1 Tuesday, 22 July 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, can you call the
6 case, please.
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] Thank you, Registrar. Today
10 is Tuesday, the 22nd of July 2008. I would like to greet the
11 representatives of the Prosecution, Mr. Seselj, as well as all the people
12 assisting us today.
13 Very briefly, some housekeeping matters.
14 First of all, if there are any objections from anyone, we shall
15 hold our hearing tomorrow morning and not tomorrow afternoon, because the
16 courtroom is now free. Therefore, we will be able to sit tomorrow
17 morning. That's the first point.
18 Second point: This morning I signed an order pertaining to the
19 fact that Wednesday, the 3rd of September at quarter past 2.00, we will
20 have our hearing to try Mr. Petkovic. I would therefore like to ask the
21 Prosecution to check its witnesses who will come as part of Mr. Seselj's
22 trial, make sure they have a witness for Tuesday and another witness for
23 the Thursday, because on Wednesday we shall be hearing Petkovic's case.
24 That was the second announcement I had to make.
25 The third is an oral decision which I wish to hand down now.
1 It's a fairly short one which relates to the witness called Osman Kadic.
2 Oral decision on the motion filed by the Prosecution on
3 Osman Kadic pursuant to Rule 94 bis.
4 Considering the statement made by the witness in question on the
5 12th of July, 2006, in light to 94 bis, requesting the statement and the
6 documents that go with it; in light of document 262 that was filed by the
7 Prosecution on the 29th of March, 2007, Mr. Seselj declared he was
8 against these documents and challenged them, and reckoned that Mr. Osman
9 Kadic was not an expert witness, and stipulated that he wished to
10 cross-examine this witness, in light of the fact that these documents
11 have been disclosed to the accused in a language he understands and in
12 hard copy, on the 21st of September, 2007, pursuant to the Pre-Trial
13 Judge's decision on the 9th of July, 2007.
14 Considering the document 233 provided by the accused, dated the
15 2nd of November, 2007, in which the accused, first of all, challenges the
16 fact that the documents disclosed are, in fact, an expert report, and
17 therefore does not notify the Chamber pursuant to Rule 94 bis.
18 Second point: He also states that he does challenge these
19 documents and does not wish them to be presented. He wishes to
20 cross-examine the witness himself, only after having received the proper
21 expert report and the documents that go with it.
22 Considering that in its previous decision relating to expert
23 witnesses that I heard before the Chamber, this is how the Trial Chamber
24 provides the definition of an expert witness: A person who, thanks to
25 his or her knowledge, qualifications, or special qualification, can help
1 a trier of fact understand or determine a legal issue, has also stated
2 that the Trial Chamber addresses the curriculum vitae, article,
3 publications, professional experience.
4 I'm going too fast. Let me resume.
5 Let me provide the definition of an expert. Let me read it out,
6 slowly. Let me continue reading out this definition, as of line 22 ...
7 or to determine a contentious issue.
8 The Trial Chamber stated that it would bear in mind the
9 curriculum vitae, the articles and publications and professional
10 experience, or any other information relating to the said witness for
11 which expert qualification is required.
12 Considering that in light of the documents provided by the
13 Prosecution, this witness was a doctor working in the Emergency Ward, but
14 had no specific knowledge as far as forensic medicine was concerned.
15 This person, therefore, has never conducted any other examinations or
16 exhumations or postmortem examinations, other than the exhumation in
17 Mostar, stated in his statement.
18 For the foregoing reasons, the Trial Chamber dismisses the
19 Prosecution's motion to admit these documents pursuant to Rule 94 bis and
20 decides to hear the witness, Osman Kadic, as a witness of fact relating
21 to the exhumations that were conducted in the Duborak [phoen] dump in
22 Mostar. This witness will therefore be called as a simple mere witness
23 and not an expert witness, pursuant to Rule 94 bis.
24 A fourth point, which shall be a very short one: Mr. Seselj, the
25 Trial Chamber has noticed, on reading an e-mail sent by one of your
1 associates, Mr. Krasic, that insulting words had been expressed vis a vis
2 a representative of the Registry. We do not understand why your main
3 associate thus insults the civil servants of the Registry.
4 Had you been made aware of this or not?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, you have to tell me
6 what kind of message was involved and who the message was sent to. To
7 whom did Zoran Krasic send a message, and then let's hear what's so
8 insulting in the message. I really don't know what you're talking about
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Since this message has not been
11 conveyed to you, we shall give it to you in the course of the afternoon.
12 Then you will be able to see what is in this message. There is no point
13 in addressing this any further. Whatever the case may be, we have
14 material proof of the fact that there is an insult in this e-mail.
15 As you know, this has created some friction.
16 You are quite right, we need to disclose this document to you so
17 you can see how you can reply to it, and if need be, you may tell us what
18 you will do in the future to avoid this happening again.
19 We have a witness --
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, could you tell me who
21 was the e-mail sent to? You can tell me that at least now. Is it an
22 e-mail that Zoran Krasic sent to the Registry, because I'm not aware of
23 him having sent e-mails to the Registry as of late at all; and I don't
24 know what the reason would be for him to send e-mails to the Secretariat.
25 As for e-mails to the Secretariat, it was only Marina Raguz, case manager
1 who sent them, and that was the mail that was used for sending
2 photographs and videos twice. Zoran Krasic does not have any
3 communication whatsoever with the Registry.
4 As for scheduling visits of legal advisers, all of that is
5 handled by Marina Ragus as well, so I really doubt that Zoran Krasic sent
6 an e-mail to the Registry at all. Let me tell you that straight away.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This e-mail which has been sent
8 electronically will be disclosed to you. I don't have it at hand at the
9 moment, but we will make sure that you receive it.
10 Mr. Seselj, as you know, we have a 92 bis witness this afternoon.
11 From what I understood, this witness did not wish to be granted any
12 protective measures, but I need to make sure. Therefore, we shall move
13 into closed session for the time being, and I will put the question to
14 him. If he confirms that he does not wish to have such measures, we
15 shall then lift the blinds. We shall drop the blinds for the moment and
16 move into closed session.
17 Mr. Seselj.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I had something to say to you
19 before the witness walks into the courtroom. So should I wait for this
20 music to stop, then?
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Should I speak straight away?
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment. Let's move into
24 closed session. I don't see the little logo on the screen yet.
25 [Closed session]
11 Pages 9633-9637 redacted. Closed session.
18 [Open session]
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Perhaps you should oil the
21 blinds a little bit. That means it would make less noise.
22 Witness, could you give me your first name, last name, and date
23 of birth, please.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Ibrahim Kujan from
25 Nevesinje. I was born on the 21st of April, 1941. I'm from Nevesinje.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 1961.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What do you do?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm involved in agriculture and
4 politics; agriculture because I am an agricultural engineer and producer,
5 and I'm in politics because I am a member of the Club of Bosniaks in the
6 Parliament of Republika Srpska.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In other words, you're an
8 elected official, are you?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since 1990 onwards.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Last question before you make
11 the solemn declaration: Have you already testified before a court of law
12 on the events that unfolded in the former Yugoslavia or is the first time
13 that you testify today?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the first time.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please read the text of the
16 solemn declaration.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
18 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
19 WITNESS: IBRAHIM KUJAN
20 [The witness answered through interpreter]
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, sir. You
22 may sit down.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a few informative matters.
25 We are under the 92 ter procedure of the Rules. This procedure
1 will be conducted in this manner: The Prosecutor will first read a brief
2 summary of your written statement. She will then put some questions to
3 you. She may also show you a certain number of documents, and for your
4 deposition we have -- actually, for that particular phase we have 30
6 The Judges may also put questions to you after this.
7 The accused, who could have cross-examined you, but told us that
8 he will not cross-examine you since he does not wish to put questions
9 because we are proceeding under Rule 92 bis, so he did mention this on a
10 couple of occasions. So Mr. Seselj will not put questions to you.
11 So this is how the hearing will be held. It will be a short
12 hearing, since the procedure has it that the Prosecutor has 30 minutes
13 for you, and she will put a few questions to you.
14 So, Ms. Dahl, you have the floor.
15 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, would you prefer that I read the a
16 summary of Mr. Kujan's statement before authenticating it or afterwards?
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, actually, read it before.
18 MS. DAHL: Mr. Kujan is a Bosnian inhabitant from Nevesinje
19 municipality. In 1991, at the beginning of the conflict, he was 30 years
21 In June of 1991, a military unit called Karadjordje was set up in
22 Nevesinje. The commander of this unit was Arsen Grahovac. The
23 headquarters of the Karadjordje unit was a coffee bar called Ravna Gora.
24 Members of the Karadjordje unit cooperated with the local police.
25 However, they created roadblocks on all roads leading into Nevesinje, and
1 they physically abused non-Serb people, whom they stopped at the
3 In the Karadjordje unit were Chetniks who manned the
4 check-points. They did not have to pay for their consumptions in certain
5 bars and restaurants. The commander, Krsto Savic, provided refreshments,
6 ammunition, food and money to the unit.
7 Later, members of the Karadjordje unit started blowing up
8 religious buildings and property belonging to Muslims in Nevesinje.
9 Despite reporting these events to the police, there were no consequences
10 visited upon the perpetrators.
11 The war in Croatia
12 was a general call for mobilisation in Bosnia and Herzegovina
13 Nevesinje, Muslims and Croats in Nevesinje, were fired from their jobs.
14 Their apartments were taken by force, and they were evicted without
15 cause. Non-Serb members of the reserve police were not mobilised, and
16 their posts were taken by ethnic Serbs.
17 On 19 September 1991, JNA corps, including the Uzice Corps from
19 who brought a large quantity of military equipment, including tanks,
20 APCs, artillery weapons, and they took complete control of the area from
21 Mostar and Trebinje. Their infantry never stopped shooting with their
22 weapons, including anti-aircraft guns. They fired their weapons above
23 the houses of Bosniaks. For those who were not ethnically Serb, life in
24 Nevesinje became like a prison camp.
25 The commander of the Uzice Corps was General Milan Torbice.
1 On 22 September 1991
2 Serbs in the municipality. The general gave a speech on that occasion
3 saying that for Serbs the moment had arrived to fulfill their historic
4 wishes, and that access to the sea and the border along the
5 Osijek-Karlovac-Karlobag line could be achieved within weeks.
6 After that speech, Mr. Kujan observed Serbs carrying automatic
7 rifles, threatening non-Serbs in the streets with their weapons. They
8 told non-Serbs that it was Serbian territory and they should leave. They
9 plundered public property and took it back to Serbia. Non-Serbs were not
10 permitted to withdraw savings from banks. Some people fled Nevesinje.
11 An ethnic Serb Crisis Staff was established in the beginning of
12 1992, which took over control of the municipality and replaced the
13 Municipal Assembly. Members of the Crisis Staff included the chief of
14 the police, Mr. Savic, and Momcilo Golijanin, a deputy of the Assembly of
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina who had direct connections to Radovan Karadzic.
16 In April 1992, a few days before the shelling of Mostar began,
17 large convoys of ethnic Serbs from Mostar began to arrive in Nevesinje.
18 Leaders of SDS --
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please,
20 Ms. Dahl.
21 A summary is a summary. You know, if you give us a summary
22 that's, in fact, a novel, then that's not really the idea. When you
23 draft a summary, you have to focus on very important and meaningful
24 moments, points.
25 MS. DAHL: Yes, Your Honour. I'm nearly finished.
1 Refugees arrived and took the apartments of non-Serbs. In April
2 1992, there was an arrest campaign. Mr. Kujan and others fled to the
3 woods. Serb forces attacked on 14 and 16 June. They attacked the
4 southern part of the municipality.
5 On 18 June, Mr. Kujan heard heavy explosions coming from the
6 Gacko municipality. The attacks continued. They were directed by the
7 local Serb police, members of the Karadjordje unit, Chetniks from Serbia
8 and Montenegro
9 units. Mr. Kujan saw these attacks from a distant hill by using his
10 binoculars. He saw troops wearing red berets as well as wearing White
11 Eagle insignia. During these attacks, Serb troops killed elderly people
12 who had remained behind in their homes.
13 After the attack on Postoljani, Mr. Kujan and other members of
14 the group he was with who had fled into the woods walked in the direction
15 of Bjelimici in the Konjac municipality. Several elderly people who
16 remained behind were later killed when they were trying to get food.
17 When Mr. Kujan arrived in the Konjac municipality, he joined the
18 Territorial Defence. In that position, he was allowed to interview
19 Serbian prisoners who told him that all of the remaining non-Serbs in
20 Nevesinje had been killed. Mr. Kujan has since compiled lists of the
21 killed and missing. He can establish that 316 Muslims and Croats were
22 killed, including 32 children under the age of 14.
23 Later, he learned that on 26th June 1992, 72 persons were caught
24 while trying to escape through the mountains and woods. They were
25 captured on the Velez Mountain
1 three were caught and killed.
2 I'd ask the Registrar to bring up 65 ter number 5036.
3 Examination by Ms. Dahl:
4 Q. Mr. Kujan, do you have your written statement dated 8 October
5 1998? If it's easier for you, it's also on the screen.
6 A. I have here all the necessary documentation, everything I need,
7 and I would like to address the Judge --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, you have to answer the
9 questions that the Prosecutor will put to you. She will show you
10 documents that you signed. That's the purpose of this exercise.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Which documents?
12 MS. DAHL:
13 Q. Let me first ask you to take a look at the screen. The screen in
14 front of you has your witness statement on it. Yes, that's it.
15 A. I have it.
16 Q. Let me ask you to take a look at the statement. Is this your
17 written statement that you gave on 8 October 1998?
18 A. All that I signed is my statement.
19 Q. Does your signature appear at the bottom of the pages of the
21 A. Yes, it does.
22 Q. Let me ask you to look at the second part of your written
23 statement dated 12 June 2004
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl, in the oral decision
25 that we have rendered on the 9th of June, 2008, we had confirmed our
1 decision of 27 February 2008
2 heard under Rule 92 ter regarding the statement that he gave on the 8th
3 of October, 1998. That's all, and this is the statement that we have on
4 the screen right now.
5 MS. DAHL: Yes, Your Honour.
6 In our motion, we'd indicated that the statement signed in 2004
7 has a number of corrections in it that are an integral part of the first
8 statement, and I can present those corrections orally or, for the
9 interests of time, simply append that information to the original
10 statement. I appreciate the distinction the Chamber is drawing, but I
11 want to make sure that you have the most accurate and complete
12 information available.
13 Q. Did you provide the information contained in the written
14 statement that is 65 ter Exhibit 5036?
15 A. Yes, yes, and I did make some corrections.
16 Q. Yesterday, when we met, I asked you to review both statements to
17 make sure they were correct, and you gave me some handwritten corrections
18 that I've distributed previously to Mr. Seselj and to the Chamber. Can
19 you go through the corrections with me, please?
20 A. Under item 7, where it says "summer 1991," where I refer to
21 Vojislav Seselj, it was in fact the beginning of 1992. I can't remember
22 the month or the date when he was in Nevesinje. I don't actually know
23 Seselj. I had seen him once in the 1970s, and on that occasion when he
24 was wearing a military uniform, when he came to Nevesinje with
25 Bozidar Vucurevic, Arsen Grahovac and Mr. Sprema, and I didn't really
1 care who he was with. That was the beginning of 1992, on the eve of the
2 war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It could have been February or March. I
3 can't remember the date. And on that occasion, Seselj was staying at
4 Ravna Gora, which was a tavern and the basic of the Karadjordje
5 Detachment. The information was given me by Erhan Djubor [phoen] and his
7 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat? He was saying
8 this too quickly.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What they were talking about, I
10 don't know, and I don't really care.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can you please repeat the name
12 of the chauffeur? What was his name?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Tale Campara, and the information
14 was given me by Erhan Djubor. There's another mistake. Instead of --
15 MS. DAHL: Just a second. I have your original annotations, and
16 let's have them put on the ELMO so that the Chamber is able to follow
18 For the record, the first correction that you referred to was at
19 paragraph 7 with ERN number 0363-1644, e-court page 6.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It's very good,
21 it's legible.
22 MS. DAHL:
23 Q. Mr. Kujan, would you proceed to the next correction that you made
24 to your statement?
25 A. Instead of "Zejna Pijovic," it should be "Zejna Pajevic."
1 MS. DAHL: This is on page 9 in e-court with the evidence
2 registration number 036317.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 17.
4 MS. DAHL: Paragraph 17 of the document.
5 Could Madam Registrar display that page?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Then again --
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Look at the screen, sir,
8 because the annotations are on the screen, and you have the screen before
10 MS. DAHL:
11 Q. In paragraph 19, you made a correction regarding when the mosques
12 and church in Nevesinje were destroyed. Can you explain that, please?
13 A. The mosque was not destroyed, as it was written. All the mosques
14 were destroyed later. An organised and professional team did that. They
15 were quite qualified to handle explosives.
16 Q. Were they destroyed after --
17 A. Probably explosive experts.
18 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
19 A. The mosques were all destroyed after Nevesinje was captured, and
20 the Catholic Church and the two town mosques were completely blown away.
21 Not even the foundations stayed intact. The stones are now being sorted
22 to see what belongs to what, because all these buildings were listed as
23 cultural heritage of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
24 Q. Were there any churches that were left standing in Nevesinje?
25 A. Yes, the Serbian church and some smaller Christian orthodox
1 churches were left intact. The Catholic churches and mosques were
3 Q. Let me ask you now, please, to turn to the statement that you
4 gave in 1998. And you included an additional name. It's at e-court
5 page 15, and the evidence registration number on the top of the document
6 is 03631653.
7 A. It's very poorly legible.
8 Q. Can you look on the screen again? They've got the device to show
9 the picture.
10 A. I can see that now, yes, I can see very well.
11 Since I was the commander of the reserve police force in Pridvorci,
12 the mobilisation of police reservists at that time avoided Bosniaks.
13 Bosniaks were not called up because weapons were being distributed and
14 because the decision of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina was
16 Djuro Miseljic, not Djuro Radic replaced me. That's another
17 correction I have to make here, as a newly mobilised.
18 Q. Okay. Let me ask you to turn to the page in e-court, page 17.
19 It's 0363-1655, and you included the full name of Mr. Parezanin. Can you
20 confirm that for me, please?
21 A. Parezanin. I knew that a someone who was searching and
22 interrogating some heads of families and setting ultimatums, we got an
23 ultimatum on the 18th of May to turn over the weapons that we didn't
24 have, and radio transmitters and all the rest, but this military security
25 service used some methods that were worthy of Goebel in the Second World
1 War. This man, whose last name was Parezanin, was called Svetozar. As
2 far as I managed to learn, he was head of the Military Security Service.
3 Nothing could be done without him. All the other units, including
4 Seselj's men who were there, worked under his command. The people who
5 actually went to negotiate with Svetozar Parezanin were given certain
6 conditions. One of the conditions was for us to surrender, to turn over
7 the people whom Svetozar thought to be extremist, including me, and to
8 respond to the mobilisation call-up.
9 And before the coup d'etat, the [indiscernible] in Nevesinje
10 while Vuk Draskovic had power in Nevesinje, mobilisation worked very
11 poorly. But after Radovan Karadzic and his party, the SDS, won the
12 majority in the Parliament and in the authorities of Bosnia and
14 November/December 1991, these people were replaced, because practically
15 they were not able to work any longer, because the brandishing of weapons
16 above their heads was not really encouraging.
17 I have to say in this procedure that I was the representative of
18 Bosniaks in Nevesinje, where around 10 per cent of the population were
19 killed, which is equal to Srebrenica's massacre, and I felt it was my
20 moral duty to respond to the call of this Court, because there can be no
21 justice without truth. I want to be absolutely fair, not to add anything
22 or hold back anything. I'm not here to score points for any side, and I
23 wanted this to be a public hearing so that everyone could hear.
24 I'm saying again I saw Seselj once in passing in the 1980s in
1 that, I heard no more of him. But I heard that his people in Nevesinje
2 were searching for Muslims, and there were cases when in some houses the
3 refugees took over, Seselj's men came and said they were looking for
4 Muslims. We said there were no Muslims.
5 The massacre in Nevesinje happened after the withdrawal of Serbs
6 from Mostar, Konjac and that region. That's from the 14th to the 28th of
7 June. The people who remained in Nevesinje later ended up in prison or
8 in third countries.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Dahl, you have five more
11 MS. DAHL:
12 Q. Mr. Kujan, could you look at the last page of your statement
13 below -- with the number of persons who were killed in Nevesinje, and you
14 made some corrections. This is on the same page that we were on, but
15 just at the bottom. It's --
16 A. Yes, yes.
17 MS. DAHL: I think we need to go one more. There we are.
18 Q. Have you participated in the gathering of information about
19 people who were killed or missing?
20 A. I was the leader of the Displaced Persons of Nevesinje, that is,
21 Bosniaks and Croats, people displaced during the last war. We gathered
22 all the information. I have lists, if somebody wants to see them. We
23 have a total of 350 civilians listed as missing of Bosniak and Croat
25 However, later on some people reappeared, who managed to survive
1 in the woods. One woman, with four children, managed to survive with the
2 help of the Red Cross in Trebinje, so the number came down to 301
3 Bosniaks and Croats. Out of this number, 158 Bosniaks and 7 Croats were
4 found dead, and we are still looking for another 148 Bosniaks and 8
6 MS. DAHL: With the permission of the Chamber, Mr. Kujan can
7 speak to annex 10 of the third amended indictment, which is the schedule
8 of victims whose remains are -- whose names are listed, and I'd like to
9 have him review the list.
10 I have copies for the Court. I had not anticipated, when I
11 prepared the Court binder, that he would be able to review the list and
12 testify as to its accuracy.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, I know, this is part of
14 the civilians who had been killed. The group consisted of 72 missing
15 civilians. These civilians were captured on mount Velez
16 Part of them were taken to the Alatnica in Nevesinje. Later on,
17 according to my information, these missing civilians were killed near
18 Lipovaca. In 1994, they were moved out of that pit, Lipovaca. We did
19 not find out where the bones, the remains of these people are.
20 Could you please -- could you show me the other part of the list
22 Well, at any rate, it has to do with civilians from Knunapresik
23 [phoen], the municipality of Nevesinje
24 do with entire families, practically, from newborn babies to old men. So
25 not much thought was given to who was there.
1 As for this list, it was the biggest group that was killed in one
2 place in Nevesinje.
3 Q. Let me ask you to take a look at the second page of annex 10.
4 A. It's one and the same group, except that the last names and the
5 first names are different, and they suffered the same fate like the
6 persons that I spoke of a few moments ago.
7 Q. If I may for a moment return to your written statements. With
8 the corrections that we have discussed, do these statements accurately
9 reflect what you would say if you were asked questions today about the
10 events in the statements?
11 A. I mean, what I said in my statement is something that I stand by.
12 Some kind of an error or omission can always slip in, because wherever
13 one works, one may make a mistake as well. However, I made an effort to
14 have this statement be as balanced as possible.
15 However, what I wish to say before this Court is -- well, if you
16 allow me to do so, Your Honours. Things started happening in Mostar a
17 lot earlier before the war and while things were being prepared, as it
18 were. In 1989, the first rally was held in Nevesinje. In 1990, Jovic
19 from Novo Pazova, I don't know his first name, he had a rally against the
20 government that was in power, and nobody was really opposed --
21 Q. Let me make sure I get an answer to my technical question so that
22 before we run out of time I've given the Chamber all the information they
23 need whether to decide to admit your statements into evidence.
24 To the best of your knowledge, with the corrections we've made,
25 are these statements accurate, and if I asked you the same questions
1 again, would you give the information contained in the statements?
2 A. I said, when taking the oath, that I would say the truth, the
3 whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and that is what I wrote as well,
4 so I don't think that there is much to discuss about that.
5 MS. DAHL: Thank you.
6 Your Honour, may I move these statements into evidence, please.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, you may.
8 Before the Trial Chamber settles this, I have a few follow-up
9 questions to put to you. I'd like to go to the point and discuss your
10 statement with you.
11 Questioned by the Court:
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There are two parts to your
13 statement; first of all, the arrival of the people in Nevesinje, and
14 after that the events which are directly tied to what happened on the
15 21st of June.
16 What I'm interested in is this: When you saw the various forces
17 arriving in Nevesinje or its surroundings, or in the surrounding areas,
18 what entitles you to say that, according to you, there were Chetniks, and
19 who were the people who made up these Chetniks?
20 A. I grew up and to this day I live in a place where the phenomenon
21 of Chetniks is not an unknown thing. As for the intentions and
22 programmes of Chetnik programmes, we Bosniaks understand them to quite an
23 extent. It wasn't only in this war. There were wars before this one,
25 The Chetniks in Nevesinje, as a special formation with special
1 objectives, that is something that did not exist. What existed was a
2 programme of a Greater Serbia, and all the formations fought under a
3 single banner. However, different tasks -- well, my objective over here
4 is to clear the name of honest Serbs who did not sully their hands.
5 However, I think that on the orders of military security, there were
6 individuals who did a great deal of evil in Nevesinje. These were former
7 communists and former JNA officers. I mentioned one of them, Parezanin.
8 I did not mention others, but Blagoje Adzic was certainly involved in the
9 area of Nevesinje. He's a general of the former JNA. He lives in
11 some people in Nevesinje.
12 The president of the Municipality of Nevesinje
13 his name, he came after Bratic [as interpreted], he is probably related
14 to this general.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In your statement, you say that
16 the forces that attack were the following: The local police, the members
17 of Karadjordje units, Karadjordje unit. I don't know who these people
18 are. You say there was Arkan's unit and Seselj's unit.
19 What I'm interested in is this: Seselj's unit. How do you know
20 that these were Seselj's men or Seselj's units? How do you know this?
21 A. When speaking of Seselj's unit, I know very little, but people
22 could still move about. And these people who call themselves that,
23 Seselj's men, or as they were designated Seselj's men, they instilled
24 fear in the Serbs who did not want to respond to mobilisation or who
25 cooperated in any other way with other ethnic groups. For me to have
1 seen any one of them having killed someone or for me to know their names,
2 I mean, they didn't really have names. They were called the Yellow One,
3 the White One, the Man of Vukovar, the Man of Pozarevac. They had all
4 sorts of nicknames like that. I'm not going into all their nicknames
5 now. So, in this way, that was different.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Did you talk to these people?
7 Did you speak to these people?
8 A. No, I did not talk to them at all. I didn't find them
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] According to what you say, the
11 head of these men was someone going by the name of Parezanin? Can you
12 confirm this?
13 A. Parezanin was the chief of military security who was in charge of
14 all units. It wasn't only Karadjordje or whatever, Seselj's men. He was
15 a JNA officer, of the former JNA, that is.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In your statement, you say he
17 was a colonel in the JNA?
18 A. Yes, that's right, very well known to us in the talks, Judge.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Since you seem to be an
20 educated man and you are now an elected official, I'm sure you are going
21 to answer my question.
22 In your view, this JNA colonel was the person who had authority
23 over all the units present on the ground?
24 A. Let me make a correction. I am not a local counselman. I spent
25 three terms as a local counselman, but my title is different.
1 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not catch it.
2 A. He covered all units. As for commands and orders, there is no
3 doubt about that. Tasks were issued as to who should do what. When
4 there would be a snag, when people did not obey, well, one knew who would
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me get to the second part.
7 You state that on the 21st of June, the villages of Postoljani,
8 Donja Bijenja, and Gornja Bijenja were attacked, and you say that you saw
9 this attack, since you had a pair of binoculars, and there were tanks and
10 artillery fire, and you saw troops, groups of Chetniks, around the
11 village. This large-scale attack, since there are attacks -- this is a
12 large-scale attack, according to you, was this attack conducted under the
13 command of the JNA?
14 A. Well, you see, Judge, on the 16th of June, below Mount Velez
15 this plateau by Mostar, the Serbs suffered a terrible defeat, where the
16 commander got killed, Pusara, commander of that sector, and in fact
17 there was no line between Mostar and Nevesinje.
18 On the 14th of June, before that, the village of Zulja
19 torched, then it was the municipality of Nevesinje
20 belongs to Mostar, and masses of people were taken out of that village.
21 On the 16th of June, was attacked was the village of Odzak
22 whoever happened to be there is not alive anymore.
23 On the 21st of June, in the evening, Gornja and Donja Bijenja and
24 Postoljani were attacked, and there was some artillery preparation before
25 that. I was in the woods then. I was an armed man. I am a hunter.
1 And at that time, I could not recognise who was a policeman, who
2 was a man of Seselj's, who was this and who was that, but I'm convinced
3 that they all took part because they had these big boom boxes and they
4 were playing music. And you could also hear that they spoke the Ekavian
6 Yet again on the same day, there was an ultimatum to us that we
7 would return, that an attack would begin in an hour, and that we should
8 hand over our weapons, the weapons we had, and that we should go back to
9 continue normal life. Normal life in that kind of a situation, I mean,
10 that is mindless, because there has been no normal life in Nevesinje
11 since 1991, when the Uzice and Titograd Corps arrived. We had over 350
12 civilians who were fleeing at the time, and also from some other villages
13 where the local Serbs helped us, Pluzine, Bratac, and in part of Odzak
14 people were wandering about, and then they joined us, and --
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What you are saying is already
16 in your statement, sir. You're not answering my question.
17 What I wanted to know was whether this attack had been conducted
18 under the command of the JNA. It's either "yes" or "no."
19 A. Yes.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you lived through this
21 attack, since you saw it, and then you say in your statement that you
22 joined the Territorial Defence in Konjic and, in fact, you did not
23 witness what happened after that, i.e., the crimes that were committed
24 against the inhabitants that were taken captive. That, you don't know.
25 You heard about this afterwards.
1 Do we agree on this?
2 A. We fully agree.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is my last question now.
4 And then I will ask my colleagues on the bench whether they have any
5 questions to put to you. My last question has to do with Grahovac, Arsen
6 Grahovac. Who is this person?
7 A. This is the way it was: I knew Arsen Grahovac personally, he
8 did not seem to be a bad person to me. However, in 1991, Radovan Sprema,
9 who was an MP in the then Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or was it
10 the Chamber of Citizens or was it the Chamber of Municipalities, as these
11 things were called then, I don't know. But, anyway, with Arsen, he
12 established this detachment that was named "Karadjordje," and also there
13 was this coffee bar called "Ravna Gora." And then this detachment took
14 up all the roads and all the exists from Nevesinje. People were
15 mistreated practically, some of them were even beaten, some were
16 searched. If a person would go there ten times a day, they'd be searched
17 ten times a day. And there were cases when people were made to graze
18 grass, and I don't want to go into all the things that happened.
19 Arsen's defence, I know that. There are very few survivors, very
20 few of his soldiers survived, and this detachment stopped functioning.
21 It was established -- or, rather, what was established in Nevesinje was
22 the Nevesinje Brigade. Novica Gusic was the commander, and he hails from
23 Bratac. He's also a former JNA officer and lives somewhere in Belgrade
25 There was this man called Bratace. I don't know him at all. I
1 didn't mention him in my statement. He was also the commander of this
2 Nevesinje Brigade.
3 As for Arsen, I really have nothing additional to say. In fact,
4 this detachment was established by Sprema, and who issued tasks to Arsen
5 Grahovac and the detachment, I assume -- I am I assume it was the
6 Military and State Security, the former Yugoslavia.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You anticipated my next
8 question. I was going to ask you who Arsen Grahovac reported to. You
9 said you didn't know, but you assumed that he reported to the military
10 security bodies.
11 Thank you for having answered the question I was about to put to
12 you. I shall turn to my colleagues on the Bench and see if they have any
13 questions. They don't.
14 Since Mr. Seselj is not going to cross-examine you, I shall thank
15 you, on behalf of my colleagues, for having come to testify in The Hague
16 on those facts which you may have witnessed.
17 Your statement will be admitted into evidence, and I shall ask
18 the Registrar to give us an exhibit number, please. Registrar, please.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.
20 Mr. President, I'm going to have a procedural matter to deal with
21 before you assign a number to this statement, of course once the witness
22 leaves. I don't think it is necessary for you to admit into evidence the
23 statement in the presence of the witness.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
25 Witness -- all this can be done in the absence of the witness,
1 Mrs. Dahl.
2 MS. DAHL: If Mr. Seselj has an objection that can be cured by
3 putting a particular question to the witness then we should take care of
4 that now. I also wanted to raise the question if the Chamber wants the
5 handwritten corrections to be made part of the record or if the verbal
6 testimony is sufficient.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, please make your
8 objection. If this needs to be checked in the presence of the witness,
9 please go ahead. What is your objection, Mr. Seselj?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It has nothing to do with the
11 witness. It is of a purely procedural nature.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This has nothing to do with the
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It has nothing to do with the
15 witness. It has something to do with the conduct of the OTP.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It has nothing to do with the
17 witness's statement?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, there are two
19 statements involved.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, we have two, 2004 and
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You are forcing me to present the
23 essence of my objection before the witness, and I don't want that. I am
24 not -- I don't want the witness to say what he has to say in view of my
25 objections if I'm not examining him anyway. So it doesn't have to do
1 with me; it has to do with formal objections.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I shall confer with my
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, you may now leave the
6 courtroom, since this objection has nothing to do with the content of
7 your statement. I shall ask Madam Usher to escort you out of the
8 courtroom. You may leave now.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 [The witness withdrew]
11 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, if we may --
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's been decided, Mrs. Dahl.
13 MS. DAHL: May we ask that the witness wait, in case there is
14 information that Mr. Seselj is providing that is germane to --
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We can deal with that
16 afterwards, if need be.
17 Mr. Seselj, you have the floor to address this procedural matter.
18 Prior to that, nonetheless, we shall give an exhibit number to
19 the 1998 statement. Registrar, please.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit number P524.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am not going to repeat my
23 principled opposition to the application of Rule 92 ter. You all know my
24 objections in regard to that. I am only going to point out here what you
25 stated at one point, Mr. President. Your decision had to do with
1 admitting this witness's statement from 1998 according to Rule 92 ter.
2 In that statement, there is a single reference to Seselj's men.
3 That is what you quoted, where he says the forces that were carrying out
4 these attacks were the local police, members of the Karadjordje unit,
5 Chetniks from Serbia
6 arrived in Nevesinje towards the end of 1991. I saw them personally.
7 They socialized with Savic, the chief of police. They had special
8 insignia. They wore red berets and they had insignia with white eagles.
9 You accept that this goes into evidence. I mean, I'm not going to oppose
10 that at all. However, that is the only reference to Seselj's men. Let
11 us leave aside the fact that Arkan's men were never there, nor were there
12 any of Seselj's men there, but let's leave that aside.
13 In that area, there were never, ever any of Arkan's men.
14 However, I'd like to draw your attention to the following, that what is
15 stated here is that both Seselj's men and Arkan's men wore red berets,
16 which is absolutely incredible. And then it says that Arkan's men had
17 white eagles, which is not true, because Arkan had his own insignia.
18 However, you admitted this statement from 1998. You admitted it into
19 evidence, and you are going to assess its probative value.
20 Now it is your own affair. You are in charge of assessing
21 probative value of statements that are admitted into evidence.
22 Now, on the basis of what do you --
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Why didn't you raise these issues in the presence
24 of the witness? That would have enabled us to explore the matter.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Because in that way it would look
1 like cross-examination, and I do not wish in any way to legalize your
2 decision that any statement be admitted according to Rule 92 ter. If I
3 were to be involved in cross-examination, then I would be saying that
4 you're right for admitting that into evidence, and I do not dare do that
5 because that is the strategy of my defence.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you have, I'm sure,
7 clearly noted that I addressed this paragraph which mentions Seselj's men
8 when I put my question to the witness, and I asked him what entitled him
9 to say that these were Seselj's men, and you heard his answer. He said
10 that people were saying that these were Seselj's men, or some people were
11 saying it. That's all he said by way of an answer to my question.
12 As far as the assessment is concerned, well, this will be weighed
13 globally. We will not be satisfied with this statement only to assess
14 what actually happened, who is responsible for what, which units were
15 present, and so on and so forth. Of course, it didn't escape me that
16 they had red berets. It didn't escape me that they wore white eagles,
17 either. Of course, it goes without saying, so this will be weighed by
18 the Judges.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Seselj, hold on a second, because I wish to
20 add, in continuation of what the Presiding Judge has just told you, that
21 you can't, for your own strategic reasons, circumvent the procedural
22 rules of this Court. You should have raised this issue while the witness
23 was there, which would have enabled the Judges to explore the matter
24 further. We asked you specifically whether your intervention had
25 anything to do with the witness's statement, and you said, "No." And
1 then when the witness had left, it turned out that it had everything to
2 do with the statement. That is not a proper way of conducting your
3 defence. I'm sorry.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, I believe that the
5 Presiding Judge questioned the witness correctly with regard to this
6 matter. I have no objections to raise in that context.
7 Secondly, I believe that your decision is unlawful, in terms of
8 applying 92 ter, because there is a provision in the Rules that says that
9 newly-created amendments to the indictment cannot pertain to my case, and
10 if -- and that prejudices me. And I certainly proved that that does
11 prejudice me.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you are very well
13 versed in procedural matters. The Trial Chamber has already settled the
14 issue, the retractive application of 92 ter. This has already been
15 settled. Fortunately, I know my case back to front, which means that
16 I can answer your question.
17 If I were an incapable judge, I would just let you speak, and
18 everybody would be under the impression that your rights have been
19 infringed, but the point you have just mentioned is a point which has
20 been addressed many times by the Trial Chamber. I believe Mrs. Dahl had
21 even responded. And despite that, despite the fact that Mrs. Dahl
22 provided an answer, despite that the Trial Chamber has ruled on this, you
23 are putting this on the agenda once again.
24 We understand this full well, you feel this may prejudice you.
25 We have clearly stipulated that there is no prejudice because you have
1 the possibility to cross-examine. Since you do not wish to
2 cross-examine, you have realised that the Bench, the Judges and I, go to
3 the point. We put questions to the witness in this way, and this is what
4 I did in this case also.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, you forced me to now repeat
6 my earlier objections, but I haven't presented the gist of my current
7 objection. The first one was the illustration -- will you please warn
8 Mrs. Dahl not to interrupt me? That's an illustration. However,
9 Mrs. Dahl is now --
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, Mr. Seselj,
11 Mrs. Dahl is on her feet.
12 Mrs. Dahl, if I'm not mistaken, Mr. Seselj has not finished, so
13 he still wants to add something. What did you want to say?
14 MS. DAHL: I'm made to understand that we have a second witness
15 remaining. There is a short amount of time --
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, exactly.
17 MS. DAHL: [Previous translation continues] ... the recess, we
18 have to take a break. If there is a --
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, you're right.
20 MS. DAHL: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Seselj can
21 file a written submission and explicate completely and clearly any new
22 fact or new argument that he has yet to present to the Chamber.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
24 So, Mr. Seselj, we have the second witness for today. He's
25 waiting. And we will also have to take a break. If the latter part of
1 your objection can be made very briefly, I will hand you the floor, but
2 try to be brief, please. And after that, we'll take a break.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Since you decided to accept the
4 1998 statement under 92 ter, the Prosecution is now sneaking in another
5 statement, saying it's just an amendment and a correction of the previous
6 one, whereas I'm convinced that if you had had insight into this
7 statement of 2004, you would have never decided that this witness testify
8 under 92 ter. You would have brought him viva voce. That is the gist of
9 my objection, because in this 2004 statement he's presenting new
10 assertions that he'd never featured before. And here in paragraph 4 --
11 sorry, 7, he said I was in Nevesinje in summer 1991, and now he's
12 correcting himself, saying it was the beginning of 1992. It's a huge
13 lapse of time. It can't be a simple, genuine mistake.
14 And then he says for a fact Seselj appointed and authorised
15 Arsen Grahovac as the leader of the unit that was always in combat
16 readiness, whereas I showed you that he was a deputy of the Serbian
17 Renewal Movement. If you think it's not in the interests of justice to
18 allow me to present this, you will drop me --
19 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I did not
20 understand. You also wanted the other statement to be put in record?
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj. The 2004
22 statement is actually not going to be admitted. In fact, it's the 1998,
23 not the other one.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If that is really so, then my
25 objection is pointless. I had understood that you were admitting both
1 statements, because the second one was presented by Ms. Dahl as an
2 amendment and a corrective of the previous one. If only the first
3 statement is going in, not the one from 2004, then my objection doesn't
4 stand, but I would like to hear from Ms. Dahl. Does she want both
5 statements admitted or just the one from 1998? If she confirms that she
6 tendered only the 1998 statement, then it's all right, but I'm certain
7 that she tendered both.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Dahl.
9 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, we did tender both, because there are
10 corrections in the 2004 statement that go to the 1998 statement.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, very well.
13 The Trial Chamber decides to admit the 1998 statement. And with
14 regard to some details and some points of the 1998 statements, that's in
15 the transcript. So we have the 1998 statement, plus the transcript which
16 deal with some corrections; the fact that it was not in the summer of
17 1991, but that it was in 1992. The changes are on the transcript.
18 So we are going to take a 20-minute break, and we will reconvene
19 in 20 minutes' time.
20 MS. DAHL: I need the portion of the second statement that
21 includes the list of victims, or we can simply admit annex 10 as
22 identified by the witness, because the 2004 statement lists out the
23 people who were killed from the various villages. And if I had
24 appreciated the Chamber was going to reject the 2004 statement, I would
25 have led that orally so that we could get that into the record.
1 If I may just -- I can write a very brief written submission
2 about the key pieces for --
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but what is your concern
4 is basically the list of victims, the annex 10, if I'm not mistaken, but
5 that is already in the indictment.
6 MS. DAHL: Well, I have to prove the indictment. I can't simply
7 rest on it.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, very well, but it's in the
9 transcript --
10 MS. DAHL: But if I may, I want to go --
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but, but -- one moment,
12 please. But in the transcript, the person did confirm the list. He did
13 confirm the list, so there is no problem, is there?
14 So you are seeking the admission of the list, such as recognised
15 by the witness from his statement. But I will confer with my fellow
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, Judges, I can assist
19 you. I am not contesting the existence of these victims and the list of
20 victims, because I don't believe anyone would make up a list of people
21 who were killed. So I'm not challenging that.
22 What matters to me is that you confirm to me that the statement
23 from 2004 was not admitted into evidence, because if it had been
24 admitted, that would have been unlawful, in my opinion.
25 That was the gist of my objection.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's give an
2 exhibit number to the list. Mr. Registrar, please.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the list, which is annex 10 to the
4 indictment, will be Exhibit number P525.
5 MS. DAHL: With regard, Your Honour, to the 2004 statement, there
6 are a number of paragraphs that go directly to the prior statement to
7 correct or augment information, in particular the lists of people who
8 were killed, and I believe that Your Honour covered the information about
9 Arsen Grahovac. But I think in the interests of having complete
10 information before the Chamber, I would prefer that you admit it and then
11 determine what weight to give it. I think his testimony did cover the
12 mosques and the church destructions.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, no, no. We have already
15 First of all, we are admitting the 1998 statement, then the list
16 of annex 10 recognised by the witness is also admitted. Thirdly, the
17 corrections that were made regarding the 1998 statement are in the
18 transcript, and that's all.
19 We will reconvene in 20 minutes' time.
20 --- Recess taken at 3.55 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 4.17 p.m.
22 [The witness entered court]
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
24 Good afternoon, sir. Can you hear me in a language that you
1 Very well. We will ask you to read the solemn declaration. But
2 before that, please give us your name, your date of birth, please.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Nebojsa Stojanovic, born on the
4 28th of July, 1966, in Vranje.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Are you currently employed,
6 sir, and if so, what is your profession?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I work in the finance section
8 of a private business.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Are you an accountant? What do
10 you do, exactly?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Financial manager.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Have you ever
13 testified before a tribunal regarding the events that took place in the
14 former Yugoslavia
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the first time.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
17 Could you please read the solemn declaration.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
19 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
20 WITNESS: NEBOJSA STOJANOVIC
21 [The witness answered through interpreter]
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, sir. You
23 may be seated.
24 Witness, before I hand the floor to the Prosecutor, I would like
25 to inform you on the way the hearing will take place. This is a -- these
1 proceedings may different than the ones you're accustomed to in your own
3 First, what will happen is you will first have to answer to
4 questions that will be put to you by the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor may
5 also show you some documents. We have two hours for this portion. Then
6 Mr. Seselj, the accused, sitting to your left, will also put questions to
7 you in cross-examination, and Mr. Seselj will also dispose of the same
8 amount of time as the Prosecutor.
9 The three Judges sitting before you will also be able to
10 intervene at any point in time, and we may also put questions to you.
11 Please try to be concise in answering questions put to you, and
12 if you do not understand a question, please ask the person putting the
13 question to you to rephrase it or to put the question again.
14 Every 90 minutes, we take a 15- or 20-minute break. This allows
15 the witness to rest, because you will see that it can be tiresome to
16 answer questions, and also we may change -- or we have to change the
17 tapes, actually. And if you are tired at any point in time, please tell
18 us and we will give you a break. And we are also here to answer any
19 question or concern that you may have.
20 You are now sworn in and you are a Court witness, which means
21 that up until tomorrow, the end of your testimony, you're not to have any
22 contacts with anybody except, of course, with members of your family to
23 tell them that you're all right and that everything is going well. Other
24 than that, you may not discuss this case with anybody.
25 I also notice that you took out some documents from your purse or
1 case. What are those documents?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, I would like to say
3 that I have certain problems that started back in Serbia, and I've been
4 here for a couple of days.
5 Second, I officially stated before this International Tribunal
6 that I want to be a Defence witness, and I documented this. I don't know
7 whether the Trial Chamber received this documentation, authorised and
8 verified officially in court, because there is a little difference
9 between the judicial procedure, so I verified this statement in court.
10 After hearing from you, I am in two minds now. I don't want to
11 violate any of your rules or be accused of contempt by failing to appear.
12 On the other hand, I have medical certificates that I have great health
13 problems, because the gentlemen from the Prosecution are exerting great
14 pressure on me and my family. We have tried to do something about it
15 through my lawyers, but I received no answer from the president.
16 Instead, I got a new summons, so it is new pressure.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] First of all, I'm glad you
18 came, because if you hadn't come, we would have had to make an indictment
19 against you, and you would have ended up in jail. So I am very glad you
20 answered the injunction to appear.
21 Now, we knew that you wanted to be a Defence witness, except that
22 the witnesses do not believe -- do not belong to the Defence or to the
23 Prosecution. You are a witness of the justice, of the Court, and the
24 Prosecutor deemed that you are to answer questions that he will put to
25 you. But the procedure calls for the fact that if the Prosecutor sees
1 that you are not answering his questions, then he will state that you are
2 a hostile witness. And then he will have the right to put you leading --
3 to put leading questions to you, because this procedure is the common law
4 procedure and witnesses of the Prosecutor have to answer in a neutral
5 way -- rather, the Prosecutor will put neutral questions. He cannot lead
6 an answer or get an answer from you or from any witness.
7 Now, if you are a hostile witness or if he deems that you are a
8 hostile witness, the Prosecutor may inform the Chamber of the fact that
9 he believes that you are a hostile witness, and then he is allowed to put
10 other questions -- other types of questions to you, leading questions.
11 For the time being, you are here to answer questions put to you
12 by the Prosecution, by Mr. Seselj, and by the Judges of this
13 Trial Chamber. You will answer on facts that you have witnessed. Maybe
14 what you say will go in favour of Mr. Seselj. Good for him. But it can
15 also be in favour of the Prosecution. Good for them. But what the
16 Judges of this Trial Chamber wish is that you answer so that we can get
17 closer to truth.
18 Now you're under oath. You've stated that you will tell the
19 truth, and nothing else but the truth. This is what counts. Whether
20 your testimony goes in favour of one party or another, that is not our
21 problem. That is somebody else's problem, if you will.
22 However, you told me that you do not feel well, that you have
23 health problems. If at any point in time you are not feeling well, you
24 have to let me know, and then we will call a doctor to examine you. But
25 since you are taken care of by the Witness and Victims Section, I'm sure
1 that you must have told them that you are suffering, that you're not
2 well, and I'm sure that they must have brought this to the attention of
3 the doctor.
4 You seem well to me. Maybe in the following seconds you will get
5 a heart attack, but I can also die of a heart attack in a few seconds. I
6 cannot foresee this. But for the time being, you seem quite capable to
7 answer questions that will be put to you. But if you are not feeling
8 well, please let me know and we will stop.
9 Now, your medical chart you may keep for you, because it is
10 covered by medical secrecy. If you wish, you can tell us what medical
11 problems you have - that's up to you - but I am not authorised to ask you
12 what your health problems are, precisely, what you are suffering from.
13 Now, you've talked about pressure. Now, I imagine that the
14 Prosecutor may have called you on a couple of occasions to ask you to
15 come, and I'm sure that he may have -- he must have told you that if you
16 don't appear before this Court, you will suffer the consequences. I was
17 not there, I did not witness the conversation, I don't know what the
18 Prosecutor may have told you, but maybe it's just a friendly pressure.
19 What really is important, actually, is that you are here.
20 And also what's important, it is important for Mr. Seselj,
21 because he will be putting questions to you, and this is for his defence,
22 and this is why it is important that you also answer his questions.
23 Since you are under oath, you are now a witness of the Court.
24 This is what I wanted to tell you. Maybe I've reassured you. I hope I
1 Do you have something to add?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have nothing to fear, because I
3 trust the Court and I trust you, the Judges. However, I suffer from
4 angina pectoris. I have brought all the documentation on that,
5 testifying to how poorly I'm feeling. But as you've said, I did give the
6 solemn declaration, and I'm willing to testify. But I would like to
7 testify once that contact is made with the Defence of
8 Mr. Vojislav Seselj.
9 The first statement that I gave to the Prosecution and which I
10 signed, it's true that I signed it without looking, because I was
11 verbally informed of the contents; but it's actually very different from
12 what I said.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, of course, but that's not
14 really a problem, because you came to answer questions. So your
15 statement is not going to be taken into account.
16 This is not a type of trial where your statement will be
17 admitted. When the Prosecutor puts questions to you, you will tell him
18 exactly what happened, according to you. So maybe you will contradict
19 your own statement. That doesn't matter. What really matters is that
20 you will have to answer the questions that are put to you.
21 You received your statement because I suppose that Mr. Seselj's
22 Defence must have sent it to you. You reread it and then you realised
23 that what it contains does not correspond either to what you said or to
24 reality, so you are here to explain it, in fact. And you will explain
25 this for justice. Maybe it's going to be in the interests of Mr. Seselj,
1 maybe it's in the interests of the Prosecutor, I don't know, but we will
3 Mr. Marcussen, you have the floor.
4 Examination by Mr. Marcussen:
5 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Stojanovic. My name is Mathias Marcussen.
6 I'm a trial attorney for the Prosecution. As you did not wish to meet
7 any of the representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor after you
8 arrived in The Hague
9 As the President pointed out, I'm going to ask some questions
10 about events in 1991.
11 The Presiding Judge noted that you have some documents, and I can
12 see you still have them in front of you. For the purpose of the
13 testimony, I think the best would be if you would be kind enough to put
14 your documents aside and just answer my questions, and I might show you
15 some documents along the way. But it would be better if you wouldn't
16 mind putting your notes away, please.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a question, actually, for
18 the witness. I wasn't seeing you very well, because in fact I have two
19 screens. I see you have an emblem on your pullover or on your T-shirt.
20 What is it? Is that a football club, or what is it, exactly?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's the Serbian coat of arms of
22 the Republic of Serbia
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you very much.
24 MR. MARCUSSEN:
25 Q. Would you please put all your documents away. But it's fine that
1 you lie them down next to you. I'm not asking for them to be taken from
2 you, but it would be better if you would be kind enough to place them
3 next to you, please.
4 A. Your Honour, I don't know, what's the problem with the judiciary
5 of Serbia
6 a long time ago, and I'm keeping this --
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand, but in our
8 judicial system - this is an international criminal tribunal - this is an
9 oral procedure, so the witness has to answer orally.
10 Very well. So please set aside the documents that you have
11 before you. Very well, thank you.
12 MR. MARCUSSEN: Thank you very much, sir.
13 Q. Sir, I'd like to start asking you whether you have done your
14 military service.
15 A. I have.
16 Q. And in what unit?
17 A. Armoured Mechanised Unit in Belgrade
18 Q. When did you do your military service?
19 A. 1985/1986, in that period.
20 Q. And after your military service, did you pursue any studies?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What did you study?
23 A. I graduated from a higher school in Vranje. Later in Pristina, I
24 graduated from the School of Science
25 of Pristina.
1 Q. I should tell you, sir, as we haven't talked about how our
2 evidence should go, that I'm pausing a little bit. That's because we
3 have translations, so it's not that I'm doubting your answers. I'm just
4 allowing the translators to translate.
5 After your military service, did you have a job somewhere? And
6 if so, what was your position?
7 A. Yes, I did. I did this higher school in Serbia, the evening
8 course, and that's the same I did with the university. It was like
9 on-the-job training or parallel -- studies parallel with work.
10 Q. In the studies you did in Pristina, did you obtain a university
11 degree? And if so, at what level?
12 A. I received a diploma of Bachelor of Chemistry and Mathematics in
13 1999, so I have a university degree.
14 Q. It was -- maybe I misunderstood, but after your military service,
15 where did you work?
16 A. Before my military service, I had already started working. That
17 was in 1995 [as interpreted]. I started working in the shoe factory,
18 Kostana. And in Serbia
19 military service, which lasts for a year, and during that time your job
20 is on hold, waiting for you.
21 Q. And when you came back from your military service, in what
22 function did you work?
23 A. Well, after that, when I completed that school, I was an ordinary
24 blue-collar worker, but I got promoted gradually; first, manager, and
25 then to the chief of the laboratory.
1 Q. How long were you the chief of the laboratory?
2 A. A year, perhaps. I can't remember.
3 Q. And after that, where did you work?
4 A. After that, the business was not doing well, and after 1990, it
5 went bankrupt. I became later the general manager of a company in
6 Bujanovac, a factory producing batteries.
7 Q. And how long did you serve as the general manager?
8 A. Until 2004. The 21st of January, 2004.
9 Q. And after 2004, what have you been done since then?
10 A. I moved to Belgrade
11 Galenika, a pharmaceutical factory, for two years, and then I moved to
12 another company, INVE, in Zemun, near Belgrade. And now I'm working in
13 the business I've already mentioned in answering the Judge's question in
14 the beginning.
15 Q. Thank you. And I just have to clarify a question -- or an answer
16 that you gave. It says on the transcript that you started to work
17 already in 1995. Would I be correct that it's actually in 1985?
18 A. 1985.
19 MR. MARCUSSEN: So that will be a correction to line 25 on
20 page 50.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because I completed the high school
22 at 18, and I immediately got that job. There was some different
23 sections, different vocational orientations, and every graduate
24 immediately got a job.
25 MR. MARCUSSEN:
1 Q. And we understand that you have made quite a good career for
2 yourself since then.
3 I just wondered, what languages do you speak? Do you speak any
4 other languages than Serbian?
5 A. I speak French, and since 1999, after the NATO aggression in
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I'm terribly sorry.
8 MR. MARCUSSEN: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Mr. Stojanovic, we will maybe get back to this later, but I just
10 wanted to clarify something before we go into your evidence.
11 Am I correct that you have given a number of statements to the
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you gave two statements in 2004 and one statement in 2006;
15 would that be right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, as we didn't get a chance to meet, I wondered, have you had
18 a chance to review those statements before you came here today?
19 A. Yes, I reviewed them. I reviewed them, but I told even the
20 Presiding Judge that there are certain things that I have not said and
21 that are contained in the statement. So the statement is different from
22 what I said.
23 Q. I see. Maybe we'll get back to some of those issues, and maybe
24 not. I will ask you some questions -- I'm basing my questions on what I
25 know of your evidence from these statements, so that's the basis for the
1 questions. But we will see whether I have understood things correctly or
3 Did you receive call-up papers from the army in 1991?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Did you receive any call-up papers at any point in time from the
7 A. No.
8 Q. Have you served in the army since you did your military service?
9 A. Yes, in 1999, at the time of the NATO aggression.
10 Q. Have you -- do you know of a training camp in a location called
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Have you ever been there?
14 A. I have.
15 Q. When were you there?
16 A. I think it was October. I gave a letter to the investigators,
17 officially. It's a military certificate. October 1991, but I was there
18 briefly, perhaps a day or two.
19 Q. October of what year?
20 A. 1991.
21 Q. Where did you go after you had been in Erdut?
22 A. They turned us back, "us," meaning the group of people who were
23 with me. Maybe later you'll want me to explain which group of people it
24 was. They turned us back to Sid.
25 Q. Now, yes, what was that group of people?
1 A. It was a group of people from Vranje where, in 1990, 1991, after
2 the multiparty elections and the establishment of new parties, we had
3 formed the Serbian National Renewal, and the objective was to form the
4 Serbian Chetnik Movement. We had a great number of followers who wanted
5 to take part on the frontline to defend Serbian lands as part of the army
6 and units of the Territorial Defence in the region where we were sent
7 under the command of the JNA.
8 Q. So how many -- how big was this group you were with?
9 A. Fifteen.
10 Q. And so you went to Sid, and where did you go after Sid?
11 A. From Sid, first we had to go to Lipovaca woods, where the
12 Territorial Defence of Slovenia
13 Western Srem sent us. First we had to go to a battery of exams to see if
14 people were in good health, whether they had any army training, whether
15 they knew how to handle weapons, whether they had training, because it
16 was a war zone.
17 Q. At some point did you come to -- did you come to the area of
18 Vukovar with this group of people?
19 A. A few days, we were in the Lipovaca forest, where we received
20 certain weapons and some training was conducted, and a number of people
21 had to go back primarily due to fear. People did not know whether this
22 was a war zone. Some people came there for other reasons; to loot, to
23 steal. So they understood how serious this was.
24 A few days after the training, we went to Vukovar. Buses were
25 organised for us.
1 Q. When you came to Vukovar, who did you report to?
2 A. Well, I could not report to anyone. We were a group that had
3 reported to the responsible person at Petrova Gora. In our group in
4 Lipovaca forest, there were other volunteers from other towns in Serbia
5 so we met most of these people the first time then. And we had a leader
6 who then reported us to their Territorial Defence.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a question. I
8 followed what you were saying very carefully. You said that together
9 with other volunteers, you were sent to Vukovar, but from what I
10 understand, this was something personal which you did on your own behalf.
11 At the time, did you have a membership card indicating that you
12 belonged to a political party or were you just fighting for your country?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I've already
14 mentioned that in Vranje, we had established the Serb National Revival
15 Movement. Mr. Mirko Jovic was president, and we were pretty extremist in
16 terms of the Chetnik movement. You know what the Chetnik movement is.
17 These are people who continue the tradition of the Chetniks from the
18 Second World War who defended the country. And within our organisation,
19 there was an internal organisation; namely, that people were sent to
20 territories where the country would be defended or, rather, where the
21 unprotected Serb people would be defended. That is how we set out.
22 Our headquarters were in Belgrade
23 that was somewhere in the street of Kneza Milosa, near Jugobanka. Some
24 offices that were there was rather disorganized. They gave us papers to
25 go to Erdut.
1 I mentioned already that the gentleman from the Territorial
2 Defence returned us to Sid.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for having clarified
5 MR. MARCUSSEN:
6 Q. Mr. Stojanovic, under -- once you had come to the area of
7 Vukovar, where were you stationed?
8 A. I already mentioned in my previous remarks that we became
9 organised at Petrova Gora, and then we were organised so as to be in the
10 first line, in terms of guarding certain streets and houses, because
11 there was a war conflict going on there and the army -- or, rather,
12 appropriate formations that were freeing one street after another, I
13 mean, we would take up their positions because they would be withdrawing.
14 So we were guarding their houses -- or, rather, the houses that they had
15 liberated so that armed Croats would not return there from the National
16 Guards Corps, the ZNG, and all of those who carried weapons.
17 Q. Were you serving under -- were you volunteers, were you part of
18 the Territorial Defence, or where did you belong in the armed forces that
19 were in the area?
20 A. I mean the complete list of these persons who came as volunteers
21 joined the Yugoslav People's Army that was there was. There was full
22 control of these units of volunteers, if I can call them that, and they
23 were fully organised, but independently from the army; that is to say
24 that they had their appropriate zone and their appropriate commander who
25 commanded them, that is to say, those volunteers.
1 Q. Who was the commander of your unit?
2 A. I mean Kameni and Kinez, but I don't really know them. I never
3 even saw them personally.
4 Q. Did you see any members of the SRS there?
5 A. Well, to tell you the truth, we were all in that unit, and quite
6 simply no one could say that he was a member of the Serbian Radical
7 Party, or of the SPO, or of whatever other party. I just know that most
8 people that were there were Serbs and from the area, that is to say,
9 Vukovar, Borovo Selo, Bobota and the surrounding area, because they were
10 familiar with the area. And that is how we were deployed.
11 Q. When you were in the area, did you witness the capture of any
12 Croatians, people from the opposing side?
13 A. Never. Perhaps later in Velepromet, if that means anything to
14 you, if you want me to tell you about that now. But as for these
15 activities, the war conflict during that month before the liberation of
16 Vukovar, I did not see any such thing, because we took up these buildings
17 and we could not follow the units that were liberating Vukovar.
18 Q. Did Kameni give any orders regarding where any prisoners that
19 might have been taken -- where those prisoners should be taken to?
20 A. I never heard of anything like that. I repeat once again, we
21 were never in contact. We had some kind of a leader of our own, who told
22 us where we would be staying, in which houses, because there were five or
23 six of us per house.
24 Q. Did you ever witness the killing of any people who had been
25 captured in Vukovar?
1 A. Please repeat that.
2 Q. While you were in Vukovar, did you ever witness the killing of
3 any people who had been captured?
4 A. Yes, I witnessed something like that once.
5 Q. Would you describe that for us, please?
6 A. I'm going to explain it to you now.
7 I mentioned a few moments ago, after the fall of Vukovar -- can I
8 talk about that now? Most of the forces were withdrawn from Vukovar,
9 whereas most of the people -- how should I put this? The people who were
10 locals, from Vukovar, I mean, they stayed on at Velepromet. Due to the
11 condition of my health, I was also transferred to Velepromet because the
12 conditions were somewhat better there, the living conditions. So I could
13 follow most of the people who were brought in after the fall of Vukovar
14 to Velepromet for some kind of a check. I mean, they looked at their
15 IDs. They released some people and detained others, probably in order to
16 receive some intelligence as to what was going on and whether any of
17 these Croats had committed some misdeeds or crimes within Vukovar during
18 the siege of Vukovar by the Serbs or, rather, before this conflict
19 started between the Serbs and Croats.
20 Q. And did any of -- my question was whether you had seen anyone get
21 killed. Are you saying that in this context, somebody got killed?
22 A. Yes. Yes, yes. 90 per cent of these people I already mentioned
23 from Vukovar, they held Velepromet. I mean, they questioned these
24 Croats, interrogated them; women, children. They knew each other before
25 the war, before the conflict that broke out in Vukovar.
1 I remember one night it so happened right before my very own
2 eyes, these people from Vukovar whom I did not know, they got this man
3 out and they killed him in Velepromet; that is to say, outside, there was
4 screaming, things like that. No one could have helped this person. I
5 couldn't have helped him, either, because I don't know these people and I
6 don't know what would have happened to me. However, when the army found
7 out, on the very next day automatically they placed their own security
8 there, and no one was allowed to enter Velepromet after that, none of
9 these -- what do I call these people? These people from Vukovar, that's
11 Q. When did this happen?
12 A. This was after the fall of Vukovar, in the month of November.
13 Perhaps November, December, something like that. I can't remember. It's
14 been a long time now.
15 I'm a bit of an emotional person. Perhaps I was not really cut
16 out for the front. What can I say to you?
17 Q. Did Kameni ever issue any orders to kill Croat prisoners?
18 A. I have already mentioned, in the context of the previous
19 question, that I did not even know who Kameni was. I saw him on
20 television perhaps a year or two ago in Serbia.
21 Q. Did you ever witness SRS volunteers kill Croats that had been
23 A. I'm saying once again that I didn't see or know any SRS
24 volunteers there, and I did not see them killing, because I did not have
25 any possibility of seeing that. I wasn't at the frontline, I was
1 guarding these houses.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, the Prosecutor is
3 going fast. It is important to put this in the right context.
4 If I understand correctly, you were part of a group of people, of
5 four to five
6 leader of this small group?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot recall. A man from
8 Borovo Selo. I can't remember. Mirko or something like that. I mean,
9 he gave us instructions as to which house we would stay at, what we would
10 do, how we would stand guard duty, how we would guard these positions,
11 because we changed every two hours.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] While you were standing guard
13 at night or during the day, did you ever fight, did you ever fire shots
14 at the enemy, or were you patrolling and standing guard and you never
15 fired a single shot?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We never fired. We never had
17 occasion to do so, quite simply.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Did you take anyone prisoner?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We couldn't have, because we didn't
20 take part in the conflict.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Did you patrol around Vukovar?
22 Did you patrol through the streets? Did you go to check-points, and did
23 you meet other fighters, other Serb fighters.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, this is the way it was: We
25 could not patrol because we were at Leva Supoderica. It was Milovo Brdo,
1 that's what it was called. We were guarding houses, and every two or
2 three days, we would see army troops passing by, continuing to advance.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] With the exception of the small
4 group of people headed by Mirko, did you ever discuss or talk to these
5 people from Leva Supoderica to discuss the war with them, to talk about
6 the weather? Did you ever talk to them?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, yes.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When you met other fighters,
9 did some believe they were volunteers of the SRS?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not have occasion to do so.
11 Most of these people were illiterate, and as time went by, I mean, we
12 lived there together with these people every day and then I realised why
13 it was they had come there in the first place, but they'd never said so.
14 They were interested in stealing, searching, because the army, as they
15 were liberating one house after the other, then we would -- they would
16 withdraw and we would take those houses.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I understand correctly,
18 these volunteers that were standing guard, they were patrolling around
19 and occupying the houses, you are saying that when the army left, you
20 played your part, and it is then, seemingly, that some people started
21 looting, pilfering, or doing I don't know what?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Among those people doing this,
24 did people say that some of these people were volunteers of the SRS or
25 was this something you heard about afterwards?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, I never heard that. Most
2 of these -- let me call them that, "volunteers," they were locals, and it
3 suited them because they knew which house was a Croatian house and which
4 house was a house of wealthy people. Then we would even put away some
5 valuables so that they wouldn't be stolen.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] My last question, concerning
7 the volunteers in the broader sense of the meaning, I'm talking now in
8 percentage terms: How many of them were locals and how many people came
9 from elsewhere? Could you give me a figure, please?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can. From day to day, as the
11 fall of Vukovar was becoming imminent, more and more locals were coming
12 back to Vukovar, people who left their families in Serbia, and they asked
13 to be at the frontline, either out of revenge or for some other reason.
14 I don't know about that. I just know that my team, consisting of five or
15 six men, we were there up until the very end, and that is when we went
16 our separate ways, when we parted from this man from Vukovar.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] At some point, out of the
18 hundred people on the ground, how many came from Vukovar and the
19 surrounding area, compared with people who came from Belgrade or
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sixty to forty, let me put it that
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are saying 60 to
24 40 per cent were locals; is that right?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I am saying 60 per cent were
1 from Vukovar and 40 per cent were the people who came from elsewhere. So
2 the number was going down. Part of the volunteers returned to Serbia
3 trying to find different ways and means, seeing that things were so
5 MR. MARCUSSEN:
6 Q. While you were in Vukovar, did you see Mr. Seselj at any point in
8 A. No, I never saw Mr. Seselj.
9 Q. You never saw Seselj in Vukovar?
10 A. Never, because, I mean, I did not have a situation of that kind.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A short question, Witness.
12 You are an educated man. You studied mathematics. When you
13 arrived in Vukovar, had you heard Mr. Seselj's name before? Did you know
14 who he was?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I mean -- I mean, that wasn't
16 the question. I mean, I heard Seselj earlier on, on the political scene,
17 and then there was this rally in Vranje. And I knew he was president of
18 the Serbian Radical Party.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So he was a well-known figure,
20 as far as you were concerned?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not personally, not that way,
22 because we are a party that did not recognise the Serbian Radical Party.
23 Our volunteers were volunteers of the Chetnik movement. We did not
24 recognise those volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party, as a matter of
25 fact. At that time, we even imposed a name on Mr. Vojislav Seselj,
1 saying that he was the red vojvoda. So there was no close relationship
2 between the SRS and our Chetnik movement, the SNS.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Why was he a red vojvoda?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because we believed that at the
5 time of the regime of Slobodan Milosevic, Mr. Seselj was on good terms
6 with Mr. Milosevic, and we were fighting for the old Serbia, the return
7 to old borders. Let me say that we advocated -- our party advocated that
8 old Serbia
9 king to come back to Serbia
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now, you yourself, were you a
11 royalist, a monarchist?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] For many years or did you turn
14 royalist in the 1990s?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, a lot earlier. We still
16 believe that a monarchy will come back to Serbia.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And Mr. Seselj did not embody
18 your royalist aspirations, did he?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not at all.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
21 MR. MARCUSSEN:
22 Q. Mr. Stojanovic, I understand you didn't see Mr. Seselj in
23 Vukovar. Did you hear from anyone that he was present in Vukovar in --
24 while you were there?
25 A. At one moment, I heard that he had come to visit the frontline,
1 because as I have already said, we were not exactly on the frontline and
2 we heard information coming through the loudspeakers, and I recognised
3 Mr. Vojislav Seselj's voice very well. He was asking the Croats, those
4 who had taken up weapons, who had bloodied their hands and all others,
5 that they surrender so as to avoid further bloodshed in Vukovar.
6 Well, why would a city fall with thousands and thousands of
7 people getting killed? That was my idea with regard to this. So he
8 wanted to avoid a large number of casualties on the Croat side and on the
9 Serb side.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you are now discussing
11 something which is important to us. You have just mentioned this, but I
12 would like you to be very accurate.
13 As far as you remember, well, of course, this happened 15 years
14 ago, I'm the first person to admit this, but as far as you remember, what
15 were the exact words uttered by Mr. Seselj? Either you can answer this
16 question accurately or you can only answer it in vague terms.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot remember. I know that it
18 was -- I mean over this loudspeaker that was on a combat vehicle of the
19 army. This call was addressed to all Croats, all those who had weapons
20 in their hands; that is to say, all of those who fought on the Croat side
21 in defending the town, they were called upon to surrender, and they were
22 to be treated in accordance with the International Conventions on
23 Prisoners, and that they should surrender as soon as possible because
24 every day is increasingly difficult for the Serbs and for all of those
25 who are under siege. I mean, it's been a very long time. I mean, there
1 were no signs of hatred that somebody should get killed or something like
2 that. I didn't hear of any such thing.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Are you quite sure that he
4 said, "Surrender and you will be treated according to international
5 treaties"? Are you quite sure?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am sure, because every day up
7 until the fall of Vukovar, things were getting increasingly difficult on
8 the Croat side and on our side, I think, because the Croats were
9 defending the town desperately. I'm not saying Croat civilians, but
10 people who had weapons in their hands. Later on I realised that Croats
11 within Vukovar who held weapons, who carried weapons, I mean, even those
12 Croats who wanted to leave Vukovar, I mean the Croats who carried weapons
13 would shoot at their fellow countrymen.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
15 MR. MARCUSSEN:
16 Q. Are you familiar with the command post a Nova Ulica?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. To your knowledge, was Seselj ever there?
19 A. I don't remember, but I suppose he was because the military
20 command was there and anybody that was going to the territory and the
21 town of Vukovar had to be identified and checked, who he was and what he
22 was doing there, because the authorities of the JNA ruled there. They
23 commanded -- they led the whole operation of the liberation of Vukovar.
24 Q. You said you don't remember. Now, you gave a statement -- or you
25 gave three statements to OTP, to the Office of the Prosecutor, as we
1 discussed earlier. One of these statements from 2006 I'd like to read a
2 passage from and ask you if that might refresh your recollection on this.
3 In your --
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Judges, according to
5 your own practice, on which you insisted when we heard some other
6 witnesses, this is an impermissible way of refreshing the witness's
7 memory. You specified very exactly how a witness's memory may be jogged,
8 but we have not even come to a point where the witness's memory has to be
9 refreshed. This is an attempt to suggest to the witness something that
10 the Prosecutor had written in the first place, as if the witness had
11 written it.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
13 Mr. Marcussen, when we proceed to the refreshing of the memory,
14 that's a common law procedure, so the Prosecutor should remind the
15 witness that he stated something. You can only remind a witness of
16 something that he doesn't remember anymore, so you first have to put to
17 him a question on a topic, and if the witness already stated something
18 very clearly on that topic and if he answers something else, and if
19 there's a discrepancy between the two, then you can ask him, "Are you
20 quite sure of what you are saying today?" And then, only then, you can
21 show him a prior text, and then you can tell him, "This is what you said
22 in such-and-such a year."
23 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honour, the witness says, as page 61, line
25 "I don't remember, but I suppose ..."
1 And then he says what his supposition is. That is quite
2 different from the earlier statement, as a number of other points have
3 been here today. So I think we have established that the witness has
4 said that he has an issue -- there's an issue of whether or not he might
5 remember some facts.
6 I'm happy to lay the foundation more specifically as to whether
7 or not the statement was before him, but --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, very well. So you can put
9 to the witness that he answered something, and you can say, "You don't
10 remember now, but in 2000-and-something you said this," so then you can
11 say to him -- tell him what he said then.
12 MR. MARCUSSEN: Thank you, Your Honour. That's what I was just
13 about to do when the accused made his objection.
14 Q. In 2006, you state at paragraph 43 of your statement, after
15 speaking about the incident with a loudspeaker, you say:
16 "Afterward, at the command of Nova Ulica, where the guards
17 regiment was located, Vojislav Seselj had a meeting with the command
18 officers allegedly to discuss joint actions of the JNA and the volunteers
19 in the final operations of Vukovar. Vojislav Seselj stayed there half an
20 hour/an hour. Vojislav Seselj left Vukovar the same day.
21 "While we are on the subject, every day there were Chetnik music
22 played over big speakers mounted on an armoured vehicle as well as
23 recordings of Seselj's messages for Croats to surrender peacefully
24 because of the JNA and the volunteers would sooner or later liberate
25 Vukovar and their lives would be spared.
1 "I did not see Vojislav Seselj commanding volunteers in Vukovar.
2 His role was to organise them and boost their morale."
3 And that's the end of that paragraph.
4 Does that refresh your memory?
5 A. I emphasised to the Presiding Judge that I am astounded -- I was
6 astounded to see my statement, because I hadn't received that statement
7 from the Prosecution at the time when I gave it, because at that time
8 that statement was not placed in the context of the Seselj trial. I
9 emphasised that certain things in it were not correct, and that's why I
10 came here in the first place, to tell the real thing to the Court. Even
11 the statement that I read is in Croatian, it's not in my language,
12 Serbian. I don't use the Croatian word for "train" or "vessel," and the
13 whole thing made me sick because I know that's not the statement I gave.
14 The thing that was read out to me was completely different, but trusting
15 the investigators who read it out to me, I signed the statement, and
16 that's one of the reasons why we are here today, to prove the truth and
17 only the truth.
18 Q. Now I'd like to go back to Erdut. Were you in Erdut in July or
19 August 1991?
20 A. No.
21 Q. While you were in Erdut, did you ever see Arkan there?
22 A. In the month of October, as I said, I gave the OTP an official
23 certificate stating when I was sent to the frontline, for those two or
24 three days, and that's when I saw him, because when we were there we had
25 no access to that military installation. Ordinary soldiers and
1 reservists were not allowed to go in there or walk about. We had a
2 totally different base in Erdut.
3 Q. Did you -- did you see Mr. Seselj in Erdut?
4 A. No. I was there for only two days.
5 Q. Are you familiar with a person called Radovan Stojisic, also
6 known as Peca [phoen]?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Were you ever deployed in Borovo Selo as a volunteer?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Were you ever a member of the SRS?
11 A. The Serbian Radical Party -- you mean the Serbian Radical Party?
12 1994 or, rather, 1996, part of the Serbian National Revival collectively
13 joined the Serbian Radical Party. I had left it for a couple of months
14 because, as I said, my idea of Greater Serbia and the kingdom cannot fit
15 with the idea of the Serbian Radical Party and the ideas of Mr. Seselj,
16 who fought for a republic.
17 Q. Were you a member of the SRS in 1991?
18 A. No. I emphasised that.
19 Q. You mentioned earlier a rally that took place in Vranje. When
20 was that rally?
21 A. That was in 1991. I don't remember whether it was in the month
22 of May. My people and I from the Serbian National Revival stood there on
23 the side, observing the rally, observing Mr. Seselj. There were
24 followers of that Serbian Renewal Movement there as well, lots of people
25 attending the rally, but I wasn't interested in that. I just came to see
1 whether they had changed their policy towards the Serbian Chetnik
2 Movement. That was the only thing that mattered to me.
3 Q. Did Seselj give a speech at the rally?
4 A. Yes. He was the party leader.
5 Q. Do you remember what he said on the speech?
6 A. Well, the standard thing; you know, he was promoting the Serbian
7 Radical Party because this municipal board was very young, it was in the
8 process of being established, and he was doing the propaganda written
9 into his programme and the plan of the party.
10 Q. Do you remember anything he said?
11 A. No, I can't remember. It was quite a long time ago.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, just a small point.
13 I'm curious to know this.
14 You said that you were a royalist, that you were a member of the
15 Serb Renewal Movement. Why was there a meeting in 1991? Why did he hold
16 a rally?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I went just out of curiosity to see
18 who was going to attend the meeting. Vranje is a small place, and this
19 multiparty life -- how shall I put it? Everybody was curious to see and
20 to take part. You know that at that time the ruling party was the party
21 of Slobodan Milosevic, including in Vranje, and the reds held
22 90 per cent, as we put it; but even they came to hear Vojislav Seselj.
23 My leader also came to Vranje to present our programme, the plan of our
24 party to get into the Assembly and gain the maximum of seats. But I came
25 really out of curiosity, because even the Serbian Renewal Movement
1 representatives came to that rally and they caused an incident.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
3 MR. MARCUSSEN:
4 Q. Mr. Stojanovic, at the rally when Mr. Seselj made a speech, did
5 he refer to the concept of Greater Serbia?
6 A. The way I understand it, he was talking about Karlobag,
7 Virovitica, Vrace borders, that region, because Serbian people lived in
8 those lands and the Serbian Radical Party in Serbia itself should take
9 care of those defenceless people. And I would, of course, accept it if
10 my own party leader said the same thing; nothing else.
11 Q. Did Mr. Seselj use the word "Ustasha"?
12 A. I can't remember.
13 Q. Did he -- did he refer to Thompsons or radical Thompsons; do you
15 A. I can't remember that either.
16 Q. Now, since you can't remember, I'd like to read out a part of the
17 statement that we talked about before for you. It's from paragraph 7 of
18 the statement, and a little down in the paragraph you say:
19 "At the rally, Vojislav Seselj boosted from the rostrum that
20 radical Thompsons were in action and that Ustasha at Borovo Selo were
21 killed. The Thompsons was a World War II-era machine-gun. By "Ustasha,"
22 Seselj referred to all Croats."
23 Now that I've read this to you, does that refresh your
25 A. Again, I don't remember, but it's a bit funny when you say that
1 "Ustasha" was applied in reference to all Croats. Very often you hear
2 the word "Chetnik" in this courtroom. It turns out that all of us Serbs
3 are Chetniks. You can't hold up that argument, and similarly not all
4 Croats can be Ustashas.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, the Greater Serbia
6 issue, I would just like to make sure what is it exactly you heard. Can
7 you tell us if Mr. Seselj, in his speech, spoke of Greater Serbia as a
8 goal to reach, that -- was he encouraging to take territories in order to
9 create that famous line Karlobag-Virovitica, or was he on the other hand
10 only referring to the Serbs who were living in that area in order to
11 protect them, which is of course not the same thing? So as far as you
12 remember, what was the speech exactly about?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The point of his discourse was to
14 invoke, in fact, all the time the statute of his party, speaking about
15 how the party is functioning, and that those Serbs needed to be protected
16 over there because they are the majority population in Croatia. But
17 there was no reference to volunteers in the battlefield, but I didn't
18 hear that anybody was called upon to go there with rifles or Thompsons or
19 anything else to defend anything.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I suppose that when he was
21 speaking, he was applauded, or was he booed?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, let me say that
23 people were clapping, but, you know, at that time the television had such
24 an influence on the people, on popular masses in the beginning of the
25 conflict that was starting in the territory of the former SFRY, whereas
1 we were not empowered to be able to create this media policy.
2 People in Serbia
3 dithering. If Mirko Jovic would have come to speak, people would have
4 clapped equally, so people have their own opinion.
5 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Witness, as far as you remember,
6 which impression did you get after hearing Mr. Seselj speak about the
7 means that one should use to defend Serbs in that area? At what cost?
8 How did he intend to do all of this?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Back again to that point.
10 Our thinking, if you wish my thinking at that point, was not very
11 serious concerning the Serbian Radical Party. I thought it was not
12 serious to suggest that the Serbian Radical Party should go there and
13 defend them. It's the official authorities who should take care of that.
14 It was silly, in my opinion, to think that we volunteers could change
15 anything. We were too small, in the perspective of all that was
16 happening with these political stresses between Milosevic and Tudjman,
17 and neither we nor the accused were in power. We had no influence.
18 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] But according to you, Mr. Seselj
19 shared that opinion?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it was a bit frivolous, in my
21 opinion. It was just party propaganda, as far as I'm concerned.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Last question: You were
23 present there in the month of May of 1991. So Mr. Seselj gave a speech.
24 We know that also other people took the floor. And he was applauded.
25 You say that he was applauded because he wanted to defend the Serb
1 population. But from where you were standing, as a listener - you are a
2 loyalist, monarchist, we know, you told us - did you get the feeling that
3 Milosevic was an opponent to Mr. Seselj? Did you have that feeling? Did
4 you have the feeling that Mr. Seselj was actually giving a speech against
5 Milosevic or not?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I was a young
7 politician at that time. I'm 43 now, and this was a long time ago. At
8 that time, I was a student, and I wasn't able to understand anything.
9 There were some opponents there, and that's why a scandal broke out at
10 the rally. It's my opinion that it was more about party propaganda than
11 about sending volunteers to the frontline.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you. You said that
14 There was a scandal during that meeting. What happened exactly?
15 You said it once already, but now you're repeating it. What was the
16 problem exactly, what happened?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, we are now going back. There
18 was another group, another party, the Serbian Renewal Movement, led by
19 Vuk Draskovic, and they were much more extreme in their approach to the
20 Ustasha movement and the Croatian people, and they thought that this
21 whole rally held by Mr. Vojislav Seselj is more political, it was more
22 about promoting the Serbian Radical Party in Vranje, and they were
23 shouting, "Duce, Duce," which was to mean that Vojislav Seselj was an
24 autocrat within his party. And then a brawl started. They threw things
25 towards the rostrum. This group I'm speaking of is another group that
1 sent volunteers to the frontline.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] They were saying "Duce, Duce,"
3 comparing him to Mussolini?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, they were shouting that
5 to Mr. Vojislav Seselj.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
7 Mr. Marcussen, do you think we should take a break now?
8 MR. MARCUSSEN: Now is fine, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's take a
10 20-minute break.
11 --- Recess taken at 5.38 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 6.02 p.m.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court is back in session.
14 Mr. Marcussen.
15 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, the Prosecution would like to make
16 some submission regarding the evidence of this witness, and I would
17 ask -- I think it's best if the witness is not in the courtroom while we
18 have those arguments. So maybe we can have him removed for a little bit.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Usher, please stay behind
20 the door with the witness.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen.
23 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, the witness has departed from his
24 previous statements in aspects which are material to the Prosecution's
25 case. The Prosecution believes that the witness is adverse now to
1 telling what he has said was the truth before. The Prosecution,
2 therefore, will seek leave to change the modalities of questioning of the
3 witness and be allowed to cross-examine the witness. There is
4 jurisprudence that supports this, that we can do this in the Popovic
5 decision, which is a decision from the Appeals Chamber in the case of the
6 Prosecutor versus Popovic and others in the case IT-05-88-AR-73.3. The
7 title of the decision is "Decision on appeal against decision on
8 impeachment of party's own witness" from the 1st of February this year.
9 We would also at the end be seeking admission of the witness's
10 prior statements into evidence.
11 I say that the witness has departed from his previous statement
12 on a number of material points, and I'd like to just go through some of
13 the main points. But essentially the witness has departed from his --
14 the totality of the evidence he has in his earlier statements.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, just to shed
16 some light on all of this, as far as I know it's not because a witness is
17 a hostile witness that this necessarily means that his written statement
18 should be admitted. What case law are you relying on?
19 MR. MARCUSSEN: The point is that the -- well, it's not that the
20 witness is adverse to the Prosecution in his demeanour or anything like
21 that. The witness is, in our submission, departing from the truth in his
22 testimony today. He is adverse to telling the truth. The truth is in
23 his statements that he had earlier given to the Prosecution, and in my
24 examination I will go through the statements and some issues to
25 illustrate that to Your Honours.
1 In the Popovic case, at paragraph -- in the decision of the
2 Popovic case at paragraph 28 -- no, sorry, that's incorrect. At
3 paragraph 31, the Appeals Chamber made clear that a Trial Chamber may
4 admit a prior statement as substantive evidence also from a witness who
5 had testified before a Trial Chamber. And the same is found in -- sorry,
6 a decision from Trial Chamber II in the Limaj case, decision on the
7 Prosecution's motion to admit statements as substantive evidence.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We shall look into the matter
10 Just, Mr. Seselj, two minutes you have now to raise your
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, it seems to me that the
13 Prosecutor took a bit longer.
14 First of all, there is absolutely no grounds to declare this
15 witness hostile to the Prosecution, because that would require open
16 hostility to the Prosecution in his demeanour here. The witness, on the
17 other hand, behaved very adequately towards the Prosecution and answered
18 to the best his recollection and the best of his knowledge.
19 First of all, it's absolutely inadmissible if the viva voce
20 testimony does not suit the Prosecutor, then the witness statements that
21 the Prosecution wrote themselves and to which the witness objects cannot
22 be admitted into evidence. And the witness says that even Croat terms
23 were used in these statements that the Prosecution tried to infiltrate
24 here, and this shows how the Prosecution coaches the witnesses and then
25 uses these arguments from previous decisions, written by the Prosecution
1 themselves, to be admitted into evidence as an authentic statement.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber will
3 deliberate on the matter, decide whether this witness is hostile or not,
4 which would entitle the Prosecution to put leading questions to the
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours ...
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber, as you could
9 see, has deliberated on the matter and has acknowledged that the
10 Prosecutor deems this witness is hostile. Therefore, the Prosecution is
11 entitled to put leading questions to the witness.
12 But as far as the admission of written statements is concerned,
13 the Trial Chamber makes reservations and decides that this will be
14 decided upon at a later stage.
15 Therefore, at this stage, you may only put leading questions, and
16 in the time allotted to you. I believe you still have an hour or so
18 Let's bring the witness into the courtroom.
19 MR. MARCUSSEN: Thank you, Your Honours. And it was indeed my
20 intention. I was just forecasting that I would be requesting the
21 admission of the statement at a later stage. I was not intending to
22 request it at this stage.
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, a small piece of
25 information the Trial Chamber would like to share with you.
1 The Prosecutor has asked the Trial Chamber to declare that you
2 are a hostile witness. The Trial Chamber has granted the application
3 made by the Prosecution, which means that the Prosecution is entitled to
4 put leading questions to you. Therefore, the situation is different to
5 what it was before, and the Prosecution is entitled to put leading
6 questions to you.
7 Mr. Marcussen, you have the floor.
8 MR. MARCUSSEN: Thank you.
9 Q. Mr. Stojanovic, just for your information, when you have been
10 declared a hostile witness, it's a technical legal term. It doesn't mean
11 that we think you in any way have acted inappropriately in court towards
12 anyone here, just so you know that.
13 Mr. Stojanovic, in 2004 you've already mentioned you gave a
14 statement to the Office of the Prosecutor. I'd like to show you that
15 statement, if the usher would assist me.
16 And, Your Honours, the statement I'm showing is also in e-court
17 as a new 65 ter number, 7265, and we could maybe call that up.
18 Mr. Stojanovic, could I ask you to look at the first page of this
19 statement, please.
20 A. Very well, yes.
21 Q. Actually, if you would look at the front page, please. Could you
22 go one page back? Thank you very much.
23 Mr. Stojanovic, do you remember -- do you remember giving this
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And is your signature on the front page?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now, what I would like you to do is to go with me through this
4 statement. If you would now turn to the next page.
5 Have you signed here on this page as well?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And if we can turn to the next page, have you signed here?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And would you turn once again to the page after this?
10 A. Just a moment.
11 Q. Sorry. I just asked you whether your signature was on the page
12 you're looking at now.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And would you now turn to the next page of your statement -- of
15 the statement? Is your signature also on this page?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And on the next page of your statement -- or the statement, is
18 your signature found there?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And if you would continue through, you turn it over again, is
21 your signature on the page you're looking at? Maybe you would go through
22 the statement.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And if we look at the last page of this, if you would stop -- if
25 you would go back now to the page, Mr. Stojanovic --
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... in the right-hand corner --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. In the right-hand corner of the statement, there's a number.
5 Actually, you're looking at the page now, I think. It is a page which,
6 in the right-hand corner, has number 03603451. Is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And there have you signed a declaration?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And on what date did you sign the declaration?
11 A. It says here on the 18th of August, 2004.
12 Q. Would you read out what that declaration says, please?
13 A. "This statement has been read over to me in the Serbian language
14 and is true to the best of my knowledge and recollection. I have given
15 this statement voluntarily, and I am aware that it may be used in legal
16 proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for the
17 prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of
18 international law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia
19 since 1991 and that I may be called to give evidence in public before the
21 Q. So when you gave this statement, you knew that the statement
22 might be used as evidence in criminal proceedings before this Tribunal;
23 is that right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And would it be fair to say that you, therefore, took care to
1 present the facts as precisely as you could when you gave the statement?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And apart from the fact that there is some words in here which
4 appear to be in Croatian, can you -- can you read this statement and
5 understand it?
6 A. I received this statement a month ago. This statement was read
7 out to me from a laptop, where it was typed out. It wasn't taken out
8 like this; that is to say, it was typed out on a laptop. And the
9 statement that I signed, believing the OTP employee over there, the
10 investigator, believing that what he read out to me was that, I signed
11 it, and I did not receive a copy. This copy I received a month and a
12 half ago, or perhaps even more than a month and a half ago. I was so
13 astonished that many things are different from what was read out to me
14 from the laptop; that is to say, it was typed out on the laptop by an
15 investigator of the OTP in Belgrade
16 different. Trusting Mr. Djuro, the investigator, I initialled all of
17 these pages, but I did not receive the statement. I did not receive the
19 Q. But on the 18th of August, 2004, you signed this very statement;
21 A. Precisely on the 18th of August, 2004, I read the statement.
22 This statement was not read to me in the Serbian language. It was read
23 out from the laptop, the computer, where it was signed. I waited for
24 half an hour, an hour, for it to be printed out so that I could sign it,
25 believing that gentleman of yours who put questions to me there; and it
1 wasn't written that it would be used against Mr. Vojislav Seselj as an
2 accused person.
3 Q. You've been a director of a company, I understand. Right?
4 A. Yes, yes.
5 Q. And as a director of a company, have you been signing business
7 A. No, I do not sign it. I'm one of the directors. It is my
8 superior who signs it.
9 Q. Have you ever signed any legal documents?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. What, for example?
12 A. Well, something that my in-house lawyer would look at, or a
13 lawyer; and I would sign it, trusting the man. I acted with full trust
14 here, also, and that's why I reacted before coming into the courtroom.
15 At the moment when I gave this statement, that can be read from the
16 stenographic notes, that this statement was completely different. I
17 stand by the fact that I signed this, but it is quite different.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you can put your
20 questions when it's time for your cross-examination. Let the Prosecutor
21 do his job for the time being. He's trying to elicit from the witness
22 the fact that he signed something, which he doesn't agree with.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have the right to
24 objections. If you are denying me that right, I'm not going to voice any
25 objections anymore.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are entitled to raise an
2 objection if it is justified. For the time being, it is not justified.
3 The Prosecutor is asking questions to see how it is that the witness has
4 signed a statement that contains 42 paragraphs in his own language. This
5 is what we're trying to find out. The witness has provided his
6 explanation, which is worth what it's worth. Let the Prosecutor do his
7 job. During the cross-examination, you can get back to this.
8 Please proceed, Mr. Marcussen.
9 MR. MARCUSSEN:
10 Q. And today you are a financial manager. Is it also a custom for
11 you, in your profession as a financial manager, to sign documents that
12 you don't read?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, I'd like to -- if the usher would collect that statement,
15 please, and I'd like to show the witness another statement.
16 Your Honours, this statement is in e-court as a new exhibit with
17 65 ter number 7264, and maybe we can call that document up.
18 Mr. Stojanovic, would you look at the first page, please. Do you
19 recognise this document?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What is it?
22 A. But I don't know the English language.
23 Q. Oh, I apologise. I've given you the wrong version. Could I get
24 the usher to swap this.
25 Well, we can leave the witness with the version that he has. Oh,
2 This is a translation of the document that I just showed you.
3 Could you tell us what it is?
4 A. Well, again there was this interview. Paolo Pastore,
5 Daniel Saxon, and Mr. Milan Kosanovic interpreted.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. The only statement that
7 is signed is the one in English, and the witness doesn't understand
8 English. And the Serbian version is not signed. And it says in the
9 witness acknowledgment, "The statement was read back to me in English."
10 Obviously, the Prosecutor is trying to plant something on the witness.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but without you saying
12 anything, the Trial Chamber has noticed this, that he signed the
13 statement in English.
14 Mr. Marcussen.
15 MR. MARCUSSEN:
16 Q. So, Mr. Stojanovic, were you indeed interviewed in November 2004
17 by representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor and signed a
19 A. Yes. In English, yes.
20 Q. And now I'd like to hand you back the copy that you had before.
21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Witness, why did you sign the
22 statement in English? Why didn't you sign the B/C/S version of your
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because they tell me that that is
25 the correct version that I'm supposed to sign. I trust the
1 investigators, and that's why I signed it. I don't know the English
2 language. And in this courtroom, when I walked in, my first sentence
3 here was that that text that I stated by way of a statement was quite
4 different, and that is why I reacted, and that is why I said what can be
5 read in the previous paragraph.
6 MR. MARCUSSEN:
7 Q. What I'd like you to do now, if I may, is just to let me know, is
8 your signature on the front page of the statement that you're looking at
9 now? I know it's in English, but is it your signature on the front page?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Would you be kind enough to go through the statement?
12 A. I have looked through it.
13 Q. And is your signature on all the pages of the statement?
14 A. I was just asked to initial these pages, not to write out my
15 entire signature; just a little initial.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, when you were
17 interviewed by the OTP, if I'm putting questions to you it is because in
18 the past I know what it is like to give statements - there was the
19 investigator and an interpreter. The investigator was putting questions
20 to you, and you answered the questions. Do we agree on this, Witness?
21 Can we agree on this? The investigator puts a question to you in
22 English; the interpreter translates the question, and you answer the
23 question? Can we agree on this? This is how things happened? After
24 that -- well, this lasted a while. The investigator has his laptop.
25 He's going to write down your answers. Then he will give you a
1 printout - that is why you had to wait for it - and then did the
2 interpreter read the entire statement back to you, and then you signed
3 the text in English, or did the interpreter not read it back to you? You
4 trust the investigator and you sign the statement in English? Can you
5 explain to us how things happened?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is what happened: I came
7 there, and we agreed that we should start working. I think it was
8 afternoon. I remember that well, and the gentleman whose an investigator
9 was typing on a laptop. He was typing in English, and I was speaking in
10 Serbian, answering every question. So in relation to every one of these
11 paragraphs, regardless of whether it was 8, 9, 10, whichever, then the
12 interpreter would translate to me what was written by them over there.
13 After we finished, then I was told to sign; that is to say, I did not
14 have an opportunity to have the interpreter read the text back to me
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have paragraph 8 in front of
17 us. You have it in English as well. Did the interpreter read
18 paragraph 8 back to you?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Most probably.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So what we have here is what
21 you said?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know that, because this is
23 in English. I signed it at the end.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, very well. I understand.
25 So the interpreter was telling you something, but since you don't
1 speak English, you were not able to check. It would not have happened if
2 things were done differently at the Tribunal, if, for instance, the
3 statements were taken in the language of the witness and then the witness
4 signs in his own language. The reason escapes me, actually, but this was
5 the procedure that was adopted, so this is why you had to sign in
7 But you may go on, Mr. Marcussen.
8 MR. MARCUSSEN:
9 Q. So, Mr. Stojanovic, just to confirm, the statement was read back
10 to you in your language, and then you signed the English copy of the
11 statement and put your initials -- well, signed the first page, put your
12 initials on the pages in the middle, and then you signed at the end; is
13 that correct?
14 A. Yes, but it was read out from the laptop. I'm telling you that
15 again. I trusted the investigators, so what I signed in Serbian, I
16 believed that that was it in English too. So I believe that if somebody
17 gives an oath and says that what is shown to me -- I mean, what statement
18 I gave, I believe that that is the way it would be written.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Your Honour --
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, it's quite
21 complicated, it's complicated enough. You don't have to add on to this
22 confusion. My questions were very clear. You don't have to add anything
23 new. We've all understood how it was done, and during the
24 cross-examination, if you wish to put more questions, even though the
25 Judges understood very clearly, you may do so during your
2 Mr. Marcussen, you may proceed.
3 MR. MARCUSSEN: I'd like the usher to collect the statement and
4 give the witness another statement, please.
5 And, Your Honours, this statement is up-loaded into e-court as a
6 new exhibit number, 7266 -- 65 ter number 7266.
7 Q. Mr. Stojanovic --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. -- could you tell the Court what you have in front of you?
10 A. What I have in front of me is some statement that I signed as
11 well in English.
12 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, I apologise. I seem to be making
13 the same mistake again. Could we, with the assistance of the usher, swap
14 the document? I think we should -- yeah, I think we should get the other
15 one back, just to make sure we are looking at the right document.
16 Q. Now, this document, what is this?
17 A. It is a statement to. It says "witness information, witness
19 Q. And what's the date of the statement?
20 A. 21st of June, 2006.
21 Q. Did you recognise that statement?
22 A. I recognise it because I see that I signed it. And I see my
23 initials down there, too.
24 Q. And what language is it?
25 A. Serbian.
1 Q. Would you be kind enough to go through that, as you did with the
2 other ones, page by page --
3 A. I beg your pardon. I mean, I would like to ask you -- or,
4 rather, tell you that this is in Croatian. This is not my language,
6 Q. Would you be kind enough to go through the statement and confirm
7 that your initials are on each page?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And would you be kind enough to look at page 16 -- well, the last
10 page of the document you have in front of you?
11 A. Yes. 289 are the last digits.
12 Q. Is there -- sorry, on the page before this, is there an
13 acknowledgment by you?
14 A. 288. Yes.
15 Q. Could you read out that acknowledgment, please?
16 A. "This statement of 23 pages was read out to me in the Serbian
17 language and is true to the best of my knowledge and recollection. I
18 have given this statement voluntarily and I am aware it may be used in
19 legal proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for the
20 prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of
21 international law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia
22 since 1991 and I may be called to give evidence in public before the
24 I signed it, yes.
25 Q. Thank you. And if you would go to page 20 of the document that
1 you have. If you would go back to page 20.
2 A. 20.
3 Q. Is your signature on this page?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And what does the paragraph just above the signature read?
6 A. "I confirm that I read the above paragraphs in my mother tongue
7 and that the content is correct."
8 Q. So on the 21st of June, 2006, you signed this statement, and you
9 said that you had read the statement and that it was true, the truth; is
10 that right?
11 A. That is not correct. I've already said that all the statements
12 that I received for signature -- well, in this sentence here, too -- I
13 never would have signed -- well, first of all, it's not correct, I mean
14 the Croatian words here "tocan" and all the rest. Well, it doesn't
16 It was read out to me from a laptop, and I waited for more than
17 half an hour for all the documentation to be prepared so that I could
18 sign it; that is to say, that I did not have enough time. And why would
19 I think about this? Why would I not trust an investigator from The Hague
20 if they gave me to initial something and said that that's what I gave
21 them, why would I not believe that? The information contained in these
22 statements, however, has been totally changed, because in the month of
23 October -- I mean, that's why I brought my documentation. It says in
24 October that I was at the frontline, and there is some information
25 referred to as in May, June. This is a bit illogical. I cannot be
1 somewhere where I was not.
2 Q. So you're telling this Court that you are a man who has a
3 Bachelor from a university, you hold various responsible positions in
4 different companies, that you have given one statement to the OTP, to the
5 Office of the Prosecutor, in 2004 which you signed without reading it;
6 you gave a statement three months later in November about the same
7 events, and that one was read back to you in English and you signed it,
8 without knowing what you signed; and then you signed this particular
9 statement and initialled every single page, and then put your signature
10 on top of that at the last page just below a paragraph which said that
11 you had read the statement? Do you want the Court to believe that?
12 A. I don't know, but I'm telling you quite sincerely. You can check
13 all of this. I did sign the statement, but as for what happened and the
14 time distance, where I was at the time, that can be proven easily, very
15 easily. There are organs and everything else, number 1. I said straight
16 away, when I walked into this courtroom, this was my first objection
17 addressed to the Trial Chamber and the president of the Trial Chamber.
18 That is why I withdrew this documentation that you said I should not keep
19 on the desk.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, when you saw these
21 documents again, you mentioned that it contained some things that you
22 never said; is that what you're telling us?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So consequently you believe
25 that it was the investigator and the interpreter who made a mistake; is
1 that what you're saying?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot tell untruth regarding
3 some people. They read to me a completely different statement and I
4 signed a completely different statement. I don't understand why
5 something was read out to me from the laptop instead of printing it. I
6 never received a single copy of what I signed.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, the statement that we
8 have before us, made on the 21st of June, 2007, if I take the first
9 paragraph, randomly I take that paragraph, the interpreter must have read
10 to you that first paragraph, even if you signed, or were you given the
11 document and you read to yourself each page?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I read this statement. I saw
13 my name, I saw the personal details, and I initialled every page that was
14 given me.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you did not check the
16 content of the statement; is that right?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not at all, Judge, because I
18 expected that the same statement will be given me to take home to
19 analyse. That's the practice in our country and our courts.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Stojanovic, you did sign the statements on
21 the same day in which you gave your evidence, did you not?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I remember, yes, but I
23 had to wait a half hour or an hour for that to be printed.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You had to wait an hour for it
25 to be printed, and once it was printed --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe more, yes.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] -- you signed right away;
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It was given me because
5 Mr. Paolo was in a hurry to catch a plane and he said, "Hurry up,
6 initial," because I usually don't just initial, I sign my full name.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Did you have a chance to observe -- could you see
8 the printer or was the printer in the same room?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it was not in the same room. I
10 was on the ground floor of the UN building, the Prosecution office in
12 and the investigator behind the desk, sitting at a laptop. The
13 interpreter was next to the investigator. I was on the other side of the
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Were you together with Mr. Pastore-Stocchi and
16 Mr. Saxon during the time that you waited for the printing?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was with one man there, or maybe
18 it was a woman, a girl. I can't remember. I had two coffees while
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Witness, if I understand you
22 correctly, when you signed this statement for which you certify having
23 heard and that the comments that are stated there are true and accurate,
24 did you sign a false statement? Should I understand it that way?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Judge, I did not review it. It was
1 read back to me. I did not review the statement that I was signing.
2 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Aside from the pages that you
3 signed, at the very end of each page of each statement, you also certify
4 that what you have said is true and that what you heard was true to fact.
5 I mean, is that a false statement? That would be a false statement, if I
6 understand you correctly.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I was led by the
8 investigators on which page to sign, and that applied to the last page,
9 including the witness acknowledgment. Why did the investigator ask me to
10 sign my full name there, whereas I initialled all the rest? I was led,
11 directed where to sign.
12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I would just like to
13 know one thing. At the very end, when you signed the last page, did
14 anybody read out to you the two sentences that are written before --
15 above, rather, your signature: "I certify that ... ," so on and so
16 forth. It's in Serbian. I can't remember the text exactly. Did anybody
17 read that to you?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not even that was read back to me.
19 I was just told, while we were writing the statement, number 1 was read
20 to me, number 2 was read to me, as it was interpreted by the interpreter.
21 And later, when it was printed out, that is, 60 minutes later - I
22 remember it was quite a while - he took -- I was very warm, I was
23 directed where to initial, where to put my initial. And on that last
24 statement, the acknowledgment, the gentleman asked me to put my full
25 signature. When I asked to get a copy, I was told that I cannot get a
1 single copy.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, is Mr. Saxon
3 here tonight?
4 MR. MARCUSSEN: I believe that he is, Your Honour. I don't know
5 whether he's in the office today, but if your question is whether he
6 works for the Office of the Prosecutor, then yes.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you please ask him to
8 come in right away, and then he can be sworn under oath and we will put
9 the question to him.
10 MR. MARCUSSEN: Yes. Would Your Honours -- should we have a
11 short recess to get him down here, or how would we -- we can try to send
12 him an e-mail and see if he's in the office.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, or the Registrar can call
14 him and can ask him to come in immediately.
15 MR. MARCUSSEN: Maybe I may put some questions while we wait for
16 that to be solved, or would Your Honours like us to wait?
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, go ahead. Yes, please
19 MR. MARCUSSEN:
20 Q. Mr. Stojanovic, when you met the representatives of the Office of
21 the Prosecutor the first time in 2004, did you bring some documents with
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 Q. Am I correct there were two articles and three photographs?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And when you gave your statement in 2006, did you review that
2 material again?
3 A. No, I did not.
4 Q. You did not?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did you make comments on the material?
7 A. I can't remember. Maybe we did make comments. It was a long
8 time ago.
9 Q. If you would go -- if you would go to -- in the statement you
10 have with you, if you would go to the page which has number 0601-2286,
11 please. It's nearly at the end. It's one of the last pages.
12 A. Yes.
13 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
15 MR. MARCUSSEN:
16 Q. On this page, have you again put your signature on the page up
17 towards the top?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And what does the paragraph just above the signature say, if you
20 would be kind enough to read it out?
21 A. "I confirm that I read the above paragraphs in my mother tongue
22 and the contents is truthful and correct."
23 I have already stated, in regard to this and the other
24 statements, that it was all read back to me from the computer, and I was
25 waiting for all that to be printed out. Not for a moment did I hold a
1 single statement in my hands to read all this myself or for the
2 interpreter to read it to me.
3 Q. Mr. Stojanovic, I'd like now to talk about these statements with
4 you and what is actually in the statements.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, could you just repeat to us again, were you a member of the
7 SRS in -- no, sorry. You were, in fact, a member of the SRS in 2001,
8 weren't you?
9 A. 2001? I don't think so, unless they still keep me on the record
10 of members. You mean 1991?
11 Q. I mean 1991. Thank you very much for your help. 1991.
12 A. No, I was a member of the Serbian National Revival and the
13 president of the District Board of the Serbian National Revival in
14 Vranje. We had our own offices, we were an officially-registered party.
15 We had an office received from the Municipality of Vranje
17 Q. Would you look at paragraph 8 of the statement you have in front
18 of you, please?
19 A. Yes.
20 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I'm terribly sorry, but I need
21 to clarify a point.
22 Witness, you've told us that a month or a month and a half ago,
23 you received those statements. Do you know who sent them to you?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe even more. I believe it was
25 in March, when we were writing the request, March or April, I said I
1 wanted to be a Defence witness.
2 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Who gave you the statements?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My lawyer, who got in touch with
4 the Defence of the accused.
5 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] If I am not mistaken, therefore,
6 your lawyer received those statements from the Defence, if I understand
7 correctly. Yes, very well, thank you.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Astounded me when I saw all the
9 things that were written there.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Well, we're waiting for
11 Mr. Saxon. I hope that he'll come shortly, because it's an order issued
12 by the Trial Chamber, and it would be quite unpleasant, actually, if he
13 did not show up.
14 It is five minutes to 7.00. You are free to go, Witness. You
15 will come back tomorrow. The hearing is starting at 9.00. The Witness
16 and Victims Section will bring you to the Tribunal. Your
17 examination-in-chief will continue tomorrow, and then Mr. Seselj will
18 start his cross-examination. But, in any event, tomorrow we will end the
19 proceedings at 1.45. And since you are now testifying, you cannot call
20 the press, you cannot call the Prosecutor, you cannot call anybody, you
21 cannot speak to Mr. Seselj's associates or anybody like that, but you can
22 call your wife, your children. Of course, your family, you may speak to
23 them, but you may not speak about this case with anyone.
24 Did you understand me clearly?
25 Very well. You may leave now, and you'll have to be back here at
1 9.00 tomorrow morning.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
3 continues] ... Judge, and that's why I have been feeling unwell, because
4 I was subject to pressure from many sides. And I came here from the
5 hospital to testify completely truthfully and only the truth, because I
6 respect this Court and justice, and I'm saying only the truth and --
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, while we are waiting
9 for Mr. Saxon, you could tell us how much time the Prosecutor has left
10 for tomorrow.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I believe that he's got less
12 than an hour, maybe 50 minutes.
13 [The witness stands down]
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Registrar will tell us when
15 he comes back. He's probably running around, trying to find Mr. Saxon,
16 who is probably not too far from here.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope you don't mind if I remind
19 you that Daniel Saxon was covered by my criminal report towards Carla
20 Del Ponte together with Hilde Retzlaff. He was the third person cited in
21 that criminal report based in this matter based on the facts I indicated
22 in that report.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, I do know.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
25 MS. BIERSAY: I believe that Mr. Saxon is on his way, I believe.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] While we are waiting, I could
2 clarify to you this alleged problem with Mr. Krasic, Mr. President.
3 I contacted Zoran Krasic, and he informed me that he has not sent
4 any e-mails today, and I have this excerpt from his computer, where we
5 can see the first rubric are messages sent, and the last message sent
6 here is included here. It's visible, and you can see on the second image
7 that the folder is deleted and empty, if you want to see this.
8 Zoran Krasic has no idea who this official of the ICTY is, nor
9 how it was possible that she was contacted in this way. It was not done
10 from Mr. Krasic's computer, and if you wish to take this.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, we will make the
12 appropriate verifications, but first I would like to confer with my
13 fellow Judges to see if Mr. Saxon should be sworn under oath.
14 Mr. Saxon, please come where the witness is.
15 MS. DAHL: Sorry.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 MS. DAHL: We would like an opportunity overnight to review the
18 transcript to what questions are at issue and whether there is --
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's right now, it's
20 immediately, right now. Mr. Saxon, please come to the -- it's an order
21 given by the Trial Chamber. He must answer to the questions that we are
22 going to ask him. We are going to question him on the way the statements
23 were given.
24 MS. DAHL: With all due respect, Mr. Saxon is a staff member of
25 the United Nations ICTY, who has rights, just as I did when I was accused
1 of misconduct by Mr. Seselj and witnesses whose statements he submitted.
2 It is premature to call Mr. Saxon in and put him under oath. That is an
3 unfair procedure. He has the ability and the right to know what
4 questions are to be asked, and if there are other means available that do
5 not intrude upon the Prosecution's staff members that can satisfy the
6 Chamber's need for information, we would like to provide those first.
7 Witnesses are interviewed in the presence of investigators.
8 Notes are prepared. There are mission reports, there are other types of
9 information that are contemporaneous, and it is not fair to Mr. Saxon
10 to --
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, you are now obstructing
12 justice. Mr. Saxon is not accused of anything. We are asking him to
13 come here and appear as a witness and to tell us how a procedure went.
14 He is not accused of anything. That's all.
15 However, if you believe that he has something to hide, that's
16 another problem, or to reproach himself with, correction, but that's
17 another problem.
18 Do not cut me off.
19 We want to know what happened, how the statement was given, how
20 did the witness sign the statement. That's all we wanted to know. It's
21 not very complicated.
22 MS. DAHL: It may be quite a simple matter to answer those
23 questions. However, it does not impugn the integrity of the staff member
24 to insist on proper procedure, nor does my objection obstruct this
25 Chamber's search for information. I think it would be appropriate to
1 recess and allow us to take the matter under advisement and report back
2 to the Chamber at 9.00 tomorrow morning. I do not think it is fair to
3 Mr. Saxon to bring him out of his office, without an opportunity to
4 familiarise himself with material. And if the Chamber wants the most
5 accurate recollections and proper information, we need an opportunity to
6 prepare and to consider the matter of Mr. Saxon's rights and what is
7 going on here.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Everything the Trial Chamber --
9 I can tell you that if Mr. Saxon does not come, I shall launch a contempt
11 I would like to repeat, we would like to know three things which
12 are very simple. It's extremely simple. So either you are obstructing
13 justice, and that is another issue, or Mr. Saxon comes and answers, under
14 oath, the three questions I will put to him.
15 MS. DAHL: There's a request pending that we recess and allow our
16 office to consider the questions and report back tomorrow morning at
17 9.00, when we resume.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I disagree entirely, and I
19 shall confer with my colleagues.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber has noted
22 that Mr. Saxon would like to read the transcript in order to answer the
23 questions that will be put to him. The Trial Chamber therefore
24 stipulates that Mr. Saxon will be questioned tomorrow morning at 9.00.
25 But if he's not there at 9.00, I shall issue an indictment for contempt
1 of the Tribunal.
2 We shall resume tomorrow morning at 9.00.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.07 p.m.
4 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 23rd day of
5 July, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.