1 Tuesday, 25 November 2008
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, please call
6 the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon,
8 everyone in and around the courtroom.
9 This is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus
10 Vojislav Seselj.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Today is Tuesday. Good
12 afternoon to the OTP representatives. Good afternoon to Mr. Seselj and
13 to the witness, who is going to testify through a videolink.
14 I'm going to ask the Registrar to move into private session
16 [Private session]
11 Page 12058 redacted. Private session.
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
19 Sir, can you please state your first name, last name and date of
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please, Judge. My lawyer did
22 receive an invitation from the Tribunal to attend.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I do not know your lawyer,
24 myself. He is not a witness. So there is no reason why your lawyer
25 should attend. If your lawyer was summoned by this Tribunal, that's part
1 of another case, in front of another Trial Chamber. The only person I
2 know is you, you as a simple witness who does not need counsel.
3 Please state your first name, last name, and date of birth.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Aleksandar Stefanovic, the 19th of
5 May, 1953. Zabari, Valjevo.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is your current
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the moment I have a fruit and
9 vegetable processing factory in Central Serbia in a place called
10 Smederevska, Palanka. The factory is called Voce.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Have you ever
12 testified before a tribunal or is it going to be the first time today?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I did appear in a certain
14 proceedings before domestic courts.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Were these proceedings related
16 to the events that took place in the former Yugoslavia or was it about
17 something else?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I assume you mean the other trials.
19 No, it wasn't in connection with the other trials, the first thing you
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Excellent.
22 The Registrar is probably sitting next to you. He's going to
23 show you the solemn declaration. Please read it out.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
25 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
1 WITNESS: ALEKSANDAR STEFANOVIC
2 [The witness answered through interpreter]
3 (The witness testified via videolink)
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.
5 Let me tell you how we are going to proceed today.
6 You will first have to answer questions by the Prosecutor. In
7 this particular case, I believe that Ms. Dahl will conduct the
8 examination-in-chief. She'll tell us later on how much time she will
9 need. The three Judges sitting in front of you may at any moment ask
10 questions, and Mr. Seselj, who is the accused in this case - I don't know
11 if you're able to see him at this precise minute - will also ask you
12 questions as part of the cross-examination. He is entitled to do so.
13 Ms. Dahl, how much time will you need to examine this witness?
14 MS. DAHL: I would respectfully request two hours, and I will
15 endeavour to complete my examination faster than that.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
17 Ms. Dahl, you may proceed and conduct your examination-in-chief.
18 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, before I begin to question the witness, I
19 wanted to put on the record that I was advised that when the witness
20 arrived at the Belgrade
21 condition for his testimony, which was disturbing, because there is no
22 payment for testimony. Regulations apply to afford witnesses per diems
23 and there is no additional payment, and I'd like that to be clarified by
24 the Chamber with the witness before I begin my examination.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, in your country and in
1 my country, when you go and testify before a court, your daily expenses
2 are reimbursed. Is that what you were requesting earlier on?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what the Prosecutor is
4 saying. I asked for per diems. "Per diems" means remuneration, money
5 remuneration for the time spent testifying, so that's all I asked for. I
6 don't know if that's clear. And we had a discussion over that which
7 lasted over an hour. They said, "Yesterday, today, tomorrow, never." I
8 don't know what all this is about, but I think in your country, as in my
9 country, that's how things stand. You receive financial reimbursement,
10 per diems.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I am going to ask the Registrar
12 to tell me how much money you're entitled to, precisely, and I'll let you
13 know later on.
14 Ms. Dahl, please proceed with your examination-in-chief.
15 MS. DAHL: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 May I ask the Registrar in Belgrade to please present the witness
17 with the statement that he signed dated 12 June 2006. It is in the
18 witness binder that accompanied the Registrar to Belgrade. It has label
19 7147 in the binder, which is the 65 ter number necessary to upload the
20 document in e-court.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl, the witness has been
22 shown the document.
23 MS. DAHL: Let me correct the record. I transposed the numbers.
24 The document number is 7417.
25 Let me clarify. The Chamber has lifted the requirement to use a
1 pseudonym with this witness; is that correct?
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed, because this
3 witness testifies without any protective measures.
4 Examination by Ms. Dahl:
5 Q. Mr. Stefanovic --
6 A. I don't understand what all this is about.
7 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, would you please look at the document 7417 that's
8 in front of you, and tell me if you recognise your signature on the
10 A. Yes. Yes, but if we want to discuss signatures and documents, I
11 have to say this first, and I started raising the issue a moment ago and
12 telling the Judge what I had to say.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is this all about? What
14 is this preliminary issue?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's this: As I started to tell
16 you, when there was an investigation or whatever, proceedings or
17 whatever, against Vojislav Seselj, I think -- I think that at the
18 beginning, in 2003, I think that's when it started, although possibly I
19 might be wrong, but, anyway, I didn't pay attention to the date. I
20 didn't think it was an important date in my life.
21 But, anyway, I was a member of the Republican Parliament at the
22 time, just like Mr. Seselj. We were in different parties and different
23 political options, but since 1999 I, myself, joined the parties of the
24 so-called DOS, the Demo-Christian party or Christian Democratic Party,
25 led by Vladan Batic in the government of Dr. Zoran Djindjic. He was
1 Minister of Justice in that government. And there was quite a lot of
2 talk about how we could put a stop to the Radicals, their actions. And
3 from the information of the Assembly, the Parliament that was set up in
4 January and served 2001, straight out to the elections held on the 23rd
5 of December, in fact, 1990, the parliamentary majority, which made up a
6 combination of 18 parties, rallied together and started discussing the
7 changes in the protocol of the Assembly. It's a sort of mini-law, if
8 I can use that term, a code of conduct that was binding upon the deputies
9 of the Parliament of Serbia; what rights they had, what duties they had,
10 how they could act, how they could be eliminated from the parliamentary
11 sessions if they violated the code of conduct.
12 And I remember that after the elections -- immediately after the
13 elections, within the Parliament, as I say, immediately after the
14 elections, a so-called body was set up which was called the Women's Group
15 or -- what's it in English, Women's something. Anyway, that's what it
16 was called, and they were the most active in that respect.
17 What they wanted was this: They wanted, through the code of
18 conduct of the republican Parliament, or the rules and regulations of
19 that Parliament, in a way to curtail -- or, rather, prevent the Radicals
20 from obstructing work. I don't know if you know what I mean when I say
21 "obstruction," but, anyway, during the session --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, Witness, please get to
23 the point. What's your point?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm coming to my point,
25 Your Honour. For me to make my point, I have to tell you the
1 preliminaries so that you can understand what I'm talking about and my
2 position at the point in time when, quite apart from my own will, I
3 become something -- well, I don't know what I become. I become somebody
4 being examined and interviewed by The Hague Tribunal or the Prosecutor,
5 so it was against my will that I went to The Hague Tribunal to give my
6 statement, not a statement that I'm going to testify about, but a
7 statement, having been told to do so by Dr. Zoran Djindjic, who had an
8 agreement with the then Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal, Carla
9 Del Ponte, so it was an agreement between them. And these were not
10 people who were without authority, might I say.
11 So, anyway, if you think that there is a written or unwritten
12 trace, there are witnesses to that. There is Vladan Babic, the then
13 minister, for instance. Then I'm going to tell you how the conversation
14 evolved, how it was conducted.
15 When the prime minister told me, I said, "You know, Mr. Djindjic,
16 I don't know whether Seselj -- or that Seselj --"
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl, the --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Allow me to finish what I was
19 saying, please.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but the Prosecutor is
21 objecting. The witness is challenging his own testimony of the 6, 7 and
22 12 February 2003
23 agreement between Mr. Djindjic and Ms. Carla Del Ponte.
24 Witness, we get your point. At least I understand what you were
25 telling us. Let's then see what is the content of your statement.
1 Ms. Dahl, you have the floor.
2 MS. DAHL: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, let me turn your attention to page 24 of your
4 June 16, 2006
5 0601-2454. Let me ask you to turn to that page, and tell me if you
6 recognise your signature above the date.
7 A. Yes, without a doubt, they're my signatures. But I'd like to
8 explain, if that's at all important for the Court, how it came -- how
9 these signatures came about.
10 Q. Let me ask, Mr. Stefanovic, first that you please read the
11 acknowledgment that you signed, beginning with the statement consists --
12 A. That's precisely what I'm doing now.
13 Q. Okay. Please read the paragraph.
14 A. "This statement contains --" is this all right? It doesn't say
15 "confirm." It says: "This statement contains or consists of 28 pages,
16 has been read over to -- has been read in Serbian." No, that's not true.
17 It's never been read in Serbian, nor have I ever read this. This is the
18 first time I'm looking at this. I read it in the Serbian language, my
19 mother tongue, and it is true to the best of my knowledge and
20 recollection. Well, I have given this statement voluntarily. I'm aware
21 that it may be used in legal proceedings before the International
22 Criminal Tribunal for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious
23 violations of international law committed in the territory of the former
25 before the Tribunal.
1 Now, Madam Prosecutor, I wish to state --
2 Q. I'm sorry. I'm asking the questions and you're giving the
3 answers, so Mr. --
4 A. I haven't read this. No, this statement is not correct.
5 Q. I'm sorry. You just identified your signature on the document,
6 and --
7 A. My answer is that it is not correct.
8 Q. Let me confirm that you have in front of you the original Serbian
9 document bearing your signature on page with the ERN number 0601-2454.
10 Do you have that page in front of you?
11 A. Well, it's probably this one, yes.
12 Q. Not "probably." "Yes," or "no"?
13 A. I said, "Yes." I've already said that.
14 MS. DAHL: Madam Registrar, let me ask you to give Mr. Stefanovic
15 his 2003 statement, and you'll find that in his binder at document 7416.
16 That's the 65 ter number given to the document to allow it to be
17 up-loaded into e-court. The original was signed in English on 12
18 February 2003. So if you can give him both the English and the B/C/S
19 translation to enable the witness to read the document.
20 Q. And let me ask you to turn to, first, the front page and tell me
21 if you recognise your signature on that document.
22 A. Yes, but we're not only talking about this signature. Probably
23 the signature is right, but I'd like to discuss the previous document.
24 We didn't finish discussing that.
25 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, let me ask you to please answer my questions.
1 You'll have an opportunity to explain, but I want to get the information
2 that the Chamber needs about this so-called agreement out first.
3 Let's go to the last page before the interpreter's certification
4 and ask you to please look at the English page with the ERN number
5 0119-1880 and find your signature under the date 12 February 2003. Tell
6 me if you recognise your signature, please.
7 A. It's like this, Madam Prosecutor: Let me make things clear.
8 This is my signature, and most probably -- may I be allowed to explain,
9 please? It's very important, because the answer is both "yes" and "no,"
10 and I have to explain.
11 Q. It's either your signature or it's not your signature.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, you never allow
13 me -- I have an objection. You never allow me to interrupt the witness
14 to stop what he's saying, and you always insist that the witness has the
15 right to state what he wants to state fully. So I demand that you act in
16 the same manner when the Prosecutor is doing the examining.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, obviously you are now
18 a hostile witness, hostile to the OTP. That's quite obvious.
19 You will, in due course, give us all the necessary explanation.
20 For the time being, I'm going to ask you to answer the questions put to
21 you by the Prosecutor by "yes" or "no." Later on, I can assure you that
22 you will have all the time necessary to tell us under what circumstances
23 you signed this document. But now we are just asking you to answer a
24 basic series of preliminary questions; yes, you signed this document, and
25 we'll talk about the circumstances later.
1 Ms. Dahl.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Judge, Your Honour, I can't
3 continue before I am allowed to explain something to you. Just two
4 sentences, please.
5 It is absolutely incorrect, you can ask the official of the
6 Tribunal here, the clerk of the Tribunal, I'm not angry at all either
7 towards the Prosecutor, or towards you, or towards the accused Seselj.
8 I'm saying this quite calmly, and I'm saying it under oath. I'm a
9 Christian, Your Honour, and I have pledged in my church to always tell
10 the truth, which I will do. So at this point in time, I'm taking very
11 great care about what I'm saying, and far from it, may God forgive me
12 that I have any hostile sentiments toward Madam Dahl, whom I met in
14 me. We discussed some very -- had a very nice conversation. We
15 discussed some pleasant memories that I have, and I very often like to
16 recount when I meet my friends. So I don't have a single reason for not
17 liking the Prosecutor, especially so as we spent an hour and a half here
18 together and I tried to have my rights respected that I would get
19 financial recompense for the time I'm losing here.
20 So you're not going to have a problem with me, in the sense of me
21 hating anybody. I don't. So I find it a little unpleasant to hear what
22 I'm hearing now.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stefanovic, when did you
24 meet the Prosecutor, because that's the first time I hear from it. I
25 thought you'd completely disappeared. When did you meet the
1 representative of the Office of the Prosecution?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Countless times. Maybe I'm mixed
4 I'm Aleksandar Stefanovic. I never hid from the Court. I always
5 responded to every summons. I always came here. So how could I have
6 gone missing?
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When was the last time you met
8 the representative of the Office of the Prosecution?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh, it's a problem for me to recall
10 the exact time, but I think -- I'm not sure exactly when it was. I can't
11 recall. But I know very well that we had a polemic -- she comes from
12 another civilization, from America
14 Napoleon is characterized by history as a positive personality,
15 whereas Hitler is categorised as a very negative personality, and yet
16 these two men did very similar things in their lives.
17 We discussed the fact that my son, after the bombing by NATO, got
18 cancer of the lymph glands due to the radiation, and I had two or three
19 years of agony during the medical treatment of my child, which
20 fortunately ended well, but this agony is still ongoing. The
21 consequences are quite incredible.
22 I spoke of the responsibility of the leaders of the NATO pact,
23 Wesley Clark, Jamie Shea and others who used depleted uranium and used
24 this for an air strike against Serbia
25 Let me finish.
1 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Sir, why aren't you responding
2 to the question asked to you by the Presiding Judge? When did you meet
3 with Ms. Dahl? He didn't ask you about the content of the conversation.
4 He asked you when you met her and how many times. Could you please
5 provide an answer to this question?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A few months ago, I was on these
7 premises with Madam Dahl, before that with a gentleman called Sax
8 [as interpreted]. I think he was a Prosecutor also. That might have
9 been a year and a half ago with Sax, but only a few months ago with
10 Madam Dahl. That's my response.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
12 Ms. Dahl, you may proceed.
13 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, the date that I met with Mr. Stefanovic
14 preceded the opening of the case. It was September 18, 2007.
15 Q. Now, Mr. Stefanovic, on your statement dated 12 February 2003 --
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Madam Dahl does not
17 have the right to testify, until you ask her a question. She can only
18 ask questions of witnesses.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Since the witness could not
20 remember the date, Ms. Dahl, who was taking part in the meeting,
21 specified the date instead of him.
22 18th of September 2007 or 2008, Ms. Dahl?
23 MS. DAHL: 2007, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, Ms. Dahl indicated
25 that she last met with you on the 18th of September, 2007. Do you agree
1 with that?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know when it was, but it's
3 possible it was on that date. And that's what we discussed. She said
4 she had completed primary school in Boston. We had a very nice chat, in
6 Your Honour, just something -- may I say something, please?
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stefanovic, you're here to
8 answer questions. Please let Ms. Dahl ask questions to you. Then it
9 will be the Judges' turn, and we'll clarify the points that deserve some
11 Please proceed, Ms. Dahl.
12 MS. DAHL:
13 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, you signed your 2003 statement on 12 February
14 2003; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In the witness acknowledgment directly above your signature, it
17 states that you may be called to give evidence in public before the
18 Tribunal; correct?
19 A. Yes, but that's in English. I don't speak English. I speak
20 German very well, I speak Serbian and I speak Russian, but I don't speak
21 English, so even now I don't know what this says.
22 Q. Can you look at the interpreter certificate that follows on the
23 last page of the 2003 statement, and please ask the Registrar to give you
24 the Serbian translation of the document.
25 Do you have it in front of you now?
1 A. This second document, the witness confirmation, not the interpret
2 confirmation, as you say, it says "Witness Acknowledgment," not
3 "Interpreter's Acknowledgment."
4 Q. The last page with ERN number 0119-1181 has the interpreter's
5 certification, and it states that the interpreter has been informed by
6 Aleksandar Stefanovic that he speaks and understands the Serbian language
7 and that the above statement has been orally translated for you from the
8 English language to the Serbian language in the presence of Stefanovic,
9 who appeared to have "heard and understood --
10 A. That's not correct.
11 Q. " -- my translation of this statement."
12 A. That's not correct.
13 Q. Am I reading the document incorrectly?
14 A. This statement is not signed, Madam.
15 Q. Look at the English version. It has your signature at the bottom
16 below the interpreter's certification, doesn't it?
17 A. Very well.
18 Q. And paragraph 4 --
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. -- indicates --
21 A. But I don't understand what it says here. There's no witness
22 signature or no -- or a signature by the interpreter on this document.
23 I'm saying that what it says here is not correct, what it says here.
24 That is not correct.
25 Q. Are you reading in Serbian or in English? I can't see the
1 document you're pointing to because of the videolink.
2 A. I can only read the document in the Serbian language.
3 Q. Can you recognise your signature on the English language document
4 next to the numerals 17?
5 A. No, I don't see the document.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, I have an objection again.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, for the time being
8 we are checking documents, and I really don't need you to know how -- in
9 which circumstances he signed those documents. We know that he signed
10 documents in English, while he doesn't understand English. It is a
11 classic. Let's not waste our time on this.
12 Now, sir, Ms. Dahl is telling us that it seems you've signed
13 documents in English. As far as I'm concerned, those documents should
14 have been submitted to you in your own language, but that's the way we do
15 things here; hence the problems we are constantly faced with. And I also
16 understand that the interpreter who was there at the time apparently read
17 to you the entire document.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's not correct. He didn't read
19 it to me.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay, it wasn't read to you.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He didn't read the translation to
23 me, no, and that's certain. I assert that with full liability, and I'll
24 tell you why.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, in paragraph 3 the
1 interpreter states that the statement was orally translated from English
2 into your own language. That's in paragraph 3. You're saying that the
3 document wasn't read back to you?
4 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Sir, sir, Witness, there's
5 something I don't understand. Why did you sign the document in English
6 if it wasn't read back to you and translated in Serbian?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, to tell you the truth, I
8 didn't follow the trials in The Hague
9 were ongoing before this one, which was broadcast on television. At that
10 time, I was a deputy in the Assembly, I was the owner of a big business,
11 and I had a very ill son. I spent more than eight hours here, and had
12 they told me to sign that I agreed to be beaten up by the first policeman
13 I encountered in the street, I would have signed that.
14 I'm not someone who is easily frightened, but when I came here --
15 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] But it is quite strange for a
16 member of Parliament of the Serb Republic
17 submitted to him by just about anyone. Do you think that sounds
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Madam Judge, I received
20 guarantees from the top people of the Tribunal and the Serbian state,
21 Mr. Djindjic and Madam Del Ponte, that I would not appear in the court as
22 a witness. And had they told me, "Go and say this, go and say that,"
23 "Sign this or sign that," I would have done it. Why would I do anything
24 else, either as a deputy or as a layperson?
25 MS. DAHL:
1 Q. Mr. Stefanovic --
2 A. I still think that way, I still think the same.
3 Q. The language about not having to testify does not, in fact,
4 appear in the 2003 statement; correct?
5 A. I didn't read the statement, to tell you the truth, but it's
6 probably correct.
7 Q. The 2006 statement that you signed in Serbian does not have
8 language regarding any agreement that you would not have to testify, does
10 A. I told you I haven't read the statements, but most probably it
11 was not written down, what I kept telling the Prosecutors. And I told
12 you the same, Madam Prosecutor.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stefanovic, sir, when you
14 met with Ms. Dahl in September 2007, did you tell her that the
15 prime minister at the time and Ms. Del Ponte gave you assurances that you
16 would not have to testify; did you tell her at the time?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I kept saying that to everybody, so
18 I think I did. I don't know if there's a transcript of the conversation
19 between me and Madam Dahl, but let the Prosecution show me the minutes of
20 the conversation between Madam Dahl and myself.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] My question is very simple.
22 You met with Ms. Dahl in 2007, in September. Ms. Dahl gave you a very
23 positive impression, it seems. Now, did you tell her that you were
24 surprised to have to meet her because you were given assurances that you
25 would never have to testify? Did you tell her or not?
1 You are a member of Parliament. You understand my questions. Or
2 at least you were a member of Parliament in the past. I believe my
3 question is very clear.
4 Did you tell Ms. Dahl that because you were given assurances, you
5 did not understand why you were called to testify as a witness?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I didn't tell Madam Dahl what
7 you are saying, but I told her the story about Zoran Djindjic and Carla
8 Del Ponte. But let the Prosecution show me the record of that meeting
9 between Madam Dahl and myself, if it's possible. Maybe it's recorded
10 there. I haven't seen that record. Please.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Because when you spoke with
12 Ms. Dahl, you think Ms. Dahl took note of everything you said?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not what I think, it's
14 understood. I never knew if I was summoned for this or that reason. I
15 don't know what to think about it. Let me see the record of that
16 meeting. Let the Prosecution show me the record of that meeting. I
17 think I must have said that, because this is detrimental to my authority,
18 to my political career, to my business, to my life in general for me to
19 appear as a witness over there. And I even told her, "I do not want to
20 be a protected witness. What does it mean to be protected or not
21 protected, to be a judge, or a prosecutor, or a witness, or whatever?"
22 Didn't I say that? Don't you remember that? I think I did. Let me see
23 the record. Or did she summon me for nothing, only to get a look at me?
24 Why did she summon me if she didn't make a record? Is there a record?
25 Please let me see the record. Does the Prosecution have a record?
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl, please proceed.
2 MS. DAHL:
3 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, let me turn your attention to the 2006 statement
4 that you signed, and would you please look at the Serbian copy. And I
5 want you to flip through -- past the first page to the second page,
6 and --
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, you told the witness
8 that he was evidently a hostile witness, hostile to the Prosecution, but
9 I don't know whether that means that you, as a Trial Chamber, have
10 decided to declare him a hostile witness, which would give Madam Dahl the
11 right to put such questions.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl, since Mr. Seselj is a
13 procedural specialist and knows common law very well and doesn't need a
14 lawyer, are you ready to declare this witness a hostile witness or not,
15 because if you declare him a hostile witness, you are entitled to leading
17 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, I'd like to pose questions in a format
18 that gives the Chamber information directly from the witness. If it
19 proves difficult for him to answer the questions put to him, then I think
20 it would be appropriate. So far, we've established, I think, that he's
21 signed two statements and that his name is Aleksandar Stefanovic, so the
22 current question pending is a request to --
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We've used almost 30 minutes to
24 learn that his name is Stefanovic and that he signed a document. Please
1 MS. DAHL:
2 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, will you look at the first page of your 2000 --
3 A. I've also said that it is not correct, what is written there.
4 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, there's no question. There's a request that you
5 turn to page 1. Would you do that, please.
6 Paragraph 1 says that you are giving the statement voluntarily
7 and that you will describe things known to you, to the best of your
8 knowledge and recollection. You signed that statement; correct?
9 A. You're putting two questions to me, and the answer to one is
10 "no." The answer to the other is "yes."
11 Q. Let me break it down to you. Read along paragraph 1. I'm going
12 to read it to you, and you can tell me if I've done so correctly:
13 "I am giving this statement voluntarily and I will describe
14 things I know to the best of my knowledge and recollection."
15 Is that what paragraph 1 says?
16 A. That's what it says, but that doesn't mean that that's what I
18 Q. Let's go to paragraph 2. You were requested to give information
19 based on your personal knowledge and your own observations; correct?
20 A. Up there, yes.
21 Q. You were requested to make a truthful statement based on your
22 personal experiences; correct?
23 A. That's what it says here. If that's what it says here, then it's
24 correct. I have always spoken the truth.
25 Q. You were told by the representatives of the Office of the
1 Prosecutor who were interviewing you that the information you were
2 providing could be used in criminal proceedings; correct?
3 A. That's what it says here, but I wasn't shown this before giving
4 my statement. He said, "Good day, Mr. Stefanovic." I said, "Good day,
5 Mr. Investigator." "What you say will be used in the criminal
6 proceedings against Seselj," well, that's something he never said to me.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I've just noticed a
8 detail which may be of significance.
9 In the statement before us, in the title a reference is made to
10 89F. Once you explained at the time that you were giving a written
11 statement which was going to be admitted in writing and that you wouldn't
12 have to come and testify, was it what was said to you at the time or
13 nothing -- wasn't anything said to you?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, nothing like that was said
15 to me.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You weren't told anything.
18 Please proceed, Ms. Dahl.
19 MS. DAHL:
20 Q. When you gave this statement, you told the investigators and the
21 other people present that you were willing to testify before the
22 International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia; correct?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's a leading question.
24 Ms. Dahl cannot make a statement and then say, "Is that correct?" She
25 should ask as follows: "What did you say when they told you this or
2 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, I'd like you to authorise me to lead the
3 witness so that we can work our way through the evidence the witness is
4 competent to provide the Chamber.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl, the Judges have some
6 experience in this area, because this isn't the first time we're faced
7 with this problem. We're interested in the functioning of the SRS, so
8 maybe you should leave aside this procedural issue. I think we heard
9 what the witness had to say. We will assess this part of his testimony
11 Now, as far as the substance is concerned, we want to know what
12 he was doing within the SRS
13 witness may have interesting explanations to provide.
14 MS. DAHL:
15 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, have you ever formed your own political party?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did you form a political party in 1989?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What was the name of that party?
20 A. The Liberal Party.
21 Q. What was the objective of that party?
22 A. The objective of every party is to fight for power and to get rid
23 of the existing regime. The aim was to fight against the existing
24 regime, the Communist Party which had ruled on its own for the past 50
25 years on the territories of Yugoslavia
1 multiparty system such as exists in all Western democracies.
2 We felt, a group of people and I, we who founded the party felt
3 that the time had come to set up a multiparty system in Serbia, in view
4 of the fact that at that time, in many former Yugoslav republics, a
5 multiparty system had already been established. Elections had been held,
6 and it was only Serbia
7 Q. Okay, thank you. Are you familiar with the Srbski Slobadarski
8 Pokret [phoen]?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What is that?
11 A. That was a political party founded by Mr. Vojislav Seselj, if I
12 remember well, on the 23rd of January, 1990, and this was in Batajnica,
13 if I remember well.
14 Q. Did you have occasion to cooperate with the political party
15 founded by Vuk Draskovic, the Serbian National Renewal?
16 A. Well, the words "to cooperate" is very broad in its meaning. At
17 that time, there was no antagonism among the newly-established political
18 parties. We would see each other at various meetings. We would meet
19 informally and talk. So there wasn't any special cooperation. Everybody
20 pushed their own policy. Vuk Draskovic was very prominent in this
21 because he had a lot of support from the regime of Slobodan Milosevic,
22 which felt that Vuk Draskovic's party was not a threat to him, so it was
23 favoured in the daily newspapers, the electronic media, and in all other
24 public --
25 Q. Let me ask you the period of time that we're talking about. Is
1 this March 1990?
2 A. Yes, yes. The first half of 1990, in fact.
3 Q. Did there later come a point in time where Mr. Seselj and
4 Mr. Draskovic had a conflict?
5 A. Yes.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a technical
7 question for you.
8 I'm reading your written statement, with all the reservations
9 that you expressed about the statement. You said at the time that, in
10 fact, it was Milosevic who, via the SDB, had control over all these
11 parties. Is that true, is that untrue?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, almost all the parties; not
13 over mine, certainly, because I didn't have any contacts with the DB, and
14 I don't think he had any contacts at that time either with Seselj's
15 freedom movement, if view of the fact that the people in the party were
16 characterized as express anti-communists, adversaries to the communist
17 regime, whether it was Milosevic's regime or Titoism, who as a spirit
18 still loomed high, and perhaps some other party too. But many parties
19 were not only under the control of the SDB but were also created by the
20 DB, in fact.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In your view, which party may
22 have been created or founded by the SDB?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the SDB is no weaker
24 now than it was then, so don't bring me into a difficult situation so
25 that I have repercussions because of any statement I might make.
1 Do you understand me? I hope you understand me.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, fine. I get the
3 point very quickly.
4 Ms. Dahl.
5 Q. When Mr. Draskovic and Mr. Seselj had a conflict in 1990, what
6 did Mr. Draskovic do?
7 A. I don't understand the question. What do you want me to say?
8 I'm not sure.
9 Q. Well, did there come a point in time where --
10 A. What do you mean, what did Mr. Draskovic do?
11 Q. Was there another political party founded?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What was it called?
14 A. Yes, Draskovic did form the party.
15 Q. Its name?
16 A. Well, Vuk Draskovic in June, I think, founded a party which was
17 called the Serbian Renewal Movement, the SPO, and it exists to this very
18 day. That's what it's still called, and Vuk Draskovic is still at the
19 head of that party. Now, I might be wrong whether that was March or
20 later, I can't say for sure, but I do know that it was in the first half
21 of the year. Whether it was after the 10th of March, that is to say, the
22 famous events in the Engineers and Technicians hall where Mirko Jovic
23 threw the -- threw Vuk Draskovic out of the Serbian Renewal Movement, he
24 stormed the hall with his sympathizers who made up the main board of the
25 Serbian National Defence -- or Renewal Party, and he came on to the
1 rostrum and said that Vuk Draskovic as of that moment had been replaced
2 and was no longer the head of the Serbian Renewal Party, and
3 Vuk Draskovic and Seselj, Boskovic and I agreed to meet the next day in
4 the Moscow Hotel, and we did indeed meet to shape our future activities,
5 to see what we should do, since it was quite obvious at that point in
6 time that the most popular oppositional party had given a red card to
7 Vuk Draskovic, who at that point in time was one of the most important
8 opposition leaders and the man who, before that, was generally known as a
9 major dissident. And he enjoyed great popularity among the Serbian
10 people, especially in the national corps of Serbs, who had not forgotten
11 their origins or their religion, the healthiest part of the Serbian
12 people, or their need to exist in those territories the people who had
13 not forgotten Serbian traditions. So at that point Vuk Draskovic was an
14 important, if not the most important person in the opposition parties of
16 I don't know if I've made myself clear enough.
17 Q. Can you describe for the Trial Chamber how it came about -- the
18 formation of the Serbian Chetnik Movement came about?
19 A. Yes, I can do that.
20 Q. Please do so.
21 A. Well, it's like this: I just need -- well, like all the Eastern
22 countries, Yugoslavia
23 torture by the Communists when they arrived on the 1st of September,
24 1944, and enforced with the help of the British, the Communist Party
25 authority, led by Josip Bros Tito, who throughout the time of his reign
1 showed expressly anti-Serb tendencies, and in the autumn of 1994 alone,
2 in my district, the Valjevo district, executed over six and a half
3 thousand Muslim men, mostly young villagers, in order to maim the Serb
4 nation and in order to introduce government and power of fear, based on
6 Q. Let me focus my question.
7 A. You asked me to --
8 Q. Were you involved with Mr. Seselj in the creation or formation of
9 the Serbian Chetnik Movement?
10 A. Yes, yes.
11 Q. And when was that formed?
12 A. Well, I can't give you an exact date, but I think it was June
13 1990, when a group which had left the Serbian Renewal Movement,
14 dissatisfied with the policies waged by Vuk Draskovic, and joining up
15 with the Liberal Party from Valjevo, the Serbian Chetnik Movement was
16 formed at a meeting where the people expressed their own free will.
17 Q. Let me ask you, who was the president?
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Ms. Dahl. I have a
19 question for the witness.
20 Witness, we've heard a number of witnesses tell us about rallies
21 of the Serbian Chetnik Movement, and we asked questions about why they
22 joined this movement. It struck me that many of us -- many of them
23 explained to us that they joined the movement because they were
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That was the reason for joining
2 the movement. You, yourself, were at some point the vice-president of an
3 organisation. Did you have the feeling that many of those who joined the
4 movement did so because they wanted to restore the monarchy?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's like this: You must
6 understand one thing. I didn't follow the trials in The Hague that have
7 been going on. I tried to tell you that earlier on. So I don't know
8 what the gentlemen who were in the Chetnik Movement have said, but I say
9 with full responsibility that one of the motives was that, too, but
10 I think that the Chetnik Movement is exclusively an anti-communist
11 movement in the first place, rallying people who were expressly
12 anti-communists and who advocated a stream, if I can put it that way,
13 which wanted, in one way or another, to rehabilitate the great not only
14 Serbian, Yugoslav, but also the European personage, Dragoljub
15 Draza Mihajlovic, general of the Yugoslav Army, who was without a doubt
16 was foremost fighter in Europe
17 and to a great extent it was maimed by the communists in the postwar
18 period. And Draza Mihajlovic, himself, in a rigged trial in Belgrade
19 1946, on the 17th of June, was executed for no proper reason. So that's
21 But my motives for joining the Chetnik Movement were the same as
22 the motives that the Liberal -- for the founding of the Liberal Party in
23 Valjevo and entry into another party, that is, to deal in politics, I was
24 interested in seizing power, taking power, to impound authority; in other
25 words, to have a say as much as possible in how things were run in my
1 country and for the system that I believed to be correct. And I always
2 said this in my public speaking, that every party in the pre-electoral
3 campaign should come forward with its programme and platform and say that
4 we're going to have a good economy, we're going to support the stability
5 of our national currency, we shall work for the good of such and such,
6 and so on. And another party, like the Serbian Chetnik Movement, would
7 say, for instance, "We will nurture Serbian traditions. We will fight to
8 protect and defend our fellow nationals outside the Republic of Serbia
9 that the terrible crimes of World War II shall not be repeated under the
10 wings of Germany
11 had forgiven those countries, because there was no greater crime that was
12 committed during World War II than the crime committed by the Croats
13 against the Serbs in the area of Posavina. That's how it was. I think
14 that's correct.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. You've answered my
17 Ms. Dahl, we have 20 minutes before the break. Please proceed.
18 MS. DAHL:
19 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, who was the president of the Serbian Chetnik
21 A. Vojislav Seselj.
22 Q. And who was the vice-president?
23 A. Aleksandar Stefanovic. That is to say, I was, I myself.
24 Q. Are you familiar with the political programme of the Serbian
25 Chetnik Movement?
1 A. Absolutely, yes, and I am one of the creators of that programme.
2 And I'm having proud of being that, of being -- of having devised and
3 formulated such a nice programme, in cooperation with all the other
4 people who made up the Chetnik Movement of the day.
5 Q. Is it correct, my understanding, the programme includes the
6 restoration of a free, independent and democratic Serbian state in the
7 Balkans; is that correct?
8 A. Well, it wasn't the restoration, it was the establishment,
9 because that kind of Serbian state might have consisted of that in just
10 two or three days of its history. But it wasn't quite logical, from the
11 viewpoint of the Serbian nation, that a state should be set up on
12 territories where the Serbs were the ethnic majority, the absolute ethnic
13 majority, so as to avoid having history repeat itself, the very bloody
14 history in the 19th century, and which was directed and orchestrated by
15 the Vatican
16 looked at from today's perspective, brought itself to the very edge of
17 genetic survival.
18 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, which lands would be under the Serbian Chetnik
19 Movement's platform included in a new Serbian state?
20 A. Well, it's like this: Following on from the example of Hitler in
21 1936 and Hitler's annexation of Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia
22 under Czech administration, Europe
23 to this and agreed with this move on Hitler's part. And Europe agreed
24 again today. It kept quiet when Austria
25 Hitler would stop there. And certainly Hitler would never have been
1 convicted and would have lived for a long time to come had he stopped
2 there, so that wouldn't have been a problem, as far as civilization in
4 Q. Rather than discussing this by analogy, let me direct your
5 attention to the geography of the Balkans.
6 Under the Serbian Chetnik Movement's political platform, would
7 the new Serbian state include territories now in Macedonia?
8 A. Yes, absolutely so. Macedonia
9 1992, never. Aleksandar the Great, Aleksandar Makedonski. Now, and
11 government there, but it's a Serb state. And Vojvodina will be a Serb
12 state. It won't be a Spanish state, will it? And Bosnia-Herzegovina,
13 and history and time have shown that a large part of that is a Serbian
14 state. The Republika Srpska is not a Spanish state, it is a state of
15 Serb people. Unfortunately, it's almost ethnically pure, and
16 unfortunately there was a lot of bloodshed prompted by the pot entates of
18 They had trouble and strife, poverty and hatred. That's what they got.
19 And today we have Haris Silajdzic, who can just at the bat of an
20 eye get a couple of million that he needs, so --
21 Q. Please. I want to focus your attention on the political
23 A. But, yes, that's right.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, what you are saying
25 has some historical relevance, but we've already heard quite a lot of
1 evidence about all this. The purpose of the Prosecutor, and I believe
2 that it is also the purpose of Mr. Seselj, is for us to have as much
3 information as possible about the Serbian Radical Party, whose president
4 is the accused in this case, for events that took place in 1991 and 1992.
5 What you're telling us about the history of the region has some
6 relevance, but, please, in order to help us establish and ascertain the
7 truth, please focus on the SCP
8 trying to focus you on these particular topics.
9 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a question for you,
11 You referred to ethnic purity. Was the idea to create an
12 ethnically-pure Serb state?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My answer is "no," and here's why:
14 Within the frameworks of the Chetnik Movement of the Serbian Radical
15 Party, we had Hungarians, we had deputies who were Hungarians; that is to
16 say, the top post. We had Elvira Fehete, for example, who was a
17 Hungarian. We had Muslims. We had a man called Spaho, who was very
18 famous. He was a descendant of the famous Mehmed Spaho, the former
19 Bosnian politician. We had Croats, we had Siptars, we had Serbs from
21 ethnicities within the party, so why would we struggle to be ethnically
22 pure? No, that's not a good formulation, and that's why the Serbian
23 Radical Party or the Serbian Chetnik Movement never fought, and I say
24 that with full responsibility. I did not follow the trial, so I don't
25 know what Mr. Seselj is saying now. But before, there was never a
1 problem for people to join the party who are, for example, a Hungarian.
2 There was Elvira Fehete. She was a deputy in the Assembly. She's a
3 Hungarian, yes, she is. Mehmed Spaho, he was a deputy, yes, he was. Is
4 he a Muslim? Yes, he is. Then there was the Siptar down there. What
5 was his name, the journalist there? I don't know what he was, anyway.
6 What was his name? Zanevi [phoen] or whatever. So why would it be
7 ethnically pure?
8 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] You've answered my question.
9 Thank you.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, all this confusion is
11 due to a sentence you uttered earlier on. It may have led us to some
12 confusion, but you've clarified the matter.
13 Ms. Dahl, you may proceed.
14 MS. DAHL:
15 Q. Did the Chetnik Movement include areas that are now presently in
17 A. It's like this: You must understand one thing. We wanted to
18 establish or, rather, to prevent the persecution of the Serb people who,
19 with the establishment of Tudjman's power and authority in Croatia
20 under jeopardy. So that was the main problem, as far as I see it and as
21 far as all the Radicals see it, and why they joined up and decided to
22 engage in a political struggle to prevent that. So from the point in
23 time when the Serbs came under the power and authority of Tudjman and
24 jeopardised that way, then it's quite natural that the mother country
25 wanted to protect the people that had no protection, no arms, nothing,
1 and especially having remembered what happened in the Second World War in
2 Jasenovac, Kozadin [phoen], and so on and so forth. So what should we
3 have done? We couldn't have let the Serbs be killed. We couldn't say,
4 "We'll help Tudjman kill the Serbs."
5 So we Serbs had suffered a great deal from the point in time when
7 thresholds. They launched an attack on Serbia when Serbia
8 economically depleted, and we all had to pool our efforts to help our
9 fellow men.
10 Q. Let me go back to my question. I'm thinking the answer to my
11 question was, yes, the programme platform included locations now in
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. How about Kosovo, did the programme --
15 A. Well, but I'm telling you why, I'm explaining.
16 Q. Yes, I appreciate that. I want to move on to the next question.
17 Did the programme platform include Kosovo?
18 A. It's like this, Ms. Dahl: Not only my own personal answer and
19 not only what I think, but I'll tell you. Let me tell you what I think,
20 and I think it's this: Only a madman could recognise the independence of
21 Kosovo today, regardless of who that person is. Kosovo has thousands and
22 thousands of monasteries. There are thousands and thousands of
23 monasteries of the Serbian Orthodox Church over there in Kosovo.
24 MS. DAHL: [Previous translation continues)... to direct the
25 witness to answer my question instead of launching into a tangent about
1 today's political questions.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.
3 Witness, I can see that you are a politician. You're used to the
4 spoken word, and you have a tendency to move on to other topics that may
5 have some relevance, politically speaking. But here we are dealing with
6 extremely complex matters, and the Prosecutor is trying, through her
7 questions, to highlight some of these issues, so please try to focus on
8 the questions put to you by the Prosecutor. If I or my fellow Judges
9 realise that some things are missing, we'll put the necessary questions
10 to you. And in any case, as part of his cross-examination, Mr. Seselj
11 will probably have time to deal with these matters. We are now in the
12 phase of the examination-in-chief, and she is entitled to put to you the
13 questions she wants to put to you.
14 Ms. Dahl, you have five minutes left. Please proceed.
15 MS. DAHL:
16 Q. Did the platform include retaining Kosovo?
17 A. Well, it's like this: You're asking me whether -- well, Kosovo
18 was Serbia
19 anywhere. Kosovo was within the frameworks of Serbia, so I don't know
20 why you're asking me whether that was it. We can't say that we're going
21 to separate part of a territory because Tito allowed a million Siptars
22 and went in there unlawfully, just as if Mexicans were to storm your own
23 country. You take up your rifles and you kill them all, you build a
24 Chinese wall between Mexico
25 let 350.000 Siptars enter the country after World War II and during World
1 War II, and they were on the territory of Serbia
3 the criminals to remain, and so it's quite normal to strive and put that
4 injustice right, so that those immigrants should be sent out. You do
5 that all over the country. Name me one state that doesn't do that, sends
6 immigrants back.
7 I don't know what to say. What can I say?
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, we knew that already,
9 but I don't understand. You used the words "these criminals." Even if
10 Tito made them go there, some of them may have been extremely decent
11 people. Why do you call them criminals? That's the same with Mexicans
12 going to the United States of America. These people aren't necessarily
13 criminals. Or did you get carried away? Okay, you got carried away.
14 Ms. Dahl, you may proceed.
15 MS. DAHL:
16 Q. Was the Serbian Chetnik Movement --
17 A. Yes, precisely, Your Honour. That was just an erroneous
18 interpretation. They weren't on the territory of Kosovo
19 not that they were criminals, murders, thieves, but they were there
20 unlawfully and therefore criminally on the territory of Serbia
22 right the injustice that had been done by Tito. So that's my story,
23 because it was illogical for you to ask me that question, whether
24 Britanny is part of France
25 apologise for making this all into a caricature, but that's how I
1 understood the question and felt it, so I had to explain.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay, we get the point.
3 Ms. Dahl.
4 MS. DAHL:
5 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, was the Serbian Chetnik Movement registered as a
6 legal political party?
7 A. We had all the necessary documents, handed them over to the state
8 organs, in this case the Ministry for Local Self-Government, that's how
9 it was registered, and the Minister of Justice first, actually. And
10 without explanation, they refused to have us registered, but we continued
11 working as a -- an unregistered party.
12 Q. Were you involved in the formation of the Serbian Radical Party?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. When was it formed?
15 A. It was formed on the 23rd of February, 1991.
16 Q. Who was elected president?
17 A. At the first founding session held in Kragujevac, Mr. Seselj was
18 elected as president, and there were three or four vice-presidents, and I
19 was elected the secretary-general of the party.
20 Q. Who were the vice-presidents?
21 A. If I remember correctly, they were Stanoje Djordjevic from Nis
22 Then there was Vojin Vuletic, Maja Gojkovic was the third, and the fourth
23 was Tomislav Nikolic, the same man who was president of the newly formed
24 party, also by the DB of Serbia, another intelligence -- foreign
25 intelligence services as well.
1 Q. And did the Serbian Chetnik Movement continue to exist?
2 A. It's like this, you see: It was incorporated into the Serbian
3 Radical Party. In formal terms, I can't remember whether it still
4 existed for a certain time until that section, if I can put it that way,
5 was abolished. Well, it was incorporated. It conjoined. There was a
6 Serbian Radical Party and Serbian Chetnik Movement that was conjoined,
7 and the Serbian Radical Party was formed with the unification of the
8 Chetnik Movement and the National Radical Party. Part of the
9 dissatisfied members of the policy led by the popular Radical Party.
10 Veljko Guberina went on to form the other.
11 Q. What is the Central Fatherland Administration?
12 A. That was the top organ of the party.
13 Q. Were you a member of that or hold a seat on that organ?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Can you describe for the Trial Chamber what your duties were as
17 A. Well, you see, I think the formulation is clear.
18 Secretary-general, the name speaks for itself. It means covering all
19 administrative work having to do with the work of the party, the
20 organisation of party structures, and looking after all the technical
21 details necessary for the work of the party. It's a specific post,
22 demanding a lot of work, a lot of self-sacrifice.
23 And there's one thing that you seem not to have noticed. The
24 Radical Party was established about a year an half after all the other
25 political parties on the Serbian political scene, and there had already
1 been an election held without the activists of the Serbian Radical Party
2 involved. So we had to invest extra effort in organising ourselves on
3 the territory of Serbia
4 the first elections. There we achieved the greatest success, I think, in
5 the history of the party. I think it was about 1.650.000 votes or
6 something like that, and the party enjoyed great popularity among the
7 citizens of Serbia
8 Quite a lot of time has elapsed. You have to bear in mind that
9 I'm an elderly man, that I'm ill, and that I'm burdened with various
10 problems. But as far as I can remember, this was between 35 and
11 40 per cent. If you take into account that the late Hyder [phoen] had
12 between 15 and 20 per cent and Austria
13 of his activities, the reason I mention him, well, he died recently, but
14 he's not the worst example. But a party in any state that has over
15 35 per cent of the vote is worthy of respect.
16 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, do you remember my question? I asked you what
17 your duties were as secretary-general.
18 A. My duty was to be at the head of the Secretariat. The
19 Secretariat had about 10 or 15 people working in it, and they dealt with
20 administration, the organisation of the party, courier services, porters,
21 gatekeepers and so on, whether there would be someone to make the coffee,
22 to wash up the coffee cups, to convene a press conference, to organise a
23 public speaker, and so on and so forth.
24 Q. Can you tell us how long you held the position of
25 secretary-general of the Serbian Radical Party?
1 A. About five years. I'm not sure exactly.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, five years.
3 We'll take a break, sir, because we must take a 20-minute break
4 now. We will resume in 20 minutes.
5 I'm happy to inform you that at the end of the day, the Registrar
6 in Belgrade
7 --- Recess taken at 3.51 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 4.13 p.m.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're back in session.
10 Ms. Dahl, you can proceed.
11 MS. DAHL: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, before the break we were talking about your
13 position as the secretary-general of the Radical Party. Could you tell
14 me how long you remained a member of the Radical Party?
15 Your Honour, the screen indicates no microphone on the far side,
16 and I'm not getting any translation, although I can see Mr. Stefanovic is
17 attempting to answer the question.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed, there seems to be
19 no microphone, according to what we can see on the screen. Can we fix
21 Witness -- oh, now it should be working. No, the logo had
22 disappeared, but it's back on the screen now.
23 Witness, can you hear us?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. It's all right now.
25 I can hear you, I think.
1 MS. DAHL: Let me repeat my question.
2 Q. How long did you remain in your position as secretary-general?
3 A. Five years. I said that already, five years.
4 Q. When did you leave the position?
5 A. I can't recall the exact date. But there was some
6 misunderstandings within the party, and I was upset by the standpoint
7 taken by the party leadership, and I simply left the party in a way that
8 was not pompous or drastic. There were no big upheavals, and Mr. Vucic
9 came to take over my place, and Dragan Todorovic took over some work on
10 behalf of the Executive Committee, and I think Stevo Dragisic did some
11 work as well. I don't remember all their posts, but I simply left the
12 party quietly and without any major traumas.
13 Q. Your statement indicates that you left your official function in
14 1996. Does that refresh your recollection?
15 A. Yes, that's what I said. Maybe you didn't hear me, but I said I
16 stayed until the end of 1995 or 1996. There's nothing in dispute there.
17 Q. Did you have the intention to leave the party earlier than that?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Let me direct your attention to paragraph 11 of your 2006
20 statement. And let me ask you to look at the last sentence, which
22 "In fact, I wanted to leave the party in 1994, but I could not do
23 that because Seselj threatened me with death at that time."
24 A. I'd like to go back to the beginning and to my explanation
25 concerning the promise that I would not appear before this court.
1 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, do you have the document in front of you?
2 A. I heard what you said.
3 Q. Do you have the document --
4 A. Yes, on my left-hand side here. There it is.
5 Q. Okay. Are you looking at paragraph 11?
6 A. Paragraph 11 doesn't mean anything to me, Madam. I'm telling you
7 the truth. I'm testifying under oath and I'm telling you the truth. You
8 can say what you like. This is the first time in my life I've seen it
9 written down like this.
10 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, let me ask you --
11 A. It looks as if I'm someone who dictates texts, and I'm not.
12 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, does the last sentence of paragraph 11 read:
13 "In fact, I wanted to leave the party in 1994, but I could not do
14 that because Seselj threatened me with death at that time"?
15 A. No, that's not how it was.
16 Q. I'm not asking you that question. I'm asking you if the
17 statement reads as I have stated.
18 A. Well, it says here I wanted to leave the party in 1994 but I
19 could not do that because Seselj threatened me with death at that time.
20 But if you want me to tell you about this, I will. Is that what you
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Well, that's the question
23 asked to you by Ms. Prosecutor. Yes, please do explain.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Let me explain this in
25 detail. Ask the Prosecutor if it's all right for me to explain this.
1 MS. DAHL: Before we get to the explanation, Your Honour, could I
2 ask that he acknowledges that his initials are at the bottom of the page
3 that we've just read from.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Madam Prosecutor, I have to give
5 you a detailed reply now. I would come to the --
6 MS. DAHL: [Previous translation continues]... bottom of the
7 page, and then we can go to the explanation.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you have put your --
9 witness, you have put your initials next to paragraph 11. Paragraph 11
10 is very clear. At the time, that is, the 12th or 15th or 16th June 2006,
11 with two OTP investigators present, you said that you were threatened to
12 death by Mr. Seselj. Now, can you give us an explanation about what is
13 stated here? What happened at the time?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was like this. What I want to
15 say is the following: Coming before the investigators was, for me, very
16 traumatic. It wasn't whether I loved or hated, or agreed or disagreed,
17 with Vojislav Seselj, but it was clear to me that I was hurting myself in
18 every way, politically, morally, and in every other way. It's very
19 unfair to wrongly attack someone when he is in a defenceless situation;
20 for example, in prison.
21 I keep trying to explain two things. First, before I come here
22 to give a statement, I would take sleeping pills and tranquilizers. I
23 would drink two or three glasses of alcohol before coming here to give
24 statements. But in spite of this, it looks here as if I dictated all
25 these points, 1, 2, 3, 4. I didn't do that. I assert that with full
1 liability. I didn't do that. They could have written down, for example,
2 I condemn my late father to death. I would have signed that and left,
3 not because I wanted to condemn my father to death, but because I didn't
4 look at what it said here. And this sort of statement, divided into
5 paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, I never gave a statement like this one. This is
6 written up according to something that was prepared in advance. They
7 didn't say, "Number 11, Aleksandar Stefanovic, how do you ...," and so on
8 and so forth. I assert with full liability that I did sign this
9 statement, but I did not make it in this shape and form, the way it's
10 written down here, and this is the first time I see this text. I've
11 never seen this before, and it's not logical. It's not logical, the way
12 it's all organised in points.
13 And what does it mean, "You signed it?" Oh, I did sign it, all
14 right, so I did. So what? Well, tell me.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, we are professional judges
16 in this Chamber. We know that witnesses may sometimes change their
17 minds. We have before us a document which shows that in 2006, you said
18 what is in this statement. You're telling us the contrary now. You told
19 us that you took drugs, that you would have signed anything.
20 Now, one question comes to mind. Were you threatened, was
21 pressure exerted upon you, or are you telling the truth now?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Judge, if I may say the following:
23 This morning, for at least half an hour or an hour before the beginning
24 of this hearing, there were grounds to suspect that someone tried to
25 assassinate me or kidnap me. An unknown person came to my home. I
1 haven't seen my family. I was on the way to the Tribunal.
2 MS. DAHL: [Previous translation continues]... please. I'm
3 concerned that the witness should be able to give candid information
4 about serious allegations in private. If he's presenting information
5 about his personal security, let's go into private session.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. That would make sense
7 only if the witness insisted on going into private session. I think
8 there are no grounds for this.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, do you wish us to move
10 into private session or are you happy with telling us about it in a
11 public hearing?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I want the Serbian public to hear
13 everything I'm saying. I have not told a single lie, nor do I wish to
14 conceal anything. Also, if somebody wants to kill me, let them do so.
15 I've lived long enough. I've had a very good and rich life.
16 So I think that what I'm saying, well, you fail to understand one
17 thing. Please listen to me for just a minute. May I speak my mind for
18 just a minute?
19 Three days ago, I found in the newspapers that a Dutch sports
20 journalist is calling Laskovac a war criminal, a football player, and he
21 didn't want to include him in the team. And when I read that the
22 journalists have called this innocent young man a Serbian war criminal
23 just because he's a Serb, I couldn't sleep for three nights. That
24 journalist wasn't working on his own. He has superiors, he has bosses.
25 We are all regarded as war criminals here, and I find this very hurtful.
1 This morning
2 185. Any -- through 115. Any doctor would have sent me to hospital with
3 this sort of blood pressure. No one needs to kill me. I can drop dead
4 at any minute now.
5 I suffer from angina pectoris. I have high blood pressure. I
6 have serious arteriosclerotic problems.
7 But let me say in open session, this morning, what this woman was
8 looking for? She can say she was a humanitarian worker, but what was she
9 looking for in my home? Let someone normal explain this to me if they
10 can. And why did they strike against the house? When someone strikes
11 against a house in Australia
12 woman who came to the door.
13 I'm reacting emotionally now. Please forgive me for speaking
14 like this.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, well, first of all,
16 relax, because if you have such high blood pressure, that is 18, you
17 shouldn't go up to 20; otherwise, you might end up dead.
18 Now, we want to know if you were threatened. You said that
19 somebody turned up at your door. It could have been a policeman, because
20 we tried to locate you because we had the feeling that you had vanished.
21 So it may have been a policeman who turned up at your door to check where
22 you were. Why are you telling that somebody tried to kidnap you?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This young woman who came to my
24 door, she was a female, and she's here. She's not a member of the
25 Serbian police. (redacted)
1 (redacted). But why did she come to my
2 home? Why was the Trial Chamber mistrustful when I always responded to
3 telephone calls? Mr. President, there were at least 300 telephone calls
4 over the past two or three years from the Tribunal.
5 MS. DAHL: [Previous translation continues]...
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Why would that name be
7 redacted from the transcript? (redacted)
10 (redacted) They have now been arrested in
11 Pristina. Now, why should this be a secret, why the conspiracy?
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl, you're on your feet.
13 What do you have to say, because apparently Mr. Seselj anticipated what
14 you were going to say.
15 MS. DAHL: [Previous translation continues]... witness unit made
16 arrangements to provide transportation for Mr. Stefanovic for his
17 appearance today. I am, I'd say minimally, a little bewildered by the
18 conspiracy theory being created or that the Victim and Witness Unit, the
19 officer who provided transportation would create an assassination attempt
20 or --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What sort of transportation?
22 MS. DAHL: -- kidnapping.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, the person who came to
24 see you, and we'll have to redact her name, is a staff member of the
25 Registry. She came to see you to make arrangements about your
1 transportation. We are not talking about an agent of the German
2 intelligence services. It was simply someone who was doing her job.
3 Please do not develop any kind of conspiracy theory about all this. It
4 was just an employee of the Registry who was there to help you, as part
5 of your testimony.
6 We're going to redact her name, because she's entitled to
7 protection from the Trial Chamber.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...
9 just pass over this.
10 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, Mr. Seselj repeated --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't allow you to declare me
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you told us that
14 someone came to your door. I immediately wondered who could have come to
15 get you, especially since earlier on you told us that somebody had tried
16 to kidnap you. But apparently the person who came to see you is a staff
17 member of the Registry. She didn't come to see you to kill you. She
18 just wanted to ask you to go to the office, and this was following a
19 request made by the Judges or the Trial Chambers. They wanted to see
20 you -- we wanted to see you. We have nothing against you. So if you
21 believe immediately that someone who is doing her job, who comes to see
22 you to tell you that you are going to testify, if you immediately jump to
23 the conclusion that someone is trying to murder you, then we're indeed
24 faced with a slight problem.
25 Okay, we've clarified this point. There's no danger you're
2 Ms. Dahl, you may proceed.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Two more words. We can't just pass
4 over this just like that. What sort of transportation?
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What do you want to add?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You said I'm paranoid. I'm not
7 paranoid. I left my home to go in the direction of the Tribunal. I've
8 been living in Belgrade
9 transport me from here to there, across the River Sava? It's less than
10 two kilometres away. Who is going to believe that an employee should
11 come over from Sarajevo
12 don't ask me to be clever.
13 MS. DAHL:
14 Q. You are not being candid with the --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For half an hour -- to be sane for
16 half an hour and then crazy for another half an hour.
17 MS. DAHL:
18 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, you are not being candid with the Court, are you?
19 You and I and my investigator had a telephone conversation last Tuesday,
20 where you told me and my investigator that you had made arrangements with
21 the Victim and Witness Unit to be picked up in time for your testimony
22 today. You were not surprised, were you?
23 A. Do you have that recording? I wasn't surprised, but my family
24 was. They alarmed my friends. I hadn't taken a mobile phone with me.
25 You are trying to portray certain things here in a negative light, as far
1 as I'm concerned, and you're not allowing me to explain. It's nothing
2 terrible. Let me explain how it happened. And you say, "Keep quiet,
3 don't talk, calm down, you'll die here," I don't know what.
4 I left my home. I went out --
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stefanovic, let's put that
6 aside for the time being. Ms. Dahl reminded you that she called you on
7 Tuesday and she told you that a car would come and fetch you to take you
8 to the office for the videolink testimony, and because of that, somebody
9 came to see you. There's nothing to add.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That wasn't how it was. Excuse me,
11 that's now how it was, Your Honour. Madam Dahl has her conversation with
12 me recorded.
13 I received a subpoena on Friday from the Serbian police. It was
14 my mother's Patron Saints Day, it was the feast day, the Holy Arcangel.
15 And I was summoned to report to the Tribunal at 1.00. And the lady who
16 telephoned me -- every keeps telephoning. Nobody wants to send a fax or
17 an e-mail or communicate in a civilised way. They always call from a
18 no-number telephone, and then they ask whether I'm there, and then it's
19 whether I said something or not. Madam Dahl has that conversation on
21 Last Tuesday, I was in the office of my lawyer, Zoran Stojkovic,
22 and we overlooked the fact that Friday was the Holy Arcangels' Day.
23 That's a family feast day which -- St. Michael, and that's the day when
24 the whole family gathers together and nobody leaves home. I was supposed
25 to be at home. But I apologised to Madam Dahl for that reason, and I
1 said that the OTP had no need to contact me because I had sent written
2 information to Judge Dilparic about my status and to the Tribunal in
3 The Hague
4 conversation on tape. I did not agree to have it taped, but if you do
5 have it, play it now. I agree to have it played, the conversation on
6 Tuesday between myself and the Prosecutor, Madam Dahl.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stefanovic, we have no
10 recording, and it's not a common practice to record all telephone
11 conversations. I, for one, do not have any recording at my disposal. So
12 you are asking for this recording. We don't have a recording.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...
14 conversation and I said don't.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What I'm interested in, and
16 it's also in the interests of Mr. Seselj, what I'm interested in is for
17 us to go back to the topic of the Serbian Radical Party. That's the
18 purpose of your testimony.
19 Ms. Dahl, you may proceed.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just have a comment to make. I'm
21 not interested in Seselj -- in the interests of Seselj, that is.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl, please put your
23 questions to the witness.
24 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, I don't think I got an answer to the
25 question about whether Mr. Stefanovic had been threatened with death in
1 or before 1994 which caused him to remain in his position as
2 secretary-general longer than he wanted to.
3 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, did you or did you not receive a death threat
4 from Mr. Seselj at that time?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did you have an opportunity --
7 A. I can explain, but you're not allowing me to explain what this is
9 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, with the Chamber's permission, I'd like
10 to move on to the activities during the war.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed.
12 MS. DAHL:
13 Q. You mentioned before the break that the Radical Party was
14 interested in securing publicity and popularity for itself. Did you have
15 the occasion to accompany Mr. Seselj when he gave speeches in 1991?
16 A. Absolutely, yes, and it's quite normal that the party wanted as
17 much publicity as possible in order to attract the largest possible
18 number of voters. Every party does the same, both the Democratic and
19 Republican Parties in America
20 European party, they all want to attract as many voters as possible in
21 order to get the biggest piece of pie they can in the elections. That's
22 the reason why parties exist.
23 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, when you went with Mr. Seselj in 1991, when he
24 gave different speeches, where did you go?
25 A. Wherever they invited us or where it was in our interests to go.
1 Q. Did you travel in a place --
2 A. To --
3 Q. -- that Mr. Seselj referred to as Eastern Slavonia?
4 A. In Belgrade
5 uses, not just Seselj. You are probably referring to the villages around
6 Vukovar, Vinkovci and so on. That's probably what you're referring to.
7 The answer is, yes, there were occasions when I went there.
8 Q. That region refers to areas that are presently in Croatia?
9 A. I don't know what you're trying to say by that.
10 Q. I'm trying to get the geography.
11 A. They're part if Europe
12 Q. Can you give the Trial Chamber the gist of Mr. Seselj's
13 speeches --
14 A. "Eastern Slavonia," in Belgrade, is a term that's commonly used.
15 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, with the Chamber's permission, may I put
16 some leading questions to the witness to see if we can get through this
17 bit about geography?
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, please proceed. We'll try
19 to save time.
20 MS. DAHL:
21 Q. Is the area referred to as Eastern Slavonia located within
22 present-day borders of Croatia
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. When Mr. Seselj made speeches in 1991 within the area called
25 Eastern Slavonia
2 A. Let me just add to clarify some things to you.
3 Seselj and I promoted the party in Vienna also, and we said the
4 same things in Vienna
5 similar speech, presenting the party platform. Seselj drew the attention
6 of the local population to the fact that they should not allow the
7 genocide from 1941 to 1945 against the Serbs to be repeated, and he
8 pointed out that this genocide could happen again. Quite simply, he said
9 they should not allow the Ustasha to take them to the killing fields and
10 to camps once again. Maybe that's what made this speech different from
11 other speeches, but I felt that this was quite natural, quite normal. I
12 supported that policy. Privately, personally, I'm on bad terms with
13 Seselj, but I cannot deny his policy. I cannot challenge his policy. I
14 still support it.
15 It would have been wonderful if Croatia had not committed
16 genocide either in World War II or now, if they had not expelled the
17 Serbs from their age-long halves and expelled them from the territory.
18 What would happen now if the French were to get up and expel the Germans
19 from Alsace
20 Southern Tirol
21 live in Italy
22 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, let's stay with the history and the time period
23 we're discussing, please. Did Mr. Seselj, in giving those speeches, say
24 that the area called Slavonia
25 A. I apologise. I seem to have got caught up in these wires here.
1 Let me just take a moment to disengage myself.
2 Well, what do you mean by your question? That's the fact today.
3 It's Serbian land. The Croats expelled the Serbs. My country is -- I
4 apologise. What belongs to me is Aleksandar Stefanovic's land. That's
5 my property, and I have land in the village of Zabari
6 that's my land, it's called my land. Now, if there was some land
7 belonging to some man Pantovic, and if there's a whole village of Serbs
8 then it will be Serb land by the same token.
9 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, do you need to take a break? I notice that you
10 are coughing.
11 A. No.
12 Q. Was there a War Staff within the Serbian Radical Party?
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment. Sir, before we
14 move on to the War Staff, which is a very relevant issue, one question.
15 You said that you went along with Mr. Seselj when he gave
16 speeches. Do you remember when Mr. Seselj went to Zvornik?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. So you can't tell us
19 anything about that. It's just a matter I wanted to clarify.
20 Ms. Dahl, you may proceed.
21 MS. DAHL:
22 Q. Was there a War Staff within the SRS?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you recall when it was created?
25 A. Well, it was created when the need arose for a number -- with a
1 number of people who were from Serbia
2 own personal motives, their ethnic affiliation, to go and try and help
3 those Serbs over there who were under threat by the Croats, so that this
4 War Staff was the result of the need to transfer people who wanted to go,
5 well, if I can say, the battle front and who did not have the means to do
6 so, nor could they be transported or transferred to those war areas
7 without somebody's help, so that that War Staff was a transmission --
8 well, it wasn't a nice name, "War Staff," but actually it was just a
9 branch or section for where people would report to -- from Nis.
10 [Indiscernible] 17 people would then be transported to Belgrade. They
11 would be accommodated there and be given food, and then they were sent --
12 well, not in the sense of being sent, but -- I'm not quite familiar with
13 the work of the War Staff.
14 But, anyway, they were sort of sent to the Army of Yugoslavia or
15 told to contact the barracks of the Army of Yugoslavia, and then the army
16 organised this later on. I don't know what it did. But it was this
17 transmission, like a transmission between the people who wanted to help
18 the Serbs in jeopardy in those war-engulfed areas and the Army of
20 on. But, anyway --
21 Q. To your recollection, was a War Staff --
22 A. Special attention to that was paid by --
23 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Stefanovic, let me ask the next question.
24 Was the War Staff created after the incident at Borovo Selo in
25 May 1991?
1 A. I can't remember exactly. I don't know why that should be
2 important. The War Staff was led by Ljubisa Petkovic. He was in charge
3 at first for conducting a humanitarian mission, which was, in fact,
4 assistance and help that these people required. So he was in -- or all
5 people who were in exile.
6 Q. Who was Mr. Petkovic's deputy?
7 A. Mr. Petkovic's deputy was Drazilovic, Zoran Drazilovic, I think.
8 Drazilovic, anyway.
9 Q. In Mr. Petkovic's capacity as head of the War Staff, to whom did
10 he report within the SRS
11 A. It's like this: You're now trying to lead me to say that it was
12 Seselj and then that Seselj wielded influence and was the number-one man.
13 What I'm trying to tell you is how things actually stood, and this is how
14 they were. A really humanitarian organisation -- I can call it that,
15 yes, I can, and --
16 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, answer my question, please.
17 A. Well, I am answering your question, that's precisely what I'm
18 doing. So this section or branch called the War Staff started off as a
19 humanitarian organisation.
20 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, I had a specific question. In his capacity as
21 head of the War Staff, to whom did Mr. Petkovic report within the Serbian
22 Radical Party?
23 A. Well, it's like this: Petkovic was the vice-president of the
24 Serbian Radical Party, so he could not have reported to me. He had to
25 report to the president. There was only the president that was superior
1 to him, so that's logical.
2 Q. Who was the president?
3 A. But I think -- Seselj.
4 Q. You mentioned that the War Staff was recruiting people who wanted
5 to assist the Yugoslav Army. Can you tell me how they did that?
6 A. Well, I explained that three or four minutes ago. These 20 young
7 men and girls or whatever, a group of people, Serbs, whatever you like to
8 call them, from the interior of the country, come to Belgrade, and then
9 they knock at the door of the Serbian Radical Party and ask for
10 assistance so that they could reach Slavonia or wherever, some area that
11 was engulfed by the war. And at that point, Ljubisa Petkovic, I suppose,
12 probably took us to Bubanj Potok and handed them over to the Army of
14 What I want to do is to explain to you how the War Staff came
15 into being. It was envisaged first as a really humanitarian organisation
16 which would assist, first of all, refugees from those areas, and I
17 remember that full well. I remember a priest from Pakrac, a Serbian
18 Orthodox priest. His name was Dragan. And with a young, petit wife, he
19 came --
20 Q. [Previous translation continues]... because we do not have
21 unlimited time, and I want to focus on the recruitment of volunteers and
22 the transferring of individuals to the front-lines.
23 A. It's like this: There was no recruiting by the Serbian Radical
24 Party, no recruitment, and I say that with all responsibility. Nor did
25 any of these, well, conditionally speaking, volunteers go through having
1 been influenced by the Serbian Radical Party at all.
2 Q. I want you to take a look at paragraph 16 of your statement, the
3 first sentence that reads:
4 "The SRS
5 Borovo Selo incident in May 1991."
6 Can you find that sentence in your statement?
7 A. Just a moment. Let me just read through that.
8 Q. Did you find the sentence?
9 A. Can I analyse this paragraph 16? This is the first time that
10 I -- can I just take a moment to analyse it?
11 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, tell me if what I read appears there at
12 paragraph 16, first sentence.
13 A. What it says here, well, I have a slight correction to make in
14 the first sentence, those first two lines, and then after that everything
15 is correct as it states here.
16 Q. Which correction --
17 A. Just a bit distorted, but for the most part correct.
18 Q. What correction do you want to interject to the first line or
19 first two lines?
20 A. Well, I'm trying to explain this to you, but you don't want to
21 listen, you don't want to hear me, to help you to understand what the
22 function of the War Staff was.
23 It is true that when I go there in the morning, I would find
24 people there from various parts of the country, and then they would be
25 taken to the park over there where Seselj made his speeches. Now,
1 whether he was careful in what he said or not, well, I never heard Seselj
2 incite people to go, let alone do anything else, so that's -- or kill
3 people, but -- so that can remain, that other part, but these first two
4 lines are the ones that need correcting.
5 Q. [Previous translation continues]... correction, so what is it,
6 because I need to bring your attention to another sentence and I want to
7 move on.
8 A. Well, it's rather an unwieldy interpretation in those first two
9 lines, unfortunate interpretation, but you don't want to hear me. The
10 War Staff was not an SS division, it was a humanitarian organisation
11 which really did rally -- well, not go around collecting, in that sense,
12 just as in our poem about the little girl picking strawberries, but,
13 anyway, the volunteers came there and -- well, not volunteers, actually.
14 They were just people -- well, we refer to them as volunteers, but they
15 were just people who wanted to go and assist those Serbs under jeopardy
16 in the war-engulfed areas. Otherwise, everything else is correct. And
17 Seselj -- well, not only Seselj, but they would gather together in the
18 park, and then he would say --
19 Q. Can I ask you to stop, please. I want to turn your attention to
20 the paragraph immediately above that, in the middle, paragraph 15 in the
21 middle. It says:
22 "The role of the War Staff was to recruit volunteers and send
23 them to the front-line on behalf of the JNA, although I am not aware of
24 any official agreement between the JNA and SRS."
25 Does your statement say that?
1 A. Well, look, here --
2 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, I want a "yes" or "no," not a, "Well, look."
3 Either the statement says that or it doesn't. Please answer the question
4 that's presented to you.
5 A. For me to answer -- well, I can't give you a yes-or-no answer.
6 I can explain it to you, explain everything it says here and what the
7 truth of it was, but I can't just give a yes-or-no answer, because it's
8 both "yes" and "no," the answer is both "yes" and "no," and I'll tell you
9 what the "yes" is and what the "no" is in just a moment, if you're
11 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, the statement says --
12 A. If you're interested, that is.
13 Q. In paragraph 15, the statement says:
14 The role of the War Staff was to recruit volunteers and send them
15 to the front-line on behalf of the JNA, "although I am not aware of any
16 official agreement between the JNA and the SRS." That's what the
17 statement says; right?
18 A. Well, that's what it says here, that's how it's written, but I
19 can't say that that's how it was. The fact of the matter is that this
20 act of people arriving to the premises of the Serbian Radical Party you
21 refer to as recruitment, whereas it's quite a different action
22 altogether, and I would describe it in different terms.
23 The people that come to the premises of the Serbian Radical Party
24 were, yes, that's true, sent on to the JNA or the Army of Yugoslavia,
25 whatever it was called, and I have no idea whatsoever --
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, Witness, we're losing
2 time here. I'll go to the point.
3 This War Staff, in your view, did it have an operational
4 function? In other words, was it controlling the volunteers on the
5 battlefields or was the role of the War Staff only to send volunteers who
6 would come to the premises? In other words, does that mean that the War
7 Staff had nothing to do with the combat operations?
8 Please, please, give an answer to that question, and I think that
9 would help everybody.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The latter is correct, the latter
11 part of your question.
12 Let me repeat and clarify. What is correct is this: That the
13 people came there, well, whether they were volunteers or whatever, people
14 who wanted to help those Serbs over there, and it is also correct that
15 the party would transfer those people to the JNA barracks and that every
16 further supervision over those people ceased at that point. Now, what
17 the army did, the army probably armed them, gave them uniforms, was in
18 command of them on the battle front. If somebody was killed, they would
19 send them back, and so on.
20 Is my answer clear?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have an objection to make,
22 Mr. President.
23 If the Trial Chamber recalls, these questions were explained in
24 detail during Expert Theunens' testimony and some other witnesses. This
25 is -- well, now we're having the witness go through these things again,
1 which he wasn't aware of at the time, that wasn't his competence, so
2 let's not trouble him with that. And we know that the party sent
3 volunteers to Serb villages in Slavonia
4 September 1991, everything was under the JNA afterwards, and we've
5 clarified that here a number of times, whereas we're giving the witness a
6 hard time here with leading questions on the basis of a statement
7 compiled by the OTP, and who knows under what conditions he put his
8 initials to that, and that is what I mean when I say "giving the witness
9 a hard time."
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, nobody's giving the
11 witness a hard time, nobody's torturing the witness. If he was under
12 torture, I'm sure he would be able to ask us to stop. I think he's
13 provided an answer. What you've said was already said many, many times
15 So please, Ms. Dahl, proceed.
16 MS. DAHL:
17 Q. From your knowledge, working at the headquarters of the SRS, can
18 you compare the volunteer units recruited by the SRS to the combat units
19 of, for instance, the JNA, or the Red Berets, or Arkan's?
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. What kind of question
21 is that? The Red Berets or Arkan's men? That is impermissible. The
22 Red Berets were never Arkan's groups, and when the Red Berets were
23 established sometime in 1996, a number of former Arkan's men joined up,
24 but the Prosecutor is making his own conclusion, that the Red Berets were
25 Arkan's groups or troops.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do I have the right to say
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
5 continues]... your question in such a way that the witness can provide an
6 answer. Maybe you can ask him whether he knew that Arkan existed,
7 whether he knew that there were particular units, and if he says "yes,"
8 then you may proceed on that basis.
9 Witness, wait until Ms. Dahl rephrases her question.
10 MS. DAHL:
11 Q. Based on --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just a moment. May I be allowed to
13 say something?
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What do you wish to say,
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Are you asking me, the witness?
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. You said, "May I be
18 allowed to say something," so I'm asking you, what do you wish to say?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When the Prosecutor came -- what
20 was the person before Ms. Dahl? He was an American from Boston. What
21 was his name? Anyway, he came, and he discussed this with me in detail,
22 he talked to me in detail, and I explained that I was in charge of
23 politics in the party, not the war or whatever else. So I can improvise,
24 of course. It seems a bit -- it would be ludicrous for me to take
25 Seselj's side and say, yes, that's how it was in September or whatever,
1 because please believe me, I don't know about that. I don't know that
2 any volunteers were sent up until September. If you want to believe me,
3 then do. But what I heard from him, I don't think it goes to his
4 advantage. Well, it does or it doesn't. I haven't followed this trial,
5 so I don't know what is in his interests or not. But the fact that he
6 just put forward, I say with full certainty that it is correct, but I
7 couldn't remember it because at that time the Radical Party was engaged
8 intensely on setting up boards in various parts of Serbia, and outside
10 towards setting up these various boards rather than sending these --
11 well, there's been a lot of speculation about what the War Staff is, and
12 volunteers, and who is Ljubisa Petkovic going to beat. It was a
13 humanitarian organisation. We took Ljubisa Petkovic, who was a man who
14 was incapable of doing any army service. All he could do was to take
15 them beans or potatoes or put up some -- accommodate someone from the
16 war-infested area.
17 Yes, it was called "the War Staff," but its function was not
18 that. It was to feed people, to lodge people.
19 MS. DAHL:
20 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, did the JNA have the most disciplined combat
22 A. Well, you know what? I was never up at the front. How should I
23 know? You want me now to analyse this. I don't think it had the most
24 disciplined units, or maybe it did. Maybe Arkan had better men, or
25 whoever did. I don't really know. I didn't deal with war matters or an
1 analysis of the war, an analysis of the JNA. Had I been a JNA commander,
2 I would have taken Zagreb
3 the whole problem in Yugoslavia
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, please focus on the
6 questions, because you say, "Had I been a JNA commander, I would have
7 taken Zagreb
8 Ms. Dahl.
9 MS. DAHL:
10 Q. You were interviewed in 2006 by members of the Office of the
11 Prosecutor; right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And you told them during that interview that the JNA had the most
14 disciplined combat units; correct?
15 A. I don't know what I said. I really don't know.
16 Q. And in --
17 A. Do you expect me to remember what I told the investigators about
18 the JNA after all this time?
19 Q. Paragraph 15 of your statement says that:
20 "The JNA had the most disciplined combat units."
21 Doesn't it?
22 A. Well, what it says there, it says. As far as the most
23 disciplined combat units were concerned, well, I suppose that's all
24 right. What can I do? So my answer is yes.
25 Q. And the SRS
1 A. And I think they ought to be the most disciplined.
2 Q. And the SRS
3 A. Well, what I meant is that they weren't officers, professional
4 soldiers; they were ordinary citizens who had to go. If they went to
5 war, they had to have some training. That's what I meant. I didn't mean
6 to say that they were not brave soldiers. I think they were brave,
7 but -- men, but they weren't trained properly. I didn't mean to say that
8 they were weaklings.
9 Q. What is a Chetnik vojvoda?
10 A. Well, that's a man who deserves to be a Chetnik vojvoda. It's a
11 title, "Chetnik vojvoda," and that title is something that emerges from
12 the traditions of the Serbian army, like a Superman, Tarzan.
13 Q. Does Seselj appoint persons within the SRS to be Chetnik
15 A. I think so. He didn't appoint me, and I'm sorry for that, and
16 I'm angry at him because of that and all the rest of it, but I don't know
17 much about that. They went to some village over there on Mount Romanija
18 a number of people went there. Perhaps they didn't deserve to be given
19 these attractive titles, but they became Chetnik vojvodas over there. He
20 had the right to promote people to vojvodas, since Momcilo Djuric
21 promoted him to a Chetnik vojvoda. So all this was done with certain
22 norms, customs, whatever you like to call them, that were in force among
23 us Serbs and in the Serb army. So I don't see why I wasn't awarded that
25 Q. Did Mr. Seselj appoint Ljubisa Petkovic to be a Chetnik vojvoda?
1 A. I think he did, yes.
2 Q. How about Zoran Drazilovic?
3 A. Can I repeat part of my answer? I didn't take part in that. I
4 don't know what year that was. Anyway, they went to Bosnia and I stayed
5 on in Belgrade
6 the names and surnames and middle names of the people who were given the
7 title. I see that it says "19, Ljubisa Petkovic," and Zdravko Abramovic,
8 Jovo Stojic, Tomislav Nikolic, Slavko Aleksic, Srecko Radovanovic,
9 nicknamed Debeli, Tode Lazic, Branislav Vakic, Mirko Blagojevic, a whole
10 list there, Branislav Gavrilovic, Manda. That's what it says in
11 paragraph 19, so let me just read that.
12 Q. Based on your interactions with Mr. Seselj while you were working
13 at the party headquarters, did you have an opportunity to observe whether
14 Mr. Seselj kept himself informed of activities of the party?
15 A. Well, I informed him on a daily basis. He was very well informed
16 about party activities, so of course he'll follow the activities and
17 inform himself of the activities of the party. So my answer is, yes, he
18 did follow the activities of the party.
19 Q. Did you observe whether or not Seselj informed himself of the
20 activities of the volunteers at the front-line?
21 A. At that time, everyone in Serbia, especially people involved in
22 politics, were very interested in what was happening at the war theatre,
23 so Mr. Seselj was also interested, of course.
24 Q. Did you have the opportunity to observe that Seselj was worried
25 or concerned about the activities of the volunteers at the front-line?
1 A. You know what? What do you mean "be concerned"? I don't
2 understand your question, I don't understand your question. Excuse me,
3 but I don't understand your question. Could you clarify what you want me
4 to ...
5 Q. In paragraph 19, your statement says:
6 "I observed that Seselj was worried about the activities of the
7 volunteers at the front-line."
8 Perhaps, Mr. Stefanovic, you can clarify by what you meant in
9 that statement.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. The Prosecutor is
11 suggesting to the witness that the witness actually stated this. What he
12 meant when he wrote this or, rather, what did the investigator mean who
13 wrote this down? The investigator should be brought here to answer the
14 question about what he thought when he was -- what he meant when he was
15 writing this down. But now the Prosecutor is asking the witness what he
16 meant when he stated that, instead of asking him, "Did you really say
17 this?" This was all written down by the investigator. Every statement
18 is written down by investigators.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Chamber observes that the
20 witness makes statements. He explained that he was not in full agreement
21 with what he originally stated. Now Ms. Dahl is putting questions to the
22 witness in order to obtain some clarification.
23 Ms. Dahl, you may proceed. I don't think you have much time
24 left. I'll turn to Madam Registrar so that she tells us how much time
25 you've got left.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Wait a minute. Your Honour, you've
2 just said something disastrous about me, or you may have the completely
3 wrong impression.
4 It's true, I couldn't say to you -- Your Honour, when The Hague
5 Tribunal asked me to contact the Serb Radical Party and ask Seselj
6 whether he wanted to come to Belgrade
7 said that he would not get more than ten years in jail and that he would
8 be released provisionally as soon as the trial was over, I contacted
9 Dragan Todorovic. I spoke to him in a cafe, a pizzeria cafe in New
11 him to ask Seselj.
12 A few days later, Dragan Todorovic came to see me, and he said,
13 "Seselj rejected this in disgust. He doesn't want to be tried in
15 they were surprised. They said, "What a fool he is. Why doesn't he want
16 to do this?" I thought, and I still think, that all this is a farce,
17 whether there was an indictment against Seselj when he left. Now they're
18 asking was there a staff, was there not a staff.
19 You say I made a statement and I don't agree with this statement.
20 I did give a statement, and I agree with it, but there are some things in
21 there that have nothing to do with what I said, especially these
22 ridiculous paragraph numbers here, which are ridiculous. Whatever I say
23 as a witness is being doubted.
24 MS. DAHL: Let me try to save some time, Your Honour.
25 The witness stated dated 16 June 2006 includes a document table
1 that records Mr. Stefanovic's comments and observations about the
2 documents. I'd like to tender the 2006 statement with the document table
3 and the associated documents. Several of them are already in evidence.
4 I can conclude my examination, and Mr. Seselj can examine based
5 on the statement, but I think that the witness has demonstrated that he
6 does not adopt this statement. And we can lay the additional foundation
7 of reliability that the Chamber might want through another witness, but
8 the statement is what he told the representatives of the OTP that
9 recorded the statement, and he's signed it and his signature is on every
10 page in his own language.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl, there are two
12 statements, the 2003 and 2006 statements. Do you tender both?
13 MS. DAHL: We tender the 2003, but it's subsumed completely
14 within the 2006. I think it has the same indicia of reliability in the
15 fact that the similarities corroborate each other, but the 2006 stands
16 alone in its completeness.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I will confer with my
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will give you the floor,
21 Mr. Seselj, but first of all I would like to confer with my colleagues.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, what would you like
24 to say?
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's absolutely impermissible to
1 admit the statement into evidence, because the statement was not written
2 by the witness. The statement was written by The Hague investigators.
3 If the statement could be admitted into evidence, there would be no point
4 in bringing any witnesses here or examining any witnesses. Then all the
5 103 or 4 witnesses could be dealt with in the same way. Their statements
6 could be admitted into evidence, and we would get it all over with.
7 This is all very cheeky. This is very impertinent. You're
8 putting in statements under 92 ter, 98 bis, 92 quater, and so on and so
9 forth, and this whole trial looks like a distance learning course. And
10 these statements were signed by witnesses under God knows what
11 circumstances, and this witness is demonstrating here under what sort of
12 pressure he signed those statements, whether he wants to admit it or not.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber, at the
15 request of the Prosecution, decides to give two MFI numbers, one MFI
16 number to the 2003 statement and another one to the 2006 statement. The
17 Chamber considers that it is in the interests of justice, even if the
18 witness challenges the very content of the statements. There was one in
19 2003 and one in 2006. The probative value of such statements will be
20 assessed by the Trial Chamber at the end of the proceedings, in the light
21 of other evidence, but of course you will have to ask for the document to
22 be added to the 64 ter list.
23 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, in order to upload the statements and
24 make them available, they have 65 ter numbers 7416, which corresponds to
25 the 2003 statement, and 7417, which corresponds to the 2006 statement,
1 and we would ask the Court to add that to our 65 ter list.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, can we have
3 two MFI
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter number 7416 will become
5 Exhibit P633 marked for identification, and 65 ter number 7417 will
6 become Exhibit P634 MFI
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, you asked for marked
9 for identification numbers, whereas the Registrar has given you permanent
10 numbers, as far as I was able to observe.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Wait a minute. No, because on
12 line 2, page 74, there's a reference to an MFI number. But please, Madam
13 Registrar, could you please reconfirm that these are MFI numbers.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Both exhibits are marked for identification.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Ms. Dahl.
16 MS. DAHL: I'd like to put into the record the 65 ter numbers
17 that correspond with the document table so that the Chamber can consider
18 whether to admit those documents, because they've been commented upon by
19 the witness. 65 ter 239, 65 ter 369, 65 ter 404, 65 ter 416, 65 ter 431,
20 65 ter 433, 65 ter 436, 65 ter 473, 65 ter 990. The video material in
21 the document chart relates entirely to 65 ter 6066, which is a transcript
22 of Mr. Seselj's interview given to the filmmakers of "Death of
24 1636, 65 ter 1800, 65 ter 1802, 65 ter 1108, 65 ter 1039, 65 ter 1829,
25 and, finally, 65 ter 1018.
1 I have skipped over the documents that Mr. Stefanovic commented
2 on that have already been admitted into evidence. The document index at
3 the front of our binders indicates which ones I've skipped.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could we have MFI numbers for
5 all these documents, Madam Registrar.
6 Mr. Seselj.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, where did the
8 witness comment on these documents? Where did he state his position on
9 them? You never accepted anything like this previously. This is the
10 first time you've done something like this.
11 And, secondly, by admitting these witness statements into the
12 file, this is something that no Trial Chamber has ever done in the
13 history of this Tribunal, which I think is the worst tribunal that has
14 ever existed anywhere in the world. It only happened in the case of
15 Slobodan Milosevic because there was no one there to protect his
16 procedural rights, because Mr. Milosevic dealt only with the merits of
17 the case and there was no one to be concerned about his procedural
19 The Prosecutor even made up Rule 29 bis and a half because the
20 Rules 92 ter and 92 quater did not exist at the time. You can look at
21 the transcript of that case.
22 MS. DAHL: Could I respectfully request the Chamber to ask
23 Mr. Seselj to lower his voice, because I cannot hear the translation
24 because of the volume of his speaking. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, we've taken note of
1 your observations. This is the reason why we're asking for an MFI number
2 to be given to those documents. It doesn't prejudge in any way our final
4 Madam Registrar, please, can we have MFI numbers for all these
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter number 239 is now
7 Exhibit P635. 369 is Exhibit P636. 404 is Exhibit P637. 416 is
8 Exhibit P638. 431 is Exhibit P639. 433 is Exhibit P640. 436 is
9 Exhibit P641. 473 is Exhibit P642. 990, Exhibit P643. 6066 is
10 Exhibit P644. 1836 is Exhibit P645. 778 is Exhibit P646. 192 is
11 Exhibit P647. 1816 is Exhibit P648. 1636 is Exhibit P649. 1800 is
12 Exhibit P650. 1802 is Exhibit P651. 1108 is Exhibit P652. 1039 is
13 Exhibit P653. 1829 is Exhibit P654. And 1018 is Exhibit P655. All of
14 them marked for identification.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Dahl, you've completed your
16 examination-in-chief, then.
17 Witness, before the break, I have a number of quick questions to
18 put to you in order to supplement some of your answers.
19 As of today, I understand that you are running a company, but are
20 you still in politics or have you stopped altogether?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm still involved in politics, and
22 you're right, I'm at the head of a company. But let me say one thing. I
23 see that there's a lot of fuss about something, and I can clarify some
24 points for you, something that would make it much clearer about these
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, let me stop you here.
2 What I'm interested in is your involvement in politics.
3 You've just told us that you are still involved in politics. In
4 what party, in what political party?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Currently, I'm not involved in a
6 political party, but two or three years ago, with a friend of mine, I
7 established a party called Hrast, meaning "oak." It's not established in
8 the electorate. But I'm involved in politics at a lower level, at the
9 level of municipal committees and so on and so forth, but that's
10 something that one cannot bypass in these times.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. In your view, when
12 did you leave the Serbian Radical Party, when did you distance yourself
13 from Mr. Seselj in 1996? Why, for what reason? For political reasons,
14 for personal reasons, because you didn't get along with him anymore?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was -- well, how can I classify
16 it. It was neither personal, nor did it have to do with the party
17 platform. It had to do something with staffing issues, where I was
18 bypassed and overlooked, and I think that was the reason for our
19 disagreements, which led me to leave the Radical Party.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When I listened to your
21 explanations about your function as a secretary-general, I had the
22 feeling that you did not have any actual political role, you were dealing
23 with purely administrative matters. Am I wrong?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had a large influence on the
25 organisation of the party on press conferences, which were very
1 important. It's very important in the party to get as much media support
2 as possible, to hold as many rallies as possible, to have as many
3 appearances on television and radio broadcasts and in the media as
4 possible, so that my role was by no means small. But ...
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. You remained in your --
6 in that position of secretary-general until 1995. During that period
7 from 1991 to 1995, you know better than anyone else that a number of
8 events took place. Did you receive any information according to which
9 volunteers of the SRS
10 measures did you take at the highest levels of the party?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I still think that the volunteers
12 of the Serbian Radical Party did not commit any crimes. They knew
13 nothing about crimes, nor were they able to commit crimes. They were
14 mostly under the command of the army and the local people there, the
15 Territorial Defence or whatever it was called, and I don't know that a
16 single member of the Radical Party committed a crime. Had we known about
17 this, I would have been the first to react and to report that person, but
18 I have no knowledge of that.
19 In my statement, which I have never seen before, I am sure I said
20 at least ten times to the investigators that I did not know of a single
21 crime committed by Vojislav Seselj. Why doesn't Madam Dahl want to talk
22 about her meeting last year? Does it say that in the statement or not,
23 because I didn't read that statement.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, we don't have this
25 document, and that's to do with your relations between yourself and the
1 Prosecutor and it's not relevant.
2 I read your statement with great interest, however. You're
3 challenging the veracity of your statement, but nonetheless I had the
4 feeling that at the beginning of the Serbian Radical Party, you had an
5 important role to play within that organisation. I read, for example,
6 that you organised a symbolic trial of Tito, and you stated that
7 Mr. Seselj drafted the indictment against Tito. You explained that this
8 was done to do away with the cult of personality around Tito. Do you
9 remember that?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, very well.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When did that take place? Did
12 that take place after Tito or while he was still alive?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was ten years after Tito's
14 death, but the personality cult of Tito still existed in Yugoslavia.
15 There was a law on the protection of the name and work of Tito. You
16 couldn't say that the existing regime was no good, because they would
17 immediately take out these paragraphs, put them on the table, and say,
18 "You spoke against Tito, and that's a crime under paragraph this and
19 that." You had to remove the cult. Mao Tse-tung had a cult, Tito had a
20 cult. Even if they die, the cult persists. After the death of Mao
21 Tse-tung, China
22 The existing regime could not be removed until Tito's cult was removed,
23 because there was a law under which you could not criticise the existing
25 Do you understand me? There was a law on the protection of the
1 name and work --
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. There's maybe one topic
3 where you could be very helpful to us. I'm talking about the
4 relationship between Milosevic and Mr. Seselj.
5 If you were asked to define this relationship, were they good
6 relations or rather difficult, politically speaking? What is your
7 feeling about that?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, look here. If you want me to
9 be quite honest and open, we have to go back to the beginning of my
10 testimony, when they tried to persuade me, when I said, "Hello, Prime
11 Minister, I don't know that Seselj committed a single crime." He said to
12 me, "You don't have to talk about crimes. Go and discredit him
13 politically. Go and discredit him politically." And that was a task
14 assigned to me, that I should say something bad about him.
15 And now, Judge, I'm looking at these points this lady gave me.
16 I'm looking at points 21 and 26. Only a madman could say things like
17 that. In paragraph 26, it's all invented, from "A" to "Z". This is the
18 first time I've read my statement, so I cannot state my position on it in
19 the way that you and Madam Dahl are doing. I just read points 21 and 26,
20 I scanned them, and what it says here in 26 I could have only said if I
21 had gone completely mad, because as for Jovan Marijanovic, I never saw
22 him, and Bozidar -- General Bozidar Stefanovic is a man I've never seen
23 in my whole life. And now it says here that they were political allies,
24 and this tells me everything I need to know, Judge. I've only read this
25 paragraph now. General Domazetovic, I don't know if Seselj knows him at
1 all. Frenki Simatovic, of all people, I only met him a few years ago. I
2 did sign and I'm telling you, if they had told me then, "Go and discredit
3 him," what could I do? Seselj is a very decent man. Had I said that,
4 they would have said, "You've gone crazy." They said, "Go and discredit
5 him," I don't know of any crimes that he committed. I'm asserting here
6 that he did not commit any crimes. I'll probably never speak to Seselj
7 again in my life, but I'm telling you he's not a criminal when he was
8 telling people off.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, could you please
10 explain something, something in relation to what you stated in 2005 about
11 assassination projects instigated by Mr. Seselj. You, yourself,
12 supposedly stated that you had been threatened. Why did you make such a
13 statement in 2005, on the 4th of August, 2005?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll explain that in detail to you.
15 It was like this, here's why I said that:
16 When I saw what the Tribunal wanted and my role in discrediting
17 Seselj, then an idea came to me, and that is that some generally-known
18 facts which the papers wrote about, which were on television and so on,
19 I -- that I was asked to say, yes, that's what Seselj did, or I would say
20 that, but those were individual things.
21 The killing of Pasko, Slobodan [as interpreted]. After that
22 incident, I became interested about that killing and came by a file which
23 the Belgrade
24 killing of Pasko Jovic, and it still exists here in Belgrade at the
25 police station, and it said that a maniac, a sexual maniac, perpetrated
1 that killing and then had intimate relations with this dead woman. I
2 don't want to talk about that here, but Jovic had at least 15 interviews
3 saying that Seselj had killed his wife, and then he involved me and
4 engaged some policemen, heaven knows what. And then I skillfully went
5 and said that -- well, I said that the grounds for that story were
6 erroneous and that Jovic made false accusations against Seselj with
7 respect to Pasko, and I said, "Well, there's this other man who is
8 accusing Seselj of killings." Now, as far as his threats to me, they
9 were uttered by someone else. I don't have direct knowledge of this.
10 Somebody who was angry and arguing with Seselj wanted to influence me and
11 persuade me to say things against Seselj and undertake certain acts and
12 so on. So this is secondhand information. It's not my direct knowledge.
13 I conducted an investigation, large-scale investigation, about
14 the killing of Pasko, and I came to these conclusions, so I'm not denying
15 what it says here. I did say all that, but with a certain intention in
16 mind and not these silly things that it says in paragraph 21. I don't
17 know what it says otherwise. If I were to take over all these documents,
18 I would have to look at them and then say what I think.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You accused Mr. Seselj with
20 respect to a number of murders or assassinations, and because of that you
21 were granted protective measures. But when you did all this, what was
22 your purpose? Who were you trying to help?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A service -- well, not a service,
24 it was a type of conditioned order by the president of the government of
1 The Hague Tribunal, Carla Del Ponte, because I talked to
2 Dr. Zoran Djindjic about this directly, and he said, "You'll never appear
3 as a witness in The Hague
4 These people have not understood anything. They started gritting their
5 teeth and so on."
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So if I understand properly,
7 you're telling us that the former prime minister, who later was murdered,
8 he's the one who asked you to make a number of statements to accuse
9 Seselj; is that what you're telling us?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Politically compromise Seselj.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We are going to break for 20
12 minutes. We'll resume at 10 past 6.00.
13 --- Recess taken at 5.50 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 6.11 p.m.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. The court is back in
17 My fellow Judges have a number of questions to put to the witness
18 before we proceed to the cross-examination by Mr. Seselj.
19 Witness, Mr. Seselj will not be in a position to complete his
20 cross-examination today. You will have to come back tomorrow for the
21 hearing at 2.15. You will have to go back to the location where you are
22 currently, and obviously we'll make sure that your expenses are covered
23 by the Tribunal.
24 Before I give the floor to Mr. Seselj, I believe that my fellow
25 Judges have questions to put to you.
1 Judge Lattanzi first.
2 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Witness, please, could you talk
3 to us about your current relationships with the members of the Serbian
4 Radical Party?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's like this: I always -- I was
6 always on good terms with some members of the Serbian Radical Party, and
7 I still am today. With others, I'm not on good terms, so I didn't revive
8 our relationship and didn't have -- have not have a good relationship.
9 For example, Tomislav Nikolic, we had an argument and we're still
10 estranged to the present day, although we are next-door neighbours, so to
11 speak, in our residential building. I am "kum" to Dragan Todorovic, so I
12 always maintained good, intimate "kum" relationships, regardless of what
13 arguments we might have through the Assembly, or through the papers, or
14 other -- in other media.
15 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Have you recently met with
16 members of the Serbian Radical Party? Have you had private conversations
17 with any of them?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. At least on two occasions, I
19 was on some property owned by Dragan Todorovic. He has some very good
20 wine, so I was on his estate and we drank wine once. And Jelica Radeta
21 was with us on one occasion, and Dragan and I had a bottle of wine to
22 drink. Well, we each had a bottle of very good white wine. Otherwise, I
23 was invited to speak at a meeting organised by the Radicals, and then I
24 met just in passing a large number of those Radicals. And this meeting
25 took place in the Trade Union Hall a month ago. But that was a
1 scientific meeting at which I presented -- it was nothing special. I
2 presented my views on why the West had these sentiments of hatred towards
3 the Serbs, and the main thesis was that without conciliation between the
4 Western states and the Serbs, there would be no peace in the Balkans,
5 after the terrible crimes committed by the Germans from 1939 to 1945,
6 which history attests to. But Germany
7 so -- whereas us Serbs were betrayed 150 times.
8 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you, thank you. Sir,
9 there's something I would like to know, something else, if it's possible.
10 Have you met with some of the members of Mr. Seselj's Defence
11 team? It would be rather natural if you had done so. Have you met any
12 of them?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that I met a lawyer called
14 Jerkovic, and I think he might be on the Defence team. But we did not
15 discuss the Seselj trial at all, nor did we discuss anything -- any other
16 things which were linked to this specific case, because, well, I don't
17 know what he could tell me or what I could promise him. We discussed
18 quite different matters. A friend of mine needed a service done on the
19 territory of Zemun
21 Now, as for these meetings, I don't know who's in the team.
22 I know Maja Gojkovic; Vucic-Milkovic; Krasic, Zoran, used to be -- I
23 think there's this man Jerkovic, too. I don't know who else is on his
24 team. So there was no specific discussion between me and any of the
25 Radicals in the sense of discussing the trial or anything. So when I saw
1 that things had gone astray, that I might be thrown into prison like
2 Ljubisa Petkovic, I engaged Zoran Stojkovic, a lawyer, because I saw that
3 matters had come to a head, that Jerkovic was taken from the asylum and
4 taken to prison, whereas Haradinaj was -- there was direct cooperation
5 between Haradinaj and the OTP until he liquidated all the witnesses and
6 so on.
7 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you, thank you for your
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's how I see things. You're
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
12 Mr. Stefanovic, you told us during your testimony that in your
13 view, the War Staff of the SRS
14 that's the expression you used. Do you remember that?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. At the beginning of its
16 establishment, it was created to act in the way that would come under the
17 heading of humanitarian organisation; that is to say, that's how I see
18 it, humanitarian work, assistance, help in food, medicines, help to
19 people in the war-engulfed area, and dealing with the repercussions of
20 refugees and people coming in, women and children mostly, from the
21 war-affected areas. And then later on it was as I described it,
22 something that was -- well, assisted people to go there. And I was never
23 a member of the War Staff, and I never meddled in affairs where my place
24 was not. That was done by Ljubisa Petkovic. He was there.
25 So you're extracting every last drop out of me, but I can only
1 assume, if I see what the investigator wants, he says -- he says
2 something to me, then I nod my head, so that -- and agree, so that I can
3 be allowed to go home as soon as possible. But I'm under oath here now,
4 so I say with full responsibility that it was established, and I know
5 that at first all the assistants did go through this so-called War Staff.
6 Now, it wasn't a humanitarian organisation, as such.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand. But as secretary-general of the
9 the Serb victims, those members of the SRS who fell victims to the war at
10 the front-line. That is to say, I suppose you would be involved in the
11 provision of medicine to the wounded SRS
12 front-line, as well as to assistance to the victims' families back in
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, never. I never collected any
15 humanitarian aid. All I dealt with was party business. It was
16 Ljubisa Petkovic and the others around him, Zoran Drazilovic and another
17 group of people, men and women around him, dealing with that kind of work
18 exclusively. It would be silly for me to go around collecting medicines
19 when I wasn't able to deal with the workload I have.
20 And please believe me when I say I got up at 6.30 in the morning
21 and went to bed after 11.00. I lived in the Excelsior Hotel and the
22 Slavija Hotel, that's where I slept, and I knew the exact time I got up
23 and went to bed. And I remember that in 1991, with my own car, it was a
24 Ford Fiesta, I think, anyway, I drove 130.000, over 130.000 kilometres.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Stefanovic, let's focus a bit on the
1 assistance that the SRS
2 its other channels, was able to provide to the SRS volunteers who fell
3 victims or to those victims' families. I'm curious to know if you can
4 tell us anything about if and to what extent the SRS was able to provide
5 assistance in the form of medical care, hospitalisation, or other forms
6 of assistance to the members -- to the volunteers who were wounded at the
7 front-line or to these people's families. That's what I would like to
8 know, because even though if you were not directly involved in that, I
9 would assume that you at least knew about it, being the secretary-general
10 of the party.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Superficially, yes, so my --
12 that's a very good question. But you're forgetting one thing. All the
13 Serbs -- you're characterizing all Serbs as members of the SRS. Mostly,
14 those people -- well, none of them were members of the SRS. If women and
15 children arrived, you don't ask them whether they're members of the
16 Radical Party or whatever other party, and usually they weren't -- these
17 women weren't members of any party, but they were provided assistance.
18 Now, you shouldn't raise it to the level of hospitalisation and
19 things like that, not at that level, to provide serious medical care,
20 but, yes, they did get some sanitary material or things that were stored
21 in warehouses, where the -- there was an expiry date that had -- a date
22 that it had expired, so we provided them with some of those medicines.
23 So I would otherwise be improvising if I told you more, because I
24 wasn't really well-versed in this kind of humanitarian work, I wasn't
25 involved in that side of things, but I knew that a group of women who --
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Stefanovic, I only want you to tell us what
2 you know, and please do not speculate.
3 So you're telling us that the SRS was somehow assisting by
4 providing medicine and maybe other sorts of supplies to the volunteers
5 that the --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Food, too.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: -- that the SRS had facilitated to the
8 front-line? Do you understand my question? Maybe I'm not putting it
9 very clearly, so I'll try once again. I'm sorry.
10 You told us earlier on that the SRS was facilitating and helping,
11 assisting, people who came to the SRS
12 own will, to be sent to the front-line in order to help against the Serbs
13 who were in trouble out there, and so I suppose that the SRS would then
14 feel some sort of responsibility for the persons that they helped to get
15 to the front-line, the volunteers who may or may not have been members of
16 the SRS
17 registration. And then my assumption is, and I want you just to confirm
18 or to deny, my assumption is that the SRS would feel some sort of
19 responsibility for these people, so that if they were wounded at the
20 front-line, then the SRS
21 or otherwise, help them out; either to send them medicine, or if they
22 needed to go to hospital, then see if they could facilitate that, or even
23 if some of these persons were killed, then to help out with their
24 families back home, and that's what I want you to explain a bit to us, if
25 you can.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I fully understand your
2 question. I think that you're idealising things. That organisation was
3 not an ideal one. They weren't fronts like the Magino [phoen] line, 300
4 kilometres on the one side and the Medical Corps and so on and so forth.
5 This was sporadical journeys of people, whether they were members of the
6 party or not. Many of them no, but they were volunteers or, rather,
7 people who wanted to protect the Serb nation. And all of them, including
8 the Radicals and all the other parties, looked benevolently upon them,
9 and that's what happens everywhere in the world when people go to war to
10 help their fellow compatriots, to stay in their own homes, on their own
11 threshold and so on, their own hearths and so on.
12 Now, when I say "assistance," well, you asked the question, I
13 remember a number of times that I bought sandwiches to feed the people
14 who came to the Party premises and spent the night there and were hungry,
15 so I went off -- I personally went off and, with my own money, bought
16 them sandwiches. Now, do you consider that to be assistance to the War
17 Staff of the Radical Party, or how you're going to assess this, I don't
18 know. That's what I did.
19 Anyway, with respect to people being killed, I can't tell you
20 exactly who transported the dead. I think it was the army that was the
21 main organisation, because we Radicals did not have the logistics at the
22 front. You need radio stations, medical corps, vehicles, ambulances, or
23 any kind of vehicles to transport men, especially if they're dead and you
24 have to transport coffins across borders and so on and so forth. Anyway,
25 that was the kind of support, and that's how I see it today. And I think
1 it's quite normal.
2 Now, whether there were any mistakes or not, I don't know, but I
3 wouldn't have acted differently even today. If I went back to those
4 years, I think that I did the right thing. And I say with full
5 responsibility that Seselj didn't influence anybody and prevail upon them
6 to go to the front.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Stefanovic, take it easy. Just listen
8 carefully to the questions that I'm putting to you.
9 You said that the SRS
10 been killed, and you also said that they would provide transport in order
11 for the volunteers, I suppose, to go to the front-line, and if they were
12 wounded, then to get back from the front-line. So my question is: Now,
13 you have substantiated your answer a bit more. You said that they did
14 provide medical assistance, they did sometimes provide coffins if
15 somebody had been killed, they provide transportation to and back from
16 the front-line. And before I move on, I just wanted to confirm, is this
17 correctly understood?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me check. You're talking about
19 the volunteers who were killed at the front-line; is that right? Is that
20 what you're referring to, just to see that I've got it right?
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. The SRS volunteers or at least the
22 volunteers who came through the SRS
23 front with the assistance by the SRS
24 did the SRS
25 instance, by getting a coffin, or getting in touch with the family, or
1 otherwise providing support and assistance to those who had been -- who
2 had taken off to the front-line through the SRS?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand the question, and
4 I'll be precise now in giving you an answer, very precisely and
6 It's like this: All the people who were killed at the front, it
7 was Zoran Drazilovic who was in charge of them. He represented the
8 party. He would go to inform family members that their relative had
9 died, had been killed. Now, if he had the resources, then the party did
10 all this, it organised the coffin, the burial and everything else, the
11 funeral. That comes under human solidarity, the heading of human
12 solidarity. If not, then it would be the state or the army who would see
13 to that. So that's as far as I know. I never attended any funerals, to
14 be honest.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: And please just confine your answers to the
16 questions that I'm putting to you, because we should not take up too much
17 time. Mr. Seselj is waiting to get on with his cross-examination.
18 Do you know if any of the volunteers were paid by the SRS?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't think the Radical Party
20 financed the volunteers by giving them money.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Do you know if they --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think it did. I'm not
23 quite sure, but I don't think so.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: That's very fine. I'm satisfied with the answer.
25 Do you know if the SRS
1 weapons before they went to the front-line or as they were going to the
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I know, and I think that is --
4 was certainly the case, especially when it comes to weapons and uniforms,
5 it was exclusively the JNA who would provide those. We didn't have any
6 weapons or anything like that, so that's the assumption. We didn't have
7 any uniforms or weapons, so we couldn't provide them with that, but the
8 army did -- if they did, they would provide them with that.
9 But, Your Honour, please believe me when I say that I never
10 crossed the Sava
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm only interested in hearing what you knew or
12 what you can tell us about what happened. I'm not implying that you
13 traveled around and saw the battlefield. That is not my interest. The
14 interest in my initial questions here have been to illuminate a bit the
15 responsibility that the SRS
16 front-line, to the battles, through the SRS, and I think you have
17 answered these questions as best -- as well as you could.
18 Now, my next question would be: If the young volunteers who went
19 to the front-lines were subjected to war crimes committed by, say, Croats
20 or Muslims, or war crimes committed by the other side against the members
21 of the SRS
22 front-line through the assistance of the SRS, would that be something
23 that would be discussed or be addressed by the SRS? Do you know that?
24 I'm speaking about war crimes committed against your people,
25 against the volunteers, and my question is if any such crimes were
1 reported to the headquarters of the SRS
2 other level, perhaps passed on to the military police of the JNA or
3 passed on to somebody else, but was that something that was recorded or
4 discussed in the SRS
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I'll be quite frank,
6 Your Honour, to say that I never entered the War Staff, I never meddled
7 in other people's affairs. However, what is the objective truth is that
8 all those who were invalids, for instance, it was the state, well, as
9 members of the military units of the official Army of Yugoslavia, most
10 probably, I don't know for sure, but most probably they received some
11 invalidity remuneration, some pensions or whatever. Now, as far as
12 assistance to those people goes, I know that two of them were taken care
13 of by the Radical Party, Dusica Nikolic and a man called Sima who fell
14 casualty in some actions, but they were activists of the Radical Party
15 before that, they were members beforehand and held important posts in the
16 party, and when they returned to the party, too, as if nothing had
18 I don't know of other cases, but I came across many people later
19 on who said that they had been volunteers, that they had been wounded,
20 but it was mostly the state that took care of them, the army, I think.
21 So I can't say anything other than that.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: But my question was --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But there was no mention of that at
24 any official meetings.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: No, I understand. But at the meetings that you
1 took part in in Belgrade
2 crimes committed against the volunteers ever come up?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, I don't think so. At least
4 I don't know about them. That any item on the agenda was something like
5 that, I don't think so.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: So you never heard -- if I understand you
7 correctly, you never heard that war crimes had been committed by the
8 enemies to any of your volunteers?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I heard that many times, but it
10 wasn't a discussion at any official meetings of the Serbian Radical
11 Party. The Serbian Radical Party dealt with political issues, and it was
12 those issues that were on the agenda of the Executive Board or the
13 Central Homeland Administration or whatever. There was no discussion, as
14 far as I remember, about, say, point 4 on the agenda would be war crimes
15 against the Serbs, committed against the Serbs, as an item of the agenda.
16 I don't think anything like that ever happened. Well, actually, I'm
17 certain we didn't discuss it in that way. We dealt with political issues
18 and matters at the official meetings. Otherwise, I had heard that
19 terrible crimes -- terrible crimes had been committed in many instances,
20 hundreds of them, both in Bosnia
21 And a friend of mine, Dragan Jovanovic, was killed on the 19th of
22 December, 1991, by the Ustashas, where they filmed it all on video, and
23 then five or six years later I happened to see this, his killing.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Please understand me -- or, rather, I'm trying to
25 understand you, because I don't see the coherence in this. If war crimes
1 were committed on a large scale against Serbs, that would, I would
2 imagine, be a very political issue in Serbia. I mean, you have spoken,
3 yourself, during this testimony about the genocide that was committed
4 against Serbs during the Second World War. So if anything of a similar
5 kind would happen again against Serbs, that would be a political issue in
6 any party in Serbia
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In any case, that would be a
8 national issue, par excellence, but political activity in Serbia
9 that one could not prevent crimes by political action. One had to
10 support the government that was promising to assist the Serbs in areas
11 where they were under threat in order to help prevent crimes. That would
12 have been the task of any serious political party. If Serbia was willing
13 to help the Serbs escape crimes, then we would support the government
14 that was promising that, and vice versa, but what you're asking is
15 something new for me because I never attended a meeting where we
16 discussed specific crimes.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm not sure that we understand each other
18 perfectly well, and maybe I have not been clear enough. I'll try one
19 more time, and then after that I only have two more questions for you and
20 then I'm finished.
21 My question to you, Mr. Stefanovic, was if -- the issue of the
22 commission of war crimes, not any particular war crimes, but war crimes
23 in general, committed by the enemy against volunteers, Serb volunteers at
24 the front-line, was that not a political issue in the SRS, and how was it
25 addressed if it was?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know how to reply to that,
2 Your Honour. I think I've said everything. I've told you everything I
3 know. If you think I'm concealing something, tell me what you're getting
4 at. But to be quite honest --
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: My question was simple, and if you cannot answer,
6 then you cannot answer and then we'll move on to something else.
7 The next-to-last question I have is: Do you know if any of the
8 volunteers who went to the front-line, if they signed up to become
9 members of the SRS
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's a difficult question again,
11 because no official records were kept of this, but I think that when
12 those people came to the party and stayed for an hour or two, it was not
13 usual for them to sign up then and there and become members. They would
14 become members or not in their local boards. We were a large party with
15 a large number of members, and we did not insist that volunteers be
16 members of the party. That's my answer. We did not insist that fighters
17 be members, but some of the volunteers certainly were party members.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. And the last question I have to you
19 relates to an issue that was brought up earlier by the Presiding Judge,
20 and I caught sight of it because you have mentioned the same thing twice;
21 that is to say, first in 2003, when you gave your statement to the
22 investigator, and then again in 2006. So twice you have -- you raised
23 the issue of the president of the SRS
24 about the conduct of the volunteers at the front-line. Do you recall
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember that, but if I did
2 say that and if it's recorded, I don't know what the motive might be.
3 Your Honour, I never saw this piece of paper before, the one on
4 my left-hand side. I could --
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Forget about what you think you saw and what you
6 didn't see.
7 If I can just, as an example, pop back to the statement you gave
8 in 2003. In the English version, it's on page 14. It's towards the end
9 of the statement, and it's under a heading that is called "Crimes
10 Issues." And I read out from what was taken down in your statement. You
11 were supposed to have said the following, and I quote:
12 "I saw that Seselj was worried of the activities of the SRS
13 volunteers, and he tended to prove that he was not responsible for the
14 actions committed by the volunteers at the front-line."
15 And that's all I would like you to expand a bit upon. What did
16 you mean when you alleged or indicated or suggested that Seselj might
17 have been worried about something that had happened at the front-line in
18 which, apparently, SRS
19 when you said that?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When giving the statement, I've not
21 been able to say this since the beginning of this hearing. I see you're
22 all angry with me, the Judges, the Prosecutors and Seselj, all of you,
23 you're all yelling at me. I'm not complaining, but forgive me for saying
24 this. Believe me --
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Stefanovic, we are not angry at you and we
1 are not yelling at you. I'm putting issues to you that you have raised
2 yourself twice in 2003 and 2006, and there is no mystery about it. I
3 just want you, because you're a witness and you're here to tell the truth
4 and you're under oath, I just want you to tell us what you meant by
5 saying what you said. That's all.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember that at all.
7 Probably that is an interpretation.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much for your answers. I have no
9 more questions.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
11 We've got ten minutes left. Mr. Seselj, maybe you could start
12 your cross-examination.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Seselj:
15 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, in these 10 to 12 minutes, we might be able to
16 clarify some minor status points.
17 You said that the Serb Freedom Movement was established on the
18 23rd of January, 1990. Do you remember that the Serbian National Renewal
19 of Mirko Jovic and Vuk Draskovic was established on the 6th of January,
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Up to the point when Vuk Draskovic was expelled from the Serbian
23 National Renewal, did this happen at the meeting of --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please slow down and not
25 overlap. This is impossible to interpret.
1 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
2 Q. At the meeting of you, Dusan Boskovic --
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you're going too
4 fast. The interpreters are asking you to slow down.
5 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
6 Q. You and Dusan Boskovic refused to join up with Vuk Draskovic, and
7 Vuk Draskovic and I, on behalf of our parties, although he had been
8 expelled and he was only pretending to be at the head of the Serbian
9 National Renewal, signed an agreement on the establishment of the Serbian
10 Renewal Movement; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you remember that in early June, Vuk Draskovic was replaced
13 from the post of president of the Serbian Renewal Movement by a majority
14 of votes after the scandal when the Saint Sava play was staged in the
15 National Theatre?
16 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat his answer?
17 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Kalinovica Piazza [phoen], is that the meeting you're referring
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 18 Nevesinjska Street?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You are not yet a member of our party. Do you remember that --
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: The witness is sitting in Belgrade, and unless
25 you speak a lot louder, he won't be able to hear you.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, it would be better if the
2 witness was here, but what can I do about it?
3 Q. Do you remember that Vuk Draskovic, after he was replaced,
4 established in the Rolex Restaurant a new party to which he gave the same
5 name, the Serbian Renewal Movement, and then there were two parties
6 having the same name?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And then at the end of June, to avoid confusion among the public,
9 we changed the name of the party from the Serbian Renewal Movement to
10 Serbian Chetnik Movement?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Was that before the official registration of any political party?
13 A. Yes, it was before the official registration of any party. There
14 was not a single party that was registered at that time.
15 Q. Registration started in August; is that correct?
16 A. I think it was in August or September.
17 Q. Your Liberal Party collectively joined the Serbian Chetnik
18 Movement only then; is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And you explained how the Serb Radical Party was established.
21 You mixed up some functions, but that doesn't matter.
22 Do you remember that as early as 1994, you put forward a
23 proposal, at a meeting of the party leadership, that you be relieved of
24 the duty of secretary-general and that we elect Aleksandar Vucic to that
25 post because it transpired that he was talented for propaganda
1 activities? Do you remember that meeting in my office?
2 A. I don't know what year it was, but superficially -- yes, I can't
3 pinpoint the year.
4 Q. Yes. You were never dismissed from that post, but you yourself
5 proposed that you be relieved of that duty, and I assert it was in 1994.
6 A. I confirm that that's how it was, except that I'm not sure about
7 the year.
8 Q. Unfortunately, we were wrong when we selected Aleksandar Vucic,
9 but that's another issue.
10 Do you remember that in 1997, in an informal conversation with a
11 group of journalists in the Serbian Assembly, you said that you toppled
12 the monument to Draza Mihajlovic, although that was not true? Do you
13 remember having said that?
14 A. I do, but I think the year is not correct again.
15 Q. I remember it was in 1997, because I have a photographic memory.
16 And then the journalists published this, and I summoned you and attacked
17 you fiercely because you said this as a joke, but it was detrimental to
18 the party; that's how it was?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And did you quietly withdraw from the Serb Radical Party after
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. There were no conflicts; you simply disappeared. Is that how it
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. I just wanted to clarify these few points if for no other reason
2 than for this transcript, which will go down in history.
3 Let me remind you of one more thing. Do you recall that this
4 so-called War Staff was first called the Crisis Staff of the Serb
5 Radical Party and it was headed by Ljubisa Petkovic?
6 A. Well, it's silly to ask me about this War Staff. I don't know
7 what the logic is and why you're all asking me about the War Staff. It's
8 correct, I couldn't recall. I thought it was some sort of humanitarian
9 work. I'm not sure. It was humanitarian work, or it can be described as
10 activities which are usually referred to as humanitarian activities. And
11 it's true that at the beginning, it was called the Crisis Staff, and I
12 never poked my nose in there, and I don't know what they did or what they
13 didn't do.
14 Q. Mr. Stefanovic, there's no reason for you to become upset. The
15 OTP has an abundance of documents showing that initially that Staff was
16 engaged in providing humanitarian assistance, and then gradually it
17 started sending volunteers. But do you remember that it was only in
18 early October 1995 -- 1991 that the crisis --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, 1991.
20 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
21 Q. ... that the Crisis Staff was renamed into the War Staff of the
22 Serbian Radical Party?
23 A. I can't remember precisely, the precise date, but yes.
24 Q. Do you -- well, did I ever threaten your life? Did I ever
25 threaten you with death?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Did I ever threaten anyone's life?
3 A. To the best of my knowledge, no.
4 Q. Well, I have to remind you now. I have to jog your memory,
5 because the Prosecutor did the same.
6 Do you remember that on one occasion, I threatened the Croatian
7 Ustasha leader, Franjo Tudjman, and that for the Zagreb magazine
8 'Globus,' as a joke, I said that the Chetnik court had sat a
9 court-martial and sentenced Tudjman to death and they published this as a
10 serious piece of news?
11 A. Well, I don't remember that. It was the Chetnik corps, the
12 collective body, not you.
13 Q. But it was done for propaganda purposes and as a kind of joke?
14 A. Yes, that's how I see it.
15 Q. Do you remember the statement that we -- that we Chetniks have
16 river submarines and that we would take those submarines through the
17 rivers to Zagreb
18 A. Yes, and it was said that they would be sending them to
20 them to Ljubljana
21 Q. And they made problems for the Serbs?
22 A. Yes. The priest Peran [phoen] in Ljubljana.
23 Q. But it was a joke?
24 A. I'm been given a single to slow down. Yes.
25 Q. Well, I'm really interested who else is with you in this room.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, I'm demanding that the
2 camera crew lift the camera and that he take a shot all around the room
3 so that we can see who is in the room.
4 Mr. Stefanovic, don't say anything. I want to see visually. I
5 have the right to that, and nobody should get out of the room in the
6 meantime. No one should leave the room in the meantime. Judges, is that
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can you see me?
9 Q. Well, I can see you and someone peeping behind you. Is that
10 someone who's whispering what you should say? Who is that person?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. What's your name?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We have to know the names of all
13 those who are present in the Tribunal office in Belgrade in the course of
14 this hearing. I have the right to that, and the public must know their
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, there is somebody with
17 you. I guess he's the Registrar; right? Who is the person standing next
18 to you?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Are you addressing me?
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Could you tell us who's
21 standing next to you?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There's a man sitting next to me.
23 I don't know what his name is. You see now.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This person is the
25 Registrar. We know him very well.
1 Are you reassured, Mr. Seselj?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Are we going to find out the name
3 of this person, Mr. President?
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Registrar. He's always
5 here in the courtroom.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Have you rejected my demand that
7 the cameraman lift the camera and take a circular shot all round the
8 room, span all round the room so we can see who is in the room?
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, how many people are
10 there in this room, because Mr. Seselj seems to be paranoid and thinks
11 there's a conspiracy against him, so how many people are in that room
12 where you are?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [No interpretation].
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] How many are you?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There's me and another man. There
16 are two of us.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, paranoia is a
18 dangerous mental illness. If I were suffering from paranoia, I would not
19 be sitting here in the courtroom. So please refrain from such
20 statements. I'm not paranoid.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Stop. Stop this, Mr. Seselj.
22 You are questioning the integrity of this Tribunal, suggesting that there
23 were other people in the room than the witness. You were told there were
24 two people. I asked the witness to confirm, and he did say that there
25 were two people in that room. That's it.
1 We will resume tomorrow, sir. We will resume this hearing
2 tomorrow at 2.15. I will ask you to refrain from any contact with the
3 media about these proceedings, and we will meet again tomorrow at 2.15.
4 But be there at 1.00, because there are some technical checks to be done.
5 I wish everybody a good evening, and we will meet again at 2.15.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.
7 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 26th day of
8 November, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.