Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 16255

 1                           Wednesday, 7 July 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.

 4                           [The accused entered court]

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, can you call the

 6     case, please.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you and good afternoon, Your Honours.  This

 8     is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Registrar, today is

10     7 July 2010.  I would like first of all to great the witness, whom I can

11     see on the screen, Mr. Marcussen, Ms. Biersay, as well as their

12     associates.  I would like to greet Mr. Seselj and all those helping us in

13     this courtroom.

14             For a few minutes I would like to talk to the witness who is in

15     Belgrade to tell him after what he had thought he heard yesterday, i.e.,

16     that an interpreter had mentioned "scums" Seselj's men, the Registry

17     checked the audio recording and did not acknowledge that the term "scum"

18     had been mentioned or translated from B/C/S.

19             Witness, you may have misunderstood, which might explain why you

20     mentioned this.  Actually, yesterday when you were telling us about this,

21     I was looking at Mr. Seselj very closely to try and understand whether he

22     had heard that as well.  Mr. Seselj would have undoubtedly raised an

23     objection.  Since he wasn't saying anything, I concluded in the meantime

24     that he may not have heard that since he was busy doing other things, or

25     maybe he hadn't heard it at all.

Page 16256

 1             So I have been told that the audio recording has been officially

 2     checked and that you have mentioned is not on it.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But I couldn't believe my own ears.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I haven't finished.  I would

 5     like to add that the interpreters are working in very difficult

 6     conditions.  These are professionals who have been doing their job for a

 7     great number of years.  There might be a mistake in the translation from

 8     time to time.  That can happen to anyone.  In this case it would have

 9     been a serious matter had it been the case.  The material evidence, of

10     course, is audio recording, which we have.

11             Witness, do you have anything to say, a comment?

12                           WITNESS: NENAD JOVIC [Resumed]

13                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

14                           [Witness testified via videolink]

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I heard, or perhaps -- well, I

16     can't say for sure.  Perhaps it was a similar word, and since my hearing

17     is impaired 45 per cent on both ears, it is possible that I heard wrong,

18     but I didn't react vehemently.  I just mentioned the fact and said that

19     it was impermissible to speak like that.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you wanted to say

21     something.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, no, I didn't.  I just made a

23     bit of a joke when you mentioned my name, I said I might have heard it,

24     but I couldn't believe my own ears.  That was just a pleasantry.  I

25     didn't hear anything, that's true, but I do have a lot of criticisms with

Page 16257

 1     respect to the work of the interpretation service, and I've already said

 2     that before.  But no, I really didn't hear that word.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So thank you very much.  This

 4     matter has been settled.

 5             Mr. Marcussen, you have the floor.

 6                           Cross-examination by Mr. Marcussen:  [Continued]

 7        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Jovic.

 8        A.   Good afternoon.

 9        Q.   Mr. Jovic, yesterday you testified the following:

10             "I was brought an invitation without a signature requesting me to

11     attend an interview in such and such a place at such, at such a time."

12             That is for Your Honours' reference, page 16185, lines 3 and 4.

13             Mr. Jovic, when was that?

14        A.   That was -- that was -- let me see.  I don't know the exact date,

15     but to the best of my recollections, if that means anything to you, when

16     the Croatian embassy was stoned after some water polo match, although you

17     don't know about that, but anyway, that's a rough estimate of the time.

18     I can't give you an exact date.

19        Q.   Could you give us a year?

20        A.   I did receive it.  1993.  2003.  I apologise.  2003.

21        Q.   Who brought you the invitation?

22        A.   Two men who didn't introduce themselves or show any ID cards.  It

23     was difficult to reach my house because the road was being reconstructed,

24     so they parked 200 metres away, and they came by as I described it, and

25     they handed me this invitation without a signature or stamp, just with

Page 16258

 1     the Tribunal letterhead in the upper right-hand corner or something like

 2     that.

 3        Q.   And where were you supposed to go?  It was an invitation to go

 4     where?

 5        A.   To the office of The Hague Tribunal in Jevremova Street,

 6     Belgrade.

 7        Q.   And did you go?

 8        A.   Yes, I did.

 9        Q.   When?  How long after you received the invitation?

10        A.   Well, perhaps -- I really can't remember.  I don't know.  I can't

11     remember the date.

12        Q.   Was it -- was it within in a month of the invitation, two months,

13     half a year, a year?  What?  How long?

14        A.   I really can't remember.  I just can't remember.  It might have

15     been a shorter period.

16        Q.   How did you get from your home to Belgrade?

17        A.   By bus, the morning coach, which starts out at 3.30 from

18     Mali Zvornik, 3.30 a.m., and arrives in Belgrade early in the morning.

19        Q.   Did you travel alone or was someone with you?

20        A.   Well, the bus was full of workers, but I was on my own.  As far

21     as my family's concerned, they stayed at home.  But that's where the bus

22     stopped.

23        Q.   And from the bus station in Sarajevo, how did you -- I'm sorry,

24     from the bus-stop where you got off in Belgrade to the field office, how

25     did you get there?

Page 16259

 1        A.   Well, I don't know Belgrade very well.  I worked in Montenegro

 2     for a long time, and Sarajevo, and those parts.  I know them better.  So

 3     I went -- well, I lost my way, and I was walking past an embassy that had

 4     been destroyed and asked a policeman there, and he said that it was in

 5     the Dedinje area by the Dragisa Miscevic Hospital, and that's how I found

 6     it.

 7        Q.   And when you came to the field office, who did you meet with?

 8        A.   I met with the interpreter and the lady investigator.

 9        Q.   Did they know that you were coming?  Had you called to say what

10     day you would come, or how had that come about, or did they not expect

11     you to arrive --

12        A.   Of course, they knew.

13        Q.   How did they know?

14        A.   Well, I assume they knew.  When I rang the bell at the entrance

15     at the gate, not me but the policeman, they came to get me.  They came

16     down the stairs to the front entrance to collect me.

17        Q.   And now that we have talked a bit more about the details, maybe

18     your memory has come back as to when this might have been.

19        A.   It might have been June, July.  The weather was nice.  I was just

20     wearing a T-shirt and sandals, so it must have been June or July

21     sometime.

22        Q.   Of 2002 or of 2003, or what year?

23        A.   2003.

24        Q.   So it was quite a long time after you had received the invitation

25     that you actually came to the field office?

Page 16260

 1        A.   I'm not receiving any interpretation, sir.

 2        Q.   So you had received the invitation to tell you to come to the

 3     field office in 2002, so you received the invitation at least half a year

 4     before you actually went to Belgrade?

 5        A.   Did I mention 2002 anywhere?  Who said 2002?

 6        Q.   You did.

 7        A.   When?

 8        Q.   Just a minute ago when I asked you about it, when this might have

 9     taken place.  But let's -- let's move to something else.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, unless I'm

11     mistaken, at line 23, page 5, he said 2003.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know what I said, but there we

13     go.  You can have a look and see.

14             MR. MARCUSSEN:  I apologise if I have mixed up the year.

15        Q.   If I can refer you to something else you testified about

16     yesterday, and I'm --

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, the Judges do

18     not understand fully why you are putting all these questions.  You must

19     have your own reasons.  You have something like 40 minutes left, I

20     believe.

21             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Yes.  I think I had 50 minutes left when I

22     started, so that might be right.

23        Q.   I'd like to ask you about some other things you testified about

24     yesterday.

25              And for Your Honours' reference, I'm referring to page 16177.

Page 16261

 1             Mr. Jovic, you testified yesterday that you were threatened,

 2     blackmailed, and a number of other things.  I'd like to talk a bit about

 3     that.  You said that your family was threatened.  When was that?

 4        A.   That was -- just a moment.  Let me try and remember.  2000 and --

 5     and -- and well I'm not very good with dates, to be honest, but bear with

 6     me.  It was after I had given my statement to the Defence team and when

 7     I -- when I clashed with Janko Lakic, and that was in 2003, the end of

 8     June perhaps.  Janko Lakic.  Please don't hold it against me.  I just

 9     can't remember.  I'm a sick man.  My centre for equilibrium has been

10     affected.  I really can't remember.

11        Q.   But -- so it was -- you described the incident, I believe,

12     yesterday about Janko Lakic.  So it was after you had given your

13     statements to the OTP.

14             You said -- you also testified that you were threatened with

15     prison.  When was that threat made?

16        A.   Who threatened me with prison?  You mentioned Janko Lakic, and

17     then you went on to ask about threatening with prison.  He didn't

18     threaten me, it was Rita Pradham that threatened me with the central

19     prison in Belgrade that I would be taken to The Hague, to prison there

20     and that I would sing like a canary.

21        Q.   [Overlapping speakers]

22        A.   And then she said we'll see what you're going to do to you --

23     you'll see what we're doing to do to you.

24        Q.   When was that?

25        A.   That was in the office up above, on the floor above.

Page 16262

 1        Q.   When was that?

 2        A.   That was in 2003.  That's when the threats started.  But they

 3     weren't uttered every day -- on one day.  Every day was dramatic and

 4     different.  When I signed my statement, for instance.  It was mostly on

 5     that date, and I pushed the statement to her side of the table.  She

 6     pushed it back.  I didn't want to sign it.

 7             So I'd like to ask the Honourable Judges to confront this matter.

 8        Q.   You -- you said that you would -- that at -- a statement had been

 9     written up for you.  When were you shown -- were you shown a statement?

10        A.   Yes, precisely.

11        Q.   And when was that?

12        A.   It was on the table.  When?  When I was supposed to sign it, on

13     that day.  I can't give you an exact date.  I can't remember.  It was in

14     2003, perhaps -- well, I don't know.  I'm really not good with dates.

15        Q.   Okay.  So -- but you're saying that this was at the time that you

16     were asked to sign your statement in 2003; right?

17        A.   Yes, that's right.  I don't know whether it was 2003.  Yes, it

18     was.  And -- and -- and -- well, I don't know.  There's no point.  I just

19     can't remember the date.  I really can't remember.

20        Q.   You also said that you had been blackmailed.  What were you

21     blackmailed with?

22        A.   Well, don't misunderstand me.  I don't want to have any trouble

23     with you, but would this be a threat to you:  "Sign or else."  And think

24     of your family.  Think of your children.  What could -- what could I

25     deduce from that?  I was in Belgrade.  My children were in Mali Zvornik.

Page 16263

 1     What would happen to them?  So that's how they threatened me, with an

 2     indictment for Zvornik as well.

 3             Now, you have a computer in your head and you don't want to ask,

 4     but some policemen have already given their statements, and you could

 5     tell us the truth, that people -- that you killed people in Drinjaca.

 6     Then in Drinjaca they would take you to court.  But I said that I would

 7     cut off my own right hand if anybody touched my children.

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness repeat what he said.  The

 9     interpreter didn't understand him.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It lasted 14 hours.  The interview

11     lasted 14 hours.

12             MR. MARCUSSEN:

13        Q.   Was that -- was that the interview when you signed your

14     statement?

15        A.   That was when I signed the statement.  There were threats then,

16     and there were threats before if I didn't want to co-operate, if I didn't

17     want to talk, if I didn't want to be a witness against Vojislav Seselj,

18     not only him but against others too.  Franko Simatovic, for instance.

19        Q.   Who made those threats?

20        A.   Mrs. Rita Pradham.  I don't know how you pronounce her name, that

21     H in the middle of her surname, but anyway, Pradham.  I assume you know

22     who that is.

23        Q.   So you say she repeated these threats to you later.  When was

24     that?

25        A.   I said that she would dose out her threats every time I went in

Page 16264

 1     for an interview.  Sometimes they went on for four days, if I remember

 2     correctly.  So when I came for the interview, there would always be

 3     something when I stopped talking and didn't want to say what didn't

 4     happened, she would say, Well, either you're going to say it or you're

 5     going to -- well, you can walk out freely, but I'll tell your MUP to

 6     arrest you and take you to the central prison and then you'll have to

 7     wait there for me to come and get you out and you have to pray to God

 8     that I come soon, who knows when I come.

 9        Q.   So every time you met with the investigator that is what she told

10     you or similar things.  Is that what you're saying?

11        A.   Not straight away.  There would be a nice story first of all, all

12     wrapped up in foil, but then when she got to the nitty-gritty and wanted

13     to make me own up and say that the police had killed in Drinjaca some 100

14     Muslims, that's when it started.  And I didn't want to.  I know that that

15     didn't happen.  I would have heard about it if it had, from my

16     colleagues.  And when I didn't want to own up to that and say that the

17     police did that because I know it never did then the threats would start

18     and she would say, If you don't say it then we'll raise an indictment

19     against you for such and such.  I didn't know that she couldn't do that

20     that you couldn't raise indictments any more, and whether she had the

21     right to raise the indictment without instructions from the Tribunal, I

22     didn't know any of that.  All I did was attend a policeman's course so

23     I'm not well versed in other matters of law.  I'm not an educated

24     policeman.

25        Q.   And you were --

Page 16265

 1        A.   For me to be able to defend myself with those allegations.

 2        Q.   And you testified --

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a follow-up

 4     question.  I have listened to Mr. Marcussen's questions as well as your

 5     answers and you have said that you are a policeman and you know how all

 6     this works.  So more than anyone you know that police, sometimes, when

 7     conducting investigations, use this kind of method and say to someone,

 8     It's in your best interest to talk about things.  The Judges will bear

 9     this in mind.  Think of your family, and so on.

10             Very often this is how things happen, and this didn't mean

11     necessarily that it is blackmail.  What do you have to say?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I say is this:  I didn't say

13     that I was just a policeman for me to know the system according to which

14     the police worked.  All I said was that I attended a short training

15     course and that I was no match for an investigator who studied things

16     like that.  That's what I just said, if that's what you're referring to,

17     what I just said here.

18             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a question.  Witness, I'd

19     like you to tell me, please, the following:  This so-called blackmail

20     purportedly led you to giving false statements; is that right?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course.  And everybody would do

22     the same if their family and children's lives were at stake.  When it

23     comes to your home and children and their life, everybody would behave

24     like that, any normal man.

25             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] So you are saying that you gave

Page 16266

 1     false statements to save your children's lives.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.  I said what

 3     Janko Lakic dictated in order to save my family from misery, poverty.

 4     And they threatened to kill me too.  They threatened to beat me to death,

 5     not to kill me with firearms.  So with a should I have done?  I had an

 6     underaged child.

 7             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I'm sorry.  Perhaps there's

 8     something I've misunderstood.  Who was actually threatening you?  You

 9     mentioned somebody's name.  I haven't quite understood who it was.  I

10     need to check the transcript.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you started asking me who

12     threatened --

13             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] This was Janko Lakic who

14     supposedly threatened you.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, to give a false statement that

16     the Seselj Defence team maltreated us in the offices of the Serbian

17     Radical Party.  I thought you were asking me about that.  If not, if

18     we're talking about Rita, we can move on to that subject then.

19             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I thought maybe I'm mistaken,

20     but I thought that on the basis of the questions put to you by the

21     Prosecutor, you were answering about blackmail that would have been done

22     by the OTP.  Maybe I'm wrong.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can talk about that, too, but I

24     thought you asked me about who blackmailed me in order to give a false

25     statement.  I think that is how you phrased your question.

Page 16267

 1             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Let's set aside what we've been

 2     talking about.  I'll check that later.

 3             Now, I'd like to know the following:  When you were interviewed

 4     by the member -- members of the OTP, you were intimidated --

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Interviewed me in 2003.

 6             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Yes.  And then was

 7     there blackmail at that moment?  Were you intimidated?  Was any pressure

 8     exerted against you?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  There was intimidation,

10     blackmail, threats were made, pressure was put upon me.

11             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] You will answer to the

12     Prosecutor regarding this matter, but I have very specific detail to get

13     from you.  In 2003, you made false statements.  Is that what you're

14     saying?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In 2003, I gave a statement, but a

16     statement was drafted for me.  I was given a statement that I was to

17     learn by heart.  It was this thick, more or less, and then I was told --

18             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Does not reflect the truth?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Rita drafted it, so it didn't

20     correspond to anything.  I was to learn it by heart.  Why would I have to

21     learn something that is true by heart?  If you ask me a question, in ten

22     years' time I will repeat what I said.

23             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Thank you.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, you have the

25     floor.

Page 16268

 1             MR. MARCUSSEN:

 2        Q.   So just so we understand your last answer to the Judge correctly,

 3     what you're saying is that you were put under pressure to give false

 4     information, to sign a statement which is not true.  That's what you're

 5     saying, isn't it?

 6        A.   I'm telling you that I was put under pressure to admit something

 7     that I didn't do and something that I didn't see.  There were threats,

 8     there was blackmail.  Bribes were offered and so on and so forth.  The

 9     statement isn't false, but some of her arguments, some of her

10     philosophical thoughts, were inserted in the statement, but I can say

11     this is what I said and this is what Rita said.

12        Q.   And --

13        A.   That's why I wanted to come to The Hague.

14        Q.   And --

15        A.   To clarify this.

16        Q.   And when was it that you were offered to stay in a hotel with

17     girls for six months at the Tribunal's expense?

18        A.   Well, I don't know.  Rita Pradham said that I would have six

19     months in a hotel.  She said I would stay in a hotel for six months in

20     Holland.  I would be surrounded by beautiful women.  But there was

21     this Predrag Momcilovic, I really don't know his exact surname, who was a

22     member of her team and he added, "You'll be able to avail yourself of

23     their services at the expense of the Tribunal," and Rita added that she

24     would take me to court to see how witnesses testify against Seselj fared

25     so I could get over my nervousness because he --

Page 16269

 1        Q.   My question is:  When did this happen?

 2        A.   I told you quite clearly.  This wasn't told to me on one sole

 3     occasion.  Such offers were made when I had to sign this very lengthy

 4     statement.

 5        Q.   So it was said during the time that your statements were

 6     prepared.  So that means it was said at the time when the investigator,

 7     language assistants, and other people were present; right?  You say this

 8     was during the interview itself.

 9        A.   Naturally.

10        Q.   Thank you.

11        A.   There was Predrag who was present and Jasmina, the interpreter.

12        Q.   Right.  The front page of your statements record all those who

13     were present.  Thanks for that.

14             Now I'd like to move to something else.  Let me just say one

15     thing to you or ask you about something.  Yesterday you testified in

16     response to Judge Lattanzi.  You said, and this is at page 16214, at the

17     bottom and following on the next page:

18              "Madam Judge, let me just explain something to you.  The

19     interpretation I received was -- I received was 'How were you forced?

20     How did they force you?'  That is why, with all due respect, I have to

21     say, and I apologise for that, but nobody can force me to do anything."

22             Yet you are telling us that you as a trained policeman --

23        A.   I don't understand your question.

24        Q.   My question's coming now.  So nobody -- you're somebody who

25     cannot be forced to do anything, yet you say that the Prosecution forced

Page 16270

 1     you to sign statements which are false.  That's what you're telling the

 2     Court today, isn't it?

 3        A.   Wait for my answer.  Wait for my answer, please.  I want the

 4     truth to come out.  When my children are at stake, when my family is at

 5     stake --

 6        Q.   That was not my question.

 7        A.   When the lives of my children are at stake then I am at my most

 8     vulnerable.  Well, I want the truth to be known.  That's the truth.  I

 9     can't tell you what you want to hear.  I can only tell you how things

10     actually were.  And that's the truth.  No one can deny that.  I'm saying

11     this under oath.  I can take the solemn declaration again.  I can do that

12     every morning.

13             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] There's one thing I don't

14     understand, Witness.  You said that Mr. Lakic threatened you, that you

15     were afraid for your lives, you were afraid for your family, and you

16     mentioned other reasons for blackmail, the hotel, the beautiful women, so

17     forth and so on.  That's when it comes to the members of the OTP.  So

18     please don't confuse the issue.  We have two situations, and don't mix

19     them up.

20             So what exactly is -- what exactly does your family have to do

21     with this other kind of blackmail?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course.  At an interview in

23     Belgrade -- well, I spent four days in Belgrade giving an interview.  She

24     said, Think about your family, about your children.  How do I know who's

25     in my house at the time?  I couldn't trust her.  I couldn't believe

Page 16271

 1     anything she said.  She had power.  I didn't.  I didn't have a lawyer.  I

 2     wasn't allowed anything.  I didn't even know how to ask for certain

 3     things.

 4             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] So the members of the OTP

 5     mentioned your own family and your own children.  Are you absolutely

 6     sure?  Thank you.

 7             MR. MARCUSSEN:

 8        Q.   Mr. Jovic, this morning I asked you the same question and you

 9     told me that it was Lakic who had threatened you.  When did anybody from

10     the OTP threaten your family?

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, just a minute.  All

12     these questions will probably be dealt with by another person who will be

13     in charge of investigating these allegations.  However, the Prosecutor is

14     entitled to put questions to you to check your credibility, but just one

15     detail in passing.  You're talking about your children, and of course

16     everyone's interested.  I'm looking at the document.  You were married in

17     1983, and a child was born in 1984.  In 2003, this child is 19 years old.

18     It's not a baby.  It's no longer a baby.  So why are you so worried about

19     a 19-year-old?  It's an adult.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have a son who was

21     born in 1998.  How old was he at the time?  I had this son with my second

22     wife.  My first wife died.  His name is Radomir.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  But in your

24     statement in 2003, you don't mention this second son of yours, and you

25     even mention your second marriage.

Page 16272

 1             Very well.  Mr. Marcussen.

 2             MR. MARCUSSEN:

 3        Q.   Mr. Jovic, when did anybody from OTP threaten your family?

 4        A.   Well, isn't it a threat when you say, Admit that you killed that

 5     person in Drinjaca, think about your children.  What was I to think?  If

 6     I didn't say certain things, someone would go and take my child away or

 7     do something to my family.  I live in a forest.  My house is surrounded

 8     by a forest.  I have no neighbours there.  My wife is alone with the

 9     children.  On one occasion for that reason I fled.  I didn't want to

10     remain.

11        Q.   Thank you.

12        A.   I ran home.  In the morning they phoned me, called me, and asked

13     me, What are you doing at home?

14        Q.   Mr. Jovic, isn't it true that actually you voluntarily came to

15     the Belgrade field office and proposed to be considered as a potential

16     witness?

17        A.   That's not true that I went there voluntarily.  I received a

18     summons, and then I went then.  Naturally it's not that I had to, but it

19     wasn't really of my own accord.  How should I put it?  I received a

20     summons.

21        Q.   And --

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, I have one small

23     question for you.  There might be an error in the transcript.  You say

24     this morning I put the same question to you.  Have you met this witness?

25     Did you meet the witness this morning?  Did you say this morning?

Page 16273

 1             MR. MARCUSSEN:  I might have said this morning.  That is due

 2     to -- what I meant was it was my first questions during the session.

 3     Thank you, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I'm reassured.

 5     Thank you.  It would have been a time-bomb.

 6             MR. MARCUSSEN:

 7        Q.   And actually when you came to the field office you brought with

 8     you 26 documents that you handed over to the investigator at the Office

 9     of the Prosecutor, didn't you?

10        A.   Yes.  On the first occasion I wasn't asked to do that, but on the

11     second occasion I was asked to bring all the documents I had.  I brought

12     everything I had.

13        Q.   And --

14        A.   From my wartime experience in Darda and elsewhere, Tenja.

15        Q.   And when you came to the field office, you said you were prepared

16     to be a witness but that you needed protective measures.

17        A.   They offered me protective measures of their own accord.  I asked

18     them why I needed protective measures, why should I need a glass

19     partition.  Then they mentioned a third country, and I spoke to the VWU

20     and filled in a form of some kind.

21        Q.   [Overlapping speakers]

22        A.   The VWU is a very decent department, one of the most decent ones.

23        Q.   I certainly agree with that.  The first investigator you met at

24     the field office, that was not the investigator Rita, was it?

25        A.   The investigator was Rita.

Page 16274

 1        Q.   Now, after you had met, you had went to the Office of the

 2     Prosecutor in -- on the 17th of June, 2003.  You went back, and on the

 3     10th, 11th, 14th and 15th of July, 2003, you were interviewed by a number

 4     of members of the Office of the Prosecutor; isn't that true?

 5        A.   Yes.  They took turns when interviewing me.

 6        Q.   And it was different interviewers during the different days.

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And the first day you met Rita, but the next day she wasn't

 9     there, was she?

10        A.   I think Rita was always present.

11        Q.   And --

12        A.   But I went to a room.  May I finish my answer?

13        Q.   No.  You have answered.  You say she was always present.

14             And then a statement was drawn up, but it was not signed.  Isn't

15     that correct?

16        A.   Perhaps I can't remember, but I'm not saying that that wasn't the

17     case.

18             MR. MARCUSSEN:  And for Your Honours' reference, that statement

19     that was drawn up is in Your Honours' binder number 2, the one called

20     "Notice of compliance with Trial Chamber order 8 December 2009," and it's

21     under tab number 2.  The 65 ter number is 04626479, 04626500.

22        Q.   And then in -- on the 28th of September, 2003, you went back to

23     the field office again, and there you actually signed the statement

24     that --

25        A.   I was asked --

Page 16275

 1        Q.   -- had been prepared in July.

 2        A.   Yes, but in what way did I sign this?  I told you how this came

 3     about.

 4        Q.   Yes, but what I'm saying is you went back to the Office of the

 5     Prosecutor in September, on the 28th of 2003, and you signed the

 6     statement.

 7        A.   Again without summons.  Did I appear there without having been

 8     summoned?  You're claiming that on the first occasion I went there

 9     without having been summoned?  Is that what you're saying, that I hadn't

10     been summoned?  Try and be a lit bit more courteous.  You're doing your

11     work very well, but --

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a technical

13     question, and I'm sure that the person who will be in charge of

14     investigates will probably put this question to you also.

15             When you signed this document that I have, a document that is 24

16     pages long, you signed it on September 28, 2003.  We have the date.  I

17     would like to know whether the -- before you signed the document, the

18     interpreter actually read over the entire statement in your own language,

19     all paragraphs of this statement, the 142 statements in this -- 142

20     paragraphs in the declaration.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Read it out from a laptop, read out

22     the statement while it was being drafted, and later they brought me the

23     statement so that I could sign it.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is important.  When you

25     signed the statement, the interpreter read over the 142 paragraphs in

Page 16276

 1     your own language and you signed after having heard all these paragraphs.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The interpreter didn't read

 3     anything out.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That's what I wanted to know.

 5     They didn't read anything out.  They just gave you the document and asked

 6     you to sign all the pages.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, the interpreter will

 9     probably be interviewed by the investigator.  We'll see.

10             MR. MARCUSSEN:  And the statement we have just been discussing

11     has 65 ter number 07327.

12        Q.   In October 2005, you contacted the Office of the Prosecutor, did

13     you not?

14        A.   I never contacted them.  They would always contact me.  They had

15     my phone number at home, and they would phone me when it was necessary

16     for me to appear then tell me when to come, but in October, Rita issued a

17     wanted notice for me because I was in Montenegro.

18        Q.   On the -- on the 24th of October, 2005, you called the Office of

19     the Prosecutor.  You actually spoke to Rita, and you reported security

20     concerns, and the next day one of her colleagues spoke to you about the

21     concerns, didn't he?  So you called because you were afraid you'd been at

22     a conference.  Isn't that true?

23        A.   That's not the reason I phoned.  You're right, I remember that

24     now.  You are quite right.

25        Q.   So you did call the Office of the Prosecutor.

Page 16277

 1        A.   I phoned her quite simply because -- just a minute.  Let me

 2     complete my answer.  I have to explain this.  It's the truth.  I want to

 3     tell you the truth.  It's not that simple.  You can't just say, I phoned

 4     them and that's it.  This is an act of aggression against a witness who

 5     is trying to tell you the truth.  Would you allow me to explain to you

 6     the reason for which I phoned them.  If not, say so and that's not a

 7     problem.

 8        Q.   My question was whether you had contacted the Office of the

 9     Prosecutor.  You had.  You spoke to Rita, you confirmed that you had

10     called her.

11             Now, you reported -- you called because you were concerned about

12     your security.  Isn't that true?

13        A.   Yes.

14             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Now, Your Honours, we have a document which is --

15     has 65 ter number 07329, which is in the binder that you have.

16        Q.   What was the security concern that you had, that you called Rita

17     about?

18        A.   I wasn't worried about my own safety.  I tried to find out where

19     the protection I was being offered actually was, and on another occasion

20     I said my best friend was threatening me.  What did they do about that?

21     Nothing.  Nobody did anything.  Then I saw that they were just telling me

22     lies.  It was just a matter of deception.  I was supposed to put my head

23     in a bag, go abroad and live on the street there, beg.  That's what Rita

24     promised me.  That's why I phoned her to, see what sort of possibilities

25     she had.

Page 16278

 1             Your Honours, do you understood me?  I phoned her but she wanted

 2     to take my family into the unknown.  I wanted to see whether everything

 3     that was said was true, but I realised it was just a matter of deception.

 4     I -- I'm quite sure that you're not involved in this, but it was Rita.

 5        Q.   And then you were contacted again by the Office of the Prosecutor

 6     on the 13th of October, 2006, and you were asked to meet with the Office

 7     of the Prosecutor again with a view to take a statement.  And you did

 8     actually meet with the Office of the Prosecutor --

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you are under oath.

10     You took an oath, and you said that you would tell the truth, and you

11     said that you want to say everything and say the truth, which is why you

12     are testifying opening, and I congratulate you on being frank, but in our

13     file we have a declaration made by you on October 21st of 2005 to the OTP

14     -- on the 25th of October, 2005, in the OTP, you say that you're a radio

15     ham, et cetera, et cetera, that you heard a number of information,

16     various things, that you heard a person called Zlatko Peric talking over

17     the radio about atrocities that had happened in Zvornik during the war,

18     and you were afraid, afraid that you could be destroyed as a Prosecution

19     witness.  This is what you said in this statement.  Have you forgotten

20     everything?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're right.  I forgot about that.

22     You're right.  That is what I said.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Who were you afraid of at the

24     time?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was only afraid of going abroad.

Page 16279

 1     I was afraid of how I would be received there.  I was worried about

 2     whether I would have appropriate living conditions there, about whether

 3     I'd be able to feed my children.  Perhaps it would no longer be possible

 4     to return.  So that's why I wanted to check out the possibilities that

 5     Rita had.  Or sometimes I tried to check things with Christine Dalj.  I

 6     said Novak Savic is threatening me.  He's my best friend.  He has

 7     diabetes, he's 70 plus year old.  She said, Do you have a passport?  I

 8     said, Yes.  She said, The VWU from Sarajevo will contact you.  Then

 9     Mr. Mike, I respect him, well, he carries out the Tribunal's orders.

10     Well, I don't really know what those Tribunal structure's like.  Please

11     let me complete my answer.  Be patient.  This was on Thursday, and he

12     said, Next week I won't be here.  When I return, we'll deal with the

13     matter.  So what would have happened if Novak Savic had really threatened

14     me?  By the time Mike appeared next week, I would have spent seven days

15     in my grave.  Then I saw that this was all just a matter of deception and

16     nothing else.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, a professional person

18     like myself reading this statement can draw the following conclusion, but

19     I'm talking under your control because you said all this to the

20     Prosecutor.  You heard on the radio, on the radio ham, a person called

21     Peric talking about what might have happened in Zvornik.  You say that

22     this Peric was -- that this Peric was a member of a paramilitary group,

23     that you might be blamed for the atrocities that happened in Zvornik, and

24     that's when you become so frightened.  You say that you're frightened

25     that families will want to take revenge on you.  Is that what you're

Page 16280

 1     saying?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that Peric -- well, this --

 3     a Muslim friend of mine told me about this from Zvornik, that

 4     Zlatko Peric, and Zlatko Peric is one of our radio hams, and he said that

 5     they were -- they had a party with the Muslims, and he said that I had

 6     committed evil deeds around Zvornik and that I was frightened of revenge,

 7     people taking revenge on me, Muslims.  But they're my neighbours.  They

 8     come to my house now because I didn't do any of that, of course.  So

 9     Zlatko and I forgot about that later on.  We were able to move on.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Did you also tell the

11     Prosecutor, "I was waiting for the right moment to tell you this?"  Did

12     you also tell the Prosecutor that you were afraid of the radicals or

13     members of the Serbian Radical Party?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't say that I was afraid

15     of the Serbian Radical Party.  What I said was somebody might kill me who

16     lost their family in the war, an ordinary man who didn't belong to any

17     party, because I live in the border belt where people were killed.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All of this is extremely

19     complex.  A professional investigator and a very experienced person is

20     the only person who can look into all of this.  This may take a lot of

21     time.  The Judges do not have the material capability to deal with all of

22     this.

23             Mr. Marcussen.

24             MR. MARCUSSEN:

25        Q.   You met again with Rita, a lawyer, and interpreters on the 18th

Page 16281

 1     and 19th of October, 2006, and that's when you signed the statement that

 2     we talked about yesterday.  We already went over that yesterday.

 3             Now, then you called Rita again on the 9th of January, 2007, and

 4     the reason you called was that you had been contacted by the accused's

 5     Defence team.  Isn't that true?

 6        A.   I didn't call Rita -- what date did you say, the 19th?

 7        Q.   The 9th of January, the 9th of January, 2007.  You called because

 8     you had been contacted by the Defence team who wanted to speak to you.

 9        A.   Well, on the 19th of January, 2007, I was -- I might have called

10     Christine Dahl.  Might that not be a mistake?

11        Q.   I don't think so.

12        A.   She called me a number of times, and I called --

13        Q.   We will get to this in a minute, I believe.  You called Rita.

14     You told that the Defence team wanted to speak to you, and what you were

15     told was that you could speak to them and that you should tell the truth.

16     Isn't that right?

17        A.   I didn't call Rita.  I don't remember calling Rita, and I do

18     believe that I did not.

19        Q.   Just -- okay.  Then in September -- on the 5th of September,

20     2007, you were contacted by the Office of the Prosecutor who wanted to

21     meet you, and you agreed to meet representatives of the Office of the

22     Prosecutor.  Isn't that true?

23        A.   Of course.  Since they called me, I had to go.

24        Q.   And you met with them on the 21st of September, 2007, and that's

25     when you told them about the statements that you had given to the Defence

Page 16282

 1     team of the accused in January 2007.  Isn't that true?

 2        A.   Probably.  Probably it was like that.  Yes, you could say that.

 3        Q.   And you brought with you -- you spoke about a number of

 4     documents, and on the 1st of October you met with some people at the

 5     field office and there was a video-conference and you signed a statement

 6     about what you said were threats and falsification of the statements you

 7     had given in January.  Isn't that true?

 8        A.   I spoke about that.

 9        Q.   That's correct.

10        A.   But --

11        Q.   And --

12        A.   -- I explained why --

13        Q.   I know what you said.  I just wanted to be clear that we agree

14     that you did give a statement on the 1st of October.  And when you met

15     with the Office of the Prosecutor on the 1st of October, you came with a

16     number of documents.  You brought a statement dated the 29th of January,

17     2007, which is your Defence statement which had been certified before the

18     Belgrade court -- one of the courts in Belgrade.  You also brought a

19     letter that you had written to the accused, and you brought a statement

20     that you had made yourself retracting the 29th January 2007 statement.

21     Isn't that true?

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, while we're waiting

23     to be connected again, I could raise two issues, administrative ones, and

24     so that we just have one left for the end.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment.  I think all of a

Page 16283

 1     sudden he's there on the screen again.  We shall keep these housekeeping

 2     matters for the end of the hearing.

 3             Mr. Marcussen, our witness is back.

 4             MR. MARCUSSEN:

 5        Q.   Mr. Jovic, do you remember my question?

 6        A.   No, I don't.

 7        Q.   When you came on the 1st of October to the field office, you

 8     brought three documents with you.  You brought a copy of one of the

 9     versions of the statement you had given to the Defence, dated the 29th of

10     January, 2007.  That's correct, right?

11        A.   Yes, that's right.

12        Q.   And you also brought with you a letter, a handwritten letter,

13     that you told the Prosecution you had sent to the accused, Mr. Seselj.

14     Is that true?  Isn't that true?

15        A.   Yes, it is.

16        Q.   And you brought a statement that you had gone to have certified

17     yourself in which you retract your 29 January statement.  Isn't that

18     true?  You gave that to the Office of the Prosecutor that day.

19        A.   The 20th of January?  I can't remember the date, but I did bring

20     them that, and I can explain why.

21             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Your Honours, the documents in question are

22     65 ter numbers 07331, 07332, 07334, and 07335.  In light of time I can't

23     show these documents to the witness, but I also believe in light of his

24     answers there's no dispute that these documents were given.  He already

25     talked about this yesterday.

Page 16284

 1        Q.   Mr. Jovic, then after this --

 2        A.   Am I going to have a chance to explain why I brought them?

 3        Q.   You --

 4        A.   Are you going to give me the opportunity of explaining why I

 5     brought those documents?

 6        Q.   Let's just go through my questions.  On the 16th of November,

 7     2007, you contacted a member of the Victims and Witnesses Unit because

 8     you wanted to get in touch with the Office of the Prosecutor, and you

 9     wanted the Office of the Prosecutor to know that you were afraid

10     because --

11        A.   I was invited to go to the premises.

12        Q.   And you contacted -- well, actually let's --

13        A.   I'm not getting any interpretation.

14        Q.   Can you hear me now?  Is it better?

15        A.   I can hear you now.  I can hear you very well, but I can't hear

16     the interpreter.  Yes, I've just heard him.  I can hear the interpreter

17     now.

18        Q.   Actually, let me go back just a little bit, just a few days back.

19     On the 5th of November, 2007, you contacted a member of the Victims and

20     Witnesses Unit because you wanted to speak to the OTP, to the Office of

21     the Prosecutor, and you wanted to clarify some details about when you had

22     had a visa for Russia issued.  Isn't that true?

23        A.   How come the Victims and Witnesses Unit sent it to Russia and

24     that I knew the telephone number?  I contacted Christine Dahl concerning

25     all these questions of migration and so on.

Page 16285

 1        Q.   And you also wanted to give another statement to the Office of

 2     the Prosecutor because there was another version of the statement that

 3     you had signed on the 29th of January, 2007, to the Defence team.  Isn't

 4     that true?

 5        A.   Possible.

 6        Q.   Because isn't it a fact, as you explain in your letter to Seselj,

 7     that you initially gave a statement to the Defence team on the 29th of

 8     January, which was recorded by the Defence team?  Isn't that true?

 9        A.   How do you mean?  I don't understand.  Could you repeat that

10     question, please.

11        Q.   On the 29th of January, 2007, when you gave your statements to

12     the Defence team, the Defence team record -- had a tape recorder and

13     recorded part of your -- of what you said.

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And then they drafted up a statement for you to sign.

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   You weren't really given a proper opportunity to read it through,

18     and you were taken off to the 4th District Court where your signature was

19     certified.  Isn't that true?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   And so you had a signed statement now given to the Defence, but

22     then you read through the statement and you weren't satisfied with it,

23     and you complained to members of the accused's Defence team about the

24     statement.  Isn't that true?

25        A.   I was satisfied with my statement, but under pressure from

Page 16286

 1     Janko Lakic, and I described those pressures, from Janko Lakic, and

 2     that's how the statement came to be brought, within that context.

 3        Q.   No, because the truth is, as you explained in your letter to the

 4     accused, that because you were not satisfied with the statement, another

 5     version of the statement was drafted up.  Isn't that true?  So your first

 6     statement that was signed on the 21st of -- or drafted on the 29th of

 7     January, 2007, was certified on the 31st of January, 2007; right?

 8        A.   Yes, but --

 9        Q.   But then you make another -- but then you --

10        A.   I have to explain that.

11        Q.   And then there is another version of the same statement which is

12     a new version of the statement, and that is actually certified in March.

13     Isn't that true?

14        A.   Possibly.

15        Q.   And that is because you were not happy with the first version of

16     the statement, so you went back and another version was made of the

17     statement.  Isn't that true?

18        A.   It wasn't because of that.

19        Q.   And then --

20        A.   It was because it was recorded on a Dictaphone and needed to be

21     retyped, and when it was retyped, I was called to court to certify it.  I

22     read it and it was correct.

23        Q.   And then some time passed and you received a call from Lakic, who

24     also had given a statement, who realised that things had been inserted

25     into the statement.  Isn't that true?

Page 16287

 1        A.   It might have been true for him, but mine was correct, 100 per

 2     cent.

 3        Q.   And you went to the office -- when the Office of the Prosecutor

 4     contacted you, you explained in detail what parts of the statement were

 5     incorrect and in what way, which parts were not true, which parts were

 6     partially true, and that's what you explained in detail to the Office of

 7     the Prosecutor on the 1st of October, 2007.  Isn't that right?

 8        A.   I had to talk because of the threats.  So I had to say it the way

 9     they told me to.  And the young woman sitting next to me, she -- she

10     circled some paragraphs more than me, and I had to behave properly just

11     so that I could get out of there.

12        Q.   Who --

13        A.   You know that I was between suicide and coming here.  That was

14     the situation.  A rock and a hard place.  You don't understand all the

15     problems you've inflicted upon me.

16        Q.   And so you're claiming that Lakic threatened you and then

17     somebody from the Office of the Prosecutor --

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Mr. Marcussen.

19     Your time is up.  Please try to conclude now.

20             MR. MARCUSSEN:

21        Q.   So you're claiming that Lakic threatened you and then the Office

22     of the Prosecutor manipulated your hand to encircle a number of parts in

23     your statement.  Is that what you're saying?

24        A.   It's the statement that you mentioned and said where we circled

25     the paragraphs, what I said, what Verice Radeta said.  Is that the

Page 16288

 1     statement you're referring to?

 2        Q.   That is the statement I'm referring to.

 3        A.   You said -- so it's that one.  And that's what I had -- why I had

 4     to do what I knew would be -- that you would be satisfied with it,

 5     because goodness knows what I would have experienced otherwise.  I was

 6     afraid of you.

 7        Q.   Isn't it --

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness repeat what he said.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not you.  I don't mean you

10     personally.  I mean the investigators.  I don't blame or accuse the

11     Judges or you.  To be quite frank, I respect you, and I apologise for my

12     temperament and for raising my voice, but those people who threatened me

13     and made problems for me, when I came there I was afraid of them.  When

14     I -- when I came here, I was afraid of them.  But otherwise, everybody

15     was nice to me and deserve every respect, and I can say that publicly so

16     that the whole world can hear, as far as my treatment here today and

17     yesterday.

18        Q.   And isn't it true --

19        A.   But before that --

20        Q.   Isn't it true that then -- isn't it true that in November when it

21     became known in the public that you were going to be a witness in this

22     case, you became very worried, and then you retracted the statement you

23     had given on the 1st of October because you were afraid of the

24     consequences of being a witness here?  Isn't that true?

25        A.   I sent a statement before that to the Defence team, before

Page 16289

 1     November.

 2        Q.   You retracted your statement that you gave to the Defence team in

 3     a statement to the OTP, and then you retracted the statement you had

 4     given to the OTP retracting your Defence team's statement because you

 5     were afraid when it became known you were a witness.  Isn't that true?

 6        A.   It is not true about November.

 7        Q.   And isn't it true --

 8        A.   In November I --

 9        Q.   Mr. Jovic, investigator Rita Pradham never threatened you, and

10     the --

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Witness.  Let

12     Mr. Marcussen put --

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am on oath here, and I will take

14     the oath again.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are under oath.  As

16     Mr. Marcussen is going to finish putting his questions to you, listen

17     carefully to what he tells you and then you may state your position, but

18     you are overlapping all the time and it is difficult to follow.  I would

19     like to listen carefully to what Mr. Marcussen is saying and then listen

20     carefully to what you have to say.

21             Mr. Marcussen, start again, because there has been a lot of

22     overlapping.

23             MR. MARCUSSEN:

24        Q.   Mr. Jovic, I'm putting to you that you are not telling the truth

25     when you are alleging that investigator Rita Pradham, of the Office of

Page 16290

 1     the Prosecutor, ever threatened you.  That is not true, is it, Mr. Jovic?

 2        A.   I can take the oath again on pain of being criminally prosecuted

 3     and on my moral responsibility that everything is as I have told it.

 4     It's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but.

 5        Q.   And --

 6        A.   Now, as far as the threats are concerned from Rita Pradham, I --

 7        Q.   And it is not true --

 8        A.   I have taken the solemn declaration here so I am speaking on

 9     oath.

10        Q.   [Overlapping speakers]

11        A.   I didn't understand what you said.  What are you asking me?

12        Q.   And it is not true that a person called Predrag from the Office

13     of the Prosecutor promised you dancing girls at a hotel in The Hague for

14     six months.  That is just not true, is it, Mr. Jovic?

15        A.   No, that's not true.  I said -- I said for the first question

16     it's true.  It's not that it's not true.  It's true that Rita threatened

17     me and (redacted), or whatever, said that I would have dancing

18     girls and could use their services at the expense of the Tribunal.  So I

19     can take the solemn declaration again and I swear on my child, the child

20     that I have.

21        Q.   And --

22        A.   I'm telling the truth here, sir, with all due respect.

23        Q.   Mr. Jovic, you want this Court to believe that Rita Pradham who

24     had threatened you is the very person you called on two occasions when

25     you felt threatened.  That is the person you called and reached out to.

Page 16291

 1     You really want this Court to believe that?

 2        A.   Because I wanted to check out her capabilities, whether she could

 3     and would protect me or not, but she didn't have the possibility to do

 4     that.  She couldn't protect herself, let alone me, and she threw me into

 5     this abyss, and as I'm still on oath, I can swear that that is so.

 6        Q.   So you did call here because you wanted protection.  Now, I do

 7     believe that you have been in a difficult situation, but you have not

 8     been threatened by the Office of the Prosecutor.  There have been other

 9     forces that have been influencing you.  The statements you have given to

10     the Office of the Prosecutor are a true reflection of what you have been

11     seeing and hearing, and for very unfortunate reasons you are now trying

12     to backtrack from what you had earlier told the Office of the Prosecutor.

13     Isn't that true, Mr. Jovic?

14        A.   You've turned everything upsidedown, topsy-turvy.  Nobody

15     threatened me.  Well, somebody that you consider to be someone.  I was

16     threatened by the investigator, Rita Pradham, and I am repeating this for

17     the tenth time, and I swear that that is so and I will take the solemn

18     declaration once again, and I want legal proceedings to be taken against

19     her, because as a person in a position of responsibility, she must be

20     held responsible.  If I was born in a village, I'm not a village goat.

21             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Your Honour, this concludes my examination.  I

22     would like to tender a number of documents at this point.  Your Honours,

23     it is my submission that the witness, as I have just put to him, gave

24     correct statements to the Office of the Prosecutor in 2003 and 2006.

25     Those statements reflect his true evidence.  He is -- has not been

Page 16292

 1     testifying according to his statements and according to the truth on a

 2     number of occasions during his testimony and has retracted key parts of

 3     his evidence, such as whether or not Seselj's men participated in the

 4     attack on Zvornik, such as whether he ever had a meeting with the accused

 5     after he had been in Tenja, and a number of other things which I can go

 6     into if Your Honours want more detail, but in the interest of time, maybe

 7     I should move on.

 8             The --

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please give us the numbers of

10     the statements, please.

11             MR. MARCUSSEN:  We're tendering the October 2006 statement which

12     has 65 ter 07330.  I would also like to tender the unsigned version of

13     the witness's July statement from 2003, and that is the statement which

14     was in tab -- under tab number 2 in the binder that I mentioned earlier,

15     and the 65 ter number is 0462-6479, 0462-6500.  The signed version of

16     that statement we also tender.  It's dated the 28th of September, 2003.

17     It has 65 ter number 07327.  We also tender the October 1st statement

18     from 2007.  The 65 ter number of that one is 07331.  And the associated

19     documents with that are 65 ter numbers 07332, 07334, 07335.  And the

20     version of the -- the statement to the Defence team which was later

21     provided to the Office of the Prosecutor we also tender.  It is 65 ter

22     number 07333.  We would also like to tender the statement from 2005 that

23     the President read significant portions from to the witness.  That is 65

24     ter number 07322 -- sorry, correction.  07329.  And we have an

25     investigator report about the witness's first meeting with the Office of

Page 16293

 1     the Prosecutor.  That has 65 ter number 07328.  And yesterday the

 2     President read out from a report prepared by Marie Costello of the Office

 3     of the Prosecutor about the witness's contact with the Office of the

 4     Prosecutor.  It is the document in the blue binder or folder.  That

 5     document does not have a 65 ter number or an ERN number, so we will be

 6     advising the Court of what 65 ter that declaration have as soon as

 7     possible just so there's no -- at least I gave a date.  The date of the

 8     statement is the 7th of April, 2010.

 9             That was a fair bit in one go.  I think I got it all.  Thank you,

10     Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  As you know -- one

12     moment.  As you know, Mr. Marcussen, the Trial Chamber will rule on this

13     application after the cross-examination only.  All of this is on the

14     record.

15             Mr. Seselj will have an hour and a half after this to

16     cross-examine the witness.  We shall have a break now.

17             Mr. Seselj?

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could I have half a minute with

19     regard to what Mr. Marcussen said?  First of all, I think I will need a

20     little more time.  I thought I'd need at least an hour and 45 minutes.

21     That's the amount of time used by Mr. Marcussen.  Secondly, what

22     Mr. Marcussen has requested has no legal foundation.  However, in certain

23     cases, statements are directly tendered into evidence, but I'm

24     discriminated against with regard to the accused in those cases.

25     Judge Lattanzi's a member of a Chamber that's dealing with the Karadzic

Page 16294

 1     case, so she has witnessed this.  I follow this by watching the Bijeljina

 2     television, and I can see that the Chamber takes witness statements into

 3     evidence, admits it into evidence, but then the Prosecution has an hour

 4     for its interrogation and the accused 10 or 12 hours.  I am supposed to

 5     have the same amount of time as the Prosecution.  I was brought here

 6     yesterday together with General Tolimir.  He said that he usually had 10

 7     or 12 hours to interview a witness.  But what the witness said would be

 8     admitted into evidence, and then the Prosecution would interview the

 9     witness for an hour, an hour and a half.  I'm just drawing your attention

10     to what is happening in other cases.  So I'm being discriminated against

11     in comparison.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I do the same thing as you do.

13     You look at the television, you see what's going on and I always watch my

14     screen when I'm in my office, and I follow the Karadzic case, as well as

15     the Tolimir case, and others.  And I note that in other cases, just like

16     here, it's always the same -- it's the same way of doing it.  The

17     Prosecution has a number of hours for its examination-in-chief and then

18     we -- the Defence has the same time for the cross-examination.  So the

19     Prosecutor has used a bit more than an hour and 30 minutes, and you will

20     also have a little bit more than an hour and 30 minutes.  Of course, you

21     also have administrative matters that you want to discuss.

22             Yes?

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't think you are well

24     informed.  Madam Lattanzi can confirm this.  Mr. Karadzic gets 10 or 12

25     hours per witness.  The Chamber must bear in mind that the Prosecution is

Page 16295

 1     a lot more capable than an accused, as a rule, who is defending himself.

 2     The Prosecution has means at its disposal.  I am powerless.  I have to

 3     confront the Prosecution.  I just wave my hand and --

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, don't talk

 5     nonsense.  You are talking about the Karadzic case.  I follow it also,

 6     just like you.  There are open sessions, and I follow the open sessions.

 7     Mr. Karadzic does have a lot of time to put questions to the witnesses,

 8     but in the Karadzic case, the Prosecutor decided to switch to a 92 ter --

 9     to Rule 92 ter.  He's got statements, written statements, and then the

10     Defence, i.e., Mr. Karadzic has time to cross-examine the witness because

11     that's the 92 ter rule.  We're not using this rule here in this case.  We

12     are not using rule 92 ter.  Here we were a viva voce -- we have a Chamber

13     witness and we gave everyone an hour and 30 minutes where we could have

14     used up all the time, you know, for the Judges and Trial Chamber, only

15     giving you five minutes to the Prosecution and five minutes to you.  But

16     we were very fair and square with you, you know.

17             Witness, now, you've listened to all of this.  Please rest for 20

18     minutes because after the break Mr. Seselj will be cross-examining you,

19     and you need to be in good shape.  We'll meet again in 20 minutes.

20                           --- Recess taken at 3.52 p.m.

21                           --- On resuming at 4.15 p.m.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen.

23             MR. MARCUSSEN:  I'm just on my feet very briefly.  I would like

24     the record to just reflect that during the break, maybe during the

25     towards the end of my examination of the witness, the accused provided us

Page 16296

 1     with references to the two documents that you've been handed during the

 2     break, and our case manager has printed these documents out and provided

 3     them to the Court.  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Thank you.

 5             Mr. Seselj, you have the floor.

 6                           Cross-examination by Mr. Seselj:

 7        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Jovic, I would like most to deal with

 8     questions that are important in relation to the indictment brought

 9     against me.  You allegedly in your statements, which the Prosecution has

10     provided me with, naturally I believe you when you say that the

11     Prosecution put suggestions to you with regard to the contents of the

12     statement, but I believe that some of the things in the statements are

13     some of the things you said, so I would now like to clarify this matter

14     and see what is true and what isn't true in your statements.

15             Here it says that you, in October 1991, set off with

16     Dragan Spasojevic, and perhaps with Janko Lakic to Baranja to act as

17     volunteers there with a large group of other men, I don't know how many

18     of them there were, in order to gain war experience there as well; is

19     that correct?

20        A.   It's correct that we did set off through the MUP so that young

21     men who hadn't been in the battle-field would gain some wartime

22     experience because the war in Bosnia was imminent.

23        Q.   That was the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, was it?

24        A.   The MUP of the Bosnian Serbs from Bosnia and Herzegovina, the

25     Zvornik MUP.

Page 16297

 1        Q.   But at the time the MUP hadn't been split up into a Serb and

 2     Muslim component; is that right?  Because that was in October 1991.

 3        A.   I think that it had already been divided, I'm not sure.

 4        Q.   As far as I know, it hadn't been divided by that time, but

 5     Dragan Spasojevic was also an SDS activist; isn't that correct?

 6        A.   Yes.  He was the president of the party, not the president, in

 7     fact, the secretary, something like that.

 8        Q.   You set off there by bus; is that right?  And in private cars.

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And you say that you were by -- near the village of Darda there?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Very well.  So now you say that over there you had contact with

13     Rade Kostic, who was a functionary of the police force of

14     Serbian Krajina; is that correct?

15        A.   Yes.  He was the deputy minister, Martic's deputy minister.  He

16     was responsible for Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem.

17        Q.   The police there wore uniforms similar to the police force in

18     Serbia; is that correct?

19        A.   Yes, it is.  There were very slight differences, however the

20     colour was different.

21        Q.   So the colour of the uniforms was different.  And there were

22     other insignia with the Serbian flag; is that right?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And you were offered the possibility of working in the police,

25     but you were to remove the insignia with a two-headed eagle as it was

Page 16298

 1     considered to be a Chetnik symbol; is that correct?

 2        A.   No, because we didn't have any insignia with the two-headed

 3     eagle.  We had police insignia, insignia worn by the police in the

 4     Republic of Serbian Krajina.

 5        Q.   I see.  You then describe how you returned on the 27th of

 6     November, you returned home, and after several days Dragan Spasojevic

 7     called you again and asked you to report to him in the Zvornik SUP; is

 8     that correct?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   He was the police commander, whereas the chief of the secretariat

11     of internal affairs was a Muslim?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Do you remember the name of the Muslim?

14        A.   I'm not sure.

15        Q.   It's not important.  It's not important.  If I have understood

16     this correctly, he engaged you as his body-guard on that occasion?

17        A.   That's quite right.

18        Q.   And since he couldn't employ in the police where the Serbs and

19     Muslims were together, you received your salary from the Serbian

20     Democratic Party.  That's what it says here.

21        A.   Correct.

22        Q.   The salary was paid to you in the form of social benefit; is that

23     correct?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And you, together with Dragan Spasojevic, went to Baranja again

Page 16299

 1     from December 1991 until March 1992.  You went to fetch weapons on three

 2     occasions; is that correct?

 3        A.   Yes it's true.

 4        Q.   Baranja is in the Republic of Serbian Krajina; is that right?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   There was a weapons warehouse there near Beli Manastir or Darda,

 7     where would it be?

 8        A.   It was in Darda, a little outside the village.

 9        Q.   You usually went to fetch four or five lorries.

10        A.   Yes, three or four.

11        Q.   In your statement, it says that you loaded firewood onto the

12     lorries, firewood that was gathered as aid for the Serbs in Baranja

13     because they didn't have many forests there and they didn't have wood; is

14     that correct?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   But when you would arrive there, your statement says,

17     Dragan Spasojevic apparently sold that firewood.

18        A.   That's possible because the lorries would arrive empty in Darda.

19        Q.   So you would set off with firewood?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   In paragraph 56 on your statement from 2006, it says:

22             "The lorries would go from Zvornik to Mali Zvornik, and then we

23     would go to Croatia.  We would cross the bridge.  We moved -- we removed

24     the insignia from the lorries.  Dragan Spasojevic would then take the

25     profit."

Page 16300

 1             Is that what you said?

 2        A.   That's correct.

 3        Q.   I don't believe you said Croatia.  You probably said the Republic

 4     of Serbian Krajina, but since your interpreter was a Croat, she probably

 5     used a faulty version of the Serbian language and changed this, too, is

 6     that right?

 7        A.   Absolutely.

 8        Q.   Because Baranja was never part of Croatia; is that correct?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Now it's under Croatian occupation?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Very well.  You loaded weapons onto the lorries there and you

13     would cover the weapons with sugar and other goods, food; is that

14     correct?  There were boxes and wine, and so on.

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   So you covered it with that because you had to go through Serbia.

17     You couldn't go from Baranja to Zvornik unless you went through Serbia;

18     is that correct?

19        A.   Yes.  First you have Zvezda and then Sombor.

20        Q.   And you were afraid that the Serbian police might stop you

21     somewhere and in order to hide the weapons, you used flour, wine, sugar,

22     and certain other goods; is that correct?

23        A.   That's correct.

24        Q.   And that shows that as far as the authorities in Serbia are

25     concerned, what you were doing was illegal.  The authorities in Serbia

Page 16301

 1     wouldn't have allowed you to do this had they been aware of this?

 2        A.   No.  If they had arrested us, we would have been accused of

 3     trafficking.

 4        Q.   Of trafficking in weapons.  And you would have been held to

 5     account; is that correct?

 6        A.   That's correct.

 7        Q.   Very well.  And then you say how things transpired when you

 8     arrived in Zvornik with weapons, and you said how the weapons were

 9     distributed in Serbian villages.  Were some of the weapons delivered to

10     Muslims?  Did they end up in hands of the Muslims?  Were there Serbs who

11     would sell weapons to Muslims instead of giving them to Serbs?

12        A.   Yes.  I heard that from Muslims later on.

13        Q.   And the Muslims were fairly well armed at the time; isn't that

14     correct?

15        A.   Yes, they were well armed.  But when the police would come to

16     look for rifles, well, they would ask for a thousand German marks because

17     a Serb sold them -- a weapon for a thousand marks.  They said, Give me a

18     thousand marks, I'll give you the rifle.

19        Q.   Very well.  So now we come to the conflict around Zvornik between

20     the Serbian and the Muslim forces.  You know that far before the conflict

21     the Muslims formed the Green Berets paramilitary formation?

22        A.   Yes, and they moved around Zvornik quite freely.  They weren't

23     armed, but they wore Green Berets.

24        Q.   But is it correct to say that Muslim policemen, at the beginning

25     of April, took away a large amount of weapons from the police warehouse

Page 16302

 1     and distributed them to the worst criminals in Zvornik?

 2        A.   Yes.  Among them there were criminals from Mali Zvornik,

 3     criminals who were Muslims.

 4        Q.   They went there, took the weapons and joined the paramilitary

 5     formation; is that correct?

 6        A.   Yes, that's correct.  They controlled the entrance over the

 7     bridge.

 8        Q.   At the time, did the Serbian civilians flee en masse?  Most of

 9     the Serbs fled from Zvornik; am I correct?

10        A.   Yes, you are correct.  I assisted them.

11        Q.   And the policemen split up into Serbian and Muslim groups.  The

12     Serbs moved to Karakaj, the Serbian police moved to Karakaj which is a

13     suburb of Zvornik.

14        A.   Yes, that's correct.

15        Q.   And where is Radalj?

16        A.   Radalj is in Serbia, across the Drina River.  It's three

17     kilometres from the main road or from the Drina River.  It's opposite

18     Karakaj.

19        Q.   How far is it in kilometres from Mali Zvornik?

20        A.   It's about 8 kilometres away.

21        Q.   Are you aware of the fact that in Zvornik, prior to this

22     conflict, both the Serbs and Muslims had their own Crisis Staffs?

23        A.   Yes, that's quite normal.

24        Q.   And both Crisis Staffs were preparing for confrontation and

25     sometimes they also tried to negotiate about how to divide the

Page 16303

 1     municipality of Zvornik?

 2        A.   Yes, that's quite correct.

 3        Q.   Are you aware of the fact that at the beginning of April the

 4     vice-president of Republika Srpska came to Zvornik, Biljana Plavsic, and

 5     she attended a meeting of the Serbian Crisis Staff?

 6        A.   I really am not aware of that.

 7        Q.   At the beginning of April, were you always together with

 8     Dragan Spasojevic?

 9        A.   Yes, but sometimes I would stay by the car while he attended a

10     meeting.

11        Q.   Do you know that under the influence of Biljana Plavsic the

12     Crisis Staff took a decision, according to which Arkan should be paid to

13     come to Zvornik and to participate in imminent fighting?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Do you know how much money was involved?

16        A.   No, I don't, but there was this deal.

17        Q.   According to the information presented here, the amount was about

18     300.000 German marks.  Do you know that Dragan Spasojevic, the police

19     commander, was made responsible by the Crisis Staff to go to Arkan and to

20     hand over the money to him?

21        A.   I know about that, and I -- I've heard about that from him too.

22        Q.   Did you have any contact with him after the war too?

23        A.   Yes, I did.

24        Q.   He's a rich businessman in Serbian now, isn't he?

25        A.   Yes.  Yes.  One of the richest ones.

Page 16304

 1        Q.   And before the war, was he rich?

 2        A.   No.  He was a medical orderly.

 3        Q.   Our people would say he didn't have a penny.

 4        A.   That's right.

 5        Q.   But we're not talking about him here.  We're interested in Arkan

 6     above all.  When Arkan arrived from Bijeljina, he went to

 7     Radaljska Banja; is that correct?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   He arrived with very few men.

10        A.   That's right.

11        Q.   However, you know that a JNA unit had been deployed in Zvornik.

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Was that the tank brigade that arrived from Jastrebarsko in

14     Croatia?  It arrive in the territory of Tuzla and Zvornik.

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Are you aware of the fact that the commander of the brigade was

17     Colonel Tacic?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Are you aware of the fact that a tank battalion from that brigade

20     was in Zvornik under the command of Dragan Obrenovic,

21     Captain Dragan Obrenovic?

22        A.   Yes, I knew Dragan too.  I saw him there.  Dragan Obrenovic.

23        Q.   And Dragan Obrenovic was included in the work of the Serbian

24     Crisis Staff in Zvornik for a certain period of time; is that correct?

25        A.   Yes, it is.

Page 16305

 1        Q.   The Prosecution has provided me with some documents that show

 2     that in addition to his officer's pay from the JNA, he would receive a

 3     salary as a member of the Crisis Staff.  Were you aware of that fact?

 4        A.   No.

 5        Q.   Well, the Prosecution provided me with this information.  The

 6     Prosecution knows about this.

 7             When Arkan arrived in Zvornik, what day was it?

 8        A.   I can't answer.  I can't remember the exact day.

 9        Q.   However, the Serbs had already fled from Zvornik, the Serbian

10     civilians.

11        A.   Yes.  And many remained at the barricades.  They couldn't flee.

12        Q.   And most of them fled to Serbia, to Mali Zvornik and beyond.

13        A.   Yes, because prior to the operation for the liberation of

14     Zvornik, the bridge was open for everyone who wanted to cross the river,

15     for Muslims and Serbs.

16        Q.   Do you know that the JNA also had an Operative Group called the

17     Drina group at the time?

18        A.   I heard about it.

19        Q.   Do you know that the command of the Operative Group was at

20     Gucevo?

21        A.   I heard about that.

22        Q.   What's Gucevo?

23        A.   That's a mountain.

24        Q.   Above Mali Zvornik?

25        A.   Yes.  The altitude is about 720 metres.

Page 16306

 1        Q.   And the commander of the Drina Operative Group was

 2     Colonel Milosevic; is that correct?  Have you ever heard of him?

 3        A.   Yes, I have.

 4        Q.   Very well.  Here we have a document that the Muslims drafted and

 5     a document that the Prosecution provided me with.  It's dated the 31st of

 6     August, 1996.  We have this handwritten date.  I don't know what the

 7     exact source of the document is, but it's quite obvious that it was

 8     drafted by the Muslims.  Do you have that document before you?  Have you

 9     been provided with it?

10        A.   Let me just change my glasses.  I do apologise.

11        Q.   Please, we'll deal with this will document at some length.

12        A.   I have the document.

13        Q.   In the title it says, "Chronology of events related to the

14     aggression against Zvornik."  Naturally, the Muslims provide their own

15     version.  They don't say how their police force aren't criminals, how

16     they made the civilians afraid and caused them to flee.  They don't say

17     anything against themselves, naturally, but they are familiar with the

18     events on the Serbian side.  Perhaps certain things are incorrect.

19     Perhaps certain things are correct, but I would like us to clarify a few

20     questions in relation to that document.  I have certain doubts about

21     certain things here, but there are certain details that I'm interested

22     in.  Have a look at the third date on the first page, the 4th of April,

23     1992.  The Muslim source says it must be the Muslim intelligence service

24     or the AID.  The Prosecution didn't really tell me who the body is that

25     drafted the document.  It says secret mobilisation and distribution of

Page 16307

 1     arms of the Territorial Defence forces in the municipalities in

 2     Mali Zvornik, Loznica, and their deployment at the initial position in

 3     preparation before an attack on Zvornik took place.  Now was there any

 4     need for there to be secret mobilisation at all?

 5        A.   No, no, need for it to be secret mobilisation because the

 6     sovereignty of Yugoslavia was being defended.

 7        Q.   Now, do you know that partial mobilisation took place in the area

 8     of Mali Zvornik and Loznica at the time?

 9        A.   I know about Mali Zvornik and I do believe that it was done in

10     Loznica, too, although I didn't go down there at the time.

11        Q.   Well I know, you see.  I know that some members of the Serbian

12     Radical Party were mobilised too directly to the JNA.  For example,

13     Zoran Subotic was mobilised, and later on the JNA appointed him commander

14     of the Territorial Defence in Zvornik.  Did you hear that he was the

15     commander of the Territorial Defence for a short time?

16        A.   Yes, and I saw him once or twice, I believe.

17        Q.   He gave a statement to The Hague OTP where he describes the

18     situation in detail.  However, the Prosecution did not wish to call him

19     as a witness because his statement doesn't suit them.  Now, you see, I

20     know that the reserve force of the police was raised as well.  In

21     Loznica, the reserve police force and several members of the Serbian

22     Radical Party was mobilised at the time, and at the head, as commander,

23     was Vojislav Jekic.  Have you ever heard of him?

24        A.   Yes, I've heard of him.  He was a member of the state security,

25     as far as I know.

Page 16308

 1        Q.   As far as I know he was chief of the secretariat of internal

 2     affairs, but never mind, perhaps I'm wrong.  So partial mobilisation took

 3     place.  Now, if you think about it logically, why -- why was it

 4     necessary?  Because the tank brigade did not have any infantry; is that

 5     right?

 6        A.   Yes, that's right.

 7        Q.   Is it also right that Captain Obrenovic deployed his tanks to

 8     protect the bridges on the Drina River and the hydroelectric power plant

 9     there?

10        A.   Yes, precisely.

11        Q.   So his entire battalion was deployed in that manner; right?

12        A.   Yes, precisely.

13        Q.   So could the JNA allow it to be thrown out of the Zvornik area by

14     Muslim paramilitaries?

15        A.   No, it could not allow that to happen.

16        Q.   And that is why it is quite normal that the JNA was preparing to

17     settle accounts with those Muslim paramilitaries; am I right in saying

18     that?

19        A.   Yes, you are.

20        Q.   Now, you see, towards the bottom of that page, the last date

21     there is the 5th of April, 1992, and prior to that, before that month of

22     April, the incident in Sapna took place where the Muslims stopped a

23     military column and killed Stanojevic there, and several of our soldiers

24     fled and people thought that they were killed first, so warrant

25     officer -- warrant officer was killed there.  Have you heard of that

Page 16309

 1     incident?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And when the incident took place, that was a signal to the Serbs

 4     to prepare to settle accounts; right?

 5        A.   Of course.

 6        Q.   "Now the Muslims," and towards the end of the page it says, "by

 7     using the aforementioned incident, the prepared separation of the Serbian

 8     police was undertaken and their police moved to the premises of the Alhos

 9     company in Karakaj."

10             I assume that that is correct; right?  That the Serb policemen

11     left, but not only because of the indent that took place, but also

12     because criminals in Zvornik had become armed?

13        A.   Yes, because they were afraid for their lives.

14        Q.   So several hundred people there were armed on that day; right?

15        A.   Yes, that's right.

16        Q.   All right.  Fine.  Now, it says here the Muslim sources say that

17     the roads were obstructed, the road between Zvornik and Karakaj,

18     Zvornik Sapota [phoen], Zvornik Sapna, and between Zvornik, Sepak, and

19     Pilica.  Chetnik barricades were set up by members of Arkan's and

20     Seselj's forces.  Now they call -- they refer to Arkan as a Chetnik as

21     well; isn't that right?

22        A.   Yes.  I was just having a bit of a laugh.

23        Q.   Could you take care that that -- that you don't make that noise

24     with the documents waiving them in front of the microphone.

25        A.   Yes, I'll do that.

Page 16310

 1        Q.   Now they say here where Arkan's forces were and where Seselj's

 2     men were at their initial positions.  Of course they say Seselj

 3     formations which means the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party who

 4     arrived from Belgrade right?

 5        A.   Yes.  And they say that they had their bases in Radalj and

 6     Mali Zvornik.  And as for the Arkan's men, we know that they were in

 7     Radalj.  And I personally know about the volunteers of the Serbian

 8     Radical Party that they were stationed in Mali Zvornik.

 9        Q.   Do you know about that?

10        A.   Yes, I do.

11        Q.   Okay.  Fine.  And there were also members of the Serbian militia

12     there, they say the JNA, and as they also say, paramilitary forces of the

13     Serbian Democratic Party.  Now, since we know that between Radalj and

14     Mali Zvornik there's a distance of 8 kilometres, let's see which location

15     would be -- would involve Arkan's men and where the volunteers of the

16     Serbian Radical Party could be deployed.  Arkan's men might have been

17     along the Zvornik Karakaj road; would that be correct?

18        A.   No.  They were even further.  They were in Radaljska Banja, the

19     spa, which is 16 or 15 kilometres aware from Zvornik because it's 8

20     kilometres from Radalj to Mali Zvornik, and then Radaljska Banja is 7

21     kilometres further off.

22        Q.   So where could they set up these blockades along the roads?

23        A.   Well, nobody.  Nowhere.  How could they set up blocks in Serbia?

24        Q.   Well, not in Serbia.  They moved from Radalj to Zvornik area, I

25     assume.

Page 16311

 1        A.   Well, yes, they did move, but I just said that they were

 2     stationed up there.

 3        Q.   So nowhere along those roads, Zvornik, Karakaj, Zvornik Sapa

 4     [phoen], Zvornik Sapna, Pilica, it isn't possible that Arkan's men were

 5     there at all; right?

 6        A.   No.  No Arkan's men anywhere.

 7        Q.   But you could have had the volunteers of the Serbian Radical

 8     Party and the JNA.  And the volunteers of the Serbian Democratic Party

 9     and the Serbian militia; right?

10        A.   Yes, right.

11        Q.   Very well.  Thank you.  Now we come to -- well, it goes on to

12     talk about certain other events viewed from the Muslim angle of vision

13     which isn't particularly interested as far as we're concerned.  And we

14     come to the 8th of April.  Is that when negotiations were underway

15     between the Serbian and Muslim Crisis Staff?

16        A.   I think that's right, yes.

17        Q.   And that was in the morning, was it?

18        A.   Yes.  They divided Zvornik -- well, there's the river Zlatica and

19     that was the border.

20        Q.   Is that when Arkan stormed into the meeting and started to slap

21     the Serbian members of the Crisis Staff?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And did he slap Brano Grujic?

24        A.   Yes, he did.  He probably slapped them all because he told me to

25     go outside and there was a lot of shooting.

Page 16312

 1        Q.   It seems that he slapped Captain Dragan Obrenovic from the JNA,

 2     just not Dragan Spasojevic, otherwise he slapped around everybody else?

 3        A.   Yes that's what I heard.

 4        Q.   Because Dragan Spasojevic brought him money; right?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   And the members of the Crisis Staff who took part in collecting

 7     money for Arkan and in calling Arkan in, persuaded to do so by Biljana

 8     Plavsic, they were slapped?

 9        A.   Yes, that's how it was.

10        Q.   Well, they deserved it for having called Arkan in in the first

11     place?

12        A.   Of course, right.

13        Q.   All right.  Now, the Muslims go on to say and look at page 3 for

14     that, the third date there, the 8th of April.  From the early morning

15     hours an attack by Arkan's men started at positions organised by

16     defenders in the area of Vratolomac, Debelo Brdo, and Kazanbasca.  Do you

17     know which area that is because I don't know the region very well, where

18     is that?

19        A.   Yes, I do.  It's at the entrance to Karakaj in Zvornik.

20        Q.   So it's between Karakaj and Zvornik; right?

21        A.   Yes.  You have Vratolomac is a hill on the right-hand side and

22     then you have Kazanbasca which is lower down.  It's a settlement lower

23     down.

24        Q.   So what I said earlier on that Arkan's men were only along the

25     Karakaj-Zvornik access is corrects, and that they were at the Karakaj

Page 16313

 1     barricades, but not many of them, just some 30 men right?

 2        A.   Yes, thereabouts, about 30, yes.

 3        Q.   And then Arkan's men attacked, and together with them, there were

 4     some policemen, Serb policemen from Zvornik, and you were there, too, as

 5     far as I can see from your statement; is that right, were you there?

 6        A.   Yes, I was.

 7        Q.   Now, the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party, were they there

 8     with you?

 9        A.   I said yesterday, and I repeated today that they weren't.  And I

10     said this on oath, but nobody seems to take -- taken any notice of that.

11        Q.   Well, how come then in this alleged statement of yours, and it's

12     paragraph 92 from the 2006 statement, you say about 40 -- some 40 Arkan's

13     men, some 15 Serbian policemen from Bosnia-Herzegovina, and up to 50

14     Seselj's Chetniks attacked the town of Zvornik.  There were between 100

15     and 120 people in total.  I'm surprised to see that.

16        A.   Well, once again, that's an interpretation made by the

17     investigator Rita Pradham, because I said that there were people there

18     with insignias and cockades, the locals of Karakaj and Zvornik whom I

19     knew personally, who did not belong -- they were in the SDS.  Some of

20     them didn't belong to anybody.  They had no uniforms.  They had nothing,

21     but they set out anyway.

22        Q.   Well, look at the last sentence in that paragraph.  Do you have

23     your statement in front of you?  Perhaps it will help you if you take a

24     look at the statement and perhaps the Tribunal Officer will help you

25     there.  It says:

Page 16314

 1             "Seselj's Chetniks wore civilian clothes, the sajkaca type of cap

 2     and cockades on them?"

 3             Now, how come Seselj's Chetniks were wearing civilian clothes I

 4     ask you?

 5        A.   Well, that was -- seemed funny to me because your men, your

 6     volunteers, all belonged to the army, and they were given uniforms.

 7        Q.   Only when you went as a volunteer in the summer of 1991, while

 8     the JNA had not yet taken part in the war and when we sent men on our own

 9     initiative, that's when we had a shortage of uniforms; right?

10        A.   Yes, and that's what I said.

11        Q.   Now, do you know that the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party

12     a little less than 100 of them, in -- came to Zvornik wearing new

13     camouflage JNA uniforms, brand new, directly supplied by the Bubanj Potok

14     people and came to Mali Zvornik; right?

15        A.   I know they arrived in Mali Zvornik, and I know that they were

16     over there, but I wasn't able to distinguish between soldiers and Seselj

17     volunteers.  I couldn't know who was who.

18        Q.   First of all, you couldn't have differentiated Seselj's

19     volunteers from the other JNA soldiers; is that right?  Let's get things

20     clear.

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Except by the cockades they wore on their caps.

23        A.   Yes.  They put -- everybody wore cockades, civilians, soldiers,

24     everybody liked the cockade.

25        Q.   Yes, everybody liked the cockade, and you said yesterday very

Page 16315

 1     clearly that the cockade is incorporated into the official Serbian flag

 2     today.

 3        A.   Yes, that's precisely what I said.

 4        Q.   All right.  We're not challenging or debating that, but I seem to

 5     have the impression from this statement of yours, alleged statement, I

 6     don't know how far you took part in the writing of it, but it seems to me

 7     that you depicted the fact as follows:  That Arkan led the attack on

 8     Zvornik.  Did you?

 9        A.   No.  That's not what I said.  I said that Arkan led his own unit.

10     He was in command of his own unit in the operation to liberate Zvornik,

11     and maybe some of the locals who had joined in saw him on the road and

12     then joined him.

13        Q.   But I gained the impression that yesterday you were saying that

14     it was the Crisis Staff of Zvornik who -- which commanded the Serb

15     forces.  Is that possible?

16        A.   Well, that's correct.

17        Q.   Well, how can it be correct?  Who of those members of the

18     Crisis Staff were capable of commanding, for instance?  Is Dragan

19     Spasojevic capable of commanding a unit or anybody else, any other member

20     of the Crisis Staff, for example?

21        A.   I don't know.  I don't think Dragan Spasojevic could have been

22     capable of doing that.  There was Obrenovic in the Crisis Staff.

23        Q.   For us to make things clearer, we're going to refer to our

24     brethren the Muslims again, because they seem to know the situation

25     better than we do, and here is what they say:  "On the 8th of April," and

Page 16316

 1     you'll find that on page 3, the third date, "from the early morning hours

 2     an attack was launched by Arkan's men across positions organised hastily

 3     by the defenders in the area of Vratolomac, Debelo Brdo and Kazanbasca.

 4     Although poorly armed and with minimum quantities of ammunition, the

 5     defenders," that means the Muslim soldiers, "put up fierce resistance and

 6     the attackers suffered significant casualties.  So Arkan, himself, in the

 7     early morning of the 8th of April set out to attack and was defeated."

 8             That's what the Muslims say.  Do you remember that?  You were

 9     with that unit of his.  Arkan wasn't capable of commanding anything.  Do

10     you remember that?

11        A.   Well, I remember the attack first of all, they used mortars and

12     then they set out.

13        Q.   Let's get one thing clear.  Arkan had many courageous men in his

14     unit but no capable officers.  So how could he lead a whole attack on

15     Zvornik and how could Zvornik be taken by only 120 Serbian soldiers?

16     Zvornik is not a small town.  How many inhabitants does Zvornik have?

17     How many did it have in 1991, for example?

18        A.   I don't know.  I'm really not good with figures.  I can't tell

19     you.

20        Q.   Fine.  The Muslims go on to say that Arkan was defeated, that he

21     suffered considerable losses.  Do you remember that some Serbs were

22     killed, that there were casualties on the Serb side?

23        A.   Yes, there were casualties but not any of Arkan's men.

24        Q.   But there were other casualties, right?

25        A.   Yes, and I brought in a man who was wounded and he died of the

Page 16317

 1     wounds.

 2        Q.   But you couldn't have been a Seselj man, yourself, could you?

 3     You weren't one of Arkan's men either, but you took part in the attack

 4     with them; is that right?

 5        A.   Yes.  I couldn't have been one of Seselj's men, and I told you

 6     why.  I didn't belong to any party.

 7        Q.   It says here that you went into the attack, that there were five

 8     Arkan's men and then five of you and then another five Arkan's men and

 9     about 24 groups with five men in each group.  Now, where did Arkan gain

10     this military skill, that is to say, to send five people on the attack?

11     Did he go to the military academy in Russia [indiscernible]?

12        A.   I don't know.

13        Q.   Well, aren't you aware that you had a highly incapable set of

14     commanders?

15        A.   It was difficult to enter into town.

16        Q.   However, the Muslims go on to say, and this is the fifth date:

17             "An all-out attack on Zvornik began at 1500 hours with artillery

18     fire of the JNA armoured mechanised battalion and fire coming from the

19     armed groups of the Territorial Defences of Serbia, Mali Zvornik, and

20     Loznica."

21             Right.  So it's the JNA setting out at 3.00 in the afternoon now.

22     So Arkan launched an attack himself alone.  He wants to show that he was

23     a brave man and deserved the money he was given, and he set out and

24     launched an attack without any co-ordination with the JNA, because there

25     was Colonel Tacic, a commander of the tank brigade on the JNA side, and

Page 16318

 1     Commander Milosevic, Colonel Milosevic, of the Drina group; right?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   So it was Colonel Tacic's group and Dragan Obrenovic with a tank

 4     battalion; isn't that right?

 5        A.   Yes.  I knew him.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm sorry to intervene,

 7     Mr. Seselj.  I was trying to understand why you were putting your

 8     questions and for what purpose.  I noticed, Witness, that in the

 9     statement you gave in 2003, if the statement is true, which is

10     Mr. Marcussen's theory, if we assume that the statement is true, how is

11     it then, Witness, that in paragraph 86 of the statement - you don't need

12     to look at it, I have it before me - you say that the attack on Zvornik

13     was conducted by Arkan's men, a few policemen, 15 officers, and people

14     from the Territorial Defence, but at no point in time do you talk about

15     the JNA when we know that the artillery's there.  How is that, Witness?

16     How did that come about?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, because Arkan's men started

18     attacking very early, and as Mr. Seselj said, they were defeated and they

19     returned.  No one then asked me to explain the details.

20             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Mr. Jovic, what I'm interested in is the following:  The

22     Muslims -- to helped us to show that there were two attacks, there was

23     the failed Arkan attack, and you also participated.  There were Serbian

24     policemen who participated, and members -- Serb members of the

25     Territorial Defence, local inhabitants of Zvornik.  You were defeated.

Page 16319

 1     You suffered significant casualties.  Your command structure wasn't

 2     professional, and Arkan did not co-ordinate his efforts with the JNA.

 3     That's what I'm interested in; am I correct?

 4        A.   Yes, you're quite correct.

 5        Q.   When the JNA launched its attack together with the volunteers

 6     from the Serbian Radical Party, there was also the Beli Orlovi or the

 7     White Eagles group.  There was the reserve police force from Loznica,

 8     there were members from the Territorial Defence from Loznica and

 9     Mali Zvornik, but we're talking about members of the JUG Operative Group,

10     and of members of the tank brigade.  When the JNA launched its attack

11     together with our volunteers, then the Muslim defence of Zvornik was

12     completely routed.  The Muslim forces started fleeing, and by night

13     Zvornik was liberated; am I correct?

14        A.   Yes, fully correct.

15        Q.   And then Arkan entered Zvornik, too.  Is that true?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   He entered with his 30 men, and he went to the Hrid settlement.

18     Have you heard about that place?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   The Prosecution has stated in its indictment that that is where

21     Arkan's men killed about 20 Muslim civilians.  Have you heard about that

22     crime?

23        A.   Yes, I have heard about it, and I followed the trial when you

24     were charged with this.

25        Q.   You found out about this from the case against me; is that

Page 16320

 1     correct?  You didn't know about it before?

 2        A.   Yes, I knew about it earlier on too, but I also followed the

 3     trial when there was a protected witness, a woman who testified.

 4        Q.   A Muslim woman testified here Arkan's men killed her husband and

 5     two sons, and she quite clearly distinguished between Arkan's men and

 6     Seselj's men.  However, on one occasion she said, They are all the same

 7     for us, but she quite clearly said that Arkan's men would shoot people,

 8     whereas Seselj's men would give children sweets.  Why am I insisting on

 9     this?  Because I want to get Arkan off my back and I want to demonstrate

10     for the benefit of the Trial Chamber that Arkan didn't participate in the

11     fight for Zvornik together with the same formations with which volunteers

12     from the Serbian Radical Party were fighting.  The Serbian Radical Party

13     volunteers were with the JNA.  As the Muslim source says, they launched

14     an attack on the 8th of April in the afternoon.  In the morning, Arkan

15     led a failed attack.  He was defeated.  He returned to his initial

16     position.  And when Zvornik was liberated, he entered the town and

17     started looting it and killing; is that true?

18        A.   Yes, it's true.

19        Q.   Since Arkan did manage to justify the amount of money that had

20     been paid to him by the Crisis Staff he tried to attack the town of Kula

21     as well; is that correct?

22        A.   Yes, it is.

23        Q.   He set off again with you, I don't know whether you were there

24     personally, but he set off with local inhabitants from -- you people from

25     Mali Zvornik, in the certain sense, inhabitants although there is the

Page 16321

 1     Drina separating you.  He set off with his men and some members of the

 2     police force and members of the Territorial Defence and when he entered

 3     Kula, he was defeated again; is that correct?

 4        A.   Yes, it is.

 5        Q.   Is it also correct to say that at that time some important men of

 6     his were killed.

 7        A.   Yes.  Rambo and Zika.

 8        Q.   They were then killed in the attack on the town of Kula.

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   When hearing another witness here I quoted a statement made by

11     Colonel Tacic.  Colonel Tacic informed me of this statement and this

12     shows that he personally asked the General Staff in Belgrade to have

13     Arkan and his men driven out of Zvornik.  Do you know that two or three

14     days later Arkan had to leave Zvornik?

15        A.   Yes, I'm aware of that.

16        Q.   Are you aware of the fact that JNA commanders immediately

17     launched an investigates into the crimes committed against Muslim

18     civilians in Zvornik?

19        A.   I heard about that, yes.

20        Q.   Are you aware of the fact that the then Colonel Stankovic from

21     the Military Medical Academy was at the head of the forensic team.  He's

22     a pathologist and he started doing autopsies of the killed civilians?

23        A.   Yes, I think his name was Zoran Stankovic.

24        Q.   Zoran Stankovic later became a general.  He was the chief of the

25     Military Academy.  He was even in the Ministry of Defence for a certain

Page 16322

 1     period of time.  He testified in open session in court and he testified

 2     about the investigates that was launched.  So the JNA's intention was to

 3     launch an investigates into Arkan's activities; is that correct?

 4        A.   Naturally they wouldn't have called a pathologist if their

 5     intention wasn't to launch an investigation.

 6        Q.   All the bodies were examined, the cause of death was established,

 7     other forensic measures were taken.  However is it true to say that there

 8     were several hundred Muslims who had been killed there?  That's what it

 9     says in your statement.

10        A.   Well that's not true for sure, because in peacetime you never see

11     anyone dead and then all of a sudden you see a lot of dead people, and so

12     our hair stood on end.

13        Q.   Paragraph 101 of your statement, it says there between 200 and

14     300 dead bodies of Muslims who had been killed on the attack on Zvornik,

15     according to all the information that I have.

16        A.   That wasn't possible.

17        Q.   It couldn't have been such a number.

18        A.   No.  That wasn't possible.

19        Q.   When Arkan's men left Zvornik, the Serbian forces massed around

20     the town of Kula.

21        A.   That's correct.

22        Q.   The JNA forces were there and the Serbian Radical Party

23     volunteers were there, as well as Serbian policemen, members of the

24     Territorial Defence, and so on and so forth.  However, they didn't have a

25     capable commander who could have led the attack successfully.

Page 16323

 1        A.   That's correct, but I was on leave when there was this operation

 2     to liberate Kula.

 3        Q.   Very well.  I will, in that case, provide you with another piece

 4     of information.  Since the Serbian forces were not in a position to take

 5     the town of Kula because of its exceptionally good strategic position,

 6     you know there's a large fortress there, medieval one, it's very

 7     difficult terrain, and the Muslims who were well armed were there and

 8     managed to defend themselves successfully; is that correct?

 9        A.   Yes, that's correct.

10        Q.   Then the command of the first army, as the Prosecution put it,

11     the commander of the 1st Army, Captain Dragan Obrenovic, who was on trial

12     here then struck a deal, and so on and so forth, but he said certain

13     things that are true.  The command of the 1st Army ordered the special

14     forces to assist the Serbian forces in Zvornik and the then

15     Milorad Stupar, who subsequently became a colonel, arrived and his unit

16     was a protective regiment from the 1st Army.  That's a special unit.

17     Have you heard about that?  Have you heard about Stupar?

18        A.   Yes, and I've seen him.

19        Q.   Dragan Obrenovic told The Hague Prosecution that the attack on

20     Kula at the end of April was planned by Stupar from the JNA, the

21     Territorial Defence of Zvornik, and by certain Serbian paramilitary

22     formations that were there at the time.  He mentions the White Eagles,

23     Zuci's men and Privaja [phoen] unit.  Dragan Obrenovic doesn't mention

24     the Serbian radicals.  He avoided mentioning my name too, for some

25     reason, but it's quite obvious that Colonel Stupar organised all the

Page 16324

 1     Serbian forces.  They weren't paramilitary formations.  They were

 2     volunteers who were part of the JNA and decisive attack was launched.

 3     And it was carried out so well that the town of Kula was soon taken.  The

 4     Muslims were dispersed.  They fled, and they didn't have significant

 5     casualties.  Perhaps three or four.  No more than that?

 6        A.   Well, ten, three, or five casualties, I don't know exactly, but

 7     they left their positions and went towards Lipje.

 8        Q.   We're talking about people so we won't say ten pieces, ten people

 9     died in the course of the battle.  We won't call our enemy a piece.  Do

10     you agree with me?

11        A.   Yes.  I agree with you.  A victim is a victim.

12        Q.   In any event, they died in battle.

13        A.   That's true.

14        Q.   What I am now interested in is as follows:  How is it that in

15     paragraph 120 of your statement it says that in the course of the attack

16     on Kula, well you say at the time you weren't there?

17        A.   No, I wasn't.  I wasn't there.

18        Q.   But here it says you were.  You say, allegedly, this is what the

19     statement says, our objectives were not to take any prisoners.  That

20     means the objective was to kill as many people as possible or to force

21     them to go to the end of the village where other units were positioned

22     for shooting.  Our goal was to frighten them.  The population from

23     Kula Grad had nowhere to run to except towards Lipje, right into the

24     hands of the units that were waiting to shoot at them.

25             On page -- in paragraph 121, it says:

Page 16325

 1             "My unit," although you weren't there, it says, "My unit was to

 2     wait for the signal to shoot at the house in Kula.  We were not allowed

 3     to leave our positions."

 4        A.   That just proves the truth of what I was saying, but I was told

 5     that I wasn't telling the truth.  This is Rita Pradham's interpretation.

 6     I know for sure, and this can be confirmed by ten witnesses that I was in

 7     Novi Sad.  I spent four or five days there.

 8        Q.   In paragraph 123 it says that after the attack on the town of

 9     Kula you took leave for a week.  You said you were going to visit your

10     sick child.

11        A.   Before the attack.

12        Q.   It says here "after the attack."

13        A.   Before the attack on Kula.  Before the operation to liberate the

14     town of Kula I went to Novi Sad to have a rest with my sister-in-law

15     because I was exhausted.

16        Q.   Here it says that you also participated in the attack on the town

17     of Kula, but that's not correct because you didn't.

18        A.   No, that wasn't possible from Novi Sad.

19        Q.   So how is it that this is in your statement?

20        A.   Well, how can I explain it?

21        Q.   Are you aware of a Muslim civilian being killed in the course of

22     the Serbian attack on Kula?  We have concluded that perhaps ten Muslim

23     combatants were killed, but I doubt it was ten.  It was probably fewer

24     than ten, according to the information I have.  But are you aware of a

25     single civilian being killed on that occasion?

Page 16326

 1        A.   No, I haven't heard about that.  I heard that they fled, the

 2     civilians fled.

 3        Q.   When they saw how professionally this well-planned attack had

 4     been carried out, they first fled.  First the Muslim soldiers fled from

 5     their positions and then they were followed by the civilians; is that

 6     right?

 7        A.   Yes.  This is what my colleagues, other policemen, told me.

 8        Q.   So in the course of taking the town of Kula, no war crimes were

 9     committed; is that correct?

10        A.   That's a hundred per cent true.

11        Q.   In the course of the month of April, up until the 26th of April,

12     are you aware of anyone else killing Muslim civilians or prisoners in

13     Zvornik, anyone apart from Arkan, in the settlement of Hrid?

14        A.   No, I'm not aware of that.

15        Q.   The Prosecution wasn't aware of that either so they couldn't

16     state any anything to that effect in my indictment.  They only mentioned

17     Arkan's killings in the Hrid settlement.  We had eyewitnesses with whom

18     we could check this detail at least.

19             Very well.  Now, after the fall of the town of Kula, after that

20     significant Muslim fortification fell, do you know that JNA infantry

21     units withdrew to Serbia?  Do you know that Colonel Stupar's unit left,

22     that Serbian Radical Party volunteers withdrew?

23        A.   Yes.  The Serbian Radical Party volunteers withdrew after the

24     operation to liberate Kula.  Stupar's men withdrew.  I know that very

25     well.

Page 16327

 1        Q.   And then a normal situation was to be established in Zvornik,

 2     civilian authorities and a Territorial Defence was to be established.

 3     The town was to function normally; is that correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Perhaps not call the Serbian Radical Party volunteers withdrew.

 6     Perhaps a few decided to stay on.  I am familiar with one example, a

 7     certain Slavkovic who went on trial in Belgrade as a member of the

 8     Pivarski unit or the Yellow Wasp unit.  He said that he went there as a

 9     member of the Serbian Radical Party volunteers, but after the 26th of

10     April he remained on -- he stayed on in Zvornik.  Do you know that after

11     the 26th of April, a Territorial Defence was formed that was composed of

12     various volunteers and its name was Igor Markovic?

13        A.   Yes, I know that.

14        Q.   Do you know that on that occasion Vojin Vuckovic Zuco was

15     appointed pursuant to a decision of the Crisis Staff.  He was appointed

16     as commander of that unit?

17        A.   Yes.  Of course the first time I saw him was when I came from

18     Novi Sad.  I saw him and his men.

19        Q.   I have Vojin Vuckovic's statement, Vojin Vuckovic Zuco's

20     statement too in which he describes his arrival in Zvornik together with

21     Legija Miroslav Bogdanovic and his brother Dusan describes an arrest by

22     the Muslims, and so on.  He wasn't in command of a unit of any kind prior

23     to the 26th of April; is that correct?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   So is it possible that he had command over Serbian Radical Party

Page 16328

 1     volunteers then?  Is that possible?

 2        A.   Well, how would that be possible since he wasn't a member of that

 3     party?

 4        Q.   Here you say that you saw how Zuco was giving a speech to the

 5     Chetniks, but that could only have been after the 26th of April.  Then he

 6     could have given a speech to members of his own unit; is that correct?

 7        A.   Well, that was an interpretation, Zuco holding a speech.  I never

 8     said that.

 9        Q.   That's what it says in your statement.

10        A.   But I didn't say that.  There's lots -- there are lots of things

11     in my statement which I never said.  I suppose they thought I was a

12     semi-literate and then they just wrote down whatever they felt like.

13        Q.   Does that mean that none of the statements that you gave to

14     The Hague Tribunal can be treated as being true and correct?

15        A.   Well, no, because I know what the truth is and what it wasn't the

16     truth, but it cannot be treated as being accurate, because some things

17     didn't happen and I know that they didn't happen.

18        Q.   Now, what Mr. Marcussen, The Hague Prosecutor put to you at the

19     end of his examination when he said that the statements are a true

20     rendition of what you saw and heard, is that nonsense?

21        A.   Of course it is it.  I have a doctor behind me here and I had to

22     take some pills.

23        Q.   Now, the Muslim sources have shown us that it's all nonsense,

24     because the facts, according to the Muslim sources, are different.  So

25     the Muslims have helped us to clarify, once and for all, Arkan's role and

Page 16329

 1     the role of the JNA and all the other formations led by the JNA and under

 2     its command.  They have clarified this in great detail very precisely and

 3     I'm grateful to them for having done that.  Now in the indictment raised

 4     against me, I am being accused and charged of being responsible for

 5     Arkan's executions in Hrid.  Then the crimes committed in the Standard

 6     factory are mentioned.  Are you heard of those crimes?

 7        A.   I don't know.  Well, your unit was never there.  Your unit was

 8     never in the Standard company.  It was never stationed there.  That's

 9     what I know.

10        Q.   So if crimes occurred there, they occurred in May 1992; right?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And do you know about the crimes committed in Ciglana, that there

13     was a group of prisoners there, incarcerated there?

14        A.   I heard about that.  I never went down there, but I did hear

15     about it.  As a policeman I never went down there.

16        Q.   And what about the Ekonomija, the farm?  Where is that?

17        A.   It's to the right of Ciglana, and I went there only once.

18        Q.   Who was in charge of the Ekonomija, the farm?

19        A.   The police were there at the entrance.  The blue civilian police.

20        Q.   Is it possible that some volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party

21     committed crimes at the Ekonomija?

22        A.   No, that's impossible.  First of all, because the police provided

23     security there and the volunteers, the Serbian Radical Party volunteers

24     were --

25        Q.   Then it says in the indictment that I was responsible for the

Page 16330

 1     crimes in Drinjaca at the cultural centre there.

 2        A.   Well, I've heard of everything.  I followed the trial and so on.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The English transcript there is

 4     something missing.  Line 10, page74, the witness said volunteers of the

 5     Serbian Radical Party were disciplined, and it says were, and it says

 6     "..."  It will be corrected later on.  Go ahead.  Continue, Mr. Seselj.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I said they were disciplined.

 8             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation].

 9        Q.   All right.  Now, in the indictment -- in the indictment crimes in

10     Celopek are mentioned.  Can they be brought into -- can they be connected

11     to me in any way?

12        A.   No, because in Celopek there was a detention unit there, and

13     people were exchanged from there, Muslims.  They were exchanged for

14     Serbs, for our people.  So I don't know whether there were any crimes

15     there, but you couldn't ascribe those crimes to the Serbian Radical Party

16     because the police in blue, the civilian police force were there.

17        Q.   All right.  Fine.  Now, you mentioned a number of times

18     Janko Lakic here.

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Do you know that sometime in 2004 or 2005, I'm not quite sure

21     which year, in Mali Zvornik rumours went round that Janko Lakic had

22     become a witness of The Hague Tribunal and that he travelled abroad

23     because of that?

24        A.   Yes, I did hear about that, and I read something like that in the

25     papers.  There was an interview.

Page 16331

 1        Q.   Yes, he gave an extensive interview.

 2        A.   Yes, with a photograph of his.

 3        Q.   I provided a photocopy of that paper here.  I'm not going to show

 4     it now again.  Janko Lakic, at one point in time, decided on his own

 5     initiative to address the public and to say that he did not want to be a

 6     witness, Carla's witness, he said, I don't want to be a safe slave of

 7     Carla Del Ponte.

 8             Now, do you know that members of the team helping out my Defence,

 9     before 2007, never came into contact with anybody for whom we knew was a

10     witness of The Hague Tribunal?  Do you know that?

11        A.   Yes, I do.

12        Q.   And do you also know, are you aware that in 2007, we collected

13     statements from people who were interviewed by The Hague Prosecutor and

14     who refused to come in and be witnesses like Jovo Ostojic, for example.

15     I'm sure you heard of him, Slavoljub Jovanovic, Srecko Radovanovic, and

16     many, many others.

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   And that we published their statements in my book called

19     "The Hague Instrumentalisation of False Witnesses."  Have you heard of

20     that book of mine?

21        A.   Yes, I have.

22        Q.   And then we started to promote that book in all of Serbia's

23     municipalities; right?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   There was a book promotion in Mali Zvornik?

Page 16332

 1        A.   Yes.  Yes.  That's what I was about to say.

 2        Q.   And you know what happened then?  Many of those who were on the

 3     list as Hague witnesses contacted my associates and said, yes, similar

 4     things happened to us and we're not going to testify for the Prosecution.

 5     Are you aware of that?

 6        A.   Yes, I am.

 7        Q.   Janko Lakic also contacted my associates.  He used to be a member

 8     of the Serbian Radical Party in 1990 when that brawl broke out at our

 9     rally in Mali Zvornik.  You remember that, I'm sure.

10        A.   I apologise, but could --

11        Q.   It was a promotional rally of the Serbian Chetnik Movement,

12     because the Serbian Radical Party hadn't been established yet.

13        A.   Yes, that was in the first days of August.  You said that it was

14     in May or June, but it was actually the beginning of August.  We wore

15     short-sleeved shirts.  I personally had a shirt with short sleeves and I

16     was wearing white jeans because I was a younger man so I could wear jeans

17     at the time.  Yes.  I was working as a waiter.  I had black trousers and

18     a short-sleeved shirt, but I'm not good on dates.

19        Q.   However when, the war broke out in Bosnia-Herzegovina there were

20     members of our party from Mali Zvornik who crossed over to Veliki Zvornik

21     and took part in the fighting there.  Some of them became employed in the

22     police force, others in the municipality and so on; is that correct?

23        A.   Yes.  Some got married over there.  Lots of things happened.

24        Q.   And Janko Lakic was some sort of officer over there, I believe,

25     as well; is that right?

Page 16333

 1        A.   Yes, as far as I know, he was a security officer of some kind,

 2     attached to some army.

 3        Q.   And when he addressed the public Janko Lakic came into contact

 4     with members of my team and made a statement for them and described how

 5     they allegedly mistreated him, The Hague Prosecutor and investigators,

 6     and so on, but look what happened next.  He expected us, I mean my team

 7     and the Serbian Radical Party as well, which in a way provides logistical

 8     support to my Defence team, some tangible benefit from that.  Do you --

 9     are you aware of that?

10        A.   That was probably his aim in the first place.

11        Q.   And when we told him quite clearly that he would have no material

12     gain from us and could expect none, he once again contacted The Hague

13     OTP.  Do you know about that?

14        A.   Yes, I am aware of that.

15        Q.   However, it seems that the Prosecutor didn't believe him either

16     so we -- The Hague -- The Hague OTP and I found ourselves along the same

17     lines, because we realised that he was lying and we rejected him.  The

18     Prosecutor didn't want to become compromised through him, and I didn't

19     want to waste my time on witnesses like that because it's not my aim to

20     hear lies told here.  And then Janko Lakic became a film star of the B92

21     television station in a programme with Natasa Kandic.  He made various

22     statements, and so on and so on and so forth.  Did you watch that

23     programme, the television programme?

24        A.   Yes, I did.

25        Q.   And that's what happened with Janko Lakic.  Now, The Hague OTP,

Page 16334

 1     under Rule 48.1, provided me with another Muslim document, and I have to

 2     emphasise that it is a document from a Muslim source because it doesn't

 3     say here who compiled this document whereas it should say that.  It is

 4     certificate 607 that I received from The Hague Prosecutor's office.  It

 5     just says a list of those responsible for war crimes in Zvornik -- in the

 6     Zvornik region.  We see that it comes from a Muslim source, but we have

 7     nothing to indicate what source that is precisely.

 8             Now, I'd like to ask you to take a look at page 1 of that

 9     document where it says persons responsible for war crimes in the Zvornik

10     region, and then you have a list of names, only names, and under number 1

11     is Zeljko Raznjatovic Arkan; right?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And Dusan Repic, that's Dusan Ruckovic [phoen], nicknamed Repic.

14     Then number 3 is Dragan Spasojevic, the police commander; right?

15        A.   Right.

16        Q.   Now, I don't want to mention the names of the other people, but

17     just take a look at the list yourself.  I assume that the Judges have the

18     list in front of them and so does the Prosecutor.  The list is from 1 to

19     23, although there are many more names, because several names are

20     mentioned under some of the numbers.  Now, take a look at the list and

21     tell us whether there's anybody there who's a member of the Serbian

22     Radical Party, from 1 to 23.

23        A.   I can't see any member of the Serbian Radical Party here, but I

24     do see under number 11 a man who is completely incapable.  He wasn't even

25     capable of walking.  I know him personally.

Page 16335

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you mentioned some

 2     life on this document.  Look at number 18.  A person called Milenko

 3     Mijic, and it seems that is he's a judge, which is what drew my

 4     attention.  He's a judge from Zvornik.  And he became head of the police

 5     and organised the exodus of the population, et cetera, et cetera.  Did

 6     you know this person, this Milenko Mijic, judge?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For a time he was the chief of SUP

 8     in Zvornik, in Republika Srpska, in Bosnia, I mean, in Veliki Zvornik, in

 9     Bosnia.  That's why I know him.  I don't know anything else about him

10     though.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Did you know that

12     he was a judge, that he had been a judge?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I really don't.  I would say if

14     I did.  I know the man above him, too, under number 17.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.

16             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   I intentionally did not want to read out all the names on that

18     list, because I assumed that were I to do so we were to call out people's

19     name publicly and some of them probably had nothing to do with any

20     crimes.  You recognised Bozo Vidovic.  I'm sure there are others, so

21     that's why I don't want to read out the whole list and abuse people that

22     way.  All I'm interested in is to hear that you are certain that on that

23     entire list there is nobody there from the Serbian Radical Party; is that

24     right?

25        A.   No, nobody.  Mostly there are Serbs from Republika Srpska, from

Page 16336

 1     the present Republika Srpska.  For example, the man I said was completely

 2     incapable of doing anything.

 3        Q.   Arkan's mentioned here.  He's not from Zvornik.  Dusan Vuckovic

 4     Repic who isn't and some others who aren't.  They are generally known

 5     personages.  Dragan Obrenovic is even mentioned.  Now, would you turn the

 6     page --

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, listen to Mr. Seselj.

 8     On one item he's absolutely right, saying there are names he does not

 9     want to mention.  In this document there are some people who are found

10     guilty and other where nothing is stated.  So there's a presumption of

11     innocent -- of innocence, but they are on a list mentioned on a list of

12     people who were suppose -- allegedly responsible, but of course you could

13     be allegedly responsible and in the end be acquitted.

14             Mr. Witness, have you understood what I said?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All I said was number 17.  I didn't

16     mention the name.  I just said number 17.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Thank you.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you tell me how much more

19     time I have left?

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Not much, Mr. Seselj.  The

21     Registrar will tell you.  Twenty minutes ago the Registrar told me that

22     you had 40 minutes left.  So I believe you have between 20 or 25 minutes

23     left, but go on and I will tell you exactly where we stand.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can you imagine, Mr. President, if

25     Mrs. Lattanzi was well disposed towards me as she is towards Mr. Karadzic

Page 16337

 1     and give me 12 hours, all the magical things I could do here in this

 2     courtroom, but what can I do, things are as they are.  I have to come to

 3     terms with my fate.

 4             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Now could you look at page 3 of this document, please.  It's the

 6     only place in the whole document where Seselj's men are mentioned.  Under

 7     number 14 it says Drago Krstanovic and Matija Boskovic from Zvornik

 8     joined Seselj's formations and served as informers, making lists with the

 9     names of distinguished Bosniaks to be liquidated or forced to leave.  So

10     joined and then no specifics whether they actually ratted on someone as

11     informers, whether someone was really liquidated or forced to leave.  So

12     this is not very serious; right?

13        A.   Not serious at all.

14        Q.   Did you know Matija Boskovic?

15        A.   Yes he's died since.

16        Q.   Is he from Mali Zvornik or Zvornik?

17        A.   He's from Zvornik, in Republika Srpska.

18        Q.   He was later a member Serbian Radical Party; right?

19        A.   Perhaps later on when I wasn't there any more when what happened

20     to me happened.

21        Q.   I don't know him personally, but never mind, let's move on.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, we'll have the

23     break at a quarter to 6.00, so we'll still have 15 minutes to go.  And

24     since the Prosecutor used an hour and 40 minutes, you will have an

25     additional 15 minutes for the witness.  So you will have altogether an

Page 16338

 1     hour and 40 minutes.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Judge.  I reckon that I

 3     will need at least 20 minutes for administrative issues so that -- please

 4     bear that in mind.  And warn me in time when we move closer to that

 5     point.  I would like to ask some questions to this witness, although the

 6     essentials have already been discussed.

 7             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Now, Mr. Jovic, we are going back to the part which is not

 9     relevant for this indictment and where you describe your departure,

10     actually your only departure in the capacity of a volunteer of the SRS to

11     the front line; right?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   In the summer of 1991?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   It says here that -- that you arrived at the staff of the Serbian

16     Chetnik Movement or the headquarters of the Serbian Radical Party at

17     Francuska Street and that you sat there with me.  Is that possible?

18        A.   First of all, I didn't know Belgrade at the time and I don't know

19     it well now either.  I don't know.  It wasn't Francuska Street.  I don't

20     know what street it was and I didn't sit with you.

21        Q.   The Serbian Radical Party had its seat in Francuska Street only

22     as of September 1993; correct?

23        A.   Correct.  As far as I know, it was later.

24        Q.   And in the summer of 1991, our seat was in a rented apartment on

25     the ground floor in -- on the Milutina Bojica Street.  Does this jog your

Page 16339

 1     memory?

 2        A.   Yes, I remember the apartment.

 3        Q.   A bit down the road from the Federal Assembly?

 4        A.   Yes.  And it was on the ground floor.

 5        Q.   And there were only two offices; correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   In one, the volunteers would gather if they were getting ready to

 8     leave, and in the other there was my office where my secretary sat and

 9     the vice-presidents of the party and other officials, and we had very

10     small premises, right?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   In your alleged statement from 2006, we read that our volunteers

13     addressed each other as major, colonel, or using other ranks.  Is that

14     possible?

15        A.   I heard as much, but perhaps that -- those were not ranks.  Maybe

16     they were joking.

17        Q.   Only one had the rank of major, Milan Dosijevic, Oliver Denis,

18     from Baret, was captain, and there were some lieutenants who were

19     promoted personally by Vojvoda Momcilo Djuic, and his order was read out

20     publicly at the rally on Ravna Gora in 1991, in May, on the occasion of

21     the great victory of our volunteers at Borovo Selo on the 2nd of May,

22     1991.  Nobody else had ranks; am I right?

23        A.   Yes, you are 100 per cent right.  Now I can see that -- that I

24     heard what is really true.

25        Q.   In paragraph 19, we can read that there was talk of Greater

Page 16340

 1      Serbia, that Vojvoda Momcilo Djuic, from the USA, transferred his tile

 2     to Seselj and that he gave authorised Seselj to perform his duties from

 3     then on.  Is anything like that possible at all?  He promoted me to the

 4     rank of Vojvoda, but he didn't transfer his title to me.  He died with

 5     his title.

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   And some malicious people said that he took away that title from

 8     me later on, although that's not true.  Although pressurised by the

 9     American authorities, he said that he would take away that title from me,

10     but he never did and he couldn't either.

11        A.   I know that he didn't.

12        Q.   You can -- you can promote somebody to the rank of Chetnik

13     Vojvoda in the homeland when there is no Chetnik Vojvoda there, but you

14     can't take that title away from anyone from California, is that so?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   In paragraph 20, we read that I said that the SSCP would take

17     care of you, transport the wounded to hospitals, and that the SSCP was

18     going to take care of our medical and social insurance.  This is

19     impossible in practical terms.  How, at that time, in the summer of 1991,

20     when we had to hide from Milosevic's regime in Serbia, we crossed the

21     Danube to go to Slavonia, how could we guarantee social insurance and

22     medical insurance to you?

23        A.   But you were not a firm who could have done that.  That's not

24     true.  I didn't say that.

25        Q.   You saw that there weren't even enough uniforms.  The uniforms

Page 16341

 1     that we were able to find were old and worn, and so on.  And that was

 2     like that until the 1st of October, 1991 when the state of imminent

 3     threat of war was proclaimed and we joined the units of the JNA.  Then

 4     the JNA provided our fighters with the best uniforms and the best

 5     infantry weapons, and it never happened anywhere that any volunteer of

 6     the SRS indicted in Croatia or in the Republic of Serbian Krajina or the

 7     Republika Srpska or the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina or in Serbia,

 8     nowhere were they indicted of any particular war crime; am I right?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And here's the million dollar question for the ICTY:  Find one

11     single volunteer of the SRS who has been indicted anywhere for any

12     particular war crime.  Of course, the OTP would like me to be a criminal.

13     I may be a criminal by character.  I may be a criminal based on my

14     abilities to be better than the OTP, but anything more tangible than that

15     they are unable to find; am I right?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   When you came to Belgrade for the first time, you had problems

18     because you had to wait for three days to be transported over the Danube;

19     is that right?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   We were all facing huge problems at the time because Milosevic's

22     police tried to prevent us from crossing the Danube.  So we crossed by

23     ferries at certain points and in various ways, but sometimes we couldn't

24     transport the volunteers over the Danube.  They had come to Belgrade and

25     we had to return them to their homes; right?

Page 16342

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Very well.  So you did go to Tenja after all, and yesterday you

 3     gave a description of what happened in Tenja, where you corrected many

 4     things from your alleged statement.  I don't really want to dwell on that

 5     for a long time.  Do you know that I came to Tenja in the summer of 1991

 6     on several occasions?

 7        A.   I don't know that, but we had information that you would come to

 8     see us.

 9        Q.   You may have not -- you may not have been there when I came.  Is

10     the Tenja the closest Serb village to Osijek, actual think a suburb of

11     Osijek?

12        A.   Yes.  It is close to the Saponia factory.  It's only a stone's

13     throw away.

14        Q.   While you were in Tenja, did everybody live there peacefully

15     including Croats?  Nobody bothered them and some Croats were members of

16     the Serb TO of Tenja.  Is that true?

17        A.   Yes, that's true, Mr. Seselj.  And I claim with full

18     responsibility that in our unit there were Croats.  I can mention their

19     names but maybe not because they might face problems with their own

20     people back there.

21        Q.   No, don't state their names.

22        A.   No, I won't.  But why should anybody expel their daughters, or

23     children and women.

24        Q.   You know what surprises me in paragraph 35?  You allegedly say

25     that there were other units of the Serbian Chetnik movement in Tenja when

Page 16343

 1     you -- when you arrive.  One of the commanders of the Chetnik volunteers

 2     in Tenja, I remember, was Drecun, whose full name I don't know.  That's

 3     probably Vukan Drecun.

 4        A.   I don't know.  Possible, yes.

 5        Q.   If I were to put to you now that Vukan Drecun belonged to an

 6     illegal organisation that called itself Black Hand, and which planned to

 7     kill me in 1991, and they attacked me once in the Ruskica [phoen]

 8     restaurant while I was giving an interview to a Muslim journalist from

 9     Sarajevo who worked for the "Nasi Dani" magazine.  It was in April 1991.

10     And he describes the entire incident in that magazine.  Three guys

11     attacked me, I hit two of them, the third one hit me with a chair from

12     behind but -- and then all three of them ran away.  I was a young man

13     then and I was able to defend myself.  How could Vukan Drecun have been a

14     commander of a volunteer unit of the Serbian Radical Party?  That's

15     impossible.

16        A.   No, I only saw him.  I didn't say that he belonged to the Serbian

17     Radical Party or anything.  I just saw him.  And somebody told me

18     something like, There are some Chetniks over there.  They live in that

19     house up there, so we didn't have any contact at all.

20        Q.   Yes.  All right.  So you're not sure that he may have been our

21     volunteer.  Is it correct, though, that the Serb opponents -- that the

22     enemies of the Serbs called all Serb fighters Chetniks?  Even Arkan was

23     called a Chetnik?

24        A.   Yes, of course.  Even my 11-year-old son may be called a Chetnik

25     any time soon.  In every statement of mine you will find the word

Page 16344

 1     "Chetnik" all over the place.

 2        Q.   So the term Chetnik would be a generic term here, including all

 3     sorts of things, and the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party, the

 4     volunteers that the Serbian Radical Party from Belgrade through its

 5     War Staff sent to the front were -- were the ones; right?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   So even morally I would be responsible only for those who I sent

 8     to war from Belgrade, and if they committed any crime, God forbid, but

 9     there is not information that they did.

10        A.   That's correct.  And I'm glad there is no such information.

11        Q.   So if you heard of any volunteers of the SRS having committed a

12     crime, please say so.

13        A.   No, I didn't.  But I did hear that in Zvornik they gave chocolate

14     to the children there.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What happened now?  It's time for a

16     break anyway.  Judges, I have basically finished this cross-examination.

17     Although I haven't used all my time.  It is very important to me to deal

18     with administrative matters so I can now finish with this witness for

19     good, because all I could do would be a repetition -- would be more of

20     the same, but only slightly different.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  We will have a

22     20-minute break, and after the break you'll have about 15 minutes if you

23     want to continue putting questions to the witness, and I'll ask

24     Mr. Marcussen if he has redirect, and then you can deal with the

25     administrative matters.  We have a 20-minute break first.

Page 16345

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If Mr. Marcussen has no additional

 2     questions and I see him waving his head, then we can release the witness,

 3     and then right after the break I can move on to administrative matters,

 4     unless Mr. Marcussen has anything.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  We can release the

 6     witness, but I'll tell him later on.  We have to thank him first before

 7     releasing him.  I hope that the connection with Belgrade will be up

 8     again, but since many miracles have happened today, we'll just hope for a

 9     new miracle.

10                           --- Recess taken at 5.48 p.m.

11                           --- On resuming at 6.09 p.m.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court is back in session.

13     We can see the witness on the screen.

14             Mr. Seselj, you have no further questions to put to the witness,

15     I believe.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I have, in fact, completed my

17     examination.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, any redirect?

19             MR. MARCUSSEN:  No thank you, Your Honours.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In that case, Witness, on

21     behalf of my colleagues I would like to thank you for having come to

22     testify via videolink notwithstanding your state of health, and for two

23     days you have answered questions put to you by the Bench, by the

24     Prosecutor and by Mr. Seselj.  So we would like to thank you for having

25     come as a court witness at the request of the Trial Chamber to establish

Page 16346

 1     the truth.

 2             I wish you all best.  I hope your health will improve over the

 3     next few days, and I hope all goes well in whatever you undertake in the

 4     future.

 5             I shall ask the usher to escort you out of the room in which you

 6     find yourself at the moment.

 7             Mr. Marcussen.

 8             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Just very briefly, Your Honours.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you.

10                           [Witness's testimony via videolink ended]

11             MR. MARCUSSEN:  The two documents which did not have 65 ter

12     numbers when I tendered them have now been given 65 ter numbers thanks to

13     the kind assistance of our case manager and the court staff.

14             The unsigned version of the witness's 2003 statement from July

15     that I mentioned has been given 65 ter number 07544, and the declaration

16     by Prosecution investigator Marie Costello, dated 7th of April, 2010, has

17     been given 65 ter number 07545.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Thank you.

19             Mr. Seselj, I will give you the floor to address housekeeping

20     matters.

21             One moment.  Before you take the floor, Mr. Seselj, as far as

22     what you said yesterday is concerned, I have something to say about it.

23     When you mentioned Rule 98 bis, as you know, this an Anglo-Saxon

24     procedure, and the procedure is the following:  It is the accused who

25     takes the floor first to say that the Prosecutor has not provided any

Page 16347

 1     evidence for such and such a count, and you explain why.  After that, the

 2     Prosecutor states his or her position.  It is not the other way around.

 3     And I believe you thought that it was the other way round.  It is first

 4     you who states your position.  You will have one day to do so.  And after

 5     that the Prosecutor will say why he or she believes that he or she has

 6     provided the evidence which will enable any trier of fact beyond all

 7     reasonable doubt on the basis of the evidence provided by the Prosecution

 8     to -- to enter a finding of guilt.  That's how it goes.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the only question is

10     whether I will have the right to take the floor after the Prosecution

11     again.  That's what I'm most interested in.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm sure you may since the

13     Prosecutor always has the last word.  As far as I'm concerned, it's not a

14     problem.  I have no problem with you taking the floor again.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.  That's what's most

16     important for me.

17             There are three things I would like to inform you of.  Three

18     problems.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Not the Prosecutor.  Thank you.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Today I received a decision from

21     the Deputy Registrar, according to which my request for the financing of

22     my defence is rejected.  There are two versions of this decision.  One is

23     confidential and ex parte version.  No question how this is possible, but

24     the Registrar can do things that not a single legal system can do

25     anywhere in the world, so it's no longer necessary to go into that, but

Page 16348

 1     I'm tired of making these requests now and of quibbling with the

 2     Registry.  If the Tribunal refuses to finance my defence, then I won't

 3     present a defence case, and that will be the end of the matter.

 4             Secondly, and this is a far more important question for me --

 5             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] One question.  You don't wish to

 6     present your case?

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can't present my defence case if

 8     it's not being financed.  It hasn't been financed for seven and a half

 9     years.  My associates can no longer continue working with me.  It's

10     difficult to co-operate with me, to work with me.  It's easier for my

11     enemies and my adversaries to work with me than for my associates because

12     I exhaust people.  First of all, I work a lot and then I burden everyone

13     else around me with work.  So it's very difficult to work with me.  So

14     why should they be tortured.  They have done a lot of work.  I haven't

15     paid them a penny.  The Registry says that my defence will not be

16     financed, and, therefore, I will not present a defence case.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, as far as this

18     extremely delicate question is concerned, as I'm sure you understand, the

19     Trial Chamber has always done all it could for you to be able to have

20     associates that would be paid by the Tribunal.  We have asked the Serbian

21     authorities to provide us with any document which would enable us to

22     assess your financial situation.  The Serbian authorities have told us

23     that the Registrar had all this information at their disposal.  I must

24     tell you that I was very surprised to discover that some documents, when

25     I was a Pre-Trial Judge, had not been disclosed to me.  That is another

Page 16349

 1     issue.

 2             As things stand today from a legal point of view, the Registrar

 3     has notified you and said that he would do no more than he has done so

 4     far, because in his view you do not meet the legal requirements which

 5     were to advise him of your exact situation.  The Registrar has therefore

 6     sent the document which we have received, which is a document that

 7     presents itself as considering.

 8             It is up to you to see what resources you have to challenge the

 9     Registrar's position.  You have a whole battery of resources available to

10     you, and if need be, you may also seize the Trial Chamber.  You have --

11     you may appeal.  You may appeal this, and you may seize the

12     Trial Chamber, and the Trial Chamber can rule on it.

13             Beyond this issue of the funding of your case, we are there to

14     act as custodians of the right to a fair trial.  The statute is a legal

15     standard that goes beyond directive or any administrative assessment.  As

16     Judges, we are bound to guarantee that the trial unfolds under fair

17     conditions.  So you have this possibility.  You may seize the

18     Trial Chamber to challenge this.

19             You have just provided with us a new piece of information which

20     is important.  In other words, if you don't have the resources to present

21     your case, you will waive that right.  That is what I have understood,

22     that you would not present your defence.  In other words, you would waive

23     that right because the Registrar will not provide you with the adequate

24     resources.

25             If I have not understood you correctly, please let me know.

Page 16350

 1             Based on that, in this particular situation the Trial Chamber

 2     must say something, because we are here to render justice.  There is a

 3     Prosecutor that has issued an indictment.  A judgement must be issued in

 4     light of this indictment.  The international community made up of victims

 5     who are waiting for justice to be rendered, either to enter a finding of

 6     guilt, either -- or to acquit you.  That will be based on the evidence

 7     provided.  This is how things stand.

 8             The Registrar, to sum up, has handed down a decision.  You may

 9     challenge this now, and things are now for you to react to.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, according to the

11     rules of the Tribunal, I could now file an appeal or complain to the

12     President of the court -- of the Tribunal, but I won't do that.

13             Recently I had a dental examination.  That was at the beginning

14     of the year.  They X-rayed a certain number of teeth, quite a few of my

15     teeth, as this hadn't been done for a long time.  They noticed that at

16     the root of a tooth that supports a bridge, they noticed that there was a

17     bag or -- full of bacteria.  I really don't really know what the term is.

18     This tooth has to be taken out.  A new bridge has to be constructed or an

19     implant is needed.  The doctor and the dentist have informed me of this.

20     I complained to the President of the court.  They asked him for a report.

21     They told him I had gingivitis, and they said that they couldn't do that.

22     Why I had gingivitis?  Gingivitis means an inflammation around the teeth.

23     When you have that, you can feel it.  I don't feel anything.  Gingivitis

24     is an inflammation of the gums, and I am saying that I don't have such an

25     inflammation, maybe if I had such and inflammation, even if I had

Page 16351

 1     gingivitis, they could do this intervention.  Because in a few days'

 2     time, I might have a problem and I might not be able to appear at court.

 3     This root has to be taken out and has to be replaced with something.  I

 4     don't want to come here with teeth missing.  I need a dental implant or a

 5     new bridge.  An implant is more -- a more modern technique.  This costs a

 6     lot in the Netherlands.  They don't want to do this.  The President of

 7     the Tribunal responded to me on the basis of that report, but the report

 8     is based on erroneous information that was provided to the President.

 9     I'm waiting to see whether I'll have such an inflammation now.

10             I don't want such an inflammation.  I'm not trying to do anything

11     to cause such an inflammation, but you know when you have these bacteria

12     around a root, it's quite a problem.  This is a time-bomb.  Perhaps it

13     suits certain people -- the fact that I'm in such a situation perhaps

14     suits certain people.  I said that I won't do anything about this

15     financing.  I told you about that a few years ago, but I'd also like to

16     tell you that the Registry considers itself to be a body that is superior

17     to me.  They're superior to me or above me only in one respect.  They can

18     issue an order for security officers to escort me somewhere and to detain

19     me in a unit, that's all.  It's only in that sense that they're above me.

20     Only in the sense of the constraints I'm subjected to.  Most of the

21     detainees are subjected to such constraints but not everyone.  They have

22     privileges.  Some have privileges, but the Registry can't tell me what I

23     have to do.  This is what they have learnt in other cases.

24             Sometimes if it suits them, they'll pay a lawyers immediately; if

25     not, they won't pay them immediately.  There are various ways in which

Page 16352

 1     you can manipulate lawyers.

 2             So I've concluded with that matter.  There will be no financing

 3     of the Defence.  There will be no Defence case.  I'll move on to my

 4     second subject.

 5             Over ten days ago I arranged for a meeting for my main legal

 6     advisor.  I only have one legal advisor, since you have of removed

 7     Zoran Krasic.  Slavko Jerkovic has left me.  Only Boris Aleksic remains.

 8     I had arranged a meeting with him and a meeting with a legal advisor for

 9     the other case for contempt of court.  This was the lawyer Dejan Mirovic,

10     and I also agreed on a meeting with the case manager in that other case,

11     Nemanja Sarovic, a lawyer who is no longer acting as a lawyer but he has

12     a lot of experience and knowledge.

13             I still don't know when these meetings will take place.

14     Boris Aleksic keeps phoning a representative of the Tribunal, a

15     representative from OLAD.  I haven't had a response.  They're preventing

16     such a meeting from taking place.  They can't prevent me from meeting

17     with my legal advisors.  I have to meet with them.  I have to agree on

18     how to prepare requests pursuant to Rule 98 bis.  I have to exchange

19     documents with them, provide new documents to them.  They have to return

20     old documents to me.  They have to give me the results of certain

21     investigation teams, and so on and so forth.

22             These meeting were to take place on the 15th and 16th of July.  I

23     asked for the trips to be paid.  They have rejected this request.  So

24     they are awaiting for this hearing to be concluded so that I can't draw

25     your attention to the problem and then they can do whatever they like

Page 16353

 1     until the end of August or the beginning of September.

 2             This meeting is essential for me.  I have assigned them certain

 3     tasks for both cases that are concerned, and they have to brief me as to

 4     what they have done.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, please allow me to

 6     say something.  I and my colleagues have noted all these problems.  It is

 7     quite clear that if your associate Boris Aleksic does not assist you this

 8     may have consequences.  That is fairly obvious.

 9             As you know, the Registrar, has the discretion vested in the

10     statute and the rules, and the statute to me is the highest standard of

11     law.  The statute grants the Registrar the power to administer matters as

12     well as management of resources and the budget of the Tribunal, but the

13     Registrar does not have the discretion to interfere in a trial, and this

14     is what I fear.

15             In September now, given that time is running on, you may turn

16     round and say that you cannot continue with this trial under those

17     conditions.  I shall stop everything.  I am a responsible Judge.  I have

18     a lot of experience.  I know that sometimes a cog in the wheel can derail

19     a trial.  This is what the situation looks like today and is a great

20     subject of concern.  This is something we have discussed among ourselves

21     and we have done everything we could.

22             I would like to draw your attention on the existence of a

23     directive which has to do with the assignment of counsel.  This is a

24     French version of this directive, but I'm sure you will be able to handle

25     that.

Page 16354

 1             In Article 13:  Recourse against the decision taken by the

 2     Registrar.  The accused who understands that the assignment of counsel

 3     has been rejected and this applies mutatis mutandis and who does not have

 4     sufficient funds to pay a lawyer can 15 days after the decision of the

 5     Registrar has been notified to him, which is the case since the Registrar

 6     has notified the letter to you, may file a motion before the

 7     Trial Chamber.  He must appear before the Trial Chamber.  May then, and

 8     listen carefully, either confirm the decision of the Registrar or cancel

 9     the Registrar's decision and decide that a counsel must be assigned or

10     give instructions to the Registrar to reassess the situation and see

11     whether the accused is in a position where he can pay a counsel.

12             These are the conditions under which you can seize the Trial

13     Chamber.  We can cancel the decision of the Registry.  We can assign a

14     counsel.  And the Registry clearly states that this applies to your

15     situation.  We can take a number of decisions if need be.

16             I shall ask the usher to hand this to you.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I certainty won't

18     give up everything that I can have recourse to, and I will certainly not

19     give up the possibility of making a closing statement.  I will prepare

20     such a closing statement and present it here.  As to whether I'll file a

21     motion pursuant to Rule 98 bis or not, I don't know.  I'll see.  If next

22     week the Registry prevents this meeting from taking place, well, we'll

23     see how perfidious they are.  They still haven't taken an official

24     decision that I can contest.  My legal advisor and case manager is

25     supposed to travel on Wednesday, and they, and I know this on the basis

Page 16355

 1     of my experience, they are in a position to provide me with this decision

 2     on Sunday evening.  They say they can come, but their visit has to be

 3     monitored.  I don't want to have such a visit.  Once I gave in and I

 4     regretted it.  When they took me to some sort of gas chamber where our

 5     conversation was recorded.  We didn't even manage to put up with it for

 6     the entire day.  We could only put up with it for a few hours and then we

 7     left.

 8             If they violate this basic right of mine, the right to have my

 9     legal advisor and case manager visit me, if they prevent me from

10     exchanging documents with them, assigning new tasks to them, if they

11     prevent me from receiving reports from them as to what they have done,

12     why should I file a motion pursuant to Rule 98 bis?  I'll go directly to

13     my closing statement in such a case.

14             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, on these issues, the

15     Trial Chamber cannot step in.  It is up to you to seize the President of

16     this Tribunal.  He can check on the Registry's actions.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Madam Lattanzi, if the

18     Trial Chamber informs me next Wednesday that I can't have a meeting, my

19     associates will be in The Hague on Wednesday, they will then go back on

20     Thursday, because they won't be able to meet me.  Then I can complain to

21     the President of the Tribunal and if he approves of this meeting then my

22     advisors will be here in August again.  So this is a ping-pong game.  I

23     have gotten used to during these eight years here at The Hague Tribunal

24     but that's not important.  I said I would certainly give a closing

25     statement in these proceedings.  I have certain possibilities that I can

Page 16356

 1     avail myself of, or I can not avail myself of those possibilities and

 2     tell you why.

 3             Let's move on to a third subject which is the most important one

 4     for me.  Perhaps it's not that important for you, but it's very important

 5     for me.

 6             A few days ago, one of the most wanted Serbian criminals and

 7     gangsters, Milos Simovic, was arrested by the Serbian police while he was

 8     trying to illegally cross the border between Croatia and Serbia.  He sent

 9     a letter of some kind to the someone, to the Prosecution, a policeman,

10     who knows to whom.  This letter hasn't yet been disclosed.  And

11     allegedly, he said in that letter that I ordered the murder of

12     Tomislav Nikolic from The Hague Tribunal.

13             The Prosecution doesn't have to rise right now.  It's an

14     important matter.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen.

16             MR. MARCUSSEN:  I appreciate why this is an important matter for

17     the accused but it is certainly not an administrative matter.  It has

18     been addressed in the press to the accused and his representative have

19     addressed these issues in the press.  And there is no reason for the

20     Court to have to spend resources on this, and I'm looking around and I

21     guess there's at least 15 or 20 people --

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, there is a reason for the

23     Trial Chamber to look into this.  So go ahead, Mr. Seselj.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We have to deal with this, because

25     on the 2nd of July, "Blic" published a two-page article stating that The

Page 16357

 1     Hague Tribunal asked for information on Seselj's plan.  The

 2     Judge Jean-Claude Antonetti is mentioned here, and it says that the

 3     letter was written to the Council for Co-operation with The Hague

 4     Tribunal.  Apparently information was requested.  So this directly

 5     relates to the work of the Chamber, and I have the right to say what I

 6     wanted to say.

 7             This criminal apparently said that I ordered the assassination of

 8     Tomislav Nikolic.  You're well aware of the affair with Tomislav Nikolic.

 9     I don't have to repeat this.  You probably remembered about two years ago

10     Tomislav Nikolic also appeared in public with false claims, according to

11     which I had ordered his assassination.  That he mentioned certain unknown

12     people from Republika Srpska.  At the time everything had been calculated

13     to make my position here in The Hague more difficult, to ensure that

14     certain restrictive measures were taken against me and to spread some

15     sort of propaganda in public, amongst the public.

16             I immediately told my Defence team to investigate the whole

17     matter.  They found out that Aleksandar Vucic, Nikolic's deputy, my

18     former legal advisor and the lawyer Zelimir Cabrilo and the lawyer

19     Miodrag Rasic were both defending the criminal Miloslav Simovic and they

20     had agreed to instruct the gangster Miloslav Simovic to make false

21     charges against me; according to which I had ordered the assassination of

22     Nikolic.  They wanted to spread this propaganda in public so that support

23     is provided for Tomislav Nikolic, whose party is disintegrating.  They

24     wanted to make it seem as if Seselj wanted to kill Tomislav Nikolic

25     again.

Page 16358

 1             Three members of my Defence team, Vjerica Radeta,

 2     Nemanja Sarovic, Jelena Bozic, Talija [phoen], filed a criminal report

 3     against Aleksandar Vucic, Zelimir Cabrilo and Miodrag Rasic, and they

 4     requested that the relevant state authorities launch an investigates into

 5     the matter.  I have a certified copy of this for you.

 6             Then after this affair started, after it gone blown out of all

 7     proportion in the media, Tomislav Nikolic appeared with the claim that I

 8     had already previously, three years ago, used Aleksandar Vucic, who, at

 9     the time, was my legal advisor, to order the assassination of someone.

10     He didn't want to say who was concerned.  Aleksandar Vucic said that

11     perhaps he would say who it was, who was to be assassinated.

12             The members of my Defence team also filed a criminal report

13     against Tomislav Nikolic and insisted that the relevant state authorities

14     clarify the matter.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, rather than going into

16     details, go to the core of the matter.  The Trial Chamber would not

17     want -- does not want you to use this hearing to make political speeches,

18     but I'll tell you later on why I stepped in and took the floor but go to

19     the core of the matter immediately.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the -- this isn't a

21     political speech.  I'm just speaking about legally relevant facts and

22     criminal reports, and since you asked information from the Council for

23     Co-operation with The Hague Tribunal in Serbia, I assume you want -- want

24     to hear the other side and have an insight into the two criminal reports.

25             Now, what is the greatest problem for me now is this:  It's that

Page 16359

 1     Tomislav Nikolic and Aleksandar Vucic claim that through my wife,

 2     Jadranka Seselj, I ordered the killing of Tomislav Nikolic.  I put out a

 3     contract to disqualify her and to have restrictive measures imposed upon

 4     me by The Hague Tribunal with respect to her future visits to me.  She

 5     was once falsely accused in 2006 by the Prosecutor of having uttered the

 6     names of protected witnesses at a time when I was not disclosed any of

 7     the names of the protected witnesses by the Prosecution yet.  And now I

 8     come to the crux of the matter.

 9             A man called Dejan Anastasijevic appears.  He wasn't on the

10     witness list at all, and he claims that The Hague Tribunal, several years

11     ago, provided him with information whereby I had ordered his killing

12     through my wife and that of some other people.

13             Now, I wanted to tell you one thing.  These are all lies and

14     libel.  Now accusations are being raised again that I was involved in

15     Zoran Djindjic's, the Mafia prime minister's killing.  I was never

16     involved in any killing, never in my life or in any dishonourable

17     criminal act.  I was just charged for political crimes.

18             MR. MARCUSSEN:  The accused should formulate some sort of request

19     or relief he is seeking from the Chamber.  He has asked for nothing.  He

20     has spoken now for ten minutes and he we haven't heard what he wants --

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I announced that it would last 20

23     minutes so we have enough time, as far as I can see, and I hope you will

24     have the patience to hear me out.

25             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Seselj, I must register my objection against

Page 16360

 1     this.  I do not see how this, all of this, which may be disturbing to

 2     you, can possibly affect this trial.  So I think we should --

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] Well,

 4     Mr. Harhoff, your colleague Judge Antonetti can inform you of this.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, let me step in

 6     immediately because do I not agree with what my fellow Judge,

 7     Judge Harhoff, just said.  You said yourself that in 2006 already you had

 8     been subject to a number of problems, restrictions who led to problems,

 9     and I remember all the consequences you -- you were tapped.  You could

10     not have access to your privileged associates, and so on, and there was

11     consequences on the trial.  So when I read just like everybody else that

12     in the press there was something about an assassination attempt, I

13     immediately drew the connection between this and the possible

14     consequences that we could have here in this trial.  And I wrote to the

15     ministry in charge of co-operation so that he would give me all necessary

16     information on the investigates underway at the moment.  What is

17     important is investigates and not rumours or press clippings, and up

18     until now I have not received any news from the ministry.

19             The press seems to be challenging -- challenge you and saying

20     that you are party to a number of assassination attempts, but my -- what

21     I fear is that there might be consequences on this case, on this trial,

22     and I believe that this is the direct connection.

23             If there is evidence that could say or could prove or demonstrate

24     that through your wife you have been able from yourself to order

25     assassination attempts to be carried out, there will be -- there will be

Page 16361

 1     consequences, of course, but we need an investigates to know exactly what

 2     the facts are.  I have full trust in the Serbian authorities and I'm sure

 3     that they will immediately or very soon tell us whether these rumours are

 4     founded or not, because the trial could be disturbed by this affair.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President --

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I think, Mr. President, that the dispatch that

 7     you sent to the Serbian authorities on this issue was sent in your name

 8     personally and not in the name of the Chamber.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.  Judge Harhoff is right.

10     I believe that it was my duty to do so.  I had offered -- I asked my

11     fellow Judges whether they wanted to sign the letter with me, but they

12     didn't -- they turned me down, so I believe that as the President of this

13     Chamber, as person in charge of the administration of this -- of the

14     smooth running of this trial I wanted to get to the source of the

15     information, and it's only the Serbian authorities who can tell us

16     whether these are rumours or whether there is any basis to this.  But so

17     far I haven't heard anything from the Serbian authorities.

18             Continue, please.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, in these eight years I have

20     had some very bad experience with the Hague Tribunal.  At the end of 2003

21     and throughout the first half of 2004, all visits to me were banned as

22     were all telephone conversations because my party had achieved

23     significant results at the parliamentary elections and to prevent me

24     having any influence and wielding any influence on the formation of the

25     new Serbian government.  In 2005, for two months, I had no visits, no

Page 16362

 1     telephone conversations.  I wasn't even able to receive letters, even the

 2     letters that are checked anyway or any documents from my associates,

 3     because the Prosecution accused me of having disclosed the name of a

 4     protected witness, whereas I didn't even know that he could have been on

 5     the list of witnesses in my trial.

 6             In 2006, one the main reasons for my hunger strike was that at

 7     the initiative of the Prosecution, there were restriction with respect to

 8     my wife visiting me.  Later on, the President of the Tribunal revoked

 9     that decision, but only after that had happened.  Now I feel that there

10     is this danger looming that -- whereby the Registry or the Prosecutor

11     could apply the same measures, and that is why today I have supplied you

12     with a list of all the medicines I take on a daily basis, and I want to

13     tell you that if any restrictions are imposed with respect to my wife

14     visiting me, then I will stop taking these medicaments.  And you're free

15     to consult any physicians and they'll tell you what that would mean.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, please refrain from

17     blackmail.  The situation is very complex.  I'm sure you understand this.

18     Some restrictive measures can be placed upon you ordered by the

19     Registrar, and then you can contest them and challenge them by seizing

20     the President.  That's what you should do.

21             Now, what I'm worried about is the following:  We are now

22     finished with the first phase of this trial.  A few weeks from now we

23     will enter into Rule 98 bis.  It's a short procedure, short stage of the

24     procedure, and then it will be up to you to present your case, and this

25     is possible, but everyone has to be fully aware of this.

Page 16363

 1             Now, I'm talking about everyone.  I believe everyone understood

 2     who exactly is involved in this everyone.

 3             My fellow Judges and Judge Lattanzi, I agree with her and I'm

 4     sure Judge Harhoff also agrees with me, we were very impressed by the

 5     list of medicine that you have to take -- or you have an impressive list

 6     of medicine that you have to take.  Of course there's medical

 7     confidentiality.  You don't have to tell us why you have to take all

 8     these drugs, but you always said that you were very open.

 9             What are these drugs for?  Maybe if you don't take them they'll

10     jeopardise your health.  I don't know.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There are no secrets.  Every doctor

12     will be able to explain to you what those medicines are.  I'm not an

13     expert in the field.  They're blood pressure pills, heart arrhythmia

14     pills and pills against tachycardia.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So these are pills for your

16     heart conditions, so it's very important.  What you have said is now on

17     the transcript.  The Registrar will know about it, and he will see what

18     he can decide as to your wife and your associates, whether they can visit

19     you or not.

20             As far as I'm concerned I must say that I see no reason why you

21     shouldn't see your associates and your wife, as long as the investigation

22     underway in Belgrade hasn't concluded that you actually took part in an

23     offence.  You have a presumption of innocence right now, and I don't

24     think that we should draw any conclusions on what are rumours and only

25     rumours at the moment.

Page 16364

 1             Mr. Marcussen.

 2             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Your Honours, at page 106, line 12 onward, 13,

 3     Your Honour has now said that we have now finished the first phase of

 4     this trial.  I wish to put on record that the Prosecution is not in a

 5     position to close its case at this stage.  I don't know whether that was

 6     what Your Honour intended to -- to indicate, that the Prosecution case is

 7     finished.

 8             There are a number of outstanding motions that are still pending

 9     that relate to evidentiary issues.  Some are confidential, so I can't

10     mention them in public session, and there are other reasons why I cannot

11     mention some of them, but I believe there are 14 outstanding motions that

12     need to be ruled on.

13             There is one of them which is a request for leave to supplement

14     the Prosecution's witness list to call two investigators.  There's no

15     decision on that yet.  So if that motion is granted, we obviously still

16     need to call witnesses or hear those witnesses.

17             From that arise a particular issue because of the Trial Chamber's

18     decision rendered on the 29th of June because of the status of those

19     investigators who are now maybe the subject of investigations.  So the

20     position is unclear as to whether it would be possible to hear those

21     witnesses if the Prosecution's request is granted.

22             Moreover --

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In order for you not to waste

24     any time, Mr. Marcussen, you're absolutely right.  There's still 14

25     pending motions, including one which is very important.  It has to do

Page 16365

 1     with the Mladic diaries.  And of course the Prosecution case will be

 2     closed only when we have rendered our decision on these 14 motions.

 3             Now, on regarding this special request, this special motion

 4     saying that you wanted to hear two investigators on possible allegations

 5     of intimidation on Prosecution cases switched to being so-called Defence

 6     witnesses.

 7             Since as you sold we did render a decision on June 29, 2010,

 8     asking the Registrar to appoint an amicus curiae.  It's up to the

 9     Registrar to do this now.  This is my position.  It's not up to us.  It's

10     up to the Registrar.  It's up to amicus curiae to hear these witnesses.

11     This is my position, but the Trial Chamber has not ruled on this yet.

12     Because it is the amicus curiae who will be competent to tell us whether

13     there is sufficient grounds, because we're at the very early phase of the

14     procedure.  It's up to the amicus curiae to see whether there are

15     sufficient grounds to do this.

16             So regarding these two witnesses, I believe that it's important,

17     but it's up to the amicus curiae to rule on this.  I'm not competent, as

18     far as this is concerned, given what was written in this June 29

19     decision, saying that it's up to the amicus curiae to tell the

20     Trial Chamber whether there is sufficient grounds to draw an indictment.

21             On the -- on the other hand we will rule on the other 13 pending

22     motions.  They're not overly technical except for the motion on the

23     Mladic diaries, but we're waiting for your submissions on these ones,

24     written submissions.

25             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I'd like to add that as far as

Page 16366

 1     some of these motions is concerned, we are still waiting for them to be

 2     translated, we're waiting for them to be translated into B/C/S and we're

 3     waiting for the answers by -- the reply by the accused.  So this is why

 4     we can't rule on them yet, because the translation isn't done.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And to finish off, this is why

 6     I said that Rule 98 bis can only start as of September.  This phase, the

 7     Rule 98 bis, can only start in September because this is going to be a

 8     lengthy process to get us there.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, if the Prosecutor continues

10     that way --

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'll give you the floor but I

12     don't know yet what Mr. Seselj had to say.

13             What did you have to say, Mr. Seselj or should I give the floor

14     to Mr. Marcussen?

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If the Prosecutor continues that

16     way, this could last another ten years.  Judges, the Prosecutor has said

17     everything he wanted to say during this case, and as far as his

18     investigators are concerned, that is a matter of other proceedings.  They

19     can be interviewed and examined there, not here, because this trial is

20     not against the Prosecutor here or against me for contempt of court for

21     that matter so that their investigators can present things that might be

22     significant here.

23             All the evidence has been presented here in court, primary

24     evidence as testimony viva voce, and original source documents if they

25     were attached.  Everything else is secondary evidence.  And if the

Page 16367

 1     Prosecutor thinks that presenting two of his investigators that he's

 2     going to improve his very poor prosecuting positions here, it would be

 3     better if he were to admit a fiasco straight away.  The Hague Tribunal,

 4     during this trial, has experienced a fiasco.  You can, of course,

 5     sentence me to a hundred years' imprisonment but in the transcript of

 6     this trial and these proceedings you don't have the grounds to sentence

 7     me for even one year, and it's high time that the Prosecutor realises

 8     that.  Do you want to start the trial all over again?  Let him find

 9     another hundred witnesses.  He can change the locations of the alleged

10     crimes, perhaps he can accuse me of killing Kennedy or the civil war in

11     Biafra or thins like that.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, you had the

13     floor.  You have it again.

14             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Thank you.  I thought to detect that

15     Judge Harhoff maybe was trying to intervene.  It seemed he had something

16     to say.  I don't know if I should go first.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, go ahead.  We have five

18     minutes.

19             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Your Honours, the evidence of the witness today

20     reflect in the Prosecution's submission the very campaign of

21     intimidation, interference that we have raised throughout the case.  This

22     witness is like other witnesses, in our submission, clearly fabricated

23     evidence and lied to this Court.  The Prosecution want to put on record

24     that we have the right to seek to confront this.

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Prosecution please slow down for the sake of

Page 16368

 1     the interpretation.  Thank you.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]

 3             MR. MARCUSSEN:  I am speaking, and I would like to finish what

 4     I'm saying.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let Mr. Marcussen finish what

 6     he has to say.

 7             MR. MARCUSSEN:  There have been other witnesses.  They have in

 8     our submission clearly fabricated evidence and lied to this Court.  The

 9     Prosecution want to put on record that it has the right to seek to

10     confront these fabrications of evidence.

11             The allegations against OTP investigators, especially

12     Ms. Pradham, is completely unfounded and the Prosecution wishes to

13     confront this and consider calling further evidence.  We want to make

14     clear on the record that we reject the false allegations and the

15     fabricated evidence of the last witness, and unless the Court indicates

16     that it is not necessary because the witness evidence is blatantly false,

17     we wish to call evidence immediately if necessary to confront it.

18             And, Your Honours, these kind of allegations have been made by a

19     number of witnesses throughout the case and notably since the trial

20     restarted in January and a number of court witnesses were called.  The

21     Chamber questioned these witnesses about the way their statements were

22     taken.  The Trial Chamber's decision from the 29th of June is going to

23     lead to the -- has opened up the question of the reliability of

24     statements that the Trial Chamber has already admitted into evidence, and

25     it may, indeed, be necessary for the Prosecution also to call evidence

Page 16369

 1     with respect to allegations made by other witnesses, because now what has

 2     happened with the decision from the 29th of June seem to be that a whole

 3     range of allegations have been in our submissions reopened subsequent

 4     to -- subsequent to --

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, let me stop you.

 6     You're an excellent trial attorney, one of the best senior trial

 7     attorneys we have here.  You know that this decision -- well, we have

 8     been seized of a motion for contempt of court against three eminent

 9     members of the OTP.  What are we supposed to do, throw it out?  This is

10     not what I think justice -- what I think of justice.  The Trial Chamber,

11     who was presided by President Robinson, Judge Bonomy and myself did say

12     that this motion would be dealt with during the trial.  It's not me who

13     said this.  It's the President of this Tribunal.  And that at the end of

14     the trial we would rule on this in light of the new elements that are

15     spelled out in the June 29 decision.  We did say that we need to have an

16     amicus curiae to look into this now, which does not mean that we -- of

17     course, we don't necessarily believe what the witnesses said, but the

18     amicus curiae will be there to check the evidence.  That's the truth.  So

19     please don't say what you said, because this goes against the decision of

20     June 29, 2010.

21             You asked for certification of appeal.  Fine.  We'll see how

22     things turn out.

23             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Your Honour --

24             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, you also,

25     yourself, presented and the accused used it in open session, you

Page 16370

 1     presented a statement made by an interpreter.  You don't only have

 2     evidence provided by witnesses.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, and to add something

 4     because I wanted to put my own opinion in this decision.  The interpreter

 5     clearly stated how the whole -- how everything occurred.  It's up to the

 6     amicus curiae to look into this.  We can no longer take -- rule on this.

 7                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, we need to

 9     finish now.

10             MR. MARCUSSEN:  Your Honours, I was not intending at all to go

11     into the merit of the 29 June decision.  My point was that it raises a

12     number of issues which mean that we cannot -- the Prosecution cannot

13     close its case.  That was the submission I was making.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, 15 seconds, because

15     we must leave now.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, with the speed of lightning.

17     Judges, you should have intervened, in my opinion, when Mr. Marcussen

18     called today's witness a false witness or, rather, when he claimed that

19     the witness had given false testimony.  Now, intentionally during the

20     cross-examination I didn't want to deal with any pre-history when the

21     ping-pong ball was going, when the ball was in my court, then in the

22     Prosecutor's court and then back to me.  I adhered to the Muslim sources,

23     Muslim document sources.  I looked through them and you were able to see

24     on that basis than -- that the statement he gave to the Prosecutor was

25     not truthful.  Now, the fact that the Prosecutor at the beginning rallied

Page 16371

 1     a large number of witnesses and promising them third country sojourn and

 2     apartments and fulfilled those promises to only some of them, but not to

 3     most of them, and when the witnesses were disillusioned they started

 4     scattering.  You know when people live poorly, in poverty, some people

 5     are ready to give false testimony, not everyone, but some are.  Now do

 6     you remember that witness whom the witness gave up on later on who

 7     bartered with the Prosecution as to how he was going to testify before he

 8     came into court --

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, I have mentioned the

10     Trial Chamber will hand down its decision and we will certainly meet

11     again in September.

12                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.05 p.m.,

13                            sine die.