Registrar of this Tribunal?
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. Thank you. And on that occasion, did you make any corrections to
9 your statement?
10 A. Some minor technical corrections, yes.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. RINDI: Could we please have, without publishing it outside
13 of the courtroom, the document bearing 65 ter number 5040 displayed on
14 the screen. That is the B/C/S version, and the English version is 5040A.
15 Thank you.
16 I wish to make a correction. In the transcript, it's written
17 "VS-1005," but it should read "VS-1105," Your Honours.
18 Usher, could you please now display page 3 of the B/C/S version,
19 which corresponds to page 1 of the English.
20 Q. Witness, do you recognise your signature on page 3 of the
21 document that you have before you?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. RINDI: Usher, could you now please hand out a hard copy of
25 the statement in question to the witness.
1 Q. Witness, could you please look at the second page of the
2 statement, which is the fourth page in the document.
3 Usher, this is page 4 of the B/C/S version and page 2 of the
4 English. Thank you.
5 Could you -- Witness, could you please confirm that you made that
6 handwritten correction which appears on that page?
7 A. Yes, I can confirm.
8 Q. Thank you. Could you also confirm that the signature at the
9 bottom of the page is yours?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you. Witness, could you please go through the statement
12 and confirm that those handwritten notes that you see on some of the
13 pages were the corrections that you made in 2005? Could you also confirm
14 that the signature at the bottom of each single page is, indeed, your
16 A. Yes, yes, my signature, my corrections.
17 Q. Thank you. You now do not need to look at the hard copy version
18 of this document anymore. The document will be displayed on the screen
19 before you.
20 Yes, I apologise. One last question in regards to this document.
21 Usher, could you please display page 17 of the B/C/S version of
22 this document on the screen.
23 Witness, do you recognise your signature at the bottom of the
24 page, if you look at the screen?
25 A. Yes, I do recognise it.
1 Q. Thank you. Witness, did you have a chance to go through your
2 statement yesterday during the proofing?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Thank you. I'm going to ask you a few questions in this regard.
5 Can I ask you in the first place about your religious
6 background, briefly? What religion were your parents?
7 A. My parents were of the Islamic faith, and I'm an atheist.
8 Q. Thank you. And what religion were you brought up as?
9 A. Islamic Muslim.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 Usher, could you display now page 10 of the B/C/S version of the
12 document on the screen. This is page 6 of the English version. Thank
14 Witness, could you please look at the last paragraph of this
15 page. This is paragraph 5 of the English version. I will now read it
16 out to you:
17 "I know that Seselj spent a night in Zvornik some 15 to 30 days
18 before the war. He slept in Bosko Ceranic's house. Bosko's house was
19 located in the town centre. I am not sure, but I think the name of the
20 street is Brace Stefanovica. Bosko Ceranic was a manager of a furniture
21 shop in Zvornik next to his house. The name of the shop was "Braca
22 Jerkovic." Bosko always said that he did not belong to any party, but
23 all the political meetings were held in his house. Bosko was about 50
24 years old and married with two sons and one daughter. The daughter was a
25 judge, and one of his sons was working together with him in the shop."
1 Witness, do you have any clarification to make in this regard?
2 A. I do. When I first came to Zvornik, I went to Bosko Ceranic's,
3 because he's my friend, to tell him that I am angry at him because he did
4 not help me get out of Zvornik. I believed the rumours that he was truly
5 powerful and that Mr. Seselj had slept at his house. However, he
6 dissuaded me as he spoke in all sincerity saying that he never asked
7 anyone about anything and that what I heard were mere Zvornik rumours.
8 So this statement is based on rumour rather than fact.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 Usher, could we now look at page 11 of the B/C/S version of the
11 document, please. This still is page 6 of the English version.
12 Witness, could you now please look at the last sentence of the
13 first paragraph. This is the last sentence of the second-last paragraph
14 in the English version. I will now read out this sentence for you.
15 "Zuco's Yellow Ants were one of Seselj's units too."
16 Do you have any clarification in this regard, Witness, with
17 regards to this sentence?
18 A. Zuco's Yellow Wasps. Well, for a while people were saying
19 "Ants." It was the Yellow Wasps, and they were the most elite unit, and
20 Zuco was the commander. His brother, Dusan, who was called "Repic," was
21 right by him. He committed quite a few crimes. I personally saw Zuco at
22 the medical centre, where I was for a while -- where I was detained,
23 rather, well, for about ten days. That's when he came. He bragged that
24 he used to be a captain at the federal Ministry of the Interior and now
25 he was leading an elite unit, that they were Seselj's men. Well, that
1 would be about it. He wore a cap. He had a bit of a complex in terms of
2 his personality. He had two pistols, one on either side, and he kept
3 coming to reconnoiter on the positions facing town, where the defenders
4 of Zvornik were, things like that.
5 I was detained three times. The last one that you put to me and
6 that we are together putting before the Court was the third detention.
7 There were two before that for a day or two respectively. Once, I was
8 interrogated by him in his room and asked how many defenders there were
9 at Kula Grad. He proposed to me that I attend negotiations, to have a
10 surrender of weapons, that nothing would happen to anyone. I said to him
11 that I did not belong to that party, that I had no influence whatsoever,
12 and then he gave up. I mean, I know him personally.
13 Q. Thank you. Witness, with the corrections that you just
14 specified, does this -- does the statement accurately reflect the events
15 that you described therein?
16 A. It's rather sparse, but it does reflect the events.
17 Q. Thank you. So if you were asked questions about those events
18 today, would you give the same answers that are contained in this
20 A. Yes. Unfortunately, my knowledge and my views were fully
21 confirmed. The answers would be the same.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. RINDI: Your Honours, at this time I would like to move for
24 the admission of 65 ter number 5040 under seal, which is the B/C/S
25 version, and 5040A, which is the English version. So I would like to
1 request admission under seal.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, can we have an
3 exhibit number, please.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter number 5040 will be Exhibit
5 number P521, and the English translation will be attached to that.
6 MR. RINDI: Thank you.
7 I have just one more question for the witness.
8 THE REGISTRAR: I do apologise, Mr. Rindi. And it will be
9 admitted under seal.
10 MR. RINDI: Yes. Yes, thank you.
11 Q. Witness, in your statement, you mentioned that you heard from
12 people of the existence of a number of mass graves in the Zvornik area.
13 Has the existence of such mass graves been subsequently confirmed to you
14 in any way?
15 A. Yes, confirmed fully, except for one. Due to the inaccessibility
16 of the terrain, it hasn't been discovered yet. The others have been
17 discovered, and unfortunately, I thought they were smaller. But in
18 actual fact, they are much bigger than what people were telling me about
19 before that. All the mass graves that I talked about have been
21 Q. Thank you. And which is the mass grave which has not been
23 A. This is a mass grave that is called "Sahmanske Stijene." I
24 presented it graphically. That grave is on the road between Zvornik and
1 metres to the south of Divic.
2 In Mali
3 metres away, there is this locality called Sahar. This is the Muslim
4 part of the settlement where refugees lived. Persons who were killed
5 from the area of Cerska, Konjevic Polje, and Kamenica when there was this
6 offensive against Serbians in 1993, were buried there at that locality.
7 The burial took place by way of helicopters with nets because it was
8 inaccessible just before Morillon came to Cerska, which is when he stated
9 he did not see any traces of killings because the army made sure that
10 they would collect all the corpses in nets and then transport them by
11 helicopter to these caves. That proved to be correct further.
12 The locals at Sahir, the people who told me about this, could not
13 live for a year from the stench that was coming from there and the birds
14 that were flying above these rocks all the time. So that's the only
15 grave that hasn't been discovered yet, but it is assumed that that is the
17 MR. RINDI: Thank you.
18 Your Honours, this concludes my examination.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, we have a few minutes
20 left, and Mr. Seselj will not put any questions to you because he has
21 told us that he would not put any questions to the witness when this
22 Rule is applied.
23 I would like to discuss the presence of the paramilitary
24 formations in Zvornik amongst other Seselj's men you may have mentioned.
25 Questioned by the Court:
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What can you tell us in
2 accurate terms without bearing in mind rumours or hearsay? What did you
3 actually see with your own eyes?
4 A. I had direct meetings with their commander, Zuco. That was his
5 nickname. Later on, I found out what his exact name was, Repic -- and
6 his brother Repic, rather. As a matter of fact, once he stopped me,
7 checked my ID. However, since I was in the company of a Serb doctor,
8 after a bit of bickering he let me go after all.
9 I, personally -- I, personally, have not seen a single killing
10 committed by Seselj's men. However, what happened in the Zvornik
11 camps - there were a few at Karakaj; that's what I talked about to people
12 -- actually, all these killings were committed by these formations.
13 Later on, it turned out that these formations became even more
14 powerful, that they did not obey orders from Serbia. However, they
15 really were so powerful that no one could do a thing about them, even the
16 official authorities whose commander was Marko Pavlovic, or rather,
17 Branko Popovic.
18 I also heard that that unit, sometime in July/August, that is to
19 say, when they committed all these crimes, they were then disbanded,
20 arrested by special units from Pale because the official authorities of
21 Republika Srpska could not function because of them.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The first point, you say that
23 you met their commander, Zuco, and you also met his brother, Repic. What
24 entitles you to say that these two individuals were members of the
25 Serbian Radical Party or were connected in one way or another with
1 Mr. Seselj? Did they tell you that themselves, or is this something you
3 A. While I was at the medical centre for about ten days, I was often
4 at the director's office. On one occasion, Zuco barged into that office,
5 and when he was speaking about what he represented, that he said he was
6 actually the commander of the defence in Zvornik, and he said that he
7 belonged to the special units of Mr. Seselj, Seselj's men. He, himself,
8 said that in front of Dr. Jelkic, Muhamed Jelkic, who was director of
9 that medical centre.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you said that there were
11 several paramilitary units in Zvornik, and you said something a while
12 ago, which I'm hearing for the first time. You said that these units
13 were disbanded because Republika Srpska in Pale sent special units to
14 disband them. How do you know this?
15 A. Upon arriving in Vienna
16 (redacted). Then I came across
17 many refugees from Drina
18 but at the same time I also read the entire Serbian press.
19 In the meantime, I linked up with journalists from the Belgrade weekly
20 "Vreme," Mr. Svarm, and Jovan Dulovic, and they gave me lots of
21 information. I even have pictures of that unit lined up and disarmed.
22 However, Mr. Dulovic also told me that immediately after they had
23 been disarmed and after they had had their pictures taken, those who had
24 disarmed them went to a big restaurant near Mali Zvornik, and they got
25 dead drunk together with them. So the picture was just taken for the
1 sake of the public.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you're saying that the units
3 that disarmed these individuals did, in fact, disarm them, but none of
4 this was true because they went and had a drink together in a bar
6 A. The name of the restaurant or cafe is a bit vulgar. It's called
7 "The Four Tits."
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] "The Four Tits." Right. (redacted)
19 Registrar, please prepare an order for this to be redacted.
3 I made an effort for these observations not to come from only one
4 side but from the other side too. I wanted to be as objective as
5 possible. I had Serb friends, too, and I asked them about their views
6 too. I think the book is a very valuable document in terms of what
7 happened in Zvornik and around Zvornik during those four or five months.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Questions?
9 Witness, it is now time to stop. I asked my colleague if he had
10 any questions, and he said he didn't.
11 On behalf of the Bench, I would like to thank you for having come
12 to testify as part of the 92 ter proceeding, and I wish you a safe
13 journey home.
14 Madam Usher will escort you out of the courtroom in a few
16 We shall start our hearing at 8.30 tomorrow morning, and we shall
17 have a viva voce witness tomorrow.
18 Mr. Seselj.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have a procedural matter to deal
20 with, but I'm going to wait for the witness to leave. I hope you have a
21 minute for me.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just one minute because I'm
23 sitting in another case this afternoon and I need to prepare myself for
25 [The witness withdrew]
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, today you admitted this
3 statement according to Rule 92 ter. Up to page 7, the witness contains
4 [as interpreted] what happened to the witness. After page 7, everything
5 is hearsay. This is an unheard-of scandal when the witness himself gives
6 up on part of the statement, when he claims that before the war for 15 or
7 20 days I slept in the house of a man in Zvornik. This is the first time
8 that the witness told you personally that he saw Zuco and that Zuco told
9 him that he was a man of Seselj's. It's not contained in the statement.
10 And on the 9th of January, 1993, this statement -- this witness gave a
11 statement to the Muslim authorities, and he identified Zuco as "Arkan's
12 man." The OTP revealed this to me, so this is one scandal after the
13 other. I'm just trying to tell you what it is that you come across when
14 you take for granted these 92 ter statements.
15 I'm not going to put any questions in this regard in the future,
16 either, but I really wanted this objection of mine to be on the record as
17 additional proof of why I'm against the application of 92 ter in these
19 Also, he says here that different groups of Seselj's men met and
20 clashed. That is scandalous.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Seselj, I'm
22 sure you have noticed that I put questions to him about this matter
23 precisely, what entitled him to say that Zuco was one of Seselj's men, so
24 I don't take things at face value, and I don't take what is written at
25 face value. I ask questions. Your comment is therefore on the
2 The Court stands adjourned. We shall resume at 8.30 tomorrow
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.19 p.m.
5 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 17th day of
6 July, 2008, at 8.30 a.m.