1 Thursday, 6 November 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 8.31 a.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, kindly call
7 the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, everyone in the courtroom.
9 This is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus
10 Vojislav Seselj.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam Registrar.
12 Today is Thursday, 6 November 2008.
13 Good morning, Witness.
14 Good morning to all the OTP representatives, good morning,
15 Mr. Seselj, and good morning to all the people helping us out.
16 WITNESS: MILORAD VOJNOVIC [Resumed]
17 [The witness answered through interpreter]
18 Questioned by the Court: [Continued]
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Colonel, I still have a few
20 questions to ask you, and I am now getting to the following question.
21 You told us you testified in the so-called Vukovar trial, in the
22 Mrksic, Sljivancanin, and Radic trial. I assume that you were
23 cross-examined by the Defence team of Colonel Mrksic. Yesterday, you
24 told us that you had reported to Colonel Mrksic what you had seen in
25 Ovcara, and I assume that this may have been challenged by
1 Colonel Mrksic.
2 As far as you can remember, do you remember whether the lawyer
3 for Colonel Mrksic cross-examined you on this?
4 A. Yes.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What was his case? What did
6 Colonel Mrksic say about the fact that you had apparently reported to the
7 colonel about what you had seen?
8 A. They did not say anything about that. They just noted what I
9 said and did not dispute it.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But can we infer from that that
11 Colonel Mrksic did not agree with you?
12 A. I cannot say with any certainty whether he agreed with me or not,
13 but I know that the Defence did not ask me any questions about my
14 reporting to Mrksic. We talked about other things.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you took up command in
16 December in Vukovar, and that is a few days only after the fall of
17 Vukovar. We know because we heard several witnesses in this respect, but
18 we had a witness just before you yesterday. The witness said that she
19 was taken prisoner and taken to the - I can't remember the name - I think
20 it's Sremska Mitrovica prison. So she was taken to that prison, where
21 she was examined, interrogated, by a so-called Colonel Branko as part of
22 an investigation that was underway. So there's no doubt about it. The
23 JNA did investigate by interviewing people.
24 As far as you know, was there a so-called Command investigation -
25 that is the military term for it - as to the events in Vukovar; and as
1 part of your duties and responsibility as the Vukovar commander in
2 December, did you have the visit of investigators who wanted to know and
3 ask you what had happened?
4 A. Nobody came to talk to me specifically about these matters, but I
5 did hear, at the meeting with Mrksic, that he said investigative
6 authorities would come from Belgrade
7 would come, that they would investigate and gather facts about it. He
8 even said that accommodation would be provided -- should be provided for
9 these people. This must have begun while Colonel Mrksic was still there.
10 How this whole thing developed from that on, I don't know, but I know it
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you're telling
13 me that before he left, Colonel Mrksic told you that investigators were
14 about to come and that you had to do all that was necessary to
15 accommodate them, to put them up. So, obviously, you do confirm that
16 there was an investigation.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Excuse me, Colonel. I'm not exactly sure of your
18 testimony. Could you be clear about whether, to your knowledge, an
19 investigation was ever carried out? Did these people come from Belgrade
20 as Colonel Mrksic had said?
21 A. He didn't say that just to me. He said it at the meeting of
22 commanders and commanding officers of the brigade, that accommodation be
23 provided to these people. I saw some of these people, but I didn't know
24 them, because I had come to the area from Slovenia. I didn't know any of
25 these people, but I know that some action was taken. In what scope, for
1 how long, I don't know.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: And did you ever hear of the results of the
4 A. No, no, I didn't.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In answering my fellow Judge's
7 question, you said that you saw the investigators come, but that you
8 didn't know them. But you saw them with your eyes?
9 A. Some of them. I saw two or three persons, and I was told that
10 they had come from a court in Belgrade
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right. Were they in
12 military uniforms? Did they show signs of ranks?
13 A. I saw one of them in uniform. I believe he had the rank of
14 lieutenant-colonel or colonel.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In the JNA military rules,
16 whenever there is an investigation on command exercise, does the
17 investigation have to be carried out by somebody whose rank is higher
18 than the one who's being investigated or not.
19 A. Well, among those people who came, there were some of equal rank
20 to those in the superior command, so it was a rule, but it didn't always
21 happen in practice.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now, something else. You were
23 in Vukovar in December. Where was your office, precisely, in Vukovar?
24 A. In Vukovar, my Command was first in Negoslavci village; and
25 later, when the Guard Brigade moved to Belgrade, the Command was moved to
1 the barracks in Vukovar.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you had an office in the
3 Vukovar barracks?
4 A. That's correct.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. In December, I
6 suppose there was still Croatian residents in Vukovar who would go back
7 to their homes, or was it so that there was no Croatian resident left?
8 A. There were Croats who were going back to their homes, and to the
9 extent of our ability, we helped them and protected them.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So there were
11 Croats who returned to their homes, and you did your job, the job you had
12 to do as a commander.
13 We know that there are 200 people -- that 200 people left the
14 hospital and went to Ovcara, and we now know that most of them were
15 killed there. Based on family ties, theoretically, it could be that
16 these 200 individuals had relatives, relatives who went back to their
17 homes and found that their relatives, be they brothers or cousins, are no
18 longer there.
19 Did families go to the Vukovar barracks to say, "Look, my
20 relative," who was a soldier or a civilian, "disappeared. We don't know
21 anything about him or her. Can you tell us, give us any information
22 about what happened to him?" Did people go to see you -- well, you or
23 officers, or whoever was at the gate checking people when they came in,
24 did anybody go to seek information?
25 Do you know anything about this?
1 A. I don't remember anyone coming to see me, but I don't know about
2 my COs
3 them to inquire about their missing relatives.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you had no information at
5 all. You stayed in Vukovar until when, exactly?
6 A. Until the 28th February 1992.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] 28th of February, 1992.
8 Just one detail. Before you took up command in December, what
9 was your rank?
10 A. Lieutenant-colonel.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You were a lieutenant-colonel.
12 When you took up command in Vukovar, did you keep that rank or did you
13 become a colonel?
14 A. No, I kept my rank. But that year was the time for my regular
15 promotion, because colonels and generals are promoted on the
16 22nd December. My whole unit was supposed to go back to Kragujevac on
17 the 13th or the 14th, so it was left for that day so that my promotion
18 coincide with the return.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When were you promoted,
21 A. 13th January 1992.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] On the 13th of January, 1992
23 When did you retire?
24 A. I left active service on the 1st January 2002.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Why did you not become a
2 A. Well, that doesn't depend on me. I would have liked to become a
3 general, but I didn't.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As a rule, how long did a JNA
5 colonel have to wait before he became a general?
6 A. Stricter rules were in place at the time than today. Somebody
7 could spend five, six, and ten years as a colonel without ever being
8 promoted to general. I spent ten years as a colonel.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So these were the questions I
10 had for you, based on the statement you gave and details we had to seek.
11 I'm sure my fellow Judges have questions for you as well.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Colonel, I have just one question to put to you regarding the
14 relations between the JNA and the paramilitaries or the volunteers. I
15 should perhaps reassure you that, of course, you are not on trial here,
16 so I'm asking a few questions in relation to this aspect and I hope that
17 you will give me a frank answer.
18 The question I have relates to the situation that you described
19 to us yesterday, when you said that towards the end of the day of I think
20 it was the 20th of November, you passed by Ovcara, and you saw buses
21 coming and prisoners being taken out of the buses and having to walk
22 through a gauntlet and being driven into the hangar. I think you also
23 told us that you stopped and went out to see what was happening, because
24 this was news to you. You had not heard that anything was going to
25 happen here, so you wanted to know what was going on.
1 The question I have is, first of all: Were you, as you stepped
2 out of the car, the highest-ranking officer on the spot? My second
3 question - think about it - is: If you were, could you have done
4 anything to stop it? Could you have called these soldiers to order and
5 stopped the mistreatment?
6 A. Well, I thought at first that I was the officer with the highest
7 rank there, but a couple of minutes later, I realised I wasn't. There
8 was a colonel there. I'd never said his name, but I said what he was
9 doing. It's obvious that he was watching the situation from outside. I
10 approached him, and I asked him, "What is going on here? Please help me
11 restore some order here so that these people are not mistreated." When I
12 said that, he just got into his car and left.
13 There was a commanding officer from the superior command in the
14 hangar with a high rank, and I realised I didn't know what was going on,
15 but commanding officers were there, and so that should have been all
16 right, in my eyes.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: If you want to go into private session for you to
18 tell us who these gentlemen were, we can do so, but I'm a bit interested
19 in knowing more about the situation at the Ovcara farm during the time
20 you were there.
21 You just told me that when you arrived, you addressed yourself to
22 a colonel, who didn't answer your question and who left immediately
23 after. So, from that point on, you could perhaps have been the
24 highest-ranking officer, except that you told me that there was another
25 officer who still was also a colonel, thus having a higher rank than
1 yours; is that correct?
2 A. No, that one did not have an equal rank, he had a lower rank, but
3 I don't know about the others. There were more people there whom I
4 didn't know with improper clothing, without caps, so I didn't know who
5 they were. I did not know these people. I'm telling you, I came from
7 first time.
8 That colonel I saw, I saw him when he was leaving the hangar. He
9 was standing on the side, and I approached him as a military man to ask
10 him what was going on. He wasn't far away. He was watching the whole
11 situation. I don't know to this day what his name was. I can venture a
12 guess, but I don't want to guess.
13 There was another officer with a higher rank than me who was
14 following the situation, the chief of staff. I had not seen him there,
15 but he later told me he had been there. So both of them were higher in
16 rank than me.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: I have to put a hypothetical question to you, and
18 that is: If you had attempted to stop the madness after the colonel had
19 left, would you have succeeded?
20 A. Now, looking back, first of all, he left, but other commanding
21 officers from that unit stayed. I alone couldn't have done it, because I
22 had no strength and no resources to stop it. I think I had done my
23 maximum, protecting those people at the outset. The Command that was --
24 my Command that was nearby and those people, I did all I could.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: But how does it work? I mean, I would imagine
1 that it is the highest-ranking officer at the spot who has the command.
2 So, if you thought that you were the highest-ranking officer after the
3 colonel had left, the thought might have occurred to you that you should
4 simply put a stop to this?
5 A. I still wasn't the highest-ranking officer. There was a chief of
6 staff there, a deputy commander of the operative group, who was senior to
7 me, not in rank but in position, and his unit was carrying that out. His
8 men were involved. You can't do anything in another unit when senior
9 officers are present, and you don't know what they're doing, what their
10 assignment is. I had done my best, once I saw those people there. I
11 maintained then and I maintain now that nobody believed at that moment
12 that something could happen of the kind that actually happened later.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: So am I to understand that what you were able to
14 observe at that time at Ovcara was that everything that went on was being
15 well controlled and well commanded by a senior JNA officer?
16 A. Yes. They were senior to me and their command was senior to me;
17 although, I did not see them at the first time in that crowd in that
18 complexity of the situation, the constant movement, but I saw later and
19 found out later that they were there. Now, how they managed it, I don't
20 know. I couldn't evaluate that because that assignment was not known to
21 me. It was being carried out without our knowledge, without the
22 involvement of our men.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: I realise that you must have been in a terrible
24 dilemma, because I think you have told us already that what you saw was,
25 from a strictly legal point of view, unacceptable. You saw civilians
1 being mistreated, and no soldier of the JNA should engage in such
2 activity under any circumstance, and this is why you put your first
3 question to the colonel, wasn't it?
4 A. Yes. I asked for assistance to be given to those people.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: But no assistance was given. The colonel sort of
6 just left and did nothing; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: So I return to my question. Could you have done
9 anything to stop it when you saw that obviously the colonel did not
10 intend to stop the mistreatment? Did it occur to you that you should
11 then persist, or was it your feeling that even if you tried, you would
12 have been unable to achieve anything? Were you afraid?
13 A. No. I wasn't afraid, but I thought there were commanding
14 officers there from the superior command; and in my eyes, that was some
15 sort of guarantee of security and protection for those people. These
16 people from the superior command continued to be there, including that
17 chief of staff who was watching the situation. He even stated, himself,
18 that he watched me grappling with these soldiers, trying to prevent them
19 from beating the prisoners as they were coming into the hangar.
20 But the big unknown to me was who these people were, how come
21 they were there, who brought them. But when I got into the hangar and I
22 saw a group of people, among them a ranking officer, I logically thought
23 he was there, he would make sure there was order, he must have some kind
24 of assignment, although I didn't know which. Then order was restored in
25 the hangar temporarily while I was there. Mistreatment stopped,
1 prisoners were not beaten anymore, there were no insults and ethnic
2 slurs. There was some verbal threats, but not mistreatment. Prisoners
3 were put on one side and separated from members of the Territorial
5 That is the situation that I left in the hangar when I departed. I
6 don't know what happened later. I don't know how responsible they were
7 for later actions. Maybe they helped cordon off the prisoners and
8 restore order to the hangar. When this order was restored, I left the
9 hangar, went to my command post, and informed my superior officer what I
10 had seen.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Did the mistreatment in the hangar stop because
12 of your presence?
13 A. I'm not sure I can say that it was because of me alone. It is
14 true, I did my best to prevent this sort of thing going on, but there
15 were other commanding officers there. I didn't check, there and then,
16 who was doing what and who was issuing orders to whom to do what, and how
17 the attempts were made to stop the violence. One thing is certain, it
18 did stop.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One follow-up question.
21 You told us that the deputy commander of the operative group was
22 there. Going back to your written statement, paragraph 31, your public
23 statement, I see the name of Major Vukasinovic.
24 Was he the deputy commander in question?
25 A. No. He was the deputy chief of security, which means Major
1 Sljivancanin's deputy.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. When talking about
3 this deputy commander, you say that in the chain of command, he was above
4 you. Can you give us his name in open session, or would you rather we
5 moved into closed session.
6 A. I really don't know what his name was. I did see the man, I
7 know what he looks like, I know that he was a colonel by rank, but I
8 don't know exactly what his role was or function. I do assume that he
9 was one of the assistant commanders.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But why is it that you do not
11 know the name of that colonel who was a member of the unit, together with
12 Colonel Mrksic? Why is it that you do not know his name, or is it that
13 you forgot his name?
14 A. It's not that I forgot. I think you haven't quite understood.
15 Those people from Operations Group South, or the Guards Brigade,
16 if you like, are people that I came across for the very first time in my
17 life in that area. We'd never been in touch. I had recently arrived
18 from a different area. I'd never seen those people before. I met my own
19 commanding officer, I met the assistant commander for logistics, I met
20 the chief of security, and I knew about the chief of staff.
21 I didn't know about anyone else because I didn't contact any of
22 the other people. Perhaps I set eyes on them several times, perhaps I
23 could ID them, but I have no idea what their names were. I didn't know
24 then, I didn't know later, I don't know now. It is true that we spent
25 some short time together later on. They had left. The Command was a
1 rather large command, and there were a lot of officers whom I just didn't
2 know, personally.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I understand.
4 Under the military rules and regulations, is the highest-ranking officer
5 in the field the one in charge, the one who commands, the one who has all
6 the authority, all the power; or is it so that if you have a military
7 operation underway, for example, a transfer of prisoners where orders
8 have been given and people have been put in charge of the operation, can
9 an officer, who has nothing to do with the operation, can he take charge
10 of the whole thing, despite the orders, based on the rules in the JNA?
11 A. If there is no commanding officer, if it is not clear who should
12 do what, I don't mean just a single commanding officer but rather a group
13 of high-ranking officers who were around, then the highest officer
14 present would have been duty-bound to take steps. In this situation,
15 however, there were commanding officers there from the superior command,
16 the highest-ranking officers. There was nothing at all that I could have
17 done bypassing them in that situation.
18 Then another thing I have to note is we had not involved in the
19 preparation or the execution of this task, in terms of taking prisoners
20 away from the hospital. This was something that we were entirely in the
21 dark about until I just chanced on the scene, as it were. Had I not
22 chanced upon the scene that very minute, I probably would have seen
23 nothing at all. I would have learned the next day, as everyone else,
24 those from Negoslavci and so on and so forth.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yesterday, I asked you if you
1 had communication resources at your disposal, if you had a Motorola, for
2 example, and you said, "No." In your opinion, did this colonel have
3 communication means allowing him to get in touch with the duty officer at
4 the HQ or with Colonel Mrksic? Yes, please answer.
5 A. I don't know about the one in the hangar, or those who were in
6 the hangar, what their communication was with their own Command. I don't
7 know about the colonel who was standing outside the hangar, next to the
8 car. Did he have a radio in the car, any sort of communications
9 equipment? Was he in touch with anyone? Not that I saw.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In a military setting, isn't
11 there a basic, a fundamental principle that is the following: Under all
12 circumstances, whatever happens, the Command has to be in communication
13 with operational units in the field? They always have to remain in
14 contact. Isn't that a golden rule, in military terms, when it comes to
15 military operations?
16 A. Yes, that is a rule, a rule which is maintained whenever possible
17 by using communications equipment, vehicles, messengers are sent out and
18 so on and so forth. I don't know how this worked in this specific
19 situation, though.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let me now give the
21 floor to my fellow Judge.
22 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have one question only,
23 Witness. For various reasons, I'm not going to put any questions to you
24 about the substance of your testimony, but I'd like to have a
25 clarification regarding the fact that you came here to testify for the
1 Prosecution. I would be interested to know under what circumstances you
2 changed your position, because you told us that in the past you
3 cooperated with one or several Defence teams in the Vukovar trial.
4 So could you please shed some light on this for us?
5 A. Before the start of this investigation, I had provided I forget
6 how many statements to the Security Service of the JNA, and then this
7 whole procedure began. So I spoke several times with the attorneys
8 defending the Vukovar three, with the exception of Attorney Borovic. I
9 talked to them two or three times, and I provided information to them,
10 just as I have now to you. That was the extent of it. The next thing I
11 knew, the Prosecution called me and --
12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] But Mr. Borovic was the Defence
13 counsel of which accused?
14 A. He defended the accused Radic, and he was the only attorney of
15 the three that I did not speak to. On the other hand, I spoke to
16 Mr. Vasic, on behalf of Mr. Mrksic, and Mr. Lukic, on behalf of
17 Mr. Sljivancanin. I had a particularly extensive conversation with
18 Mr. Vasic. I told him everything that I have been telling you here.
19 Eventually, and I'm not sure what the reason was for that, I was
20 dropped. The Prosecution asked me to talk to them, which I did. They
21 asked me some questions, just like you, and then we no longer worked
22 together. I think they were the ones to put a stop to our cooperation.
23 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] In other words, you were moved
24 by a spirit of cooperation with justice, in general terms?
25 A. I'm having trouble understanding the interpretation. I'm not
1 sure why. It's something with the headset.
2 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Is there a problem? Should I
3 repeat my question?
4 A. It's fine now. Thank you.
5 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Should I repeat my question?
6 Well, based on what you've just explained to us, it seems that
7 you came here to testify, and that you intended to testify for the
8 Defence case in the Vukovar case, because you were moved by the desire to
9 cooperate with justice. Is this what you're getting at?
10 A. Well, let me be frank about it. I was not really willing to work
11 with anyone on this, the Defence or the Prosecution. It was simply that
12 I had no choice, so I ended up talking to both. Likewise, it was not my
13 desire to appear here now. I had some peculiar problems, some health
14 problems, but I just wanted to put an end to the uncertainty, both for
15 myself and the environment in which I live, so I decided to end up by
16 coming here.
17 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me turn to Mr. Ferrara.
19 Any redirect, any questions arising out of the Judges' questions?
20 MR. FERRARA: Not a question, Your Honour.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. There can be no
22 re-examination unless there was cross-examination, to begin with. I wish
23 to point that out for the record, and, of course, you do as you please.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. This has been recorded
25 on the transcript.
1 Do you have anything to say about this legal issue, Mr. Mundis?
2 MR. MUNDIS: Indeed, Mr. President. It is longstanding practice
3 before this Tribunal that re-examination covers the scope of any
4 questions put by the Trial Chamber, in addition to any questions arising
5 from cross-examination, and we want that position put clearly on the
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Ferrara, I was asking if
8 you had any questions, and you said, "No questions."
9 MR. FERRARA: No, Your Honour. I want to address something to
10 the Trial Chamber concerning the document we discussed yesterday in the
11 incident involving three members of the Leva Supoderica unit.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, please do.
13 MR. FERRARA: The Prosecution wants to draw your attention to the
14 fact that this document was obtained from the government of Serbia
16 assistance of the OTP number 853, and the document was translated at the
17 time by a language assistant in the absence of a CLSS ability to
18 translate it at the time.
19 We agree that there is an omission of Kameni's alleged rank in
20 the English version, but I don't believe this omission should have an
21 impact on the authenticity of the B/C/S original of the document. So I
22 want to put on the record how we got this document. It is in response of
23 the OTP, RFA number 853.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Mr. Seselj. I'll
1 be giving you the floor in a few seconds.
2 We now have on the record the fact that this document was given
3 to you by the Serbian authorities following an RFA.
4 Mr. Seselj.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Ferrara is misinterpreting the
6 substance of that document. He claims that this is a document in
7 relation to an incident involving three members of the Leva Supoderica
8 Detachment. This is simply not true. This is by no means true. The
9 document shows that it was three members of the Leva Supoderica
10 Detachment who were killed. Now, someone who gets killed cannot be said
11 to be involved in anything at all. The incident is about three persons
12 getting killed.
13 Three members of the Leva Supoderica Detachment were the victims
14 of a killing and not those involved in an incident. Nowhere does this
15 document indicate any sort of involvement at all on their part in any
16 sort of incident at all. This is a malicious misinterpretation, as well
17 as this later version about a purported mistranslation. It is quite
18 clear to me that no mistranslation is at stake here, but something
19 altogether different.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. The Trial Chamber has
21 given an MFI number to this document. It's, of course, possible to ask
22 CLSS for a full translation of this document. That's always a
24 Mr. Ferrara.
25 MR. FERRARA: Yes, Your Honour, I agree with Mr. Seselj, so it
1 means that three members of the Leva Supoderica unit were still there on
2 the 22nd of December, 1991. That's exactly what I want to show.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. But it would be very
4 useful --
5 THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation] --
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Mr. Seselj, one
7 moment before interrupting me.
8 It would be very useful for the Trial Chamber to have a full
9 translation, for the following reason: If I look at the translation in
10 English, I see that three members of the Vukovar TO were killed. That's
11 to be found in the first sentence, that they were killed in Vukovar.
12 They were killed.
13 But if you look at paragraph 3, we see the following: The killed
14 individuals were members of the Leva Supoderica unit. These words of
15 "were members" could be understood as means that they had been members of
16 the unit, but that it was not the case any longer at the time when they
17 were killed, because if you look at paragraph 1 of this same document,
18 you see that they were members of the Vukovar TO.
19 So we need CLSS to provide a translation of this document,
20 because we want to have an accurate translation of the text in B/C/S.
21 Nuances are of the essence here.
22 Mr. Seselj.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I wanted to say exactly the
24 same thing that you have just observed, Mr. President. Now we have
25 Mr. Ferrara offering yet another misinterpretation, trying to let you
1 know that on the 23rd of December, the Leva Supoderica Detachment was
2 still around, yet the document does not reflect this. It is just about
3 what you have observed. Members of the Leva Supoderica were there.
4 That's the essence.
5 That's what I was trying to say. Had I known that you would step
6 in, I would not have objected at all.
7 MR. FERRARA: Your Honours, Our case manager has already
8 requested an official translation today of CLSS.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Excellent. We will therefore
10 have an official translation of this document, and everybody will be able
11 to review that translation; Mr. Seselj, the Prosecutor and the Bench.
12 Colonel, thank you for having testified, as a Prosecution
13 witness, about the events you may have witnessed.
14 I wish you a safe trip home, and I'm going to ask the usher to
15 bring you to the door of this courtroom for you to be able to leave as
16 quickly as possible.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's almost 25 past 9.00.
20 I think it's probably best, Mr. Mundis, if you agree to have the break
22 We're going to have a 20-minute break, and we'll resume with the
23 last witness for this week.
24 Would you agree with that, Mr. Mundis?
25 MR. MUNDIS: Absolutely, Mr. President. Thank you.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Excellent. We are going to
2 break for 20 minutes.
3 --- Recess taken at 9.23 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 9.48 a.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're going to have another
6 witness. There are no protective measures been asked for the witness.
7 Is that correct:
8 MS. PRASAD: Yes, Your Honours. I --
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before the witness appears, I do
10 have an observation to make. I must respond to Mr. Mundis' words before
11 the break of the.
12 Mr. Mundis tells the Chamber that it has been a longstanding,
13 established practice before this Tribunal for issues to be considered
14 that were potentially raised by the Trial Chamber during re-examination.
15 Indeed, that is true, such a thing exists in the practice of this
16 Tribunal, but only as far as any questions asked by the Trial Chamber are
17 to do with issues raised during the examination-in-chief or
19 However, it has not so far been recorded for a Defence to waive
20 its right to cross-examination while the Prosecution were granted the
21 right to re-examine. That has never so far been the case; therefore,
22 this interpretation of the jurisprudence of this Tribunal is not correct.
23 Just another thing. Just imagine the following situation: For
24 example, we have examination-in-chief, but no cross-examination; or there
25 is cross-examination and then the Judges ask an enormous amount of
1 questions, raising entirely new issues not previously raised.
2 What about the rights of a Defence? Is a Defence then granted
3 the right to additionally cross-examine? This raises a whole lot of new
4 problems, and that is why I believe Mr. Mundis' interpretation to be
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What you have said is now on
7 the record.
8 Yes, I had turned to the Prosecution to ask her whether any
9 specific measures had been asked for the witness.
10 You said there wasn't?
13 (redacted) to inquire of the witness regarding the
14 need for protective measures before the beginning of the witness's
15 testimony, since yesterday, on 5th November, during the proofing session,
16 the witness informed the Prosecution that she wished to have protective
17 measures in the form of a pseudonym and image distortion during public
18 testimony, because even though --
19 Sorry, Your Honours. If we can redact the name of the witness.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It will be done.
21 Let us move into private session, first of all, to have the
22 witness brought in and then further redaction.
23 [Private session]
11 Pages 11511-11513 redacted. Private session.
20 [Open session]
21 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Julka Maretic. I was
23 born in 1942, in Strezimirovci village.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You were born in 1942. When
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 2nd of August, 1942.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] On the 2nd of August, 1942
3 What is your current occupation?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm now retired. But when I was
5 younger, when I got married, I worked at the police station in Vocin.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Have you had an opportunity to
7 testify before a court of law as to the events that took place in the
8 former Yugoslavia
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I went twice to Bjelovar to testify
10 just after the war, and this is the first time here.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Was it a trial in Bjelovar; and
12 if so, who was the case about?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I testified to the events in Vocin,
14 what happened when I arrived in Vocin, where I lived, where I worked,
15 what I did, all up until the war.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When you testified, I suppose
17 that there were accused in the courtroom.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I was testifying, there were
19 people accused, those who had occupied us in Vocin.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Were the accused convicted or
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't be able to tell you
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You can't tell. Do you
25 remember the names of the accused?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, first we accused the Serbs
2 who had occupied us. Later, when the army came from Serbia, they held
3 themselves out to be as Seselj's men, others said they were Arkan's men.
4 We ran away from them, we avoided them, and they were accused of causing
5 us a lot of trouble.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] My question was whether the
7 accused in that trial in which you testified, whether you knew their
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the first days when they
10 occupied us, those were our men, locals. They came to our street and
11 convened all the men together. Those were Drago Dobrovic [phoen], and
12 what's his name? I can't remember the other man's name. Drago Dobrovic,
13 I know, and there was another one with him. I know the name, it's just
14 that it eludes me at the moment.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So Drago Dobrovic, he was
16 charged and accused, and you testified in his case.
17 Am I to understand things in that way?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know. I didn't
19 testify against anybody. I just told the truth and what we experienced
20 in Vocin.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We are not going to
22 dwell on the matter.
23 Please read out the solemn declaration.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
25 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
1 WITNESS: JULKA MARETIC
2 [The witness answered through interpreter]
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness. Please be
5 Let me explain how this testimony is going to take place. You've
6 already met with a representative of the OTP before coming into this
7 courtroom. I guess they explained what I'm about to tell you, but I
8 still will say what is going to happen.
9 The Prosecutor is going to summarise your statement. Thereafter,
10 she will ask you whether this is, indeed, what you stated. It might be
11 that some documents will be submitted to you for you to comment on them.
12 As a rule, in this type of proceedings, the accused then asks
13 questions of the witness. It so happens that Mr. Seselj, the accused in
14 this case, has decided, for various principles -- reasons, including
15 reasons of principle, not to cross-examine 92 ter witnesses. In spite of
16 this situation, the Judges you have in front of you, whose mission is to
17 make a determination, after examination of the evidence, as to the guilt
18 or innocence of the accused, the Judges have to look at your statement,
19 ask questions of you, if need be, in order to shed light on specific
20 points contained in your statement.
21 We will, therefore, possibly ask you questions, questions that
22 could have been asked by the accused. But since he does not do that, the
23 Judges may ask questions that could have been put either by the accused
24 or by the Prosecution.
25 Do your best to answer the questions. The questions deal with
1 events that go back 15 years, and it would be understandable that you
2 would not be able to be very accurate as to dates, names, and locations.
3 That is understandable.
4 Once this stage of the proceeding is completed, the Prosecutor,
5 as part of what is called redirect, if she feels that some questions put
6 by the accused, if any, or when the accused puts questions, or by the
7 Judges, raises issues that have to be specified, the Prosecutor can put
8 questions that refer to the questions put beforehand.
9 So this is how this testimony is going to take place.
10 We have breaks every hour and a half, but rest assured this is
11 not going to go on for days on end. We should be finished by the end of
12 the day. However, if at any time you do not feel well - that can
13 happen - do not hesitate to say so and we'll have a short break for you
14 to have a rest.
15 So this was what I had to tell you for this to take place as best
16 as possible for you, because you come from far away. It may not be the
17 first time you are a witness, but testifying in a court of law is always
18 something really quite stressful for witnesses, and we do our best to
19 make sure that things unfold as smoothly as possible.
20 I now give the floor to the Prosecutor for the beginning of her
22 MS. PRASAD: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 I will start by reading a short summary of the witness's
25 The witness is an inhabitant of Vocin, married to a Croatian.
1 From 1973 until August 1991, she worked as a cleaning lady.
2 In 1990, about two-thirds of the population of Vocin were Serb
3 and the rest were Croats. The witness noted that after the elections in
4 1990, ethnic tension arose. The different ethnic groups began to accuse
5 each other of being Ustashas or Chetniks.
6 On 14 January 1991
7 woman who was present at his speech told the witness that he asked the
8 Serbs to stick together and that the surrounding area, including Vocin,
9 would be part of the Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina.
10 In the morning of 19 August 1991
11 work, was stopped by a masked, armed man who ordered her to return home.
12 She could hear automatic weapons fire in the area of Prevenda Street,
13 where most of the Croats lived. Later, all Croats were ordered to gather
14 by a cross on Prevenda Street and were told to surrender their weapons,
15 else they would be killed.
16 From 19 August 1991
17 allowed to work. Approximately eight or ten days following the blockade,
18 armed local Serbs in JNA uniforms came to the witness' house and looted
20 From this day onwards, there was a big Serb flag hoisted at the
21 Vocin police station. The Croat flag was already taken away several days
23 Following the escape of many young people from Vocin, the Serbs
24 ordered that a list be made of Croats living in the village. The Croats
25 were warned that if one of them ran away, all would be killed.
1 On 22nd October 1991, many Croatian men were detained in the
2 basement of the Vocin bank. That morning, armed local Serbs in civilian
3 clothes took away the witness' husband. Later, the witness went to the
4 police station and found out that her husband had been taken to the bank.
5 A police officer told her that she should bring food and clothes for him,
6 as he would spend the night there. The police officer also said that,
7 "Since Serbs were arrested and were held in Slatina, that is why your
8 people must be held here." However, the witness' husband was released
9 that evening. He informed the witness what had happened in the basement.
10 A man had an epileptic seizure. A doctor was called and ordered that
11 everyone should be released due to the bad conditions in the basement.
12 Two Croat inhabitants disappeared on 22nd October 1991
13 Vocin was relatively calm until November 1991, when more soldiers
14 arrived from Serbia
15 They were based in the elementary school and the bowling hall. The local
16 inhabitants tried to avoid contact with these soldiers, but they
17 contacted the local inhabitants once in a while, asking for alcohol.
18 The witness states that they were dressed in all kinds of
19 clothes, including a mismatch of old JNA uniforms and civilian clothing.
20 The witness recalls seeing them wearing all types of hats, including JNA
21 caps with the five-pointed star, black knitted caps, and fur hats. Some
22 wore badges with eagles, some with skulls and crossbones. They all
23 carried weapons with bayonets and carried one or more knives. They
24 presented themselves as Seselj's men and Arkan's men.
25 Some of them told the witness that they came from all over
2 Vocin to kill Ustashas. One of them said that he came from the prison in
4 be reduced by one year.
5 On 3rd or 4th December 1991, four young Croat men, who had to
6 perform labour for the Serbs in Vocin, were ordered to do some work in
7 Ceralije. Approximately four days after the young men went missing,
8 three other people who lived close to the witness' home were killed.
9 The witness and her husband left Vocin on 11 December 1991. Many
10 buildings in the village, including the bus station, fire brigade, police
11 station, and bowling hall, were on fire. The witness saw a number of
12 dead bodies in the village, and all the killed people were civilians and
13 most of them were older people. Later, the witness also heard that the
14 Catholic Church of Vocin was destroyed by an explosion.
15 In September 1992, the witness moved back to Vocin to discover
16 that her house was totally destroyed.
17 Your Honours, this concludes the summary.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Please ask the
19 witness whether she, indeed, signed the statement.
20 MS. PRASAD: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Examination by Ms. Prasad:
22 Q. Madam Witness, did you give a statement in 2001 to
23 representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor?
24 A. Yes, I did.
25 Q. And then, in 2002, when you met with the representatives of this
1 Tribunal, did you make corrections to your first statement?
2 A. Yes, I did, but I didn't have anything to correct. Everything
3 was truthful. I did talk to the representatives, yes.
4 Q. And you had given a supplementary statement in 2002?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review your written statement in
7 your own language?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 MS. PRASAD: Usher, could you please hand out the hard copy of
10 the English version of the statement dated 12 December 2001, thank you,
11 bearing ERN number 0200-8618 - 0200-8625.
12 Q. Madam Witness, could you look at the first page of the English
13 version. Can you identify your signature at the bottom of the page?
14 A. Yes, this is my signature.
15 Q. Madam Witness, can you flip through the pages and look at page 6
16 of this statement. Can you identify your signature at the bottom of the
18 A. Yes, I can.
19 MS. PRASAD: Now, Usher, can you please hand out the hard copy of
20 the B/C/S version of the supplementary statement. It's dated 6 September
21 2002. Thank you. In the B/C/S version, the ERN is 0326-0814, which in
22 the English version is 0307-6081.
23 Q. Madam Witness, can you identify your signature at the bottom of
24 this statement?
25 A. Yes, I can.
1 MS. PRASAD: Now, Usher, please, could you hand out the hard copy
2 of the B/C/S statement, again dated 12th February 2001, thank you,
3 bearing ERN number 0305-5362 - 0305-5369.
4 Your Honours, the English version bears ERN number
5 0200-8618 - 0200-8625.
6 Q. Madam Witness, I would like to direct your attention on page 3,
7 paragraph 1, which in the English version is located on page 3,
8 paragraph 2.
9 Madam Witness, page 3, paragraph 1, I will read out the relevant
10 line for you: "On the 14th of January, 1991, a Serb called Rasko
11 Draskovic visited the village of Vocin
12 Is the name accurate?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. Okay. Now I would like to direct your attention to page 4,
15 second-last paragraph, which in the English version is page 5,
16 paragraph 1.
17 I will read out the relevant line: "Everything was more or less
18 calm until the Serbs brought other soldiers from Serbia."
19 Who were these additional soldiers? Please describe them.
20 A. These were other soldiers who came from Serbia. They said,
21 "We're Seselj's men." Some said, "We're Arkan's men." Those were the
22 ones, the other soldiers. That's what I meant.
23 Q. Again, Madam Witness, on the same page, that is, page 4, last
24 paragraph --
25 MS. PRASAD: This, in the English version, Your Honours, is
1 located on page 5, paragraph 2.
2 Q. I will read out the relevant line: "We were trying very hard
3 avoiding meeting them and have any contact with them."
4 Why did you avoid meeting them?
5 A. Well, because they were, how shall I put it, unpleasant. They
6 were saying, "We're here to kill the Ustashas. We're Chetniks. You have
7 to obey us. We'll tell you what to do, and you've got to tow the line."
8 They were very unpleasant, they wanted stuff to drink all the time, and
9 we had to get it for them. That sort of thing.
10 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, on page 6 of your statement, second-last
11 paragraph, which in the English version is on page 6, paragraph 5, I will
12 read out the relevant line: "We stayed in Banja Luka for seven days."
13 Madam Witness, is this accurate, the number of days?
14 A. No. We didn't stay for seven days. I don't know how I ended up
15 saying this. We just spent the night in Banja Luka, and the next day we
16 took the bus to Zagreb
17 seven days. My husband's sister-in-law, she stayed for seven days.
18 Q. Madam Witness, with the clarifications you've just specified,
19 does that statement accurately reflect your recollection of the events
20 described in it?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And if you were asked questions about those events today, would
23 you give the same answers that are contained in the statement?
24 A. Yes. The answers are what they are. I don't know how or why I
25 said the thing about the seven days. I think I was probably asked how
1 long people, generally speaking, stayed in Banja Luka, and I said, "Seven
2 days." I don't think she asked about me or my husband specifically,
3 because we travelled back the next day. We spent this one night at the
4 bus terminal, and then we returned to Vocin.
5 MS. PRASAD: Okay. Your Honours, at this point, we would move
6 for the admission of 65 ter number 5011, which contains --
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, can we have a
8 number, please.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P608, Your Honours.
10 MS. PRASAD: Your Honours, this concludes my examination.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam.
12 Questioned by the Court:
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a number of
14 questions to put to you, based on your written statement and based on
15 paragraphs 73, 75, and 77 of the pre-trial brief of the Prosecution, and
16 based also on the indictment. I'm saying this for everybody to be able
17 to follow my questions.
18 One point of clarification, Witness. We believe that you were a
19 Serb, married to a Croat; but on the 6th of September, 2002, you stated
20 that you were Bulgarian. So are you a Serb or are you a Bulgarian?
21 A. Bulgarian by ethnicity.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Because you were born in a
23 Bulgarian settlement?
24 A. Yes, straddling the Bulgarian border. But this was Bulgarian
25 territory until just before the previous war, and then a border was
1 created running down the middle of our village, so half the village was
2 now Serb and half the village was Bulgarian.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And later on, did you have a
4 Bulgarian passport?
5 A. No, I never had one. I got married, I came to Vocin, and I had
6 Bulgarian ID. But after my wedding and after I changed my name, I moved
7 to Croatia
8 held back by the municipal authorities where the new one was issued.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you stated that on the
10 19th of August, 1991, soldiers arrived in the town of Vocin
11 tell us again, who were these soldiers?
12 A. I can't distinguish between the groups. I know that they would
13 walk down our street, introducing themselves as Seselj's men or Arkan's
14 men, but I have no idea who brought them there or, indeed, who welcomed
15 them. This is something we didn't know at the time, nor, indeed, did we
16 ever dare to ask the question.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And you heard one of these
18 soldiers say, "I am a Seselj man," or, "I am an Arkan man"?
19 A. Yes, yes. I would talk to them out in the street. I would tell
20 them that I was from Serbia
21 Then they said, "I'm from Serbia
22 Another one came up and said, "I'm one of Arkan's men."
23 So they did point this out on a number of occasions, but it's not
24 like I could afford to spend a long time talking to them. We tried to
25 get out of their way. We did our best not to be in touch with them too
1 much. We were scared, you know.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You saw them, because they
3 remained there for a while. Was their behaviour the type of behaviour
4 you expect from a soldier or was it the sort of behaviour you would not
5 expect from a soldier?
6 A. No. They weren't really acting like soldiers. They were acting
7 like they were a law unto themselves. As I said, I even wasn't that
8 scared. My husband was far more scared than I was. I thought it best to
9 try and protect him, and whenever we needed to talk to these soldiers, I
10 was the one to go because my husband was too scared.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right. You said that they
12 arrived in August, so you saw them in August. Did you also see them in
13 September, in October, in November, and December, until the date of your
14 departure? Were these men there throughout this time?
15 A. It wasn't in August that they arrived. Our village was occupied
16 in August by the local Serbs. This occurred on the 19th of August.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When did Seselj's men and
18 Arkan's men arrive, exactly?
19 A. I don't know the exact date, but I think they arrived sometime in
20 September, possibly early in October, but I can't be specific about the
21 date. I don't remember. One thing is certain, it wasn't in August. It
22 was sometime in September, possibly early October.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In his filings, the Prosecutor
24 has stated that in November or December 1991, a group of volunteers of
25 the Serb Radical Party killed four Croats after having forced them to
1 bring ammunition to the frontline or to the battlefield, and that's to be
2 found at footnote 223. I'm saying that for those who could be
4 So how did you know that four Croat men were killed by volunteers
5 of the Serb Radical Party.
6 A. Those were my neighbours. The sin of my "kuma." They went out
7 into the field to pick some corn, it was Jovica Todorovic's field; and
8 then on their way back, someone stopped them. We don't know who it was.
9 They were on a tractor, and they said they should give them a hand to
10 travel back from Vocin to Ceralije, to unload some ammunition or
11 something. So they got onto the truck and they left together. They
12 never came back.
13 We had no idea what became of them. It went on like that for
14 three or four days, and then we learned that they'd been killed near Gaj,
15 which is by the river. Now, who was it that took them away on this
16 tractor? We never learned.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. What you've said
18 raises a lot of questions. These four young men were arrested and
19 climbed onto a tractor. Who arrested them, exactly, who arrested them?
20 Were they arrested by Seselj's men.
21 A. I don't know that.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You don't know .
23 A. We still don't know. My "kuma" doesn't know either. The
24 neighbours, too, would like to know who it was who took them away and
25 killed, but this is something that cannot be known. Only the person who
1 did it knows.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Because the Prosecutor wrote
3 the following, I'm going to read it out very slowly:
4 "At the end of November or at the beginning of December 1991, a
5 group of volunteers of the SRS/SCP killed four young Croat men after
6 having forced them to bring ammunition to the battlefield."
7 Footnote 223, Witness 1119 and Witness 018.
8 These young men then brought ammunition to the battlefield.
9 Earlier on, you told us they were found dead near Gaj, near the river.
10 Could they have been killed during fighting or because the ammunition
11 they carried exploded, or is it also possible that they were killed by
12 those men who were escorting them? Do you know anything about this?
13 A. I know that they were killed by those who took them away from
14 Vocin, because they never even got near the frontline. The entire area
15 in which they were killed was Serb occupied. They never reached the
16 frontline. They were killed a short distance from Gaj, near the river.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I also can see that you're
18 mentioned in Prosecution filings, because apparently in December, when
19 you returned to Vocin, you took part in the funerals of 45 people killed
20 in Hum and Vocin.
21 Do you remember funerals for 45 people who had been killed?
22 A. They picked up their dead bodies and took them first to Slatina.
23 There was a mine-clearing operation in Vocin, and after that all the
24 bodies were returned there.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let us now turn to some parts
1 of your statement. There's one thing I'd like to know.
2 In Vocin, all these soldiers or volunteers, did they have a
3 commander? Did they have someone commanding them; and if so, who was it,
4 provided you know, of course?
5 A. Well, they probably had some commanders, but I don't know their
6 names and I don't know who they were over in Vocin, but I'm sure they
7 have commanders. No doubt about that. They didn't just come out of
8 nowhere, you know. Somebody must have sent them there.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Did you see JNA officers in the
10 streets dressed in military uniforms, with their five-pointed star, with
11 ranks, insignia? Did you see any officers, provided you can distinguish
12 a soldier for an officer? If you can't or if you don't know the
13 difference, just tell us.
14 A. I think I can distinguish, but at the time in Vocin, the soldiers
15 and the officers had withdrawn to Zvecevo Hotel. I'm not sure what the
16 distance is. I think about ten kilometres between Vocin and Zvecevo. So
17 they were over there because that's where they had withdrawn to. There
18 were no officers in Vocin. They would sometimes go to the Staff there.
19 Once, my husband and I went to the National Staff in Vocin,
20 complaining that we were no longer able to sleep in our own home and
21 requesting some form of protection or to be given a pass so that we could
22 rejoin our children. It was then that I saw a soldier who had just
23 returned from Zvecevo. I don't know what he was there for. I just know
24 that I saw him. I know that occasionally soldiers did go to the Staff at
25 Vocin, but they weren't permanently stationed in Vocin.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note: Could all the other
2 microphones please be switched off while the witness is speaking. We are
3 receiving an enormous amount of background noise. Thank you.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There are a few political
5 references in your statement. You say, for instance, that in January, on
6 the 14th of January, 1991, a Serb, Rasko Draskovic, came to Vocin, and
7 you said of him that he was the leader of the Serbian political party.
8 This is what I would like to know about the municipality of Vocin
9 was its political affiliation in 1991?
10 A. Vocin, in 1991, it was rather Serb. They held it, and they led
11 the way with all the proposals and orders. They were in charge all the
12 way. As to this man who came, Jovan Draskovic, he arrived before the
13 occupation. He arrived on the 14th of January, and they placed some
14 wreaths to honour the victims of the previous war and their victims who
15 can be killed in Vocin and Komatnik [phoen].
16 He held a speech on something, I'm not really sure. All sorts of
17 things wer being said, but I wasn't there myself to hear exactly what it
18 was that he said in his address on the 14th of January.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Prior to the 19th of August or
20 on that date, was the Croatian flag raised at some time during the day?
21 A. The Croatian flag flew in Vocin all the time until the 19th of
22 August, when our local Serbs occupied the village. It was then that they
23 took the Croatian flag down and hoisted their own, at least that was the
24 case with the police station, as far as I know.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In August 1991, to your
1 knowledge, which was the state that had jurisdiction over Vocin? Was it
3 A. Yugoslavia
4 After the election, there was a turnaround and the separation begun.
5 There was no more Yugoslavia
6 until the occupation.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I saw that your
8 husband had a 7.65 pistol. Why did he have such a weapon?
9 A. Because the police was my employer, and I asked to be assigned a
10 pistol. I would leave home --
11 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't hear the witness.
12 Could all the other microphones please be switched off while the witness
13 is speaking. We are receiving an enormous amount of background noise, on
14 account of which we're not able to hear the witness properly. Thank you.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What was the main reason for
16 you to leave the municipality of Vocin
17 A. [No interpretation]
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Would you mind repeating,
19 please, because the interpreters could not hear you. I asked you why you
20 left Vocin. Please repeat your answer.
21 A. We had to leave Vocin, because if we had stayed, they would have
22 killed us, along with everyone else that they killed.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You said in your statement that
24 you left Vocin on the 11th of December, 1991, so this is the date you
25 indicated. We know that you went somewhere else and then you returned to
1 Vocin. I'm asking you now why you turned back and returned to Vocin.
2 A. We spent two days in Macute with Nikola Pavlovic, and then they
3 were told to run and try to escape because the Ustashas were on their way
5 My husband and I duly returned to Vocin to release our livestock.
6 We had a cow that was locked up in a shed, and we wanted to make sure the
7 cow was released and so the shed wouldn't be burned down. My husband
8 pulled a blanket over his head because he --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note: The interpreters cannot
10 hear the witness. Thank you.
11 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What was the house like when
13 you returned?
14 A. It was ruined. The church had been mined and demolished. There
15 were the tiles falling off the roof, and there was a fire burning inside
16 the house. More than half the house had burnt down, and it was no longer
18 Instead, we stayed in the flat in Slatina until September 1992.
19 Then there was this state-run reconstruction programme, as a result of
20 which the state rebuilt our home.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me move now to my last
23 You say that you left Vocin on the 11th of December, 1991. It
24 would appear that in November, sometime before, Mr. Seselj went to Vocin.
25 Did you hear about it or were you not aware of it?
1 A. We'd heard about his arrival in Vocin, but we didn't see him
2 ourselves and we didn't really know. We heard people talk about that,
3 talk about him having visited Vocin, but we don't know when he was there
4 or, indeed, what he told anyone there.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you can't say anything about
6 his visit.
7 A. I can't. If I knew, I'd tell you, I'd tell you what I know.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, Witness.
9 My fellow Judges don't have questions. I'll therefore ask the
10 Prosecutor whether they have additional questions only connected to the
11 questions I asked.
12 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Your Honours, I think we have to correct the
13 transcript. On page 43, line 8, it is mentioned the name "Jovan
14 Draskovic," as it's written here.
15 I heard the witness saying "Jovan Raskovic." I think it's wrong
16 in the transcript and it should be corrected.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, would you mind
18 repeating the name of this person called "Draskovic"? What was his first
19 name, what was his surname?
20 A. Jovan Draskovic, no. The first time around I didn't really know
21 the name, but then I found out later that it was Jovan Raskovic.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It gets complicated. Is it
23 "Raskovic" or "Draskovic"?
24 A. Raskovic, Jovan. But I'm not very good with names. I may
25 occasionally drop a letter or two.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Because, you see, in your
2 written statement, we see "Rasko Draskovic."
3 A. I didn't really know at the time. I couldn't tell them for sure.
4 I know that he was the man named Drasko, Rasko, whatever; but then later
5 they told me that his first name was Jovan Raskovic.
6 Draskovic, Raskovic, easy to mix up, aren't they?
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Are you satisfied with the
8 answer, Mr. Mussemeyer?
9 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Not 100 per cent, but it may remain like this
10 because we had other witnesses who testified about the same event and
11 they recalled the name.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very good.
13 Madam Prosecutor, did you have any redirect?
14 MS. PRASAD: No, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
16 Witness, on behalf of the Trial Chamber and in my own name, I
17 thank you for coming from so far to testify here. I can only wish you a
18 safe trip back home.
19 I'll ask the usher to escort you out of the courtroom.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have one objection to voice after
22 the witness leaves.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You may leave the courtroom,
25 [The witness withdrew]
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You know my position in principle
2 concerning testimony under 92 ter, so I will not repeat it; however, what
3 the Prosecutor staged today is a scandal. If we had the same application
4 of Rule 92 ter in this procedure, then it would be inadmissible to admit
5 the documents tendered by the Prosecutor.
6 We have the first statement of this witness of the 12th of
7 February, 2001, in Slatina. Then we have a certification, an
8 acknowledgment, that under what was then Rule 92 bis, an authorised
9 officer of the Registry went to Vocin and asked the witness, at the
10 police station, to confirm her signature and the contents. Then it says
11 here that, by making the declaration, the witness confirmed the veracity
12 of the written statement she had made, and this was signed by an
13 investigator of the OTP, an interpreter of the ICTY, the presiding
14 officer Frederick Swinnen, and the witness, under Rule 92 bis.
15 Now we have the third document of the same date, 6 September,
16 2002, which introduces significant modifications. You have noticed that
17 the witness is not Serbian; she's Bulgarian. She confirmed that certain
18 things were committed by local Serbs. She was more emphatic about that
19 than earlier; and, allegedly, she added at the end, which she repeated
20 here, that some of those newly-come soldiers from Serbia said that they
21 were Seselj's men, while others said that they were Arkan's men.
22 We established for a fact today that Arkan's men were never
23 present there during the war. We have had a number of witnesses from
24 Western Slavonia, and I believe that by now it has become an undisputed
1 Seselj's men, that is, volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party,
2 were present, and they were there in large numbers, and there were some
3 others as well. That's not in question.
4 Now, the first question that arises is: On whose suggestion did
5 the witness correct this after 18 months? This interview was conducted
6 in a police station, so we can understand that this was suggested. I
7 don't mind that she was led to correct this, but the form of this
8 document is such that it should not be admissible. It doesn't state who
9 took the statement, under what circumstances, or anything. It just says
10 this is an additional statement.
11 Any additional statement must follow the same format as the main
12 witness statement. This form has not been observed here, and we can only
13 take the Prosecutor's word for it. Of course, the witness confirmed her
14 signature on the paper, but you can see her intellectual and social
15 profile and you can see that she's amenable to all sorts of manipulation.
16 I do not doubt that she was honest and sincere when she spoke
17 here, completely unaware of all the mischief by the Prosecution.
18 Although this Prosecution document does not damage me in any way, I do
19 object to its admission.
20 My second objection is this: You remember, Mr. President, that
21 one indictment was brought against me in 2003, then it was extended in
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Dr. Seselj. It
24 might be better for Mr. Mundis to react to the first objection, because
25 now you're moving on to something else.
1 Mr. Mundis.
2 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I don't want to influence you
4 in your answers, but let me observe that the document of the 6th of
5 September, 2002, arrived in mysterious ways; and it's also noted that
6 among the signatures, you did not have the name of the OTP staff member
7 who was present or was absent, or whether it was the Registrar. It's a
8 bit unclear. You must have noticed that yourself.
9 This being said, what did you want to say?
10 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 The point that caused me to rise to my feet seems to be a
12 recurring one, and that is that we need to put clearly on the record the
13 Prosecution position that much of what Mr. Seselj has just said could
14 have been the subject of cross-examination. He has knowingly,
15 voluntarily, and intelligently made a decision on his behalf not to
16 cross-examine these witnesses; and, consequently, he has waived the right
17 to do so.
18 Having taken that step, it is inappropriate for him to then
19 comment on matters that could have and should have been put to the
20 witness when they were in the courtroom. This new practice of running
21 commentary or making statements about what the witness did, or could have
22 done, or could have said, or might have said had she asked questions
23 about that is, in our respectful view, an inappropriate way to proceed,
24 and I want to make that very clear on the record.
25 Mr. Seselj has repeatedly indicated as a matter of principle he
1 will not cross-examine these witnesses. So be it. It is not then
2 appropriate for him to be making comments, or to be speculating, or to be
3 challenging statements which he didn't object to when they were tendered
4 into evidence.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis, but the legal
6 problem is as follows: The 92 ter proceeding is that after the summary,
7 the OTP seeks to tender the document, an exhibit number is given and the
8 document is tendered into evidence, and then we have cross-examination.
9 Mr. Seselj decided not to cross-examine. Very well. Then there are
10 questions by the Judges, and during this stage, it could be that new
11 elements may appear. I saw and I was wondering whether she was Bulgarian
12 or Serb, following which the testimony is completed.
13 But in the view of the Trial Chamber, the accused is free to
14 object to the final admission of the document if the accused, through
15 what the witness may have said in their answers, whether he saw that
16 there could be some problems. He then could object, saying, "I'm against
17 the admission of the document on various grounds," which he specifies.
18 That's it.
19 MR. MUNDIS: There's certainly no problem with him objecting to
20 the admissibility of the documents. There is a problem when he starts
21 speculating about the witness' testimony, when he didn't put questions to
22 the witness. That is fundamentally unfair for him to wait until the
23 witness leaves the courtroom and then to speculate about what would have
24 been proper subjects for him to cross-examine her on, and that's simply
25 why I rose to my feet.
1 He can certainly challenge the admissibility of the documents.
2 He should do that in a timely manner when the document is tendered, and
3 not after the witness has left the courtroom, and then to speculate or
4 throw out arguments that really should have been put to the witness. He
5 made the decision not to cross-examine the witnesses. He must live by
6 the consequences of his decision.
7 The Trial Chamber repeatedly has discussed this issue with him,
8 it's clear that he has made a knowing decision to waive his right to
9 cross-examine, and now he's stuck with that decision and the implications
10 of that.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I say something?
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, you can have the floor,
13 Mr. Seselj, but there are two things: There is the substance and the
14 form. You are right as to the form. You are right in saying that you
15 object to the admission of a document for various reasons. Mr. Mundis is
16 right in that. But as to the substance, Mr. Mundis says that you cannot
17 wait until the witness is out of the courtroom to go to the heart of
18 matters. There's no problem. I'm sure you're bound to agree with that.
19 So, Mr. Seselj, you had another thing to mention.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. No, I first have to respond
21 to Mr. Mundis.
22 I thank Mr. Mundis for the compliment of noting the intelligence
23 behind my action, and I'm sorry I cannot return the compliment, because
24 his position cannot be called particularly intelligent.
25 What I have stated has nothing to do whatsoever with
1 cross-examination. My objection is based on the form of the document
2 that has been tendered, and my speculation on the substance of the
3 statement are based on the inappropriateness of the form. I can go on
4 speculating forever, as it is my right to speculate forever, because I
5 have this statement in inappropriate form, which is the fault of the
6 Prosecution. You should have thought about it when you were doing it.
7 When you look at this certification made by an officer of the
8 Tribunal, you will see that there is a rubric called "Additional Notes."
9 Why wasn't this used to indicate that the witness had made additions to
10 her statement? Why has this addition been made so irregularly, just put
11 in the binder any which way? Why doesn't it state, on one separate page,
12 that the witness has supplemented her statement?
13 Why wouldn't I speculate? I will go on speculating forever,
14 because the Prosecution is simply laying themselves open to this by their
15 gullibility, by their lack of thought, and I will go on speculating
16 forever. This has nothing to do with this witness. This is a critique
17 of your work and your action. It is so unlawful that the Trial Chamber
18 should have sanctioned it long ago.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] On that particular point, that
20 was raised a while ago. Admittedly, Mr. Mundis, when the 92 bis
21 procedure was considered by the Prosecution, and we have some evidence of
22 this, the presiding officer, as per the Rules, came to see the witness
23 and asked the witness to fill in a form. The procedure is very clear.
24 Then once this is done, you can ask for the statement to be admitted
25 under 92 bis. You could have done it in this particular case, but what
1 happened is that sometime later, for some reason, the witness gave
2 additional supplementary information to a previous statement. Legally
3 speaking, the same presiding officer should have conducted this
4 additional procedure, but here we have a document which raises some
6 We don't know whether you introduced that document later. If it
7 was then accepted by the presiding officer later, that's not acceptable.
8 Or is it the case that the presiding officer or the Registry produced
9 this document after being called by the witness [as interpreted]? We
10 don't know.
11 There is something that's beyond any doubt. The Registry is in
12 charge of 92 bis procedure, and that's why the document we have here
13 attached to this statement raises a lot of questions.
14 I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just stating the facts.
15 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, I think you got this one squarely on
16 the head. It's an issue for the Registrar. They're the ones who appoint
17 the presiding officers, at the request of one of the parties; and the
18 procedure that is undertaken in terms of certifying a statement pursuant
19 to Rule 92 bis is one which falls within the scope of the Registry.
20 I am unable, at this point in time - I can certainly make some
21 further inquiries, if it would be helpful - but at this point in time,
22 I'm certainly not in a position to provide the Trial Chamber with any
23 specific facts relating to this particular statement which was certified
24 under Rule 92 bis. If the Trial Chamber would like some further
25 information or clarification, I will undertake to provide that
1 information as soon as possible.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If you could, of course, it
3 would be very useful for the Trial Chamber, and Mr. Seselj should be
4 notified as well. Yes, indeed, it's possible that the Registrar did
5 this. It's possible.
6 We are now going to give the floor to Mr. Seselj for the rest of
7 his comments.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I have more to say about
9 this, Mr. President.
10 We see, from this certification, that the witness had confirmed
11 that the contents of her written statement is true, to the best of her
12 knowledge. We know that this witness statement also contains an
13 affirmation that she's Serbian; whereas, she's not.
14 Now, in the additional remarks in this declaration, there is
15 nothing, it's empty. But on the same day, it's on the same day that the
16 additional statement was made, without any official marks. What does
17 this mean, then? It's complete frivolity in the actions of the
19 If the witness had corrected her statement in the presence of an
20 officer of the Registry, then he should have stated so in the
21 declaration, "The witness corrected this, this, and that." Otherwise,
22 when the officer of the Registry took the signature on this declaration
23 and went to lunch in the nearby tavern, maybe then the OTP representative
24 took this additional statement in his absence.
25 You're going to say I'm speculating again, but it's only natural
1 that the officer of the Registry wrote this declaration and went out to
2 lunch. Then the representative of the OTP decided there's something else
3 to be squeezed out of this witness and stayed with her to work.
4 Yes, I'm speculating, but why are you acting in this way and
5 giving me food for speculation? This is not pointless, senseless
6 speculation. All this is speculation based on legal principle, because
7 you acted unlawfully. You are giving me a field day. Of course, I'm
8 going to use it. You can't blame me for using it.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor will make some
10 inquiries, Mr. Seselj, and will tell us exactly what happened.
11 But you wanted to raise a second point?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, you remember, Mr. President,
13 and I know your colleagues are aware of it as well, the indictment
14 against me was brought in January 2003, the motion to extend it was
15 submitted in May 2004, and the whole thing was finalised in May 2005.
16 Then in 2006, the Trial Chamber ordered the indictment to be abbreviated,
17 throwing out certain locations, leaving the possibility open to the
18 Prosecution that they may lead evidence on those locations that were
19 thrown out, if they can see a pattern of behaviour within the framework
20 of the joint criminal enterprise, but the judgement cannot be based on
22 I'll give you only two examples: Today's witness and Jelena
23 Radosevic who was here two or three weeks ago. They did not testify to
24 any pattern of conduct. They did not testify to any joint criminal
25 enterprise. Their testimony could be called auxiliary crime-based
1 testimony, because they don't really have any idea about crime-base
2 evidence. They don't know who was killed, they can't identify anyone,
3 et cetera. This is abuse of procedure. The Prosecution should follow
4 your instructions, and concerning these locations, they should only lead
5 evidence on the pattern of conduct, not lead pointless evidence.
6 What can you do with this evidence? Of course, it's only grist
7 to my mill that you, Mr. President, established, in talking to the
8 witness, that the theory of the Prosecution, that members of the Serbian
9 Radical Party had killed those four witnesses, is totally unfounded,
10 because the witness herself says that she doesn't know who killed these
11 Croats. So it's useful to me, but I'm putting to you the problem in
12 principle. If the indictment was shortened to save time, then where is
13 this economy? The list of witnesses has not been reduced by a single
14 name. There is no economy in time. Why, then, was the decision made?
15 I asked you to review that decision, as the Presiding Judge, part
16 of the then-Trial Chamber before the trial began, and you refused it.
17 That decision remained.
18 What is all this for, to fill time because the Prosecution has no
19 relevant witnesses? I had to make this objection, although what we had
20 today was extremely useful to me.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, the pattern of
22 conduct is provided for at Rule 93: "Evidence of a consistent pattern of
23 conduct relevant to serious violations of international humanitarian law
24 under the Statute may be admissible in the interest of justice,"
25 paragraph A.
1 Paragraph B of Rule 93: "Acts tending to show such a pattern of
2 conduct shall be disclosed by the Prosecutor to the Defence pursuant to
3 Rule 66."
4 Of course, interpretation of this Rule is required. From what I
5 understand from the decision of Trial Chamber I, the Prosecutor for some
6 locations is allowed to produce witnesses whose evidence will enable the
7 Trial Chamber Judges to establish the existence of a consistent pattern
8 of conduct from such-and-such date to such-and-such date, and this may
9 also include joint criminal enterprise and other things.
10 It's quite complicated to interpret Rule 93. It can be stated
11 that some evidence can be used to demonstrate that crimes were committed
12 in some municipalities.
13 In any case, this lady came to talk about the events in Vocin in
14 1991. That's what we can clearly see from her testimony.
15 Next week, we have three witnesses scheduled. I'm not going to
16 give their names because you can never be too cautious. Some of these
17 witnesses may be protected witnesses.
18 You're on your feet, Mr. Mundis. Please go ahead.
19 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Your Honours, I only want to assist the Trial
20 Chamber with what Mr. Seselj said. He said that, which is true, Vocin
21 was a removed municipality and we're allowed to lead pattern evidence.
22 Just for the evidence of the Trial Chamber, when this decision came out,
23 we reduced our witness list tremendously. Formerly, we had 130 witness,
24 and now we have only about 100. And only for Vocin, we removed 11
25 witnesses which were seen once, and now the remaining ones are coming
1 here to give pattern evidence.
2 Thank you.
3 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, I just wanted to confirm the letter
4 as it went out, I believe, yesterday with the list of the three witnesses
5 who are scheduled to appear next week. I simply at this stage confirm
6 the information that's listed in that letter, and those three witnesses
7 are scheduled for next week and we have no indications of any problems at
8 this point in time.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Three witnesses, maybe one a
10 day. How much time will you need for these witnesses? Do you have any
11 idea about how much time you will need for each one of them?
12 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, I believe, with respect to VS-26, the
13 Prosecution needs 1.5 hours, one and a half hours. For witness
14 Strinovic, we will endeavour, as we have been doing recently with respect
15 to experts, to keep that evidence as short as possible, perhaps 35
16 minutes, 40 minutes. With respect to Witness VS-1093, he is listed for
17 two hours, and we will certainly endeavor to move that as expeditiously
18 as possible.
19 So I don't believe we'll have any problems with respect to next
20 week. We're still waiting for the Trial Chamber's decision with respect
21 to the expert, but I don't believe we'll have any problems in that
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The decision will be issued.
24 Based on my personal view of the matter, but the Trial Chamber is
25 examining it, we have four expert witnesses left in the 65 ter list. We
1 have identified four expert witnesses, so after the following one, we'll
2 have three left. I believe that 30 to 45 minutes will be amply
3 sufficient, especially since we are talking about expert in technical
4 matters, in technical fields. Of course, we'll give Mr. Seselj all the
5 time he needs for the cross-examination of these witnesses.
6 Mr. Seselj, is there anything else you would like to raise? No?
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, we'll need a
15 redaction here.
16 Mr. Mundis.
17 MR. MUNDIS: I would ask that we briefly go into private session.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.
19 [Private session]
11 Pages 11549-11550 redacted. Private session.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.37 a.m.
6 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 11th day of
7 November, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.