1 Wednesday, 23 July 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Registrar,
7 please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you and good morning, Your Honours. This
9 is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
11 Mr. Registrar.
12 Good morning, Mr. Saxon. Good morning, Mr. Seselj. Good
13 morning, ladies and gentlemen from the Prosecutor's office and I'd also
14 like to greet all the other people who are present in the courtroom.
15 Mr. Saxon is going to be very short. The Trial Chamber would
16 only like you to tell us how is a witness statement taken, and what we
17 are interested in is a particular statement to which you were -- a
18 statement given at which you were present. It was following an
19 investigation that was led by the OTP.
20 But before that, I would like you to read the solemn declaration.
21 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
22 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
23 WITNESS: DANIEL SAXON
24 Questioned by the Court:
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. You may
1 sit down.
2 Very well. So, very briefly, sir, witness statements are taken
3 by the OTP, and in two particular cases you were present because your
4 name is on the statements.
5 Now, according to your recollection, would you be able to tell us
6 how it took place? We would like to know if the witness at the time was
7 informed, in his own language, of the contents of the statement. Was
8 that statement reread to him? Did he sign it after? This is the type of
9 details that we would like to know, so could you please explain to us
10 what you know and what you remember?
11 A. Thank you, Your Honours.
12 With the particular -- with respect to the particular witness
13 that the Chamber is concerned about today, I participated in the
14 production of two separate statements. The first time -- the first
15 statement was, I believe, was in November of 2004, and the second
16 statement was in June of 2006. And the procedures regarding the
17 production of those two statements were slightly different, so let me
18 take each statement one at a time so I can explain that.
19 In November of 2004, Investigator Pastore-Stocchi and I
20 interviewed the witness with the purpose of asking some follow-up
21 questions to the witness and to take what became a follow-up statement, a
22 second statement, because earlier that year the witness had given a
23 statement to another investigator of the OTP. And Mr. Pastore-Stocchi
24 and I had some additional questions to ask the witness specifically
25 pertaining to the investigation into this case.
1 And so in November of 2004, we met with the witness in the
3 asked questions to the witness. We explained to the witness that we had
4 some additional questions related to his previous statement, and we asked
5 him those questions. And the witness obviously responded. I took notes
6 at that time. I still have those notes. And Paolo Pastore-Stocchi was
7 typing the responses of the witness into a, I believe, laptop computer
8 and producing effectively, then, the statement that was signed then in
9 November of 2004.
10 After the -- effectively, shall we say, a draft statement was
11 then created there at the computer. I reviewed it, as a matter of fact,
12 because I'm a native English speaker. Mr. Pastore-Stocchi was not, so I
13 simply reviewed it just to make sure there were no mistakes in grammar,
14 et cetera, et cetera. And then the statement was read back to the
15 witness, translated from the English into the language we refer to as
16 B/C/S. And the witness was, of course, told that as we read it back, if
17 the witness believes there are any mistakes or that need to be corrected,
18 any modifications that need to be made, he could certainly tell us, and
19 then we would correct those mistakes and make those modifications.
20 So the statement was read back to the witness, of course, with
21 the use of an interpreter, and I don't specifically recall that the
22 witness made corrections or suggested corrections. He may have. I
23 simply can't recall that level of specificity. But if he did, we
24 certainly incorporated the witness's corrections and changes into the
25 statement. And then the statement was printed out in the English
1 language. We would have -- there was no -- there's no printer -- at
2 least at that time there was no printer in the room that we used in the
4 we would take the statement to a computer on the first floor, on the
5 second floor, that was connected to a printer. We would print the
6 statement out, bring it back to the witness, and ask the witness to sign
7 the first page, initial the remaining pages, sign the last page, and also
8 sign the witness acknowledgment, which I believe is the very last page.
9 That was how, in a nutshell, how the statement of November 2004
10 was taken.
11 My recollection of the witness, he's an intelligent man,
12 sophisticated, extremely cooperative.
13 I saw the witness again in June. I saw the witness the second
14 time in June of 2006, because at that time the Prosecution team was
15 expecting that this trial would begin as soon as October or November of
16 2006, and in an effort to make the trial as efficient as possible, the
17 Prosecution endeavoured to go to Serbia
18 insider witnesses and produce a so-called 89(F) statement that could be
19 tendered into evidence in written form. That was shortly before
20 Rule 92 ter was created, so at that time we were still working with
21 Rule 98(F).
22 So the procedure was usually before my colleague,
23 Mr. Pastore-Stocchi, and I left The Hague in June of 2006, because this
24 witness had two prior statements, our intention was simply to put the two
25 of them together in a coherent fashion and then create an 89(F) statement
1 from the two consolidated statements. So either before we left The Hague
2 and travelled to Belgrade
3 simply can't recall which - I would have done that. I would have taken
4 Microsoft Word versions of the two English prior statements and merged
5 them in a format that appeared to me to be organised and coherent and
7 At the same time, then, once that was done, I would have asked
8 either a language assistant here in the OTP or an interpreter in the
10 statement, that draft 89(F) statement.
11 It was also part of our system at that time, the intention was to
12 create simultaneously a statement in English and a statement in B/C/S,
13 because we believed that since we were going to file a motion seeking the
14 admission of these written witness statements into evidence, the very
15 best evidence would be a written statement in the language of the
17 And so for that mission, we arranged not to work with just one
18 interpreter, but we worked with two interpreters simultaneously, and we
19 would sit in the same conference room in the Belgrade field office, in
20 the basement, and I would -- at that time, I was manning the computer,
21 and I would be -- I would have the computer with the draft English 89(F)
22 statement in front of me, the consolidated statement; and we would have
23 an interpreter interpreting verbally, and then we would have the second
24 interpreter sitting across the table with another computer, working on
25 the B/C/S version of the statement.
1 And we then went with the witness -- we -- when the witness
2 arrived, and we did this with all of the witnesses on that -- on that
3 particular mission, and I believe all of the witnesses that we took 89(F)
4 or 92 ter statements from, we explained to them what we were doing and
5 why; we explained to them that we hoped that by producing this more final
6 consolidated statement, that we would be able to tender this written
7 witness statement in writing, and that would not only save time for the
8 Court, but it would also save time and energy and stress for the witness.
9 And then we proceeded to go over the draft statement. I would be
10 reading it in English and the interpreter would be interpreting each
11 line. Then we would go over the draft statement, line by line, paragraph
12 by paragraph, page by page. And any time the witness felt that a
13 modification needed to be made, it would be made. When the witness
14 provided some additional information, that additional information would
15 be incorporated into the statement.
16 Some of the -- in terms of additional information, as I'm sure
17 you're aware, in virtually all of these 89(F) or 92 ter statements, at
18 the end we created what we called the exhibit table, because again as a
19 manner of trying to expedite matters, we showed certain exhibits to each
20 witness and we created a table where we recorded which item we were
21 showing to the witness and any -- and any comments that the witness could
22 make about the particular item, so that we would have that information as
23 well incorporated into the witness's written witness statement.
24 During this process, of course, I was sitting across the table
25 from the interpreter who was working on the B/C/S version, and we were
1 constantly in communication, where I was explaining, "This is the change
2 I'm making in this sentence, this is the additional sentence I'm adding,"
3 et cetera, et cetera, so the interpreter would make the exact same change
4 or addition in the B/C/S version.
5 At the end of that process, the -- we would have -- the witness
6 would usually sit with the B/C/S interpreter who was working on the
7 written version, sit next to her, and as she would go over the statement
8 on the screen of the computer in front of them, and so again the witness
9 would have the opportunity not only to hear the statement but to see the
10 words on the computer screen in front of him, and again the entire
11 statement then was reviewed. The witness had the opportunity then to
12 review the entire statement in his language. And the witness was again
13 told, "If you see any mistakes, anything you want to change, just tell us
14 and we will change it."
15 After that process was finished and after then we believed we had
16 a final statement, then we had to print out that statement; and again
17 because there was no printer in that basement room, we would have to go
18 upstairs either to the first floor or the second floor and log on to a
19 computer there that was connected to a printer, or ask one of the staff
20 members there to let us interrupt their work so we could print out a
21 document. We would print out the document then in both languages from a
22 USB stick, and we'd bring the printed hard copies back down to the
23 conference room. And then we would ask the witness, including this
24 witness, then, to please sign and initial the statement.
25 That is, in summary, how the 2006 statement was created.
1 You'll probably notice that in addition to the normal signature
2 line that you usually see at the end of an ICTY statement, in these 89(F)
3 or 92 ter statements, we added usually two additional signature lines;
4 one at the end of the narrative text. There is usually a line saying
5 words to the effect: "I declare that the foregoing paragraphs -- the
6 text of the foregoing paragraphs are true and correct," and so we would
7 ask the witness to sign there as well. And then usually there was a
8 similar sentence above or below the exhibit table where we asked the
9 witness to confirm that, you know, "I have seen these exhibits and I
10 confirm that my comments here for each exhibit are true and correct."
11 So that, Your Honours, in summary is how the 89(F) statement
12 produced in June 2006 was taken, and then I only saw this witness one
13 more time in October of that year.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you very
15 much. As far as I'm concerned, I don't have any more questions for you.
16 Let me ask my colleagues if they have any questions for you.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, and good morning to you, Mr. Saxon. I
18 just have two clarifying questions.
19 The first question is the question about the copies. The witness
20 told us that he was not given a copy, and from what he said, I understood
21 that the usual procedure was not to give copies to witnesses who have
22 given statements. Why is that?
23 A. Your Honour, at that time and still today, it has always been my
24 understanding that the policy and practice of the Office of the
25 Prosecutor is not to give a copy of a witness statement to the witness,
1 particularly in the case, Your Honour, of so-called sensitive insider
2 witnesses. And that policy exists because of the belief that by leaving
3 a copy of such a sensitive document in the witness's possession could
4 actually create safety and security problems potentially for that
5 witness. And so that is why, Your Honour, as a matter of policy and my
6 practice, except perhaps in some extremely rare or exceptional
7 situations, I have never provided a copy of the statement to the witness.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. That explains it well.
9 My second question relates to the possibility for the witness to
10 acquaint himself very closely and intimately with his statement, and my
11 question goes to whether, after you had printed it out in the B/C/S
12 version, which I understood was only done in 2006, at that time the
13 witness would have had a chance to sit together with the interpreter on
14 the screen and work, himself, through the text once again before it was
15 finally printed out. Then you would take it upstairs and bring it down
16 in a printed format. Would he then, once again, be given a chance to sit
17 down quietly and then read through the text before signing it?
18 A. Your Honour, to the best of my recollection, the witness had that
19 opportunity to review that hard copy of the B/C/S version while it was in
20 front of him. Do I have a memory that the witness in this particular
21 case did that or did that carefully? I'm sorry, Your Honour, I simply
22 don't recall.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: That's well enough. Thanks.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have a question for
25 Mr. Saxon -- rather, Madam Dahl or anybody from the OTP. Do you have a
1 question of Mr. Saxon?
2 MS. BIERSAY: With the Court's permission, perhaps one or two
3 questions, if that's okay.
4 Cross-examination by Ms. Biersay:
5 Q. Mr. Saxon, could you tell the Court whether or not you had been
6 able to review the statements that you just mentioned specifically the
7 one from November 17, 2004. Did you have an opportunity to review it and
8 ascertain whether or not the statement was a correct reflection of what
9 the witness told you?
10 A. Yes, I reviewed that statement last night, and the answer to both
11 of your questions is "yes."
12 Q. And with respect to the second statement that you mention, the
13 one dated 21 June 2006
14 statement as well?
15 A. Yes, I did.
16 Q. And was it an accurate reflection of what the witness told you on
17 that date?
18 A. Yes, it is.
19 Q. Could you describe to the Trial Chamber the circumstances under
20 which you met with the witness again in October of 2006? I think you
21 mentioned that to the Court.
22 A. I'm wondering whether we should do that in private session.
23 MS. BIERSAY: Your Honour, with the Court's permission, could we
24 discuss this matter --
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I object. I oppose this. There is
2 absolutely no reason to go into private session.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Objection rejected. We are
4 going in closed session.
5 [Private session]
11 Page 9745 redacted. Private session.
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, do you have a
4 question for Mr. Saxon?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have questions, but before that I
8 demand to review the decision to pass into private session and that this
9 part of the session be subsequently made public. I have several reasons
10 for that, but now I will first ask questions that had nothing to do with
11 private session.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please. Let me
13 consult with my fellow Judges.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber maintains
16 its decision, according to which that portion will remain in private
17 session, the portion that was mentioned earlier about the meeting in
19 You may proceed.
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Seselj:
21 Q. Mr. Saxon, when on the 21st of June you spoke to
22 Mr. Nebojsa Stojanovic in 2006, how long was this interview, this
24 A. I don't recall specifically how long it was. I don't have the
25 statement in front of me. To the best of my recollection, the interview
1 was completed within one working day, to the best of my recollection.
2 Q. That means it began sometime in the morning and lasted 'til late
3 in the afternoon; correct?
4 A. To the best of my recollection, yes. It's possible it may have
5 lasted into -- into the early evening, but I don't have any recollection
6 of that.
7 Q. Did you previously make that so-called consolidated statement
8 based on his prior two statements? And by "previously," I mean before
9 beginning the new interview with Mr. Stojanovic.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, it is not a
11 consolidated statement. It's a statement that was signed, but don't say
12 "the so-called."
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have the right to challenge the
14 authenticity of that statement, because the witness did so himself. But
15 even if the witness hadn't done it, I have the right that it's a
16 so-called statement, an alleged statement. It is signed, but the witness
17 denies that he was aware of what he was signing, and that was on the
18 table all day yesterday. So in my eyes, it is a so-called, alleged
19 statement, and I'm not going to accept your suggestion. I'm still going
20 to call this statement an alleged statement, and you can use whatever
21 sanctions you see fit against me.
22 Q. So, Mr. Saxon, did you make previously that alleged statement,
23 consolidated statement, based on the prior two alleged statements of this
25 A. Well, as I testified just a few minutes ago, yes, I created a
1 draft -- prior to the start of this interview, I created a draft both in
2 English and in B/C/S which merged the two prior statements which the
3 witness had given. And with that draft, amalgamated statement, if you
4 will, single statement, we then proceeded to review that with the witness
5 in both languages.
6 Q. Why did you then need one whole day, from the morning until early
7 evening, to speak to that witness, if you had a ready-made draft and then
8 you were discussing the draft? That draft is on 20 pages. Those 20
9 pages, if nothing was in dispute, could have been done with in exactly
10 one hour. It doesn't take more than a few minutes to read one page, even
11 if you read slowly. Why did you need all day to speak to that witness if
12 you had already prepared the draft and if he had really given those two
13 statements? Something must have been in dispute so it took all day to
14 discuss; correct?
15 A. No, that's not correct. The reason why we took up to one whole
16 day, it may have been a few hours less -- as I say, I can't recall
17 specifically the time it took -- is that because we were trying to work
18 very carefully. We were trying to create a statement which we then
19 expected to tender into evidence in the -- in this trial, as evidence in
20 this trial, and we believed that it was our obligation then to work as
21 carefully and as meticulously as possible. And so that is precisely why,
22 before the interview began, I created these two drafts, one in English
23 and one in B/C/S. That's precisely why we took the extra effort and, if
24 I may say so, the extra expense of having two interpreters working with
25 us all of the time, so that we would go line by line, page by page, over
1 the statement with the witness. And that takes a lot of time, in
2 particular when everything is being translated from one language and back
3 to another language, and in particular when we are discussing complicated
4 events that occurred many years ago, which of course the witness, being a
5 very articulate person, would want to explain to us. And he did so, and
6 we would have questions, and he would respond to them. And that
7 procedure cannot be done quickly.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Seselj. You
9 may put your questions. Very few questions were put. You still have
10 five minutes to finish your cross-examination.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you for limiting me in this
12 way. I must conclude that you really don't want the truth to be known.
13 That's up to you.
14 Q. Mr. Saxon, since you have been working on this case for years,
15 you must have been aware of some basic facts related to the operations in
16 Vukovar and Eastern Slavonija and some basic facts regarding the Serbian
17 political arena; correct?
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The witness has only come to
19 talk about the terms and conditions in which the written statements were
20 signed. He doesn't have to answer any other question which has got
21 nothing to do with this.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is something that goes to the
23 contents of the statement. I'm interested --
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The witness will come and
25 discuss the content of the summary later on. This witness here today is
1 not to mention anything else. This witness is only here today to talk
2 about the form of the statements and the way in which it was taken. He's
3 not here to answer any questions about Vukovar or anything else.
4 In addition, he has a vested interest in this. He's a member of
5 the OTP; therefore, he shouldn't answer any of these questions.
6 So only put your questions on the way in which the statements
7 were taken. Why did the previous witness say that his statement wasn't
8 read back to him in his own language, or that the text of his statement
9 does not match what he said? We are only interested in this and nothing
11 MS. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
12 Q. When, during that interview, did you tell the witness that his
13 statement will be under Rule 89(F), that is, directly tendered into
14 evidence, and that he would not need to come to The Hague? When, during
15 the interview, did you tell him that?
16 A. First of all, your question has a premise in it that is
17 incorrect. We did not tell this witness that he would not need to come
18 to The Hague
19 a method by which we could tender his evidence in written form, thereby
20 shortening, perhaps even eliminating, the need for direct examination.
21 But, of course, that would not eliminate the need -- the witness to be
22 cross-examined, and so we never told the witness or any of these
23 witnesses that they would not need to come to The Hague. What we told
24 them was that this was a procedure which hopefully would shorten the
25 length of their testimony here before this Tribunal.
1 We explained this at the start of this interview. I can't recall
2 whether we precisely mentioned Rule 89(F) or we simply used it in terms
3 of, "The Rules allow now this procedure and this is what we're trying to
4 do." I can't recall whether I specifically used the term "89(F)." I may
5 not have, because I probably didn't think that that would make any --
6 that that would be particularly important for the witness, the number of
7 the Rule.
8 Q. Mr. Saxon, a moment ago here in the courtroom, you stated, when
9 explaining the reasons for such a wide application of the Rule 89(F) in
10 2006, that one of the reasons was to save time. Then you mentioned some
11 other reasons, and then you said in order to avoid -- to spare the
12 witnesses the stress of coming here to The Hague. You said that here
13 some 15 minutes ago. Do you remember that?
14 A. No. I believe what I said some minutes ago was that we were
15 trying to use this procedure in order to reduce the stress that the
16 witnesses would have here in The Hague; that is, by shortening the length
17 of their testimony.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I demand from the Trial Chamber to
19 find that portion of the transcript and to control the translation made
20 here, because I noted exactly "to spare the witnesses the stress of
21 coming here to The Hague
22 while the Registry is looking for that portion of the record, I would
23 like to ask two more questions.
24 Q. Mr. Saxon, you had to know that Rule 89(F) did not envisage --
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Perhaps Ms. Biersay can answer
1 this. Ms. Biersay.
2 MS. BIERSAY: Thank you, Your Honours. I believe it appears at
3 the very end of page 5 and into the beginning of page 6. And if I may:
4 "... we explained to them that we hoped that by producing this
5 more final consolidated statement, that we would be able to tender this
6 written statement -- witness statement in writing, and that would not
7 only save time for the Court, but it would also save time and energy and
8 stress for the witness."
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, that is what's on the
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then I demand that the
12 audio-recording in the Serbian language be found, because I insist that
13 it was interpreted to me "to spare the witnesses the stress of coming
14 here." That's what I heard in interpretation, and I insist on that.
15 Q. Mr. Saxon, you are aware that the application of Rule 89(F) never
16 implied the bringing of witnesses here in cross-examination. That was
17 envisaged by Rule 92 bis, if one of the parties insisted on
18 cross-examination; correct?
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, this is a legal
20 debate on Rule 89(F). We're not going to discuss this now. You know
21 that we had 92 ter after that. 89(F) is still a part of the Rules of
22 Procedure. It's not because an 89(F) motion is filed that there is no
23 cross-examination. That settles that.
24 If you have one last question to put. I'm not talking about
25 legal matters or the content of the statement, but of the form of the
1 statement, then you may put a question, because the only reason that the
2 witness is here today, when there is a witness of the Court, the witness
3 comes to testify about a very limited agenda, and he is here to answer
4 questions on that very limited agenda.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have one more question in
6 relation to what the witness had stated in private session.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's move into private
9 [Private session]
11 Page 9754 redacted. Private session.
3 [Open session]
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Saxon, I would like to
6 thank you. So you were asked to come yesterday. Under the
7 circumstances, you know, of course, if you had been among members of the
8 OTP yesterday, I would have asked you to give us your answers directly,
9 so I did ask you to come very quickly yesterday, and I hadn't factored in
10 those questions which were raised by Ms. Dahl. But you've come here, and
11 I thank you for having answered all our questions, and you may get back
12 to your office and deal with matters you need to deal with.
13 Thank you.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.
15 [The witness withdrew]
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Usher can now bring the
17 witness into the courtroom.
18 Mr. Marcussen, I'm getting rather worried about the time we have.
19 Please go to the point, when you ask your questions, so that Mr. Seselj
20 has two hours for his cross-examination. I would like to finish at a
21 quarter to 2:00
22 I don't know how much time you had left theoretically. The
23 Registrar will tell us in a moment.
24 It's going to be very short, because you had an hour left. One
25 hour plus two hours equals three hours, and we don't quite have three
1 hours left, since we will have two breaks. If you could bring it down to
2 45 minutes, that would be perfect.
3 MR. MARCUSSEN: I will make an effort, Your Honour.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good morning, sir. I
6 apologise for having made you wait. You may sit down.
7 The Prosecutor will resume his examination-in-chief.
8 WITNESS: NEBOJSA STOJANOVIC [Resumed]
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 Examination by Mr. Marcussen: [Continued]
11 Q. Good morning, Mr. Stojanovic. I would like to give you a copy of
12 some documents, if the usher would be kind enough to give that to you.
13 Mr. Stojanovic, what I have included in that little folder is a
14 copy in your language of the three statements that we talked about
15 yesterday, and I've given them a tab, so that tab number 1 is your
16 statement from August 2004; tab number 2 is your statement from November
17 2004; and tab number 3 is your statement from 2006.
18 And, Your Honours, I will be asking the witness questions about
19 various parts of his three statements today, and so I'm going to do it in
20 this manner to expedite the proceedings today.
21 Mr. Stojanovic, you testified yesterday that you never received a
22 call-up order. Do you remember that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Would you look, please, at your statement from 2004? So that
25 would be the one that's under tab number 1. And look at paragraph 8.
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. MARCUSSEN: If the usher would like to call up the document,
3 it is 65 ter number 7265.
4 Q. Mr. Stojanovic, would you please read the first sentence of
5 paragraph 8?
6 A. "In July or August 1991, as a reservist of the Guards Motorised
7 Armoured Regiment, I received a call-up for a military drill from VP,
8 that is, military post 4795, through the usual service of military
9 call-up papers."
10 Q. Are you telling the Court that you didn't receive that document
11 that is described in the statement?
12 A. It's an erroneous statement. I said that yesterday. I never
13 received a call-up from the army to take part in the war.
14 Q. And if you would look at the next two paragraphs, paragraph 8 and
15 paragraph 9. Would it be correct if I summarised this as you explaining
16 how you were sent to Bogojevo and then to Erdut, and then at paragraph 10
17 you say that you stayed in Erdut for 20 days? Is that correct that's on
18 the statement there?
19 A. That is written in the statement.
20 Q. Would you now please go to tab number 2, so that is your
21 statement from November 2004, and that is 65 ter number 7264. And there
22 I'd like you to look at paragraphs 13, 14 and 15.
23 Now, you say there -- oops, I'm sorry.
24 A. I can't find my way there.
25 Q. If you look at tab number 2, yes.
1 A. Number 2, yes. Which number?
2 Q. If you look at paragraph number 13, that should be on page 5 of
3 this statement.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You say there that:
6 "Regarding paragraph 8 of my previous statement," that's the
7 statement we just looked at, "I state the following additional facts."
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And then you say that you were at Bubanj Potok barracks, and you
10 give various details about this particular paragraph; is that correct?
11 A. It's not correct. I've never been there.
12 Q. All right. And so in this paragraph, it says:
13 "Regarding paragraph 8 of my previous statement ..."
14 Now, to me that sounds like you have been discussing paragraph 8
15 of your previous statement with the people who took this statement.
16 Isn't that correct?
17 A. I stated yesterday and earlier today, and I stand by it, that the
18 statement I gave the first time and the second time are different from
19 what is recorded here in my language, and I don't even know how it was
20 translated into English because I don't know English.
21 Q. So you're saying that this -- something else was read back to you
22 in November 2004; is that what you're telling the Court?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And then afterwards you were asked to sign the front of the
25 statement and put your initials on all the other pages?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, let's look, then -- if you would go to tab 3 now of your
3 statement -- of the bundle of material that I gave you. That is your
4 statement from 2006, and there I'd like you to look at paragraph 17
6 A. I see it.
7 Q. Would you read out the first sentence of that paragraph again,
8 please? Would you read the first sentence of paragraph 17, please, to
9 the Court?
10 A. "In July or August 1991, as a reservist of the JNA Guards
11 Motorised Armoured Regiment, I received call-up papers for a military
12 exercise for military post 4795, through the usual military call-up
14 Q. And then you describe, would that be correct, further down in the
15 statement again how you went from the barracks and then to Bogojevo, and
16 from there you went to Erdut?
17 A. I never received call-up papers. That is easily verifiable
18 through this military post number, through my Municipal/Territorial
19 Defence in Vranje, where I was at the time.
20 Q. My question was whether or not --
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. I demand that you
22 caution the Prosecutor that he should not speak so harshly to the
23 witness. His conduct -- his conduct has been inappropriate of late. He
24 should not be sniping at the witness.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed, Mr. Marcussen.
1 MR. MARCUSSEN: Thank you.
2 Q. Mr. Stojanovic, my question was whether further down in this
3 paragraph you describe again how you went from the barracks to Bogojevo
4 and then on to Erdut.
5 A. Yes, that's what's written here.
6 Q. But what you are testifying to the Court under oath today is that
7 you never told this to the Prosecution? You did not tell this to the
8 Prosecution in August 2004, you did not tell this to the Prosecution in
9 November 2004
10 is that what you want the Court to believe?
11 A. Mr. Prosecutor, you've been trying here, and that is what I'd
12 like to inform the Presiding Judge of -- you are exerting pressure on me
13 to say that I did something and that I was at that place at that given
14 point in time. That can easily be checked in Serbia. I had never been
15 called up in that period of time, nor did I respond to that command. I
16 was not there. I was a volunteer of the SNO, so I never received call-up
17 papers from a military post code. Why would I make such a statement, in
18 this statement, that I reported to Bubanj Potok and went further on?
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, what you say may be
20 right, but it also may be wrong. We are endeavouring to ascertain what
21 is right and what is not.
22 In paragraph 17, we have something. You say the opposite. Very
23 well, but paragraph 17 is something that you signed in your own language.
24 We can see your signature in the document, and that's the problem. You
25 signed the document.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Judge, I did sign it. Yesterday I
2 told you in which way. If there is a way, I've already said. I withdraw
3 all my signatures from all these statements, because 90 per cent of this
4 statement is inaccurate. And I state that with full material
5 responsibility and every other responsibility, that I was not there at
6 the time, and I was not a member of military post code 479, or rather I
7 never received any call-up papers to participate. Even less was I at the
8 Bubanj Potok barracks. That can be established very easily.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, we take note of what
10 you're saying.
11 Please proceed, Mr. Marcussen.
12 MR. MARCUSSEN:
13 Q. Mr. Stojanovic, would you go back to tab 1, please, again. So
14 that would be to the first statement.
15 Yesterday, you testified that you were in Erdut, but that you
16 were there in October of 1991?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Do you stand by that today?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Would you look at paragraph 11 of your statement, please, of the
21 one that you have in front of you now.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. There you say that you remember that Arkan was in Erdut roughly
24 in August or September 2000 -- sorry, 1991, don't you?
25 A. The statement, yes.
1 Q. Now, if we go to tab 2, that is your statement from November.
2 A. Yes. What's the number?
3 Q. Sorry, I've lost my page. At paragraph 16, you give further
4 details about Arkan and what you saw with him; is that right?
5 A. I'm sorry, what was the number; 16?
6 Q. Yes. But, actually, maybe the point is better made if we move on
7 to the next statement. Sorry. Maybe we can leave this particular one
8 and move to the one -- the statement that's under tab 3, just to make it
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. In paragraph 16, there
11 is no reference to Arkan and no reference to Erdut. Please do not allow
12 the Prosecutor to just gloss over this. This is not contained in the
13 paragraph that he referred to.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In paragraph 16 of the
15 November statement, there's no mention of Arkan. There may be some
17 MR. MARCUSSEN: Correct, that's paragraph 17. But I think the
18 more interesting issue is the issue of the dates, and so that's why I'm
19 suggesting that we move on to this. I'm not trying to gloss over
21 Q. If you would look at your 2006 statement, which is under
22 tab number 3, Mr. Stojanovic.
23 A. What's the number?
24 Q. Yeah, and then paragraph number 23. On your copy, I think it is
25 page 9 of the statement.
1 A. Yes. Yes, yes.
2 Q. There, I believe you say that you recall Arkan arrived in Erdut
3 around August or September. Did you say that?
4 A. That is what is written in this statement, but I've never seen
6 Q. You told us yesterday you provided the Office of the Prosecutor
7 three photographs when you met with the Office of the Prosecutor the
8 first time to give a statement. Who are on those photographs? We can
9 call them up, but maybe you can just tell us who was on them.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Am I correct that Arkan is on these photographs?
12 A. I don't see any photographs.
13 Q. Sorry, I was asking if you remembered the photographs.
14 Would the usher please call up 65 ter number 4069, please.
15 A. I see this photograph.
16 Q. What is this photograph?
17 A. These are the fighters who were at Vinarija.
18 Q. And are they Arkan's men?
19 A. I think they are. I got that picture during those few days while
20 I was in Erdut, when we mistakenly received the command to go to Bogojevo
21 and Erdut.
22 Q. Right. Who took that picture?
23 A. I have no idea.
24 Q. Didn't you take the pictures?
25 A. No. I went to the frontline. I wasn't a photographer. I wasn't
1 a military photographer, either.
2 Q. Would you look at -- towards the end of the statement you have in
3 front of you, at page 20 of the statement that you have open now, the
4 2006 statement.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very briefly, Witness, we have
6 a photo in front of us. Were you the one who gave it to the OTP? Do you
7 agree with that or not?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes, yes, because I got
9 it and then I gave it. Yes.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
11 MR. MARCUSSEN:
12 Q. Now, could you look at page 20 of the statement that you have
13 open now? That's your 2006 statement, and that would be -- it's on the
14 screen now.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And can you see there, there is some -- there's a table and it
17 has some numbers in it, and under number 4 --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- it describes -- under number 5, it describes one picture?
20 A. Yes, yes.
21 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... it says:
22 "I took these pictures. You can see Arkan."
23 And on the other one, it says:
24 "I took the pictures."
25 Is that right?
1 A. That is what is written here, but I did not take any pictures.
2 I'm sorry that I didn't bring along a photograph that I received as a
3 memento then, when I and Mr. Arkan had our picture taken. What was I
4 supposed to write then? I took my own picture with Mr. Arkan? I'm going
5 to submit it to the Court tomorrow -- or, rather, I'm going to submit it
6 to the Court. I haven't submitted it now. So it's from that period, so
7 what should I write, I and Mr. Zjelko Raznatovic, Arkan and I took the
9 Q. That's not the picture we're talking about. We're talking about
10 the three pictures you gave to the OTP.
11 Now, it also gives the date -- it also gives the date that the
12 photograph was taken, doesn't it? It says "September 1991" in the second
13 part of the table?
14 A. I've said that I do not stand by some of the information
15 contained in this statement because there are some illogical things;
16 namely, that I was there in that period, let alone give such a statement.
17 I got these pictures, I mean, as a memento, and I gave those pictures, as
18 such, to the OTP.
19 Q. So in August 2004, you were interviewed by the Office of the
20 Prosecutor. You provided three pictures to the Office of the Prosecutor
21 and some articles, and you signed a statement in which you said you were
22 in Erdut in August/September 1991, but that is not actually what you told
23 the Prosecution and something else was read back to you; that's what
24 you're saying?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And then for some reason the same thing happened again in 2006 --
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, at this juncture I
3 have to read to you Rule 91 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, first
4 paragraph. This is what the Rule says:
5 "ex officio or at the request of the party, a Chamber may warn a
6 witness of the duty to tell the truth, and the consequences that may
7 result for a failure to do so."
8 So you are advised now that a witness who gives certain
9 statements under oath, and if the statements are erroneous, that they may
10 be prosecuted for perjury. And if I'm telling you this, it's because
11 I've got a material element, which is the one you have in front of you.
12 You have the two photos with Arkan, and in your language we see: "I have
13 taken these photos." You can see Arkan in them. That's photo number 4.
14 And in photo number 5 it is written: "I am the one who took the photos."
15 This document was signed by you. Now you say the opposite.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm telling the truth, Your Honour.
17 First of all, I didn't carry a camera and I couldn't take any
18 pictures. I got those pictures from these men who were there in Erdut,
19 during those days when we had been mistakenly sent there. I got them by
20 way of a memento. That's the way it was. That can be checked easily, so
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It could be a problem with
23 languages, because I see "I took" in English. In your language, when you
24 mean to say that you are the one who photographs, does that mean that you
25 got the photo from somebody or that you used a camera to take a picture?
1 What do you say, in your language, to say either, "I received a
2 photograph," or, "I took a photograph"? What word do you use in your
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "I got" or "I took" as we say in
5 Serbian jargon, these photographs, because I didn't have a camera and I
6 didn't even know how to take pictures. It is illogical for me to be
7 carrying a camera to the frontline.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Look at the words written in
9 your language under number 4. I see "ja sam snimio." Can you read
10 what's written there?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I took these photographs.
12 Arkan can be seen in them.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The interpreter is telling me
14 that both meanings can exist.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note, it is unequivocal that in
16 English it's -- in Serbian, "snimio."
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. It says: "I took these
18 pictures," so in Serbian that means, "I took those photographs," as in
19 taken away.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, what you say adds
21 nothing to what I've said, because initially I used or I mentioned the
22 English word "I took," and then I shifted to your language, and the
23 interpreters confirmed that you can have both meanings. So there it is.
24 MR. MARCUSSEN: In the English transcript, it's --
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment. The interpreters
1 are telling me that both meanings, taking a photograph or taking a
2 recording, but not receiving either of them.
3 So as far as you can remember, when you used those words, when
4 you uttered them, did you mean to say that you'd received them from
5 somebody or that you had used a camera? What did you mean to say? Did
6 you use the camera to take a photo or just were you handed over a photo?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I received it and took it, yes. I
8 noted in my previous remarks that I took those photographs.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note, as in took from someone.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the best thing would
11 be for the interpreter to interpret for you now. "I took the
12 photograph." Let them translate this into English. "I took the
13 photographs." Have them translate that for you into English.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll check.
15 So say in your language, "I have received the photographs," and
16 we'll see what the interpreters from the English booth are going to say.
17 So please say that, those words.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I received photographs.
19 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Can I see the B/C/S version,
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So the English word is "I
22 received" and not "I took," so there is a difference.
23 Please proceed, Mr. Marcussen.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I am warning you,
25 the witness alternatively said, "I received or took photographs." When
1 it says "dobio sam," it's "I received," and when it says "uzeo sam," then
2 it's "I took" in English. It doesn't mean that he took the photograph as
3 in taking a picture. He could have taken it like seeing a photograph on
4 the table and taking it away.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When you say "I took," were
6 you given the photographs? When you say "I took," one could say you
7 yourself took the photographs with a camera, or, as Mr. Seselj said, you
8 took a photo that was on the table or from somebody's hands. What did
9 you mean to say if you used the words that was translated into English as
10 "I took"?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Judge, I said that I had received
12 these photos from the man who had taken the pictures. I have another
13 photograph at home, where I had my picture taken with Zjelko. So this
14 same man gave me these photographs as a memento.
15 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a question, witness. Let
16 me go back after all to the statement, to the 2006 statement. Please
17 tell us what the word, I'm sorry for my pronunciation, "ja sam snimio."
18 What does that mean?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I means to take pictures, record,
21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But I think that ultimately
23 you said that Zjelko took a photo of you, and Zjelko is the one who gave
24 you a photograph; is that so? He took the photo where you are with
25 Arkan. He took the photo, and he's the one who gave you that photograph
1 in which you can see Arkan's group with a flag? Is that what you said?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that is not my statement.
3 Zjelko could not have taken the pictures. There was a man, as I already
4 said, Stole. He's the one who took the pictures, and he's the one who's
5 authorised; and he gave me the pictures, and he also gave me a picture
6 where I had my picture taken with Mr. Zjelko.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is Stole who took the
8 photo, the photographer was Stole?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Stole was the photographer,
11 and he gave you the photographs?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, the one where I had my
13 picture taken with him, and also he gave me a few other photographs, the
14 ones that I liked, sort of, to take away as a memento.
15 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Sorry.
16 Once again, in 2006 you certified that you had made the
17 statements contained in the prior statement, and that was not true. So
18 either you're not telling the truth today or you did not tell the truth
19 when you confirmed each and every page in 2006.
20 Could you tell us when you are not telling the truth? Did you
21 not tell the truth in 2006 or now?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Madame Judge, I said yesterday and
23 I repeat today, these statements contain incorrect information. I repeat
24 today, under oath, that I never took or made any photographs of
25 Zeljko Raznatovic, Arkan, and the men up there in Erdut. I confirm that
1 now. I never could have taken any pictures. I did not have a camera. I
2 received these pictures.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed, Mr. Marcussen.
4 MR. MARCUSSEN:
5 Q. Yesterday, we talked -- you testified about Kameni, and I asked
6 you whether or not Kameni had ever issued -- I asked you whether Kameni
7 had ever issued any orders to kill Croatians. And we also talked about
8 whether or not you had ever seen any SRS members kill Croatians in
9 Vukovar. And the Presiding Judge had a number of questions to you about
10 whether or not you had seen SRS volunteers in Vukovar. And I believe, if
11 I can summarise your answers, basically they were you had not seen any
12 SRS members in Vukovar; therefore, you could not have seen them kill
13 anyone. And you had never heard -- or heard about an order from Kameni
14 to kill Croatians. Is that a fair summary of what you said yesterday?
15 A. I say today as well, before this Court, that over there at the
16 frontline, where we were in Vukovar, I did not know who the members of
17 the Serbian Radical Party were. Even less did I know Kameni. Perhaps I
18 knew him by sight when this rally took place concerning the distribution
19 of money. But personally, I was never in his presence. I state that
20 before the Court, under oath.
21 Q. I'd like you to please look at your August 2004 statement, so
22 that's tab 1 again. And the paragraph I'd like you to look at is on --
23 or the paragraphs are on page 7, and it's paragraph 26 and 27.
24 The first sentence of paragraph 26 is:
25 "Kameni issued an order to kill all Croatians who carried
2 And the last sentence is:
3 "Kameni issued, himself --" sorry:
4 "Kameni himself issued our group, which was guarding houses, to
5 shoot all Croatians we came across on the spot."
6 That's what the statement says, isn't it?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. In paragraph 27, the second sentence says:
9 "I personally witnessed Seselj's Chetniks from Kameni's group
10 beat up and slaughter four or five Croatian civilians, men, who had
12 Doesn't it say that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, in your November 2004 statement, where you provided various
15 clarifications, I believe you talked about this again at paragraphs 19
16 and 20. Would you please look under tab 2, where that statement is?
17 That is, again page 7, I think, in your copy. It says:
18 "Regarding paragraph 26 of the previous statements, I now state
19 the following additional facts: I confirm that Kameni ordered our group
20 to kill Croatians, no matter whether or not they were armed. Now I also
21 remember that in Vukovar five Croatian men who had surrendered and handed
22 over their weapons were captured and killed by SRS volunteers. I
23 witnessed this incident with my eyes, and with me 20 other volunteers
25 Isn't that what it says?
1 A. It's not 20 others, but 20 volunteers.
2 Q. Thank you for that clarification. But other than that, I think I
3 read this paragraph correctly, didn't I?
4 A. Yes. Again, I say I am here under oath, and I say we never had a
5 direct order from Kameni. We had our own commander who issued an order
6 to us to the effect that if the Croats should attack us, we can freely
7 defend ourselves, we can even shoot, I mean, if there were to be that
8 kind of situation. That was inevitable, because now we were at the
9 frontline, guarding these houses. We were guarding these houses so that
10 these Croats would not, during the course of the day -- I mean, the
11 people who were armed and who were fighting against the Serbs. So there
12 were two sides involved there. They should not take up the houses that
13 we were guarding. And of course we were guarding them with weapons.
14 I never received a command to the effect that I should take a
15 rifle and kill a Croat, let alone someone who was without a weapon. I
16 was a plain soldier there.
17 Q. Right. I just asked you about the contents of your statement.
18 I'd like you to go now to your 2006 statement, so that is again
19 under tab number 3. And there I'd like you to look at page 14,
20 paragraph 40. Would you read that paragraph to the Court, please?
21 A. "Kameni issued an order to kill all Croats who carried weapons.
22 Volunteers engaged in cleansing the area told us that when they found
23 Croats, they killed them on the spot, armed or not, because they did not
24 have the time to take them to Velepromet, where there was a collection
25 centre and a prison. Kameni himself ordered our group, which guarded
1 houses, to execute Croats we found on the spot. I confirm that Kameni
2 ordered our group to kill Croats, no matter whether they were armed or
3 not. Now I also remember that in Vukovar, five Croatian men who
4 surrendered and handed over their weapons were captured and killed by SRS
5 volunteers. I witnessed this incident with my eyes, and with me 20 other
6 volunteers did."
7 Should I go on?
8 Q. No, thank you very much. I think that is quite clear. So, again
9 you have, in three consecutive statements, stated the same thing; namely,
10 that Kameni issued orders to kill Croatians and that you witnessed SRS
11 members kill people in Vukovar, which also implies that there were indeed
12 SRS members in Vukovar; isn't that true?
13 A. Well, it's not true. I mentioned during my previous remarks that
14 over there at the frontline at Vukovar, we did not know who was a member
15 of what political organisation. We communicated amongst ourselves, but
16 we were Serbs. No one --
17 Q. Yeah, no, I appreciate that. I just asked you about the
19 Your Honours, I have three more issues I wanted to cover, but
20 I think we are --
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Since the Prosecutor is
22 cross-examining a witness who was declared hostile to the OTP, he doesn't
23 have the right to interrupt him when he is giving answers, just like you
24 won't allow me to cut off witnesses when I cross-examine them, when their
25 answers are too lengthy. Now the Prosecutor didn't have the right to
1 stop him from providing an explanation.
2 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, at any rate, the
3 Prosecutor had asked a question, and the witness was answering about
4 something else. So if he was interrupted, that's for that reason.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Time has come for the break.
6 You're supposed to have 30 minutes out of the two hours you had
7 initially. See whether you can sort of pair it down.
8 Thank you.
9 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
10 --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen.
12 MR. MARCUSSEN:
13 Q. Mr. Stojanovic, could you please look under tab 1 again of the
14 material that I gave you before. That's again your August 2004
15 statement. And if you would look at page 5, please, at paragraph 18.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, yesterday you testified that you had not seen Seselj at
18 Erdut. Is that correct?
19 A. Yes, correct.
20 Q. Do you stand by that today?
21 A. Yes, I stand by that.
22 Q. Am I not correct that here at page 5, we have a section devoted
23 to the presence of Mr. Seselj and his volunteers in Erdut?
24 A. What's that?
25 Q. Would you say that was inserted into the statement after it had
1 been read back to you or that was not read back to you in August of 2004?
2 A. I am saying that this part of my statement is not my statement.
3 I said here publicly yesterday that I had no relationship with the
4 Serbian Radical Party or Mr. Vojislav Seselj. We were the Serbian
5 National Revival, and that's how we went there.
6 Q. You put your initials on this -- on the bottom of this page, and
7 just maybe six centimetres above that -- six centimetres above that there
8 is a heading saying: "The arrival of Vojislav Seselj and his volunteers
9 in Erdut." And you didn't notice that?
10 A. I said, and I stand by it, I gave an oath, that it was read out
11 to me from the laptop, my whole statement, which is completely different
12 from what I signed, because I trusted the investigators and I signed. I
13 never even got a single copy of this statement.
14 Q. And would you go now to tab 2, please, which is your November
15 2004 statement, and there I'd like you to go to page 6 and look at
16 paragraph 17. And here it says:
17 "Regarding paragraphs 18 and 19 of my previous statement," which
18 is the section about Vojislav Seselj being in Erdut that we just talked
19 about, "I now state the following additional facts."
20 And then you describe how Seselj came to Erdut within the 20 days
21 that you spent there and how he came with red buses, and how you saw
22 Arkan greet Seselj and line up the volunteers, and you describe how that
23 whole thing happened and how Mr. Seselj gave a speech. That's what's in
24 paragraph 17 that you're looking at now, isn't it?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, let's go to tab number 3, which is your 2006 statement. And
2 there I'd like you to look at page 11, paragraph 32.
3 A. All right.
4 Q. And there, again, we have a paragraph which says:
5 "Seselj came to Erdut within the 20 days I spent at the winery in
6 Erdut. I saw Seselj personally. His arrival was organised from Belgrade
7 because they arrived in red buses from Belgrade transport company called
8 GSP," and so on and so forth. You go on to describe how he greeted Arkan
9 and Arkan greeted him, and there was a speech; is that right?
10 A. In this statement, under paragraph 32, it reads that, but I
11 didn't say that. There are discrepancies. I just see that now. In
12 paragraph 2 under 17, it says a bus came, and here it says three buses
13 came. There are some illogical things that somebody added. I wasn't
14 even there.
15 Q. So, again, you signed three consecutive statements to be used as
16 evidence before an international tribunal, all of which contained
17 information about Seselj being in Erdut, without you ever noticing it?
18 A. I've never seen that. Perhaps it could be seen on television,
19 because at that time Radio Television Serbia broadcast all sorts of
20 things. Can I --
21 Q. One of the things you said yesterday, and you explained as
22 something that was illogical, was you said that you provided the
23 Prosecution a document which showed that your military service was only
24 from October 1991; right?
25 A. Yes, correct.
1 MR. MARCUSSEN: Would the usher please call up 65 ter
2 number 2561.
3 Yes, Mr. Stojanovic, you're quite right, it's also attached to
4 your statement. Yes, that's the document I'm going to ask you about.
5 We're just waiting for it to come up on the screen here.
6 Q. Now, first of all, you gave this document to the Prosecution in
7 August 2004, when you gave your first statement; is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And what is this document?
10 A. This is a document, as I maybe said yesterday, but maybe not,
11 that all volunteers of any political orientation, the Serbian National
12 Revival, Serbian Renewal Movement, or Serbian Radical Party, or any other
13 political or apolitical orientation had to report to certain commands in
14 a certain area of war operations. There is a procedure to identify
15 people, to take their military evidentiary specialty, like infantry, tank
16 crews, et cetera, so in that way when I arrived at Sid, I got an official
17 certificate that I was a member of the Serbian -- of the Yugoslav
18 People's Army.
19 Q. So you're saying that the Prosecution has inserted into your
20 statement that you were called up in July/August and that you were in
21 Erdut in August/September, although that is not true, that was included
22 in your statement, and that to the same statement the Prosecution
23 attached a document which according to you show you were only involved in
24 events in October; is that what you're saying?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. That would seem rather incompetent of the Prosecution, wouldn't
3 A. I believe that many things were inserted. I can't say whether
4 the Prosecution is competent or not. It's up to the Court to decide
5 that. I brought a document to show where I was located in which period,
6 at what time.
7 Q. Okay. And this document is a decision that you have been granted
8 a special retirement benefit; is that right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And isn't it true that that's a special retirement benefit you
11 were given for the period that you -- or the periods that you were at the
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And it says that that time should be counted double for the
15 purpose of --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And isn't it a fact that that is because that's how the rules
18 operate, that you are given extra time when you serve at the frontline?
19 A. Yes, that is regulated by the law.
20 Q. So this document shows that you were at the frontline between the
21 1st of October, 1991, and the 15th of May, 1992, and also in 1999, but it
22 has nothing to do with whether or not you received a call-up order in
23 July 1991; isn't that right?
24 A. Right.
25 Q. Thank you very much. You testified yesterday that you did not
1 see Mr. Seselj in Vukovar; is that correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
4 A. I stand by that.
5 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, just in an effort to make -- save
6 time, I suspect that the witness's answers are going to be the same, so I
7 will change the modality here a little bit.
8 Q. Mr. Stojanovic, isn't it correct that in paragraphs 28 and 29 of
9 your August 2004, and in paragraph 20 of your November 2004 statement,
10 and in paragraph 42 of your 2006 statement, actually state that you
11 personally saw Mr. Seselj in the Vukovar area, and you even described his
12 uniform, or what he was wearing, rather?
13 A. I said, and I stand by it, that I had not seen Mr. Seselj in
14 Vukovar. I heard that he was in Vukovar. He was not my party leader so
15 that I would approach him or greet him or just to go see him. I was
16 doing something else on the frontline. I was not interested in that.
17 And I stand by what I said before this Honourable Court. I hadn't seen
18 him. Even the people who were there, who were guarding the houses, were
19 not interested. They didn't care for Mr. Seselj or anyone else. They
20 were just concerned with saving their own skins.
21 Q. Yesterday, you testified that you had never -- you were not a
22 member of the SRS in 1991, and you explained to the Court how you
23 actually were a member of the SNO, and you gave all sort of details about
24 that; isn't that correct?
25 A. Yes, I said that I was a member of the Serbian National Revival
1 down there in Serbia
2 board. Everyone knows that.
3 Q. If you look in paragraph 6 --
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A small detail.
5 The French interpretation and the English interpretation are not
6 exactly the same. In English, you -- we can read that you were a member
7 of the SNO, whereas in French I heard that you were the founder of SNO.
8 So were you a member or were you the founder of that organisation in
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I founded that organisation in
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So it's the English
13 interpretation that was not accurate. So you were the founding person.
14 Thank you.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, and we participated in the
16 first elections in the town of Vranje
17 parties that were on the electoral lists at the time.
18 MR. MARCUSSEN:
19 Q. In paragraph 6, the last sentence of paragraph 6 of your November
20 2004 statement, which is under tab 2, but I read it to you, you describe
21 the rally in Vranje, and then you say:
22 "As a result of Seselj's speech, I decided to become an SRS
23 volunteer ."
24 And in paragraph 7, the first sentence is:
25 "I was the first SRS volunteer from Vranje who went to the
2 And then you describe how you travelled there and so on. You're
3 saying that's not correct, that is not what you told the Office of the
5 A. Yes. I was never a member in 1991. I was not a volunteer of the
6 Serbian Radical Party or a member. In order to be a volunteer, you had
7 to be a member of the Serbian Radical Party. And I went to the war zone
8 as a member of the Serbian National Revival or, rather, the Serbian
9 Chetnik Movement which we were fostering. That was one of our party
11 Q. And yet again --
12 A. One of our objectives.
13 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I'm sorry.
14 Witness, but the Serbian Radical Party, did it not also recruit
15 people who were not members of the party; in other words, volunteers who
16 were not members of the party, as far as you know?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From what I know, first of all, we
18 were never interested in what the opposite side was doing. We were
19 organising our people. In our programme, it was stated that volunteers
20 would be tested members of the Serbian National Revival, those who
21 fostered Chetnik movement as one of the Serbian traditions. We knew
22 about the others, but we didn't know who was a member of the Serbian
23 Radical Party in Vranje, who was a follower, a sympathiser. We were in
24 conflict in Vranje.
25 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] So you do not know?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I did not.
2 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] In fact, I was waiting for the
4 So you don't know how the Serbian Radical Party recruited its
5 volunteers; if, for instance, they had to be members of the party or --
6 you don't know?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We in Vranje, we communicated,
8 socialised, people from various parties, and I heard that volunteers of
9 the Serbian Radical Party went away to the frontline, but I don't know
10 under what conditions. They were never in a close relationship or had
11 close ties with us.
12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Stojanovic, you testified just a while ago
14 that you were never a member of the SRS in 1991, and I just want to
15 clarify with you this indication and ask you: Were you a member of the
16 SRS at any other point in time, that is to say, before or after 1991?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the period from 1991 to 1994, as
18 our volunteers were going away, we had losses on the frontline. We lost
19 members. Some political beliefs within the party changed, and democracy
20 prevailed eventually. And one part of the party joined the Serbian
21 Radical Party in 1994. I joined, too. And not long after that, I
22 stopped being a member of the Serbian Radical Party. I was not
23 interested in politics anymore. I concentrated on academia. I was
24 dealt -- I was engaged in sports. I wasn't interested in politics
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
2 MR. MARCUSSEN:
3 Q. Mr. Stojanovic, isn't it true that again in your 2006 statement
4 it is repeated that:
5 "Right after the rally, about ten people enrolled in the SRS,
6 including myself, and very soon we went to the front. As a result of
7 Seselj's speech, I decided to become an SRS volunteer?"
8 And that is at paragraph 8, at the end.
9 A. Mr. Prosecutor, we are going back to the veracity of some
10 information in this paragraph.
11 At that time, I was not a member of the Serbian Radical Party,
12 nor did I have any desire to have any cooperation in any way with
13 Mr. Vojislav Seselj, because our political option, and as I said, I'm a
14 Serbian nationalist and the real Chetnik ideology was my ideology, in a
15 small town it's curious to see what's going on. I just went there just
16 like that, but I didn't really care at that time. What's important is
17 that my members did not go.
18 Q. In January/February this year, you were in contact with the
19 Prosecution with a view to make arrangements for your testimony at the
20 beginning of this case; isn't that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you took various steps in order to be able to travel; isn't
23 that true?
24 A. Would you clarify that question? I don't understand it.
25 Q. Did you take steps so that you would be able to travel?
1 A. I can't recall.
2 Q. But then -- but then on the 21st of February, you sent a letter
3 to the Prosecution, informing the Prosecution that you wanted to be a
4 Defence witness?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. So you had changed your mind at this point in time, had you?
7 A. Not so.
8 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, I have no further questions for the
10 I would at this point respectfully request the admission of the
11 witness's -- the witness's three statements that we have been going
12 through today.
13 It is, as I indicated yesterday, our submission that the witness
14 has been adverse to telling the truth, as he has set it out correctly
15 earlier on in his three consecutive statements to the OTP.
16 The witness has cooperated with the Prosecution, given three
17 statements which he signed, which were read back to him or even read by
18 himself, to which he had the possibility to make corrections, as Your
19 Honours have heard about. Your Honours have heard about the procedure
20 that brought about these statements in a safe manner.
21 The witness provided various documents voluntarily to the
23 The witness was on the Prosecution's witness list to testify at
24 the beginning of the year as of first -- the early batch of witnesses in
25 this case, and spoke to the Prosecution about travel arrangements to come
1 and travel here. And then in February -- in the end of February, the
2 witness stopped communicating with OTP and stated that he was a Defence
3 witness. And as Your Honours know, various other procedural steps had to
4 be taken in order to secure the witness's presence today.
5 But it is our submission that it has become clear during the
6 testimony of the witness that the witness's earlier statements are
7 reliable reflections of his evidence, and on this basis we seek the
8 admission of the three statements pursuant to Rule 89(C), so that this
9 material is before Your Honours to assess the credibility of the witness
10 evidence. It's of course to the Judges to give weight to the testimony
11 and the statements at an appropriate time; but we submit that Your
12 Honours should have these statements in evidence and that Your Honours
13 can rely on the substance of these statements when the time comes to
14 deliberate in this case.
15 Thank you, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
17 Mr. Marcussen.
18 The Trial Chamber will listen to the cross-examination, and we
19 will render a decision regarding the admission of these three written
21 Mr. Seselj, you have three [as interpreted] more hours -- or you
22 have three [as interpreted] hours, rather. Let's not waste any time.
23 You have the floor. I'm sorry, you have two hours, not three hours.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Judge, can I say something?
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please. The
1 transcript has to be corrected. I said Mr. Seselj has two hours and not
2 three, as it states here.
3 Very well. This being done, what did you want to say, sir?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm saying to the Honourable Trial
5 Chamber that the Prosecutor did not state correctly what all the measures
6 were that were taken and what all the pressures exerted were for me to
7 come here to testify.
8 I had 30 to 50 telephone calls per day. Problems were created
9 for me at work in Serbia
10 personally. These are enormous pressures. That can be established
11 easily by way of the telephone. Somebody would call and introduce
12 themselves, saying they were from The Hague Tribunal, somebody else from
13 the Registry, somebody else from the OTP. I mean, really. And that hurt
14 my health.
15 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Regarding this pressure, it was
16 before February or after, or after -- or, rather, the Prosecutor told us
17 that after February, you ceased any contact with the OTP. Is that right?
18 Do you confirm that as well?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I confirm that, because my team of
20 lawyers received the real statement, that is to say, the one that I am
21 denying here and saying that the OTP reprocessed it in order to suit
22 somebody's needs.
23 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] That's very unusual, but we'll
24 look into this.
25 You were a protected witness. Your lawyer, your attorney, should
1 not have received this statement, but I will address this issue later
2 with my colleagues. But that's another matter altogether.
3 I wanted to know something. So these pressures were exerted on
4 you, and this was done before February; is that right? When did they
5 start? You said that you would receive 30 to 50 phone calls a day. When
6 did all that begin?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Madame Judge, it wasn't before
8 February, it was before the new year. That's when it started, December
10 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Witness, in February, if I
11 understood correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, during the
12 first weeks of this year, you had contacts with the OTP in order to take
13 the necessary steps for you to come to The Hague; is that right?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
15 continues] ...
16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] And notwithstanding this
17 pressure, these repeated phone calls that exerted so much pressure on
18 you, you nevertheless had contacts with them in order to come to
19 The Hague
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
23 Mr. Seselj, you may begin.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have to state my
1 views regarding the request of the Prosecution to have this admitted into
2 evidence. Should I do that straight away or after the cross-examination?
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You can do it -- you have two
4 more hours -- or, rather, you have two hours, so you may use your time as
5 you see fit.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. I'm not going to use
7 all of two hours. I'm just going to put a few brief questions.
8 But first of all I would like to remind you that it is absolutely
9 inappropriate, from the view of the interests of justice, to have
10 admitted into evidence statements that were prepared by the OTP, itself,
11 and that the witness cannot confirm to be his own in the courtroom.
12 So far, about 35 witnesses were heard here, excluding the
13 experts, and practically in each and every one of these cases, there was
14 a problem; namely, that in the statement that was composed by the OTP,
15 there was something that the witness had not said. I would like to
16 remind you of the case of Goran Stoparic, whose statement contained that
17 when arriving at the rally in Sid, I greeted those present with Hitler's
18 salute, and so on and so forth. There was a big group of witnesses with
19 the same problem.
20 I refer to something in the trial of Slobodan Milosevic. There
21 were 48 witnesses who testified in court quite opposite to what was
22 stated in the statements that were composed for them by the OTP. In
23 every case in every trial, this crops up.
24 Mrs. Lattanzi can confirm that that happened in the Rasim Delic
25 case that she was involved in, too. So this appears everywhere, which
1 shows what the methodology of the OTP's work is. That is why I am
2 absolutely opposed to that.
3 None of the things written by the OTP can be admitted into
4 evidence. As for what's written in the Prosecution statements, I can
5 cross-examine the members of the OTP who wrote up these statements.
6 Now I'm going to move on to the cross-examination.
7 Cross-examination by Mr. Seselj:
8 Q. Mr. Stojanovic, I'm just going to put a few brief questions to
10 Do you remember the meeting with Paolo Pastore-Stocchi and
11 Daniel Saxon on the 21st of June, 2006?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Was that in Belgrade
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. How long did the meeting last?
16 A. Briefly, because Mr. Paolo was in a hurry to catch a plane.
17 Q. Can you tell me approximately how long it lasted?
18 A. Not longer than 20 minutes.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, I would just like to draw
20 your attention to these 20 minutes. Compare it to what was said this
21 morning, that the meeting lasted all day until the evening hours, and
22 then you will see -- well, and I did not have an opportunity to get in
23 touch with this witness since Daniel Saxon testified in court. I did not
24 have an opportunity to speak to the witness.
25 Q. Were you given a text in advance that you were supposed to sign?
1 A. First, it was read out from the laptop. That was very fast. I
2 had to wait for a few minutes for it to be printed out, while I had a cup
3 of coffee, and then I signed -- or, rather, initialled that statement.
4 Q. Was an explanation provided to you then why the OTP, on the basis
5 of your two alleged previous statements, made a single statement and
6 asked you to sign it yet again?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Were you told that they would apply Rule 89(F)? That means that
9 your statement would be admitted into evidence without you having to come
10 to The Hague
11 A. No.
11 (redacted). So for the forum, we should also move back into private
12 session. In fact, no, I'm going to ask the Registrar to redact the
13 beginning of the question, of your question, and then we will go then
14 into private session in order for you to be able to put questions
15 regarding this particular line of questioning.
16 So, Mr. Registrar, please, let's move into private session.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, then I'm not going to discuss
18 it any further. I don't want to deal with anything in private session
19 with this witness.
20 Q. Mr. Stojanovic, after that, it was 2007. Throughout 2007, did
21 you have any contact with The Hague OTP?
22 A. I cannot recall. I think towards the end of the year, I received
23 these calls to come here for proofing and for preparations for the Court.
24 Q. The end of 2007?
25 A. Yes, 2007, that's what I stated.
1 Q. And until then, you had no idea what was contained in your
3 A. No.
4 Q. What was it that influenced you that at one point in time you
5 decided that you didn't want to be a Prosecution witness?
6 A. Because I believe -- well, after all, I'm an intellectual and I
7 understand some things. I understand that something was wrong. Enormous
8 pressure was being exerted for me to come here. And during your trial,
9 nobody told me that I would be a witness against you.
10 Q. Did you follow my trial during the first days?
11 A. A few times, yes.
12 Q. For example, did you watch the testimony of Goran Stoparic that
13 was in January?
14 A. Well, maybe. Maybe, perhaps 15 or 20 minutes, I'd switch
16 Q. So following the beginning of my trial did not influence you in
17 terms of giving up on testifying here?
18 A. I don't know how to put this to you.
19 Q. And during 2008 --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- did you spend some time in hospital?
22 A. My state of health became worse precisely because the threats
23 became more frequent, and also the gentlemen from the OTP were calling
24 me, and you can see that from my medical files.
25 Q. Did you say that to the doctors who were treating you?
1 A. No, no. I did not talk about that. I just reported because I
2 said I was sick.
3 Q. What did the threats consist of?
4 A. Well, as for the OTP, it wasn't threats, it was pressure; that I
5 had to come here to testify. Well, once or twice would have been okay,
6 but it happened every day.
7 Q. Did they tell you what would happen if you refused to testify?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. So what did they tell you?
10 A. That not responding to a court would result in my being sentenced
11 to prison.
12 Q. Was any pressure ever exerted against you from my side?
13 A. No.
14 Q. My legal advisers, that is to say, my associates from the Defence
15 team, did they exert any pressure against you?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Did anybody else during the course of this year exert any kind of
18 pressure against you so that you -- in terms of you not being a
19 Prosecution witness, but rather a Defence witness?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Did you do that purely through your own free will?
22 A. Through my own free will, at the moment when I received the
23 entire documentation, that is to say, the entire record that totally
24 astounded me, some of the facts that I referred to, I mean, where I was
25 involved in the war and then it turned out that I wasn't, born in 1966
1 rather than 1986. I was so astonished by my statement that, I mean, some
2 facts quite simply are not truthful and do not correspond to my
4 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Stojanovic. I have
5 no further questions.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Seselj.
7 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a question.
8 Questioned by the Court:
9 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Witness, you have spoken to us
10 about pressure exerted by the OTP on you. You also mentioned threats
11 which you received. You told us you did not know where these threats
12 came from. I would like to understand more about this, about the
13 threats. The issues about the pressure is sufficiently clear.
14 Now, what were all these threats? Not where they came from
15 because you have already told us that you didn't know where these threats
16 came from. Now, what were all these threats about?
17 A. Yes. The contents of these threats was that I was a traitor of
18 Serbian people, and a few other threats like that.
19 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] And you were told that you were
20 a traitor to the Serb people. Why ?
21 A. It upset me so much that it even upset my family. I even had to
22 change my apartment. The address that is stated here is not the address.
23 I live at a completely different address in Belgrade.
24 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Did you think that people knew
25 that you were in contact with this Tribunal to come and testify on behalf
1 of the Prosecution?
2 A. Yes.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor, do you have any
5 MR. MARCUSSEN: No, I don't.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 Witness, on behalf of the Bench, I'd like to thank you for having
8 come to testify during these two days, and I wish you a safe journey
10 I shall ask the usher to escort you out of the courtroom.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too.
12 [The witness withdrew]
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, we shall resume
14 this court case on the 26th of August, if I'm not mistaken. We did not
15 have any list of witnesses. Will we have this list soon?
16 MR. MARCUSSEN: Yes, Your Honour, we will make efforts to provide
17 you with that list as quickly as we can. I believe arrangements are
18 being made with various witnesses to line them up for after the recess.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
20 Mr. Seselj, as far as the issue you raised yesterday is
21 concerned, i.e., the search of your cell, prison management has told us,
22 via an e-mail, that an investigation is underway, and we'll be informed
23 about what happened. I cannot, at this stage, answer your question, but
24 we shall be kept abreast of this.
25 A second issue which I would like to deal with quickly.
1 Yesterday, I mentioned an e-mail which Mr. Zoran Krasic sent to the
2 Parliament in Belgrade
3 and in this e-mail, in Cyrillic, there was an insult. This e-mail
4 contained an insult. What happened, exactly? Was it Mr. Krasic who
5 included this in his e-mail or was it someone who added this in when this
6 was transferred electronically? I don't know. Whatever the case may be,
7 the e-mail has been given to you, so perhaps you can ask Mr. Krasic more
8 about this. I have material proof of these insulting words.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have already investigated the
10 matter in detail. I tried to tell you about it last night already, and I
11 handed over to the representative of the Registry two photographs that
12 show sent messages and a folder with deleted messages on Zoran Krasic's
14 First of all, Zoran Krasic states categorically that yesterday he
15 had absolutely no contact with The Hague Tribunal, not with the Registry,
16 not with the OTP. Also, that he never had any contact with the
17 representatives of the Registry before that, either.
18 The first photograph that I submitted yesterday, and it can be
19 put on the ELMO because the Registry has it, shows the messages sent from
20 Krasic's computer. In his office, Zoran Krasic, in his office at the
21 National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia
22 uses, and in that photograph one can see that the last message that was
23 sent by Zoran Krasic is dated the 8th of July, 2008, at 11.38. And the
24 following words can be seen: "From Zoran Krasic," meaning that
25 Zoran Krasic sent the message.
1 In the lower right-hand corner of the first photograph, you can
2 see the date, the 22nd of July, 2008, and the time when it was copied,
3 that is, 1702 hours in the afternoon, after I called Krasic on the phone
4 during the break and asked for detailed information.
5 The second photograph shows deleted messages. That folder is
6 empty. In the lower right-hand corner of the second picture, you can see
7 the date, the 22nd of July, 2008, and the time of copying the picture,
8 1702 hours. So Zoran Krasic did not send a single e-mail on the 22nd of
9 July, 2008
10 Zoran Krasic has no idea as to who the official of the Registry
11 is, the one whose name is mentioned here. Is there any reason for her
12 name not to be mentioned? I have no reason to insist on mentioning her
13 name. Should it remain protected? He never heard of a person under that
14 name, never. So this is absolutely impossible.
15 Now, what happened? Was anything sent from the Assembly? Did
16 someone from the Registry try to reach Zoran Krasic in some way? That is
17 something that the Registry should explain to us now. Were they looking
18 for someone via e-mail and was this the answer that they got, or were
19 they totally inactive; did they simply receive this? However, it is
20 absolutely impossible that this was sent by Zoran Krasic, absolutely
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Whatever the case
23 may be, in the "inbox" of this person, there is a mention: "From
24 Zoran Krasic," together with the attachment, so this may be someone who
25 has used, on the 22nd of July, the computer to send this.
1 Not much more can be said about this.
2 Do you have another issue you'd like to address, Mr. Seselj?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just this question, Mr. President.
4 I believe that this is a very serious question.
5 I am personally convinced that someone is doing this on purpose
6 and that perhaps this is only the beginning, in order to compromise my
7 legal advisers. You know that such things were done in 2006 and in the
8 earlier years in order to compromise my Defence. You know that once my
9 wife's visit was prohibited in relation to the conditions under which the
10 wives of other detainees come to visit. This was based on the unverified
11 claims made by the OTP that she is used by me as a channel for sending
12 some kind of messages to the outside world.
13 Whenever a rigorous measure is supposed to be taken against me,
14 they plant or fabricate false evidence in order to corroborate their
15 requests. I believe that this is part of an organised campaign that
16 somebody is carrying out in anticipation of a ruling to be taken by you
17 in order to deny me the right to defend myself. I think that that is
18 what is going on, and in that case members of The Hague Tribunal -- well,
19 now I cannot identify whether it's the Registry or the OTP. Somebody
20 from here is doing that in cahoots with certain secret services in
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Seselj, what you have
23 just said is on the record. You know that you have in front of you a
24 professional Bench that weighs up everything. We do not exclude perhaps
25 that some people are perhaps put in a difficult position. This is why we
1 have this adversarial system. We listen to both sides and then we
2 determine the matter. We are extremely careful and vigilant, of course.
3 If there is any material element, we can conduct further investigations.
4 We have resources to do this, and maybe we will follow this route, and
5 all alternatives need to be addressed. And before we reach a conclusion,
6 we of course are not entitled to make any mistakes. Since we are not
7 entitled to make any mistakes, all the more reason to be extremely
8 cautious, and this is exactly what we do.
9 Mr. Marcussen.
10 MR. MARCUSSEN: [Previous translation continues] ... addressed
11 this earlier. I just wondered whether as we had requested the admission
12 of the three statements of the previous witness, we should have MFI
13 numbers given to these statements so we don't lose track of them. The
14 65 ter numbers, if Your Honours would like me to repeat them, would be
15 65 ter number --
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, we'll give an MFI number,
17 but it's not because you have an MFI number that the document is
18 admitted. This is just a number which enables you to identify the
20 We have three statements, one in 2004, two in 2006. Registrar,
21 can we have an MFI number, please --
22 MR. MARCUSSEN: [Previous translation continues] ... 65 and 7266.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honours. The statement which is
24 65 ter number 7265 will be Exhibit number MFI P526. The statement which
25 is 65 ter number 7264 will be MFI P527, and the statement that's 65 ter
1 number 7266 will be MFI P528.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
3 Mr. Seselj.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In regard to what Mr. Marcussen
5 said, I also have something to add to what I said about his request, his
7 These three statements should by no means be admitted into
8 evidence, as any kind of evidence, but they can be additional proof in my
9 criminal report against Carla Del Ponte, Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff and
10 Daniel Saxon, and my later criminal report against Paolo Stocchi. It can
11 be supporting evidence for that, showing what methods the Prosecution is
12 using, where it's for the Prosecution to tender what they composed
13 themselves and what the witness denies is his authentic statement, and
14 denies consistently, cannot go into evidence.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You're not going to go any
16 further into this.
17 Just a reminder of a technical nature. Witness 48 was not
18 involved in any of these complaints. This is what I needed to say.
19 Mr. Marcussen.
20 MR. MARCUSSEN: If I'm not mistaken, the filings that relates to
21 this particular issue by the accused, I believe, are all confidential
22 filings, so I wonder whether we should redact the transcript making
23 reference to this.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The contents, yes, but
25 everybody knows now, for a long time already, that Mr. Seselj has filed
1 motions about this. I think everybody knows about this. No secret.
2 Mr. Seselj.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wanted to say my motions are not
4 confidential, because they were published at the moment when I filed
5 them, first on my web site, then later in one of my books. The responses
6 from the Prosecution are confidential, and the decisions of the Trial
7 Chamber are confidential. I did not mention them, but the contents of my
8 motions became known to the public as I filed them. And now to deny to
9 the public that they exist is really pointless.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, as you know, we
11 shall meet again at the end of August. This will be on a Tuesday. I
12 don't know if it will be on Tuesday morning or Tuesday afternoon, but you
13 will be informed about this.
14 In the meantime, I wish everyone a good rest, and we shall meet
15 again, Mr. Seselj, at the end of August.
16 The Court stands adjourned.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.49 a.m.
18 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 26th day of
19 August, 2008.