1 Wednesday, 13 January 2010
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, can you please
6 call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you and good afternoon, Your Honours. This
8 is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Registrar. This is
10 Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, and I greet Mr. Seselj, our accused; as
11 well as Mr. Marcussen, Ms. Biersay, their Case Manager, and everyone
12 helping us. The Trial Chamber is now going to issue an oral decision
13 relating to the oral request made by the accused yesterday, but I think
14 that Mr. Seselj wanted to have the floor before to raise an issue.
15 Mr. Seselj, you have the floor.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I hope that I will be able to
17 do so in a minute's time. I hope you won't be angry if I take five
19 Your Honours, yesterday I said that the OTP on the occasion of
20 the third interview with this witness had prepared a statement in
21 advance, given it to him, and asked him to sign it. And then I -- the
22 witness and his attorney as well as the OTP said that wasn't true. In
23 the meantime I found the transcript of the third interview held in
24 December 2008. On page --
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, the Trial Chamber
1 believes that this can be raised during the cross-examination. Now,
2 secondly, watch out. This is a protected witness. Be very careful. You
3 should not say anything that might identify this person.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am being extremely careful,
5 Your Honour. I have said nothing that could serve to identify this
6 person. I don't believe that this is part of the cross-examination, but
7 rather that it has to do with the Bench, the OTP, and the Defence. This
8 is an objection to the behaviour of the OTP, and I don't want to engage
9 in a dialogue with the witness's attorney. If you want to hear what I
10 have to say, I can read it out briefly.
11 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, I think it would be --
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Go ahead.
13 MR. MARCUSSEN: -- it would be appropriate for the accused to
14 refer to where in the transcript it's being said by the Prosecution that
15 there was no statement prepared in advance. There was. It is no secret.
16 It is in the transcript that has been disclosed to the accused, and
17 there's just no issue about that and that was confirmed by the witness's
18 counsel as well yesterday. We're just wasting time here, Your Honours.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is not correct. Firstly, the
20 statement was disclosed to me only once it was signed by the witness.
21 Secondly, when I objected here that the statement had been prepared in
22 advance and given to the witness to read and sign, the attorney jumped up
23 and the witness also reacted, saying that it wasn't true and that they
24 together, with the Prosecutor, had drafted the statement. And the
25 Prosecutor, to say the least, watched it passively. So how can we say
1 that they didn't work together? And I have evidence black on white that
2 they didn't work together, that the OTP drafted a statement, and gave it
3 to the witness to sign, and you heard yesterday that the witness wasn't
4 aware what he had signed. He clearly said that something that he signed
5 was not correct, and I tried to say something when I was interrupted by
6 the Prosecutor. So I would like to say what I have to say, if I may.
7 The page reference is V000-8039. Or rather 8042. Pages 3 and 4
8 out of 10 in that segment.
9 The witness is asking:
10 Let me just ask one more thing. Where does this go? Who does
11 this go to?
12 Mr. Marcussen explains to him Rule 92 ter, because of which the
13 statement was drafted.
14 And the witness replies:
15 I understand all that, but I must say one thing: I don't agree
16 to such a statement being filed because the point of my words is lost.
17 So copy all that, and he refers to his attorney. Look at this,
18 the point of my words is lost. Everything that Mr. Marcussen has written
19 here is correct, but when it -- when you add that I spoke about the
20 splitting of the police station for four hours and then everything is
21 condensed in one sentence.
22 Then I quote Mr. Marcussen:
23 If you feel something must be changed or added, we will do so.
24 And then the witness:
25 This is all correct, but when I speak for four hours about the
1 splitting of the police station in Zvornik, you take out only two
2 sentences and those two sentences are those that the OTP likes. All
3 right. But how did this division of the police station come about? We
4 must corroborate that with documents and we must know that these are only
5 excerpts of statements, not complete statements.
6 Then Mr. Marcussen:
7 I understand, this is a compilation of sorts, a collection of
8 various statements because you testified as a suspect and you testified
9 for two days.
10 And now, one more thing. Mr. Marcussen at one moment turns to
11 the witness's attorney; it's V000-8043, page 1 out of 17:
12 Mr. So and so, you and I spoke yesterday. Can you confirm that
13 we didn't speak about anything that is the subject matter of the evidence
14 of Mr. So and so.
15 The attorney: Of course we didn't. I understand you. But this
16 isn't necessary at all. This is a man who values his word. He will not
17 change his statement, as many have done in your trial.
18 And then Mr. Marcussen:
19 Yesterday when we finished we agreed that you would take with you
20 this draft statement. Draft statement. You would take it with you to
21 your hotel and that you would take a look at it in the evening, did you
22 do so.
23 The witness:
25 Mr. Marcussen:
1 Maybe we could do what we did yesterday but before that we should
2 return to those spots that you potentially identified and which may
3 require corrections. That's on page 2 out of 17.
4 Your Honours, I believe that it is clear to you now that I spoke
5 the truth yesterday, as I do always, and some other people are trying to
6 present that truth as a lie for their own reasons.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, from what I
8 understood what you said in Article 92 ter, this is how things should
9 occur. The Prosecutor prepares a document summing up a number of
10 statements. So it's a consolidated statement that is prepared by the
11 Prosecutor. Then this document is given to the witness as well as to the
12 witness's lawyer, if there is one, and he tells him: Take your time.
13 Over night in your hotel just look at it, and if you want to make changes
14 we will make changes to this consolidated statement. After that, on the
15 next day or maybe the same day, the witness signs the consolidated
16 statement and it becomes a 92 ter statement.
17 Now, it so happens that in the case you raised, the witness noted
18 that as far as splitting the police station was concerned, the sentence
19 was too short and too brief compared to all the events that had happened.
20 And he wanted to add information because he believed that what was
21 written did not correctly reflect the entire context, which is what is
22 said. Of course in a statement that's only a few pages long you can't
23 go -- mention at length very specific points and go into great details.
24 It's not the first time that witnesses want to go in depth regarding a
25 number of facts.
1 But you're right, the statement was actually drafted by the
2 Prosecutor, but the Prosecutor is right when he said that the
3 consolidated statement was reviewed by the witness and his counsel. And
4 yesterday the witness actually told us that all this had been done and
5 prepared with the co-operation of all three of them. So there's no need
6 to play this up. What would be more serious if this would happen on a
7 single statement, not a consolidated statement. If in a single statement
8 the Prosecutor was actually drafting everything first-hand and then
9 asking the witness to sign, that would be another kettle of fish, but
10 this is not what's happened here. This is a 92 ter statement which sums
11 up a number of other statements that were made either for this case or
12 for other cases, and we have a document that of course is drafted and
13 consolidated by the Prosecution. But that is exactly what the spirit of
14 the rule means.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I understand you completely,
16 Your Honour. But yesterday both the witness and his attorney denied that
17 the text of the statement was prepared in advance, but they said that
18 they drafted the text together with the OTP. You saw what happened, they
19 all attacked me. You saw what the attorney did.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Marcussen, let's not
21 waste too much time over this because it's a storm in a teacup, nothing
23 Mr. Marcussen.
24 MR. MARCUSSEN: I tend to agree. I think the easiest would be if
25 the accused would simply point to the place in the transcript from
1 yesterday where this is being said, because that's not my recollection.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, the oral decision
3 is much more important, so please listen carefully.
4 Oral decision on the oral request made by the accused on January
5 12th, 2010, in order to communicate with the press. With an individual
6 opinion of Judge Antonetti, President of the Trial Chamber, I will have a
7 dissenting -- I will have an individual opinion. I will read this oral
8 decision, it's quite long.
9 Given the oral motion made by the accused on the hearing of
10 January 12th, 2010
11 through a telephone conference on January 18, 2010, on the occasion of
12 municipal elections held in the municipality of Odzaci
13 the oral request -- oral reply made by the Prosecution on the same day,
14 the Prosecution says that the Trial Chamber is not competent at this
15 stage of the proceedings to rule on the motion, given Article 74 bis of
16 detention, envisaging the possibility for a detainee to contact the media
17 as long as the Registry approves it and according to which a detainee can
18 ask at any time for the President of the Tribunal to cancel a Registry
19 decision forbidding such contact.
20 Given the decision of the Trial Chamber -- of the Appeals Chamber
21 on April 9, 2009
22 the oral -- the decision made on October 12th, 2005, by the Trial Chamber
23 in the Haradinaj case, allowing Ramush Haradinaj to enter into political
24 activity as long as the UNMIK was -- approves; given the decision made on
25 February 12th, 2009
1 case, allowing Radovan Karadzic to contact a newspaper reporter subject
2 to Registry control of such contact; given that the accused in his motion
3 underscores the fact that electoral silence starts in Serbia on
4 January 22, 2010
5 up in -- during the electoral debate in his country; given that the
6 accused is asking to be provided the same rights allowed to the accused
7 Ramush Haradinaj and Radovan Karadzic; given that the Trial Chamber
8 believes that the situation of the accused, who is in detention at the
9 moment and is different from the situation of Ramush Haradinaj who at the
10 time was in provisional release and who was such -- and who because of
11 this was submitted to the immediate competence of the Trial Chamber in
12 the framework of changes attributed to his conditions of provisional
13 release; given that as regards to the accused the Trial Chamber is not
14 competent at this stage of the proceedings to rule on this motion;
15 however, given the emergency to rule on the oral motion made by the
16 accused to make sure that if need be -- or if possible this -- the
17 accused can hold this press conference which was requested before January
18 22nd, 2010; on these grounds the Trial Chamber decides to refer this
19 motion to the Registrar and is asking the Registrar to rule on this
20 motion before tomorrow, 12.00, so that the accused can use all possible
21 remedies offered to him in the very short dead-line he has so that, if
22 possible or if allowed, he can actually organise his press conference at
23 the latest on January 21st, 2010.
24 Mr. Seselj, in this decision the Trial Chamber is inviting -- is
25 asking the Registrar to rule on this quickly -- actually, before tomorrow
1 at noon
2 Tribunal if you have to. This being said, this is my personal opinion,
3 as far as I'm concerned I believe that your motion has to do with the
4 civilian and political rights of an accused. The civilian and political
5 rights of an accused are part and parcel of the presumption of innocence.
6 The fact of being in detention does not automatically imply the fact that
7 you can be deprived of your rights. Best proof of this is that a
8 detainee can vote in national elections, can even run for a post within
9 these national elections.
10 The case law coming from the Appeals Chamber recognises that the
11 Registrar has the right to control matters regarding matters that have to
12 do with freedom and freedom of speech. As far as I'm concerned, freedom
13 of speech cannot be -- can only be regulated by an independent Judge and
14 cannot be regulated by a civil servant, whatever the quality of such
15 civil servant might be, whether be this civil servant a Registrar of an
16 International Tribunal.
17 As far as I'm concerned, Judges must be directly competent when
18 it comes to anything having to do with freedom of speech and anything
19 that might curtail this freedom of speech.
20 Furthermore, I also note that on -- that this Tribunal had to
21 rule on the problem of the political expression of an accused and had to
22 do this twice regarding Mr. Ramush Haradinaj and Mr. Radovan Karadzic.
23 The situation of Mr. Seselj as an accused is very different from these
24 two cases. As far as Ramush Haradinaj was concerned, he was enjoying a
25 provisional release at the time; and regarding Mr. Radovan Karadzic, he
1 had lived -- he hadn't lived up to his responsibility towards the
2 international community because he was fleeing justice at the time,
3 whereas the accused Seselj surrendered voluntarily to this Tribunal.
4 Furthermore, in the Ramush Haradinaj decision the fact that
5 Mr. Haradinaj through political -- through his political speech and
6 political declarations could contribute to solving political matters in
7 his country was taken into account. This element was taken into account
8 in the decision made by the competent Chamber.
9 I also note that as far as Radovan Karadzic is concerned, the
10 President of the Tribunal authorised Mr. Karadzic to talk to a reporter,
11 Mrs. Vukojevic. Given these -- given this, I believe that the
12 Trial Chamber could have been competent to rule on this oral motion, but
13 the very strict case law of the Appeals Chamber set up a procedure
14 allowing control by the Registrar and by the President of this Tribunal
15 regarding the implementation of Article 74 -- Rule 74 [as interpreted]
16 bis of the rules on detention.
17 Article 74 bis of the rules on detention deals with the contact
18 with the media. In this article the Registrar plays a role when the
19 interview with the media might trouble -- might raise -- might create
20 chaos in the UNDU or might create problems or might go against the
21 mandate of this Tribunal. Given the information the accused has provided
22 the Trial Chamber with, it seems that the accused has no intention of
23 creating chaos or havoc within the UNDU nor -- or creating problems
24 regarding justice. As far as the mandate of this Tribunal is concerned,
25 this Tribunal's purpose is to re-establish peace within the former
2 political parties play an important role -- an essential role.
3 Mr. Seselj, the accused Seselj, is the leader of a legal political party
4 in Serbia
5 Very well. So once the procedure described in the oral decision
6 rendered above, if the accused cannot be allowed to do what he wishes to
7 do through the Registry or through the President, he can always seize the
8 Trial Chamber. And as I just said, in my opinion, I will be in favour of
9 allowing him to talk to the media in the framework of these local
10 elections held in Serbia
11 Very well. We will now bring the witness into the courtroom.
12 Let me ask the usher to drop the blinds, please, so the witness can come
13 into the courtroom without being seen.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I think, Mr. Marcussen, that
16 you still have about 50 minutes, perhaps less, I'm not sure -- 35
17 perhaps, right.
18 And, Mr. Seselj, you have two hours. Let's hope we'll manage to
19 finish today because we're pressed by time.
20 Yes, I would like to correct something in the transcript.
21 Line -- page 10, line 10, it's 64 bis and not 74 bis.
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Witness. We
24 are going to have the blinds raised now.
25 Mr. Marcussen, you have the floor.
1 MR. MARCUSSEN: Thank you, Your Honours.
2 WITNESS: WITNESS VS-037 [Resumed]
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 Examination by Mr. Marcussen: [Continued]
5 Q. VS-037, we covered a lot of ground yesterday, but we only have 35
6 minutes left today, so I will -- I may have to press ahead pretty quickly
7 today. Picking up of where we left yesterday, we were talking about some
8 personalities from the Zvornik area, and I wanted to ask you whether you
9 were familiar with a gentleman named Dragan Suka?
10 A. I don't understand who exactly you mean. Dragan is a common
11 name. I don't know who exactly you have in mind.
12 Q. It's probably my bad pronunciation. Suka I think it is.
13 A. I knew some people whose last name was Suka.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, counsel.
15 MR. TOMIC: [Interpretation] My client asked me to ask the Court
16 to move into closed session when questions pertain to specific names
17 because then he can express his actual views and feelings. So could we
18 then move into private session for security reasons and others.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, could you please
20 remember this if you ask questions about names of people, think about
21 their safety so -- because if he's puzzled he may say "I don't know" or
22 just see if that -- in certain cases you better first warn.
23 MR. MARCUSSEN: Certainly, Your Honour.
24 Can we move into private session, please.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Private session, please.
1 [Private session]
11 Page 14928 redacted. Private session.
13 [Open session]
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.
15 MR. MARCUSSEN: I'd like to show the witness 65 ter number 1040,
17 Q. VS-037, the B/C/S version is now on the screen. Do you recognise
18 this document?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. It is a fax sent by Mandic on the 31st of March. At the time,
21 did you see this document?
22 A. Well, at the time I was commander of the police station in
23 Zvornik. That's when the Lisbon Conference was being held. I think that
24 all the leaders from Bosnia-Herzegovina attended --
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, please, we have to
1 redact line 14 of page 15, since he says "at that time I was chief of the
2 police," so people would automatically know who he is, so we have to
3 redact this.
4 MR. MARCUSSEN: I do believe that yesterday the witness started
5 his evidence setting out his positions. So -- I mean, we can take it out
6 if the witness wishes to today, but --
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have to confirm this to us.
8 When you say: I was the chief, everybody can know that it was you. Do
9 you mind?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not indispensable.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [No interpretation]
12 MR. MARCUSSEN:
13 Q. I think you were in the process of explaining that you had
14 received -- you had -- you were familiar with this document from March
15 1992. Am I correct in summarising that after this -- this led to the
16 separation of the police station in Zvornik?
17 A. Yes, I mean in this dispatch that we received then that was
18 signed by Momcilo Mandic as one of the top officials of the Serb people
19 in the then-MUP, that was the result of the Lisbon Conference. And we --
20 I mean, well, received that dispatch and everything was written there,
21 what had been ordered, that in fact a Serb Ministry of the Interior was
22 being established with certain work units that are being mentioned here.
23 Q. And the Serb police station that was set up, where was that
25 A. You mean where Zvornik belonged?
1 Q. Yes, sorry, the Serb police from Zvornik, as I understand it,
2 moved somewhere else. Where did they go?
3 A. We moved to Karakaj. Karakaj is about 3 or 4 kilometres away
4 from Zvornik, because down the Drina
5 of the Serb population was in keeping with that decision on the
6 establishment of the Serb municipality of Zvornik
7 Q. Were there other Serb organisations or authorities from Zvornik
8 established in that area?
9 A. All of that was there in accordance with the decision, the
10 municipality, the population, everything. However, the situation has to
11 be explained. Things were so tense that the Serb police never went into
12 Muslim settlements anymore and vice versa. It was all like a keg of
13 gunpowder. For a month people did not sleep. They went to villages in
15 going on and that an armed conflict was in the making.
16 Q. I'd move to another topic, but before I do that I'll ask for --
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, before the Prosecutor
18 changes subject, this question about weapons, I listened to your answers,
19 I listened to the questions. If I did understand correctly it was
20 security services of the MUP who furnished the weapons. Is this what we
21 have to remember from what you said, they supplied -- the MUP supplied
22 these weapons?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not understand what you mean.
24 I mean, there was this organisation of the municipal SUP, the republican
1 understand what you mean.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The weapons which you had in
3 Zvornik, they could only come from two different places, either weapons
4 of the JNA or weapons which the services of the MUP, interior ministry,
5 supplied to those who were asking for them. And I believe I understood
6 that most of these weapons was supplied to you by the Ministry of
7 Interior. I may be wrong, but that's why I'm asking you.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think that we understood
9 each other properly. Perhaps I misspoke. Most of it came from the
10 Territorial Defence and the JNA; however, in terms of the transport of
11 all of this, that's where the Ministry of the Interior stepped in.
12 However, the Muslims did it for their own part and the Serbs for their
13 own part. It was that way.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
15 continues]... mostly for the transport, carriage, that Ministry of
16 Interior had a role to play, but the weapons came from the TO or from the
17 JNA. Yes?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good.
20 MR. MARCUSSEN:
21 Q. And just to make it absolutely clear, when we're talking about
22 the Ministry of the Interior, we're talking about the Ministry of the
23 Interior of the Republic of Serbia
24 A. Well, the MUP of the Republic of Serbia
25 and the Serb part in Bosnia-Herzegovina. At the time we were still a
1 state, there was still the federal state that was in place. So there was
2 actually a mix of these different competences.
3 MR. MARCUSSEN: I'd like to ask for a number for 65 ter number
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you give a
6 number for this document, 1040.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, that will be Exhibit P876.
8 MR. MARCUSSEN:
9 Q. VS-037, around this time that we just talked about, did you have
10 occasion to meet with Arkan?
11 A. Well, I first met Arkan -- well, I think it was the 3rd or 4th of
12 April, 1992. I met him in Bijeljina.
13 Q. Did anyone tell you to go to Bijeljina to meet him or why did you
14 meet him there?
15 A. Well, in view of the ethnic composition of Zvornik, we as Serbs
16 felt endangered because there were fewer of us; and then we brought
17 pressure to bear through different connections. And then Kostic told me
18 to report to Bijeljina and that there was a unit there that was in
19 Bijeljina and that I would give -- and that I would be given further
20 instructions as to what I should do then.
21 Q. And that unit turned out to be Arkan's unit; is that how I should
22 understand you?
23 A. Yes, yes, you're right.
24 Q. Was it your impression that these things had been organised
25 before, that Arkan -- that you should go to Arkan and get him to Zvornik?
1 A. Well, that morning I read the newspapers and I saw that there had
2 already been a conflict in Bijeljina. There were different reports,
3 depending on what the position of different media was. From Belgrade
4 they wrote one thing, the Sarajevo
5 wasn't really proper information. I knew that Biljana Plavsic,
6 Fikret Abdic, Jerko Doko were already there, and that was basically the
7 first time that I heard of Arkan and his unit.
8 I remember that there was this thing in the newspaper that
9 morning. A Bosnian newspaper had this photograph from Bijeljina, and the
10 headline said that Arkan was killing and looting in Bijeljina. I had no
11 idea what this was all about, but according to instructions I went to the
12 cultural centre in Bijeljina and I saw some young men who were wearing
13 something that I was not familiar with. They were dressed like a special
14 unit. I was there with a policeman, a colleague from Zvornik, and as we
15 were waiting at the cultural centre all of a sudden everyone jumped to
16 their feet and stood at attention and a man walked in. He could have
17 been 30-something at the time. They said that that was Arkan. I then
18 spoke to him, I addressed him, and I said that I was from Zvornik and
19 that we had this request for assistance, that we are in a difficult
20 situation, that most of the Serbs had left town, that the police had
21 moved out of our premises, that we had moved to Karakaj. So I explained
22 the situation as it was.
23 Q. Did you -- did you see what car Arkan was driving?
24 A. Well, I probably did discuss that with you. I didn't see what
25 car he had then, but I know that four days later when he came to Zvornik
1 he had licence plates of the federal SUP
2 republics of Yugoslavia
3 numbers on their licence plates, so I knew that these were the licence
4 plates of the federal SUP
5 federal SUP
6 Q. I don't want to make an issue out of the statement you have
7 given, so I just wanted to read you something from it and ask you if this
8 is correct. And if it isn't, then that is fine. But you say in your
9 statement about Arkan -- it said:
10 "My impression is that it had all been arranged and co-ordinated.
11 Biljana Plavsic said so and Rade Kostic told us so as well."
12 Does that correspond to your recollection today?
13 A. Well, roughly in that context -- well, I don't know exactly
14 whether that's it, but generally speaking it was always necessary and we
15 kept exerting pressure on the republican leadership of the SDS and
16 wherever we had connections in Serbia
17 wanted help to be provided to us, and I think that Arkan and his unit
18 were a type of assistance at the time in view of the situation that we
19 were facing in Zvornik.
20 Q. And did Arkan actually come to Zvornik?
21 A. Well, he sent a unit. I think Major Pejic led the unit. That's
22 how he introduced himself. On the day when Zvornik was taken or one day
23 before the attack on Zvornik, since we had first been expelled from
24 Zvornik and then we launched this counter attack. It was the 8th or 9th
25 of April. A day before that attack he was in Zvornik and he co-ordinated
1 things -- well, not co-ordinate. He in fact commanded the attack on
3 Q. Which -- oh, sorry.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yeah, who were you referring to when you said
5 that he was commanding the attack on Zvornik? Was that Mr. Arkan himself
6 or was it the other guy?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Arkan, Arkan, Arkan, because this
8 other guy had the rank of major-something in that guard of theirs, but as
9 soon as the other one arrived he was really the top man and then he took
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
12 MR. MARCUSSEN:
13 Q. What units participated or what units did Arkan command during
14 the take-over?
15 A. Well, firstly, Arkan had a total of 40 or 50 men, and in Zvornik
16 maybe some 30 men of his own. And then there were a significant number
17 of volunteers from various areas, mostly those who already had some
18 battle-field experience from Croatia
19 Defence and the police from Zvornik took part and local units, the ones
20 we mentioned, talking about the arming, and they had already become part
21 of the Serbian Territorial Defence. Then various volunteer units
22 appeared from various areas, and as we were the minority then and we had
23 already been pushed back from Zvornik, we accepted all of them as
24 volunteers. They were called various names. On -- in the first days
25 there was a group of volunteers from Mali Zvornik and then from Loznica
1 or Nis
2 Q. Around -- sorry, when did these volunteer units or volunteers
4 A. Well, you see, there were -- it wasn't regulated. It was more or
5 less chaotic. Some of them arrived a day or two earlier and the same
6 time as Arkan arrived. Others came seven days or ten days later. I
7 really cannot say who arrived when.
8 Q. Where did these volunteers come from, what part of Yugoslavia
9 A. Mostly from Serbia
10 Krajina. Later, though not in great numbers, there were also people from
12 parts of the world.
13 Q. Would it be fair to say that the majority of the volunteers that
14 came to Zvornik were from Serbia
15 A. Yes, of course.
16 Q. Where were the volunteers armed?
17 A. They arrived and reported at the Territorial Defence and joined
18 the TO of Zvornik, and mostly they were armed there. At the time in
20 armed. Only Arkan's unit did come armed, and the rest of them reported
21 to the Zvornik TO and that's where they received weapons. There had
22 already been a JNA unit which was stationed in the village of Celopek
23 It is 2 or 3 kilometres away from Karakaj. They had their own reserves
24 of weapons, and I know that the distribution of weapons to TO members
25 started then.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, let me tell you
2 you have ten minutes left, so you can wisely use the time left.
3 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honour, then I may be asking for a little
4 bit more time in light of the importance of the evidence of this witness,
5 but let me just speed up then.
6 Q. The volunteers that came to the Crisis Staff, were they -- were
7 any of them from the Serbian Radical Party?
8 A. Well, we never asked the people about their political
9 affiliation. They were volunteers and they were all welcome. We
10 accepted them all enthusiastically. But probably there were members of
11 the Serbian Radical Party among them.
12 Q. At paragraph 69 of the statement you gave, you said that:
13 "I know that most of the men that came to the Crisis Staff said
14 that they had been organised by the Serbian Radical Party and
15 Vojislav Seselj."
16 A. I may have said that, but do believe me, we -- and then we saw
17 volunteers and we never asked them who had organised them and why they
18 were coming. In the Crisis Staff we never saw an organised group that
19 arrived except for Arkan's group. They were mostly individuals or groups
20 of two or three men. Until the 16th when I was there, that was the
21 situation; and after the 16th, I really cannot comment on the
22 organisation in that period.
23 Q. Sorry, I'm not entirely clear. So the statement is true, is that
24 correct, or is it not true?
25 A. Well, if you're asking me now, I can see what you mean now. I
1 must say: No, it is not correct, because that is not the point. You are
2 asking me whether most of them were organised by the Serbian Radical
3 Party and Mr. Seselj and I don't know, because we never asked people who
4 arrived about that. There were no organised groups, 30-, 40-, 50-strong,
5 but they were individuals or groups of two or three. Up until the 16th,
6 while I was in the Crisis Staff, I know for sure that we never saw an
7 organised group larger than four or five, apart from Arkan's group.
8 Everybody else came individually, on their own.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Witness, would there be any way of
10 distinguishing volunteers from the SRS or were Seselj's men by way of
11 their uniform? Would there be any way for you to tell by looking at a
12 person who was dressed up in a uniform whether he was one of Seselj's men
13 or someone from the SRS
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You see, Your Honour --
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Your Honours, I must
16 tell you that this interpreter is interpreting wrongly. The -- used the
17 abbreviation SRS
18 republic. This is outrageous and I demand that the interpreter be
19 replaced instantly. This is just a drastic example, but I can quote many
20 similar examples.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I would like to tell the
22 interpreters that when there's mention of the Serbian Radical Party, the
23 acronym in English is SRS
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you for -- thank you, Mr. Seselj, for
1 catching this because I wouldn't have picked it up and I'm sure the
2 interpreters didn't do so expressly.
3 But my question to you, Mr. Witness, was if it was possible by
4 just looking at a person who was dressed up in a uniform to tell his
5 affiliation, be it someone who was a member of the SRS or Seselj's men or
6 the White Eagles or otherwise all of these groups that came to Zvornik.
7 Were you able to distinguish where they came from and who had sent them?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] While I was there, nobody arrived
9 in a uniform. They were arriving from Serbia in civilian clothes, and we
10 would give them uniforms. Nobody came in an organised manner, wearing
11 uniform, apart from Arkan's group, up until the 16th of April which I
12 know because I was in the Crisis Staff then.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, what you're saying is
14 extremely important. Volunteers were coming in plain clothes, blue
15 jeans, jacket, and so on. And in the Crisis Staff you gave them a
16 uniform. But then how could you make a difference between those who
17 belonged to the Serbian Radical Party from those who were just hooligans
18 or from others? How could you make a difference between one and another
19 or did they come and tell you, "I belong to the Serbian Radical Party"?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were no members of the SRS
21 any other party. They came as citizens and they were mobilised into the
22 TO of the Serbian municipality of Zvornik
23 belonged to any party.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, the investigators of
25 the Prosecution, when they heard you as a witness, they wanted to know
1 who was in Zvornik and you said there was this and that and Arkan and
2 others as well as volunteers from the Serbian Radical Party. We're
3 trying to understand, which is why my colleague Judge Harhoff asked you
4 that question. But what -- how was it possible for you to say that these
5 people belonged to the Serbian Radical Party? Yesterday you told us and
6 Mr. Seselj also told us that in Zvornik there was no Serbian Radical
7 Party. Zvornik was in Bosnia-Herzegovina, not in Serbia.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you see from this angle and
9 bearing in mind how much time has elapsed, I know that some people who
10 were there as volunteers learned about -- I learned later that they were
11 members of the Serbian Radical Party. But some people from Mali Zvornik
12 whom I knew personally, they came as volunteers. And later in 1996 and
13 1997 I learned that they had close ties with the SRS or that they were
14 members. And of course now these -- time flies and you no longer know
15 when -- what was when exactly.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. But try
17 not to confuse things, please.
18 MR. MARCUSSEN: We're obviously at an important point and we are
19 running out of time, so I'm trying to juggle this. I think the presence
20 of volunteers of the SRS
21 like to do here -- I'm just waiting while the Bench confers.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Go ahead.
23 MR. MARCUSSEN:
24 Q. VS-037, this particular paragraph was discussed during the
25 interview in December 2008, and I'd like to show you the transcript or
1 passage of the transcript of this interview, if I can.
2 MR. MARCUSSEN: And, Your Honours --
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute.
4 Mr. Tomic.
5 MR. TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since I know what
6 was -- what will follow, I ask that we move into closed session so that
7 the witness may answer without fear.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the accused, please.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now it's okay I guess. Firstly,
11 let's see whether the Prosecutor has the right at all to use transcripts
12 of the interview that he had with the witness. This has never happened
13 before. I don't believe he has that right. You, Your Honours, only
14 occasionally and exceptionally allowed that for -- to remind the witness
15 of the content of the statement.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, there is
17 jurisprudence as far as refreshing someone's memory is concerned. In a
18 former trial where I presided we had to render a decision, it went up to
19 the Appeals Chamber, and the Appeals Chamber of this Tribunal says the
20 following: The Prosecutor or the Defence can show the witness a document
21 in order to refresh his memory, which is exactly what Mr. Marcussen is
22 doing. He notes that the witness is a bit confused, he wants to refresh
23 his memory by showing him a statement made at the time. The counsel sees
24 no technical problem to this but would like to make sure that the way
25 the -- the way the witness's memory is refreshed is done in closed
1 session. Fine. I want things to be perfectly clear, so let's move into
2 private session.
3 Is that it, Mr. Marcussen, you just wanted to refresh the
4 witness's memory; right?
5 MR. MARCUSSEN: Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Tomic.
7 MR. TOMIC: [Microphone not activated]
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for ...
9 MR. TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, yesterday you agreed
10 that my witness -- after he was -- after he gave -- he agreed to testify
11 be --
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Private session, please.
13 Private session, please.
14 [Private session]
11 Pages 14944-14962 redacted. Private session.
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness -- yes?
1 MR. TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. In the
2 break my client asked me to raise some things, clarify them, because he
3 misunderstood something.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Go ahead.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Judge, about my engagement here, it
6 turns out that I volunteered, but I skipped something. What happened
7 really? I was invited by the Seselj Defence team to be a witness. They
8 asked me to because I was in Zvornik in 1992. I warned them that I had
9 given a statement to the OTP and that in these statements I also
10 mentioned Seselj and that I must speak to the Tribunal first. And then I
11 spoke to Rita and she told me that I wasn't scheduled, that they didn't
12 plan to call me.
13 I went to the Assembly in Serbia and we signed a statement there.
14 The statement was forwarded to the OTP and then they took a statement
15 from me after I had signed that had I given a statement elsewhere. In
16 giving a new statement, I expected it to be used in another trial, not
17 this trial. I -- this is the full story. I shortened it earlier. I
18 state with full responsibility that everything I said is true, but if
19 conclusions are asked of me I may make a wrong conclusion. But whatever
20 I saw and stated what I saw, it is most certainly true.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm supposed to understand that
22 the statement of December 15 and 16 was a statement that you had made but
23 for another case, not for Mr. Seselj's trial, for another trial?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Then I understood that their
25 intention was to use it in another trial. I also received information
1 from Rita that they weren't planning on calling me as a witness in this
2 trial. And I didn't pay much attention to some details, but now I see
3 what this is -- in what direction this is moving, Radical Party and this
4 venture or that, et cetera.
5 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a question. Witness, you
6 say that you thought you were making a statement for another trial. Do
7 you mean that had you known it was for this trial there were a number of
8 things you would not have said, things that are in the statement? I
9 really don't understand.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, that's not what I
11 mean. You're not right. But I would have paid more attention to some
12 details because things are very generalised so they can interpreted it in
13 this way and that way and in many ways. I would have insisted that more
14 precise questions be put, but here from some general statements
15 conclusions are drawn which are then generalised.
16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] But you made this statement and
17 you made this statement deliberately, voluntarily, and you just said what
18 you recalled in that statement -- that statement you said what you
19 recalled. So what's the relevance of saying: Oh, I thought it was for
20 another case otherwise I would have said this or that?
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In the same line, if I show you
22 a text where you said that you were to testify in Mr. Seselj's case, what
23 would you say? Think twice about answering. I'm not trying to trap you,
24 but be careful. What would you say?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The document that was shown to me
1 last time and the list, I would have thought better who those persons
2 were. I would have said that I knew only persons number 1 and 2 and I
3 wouldn't have drawn general conclusions from that. I would have said
4 these two persons at that time were one thing and later I learned that
5 they were another thing. And simply speaking, I would have paid more
6 attention. I said a sentence with regard to that list about the persons
7 number 1 and 2 that they were Radicals from Mali Zvornik, but then when I
8 looked at the others I saw that some were from Bosnia, some don't belong
9 at all, some I don't know, et cetera.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, I have a legal
11 question for you. It's not that I'm trying to put you in a hard -- a
12 difficult position, but you can probably shed light on this. When you
13 heard this witness on December 15th and 16th, 2008, when you told him he
14 was a suspect, how could you say that to him when the Security Council
15 put a ban on new procedures?
16 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours --
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please explain.
18 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, the Office of the Prosecutor, in
19 compliance with the Rules, still apply Rule 42 in a number of occasions
20 when suspects are interviewed. The Prosecution is applying the
21 definition of a suspect in Rule 2 where a suspect is defined as: "A
22 person concerning whom the Prosecution possesses reliable information
23 which tends to show that the person may have committed a crime over which
24 the Trial Chamber -- over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction."
25 So there's no limitation in the definition of suspects to people
1 who might be -- there is no limitation because the Tribunal can no longer
2 issue indictments and the main addition [overlapping speakers] --
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, well
4 let's [as interpreted] start a legal debate on this. But as far as I'm
5 concerned and I'm a Permanent Judge here and I participated in the making
6 the Rules, as far as I'm concerned the Resolution of the Security Council
7 is very clear. The OTP could no longer draw any indictments, and if it
8 knew about crimes that had been committed it had to refer this
9 information to the local jurisdiction --
10 MR. MARCUSSEN: If I may, Your Honour, if I may -- and so what
11 continues is two things. First of all, this witness was assisted by his
12 counsel, who certainly was aware of the fact that the Tribunal can no
13 longer issue indictments and I'm sure the witness was aware himself as
14 well. As Your Honours -- well, actually, I think maybe we should just as
15 a matter of precaution go into private session for just a bit.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could we move
17 into private session, please.
18 [Private session]
11 Pages 14968-14969 redacted. Private session.
12 [Open session]
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Seselj:
14 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. VS-037 --
15 THE REGISTRAR: We're now in open session.
16 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Mr. VS-037, I will ask you a number of questions based on some
18 short quotations from the book "Zvornik: From the Elections to Dayton
19 The author is Mirzet Hamzic, have you heard of him?
20 A. Yes, I know.
21 Q. He wrote a book, a very comprehensive book, with over 500 pages
22 which was very interesting to me, and I ask you to give very short
23 answers. Do you confirm or corroborate what is written in
24 Mirzet Hamzic's book; and if you cannot do so, then state your reasons.
25 Mirzet Hamzic on page 172 says once the inter-ethnic and political strife
1 started, that the Muslim side was burdened by conflict inside the SDA
2 between Mr. Juzbasic and Mr. Abdulah Pasic, two key officials. Did you
3 know of that conflict?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And that conflict greatly hinders their activity?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. It goes on to say on page 71 Hamzic said that the Patriotic
8 League was established on the 26th of July, 1991, in the youth library in
9 Kula Grad. The organisation was in existence, they made a defence plan,
10 and there was a network for the distribution of weapons. The weapons
11 were bought in Vienna
12 the Patriotic League. Smugglers were involved who sold the weapons in
13 order to be able to procure new ones. In September 1991 through the SDA
14 some 15 rifles arrived, et cetera; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Hamzic goes on to say: Of the names that were involved in the
17 transportation of weapons from Brod, we must mention Avdija Muratovic who
18 on several occasions went to Brod and Gradacac. Re-sellers were allowed
19 to make about 100 German marks per rifle as a -- to -- as a risk
21 A. That's what they say in the book, but I don't know the details.
22 Q. So they started arming themselves when they organised the
23 Patriotic League in July 1991, and most of the weapons were smuggled from
24 Vienna, Austria
25 A. Yes, we were.
1 Q. They were attempts to come by money through companies. We are
2 talking about state-owned and social-owned companies from the Zvornik
3 municipality. At a meeting were the company directors when the Chetniks
4 started their in Karakaj and Celopek, but only Muhamed Jelkic, the
5 director of the infirmary offered to give money for weapons to protect
6 the people. Likewise, we worked on getting our young men out of the JNA
7 and preventing the mobilisation of reserve forces; is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. So they pulled out money from state-owned and socially-owned
10 enterprises and that was a crime; right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And they were buying weapons. Then on page 72 it goes on to say
13 that in spite of that fact the SDA, that's the Muslim party, through the
14 channels of the Patriotic League was able in the territory of the Zvornik
15 municipality to procure some 4.000 barrels. This is page 72. Did you
16 know about that?
17 A. We had an assessment more conservative, but we knew that they
18 were arming themselves.
19 Q. But they mention 4.000 barrels. There is no reason for them to
21 A. The man who wrote this book was deeply involved in that. I
22 believe that even his father taught in that school.
23 Q. On page 73 it says that the Patriotic League had made a complete
24 plan for the defence of the plan, that every village had orders to work
25 out defence plans, plans for pulling out the population and appointing
1 commanders; is that right?
2 A. Yes, both sides did that, both us and them.
3 Q. So far we were speaking only about the Serb side. Let's see what
4 things were like on the Muslim side so as to get a complete picture of
5 the situation, so as to prevent the Serbs from being the culprits all the
6 time. On page 87 he lists the formations of the Serb forces. He's --
7 mentions Seselj's men and in fact they are the volunteers of the Serb
8 Radical Party, that's their official name, and Seselj's men is
9 colloquial, do you agree?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. He also mentions Arkan's men, but he also mentions parts of the
12 light infantry division from Bijeljina under the command of
13 Colonel Milicic, strengthened by local Serbs, commanded by a major from
14 Valjevo, and the armour and mechanised battalion commanded by Mr. Tacic
15 and Dragan Obrenovic, and the mobilised units from the municipalities of
16 Mali Zvornik and Loznica. Did you know that the JNA had mobilised people
17 not only in the territory of Zvornik but a partial mobilisation also in
18 Mali Zvornik and Loznica?
19 A. Yes, and all municipalities along the border with
21 Q. I know about Zvornik and Loznica. Is it correct and you have
22 said here that Zoran Subotic, at the time a prominent official of the
23 Serb Radical Party was mobilised by the JNA and came to Zvornik in that
25 A. Yes, that's what I stated.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No --
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No --
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, I withdraw the question. I
5 withdraw the question. I'm not going to put a single question in closed
6 session and I'm not interested in it at all, what the witness would say
7 in closed session. I'm only interested in what the witness can say in
8 open court --
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] When the witness asks for closed
12 session, I withdraw my question.
13 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Now, page 89 of Hamzic's book. It says that the Muslim Crisis
15 Staff within the measures that they were preparing planned to blow up the
16 dam of Crveni Mulj if Zvornik is attacked. Have you ever heard of that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Is that near Glinica --
19 A. Yes, 6 or 7 kilometres towards Sapna.
20 Q. That is very dangerous material, poison, right?
21 A. Yes, this is hazardous material, poisonous -- I mean, if a bird
22 drinks water from that lake it dies.
23 Q. It dies. So at that time did you know in 1992 that Muslims were
24 planning to blow up the dam of Crveni M ulj and in this way make it
25 impossible for people to live in that area and to kill God knows how many
1 people in that area?
2 A. We did hear some of these plans of theirs because the part where
3 that dam is is populated by Muslims, the local population is Muslims. So
4 in fact if that dam were to be blown up then it would affect the
5 Serb-populated areas near Drina
6 Q. And jeopardise Macva-Semberija and who knows what else?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And did you know about the plan to blow up the hydro-electric
9 power plant of Zvornik and to destroy all the bridges on the Drina River
10 A. Well, we did hear that that was one of the options.
11 Q. Did the JNA -- could the JNA allow that kind of thing to happen,
12 to blow up the dam and to destroy the bridges on the Drina?
13 A. Towards the end of 1991 and the beginning of 1992 while I worked
14 for the police they placed security there.
15 Q. Even tanks? In order to secure the bridges and the
16 hydro-electric power plant and the dam?
17 A. I went with my chief who was an ethnic Muslim. We went to talk
18 to the local population there about that. They were rather upset and
19 they were saying that it was dangerous and that they would go to the
20 mountains because these facilities could be jeopardised.
21 Q. Furthermore, on page 111 it says: Just before the Chetnik
22 aggression, we had intended to take up key points in Zvornik. Of course
23 we could not do that without the support and consent of the top people in
24 the municipality.
25 Did you know that that is what their plan was?
1 A. Five or six days before that they took the police station.
2 Q. Do you know that before taking all of Zvornik the Muslims
3 mobilised all of their criminals and distributed weapons to them?
4 A. They took the police station four or five days before the
5 outbreak of the conflict. We went to Karakaj. Some people still went to
6 Zvornik and then we saw that peoples -- that people who had been
7 convicted of the most serious crimes, like murder, looting, et cetera,
8 had cropped up in police uniforms in Zvornik and on the border with
10 Q. Did they intimidate the Serb population?
11 A. Yes, that was an additional measure that led to people leaving
13 Q. Did they start checking the IDs of Serbs in the street for no
14 reason whatsoever?
15 A. They behaved like authorised officials who could do that.
16 Q. Did they enter Serb apartments on the pretext of checking who's
17 in the apartment and what is in the apartments?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did that cause the massive flight of Serbs from Zvornik before
20 the fighting started?
21 A. When the fighting started, most Serbs had already left.
22 Q. All the Serbs had to leave because of these threats; am I right?
23 A. Yes, and the situation was fraught with tension. Zvornik had a
24 predominantly Muslim population. The Serbs realised that they were
1 Q. When the Prosecutors and in -- and others were questioning you,
2 they tried to talk to you only about others fleeing from Zvornik but not
4 A. Well, I did notice that and I tried to explain the background.
5 However, they would take -- and everybody takes whatever they find
6 interesting from various questions and answers. You do one thing and
7 they take another thing.
8 Q. All right. On page 180 we have a text that says: The Patriotic
9 League, that is to say the Muslim secret organisation, in this winter of
10 1991 operating in full secrecy constituted a movement that was supposed
11 to promote the interests of the Bosniaks and to do this on behalf of the
12 SDA to the people on the ground. According to our sources, the SDA had
13 automatic weapons that they bought for 400 Deutschemarks and they sold
14 them to the population at the price of 800 to 1.000 Deutschemark.
15 Allegedly, the idea was for the difference in the price of these rifles
16 be used for buying more weapons so that as many Bosniaks as possible
17 would be armed.
18 Were you aware of these black market price lists in the Bosniak
19 weapons market?
20 A. Well, unofficially there was talk about that.
21 Q. Did you know that they bought it at one price and then sold it to
22 their own people at double or three-fold?
23 A. [No interpretation]
24 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the answer.
25 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Doesn't this show that they robbed their own people?
2 A. Well, I imagine that this man who wrote the book knows it best
3 because he did write the book.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I would like to ask Mr. Seselj
5 and the witness to slow down because the interpreters have problems to
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
8 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Did you hear of the directive to defend the sovereignty of
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina, that on the 25th of February, 1992, was passed by the
11 Main Board of the Patriotic League. The directive actually elaborates
12 the defence plan of all regions, including the regions of Gorazde and
14 you heard of that?
15 A. They did that illegally, but since our offices were practically
16 next door, we did have information to the effect that the Patriotic
17 League did adopt a defence plan.
18 Q. The book says according to this directive Podrinje was supposed
19 to be defended by taking all JNA barracks in the area, closing off all
20 the routes towards the Drina
21 enemy forces from Serbia
22 destruction of bridges -- and it says that all tunnels and other
23 facilities should be destroyed. Did you hear that plan?
24 A. I'm not aware of all details, but I did hear of the plan in
25 general. It was the -- it's the experience of Croatia and Slovenia
2 Q. Why would Hamzic, as an eminent Muslim intellectual lie when he
3 investigated the material for this book and he was abreast of all of
5 In this way the Tuzla
6 bridges on the Drina
7 supposed to prepare them for destruction and destroy them once they were
8 told to do so. After barracks would be taken and after roads to Drina
9 would be blocked, what would follow would be combat operations in order
10 to crush the enemy. The Tuzla
11 task to destroy the enemy and repel them to the other side of the Drina
12 And who is the enemy, the local Serb people; right?
13 A. Yes, and all of those who did not accept Bosnia as sovereign.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We do not have the text of
15 this book at all.
16 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Then the defence of Bijeljina, Bratunac, and other places were
18 planned and particular points were planned for these operations. Have
19 you heard of that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In that situation it was quite logical that Serbs were informed
22 about what the Muslims were preparing from July 1991 onwards, were
23 preparing counter measures. Am I not right?
24 A. Yes, I did say that in my statement.
25 Q. Every Serb action in terms of arming, was it not just a reaction
1 to what the Muslims had already done?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. All right. When the Serbs were literally thrown out of Zvornik
4 and what expelled them was the arming of the Zvornik underground; right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. When they saw the most terrible criminals wearing police uniforms
7 and armed with weapons, they realised that they could not survive there.
8 Am I not right?
9 A. Yes, you're right.
10 Q. Then the Serbs prepared a counter attack. Do you agree that the
11 JNA had to prevent the destruction of bridges on the Drina River
12 destruction of the Zvornik hydro-electric power plant, and the
13 destruction of the Crveni Mulj dam in the immediate surroundings of
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In Zvornik before the war there was no JNA barracks; right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. However, towards the end, or rather, in the beginning of 1992,
19 from Jastrebarsko near Zagreb
20 of the JNA came headed by Colonel Radovan Kacic, do you know that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. This brigade was located in the territory of Zvornik
23 surrounding municipalities; right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. One battalion of that brigade was located in Zvornik itself under
1 the command of then-Captain Dragan Obrenovic; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. When this armoured brigade arrived, the plans of the Muslims were
4 seriously disrupted. Their organisation was disrupted. Am I right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. However, what was the problem with this brigade, it had very
7 little infantry; right?
8 A. Yes, it was not fully manned.
9 Q. They had tank crews and tanks and some artillery; right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. However, it did not have infantry, and then this brigade tried to
12 carry out mobilisation; right?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. The Muslims did not respond to mobilisation?
15 A. Yes, they boycotted it.
16 Q. Right. It was only Serbs who responded to mobilisation?
17 A. Yes, for the most part, 99 per cent.
18 Q. And this brigade now was forced to seek reinforcements from
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. This brigade received, inter alia, 100 volunteers from the Serb
22 Radical Party in Belgrade
23 insisting upon. You could not know that because all of these volunteers
24 came from Belgrade
25 A. Believe me, I do not have this information. I still wore the
1 police uniform, and we were practically a republican organ.
2 Q. However, on the basis of external appearance, you could not
3 distinguish between JNA soldiers and volunteers of the Serb Radical
5 A. That's right. I was there several times and they all wore the
6 same uniform, the uniform of the JNA.
7 Q. I assume that that is why you are not sure when you are assessing
8 and deciding how many volunteers of the Serb Radical Party there were
9 there; is that right?
10 A. That's right, I really don't know about that.
11 Q. Right. Now, I have a statement here from Colonel Radovan Kacic,
12 and I have already shown these statements of his here and I have his
13 latest statement, and could it please be placed on the ELMO --
14 MR. MARCUSSEN: I object to the use of the statement. It has
15 only been provided to us this afternoon. If the accused wants to put
16 statements, he can do that, but he cannot use the statement in my
17 respectful submission.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have the right to use that
19 statement, to put questions.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I got it only this afternoon as
23 well. It was verified before the appropriate court in Belgrade
24 morning. As soon as I received it, I gave it to the Registrar so that it
25 could be copied and submitted to the Judges and the Prosecutor and one
1 copy for the witness on the ELMO.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is true that a document has
3 to be translated, but you know just as well as I do that it sometimes
4 happens during a trial, not specifically this one, also other trials, the
5 Prosecutor has documents that have not yet been translated and which are
6 presented and sometimes it may happen to the Defence too. So this
7 document cannot be admitted if it's not translated, but it may be used on
8 the ELMO.
9 Please, usher, put the document on the ELMO.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President --
11 MR. MARCUSSEN: My objection is not based of the --
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- I'm not tendering it.
13 MR. MARCUSSEN: My objection is not based on the fact that it is
14 not translated. My objection is based on the fact that we again received
15 a document that the accused provided the day of the cross-examination
16 which is not what Your Honours have directed, and of course we're now
17 being told, oh, I only got it signed today or yesterday or whatever it
18 is, but we are seeing this pattern all the time, and I submit that he
19 hasn't complied with the Rules and it shouldn't be used.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It was signed today and sent today.
21 Today is the 13th. You can see the Court stamp with this date of today.
22 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj --
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, I see 13
24 January, 1500.
25 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I would like also to note that
1 it's always like that, things happen. The accused presents documents
2 which have been sent on the same day, on the day of the hearing, and
3 therefore I repeat today and here the same -- I have the same
4 reservations which I mentioned several times, many times, about these
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, this captain whom I
7 don't know, you had all the time to gather his statement --
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] -- in the case -- a colonel,
10 okay, this colonel. Why do you do this at the last minute when you had
11 weeks during which you would have had all the time to have it gathered in
12 order to avoid all problems? You know the position of Ms. Lattanzi, you
13 know the position of the Prosecutor, and each time we have the same
14 problem. Now, you say you're not going to ask for the admission of the
15 document. All right. So the document is on the ELMO. What is the
16 question you wish to ask?
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's a very short document, a
18 one-page document, and on the next page is the Court stamp verifying it.
19 I'm asking the witness to confirm or deny some of the things stated in
20 this document. You kept allowing the witness -- the Prosecutor to put to
21 the witness parts of statements that were written up for him, and now
22 you're not letting me use --
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- auxiliary tool that I need to
1 use here. The colonel is going to come here as a witness if the time
2 comes for that. So I'm not even tendering the document. I'm just using
3 it as an auxiliary tool in order to in order to help --
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, counsel.
5 MR. TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Several
6 times now Mr. Seselj has been repeating in relation to the statement that
7 the Prosecutor wrote it himself --
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The lawyer of the witness cannot
9 make any comments upon my statements -- Judges what does this have to do
10 with him? Don't allow this here. I'm not going to engage in dialogue
11 with the lawyer.
12 MR. TOMIC: [Interpretation] This is not a dialogue. He is
13 offending both me and the witness.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He is here to defend the witness
15 from my questions. He is here to prevent self-incrimination.
16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] The accused on this --
17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Judge Lattanzi.
18 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] -- right, Mr. Tomic, you are
19 here as a counsel for -- I have a problem with my microphone. I can
20 speak -- you are here, Mr. Tomic, and this has been very clearly told to
21 you, you have been told very clearly the reason why you are here. And
22 you intervene very frequently on procedural matters, on contents, on
23 the -- you're supposed to be here only to be attentive on the fact that
24 the witness must not say anything which may incriminate him. That is the
25 reason why you're here.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And this has to do with your
2 professional honour. We heard while you were not in the room as
3 considering -- as for Your Honour and the Prosecutor confirms this. He
4 had prepared this statement, the stated statement with other statements
5 and that the consolidated statement was given to your client and to
6 yourself and that the Prosecution gave you time to read it, peruse it,
7 and so on. And after that your client signed it. This is all. There
8 is -- there is no reason to make a fuss about it. The Prosecutor
9 explained how things happened, and we understood that when there is --
10 and since this is made by the Prosecution, he does it first and then he
11 asks if you have observations on it.
12 Do you agree with what the Prosecution has said?
13 MR. TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Yes, exactly, but the
14 witness was saying the truth, and he signed the truth, and I confirmed
15 that in his presence. If now the accused says that it is untrue, then I
16 have betrayed my witness --
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have the right to say that it is
18 untrue and you have no right to protest --
19 MR. TOMIC: [Interpretation] I have the right to react.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, you don't have the right.
21 You -- and don't speak about the truth because you're not interested in
22 the truth. You have no relation with the truth. You are a stranger to
23 the truth. Who are you to worry about the truth?
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, Mr. Seselj, you
25 should not behave this way. Counsel is defending his own professional
1 honour, and he's saying two things. First of all, he confirms what
2 Mr. Marcussen has said and the counsel says my client is telling the
3 truth. That is the truth -- the truth the client has told him and he
4 thinks it is so. Now, you may be of a different opinion. This is not
5 the reason why you should contest the -- what he is saying, the counsel.
6 If he says he saw in Zvornik three cars, the counsel thinks he saw three
7 cars. Maybe he was wrong, maybe there were ten cars. All right. So,
8 Mr. Tomic, please sit down. Please sit down.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what do I care what
10 this attorney thinks and what do you care? It's for him to protect the
11 witness from incriminating himself by giving an answer and that's all.
12 Don't let him do that. I'm not interested in his opinion at all.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right. There is a small
14 legal problem and you are an expert in legal matters and you know better
15 than anybody that when the witness has been heard by the Prosecution
16 counsel was present. You know that. Therefore, everything which has
17 been said by the witness to the Prosecutor was done in the presence of
18 the counsel who was protecting the interests of the witness. Now you've
19 just said: Yes, but the witness didn't say the truth and so on. So
20 therefore, and justly so, the counsel is asking: What is my role in
21 that? So he intervenes. Now you may think the witness made a mistake or
22 said something which was false. You ask him without involving the
23 counsel who did his job.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He must not react, Your Honour. He
25 is not the witness's witness. He must not react to that. I will repeat
1 a hundred times that the witness isn't saying the truth, and it's for him
2 to remain silent or you should throw him out of the courtroom. That's
3 the only correct solution. He cannot interrupt me when I say -- when I
4 put to the witness that he's not saying the truth or when I'm saying
5 you're lying or you're inventing things, and then he's jumping up. He
6 has no right to do so.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: May I suggest that you leave it to the Judges to
8 rule what is going on in this courtroom. I think we should stop this
9 discussion, and I would invite you to move on in your cross-examination.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, Judge Lattanzi told
11 counsel that he should intervene only in a certain domain. So everybody
12 agrees, everybody's understood. But at a certain moment counsel took the
13 floor because he considered that his professional honour was being
14 questioned. It's as if you were insulting the witness because he doesn't
15 agree. So please continue.
16 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
17 Q. I think that Mr. VS-037, you have before you the statement of
18 Colonel Tacic, and I would like to draw your attention to the second
19 paragraph where Colonel Tacic says:
20 Since I commanded the brigade, a brigade which was an armoured
21 brigade and mechanised and didn't have infantry of its own and in Zvornik
22 there weren't enough members of the TO, my brigade needed additional
23 personnel. I asked that we -- we receive reinforcements and, among other
24 things, one unit of volunteers of the Serb Radical Party came. They came
25 from Budanj Potok. You know where that is. They were dressed in JNA
2 I bet you had no idea that a hundred or so volunteers of the Serb
3 Radical Party arrived from Belgrade
4 Bubanj Potok, and they were uniformed and that they had weapons. You
5 didn't know that, did you?
6 A. I didn't have that information about who they were or what they
7 were, but I know that Colonel Tacic came to us and asked for additional
8 personnel, but I didn't know that it went through the Serb Radical Party.
9 Q. You had only heard rumours about some Seselj's men being
10 thereabouts, but on the ground you weren't able to identify them?
11 A. They were all dressed the same way. I couldn't tell them apart.
12 Q. Is there any reason for Colonel Tacic --
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, Witness, I had
14 wondered about that myself and I put the question to you regarding these
15 volunteers. I asked you how they arrived. And you told me that they
16 were in plain clothes. I even asked you whether they were wearing blue
17 jeans or jackets and you said yes. And suddenly this colonel, who I
18 don't know, is testifying and saying that the volunteers of the Serbian
19 Radical Party arrived in JNA uniform, military battle dress. So there is
20 a difference here. How can you reconcile this?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Why are we in closed session, if I
22 may ask?
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're in open session.
24 Answer my question.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we are speaking about
1 different time-periods. In this statement what's being said is that in
2 early 1992, that is, in February, when there were no conflicts. And I
3 was speaking about volunteers who were arriving in little groups and
4 organised in plain clothes from the 8th or 9th of April, 1992, on. And
5 this is about people dressed in JNA uniforms from Bubanj Potok, they had
6 been trained, prepared, and they completed their training and came to man
7 a unit. And Tacic said to me I have a group of volunteers here, but I
8 don't know who brought them.
9 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Is it correct that those who came to Crisis Staff came there on
11 their own, of their own initiative, sometimes individually in groups of
12 three or four?
13 A. Yes, they all came on their own in that period and there were no
14 larger groups than what I said.
15 Q. But somebody could have said to you: I'm a member of the SRS or
16 I fought elsewhere as a member of the SRS. Is that possible?
17 A. Yes, that's possible, but we didn't care. We only -- we needed
18 volunteers to help us.
19 Q. You know that Mali Zvornik is just across the bridge; right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And that the SRS
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. We won the elections there in May 1992, you remember?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So did the Radicals hold local government?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. So was there anything more natural for a group of Serb Radicals
3 come from Mali Zvornik to Zvornik and put themselves at your disposal?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You know that Janko Lakic was a Radical?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. He was president of the municipal board in Mali Zvornik?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did he come from Mali Zvornik on his own?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And a number of other Radicals with him?
12 A. Yes, I recognised him and another on that list.
13 Q. Have you heard of Nenad Jovic?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Do you know that he also came then. I believe that he worked for
16 the police in Mali Zvornik. Where did he work or in the TO?
17 A. Yes, Nenad Jovic even during my time in the police was with us.
18 Q. Do you know that some of these SRS members from Mali Zvornik
19 after the 8th of April took up employment in Veliki Zvornik?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. With the police, the TO, with the municipal services?
22 A. Yes and that was normal for Zvornik. And there were reverse
23 cases, people who lived in Zvornik and worked for the police in
24 Mali Zvornik, Rendic, for example.
25 Q. Used Zvornik to be one town before Yugoslavia became a
2 A. Yes, and it lived as one town.
3 Q. So it was only divided by a bridge over the Drina. So there are
4 a number of SRS
5 thing is the arrival of volunteers from Belgrade, whom I sent as
6 president of the SRS
7 members of ours who, for patriotic reasons, crossed the Drina from
8 Mali Zvornik to help us. Do you see that distinction clearly?
9 A. Absolutely.
10 Q. Were there members of the SRS
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you know that some of them came under the command of
13 Vojislav Jekic to Zvornik?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Is there a problem about that?
16 A. We received all volunteers gladly because they had come to help
18 Q. Have you ever heard me on Radio Loznica a few years later saying
19 that some of our volunteers commanded by Vojislav Jekic had gone to
21 A. Yes, I heard that interview of yours on Radio Loznica.
22 Q. That very interview -- well, and what's the problem with that?
23 And now let's see the third paragraph of the -- Colonel Tacic's
24 paragraph. The members of the SRS
25 positive influence on the rest of the men. The volunteers who declared
1 that they were members of the SRS
2 looted or engaged in any criminal activity. They were courageous and
3 they were excellent fighters in the defence.
4 Do you agree with that?
5 A. Well, I don't know if that's all correct, but I know that the --
6 all the volunteers that came to us most -- or, rather, most of them were
7 very good and fair. Unfortunately, volunteers are often mentioned in a
8 negative context. Yes, there were -- there may have been criminal or
9 other in their ranks, but most of them were good fighters.
10 Q. But in the first stage of the fighting there were also the
11 White Eagles, Arkan's men, and others?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Have you heard of a volunteer of the SRS being undisciplined and
14 can you state his name?
15 A. No, I've never heard anything of the kind.
16 Q. Can you say that any of them was a thief or a looter and can you
17 identify him, mention his name, and do you know that for a fact that he
18 behaved in that manner?
19 A. No, not while I was in the Crisis Staff, I never heard of that.
20 Q. Can you say of any volunteer of the SRS that he killed civilians
21 or prisoners of war, but only if you know his name and know for a fact
22 that he did that?
23 A. No, I don't know of such cases.
24 Q. Here in this indictment raised against me for political reasons,
25 it is alleged that I am responsible for a series of crimes. But all
1 these crimes were committed from the month of May onwards, and let us now
2 see what Colonel Tacic says about that. First in paragraph 4 he mentions
3 that the Territorial Defence was mobilised and the Mali Zvornik and
4 Loznica municipalities and that there was some volunteers as well as the
5 police reserve units. Do you know that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So there is no doubt about that. Partial mobilisation of the
8 Territorial Defence and the wartime units of the police. Let us see what
9 Colonel Tacic says about Arkan.
10 On the territory of Zvornik
11 Arkan, turned up with some unit of his and without any announcement and
12 without having been invited by the JNA. Actually, he interfered in that
13 armed conflict and only caused problems to the JNA officers. He
14 mistreated some of them and all JNA members could hardly wait to get rid
15 of him. I addressed the General Staff in Belgrade and demanded that
16 Arkan and his men be removed from Zvornik ASAP. I don't remember exactly
17 how many they were, but they were -- but they were 20 to 30 strong.
18 Is that correct?
19 A. I said yesterday that I -- my assessment was that they were 20 or
20 30. Arkan, while he was in Zvornik, he was slapping all members of the
21 Crisis Staff on the face, all the officers were standing in attention
22 when he was present.
23 Q. But not Colonel Tacic?
24 A. Colonel Tacic wasn't there.
25 Q. Where was his command post?
1 A. I believe it was somewhere around Sekovici.
2 Q. That is west of Zvornik?
3 A. Yes, towards Tuzla
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Should I continue, Your Honours?
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute, Mr. Seselj, I'm
6 looking at the clock. Theoretically we're going to have a break because
7 of the tape. We'll make a very short break, ten minutes only, and we
8 will resume -- continue until 7.15, 7.15 p.m., to make sure that you have
9 enough time. But we can't go any further beyond that. There were too
10 many incidents, you raised too many objections and made too many
11 interventions, so we will break for ten minutes only and we will then
12 resume and continue until 7.15.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then I will not be able to make
14 full use of my time.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You raised a great number of
16 objections and that was a waste of time. We all have to live up to our
17 action. Ten-minute break.
18 --- Recess taken at 5.45 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 6.07 p.m.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Court is back in session. The
21 break was a bit longer than expected because interpreters could not
22 recover in just ten minutes. Interpreting these debates is very tiring
23 because the accused speaks extremely fast, so we extended the break. But
24 because of this we will finish at 7.30 p.m.
25 Mr. Seselj, you have until 7.30. You have the floor.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
3 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
4 Q. When you see what Colonel Tacic says about Zeljko Raznatovic,
5 Arkan, then your statement seems a bit surprising, namely, that Arkan
6 commanded the Serb forces in this armed conflict in Zvornik. That's the
7 first thing that surprises me. It was Colonel Tacic who commanded the
8 Serb forces as the commander of the armoured brigade and it was his
9 officers who were engaged in combat operations in the field. Do you
10 think that Arkan was capable of commanding such a large unit at all? Do
11 you think that Arkan has some military knowledge?
12 A. Well, I said on the basis of my impression that he had some 20,
13 30 men there; secondly, if we were to go into detail, Arkan was in
14 Zvornik twice, once for one hour and the second time two hours and never
15 again --
16 Q. He slapped people around?
17 A. The Crisis Staff, I know about the Crisis Staff.
18 Q. He slapped them all?
19 A. Well, most of us from the Crisis Staff were slapped.
20 Q. Did he hit you too?
21 A. He didn't hit me.
22 Q. He didn't dare to you because you're corpulent?
23 A. I wasn't at the time but he skipped me.
24 Q. Why did people let Arkan slap them around?
25 A. Well, that's the kind of relationship he had. Then he would slap
1 those that were below him and then others would slap them around, but
2 anyway I saw what the general attitude was. Even Dragan Obrenovic stood
3 at attention when Arkan walked in.
4 Q. So all of you stood at attention, just one military officer and
5 all of you members of the Crisis Staff --
6 A. Perhaps it was just inertia.
7 Q. So Obrenovic would get up out of inertia?
8 A. Well, all of us from the Crisis Staff would get up.
9 Q. Do you know that I was engaged in a public clash with Arkan for
11 A. Yes, I watched the telecasts from Assembly of Serbia.
12 Q. Did you watch a TV show on TV Politika, there was this TV show
13 when I said to him --
14 A. That he put stockings more on --
15 Q. That he put socks more on his head than I put socks on my feet?
16 A. I remember that.
17 Q. And he didn't dare get up and slap me. So he knew who he could
18 slap and who he could not slap?
19 A. Probably, well, he also had some clashes in Zvornik, and when he
20 freed a Muslim from prison and when he ordered that they urgently bring
21 him -- however, the guy walked in with a sub-machine-gun, with an escort
22 of about ten men, and I saw him that he was as small as a mouse.
23 Q. Arkan, when he realised that there was danger lurking, just as he
24 stood off in this TV show because I would have beaten him up if he tried
25 to slap me up in that TV studio. Do you believe me -- that?
1 A. You have that experience.
2 Q. Or if he drew a weapon, I draw my weapon, and then whoever would
3 get killed. Do you believe that I would never attack anyone with
4 criminal intent, physically or with weapons or in any other way?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did you hear of any case when I did anything out of criminal
8 A. No.
9 Q. All right. That's why I'm surprised. Now, the fact that Arkan
10 had to withdraw from Zvornik after two days, are you aware of the fact
11 that it was because of Colonel Tacic's intervention in the General Staff?
12 A. I don't know exactly whose intervention it was, but I know that
13 he left on orders and within 15 minutes they had to leave.
14 Q. They had to leave, otherwise he was threatened with arrest?
15 A. At the time we thought it was betrayal or something; however,
16 they left within 15 minutes.
17 Q. All right. Towards the end Colonel Tacic says that after the
18 liberation of Zvornik, Kula Grad remained as a stronghold. And then the
19 special unit from Pancevo headed by Lieutenant-Colonel Stupar intervened.
20 You heard of that unit?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You mention it?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you remember that this unit had Red Berets on their heads?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. I think that in your statements to the OTP you confuse this unit
2 of the JNA from Pancevo that had red berets on their heads with this unit
3 of the state security that was later established and that was called the
4 Red Berets. Did you get confused in that way?
5 A. Possibly. Zvornik did not have any army stationed there, so it
6 was unusual for us to he see red berets. It was the first time in our
7 lives that we saw red berets.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen.
9 MR. MARCUSSEN: I ought to know this, but I'm not aware that
10 there's a reference in the statement to the Red Berets by this witness,
11 is there?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What do I care where it is in the
14 MR. MARCUSSEN: Well, you put the question to the witness saying
15 he was confused about his statement. He isn't because there's no
16 reference to the Red Berets.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, you confused him to
18 a maximum yesterday as you showed him those video-clips from Kula, and
19 they could have nothing to do with Zvornik. However, I'm going to get to
20 that as well.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
23 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Colonel Tacic says, you know, Kula Grad was a highly fortified
1 A. A rock above Zvornik.
2 Q. Tanks couldn't do anything; right?
3 A. Right.
4 Q. Artillery nothing. One tank of the JNA was destroyed on the
5 approaches to Kula Grad?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. These fortifications are from the Turkish times or even
8 pre-Turkish times?
9 A. Yes, fourteenth century.
10 Q. It's a cliff with these stone walls and until this special from
11 Pancevo came, Kula Grad could not fall; is that right?
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. When Colonel Stupar came, his unit in co-operation with the other
14 units managed to take Kula Grad; is that right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Right. After the liberation of Kula Grad - this is what he
17 wrote, Tacic, that is - the Yugoslav People's Army withdrew from Zvornik
18 and also all the volunteers of the Serb Radical Party. I cannot say
19 whether any individuals stayed. I cannot claim, but the unit of the
20 volunteers of the Serb Radical Party that consisted of brave and
21 disciplined men withdrew together with the Yugoslav People's Army on the
22 26th of April, 1992.
23 Are you aware of that, that that's when they withdrew?
24 A. Yes, we had meetings and we thought that we had been he betrayed
25 and we thought it was a case of betrayal, and in fact --
1 Q. It was on the 8th of May that --
2 A. Yes, a few days later the Army of Republika Srpska was
3 established, and we were told then politically that instead of the JNA
4 there would be the Army of Republika Srpska that would take over.
5 Q. However, Tacic's brigade did leave some weapons to your
6 Territorial Defence?
7 A. Yes, they took some. I know that there was some problems there.
8 I know that the president of the municipality and others went there,
9 asking them not to take weapons.
10 Q. They took modern tanks and they left the old T-45s?
11 A. Yes, they took the modern ones, T-84.
12 Q. However, the old ones were very useful to you, weren't they?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Because they had guns of extraordinary quality?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Am I right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So you did not remain bare-handed?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You know that the ultimatum of the western powers was for the JNA
21 to withdraw from Bosnia-Herzegovina by the 19th of May?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. That's what the JNA did. After the 26th of April, do you know at
24 all of any situation in the territory of the municipality of Zvornik
25 Seselj's men or volunteers of the Serb Radical Party are mentioned?
1 A. No, they're not being mentioned.
2 Q. Even the White Eagles are not mentioned after that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. There were a few false witnesses here who claimed that Seselj's
5 men stayed on in May and June as well. Is it correct that from May
6 onwards, that is to say from the 26th of April, in Zvornik there were
7 only three paramilitary formations, Zuco's, that of Pivarski, and that of
9 A. I must say that in that period of time I was no longer on the
10 staff, but since Zvornik is a small town I knew that these -- I heard
11 that these three formations stayed there.
12 Q. You lived there?
13 A. Yes, they were sort of in the TO, but they were sort of allowed
14 to have these units that kept these names of Niski, Pivarski, and of
16 Q. Even Gogic's unit did not stay. It joined the police; right?
17 A. Yes, Gogic and the team who came from Loznica, very soon they
18 became the police and they had IDs.
19 Q. They got jobs in the police?
20 A. Some remained even further on.
21 Q. Others got married and even stayed in Zvornik?
22 A. That's true.
23 Q. From Gogic's group?
24 A. Yes, that's right.
25 Q. Do you know that Zuco within the Territorial Defence only after
1 the -- was in the Territorial Defence, only after the 26th of April,
2 after the fall of Kula Grad and that he established the establishment of
3 Igor Markovic?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Do you know who Igor Markovic was?
6 A. A volunteer of theirs who got killed during the war.
7 Q. He got killed at Kula Grad?
8 A. Yes, at Kula Grad, so they took his name.
9 Q. So there could not have been a unit under that name before the
10 26th of April?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. It was only when Igor Markovic got killed and then to honour him
13 they named the unit after him?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did it change its name later into the Yellow Wasps?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. The unit of Stojan Pivarski was very small in terms of numbers?
18 A. As far as I know only 10 or 12 men.
19 Q. Not more than that? And do you know that Milorad Gogic and Niski
20 were Arkan's men?
21 A. I knew that they were in the Serb Volunteer Guard.
22 Q. Milorad Gogic signed a statement for me that was shown here in
23 the courtroom when another witness was being examined. He said that he
24 was in the Serb volunteer Guards Brigade, that he was one of Arkan's men,
25 and the Prosecutor disclosed to me Niski's statement with his full name
1 and surname stating that he was Arkan's man, he said that himself. You
2 said that Arkan had the habit of leaving behind some of his men who would
3 then rally people together on the ground and that is how they would
4 establish units consisting of his members?
5 A. That's how Mauzer's unit came into existence.
6 Q. In?
7 A. In Bijeljina.
8 Q. And he came to Zvornik with Arkan, didn't he?
9 A. Yes, while I was on the Crisis Staff he was there about 20 times
10 with Arkan and with part of his team.
11 Q. Do you know that this Mauzer afterwards was the vice-president of
12 Zoran Djindjic's party and the president of Djindjic's party for
13 Republika Srpska?
14 A. It's a generally known thing.
15 Q. That's how he ran in the election?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And he was deputy minister of the interior for a while?
18 A. Either deputy minister or assistant minister, but in Dodik's
19 first government he was that.
20 Q. Afterwards, he was killed in a mafia show-down?
21 A. I know that he got killed, but I don't know the circumstances.
22 Q. Do you know that in the first parliamentary elections in 1996 in
23 Republika Srpska Arkan's party also ran?
24 A. I know that.
25 Q. Do you know that the OSCE, the Organisation for Security and
1 Co-Operation in Europe
2 paid the election campaign costs equally to all political parties?
3 A. Yes, that's in accordance with the rules.
4 Q. Do you know that the OSCE mission gave Arkan's party that amount
5 of money of 300 or 400.000 Deutschemark?
6 A. Yes, those were the first elections after the war.
7 Q. In 1996?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And do you know that the officials of Arkan's party took that
10 money to Arkan immediately in plastic bags in Belgrade?
11 A. I don't know about that.
12 Q. All right. But I know about that and the OSCE financed Arkan's
13 party and that is a generally known fact. All right.
14 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Slow down, both of you, please
15 slow down.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I have very little time left
17 and I have so many questions. I told you that this is an invaluable
18 witness for me. He is from Zvornik. He knows a lot and I want to deal
19 with all of these details with him. That's why I'm hurrying.
20 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Now, in this indictment - and I claim that it is a false
22 indictment, that's the one that was issued against me - various crimes
23 are being ascribed to me. They say that during the fighting for Zvornik
24 in Zvornik 200 Muslims were killed. Could that be true?
25 A. Well, that is not correct. I think that the service who worked
1 there on the clearing up the terrain, that they're assessment was that it
2 was 10 or 12 men.
3 Q. Muslims?
4 A. Well, that's the information that we received on the Crisis Staff
5 and that they were buried, those who were identified. As for the others,
6 well they were buried as NN persons, persons unknown, and buried at the
7 Zvornik cemetery.
8 Q. What about the Serb casualties?
9 A. During the first days of the fighting, two I think.
10 Q. Or four perhaps?
11 A. I'm not sure, really.
12 Q. All right. Do you know that on that first day of the conflict a
13 group of Arkan's men headed by Arkan himself in the settlement of Hrid
14 took out of cellars 20 Muslim civilians, men, and they were executed on
15 the spot before their very own wives and children?
16 A. A day before the attack there was this fuse from a hand-grenade
17 that injured me, so I did not take part directly in the fighting for
18 Zvornik, but I didn't hear of that story.
19 Q. However, if I tell you that a Muslim woman was here, she was a
20 protected witness so I cannot give you her name, and that she was an
21 eye-witness to the effect that Arkan's men executed, shot dead 20 Muslim
22 men and they killed her husband and two sons according to her testimony?
23 A. I don't have any direct knowledge about that, but I imagine it's
24 true if she said so.
25 Q. I would like to hear your opinion on how convincing you find her
1 statement. What she said here -- I'm not going to quote her verbatim but
2 I'm going to present the gist of what she said --
3 MR. MARCUSSEN: It is not for the accused to ask this witness to
4 pass judgement on the credibility or reliability of the evidence of
5 another witness. That is clearly interfering with the job of
6 Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Absolutely, but the accused is
8 allowed through this witness to make a number of checks relating to a
9 previous statement made by another witness without challenging anyone.
11 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] But the last question of the
12 accused is quite strange, actually.
13 MR. MARCUSSEN: I think maybe part of the -- part of the --
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Those are the kind of questions I
15 like best.
16 MR. MARCUSSEN: Oh, yes.
17 I -- there might have been something missing in the transcript,
18 I'm not sure, but what I heard was he was going to ask the witness about
19 the correctness of some of the facts set out and that is commenting on
20 the evidence of the witness. If he has specific questions about the
21 events, although the witness has said he has no specific knowledge of it,
22 he can ask those questions. I don't know how the witness can answer when
23 he has twice confirmed that he doesn't know. The accused should move on
24 to another area.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But he can have knowledge about the
1 bad relations between the so-called Seselj's men and Arkan's men, and I'm
2 going to ask him about it.
3 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Do you know that among -- between the volunteers of the SRS on
5 the one hand and Arkan's men and the other's men there was a sort of
6 enmity that we never wanted to go into action together?
7 A. Yes, I know that, that they couldn't get along with each other.
8 Q. Did the volunteers of the SRS
9 A. Never.
10 Q. Well, you see, and this witness was speaking along these lines.
11 He -- she spoke about this execution incident. She was sore and she
12 showed hostility towards me and all Serbs, et cetera. But she said
13 something very interesting, too. When the Arkan's men executed these
14 men, the women and children were in an extremely difficult situation of
15 uncertainty, et cetera. They -- she says that Seselj's men had taken
16 care of them, put them up in the municipality building, and comforted
17 them, saying: Don't be afraid, we're not like Arkan's men, we're
18 Seselj's men, we're different. Don't be afraid, you're not in danger.
19 Something along those lines. That's what she said. Is that convincing
20 to you?
21 A. Well, I believe that is so if the woman said as much that it's
22 possible the way -- it was that way.
23 Q. She mentioned one more detail. She said that one of the -- of
24 Seselj's men approached a shop, broke the shop window with a stone, took
25 some sweets out, and distributed them to Muslim children --
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If Judge Lattanzi dislikes this
2 question, I'll withdraw it. Let's move on, so as not to include
3 Mr. Marcussen.
4 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] The problem is that the witness
5 said that he had been injured and he wasn't there. So we're wasting
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. If I'm wasting time,
8 let's not go into how much time Mr. Marcussen has wasted.
9 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
10 Q. And this indictment, which I insist is false, murder -- the
11 murder of 750 Muslims in the secondary school at Karakaj is mentioned.
12 Have you heard of that murder?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Were there really 750?
15 A. I'm not sure how many they were, but they were very many.
16 Q. How -- when did that happen?
17 A. In late June or early July 1992.
1 A. Yeah, well they split them up. I'm not a lawyer.
2 Q. Yes, they singled out Grujic and Popovic, and they were tried
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. One was from Niski's unit and another from the Yellow Wasps, do
6 you know that?
7 A. Well, sir, another indictment was issued. It's about Zvornik and
8 the incidents at Kozluk and Celopek Donji, and that's the first-instance
9 when some people were convicted. And then another indictment was issued
10 only about this secondary technical school at Karakaj which I mentioned.
11 Q. All right.
12 MR. MARCUSSEN: I'm no longer sure what the position is, but it
13 was my understanding that we had been in closed session earlier when --
14 or in private session when we had been discussing the witness as a --
15 this witness as [overlapping speakers] in Belgrade.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're in public session now.
17 MR. MARCUSSEN: No, sorry, but earlier when these things have
18 come up we have been in private session, so I wonder whether we do not
19 need to redact. If I could just -- if the accused --
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Nothing needs to be revised.
21 You're only taking up my time and you're doing it on purpose. What do
22 you want to achieve ? I believe that the Bench should forbid you such
23 interventions. I have said nothing that could reveal the identity of
24 this witness. I asked him whether he knows that I was involved in a
25 concrete criminal act, if I can --
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
2 continues]... continue, Mr. Seselj.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, the Chamber has
12 been apprised of a judgement made in Belgrade
13 still being translated. As soon as it is translated, the Chamber will
14 peruse it with great attention thanks to the questions asked by the
15 accused and by the answers of the witness we learned two things which I
16 didn't know. First of all, there was a disjoinder for two persons, two
17 individuals. The names have disappeared from the transcript. And one
18 hears thanks to the witness - and I thank the witness - that there has
19 been another indictment concerning only Karakaj, what we didn't know and
20 which the Prosecution hadn't told us about.
21 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, I believe we have provided these
22 records to the Trial Chamber. But the issue is at paragraph -- in page
23 53, line 2, what I think should be redacted is that the witness says that
24 he -- no, sorry, that's not where it is --
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Why don't you let this confused
1 Mr. Marcussen to come --
2 MR. MARCUSSEN: The only issue is that --
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- to recover --
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this redaction of
21 one word in the transcript cost me 15 to 20 minutes in this trial, and
22 the Prosecutor does it deliberately. Because if one word is redacted,
23 those who are preparing the broadcasting, that is, the transmission, they
24 redact 15 to 20 minutes. If I can't a public trial, I don't want to take
25 part at all. More than half the witnesses here have protective measures.
1 I do not trust this --
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj --
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- Tribunal. I'm only interested
4 in this trial if I can take part publicly.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
6 continues]... technical reason when there is one minute that disappears
7 from the transcript, the broadcast in Belgrade -- there are 20 minutes
8 which are squeezed. So be careful when you ask a question. You can say
9 there is a risk of having it redacted. So just think about the problem.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I phrase my questions very
13 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
14 Q. In this indictment I am stated as the person responsible for this
15 crime at Celopek, where prisoners were tortured. Have you heard of that?
16 A. Yes, it was general knowledge. Everybody in Zvornik heard of
18 Q. Did the events there have anything to do with the volunteers of
19 the SRS
20 A. I was involved in that trial, as I said, and some people were
21 convicted of these crimes, but neither you nor your party were mentioned.
22 Q. The indictment goes on to say that on the 30th of May the
23 prisoners from the brickworks were taken over, that those prisoners were
24 used to loot civil property in Zvornik, that is, that they looted for
25 somebody else. Has that anything to do with the volunteers of the SRS or
1 me personally?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Or maybe we should terminate this
13 cross-examination because this doesn't make sense.
14 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Microphone not activated]
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In that case, nobody understood
15 it properly.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Nobody understood, Mr. President.
17 I am asking questions about the counts of the indictment. Whether the
18 witness heard about those crimes and whether those crimes can be
19 connected with me. That -- my questions were about Zvornik. I never
20 even indicated a link with another trial before the witness himself
21 made --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, listen, I believe --
23 maybe I'm wrong but maybe Mr. Marcussen was wrong too, but we got the
24 impression that you were asking questions concerning the Belgrade
25 Now you tell us you didn't so proceed.
1 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
2 Q. I mentioned the demolishing of mosques. When were the Zvornik
3 mosques demolished?
4 A. In May or June.
5 Q. None was demolished during the fighting for Zvornik; right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Was the demolishing of any of Zvornik's mosques something that
8 can be -- something between which a connection can be made with me or
9 my -- the -- my volunteers?
10 A. No.
11 Q. But did the Muslims demolish Orthodox churches in the Zvornik
13 A. Yes, they did.
14 Q. Did you know that the Muslim forces demolished the St. Mary's
15 church at Velim [phoen]?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Do you know that the Muslim forces demolished the Orthodox church
18 of St. Martar [phoen]?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you know that Muslim forces demolished the Orthodox church in
22 A. Lijesce, yes.
23 Q. Do you know that Muslim forces demolished a Serbian Orthodox
24 church of St.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Do you know that Muslim forces demolished the Serbian Orthodox
2 church of the descent of the holy spirit at Lijesce?
3 A. Yes, at Lijesce.
4 Q. So there were two churches at Lijesce. Do you know that Muslim
5 forces demolished the Serbian Orthodox church of St. Ilija
6 A. Well, they damaged it.
7 Q. Yes, but damaged it badly; right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. So the demolishing of religious buildings was something that both
10 sides did, so it was like an eye for an eye?
11 A. Yes, it was along those lines.
12 Q. All right. Let's now tackle another interesting question --
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, Mr. Seselj asked you
14 to confirm that several religious monuments, Orthodox, were destroyed and
15 you confirmed this. But you added "an eye for an eye," which means that
16 the Serbs have also destroyed mosques?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that was certain reciprocity
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And that was all in the territory
20 of the municipality of Zemun
21 other hand some Muslims demolished Orthodox churches.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Judges, it's about who
23 controlled which territories. In Serb-controlled territories not one
24 Muslim religious building remained standing and it was similar on the
25 other side too.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I continue? I'm already
2 panicking for reasons of time. I haven't gone through a third of what I
3 wanted to cover.
4 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
5 Q. I suppose that you heard because you mentioned so in some of your
6 statements that a day or two before armed conflict broke out the Muslim
7 forces stopped a car with Belgrade
8 were four soldiers in JNA uniforms but without insignia?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you know that Milorad Lukovic, Legija, was there?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Later he was Arkan's man and even later a colonel of --
13 A. The Red Berets.
14 Q. Yes, the Red Berets of the police. And the other was the -- was
15 Colonel Vuckovic called Zuco, the commander of the Yellow Wasps?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. There was also his brother nicknamed Repic?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And that the fourth man was Miroslav Bogdanovic from Belgrade
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you know why they came to Zvornik?
22 A. They also came as volunteers, to assist.
23 Q. So you don't know about this? I showed here statements by
24 Milorad Lukovic, Legija, which he gave to my Defence team and also
25 statements of Zuco, and in there they had explained that they had come to
1 Zvornik pursuant to order from Nedjo Boskovic, have you heard of him?
2 A. Yes, from the media.
3 Q. At that time he was?
4 A. General of the intelligence service of the JNA.
5 Q. I think that back then he still had the rank of
6 lieutenant-colonel and in May he became general. He was head of security
7 service of the JNA within the General Staff?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. That they had come with a task with arrest Pusula?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you know of him?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Is he from Rasula [as interpreted]?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The military security service had information that Pusula was
16 smuggling weapons and selling them to Serbs and Muslims. Did you have
17 such information?
18 A. No.
19 Q. They received the task to arrest him and take him to Belgrade
20 take him into custody, and they received that assignment directly from
21 Nedjo Boskovic, and then they were arrested by Muslim policemen and
22 that's how you know about this?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you've heard of Fadil Mujic?
25 A. Well, I worked with Fadil Mujic.
1 Q. He was also one of police executives in Zvornik?
2 A. Yes, he was head of the crime investigations department at the
4 Q. Did you he hear when Muslims arrested these four at the
5 barricades, that they beat them severely?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Miroslav Bogdanovic was beaten to such an extent that he had to
8 be taken to Belgrade
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. I just happen to know him because sometime that year he became a
11 member of the Serbian Radical Party, but he wasn't a member when he
12 arrived in Zvornik. Fadil Mujic believed that these were Arkan's men;
13 correct? You don't know?
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. And do you know that Fadil Mujic stated this, that after the four
16 men were arrested sometime at around 1300 hours he received a phone call
17 from Nedjo Boskovic from Belgrade
18 lieutenant-colonel and later on became general?
19 A. I heard that from Fadil Mujic that evening when he released them
20 he called me and he told me that.
21 Q. Nedjo Boskovic called him twice?
22 A. Yes, Fadil confirmed that to me.
23 Q. He claimed that those people were military policemen?
24 A. Yes, that's precisely what he told me on the phone.
25 Q. Do you know that Fadil Mujic arranged with Vojislav Jekic to
1 release these men, right, and that in return Jekic would help Mujic to
2 leave Yugoslavia
3 A. Yes. They knew each other well. They went to the same
4 university in Skopje
5 Q. They were friends?
6 A. Yes, they were friends, and their houses are nearby so they are
8 Q. So he said to him release these men and we will let you leave
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did Mujic leave the country via Serbia, and did he go abroad?
12 A. I know that he and the family left.
13 Q. So both he and the family left via Serbia owing to the fact that
14 he had released these four because it's questionable whether they would
15 have let him pass otherwise. Wasn't that the agreement?
16 A. Yes, that was his agreement with Jekic.
17 Q. All right. So we've clarified that. Why was this important for
18 me? Because there was some witnesses who claimed that on these people
19 they found membership cards of the Serbian Radical Party. Did you ever
20 hear of them having our party IDs?
21 A. When they were released I was present at the Jezero hotel in
22 Mali Zvornik because I had my leg bandaged and I was there. I know that
23 Legija immediately joined Arkan's unit and that he was their member.
24 Q. Legija did?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. So he joined Arkan's unit in Zvornik?
2 A. Immediately. He said there was some danger, that Zvornik would
3 be attacked, and I was still at the SUP
4 was some 50 policemen there and he came with Arkan's team and he said
5 that some -- he was their officer. I forgot what rank he held at the
7 Q. And then Zuco set up his unit after the 26th of April?
8 A. Yes, Yellow Wasps.
9 Q. And I think that somewhere you stated that he had already taken
10 part with Yellow Wasps in fighting for Zvornik. Did you state that?
11 A. Well, Yellow Wasps didn't exist at the time, but at the time I
12 didn't really care much about these time references. When I say that
13 Zuco participated in liberating Zvornik -- but at the time he wasn't
14 Zuco, he was Vojan Vuckovic, and it was only after Goran Markovic was
15 killed that they set up this unit.
16 Q. But in combat for Kula Grad Zuco held no command position; am I
18 A. Yes, absolutely because the JNA fought there.
19 Q. And if he did take any part he could have done it only as a
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. You stated that in April of 1992 Biljana Plavsic came to Zvornik
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. She came a day or two before this armed showdown?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. She held a meeting with the Crisis Staff?
3 A. She visited the Crisis Staff.
4 Q. And the Crisis Staff talked to her?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did she then give a proposal that Arkan be called to come from
7 Bijeljina to Zvornik?
8 A. She had already arrived -- Arkan had a unit stationed there. He
9 went from Bijeljina to Mali Zvornik in Serbia, to a hotel called Rada and
10 he was up there.
11 Q. Let's take it step by step. You went to Bijeljina after the
12 departure of Biljana Plavsic; am I right? First Biljana Plavsic came to
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And it was only then that you went to Bijeljina?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And then you escorted Rada -- Arkan to Rada?
18 A. Well, Arkan wasn't there the whole time. He was just in
19 Bijeljina and he said my team was there, and then Major Pejic took them.
20 Q. There were about 20 to 30 people?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. So I'm right. So first Biljana Plavsic came to Zvornik and then
23 you went to Bijeljina to fetch Arkan?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And then Arkan's men came to Rada?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you remember in that meeting of the Crisis Staff
3 Biljana Plavsic proposed or demanded that Arkan be invited to come to
5 A. I wasn't present but I heard from my colleagues.
6 Q. Did you hear that she asked that Arkan be brought there?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You heard it?
9 A. I heard it from the people who attended.
10 Q. You heard it reliably?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you heard that she was on very good terms with him in
14 A. Yes, there was some photographs with her kissing him.
15 Q. Yes, on TV?
16 A. So I'm not sure on what terms they were, but yes I saw that.
17 Q. In Zvornik you thought that Arkan represented some power?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And then you were in for an unpleasant surprise?
20 A. Well, he didn't spend much time in Zvornik, only two or three
21 hours, and his unit wasn't there for a long time either. But as fighters
22 they were excellent fighters but we had bad experience with them in the
23 sense that he had a very bad attitude towards the Crisis Staff.
24 Q. Uh-huh. And then he mistreated you there, he slapped some people
25 around, beat some people?
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. So you practically got yourself into trouble by inviting him?
3 Now looking back it would have been better if he hadn't come?
4 A. Yes, looking back at it today it would have been better if
5 nothing happened, we would have all been much happier.
6 Q. Well, you're giving me a very general answer. I asked for a more
7 specific answer. Looking at it today, it would have been much better for
8 everybody if Arkan hadn't come?
9 A. Yes, for everybody, including himself.
10 Q. At least this first big crime would not have happened. And when
11 this crime did take place in the Hrid settlement, a special team of the
12 JNA came from Belgrade
13 who was a colonel at the time, later a general and a minister?
14 A. Yes, I've heard of that. He's a pathologist from the military
15 medical academy.
16 Q. Yes, and they conducted exhumations and pathological processing
17 or autopsy of all corpses of victims?
18 A. Yes, I heard of it.
19 Q. We had Zoran Stankovic testify here in open session. So the JNA
20 wanted to investigate these crimes; is that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. There was an investigation?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. However, the investigation was interrupted due to the withdrawal
25 of JNA from Bosnia-Herzegovina and nobody else was prepared to continue
1 with investigations?
2 A. Most likely.
3 Q. While the JNA was in the territory of Zvornik
4 investigated; am I right?
5 A. Well, I didn't get involved into that. I just know that they
6 conducted on-site investigations related to that.
7 Q. All right. Now, let us make a minor digression. Yesterday, the
8 Prosecutor showed you the video footage of the ceremony in Kula of the
9 Red Berets from 1997 I guess. Do you remember that?
10 A. Well, it was played on TV hundreds of times.
11 Q. Yes, but then the Prosecutor tendered into evidence the entire
12 transcript, which we didn't hear here. And that transcript contains a
13 speech. I have to give you an introductory explanation, a speech by
14 Franko Simatovic, Frenki, where he boasts by giving examples of wartime
15 successes of the unit, mentioning Zvornik as well. According to what you
16 know, did that unit, special unit of the state security of Serbia, the
17 so-called Red Berets, did it ever come to the territory of Zvornik
18 the war?
19 A. They never came there with their unit. It's just that I had this
20 incident with Kostic, I had this contact with him. And now, whether he
21 was a member of that unit, I don't know.
22 Q. Let me remind you, Kostic was from Republika Srpska?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Before the outbreak of the war he came to Zvornik. His parents
25 were from Zvornik and he was perhaps born there?
1 A. He was born in Mali Zvornik, in Velika Rijeka.
2 Q. So he came there from Dalina [phoen] from the Serbian Krajina,
3 where he was a highly placed police official? I'm doing this to assist
5 A. Yes, he came there several times and there was this logistical
6 assistance that I explained.
7 Q. So he assisted you regarding this logistics, so he had some
8 influence, he had some clout. And on one occasion he ensured weapons
9 from the JNA depot in Dalina?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Were all of the weapons from the JNA depot?
12 A. Yes, where else it could have come from?
13 Q. Yes. But you undoubtedly remember that in early 1991 the General
14 Staff of the armed forces issued an order that the JNA was to take over
15 all depots of TO; is that right?
16 A. Yes, so as to prevent any abuse by republican organs.
17 Q. Do you know how much Muslim officials in Zvornik complained about
18 those depots, asking that the JNA return weapons?
19 A. Yes, that was the greatest political problem at the local level.
20 Q. And JNA refused to return it?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And then later on when it was needed to defend territorial
23 integrity of the country these weapons were placed at your disposal.
24 Rade Kostic brought those weapons from Serbian Krajina?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Did you accompany him, did you go with him?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. All right. That's important because I don't want anybody to
4 think that those weapons came from Serbia.
5 Now, Frenki gave this statement. You know, he and I are here in
6 jail together in the same block, and when I asked him he said that
7 somebody else wrote that speech for him. And we have no trace nor does
8 the Prosecution have any trace that those Red Berets did indeed stay in
9 the territory of Zvornik
10 Kostic was killed in 1994?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you know that he died as a volunteer in the military
13 formations of Fikret Abdic?
14 A. Yes, in Ramic [phoen] Brdo near Kladusa.
15 Q. Near Kladusa. So he was a volunteer in a Muslim army of Fikret
16 Abdic; correct?
17 A. Yes, at that time the Serbian forces of Krajina and Abdic fought
19 Q. They had an alliance?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Because Fikret Abdic was not a fundamentalist?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And he wanted to coexist with the Serbs?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. He also wanted to coexist with Croats?
1 A. Yes. On TV during the war we saw him visiting Milosevic in
3 Q. But he educated -- he wanted Yugoslavia?
4 A. Yes, that was his main idea.
5 Q. Is it true that Rade Kostic died as a hero, as a fighter of
6 Fikret Abdic?
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen.
8 MR. MARCUSSEN: I would like to ask if the accused could point us
9 to the place in Frenki's speech where he mentions Zvornik. I have just
10 been looking and he mentioned a whole number of locations, but I cannot
11 see Zvornik being mentioned. And as these propositions are being put
12 through the witness for the witness to agree with, I think this
13 illustrative of the problems of the kind of examination that's going on.
14 But maybe I am wrong and maybe the accused actually is referring to some
15 specific place in the speech he is mentioning.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, I will simply state for the
17 record that Mr. Marcussen fell into a trap, and could he now explain to
18 us why this transcript was admitted into evidence and what it has to do
19 with this trial and with Zvornik, if Mr. Marcussen could please explain
21 MR. MARCUSSEN: I should be most happy to if the accused will
22 have me use time on that today, but I think the accused may want to
23 re-consider that. The real issue is that propositions are being put to a
24 witness as if they come from a document and they are actually not in the
25 document and the witness is made to agree to it. Now, in any event the
1 probative value of propositions being put to a witness and a witness
2 agreeing with them is minimal but this is highly problematic, and the
3 accused is refusing to tell us where this proposition is. That's my
4 simple point.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, I'm deliberately
6 bringing out here things that have minimal evidential value, but on the
7 other hand I'm demonstrating what can be achieved by leading questions.
8 And all three interviews of yours actually prompted witness to give some
9 answers, importance of which he was not aware at the time. So what do
10 you want now? You're just wasting my time.
11 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Now, when it comes to Arkan you confirmed to me that Biljana
13 Plavsic came to Zvornik before the armed showdown and that she was the
14 first one to propose that Arkan be brought to Zvornik; correct?
15 A. Yes, I heard that from my colleagues from the Crisis Staff. I
16 wasn't present.
17 Q. All right. So you heard of a man called Perisa Ivanovic?
18 A. Yes, I know the man called Perisa Ivanovic.
19 Q. The Prosecution gave me a document -- the Prosecution, don't
20 think that I invented this document. They gave me a statement by Perisa
21 Ivanovic from the 16th of July, 2003. I was given this under Article
22 68(i) as potentially exculpatory material. I will only ask you now
23 whether two or three statements from that statement by Perisa Ivanovic
24 are correct. This is what Perisa Ivanovic claims: At the Crisis Staff
25 they used to say that Arkan needs to come to Zvornik and that we need to
1 pay him for that. Was this discussed?
2 A. No, never, at least not in my presence.
3 Q. All right. So he also says this: They said that somebody would
4 need to pay him for that and that the money needs to be paid out from a
5 company called Ekonomija. It was a company in Zvornik which was quite a
6 wealthy one?
7 A. Yes, and I think they were speaking about these contributions and
8 fund-raising, that the Muslims did it.
9 Q. And there was a fire there in the factory producing leather and
10 that it was quite an extensive damage. And then he goes on to say, he
11 mentions three names, including yours, I won't mention any of them --
12 A. I think that Perisa is a man who was a simple man at a rather low
13 level. He had no access to the Crisis Staff, and I think he mixed up
14 things. There was some talk of paying Arkan, but it was discussed in the
15 context of buying jeeps for his unit. But that was some time later, not
16 in 1990-something, but, yes, just to make it clear there was some
18 Q. Are you aware of the fact that Arkan never fought for free
20 A. But I have to confess that we never paid him anything at least
21 according to what I know.
22 Q. I believe you, but this is what Perisa Ivanovic goes on to say.
23 He says the money was collected from local companies and Arkan was paid
24 by and then he mentions your name. This is what Perisa claims and I
25 received this from the Prosecution?
1 A. Well, one needs to know Perisa. We need to call him here.
2 Q. I'm not going to call him Perisa. Let the Prosecution bring him
3 here. This is something that I received from the Prosecution, because
4 the Prosecution gives you suggestions in order to receive certain answers
5 from you and then they swamp me with material. This is the methodology.
6 And now this is what he also says: I heard from Brano Grujic
7 that the payment was made in Radaljska Banja where there was a hotel and
8 that you negotiated with Arkan and that you brought him to Zvornik. It
9 is true that you brought him to Zvornik; right?
10 A. Well, I don't know. Now, bringing him to Zvornik, that can be
11 interpreted in different ways, have different meanings.
12 Q. You didn't tie him up and drag him in?
13 A. Well, I brought him because Rade Kostic told me to go and fetch
15 Q. However, I have a statement of yours here to the effect that Rade
16 Kostic warned you that Arkan was a criminal and that you shouldn't have
17 any business with him. Do you remember that?
18 A. Well, you see, he tried in the local settings where he was to
19 create units like Mauzer's, et cetera, and that is what I was offered in
20 Zvornik. Since I knew Rade Kostic as a man I trusted, he told me that I
21 should not communicate with the type of -- I had not even known of him.
22 I heard about him only two days before.
23 Q. Biljana Plavsic was an authority for all of you there?
24 A. Biljana was a member of the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina on
25 behalf of the Serb people.
1 Q. The OTP has a document showing that Biljana Plavsic is inviting
2 me and Arkan and Mirko Jovic to send volunteers. Of course, I never
3 responded to that call but -- because I was never on good terms with
4 Biljana, but the Prosecution sent this anyway.
5 Okay, there are some other things I want to check through this
6 dialogue with you. You heard of a certain Dragan Gotovac?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. He's a lawyer; right?
9 A. Well, he works as a lawyer now. He was a prosecutor before.
10 Q. He was born in 1995 [as interpreted], a year younger than me. I
11 think I remember him from university.
12 A. Studied in Belgrade
13 Q. He was mobilised at the beginning of the war?
14 A. He was a reserve officer.
15 Q. The JNA mobilised him?
16 A. Yes, yes, all JNA officers were mobilised.
17 Q. Yes. And he was interviewed here or there -- never mind, by
18 investigators from The Hague
19 was disclosed to me as public material by the OTP, there is this
20 Mitford-Burgess. There is a name that had two functions at the time.
21 That is a name that had direct responsibility over persons who committed
22 crimes. That name is your name. Dragan Gotovac, not only on paper but
23 people told us that it was your responsibility. We do not have any other
24 response for anyone who had responsibility and power. This has to do
25 with the crime in Drinjaca. So this is a local person; right?
1 A. Dragan Gotovac is an eminent lawyer in Zvornik. He was mobilised
2 in the beginning of the war, but I don't think he was at Drinjaca. I
3 think he was at a different zone. I think that he was an artillery man.
4 Q. He had a squad of mortars; right?
5 A. Yes, yes, that's right.
6 Q. Tell me, did you have that kind of thing happen to you, that the
7 investigators of the OTP throw something into your face and then you try
8 to find your way through all of that?
9 A. No, I had a fair and correct relationship with them, but perhaps
10 sometimes I did not pay enough attention to all of this. You see how
11 many questions there are over a short period of time. It's impossible to
12 pay that attention to everything.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen --
25 MR. MARCUSSEN: We need to be in private session if we are to
1 reveal -- it might be necessary to reveal to the witness who had been
2 interviewed by the Office of the Prosecutor but that is not something
3 that should be in public and is also -- well, it's even more so
4 considering that it's being referred to as a suspect interview. Also, I
5 think we should avoid mentioning employees of the OTP in public.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, the OTP did not submit this
7 to me as confidential material but as public material according to
8 Rule 68(i). They typed the transcript and translated it into the Serbian
9 language and submitted it to me. I don't want to go into private
10 session. If I cannot discuss this in public session, I give up on it and
11 we move on.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Continue, otherwise
13 the Chamber will redact. So you have to make a difference between a
14 witness and a suspect it's important --
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Come on --
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There is a witness and not
17 mention that he was a suspect and then you wouldn't have run into a
18 problem. Saying that it's also a -- this person is also a suspect can
19 create trouble in the place where this person lives and there's no need
20 for that. Just say a witness said but don't say a witness who is a
21 suspect. Don't say that. But now continue and refrain from doing that.
22 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
23 Q. They suspected this man committed murders at the technical school
24 in Karakaj and what happened in Bijeljina Klanica, you heard about that.
25 And then at one point Bernard O'Donnell says to him:
1 According to the information that we received until now, you are
2 the person who is the most responsible for these men.
3 So they suspect many people, locals from Zvornik?
4 A. That case was clarified and it has nothing to do with
5 Petko Panic.
6 Q. But it had been ascribed to him. So then out of all of these
7 suspects, not to mention all of them so that they don't take up our time
8 with these requests for going into closed session. And finally when they
9 got through all of that, when they accused different persons of these
10 crimes, then they finally reduced the indictment to me only. Isn't that
11 a bit strange?
12 A. Very strange.
13 Q. I was not in Zvornik at all when these crimes took place and
14 volunteers of the Serb Radical Party weren't there either. Yesterday you
15 mentioned that you were at my rally in Mali Zvornik. You said that this
16 rally had to be held before July 1991?
17 A. July 1991 is a parameter for me because that's when I joined the
18 police. I know that I didn't come as an active-duty policeman. I came
19 as a civilian. So that must be it.
20 Q. If I tell you that it was the beginning of August 1990?
21 A. That is very possible.
22 Q. Do you remember that there was an incident that happened at the
24 A. Yes, I know, because the police prepared that incident for you.
25 Q. The police did? That is news for me. Who prepared that?
1 A. Well, I guess they didn't like rallies like that.
2 Q. Oh, they didn't like Chetniks?
3 A. Or the change in the system, yes.
4 Q. They didn't like the abolition of the communist order?
5 A. Roughly.
6 Q. And they brought Muslims mostly and there were a few Serbs;
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. To throw stones at us?
10 A. Yes, they brought a truckful of rocks to be thrown.
11 Q. They brought a truckful of rocks to be thrown?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Do you agree that it was in August 1990?
14 A. I'm not sure about the date but it -- certainly that's a
15 plausible date.
16 Q. There was a Prosecution witness here who claimed that the rally
17 took place in March 1992, just before the armed conflict in Zvornik?
18 A. No. I can guarantee 1 billion per cent that this had to be
19 before July 1991, 1 billion per cent.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, just a moment, I'll
21 take some of Mr. Seselj's time but this is an extremely important
22 element. The Prosecution is saying that there was a rally in March 1992
23 and then the Prosecution connects everything that happened after that day
24 to this meeting and you were in the police at the time. If there had
25 been such a rally in March 1992, rally organised by Mr. Seselj, you would
1 have known about it, wouldn't you?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I'd have to know because I
3 would be involved, but I can guarantee 1 billion per cent, I bet you my
4 entire property. You can ask anyone in the street in Zvornik. I tell
5 you I guarantee that. I don't know the exact date but I hadn't been
6 working at the police yet and I attended the rally as a civilian, and I
7 guarantee it was before July 1991, 1 billion per cent sure, there's no
9 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Witness, no one is challenging
10 that a rally was held in August 1990; however, we would like to know
11 whether there was another rally held in March or April 1992?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. I would have known that
13 with 100 per cent certainty if we're talking about a rally in Mali
14 Zvornik. It is certain that no other rally was held.
15 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
16 Q. You remember that already then there were many people under arms
17 in March 1992; right?
18 A. Yes, yes.
19 Q. Is it possible to have that kind of incident when people are
20 armed to the teeth, is it possible to have this kind of incident without
21 bloodshed, to have someone throw rocks at me and my associates?
22 A. Well, all of us who know about this and who live there, I mean
23 it's absolutely impossible. There is not even a theoretical chance of
24 this kind of rally being held on the eve of the war. I would have known
25 that for sure and that would have been my professional duty.
1 Q. Here in this court a man spoke about you. I'm not going to
2 mention his name. I'm just going to present a particular piece of
3 information. He said that you had been threatened by The Hague OTP that
4 you would be indicted and that they extorted a large amount of money from
5 you so that you would not be indicted?
6 A. Well, that is nebulous, I was never threatened and as for the
7 rest of what you said it's so nebulous that it's not worth discussing.
8 Q. It's in the official transcripts of the Tribunal. I got that
9 from the OTP.
10 A. Well, lots of people come and say all sorts of things.
11 Q. A man who said this kind of lie must have lied about other things
13 A. I don't know who that is but it is so, so --
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges just for the sake of you
15 knowing about this, I'm not going to mention the name, it was VS-036 in
16 my trial, but later on he was killed in a mafia showdown, so we will not
17 have the opportunity of seeing him here in the courtroom unless the
18 Prosecution makes him appear in some magical way.
19 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
20 Q. This is what he said, that you were supposed to pay $600.000, to
21 give 300.000 up front and 300.000 within 15 days. Listen to me
22 carefully. I thought it was funny too, but let's see whether it is true.
23 And then one of the Judges from the Trial Chamber - I'm not even going to
24 mention the Judge's name - asked him the following. You said that you
25 found out from a friend that he was negotiating with someone to pay for
1 his freedom and when it was asked --
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, maybe I
3 misunderstood something, witness VS-036 would have testified and then got
4 killed? No?
5 MR. MARCUSSEN: No, Your Honour. He --
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He never testified here, but he
7 testified in other cases. But he was killed because he was involved in
8 Arkan's assassination. His murder has nothing to do with The Hague
9 Tribunal. He was one of the accomplices in Arkan's killing, and then on
10 this wave of revenge they killed him too. Again, I'm not going to refer
11 to his name.
12 MR. MARCUSSEN: As --
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So he was not -- he
14 did not testify in the present case. I wanted to check that.
15 MR. MARCUSSEN: He's the subject of a 92 quater motion, and he
16 was not -- he was not killed in the context of this trial.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, thank you to Mr. Marcussen.
19 Now I don't have to worry that even -- that I would be blamed even for
20 his killing, that I'd have to face that indictment too. However, Judges,
21 since this was tendered I believe that this is an opportunity for us to
22 check the credibility of at least one of his statements so that you see
23 who you're dealing with. As far as I know, you haven't agreed to have
24 this dealt with under 92 quater.
25 Is that right, Mr. Marcussen, because I'm not really very well
1 versed in this. The decision is yet to be made; right?
2 MR. MARCUSSEN: Correct.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
4 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Now, after this question that was put by one of the members of
6 the Trial Chamber, can you clarify this who are these people, et cetera,
7 this is what his answer is. This was at a secret session in this other
8 case. The OTP provided me with transcripts of this secret session. It
9 is important for me that you either deny this or confirm this. If you
10 deny it, then you help me challenge the credibility of that witness. I
11 hope you understand now --
12 MR. MARCUSSEN: I understand why the accused wants to put the
13 question. I do not object to putting the question, but the witness [sic]
14 cannot quote from a closed session or private session testimony in
15 another case without us going into private session as well. So I ask
16 that we move into private session so the accused can put the question,
17 which may be relevant.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. If I do not mention the
19 witness's name and if I do not mention the trial concerned, the only
20 thing that is mentioned here are the names of The Hague investigators who
21 allegedly extorted money --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, part of a
23 transcript done in closed session cannot be mentioned openly. That's the
24 way it is. So --
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then I give up on that question.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
2 continues]... withdraw your question.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then I do now. I don't want to go
4 into any kind of secret session.
5 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Now, there is another man who is a high police official, or
7 rather, was a high police official on the other side of the Drina
8 not going to mention his name, but you can assume who that person is --
9 not this person I mentioned just now but very close to that person. He
10 said something that gave me a good laugh. You have a master's degree,
11 don't you?
12 A. In economics.
13 Q. Can we say in public session where you got your master's degree?
14 A. I got my diploma in Brcko.
15 Q. However can we say where you defended your master's thesis?
16 A. It was at the University of Belgrade
17 but I passed all my exams.
18 Q. Oh, in Belgrade
19 interested in what this person has to say in connection with your
20 master's thesis? I'm not going to mention the name --
21 A. Well, if it's of interest to you and if it can help you --
22 Q. It's of interest to me so that we can have a good laugh, but if
23 you don't want to never mind. Whatever you say. See, I'm in a good
24 mood, so --
25 A. Well, you choose.
1 Q. I think that it's going to be rather witty and indicative because
2 that man is also a witness in some other trials, not in my trial but in
3 other trials of The Hague
4 A. I assume who it is.
5 Q. This is what he told my associates --
6 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, I'm sorry I have to object, but the
7 accused is clearly indicating that he has identified a witness. I don't
8 know whether it's a protected witness in another case, but it's clear
9 that the information he has provided by the witness allow people to guess
10 who the witness is. So I'm sorry that I [overlapping speakers] --
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, I didn't.
12 MR. MARCUSSEN: -- I think we need to redact this.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I haven't identified any one
14 witness, absolutely none.
15 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, it has just been put on record that
16 this witness is able to guess who it is. We're all going to have a good
17 laugh, and it's clearly implied that everyone knows who this is.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. This witness can of course
19 guess who it is, but so what. You, Mr. Marcussen, don't know who I'm
20 speaking about and I'm not going to tell you or the Trial Chamber or the
21 lawyer of this witness. Why shouldn't I say that?
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, just say that a
23 witness said something about this other witness and that will be enough
24 and that way no one can identify anyone.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me just re-tell his story, how
1 he introduced this witness to my collaborators. The facts are wrong.
2 This witness studied at Brcko and made his master's study in Belgrade
3 was --
4 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
5 Q. I heard that you wanted to defend your master's thesis in
6 Pristina and before doing so you gave the -- your mentor a Volkswagen
7 Golf and that you -- before he was able to take possession of that Golf
8 you sneaked up to the place where the car was parked and you drove it
10 A. Well, there is some truth in that. I did want to defend my
11 master's thesis, but finally I didn't because the war had started,
12 et cetera. And that professor did come to see me afterward. He -- I
13 sold him a car and at a fair price because he was a professor of mine.
14 And it is true that the car disappeared after a few days, but the story
15 goes on that he was a good friend of our ambassador to Bulgaria at the
16 time and the car was returned after ten days or so.
17 Q. Well, people tend to add elements to a story. Isn't that part of
18 your nature?
19 A. Well, we had exercises at the university of such Chinese
21 Q. In the third year of our studies the professor would display an
22 incident in the lecture theatre, and then when he would ask the students
23 to tell what they had seen the stories would all differ among themselves.
24 And that also goes to show how reliable human memory can be after ten or
25 more years?
1 A. Yes, it isn't very reliable.
2 Q. Now, yesterday the Prosecutor showed you some documents, among
3 which an exert from the Official Gazette of the Republika Srpska. I
4 would like to see it on the ELMO again. I have it here someplace, but
5 perhaps the Prosecutor could give me a hand and provide a copy. These
6 are the so-called strategic goals of the Serbian people. The Prosecutor
7 doesn't want to help me. It was assigned an IT number yesterday, but I
8 refuse to remember numbers. They say that only stupid people remember
9 numbers. You don't want to give me a hand, Prosecutor. Yeah, sure,
10 you're mad at me. I sure would be mad at you if I were you --
11 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] If it's so stupid why should
12 Mr. Marcussen remember the number?
13 MR. MARCUSSEN: Well, opposed to certain others who get angry in
14 court --
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Because I don't have an assistant
16 in the courtroom and he has many.
17 Could you please put this on the ELMO.
18 MR. MARCUSSEN: It's 1298.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Should we -- or are we going to see
20 it on our screens or should we put it on the ELMO? Let's put it on the
22 This could be my final question if my time will be up soon.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I told you we would stop at
24 7.30. There are a number of things that need to be taken into account,
25 the interpreters who are working over time and let me tell you also that
1 I have been sitting on this bench since 9.00 a.m. this morning, 9.00 a.m
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can go on all night.
4 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Let us take a look at this document.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
7 continues]... the document.
8 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
9 Q. The Prosecutor tendered this into evidence yesterday and you
10 confirmed that you read this in the Official Gazette of the Republika
11 Srpska; correct?
12 A. No, I said that this was general knowledge and that I heard of
14 Q. All right. Take a look at the issue of the Official Gazette or
15 the date. Friday, the 26th of November, 1993.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And in the alleged decision or the alleged decision reads that
18 this is the People's Assembly of the Republika Srpska, that is the
19 Serbian people of Bosnia-Herzegovina, that it adopted these at the
20 meeting on the 12th of May, 1992. Can you see it?
21 A. Yes, I can see it.
22 Q. So from the 12th of May, 1992, they waited until the 26th of
23 November, 1993, an entire year and a half to publish that document in the
24 Official Gazette. Isn't that incredible?
25 A. It is practice to publish everything in the Official Gazette with
1 as little delay as possible.
2 Q. Of a few days, eight at most?
3 A. Well, the -- in the first issue of the Official Gazette.
4 Q. And something else in the preamble which is -- can't be found in
5 a serious document. The People's Assembly of Republika Srpska of the
6 Serbian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Isn't that an impossible name?
7 A. That name was only used before the war, but not during the war.
8 Q. Take a close look. Is it this very name?
9 A. But this name --
10 Q. This name was never used?
11 A. No, it was never used.
12 Q. Initially it was the People's Assembly of the Serbian Republic
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina; am I right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And then it was changed to the people's Assembly of Republika
16 Srpska; am I completely right?
17 A. Yes, the change took place somewhere early in 1992.
18 Q. That doesn't matter, but there has never been anything called the
19 People's Assembly of the Republika Srpska of the Serbian People in
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina; am I completely right or not?
21 A. I didn't notice that, but this is an illogical name, and I have
22 never seen the Assembly called that.
23 Q. It is utterly impossible. And what's more, I look at the
24 transcript of that meeting. On the 12th of May, the People's Assembly
25 did not adopt such a decision. It cannot be found in the transcripts.
1 The OTP has all transcripts and yet is unable to find it. Isn't it
2 obvious that this is a fake?
3 A. I'm not an expert in fakes or forgeries, but this is illogical.
4 The names, the date of publication, all this is illogical.
5 Q. If I say that the Republika Srpska, or rather, its People's
6 Assembly never adopted such strategic objectives, am I right or am I
8 A. I cannot really say whether you're right or wrong. I have heard
9 of these strategic decisions, but whether they were published in the
10 newspapers or the Official Gazette -- I heard of these objectives. But I
11 believe that there was ten and not six.
12 Q. But this was mentioned in various trials in The Hague, but the
13 Defence teams failed to ask such crucial questions. What can I do if
14 there are miserable people walk through these courtrooms and get long
15 prison sentences? But this was never adopted by the National Assembly
16 and this is now used as evidence against the Serb people and
17 corroboration of the joint criminal enterprise. Here is a prize question
18 for Mr. Marcussen: Who printed this and how come that this was printed
19 without the National Assembly ever adopting such a decision? Perhaps the
20 Chamber could give this homework to Mr. Marcussen until the next session.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you for giving me so much
22 time, even though I didn't get as much as Mr. Marcussen.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Marcussen, the
24 accused says that this document is a forgery because the text under 386,
25 because of the date it bears and the formulae cannot be an authentic
1 document. The investigations made will establish that on the 12th of
2 May, 1992, there was never such a thing as this meeting. So I can't
3 conclude anything more than what has been said --
4 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honour, if I may propose --
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Such a decision was never adopted.
6 Maybe there was a session of the Assembly, but such a decision cannot be
7 found anywhere in the transcripts of the National Assembly.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
10 MR. MARCUSSEN: And yesterday -- Your Honours, yesterday the
11 accused asked for the minutes of this session and -- I mean, he obviously
12 knew about it because it is exhibit 65 ter number 1297. I'm not going to
13 make submissions about the contents of this, but I would in light of what
14 has been said today and also what was said about the document yesterday
15 suggest that we move that into evidence as well, and I move for the
16 admission of the document. It's the minutes of the 12 May 1992 Assembly
17 that we have been discussing.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let Mr. Marcussen show us the page
19 which contains this decision.
20 MR. MARCUSSEN: This is a -- and has been an issue in many trials
21 here. I'm not going to make that. We can make submissions about all
22 this when the appropriate time comes at the end of the trial.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right. The Chamber is seized
24 of your request. We noted carefully what has been said by Mr. Seselj on
25 the fact that the transcript of the Assembly of the 12th of May, 1992,
1 does not correspond to this text adopted. So the conclusion would be
2 that it would be a forgery which would then have been put into a
3 publication. This gives the idea to have had a whole organisation and
4 system to actually include in an Official Gazette such a document. The
5 Chamber is going to think about this.
6 Witness, your -- Witness, you have now finished your testimony --
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...
8 conspiracy and I want my copy back.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Which copy?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just want my copy of the document
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, you're going to have it
13 back. You can have it back. There is no plot, no intention of
14 confiscating a document from you.
15 Now, Witness, thank you. I also thank you -- I also thank
16 Mr. Tomic for having been present. I wish you a nice trip home. As we
17 know, if the next witness comes we will meet again next week, Tuesday,
18 and we will have two sessions in the morning at 9.00. Thank you all.
19 Before we leave the courtroom, Mr. Witness, wait until the blinds have
20 been lowered.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.39 p.m.
22 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 19th day of
23 January, 2010 at 9.00 a.m.